Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs)
234,552 edits
m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 60d) to Talk:Quran/Archive 9.
Ian.thomson (talk | contribs)
Administrators
58,562 edits
No edit summary
Line 292: Line 292:


''"Over hellfire are 19 angels... We have fixed this number only as a trial for unbelievers in order that the People of the Book may arrive at certainty. And the believers may increase in faith and that no doubts may be left for the People of the Book and the believers." - Qur'an 74:30-31'' - Brad Watson, Miami [[Special:Contributions/71.196.121.70|71.196.121.70]] ([[User talk:71.196.121.70|talk]]) 12:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
''"Over hellfire are 19 angels... We have fixed this number only as a trial for unbelievers in order that the People of the Book may arrive at certainty. And the believers may increase in faith and that no doubts may be left for the People of the Book and the believers." - Qur'an 74:30-31'' - Brad Watson, Miami [[Special:Contributions/71.196.121.70|71.196.121.70]] ([[User talk:71.196.121.70|talk]]) 12:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
:Or we could try [http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/yaq/yaq074.htm reading the verses in their historical and complete context] (instead of myopically cherry picking as if America is the center of the universe) and see that it's a general fire-and-brimstone sermon. You might as well take the old Puritan sermon "[[Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God]]" and say that it predicts the [[Waco siege]]. If you bother reading Quran 74, you'll see that the people in hell were greedy (v15), denied the existence of God but practiced sorcery (v24-25), and were vain (v45). You do realize that numbers are pretty common, right? That 19 occurs in the Quran (from 6/7th century Arabia) doesn't mean it has anything to do with what happened in 21st century America. Why would Muhammed have any concern about America? Why would the 21st century matter, when there's been plenty of centuries before, and there could well be plenty of centuries after? It's short-sighted and honestly selfish to treat 21st century America as the center of the universe.
:By the way, where is 9-11 mentioned? It's not!
:Also, there are these things called [[coincidence]]s, which mathematically are not amazing at all. Assuming a base 10 number system was universal, which it isn't (you're lucky Arabic does or I'd call you out on that as well), it's a 1 out of 10 chance that the first digit would match, and a 1 out of 10 chance that the second digit would match. Not that amazing. Considering your comparing such disparate sources (the number of 9-11 hijackers and the Quran), you're bound to find even more. See [[birthday problem]] for an example when the sources for numbers extremely and narrowly restricted compared to 9-11 and the Quran.
:That aside, [[WP:NOR|we don't take original "research,"]] and [[WP:RS|we don't take copy-and-pasted chain emails as sources either]]. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 14:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:40, 13 September 2011

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral


Why were my remarks deleted?

Whatever argument is happening between other users, I strongly object to my vote and my comments being arbitrarily deleted like this. What to you mean when you say, "this is the price of Abdullajh trying to push things along badly"? Some of those were MY comments - not his. I demand my comments be reinserted on this page. This is really going too far. John Hill (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you voted after A re-arranged votes between sections for his own convenience, then the answer is A re-arranged votes between sections for his own convenience. A managed to leave the page in a completely invalid state; I could see no way to resolve this other than reversion. If you want another poll (which I think is bad faith so soon after the previous one) then please start one in an orderly manner, rather than taking votes from a different section and inserting them into a poll William M. Connolley (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, there seems to be some misunderstanding here. Please note I have acted at all times in good faith and have had no part in rearranging votes, or anything of the kind. I am not responsible for others' actions on the WP. I think earlier comments on this page showed that the results of the first poll were based on Google searches (which inluded urls, etc), and so was invalid. It would seem right to run another poll. I will be travelling for a couple of months as of this Saturday and may have very limited internet access. If there is a second poll (and I, personally, would support one), I think my comments should be included amongst the replies. Maybe we need some Administrator to give advice on whether a second poll should be taken - or take the matter for mediation? I just hope earlier votes that you unilaterally removed - including my own - are taken into account and not forgotten. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt you have acted in good faith. So have I. But moving peoples votes between sections is not acceptable. Suggesting that the earlier poll was invalid, however, is verging very close to bad faith: you didn't like the result, so you're criticising the alleged methods. Please don't do that. You don't know exactly why people voted as they did, and even if you did, it would make no difference to the validity of the result William M. Connolley (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also confirm the importance of the new poll, especially that the old one ignored the most important topic:Wikipedia's Islamic Manual of Style, which only states "Qur'an". Some editors claimed that the old poll was closed too soon, and they didn't have a chance to vote. I know the new poll was opened with a mess, and hope that it would be organized again properly, as you mentioned. AdvertAdam talk 11:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't confirm its importance, you assert its importance William M. Connolley (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors claimed that the old poll was closed too soon, and they didn't have a chance to vote: the only person to assert that it was closed early is Abdullajh, who did vote, but was active while the poll was in progress. There is no reason to re-open it simply because he failed to vote William M. Connolley (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need some Administrator to give advice on whether a second poll should be taken - I nearly put this on WP:ANI when Abdullajh moved stuff. So yes, if you want to post to ANI, or find an uninvolved admin to comment, please do William M. Connolley (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's Islamic Manual of Style: which says "Holy Qur'an (or Holy Koran, Holy Quran, etc.) — recommended action is to NPOV to "Qur'an". Reason: Calling a book "Holy" is making a value judgement that is inappropriate to Wikipedia." I think you've misinterpreted that. It says (rephrased) "Holy X, NPOV to X". It doesn't say, "Koran -> Qur'an" or "Quran -> Qur'an". Also, note that is in the section "Islamic honorifics". Looking in the section "Grammatical standardization" I find it to be ambiguous, and to rely on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic) which is not a standard, only a proposed one William M. Connolley (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The incident of John Hill is really ridiculous, he asserted his opinion and then been diminished in name of restoration. First of all, alteration in talk page is not permitted - which Abdullajh did and dropped some opposing comments. I noticed the change and asked someone to take correct steps. Later William M. Connolley reverted back to pre-reorganization version. In that case he simply restored to an earlier version and contributions from John Hill are totally been ignored :@
As John Hill mentioned, he will not be able to monitor, I'll support and act on the course, that his contribs that has been lost shall be in just places.
In response to two mistakes, another incorrect thing I'm going to do, so as to minimize the affects of mistakes. I'm retrieving the lost comments from John Hill. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 16:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Abdullajh completely messed this up. You've now added to the mess, by "restoring" JH's comment to a section he never made the comment in. Argh! William M. Connolley (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abdullajh messed a lot. You added more mess by completely removing a section, which included original comments. If you might have to revert! (talk page shall not be reverted nor be mutilated) you could have kept John Hill's comments in original place, with some note. I already noted, I made a wrongful doing in response to two misdeeds to minimize entropy dispersal.
But now I see that, I nafSadh, William M. Connolley and majorly Abdullajh are in verge of Edit war. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 05:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poll to revert move

