Talk:Jesus in Islam

Wrong ayat number given

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

Honorific

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

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

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

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 The recommendation is superseded by the exceptions I mention.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

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

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

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

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

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

On The Nature of Jesus's Miricles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death

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

Substitution

Metaphorical Interpretations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for opinions and suggestions regarding page protection

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

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

Jesus in Islam

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2021

Yahya (John)

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

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

New user Salim567 may have likely been a previous anonymous disruptor:

Check out how this new user got around the minimum edit rule in order to continue disrupting this (and other) article(s). Salim567's edit history.