Talk:Qur'an and miracles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Qur'an and miracles article.
Article policies
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.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-09. The result of the discussion was keep due to rewrite.

Contents


[edit] Un-sourced statements

Lets keep this article free from un-sourced statments. Wanna bet that it will get a AFD? --Striver 19:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that you have lost the bet. As there is not AFD even after many months. --- ابراهيم 20:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Is the title of this article correct? Or maybe the text about the Qur'an being a miricle in itself has grown out of proportions and should be given an article of it's own. I was not expecting it here... I suggest a new page on The Linguistic and Literary Inimitability of the Qur'an. Info D 14:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] statistical section unclear

What do the numbers signify???
On the word counts it should be mentioned that you have to count only singular forms without any pronoun attached to obtain 365 occurences of "day" while to count "angels" 88 times you have to take any form you can find.

[edit] "unique" a meaningless word in this context

Discussion of all the ways a book imitating the Koran would have to be "unique" betray circular reasoning. To be unique means to be one of a kind. If anything imitates the Koran, it is by definition not one of a kind -- it's an imitation. But these exact criteria could be applied to, say, James Joyce. No doubt James Joyce isn't a prophet. Peccavimus 17:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The section Scientific Miracles contains Original Research.

The section "Scientific Miracles" states, "In Quran there is a hint of both big bang and big crunch." and then goes on. This is original research as the wording is unattributed to anyone who is a cosmologist. Yes reading the stated sura with it "We produce a new one:" would indicate a cycle of creation but who are we to describe it as such. We won't mention the illogic of the wording a "scientific miracle". The scientific method usually precludes miracles in that it precludes a supernatural origin for events. Ttiotsw 11:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for tagging with cleanup.

I accidently hit this page and truthfully it's a bit messy full of original research and unattributed content. The section on Linguistic and Literary Inimitability needs a serious cull or if it's a topic in it's own right then moved to another page. As to why the rediscovery of the City of Iram is a miracle we'll never know. The reference for that is a web page and our Wikipedia page fails to highlight the numbers of people who feel it is a miracle or if it's just a few then the authority of those people. As for the "Mathematical" - this isn't maths. It is numerology at best. Ttiotsw 13:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NEW reason to tag with cleanup and weasel wording.

The article was reverted to a 3 month old copy by someone. This has left the article even worse than before with nearly every sentence having classic weasel wording (truthfully I actually prefer ferrets but weasels will do). The numerology stuff still makes no sense even if you are pissed on this years wine and have forgotten all maths since kindergarten. Erich Von Daniken, come back, all is forgiven compared to this stuff; at least you had Aliens and spaceships and stuff. If this all makes no sense then read the article and tell me which is clearer. Ttiotsw 21:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] verses

see next last section, before the section regarding the treaty. --Striver 03:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Neutrality and wiki rules

This page has nothing to do as taking a side in the discussion if the Quran is of divine origin or it is the work of Muhammad. So, we cannot present biased arguments such as "Muhammad, who was influenced by older Jewish and Christian traditions, also included ..." as facts. There exist other wiki pages on this issue: "critism of Muhammad", "critisim of Quran", etc. The page must focus on the Quran.

We do not need to give a reference other than wiki page about the "ayat" for the sentence "verses of the book are referred to as ayat, which also means "a miracle" in the Arabic language." The mentioned wiki page states it clearly. I agree with the idea that wiki pages are not summary of a particular book.

And I see that many relevant external links are being removed for the sake of unrelated arguments.

This page has already been pruned greatly. Let us not make the same mistakes in the very beginning of the development of the page. Otherwise, I believe that a systematical vandalism is being applied for this page. (American force 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

Other wiki pages cannot serve as references (see WP:V, only "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" are acceptable). You are true that it is better to have more sources than one, but at least one reliable source is needed. I think that the proper solution is to add other reliable scholarly sources and not delete the current one. - Moreover you should know that the "systematical vandalism" saved this article from deletion not so long ago (see the AfD discussion linked above).--Ioannes Pragensis 08:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the link for the ayat stays for now. However, the statement about divinity of Quran does not add something to the content. I think the solution is not to add any controversial sentences without consensus. Also, some external links are being removed in every revison, please do not remove them. (American force 14:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

