Talk:Surah

message: Wonderful article! This is definitely a very useful reference the way this page and the pages it links to are developing.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:36, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Can someone please add details of the additional Suras? Pope Benedict, in his Sept 07 speech that caused a lot of outrage in the Muslim world, cited Sura 2,256: 'There is no compulsion in religion.' Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.72.49 (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Points

message: I think I will try to make a (although than prettier) table like on the French page and also I will try to read through the information to see how much of it should be added at the intro.  I am not the best at translating or reading French but I will try and of course corroborate anything with sources in my native language. gren 05:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, any of the pages that have lists better than ours will be a good model... like the German or Netherlands.  Why does Germany have a list and a page for what sura is. gren 06:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi gren, maybe I could help you out here, as I am the one that wrote the footnotes on the dutch version...Let me know if you still need my help, drop me a line here: [] (I'm rarely online on the english wiki). MartijnL 12:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[fr:Sourate]] 

message: Wikisource is the place for full text, not wikipedia. Going by the decision to remove the full text of NT bible chapters, and instead link to wikisource, I have been doing the same for the Surahs. I wanted to make sure that this wasn't going to be controversial, and perhaps enlist some help in implimenting the necessary changes. I might also propose deleting the stub articles that have no content, such as
:"Surat Al-Muminun (Arabic: سورة المؤمنون  ) (The Believers) is the 23rd sura of the Qur'an with 118 ayat." 
That information can be found on the main Sura page, and I believe redlinks from the main list will show users which pages have expansive articles and which ones are 'stubs' without having to click on every link (for example, look at the chapter template on the Gospel of John article.)--Andrew c 19:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur; it appears that the place for the relating Sura are in Wikisource, not here; the appropriateness here is not a reflection of worth.Mavigogun (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing full text 

message: Apparently, the plural of the word sura is suwar. I'd like to use suwar, but maybe suras is so ingrained in the English language that suras may even be the correct plural of sura. Can someone clarify this ? MP   (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct plural of sura (more correctly sūrah) is sūrāt (suraat using only standard lettering?) Glyns 22:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's odd, I was quite sure that it was suwar, not surat. I don't think the plural of sura is jama' mudhakir salim jama' mu'anith salim.195.229.236.213 18:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The plural of sura is suwar, with short vowel sounds for the "u" and the "a", not suraat. You would say "suwar(u) Juz'(i) Amma," the suwar of Juz' Amma. Perhaps in English it should be listed as Suras, to keep with the normal method of pluralizing nouns in English by adding an "s".   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.227.70 (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of irregular plurals in English -goose/geese, child/children, etc; perhaps a brief word of explanation next to the first instance of the plural would be sufficient to allow us to keep the nuance and flavor of the language...?Mavigogun (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text:  I've added the term suwar at the top (as it is correct, as far as i can tell) but used "suras" in the article, as I believe this to be the commonly used English word for the plural. MPatel (talk•contribs) 12:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Been debating about this one myself. I prefer to write things like "sura Al-Fatiha". Not sure if this is generally the way it's written in English. The 'h' you're referring to, do you mean for sura(h) or Fatiha(h) ? I'm not an expert on Arabic, so I would need to check up on the details of Arabic grammar and transliteration to English. Perhaps someone out there can help with this point of transliteration. MPatel (talk•contribs) 12:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suwar or suras ? 

message: Some user recently changed Al-Fatiha to Surah Al-Fatihah.  I reverted because of a lack of discussion but I figured it's a worthwhile question.  I know other languages seek "sura" as the prefix as part of the naming... do you think we should?  And, when should we add the 'h'  Is there a scholarly form of tranliteration we should adhere to?  I know some adhere to the "International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies" but... I am not sure how transliteration would even work through that system. Any ideas? gren グレン 08:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Been debating about this one myself. I prefer to write things like "sura Al-Fatiha". Not sure if this is generally the way it's written in English. The 'h' you're referring to, do you mean for sura(h) or Fatiha(h) ? I'm not an expert on Arabic, so I would need to check up on the details of Arabic grammar and transliteration to English. Perhaps someone out there can help with this point of transliteration. MPatel (talk•contribs) 12:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sura page naming 

