Talk:Quran and miracles

message: Lets keep this article free from un-sourced statments. Wanna bet that it will get a AFD? --Striver 19:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you have lost the bet. As there is not AFD even after many months. --- ابراهيم 20:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Un-sourced statements 

message: Is the title of this article correct? Or maybe the text about the Qur'an being a miricle in itself has grown out of proportions and should be given an article of it's own. I was not expecting it here... I suggest a new page on The Linguistic and Literary Inimitability of the Qur'an. 
Info D 14:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Discussion of all the ways a book imitating the Koran would have to be "unique" betray circular reasoning. To be unique means to be one of a kind.  If anything imitates the Koran, it is by definition not one of a kind -- it's an imitation.    But these exact criteria could be applied to, say, James Joyce.  No doubt James Joyce isn't a prophet.  Peccavimus 17:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "unique" a meaningless word in this context 

message: The section "Scientific Miracles" states, "In Quran there is a hint of both big bang and big crunch." and then goes on. This is original research as the wording is unattributed to anyone who is a cosmologist. Yes reading the stated sura with it "We produce a new one:" would indicate a cycle of creation but who are we to describe it as such. We won't mention the illogic of the wording a "scientific miracle". The scientific method usually precludes miracles in that it precludes a supernatural origin for events. Ttiotsw 11:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section Scientific Miracles contains Original Research. 

message: I accidently hit this page and truthfully it's a bit messy full of original research and unattributed content. The section on Linguistic and Literary Inimitability needs a serious cull or if it's a topic in it's own right then moved to another page. As to why the rediscovery of the City of Iram is a miracle we'll never know. The reference for that is a web page and our Wikipedia page fails to highlight the numbers of people who feel it is a miracle or if it's just a few then the authority of those people. As for the "Mathematical" - this isn't maths. It is numerology at best. Ttiotsw 13:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for tagging with cleanup. 

message: The article was reverted to a 3 month old copy by someone. This has left the article even worse than before with nearly every sentence having classic weasel wording (truthfully I actually prefer ferrets but weasels will do). The numerology stuff still makes no sense even if you are pissed on this years wine and have forgotten all maths since kindergarten. Erich Von Daniken, come back, all is forgiven compared to this stuff; at least you had Aliens and spaceships and stuff. If this all makes no sense then read the article and tell me which is clearer. Ttiotsw 21:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEW reason to tag with cleanup and weasel wording. 

message: see next last section, before the section regarding the treaty. --Striver 03:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verses

message: This page has nothing to do as taking a side in the discussion if the Quran is of divine origin or it is the work of Muhammad. So, we cannot present biased arguments such as "Muhammad, who was influenced by older Jewish and Christian traditions, also included ..." as facts. There exist other wiki pages on this issue: "critism of Muhammad", "critisim of Quran", etc. The page must focus on the Quran.
We do not need to give a reference other than wiki page about the "ayat" for the sentence "verses of the book are referred to as ayat, which also means "a miracle" in the Arabic language." The mentioned wiki page states it clearly. I agree with the idea that wiki pages are not summary of a particular book.
And I see that many relevant external links are being removed for the sake of unrelated arguments.
 
This page has already been pruned greatly. Let us not make the same mistakes in the very beginning of the development of the page. Otherwise, I believe that a systematical vandalism is being applied for this page. (American force 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other wiki pages cannot serve as references (see WP:V, only "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" are acceptable). You are true that it is better to have more sources than one, but at least one reliable source is needed. I think that the proper solution is to add other reliable scholarly sources and not delete the current one. - Moreover you should know that the "systematical vandalism" saved this article from deletion not so long ago (see the AfD discussion linked above).--Ioannes Pragensis 08:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, the link for the ayat stays for now. However, the statement about divinity of Quran does not add something to the content. I think the solution is not to add any controversial sentences without consensus. Also, some external links are being removed in every revison, please do not remove them. (American force 14:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Freskile this is stupid comment to be honest.This article is extremely bias.Oren.tal (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality and wiki rules

