Talk:Al-Baqara

2:191

this verse is often quoted in anti-islamic rants as proof that islam is inherently violent. could somebody discuss the verse in context here (even if just 2:190 is included, it starts to sound much less belligerent)?

002.190
  YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not
  transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
002.191
  YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from
  where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse
  than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they
  (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the
  reward of those who suppress faith.

dab 14:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As so often, Tafsir Ibn Kathir is illuminating: its original audience saw the point of the verse as being to ban attacks against those who hadn't attacked you, the fact that you would fight those who had attacked you being considered self-evident. - Mustafaa 13:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

sure, but selective quoting usually gives only "And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out", which sounds of course much less reassuring :o) nice addition, though. And you are right, possibly 9:5 is even more often quoted in this context. dab 13:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Still a stub?

It looks pretty full to me. If no-one objects for a couple of days, I'll remove the stub tag PaulHammond 02:27, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What proof is there that anything was revealed? Until proof is furnished, I'm adding the qualifier "allegedly" to every groundless claim of revelation for objectivity's sake. - JCuesicus (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sura name

Although the sura does tell the story of the Golden Calf, it is not named after it. It is named after the story of another cow that the Israelites were told to sacrifice in order to know the murderer by the recussitated victim (see ayas 67 to 73)translation.

I think the proper translation of the name should be the Heifer in connection with the Jewish sacrificial practice. Plus, there seems to be precedent (see verse 67 here)for such a translation. -- hakeem ^rant! 03:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

archived link to translation of ayas 67 to 73 (February 1, 2008) Jimw338 (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Actually you can find the background of the story of the cow in Deuteronomy 21:3

"If one is found slain in the land which the Lord your God gives you to possess, lying in the field, and it is not known who has killed him, 3 the elders of that city shall take a heifer which has never been worked, never pulled in the yoke"

"70 They said: Pray for us unto thy Lord that He make clear to us what (cow) she is. Lo! cows are much alike to us; and Lo! if Allah wills, we may be led aright. 71 (Moses) answered: Lo! He saith: Verily she is a cow unyoked; she plougheth not the soil nor watereth the tilth; whole and without mark. They said: Now thou bringest the truth. So they sacrificed her, though almost they did not" Qur'an 2:70

Salama Mando Salama (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

what's in front of them

In the the original Arabic the verse reads:" what is between their hands" scholars have agreed that it means their present, mainly Mohamed Metwaly El Sharawy. --The Brain 03:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

split

I want consencus for spliting out Al-Baqara, 256 since it is such a prominently quoted verse. also, i want to creat an article based on ^{[Quran 2:62]}, ^{[Quran 5:69]} and ^{[Quran 22:17]}. Comments? --Striver 15:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What more would there be to say about it? -- tariqabjotu 18:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have anything this very second, but im sure you will agree there is ample potential material, it just takes some research. --Striver 19:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have somethinmg to add, add it it to this section. Once this gets too long, you can than split off an article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Allegedly proselytizing section?

Hi I removed the below section from the article, allegedly its proselytizing,

Imam Ahmad said that Abu Nu`aym narrated to them that Bishr bin Muhajir said that `Abdullah bin Buraydah narrated to him from his father, "I was sitting with the Prophet and I heard him say, "Learn Surat Al-Baqarah, because in learning it there is blessing, in ignoring it there is sorrow, and the sorceresses cannot memorize it." He kept silent for a while and then said, "Learn Surat Al-Baqarah and Al-i-Imran because they are two lights and they shade their people on the Day of Resurrection, just as two clouds, two spaces of shade or two lines of (flying) birds. The Quran will meet its companion in the shape of a pale-faced man on the Day of Resurrection when his grave is opened. The Qur'an will ask him, 'Do you know me' The man will say, 'I do not know you.' The Qur'an will say, 'I am your companion, the Qur'an, which has brought you thirst during the heat and made you stay up during the night. Every merchant has his certain trade. But, this Day, you are behind all types of trade.' Kingship will then be given to him in his right hand, eternal life in his left hand and the crown of grace will be placed on his head. His parents will also be granted two garments that the people of this life could never afford. They will say, 'Why were we granted these garments' It will be said, 'Because your son was carrying the Qur'an.' It will be said (to the reader of the Qur'an), 'Read and ascend through the levels of Paradise.' He will go on ascending as long as he recites, whether reciting slowly or quickly." Ibn Majah also recorded part of this Hadith from Bishr bin Al-Muhajir, and this chain of narrators is Hasan, according to the criteria of Imam Muslim.

