Talk:Al-Fatiha

The following wording was removed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Fatiha&diff=929521686&oldid=929521385

Verse 1:6 The phrases in verse 6 (and 7), Guide us [to] the straight path, The path of those on whom you have bestowed your grace, is seen as referring to Muslims.[4]

Verse 1:7 The phrase in verse 7, those who made themselves liable to criminal cognizance/arrest (more clearly translated as, those who earned [your] wrath) is usually seen as referring to the Jews and the phrase, those who are the neglectful wanderers (more clearly translated as, those who have gone astray) is seen as referring to the Christians.[1][4] Muhammad when asked, does this mean the Jews and Christians, responded, Whom else?[15][16] The Quran: An Encyclopedia, authored by 43 Muslim and non-Muslim academics says, The Prophet interpreted those who incurred God’s wrath as the Jews and the misguided as the Christians.[5] Most commentators agree that verse 7 refers to Christians and Jews.[4][13][17][18]

Some commentators suggest that these verses do not refer to any particular religious community.[4]

Rather than what appears as WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT the issues are too important and encyclopedic to simply delete away. Suggest rather WP:PRESERVE and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM Koreangauteng (talk)

The formatting is horrible at best, the citation is a chaotic mess. From a textual point of view, the contents of these verses, de facto of the entire surah is been adressed in the sections below. Plucking out 2 verses and selectively using certain exegetes and ahadith like  صحيح البخاري to undermine a certain message for this matter is, as the name suggests 'selective referencing.' In this sense, to put it simple, when we editors feel obliged to fill the entire exegesis or ahadith of 1600 years of islamic exegesis with their inherently differing views for each verse, this entire section becomes de-jure obsolete. Edit: Using ex-muslim and us-news articles, as well as as apologetic pages does not count as secondary sources. I had to go through some really unusual sources, from apologetic pages to the afore mentioned ex-muslim-blog, to several conservative and or right winged news networks that were inserted on several occasion to the different articles regarding the respective surahs. Quiet frankly I'm really shocked. I studied Islamic Studies and a certain objectivity is a must-have. I'm saying this with my uttermost respect, since I've noticed some of your edits regarding cleaning/ordering certain sub-sections are really well done. Keep up. But the deletion of entire sections is really rough. I had to literally re-track around 34 secondary sources that were deleted, sources by renowned western scholars in Islamic Studies. You can imagine this beeing incredibly annoying then anything else. Edit 2: Context wise, a bigger issue arises from the fact that the adressed people in verse 6 & 7 can not, exclusively, refer to Jews or Christians, as is evident in the following tafsīr (see مفاتيح الغيب|& الكشاف عن حقائق التنزيل  ), but that these two religions inclusively (counting every religion that is not on the right path in the quranic sense & context) are part of a group, just like the polytheists, of going astray. This is the dominant consensus. When we start to fill this section with interprations of various different scholars (or some journalists who themselves try on Quran exegesis), allthough the content itself is explained on this very same article, then we put this entire section ad absurdum, as people will understand this very approach as an invite to edit entire lengthy exegesis sections. The text and tafsīr are pretty clear, who is adressed when talking about "following the right path" and "those who went astray". AshleighHanley82(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

AshleighHanley82 - I agree with the concerns raised, on your Talk Page, by others, about your editing methods. These concerns seem to be unresolved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AshleighHanley82 You say you have studied Islam. I too study Islam. I also study current world events.

You will be familiar with the Islamic Arabic expressions 'Taqiya' and 'Kitman'. Neither should be used in Wikipedia. Criticism of Islam is a legitimate Wikipedia topic.

You have, irrespective of WP:PG, simply deleted a large amount of material referring to Verse 1.7. Material you might not like. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT That material you trashed, had been there for more than 5 years and 500 edits.

This is what is being responded to in 2019 >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iti-dplakf4&feature=youtu.be Today, this media is much more influential than some ancient Tafsir. With all due respect, your edits tend to include these very legalistic Tafsirs (some with a POV spin). Many are almost unfathomable.

