Talk:Jesus in Islam/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Picture of Isa/Jesus

Just asking. Why is there a picture of Jesus in this article? I thought it is forbidden to depict any prophet in any forms of picture according to the Shariah(Islamic Law). Even if it says that it is a Turkish art, but I think that a lot Muslims would not like to see a picture of Jesus especially in an article that is related to Islam. Most muslims will also get offended when they see that there is a depiction of Maryam (Mary), the Virgin. So, I think it is best to remove those pictures before things start to get ugly. Anyone second that? RiZius (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Hariz, Malaysia

No, content on Wikipedia is not removed on those grounds. For the general policy, see WP:NOTCENSORED. For a discussion of these issues more specifically, see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, which discusses the reasons the images have not been removed from the Muhammad article; the reasons given there also apply to this article. —Chowbok ☠ 18:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well just to answer your question about there being a picture of Jesus and one of Mary on this site; It's probably because Jesus is the primary prophet in Christianity... Muslims' don't follow Jesus... Christians do... and they allow symbols/pictures/statues and all depictions of prophets. In fact it's encouraged... ever go in a church where there ISN'T a picture or statue of Jesus, Mary or other disciples? Wikipedia is trying to show the facts.... and according to the primary religion that follows this particular prophet, this is how Jesus is depicted and how Mary is depicted. In a strickly factual/research kind of way.... If someone is offended, or doesn't like the pictures then they shouldn;t be looking it up like this on the internet.... or they should find a better source that follows their religious beliefs/rules.

I actually think it's kind of stupid that when looking up these prophets we get a description from a strickly islamic point of view.... these prophets are in many religions... should we not read about them in ALL contexts.... not just from 1 biased view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.75.222 (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This section is called Jesus in Islam not Jesus in Christianity.

I'm curious, considering the reaction to depictions of Muhammad and the Islamic proscription against depictions of prophets, if there have been any conflicts with Muslims living in the West over the ubiquitous images of Jesus. Or for that matter, conflicts with Christians in the Middle East. Is there any information about that? Gtbob12 (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Islamic View of Jesus

Why the christian POV in the name of the article? This clearly shows that Wikipedia is not neutral after all. All that wikipedia-is-a-neutral-site claims are nothing but a big lie.One simple reason is the distribution of users here: Atleast 90% are christians, as a result, this site is bound to have a christian POV at the end of the day, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Any thoughts?

Jesus is merely the English rendering of the word which differs from its Hebrew/Aramaic (etc.) backgrounds. the point of the title is to convey, where possible, the topic of the article to an Enlish-speaking reader. while nobody would contest that parts of Wikipedia don't conform to Wikipedia policy, i don't see why the article title here should give you cause for concern. in any case, a better title might be "Jesus in Islam" (flows better i think). ITAQALLAH 18:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So the name of article has been "westernized" to suit it's western readers..how is that neutral to the rest of the world? this site is a joke..216.99.53.158 (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

also Jesus is appropriate as the article is in English and majority of English readers know him as Jesus. For Isa or the wording you want, read the article in [Arabic]. ~atif ^Talk 04:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, so we use the English language word Jesus. Evercat (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Even the Arabic page is christian POV, it says: Islamic View of Messiah.. this site is a joke..216.99.53.158 (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

this concern is a little pedantic. if you believe this effort is a joke (an opinion you are entitled to) then perhaps you could register an account and help make productive changes and improve articles. ITAQALLAH 13:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not on your life. This site is nothing more than a collection of western propaganda..have a nice day

Eh, the Arabic pages are written by Arabic speakers. One would imagine they would tend to be Muslims. But the word Messiah is used in the Qur'an itself to describe Jesus, at least in the three translations I've checked, which includes the hardline kill-all-the-infidels Hilali-Khan translation:

(Remember) when the angels said: "O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allah gives you the glad tidings of a Word ("Be!" - and he was! i.e. Iesa (Jesus) the son of Maryam (Mary)) from Him, his name will be the Messiah Iesa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allah."

Etc. Evercat (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

True, both words "Messiah" and "'Isa" are used in the Qu'ran. But you fail to make a point, since although the Arabic page uses the word "Messiah", it is still christian POV because it is titled "Islamic View of Messiah", which undermines the image and authenticity of the islamic view..etc. Please try to come up with a point next time, rather than scribbling down random irrelevant information.216.99.53.158 (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been considering a rename to 'Jesus in Islam' for some time. What do you think about that? A rename to Isa is inappropriate, especially as it's currently a disambiguation page. ITAQALLAH 15:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly 216, your issue is not with "Messiah" (in the Arabic page) but "Islamic view of"? "Islamic view of Jesus" is no more Christian POV than "Christian views of marriage is Buddhist POV. As for renaming the page "Jesus in Islam", it seems fine to me, but people will argue over anything and the archived talk page has a huge discussion about the name of the page. "Islamic view of Jesus" seems to be what they came up with. Evercat (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"Christian Views Of Marriage" is alright, since "marriage" is just an interpersonal relationship with no POV significance, it will obviously differ from a culture to another. On the other hand, the topic of Jesus is sensitive in regards to which POV you convey it in. So please do not try to compare two totally different things in the same context. Regarding renaming this page to "Jesus in Islam", I think it's a good idea. But it's success probability is about 2% knowing that 90% of the people here are christian POV by default :D 216.99.53.158 (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually there's a large number of atheists or other non-Christians here. I am perfectly happy to support "Jesus in Islam" being the name, if you really think it's better. Evercat (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Also I've just noticed there's a page called Christian views of Jesus. How does that fit into your view that "Islamic view of Jesus" is a POV title? Evercat (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that the article Christian views of Jesus is just an extension of Jesus. It is used to build upon the christian POV that is already presented in Jesus. And that christian POV continues further by labeling other articles as "(insert other religion here) view of Jesus". Which only furthers the christian bias and undermines the views of other religions of Jesus, since do they not have their own independent view point etc. 216.99.53.158 (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia undertakes the same christian bias too. Under the Arabic page of Jesus it says: "This page talks about the christian POV of Jesus, for the Islamic version, refer to "Jesus in Islam". Now the question is: English wikipedia used "Jesus" since majority of the people here are English, but how come Arabic Wikipedia still uses the Arabic Christian name of Jesus although 90% of Arabs know him as Isa. This fact clearly highlights the christian bias that is widespread through wikipedia, no matter what the language is.

