Talk:Quran/Archive 1

message: The number 19 miracle has been written off by almost ALL Muslims. IT IS A HOAX.  However, there is another more serious and simple contender that ANYONE CAN CHECK.
1) Add the Chapter number of each Surah and record the total (6555)
2) Add the verses in the Qur'an (6236)
3) Now have the Surah Number added to its respective verses (so 1+7 in first row 2+286 in 2nd, etc.). Odd answers keep in one column, and Even in others.
4) The odd answers' total will be 6555 and the even will be 6236.
Now i ask anybody to find a single person that has ever existed who can deliberately ensure that their book's words and chapter numbers combine to make the same effect.  If they do, can it have the same literary effect as the Qur'an, which is i would ask you to think rationally, a miracle in itself? Who designed the Qur'an?  Does this interesting fact merit mentioning?
I only say this for a person who wishes to give the benefit of the doubt and will give a fair hearing to anyone.
--62.252.192.5 19:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This claim is correct - although, of course, the odd and even answers had to add up to 6555+6236 in any case. - Mustafaa 13:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mathematical Miracles

message: The article mentions "Qur'an graveyards" but I can't find a single reference on the Internet. Where can I read more? — Hippietrail 01:54, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was a very widely discussed article in The Atlantic in 1999 about old Qur'ans found during the renovation of a mosque in Yemen. The article is old enough that it's in The Atlantic Archives, open only to paying subscribers, but someone has posted a copy of the article here: .  Zora 04:39, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qur'an graveyards 

message: I am working on so many other pages that I don't really have the time or energy to fight on this one, BUT ... I must say that it reads like an apology for an extremely conservative and parochial position. Qur'an perfect and complete? -- even though it was compiled by humans? From variant traditions? Even though early Muslim commentators speak of lost verses, dropped verses? Even though verses contradict each other? Even though there are a number of words in the Koran whose meaning is unclear? 
Even though I'm not a Muslim, it seems to me that it would be perfectly possible to believe that the Qur'an is an imperfect human creation and still be a good Muslim. Just so, many Christians believe that the Bible is human creation but remain Christians. To INSIST that all Muslims must reject any historical or textual criticism is certainly a popular position, I'll admit that ... but to insist on it in a Wikipedia article is to turn the article into a sectarian tract. 
If there's one thing in Islam that appeals to me, it's Muhammed's denunciation of idolatry. Not as it's trivially enforced today, but as a protest against relying on man-made things and ignoring the God that's "as close as your jugular vein". Isn't the exaggerated reverence for a human-created book idolatry? 
Zora 04:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't stop many fundamentalist christian sects from claiming the bible is the word of god and to be taken literally. To claim that every Muslim must hold such atavistic opinions in the face of textual criticism is itself a medieval position and does the community a disservice. I daresay there are deep spiritual traditions in Islam (as in Christianity) that know better than to haggle over ink and paper, and look for the wisdom beyond the words. It would be useful to present such islamic wisdom beside "quran-thumping" fanatism to allow "the West" to form an image of Islam that is not dominated by madmen. dab 10:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find credible Muslim scholars holding such views, you're welcome to add them; personally, I have never heard of even the most free-thinking Sufi suggesting that the Qur'an was not the Word of God, though they may well (as with the Ismailis) propose esoteric, symbolic interpretations supposed to trump the literal ones.  But as to the idea that such a view is "atavistic" or held by "madmen" - regarding it as madness to suppose God might choose to communicate with mankind, and preserve His message, seems to me to say more about the West than about the Muslim world. - Mustafaa 01:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article not neutral at all 

message: I think it would be interesting to compare the usage of the Qur'an with other texts i.e. Christians have multiple Study Bibles.  Would one find a counterpart of the Gideon's Association putting copies in hotel rooms in Moslem countries?  Do most Moslem families own a personal copy, or do most Moslems go to a Mosque to read it?
Also, Sikh's hold the word of their Guru's in a sacred book which is kept on display and well cared for because the book itself is seen as sacred.  Does anyone know if it's similar in Islam?  For example, is defacing a copy of the Qur'an a harsh insult?  Would a student of the Qur'an feel uncomfortable underlining, highlighting or writing in the margins in their copies?
Moreover, I would imagine that there are more copies of the Bible than people in the world, would it be comparable with the Qur'an, with every home containing multiple copies, every Mosque containing more than enough copies for parishioners, etc.? ----
Could be an interesting topic for expansion. Certainly one would never do anything like "underlining, highlighting or writing in the margins in their copies"; indeed, you aren't supposed to touch the book unless you've performed wudu first. - Mustafaa 10:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qur'an Usage 

