Talk:Quran/Archive 4

message: How does the word "infidel" fail to appear in this article? Nothing is said about infidels in the Qur'an? You don't think what is said about infidels is important to a modern understanding of Islam? Come on. Haizum 17:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of things that are mentioned in the Qur'an that aren't mentioned in this article. The word peace, for example, is not in the article. Although I do agree that more information about the content of the Qur'an could be given, that does not demonstrate bias. joturner 21:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "plot summary" of the Qur'an may be in order, just like the article on the bible (I believe) covers the actual contents of the books. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Bias

message: A point for you to consider, should this section have it's own page? It is one of the bigger sections, and I'm sure we could add a lot if the section were split away, perhaps more examples of the rhyming and repitition of phrases and we can centrally locate the evedence for Divine Inspiration that's scattered all throughout the Islam section. I'm no expert, but I think the entry may flow better if the examples we have currently were moved off the main page, but I'd hate to see them removed. Thoughts?-Kode 20:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please leave them there -- and leave OUT the evidence for divine inspiration. That may be appropriate for Friday sermon, but it is not appropriate for a secular encyclopedia. Zora 03:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylistic attributes 

message: I logged in to this article - like, I'm sure, many others - wanting to know "What does the Qur'an actually say?". By the end of the article I was none the wiser. I understood the importance of reading it out loud in classical Arabic, I understood the stylistic character of the book (between prose and poetry), and I understood the controversies over its origins. But I was no wiser about what it actually says.
Like many people reading the world news right now I wanted to know some important things, such as:
1. What does the Qur'an say about violence? When if ever does the Qur'an say it's justified?
2. What does it say about Infidels? How are they to be treated?
3. What does the Qur'an say about women?
4. What does the Qur'an say about slavery?
Could the article be re-written to give more information on these issues?
: Those are hard questions. The Qur'an is a collection of verses and rules delivered over the course of twenty years, and assembled out of chronological order. Muslims have been arguing for centuries about all those questions, and others. It is not the place of Wikipedia to rule on scriptural exegesis. Please read the book in question and perhaps look at  some of the material in the references and external links. Then decide what YOU think. You may also want to look at the articles on Jihad, Islam and other religions, Religion and slavery, and Women in Islam. Zora 04:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are avoiding the question with your response.  I (and many, many others I am sure) look to Wikipedia to grow into a true encyclopedia.  As such, I would expect that any topic related to a subject may very well be addressed by someone within the Wiki community.  It will make for a very long article I am certain but this is one place where authors are not limited by paper or column inches. I, too, would recommend that a person read a work in question but this is not a book one picks up and understands in year's of study and a guide to these issues would certainly be helpful.Es330td 02:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it might be prudent to include a section or a seperate page on "conteporarily controversial issues and the Qur'an" or something along those lines, but -- at the risk of finding myself on the receiving end of the wrath of Wiki fans -- the fact of the matter is that there are too many people with opinions on the subject and not enough people with genuine knowledge about it.  A less popular but more useful choice would be to expand the "further reading" area to specifically include a section on reputable books by reputable scholars which address these issues.  --66.216.130.125 14:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A User's Problem 

message: * Hip hip hooray!
* Hip hip hooray!
* Hip hip hooray!
Dang but that's beautiful calligraphy. I'm glad to see it back. 
I have one small request -- since there's nothing there for scale, is it possible to get the exact dimensions, to put in the caption? Zora 17:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Kodemage. Maybe the smithsonian gives dimensions of it too? --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 17:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to see the picture without the flash in the center of it. Thanks Kodemage. Pepsidrinka 18:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes; what they said. joturner 20:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three cheers for Kodemage 

message: I tried to put all the text into the same format, and dropped the honorifics for translators. If some translators or commentators get a Dr., Maulana, or Sayed in front of their names and others don't, we're not being fair to the ones without titles (who may have them, but the titles are not noted). Best to drop titles entirely. Zora 20:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedited list of translations 