I can't say anything for the Arabic site, which is run by whatever Arabic speakers care to edit there. But here on the English Wikipedia it's absurd to say "Islamic view of Jesus" is a pro-Christian title when it's just a mirror image of the title "Christian views of Jesus". As for the actual content of the pages, you may be right. (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made the change to Jesus in Islam. It will also help us stick to WP:LEAD guidelines concerning the first sentence. I'll have to request an admin to move this page to Talk:Jesus in Islam, as that page appears to already exist. ITAQALLAH 18:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I appreciate your efforts 216.99.53.158 (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If Muhammad was a significant figure in Christianity, whose theological significance was notably different from his role in Islam, the article would be called "Muhammad in Christianity". Jesus is a more significant figure in Christianity (ya know, hence the name?), and therefore an article entitled simply "Jesus", by default, will largely be from a Christian view. This is not meant to insult Islam or an attempt by Christians to keep Him all to ourselves. I feel the article makes clear that Jesus is prophet and Messiah in Islam, but not in any way God or God-like. I would oppose changing this article's name to "Isa" because, IMHO, that would further "distance" Jesus from Islam, and I also see no linguistic precedent for such a change anywhere in wikipedia. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Rename: Messiah Jesus in Islam

Quran say:"Jesus messiah"
And because of their saying : We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary , Allah ' s messenger They slew him not nor crucified , but it appeared so unto them ; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof ; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture ; they slew him not for certain ,[Nisa(women) 157]--Wxau-qss (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Followers of Islam referred to Jesus in their language as Isa. The name is a referral, his given name by his mother was Jesus, and he should be referred to as such. For example, though my friends call me "beard" as a nickname, one calling me by my given name would not be showing bias to my mother, but instead would are referring to my person as origionally intended to identify me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.20.184 (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you Arabs love to get lost in useless details so much?? Is the name of title article the most important problem now? huh!?!?! What about contributing more to the INSIDE -main body- of the article instead of wasting your time on nonsense arguments. It would be a fortunate thing if that topic and Wikipedia were the only area that you waste your energy for nothing; but unfortunately, it is not. sigh..--hnnvansier (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Dates and timing

If I've understood this correctly, the Madhi dies, Jesus assumes command, and rules for 40 years. But according to Mahdi the Mahdi comes at most 19 years before the end of the world. Explain the contradiction? Evercat (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

i'll check through the sources.. i think the figures of seven, nine, or nineteen are usually given with regards to the length of Mahdi's rule. ITAQALLAH 15:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've checked a few sources now. These figures are given in relation to the length of Mahdi's rule - numerous sources also establish the association of 40 years to Jesus' rule. Given the nature of sources, there usually are variances in how they are interpreted; I'd like to see if what is attributed to the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim world is correct, but I wouldn't be suprised if it was. ITAQALLAH 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

--

Salam, I wanted to put few words on this page and the other islamic pages as well. I have to agree that Wikipedia is running under the control of 90% or more of Christian people. There is a lot of missing things about Muslim people and the religion itself, Islam. But I want to get to my point:-

There are two things that I dislike and one of them is a major issue in our religion. Stating that Allah is the the actual meaning of the word God. “Ilah” means God, Ilah (Arabic) is a single supreme being and is translated to God in English. God is a class, like how we call ourselves Humans. Allah is a name and it is the name of God. I read this part saying Jesus is not Allah himself – It should be read as “Jesus is not a God”. It states clearly in the Qur’an many times that Jesus is not a God; it’s not “Jesus is not God”. Do I make any sense? This really ought to be changed in this page and any other related Islamic pages. If the administrative people feel that its too much pressure then let someone who has the knowledge about Islam, and should be a Muslim, to change it. I’ve showed this to several Muslims and they didn’t agree with what is said in this website. There are more than enough discussions and Muslims trying to explain the difference between God (class) and Allah (name) in several different threads. We know our religion better than anyone else that isn’t a Muslim, so I am not sure what else to say other than the fact that Islam is not something simple to “oh hey, I get it, just put it together”. Islam is a big religion and requires a lot of attention, patience, studying and other factors to acknowledge the facts of what Allah has brought to us.

This is all I wanted to say. Salam-Alikum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.198.121 (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are conflating the word god with God. Please also refer to the meanining of ilah. ITAQALLAH 23:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispersing section on minor beliefs

I think the section in question can be merged into the rest of the article where relevant, or saved for Wikiquote or something. A bulleted list at the end of the article doesn't seem that appropriate really. ITAQALLAH 18:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The lead section is too long, and discusses information which really isn’t covered anywhere else in the article. Since most of the lead is contrasting the Islamic view of Jesus with that of Christianity, might it be more appropriate to have a new section on that very subject. I’ve read the talk page, and I know the Islamic vis-à-vis Christian understanding of Jesus (even relating to the name of the article) has been controversial, I still think this might be a good option.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   There’s been an awful lot of activity immediately before the article was nominated. I don’t think it’s a hinderance to the promotion of the article, but I do think it needs to be noted.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Are there any images that could be utilized in this article and, if so, is there any specific reason (concern for propriety) that are discouraging their use? If so, that’s fine, but I think it should be addressed, and if possible, made up in some other fashion.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On Hold

• Regarding the lead, I made efforts to ensure everything discussed is already present in the rest of the article, so I think a new section containing this information would be repeating what's mentioned elsewhere. The first paragraph is a summary of Jesus'life according to Islamic tradition, as discussed in Jesus in Islam#Life. The second paragraph is a summary of how Jesus is viewed in Islam, as discussed in Jesus in Islam#In Islamic thought. The two main aspects of this article is these two sections, so I dedicated a paragraph to each, which IMHO is a reasonable size in relation to the article size. Could I have some more specific feedback regarding this please? (e.g. what the lead mentions but the article omits, or where things could be reduced)
• Regarding images, I had a long think about what kind of images we could use. Depictions of Jesus in Islamic tradition are to my knowledge virtually non-existent given the generally aniconistic tendencies that prevailed. Christian or other depictions would not be so appropriate considering the article topic. The only image I can think of right now is one of the Jordan river where some traditions attribute Yahya meeting Jesus. Would that suffice? Thanks. ITAQALLAH 17:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

