Talk:Origin and development of the Qur'an

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Origin and development of the Qur'an has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

[edit] 2008 comments

I believe that it would be better to separate the "revisionist" critics into two schools. The older one I might call "conventional" (by which I really mean gullible) and the newer one I would call "skeptical". I admit to being a skeptic. The difference between Montgomery Watt and John Wansbrough is much greater than the difference between Watt and the good old Islamic tradition. I haven't made any edits in the text because I believe I should read all the old talk first and I don't have time for that just now. Perhaps later. DKleinecke (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why do you take it out on the quran not the bible or the tora

This is not true. If you actually bother to take a look, there are criticisms and studies about the actual historicity of texts from the whole Bible. In fact, the Bible has been analyzed a million times to check inconsistencies, influences, etc, etc, for centuries. Since the reformation and even before there have been more and more open discussions on the Bible. Check from the first book of the Bible here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis

[edit] Factual Inaccuracy

quoting from the article:- "The anti-traditionalist banner dropped by Crone and Cook (C&C) has been taken up by scholars such as Christoph Luxenberg and Abraham Geiger, both of whom support claims for a late composition of the Qur'an......" Now Crone and Crook published their work in 1970's, whereas Abraham Gieger, in autobigraphical article is said to be a 19th century rabbi. How could rabbi Gieger pick up a banner more than a century earlier it was dropped by C&C ?

I just noticed that myself. I'll try to give that a fix. Breadhat 05:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In the article the earliest Qoran was written 100 years after the Prophet's death. But it is obvious that, there is Uthman's own qoran is in Topkapi palace, Istanbul, Turkey.

[edit] POV Fork

This article seems to be a POV fork. Someone has copied the relevant section from the Qur'an article and then added a thick frosting of Muslim legend, Quranic quotation, and hadith, all of which seem intended to disprove academic accounts. The article seems to be Sunni POV as well. This needs extensive work. Zora 02:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

added references. Note that this is a view "accordibf to Muslim scholars". The Hadieth of Bukhari is regarded by most Muslims as most authentic
Blubberbrein2 11:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

POV forks are deprecated. You can't have your own "Muslim" article. It either has to be an expansion of the main article, or be deleted. Bukhari is evidence for what Muslims thought at the time he wrote, not for what "actually" happened, whatever that was.

I'm tired and should think on this a bit. If this article is to be kept, it has to be radically restructured and expanded. Zora 11:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Bukhari wrote about what the Mohammed (and his companions) said and did. It is one of the main sources of Islam besides the Qu'ran. You are right that it is a Muslim source, and it is highly regarded among Muslims, see Sahih Bukhari.

To know about the islamic story about the early period of islam, i.e. about the history of islam(under which the origin and development of the Qu'ran falls), one can mainly only use islamic sources. See also the article I started about the Historical Mohammed
Blubberbrein2

[edit] Style and Refrences

I have 2 questions:
1. Do there exist other sources from which you could draw? There seems to be only one source, Bukhari. If it is possible 3 different sources should be employed at minimum.
2. Could this article be a bit more concise? There's a lot of information here, at least some of which could be removed with some additional wikification.
Also, there are many POV statments subtle inserted into the text let's all try and remember NPOV. -Kode 01:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

About citing ahadith, will Sunni and Shi'i sources be included? Many Shi'iites consider some ahadith from the Bukhari, Sahih, and Muslim collections not reliable. I don't know exactly which ones, but this should certainly be adressed too.

Atomsprengja 05:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

Please double check my changes, I have removed as much POV wording as I could. I want to make sure I didn't lose any info. I did improve the formatting a great deal I'm sure. -Kode 01:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Kode, that's a big improvement. The article could still use a lot of work, of course -- we need to go further into the different Islamic views, and much further into the history of Western academic scholarship. But you don't have to do all of that! Thanks so much for the effort. Zora 02:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I reverted Cltfn's edits