message: The abrogation section seems to indicate that verse abrogation was summed up by Muslim scholars to solve the issue of seemingly contradicting verses. I will correct this to include the verse that gives abrogation credentials from within the Quran itself. Which verses are abrogated and which are not is a controversial matter, abrogation is not. mistknight 13:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well abrogation is considered a bit controversial , since the verse that is quoted as a source uses the word "ayah" , meaning "signs" . It doesent say anything specfic about verses of Quran being abrogated . There are a lot of scholars who think that this verse refers to "previous books" that were abrogated by Quran . And the verses that are considered to be abrogated , almost always fit perfectly with each other , when they are seen in reference to context , Like the famous verses about Alcohol . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too sure about that. The verse roughly says "We do not abrogate an Ayah(verse/sign) or cause it to be forgotten, unless we later bring a better one or one like it....". Ayah, to my knowledge, has never been used in the Quran to denote previous messages (Torah/Gospel). So if we look at the other two meanings, it makes no sence to say that a sign was abrogated... What does that mean? The only other conclusion would be that Ayah means verse. I can't see any other meaning than that, "whichever verse we abrogate or cause to be forgotten (by Muhammad), we will come with one like it or better than it...". Unless I'm missing something, this is the only meaning the verse could have. mistknight 14:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Sorry if this is answered somewhere down below , I am replying in hurry) . One example is 2:40 . There might be others too. F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 13:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: By allowing commentaries to take over the Quranic verses' literal meaning, the gates would be open for anyone to use any commentary that he wishes to interpret the meaning of a verse, no matter how far off they are. Although we cannot overlook the importance of commentaries, it is always safest to take the meaning of the verse to be the literal meaning of the verse, that would be the most undisputable way to go. The verse, weather it is taken by some to refer to the Satanic Verses or not, does not fit that meaning. If we accept the Satanic Verses as a possible meaning, we could easily dismiss it since the Satanic Verses themselves are not part of the Quran (i.e. not revelation), when a "verse" is replaced by another "verse", both verses are revelation. If on the other hand this story is false, then a reference to it in the Quran cannot be present. Regardless of what commentaries say, the verse cannot be referencing the Satanic Verses. Abrogation is indeed the literal meaning of the aformentioned verses. mistknight 13:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As to the "contradiction" pov, this view would fall short if we confirm that the Quran does indeed proclaim the law of abrogation. It would be truly illogical to take a "possible" (and as I have shown above, a flawd) interpretation of the verse to nullify the literal meaning. Perhaps I need not remind everyone of the reprocussions of doing that, the Trinity is a pretty good example of the results. I believe that these Quranic verses need to be cited when talking about abrogation, and less emphasis be laid on the "contradiction" pov. mistknight 13:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abrogation 

message: I think a see also here would be appropriate as Striver had added, but qualifying text ("alleged Shi'a suras," "forged suras," or something like that) could be added next to the link:
:* Surat al-wilaya (alleged Shi'a sura)
"See also" isn't an endorsement, it just means it's a related topic (Bible for example says see also Bible conspiracy theory).  Incidentally, doesn't Tahrif have the allegation backwards?  Anyway, probably both suras should be merged into one article with redirects from the individual names; I don't think one often gets referred to without mentioning the other - whatever applies to one applies to both. Esquizombi 06:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying they are real or that anybody believes in them; reread what I wrote above.  Forgeries do have a place in an encyclopedia. Esquizombi 07:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Suras" [[Surat al-wilaya|al-wilaya]] and [[Surat al–nurayn|al–nurayn]]

message: There are many times in this article, that I notice a very obvious slant towards criticism of Quran, and in general Islam. I may be wrong in my judgement, and it may only be a matter of perception. But no matter how much I try to convince myself, I just cant seem to find this article completely neutral. I notice a sly bias.
'*shrugs*'.. I've read this article at separate occasions, and each time I am left with an impression of a critical nature of Islam.
If needed, I could possibly find specific instances in the article. --Jibran1 17:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to add an NPOV tag, or make radical changes to the article that could be controversial, then I suppose it would be needed.  Can the criticism be both obvious and sly, though?  Anyway, criticism should be present in a NPOV way; if the article really is biased, then it should be addresed. Esquizombi 19:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do present your examples, we'll do our best to address them. Or, fix them yourself, be BOLD. Worst thing that happens is you're wrond and they get reverted. Don't be afraid to be wrong, we're only human after all. (well, except me, I'm a pope) -Kode 01:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality??

