This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Al Imran article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that one or more audio files be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request. |
Done and done, where is my decoder ring at now ;) ? -- The Brain 21:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Isn't it supposed to be transliterated to "Al Imran" since arabic "Al" means "The" and "Ali"means"Family"? If it is, then this page should be moved 202.51.230.10 02:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
202.51.230.10 03:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Written as Aal آل, while other surah simply Al ال. Supposed to mean family of imran, than Imran himself. Only in english "the" Imran can refer to a family with that last name.
YogiHalim ( talk) 16:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I strongly agree that the name of this sura is Ali- Imran and not Al - Imran.
I suggest A-li-'Imran. It means family of Imran - isn't that what it supposed to mean? Not The Imran - that is totally wrong. 211.25.129.2 ( talk) 04:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The title of this Surah is "(The) Family of Imran). The definite article in Arabic is "Al" and the word for family is "ali" which is the source of the confusion. For some reason the orthography has been framed in the title so that the word family is split up to look like the word "the" followed by "i" which means nothing. This was done no doubt to be consistent with those surahs beginning with "Al-"
There is no reason, and no standard in Arabic transliteration, for the presence of a hyphen in this case.
If you would like, look at the original Arabic text. You will see that "Ali Imran" in Arabic begins with the same two letters (read from the right) as those Surahs beginning with "Al-" EXCEPT that the "l" has a line under it, or a kasrah, forming the "i" vowel and thus denoting a completely different word. Hyphens may only be used and have only ever been used with the definite article, and serve absolute no purpose in the middle of a word.
Renaming from "Al-i-Imran" to "Ali-Imran" as the former is completely nonstandard and no doubt the result of an accident. In short, this looks very unprofessional and needs to be fixed.
EDIT: The wikisource article has the same error; someone with an account there please fix https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/wiki/The_Holy_Qur%27an/Al-i-Imran
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawyer207 ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
-- Sawyer207 ( talk) 04:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Sawyer, if I may, I don't think is is an academic work; this is an encyclopedic work. And as you pointed out yourself, the most common way to express what the "official" name of this Surah is, is "Aal-i-Imran". So just on that, shouldn't the title be "Al-i-Imran", not "Ali Imran" And just to be clear, the name is pronounced "aal-e-imraan".
I am stressing that because, especially in everyday use, the word "Ali" is a very separate word; a word with not much to do with the first word in the title of this article right now. --iFaqeer ( talk) 03:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
It was deleted as it had no basis or references. The verse itself has dual meanings , and some twelver clerics use it to justify Shi'ite imamate. For an agreed upon translation, Just refer to the Saheeh International's and Yusuf Ali's (Himself Shi'ite) translations of the verse. NetBSDuser ( talk) 10:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The section has cited from a book of Scollar Dawood, indicates has confusion about Aron mentioned in Quran. Also it has been linked to prophet Aron. It is wrong narration and citation. The Aron, brother of mother Mary mentioned in Quran is different person other the prophet. Please change the context section. i~Sam 14:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snnizam ( talk • contribs)
Here are a few concerns:
1: There are a total of 6000+ verses of the Quran. On what basis are certain Quran verses notable while others are not. Certainly there are a number of notable verses that have their own entire article (for example 2:256,9:5) , hence their mention is deserved but what is the criteria for others?
2: All Quranic commentators have given interpretations for many of these 6000+ verses. On what basis are certain selections of Ibn Kathir or some other commentators views particularly relevant when they are not part of any discussion and in some cases are even partial quotes of a lengthy sections of their interpretation of a verse?
3: A content analysis of the Quran can probably detect hundereds of topics ranging from life before creation to life after death and everything in between. Many verses are also relavant to many different topics, for example 3:90 many be relevant to apostasy (although the term Murtad/Irdad/Rida is not used) it is also relevant to Faith/Imaan and Repentance/Tawbah which are explicitly mentioned and also have articles of their own. On what basis do certain topics merit inverse inclusion also while others do not?
Likewise Surah Al Hajj and Al Najm deal with different topics like stars, Sirus, Jews, Christians, Sabians, etc. On what basis does the Satanic verses merit inclusion when the article there is a stub and there is no exegesis for the actual verses? I'm not against expanding the articles which would include a mention of all scholarly views of the Surah including brief mentions (brief because the topic is the Surah itself) of those who accept the incident of the Satanic verses (Like Tabari) as well as those who reject it (like Ibn Kathir). However simply throwing in topics per ones own personal discretion is OR. It also goes against the MOS and to some extent even contradicts the lead given in the articles.
