Talk:Jesus in Islam/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Recent changes

I don't really like the recent changes (addition of previous version's text) because it looks like an attempt to rectify Muslim belief's about al-Masih and Christian views. I think it is better to give the Muslim view of al-Masih on the 'Isa page, and give the Christian view on the Jesus page. The differneces should be highlighted on the 'Isa page, but the recent changes appear (to me) to be more than that. Makes me think of Christian missionaries harping about the Injeel to impoverished Muslims under the pretense of charity work. ;) -Ibrahim Abdullah

Misunderstandings of Christian belief

This page contains several misunderstandings or misrepresentations of Christian beliefs:

• "While some Christians believe the resurrection was physical --most however understand the "resurrection" of Christ to be spiritual." (Change this to read ". . .some others understand the "resurrection" of Christ to be spiritual.": the 'physical' resurrection of Jesus is a central tenet of most Christian denominations.)
• "The Christian view essentially says that "Christ was the son of God, and man is his brother." Hence man, too, is a son of God. Jesus in fact was not "superiour" in nature, according to Christian faith, rather that Jesus's knowledge (for his time and era) was beyond that of others." (This also misrepresents Christian ideas. The 'divine' nature of Jesus -- Jesus as a son of God 'and God also' -- is another central tenet of most Christian beliefs. I recommend expunging this section entirely, leaving this: "'Muslims do not believe Isa "is God," nor was he the "son of God." They claim that this view is different from Christianity.'")

Some Christians might believe that Jesus was neither divine nor physically resurrected, but to characterize these as the views of "most" Christians is grievously mistaken.--Mirv 04:15, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Surat Mariam translation

Behold! the angels said: "O Mary, Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him; his name will be Messiah Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.

Does this passage actually use the name Jesus, or should it be Isa? RickK 04:32, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If we are going to use Jesus in translations from the Qur'an, we ought to be consistent and use God instead of Allah, too.

Nuttyskin 17:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Jesus topics block should be at the bottom of the page. RickK | Talk 08:42, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Isa, Eashua, and Jesus

What's with the weird stuff in "Isa, Eashua, and Jesus"? The Muslim view is diametrically opposite - Muslims believe he was a true prophet of God, not an impostor - and the Gospel of Thomas bits are totally irrelevant. I think the whole section should be deleted. - Mustafaa 01:02, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Jesus

In order to try to work out the relationship between all the various pages and hopefully get some consensus, I have opened a WikiProject to centralize discussion and debate. We've got several "conflicted" pages at the moment, and without centralizing discussion, it's going to get very confusing. Please join the project, if you're interested in the topic, and start discussions on the talk page. (We need to create a to-do list, but I think the current state is too conflicted to decide even that.) Mpolo 10:49, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Redirect request

Why doesn't this redirect to a disambiguation page? Most people who type "isa" in the box are NOT looking for information about Jesus... - Mmartins

What else is Isa?PHussein 20:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ISA is a number of acronymns, including Industry Standard Architecture, an old expansion card bus for PCs. Typing 'isa' into the search box, in all lowercase, yields this page instead of a disambiguation page. --24.159.223.34 23:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that {{Jesus}} is really appropriate for this page since that is all links to Christian views when this page is of course for Muslim views, if you reference the Christian views it should be referenced in a less prominent position.

Huh?

This:

Some liberal movements within Islam have tried to use the view that Jesus was originally a Jewish preacher as evidence that the divine message evolved over time from Judaism to Christianity and finally Islam.

Huh? Isn't that what all Muslims believe?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:13, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Also, I wrote the following on another page:

Like Christianity before it, Islam claims to be a continuation and, in this case, culmination, of the same sequence of guides (prophets and messengers) that the One and Only Creator has sent to mankind to keep them on the, shall we say, straight and narrow that the Jews believe in. Muslims believe that The Creator (who they call Allah, but who is understood as the same as the God of Abraham and Jesus) has sent messengers to "every peoples" (and other intelligent creatures, like the Jinn--Genies) through the ages. The Judeo-Christian sequence of people who have kept the faith since the days of Adam is seen as one such line leading through Isaac to David and Jesus and through Ishmael to Muhammad. Muhammad is seen as the final and best of them.

Jesus is seen as a precursor to Muhammad, much as Christians see John the Baptist as a precursor to Jesus. See Isa.

One more significant item: Muslims believe that Muhammad was the only messenger of The Creator to come with a ministry aimed at all mankind; that is, Islam is a religion for all humans, while Judaism, for example, was for one tribe/ethnic group (the Hebrews/Jews), and Jesus was sent, like all of the Hebraic Prophets from Abraham through Moses and down to John the Baptist, also as a Prophet to the Jews. In the Christian canon, too, it is only after his crucifiction that either a resurrected Jesus or Paul (depending on what your beliefs are) declares a ministry to the Gentiles. The Muslims, in short believe in Jesus as a Prophet, but not in his Universal Ministry.

As I said, see Isa. (The word is the Arabic form of the Hebraic "Yeshua" or Latin Iseus.)

Might help with the article. Or just restate the obvious.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:13, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I added section on miracles

I gave two examples... feel free to add more

Arabic "Jesus"

Isa is also a given name for Arabic men, including Christians (I know some). I'm going to note this in the intro. ——Preost ^talk contribs 14:22, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

al-Masih

Is this name not often used by Muslims as well? Many Muslims I know seem to most often refer to Jesus as al-sayyid al-Masih, but I wonder is this partly, out of politeness, using a name that's common to both religions? Palmiro | Talk 17:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Isa not the son of God

Changes to the "son of God" section for the following reasons:

• Previous Qur'an quote doesn't explicity say that Isa is not the son of Allah, new one does and is more to the point. (Note for the sake of brevity the entire ayah was not quoted for the sake of brevity. This can be changed if someone feels the context is important.)
• The Qur'an only speaks to Isa not being the son of Allah to rebutt Christians so I added info to show how denying sonship shows theology.
• Deleted the following because it doesn't directly relate and contradicts the flow of the paragraph. It gives rationale as to why Isa could be the son, which is inappropriate in the context.

"Muslim theologians point out that even the Christian Bible refers to earlier (non-divine) figures such as David as "son of God."(Psalm 2:7).

• Deleted the following b/c it's about the virgin birth which has its own section:

Jesus was born miraculously without a human biological father by the will of God. . . . While Muslims do not believe Isa to be the son of God, they do believe that Maryam was a virgin before, during, and after his birth.

The change was reverted by Anonymous editor with the comment "old version is fine and tells what Muslims believe" which is true. But Wikipedia looks for more than fine! Please discuss if anyone wants. --JBJ830726 23:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

--- Suggestion:

"Muslims do not believe Isa is Allah (God), nor was he the son of God." is better to be changed to "Muslims do not believe Isa is Allah (God), nor was he the son of God by nature "

The reason is that everywhere the Quran denies that Jesus is the son of God, clearly uses “son of God” in this sense and therefore considers it blasphemy. Jesus is considered as one the closest to God and Abraham was considered as a friend of God in Quran. I think the following verse makes the matter clear:

How could it be that (Allah) should have a child without there ever having been a mate for Him -since it is He who has created everything, and He alone knows everything? - Qur'an 6:101

Any objection??

--- That's good. Why was this taken out at some point:

This is may be because the title "Son of God" implies that Jesus is the greatest of the prohpets (saying the son instead of a son) whereas Muhammad is the greatest prophet. It also carries a conotation of greatness similar to Allah and Islam greatly seperates the status of humans from the status of Allah. The Qur'an also understood "son of God" as neccessitating that Allah was a physical being and required a woman, Mary. Allah is believed to be neither physical nor requiring any help.

How could it be that (Allah) should have a child without there ever having been a mate for Him - since it is He who has created everything, and He alone knows everything? Qur'an 6:101

However, Christianity also believes in a spiritual relationship between God and Jesus. The Qur'an may have either referred to Christian heretics or misunderstood the Trinity.

Can't find any edit summaries about it, but I could be wrong.--JBJ 21:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead of reverting lots of changes, why aren't people talking about this? I made the changes because I posed the suggestion for a week and no one objected. Again, if no one brings this to discussion, I'm going to revert. --JBJ 18:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw your edits which I didn't agree with. Please let me know the passage you object most. thx. --Aminz 19:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm objecting to the reversion of the changes I made here:[1], basically the block quotes above. --JBJ 15:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss your POV:

You said:"There is confusion that the sonship of God and divinity are the same in the Bible. In the Bible, sonship of God signals a special relationship with God. According to 1 John 3.1a, all Christians are children of God and in Exodus 4:22 the nation of Israel is the son of God. This is not a physical relationship but a metaphor for a spiritual relationship. However, the Qur'an seems to understand "son of God" as a physical relationship. This idea neccessitates that Allah was a physical being and required a woman, Mary, to have a son. Allah is believed to be neither physical nor requiring any help. The Qur'an may have either referred to Christian heretics or misunderstood the Bible."

In my POV, you are twisting the Muslim argument. The Qur'an claims that Christians have misunderstood son-ship as something that implies divinity. The current version of the article tries to say so. Please note that Christians explicitly believe that Jesus is the son of God by nature and Christians are the sons of God by adoption. The Qur'an is clearly refuting the idea of Jesus being the son of God by nature and not as a metaphor for a spiritual relationship. I think the text makes this quite clear.

The following verse may clear things up:

5:18. "(Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)"

Here is a case that sonship is applied to Christians and Jews rather than Jesus. The text 1. brings the expressions of "sons of God" and "his beloved" together. 2. In response the text questions Why then doth He punish you for your sins? In the case of Jesus, it is usually followed by "Glory be to him; far above is he of what they attribute to God" Can you see the difference? --Aminz 04:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Aminz. A pleasure to talk with you again. You said, "The Qur'an claims that Christians have misunderstood son-ship as something that implies divinity." Are you stating the Qur'an does say this or that I say the Qur'an says this? This may be true in 5.18 (or may not be), but not in the other ayat. Rather I think Muslims combine the two. I am therefore proposing the Qur'an does not combine these ideas, but that sonship in the Qur'an is physical. Of course most Muslims interpret this as a spiritual relationship, and this opinion should be included too.

However, I just discovered the article Trinity in Islam. I think maybe we should be working on this subject there, and have this section be a summary/copy of part of Trinity in Islam. What do you think?

My pleasure to talk to you again too. You said :"You said, "The Qur'an claims that Christians have misunderstood son-ship as something that implies divinity." Are you stating the Qur'an does say this or that I say the Qur'an says this?"

Yes, this is just my own understanding of Qur'an when I look at it in its context. And that was why I objected to your edit. I believe my understanding is at least shared by many Islamic scholars as well. The metaphoric usage of the term "childs of God" can be found in the works of some famous Persian Islamic scholars (in their poems) to refer to "creature of God" or "God's beloved people" (I had one of those poems posted on my user page for awhile).

I used verse 5.18 when compared with other verses shows me that the Qur'an is not unaware of metaphoric usage of the term "son of God".

You said "Rather I think Muslims combine the two.": Well, Jesus is loved by Muslims as well. He is believed to be among the closest to God.

"I am therefore proposing the Qur'an does not combine these ideas, but that sonship in the Qur'an is physical." Well, yes, I believe Qur'an is only refuting the idea that there is a huge distance between creator and creature (have a look at the talk page of trinity in Islam where I have posted why Muslims do not believe in trinity).

Your idea related to the article "Trinity in Islam" is nice but my problem is that I am really busy. I have not even get to respond to you in the talk page of Haman(Islam). Sorry about that. --Aminz 00:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay! I also don't have time for a couple weeks. I'm fine with leaving whatever's up until I have some time. I'll let you know when I'm back. --JBJ 03:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Isa never ate animal flesh?

I have asked several Muslims and Muslim scholars about this, and none of them ever heard of Jesus not eating meat. Where did you get this information from?

What about abstaining from drinking alcohol? Aminz 01:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why 'Jesus' and not 'Isa'?

I think it's objectionable that this article, throughout, refers to 'Jesus'. This is an article on Isa, a Muslim prophet, as described in the Qur'an, who *just happens to be* called Jesus by another, totally different and, for the purposes of this article, unrelated and irrelevant set of people. To refer to Isa as 'Jesus' throughout the article shows a Christian POV that I believe is inappropriate. Likewise, I think the article should refer to Mary as Maryam.

I would say that the article should read "Isa ('Jesus' in the Christian Bible)" rather than "Jesus (Isa in the Qur'an)".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.14.243 (talk • contribs)

For one thing, keep in mind that "Jesus" is more familiar to western ears. I don't think there's a problem with the usual use of "Isa" but was a case where an editor changed ALL "Jesus" references to "Isa", which in some cases did not make sense (something akin to "Isa, called Isa in Arabic").

Also, wrt to Quranic quotes: the quotes originally said "Christ Jesus" as they were from a translation written for Western inquirers. I noticed that "Jesus" was always Arabicized but other words (e.g. Christ/Messiah to Masih and Mary to Maryam) were not. I wonder whether there should be more consistency here or no? I'd like to hear peoples' thoughts. Yahnatan 13:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In my personal experience, most English speaking Muslims (Americans, in my experience) use "Jesus." Yusuf Ali's translation of the Qur'an, the most popular in the West, uses "Jesus," as do some others. "Isa" is used, but not as much. I'd encourage mixing the two, with using "Jesus" more as that reflects actual usage. --JBJ 03:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the Islamic understanding of Isa/Jesus. That is why it has the title 'Isa'. So it would be consistent to use the name Isa throughout, following the Qur'an, whilst making clear that the Christian English-speaking tradition uses 'Jesus', and that some English-speaking Muslims also follow the Christian usage. This approach would be consistent with Wikipedia's 'no point of view' policy: using 'Isa' to refer to the Islamic Christ would be more neutral here. Eagleswings 13:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Labeling this article as "The Islamic View of Jesus" is highly Christian POV and degrades the Islamic name Isa as an inferior counter part to the Christian name. It also implies that the Islamic view is some sort of an aliented view of the real thing.

Note: Wikipedia is highly Christian POV knowing that over 90% of users are Christians.

     If you want fairness, don't even bother coming here.

216.99.61.30 03:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Should this be merged with Jesus?

Y'know, under ther Islamic Views of Jesus section.--143.92.1.33 06:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No, for the same reason Christian views of Jesus isn't merged into that article. This is just the Islamic version of that page, a fellow daughter article of Religious perspectives on Jesus. -Silence 10:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay but I though Jesus was the word used in English.--Greasysteve13 04:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Jesus, does this article derive its sources from anywhere in particular, we're trying to get references for Jesus, and the paragraph we have from this article has no references in it, and I don't see any references in this article :/. Homestarmy 17:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The Jesus article is getting pretty long (77K) and already summarizes this article. Keep it here. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 07:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote for "No". --Aminz 07:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article deals with a sufficiently distinct concept to be worth having in its own right. Also, it is too long to be realistically merged into the main Jesus article. Palmiro | Talk 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If length, rather than POV forking, is really the issue, it should be redirected to "Jesus in Islam", with a very prominent link back to the main Jesus article atop the page.Timothy Usher 06:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus in Islam is a redirect back to this article. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 13:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi need opinion on the physical decent of Hazrat Isa. would like to hear evidence and comments from you sir.

