Do Muslims believe that the Quran is the only revelation to Muhammad?[edit]

Do Muslims believe that the Quran is the only revelation to Muhammad or is it that some Muslims claim that there were oral revelations outside the Quran similar to the Rabbinical Jews who that two Torahs were given at mount Sinai, one written and one oral? Thanks. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:D4BE:6846:F946:C85A (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Muslims believe that Quran is the only revelation to Muhammad, besides Quran there are sayings of Muhammad other than the Quran that called "Hadith" that helps to expand the teachings of the Quran. Taseer007 (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hadith Qudse are considered to be revelation to Muhammad, the verbatim word of Allah, and these particular "Qudsi" hadiths are given a special status between the Quran and normal hadith texts. QamarBurtuqali (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]



The QREF (Quran reference) gadget does not work correctly[edit]

Someone changed the syntax for the Quran Reference 'qref' gadget so that all qref instances no longer work correctly. When anyone clicks on a Quran reference you will get the first line of the chapter. The syntax that works correctly is qref | x:y . Sadly, because editing of the Quran article has been shut down, no one can fix the qref instances here. If someone can give me permission to edit the article, I can fix the qref instances.

— Assignment last updated by QamarBurtuqali (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@QamarBurtuqali: But Template parameters are looking fine to me.Zsohl(Talk) 08:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zsohl : No, the qref gadget does not work correctly.

For example, click on "Quran 56:79" in the Quran article; it will display verse 56:1, not 56:79. QamarBurtuqali (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqaliReply[reply]

I have created qref template, and I know, all parameters are correct. It seems, your internet connection is slow when you are opening quran.com. You can also try clearing browser cookies and cache. Zsohl(Talk) 13:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zsohl : I can assure you that the qref gadget does NOT work correctly on my 2 year old

computer with Safari. On the other hand, the qref gadget DOES work correctly with Google Crome browser on my computer. Apparently, the qref template is quite sensitive. I tested syntax for qref in my sandbox. The syntax x:y for qref works perfectly in my 2 year old Safari browser and I tested this syntax on several other computers and worked perfectly. Did you change the qref template recently? QamarBurtuqali (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqaliReply[reply]


Addition of a paragraph about Surah al-Ikhlas because it is the second most important surah of the Quran after al-Fatiha[edit]

I added this paragraph:

Surah Al-Ikhlāṣ is second in frequency of Qur'an recitation, for according to many early authorities, Muhammad said that Ikhlāṣ is equivalent to one-third of the whole Quran. [1]

Seyyed Hossein Nasr (2015) stated in his commentary of Surah al-Ikhlas: "This surah is second only to Surah al-Fatihah, in Muslim devotional life and ..." In addition, he writes: "According to many early authorities, the Prophet said that this surah is 'equivalent to one-third of the whole Quran', which is understood by some to mean that the message regarding the Oneness of God is one-third of the Quran's message." I summarized Nasr's two sentences and provided a citation with a number page.

User @Zsohl deleted the paragraph on 17 November 2023, only saying in the history page "Al-Ikhlāṣ is not require to mention." What does he mean???

I have reversed @Zsohl's deletion (17 November 2023). In my humble opinion, no qualified editor should oppose the addition of the above paragraph. If anyone opposes the paragraph, I invite discussion here in the Talk Page.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqaliReply[reply]

I have removed it because it was overwhelming the article with too much information that is not needed. This paragraph should be on Surah Al-Ikhlāṣ page, which is already there, not under worship heading of Quran article.

Other sections of the Quran of choice are also read in daily prayers.

Above sentence is sufficient, as only Al Fatiha is mandatory in salah. So you don't need to mention any other surah. If this action is permitted then someone will mention any another short and frequency recited Surah.
These information should be on their specific article, not on this page. And before reverting my edit, you should have discussed this first. Zsohl(Talk) 09:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It is important to present Surah Al-Ikhlas (in the section Quran/Significance in Islam/In worship)
because it is unique and very significant for two separate reasons:
1) Surah al-Ikhlas is second in frequency of recitation.
2) Muslims believe that Surah al-Ikhlas represents “one third of the Quran.”
The paragraph I have contributed (above) is constructive, written from a neutral point of view,
and non-controversial among scholars of Islam. The paragraph is brief and has due weight
within the 24-page wiki Quran article. Moreover, the paragraph has due weight within
the In worship section (because of the two reasons given above).
User @Zsohl has given us his personal opinion that my contribution is “not needed.”
WP:Ownership of content lists an example of odious Ownership Behavior
when “an editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it ‘unnecessary’.”
I urge @Zsohl to review WP: Editing Policy and WP:Ownership of content.
I disagree with @Zohl’s personal point of view, thoroughly,
and I am no longer willing to discuss the issue with @Zohl.
@Zohl can pursue WP: Dispute Resolution.


