This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Quran and miracles redirect. 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 was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-09. The result of the discussion was keep due to rewrite. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Lets keep this article free from un-sourced statments. Wanna bet that it will get a AFD? -- Striver 19:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to comment about source "6". It is not clear to me, where it is written, "Scholars know that Muhammad was influenced by older Jewish and Christian traditions, and therefore included many of the wonders known from the Bible in the Qur'an.[6]". Source "6" says Wilson p316. What does that mean? There are a million Wilsons. Please explain the source or remove that statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.211.95 ( talk) 12:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The text does cite a source for the claim that the Quran refers to Muhammad (pbuh) was illiterate, although it is not clear that the word "ummi" means "illiterate," and there are many Arabic scholars who think "unscriptured" or "a Gentile" (non-Jew) would be a better definition; there are theological reasons to question whether Allah would reveal his word to an illiterate man. 7minus1 ( talk) 18:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Is the title of this article correct? Or maybe the text about the Qur'an being a miricle in itself has grown out of proportions and should be given an article of it's own. I was not expecting it here... I suggest a new page on The Linguistic and Literary Inimitability of the Qur'an. Info D 14:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
What do the numbers signify???
On the word counts it should be mentioned that you have to count only singular forms without any pronoun attached to obtain 365 occurences of "day" while to count "angels" 88 times you have to take any form you can find.
Discussion of all the ways a book imitating the Koran would have to be "unique" betray circular reasoning. To be unique means to be one of a kind. If anything imitates the Koran, it is by definition not one of a kind -- it's an imitation. But these exact criteria could be applied to, say, James Joyce. No doubt James Joyce isn't a prophet. Peccavimus 17:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The section "Scientific Miracles" states, "In Quran there is a hint of both big bang and big crunch." and then goes on. This is original research as the wording is unattributed to anyone who is a cosmologist. Yes reading the stated sura with it "We produce a new one:" would indicate a cycle of creation but who are we to describe it as such. We won't mention the illogic of the wording a "scientific miracle". The scientific method usually precludes miracles in that it precludes a supernatural origin for events. Ttiotsw 11:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I accidently hit this page and truthfully it's a bit messy full of original research and unattributed content. The section on Linguistic and Literary Inimitability needs a serious cull or if it's a topic in it's own right then moved to another page. As to why the rediscovery of the City of Iram is a miracle we'll never know. The reference for that is a web page and our Wikipedia page fails to highlight the numbers of people who feel it is a miracle or if it's just a few then the authority of those people. As for the "Mathematical" - this isn't maths. It is numerology at best. Ttiotsw 13:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The article was reverted to a 3 month old copy by someone. This has left the article even worse than before with nearly every sentence having classic weasel wording (truthfully I actually prefer ferrets but weasels will do). The numerology stuff still makes no sense even if you are pissed on this years wine and have forgotten all maths since kindergarten. Erich Von Daniken, come back, all is forgiven compared to this stuff; at least you had Aliens and spaceships and stuff. If this all makes no sense then read the article and tell me which is clearer. Ttiotsw 21:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
see next last section, before the section regarding the treaty. -- Striver 03:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This page has nothing to do as taking a side in the discussion if the Quran is of divine origin or it is the work of Muhammad. So, we cannot present biased arguments such as "Muhammad, who was influenced by older Jewish and Christian traditions, also included ..." as facts. There exist other wiki pages on this issue: "critism of Muhammad", "critisim of Quran", etc. The page must focus on the Quran.
We do not need to give a reference other than wiki page about the "ayat" for the sentence "verses of the book are referred to as ayat, which also means "a miracle" in the Arabic language." The mentioned wiki page states it clearly. I agree with the idea that wiki pages are not summary of a particular book.
And I see that many relevant external links are being removed for the sake of unrelated arguments.
This page has already been pruned greatly. Let us not make the same mistakes in the very beginning of the development of the page. Otherwise, I believe that a systematical vandalism is being applied for this page. ( American force 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC))
If you are honest to develop a good article please stop reverting. I have restored the previous references. I think a brief discussion about the origin of Quran is relevant here, it is the main point of Muslim argument to present Quran as a miracle. I do not agree with Sefringle about the low importance of this article. There are even master and PhD theses over this topic.( Freskile 17:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC))
When writing and editing this article, be aware that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. That means, this article is not to become an Islamist propaganda article desined to convert people to Islam. It should mention the relevant and notable so-called miracles and responses, but should not be used for propaganda.-- Sefringle 05:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Quoting the quran without quoting a secondary source is against wikipedia policies. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It says
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
In other words, quoting the quran without a secondary source is WP:OR
See also: WP:OR#What is excluded?.
