Talk:Qur'an

I notice from newspapers and the BBC that in Britain we use 'Koran' as the title of the Islamic holy book. Since we are a) Simple, and b) writing in English, we should probably move the title of the page over to 'Koran'. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from an American perspective, I see Quran far more often and I feel it's more accurate. I don't feel that proper names should be changed for simplification purposes. Griff (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissymad, why did you cancel my edit and return the dead link and the letter S? You watched what you returned? Maqivi (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maqivi My sincere apologies, it was mistakenly identified as a spamlink/refspam. I've reverted. Cheers! Chrissymad (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is something you find useful for others to read (which I believe it is especially necessary in the context of the Shari'a or Qur'an), put it in simple language. Using the WP simple english, makes your job easier. Translate it into other languages ​​using google translater and check the accuracy of your translation with reverse translation.

This is how I do it and I recommend it to everyone. If you do this for your native language or any other language you can use, you'll do a much better job, but it works over 90% even in languages ​​you don't know. Minor expression errors can be corrected by native users of the language.Ben Bilal (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been almost entirely written by @Ben Bilal: who has been blocked on 6 local wikipedia projects (ar.wiki, de.wiki, en.wiki, id.wiki, it.wiki and ps.wiki) because of the poor quality of their contributions. Ben Bilal is a POV-pusher who has strong views on the eclectic character of the Qur'an and on the oppressive nature of Islam. Ben Bilal accepts various controversial/false theories, such as those of the self-published independent researcher Dan Gibson, and spams them all over the world. The current state of this page is appalling. --Gitz6666 (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gitz6666 If what you say is true, why are you only opposing? Despite all your claims, I was banned from only one article in italian wikipedia (temporarily). I am banned for an article on Pashtun Wikipedia (ps.wiki). Sharia. Please don't ask why. Guess also for arabic and indonesian wikipedia. All that I have written (most of them academic publications) contains information supported by sources and is free of any distortions. My contributions may be considered harmful by some users on the basis of beliefs, and this is sufficient data to explain the attitude towards me in some wikipedias. There may be minor errors in language and expression in some of my contributions. Other users can remove them or better yet fix them. I want everyone to make such contributions in every language. If the dissemination of information can be destructive to someone's beliefs, it is neither my problem nor Wikipedia's. I should add here that no one has ever described me as a POV pusher and that I have received many "thank you" messages from different countries for my contributions.Ben Bilal (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your record. "I should add here that no one has ever described me as a POV". And yet I read here "Wiederholte Verstöße gegen den neutralen Standpunkt", which means "repeated violations of the neutral point of view". Note that what is disruptive is not your "dissemination of information" but rather the dissemination of biased misinformation, e.g., Gibson's discredited theories, using WikiIslam as a source, quoting creationist sources such as ICR (and calling them liberal scholars!), claiming that the Qur'an copied from Imru'l Qais (here wrongly spelled Imru' al-Qais), that Karûn is Croesus, that According to the majority of the Koran commentators, Dhu al-Qarnayn means Alexander (the Great), etc. You have been told many times (eg. here and here) that these theories are either questionable or entirely false, and yet you kept on translating them into various languages and posting them on dozens of wiki projects. Moreover almost all your contributions are aimed at highlighting the syncretistic elements of Islam: everything was already there, either in the Bible, in the Talmud, in the Gospel or in some Mesopotamian myths. You yourself explained to me the purpose of your contributions (here): "Like all the religions of the world, Islam and the Quran are a set of cultural transmissions. I want to emphasize this. Once this is understood, no one will be forced to live under religious tyranny, that is, under the sharia rule. I want this". I personally agree with your point of view, but it is nonetheless a point of view: you shouldn't use Wikipedia as a means for advancing it. And surely you shouldn't use it for disseminating false views and discredited theories. Not to mention you method (using google translator etc. - here above described), which makes a linguistic mess and leaves it to other to clean up the kitchen. What makes me especially worried about your way of using Wikipedia, is that small local projects do not have the resources for identifying and reacting to your disruptive edits. Gitz6666 (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you did a good job.

Let's come to the subject; However,

1-You generalized a few examples, out of my thousands of contributions over.

2- I contributed very little to the German Wikipedia. I was banned for insisting on my contributions. It could be a bug with me or it could be “Group domination”.