QamarBurtuqali (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqaliReply[reply]
This is not a dispute, it is still a discussion and this article is not owned. You have to be bold, but not reckless while updating the article. And I know Wiki policy. I never engage in edit wars and that's why I didn't revert your edit again. I will seek third party opinion and don't mind whether my opinion is accepted or rejected. Zsohl(Talk) 10:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


General page layout[edit]

I think the content of a text should be considered before its social significance. NGC 628 (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Graphic Design History[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 12 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xoxomira (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Xoxomira (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Academic research section[edit]

The chapter contains a long paragraph on the birmingham manuscript. The opinions written on the single-page manuscript are exaggerated, and while these opinions are transferred to Wikipedia, the impression is given that the findings beyond what is expressed in the source have completely trashed the opinions of historians who are called revisionists.

I think revisionist views on the history of the Quran should be summarized here and it should be explained which of these views are invalidated by new findings. NGC 628 (talk) 08:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see little to no reason, to add the revisionist school until it is at least taken serious by Islamic Research. -VenusFeuerFalle

Already discussed on Talk:Islam#Revisionist_school. Zsohl(Talk) 11:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the "revisionist" label,
Regarding some of my contributions, my contributions were withdrawn due to a labeling that I did not encounter in my other contributions, and I was warned not to include the views of the revisionists without discussion. My opinions on this are as follows:
1-These people did not label themselves this way, others classified them this way.
2-The information given by these people cannot be devalued by this labeling. As long as they have encyclopedic value, these opinions should be given without exaggeration in the relevant sections.
3- Group domination should not be established over Islam and related articles solely due to this labeling and other possible religious concerns. My feeling is that some of these articles are dominated by a group that does not allow even clear errors to be corrected, as I did on this section.NGC 628 (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not about the label, it is about the lack of relevance in academic discourse (See: WP:RSUW). It could be worth to be mentioned in an article about the early history of Islam, or something similar, however, not in main articles. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are not talking about a club with identities or memberships here. We're talking about other people's labeling and classifying a group of researchers. If this helps understanding, good. Their devaluation is no different from racism. Each contribution should be evaluated for encyclopedic value, necessity and source reliability. labelings should be avoided. NGC 628 (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel like this discussion leads to nowhere. Comparing racism to academic success/evaluations doesn't help either. Notability isn't determined by one's liking or preference, but derives from the guidlines (WP:N). I also have the feeling I already linked all the relevant guidlines about a month ago. "Neutral point of view" was already lifted by "undue weight" and now additionally by "notablitiy". Consider also WP:PROMOTION; that Wikipedia does not push fringe theories to the public by displaying them along with more relevant ideas. The issue with the "revisionist school" is, that it has not been shown to be relevant and it will not gain relevance by simply advocating it hard enough on a talkpage. Either there is evidence that the revisionist school (or however you want to call it) is more than a fringe theory or there is nothing more to talk about. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no problem with the principles expressed here. A multiple contribution should not be withdrawn entire and labeling should be avoided. The article cannot be structured on extreme theories, and such an effort should not be allowed, but I think that a structure where only conventional information is given and even a small indication of different (It is also open to debate which information will be fringe on which subject) views is considered "too much" cannot be a free encyclopedia. NGC 628 (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conflicting knowlodge[edit]

"The Shīa believe that the Quran was gathered and compiled by Muhammad during his lifetime, rather than being compiled by Uthman ibn Affan. There are other differences in the way Shias interpret the text. According to Shia, Ali ibn Abi Talib (d. 661) compiled a complete version of the Quran shortly after Muhammad's death." Which one correct? NGC 628 (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. ^ Seyyed Hossein Nasr (2015), The Study Quran, Harper Collins, p. 1578
Categories