message: When writing and editing this article, be aware that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. That means, this article is not to become an Islamist propaganda article desined to convert people to Islam. It should mention the relevant and notable so-called miracles and responses, but should not be used for propaganda.--Sefringle 05:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: Quoting the quran without quoting a secondary source is against wikipedia policies. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It says 
:From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list: 
:If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; 
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; 
:If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
In other words, quoting the quran without a secondary source is WP:OR
See also: WP:OR#What is excluded?.
It says:
:It introduces a theory or method of solution; 
:It introduces original ideas; 
:It defines new terms; 
:It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; 
:It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; 
:It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; 
:It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source. --Sefringle 21:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the Quran quotes: I think that clearly understandable quotes from acknowledged primary sources are not regarded as WP:OR. ("Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." - And the description of miracles is probably easily understandable in the cited places of Quran.)
The primary source here is the Quran, and they are published by a reliable source 'usc.edu', even a wiki template exist for this.  
So, direct quotations are allowed here. If it were not the case, the page which you presented as an example in another discussion, Miracles attributed to Jesus would be full of references. I can present here much much more examples of wiki articles diretly quoting from Bible and Quran.
Wiki pages are not for propaganda, this also means they cannot be used for an anti-Islamist propaganda. Please do not try to misuse wikirules with some biased comments.
(American force 04:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That doesn't change the fact that it is an extermely small minority view unless you or someone else can prove otherwise. You claim there are muslims who believe the quran has miracles. Prove it. If you can't by citing reputable sources, than it is a very small minority view.--Sefringle 04:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion was about the usage of Quranic quotes. For the claim "there are muslims who believe the quran has miracles", the writer has already stated his source. (American force 04:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one and only source he mention is NOT reliable, notable, or scholarly.--Sefringle 04:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quran quotes

message: The Qur’an speaks about “hail” and “its lightening”; “And He sends down hail from mountains (clouds) in the sky, and He strikes with it whomever He wills, and turns it from whomever He wills. The vivid flash of its lightening nearly blinds the sight.”  In the formation of lightening, a cloud becomes electrified as hail collides with liquid droplets, which then freeze and release latent heat, keeping the surface of the hailstones warmer than the surrounding ice crystals. When the hailstone comes into contact with an ice crystal, electrons flow from the colder object toward the warmer object and the negative charge is then discharged as lightening.Ahrens, C. Donald. 1998. Meteorology Today. 3rd ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Company. p. 437 Hail is thus argued as a major factor in lightening. Ibrahim, p.25-27
I am putting back these edits because the objection to them - that these edits are not notable- is invalid. See WP:N. The Wikipedia guidelines of notibility "give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles".  Miracles of the Qur'an are very relevant and needed in an article titled "Qur'an and miracles". Slsm07 04:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not reliable sources. Relevance is important, but reliability is more important, and I.A. Ibrhim is not a reliable source.  Yahel Guhan 04:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lightening

message: The current structure of the page (claim/criticism) is easy to read, and it makes it easy for editors to add content in the future. If an editor wants to add to the claim; he can do it easily, same for the criticism. An example is Criticism of the Qur'an.
Merging the (claim/criticism) paragraphs in one is difficult. Look at scientific miracle for example, they are two big paragraphs (and candidates to get bigger); merging them in a single paragraph is merely impossible. (Imad marie (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unencyclopedic Imad. The purpose of wikipedia is not to present a such a dialog. It should present different views but not in an defense-attack manner as this. --Aminz (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Wikipedia is opposed to a "debate"-like structuring. Merging these views into singular paragraphs isn't necessary. The information found should just be consolidated into a body of text. It may seem easier to read to some, but our guidelines discourage the use of this structuring.--C.Logan (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Structure

message: I see the changes that Aminz did uneasy to read, and encyclopedic, and i see it only a quotation from Denis Gril book. I see this version to be better. (Imad marie (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Imad, I think you are correct that it was uneasy to read. Can you please help making it readable? Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qur'an as a miracle changed by Aminz 

message: There is a section Qur%27an#Relationship_with_other_literature that talks about Qur'an relation with other Scriptures, i suggest that this article concetrates only on the claimed miracilous nature of the qur'an. and i suggest renaming this article (Imad marie (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  renaming this article 

message: Hey Imad Marie. I did read this talk page before doing the edits but I cannot conclude how particularly you want the structure to be like. What was "unencyclopedic" about giving a brief list of miracles the way I did? Slsm07 (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Slsm, in my opinion, what you have added is not "brief". This article is about discussing the miracles claim and not listing them; there are many other sites that list the miracles and we don't need to list them again in this article. Please read the section (Recorded miracles) in the this talk page. (Imad marie (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hey again Imad Marie. It is fine that many other sites list the miracles but shouldn’t we not have info in our articles just because that info is also found on other sites? Wikipedia is meant to be solely based on outside sources anyway. I think that there should be a section in this article, considering its title, where the miracles can be listed. Yes, this article should discuss the miracle claim but how would, as for C.Logan’s point, a list hurt or hinder the article? This list with its quotes is not unencyclopedic because of the context of this article, that of miracles claimed to be in a text. If anyone feels that it gets too long then I can link this to another new article.Slsm07 (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Slsm, listing the claimed miracles in a separate article is a good idea, however please note that there is a problem with that: dozens of claimed miracles are listed in various sources, and some of them are not miracles at all (this is my opinion), so how to decide which miracles to list in the new article? maybe we can focus only on the miracles that have been claimed by the most known and credible scholars (like Zaghloul Najjar for example). (Imad marie (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I created a new page that lists the miracles: List of Qur'an scientific miracles (Imad marie (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominated if for deletion. Claimed miracles need to be soruced to reliable sources. Those are scholarly sources, and not sources from propaganda websites. Yahel Guhan 05:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recorded Miracles 2 

