Talk:Isa (name)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Regarding Hindu usage of the name Isa

Root word analysis would probably clear all this up. What are the roots of the Hindu isa? The arabic issa? The Hebrew Yeshua? I don't recall any Jews in the area carrying Greek names, except for the few with clear, immediate links to those living in Greece. Jews named their children Hebrew names. The root is Yahweh saves. Unless the other names contain a root that means Yahweh, there's really no leg to stand on for the other etymologies. It's an open debate among Muslims as to why Mohammed selected Issa -- Christians and Jews in Arabia used the Arabic "Yasu" previous to Mohammed, and immediately following as well. IMO and FWIW, it seems Mohammed was anxious to get the God out of Jesus' name, since it's a main concern of Islam that Jesus is only a man, not a God-man.

Anyway, root words anyone?

Isa is a title in Hindu scriptures and is used that way far more often than as a name. Perhaps even, where it appears to be a name, it is only being spoken as an abbreviation, as one might refer to Sir Galahad one context, and Sir in the next. (?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.116.210.116 (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Vikingsfan8, Why is use of the name īśā, a common name attributed to the Hindu God Shiva in Isa Upanishad, written between 1200 and 500 BCE long before Islam came into picture is considered anti-Islamic? I don't see the point here. This article is about the generic name Isa. Not Islamic use of it. So why "libertyfund" is not a valid source? It has the source text of Isa Upanishad where the first line calls Shiva as Isa, what else is needed? --Jayarathina (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"libertyfund" is not a valid source again and that has no place in the article in question.

Also while not an academic reference (and thus not actually cited in this or any other articles here, just like I would argue Liberty Fund should also note be in regards to issues of various historical and theological topics!) this seems to be relevant on what you bring up from "libertyfund" [1].

[2] Is "EESA" From Hindu Scriptures?

As in the tradition of Christian misassumptions, twisting and the misuse of sources for their own agenda, Mr. Gale had to assume the following:

'Muhammad in his wisdom believed that ISA was the Messiah of both the Christians and Jews. However, ISA doesn't come from neither. ISA is actually derived from the Hindus!!! This is religion that predated ISLAM for thousands of years!!! Upanishads were a group who originally came from Persia or Modern Day Iran. They later were found in India taking with them their religious beliefs with them...'

Firstly, Mr. Gale had not shown to us that Muhammad (pbuh) is the author of the Qur'an, having based this assertion upon the common Christian fallacy. Secondly, the rest of the material provided by Mr. Gale that follows this assertion from his obscure source Allah : Divine or Demonic by an unknown who calls himself Steve Van Netton is lengthy but offers no real proof for the influence of Hinduism in Arabia or how and why had the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) taken this name and incorporate it in the Qur'an. Thirdly, Mr. Gale's own error that the Isha Upanishads is a claim that the name "`Eesa" comes from "Isha" in Sanskrit.What Mr. Gale doesn't realize is that the Isha Upanishads were called "Isha" simply because the first sentence starts with the words "Ishavasya" which has nothing to do with any character in history. This naming method is common in Eastern scriptures and even the early Qur'anic commentators would refer to a Sura` by its first sentence. For example the 29th Juz is called "Juz' Tabaarak" because of Surat al-Mulk which starts with "TABAARAKallathee bi-yadihil mulk...". This Sura` is also called "Surah Tabarak allathee bi-yadihil mulk". I also notice that Mr. Gale had originally thought that the "Upanishads" were a group of people (refer to the above quote: "Upanishads were a group who originally came from Persia or Modern Day Iran. They later were found in India taking with them their religious beliefs with them..."), when it is actually part of Hindu scripture, but then later quietly adjusted his reference to it as a book. And finally, since we have firmly established the fact that the name "Eesa" has an Aramaic origin and has no relation to Sanskrit, we have to dismiss Mr. Gale's ludicrous assertion as having little merit for acceptance. Mr. Gale have not even shown to us how the alleged word ISA MASIH in Sanskrit could even be related to a Semitic language like Arabic!Vikingsfan8 (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

First, I am not a Hindu. I would like that to be clear. I don't know why, but you say you have a problem with libertyfund because they have some controversies with Al Gore and Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment. What does it have to do with source text of isa upanished? Anyway are these links calling Shiva as isa ok? [3] [4] [5] [6].

I don't know what is the relevancy of copy and pasting answering-christianity. That article there says that Mohammed might not have derived the word isa from Hindu texts, But isa is also present in Arabic too. No where in that article, it disproves the Hindu usage of the word.

