Talk:Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I am having a problem crediting Notovitch with being the first to propose Jesus traveling to Khartoum. I would first point at the Gospel Acts of Thomas written in the first century and pre-dating Notovitch by over 1,800 years. Second I would point at the still existing tomb of Yuz Asaf which is believed by many to the final resting place of the man known to Christendom as Jesus. Dolphin 33 (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


I've now merged this article with information from Alleged tomb of Jesus. --G Rutter 10:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From VfD:

NPOV problems, and it just... seems wrong (especially with the tourism advertising link). DS 21:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, file on cleanup. "NPOV problems" is not a valid criterion for deletion: Wikipedia:Deletion policy lists "Article is biased or has lots of POV" in the "Problems that don't require deletion" section. The article is stubby and requires wikification, so cleanup is the place for it. With regards as to whether there is such a belief, there appear to be a nontrivial number of people who believe this, and the matter is discussed in a number of published books, including Jesus' Tomb in India (ISBN 0895819465), Saving the Savior: Did Christ Survive the Crucifixion? (ISBN 0895819465), and Jesus died in Kashmir ( The name Yuza Asif, or a variant of that spelling, appears to be common in this context. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Should be moved to Yuza Asaf though. Then inlude a NPOV or clean-up message. Yardcock 22:15, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, and link from Bible conspiracy theories and, if I recall rightly, Erich von Daniken (or was that Moses that he thought went to Kashmir? Whatever.) - Mustafaa 17:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I found it pretty interesting... wikipedia seems to be the place for this type of stuff.
  • Keep. Just needs expanding.
  • Keep, although the speculative nature of the article should be made more clear.
  • Keep. This is a legitimate article!

end moved discussion

Ahmadiyya Claims[edit]

I have deleted some claims about ahmadiyya believ this or that which were not substantiated from accepted sources of ahmadiyya or scientific sources. Other such claims will meet the same fate in near future.

Please provide references for everything you attribute to ahmadiyya from their own or accepted scientific sources. Dawoodmajoka (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Western and Othodox views[edit]

I have deleted the parts on western or orthodox views about crucifixon as this article is about ahmadiyya views. There is no need to support ahmadiyya views. This is an encyclopedia entry and no discussion board. Dawoodmajoka (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


I've edited this section to re-include my initial comment and to include the relevant information that was left in three different versions by anon. I've deleted the personal attacks and digressions- these are still available through the page history. --G Rutter 15:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted this page again, because the additions make the article much less readable. User:Jammupress if you'd like to discuss the extra info and what you think is wrong with the current article here on the talk page and then I'm sure we'll be able to include your suggestions in the article. Thank you! --G Rutter 22:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JUST FORGET IT (Glad I don't have a PhD). Do whatever you wish. I've stated the corrections below. Now you're talking about joining some discussion that there isn't even a place to join. This is the only place where I can post anything.

How clearer can it get that, for some reason, you're stalling? I mean, c'mon. I've explained this in various ways. You have the corrections right here--below. What do you want?

You're just repeating the same rant without any explanation. In my original revision I supplied concrete references--the current article doesn't. It makes blanket, unsubstantiated claims.

When you were writing your dissertation, were you allowed to do that?

You have Hazrat Ahmad writing a book that he NEVER WROTE. He didn't write that book, Negaristan-i-Kashmir.

1. GHULAM AHMAD DID NOT GIVE THE NAME 'YUZ ASAF' TO THE OCCUPANT OF THE ROZA BAL. The name was known long before Ghulam Ahmad was even born. This is just an incredibly bad mistake, and makes you guys look really bad. It appears that whoever wrote this article read information about Yuz Asaf and then got things thorougly mixed up.

2. GHULAM AHMAD DID NOT EVEN WRITE THE BOOK, NEGARISTAN-I-KASHMIR. Why does the person who wrote the article not give references for what he claims?

3. GHULAM AHMAD DID NOT MENTION THE NAME 'MARJAM,' or any other name, regarding the woman that Yuz Asaf is said to have married. The man's entire book is on the Internet, for free. You can go there, hit your Ctrl-F keystroke, type the name, 'Marjam' and see what comes up--NOTHING. You can read the man's entire book at:

4. The title of the article, Yuz Asif, is wrong. The name is Asaf (note the 'a'), not Asif.

I've made a start to making the changes you suggest. Please don't make personal attacks. I've also requested that the page be moved to Yuz Asaf. --G Rutter 08:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I apologize for what you perceived as personal attacks. I would have done the exact same thing had an orthodox Muslim claimed that Ghulam Ahmad assigned the name Yuz Asaf to Jesus. I have attacked both groups. I also object to the followers of Ghulam Ahmad who don't allow the subject to have it's own existence outside of their particular doctrines, though I fully understand their right to do so, and how important it is to them.
My point is that what is stated is as accurate as possible. That's it.
I do hope that you reconsider the article that I submitted. The name correction is good. But the other corrections are more important and more substantive. You can check with other sources if you wish, of course. One is the TOJ website ( ). At least two of the people there, I think, can answer most questions.
It's a fascinating theory.
One last thing: I don't say this for any ego reasons. But, the article I submitted would give Wikipedia perhaps the best and most conscise summary about Yuz Asaf available on the web. There's more, of course, but I tried to keep the article as brief as possible, so that a reader could get through it quickly, yet leave feeling "full."
But, it's up to you.
I've made some more changes and added some more info. Thank you for leading me to improve this article. However, the reasons I twice reverted your article still remain. (See this version for anyone following this discussion). In your version of the article you only include one Point of View - you don't discuss skeptical views or alternative beliefs, like the belief that Yuz Asaf married Marjam. Furthermore, you include unverifiable statements (for example, you argue that many Israelis visit the tomb, but conducting a Google search I couldn't find this- only that lots of Israelis visit Kashmir, but nothing saying they visit the tomb). You also don't include any links to other articles in Wikipedia and include three links to the tomb of Jesus website, which, especially given your connections (You are I think Salahuddin, author of Saving the Savior and connected to the tomb of Jesus website?), could be interpreted by some as spam (however honestly they were placed).
I hope that you understand why I don't think your version was suitable. If you disagree then Wikipedia offers a number of ways of Resolving disputes- perhaps Wikipedia:Third opinion? --G Rutter 08:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's somewhat astonishing that you could not find any mention of Israelis visiting the alleged tomb of Jesus (Yuz Asaf), claiming that you found mention of their visit to Kashmir, but not to the tomb. Really?

