Talk:Legends and the Quran

message: I have doubts that this is page represents a truly encyclopedic topic, at least as it stands now. I won't call it a POV fork, but it seems most of the material here could be merged into Qur'an or Quranic criticism (wherever we have that). Statements like "Almost unanimously, modern Jews and Christians believe that Eve was created from Adam's rib" are just bad - and the quote that follows is not actually from the Quran, but from the Hadith, and is not literal.--Cúchullain t/c 08:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all your contributions. I moved the rib content, as you said. I only wanted it here temporarily anyway. --Ephilei 22:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General criticism

message: I've started User:Ephilei/Legends and hadith as a partner to this article. Feel free to contribute. --Ephilei 22:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legends and hadith 

message: If this is a criticism page, I don't see any criticism. It just says that the Quran agrees with older religious texts... which are similarities, not contradictions or anything of that sort. It doesn't list any parallels with any non-Judaic or Christian tradition so how is this a criticism page? I say merge with Similarities.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.67.48 (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This just appears to be more similarities, not differences. Why not merge with Similarities section? 

message: I've read the entire article and the talk page, yet remain puzzled: What is this article really for?  What purpose does it serve?
If I understood editor Ephilei's comments correctly, it provides several points in which the Qur'an agrees with earlier scriptures, both canonical and apocryphal, both Christian and Jewish; and in so doing, for those who don't accept that the Qur'an was divinely inspired, provides some possible other sources for its content.
Now, trying to be logical here:
#One either does or doesn't accept that the Qur'an was divinely inspired.
#In the first case, it is interesting to see that the Qur'an confirms earlier teachings of Abrahamic faiths - exactly as Muslims believe, based on the Qur'an itself.
#In the second case, no amount of evidence of agreement between the Qur'an and earlier sources will convince the sceptic that the Qur'an is divinely inspired.  Nor will it enable him to claim the contrary.
#Supposing the sceptic right, every idea and text in the Qur'an must come from some earlier divine source or some human source.  Those sources may be classified as:
#*Earlier scriptures (whether divinely inspired or not)
#*Earlier exegetical texts of religions practiced in the region, including homiletics and parables
#*Fictions in common circulation in the Middle East at the time of Muhammad, including legends and myths
#*Fictions invented by Muhammad
#In each of these classes, we have the possibility that a source (or a closely related version of it) used by Muhammad still exists; failing which, that source is lost without trace.  Respectively, we will have identified a possible source - or failed to.
#Without showing the origin of each and every text in the Qur'an, the sceptic will not have proven that the Qur'an contains only texts which Muhammad either copied or invented.
#Even Muhammad's enemies trusted him and so highly respected his integrity that they left valuables with him for safe-keeping.  So, there's no point in trying to prove that Muhammad was a liar, plagiarist or cheat; historically, it won't wash.
#A better way for the sceptic to diminish the Qur'an's contribution to humankind's ethical maturity, in the tradition of Abrahamic monotheism, would rather be to show that the Qur'an is wrong, self-contradictory or nonsensical, or that the way it teaches does not advance human responsibility, reflection and religion.  If you can.  Perhaps those who wish to detract from the Qur'an have another text that is clearer to them?  Well, let them use it, and use it well.  "Say: 'To you be your way, and to me be mine.'", as the Qur'an commands Muhammad.
#There was an historic contest between the Qur'an (not Muhammad) and four acclaimed poets, who accepted the challenge, but failed to produce even one Sura of equal value to one in the Qur'an, as adjudged by their peers.
#The Qur'an had earlier superseded the famous poems previously hung in the sanctuary of the Ka'aba, which had been the best work of generations of famous poets.
#Any legendary or scriptural sources available to Muhammad were also available to all those poets, so it's a wonder they failed so signally.
By the way, it would be intriguing (but of no practical use) to uncover the sources of the canonical scriptural texts of other major religions as well.  Does Wikipedia have any such, or do religious scholars, such as Ephilei, plan to write any soon?
yoyo (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The purpose of this article 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=6&tAyahNo=74&tDisplay=yes&Page=2&Size=1&LanguageId=1
*:Triggered by \baltafsir\.com\b on the local blacklist
*http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=52&tSoraNo=6&tAyahNo=74&tDisplay=yes&Page=2&Size=1&LanguageId=1
*:Triggered by \baltafsir\.com\b on the local blacklist
*http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=4&tTafsirNo=39&tSoraNo=6&tAyahNo=74&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
*:Triggered by \baltafsir\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Substituted at 21:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment