Talk:Quran/Archive 8

Ambiguous language?
The following sentence from the lead seems ambiguous to me:

"The present form of the Qur’an is regarded as Muhammad's own words by academic scholars, and the search for significant variants in Western academia has been unsuccessful."

Does the phrase "Mohammad's own words" mean that scholars don't regard this as the word of Allah? (I.e., is it saying that Mohammad made it up?) If it doesn't mean this - and I guess it doesn't - then it should be phrased more clearly. PiCo (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

ISLAM - CONSIDER THE REFERENCES
If you were going to hire me, say for some important part of your life. Let us say, as your Financial Advisor. With me you would rely on my proven expertise to give you the council needed for you to make wise and sound decisions to maneuver your moneys in a way to establish yourself, your family and an inheritance for your children’s children. Now If I give you my resume what are you going to look for. To outline that I do and have done what you are looking for is a given. That I outline the years experience in what you are looking for is also a given.

But how do you know that I am telling you the truth? It is nice to have a hope to be as good as I say I am but what if it is words based on that hope or worse. If anybody owns a house and have had someone come into their home claiming 20 yrs experience and mess their stuff up you know the ‘worse’ that I am talking about. The worst it could be is Fraud. This is another word for a lie. How can you tell if I am lying? One proven and obvious way is to check my references. If I give you a list of references it can be used to validate my experience, my ability, and verify that who and what I say I am is truth. If you check my references you will find that either I am who I say I am OR I am a damn good liar.

My name is Muhammad Hashim and having this name I challenged myself to take ownership in a way greater than just aligning myself with family, traditions & country.

The Quran, •	written by Muhammad between 610AD & 632 AD •	Held by Islam to be revealed to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel •	Makes reference to the Jewish Torah (Biblical Old testament, written about 1380 BC). Re-establishing characters such as Adam, Jacob, Abraham & Moses •	Makes reference to the Jesus (Biblical New Testament). Written about 33AD

''“We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.”'' AL-BAQARA 002.136

Here in this writing and many other s in the AL-BAQARA and throughout the Quran in a way that increasing claims to supersede its references, the claim is made to attach the apparent revelation of Muhammad to established characters of the Jewish and Christian faiths to validate it’s own truth. Hmmm…Ok. Here we have a book contrived some 600 years after Jesus Christ, some 2000 years after Moses. These were established references and their validity established over generations by way of miracles and accounts greater than the works of man. Good resume Muhammad. Whether you believe in God or not, these are references that have to be reconciled in your decisions.

Good resume !! Now…let’s check…the references. No. I checked the references. And this note would be to long. What I found is this. I have, with millions of others, a name based on the most historical case of plagiarism & fraud ever contrived to unite a people. 100 times Worse than BUSH and the WMD’s that we never found. Muslim's - Consider the references. And put fradulent resumes where they belong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.70.138.181 (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you done trying to disprove Islam and the Qur’an, or should you go on to write a book about it? The Prophet didn't write anything.  Maybe you should do some extensive unbiased research before simply criticizing. Dumaka (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

about this book
This book has 2094 pages and would take 2 years to read through the whole book it is also to be found in english in the uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.200.118 (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Koran
You should include in this entry that Koran is also the last name of a person. For instance, my last name is Koran

Thanks Steven Koran —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.130.165 (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be such an interesting point it should probably get its own article.

yo sinebot
sinebot, u rule. pls sign this post immediately!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.66.189.224 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Where can I read the Quran online?
I am a native German speaker but I would also be happy to find an online version of the Quran in English. Can anybody help? TIA --84.56.237.247 (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See the Online Quran Project or go directly to there site at al-quran.info Imdkzmaa (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Sir. --84.56.237.247 (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit request
The sentence "The Christian concept of revelation which means God incarnating and unveiling himself and become visible and audible for mankind is foreign to Islam." under the heading "Significance in Islam" has poor grammar and is unfounded. This is not the majority Christian view of the meaning of revelation. That whole sentence is basically useless and should just be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw109 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: This is a veruy disputed change. I will leave it here for 1 week to see if there is any objections to this edit. Leujohn  ( talk ) 09:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Leujohn  ( talk ) 11:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Natural and supernatural events as signs of god
The part of the introduction stating "It [The Qu'ran] does not describe natural facts in a scientific manner but teaches that natural and supernatural events are signs of God." is rather one-sided. A lot of sects and scholars of tafsir believe the Qur'an to posses inward meanings that allude to modern scientific theories of the creation of the universe and even the evolution of mankind, and that the "signs of god" are rather efforts to demonstrate the brilliance of the universe. Therefor I am going to remove it lest someone can provide a more neutral statement, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargantu (talk • contribs) 07:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead edit
I found a sentence in the lead reading: "The present form of the Qur’an is regarded as God's revelation to Muhammad by academic scholars, and the search for significant variants in Western academia has been unsuccessful".

I found that very odd - most "academic scholars", if this term includes the Western ones, do not believe in revelations and the two sources given - 9 and 10 - didn't support that statement at all. One said the contrary: ""Few have failed to be convinced that ... the Qur’an is ... the words of Muhammad, perhaps even dictated by him after their recitation." and the other is Bukhari referring to how the Qur'an was fixed in writing, that doesn't say anything about who is considered its author by "academic scholars". So I rephrased that. Hope nobody is offended. The lead could be somehow rewritten, anyhow, as to avoid repetitions, but I'm not bold enough to do it myself.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you tell us where you got that information, or elseit might be changed back by Muslim users not following WP:NPOV. Leujohn  ( talk ) 11:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"Dictated" rather than "authored"
The sentence that reads "Academic scholars often consider it the original version authored or dictated by Muhammad." I think should be changed to just "Academic scholars often consider it the original version DICTATED by Muhammad." Because in no way did Muhammad claim to author the book. Islamically it was a direct revelation from GOD. What do other users think? --Aadamh (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I think religious Muslims would never consider it a book "authored" by Mohammed, as you rightly remark. But many (non-religious) scholars would do, of course, because (for them), if there is a book, it must have a (human) author. There are two theories today: a) the Qur'an is a book compiled over the centuries by joining different ancient songs (some of them Christian) or b) the Qur'an was dictated by Muhammad alone and thus (no matter what he claimed) he would be the author of the book because there would be no other human being it could be attributed to (and God is not an authorship issue for many scholars). So I would leave the sentence as it is. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the point is that Mohammad didn't write it himself, he spoke it to someone else who wrote it down. Not that I'm an authority on the Qu'ran, but it seems to be the point being made, and it makes sense to me. Korin43 (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

moral values
wat are the moral values that we can get from this Al-Quran.i neeed few with concrite examples from the Quran —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.125.235 (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Warsh internal link wrong
The Warsh internal link is wrong/missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.106.185 (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section, agian
This whole section should be removed and the three lines or so that make up the section should be absorbed into other parts of the article. No section like that appears on similar articles regarding comparable religious texts, and it violates basic neutrality policies. Somebody who knows the Qur'an well please WP:be bold and get rid of it. ʄ! •¿talk?  21:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, criticism in relation to a religious text is of a scholarly nature and is equivalent to exegesis. In the case of the Qur'an there is also some genuine scholarship by non-Muslims which is often not accepted by Muslims. This is also valid material for the article, but the heading "criticism" is just misleading. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, it is valid in the appropriate context, however no other religious text of a major world religion has a dedicated "criticism" section here on wikipedia. As a non-Muslim no less, it's hard not to find it provocative. ʄ! •¿talk?  23:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the Criticism section on the basis of the arguments above.--Kitrus (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * the argument here also says the content should be "absorbed into other parts of the article." that hasn't happened when it was removed?
 * And since it doesn't exist elsewhere doesn't mean it should be removed. it should be added elsewhere. this is not a dogmatic theocracy. Lihaas (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that a criticism section is necessary, as would be the rebuttal. But of course this would mean linking to answering-islam and answering-christianity. So I guess there are some people who would be scared to death at the thought of that. Of course it would be too big to list in this article. Faro0485 (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Specific Qur'anic content
In further response to the Yes, but what's in it? discussion above, I have a few suggestions. Firstly, the Text section should perhaps contain some more subheadings (over and above the 'Literary structure' one) such as 'General exhortations', 'Notable figures', 'Attributes of Allah', 'Historical incidents' etc... . If this spoils the Text section, then maybe another section should be created ('Content' ?) which includes such subheadings. Either one of these suggestions would make it very clear what is actually in the Qur'an. Comments welcome ? :) MP (talk•contribs) 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Quran Translations Section Edit

 * Kanzul Iman is the name of the 1910 Urdu translation of the Qur'an by Ahmad Raza Khan, the scholar who revived Sunni Islam in the Subcontinent. The Sunnis of the Subcontinent are sometimes referred to as Barelwi due to him. It was subsequently translated into English by Professor Shah Faridul Haque. Recently, it has been translated into many other regional languages and become popular on the internet. Kanzul Iman is regarded highly by Sunni Muslims.