3- I largely agree with your views on Dan Gibson, Wikiislam or IRC, and I also find it wrong to shape Wikipedia pages according to these sources. However, on behalf of wikipedia, I do not find it right to ignore the articles written in this and similar sources. I also consider it necessary for the neutrality of wikipedia to give moderate references to these sources. By the way, I did not qualify the IRC as Liberal scholars. I have quoted a statement in the source as it is.

5-I am not expressing that the Qur'an does copy Imrul Kays, but uses the same expressions as Imrul Kays. (Is this your understanding)

6-The statement on the subject of ZülKarneyn is not my own, it is the statement in the source. You can question the source, not me.

7- If there are different candidates for Karun, they should also be included in the encyclopedia.

8-Your statement; ” And surely you shouldn't use it for disseminating false views and discredited theories.”

You should know that an encyclopedia cannot distinguish between opinions or information, and that contradictory information and opinions should be included together and here according to their encyclopedic value. It is the reader's job to distinguish between false and true information. It is necessary to be vigilant about pseudosciences as well.Ben Bilal (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I get that "on behalf of wikipedia" you don't find it right to ignore unreliable sources (Dan Gibson, etc.) and therefore you use them in your edits, and that's the reason why now one can find them quoted everywhere across the wikiworld. You think that it's up for the readers and not for us contributors to "distinguish between false and true information", so we publish them both and leave it to the readers to decide what is what. These are fascinating theories Ben Bilal, but they are wrong: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information, and it strives for verifiable accuracy, relying on authoritative sources (especially when the topic is controversial). Dozens of expert users across the world have friendly warned you against your way of translating and spamming questionable contents, and yet you honestly think it is right to do so and will continue to do so, right? I'm sorry Ben Bilal, I don't agree with you. Gitz6666 (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to why we cannot agree with you is this; You are changing the meaning and purpose of my words. I say that defining of "the wrong and right" cannot be made in wikipedia. This definition takes us to the distinction between the righteous and the heretics . (This is the point of view that blocked my contributions in arabic, indonesian languages ​​and retracted them in pashtu and urdu languages.) Contributions are made on verifiable information. You, on the other hand, continue to claim that I spread false information through the definition of an unreliable source. If you want to distinguish yourself from those who block or retract my contributions with this perspective, stop undoing the ones that meet the wikipedia criteria. By the way, you are deleting contributions that do not use the sources you have opened for discussion, since they are only my contributions without providing any convincing explanations. (bulliying-)Ben Bilal (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed that your contributions were irreligious, blasphemous, impious, sacrilegious and the like. I am claiming that they espouse factually false or controversial theories and are not based on reliable and verifiable sources. Moreover I suspect them of being aimed at advancing a laicist point of view on the eclectic/syncretistic and sometimes oppressive nature of Islam, as you yourself admitted.

Could you please tell me which contributions of yours that meet the wikipedia criteria have I ever reverted? I’ve reverted edits like this one, which is actually quite typical of your approach: the image (an ancient Greek amphora) has nothing to do with the subject of the article, and the caption is used to convey the theory according to which Qārūn (mentioned in Qur'an 28.76) would actually be the Lydian King Croesus. The theory is at first sight plausible but actually false, as Qarun is none other than Korah, who appears in the Book of Numbers of the Bible [see e.g. Memari, D., & Aghayi, M. (2016). "Comparative Analysis of Qarun Story in Quran and Bible". Journal of Politics and Law, 9(8), 99-107; John Kaltner, Younus Mirza (2018). The Bible and the Qur'an: Biblical Figures in the Islamic Tradition, Bloomsbury, at p. 106]. But this is just one example among many. Your edits are so inaccurate, numerous and widespread that one wonders what’s your point. You have been warned and blocked many times, so why don't you simply stop? Gitz6666 (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there seem to be different "versions" of the book:

• Arabic doesn't write down vowels, so its possible that two words with different meanings have the same spelling. This also means that the text needs to be interpreted, and the people who interpret it need to look at what makes sense. These people can of course have different opinions.
• There seem to be versions with additional text (Known as 'Sūrat al-Chal' and 'Sūrat al-Hafd'?)
• Some versions use synonyms. This can be problematic, as the meaning of a word can change over time.
• Like other languages, Arabic will have changed over time; this means,that likely we are also looking at all the issues a translation entails.

Since I am not a Muslim, and I don't even have a background in theology, I cannot comment more than what I wrote above. We try to write an encyclopedia, and for each statement we write, we need a reference.--Eptalon (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this statement. A section on the different versions/translations would be appropriate. Griff (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]