Talk:Surah

Points

Wonderful article! This is definitely a very useful reference the way this page and the pages it links to are developing.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:36, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Can someone please add details of the additional Suras? Pope Benedict, in his Sept 07 speech that caused a lot of outrage in the Muslim world, cited Sura 2,256: 'There is no compulsion in religion.' Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.72.49 (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ayat

Would anyone object to my removing the linking of the word ayat after each Surah? I say this because it is listed in the introduction and there so there is no point in linking it each time is there? granted this is a list and not a typical article. Well, give your opinions.

Fair enough, if you can be bothered! ;) - Mustafaa 23:42, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just did it, I was supposed to feel fulfilled yet I only feel more empty. :( meaning, since it was a list maybe it looked better before. I know in paragraphs too many links makes it worse, but here maybe it didn't. I don't know. Someone else feel free to judge (and revert if they want).

Well, if it's any comfort, I'm very grateful that you added the numbers of ayat. That makes a real difference. - Mustafaa 11:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

good job. dab (ᛏ) 11:39, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sura template

Dbachmann made Template:sura in order for us to easily change all of the sura linking at once instead of having to change each individual page. Anyone who want can begin to change over the html that is now in the pages to use the template if they wish, an example is already done with Al-Fatiha.
Usage: {{Sura|Nr|preceding|following}}, and you get:

Thanks gren

Oh, I finished before I left. Ok. gren

fr:Sourate

I think I will try to make a (although than prettier) table like on the French page and also I will try to read through the information to see how much of it should be added at the intro. I am not the best at translating or reading French but I will try and of course corroborate anything with sources in my native language. gren 05:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, any of the pages that have lists better than ours will be a good model... like the German or Netherlands. Why does Germany have a list and a page for what sura is. gren 06:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think I'm the only one who reads this but I have started editting the Dutch version here ([[1]]) and any help would be fine... also, translation of the footnotes would be a great help so I don't have to just remove them. Thanks. gren 17:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi gren, maybe I could help you out here, as I am the one that wrote the footnotes on the dutch version...Let me know if you still need my help, drop me a line here: [[2]] (I'm rarely online on the english wiki). MartijnL 12:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ayat

Is it appropriate to have articles specifically for Ayah 1, Ayah 2, Ayah 3, ... Ayah 6000.... etc. ?

There is a VfD discussing this as a precedent - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses. 2 July 2005 14:54 (UTC)

Removing full text

Wikisource is the place for full text, not wikipedia. Going by the decision to remove the full text of NT bible chapters, and instead link to wikisource, I have been doing the same for the Surahs. I wanted to make sure that this wasn't going to be controversial, and perhaps enlist some help in implimenting the necessary changes. I might also propose deleting the stub articles that have no content, such as

"Surat Al-Muminun (Arabic: سورة المؤمنون ) (The Believers) is the 23rd sura of the Qur'an with 118 ayat."

That information can be found on the main Sura page, and I believe redlinks from the main list will show users which pages have expansive articles and which ones are 'stubs' without having to click on every link (for example, look at the chapter template on the Gospel of John article.)--Andrew c 19:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur; it appears that the place for the relating Sura are in Wikisource, not here; the appropriateness here is not a reflection of worth.Mavigogun (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Suwar or suras ?

Apparently, the plural of the word sura is suwar. I'd like to use suwar, but maybe suras is so ingrained in the English language that suras may even be the correct plural of sura. Can someone clarify this ? MP (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The correct plural of sura (more correctly sūrah) is sūrāt (suraat using only standard lettering?) Glyns 22:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That's odd, I was quite sure that it was suwar, not surat. I don't think the plural of sura is jama' mudhakir salim jama' mu'anith salim.195.229.236.213 18:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The plural of sura is suwar, with short vowel sounds for the "u" and the "a", not suraat. You would say "suwar(u) Juz'(i) Amma," the suwar of Juz' Amma. Perhaps in English it should be listed as Suras, to keep with the normal method of pluralizing nouns in English by adding an "s". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.227.70 (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of irregular plurals in English -goose/geese, child/children, etc; perhaps a brief word of explanation next to the first instance of the plural would be sufficient to allow us to keep the nuance and flavor of the language...?Mavigogun (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added the term suwar at the top (as it is correct, as far as i can tell) but used "suras" in the article, as I believe this to be the commonly used English word for the plural. MPatel ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sura page naming

Some user recently changed Al-Fatiha to Surah Al-Fatihah. I reverted because of a lack of discussion but I figured it's a worthwhile question. I know other languages seek "sura" as the prefix as part of the naming... do you think we should? And, when should we add the 'h' Is there a scholarly form of tranliteration we should adhere to? I know some adhere to the "International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies" but... I am not sure how transliteration would even work through that system. Any ideas? gren グレン 08:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Been debating about this one myself. I prefer to write things like "sura Al-Fatiha". Not sure if this is generally the way it's written in English. The 'h' you're referring to, do you mean for sura(h) or Fatiha(h) ? I'm not an expert on Arabic, so I would need to check up on the details of Arabic grammar and transliteration to English. Perhaps someone out there can help with this point of transliteration. MPatel ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sura or Surrah

