Talk:Islamic views on Jesus' death/Archive 1

Allah's motivation
Is there any verifiable discussion as to why Allah would want to make people believe that Isa had been crucified? 89.243.92.253 (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of Matthew 28
This content was originally in the context of Amadiyya. I've removed because I can't make any sense out of it but I'm sure it points to a fascinating connection, so I put it here in case any one is able to re-introduce it.


 * provides the reasoning behind such "not crucified at all" beliefs:


 * "When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, 'You are to say, "His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep." If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.' So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day."

Fallacy in article...
[Second, the Qur'an states that God caused Jesus to die in Surah 3.55. However, the translation of "to die" is debated]

Actually, that particular Surah states that Allah ascended Isa(PBUH) to the heavans with Him, it doesn't proclaim his death before Allah raised him; meaning that Isa was alive when he ascended to the heavans. I'll just go ahead and delete that part.


 * Actually, that particular Surah says nothing about ascension - the Arabic says "to terminate your stay" as shakir translates literally. There is a long controversey behind it I'd like to write about eventually. For now, I revered but hopefully made it more ambiguous as the Qur'an is ambiguous. --Ephilei 06:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * the arabic says (after mutafawwika) " وَرَافِعُكَ" which literally means ascenscion (wa rafi'aka ilayy - and raise you unto Me), shakir translates it as: ... O Isa, I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me... - hope that clarifies any misunderstanding  ITAQALLAH   16:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh! You're quite right. Excuse my brief imperception! --Ephilei 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Article states "A third explanation could be that Jesus was nailed to a cross, but as his body is immortal he did not "die" or was not "crucified" [to death]; it only appeared so." --This is contradictory to the Islamic belief that Jesus was a mortal prophet and has no place in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.135.178.248 (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

What can be added to the article
Here is what Montgomery Watt in his book “Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman.”("Oxford University Press, 1961. from pg. 229.") states :

In Muhammad, I should hold, there was a welling up of the creative imagination, and the ideas thus produced are to a great extent true and sound. It does not follow, however, that all the Qur'anic ideas are true and sound. In particular there is at least one point at which they seem to be unsound�the idea that ' revelation ' or the product of the creative imagination is superior to normal human traditions as a source of bare historical fact. There are several verses in the Qur'an (II. 5I; 3. 39; I2. I03) to the effect that ' this is one of the reports of the unseen which We reveal to thee; thou didst not know it, thou nor thy people, before this '. One could admit a claim that the creative imagination was able to give a new and truer interpretation of a historical event, but to make it a source of bare fact is an exaggeration and false.

This point is of special concern to Christians, since the Qur'an denies the bare fact of the death of Jesus on the cross, and Muslims still consider that this denial outweighs the contrary testimony of historical tradition. The primary intention of the Qur'an was to deny the Jews' interpretation of the crucifixion as a victory for themselves, but as normally explained it goes much farther. The same exaggeration of the role of ' revelation ' has also had other consequences. The Arab contribution to Islamic culture has been unduly magnified, and that of the civilized peoples of Egypt, Syria, 'Iraq and Persia, later converted to Islam, has been sadly belittled.

Too much must not be made of this slight flaw. Which of us, conscious of being called by God to perform a special task, would not have been more than a little proud ? On the whole Muhammad was remarkably free from pride. Yet this slight exaggeration of his own function has had grave consequences and cannot be ignored.

W Montgomery Watt also writes about this in his book "A Christian Faith for Today" on p. 103 (you can access to this page for free and online at books.google.com; search for a word that you guess occurs on that page)

Encyclopedia of Islam writes:

On the subject of the death of Jesus, two questions require to be answered: (1) was Jesus really crucified and did he therefore die on the cross? (2) supposing that this was not the case, did he die a natural death? Concerning the first question, the Qur'an states its position categorically: against the Jews who claimed “we slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God”, it states “yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them (walakin shubbiha lahum). Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge of him except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of a certainty ( yaqin )—no indeed; God raised him up to Him”; (IV, 156-7). Muslim tradition completes the statements of the Qur’an. According to some, Christ was replaced by a double, according to others it was Simon of Cyrene or one of the Apostles (Judas).

