Talk:Qur'an

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)."

&mdash; 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?   ħ uman  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...  ħ uman  21:53, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

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)

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 - (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]--[[Image:sun mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  15:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

This article sucks, peeps!
Lots of claims that are not sourced, and where sourced, very poorly. I just hacked out quite a bit because it's so bad. I'm not especially knowledgeable in the the Quran, but I know enough to grasp the poor approach to analysis of a sacred text. The broad generalities made here are really not appropriate, especially with no or weak support. &mdash; Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs
 * I am writing this sentence so I can stick my signature on the end and it gets archived. Christopher (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Contested bronze
This article should not be a bronze because Due to these issues, the article should not have a brainstar. --Andrew5 (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) There are only 22 references
 * 2) 14 are bare links
 * 3) Qur'an has no sources
 * 4) Qur'an is also unsourced
 * 5) Numerous other small sections are unsorced or only have one singular source
 * I will promote the article in a week or so if no one objects. --Andrew5 (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How about you don't and instead take a break from running around slapping templates on everything and telling us what you want. Bronze doesn't mean it's good. It means it meets minimal standards, and not necessarily unproblematically. I implore you to reconsider your fascination with wiki administrativia. It is only alienating people. You're not good at it. You explain yourself poorly, and mostly nobody really cares what you think. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well heres my question then. If it has multiple uncited sections, then how does it pass "needs citations" requirement? That, I believe, is a disqualifier from bronze. I think. --Andrew5 (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you care so much, add cites. The "requirement" you claim is no hard and fast rule for every single statement of fact on this site. I'm going to start blocking you when you slap templates up. You will be much better served asking the community what approach it prefers than forcing your incorrect understanding of this site's rules and culture. You've got bad judgment. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The way that RationalWiki works makes it very hard to cite sources, because you have to find the claim they are trying to make first, because RationalWiki doesn't adhere to a NPOV. Once you find the sources, you have to do reliability checks. Mainly, as per RationalWiki:Articles for demotion/Cold War's precedent, 3rd party sources, especially Wikipedia, should be avoided. Normally, when a paragraph is entirely unsourced or filled with reliable sources I remove it. But removing the background is not an option.I think everything else is good. --Andrew5 (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well then stop it. Rather than remove something you think should be cited or template it, add a cite yourself or go do something else while you think about whether it would be an exercise of good judgment to bring the issue up on a talk page. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Half of the time when I bring something up on the talk page I get no reply. Nutty, for you to go around and check every single one of my contributions must be tiring. I get it right around 4/5 of the time. --Andrew5 (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason you believe you're right that often is that people either don't care about the administrativia or don't want to interact with you because it's tedious and exhausting. You double down on nonsense and press overly legalistic arguments reflecting you don't actually care about the issue, but just want to do whatever you're doing and won't be dissuaded. I'm not going to follow you around checking every edit. If I see you repeating irritating behavior I'm just going to block you for an hour. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe you're not checking around for my every edit. But for some reason I feel like you are. --Andrew5 (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Groan. Andrew, please listen to Nutty. Everything he said it true. Just listen to people and don't just reply with non sequiturs. Shabi DOO  17:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean a conclusion not relevant to the previous statements? Andrew5 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an example of an infuriatingly pointless interaction to most people that, to you, may seem reasonable, but requires some empathy and awareness of social cues to understand. If someone, albeit harshly, tries offering help and your response is to make excuses, double down, and suggest they're following you around and it's clear they've only interacted with a tiny number of your edits, don't do that. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hang on. Let me see if I am understanding this. So you are aggressively trying to get me to become a productive editor. This is the thing I never understand - people who are mean to me are trying to help me. I figured out the other side - people who seem nice still may not want to help but not this side. Andrew5 (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't care if you're productive or not. I just want you to be mindful that your behavior is driving people crazy and make a stronger effort to adapt. People have tried helping you elsewhere and you've made it very difficult for them. I don't know what help people here have offered, but I will say this site has less structure and provides less support than Uncyclopedia, so it may very well be that nobody's done anything but yell at you. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, I was being patient in my last response. Shabidoo's advice is correct. The non sequiturs make it hard to want to want to interact with you. I certainly didn't conflate all mean treatment with people trying to help and I don't want to have a conversation like this. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought you were getting better Andrew but the old signs are showing up again. Just, knock it off with doing shit and then just dismissing the grievances others have with it via excuses, replies that have nothing to do with what is discussed (or misdirection), plain ole whining that you don't like what people are saying or the persecution complex. All of them are fucking juvenile and tedious. All of them. Not just one, but all four kinds of replies are equally annoying and VERY counter productive. I don't understand why it takes so many people repeating things in a patient and rational manner dozens and dozens of times before you take it seriously and respect the limits of others. Please try harder Andrew. Shabi  DOO  22:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right in the sense that this is going nowhere. So I'll re-iterate the issues I see with it being bronze. In essence, the way I see it is, an article is considered Level 0 (significantly problematic) if it has numerous unsourced statements, which could be the case here. There is an "improve, don't promote" vibe here, but that works best when it's clear, easy fixes. IMO, it practically requires an entire rewrite to fix this article. Level 1 articles also might require that (Level 1 being baseline). A Level 2 article is bronze, and that really should be at a point where it simply requires basic improvement. A big reason why RationalWiki:Articles for demotion/Jesus myth theory failed was because people believed that it did not require a whole re-write. This, might or might not. We should probably take this up at DEMOTE though, where discussion will be more focused. Andrew5 (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