The above paragraph has been removed from this article. For the very short term, I have left it "as is" in the source article Qur'an translations even though almost all of the claims in it are highly debatable. For starters Kanzul Iman is ranked at best No. 4 in popularity in Urdu translations in the Indian Subcontinent. Translations of Jalandhry, Thanvi and Maududi are far more popular in the Urdu language. Secondly, advertising the influence or lack of thereof of the Barelwi Sect does not belong in this article.

I suggest, merits of this paragraph be debated in the main article Qur'an translations before qualifying as factually correct to be posted in this mother article. Dungbeetle (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The following two "English translations by Muslims" Ghulam Ahmed Pervez,A. Momin have also been removed from the list in this article, as they are not well-known nor widely distributed translations, especially compared to others in the same list.Dungbeetle (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The HISTORY OF QUR'AN tag has been in place for a year and a half -- what issues are still of concern here?
What neutrality concerns are there on this section? BYT (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag. BYT (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You did the right thing --Notedgrant (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Define "Muslims"
The term "Muslim" should not be assumed, but should be defined. For example, in the opening paragraph it currently says "Muslims believe the Qur’an to be the book of divine guidance and direction for mankind, and consider the original Arabic text to be the final revelation of God" It should say "Those who believe.... are usually referred to as Muslims" 74.68.152.245 (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, that's what wiki-links are for .. Pbhj (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what's in it?
Well, we have an excellent article here, which tells us who revealed the Qur’an, and to whom (Muhammad) and who wrote it down, and in what language and on what medium, and of the variants which ensued and their fate. We are told at length what Qur’an means, and the way it is divided into chapters, and how those chapters are arranged, the nature of the language employed, and the disputes on the number of verses it comprises. Then there is more material on literary structure, and the way the words may be spoken and sung, and by whom. There is an extensive coverage of various editions, including bi-lingual ones, computerized ones, and the nature and history of translations. The controversy on the nature of exoteric and esoteric meanings within the Book is discussed. Apparently, some authorities hold that only God himself can know the true meaning of some of the sayings, which leads a simple man like me to wonder why then He would see fit to include it. There is a brief summary to themes which the Qu’ran has in common with Jewish and Christian scriptures.

The only thing missing was any note at all as to what the Book was about. It’s a well-written article, but as far as telling us what is IN IT, it may as well have been the story of Donald Duck Myles325a (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right, this is a little ironic. We even have a quote stating "The values presented in the very early Meccan revelations are repeated throughout the hymnic Suras" but we have no hint whatsoever as to what these "values" may be. Now, the Quran doesn't have an "argument", and cannot be summarized as a story like the Pentateuch or the Gospels can, but it would nevertheless be nice to cover some notable content taken from some selected surat. The brief version is of course "God owns you. God is merciful", but it would be nice to have some more detail than that. --dab (𒁳) 13:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The article does not quite get to actually describing (at least in detail) the contents of the text. Improving this aspect of the article should hopefully make it a lot better. MP (talk•contribs) 20:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess that I'll be the one to sound a note of caution. Without actually seeing an example of what you think should be added, it seems as though what you're discussing would be inappropriate for an Encyclopedia article. the actual text of the Quran (and the Bible, as well) is available on WikiSource (see: Qur'an), which is appropriate. This article, the Encyclopedia article, should be focused on what the Quran is, not what is actually in it. Take a look at the article for Bible for comparison. Whatever consensus does arise form this discussion, I hope that the active editors here will at least be consistent with those who edit the Bible article and other religious texts. — Ω (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if you can sum up the general themes in a paragraph then that could be included otherwise not. Pbhj (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Holy Quran
The word "Holy" should be added before "Quran" or "Koran". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.182.81 (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not neutral. However, we may consider adding that the Qur'an is also referred to as "the Noble Qur'an" by Muslims.VR talk 17:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What are the criteria to be neutral? However, there is nothing neutral in this world even the existence of any kind of deity is questionable except life and death. Everything is belief.

Isn’t it double standard for Wikipedia website that, “The Quran” can’t be shown as “The Holy Quran” but “The Bible” is shown as “The Holy Bible”?

100% people who believe in any kind of religion acknowledge that The Bible was edited by Popes and Kings several times. Popes and Kings were neither God nor prophet. They were just human being, but earthly enough to dare to edit God’s word. How come a human edited thing is plainly considered Holy??? It is not neutral. We may say Bible was Holy until it was edited by human being.

On the other hand, around 1/4th population of the world believe The Holy Quran is the final revelation from God and no one questions about its originality and purity among the Muslims. That means The Holy Quran has never been edited by the creation of God.

I think the Wikipedia’s neutrality wouldn’t be questioned but would be justified if it shows same respect to all the belief system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.182.9 (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Bible is referred to as the "Holy Bible" to distinguish it from other books. An example might be the "PHP Bible", are books title such for the Koran? I've never seen an book titled like "The Food Koran" (meaning everything you need to know about food, cf The Food Bible (a common title)). The examples should be English language as that is the locus of this wiki. Pbhj (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In-correct this does not mean it has never been edited by the creation of God. it means that slightly less than 1/4th of the population belive that. 99.999999% of muslims reject the Koran has changed by even a single letter(publicly) since the time it was wrote down; if this is looked at from a Non-Biased view that would be impossible, it is the natural order of things for slight imperfections to arrise from basic Human Error- If you are a devote Muslim it stands to reason you would not except this; however this is a Non-Biased view on wikipedia and should be wrote as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.64.7 (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That’s your interpretation of what I wrote. I said Muslims believe it has never been edited. I did not say or claim everybody believe that. Please don’t twist the words without context. I did not try to make anybody believe in the holiness of Quran. I tried to prove my point to add the word “Holy” before “Quran” by distinguishing Bible and Quran page in the Wekepedia Website. It is really interesting that you totally avoided my arguments. My arguments are up there in the “Holy Quran” section of the Discussion page. Please read those arguments. In brief, I suggested, for the sake of Wikipedia’s neutrality and non-biased view, it is required to show “The Holy Quran” in the Quran page, as it shows “The Holy Bible” in the Bible page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.182.9 (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the problem many days ago. I made the page on the Bible to read the Bible not the 'Holy Bible'. Instead of trying to push a personal POV, you should have pushed a total neutrality as in removing the holy from the Bible instead of adding it here. We are not perfect we do not always catch every holy in Wikipedia. --Bddrey (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You need at least to capitalise "The Bible" is a specific book "the Bible" refers to countless different titles depending on context. Pbhj (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

One doesn’t need to be genius to catch that kind of double standard. And of course no personal POV, that was just for the sake of argument. Since the error has been fixed, either my way or your way, I have no objection and argument any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.182.9 (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Prophet Mohammad's name should be followed by the initials P.B.U.H (Peace Be Upon Him)
Greetings!

Keeping in line with the Muslim tradition of adding the aforementioned initials after Holy Prophet Muhammad's (P.B.U.H)name, I suggest that wherever the prophet's name appears in this article, it should be followed by the initials P.B.U.H.

I love Wikipedia! Keep up the great work.

Filbajin (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Filbajin.