If you are honest to develop a good article please stop reverting. I have restored the previous references. I think a brief discussion about the origin of Quran is relevant here, it is the main point of Muslim argument to present Quran as a miracle. I do not agree with Sefringle about the low importance of this article. There are even master and PhD theses over this topic.(Freskile 17:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

Freskile this is stupid comment to be honest.This article is extremely bias.Oren.tal (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

When writing and editing this article, be aware that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. That means, this article is not to become an Islamist propaganda article desined to convert people to Islam. It should mention the relevant and notable so-called miracles and responses, but should not be used for propaganda.--Sefringle 05:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quran quotes

Quoting the quran without quoting a secondary source is against wikipedia policies. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It says

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

In other words, quoting the quran without a secondary source is WP:OR

See also: WP:OR#What is excluded?.

It says:

It introduces a theory or method of solution;
It introduces original ideas;
It defines new terms;
It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source. --Sefringle 21:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

---

You are really unbelievable(!), and your arguments are not even convincing.

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority": There is no viewpoint here, and I hope you are not referring to Muslims as an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, that would only be funny ..

"It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument": there is a citation, also there is a reputale source.

At least read your talk page; I will quote the words of "Ioannes Pragensis" from that page -I hope he won't mind-

Regarding the Quran quotes: I think that clearly understandable quotes from acknowledged primary sources are not regarded as WP:OR. ("Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." - And the description of miracles is probably easily understandable in the cited places of Quran.)

The primary source here is the Quran, and they are published by a reliable source 'usc.edu', even a wiki template exist for this.

So, direct quotations are allowed here. If it were not the case, the page which you presented as an example in another discussion, Miracles attributed to Jesus would be full of references. I can present here much much more examples of wiki articles diretly quoting from Bible and Quran.

Wiki pages are not for propaganda, this also means they cannot be used for an anti-Islamist propaganda. Please do not try to misuse wikirules with some biased comments. (American force 04:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

---

Also, there is no sense to embed so many Quranic verses into the context when they are just given as reference. The initial writer's choice was also in this way, and it is the common style of article writing.(American force 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

That doesn't change the fact that it is an extermely small minority view unless you or someone else can prove otherwise. You claim there are muslims who believe the quran has miracles. Prove it. If you can't by citing reputable sources, than it is a very small minority view.--Sefringle 04:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The discussion was about the usage of Quranic quotes. For the claim "there are muslims who believe the quran has miracles", the writer has already stated his source. (American force 04:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC))
The one and only source he mention is NOT reliable, notable, or scholarly.--Sefringle 04:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] additions by Slsm07

I removed these additions because they are cited to Ibrham, I.A. I have no evidence that this is either a scholar or even a notable person. The other thing is sourced to submission.org, which is not a reliable source.--SefringleTalk 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Sefringle. All im supposed to do was to cite the book. Here's some more info from Amazon if you need.[1] We are not given evidence here that all the other authors of the books and articles cited here are notable or scholars. These miracles do not have to be true nor do they have to be from a scholar, as long as there are widely claimed, as claimed miracles in the Quran are important in an article titled “Quran and miracles”. This is a published book, and that is the qualification I used to say that these are widely claimed. And for the Submission.org, cited for Mr.Bucaille's lecture, i cited another website which also has his lecture, although you might claim this to be a POV site too. Could you find a site, that you like, which has his lecture instead of just deleting the section?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Slsm07 (talk • contribs)
The point is who is I.A. Ibrham? Per WP:NPOV, we are not supposed to inlude fringe views. I need some evidence that this person is either notable or a scholar. Also as this is a POV topic, every view needs to ba attributed to its author, and not stated as fact.--SefringleTalk 02:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed most of the scientists, because most of them are not notable. We cannot have non-notable views in the article. See WP:N. I kept Bucaille, because he is the only one who is notable by wikipedia standards of notability.--SefringleTalk 03:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the science section because I can't figure out who is the author or how to attribute it to the author.--SefringleTalk 06:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

====Mountains stabilize the ground==== The Qur’an states, “And he has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you”.“quoted text”[Qur'an 16:15] The modern theory of plate tectonics does hold that mountains act as stabilizers for the earth. Furthermore, this knowledge has just begun to be understood in the framework of plate tectonics since the late 1960’s.[1] [2]