On the different modern explanations of the walakin shubbiha lahum, cf. Michaud, 64-5, who mentions them and himself agrees with Hayek (41) in understanding “it seemed thus to them”, which this writer considers to be the most plausible interpretation. Certain falasifa and some Ismaili commentators have interpreted this passage thus: the Jews intended to destroy the person of Jesus completely; in fact, they crucified only his nasut, his lahut remained alive; cf. L. Massignon, Le Christ dans les Évangiles selon Ghazali, in REI, 1932, 523-36, who cites texts of the Rasa'il Ikhwan al-Safa (ed. Bombay, iv, 115), a passage of Abu Hatim al-Razi (about 934), and another of the Ismaili Mu'ayyad Shirazi (1077). But this interpretation was not generally accepted and it may be said that there is unanimous agreement in denying the crucifixion. The denial, furthermore, is in perfect agreement with the logic of the Qur’an. The Biblical stories reproduced in it (e.g., Job, Moses, Joseph etc.) and the episodes relating to the history of the beginning of Islam demonstrate that it is “God's practice” (sunnat Allah ) to make faith triumph finally over the forces of evil and adversity. “So truly with hardship comes ease”, (XCIV, 5, 6). For Jesus to die on the cross would have meant the triumph of his executioners; but the Quran asserts that they undoubtedly failed: “Assuredly God will defend those who believe”; (XXII, 49). He confounds the plots of the enemies of Christ (III, 54).

On the origins of the Qur'anic concept of the crucifixion (gnostic and docetic Christianity, as maintained by H. Gregoire, seeing here a concession to certain docetic Monophysites, in Mélanges Charles Diehl, Paris 1930, i, 107-19; a rejection of Ledit's view in Mahomet, Israël et le Christ, 151-6, where he attempts to find texts of the Quran which refer symbolically to the mystery of the redemption) cf. Michaud, 68-71.

Concerning the second question (the death of Jesus and his ascension to God), an examination of the Quranic texts XIX, 34, III, 48, XXXIX, 43, and in particular the key text IV, 155-7 (which throws light on the preceding ones and reveals the true Islamic attitude to the death of Jesus), shows (1) that the resurrection referred to in XIX, 84 is the general resurrection which the Quran proclaims for the end of the world; there was a special resurrection for Jesus, since Jesus did not die on the cross. Later tradition (cf. Hayek, 265-8) stated that it would be at the end of time, when Jesus returned again, that he would die the natural death announced in XIX, 34. (2) The word tawaffa usually means a death which is blessed, a return to God for the final judgement, but it is also used in VI, 60 for God's recalling the souls of those who sleep while they are asleep and returning them when they awake (cf. Fränkel, in ZDMG, lvi, 77). The verb is twice used of Jesus, in III, 48 and V, 119. The first passage could imply an elevation of the living Jesus to God. The second is ambiguous. The question is settled by the passage IV, 155-7, in which it is stated that Jesus was not killed by the Jews but was raised up to heaven. In other words, we have the following succession of events: apparent death, ascension, second coming, natural death, general resurrection. For all this section, cf. Michaud, 60-4.

Also, Thomas McElwain in Chapter 8 of his book "Islam in the Bible" writes

The vicarious sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross is thought to be an essential requisite for the forgiveness of sin. Muslims have generally, but not universally, denied the crucifixion altogether. Obviously that is a stand the Bible does not share, since the crucifixion is definitely maintained in the Gospels. The substitution theory, known from the Gospel of Barnabas, does not seem reconcilable with the canonical Gospels. The swoon theory, whereby Jesus was crucified but did not die, is somewhat more tenable, but requires the assumption that the disciples were ignorant of the true facts.

