Talk:Jesus in Islam/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Christian Centric

This article is far too Christian centric. There shold be no need to say things like "according to Moslems" is an article called 'Jesus in Islam'. It constantly assumes knowledge of Christian ideas and distinguishes Islamic ideas from them.

Surely it would be better to provide some actual information about what is said and done by Jesus in the Koran some Moslem viewpoints.

Comparing and contrasting the different religious takes on Jesus is a valid subject for a separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.249 (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think when redefining a religious leader from some other background, the language is proper. If Christians were to redefine Moses from the Jewish scripture and attribute other things to him that Jews have not attributed, we would be forced to say, "Moses, according to Christians..." The same with Christian statements about Buddha, or Mohammed, for that matter. Student7 (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Except that your example is flawed: Jesus (Isa) is in the Koran. They're not redefining a religious leader from another background--they consider Jesus a part of the continuum of Islamic history. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree with the IP. On superficial inspection, the article isn't as bad in that respect as I feared, but it's true that stressing all the time that it's a Muslim view is not appropriate. I think it would be better to write Isa instead of Jesus consistently and drop the references to Muslims.

Student7 also has a point: In the story of Isa's death we can see what one would have expected anyway: That the Muslim view is an adaptation of the Christian story of Jesus, to fit it into the Muslim world view. But that doesn't mean that we should write this article specifically for Christians. Hans Adler 23:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hence, why Wikipedia will never be neutral or a trust-worthy source. 1907AbsoluTurk (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Writing it specifically for Christians isn't appropriate, but I think that relegating the contrast and comparison to a separate article is also inappropriate. Most people are familiar with either the Christian myth about Jesus or the Islamic myth about Isa, and comparison between the two is an appropriate way to deal with the topic. The concern is that it isn't phrased as "although Christians tell the truth about x, Moslems have distorted it into y".—Kww(talk) 16:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Family tree of Jesus amongst 6 Islamic Prophets

Adam
Noah
Ibrahim (Abraham)
Ishmael		Ishac (Issac)
Adnan (b.122 BC)		Yaqub (Jacob)
Abdul Muttalib		Musa(Moses)	Isa (Jesus)
Abadullah (d.570 AD)	Abu Talib (d.620AD)
Muhammad (d.632AD)6
Fatima (d.11 AH)	Ali (d.661 AD)
Hasan, Husayn (d.680AD)

Ok, I moved the family tree diagram here so we can work on it. From what little I know, I believe this *does* accurately reflect the way Islam views the lines of ancestry/authority, so I hope we can add it back after working on it here. The reference supplied above is the site Do believe that prophet Moses, Jesus & Muhammad are descended from Abraham ?

By the way, I looked at the source, and I could not find any diagram, nor could I find the dates. If we are able to improve it, perhaps we could make a template out of it and use it on the rest of the articles for each of these people as well. (On the other hand, we may not technically NEED a source as long as the Wiki articles themselves have sources for date of death and interpreted line of descent. I will look for appropriate policy on similar "overview" tables like this one; things written in WP:Summary style do not always have to be as rigorously sourced as the thing they are summarizing.) -- Joren (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

How about something like this?

Prophets of Islam Adam Noah Ibrahim (Abraham) Ishmael Ishac (Isaac) Yaqub (Jacob) Musa (Moses) Maryam (Mary) Isa (Jesus) Abdul Muttalib Abdullah Muhammad

Prophets of Islam Condensed Version Adam Noah Ibrahim (Abraham) Ishmael Ishac (Isaac) Yaqub (Jacob) Musa (Moses) Maryam (Mary) Isa (Jesus) Abdul Muttalib Abdullah Muhammad

• A solid line means a direct parent-child connection. (e.g. Isaac and Jacob, Muhammad and Abdullah)
• A dashed line means multiple generations passed between the "parent" and the "child." (e.g. Adam and Noah, Jacob and Moses)
• Green box with bolded text indicates that the person is considered one of the six major prophets in Islam.

-- Joren (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Joren, For understanding the issue and efforts made to present something useful.

Image created by you is perfect, similar to image I tried to develop in talk page of Muhammad.The only point to improve is the link shown between Abdul mutalib and Abdullah ,Abi Talib should be hard line in place of dotted as they are direct descendent. Box for Isa to be shifted slightly up, such that the time difference between Abdul mutalib and Isa , can be evident. Hope after making these changes , the image will be depicting the information in better way and easy to understand in a single glance. Thanks again for interest shown,--Md iet (talk) 03:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have made the changes. Also put Adnan closer to Jesus since Adnan is 122 BC. Which one do you think looks better, the one on the left or the one on the right?

-- Joren (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Right one looks better,consuming less space. Link between Isa and Jacob is not correct. It should be dotted . If we put Maryam in between ,it will be further convincing. There should be one step gape between Moses and Maryam .Adnan can be deleted.Further one step gape between Maryam and Abdul mutalib.Link between Isa and Maryam to be hard one.Let the total length of Image increase,but it will be correct . We can limit upto Muhammad.Abi talib,ali,fatema,husain can also be deleted to make tree specific for prophets .--Md iet (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The link between Jesus and Jacob shows up as dots on my computer... are you sure it is appearing as a solid line?

-- Joren (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, on the topic of who to include and who not to include. Since you brought up Mary, I took a look at Prophets of Islam to see who else should go on. That's a pretty long list. Is there a traditional grouping of "major" prophets that we could include and limit it to? We could include the whole list, but it wouldn't be likely to be small enough to be infobox-sized.

-- Joren (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In the Islam 6 prophets are known to be prominent,these are Adam,Noah,Ibrahim,Musa,Isa and last Muhammad in the sequence of their happening. Althoug all prophets have their importance of own as depicted in Quran,butfor the purpose of depicting harmony of religion in short this would be sufficient,as the topic/sub topic is religion based. The other personalities/prophets are included as these would help everybody to understand link easily ,as these personalities are also well known amongst religion . hence for Muhammad,abadullah, Abdul mutalib and Ismael would be sufficient, Musa and Isa has link through Jacob and Ishaq . For Isa a special link is through Maryam only, and Maryam has a special place in heart of all religion,will enhance the cause.Hope this answer the selection part of query ,which other readers have also raised.

Regarding link Hard/dotted link shown between Isa and Jacob,in your left picture message is clear,but in the right image ,the common connecting line is so short that there is possibility of ambiquity which I also misjudged, which to be avoided if we can. Thanks again for interest shown.--Md iet (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the requested changes have been made. It actually ended up making the display shorter because we didn't have as many people, even with Mary added. I have also highlighted the six people considered major prophets. As far as the connecting line, not sure what we can do about it but the code says it is producing a dotted line and I can assure you it is displaying as dotted on my screen.