To the point about the lead, I can see where you are going with your comment. It’s not that the Islamic as opposed to Christian views are present in the article (something I didn’t mean to imply but nevertheless did) but rather that they are not separately treated. Regardless, I’m still hesitant about the lead. For an article of this size, one paragraph should be sufficient, and WP:Lead only recommends two or three for a larger article (around 32K versus the 20 K of this article). Perhaps some combination of the two paragraphs would be helpful? Perhaps a more generalized comment about his life and mission and a (again) generalized comment about the differing conceptions of Jesus in Islam and Christianity (I’m thinking most specifically of the sentence regarding differing conceptions of the nature of “messiah” and how that relates to the claim of divinity put forward by Christians). As for the comment to images, I actually gave myself a long pause before I put that out there, for precisely the reasons you mentioned. I think you suggestion is a positive one. Perhaps an illuminated Qu’ran opened to a Sura mentioning Jesus would also be appropriate? -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've attempted to trim down the lead and leave in that which is most important. I also added an image obtained of the Jordan river. An image of a sura mentioning Jesus sounds like a good idea too, I just wonder if there's any on commons (or freely available) matching this criteria... ITAQALLAH 18:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on the changes made to the article to bring it to the appropriate standard, I hereby promote it to GA status. -- jackturner3 (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The death of Jesus section

Resolved

I have several problems with this section:

1. It does not present the historical approach of Muslims to the matter. Basically three stage could be recognized: 1. The first period starting with Tabari's exegesis. 2. The middle period, consisting of polemical approaches like that of Ibn Kathir; rational approach of Fakhr Al-Din al-Razi, and spritual approach of Sufis; The article for example does not explain that al-Zamakhshari was the first to question the whole substitutionist idea altogether based on grammatical consideration; this was followed by rational criticism of the prinicple of substitutionist idea by Fakhr Al-Din al-Razi - I think this is important to mention. 3. The modern view starting with Muhammad Abduh and his successors who have a radically different concern and employ a radically different methodology.

In parallel to this, Shia Muslims had another unique approach to the matter.

My second problem with this is that it does not reflect the scholarly views of the matter (the views of Encyclopedia of the Qur'an). It only talks about what Muslims thought of the matter. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The current section presents a summary of the Islamic texts and its mainstream interpretation on the narrative of Jesus' death or ascension. To go into all of the angles of argument concerning the death- which not of prime importance when we are trying to relate a basic narrative of what the primary Islamic texts and mainstream opinion says in essence about this period of Jesus' life- is far better reserved for an article dedicated to this topic: Islamic view of Jesus' death. I mentioned in passing the non-prevalent views of the rationalists/philosophers (falasifa) and Ismailis, but to concentrate on this matter when the Encyclopedia of Islam reports general consensus is currently not necessary. To start discussing al-Zamashkari's views (and he was - in essence - from amongst the aforementioned rationalists) or whatever would tip the WP:UNDUE balance, which is important to maintain. ITAQALLAH 21:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not satisfied with EoI's summary. It shows the Muslim view as a static thing; it does not show how the substitutionist idea evolved over time (e.g. all the variant stories of the substitutionist idea were related by Tabari on the behalf of a certain Jewish and an unnamed Christian convert to Islam; people thought that a person being killed on the behalf of another is injustice, so the person must have done it voluntary; later stories said that it was a form of punishment for the other person (thus we have Judas Iscoriot coming into play); then we have al-Zamashkari who said that the substitutionist idea can not possibly fit the relevant quranic verse based on grammatical consideration; then comes Razi's criticism of the substitutionist idea. For many mutazila the idea of God committing acts of injustice was repugnant; furthermore, for God to allow confusion of identity for whatever reason was irrational and inadmissible. It is therefore not God who caused that but the Jews who took another person themselves and killed him not letting people to come close and see what's going on. Then came the modern scholars, such as the author of al-manar, who try not to talk about what really happened(saying that the verse is obscure(mutashabihat)). In any case, there are a lot of sources and I don't think the current version is satisfactory. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

These are all minority views, and to give undue focus to them poses a WP:UNDUE problem. I point you toward the Islamic view of Jesus' death, which is the place to discuss every argument to your satisfaction. This section, which is a brief summary, is not the place. ITAQALLAH 23:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

They are not those kind of minor opinion. The guys I mentioned are indeed important figures.--Be happy!! (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we mention the views of minorities in more details later once the main article on the death of Jesus is finished. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sinlessness of Jesus

Resolved

The article relates the following hadith:

When any human being is born. Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed, for he touched the placenta-cover instead.

But does not connect it to the Qur'anic verse where Mary's mother prays to God that he protects Mary and her children from touching of Satan. I think when a prayer appears in the Qur'an, one can presume that it was accepted unless there is an evidence to the contrary.

This needs to be mentioned in the article I believe.--Be happy!! (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The EoI mentions the hadith, with no link to any Qur'anic verse. If you have a source, please do include it. ITAQALLAH 21:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, Aminz, it is already partly mentioned in the Birth section. ITAQALLAH 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a reference to Jesus being strengthened by holy spirit; the other is about the birth. Furthermore, no everybody thinks that spirit is Gabriel. So, the above one needs correction.--Be happy!! (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The above mention discusses the spirit of God, stating that it is usually associated with the angel Gabriel. The rest of the EoI narrative assumes it as Gabriel. Again, as far as I know, the majority view here is that it was indeed Gabriel. ITAQALLAH 22:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That Holy spirit is Gabriel is a speculation after all. If EoI says it is majority view speculate that way, we can mention that, but there is no reason to remove the other view. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove any other view. According to EoI, it is the traditions which associate Gabriel with the holy spirit. The EoI itself then discusses the rest of the story in reference to Gabriel. ITAQALLAH 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is originally based on the following argument from the Qur'an: in one place it says that the spirit brings down the revelation and in the other says that Gabriel does. So, they say that they must be the same. This is insufficient to suppress the other view. It is mentioned in EoQ: "This apparent personal identity of the holy spirit in the latter passage has prompted some Muslim commentators to identify the holy spirit by whom God ‘strengthened’ Jesus with Gabriel (q.v.), the traditional, angelic bearer of God's messages in the scriptures. For others the holy spirit in these passages is said to be identical with the created spirit from God..."