It says:
---
You are really unbelievable(!), and your arguments are not even convincing.
"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority": There is no viewpoint here, and I hope you are not referring to Muslims as an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, that would only be funny ..
"It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument": there is a citation, also there is a reputale source.
At least read your talk page; I will quote the words of "Ioannes Pragensis" from that page -I hope he won't mind-
The primary source here is the Quran, and they are published by a reliable source 'usc.edu', even a wiki template exist for this.
So, direct quotations are allowed here. If it were not the case, the page which you presented as an example in another discussion, Miracles attributed to Jesus would be full of references. I can present here much much more examples of wiki articles diretly quoting from Bible and Quran.
Wiki pages are not for propaganda, this also means they cannot be used for an anti-Islamist propaganda. Please do not try to misuse wikirules with some biased comments. ( American force 04:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC))
---
Also, there is no sense to embed so many Quranic verses into the context when they are just given as reference. The initial writer's choice was also in this way, and it is the common style of article writing.( American force 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC))
I removed these additions because they are cited to Ibrham, I.A. I have no evidence that this is either a scholar or even a notable person. The other thing is sourced to submission.org, which is not a reliable source.-- Sefringle Talk 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed most of the scientists, because most of them are not notable. We cannot have non-notable views in the article. See WP:N. I kept Bucaille, because he is the only one who is notable by wikipedia standards of notability.-- Sefringle Talk 03:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I am removing the science section because I can't figure out who is the author or how to attribute it to the author.-- Sefringle Talk 06:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The Qur’an states, “And he has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you”."quoted text"[ Quran 16:15 The modern theory of plate tectonics does hold that mountains act as stabilizers for the earth. Furthermore, this knowledge has just begun to be understood in the framework of plate tectonics since the late 1960’s. [1] [2]
The Qur’an describes the front of the head as being lying and sinful; “No! If he does not stop, We will take him by the front of the head, a lying and sinful front of the head!.” "quoted text"[ Quran 96:15–16 In the brain, the front of the head corresponds to the prefrontal area of the cerebrum, where the foresight to plan and initiate movements occur. It is also the functional center of aggression. [3] Scientists have discovered these functions of the prefrontal area in the last sixty years. [4] [5] >====Seas and Rivers====
The Qur’an states, “He has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress.”"quoted text"[ Quran 55:19–20 When two different seas meet there is a barrier between them so that each sea has its own temperature, salinity and density. For example, when the Mediterranean meets the Atlantic they do not mix, although there may be large waves, strong currents, and tides in these seas. [6] When fresh water and salt water meet there is a partition, which has a marked discontinuity in salinity. This zone of separation has a different salinity from both the fresh and sea water. [7] The Qur’an speaks differently about the fresh and salt water; “He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter. And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition.”"quoted text"[ Quran 25:53 [8]
The Qur’an states, “Or the unbeliever’s state is like the darkness in a deep sea. It is covered by waves, above which are waves, above which are clouds. Darknesses one above another. If a man stretches out his hand, he cannot see it”."quoted text"[ Quran 24:40 At depths below 1000 meters in deep seas there is no light at all. [9] Human beings are not able to dive more than forty meters without the aid of submarines or special equipment and cannot survive unaided in the deep dark part of the oceans, such as at a depth of 200 meters. Scientists have recently discovered this darkness by means of special equipment and submarines that have enabled them to dive into the depths of the oceans. [10]
This verse also mentions “waves, above which are waves, above which are clouds”. Surface waves never arise above one another. Clearly, the latter waves mentioned are the visible surface waves since above these surface waves are clouds. However, the first set of waves are argued to describe internal waves, which occur on density interfaces between layers of different densities. These waves can break and act like surface waves, however, they cannot be seen by the human eye. [11] [12]
The Qur’an states, “Have you not seen how God makes the clouds move gently, then joins them together, then makes them into a stack, and then you see the rain come out of it .”"quoted text"[ Quran 24:43 A common type of rain cloud, the cumulonimbus cloud, follows this description. These clouds are formed when the wind pushes some small pieces of clouds, cumulus clouds, to an area where these clouds join together, forming a larger cloud. When the small clouds join together, updrafts within the larger cloud increase, causing the cloud body to grow vertically. This vertical growth, in turn, causes the cloud to stretch into cooler regions where water droplets and hail form, eventually becoming too heavy to be supported by the updraft and falls as precipitation. [13] [14] [15]
The Qur’an speaks about “hail” and “its lightening”; “And He sends down hail from mountains (clouds) in the sky, and He strikes with it whomever He wills, and turns it from whomever He wills. The vivid flash of its lightening nearly blinds the sight.” "quoted text"[ Quran 24:43 In the formation of lightening, a cloud becomes electrified as hail collides with liquid droplets, which then freeze and release latent heat, keeping the surface of the hailstones warmer than the surrounding ice crystals. When the hailstone comes into contact with an ice crystal, electrons flow from the colder object toward the warmer object and the negative charge is then discharged as lightening. [16] Hail is thus argued as a major factor in lightening. [17]
I am putting back these edits because the objection to them - that these edits are not notable- is invalid. See
WP:N. The Wikipedia guidelines of notibility "give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles". Miracles of the Qur'an are very relevant and needed in an article titled "Qur'an and miracles".