====Prefrontal area of cerebrum==== The Qur’an describes the front of the head as being lying and sinful; “No! If he does not stop, We will take him by the front of the head, a lying and sinful front of the head!.” “quoted text”[Qur'an 96:15-16] In the brain, the front of the head corresponds to the prefrontal area of the cerebrum, where the foresight to plan and initiate movements occur. It is also the functional center of aggression.[3] Scientists have discovered these functions of the prefrontal area in the last sixty years.[4][5]

====Seas and Rivers==== The Qur’an states, “He has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress.”“quoted text”[Qur'an 55:19-20] When two different seas meet there is a barrier between them so that each sea has its own temperature, salinity and density. For example, when the Mediterranean meets the Atlantic they do not mix, although there may be large waves, strong currents, and tides in these seas.[6] When fresh water and salt water meet there is a partition, which has a marked discontinuity in salinity. This zone of separation has a different salinity from both the fresh and sea water.[7] The Qur’an speaks differently about the fresh and salt water; “He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter. And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition.”“quoted text”[Qur'an 25:53] [8]

====Deep seas and internal waves==== The Qur’an states, “Or the unbeliever’s state is like the darkness in a deep sea. It is covered by waves, above which are waves, above which are clouds. Darknesses one above another. If a man stretches out his hand, he cannot see it”.“quoted text”[Qur'an 24:40] At depths below 1000 meters in deep seas there is no light at all.[9] Human beings are not able to dive more than forty meters without the aid of submarines or special equipment and cannot survive unaided in the deep dark part of the oceans, such as at a depth of 200 meters. Scientists have recently discovered this darkness by means of special equipment and submarines that have enabled them to dive into the depths of the oceans.[10] This verse also mentions “waves, above which are waves, above which are clouds”. Surface waves never arise above one another. Clearly, the latter waves mentioned are the visible surface waves since above these surface waves are clouds. However, the first set of waves are argued to describe internal waves, which occur on density interfaces between layers of different densities. These waves can break and act like surface waves, however, they cannot be seen by the human eye. [11][12]

====Cloud formation==== The Qur’an states, “Have you not seen how God makes the clouds move gently, then joins them together, then makes them into a stack, and then you see the rain come out of it .”“quoted text”[Qur'an 24:43] A common type of rain cloud, the cumulonimbus cloud, follows this description. These clouds are formed when the wind pushes some small pieces of clouds, cumulus clouds, to an area where these clouds join together, forming a larger cloud. When the small clouds join together, updrafts within the larger cloud increase, causing the cloud body to grow vertically. This vertical growth, in turn, causes the cloud to stretch into cooler regions where water droplets and hail form, eventually becoming too heavy to be supported by the updraft and falls as precipitation.[13][14][15]

====Lightening==== The Qur’an speaks about “hail” and “its lightening”; “And He sends down hail from mountains (clouds) in the sky, and He strikes with it whomever He wills, and turns it from whomever He wills. The vivid flash of its lightening nearly blinds the sight.” “quoted text”[Qur'an 24:43] In the formation of lightening, a cloud becomes electrified as hail collides with liquid droplets, which then freeze and release latent heat, keeping the surface of the hailstones warmer than the surrounding ice crystals. When the hailstone comes into contact with an ice crystal, electrons flow from the colder object toward the warmer object and the negative charge is then discharged as lightening.[16] Hail is thus argued as a major factor in lightening.[17]


I am putting back these edits because the objection to them - that these edits are not notable- is invalid. See WP:N. The Wikipedia guidelines of notibility "give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles". Miracles of the Qur'an are very relevant and needed in an article titled "Qur'an and miracles". Slsm07 04:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

They are not reliable sources. Relevance is important, but reliability is more important, and I.A. Ibrhim is not a reliable source. Yahel Guhan 04:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] scientific miracles of quran

it makes sense to list the scientific miracles of quran as it is very relevant to the title of the article, i added some scientific miracles and they were deleted twice, what i have listed is: notable,relevant, referenced, and does not apply as original research (Imad marie (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

