Talk:Quran: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:12, 8 February 2006

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Archive 1 (Aug.2002 to Apr.2005):

1 Selected Quotes from the Qur'an || 2 Standardisation of the copies of the Qur'an || 3 Mathematical Miracles || 4 Contemporary Scholarship and the Qur'an || 5 Article not neutral || 6 Number of Verses in the Qur'an || 7 Qur'an graveyards || 8 Article not neutral at all || 9 Qur'an Usage || 10 Hafiz || 11 Sacred || 12 Arabic name || 13 Wikisource || 14 Suras || 15 PBUH || 16 Apologetic || 17 Samrkand Manuscript || 18 Created and UnCreated Debated || 19 Stylistic features || 20 Fairly minor edits || 21 Deuteronomy & John refs early in article || 22 Uncreated Qur'an (deletion of passage related to Bible) || 23 Added this link || 24 External links again || 25 Is that rearrangement OK? || 26 Removed commercial link || 27 I deleted a picture || 28 Ibn Kathir || 29 parts and subdivisions || 30 Recent additions to external links || 31 Textual criticism and the Qur'an - Clarification after removal || 32 Mary is not a prophet of Islam || 33 Can a Muslim editor check the Islamic links? || 34 Slavery

Archive 2 (Feb.2005 to Oct.2005):

1 Quran, Koran || 2 "Entities and events ... confirmed by science..." || 3 Qur'an appearance || 4 Qur'an desecration (Rulings on handling Qur'an, DISRESPECT TO THE NOBLE QUR'AN, Sunni ruling on desecration of Qur'an) || 5 An ex-soldier's POV (You struck out) || 6 Major revision || 7 Abrogation || 8 The Qur'an and science || 9 Piss Koran? || 10 Pietistic edits by anon || 11 Devrabation's edits || 12 Very interesting || 13 The Ayat and Wikipedia || 14 Standard referances || 15 Picture on the bottom || 16 Link to submission.org || 17 false suras|| 18 "Muslims believe" questioned || 19 Islam holds != Muslims believe || 20 Apology - I edited without reading all the talk page || 21 Citing Qur'an || 22 Desicrating Qur'an (Minor changes 2005-08-26) || 23 Importing the Qur'an and Hadith || 24 Addition of quran.org.uk || 25 (Say) Watt? || 26 English Wikisource Quran...vandalism || 27 Robert Spencer link|| 28 Created vs. uncreated

Qur'an Picture Controversy - Part 1 (Nov.2005 to Jan.2006):

1 Cropped image || 2 Pious hands at work- || 3 Controversial picture, caption || 4 The picture, again || 5 New pictures || 6 Protected || 7 Can we involve the Smithsonian?

Qur'an Picture Controversy - Part 2 (Jan.2006):

1 Straw Poll || 2 I hate to propose this, but ... || 3 Picture Removed || 4 Civility || 5 Changed photo again... || 6 A statement from the photographer and the model || 7 Summary of the ideas presented here || 8 A Message to the photographer and the model || 9 The latest removals || 10 Replacement Picture || 11 Moot || 12 Quadel I Support your action.

Archive 3 (Oct.2005 to Jan.2006):

1 Request on quoting translations || 2 Changing "According to secular scholars" || 3 Changing "The temporal order of Quranic verses" || 4 Who declared the Yusuf Ali translation the "official" Wikipedia translation? || 5 Conceiling References || 6 bad editing/format || 7 request for advice || 8 Shi'a view || 9 Links || 10 Spelling || 11 length of Quran || 12 I finally checked on that Kazan date || 13 Qur'anic Zoology || 14 Dead links || 15 Proselytization || 16 Most of "civilized" World || 17 Housekeeping || 18 Christoph Luxenberg || 19 AE's revert

Please add new sections and talk threads to the bottom of this page.