Physical Decent of Hazrat Isa to Earth ?

According to general Muslim belief that Hazrat Isa will return or decent physically to earth from Heaven poses so many problems and questions. For example first of all why Allah needs to make some rules and then break them in case of Hazrat Isa. Well it is a fact that the estimated age of our universe is around 18 Billion light years, the light we can see from distance galaxies and also good to know that galaxies are still expanding or getting further away (well known doppler affect and red shift effect). We also know that no one can travell beyond the speed of light, so if Hazrat Isa was a Human Prophet, as no one argue that, how can he be in Heaven, in 2000 years even if he travel with the speed of light he can not be out of this universe. Now, if some one argue that then he or she should tell us the rules set by God are permanent, no one is allow to break them, hence the Hazrat Isa is some how allowed to break all the rules just beacuse the Muslim Brothers and Sisters belief so. I think the valid Question is if he is still in his journey, we may have to wait at least couple of Billions years when he will come back, and in couple of Billions of years our earth may be disappear as our Sun will swollow our earth and then.. well the story is long and no answers.. I think we should think on facts not fanticies. Phippi46 02:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We're talking religion here, which is considered to be literally true by the majority of its faithful, not objective fact (whatever that is). Within its own terms, the explanations are prefectly consistent: God makes the rules and He can break them just as easily. In that respect, He's a bit like Einstein: bend space, bend time, bend the Laws of Physics.

Having said that, the Qur'an's own objections that God doesn't need anyone's help and God is One without wife or child ring a bit hollow: if He's God, He can surely do anything He likes, including the impossible. God dictated the Qur'an, not the other way around.

Nuttyskin 18:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

POV fork effect

Until my last edit, the introduction read "...Jesus, who is one of the Prophets of Islam."

You cannot say Jesus *is* a Prophet of Islam. That one might respond, "but Isa is a prophet of Islam," only underscores that this is in fact a POV fork.

This is exactly the type of thing that would be caught if we all had one article, or at the very least had an English-language title.Timothy Usher 06:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Isa is important enough on his own to have an article. The world does not only look at comparing everything with christian figures. Isa on his own is important enough. And Isa is a name just like Jesus. So stop using the ridiculous argument of "English-language title". --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, "Isa...on his own?" This is the same individual. There is no "on his own."

This is a fairly long article, and should stay, but retitled as "Jesus in Islam" - one parenthesized translation to "(Arabic Isa)" is sufficient - and reconciled to WP:NPOV..Timothy Usher 21:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it does. Isa can exist without people knowing anything about Jesus. Not everyone compares everything with Christianity. Isa himself is important enough to have an article. You are arguing an extremely pov view that everyone accept Jesus as the only correct view of the figure and that all other interpretations of him are mere views. As Isa is a name, doesn't matter if english or arabic, just like "Jesus" the article should exist. Maybe we can merge Jesus into this article? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Your stance here is remarkably postmodern. These are not just names, but a historical individual. There is disagreement on some particulars. I don't have a problem highlighting these very prominently in the main article.

Your solution is the very essence of POV forking. As if there were a disagreement between the English and the French on the meaning of "Liberty", so we create an article La Liberté ."

Please read my most recent comments again. I am neither saying that 1) there shouldn't be a seperate article, nor that 2) everyone must accept one "correct view" (and for what it's worth, it's likely that you and I agree on the central Qur'anic point here.)

But it is most certainly *not* the case that Jesus was the Son of God and was crucified, whereas Isa was not the son of God and was not Crucified. That's insane.Timothy Usher 21:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No that's POV. Christians and Muslims differ in their belief. Both Isa and Jesus in an encyclopedia can be considered separate figures on their own because of the beliefs over them. They are both names, this "English-language title" argument is ridiculous since Jesus itself is a name. And I mention again that when articles get too long, articles are created for the figure as based in another religion. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Christians and Muslims differ in their belief and both Isa and Jesus from an encyclopedia can be considered separate because of the beliefs over them." Are you saying that they can be considered two seperate individuals?Timothy Usher

Yes and I'm sure that is argued too. If someone does not know about Jesus, they may know about Isa. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The Qur'an makes it quite clear that Isa is the individual which Christians consider the Son of God, that is Jesus. Your claim that they can be considered two distinct individuals is wholly novel, un-Islamic and frankly bizarre.Timothy Usher 21:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it isn't. I am not saying that they are two individuals. But I am saying from NPOV that people may not know anything about Jesus, but they may know about Isa. Then really the Jesus article wouldn't matter in their POV. We have to be neutral, your view is saying that everything is accepted on the christian figure. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, change it to "...Jesus, who is considered in Islam to be one of the Prophets of Islam." The solution's so obvious - is all this squabbling really necessary?

Nuttyskin 18:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Isa or Jesus ! are we talking about same person

For a long discussion we may claim that there are two person in talk, but we all know that Isa or Jesus, they are two different names of a single person, a holy man and a prophet. I think we should not try to creat a new history, what true is will remain true, no matter what we do we can not change it. So may suggestion, either people like it or not, try to discusse something else on this holy person, rather use his names for fight Phippi46 00:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course. And that is why Aminz' recent edit is so appreciated. That we are speaking of the same person (and the same God) is the starting point.Timothy Usher 06:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Timothy! I am browsing all Islam related articles! I believe it is quite natural that people think Allah and God are different, Jesus and Isa are different since: In natural language we don't have any two words that have exactly the same meaning (otherwise the other word hadn't been created). But here we are artificially making two words for the same thing. We can not play against nature. --Aminz 06:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanx guys I think we are going on the right direction, so any suggestion to improve page with other information that might be overlooked during discussion Phippi46 23:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll redirect to Jesus in Islam.Done.

Also added many links to Qur'anic quotes. More to be added, shortly (the real world calls).Timothy Usher 00:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I believe two groups of people will disagree with your move of the page.

1. From Muslim users: Those who believe "Isa" deserves to have an article on its own. This makes a lot of sense to me.

2. From Christian users: Those who believe the "Jesus" has nothing to do with "Isa". They believe that "When Muslims venerate this ‘Isa, they have someone different in mind from the Yeshua or Jesus of the Bible and of history." (reference: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Intro/islamic_jesus.html ) This one does not make any sense to me.

Fortunately, unlike "Allah", the name Isa is not common in English. Unlike "TOO MANY PEOPLE that I have seen saying Muslims are worshipping a different God, people usually think Muslims believe Jesus(their Jesus) was a prophet". THE FUNNY THING is that people usually think Muslims do not believe Jesus was the Messiah.

--Aminz 01:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Isa does have an article of its own, this very article. It's just been translated into English. No one's talking about merging it with Jesus; it's too long.
• I've not heard yet heard any Christian editors offer the position to which you refer.

As far as Jesus being the Messiah, perhaps Christians have merged this idea with that of the trinity, such that if Muslims say Jesus is not God, they must not believe him to be the Messiah, either.

I've not looked at Allah closely enough to offer a well-considered opinion, though it's certainly on the list.Timothy Usher 02:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Which one:"thinking that Muslims do not believe Jesus was the Messiah." or "the "Jesus" has nothing to do with "Isa"."? For the latter I think I can show evidences from the history of this page, but for the former I need to refer you back to any of my christian friends at berkeley. --Aminz 02:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Re "thinking that Muslims do not believe Jesus was the Messiah." - probably they assume that calling him the Messiah means accepting his as God or the Son of God, and as your personal savior. So if you don't do that, you've not accepted him as the Messiah. They're not understanding the Jewish concept of Messiah.Timothy Usher 02:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think so! I think the christian concept of Messiah implies divinity. Please note that the Christian bibles use the term Christ or Messiah only in NT. For OT they use anointed. Gary Miller says that they want to make the impression that there is only one Messiah. --Aminz 02:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Messiah is Hebrew for "annointed". Anyhow, bringing the article into compliance with the standards of an English-language encyclopedia should make it more accessable, and help combat these ignorant misinterpretations of Islam.Timothy Usher 02:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop using this argument as your reason to move the page around. Isa is the name of an important Islamic figure and deserves and article based on that. Moving pages around like this is breaking the rules, arbitrary and blockable. Stop doing it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• As I've explained my reasoning truthfully and at some length, there is no reason for you to say "Stop using this argument as your reason...", or to call it arbtitrary.
• "...deserves and article based on that." - yes, it does. No one is contesting this. the issue is the title. This is an English-language encyclopedia, there is no reason to use Arabic translations of shared concepts. No magic power accrues to words; this isn't scripture.
• As many of these pages have been redirected in the past, please explain how this instance constitutes "breaking the rules." Thanks.Timothy Usher 01:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Moving pages around is very against policy and so is blanking and redirecting them. We have articles named after Japanese figures, Sanskrit figures, Chinese figures, etc. This argument that it's simply Arabic is ridiculous. The Jesus in Islam already redirects here and this article by no means needs that name if Jesus has a name . --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I did this all very carefully and conscientiously, even repairing double redirects. There's no cause to speak as if I'm vandalizing wikipedia.

As for my opinion of your arguments, they are stated plainly above.Timothy Usher 01:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes don't do it again because it can be considered that. There are editors who have often done that and are blocked for it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

After reading this discussion and watching this article for a few months, I agree with Timothy Usher. The article name should be "Jesus in Islam" for the same reason we use the name "Jesus" in all other articles in the Jesus series, even when the article's about a culture or time period that uses a different rendering than "Jesus". We can certainly use other names in the article at various points, if it's appropriate, but I don't see any benefit to inconsistency with the title when there's little difference between this name and what the person called "Jesus" in English is called in many other languages. If this article was about the name "Isa" itself (i.e. an article on the word "Jesus" in the Arabic language), I'd go for having the article named that, but it's not: it's about Jesus/Isa/etc. in a major world religion, Islam. The topic of the name "Isa" is much less important than the topic of Jesus (Isa) in Islam, and probably doesn't even merit a separate article despite being a distinct topic (it can be covered near the top of this article), just as the name "Jesus" doesn't merit a separate article outside of Jesus (though several especially unusual permutations and renderings of it do have articles, such as Yeshua and Jesu). But we should be explicit on what our articles are about, and not violate Wikipeida's naming conventions, which explicitly state that when we have a choice between using an English-language title and a foreign-language title, we should choose the English-language one (hence we have an article for On the Nature of Things, not for De Rerum Natura). Not without very good reason, at least. -Silence 01:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a choice of that though. It isn't simply that "same figure in Islam". Isa in his own self can have an article just like Yeahua and Jesu do exist. It's not simply one perspective of that same person, it's a complete different belief of the purpose and the entire reason why it's here in the first place. It isn't simply a fact that because a figure exists in two religions that we can not have the real name of the figure being used as the name. This certainly is beyond just this one article. Otherwise Jesus will be "Jesus in Christianity", "Jesus in Islam", "Jesus in Judaism". It will need agreement by the community not just a few editors and is not something as little as the English language translation, which like I said is not a good argument considering that we have many articles named on other languages. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The role of Isa (Jesus) in Islam varies significantly for the role of Jesus in Christianity. Note that we have plenty of Arabic and foreign-language words and phrases as article titles (Allah, Cinco de Mayo, etc). However, they're all okay if they serve a significant purpose and vary greatly from their (approximate) English-language counterparts (God, May 5, respectively). joturner 01:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to get much involved in this discussion, but about this mini revert war over the article page, it's not ok :/. As I understand it, rapidly changing the names back and force messes up all sorts of things, redirects and whatnot, something about the Google ranking or something, I dunno, the point is, don't edit war over article names :/. Homestarmy 02:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't have a strong opinion on the matter, I urge everyone to settle down. Honestly, I don't think it much matters and getting riled up just isn't healthy. Either name will convey the article well. If one is actually preferable to the other, it will barely make a difference. However, I like Isa slightly more, just because it's more concise. It also supports the Muslim idea that the Qur'an should be read in Arabic, not English. While Jesus and Isa point to the same physical human, they also point to two different ideas about him. Consider Allah and Jehovah. While there could not be more than one creator of the universe, there are many ideas. But as I said, it's not a big deal. --JBJ 03:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I think about the naming controversy. Take this phrase: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Isa..." I see Mary rather than Maryam(if that's the correct name); God rather than Allah; but then Isa rather than Jesus. What's the criteria for deciding which to use? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's a reason it's like this in the first place. Usually if we are discussing an article in a faith which has a different belief on a very important figure from another faith, we should keep the name that person is referred to in that religion. Just because Jesus exists in two faiths as a very important figure does not mean that Isa as his own importance can't exist and is simply a perspective of the christian figure. This isn't a small minority view of the Christian figure, he's a very important figure by himself. Isa exists as in his own importance. And as Silence said, articles on Yeshua and Jesu also exist even if they are smaller views than this. As for uses in the article, the name in Islam should be used, but when the first time the name appears both names should be listed. This is why the intro makes it very clear that it's the name of Jesus in Arabic. So when the name is mentioned first it should be clarified that it refers to this figure with both names. This includes Mary/Maryam and other names. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So if the same quotation were used in Allah it would read, "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus..."? Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a translation so it's different than the use in the article. Different translations by scholars would have different words used. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What translation is it? Can you give me a link? At this point I think the proper names should all be in English. I'll think more on it and look in again in the morning. Because after all, nothing has to be done right this minute. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the Yusuf Ali translation. Which proper ones? Certainly the article can't have Jesus all over the place if the subject is Isa specifically and if the intro already makes it clear. I can agree with that for God and Allah though. But we can't just have the article have changed names of the topic because an editor wants it moved so desperately. That ruins the formatting and is not the way articles are written. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

We should not alter quoted translations at all. Even links in quotes I find questionable, though arguably warranted in some cases (e.g. where a Hadith cites the Qur'an by verse, a link to the verse is very useful).

