Talk:Quran/Archive 5

message: >> It is not true, it mentions protecting the women. For example, the highest rate of rape in the world is based in the US, the lowest is in Saudi Arabia.
Bible however claims that beating your wife is an OK process.
Is it true Qur'an alouds beating as a resource to discipline women? That seems a little odd, specially since its politics about proselytism are so liberal. I mean from my understending, if somebody doesn't follow Islam customs or has another religion, they should join by following the example of good muslims, but in case of marriage, the wives, istead of following the example of a good husband, they shouls avoid punishments that go from getting out of bed to beatting... I find that to be contradictory. One´politic is totally cool and humanitarian and the other is what a ditactor do. what about the wives of bad muslims, the ones that don't follow Muhammed's example? I don't think Muhammed said so, its not Muhammed like because that's incoherent with his other teachings. 
Or let's say we have a very real case of a good willed man and a bad wife. He's good, so he has to obbey the Qur'an if the wife is bad, and because she is very bad, he has to beat her regularly. He is following Qur'an and is a good man in every aspect, so I personally as a Catholic, think he is an exelent person according to his context. The problem is, that he really has an evil wife. So she is probabbly not going to take it easily. Evil people are often vengative, so she kills him take his kids, posetions and fly to another country to marry a rich man... You see where am I going? Following the beating policy got him killed. And his kids are going to have an evil mom as a row model.
I think the example and efforts of a good husband is enough to show a not-so-good wife the way. And according to Muhammad's bio here, that's what I think he would do. Heal through love, not through violence. What are the contemporary views on that issue now?
--201.114.97.145 03:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a place for debate but discussion directly related to article. btw, beating mentioned in Quran is only a last step in the case of wife turning towards immorality, that is when she is 'not protecting what God would have her to guard' --Soft coderTalk 07:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, several Hadith suggest that the beating may be ceremonial such as with a hankerchief, and in any case as a last resort.
Well, ceremonialy it makes sense. Still weird, but I suppose it's kinda like those Taiwanese cops that beat vandals with sticks as punishment, that way at least there are withneses testifying that the punishment is deserved and appied fearly. Still, I hope muslims punish the same way bad husbands. If so, you should point it out, so that people isn't led to believe Islam is somewhat of a misogenistic religion anymore. I thing oficial modern Islam points of views of the issue shouls be exposed.
--T-man, the wise 05:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a Muslim and I've never heard such thing. What is your source.--Sa.vakilian 08:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage 

message: Some one should archive this page, it's gotten rather long. Almost 90 seconds to DL on Dial-up. -Kode 23:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Szvest 14:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive the Talk Page 

message: I added the material on sceptical academics that someone had deleted, also material re Bellamy's proposed emendations, and added references. There are references for all those scholars now. No reason to remove the section. 
I also re-arranged and pruned the links, see also, etc. We don't need "see alsos" that are already in the Islam template, so I kept only the ones directly related to the Qur'an, Zora 09:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, Zora, I think you know very well who this "someone" is. Pecher Talk 09:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on sceptics 

message: As Zora rightly pointed out, Theodor Nöldeke is not a very recent scholar. However, I still believe his 1860 Geschichte des Qorâns should be listed in the References section. How about changing the section title to Qur'anic scholarship or just leaving out the subsections altogether? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting translations, old tafsirs, and contemporary Quranic exegesis all in the same list is confusing. There are more Quranic scholars than Noldeke to be listed, if we're going to list them all. The energy would be better spent in making sure that Historiography of early Islam is complete (it's sketchy right now) and then linking that to this article. Zora 10:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But his work is about the Qur'an, not so much about the early history of Islam, so I think it should be listed in the Qur'an article (or perhaps in an article about the history of the Qur'an). --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it makes more sense to place the Origin and development of the Qur'an section be at the beginning of the article, after the Etymology section (and perhaps renaming it History of the Qur'an). --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One, that's going to increase vandalism -- if it's the first thing some Muslim visitors see, they're going to delete it. Two, I'm not sure that readers would understand that history if they hadn't learned a few things about the document first. There are many articles where we first explain what X is and then give the history of X. Zora 11:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Qur%27an#Recent_scholarship]] 

message: I think it would be interesting to have the total number of languages, or even better, a List of all the languages in which a qur'an translation exists. Does anybody know this? --Blauerflummi 09:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of languages in which the Qur'an has been translated  