Perhaps the other transliteration should also be mentioned. Lots of Indian Muslims transliterate as "Surrah" in addition to "Sura" to avoid confusion with the Sanskrit/Hindu phrase "Sura" or "Sur" (Man). Hkelkar 13:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's already there. Hkelkar 13:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

rukus??

what does rukus mean? I know Aya (Ayat) and Hezb (Ahzab) but what is a rukus exactly? Habibko (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See: Ruku'; it's how many times you bow during recitation / prayer with the verse. gren グレン 05:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Surah An-Noor?

I always thought this was a Madinan Surah - matter of fact, I have a kittab here that differentiates
between Makan and Madinan. So, I changed it to what it should be.

Al-Mumtahina or Al-Mumtahana?

The name of sura 60 is transliterated as "Al-Mumtahina", but its meaning suggests that "Al-Mumtahana" should be correct. I checked several printed copies of Medina Mushaf and realized that the name was originally written as Al-Mumtahina, but in recent prints, the Kasra below Hah has been removed: in some cases Hah came with a Fatha, and in majority of cases it remained diacritic-less. Any idea? ----Hamid (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Order and length

I have heard that the suras are roughly in order by length, with the sura having the fewest verses coming last. Also I've heard that typically a student memorizing the Qur'an will start at the end of the book, with the shortest suras. My questions are:

1. Is this generally regarded as true, within the Islamic scholarly community - or among Arabic-speaking Muslims generally?
2. Has anyone publicly denied this - particularly in English?
3. Is this a matter of dispute between pro-Muslim and anti-Muslim sources? That is, do supporters and opponents of Islam disagree on the "order of the suras" issue?

If there's no controversy, then I'd like to mention something about the order of the suras in the article. I'd even like to have a table listing each sura and its length.

But if there's a controversy, maybe we have to do something different? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nos of Ayat

There are to tally 6666 Ayat (Verses) in The Holy Qur'an, and as per the table and Wikipedia's information the figure is 6236, which is wrong. Wikipedia Authorities please update the Information and Table with the correct Answers. --eimtiyaz (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Source please? Shaad lko (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The best source in this world to tistify is The Holy Qur'an itself. Dont believe the other books or online sources, they all may be fake or half of the truth like this one. The people who never gone through The Holy Qur'an, are not suppose to say or wright something about The Pious Book. So my only suggestion is that please refer the The Holy Qur'an itself, and you will come to know about the truth. And mind that this is the matter of the belief and the religion. --eimtiyaz (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

WP relies on secondary sources - please see this manual Shaad lko (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds crazy... WP relies on the fake or half truth secondary sources (which may misguide the world about truth) instead of The Holy Qur'an, while the subject is in The Holy Qur'an itself. --eimtiyaz (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

For my own information, where in the Quran is the number of ayat written? Shaad lko (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Lol... It's not written there in The Holy Qur'an that there are 114 Sur'ah (Chapters), but the people have counted it thats why we all know it better. So do the same for Ayats, and I'm pretty sure you will come to know about the truth. --eimtiyaz (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Separate articles ?

I think this article has scope for expansion. Some ideas for expansion:

• Some suras were revealed piecemeal whereas others were revealed whole.

• Suras revealed for specific circumstances (e.g. Sura 96 ("Iqra", etc.))

• More info. on present order of suras.

• Suras being paired together or grouped together around a certain theme or themes (e.g. last 2 suras, but there are many more examples).

In view of this, perhaps we can discuss creating an article List of suras in the Quran (or something similar), so that that article can be classed as list-class. Then the article Sura can be an article in itself. MPatel ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your contention. Shaad lko (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Mathematical Structure in Quran Suras based on number 19 (Over it is Nineteen)

Peace be upon you (Salamun Alaikum), Insha Allah I propose to include the following,

http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/appendices/appendix1verify.html

1. The Quran consists of 114 suras, which is 19 x 6. http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/vp/fact02.PDF

2. The Basmalah occurs 114 times, despite its conspicuous absence from Sura 9 (it occurs twice in Sura 27) & 114 = 19 x 6. http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/vp/fact21.PDF

3. From the missing Basmalah of Sura 9 to the extra Basmalah of Sura 27, there are precisely 19 suras.http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/vp/fact22.PDF

4. Sura 96, first in the chronological sequence, consists of 19 verses.http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/vp/fact05.PDF

5. Sura 96 consists of 304 Arabic letters, and 304 equals 19 x 16.http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/miracle/simplefacts_tables_sura96.html

6. The famous first revelation (96:1-5) consists of 19 words.http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/vp/fact03.PDF

7. This 19-worded first revelation consists of 76 letters 19 x 4.http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/vp/fact04.PDF

8. The last revelation (Sura 110) consists of 19 words.http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/vp/fact08.PDF

9. The first verse of the last revelation (110:1) consists of 19 letters.http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/vp/fact09.PDF

10. The total of the 29 suras http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/miracle/simplefacts_tables.html#table16 numbers where the Quranic Initials occur is 2+3+7+...+50+68 = 822, and 822+14 http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/miracle/add19.php?number=822+14(14 sets of initials) equals 836, or 19 x 44.

