Talk:Al-Ma'idah

Q5:51

Auliyâ’ means friends, protectors, helpers. If just translated as friends it is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.34.50.105 (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Why is this a stub ??? The translation of "Al-Ma'ida" is "Table" like the stone tables in the Bible...

Wim

Shi'a bias.

Some of the verses show a clear shi'a bias. Pure inuyasha 23:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What verses are biased? --Striver 01:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

File:005 abdulbaset ma'ida.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:005 abdulbaset ma'ida.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Christians and Muslims

Reverted the entry about the God of the Christians not being the same as that of the Muslims. Using an online op-ed from the editor of a local, small-town Kansas newspaper who is arguing that the United States is a "Christian nation" does not seem to be a proper theological source. If wikipedia is going to start relying on politically-motivated op-ed pieces from local media around the world, you will get some seriously terrible theology.

There are plenty of Christians (and Muslims) who do think this way, but (for example) the Catholic Church does not hold that teaching, nor do many noted theologians. And none of these arguments actually have to do with this Sura, so the question is best addressed elsewhere like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Islam#Comparative_theology .Konchevnik81 (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Al-Ma'ida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061020080905/http://www.answering-ansar.org/fiqh/kalima_adhan/the_ghadir_p48-49.jpg to http://www.answering-ansar.org/fiqh/kalima_adhan/the_ghadir_p48-49.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

December 2019 edits

Comments regarding AshleighHanley82's edits:

• Special:Diff/929506840, Special:Diff/929630196 - Don't completely agree with this. There are probably a few balance issues, but its somewhat difficult to justify complete removal here.🤔 I think how the verse gets used in modern day politics should be relevant and appears to be includable. What do you think?
• Special:Diff/929507223 - Agree.
• Special:Diff/929633803 - Sources aren't good but the overall information appears includable. The "abbreviated rephrasing" criticism appears WP:NOTE. Further explanation and balance is probably needed. I'll look into it.

Comments regarding Koreangauteng's edits:

• Special:Diff/928550647 - Needs balancing.
• Special:Diff/928555587 - Original research. Furthermore, "response punishment" for what? Section needs some balance.
• Special:Diff/929182651 - Why is this "non-encyclopedic"?

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Both Muslims and those who have concerns about Islam in 2019, do not get their information from non-internet, inevitably-complex, ancient, commentaries, rather both groups watch the internet.

Rather than just listening to this man, check all the Islamic references/sources he uses in his talk.

No Compulsion in Religion? An Examination of Quran 2:256 (Islam Critiqued) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0xcPGNvLa8 A lot more more sites are available.

Wikipedia articles should present, simply, all points of view - including using those specified Islamic references/sources. Koreangauteng (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The page you provided links to Acts17Apologetics, a (as the name suggests) christian apologetic Youtube-channel with complete non-scholar & anti-muslim tendencies. This is the definition of POV https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POV_and_OR_from_editors,_sources,_and_fields. These do not count as secondary literature in any shape or form. Such citations lead to vandalism reports. Secondary sources are reliable sources by scholars in their respective field of research, this being Islamic Studies/Arabistic because we are dealing with Islam and the Quran here. This is Wikipedia not Youtube. AshleighHanley82 (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

No sorry. The issue is the, "specified Islamic references/sources". Please read the reference you supplied. "Editors, sources, and academic disciplines or fields of study may have points of view (POV) and perform original research (OR). Even some edits can reflect a POV. If that was not permitted, probably most of Wikipedia could not exist. Articles must have a neutral point of view (NPOV) and no original research (NOR) but that does not restrict any editors, sources, or fields, or some edits". Koreangauteng (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

How far do we really have to go back on this? Back to the 1o1 of proper citation or what NPOV or NOG means? Do I really have to explain to you why an anti-muslim Youtube-Channel is not allowed as a secondary source? Your inability to properly read & understand pages, your constant selective referencing is de facto disturbing. The key guideline in proper sourcing and citation is as follows: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

