Talk:Tajwid

Accent

Personal note: I once saw a mosque's Imam reciting with what seemed to be a Texan accent... So while Tajwid is important, it isn't omnipresent. --LeoNomis 21:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.quranicstudies.com/article21.html

That is unfortunate that the imam didn't recite the Qu'ran properly.

Allah Ta'ala says, "And recite the Qur'an with Tarteel (slow, pleasant tone and style)." (Qur'an 73:4)

Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) said, 'Indeed Allah desires that the Qur'an be recited in the manner it was revealed.'

Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) was asked about the meaning of this. He replied, 'It means that the Qur'an should be recited with Tajweed and with due observance to the rules of Waqf (pausing or stopping at the end of the verse).

Due to the vastness of the Arabic language, any small mistake in pronunciation of a letter or word may change the meaning of that word. For example, the word 'Qalb' (with q) means heart, if read 'Kalb' (with k), it will mean a dog'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.208.249.201 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion vs. expansion

This article is an unsourced instruction manual contra WP:NOT, and should accordingly be deleted.Proabivouac 07:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Tajwid is a perfectly legitimate subject, with a long history in the Islamic world; what this article needs is historicization, putting the subject and its emphasis into context. There have been disagreements over tajwid throughout history by Arabic grammarians; Sufi use tajweed as a focus of meditation, etc. These require more emphasis from authors. Not manualizing. TheLateDentarthurdent (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The source for knowledge of tajwid is usually taught by mouth, as it is verbalized. There are many books on the subject, and it is a subject that hundreds of millions of people study. It is one of the major subjects in Islamic knowledge. This page is merely a introduction, and toc of much more in depth and information to come in the future, that will be a reference to a very large and vast population of people in the future.

People that make contributions to these pages should contribute with the knowledge on this subject. People that do not have knowledge on this subject should not post their personal opinions and views but rather learn from the people of knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaceman57 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Another note: Click on arabic on the left of the article, and you can find a vast amount of information in the arabic language on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaceman57 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

References to Muhammad

It is critical that personal religious beliefs and customs not affect the objective, descriptive wording of articles in Wikipedia. It may be routine in religious writings to apply euphemisms (e.g., "pass away") and to insert parenthetical phrases (e.g., "God's peace and blessings be upon him"), but such practices don't meet the standards of a Wikipedia article; in addition to being a distraction, they are POV. Wiki software is freely available for those who wish to create their own religious encyclopedias. In the meantime, let's please respect Wikipedia policy and do our best to keep personal opinion, cultural bias, and other impediments to neutrality out of the articles. Rivertorch (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather it is your personal religous belief in secularism that causes you to think that it is not appropriate in this section. You should work on articles that are in agreement with your atheistic views, and leave these articles that deal with the in depth aspect of the rituals of Islam alone. 99 percent of the readers of this article, that deals with the proper pronunciation of the Quran, would disagree with your secularist mentality. You should stop vandalizing these pages, which are in accordance with the Islamic encyclopedic tradition, and bring your secularist personal opinions elsewhere. Your secularistic view alienates all muslims, as well as all people of any faith, that would look at wikipedia as a viable place to post topics dealing with religous articles and knowledge.

The purpose of wikipedia, and its articles is to attract people to contribute their knowledge to them, as well as providing them with references where they can learn more information. This is so people would have a good place to learn about a particular topic, contributed by people knowledgeble in that subject. It is clear that you have made no contributions to this particular subject, except offending other contributors to this topic, and the vast majority of the readers of this article. If one would like to make a valuable contribution to the Pedia, one should try to organize and make peace between all the knowledgable contributors, and be understanding of their views, or they will abandon the pedia completely, as well as any donations made to it.

That being said, if you have any knowledge of this particular topic, i.e. Tajwid, you should add to it. If not, leave it alone and bring your secularist views elsewhere. You ought to go to the sections that deal with Atheism. Peaceman57 (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)peaceman57

Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Islamic honorifics:

• "In keeping with the neutral nature of Wikipedia, Islamic honorifics should generally be omitted from articles, except where they are part of quotations." (emphasis added)

This specifically applies to peace be upon him as explained there.

Also pertinent:

• Wikipedia:Tutorial (Keep in mind)#Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Religion
• Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial

I hope this helps. — Athaenara ✉ 17:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering why there was not so much information on these articles on Islam such as this one on Islam. Whenever someone posts some valuable knowledge and information from the scholars of Islam, editors such as you come by and delete their information, and alter their statements into that of secularism and athiesm. By removing these honorifics you are imposing your secularist athiestic views over the authors. You should leave them alone, as was stated by the scholars, and not desecrate them by your deletions. You can see the other pedia sites on Islam in other languages fluorishing because there are not editors going through and deleting and changing the knowledge that is posted there.

The edits that you make by removing these honorifics and imposing your athiestic secular views, by removing the authors words of "God". It desecrates and vandalizes and makes the article much worse.

Athaenara, mention this to the rest of your colleague editors; perhaps they will change their ignorant ways.

Peaceman57 (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)peaceman57

Except that your response is an opinion, whereas Wikipedia aims to convey knowledge, and honorifics do not convey knowledge. Furthermore, you are making presumptuous accusations ("you are imposing your secularist athiestic views" and, repeating yourself, "imposing your athiestic secular views") against a person about whom you--most likely--don't have enough information to justify such unnecessary and unwelcome personal comments. (Especially comments that are insulting, such as "their ignorant ways": isn't every single person ignorant of many, many things?)

You imply that removing honorifics amounts to "deleting and changing the knowledge". But it doesn't amount to that: honorifics do not convey declarative knowledge. Encyclopedia (which is what Wikipedia is) are simply not the place for such.

Wikipedia's guidelines are clear. If you don't like them, you are free to start your own knowledge-gathering-and-disseminating, encyclopedic website. 51.219.141.160 (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Linguistic descriptions

Interesting article. It'd be great if someone could describe all the features in linguistic detail. What is really meant by "thick" and "thin" etc. — N-true (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

reference checking

I'm trying to clean up the first reference in this article ("Kitab al-Qir'at". Archived from the original on December 20, 2010. Retrieved September 7, 2020. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; December 22, 2010 suggested (help)), but the content of the two pages look nothing alike. Could someone who can read them help clarify what should be in the reference? pauli133 (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Standardizing Qur'an vs. Quran

Both spellings are used in the article, as are derivations (Quranic and Qur'anic). I'm not an expert in the subject, so I don't know if this is an issue, and, if it is, which spelling should be used. A Panther Incensed (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Tajwid means giving every letter its right <what?>...

There's a sentence in the 1st paragraph that appears to have a word missing. It states, "Technically, it means giving every letter its right [?] in reciting the Qur'an." My question is: its right what? It's right pronunciation? 51.219.141.160 (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)