 * Uh, no it should not. Muslim tradition is not according to Wikipedia standards. warrior  4321  00:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a religious movement and does not align itself with any religion, therefore it does not abide by the standards of any religion and therefore your request will have to be graciously declined. THanks for the compliments though, RaseaC (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why Qur'an and not Koran?
Most English language secular references I have seen are to the Koran. The spelling Qur'an, including the apostrophe, does not relate to any English grammatical forms I am aware of. Just wondering, in good faith, why Qur'an is used by Wikipedia as the default spelling. Rastapopoulos (talk) 10:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It has become the default spelling in English. This was pointed out in a recent review of the latest translation, in Times Higher Education, I think. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as odd. For the sake of argument, it would take millions of devoted and persistent Greek zealots to convince the English to change the default spelling of Bible to Biblos. I can thing of an example of the P.R.C. convincing the Americans to change Peking to Beijing. The change was far from spontaneous, and Peking is certainly still used in other parts of the world. I would really know more on the background of how the standard secular spelling Koran changed, and who fostered it. Rastapopoulos (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is part of a standardisation of all the main terms relating to Islam. Muslim rather than Moslem (the latter still very common only 20 years ago), Muhammad rather than Mohammed or any of a range of other spellings, The next one to come is Makkah rather than Mecca. It is all part of a general trend towards using local forms of proper names. I now see Marseille and Lyon used in English more often than Lyons and Marseilles. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Most modern academic references now favour use of "Qur'an" as far as I know. Koran is used much less nowadays. ITAQALLAH   15:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I really do no see this to be the case. Major English media venues on both sides of the Atlantic use the term Koran, including BBC, the New York Times, the Economist. Last but not least, the Oxford English Dictionary defines Qur'an as an Arabic form of Koran. I therefore seriously question the use of the term Qur'an as a default spelling of Koran in Wikipedia. Rastapopoulos (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look more closely, you'll see that both are used in the mainstream media. I'm sure this has been discussed before, but do refer to Brill's Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, or the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim world (Routledge) which both use Qur'an, and are perhaps among the most authoritative texts on the topic. I could also go through the other academic texts - the more recent of which now use Qur'an. It is the primary transcription. Even if we say that there is no definite primary transcription - we defer to the standard transliteration, which is indeed Qur'an. Please refer to WP:AMOS. ITAQALLAH   17:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointers, ITAQALLAH. I ran a few advanced Google searches with various constraints. Searching Google Web gives 18.5M hits for Quran, 14.8M hits to Koran, and 6.6M hits for Qur'an; searching Google News gives 1.9K hits for Quran, 1.2K hits for Koran and 0.5K hits for Qur'an. Finally, Google Scholar gives 16.7K hits for Quran, 53.5K hits for Koran and 26.1 hits for Qur'an. So in all cases, Quran and Koran have more hits than Qur'an. Only Google Scholar gives more hits to Koran than Quran. Again, these are pretty flawed numbers, since they are world-wide hits, and not confined to countries where English is the official language. Whatever the case might be, there is a common pattern: that Qur'an with an apostrophe is the least used form of the word on the net. Given the fact that an apostrophe in the middle of a word does not correspond to any English grammatical form I am aware of, I still cannot see why this particular for should be chosen over Quran or Koran as thw default English-language spelling. Cheers, Rastapopoulos (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The BBC is using both. A documentary Qur'an airs on the UK TV Channel 4 on Monday. We could look to see what the official styles are of the main English-language news media. I suspect that many have recently changed from Koran to Qur'an and that when you do a google search you pull up old documents as well as new ones. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The New York Times is sticking with Koran for the time being but says that AP is using Quran and hints that it may itself change. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I added "Quran" as an alternative transliteration. If it's got so much usage, then it should at least be flagged as an alternative. Petemyers (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference stems from etiquette towards customs in transliterations. A 'K' relates to the Arabic letter 'Kaf' pronounced as its English equivalent, but the letter 'Q' relates to 'Qaf', similar to the 'Kaf' but pronounced at the back of the throat (similar to the French -que but voiced more deeply more the throat, a very full-bodied  movement).  Although the apostrophe in Qur'an has become a standard convention to distinguish that it should be pronounced Qur-an and not Qu-ran, the apostrophe itself is an oddity as it would otherwise relate to a voiceless pause (Sukun) or 'Ayn, a sound unique to Semitic languages. As for al-Maddinah -- that's just hyper-sensitivity.  Keep Medina.  Keep Mecca.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.186.140.231 (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Qu'ran looks better than Koran, and the Qu, is more emphatic of the strong/deep K in arabic. same reason we spell wot to be what. if we went bak to fonetic it wood be liek sms speak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.1.221 (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The only way forward i would see with regard to the spelling of the Muslim holy book would be to go to the one reliable source of all things to do with the English Language that would be the Dictionary re-soundly approved to be the correct form of English (not sure which one that is but Oxford English Dictionary or similar) If it is spelt Koran then that must be the word used; Another way to set the standard would be to go to this same article in wikipedia France wikipedia German ECT...if the word used for The muslim holy book is in German/French then the word Koran(English version) should be used; if it is spelt Qu'ran or any version there of in the other language versions then it should be so on the English version for the uniformity of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.64.7 (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue ought to be considered settled by using Qur'an and these discussions archived. For the record, the OED notes these variations: Qoran, Quoran, Quran, Qu'ran, Qur'an, Qor'an, Q'ran. "Qur'an" is the one it shows in current usage. Koran and Alcoran are noted as earlier versions, with variations alkaron, alkaroun, alcharon, alchoran, alcorane, alcaron, alcheron, alcoran, alkoran and core, currawn, coran, kuran. Oddly, they're missing Qur'aan (double a to indicate alif). 74.186.140.231 is correct; Q is used to transliterate Qaf as opposed to K for Kaf. Most curious thing, the OED notes Andrew Marvell made a verb out of alcoran. "As thou must needs have owned them of thy band/For prophecies fit to be alcoran'd." Шизомби (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Shizombie, you appear to be lying? As of today the OED says, OED entry for Qur'an (sic):"

Qur'an /kraan/ (also Quran) • noun Arabic spelling of KORAN.
 * So if we wish to use the English Language spelling according to the OED we use Koran. As for Itaqlalah, we don't need to use (paraphrasing) "the most prominent transliteration" as we already have a native language word for the specific item in question which is used by the BBC, NYT, Economist (as Rastapopolous notes) and also by The Times of London as noted today:One handed a glass case containing a verse from the Koran to a UN worker. We don't need a transliteration when we have a translation to use. If you want to go by internet use (which encompasses non-English Language variants) then Quran would be favoured with Koran second; versions with apostrophes barely register. Of course such a result is biased by the fact that those used to a traditional arabic rendering are mostly searching for it as opposed to those who use English - Google trends doesn't really prove anything; why not rely on the major English Language reference(s)? Pbhj (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Shizombie was quoting the full version of the OED available online by subscription. It does NOT say that Koran is preferred, but has entries for both Koran and Qur'an.  The latter reads:  "The sacred book of Islam, the word of God as revealed to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel over a period of years, written down in Arabic, and collected together after Muhammad's death; (also) a copy of this. Cf. KORAN n." and lists uses in English starting in 1787.  Zerotalk 13:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move September 2009

 * 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 for move to Koran. I note that some of the persons opposed to that move, would prefer the article to be at Quran, and discussion can continue to see if that proposal has a consensus, and if there is broad agreement a new move request can be placed. I would also recommend that for such a high profile and long-standing article, any future move proposal be advertised at the appropriate project pages to ensure wide participation. Abecedare (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Qur& → Koran — The established authorities on English Language use Koran (IPA:kʊˈrɑn, -ˈræn). This spelling is also the traditional English spelling and the original spelling too. It finds current usage in at least the OED (where it is given as the English translation of Arabic Qur'an) as well as by the Cambridge Dictionary of American English, the BBC, The Times (of London), The Times Literary Supplement (favours 173:20), LA Times, Reuters, The Independent (UK), FOXNews, Bloomberg. AP favours "Quran" and so stories originating with AP (lots!) use that spelling. Arabic and muslim writers often favour a version with an apostrophe, a transliteration where the apostrophe is a placeholder for hamza, but we have no need in the English Language Wikipedia to use a transliteration where a native English language word is present for the item. It would be helpful if supporters/objectors would name which English they use (I'm en-GB) and whether they are native speakers and at least what their primary source (eg a dictionary, quoted and linked) is. Pbhj (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Qur'an is pedantry; the second edition of the OED (1989) correctly calls it a scholarly variant of Koran - a politer way of saying the same thing. Where we are transliterating Arabic, we should use qur'ān and its inflectional forms, macron and all - and we should italicize. But in plain text and the title, we should WP:Use English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm pretty neutral on this matter, but it's worth pointing out that both forms are simplified English transliterations of the original Arabic, and there's nothing foreign or Arabic about the Qur'an name. I would agree with the "pedantic" argument if Qur'an was very obscure in English, but it doesn't seem to be; a basic google test shows Qur'an gets 29.8 million hits, compared to 9.7 million for Koran. I haven't got enough time to do this personally, but it might be worth looking up which style guides and publications use the Qur'an form; I'd expect the Qur'an form to have more use, judging from the search results, though I'm sure both forms would have major organisations behind them. YeshuaDavid • Talk  • 20:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I get 11 million for Koran, and it is clear that many pages use both; there are also other simplified English transliterations being lumped in with this spelling, like Quran with no apostrophe. (A typical complication with Google searches.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment @YeshuaDavid, quantity of use is not enough, up thread you'll see that "Jesus is God" has more hits than "Allah is God" (in Google Trends), so that settles it? I don't think many here would go for that one. Anyhow, presumably the journalists in the publishers I noted above are applying the style guide, so for example in The Times article of 22 Sept the use of Koran rather suggests that their style guide says the correct English spelling is Koran. And as I said, if we go purely on numbers and don't bother with who is making the use (eg native English language users) then Quran (no macron, no apostrophe) is the winner. Compare the situation of the word in English for French it gets less hits than Francais (the French word for, well, French; 618M Francais vs. 528M French on Google UK) - does that mean we should use the French word in English? I contend not as, for example, the OED shows the proper English word to be French. I was hoping for researched responses (citations) rather than guesses and assertions. An equivalent page is Sharia (the English spelling is used) whilst being consistent with the present usage here on Wikipedia of Qur'an it should use Shari'ah. The logical conclusion of this sort of thing gets rather messy, Ishmael is the English variant of the Hebrew Yisma'el (to use a simple transliteration) but the Arabic is more like Isma'il - so presumably those wanting to use Arabic forms would also change Ishmael? Pbhj (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nom's comments. FWIW, Chicago Manual of Style says either "Qur'an" or "Koran" is OK. But I agree that "Koran" is still more widespread in English writing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose We should look at the most common version of the name in titles of the recent relevant reliable sources, including Encyclopedia entries, English Books, relevant book chapters and academic papers. In almost all of these categories of reliable recent English sources, Qur'an is more common. Also I should mention that this type of sole reliance on dictionaries for selecting title of pages or sections (as proposed for the rationale of the move) will eventually damage the quality of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia. Alefbe (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also I should mention that this type of sole reliance on dictionaries for selecting title of pages or sections (as proposed for the rationale of the move) will eventually damage the quality of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia. Fortunately, Wikipedia has little to worry about; we aren't a reliable source now.