The author of EoI may choose something but there are other articles from EoQ, EoI and other reliable source as well.--Be happy!! (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, mainstream interpretation is that the spirit refers to Gabriel I believe. Refer also to the EoI article on Angels in its coverage of Gabriel. ITAQALLAH 23:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Angel article in EoI is simply saying the POV of the author. He is not saying mainstream believes in this. I have already mentioned another source on this and the best one can prove is that there is a contradiction between reliable sources. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The majority say it's Gabriel. Here is one source I will provide. "A Dictionary of Islam" (p. 605), under its entry of Ruh/Spirit, ennumerates and quotes 19 passages from the Qur'an which mention spirits etc. Here are some verses listed against these respective numbers: 1) ^{[Quran 2:81]}; 2) ^{[Quran 2:254]}; 4) ^{[Quran 5:109]} 5) ^{[Quran 16:2]} (I've listed only the ones relevant to this discussion of Jesus and the strengthening from the spirit - note there are some differences in the numbers, 1) should be 2:87, 2) 2:253 4) 5:110). Now, this is what the source says: "Of the above quotations, Muslim commentators are agreed in applying Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, to the angel Gabriel;" I hope this puts the issue to rest. ITAQALLAH 23:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Muslim commentators are agreed" is in contradiction with the other source and as I mentioned it does not prove anything except that there is a contradicition. I agree that it is the majority view.Here is my suggestion: we change:

"Spirit of God," an agent of divine action or communication commonly associated in Islam with the angel Gabriel (ar: Jibreel)."

to

"Spirit of God," an agent of divine action or communication often identified in Islam with the angel Gabriel (ar: Jibreel) but also with the created spirit from God."

In the footnote, we can elaborate more. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. ITAQALLAH 13:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Etymology Section

The Etymology section says, in the last paragraph: "The Arabic words that are borrowed from Aramaic or Syriac are often employed by 'ayn . Furthermore, the Manichaean fragments provide an evidence for dropping the final 'ayin of the borrowed Hebrew terms."

This sounds important, but I can't figure out what it means. What is "employed by 'ayn" trying to convey? I think that 'ayn is the name of a letter in Hebrew (and therefore, likely, a letter in Aramaic and Arabic, as well—I know . . . I'm really flaunting my ignorance here), but I don't know if it's the same thing as 'ayin.

It would be great if someone fluent in English and with knowledge of Semitic languages could take a look at this and try to make it clearer to laymen like me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CKA3KA (talk • contribs) 22:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesus in Islam

The title of this article suggests that it has been written from a Christian perspective which is essentially violation of NPOV policies. The title should be Isa and a section of it could be dedicated to the comparison of Islamic belief in Isa and Christian belief in Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.166.46 (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an English encyclopedia. Jesus is the English name for `Īsā, just like Cologne is the English name for Köln. The page is called Jesus in Islam because it's about how Jesus is regarded in Islam. Christianity has nothing to do with it. SaintedLegion (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Like all prophets in Islam, Jesus is considered to have been a Muslim" - A quote from the article and a blatantly untrue one, born of Western assumption. Muslims are considered to support and believe in all religions but follow ones. We are taught that religions change, though they all have similar foundations and the Quran in our God's final revelation.

Jesus is viewed to us as Jewish. His supporters, following his death, are taught to us as being Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.242.54 (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with this somewhat. There are certainly quite a few people who believe that all Prophets were Muslims, but it is a majority view unless I'm much mistaken. I'll be happy if at least a source is provided. NP10 —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC).

Second coming reference from Quran?

Only in Yusuf Ali's translation we specifically see the word "Jesus" in brackets: "And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment) [...]". So It is not accurate to use Quran as a reference for Jesus second coming. What should be written is that many (give reference, eg. Yusuf Ali etc...) "claim" to believe and interpret the above passage in Quran as a proof/evidence/indication of Jesus' second coming.

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.59.64 (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The title of this page

As you can see here Jesus translation into Arabic is يسوع, and in Islam there is no prophet, whatsoever, named يسوع. The prophet who is meant by this article is Isa/Eesa who is the same figure of Jesus in Christianity, but Islam doesn't name him Jesus it is Isa/Eesa Ibn Maryam (Isa son of Maryam). And as long as this article speaks about Isa/Eesa from an Islamic point of view, I suggest that the title of this article is to be moved to Isa or Eesa not Jesus in Islam, since there is no prophet in Islam called Jesus. Yamanam (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at length above. Issa is the same historic figure as Jesus, Jesus is the English name. His actual name was not Jesus, but that is his English name, be it from an Islamic or Christian point of view. Vegfarandi (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a talk page, Then Why ?

This is a talk page, Then Why the above posts were deleted ?

--ChJameel (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not an indiscriminate talk page, it is to be used solely for improving the article, not discussing the topic itself. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Cite some sources for

Cite some sources for the statement that Jesus will fight on the same side as the madhi is a shi'ite only belief .

Its a universal Muslim belief.

--ChJameel (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

sources should be pretty easy to find then

Grant bud (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I Propose a Redirect.

Can someone redirect "Isa Bin Maryam" to this page? the names mean the same, don't they? 75.72.25.219 (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you mean Isa ibn Maryam, then it is already redirected to this article. There is no article named Isa Bin Maryam. Rāmā (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I mean if we search for Isa Bin Maryam istead of Isa Ibn Maryam, could it lead us here? 75.72.25.219 (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google search shows that at least a few people use that spelling/terminology for Jesus, so I went ahead and put in the redirect. I've also added a redirect for Isa Ibn Maryam (with "Ibn" capitalized).—Chowbok ☠ 21:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Review request

I have removed some quotes and copyedited some sections as 1) Quotes were taking up too much of space in the article 2) they were giving undue weight to certain viewpoints. A review will be greatly appreciated -- Raziman T V (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Natural Death Philosophy

No where in the Quran or Sunnah does it say thet Jesus died because there are 70+ Hadiths and Quranic verses talking about and deny the Crucifixion,so I Don't think there should be mention of this Philosophy that has no back up what so ever