Administrator's note: I am watching this poll, and will be available for closing it at some point. Given the procedural controversy that has erupted, let me state the following: It is somewhat unusual to allow such a very quick re-nomination, but in light of the strength of opinions and the number of apparently good-faith arguments on both sides, I am inclined to let it run and allow a re-evaluation of consensus in a few days. For this purpose, arguments proposed in all three recent polls (including the aborted one from 4th May and the successful one from 9 April) will be taken into consideration together (not headcounts). This way, it will not be necessary for editors to re-state their points here merely in order to fill up the !vote count. The copying-over of statements from the old poll has been taken note of. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move back to Qur'an; page stays at Quran. In closing this, I have considered all opinions expressed in all three recent polls equally. In terms of headcount, the division is almost exactly 50:50 (10 people preferring "Quran", 11 people preferring "Qur'an"). In terms of strength of argument, the matter seems to be mostly between two competing versions of the standard "use common English" argument, where one side prefers the usage of general-purpose and popular English, whereas the other side prefers the usage of specialist academic literature. Both these positions appear legitimate and defensible to me in principle, so I can't say one of them automatically wins out as a matter of mandatory policy. I am inclined to give less weight to the arguments about linguistic "correctness" and what kinds of pronunciations each spelling might suggest to the English reader. The argument that "Qur'an" is actually inconsistent, because in order to comply fully with academic usage it would in fact have to be "Qur'ān", carries some weight, but then, on the other hand, something analogous could be said about actual common English preferring "Koran" rather than "Quran"; both candidate forms discussed here appear to be, in practical terms, something of a compromise. On the whole, I am not finding a strong enough consensus for a revert of the old move, and no clear reason why the current status quo would be indefensible under policy, so I'm compelled to close this as "stay where it is". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Quran → Qur'an – It is a poll to revert previous move.

Recently the name of the page was changed from the authoritative and long-standing spelling "Qur'an" to "Quran". The vote was hasty and closed before many editors who routinely maintain this page were able to vote. This will be a longer poll that measures the feeling of the community about the title of this page. Description of the poll and actual votes are being placed in this section. Best wishes, Abdullajh (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Support The only interesting argument that was given for changing to "Quran" was number of Google hits. These were found to be due to a number of factors: 1) inability to put apostrophes in URLs, 2) a few media sources that choose to use "Quran", and 3) a number of blogs many with antiMuslim hate speech. The arguments for "Qur'an" are numerous and are given above in the lengthy discussion: they include 1) the vast majority of authoritative translations of the Qur'an use "Qur'an", 2) studies on the Qur'an use "Qur'an", and 3) number of published books using "Qur'an" are much greater in modern times than those using "Quran" [1], which is a better measure of authoritativeness. Abdullajh (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Language do not stand still and spelling of words change while it evolves. Qur'an/ Quran/ Koran/ Kuran is being spelled with wide variety of spelling. Not yet a convention been standardized. In relation to Islam related words, it has been noticed that, contemporary approach is to write them using English replacements of Romanization of the word. e.g. Hadith. Qur'an in its actual pronunciation has a glottal stop in between r&a. People is moving on to pronouncing Islamic words more appropriately than before. We can see that, Koran or Coran are not used in modern days, while Koran was common in old days... this shift is due to concern about spelling and pronunciation. So, this might be better to have main Wikipedia article in Qur'an instead of Quran, coz Qur'an is preferred by authoritative sources. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 05:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me assert that, this is my vote and is not fake --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 18:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: this poll really is so badly broken that you do need to do that William M. Connolley (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support reopening the pole and then add a restriction to any further change requests, due to the origin: Qur'ān is an Arabic name, which should be written to the closest pronunciation in English alphabets. The faulty Quran and Koran translation is based on African and West-Asian accents. Qur'an is the closest spelling for any English Native to read correctly, without hearing it from someone else first. You can at least try this text to speech website to hear the difference yourself (using the voice of "Mike" for US English OR the voice of "Lucy" for UK English). Again, confirming Wiqi55's comment that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and I also don't think that a journalist spelling is what Wikipedia should be based on. AdvertAdam talk 06:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reconfirm my vote; I know this topic was a complete mess, hoping everything gets settled soon. AdvertAdam talk 08:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support the reversal back to Qur'an which will, apparently (see discussions above), make it easier for English speakers to approximate the Arabic pronunciation. If this is how Muslims prefer it written in English - why not? Sounds emminently sensible to me! It is also easy to type on a standard English keyboard - no need to search for special accents or accented letters in WP's box at the bottom of this page - think of Xi'an in China. We are not being asked to type (the technically more correct) Qur'ān - so, what's the problem? Come on everyone - let's resolve this issue now and be done with it. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


