Talk:Al Imran

message: Done and done, where is my decoder ring at now ;) ?
--The Brain 21:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic words 

message: I strongly agree that the name of this sura is Ali- Imran and not Al - Imran.
:Although the rule does not always apply, ideally the article name and the words in bold in the opening paragraph should be the same, with alternatives mentioned in the opening paragraph. So if the consensus is for the article to be named Al Imran as it is at present, the lede should read "Al Imran (Arabic etc., also Aal Imran etc). See Wikipedia:BETTER/GRAF1. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I suggest A-li-'Imran.  It means family of Imran - isn't that what it supposed to mean? Not The Imran - that is totally wrong. 211.25.129.2 (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title should follow the pronunciation 

message: It was deleted as it had no basis or references. The verse itself has dual meanings , and some twelver clerics use it to justify Shi'ite imamate. For an agreed upon translation, Just refer to the Saheeh International's and Yusuf Ali's (Himself Shi'ite) translations of the verse.
NetBSDuser (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Verse 7 section 

message: The section has cited from a book of Scollar Dawood, indicates has confusion about Aron mentioned in Quran. Also it has been linked to prophet Aron. It is wrong narration and citation. The Aron, brother of mother Mary mentioned in Quran is different person other the prophet. Please change the context section. i~Sam 14:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know what problem you have. The Quran confuses Mary the Sister of Aaron with Mary mother of Jesus, according to N J Dawood. I merely gave citations of what is in the book of the scholar. I cannot incorporate Muslim apologetics here. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The context section is misleading! 

message: Here are a few concerns:
1: There are a total of 6000+ verses of the Quran. On what basis are certain Quran verses notable while others are not. Certainly there are a number of notable verses that have their own entire article (for example 2:256,9:5) , hence their mention is deserved but what is the criteria for others?
2: All Quranic commentators have given interpretations for many of these 6000+ verses. On what basis are certain selections of Ibn Kathir or some other commentators views particularly relevant when they are not part of any discussion and in some cases are even partial quotes of a lengthy sections of their interpretation of a verse?
3: A content analysis of the Quran can probably detect hundereds of topics ranging from life before creation to life after death and everything in between. Many verses are also relavant to many different topics, for example 3:90 many be relevant to apostasy (although the term Murtad/Irdad/Rida is not used) it is also relevant to Faith/Imaan and Repentance/Tawbah which are explicitly mentioned and also have articles of their own. On what basis do certain topics merit inverse inclusion also while others do not? 
Likewise Surah Al Hajj and Al Najm deal with different topics like stars, Sirus, Jews, Christians, Sabians, etc. On what basis does the Satanic verses merit inclusion when the article there is a stub and there is no exegesis for the actual verses? I'm not against expanding the articles which would include a mention of all scholarly views of the Surah including brief mentions (brief because the topic is the Surah itself) of those who accept the incident of the Satanic verses (Like Tabari) as well as those who reject it (like Ibn Kathir). However simply throwing in topics per ones own personal discretion is OR. It also goes against the MOS and to some extent even contradicts the lead given in the articles.
If these concerns are not addressed, then anyone should have free license to include all of the Quran's verses followed by all the tafsirs by all scholars, followed by the inclusion of every single word or implied topic which the Quran mentions in the see also page. If this attitude is adopted then Wikipedia will cease to be an encyclopedia. Hence I choose to preserve the Status Quo and argue against selective inclusions which are inevitably POV and constitute OR. Usually, I would prefer to balance out the blatant POV, poor English and structuring (as in the case of the Women in Islam edit). However, here the inclusion of a non-encyclopedic entry with the above mentioned concerns is IMO enough to merit deletion.
For a similar view see Snowfire's comments on Koreangautengs talkpage : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Koreangauteng#Sura_layout_changes
A similar effort to include POV information was also defeated on the "Muhammad in the Quran" article. Since the very same two editors from there are pushing a similar POV here and elsewhere, I expect them to explain why this case should be treated any differently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad_in_the_Quran#Re_edit_09:19,_2_January_2020  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.51.48 (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Difficult to make a general statement here. I suppose the principle that should be pointed out is notability and due weight. If enough notable reliable third-party sources use a particular verse for a particular purpose, then it probably deserves inclusion. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of select verses 

message: Many verses are inaccurately summarized; for example "98-105 Muslims are warned against the friendship of Jews etc" is incorrect. The verses asks questions to the "People of the Book" who denied the message of Mohammed at that time, and then warns the Muslims of that period of time not to obey them and not split into sects. Ahmed (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What was the message of Muhammad anyway? His name is mentioned only four times in the entire Quran, Jesus plays a much larger role in that book than Muhammad and manmade hadith literature with alleged statements from him has been invented hundreds of years later. I mean even Bukhari rated 99 percent of the hadiths he claimed to have checked as fraudulent. 62.226.90.96 (talk) 02:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: Mary is not called "sister of Aaron"(19:28) due to a reference to former pious people rather the authors of the Quran made a huge error and confused Mary, the mother of Jesus with Miriam, the real biological "sister of Aaron" due to the fact that both women are called "Maryam" in arabic. Nowhere else in the Quran is the term "sister of" used as a reference to a former pious prophet.
Also how would Muslims explain Surah 66:12 in which Mary`s virgin birth has been described with the term "daughter of Imran"? Another, a second honor title with no other use in the Quran or another confusion between Mary, the mother of Jesus and Miriam, the real "daughter of Imran" and "sister of Aaron". 62.226.90.96 (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic honor title theory is bogus