And here one more "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Are we now here to really discuss why a christian missionary on an anti-muslim youtube channel does not count as reliable? Again et voila "Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Your youtube channel fits this criterium over here-> "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, internet forumpostings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources." (Ibid)

This talk is getting absurd at this point. An admin should help AshleighHanley82 (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

No no. Again, as I continuously say, it is the Islamic (reliable, independent, published) sources/references he used in his presentation - not his opinion. Koreangauteng (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

It is original research per definition, he himself interpretes the verse and judges the exegetes himself from those he provided. He is not a reliable source, he is not a scholar, no reputation, POV & I'm repeating myself for the third time now: this channel is an apologetic social media page with anti-muslim tendencies. Pinging @AhmadF.Cheema:.AshleighHanley82 (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

"Both Muslims and those who have concerns about Islam in 2019, do not get their information from non-internet, inevitably-complex, ancient, commentaries, rather both groups watch the internet". Ashleigh > in 2019 you have to counter that with succinct augments - not with typical Quranic Hermeneutics. Koreangauteng (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

This is called secondary literature and tafsīr, unlike the Youtube-channel. I provided you classic as well as modern tafsīr by Maududi & Asad, only 10 seconds of googling and you would have found out, that these man died in 1979 & 1992. So much regarding "Ancient commentaries". Are we now to believe that 30-40 years is ancient? And yes, Islam's different schools of law STILL rely on these interpretations, classic as well as modern. You may not like it, but this a fact.AshleighHanley82 (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping.👍 I'm already keeping a lookout on the progress, it's just that I've been uncharacteristically busy lately.

Regarding using these biased sources, an argument can be made for their inclusion as long as the following conditions are met:

1. The opinions given must have more than just fringe support, they should be notable. WP:UNDUE mentions: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all..."
2. The statements should definitely not be stated as unqualified, objective truths; it should be clearly declared that the source of these claims is biased and anti-Islamic or Islam-critic or whatever is the proper term here.
3. For balance and NPOV, counter-arguments to those controversial claims should clearly be represented also.

Regarding the Al-Ma'ida and Al-Fatiha cases, I personally don't know how notable these criticisms on Islam are. Furthermore, regarding the third point, apparently, these criticisms are unpopular enough that I was unable to find any published counter-arguments. The counter-arguments (such as Islamic scripture criticises only a particular group of non-Muslims and not all of them) are obvious, but looks like no one has bothered to formally publish them specifically for the present cases. Therefore, the needed balance to make the article NPOV, requires including statements which as of yet don't appear to have published secondary sources. Presently, I'm unsure how to deal with the dilemma.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Verses 5:32 and 5:33

The issue is yet unresolved relates to Verses 32 and 33 and their RS citations. Verse 32 have been covered in Wikipedia for at least 7 years. Verse 33 is now deleted. Verse 32 is decimated. This how it stood on 5 Dec 2019 > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ma%27ida&oldid=929418311 No problems removing, "The response-punishment (Verse 5:33) is brutal". Suggest reinstate 5:32 and 5:33 with your (Ashleigh) wording added. Koreangauteng (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind reinstating this sub-section. My main issue here are some very suspicious news articles, that do not support the phrases and have dubious reputations. So, frankly, I'm really not against it. The phrase "The response punishment is brutal" is of course POV, does not belong in here. We could add one classic tafsir & one modern tafsir. The status quo ante 2016 mentioned A. Bustom. He is an author of non-scholar books, I think this one you would like to include, too? AshleighHanley82 (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have reinstated the sections. Feel free to add whatever commentaries you wish. However an important issue for the non-Muslims and Wikipedia readers is caveat that is inevitably left out. You do not have to be an Islamic scholar to observe that. If there is an Islamic commentary covering that - please add it. Koreangauteng (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I clearly mentioned previously (1, 2) that information coming from anti-Islam individuals needs to be, at the very least, qualified and the bias of the source noted. You have obviously not done this (Special:Diff/929877334). Furthermore, in the same edit you have equalled "abbreviated rephrasing" to Kitman, and previously accused User:AshleighHanley82 of performing "'Taqiya' and 'Kitman'". As the Wikipedia page on the term notes, according to Yarden Mariuma, Taqiyya "is one of the key terms used by recent anti-Muslim polemicists."

