Talk:Al Imran

Arabic words
Done and done, where is my decoder ring at now ;) ? --The Brain 21:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Al Imran
Isn't it supposed to be transliterated to "Al Imran" since arabic "Al" means "The" and "Ali"means"Family"? If it is, then this page should be moved 202.51.230.10 02:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I forget what source I used when creating this... but, it seems that a lot of translations do Al-i-Imran... I'll do a quick survey using http://zarahemla.awardspace.com/#quran and http://www.studyquran.co.uk/EnglishTranslations.htm


 * 1) Al-Imran - E. H. Palmer
 * 2) Āl-i-’Imrān - Yusuf Ali (doesn't appear to use definite articles w/ sura contrary to the practice here)
 * 3) Al-Imran - Marmaduke Pickthall
 * 4) Aali Imran - Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al Hilali
 * 5) âl `Imrân - Islamusa.org
 * 6) Ali-'Imran - Rashad Khalifa
 * 7) Al Imran - Muhammad Asad
 * 8) Ale ‘Imran - QXP
 * 9) Al-Imran - Abdul Qasim


 * That was a relatively random sampling... so, it appears there's a mix and that both are acceptable? We should make redirects from the other ones, though. gren グレン 03:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Marmaduke Pickthall's is a famous one, so both must be acceptable. Thx, but anyway maybe we should add both kind of transliteration then, i.e:Surat 'āl-Imrān or Aali ImranArabic: آل عمران

202.51.230.10 03:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Written as Aal آل, while other surah simply Al ال. Supposed to mean family of imran, than Imran himself. Only in english "the" Imran can refer to a family with that last name. YogiHalim (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Title
I strongly agree that the name of this sura is Ali- Imran and not Al - Imran.


 * Although the rule does not always apply, ideally the article name and the words in bold in the opening paragraph should be the same, with alternatives mentioned in the opening paragraph. So if the consensus is for the article to be named Al Imran as it is at present, the lede should read "Al Imran (Arabic etc., also Aal Imran etc). See BETTER/GRAF1. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Title should follow the pronunciation
I suggest A-li-'Imran. It means family of Imran - isn't that what it supposed to mean? Not The Imran - that is totally wrong. 211.25.129.2 (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of absolutely necessary title change
The title of this Surah is "(The) Family of Imran). The definite article in Arabic is "Al" and the word for family is "ali" which is the source of the confusion. For some reason the orthography has been framed in the title so that the word family is split up to look like the word "the" followed by "i" which means nothing. This was done no doubt to be consistent with those surahs beginning with "Al-"

There is no reason, and no standard in Arabic transliteration, for the presence of a hyphen in this case.

If you would like, look at the original Arabic text. You will see that "Ali Imran" in Arabic begins with the same two letters (read from the right) as those Surahs beginning with "Al-" EXCEPT that the "l" has a line under it, or a kasrah, forming the "i" vowel and thus denoting a completely different word. Hyphens may only be used and have only ever been used with the definite article, and serve absolute no purpose in the middle of a word.

Renaming from "Al-i-Imran" to "Ali-Imran" as the former is completely nonstandard and no doubt the result of an accident. In short, this looks very unprofessional and needs to be fixed.

EDIT: The wikisource article has the same error; someone with an account there please fix https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/wiki/The_Holy_Qur%27an/Al-i-Imran

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawyer207 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh? Most Muslims would not recognize "Ali Imran". We pronounce it "Aal-e-Imran". The world "Aal" means "family" or "descendants", and thus the title of the Surah is actually "House of Imran", with the "-e-" being the way to write the kasrah mentioned above, the vowel added to "آل" to show ownership. It's a small line underneath.


 * What I would suggest is for anyone doubting what I am saying google the phrases "Ali Imran", "Aal-i-Imran" and "Aal-e-Imran" and see what comes up and what the majority of Muslims use.


 * --iFaqeer (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * PS: in case it's not clear, "Al" ("The", or "ull" phonetically) is a whole other word from "Aal", with a longer "a" vowel. And the latter is the word for family/house/"those of", not "A-li".


 * Thanks, iFaqeer. I appreciate your feedback and concern and commitment. Regarding Google results, the evidence does not really lie in your favor (at least when accessed from the U.S.) Here are the results from what I understood to be your suggestions. "Aal-i-Imran" renders 22,900 results. "Aal-e-Imran" renders 703,000 results. "Al-e-Imran" only 179,000. My suggestion, "Ali-Imran," which you said Muslims wouldn't recognize, yields 4,590,000 results which is only slightly less than "Al-i-Imran" which has 4,900,000. This proves nothing for our poses, of course, as in any case the issue is not how Muslims happen to pronounce it or happen to spell it on the web in a whim. What is instead important is that our orthography reflects contemporary academic precedent.


 * As long as it does not contradict such precedent, I am by absolutely no means opposing "e" to represent the vowel of Kasra or the dropping of it altogether; the vowel of choice was not really my point. The issue is the placement of the hyphen, which as far as I understand it is misleading and nonstandard. Even "Al Imran" may be the best transcription (I have seen "Al Imran" used in academic texts as well as "Ali Imran") but absolutely NOT "Al-Imran."


 * The way the title of this article was spelled before gave the impression (as another editor also mentions above my post) that the original Arabic said "The Imran" instead of "Family (of) Imran." Also, transcribing "-e-" in English is only precedent when transcribing Persian, etc.

