Template talk:Characters and names in the Quran

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconIslam: Religious texts Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Religious texts.
Monthly pageviews


I wanted to tag this template for deletion. Out of courtesy, I thought we could discuss first. I am not willing to argue about whether someone/something in mentioned in the Quran or not. My concern is that templates, according to our guidelines, should not do the work of article content, this is mentioned in Wikipedia:Template_namespace#Usage line 14 and 15. The list of people/things mentioned in the Quran can be found in page List of people mentioned by name in the Quran, we may claim that 'others' are 'implicitly' mentioned in the Quran, but that needs citation and needs to be in the article space not template space. Our previous template Template:Quranic people([1]) was okay, why was it redirected to this problematic template? Kiatdd (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you can see in the edithistory of Template:Quranic people, till May 15 that template was pretty nice. Then Alieseraj came along, who also made this template, and decided that things need to be changed. I am not saying his is wrong, I am just answering your question "what happened?". Debresser (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of the Admins restored template's history, page List of people mentioned by name in the Quran indicates who is mentioned in the Quran, there is another page List of people related to Quranic verses for those claimed to be mentioned/hinted/implicitly mentioned whatever. Saying that a person is 'implicitly' mentioned is a form of exegesis, it is okay to interpret the Quran but but that belongs in the article space not the template space. This is straight from wikipedia template guidelines Wikipedia:Template_namespace#Usage line 14 and 15.Kiatdd (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reformatting the template[edit]

Implicitly mentioned people?[edit]

I notice a couple of "implicitly mentioned" sections. That seems rather subjective. With Jeremiah, for example, the article says " "Jeremiah is not mentioned in the Qur'an, but Muslim exegesis and literature narrates many instances from the life of Jeremiah and tradition fleshes out his narrative." That sounds like he shouldn't be included in this template. And it is already very large. I propose that we remove all the implicit mentions. StAnselm (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "implicitly mentioned" sections are about people that are not named in the Quran, but there are some Ayahs about them, without mentioning their name. e.g. even Abel and Cain are not named in the Quran, but are mentioned as "Two sons of Adam". Jeremiah, as you quoted, is mentioned in the Quran's exegesis(tafsir). I added the ayahs that Jeremiah is mentioned, without naming him. Seraj (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could perhaps say "mentioned in ayahs" instead of "implicitly mentioned". Debresser (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What to do if there is no article[edit]

Since Lamech (father of Nuh) doesn't exist, why not use Lamech (father of Noah)? Debresser (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks :) If you see any other occurrences, please mention it, or correct it yourself Seraj (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did that, but you reverted me. That's why I posted it here. Debresser (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you violated the standard: The name of the prophets should be Quranic, not Bibilical. Just the first time: Nuh/Noah, and the other times: Nuh. your change was Lamech (father of Noah), mine was Lamech (father of Nuh) Seraj (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please check the diffs above to see that you are mistaken. Debresser (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, you changed Lamech (father of Nuh) to Lamech (father of Noah), but you should have changed it to Lamech (father of Nuh). I didn't know their is such a page, and reverted it. Thanks for your patience, and good faith assumption o:-) Seraj (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand and agree that it should be Lamech (father of Nuh). It is the revert that was incorrect, as you admit. Debresser (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2015[edit]

title = Islamic topics

Basispa (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Alakzi (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2015[edit]

Please change the title into "Islamic topics".

Mrelazar (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done there are numerous templates, referring to dozens more "Islamic topics", this template just covers "Characters and names in the Quran" - Arjayay (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"before Islam"[edit]

I'd like to point out that in Islam there is not such thing as "before Islam" since Islam for humanity started during the creation of Adam, onward to that of all the prophets all the way to the prophet Muhammad and is still present today. So please either remove "before Islam" or change it to "before Muhammad", thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Basically, there is the issue of WP:Neutrality, but this issue was fixed in the main article. Leo1pard (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 2017[edit]

The template needs to be reorganised to make it more like the main article, but I am not yet finished adding references to it. Leo1pard (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2018[edit]

The word fig in Arabic is misspelled as ṭīn (clay) instead of tīn (fig) - no diacritic under t. Gardenofhazard (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done There was a diacritic over the T Ṫīn, I have removed it. Thanks for noticing this. Sam Sailor 07:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2018[edit]

The template suffers from inconsistent romanization of names, particularly in the long vowels. There are several ways of writing a long a, i or u in Arabic (á,í,ú is the rarest, â,î,û is less common and ā,ī,ū is the most common).

