Talk:Jesus in Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Jesus in Islam was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 4, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
June 23, 2013 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject Christianity / Jesus (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Jesus work group (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Islam (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fix this page[edit]

It says casting out demons etc were his miracles please confirm whether this miracle is mentioned in the Quran or a reliable source sherlock has talked about other content that worries him on his talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


Some editors ,who are not aware of the fact that according to muslims Jesus foretold the coming of Prophet of Islam, are removing/reverting/editing the content which shows this. I would like to ask these said editors to kindly read (Yes I added link instead of blue text). Thank you for your help in this article, just make sure you are not deleting sourced information.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

No one is removing text that says that Muslims believe that Jesus foretold the coming of Muhammed. Please read the sourced and cited text that is being reverted to, which clearly states that there is a traditional understanding that Jesus foretold the coming of Muhammad. However, your interpretation, or any other Wikipedia editor's interpretation of the Quran itself is original research. We quote scholars that interpret the Quran, not Wikipedia editors.—Kww(talk) 05:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Ty for pointing it out. I have added a secondary source where the scholar interprets the Quran.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
You added a self-published unreliable source, FreeatlastChitchat. Why do you insist on changing this text when nothing it says appears to be wrong?—Kww(talk) 05:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Kww. According to your edits the article will read as "however, this is a traditional understanding and not declared in the Quran." I want this removed. This is present in the Holy Quran. As you did not like my source I will give three more here. Please pick one of them and I will add this to augment the other source. Ty for your help in sourcing. (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I could accept a wording that said something like "scholars debate whether this traditional understanding is supported by the text of the Quran" or something similar. I can see your point that saying that it is definitely not there may be too strong, but surely you can see that many of the sources you are providing are not definitively saying that it is there, either.—Kww(talk) 16:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. How about the statement that "Some traditional scholars are of the view that this prophecy is present in the Chapter 61, verse 6 of the Quran". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I have included cited content regarding the Greek translation into Arabic of this Greek term, in the hopes to bring balance to the scholarly point of view in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HafizHanif (talkcontribs) 01:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Article needs citation rewritting (work in progress as of June 2016)[edit]

This article reads less like an academic piece and more like a theological presentation. There are also very few citations considering the length of the article. Can somebody tackle this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mctaviix (talkcontribs) 20:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I wouldn't mind assisting you or others in cleaning this article up and citing where necessary. I could help in finding citations and structuring if you / others can help in rewriting. -- HafizHanif (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I have included some clarification and citations as mentioned two months ago. I'll keep returning to work on it more. If anyone has issue with current and future edits, please find correcting citations and we can work together on objectivity, thanks. --HafizHanif (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Did some editing and objective corrections as best understood by this man. I am also going to stub subsections entitles "Al-Masih" (Messiah) and "Kalimat Allah" (Word of God) in the hope of clarifying the understandings of the Islamic theology of these terms and how they've expanded and contracted over the centuries... using these citations: [1], [2], [3] as initial examples. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Finished writing a more concise introduction sans primary sources, adding ample citations, keeping to the traditional / popular / mainstream view of the article's subject. Please let me know if anything needs further clarification or attention. I'll be doing a similar effort with the rest of the article, one portion at a time. -- HafizHanif (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Elaborated a bit more the birth and childhood narrative as it progressed from initial perceptions found in the Quran and what has developed over the years. I would like to ask for others to please add where they see a need or wherever they'd like ( please help :). The citations I've currently used / shared are quite exhaustive in their details about the Jesus narrative. I think they are a good place to start in terms of referencing or bringing out the ideological view of Jesus from the various Muslim perspectives. -- HafizHanif (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm taking a rest from this effort. Added more content with scholarship as the basic aim in revealing how Jesus is viewed in Islam. In my opinion, there is quite a bit of the article that should be minimized and of course, properly cited. I am taking a break. I've opened up subheadings so those who know or specialize in their particular ideological leaning can add what they know, but please add sourced material beyond the primary sources and pov. I think this article is for those outside of Islam can understand how Islam 'sees' Jesus, historically and beyond. As you can read from what I've added, the perception of Jesus has grown and is still being developed by those who have noticed discrepancies in the historicity of the Quran and further writings of Islam. I think this reality should be made evident in the article, hopefully overshadowing the folklore and legends. I suggest opening talk sections that pertain to whichever portion of the main article is being evaluated, contested or developed. -- HafizHanif (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2016[edit]