He put arguments re the sources of the Quran in the intro section, where they do not belong. They are controversial, therefore should not be presented as the truth. Furthermore, they are simply wrong as a statement of current academic thinking on the Qur'an. Cltfn is quoting the popular press on Luxenberg, Luxenberg, or he is quoting 100 year old books that are long since out-dated. Cltfn, if you want to present the academic POV, you're going to have read some books and journals. You can't just pick up a bunch of quotes from anti-Muslim websites and assume that they represent the state of the art. They don't. Personally, I don't accept the traditional Muslim POV on the Qur'an, and I'm not arguing for it. But I do insist that anyone who consults this encyclopedia to find out what academics think should get a straight account of contemporary opinion. Zora 05:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not quoting Luxenberg, although I will as soon as his book is published into English . Zora your mediations between the traditionalist and the secular POV is appreciated, however I think you are marginalizing the secular POV to appease the traditionalist. This is to the point that you are obstructing a great deal of very legitimate and encyclopedic material. Perhaps you are not current with current academic opinion, there are 3 major groups , the traditionalists , the apologists and the secular scholars. Perhaps we should present the 3 groups opinions in their own sections . How about that? --CltFn 05:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know, there are two groups, the late-development and the early-development, and the early-development is in the ascendent right now, thanks to the Sana'a manuscripts and the retreat of Crone from the earlier radical position. Luxenberg is not widely accepted. Quoting Wellhausen and Muir is not helpful, save for a history of academic views -- which would not be a bad idea. BTW, since I don't read Arabic and I'm not part of the academic milieu, I'm probably several years behind the times. Unless we get academic reinforcements, we're not going to be cutting edge. Praps I can ask dgl to comment.

Instead of waiting for Luxenberg, you should be waiting for Puin! That might be exciting. Zora 07:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the 2 groups are the traditionalist early developement which is based on nothing more than anachronistic revisionism and (the destruction of contrary evidence and murder of dissident scholars) and the secular research one based on standards of historical and archeological and philological research . The scientific approach of the secular scholars is very ascendent right now, actually has been for quite a long time . The San'a manuscript by the way is dated the 9th century, according to Puin and his colleague H.-C. Graf von Bothmer, who made 35,000 microfilmed photos of the manuscripts. I suggest that the best way to intelligently develop this article then will be to clearly represent the 2 groups in the article.

--CltFn 12:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree and promote in presenting a neutral point of view in all Wikipedia articles, but I have moved the following statement: "Modern day philologists view the Qur'an as an eighth century Arab compilation and adaptation of earlier Judeo-Christian scriptures and traditions, that had spread to Arabia in the Aramaic and Syriac dialects" to the section under 'According to non-Muslim scholars'.

In both sources that are provided for this statement, this view is described to be held by a "small" group of scholars [1], and a "handful" of people [2]. I feel that it is vital that we DO present this view, but since it is a minority view compared to the view of approximately 1.4 billion Muslims (including Muslim philologists and scholars), we should follow Wikipedia's policy on NPOV, which says:

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." (Emphasis mine)

Also, one of the sources mentioned for the statement is a web blog, and according to Wikipedia's policies on Reliable sources:

"At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources"

Furthermore, the source mentioned for the article in the blog entry is not valid anymore. It has also been already mentioned in the introduction that non-Muslim and secular scholars are skeptical of the origin and development of the Qur'an.

Also, the claims mentioned under 'Textual evidence' are presented as facts and not claims and research of non-Muslim scholars. I dont want to remove the information presented there because I feel that it contains important findings and opinions, and is relevant and valuable to this article. But further work needs to be done on it before it is not POV anymore. --Jibran1 02:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the section Textual Evidence to 2.2.1 a sub category of Secular Scholars and Colaborative Effort. That should fix the first bit. If we can change that beginning line we can address the rest of your concerns. -Kode 23:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Textual Evidence

I'm moving this section to under secular sources. If it's possible to reduce the number of loaded words and offer a more NPOV stance we can put it back. As I understand things muslim scholars would take issue with these 6 points. -Kode 22:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that some of the wording is definitely biased-

"... apocryphal and non-orthodox Christian legends, on the other hand, are one of the original sources of Qu'ranic faith."