Slsm07
04:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
References
it makes sense to list the scientific miracles of quran as it is very relevant to the title of the article, i added some scientific miracles and they were deleted twice, what i have listed is: notable,relevant, referenced, and does not apply as original research ( Imad marie ( talk) 06:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC))
The scholar (Dr.Zaghloul Elnaggar) you used is not famous or notable. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 13:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This section appears to be a little aimless. Given the example present, wouldn't a more accurate description be "Miracles attributed by other Scriptures"? In any case, we don't need so many examples, as eventually this will turn into a quotefarm and will have to be purged.-- C.Logan 21:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The current structure of the page (claim/criticism) is easy to read, and it makes it easy for editors to add content in the future. If an editor wants to add to the claim; he can do it easily, same for the criticism. An example is
Criticism of the Qur'an.
Merging the (claim/criticism) paragraphs in one is difficult. Look at scientific miracle for example, they are two big paragraphs (and candidates to get bigger); merging them in a single paragraph is merely impossible. (
Imad marie (
talk)
10:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC))
I see the changes that Aminz did uneasy to read, and encyclopedic, and i see it only a quotation from Denis Gril book. I see this version to be better. ( Imad marie ( talk) 19:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC))
There is a section Qur'an#Relationship_with_other_literature that talks about Qur'an relation with other Scriptures, i suggest that this article concetrates only on the claimed miracilous nature of the qur'an. and i suggest renaming this article ( Imad marie ( talk) 14:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
Hey Imad Marie. I did read this talk page before doing the edits but I cannot conclude how particularly you want the structure to be like. What was "unencyclopedic" about giving a brief list of miracles the way I did? Slsm07 ( talk) 14:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The external link Zaghloul El-Naggar about Qur'an miracles is dangerous link according to W.O.T. I believe it should be removed. Wikipedia should not put link that may risk users. Oren.tal ( talk) 22:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There has been many objections over Najjar as a reliable reference, which I strongly disagree with, and this conflict has been going for a while now. I see the only way to resolve this is over a Arbitration (Imad marie 20:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC))
Itaqallah remove again and again link or reliable websites from this article. Next time he remove without talk about it I will complain to moderator. This article should be NPOV and that mean also link that refute this claims. Beside most of the reference are not to reliable websites and should be removed before this website. I have my case to complain about you Itaqallah since I asked more than once not to remove this links. Oren.tal ( talk) 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Matt, please explain. In this article you removed Qur'anic text claiming that using Quru'an verse directly is OR, and then here and here you are claiming that using Qur'an verses is not OR or interpretation, please explain to me how does that make you a credible editor in any way? I'm putting the Qur'an verse back now ( Imad marie ( talk) 06:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC))
Let's finish this once and for all, let's reach a consensus here. Is Naggar a reliable reference? everyone is invited to participate. If we don't reach a consensus then an Arbitration might be the solution ( Imad marie ( talk) 07:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC))
I guess I'll have to quote the whole thing. WP:RS#Scholarship: says:
So what part of RS does Naggar satisfy? -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 03:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Imad marie, please provide the full quote (with surrounding paragraph) for what you just added. Yahel Guhan 05:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is exteremly bias and represent mainly opinion that suppot in this issue.I call for putting tag about the nutralety of this article plus work in order to make it neutral. Oren.tal ( talk) 12:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
We have three sections talking about the same topic: Qur'an_and_miracles#Scientific_miracles, The_relation_between_Islam_and_science#Belief_that_scientific_facts_are_supported_by_the_Qur.27an and Maurice_Bucaille#Bucailleism. I suggest creating a new article, talking about the scientific miraculous claim of the Qur'an, the title can be Qur'an and Science. And all three section can link to this new article as the main article. ( Imad marie ( talk) 06:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC))
I think the issue of Qur'an and science can be discussed primarily in this article and the relation between Islam and science article. The Bucaille discussion centers primarily on the neologism. ITAQALLAH 12:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well at least the believe is discussed in two articles (in two big sections). My suggestion is to create a separate article about this believe, and any section about this claim can refer to it. ( Imad marie ( talk) 13:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC))
Having no objections, I will proceed with the merge. ( Imad marie ( talk) 05:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
It is not a matter of proponent/ anti links, it is a matter of notability. The links I have added are for the scholars who have been quoted in the references of the article, it makes sense to include their sites. ( Imad marie ( talk) 08:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)) I didn't rewrite any policy, WP:EL says: Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. ( Imad marie ( talk) 14:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
ShouldntLexicographical miracles of Quran section should be added to this page ? One of the miracle relates to number 19 which is
THE MIRACLE OF 19 IN THE QUR'AN
ALI ASSAD ( talk) 17:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
ok wouuld this be better ?