I, on the other hand, performed a search [GOOGLE] using the most obvious key words: "Israelis visit tomb in Kashmir." Guess what? The very first return was the following: .

The very first paragraph of the article says the following:

"New Delhi, India, Sep. 12 (UPI) -- Israeli citizens were flocking to the Indian cities of Jammu and Kashmir Sunday to see the graves believed to be those of Jesus Christ and Moses."

Sir, you will note the word "flocking." Note it, sir. Sir, you will also note that the paragraph says that not only do they visit Kashmir, but they specifically visit the alleged tomb of Jesus (Yuz Asaf), as well as the alleged tomb of Moses (see Kaiser's book, Kersten's book, other books).

Not only that, the news item was released by United Press International. I mean, it's like the biggest international news agency, right? Along with Associated Press International. This was a simple search.

Yet, when I criticize you for apparently not having the ability to perform basic research, you tell me it's a "personal attack." Was it? Was it a personal attack, or a statement of fact? I already knew the articles were there, sir. But I went to Google anyway, right after I read your claim, and did the most simple search--right off the bat. It didn't take 9 searches, which I already knew. It appears that you've proven my point, doesn't it? We're not talking about visiting an old, dusty library in a corner somewhere. This was Google--a simple search. The very first returns.

Regarding Marjam, I have no problem with that. So why are you bringing it up? I was not expecting you to entirely replace the current article with mine. No problem with Marjam being included, except that you have incorrectly claimed that Marjam was mentioned by Ghulam Ahmad. That is simply a fat mistake, sir. Contact members of the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, the group Ghulam Ahmad founded, and simply ask their officials if Ghulam Ahmad ever mentioned Marjam.

The astonishing thing, sir, is that you stubbornly keep mis-information [the Soviets called it dis-information] in the article, apparently out of a stubborn pride. Just admit that you've made some bad errors.

As regards your other comments, I think the above pretty much sums it up. So, I think Wikipedia needs to be honest with itself and examine the rest of my article, in light of your apparent unwillingness to admit the truth.

Incidentally, you're incorrect about my associations. But let me ask you this: Whatever my associations are or are not, does it change the fact that you have made a mistake regarding the Israeli visits to Kashmir? Regarding the mention of Marjam by Ghulam Ahmad? Regarding the incorrect claim that Ghulam Ahmad authored a book that was authored by somebody else, not him?

And I must again attempt to convince you to change something else: Ghulam Ahmad did not "give" the name Yuz Asaf to Jesus. Sir, this is another awfully bad mistake.

The Kashmiri people themselves, long before Hazrat Ahmad was born, have believed that Yuz Asaf is Jesus. Not all of them, but a good number of them have beleived this. By stating that Ghulam Ahmad gave the name Yuz Asaf to Jesus, you imply that before the advent of Ghulam Ahmad, no one associated Yuz Asaf with Jesus. Mistake, sir.

Yes, I have made mistakes- including the Israeli one clearly. However, I'm not sure you've read the latest version of the article, as I've corrected or clarified those things you've mentioned. For example, the first sentence includes both Ahmadiyya Muslims and others. The belief about Marjam is in a separate paragraph and begins "Other beliefs about Yuz Asaf", therefore clearly differentiating it from Ghulam Ahmad's beliefs. Please let me know what you think of the current version and if you think anything needs to be changed. --G Rutter 14:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

You said, "... includes both Ahmadiyya Muslims and others."

But neither Ahmadis nor "others" gave the name of Yuz Asaf to Jesus. Nobody gave Jesus that name. By phrasing it that way, it gives the impression that some individual arbitrarily gave Jesus this name.

In my opinion, it would be more accurate to state something like the following [however you wish to word it]: "Some documents claim that Yuz Asaf and Jesus are one and the same person"]

The theory itself states that it was Jesus himself who adopted that name, when he left Nisibis (Nasibain), or Damascus, as a means of escaping the borders of the then Roman Empire by disguising himself--adopting a different name. That is the theory.

So, you could say [however you wished, if you felt like it], that the theory states that Jesus adopted the name Yuz Asaf. Again, Yuz Asaf is not a name that anyone gave him. It is a name that both oral and written tradition states that Jesus himself adopted.

If you don't like that, then you could say instead that some people speculate that he adopted the name. I think that the idea is to be fair to the theory, and avoid giving the impression that you're trying to fix a point in time when Jesus was "given" the name. I don't think you want to give the impression of taking sides. Maybe you don't see it that way. But, believe me, that's how it looks.

And, yes, I did notice the change. But, as I said, the language you used implies something that is not the case.

Done. Glad you liked the other changes. --G Rutter 20:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. This may be a minor point, but I have another little opinion here. But it's not something that I feel has to be changed. But I just want to register my opinion, that's all.

The article is entitled Yuz Asaf. But right off the bat it speaks of Hazrat Ahmad and the Ahmadiyya Movement. It is true that were it not for Hazrat Ahmad and his Movement, knowledge of Yuz Asaf might not have come forward--at least not in the manner that it has, considering the energy that that Movement has put into the subject for well over 100 years.

But, even so, I don't understand how Hazrat Ahmad is the first mention in your article. The link between Hazrat Ahmad and Yuz Asaf is not primary, except within the religious cosmology of Ahmadi Muslims with regards to the claims of Hazrat Ahmad [If Yuz Asaf is Jesus, then Jesus didn't die and go to heaven; he's not coming back; so now Hazrat Ahmad can claim to be the 'return of Jesus,' in the spirit, etc., etc. All that is religious, surrounding the personal claims of Hazrat Ahmad, and the foundational beliefs of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.]