message: :Perhaps the other transliteration should also be mentioned. Lots of Indian Muslims transliterate as "Surrah" in addition to "Sura" to avoid confusion with the Sanskrit/Hindu phrase "Sura" or "Sur" (Man). Hkelkar 13:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, it's already there. Hkelkar 13:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sura or Surrah

message: what does rukus mean? I know Aya (Ayat) and Hezb (Ahzab) but what is a rukus exactly? Habibko (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See: Ruku'; it's how many times you bow during recitation / prayer with the verse. gren グレン 05:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  rukus?? 

message: The name of sura 60 is transliterated as "Al-Mumtahina", but its meaning suggests that "Al-Mumtahana" should be correct. I checked several printed copies of Medina Mushaf and realized that the name was originally written as Al-Mumtahina, but in recent prints, the Kasra below Hah has been removed: in some cases Hah came with a Fatha, and in majority of cases it remained diacritic-less. Any idea? ----Hamid (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Mumtahina or Al-Mumtahana? 

message: I have heard that the suras are roughly in order by length, with the sura having the fewest verses coming last. Also I've heard that typically a student memorizing the Qur'an will start at the end of the book, with the shortest suras. My questions are:
#Is this generally regarded as true, within the Islamic scholarly community - or among Arabic-speaking Muslims generally?
#Has anyone publicly denied this - particularly in English?
#Is this a matter of dispute between pro-Muslim and anti-Muslim sources? That is, do supporters and opponents of Islam disagree on the "order of the suras" issue?
If there's no controversy, then I'd like to mention something about the order of the suras in the article. I'd even like to have a table listing each sura and its length.
But if there's a controversy, maybe we have to do something different? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Order and length

message: There are to tally 6666 Ayat (Verses) in The Holy Qur'an, and as per the table and Wikipedia's information the figure is 6236, which is wrong. Wikipedia Authorities please update the Information and Table with the correct Answers.
--eimtiyaz (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Source please? Shaad lko (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

text: WP relies on secondary sources - please see this manual Shaad lko (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

text: For my own information, where in the Quran is the number of ayat written? Shaad lko (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Nos of Ayat

message: I think this article has scope for expansion. Some ideas for expansion:
* Some suras were revealed piecemeal whereas others were revealed whole. 
* Suras revealed for specific circumstances (e.g. Sura 96 ("Iqra", etc.))
* More info. on present order of suras.
* Suras being paired together or grouped together around a certain theme or themes (e.g. last 2 suras, but there are many more examples).
In view of this, perhaps we can discuss creating an article List of suras in the Quran (or something similar), so that that article can be classed as list-class. Then the article Sura can be an article in itself. MPatel (talk•contribs) 12:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your contention. Shaad lko (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate articles ? 