Obviously those people who deny the Ascension of Jesus are Non Arab Scholars who lived decades ago ... They're Arabic wasn't fluent and they haven't reviewed the Quran clearly ...The Ascension of Jesus is considered the part of the Islamic Aqidah as told by on of Mohamed's Companions so it is extremely offensive to preview philosophies made by people who aren't fluent in arabic in a Islamic faith which contrasts with the Islamic Aqidah so the conclusion is that the ascension of Jesus isn't a christian influenced belief but clearly Islamic based

Anyways I shall show some verses from the Quran and explain and prove my Thesis point and I hope this would be taken seriously and understood as well as assessed in a fair matter

after reading the two paragraphs I see no Resource accept one about 3.55 which clearly proves my thesis right ... so I think i did the right job to delete two paragraphs that have no back up source but Iam willing to provide many sources to prove my point correct as well as inspire those edit this article to maybe add what i wrote to make the Message clearer

003.055 YUSUFALI: Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.

now the philosopher who isn't Fluent in Arabic took the word Mutawafik and stated it meant death ... but clearly that is false because according to Arabic grammar that word means put you in a state of unconsciousness close to death BUT NOT DEATH

If he reads clearly what the verse says it talks about Purification from disbelievers so this is the End of Jesus on earth and according to the Quran the depart of Jesus from the earth occurred after god purified him from disbelievers ... this is clearly talking about the CRUCIFIXION!

he later goes on and states that Jesus dies a peaceful death ... do u die a peaceful death after crucifixion? and clearly like I said earlier this verse is talking about Purification from disbelievers so this verse teaches that the last act of Jesus on earth had to do with disbelievers ...( the Romans whom tried to crucify him)

this is common sense ....

after that the verse says I raise thee to myself .. if what he says is true then why is it that Allah talks about the so called "death of Jesus" and not anyone else ... why didn't Allah say O Abraham iam causing you to die .? why is it Jesus the only Prophet whom the word raise and purification is mention concerning him? ... what was so special about the so called "natural death of Jesus" that god wanted to mention it? CLEARLY IF U READ THE ARABIC ORIGINAL QURAN it says I WILL RAISE YOU UP TO ME .. when you raise a person up to god you don't raise him in status u raise him in ascension and to prove my word true Id like to show a verse from the Quran that talks about lifting up Enoch to a higher status and Allah clearly uses another word Allah says

YUSUFALI: Also mention in the Book the case of Idris(Enoch): He was a man of truth (and sincerity), (and) a prophet:

019.057 YUSUFALI: And We raised him to a lofty station.

clearly the Quran used two different words to separate the status raise and the soul raise Allah clearly says in 3.55 i shall life u unto me Allah didn't say i shall lift u up to a higher station ... he said unto me! clearly this talks about the Ascension and PURIFICATION OF JESUS FROM CRUCIFIXION BECAUSE COMMON SENSE STATES THAT SO CALLED "PEACEFUL DEATH" doesn't occur in crucifixion

so .. now finally he states that the word Mutawafeek proves the death .... that word was a word that was used by Arabs to mean sleep or unconsciousness because the word moot meant death and that word wouldn't seem like a nice word to use

Its similar to the english saying "pass away" that doesn't literally mean that the person passed acroos the river but it means something different

same thing goes with Arabic the word Mutawafik means sleep was used by Arabs to describe a dead person but unfortunately modern arab society now uses this word to literally mean DEATH OF A PERSON

Because clearly in Arabic and the Quran Allah says he caused us to Mutawifi every night .. does that mean we die everynight and get reincarnated NO! this word is a word that describes a state similar to death which is sleep ...

It is Allah that takes the souls (of men) at death; and those that did not die, during their sleep:

those on whom He has passed the decree of death, He keeps back, but the rest He sends 
(to their bodies) for a term appointed. Verily in this are Signs for those who reflect.

[Noble Quran 39:42]

clearly this verse proves me right that Jesus didnt die but was in a form of sleep where he was lifted up to the skies and Allah clearly uses the world MUTAWAFIK AND ASSOCIATES IT WITH NIGHTIME! DOES THAT MEAN WE ALL DIE A NATURAL DEATH AND NIGHT AND NEVER WAKE UP? I don't think so .. When Jesus was born and spoke his first word he said Peace be upon me the day I was born the day I die and the Day i resurrect ... he didn't use the word TAWAFA .. he used the word MOUT meaning death so clearly Jesus will die someday and taste death but not yet because according to the Quran Allah associated the word Tawafah with Jesus and sleep and he associated the word unto me with Ascension and NOT status lifting like the Enoch verse which used a another Arabic word

those Non Arab Philosophers don't know How to read Arabic and have read the Urdu Quran translated to English so things like that are bound to happen

the verses I have used will be kept below this in Arabic so If someone might doubt me he is more than welcome to contact An Arab to read it as well as use his common sense to realize that when god uses two different words he means two different things and when god associated purification with and sleep with the depart of Jesus he's talking about the Crucifixion and Ascension not the so called "Natural Death" WITH NO SOURCE FROM ANY COMPANION OF MOHAMED OR QURANIC VERSE OR HADITHS WHAT SO EVER!

إِذْ قَالَ اللَّهُ يَا عِيسَى إِنِّي مُتَوَفِّيكَ وَرَافِعُكَ إِلَيَّ وَمُطَهِّرُكَ مِنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ وَجَاعِلُ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوكَ فَوْقَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ ثُمَّ إِلَيَّ مَرْجِعُكُمْ فَأَحْكُمُ بَيْنَكُمْ فِيمَا كُنتُمْ فِيهِ تَخْتَلِفُونَ

وَاذْكُرْ فِي الْكِتَابِ إِدْرِيسَ إِنَّهُ كَانَ صِدِّيقًا نَّبِيًّا

وَرَفَعْنَاهُ مَكَانًا عَلِيًّا

اللَّهُ يَتَوَفَّى الأَنفُسَ حِينَ مَوْتِهَا وَالَّتِي لَمْ تَمُتْ فِي مَنَامِهَا فَيُمْسِكُ الَّتِي قَضَى عَلَيْهَا الْمَوْتَ وَيُرْسِلُ الأُخْرَى إِلَى أَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ

مَكَانًا عَلِيًّا this word means lofty station وَرَافِعُكَ إِلَيَّ this word means raise u unto me .

do they look similar! NO!

مُتَوَفِّيكَ this word means cause u to go in a state close to death (sleep) like Allah mentioned in the earlier verses موت this word means DEATH

are they similar NO!