I would have mentioned Hazrat Ahmad later in the article, not at the very beginning. That's why I wrote the article as I did, although I went too far by leaving Hazrat Ahmad out altogether [that's only because I was focusing on the figure of Yuz Asaf]. Had the article been about the theory of Jesus in Kashmir, then most certainly Hazrat Ahmad would have to be mentioned first--right off the bat. But that's not what the article is about. It is about Yuz Asaf.

Your readers, I think, expect to read as much as possible about Yuz Asaf. Who was he? Where did he come from? What did he believe? Then, later in the article, you mention Hazrat Ahmad and this controversial issue that he, truthfully speaking, is actually the first one to expand upon in depth; that is, the theory that Yuz Asaf and Jesus are the same person; that Jesus survived the crucifixion, travelled to Kashmir, and lived to a ripe old age.

As I said, though, I guess it's okay the way you have Hazrat Ahmad at the beginning. Maybe it's a minor point. Hope you can think about it. I'm done [I hope!]

I'm afraid that I don't agree with you on this. Like you say, it is due to the Ahmadiyya Movement that Yuz Asaf is known. I think the opening makes it clear that Ghulam Ahmad adopted (and adapted) pre-existing beliefs. The main website is Ahmadi and the Guardians of the Tomb are Ahamdi, so not to make clear the very strong links would, I think, be more confusing to people. --G Rutter 08:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I had intimate contact with Dr. Fida Hassnain, former Director of Archives, Archaeology, Research and Museums for Kashmir. He lives in Srinagar, the city that houses the tomb of Yuz Asaf.

He told me that the former keepers of the tomb of Yuz Asaf were Ahmadis, but that fundamentalist-oriented sunni Muslims had kicked them out [doctrinal stuff], and replaced them with non-Ahmadis. I have not confirmed whether or not that is true or false, though I seem to recall that Sue Olsson, a woman who travelled there, mentioned that the tomb is no longer under the control of this family of Ahmadis. I don't know how you verify your information, but I assume that you have checked. I think, though, the information you have about the Ahmadi keepers of the Roza Bal is outdated.

I'm not sure what website you're talking about as being controlled by Ahmadis, if that's what you were saying. I know that the official Ahmadi website is . If you're talking about the Tomb of Jesus Christ Website, you can check there and you'll see where Sue Olsson, a non-Ahmadi, is an officer that site.

Arif Khan is another officer, and he doesn't hide the fact that he's an Ahmadi. His stance is decidedly open, and he explores Buddhist interpretations and other ideas. I don't think that it should be assumed [and perhaps you weren't doing that] that there's something questionable here, just because an Ahmadi happens to take interest in this theory and is also tied to his religious movement.

But, I'm not sure what you're saying. Also, there are other non-Ahmadi sites, such as Dr. James Deardorff's site, that talk about the issue.

The subject, over the last number of years, has definitely moved well beyond the bounds of the Ahmadiyya Movement. It's an independent study now. In that sense, your emphasis on the Ahmadiyya Movement and Hazrat Ahmad seems a little outdated. Just my opinion.

Well, nuf said. Hope you continue to improve the article. Thanks for the changes.

I've added a sentence making explicit the links to the New Age movement. If you can provide a source for the replacement of the Ahmadis as Guardians I'll obviously update the info. --G Rutter 15:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

TO MR. RUTTER: I'll try to find the information about the current keepers of the tomb. It's hard to find time to do so, so I might not come up with anything for you. But I'll try. It might even take some months.

TO MR. RUTTER: The article describes the Rozabal as a Muslim shrine:

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad also supports the belief that Yuz Asaf is buried in the Rozabal Muslim shrine

Just wondering why it's described as a Muslim shrine. The occupants of that tomb include two people: Yuz Asaf and Syed Nasirruddin, if I'm recalling the name right. Nasirruddin was a 17th century Muslim, as I recall, who fell in love with the memory of Yuz Asaf; that is, with the traditions that he knew concerning Yuz Asaf.

When Nasurriddin was alive, he asked (because of that love) that he be buried near Yuz Asaf when he died. So, there are two people inside the Rozabal, and you'll see two facade caskets inside [the real casket of Yuz Asaf is underground].

Others believe that Buddha is buried there. Not asking you to change anything. Just providing information.

I think the phrase "Muslim shrine" is accurate - see the definition at Shrine. It is supposed to contain the body of a man who is venerated by at least certain Muslim branches- as shown by your information on the burial of Nasirruddin and the keepers of the tomb.
Any information you get on the current keepers would be interesting- although it will need to be verifiable. That is, published in a newspaper or reputable website or similiar. Thanks! --G Rutter 12:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

United Press International] is a minor news agency outside the US. Reuters & AFP are the two main global news agencies. Note that UPI is owned by the Unification Church. matturn 06:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

User:Jammupress believes that Yuz Asaf is a better transliteration of the name and I support him. --G Rutter 08:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

On the moving the article issue, is their any controversy over moving the article from Yuza Asif to Yuz Asaf, or is this one of those 'it's just misspelled' times? If there's no controversy, I'll go ahead and move it, with no need for people to vote on it. Lachatdelarue (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's more or less a misspelling- no one's arguing against it! Thanks! --G Rutter 08:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Non-secular scholarly POV[edit]

All of the references I've seen so far - discuss the issue about Jesus' alleged tomb in Kashmir from a religious/theological POV - Christian, Ahmadiyya, Muslim, New Age - and applaud or reject the theories surrounding the tomb on that basis.

In a Wikipedia article, one would also expect to se the point of view of secular historians and archeologists as to the age and origins of the legends surrounding the shrine. This aspect is rather lacking at present.