message: Err, I've never heard of 'Hafiz' being tranlsated as memorizer.  I mean, the phrase 'Allah Hafiz', which is very prevailant in Indian cultures as a 'goodbye' greeting (similar to Ma'salaam in Libya or Wa'Salaam in Saudi Arabia) means 'Allah (God) protect [you]'.  No?
This is correct.  They mean the same: Allah Hafiz is "Allah preserve you", and a memorizer is someone who has preserved the Qur'an in his head. - Mustafaa 10:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hafiz 

message: As far as I know of, Al-Qur'an is considered sacred only because it has Allah word in it. If the wording is wipe out, it is just a piece of paper. It is something like if you have a picture of your mother, you do not want to step on it. However, those who want to touch it must perform wudu to clean themselves spiritually; and non-muslim is forbidden to touch it (because they cannot perform wudu and thus forever not spiritually clean. (In order to perform wudu one have to be a muslim, get it..)
Writing on it is like writing on one's mother picture, can be done if it in for some good purpose, i.e. reminder, otherwise, it is the intent that is counted.
Al-Qur'an was written within the life time of companions of Muhammad. If any variation is introduced, I do not think any one of them worthy a grain of salt would keep quiet. They are all, willing to die for Allah. Whom am I to say what those companions already unanimiously agreed.Yosri 11:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sacred

message: shouldn't the arabic (alphabet) version of the name be "al-qur'an" (if not "al-qur'an al-karim") rather than simply "qur'an" (afaik, without the article the word simply means "lecture", and only the definite article makes it "The Lecture", similar to "a book" vs, "The Bible") dab 09:00, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabic name

message: I'm trying to get a Wikipedia entry done on each sura; anyone want to participate? - Mustafaa 11:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sura]]s

message: Do we really need this (PBUH) business? It doesn't seem very neutral or encyclopaedic (the Muhammad article does without it. And we don't say "his Holiness" every time we mention a pope either, to accomodate the Catholics). dab 14:42, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: PBUH

message: Some conflicting questions about this Samrkund manuscript. 
This is a complete Qur'an. 
There are no vowel or diacritical marks here. We know for sure that Hajjaj bin Yousef introduced vowel marks in written Qur'ans. Hajjaj died in June 714. This would suggest (perhaps) that this manuscript was written before 714. 
The problem is that the manuscript is in Kufic script. Kufic script was developed in Kufa, Iraq. Ali ibn Talib (who came after Uthman) made Kufa his capital. This then can't be Uthmanic manuscript for sure. 
When exactly was Kufic script developed? I have seen Christian writers (like Jay Smith) claim that Kufic script was developed way latter during Abbasid (750 CE) caliphate. His only argument was that the script appears on the coins during Abbasid caliphate. But just because the script appears on Abbasid coins doesn't mean it didn't exist before that. Anyone knows exact date when the Kufic script was used first? If it developed before 750, then Samrkund manuscript is probably older than 750, since it does not have vowel marks, and given that Hajjaj who introduced vowel marks died in 714, this manuscript could be older than even 714. OneGuy 20:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Samrkand Manuscript 

message: I've added a fairly long but by no means comprehensive section on some stylistic features of the Qur'an; overview and comments would be welcome.  Thanks! - Mustafaa 00:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Stylistic features

message: Someone coming from an anonymous IP added references to the Apocrypha and Didache, which I changed slightly to references to Bible and Torah, Apocrypha and Midrash, which is somewhat more correct, I believe. Same person also deleted link to audio recordings of Qur'an recitals and substituted another one. I restored the original link, without removing the addition. I'm not at all sure what the differences between the links are. Would appreciate some input from others more knowledgeable in this area. I also deleted a website about Qur'anic views of the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as that seemed somewhat off the main topic. Might be appropriate for another article. 
I intend to work on this article sometime, but I'm still READING. Stack of books next to the bed ... Zora 08:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fairly minor edits 

