Talk:Quran/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Misuse of "Requested Move" process

The above "poll" was opened by User:Nafsadh at 05:28, 13 May 2011,[1] yet it includes a list of "votes" abstracted from earlier discussion. These votes were selected to favor one side, they were not caste during the voting period, and some are the result of canvasssing. Kauffner (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move tag was added to put this issue in WP:RM so as to attract more editors attention and is not a misuse. The construction of this poll is already been discussed as in previous few sections.--নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 09:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is actually not true. I, Abdullajh, opened the poll here on 8 May 2011. Voting continued in the original section until 10 May 2011 when I incorrectly attempted to organize the actual votes in a new section here. Some votes were returned to the original section so that currently votes extend across two sections. Respectfully, Abdullajh (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The RM and pre-RM votes must be kept in distinct sections. How to tally the earlier votes is up to the closing administrator. As a participant, you do not decide which votes get counted. Kauffner (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of this poll from its inception on 8 May 2011, in accordance with Wikipedia policy on polls, has been to determine the community feeling about the name "Qur'an" vs. "Quran" and to build consensus. Plenty of evidence has been provided in the lengthy discussion spanning several sections demonstrating that "Qur'an" is the modern accepted spelling and that the raw number of Google hits, the basis for the earlier vote, is a deeply flawed measure of accepted usage. At least 6 editors have provided new arguments in favor of "Qur'an" following the 9-4 contentious vote that moved the page to "Quran" after years of being at "Qur'an", including arguments in favor of "Qur'an" by one of the editors who originally voted for "Quran". Some of the arguments in the original 3 oppose votes by distinct editors are also compelling, giving a total of at least 9 editors who have expressed preference for "Qur'an" as the standard spelling. It has been demonstrated convincingly that "Qur'an" is the accepted spelling used for Qur'anic scholarship and in the majority of published English sources in the past 10 years. In contrast, two or three editors, Kauffner, William M. Connolley, possibly Quigley, remain opposed and continue to argue for a very non-standard spelling "Quran", despite plenty of evidence that "Qur'an" is the modern accepted spelling used in scholarship and academic sources. Wikipedia is not a democracy and polls are not binding. Currently the sense of the community, certainly among editors who contribute to this page, seems to be strongly in favor of "Qur'an" with two or three editors opposed. If there are any additional editors who have contributed to this page and who have not expressed their opinions on the hasty move to "Quran", please express your opinions here. I request that Kauffner and William M. Connolley begin to discuss the merits of the page name rather than making accusations and edit reversions. Respectfully, Abdullajh (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"Inconvenient" section titles?

Abdullajh seems to find the section title "Misuse of "Requested Move" process" inconvenient, as he keeps trying to demote it [2] etc. But the shenanigans going on here do indeed justify such a section header William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The only "shenanigans" going on are by you and Kauffner. I request that editors maintain order so that the poll can be used for consensus building. Respectfully, Abdullajh (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of changing the headings to subheadings is to keep the poll discussion in one section. No information was lost. However, I won't edit war, but I note the disruption that is being caused by proliferation of unnecessary sections. Abdullajh (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Maintaining order would be good. How about you stop moving peoples votes between sections and stop downsizing sections you don't like? That would certainly help order William M. Connolley (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to organize votes incorrectly only once, long time ago, which has already been discussed in great detail and corrected to everyone's satisfaction. These section headings being proliferated seem to have been created for no reason except to obscure the poll and should be moved to subheadings as they continue the earlier discussion about the poll. Abdullajh (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Err, no it hasn't. And, no they haven't been. Hows your faith? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed section on Theme of the Quran

There should be a section on what is the main theme (content) of the Qur'an, as understood by different scholars. For example, Ghamidi and Islahi say that primarily it is a Book of admonition (indhar in Arabic). Maududi says its central theme is Man, and so on.. This is important as in the end, it is a Book and a piece of literature. Shaad lko (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

the main theme (content) of the Qur'an, as understood by different scholars can be dealt in the scope of Tafsir not in this article. Theme of Qur'an is not a general idea but differed one. » nafSadh did say 15:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

How is it not a general idea? Every text has some theme(s), central content matter - how can the Qur'an be different? Tafsir is more related to exegesis of the actual verses of the Quran, and theme may influence the Tafsir in contextualising the verses. Shaad lko (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus (or general idea) answering “what is the theme of Qur'an”. & it is not just a text! it is Holly revelation. It has several hundred chapters, each of which covers one or more content matter(s). Furthermore, Qur'an is a book which is told to cover all aspects of life, science, religion ... So, how come there be a single central content? & if you can see, there is already a section dealing with Content of Qur'an. » nafSadh did say 16:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not wish to go into a debate, but Qur'an being a Revelation does not take away from it also being a text. Every text has some subject matter, and different scholars have inferred different core subject matters from the Qur'an. Regarding your other (mis)assumptions, even many Muslims do not believe that Qur'an covers all aspects of life.. But maybe you did say the right thing finally, we can improve the Content sub-section! Shaad lko (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess we can work on Content of Qur'an or such article first then add the summary here.

There had been no (mis)assumptions; I asserted generally assumed belief. » nafSadh did say 16:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably yes, if the user has enough content to work on it. I agree on the point regarding that the "content" should start first. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 03:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The themes you're talking about are related to specific sections, not the whole Qur'an. There aint even a single theme in you randomly select a chapter. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 03:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

So, essentially what you are saying is that the Quranic text jumps from one place to another and different parts have no connection with each other? Well, there is some debate over whether the Quran is a disjointed text or it has a thematic structure do you appreciate the implications of your claim?)- however, many traditional scholars have insisted on the latter. I will work on it in some time. Shaad lko (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If you go through the Qur'an, you'll see that, from al-Fatiha to an-Nas, the narration goes so smoothly that many readers really enjoy it, even if it is a translation. So it is not a disjoint text. But, being a non-disjoint text don't mean, the theme is altogether the same everywhere. Theme and context of Qur'an & Suras change variably. Many scholar has found many thematic structure and they have not agreed upon one. If X1 says theme is Y1 then, X10 says theme is Y10! So, there will be a lot of dispute. Why shall we start writing about something with so many dispute while we have unresolved disputes on so many other things? » nafSadh did say 06:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there are only two important questions - is there a thematic structure to the Quranic text or not? Scholars have always differed on this - I will take some time to write down all the references but - some say that because it was revealed in bits and pieces the parts are not inter-related, while others assert that being a Divine text it has unity of structure. Secondly, there are not too many themes that have been identified for the text as a whole - for example, everyone knows it is a Book of warning and glad tidings - but maybe Imam Farahi was one of the first to delineate this concept and bring it out in the open. Regarding your question - why should we write about a dispute? - well, if the dispute is important enough... Shaad lko (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Plz re-read! Theme of Qur'an is a subject, about which there are disputes between scholars. Even if you think it is very very important, please do a lot of homework and I suggest you do some test on your own user-space User:Shaad lko/Theme of Qur'an may be. Ask reviews from some more editors (who have experience in doing constructive edits on Islam related article). Then, we can add a clean text right into main-space. Thus we can keep this page clean. Just suggesting, don't take it anyway else » nafSadh did say 18:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concerns but anyway, if you see currently, the article focuses on everything but the Content of the Quran- this is somewhat surprising as it should give greater indication of the subject matter of the Quran. I agree with your point to put it under Content, and hopefully it can be an improvement to the article!