message: Someone, I don't know when, added sentences like "Sheykh al-Albani is the greatest authority on hadith" and claimed that one particular translation of the Qu'ran was the best one to use. I deleted those. I also deleted some honorifics, like Imam -- we don't use them, as they're POV. Finally, I removed several sentences dealing with the earliest known Qur'an -- I'm not sure WHAT is accepted these days. One editor -- Jilbran -- had corrected them to say that there was a text with a third of the Qur'an -- however, the sentences concerned the earliest complete Qur'an. Since I don't know what the latest scholarship is, I think we can leave that out. I have a feeling that the "late formation" scholars are in retreat after the Sana'a findings. 
A new editor recently started an Origin and development of the Qur'an breakout article which consisted of text from this article plus a lot of material intended to show that a conservative Sunni view was the only correct way to look at the matter and the academics were wrong. It's a POV fork and I haven't had time to work on it. However, I hesitate to propose it for deletion, since it is possible that we might need a breakout article and the title isn't bad. It would be nice if some Shi'a and secular editors could do some work on the article and try to balance it. Zora 08:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just roll with it and work on the new article, worst comes to worst we can always undo anything. -Kode 01:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zora's latest edits 

message: An anon changed the number to ayat to 6,666 -- I think that this is a Christian allusion, to the "Number of the Beast", which is a bad thing. I found a Muslim site that enumerated five ways to count the ayat, so I added that, rather than just restoring the old number. 
Also, we had two sections on the translation of the Qur'an, one of which was stuck under language. I deleted the extraneous one -- no need to have two. All the material in it was covered in the next para! Zora 02:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never heard of the types of verse count given in canadian site. That was an extract from some book, I don't know how authentic it is. Meccan and medinah are used to classify suras according to revealation. Also when I counted the verses in sura article, it is 6236, this was the total that used to be in this article. I remember previously  I have checked the no of verses in sura article with an actual Quran and found that correct. 6236 is not there in canadian listing.--Soft coderTalk 10:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the most popular version of Quran currently has 6236 verses. I tried searching google with each number and "Quran" and I got nearly ten thousand entries for 6236 and for all other numbers it was below thousand. --Soft coderTalk 11:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you have a source on that (the link you provided doesn't work for me), that probably should be added to the article. joturner 01:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of ayat 

message: I have reduced the amount of information in this section because we now have a seperate article to contain the entirety of this section. Please double check that I haven't left anything important out. -Kode 00:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What ever information you wish to add should be added to the main article Origin and development of the Qur'an. We split that section off because it was becoming large. -Kode 19:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin and development of the Qur'an 

message: Allah isn't "The God" in Arabic, that would be "al-Ilah" Allah is a specific name to what Muslims believe to be the only true God. Muslims believe that: La Ilah illa Allah, which translates to: No God but Allah. It would be silly if they repeated "No God but the God" wouldn't it? I'll take that minor error off. MB 18:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Acutally "No god but the God" dosen't sound incorrcet, but if it's inaccurate please change it. In my religion part of the first rule is:"There is no Goddess but the Goddess and She is Your Goddess."-Kode 19:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that's a mistake. Either works fine. It may sound silly to you, but "no god but the God" is indeed used at some mosques to emphasize that the god Muslims worhsip is supposed to be the same god Christians and Jews worship. joturner 21:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in the article... 

message: Alcoran gets 48,600 hits in Google, even when I tell the search engine to only look for English-language pages. I think that this is enough to justify keeping it. It is not used now, but it will be found in older books. RedCrescent, please, slow down. Your edits are not helping us write an encyclopedia. Zora 04:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Coran" is the French word. Maybe that is why Google comes up with that number. See here . Maybe it should go there, but not here. It's confusing! RedCrescent 04:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I told you, I searched ONLY English-language pages. I am familiar with the word because I do proofread old books (18th and 19th century) for Distributed Proofreaders. Just because you don't know the word doesn't mean that it wasn't used. Zora 04:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But even if that is true, only Quran and Koran are used today. There are other old forms too, but they are not listed. I promise you 100% that no one today has ever heard or needs to hear "Alcoran". RedCrescent 04:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about people like me who DO read old books? I proofread them, I own them. Many books more than one hundred years old. Please, how is that phrase hurting you? Are you here just to get in arguments? Zora 04:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because then you should list all the other old terms, it will get confusing. If we only use the two most common words, that is better. Most people do not read books that old, so it is your "point of view". This is supposed to be neutral. RedCrescent 04:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And "Coran" is mainly in French, so that even gets more confusing for people. RedCrescent 04:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave it there. It's not confusing, and it already says "less commonly" so it's properly qualified. Since it's listed last most people will glance over it. However, some one who's confused about the term alcoran and uses wikipedia search or google search will be aided by it's inclusion. -Kode 00:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Coran" and "Alcoran" are two different terms. "Coran" is French, while "Alcoran" was a previously common English transliteration of the Arabic term. For an example, see this PDF. I believe it's beneficial to include the term, and I see no harm that it may do. RedCrescent, if you feel it's harmful in some way, please elaborate your position. quadratic 05:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: dosen't "al" translate as something like "the" in english? Thus "al coran" == "the coran"? -Kode 16:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, see also algebra, alchemy and alcohol to name but a few. For great justice. 20:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Crescent's edit 