The template both circumflex (â) and macron (ā) when it should probably stick to one convention (macron is the more common one).

The examples are too numerous to list - nūn, fīl, Idrīs, etc. use macron, but then Luqmân, Jâlût, Azîz, use circumflex.

Then there are cases where there is no marking whatsoever, neither for vowel length nor consonant quality.

Noah is once Nūḥ and three other times Nuh. Ya’jūj wa Ma’jūj vs Ya'juj and Ma'juj Muḥammad vs Muhammad ‘Imrān vs Imran Ayyūb vs Ayyub Ilyās vs Ilyas Qabil... clicking takes you to Qābīl. Is-ḥāq - no need for hyphen.

There might be a few more. Gardenofhazard (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Much of the recent editing has been done by Leo1pard, I think the way forward is to WP:BOLDLY edit out errors and otherwise discuss matters here on the talk page. Courtesy ping VenusFeuerFalle and Keivan.f who have recently edited the template. Closing edit-request. Sam Sailor 10:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sam Sailor The reason why I use 'Ṫ' or 'ṫ' for the Arabic letter 'ت' is because 'T' as it would be pronounced in the English language is not the same as 'ت', just as it is not the same as 'ط', for which 'Ṭ' or 'ṭ' is used. The difference between the way 'T' is pronounced in English and the way 'ت' is properly pronounced, is like the difference between the way 'D' is pronounced in the English language and the way it is pronounced in the French language, that is, the non-English forms or letters are pronounced in a softer way than the English forms or letters. In the English language, you can pronounce 'D' or 'T' without the tongue touching the teeth, whereas for Arabic 'ت' and French 'D', your tongue would touch the teeth. Leo1pard (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Source? Sam Sailor 14:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personal knowledge, but websites like this should give you an idea, click the 'play' button to see how to recite the 5th Verse, indicated as 1:5, which contains the letter 'ت'. Leo1pard (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do not edit based on "personal knowledge" or personal interpretations. Sam Sailor 15:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not like this is confined to me, there are plenty of online sources like this to back up what I said about pronunciation. Leo1pard (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://www.transparent.com/learn-arabic/phrases.html is not a reliable source, it is a website that tries to convey the pronunciation in a simplified manner understandable for the average anglophone.
Here we are talking about consistent romanization of words, and "fig" is تِين‎ and romanized (tīn) according to wikt:تينة. Let us double-check that Wiktionary got it right by doing a book search:
  • Waines, D. (2010). Food Culture and Health in Pre-Modern Muslim Societies. EI Reference Guides. Brill. p. 192. ISBN 978-90-04-19441-0. Retrieved May 25, 2018. Tīn (Ar.) is the common fig (ficus carica) and, after Lane, the tree of the balas; or, the tree and the fruit itself.
  • Rautureau, M.; de Sousa Figueiredo Gomes, C.; Liewig, N.; Katouzian-Safadi, M. (2017). Clays and Health: Properties and Therapeutic Uses. Springer International Publishing. p. 205. ISBN 978-3-319-42884-0. Retrieved May 25, 2018. tīn fig In this book, we are not concerned about this fruit!
  • Rippin, A.; Mojaddedi, J. (2017). The Wiley Blackwell Companion to the Qur'an. Wiley Blackwell Companions to Religion. Wiley. p. 247. ISBN 978-1-118-96483-5. Retrieved May 25, 2018. tīn, "fig" (North Sem.)
  • Unal, A. (2008). The Qur'an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English. Tughra Books. p. 1236. ISBN 978-1-59784-144-3. Retrieved May 25, 2018. It takes its name from the noun, at-tīn (the fig) in the first verse.
  • I could cite 100 more.
If I do a search for Ṫīn fig which you introduced in Special:Diff/841827711 and edit warred back in again in Special:Diff/842564963/842876178, I find zero sources. Still, you suggest that 'ت' should be romanized 'Ṫ' or 'ṫ', but if you read romanization of Arabic you will notice that all of the standards and systems mentioned use "t". In fact, 'ṫ' is not used at all, is it?
Based on this and the comments posted by Gardenofhazard I am going to question if all of your additions to this template are equally WP:OR, and I will revert to a previous revision and request that you follow the core policy of WP:V to ensure the integrity of the information added. Sam Sailor 19:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sam Sailor I have seen the use of 'Ṫ' or 'ṫ', but otherwise, in consideration of what you said, I am going to stop using 'Ṫ' or 'ṫ', unless for where I can see reliable sources being used. Aside from that, regarding your recent edit, you could have at least gotten rid of the forms of 'Ṫ' or 'ṫ', instead of having to revert to a revision that is, amongst other things, riddled with dead links here and there, and violates the issue of WP:neutrality in a way that I know of. If you do not want to correct that, then I am happy to make the necessary changes, including by using Macron's style of Romanization, without putting 'Ṫ' or 'ṫ' back. Leo1pard (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but no. When you introduce unsourced material like Ṫīn fig based on your own understanding of the pronunciation and how it should be transcribed completely at odds with standards and sources, then there is ample reason to start from scratch and have other editors involved here. Sam Sailor 13:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I ask what you mean by that? I did not say that I would put Ṫīn back, rather I said that I would avoid using 'Ṫ' or 'ṫ', unless for where I can see reliable sources being used. Leo1pard (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You recent edit has not only put back dead links here and there, it is in violation of the policy of WP:Neutrality by putting back a phrase like "Good people (before Islam)", for more than one reason. I was not talking about the issue of pronunciation, with regard to your recent edit. Leo1pard (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If anything in the current version violates policy, by all means, go ahead and make the necessary changes. As for romanizations: use sources for all, please. With all the inconsistency that Gardenofhazard mentioned, this is a good measure. I am very willing to help, just post a bulleted list here with the Arabic and the English translation, and I'll do my best. Sam Sailor 14:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Supernatural creatures[edit]