In fact, the Bible article too doesn't have much on Content, but the Torah article does, and looks better with that.. Shaad lko (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Writing about the context needs a lot of expertise and deep knowledge. Preferably someone who is a Hafiz, knows several Tafseer of all Ayahs, has deep knowledge in hadith & fiqh and lost more knowledge. But, if we do not get such an editor but can find sources (written by such someone) with verifiable references, then it'll do a great deal. » nafSadh did say 19:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't WP based on verifiability and not experts writing on all subjects. Your enthusiasm is apparent, but your statement on kind of expertise needed is pretty much subjective. Shaad lko (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not hard to trip in bias sources/experts :). I'm sure you're with me on this-one. Just keep us informed here and keep away from WP:OR, please, so we can have some time to go through it. See you around. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep! Experts are not available. But context from verifiable sources of experts shall be cited. I'm afraid of OR. I think primary write-up will be like edit-test or something. So using sandbox will be helpful. We can even start a collaborative work. My concern is keeping this article clean. » nafSadh did say 10:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If I may humbly suggest, let us stay away from jumping to conclusions. If I didn't have enough matter, I wouldn't have raised this topic - I'll start something on my userspace and invite you guys later in the day, so that we can work it out, maybe we can have a separate page on it too (Content of the Qur'an, themes of the Qur'an, whatever...).. Shaad lko (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds nice. Thanks for the effort. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 10:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That is what I've been suggesting. :P » nafSadh did say 12:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, started something here. We can improve gradually and add to the main page, or even have a separate page - let me know how you feel about it - I can dig up more references hopefully..Shaad lko (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Pronounciation

It might be useful to have an Arab speaker pronounce "Qur'an" for us, so we know what the Q and ' "really" mean.

Also, it might be in order to point to a coherent discussion of whether the apostrophe is best written as an apostrophe, right half ring, hamza, or IPA glottal stop, and why any of these is better than the simple "Koran"--just a gentle nudge toward consistency. Ferren (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

discuss in the section Poll to revert move » nafSadh did say 07:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can open a chatroom to pronouce it here :p, jk.

Just a quick video, which pronounces "Al-Qur'an Al-Kareem" a couple times in the beginning ("Al" means "The"). His first mention is in the 8th second, then slower in second 13. Please also look at the US English text-to-speach website to compare Qur'an and Quran, using the voice of "Mike". ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 12:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Or you could simply go to Google, pick "translate", type in "Qur'an" and translate into Arabic, then click "listen" under the Arabic text... By the way the section title would be spelled "Pronunciation" in Standard English. I have heard it said as "Pronounciation" in parts of the UK though. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia

"Richard Gottheil and Siegmund Fränkel in the Jewish Encyclopedia write that the oldest portions of the Quran reflect significant excitement in their language, through short and abrupt sentences and sudden transitions. The Quran nonetheless carefully maintains the rhymed form, like the oracles. Some later portions also preserve this form but also in a style where the movement is calm and the style expository.[66]"

Is it just me who thinks that the jewish encyclopedia might be alittle biased towards such topics and the SOURCE IS WRONG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.206.159.187 (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read the "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" policy carefully to understand the reason it's there. We're all immature editors, just following policies :). Happy editing ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 22:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you meant by happy editing when you're perfectly aware that the article is protected. I also don't think you understood what I meant by the SOURCE IS WRONG. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=369&letter=K&search=Quran look at it yourself, nowhere is mentioned that oracle part.

I apologize. I thought you meant that the "Jewish Encyclopedia" is wrong :(. I've tagged the citation to be checked by whoever is familiar with the content.

I said happy editing, and happy editing again, as you're always welcome to suggest changes on protected articles, directly edit unprotected articles, and even create an account to be able to edit on protected articles when you're auto-confirmed. Thanks for the notice here :) ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 10:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is regarded widely as the finest...

It may e:

It is regarded widely as the finest piece of literature in the Arabic language. [Alan Jones, The Koran, London 1994, ISBN 1842126091, opening page.] [Arthur Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, London 1956, ISBN 0684825074, p. x.]

ut a preface to the Quran itself isn't a good source William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. Sorry to be off-topib in my reply, but it appears that you ban't write the letter 'b'... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

By hab a colb William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added some refs that I could find.. Shaad lko (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet more trash refs

Has Jagged taught us nothing? Please can we not have edits like this [3]. I've removed the whole ref, viz "cite ebook|first=M.F.|last=Rahman|title=The Books of God: From Genesis to the Final Testament|publisher=University Publisher|page=12|year=1998|ISBN=1-58112-896-7".

And the edit comment? "rm tag, as the academic publisher and author are mentioned"? Don't make me laugh. Like it says on the front page: this is from upublish.com. Whoever added it didn't even get the publisher right: it is "Universal-Publishers, Inc", not "University Publisher".

Aiee!

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The dodgy ref was added by A [4] under the deceptive edit comment of "clarifying western terms" William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Please try to avoid making my same mistake of generalizing your opinion of an editor based on one inicident. I apologize to both of you. And NO, I don't live in a trashcan, so please keep your tone focused on the content (in the editor's talkpage and the WP:DRN).

If you're laughing about "U" as "you", then you better look at their logo that used "U" for "Universal". Yes, I made a spelling mistake there.

I didn't give it a big deal, being a general belief (which the statement says belief) like "final divine revelation, last testament, final testament, ...whatever." Yes, I made a mistake of saying "an academic publisher" instead of "they publish academic material." I'm not claiming that they're reliable now.

Anyways, I take it back and presented another source. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I still insist on my first summary of "clarifying western terms". The "Old Testament" and "New Testament" aren't written anywhere in the Hebrew and Aramaic text. It's just a term that the west used to divide the books; however, western Muslims don't use that much because the Qur'an is only one book. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No-one said you were living in a trashcan; no-one was laughing at you. I said, correctly, that the reference was trash. Please try to keep comments here focused on improving the article. Now it looks to me as though you are using the bad practice of "reference by googling" in [5]. Please state clearly whether you have actually read the book you're reffing there William M. Connolley (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I know you're not laughing at me :p. I think you should take the same advice to yourself and stop your baseless accusations, for the second time, of not reading the sources I insert. Yes, I admit that I haven't gave attention to the previous publisher, but what objection do you precisely have now (there or here)? ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I always look for the sources I previously had on Google Books. I make a search in Google so my intended statement becomes highlighted. It's just my style everywhere here, even with the books I have at home or in my University's library. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've made a request: Please state clearly whether you have actually read the book you're reffing there. You haven't answered that request William M. Connolley (talk) 09:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not answering you question, as I didn't see that it's relating to this content.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I know what you're intending to go to. I know that Dr. Rashad is crap, and I have three copies of that book. I like his translation, but I actually ripped the nonsense "appendixes and introduction" he's added to the Qur'an before I gave them to some friends, hehe. He was killed because of his crap, and he was actually funded by Gathafi. Therefore, my answer is YES, I have read it. Although, I would highly refuse the source to be added to "further reading". I just asked if it's ok to use the statement that's not against general belief. Yes, "last testament" is found more that "final testament", but "final testament" is closer to the Arabic meaning. Dr. Rashad still is a noticeable personnel :) ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, since some of this has gone to RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#A_belief_of_Testament_sequence), we might as well listen to what they say. I've moved the Britannica ref per their suggestion, and also pick up on Rahman, which says in the quote we use "The Qur’ān is a document that is squarely aimed at man; indeed, it calls itself ‘guidance for mankind’ (hudan liʾal-nās...)". That isn't obviously relevant: why is it there? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