Saying that "The verse is compatible with the commonly accepted big bang theory." is your own opinion. If you can say that, that means, I should also be able to say "Quran is not compatible with modern science". Thats where's OR comes in. Please read up on the policy: WP:OR. If a famous Islamic person/scholar says that, then you can put it in the article and even then, you must attribute the line to who said it. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
What I did, is list the similarities between the Quran verses and the scientific facts, and then it's for the reader to decide weather the verses are really related or no, if your objection is to the word "compatible" it can be changed.
About the famous Islamic scholar, I can list a number of scholars that admits the relation, but how do u define "famous" ? (Imad marie (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC))
Famous is notable and plus, a reliable source must mention that this scholar has said this. For example, BBC can report a certain Islamic scholar saying that. This sentence: "The verse is compatible with the commonly accepted big bang theory" is not you leaving the reader to decide whether its a miracle or not, alright. You're telling the reader that its a miracle and it follows science. You cant make these deductions yourself. If you want to mention a Quranic verse, thats all you can do. You can quote it. You cant make deductions or conclusions about it with regards to its 'miraculous' nature. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The scholar (Dr.Zaghloul Elnaggar) you used is not famous or notable. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

how can you judge that Dr. Zaghloul is not famous? because you do not know him?
Dr. Zaghlool El-Naggar is a Fellow of the Islamic Academy of Sciences. Member of the Geological Society of London, the Geological Society of Egypt and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Fellow of the Institute of Petroleum, London. Prof. Naggar is the author/co-author of many books and more than 40 research papers in the field of Islamic Thought, Geology, General Science and Education. He was awarded by the Ministry of Education in Egypt the top “Secondary Education Award” as well as the seventh Arab Petroleum Congress Best Papers Award in 1970. Elected a member of the IAS Council (1994 and 1999), Prof. Naggar is currently working at the Arab Development Institute.
and IslamOnline site is headed by Dr. Yusuf Qardawi, a well known Islamic scholar. You not hearing of them, does not make them "not famous" (Imad marie (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC))
Wikipedia has specific criteria on which it establishes the notability of individuals. Whether or not Dr. El-Naggar satisfies the requirements is debatable, but I can tell you that the information you've presented above is not as satisfactory as you may believe. I don't commonly deal with notability issues, so I have no comment on this case, but I will take a look at it if time warrants.--C.Logan (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recorded miracles

This section appears to be a little aimless. Given the example present, wouldn't a more accurate description be "Miracles attributed by other Scriptures"? In any case, we don't need so many examples, as eventually this will turn into a quotefarm and will have to be purged.--C.Logan 21:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The title I suggested is inspired from the introduction of the article: "There are many miracles claimed in connection with Qur'an, either recorded in the Qur'an itself or believed by some Muslims about the book."
I dont understand the title you suggested "other Scriptures", and I don't understand why you think my title is aimless. (Imad marie 16:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC))
That's well and fine, but you have to be aware of something; listing miracles individually like this is problematic- this article will soon turn into something more along the lines of a list, and will soon become a "quotefarm" (an article dominated by an excessive amount of quotations to drive a point home). As it is, the quotations already features can be removed and the information within them can be condensed into their relevant sections.
This article should not endeavor to list every miracle in the Qur'an, because such a methodical and excessive presentation is not encyclopedic and can actually hinder the transmission of information. My own suggestion of the section topic being about miracles found in other scriptures is due to that fact that Moses' miracle was the example you'd noted.
As it is, many scholars see the Qur'an as being of a derivative nature because of its telling of miracles in a manner which often conflates or contradicts earlier sources (although I'm obviously familiar with the Muslim belief on this subject), so a section which covers miracles found in the Bible or in Persian or pre-Islamic Arab texts (amongst other possibilities) might be good to note (not for the sake of supporting the concept of a derivative Qur'an, but for supporting the simple fact that the Qur'an shares some information found in other texts).
In such a section, things such as the Virgin Birth could be mentioned; however, I again plead to you that you incorporate text rather than quote (we don't need the quoted verse in every instance, much less with the Arabic text along with it). We should primarily focus on reconfiguring the information found in such quotes into a paragraph form; citations and footnotes are sufficient for details concerning the verses (you can include the verse quotation with more details within the "reference" fields, and therefore the article is kept streamlined without sacrificing information in the long haul.--C.Logan 22:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Structure

The current structure of the page (claim/criticism) is easy to read, and it makes it easy for editors to add content in the future. If an editor wants to add to the claim; he can do it easily, same for the criticism. An example is Criticism of the Qur'an.
Merging the (claim/criticism) paragraphs in one is difficult. Look at scientific miracle for example, they are two big paragraphs (and candidates to get bigger); merging them in a single paragraph is merely impossible. (Imad marie (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