This is saying outright that the Qur'an is in fact a result of historical influences on Muhammad, thus denying its claim of divine origin. I guess it makes sense in the context of the Catholic Encyclopedia, but it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. This isn't even my main concern, actually, I see no reason why the Catholic Encyclopedia should even be counted as a reliable source, since it is, in many instances, not only biased, but also racist and prejudiced. examples-

"As war is the normal condition of savagery, so to the Indian warlike glory was the goal of his ambition"

"In reality, the Jews were far from prepared for the fulfilment of the promises which the almighty had repeatedly made to their race."

and, in the article on Islam (Mohamedanism, according to the C.E.)-

"The joys and glories of Paradise are as fantastic and sensual as the lascivious Arabian mind could possibly imagine."

"It is hardly necessary here to emphasize the fact that the ethics of Islam are far inferior to those of Judaism and even more inferior to those of the New Testament."

"In matters political Islam is a system of despotism at home and aggression abroad."

The whole Textual Evidence section is a cut and paste from the C.E. article, so should we then also include as textual evidence that the qur'an contains "a combination of fact and fancy often devoid of force and originality," as well as "legends," "threats," and "fanciful descriptions of heaven" and that "the most creditable portions are those in which Jewish and Christian influences are clearly discernible," as the "Encyclopedia" says? I won't include all the errors (or in some cases, like "the man is allowed to repudiate his wife on the slightest pretext," obviously intentional lies) about the shari'a.

How then would anyone ever consider this acceptable?

Atomsprengja 05:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry Kodemage

Kodemage, instead of reverting Cltfn's edits, as they deserve, you tried to make sense of them. I'm sorry, I reverted to an earlier version that did not have all that outdated nonsense. It is REALLY nonsense. He's quoting 100-year-old stuff, long exploded, as if it were current academic thought. He is grossly exaggerating the support for Christoph Luxenberg. Cltfn thinks Luxenberg is right, and that academics agree -- everything I've read suggests that they think he may be right on isolated points, but that his general thesis is poppycock. Cltfn is getting his "information" from anti-Islamic websites rather than actually reading the academic material. This is not a question of different POVs, this is a question of gross misrepresentation of academia. As an academia groupie :) I protest.

I will add material re Luxenberg when I find time for it. It should be mentioned, and isn't, which may be one reason that Cltfn is so insistent. Zora 06:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Zora, 100 year old information is not invalid by default. Especially when dealing with ~1300 year old subject. Let's talk about this a mlittle bit more, what information that Cltfn is inaccurate? -Kode 22:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in dire state

The article seems to have been thoroughly worked over by anti-Muslim editors not familiar with scholarship, and eager to publicize anything that proves Muslims "wrong" and also by Muslim editors eager to prove academic sceptics "wrong". The result is a complete muddle, with Muslim arguments interpolated into the non-Muslim section and several extremely distorted versions of the academic state of affairs.

I rewrote some of the article, but there's still a lot to do. This is discouraging. Zora 00:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Zora. I agree; we should send this article to Dr. Z for a good revision :) giordaano212.190.72.16 10:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uthman and the collection of Qu'ranic verses

There are numerous factual innaccuracies in this article that I can see; I'm certainly no expert in the field of Islamic studies, but I'm surprised others having caught them. They may be a result of POV rearing its ugly head among some of the contributers, but I'm not sure.