Recent edits[edit]

One editor, User:Kashmir2 has made a series of edits to this page which remove information about the Ahmadi beliefs about Yuz Asaf and are generally supportive of Suzanne Olsson's beliefs. Kashmir2, the Ahmadi are still the largest group who hold beliefs about Yuz Asaf, whilst Olsson's views are not widely supported. Kashmir2, you obviously support Olsson's POV, but it is important to remain neutral when writing articles in Wikipedia. I've therefore re-added some of the discussion about Ahmadi beliefs and reduced the amount of discussion about Olsson. Perhaps it would be better to discuss any further changes to the article here first? --G Rutter 18:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Grutter, Tis not that I "support" Olsson more than Ahmaddis, but the Ahmaddis claims to be the first and only and best authorities on Roza Bal are actually working against progress of the tomb's verification. Their claims should not be the sole basis for the article about Yuz Asaf, especially in view of the hundreds of other researchers and books written on the subject that are neither Ahmaddi nor Muslim. Someone just inserted a line in the Yuz Asaf page that Saleem is one of the current Directors at the tomb. This is false. Saleem was a Director 30 years ago. I added a link to an interview of 30 years ago with Saleem. Hope this helps clarify things.


I removed the following because it is obviously false:

Buddhist writings claims that the tomb was a tomb of Metteyya (Messiah), the fifth advent of Buddha.

Buddhist writings cannot discuss a tomb of Metteyya (who is not the same as the Messiah), because Metteyya is a person in a Buddhist prophecy of the future, and has not yet lived, much less died. RandomCritic 12:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I see that an entire paragraph has been included to discuss the Ahmaddi sect book by its founder. Yet the majority opf complaints revolve around this very issue, that too much emphasis has been placed by the Ahmaddis on their founder's claim to exclusivity and originality in discussing the tomb. This entire paragrapg about the Ahmadi book should be removed..

I have removed it. I am in total agreement with you about this.

About the Name[edit]

  • What does Yuz Asaf mean, anyway?

About The Name[edit]

The name Yuz Asaf means "Son Of Joseph."

Political motivations?[edit]

I have temporarily removed the statement "which was a 'political statement' to protect him from his enemies" as there is no evidence given in regard to this. Also I have removed the line "The Acts of Thomas, which wasn't included in the Bible because it was unknown at the time the Bible was being compiled" as this book was known during the compliation of the Christian canon but was not included as it was a Gnostic book thought to have been written roughly in the 3rd Century CE - ie around 300 years AFTER the events of the gospels. I've left the rest of the text as is, just tidied it up a bit to reflect facts. Also the article on the acts of thomas state that the book was in circulation during the 4th Century CE - ie when the canon was compiled. Please be a bit more careful when making statements and assumptions. Floorwalker 05:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

WOW!! What an intense page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits on removing article from Jesus topic[edit]

This page keeps getting the categories linking it to Jesus related articles and christianity in India removed. While I may not agree with the article itself, I do feel that it should be placed in these categories and under the Jesus topic, as this is the main idea behind it. We can't remove something just because we don't agree with it - you need to provide valid reasons for this - if they are valid then the edits will stay. And as such I will keep putting these links back in until someone can provide reasons otherwise.Floorwalker 23:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

BBC Documentary mentioning yuz asaf[edit]

a comment was made in the documentary did jesus die about yuz asaf and his tomb in kashmir including the presence of casting of feet containing wounds potentially made by a nail after overlaping them, ( ) the orientation of the tomb indicating a jewish ancestry and the claims timing of his visit and bhuddist associations. I think it would be good to address the validity of these comments and if they are true add them to this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Both the link [8] to the BBC website and the youtube link provided above no l exist. What s the best way to put this link:  ? Pqnlrn (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Where the deuce are the citations?[edit]

Citations appear to be conspicuously absent in this article, which is a shame because I believe most, if not all of it, is externally verifiable. It seems to me that there is a worrisome and growing trend in WP wherein absence of citations is par-for-the-course. The first couple of years I used Wikipedia, it was the exception, not the rule, that an article wouldn't have citations but now the reverse is starting to appear to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chattanoogan (talkcontribs) 05:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This all is rubbish and has no bearing. After the advent of Islam Semitic names (Islam is a Semitic religion) started to emerge in India. Some Islamic scholars even concluded that Semitic prophets like, Ibrahim, Daud, Musa came to India. Many of the Hindu names of cities were changed Pryag became Allahabad. In 1894 Nicolas Notovitch a politically motivated person manufactured a lie that Jesus was in India. Subsequently a 15th century tomb of a Muslim was made the tomb of Yuz Asaf (the tomb of Jesus). Documents were fabricated by Prof.Yasin and then Fida Hassnain a pseudo historian joined in and this agenda was pushed. No authentic Hindu scripture has anything to do with semiticism in any manner. (talk) 10:52, April 2, 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but you need to have proof to back up what you say. Also please remember to keep your edits to Neutral Point of View. If you can find evidence of what you say (and I'm sure if you looked you will be able to find some) then add it in. I have removed your paragraph for now as it was extremly POV and appeared to consist soley of original research. Floorwalker (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have proof one way or another wether the Kashmiri text Rajatarangini contains any references to Yuz Asaf? It was a text written around the 12th Century AD on life in the region. I've been doing a little bit of searching on the internet, with sites claiming that it does, and some saying it doesn't (myself I thought it would be a yes / no answer). If someone could clarify this with the appropriate references, then we could include this in the article. Otherwise claims one way or another about this will be removed. Main reason it would be good to include is that it is a historical document that is seperate from the Acts of Thomas which so far appear to be the main source for the theories. Floorwalker (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits - April 2008[edit]

There have been a group of people recently posting information on this site. Please read the previous discussions and comment and discuss on this page first before putting the info on the main page. The formatting of the data is ad-hoc, I am happy to discuss any changes, but please discuss here first, and also have proper references that can be backed up. As it is this article already contains several points with lack of citations, I don't want this trend increased, but decreased and the quality of the article improved, as we all find citations for current items claimed. The paragraph in question will be continued to be removed unless it is discussed here first. As this is done by anonymous IP's, could you also please create a wiki account? Floorwalker (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment removed from article[edit]

Dear Editor,

If the credidibility of the Wikipedia has to stay, please do that delete this information. As you know the below information is accurate:

THE REAL STORY CLEARLY NO HONEST HISTORIAN CAN CONCLUDE THAT THIS IS WRONG: After the advent of Islam in Kashmir many pseudo historians of Islamic faith made a great effort (though not with much success) to bring Aryan Kashmir into the Semitic fold. The names of places were changed, Anantnag became Islamabad, Varahamulla became Baramulla, Sankracharya Parbat became Takte-Sulaiman,Vala became Bal,etc. Later the Ahmadis, and people like the Yasins etc.,joined it and planted stories of Semitic prophets mysteriously entering Kashmir. Also a story of Jesus visiting Kashmir was cleverly planted in 1894 by Nicolas Notovitch.This has been now further amplified by some pseudo-scholars,such as Hassnains and Yasins. The only accurate history of pre-Islamic Kashmir is the great Rajatarangini,,which has no Semitic and only Aryan input(1). In no Hindu epic is there any mention of any Semitic (Jewish-Christian-Islamic), prophet visiting India or any Semitic religion or culture being followed in India during that period. 1. Prior to the Muslim period about 14th Century all texts talk of cremation and no burial, besides no Semitic (Kalhana, Jomnraja, Srivara, etc.)names occurs in any text prior to the advent of Islam in Kashmir. The names of people in all Hindu texts have Aryan origin and not Semitic. Thus this is a political motivated plant and will never be accepted by any honest historian or person. Kalhana's Rajatarangini, the credible source of Hindu History of Kashmir —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is can you please provide an accurate link to that source. I have searched for it myself and am unable to find a credible reference that states one way or the other on what the Rajatarangini states on Yuz Asaf or history circa 1 CE. From what I can find on sources of this text it appears to mainly deal with life in Kashmir in 10th - 12th CE (which would likely indicate no reference to a 1 CE figure). If you have sources that talk about the 1st Centurary then please let us know, otherwise do not keep inserting this paragraph, as the paragraph itself does not look credible. Floorwalker (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Rajtarangini as a Reference[edit]

NewYork10021 (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC) The unamed person making contributions here, who insists nothing Semitic is related to India or Hinduism, and who cites Rajtarangini as proof, is in error. Person is obviously a Kashmiri Pandit ( a good thing). The Rajtarangini (River of Kings)is a history of Kashmir that goes back approximately 3000 years. "Jews" and "Hebrews" were not identified as such until much later.However, Rajtarangini does say they were in Kashmir and "guarded the borders jealously." Further, some religious scholars have pursued the idea that the gods Sarasvati and Brahma are based upon Sarah and Abraham, thus a direct Biblical-Jewish link. Yuz Asaf (or Asaph) is not mentioned in that book but there is a crucifixion story almost identical to Jesus (Sandimatti). There are stones carved inside Roza Bal that show crucifixion wounds, not symetrical and obviously made by a first hand witness. Hundreds travel to kashmir every year to visit the tomb of Yuz Asaf.Many films and books explore connections between Yuz Asaf and Jesus. It is known world-wide. Reply to Floorwalker, yes, I have two editions of the Rajtarangini. What would you like to know?NewYork10021 (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, I am unfamiliar with the text myself, but commented on the little I had gathered hoping someone would clarify it for me (and this article). As you have mentioned, since Rajtarangini doesn't mention Yuz Asaf, implies we can't use it as a source of information (in this context). Though a line could possibly be added to mention that Rajtarangini doesn't mention Yuz Asaf. My main concern with the article was the lack of cited sources - ie a lot was claimed but not verified. Another question, I'm assuming there are other sources related to the area? If you know of any ancient sources concerning this article, please feel free to mention them :) Floorwalker (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Does Rajtarangini tell us any more than what Kalhana thought was the history of Kashmire? It isn't actually a history of Kashmir, any more than Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae is a history of Britain. But it seems fine to say he doesn't mention Yuz Asaf.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

NewYork10021 (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Yes, the Rajtarangini covers history of early Kashmir. In addition to crucifixion story, there is a connection with someone called 'Issa" about 2,000 years ago. The effort is to see if Issa is another name for Jesus and if he became a king in Kashmir. Rajtarangini also mentions a king called Pravarasena (a title) for a man named Parsha (translated means Joshua, which was the name of Jesus). There are enough clues in the Rajtarangini that it remains a valued research tool to search for Jesus in India.NewYork10021 (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Suzanne Olsson book[edit]

This isn't a reliable source and isn't going to help the article become clear. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC) NewYork10021 (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC) This is a reliable source and has been peer reviewed in Asia and subject of several other films and books. Further, a fictional self-published book by Shawn Haigins is far more dubious a contribution (that is being allowed on the page) than someone who went there. lived there, worked extensively with historians and archaeologists (not UFO's as yet another claiment defends) and wrote ground breaking new information.NewYork10021 (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It was Suzanne Olsson who put the fictional self-published book back, none of the fiction books should be included as they are all self-published. She is also the one who mentioned UFOs (she is Kashmir2).--Doug Weller (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
And she is clearly user:NewYork10021 also, since the posts are signed in an identical uniquely idiosyncratic way (at the top and the bottom). Paul B (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether Olsson is reliable or not,... the Olsson book is completely irrelevant as this article is about 'Yuz Asaf' and not whether Jesus survived the crucifixion (which is—in all its numerous facets—what Olsson's book is about). Misusing this article to spin-up that subject is coatracking/OR. She can appear somewhere on WP (e.g. in one of the numerous Jesus articles), but not here. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Valid Reference Sources Being Removed[edit]

I see the page for Yuz Asaf is 'semi-protected' therefore every effort to correct it is reversed. I request that the names of Fida Hassnain and Suzanne Olsson be reinstated. Their books are peer previewed and accepeted by mainstream historians as valid research. They have produced valuable books concerning the identity of Yuz Asaf in Roza Bal tomb. It is impossible to mention one without the other. Your attempts to remove Olsson completely smack seriously of quite different issues than self-publishing or 'not worthy'..