message: Peace be upon you (Salamun Alaikum),
Insha Allah I propose to include the following,
http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/appendices/appendix1verify.html
1. The Quran consists of 114 suras, which is 19 x 6. http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/vp/fact02.PDF
2. The Basmalah occurs 114 times, despite its conspicuous absence from Sura 9 (it occurs twice in Sura 27) & 114          = 19 x 6. http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/vp/fact21.PDF
3. From the missing Basmalah of Sura 9 to the extra Basmalah of Sura 27, there are precisely 19 suras.http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/vp/fact22.PDF
4. Sura 96, first in the chronological sequence, consists of 19 verses.http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/vp/fact05.PDF
5. Sura 96 consists of 304 Arabic letters, and 304 equals 19 x 16.http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/miracle/simplefacts_tables_sura96.html
6. The famous first revelation (96:1-5) consists of 19 words.http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/vp/fact03.PDF
7. This 19-worded first revelation consists of 76 letters 19 x 4.http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/vp/fact04.PDF
8. The last revelation (Sura 110) consists of 19 words.http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/vp/fact08.PDF
9. The first verse of the last revelation (110:1) consists of 19 letters.http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/vp/fact09.PDF
10. The total of the 29 suras http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/miracle/simplefacts_tables.html#table16 numbers where the Quranic Initials occur is 2+3+7+...+50+68 = 822, and 822+14 http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/miracle/add19.php?number=822+14(14 sets of initials) equals 836, or 19 x 44.
11. 14 different Arabic letters http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/vp/fact51.PDF, form 14 different sets of "Quranic Initials" (such as A.L.M. of 2:1 http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/noframes/ch2.html#1), and prefix 29 suras. These numbers add up to 14+14+29 http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/miracle/add19.php?number=14+14+29 = 57= 19 x 3.
12. Between the first initialed sura (Sura 2) and the last initialed sura (Sura 68) there are 38 un-initialed suras 19 x 2. http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/miracle/simplefacts_tables.html#table17
13. Between the first and last initialed sura there are 19 sets http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/miracle/simplefacts_tables.html#table17 of alternating “initialed” and “uninitialed” suras.
These can be Insha Allah also be found in any Quran and can be easily verified.
(DukhanSmoke (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Original Research of this kind is not suitable for Wikipedia- kindly read Wikipedia:No_original_research. Shaad lko (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I think it should be included though commensurate with the overall length of the article - WP:UNDUE. Or maybe a good idea is to have a summary here, and a separate article which goes in detail about the mathematical structure.  Shaad lko (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

text: The more I look at this the more it seems to me to be given undue weight. It appears that Khalifa's work is a minority viewpoint. I would prefer to see a sentence about the work of Khalifa and the material being included in his article rather than here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm not too worried about the sources. My concern is if most Muslims agree with his findings or just a small number of people. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There seem to be no reliable sources - see WP:RS discussing this, and Khalif's work is all self-published. Some of the above even uses Wikipedia as a reference. So, fringe self-published work and some personal websites (note Khalif was based in Tucson), plus some assertions that are original research. And the lack of a fatwa is irrelevant to our policies and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Reliable source usually means something published in a peer-reviewed journal, especially considering that Dr. Khalifa's work is a fringe theory by the standards of mainstream scholarship. The book you listed is also published from Tucson, and the only other external ref. is to a course taught in the University of Calicut. You might want to check this out- WP:IRS     Shaad lko (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematical Structure in Quran Suras based on number 19 (Over it is Nineteen) 

message: There is another significant fact not mentioned in the main (Wikipedia) article [and which may be worth adding?] - namely, an instance where a word was deliberately [?] misspelled with the 'wrong' letter "S". And [only] with that 'misspelling' was it possible to achieve an exact multiple of 19 for the number of occurrences of that letter [Sad or Sin, I forget which]. As I recall, Rashid Khalifa regards that as supporting his theory - but it could also be argued that it weakens it ... because if it really was a matter of the text having been designed by God, then He would surely have devised a much better, neater solution? --DLMcN (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for the info but its practically irrelevant since even most Muslims dont use Khalifa's argument to prove that the Quran is divine. Shaad lko (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two different Arabic letters equivalent to our "S" 

message: DukhanSmoke - The Wikipedia authorities are still not completely happy with regard to your supporting references for the section entitled "Mathematical structure of suras based on the number 19". When you refer to specific books, please give as much detail as possible, namely: Title, author, publisher, and date, together with the page numbers which are relevant to the point you are discussing. In particular, it is not at all clear where your "Physical facts" come from. Are they taken from one of the books which you quote? If so, please state which book. And some of what you call "references" (e.g., those presently numbered 14 and 16) seem to be just calculations - so they should not be called "references" - or can you cite a book and page number which actually presents the calculation you refer to? Wikipedia policy does not allow its editors (i.e., you or me) to incorporate their own calculations in a Wiki-article, because that would then become "original research" ... You may only quote calculations which appear in reliable sources. --DLMcN (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  19 in the Qur'an - improved references, please 

