Talk:Quranic studies
Add topic | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wdpsåxs
History of Quranic studies
[edit]The article needs a section on the history of Quranic studies. There aren't many academic publications on the topic as far as I know.
- Stewart, Devin (2017-07-20). "Reflections on the State of the Art in Western Qurʾanic Studies". Oxford Scholarship Online. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198748496.003.0001.
The source above provides a thorough analysis on the development of Quranic studies in the West. Unfortunately I don't have access to it. Leaving a comment here for anyone who might be interested. Mosesheron (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Ikhwan, Munirul (2010-12-18). "Western Studies of the Quranic Narrative: from the Historical Orientation into the Literary Analysis". Al-Jami'ah: Journal of Islamic Studies. 48 (2). Al-Jamiah Research Centre: 387–411. doi:10.14421/ajis.2010.482.387-411. ISSN 2338-557X.
- Another scholarly source that can be utilized. Mosesheron (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Reply to MightyPoof / tb / w ji regarding removal of supernatural / bias / miracles etc etc etc in the quran and over here as well
[edit]Hello MightyPoof / tb / w_ji....please be bold....and go ahead and make the chances you want to. I wholeheartedly agree on how such a “supernatural” thing can be in the quran??? The “holy book” is saturated with extraordinary scientific “facts” – as "revealed" by your nallah - so advanced that the Einsteins and Bohrs and Oppenheimers and Feynmans would be put to shame. As nallah says - the Earth is indeed flat and the Sun gets buried in muddy plains while nallah rides over his FLAT Earth on 12 flying donkeys - and then there are other extraordinary things like mohammad guzzling camelp and gorging on camelgoo and much more. So tb (oops....thats your main ac created on 2020-07-13....that "fateful" day that every tatty-originated tatty-blooded tatty-born tatty-bred tatty-faced p00slamist hated and hates and will continue to hate till the utter extinction of p00slam and its execrable dunnnggg beetle execrable adherents)....I mean w_ji....oops that also got suspended indefinitely. So mp it is now. Please go ahead - tb / w_ji / mp - be bold and remove all the objectionable supernatural unscientific parts in the most scientific advanced (soiled toilet-paper) treasure-trove of knowledge that is the mutran. Cheers. 117.194.193.119 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Yaqeen Institute as RS
[edit]Yaqeen Institute is considered a WP:RS and has been used in various Islam-relatedarticles across Wikipedia. A user has removed additions referencing Yaqeen's content without justification. OrebroVi (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have restored this content accordingly. Further discussion would be welcome per WP:BRD. OrebroVi (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion is prior to forcing edit. Where is it said Wikipedia recognizes Yaqeen Institute as WP:RS? The cited article alsos not about the academic discipline called Quranic studies. It is about ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān, translated there as Quranic studies. but distinct. Quick res is to make Quranic sciences and place content there. Pogenplain (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yaqeen is a research institute. It uses the term Quranic studies. Your WP:OR concluding their academic content has nothing to do with Quranic studies is unjustified. Your personal point of view (see WP:PPOV) is not enough to claim a referenced source from a research institute about Quranic studies does not have anything to do with this article. OrebroVi (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also: I discussed prior to forcing an edit, on your personal talk page and here. You only responded after you chose to violate WP:3RR. OrebroVi (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just becaus I dont respond in a minute doesnt mean we reach a consensus. Is Institute for Creation Research a research institute? In no uncertain terms this isnt about the same topic, Yaqeen is on ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān with "Quranic studies" as its Eng trans. Nowhere does it say it is about the modern academic discipline. Not even a single source of the discipline is sourced.Pogenplain (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Obviously a pseudoscience apologetics group isn't a research institute. That's well known and even mentioned in the article you linked. Yaqeen Institute isn't a pseudoscience group. Not comparable. OrebroVi (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It calls itself a research institute yes. Its a religious org whose mission is to dismantle doubts about and nurture conviction in Islam, its words. https://yaqeeninstitute.ca/about-us/our-mission Pogenplain (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It works with and has published joint content under the Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University, Stanford University Medicine, Scholars@UToledo, and other similiar groups. It is undoubtedly a WP:RS. OrebroVi (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would also appreciate third-party editor input on this matter. OrebroVi (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are a great many religious&missionary orgs with scholarly collaborations.
- Whats more you must speak to its not about the academic discipline. "Quranic studies" is its trans. of ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān. It has 100 citations none from the discipline. The questions it covers are not the ones covered in this page. Pogenplain (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- The source is an article from an established research institute, Yaqeen Institute. Discussing Quranic Studies. You have provided no reasoning or Wiki policies that conflict with its WP:RS status. This source is reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. OrebroVi (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would also appreciate third-party editor input on this matter. OrebroVi (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It works with and has published joint content under the Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University, Stanford University Medicine, Scholars@UToledo, and other similiar groups. It is undoubtedly a WP:RS. OrebroVi (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It calls itself a research institute yes. Its a religious org whose mission is to dismantle doubts about and nurture conviction in Islam, its words. https://yaqeeninstitute.ca/about-us/our-mission Pogenplain (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Obviously a pseudoscience apologetics group isn't a research institute. That's well known and even mentioned in the article you linked. Yaqeen Institute isn't a pseudoscience group. Not comparable. OrebroVi (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just becaus I dont respond in a minute doesnt mean we reach a consensus. Is Institute for Creation Research a research institute? In no uncertain terms this isnt about the same topic, Yaqeen is on ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān with "Quranic studies" as its Eng trans. Nowhere does it say it is about the modern academic discipline. Not even a single source of the discipline is sourced.Pogenplain (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also: I discussed prior to forcing an edit, on your personal talk page and here. You only responded after you chose to violate WP:3RR. OrebroVi (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yaqeen is a research institute. It uses the term Quranic studies. Your WP:OR concluding their academic content has nothing to do with Quranic studies is unjustified. Your personal point of view (see WP:PPOV) is not enough to claim a referenced source from a research institute about Quranic studies does not have anything to do with this article. OrebroVi (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion is prior to forcing edit. Where is it said Wikipedia recognizes Yaqeen Institute as WP:RS? The cited article alsos not about the academic discipline called Quranic studies. It is about ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān, translated there as Quranic studies. but distinct. Quick res is to make Quranic sciences and place content there. Pogenplain (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I explained the cause of not categorizing it as WP:RS as it is a religious&missionary org whose official goal is to resolve religious doubt and nurture religious conviction.
I explained why it is not about the academic disciplinary study called Quranic studies. It is about Islamic study of Quran, ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān. I stress this distinction has precedent on Wikipedia in Hadith studies versus Hadith sciences. @Louis P. Boog:
I offer two resolutions. One. Find source we agree is WP:RS saying Al-Zarkashi founded the academic discipline. Or second. Create Quranic sciences & place material there. Quranic sciences is a grounded translation of ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān & offers a match to the content of the Yaqeen page which does not mention historical criticism or textual criticism or cite just a singular source of the academic discipline. Pogenplain (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)