message: I can't remember where I saw it, but somewhere in the Qur'an it says that disbelievers refers to people who aren't practicing any religion they are of, not just islam; I.E. hypocrites. so people who follow their religion don't count in the common Qur'anic definition of disbeliever. Pure inuyasha 20:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an issue that really varies depending on the group of Muslims... and I don't think that would be a common view.  Hypocrisy (munafiq) is different than disbelief (kafir, I guess would be the commong word for that)...  It is likely true that some Muslims believe that but it's by no means a universal. gren グレン 04:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "disbelievers"  

message: In chapter 67(pg.542) of "The Discoverers" Daniel J.Boorstin states that "the Koran was published in Venice in 1530". The text in the article refers to the earliest existing movable-type copy dating to 1537/38. Does anyone know if it was printed in 1530 or is this a typo in Boorstin's book? Jjc2002 12:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  printing 

message: There is a redirect page Qu'ran. Is this an acceptable alternate spelling, or is it just flat wrong? –RHolton≡– 20:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's flat out wrong because it would make it be pronounced "coo-raan" instead of "cur-aan" with the throaty interject in the middle.  I used to type it that way a lot just becuase I didn't pay attention to where the ' goes and I assume that's what others do.  Not 100% sure, though. gren グレン 04:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The apostrophe here isn't an accent mark, but a consonant in its own right.  The root here is  QR'.  "Qu'ran" is like spelling Islam "Ilsam".Timothy Usher 06:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: as, of course, may be learnt in the very first section of this article. Maybe it should reside at Qurʾān, though, to avoid this sort of assumption? dab (ᛏ) 22:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misspelling or alternate spelling 

message: There are quite a few red links in the 'Schools of Recitation' subsection - I don't know who created that section, and it may be difficult to create the relevant articles straight away, but maybe someone would like to blue some of those links ? In fact, I think that I might have a go at this soon. Feel free to help out! MP   (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links to blue ?  

message: There is a massive change in the history that changes the words God to Allah because "the Arabic name is Allah". I think that is not well-understood. Those who know Arabic must know that Allah is in fact made by using the definite article Al (equivalent of English 'the') and ilah (meaning god). Consequently Allah literally means 'the god' or, more appropriately, God with a capital G. When we use a language to someone who comes to Wikipedia, the aim is to have them understand the topic as easily as possible. If we write all the terminology from another language that is easily translatable, then we put the burden on them to actually understand that term. A newcomer to this Quran page is not likely to understand the article  well, even if they spent a few hours.
I urge the Wikipedia moderators, and generally the folks on the Qur'an page, to actually create some rules around where to use actual Arabic and where translation suffices. God is a perfectly valid translation and many translators of the Quran have actually used that. Similarly, it may make more sense to use 'prayer' instead of 'salah' and just mention the word salah the first time a mention to prayer is made. The remaining article can continue to use the word prayer. Same is true of a few other terms. Omer 22:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  God or Allah: Using English translation for Arabic terms 

message: if anyone can, than please give me links where i can find the translations of quran.
also if someone has read quran, please verify the below, if it is present in quran, and send me the sura and ayat no.
1. is it true that quran says earth to be flat and not spherical.
2. is it true that quran says earth to be the centre of whole universe, not just solar system.
3. is it true that quran says that apostates of islam must be killed.
4. does islamic law, sharia, in quran says that in order that rape be classified as rape, there must be 4 muslim male witnesses present at the time of crime.
5. does quran says that u got to marry ur first cousin.
6. does quran says that in order that a non muslim lives in a islamic country, they must be payin a special tax called jizya.
7. does islam condemns shia sect becoz islam being a monotheistic religion, cannot have two interpretations. so either sunni can be right islam or shia. but one of them have to be kaafurs.
thanx and waitin for reply.
nids 23:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think this is the forum for this kind of a discussion, or am I wrong. This is a forum for discussion on the article written on Quran and related issues. The questions you have asked do not have an easy yes or no answer - they are convoluted issues, and I'll suggest that you consult a site that actually discusses these. There are many on the web out there. You can try www.omeriqbal.com, www.islamicissues.info, www.understanding-islam.com, www.monthly-renaissance.com for instance. Thanks. --Omer 22:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  please give me links to translations of quran

message: It's vehemently disputed by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and utterly irrelevant theologically. No other responsible encyclopedia I've found covers this under the main entry for Qur'an. Can't we just point people to the article about miracles? BYT 16:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. -- Szvest 16:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't think the miracles stuff belongs here 

