Disputatio:Al-Fātiḥa

message: Cur nomen huius paginae est 'Fatiha' vice 'Al-Fatiha', sicut etiam 'Al-Baqara'? --Fabullus 09:44, 18 Maii 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uniformitatis causa paginam nunc ad Al-Fatiha' movebo. --Fabullus 07:01, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: De nomine huius paginae

message: Is the sense of iratus in the last verse something like: The path of those whom you have blessed upon them, those whom you have not been angry upon...? 
I was also wondering if Te supplicamus might be a better translation for Te iuvamur. Supplicamus does have the nice association with prostration as well. Nooj 21:47, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: quaestio

message: Pagina Al-Fatiha mihi retinenda videtur has ob res:
*Multae aliae vicipaediae Al-Fatiham symbolâ dignam putaverunt
*Fatiha non minus digna est quam Al-Baqara, Alcorani sura altera. Si prima ad Alcorani symbolam redirigitur, redirigenda et altera.
*Si omnia quae de Al-Fatiha dici possunt in symbolâ Alcorani insererentur, haec nimis copiosa, ne dicam minutiosa, fieret.
--Usor:Fabullus
replies: text: Mihi quoque retinenda videtur. IacobusAmor 11:33, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :Et ego. Sed sine dubio plura in pagina de Alcorano scribere oportet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:36, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Ita, plura sine dubio scribi oportet! IacobusAmor 11:45, 22 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Pantocratore suadente plura scribo. I think, since our long term aim is to develop a big encyclopedia, it is usually not very productive to merge existing pages that equate to separate pages on other wikipedias. The result is one less page, fewer interwiki links, fewer visitors: an infinitesimal effect in any one case, but cumulative. Obviously, this general view could be overturned wherever particular reasons demand.

text: :::The better procedure is to add pages that are at least moderately informative, increase our page count and our number of interwiki links, and are open to further improvement.

text: :::The present page is (I think) our first example of a page about the suras of the Qur'an. The Qur'an is (I think) varied enough in its contents, and influential enough, not to fit into any one reasonably-sized encyclopedia page in the long run: so there would certainly be reasons, in the long run, for having articles about many of its individual suras or maybe all of them. This is a particularly notable sura, and so a reasonable start.

text: :::PC is quite right that it is not "encyclopedic" to have a different translation of this sura in the Qur'an article. If the difference is interesting, it should be explained right here: if it isn't interesting, an efficient encyclopedia will eliminate the unnecessary inconsistency. In any case, the place for an extensive quotation from this sura is right here, not in the Qur'an article. But that is a matter of improving the two articles separately rather than merging them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:05, 26 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Can either version be cited? As I have said, they both disagree with the standard version that I linked to. Pantocrator 09:59, 26 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::As far as I am concerned you may replace the anonymous translation on Al-Fatiha by an officially published one. But this is only my view: please give others some time to respond. The parallel translation on Alcoranus should go altogether, as Andrew observes. I will also invite Usor:Ceylon, who is more knowledgable in these matters than most of us, to respond. --Fabullus 10:20, 26 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::I am not sure I have followed the whole discussion, but as far as the 18th c. translation quoted by Pantocrator ("In nomine Dei misericordis et miseratoris. Laus Deo Domino mundanorum misericordi et miseratori, regi in die iudicii. Te colimus, in te confidimus. Offer nos stratae viae directae, stratae per gratiam datae illis, super quos non est ira Dei, neque errant") is concerned, it differs little from the version in the article, but where it differs, it is usually less literal. E.g. الرحمن الرحيم is unconnected in Arabic ("misericordis miseratoris"); ملك يوم الدين is a genitive construction ("regi diei iudicii", not "in die"); the X. root of عين means 'ask for help' or 'seek help' rather than 'trust in'; how the translator wished 'offer nos stratae viae directae' to be understood, is not altogether clear to me - اهدنا الصرط المستقيم just means 'lead us the straight way' etc. At the end of the day, of course, Islam recognises no translation of the Quran into other languages at all; and the 18th century version does the job of giving an rough impression of the sense. What would seem more important is expanding the article beyond the quotation, in line with what other Wikipedias have to say on this important text, which every Muslim is supposed to recite several times a day.--Ceylon 19:00, 2 Maii 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  De pagina [[Al-Fatiha]] retinenda