You are relentless Andrew. Why don't you take a break from the website for a while? Will do everyone good. Please. Shabi DOO  01:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've decided I'll give this article a month or so to grow and check back at that time to see if it progresses. --Andrew5 (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody cares what you have decided. Do not remove the bronze template, neither now nor in a month. Add some links. It is immensely more beneficial than extremely annoying wikicopping. Shabi  DOO  17:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens
Does anyone mind me deleting the references to Hitchens? I don't think we should be citing that bigoted piece of shit. Vee (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would definitely object to that Shabi DOO  06:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would object to that too. The Hitchens quotes are good. 06:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe if we found better quotes? Hitchens was a supporter of the wars in the Middle East. Afghanistan was not always a shithole. It was ruined by decades of foreign intervention (indeed, the Taliban are largely a thing because of American support of the Mujahideen during the Cold War). I'm not saying the quotes aren't good, I'm asking if we have to cite Hitchens specifically? Vee (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the quote even saying exactly? I am not entirely sure how to parse it. It’s kind of hard to see what’s good about it when the language-usage feels so utterly over-stylized. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The first few are about the absurdity of Arabic being God's sole chosen language, and the criticism quote is about how the Quran gets obsessed with petty Arabic tribal conflicts no one in the broader world (and certainly not God) should care about. Hitchens also notes that the Quran's basis in Judeo-Christian texts also gives it similar weaknesses. 07:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think what Islam holds is that the Qur'an is in Arabic because that's the language Muhammad spoke. Not because "God is monolingual." It makes sense that God would speak to Muhammad in Muhammad's own tongue. Vee (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The more I read and learn about Hitchens the more I think the man got way more attention and clout then he deserved. I honestly do not see what we lose out on cutting the quote. We already have an over-long article sucking the man’s dead dick. We don’t need to sprinkle a bit of his jizz all over the wiki whenever it feels remotely relevant. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Vee (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No, Hitchen's influence and clout in terms of humanism and atheism cannot be overstated. He had a stupid idea about a war and said a couple misguided things. Calling Hitchens a biggoted piece of shit is fucking ridiculous. It is absurd to remove a useful quote by someone who has been extremely influential in criticism of religion and Islam because you don't like his geopolitics. It is not unusual for Muslims to claim that Arabic is the language of God. Hitchens's quote is not controversial, a few of his ideas were silly. None of the above is remotely a sensible reason to remove a quote. Shabi DOO  12:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. The quotes stay, I guess. I just think it's worth pointing out that a lot of people in the alt right and "intellectual dark web" claim to have been influenced by Hitchens. I don't think we should be quoting apologists for horrible wars (including saying incredibly ignorant things about the situation in Afghanistan). He stood by his justification for the Iraq War years after everyone else knew it was a horrible crime against humanity and massive fuck up, as demonstrated here. I just think we should try finding quotes from other people. People not as problematic. Hitchens in particular seems to have conflated "Muslim" or "Middle Easterner" with "terrorist." I find quoting the guy to be more than a little questionable with that in mind. Notice how I said we should try finding quotes from other people? Quotes that make the same point can stay, I just think we shouldn't be citing Hitchens. If we can't find any good quotes, then I guess the quotes can stay up. Vee (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I'm willing to concede the issue. Vee (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right actually. These quotes aren't bad. I still would prefer if we quoted someone other than Hitchens, but you win some, you lose some. Vee (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The main problem for me with Hitchens is that he was basically an antitheist (not an atheist) pundit, and rather light on the heavy-intellectual-religious-scholar stuff. From all I've seen, he doesn't have a very academic type historical oriented framework in his arguments, and is more of an emotive essay writer of the now-dead "militant new atheist" school.
 * (From what I can tell, the majority of living new atheism pundits actually fractured in a political manner around the time New Atheism died (mid-2010s), with the bulk drifting into the alt-right Intellectual Dark Web and now heavily focus on on "anti-woke", scientific racism, Islamaphobia, etc. Who knows if Hitchens would do the same, but to me the fracture sort of proves this point: the arguments of the New Atheist head figures even back in the day tended to read as "political weekly magazine essay" rather than "scholarly rigorous religious review".)
 * If you're looking to review the historicity of the Qu'ran, there are probably better choices. However, I'm not one who would know what a better choice would be. So I don't mind the quotes currently. But if we find something better in this angle, it certainly would be fine from my perspective to use it instead. BobJohnson (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it's presumptuous to assume that Hitchens has much influence on atheists (who this wiki takes pains to point out aren't an organized movement) as a whole, nor does he have much influence in actual academia. That's not mentioning that Hitchens himself was an Islamophobe who said Islamophobic things. (Saying Afghanistan was in the "stone age" and "bombing them out of it" was a "good thing" is pretty fucking yikes. Nobody here has acknowledged that, and this is most definitely not a "silly take".) Anyway, these are valid criticisms of the Qur'an. Vee (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

"God speaks Arabic"
It's presumptuous (and ignorant) to claim that Muslims in general believe God speaks Arabic. That would be to assign creaturely qualities to God, which is to some Muslims (such as the Isma'ilis) polytheism, or shirk. God is absolute oneness, and so transcends creaturely qualities and categories. While the Qu'ran assigns creaturely qualities to God, this contradicts the principle of Tawhid, or monotheism.

The Hanbalis take a literalist approach: "If the Qu'ran says God has a hand, He has a hand. It is not up to us to understand how He has a hand, just that He does." The Mu'tazila take a more metaphorical approach: "If the Qu'ran says God is knowledgeable, that does not mean He possesses knowledge. He is knowledge." In a similar vein, while the Isma'ilis agree with other Muslims that the Qu'ran is God's speech, because they hold that God transcends creaturely qualities, the "speech" of the Qu'ran is a sort of nonverbal speech.

Muhammad didn't receive literal words from Gabriel, in the view of the Isma'ilis, he received a sort of "vision" in which he then translates into human words. So therefore, to claim that "Muslims in general hold that Arabic is the language of God" is incredibly ignorant of actual Muslim theology. Vee (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)