-- Joren (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Very good ,now we have image depicting the interconnection of prominent prophets,time gradient in between and link to main Wiki articles and it is also easy to understand at a glance. Any further suggestion are welcome,hope we are ready for inclusion of the matter in the article.--Md iet (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good; now we will need to think of a good template title to put this in. What should we call it? Perhaps {{Islam major prophets}}? Is there a common title people use to refer to these six people?

-- Joren (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Stupid question. Wouldn't it be possible to adjust the existing Template: Prophets in the Qur'an to include a section for the six major prophets? John Carter (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that template out. I'd never noticed it before (I guess that's not a good sign of its visibility :/). I think what we've come up with here might be at cross-purposes with the existing template; the advantage of a chart like this is it shows lineage and (some) chronology, and it's (hopefully) small enough to be a visible-by-default infobox specific to those six people. I think with some font-size modification it can be made smaller, if needed.

(On that train of thought... I wonder if it would be worth making a "family tree" for all the prophets in Islam... of course there's no way that would be small enough to be anything but hidden by default, but perhaps it could be a "see also" link or something.)

-- Joren (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a good idea to show six prophets amongst all, but it will become too cumbersome ,that the purpose as pointed out by Joren and the message of harmony in the religion, we want to convey from the image will be also get hidden. Let us begin with developing new template for six and add a 'see also' link to main template, anyway thanks Carter for showing the interest in the subject.--Md iet (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry All, I couldn't participate further as I was blocked by some dear and also outstation. As there is no further siuggestion on the tree, let us include the last tree prepared by you Joren, and may title as 'Six prominent Prophets of Islam' if all agree.--Md iet (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes; I've been distracted as well with articles on a completely different topic. Sorry I have not paid attention to this. I'm wondering if we couldn't make the name shorter just so it will be easier for it to be typed in the articles. Maybe "Six Islamic Prophets"? Other than that, if we can get some more feedback from the others here then we should be good to go.

-- Joren (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel 'prominent' word is important as everybody will ask why six only. These six are more or less accepted in Islam as prominent hence we may think for 'Six prominent Islamic prophets' as compromise. Hope there is agreement on it for go.--Md iet (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As there is no further suggestions/feedback Joren, we may go ahead with the inclusion. --Md iet (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had time to do this until now, and likely won't have time to come back and check for feedback (it is a busy time of year). In the future, you may wish to try to learn how to use templates so you can do it yourself. I am going to go ahead with {{Six Islamic Prophets}}, unless you know of any alternative groupings of six in Islam, I doubt there will be much potential for confusion. The template name is separate from the title (the title can say whatever we want, the user sees only the title, not the template name {{Six Islamic Prophets}}) but it's nice to have short simple template names to make them easier to add to an article. (Also, if consensus wants more than six, they can make a bigger template like we talked about above)

-- Joren (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it is up now. You can see it to the right of the "References to Jesus in the Qu'ran" section. I have not added it to the articles for any of the other five prophets. If you want to add the template, please type {{Six Islamic Prophets}}. You can use {{Six Islamic Prophets|left}} if you want it on the left side. If you want to change what the box says, please go to Template:Six Islamic Prophets and edit it there. I am sorry but I don't think I will have time to participate in Wikipedia much or respond to discussion, so if you want to make changes please BE BOLD and do it yourself! :) Thank you,

-- Joren (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My issue is not aesthetics. My question is: why include some minor prophets, but not others? Whose choice is this? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Not mine...I simply wanted to help with a more practical form of an idea that had been asked for here. Md iet gave the list of six, ask him. My (extremely limited) understanding is that five of these are considered to be "archprophets" who had their own testimony and gave their own sharia, and then for some reason Adam is included too. I'm not really sure where this grouping of archprophets + Adam comes from, but I don't really have a stake in this so I'll let the rest of you form a consensus about who should/should not be in this. Also, as noted above (but it's worth noting again) - these "family trees" have a tendency to get large really quickly the more people are added on. If you want an example, see Template: Kennedy family tree... so, it's important to limit it to a rather small number of people. There IS also a complete list of prophets at the end of this article, but it's hidden by default and does not include lines of descent. Anyway, I'll let you guys sort out what you want. I'm here if you need help with modifying this template further.

-- Joren (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

My issue is not aesthetics. My question is: why include some minor prophets, but not others? Whose choice is this? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Six prophets shown in green are prominent prophets without any dispute. The linking personalities/prophets are important to show and understand family link better. Please take it not as choice of any one, but choice to make the point of view get home.--Md iet (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You are not responding to my objections. Please tell me hat Islamic authorities dispute the status of the other prophets? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the diagram because we still have not reached consensus and you have not yet responded to the objections. What matters for this article is that Muslims see Jesus as a prophet. What is your source for "six generations of prophets?" First, these are not six generations - Jesus and Mohammed are separated by many generations. Secondly, these are not linked by descent - Jesus was not a descendant of Moses, and Mohammed was not a descendent of Jesus. Third, Islam recognizes more than six prophets. This chart is of your own invention and seems to be promoting your own POV. It violates WP:NOR and moreover does not add to this article. Let's focus on Islamic views of Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Img

FYI: File talk:Virgin Mary and Jesus (old Persian miniature).jpg on the page image. History2007 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Offer other name options

I type ISA in wikipedia and I get this junk page. There are more definitions for ISA than this junk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.65.82 (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

At the top of the page, click the disambiguation link for other definitions of Isa. C6541 (T↔C) 04:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Substitution Interpretation

I think from memory, the substitution interpretation stems from only a small number of early scholarly sources such as Ibn Kathir. If someone is familiar with the early sources, could these sources please be included into the "Substitution Interpretation" section? Daniel De Mol (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2012 (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 20:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Banner

Hello,

I removed the banner which was put by User:Toddy1. I think the article has enough secondary sources, and to my knowledge religious texts are alread available in the primary source, the Quran, and I am not sure why and what should be critically exhamined. The banner seems to hide a skeptics bias.--Tomcat (7) 15:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Original research from the Koran

This article mainly consist of editor's own interpretations of a religious book: the Koran. As such it is original research. This is against Wikipedia policy WP:PSTS. There are also citations to Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Bukhari, which are also religious primary sources - i.e. more original research. There is nothing wrong with some quoting of primary sources, but this article goes way too far. There are 38 citations: 15 of these are partially or entirely to secondary sources and 23 are solely to primary sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Abraham in Islam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Template duplication

The new template:'Isa is a duplicate of an older version of template:Isa, we had a discussion back in January 2013 in template_talk:Isa about how an appropriate template should look like, and according to that discussion we changed the template to the current version (template:Isa). Do we need to discuss everything again?

wp manual of style, Wikipedia:Template_namespace#Usage, line 14, clearly states that:

"Templates should not do the work of article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article."