If these concerns are not addressed, then anyone should have free license to include all of the Quran's verses followed by all the tafsirs by all scholars, followed by the inclusion of every single word or implied topic which the Quran mentions in the see also page. If this attitude is adopted then Wikipedia will cease to be an encyclopedia. Hence I choose to preserve the Status Quo and argue against selective inclusions which are inevitably POV and constitute OR. Usually, I would prefer to balance out the blatant POV, poor English and structuring (as in the case of the Women in Islam edit). However, here the inclusion of a non-encyclopedic entry with the above mentioned concerns is IMO enough to merit deletion. For a similar view see Snowfire's comments on Koreangautengs talkpage : /info/en/?search=User_talk:Koreangauteng#Sura_layout_changes
A similar effort to include POV information was also defeated on the "Muhammad in the Quran" article. Since the very same two editors from there are pushing a similar POV here and elsewhere, I expect them to explain why this case should be treated any differently: /info/en/?search=Talk:Muhammad_in_the_Quran#Re_edit_09:19,_2_January_2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.51.48 ( talk) 20:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Many verses are inaccurately summarized; for example "98-105 Muslims are warned against the friendship of Jews etc" is incorrect. The verses asks questions to the "People of the Book" who denied the message of Mohammed at that time, and then warns the Muslims of that period of time not to obey them and not split into sects. Ahmed ( talk) 11:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Mary is not called "sister of Aaron"(19:28) due to a reference to former pious people rather the authors of the Quran made a huge error and confused Mary, the mother of Jesus with Miriam, the real biological "sister of Aaron" due to the fact that both women are called "Maryam" in arabic. Nowhere else in the Quran is the term "sister of" used as a reference to a former pious prophet.
Also how would Muslims explain Surah 66:12 in which Mary`s virgin birth has been described with the term "daughter of Imran"? Another, a second honor title with no other use in the Quran or another confusion between Mary, the mother of Jesus and Miriam, the real "daughter of Imran" and "sister of Aaron". 62.226.90.96 ( talk) 02:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Farookali Ali 106.210.100.239 ( talk) 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Al Imran article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that one or more audio files be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request. |
Done and done, where is my decoder ring at now ;) ? -- The Brain 21:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Isn't it supposed to be transliterated to "Al Imran" since arabic "Al" means "The" and "Ali"means"Family"? If it is, then this page should be moved 202.51.230.10 02:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
202.51.230.10 03:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Written as Aal آل, while other surah simply Al ال. Supposed to mean family of imran, than Imran himself. Only in english "the" Imran can refer to a family with that last name.
YogiHalim ( talk) 16:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I strongly agree that the name of this sura is Ali- Imran and not Al - Imran.
I suggest A-li-'Imran. It means family of Imran - isn't that what it supposed to mean? Not The Imran - that is totally wrong. 211.25.129.2 ( talk) 04:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The title of this Surah is "(The) Family of Imran). The definite article in Arabic is "Al" and the word for family is "ali" which is the source of the confusion. For some reason the orthography has been framed in the title so that the word family is split up to look like the word "the" followed by "i" which means nothing. This was done no doubt to be consistent with those surahs beginning with "Al-"
There is no reason, and no standard in Arabic transliteration, for the presence of a hyphen in this case.
If you would like, look at the original Arabic text. You will see that "Ali Imran" in Arabic begins with the same two letters (read from the right) as those Surahs beginning with "Al-" EXCEPT that the "l" has a line under it, or a kasrah, forming the "i" vowel and thus denoting a completely different word. Hyphens may only be used and have only ever been used with the definite article, and serve absolute no purpose in the middle of a word.
Renaming from "Al-i-Imran" to "Ali-Imran" as the former is completely nonstandard and no doubt the result of an accident. In short, this looks very unprofessional and needs to be fixed.
EDIT: The wikisource article has the same error; someone with an account there please fix https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/wiki/The_Holy_Qur%27an/Al-i-Imran
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawyer207 ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
-- Sawyer207 ( talk) 04:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Sawyer, if I may, I don't think is is an academic work; this is an encyclopedic work. And as you pointed out yourself, the most common way to express what the "official" name of this Surah is, is "Aal-i-Imran". So just on that, shouldn't the title be "Al-i-Imran", not "Ali Imran" And just to be clear, the name is pronounced "aal-e-imraan".