Chief among them is the assertion that Uthman could not have adulterated or excised suras when he collected them for the purpose of codifying them into one volume, since Mohammed was alive at the time. From what I know, this is absolutely false; this event did not occur until Uthman was Caliph, in which case Mohammed already would have been dead for at least a decade. Aside from that, there is no information from that period concerning this event that in nearly that definitive; a number of scholars, western and Muslim alike, have asserted that Uthman had direct control over the editing process, and subsequently burned earlier copies of suras he had collected after the scribes copied his authoratative position. While I want obviously want to present a NPOV in this article, and I realise that many Sunni feel Uthman to be a righteously guided Caliph, many have posited that Uthman carried out this action in order to consolidate his control over the Caliphate and destroy opposition to him; early Muslim scholars generally report that Uthman was nepotistic, power hungry, expansionistic, et cetera. This is far cry from an accusation of him fabricating verses to justify his actions, but it may indicate that he collected already existing verses which supported him and excised those which spoke out against his actions under the claim that they were unorthodox. I have no opinion either way, and know that this presenting this information, while not -specifically- supporting a Shi'i view, discredits the Sunni view of Uthman. This article seems to support an apologetic view of Uthman and the other earlier compilers and consolidaters, to the point where I thought it was overly representative of Sunni views. As this is a commonly proposed academic view, but approaches it from the perspective of higher criticism, I realise that some Muslims may be inherently against voicing this opinion here. My question is this: in the interest of encyclopaedic knowledge, should it be presented? And if so, in what way to be as neutral as possible? I'd like to hear from you all before I attempt any sort of re-write. Kaelus 06:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I've added and referenced some modern challanges to Uthman's handling of the compilation of the Quran 24.58.15.191 23:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-intellectual?

I'm having trouble understanding why this article is split between the thoughts of Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. The article is about historical events, and those events don't change is someone is Muslim or not. (There is one exception: believing that the Qur'an cannot be changed, but everything else is a matter of scholarship.) My point is that seperating them implies that the religious thoughts of Muslims are incompatible with NPOV thoughts of non-Muslims, ie, anti-intellectual. This is obviously false, consider that most non-Muslim scholars ascribe (at least the vast majority) of the Qur'an to Muhammad. I know this adds a lot of work to already big and messy article. What do others think about eliminating this division? --Ephilei 19:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] createdness of Qur'an

There is different idea about this issue. Mu'tazila thinks Qurán has been created. Look at Mihna--Sa.vakilian 13:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First person used in text

The earlier Prophets were sent to specific communities while Prophet Muhammad was sent to both mankind and jinnkind for all time to come, as claimed by the Muslims. If such a claim is true the very different nature - local versus global - can result in some changes between the scriptures. I am suggesting this so that further analysis along the lines of local versus global of the three scriptures could be performed. May be we make the mistake of insisting on identical concepts just because God knows everything there is to know and should not have to revise. Don't teachers tune their lessons to match the level of their audience?

POV or original research? Is there any supporting evidence ?

rgds <b>Johnmark<br>H 18:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't be in there really. ITAQALLAH 18:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Completeness

I question the factual accuracy of the statement that most Muslims do not believe that the Quran (or, more precisely, Ayaat of the Qur'an) was ever abrogated. While I am not familiar enough with the Shia POV to answer on their behalf, I can say that the view that Abrogation occured is the normative one among Sunni Scholars. That 2:106 refers to earlier Scriptures is the minority view (supported by Muhammad 'Asad in his Tafsir). If one were to look at the works at the greatest scholars in the Sunni Tradition and at those Tafseers that are most highly regarded, one would find that these support a belief in abrogation. In addition, it seems as the interpretations introduced in this section are speculative; either no source is given or the source is questionable. Akbarally Meherally is not a scholar. He is an anti-Ismaili polemicist and critic of hadith. His qualifications in Islamic Studies appear to be extremely slight. لقمانLuqman 14:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If you mean "نسخ", Shi'a believe it has happened for example at first wine wasn't banned compeletely:"و لا تقربوا الصلوة و انتم سكاري" Then wine was banned completely. Also there is an Ayat in Qur'an which says abrogation is possible:"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things? "(2:106)--Sa.vakilian 03:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Not all Shia believe this: Ayatollah Khoei rejected this and said that the verse commanding Muslims to not come to prayer intoxicated was just what Allah Almighty told Muslims to do should they have committed the sin of drinking. I'm not certain if Ayatollah Khoei actually believed this, but a trustworthy person presented this view and attributed it to Ayatollah Khoei. Armyrifle 21:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Later Judaism and Rabbinism are equally well represented"

This doen't mean anything. We need to state clearly that Geiger find parallels between Medrashim such as the Medrash Tanchuma and other Medrashim and the Koran. It's important since it demonstrates quite clearly the methods used in writing the Koran. I will attempt an addition but I don't mind if it's rverted as it's not my field.Wolf2191 16:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong information

According to the auther of this article: (Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: 'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book...)