On the page there is a controversy of WHETHER PROPHET Muhammad (saw) or Prophet Jesus (as) IS SUPERIOR THIS IS AN ARGUMENT WITH NO POINT OF BEING IN AN ARTICLE LIKE THIS AND THE QURAN SAYS Say (O Muhammad SAW): "We believe in Allah and in what has been sent down to us, and what was sent down to Ibrahim (Abraham), Isma'il (Ishmael), Ishaque (Isaac), Ya'qub (Jacob) and Al-Asbat [the twelve sons of Ya'qub (Jacob)] and what was given to Musa (Moses), 'Iesa (Jesus) and the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between one another among them and to Him (Allah) we have submitted (in Islam)." so since we don't make distinctions amongst them such an argument is not considered correct as it goes against A statement of the Quran. (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The request below looks to be a duplicate — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 16:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2016[edit]

I need to talk to you about the Jesus in Islam page

The page has a sort of an argument about Prophet Muhammad (saw) and Prophet Jesus (as) fighting over which one of them is superior however the Quran clearly states in chapter three verse eighty four that Say (O Muhammad SAW): "We believe in Allah and in what has been sent down to us, and what was sent down to Ibrahim (Abraham), Isma'il (Ishmael), Ishaque (Isaac), Ya'qub (Jacob) and Al-Asbat [the twelve sons of Ya'qub (Jacob)] and what was given to Musa (Moses), 'Iesa (Jesus) and the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between one another among them and to Him (Allah) we have submitted (in Islam)." so this is a useless argument given that no distinction between the prophets should be made and then it gives what I think is an improper reference which I think is reference 15 which does not fit FROM WHAT I HAVE READ the category of Islamic tradition and it seems like the authors words and opinion ALSO THE PAGE CALLS JESUS SPIRIT OF GOD WHICH IS A LINK TO THE HOLY SPIRIT WHICH IN ISLAM IS AS FAR AS I KNOW I REPEAT AS FAR AS I KNOW ANGEL GABREIL (AS) SO I THINK THE PAGE DOES NEED CORRECTING SO PLEASE FIX IT IT ALSO USES WEBSITES AS SOURCES WHEN THE SOURCES OF THOSE WEBSITES SHOULD BE DISCOVERED AND CHECKED. YARN BALL B (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Per instructions: "Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined.", what terms or phrases do you suggest replacing what you find issue with? -- HafizHanif (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
It's Obaidullah_ak again. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah (talk) please notice the manner in which the anonymous individual has trolled this article and my talk page (see history / prev ) and never offers any assistance or suggested citations, but simply deletes talk discussions and edited work at the article. How can one block an i.p. address that is harassing others? I hardly think this individual is performing "good faith edits" that you've reverted. -- HafizHanif (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Another thing it is I am pretty sure very important[edit]

the user of the Ip adress has included the spirit of god as a title for Jesus if this is the Holy Spirit you are talking about which it is a link to I am pretty sure that is Hazrat Jibrael please fix this page the count and Jesus in Islam if i am correct.