Also, multiple statements based on original research and biased non-scholarly sources had been included without any qualification.

Relevant edits

Based on biased non-scholarly sources: Special:Diff/929509878 Special:Diff/929428199 Special:Diff/929409582 Special:Diff/929495515 Special:Diff/928562438 Special:Diff/928555587 Special:Diff/928986217 Special:Diff/929426738 Special:Diff/925273717 Original research: Special:Diff/928573863 Special:Diff/929320068 Special:Diff/928555587 Special:Diff/929138940 Special:Diff/929145627 Special:Diff/928234825 Along with some potentially biased edits to support a particular POV.

At this point, I believe you are not acting impartially, and therefore your edits should be reviewed further before acceptance. (Maybe I'm mistaken and you can prove me wrong?)

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@AhmadF.Cheema: I agree. These seem to support POV. The reference to kitman in this article is not only misplaced, it is disturbing. We should have a look on this. Some other edits suggest original research. The secondary sources are again dubious. AshleighHanley82 (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

---

• Not understanding how sourcing in Wikipedia works is a common problem. It happens and then you learn but Koreangauteng is taking so much time to learn how sourcing in Wikipedia work.

Lets start by the original research:

Here is a statement Koreangauteng added Muslim related publications often quote this verse in an abbreviated form, excluding the "not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land", and the exclusion to the next verse. here are the sources, [1],[2] now what do you think these sources are saying? Do you think they are saying Muslims shouldnt say the full verse? No, it is a cherry-picking of Muslim random websites and in there they say the verse but uncompleted. This is original research because the paragraph is not cited to secondary sources that explicitly says that "Muslim related publications often quote this verse in an abbreviated form, excluding the 'not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land'".

Then lets talk about unreliable sources,

the next paragraph is this Regarding this practice, Islam critics accuse Muslims and their associates of deliberate concealment, and particularly Muslims of practicing Taqiya in order to achieve political goals. sources [3][4]

These sources are obviously not reliable.

• Now the most annoying problem with Koreangauteng is that he is editwarring. Its hard to deal with this editor.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Rejecting the, "right winged news networks/apologetic missionary pages" claim, am willing to re-write the two sentences as:

Two Muslim related publications have quoted this verse in an abbreviated form, excluding the "not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land", and the exclusion to the next verse.[9][10] Regarding this practice, Islam critics accuse Muslims and their associates of deliberate concealment.[11][12] Koreangauteng (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Koreangauteng I advise you to read what Shar'abSalam wrote down for you before editing. It is really not that hard. Your new wording is pretty much abrogation of a tiny bit of sentence, the rest with all the POV, bias, original research is still there. AshleighHanley82 (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

AshleighHanley82 I reject your claims of, "POV, bias, original research". The modified version has answered the issues raised above. Also, best not to use condescending language such as > "It is really not that hard". Koreangauteng (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you rejecting it, doesn't change the fact that it is POV, bias & original research. I'm afraid, at this point you are as User:AhmadF.Cheema put it: "At this point, I believe you are not acting impartially". Furthermore, previously you personally attacked other users and claimed they performed, what you labeled as, taqiya as recorded here -> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/929612595 Then you went on another user, stalked him/her and engaged in personal attacks as recorded here -> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/933455029 & here -> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/933443347 Especially in the latter, you attacked the nationality, religion and personal beliefs of said user, and at this point I'm unsure who here really is condescending. I think at this point we need an admin pinging @El C: before this again gets out of hand AshleighHanley82 (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

AshleighHanley82. All the historic accusations have been previously (and carefully) responded to.