What is in conflict with Islam is not the death and resur­rection of Jesus as such. It is the vicarious sacrifice for sin which is absolutely and altogether unacceptable. The easiest and most direct path to that goal is merely to deny the crucifixion altogether. But in so doing, the Muslim must reject the Gospel narrative.

The Christian doctrine of the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus has only two Biblical sources. The first is the allegorical interpretation of the sacrificial system of the Hebrew Scriptures. The second is the metaphorical application of the Paschal lamb to Jesus in the writings of Paul and Peter. There is no Gospel justification at all. The only condition for forgiveness in the Gospel is in Matthew 6:14-15. We are forgiven as we forgive others. The Christian doctrine, despite being so central to the faith, has only the most tenuous Scriptural foundation. Although Muslims do not do so, they could find a far firmer basis for their rejection of a vicarious sacrifice for sin in Scripture than the Christians find in favour of their doctrine.

I shall not discuss further the historicity of the crucifix­ion and resurrection of Jesus. Some of the non-canonical Gospels do not even mention it. One, the Gospel of Barnabas, even denies it outright. It is undeniable, however, that the New Testament teaches the historical crucifixion and resurrection. But this does not imply that the New Testament teaches that this was a sacrifice in atonement for sin which God required in order to be able to forgive sins.

There are two facts that cannot be denied. First, the Christian establishment maintains that Jesus gave himself as a sacrifice for sin on the cross and without that sacrifice God could not forgive sin. The second historical fact is that the followers of Jesus Christ went on participating in the sacrificial system of the temple in Jerusalem until its destruction in AD 70.

I don't have time to do it myself. --Aminz 04:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Jesus death
Even though some sources say that he did die, but all of them definitely accept the fact that he was not cruxified. and I think it needs to be explicitly mentioned on the article so that a reader would understand that the discussion amongst Muslims is not on the fact that he was given death by his enemies or not but the problem is whether he was ascended alive or dead. --SaadSaleem 08:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While Surah 4.157-158 are the most often quoted verses and appear to deny his death, several other verses appear to affirm his death. Some scholars like Javed Ahmed Ghamidi and Amin Ahsan Islahi believe that Jesus did indeed die.  in the article suggests that opinion of Ghamidi and Islahi are contradictory to verse 4.157-158, which is actually wrong. As these verses only say that Jesus was saved from his enemies and then raised, with which these scholars agree. I think, we need to change the tone of the article a little bit to make it comopatible with scholars' writings. SaadSaleem 11:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the part in the Article where it said that Abd'Allah Ibn Abbas said Mutwafeeka means death. Partially that is true, but relating to this verse he said that mutawafeeka does not mean death. He was quoted by As Sayuti as saying : "The gist of this tafsir or explanation is that tawaffi does mean giving death, but there is the element of precedence and sequence in the words used. The fact of raafi'uka (I shall raise you) will come first and that of mutawaffika (I shall give you death) later. Now at this point, the wisdom behind mentioning the phenomenon of the earlier lies in the hint that it gives about the events which are to come later on. It means that raising towards Allah will not last forever; it would be temporary and then, he would return to the mortal world and prevail over enemies and later on, death will come to him in a natural way. " Also in the tafsir he wrote relating to this verse in Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs he explains the verse 3:55 "((And remember) when Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me, and am cleansing) saving (thee of those who disbelieve) in you (and am setting those who follow you) follow your Religion (above those who disbelieve) with strong argument and triumph (until the Day of Resurrection) then I shall make you to die after descent; it is also said this means: I shall make your heart die to the love of the life of this world. (Then unto Me ye will (all) return) after death, (and I shall judge between you as to that wherein) in religion (ye used to differ) to argue." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilmseaker (talk • contribs) 04:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

giving undue weight?
some observations:


 * i think the article is giving undue weight to the minority view which is held only by the Mu'tazilite end of the spectrum (i.e. jesus died), the corpus of islamic literature is supportive of the substitution hypothesis (or something similar along the lines of jesus not dying and being raised alive) and is the most common belief held amongst muslims. to fix this, i do think the "jesus died" part of the article needs significant trimming, to something which is a brief overview and not an analysis of every verse possible.