Status, re: Large Qur'an Picture

I have contacted the smithsonian and the gallery where the picture was taken, they are working on getting us a replacement picture. Other than this picture thing what needs attention in this article? What I mean is where do we turn our collective attnetion now as far as this article goes?
Kode 00:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing much more, maybe small edits. Good work on trying to get the image :). How is the Smithsonian going to get it to us? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Kode. Obviously, if they can get a pic with a person at the margins, that would be better. For some reason I'm feeling like a man would be preferable. ;-) Thanks. Babajobu 00:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A picture would be nice, although I don't think one with a person in it is preferable. I think that whatever the Smithsonian decides to give us, if anything at all, would (hopefully) be appropriate, neutral, and worthy of being included in an encyclopedia. joturner 00:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not to reopen a can of worms, but without a person there the enormous scale of the folio will not be evident. But yes, we'll take what they give us. Babajobu 00:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recall an earlier suggestion that a simple measuring device would be the best option, perhaps I can get them to include a yard stick on the edge or something, then we can crop it out if we decide against it.Kode 02:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything next to it is fine for scale. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll repeat my earlier comment that the human figure is how we intuitively judge scale, which is WHY advertising, architectural renderings, archaeological pictures, etc. typically include a human figure for scale. Just make sure that the human is shown from the back, is male (dang it), and is conservatively dressed. Zora 02:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A woman in a burqa would be okay, too. Babajobu 02:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not push it. We could ask for these additions for scale, but we should be happy with whatever they give us. And Babajobu, we're talking about the United States here; I'm doubting they'll easily find a woman wearing a burqa in public in the United States. And then one that's willing to be photographed... I'm not going to bet the ranch. joturner 02:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, it sticks in my craw too. Zora 02:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a man has shaven facial hair, is Jewish, ate pork within the last 20 days, or is an Iraqi war veteran, will that present a problem? Perhaps we should send a list of requirements to the Smithsonian. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, we understand (and I agree with) your sentiment, but I have chosen the path of tolerence in this case. If everyone was as understanding as we all think we are this whole mess wouldn't have come up at all, but some people have their prejudices. In this instance the consensus is to acquiesce. We're just trying to be sensitive to other's beliefs. Diplomacy is about compromise and that's all I'm trying to do here. So how about helping instead of exacerbating the situation?

-Kode 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. That is fine. Anything next to it is fine for scale and not having something next to it is also fine. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Cory Grace a Rights and Reproductions/ Digital Assistant of the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery and the Freer Gallery of Art has recieved our request and ok'd our use of the picture (a round of applause or sending her some flowers might be appropriate) which means I have successfully cut through most of the bureaucracy and the pictures that they have are being moved to their public ftp site in a folder titled "Wikipedia". So, we'll have pictures to choose from in a matter of days or weeks. In a sing song chant like voice imagine me saying, "I've got better pictures coming." Also, some one removed the current pic from the page, again... Ye gods how many hoops I've jumped through... -Kode 19:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. It's amazing how the whole process of contacting the Smithsonian was shot down within a day of it being proposed in early January, and here you have proved that it could work. Thank you. Pepsidrinka 20:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in the defense of others I am a research librarian so I'm willing to bet I was given special consideration as an insider of sorts. Other people might not have gotten the same personal responses I've gotten from the people I've contacted. (^_^) Kode 00:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The attempt to get a new picture from the Smithsonian was not possible at the beginning of January because when I called them, they informed me that taking photos inside the Freer and Sackler Galleries was prohibited. To then ask for a picture of one of the pieces of art on display would not have been a good idea. I'm sure Kode's position (or the way it was presented) helped to overcome that. joturner 00:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Bias

How does the work "infidel" fail to appear in this article? Nothing is said about infidels in the Qur'an? You don't think what is said about infidels is important to a modern understanding of Islam? Come on. Haizum 17:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'm waiting for the fallacious argument that uses the Bible/Torah as a context, but I'll go ahead and preempt that by saying it has nothing to do with the logical assertion that suggests "infidels" should appear in the article at least once. Haizum 17:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Sharia law doesn't even contain the word infidels. Come on. Haizum 17:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infidels only appears 4 times in the Jihad section. Come on. Haizum 17:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of things that are mentioned in the Qur'an that aren't mentioned in this article. The word peace, for example, is not in the article. Although I do agree that more information about the content of the Qur'an could be given, that does not demonstrate bias. joturner 21:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stylistic attributes

A point for you to consider, should this section have it's own page? It is one of the bigger sections, and I'm sure we could add a lot if the section were split away, perhaps more examples of the rhyming and repitition of phrases and we can centrally locate the evedence for Divine Inspiration that's scattered all throughout the Islam section. I'm no expert, but I think the entry may flow better if the examples we have currently were moved off the main page, but I'd hate to see them removed. Thoughts?
-Kode 20:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A User's Problem

I logged in to this article - like, I'm sure, many others - wanting to know "What does the Qur'an actually say?". By the end of the article I was none the wiser. I understood the importance of reading it out loud in classical Arabic, I understood the stylistic character of the book (between prose and poetry), and I understood the controversies over its origins. But I was no wiser about what it actually says.

Like many people reading the world news right now I wanted to know some important things, such as:

1. What does the Qur'an say about violence? When if ever does the Qur'an say it's justified? 2. What does it say about Infidels? How are they to be treated? 3. What does the Qur'an say about women? 4. What does the Qur'an say about slavery?

Could the article be re-written to give more information on these issues?