In relation to the proposed modification:

Two Muslim related publications have quoted this verse in an abbreviated form, excluding the "not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land", and the exclusion to the next verse.[9][10] Critics of Islam have said that this is using the verse, "out of context".[11][12]

Where is the, "POV"? Where is the, "bias"? and Where is the, "original research"? Koreangauteng (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

We are now turning in circles because this question has been answered, not only here, several times with lengthy replies from other users including a concise list of your problematic biased sources in your edits. This is not the first time, that you were told not to use biased sources with OG, see here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/937104274 & here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/930305815 or here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/929654393 For the sake of the context, here a brief summary: User @AhmadF.Cheema: made a full list of biased/POV-containing sources in your edits with lengthy explanations, as seen here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/929935487 He furthermore went on to explain to you, a second time, as to why your edits and sources are problematic due to bias and pov, seen here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/929925572 Then I made a concise list as to why your sources are problematic on the topic of POV & Original Research quoting from the Wikipedia guidelines section, as seen here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/929804391 Furthermore a third user, this time a Rollbacker @SharabSalam: explained to you the guidelines of Wikipedia on the causa of OR, POV & Bias, please look here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/937440485 AshleighHanley82 (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

AshleighHanley82. I asked you three questions. You did not answer any of them. Rather you provided a chronology. Every one of those chronological accusation has been carefully responded to.

In collaboration with the other Wikipedia editors, I have modified my edits accordingly - you can check that. I have done that with you. I am doing that with you now.

Here is my latest edit proposal:

A critic of Islam has said that this verse has been used, "out of context".

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/obama_quotes_verse_532_omits_5.html

In this new (edit) sentence: Where is the, "POV"? Where is the, "bias"? and Where is the, "original research"?

and BTW 'American Thinker' is used as a RS within Wikipedia. Koreangauteng (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself again for the 5th time. The list was provided, you never adressed any of the claims besides your usual "I'm rejecting your claims". I told why a news network blogpost that is consequently rated as right winged is not a proper source. For this evaluation see https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-thinker/ (quote): "Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources and failed fact checks." Pretty much what you have been told since almost 2 months. Coming back to your news blog. Here are some sweeping accusations without a single source, needless to say the entire blog doesn't use any source at all. It starts with the accusations that Obama "is an apologist for Islam" without providing any kind of source, thus the author has a POV/bias towards him and Islam respectively. It is by definition original research when you just write down what you belief is the truth without providing reliable secondary literature. The author furthermore writes that the second verse "is a bloodthirsty menacing by Muhammad of the jews." He then eplains that "And as an aside Muslim sources estimate that Muhammad killed 24.000 jews in his jihad". All of this is completely unsourced and relies on the wimpses of the author who pulls of numbers. So yes, this article contains original research by the author when we follow https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research (quote) "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research." Here a user explained for you "RS in Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/929935487 And here you were told wich requirements are needed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/929925572 With that said, I have no interest in edit wars as I believe this is not helpful at all. Let us have an admin to look on this. What do you say? Can we both agree on this? AshleighHanley82 (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia: A platform for both Quranic scholarly exposition and its 2020 interpretation

AshleighHanley82 Thank you for your editing diligence. Thank you also for your interpretations of the assorted acronyms used by other editors. All of those previously-unexplained acronyms were / are debatable. Wikipedia:Five_pillars#WP:5P5

A few issues: Wikipedia as an Encyclopaedia (refer Wikipedia:Five_pillars#WP:5P1) provides a platform to:

1. present for all Islamic schools and branches - Quranic hermeneutics explanations of Surah content as was first intended and/or as it is evolving (eg the Corpus Coranicum work)

2. present current 2020 global insights of Muslim and non-Muslim understanding and applications of the Quran. What do Women, LGBT, races and groups, those discriminated against, Jews, etc etc believe the Quran says about them? This issue is not necessarily what the Quran says. It is what people believe the Quran says, or doesn't say, about them - their belief might be 'right' or 'wrong'.