General review

I'll be making continues changes in the article, so please link any disputed change here (to avoid repetition and confusion). Thanks a bunch... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 05:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "rm pay-to-view source" in the summary here, not "pay-to-print". ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.102.183.85, 10 July 2011

Can you kindly correct the word 'Basmala'. This is wrong. It should be 'Bismillah'. Many thanks

81.102.183.85 (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC) Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

Please bring some verifiable references in support of your point. The noun for the first verse is Basmala while it contains the phrase Bismillah. Shaad lko (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Basmala is the Arabic name for the phrase Bismillah-ar-Rahman-ar-Rahim. It is like Kalimah Shahadah is the name for Ashhadu Allah.... I think you got the point! Also refer to Talk:Basmala#Basmala vs. Bismillah » nafSadh did say 11:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Poll to revert move

Administrator's note: I am watching this poll, and will be available for closing it at some point. Given the procedural controversy that has erupted, let me state the following: It is somewhat unusual to allow such a very quick re-nomination, but in light of the strength of opinions and the number of apparently good-faith arguments on both sides, I am inclined to let it run and allow a re-evaluation of consensus in a few days. For this purpose, arguments proposed in all three recent polls (including the aborted one from 4th May and the successful one from 9 April) will be taken into consideration together (not headcounts). This way, it will not be necessary for editors to re-state their points here merely in order to fill up the !vote count. The copying-over of statements from the old poll has been taken note of. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move back to Qur'an; page stays at Quran. In closing this, I have considered all opinions expressed in all three recent polls equally. In terms of headcount, the division is almost exactly 50:50 (10 people preferring "Quran", 11 people preferring "Qur'an"). In terms of strength of argument, the matter seems to be mostly between two competing versions of the standard "use common English" argument, where one side prefers the usage of general-purpose and popular English, whereas the other side prefers the usage of specialist academic literature. Both these positions appear legitimate and defensible to me in principle, so I can't say one of them automatically wins out as a matter of mandatory policy. I am inclined to give less weight to the arguments about linguistic "correctness" and what kinds of pronunciations each spelling might suggest to the English reader. The argument that "Qur'an" is actually inconsistent, because in order to comply fully with academic usage it would in fact have to be "Qur'ān", carries some weight, but then, on the other hand, something analogous could be said about actual common English preferring "Koran" rather than "Quran"; both candidate forms discussed here appear to be, in practical terms, something of a compromise. On the whole, I am not finding a strong enough consensus for a revert of the old move, and no clear reason why the current status quo would be indefensible under policy, so I'm compelled to close this as "stay where it is". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Quran → Qur'an – It is a poll to revert previous move.

Recently the name of the page was changed from the authoritative and long-standing spelling "Qur'an" to "Quran". The vote was hasty and closed before many editors who routinely maintain this page were able to vote. This will be a longer poll that measures the feeling of the community about the title of this page. Description of the poll and actual votes are being placed in this section. Best wishes, Abdullajh (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Support The only interesting argument that was given for changing to "Quran" was number of Google hits. These were found to be due to a number of factors: 1) inability to put apostrophes in URLs, 2) a few media sources that choose to use "Quran", and 3) a number of blogs many with antiMuslim hate speech. The arguments for "Qur'an" are numerous and are given above in the lengthy discussion: they include 1) the vast majority of authoritative translations of the Qur'an use "Qur'an", 2) studies on the Qur'an use "Qur'an", and 3) number of published books using "Qur'an" are much greater in modern times than those using "Quran" [6], which is a better measure of authoritativeness. Abdullajh (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Language do not stand still and spelling of words change while it evolves. Qur'an/ Quran/ Koran/ Kuran is being spelled with wide variety of spelling. Not yet a convention been standardized. In relation to Islam related words, it has been noticed that, contemporary approach is to write them using English replacements of Romanization of the word. e.g. Hadith. Qur'an in its actual pronunciation has a glottal stop in between r&a. People is moving on to pronouncing Islamic words more appropriately than before. We can see that, Koran or Coran are not used in modern days, while Koran was common in old days... this shift is due to concern about spelling and pronunciation. So, this might be better to have main Wikipedia article in Qur'an instead of Quran, coz Qur'an is preferred by authoritative sources. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 05:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me assert that, this is my vote and is not fake --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 18:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes: this poll really is so badly broken that you do need to do that William M. Connolley (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support reopening the pole and then add a restriction to any further change requests, due to the origin: Qur'ān is an Arabic name, which should be written to the closest pronunciation in English alphabets. The faulty Quran and Koran translation is based on African and West-Asian accents. Qur'an is the closest spelling for any English Native to read correctly, without hearing it from someone else first. You can at least try this text to speech website to hear the difference yourself (using the voice of "Mike" for US English OR the voice of "Lucy" for UK English). Again, confirming Wiqi55's comment that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and I also don't think that a journalist spelling is what Wikipedia should be based on. AdvertAdam ^talk 06:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Reconfirm my vote; I know this topic was a complete mess, hoping everything gets settled soon. AdvertAdam ^talk 08:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Support the reversal back to Qur'an which will, apparently (see discussions above), make it easier for English speakers to approximate the Arabic pronunciation. If this is how Muslims prefer it written in English - why not? Sounds emminently sensible to me! It is also easy to type on a standard English keyboard - no need to search for special accents or accented letters in WP's box at the bottom of this page - think of Xi'an in China. We are not being asked to type (the technically more correct) Qur'ān - so, what's the problem? Come on everyone - let's resolve this issue now and be done with it. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

First canvassing and now a fake vote? Someone take this one to WP:ANI. Kauffner (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

False claim of fake vote. see reply to Connolley's poll

oppose re-opening poll, and the faking of votes by Abdullajh; e.g. [7]. Also oppose the blatantly non-neutral section heading, and the canvassing by Abdullajh William M. Connolley (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Allegation of fake vote is not proper. John Hill originally voted as in here and William M. Connolley's reversion removed it. JH questioned the removal of his remark.

Construction of this poll is improper though. Action of both Abdullajh's and Connolley's are improper. Abdullajh started misdoing. Connolley's reversion was improper. My retrieval was also messy as discussed and explained here --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 09:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree that section heading is blatantly non-neutral --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 09:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a fake vote in the sense that "support" posts were culled and then presented so as to give the impression that a fresh and unanimous vote had just taken place. The opposition expressed by Quigley and Connolley was left out, so even as an abstract it is dishonest. Kauffner (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

the construction of this section is ACTUALLY dishonest and also misguiding, but votes presented are not entirely faked up. As Connolley mentioned earlier and linked that John Hill's vote is fake — that is not just a factual error, but a misguiding information. Quigley's and Connolley's and comment should have made apparent. Abdullajh must have noted that all these votes are brought from another section. What have been done is mess and I do not feel a good vibe over here about what is happening now. Some action/comment/insight from a admin is will be helpful. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 14:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The only oppose above was against the open of the poll in-general, while the other voters were supporting the return of the spelling. I know this poll is a huge mess, so I'm not justifying any actions. Connolley is an active editor and was invited to put his vote in the summary. AdvertAdam ^talk 17:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