"the subject is Isa specifically..." - we return to the original issue: contra your earlier claim that Isa and Jesus were seperate individuals[2], Isa is merely the Arabic word for Jesus. That's all. It is therefore senseless to say, we are talking about Isa rather than Jesus.Timothy Usher 05:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This is just your ignorance to understand the analogy that was being used. Don't make these straw arguments. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Having thought about it, I have to agree with Timothy Usher; I think all the proper names in the article should be in English; That is, 'Jesus' rather than 'Isa'. It should of course be mentioned in the intro (as it is) that 'Isa' is Arabic for 'Jesus', at least in an Islamic context. As far as the name of the page, I have no strong preference at this point. Certainly Isa should redirect here. I would be inclined to go with Jesus (prophet of Islam), though Timothy Usher might disagree with me there. If there is disagreement about the best page name, we should probably take it to requested moves. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom, Timothy's "policy" that names can not be in languages other than english is a completely new one and one that he made up himself. This article is about the man Isa who is a prophet in Islam. That in it's own right makes this important. Just because Jesus exists as a christian figure does not make it so that it has to be based on christianity. All other prophets of Islam are named like this and we don't need to ruin this series just because Timothy brings this new idea that an article must be based on christianity or it's just not important enough. I see no consensus for the move and reverting to ruin the way names are used in the articles are a bad way to start. Jesus in Islam already redirects here. Clearly if Jesus in Islam is the article they will be redirected here where the introduction makes it clear who he is. That doesn't mean that the actual name of the figure can't be used. For exactly the same reason we have Yeshua. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be responding to an argument I did not intend to make. My point is that the proper names in the article should all be in English. I see no logic in referring to, for example, "Mary the mother of Isa." We could maybe say, "Maryam the mother of Isa," and make all the other proper names Arabic, but that seems less than desirable in the English Wikipedia. "Mary the mother of Jesus" seems like a sensible choice. As far as the name of the page, if there is a dispute it should be discussed on requested moves. I tend to think Jesus (prophet of Islam) might be a good choice, but I have not decided yet. Page names are not that important to me. In any case, I think this page should remain separate from Jesus, and Isa should redirect to this page, whatever it is called. Finally, none of this is urgent. There is time for thought and calm discussion. Everything will still be here tomorrow. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with waiting. Timothy seems to be in a hurry to revert. I don't agree with all of your comment especially redirecting since Jesus in Islam already redirects here and a proper name is used for the prophet. Like before I don't think that simply because Jesus also exists that Isa is not important enough to merit an article. In any case the name of the article is used for the figure and calling him Jesus throughout the article when the subject is Isa is not encyclopedic. Isa is a name just like Jesus is a name, either can exist. Take Yeshua for example. But I will wait for comment on this. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, I think at the time of Muhammad, Christians were calling Jesus by the name "Isa". And when Qur'an was talking with them, it used their own terminology. I can not see any sacredness in the name "Isa" itself. Were they using another name to refer to Jesus, Qur'an would have used that term to refer to Jesus. Please show me one example that Qur'an uses a word people haven't heard before to refer to something.

Yusuf Ali uses use the term "Jesus" in his translation.--Aminz 02:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

a.n.o.n.y.mt seems to be of the impression that 'Jesus' is the Christian name. It is not. It's the English name. Similarly, 'Isa' is not the Muslim name, it's the Arabic name. Arab Christians refer to their savior as 'Isa', not 'Jesus'. To use 'Isa' for the Muslim conception is therefore dismissive of Arabic-speaking Christians. The same could be said of Mary/Miriam and God/Allah: 'Allah' is not the Muslim god, but rather the Arabic word for god, Muslim or Christian. We should pick one name for an individual. We don't have separate articles for Christopher Columbus, Cristoforo Colombo, and Cristóbal Colón! Yeshua is an article about that name, not directly about Jesus. The only reason I'd make an exception and allow separate articles for God and Allah is that that distinction in commonly made in English. A distinction between Jesus and Isa is almost never made, and therefore shouldn't be made here. That's not pushing a Christian POV. kwami 06:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

God bless you and be with you Kwamikagami! --Aminz 06:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Kwami that's not a main reason for my argument. The point here is that we should use a proper name of the person rather than having each similar figure in Islam named. And there are many prophet articles we shouldn't ruin them because of it. I don't understand why it's hard to see that Isa in his own importance can have an article. And the Arab Christian pov can be made clear because of it. But I like your point over the Arab Christian pov which really does fit with the christian view in Jesus.

So I may agree with a move if it's clarified why Yeshua still exists as it is instead of being redirected. We also need a title which reflects the Muslim view if this is going to be a page based on that perspective. Since there are many Muslim prophets and since Isa is considered a prophet instead of what Jesus is referred to, the name Jesus (prophet of Islam) that Tom said is a good idea and one that says that it's simply not the christian version in Islam, but someone that is considered a prophet on his own. Aminz would you agree? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 12:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I personally agree and like the title "Jesus (prophet of Islam)". Nice suggestion. --Aminz 19:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's probably a good compromise, but Yeshua needs to be treated the same way. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, I think Qur'an uses the word "messenger" much more than "prophet" for Jesus. Can we have "Jesus (messenger of God in Islam)" or something similar. I'll think about Yeshua. Thanks for suggestion. --Aminz 19:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that prophet is accepted and understood but messenger probably won't. That and there are many prophets mentioned by name and Isa is one of them. So prophet is a known widely. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right, but is there any way to say Messenger rather than Prophet. In Bible, Jesus says that he was "sent" by God to this world (i.e. Jesus is a messenger of God). Qur'an also uses the word messenger for Jesus frequently. If I am right, there is only one place that Jesus is called by the title "prophet". Sure, he is a prophet according Islam, but saying he is a messenger is more precise. Thanks --Aminz 19:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I still think saying prophet of Islam is the best way because that makes him like the other prophets and gives people some reference to what a prophet is (i.e prophet article). Messenger will sound strange and is not understood especially if we want people to understand Isa as being Jesus. I think Jesus (prophet of Islam) is the most accurate because he is both a prophet and messenger and prophet is a known word. My opinion is that it's the best way to understand this. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker of English. So, I should not judge based on my understanding from Persian language. I really don't know what is the difference between these two terms but there should be some difference. In any case, using "prophet" is correct (There is a place that Qur'an does use the title prophet for Jesus). So, I am fine with "prophet" though still I think Jesus was much more a messenger than a prophet (again I don't know if these two terms are different). Thanks --Aminz 20:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian Arabic speakers DON'T generally refer to Yeshua as Isa, but as Yasu. Isa is an Islamic and Qur'an name, not a Christian one. It is insulting to Arabic-speaking Christiant to make out that Jesus is just the English versions of Isa, because they do not name Jesus as Isa. Thus Jesus is not just an English translation of Isa. Also, it is customary for Muslims in many cultures and nations to use Arabic names for their prophets. English speaking Muslims generally do not name their sons 'Jesus', but 'Isa". Not 'John' but 'Yahya'. 'Isa' is the most sensible name to use IN ENGLISH when refering to Jesus as a prophet of Islam. Yet another issue is the multiplicity of names even in English. 'Joshua', 'Jesus' and 'Yeshua' could all be used IN ENGLISH to refer to the son of Miriam. The Greek-derived Jesus is used by those who chose to identity with the New Testament as the history of Christ. The same can be said for Christ and Messiah - Jews do not believe in the Christ, but in the Messiah, yet both mean 'the anointed one'. To be consistent and true to its task, this article on the Islamic Jesus should speak of Masih, of Maryam, of Isa etc, not Christ, Mary and Jesus. Eagleswings 12:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As Eaglewings says, 'Isa is a name used for Jesus only by Muslims. Christians always call him Yasu` or al-Masih, and both Christians and Muslims generally use the latter term in mixed company for the simple reason that it's non-sectarian and accepted by both (despite the different implications attaching to it in Christian and Muslim theology). I agree with the various editors who support the article going back to Isa, which is also a much more succinct name for an article, and one more commonly used by Muslims in English as well in my experience. The current article name seems to me to slightly imply that Jesus doesn't really, normally, belong in Islam; maybe this is over-senstitive, but I think there are many strong reasons for moving back to Isa. Palmiro | Talk 15:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, many Arab Christians indeed prefer calling Jesus Yašu` (as in Syriac), but in Turkey, Christians call Jesus İsa. It is not His name that is so important, but how He is seen, as the Son of God or as a prophet. Both views could and should in my opinion be included in one single article.--Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 16:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was talking about Arabic (incidentally, it's يسوع not يشوع in Arabic, i.e. "sin" not "shin". Palmiro | Talk 16:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

We are still where we were before

It seems that this word war will go further with no effect, I think the end result will be the removal of pages from wikipedia. Any way in order to keep respect of the both parties we could decide on a solution and to have two pages with openion from both sides. Any suggestion ?

Stop reverting undisputed changes

Anonymous editor, I put work into this article that should be uncontroversial. For example, you are eliminating links to the Qur'an, which isn't very respectful, to me, to readers or to Islam. I've put in the labor of adding value to the article. The least you could do is take the time to figure out what parts you're for and what parts you're against.

Alternately, trim your watchlist. You shouldn't be involved if you don't have the time to figure out what's going on.

As a sign of good faith, would you kindly restore undisputed changes? It would be greatly appreciated.Timothy Usher 02:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Go on and link them again but don't change each name to one that doesn't relate to title. Maybe you need to read how articles are written on wikipedia. You should have never redirected it and then edited with several hundred different edits when you knew it would be controversial. And I have been working on these articles a long time now, maybe you shouldn't make arbitrary changes and expect people to leave them in. This problem never happened when you weren't here. You will have to add you templates to the sura links again, but don't revert everything else while your doing it. The change will be disputed and they are not the way articles are written. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If you don't have the time to get involved, you shouldn't have the time to edit war.Timothy Usher 02:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am involved. You shouldn't be making arbitrary changes and then expecting us to keep them, especially when you knew it would be controversial and they completely mess up the way the article is written. You started the problem then you should fix it. I am not going to go back and fix things that you messed up. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are involved, AE. You revert. And you threaten to block me for unspecified reasons. I suppose that counts as involvement.

"I am not going to go back and fix things that you messed up." - As you've reverted *all* my changes, your sentence makes little sense. It seems what you mean to say, is you're not going to go back and fix things that I've already fixed. Takes too much time - trust me, I know, I did the work.Timothy Usher 06:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't threaten anything. I told you that moving pages around arbitrarily is blockable and there have been users blocked for it. If you did wrong by making several controversial edits before when you knew it was arbitrary, it's your own fault. Make sense of it before you do make arbitrary changes because they will be reverted and it's not my duty to go back and include certain changes because of your mistake. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I say again that you can't change an articles name like that in the article. This is ridiculous Timothy. Just because you want the article to be moved does not mean you can ruin the article by changing every single one of the names and its formatting and also saying that this is a redirect. Again you are the one that made the mistake by changing it so much arbitrarily, you can fix the Sura cites. Don't just revert everything because of that. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat my labor just so you can relax. And I'm didn't "ruin the article."Timothy Usher 03:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine then don't change it. I'm not going to go back and fix every single name you changed and ruined formatting if the only change is the cites. You're going to have to go change them again and it's your own fault for changing them arbitrarily. I am sure that you would have said the same thing if an editor did that many edits arbitrarily. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, were they arbitrary. But translating Arabic terms into English cannot be reasonably described as arbitrary, even if you don't agree with it. As with "etymology", it would be nice if you chose your words more carefully.Timothy Usher 03:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting that, but changing all names when it was already controversial on the talk page is arbitrary. Clearly you knew about the controversy, you should never make several arbitrary changes when you know it's controversial. And now sadly that this reverting has resulted in protection, I hope you can discuss without reverting to arbitrary changes again.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"Thanks for admitting that..." - Do read again. "Yes, were they arbitrary" does not mean "Yes, they were arbitrary," but its opposite.Timothy Usher 03:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are denying that they were arbitrary then you have to learn what the word means. You changed the article with over 20 to 30 edits including a page move and all the name changes when you were involved and knew about the disagreement on the talk page. If you made 20 to 30 changes all of a sudden, move a page, and completely ignore discussion on the talk page where people disagree with you, would that not be arbitrary? This is not allowed in wikipedia and I was politely warning you. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If it weren't past 2:00am right now, I'd post more. Timothy, it doesn't appear a single person has agreed with you on this move. To constantly change the content article because you alone feel the change needs to be done is wrong. That is not how Wikipedia works. We work by consensus here. In times like these, when revert/edit wars over article content ensue, the best thing to do is to stay with the original version and discuss on the talk page whether a change should occur.

Yes, this is the English Wikipedia, but there is no reason words from other languages can't appear in English Wikipedia. In this article the Arabic is especially relevant and not at all unnecessary. joturner 06:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Joturner, it's not accurate to say that "it doesn't appear a single person has agreed with you on this move." Aminz and Silence have been supportive, others neutral. And some, as you say, opposed. However, we are talking less than a handful of editors on each account. There is no consensus.Timothy Usher 11:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Joturner, there is a single person at least and it is me :) My personal reasons are different from Timothy's reasons. Mine are more religious and can only be presented to Muslim editors. I want to create a page and write my reasons there. My argument has 3 parts: 1. the way some people have misused these terms 2. The impression that unknowledgeable Non-Muslims get from these terms 3. I want to present a similar situation like we are in now at the time of the prophet and then note how Qur'an dealt with that issue. Then I will conclude from it how we should treat this issue. But this approach will involve original research so I am not certain about its validity but I think it is good to discuss.--Aminz 06:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

+1 Against Timothy Usher and Aminz's efforts to remove Arabic transliterated terms from articles merely to translate them into English. Does it seem correct to tranlate every instance of Allah found on Wikipedia into God? This is sooner an example of contravening Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Which says that Wikipedia is not a usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. For absolute clarity on this (from the policy), "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used. ". Editors are to write articles on how things are, not to write articles based on how they think things should be. Netscott 07:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, of course Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The issue is rather one of translation. As en.wikipedia.org is an English-language encylopedia, we can all agree that the vast majority of foreign terms ought be translated into English wherever adequate equivalents are well-established. Typically this is accompanied by the original language gloss following the first words of the article, which themselves are usually identical to the article’s title. Counterexamples fall into two categories: 1) where there is no well-established English language equivalent (e.g. Dharma, Deen, Kafir) 2) where the article is about the foreign term itself (Allah, Yeshua, Jesu).

What I'd like to see is examples of biographies, as Anonymous editor had assured us existed [3], with similar forks. Still waiting.Timothy Usher 07:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe how silly Timothy is being using this against me. I said that articles with other language titles about people do exist and apparently this is an excuse to revert my changes, change the names, and try to move the page. Yeshua was already provided as an example. Timothy has no argument left to make so he's trying to use a choice of words against me which is very low. As I have said before Isa himself is an important figure and the article is based on him as a prophet of Islam, not as "look it's the same person as in Christianity". If you are using the excuse that all article titles have to be in English, that's just plain wrong. And you reverted right after the version was unprotected [4](only six hours later) showing that you aren't here for compromise , only for reverting to your badly written version and violating the 3rr rule while doing it. Timothy your versions of articles aren't the best thing that ever happened. If you made a mistake with your arbitrary edits, don't repeatedly revert until they are kept. You already admitted it was arbitrary and it was simply the wrong thing to do while controversy is taking place on the talk page. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, as you've already admitted that your claim of 3RR was false 06:55, 6 May 2006, and as two editors have shown you that your claim that I "admitted [my changes] were arbitrary" were similarly false03:42, 2 May 2006, 19:47, 2 May 2006, it's time for you to own up to and apologize for your errors in every forum in which you've made these allegations.Timothy Usher 10:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, I looked into this case and realized that Timothy hasn't broken the 3RR rule. I think you should have made a mistake in counting the number of reverts. --Aminz 10:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, while I've a more substantial treatment of the translation issue in the works, as you know very well from your talk page, Yeshua and Jesu are articles about the words themselves - we can't translate them for the very obvious reason that the first article is about the question of whether this was the real name of Jesus, while the second is about an English transcription of a Latin vocative case. Such is not the case with Isa. That's why your "biographies" claim[5] was important - and that's why you made it, before you realized there was no evidence to back up your assertion. If there are any analogies elsewhere in Wikipedia, where one historical figure is given foreign language titles or text appearances as a stand-in for religious or national POV (according to your equivalence of Arabic with the "Islamic" perspective), please present them.Timothy Usher 10:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Are we are ready to take serious action to end this disscussion ?