I will rewrite and simplify 1.7 taking into account your improvements. You might like to add to / modify this content. Koreangauteng (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

To prove your point, that in verse 6/7 solely christians and jews are referred to, you have posted a video from a swedish content creator with the name Sweden Dawah, which is pretty much the muslim equivalent of a missionary. Tell me that this is not the way you, as a student of Islam, approach the corpus. This is then followed by throwing words like taqīya تقیة‎ into the room. More importantly, you still use dubious news-networks as secondary sources. I, again(!), had to delete christian blogs, conservative news networks that were used as sources to explain quranic surahs. I'm shocked. Quiet literally, I'm shocked. This very short text of yours has so much POV in it, yet you seem to not notice it. What you define as the legalistic tafsīr is the dominant, madhahib مذاهب defining tafsīr, e.g. the islamic schools of law. These shaped and still shape for a time period of more then 1000 years (and ongoing) the core belief of Sunni & Shia Islam, making up of around 95-98% of all muslims. You want to ignore this. Anyways, let us try to find a consensus here. Taking all this aside, your own sources in their original wording (and yes, I really went out to the library to find and read these books), only suggest Jews (& Christians) are AMONG those who have gone astray. The original arabic wording supports it. There is a lengthy discussion somewhere on this talk-page on this very same topic. Even back then it was cautiously put into a sub-section with the premisse that it technically does not belong here due to mainstream tafsīr contradicting this. So just because it was there all the time does not justifiy it. I try my best to be as respectful as possible here, let us try to be productive: The university I'm working in has a decent amount of tafsīr-collection. I read around 8-10 from the earliest and latest tafsīr and none followed your proposed interpretation. If we are to include your proposed section, then we need to represent the overwhelmingly dominant view first, and this is pretty much the opposite of what you proposed. This hole section would then be a huge block of tafsīr and differing ahadith, context-wise a chaotic mess would be imminent, everything to explain one verse. Your text would be burried under the majority of tafsīr. Needless to say, since you included a hadith in this section, many others will see this very same approach as an invitation to push their own POV, "positive" and "negative" ahadith alike. AshleighHanley82 —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Most of the world including myself have no problems, or issues, with 1:1 to 1:6. It is Verse 1:7 which is contentious. There is currently no explanation on Wikipedia. Could you write some simple words to be included for Wikipedia readers explaining. (1) Which group, "have [you] bestowed your grace"? (2) Which group, "[have] earned [your] wrath" ? (3) Which group, "have gone astray" ? Koreangauteng (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Quiet frankly, most of the 'world' you describe is pretty much you alone who seems to be obsessed that christians and jews are the sole target of verse 1:7, whereas Asad (on the authority of) Baghawi, Zamakhshari, Razi and many more make it clear; pretty much everyone who freely choses not to follow the quranic context is adressed here. I already provided you the respective tafsīr (see above). I'm not going to repeat myself. Even Ibn Kathir who you (in this regard your sources) chose to cite, asserts that pretty much everyone, polytheists and jews/christians alike, are adressed. This is been backed by the complete lack of words for jews and christians respectively الْيَهُودُ & نَصَارَىٰ . User @AhmadF.Cheema: will soon join this discussion to give insight on this topic. Please refrain from further changing articles. It would be much appreciated if you could revert your edits on the article reg. Baqara 256 to the one that was in use for several years until we all reach a clear consensus. Deleting almost two dozen citations and their respective secondary sources then rearranging them under a different section, which doesn't fit the context of the article, is counterproductive. The fact that this verse is 'medinan/madani' belongs to the lede section, as is evident from the dozens of other articles on the countless other surahs. Edit: we have been busy rearranging some of the articles. In short: when there is a decent 'Content'-summary section please don't delete it to your gusto and create the 'notable verses section' as this completely deludes the entire article, since the reader now has no clue what the content of the surah is. The remaining fractured verses are de facto of no help because some surahs have dozens and hundred(ish) verses. By the way, feel free to join the discussion.'AshleighHanley82 —Preceding undated comment added 08:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/925273717 - Not a good source for the present case. If such sources are to be used, they at the very least need to be qualified as Islam critics etc.
• Special:Diff/928157708 - Looks like Al-Qushayri is the Nisaburi mentioned in the citation.
• Special:Diff/928176633 - Rewarded people "seen as referring to Muslims" doesn't appear to be supported in the citation. As a small side-note, Muslims here can refer to previous generations of Christians and Jews too (Qur'an 2:62).
• Special:Diff/928234825 - I seriously doubt that this chapter is looked at from this angle. The later cited references for this statement don't directly support the idea that this chapter "describes the relative theological positions" of the three groups.
• Special:Diff/928288583 - Not a good source for the present case, especially for the "daily Muslim prayers" part, islamqa.info is better, odd that Salah article already didn't have this information.

Regarding the verse 7, I believe there is a significant need to address a few general things here. When it comes to negative statements regarding non-Muslims in Islamic scripture - be it while using the term People of the Book (for Jews and Christians), the Polytheists (Mushrikeen) or the general term Kufaar - there are basically two interpretations.