But! Shall not the section name be altered into a NPOV one? e.g. Poll for move Quran → Qur'an or something like that? --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 18:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree, as the editor who made the pole doesn't have much experience. Do what you see reasonable. Just an opinion: it might be better to be as a "revert" instead of "move". AdvertAdam ^talk 18:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Section has been renamed to "Poll to revert move" from objectionable non-NPOV title "Poll to return page to authoritative and long-standing spelling Qur'an" to avoid-dispute --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 04:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The intention was to create an organized section with copies of the votes so that it is clear what the editors' positions are. What was happening is that a single user, William Connelly, was commenting on everyone's votes, obscuring the positions of other editors. This is clearly still ongoing and they are in a small minority. The two "oppose" votes were about opening the poll, which was not what the poll said, and the editors refused to enter oppose votes for the content of the poll. In any case, they were outnumbered. I believe that some editors are intentionally disrupting the poll and creating disorganization to obscure the poll. I request that editors maintain organization. It would be preferable to move all comments about the poll, such as this comment, to another section, so that the actual votes can be seen. Respectfully, Abdullajh (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments on polls are seen in many polls, so it is not a problem. Poll POV is always in bold and original poll can be viewed easily. As Wikipedia is not just democracy, comments on polls help reaching a decision. Though consistent repetitive comments might obscure other editor's position. But Talk-pages are non-editable. So, we shall not move content from one place to other or delete, even not s/he who originally made the comment (except for fast copy-edit but no content reorganization). Only reorganization or edit on previous comments accepted is archiving process. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 04:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Abdullajh: if you're going to assume bad faith (I believe that some editors are intentionally disrupting the poll and creating disorganization to obscure the poll - you seem to be unable to accept that people can, in good faith, hold opinions different from yours), and not even bother spell my name right, could you at least be honest and not write "respectfully", please William M. Connolley (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Notes: - given from history overview

• This page was moved from Qur'an → Quran according to this poll which lasted for 10days
• A discussion of page move Qur'an → Koran occurred in Sept 2009
• Page was moved Quran → Qur'an on 2008-08-15T07:32:15
• Page was moved Qur’an→Quran on 2008-08-15T07:30:45 note the apostrophe previously was ` and not '

--নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 06:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: nafSadh explained that the organization of the votes was unhelpful and votes currently extend across two sections. Six editors support restoration of the page to Qur'an: nafSadh, AdvertAdam, John Hill, Emmetfahy, Til Eulenspiegel, and Abdullajh. Three editors oppose: William M. Connolley, Kauffner, and Quigley. The previous poll used for moving the page to "Quran" had 9 editors in favor of the move and 4 editors opposed to the move. One editor previously in favor of the move, AdvertAdam, finding evidence from authoritative sources, switched his vote, and I, Abdullajh, as well as John Hill, Emmetfahy, and Til Eulenspiegel, did not vote in the earlier poll, so the updated tally for both votes would be 8 editors in favor of "Quran" and 9 editors in favor of "Qur'an". The previous poll was based on raw number of Google hits which has problems, such as the inability to place apostrophes in URLs, and it ignored modern usage in published texts. The poll to return the page to "Qur'an" was opened on 8 May 2011 and is currently open. Respectfully, Abdullajh (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Explanatory Comment I said that, reorganization was incomplete, (though vote in a separate section is better). I asserted that modifying talk page is not a WP policy. Further, this is not a continuation of previous vote, Previous vote was to move Qur'an to Quran. Current vote is to revert the move. Summery of two sections is helpful. I'll request that new polls should be made in this (Poll to revert move) section.--নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 05:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Tag added, day should be counted after tagging date, as it has been added to WP:RM just after the tagging --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 05:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• close as too soon to renominate. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support immediately restoring the apostrophe in Qur'an. The first poll to remove the apostrophe was obviously rushed through in a very few days, by a very small number of editors, before word of this poll got around to the interested parties. As pointed out, there cannot be more than about 3 editors who are listed as against the apostrophe at present, and some of the reasons given so far border on sheer insanity, like "the apostrophe is part of a plot to force us all to respect the Quran." Oh and by the way, I am not a Muslim, and I don't adhere to the Qur'an myself, so please don't accuse me of being part of some paranoid conspiracy to force people to respect it. I'm just telling you the apostrophe is there purely for valid linguistic reasons, and it is correct and accurate with it, and incorrect and inaccurate without it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Just for a note If we write Qur'an it maps back to قرآن while Quran ambiguously maps to قرن which means Century --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 12:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy close Many of the !votes which appear in this section were ‘cast’ before the move request had been made. Clearly an abuse of process. (Personally I slightly prefer Qur’an to Quran, but that is of no moment at this point) Ian Spackman (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The poll was improperly opened without any tag and later it is added to bring it into a process. Like you another editor also noted it as a violation of process. So, what shall be advisable act?

(A) remove the tag

(B) start ACTUAL poll according to a defined process

If B, please denote or refer to process manual.

This discussion has been turned into a mess in its very inception – but is continued due to the importance & seriousness of the issue.

No admin or experienced reviewer's advice is found so far (or not a lot of editors have been aware of this issue). So, some discussing (or apparently quarreling) editors are in dark (that includes me) --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 13:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, nor am I someone who who spends nights awake studying the minutiae of Wikipedia policies and procedures, but I would think that an administrator should be able to close the poll as (in effect) one that has been invalidly constructed. A new poll could then be opened, if someone wanted it to be, and discussion and !voting could commence on that one ab initio. Ian Spackman (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact the best thing what I would probably do in your position (I hadn’t spotted that you were directly involved in formally opening the poll) would be to briefly explain the situation (that you tried, in good faith, to open a move request, but that there are people objecting to the way that it happened) and ask for advice as how best to proceed at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. They will certainly have come across similar situations in the past, and will be only too pleased to see you wanting to follow the established procedures. Hope that helps. Ian Spackman (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Asked for advice in WP:RM talk --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 15:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The template above is misplaced and needs to be taken down. Anybody can do it, you don't need an administer. Create a new section at the bottom of this page, something like ==Requested move: Quran → Qur'an==. Put the {{subst:move|Qur'an}} template in this section, followed by a nomination. The nomination does not need to rehearse the history of previous voting. Just explain why you prefer the proposed title to the existing one. Editors must make fresh votes, together with brief explanations, below the nomination, with each editor casting a vote only on behalf of himself. Kauffner (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: No new rationale given. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