Anyway, I am not saying Mohammed borrowed the name Isa from Hindus. I don't care who borrowed it from whom. It is used in Hinduism and that is all that matters. Hindus call Shiva also as isa. I know this because I live among them. That has to be noted in this article. Also please understand that this article is just about the name isa and NOT ISLAMIC USE OF THE NAME ISA. Secondly I sense you have a strong Islamic bias. But I am sorry, Wikipedia is not a Islamic encyclopedia. It should have all alternative opinions too. --Jayarathina (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

DO NOT REVERT WHILE DISCUSSION IS GOING ON--Jayarathina (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, No. This article is NOT about Semitic language issue (sic). This is just about a given name isa. That's all. Its plain and simple. --Jayarathina (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Isa (name), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have reverted edits without any valid reasons. This shows you have personal interest in the article. --Jayarathina (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is crystal clear that it is purely about the Arabic language name 'Isa (عيسى) used by Muslims to refer to Jesus. It states that very clearly in the introduction of the article and then the entire text of the article is completely on that topic and theme. Even the section you are placing your random stuff from Liberty Fund in only discusses certain Christian usages of the name 'Isa (in reference to Jesus, a figure that both Islam and Christianity profess belief in). Such as the Farsi language translations of the Christian New Testament that also use the Persian language name 'Isa (عيسى) and certain recent Christian New Testament translations made for Arabic audiences that also use that Arabic name for Jesus. The stuff you are presenting, again from extremely questionable places like "Liberty Fund", only seems to have come up before in claims of certain people who advance wild, sourceless theories that supposedly the religion of Hinduism (and by extension Sanskrit) supposedly somehow had some "influence" in pre-Islamic Arabia; which is patently absurd and again sourceless. These wild/sourceless claims seem to have again been picked up by certain Christian missionaries. And this Islamic website, that engages in inter-religious debate, then mentions this briefly [7] in the section of this article entitled "Is 'EESA' From Hindu Scriptures?" I'm not including text from this website in the article here because a religious debate website is not a source to be used here, just like some random "capitalist think tank" Liberty Fund is completely worthless in a theological context. Again the topic of this article is very clear, and it relates to Jesus and Semitic languages (the only thing even slightly deviating from that would be the Greek language, and even there that is only due to the fact that the Christian New Testament documents are in that language originally), not Sanskrit at all. If other editors decide your random stuff should be included (for some reason) it should be very noticeably separated and made clear it is not connected to what the whole clear body of this article which again quite clearly is totally about 'Isa/Jesus and in particular Arabic and the Islamic religion.Vikingsfan8 (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am Sorry, But article does not deal explicitly about Arabic use. It does not say it in the article. It is written as per Wikipedia lead policy about most generic uses of the term. It is not random stuff. I have removed Liberty Fund reference and added sanscrit source as you asked. What else do you want? Moreover why are we talking about theological context? This article has nothing to do with theology. And why are you including Christianity when I am talking about the use of the term isa in Hinduism? And it is noticeably separated under the title Non-Islamic uses, what more do you want? For article about Isa/Jesus and in particular Arabic and the Islamic religion please see Jesus in Islam article. This not not place for a theology debate or for Isa/Jesus and in particular Arabic and the Islamic religion. Sorry. --Jayarathina (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Again even the "Non-Islamic uses" section only includes topics that are quite closely related to the general theme of the overall article, that being Jesus (and the debate between Muslims and Christians regarding the Qur'anic Arabic name for him 'Isa/عيسى). That is they are again only about two things: one about Farsi translations of the Christian New Testament (for Persian/Persian speaking Christians who thus also use the same name as Arabic speaking Muslims for Jesus) and second about certain more recent Christian translations of the New Testament into Arabic that appear to be designed for the purpose of missionary work among Arabic speaking Muslims in particular (again all revolving around the topic of 'Isa/Jesus). Again the only thing that even comes close to what you have posted in here seems to be a few random Christian missionaries that have picked up something from a sourceless "Hindu-centric" person that reminds one of individuals like one P.N. Oak who advanced crazy claims about the supposed "Vedic origin" of everything in the world from the Vatican to the Kaaba! Again one can note from this inter-religious debate website [8] the section entitled "Is 'EESA' From Hindu Scriptures?"

This being the case, this article should at least make a clear differentiation. This could be done by placing the stuff your bringing into another section called "Sanskrit Ishavasya" or "Sanskrit Isha Upanishads" of the religion of Hinduism of coursed centered in India historically. This should especially be done for clarity once again because everything else in the entire article is related to Semitic languages (aside from the mentioning of Greek, which is closely tied into the general topic because of Christianity) and Jesus.Vikingsfan8 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you are getting my point. There is no rule set down that this has to be about Semitic language use of word isa. Why not Sanskrit uses of the word? If you want to discuss about Semitic language use of word isa, start a new article Isa in Semitic language. Just because there is no Sanskrit contributor to this article doesn't mean it should not include it. If majority of the article is about Semitic language then, some one who know sanskrit should add sanskrit references too. We have to wait untill that happens. I don't know why you are including irrelevant topic about Vatican and all. Just the sound Isa, is used in Hinduism for a God. Thats the point. Just because majority of the article is about something, doesn't mean minority opinions should not be reflected. Ask any Indian Hindu or any one with slightest knowledge of Hinduism about Isa, Isha, Isan he will say that they all denote a single God. There is no conspiracy theory or anything else to undermine importance of Islam or Muslims for that matter. Two different languages, two different sources and two different meanings that is all. --Jayarathina (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Added more info about the Sanskrit Hindu text in question.Vikingsfan8 (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jayarathina (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)