 * I agree that there is undue weight, but I disagree that it should be trimmed because verifiable info should not be deleted for any reason. There are two options: 1, add more info to the substition belief or 2, move "jesus died" into its own article and give a brief summary here. I can already tell you the latter option won't work because someone will accuse it of being NN, nominate for AfD, and the outcome will be to merge it back to this article. Therefore, the substituion section should be expanded. --Ephilei 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * well a lot of the info has not yet been verified, although you do state that you will get the refs soon so we'll see then. however, i think that one of the primary arguments should use the verse fully quoted while the other lesser verses/arguments can be elaborated within one or two paragraphs while providing external links to the verses, in the same way as done in the substitution section. there's nothing much to currently expand the substitution section with, and i feel some of the latter verses mentioned in the jesus died section can easily be summarised/explained within a few sentences without taking up so much room and without detracting from the argument (if and when it becomes sourced).  ITAQALLAH   23:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! Do it! --Ephilei 02:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * soooooon... ان شاء الله :)  ITAQALLAH   05:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * a lot of the qur'aanic quotes are WP:OR especially when parellels are attempted to be drawn (namely the citations from ch 19). if notable exegetes have used such arguments then citations should be given for it (as was done for 3.144)


 * This is not OR because I added the info based on the research of others. I've done no original research on this. However, I will add references. I've been slowly adding to this article since the start and am still unfinished. --Ephilei 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OR can be any notion that isn't supported by the relevant citations. in this case, even the research of others is not accepted if they are non-notable or not RS on the issue. qur'aan by its nature is a primary source, so the opinion of anyone in evaluation of the source is not accepted unless it comes from a recognised authority or a published source. the point being, that if such an argument is used on a few websites, it is OR to include them if they do not quote any proper authorities for their deductions. in a nutshell: if this argument has been used by exegetes or scholars (i.e. anyone noteworthy), then the citations need inclusion. if a significant number of people believed this verse constituted evidence for a notion, it would have been documented somewhere.  ITAQALLAH   23:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I politely disagree that "any notion that isn't supported by the relevant citations" is OR. In that case nearly all WP would be OR because only ~1/100 statements give ref citations! To be technical, the Qur'an is not a primary source; a primary source directly documents an event. In this case, the event is Jesus' death, the primary source is God, and the Qur'an is a source documenting Muhammad's conversation with Gabriel. Or, if you consider that the article is about the Qur'an's view of Jesus' death, then the Qur'an is the event itself.


 * please see WP:OR. it goes without saying that accepted fact does not need citation. you do not need citation, for example, to say that the sun is hot. where certain assertions go beyond the blindingly obvious, citations are needed from authorities in that field. some quotes from WP:OR


 * Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".


 * Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library.


 * in fact, that whole page essentially disqualifies unpublished research/theories/interpretations, this is what OR is. OR does not have to be something that the editor themselves has invented. it can be any unpublished material which either makes primary sources or analyses them to come to a conclusion, and such is not fit for an encyclopaedia such as WP, simply because an authority in that field has not verified it and published it. whatever standards other articles assume is of no consequence (and there are some rather poorly written articles), it is the WP policy which forms the bedrock of how articles are to be written.


 * from the muslim perspective, and as the qur'aan itself testifies, the qur'aan is considered the actual Speech of God. it is certainly not considered Muhammad's conversation with Gabriel. revelation came through various means: sometimes from God directly and sometimes transmitted by God through Gabriel to Muhammad. in any case, it is a religious scripture and a primary source.  ITAQALLAH   03:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * can somebody please direct me to a published QXP translation of the qur'aan, because if it is not a verified and published translation then it should not be used (else anyone can make their own translations, put it up on a website and then use it on WP). as far as i know, QXP is not an acknowledged translation and should not have replaced the previous translation.