although poll opening paragraph do not have Polls and comments have new rationals --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 17:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Close this sham poll which was created by canvassing, copy and pasting selective "votes" from a past poll, and subverting a recently-affirmed consensus of uninvolved editors to push (what Abdullajh and friends believe to be) an Islamic POV rather than a neutral POV. The English language print media outside of Wikipedia—whether its press, its dictionaries, or its books—are fully demonstrated to use Quran or Koran. Specialists in Arabic language or related fields use a transliteration system that Wikipedia does not use, but use not only an apostrophe but macrons and other specialized symbols. These arguments have been explored in the past poll, and never refuted except through the repeated assertion of untruths and cherry-picked factoids. If this move goes through because of the apathetic and conflict-averse nature of the secular, non-Muslim, and other users dedicated more to policy than to theology, it will be through one of the most blatant and base attacks on Wikipedia's foundations that the project has ever seen. Quigley (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe it has been demonstrated that in modern times "Qur'an" is the most widely used spelling in English (e.g. here), and in any case, that "Quran" is far from meeting the threshold for non-standard primary transliteration given in Wikipedia Manual of Style for Arabic. By the Wikipedia naming conventions, the standard transliteration is to be used unless at least 75% of English references use a particular non-standard transliteration, in which case this non-standard transliteration, called a primary transliteration, should be used instead. Using a standard transliteration is perfectly compatible with both NPOV and Wikipedia policy and it was used for this article for years. It is upsetting that three editors, Quigley, Kauffner, and William M. Connolley, feel very strongly about attempting to associate POVs with particular non-standard spellings. As evidenced by the above comment by Quigley, which is quite uninformed, there is a sense that by using "Quran" they deal a blow to Muslim points of view. This is in itself offensive as Wikipedia is not a battleground. I remind editors to remain composed and to focus on maintaining high standards of scholarship. Respectfully, Abdullajh (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know about the selective voting issue, but your comment is the most idiotic thing I've read on Wikipedia. The notion that introducing these marks would mean pushing an Islamic POV, it's as if the apostrophe is considered holy or sacred by Muslims. Rather than spewing asinine conspiracy theories, I would appreciate you providing an explanation for the claim that Wikipedia doesn't use the transliteration system that is widely used by scholars of Islam or the Middle East and perhaps answering some of the issues I've raised here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Showing the glottal stop is more accurate and more useful. It is also the preferred form used by serious writers (per the Ngram), and used in recent translations and introductory texts (see "Further reading"). There is no point in going against all these reliable sources. The question of which character is used to represent the glottal stop should be deferred for later. For now, we should just return to the long-standing and more useful form used for many years. See also my previous comment. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note amusing double standard. Where it suits him, Wiqi55 regards [8] as authoritative [9]. And how does that spell Quran? Without the "'" William M. Connolley (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Amusing perhaps; logical argument, no. In terms of logic, that is a "fallacy"; any valid points of logic would not hinge on any one editor, but would remain valid regardless. By the way, if the apostrophe is specifically recommended by Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Arabic) as explained below, may I ask are you trying to get that changed as well? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

But don't you think it hypocritical of Wiqi55 to revert based on a source he "knows" is wrong? As to your policy page: did you fail to note the bold heading at the top that said "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference"? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If you pick any recent work on the Qur'an you'll find many instances of archaic spellings, like Alcoran, Koran, Kur'an, etc. But these instances are strictly confined to quotations or to reference lists (often found in titles of older books or sources belonging to a different register, like journalism). If scholarly publications think it is OK to cite sources that use archaic and low-quality spellings, then it shouldn't be any different here on Wikipedia. That said, I was only reverting your unexplained change, and the quality of the source cited wasn't under consideration. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ho ho, no you weren't, you said Wording is per the cited source, which implies you read it. Keep wriggling William M. Connolley (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

But I thought the question under consideration was the best location for this page and not what any editor thinks of another editor. And please, that isn't "my" policy page; I have had nothing to do with it, haven't looked at it lately, and was relying only on the excerpts below. All of which of course is neither here nor there with regard to determining where the page should reside.

• Close? It has been more than a week since last talk occurred in this section and even in this page. This revert move poll is in stand still. We've already been informed that an admin is also watching. I guess closing this talk might be considered. » nafSadh did say 19:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• In such a rush? Already forgotten all the bitter complaints about the "early" closing of the previous poll? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been in stand-still for 8 days. Now I see some more editors are contributing. So, we can wait a bit more. » nafSadh did say 03:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

How does putting an apostrophe in it make English speakers pronounce it differently? An apostrophe in English spelling denotes the omittance of a letter (e.g. have not and haven't). So how do English speakers differentiate between Quran and Qu'ran? What letter is being elided? And how are English speakers supposed to pronounce "qu" without it being followed by a vowell, anyway? This is all political. Strongly oppose any reversion to the apostrophe version. ðarkuncoll 23:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well the letter q is also used to signify a sound in words and names found in Hebrew, Arabic, Phoenician, Assyrian etc. and similar to (but a little sharper than) Greek chi, Scottish ch in Loch, as anyone ought to learn to be knowledgable and educated. The apostrophe likewise approximates a glottal consonant found in names from languages worldwide. We ought to opt for a more accurate standard than jr. World book. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support, Qu'ran is the standard academic spelling, and this is an encyclopedia. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Editors should be aware of the Journal of Qur'anic Studies published by Edinburgh University Press, which is currently the most reputable journal for peer-reviewed English scholarship on the Qur'an. Respectfully, Abdullajh (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Naming Conventions

According to Wikipedia naming conventions, the standard transliteration, "Qur'an", defined precisely in the Wikipedia Manual of Style for Arabic, is to be used for the article name unless there is a non-standard primary transliteration. By definition in the Wikipedia Manual of Style for Arabic, there is a primary transliteration only if at least 75% of all references in English use the same non-standard transcription. "Quran" clearly does not meet this threshold as can be seen by comparative usage in English texts between 1900 and present, demonstrating that usage in English texts is actually very clearly in favor of "Qur'an" over "Quran", especially in the past 20 years with wide margins. Abdullajh (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Qur'an 74:30-31 prophesises 19 hijackers (on 9/11)

"Over hellfire are 19 angels... We have fixed this number only as a trial for unbelievers in order that the People of the Book may arrive at certainty. And the believers may increase in faith and that no doubts may be left for the People of the Book and the believers." - Qur'an 74:30-31 - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.121.70 (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Or we could try reading the verses in their historical and complete context (instead of myopically cherry picking as if America is the center of the universe) and see that it's a general fire-and-brimstone sermon. You might as well take the old Puritan sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and say that it predicts the Waco siege. If you bother reading Quran 74, you'll see that the people in hell were greedy (v15), denied the existence of God but practiced sorcery (v24-25), and were vain (v45). You do realize that numbers are pretty common, right? That 19 occurs in the Quran (from 6/7th century Arabia) doesn't mean it has anything to do with what happened in 21st century America. Why would Muhammed have any concern about America? Why would the 21st century matter, when there's been plenty of centuries before, and there could well be plenty of centuries after? It's short-sighted and honestly selfish to treat 21st century America as the center of the universe.

By the way, where is 9-11 mentioned? It's not!

Also, there are these things called coincidences, which mathematically are not amazing at all. Assuming a base 10 number system was universal, which it isn't (you're lucky Arabic does or I'd call you out on that as well), it's a 1 out of 10 chance that the first digit would match, and a 1 out of 10 chance that the second digit would match. Not that amazing. Considering your comparing such disparate sources (the number of 9-11 hijackers and the Quran), you're bound to find even more. See birthday problem for an example when the sources for numbers extremely and narrowly restricted compared to 9-11 and the Quran.

That aside, we don't take original "research," and we don't take copy-and-pasted chain emails as sources either. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Plain-Text Version?

