Talk:Surah of Wilaya and Nurayn

removal of creative writing
i removed the creative writing in the top section. the top of it is unsourced also. who writes these things??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.1.221 (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Links
The links to Nurayn and Wilaya in the article could be clarified. MP  (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This page should be deleted if it doesnt mention the source of these verses
I read this article and it doesnt seem to mention where these two Surahs are from. Its of the umpost importance to metion where they were found cuz that would solve the so-called controversy about who believes these verses are missing from the Qur'an. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.220.17.250 (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

I second this comment; this is a weird article. It's an article about controversial surahs that we learn nothing about, that don't appear to exist, and yet the Shia are responsible for it? Poor, poor, poor work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.142.195.229 (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The Quotation
I think that the quotation given is too general for this page, perhaps it would be better to place it in the section on Tahrif, which deals with alterations in the text of the Quran.Energyworm (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Text of the Surahs
When you google for these alleged Surahs all that comes up are people arguing about them, not the texts themselves. If these texts actually exist the entry should link to them or there isn't much point in having it at all. M-Henry (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

July 2013
There was an error in the lead, the fake chapters are not part of an imaginary Shi'ite Qur'an. Sunni and Shi'a scholars are unanimous in rejecting these chapters, the sources in the references section do no say that Shi'a Muslims believed in these fake chapters.Kiatdd (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

content
But: what do they claim?? A "plot" is needed. Zezen (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)