message: The external link Zaghloul El-Naggar about Qur'an miracles is dangerous link according to W.O.T. I believe it should be removed.
Wikipedia should not put link that may risk users.Oren.tal (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Firefox extensions are not a wikipedia measurement for good articles. The link is quite safe --Imad marie 08:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  but wikipedia should not give dangerous link!Oren.tal (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  dangerous link 

message: There has been many objections over Najjar as a reliable reference, which I strongly disagree with, and this conflict has been going for a while now. I see the only way to resolve this is over a Arbitration (Imad marie 20:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Najjar as a reference - Arbitration 

message: Itaqallah remove again and again link or reliable websites from this article.
Next time he remove without talk about it I will complain to moderator.
This article should be NPOV and that mean also link that refute this claims.
Beside most of the reference are not to reliable websites and should be removed before this website.
I have my case to complain about you Itaqallah since I asked more than once not to remove this links.Oren.tal (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you complain to a moderator then you have to be ready to show your case that Avijit Roy is a reliable reference and that Najjar is not. Are you ready for that ? (Imad marie 19:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  it is more reliable than half of the Notes in this article.Putting Dawa website as source is against wikipedia policy.You have not shown there is something wrong in this website and it is look like your problem is because it is criticize the claim of miracle in the Quran.Oren.tal (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget about the web sites, and concentrate on the authors, are you willing to show that Avijit Roy is a reliable reference and that Najjar is not? (Imad marie (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it is not use as a source and I agree it should NOT be used as such.As an opinion article it is good enough.Oren.tal (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  free thinker web site

message: Matt, please explain. In this article you removed Qur'anic text claiming that using Quru'an verse directly is OR, and then here and here you are claiming that using Qur'an verses is not OR or interpretation, please explain to me how does that make you a credible editor in any way? I'm putting the Qur'an verse back now (Imad marie (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have refrained from interpreting Quranic verses in the past. Please ask Itaqallah or Bless sins about this. They've said that we cant use the verses directly. I'm just applying their standards here. According to them, using a Quran verse directly is using primary sources and interpreting them is OR. Please ask them about this and take out the verses. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quoting Qur'an 

message: Let's finish this once and for all, let's reach a consensus here. Is Naggar a reliable reference? everyone is invited to participate. If we don't reach a consensus then an Arbitration might be the solution (Imad marie (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That the part that you conveniently didn't quote: "Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world." He is a researcher, and one could also say scientist.Bless sins (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Obvoiusly, there are millions of scientists in the world. They're not all RS's. Policy clarifies how a scientist can fulfil being an RS. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are not millions of scientists. And yes, the work of scientists that are recognized and trusted by academic institutions is reliable. Also, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." (from WP:SOURCES) Although Najjar is not peer-reviewed, he is academic.Bless sins (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I guess this is going to take me creating a thread at WP:RS talk, since you're not going to get the point. This is some guy with a degree, that is all he is. There's nothing more to him that this. That doesnt make him an RS. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A professor of geology is a reliable source specifically for geology related issues. Or is there something I've been missing? ITAQALLAH 21:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  someone can be astronomer and talk about about astrology.We can consider only what is hold by the  scientific community.People can learn Physics or whatever and to believe in nonsense.Oren.tal (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Zaghloul Elnaggar a reliable reference? 