1. First that these terms signify all the members of these respective groups i.e. when Jews are mentioned it means that basically every single Jew that has ever lived, and is going to live, is being included. Afaik, this is a right-wing lay-Muslim belief, a lot of even conservative scholars would distance themselves from such a simplistic understanding.
2. Second interpretation being more nuanced argues that specifically only those non-Muslims are being included who deliberately and knowingly refused to accept the truth of Islam. This understanding is related to the concept of Itmam al-Hujjat (completion of proof) in Islam i.e. when a Prophet is sent to a particular people, the messenger through arguments and miracles completely proves the truth of their message, however, some individuals for whatever worldly reason, refuse to publicly accept the correct faith. Qur'an 20:56, 28:59, and 4:165 etc. refer to this. In fact, Kaafir literally means to hide, and in this context to conceal the truth.

Furthermore, after the generation of the Prophet passes away - and with them, the clear evidence of miracles - generally, no non-Muslim can be judged to be deliberately rejecting the truth, therefore, those negative statements against disbelievers found in Muslim scripture generally don't apply to them.

Detailed article: Understanding 'Kufr' (Disbelief) from a Quranic Perspective Joseph Islam

Therefore, if Qur'an 1:7 and the related hadith are being negative towards Christians and Jews, they have to be understood under the shadow of these interpretations. Arguably, instead of all People of the Book, specifically only those who deliberately took the wrong path are being referred to here.

Regarding interpretations, in addition to the ones AshleighHanley82 pointed out above:

• Shafi Usmani interprets in the general sense and gives Christians and Jews as examples of this wrong behaviour.^[1]
• Maududi (most Westerners would consider him an Islamist) doesn't bother to mention Christians and Jews.^[2]
• The progressive Ghamidi mentions both Christians and Jews, but he is well-known for supporting the above cited second interpretation. People who are rewarded are named as Prophets, their companions, martyrs and the righteous.^[3]
• Islahi interprets in the general sense, with a group of Jews and Christians as examples, also pointing out some sincere Jews who tried to stop their society from turning to the wrong path.^[4]
• Asad doesn't mention Christians and Jews.^[5]

Regarding Q1:7 being employed to denigrate or humiliate these religious groups, I haven't personally seen this happening. Koreangauteng mentioned such usage in the case of Q5:60, but not here. Presently what has been pointed out is Islam critics believing Q1:7 to be denigrating. Personally, I think while there are other Qur'an verses which are used by Muslim right-wingers to denigrate non-Muslims, however, this verse isn't one of them, at least not in any significant quantities.

Moving ahead on the present impasse, I would argue that if this interpretation - that Q1:7 wholly and exclusively refers to all Christians and Jews - is accepted by a significant number of people (regardless of whether they are Muslim or Islam critics), a couple of short sentences regarding it probably should be included. It has to be kept in mind that this understanding is accepted by more than a fringe group. Koreangauteng will probably be able to best answer this.

If included, it probably should go something like the following: Some Islam critics believe Q1:7 denigrates all Christians and Jews, however, Muslims aren't knwon for doing this and Qur'an exegeses don't necessarily support such a belief (will probably require a secondary source citation).

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, AhmadF.Cheema. Before I add something on this topic, I think I have to clarify something: Reading the tafsīr, when I said all religions are adressed in 1:7, I of course did not mean that every single person in the past and present day is included in this collective. What I was trying to say was, that when the quranic criteria of hiding (كفر), rejection & active hostility was met, then these group of people were included (e.g. are adressed); basically this very specific group could consist of, according to the majority of tafsīr, all religious but also non-religious people, the core message being each individual is judged upon his/her individual actions. Hopefully this time it is somewhat clearer. Regarding creating a sub-section on surah al-Fatiha specifically for some verses: For the sake of a clean and well structured article, I'm not wholly convinced that fracturing contents and creating sub-sections is the way to go. I just checked the section 'Subject and Theme Matter' (which by the way should be sufficient) and noticed Maududi's tafsīr is already included in there. He is one of the more conservative exegetes on this subject matter, who (as you said) doesn't mention jews & christian at all. If there is an urgent need, then we could update this section with 1 or 2 phrases on how the majority/minority of quranic exegetes interpreted this specific verses. I do not see an improvement at all when we start to fracture sub-sections though. AshleighHanley82 (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Good start, particularly that the 1:7 content and citations, deleted by AshleighHanley82, has been there for more than 5 years and 500 edits. PS there are a multiple Islamic references / citations re Jews and Christians. https://www.al-islam.org/enlightening-commentary-light-holy-quran-vol-1/surah-al-fatihah-chapter-1 Koreangauteng (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Above is a consensus to include words on 1.7.