THE MIRACLE OF 19 IN THE QUR'AN
ALI ASSAD ( talk) 14:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
ALI ASSAD ( talk) 11:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Here are the references
http://www.miraclesofthequran.com
http://www.quranmiracles.com
http://www.islamicmedicine.org/amazing.htm
http://www.harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_01.php
http://www.jannah.org/articles/qurdeed.html
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac20.htm#links
ALI ASSAD (
talk)
11:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
"you can see them clearly if you are clever enough" and what reliable sources ahve you brought from reputable independent publishers, not propaganda web pages about 42 ????
ALI ASSAD ( talk) 21:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you actually believe that Quran is infact direct GOD's own words ??? ALI ASSAD ( talk) 07:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I am a muslim ALHAMDULILLAH and if you are not, then you should not be debating something you dont know, And if you are a muslim then kindly bring some kind of realsource of 42 please, i would be happy to believe you but only 1 person against all others cant be right and you might be knowing much better than me that its not even in wikipedia's policy. And if you are a muslim, dont you agree with any of the scholar ?
ALI ASSAD ( talk) 17:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
this verse was revealed in the Qur'an, "The Romans have been defeated. In a land close by;lowest land on earth but they will soon be victorious-Within a few years. Allah's is the command before and after; and on that day the believers shall rejoice."[Quran 30:2-4][16] In 622 AD at the Battle of Issus, the Romans successfully defeated the Persians next to the dead sea which proved as it is the lowest land on earth,Mohammad predicted two things: the result of the warprobability of %50 and the exact location of the war few years before the warprobability of %0 confirming the prophecy in the Quran.[17] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
219.88.65.26 (
talk)
07:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
......they consider scientific miracles as pseudoscience. well it is not like that they are considerd as facts by muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.60.15 ( talk) 08:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2014. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Colgate University/Legacies of the Ancient World (Spring 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
This article was lacking flow and content. Each section was a jumble of information. There were multiple places where there were statements claiming certain points but lacked a citation or the citation was not credible. My team and I worked to make improvements of these issues. Akmaclean ( talk) 14:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akmaclean ( talk • contribs) 13:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The "Scientific miracles" section contains a series of paragraphs of the form: (1) science says iron meteorites fell [ref1]; (2) the Qu'ran says "we sent down iron..." [ref2]; therefore the Qu'ran predicted the science. The science is referenced (ref1); the Qu'ran is quoted (ref2); but there is no reference that anyone has made such an inference. The inference that the science appears to support the Qu'ran is thus very clearly and unambiguously an editor's opinion, WP:Original research, derived by WP:Synthesis, and subject to deletion without further notice unless properly sourced. A lot of other text in other sections is similarly OR and SYNTH, argued rather than sourced. Pol098 ( talk) 08:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Note to editors: this article is about Quran and miracles, not "whatever I want to write about anything I think is interesting in the Quran". There needs to be a reliably sourced claim that what is discussed may be deemed miraculous, not just predictive (there are sections on prediction in religious texts, and science and Islam), wise, etc. For an example, see what I wrote in the previous section. Pol098 ( talk) 10:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Technically, it is right in the sense that in week 5 of fetal development, the spinal cord grows, and around it, so do other major organs like the skin and etcetera. DAHARSHI ( talk) 04:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
if i recall correctly the notochord or the back bone comes before the muscles which is flesh which means that the quran saying that the bones comes before flesh is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.104.234.163 ( talk) 14:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Quran and miracles/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
article is currently a stub and has very little information. Not sure if article really is important.-- Sefringle 04:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 02:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 03:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This page has little encyclopedic value and the spirit of the points it makes is generally covered by the main articles on the Quraan and Islam. I nominate this article for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:1D5C:5000:543D:42D5:FCAA:3513 ( talk) 12:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
Greetings, Requesting you to have a look at
Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.