This article provides links to several excellent looking online projects which have the full text of the Quran, with a variety of commentary and analysis. It is surprising (to me, anyway) that there are no links to full text versions of the Quran (either in English or Arabic), by which I mean a PDF, Word document, or just plain (UTF-8) text. Does anyone know of any available on line? If so, it would be good to add links to them.81.157.195.180 (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The title of this article

Is the correct spelling (in English) not Koran. This article was once, Koran, the Qur'an and now Quran. From my research, admittedly imperfect, Koran is correct. The other spellings represent attempts by some to impose a so-called more 'Arabic' or 'Islamic' way of spelling it. Emmetfahy (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Both terms are equally correct, as far as I know. Technically, the correct name is only 'القرآن‎', but that cannot be perfectly rendered in English, so multiple transliterations will exist, as is common with Arabic. 64.180.40.75 (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and American Heritage all give "Koran". AP style, used by most newspapers, is "Quran". The most widely used translation is titled, The Noble Qurʼan. Kauffner (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The entire argument is silly. We are not the Arabic Wikipedia, or the Romanised Arabic Wikipedia, we are the English Wikipedia, and we use English words here. No need to approximate any foreign spellings or transliterations here. The articles Caliph, Vizier, Fakir and Harem are not titled al-Khalifah, al-Wazir, al-Faqir or Haram. (Note the Anglicised pronunciation of all these words.) Similarly, Koran has been the long-standing English word for the holy book of Islam and should not be seen as an imperfect attempt to transcribe 'القرآن‎' – it is a loanword. Read Loanword. (Also read Exonym and endonym, which is basically about the same thing.) Koran, therefore, is not a "bad" spelling, any more than German "Streik" is a "bad" spelling for strike. It is Anglicised, and if anything, helps the lay reader (who will not know how to pronounce a [q] properly) to approximate the Arabic pronunciation better than Quran or Qur'an (both of which, by the way, omit the article and are thus technically incorrect as well) will ever be able to. Unfortunately, even many academics have a poor understanding of linguistics and insist on an allegedly more "correct" or "scholarly" spelling, although it is of little use, especially in material addressed to the general public, i. e., a lay audience. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As much as what you said bordered on racist, I agree. Koran is the easiest way to say the name for those who aren't able to pronounce it. Maz640-Wikipedian Extraordinaire (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 18 October 2011

I have a question, if you learn quran, do you be a terrorist such as Osama bin-Laden. 184.145.12.210 (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done -- You are answering a nonsense question. You have a lack of understanding here. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean asking, and can we remove this or something? Maz640-Wikipedian Extraordinaire (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Bold text BASIC CONCEPTS Of QURAN------------------

1.TUHID{ ONENESS OF ALLAH i.e GOD ALMIGHTY 2.CREATION from NOTHINGNESS i.AL-NOOR.II. ZULUMAT{BLACK HOLES} iii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslammaslamraj (talk • contribs) 16:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for addition of detail of basic concepts, such as, Creation,Tuhid of.God

Bold text SUB: Wikipedia article "Qur,an" Ref.Introduction The Quran (English pronunciation: /kɒˈrɑːn/ kor-ahn; Arabic: القرآن‎ al-qurʾān, IPA: [qurˈʔaːn],[variations] literally meaning "the recitation"), also transliterated Qur'an, Koran, Alcoran, Qur’ān, Coran, Kuran, and al-Qur’ān, is the central religious text of Islam, which Muslims consider the verbatim word of God[1] (Arabic: الله‎, Allah). It is regarded widely as the finest piece of literature in the Arabic language.[2][3][4][5][6] The Quran is divided into 114 suras of unequal length which are classified either as Meccan or Medinan depending upon their place and time of revelation.[7] { please complete it by adding the following facts] 86 Chapters[surahs]were read to prophet in Meccanian period[13 years] 28 Chapters were read to prophet in Madiniana period[10 years] i.Meccanian chapters teach Creation of All Universe.Solar system Earth,Fertility of Earth. Skies or Atmosphere.etc ii.History of creation of Adam and Eve in full detail. History of all ancient nations and prophets,Creation procedure of humans on earth Long struggle against pagan leaders of Quraish Biography of prophet Muhammad[peace be upon him]Prophet could not read or write. God taught him and He inscribed all of Quran by his hand. and after his death his successor Abubaker inherited his book called Quran.----aslam maslam raj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslammaslamraj (talk • contribs) 16:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable secondary source instead of original research. We need have additional published works attesting to this information to add it. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

verse-2-114 & 2-115.correct translation& asbab-e. nazul according to Quran

Bold text "The Qur'an possesses an external appearance and a hidden depth, an exoteric meaning and an esoteric meaning. This esoteric meaning in turn conceals an esoteric meaning (this depth possesses a depth, after the image of the celestial Spheres, which are enclosed within each other). So it goes on for seven esoteric meanings (seven depths of hidden depth)."[83]

These two verses are relevant to one another.Prophet Muhammad[p.b.u.h] had left Mecca and reached in Valley of QUBA . a place near Medina and all the Muslims who had migrated were residing there.prophet wanted to start Salat to offer prayers to God, but he was not sure to which side he must keep his face. so to guide him .God said by first verse[114] Such wrong doers are Human being that they try to ruin the two Holiest Temples of God. and they do not fear God Almighty and do not pray. [ these are ; one is in Mecca and other is in Jerusalem ] 115. Unto Allah belong that one which is East and the other in west but now you turn your face toward that one which is very faraway. [Fathamma]There is Allah's countenance Allah is pleased with it. Allah is all embracing ,All knowing Asbab-e. nazul from Tafsir Jalallian[Al-Suyuti]page: 7[115] So there should not be any controversy And note that it was Qibla only for short time.After 18 verses Qibla was Ordered to be old one[ Bait-Ullah of Mecca]----aslam maslamraj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslammaslamraj (talk • contribs) 16:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable secondary source instead of original research. We need have additional published works attesting to this information to add it. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

WARNING= Quran's MASSIVELY FALSIFIED INFORMATION on wikipedia articles need CORRECTIONS to every part and line: wikipedia' s Quran entries is totally unqualified for inclusion

svp REVIEW ALL ARTICLES ON ISLAM,QURAN,RELIGIONS,GOD, Etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.213.57.190 (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you give some specific examples of what you believe are problems? And maybe turn quit SHOUTING (typing in all caps is like shouting on the internet). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Most likely either an extreme muslim zealot who thinks this article isn't islamic enough, or an extreme Anti-Islamist who thinks this article isn't harshly critical enough. 64.180.40.75 (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That's baseless and pointless speculation. Fact is this user needed to provide at least some contested content for others to dig into. Wikipedia can't read minds. 94.214.196.189 (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Section 5.2 Ta'wil certain bias.

In this section it states

ta'wil indicates the particular meaning a verse is directed towards. The meaning of revelation (tanzil), as opposed to ta'wil, is clear in its accordance to the obvious meaning of the words as they were revealed. But this explanation has become so widespread that, at present, it has become the primary meaning of ta'wil, which originally meant "to return" or "the returning place". In Tabatabaei's view, what has been rightly called ta'wil, or hermeneutic interpretation of the Quran, is not concerned simply with the denotation of words.

(I would like to state this alone has a certain bias. However regardless of that, this entire section reads poorly and is very hard to understand. I had a mixture of students from my university try and read this paragraph and none of them understood at all what was trying to be communicated. So there are two things that need to be done, Make this understandable by the layman, and to remove such bias. I hope this proves to be constructive criticism of this article.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.43.180 (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's very constructive criticism. Thank you. I can't comment on any 'bias' because I am not familiar with the subject matter (this article is on my watchlist for some reason long ago). What I can say with certainty is that I have read the quoted passage several times now and I have no clear idea on what it is trying to say, either. If you can contribute at all to rewriting this in a more understandable way, then I think that most readers who come across this passage would be very grateful for that. Begoon ^talk 11:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Qur'ān is most accurate not Quran

Wikipedia acknowledging Quran rather than Koran is certainly an improvement, but not entirely correct as those who are familiar with classical Arabic know, the name of the holy book of Islam is (القرآن). I am in favour of the most accurate transliteration Qur'ān. Of course if that is found tedious for typing, Qur'an if a better alternative to Quran just adding ' before "a". Quran that we are using is a step in the right direction, but does not reflect the correct title as it completely disregards the آ in the title of the book القرآن. The best way to get around the difficulty is by adopting Qur'ān and making Qur'an, Quran and Koran as redirects to it werldwayd (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This should be addressed at Wikipedia:Requested moves, which would link to the discussion here. Dru of Id (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Request

Would it be possible to add a section with guidelines how the Quran should be handled/disposed of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.225.212.147 (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 February 2012

In the section headed "Treatment and disposal of the book" - the article states: "many scholars believe that a Muslim must perform a ritual cleansing with water (wudu) before touching a copy of the Quran, or mus'haf, although this view is ubiquitous."