- agree do not separate wording into a new section

- agree do not use any citation which is not directly linked to 1:7

- agree not to cite use any non-Koranic expert re the text

- however it is legitimate in Wikipedia to use a non-Muslim (such as the well-credentialed Andrew Bostom) to provide insights into the CONSEQUENCES of 1.7 Koreangauteng (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The following is what I think section Al-Fatiha#Verses 1:6 - 1:7 should be:

Don't believe a paragraph dedicated to JCPA is relevant here. Comments?

Furthermore, somewhat relevant is the Hebrew Bible mentioning Jews evoking God's wrath (Exodus 32, Jeremiah 44).

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the recent disputed edit, since I was the one who wrote that portion, thought I should make the intended meaning more clear.

Probably a lot of commentators do consider the verse as a reference towards Jews and Christians. Arguably, there is nothing extraordinary here; most, if not all, ideologies believe other ideologies' followers to be astray and regarding God's wrath, as mentioned above, the Hebrew Bible mentions similar things too (Exodus 32, Jeremiah 44).

Then, the Islam critics come, who move some steps further and argue that this verse is a special hateful, cursing, bigoted statement specifically and exclusively directed towards Christians and Jews.

After this, is the - However, most Islamic scholars have interpreted these verses as... - portion, which denotes the apparent contradiction with the critics position of exclusive bigotry. In short, in this sentence it is not the reference to non-Muslims that is primarily being denied, but the special negative meaning given by critics which is apparently being contradicted by the commentaries.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

You might find this article of interest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles

Koreangauteng (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

There are citations supporting each alternative position.

The article currently reads "However, most Islamic scholars have interpreted these verses as referring exclusively not to a specific group of people . . . ."

The specific, and contradictory, citations relevant the "most" claim:

Position 1 "Most commentators have included the Jews . . . " ^[1]

Position 2 "According to almost all the commentators . . . synonymous with the evil consequences which man brings upon himself . . ."^[2]

Recommend the article should read: "However, other Islamic scholars have interpreted these verses as referring exclusively not to a specific group of people . . ." Koreangauteng (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Ahmad Cheema. The concerns regarding Jews and Christians is already mentioned in the first sentence. The third sentence is a counterweight to the second by Bostom, not the first. NPOV requires proper countercriticism to be mentioned which is properly reflected in the articles current state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.150.134 (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the above, as the quote used in Antisemitism in Islam reads: ... Most commentators have included [not exclusively identified] the Jews among [meaning this is not singular, and there are others] those who have "incurred" divine wrath...". Also an off-topic clarification, in the summary for Special:Diff/936203495 I meant the info in Afsaruddin's citation was apparently already included in Qur'an 2:256 and not that the citation itself was included. — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Referring to Special:Diff/937072514, in the cited video only the second instance, where the example of Seinfeld is given, comes close to the all Jews interpretation; on the other hand, everyone else refers to the same "Muslim commentators often believe past generations of Jews and Christians as an example of those evoking God's anger and those who went astray, respectively" and not "an exclusive condemnation of all Jews and Christians from all times."

• The first religious leader refers to the "apes" punishment, however, as Q7:163-170 clearly note, even here not all Jews were punished such.

"And when a community among them said, "Why do you advise [or warn] a people whom Allah is [about] to destroy or to punish with a severe punishment?" they [the advisors] said, "To be absolved before your Lord and perhaps they may fear Him." And when they forgot that by which they had been reminded, We saved those who had forbidden evil and seized those who wronged, with a wretched punishment, because they were defiantly disobeying. ... And We divided them throughout the earth into nations. Of them some were righteous, and of them some were otherwise. ... But those who hold fast to the Book [probably referring to Jews here too] and establish prayer - indeed, We will not allow to be lost the reward of the reformers."

Therefore, this can't be used as referring to all Jews.

• The second one is apparently the only one, closest to the all Jews interpretation.
• The third and fourth one, refer to the same context already mentioned in the article, they do not explicitly state "all Jews and Christians from all times."
• The fifth one says: "Pointing specifically at different groups here, as we said, although the aayat include all the non-Muslims, whether they be Christians or Jew or other than them, but... because they ... knew and yet they rejected it ... If you look at many of the Christians today...".
• The sixth one states: "... because they had knowledge, they have knowledge but they don't act on this knowledge...". Therefore, people who believe that all Jews accept Islam as the truth but deliberately publicly reject it, only such individuals can argue that this is referring to all Jews.
• Then the exegesis is quoted, which speaks in the past tense "... but deviated from this truth... thus deserved the Wrath ... deviated from the Message..." - again, not a reference to "all Jews and Christians from all times."
• The next exegesis also refers to the already present article context, and does not explicitly mention "all Jews and Christians from all times."