Thanks and regards Bookku ( talk) 08:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Quran and miracles redirect. 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 was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-09. The result of the discussion was keep due to rewrite. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Lets keep this article free from un-sourced statments. Wanna bet that it will get a AFD? -- Striver 19:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to comment about source "6". It is not clear to me, where it is written, "Scholars know that Muhammad was influenced by older Jewish and Christian traditions, and therefore included many of the wonders known from the Bible in the Qur'an.[6]". Source "6" says Wilson p316. What does that mean? There are a million Wilsons. Please explain the source or remove that statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.211.95 ( talk) 12:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The text does cite a source for the claim that the Quran refers to Muhammad (pbuh) was illiterate, although it is not clear that the word "ummi" means "illiterate," and there are many Arabic scholars who think "unscriptured" or "a Gentile" (non-Jew) would be a better definition; there are theological reasons to question whether Allah would reveal his word to an illiterate man. 7minus1 ( talk) 18:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Is the title of this article correct? Or maybe the text about the Qur'an being a miricle in itself has grown out of proportions and should be given an article of it's own. I was not expecting it here... I suggest a new page on The Linguistic and Literary Inimitability of the Qur'an. Info D 14:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
What do the numbers signify???
On the word counts it should be mentioned that you have to count only singular forms without any pronoun attached to obtain 365 occurences of "day" while to count "angels" 88 times you have to take any form you can find.
Discussion of all the ways a book imitating the Koran would have to be "unique" betray circular reasoning. To be unique means to be one of a kind. If anything imitates the Koran, it is by definition not one of a kind -- it's an imitation. But these exact criteria could be applied to, say, James Joyce. No doubt James Joyce isn't a prophet. Peccavimus 17:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The section "Scientific Miracles" states, "In Quran there is a hint of both big bang and big crunch." and then goes on. This is original research as the wording is unattributed to anyone who is a cosmologist. Yes reading the stated sura with it "We produce a new one:" would indicate a cycle of creation but who are we to describe it as such. We won't mention the illogic of the wording a "scientific miracle". The scientific method usually precludes miracles in that it precludes a supernatural origin for events. Ttiotsw 11:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I accidently hit this page and truthfully it's a bit messy full of original research and unattributed content. The section on Linguistic and Literary Inimitability needs a serious cull or if it's a topic in it's own right then moved to another page. As to why the rediscovery of the City of Iram is a miracle we'll never know. The reference for that is a web page and our Wikipedia page fails to highlight the numbers of people who feel it is a miracle or if it's just a few then the authority of those people. As for the "Mathematical" - this isn't maths. It is numerology at best. Ttiotsw 13:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The article was reverted to a 3 month old copy by someone. This has left the article even worse than before with nearly every sentence having classic weasel wording (truthfully I actually prefer ferrets but weasels will do). The numerology stuff still makes no sense even if you are pissed on this years wine and have forgotten all maths since kindergarten. Erich Von Daniken, come back, all is forgiven compared to this stuff; at least you had Aliens and spaceships and stuff. If this all makes no sense then read the article and tell me which is clearer. Ttiotsw 21:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
see next last section, before the section regarding the treaty. -- Striver 03:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This page has nothing to do as taking a side in the discussion if the Quran is of divine origin or it is the work of Muhammad. So, we cannot present biased arguments such as "Muhammad, who was influenced by older Jewish and Christian traditions, also included ..." as facts. There exist other wiki pages on this issue: "critism of Muhammad", "critisim of Quran", etc. The page must focus on the Quran.
We do not need to give a reference other than wiki page about the "ayat" for the sentence "verses of the book are referred to as ayat, which also means "a miracle" in the Arabic language." The mentioned wiki page states it clearly. I agree with the idea that wiki pages are not summary of a particular book.
And I see that many relevant external links are being removed for the sake of unrelated arguments.
This page has already been pruned greatly. Let us not make the same mistakes in the very beginning of the development of the page. Otherwise, I believe that a systematical vandalism is being applied for this page. ( American force 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC))
If you are honest to develop a good article please stop reverting. I have restored the previous references. I think a brief discussion about the origin of Quran is relevant here, it is the main point of Muslim argument to present Quran as a miracle. I do not agree with Sefringle about the low importance of this article. There are even master and PhD theses over this topic.( Freskile 17:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC))
When writing and editing this article, be aware that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. That means, this article is not to become an Islamist propaganda article desined to convert people to Islam. It should mention the relevant and notable so-called miracles and responses, but should not be used for propaganda.-- Sefringle 05:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Quoting the quran without quoting a secondary source is against wikipedia policies. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It says
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
In other words, quoting the quran without a secondary source is WP:OR
See also: WP:OR#What is excluded?.