Peace be with you, my friend. Firstly, please respond under the appropriate heading ( and after my responses ) so other readers can follow the dialogue clearly. Secondly, I understand your sentiments, however there is quite a volume of references in the Quran, Hadiths, Tafsirs and poetry which describe Jesus in a unique way despite what other places in the Quran ( what you quoted ), Hadiths, Tafsirs and poetry that minimize this uniqueness, or promote Muhammad as a "perfect man" although other writings call Jesus a "perfect man". I am bringing these evidences to this article in hopes of clarifying "Jesus in Islam". Thirdly, in Wikipedia, simply quoting primary sources ( the Quran, for example ) without scholarly / published exegesis or thought ( what is found in a published book, journal, article, etc. ) does not qualify as an argument nor as a citation since interpretation is relative. This is where the Wikipedia editor only furthers what is written by published authors, professors, etc.. And this is what you are reading and objecting to. So, per instructions, please contribute other terms or a phrasing that you would consider agreeable considering what is currently written and what the particular sources are stating. --HafizHanif (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing "citation needed" content[edit] (talk), I appreciate your contribution and removal of unsourced content. Please feel free to delete content that has those "citation neeeded" tags, or provide the citation to keep the content. Remember, if one is going to quote or mentioned primary sources ( Quran, for example ), a second or third source ( published material by a scholar, historian, etc. ) needs to include where that phrase or verse from the Quran exists. -- HafizHanif (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Permanently Secured[edit]