 * However, reliance upon dictionaries is far less damaging, especially if the dictionaries are chosen with care and read with common sense, than relying upon the untutored opinions of those for whom English is a second language. Reliable sourcing is, as elsewhere, the best available substitute for genuine expertise.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Most of the recent reliable sources use "Qur'an" in the title of relevant book chapters or papers or encyclopedia entries (even in Britannica which is a general encyclpedia). Do you mean all those sources should be neglected because just you consider them as "untutored opinions of those for whom English is a second language" and you think that this page should be moved to Koran just because you have seen this spelling in your dictionary? This is ridiculous. Alefbe (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I mean quite simply tbat you should not sneer at the reliable sources on the English language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Alefbe, the OED is the authoratitive source for English language spelling in Britain, not just a source. It is the source that no doubt all the newspapers are relying on, hence why (at least in en-GB) the spelling Koran is used. OED have top language scholars working on the dictionary - it is printed by the Oxford University Press, a part of Oxford University itself.


 * Why should the spelling of Koran be changed, indeed replacing the English word with a transliteration, especially if no change in pronounciation is indicated by that change. You may wish that native English language sources be Islamicised, you're welcome to that POV but can you instead provide your authoritative citation and claim of which English it is written in? The prevalence of a spelling does not necessarily make it the right one to use - selection bias means that most sources mentioning the Koran will be written by Muslims with a bias for Arabic, Muslims tend to write transliterations of Arabic words even when perfectly good English words exist; use Arabic words on Arabic wikipedia, English words on the English Language wikipedia and italicised transliterations where no translation is available. If we are to use foreign language spellings and transliterations then this resource is going to fail to be usable for many - will people know to look for quaich under cuach (the Gaelic spelling), etc.. Pbhj (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's meaningless to solely rely on a dictionary to choose titles for an Encyclopedia. It's absurd to do it for Mathematics and Physics and Biology. It's also absurd to to it for other topics, no matter if it's related to Islam or related to a geographic location in China. I should also mention that you are avoiding both Encyclopedic common sense and Wikipedian tradition (which is relying on the most commonly used title in other literature and recent reliable sources) by trying to discard the recent common spelling and relying sole on dictionaries to justify an archaic spelling which is already becoming obsolete in the relevant English texts. Alefbe (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not trying to rely only on the OED (I agree that would be silly, despite the extreme provenance of this particular source wrt spelling), if you look (eg in the prior section on spelling) you'll see that I've looked at English language newspapers (attempting to pick the most authoritative) and indeed noted that AP use Quran whilst Reuters use Koran. I was hoping that authoritative current sources could be a proper model - can you at least cite an example source that you consider to be authoritative, (maybe IE3, Britannica?) and then we can discuss your sources rather than your blind assertions?! As for the absurdity of using proper spelling in Maths/Physics/Biology, can you point me to some articles in which the proper English words aren't used? We don't use relativitätstheorie for the page on the Theory of relativity as that's the German spelling, if we're to use the Arabic here then to be consistent we should use the German there as that's the origin of the word (in that use); I'm sure the same is true for other pages, say Frege's study of Begriff und Gegenstand where we use "Concept and Object" as they are the English language words (sorry, 2 German examples but they were the first to hand). You might have quoted me back the "Wikipedian tradition" (Policies and Guidelines) you mentioned, presumably WP:NAME or more apposite WP:ENGLISH which says:
 * "Nonetheless, do not substitute a systematically transliterated name for the common English form of the name, if there is one; thus, use Tchaikovsky or Chiang Kai-shek even though those are unsystematic. // The native spelling of a name should generally be included in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the anglicization isn't identical; redirects from non-English names are encouraged. [...]"
 * Which would rather seem to end the discussion IMO. WP:SOURCES says:
 * "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is."
 * Hence the use of internationally renowned sources in composing my suggested move - though I'm also conscious in WP:NAME that "Article names should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." so that scholarly writing shouldn't be given undue weight.
 * I'm not at all arguing that the transliteration Qurʾān is not used in scholarly or Islamic prose (note that's not an apostrophe in there); if there is a new English language form then this is not it, perhaps Quran could be argued for - that was my intention before I considered the sources and current usage which clearly show Koran to be the right spelling of the English word for the holy book of Islam. Pbhj (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's good to use reliable source, but you should use relevant reliable sources. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia which tries to be as general as reputable general Encyclopedias (e.g. Britannica) and on each subject, be as comprehensive as the relevant specialized encyclopedias (e.g. Encyclopedia of Islam, for this subject). Both of these two examples use Qurʾān as the title of the corresponding entry. Comparing with these two encyclopedias, OED's preference of an old spelling (which is already becoming obsolete in recent relevant English sources) is not important at all. Alefbe (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: The difference of Qurʾān and Qur'an is not much important for the title (both of them are fine for the title, but in the lead, Qurʾān should be used in the first sentence). Alefbe (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PPS: Britannica is not for specialists and it's meaningless to try to neglect the common encyclopedic tradition by citing an ambiguous sentence of a guideline and trying to neglect whatever relevant reliable sources use and try to only use layman terminology (of course it's good to make Wikipedia pages accessible to laymans, but for that, we can use redirects). Wikipedia's guidelines are supposed to help Wikipedia users to create a reasonable encyclopedia which resembles reputable encyclopedias (in terms of content, quality, style, ...). If these guidelines don't serve this purpose, they should be changed. Alefbe (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It's fine to use a transliteration if you first want to get WP:ENGLISH reversed so that it says "use a transliteration in preference to an English word" rather than what it does say (paraphrasing) "use an English word (Koran) in preference to a transliteration (Qurʾān)". Koran is not an anachronism, it is the current English word for the holy book of Islam - those who know Arabic may use a different word but that doesn't make it English. Newspapers in England and USA (the major centres of native English use) use Koran. Britannica does not use Qur'an but Qurʾān (the character between r and a-with-macron is the transliteration of hamza and is called modifier letter right half ring with unicode &#702 ; (remove space to render the letter). Britannica say Quran and Koran are alternatives and indeed the simplified Britannica entry is simply Koran with no alternative. Brill's [Qurʾān Encyclopedia of the Qurʾān] (for example) addresses an audience familiar with Arabic and so uses the Arabic transliteration as readers of that text expect (Brill, the publisher of IE, use Koran in other texts). You say the difference is not important between Qur'an and Qurʾān but one is a poor rendering of a transliteration and the other is a correct transliteration - that's an important difference, one is right the other wrong; both are still Arabic transliterations though.
 * Of the options Koran, al-Qurʾān, Qurʾān, Quran and Qur'an I can see no rationale for the latter.
 * (OT Britannica's main article says the Koran can't be translated because it's sacred which is utter tripe, I hope we're not hoping to imitate that sort of thing here.) Pbhj (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not about changing English. A simple search on books and papers shows that Qur'an is quite common in English books. Anyway, you try to discard Britannica and rely on OED. I think here (for choosing title and encyclopedic style), Britannica is much more relevant than OED. Alefbe (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: searching Koran and Qur'an alone might be misleading (because some of the results for Koran are related to people with this surname, rather than the book). So, when you search, you should search it with a relevant word (like Islam). Alefbe (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PPS: I'm aware of the difference between ʾ and ' (as already mentioned that Qurʾān should be used in the first sentence of the lead, but for the title the difference between Qurʾān and Qur'an doesn't matter). Alefbe (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose:First of all You cant translate a Noun .The Quran is actual Name written in all Islamic sources which are Quran and hadiths. It is written in these sources by Arabic alphabetqaaf which is "Q " not K ,then you cant change it to another word Koran.The wiki will rely on basic source and most used source in different countries.The english language authors and Journalists have Used this correct terminology more as is evident from Google Search.So there should not be any Misunderstanding with regardto its terminology.


 * Remember it is pronounced from the deep throat and gives the sound of Q You can Just see if there is any Muslim in Your locality.