It says:
---
You are really unbelievable(!), and your arguments are not even convincing.
"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority": There is no viewpoint here, and I hope you are not referring to Muslims as an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, that would only be funny ..
"It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument": there is a citation, also there is a reputale source.
At least read your talk page; I will quote the words of "Ioannes Pragensis" from that page -I hope he won't mind-
The primary source here is the Quran, and they are published by a reliable source 'usc.edu', even a wiki template exist for this.
So, direct quotations are allowed here. If it were not the case, the page which you presented as an example in another discussion, Miracles attributed to Jesus would be full of references. I can present here much much more examples of wiki articles diretly quoting from Bible and Quran.
Wiki pages are not for propaganda, this also means they cannot be used for an anti-Islamist propaganda. Please do not try to misuse wikirules with some biased comments. ( American force 04:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC))
---
Also, there is no sense to embed so many Quranic verses into the context when they are just given as reference. The initial writer's choice was also in this way, and it is the common style of article writing.( American force 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC))
I removed these additions because they are cited to Ibrham, I.A. I have no evidence that this is either a scholar or even a notable person. The other thing is sourced to submission.org, which is not a reliable source.-- Sefringle Talk 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed most of the scientists, because most of them are not notable. We cannot have non-notable views in the article. See WP:N. I kept Bucaille, because he is the only one who is notable by wikipedia standards of notability.-- Sefringle Talk 03:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I am removing the science section because I can't figure out who is the author or how to attribute it to the author.-- Sefringle Talk 06:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The Qur’an states, “And he has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you”."quoted text"[ Quran 16:15 The modern theory of plate tectonics does hold that mountains act as stabilizers for the earth. Furthermore, this knowledge has just begun to be understood in the framework of plate tectonics since the late 1960’s. [1] [2]
The Qur’an describes the front of the head as being lying and sinful; “No! If he does not stop, We will take him by the front of the head, a lying and sinful front of the head!.” "quoted text"[ Quran 96:15–16 In the brain, the front of the head corresponds to the prefrontal area of the cerebrum, where the foresight to plan and initiate movements occur. It is also the functional center of aggression. [3] Scientists have discovered these functions of the prefrontal area in the last sixty years. [4] [5] >====Seas and Rivers====
The Qur’an states, “He has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress.”"quoted text"[ Quran 55:19–20 When two different seas meet there is a barrier between them so that each sea has its own temperature, salinity and density. For example, when the Mediterranean meets the Atlantic they do not mix, although there may be large waves, strong currents, and tides in these seas. [6] When fresh water and salt water meet there is a partition, which has a marked discontinuity in salinity. This zone of separation has a different salinity from both the fresh and sea water. [7] The Qur’an speaks differently about the fresh and salt water; “He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter. And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition.”"quoted text"[ Quran 25:53 [8]
The Qur’an states, “Or the unbeliever’s state is like the darkness in a deep sea. It is covered by waves, above which are waves, above which are clouds. Darknesses one above another. If a man stretches out his hand, he cannot see it”."quoted text"[ Quran 24:40 At depths below 1000 meters in deep seas there is no light at all. [9] Human beings are not able to dive more than forty meters without the aid of submarines or special equipment and cannot survive unaided in the deep dark part of the oceans, such as at a depth of 200 meters. Scientists have recently discovered this darkness by means of special equipment and submarines that have enabled them to dive into the depths of the oceans. [10]
This verse also mentions “waves, above which are waves, above which are clouds”. Surface waves never arise above one another. Clearly, the latter waves mentioned are the visible surface waves since above these surface waves are clouds. However, the first set of waves are argued to describe internal waves, which occur on density interfaces between layers of different densities. These waves can break and act like surface waves, however, they cannot be seen by the human eye. [11] [12]
The Qur’an states, “Have you not seen how God makes the clouds move gently, then joins them together, then makes them into a stack, and then you see the rain come out of it .”"quoted text"[ Quran 24:43 A common type of rain cloud, the cumulonimbus cloud, follows this description. These clouds are formed when the wind pushes some small pieces of clouds, cumulus clouds, to an area where these clouds join together, forming a larger cloud. When the small clouds join together, updrafts within the larger cloud increase, causing the cloud body to grow vertically. This vertical growth, in turn, causes the cloud to stretch into cooler regions where water droplets and hail form, eventually becoming too heavy to be supported by the updraft and falls as precipitation. [13] [14] [15]
The Qur’an speaks about “hail” and “its lightening”; “And He sends down hail from mountains (clouds) in the sky, and He strikes with it whomever He wills, and turns it from whomever He wills. The vivid flash of its lightening nearly blinds the sight.” "quoted text"[ Quran 24:43 In the formation of lightening, a cloud becomes electrified as hail collides with liquid droplets, which then freeze and release latent heat, keeping the surface of the hailstones warmer than the surrounding ice crystals. When the hailstone comes into contact with an ice crystal, electrons flow from the colder object toward the warmer object and the negative charge is then discharged as lightening. [16] Hail is thus argued as a major factor in lightening. [17]
I am putting back these edits because the objection to them - that these edits are not notable- is invalid. See
WP:N. The Wikipedia guidelines of notibility "give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles". Miracles of the Qur'an are very relevant and needed in an article titled "Qur'an and miracles".