Jesus or Isa we will not settle on it, it is in our nature, what we think right is, is always right, I think in all disputes this is commen, when we can not settle it then better leave it or do it finally to solve it, Wikipedia is suppose to be a encylopedia, but on the discussion pages, it realy look like a war zone. I think it is better if we just settle two pages with two different names and two different openions and let the world decide to make there own mind, we can not settle it this way. phippi46 02:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That's really not a good solution. There should be one article with one name, even if the other name redirects to the primary article. Note WP:FORK. However, I do think it's time to end this pathetic debate, with the article staying at Isa. joturner 06:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

We have got God,Allah,Yehweh,Brahman,Vishnu,Shiva,Onkar,El....Noah, Manu, Utnapishtim, Ziusudra.....

Nirvana, Moksha,Emptiness...the list goes on . This is not the silliest debate I have ever seen on WP. If this logic is allowed to be applied here, all these articles will need to be merged .By the way , the correct word for Jesus a prophet in Islam is Isa. Farhansher

Who are the parents of Isa? Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The natural parents are Mary (called Maryam in the Qur'an - do not mix up with the sister of Moses called Miriam) and Joseph (no reference in the Qur'an). The Qur'an talks about the virgin birth, but muslims cannot say that she conceived by the Word of God or Spirit of God/Holy Spirit - then Isa would have God as a (spiritual) father which is condemned in most schools of islam and by most jews (that's why Isa/Jesus was nailed on the cross - for blasphemy, i.e. they did not believe his words.). Some views say this, other views take the position that Mary was conceived by the angel Gabriel. Other say Isa/Jesus was created from nothing (in this view Isa has no origin) pointing at the Quranic verse which talks about Adam and where God can say: "be" and it is.
btw The parents of John the Baptist (Yahya) are Elisabeth (from the line of Aaron, in the Qu'ran Maryam is a 'daughter of Aaron') and Zacharias

Peter L 07:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, there were several things in your reply that I had not known. But still, should we refer to "Mary and her son Isa?" or "Maryam and her son Isa?" or to "Mary and her son Jesus?" Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, the article on Mary in Islam is titled Virgin Mary in Islam, and it does not look like editors, including Anonymous editor, have problems with it. Pecher ^Talk 12:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be "Maryam and her son Isa", because it is speaking about the Qur'an. And BTW, the Qur'an does say that Jesus was conceived by the "spirit" (Sura 66 - And Maryam, Imran’s daughter, who guarded her virginity [furuj 'vulva'], so We breathed into it of our spirit, and she confirmed the Words of her Lord and His Books, and became one of the obedient. ) Of course conception happens by the Word of God. Eagleswings 12:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

And "Jibril" instead of Gabriel? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Good hint: Qur'an indeed confuses Mary, mother of Jesus, with Miriam, sister of Moses and daughter of Amram, as it follows from the Qur'an that both are one and the same person. Pecher ^Talk 12:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Christian's [sic] hate to the Jews"

Anonymous editor, one of many changes you've been making to this article is the replacement of, “Antipathy between Christians and Jews” with "Christian's [sic] hate to the Jews". That strikes me as rather unnecessary and inflammatory. What's your reasoning here?Timothy Usher 11:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This edit is ungrammatical, to begin with. Pecher ^Talk 12:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I don;t control what is reverted. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Ahmadi

In the section Jesus neither crucified nor killed, I may have misunderstood which are the views of the Ahmadi and which the views of mainstream Muslims. I'd appreciate it if someone would have a look. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The view of the mainstream Muslim, is that Jesus was not killed but raised to heaven by God and he is still alive and will decent to earth before the judgement day. In the views of Ahmadies, that Jesus was not killed nor crucified, but later in the darkness of the storm that came about three hours later his followers took him off from the cross and later after some time he migrated to Kashmir and lived there, married and died at the age of 120 years. phippi46 01:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Italics and blockquotes

Where should we be using these?

If we always use italics, some sections will be all italics, which is bad.Timothy Usher 08:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Academic views

The chief deficiency of this article, as it stands now, is the complete absence of academic views on Jesus in Islam. Namely, it is nowadays an agreement among researchers that Muslim views on Jesus come from apocryphs, not gospels, which in itself gives an interesting insight into the formative influences on Islam. Pecher ^Talk 10:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Move

I've moved the article back to its previous location; it's clear that the move, apart from not being discussed beforehand, did not command consensus, and Wikipedia guidelines (cf WP:RM) require that controversial moves be listed on WP:RM and a rough consensus reached beforehand. It's now up to anyone who wants the move to go ahead to follow that procedure; I'd do it myself purely to set the process going, but I've already spent too much time on WP today. Palmiro | Talk 16:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"Isa", I think is the better title for the article. After all the Jesus article isn't called "Isa in Christianity".Bless sins 19:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about Virgin Mary in Islam? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Bless sins, there are really two issues here, which your example conflates. The first is that "Isa" is Arabic - not Islamic, but Arabic. This alone makes "Isa in Christianity" unacceptable. The second is the presence of qualifiers such as "in Islam" or "in Christianity." This is much more debatable, and I'll address it further in a bit. But the use of foreign-language titles, which will not be understood by most readers, is not the solution.Timothy Usher 22:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, what do you mean by "not Islamic but Arabic"? On the contrary, it is very specifically Islamic - it is an Arabic name used also in other languages for this prophet, while Christian Arabs use the name "Yasu3". Palmiro | Talk 18:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

How come then that the name of the Christian edior of Filastin was Isa al-Isa? Pecher ^Talk 20:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention the range of different opinions. Several editors prefer "Isa". I and Anonymous Editor have agreed with "Jesus (prophet of Islam)" instead of "Isa". Timothy and some other editors prefer "Jesus in Islam". --Aminz 03:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We can, then, all agree that the title should be in English. The question then becomes, what should this English-language title be? I don't think it acceptable to declare him either a prophet, or a prophet of Islam (as does the currect introduction to this article).Timothy Usher 04:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this: "Islamic view of Jesus" or something similar? --Aminz 04:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be much better.

Another idea would be "Jesus in the Qur'an", which covers the vast majority of the material in this article. The idea would be to make it less overtly argumentative (well, this is what Muslims think) and more matter-of-fact. There are some Hadith here as well, but they're not that important in the scheme of things, somewhat of an appendix to the main Qur'anic points.

Either of these are better than my earlier "Jesus in Islam".Timothy Usher 06:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not "Jesus to return" section. It is more based on Hadith rather than Qur'an. --Aminz 07:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think "Isa" or "Jesus (Prophet of Islam)" are both fine. I don't like the idea of having "ideas" instead of names as the title of an article, such as "Jesus in Islam" or worse yet, "Islamic view of Jesus" which also seems to implicitly relegate the Islamic view to second place. Palmiro | Talk 18:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

See my comments below: the Islamic view is quite literally secondary (that's not the same as "unimportant" or "wrong") in that it is an argument against existing beliefs. An argument against something can hardly exist - and wouldn't have existed - on its own. We don't code them by using foreign language names for the subject of review according to the native language of the critics.

It's more than a little territorial to suggest that anything mentioned in the Qur'an, however tangentially, merits an "equal" article as the main one. Jesus is far more important to Christianity than to Islam, and is only important in Islam as part of Islam's critical view of Christianity.

There is an article with only the name, Jesus (not "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus, Son of God"!) which could benefit from a better treatment of the Islamic critique. The only articles dedicated solely to Christian views of Jesus are titled as ideas, e.g. Christology.Timothy Usher 19:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

rezeroing indentTimothy, I disagree to a greater or lesser extent with most of your points here. First of all, I don't see where I argued (or was that in response to someone else?) that "anything mentioned in the Qur'an, however tangentially, merits an "equal" article as the main one". Secondly, I dispute the idea that I am being territorial; all I am asking for is a sensible and sensitive treatment of Islamic topics. NPOV is not achieved by going out of one's way to disown all the positions held by a person or religion one is writing about. And what do you mean by "an argument against existing beliefs"? You seem to be arguing that Jesus only exists in Islam in terms of polemics against Christianity. While I can see some grounds for that argument, it's hardly a full picture. Palmiro | Talk 19:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus in the Qur'an is not perfect, but is it good enough? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We have a whole series of articles on the Prophets of Islam, thanks to the hard work of a few contributors. Articles in this series include Yahya and Ishaq on the one hand, and Adam (Prophet of Islam) on the other. It would seem to me to be logical to have an article on the Prophet Isa that would fit into this series, and "Jesus in the Qur'an", while not a bad name on its own terms, hardly seems like it would. I think we need to think about how this article fits into two "sets" of articles - those concerning Jesus as a historical and religious personage on the one hand, and also those concerning Islam and the prophets of Islam on another. Ideally, we need a title that can fit logically in with the other articles in both these sets. Palmiro | Talk 20:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This aspect of the series is misguided. We should not have a special "Muslim" section of wikipedia. If there is a historical person upon which Islam has a perspective, then it belongs with the main article for that person, or if that would make the main article too long, a daughter article about the Islamic view of that person.Timothy Usher 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We cannot say Jesus is a prophet of Islam

Palmiro, we cannot say "Jesus, who is one of the prophet [sic.] of Islam" for two reasons 1) most non-Muslims would reject the notion that Jesus was a Muslim, which includes the acceptance of Muhammad as a prophet - for all we know Jesus would have denounced Muhammad, and there's no proof to be had either way. 2) Jews and many non-Christian non-Muslims (let's not forget atheists) reject the notion that he is a prophet of any religion. In secular humanist circles, he's often spoken of as a wise teacher, which isn't quite a prophet.Timothy Usher 22:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I also note that your version of the intro has eliminated the only link to Jesus in the article.Timothy Usher 01:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, of course we can say he is one of the Prophets of Islam (I apologise for the missing plural). It is quite obvious that this is the Islamic view, and I find the idea that non-Muslims would object to this phraseology a bit peculiar. By the way, the term Muslim can equally apply to persons before Muhammad, who accepted God's messages and obeyed God. WRT your second point, sure atheists etc may deny Jesus was a prophet tout court, but they are hardly going to deny that he was one of the prophets of Islam. This is a bit silly. Palmiro | Talk 17:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"It is quite obvious that this is the Islamic view..." - Precisely. We aim for NPOV, not IPOV. Hear me say it: Jesus is not a prophet of Islam. He'd never heard of Islam.

"By the way, the term Muslim can equally apply to persons before Muhammad, who accepted God's messages and obeyed God." - It's not up to us on wikipedia to determine who did or didn't obey God. Anyhow, isn't the more proper term Hanif? (actually, in Jesus' case, the proper term would be Jew.)Timothy Usher 19:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The logic here is assumptive and circular: Islam is obeying God. Anyone today who obeyed God would follow Muhammad (non sequitur, as Muhammad is not God - ed.), therefore we call them Muslims. Jesus et al. obeyed God, therefore would have followed Muhammad had they heard his message. And we know this because...Muhammad said they would.

In fact, if we're to accept the definition of Islam as merely "obeying God", rather than as a specific historical phenomenon, we'd have to qualify all instances of "Islam" etc. as POV.Timothy Usher 19:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

When it is obvious that one is talking about Islam, it is hardly POV to use Islamic terminology. By your reasoning, we couldn't refer to Muhammad as a prophet, either - after all, nobody except Muslims and maybe some syncretistic religions think of him as such. Islam holds that there were numerous prophets before Muhammad - to refer to these as "prophets of Islam" is sensible, not POV. I have read many books by atheists which refer to Muhammad as "the prophet". Palmiro | Talk 19:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of using Islamic terminology, but of stating Muslim viewpoints as unqualified facts. And you're exactly right: we can't say "Prophet Muhammad." Only that Muslims believe him to be one.Timothy Usher 20:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree utterly. Books by all sorts of non-Muslim scholars continuously refer to "the prophet Muhammad", "the Prophet", etc. Context is everything, and we should not assume our readers to be stupid. Palmiro | Talk 20:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Books by all sorts of non-Muslim scholars continuously refer to "the prophet Muhammad", "the Prophet", etc." That's true, but not relevant to Wikipedia. For example, scholars are not required to write from a NPOV and nearly everybody doesn't, but we on Wikipedia are bound by WP:NPOV. Pecher ^Talk 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

By your logic, that would mean, we cannot accept Jesus as a son of God for the Christians too, as that is just what the Christians believe and only the Christians. So, should we delete that article then, as it does not follow Wiki's NPOV?? ifan160 12:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

On qualifiers and the argument against them from equal treatment

Although Islam allows Jesus to have been a prophet, and from a certain perspective second in importance only to Muhammad, in practice he plays only a minor role. Contra some claims made on this talk page, in no way is he central to Islam. What is central is the Qur’an’s rejection of Christianity’s treatment of Jesus as a partner to God.

Muhammad’s words, as quoted in the Qur’an and Hadith, form the very basis of Islam. How often are Jesus’ words are quoted in Islamic jurisprudence, or in the mosque?

The acceptance of a revealed Gospel is an empty and formalistic concession, as in practice Jesus’ words as historically recorded (even if subsequently corrupted) are never used.

Jesus’ only role is as a prop in Muhammad’s polemic: to deny the trinitarian heresy, and to establish Muhammad as his legitimate successor to Christians who are being called to Islam.

There is hardly any original material. Preexisting stories are briefly mentioned and either confirmed or denied (e.g. crucifixion). The only new thing is Jesus being quoted as agreeing with Muhammad that he’s not God. He steps to the front of the class, says, "My followers, please listen to this Muhammad fellow." and leaves the room for the remainder of the period.

None of this would have been necessary were Christianity not the dominant religion of the Middle East at that time, and there is no reason to believe the Qur’an would have given him more than a passing mention were this not the case.

It is therefore inaccurate to say that there is a truly independent Islamic concept of Jesus.

It is natural that in the Jesus article, most of the discussion will be related to Christianity (for or against). That does not mean that we should accept Jesus as a place where only Christian views are represented, or are given special priority based on religious (as opposed to topical) considerations. Rather, it is a matter of historical fact that Christianity is what makes Jesus important, and that’s where most of the material is to be found.

Consider the article Judaism's view of Jesus (not "Jesus (imposter of Judaism)"!) . It is remarkably similar to this one, denying the Christian view, then followed by supporting references in religious texts. Judaism does not see him as a prophet, but as an imposter. Yet in practice, the two articles are not entirely different.

Islam accepts many Christian claims, and takes a position somewhere in the middle - Jesus was a prophet, but not the Son of God. Nevertheless, this article is a laundry list of which Christian claims are accepted, and which are rejected, directly reflecting how Jesus is treated in the Qur’an.