Regards  Shabiha 16:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment First of all You cant translate a Noun. I'm afraid your poor capitalisation and lack of familiarity with English tend to nullify your claim - Deutschland is the native language noun for the region whose English language noun is Germany. As a simple counter-example to your claim of fact. Pbhj (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Shabiha is incorrect on several counts.  Nouns, both common and proper, are transliterated and transformed routinely.   The assertion that the sound of Q is distinct from the sound of K may make perfect sense in Semitic languages, but not in languages derived from West Germanic, such as English.   Historical usage is clearly on the side of "Koran" as is British usage.  To the extent that there is a recent trend towards variants with "Q" in American journalism, I suspect that it reflects the same tendency toward transient over-correctness that had anchors in the 1980's twisting their mouths to say "Managua, Nicaragua" like a cartoon Latino, and pronouncing "vichyssoise" with a silent terminal "s".  In any event, "Koran" is strongly preferred by one national variety of English and by at least half of another.  BTW, the Muslims of my acquaintence don't consider either spelling proper, since neither is Arabic.  Robert A.West (Talk) 10:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support and per the person mentioning the source, the OED confirms it is a proper spelling in English 76.66.197.30 (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose The copy of the Quran contains the word Quran not Koran Quran Most Muslims prefer using the letter Q —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notedgrant (talk • contribs)
 * Comment IMO the question at hand is which word most closely matches the policies and is most recognisable to [native] English speakers as a whole. In German it's called Koran, in French Coran, in English Koran, in Arabic [transliterated] Qurʾān. But presumably your opposition counts as a vote for a move to Quran from Qur'an? I note that the Arabic Koran contains no English words at all. Pbhj (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Koran" is an old-fashioned way of spelling that is being steadily replaced by "Quran" (with or without apostrophes). I don't like Google-stats either, but if you use the advanced search to limit it to "past year" then Quran/Qur'an beats Koran by almost a factor of 30. Zerotalk 01:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I hope you don't mind I de-indented you to make your opposition distinct from user:Notedgrant's. Please see my comment above about french vs. francais in response to YeshuaDavid. Note also that Google does synonym matching and so will use all variants (not restricted to English language web pages) to compile the results. Even negating a result does not exclude pages where that use is made. Nor would Google show pages using the transliteration in preference to the English word (as it includes characters that Google doesn't index) and so can not give proper results in respect of WP:EN. In view of the Wp:EN policy are you saying Qurʾān is not a transliteration or are your claiming that Quran is the English word or both? Pbhj (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Koran and Quran are both transliterations. I don't think that is the issue.  I think that Quran/Qur'an is the most common word used today in English and becoming more common, but it can hard to prove that rigorously.  My bias is towards academic writing, where Koran has practically disappeared. Zerotalk 13:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, claims above that OED prefers Koran are no longer true, indicating that OED has moved to match the current trend. The entry for Qur'an in the current full online version of the OED (subscription only) states: "The sacred book of Islam, the word of God as revealed to Muhammad by the archangel Gabriel over a period of years, written down in Arabic, and collected together after Muhammad's death; (also) a copy of this. Cf. KORAN n."  It does not indicate that Koran is preferred and it does not describe Qur'an as an academic variant.  The entry lists uses of Qur'an in English starting in 1787.  So all the argument above based on OED has been ruled out by OED itself.  (Adding: I just noticed that in the etymology it says "Compare earlier KORAN n. and ALCORAN n.") Zerotalk 13:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Screenshot please. 92.25.174.50 (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be a serious copyvio and admins like me can get into trouble. But I can send it by email if you ask via the "email this user" link on my home page.  For that you need an account with an email address in the prefs. Zerotalk 02:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Formalities - in order to let consensus form I would propose to review the position after 2 weeks, I'll be away briefly so 10 Sept(-ish) looks good. If you object to the timescale then get an editor to step in and review. Pbhj (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Source The Times of London style guide says in the intro:
 * "Where extra guidance is needed, staff should use as their first point of reference Collins English Dictionary (ISBN 0-00-719135-7, 2005). Other helpful sources are the New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (Odwe: ISBN 0-19-861040-6, 2005), the Concise Oxford or Chambers."

and for the Koran entry has Koran, the (cap and roman, like the Bible) but no relevant entries under Q. Lst update was July 2009. 92.25.174.50 (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Over the past few months, I have read many newspaper articles from all over the planet that mention the holy book of Muslims. I have not noted any preference by the newspapers for Koran or Quran or Qur'an. I do not like "Qur'an" because its accent mark makes it an oddity in English spelling (as User:pbhj notes above). As for "Koran" or "Quran", either one is fine. I tend to use Quran because it is the spelling that comes closest to what Muslims seem to prefer. I suggest the article be renamed "Quran". (I am en-Cdn.) PYRRHON  talk   21:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. As a general reference, Wikipedia should use the common English name.  If this were a specialist or religious work, it might be different.  —   AjaxSmack   02:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that "Koran" is not (any longer) the most common English name. Zerotalk 03:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Koran is being gradually replaced with Qur'an (or Quran, at least). Although still occasionally used, Koran is an archaic spelling, not a modern one. MP (talk•contribs) 16:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Quran is actual spelling which resembles to original Arabic word.The Original sources should not be Ignored.The Quran is used by most of the authors in English Language. Next time people may demand it to chnage in KURAN.Msoamu (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Quran or Qur'an are both acceptable, the former being more commonplace than the latter. Koran may be the "traditional" form (like "Mohammadan" as opposed to "Muslim) but it is both archaic and in terms of transliteration is also linguistically incorrect. In reality, though, it's a minor issue I think. Peter Deer (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

audio links
This link doesn't work; it says you are not authorized to use the server. Same when I try to use just deenbase.net. Please fix this as I would love to be able to hear how it sounds. 4.249.3.242 (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Primary method of transmission was NOT oral!!
In the start of the article it says: "Qur’an was written down by Muhammad's companions while he was alive, although the primary method of transmission was oral." But the fact is even from the very beginning. The Holy Prophet(Peace Be Upon Him) always arrange a gathering of Katibeen(Pious Muslims who maintain records of revelation) after every revelation. Then He(Peace Be Upon Him) dictate them the revelation and they write it in the exact same words. Most of the Katibeen also learn the revelation by heart at that moment.Aeymon (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tagged this with a tag, so that people who have sources for this can cite them. Otherwise, this content can be removed. Peter Deer (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * Support Qur'an is pedantry; the second edition of the OED (1989) correctly calls it a scholarly variant of Koran - Septentrionalis
 * Comment I'm pretty neutral on this matter, - YeshuaDavid
 * Support per nom's comments. FWIW, Chicago Manual of Style says either "Qur'an" or "Koran" is OK. - Good Ol’factory
 * Oppose We should look at the most common version of the name in titles of the recent relevant reliable sources, including Encyclopedia entries, - Alefbe
 * Oppose:First of all You cant translate a Noun .The Quran is actual Name written in all Islamic sources - Shabiha
 * Support. [...] "Koran" is strongly preferred by one national variety of English and by at least half of another. BTW, the Muslims of my acquaintence don't consider either spelling proper, since neither is Arabic. Robert A.West
 * Support and per the person mentioning the source, the OED confirms it is a proper spelling in English 76.66.197.30
 * Oppose The copy of the Quran contains the word Quran not Koran - Notedgrant
 * Oppose "Koran" is an old-fashioned way of spelling that is being steadily replaced by "Quran" - Zerotalk
 * Support. As a general reference, Wikipedia should use the common English name. If this were a specialist or religious work, it might be different. — AjaxSmack
 * Oppose Koran is being gradually replaced with Qur'an (or Quran, at least). Although still occasionally used, Koran is an archaic spelling, not a modern one. - MP
 * Oppose Quran is actual spelling which resembles to original Arabic word. - Msoamu
 * Oppose - Quran or Qur'an are both acceptable, the former being more commonplace than the latter. - Peter Deer

Conclusions
Support 6 (inc. nom), Neutral 1, Oppose 7 - conclusion, no consensus.

Of those opposing 4 prefer Quran, of the other 3: one says "Quran, at least", one that both are acceptable and the other that we should look at "the most common" which by Google search appears to be Quran.

This conclusion appears to disagrees with WP:ENGLISH. Strike one for English language users.

There appears to be no support for the current name. Pbhj (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Reality Check
Let's put this issue into perspective. Unless you are following a strict, academic form of transliteration there does not seem to be a need for much discussion as to the spelling of an Arabic word. Here is an interesting link regarding this issue: I Say Qaddafi, You Say Qadhdhafiy, by Graeme Wood at the Atlantic. And since neither of the two spellings mentioned here "Qur'an" and "Koran" is in accordance with any academic system of transliteration, this seems to be an argument without a winner. Secondly, if the article is named by either name I would imagine there be a redirect from the other spelling - therefore, practically speaking, this is a null argument. However, that being said, my vote is for "Qur'an" as it is a more accurate reflection of the phonetics. Supertouch (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Clothing
Why do women dress the way they do??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.85.13 (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This page is only for discussing the article. If you want to ask questions about Quran or Islam, the place to go is Reference_desk/Humanities. Zerotalk 00:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Inter-faith and the Qur'an
Hi! Just wondering if any Muslims would be interested in putting a little note about St.John Paul The Great Kissing the Noble Qur'an. I wouldn't do it myself becuse that would be rude, but if any Muslim Believer would do it, it would be Selam. I see the Qur'an now as a Holy Book I can read, since Saint John Paul. Also P.B.U.H should be included as christians say "Lord Jesus" and that gets in there. (redirecting a page). We Catholics nod our head when we say Jesus (nods) this is the same for Muslims but to share peace upon Holy Prophets.Dava4444 (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In regards to your first question, I see no reason why the mention of Pope John Paul II kissing the Qur'an in Syria could not be mentioned as it is in his article. The same reference could even be used. There's nothing rude about doing so, be bold!
 * As for the honorifics, in Wikipedia it is not considered neutral or part of our policy to call Jesus by those particular honorific titles, and if you have any examples where this is done please feel free to link them to me and I will gladly change them. Wikipedia is to be written from a neutral point of view, and as such those honorifics should not be included in articles, any more than they would in any other encyclopedia. Peter Deer (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Peter--I realize that the use of honorifics for Jesus and Muhammed is not strictly neutral, and therefore it would be against policy to use them in articles. However, do you think it would be acceptable--if an individual believer felt it necessary--to include the honorific in his own posts in talk pages?  As long as the believer is not trying to push his POV, it would seem harmless (indeed--it may allow some of the devout to help with articles) to allow people to use "Lord Jesus" or "Muhammed (p.b.u.h.) in talk pages if their religious conviction so dictates.  I hope that would be allowed.  Mitchell Powell (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