11. 14 different Arabic letters http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/vp/fact51.PDF, form 14 different sets of "Quranic Initials" (such as A.L.M. of 2:1 http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/noframes/ch2.html#1), and prefix 29 suras. These numbers add up to 14+14+29 http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/miracle/add19.php?number=14+14+29 = 57= 19 x 3.

12. Between the first initialed sura (Sura 2) and the last initialed sura (Sura 68) there are 38 un-initialed suras 19 x 2. http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/miracle/simplefacts_tables.html#table17

13. Between the first and last initialed sura there are 19 sets http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/miracle/simplefacts_tables.html#table17 of alternating “initialed” and “uninitialed” suras.

These can be Insha Allah also be found in any Quran and can be easily verified.

(DukhanSmoke (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC))

Original Research of this kind is not suitable for Wikipedia- kindly read Wikipedia:No_original_research. Shaad lko (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Peace be upon you Shaad Iko, Thanks and may God bless you for your prompt response and link to study. Based on this I submit that, God Willing, you would be satisfied from the verifiable facts below that the links are from and based on published findings of Rashad Khalifa, Ph.D. from 1982 to 1990 would also meet the Wikipedia criteria.

(i) The pdf links are from http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/vp/book_cover.pdf bearing ISBN 0-934894-30-2 and Library of Congress Card No. is 82-0833551 (Copyrights 1982 by Islamic Productions, Tucson AZ USA by Rashad Khalifa, Ph.D. ).

(ii) Additionally all the links are from and based on Appendix 1 of the Authorized English Version translated from the Original by Rashad Khalifa, PhD. copyright © Islamic Productions – please refer:

(a)http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/index.html ,

(b) http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/appendices/index.html and

(c) http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/appendices/appendix1verify.html (only this link was mentioned on the top of the discussion page).

(d) http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/appendices/appendix23.html to show the 1st and last revelations.

(iii) there are many other independent, verifiable, reliable confirmations apart from http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/United_Submitters_International , for example:

(a) http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Rashad_Khalifa states Khalifa's first publicized report in the Arab world appeared in the Egyptian magazine Akher Sa'a, in January, 1973. Updates of his research were subsequently published by the same magazine later that year and again in 1975: • ^ Akher Sa'a magazine, Egypt, January 24, 1973. • ^ Akher Sa'a magazine, Egypt, November 28, 1973. • ^ Akher Sa'a magazine, Egypt, December 31, 1975.

(b) Book written by Cesar Adib Majul, Ph.D., Former Dean, Institute of Islamic Studies, University of the Philippines regarding the 19 based Mathematical Structure of Quran: http://books.google.com/books/about/The_names_of_Allah_in_relation_to_the_ma.html?id=pntCAAAACAAJ and https://catalog.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=973897&DB=local and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cesar_Adib_Majul

(c) http://www.universityofcalicut.info/syl/Islamic.pdf the University of Calicut India also proves the relevance of mathematics and 19 in the Quran (module VI page 13).

If you still have any concerns, please inform. Thanks.

(DukhanSmoke (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC))

Peace be upon you all, I presume that my post of 16:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC) meets the satisfaction of the editors and Wikipedia and now it can appear on the main article page, before I include the 13 items of this post on the main page I felt prudent checking with the contributors that there is no more concerns, so please let me know. I God Willing intend to upload in another 36 hrs time. Peace (DukhanSmoke (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC))

Yeah, I think it should be included though commensurate with the overall length of the article - WP:UNDUE. Or maybe a good idea is to have a summary here, and a separate article which goes in detail about the mathematical structure. Shaad lko (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Peace be upon you Shaad lko, your suggestion is well taken, God Bless you. Thanks. God Willing, (a) only facts that are verifiable and are not the original researches shall be presented and (b) will go with your suggestion to summarize the items as much as possible so that the detailed ones relevant to each Suras go in individual Chapters. Peace.