Another variant of 2 above:

The leader of a major world nation quotes Verse 5:32 (presumably a most important) Quranic verse on 'peace'.

He (for what-ever reason) leaves out the INITIAL SCOPE and THE CENTRAL CAVEAT WHICH REVERSES the noble values being promoted.

This raises questions such as: 1. Is this the best example of a Quranic 'peaceful' verse? 2. Why use this verse in this way? 3. What about verse 5:33? 4. Is 5:33 peaceful? 5. Can anyone re-write the Quran? 6. What about "contemporary Muslim's" who believe "corruption in the land" includes "destruction of natural environment"? 7. Is it legitimate to quote verses out of context? 8. Is the Quranic injunction to have people, "killed or crucified, or their hands and their feet be cut off on opposite sides", immutable? 9. Does Islam need to major reformation? 10. How is this best achieved? 11. Is Western criticism of Islam counter productive? 12. Are the answers to the above questions the same for all Islamic schools and branches? 13. Can Islam integrate with the West? Two admittedly extreme examples: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-76a393b199c89b983243e2426b9566e1 http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info/en/index.php/definition-of-ht/item/7982-the-aim-of-hizb-ut-tahrir

It seems that if people ask legitimate questions or voice concerns - automatically they and their publications are labelled Islamophobic and dismissed. (more examples of these epithets, as Point 3 here > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles ) I believe there is also a MSM (RS) unwillingness to report on these matters, because of the sensitivities involved. Interesting conundrum for Wikipedia. Koreangauteng (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

________________________________

This has nothing to do with the initial contextual interpretation/tafsīr تفسير of the Surah 5:32 from both western- or muslim scholarly side. Your raised questions are digressing towards theological beliefs with philosophical twists rather than a content in an Encyclopedia like Wikipedia. To put it in laymans terms: the world wide web offers many thousands of thousands of polemical pages ranging from anti-muslim, anti-christian as well as anti-jewish tendencies. When we are to include polemical pages as sources for different religions then other users will see this as an invitation to include those very same sources for their own personal attacks towards religion X/Y. In factual reality this would lead to unsourced and biased polemical attacks against the Hebrew Bible,Old/New Testament & the Quran respectively. The Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and has no place for these kind of things, thus this is avoided first and foremost by using reliable secondary sources. I really appreciate that we are not edit warring and keep it civil though. And on this point I want to also say that your recent edit on Surah Ma'idah 5:32 is a good example for sourced material (here: secondary literature). You are showing the legal terms regarding the fiqh and its extended meaning. Ideally you could also insert quotes from the source for quicker cross-references. AshleighHanley82 (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, something I don't understand is that the guy (mis)quoting the verse is OBAMA! How can something he says be taqiya when he is a non-Muslim??? Unless ofcourse he's practicing taqiya pretending to be a Christian that is... An accusation I have heard before on some right-wing sites, maybe this claim should be added too... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.3.58 (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Cain and Abel

Following through some of the above motivated me to lookup The story of Cain and Abel in Islam. I fully hoped to copy the relevant chunk back into here to expand this article. In reality what little that is over there is insufficiently referenced (apart from quotes from the Quran). JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

styling

@JorgeLaArdilla, By columns, I meant the references styling where they're rendered borderless, not the common tables styling. Regarding perfection of the Qur'an, I am quite confused regarding the intention behind bringing up such a theological topic and even include an external link to it. This is utterly irrelevant to the present discourse. There are several problems with these summaries:

• Numbering differences. Leading to confusion as pointed out previously regarding verses 1-3 of Al-Ma'idah, (Wherry's verses 1-4).
• Multiple topics. A number of times even individual Qur'anic verses don't encompass a single topic, but multiple ones. Such single line summaries are naturally going to be inaccurate.
• Non-notable portions (in the context of Wikipedia). Such as in Al-Anfal's "20-21 Muslims exhorted to steadfastness in faith".
• Interpretative differences. For example, Al-Anfal's "22-23 Infidels compared to deaf and dumb brutes", but the verses don't actually contain the word "infidels". And even if it can be interpreted as such or where the word kafir (commonly translated as infidel/disbeliever) is actually used, there is the added problem of interpretation difference i.e. a lot of Muslims consider kafir to not refer to all non-Muslims but to only those who publicly disbelieve in Islam while actually having become aware of the truthfulness of the religion.

In such instances, this becomes an obvious case of WP:UNDUE and that too where the one-sided content gets placed at almost the very front of the article. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@AhmadF.Cheema: I have copied over your comments from Here I was simply getting pulled too many ways at that page, so hopefully we can go through the issues here? I simply have no comptence re styling where they're rendered borderless to the extent that I do not understand. Regarding other issues

Numbering differences It may not be amiss here to acquaint the reader, that there are seven principal editions, if I may so call them, or ancient copies of that book; two of which were published and used at Medina, a third at Mecca, a fourth at Cufa, a fifth at Basra, a sixth in Syria, and a seventh called the common or vulgar edition. Of these editions, the first of Medina makes the whole number of the verses 6,000; the second and fifth, 6,214; the third, 6,219; the fourth, 6,236; the sixth, 6,226; and the last, 6,225. But they are all said to contain the same number of words, namely, 77,639; and the same number of letters, viz., 323,015 (Sale Preliminary discourse 3) This is not controversial. A boilerplate warning may be more appropriate "This page uses the Hafs System" - should we get that sorted I will commit to renumbering Wherry's comments to suit.

If this is not theological topic then I really do not know what is but to elucidate a little. This site was (sort of) chosen at random. I fully intended to link back the first Quranic reference (Qur’an 21:30) but accidently chose the second Qur'an 51:47 and apologise for that element of confusion. Having now updated the summary at Q51 this links back to cogent prose to support that authors claim - Wikipedia is doing its job.

Q8:20-21, not being a "proper" page, does not trigger WP:Notability. In any case, firstly I checked whether it was already used in Wikipedia - no - then, with very little contrivance, I was able to incorporate it into the main article on Islam. JorgeLaArdilla

Multiple topics If a reader feels a particular comment of Wherry's does not do a verse justice they are free to edit using a suitable reliable source. I suspect I will be doing this myself in the very near future.

Interpretative differences UNDUE should not be presented as the main or the sole authority on the subject. I would love to add A Prominent recitation (Surah Al-Hujurat) to juxtapose the banality of the translation. I get the Arabic poetic. There will be no sole authority, as much as I would love that, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. By all means claim a stake for the main authority. I like defering to the earliest extant Arabic Qurans with : Al Badawi copy in Dutch Church, London & Vatican Quran & whatever other authority you feel is unrepresented

What else do I need to do & Why have you not followed HaEr48's example and reverted my edits in their entirety? JorgeLaArdilla (talk)

Surah Al Maidah With Urdu Translation

Surah Al-Maidah is the 5th chapter of the Quran and is composed of 120 verses. It is considered a Madani surah, meaning it was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the city of Medina after his migration from Mecca. The surah is named Al-Maidah, which means "The Table Spread," and it refers to the story of the Prophet Moses and the Israelites receiving the divine command to observe the laws of kosher.

Surah Al-Maidah covers a range of topics and provides [guidancehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cIS7M7oMqU&t=1s guidance] for the Muslim community in a number of important areas. Some of the key themes covered in the surah include: Justme321 (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Summary wrong

the Ayats in the Summary section are off my one ayat. Needs edit Ruhaani Qutlugh Begum (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)