Using such a citation here appears more than a little misleading, might even fall under WP:UNDUE. I would argue, the lone "Seinfeld" instance is related to the context of the two general interpretations on how disbelievers are overall viewed in Islam (as I mentioned in Special:Diff/929733160) and therefore relevant in Islam and other religions and not here.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

i think for more deeper insight the history of the last verses exegesis should be included in this article too... as far as i knew it came first from the hadith of Ibn Abbas Ahendra (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

1.9 billion Muslims could / should recite these words in Arabic, "at least 17 times during the five daily prayers".

119.155.29.184 ( and 165.120.15.119 and 46.212.241.21 ) You need to prove to Wikipedia you are not WP:SOCKPUPPETs. Re your thoughts about YouTube - where in WP:PG do they come from?

AhmadF.Cheema While I appreciate your Wiki-diligence and could strongly rebut the points (above) you raise, I will put the paragraph under Antisemitism in Islam.

The 1.7 matter is still unresolved.

Finally - in 2020 all over the world, Quran exegesis via the various web platforms is much more influential, than an ancient commentary sitting on a dusty library shelf. Koreangauteng (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

No, IP editors do not have to prove they are not sockpuppets. As for the disputed content, neither a vague statement that 'some Muslims' believe something, nor primary-sourced evidence (from YouTube or elsewhere) that specific Muslims believe the same thing belongs in the article unless a proper secondary source can be found that suggests such beliefs are of significance. One can find all sorts of evidence that individuals of all faiths (or none) believe all sorts of things, but such findings don't belong in an encyclopaedia unless one can at minimum find a reliable source that tells the reader how common such beliefs are.

And as for your comments on how many Muslims say their daily prayers, and on 2020, please read WP:NOTFORUM 165.120.15.119 (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

165.120.15.119 " . . . such findings don't belong in an encyclopaedia unless one can at minimum find a reliable source that tells the reader how common such beliefs are." Wow! This and the other points you raise are all debatable. Koreangauteng (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

If my points are 'debatable', please explain why. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)→

Koreangauteng my man, we've been arguing about this for over a month now. By now we're simply retiriating arguments. Reviewing the talk page this discussion was also had 5 years ago (See content 15 of this page, It's where your source comes from, also note the ancient editors responses) and a few times since.

There is really no real reason for this article to hyper-focus on verses 6,7 when there is zero commentary on the previous verses.

On your insistence some POV criticism has been allowed but now you're trying to add even more criticism while trying to diminish the balancing counter-argument presented. This is clearly an unjustified POV push.

P.S Muhammad Asad says nothing about Jews. Previously you've (deliberately or not) wrongly been claiming that he does.

User LissanX recently substantially reformatted the Contents section of the page, and in doing so added a postscript to the prayer which I cannot find any reference for:

صَدَقَ ٱللَّٰهُ ٱلْعَلِيُّ ٱلْعَظِيمُ

ṣadaqa -llāhu l-ʿalīyu l-ʿaẓīmu

/sˤa.da.qa ‿ɫ.ɫaː.hu ‿l.ʕa.lij.ju ‿l.ʕa.ðˤiː.mu/

God, the Exalted, the Great, has spoken the truth.

Some brief searching for the translation returns a lot of results from Bahá'í sources, making me wonder if this isn't an addition peculiar to that tradition. For the time being, I've added a {{citation needed}} template, but if anyone can provide more relevant information, I would be much obliged. 104.246.223.26 (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out.

This phrase is not part of this, or any, Surah, however, in some Muslim communities the recitation of the Qur'an is often customarily ended with this phrase. Some Muslim scholars are fine with this practice, but others look at it more unfavourably. Because of the somewhat controversial nature, I think this should be removed from here, especially considering the fact that this Surah is the first and one of the most important of the Qur'an.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Abdul Basit 'Abd us-Samad, who is arguably the most the most renowned Qur'an reciter in history, included it in his recitations.

It’s mentioned in several Islamic sources. For example:

فأخبرني ما ابتداء القرآن وما ختمه قال يا ابن سلام ابتداؤه بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم وختمه صدق الله العلي العظيم قال صدقت يا محمد

An example of it's shorter variant without العلي:

صدَق الشَّخصُ/ صدَقَ الشَّخصُ في الأمر: أخبر بالواقع كما هو، عكس كذب "كان يصدُق دائمًا- {قَالَ سَنَنْظُرُ أَصَدَقْتَ أَمْ كُنْتَ مِنَ الْكَاذِبِينَ} " صدَق الله العظيم: خاتمة تقالُ بعد تلاوة القرآن.

The widely accepted view is that it is the post-Surah phrase. It would be a mistake to remove it due to a minority view. It would be better to mention the fact that not all Muslims approve of it's inclusion. — LissanX (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, first there is a need to provide a reference that this is the "widely accepted view", second it'll have to be shown that the alternate view belongs only to a tiny minority, which appears to be impossible since islamqa.info which often represents the prevailing Wahhabi position supports the alternate view.