(DukhanSmoke (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

The more I look at this the more it seems to me to be given undue weight. It appears that Khalifa's work is a minority viewpoint. I would prefer to see a sentence about the work of Khalifa and the material being included in his article rather than here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your observation with me (a new editor). God willing, I am submitting below:

(a) data and facts which you may find acceptable. If you have further reservations or disputes, please do advise;

(b) after the above, I propose to remove the modified section on the page and replace with a document presented below for which reliable sources are included;

A. The data in items 1 to 8 presented on the main page is based on Quran data, reference texts commonly accepted and widely used by mainstream Muslims worldwide [apart from Quran: The Final Testament by Rashad Khalifa USI Appendix 1]. These include:

(a) http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Quran [please see 3rd sentence – confirming 114 Suras (Chapters).

(b) http://al-quran.info/?x=y#&&sura=24&aya=1&trans=en-marmaduke_pickthall&show=both,quran-uthmani&ver=2.00 http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Marmaduke_Pickthall (There are numerous other Quran that can be accessed from that page.

( c) http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Quranic_Arabic_Corpus and its resource http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp

(d) http://tanzil.net/wiki/ : "Compatibility: Our Uthmani Quran text is completely matching the Medina Mushaf." {"The Medina Mushaf (officially: Mushaf al-Madinah an-Nabawiyyah, Arabic: مصحف المدينة النبوية) is an authentic copy of the holy quran printed by King Fahad Complex for Printing of the Holy Quran"}. The link below would prove that the above referred Tanzil.net is very widely used: http://tanzil.net/wiki/Who_is_using_Tanzil%3F

B. The reliable sources for the items 1 to 8 presented on the main page are: {Please note that superscript #s (6) to (14) appearing below are those from the main page}

1. The Quran consists of 114 suras, which is 19 x 6[6]

2. The Basmala occurs 114 times, despite its conspicuous absence from sura 9, it occurs twice in sura 27.[7]

3. From the missing Basmala of sura 9 to the extra Basmala of sura 27, there are precisely 19 suras.[8]

[Items 1 to 3 above are based for example on abovementioned A (a) to (d)]

4. The total of the 29 sura numbers where the Quranic Initials occur is 2 + 3 + 7 +...+ 50 + 68 = 822, and 822 + 14 (14 sets of initials]) equals 836, or 19 x 44.[9][10][11]

5. 14 different Arabic letters, form 14 different sets of Quranic Initials (such as A.L.M. of 2:1), and prefix 29 suras. These numbers add up to 14 + 14 + 29 = 57 = 19 x 3.[10][12][13]

6. Between the first initialed sura (sura 2) and the last initialed sura (sura 68) there are 38 uninitialed suras 19 x 2.[14]

7. Between the first and last initialed sura there are 19 sets of alternating initialled and uninitialed suras.[14]

8. The first Sura 96 and the last Sura 110 revealed demonstrate similar phenomenon of mathematical structure based on the number 19.

[Items 4 to 8 above are based for example on abovementioned A (a) to (d) as also http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Muqatta'at]

C. God willing, look forward to having your kind and early response. Thanks once again.

(DukhanSmoke (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC))

I'm not too worried about the sources. My concern is if most Muslims agree with his findings or just a small number of people. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Peace be upon you. Thanks for clarifying your concern.

1. In my proposal of 26 November 2011 I accept that I had not made any mention of Dr. Khalifa and my intention is to improve the page by sharing what is obvious and relevant aspects of Quran Suras – both for Muslims (who accept the Quran as God’s words) as well as those who do not accept the Quran as such.

2. I appeal to you and Wikipedia to equitably consider submissions below based on your good logic, judgment, thoughtfulness, common sense and consideration and advise me:

(a) Am I right in understanding that:

(i) this Sura (Chapter) page would be of interest to “Muslims” (English: Submitters to God) as well as those who do not submit to God. (ii) in ascertaining the emphasis of the contents of this page in the English version of Wikipedia, those who do not access, use, nor read English would be excluded?

(b) Please clarify if (and why) you believe that most Muslims now and be in the near future are:

(i) biased and have closed minds to accepting and agreeing with the verifiability, reliability of sources of Quran data, reference texts commonly accepted and widely used – merely because the extraordinary Mathematical Structure in Quran Suras based on number 19 were initially found by a particular individual? Do you believe that they will not agree with valuable or modern information, merely because one associated with discovery thereof was now not popular etc.? [Even though proclaimed by Ahmed Deedat http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ahmed_deedat for example as a great servant of Islam few years ago for the same proven facts.,

(ii) led by numerous opposing & dissenting, non-cohesive, cultural, religious sects, political, military leaders, kings & dictators with significant limitations on access to modern scientific knowledge and freedoms, denial of women’s rights, peer pressure, terrorism and such.

( c) In the context of (b) (ii) above, would you take the views of those in power & control over the Muslim people of different sects etc., as the beliefs of the people? Also if the extraordinary Mathematical Structure in Quran was disapproved by those in control of the Muslim people, why do you expect the silent majority to risk a great deal to proclaim their support & agreement to you?