I am stressing that because, especially in everyday use, the word "Ali" is a very separate word; a word with not much to do with the first word in the title of this article right now. --iFaqeer ( talk) 03:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
It was deleted as it had no basis or references. The verse itself has dual meanings , and some twelver clerics use it to justify Shi'ite imamate. For an agreed upon translation, Just refer to the Saheeh International's and Yusuf Ali's (Himself Shi'ite) translations of the verse. NetBSDuser ( talk) 10:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
The section has cited from a book of Scollar Dawood, indicates has confusion about Aron mentioned in Quran. Also it has been linked to prophet Aron. It is wrong narration and citation. The Aron, brother of mother Mary mentioned in Quran is different person other the prophet. Please change the context section. i~Sam 14:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snnizam ( talk • contribs)
Here are a few concerns:
1: There are a total of 6000+ verses of the Quran. On what basis are certain Quran verses notable while others are not. Certainly there are a number of notable verses that have their own entire article (for example 2:256,9:5) , hence their mention is deserved but what is the criteria for others?
2: All Quranic commentators have given interpretations for many of these 6000+ verses. On what basis are certain selections of Ibn Kathir or some other commentators views particularly relevant when they are not part of any discussion and in some cases are even partial quotes of a lengthy sections of their interpretation of a verse?
3: A content analysis of the Quran can probably detect hundereds of topics ranging from life before creation to life after death and everything in between. Many verses are also relavant to many different topics, for example 3:90 many be relevant to apostasy (although the term Murtad/Irdad/Rida is not used) it is also relevant to Faith/Imaan and Repentance/Tawbah which are explicitly mentioned and also have articles of their own. On what basis do certain topics merit inverse inclusion also while others do not?
Likewise Surah Al Hajj and Al Najm deal with different topics like stars, Sirus, Jews, Christians, Sabians, etc. On what basis does the Satanic verses merit inclusion when the article there is a stub and there is no exegesis for the actual verses? I'm not against expanding the articles which would include a mention of all scholarly views of the Surah including brief mentions (brief because the topic is the Surah itself) of those who accept the incident of the Satanic verses (Like Tabari) as well as those who reject it (like Ibn Kathir). However simply throwing in topics per ones own personal discretion is OR. It also goes against the MOS and to some extent even contradicts the lead given in the articles.
If these concerns are not addressed, then anyone should have free license to include all of the Quran's verses followed by all the tafsirs by all scholars, followed by the inclusion of every single word or implied topic which the Quran mentions in the see also page. If this attitude is adopted then Wikipedia will cease to be an encyclopedia. Hence I choose to preserve the Status Quo and argue against selective inclusions which are inevitably POV and constitute OR. Usually, I would prefer to balance out the blatant POV, poor English and structuring (as in the case of the Women in Islam edit). However, here the inclusion of a non-encyclopedic entry with the above mentioned concerns is IMO enough to merit deletion. For a similar view see Snowfire's comments on Koreangautengs talkpage : /info/en/?search=User_talk:Koreangauteng#Sura_layout_changes
A similar effort to include POV information was also defeated on the "Muhammad in the Quran" article. Since the very same two editors from there are pushing a similar POV here and elsewhere, I expect them to explain why this case should be treated any differently: /info/en/?search=Talk:Muhammad_in_the_Quran#Re_edit_09:19,_2_January_2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.51.48 ( talk) 20:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Many verses are inaccurately summarized; for example "98-105 Muslims are warned against the friendship of Jews etc" is incorrect. The verses asks questions to the "People of the Book" who denied the message of Mohammed at that time, and then warns the Muslims of that period of time not to obey them and not split into sects. Ahmed ( talk) 11:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Mary is not called "sister of Aaron"(19:28) due to a reference to former pious people rather the authors of the Quran made a huge error and confused Mary, the mother of Jesus with Miriam, the real biological "sister of Aaron" due to the fact that both women are called "Maryam" in arabic. Nowhere else in the Quran is the term "sister of" used as a reference to a former pious prophet.
Also how would Muslims explain Surah 66:12 in which Mary`s virgin birth has been described with the term "daughter of Imran"? Another, a second honor title with no other use in the Quran or another confusion between Mary, the mother of Jesus and Miriam, the real "daughter of Imran" and "sister of Aaron". 62.226.90.96 ( talk) 02:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Farookali Ali 106.210.100.239 ( talk) 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)