First canvassing and now a fake vote? Someone take this one to WP:ANI. Kauffner (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False claim of fake vote. see reply to Connolley's poll

oppose re-opening poll, and the faking of votes by Abdullajh; e.g. [2]. Also oppose the blatantly non-neutral section heading, and the canvassing by Abdullajh William M. Connolley (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allegation of fake vote is not proper. John Hill originally voted as in here and William M. Connolley's reversion removed it. JH questioned the removal of his remark.
Construction of this poll is improper though. Action of both Abdullajh's and Connolley's are improper. Abdullajh started misdoing. Connolley's reversion was improper. My retrieval was also messy as discussed and explained here --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 09:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that section heading is blatantly non-neutral --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 09:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fake vote in the sense that "support" posts were culled and then presented so as to give the impression that a fresh and unanimous vote had just taken place. The opposition expressed by Quigley and Connolley was left out, so even as an abstract it is dishonest. Kauffner (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the construction of this section is ACTUALLY dishonest and also misguiding, but votes presented are not entirely faked up. As Connolley mentioned earlier and linked that John Hill's vote is fake — that is not just a factual error, but a misguiding information. Quigley's and Connolley's and comment should have made apparent. Abdullajh must have noted that all these votes are brought from another section. What have been done is mess and I do not feel a good vibe over here about what is happening now. Some action/comment/insight from a admin is will be helpful. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 14:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only oppose above was against the open of the poll in-general, while the other voters were supporting the return of the spelling. I know this poll is a huge mess, so I'm not justifying any actions. Connolley is an active editor and was invited to put his vote in the summary. AdvertAdam talk 17:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But! Shall not the section name be altered into a NPOV one? e.g. Poll for move Quran → Qur'an or something like that? --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 18:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, as the editor who made the pole doesn't have much experience. Do what you see reasonable. Just an opinion: it might be better to be as a "revert" instead of "move". AdvertAdam talk 18:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Section has been renamed to "Poll to revert move" from objectionable non-NPOV title "Poll to return page to authoritative and long-standing spelling Qur'an" to avoid-dispute --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 04:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The intention was to create an organized section with copies of the votes so that it is clear what the editors' positions are. What was happening is that a single user, William Connelly, was commenting on everyone's votes, obscuring the positions of other editors. This is clearly still ongoing and they are in a small minority. The two "oppose" votes were about opening the poll, which was not what the poll said, and the editors refused to enter oppose votes for the content of the poll. In any case, they were outnumbered. I believe that some editors are intentionally disrupting the poll and creating disorganization to obscure the poll. I request that editors maintain organization. It would be preferable to move all comments about the poll, such as this comment, to another section, so that the actual votes can be seen. Respectfully, Abdullajh (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on polls are seen in many polls, so it is not a problem. Poll POV is always in bold and original poll can be viewed easily. As Wikipedia is not just democracy, comments on polls help reaching a decision. Though consistent repetitive comments might obscure other editor's position. But Talk-pages are non-editable. So, we shall not move content from one place to other or delete, even not s/he who originally made the comment (except for fast copy-edit but no content reorganization). Only reorganization or edit on previous comments accepted is archiving process. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 04:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abdullajh: if you're going to assume bad faith (I believe that some editors are intentionally disrupting the poll and creating disorganization to obscure the poll - you seem to be unable to accept that people can, in good faith, hold opinions different from yours), and not even bother spell my name right, could you at least be honest and not write "respectfully", please William M. Connolley (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: - given from history overview
--নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 06:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: nafSadh explained that the organization of the votes was unhelpful and votes currently extend across two sections. Six editors support restoration of the page to Qur'an: nafSadh, AdvertAdam, John Hill, Emmetfahy, Til Eulenspiegel, and Abdullajh. Three editors oppose: William M. Connolley, Kauffner, and Quigley. The previous poll used for moving the page to "Quran" had 9 editors in favor of the move and 4 editors opposed to the move. One editor previously in favor of the move, AdvertAdam, finding evidence from authoritative sources, switched his vote, and I, Abdullajh, as well as John Hill, Emmetfahy, and Til Eulenspiegel, did not vote in the earlier poll, so the updated tally for both votes would be 8 editors in favor of "Quran" and 9 editors in favor of "Qur'an". The previous poll was based on raw number of Google hits which has problems, such as the inability to place apostrophes in URLs, and it ignored modern usage in published texts. The poll to return the page to "Qur'an" was opened on 8 May 2011 and is currently open. Respectfully, Abdullajh (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Explanatory Comment I said that, reorganization was incomplete, (though vote in a separate section is better). I asserted that modifying talk page is not a WP policy. Further, this is not a continuation of previous vote, Previous vote was to move Qur'an to Quran. Current vote is to revert the move. Summery of two sections is helpful. I'll request that new polls should be made in this (Poll to revert move) section.--নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 05:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag added, day should be counted after tagging date, as it has been added to WP:RM just after the tagging --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 05:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • close as too soon to renominate. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support immediately restoring the apostrophe in Qur'an. The first poll to remove the apostrophe was obviously rushed through in a very few days, by a very small number of editors, before word of this poll got around to the interested parties. As pointed out, there cannot be more than about 3 editors who are listed as against the apostrophe at present, and some of the reasons given so far border on sheer insanity, like "the apostrophe is part of a plot to force us all to respect the Quran." Oh and by the way, I am not a Muslim, and I don't adhere to the Qur'an myself, so please don't accuse me of being part of some paranoid conspiracy to force people to respect it. I'm just telling you the apostrophe is there purely for valid linguistic reasons, and it is correct and accurate with it, and incorrect and inaccurate without it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for a note If we write Qur'an it maps back to قرآن while Quran ambiguously maps to قرن which means Century --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 12:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close Many of the !votes which appear in this section were ‘cast’ before the move request had been made. Clearly an abuse of process. (Personally I slightly prefer Qur’an to Quran, but that is of no moment at this point) Ian Spackman (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The poll was improperly opened without any tag and later it is added to bring it into a process. Like you another editor also noted it as a violation of process. So, what shall be advisable act?