AD vs. CE
I realize that this is a religious article but in many other articles CE (common era) seems to be used in place of AD. I would suggest using this here as well. Ender8282 (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Since no one objected the change has been made. Ender8282 (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I object very strongly, AD should definitely be used over place of CE. And in any other articles where CE is, it should be changed back to AD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.113.31.18 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

BCE/CE is preferred over BC/AD on wikipedia 71.162.227.170 (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No it's not. RaseaC (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Because no one has pointed to an official Wikipedia policy guideline, I think I'll contribute my thoughts and the reasoning behind them (hopefully this will help us get beyond simple dogmatic assertion that the date should be one method or the other). I support the use of AD/BC, although I can understand that some would feel BCE/CE to be more fair.  The root of the objection to BC/AD seems to be that they stand for "BC" (before Christ) and "AD" (Anno Domini, Year of the Lord).  However, the titles have, as far as I know, no religious significance anymore, as it is acknowledge by the scholarly community that AD 1 is a few years late based on a mistaken calculation of Jesus' birth.  Although the use of AD/BC is therefore a little illogical (although convenient), the BCE/CE division is even less logical, with the meanings "Before Common Era" and "Common Era" meaning little more than, "we don't like to mention Jesus but we want to keep using his traditional birth date as our reference point."  Although I realize the religious connotations of AD/BC, the BCE/CE system, being less familiar, really draws more attention to Jesus' birth that the BC/AD use, and is therefore, in a strange way, more likely to draw attention to exactly what its users seek to avoid. Mitchell Powell (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

editing/wrong choice of word
by "special circumstances" "specific circumstances" are meant; the circumstances are in no way special, but: nuzul was not haphazardly. 85.178.80.87 (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence in question has multiple cited sources. Peter Deer (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
Qur& → Koran — Conclusion after casting votes. --Imdkzmaa (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There was no consensus for such a move. Peter Deer (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * it is implied; voting no consensus, therefore strike for English language. Also included in the to-do-list above. --Imdkzmaa (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon, but no, that's not how it works. You don't vote on something, a slim majority opposes, and then say "oh well no decision I guess we change it" that's neither sensible nor reflective of Wikipedia policy. Peter Deer (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What's going on? We discussed the issue and "Koran" clearly lost. Zerotalk 21:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As fare as I can see, there appears to be a disagreement about the current spelling with the English language and therefore votes was cast. The disagreement was not conclusive and therefore the 'most correct' English spelling (not translation/transliteration) should be used. This is also reflected in the to-do-list, right? --Imdkzmaa (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Quran or Qur'an are (1) the spellings used in academic writing almost exclusively for many years, (2) by far the most common recent spellings in English (factor of 2.5 over Koran in Google restricted to past year), (3) now supported by authoritative sources like OED. The sealed-up discussion above was closed with "no consensus for move to Koran". That was clearly the right decision and no case exists for reopening or restarting the argument. Zerotalk 23:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I like this logic! "Let's vote. Oh, shucks, nobody won, and I'm right, so I win!" WP:SNOW. Homunq (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Try to get your facts right. We had a discussion, then an administrator came along and closed it with a certain decision. Get over it. Zerotalk 05:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally do not care about the spelling; as fare as I can see, both from Pbhj concluding remark, quote "There appears to be no support for the current name." and the to-do-list at top of the page, quote "move: rename to Koran" that the decision supported to change the name, therefore the request to move the article. If it is not so, then don't move the article, as simple as that --Imdkzmaa (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would seem that Pbhj] added that particular thing to the to-do list. I shall remove it to prevent further confusion. Pbhj would do well to take note that there was not consensus supporting moving the article to that location. [[User:Peter Deer|Peter Deer (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the requested move tag. Pbhj either misspoke or is misunderstanding the discussion that ended in no consensus to move the article.--chaser (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Content
The content section is just one line. As mentioned above, many readers would want to know: "What is in the Quran?", and at the moment this article does not address this. I propose adding four small paragraphs regarding the content, which are: 1- Beliefs 2- Shariah (law) 3- Admonitions and glad tidings 4- Stories I believe that this sort of division is the norm. Hope this helps. Unflavoured (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea. I don't have enough knowledge to confidently write in those sections, but if you do, go for it. Mitchell Powell (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Grammar correction requested
editsemiprotected

In the section "Etymology and meaning",

the sentence "Each of the synonyms possess their own distinct meaning, but their use may converge with that of qur`ān in certain contexts."

should read "Each of the synonyms possesses its own distinct meaning, but its use may converge with that of qur`ān in certain contexts."

due to subject-verb agreement, as "each" is singular ("synonyms" of course is plural, but is buried in a prepositional phrase (it is the phrase's object), and so cannot be the subject), and thus requires a (third-person-)singular ending on "possess", and of course the matching singular possessive of "it" is also required.

89.61.253.98 (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Although it's probably best phrased, "Each synonym possesses its own distinct meaning, but its use may converge with that of qur`ān in certain contexts."   Set Sail   For The   Seven Seas    351° 21' 30" NET    23:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Broken link in lead (3rd paragraph)
The third paragraph says " Injil (Evangel).[17][18][19] ". I guess there's a missing or so. Sorry, can't correct it myself cause it's semiprotected. --Jonas Wagner (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good eye; fixed. Supertouch (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Qur'an is not equal to Jesus Christ
In the end of the first paragraph of the article on the Qur'an it states, "The importance of the Qur’an for Muslims and Islam is tantamount to the importance of Jesus Christ for Christians and Christianity.[8]"

That is incorrect. The Qur'an is more like the Bible is to Christians. Christians believe the Bible is the unerring word of God, whereas Jesus Christ IS God - or the Son of God. However, while admittedly confusing, Christians believe Jesus was both God and the Son of God.

The Qur'an is not God. It is believed to be the Word of God, just as the Bible is. In order to be correct, that distinction must be made.

Radmdau (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * done.  Yahel  Guhan  22:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there may be some confusion here. 'The Qur'an is not equal to Jesus Christ'; clearly, this is true (but that's not quite what the sentence at the end of the 1st para. said), and it is true that the Bible is the holy book of Christianity and the Qur'an is the holy book of Islam. However, this does not concur with actual beliefs and practices. The sentiment that is supposed to be expressed at the end of the first paragraph is that the Qur'an is the most important aspect of Islam for Muslims just as Jesus is the most important aspect of Christianity for Christians. Therefore, the sentence will be changed back. Hope this helps to clarify the confusion. MP (talk•contribs) 09:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think such a comparison is unneeded. Why even make the comparison?  We would not see in Christianity that Jesus holds the same importance in Christianity as the Qur'an does in Islam.  It's generally poor writing. gren グレン 05:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's very insulting to say a pile of paper is equal to the gratest human being ever, Jesus, it's so stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.200.162 (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point, Gren. Maybe it was written down to emphasise what's most important in the religions, but that clearly has problems (for example, why not mention other religions ?). Now that I think about it, it adds nothing of significance to the article and I agree it's poorly written. I'll remove it if nobody objects. MP (talk•contribs) 08:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the same sentence from Qur’an as a religious text. Imad marie (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's prudent not to have it. It's just a source of disunity and confusion and does not really provide any encyclopedic information.  May you go in God's care.  Peter Deer (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the sentence refers to a comparison about the role played in the theological sense by Christ in Christianity (a form of God) and the Quran in Islam (the word of God and hence something from God). Quite a few scholars have agreed that they have a similar role in their respective traditions. See for example The Faith of Other Men by Wilfred Cantwell Smith (1st addition, 1963, Pg 57). Regards--Shahab (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In Christianity Jesus Christ is not a "a form of God" but is God Himself made carnate. Christian's worship Jesus as he is the Almighty. If Muslims worship the Quran and believe the Quran to be alive, to be author of the Universe, then there is equivalence. The only analogue is the way the message of God is passed onto us through Jesus; whilst muslims believe that the message is passed on to an Angel from Allah, and then passed on to Mohammed and then to the writers of the Quran after a couple of generations. You could flip the statement around and say a Sunday school child's picture is equivalent to the entirety of the Hadith and Quran because they both tell us something about God. Pbhj (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well put, Pbhj. Perhaps it would be less provocative, but equally informative, to include something along the lines of "The Qur'an in Islam, like Jesus in Christianity, is regarded as carrying an eternal and infallible message from God to humankind." Mitchell Powell (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I don't personally see the need for such a comparison. Saying that it carries such a message without including the unnecessary simile is just as informative, more encyclopedic, and less contentious. Peter Deer (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What about those who follow the Gospel of John re: Jesus, e.g. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1)? As in, Jesus = God+Word and Qur'an = God+Word. I like what Mitchell Powell suggested - Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all "People of the Book" in the Qur'an, so it makes sense to compare the three, or two of three, or what have you.javascript:insertTags('Aleiher (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)',,)

silly picture
what the hell is with the picture? it has silly lighting, shadows and color.--Rabka Uhalla (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The Qur’an (pronounced qurˈʔaːn)
Visually, there's too much linguistic information in the first line -- and it may frustrate readers, especially young students who are coming to Wiki for an introduction to the religious + political significance of the Qur'an.