NëŧΜǒńğer^{Talk to me} 07:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is that the quotations don't really illuminate the subject of the article. According to Wikipedia policy, an encyclopedia article must not rely on internal or circular references from WP:PRIMARY sources (in this case, internal to a religious framework). Articles should be about subjects, relying on secondary and tertiary sources considered WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFIABLE.

It should be enough simply to mention the individual narrators and hadith that reference this Surat. The actual quotations are not really relevant except to Muslims, and Wikipedia is neither a Muslim encyclopedia nor a Qur'an concordance. Anyone who is interested should be able to click on a link to look up the quotation if desired. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I am not sure how you assert that the Quotations about the Surat are only relevant to Muslims, this assumption is pretty puerile by any measurement, in my thinking Muslims would be the last people to lookup wikipedia for Islam related matters, anyhow I totally agree that wikipedia is not a Muslim encyclopedia, nor a Qur'an concordance, for that matter not a concordance of anything (properly). I was hoping for much more constructive feedback from experienced editors. Anyhow my effort is only to improve the article in any possible way I can rather than removing text that otherwise can be improved. If we keep removing edits of new users with prejudice we will simply frustrate good editors who otherwise would be helpful to the project. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Talk to me} 01:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.acis.pamplin.vt.edu/faculty/tegarden/5034/handouts/Lewis-AcctForum-2001.pdf. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Serious problems with this article (June 2011)

This article contains page after page of commentary either lifted from some source or the result of original research, and is written in a heavily "in-universe" style, so to speak. After I eliminated the cruft (constituting the bulk of the article), I received a message from an editor who reverted my changes and called it "vandalism."

This is one of the worst articles I've seen on Wikipedia (I'm not a frequent editor and I don't often get into the obscurer corners, so this is literally true.) Before someone tries to revert my changes (if it hasn't happened already) can they please illustrate what the use is to a Wikipedia user of the thousands and thousands of words of rambling exegesis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.75.35 (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I was the user who reverted you, and yes, your edit to the article *was* vandalism - you removed a significant portion of text in one go, well over 40,000 characters, stating it was "copyrighted" material, and yet you did not state where it was copyrighted from, who wrote the commentary, etc. What you did was what we term as "Section blanking". I didn't mean to offend you by insinuating that you were a vandal, far from it, but the removal of such a large section of text should really be discussed on the talk page to gain consensus as to what should be removed, and if you have a source for the copyrighted portion of the material, please would you be kind enough to supply it, so that it can be checked? Thank you. Fish^Barking? 18:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a

Quote: "It is a and comprises 286 verses." What does that mean? I am from Germany and I'm not very specialized in English language, so can anybody explain this to me in different words? It is a . . . what? And shouldn't it be "an" instead of "a" because the following word starts with a vowel?--31.17.92.168 (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Needs a clean, clear summary of the text's contents

I strongly agree with the general critique here. This article is an incoherent mess. What these sura pages need, in my view, are straightforward, clear, concise summaries of the contents of the suras. So perhaps an "Overview" section, but it would be better to have a "Summary" section that went through, sort of piece by piece or section by section, a summary of the suras contents. Until something like this is set as a pattern for the sura pages, they will remain a jumbled and idiosyncratic mess, I think.

