Talk:Quran/Archive 3

message: Can I please urge editors to state which translation they are quoting verses from. Some of the translations (if they truly are that and not just loose paraphrases) seem to be inaccurate, misleading and incomplete (see my recent request on the Islam talk page). I tend to use the Yusuf A. Ali translation, but if any translation is used, then we need to make sure that the original meaning is not lost. Thanks. ---Mpatel  (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request on quoting translations

message: Quranic commentaries by Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat is unprecedented in the history of Islam. However, even after several trials to update the article page I have not been sucessful to add the mentioned references, because the whoever the maintenor of this page, quickly removes those references. The references are fully conceiled effectively in order to prevent the view of the Holy Quran by the Ahmadiyya Mulsim Jamaat. The commentaries are exhaustive, the references include:
* Tafsir by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in Urdu (4 Volumes - Abridged)
* Tafsir-e-Kabir by Mirza Bashir Ahmad (5 Volumes)
* Tafsir (Haqaiq-ul-Furqan) by Noor Uddin Bhairvi in Urdu (4 Volumes - Abridged)
:That seems unfair... why should they not be represented? --Striver 17:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why not let them have non-urdu one? Having the classical ones are great, but modern ones have theit place to, dont you agree? Further, should'nt the view of everyone be represented in the translation and tafsir section? Sure, it will be a long list, but it is the Quran we are talking about, so it should not surprise anyone.
--Striver 17:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Some work on it whould'nt hurt :) --Striver 18:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conceiling References 

message: This article needs a lot improving, it has way too many grammatical, formatting, layout,font and linking mistakes.
: Usually, if they're minor fixes, it's easier to do them yourself than to tell someone else exactly what you think is wrong and have that person fix it to your standards. If you think the article needs a total rewrite, do it yourself and post it as a temp page before replacing the whole article. The other editors can't write to order, particularly when it isn't clear what mistakes you see. Zora 00:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad editing/format 

message: People have singled out three different translations of the Qu'ran: A.J. Arberry; Abdallah Yusuf Ali; and Ahmed Ali.  I have not yet read the Qu'ran and would like a reliable and well-regarded translation.  I would appreciate any advice.  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My vote is for the Arberry. That's the one I have. Arberry has an ear for English poetry/prose; the other translations go "clunk". Zora 21:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would vote for Pickthall although the others aren't far behind. Yusuf Ali is also good. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 21:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for advice 

message: http://al-islam.org/tahrif_quran/ --Striver 13:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've been reading in Momen, that is true now but it was not always true of the Shi'a. Zora 10:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What has this got to do with the Qu'ran? Zora 10:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shi'a view

message: Now I hope this isn't in the article, if it is, sorry for the waste of time. Does anyone know why it usually transcribed as Qur'an instead of Koran? I realise that this isn't a wikipedia thing it's just that "qu", in English anyway, nearly always makes a sound as if it were "kw" like quiet is pronounced like "kwiet". Did this transcription come from French or Spanish or something? It's just that Qu'ran seems to be so much more used I was wondering why it is like that. - RedHotHeat 18:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Arabic "Qaf" is best transcribed as Q, even though usage of the Q phonetic "space" is different than in English. ("K" letter in Arabic has a whole different sound, and does not appear in this word.) There is no "O" in Arabic. This is the more correct transliteration, but "Koran" is still common in book titles and headlines. BYT 18:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: can somebody tell me, how many syllables are there in the Quran, and how long a period is intended by "an eigth of a reading of the Quran" (viz., how long does it typically take to recite the entire Quran?) dab (ᛏ) 15:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It takes about 30-35 hours to recite the entire Qur'an, although the speed at which the qari' recites can make that time longer or shorter. It will tend to be on the higher end of that range if it is recited during tarawih prayer, which requires that the Sura Al-Fatiha be recited hundreds of times. joturner 21:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: thanks, that is interesting, maybe we should note it in the article. dab (ᛏ) 11:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: length of Quran

message: I found a website, with what seemed like impeccable references, dating the first typeset Qur'an to 1694! O woe is us, we have been propagating misinformation. I corrected that section and added a link to the site. I also moved the sentence re large and small paras earlier. It seemed slightly out of place where it was. I'm not sure it fits in the new location ... suggestions for rewrites? Zora 03:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This (under the background tab) makes the claim that the first printed Quran was in 1537/1538. Pepsidrinka 03:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, that looks even better than the site I found. I'll add it, and change the info again. Thanks! Zora 03:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I finally checked on that Kazan date 