This should end with "although this view is not ubiquitous"

This is because ubiquitous means widely accepted, and so the author has either misunderstood this word or has left out a negative modifier.

94.193.64.24 (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I'm guessing it was present, but was removed by accident or a vandal. I've changed it. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Only Class-B Importance Rating?

Doesn't the Quran rate Class-A importance?

I would think anything less dratically understates its importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.35.95.51 (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The classes represent the quality of the article. The quality of this article is B-Class, it is not a good article. 94.214.196.189 (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

651

Sorry if this seems trivial, but the article 651 claims that the Quaran was written in... well... 651. Is there any real evidence to support that?

150.135.210.20 (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no single date for the writing or revelation of the Quran. You could say that it may have been compiled then.VR _talk 06:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Italics

For some reason, the first paragraph is all in italics - I looked at the code, but can't see the reason why. Probably there is an italic tag (or two ') in one of the top templates. -Stevertigo (t | c) 07:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Questionable Neutrality

The article claims "which Muslims consider the verbatim word of God". This is a fundamentalist view and in violation of the wikipedia neutrality policy. Any news site reveals many self-identified muslims that do in fact not believe the quran word for word is literally true.

The article suffers from neutrality issues through and through. (For instance the next sentence claims "It is regarded widely as the finest piece of literature in the Arabic language.[2][3][4][5][6]"; These sources are not meta-studies, and are arguably biased. A companion to a literary work generally praises it for instance.). A great many citations are missing also.

I would propose a revision of at least parts of this article, preferably by someone knowledgeable on the subject. 94.214.196.189 (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been a while now, someone should step in and take care of this neutrality issue. A better alternate phrasing would be: "which many Muslims consider the word of God"

So: Please change "which Muslims consider the verbatim word of God" to "which many Muslims consider the word of God" 94.214.196.189 (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The current text is supported by the source. You would need to provide a reliable source which supports "many Muslims". Thanks, Celestra (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering the current source apparently is a reliable source, and only a single account of dissent is needed to show saying 'all' is wrong. It logically follows to change all to most, or many. All can not be maintained. Also your reasoning is roundabout. If a muslim is someone who believes the quran is the verbatim word of god. Then naturally all muslims must do so. Then where do all the 'muslims' go that do not believe the book is true word for word? This hardly seems conform the editing standards in other wikipedia articles on religion. Which can be said to be questionable neutrality. Finally the Encyclopedia Brittanica itself does not list reliable sources for the origins of this statement. Just religious texts and literary books. No research has been cited. It seems to be the opinion of the principal author of the entry on that website. Who himself is a source of questionable neutrality. 94.214.196.189 (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add that a single questionable source (An encyclopedia does not constitute a source itself anyway) is not sufficient justification for such a blanket statement. It merely mentions what is copied here into Wikipedia, without supporting it. Perhaps it should be removed altogether until it can be supported by evidence. This is just cherry-picking from a source who has a vested interest in this sentence being true. 94.214.196.189 (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

- reply from another user - "An encyclopedia does not constitute a source". Oh really? An encyclopedia is not a source? It is a book well sourced, based on many many sources. Who are you to discredit a major encyclopedia, and claim it is less accurate than your own opinon? Who is cherry picking now? - end of reply -. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.61.82 (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

- reply from another user - there is no source which has the authority and knowledge to know the beliefs and thoughts of 1600 million muslims. I agree the sentence should be changed to add the word "many" and to be more realistic and accurate. Claiming all muslims believe in the same thing, and literal truth of everything in the quran is false. And I have spoken to muslims who themselves say that all muslims do not believe in the same thing, and that they do not believe all of the quran to be literal truth. So change the verse to be more conservative and realistic, and not claiming things that are impossible to know. - end of reply -. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.61.82 (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: If you are correct, which wouldn't surprise me, then it should not be difficult for you to find a reliable source which supports your request. I would point out, though, that the article does not say 'all' Muslims, it simply says Muslims. The strawmen you are arguing against are not implied by the current text. Imagine that the sentence said "This is the XYZ mosque, which Muslims use as a place of worship". Would you think that implied that only persons who worship at the XYZ mosque were 'true' Muslims? Please don't bother arguing against the current source. Just take a few minutes to find a source which supports your position. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

While I understand what you mean to convey, textually this is exactly what it says. If you do not mean all, you have to denominate that. Example: Multi-cellular life consists out of animals and plants. Light is electromagnetic radiation. All is most definitely always implied in this textual construction. Also, instead of requesting a change in that sentence, I changed my argument to contest the validity of that sentence to begin with - which is more sensible given the nature of the conflict. It is not up to encyclopedic standards. I sought to amend that by including the word 'most', so it no longer makes a blanket statement for which there is no support, neither will it conflict anymore with public muslim entities that do not take the qu'ran as the verbatim word of god. The fact that there are many interpretations of the qu'ran (four major ones) even today, already shows this is a complete nonsense statement. Perhaps it would be nice if a second opinion could be obtained by someone other than you. I might be interesting to dig into some of my books to look up some exact references, but then again I am more someone who contests the validity of claims, rather than supplementing an altered / different claim. Again: this claim is not in an encyclopedic way supported by its 'source', neither is it logically coherent. 94.214.196.189 (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

--- I'm Muslim and am very curious to know which Muslim doesn't believe the "Qur'an is the literal word of God". I'm well aware of any sects and differences of opinions, but have never come across the one above. It's one of the most basic beliefs for every Muslim (like the belief there is only One God). So yeah, do you have proof any Muslims out there don't believe the Qur'an is the literal word of God?

I'm a Muslim and I don't believe the qu'ran is the literal word of god. Either way, the claim on this page is that muslims do believe this, this claim needs to be supported by evidence - which it isn't (see above), a negative need not be proven. 94.214.196.189 (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 March 2012

in colum "Treatment and disposal of the book" please remove Burning as solution to dispose a quran because burning a Quran is not allowed by Islam. Thankyou

- reply from another user - What did Uthman do? uh huh huh huh. Burned and destroyed all non standard qurans after he created his Uthman standardised quran! - end of reply-. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.61.82 (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Kh.faheem (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The source for that text says otherwise. This may be a matter of dispute between various groups, and if you'd like to suggest a way to express that better, based on the current source or others that you supply, please re-open the request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 July 2012

Please delete " But no 100% Muslims faiths of complete Quran . Because there are several versions with different bugs and mistakes like singular/Plural, coming and going, He/She/We and so on and many things are missing like Surah Tehreem (66) nothing Hazrat Aysha (one the wives of Prohpet).[44][45]" at the of heading "Compiling the Mus'haf" - It does not make sense and I think this person is trying to express a view which has not been proven to be historically accurate - the sources quoted are bias. FAREED HARE (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Already done Looks like it's already gone. Rivertorch (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 July 2012

Under Ta'wil...