message: Peace --
These appeals early on to Torah and Gospel citations might give the impression that Muslims accept the contemporary versions of these books as divine revelation, which is not true. We ***respect*** them, but regard them (as the Qur'an instructs) as having been tampered with by human beings.
The whole question of whether a given Torah or Gospel passage foretells the coming of Muhammad (pbuh) or the revelation of the Qur'an is a controversial one, and it seems to me a bit of a distraction here, early on in the piece. Accordingly, I've edited it out, though I'm certainly open to discussion about why these refs belong in the article. BrandonYusufToropov 12:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree. Anyone  who wants to introduce a lenghty bible quote into section one of the Qur'an article should at least consult Talk beforehand. And  "It also fulfils the prophesy of Jesus son of Mary." was horribly POV anyway (see Al-Alaq, though) dab 12:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: True; and if prophecies of Muhammad's coming belonged anywhere, it should have been Muhammad.  See also Paraclete, though. - Mustafaa 23:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since it's completely disputed that any of these prophecies are real "prophecies" (and in my opinion all "prophecies" are nothing but interpretation of vague passages to justify already assumed belief), no article should have these "prophecies" section. This is extremely POV propaganda and is similar to Muslims and Christians claiming that scientific facts were predicted in the Qur'an/Bible. This belongs to missionary pamphlets, not Encyclopedia OneGuy 07:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: no, we can easily have 'prophecies' sections. we just need to say 'widely regarded' or something. The article text can just never be assertive about any prophecy. dab 08:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deuteronomy & John refs early in article 

message: *Who's Afraid of Textual Criticism? BrandonYusufToropov 13:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see your point. I'm taking it off. BrandonYusufToropov 15:42, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just checked -- you beat me to it. I like the reorganization. BrandonYusufToropov 15:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not me. I think that was OneGuy. It is a good job. Zora 22:12, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added this link 

message: I fussed with the links, and added one book to the reading list. Are the references OK now? Zora 11:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is that rearrangement OK? 

message: An anonymous editor just added, and I just removed, the following link:
* http://www.divineislam.com/ - A freeware of the holy Qur'an with extra information about Islam. There are additional a lot of other languages for option.
While the "Qur'an viewer" touted in the site can be downloaded for free, that seems to be a loss-leader for various other programs that are available only by purchase. Given that e-books of the Qur'an are available for free from other sites, I don't see any reason to include this link. But I'm laying out the reasons for my decision here in case anyone wants to argue the point. Zora 22:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well more translations can be useful when there is dispute about a translation, like there was on Jihad page about Pitchall "great slaughter" phrase :)) Or when someone claims this or that word is mistranslation. The only way in that case for someone who doesn't speak Arabic is to compare different translations and make a judgement. Anyway, I prefer web pages instead of software too. Though, I have not seen all these translations on any site yet OneGuy 11:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, our entrepreneur just added the link again. This guy is determined. It gives me a bad taste in the mouth. I want links to be based on what independent critics use, think is best, not to sites that are the most persistent in advertising themselves. Remove? Zora 15:30, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, sorry, didn't realize it was the same guy again. I "annotated" the link, but that was not meant as an endorsement. dab (ᛏ) 17:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed commercial link 

message: Again, notifying folks that I deleted a picture of a Qur'an translation put up by Hoshie. One, it didn't fit well. Two, it was a full-face picture of a particular translation, so that it seemed as if Wikipedia were recommending that particular translation. A picture of a stack of translations would work better. I'd take one, but I don't have a digital camera ... Zora 00:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: the images on http://faculty.washington.edu/wheelerb/quran/quran_index.html should be fair game (Template:PD-art). dab (ᛏ) 17:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  How can we be sure? Wheeler may have permission to use those images, but not to give them out to other people. Just coz it's on the web doesn't mean it's fair game -- at least so far as I understand copyright. Clarification requested. Zora 21:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: no, but look at Template:PD-art: if it's two-dimensional (a manuscript) and older than 100 years, a photograph of it is not copyrightable, at least not in the US, and we have lots of images based on this (see Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation). dab (ᛏ) 07:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I played around with Photoshop and cropped some of Wheeler's pictures, uploaded and inserted them. This is the FIRST TIME I've uploaded any images and I'm feeling somewhat insecure about the whole thing. Please fix if there's anything wrong. Zora 09:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I deleted a picture 

message: I've added a section on parts and subdivisions. One page says that the hizb division is used only in the Arab world and the ruku' division only in South Asia -- if someone can confirm this, it would be good to add that information. Joriki 06:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  parts and subdivisions 

message: The article lists Mary as a prophet of Islam. This is not correct. Prophethood is restricted to men in Islam.Prater 13:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary is not a prophet of Islam 

message: We now have a fairly large selection of links to various Islamic websites (Qur'an translations, recitations, ulm, tafsir). I have NO idea whether these sites are managed by respected scholars and mainstream organizations, or whether they're out-of-the-mainstream or kooky. I'm simply not knowledgeable enough. I would really appreciate if the Muslim editors could check the links and prune any strange ones. Zora 06:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can a Muslim editor check the Islamic links? 

message: There is a page at Quran slavery, that has nothing linking to it, and is not very wikified, with only a couple of edits.  Someone who knows more should look into it and decide what to do with it --Jacobolus 20:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quran slavery