It is unencyclopedic Imad. The purpose of wikipedia is not to present a such a dialog. It should present different views but not in an defense-attack manner as this. --Aminz (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is opposed to a "debate"-like structuring. Merging these views into singular paragraphs isn't necessary. The information found should just be consolidated into a body of text. It may seem easier to read to some, but our guidelines discourage the use of this structuring.--C.Logan (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qur'an as a miracle changed by Aminz

I see the changes that Aminz did uneasy to read, and encyclopedic, and i see it only a quotation from Denis Gril book. I see [this] version to be better. (Imad marie (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

Hi Imad, I think you are correct that it was uneasy to read. Can you please help making it readable? Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] renaming this article

There is a section Qur'an#Relationship_with_other_literature that talks about Qur'an relation with other Scriptures, i suggest that this article concetrates only on the claimed miracilous nature of the qur'an. and i suggest renaming this article (Imad marie (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Recorded Miracles 2

Hey Imad Marie. I did read this talk page before doing the edits but I cannot conclude how particularly you want the structure to be like. What was "unencyclopedic" about giving a brief list of miracles the way I did? Slsm07 (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Slsm, in my opinion, what you have added is not "brief". This article is about discussing the miracles claim and not listing them; there are many other sites that list the miracles and we don't need to list them again in this article. Please read the section (Recorded miracles) in the this talk page. (Imad marie (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC))
Hey again Imad Marie. It is fine that many other sites list the miracles but shouldn’t we not have info in our articles just because that info is also found on other sites? Wikipedia is meant to be solely based on outside sources anyway. I think that there should be a section in this article, considering its title, where the miracles can be listed. Yes, this article should discuss the miracle claim but how would, as for C.Logan’s point, a list hurt or hinder the article? This list with its quotes is not unencyclopedic because of the context of this article, that of miracles claimed to be in a text. If anyone feels that it gets too long then I can link this to another new article.Slsm07 (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Slsm, listing the claimed miracles in a separate article is a good idea, however please note that there is a problem with that: dozens of claimed miracles are listed in various sources, and some of them are not miracles at all (this is my opinion), so how to decide which miracles to list in the new article? maybe we can focus only on the miracles that have been claimed by the most known and credible scholars (like Zaghloul Najjar for example). (Imad marie (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC))
I created a new page that lists the miracles: List of Qur'an scientific miracles (Imad marie (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC))
I nominated if for deletion. Claimed miracles need to be soruced to reliable sources. Those are scholarly sources, and not sources from propaganda websites. Yahel Guhan 05:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dangerous link

The external link Zaghloul El-Naggar about Qur'an miracles is dangerous link according to W.O.T. I believe it should be removed. Wikipedia should not put link that may risk users.Oren.tal (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Firefox extensions are not a wikipedia measurement for good articles. The link is quite safe --Imad marie 08:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imad marie (talk • contribs)
but wikipedia should not give dangerous link!Oren.tal (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Najjar as a reference - Arbitration

There has been many objections over Najjar as a reliable reference, which I strongly disagree with, and this conflict has been going for a while now. I see the only way to resolve this is over a Arbitration (Imad marie 20:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC))


[edit] free thinker web site

Itaqallah remove again and again link or reliable websites from this article. Next time he remove without talk about it I will complain to moderator. This article should be NPOV and that mean also link that refute this claims. Beside most of the reference are not to reliable websites and should be removed before this website. I have my case to complain about you Itaqallah since I asked more than once not to remove this links.Oren.tal (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you complain to a moderator then you have to be ready to show your case that Avijit Roy is a reliable reference and that Najjar is not. Are you ready for that ? (Imad marie 19:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imad marie (talk • contribs)
it is more reliable than half of the Notes in this article.Putting Dawa website as source is against wikipedia policy.You have not shown there is something wrong in this website and it is look like your problem is because it is criticize the claim of miracle in the Quran.Oren.tal (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Forget about the web sites, and concentrate on the authors, are you willing to show that Avijit Roy is a reliable reference and that Najjar is not? (Imad marie (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC))
it is not use as a source and I agree it should NOT be used as such.As an opinion article it is good enough.Oren.tal (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quoting Qur'an

Matt, please explain. In this article you removed Qur'anic text claiming that using Quru'an verse directly is OR, and then here and here you are claiming that using Qur'an verses is not OR or interpretation, please explain to me how does that make you a credible editor in any way? I'm putting the Qur'an verse back now (Imad marie (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

We have refrained from interpreting Quranic verses in the past. Please ask Itaqallah or Bless sins about this. They've said that we cant use the verses directly. I'm just applying their standards here. According to them, using a Quran verse directly is using primary sources and interpreting them is OR. Please ask them about this and take out the verses. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Zaghloul Elnaggar a reliable reference?

