Talk:Al-Ma'idah

message: Auliyâ’ means friends, protectors, helpers. If just translated as friends it is misleading.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.34.50.105 (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Q5:51]] 

message: Some of the verses show a clear shi'a bias. Pure inuyasha 23:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What verses are biased? --Striver 01:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shi'a bias. 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:005 abdulbaset ma'ida.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Reverted the entry about the God of the Christians not being the same as that of the Muslims. Using an online op-ed from the editor of a local, small-town Kansas newspaper who is arguing that the United States is a "Christian nation" does not seem to be a proper theological source. If wikipedia is going to start relying on politically-motivated op-ed pieces from local media around the world, you will get some seriously terrible theology.
There are plenty of Christians (and Muslims) who do think this way, but (for example) the Catholic Church does not hold that teaching, nor do many noted theologians. And none of these arguments actually have to do with this Sura, so the question is best addressed elsewhere like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Islam#Comparative_theology .Konchevnik81 (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Christians and Muslims

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Al-Ma'ida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061020080905/http://www.answering-ansar.org/fiqh/kalima_adhan/the_ghadir_p48-49.jpg to http://www.answering-ansar.org/fiqh/kalima_adhan/the_ghadir_p48-49.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Thank you for your editing diligence.  Thank you also for your interpretations of the assorted acronyms used by other editors.  All of those previously-unexplained acronyms were / are debatable. Wikipedia:Five_pillars#WP:5P5
A few issues:
Wikipedia as an Encyclopaedia  (refer Wikipedia:Five_pillars#WP:5P1)  provides a platform to:
:1.  present for all Islamic schools and branches - Quranic hermeneutics explanations of Surah content as was first intended and/or as it is evolving (eg the Corpus Coranicum work)
:2.  present current 2020 global insights of Muslim and non-Muslim understanding and applications of the Quran.   What do Women, LGBT, races and groups, those discriminated against, Jews,  etc etc believe the Quran says about them?   This issue is not necessarily what the Quran says.  It is what people believe the Quran says, or doesn't say, about them  - their belief might be 'right' or 'wrong'.
Another variant of 2 above:
The leader of a major world nation quotes Verse 5:32 (presumably a most important) Quranic verse on 'peace'. 
He (for what-ever reason) leaves out the INITIAL SCOPE and THE CENTRAL CAVEAT WHICH REVERSES the noble values being promoted.
This raises questions such as:
1. Is this the best example of a Quranic 'peaceful' verse?   2. Why use this verse in this way?   3. What about verse 5:33?    4. Is 5:33  peaceful?   5. Can anyone re-write the Quran?   6. What about "contemporary Muslim's" who believe "corruption in the land" includes "destruction of natural environment"?  7. Is it legitimate to quote verses out of context?   8. Is the Quranic injunction to have people, "killed or crucified, or their hands and their feet be cut off on opposite sides", immutable?   9. Does Islam need to major reformation? 10. How is this best achieved?  11. Is Western criticism of Islam counter productive? 12. Are the answers to the above questions the same for all Islamic schools and branches? 13. Can Islam integrate with the West?     Two admittedly extreme examples: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-76a393b199c89b983243e2426b9566e1  http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info/en/index.php/definition-of-ht/item/7982-the-aim-of-hizb-ut-tahrir 
It seems that if people ask legitimate questions or voice concerns - automatically they and their publications are labelled Islamophobic and dismissed. (more examples of these epithets, as Point 3 here >  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles  )   I believe there is also a MSM (RS) unwillingness to report on these matters, because of the sensitivities involved.   Interesting conundrum for Wikipedia.   Koreangauteng (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ________________________________
This has nothing to do with the initial contextual interpretation/tafsīr تفسير of the Surah 5:32 from both western- or muslim scholarly side. Your raised questions are digressing towards theological beliefs with philosophical twists rather than a content in an Encyclopedia like Wikipedia. To put it in laymans terms: the world wide web offers many thousands of thousands of polemical pages ranging from anti-muslim, anti-christian as well as anti-jewish tendencies. When we are to include polemical pages as sources for different religions then other users will see this as an invitation to include those very same sources for their own personal attacks towards religion X/Y. In factual reality this would lead to unsourced and biased polemical attacks against the Hebrew Bible,Old/New Testament & the Quran respectively. The Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and has no place for these kind of things, thus this is avoided first and foremost by using reliable secondary sources. I really appreciate that we are not edit warring and keep it civil though. And on this point I want to also say that your recent edit on Surah Ma'idah 5:32 is a good example for sourced material (here: secondary literature). You are showing the legal terms regarding the fiqh and its extended meaning. Ideally you could also insert quotes from the source for quicker cross-references. AshleighHanley82 (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:  A platform for both Quranic scholarly exposition and its 2020 interpretation

message: Following through some of the above motivated me to lookup The story of Cain and Abel in Islam. I fully hoped to copy the relevant chunk back into here to expand this article. In reality what little that is over there is insufficiently referenced (apart from quotes from the Quran).  JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Cain and Abel]]

message: Surah Al-Maidah is the 5th chapter of the Quran and is composed of 120 verses. It is considered a Madani surah, meaning it was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the city of Medina after his migration from Mecca. The surah is named Al-Maidah, which means "The Table Spread," and it refers to the story of the Prophet Moses and the Israelites receiving the divine command to observe the laws of kosher.
Surah Al-Maidah covers a range of topics and provides [guidancehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cIS7M7oMqU&t=1s guidance] for the Muslim community in a number of important areas. Some of the key themes covered in the surah include: Justme321 (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surah Al Maidah With Urdu Translation 

message: the Ayats in the Summary section are off my one ayat. Needs edit Ruhaani Qutlugh Begum (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary wrong