(A) remove the tag
(B) start ACTUAL poll according to a defined process
If B, please denote or refer to process manual.
This discussion has been turned into a mess in its very inception – but is continued due to the importance & seriousness of the issue.
No admin or experienced reviewer's advice is found so far (or not a lot of editors have been aware of this issue). So, some discussing (or apparently quarreling) editors are in dark (that includes me) --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 13:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an administrator, nor am I someone who who spends nights awake studying the minutiae of Wikipedia policies and procedures, but I would think that an administrator should be able to close the poll as (in effect) one that has been invalidly constructed. A new poll could then be opened, if someone wanted it to be, and discussion and !voting could commence on that one ab initio. Ian Spackman (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the best thing what I would probably do in your position (I hadn’t spotted that you were directly involved in formally opening the poll) would be to briefly explain the situation (that you tried, in good faith, to open a move request, but that there are people objecting to the way that it happened) and ask for advice as how best to proceed at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. They will certainly have come across similar situations in the past, and will be only too pleased to see you wanting to follow the established procedures. Hope that helps. Ian Spackman (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Asked for advice in WP:RM talk --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 15:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template above is misplaced and needs to be taken down. Anybody can do it, you don't need an administer. Create a new section at the bottom of this page, something like ==Requested move: Quran → Qur'an==. Put the {{subst:move|Qur'an}} template in this section, followed by a nomination. The nomination does not need to rehearse the history of previous voting. Just explain why you prefer the proposed title to the existing one. Editors must make fresh votes, together with brief explanations, below the nomination, with each editor casting a vote only on behalf of himself. Kauffner (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: No new rationale given. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
although poll opening paragraph do not have Polls and comments have new rationals --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 17:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this sham poll which was created by canvassing, copy and pasting selective "votes" from a past poll, and subverting a recently-affirmed consensus of uninvolved editors to push (what Abdullajh and friends believe to be) an Islamic POV rather than a neutral POV. The English language print media outside of Wikipedia—whether its press, its dictionaries, or its books—are fully demonstrated to use Quran or Koran. Specialists in Arabic language or related fields use a transliteration system that Wikipedia does not use, but use not only an apostrophe but macrons and other specialized symbols. These arguments have been explored in the past poll, and never refuted except through the repeated assertion of untruths and cherry-picked factoids. If this move goes through because of the apathetic and conflict-averse nature of the secular, non-Muslim, and other users dedicated more to policy than to theology, it will be through one of the most blatant and base attacks on Wikipedia's foundations that the project has ever seen. Quigley (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it has been demonstrated that in modern times "Qur'an" is the most widely used spelling in English (e.g. here), and in any case, that "Quran" is far from meeting the threshold for non-standard primary transliteration given in Wikipedia Manual of Style for Arabic. By the Wikipedia naming conventions, the standard transliteration is to be used unless at least 75% of English references use a particular non-standard transliteration, in which case this non-standard transliteration, called a primary transliteration, should be used instead. Using a standard transliteration is perfectly compatible with both NPOV and Wikipedia policy and it was used for this article for years. It is upsetting that three editors, Quigley, Kauffner, and William M. Connolley, feel very strongly about attempting to associate POVs with particular non-standard spellings. As evidenced by the above comment by Quigley, which is quite uninformed, there is a sense that by using "Quran" they deal a blow to Muslim points of view. This is in itself offensive as Wikipedia is not a battleground. I remind editors to remain composed and to focus on maintaining high standards of scholarship. Respectfully, Abdullajh (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know about the selective voting issue, but your comment is the most idiotic thing I've read on Wikipedia. The notion that introducing these marks would mean pushing an Islamic POV, it's as if the apostrophe is considered holy or sacred by Muslims. Rather than spewing asinine conspiracy theories, I would appreciate you providing an explanation for the claim that Wikipedia doesn't use the transliteration system that is widely used by scholars of Islam or the Middle East and perhaps answering some of the issues I've raised here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Showing the glottal stop is more accurate and more useful. It is also the preferred form used by serious writers (per the Ngram), and used in recent translations and introductory texts (see "Further reading"). There is no point in going against all these reliable sources. The question of which character is used to represent the glottal stop should be deferred for later. For now, we should just return to the long-standing and more useful form used for many years. See also my previous comment. Wiqi(55) 22:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note amusing double standard. Where it suits him, Wiqi55 regards [3] as authoritative [4]. And how does that spell Quran? Without the "'" William M. Connolley (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing perhaps; logical argument, no. In terms of logic, that is a "fallacy"; any valid points of logic would not hinge on any one editor, but would remain valid regardless. By the way, if the apostrophe is specifically recommended by Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Arabic) as explained below, may I ask are you trying to get that changed as well? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But don't you think it hypocritical of Wiqi55 to revert based on a source he "knows" is wrong? As to your policy page: did you fail to note the bold heading at the top that said "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference"? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you pick any recent work on the Qur'an you'll find many instances of archaic spellings, like Alcoran, Koran, Kur'an, etc. But these instances are strictly confined to quotations or to reference lists (often found in titles of older books or sources belonging to a different register, like journalism). If scholarly publications think it is OK to cite sources that use archaic and low-quality spellings, then it shouldn't be any different here on Wikipedia. That said, I was only reverting your unexplained change, and the quality of the source cited wasn't under consideration. Wiqi(55) 15:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ho ho, no you weren't, you said Wording is per the cited source, which implies you read it. Keep wriggling William M. Connolley (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I thought the question under consideration was the best location for this page and not what any editor thinks of another editor. And please, that isn't "my" policy page; I have had nothing to do with it, haven't looked at it lately, and was relying only on the excerpts below. All of which of course is neither here nor there with regard to determining where the page should reside.