Olsson and Hassnain have collaberated for years and have been refered to in newspapers and magazine articles (Fortean Times)and reviewed by peers primarily in India (Times of India, including current article) They have been consulted by numerous independent film producers and appear in several of these films. You refuse to allow them space on Yuz Asaf page and yet you allow self-published fictional books and books and links to websites that source only channeled information from aliens and UFO's. I seriously doubt the ability or impartiality of some Wiki editors here. Who must I contact to have these issues resolved?NewYork10021 (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WHEW! The page is finally correct as I just viewed it. THANK YOU!

I've been accused of protecting this page -- not only am I not an administrator and can't protect pages, the history page of the article shows very clearly it hasn't been protected at all. I ask people to read WP:CIVIL and Assume good faith. If the 'you' above is meant to be me, I certainly have not allowed anything to be on the Yuz Asaf page, it doesn't belong to me or to anyone at all -- if I've allowed it, so has every other editor here, any of whom could have and should have removed any websites relying on channelled information from aliens and UFOs. I removed the fiction books as they were all self-published. Wikipedia policy is very very clear on this. You can't use self-published books as references except in certain special circumstances. If Yuz Asaf were to self-publish a book, he could use it as a reference about his thoughts. This has nothing to do with partiality or impartiality.
It looks to me as though at least half the external links and quite a few of the books are not what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources. Now when I remove such stuff, I remove it because I've read WP:Reliable -- but then what often happens is people come along and put them back who apparently can't be bothered to read Wikipedia guidelines or perhaps don't even care about them. That's not a good situation. --Doug Weller (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

NewYork10021 (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC) You are claiming your basis for removal is because yoiu regard Olsson and Hassnain books as self-published fiction? Now you really are stretching thiings too far to justify yourself.

NewYork10021 (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Doug, you know very well the books you deleted were not fiction and are within Wiki guidleiines. Now I will seek a referee to determine your ability to know the difference and edit these pages within Wiki guidleines. Now you have an agenda and have made that obvious..

This is completely out of order. Doug came to this page only to help as a participant in the fringe theories noticeboard after I posted a call for more eyes to look at this article. If you dispute the idea that the Olsson book is self-published you should take it to the reliable sources noticeboard or post an RfC here. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No one is disputing the self-publishing. And it clearly is allowed because it meets all Wiki criteria (which I have read several times) However as noted above, there is multiple peer review around the world. Nor can this be regarded a s fringe theory when it's been around since the 1800's. In the above claimDoug says he removes things that he deems are not within guidelines. But he did this selectively because he left a mess of fiction and definate 'fringe' overtones in articles defending UFO channeling as a reputable source. Now who has the problem?NewYork10021 (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that there is "multiple peer review around the world" is meaningless. Please demonstrate that this is the case. In any case the concept of peer review refers to what happens to a text before it is published. Unless this book was sent 'around the world' before it was published, your claim that there has been multiply peer reviewed does not make sense. Paul B (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does make sense. Hassnain and Olsson collaberated on a book togther that deals with research into Yuz Asaf and Tomb of Jesus known as Roza Bal, and bloodline claims. The concept for the book was in development and discussed for years. It is based on prior books in same genre that were published since the mid-1800's. Their books have been reviewed in Fortean Times, Times of India, and other magazines and articles around the world. They have been reviewed in films and documentaries.Their views are held by millions of people worldwide including many Hindus, Buddhists, and Ahmadi Muslims. Their books are not fiction as Doug Weller stated above and he knows this. I have nothing personal against Doug but he seems to have a bit too much interest and too little foundation in this topic to make the decisions he is making here.NewYork10021 (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC) (UTC)

You are just repeating the same assertions. They have nothing to do with the concept of peer review. A book review is not a peer review. They are two totally different concepts. No doubt there were 'prior books in the same genre'. That goes for UFO literature too, and almost anything. Paul B (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul, when Hassnain served 30 years as Director of Historical Archives for Government of India, he had already written several articles about his conclusions regarding Yuz Asaf. Those who filled the position after him were and still are regular contributors to newspapers in India. Hassnain's work was and still is often cited. Olsson and Hassnain's collaberation of this final book (Hassnain is 85 years old) has also been discussed and anticipated because it was suppose to go more deeply into research claims of the family of Bashrat Saleem, who claim they are descended from Yuz Asaf whom they believe is Jesus. There certainly are no other books or researchers available to continue for some time due to militancy in the region. That is what makes these books so important now.They are not fiction. They are mainstream research gained under very extreme hardships. To include the book written by Holger Kersten, someone who spent just 2 weeks in Kashmir and wrote his books based solely on notes provided to him by Hassnain doesn't even compare with the significance of Hassnain's contributions.NewYork10021 (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Suzanne, none of this constitutes peer review, or anything remotely related to WP guidelines. It's just assertion. Mainstream research is what is widley accepted by accredited scholars in the relevant discipline. In order to be accredited degrees and university positions are generally required, not assertions that something has been 'discussed and anticipated'. Paul B (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I am not sure what degrees Hassnain has. I will have to look that up. He has a few as I recall. And so would anyone who filled his position after him. I understand what you are asking for and I cannot help you. Further, Holger Kersten has no degrees that I know of, and no peer reviews and yet you are considering him 'more' valid a source? According to your criteria, all those books and resources mentioned on the Yoz Asaf page must be removed.NewYork10021 (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, take a look again at the older pages and see what was tolerated and allowed there; everything from self-published fiction to channeling from UFO aliens was placed there as 'reliable sources'.. NewYork10021 (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The books I removed that I said were fiction were in a section labelled Fiction, so why shouldn't I call them fiction? I never called any other books fiction. I removed them after Kashmir2 (Suzanne Olsson or a relative) complained they were self-published. I also removed the external links she said were UFO/channelled stuff after checking them. --Doug Weller (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Headline text[edit]

Now let's all relax and tackle the other 14,000 pages still needing WIKI editors.NewYork10021 (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's Go back To How This Started[edit]