message: Peace, I think the proper statement would be "His research was initially accepted and endorsed by the Mainstream Muslims but was rejected later" God Willing there are few references that can be attached to this statement as below,
1. Al-Quran The Ultimate Miracle by Ahmed Deedat.
2. Akher Sa'a magazine, Egypt, January 24, 1973.
3. Akher Sa'a magazine, Egypt, November 28, 1973.
4. Akher Sa'a magazine, Egypt, December 31, 1975.
5. 19 Miracle Code, Ittehad UAE, Arabic Newspaper Page 4 full 23 Feb 77.
6. "The Miracle of the Quran", by Dãr Al-'Ilm Lil-Malãyîn, (Knowledge for the Millions) Lebanon the Arabic version, March 1983.
Request the Administrators to let me know if these references above and the other references that I have updated for the section "Mathematical structure of suras based on the number 19"  meet and exceed the requirements. These references above also include many of the 8 points that are included in the section. I thought it was appropriate to include these references by improving the statement regarding acceptance and rejection of Dr Khalifa's work.
Peace
(DukhanSmoke (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've replied in your personal Talk-Page ... [your Number 6 above is acceptable]... However, in order to justify your requested change to make it read: "His research was initially accepted and endorsed by the Mainstream Muslims but was rejected later" you would need to provide a reliable source stating exactly that. --DLMcN (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Internet links by themselves are not usually regarded by Wikipedia as "reliable sources". And with regard to Ahmed Deedat's book, you really need to quote an actual publisher [assuming of course that there was one] together with the date when it appeared, and if possible an ISBN (or similar) number. We would also need to mention, somewhere, that Deedat later withdrew his support for Rashad Khalifa. --DLMcN (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a record explaining "Why?" Deedat [and others] withdrew their support of Rashad Khalifa? --DLMcN (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Yes, that^ book should indeed qualify as a "reliable source" according to Wikipedia criteria. --DLMcN (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I personally think that you can now make that^ change - so go ahead and do it. Be prepared, however, for other editors to come in and make further comments and suggestions ... but the important point is that the topic has been discussed in secondary sources, so you do have a strong case. Thanks again for your efforts --DLMcN (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  His research has not been endorsed by mainstream Muslim or non-Muslim scholarship 

message: DukhanSmoke ... As discussed in your personal Talk-File, I have now uploaded my suggestions for a revised, less complicated, more impressive list regarding RK's claims. We can certainly discuss modifications to that text, if you wish ... Regards, --DLMcN (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions - revised list of RK's claims 

message: I dont see any relevance to adding stuff about abrogation in this article - the article is specifically about Sura (chapter-like units of the Quran). Shaad lko (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of abrogation information by [[User:Blanchette]] 

message: In multiple cases, such as the one seen in the Exterior Decoration section of Dome of The Rock, the incorrect word "Surah" is used. Example: Surah Ya Seen.
When referring to a Surah, we change the display from Surah to Surat, as in Surat Ya Seen, or we can simply say The Surah Ya Seen. I've done a change from Surah to Surat, but it was reverted since it snot "constructive". Can anyone add his opinion on this?
Thethiny1919 (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposition to replace "Surah" with a proper form  

message: On 30 December 2020 the page on the second surah was moved by  to use a naming scheme consisting of the index of the sura, then some rendering into English of its name, and then a transliteration of the Arabic name for this surah. A little over a week ago I added a move request to the page to return it to its previous name, since the pages for the other 113 surahs were not also moved to use this scheme and thus there would be a glaring incongruity as far as naming schemes went. I was told by  to inform those who watch this talk page of the proposed reversion (which AstroLynx and one other user have expressed support for). mahir256 (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move involving the article on the second surah 

message: Qura Mariyam butt (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quran ke 114 ka surah k taroof