Slsm07
04:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
References
it makes sense to list the scientific miracles of quran as it is very relevant to the title of the article, i added some scientific miracles and they were deleted twice, what i have listed is: notable,relevant, referenced, and does not apply as original research ( Imad marie ( talk) 06:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC))
The scholar (Dr.Zaghloul Elnaggar) you used is not famous or notable. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 13:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This section appears to be a little aimless. Given the example present, wouldn't a more accurate description be "Miracles attributed by other Scriptures"? In any case, we don't need so many examples, as eventually this will turn into a quotefarm and will have to be purged.-- C.Logan 21:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The current structure of the page (claim/criticism) is easy to read, and it makes it easy for editors to add content in the future. If an editor wants to add to the claim; he can do it easily, same for the criticism. An example is
Criticism of the Qur'an.
Merging the (claim/criticism) paragraphs in one is difficult. Look at scientific miracle for example, they are two big paragraphs (and candidates to get bigger); merging them in a single paragraph is merely impossible. (
Imad marie (
talk)
10:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC))
I see the changes that Aminz did uneasy to read, and encyclopedic, and i see it only a quotation from Denis Gril book. I see this version to be better. ( Imad marie ( talk) 19:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC))
There is a section Qur'an#Relationship_with_other_literature that talks about Qur'an relation with other Scriptures, i suggest that this article concetrates only on the claimed miracilous nature of the qur'an. and i suggest renaming this article ( Imad marie ( talk) 14:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
Hey Imad Marie. I did read this talk page before doing the edits but I cannot conclude how particularly you want the structure to be like. What was "unencyclopedic" about giving a brief list of miracles the way I did? Slsm07 ( talk) 14:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The external link Zaghloul El-Naggar about Qur'an miracles is dangerous link according to W.O.T. I believe it should be removed. Wikipedia should not put link that may risk users. Oren.tal ( talk) 22:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There has been many objections over Najjar as a reliable reference, which I strongly disagree with, and this conflict has been going for a while now. I see the only way to resolve this is over a Arbitration (Imad marie 20:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC))
Itaqallah remove again and again link or reliable websites from this article. Next time he remove without talk about it I will complain to moderator. This article should be NPOV and that mean also link that refute this claims. Beside most of the reference are not to reliable websites and should be removed before this website. I have my case to complain about you Itaqallah since I asked more than once not to remove this links. Oren.tal ( talk) 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Matt, please explain. In this article you removed Qur'anic text claiming that using Quru'an verse directly is OR, and then here and here you are claiming that using Qur'an verses is not OR or interpretation, please explain to me how does that make you a credible editor in any way? I'm putting the Qur'an verse back now ( Imad marie ( talk) 06:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC))
Let's finish this once and for all, let's reach a consensus here. Is Naggar a reliable reference? everyone is invited to participate. If we don't reach a consensus then an Arbitration might be the solution ( Imad marie ( talk) 07:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC))
I guess I'll have to quote the whole thing. WP:RS#Scholarship: says:
So what part of RS does Naggar satisfy? -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 03:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Imad marie, please provide the full quote (with surrounding paragraph) for what you just added. Yahel Guhan 05:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is exteremly bias and represent mainly opinion that suppot in this issue.I call for putting tag about the nutralety of this article plus work in order to make it neutral. Oren.tal ( talk) 12:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
We have three sections talking about the same topic: Qur'an_and_miracles#Scientific_miracles, The_relation_between_Islam_and_science#Belief_that_scientific_facts_are_supported_by_the_Qur.27an and Maurice_Bucaille#Bucailleism. I suggest creating a new article, talking about the scientific miraculous claim of the Qur'an, the title can be Qur'an and Science. And all three section can link to this new article as the main article. ( Imad marie ( talk) 06:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC))
I think the issue of Qur'an and science can be discussed primarily in this article and the relation between Islam and science article. The Bucaille discussion centers primarily on the neologism. ITAQALLAH 12:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well at least the believe is discussed in two articles (in two big sections). My suggestion is to create a separate article about this believe, and any section about this claim can refer to it. ( Imad marie ( talk) 13:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC))
Having no objections, I will proceed with the merge. ( Imad marie ( talk) 05:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
It is not a matter of proponent/ anti links, it is a matter of notability. The links I have added are for the scholars who have been quoted in the references of the article, it makes sense to include their sites. ( Imad marie ( talk) 08:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)) I didn't rewrite any policy, WP:EL says: Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. ( Imad marie ( talk) 14:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
ShouldntLexicographical miracles of Quran section should be added to this page ? One of the miracle relates to number 19 which is
THE MIRACLE OF 19 IN THE QUR'AN
ALI ASSAD ( talk) 17:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
ok wouuld this be better ?