Furthermore, there isn't even a necessity to include the phrase here as it isn't actually part of the Surah; maybe include it in Qira'at? As long as the issue remains a matter of difference of opinion, it appears difficult to justify the phrase's inclusion here.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect, the Wahhabi denomination is itself a very small fragment of the Muslim world. The world's approximately 1.6 billion Muslim population are divided into the following main denominations:

1) Hanafi Sunni Muslims: 35%

2) Shafei Sunni Muslim: 25%

3) Shia Muslims: 20%

4) Maliki Sunni Muslims: 15%

5) Hanbali Sunni Muslims: 4%

6) Salafi Muslims: 1%

Of course, Wahhabism is mostly made up of mostly the Hanbali population, which accounts for only 4% of the total population. Salafism is often considered synonymous or comparable with Wahhabism, and if we combine the two, and assume all Hanbalis are also Wahhabis, we only get 5%. That leaves 95% of the total Muslim population.

Of course, now what’s left is to demonstrate that the other 95% accept the phrase. I’ve done so partially above, but can add more sources if need be when I have the opportunity. — LissanX (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

5% or even less is still more than a "tiny minority"; furthermore, Wahabbism has significant political and financial clout, also a number of times their interpretations are accepted by other groups too (like these Hanafis and another group); all this makes their opinions even more significant. If Wahabbi opinions are being argued to be too fringe then shouldn't their arguments be removed from all other Wikipedia articles too?

Including this phrase here definitely means speaking in Wikivoice, wrongly insinuating there is no significant difference-of-opinion on the issue. If the phrase was actually relevant to the Surah (like if it was part of one of those alternate recitations) then it could've been argued that it deserves inclusion even in the presence of alternate views, however, this is obviously not the case. The phrase is completely irrelevant to the Surah content, and is relevant only to Qur'an recitation.

With respect, I still believe it's wrong to include this phrase in such a manner, especially considering the irrelevance of it.

— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Any further response on this? — AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to have multiple translations in the article. One should be enough, probably Sahih International.VR _talk 22:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not adverse to adding Sahih International, as it is an easy read and I am inclined to agree there are more translations than needed. However Sahih International is problematic. To me it has a very clear Agenda: to obfuscate Islam's obvious judeo-Christian heritage. Its failure to translate Allah as God, being an example, the purpose of which is to further miseducate non-Arab speakers and uneducated Muslims into the mindset that we are talking about two different deities. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This argument seems like a stretch; is there any evidence for such an agenda other than this word choice? All four of the translations currently in the article use "Allah" not "God". The same deity is referred to by different names even within the same mythology; see Names of God. Evem when a character in one mythology is derived from a character in another, it's common practice on Wikipedia and in the world in general to use different names to refer to the different versions. For example, Zeus vs. Jupiter. -- Beland (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed the redundant translations again after they were added by Wulverine claws.

Another redundancy is inclusion of both the Hafs and Warsh versions of the Arabic. Since this is the English Wikipedia, readers are only expected to be able to read English. Having the original Arabic text there at all might be justified as educational for the bilingual or those who are curious about Arabic. But having two versions of the same text that are unreadable to most readers is not helpful, unless we are discussing the differences (which in this article we aren't). -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Beland: I have reverted the article to a version without translations/transliterations. I would suggest we streamline all religious texts by presenting a short summary instead of text (including both transliterations and translations to avoid controversy) such as in Book of Genesis, preferably using a reputable tafsir (I've used Ibn Kathir). AccordingClass (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

To prevent Islamophobia--24.173.222.94 (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wulverine claws: If the phrase "[The scholars] disagree over whether [Bismillah] is a separate Ayah before every Surah, or if it is an Ayah, or a part of an Ayah, included in every Surah where the Bismillah appears in its beginning" isn't self explanatory, let me break it down for you: Ibn Kathir isn't the only authority when it comes to Quranic exegesis, nor has he come up with the tafsir/exegesis himself. Ibn Kathir simply happened to compile the opinions of various sahaba, tabi`in, and other scholars into his tafsir, which explains why he has gone to great lengths to include each and every quotation. In the following paragraph, Ibn Kathir explains that the following sahaba/tabi`in/scholars have the following views:

The Bismillah is an ayah and part of every surah, except At-Tawbah (leaving Al-Fatiha with 7 ayat):

• Ibn `Abbas
• Ibn `Umar
• Ibn Az-Zubayr
• Abu Hurayrah
• `Ali
• among others

The Bismillah is not an ayah nor a part of any surah (leaving Al-Fatiha with 6 ayat):

• Malik
• Abu Hanifah
• among others

The Bismillah is an ayah but not part of any surah (leaving Al-Fatiha with 6 ayat):

• Dawud

Please do not revert the article without properly going through the cited references.