 * I replaced the previous translation because it didn't translated "to die" which was the whole point. Feel free to replace it with any other translation that uses "to die".


 * we should try to use established and published translations which use the phrase "to die". if the translation to "to die" is recognised (as well as accurate) then it will be in a published and recognised translation. the issue is whether or not the specific translation itself merits inclusion (as opposed to the previous translation) if it is not supported by a reliable source.


 * an example being if i look at a verse and i translate it in a way that recognised publishers have not translated it and then put it on WP, opining that this word means "to die" and that word means "to die" aswell (or extracting such arguments from non-authoritative websites). if the translation is not authorised, it's not acceptable for WP as authoratative exegetes did not translate it in that way. so the translation has to be recognised, and the interpretation derived from the verse must be recognised.


 * so there are two issues here:
 * which recognised commentator translated this verse in this way?
 * which recognised commentator drew this specific argument and interpretation from this verse?
 * so the first concerns whether or not the translation merits inclusion- any recognised/reliable translation will suffice- does QXP qualify as a recognised translation? if not, are there any authorities which translate the verse in this way? if not, does this specific translation merit mention? the second concerns if the corresponding argument can be drawn from the verse- any recognised exegete will suffice.  ITAQALLAH   23:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You can use Sale or Rodwell. I avoided them because they're not Muslims, and sometimes Muslims therefore get offended when they're quoted. --Ephilei 02:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * the comment re: ghamidi/islahi (in other articles ghamidi has been called a sunni scholar which is contentious) in 3.55 is not entirely accurate, in that it is arguing that they consider the death to be physical and thus question the return. it is in fact the other way around. they question the return as they (incorrectly, IMHO) do not accept certain kinds of tawatur narrations, and in this case the group of narrations talking about jesus' return at the end of days, and so they conclude that jesus is not going to return- therefore he must have died, and so argue that the qur'aanic verses are not conclusive in pointing towards non-death. thank you  ITAQALLAH   16:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't disagree with you, but it's not WP's place to evaluate religious motivation, only to restate what people believe.--Ephilei 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * the point being that the sentence structure is more accurate conversely, according to what i know anyway, unless what has been cited specifically affirms what is being alluded to by the statement (the citations do not support every notion within the sentence). so if the citations used that they applied this exact argument (which i haven't currently derived from the given sources) then there is no problem.   ITAQALLAH   23:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't tell you. I didn't write that or read the sources. I believe it was Saadsaleem. You can ask him. For what it's worth, I believe different Muslims believing in Jesus' death do so for different reasons. I think Qur'an-only Muslims believe in Jesus' death first and his lack of return only secondary. But I have no source either. --Ephilei 02:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem in citation. Amin Ahsan Islahi wrote in his tafsir, Tadabbur-i-Qur'an that Jesus was rescued but was given death in this world and then raised as God doesn't allow people to dishonour Messengers. This thing is also cited from the Geoffrey Parrinder, Jesus in the Quran, p.187, Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1996, ISBN 1-85168-094-2 and one of the website, which is an official website of Al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences. Most Muslims would disagree, but if some scholars agree, then they are worth mentioning. But if you feel that something should be changed in the article to give it a balance, you are most welcome.  TruthSpreader Talk 03:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As a comment, traditional interpretation always considered hadith related to Jesus' second coming quite authentic. This is why we have these two opinions otherwise there was no point in translating mutavaffika in different ways. A detailed argument is also available at Islamic view of Jesus.  TruthSpreader Talk 03:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * traditional interpretation (and contemporary for the most part), yes. however, i do have some renaissance publications (which al-ghamidi heads?) at home, wherein the students of al-ghamidi (i presume) clearly put doubt in the hadeeth related to the second coming, as some types of tawatur they do not accept. every one only lives and dies once, as noted in islamic primary sources. therefore, as they feel his return is simply not established, they propose that the relevant verses can be interpreted in this way (i.e. death). i don't think any noted commentator actually believes that jesus will die twice. the other article needs a bit of work too...  ITAQALLAH   04:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * According to my understanding, the case is opposite. They believe that Jesus' return contradicts, as Jesus will be ignorant of his deification on day of judgement. They argue that if this tradition of Jesus return is tawatur, person like Imam Malik couldn't ignore this important issue in Muwatta, which is first book of hadith. The closest hadith to Jesus' return in Muwatta is of a dream, in which Jesus is circling K'aba and Dajjal is following him. An interpretation of this hadith is that Dajjal (person or a system) will come from christians.  TruthSpreader Talk 06:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Logical or not
I have reading all the discussion above and still there are so many things which are not clear at all. The thing which makes me to rais some question that is it Logical at all to belief that Jesus as a Human, sitting in Heaven phyically for a long time and will decent again to earth. In the Muslim belief he will continue the work of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) at the stage where the end of the world is near. The story is so illogical that no one can belief. First of all can a physical entitiy can be raised. No body knows the direction of Heaven, if some one says ok this Physical Heaven located some where in our universe then they have to answer that with the current knowledge the size of our universe is approx 18 Billions light years. If he was taken by God lets say with the speed of light, he is still in in his journey. He is still not in Heaven at all. Now the rules set or made by God are perfect. I dont belief that God will break the rules which sets himself, that is mulsim belief also. Secondly my Muslim friends forget to explain that if Jusus was a human Prophet then this Heaven should be Physical in nature, they can not proov that also. Simply this story was created to justify something else. phippi46 14:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