Let's finish this once and for all, let's reach a consensus here. Is Naggar a reliable reference? everyone is invited to participate. If we don't reach a consensus then an Arbitration might be the solution (Imad marie (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

  • Yes he is. Naggar is a famous notable scholar in the Islamic community, he is the author of many Islamic books, and is interviewed in Arabic TV channels regularly, his profile can be found at the footer of this page and his CV at. Najjar is recognized as a renowned notable scholar here, here, here and here. Naturally Najjar is presented in Arab owned media more than he is in the western owned media as he is a famous character in the Arab community. Qur'an is written in the Arabic language, so it's only fair to present the Arab point of view through their notable scholars, NPOV states that wikipedia should represent fairly and without bias all significant views. (Imad marie (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC))
    • I think it O.K. use him as opinion ONLY and not as source for any claim.Oren.tal (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • No he is Muslim apologist and as such he is not a reliable source.Oren.tal (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, he's not, according go WP:RS. A simple PHD and being a doctor doesnt make you a reliable source. It must be someone who has had recognition from the scientific community and 3rd party sources mention him. In this case its not true. He's not written any peer reviwed journals. Most of the stuff is being sourced to his personal website. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Najjar has been recognized as a renowned scholar in many media sources (mostly Arab sources), also Najjar is a memeber of and recognized by famous Islamic organizations, so that covers the (recognized by 3rd party) thing. Also, NPOV states that wikipedia should represent all significant views, the Islamic and Arab point of view is certainly significant about this matter, removing a known scholar in the Islamic community will make Qur'an interpretation exclusive to the western point of view, which is against NPOV. (Imad marie (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC))
      • El-Najjar appears to be a professor of Geology. His CV and his list of publications are, upon first glance, quite impressive.[2] I would opt to stick to whatever Geology-related claims he makes, as he is seemingly an expert in this field. ITAQALLAH 22:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There is a broader question here. Are those who are merely reliable in the field of science, medicine or geology, and have no qualifications in Islam, reliable enough to be used in this article? I think the answer is no. This is because, knowing plate tectonics, embryology etc. do not require a PhD. On the other hand, interpreting the Qur'an and the Sunnah does require expertise. What are your thoughts?Bless sins (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You are right, PhD's should not be the measurement if someone is a scholar, I think there is another important measurement we must consider; significance; are Najjar ideas and researches significant enough to be published? Yes they are. And to broaden the discussion even more; are Maurice Bucaille and his book (The Bible, The Quran and Science) significant enough to cite in wikipedia? Yes they are. NPOV says that all significant views must be cited. (Imad marie (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC))
      • Qualifications, academic history, affiliated publishers, acceptance amongst scholarly peers... these are all indications as to whether a source is reliable. You do need qualifications in embryology etc. (usually obtained after qualifying from general medical education) to at least be recognised as possessing some authority in that specific field. Same goes with any branch of academic study. ITAQALLAH 10:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
        • But don't you think that a scholar needs credentials in Islam to comment on an ayah's scientific value?Bless sins (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes, or the scholar (i.e. the scientist, or whatever) may directly contact experts in other fields (i.e. Islamic studies) himself in verifying his material. ITAQALLAH 11:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As for Najjar, I say, he is a reliable source. This is because he credentials in both Islam and science (geology to be specific, he shouldn't be used for any other area). If his CV is true, then his scientific credentials are obvious. His position in the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs, Cairo, Egypt and Islamic Academy of Sciences lends to him Islamic credentials.Bless sins (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I see then, so now the reliability is there if the person has a degree in that field? Bless Sins, while talking about Ibn Warraq, you said that Warraq is extremist and so as per WP:RS#Extremist_sources, Warraq is not acceptable. The same applies to Naggar. This guy is an extremist and an Islamic apologist and his pro-Islamic views (you called Warraq extremist because of his anti-Islamic views). Are we seeing double standards here? Its amazing how you guys come to defend a really unknown person because he's pro Islamic, but you reject widely published scholars like Ibn Warraq as not being reliable because they're not pro-Islamic. Thoughts? Now observe the magic while consensus changes to declare Naggar as unreliable. Ibn Warraq has a an education and experience and qualifications 10 times that of Naggar (just read his bio). He studied with Islamic scholar Watt. If you're speaking of education, "Spencer began studying Islam in 1980 during his first year as an undergraduate at the University of North Carolina." and so we could say he's qualified to talk about religion because he has a masters degree in "Religious Studies". You all apply lax standards to people who are pro-Islamic but super-strict standards to people who talk against Islam. So my opinion is that according to WP:RS#Extremist_sources, Naggar is not a reliable source. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Do we have to discuss these same sources each time the reliability of a new source is debated? The precedence is set by WP:V and WP:RS, not by the decided reliability of one source or another. As for Ibn Warraq, his works are not published in academic press, has no verifiable qualifications in Islamic studies (I don't know what "studying with Watt" is proof of), and has been criticised by academics for lack of basic competence in this field. Similarly with Spencer, his works are not published in academic press, his MA thesis was in early Christianity, and has been criticised by experts for lacking basic competence in this field.
      • Each case is discussed on its own merit. I don't believe it would be appropriate to label El-Najjar as a reliable source for the topic in general. As a reasonable compromise, I have suggested he be used for the geology related links he makes, taking into account that he is an accomplished professor of Geology as evidenced by his C.V. Other claims he makes can be attributed to him through reliable third party references. ITAQALLAH 16:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Matt57 you don't seem to be talking of the right issues. Najjar is a professor, Warraq is not. To me, having a PhD doesn't make one reliable (though the PhD thesis, which is reviewed by professors, is reliable). The fact that someone is a professor shows that an institution has placed confidence in him/her. Other institutions have similarly acknowledged Najjar's scholarship by appointing him as a research assistant and research fellow.
      • If Warraq was a professor, or his work published by a university press, I would consider that to be a reliable source. There is no "pro-Islam" and "anti-Islam" sentiment here.Bless sins (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
        • As I said, per WP:RS#Extremist_sources, Naggar is not a reliable source. There is no "compromise" possible. If he's not a RS, he's not one. Besides have you guys ever compromised on Warraq or Spencer? I dont think so. His membership in these religious partisan organizations such as "Islamic Academy of Sciences" doesnt help the case, rather it helps confirm that he's an extremist source. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia:RS#Extremist_sources says "individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist". Who says that Najjar is extremist? Who says he is involved with "extremist"s? Secondly, Najjar is a professor, and has done research and teaching for academic institutions. Neither Warraq nor Spencer are professors, or are scholars at academic institutions. Do you understand what I'm saying? The fact that Najjar is associated with mainstream Islamic organizations means that he is a reliable source on Islam.Bless sins (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Read it, it says: "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature" - further how come he doesnt have any peer reviewed journals? This is a religious individual (bent on trying to find the connection between science and Islam and he's a member of religious organizations as well. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
              • Yes, i have read it. Once again where is the "wide acknowledged[ment] [of] extremis[m]"? Only you are calling him an extremist. Reliable sources are not calling him as an extremist (at least you have provided no evidence to indicate such a thing). He is a professor, do you dispute that? Do you dispute that professors are reliable sources?Bless sins (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

