Talk:Tafsir/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Tafsir. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Al-Ghazali
Imam Al-Ghazali: "A Thematic Commentary of the Qur'an" - Another classic tafsir by a great Sunni Imam who practiced tawassuf (the act of Sufism, not the Sufi sect). What is meant by the comment on tasawwuf as the act of Sufism not the Sufi sect?Pasha 23:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I think such a separation is unusual , so did a little edit.Please see Al-Ghazali.Pasha 20:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Tafsir al-Jalalayn
The Tafsir al-Jalalayn was written by two authors, not just the one named (hence the "JalalAYN" with the last syllable that clearly indicates a dual - two authors who were both named Jalal). Leaving it to others to come up with the correct spelling of the other author's name, though. Paul Willocx 21:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Sources
Tafseer Kabeer, Mirza Basheerud Deen Mahmood
Why do you put absolutely false references trying to prove Muslim stalwarts to be either Qadiani or sympathizer of Qadiani. You have done so for [Iqbal], [Ubaidullah Sindhi], and now Abdul Majid Daryabadi. This POV vandalism. Hassanfarooqi 19:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
)
NPOV summary for Exegesis?
Currently the article Exegesis links to Tafsir, identifying it as the main article for exegesis in Islam. However, there's absolutely no text there, just the article link, where there should be an NPOV summary of this article. Would someone who knows the subject feel like providing such a summary? -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sure. --Striver 14:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Unbalanced article
> Many verses or words in the Qur'an are explained or further clarified in other verses of the Qur'an. [2] Tafsir al-Mizan is an example of this kind.
why does every thing on the 7 cited notes refers to al-Mizan see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafsir#cite_note-1
and why this example is shown. FYI: according to 90% of Muslims this Tafsir is worthless, more over it was printed in Iran, so are you suggesting that Arabs can't understand Arabic and they need the holy Qum Mullas to tell them what does the Arabic Quran mean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydalsadi (talk • contribs) 00:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)