--

a) It's not illogical to believe that Jesus (pbuh) was human and can be raised to Heaven. Why? If you believe in God, and you believe he is all-powerful, then why should that (or anything) be beyond Him? Also, you seem like a Christian -- don't you believe in the eternity of souls in the Afterlife? God can sustain whosoever He wills.

b) Muslims do believe in a physical Paradise, but that it is not part of our universe, in the sense that it lies in a certain direction that can be reached in a spaceship or a giant intergalactic bridge or some such nonsense. Even many scientists reject the notion of a simple definition of time-space, and often speak in terms of parallel universes. In these circumstances, Muslims submit to the fact that mankind knows only a little. God is all-Knowing and all-Wise, and there is nothing that is beyond Him. God knows best.

c) God is not restricted by the speed of light. He need only say "Be!" and it is -- in exactly the same way that he was able to cause the immaculate conception of Jesus (pbuh) in Mary (ra).

d) Traditional Muslim theology does not describe God as being the creator of physical laws, as you have described it. On the contrary, we believe God sets up norms -- a subtle but important difference. The philosopher David Hume's views on occasionalism are very similar to the dominant Islamic theology in this sense.

Dropping a ball does not necessarily lead to it falling to the ground -- only a good deal of precedent indicates (but does not prove) that it will. There's no fundamental tie between cause and effect, it's simply a norm that God has set up. This is why it is possible for Jesus to walk on water, or for the moon to be temporarily split in two (one of the many miracles of the Prophet Muhammad (s) ). God alters his norms at these times.