message: A letter written to the editors of Yemen times is of interest
  
Conspiracy against Islam: Muslims being cheated:
ASSALAMUALAIKUM. I do not know whether this would be read by any Member of Parliament. I hope it is. I would like to draw your attention to an article that appeared in Jan 1999 in The Atlantic Monthly published from USA titled “What is the Koran” The article refers to the manuscripts of the Koran discovered in 1972 during the restoration of The Great Mosque in 1972. These manuscripts are now with The House of Manuscripts, Yemen. It is surprising that only two scholars till date (both non-Muslims and both Germans) have been allowed to look at these manuscripts. They have already taken 35,000 microfilms which they have taken to Germany. The whole aim is to prove that the Koran has not been retained in its original form. They have already published articles to this effect in several journals. I quote from the article: 
(To date just two scholars have been granted extensive access to the Yemeni fragments: Puin and his colleague H.-C. Graf von Bothmer, an Islamic-art historian also based at Saarland University. Puin and Von Bothmer have published only a few tantalizingly brief articles in scholarly publications on what they have discovered in the Yemeni fragments. They have been reluctant to publish partly because until recently they were more concerned with sorting and classifying the fragments than with systematically examining them, and partly because they felt that the Yemeni authorities, if they realized the possible implications of the discovery, might refuse them further access. Von Bothmer, however, in 1997 finished taking more than 35,000 microfilm pictures of the fragments, and has recently brought the pictures back to Germany. This means that soon Von Bothmer, Puin, and other scholars will finally have a chance to scrutinize the texts and to publish their findings freely — a prospect that thrills Puin. “So many Muslims have this belief that everything between the two covers of the Koran is just God’s unaltered word,” he says. “They like to quote the textual work that shows that the Bible has a history and did not fall straight out of the sky, but until now the Koran has been out of this discussion. The only way to break through this wall is to prove that the Koran has a history too. The Sana’a fragments will help us to do this.”) 
Please ensure that these scholars are not given further access to the documents. Also please rebury them or if they are not exact reproductions, please burn them. 
Allah help us against our enemies . Abul Kasim fbap0241@nus.edu.sg
It will be great when they can show that the quran is a complete fabrication. Then maybe we can put Islam to rest. I hope the books come out soon.Cestusdei 03:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insight into the nature of the problem 

message: I just noticed the Warning that this article may be too long, does any one have any ideas we can utilize to reduce the size fo the article? The warning suggests breaking out large sections, such as what we've donw with Origin and development of the Qur'an. Are there any other sections which it is desireable to give their own page? -Kode 23:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Details of recitation can go onto recitation page -- don't we already have one? But we can also ignore the warning. Nothing will happen if we ignore it. Zora 11:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the 32k warning dates to back in 2001, when people's browsers were beginning to crash at textareas of this size. Now, the criteria for article length should be readibility, unrelated to technical issues. Most FAs are longer than 32k, but there is an upper limit; 40k is still fine. 50k is longish. 60k is definitely too long. 70k is horrible. At 35k, this article is unproblematic. dab (ᛏ) 11:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then, I just wanted to make every one aware, 32k letters is a lot of text, but you're right most FA's are longer. I'm a big fan of lots of small to medium sized hypertext linked articles. -Kode 18:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Size 

message: I've added the Original research template to a comment this user made in this section. If a reference is not provided I will delete it. TydeNet 10:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just removed the template as the added text has been removed. Cheers -- Szvest 15:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research by [[Special:Contributions&target=82.124.250.35|82.124.250.35]]