I think we are missing the point here. How did all start in the first place? These edit and revision wars? It started because not only were resources and citations removed, they were replaced with highly predjudicial and demeaning links. This was initiated by someone who has a past pattern of trashing authors he doesn't agree with. Slowly and subtly, one small change at a time, until the author(s) are left looking bizarre and ridiculed. This affected other authors on Wiki too. It became neccessary to put a stop to things before they went too far. I would ask all editors here to take a look back. Far back to understand the great cause for alarm now. I will continue to work with Wiki editors and Administration at the highest levels to get this righted.NewYork10021 (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a real name.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Suzanne, are you also posting as NewYork10021? And Kashmir2? Doug Weller (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Wiki Yuz Asaf Editors[edit]

Fullstop said:

Regardless of whether Olsson is reliable or not,... the Olsson book is completely irrelevant as this article is about 'Yuz Asaf' and not whether Jesus survived the crucifixion (which is—in all its numerous facets—what Olsson's book is about). Misusing this article to spin-up that subject is coatracking/OR. She can appear somewhere on WP (e.g. in one of the numerous Jesus articles), but not here. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)end of quote...................

This statement clearly shows lack of understanding of the topic at hand when Wiki editors choose to add or delete things. In Hassnain's and my own books are whole chapters devoted to seeking links between the names Yuz Asaf and Jesus as the entire premise is that Yuz Asaf IS Jesus who IS buried in Roza Bal tomb. There are only two pages here at Wiki that are relevent to our research, this one, 'Yuz Asaf' and 'Roza Bal', the tomb of Jesus. The editor 'Fullstop' is totally ignorant of the topic and should not be making editing decisions here. But no worries, Fullstop, as you can see, our names have been wiped off almost every page at Wiki since these editing wars started.

G.Rutter has been editing the 'Yuz Asaf' page since April 2005. He has taken it upon himself to make most all decisions regarding the edits to this page. Look at the Talk history and it quickly becomes evident that he also doesn't have a clue what is relevent. Many lengthy discussions and arguments have erupted because he clearly does not understand the topic at all. 'High on a Tree' is an editor on the "Roza Bal' page who also has no knowledge of the subject and makes very poor choices in choosing how to edit that page. It has become his 'pet project' and he will edit as he darn well sees fit, whether it helps the page or not.

To Dougweller, first I am posting under my own name. I didn't have a name at Wiki before this. Second, this is about contention over removing books and sources. That is what started all this, don't you recall? Legitimate sources and links were removed and replaced with just one negative and highly inflammatory article by some fringe group represented by just one individual. Yet you all, as editors, allowed this to happen. It is shocking. Getting that straightened out with Paul Smith, aka Wfgh66 has gradually led to all traces of my name being stricken from Wiki. Self-promotion? Or self-defense?

While erasing me you were allowing ridiculous material to remain. Saying I was deleted because I was "self-published" was grossly unfair because several self-published books remained even fictional books, that none of you 'editors' questioned. The reason 'Roza Bal Line' remained at the 'Roza Bal' page was because I didn't put it there, nor remove it because I didn't know the rules. I am not a Wiki editor.

As you were explaining the rules I realized you were allowing many others to circumnavigate them. On this page and the 'Roza Bal' page have appeared self-published fiction, links to articles about Billy Meier and his Jesus information gathered from aliens, and even a self-promotional book about a man's travels to Kashmir. Such resources were all that remained while you were targeting me for what you refer to as "fringe" self published fiction.

Finally Doug, you worded something in a way that suggested my books were 'fiction' and that was the end of the discussion. My books and Hassnain's books were immediately deleted by another editor listening in on our conversation. We, meaning Professor Fida hassnain and myself, only research Yuz Asaf, Roza Bal, and Jesus in India after the crufcifixion. We present as much research from India as we can find in India to support these views. People who write other books, and make films on the topic depend upon our material as a reliable source because they themselves cannot get to India or Kashmir....and if at all, then only for a few days. There are two independent film productions coming out in next few weeks, and a dozen more already out there that have consulted us for accurate information about this topic. Articles about our research appear regularly around the world. Fortean Times, Times of India, and several Italian, Russian and Scandinavian newspapers and magazines have peer reviewed our books in the past. I know there are many more based upon the emails I get, but I don't happen to keep records of them.

We never get royalties or pay from others. We have no money to show for all this effort. We think it is important to keep the research in the forefront (and as hassle-free as possible) in anticipation this will not only help protect these sites but will promote the DNA and archaeological research, things we have worked tirelessly for.

Of course I personally feel targeted here now, and I feel you have acted unfairly and unjust. You have attempted to trash my name, my work and valid contributions. You refer to them as "fringe" and fictional, and not worthy to appear on these pages. I am saddened by such words and by your lack of understanding about this topic.

I wont post here again. I just wanted to leave this message for all those who come here to read about Yuz Asaf and Roza Bal. I personally do not believe any of the Wiki editors in this situation have acted fairly or understood what they were/are editing. On that note, and with a sense of sadness and regret over your handling of these issues, I shall close this discussion.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

When Suzanne Olsson told me some books were self-published, I checked, found out they were, and removed them. She put them back. Not having time to carefuly scrutinise every book is not the same as 'allowing'. I definitely did not call Olsson's books fiction and have tried my best to explain to her how Wikipedia works. I clearly failed. This is all clearly 'fringe' by Wikipedia standards, though. --Doug Weller (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

:"... reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do." Reliable sources Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above) per removal of relevent sources and replace with sources of highly speculative and dubious agendas...

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs[5] should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention.