We don’t need to argue if we stick to the rules. Kiatdd (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Jesus is not "Ruh Allah" in the qur'an

I noticed that someone slipped in the notion that "Ruhullah" in the Qur'an refers to Jesus. Every classic mufassir of which I know reports that the majority views this as referring to the Ruh as Gabriel; the notion that it refers to Jesus is a ploy by Copts and Christian missionaries who seek to claim that the Qur'an supports Christian doctrine.

The fact that the source for this claim is Answering Islam should make that clear. Answering Islam is a bigoted hate site, and thus a complete violation of WP:RS, making the removal of this material even more pertinent. I trust that there won't be any opposition to this removal; the fact that the claim has remained here, with a blatantly bigoted, Islamophobic site as the source, is a bit surprising. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Even Adam is said to have "Ruh Allah" nothing distinct from Jesus. "So when I have proportioned him (Adam) and breathed into him of My soul[Ruh], then fall down to him in prostration." (Quran 38:72) Drali1954 (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Original research

The Ahmadia view section clearly appears to be an original research, and the section does not cite any source even after the citation tag was given long ago. There is one primary citation but without any specification and hadith number, and that seems dubious. Now the section should be removed as per WP:NOR.--AsceticRosé 14:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I propose that we set a deadline and, after that deadline delete all the paragraphs and sections that are either unsourced or have only primary sources. The Bible, the Koran, and Hadiths are all primary sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, regarding the Ahadiths, the primary sources will suffice, as it's a quote by the Islamic Prophet. But the original research ought to be removed first. The other sections can be provided a suitable deadline. Faizan 08:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Hi everyone. I’m new to Wikipedia and have published on the subject of this article. I think that what has been written brings out many excellent points, though I am concerned that it presently is listed by Wikipedia as having “multiple issues”. I am reading though the article now and want to discuss a few changes. I am not a Muslim, but concerned that there be no Christian polemic in the article.

First, I want to suggest revisions to these two sentences: “The belief in Jesus (and all other messengers of God) is required in Islam. The Quran mentions Jesus by name twenty-five times, while it only mentions Muhammad by name four times as Muhammad and once as Ahmad; making it a total of five times.”

a. “belief in” could lead to some mistaken notions about the nature of belief between Islam and Christianity. To be more accurate, I think we should say, “The belief that Jesus is a prophet is required in Islam, as it is for all prophets named in the Qur’an.” b. Noting that Jesus is mentioned many more times than Muhammad sounds to me like a little bit of Christian polemic – and misses the point that Jesus is important in Islam, but is far from the only important prophet. I suggest referring more fairly to the representation of Jesus in the Qur’an: “This is reflected by the fact that he is clearly a significant figure in the Qur’an (appearing in 93 ayas [or, verses]), though Noah, Adam and Moses appear with even greater frequency.” c. So the new passage would say: “The belief that Jesus is a prophet is required in Islam, as it is for all prophets named in the Qur’an.” This is reflected by the fact that he is clearly a significant figure in the Qur’an (appearing in 93 ayas [or, verses]), though Noah, Adam and Moses appear with even greater frequency.”

How do you feel about these two proposed revisions? (Gabarker) Gabarker (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabarker (talk • contribs) 08:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You have raised some nice points. The proposed change (a) is accurate, and I'll make the change soon. Your point (b) is correct: mentioning Prophet Jesus (AS) more times than Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) does not imply the former's superiority in Islam which the present wording apparently suggests. But your proposed wording would require a reliable source which will support your given info. Until then, I propose a neutral wording: "The Quran mentions Jesus by name more times than it mentions Muhammad." -AsceticRosé 15:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ascetic Rose! I can provide the source (Jesus 93 passages, Moses 502, Abraham 245 and Noah 131) it is from the Oxford University Text, "Jesus Beyond Christianity: The Classic Texts" (2010) from the essay "Muslim Perceptions of Jesus: Key Issues" page 84. The book's editors are Gregory A. Barker and Stephen E. Gregg. I really feel it would be great to give this kind of context given the polemical arguments around this issue. What do you think? Gabarker (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

"Jesus was crucified" correct to "Jesus was not crucified".

The Quran actually states that Jesus was not crucified, but exchanged with someone "resembling".

In The Bible, Jesus Bar Abba, is released, and who they cry out for. Jesus Bar Abba, means Jesus Of The Father. Pilate is also in Josephus staging deceptions, having his soldiers dress as jews, and do various things. :)

The later part of The Bible that talks of Jesus grave, actually has a big tomb, like a pharao, for Jesus. Maybe they thought he was like a pharao, a priest of Ptah, which was the ancient egyptian branch of Yah.

Peace Be With You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.129.189 (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Please could you find some secondary sources to back up what you think the article should say, and then propose a wording with citations.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

GAR

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Jesus in Islam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This orange-tagged article has multiple issues that have not been addressed for months. This article contains original research and analysis of primary sources, thus failing to pass criteria 2c.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Result: delisted. It's been a week. There doesn't appear to be much interest in fixing these issues.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Paraclete

Some editors ,who are not aware of the fact that according to muslims Jesus foretold the coming of Prophet of Islam, are removing/reverting/editing the content which shows this. I would like to ask these said editors to kindly read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraclete. (Yes I added link instead of blue text). Thank you for your help in this article, just make sure you are not deleting sourced information.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

No one is removing text that says that Muslims believe that Jesus foretold the coming of Muhammed. Please read the sourced and cited text that is being reverted to, which clearly states that there is a traditional understanding that Jesus foretold the coming of Muhammad. However, your interpretation, or any other Wikipedia editor's interpretation of the Quran itself is original research. We quote scholars that interpret the Quran, not Wikipedia editors.—Kww(talk) 05:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ty for pointing it out. I have added a secondary source where the scholar interprets the Quran.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

You added a self-published unreliable source, FreeatlastChitchat. Why do you insist on changing this text when nothing it says appears to be wrong?—Kww(talk) 05:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Kww. According to your edits the article will read as "however, this is a traditional understanding and not declared in the Quran." I want this removed. This is present in the Holy Quran. As you did not like my source I will give three more here. Please pick one of them and I will add this to augment the other source. Ty for your help in sourcing.

