Talk:Gospel in Islam

Unnamed Section

first of all thank u very much for your help about sending citation style. i have corrected the wordings as per your instructions, wold u please replace the following templates from there,

"The text in this article or section may be incoherent or very hard to understand, and should be reworded if the intended meaning can be determined." See the talk page for details.

thank u very much for ur help for citation styly on my talk page. Thanks --Farrukh38 (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Accurcy of the Injil Section

it states: "Disputed areas of text within the Injil include references where Jesus is called the Son of God by his followers and the events that occurred after Jesus' death. The majority of Muslims believe that instead of Jesus dying on the cross and then being resurrected, he was never crucified, but ascended into heaven.

Although parts of the Injil are generally believed to have been corrupted over time, the original Injil is, nonetheless, a revelation from God to Jesus in the eyes of Muslims. It is therefore treated as such, and belief in it is necessary, as is prescribed by one of the six Islamic articles of faith."

Like to see some references to this part, I believe that Muslim Scholars reject the Bible outright as a whole and thy have never identified areas of conflict and areas of agreements and simply state the Qur'an is the correct and it replaces the Bible, is a disputed area since the Qur'an requests from Muslims to read the scriptures

Please correct me if you have another opionion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Lewison (talk • contribs) 02:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

- exact place depends on version of the Qur'an

Which "versions" of Qur'an is this statement speaking of? As far as I know there is only one version and even the pagination is (almost totally) preserved between different prints.

There are several slightly different systems of verse-numbering within the Suras. One particularl system seems to be used most commonly on the internet, but if you do any deep reading, you'll probably encounter the other systems. AnonMoos 03:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

with which verse-numbering sytem the occurance of injeel words written which were not same as normal present Quran? thanks--Farrukh38 (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

waiting to see that version of Qur'an which contains word Injil , which you wrote in Injil article as under. The word Injil occurs twelve times in the Qur'an (III, 2, 43, 58; V, 50, 51, 70, 72, 110; VII, 156; IX, 112; XLVIII, 29; LVII, 27 ).

and Following refgerences were used by me to improve the Article Injil.

The word Injil occurs twelve times in the Quran (III, 3, 48, 65; V, 46, 47, 66, 68, 110; VII, 157; IX, 112; XLVIII, 29; LVII, 27 ). As per AL-kitab (The Book of Allah), Eeasa (pbuh) got the knowledge of four --Farrukh38 (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone's 33 in heaven?

Jesus' age at the time was 33 years old, and Muslims believe that as soon as people enter heaven, their age would also be 33 years old.

Source? I'm a Muslim and I have never heard of that. (unsigned by 64.172.99.223, 18:30, 11 May 2005)

• I'm glad I'm not the only one. I'm deleting it. If someone can find a decent source for that assertion, they can put it back. --Skoosh 22:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Jesus's age [1], and regarding age in heaven heaven, here's a quote from "Islam: Questions And Answers Volume 1: Basic Tenets of Faith: Belief (Part 1)" by Muhammad Saed Abdul-Rahman [2]

With regard to their ages, they will all enter Paradise at the age of strength and youth, thirty-three years old. It was narrated from Mu'aadh ibn Jabal that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "The people of Paradise will enter Paradise hairless, beardless with their eyes anointed with kohl, aged thirty or thirty-three years."
Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 2545. Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami', 7928

It was also narrated by Ahmad (8505) from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him), with the words "thirty three years old", with no doubt.

Ahmad Shaakir said: its isnaad is hasan.

--14:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Faro0485 (talk)

Clearing away misconceptions

I've just edited a number of Islam-related articles to clear away incorrect and loose (and possibly ignorant) statements that the Injil = gospels, Torah = Tawrah and Zabur = psalms. It is not just a matter of using the Arabic transliteration and equating it with any other one, but these words actually mean different things . Can I urge other editors aware of these misconceptions to clear away the incorrect implications inherent in the alleged equalities. ---Mpatel (talk) 17:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Well, injil is quite simply the Arabic word for Gospel. That Muslims generally believe that the Christian Gospel as it stands now is a corrupted version of an original divine revelation to Jesus is another question. Generally the word refers to the Christian gospels. Palmiro | Talk 15:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Muslims' beliefs regarding Injil and verse out of context

All muslims (if they truly are that) believe that the Son of God reference is a corruption. On the other hand, many muslims interpret the 'raising up' of Jesus as literal - some scholars have different interpretations as to what 'raise up' means in this context: it certainly is not an exclusive muslim view that he was 'raised up', but it is generally believed to be so. The Quranic verse which was quoted out of context has been removed, because, as far as I can tell, whenever the 'Message' is referred to in the Quran, it refers to the Final Message (= Quran). Read verses 15:6 and 15:13 for verification where the Message clearly refers to the Quranic one. --Mpatel (talk) 16:10, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

the 'raising up' of Jesus as literal

As in, like the raising up of Elijah? But Christians believe that too - they just think he died in the meantime before returning to life and then ascending to heaven. It all depends how you interpret the tomb is empty.