I trust the above answers to the points that you are looking for however if there are still concerns left that needs addressing will be, God willing, I will be happy to discuss. Peace (DukhanSmoke (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC))

Peace be upon you. God willing, I submit some more points below to show reasons why the majority of those who believe that the Quran is God’s words do not disagree with the extraordinary Mathematical Structure in Quran Suras based on number 19:

1. None of the sources* which are “mainstream” and verifiable, reliable Quran data, reference texts commonly accepted and widely used have anything to express their opposition to the Mathematical Structure in Quran Suras based on number 19; for example to my knowledge No “Fathwas” etc. have been issued against Mathematical Structure in Quran Suras based on number 19 [*referred to in my post of 19:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC) – items A. (a) to (d) above].

2. I have just noticed for example that the “mainstream” Shia Sect (in Iraq, Iran, some Arab States and other parts of the world) have:

(a) been also using the King Fahd based Tanzil.net resources Quran.net which confirm the extraordinary Mathematical Structure in Quran Suras based on number 19

(b) stated in the footnotes to the Initialed verses at the beginning of specific Suras (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Muqatta'at) for example that the secrets relating to the Initials in Quran would in terms be known / available only from those chosen by God. http://quran.al-islam.org/, you will have to look for "Pooya/M.A. Ali Engl. commentaries" for Sura 2 Verse 1 excerpt below from his commentary,

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 2:1] Many interpretations have been forwarded and manipulated by some commentators, but they are all based upon conjecture, devoid of any definite authority. According to the holy Imams these letters are a means of reaching the higher realms of true knowledge, available in the verses of the Quran, but the domain of sublime confidences are reserved only for the chosen representatives of Allah.

I trust the above further answers the points that you are looking for however if there are still concerns left that needs addressing, please do inform and God willing, I will be happy to discuss. Thank you. (DukhanSmoke (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC))

Peace be upon you,

Following are some of the additional links that may facilitate your verification for points 2 (a) and (b) of my post 08:38, 21 December 2011

For 2 (a):

http://www.al-islam.org/alpha.php, http://quran.al-islam.org/ an effort of the Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project http://www.al-islam.org/search.php?selected_tab=browse&having=1031832&cat=0&sid=598615064 http://www.al-islam.org/index.php?sid=909639464&=176&cat=176 http://chnm.gmu.edu/worldhistorysources/d/93.html

For 2 (b):

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mahdi_Puya

If there are still concerns left that need addressing, please do inform and God willing, I will be happy to discuss. Thank you.

(DukhanSmoke (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC))

Peace,

God willing, to facilitate you, I wish to consolidate and thus simplify my submissions for the issues raised. Please therefore consider that:

(a) the basic content of the Mathematical Structure in Quran Suras based on number 19 is not a matter of any issues or view points. A small illustration – Wikipedia / you may not find a single Quran (which is agreed by Muslims as the word of God), which does not consists of 114 suras http://tanzil.net/#114:1, which is 19 x 6 (the 1st point of the 8 points presented and under discussion);

(b) These facts are merely objective data about the Quran Suras -- and of interest to any researcher of Quran, Muslim or non-Muslim;

(c) the 8 points presented on the page are also based on links etc., additionally presented above (in response to your concerns). These are based on independent, verifiable, reliable, undisputed Quran data, reference texts commonly accepted by those in control of web sites and Quran printings etc. of Sunnis and Shias too, and widely used by “mainstream” Muslims worldwide;

(d) to my knowledge, none of these above sources have produced any verifiable evidence nor have they have expressed on their sites etc. any “Fathwas” / oppositions which may cause you concerns against the clear points of Mathematical Structure in Quran Suras based on number 19;

(e) the silent and quiet majority of users of this page (presently or in the near future) would not have any logical reasons nor be barred by any prohibitions, threats etc. against verifying and agreeing with the incontrovertible facts about extraordinary Mathematical Structure in Quran Suras based on number 19 . This is particularly so when just a few years ago it is obvious that this Mathematical Structure of the Quran received wide agreement, publicly, acceptance and proclamations by those in "control" of the majority those believing the Quran as the word of God – thus inviting the users of this page and others to individually verify and agree / accept the same based on the above quoted sources; Muslims with modern minds would logically be more curious to verify / investigate anything / person prohibited;

(f) Wikipedia and you, could you please equitably apply your good logic, judgment, thoughtfulness, common sense and consideration to accept that the Mathematical Structure in Quran Suras based on number 19 presented above is not disputed etc.

