Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles/Citing Quran

Quran ref
I propose this format:


 * Sura 4.35 translated by Shakir
 * And if you fear a breach between the two, then appoint judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they both desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them, surely Allah is Knowing, Aware

--Striver 05:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It is beautiful. BUT I *have heard* Yusuf Ali is the most famous translation. Isn't it? --Aminz 05:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, we also have Qur'an template: . --Aminz 05:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Citing the Qur'an
Is there a standard form on Wikipedia for citing a part of the Qur'an? Should you use the sura name or just the number? I asked this on the Qur'an article talk page once, adequate reason for it to be included in this style manual. MeltBanana 01:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Just the number, I think, linked appropriately (e.g. 10:13; the articles are all under the names but redirects exist for the numbers); it conveys the same information in the least amount of space, which is ideal for references. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 02:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I propose this format:


 * Sura 4.35 translated by Shakir
 * And if you fear a breach between the two, then appoint judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they both desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them, surely Allah is Knowing, Aware

I agree with this latter suggestion, as it's better to also state which translation is being used. MP  (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest this then:


 * Sura translated by Shakir
 * And if you fear a breach between the two, then appoint judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they both desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them, surely Allah is Knowing, Aware

--Aminz 05:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Though not sure if we are better to use Yusuf Ali or Shakir (?) --Aminz 05:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yusuf Ali has a reputation of being anit-semitic in its tranlation, Shakir is shi'a in its translation. Don't ask me why, but he is. --Striver 11:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see :D --Aminz 22:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

How about my latest invention? --Striver 01:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed guildline

 * We should not reference to Qur'an directly in wikipedia since Qur'an is a primary source. There are many verses and Hadiths that are all used together by Islamic scholars. We can however quote "Scholar X in his commentary on verse X". Please note that the Scholar X should be a renowned Muslim scholar.


 * Of course we should be able to cite verses from the Qur'an -- not to say what they mean (that's interpretation) but just to specify what is under discussion. If there's any discussion of what the verses mean, then we cite scholars.


 * We should not reference to Qur'an directly in wikipedia since Qur'an is a primary source. There are many verses and Hadiths that are all used together by Islamic scholars. We can however quote "Scholar X in his commentary on verse X". Please note that the Scholar X should be a renowned Muslim scholar.


 * Of course we should be able to cite verses from the Qur'an -- not to say what they mean (that's interpretation) but just to specify what is under discussion. If there's any discussion of what the verses mean, then we cite scholars.


 * Per above, we should use the Qur'an when talking about verses, but use someone's interpretation (or preferably several interpretations) when talking about what a verse means. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 04:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Template
I have created Template:QuoteQuran and would like to present it here as an proposed standard model for quoting the Qur'an. --Striver 06:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Recommending a standard
Looking through various articles, it seems apparent that there is no standard in the way the Qur'an is cited. This is understandable since the Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) states that "There is no general format of Qur'anic references". This appears to have led to various different methods to be used where some are linked in-line and others are referenced in footnotes or references with on commonality on the format being used.

There are also a number of templates that are available which make sticking to a standard even more difficult.


 * quran-usc
 * quran-usc-range
 * QuoteQuran
 * QuoteQuran-range
 * QuoteQuran-range

I'd like to suggest replacing all the above templates with a cite quran esoteric template that can provide a level of standardisation for the citations.

Firstly, though we need to agree on the method of citation. I propose all citations should be in-line, linked to the USC-MSA pages, as either subscripts or as part of the text in the following formats:

Inline quote

Example 1

"The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray"[ 1:7 ]

Example 2

"The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray"1:7 (Pickthal) - for cases where the translator is important in the context.

Example 3

"Show us the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray"1:6-7

Example 4

"Show us the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray"1:6-7 (Pickthal)

Verse citation

Example 1

The issue of purification is mentioned in a number of verses of the Qur'an including 2:125, 5:6 and 9:103.

Example 2

Ibn Kathir's commentary on verses 5:6-10 states...

This will improve the readability of the articles and avoid having to flip between reference sections and main text to look up the reference.

What do you all say? → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 13:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have created the cite quran template which has examples of all connotations of the above. The template can be used for inline citation or for adding to references. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 00:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello there. I agree that there should be a standard. I also think it's a good idea to have one template that can do many jobs. I have left a comment at your template talk page. MP  (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I was beginning to wonder if anybody had the project page on their watchlist! Maybe, I should leave comments on Wikipedians who edit Islam related articles. Would be good to get a consensus. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 20:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Aktar, thanks for making this initiative. So you're sure that this wont make things difficult for anyone? I like the superscripted text. Although this is nice, I like best the format which is simple and produces the expected text and link. To do the same in your template, we'd have to type something like: , which is long as you can see. Although you have more features in your template but its not as simple to use. I suggest adopting your new one too in addition to others as the superscript features are nice.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I did ponder on this issue and the simplest usage of the template which I'm proposing as the norm is:




 * This will give the inline superscript link which I'm proposing should be the standard. This gives the link to the reference and also is not too obtrusive and therefore no need to add it to the references section (which is what the Quran template is currently used for).