  • Close? It has been more than a week since last talk occurred in this section and even in this page. This revert move poll is in stand still. We've already been informed that an admin is also watching. I guess closing this talk might be considered. » nafSadh did say 19:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In such a rush? Already forgotten all the bitter complaints about the "early" closing of the previous poll? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has been in stand-still for 8 days. Now I see some more editors are contributing. So, we can wait a bit more. » nafSadh did say 03:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does putting an apostrophe in it make English speakers pronounce it differently? An apostrophe in English spelling denotes the omittance of a letter (e.g. have not and haven't). So how do English speakers differentiate between Quran and Qu'ran? What letter is being elided? And how are English speakers supposed to pronounce "qu" without it being followed by a vowell, anyway? This is all political. Strongly oppose any reversion to the apostrophe version. ðarkuncoll 23:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the letter q is also used to signify a sound in words and names found in Hebrew, Arabic, Phoenician, Assyrian etc. and similar to (but a little sharper than) Greek chi, Scottish ch in Loch, as anyone ought to learn to be knowledgable and educated. The apostrophe likewise approximates a glottal consonant found in names from languages worldwide. We ought to opt for a more accurate standard than jr. World book. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, Qu'ran is the standard academic spelling, and this is an encyclopedia. – Quadell (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Editors should be aware of the Journal of Qur'anic Studies published by Edinburgh University Press, which is currently the most reputable journal for peer-reviewed English scholarship on the Qur'an. Respectfully, Abdullajh (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Naming Conventions

According to Wikipedia naming conventions, the standard transliteration, "Qur'an", defined precisely in the Wikipedia Manual of Style for Arabic, is to be used for the article name unless there is a non-standard primary transliteration. By definition in the Wikipedia Manual of Style for Arabic, there is a primary transliteration only if at least 75% of all references in English use the same non-standard transcription. "Quran" clearly does not meet this threshold as can be seen by comparative usage in English texts between 1900 and present, demonstrating that usage in English texts is actually very clearly in favor of "Qur'an" over "Quran", especially in the past 20 years with wide margins. Abdullajh (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Misuse of "Requested Move" process

The above "poll" was opened by User:Nafsadh at 05:28, 13 May 2011,[5] yet it includes a list of "votes" abstracted from earlier discussion. These votes were selected to favor one side, they were not caste during the voting period, and some are the result of canvasssing. Kauffner (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move tag was added to put this issue in WP:RM so as to attract more editors attention and is not a misuse. The construction of this poll is already been discussed as in previous few sections.--নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadhtalk | contribs 09:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually not true. I, Abdullajh, opened the poll here on 8 May 2011. Voting continued in the original section until 10 May 2011 when I incorrectly attempted to organize the actual votes in a new section here. Some votes were returned to the original section so that currently votes extend across two sections. Respectfully, Abdullajh (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RM and pre-RM votes must be kept in distinct sections. How to tally the earlier votes is up to the closing administrator. As a participant, you do not decide which votes get counted. Kauffner (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this poll from its inception on 8 May 2011, in accordance with Wikipedia policy on polls, has been to determine the community feeling about the name "Qur'an" vs. "Quran" and to build consensus. Plenty of evidence has been provided in the lengthy discussion spanning several sections demonstrating that "Qur'an" is the modern accepted spelling and that the raw number of Google hits, the basis for the earlier vote, is a deeply flawed measure of accepted usage. At least 6 editors have provided new arguments in favor of "Qur'an" following the 9-4 contentious vote that moved the page to "Quran" after years of being at "Qur'an", including arguments in favor of "Qur'an" by one of the editors who originally voted for "Quran". Some of the arguments in the original 3 oppose votes by distinct editors are also compelling, giving a total of at least 9 editors who have expressed preference for "Qur'an" as the standard spelling. It has been demonstrated convincingly that "Qur'an" is the accepted spelling used for Qur'anic scholarship and in the majority of published English sources in the past 10 years. In contrast, two or three editors, Kauffner, William M. Connolley, possibly Quigley, remain opposed and continue to argue for a very non-standard spelling "Quran", despite plenty of evidence that "Qur'an" is the modern accepted spelling used in scholarship and academic sources. Wikipedia is not a democracy and polls are not binding. Currently the sense of the community, certainly among editors who contribute to this page, seems to be strongly in favor of "Qur'an" with two or three editors opposed. If there are any additional editors who have contributed to this page and who have not expressed their opinions on the hasty move to "Quran", please express your opinions here. I request that Kauffner and William M. Connolley begin to discuss the merits of the page name rather than making accusations and edit reversions. Respectfully, Abdullajh (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Inconvenient" section titles?