https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=k3k1M8Y-ccEC&pg=PA183&dq=ahmad+paraclete&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZuGkVJSDBoPyUKqFgaAL&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ahmad%20paraclete&f=false

https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=TuXXT6Fac74C&pg=PA142&dq=ahmad+paraclete&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZuGkVJSDBoPyUKqFgaAL&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=ahmad%20paraclete&f=false

https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=lNAWAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA245&dq=ahmad+paraclete&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZuGkVJSDBoPyUKqFgaAL&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCw#v=onepage&q=ahmad%20paraclete&f=falseFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I could accept a wording that said something like "scholars debate whether this traditional understanding is supported by the text of the Quran" or something similar. I can see your point that saying that it is definitely not there may be too strong, but surely you can see that many of the sources you are providing are not definitively saying that it is there, either.—Kww(talk) 16:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. How about the statement that "Some traditional scholars are of the view that this prophecy is present in the Chapter 61, verse 6 of the Quran". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have included cited content regarding the Greek translation into Arabic of this Greek term, in the hopes to bring balance to the scholarly point of view in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HafizHanif (talk • contribs) 01:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2016

On the page there is a controversy of WHETHER PROPHET Muhammad (saw) or Prophet Jesus (as) IS SUPERIOR THIS IS AN ARGUMENT WITH NO POINT OF BEING IN AN ARTICLE LIKE THIS AND THE QURAN SAYS Say (O Muhammad SAW): "We believe in Allah and in what has been sent down to us, and what was sent down to Ibrahim (Abraham), Isma'il (Ishmael), Ishaque (Isaac), Ya'qub (Jacob) and Al-Asbat [the twelve sons of Ya'qub (Jacob)] and what was given to Musa (Moses), 'Iesa (Jesus) and the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between one another among them and to Him (Allah) we have submitted (in Islam)." so since we don't make distinctions amongst them such an argument is not considered correct as it goes against A statement of the Quran. 119.159.180.239 (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The request below looks to be a duplicate — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Another thing it is I am pretty sure very important

the user of the Ip adress 78.145.24.153 has included the spirit of god as a title for Jesus if this is the Holy Spirit you are talking about which it is a link to I am pretty sure that is Hazrat Jibrael please fix this page the count and Jesus in Islam if i am correct.

Peace be with you, my friend. Firstly, please respond under the appropriate heading ( and after my responses ) so other readers can follow the dialogue clearly. Secondly, I understand your sentiments, however there is quite a volume of references in the Quran, Hadiths, Tafsirs and poetry which describe Jesus in a unique way despite what other places in the Quran ( what you quoted ), Hadiths, Tafsirs and poetry that minimize this uniqueness, or promote Muhammad as a "perfect man" although other writings call Jesus a "perfect man". I am bringing these evidences to this article in hopes of clarifying "Jesus in Islam". Thirdly, in Wikipedia, simply quoting primary sources ( the Quran, for example ) without scholarly / published exegesis or thought ( what is found in a published book, journal, article, etc. ) does not qualify as an argument nor as a citation since interpretation is relative. This is where the Wikipedia editor only furthers what is written by published authors, professors, etc.. And this is what you are reading and objecting to. So, per instructions, please contribute other terms or a phrasing that you would consider agreeable considering what is currently written and what the particular sources are stating. --HafizHanif (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2016

I need to talk to you about the Jesus in Islam page

The page has a sort of an argument about Prophet Muhammad (saw) and Prophet Jesus (as) fighting over which one of them is superior however the Quran clearly states in chapter three verse eighty four that Say (O Muhammad SAW): "We believe in Allah and in what has been sent down to us, and what was sent down to Ibrahim (Abraham), Isma'il (Ishmael), Ishaque (Isaac), Ya'qub (Jacob) and Al-Asbat [the twelve sons of Ya'qub (Jacob)] and what was given to Musa (Moses), 'Iesa (Jesus) and the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between one another among them and to Him (Allah) we have submitted (in Islam)." so this is a useless argument given that no distinction between the prophets should be made and then it gives what I think is an improper reference which I think is reference 15 which does not fit FROM WHAT I HAVE READ the category of Islamic tradition and it seems like the authors words and opinion ALSO THE PAGE CALLS JESUS SPIRIT OF GOD WHICH IS A LINK TO THE HOLY SPIRIT WHICH IN ISLAM IS AS FAR AS I KNOW I REPEAT AS FAR AS I KNOW ANGEL GABREIL (AS) SO I THINK THE PAGE DOES NEED CORRECTING SO PLEASE FIX IT IT ALSO USES WEBSITES AS SOURCES WHEN THE SOURCES OF THOSE WEBSITES SHOULD BE DISCOVERED AND CHECKED. YARN BALL B (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Per instructions: "Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined.", what terms or phrases do you suggest replacing what you find issue with? -- HafizHanif (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It's Obaidullah_ak again. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah (talk) please notice the manner in which the anonymous individual has trolled this article and my talk page (see history / prev ) and never offers any assistance or suggested citations, but simply deletes talk discussions and edited work at the article. How can one block an i.p. address that is harassing others? I hardly think this individual is performing "good faith edits" that you've reverted. -- HafizHanif (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Article needs citation rewritting (work in progress as of June 2016)

This article reads less like an academic piece and more like a theological presentation. There are also very few citations considering the length of the article. Can somebody tackle this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mctaviix (talk • contribs) 20:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I wouldn't mind assisting you or others in cleaning this article up and citing where necessary. I could help in finding citations and structuring if you / others can help in rewriting. -- HafizHanif (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I have included some clarification and citations as mentioned two months ago. I'll keep returning to work on it more. If anyone has issue with current and future edits, please find correcting citations and we can work together on objectivity, thanks. --HafizHanif (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Did some editing and objective corrections as best understood by this man. I am also going to stub subsections entitles "Al-Masih" (Messiah) and "Kalimat Allah" (Word of God) in the hope of clarifying the understandings of the Islamic theology of these terms and how they've expanded and contracted over the centuries... using these citations: , , as initial examples. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Finished writing a more concise introduction sans primary sources, adding ample citations, keeping to the traditional / popular / mainstream view of the article's subject. Please let me know if anything needs further clarification or attention. I'll be doing a similar effort with the rest of the article, one portion at a time. -- HafizHanif (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Elaborated a bit more the birth and childhood narrative as it progressed from initial perceptions found in the Quran and what has developed over the years. I would like to ask for others to please add where they see a need or wherever they'd like ( please help :). The citations I've currently used / shared are quite exhaustive in their details about the Jesus narrative. I think they are a good place to start in terms of referencing or bringing out the ideological view of Jesus from the various Muslim perspectives. -- HafizHanif (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm taking a rest from this effort. Added more content with scholarship as the basic aim in revealing how Jesus is viewed in Islam. In my opinion, there is quite a bit of the article that should be minimized and of course, properly cited. I am taking a break. I've opened up subheadings so those who know or specialize in their particular ideological leaning can add what they know, but please add sourced material beyond the primary sources and pov. I think this article is for those outside of Islam can understand how Islam 'sees' Jesus, historically and beyond. As you can read from what I've added, the perception of Jesus has grown and is still being developed by those who have noticed discrepancies in the historicity of the Quran and further writings of Islam. I think this reality should be made evident in the article, hopefully overshadowing the folklore and legends. I suggest opening talk sections that pertain to whichever portion of the main article is being evaluated, contested or developed. -- HafizHanif (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing "citation needed" content