 * Hope this helps to explain the usage. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 23:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I've shortened some of the parameter names as follows: rangeend → end, expanded → expand. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 12:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What if we want to say  "In quran, it is mentioned that XYZ" , where we dont want to quote the Quran fully. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you give a real example please. My understanding of primary sources is that there can be no interpretation as that is original research and therefore the exact quote would have to be cited. Maybe I'm not understanding the context, so if you can give an example, it will help. Thanks. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 00:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. In the "Notes" section of Qur'an, you'll see many Quranic verses being referenced directly (#2-16). I would opt for the simple way to make such a direct reference. Right now its something simple like Quran|2|55 --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought there would be such a case but just couldn't think of a concrete example! My thoughts were to use the style option like so   which would produce Qur'an 1:1. I'll also look at enclosing it within   tags too so that if a verse is cited multiple times, only 1 reference entry is created. Can we have some more thoughts on this from other editors also please. I'd like to see this template being mandatory to ensure a standard across all articles. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 15:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Implemented the above but the ref tags cannot be included in templates and have to be done manually. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 15:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be difficult to get everyone to switch over to this new method entirely, but it would be easier if everyone is allowed to use what they want to use. Simply saying is easier than the the above, so if its me, I would like the freedom to still use the simple method than use  - this is a little complex. What do you think about being able to use any of the templates rather than just one? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Matt, thanks again for your comments. Being a relative newcomer to WP and finding myself right in the middle of the "72 virgins" article (via the AfD) and having to learn real quick about how WP really works, it's a nice change to be able to have a calm and collective discussion. Hope other editors can "step back" a bit and join us (seems we're the only ones here :-)

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. The main aim of this initiative wasn't to decide the naming or usage of a template but rather agree on the style of referencing to use. What I'm proposing is that we use the "inline-superscript" method (shown in Example 1 above) because it is easier to lookup the verse without having to flip to the References section. The template is just a tool to achieve this objective and it would be very easy to make changes to the existing template to achieve this or create a bot to update uses of the existing template to the new one.

I believe you were receptive to the idea of inline-superscripting and as there have been no other editors interested in this, if I have your support, I propose we change the guidelines to state that this is the default method of referencing that should be used (unless the text necessitates one of the other forms).

What say you? → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 14:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the very late reply Aktar, I've been busy on other stuff here (probably not more busy than you though) and forgot about this frequently. This is definitely your most strongest point:
 * What I'm proposing is that we use the "inline-superscript" method (shown in Example 1 above) because it is easier to lookup the verse without having to flip to the References section.
 * I agree with this completely. Only I'd change the 1:7 to Quran 1:7. This will make it clear its a Quran quote. I dont think there's anyone who would oppose this, or is there? Please speak up, if anyone has concerns. Another small thing, I dont know if there's a better way for that arrow to look like, that little blue one, or if its possible to get rid of - or if it would be nice to do so. What do you think? But definitely, inline is the best way to go rather than having to look in the references section and back again, so you're on the right track.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Matt - yeah, I've got a day job to do sadly so can't dedicate much time to WP :) Unfortunately, there's no way I can find to remove that arrow. I think it's a standard wiki icon to indicate that it is an external link as opposed to an intra-wiki link. I do agree that it would be better if it wasn't there, but that's not possible. I'll update the template and make the changes to the Qur'an article and Manual of Style to see if we get more comments. I have a feeling not many editors are watching this page - so we may have to go through another round of discussion if we get any major objections. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 19:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok then, if we get more input. I think I wanna start using this from now on: . What do you think? Your template provides these options, right? Or would you rather that everyone use just one format? Just the numbers is not enough. It could be a hadith. Pickthall 1:6 - Looks more like a Bible quotation, although we know what it is. I like Quran 1:6, in small superscript like that one.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, please go ahead, those options are valid. I've already done a search and replace on most articles using the old template - but without the inlining which will need some manual changes (i.e. removing from reference list where necessary). In terms of whether to supress the Qur'an tag (it's on by default), it depends on the context of the quote. → AA (talk • contribs) — 18:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to argue the merits of Template:QuoteQuran:
 * 1) In long quotes, that template can be used to include transliterations and Arabic in a single coherent frame.
 * 2) It includes more translators, and is scalable. i.e., more can be added.
 * 3) It links to Qur'an translations, Surah, Ayah and the relevant Surah article in question in straightforward style, and still has an external link.

