Talk:Quran

I added a media at it's proper position why removing it? Ibrahimmusa4 (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Assalamualaykum @Ibrahimmusa4: I kindly ask you not to add the recitations you've been adding to the page as these recitations obviously do not have a consensus/agreement to be added, as they've been removed by another user as well.

Firstly, the murattal recitation you've added is not only irrelevant to the article, but contains a major tilawat error that would render it inappropriate to add & is a violation of the obligatory rules of tajweed (pronouncing the هُ as a "khaa" (خ)).

Secondly, there is no reason to add another mujawwad recitation of Al-Fatiha to the article. You've already added it to Mujawwad, and I would believe that should be removed as well since there's already a recitation in place that is more widely used, but I've left it as is because at least there is a connection between the mp3 and the article. There is none to be seen here in this page.

Barakallahu feek & may God accept from you. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand. I love your dua, Thanks Ibrahimmusa4 (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

noting that I've removed that audio file from the Mujawwad article because of some wrong pronunciations of the letter ر and the unnecessary changes of tones and the repetition of الرحمن الرحيم for no reason 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the "Contents > As a source of law and judgment" section has several problems.

First, "hadd crimes" should be "hudud crimes", as it's a plural.

Second, "continued until the last century" is ambiguous, especially as the note attached to it is about the 10th century. It means the 20th century, but without context it could be referring to "the last century" of something. This should be changed to "continued until the 20th century"

The rest of that sentence simply doesn't make sense grammatically, lacks citations, only mentions the minority Shi'i tradition which is misleading, and is out of scope in a page about the Quran.

My suggestion for this is: "The widespread use of slavery in the Islamic world continued until the 20th century,[note 5] including the sexual use of female slaves, which is permitted in the Quran. Although modern interpretations largely view slavery as a historical rather than religious necessity, these views differ from historical practices, which classical jurists justified using Quranic passages.[citation needed]"

This corrects the grammar, keeps the points focused and relevant to the Quran, removes the irrelevant note 6, and mentions the need for citation. Bragison8 (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

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)