182.188.206.20 (talk), I appreciate your contribution and removal of unsourced content. Please feel free to delete content that has those "citation neeeded" tags, or provide the citation to keep the content. Remember, if one is going to quote or mentioned primary sources ( Quran, for example ), a second or third source ( published material by a scholar, historian, etc. ) needs to include where that phrase or verse from the Quran exists. -- HafizHanif (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Fix this page

It says casting out demons etc were his miracles please confirm whether this miracle is mentioned in the Quran or a reliable source sherlock has talked about other content that worries him on his talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.157.46.113 (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Permanently Secured

Not sure how others who watch this page feel about making this page more secure, or if that would be possible considering its current low rating, but I sure am getting tired of reverting vandalism. -- HafizHanif (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Gospel of Barnabas Under Ascetic literature

Article cites Gospel of Barnabas, which is widely accepted to be a historical fraud due a large amount of anachronisms. This is supported in Gospel of Barnabas wiki page, with a list of incongruities listed here. A disclaimer mentioning it's general lack of reputability as a source, along with another one listing that it is not part of canonical gospel would be most representative of its authority among Christians, and most Muslim scholars.

91.196.10.4 (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Chris

What exactly do you find issue with citing the Gospel of Barnabas? Please notice the context of what the edit and citation is saying, I don't think the Barnabas mention is used to actually verify anything truthful or historically accurate. -- HafizHanif (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

As a man in all respects.

Virginal birth? The Quran does indeed say: 19.17. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her Our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.164.8 (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

See Annunciation section, especially the details mentioned in the citations, regarding the question to virgin birth, and the interpretation of the Quranic verses regarding this topic. As to "a man in all respects", what is your question? --

There is no such thing as Annunciation in Islamic concept. Which states in the article "is the Christian celebration of the announcement by the angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary", beautiful joke nonetheless. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@84.211.164.8: The virginal birth is alluded in 19:20. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Baptism in Muslim Sources

user:Surtsicna, the citation actually mentions an early Islamic source that mentions baptism. -- HafizHanif (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I did not realize that. I cannot access the source. Can you please tell me what it says? We should probably include it in the article. Surtsicna (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The quote is found when clicked on the link provided in citation):

“The close in time work of al-Masudi (d. 956), The Meadows of Gold (Muruj al-dahab), reveals a rather extensive knowledge of the biblical Gospels, as well as other Christian sources. He refers to Jesus' birth on 24 December, his calling of the four evangelists as disciples, his baptism, his miracles and his passion...” - page 64, Images of Jesus Christ in Islam: 2nd Edition, by Oddbjorn Leirvik

Notice Leirvik is actually citing al-Masudi's work, an honored Muslim scholar of that time. -- HafizHanif (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggesting Page Lock

This page is constantly being butchered by trolls, and maybe a few well-intended individuals, who delete what is clearly cited from experts on the topic for an opiniated version of reality. This constant annoyance is quite discouraging to those who have taken a good amount of time in digging up cited material to restore this article (which held a higher classification before it fell to the dogs).

I'd like to ask for a consensus to lock this article in order to keep its current integrity. -- HafizHanif (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Finding source for legendary commentary

Hello @Swingoswingo:, would you object if I were to restore the uncited content you recently deleted if I found their sources? I know they exist somewhere, I haven't had time to dig them up. -- HafizHanif (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, we need reliable high-quality sources and they should be cited, especially when the tag is there for so long. Swingoswingo (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with you. Those weren't my personal edits / additions, but they do seem to be part of Islamic legend / religious view. I've made earlier efforts trying to resurrect this article after it had fallen into a sea of personal opinions and lack of proper scholarly sources. I hope to get back to work on it and finish going through it further. Please contribute if you have the time. --HafizHanif (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Death's description in lead

@Khaire Nuh:, taking a closer look at the sentence structure, how about this edit:

Current

Despite the earliest Muslim traditions and exegesis quoting somewhat conflicting reports regarding death and length of death, the mainstream Muslim belief is that Jesus did not suffer death, but was instead raised alive to heaven without having been resurrected first.

Your suggestion

Despite the earliest Muslim traditions and exegesis quoting somewhat conflicting reports regarding death and length of death, the mainstream Muslim belief is that Jesus did not suffer death and hence nor was resurrected, but was instead raised alive to heaven.

Perhaps a clearer and simpler description

Despite the earliest Muslim traditions and exegesis quoting somewhat conflicting reports regarding death and length of death, the mainstream Muslim belief is that Jesus did not physically die, but was instead raised alive to heaven.