Clicking on qur'?a:n leads to some very complicated IPA definitions: Voiceless uvular plosive, Close back rounded vowel, Alveolar trill, Glottal stop, Open front unrounded vowel, Vowel length, Alveolar nasal Obviously, that's all useful stuff, especially about the glottal stop. However, I don't want the Qur'an article content to get bushwhacked by technical linguistics.

Proposal: Remove qurˈʔaːn from the first line. Then, insert a footnote, immediately after "Arabic pronunciation", which would send readers to the bottom of the article for all the technical IPA info. NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I just looked at History. Previously, versions of the article have included pronunciation info as a footnote.  On 3 December, Wolfdog removed the footnote, so it's now all included in the first line.  I think we need to have some consensus regarding how much linguistic/audio stuff we want in the article's intro content. NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to merely give the sound sample; I hope that makes things simpler. By the way, I want to tell you that you are the most polite critic I've ever dealt with on Wikipedia. Your kindness is such an appreciated surprise! If you feel it is still too discombobulated, let me know! Wolfdog (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment. And thanks for simplifying.  I added a footnote linking the "'qurˈʔaːn" phonetics to Wiki:IPA for Arabic -- because I thought readers need to understand what a "?" refers to.  I still think there's too much info in the first line, but given that we on Earth speak many different languages, it's fairly unavoidable.  Maybe, what's needed for articles like this is a template creating an "audio Arabic" sidebox similar to what appears in the article regarding "written Arabic". NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * qurˈʔaːn is just an IPA pronunciation guide, not a feat of visual beauty. For me, it immediatelly informs a near-to-correct pronunciation, maybe it is actually pronounced more like qurˈʔæːn, but there are some standardization rules for languages with variation in pronunciations. Let it be where it is! Even though it is not visually perfect, the "idea of it" is beautiful. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

compilation time
The intro tells us that muslim tradition tells us that the form of qur'an was fixed "shortly" after Muhammad's death, but scholars use to tell us that this "shortly" was about 80 years, since in the initial 80 years qur'an was solely learnt and recited orally. How is the scholarly opinion referred to in the article? Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 08:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Answering myself: it seems to be there, but it is mainly treated in History of the Qur'an. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 09:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
"However, clearly those who don't believe in the divine origin of the Qur’an or any kind of sacred or spiritual existence completely oppose any inward Qur'anic aspect."

This sentence sets up a straw man. Observers of the Qur'an may be of three postures - 1) Believing 2) Non-believing, but believing in a god of a different tradition 3) Atheist.

Most atheists, while not believing in a god, do embrace a kind of humanistic spirituality. Therefore it is not clear that anyone who does not believe in divine origins of the Qur'an would oppose an inward Qur'anic aspect.

This is along the same lines as those who do not believe in Jesus being able to accept him as a great teacher.Jkolak (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Images
I've changed the images at the start of the article and the start of the Text section. I hope these are better. MP (talk•contribs) 09:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Facebook' ta " Quran Verses " uygulaması ile güzel bir proğram vardı kur'anı çeşitli hocalardan tercihimize göre dinliyordum şimdi bu uygulamayı bilgisayarıma indirmek istiyorum bana bu konuda yardımcı olusanız sevinirim ( TÜRKÇE Turkey ) e mail adresim = aydogdum1@gmail.com''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.166.194 (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Khadijah left out of Wiki: Qu'ran article
There is no mention of the Prophet's wife, Khadijah being the first convert to Islam as well as the dictator of the Qu'ran itself. Many would argue that it was prophets who wrote the book, however one must consider the bias stance against women in the countries of origin. According to the Qu'ran Khadijah was there when the Prophet had his first revelation and was with him for 22 years after,where he had many revelations during this time. She was a woman of wealth, therefore she was educated; whereas the Prophet was neither, he was poor and from a tribal land, where book smarts are not priority. She spent her wealth to spread the word of Islam, she faced initial persecution as well. They loved one another deeply, so much so that the Prophet took another wife only after her death. After her death, the Prophet placed her in the rank of four perfect women, with the sister of Moses, the mother of Jesus, and Fatima. To leave her name out of Wiki: Qu'ran is an injustice to her and all women. It undermines their importance in society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosesake (talk • contribs) 17:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Historicity of the Quran
Have any archaeologists and (secular)/(impartial) scholars attempted to assess the historicity of the narratives and messages in the Quran, a la Israel Finkelstein's treatment of the Torah? Just curious. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Baxoy, 17 May 2010
Please remove the picture file from this wiki (i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muhammad-Majmac-al-tawarikh-1.jpg). The reason for this request is the impermissibility of depicting the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or Angels in pictures. Since this is a wiki that describes the Holy Book Qur'an, it would be within reason to request that it stays within the boundaries of the requirement of the religion. We appreciate your help. Many thanks.

Baxoy (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion. Wikipedia is not censored. Please see Help:Options to not see an image. :)
 * <font color="red" size="1px">Avic<font color="blue" size="1px">enna <font color="green" size="1px">sis @ 16:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I. Here is the text of the four links which I added:

 * Online Quran Project includes over 100+ translation in over 20 different languages.
 * Tanzeel::Holy Quran Project text and translations (in 34 languages, some with multiple translation editions); two classic arabic interpretations; audio streaming of recitations by multiple classic readers; with synchronized verse auto-highlighting (in arabic and translation); continuous synchronized audio and text streaming; display options; integrated user interface.
 * Quran Explorer Qur'an recitation and translation in Arabic, English and Urdu; audio streaming of recitations by a selection of multiple classic readers; synchronized verse auto-highlighting of arabic and translated text; continuous synchronized audio and text streaming; display options; integrated user interface. Site also include a Hadith explorer resource and search.
 * Qur'an site of al-islam.com Text and audio streaming of Al-Qur'an (two classic reciters); choice of four classical interpretations (Ibn Kathir, Al-Tabari, Al-Jalalayn and Al-Qurtubi) in Arabic English French German Indonesian Malayo and Turkish.
 * Audio library of The Qur'an Large collection of MP3 recordings of complete recitations of the Qur'an. All recordings are in the Public Domain. More than 100 recitations available to stream or download via bit-torrent.

II. Rationale for adding those links, and my message to that editor
My rationale for adding the links is spelled out at my subsequent message to him/her, which I added to his/her Discussion page. Here is a reproduction of the full text of the message:

" What gives you the right to remove someone's work? At the article on the Quran you have removed the external links that i added to various Quran resources available on the Web. I had added links to four resources, each with different features and facilities, and you removed them in one fell swoop, without so much as a warning or request for comment or clarification - or use of numerous editing templates available to you to indicate objection to this content.

I can offer multiple rationalizations why several links are in order.

(e.g.,


 * variety, as each offers different classical interpretations, different recitation recordings and different display and usability facilities.
 * redunduncy, in case of one resource becoming unavailable,

Yet you do not go there and with one sweep delete external links. This seems not only partial but heavy-handed
 * i believe the sites i added offer superior quality and usability to the single link that was there
 * There are multiple external links at each of the following articles: the King James Version, the New King James Version, the New Testament, the Tanakh (having no less than six links to online Tanakh text resources - and that's just one section of the external links), and the Bible (having three external links)


 * You have posted nothing on my discussion page, to indicate the rationale and need to remove the external links I added. Which makes your deletion of my work unexplained unannounced and rude.


 * You are depriving readers of very important resources that represent a lot of work, including my own work adding them to the Qur'an page.


 * The more the merrier, in this context of the encyclopedia, whose purpose it is to Encycle (surround) as much as possible of the information and resources available.


 * This is not your personal playground to trample on other people's work, arrogantly and dismissively without a word, or to impose the kind of limitations you would like to see imposed on a particular religion or religious holy book.

Scriber (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)"

I find this kind of behavior too restrictive on the quality of information I was seeking to add and unnecessarily dismissive and discourteous of me (or any other user, or indeed potential beneficiaries of those links) particularly coming from a "Veteran Editor II" of Wikipedia.

I hope to hear from User:Supertouch on this matter and to restore those links - and why he would not do the same on the bible-related pages (and who is a better judge of the quality or need or relevance of those external links I added anyway).

In order not to have to turn for a Third Neutral Opinion or further arbitration on this matter.

Regards,

Scriber (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Scriber, I do not see anything wrong with Supertouch's removal of the numerous links. The Online Quran Project that is already linked is very extensive, containing many translations. Some of your links were problematic, such as linking to what appears to be solely non-English pages. --Ari (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect, Ari! The Quran Explorer, the Tanzeel Quran Project and the al-islam.com quran site clearly have bilingual and multilingual interfaces.