Thank you,Haider 88.201.1.30 (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about The Truth. We are allowed to present differing views, even if you believe they are wrong. See WP:NPOV and WP:CS. If we have cited sources discussing these views, then I see no reason for deletion. Your personal intepretation of the Qur'an means nothing, as we forbid original research (WP:NOR), and individual users are not allowed to put forth their own knowledge or theories into the articles (and we caution against using primary sources as you have). -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

first of all this verse clearly denies the killing and crucifixion of Christ this is my resource the Quran we dont have millions of interpretations nor are you going to stand here and tell me that the word of god is mine?

Id really appreciate it if you tell me why cant this be deleted? where is the source for those philosophies?

There is no source and no Hadiths nor any Quranic verse talking about the crucifixion and natural death

Id like to tell you sir this THIS IS NOT UNCYCLOPEDIA WHERE WE MAKE UP TALES :) this is wikipedia and wikipedia uses sources I brought mine where is yours ...? you have no hadith nor any Quranic verse to prove this wind talk.... ... and Id really appreciate it if this article is looked after by an Arabic speaking Muslims .. no offense but why is it that you don't allow the word of god and replace it with some philosophy with no source

004.156 YUSUFALI: That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;

004.157 YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

004.158 YUSUFALI: Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

004.159 YUSUFALI: And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;-

this is clear ive let the Quran talking for itself iam not intrepreting anything this is simple english and its the best source ....?

e .... Iam sorry but I cant argue with you about this because your dont speak Arabic nor do you have knowledge about the Hadiths.. you are supporting wind talk with no SOURCE and u accused the word of god as my NOTHING ...? r u aware that this is an Islamic page :)

all I can talk about with you is reasons and there is no source for your talk so there is no reason to keep this wind talk ....

193.188.105.20 (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

people will be reading this so it should be precise and represents what every Muslim says.. please make sure that an Arab Muslim aware of the hadiths and Qurans has a look at this! 193.188.105.20 (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you get me the sources I shall continue to play this cat and mouse game this is not an article where you put what you support and deny the Islamic Quranic Verses,I demand and Arab Muslim reviews this page monthly!

I can also say I met Jesus yesterday but where is my source, no human being has the right to keep his philosophy in a Religious page without a source..... NO HADITH AND NO QURAN PROVES JESUS DIED NATURALLY ....Ironiclly it denies his natural death

I clearly brought the Quran to speak for itself and I proved my sources true . you dont have any nor will you ever have and this is not a uncyclopedia page this is enclopedia only firm,strong truthfulnnes is kept with a SOURCE and PROVE ...

193.188.105.20 (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please try to be more concise. Next, see WP:PRIMARY. What you are asking of me is original research. It isn't my job to show you and interpret for you primary sources, nor should it be your job to do that for us. We cannot directly cite the Qur'an and say "it means X", without citing a scholar giving that interpretation. Fact of the matter is, the content you are trying to delete is backed up by non-primary sources, even if you personally believe their views are not supported by the Qur'an or various Hadiths. Good thing our inclusion criteria is not based on your personal religious interpretation of these texts. Our citations are to Muhammad Asad, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Allama Mashriqi and others. It appears your reason for not wanting to include them is because you personally believe they are wrong. This is not a helpful approach to editing Wikipedia. I ask you to again view WP:NPOV. We are required to include all notable views, even those we may personally disagree with, for the sake of neutrality. Finally, please DO NOT edit war. WP:BRD and WP:3RR are the applicable pages. Basically, if you attempt to force your preferred version of an article by abusing reverts, and ignoring other editors (and consensus), you may be blocked. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'am not even going to ansewr you .. because you literally canceled my comments and kept words in my mouth which is stupid and sick ..

1.Who the hell do you think you are to tell me and put words in my mouth you don't know me so I suggest you treat me the way you treat a human being this is not your page and when I negotiate or argue I suggest you listen to me please THANK YOU!

2.Yes true Its not backed up and you admitted it and I think its wrong but Iam not canceling it for that ... I dont see any reason of putting air talk here with no prove and something to back up .. why should we care about what some non arab says about this thing

3.The Believe in the Ascension is clearly mentioned in the Quran and by the companions of Mohamed now If you had the knowledge then you wouldn't be doing this but like I said you're here to back up your beliefs and put words in my mouth which I think is mentally sick and immature

4.The Belief of the Ascension is part of the Aqidah GO AND RESEARCH THAT IF YOU'RE IN CHARGE OF THIS PLACE OR GO CALL SOMEONE ELSE THIS IS NOT A GAME THIS IS RELIGION PLEASE BE MATURE AND STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH AND eavesdropping to what I say and throwing insults like an immature human being ...

Why cant you provide me with a secondary source as well as why did you choose to put this imbecile's so called interpretation and not the mainstream interpretation that 90 percent of real Muslims do beleive in? ... Id like to see that

and If you claim to be Neutral then WHY THE HELL DO YOU ONLY HAVE SOURCES FROM SCHOLARS THAT SUPPORT THE SAME POINT WHY ISN'T THERE A YUSUF ALI INTERPRETATION WHY ISN'T THERE A PICKTHALL INTERPRETATION AREN'T YOU SO CALLED FAIR?... please do answer me and not just refrain from the truth :) good thing you dont have anything to prove you point besides the truth which contradicts youre point :) Highdeeboy (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Highdeeboy (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Precursor to Muhammad

This is POV Since it does not state the full text of the Gospel Verses and the context, nor does it mention the Christian defence of this

Christians believe the term relates:

1. The Holy Spirit; If Comforter refers to Muhammad, then we also have to accept that Muhammad is the Holy Spirit in John 14:26, contradicting Muslim belief that the Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel,

2. That Jesus sends Muhammad in (John 15:26 and 16:7) and that Jesus sends Muhammad in Jesus' name

3. That Muhammad dwells with the disciples forever. (John 14:16-17). Not only is Muhammad too late by 600 years, he can't dwell with them forever. The argument that the truth, law given by Muhammad will be with them forever is spurious of course, since they never receive it. that the disciples of Jesus know Muhammad. (John 14:16-17). Any other ideas?