Your thoughts? -- HafizHanif (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@HafizHanif: "physically die" is still a less effective paraphrase; is there any other kind of death? My version probably emphasised a key difference by specifically outlining the absence of the resurrection (as we aimed for). However, i'm going to resort to agreeing with your proposal for the purposes of closure. Khaire Nuh (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Khaire Nuh: Before we resolve with closure,, let us consider the extensive exegesis in Islamic writings that elaborate the event of the cross. This is why I think 'physical' is key in summarizing what certain sections of the article delve into. Ancient Islamic writers have pondered the physical death (and thus resurrection) of Isa al Masih, and since the lead is a summary of any article's content, I think such a notion is proper. Regarding these points, what would you rather the sentence read like? -- HafizHanif (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@HafizHanif: I think the word "alive" in "raised alive" eliminated the notion that Jesus was resurrected automatically, but for emphasis purposes we chose to mention it. Then you proposed to specify the death as "physical" which properly nullified the mention of resurrection; however that specification itself was redundant as all deaths are physical (the article/scholars merely elaborated; it's not as though there are other forms of death to dispute). So i think physical death = death, and with either of those two usages resurrection either be or not be mentioned; in conclusion i agree with my version mostly, but also consider yours to be acceptable. Khaire Nuh (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Khaire Nuh: this exchange may be like splitting hairs, but when it comes to this particular character (Isa), I think being specific, even in a summary, is warranted. I write this because that character's attributes are quite extensive, and thus why I lean on the term "physical" when referencing death. Why? Because in the article Islamic writers have explored the esoteric and mystical definitions of death being only the flesh, and in Isa's case, not the Spirit (of God) nor the Word (of God). Isa is called the Word of God and Spirit of God in the Islamic religion. This is why "physical death" (the flesh) is juxtaposed to "raised alive" with 'alive' meaning in the flesh (body and soul), but not having physically died. This distinguishes between the Christian religion's claim of physical death AND the same being "raised alive" in body and soul as Islam. I think it is important to highlight this distinction in an unambiguous manner, due to the article's mention of up to nine varieties of exegesis regarding the cross / crucifixion in Islamic theology. -- HafizHanif (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@HafizHanif: Agreed; i actually didn't consider it from that perspective in relation to the ascension. Khaire Nuh (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Khaire Nuh: for taking the time to discuss the matter. Please help and contribute whenever you can, there is still more work to do regarding proper citations and balance according to scholarship (religious and secular). Thank you. -- HafizHanif (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jesus in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202093241/http://atijournal.org/ATI_Vol7_No1.pdf to http://atijournal.org/ATI_Vol7_No1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202093241/http://atijournal.org/ATI_Vol7_No1.pdf to http://atijournal.org/ATI_Vol7_No1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Improvements

In the continued effort to resurrect Islamic articles that have been overrun by overzealous, although well-intended, sub-standard editors and anonymous visitors, I continue to remove (or cite) claims and statements that fail to meet Wikipedia standards.

I ask for help in finding proper citations where needed.

This article has been classified as poorly edited / written due to so many unfounded claims and poor support to claims or ideas.

Perhaps someone who is able to bring more attention to the current condition can have the article reevaluated and thus reclassified.

I recently performed two edits in the hope to better define Islam's ideas of Jesus as they are understood and interpreted from the Quran and religious tradition by scholars of the ideology. I removed quite a bit of self-published works, but left some citations that look similar to self-published efforts or from a religious publishing effort (but contain overt polemics).

Stressing (again) the importance of 2nd and 3rd sources beyond the primary text of the Quran to future editors. -- HafizHanif (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Performed a few edits today, will continue perhaps tomorrow or later this week filing in missing citations and editing in secondary sources in place of primary quotes. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi HafizHanif. I agree with your estimation of Islamic articles in wikipedia and applaud you efforts so far. I also think the language in this article is quite poor and needlessly verbose. A lot of it sounds like it is written by non-native speakers, which is fine in its own right, but needs an edit. To simplify matters, I will try to avoid making any content changes (except citations requests), so I ask editors to assume good faith and interpret my edits that way. Ashmoo (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouraging words. What you are reading in the first half to 2/3rd's of this article is my ongoing and periodic work in overhauling the mess from years of opinion edits. If you follow the article from now on, you'll notice every so often vandals arrive to push popular opinions clearly refuted by Islamic scholars. What you see as verbose is actually my effort simplifying scholarship without plagiarizing them or simply quoting them at every turn. Despite my failure at prose, I would appreciate your help with that... as you did in your last two edit: thank you. I would caution of oversimplifications that may make things too ambiguous and thus neuter the scholarship. -- HafizHanif (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to disparage your efforts. I agree with your concerns. However, my general philosophy is that if the statements are made as simple as possible it is easier to show that they are supported by the source. Although I understand that nuance is sometimes needed. But I while start making small edits and we can see where we get. Ashmoo (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarification. I know I can get a bit too windy and pompous in my writing ;) Glad you are helping out. Let me know if you need help with anything or in finding proper citations, etc.. -- HafizHanif (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Page protection

I have not followed this page or have overlooked edits in some time, and recently began looking over it. I notice some simple typographical errors left by previous editors, and some important information having been removed or rewritten to fit ideas not typically found in Islamic scholarship, but more legendary. Lots of people adding their two-cents while not including citation. I'd like to request page protection in order to discourage vandalism, anonymous religious edits, and otherwise good-will attempts that have to be constantly reverted. It would be great to have this page protected while it is refined, citations found and added. -- HafizHanif (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Came to visit this page after a three months absence, and although there were some good faith edits and efforts, there is still consistent re-summarizing of sourced material and a desire to guide the article to reflect personal opinions rather than what Islamic sources and Islamic scholars have concluded. Sad. But not surprised since it is a religious topic and being such the article attracts the religious. Someone even cited a youtube video as a qualifying citation. Ridiculous. -- HafizHanif (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2018

In the Childhood section. "The Quran does not include the tradition of the Flight into Egypt, though sūra XXIII, 52 could conceivably allude to it: “And we made the son of Maryam and his mother a sign; and we made them abide in an elevated place, full of quiet and watered with springs”." The correct number of the ayat for this quote is 50 not 52. The page should be corrected to "though sūra XXIII, 50" AndyTheMadChemist (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The Virgin Mary picture

is used twice in the [locked] article, in consecutive sections with slightly different captions. Gave me Hermitage flashbacks, really. Someone with privileges please correct accordingly. The sections are Birth Narratives, and Childhood, respectively.2620:22:4000:1201:1686:B1AC:6933:9915 (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Jesus was born on Saturday April 17, 6 BC / 17.4.748 AUC / 29 Nisan 3755 HC

This article in the side box lists Jesus' birth date as "4 BC". That's wrong and it needs to be corrected.<ref]Molnar, Michael, The Star of Bethlehem: The Legacy of the Magi</ref]. If a scholar doesn't want to accept April 17, 6 BC as definitive, then they'll say 7-4 BC. 73.85.207.148 (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Lead

Hello! I made some changes to the lead which was reverted, but looking back I think my edit made the article better, not worse. The first paragraph is very spare currently. It seems logical to me that the second-coming of Jesus should be mentioned in the lead due to it's significance, and right now that detail is buried. My grammar was also cited as poor (which I disagree with), but I don't think that warrants revert to the prior version. In my opinion, the current writing style does not have the preferable encyclopedic tone; it sounds more like a narrative. I appreciate any other opinions/input!--Pythagimedes (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! The major reason for the revert was that your edit introduced some misleading/confusing information. It claims Jesus to be a prophet and messenger to be sent by God (Allah). We know that in Islam, Muhammad (PBUH) was the last and final prophet. I don’t think your edits substantially changed the tone of the article. The rest could be fixed: Incorrect formatting; and your edit also made mention of the Masih, twice. Lead section should only introduce the topic and provide a short summary of the article. Idell (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Honorific