Nuttyskin 08:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I understand you, (1) what do your mean with the "Son of God reference"?

Jesus himself addresses God in the Injil as Father, but only ever refers to himself as the son of man.

Nuttyskin 08:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

(2) What is the meaning of 15:6 en 15:13
15:13 reads "They believe not therein, though the example of the men of old hath gone before" (Pickthall)/ and "That they should not believe in the (Message); but the ways of the ancients have passed away." (Yusuf Ali)

15:6 reads "And they say: O thou unto whom the Reminder is revealed, lo! thou art indeed a madman! (Pickthall) and "They say: "O thou to whom the Message is being revealed! truly thou art mad (or possessed)!" (Yusuf Ali)

The references that Jesus is the son of man is misleading. It should read that Jesus is the son of Man of Holiness, who is God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.192.185.2 (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Injil/Bible calls "CHRIST" as a Begotten Son of "GOD" the "Lord of this Universe" He is "Holy, One, True, Light, Eternal, Alive and Living forever". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.99.229.45 (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Bias?

I sense a Bias in Interpretation... Anyone else?

In the article? Or in the Muslim insistence that the Qur'an is invulnerable to tahrif?

If the former, I can't see it. If the latter, I must say it doesn't hold water. It all hinges on the supposed specialness of the Qur'an, which is conditional upon one believing it actually is all it's supposed to be. The book has always struck me personally as disappointing - monotheism lite: probably quite life-changing for someone who has had no prior awareness of Judaism or Christianity, but for those of us mainlined on that philosophy from childhood, it's just something to encourage the reader to try the Tanach, the Torah and the Talmud. I also find in it the unwavering suspicion of its being a convenient church of ethnic unity for what were the emergent Arab kingdoms.

Nuttyskin 08:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarity

At one point, the article says that the word Injil was also used to describe the scriptures of the Christian contemporaries of Muhammad, but at another point it says that it was always used to mean the revelation of God to Jesus. Which is it? KittyHawker 20:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

External link to MP3

What is the justification for adding the link to "Musical rendering of Injil Yuhanna 1:1-5"? → AA ^(talk) — 17:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the justification for its removal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Useruiki (talk • contribs).

The link is not appropriate as it does not add any value to the article. You can also look up the other reasons in the Manual of Style. Particularly, items 1 and 8. Also, it is a non-English language site and the link is not discussing the Islamic concept of Injil. Also, for future reference, the impotus is on the editor to supply relevant justification and source when challenged for adding content to Wikipedia. Cheers. → AA ^(talk) — 20:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time in responding, AA. Blessings Useruiki 21:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No trouble. → AA ^(talk) — 21:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Incoherent Edits

(I moved Farrukh38's post to its own section. Editor2020:)

Editor2020 is not considering the facts written in Qur'an. people are writing about Qur'an that Quran says about injil as Gospels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farrukh38 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Farrukh38 (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Farrukh38,

I'm trying to help you, but you will not be allowed to make the articles unreadable. The page so badly messed up that it was necessary to go back to a coherent version to get a fresh start. Now, if you have a problem with a claim in the article, put it here on the talk page--properly posted, not just stuck anywhere on the page, and we'll deal with it.--Editor2020 (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020 now this is incoherent which has wrong ayat no.s written under quran section. please read talk pge the section" - exact place depends on version of the Qur'an" with out correcting the reference of verses of quran cannot make coherent and with correct number of verses having word in jeel is incoherent to yoy? the Injil under section Quran must be as per text of Quran to make it coherent or this title of heading should be changed. please. Farrukh38 (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020

please discuss, under section, AL-injil in the text of Quran what is incoherent? the wrong verse nos are coherent? the section is as per Quran that must contain what in the text of Quran is written about word Injil to make coherent? or information other than Quran under section of quran is coherent? Farrukh38 (talk)thanks

Q document?