According to Shia beliefs, those who are firmly rooted in knowledge like the Prophet and the imams know the secrets of the Quran. According to Tabatabaei, the statement "none knows its interpretation except Allah" remains valid, without any opposing or qualifying clause. Therefore, so far as this verse is concerned, the knowledge of the Quran's interpretation is reserved for God. But Tabatabaei uses other verses and concludes that those who are purified by God know the interpretation of the Quran to a certain extent.[77] As Corbin narrates from Shia sources, Ali himself gives this testimony:

Please add reference from the Quran itself, as follows:

According to Shia beliefs, those who are firmly rooted in knowledge like the Prophet and the imams know the secrets of the Quran. According to Tabatabaei, the statement "none knows its interpretation except Allah" (3:7 ) remains valid, without any opposing or qualifying clause. Therefore, so far as this verse is concerned, the knowledge of the Quran's interpretation is reserved for God. But Tabatabaei uses other verses and concludes that those who are purified by God know the interpretation of the Quran to a certain extent.[77] As Corbin narrates from Shia sources, Ali himself gives this testimony:

Ebragardenhim (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Mdann52 (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Moved section from Al-Alak

I moved the following part from Al-Alak to here. It can be inserted to the article if you think that it is related to here. Baharyakin (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Mathematical Structure in Quran Suras based on number 19 In 1974 Rashad Khalifa claimed to have found a mathematical structure in the Quran that is based on the number 19. He also claimed that this structure of 19 is interwoven throughout the Quran and they are like the signature from its author. Various Muslim organisations however have criticised Khalifa's studies, accusing him of spreading heresy.

- reply from another user - The number of verses in surah 9 is 129. This breaks his code of 19, it makes the total number of verses in the quran 6236, 2 more than his total number of verses required to fit his code. So he has said surah 9 should have 127 verses, he changes the number of verses in the quran, to fit his code. To make his code work. :) Therefore. His code doesn't work without breaking the existing quran. Therefore this is a guy who made a code, and then tried to make the quran fit to it, and changed the quran when necessary, to make it fit his code. Instead of accepting that the code does not work. - end of reply -. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.61.82 (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Seal #4: S=19 (18.6) Theory - A Simple Repetitive Pattern/Fractal confirms the great significance of the #19, i.e. Metonic cycle = 19 tropical years = 6940 days = 235 synodic months = 254 sidereal months. There were 19 9/11 hijackers: "Over Hellfire are 19 angels" - Qur'an 74:30. See Qur'an 19:19. Re: Surah 9 having 129 verses, who decided this? Muhammad(74=M13+U21+H8+A1+M13+M13+A1+D4) certainly did NOT! I agree with Khalifa that Surah 9 should be reexamined and redesigned to 127 verses to correctly portray the sacred geometry encoded by GOD in the Qur'an. - Ben Hirt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.11.183 (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The numbers in Quran must be corrected with Veyselic Numbers.

OR Redacted
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
SHOULD WE FIX THE NUMBERS IN QUR'AN WITH VEYSELIC NUMBERS? Is there a contradiction/discrepancy in Arabic Language, being a BiDirectional Language?...? VEYSELIC NUMBERS ARE ARABIC NUMBERS WRITTEN FROM RIGHT TO LEFT. MOST SIGNIFICANT DIGITS ARE ON THE RIGHT. FOR EXAMPLE NUMBER TEN IS .I I STATE THAT, THE NUMBERS IN THE HOLY QURAN MUST BE CORRECTED WITH VEYSELIC NUMBERS. WHY?? HERE IS A SHORT EXPLANATION: Allah is El Waheed, Ehad. Therefore 1 symbolizes Allah. There are two directions; Right is superior to Left(according to Quran). There are two numbers; 1 and 0, where one of them(0) depend on the other(1). Zero is nothing/does not exist without 1 Creatures are nothing without Allah(Es Samed), they all prostrate to Allah, willingly or unwillingly. They are created as pairs. Creatures do exis, but only when thay depend on Allah. Therefore 0 symbolizes creatures(note that zero is and even number). Allah and his creatures exist, and creatures all prostrate to Allah when they come in front of Allah. Therefore, when 1 and 0 come together, zero must accept the greatness of Allah, obey his commands, and stand on the left. The number ten must be written as 01 (or .I) According to the hands creatures are created with: Allah has a right hand. Adam is created with two hands. From that I understand that Angels and Satan are created with one hand. Which hand probably created Satan and which hand is probably created Angels. Most probably, hand number 0 created Satan, and hand numbers 1(right hand) created Angels. Angels are commanded to prostrate to Adam. 1's are commanded to prostrate to 2 (Numbers are according to hands created.) 1's are commanded to accept the greatness of 2. (1 already stated that angels are 1's, and Iblis is zero, and 1 is greater than zero(when he declared them the names of all the things)). Therefore 0 is obliged to accept also the gratness of 2. That is why, being a Jinn, Iblis is kept responsible to a command given to Angels. Adam has been created with to hands, hand number 0 and hand number 1. He has also two hands, hand number 1(right) and hand number 0(left). Now, if he chooses to put his right hand forward, i.e. he prefers his right hand over his left hand, i.e. if he orders the hands like 01 i.e. if he chooses Haqq, then he is from ashabul-yemin, and he will go to heaven. If he chooses to put his left hand forward, i.e. he prefers his left hand over his right hand, i.e. if he orders the hands like 10, i.e. if he chooses Baatil, then he is from ashabul-shimal, he will burn in the hell. I am not saying that "People writing ten like "10" will go to hell". No. I am pointing the parallelizm/analogy between numbers and concepts. And I insist that, Veyselic Numbers must be used, at least, in the Mus-haf pages. May be now time has come for such a change in the history of mankind. To fixate the so called "Arabic Numbers". Detailed info can be found at [redacted] Veyselperu (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you (1) suggesting that any numerals in this article should be reversed? (2) implying that left-handed people are going to hell? (3) simply trying to drive traffic to your personal web site? Rivertorch (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

VeyselPeru: (1)Yes, I suggest that every number in every where should be reversed, but it is nearly impossible now, instead I suggest that the numbers in Mushafs should be reversed, because as it is now, there is contradiction in mushafs, words are RTL but numbers are LTR. (2) I am not implying that left-handed people are going to hell. (I am also left-handed person.:) I am saying that the people preferring the evil(left) over good(right) will go to hell, who are unthankful and unfaithful people. (3) Yes, I desire to drive traffic to my personal website [ redacted ], because I want more and more people to learn the contradiction in mushafs and to correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veyselperu (talk • contribs) 08:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Your personal site does not count as a reliable source, and Wikipedia is not here for you to promote your beliefs. We do not care if you think that numbers are in the wrong order, our readers are most familiar with the existing Western Arabic numeral system and so we use that one as well.

Wikipedia is not here for you to promote your site or your beliefs. If that is all you're here for, you will not not welcomed. If you want to help build the encyclopedia by doing things such as neutrally summarizing (as defined here) reliable sources (as defined here), or correcting real spelling errors, or contributing relevant images, etc, you are welcome. Promoting your site and beliefs: bad. Building the encyclopedia: good. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

		Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz"
		I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on Abraham → Ibrahim as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)