And while we're at it, put the shoe on the other foot. Imagine a group of veteran muslim editors telling a jewish user what links to Talmudic or Tanakh resources are relevant or irrelevant to the Torah. It just would not be right for them to make the presumption. Instead, I would expect the matter to be scrutinized by wikipedia admins or mods that would know the subject more closely, namely muslim admins or mods. --Scriber (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Scribe, your above comment illustrates a misunderstanding you seem to have of Wikipedia when you claim a part of this article as "your work" and especially your heading on my talk page: "What gives you the right to remove someone's work?"— refer to WP:Ownership. A quick read of WP:EL should help you develop an understanding of the proper usage of the external links section. I quote from WP:ELYES:




 * This is not quite the issue here. You are pointing out the way I phrased my response which was in a voice of frustration, seeing the addition disappear the very moment I was done working on it, and about to look at it and fine tune it. --Scriber (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not one of the links you have added contributes to an understanding of the Quran, they are simply links to the Quran itself, its recitation and and its explanations. Your rational as stated does not provide any sound basis on which to keep these links: variety, redundancy, quality and multiple links hardly constitute a basis for adding links to an article. Furthermore, at least one of these pages is in Arabic — WP:EL states: "...external links to English-language content are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia..."--Supertouch (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Its recitationa and explanations" do not contribute to an understanding of the Quran? This is self-contradictory.

Perhaps to a disinterested perspective it makes no difference. The links offer different options for diacritics and different readings (tilawas) which are divided into different types with different emphasizes be it for study, recitation or prayer. The sites I added also offer various editions within sets of foreign language translations which would be of much interest to Muslims and students of qur'an in terms of comparative analysis of the translations.

You have still to explain why and how not one of the links offer something new to the lone link that was there (the OQP) when it is clear just by putting them side by side, that the OQP is grossly lacking in features and facilities offered by the Four links I added. Recitations and styles of recitation are as important to Muslims as styles of singing are to opera singers. You can check that for yourself.

Likewise the sets of diacritics used, the interpretative texts and the divergent translations by different translators in classic editions in many languages are important comparative tools particularly for the non-arabic speaker and the multi-lingual users of the subject matter.

I cannot presume to determine what is relevant, important or unimportant when it comes to online resources on the Torah, the Tanakh or the Talmud, nor would I presume to label online resources for jews or christians as spam.

As it were, what you call borderline spam is entirely non commercial, no ads, entirely in the public domain. No corporate or sectarian plugging in here. It is just a plain vanilla set of resources each with a different subset of facilities and features. The variety and choice is of use to muslims and non muslims alike, ie those who are interested in the subject matter.

I suggest we appeal to some arbitration by any Muslim wikipedia administrators or moderators (do they exist?), and since you are a veteran moderator here, I ask you to provide me with help on that.

Your perspective on the usages of these resources is deficient at best and cannot be pass proper judgement on the utility of those FOUR links to a Muslim, of whatever native language - or indeed to non-muslim students of the qur'an.

I would like you to elucidate how I can go about making my case for the relevance of those links in order to have my edit re-instated. It is pointless for me to posture by reverting / undoing your edit - since you'll probably pull rank and seniority.

But that would not be impartial or fair to the subject matter at hand. -- Scriber (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is about the Quran, while I am not opposed to external links to individual books of tafsir, it inappropriate on this particular page—perhaps putting an external link at the page for Tafsir Ibn Kathir to an on-line version of that book would work but not on this page. A suitable external link would be, for example, to an on-line version of al-Itqan a book that explains what the Quran is and its various disciplines. A major point you failed to address is the issue of language — external links should be in English.--Supertouch (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I added this discussion to External links/Noticeboard.--Supertouch (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Permit me to repost my edits to my response to you, where my rationale is more elaborated.
 * Also, please note these are not links to Tafsir!!! These Are links to the Mushaf offering various functions (eg, to display translations, tafsirs, diacritics, play audio, and control the appear and flow of the text!) They are above all sites of the Quran, each offering a slightly different subset of those functions ! Here's a better proofread and better organized re-coup of my earlier response:
 * "Its recitations and explanations" do not contribute to an understanding of the Quran? How can explanations not conrtibute to understandings of the Qur'an?? This is self-contradictory.
 * Perhaps to a disinterested perspective it makes no difference.
 * You have still to explain why and how not one of the links offer something new to the lone link that was there (the OQP) when it is clear just by putting them side by side, that the OQP is grossly lacking in features and facilities offered by the Four links I added.
 * But here are my reasons for the relevance and utility of those external links:
 * Recitations to Muslims are as valued as say, Beatles covers or Bob Dylan covers are to fans of those artists. To draw on another analogy The different recitations are like different stage productions of classical dramatic works. Each production offers different angles, qualities and so on. They are of aesthetic and devotional value to the Muslims. The Open Quran Project offers no audio recitations whatsoever.
 * Recitations and styles of recitation are as important to Muslims as styles of singing are to opera singers. You can check that easily.
 * Audio material is important to those reading the quran particularly the elderly, or those with short attention spans, those trying to learn how to read it, and how to pronounce it. Not only are audio materials available but in one or two of the Four links, audio streaming is available also in languages other than arabic.
 * More importantly, there exist different styles of recitations, (formally called Tilawa, and a concept not foreign to jewish recitation of jewish scriptures) There are different schools and types of recitation, and since the Qur'an is literally called the Book to be read (aloud) Recitation and its styles is Central to the devotional practices of reading the Qur'an. Indeed the injunction is that whenever possible to read it aloud and as correctly as possible. The provision of recitations in their variety, is important in that aspect of Quran study that involves learning how to read and intone the verses aloud, the timing and intonation are but to elements of this practice. It is not some esoteric thing it is cross-sectarian and a widely well-known matter.
 * Thus, the links offer different options for different readings (tilawas) which are divided into different types with different emphasizes be it for study, recitation or prayer. The sites I added also offer various editions within sets of foreign language translations which would be of much interest to Muslims and students of qur'an in terms of comparative analysis of the translations.


 * The sites to varying degrees offer controls on the sets and subsets of diacritics to display which have grammatical implications and consequently have an important bearing on the meanings of the verses' content. Diacritics make all the difference in grammar, pronounciation and meaning in Arabic. The Open Quran Project again is lacking in this department.3


 * The sets of diacritics used, the interpretative texts and the divergent translations by different translators in classic editions in many languages are important comparative tools particularly for the non-arabic speaker and the multi-lingual users of the subject matter.


 * I cannot presume to determine what is relevant, important or unimportant when it comes to online resources on the Torah, the Tanakh or the Talmud, nor would I presume to label online resources for jews or christians as "borderline spam." Such a call should be made by a domain expert in the subject at hand - perhaps, as i wrote before, one or more Muslim admins / mods - if they exist!!!


 * As it were, what you call "borderline spam" is entirely non commercial, no ads, entirely in the public domain. No corporate or sectarian plugging in here. And this can be easily verified. It is just a plain vanilla set of resources each with a different subset of facilities and features. The variety and choice is of use to muslims and non muslims alike, ie those who are interested in the subject matter.


 * I suggest we appeal to some arbitration by any Muslim wikipedia administrators or moderators (do they exist?), and since you are a veteran moderator here, I ask you to provide me with help on that.


 * Your perspective on the usages of these resources is deficient at best and cannot pass proper judgement on the utility of those FOUR links to a Muslim, of whatever native language - or indeed to non-muslim students of the qur'an.


 * I would like you to elucidate how I can go about making my case for the relevance of those links in order to have my edit re-instated. It is pointless for me to posture by reverting / undoing your edit - since you'll probably pull rank and seniority, and also I would lose my editing privileges. And ultimately it would not be impartial or fair to the subject matter at hand nor would it be of service to users of those resources who find them here - should my position on the utility and relevance of those links be proven correct! In other words, everyone stands to lose from stubborness either on your part (with more expertise) or on my part (with my lack of it). So do please help me get some of those links up there. Vet them, inquire about them, ask other more knowledgeable admins about them, and tell me how to proceed. Thanks! -- Scriber (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a good translation site is in order. Perhaps the one with the most reliable, most accessible, and highest-quality translations.  Anything more than one or two translation sites would probably be overkill. I've seen articles such as this get way bogged down in excessive external links, so it would be a good idea to only pick the best from the above to discourage a linkfarm from developing  Them  From  Space  16:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would recommend using this link:
 * Tanzeel::Holy Quran Project text and translations (in 34 languages, some with multiple translation editions); two classic arabic interpretations; audio streaming of recitations by multiple classic readers; with synchronized verse auto-highlighting (in arabic and translation); continuous synchronized audio and text streaming; display options; integrated user interface.
 * By comparing it to the existing Open Quran Project link, the link I suggested is of much higher quality in terms of both content, user functions and presentation. It contains more languages, more editions per language, synchronized text and audio streaming, reciters selections, diacritic control, etc.
 * Please let me know if and when it would be possible to add it to the page. Thanks to all responders. --Scriber (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)