There seem to be some confusions among the supernatural creatures in Quran. The Quran uses them often different than in later Islamic mythology. And modern scholarship differs from Classical Islam. Scholars frequently mention, it is hard to distinguish between the different craetures of Islam, and many simply overlap. Especially jinn. In the Quran itself, the term is used for any invisible creature in some places and many commentators adhere to such usage of the term jinn. Thus the entire seperation between angels and jinn would be wrong. Only during the hadith-literature such distinction is made. Assuming such difference exists, some creatures are still ambiguous. Iblis' essence is often up to debate, Qarin are often human companions in the Quran, Marid might be definitely shayatin but shayatin are not necessarily jinn. Zabaniyya might also be considered as demons, and differ from the 19 angels of hell. Also forcing the Houri and Ghilman into a sperate group of heavenly beigns, does not reflect the Quran probably, especially not if equated with God. In the Quran, God is not in paradise or heaven.

I would suggest, after my recent changes, if we feel not satisfied by them, to make a spatial categorization, instead of categorizing the creatures. Since, even academic source are pointing to the ambigugous definition of supernatural creatures in Quran,we can hardly find a strict and adequate categorization. I suggest to make something like, "Heavenly" (Angels, Archangels, Houris), Intermediary (Iblis, Jinn, Shayatin, Qarin) and "hell" (Zabaniyya, Malik, Nar-a-Samum). Iblis and Ifrit are often related to hell, but this is not evident fromt he Quran itself (maybe Iblis, but this would be an exception).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I would change title "People and things in the Quran" to "Things in the Quran" because people can be regarded as things (objects made of matter, equal to table, chair). -- (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Should this template have some link to Jerusalem on here? And maybe to Palestine (region)? 2600:8800:590E:BB00:ADFC:913B:A194:49 (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]