Talk:Jesus in Islam - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anonymous editor (talk | contribs) at 19:47, 2 May 2006 (→Stop reverting undisputed changes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:47, 2 May 2006 by Anonymous editor (talk | contribs) (→Stop reverting undisputed changes)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Prophets of Islam project

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) _____

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)

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. —User:ASDamick/sig 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 Misplaced Pages 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:, 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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 BrockenboringTCF 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 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)

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 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 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 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 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 22:02, 28 April 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 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 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 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 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). joturn e r 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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. --a.n.o.n.y.m 19:13, 2 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, but there is no reason words from other languages can't appear in English Misplaced Pages. In this article the Arabic is especially relevant and not at all unnecessary. joturn e r 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 Misplaced Pages into God? This is sooner an example of contravening Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Which says that Misplaced Pages is not a usage guide, or slang and idiom guide. For absolute clarity on this (from the policy), "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 , 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 (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 19:06, 2 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, Misplaced Pages 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. joturn e r 06:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)