<r>I guess I'll have to quote the whole thing. WP:RS#Scholarship: says:

  • The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
  • Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred.

So what part of RS does Naggar satisfy? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That the part that you conveniently didn't quote: "Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world." He is a researcher, and one could also say scientist.Bless sins (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Obvoiusly, there are millions of scientists in the world. They're not all RS's. Policy clarifies how a scientist can fulfil being an RS. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There are not millions of scientists. And yes, the work of scientists that are recognized and trusted by academic institutions is reliable. Also, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." (from WP:SOURCES) Although Najjar is not peer-reviewed, he is academic.Bless sins (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok I guess this is going to take me creating a thread at WP:RS talk, since you're not going to get the point. This is some guy with a degree, that is all he is. There's nothing more to him that this. That doesnt make him an RS. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
A professor of geology is a reliable source specifically for geology related issues. Or is there something I've been missing? ITAQALLAH 21:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
someone can be astronomer and talk about about astrology.We can consider only what is hold by the scientific community.People can learn Physics or whatever and to believe in nonsense.Oren.tal (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Since I do not personally like the whole scientific exegesis of the Qur'an movement, I tend to disagree with the usage of this guy simply because of my own personal opinion. Summarizing science to a bunch of facts and laws is superficial, just as showing that the Qur'an predicted those is. At the heart of science is a philosophy, a methodology, and an engine. Scientific results that are published in journals are the outward manifestation of science, not the heart of it. They are like the leaves of a tree, the root is somewhere else... So, if there is gonna be a legitimate scientific exegesis of the Qur'an, it should start with a new philosophy and a new methodology; something that has yet to be developed, if that challenge is ever realizable.... --Be happy!! (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, I believe we must consider significance. (Imad marie (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Gril, Denis