message: What is 'White House George W Bush'?
This is really offensive vandalism.
Marhadiasa 15:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea. *~Daniel~*  ☎ 06:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Vandalism 

message: Why was the quran and science section deleted?--Sefringle 18:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the "quran and science" section was deleted

message: A number of times recently a reasonably lengthy collection of quotes from the book, supposedly concerning disbelievers, was edited out as nonsense- just wondering,what about that stuff was nonsense, exactly? All freely invented?
Duagloth 03:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qur'an and disbelievers 

message: I was reading this section from the Quran page:
"Muslims believe the common elements or resemblances between the Bible and other Jewish and Christian writings and Islamic dispensations is due to the common divine source. Muslims believe that the Christian or Jewish texts were authentic divine revelations given to prophets. Some Muslims claim that they were neglected or corrupted (tahrif) by the Jews and Christians and have been replaced by God's final and perfect revelation, which is the Qur'an. [8] However the historical biblical archaeological record refutes this assertion because the Dead Sea Scrolls (Old Testament and other Jewish writings) have been fully translated [9], validating the authenticity of the greek Septuagint (Old Testament)[10]."
My question is that it says "some Muslims believe", but then it says that the "'historical' biblical archaeological record refutes this assertion". The problem I have with this is that even archaeologists have 'views' and archaeology is not an exact science. It has been contended. Bart Ehrman, a scholar in Biblical history, contends in 'Misquoting Jesus' () that Bible indeed might have not have reached its final readers in its true form. For instance, the same words may have been translated incorrectly, or some times, the scribes had a manuscript that had some words missing which they had to fill themselves. The problem is considered to be both with the original text, as well as with the translations.
From an objectivity point of view, I think we should remove 'some' from Muslims point of view, because Muslims almost unanimously agree on this point, and add that 'according to other scholars, this can be refuted based on the archaeological ...'. If you really want to say it all, we can further say that some scholars further refute this view because they claim that scribes had some manuscripts with missing text, and they translated into words that lost their meaning over time, and in some cases, they just did not do a very good translation at all.
In either case, I think it needs a little more balancing to be completely objective. Omer 22:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are quotations in Qur'an which emphasize on the corruption (tahrif) of Jewish texts for example in 13th of Al-Ma'ida The God says "But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind. ". So I think all Muslims beleive in corruption (tahrif)--Sa.vakilian 15:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a fact and what is not 

message: I request protection for this page because of the endless amounts of vandalism which has been going on here. Note: All of the vandalism is done by none Muslims. (206.126.82.31 00:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are being burned. You may also refer to Qur'an desecration. -- Szvest 14:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request Protection 

message: I tried to make this part more acadamic. So I added definition, classified and  rearranged the text. I did this on the basis of preface of Tafsir Almizan --Sa.vakilian 08:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interpretation of the Qur'an

message: I see nothing in article - not even a discussion - about when the verses were committed to writing. I also see nothing about there being some difficulty with homographs after it took written form - something about the script not showing vowel sounds as entirely distinct --JimWae 21:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're write. I think we should add this issues inn this article.--Sa.vakilian 03:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When written down? 

message: I think this article should rearrange and some part should rewrite in academic way.--Sa.vakilian 02:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I proose this structure:
 1- Etymology
 2- Format(structure) of the Qur'an
This part include definition of Ayat, Surah and ruku'at  
 3- The language of the Qur'an 
 4- Stylistic attributes 
 5- Origin of the Qur'an 
 6- History of Qur'an
  6-1- reveal (also it's not good translation for تنزيل)
  6-2- maintenance of Qurán
  6-3- collection and stardization
 7- writing and recitation of qurán 
  7-1- recitation
  7-2- writing
 8- Translation of Qurán
 9- interpretation of Qurán
 10- importance of Qurán in Islamic theology
 11- The Qur'an and Islamic culture 
 12- Situation of Qur'an among Abrahamic religions 
  12-1- Similarities between the Qur'an and the Bible 
 13- The orientalists'viewpoint--Sa.vakilian 02:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks pretty good. -- Szvest 10:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rearrangement

message: I'm not sure which one these is the correct link when discussing the "metre of the word" in the etymology section: metre (music) or meter (poetry). Whoever wrote it spelled it as metre (and hence 'music' - which is what I linked it to), but now I think it should be meter (poetry). Help. MP   (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metre (music) or meter (poetry) ? 

