Talk:Qur'an
Isn't it spelled Q'uran? In the anglicized form, anyway? humanbe in 12:44, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
- Qur'an, actually. But as far as I'm concerned it's a nitpick. not everything can be anglicized. Stile4aly 12:47, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
- Just checking, I knew there was an apostrophe in there somewhere. So "Quran" is accepted as well, then? humanbe in 13:30, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
- These days, it usually is rendered as Qur'an, that being closer to the arabic. It's also more "PC".--PalMD-Goatspeed! 15:22, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
- I officially vote for the "Qur'an" spelling, with a redirect from "Koran".--PalMD-Goatspeed! 15:40, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
- I agree with "Qur'an". --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:58, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
- When i get a few minutes and a piece of scrap paper, Im going to move this to Qur'an, and fix all the redirects, etc. Unless someone does it first.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 13:50, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
- I agree with "Qur'an". --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:58, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
- I officially vote for the "Qur'an" spelling, with a redirect from "Koran".--PalMD-Goatspeed! 15:40, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
- These days, it usually is rendered as Qur'an, that being closer to the arabic. It's also more "PC".--PalMD-Goatspeed! 15:22, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
- Just checking, I knew there was an apostrophe in there somewhere. So "Quran" is accepted as well, then? humanbe in 13:30, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
Contents |
[edit] Unsupported
The text reads when speaking bout bloodthirsty interpretations of the Qur'an: "though these views are unsupported by an actual review of the text,. Is this true? I mean the Taliban and others take a pretty literal reading don't they, and they are hardly moderates.--Bob_M (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
- That's difficult to say without any direct reference. Generally speaking, though, I'd say that the Qur'an is as vulnerable to that kind of quote mining as the Bible is, although (or perhaps because) the language is much more poetic in nature. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:35, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
- The Qur'an suffers from all the same things as the Bible; myth, history, beauty, violence. But it's a little more unified, textually, and the language is more uniformly poetic. Violence itself falls under a separate category of "religious violence/fundamentalism"162.82.215.199 15:10, 8 July 2007 (CDT)
[edit] Sources
How did we go this long without a link to the actual text? Remedied now. EVDebs 23:08, 29 December 2007 (EST)
[edit] Deleted section
This should be put in the general Islam page, or in a page of Fundimentalism:
"However, the Islamic faith is not short of its own band of fundamentalists. For instance, Wahhabism, Salafism and the Taliban are at least as extreme as Dominionism, and quite a bit more likely to blow things up (due, in great extent, to the poverty of the masses in Islamic countries, and abetted by massive amounts of governmental and clerical propaganda to divert attention from their own corruption)."
— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs
- Good catch, yes it should be. Should this article have a section on "fundamentalist interpretation" of the Qur'an? And is Qur'an always italicised? ħuman
21:41, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
- See, I don't really know wiki standards. In academics, if you use a foreign word, you italicize it. Always. but this isn't an academic paper, so I don't know. what guidelines do you all use?--WaitingforGodot 21:44, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
- for what it's worth, wikipedia doesn't italicize any of it.
- Correct, we ital. foreign words. We also ital many/most titles (we probably overdo it). But we don't ital "Bible" at all. I think our lives might be easier if we don't italicize it. After all, as a "translation", it's not really foreign, is it? It's the English word for the Arabic squiggles, right? Thanks... ħuman
21:53, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
- Correct, we ital. foreign words. We also ital many/most titles (we probably overdo it). But we don't ital "Bible" at all. I think our lives might be easier if we don't italicize it. After all, as a "translation", it's not really foreign, is it? It's the English word for the Arabic squiggles, right? Thanks... ħuman
[edit] Perfect
I'm not a big fan of the sub header "perfect". It has very little to do with the scientific issues. Further we need citations for these claims as well as specific examples. I'm quite familiar with the "scientific findings" if the bible, but i've not really heard that kind of language for the Qu'ran. Is this mainstream Islam? A bunch of kooks? or something "in between?"--
En attendant Godot 15:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Creationism and the Qu'ran
Given the RW "mission" and view point, i think we need to include a Creationism and Islam or Creationism and Qu'ran here somewhere, so those editing, we should keep that in the back of our minds. I'm sure we already have such a page, i've not yet looked. I need my first cup of coffee... and it's already almost 10am. :-)--
En attendant Godot 15:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- note - [1] (sorry, i don't know how to link to a sub section at RW internally.
- note 2 - Anti islamic wingnuts find that any mention of the Qu'ran and medicine, even in an historical context, is "voodoo medicine", simply cause it's from the "islamists" (what ever that is). I think this would be interesting to include, in some way - [anti-islam idiot ranting]--
En attendant Godot 15:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] sura
Someone has added several articles on individual Sura, which really have no home. Any opinions on 1) link them here, or 2) make a short "stub" like article that links from here to a sura page listing the sura we have articles for?--
En attendant Godot 17:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)