(g) The Quran as we all (muslims, submitters to God) know is the unifying factor for moderate ... Islam (Submission to God). Thus I do not see why anyone wishing to minimize extremists and sectarian viewpoints (which would be dangers to world peace), would wish to restrict freedom of information etc., of modern, logical & scientific information to the Muslims too. Apart from other submissions here, may I appeal to you to please consider whether requiring people to go to Dr. Khalifa’s page (for example) could imply a barrier of sorts - that Muslim users must agree with / about Dr. Khalifa before they may have due access to scientific and widely accepted data etc. [per ( c) above];

(h) I would like to update the basic 8 facts on the page with the additional links etc. referred to in (c) above; I could even drop references to Dr. Khalifa – which appears to be coming in the way and causing you concerns etc.;

I hope the above perspective helps resolving the issues raised by you, however if you still feel there are areas that I can elaborate, God Willing, will be happy to do so. Peace

(DukhanSmoke (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC))

Peace be upon you,

Further to the additional verifiable reasons and 20 December 2011 (UTC)) 21 December 2011 (UTC)) 22 December 2011 (UTC)) submitting among other things that: (a) there has been wide publicity in the past about the extraordinary phenomena shown in this article based on 19 in Quran; (b) the verifiable facts in the article are not a matter of any issues or view points or ideas for any person with modern and progressive mind; (c) there is no opposition based on any facts of any significance against the content in the article; (d) ample “mainstream” Quran data bases of Sunni & Shia, data bases etc., ( e) the course content for example of University of Calicut, India in Islamic History (Module VI page 13 & 14) (http://www.universityofcalicut.info/syl/Islamic.pdf), (F) publications for e.g. of Dr. Cesar Adib Majul and Deedat, 19 based structure in Quran (including of Suras thereof) is being taught in the University of Calicut, India, obviously to “Mainstream” Muslim and even non-Muslims within Islamic History. Thus with due respect I submit that that the modern facts under discussion are not a matter of any issues or view points or ideas. India is the largest democracy in the world, a Secular Country, and its Kerala State give due Constitutional recognition to various religions.

The subjects taught include: (14) - THE WORD "NAME" AND NUMBER 19, (15) - THE WORD "GOD" AND 19, (26) - SURAS THAT HAVE INITIAL LETTERS AND 19, (27) - THE SURA YASIN SURA AND 19, (28) - THE SURA “MARY” AND NUMBER 19, (31) - THE INTRODUCTORY LETTER “QAF”, THE QURAN AND 19, (34) - THE WORD “QURAN” AND NUMBER 19, (35) - THE INITIAL LETTER “HA-MEEM” AND 19, (37) - THE 19TH SURA FROM THE END:THE HANGING, (39) - SIGN, EVIDENCE, WORD AND 19, (40) - 19, Relationship Between God and the Human beings.

You had requested help to discuss and resolve the dispute before removing your message. Please inform soon if you still have any reservations after my comprehensive submissions of 20, 21, 22 and 26 December. Thanks for the interest shown which has given me opportunities to produce more proof etc. (DukhanSmoke (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC))

Peace be upon you, God Willing I will be removing your note and propose to state as follows (unless I receive any further reservation from you in next 24 hours),

The Miracle of 19: unveiled by Rashad Khalifa Ph.D. in the Quran revealed by God to last Prophet Muhammad is characterized by a unique phenomenon never found in any human authored book. The Suras are mathematically structured based on the number 19, a few of the facts that Dr. Khalifa proved are:

1. The Quran consists of 114 suras, which is 19 × 6
2. The Basmala occurs 114 times, despite its conspicuous absence from sura 9, it occurs twice in sura 27.
3. From the missing Basmala of sura 9 to the extra Basmala of sura 27, there are precisely 19 suras.
4. The total of the 29 sura numbers where the Quranic Initials occur is 2 + 3 + 7 +...+ 50 + 68 = 822, and 822 + 14 (14 sets of initials]) equals 836, or 19 × 44.
5. 14 different Arabic letters, form 14 different sets of Quranic Initials (such as A.L.M. of 2:1), and prefix 29 suras. These numbers add up to 14 + 14 + 29 = 57 = 19 × 3.
6. Between the first initialled sura (sura 2) and the last initialled sura (sura 68) there are 38 uninitialled suras 19 × 2.
7. Between the first and last initialed sura there are 19 sets of alternating initialled and uninitialled suras.
8. The first Sura 96 and the last Sura 110 revealed demonstrate similar phenomenon of mathematical structure based on the number 19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DukhanSmoke (talk • contribs) 19:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be no reliable sources - see WP:RS discussing this, and Khalif's work is all self-published. Some of the above even uses Wikipedia as a reference. So, fringe self-published work and some personal websites (note Khalif was based in Tucson), plus some assertions that are original research. And the lack of a fatwa is irrelevant to our policies and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sir, I have added links of other sources on to the article trust this should make you remove the flag for the article. Peace (DukhanSmoke (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)) — DukhanSmoke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Reliable source usually means something published in a peer-reviewed journal, especially considering that Dr. Khalifa's work is a fringe theory by the standards of mainstream scholarship. The book you listed is also published from Tucson, and the only other external ref. is to a course taught in the University of Calicut. You might want to check this out- WP:IRS Shaad lko (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Peace, Shaad Iko, have added resources section for the page that include reference to independent sources. God Willing this would suffice. Peace (DukhanSmoke (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC))