—AccordingClass (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course if you remove one ayah from 7 it becomes 6. And my math is good

But those who disagree with the first opinion especially non-kufic scholars they divide the last ayah into 2.(refer 7 different recitation of Quran)

Allah says in the chapter 15 al hijr verse 87 of the Qur'an:

وَلَقَدْ ءَاتَيْنَـٰكَ سَبْعًا مِّنَ ٱلْمَثَانِى وَٱلْقُرْءَانَ ٱلْعَظِيمَ

And We have certainly given you, [O Muḥammad], seven of the often repeated [verses] and the great Qur’ān.

(Seven often repeated verses refers to al fatiha)

Read more for the evidance

(Copied from Tafsir Ibn Kathir on quran.com) There were some differences among the scholars over the meaning of "seven of the Mathani. Ibn Mas`ud, Ibn `Umar, Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Ad-Dahhak and others said that they are the seven long (Surahs), meaning Al-Baqarah, Al- `Imran, An-Nisa', Al-Ma'idah, Al-An`am, Al-A`raf and Yunus. There are texts to this effect reported from Ibn `Abbas and Sa`id bin Jubayr. Sa`id said: "In them, Allah explains the obligations, the Hudud (legal limits), stories and rulings. Ibn `Abbas said, "He explains the parables, stories and lessons. The second opinion is that they (the seven of the Mathani) are Al-Fatihah, which is composed of seven Ayat. This was reported from `Ali, `Umar, Ibn Mas`ud and Ibn `Abbas. Ibn `Abbas said: "The Bismillah, is completing seven Ayah, which Allah has given exclusively to you (Muslims). This is also the opinion of Ibrahim An-Nakha`i, `Abdullah bin `Umayr, Ibn Abi Mulaykah, Shahr bin Hawshab, Al-Hasan Al-Basri and Mujahid. Al-Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, recorded two Hadiths on this topic. (The first) was recorded from Abu Sa`id bin Al-Mu`alla, who said: "The Prophet passed by me while I was praying. He called out for me but I did not come until I finished my prayer. Then I came to him, and He asked,

«مَا مَنَعَكَ أَنْ تَأْتِيَنِي؟» (What stopped you from coming to me) I said, `I was praying'. He said,

«أَلَمْ يَقُلِ اللهُ (`Did not Allah say يأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ اسْتَجِيبُواْ لِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ إِذَا دَعَاكُمْ (O you who believe! Answer Allah (by obeying Him) and (His) Messenger when he calls you...) 8:24

أَلَا أُعَلِّمُكَ أَعْظَمَ سُورَةٍ فِي الْقُرْآنِ قَبْلَ أَنْ أَخْرُجَ مِنَ الْمَسْجِد» (Shall I not teach you the most magnificent Surah before I leave the Masjid) Then the Prophet went to leave the Masjid, and I reminded him, so he said,

الْحَمْدُ للَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَـلَمِينَ ("Al-Hamdu Lillahi Rabbil-'Alamin All praises and thanks be to Allah, the Lord of all that exists)(1:2).

هِيَ السَّبْعُ الْمَثَانِي وَالْقُرْآنُ الَّذِي أُوتِيتُه» (This is the seven of the Mathani and the Qur'an which I have been given.) (The second Hadith) was reported from Abu Hurayrah who said that the Messenger of Allah said:

«أُمُّ الْقُرْآنِ هِيَ السَّبْعُ الْمَثَانِي وَالْقُرْآنُ الْعَظِيم» (Umm Al-Qur'an (the Mother or the Essence of the Qur'an,) is the seven Mathani, and the Grand Qur'an.) This means that Al-Fatihah is the seven Mathani and the Grand Qur'an, but this does not contradict the statement that the seven Mathani are the seven long Surahs, because they also share these attributes, as does the whole Qur'an. As Allah says,

اللَّهُ نَزَّلَ أَحْسَنَ الْحَدِيثِ كِتَـباً مُّتَشَـبِهاً مَّثَانِيَ (Allah has sent down the best statement, a Book (this Qur'an), its parts resembling each other in goodness and truth, oft-recited) (39:23). So it is oft-recited in one way, and its parts resemble one another in another way, and this is also the Grand Qur'an.

لاَ تَمُدَّنَّ عَيْنَيْكَ إِلَى مَا مَتَّعْنَا بِهِ أَزْوَاجًا مِّنْهُمْ (Look not with your eyes ambitiously at what We have given to certain classes of them) 20: 131 meaning, be content with the Grand Qur'an that Allah has given to you, and do not long for the luxuries and transient delights that they have.