Imad marie, please provide the full quote (with surrounding paragraph) for what you just added. Yahel Guhan 05:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I used the revision edited by AminZ here. AminZ can you provide the full quote please? (Imad marie (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC))
Well, my version was longer. Please leave me a message on my talk page and I can email the full text to anybody who is interested. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] bias

This article is exteremly bias and represent mainly opinion that suppot in this issue.I call for putting tag about the nutralety of this article plus work in order to make it neutral.Oren.tal (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of the Quran is a reliable reference, and Campbell is not. (Imad marie (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC))
Oren.tal, if you are going to edit articles like these, then please have some basic understanding of the kind of source material you should be using. William Campbell, a medical doctor, is not a reliable source for topics outside his field, regardless of how many polemical websites he features on. The Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, however, is a scholarly, academic publication. ITAQALLAH 18:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a somewhat biased stance and I'll explain. The modern driver of this belief that there is science in the Quran was primarily inspired by another medical doctor, Maurice Bucaille. This article reads partly like a puff piece fork from Qur'an and science. Other than the "science" predictions the only miracle seems to be one "Prophecies" (sic) which wikilinks to Hadith_of_the_prediction_in_Sura_al-Rum#The_Qur.27anic_quote. In that target article the quality of references is very poor and there has been no attempt to clean that up. Though you use "reliable source" and "scholarly, academic publication" to set a standard here I feel that this standard is set to push out legitimate criticism because, it seems that in this other article which this article wikilinks to the standard of editing is to reference "A Muslim site writes:" and copy+paste huge blocks of text from sources of uncertain quality. I have already commented on that there in late 2006 and the concerns are still not addressed. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
There are other aspects of the miraculous claims of the Qur'an, we have "inimitability", a strong belief in the Muslim world that the Qur'an literary style is insuperable. And we have "numerical miracles" which is not included in this article. I agree with you that Hadith of the prediction in Sura al-Rum is badly referenced, and maybe a re-write is necessary. Imad marie (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

We have three sections talking about the same topic: Qur'an_and_miracles#Scientific_miracles, The_relation_between_Islam_and_science#Belief_that_scientific_facts_are_supported_by_the_Qur.27an and Maurice_Bucaille#Bucailleism. I suggest creating a new article, talking about the scientific miraculous claim of the Qur'an, the title can be Qur'an and Science. And all three section can link to this new article as the main article. (Imad marie (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC))

I think the issue of Qur'an and science can be discussed primarily in this article and the relation between Islam and science article. The Bucaille discussion centers primarily on the neologism. ITAQALLAH 12:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well at least the believe is discussed in two articles (in two big sections). My suggestion is to create a separate article about this believe, and any section about this claim can refer to it. (Imad marie (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC))

Having no objections, I will proceed with the merge. (Imad marie (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] External links

It is not a matter of proponent/ anti links, it is a matter of notability. The links I have added are for the scholars who have been quoted in the references of the article, it makes sense to include their sites. (Imad marie (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)) I didn't rewrite any policy, WP:EL says: Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. (Imad marie (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

the links you have chosen are from bias pro-islam propaganda websites, with the mission to convert visitors of the website to islam, not present a scholarly analysis and interpritation of the topic. The ones Oran.tal added were bias in the other direction, presenting responses to the propaganda, trying to convince visitors not to convert to islam, or to leave islam. Either way, it is unscholarly debate, unreliable sources, propaganda, and does not belong on wikipedia. Yahel Guhan 04:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Zaghloul El-Naggar was mentioned in the article only because EoQ's article quotes him. That's the extent we can use him; we can not use him directly nor can we add his website. All those websites that you wanted to add to the article were of low quality; the external link should include scholarly articles on the topic that are available. --Be happy!! (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)