Talk:Isaac in Islam

Untitled
The section "Isaac in Qu'ran" is the same as the section on Isaac. Maybe merging + adding the prophet template on Isaac? The same is done by Ishmael) Blubberbrein2 09:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Arabic spelling
At the beginning of the article, Ishaq is spelled (in Arabic) with haa and qaaf connected and only an implied fatHa to join them. On the other hand, it is spelled with a long alif between them in the template Prophets in the Qur'an. I don't know which is correct, but someone who does should fix the error. - Draeco 04:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of pictures
Islam does not allow pictures of prophets please do not use them 86.20.55.254

Where does it say that?

Also Wikipedia is not Islamic and allows pictures. So I see nothing wrong with putting up pictures of the subject on this article.

---> Alright, if you will not listen to an Islamic reason for it, I will approach it from the secular view. The picture represents a Christian artist impression of Isaac. Hence, it is inappropriate to put it on the page of 'Islamic View of Isaac'. The picture should be moved to the Christian view of Isaac. Knowing this, are you implying that it is alright for this picture to stay on this page when the heading says 'Islamic VIEW of Isaac'? If you say yes, then, you just given Muslims the right to do the same by correcting Jesus as Isa in the Christian pages. Even I, as a Muslim, wouldn't be doing something like that. I would like to advise you to strictly keep any 'Islamic view of ....' within resources made by Muslims. May God guide us closer to the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.142.43 (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the above.RiZius (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Only some branches of Islam restrict the depiction of prophets the second largest denomination Shia has no problem with it. 176.250.84.93 (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Naming of Islamic Prophets
I must say that I am not Muslim, but it has been my observation that Muslims tend to keep ALL the names of their prophets and important Qur'anic figures in Arabic, or in the Latin phonetic transcription of Arabic. That is why I wonder why whenever Wikipedia addresses the Islamic view on a prophet/figure that is common to Islam, Judaism and/or Christianity, the Judeo-Christian name is still used althrough the article/section (with the exception of the first few lines). Is there an answer to this? Case and point:

Most importantly: The only article where the English transcription of Arabic is consistebtly used, is in the Ibrahim article.
 * In the Is'haq article, it says "English: Isaac", and continues using this form. Even though most English-speaking Muslims would say "Is'haq", or "Ishaq", or "Ishaqa" in West Africa.
 * In the Islamic section of the Ishmael article, he is still refered to mostly as Ishmael, as oppsed to "Ismail", "Ismaila", or "Soumaila" in West Africa.
 * In the Islamic view of Jesus article, most of the article refers to Jesus as such, as opposed to what the Muslims, even in the English-speaking world, would refer to him as, namele "Isa", or "'Isa", or "Issa" in West Africa.

So my question then becomes, does Wikipedia take the position that in English the Judeo-Christian naming takes precedence over all else? Does that mean that Palestinian Prime-Minister should now be knwn in English as Ishmael Haniyeh, as opposed to Ismail Haniyeh? Or Arab League Secretary General, as Amr Moses, instead of Amr Musa? I am just wondering. Themalau 01:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My Experience is that English speaking Muslims rarely use the Arabic names (i'm in the US). And since most of the edits of Muslim articles are by Muslims, it appears that this trend is typical. There is no policy about this, so if anyone, such as yourself, wants to change this, go ahead. The only reason I know not to is that English names make it easier for non-Muslims. --Ephilei 04:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that it would be easier for non-Muslims to understand when you use the English version of the name and I see the relevance of not changing it. However, I harshly disagree about your statement that English speaking Muslims rarely use the Arabic names. We Muslims, regardless of our nationality, do not prefer using the names of our Prophets (pbuh) that are different from what the Quran had taught us. Sure, we use it when talking to Non-Muslims and new converts so that they understand but in private and among ourselves, we keep to the name taught to us by what was revealed in the Quran. I believe that there are a lot of Islamic Societies here in UK that can vouch for me. Look at FOSIS Pamphlets that are directed to Muslim students and you will see that they use the Arabic form. Think about this as well, we recite the Quran everyday in Arabic and we keep coming upon the names of these Prophets and we pronounce them in the Arabic pronunciation. When we pray to God, we use the Arabic names as well. Hence, which names are more dear to us? I admire your good intention and I hope that you do not see my comment as aggressive instead of a mere firm reminder. However, this is just my point of view as a Muslim living in the UK. RiZius (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Islamic views on Abraham which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Merging Isaac in Islam with Isaac
Redirecting Isaac in Islam to Isaac: Islamic views section. Some diologe repeat and their is a section on the Quran in Islamic views of Isaac. Doremon764 (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)