References

Two different Arabic letters equivalent to our "S"

There is another significant fact not mentioned in the main (Wikipedia) article [and which may be worth adding?] - namely, an instance where a word was deliberately [?] misspelled with the 'wrong' letter "S". And [only] with that 'misspelling' was it possible to achieve an exact multiple of 19 for the number of occurrences of that letter [Sad or Sin, I forget which]. As I recall, Rashid Khalifa regards that as supporting his theory - but it could also be argued that it weakens it ... because if it really was a matter of the text having been designed by God, then He would surely have devised a much better, neater solution? --DLMcN (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the info but its practically irrelevant since even most Muslims dont use Khalifa's argument to prove that the Quran is divine. Shaad lko (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Peace, the verse is [7:69] and the word is "Bastatan" in arabic which is spelled with S "Seen" as you rightly pointed out in the Tashkent copy of the old Quran http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/appendices/appendix1verify.html, also one of the works of Tanzil (the widely used Quran text) uses "Seen" same as the Tashkent copy which conforms to the mathematical structure for the initials (Muqattat not relevant here for this page) http://tanzil.net/#7:69, in fact mathematics is the best method to fix the confusion and tells us which of the variant Arabic text is correct. In my opinion the discussion regards to the initials is not relevant here for this article though, let us stick to the structure of 19 for the Chapters, one that is acceptable from a neutral perspective. Peace (DukhanSmoke (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC))

19 in the Qur'an - improved references, please

DukhanSmoke - The Wikipedia authorities are still not completely happy with regard to your supporting references for the section entitled "Mathematical structure of suras based on the number 19". When you refer to specific books, please give as much detail as possible, namely: Title, author, publisher, and date, together with the page numbers which are relevant to the point you are discussing. In particular, it is not at all clear where your "Physical facts" come from. Are they taken from one of the books which you quote? If so, please state which book. And some of what you call "references" (e.g., those presently numbered 14 and 16) seem to be just calculations - so they should not be called "references" - or can you cite a book and page number which actually presents the calculation you refer to? Wikipedia policy does not allow its editors (i.e., you or me) to incorporate their own calculations in a Wiki-article, because that would then become "original research" ... You may only quote calculations which appear in reliable sources. --DLMcN (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Peace DLMcN, none of the calculations are mine so it does not qualify as the original research. I will be presenting the improved references with as much details as possible shortly God Willing. Peace (DukhanSmoke (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC))

Peace, got busy with some emergency matters, God Willing will spend time to improve upon on the references. Peace (DukhanSmoke (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC))

His research has not been endorsed by mainstream Muslim or non-Muslim scholarship

Peace, I think the proper statement would be "His research was initially accepted and endorsed by the Mainstream Muslims but was rejected later" God Willing there are few references that can be attached to this statement as below,

1. Al-Quran The Ultimate Miracle by Ahmed Deedat.

2. Akher Sa'a magazine, Egypt, January 24, 1973.

3. Akher Sa'a magazine, Egypt, November 28, 1973.

4. Akher Sa'a magazine, Egypt, December 31, 1975.

5. 19 Miracle Code, Ittehad UAE, Arabic Newspaper Page 4 full 23 Feb 77.

6. "The Miracle of the Quran", by Dãr Al-'Ilm Lil-Malãyîn, (Knowledge for the Millions) Lebanon the Arabic version, March 1983.

Request the Administrators to let me know if these references above and the other references that I have updated for the section "Mathematical structure of suras based on the number 19" meet and exceed the requirements. These references above also include many of the 8 points that are included in the section. I thought it was appropriate to include these references by improving the statement regarding acceptance and rejection of Dr Khalifa's work.

Peace

(DukhanSmoke (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC))

Peace, one more reference that shows that Dr. Khalifa's work is accepted by the main stream Muslims, the structure of 19 in Quran discovered by Dr. Khalifa is taught at one of the renowned Universities in India, University of Calicut, Module VI, Islamic History. (DukhanSmoke (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC))

I've replied in your personal Talk-Page ... [your Number 6 above is acceptable]... However, in order to justify your requested change to make it read: "His research was initially accepted and endorsed by the Mainstream Muslims but was rejected later" you would need to provide a reliable source stating exactly that. --DLMcN (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Peace, Al-Quran The Ultimate Miracle by Ahmed Deedat, Ahmed Deedat was a very renowned figure among the main stream Sunni Muslim world, this very book "Ultimate Miracle of the Quran" was the adaptation of Dr. Khalifa's work, I hope this addresses the "acceptance/ endorsement" bit of the statement whereas the rejection of his work is wide spread hope these two links below would suffice,

