Jump to content

Talk:The Study Quran: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
My understanding of notability I think is flawed; undo
Tag: Reverted
Undo; importance scale I meant, I need to acquire some knowledge of it
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject Islam|class=Start|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Islam|class=Start}}
{{WikiProject Books|class=Start}}
{{WikiProject Books|class=Start}}


Revision as of 06:17, 25 December 2022

WikiProject iconIslam Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBooks Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Can we have a criticism section of this book please.

There are huge controversies with this book. Please can someone add a section to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.199.31 (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

H.....u.....g....e controversies? according to who? Some "Youtube scholars"? All I see is some (non-academic) WP:RS reporting that Salafists/Wahabbists/Saudis are in a way "pissed off" at its publication. Criticism on the other hand is an essential characteristic of scholarly tradition. No human work lies (or should lie) beyond the grasp of criticism. And most of the reviewing scholars I see are in agreement that this book is a "monumental contribution" to Quranic studies despite some of their legitimate criticisms targeted at few interpretations of the book where it departs, of course upon rigorous consideration of millennial exegetical tradition, from modern day theological consensus. Here are some of the scholarly reviews:
  • Davary, Bahar (2016). "The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary". Horizons. 43 (2): 397–401. doi:10.1017/hor.2016.108. ISSN 0360-9669.
  • Drury, Abdullah (2016). "The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary". Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations. 27 (4): 493–495. doi:10.1080/09596410.2016.1148886. ISSN 0959-6410.
  • Lawrence, Bruce B. (2016). "The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary". The Muslim World. 106 (3). Wiley: 633–638. doi:10.1111/muwo.12136. ISSN 0027-4909.
  • Powers, David S. (2018). "The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary". Review of Qur’anic Research. 4 (3). International Qur’anic Studies Association.
  • Bellin, Elise (2020). "IRC Book Review: The Study Quran: A New Translation And Commentary". Wisconsin Muslim Journal. Retrieved 2021-02-14.
  • Leaman, Oliver (2017). "The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary". Philosophy East and West. 67 (2). Project Muse: 594–596. doi:10.1353/pew.2017.0049. ISSN 1529-1898.
  • Fudge, Bruce (2018). "Study the Quran or The Study Quran?". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 138 (3). American Oriental Society: 575-588. doi:10.7817/jameroriesoci.138.3.0575. ISSN 0003-0279.
  • Geissinger, Aisha (2016). "The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary". Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 85 (1). Oxford University Press (OUP): 270–272. doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfw074. ISSN 0002-7189.
  • Vaid, Mobeen (2016). "The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary". Islamic Sciences. 13 (2). Center for Islamic Sciences: 105–118.
  • Miller, Caleb (2015). "Review of 'The Study Quran'". Clarion: Journal of Spirituality and Justice. Retrieved 2021-02-14.
  • Gökkır, Necmettin (2016). "The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary". İslam Araştırmaları Dergisi. 36: 179–182.
  • Laabdi, Mourad (2017). "The Study Quran: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary". Iranian Studies. 50 (3). Informa UK Limited: 467–471. doi:10.1080/00210862.2017.1285602. ISSN 0021-0862.
  • Bauer, Karen (2017). The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences. 34 (4): 70–74.
  • Alexandrin, Lisa (2016). Journal of the Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabi Society. 49: 104–108.
  • Ford, Peter (2016). Theological Review. 37 (1–2): 140–142.
  • Görke, Andreas (2018). Speculum. 93 (1): 250–251.
  • Ibrahim, Celene (2016). "The Study Quran: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary". Journal of Islamic and Muslim Studies. 1 (2). Indiana University Press: 89–92. doi:10.2979/jims.1.2.08. ISSN 2470-7066.
  • Medoff, Louis (2016). Journal of Shi‘a Islamic Studies. 9 (3): 367–371.
  • Metzler, Berenike (2018). "The Study Quran: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary". Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. 168 (2): 500–502.
  • Samsel, Peter (2016). "The Study Quran: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary". Sacred Web. 37: 77–104.
  • de Souza, Felipe Freitas (2016). "The Study Quran: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary". Revista Espaço Acadêmico. 187: 171–173.
  • Muchlisin, Annas Rolli (2017). "Kesarjanaan Tradisionalis alQur'an di era Kontemporer". Epistemé: Jurnal Pengembangan Ilmu Keislaman. 12 (2): 288–310.
  • Geoffroy, Eric (2016). "Seyyed Hossein Nasr, The Study Quran – A New Translation and Commentary". Les cahiers de l'Islam (in French). Retrieved 2021-02-14.
In addition, Criticism section in general "should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints." On the other hand, presenting both the positive and negative viewpoints from reliable scholarly sources, I repeat, scholarly sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias within the article (that would be most preferable) or within the existing Reception section would be the best thing to do. The book reviews included in this comment can be a guide for anyone willing to do that job. Thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be listed a Shi'a Translation in My Opinion

None of the editors besides Nasr are Shia and it builds on mainly Sunni sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.177.250 (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I am going to change it. Thanks. Mosesheron (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Study_Quran&oldid=1129412074"