message: *Presumably, (s)he meant the Gospel... Danny Lilithborne 10:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one place in NT which I do not exactly remember but here is just one example from Torah:
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. 16However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. 19 When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees of the field people, that you should besiege them? [b] 20 However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls.
--Aminz 03:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, my argument is simple: "warfare disqualifies Muhammad as God's spokesman only if it also disqualifies Joshua." You should either reject both Judaism and Islam together or accept them together. OT was revealed by God, don't you believe that? Jesus, I believe, was very peaceful as you said. Christianity has its own criticisms. You may want to have a look at criticism of Christianity. --Aminz 03:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I should add that based on my knowledge your sentence:"Islam advocates violence on an ongoing basis against everyone who is not Muslim (dar el harb)." is ,I believe, a misconception of Islam. --Aminz 03:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Cestusdei, Thanks for your comment. I disagree with almost all of your sentences. I don't want to dispute with you over here since I have a meeting with my advisor tomorrow and need to go back to study. But if you would like to know in what sense I think Christians are better than Muslims: I think Christians are very active in converting people and to help them to get to know God. I appreciate their good intentions and honesty in all this. Muslims are less much active. On the other hand, Christians, those I have seen, were easily ridiculing other religions (Islam, Buddhism  and even among their own sects...) I think Muslims are much better than them in that respect. Take care, --Aminz 03:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cestusdei, try reading a book by Ziauddin Sardar, called Desperately Seeking Paradise. It's a chronicle of his experiences with various schools of Islam. He's a Muslim, he's critical, and he's very funny. That might change your mind a little about just WHO Muslims are. There's also a blog called alt.muslim, for progressive Muslims, that is sometimes silly and sometimes nice. They had an article recently by an Australian Muslim who joined a local ecumenical group and participated in a pre-Easter footwashing ceremony. Washing the feet of some of the homeless to whom they've been ministering. Yes, there are truly angry Muslims out there -- and kind and loving people too. Zora 03:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with almost all you said. I believe the Muslim community needs a reform and indeed is experiencing a transition period. All you mentioned makes sense but so what? Is that by itself is supposed to prove that Muhammad is not the messenger of God? Is that by itself is supposed to mean that the religion of Christianity is better than the religion of Islam? Here is the problem. Had the Christian critics have good intentions, I would have loved to agree with them. --Aminz 03:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Didn't I tell you? Your intention of criticizing Islam is not to help them improve themselves. I don't like to continue discussion anymore. You have your own POV and I have mine. Peace --Aminz 00:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bible doesn't have violence?! 

message: Various editors have been inserting links again. One of them was for a meditation site, which was put into the translation section. We also had several sites offering e-versions of the exact same translation. Seems to me that they're offering "FREE QUR'AN" in an attempt to hook the reader into the POV of the site. 
I pruned the duplicate links and then re-ordered the translation links so the one that seemed the most neutral to me, like the Sacred Text Archive, were on top, and the more POV-mongering sites are moved to the bottom. Other editors will probably wish to vet my work. Zora 19:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited external links again 

message: *sultan.org Huge collection of Islamic topics.
*Qur'an in 19 languages with a search function.
* King Fahd Qur'an complex.
*Some Islamic Organizations and Websites:
--The Brain 23:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qur'an; translations and such 

message: Anonymous editor, you should not be repeatedly removing other editors' sourced material without showing up to discuss it on the talk page.  Not even a brief explanation in your edit summaries.  Please explain.Timothy Usher 07:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reason is that intro is not the place to have this detail. We need to have another section for this. Moreover, I would like to hear more details about the connection. Intro is not a good place I believe. --Aminz 07:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your new section is good.  Thanks.Timothy Usher 08:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: However, I asked Anonymous editor.  He's the one who's been reverting, and should discuss it on the talk page.  Given his responsibilities as an admin, one might understand why his time would be more valuable than ours, but if so, I'd suggest he ought to back away a bit, or prune his watchlist.Timothy Usher 08:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't like that edit either and that was why I created a new section. I see now you are trying to push your POV in action. Why don't you please discuss it in the talk page? "Do not judge others that you may not be judged."  --Aminz 08:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get what you're saying here.  What do you mean?Timothy Usher 08:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why did you remove "and the culmination of God's revelation to mankind" and ", the final prophet of humanity," from the article? --Aminz 08:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the generous discussion of these issues above.Timothy Usher 08:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Timothy, I was part of the discussion, wasn't I? I was not convinced by your argument. My last comment was:"So, please correct me if I am wrong: All your objection is due to the complexity of the sentences and not their content. --Aminz 04:24, 28 April" I didn't get any answer from you. So, I concluded I have not misunderstood you here. --Aminz 08:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  See the created, uncreated part. Qur'an being eternal is not the belief of all muslims. Your sentence is no longer factually correct. --Aminz 08:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of sourced etymology