MOS:HON guides us to remove honorifics from running text in most places, but some uses are OK. Because the infobox here specifically has a field for "honorifix-suffix" it is OK to include the "PBUH" in order to demonstrate its existence. Elizium23 (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@The Madras: you have not replied to my message here. Please observe WP:BRD. "Recommended to remove" does not override the guidance of MOS:HON, which specifies exceptions which apply even to the guidance on Islamic Honorifics. Elizium23 (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: Sorry, I didn't see the talk page here - unless I am being blind I do not see anything mentioned about "peace be upon him" listed in MOS:HON however, it violates WP:ISLAMHON - if you look at my own edit history I had started to add the suffix to certain "in Islam" articles until I realised it violated WP:ISLAMHON. The Madras (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The Madras, I fail to see how a recommendation can be violated. The recommendation is superseded by the exceptions I mention. Elizium23 (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: - can you point me in the direction of the exceptions listed in MOS:HON? I read that honorific sections few times and as I said I can't see anything related to "peace be upon him" rules at all. MOS:HON exceptions state:

Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for Mother Teresa. Where a female historical figure is consistently referred to using the name of her husband and her birth name is unknown. For example, an honorific may be used for "Mrs. Alfred Jones". The prenominals Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are discussed in § Knighthoods, lordships, and similar honorific titles. In Burmese names, honorifics may be preserved if they are part of the normal form of address, even for ordinary people. See U Thant for an example. The Turkish honorific suffix Pasha is normally included in a notable person's name.

The Madras (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The Madras, in a section about the person's titles and styles. In general, honorific prefixes—styles and honorifics in front of a name—in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included, but may be discussed in the article. The only real prohibition on honorifics is in "running text". I interpret the "section about the titles and styles" to include the specifically-created "honorific-prefix" and "honorific-suffix"; if honorifics were to be blanket deleted, why does the infobox contain such fields in violation of MOS:HON? Elizium23 (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23 I have no idea. Perhaps the infobox template precedes the policy? Surely the quote that you have graciously provided urges on the side of caution, for the balance of neutrality? I still don't see how it specifically relates to "peace be upon him", where as WP:ISLAMHON/WP:PBUH specifically DOES relate to the honorific? Also the caption does have the phrase in it, so it's not like removing the suffix removes it entirely from the infobox. The Madras (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

On The Nature of Jesus's Miricles

I think for the section on Jesus miracles it would make more sense to simple state at the top that the following stories are legendary, rather than clarifying that point at the beginning of every story. I also think that is clear that we are talking about Jesus role within the Islamic belief system, rather than declaring whether or not the miracles are historical fact. For example, look at the following section for Zeus:

"After reaching manhood, Zeus forced Cronus to disgorge first the stone (which was set down at Pytho under the glens of Parnassus to be a sign to mortal men, the Omphalos) then his siblings in reverse order of swallowing. In some versions, Metis gave Cronus an emetic to force him to disgorge the babies, or Zeus cut Cronus's stomach open. Then Zeus released the brothers of Cronus, the Hecatonchires and the Cyclopes, from their dungeon in Tartarus, killing their guard, Campe.

As a token of their appreciation, the Cyclopes gave him thunder and the thunderbolt, or lightning, which had previously been hidden by Gaia. Together, Zeus, his brothers and sisters, Hecatonchires and Cyclopes overthrew Cronus and the other Titans, in the combat called the Titanomachy. The defeated Titans were then cast into a shadowy underworld region known as Tartarus. Atlas, one of the titans who fought against Zeus, was punished by having to hold up the sky."

It is possible to stay neutral, without clarifying after every step that the stories about Zeus are mythological. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VioletJR (talk • contribs) 02:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

[I moved this over from my talk page to its proper location in the subject talk page so others can help / give their input.]

Hi, I just did some edits on the "Jesus in Islam" page, and I was wondering if I could work with you to do some minor edits on the page. There are a few parts that are unclear or don't read well, and I wanted to ask for permission to do a clean-up of some sections. If this is something you are interested in, what would be the best way to suggest new edits? Thanks!

Hello! Yes, I'd be happy to work together. I appreciate you contacting me and asking. Let's take one section (or sub-section) at a time. Where would you like to begin? -- HafizHanif (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I would want to start with the "Death" section, because I think there is a few things that could be done to make the section more legible. For example, I think if we are going to have a separate subsection called "Substitution", then it would make sense to have everything related to that under that subheading. I also think creating a separate section for "Metophrical Interpretations" would make sense as well. Here is how I might reorganize the page.

Death

(Sentence or two introductions of the different Islamic views on Jesus's death.)

Substitution

Metaphorical Interpretations

Besides that, I think the structure of paragraphs and sentences could use some work. The most obvious example for me is how the "Death" section starts with Ayoub's view on the crucifixion, goes for a couple of paragraphs, and then goes back to Ayoub. Not only does this unnecessarily split what should be one paragraph, but it also goes against the chronological order that the section is using. There is more, but I think it would make more sense to edit the section and go through each change piece by piece if needed.

Thanks again for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by VioletJR (talk • contribs) 03:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Those are good ideas. Let's start with your first suggestion. Go first and I'll give a response if need be :) - HafizHanif (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Just posted my version of the section! If I removed anything important, or accidently changed the meaning of anything that was written, I would be happy to fix it!

VioletJR (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you deleted quite a bit of content that explains, in detail, why the death subject has been convoluted, confused, and contrived. I was hoping you'd keep the points made while lessening the use of words yet still convey the information accurately. I agree the section reads much easier now, but without those details it is unclear why the various ideas have existed. I don't think such details should be ignored altogether. It defeats the descriptions of 'why' the various ideas about the subject have arisen or why they were even considered in the first place. - HafizHanif (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

VioletJR still awaiting your response and continued help in making this page a better read while not losing insight. -- HafizHanif (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to know why some of the content was deleted. Why not simply shorten and clarify as you did with other portions? I'd like to ask you to please reintroduce what was deleted and continue with your work of structure and making clear was isn't. Thanks. -- HafizHanif (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for opinions and suggestions regarding page protection

Hello fellow Wikipedians. It is frustrating and time consuming having to revert and then battle someone every time an edit is done (whether in good faith or plain ignorance). It is also quite sad to read portions of this article today and then how it read some years ago. Important details and valuable content has been either neutered or simply deleted. Every so often a new zealot comes in and splats their religious views without knowing the bigger picture of what the Wiki project is, or to allow learning to occur (by actually reading the article and the citations). I'd like to ask for help in first getting this page protected and then secondly hopefully re-edited to best portray an objective and current scholarly view and understanding (which is, I think, the aim of such an article). -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Started formal request after 10 days of no response in talk page.