Could the Injil have been the theorized lost Q document? 70.58.5.52 (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If Q really is lost. Try Gospel of Thomas, and some citations from the partially or fully lost Injil. Said: Rursus (☻) 23:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No. --DHBoggs (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Confusing

The article is very confusing,

"The Injil (Arabic إنجيل (or Injeel) is one of the five"

it says, but later it occurs that nobody have any copy of Injil, making it a lost book, or a hypothetical book (whose hypothesis then?), or a legendary book. Could it be that the term "Injil" is confused, as it might refer to the four gospels of the new testament as it is today, or what islamic researchers and authors expect it to be. The section Difference from the Gospels indicates such a confusion. Then shouldn't the article describe Injeel as a legendary or hypothetical book, who is generally believed (in the moslem world) to have been the origin of the four Gospels? Said: Rursus (☻) 23:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Apostles

Hello everybody.Is there no indentification in the Qura'n of the apostles(al-Haariyoon) of Isa.Thank you very Much.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Injil and the Christian gospels or New Testament

All what we know about the injeel from the Qur'an and hadith:

• It is the revelation sent by Allah to his prophet Jesus
• It has undergone tahrif over time, however some of the original beliefs it contained remained known to some of its followers

Now whether it came in 4 parts of 10 parts, whether it contained a single chapter or a number of chapters, whether it was an entire book or just a script, we don't know that and you won't find any evidence for it in the Qur'an or hadith. I removed some references to the christian gospels or the New Testament.

Muslims do not believe in the current christian gospels or the New Testament, it is not part of their faith and that's something that no reputable Islamic scholar would say given the abundant verses in the Qur'an on tahrif of the Injeel. Also statements by christian scholars (if any) should be added to its own section and not mingled with the text. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Updated response Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The article says The word Injil occurs twelve times in the Qur'an and refers to the Book of revelation given to the Prophet Jesus. Is this "book of revelation" a reference specifically to the book of revelation (one segment from the christian bible), or does it refer more generally to books that were divinely revealed (and if so, does it only mean the gospels, or the hypothetical lost original gospel on which the surviving gospels are based, or does it cover bits throughout the entire new testament and christian bible?)? Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

• Gospel (Islam) → Gospel in Islam
• Tawrat → Torah in Islam

– To match the other pages that say "X in Islam" not "X (Islam)" or "[Arabic name]", (e.g. Jesus in Islam). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• If the Arabic names are unambiguous, I think they should be used. Tawrat is fine, and this article should really be moved to Injil, which already redirects here. The proposed names seem to have Judeo-Christian bias. We have Jesus in Islam, but that makes sense because Isa can refer to many concepts. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it the case that Injil is the Arabic name for Gospel, and is *not* a word which means "Gospel in Islam"?

Clearly this article is supposed to be about the Islamic perspective on the religious texts that (at least in English) are best known as the Gospels. As such, "Gospel in Islam" seems descriptive, whereas the unqualified title "Injil" seems to position this page to be just a POV fork rather than a sub-article. (Injil should probably redirect here, but with a hatnote pointing to the main Gospel article.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Cesiumfrog. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

So should Allah be moved to God (Islam)? God in Islam is its own article. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That article is about the Arabic word "Allah". The article about God in Islam is God in Islam. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hm, so it is. No objections. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Changing to support given the recent outcome of Talk:Islamic views on Abraham#Requested move. --BDD (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

 DoneCesiumfrog (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• On similar note Zabur → Psalms in Islam also falls in the same category. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No it doesn't, according to the article "Some scholars equate the Zabur with the biblical book of Psalms", this means that Zabur may or may not be Psalms. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Targum of Onkelos

No mention has been made in this article of a very important and fundamental piece of related biblical text the, 'Targum of Onkelos'. Not only does this targum (translation) have a morphological resonance with the phonetics of this particular, discussed, item of biblical scripture ("Ingeel"), within the context of the Qur'an, but it also has been understated in terms of its relevance and place in relation to the setting of the synagogue structure and service, after the destruction of the Temple Mount, and prior to the Islamic Dispensation. Obviously, the related terms, "euangelion", in Greek, and the, "evangelium", in Latin, both have a phonetic and morphological similarity with the term, "Onkelos". Thus, it should be seriously considered that these 'new' terms, with the prefix, "ev-" ("eu-", in Greek), may well have been linguistically later derived (inflexions) from this prior term ("Onkelos"). This suggestion is with relevance, and in the context, to the homiletics and apologetics of the period, after the destruction of the 'Temple of the Mount', where religious sermons had a new and growing place within a synagogue setting, where there was a growing audience of listeners that were more receptive to the Aramaic language. Jedhi Arain (London, England)