message: Would somone please tell me why the second book of the Qur'an is called "The Cow." As somone who is just starting to study Islam, this is very confusing to me and no one seems to have any information on it.
I also heard somewhere that Muhammed hated dogs. Is this true? Speaking as a dog-hater myself i would like to know a little bit more on that topic as well.
Signed,
An anonymous person, trying to get a better understanding of Islam.
69.243.5.186
: The name of the second chapter (Translation: "The Cow") comes from verses 67-71 which involves the slaughtering of a cow (or heifer, which is a young cow).
::And remember Moses said to his people: "Allah commands that ye sacrifice a heifer." They said: "Makest thou a laughing-stock of us?" He said: "Allah save me from being an ignorant (fool)! (2:67, Yusuf Ali)
::They said: "Beseech on our behalf Thy Lord to make plain to us what (heifer) it is!" He said; "He says: The heifer should be neither too old nor too young, but of middling age. Now do what ye are commanded!" (2:68, Yusuf Ali)
::They said: "Beseech on our behalf Thy Lord to make plain to us Her colour." He said: "He says: A fawn-coloured heifer, pure and rich in tone, the admiration of beholders!" (2:69, Yusuf Ali)
::They said: "Beseech on our behalf Thy Lord to make plain to us what she is: To us are all heifers alike: We wish indeed for guidance, if Allah wills." (2:70, Yusuf Ali)
::He said: "He says: A heifer not trained to till the soil or water the fields; sound and without blemish." They said: "Now hast thou brought the truth." Then they offered her in sacrifice, but not with good-will. (2:71, Yusuf Ali)
: In addition, the name of the chapter also relates to the Jewish practice at that time of worshipping cows, as mentioned in verse 51:
::And remember We appointed forty nights for Moses, and in his absence ye took the calf (for worship), and ye did grievous wrong. (2:51, Yusuf Ali)
 
: Of course, the second chapter talks about subjects that don't relate to the cow as well.
: About the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) disliking dogs, I have never heard that. However, that does not mean it's not true. I do believe that many Muslims today don't like dogs because they are unclean. joturner 21:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding dogs, There are considerable difference of opinion in major 4 Madhabs(Schools of thought). To know how their views vary, see this link --Soft coderTalk 04:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qur'anic Zoology 

message: There are a lot of dead links in the References section. Someone should work on replacing them with updated URLs or URLs from archive.org (or just removing them). Kaldari 08:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: Discussing the post-Muhammad conquests, the original article stated that the Muslims conquered most of "civilized" world.  
This is encyclopedia.  Merely putting quotation marks around it does not give an excuse to use an inaccurate and politically charged word.  Neither was the word informative, as an uninformed reader would have no idea which territories the Muslims conquered and which ones they have not.  Muslims conquered most of the Middle East, Northern Africa, some parts of Central Asia and Europe.  They did not conquer the Byzantine Empire (not, at least, until Turks came along, which is outside the frame of time of the topic); Italian cities, Western Europe, or East Asia, which was arguably the center of civilization at the time.  
Just the facts, please.  
Saltyseaweed 21:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the correct thing to do. joturner 21:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most of "civilized" World 

message: I put the book list in order and I moved the pictures around a bit, so that they don't clump. I made some smaller; they're all the same width now, which seems "calmer" to me. We still have long long stretches of text with no pictures. Seems to me that more pictures would liven things up. 
One final chore -- someone, back in the mists of time, linked all the Qur'an quotes to a site called Islam101. Seems to me that it suffices to give the quote and the translator's name -- the link isn't required, and constitutes advertising for that site. Zora 01:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should have a link to a site, so if someone wants to read the verses preceding the quoted verse, or the verse after, they can do so without having to search real hard. What about using the USC-MSA site? Pepsidrinka 02:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good idea. I can't say that I like the MSA version of Islam, but their collection of sources is useful. I use their hadith search a lot. Zora 03:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Housekeeping 

message: I wonder, why is the Christoph Luxenberg article not linked to on this page? In fact, there are there hardly any links to the article. I happen to have read his book, and even though the author has received quite some criticism himself, I think his proposed method can be a fruitful tool in critically analysing the Qur'an.
Perhaps a paragraph about textual criticism on both this page, and the page about textual criticism, could be included. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We had the links, but someone -- either Pepsidrinka or Gren -- removed them. I wasn't completely comfortable with that, but decided not to make a fuss. They were a spotty lot, since a great many of the academic journals aren't available online, or are viewable only if you pay lotsa $$$ for a subscription. But putting his book in the list of further reading seems like a good idea. In fact, that list hasn't really been vetted. There are some dubious books there. Zora 11:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having just looked through the article history, in my defense, it was not me. Pepsidrinka 14:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: They are called a Hafiz. I answered this on your talk page too. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 15:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Christoph Luxenberg]]