–Jimmy Wales [6]SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Suzanne, if you want to add information here there is nothing to stop you, but it has to be sourced to reliable sources, that's all. If you have so much information, and are familiar with the relevant sources, then add information by quoting and citing those sources. There are no libelous statements about you on this article's page. Paul B (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
She needs to follow her own advice, and also realise that she is a Wiki editor. --Doug Weller (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Not only is SuzanneOlson not following what she's quoting, she has a general lack of understanding of how WP works, evident for example in her assertion that "[my statement] clearly shows lack of understanding of the topic."
    If SuzanneOlson were actually capable of following what Jimbo wrote, she would know that (and why) it is necessary to differentiate a reliable source from her own work, and that it is the reliable sources that she is attacking for lack of understanding of the topic.
  • Whatever sympathy anyone has ever held for her she has blown by her assumption that she (and only she) is the sole arbitrator of "truth". But Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
  • Her taking all critique personally only reinforces the obvious, i.e. that does she does not have the distance to write objectively. Consequently, she fails to notice is that neither I nor anyone else have an opinion about Ahmadiyya beliefs, and the only thing anyone is insisting on is that the article be written to adhere to policy.
~ In any case, since SuzanneOlson is incapable of getting of her "Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam" WP:SOAPBOX,n3 and then she ought to write an article titled "Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam".n2 This article is titled "Yuz Asaf," which is -- even in Ahmadi beliefs -- only orthogonal to her pet theory.n1 -- Fullstop (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
n1 As SuzanneOlson has herself observed at the top of this section, 'Yuz Asaf' is but one leg of the many-legged beast that constitutes Ahmadi Christology.
n2 The head of that many-legged beast that makes up 'Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam' doctrine is their founder's own projection of himself as Jesus (second coming).
n3 Need I mention that Gulam Ahmad's Jesus-in-Kashmir arguments are **also** the basis of someone else's theory of her own genealogy?

Revert by Muslim10[edit]

Without providing any reason for doing so, {User|Muslim10}} reverted a previous edit that had been summarized as "encyclopedify and fix the massive OR. This article is about "Yuz Asaf", not about the validity of the tomb claim or about Thomas"
I have reinstated that previous edit, and followed it up with with a comment to his/her talk page. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


shouldn't this article be split in two? --Soman (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Moreover, the Ahmadi stuff should be in a general "Jesus in Ahmadi Islam" or some such (following the usual "Jesus in xyz" pattern). The identification of the name "Yuz Asaf" with Jesus is a tiny part of the greater picture. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I took the bull by the horns and just did it. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream Islam[edit]

I was allowed by Andrew to add the views of Jesus in Mainstream Islam in here so Ive added a small sentence or two in every topic here refering to the Islamic view Moodswingster (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think putting detail is not the correct thing to do here. There is a whole article for such a purpose. If you wish to make reference, make it succinct. Jesus in IslamPeaceworld111 (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I've made a link. If not happy, please discuss. Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

sir there has to be a sentence or two added to explain the diffrence between the Mainstream and the Ahmadi views .. IVE looks at the Jesus in Islam page and its unfair THAT THEY GET TO HAVE AN ARTICLE AND LINK IN OUR PAGE and were not allowed to add our views in a sentence or two .. thats UNFAIR AND UNNEUTRALIZED and Andrew has agreed to !Moodswingster (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You see that Islam is of much wider scope. Jesus in Islam can talk about different views of Islamic sects, such as Sunni, Shia, Ahmadiyya because they are all within the scope of Islam. But within the scope of Ahmadiyya is not Islam, rather it is the other way round. Take for example. Article relating to Prophets will have introductory paragraphs about all known prophets. But articles such as prophet Adam or Muhammad will not talk about Abraham and so on. So, in conclusion this is not unfair at all. Also there are references to Mainstream Islamic views at the start. See.. Similar to mainstream Islamic views, the Ahmadiyya Movement consider Jesus was a mortal man, but go a step further to describe Jesus as a mortal man who died a natural death in India - as opposed to having been raised up alive to Heaven. ThankYou Peaceworld111 (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead (lede) section[edit]

This currently reads like an essay, not like a summary of the article. The fact that the article is not well organised may contribute to this problem. --Bejnar (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite required[edit]

Sections like /* Hadith accounts */ are almost incomprehensible, or maybe just argumentative. The format: X believes Y, if true and not weasel worded, tends to help with objectivity. Use of the word "clearly" usually indicates argumentation. So do since ... then statements, unless encapsulated within, X believes that since ... then. Otherwise the conclusion can be simply stated and cited to a reliable source. Some of the text is not bad. The sentence, Furthermore, Ahmadi theologians highlight passages from the Qur'an to suggest that Jesus did not ascend to Heaven but died a natural death on Earth. would be fine except that it starts with Furthermore as if continuing an argument.

Sentences like In Nusaybin, he got another tension at the hands of a cruel king. and Ahmadi scholars also present this event. just have to be rewritten entirely.

Uniform terminology would help. Both Ahmadiyya and Ahmadi are used as adjectives. Usually the more English form Ahmadi would be used, even in the title.

I wish you good luck and persistence on producing a nice NPOV, well-organised, and grammatical article. --Bejnar (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yuz Asaf (meaning “Leader of the Healed”/"Son of Joseph")[edit]

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I wonder if you added these lines:

"He eventually settled in Kashmir where he was given the name Yuz Asaf (meaning “Leader of the Healed”/"Son of Joseph")".
Is it from the Ahmadiyya sources? I never read Yuz Asaf means Leader of the Healed or Son of Joseph , in the Ahmadiyya literature. Regards. --ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
No, but I added "citation needed" to that line. If you don´t know any sources, it should probably be removed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Multiple Issues[edit]

This article has multiple issues, besides poor script, language and grammar , it has problems of a logical and scientific organization. Needs a complete 're-write' by some editor with Native Eng level of proficiency. Attention to sourcing etc. could be considered a later less urgent issue. One heading that occurred twice, I corrected , but the actual problem is much more.

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Can an Editor Native Eng level of proficiency may please spent some time on this Article?

It seems rather impractical to improve the language first and only then to check whether we actually have sources for the content or whether we need to rewrite it anyway. You may want to ask the Guild of Copy Editors for help, but I'd only do so after sourcing and content issues are resolved. Huon (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Huon, I proceed like that, and start checking with the sources first.... Regards. --ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Glad you´re on it! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi G, probably you missed, I had said by some Edit with 'Native Level English Proficiency " (I am already among those who have written it (but I did not write it) !) hahaha. Be well and blessed. --ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)