Artichoke84 17:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you replied to my comments and I respect your openion also. However, I do not agree with them as In my openion Islam made it difficult for a Human to raised up alive or to live in Heaven so long. I have read the Quran in this sence and in my little knowledge it is only how you translate the meaning of Quran if you need Jesus to be alive in Heaven !! Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) himself once rejected the notion when he was asked to climb to sky and bring any evidence, I think you still remember his reply, mentioned in Quran.
 * It is against the will of God in Islam if these things taken litterally e.g. Jesus being alive, as God mentioned in Quran that my creation is Perfect and there is no Flaw in it, He even Challenged mankind to see any Flaw again and again but they will find no Flaw in it. So the Question is if God is claiming no Flaw in it and then other side allow to break law himself to save Jesus for example make only a funny sitution. These laws like Gravity and time and space was made by Him as well and as He said in Quran are Perfect and running like as they were created in first place.
 * For Moon spiliting I think if you claim that then there will be a contradiction in Islam and Science which Muslim Scholars praising that there is none. If moond had to spilit like that then the Earth was long gone because earth Gravity do only one thing and take these jaint peaces to itself and you know what was the result..Now I am not saying that the "miracle" was wrong, but other possiblities like if a Jaint Meteor hit the moon and raised a huge cloud of dust, same dust which gives moon its light, by reflecting sun light can cause same effect, that if some one sees from earth .. can say oh the moon had spilited.
 * I do not want to Judge your belief either they are wrong or right, but I dont think of God as a normal entity, He can do any thing, but this does not mean that we should close our Logical eye and leave rationality. Because if you things like that .. some one can ask you also.. hey.. do you any proof of God ? regards.. phippi46 03:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

--- I do not agree with anything you said. Mainly because the "logic" you are using is like "kalam" it has nothing to do with Quran or Sunnah. The Quran says Jesus was raised to Allah. Now people say Allah is everywhere, but the Quran tells us he is above the throne(2:255). Now we get into the literal and metaphoric argument. Now the Quran WARNS us not to look for metaphors or hidden messages. Surah 3 Verse 7. About the moon splitting, its in the Quran(54:1-2), so why should we try to justify it, the Quran says as in Surah 3 Verse 7, do not search for hidden meanings, just accept the book. With your logic, how can you say anything? How did earth get made? Was that not a miracle. Do you believe in Jinns? If you are muslim, you must accept the miracles from the Quran. If you do not, than you are questioning the power of Allah. [User:IlmSeaker] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilmseaker (talk • contribs) 18:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

swoon hypothesis and Ahmadiyya community
I am going to remove Ahmadiyya community argument from substitution section, as they are not part of the substitution. I don't have any intention to hide them but to show them in the proper category i.e. swoon hypothesis.  TruthSpreader reply 01:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

seems confused
"For Jesus to die on the cross would have meant the triumph of his executioners;" Jesus was not actually being executed, this misses the point entirely, he had the power to take himself off of the cross if he wanted, he could enact miracles. He died for our sins out of choice in order to enact God's wishes.--90.213.175.76 (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * needless to say that this peculiar Christian interpretation of this event is not shared with Islam. Muslims believe he was a Prophet, not the son of God, and thus he had no power to die for "our sins". --129.11.13.73 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Defective citation of Al-Istidhkar
I deleted a citation because it is apparently defective. It was an edition of an 11th century work of Islamic jurisprudence Al-Istidhkar by Yusuf ibn abd al-Barr. The publication information is unverifiable through Google. That makes it defective. It read in part, "Ist ed. vol. 26, Cairo: Daru'l Wa'i Halb". You never use the spelling, "Ist". A 2010 edition of the work has only nine volumes. The placement of the first apostrophe is a certain typo, because "dar" is a common element in the names of publishing houses and "ul" is a dialectal variant of "al" (Arabic for "the"), and in such cases it is unusual to write " 'ul". Therefore, this might be properly "Dar ul-Wa'i Halb". Unfortunately, the only hits for this are this article and plagiarisms of it! Apparently, it's a mistake. This is reinforced by a hit on a Web page about determining the dates of the month of Ramadan. That article cites a 1993 edition of Al-Istidhkar but gives the publisher as "Dar al-Wagha 1993". Unfortuntely, this too is unverifiable. It turns out that the dubious material was inserted three years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_view_of_Jesus%27_death&diff=next&oldid=148132242). Probably nobody ever questioned it.