--Sawyer207 (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The poster way above gave a list of the various transcriptions according to different notable translators. I think the evidence is in favor of "Ali Imran," but as that poster noted, we must others as valid for redirects even if they are not academically sound anymore. Islamic Studies is surging as a disicipline in the English speaking world. Give this mess five to ten years and there will be one standard way of doing things (probably based on the "Encyclopedia of Islam" transcription, according to which hyphens are only used (1) after the definite article or (2) with certain prepositions and conjunctions. Certain not an ordinary noun like "family" whose terminal vowel is dropped merely for pronunciation's sake before another vowel -- not for grammatical elision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawyer207 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sawyer, if I may, I don't think is is an academic work; this is an encyclopedic work. And as you pointed out yourself, the most common way to express what the "official" name of this Surah is, is "Aal-i-Imran". So just on that, shouldn't the title be "Al-i-Imran", not "Ali Imran" And just to be clear, the name is pronounced "aal-e-imraan".

I am stressing that because, especially in everyday use, the word "Ali" is a very separate word; a word with not much to do with the first word in the title of this article right now. --iFaqeer (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

About the Verse 7 section
It was deleted as it had no basis or references. The verse itself has dual meanings, and some twelver clerics use it to justify Shi'ite imamate. For an agreed upon translation, Just refer to the Saheeh International's and Yusuf Ali's (Himself Shi'ite) translations of the verse. NetBSDuser (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The context section is misleading!
The section has cited from a book of Scollar Dawood, indicates has confusion about Aron mentioned in Quran. Also it has been linked to prophet Aron. It is wrong narration and citation. The Aron, brother of mother Mary mentioned in Quran is different person other the prophet. Please change the context section. i~Sam 14:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snnizam (talk • contribs)


 * I do not know what problem you have. The Quran confuses Mary the Sister of Aaron with Mary mother of Jesus, according to N J Dawood. I merely gave citations of what is in the book of the scholar. I cannot incorporate Muslim apologetics here. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of select verses
Here are a few concerns:

1: There are a total of 6000+ verses of the Quran. On what basis are certain Quran verses notable while others are not. Certainly there are a number of notable verses that have their own entire article (for example 2:256,9:5), hence their mention is deserved but what is the criteria for others?

2: All Quranic commentators have given interpretations for many of these 6000+ verses. On what basis are certain selections of Ibn Kathir or some other commentators views particularly relevant when they are not part of any discussion and in some cases are even partial quotes of a lengthy sections of their interpretation of a verse?

3: A content analysis of the Quran can probably detect hundereds of topics ranging from life before creation to life after death and everything in between. Many verses are also relavant to many different topics, for example 3:90 many be relevant to apostasy (although the term Murtad/Irdad/Rida is not used) it is also relevant to Faith/Imaan and Repentance/Tawbah which are explicitly mentioned and also have articles of their own. On what basis do certain topics merit inverse inclusion also while others do not?

Likewise Surah Al Hajj and Al Najm deal with different topics like stars, Sirus, Jews, Christians, Sabians, etc. On what basis does the Satanic verses merit inclusion when the article there is a stub and there is no exegesis for the actual verses? I'm not against expanding the articles which would include a mention of all scholarly views of the Surah including brief mentions (brief because the topic is the Surah itself) of those who accept the incident of the Satanic verses (Like Tabari) as well as those who reject it (like Ibn Kathir). However simply throwing in topics per ones own personal discretion is OR. It also goes against the MOS and to some extent even contradicts the lead given in the articles.

If these concerns are not addressed, then anyone should have free license to include all of the Quran's verses followed by all the tafsirs by all scholars, followed by the inclusion of every single word or implied topic which the Quran mentions in the see also page. If this attitude is adopted then Wikipedia will cease to be an encyclopedia. Hence I choose to preserve the Status Quo and argue against selective inclusions which are inevitably POV and constitute OR. Usually, I would prefer to balance out the blatant POV, poor English and structuring (as in the case of the Women in Islam edit). However, here the inclusion of a non-encyclopedic entry with the above mentioned concerns is IMO enough to merit deletion. For a similar view see Snowfire's comments on Koreangautengs talkpage : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Koreangauteng#Sura_layout_changes

A similar effort to include POV information was also defeated on the "Muhammad in the Quran" article. Since the very same two editors from there are pushing a similar POV here and elsewhere, I expect them to explain why this case should be treated any differently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad_in_the_Quran#Re_edit_09:19,_2_January_2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.51.48 (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Difficult to make a general statement here. I suppose the principle that should be pointed out is notability and due weight. If enough notable reliable third-party sources use a particular verse for a particular purpose, then it probably deserves inclusion. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Summary
Many verses are inaccurately summarized; for example "98-105 Muslims are warned against the friendship of Jews etc" is incorrect. The verses asks questions to the "People of the Book" who denied the message of Mohammed at that time, and then warns the Muslims of that period of time not to obey them and not split into sects. Ahmed (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * What was the message of Muhammad anyway? His name is mentioned only four times in the entire Quran, Jesus plays a much larger role in that book than Muhammad and manmade hadith literature with alleged statements from him has been invented hundreds of years later. I mean even Bukhari rated 99 percent of the hadiths he claimed to have checked as fraudulent. 62.226.90.96 (talk) 02:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Islamic honor title theory is bogus
Mary is not called "sister of Aaron"(19:28) due to a reference to former pious people rather the authors of the Quran made a huge error and confused Mary, the mother of Jesus with Miriam, the real biological "sister of Aaron" due to the fact that both women are called "Maryam" in arabic. Nowhere else in the Quran is the term "sister of" used as a reference to a former pious prophet.

Also how would Muslims explain Surah 66:12 in which Mary`s virgin birth has been described with the term "daughter of Imran"? Another, a second honor title with no other use in the Quran or another confusion between Mary, the mother of Jesus and Miriam, the real "daughter of Imran" and "sister of Aaron". 62.226.90.96 (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Farookali Ali 106.210.100.239 (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)