لاَ تَمُدَّنَّ عَيْنَيْكَ (Look not with your eyes ambitiously) Al-`Awfi reported that Ibn `Abbas said: "He in this Ayah forbade a man to wish for what his companion has.

إِلَى مَا مَتَّعْنَا بِهِ أَزْوَاجًا مِّنْهُمْ (at what We have given to certain classes of them,) Mujahid said: "This refers to the rich. wlvrnclws 22:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Saba' Mathani meaning seven often repeated (or recited Verses). wlvrnclws 23:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wulverine claws: It is not entirely clear whether these verses refer to Al-Fatiha. They might, but whether or not we include that in this encyclopedia, is entirely subject to the interpretation of scholars–we cannot directly include text from the Quran here. As such, the opinions of all scholars and Islamic groups has to be considered before we put out a message saying "Al-Fatiha has 6 ayat and 6 ayat only."

Do not revert this article again, or I will have to report you vandalizing it. The fact is–and yes, this is a fact–scholars disagree on whether the Basmalah is part of any surah, let alone Al-Fatiha, and we have to take that into account.

—AccordingClass (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

You ask for the clear proof,

Narrated Abu Sa‘îd bin Al-Mu‘alla: While I was praying in the mosque, Allâh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم called me but I did not respond to him. Later I said, "O Allâh’s Messenger, I was praying." He said, "Didn’t Allâh say - Answer Allâh (by obeying Him) and His Messenger when he صلى الله عليه وسلم calls you." (V.8:24). He then said to me, "I will teach you a Sûrah which is the greatest Sû rah in the Qur’ân, before you leave the mosque." Then he got hold of my hand, and when he intended to leave (the mosque), I said to him, "Didn’t you say to me, "I will teach you a Sûrah which is the greatest Sûrah in the Qur’an?" He said, " Al-Hamdu lillahi Rabbil-‘âlamîn [i.e. all the praises and thanks be to Allâh, the Lord of the ‘Âlamîn (mankind, jinn and all that exists)], Sûrat Al-Fâtihah which is As-Sab‘ Al-Mathâni (i.e. the seven repeatedly recited Verses) and the Grand Qur’ân which has been given to me." (Sahih Al-Bukhâri, Vol.6, Hadîth No. 1).

In this hadith it is clearly mentioned that alfatihah is saba mathani (seven often repeatedly reciting verse) and the second thing is you do not have the clear evidence that the alfatiha is of 6 verses, because of scholars dispute over basmalah, it doesn't mean that al fatihah has 6 verses.

And those (scholars or anybody) who say that al fatihah is of 6 verses let them bring the authentic source.

May be alfatihah is of 6 verses and I am wrong, I just ask you for clear and reliable source but you are not able to bring it.

And at last if you bring the proper source of 6 verses then I am not going to revert it again. And I don't want to be amongst the ignorant. wlvrnclws 14:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

In the commentary, it says Allah is a proper name belonging only to the one Almighty God, Creator and Sustainer of the heavens and the earth and all that is within them, the Eternal and Absolute, to whom alone all worship is due. This implies that Wikipedia is a Muslim website that promotes Islamic ideology since it doesn't point out the fact that it is from an Islamic point of view. I suggest we add this somehow. Pro translator (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This section consists of: the original Arabic; a transliteration into Roman letters; and an attempt at an English version. Any 'meaning' is entirely absent. I would respectfully suggest that the section might be re-titled simply 'Verses', or perhaps 'The seven verses'. MinorProphet (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

I've created a video for the recitation of Al-Fatiha with English translation. Please add this file for people to understand Al-Fatiha as I think it is very valuable.

Thanks.

Dropbox LINK : https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zlvfzok10zt2pb2nicqc2/Quran-Ch1-The-Opener.mp4?rlkey=zdqxneuae91b7blyfin84pu74&dl=0

Other link : https://file.io/x6qGM79jOhES 2001:56A:78E7:6200:3465:4CA5:FD95:E532 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I checked several citations in this article. All references in the 'References' section are legit, with digital reference links leading to live, existing pages while non-digital references do lead to a real, verifiable source. Though, an exception exists for reference #2, as it was invoked.

Sources match the claim, meaning the source is relevant to and addresses the claim it follows.

Overall, the article makes use of reliable sources, although there seems to be an over-reliance on Qur'an websites, like quran.com. This risks the article leaning too much on internal religious sources. Utilizing more scholarly and academic sources, from both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars would strengthen the article. --NightInAl-Andalus (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2025 (UTC)