Al-Istidhkar is a classic. As I said, there's a brand new edition out (in Arabic), a nine volume edition published in Beirut by Dār al-Kotob al-ʻIlmīyah (some Web pages use the spelling "Kutub"). THIS publisher is instantly verifiable. Somebody could give us a citation from their edition. Hurmata (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Historians or religious authors
Unless someone can find a scholarly source stating a Russian spy and a few members of the Hindu clergy are authentic historians I'm changing "historians" to "authors". Daniel De Mol (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahmadi/earlier author agreement
Since the earlier authors cited usually state words to the effect that Jesus was a student of Hindu and/or Buddhist teachings who spread Buddhism in Israel prior to the crucifixion, and that Jewish teachings were later syncretisied into it by Jews, I think it is not correct to portray the Ahmadi's as having adopted "these views", which seems to imply a greater degree of agreement with the earlier authors than what is justified in the citation. Therefore the following re-wording is being made, "only religious organization to adopt these views as a characteristic of their faith although in independence to the earlier authors" will be changed to "only religious organization to adopt the view that Jesus spent a part of his life in India as a characteristic of their faith although in independence to the earlier authors" Daniel De Mol (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC) For clarity this has been further re-worded to "only religious organization to adopt this view, independantly of earlier authors" Daniel De Mol (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC) In all the editing I somehow lost the part of the sentence "as a characteristic of their faith", which I have now re-addedDaniel De Mol (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Norbert Klatt
So far as I know, Norbert Klatt is a german theologian by trade - and not a historian, but if any scholarly sources can be cited to prove otherwise, I remain open minded to changing his title back to historian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel De Mol (talk • contribs) 13:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Günter Grönbold
In 1985 distinguished German Indologist and Tibetologist Dr. Günter Grönbold published a comprehensive study of theses on the topic 'Jesus in India - the End of the Legend'. Grönbold attributed the arguements of the authors of the Jesus in India myth to a few constantly repeated speculations and errors, and considered them contradictory. Bi-ligual German and English users of wikipedia are likely to find the german article on Holger Kersten to be of assistance in examining the claims of Ahmadiyya regarding their Jesus in India speculation.Daniel De Mol (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC) When cited in a manner which in my opinion implied that Dr Grönbold lends credibility to the Jesus in India theory, Grönbold was reffered to by Ahmadi editor/(s) as a 'modern western historian', yet now Grönbold's view on the theory has been made known Peaceworld111 has removed the title. Therefore I have re-added his title as he is the only person with relevant scholarly qualifications who has been cited in the section owing to his PHD in Indology and Tibetology. For further information on why Dr Grönbold's view are the only relevant citation refer to Wikipedia's policy on sources that are usually not reliable Daniel De Mol (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you please stop making personal attacks on editors. Whether the editor is an Ahmadi or not is irrelevant to the article concerned. The reason why I edited your last edit was because it lacked neutrality on the point being made and now you blame me from trying to remove Gronbolds title because it doesn't lend credibility to the Jesus in India theory anymore. Secondly please stop being overly suspicious, I didn't remove 'modern western scholar' because it did not lend credibility anymore, but because I thought it was unnecessary - If I was being bias, would I not have added 'modern western scholar' to Ollsson, Deardoff etc? Thanks. Peaceworld111 (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary info
Hi, I've removed unnecessary info such as why Gronbold doesn't agree with the Jesus in India theory and added for views to balance the article and maintain neutrality. Thanks.Peaceworld111 (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism & Unwarranted Edits
This morning another anonymous vandal butchered this article according to their personal view without discussion or warranted reasons. Balance and addressing important interpretation conflicts from scholarship is essential to establishing an unbiased platform for Wikipedia readers. It is an uphill battle having to revert constant vandalism from individuals who do not like what scholarship has discovered regarding incorrect details previously believed as true. Can someone chime in regarding page protection or qualifying future edits to this and similar pages, please? -- HafizHanif (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Reverted the unwarranted and myopic edits, restoring quoted portions as they appear in published print, and removing biased slant by anonymous editor / vandal. -- HafizHanif (talk) 05:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)