Not sure how others who watch this page feel about making this page more secure, or if that would be possible considering its current low rating, but I sure am getting tired of reverting vandalism. -- HafizHanif (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Ipgrave, Michael (20 May 2005). Bearing the Word: Prophecy in Biblical and Qur'anic Perspective. England: Church House Publishing. p. 88. ISBN 0715140507. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is pre-eminently the divine Logos. As such, he is the agent of creation and the Word of truth, become incarnate in, involved in, human life. The Quran also calls jesus kalimat allah, the 'Word of God', cast into Mary by God. This does not imply that the logos is the Second Person of the Trinity. Rather, it means that Christ came into being, not through the usual processes of cause and effect, but by the direct command and as the direct creation of God – 'Let there by Christ,' said God, 'and there was Christ'. Islam thus distinguishes clearly between recognizing Jesus as the Word of God, on the one hand, and claiming that Jesus is God, on the other hand. It is the latter that is a problematic issue between Muslims and Christians. The Quran also calls Jesus a 'spirit from God'. Later Muslim tradition was to use the more absolute form 'Spirit of God', but this too clearly has a different import to the use of 'Spirit' in the Christian theology of the Trinity. It is undoubtedly the case that the idea of Jesus 'Word of God' has not been adequately studied by Muslims. This is in contrast to the great amount of thought which has been devoted to the theology of the Quran as the Word of God, and this obvious parallel raises a corresponding question to that about the Quran which has generated so much controversy within Islam: 'Is Jesus as Word of God created or uncreated?' It may be that the answer we have to give is along the lines of 'neither this nor yet that'. 
  2. ^ Senapati, Binod Peter (2009). Jesus the Kalimatullah: A Christian-Muslim Relation. Delhi: Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (ISPCK). p. 62-63. ISBN 9788184650136. As with other titles of Jesus, the Quran gives no explanation of this title. Nevertheless, in seeking to reconcile it with the Quranic assertion that Jesus was only a messenger, Muslim commentators generaly claim that Jesus is called the word of God soleley in accordance with the teaching of the Quran according to which jesus was created in the womb of a virgin woman by the world of God: “She said: My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal has touched me? He said: so it will be. Allah created what He will, if He decress a thing, He says unot it only; Be! And it is.” (Surah 3:47) By the single word of God's “Be”, it is believed that Jesus was created and from this verse Muslim commentators conclude that this is the reason for calling Jesus as the word of God... In the first place, however, though it seems a very convenient explanation, definitely it is an inadequate conclusion. According to the above verse, every thing that is created by God is created in the same manner. In spite of this fact, Jesus alone receives the title of God and its unique character must compel us to reject this theory as over-simplistic. Secondly, further it reflects the insufficiency of the answer to the question of its meaning through the examination of a similar statement just twelve verses later in the same Surah, which says, “Lo! The likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam, He created him from dust, then He said unto him, Be! And he is.” (Surah 3:59... In other words, God created Jesus purely through the expression, “Be”. But there is a striking difference of Jesus in this verse. It says, in “the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam, implying that both are made by the single word of God “Be” in the same way. If Jesus is called the word of God purely as a result by the means of this conception, then Adam too must be the word of God for according to the Quran they were both created in the same manner. This poses a problem because Adam is not called the word of God in the Quran. For that matter, neither the angels nor any other creature were called so in the Quran. Jesus alone is called the word of God... The very exceptional nature of the title by which Jesus is distinguished from all other human beings and all other creatures demands that there is some other meaning and significance to this. The very fact that the title is given to Jesus alone is both the Quran and the Bible clearly shows that there is something extraordinary about the person of Jesus that makes him the word of God in a way in which no other human being or creature can be considered. Jesus himself is called the word of God and the title refers to his person rather to any factors or circumstances of his life... As mentioned earlier, one of the distinctive features of this title is the emphasis of divinity as the source fo the person who bears it – 'the word is from God'. And the title, word implies that Jesus is the communication and revelation in his own person of God to the human beings. The word of God is one who is the active and real manifestation of God to Moses. To know the word is to know God. In other words, Jesus who is the word does not merely bring the religion and words of God to human beings, but he himself IS the word and revelation of God. Jesus through his embodiment made clear explanation of the title when the Gospel says, “In the beginning was the word. And the word was with God. And the word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him and without him was not anything made that was made.” (John 1:1-2) 
  3. ^ LEGENHAUSEN, HAJJ MUHAMMAD. "Jesus as Kalimat Allah The Word of God". Institute of Islamic Studies. p. 12. Retrieved 2009. Some of the early Muslim theologians, the Ash'arites, held the view that God can be considered a speaker even if He does not communicate to anyone else because He can have an internal speech (kalàm al-nafsí), a knowledge of the meanings He intends to convey in the appropriate circumstances. On this basis, the Ash'arites held the view that the Qur'an is eternal, since it always existed, as it were, in the mind of God, and that the attribute of speaking is one of God's attributes of essence. For the Mu'tazilite and Shi'i theologians, however, there is no internal speech of God, for God has no need of discursive thought. Indeed, for those theologians who take a philosophical stance as well as the Sufi theologians, God is considered as pure simple existence. Any logos or meaning would have to be an abstraction in the understanding of human (or angelic) intellects, not a characteristic of divinity itself. Hence, for the Shi'ah, the attribute of speaking is one of God's attributes of action. The dispute over the speech of God and the eternality of the Qur'an led to a bloody dispute during the Abbasid dynasty, masterfully described by van Ess in scholarly detail. What is important for our discussion, however, is to see that however much room there might be to find an analogue to the Christian idea of an eternal logos in the meaning of revelation in the mind of God as affirmed by the Ash'arites, in the philosophical views of God and His attributes that have come to dominate contemporary Shi'ite theology, such a view would be considered anathema and inconsistent with the simplicity and unity of God.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

Gospel of Barnabas Under Ascetic literature[edit]

Article cites Gospel of Barnabas, which is widely accepted to be a historical fraud due a large amount of anachronisms. This is supported in Gospel of Barnabas wiki page, with a list of incongruities listed here. A disclaimer mentioning it's general lack of reputability as a source, along with another one listing that it is not part of canonical gospel would be most representative of its authority among Christians, and most Muslim scholars. (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Chris

What exactly do you find issue with citing the Gospel of Barnabas? Please notice the context of what the edit and citation is saying, I don't think the Barnabas mention is used to actually verify anything truthful or historically accurate. -- HafizHanif (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

As a man in all respects.[edit]

Virginal birth? The Quran does indeed say: 19.17. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her Our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

See Annunciation section, especially the details mentioned in the citations, regarding the question to virgin birth, and the interpretation of the Quranic verses regarding this topic. As to "a man in all respects", what is your question? --