--Paul Lewison (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In Islam, Jesus is viewed as the precursor to Muhammad. Therefore, this article should refer to Jesus as such. Let Christian articles refer to Jesus in the Christian tradition. This is an article about Jesus in Islam, not Jesus in Islam versus Jesus in Christianity. 67.248.120.140 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ascension

looks to me that this page was heavily edited, causing sections to be mingled.

The section regarding Ascension is all about the crucifixion and death?

And there is no section on crucifixion and death? --Paul Lewison (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

WE DONT HAVE CRUCIFIXTION AND DEATH IN ISLAM SIR YOUR IN THE WRONG PAGE WAKE UP PAUL! Highdeeboy (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

004.156 YUSUFALI: That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;

004.157 YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

the crucifixtion is wrong and considered something sinful in Islam the Quran clearly says Jesus wasnt crucifixed but something happened after the alleged crucifixtion Muslims say he was ascended to heavan and christians say he died but christians dont know this is a MUSLIM PAGE so I suggest you do educate yourself concerning this matter because this isnt a game :)

In Surah 5:33, The Qur'an mentions crucifixion as a form of punishment for those who fight Allah and his messenger.

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.' Surah 5:33

Clearly crucifixtion is an evil thing to do and Allah told us that christ wasnt crucifixed and only those who rebel against god must be crucifixed not a man of god like Jesus so clearly the Quran says the crucifixtion is a evil thing and REASSURES US THAT CHRIST WASNT CRUCIFIXED ..! clear as water :)

Highdeeboy (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The section on Ascension mentions Crucifixion and Death because much of the English-speaking world is culturally influenced by Christian ideas. I agree that the title and content appear not to agree with each other. Perhaps it could be preceeded with a new section, 'Crucifixion in Islam.' This new section would briefly describe why Islam says that Jesus could not have been crucified.

Highdeeboy: Those against God are crucified. Jesus was not against God. Therefore, Jesus was not crucified. This would be a logical fallacy.

Highdeeboy: Typing in all capital letters means you are shouting. This makes you seem immature on the internet. I think more people will understand you if you improve your readability. 67.248.120.140 (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally! a human arrives! sir Its hard ive been talking with people for the past 6 months Iam desperate i had to use caps and bad language skills to make them understand ... Finally a human being who knows what Islam is walks into the scence seriously I felt like I was talking to robots and sorry but I was offended this is NOT A CHRISTIAN PAGE NOR IS THIS A PAGE WITH DOUBTS he wasnt crucifixed he went up to the heavans when he was in a state close to death BUT NOT DEATH and he is to return some day! the quran clearly says that in arabic but unfortunately we have some jimmy swuugart type christians here who like to shove down thier religion in our page and argue with An fluent Arab Muslim concerning a topic which was discussed by scholars of Islam even more educated then me or you ... and clearly Mohamed told us and explained to the Muslims the following verses its not my fault wiki dont keep educated people for this page sheesh! Highdeeboy (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Mohammed was born in 571 and became a prophet at the age of 40 which makes the Quran a book DECSENDED 600 YEARS AFTER CHRIST NOT 700 and the word DESCEND is more respective than WRITTEN ..

According to Islam crucifixtion is an evil thing only to happen to those who have no faith in god so never would a pious prophet be crucied or lose his battle against the evil force because the Quran says he will rise and help those who belive ESPECIALLY A PIOUS STEADFAST LOVING PROPHET LIKE JESUS OF NAZARETH

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.' Surah 5:33

as well as the Quran clearly states they killed him not nor crucified him ! and its common sense that when God describes crucifixtion as a evil thing he wont put that evil act through one of his Prophets

Highdeeboy (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

External Link

I am hoping to add this link, it leads to a blog on the subject of Quranic references to Jesus' death. I understand links to blogs are frowned upon, but I believe this is quite focused and would be a useful as an external resource. It is here. Hopefully the regulars concur. Thanks 69.249.92.203 (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest disclosure: http://kaluss.blogspot.com mentioned above is maintained by me, I leave it to other editors if it merits inclusion as an external link. 198.58.21.237 (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Qadani

I dont think the Qadani views should be kept here mainly because they were removed as well as have no relation with Mainstream Islam they have thier own pages in the Qadani pages there is NO MENTION of the mainstream Islamic views so I find it unfair to add these views here and ignore to recognize the Islamic views in the Qadani pagesMoodswingster (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe NPOV suggests we should include all notable views, and feel this would be akin to removing Mormon views from a Jesus in Christianity article (forgive me if that analogy is off). If you feel the Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam article is lacking, then please feel free to expand it. If you think we are giving undue weight to the Ahmadiyaa view in this article, then we can consider shortening that section, but blanking outright seems wrong. This appears to be the parent article for the topic "Islam". Your suggestion, to use another analogy, seems like this. Imagine a page on "colors". Then image it has a section on red, yellow, blue, etc. Your argument to me seems like you would want to remove the refernce to "red" from the "colors" article because the "red" article doesn't mention "yellow". I believe there is a neutral way to present the Ahmadiyaa view in this article, per WP:SUMMARY style. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok I agree but please Make sure nothing more is added because the Ahmadi views have got their space as well as the Ahmadi views are similar to the Mainstream Islam its only the crucifixion is where the difference go astray so I think one paragraph is enough for them HERE IN THIS PAGE.

please go and look up the Jesus in Ahmaddiya Islam views Ive added one sentence to any verdict which Mainstream Muslims disagree on .. Ive stated that you told me to do so, So please go to the talk page and sign your posts to show your acception as well as make people aware that you have accepted my editing and it was meant to be not a VANDALISM case ..

 Thank you sir,Moodswingster (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The approach that you carried out, in which you mentioned the mainstream view after the Ahmadiyya view in many cases in Ahmadiyya views of Jesus is not right. If you wish to make a reference to Jesus in Islam, please make it succinct and conclusive. Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made a link in Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam, if not happy please discuss. Andrew did not mean what you actually did in the article.Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The Qur'aanic Sitation

The article reads:

The Qur’an states that he will return to Earth near the day of judgment to restore justice and defeat al-Masīḥ ad-Dajjāl ("the false messiah", also known as the Antichrist)[4][5] along with Imam Mahdi.

There is no such teaching in the Quraan, and there is no such Quraanic verse which states this. This teaching comes from the ahadith (traditions) and tafasir (commentaries). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaaqov B. Yisrael (talk • contribs) 02:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Yaaqov, thanks for your recent edits. I moved the "Jesus died" addition here, because we need to work on it a bit.