Abdullajh seems to find the section title "Misuse of "Requested Move" process" inconvenient, as he keeps trying to demote it [6] etc. But the shenanigans going on here do indeed justify such a section header William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only "shenanigans" going on are by you and Kauffner. I request that editors maintain order so that the poll can be used for consensus building. Respectfully, Abdullajh (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of changing the headings to subheadings is to keep the poll discussion in one section. No information was lost. However, I won't edit war, but I note the disruption that is being caused by proliferation of unnecessary sections. Abdullajh (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maintaining order would be good. How about you stop moving peoples votes between sections and stop downsizing sections you don't like? That would certainly help order William M. Connolley (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to organize votes incorrectly only once, long time ago, which has already been discussed in great detail and corrected to everyone's satisfaction. These section headings being proliferated seem to have been created for no reason except to obscure the poll and should be moved to subheadings as they continue the earlier discussion about the poll. Abdullajh (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Err, no it hasn't. And, no they haven't been. Hows your faith? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed section on Theme of the Quran

There should be a section on what is the main theme (content) of the Qur'an, as understood by different scholars. For example, Ghamidi and Islahi say that primarily it is a Book of admonition (indhar in Arabic). Maududi says its central theme is Man, and so on.. This is important as in the end, it is a Book and a piece of literature. Shaad lko (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the main theme (content) of the Qur'an, as understood by different scholars can be dealt in the scope of Tafsir not in this article. Theme of Qur'an is not a general idea but differed one. » nafSadh did say 15:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not a general idea? Every text has some theme(s), central content matter - how can the Qur'an be different? Tafsir is more related to exegesis of the actual verses of the Quran, and theme may influence the Tafsir in contextualising the verses. Shaad lko (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus (or general idea) answering “what is the theme of Qur'an”. & it is not just a text! it is Holly revelation. It has several hundred chapters, each of which covers one or more content matter(s). Furthermore, Qur'an is a book which is told to cover all aspects of life, science, religion ... So, how come there be a single central content? & if you can see, there is already a section dealing with Content of Qur'an. » nafSadh did say 16:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to go into a debate, but Qur'an being a Revelation does not take away from it also being a text. Every text has some subject matter, and different scholars have inferred different core subject matters from the Qur'an. Regarding your other (mis)assumptions, even many Muslims do not believe that Qur'an covers all aspects of life.. But maybe you did say the right thing finally, we can improve the Content sub-section! Shaad lko (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we can work on Content of Qur'an or such article first then add the summary here.
There had been no (mis)assumptions; I asserted generally assumed belief. » nafSadh did say 16:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably yes, if the user has enough content to work on it. I agree on the point regarding that the "content" should start first. ~ AdvertAdam talk 03:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The themes you're talking about are related to specific sections, not the whole Qur'an. There aint even a single theme in you randomly select a chapter. ~ AdvertAdam talk 03:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, essentially what you are saying is that the Quranic text jumps from one place to another and different parts have no connection with each other? Well, there is some debate over whether the Quran is a disjointed text or it has a thematic structure do you appreciate the implications of your claim?)- however, many traditional scholars have insisted on the latter. I will work on it in some time. Shaad lko (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you go through the Qur'an, you'll see that, from al-Fatiha to an-Nas, the narration goes so smoothly that many readers really enjoy it, even if it is a translation. So it is not a disjoint text. But, being a non-disjoint text don't mean, the theme is altogether the same everywhere. Theme and context of Qur'an & Suras change variably. Many scholar has found many thematic structure and they have not agreed upon one. If X1 says theme is Y1 then, X10 says theme is Y10! So, there will be a lot of dispute. Why shall we start writing about something with so many dispute while we have unresolved disputes on so many other things? » nafSadh did say 06:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are only two important questions - is there a thematic structure to the Quranic text or not? Scholars have always differed on this - I will take some time to write down all the references but - some say that because it was revealed in bits and pieces the parts are not inter-related, while others assert that being a Divine text it has unity of structure. Secondly, there are not too many themes that have been identified for the text as a whole - for example, everyone knows it is a Book of warning and glad tidings - but maybe Imam Farahi was one of the first to delineate this concept and bring it out in the open. Regarding your question - why should we write about a dispute? - well, if the dispute is important enough... Shaad lko (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plz re-read! Theme of Qur'an is a subject, about which there are disputes between scholars. Even if you think it is very very important, please do a lot of homework and I suggest you do some test on your own user-space User:Shaad lko/Theme of Qur'an may be. Ask reviews from some more editors (who have experience in doing constructive edits on Islam related article). Then, we can add a clean text right into main-space. Thus we can keep this page clean. Just suggesting, don't take it anyway else » nafSadh did say 18:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns but anyway, if you see currently, the article focuses on everything but the Content of the Quran- this is somewhat surprising as it should give greater indication of the subject matter of the Quran. I agree with your point to put it under Content, and hopefully it can be an improvement to the article!
In fact, the Bible article too doesn't have much on Content, but the Torah article does, and looks better with that.. Shaad lko (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Writing about the context needs a lot of expertise and deep knowledge. Preferably someone who is a Hafiz, knows several Tafseer of all Ayahs, has deep knowledge in hadith & fiqh and lost more knowledge. But, if we do not get such an editor but can find sources (written by such someone) with verifiable references, then it'll do a great deal. » nafSadh did say 19:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't WP based on verifiability and not experts writing on all subjects. Your enthusiasm is apparent, but your statement on kind of expertise needed is pretty much subjective. Shaad lko (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not hard to trip in bias sources/experts :). I'm sure you're with me on this-one. Just keep us informed here and keep away from WP:OR, please, so we can have some time to go through it. See you around. ~ AdvertAdam talk 09:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! Experts are not available. But context from verifiable sources of experts shall be cited. I'm afraid of OR. I think primary write-up will be like edit-test or something. So using sandbox will be helpful. We can even start a collaborative work. My concern is keeping this article clean. » nafSadh did say 10:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I may humbly suggest, let us stay away from jumping to conclusions. If I didn't have enough matter, I wouldn't have raised this topic - I'll start something on my userspace and invite you guys later in the day, so that we can work it out, maybe we can have a separate page on it too (Content of the Qur'an, themes of the Qur'an, whatever...).. Shaad lko (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds nice. Thanks for the effort. ~ AdvertAdam talk 10:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I've been suggesting. :P » nafSadh did say 12:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, started something here. We can improve gradually and add to the main page, or even have a separate page - let me know how you feel about it - I can dig up more references hopefully..Shaad lko (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation

It might be useful to have an Arab speaker pronounce "Qur'an" for us, so we know what the Q and ' "really" mean.

Also, it might be in order to point to a coherent discussion of whether the apostrophe is best written as an apostrophe, right half ring, hamza, or IPA glottal stop, and why any of these is better than the simple "Koran"--just a gentle nudge toward consistency. Ferren (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

discuss in the section Poll to revert move » nafSadh did say 07:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can open a chatroom to pronouce it here :p, jk.
Just a quick video, which pronounces "Al-Qur'an Al-Kareem" a couple times in the beginning ("Al" means "The"). His first mention is in the 8th second, then slower in second 13. Please also look at the US English text-to-speach website to compare Qur'an and Quran, using the voice of "Mike". ~ AdvertAdam talk 12:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could simply go to Google, pick "translate", type in "Qur'an" and translate into Arabic, then click "listen" under the Arabic text... By the way the section title would be spelled "Pronunciation" in Standard English. I have heard it said as "Pronounciation" in parts of the UK though. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Encyclopedia

"Richard Gottheil and Siegmund Fränkel in the Jewish Encyclopedia write that the oldest portions of the Quran reflect significant excitement in their language, through short and abrupt sentences and sudden transitions. The Quran nonetheless carefully maintains the rhymed form, like the oracles. Some later portions also preserve this form but also in a style where the movement is calm and the style expository.[66]"

Is it just me who thinks that the jewish encyclopedia might be alittle biased towards such topics and the SOURCE IS WRONG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.206.159.187 (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" policy carefully to understand the reason it's there. We're all immature editors, just following policies :). Happy editing ~ AdvertAdam talk 22:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you meant by happy editing when you're perfectly aware that the article is protected. I also don't think you understood what I meant by the SOURCE IS WRONG. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=369&letter=K&search=Quran look at it yourself, nowhere is mentioned that oracle part.

I apologize. I thought you meant that the "Jewish Encyclopedia" is wrong :(. I've tagged the citation to be checked by whoever is familiar with the content.
I said happy editing, and happy editing again, as you're always welcome to suggest changes on protected articles, directly edit unprotected articles, and even create an account to be able to edit on protected articles when you're auto-confirmed. Thanks for the notice here :) ~ AdvertAdam talk 10:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is regarded widely as the finest...

It may e:

It is regarded widely as the finest piece of literature in the Arabic language. [Alan Jones, The Koran, London 1994, ISBN 1842126091, opening page.] [Arthur Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, London 1956, ISBN 0684825074, p. x.]

ut a preface to the Quran itself isn't a good source William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Sorry to be off-topib in my reply, but it appears that you ban't write the letter 'b'... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By hab a colb William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some refs that I could find.. Shaad lko (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more trash refs

Has Jagged taught us nothing? Please can we not have edits like this [7]. I've removed the whole ref, viz "cite ebook|first=M.F.|last=Rahman|title=The Books of God: From Genesis to the Final Testament|publisher=University Publisher|page=12|year=1998|ISBN=1-58112-896-7".

And the edit comment? "rm tag, as the academic publisher and author are mentioned"? Don't make me laugh. Like it says on the front page: this is from upublish.com. Whoever added it didn't even get the publisher right: it is "Universal-Publishers, Inc", not "University Publisher".

Aiee!