message: This part of article was POV. I tried to make it NPOV by adding some quotations from Qur'an which narrates Muslims viewpoint about origin of Qur'an. Also this part is incomplete and we should add an abstract about development of the Qur'an from Origin and development of the Qur'an--Sa.vakilian 21:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin and development of the Qur'an

message: we have waaaay to many external links.... Zazaban 18:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we do. Every dang mosque, sheikh, association, and whatnot has to put their links here. I will try to make the time later to do through, click each link, and try to triage the links, leaving only the most comprehensive and least proselytizing. WP is for learning, not for dawa. Zora 23:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Directory of external links relating to the Qur'an 

message: Due to the recent creation of the Criticism of the Qur'an article, I added a link to this article and a brief summary at the end of this page for the purpose of NOPV.--Sefringle 00:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's inherently biased -- "can't accept" implies that the claim is a fact that the people described are uncomfortable with. Wikipedia doesn't talk like that. Fixing ... --FOo 22:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: As a non-Muslim reading this artical i have too say that the first too sections contain FAR TOO MUCH Arabic which destroyes the flow of the artical. Furthermore the first two paragraphs are too physilophical and certainly arn't that interesting to a non-Muslim like me. The artical does improve substantially later on though. I hope u find my points constructive. --Boris Johnson VC 08:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much Arabic? 

message: Reverted this  because Muhammad recieved his first divine relevation about 610 C.E., so unless Salman the Persian was unusually inspired, this can't be correct.
:The first translator of the Qur'an is Salman the Persian. He was one of the prophet's nearest companions and translated the Qur'an during 7 C.E. - some of the people of Persia asked Salman al-Farisi to write to them something of the Qur'an, and he wrote to them the Fatihah in Persian.An-Nawawi, Al-Majmu', (Cairo, Matbacat at-'Tadamun n.d.), 380. 
::Jrincayc 01:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's reliable source for this translation. So you should put apposite reliable source instead of discussion.--Sa.vakilian 02:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the 7 C.E. date means is that Salman the Persian did his translation 603 years before it was recieved by Muhammad in 610 C.E.  That is probably not what you ment.  When did Salman the Persian actually do his translation? What does the source actually say? Jrincayc 14:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 7 C.E. is wrong. It should be 7th century. Salman the Persian has lived at least until the cliphate of Umar and he bacame the governor of Madaen .--Sa.vakilian 17:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 7 C.E.? Bwahaha, I don't know if this qualifies as a bad joke, or an honest mistake. In either case, we all agree that the proper wording should be 7th century and not 7 C.E. right? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph that stated that Qur'an first translated in 7 C.E.   

message: I intend to candidate this article as a Good article. Do you agree with me.--Sa.vakilian 18:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the verbing of the word "candidate". :) --FOo 22:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I checked the variations during last 10 days. It's not so much. I guess it's negligible.--Sa.vakilian 14:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, it used to be very unstable. Seems to have gotten better. If it was nominated for good article I would approve. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article

message: I nearly forgot-there is intolerence as well—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.127.38 (talk • contribs) 
:I believe it doesn't do so and also reduces terrorism and violence ,however, It depends on how somebody read it. --Sa.vakilian 11:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you read the Noble Qur'an and judge it for yourself? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: only "Evil minded" people put comments like that.. :(     (206.126.83.150 01:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't the Koran promote terrorism and violence??? 

message: Under the "Origin and development of the Qur'an", it is told that before the current version there were some several versions from which the current version was derived. Is there any concrete proof of it? I don't think if some non-muslim scholar thinks that way makes this thing a fact. There is always one and only one version of the Qur'an. There was never more than one version. Any claims must be backed by concrete proofs.
Also, in the beginning of the page, I found that this is a disputed article. Later going through it, I found this moot point, may be there is more. I think wikipedia better not have this page in this way than having a controversial one hurting Muslims.--Russoue 19:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign join us and edit the article.--Sa.vakilian 18:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of transcription of Al-Quran 

message: It has been about 5 years since I read the Koran. And I read the Penguin version, a muslim told me that this was the "bad" version though I don't know what he meant. I thought there was a duty toward "people of the book" (xtians and jews) but I can't find it in my notes, since I just underlined passages. Could someone please help me or tell me that I am wrong etc. - Abscissa 22:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duty toward Jews and Christians