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/upclose/elhage.html

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2009/04/finding-rashad-khalifas-killer

Peace (DukhanSmoke (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC))

Internet links by themselves are not usually regarded by Wikipedia as "reliable sources". And with regard to Ahmed Deedat's book, you really need to quote an actual publisher [assuming of course that there was one] together with the date when it appeared, and if possible an ISBN (or similar) number. We would also need to mention, somewhere, that Deedat later withdrew his support for Rashad Khalifa. --DLMcN (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC) >

Is there a record explaining "Why?" Deedat [and others] withdrew their support of Rashad Khalifa? --DLMcN (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Peace, This link shows that Ahmed Deedat's books have open license http://www.archive.org/stream/Shk_Ahmed_Deedats_Books/Resurrection_Or_Resuscitation_djvu.txt, the date as it appears on 2nd page of the book is 19/02/1979 and I thought Daniel Pipes was just in properly representing the views of the main stream Muslim world but I am not sure if that would be sufficient. The main reason of rejection is based on he showing through the mathematical structure that the last 2 verses of chapter 9 (128 & 129) did not belonged in the Quran, and second that he claimed being the messenger of God, he disputed that Hadith & Sunnah (Oral & Traditions) were false statements attributed to prophet Muhammad centuries after his death, as this went against the basic tenets of the main stream muslim world, his findings of mathematical structure in the Quran were therefore rejected, I am not sure if I can find something on the record because this rejection is replete over the internet but will try God Willing. Peace (DukhanSmoke (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC))

Peace, when I finished my last post I had very faint hope of finding a record of such kind, but I did by God's Grace without much effort. The book is,

"Mission to America: Five Islamic Sectarian Communities in North America, by Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad and lane Idleman Smith, University Press of Florida, 1993, ISBN-10: 0813012163, ISBN-13: 978-0813012162, Chapter 6, page 137 we see these statements,

It is not difficult to imagine why Khalifa knew that he had enemies or why the preaching of his un-derstanding of the message of Islam would be so difficult for many in the Islamic community to understand. Khalifa's explanation of the miracle of the Quean as proven by his computer analysis of its structure, and his conclusion that the key to the book is in the number nineteen, first excited and challenged the Muslim world. Many who were initially persuaded, however, became disenchanted (and some became outraged) when he used this analysis to announce the year of the End of the World, denounced two verses of the Quean as..

I hope this suffices. Peace (DukhanSmoke (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC))

Yes, that^ book should indeed qualify as a "reliable source" according to Wikipedia criteria. --DLMcN (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Peace and thank you, would this allow us to rephrase the sentence "His research has not been endorsed by mainstream Muslim or non-Muslim scholarship" to "His research was initially accepted and endorsed by the Mainstream Muslims but was rejected later..". And also hope that this would God Willing help us address the notice put up for including more citations and it being a single source article. Await your advice. Peace (DukhanSmoke (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC))

I personally think that you can now make that^ change - so go ahead and do it. Be prepared, however, for other editors to come in and make further comments and suggestions ... but the important point is that the topic has been discussed in secondary sources, so you do have a strong case. Thanks again for your efforts --DLMcN (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions - revised list of RK's claims

DukhanSmoke ... As discussed in your personal Talk-File, I have now uploaded my suggestions for a revised, less complicated, more impressive list regarding RK's claims. We can certainly discuss modifications to that text, if you wish ... Regards, --DLMcN (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Addition of abrogation information by User:Blanchette

I dont see any relevance to adding stuff about abrogation in this article - the article is specifically about Sura (chapter-like units of the Quran). Shaad lko (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposition to replace "Surah" with a proper form

In multiple cases, such as the one seen in the Exterior Decoration section of Dome of The Rock, the incorrect word "Surah" is used. Example: Surah Ya Seen. When referring to a Surah, we change the display from Surah to Surat, as in Surat Ya Seen, or we can simply say The Surah Ya Seen. I've done a change from Surah to Surat, but it was reverted since it snot "constructive". Can anyone add his opinion on this? Thethiny1919 (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)thethiny

Requested move involving the article on the second surah

On 30 December 2020 the page on the second surah was moved by @JorgeLaArdilla: to use a naming scheme consisting of the index of the sura, then some rendering into English of its name, and then a transliteration of the Arabic name for this surah. A little over a week ago I added a move request to the page to return it to its previous name, since the pages for the other 113 surahs were not also moved to use this scheme and thus there would be a glaring incongruity as far as naming schemes went. I was told by @AstroLynx: to inform those who watch this talk page of the proposed reversion (which AstroLynx and one other user have expressed support for). mahir256 (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Quran ke 114 ka surah k taroof

Qura Mariyam butt (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)