Omar said verses and the author claimed that in Qura'an there is only one reference found in the Qur'an which is "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes..." 24:2

I'm asking him to continue reading in the same chapter he will find another verse:-

"And those who launch a charge against chaste women and produce not four witnesses(to support their allegation) flog them with eighty stripes and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors" Quraan 24:4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim Fahd (talk • contribs) 12:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move

I propose we move this article to "History of the Qur'an".Vice regent 22:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Support: A better name. → AA ^(talk) — 23:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DEVELOPMENT!!!

The word Development should not be used, development might be understood as there are some changes, on the contrary this is the opposite of the fact that the Qur'an is the same.Abouilyass 21:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] At the first paragraph

at the first paragraph, The truth is " it is the same go to any library you will have the same Qur'an with no difference, Even the "some of" secular scholars who wanted to think so failed... so it should be converted into It is the same... Abouilyass 21:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The title "Different" copies

What is meant by "Different"? I think it should be converted to IBIN MASU'D. Again the use of words titles is not appropriateAbouilyass 21:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, sinceit talks about him--Nables 12 13:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] , to accuse each other of lying....

I think the fact is that they were both true but because they are new Muslims they didn't know about the readings, so it is better to add that

to accuse each other of lying...without knowing that they are both true...Abouilyass 21:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It is an increasing claim made by some Muslim and non-Muslim

It is not a claim...The writing system is different not only early Uthmanic texts of the Quran differed... The whole Arabic writing system is different... I think the addition of this paragraph is unnecessary and it should be removed...Abouilyass 21:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph #3 at Oldest copy known today

What is the source? I think it should be deleted...Abouilyass —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abouilyass (talk • contribs) 21:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC) what are the islamic traditions that the auther is talking about?--Nables 12 13:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] divine origin

1. It is better to change the title to be "Qur'an is the miracle of Prophet Muhammad" and it should also be mentioned about scientifc, numerical, historical,,, etc that make a lot of people including scientists become muslims such as the verse that talks about the expansion of the We constructed the sky with our hands, and we will continue to expand it. quran 51:47 //
and the one that talks that the earth has seven layers Allah is He Who created seven Firmaments and of the earth a similar number. Through the midst of them (all) descends His Command: that ye may know that Allah has power over all things, and that Allah comprehends, all things in (His) Knowledgequr'an 65:12 and many other scientific miracles
http://www.55a.net/firas/english/ for more information--Nables 12 21:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quranic text during the life of Muhammad?

What is the meaning of the word text here? I suggest to change it into "The Writing of the revelation during the life time of prophet Muhammad"--Nables 12 15:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Substantial work

I think most people reading this article can agree that the manner in which it has been done doesn't meet the quality of, say, the article on the documentary hypothesis.

To an extent, this article looks like it's trying to please people who are looking for two different things; the view of the Qur'an as stated by the Qur'an (ie. unchanging, eternal, divine) and the view of the Qur'an from a critical perspective (ie. probably changing, possibly divine). And so it's ended up as a content fork, where one section flat-out states "It is impossible for a human to produce a book like the Qur'an," and another says that the Qur'an is based off texts that are (again, article's words) "faulty" and "not historically accurate." As a result, we end up with an article that is self-contradictory and near-useless for someone actually reading it.

I think this article needs an overhaul along four major lines;

1) First, we desperately need to remove or resource the parts that use the Qur'an as their primary source (eg. the section on Divine origin). There is certainly a wide range of both secular and Islamic texts on the perfection of its Arabic and its divine origin; we should be using that wherever possible. It wouldn't be acceptable for an article on Old Testament criticism to cite as fact Exodus 34:27 in favor of Mosaic authorship, and it shouldn't be acceptable here, either.