Whereas to call the "Jesus" article “Jesus in Christianity" would be as absurd as titling George Washington "George Washington in American history."

A qualifier for one article, but not the other, is therefore not as inappropriate as the argument from equal treatment of religions would suggest.Timothy Usher 04:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, you hit the nail on the head. My personal belief is that the "most anti-qur'anic practice" of Muslims is their overlooking of the Bible especially Gospels. Muslims simply ignore and underweight lots of verses describing Bible as a light, guidance,... Qur'an's position according to my mind is clear: There is one and only one place that Muslim should merely look into Qur'an and that is when they are concerned with Sharia (Religious Laws) (e.g. ^{[Quran 5:48]}). There are lots of ethical teachings for examples in the Bible that Muslims must look. It is obvious to me. Isn't it a more than enough motivation for Muslims to look into Bible when the Qur'an repeatedly talks about previous scriptures in such a respect. Muslims usually justify their attitude saying that "Bible" is distorted. There are two answers to this: 1. Qur'an talks much more about people's misrepresenting and misinterpretation of the bible rather than Bible's textual distortion. I don't say Qur'an does not support the idea of textual distortion of previous scriptures, it does but always in an implicit way, so that from my heart I feel that Qur'an doesn't really like to even say it. 2. If one reads the Bible, he/she will recognize that some passages of it can not be the word of a typical man. It must be the words of a prophet. For example:

You have learned that they were told, “Love your neighbor, hate your enemy.” But what I tell you is this: Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors; only so can you be children of your heavenly Father, who makes his sun shine on good and bad alike, and sends the rain on the honest and the dishonest. If you love only those who love you, what reward can you expect? Surely the tax-gatherers do as much as that. And if you greet only your brothers, what is there extraordinary about that? Even the heathen do as much. There must be no limit to your goodness, as your heavenly Father’s goodness knows no bounds. —Matthew 5:43-48 - I saw this today on Aiden's userpage.

On the other hand, I believe there IS some advantages to Muslim's overlooking of the Bible: At least they haven't re-interpret the Bible. I don't want to be offensive to anyone but Christian's re-interpretation of Hebrew Bible is not acceptable to me.

All this said because you, Timothy, do not have bad intentions towards Islam. Had somebody said this with the motivation to criticize, ridicule or reject Islam, I wouldn't have made this comment. --Aminz 05:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Moves and changes again

Timothy Pecher moved the article to what he wanted and not what could have been an easy compromise. Clearly this isn't Jesus in Islam. Jesus in english, as was Timothy's argument, was the person that formed part of the trinity. This is not the same in Islam. If you wanted to be clear like the argument was for moving it, you wouldn't keep a name that was POV. You completely ignored what was being gradually agreed upon on this part of the talk page. And you still haven't said why Yeshua should be treated differently then Isa. If your claim is that Yeshya is about the word, that does not give a reason to move the article either. You can't have it your way when others also disagree with it. Try to compromise or list it on RFM. Just moving it around over again is not necessary. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Had you bothered to look into the article's history, you would have noticed that it wasn't Timothy who moved the article to the neutral title. Jesus in English is the name of a person who lived (or, according to some people, did not live) in the 1st century CE. Views on Jesus differ, but he still remains Jesus in English. Pecher ^Talk 20:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Good I changed who moved it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Pecher moved the article" Try again. Pecher ^Talk 20:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is this then [6]? I see no reason for moving it at all. You either accept the compromise that Tom, Aminz, Palmiro, Benne, I and others were working out or request a proper move. Don't move it because you think the controversy has disappeared. We already moved it from Isa. What's the problem now? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This was not the latest move. Actually, Tom and Aminz are arguing for moving the article to Jesus in Islam'. Pecher ^Talk 20:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Timothy moved the article again to what he wanted and not what could have been an easy compromise." - Anonymous editor, will you kindly show me the diff?

"Jesus in english, as was your argument, was the person that formed part of the trinity." - No, Jesus was an individual whom Christians believe forms part of a trinity. The sentence "Jesus was only a prophet" or "Jesus was a fraud" are both perfectly meaningful and non-contradictory; contrast "God was only a prophet" and "God was a fraud" which are inherently senseless.

Yeshua, once again, is not an alternative view of Jesus. It is an article about a word which may or may not have been Jesus' real name. We don't know that it can be translated as such. If we did, there'd be no need for the article, as we'd just say in Jesus, "Jesus (Aramaic Yeshua)..." Timothy Usher 20:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"If your claim is that Yeshya is about the word, that does not give a reason to move the article either. You can't have it your way when others also disagree with it." This is equivalent to "I have no arguments, but I disagree with you." Anonymous editor, either offer arguments against the Yeshua analogy or admit that you have none. Pecher ^Talk 20:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, you wrote "According to the Qur'an, he was one of God's (Arabic Islam holds Jesus (Arabic: عيسى `Īsā) to have been a messenger and a prophet of God and the Messiah." That makes no sense.

Additionally, "Isa" is not Islamic but Arabic.

And actually, you're still off on who last moved it - that is, before you did.Timothy Usher 20:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

But it's the name used in Islam. Even then, I don't remember moving it to Isa. I moved it to Jesus (prophet of Islam) which is exactly the position he holds in the religion. Jesus in Islam is incorrectly worded for the article. I don't see the argument now. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus (prophet of Islam) is illogical and thus actually worse than Isa because this title implies that the article is about some Jesus other than Jesus. Pecher ^Talk 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is better than "Isa" since people will not think Isa is a different person than Jesus (because of having a different name). Secondly, it precisely states what this article is about. --Aminz 20:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy advocates the use of common names. This article is about the Islamic prophet Isa--we have a seperate article for Jesus. Either the two should be merged, with this content being inserted into the Islamic Views sections of the Jesus article, or this article should remain named Isa, reflecting the common reference to this individual within Islam. —Aiden 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, with two totally different views on divinity and history (crucifixion, etc.), I think it's best to treat these articles as two separate people. —Aiden

Thank you Aiden. This is what I and others have originally argued for. They aren't two different people, but the perspectives are different enough. This is what I've said since the start of this week long argument. Again Timothy's argument seems to be that Isa is not allowed as an article name because it's not english. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, I think "Jesus (prophet of Islam)" is a good compromise. The reason for having a separate article is that this article is already too long and can not be merged. --Aminz 20:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I no longer understand who wants which name. The original discussion was on this part of the talk page. Most editors want Isa which is an accurate name and a good article as it was before Timothy came by trying to rename it. It no longer makes sense that if so many editors are disagreeing with Timothy's name change, why it was moved at all. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it was moved. Isa is the common name for the Islamic prophet. Using the common Christian name and slapping (Prophet of Islam) at the end is somewhat POV. This is akin to using Muhammad (False prophet) for an article on Christian or Jewish views of Muhammad. Avoid the conflict and leave it as Isa. —Aiden 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time - how many times do I have to say this??? - (in reponse to Timothy) Isa is definitely Islamic and not just Arabic. There are Christian Arabs, millions of them, and none of them call Jesus Isa.

I agree with Aiden's earlier remarks on the whole, but I don't have a problem with the current title either.

Anyway, enough of all this: if people still want to keep moving the page around, list it on Requested moves. Is that so hard? Palmiro | Talk 20:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes the article remains at Isa if not this title. And since I don't see any agreement on Timothy's title or consensus for his version, I don't know why it was moved. In my opinion the article is best at Isa. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The best title is "Islamic view of Jesus". That makes it clear it's the same individual, without stating that he is a Prophet - and as Pecher points out above, this title makes it sound like there is some other Jesus fellow that this article is about.

The Qur'anic point here is, as discussed, that the man who is today in English called Jesus was not God as Christians claimed him to be. Falsely giving the impression that these are two individuals obscures the whole reason he was mentioned in the Qur'an to begin with.

Calling Jesus "Prophet of Islam" without qualification is, as Aiden says, religious POV. I suppose "Jesus (alleged Prophet of Islam)" might work?

Palmiro, English-speaking Muslims I know in real life say Jesus. Unless to have a source to show that they don’t?Timothy Usher 20:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Back to your first argument again? Isa on his own self is important enough as a figure in Islam to have an article. It is not simply the Islamic view of the Christian belief. Isa as a prophet of Islam and the name for an important figure itself merits an article based on the person known as Isa. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Palmiro, are you sure about "There are Christian Arabs, millions of them, and none of them call Jesus Isa. "? --Aminz 20:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above on at least one Christian Arab I know of whose name was Isa. Pecher ^Talk 20:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I'm not a hundred per cent sure, but I'm fairly sure. Re Pecher's point, it's funny he should bring them up, because I remember one town I was in where one of the priests was Abuna Isa, and the local joke was that he was a "khouri mislim" - a Muslim priest - because of his name. The personal name Isa is found among Christians undoubtedly, but I've never heard, or heard of, it being used as a name for Jesus.

Timothy, nobody is disputing that Muslims call Jesus Jesus in English, but they also use Isa in English. However, to prove that it is a specifically Arabic usage and is not a specifically Islamic one, you will in fact have to show that it is commonly used by Arab Christians, which I think you will find difficult. Palmiro | Talk 16:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion: How is "Jesus (Islam)"? This maybe a little be vague but let's discuss it. --Aminz 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with "Islamic views of Jesus" since we already include a summary of those views in the Jesus article and link to this article as the main reference. However, Isa is perfectly fine as well since that is the common name within Islam. I don't so much like using the name 'Jesus' as in the title as if it was the name of the person in Islam--"Jesus (Prophet of Islam)" implies that is how he is referred to within Islam. —Aiden 20:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Again that would imply that this is only a perspective of the Christian figure. Isa on his own as a prophet of Islam and the name for an important figure itself merits an article based on the person known as Isa. So I agree with Isa as the best title and so far the only argument against it was that it's not in english. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

what about "Jesus (Islam)"? --Aminz 21:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No, he is not referred to as Jesus within Islam. —Aiden 21:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What is he called in English translations of the Qur'an? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Either "Jesus" or "Isa", see Qur'an ^{[Quran 19:34]}. Pecher ^Talk 21:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, Jesus (prophet of Islam) or "Jesus (Islam)" does imply that he is a person different from Jesus. Compare Robert Stevenson and Robert Stevenson (director). Pecher ^Talk 21:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Jesus (Islam) is good. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point Pecher. Though I think "Jesus (Islam)" and "Robert Stevenson (director)" are a bit different since "Robert Stevenson the director" is meaningful but "Jesus the Islam" is not, but we are trying to find a good compromise, not an ideal one. ?--Aminz 21:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Jesus (Islam) or Jesus (Prophet of Islam) because they imply that within Islam, this figure is referred to as Jesus. I think the only two possibilities are "Islamic views of Jesus", where this article acts as a sub-article to the main Jesus article (which reflects all views), or "Isa", treating the two seperately. —Aiden 21:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, 1. Many Qur'anic translations use "Jesus" rather than "Isa". 2. Many Islamic English websites use the term "Jesus". I think Jesus is not a christian term either. Yeshua is the christian term. Jesus is only an english term. --Aminz 21:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Isa in my opinion is the best name since that name is the proper name used for the figure. He is important by himself as a figure in Islam, not because of Jesus (the christian belief). This isn't simply the Islamic perspective over Jesus, he's an important figure on his own and that's why I also said that we should treat the two articles as separate. I don't think the argument that the name must be in English a good enough one to move it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

See my comments above. He is *not* "by himself" an important figure in Islam, and yes, the only reason he appears in the Qur'an is as a rebuttal of Christian heresy, and to establish Muhammad as the legitimate sucessor to Jesus, the central figure of the dominant religion of Muhammad's time.Timothy Usher 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That is clearly POV and now your real reason for moving it comes clear. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, I know using "Isa" is good for some reasons, but there are other reasons on the other side and we need to compromise. Can you please let me know what you think about "Jesus (Islam)", if not, do you have any suggestion? Thanks --Aminz 21:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"I don't think the argument that the name must be in English a good enough one to move it." Actually, it's the best argument possible because this is an English Wikipedia. We don't call Leo Tolstoy "Lev Tolstoy" simply because the latter is indeed his Russian name; instead, we go by the most common English name. In the two most widely used translations of the Qur'an, Yusufali and Pickthal use "Jesus". Pecher ^Talk 21:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Then clearly explain to me why we have Yeshua. And no the argument is not good enough for a figure that can be treated separately simply because of the difference in beliefs. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Because Yeshua is an article about a name "Yeshua", not about a person called Yeshua. Pecher ^Talk 21:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

So? What part of that or any policy says Isa can not exist? Why keep Satan when it's just a name for the Devil? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, we are trying to find a title on which we can all compromise. we all have some reasons. Let's compromise on something like "? + Jesus + ?" --Aminz 21:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well there is the main article, Jesus, which explores all viewpoints, such as those of other religions as well as historical reconstructions. In that article, there are subarticles for the different views, such as Christian views of Jesus, Judaism's view of Jesus, and Historical Jesus. I see no reason why this article can't be Islamic views of Jesus or Jesus in Islam as a compromise. —Aiden 22:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, "Islamic views of Jesus" was tenatively created and redirected to Isa for now. --Aminz 22:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

He's an important figure on his own as a prophet to merit an article. We have named articles after prophets, it's the actual name of the figure that's used. He is important by himself as a figure in Islam, not because of Jesus (the christian belief) which as others have said, gives the Islamic view a second place. This isn't simply the Islamic perspective over "Jesus", but a figure that is important on his own. That's why the original Isa is the best one for it. If we were to treat them as two separate individuals then it will make sense. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, I concur. I'd overlooked Christian views of Jesus - along with Judaism's view of Jesus, these are a strong precedents for the title Islamic views of Jesus, and Jesus in Islam works for me as well. As long as it's in English, and doesn't presume prophethood, it's fine with me.

AE, there is no “on his own” here. It’s the same guy, and important for the same reasons. There’s just a disagreement as to his status - God, prophet, or just a teacher. But everyone else agrees it’s the same person.Timothy Usher 22:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is the same person, but the belief is different enough so that everyone does not agree to it. He on his own as a prophet can merit an article simply because of his importance as a major prophet of Islam, not because it refers to the same person as in the christian belief.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

New suggestion

What about "Jesus (prophet in Islam)", or "Jesus (prophet according to Islam)"? "Jesus (prophet according to Islam)" does not have any religous POV. This will also consider Pecher's point that we are not talking about a different Jesus. Let's compromise.