(And the long "Philosophy" section, whatever its merits, does not really seem germanely tied to a wiki page on sura 2.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.83.253 (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ya edit?

Line 147 added: ya. Is this vandalism or a useful remark?!Super48paul (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Reliance on primary sources

I am concerned about reliance on primary sources, both the verses from the chapter itself as well as the ahadith quoted. I have tried to add some reliable secondary sources. If there are no objections, I may try to replace the primary sources with secondary ones in the coming days. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Arabic translation of the word Pagans.

Note near the beginning of the second paragraph, the author has equated to the Pagans to Al-Kuffar.

Throughout the Qu'ran one will see that those only entered a state of "kufr" and become part of "Al Kuffar" when they had understood the Qu'ran message and rejected it. Kufr literally means to cover, or hide the truth (another name for the Qu'ran), so denying the Qu'ran once having understood it can be a form of covering, ie covering the truth from oneself or others for that matter.

I think this edit is very important as there is a common fallacy for Muslims and Non-Muslims to view the world in two shades, that of the Al-Kuffar and that of Al-Muslimeen (the Muslims). This can lead to a lot of misunderstanding which can result in violence in the worst case scenario.

For Quranic references please read: http://quransmessage.com/articles/understanding%20kufr%20FM3.htm

Based upon these proofs I would argue the Pagans (those who worship other than Allah) are not "Al-Kuffar" but are classed as "Al-Mushrikeen" (those who associated partners with Allah, ie - invalidate the oneness of God by taking others as equals to God).

These Mushrikeen would only fall under the banner of "Al-Kuffar" if they have been shown Islam, understood how the Qu'ran considers Paganism to be invalid and still continue their beliefs.

Your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistairkey (talk • contribs) 17:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.altafsir.com/Quran.asp?SoraNo=2&Ayah=1&NewPage=0&Tajweed=1

  Triggered by \baltafsir\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 05:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 22:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Picture of Studio Jean Jacques Lequeu as Main Photo - Not Relevant to Qur'an

I am not a weathered Wikipedia user, so I am unsure of how to make changes to an article and whether this is the correct place to make a proposal.

However, what I wanted to state was that the main image of the article (which is currently Studio_Jean_Jacques_Lequeu) is definitely not related to Surah Baqarah in any way. I have also noticed this image on several over Wikipedia pages related to the Qur'an, such as Sura. A more suitable image would be that of the Qur'an itself (such as that used on the main Qur'an Wikipedia page), or of the first few verses of Surah Baqarah.

If anyone is knowledgeable on replacing the photo with a suitable image through Wikipedia's criteria, then it would be most appreciated. To be honest, it seems that the image (or as others have noted, the article itself) has been vandalized with irrelevant and unclear edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PieceOfIslam (talk • contribs) 01:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, PieceOfIslam (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The name part

@Anders Feder:, Thanks for your best edit on this page. But abhttp://www.al-islam.org/enlightening-commentary-light-holy-quran-vol-1/surah-al-baqarah-chapter-2-introductionout the name part i think it is necessary. I undid the part but sentence with not reliable sourc was removed. Savior59 (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The Quran is not a reliable source for interpretation of the name per WP:ISLAMOR.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

your are right, but why did you notice to Sockpuppet problem in edition summery?Savior59 (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Because WP:BLOCKEVASION: Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason.--Anders Feder (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

please notice the rule to end of the sentence. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.