I do agree that it is a bit to big for quick quotes, but i regard it as superior in larger quotes. So i propose that  cite quran be used in small quotes or in-between text quotes, while Template:QuoteQuran be used in more prominent quotes.

Lastly, maybe it's just me, but i like larger quotes to be distinguished in some way (not only quranic quotes), and the frame accomplishes that, but again, this is just a personal preference. I view that it gives some visual landmarks to an other ways barren landscape of text, and gives more credit of the originator of the quote. --Striver - talk 10:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sura number vs Sura name
Which should we use? Would something be 96:1 or Al-alaq 1? I've seen both.--Kirby♥time 22:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to use the numbers as it keeps the reference short and is understandable to most people as chapter:verse which allows it to be used inline without disrupting the text. Also, for the purposes of citation in most cases, the name of the Sura is usually not significant - but the contents of the verse(s) being referred to. If the name has any significance then it should be mentioned in the sentence where the citation occurs. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 22:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirbymtime, ofcourse you should use the surah numbers, not the names. One problem is people will never know the spelling of the surah name. Nisa 34, or Nisaa 34, or Nissaa 34? For example.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Surah names are good for having links to the surah article. Multiple speling possibilities is solved through standardization. --Striver - talk 18:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Number for Sura is good for several reasons,
 * It keeps citation short
 * Many online sources use number in the URLs
 * -- নাফী ম. সাধ  nafSadh talk 14:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Quote template
Template:QuoteQuran-range is pretty cool, but something is wrong with it on some pages, Iram of the Pillars for example. I was trying to fix it but I can't find the problem. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just come from the same page - it definitely needs some cleaning up. If the inappropriate box border was only added to stop the introduction from looking like part of the article body, we should drop the box and move the chapter-and-verse citation to the small print at the end. --McGeddon (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Cite Qur'an
Cite source for Qur'an translations has long been USC. I think this can be changed to some other source. I introduced a discussion on Template_talk:Cite_quran. Please discuss there on the matter. -- নাফী ম. সাধ  nafSadh talk 14:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Citing Quran from external link
In the holy Quran - "And the sky was built by Us with might; and indeed We are the expanders" - 51:47. The verse points out that space, and thus the universe, happens to be expanding, just as Hubble’s Law states. Is it possible to some how put thi in "Metric expansion of space"? It would be a great reference for researchers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tauhidaerospace (talk • contribs) 03:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Citing the Quran for instances when people quoted the Quran
Many Muslims quote the Quran. In articles that report what some later person said, how (if at all) should the articles cite the Quran? In these instances, the Quran is not a source for he/she said. Doing a normal citation to the Quran creates the illusion of a citation for him/her saying it.

There are a number of articles, such as Sermon of Zaynab bint Ali in the court of Yazid where there are citations to the Quran for events that happened after the Quran was written.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Toddy1: I think the article creator had tried to show that she had used Quranic verses as parts of her sermons.(as the sources show). How about using footnotes to explain that some parts of the sermon are in fact Quranic verses instead of citing to Quran? Mhhossein (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Standards for quoting Quran and Hadith
Quotes that are used to prove a claim, should normally be put in the ref that accompanies said claim. If and only if it is utterly and completely necessary, quotes might be included in the main text. The standard WP quotation format is a quote in combination with quote. In the past, specific quotation templates have been created, which some may consider to be "fancy" and others downright "POV": QuoteHadith, Quote Quran Translation and QuoteQuran-range. Here I propose a replacement to standardise all of these "POV" templates according to the neutral quote, whilst retaining some of the specific parameters.

Qur'an
This standard combines quote with cite quran. The proposed template markup is "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet"

Example: "Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, The Beneficent, the Merciful."

The "POV" Qur'an templates include many more translators than cite quran does now, but those are relatively easy to add and so should not pose a major problem.

Hadith
I propose two variants: one in which the external link/reference is in ref-format, and another in which everything is non-superscripted (disclaimer: the following quote is merely an example taken from Shahid to illustrate a proposed standard and does in no way represent my opinions and beliefs. This quote just coincidentally had the best markup I came across).

Variant 1) :

"It has been narrated on the authority of Anas b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: "Who seeks martyrdom with sincerity shall get its reward, though he may not achieve it.""

- Collected by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj

Variant 2) :

"It has been narrated on the authority of Anas b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: "Who seeks martyrdom with sincerity shall get its reward, though he may not achieve it.""

- Collected by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj

I am not sure about where to put the classification (sahih, daif, etc.), although I suspect that classifications are not frequently added to QuoteHadith anyway. Perhaps it is best to put them between ref tags, somewhere after the Hadith-usc template. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I would prefer that with a capital "Q" be used, since Quran is a proper noun.  We should not expect our editors to use unusual capitalisation.  Of course  would still work as a redirect.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC).


 * That is easily fixed with a couple of redirects. - HyperGaruda (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)