Aiden, AE and Palmiro do not like Islamic views of Jesus. Can you please let me know if "Jesus (prophet in Islam)" is religously POV? Thanks --Aminz 22:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... I have no problem with Islamic views of Jesus. I had a problem with Jesus (Prophet of Islam) because it assumes prophethood and is not the name actually used in Islam. Frankly I didn't have a problem with Isa to begin with, but if we are trying to reach a compromise I like Islamic views of Jesus just as there is Christian views of Jesus and Jewish views of Jesus. —Aiden 22:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, We discussed this issue a lot and arrived at Jesus (Prophet of Islam) after a long time. Jesus (Prophet in Islam) does not assumes prophethood. Also, the most two famous translations of Qur'an, together with most english Islamic websites, use Jesus and not Isa. This may not be an ideal but a compromise --Aminz 22:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with this title as a compromise even if Isa was the best title. And it no longer implies prophethood but clearly what Jesus is in Islam. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, I think in the sense that the title now clearly states that he is a prophet in Islam, it is even better than Isa. --Aminz 22:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm also OK with this. Palmiro | Talk 16:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing POV tag

The title of the article is not POV anymore. Any objection to removing the tag? --Aminz 22:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —Aiden 02:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it POV, in comparison with Christian views of Jesus and Judaism's view of Jesus. I'm not sure if it merits a tag. At least it's in English.Timothy Usher 03:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, why do you think it is POV? (i.e. can you please show me a rule from WP:POV supporting your argument? ) Thanks. --Aminz 03:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt there is one that speaks to this specifically. But there is the precedent of Christian views of Jesus and Judaism's view of Jesus - does anyone think these not neutral? - whereas this current title is explicitly a compromise between an overtly POV title "Jesus (Prophet of Islam)" and the earlier "Jesus in Islam."

Some considered the considered the latter unfair by comparison to unqualified "Jesus", which was said to be the "Christian" article...but as we've seen, the Jesus article isn't only about the Christian view, while there are daughter articles for Christian, Jewish and strictly historical views with the qualifiers which were said to unfair in the case of Islam.

I agree that this is better than "Jesus (Prophet of Islam)", in that prophet is qualified somewhat - but only somewhat - by "in". Whether qualified by "of" or "in", and granting that the latter is stronger, there is simply no need to say that he is a prophet in the title, anymore than there is to add "Christ" to "Christian viws of Jesus". It's just an arbitrary bone to toss to those who like to see the word "prophet" on wikipedia in as many places as possible, and as per the history of this discussion, a compromise between POV and neutrality.Timothy Usher 20:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, do you honestly think we will arrive at consensus on the title "Islamic views of Jesus"? Thanks God that we at least arrived at consensus on the current title. Yes, I, too, think that "Jesus (prophet in Islam)" is somehow strange and not perfect but I think this was the only title on consensus could be formed. --Aminz 03:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't. Not with the current mix of editors. For now, I'm happy that the article is in English. As the current English title is precisely what people were trying to say when they wrote "Isa" (lacking only (SAW)) rather than "Jesus", at least it brings it out into the open.Timothy Usher 04:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Can some one provide some information on this ...

there are lots of saying in Isa (Jesus Christ) pages specially from Muslim Editors the so called return of Jesus Christ Physically, is there any one who can share something on this subject, as it is very important, I think important than to discuss names phippi46 22:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Phippi46, Please have a look at the section "Jesus to return" of the article and let us know what specific information are you looking for. thx. --Aminz 04:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

For example the general impression of this artical and section "Jesus to return" that Isa is physicall alive in Heaven still and will decend to earth phyically later in time. Well how can it be possible a Human can live so long and also is this artical claiming that Heaven is Physical in nature I mean for a Human to live you need some basic life necesseties, is all these necesseties are available in Heaven, it should be existed some where, is this heaven is in our Universe or outside, you know there are lots of things which has been claimed in this section and need some explaination, please some one explain, regards phippi46 09:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Phippi46, I don't know enough to be able to answer your question. I am only writing my personal thoughts for whatever its worth is. Before answering this question, Christians and Jews may be of help here since Bible says Elijah was taken up to heaven and will return in the end times. I have one point: The Qur'anic verses regarding the Garden of Eden are very clear that the Garden of Eden was not on earth. ^{[Quran 2:36]} So, "assuming this story is not meant be metaphorical/philosophical", there is possibility of life somewhere else; or at least this question could be asked there as well. I hope my answer had been useful. --Aminz 09:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr Aminz I realy appreciated your reply and I am 100% agree with you on that, but life somewhere else is not what we are talking here, there may be life in our universe, I personally belief that, but Jesus to live in Heaven and return physically speaking according to Laws of Physics is not possible and these laws of Physics made by God himself, I do not think God make some rules and then break them for some special reason, as you may well aware that in Quran Allah has actually challenge to all that you can look in my creation and try to find a single loophole and according to Allah, people will try and try again but there eyes will not find any loop holes becasue what he created is Perfect. In this sence I have difficulty to accept, on one hand Allah claim his creation is Perfect and then allow others to break rules, and we know physically it is not possible even to reach speed of light, I earlier asked once that the estimated life of our universe according to light we are getting from distance galaxies is about 18 Billions years, so even if Jesus travels with speed of light, not to breaking Laws sets by Allah, he is not in heaven yet, he may be around corner in 2000 years he can not be far enough, so should we wait another 18 Billions years ? I agree with you that our goal is same, to find truth, you and all other editors are people in nature who love to find new information and also like to share with others, but my point is, on a plateform like Wikipedia which is an encylopedia we are some how not allowed to make POVs statements, untill we can find a hard and solid evedence, and also in the end you suggested that "assuming this story is not meant be metaphorical/philosphical", well in my personal view this is the only solution we can present. your thaughts and comments are most welcome. Regards phippi46 10:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Phippi46, I can now see your point and your perspective. Please note that this issue has not much Qur'anic support (but mostly Hadith support). My "POV" is that this issue even if true should not be a significant article of Muslim faith. I think the relevant Qur'anic verses are 43:61 - 4:159 - 21:105. You may want to check these verses in their context. One can easily set aside 4:159 as it could be read in two ways. 21:104-105 could be interpreted somewhat different. The most tough verse is 43:61 stating that "And Jesus shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment)". One may want to assume this verse is supposed to mean that we are much closer to the end times, in what scale I don't know. I "think" but not sure that there are other Qur'anic verses saying the Hour is even closer but nothing has happened either since 2000 years ago or 1400 years ago. I don't know. As to the story of Adam and Eve, the story is clearly tries to answer our fundamental philosophical questions. Some consider it metaphorical but I think this is a minority interpretation. One may ask where has the conversations between Adam, angels and God took place (before their dwelling in Garden). The story seems to be just a story or a tale but an interesting one :) And finally my understanding, the most straightforward reading of the Quran does not imply that Adam and Eve didn't have physical existence. I know I didn't answer to your question at all but this was all I know. Take care, --Aminz 10:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi once again, well thanx for your comments, first of all my intentions were not to proke you and what I meant was general, and not directly you, what i mean was if we look the return of Jesus section, generally speaking its look like a pov statement but it does not mean that its your POV, any way as you mentioned that verse in which God told us that time is almost arrived but nothing happend since 2000 years or 1400 years, well that is also mean that this is something we should explain in which we can see the meaning, not to breaking the Basic rules set by God himself, I think in one verse (I am sorry I dont have reference right now, I will look and provide you later) God told us that my one day is equal to your 50000 days or years, now straightforward its difficult to understand, so we should take a approach which meets all the requirement in order to get the answer. However, if you ask me about the conversation between Adam, Angels and God, well it is again something which is not clear, if I say that Adam was in Heaven, then I have to accept that Heaven is Physical, so again I have to proove that and because I know Adam was Human Prophet, what I think (in my own openion) that Adam was not the first Human on earth, but he was first Prophet from God, there were Humans before Adam, but they have no Idea of God and religion etc. what God did that he choose Adam from them to present him as Prophet with wisdom and knowledge, knowledge that he took from God and then he spread this message of God. I dont have any prove, but this that all Prophets were sent to people, if Adam was first Human and Prophet, why God send him alone, to whom.. ?? so I took it from other Prophet that there were people before and Adam was first choosen Prophet of God. regards. phippi46 22:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Phippi46, thanks for your comment too. Actually, it doesn't make sense that a human body could go out side of the atmosphere in the first place. This is not explainable I think. Some scholars believe the verb “mutavafika” in verse 3:55 implies that God caused the bodily death of Isa. That's another possibility. I don't know. I would like to talk with you regarding the story of Adam and Eve more but I am currently in the finals week. Can we please postpone our discussion to 10 days or so? Thanks --Aminz 03:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aminz, at my current knowledge I think you are right abou that we can go out side of the atmosphere, and about word "Mutavafika" mean death because if I am right this word normally use in the past term, but I am not Arabic expert, I can in these 10 or so days when you are finish, in the mean time if you can look in any Arabic dictionary of if you have any arabic speaking friend who can share light on it. And see you around 10 days, take care phippi46 09:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

In order to continue this discussion, I noticed your valid question about the talk between Adam, Eve and Angels with God, you suggested that it may be possible that this was happend in heaven and also its shows that Heaven exists and Adam and Eva were send to earth from there. Fair enough, but at the same time you are well aware of the that they were told by God not to eat fruit of a certain tree, but Iblis (Satan) provke them, miss guided them and they made a mistake, the result, they have to go to earth. One might ask what Mr. Iblis was doing in Heaven ? if we take that Heaven Physically exists and Adam and Eva were in Heaven, then there is no way what so ever the they may have any kind of contact with Evil ! Heaven suppose to be free of him. God would not allow any contact from him to them, specially in heaven, because it would be mess that people who were loyal to God whole life and tried their best to go in Heaven, and yet there is a possibility that the Evil can approach them in Heaven also.. its not possible in this case. phippi46 21:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth

As this had been mentioned before: Over the past few days, I've asked three Arabic-speaking Christians what Jesus is called in Arabic, 'Isa or Yeshua. All three said 'Isa, although two said that Yeshua would be understood. Yes, original research, but as this is only the talk page...Timothy Usher 09:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Passage lookup has only one arabic translation "Arabic Life Application Bible" and that uses Yeshua. Persian translations of the Bible use "Isa". --Aminz 09:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not Yeshua, it's yasūع. Timothy, were the people you spoke to actually Arabs, and if so, from which countries, and were they opriginally Christians or converts? I'm curious, because I've never heard anyone say "Isa" for Jesus. Palmiro | Talk 13:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Iranians say "Isa". --Striver 14:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Palmiro, I just asked a fourth Arab Christian, and he said, 'Isa. No, of course not converts. These are Arabic-speaking Levantine Christians from Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon.

When you say, "I've never heard anyone say "Isa" for Jesus," I'm going to guess you mean Christians. If so, what countries are you talking about?Timothy Usher 00:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, I find that a bit weird, because I know many Christians here in Syria and have lived in Christian households, and I also know plenty of Palestinian and Lebanese Christians, and I have never heard any of them call Jesus Isa; indeed, I distictly recall one of them chiding a foreign visitor for using it, saying, "the Muslims call him Isa, so we must not"! I also asked a non-Syrian Arab contributor to Wikipedia about this, and he confirmed my impression. This is very strange. Palmiro | Talk 13:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming

I dont know if the naming issue is over, but this is my suggestion:

Jesus

• Christian views of Jesus
• Islamic view of Jesus <- this article
• Jewish view of Jesus
• Mormon view of Jesus (Jesus in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)

--Striver 14:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Then we have to create so many pages there are other issue with almost same problem, we can not just simply create pages for everyone, I think we can set for two pages Muslim view and Christian view or just one page with reference to both sides phippi46 00:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

All the other pages are created, and so is this one. Im not talking about creating pages, im taking about naming them. Lest follow the convention set by the other articles and call this "Islamic view of Jesus", a accurated and good name. Isa can redirect here.--Striver 10:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's a bad idea, but I'd prefer to let everything settle for a few weeks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Striver's proposal. There is no legitimate reason for this article to be named differently from the rest. Pecher ^Talk 17:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Striver is absolutely right.Timothy Usher 04:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Striver is so right it hurts. This is an incredibly obvious naming selection. Islamic view of Jesus makes vastly more sense than Jesus (prophet in Islam) for so many reasons, not least of which is that parentheses are used for disambiguating between different people, not for labeling the topic of an article. In other words, it would only make sense to name the article as we currently have it named if there were multiple people named Jesus, one of whom was a prophet in Islam, and another of whom was the guy the Jesus article is about; since that is not the case, naming the articles as we have done is incredibly misleading and will probably confuse loads of people in the long run. -Silence 01:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Striver's suggestion is a good one. (And I didn't want to miss a chance to say so!) Does anyone disagree with Striver's idea? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

I was surprised to see that a number of the passages cited as quotes from the Qur'an do not accurately quote what the citation says. It looks like someone has often substituted "God" where the translator has written "Allah." I don't care what translation we use, but it seems obvious to me that we have to quote without modification. Am I misunderstanding something? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom, you're absolutely right. The words are those of the translators, and should be left unaltered.Timothy Usher 01:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Changing the name of the article to Isa?

Would Isa as the name for this article not make more sense? After all we also have an article Allah rather than God (deity in the Islam). I am just throwing the idea in the circle to facilitate possible improvement of the very long and complicated title. I look forward to support, objections and other ideas! No voting yet, perhaps there are very good reasons for this intuitively somewhat strange name... gidonb 04:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No response, but I checked out the page Prophets of Islam, of which Jesus is one. The conventions there strongly support moving the page to Isa. Prophets_of_Islam#Prophets_in_the_Qur.27an Unless there will be many strong objections, I will pursuit this further. So far nobody seems to care. gidonb 23:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The conventions used in Prophets of Islam and related articles are inappropriate to an English-language encyclopedia. We're not obliged to perpetuate this error here, and indeed, they should all be changed to established English-language equivalents where these exist - Islamic view of So-and-So or So-and-So in the Qur'an.

Allah is mainly about the word itself - note Islamic concept of God.Timothy Usher 23:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the vast majority of readers will notice. Don't worry. --Ephilei 00:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The title should be enough for English-language readers to know what it's about, which "Isa", like "Musa", "Ibrahim" and others, doesn't accomplish.Timothy Usher 00:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Isa" is not an appropriate title. I oppose any such change. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Do I understand correctly that most prophet articles in the Islam are to undergo a name change because of my inquiry? gidonb 11:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of consistency, or of centralised decision-making. I think it should be worked out case by case on each page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that lack of consistency really is an issue here. Of the prophets in the islam it is Jesus who gets the different, complicated name. The reader may get an impression of christocentricity. We cannot do anything about the special interest of Westerners in Jesus in non-Christian religions, that is to be expected, but why should the differences between the articles be so blunt? gidonb 13:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian views of Jesus has nothing to do with it. My point is that since this is the English Wikipedia, the article title should be the name most commonly used by English speakers (like "Jesus"), unless there's a reason to do otherwise (like "Allah"). I think a case could be made that Musa (prophet) should be "Moses in Islam;" or maybe there are reasons to prefer the other. Either way, in my view this is not the place to decide what any page will be titled but this one. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No no no, my comment was obviously not about Christian views of Jesus or Musa (prophet), but on the prophets of Islam. Creating an inconsistent name for Musa (did you pick him because you figured out I am Jewish?) would only worsen the problem. Christocentricity should not be compensated by Judocentricity. Rather, articles on the Islam should be articles on the Islam. Regards, gidonb 13:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Rather, articles on the Islam should be articles on the Islam." - hence, "Islamic view of Jesus". We must not confuse the religion Islam with the language Arabic. Not all Arabic-speakers are Muslim, and not all Muslims speak Arabic. Failing to translate well-established terms does not make an article more "Islamic"; only more obscure.Timothy Usher 15:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The dicussion is goin on and on and on.... and then nothing.. guys The only fact is that we are doing nothing to solve problem of nameing but just keep it alive, just look the size of this page.. wow, we say in germany, "sehr gute leistung jugs.." phippi46 17:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone knows that not only Muslims speak Arabic, in fact I can hold a conversation in Arabic myself. My problem is with the differential status for Jesus as a prophet in the Islam in the English language Wikipedia. It does not look entirely right. I will see if I can do something about it. Timothy, your opinion is clear. Can I count on your assistance on the other talk pages? gidonb 18:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that it would be correct for the article title to be Isa, if that how he is known in Islam. As it is now, labelling it as "Jesus (prophet in Islam)" looks wrong to me, in the same way as an article titled "Isa (saviour in Chistianity)" would. Regards, MartinRe 18:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well that may change the picture. Anyone else in favor of Jesus (prophet in Islam) or Isa? Perhaps I should move the discussion to prophets in Islam (as I do look for some consistency)? gidonb 19:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not how he is known in Islam. That's what he's called in the Qur'an, because...ready?...because the Qur'an was written in Arabic.