As i said, This surah had been called Al-Baqara, but what's the reason? the answer is importatnt for this article. I'm sure the source is primary. AT LEAST you can add citation tag not removed the sentence!Savior59 (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The answer would be helpful if it had reliable sources. Unfortunately you won't be able add any reliable sources to the article once the SPI clerk closes your case.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There is two issue. One of them is improving the article and other is my user problem. I speak about improving the article. Finding a reliable source for this answer is not impossible, exactly for you. Every user at wikipedia should try to improve article not began a WP:WAR. Please CONSIDER the improving of article. ThanksSavior59 (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you do it yourself?--Anders Feder (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

because you revert my edition. I'm not a vandalism editor. I wanna to improve this article and article that are like it. This is aboutfirst issue. And about ssecond, please check my contributions, I don't have any vandalism edition.I can't find that how this problem happen to me! As I said to you, don't mix issues with together! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savior59 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That isn't what I asked. Why don't you find a reliable source yourself? If you had done that instead of sockpuppeting, I wouldn't have been allowed to remove it. Nor would I have wanted to.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

One reliable source about name of the surah is reference number 6 at that article.savior59 (talk)

That isn't a reliable source. Use scholarly sources like universities: [1][2][3][4], or other established sources. Western scholars has written countless serious papers about Islam and the Quran. You can even seek access to many journals via The Wikipedia Library.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Question.

Who was Quranic angels? In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Baqara&diff=prev&oldid=755638452 111. ...if anyone suffers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonim sauronovich (talk • contribs) 17:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Question about the article title

Why is this article titled 2, The Cow, al-Baqarah and not simply Al-Baqarah, in line with the article titles of the other sura's? AstroLynx (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@AstroLynx: Per WP:MOS A title should be a recognizable name or description of the topic that is natural, sufficiently precise and concise. Simply naming the article Al-Baqarah:I find that, as an English speaker, it is not recognizable. When the sura articles were originally set up, the chapters were not numbered as in Western tradition but were simply given titles as in the Eastern tradition and Arabic titles at that. We are here to impart knowledge to English speakers. However the problem with simply using the English titles is creating too many ugly (disambiguation) (surah) identifier requirements. The Study Quran, a reputable Islamic publication entitles the chapter 2 The Cow, al-Baqarah - It just seems the best of all worlds solution. I would hope to change the remaining Quranic chapters to achieve consistent with those of related articles. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, but I think that you should first find consensus for this. This is not a trivial change. AstroLynx (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In line with the articles on the books in the Bible ("Book of ...", "Gospel of ...", "Epistles to ...", etc.) perhaps it would be better to use titles such as Sura of the Cow (Al-Baqarah, 2) or something similar. But again, there should first be broad consensus for such a change. AstroLynx (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Common Muslim practice would be to link (Al-Baqarah, 2) to Q2.2 - element of confusion.Quoting Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān: "2 Foo, Foo" makes it much easier for those unfamiliar with sūra titles to find a passage in a translated text of the Quran JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The Name of the Surah

Why is it called 2, The Cow, Al-Baqarah? It is only Surah Baqarah! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.99.227 (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 19 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

---

2, The Cow, al-Baqarah → Al-Baqara – Per the above two sections, the name of this page should be restored to its previous name until consensus on a naming scheme change for the other 113 surahs is established. mahir256 (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I too would prefer to see the previous title name restored until there is a broad consensus for modifying (or not) the currently used scheme for naming each of the 114 sura's. AstroLynx (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is English Language Wikipedia so we should endeavour to include the English language chapter titles. I have set up a sandbox hoping to change most titles to a variant including chapter number.JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC) p.s. Why Al-Baqara and not Al-Baqarah?.

I am not sure that many editors have seen (or will see) this request and your proposal here. Perhaps it would be better to copy or move this discussion to the talk pages of Quran and Surah. AstroLynx (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I'm afraid that most English readers would in my opinion see the current title and assume it was vandalism of some sort. It looks worthy of Monty Python, possibly because of our ignorance but that is life. Thanks for the laugh, but I'm serious. So for now move it back to what is recognisable rather than astonishing to most English readers. And good luck with coming up with a naming convention, it is obviously necessary... and if it ends up supporting this format, we will live with that. But I preach caution. Andrewa (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@AstroLynx, Andrewa, and Amakuru: I have proposed a move pertaining to a verse from this sura here. mahir256 (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)