Talk:Jesus in Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Jesus in Islam has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
February 4, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Jesus work group. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Islamic View of Jesus

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

Jesus is merely the English rendering of the word which differs from its Hebrew/Aramaic (etc.) backgrounds. the point of the title is to convey, where possible, the topic of the article to an Enlish-speaking reader. while nobody would contest that parts of Wikipedia don't conform to Wikipedia policy, i don't see why the article title here should give you cause for concern. in any case, a better title might be "Jesus in Islam" (flows better i think). ITAQALLAH 18:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
So the name of article has been "westernized" to suit it's western readers..how is that neutral to the rest of the world? this site is a joke..216.99.53.158 (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
also Jesus is appropriate as the article is in English and majority of English readers know him as Jesus. For Isa or the wording you want, read the article in [Arabic]. ~atif Talk 04:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Even the Arabic page is christian POV, it says: Islamic View of Messiah.. this site is a joke..216.99.53.158 (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
this concern is a little pedantic. if you believe this effort is a joke (an opinion you are entitled to) then perhaps you could register an account and help make productive changes and improve articles. ITAQALLAH 13:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Not on your life. This site is nothing more than a collection of western propaganda..have a nice day

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

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

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

True, both words "Messiah" and "'Isa" are used in the Qu'ran. But you fail to make a point, since although the Arabic page uses the word "Messiah", it is still christian POV because it is titled "Islamic View of Messiah", which undermines the image and authenticity of the islamic view..etc. Please try to come up with a point next time, rather than scribbling down random irrelevant information.216.99.53.158 (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I have been considering a rename to 'Jesus in Islam' for some time. What do you think about that? A rename to Isa is inappropriate, especially as it's currently a disambiguation page. ITAQALLAH 15:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
So if I understand you correctly 216, your issue is not with "Messiah" (in the Arabic page) but "Islamic view of"? "Islamic view of Jesus" is no more Christian POV than "Christian views of marriage is Buddhist POV. As for renaming the page "Jesus in Islam", it seems fine to me, but people will argue over anything and the archived talk page has a huge discussion about the name of the page. "Islamic view of Jesus" seems to be what they came up with. Evercat (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
"Christian Views Of Marriage" is alright, since "marriage" is just an interpersonal relationship with no POV significance, it will obviously differ from a culture to another. On the other hand, the topic of Jesus is sensitive in regards to which POV you convey it in. So please do not try to compare two totally different things in the same context. Regarding renaming this page to "Jesus in Islam", I think it's a good idea. But it's success probability is about 2% knowing that 90% of the people here are christian POV by default :D 216.99.53.158 (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually there's a large number of atheists or other non-Christians here. I am perfectly happy to support "Jesus in Islam" being the name, if you really think it's better. Evercat (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Also I've just noticed there's a page called Christian views of Jesus. How does that fit into your view that "Islamic view of Jesus" is a POV title? Evercat (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
It is clear that the article Christian views of Jesus is just an extension of Jesus. It is used to build upon the christian POV that is already presented in Jesus. And that christian POV continues further by labeling other articles as "(insert other religion here) view of Jesus". Which only furthers the christian bias and undermines the views of other religions of Jesus, since do they not have their own independent view point etc. 216.99.53.158 (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Arabic Wikipedia undertakes the same christian bias too. Under the Arabic page of Jesus it says: "This page talks about the christian POV of Jesus, for the Islamic version, refer to "Jesus in Islam". Now the question is: English wikipedia used "Jesus" since majority of the people here are English, but how come Arabic Wikipedia still uses the Arabic Christian name of Jesus although 90% of Arabs know him as Isa. This fact clearly highlights the christian bias that is widespread through wikipedia, no matter what the language is.
I can't say anything for the Arabic site, which is run by whatever Arabic speakers care to edit there. But here on the English Wikipedia it's absurd to say "Islamic view of Jesus" is a pro-Christian title when it's just a mirror image of the title "Christian views of Jesus". As for the actual content of the pages, you may be right. (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I've made the change to Jesus in Islam. It will also help us stick to WP:LEAD guidelines concerning the first sentence. I'll have to request an admin to move this page to Talk:Jesus in Islam, as that page appears to already exist. ITAQALLAH 18:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I appreciate your efforts 216.99.53.158 (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates and timing