When a Muslim says in English, "Jesus", as many do, has he converted?

Consider Moses, who is called in the Torah "Mosheh". That's because the Torah is in Hebrew. In English, however, his name is Moses, so that's what we call him here. It's not the "Christian" name for Moses, but the English one. Same with Jesus.Timothy Usher 19:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

But the written article on Moses in relation to islam is at Musa (prophet), so it's not the same as Jesus . We have Moses/Musa and Jesus/Jesus (prophet in Islam). The discrepency looks a little strange to me. (I, like gidonb, like consistency, or at least a reason for inconsistency) Regards, MartinRe 20:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Jesus (prophet in Islam) should pretty clearly be moved to either Islamic views of Jesus or Jesus in Islam. The current title is poorly-chosen and irregular because disambiguating parentheses for articles about individuals should be primarily used to distinguish between different people, not different perspectives on the same person, which can be easily expressed through normal text (which is exactly what's done for the other Jesus-in-X-religion articles). It is also pretty clear that renaming the article to "Isa" would be a terrible idea, because (1) again, it implies that Jesus and Isa are two different people, when in reality it's simply the different-language renderings of the same name; (2) an article titled "Isa" is infinitely less useful to English-speakers than an article titled "Islamic views of Jesus", because the former title is completely impossible to decipher on its own, whereas the latter one is incredibly clear and explicit in its focus; and (3) English Wikipedia naming conventions specifically state that we should use the English rendering for a name or concept whenever possible. So, for all those reasons, neither "Jesus (prophet in Islam)" nor "Isa" are appropriate names for this article. Also, the article which is truly analogical to this one, Adam (prophet of Islam), should be moved in the same way we move this article. (Probably to Adam in Islam or something. Then we could have a similar Adam in Christianity article to discuss his deeper significance for Christians, etc....) -Silence 20:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as it is done to all the relevant prophets of Islam articles. For example Al-Yasa then becomes Elisha in Islam. I dislike the current names for its complexity and inconsistency. Both would be solved by your excellent proposal. Lets go for it! Regards, gidonb 15:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

More than complexity and inconsistency, the main reason such moves would be beneficial is the elimination of ambiguity: English-speakers (i.e. the people who use the English Wikipedia) are infinitely more likely to understand the meaning of "Elisha in Islam" than simply "Al-Yasa". Plus not all religions have their own languages, so it will breed inconsistency both on linguistic and religious grounds to merely translate the person's name into Arabic to denote the Islamic version. -Silence 00:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That is three good reasons then. Of course Arabic is not necessarily the language of Muslims or the other way around, but it is the language of the Qur'an. It is important is that these names address all concerns and comply better with the Wikipedia policies. Why discuss when we have a winning solution? ;-) Thanks for the proposal, nobody objected so I am starting the changes. Regards, gidonb 00:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Unqualified agreement.Timothy Usher 00:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, thank you for inserting that quickly and before any change was made. Can you explain your opinion? gidonb 00:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant that I completely agree. Either "Jesus in Islam" or "Islamic view of Jesus" is better than the current title, and much better than "Isa".Timothy Usher 05:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"nobody objected so I am starting the changes." What changes exactly? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Name changes of course, however one objection did come in. I am still waiting for the rationale. gidonb 01:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be obtuse, but name changes from what to what? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

To the proposed names. I had not checked out yet how to do this. As at other places I would like to reach a consensus first. gidonb 01:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So you want to change the name of this article from Jesus (prophet in Islam) to what? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

To Jesus in Islam. Of all the prophets really. I was about to seek assistance when an objection did come in. gidonb 01:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not object to Jesus in Islam. I will think about the others individually. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That is good news! I support this solution for all prophets in Islam. Can you help with the move, or should we wait a little longer for Timothy? gidonb 02:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to wait. I feel like we haven't really heard from a lot of the editors who have followed this article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, we will wait at least for Timothy. If others want to add their opionions that would be good. I like working in consensus, whenever possible. gidonb 02:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait before making such a major change. There's plenty of time to discuss things more first. For example, for the Jesus page at least, is "Jesus in Islam" preferable, or is "Islamic views of Jesus"? My initial thought was that the latter is much preferable, simply because it's more consistent with Jewish views of Jesus and Christian views of Jesus, but after thinking about it some more, I think I like "x in Islam" a little more: it's simpler and clearer, and avoids the question of whether "Islamic views" or "Islamic view" or "Islam's view" is the better version, which has caused inconsistently in the "Jewish views" (now "Judaism's view", a very messy title) article. If we made such a change, of course, it'd lend a lot of weight to making the same changes for other religions: Jesus in Christianity, Jesus in Judaism, etc. If we're going to go that far, it makes even more sense to ensure that we have consensus first. -Silence 03:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "Islamic view of Jesus", because Jesus doesn't have much of a role in Islam, other than to not be the Son of God. It is the view of Jesus that is important, and it is very much an Islamic one, such that if you have a different one, you're not an orthodox Muslim.

Consistency isn't the only criteria we should use. For example, the article now horribly-titled Musa (prophet) should be "Moses in the Qur'an", because there really isn't a different view of Moses here, and all the material appears to be from the Qur'an (at least that's the only cited source, in contrast to this article which includes some Hadith and generalized polemic), where he appears much more often than Jesus.Timothy Usher 05:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I opine that we should call them all as "Islmic view of <insert prophet>, since it is the Islamic view of the person that is important. Many times, they dont have any actualy differing role *in* Islam, it is rather the different *view* that is relevant. Like, *in* both Islam and christianity is lut a prophet, but we *view* that he did not got drunk and had a sex-orgy with his daughters as the Bible sugest, astaghforillah.

About "Moses in the Qur'an", Islamic view of Moses covers that, and it is wider. The Qur'an is the defenitiv source for Islamic views, no Islamic view should in theory go agaisnt the Qur'an. So again, it is not the place in the Qur'an that is *most* important, like, how many times he is mentioned there, rather, how Muslims view him. Further, Islamic view of Moses opens to include hadith based views. --Striver 12:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Be Bold?

So, who whould object if i renamed them all to "Islamic view of <insert prophet>"? --Striver 14:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you can rename as you suggested, but what will you take source of your information, Quran or Hadith. There are so many openion some time just to clear some hadith accounts, I think It should be based on Quarnic account, then Hadith those are accepted by all of atleast mentioning the fact that some thing is disputable and the general understanding of the knowledge about a certain Prophet. If only strict Islamic view presenting is your Idea, in my openion it may not work. Knowledge and information should be fair and balanced. It will creat problem for readers to have two different openion on one Prophet. Just to save time of a reader, why dont we put one clear and Bold Article with all information on one page. phippi46 00:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this one. I have no opinion on the others, and would be inclined to treat them individually. On the other hand, I don't think Striver would be acting unreasonably if he moved a few to see how that was received. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hallefrigginlujah.Timothy Usher 02:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh: Hallelujah, and Hallel. ;-) Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Islamic view of Moses
• Islamic view of Solomon
• Islamic view of Abraham

Now, lets see if there is any reaction. --Striver 13:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No respons so far... I advocate going to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles) and trying to garner consencus for the reasoning behind this move, hopefully making the article series more standardized.--Striver 10:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In order to fair, you should present then Jewish view of Solomon and Abraham etc. and then Christian view of Solomon and Abraham with only prespective of Chris and Jewish view. phippi46 16:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the move. It isn't fair to say that the main articles of all of these prophets should be kept to Christian view. It's not simply an Islamic view of the prophet but the prophet on their own meriting an article. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi bro, thanks for the comment. Here is my respons:

if we focus on the prophet Jesus. You argue that it should not be this way:

"Jesus" article, implying the christian figure

"Islamic view of Jesus", implying the Islamic view of christian character.

I do agree that it would be a bad choice to have it that way. You argue it should be this way:

"Jesus" article, implying the christian figure

"Isa" article, implying the Muslim figure

I view that as a non-optimal solution. Here is what we have done:

Jesus, implying the historical figure, or the lack of it, if you ask certain atheist.

Christian views of Jesus, implying the christian view of him, drawing from chritian literature such as the Bible and christian traditions

Islamic views of Jesus, implying the Islamic view of him, drawing from Islamic literature such as the Qur'an, Hadith and the Bible

Jewish views of Jesus, implying the Jewish view of him, drawing from Jewish scholars

The reason i made this long and detailed answer is that something made me question if you really understood what we did. I anticipiate your respons, peace. --Striver 16:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

AnonymosEditor wrote:

Striver, moving the articles to Islamic view of ruins the entire way the articles are written. The articles on their own deserve an article as important prophets not simply a "view" of the Biblical figure. Musa is important on his own as a prophet, not because he is a christian figure. I will keep the Jesus one however. The same discussion will not apply to the other pages

Bro, i agree that "deserve an article as important prophets not simply a "view" of the Biblical figure" and i hope i addresed that above. The Islamic view of Moses is not supposed to be a "Islamic view of the Judeo-christian figure Moses". If the Moses Article gives undue weight to the Judeo-Christian view, it should be solved by creating a Christian and a Jewish view article, concede the Moses article to the Judeo-christian view and pretend that Musa and Moses are different people. I hope to hear your respons, peace --Striver 16:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be like this:

• Moses - historical figure, equal space to all povs, linking to the below specialized articles:
  • Islamic view of Moses
  • Jewish view of Moses
  • Christian view of Moses
  • Secular view of Moses

--Striver 16:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Section break

Yes but that is more pov forks than necessary. It works in the case of Jesus since Isa can be discussed as the word like Timothy claimed Yeshua is. But it doesn't work for the other ones since it will crease only dozens of POV forks for each perspective. So it works on this page but not others. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm... in that case, what is the arguement for not merging Musa into Moses? --Striver 16:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Article differences are large and the article's length is too much for the page. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

To beging with, i do agree that the articles should not be merged, it was a hypothetical question. I do not see how the arguement "article differences are large" is a hinder to merge, but i do agree "article's length is too much for the page". So what we basicly have is a break out. What are we breaking out? The Islamic view of the historical person. Am i misstaken? --Striver 16:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

(from strivers talk page)

Striver it's not necessary to add that notice to all talk pages. It's fine, it has worked differently for the Isa one, leave other ones as they are since it will only result in too many pov forks breaks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Bro, the reason im doing this is because i honestly belive that it is wrong to have it this way. We cant have a article named <English name of x> and another one <Arabic name of x>, and then let <English name of x> be about the Judeo chritian view, while the <Arabic name of x> is about the Islamic view. Remeber that Christian Arabs also use <Arabic name of x>.

Think about the poor reader who has to go all these artical if it happend, you are suggesting several artical on one person, well it will not be surprised if you see one day Communists view of Jesus (PBUH) and so on.. you will allow all kind of POVs to let in and it will be a Mess, please try to give readers a break and make their life easy just to settle one Messave Aritical with all information needed included. phippi46 16:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes could be too many breaks in case of other articles. But it works for Jesus in this case since ALL of the articles are big enough not to be merged. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that the best would be to have it all in one article. That is not my objection. As it hapens, the article would be to large, so we created break outs. What i do object against is having <English name of x> and another one <Arabic name of x>, and then let <English name of x> be about the Judeo chritian view, while the <Arabic name of x> is about the Islamic view. --Striver 17:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: please lets call things for their correct name. WP:POVFORK is not the correct term, it is WP:BREAK. --Striver 17:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the correct name when the reach a large size. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ill take a break and see what the other editor have to say. as can be seen from the above sections, i had the support of all editors when making the changes. My stance is simply that the break out article of the Islamic view should be called just that, "Islamic view of <x>" and not "<Arabic name of x>". Again, Christian Arabs say also Musa, there is no valid reason to let the Musa article to be about the Islamic view. --Striver 17:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Again we can't simply merge them all because of the size. These are accurate breaks. And the title isn't simply Musa, it's Musa (prophet) which is a Muslim view. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "<Arabic name> (prophet)" is the pov of any chritian, jew or Muslim that happens to be Arabic. --Striver 17:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Solomon & others

Please see Talk:Qur'anic account of Solomon, Talk:Ibrahim and Talk:Nuh--Striver 07:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Swoon theory

I have never heard any scholar besides Deedat support the [[Swoon hypothesis]. I made this clear in the article until someone proves this is false. --Ephilei 04:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Jesus is the Messiah?

I don't think this article should describe Muslims as believing Jesus is the Messiah as the meaning of messiah on wikipedia or any dictionary (savior, ruler, deliverer, promised one) contradicts what Muslims believe. I know the Qur'an entitles Jesus as Masih which means Messiah, but I have yet to seen any Muslim explain why in any cohesive manner. I'd appreciate your thoughts. --Ephilei 04:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

he is described as "maseeh", as it is believed by Muslims that when he returns during the end days he will fight against the Anti-Christ, ridding the world of his evil, and then assume global rulership, ruling by islamic revelation. his mentioning in the qur'aan as "al-maseeh" is thought to indicate a second return (as well as what he will do during it) and a number of hadeeth support this explanation of why the word maseeh is used. hope that helpsITAQALLAH 04:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Quran normally uses that noun for people, from which they are known. Jesus was already known as "Maseeh". Secondly, Maseeh literally means, anointed one. One of many explanantions is that, among Israelites, people who were reserved for temple of Solomon, used to be anointed with oil in their hair. When Jesus was born, he had miraculously oily hair, which was described as anointed by God. Although all prophets are anointed but sometimes a specific title is given to someone particular. For a discussion over it, please see [7]. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

Months ago I vastly improved the "Isa not God nor the Son of God" section (in my humble opinion) and someone reverted immediately, only saying "the old version was good enough." Someone reverted the change again without explanation (that I can see). So I unreverted. Is there something wrong with my version no one is explaning? Is it because it somewhat implies that the Qur'an mistakingly confuses a physical son with a spiritual son? Let's please talk instead of continuing to revert. --Ephilei 05:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

rv

Somebody removed huge chunks. I reverted it --Striver 07:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the edit summaries? Reverting several commented edits with a claim of "mass deletion" is inappropriate IMHO. Weregerbil 10:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I made the edits (many of which were not deletions) and I commented just about every one. Information that is inappropriate to the subject (as was the case) should be deleted. Some changes I made in the Talk directly above this section - asking editors to please explain reversions instead of just doing. I'm undoing the revert. If you disagree with any edits, please state them individually since they are many and diverse. Please be more careful in the future as it is a lot of work for me to comb thru and incorporate changes since the reversion. --Ephilei 20:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why summary of beliefs?