Jesus in Islam

• Jesus in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Indefinite extended confirmed protection: High level of IP vandalism and / or having to explain to new users how Wikipedia works regarding cited material overriding opinions, lore, etc.. Looking at the history of this page, this is a constant time drain for editors who have to restore blanked portions or blatant vandalism time and time again. HafizHanif (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit war regarding supposed "unsourced" content when content is a summary of previously sourced content.

Once again, an edit war between several anonymous i.p.s (sock puppets?) and one named user. Not sure why a summary sentence / paragraph at the end of a section needs to be cited when all previous content is cited. Please discuss and cease the edit war. I've already put in for page protection because it is exhausting having to explain the elementary things. -- HafizHanif (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry i must post my opinion. This article actually had edit warrings between you (with some IP users who adding some content) and IP users (with some registered users removing some content), which i'm not involved. In other words, there was a dispute on whether some sentence is sourced or unsourced. For example, you maintained the statement. like "This disagreement on the nature of Jesus' death is found within the Islamic canon itself, with the earliest Hadith quoting the companions of Muhammad saying that Jesus had died. Meanwhile, the majority of subsequent Hadith and Tafsir argue in favor of the opposite", which where some IP users restoring this content, but Ideli and Rdp060707 removing all statement about the text above, which become persistent when all IP users joining it because it is "unsourced" in their argument. For now, the article has been semi-protected for two weeks. Do you agree that the sentences above needs to restore, as long as you claim that the statement is sourced? 36.68.186.75 (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

It is a summary statement regarding what is to follow in the body of the 'Death' section. The following content (and scholar citations) explain the details regarding the disagreements in the Islamic canon and examples from Hadith and Tafsir. I've mentioned this as the obvious reasoning when restoring that summary sentence, but it seems no one is actually reading the article or looking at the sources. -- HafizHanif (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2021

Yahya (John)

197.229.130.196 (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2021

Further Readings: Marco Demichelis, "Quranic Christology in Late Antiquity. ‘Isa ibn Maryam and His Divine Power (Energeia) in the Islamic Revelation", Religions 12 (11), 2021, pp. 1-19. Mariangela.livio (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Are there any reliable sources discussing this as a high quality work? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Bold in first line

See MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD Editor2020 (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I suggest editing the intro

I suggest editing the intro to include both his English and Arabic name. I never understood why we use Arabic to begin with, but this IP editor keeps insisting and staring edit wars about it despite being stopped by multiple editors so here we go. Both sides happy.

It currently looks like this:

Isa ibn Maryam (Arabic: عِيسَى ٱبْنُ مَرْيَمَ, romanized: ʿĪsā ibn Maryam, lit. 'Jesus, son of Mary') is considered the penultimate prophet and messenger of God (Allah) and the Messiah in Islam. He is believed to be the last prophet sent to guide the Children of Israel (Banī Isra'īl), being revealed the third holy book called the Injīl.

I suggest this:

Isa ibn Maryam (Arabic: عِيسَى ٱبْنُ مَرْيَمَ, romanized: ʿĪsā ibn Maryam) or Jesus, son of Mary is considered the penultimate prophet and messenger of God (Allah) and the Messiah in Islam. He is believed to be the last prophet sent to guide the Children of Israel (Banī Isra'īl), being revealed the third holy book called the Injīl.

Wikipedia is an English language wiki, not Arabic. English name should be equally presented with the Arabic name, if not higher. We write things based on how they are called. "It is in Arabic because Quran uses arabic" makes no sense, as the article Jesus uses the English name, not the original Biblical name. Jesus' English name is widely used by Muslims and scholars of Islam (both secular and Muslim) when speaking English. Keeping only the Arabic name in the lede makes no sense.

Please present your opinions. I will wait for objections and if none are presented in 2 days I will make my edit. A poor son of Adam (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for replying A poor son of Adam, your claim that 'Quran using Arabic makes no sense' is baseless. Arabic is the language of the holiest book of Muslims, the Quran, in which Jesus in Islam is referred to Isa ibn Maryam, not Jesus son of Mary in English. Yes, your point that this is the English Wikipedia is correct, but that doesn't mean that Arabic can't be used in this. There's a reason we have Arabic names in Islamic articles such as Umar ibn al-Khattab, instead of Umar, son of al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan, instead of Uthman, son of Affan and even prophets such as Musa ibn Imran, not Musa, son of Imran. Not only Moses/Musa, but on all Islamic prophets, they are mentioned by their Quranic name, and similarly, we should have Isa ibn Maryam, instead of Jesus, son of Mary. Your last point 'Keeping only the Arabic name in the lede makes no sense' is incorrect as 'Jesus, son of Mary' is literally mentioned in the leads. It is in the lang-ar template, where Jesus, son of Mary is the literal translation of Isa ibn Maryam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.63.138.32 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

English name should be equally presented with the Arabic name. A half-assed template is not really "equal". A poor son of Adam (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The line you have suggested presents Isa ibn Maryam (Arabic: عِيسَى ٱبْنُ مَرْيَمَ, romanized: ʿĪsā ibn Maryam) or Jesus, son of Mary is considered the..... This should not be in the first paragraph per the Wikipedia policy of MOS:BOLDAVOID which states that 'Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead'.

@A poor son of Adam: Good thing Editor2020, a good Wikipedia copy editor, has also noted about avoiding bold in lead sentence.

But I suppose you were seeking inputs besides 'bold in lead sentence' or your point is resolved? Can you clarify your point further, if still remaining, so we can request Editor2020 for his inputs.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Medieval Persian manuscript Muhammad leads Abraham Moses Jesus.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Predecessor?

For the infobox, who is considered the "predecessor"? Mary or John the Baptist?

Mary was a parent of Jesus, but John was the predecessor prophet in Islam.

The articles Mary in Islam and John the Baptist in Islam have similar issues in their infoboxes.

What does "predecessor" mean in this context? Parentage is already given in the infobox. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

"Jesus, considered as a Muslim" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jesus, considered as a Muslim has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 25 § Jesus, considered as a Muslim until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

(Arabic: عِيسَى ٱبْنُ مَرْيَمَ, romanized: ʿĪsā ibn Maryam, lit. 'Isa, son of Maryam')

isa means woman, it indicates that is a girl, not a boy 2A02:8428:F424:A001:8BE:8969:7339:7EF (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

How would you correct this? And do you have a reliable source to cite for a correction? ~Anachronist (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)