Talk:Quran

I’m editing from my phone and the image is not visible. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change: "While it devotes considerable space to some of these narratives, does not quote any paragraph from these sources directly,[e] summarizes and uses different versions of some in different sections."

To: "While it devotes considerable space to some of these narratives, it does not quote any paragraph from these sources directly,[e] but summarizes and uses different versions of some in different sections."

Reason: The original sentence is missing a subject after the comma. Adding "it" corrects the grammar. The word "but" also improves the flow between the two clauses. AunSheraz (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. As you discovered, you're autoconfirmed and can edit yourself. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Is “It assumes the reader is familiar with the significant narratives found in the Biblical and apocryphal texts.” the best choice here? I wonder if “It alludes to significant narratives” might be more neutral and accurate.

I’m suggesting “alludes to” because it’s balanced and does not imply the reader must already know these stories, though readers can explore them further for additional context and guidance if they wish. N2225Lba2 (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The relevant section should be restructured to provide at least brief answers to the questions mentioned at the beginning, and to avoid sensationalist discussions. NGC 628 (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Anachronist I noticed my edit about qirāʾāt was reverted as a “misrepresentation.” Could you please clarify which part you consider inaccurate? I want to make sure I understand your concern correctly.

Tinyimpo (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

The lead section of any article is supposed to be a concise summary of key points described in the body of the article. See MOS:LEAD. Your edit completely changed the meaning of what the lead section stated, and ended up misrepresenting (actually stating the opposite of) the article body, which specifically mentions changes in meaning. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Could you please point to the exact part of the text that you consider a misrepresentation and compare it with the current lead? I’d like to better understand your concern.

Also, since the wording was based on the linked qirāʾāt article, could you clarify how it conflicts with that? Tinyimpo (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

You wrote about "differences in wording and nuance that do not change the core meaning". The body of the article doesn't state this; in fact it says "It is generally stated that there are small differences between readings. However, these small changes may also include differences that may lead to serious differences in Islam, ranging from the definition of God to practices such as the formal conditions of ablution." This is the opposite of what you wrote.

I admit I didn't read the Qira'at article carefully enough, which does say that different dialectical versions are also different in meanings (the part I noticed), but the part I didn't notice was that these changes don't lead to doctrinal differences.

I am not sure how to consolidate those two conflicting statements. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Anachronist for pointing that out. I agree with your point regarding the lead’s relationship to the body.

The current lead, "There are, however, variant readings, with some differences in meaning. It is the object of a modern field of academic research known as Quranic studies." doesn’t seem fully aligned with the broader consensus found in the linked Qira'at article, which may raise a WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issue. While my edit aimed to improve the neutrality of the lead, I see now that the article body itself lacks the necessary context to support that balance. I appreciate you highlighting this discrepancy.

To address this, it may be worth neutralizing the wording and incorporate the missing context into both the body and the lead, ensuring the article is aligned with WP:NPOV and maintained with internal consistency across the project.

Are there other sections that might present similar inconsistencies, excluding this: "It is generally stated that there are small differences between readings. However, these small changes may also include differences that may lead to serious differences in Islam, ranging from the definition of God to practices such as the formal conditions of ablution."

For context: This phrasing "serious differences..." was introduced on 19 July 2024 by User:NGC_628.

@NGC 628 Could you please provide the specific page number or passage from the cited source that supports the "serious differences" phrasing? Per WP:V, a direct citation would help clarify this for such a significant claim or whether this risks crossing into WP:NOR.

Regarding citation [299], the source is "Combat with the Self" by Al-Hurr al-Amili, Muhammad (2003). We should ensure the source context and verification are aligned with the article's claims. To maintain WP:WEIGHT, it is essential that the significant views represented in the Qira'at article are balanced here as well. Currently, I’m not sure if the cited source supports the specific claim that variant readings lead to "serious differences in Islam." Tinyimpo (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

The relevant section has been revised with clearer wording and a more accurate source. NGC 628 (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Could you please clarify whether the cited source presents “serious differences in Islam” as a widely accepted consensus? What is meant by “serious differences in Islam,” and how does the source address differences in Quran, Qira'at, and scholarly interpretation?

The current Quran article appears to conflict with the Qira'at article, which notes that variations do not affect core doctrine. To maintain WP:NPOV and avoid undue weight, should we clarify that these differences are often interpretive nuances rather than fundamental doctrinal shifts? Tinyimpo (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The general presentation by the ulema is that the differences in readings do not go beyond a few pronunciation variations. But this is not true everywhere; differences in practice and theological understanding cannot be included within the scope of "minor pronunciation differences," and I wanted to emphasize this. The expression is my own. NGC 628 (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The main issue is that “serious differences in Islam” is editorial characterization not explicitly present in the sources provided. Per WP:NOR and WP:V, we cannot introduce conclusions or emphasize points in Wikipedia’s voice unless they are clearly and explicitly stated in reliable sources. Strong claims about differences require clear sourcing and careful balance. If sources discuss legal or theological implications of variant readings, those can be included, but they should either follow the source closely or be properly attributed (e.g., “some/minority scholars note...”). Without that, this phrasing risks synthesis (WP:NOR) and undue weight (WP:UNDUE) by overstating a contested position.

To maintain WP:NPOV, we should reflect the full context, including mainstream scholarship and Islamic theology. For example, Quran 4:82 states: “Will they not then contemplate the Qur’an? And if it had been from (any where) other than the Providence of Allah, indeed they would have found in it many difference (s)." source: https://myislam.org/surah-an-nisa/ayat-82/.

A constructive way forward would be to revise the wording with consensus to match what sources explicitly say, properly attribute interpretive or minority views, remove wording if no reliable source supports a claim, and ensure consistency with the Qira’at article and the body per MOS:LEAD, as discussed above.

I’d also welcome @Anachronist’s input here. Tinyimpo (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The Quran is the fundamental basis of Shia Islam, Sunni Islam, Ibadism, and Ahmadiyya. I would say all of those have significant doctrinal differences. Wouldn't that suggest that these differences arise from the different readings of the Quran? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

That may be a valid line of inquiry, but we can’t infer causation without explicit reliable sources. As it stands, this risks WP:NOR and undue weight. If there are sources directly linking doctrinal differences to variant readings, please cite them so we can reflect that appropriately. Tinyimpo (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The phrase “serious differences in Islam” appears unsourced and may constitute editorial synthesis (WP:NOR, WP:V). If a reliable source supporting this wording exists, please provide it; otherwise it may be removed and reworded for neutrality. Tinyimpo (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

It hasn't said that since @NGC 628 changed it, but now the sentence is so garbled it's incomprehensible, and cites a source that is inaccessible and may be a wiki or a self-published source that we can't cite. Repair it if you know how, or remove it. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The lead states "preserving the core message", without explicating what this "core message" is, nordoes the body. So, what is this "core message"? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)