THE MIRACLE OF 19 IN THE QUR'AN
ALI ASSAD ( talk) 14:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
ALI ASSAD ( talk) 11:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Here are the references
http://www.miraclesofthequran.com
http://www.quranmiracles.com
http://www.islamicmedicine.org/amazing.htm
http://www.harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_01.php
http://www.jannah.org/articles/qurdeed.html
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac20.htm#links
ALI ASSAD (
talk)
11:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
"you can see them clearly if you are clever enough" and what reliable sources ahve you brought from reputable independent publishers, not propaganda web pages about 42 ????
ALI ASSAD ( talk) 21:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you actually believe that Quran is infact direct GOD's own words ??? ALI ASSAD ( talk) 07:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I am a muslim ALHAMDULILLAH and if you are not, then you should not be debating something you dont know, And if you are a muslim then kindly bring some kind of realsource of 42 please, i would be happy to believe you but only 1 person against all others cant be right and you might be knowing much better than me that its not even in wikipedia's policy. And if you are a muslim, dont you agree with any of the scholar ?
ALI ASSAD ( talk) 17:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
this verse was revealed in the Qur'an, "The Romans have been defeated. In a land close by;lowest land on earth but they will soon be victorious-Within a few years. Allah's is the command before and after; and on that day the believers shall rejoice."[Quran 30:2-4][16] In 622 AD at the Battle of Issus, the Romans successfully defeated the Persians next to the dead sea which proved as it is the lowest land on earth,Mohammad predicted two things: the result of the warprobability of %50 and the exact location of the war few years before the warprobability of %0 confirming the prophecy in the Quran.[17] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
219.88.65.26 (
talk)
07:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
......they consider scientific miracles as pseudoscience. well it is not like that they are considerd as facts by muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.60.15 ( talk) 08:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2014. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Colgate University/Legacies of the Ancient World (Spring 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
This article was lacking flow and content. Each section was a jumble of information. There were multiple places where there were statements claiming certain points but lacked a citation or the citation was not credible. My team and I worked to make improvements of these issues. Akmaclean ( talk) 14:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akmaclean ( talk • contribs) 13:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The "Scientific miracles" section contains a series of paragraphs of the form: (1) science says iron meteorites fell [ref1]; (2) the Qu'ran says "we sent down iron..." [ref2]; therefore the Qu'ran predicted the science. The science is referenced (ref1); the Qu'ran is quoted (ref2); but there is no reference that anyone has made such an inference. The inference that the science appears to support the Qu'ran is thus very clearly and unambiguously an editor's opinion, WP:Original research, derived by WP:Synthesis, and subject to deletion without further notice unless properly sourced. A lot of other text in other sections is similarly OR and SYNTH, argued rather than sourced. Pol098 ( talk) 08:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Note to editors: this article is about Quran and miracles, not "whatever I want to write about anything I think is interesting in the Quran". There needs to be a reliably sourced claim that what is discussed may be deemed miraculous, not just predictive (there are sections on prediction in religious texts, and science and Islam), wise, etc. For an example, see what I wrote in the previous section. Pol098 ( talk) 10:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Technically, it is right in the sense that in week 5 of fetal development, the spinal cord grows, and around it, so do other major organs like the skin and etcetera. DAHARSHI ( talk) 04:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
if i recall correctly the notochord or the back bone comes before the muscles which is flesh which means that the quran saying that the bones comes before flesh is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.104.234.163 ( talk) 14:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Quran and miracles/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
article is currently a stub and has very little information. Not sure if article really is important.-- Sefringle 04:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 02:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 03:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This page has little encyclopedic value and the spirit of the points it makes is generally covered by the main articles on the Quraan and Islam. I nominate this article for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:1D5C:5000:543D:42D5:FCAA:3513 ( talk) 12:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
Greetings, Requesting you to have a look at
Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.
Thanks and regards Bookku ( talk) 08:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)