message: Imad marie, please provide the full quote (with surrounding paragraph) for what you just added. Yahel Guhan 05:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I used the revision edited by AminZ here. AminZ can you provide the full quote please? (Imad marie (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my version was longer. Please leave me a message on my talk page and I can email the full text to anybody who is interested. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gril, Denis

message: This article is exteremly bias and represent mainly opinion that suppot in this issue.I call for putting tag about the nutralety of this article plus work in order to make it neutral.Oren.tal (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopaedia of the Quran is a reliable reference, and Campbell is not. (Imad marie (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Oren.tal, if you are going to edit articles like these, then please have some basic understanding of the kind of source material you should be using. William Campbell, a medical doctor, is not a reliable source for topics outside his field, regardless of how many polemical websites he features on. The Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, however, is a scholarly, academic publication. ITAQALLAH 18:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a somewhat biased stance and I'll explain. The modern driver of this belief that there is science in the Quran was primarily inspired by another medical doctor, Maurice Bucaille. This article reads partly like a puff piece fork from Qur'an and science. Other than the "science" predictions the only miracle seems to be one "Prophecies" (sic) which wikilinks to Hadith_of_the_prediction_in_Sura_al-Rum#The_Qur.27anic_quote. In that target article the quality of references is very poor and there has been no attempt to clean that up. Though you use "reliable source" and "scholarly, academic publication" to set a standard here I feel that this standard is set to push out legitimate criticism because, it seems that in this other article which this article wikilinks to the standard of editing is to reference "A Muslim site writes:" and copy+paste huge blocks of text from sources of uncertain quality. I have already commented on that there in late 2006 and the concerns are still not addressed. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other aspects of the miraculous claims of the Qur'an, we have "inimitability", a strong belief in the Muslim world that the Qur'an literary style is insuperable. And we have "numerical miracles" which is not included in this article. I agree with you that Hadith of the prediction in Sura al-Rum is badly referenced, and maybe a re-write is necessary. Imad marie (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  bias 

message: We have three sections talking about the same topic: Qur%27an_and_miracles#Scientific_miracles, The_relation_between_Islam_and_science#Belief_that_scientific_facts_are_supported_by_the_Qur.27an and Maurice_Bucaille#Bucailleism.
I suggest creating a new article, talking about the scientific miraculous claim of the Qur'an, the title can be Qur'an and Science. And all three section can link to this new article as the main article. (Imad marie (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: This article was lacking flow and content. Each section was a jumble of information. There were multiple places where there were statements claiming certain points but lacked a citation or the citation was not credible. My team and I worked to make improvements of these issues. Akmaclean (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of content, missing/incorrect citations, weasel words 

message: The "Scientific miracles" section contains a series of paragraphs of the form: (1) science says iron meteorites fell [ref1]; (2) the Qu'ran says "we sent down iron..." [ref2]; therefore the Qu'ran predicted the science. The science is referenced (ref1); the Qu'ran is quoted (ref2); but there is no reference that anyone has made such an inference. The inference that the science appears to support the Qu'ran is thus very clearly and unambiguously an editor's opinion, WP:Original research, derived by WP:Synthesis, and subject to deletion without further notice unless properly sourced. A lot of other text in other sections is similarly OR and SYNTH, argued rather than sourced.Pol098 (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, this section seems to be totally inappropriate, in addition to the shortcomings above. It is not about miracles, the article's subject, at all; for example the Quran says, according to the article, "the sun and the moon swim along, each in an orbit". This is in no way a miracle; it might be simply a report of knowledge (I think the ancient Greeks knew that the sun and moon were extraterrestrial, and estimated the distance), or it could be text that can be interpreted as predicting a later discovery, as in the philosophical idea of Democritus that it might not be possible to subdivide matter indefinitely, in a way foreshadowing the discovery of atoms.A lot of text in other sections is also unrelated to miracles as such, thus irrelevant to the article. Pol098 (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. The entirety of that section -as far as I could see - wasn't about scientific miracles at all (whatever that might mean) but about scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts. So I've removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Scientific miracles" section: OR, Synthesis 

message: Note to editors: this article is about Quran and miracles, not "whatever I want to write about anything I think is interesting in the Quran". There needs to be a reliably sourced claim that what is discussed may be deemed miraculous, not just predictive (there are sections on prediction in religious texts, and science and Islam), wise, etc. For an example, see what I wrote in the previous section. Pol098 (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stick to the subject 

message: Technically, it is right in the sense that in week 5 of fetal development, the spinal cord grows, and around it, so do other major organs like the skin and etcetera.
DAHARSHI (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embryology 

message: if i recall correctly the notochord or the back bone comes before the muscles which is flesh which means that the quran saying that the bones comes before flesh is correct  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.104.234.163 (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  about the subject that says the flesh comes before bones 

message: Substituted at 03:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: This page has little encyclopedic value and the spirit of the points it makes is generally covered by the main articles on the Quraan and Islam. I nominate this article for deletion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:1D5C:5000:543D:42D5:FCAA:3513 (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality (Still) and redundancy.  

message: Hi,
Greetings, Requesting you to have a look at 
* Superstitions in Muslim societies and also Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies
Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.
Thanks and regards
Bookku (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting help in article expansion