message: "Muslims believe that the Qur'ān is the literal word of God (Arabic Allah) and the culmination of God's revelation to mankind as revealed to Muhammad, the final prophet of humanity, over a period of twenty-three years through the angel Gabriel (see Jibril)." 
I think though this sentence is long, but it is easily followable. "Muslims believe that the Qur'ān is the literal word of God (Arabic Allah)" is by itself a complete sentence. "and the culmination of God's revelation to mankind" is complete in meaning, "as revealed to Muhammad, the final prophet of humanity," is complete in meaning, "over a period of twenty-three years" is complete in meaning, "through the angel Gabriel (see Jibril)." is complete in meaning. 
Since there is no need to jump back in the sentence and each of its parts have independent meanings, I think this is a good compact sentence though it is a little bit long. --Aminz 07:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By any orthodox approach to English language style, it is not a "good compact sentence", but its very opposite.  Count the clauses, as shown above.  If you don't like Pecher's addition, remove it, but don't (despite your edit summary) make the passage still longer.Timothy Usher 08:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And there is no legitimate reason whatsoever to state here that Muslims see Muhammad as "the final prophet of humanity"; reserve such points for Muhammad article. Pecher Talk 08:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't want to make that particular sentence longer. Having a new sentence causes no problem. Do you really believe that the intro's should be always at that size? --Aminz 08:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you did, Aminz, check your diff: Timothy Usher 08:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Oops, I mistakenly reverted it back to the wrong edit. I apologize if you have made the same mistake. --Aminz 08:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your most recent version is fine.  Again, thanks for the Etymology fix.Timothy Usher 09:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you too. But I think it would be better to substitute the word "culmination" with something else. This maybe a Muslim POV, but is not according to my POV a Qur'anic POV. Any suggestion? --Aminz 09:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My suggestion: Having "and a confirmation of previous God's revelation to mankind as revealed to Muhammad" rather than "and the culmination of God's revelation to mankind as revealed to Muhammad,". This is Qur'anic POV rather than Muslim POV. How is this? --Aminz 09:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Pecher, please read our discussion above regarding your point. --Aminz 08:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The long sentence in the intro

message: Anon, you reverted my addition without discussing it in talk first, and I have restored it. Your reason, given in the edit summary, was:
:we have an article about this ed, criticism of Islam which goes into this detail
However, there is no link from the article to Criticism of Islam; furthermore, the section I added was not about Islam as a whole, but specifically about Qur'anic verses. --Uncle Ed 19:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly but the article discusses all these issues on one place to keep the pro and anti arguments over issues away from this. Each verse can only provide a single aspect and criticism of that aspect. We just don't have enough space to discuss all the arguments over one criticism. This is why Zora, I and other editors have made sure the article focuses on the actual arguments over the origin, status, and the beliefs over Qur'an of Muslims and secular scholars rather than each single issue including criticism and interpretation of it. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 19:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Yes it's addressed in Criticism of Islam because it is a common criticism not only of the Qur'an but commonly of all of Islam. I think the link with a shorter description is a good compromise. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 19:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verses about converted non-believers by force

message: Not sure if the section is NPOV. We have the sentence: "some Muslims (most notably the Mu'tazilis) reject the notion of the Qur'an's eternality." here. As we know the school of thought of Mu'tazilitis and Shia's are very close. I am not sure about the Shia view of Qur'an, I should ask, but the idea of Qur'an uncreated or eternal does not seem familiar to me (which maybe due to my ignorance). If Shia Muslims have a view close to Mu'tazilitis in this matter, the statement "The most widespread varieties of Muslim theology consider the Qur'an to be eternal and uncreated." will not be factual. --Aminz 00:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that we remove this section from the Qur'an article and move this discussion to the Origin and development of the Qur'an article. I have read from at least 2 Islamic sources that they believe the Qur'an is Eternal and Uncreated, I do not know hoe to tell which branck they identify with and the sources do not mention it. -Kode 00:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no personal objection --Aminz 00:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I completely disagree.  This is the Philosophy of the Qur'an (and Islam) not really its origins and development.  The important part aspect of this debate is deciding if it's eternal or not changes how you interpret the text and how you view the God of the Qur'an.  The whole Mu'talzilite argument was that if you said the Qur'an was eternal then it was competing with God and thus you don't have tawhid.... I can see that it merits a mention in origins but the main importance of this debate is philosophical and not really about how the Qur'an came into being. gren グレン 06:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree too. However Aminz was not referring to the section, he meant the three words in the intro. I disagree with removing "uncreated, eternal word of God" because it is a major Muslim belief. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 17:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I wasn't only feeling comfortable about the three words in the intro. --Aminz 20:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qur'an created/uncreated ; eternal 