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dodgy ref was added by A [8] under the deceptive edit comment of "clarifying western terms" William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to avoid making my same mistake of generalizing your opinion of an editor based on one inicident. I apologize to both of you. And NO, I don't live in a trashcan, so please keep your tone focused on the content (in the editor's talkpage and the WP:DRN).
If you're laughing about "U" as "you", then you better look at their logo that used "U" for "Universal". Yes, I made a spelling mistake there.
I didn't give it a big deal, being a general belief (which the statement says belief) like "final divine revelation, last testament, final testament, ...whatever." Yes, I made a mistake of saying "an academic publisher" instead of "they publish academic material." I'm not claiming that they're reliable now.
Anyways, I take it back and presented another source. ~ AdvertAdam talk 06:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I still insist on my first summary of "clarifying western terms". The "Old Testament" and "New Testament" aren't written anywhere in the Hebrew and Aramaic text. It's just a term that the west used to divide the books; however, western Muslims don't use that much because the Qur'an is only one book. ~ AdvertAdam talk 06:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No-one said you were living in a trashcan; no-one was laughing at you. I said, correctly, that the reference was trash. Please try to keep comments here focused on improving the article. Now it looks to me as though you are using the bad practice of "reference by googling" in [9]. Please state clearly whether you have actually read the book you're reffing there William M. Connolley (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're not laughing at me :p. I think you should take the same advice to yourself and stop your baseless accusations, for the second time, of not reading the sources I insert. Yes, I admit that I haven't gave attention to the previous publisher, but what objection do you precisely have now (there or here)? ~ AdvertAdam talk 08:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I always look for the sources I previously had on Google Books. I make a search in Google so my intended statement becomes highlighted. It's just my style everywhere here, even with the books I have at home or in my University's library. ~ AdvertAdam talk 08:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a request: Please state clearly whether you have actually read the book you're reffing there. You haven't answered that request William M. Connolley (talk) 09:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not answering you question, as I didn't see that it's relating to this content.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I know what you're intending to go to. I know that Dr. Rashad is crap, and I have three copies of that book. I like his translation, but I actually ripped the nonsense "appendixes and introduction" he's added to the Qur'an before I gave them to some friends, hehe. He was killed because of his crap, and he was actually funded by Gathafi. Therefore, my answer is YES, I have read it. Although, I would highly refuse the source to be added to "further reading". I just asked if it's ok to use the statement that's not against general belief. Yes, "last testament" is found more that "final testament", but "final testament" is closer to the Arabic meaning. Dr. Rashad still is a noticeable personnel :) ~ AdvertAdam talk 09:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since some of this has gone to RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#A_belief_of_Testament_sequence), we might as well listen to what they say. I've moved the Britannica ref per their suggestion, and also pick up on Rahman, which says in the quote we use "The Qur’ān is a document that is squarely aimed at man; indeed, it calls itself ‘guidance for mankind’ (hudan liʾal-nās...)". That isn't obviously relevant: why is it there? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General review

I'll be making continues changes in the article, so please link any disputed change here (to avoid repetition and confusion). Thanks a bunch... ~ AdvertAdam talk 05:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant "rm pay-to-view source" in the summary here, not "pay-to-print". ~ AdvertAdam talk 06:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 81.102.183.85, 10 July 2011

Can you kindly correct the word 'Basmala'. This is wrong. It should be 'Bismillah'. Many thanks

81.102.183.85 (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.[reply]

Please bring some verifiable references in support of your point. The noun for the first verse is Basmala while it contains the phrase Bismillah. Shaad lko (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Basmala is the Arabic name for the phrase Bismillah-ar-Rahman-ar-Rahim. It is like Kalimah Shahadah is the name for Ashhadu Allah.... I think you got the point! Also refer to Talk:Basmala#Basmala vs. Bismillah » nafSadh did say 11:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qur'an 74:30-31 prophesises 19 hijackers (on 9/11)

"Over hellfire are 19 angels... We have fixed this number only as a trial for unbelievers in order that the People of the Book may arrive at certainty. And the believers may increase in faith and that no doubts may be left for the People of the Book and the believers." - Qur'an 74:30-31 - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.121.70 (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could try reading the verses in their historical and complete context (instead of myopically cherry picking as if America is the center of the universe) and see that it's a general fire-and-brimstone sermon. You might as well take the old Puritan sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and say that it predicts the Waco siege. If you bother reading Quran 74, you'll see that the people in hell were greedy (v15), denied the existence of God but practiced sorcery (v24-25), and were vain (v45). You do realize that numbers are pretty common, right? That 19 occurs in the Quran (from 6/7th century Arabia) doesn't mean it has anything to do with what happened in 21st century America. Why would Muhammed have any concern about America? Why would the 21st century matter, when there's been plenty of centuries before, and there could well be plenty of centuries after? It's short-sighted and honestly selfish to treat 21st century America as the center of the universe.
By the way, where is 9-11 mentioned? It's not!
Also, there are these things called coincidences, which mathematically are not amazing at all. Assuming a base 10 number system was universal, which it isn't (you're lucky Arabic does or I'd call you out on that as well), it's a 1 out of 10 chance that the first digit would match, and a 1 out of 10 chance that the second digit would match. Not that amazing. Considering your comparing such disparate sources (the number of 9-11 hijackers and the Quran), you're bound to find even more. See birthday problem for an example when the sources for numbers extremely and narrowly restricted compared to 9-11 and the Quran.
That aside, we don't take original "research," and we don't take copy-and-pasted chain emails as sources either. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AQuran&action=historysubmit&diff=450300871&oldid=450298932

Leave a Reply