Why does the "Basic Muslim beliefs concerning Jesus" section exist? Isn't this the purpose of the intro? I propose trimming it down and merging it. All the trimmed out details can be moved to their respective sections. --Ephilei 20:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Article too big

The article is greater than the suggested size. I've already made the article as concise as I can without eliminating info so it seems the next step is to move some section onto their own articles. I'm starting with Islamic view of Jesus' death. I don't really like the title so please think of something better. Perhaps the Islamic view of Jesus' second coming will be next. --Ephilei 19:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; I was hasty and didn't fully understand the size limit. I moved the content anyway, as it's so popular to talk about. --Ephilei 20:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Christian POV

In the Qur'an, Zachariah is Mary's adopted guardian but in the Bible they are relatives. In both accounts, Jesus is born to Mary while she is a virgin. The Qur'an makes no mention of Mary's fiance, Joseph. Unlike in the Bible, Jesus performs several miracles as an infant and child.

I do believe that this part is Christian POV. It's stating that Mary assuredly had a fiancée and that the Qur'an overlooked it. Something along the lines of this would perhaps work a little better: "Unlike in the Bible, there is no mention of a spouse in Mary's life in the Qur'an." I don't support either one of these religions but in the name of encyclopedic entries... --70.30.56.94 04:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, except the section is about comparing "Christian comparison." But I do think more of "the Bible says . . . " is appropriate. --Ephilei 17:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Etymology?

Do we really need this here? The article is about Jesus' role in Islam, and the history of the name is not relevent. Capitan Obvio 15:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone take care of this article please? I don't have time to do it myself. --Aminz 06:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Christian POV

The article states that the qur'an missinterpreted the christian trinity to include a female. That is not even Christian POV, that is CONTEMPORAL Christian POV, since the arab christians held a trinity that included her mother. --Striver 19:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Does the Qur'an say Christians believe in a trinity that includes a female? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe related?

An anon deleted[8] the two paragraphs beginning, "There is confusion that the sonship of God and divinity are the same in the Bible. In the Bible, sonship of God signals a special relationship..." I'm not especially attached to that material, but I wouldn't want to see it removed without any reason given. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Muslim bias. Thans for the alert. I'll revert it. --Ephilei 02:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, already done. --Ephilei 02:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

and calls Jews and Christians to remain faithful to the book they do have

The article says that the Qu'ran calls Jews and Christians to remain faithful to the book they do have... I see the reference to Jesus gospel being a light, but I don't see a reference to a Qu'ran verse that "calls Jews and Christians to be faithful to the book they do have." Could someone add that, or is this description not accurate? Thanks. KBecks 20:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If I understand this right, the reference to Jesus's gospel being "a light" only refers to the gospel Islam claims was lost forever, when a small group of Christians somehow systematically eradicated all the thousands and thousands of copies of the Gospel, re-wrote them and redistributed those thousands of new copies back to where they destroyed them, and wrote all mention of the event out of history, while simultaneously somehow making sure nobody ever talked about it again. (Despite the fact that pretty much all of Christendom would of noticed, and certainly would of tried to fight back.)Homestarmy 13:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Quranic quote

In the section regarding islamic views on Jesus' death, somebody changed the wording of the quote in the Quran about the crucifixion. Translations of the Quran clearly refer to Jews, NOT Pharisees. I have fixed the error. Live-info 17:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming of Islamic Prophets

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

• In the Is'haq article, it says "English: Isaac", and continues using this form. Even though most English-speaking Muslims (in my experience) would say "Is'haq", or "Ishaq", or "Ishaqa" in West Africa.
• In the Islamic section of the Ishmael article, he is still refered to mostly as Ishmael, as oppsed to "Ismail", "Ismaila", or "Soumaila" in West Africa.

Most importantly:

• In the Islamic view of Jesus article, most of the article refers to Jesus as such, as opposed to what the Muslims (in my experience), even in the English-speaking world, would refer to him as, namele "Isa", or "'Isa", or "Issa" in West Africa.

The only article where the English transcription of Arabic is consistebtly used, is in the Ibrahim article.

So my question then becomes, does Wikipedia take the position that in English the Judeo-Christian naming takes precedence over all else? Does that mean that Palestinian Prime-Minister should now be knwn in English as Ishmael Haniyeh, as opposed to Ismail Haniyeh? Or Arab League Secretary General, as Amr Moses, instead of Amr Musa? I am just wondering. Themalau 02:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Catholic's

As God or the begotten Son of God, in this part, it is said that Islam as jews see God as One, but Catholic's also se God as One, only there is the Three Persons in One, but Catholic's are not Politheist (sorry mi enlgish is so bad)

Poll regarding the 'Jesus' article

In the 'Jesus' discussion page there has been some discussion regarding whether that page should be more neutral rather than being slanted primarily toward Christianity. I in fact just set up a poll to gauge opinion as to how the topic should be introduced in that article. If anybody monitoring this discussion wishes to register an opinion in that poll please do so. --Mcorazao 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sourced material

Karl, why are you removing sourced material?? --Aminz 10:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Because "the sourced material" or should we say the latest quote that you found, doesn't make much sense where you just placed it. -- Karl Meier 10:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

why? --Aminz 10:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The section is not about the Christians being the "Sons of God". Another thing is that adding such a claim without attributing it to it's source is against NPOV and common sense. -- Karl Meier 10:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It says Jesus is no more sons of God than Jesus is. The Isa article in EoI is not about Christians either. It is already sourced to Encyclopedia of Islam.--Aminz 10:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it says: "The Christians are no more the sons of God than is Jesus himself". As for the Islamic point of view that Jesus was not God, that is already mentioned in that section, and repeating it is superfluous. -- Karl Meier 10:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It actually says that Jesus is no more *son of God* than the Christians are. I think this point is important because son of God in its Hebrew Bible (and NT according to many scholars) figurative usage means being close to God. --Aminz 12:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The quotation marks makes it more acceptable, and event though I still think it's pretty redundant and superfluous, then on second thought I don't believe it's such a big issue. I'll leave it for now, and take a look at some of the other things that are more important to change in this article. -- Karl Meier 14:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This quotation "The Christians are no more the sons of God than is Jesus himself." (and yes, that is what it actually says, Aminz. I am confused why you don't know which way it is.) is totally pointless. Who is claiming that the Christians are the Sons of God? Turned around ("Jesus is no more the son of God than the Christians are."), it makes a bit more sense, but a) I don't know what the EoI is saying, b) it is still an unnecessary attack. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and why try to diminish the distinctions between Christianity and Islam? KittyHawker 20:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Most

Changing "most of the muslims" to "most Muslims" - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style BAPhilp 20:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Other article

Most of this page is included within the Jesus page in its own section. Can you please update that section if you update this. :ChrisG 16:28, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

References to Jesus in the Qur'an - Topical

I rewrote the section. I just copy/paste what I removed here.

• Appraisal of Mary, daughter of Imran: ^{[Quran 3:37]}, ^{[Quran 3:42]}, ^{[Quran 3:43]}, ^{[Quran 3:45]}, ^{[Quran 5:75]}, ^{[Quran 23:50]}, ^{[Quran 66:12]}
• Purity and virginity of Mary: ^{[Quran 3:47]}, ^{[Quran 4:156]}, ^{[Quran 19:20]}, ^{[Quran 21:91]}, ^{[Quran 66:12]}
• Appraisal of Jesus: ^{[Quran 2:136]}, ^{[Quran 3:45]}, ^{[Quran 3:48]}, ^{[Quran 4:163]}, ^{[Quran 4:172]}, ^{[Quran 6:85]}, ^{[Quran 19:19]}, ^{[Quran 19:21]}, ^{[Quran 19:30]}, ^{[Quran 19:31]}, ^{[Quran 19:32]}, ^{[Quran 19:33]}, ^{[Quran 19:34]}, ^{[Quran 23:50]}, ^{[Quran 43:59]}, ^{[Quran 43:63]}, ^{[Quran 57:27]}
• Pregnancy of Mary and birth of Jesus: ^{[Quran 3:45]}, ^{[Quran 3:47]}, ^{[Quran 3:59]}, ^{[Quran 21:91]}, ^{[Quran 66:12]}
• Jesus as. Kalimat Allah dan RahmatNya: ^{[Quran 3:45]}, ^{[Quran 4:171]}, ^{[Quran 21:91]}
• Jesus spoke while he was still a baby: ^{[Quran 3:46]}, ^{[Quran 5:110]}, ^{[Quran 19:29]}, ^{[Quran 19:30]}, ^{[Quran 19:31]}, ^{[Quran 19:32]}, ^{[Quran 19:33]}
• Jesus was helped by the Holy Spirit (Arabic Ruh al quds (Gabriel)): ^{[Quran 2:87]}, ^{[Quran 2:253]}, ^{[Quran 5:110]}
• Jesus' miracles: ^{[Quran 3:46]}, ^{[Quran 3:48]}, ^{[Quran 3:49]}, ^{[Quran 5:110]}
• Jesus' attributes: ^{[Quran 3:45]}, ^{[Quran 3:46]}
• Jesus was sent to the Israelites: ^{[Quran 3:49]}, ^{[Quran 3:50]}, ^{[Quran 5:46]}, ^{[Quran 5:78]}, ^{[Quran 5:110]}, ^{[Quran 43:63]}, ^{[Quran 43:64]}, ^{[Quran 61:6]}, ^{[Quran 61:14]}
• A precursor to Muhammad: ^{[Quran 61:6]}
• The followers of Jesus asked for table's spread: ^{[Quran 5:112]}, ^{[Quran 5:113]}
• Plans to murder Jesus: ^{[Quran 4:157]}
• Jesus was raised: ^{[Quran 3:55]}, ^{[Quran 4:158]}
• Jesus will return at the end of the world: ^{[Quran 4:159]}
• Christians worshipped Jesus as God: ^{[Quran 5:17]}, ^{[Quran 5:72]}, ^{[Quran 5:77]}, ^{[Quran 5:116]}, ^{[Quran 9:31]}, ^{[Quran 43:58]}, ^{[Quran 43:65]}
• Jesus is not God: ^{[Quran 5:72]}, ^{[Quran 5:75]}, ^{[Quran 43:59]}
• Jesus didn’t claim to be God: ^{[Quran 5:116]}, ^{[Quran 5:117]}
• Suggestion not to follow the Christians: ^{[Quran 2:120]}, ^{[Quran 2:145]}, ^{[Quran 3:105]}, ^{[Quran 5:51]}, ^{[Quran 57:16]}
• Antipathy between Christians and Jews: ^{[Quran 2:113]}, ^{[Quran 2:145]}, ^{[Quran 5:14]}
• The Gospel was revealed to Jesus: ^{[Quran 2:87]}, ^{[Quran 2:253]}, ^{[Quran 3:48]}, ^{[Quran 5:46]}, ^{[Quran 5:110]}, ^{[Quran 57:27]}
• Mentions of the Gospel: ^[Quran 3:3], ^{[Quran 3:65]}, ^{[Quran 5:47]}, ^{[Quran 5:66]}, ^{[Quran 5:68]}, ^{[Quran 7:157]}, ^{[Quran 9:111]}, ^{[Quran 48:29]}

--Aminz 00:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed from intro

I have deleted the following from the introduction:

Other than Christians, the Muslims are the only group that recognize Jesus as an actual historical figure. The Qur'an and Bible are the only ancient texts that mention Jesus.

Both these statements are false. Jesus is mentioned by Tacitus as the founder of a new religious sect (Annals XV), and most people believe in his existence as a historical figure. Oliverkroll 23:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Son of God

Regarding this edit of mine [9]: We should not write NT's view. We can mention the view of mainstream Christianity. There are passages used by some to argue for divinity of Jesus and there are passages used to some to argue against it. --Aminz 04:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Statements of the following type: The Qur'an rejects the Divinity of Jesus

- Atif and Homestarmy, many Muslims, such as myself, believe that the Qur'an is open for interpretation. I feel that you are censoring my right as a contributor/editor of Wikipedia to add to the viable content of the site. My "Research" is certainly not "Original".

- I do not believe that the Qur'an "rejects the divinity of Christ". I know others share my viewpoint. If a Muslim believes that Christ was "divine", does that make him "not" a Muslim? And, if a person, who is not a "Muslim", believes that the Qur'an is "inspired", is it not also his right to interpret the Holy Scripture?

- Some of my Christian friends feel the same way.

- Therefore, I ask that a more correct wording replace "The Qur'an rejects the idea that virgin birth implies that Jesus is divine - the example of Adam [Qur'an 3:59] is used in argument against such belief."

I suggest: "Some believe that the Qur'an rejects the idea that virgin birth implies that Jesus is divine - that the example of Adam ^{[Quran 3:59]} is used in argument against such belief. Others believe that it supports a claim to Christ's divinity - that it compares the two (Adam and Jesus) as having been the only two born (or created) without "natural" birth. (See Bible: 1 Cor. 15:22)"

or

"Most believe that the Qur'an .... "

- But the Holy Scripute is open for interpretation, which is why we have so many different sects and denominations within Islam, as well as Christianity.

- No, your "interpretation of the Qur'am might '[reject] the idea that virgin birth ....'" But to say that the "Qur'an rejects" it, this in my opinion, is not scholarly, and certainly not fair to those that interpret the same passage of Holy Scripture differently than you. Hypocritus (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you one thing that struck me with your edits. The first sentence says "...the Qur'an rejects the idea that virgin birth implies that Jesus is divine - that the example of Adam ^{[Quran 3:59]}" Note that the subject of the sentence if the Qur'an, and the citation is a citation from the Qur'an. The second half of your sentence was "...it supports a claim to Christ's divinity - that it compares the two (Adam and Jesus) as having been the only two born (or created) without "natural" birth. (See Bible: 1 Cor. 15:22). Note, again the subject of the sentence is the Qur'an, but this time the citation is not from the Qur'an but the bible. It is a logical fallacy to say the Qur'an states X, while giving a citation not from the Qur'an. So the question remains: do you have a citation from the Qur'an that supports the second sentence? If not, can you cite a reliable theologian or scholar of Islam that interprets the Qur'an to imply these things?-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)