2) The article should reflect, wherever possible, modern scholarship over traditional scholarship. There should not be an "Islamic version" and a "non-Islamic version;" there should be a mainstream scholarly position and a minority scholarly position. The fact that 1.4 billion Muslims (as expressed earlier on this talk page) believe the inerrancy of the Qur'an should not be the determining factor - most of those 1.4 billion are not scholars. If the majority of scholars believe that the Qur'an has remained substantially unchanged since the 7th century, that should be the position expressed. The current "it has remained unchanged," "it has remained mostly unchanged," and "it went through several centuries of revision" shouldn't be done. This fork is already causing issues in the texts; in the Oldest copy section, we find a note about varying versions, which is given in more detail in the 'return to traditionalism' section.

3) The article should be read over to make sure things follow. For example, the section in First standardization regarding diacritics; why does whether the text was abrogated matter to the history of Arabic lettering? If these things are related, it is nowhere made clear in the article.

4) The article should include some mention of the various arguments in favor of earlier sources for the Qur'an, as can be found in Historicity of Muhammad or The Syro-Aramaic Reading Of The Koran, and later interpolations into the Qur'an, such as in Satanic Verses. We do not have to claim these as true, but we have to recognize that these arguments exist and are being debated in academic circles.

Above all, the default POV here should not necessarily be the Islamic one, but the scholarly one. That's what this text fails to do right now. The Islamic opinion should be included, and even held to be the mainstream where it actually is, but we shouldn't go farther than that.

I'll be spending some time working on this over the next week or so. -Senori 22:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say, except number 4. the disucssion regarding that is conducted by very few and we may give that discussion undue weight.Vice regent 16:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the intro to present the two views.--CltFn 04:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muadh ibn Jabal

Hi, i was going through the old backlogs and ran into the article Muadh ibn Jabal. It needs improvement - currently parts of it look like a children's story and not like an article. Can somebody improve it, please? I am not an expert on Islam.

If you don't have the time for serious improvement, here are three very simple tasks that anyone with understanding of the Arabic language can do:

What is the preferred spelling of Muadh - Muadh or Mu'adh?

What is the preferred spelling of ibn - ibn or bin?

Finally, can somebody add the correct spelling of the name in Arabic language?

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni 15:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-neutral

The article is no longer neutral, as it presents the Muslim view as the incorrect one. Much work has to be done before we can balance both views and not judge either of them.Vice regent 21:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic views

Why are we giving the view of Catholics such importance in this article? Why does it even matter what they believe about other the Islamic scriptures?Vice regent 21:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

why wouldn't it matter? If they are notable scholarly views, which they are, they disserve recognition. Sefringle^Talk 20:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

They are "scholarly" because they are Catholic scholars and experts in the Catholic faith. While that is certainly significant in an article about Catholicism, it's a bit irrelevent in an article about Islam. Consider this: would the opinion of a nuclear physicist necessarily matter in a discussion of the Crusades?Vice regent 21:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the scholars cited are mostly not Catholic. But the Cath. Enc. extract represents a pretty solid summary of Western secular and non-muslim scholarship circa 1910. The reason that it is (or was) necessarily secular and non-muslim scholarship is obvious: if, as a traditional Muslim, you believe that the Qur'an was dictated verbatim from God, then you're going to regard any discussion of "influences" and "sources" as utterly misguided and simply empty of sense. Jheald 16:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

While Catholic may be considered as "western" I don't agree with the secular designation. Consider this link. The entry to "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jesus Christ" is summarized as "The incarnate Son of God and the redeemer of the human race." Now I don't think it is secular for an encyclopedia to regard Jesus Christ as the "redeemer of the human race". The Catholic encyclopedia is as much religious as Muslim sources. The only point is: this is an article about Islamic scriptures, not Christian/Catholic ones.Vice regent 21:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the not insubstantial evidence that the Qur'an is at least partially based on ideas derived from Christian/Catholic scriptures, I should think the opinions of those well-versed in such scriptures would be extraordinarily useful. -Senori 03:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Your logic is circular: those who claim the Qur'an is at least partially based on ideas derived from Christian/Catholic scriptures also happen to be those well-versed in the scriptures. I would have no problem with this if we had secular, academic and reliable sources saying this. But these religious sources (which are given so prominent a place) seem to be little more than polemic.Vice regent 20:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Old requests for peer review