message: Anonymous editor, your recent change to the intro is wonderful.  You broke up a complex sentence, and moved the more important point ahead of the lesser one.Timothy Usher 20:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was a very good change. Thanks Anonymous editor. When I was editing that sentence I had the feeling that I have made the sentence very complex. --Aminz 20:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice change on Intro

message: I think this is a good addition to the article. The Qur'an describes itself a lot. We can have a new section for that. Any feedback? --Aminz 20:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section: Description of Qur'an according to Qur'an 

message: I think this should be what a typical Muslim believes. A very few may not care about it. But I believe the boundary of Sura's were specified. --Aminz 01:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aminz, I think you're misunderstanding the passage.  We're talking about the order of the Suras within the Qur'an, not the order of verses within each Sura.  Do Muslims believe that this, too, was divinely inspired?  I'd find that strange, as this has led to controversies regarding context and precedence.  Conversely, it's hard to see what benefit would be gained from the rearrangement.Timothy Usher 01:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you provide a cite?  I'm not saying you're wrong as to what Muslims believe, but it seems rather odd considering the circumstances surrounding its compilation.  Is Uthman likewise considered a prophet?Timothy Usher 02:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Is the order of Sura's divinely inspired" 

message: The Qur'an consists of 114 surah (chapters) with a total of 6236 ayat (verses).
İf this is true than look to the sites or from google try your search with this key words!
"6666 Ayat Digital Quran"
*http://islamicbookstore.com/a4686.html
*http://www.astrolabe.com/product/2589/Enmac_Digital_Quran.html
*http://www.islamworlduk.com/index.html?lang=en-uk&target=d87.html
*http://www.alibaba.com/catalog/11187987/Color_Digital_Quran.html
How can Digital Quran can be wrong!!! How can they sell their Product with saying
"Easy navigation through 114 Sura and 6666 Ayat."
: 6236 verses is in agreement with total in sura article. --Soft coderTalk 12:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  6666 Ayat 

message: Where can I find the Muslim equivalent of the Beatitudes, the 10 Commandments or the Sacraments? I guess those would be in the Qur'an.
Does the Qur'an encourages certain kind of behavior? What are the rules in Islam?
I remember segment from a Barbara Walters special, where she interviewed three Islamic lawyers and they said that their law states that the jews bring bad luck for other countries (or something similarly discrinatory to jews). From what I understand now, Mahoma and the Qur'an incorpore both Xtian and Jewish tradition to Islam (remember: I'm a very ignorant person) isn't that a bit contradictory with the beliefs of those lawyers?
I hope not to ofend anyone.--T-man, the wise 04:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beliefs 

message: Sin the brother of Shamsh is God of Arabia!Yessou El Maseekh
Is this intended for me? I don't want my ideas to be heard, I rather want to correct them. Not knowing the values proposed by this religion or where to search for the correct understanding of it is easy to get confused. Uh, and also I didn't get what you meant with the Sin thing. What's an Imams?--T-man, the wise 06:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sin is God hence the Crescent. Don't be fooled by ignorant Imams. 

message: In the initial paragraph we keep going back and forth between Gabriel and Jibril. The article for Jibril was just merged with Gabriel, however I believe we should use the Arabic name with a link to Gabriel#Gabriel_in_Islam. Can we discuss this so the name becomes finalized. 
Should we refer to the Angel which the Muslims believe revealed the Qur'an to Muhammed with the western name Gabriel or the name used by Muslims themselves Jibril, even though the two names would link to the same article? 
-Kode 23:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jibril is just the arabic name for Gabriel. It is used in Arabic Bibles. Muslims believe the same angel, known as jibril by Arab Jews and Christians, talked to Muhammad. I don't think any change is needed. --Aminz 00:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: p.s. Hebrew g corresponds to Arabic j (and consequently, g  does not occur in Standard Arabic).Timothy Usher 00:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gabriel vs Jibril 

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 22:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of languages in which the Qur'an has been translated