Talk:Islamic holy books

Citation needed
Anyone have a citation for "In Islam, it is believed that the Quran is the only Holy Book that was not altered over the course of the duration of time." EnglandUser (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

request
Editor2020 please revert the text of Al-kitab as it has arabic text references of ayats of Quran. thanksFarrukh38 (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020 please bring the text of Al-kita (Quran) back because this is the text of Islamic holy books Farrukh38 (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi There Anybody´s view on any crisis out there?


 * Is your question relevant to the article? If it is please elaborate. If it isn't then take your question to a chatroom. Green Giant 00:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Reorganisation of article + merger tag
I think this article was created after Kutub, but that article is too short so I suppose it should be merged into this one. Also, perhaps it would be better to have little sections for the main Islamic holy books: Quran, Tawrat, Injil, Zabur and Suhuf-i-Ibrahim with a brief summary and significance of each with a little 'main article' at the start of each section. MP  (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a merger would be good and little sections would improve the layout Green Giant 23:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I beieve that there are many serious errors concerning this topic: Islamic Holy Book. Something needs to be done over these age old errors undertaken by orientalists translator of the Qur'an. To begin with the BIBLE is not the word of God (refer Ahmad Deedat). The words Zabur, Taurat, Injil etc should be maintained. It is sinful to equalte them with the Old or New Testament of the Bible (Psalms, Torah, Gospel etc). By doing so we are giving credibility to something that is not recognised as being truly revealed by Allah. There may be some similarities but the differences are great (eg.Trinity). The Qur'an clearly also states that the Qu'ran has corrected and replaced these previous books and has put right many wrong misconceptions held over Jesus Christ. Finally these previous Islamic books no longer exist.

Other serious matters that require attention is the word APOSTLE which was also introduced by the orientalists. We have NABI and RASUL i.e. Prophet and Messenger. To use Apostle is to equate the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. with St. Paul, the Apostle, the Corrupter of Christianity...how we do such as Muslims? Muslims should stop imitating these approaches.

Another corruption is the word Qu'ran in place of KORAN another orientalist ploy of identification. Yet we all know that the word "Qaf" is "Q" not "K" - so why KORAN?

Yet another corruption is the word NASARA. This word from the Qur'an depicts a SECT of JUDAISM and not Modern Day CHRISTIANITY. Jesus of Nazareth (a town), its people were known as NAZAREENS (ESSENES of the Dead Sea Scrolls did not follow the doctrines of St. Paul. We should use the words NASARAH with footnotes attached.

Without realising it Muslims have in a way given credibility to what has not been revealed by Allah i.e The Bible.

I do hope that someone will do something about this and have it placed in this encyclopedia.

Mokhtar Stork (Ust.) Age 63 www.al-fikr.name.my hajimokhtar1@hotmail.com Malaysia.

Book written: A-Z Guide to The Qur'an (Times Editions, Singapore) A-Z Guide to Ahadith (Times Edition) Happiness of The Righteous (new)


 * Dear Mokhtar Stork, I understand that you are concerned with maintaining what you believe to be the true doctrine of Islam. However, it is wikipedia's policy when substantial differences of opinion exist to show all the various viewpoints.  Therefore, although you believe that the books referred to in the Qur'an no longer exist, the fact that many Muslims believe that they still exist must be mentioned in the wikipedia article.  However, I am currently working my way through the article and will try to make sure that your beliefs are given the respect they deserve throughout it. Mitchell Powell (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Top level category
The top level category Category:Islam belongs in the article as it is a fundamental of Islam. In trying to cleanup the Islam category page, I've deliberately left some articles on that page (such as this article) that are extremely important. We don't want to pollute the top level category page with too many articles, just the really important ones. Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 10:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

referece for kutub needs reliable source
referece for kutub as previous scripture needs reliable source to improve the article because the reference cited is of Aqida and Aqida is referring to Islamic Holy books. please check because on both places there is no any reference ....thanks.Farrukh38 (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Islamic books article have to be deleted because it doesnot have any citation from reliable source..--Farrukh38 (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Kitab of Yahya
It is perhaps appropriate to ask 180.234.16.195 why he/she thought it necessary to transfer the "Book of Yahya" to the "Scrolls" section. The Qur'an describes it as a book ("kitab"), not a scroll ("suhuf"). Nevertheless, if the majority of editors support that transfer, then I will of course accept it. --DLMcN (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)... So I changed the wording to make the heading of the 'subsidiary' section more general - referring to items there as "texts" rather than "scrolls".--DLMcN (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * JohnChrysostom - Regarding the explanation for your truncation: "improper use of primary sources to support WP:SYNTH interpretation, and POV sentence: please use reliable secondary sources that analyze the primary sources" ... > it could, however, be argued that the deleted material does at least throw useful light on the subject; i.e., the Qur'an really does mention the Sabians.--DLMcN (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

md yasin pls my new acc/ rad kadit kad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.0.176.161 (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Tafsir
The case used in the title is irrelevant. Titles often capitalise words that aren't capitalised in ordinary text. Look at the text itself rather than just the title; it does not capitalise "tafsir" even in "tafsīr al-Qurʾān bi-l-Kitāb". For example, in the preface you linked: "... approaches to offer a fourth: tafsīr al-Qurʾān bi-l-Kitāb (to interpret the Qurʾān with/through the Bible), where ..." Your own source does not capitalise it in this context. – Scyrme (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Words of Adam
I'm not sure that the "Words of Adam" section is necessary. I can't find any Islamic source that discusses a book given to Adam, and the verse mentioned refers to a prayer which appears in the Quran (7:23). 21fafs (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)