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

i'll check through the sources.. i think the figures of seven, nine, or nineteen are usually given with regards to the length of Mahdi's rule. ITAQALLAH 15:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I've checked a few sources now. These figures are given in relation to the length of Mahdi's rule - numerous sources also establish the association of 40 years to Jesus' rule. Given the nature of sources, there usually are variances in how they are interpreted; I'd like to see if what is attributed to the Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim world is correct, but I wouldn't be suprised if it was. ITAQALLAH 22:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

--

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

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

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

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

[edit] Dispersing section on minor beliefs

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

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The lead section is too long, and discusses information which really isn’t covered anywhere else in the article. Since most of the lead is contrasting the Islamic view of Jesus with that of Christianity, might it be more appropriate to have a new section on that very subject. I’ve read the talk page, and I know the Islamic vis-à-vis Christian understanding of Jesus (even relating to the name of the article) has been controversial, I still think this might be a good option.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    There’s been an awful lot of activity immediately before the article was nominated. I don’t think it’s a hinderance to the promotion of the article, but I do think it needs to be noted.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Are there any images that could be utilized in this article and, if so, is there any specific reason (concern for propriety) that are discouraging their use? If so, that’s fine, but I think it should be addressed, and if possible, made up in some other fashion.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On Hold
  • Regarding the lead, I made efforts to ensure everything discussed is already present in the rest of the article, so I think a new section containing this information would be repeating what's mentioned elsewhere. The first paragraph is a summary of Jesus'life according to Islamic tradition, as discussed in Jesus in Islam#Life. The second paragraph is a summary of how Jesus is viewed in Islam, as discussed in Jesus in Islam#In Islamic thought. The two main aspects of this article is these two sections, so I dedicated a paragraph to each, which IMHO is a reasonable size in relation to the article size. Could I have some more specific feedback regarding this please? (e.g. what the lead mentions but the article omits, or where things could be reduced)
  • Regarding images, I had a long think about what kind of images we could use. Depictions of Jesus in Islamic tradition are to my knowledge virtually non-existent given the generally aniconistic tendencies that prevailed. Christian or other depictions would not be so appropriate considering the article topic. The only image I can think of right now is one of the Jordan river where some traditions attribute Yahya meeting Jesus. Would that suffice? Thanks. ITAQALLAH 17:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
To the point about the lead, I can see where you are going with your comment. It’s not that the Islamic as opposed to Christian views are present in the article (something I didn’t mean to imply but nevertheless did) but rather that they are not separately treated. Regardless, I’m still hesitant about the lead. For an article of this size, one paragraph should be sufficient, and WP:Lead only recommends two or three for a larger article (around 32K versus the 20 K of this article). Perhaps some combination of the two paragraphs would be helpful? Perhaps a more generalized comment about his life and mission and a (again) generalized comment about the differing conceptions of Jesus in Islam and Christianity (I’m thinking most specifically of the sentence regarding differing conceptions of the nature of “messiah” and how that relates to the claim of divinity put forward by Christians). As for the comment to images, I actually gave myself a long pause before I put that out there, for precisely the reasons you mentioned. I think you suggestion is a positive one. Perhaps an illuminated Qu’ran opened to a Sura mentioning Jesus would also be appropriate? -- jackturner3 (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've attempted to trim down the lead and leave in that which is most important. I also added an image obtained of the Jordan river. An image of a sura mentioning Jesus sounds like a good idea too, I just wonder if there's any on commons (or freely available) matching this criteria... ITAQALLAH 18:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] The death of Jesus section

Resolved.

I have several problems with this section:

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

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

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

The current section presents a summary of the Islamic texts and its mainstream interpretation on the narrative of Jesus' death or ascension. To go into all of the angles of argument concerning the death- which not of prime importance when we are trying to relate a basic narrative of what the primary Islamic texts and mainstream opinion says in essence about this period of Jesus' life- is far better reserved for an article dedicated to this topic: Islamic view of Jesus' death. I mentioned in passing the non-prevalent views of the rationalists/philosophers (falasifa) and Ismailis, but to concentrate on this matter when the Encyclopedia of Islam reports general consensus is currently not necessary. To start discussing al-Zamashkari's views (and he was - in essence - from amongst the aforementioned rationalists) or whatever would tip the WP:UNDUE balance, which is important to maintain. ITAQALLAH 21:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not satisfied with EoI's summary. It shows the Muslim view as a static thing; it does not show how the substitutionist idea evolved over time (e.g. all the variant stories of the substitutionist idea were related by Tabari on the behalf of a certain Jewish and an unnamed Christian convert to Islam; people thought that a person being killed on the behalf of another is injustice, so the person must have done it voluntary; later stories said that it was a form of punishment for the other person (thus we have Judas Iscoriot coming into play); then we have al-Zamashkari who said that the substitutionist idea can not possibly fit the relevant quranic verse based on grammatical consideration; then comes Razi's criticism of the substitutionist idea. For many mutazila the idea of God committing acts of injustice was repugnant; furthermore, for God to allow confusion of identity for whatever reason was irrational and inadmissible. It is therefore not God who caused that but the Jews who took another person themselves and killed him not letting people to come close and see what's going on. Then came the modern scholars, such as the author of al-manar, who try not to talk about what really happened(saying that the verse is obscure(mutashabihat)). In any case, there are a lot of sources and I don't think the current version is satisfactory. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
These are all minority views, and to give undue focus to them poses a WP:UNDUE problem. I point you toward the Islamic view of Jesus' death, which is the place to discuss every argument to your satisfaction. This section, which is a brief summary, is not the place. ITAQALLAH 23:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
They are not those kind of minor opinion. The guys I mentioned are indeed important figures.--Be happy!! (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we mention the views of minorities in more details later once the main article on the death of Jesus is finished. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sinlessness of Jesus

Resolved.

The article relates the following hadith:

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

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

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

The EoI mentions the hadith, with no link to any Qur'anic verse. If you have a source, please do include it. ITAQALLAH 21:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this, Aminz, it is already partly mentioned in the Birth section. ITAQALLAH 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a reference to Jesus being strengthened by holy spirit; the other is about the birth. Furthermore, no everybody thinks that spirit is Gabriel. So, the above one needs correction.--Be happy!! (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The above mention discusses the spirit of God, stating that it is usually associated with the angel Gabriel. The rest of the EoI narrative assumes it as Gabriel. Again, as far as I know, the majority view here is that it was indeed Gabriel. ITAQALLAH 22:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
That Holy spirit is Gabriel is a speculation after all. If EoI says it is majority view speculate that way, we can mention that, but there is no reason to remove the other view. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't remove any other view. According to EoI, it is the traditions which associate Gabriel with the holy spirit. The EoI itself then discusses the rest of the story in reference to Gabriel. ITAQALLAH 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It is originally based on the following argument from the Qur'an: in one place it says that the spirit brings down the revelation and in the other says that Gabriel does. So, they say that they must be the same. This is insufficient to suppress the other view. It is mentioned in EoQ: "This apparent personal identity of the holy spirit in the latter passage has prompted some Muslim commentators to identify the holy spirit by whom God ‘strengthened’ Jesus with Gabriel (q.v.), the traditional, angelic bearer of God's messages in the scriptures. For others the holy spirit in these passages is said to be identical with the created spirit from God..."
The author of EoI may choose something but there are other articles from EoQ, EoI and other reliable source as well.--Be happy!! (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, mainstream interpretation is that the spirit refers to Gabriel I believe. Refer also to the EoI article on Angels in its coverage of Gabriel. ITAQALLAH 23:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Angel article in EoI is simply saying the POV of the author. He is not saying mainstream believes in this. I have already mentioned another source on this and the best one can prove is that there is a contradiction between reliable sources. --Be happy!! (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The majority say it's Gabriel. Here is one source I will provide. "A Dictionary of Islam" (p. 605), under its entry of Ruh/Spirit, ennumerates and quotes 19 passages from the Qur'an which mention spirits etc. Here are some verses listed against these respective numbers: 1) [Qur'an 2:81]; 2) [Qur'an 2:254]; 4) [Qur'an 5:109] 5) [Qur'an 16:2] (I've listed only the ones relevant to this discussion of Jesus and the strengthening from the spirit - note there are some differences in the numbers, 1) should be 2:87, 2) 2:253 4) 5:110). Now, this is what the source says: "Of the above quotations, Muslim commentators are agreed in applying Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, to the angel Gabriel;" I hope this puts the issue to rest. ITAQALLAH 23:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"Muslim commentators are agreed" is in contradiction with the other source and as I mentioned it does not prove anything except that there is a contradicition. I agree that it is the majority view.Here is my suggestion: we change:
"Spirit of God," an agent of divine action or communication commonly associated in Islam with the angel Gabriel (ar: Jibreel)."
to
"Spirit of God," an agent of divine action or communication often identified in Islam with the angel Gabriel (ar: Jibreel) but also with the created spirit from God."
In the footnote, we can elaborate more. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. ITAQALLAH 13:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology Section

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

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

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