However, some Islamic commentators explain that Jesus died a natural death, and that his soul only returned to Allah. They base this from the following:

إِذْ قَالَ اللَّهُ يَا عِيسَىٰ إِنِّي مُتَوَفِّيكَ وَرَافِعُكَ إِلَيَّ وَمُطَهِّرُكَ مِنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا وَجَاعِلُ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوكَ فَوْقَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ ۖ ثُمَّ إِلَيَّ مَرْجِعُكُمْ فَأَحْكُمُ بَيْنَكُمْ فِيمَا كُنْتُمْ فِيهِ تَخْتَلِفُونَ

And when Allah said: O Isa, I am going to terminate you (mutawaffika) and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so l will decide between you concerning that in which you differed. Qur'an 3:55

In this verse it says in Arabic إِنِّي مُتَوَفِّيكَ Inni mutawaffika, which is from the verb وفى wafa, which when used in the توفّى tawaffa conjugation means to take in death. William Lane in his Arabic Lexicon states that توفّاه الّله tawaffahu Allah means God takes his soul. In another verse of the Qur'an it says:

وَهُوَ الْقَاهِرُ فَوْقَ عِبَادِهِ ۖ وَيُرْسِلُ عَلَيْكُمْ حَفَظَةً حَتَّىٰ إِذَا جَاءَ أَحَدَكُمُ الْمَوْتُ تَوَفَّتْهُ رُسُلُنَا وَهُمْ لَا يُفَرِّطُونَ

And He is the Supreme, above His servants, and He sends keepers over you; until when death comes to one of you, Our messengers cause him to die (tawaffathu), and they are not remiss. Qur'an 6:61

This verse uses the same verb form found in 3:55, and gives the meaning of one being taken in death.

Would it be ok if we worked on this a bit here, first? We can't have links in the text like this (see WP:EL) and we need to know who the commentators are that say this (try to avoid using "some", see WP:Weasel words). We also need more specific references, preferably:

• The specific location of both verses in the Qur'an (link if possible)
• A link to the page in the lexicon where William Lane actually says that about tawaffahu
• A link that tells us who the commentators are that say this about Jesus' death (because we try to be specific instead of saying "some" :) )

If it's easier, we could just copy the relevant section from Islamic view of Jesus' death, it looks like they've already done the work for us :) Thanks for understanding and for helping to improve this article,

-- Joren (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Islamic View of Jesus

Please see Talk:Jesus in Islam/Archive 2#Islamic View of Jesus for an animated discussion of whether or not this article has a pro-Christian bias. In the future, please refrain from dredging up comments that have already been archived. It's much easier just to link to them :) like this: Talk:Jesus in Islam/Archive 2#Islamic View of Jesus

-- Joren (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I did end up removing one paragraph from this article as the view on the crucifixtion of Jesus is very clearly described in the Quran is Surah Yunus. It is very clear that he was lifted straight to heaven as per the Surah. Some of these edits were under a section Ahmaddiyah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.204.240 (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please remove the Ahmadiya section under this heading and refer to the separate section. None of the muslim countries accepts Ahmadiya as an authentic group. The are considered non-muslims by constitution in several countries and are considered a non-muslim minority. I respect their belief but I think there is a separate article on this issue which addresses Ahmadiya belief regarding Jesus and this paragraph should be removed from this particular article to keep Wikipedia authentic and accurate. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzia amc (talk • contribs) 18:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya section

Please remove the Ahmadiya section under this heading and refer to the separate section. None of the muslim countries accepts Ahmadiya as an authentic group. The are considered non-muslims by constitution in several countries and are considered a non-muslim minority. I respect their belief but I think there is a separate article on this issue which addresses Ahmadiya belief regarding Jesus and this paragraph should be removed from this particular article to keep Wikipedia authentic and accurate. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzia amc (talk • contribs) 18:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The section you removed already made the point that they were not mainstream, and is written in summary style - linking to another article and copying the introductory paragraph. Whether or not they are "authentic" is not something I believe Wikipedia can decide. This sort of situation arises on various religious articles on Wikipedia from time to time. In articles on ____ religion, someone will argue that a group they consider a cult should be removed, because they are not practicing true ____. However, if they arose as an offshoot of ____ or have been significantly influenced by ____, in my opinion, that justifies including them (as long as they are WP:Notable anyway). It seems, based on a quick reading of Ahmadiyya Movement, that they are at the least Islam-influenced, and hence I can't really be comfortable with having Wikipedia remove this section at the behest of governments that consider them non-Muslims. If Ahmadiyya's views of Jesus are not WP:Notable, then that would be another issue.

I am restoring the section for now until we get some consensus on how to handle it (let's keep talking about it) but I'll see if there's anything we can do to avoid giving them WP:UNDUE weight to avoid leading the reader to think they are a mainstream group.

-- Joren (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I restored the section, but I felt that it was giving them a bit of undue weight, so I tried to limit it to the essentials while including a link to the main article. It is in a section called "Other views" under "Islamic thought", and makes the point that they break with mainstream Islamic interpretation. Tell me what you think - I don't think we can just remove it, however if you think the article is misleading in any way, please share, it is important for us to not push a point of view. Thank you,

-- Joren (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the heading should stay as Ahmadiyya views, as there are as far as i know no other distinct views and that it is notable enough - It is notable enough for it to be a subheading under a subheading, if not subheading under a heading. For now i'll edit, but always expecting responses. Thanks. Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. I linkified Ahmadiyya Movement.

-- Joren (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Injil

An edit was made recently to the lede, which says This scripture, the Gospel Of Jesus, is now considered lost and corrupted, though fragments of it remain in the Gospels present in the current New Testament. I thought the Injil was mentioned in the Quran, not in modern scholarship, so I don't know what "is now considered" is supposed to mean. Considered by who? Is this only the assertion of Muslim theology? Or are there historians that believe this to be true? The tone could lead the reader to think that secular historians believe that there was an original Gospel that preceded the four, and I don't know that modern historians accept that claim, so I reverted the edit. If it is the contention of Islamic belief, then it should clearly say that; in any case, we need to know who says that and we need to have a source as well.

-- Joren (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)