Talk:Islamic views on Jesus's death

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Islamic view of Jesus' death. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124130745/http://www.jesusisbuddha.com/review.html to http://www.jesusisbuddha.com/review.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: *the other twenty-eight, seldom publicised, are viewed as heretical -yes, they were viewed as heretical, but that does "seldom publicised" mean? the canonical gospels were also "seldom publicisced" by their own authors. beleiving they are "inspired by God or the holy spirit" is a religious view, not scientific. 
*thought the victim was Jesus, causing everyone to believe that Jesus was crucified.[citation needed] A third explanation could be that Jesus was nailed to a cross, but as his body is immortal he did not "die" or was not "crucified" [to death]; it only appeared so (this view is rare).[citation needed] In opposition to the second and third foregoing proposals, yet others maintain that God does not use deceit and therefore they contend that crucifixion just did not occur.[
-why does it means, it needs a ctation, then this part of leadsection just summorize, taht is ourced below?
*The following narration recorded in the Qur'anic exegesis of Ibn Kathir is graded as authentic by sunni scholars for the Qur'anic verse related to the substitution of Jesus
-there were also sunni scholars, who disagreed, like bin arabis interpretataion (who was also a sunni scholar). it is not possible to find an agreement among sunni theologicans about a specific "mythological" interpretation. Mahmud Shaltut, for example did disagree with ibn kathir. However ibn kathir is popular among salafi-sunnism, but if that is meant, it should be stated in a more preciios way (by mentioning the specific group).
*Basilides (Βασιλείδης), was a leading theologian of Gnostic tendencies, who had taught in Alexandria in the second quarter of the second century. This stream of teaching was first condemned by St. John, the apostle of Christ in his first epistle, chapter 4, under the category of the spirit of Anti-Christ, concerning all of those that refute the notion that Jesus came in a body from flesh and blood to redeem the sin of the world - it reads like an anti- islamic evangelical wrote it, to condemdn the "islamic jesus" to be the anti christ. furthermore, there can also be some references to nag hamadi be found. for example the muta' zillah believed "simon" was curified according to hadithtraditions (they rejected it, because it would contradict Mutazilas doctrine of "god is always righteous). Who basilides is, can be read in the article the link links to.
* extra-biblical Judeo-Christian sources - since there are no "jewish sources" about jesus (except those who demonize him", we can not talk about judeo-christian-source.
*While most Western Scholars,[23] Jews,[24][25] and Christians believe Jesus died
Again it reads, like an evangelical wrote it, with the lead, "jesus death is a scientific fact". but acually it compares mythic exegesis with scientific facts. jewish, who do not consider jesus to be spiritual or divine in any way and scientific scholars (not just western scholars are "historicans", like the link suggests here) also do not hold any mythic interpretation on jesus. thus, then we are mentioning "all say he died", then it is like meionting "but excep christians, none of them bleive he rised from death". since islam often teaches, someone else was taken instead of jesus, the fact there was a man called jesus crucified, is worthless, since it could be "the one, who looked like jesus". islam itself claims, everything about crucifixion was "not real". why comparing then, historicity to something "supernatural"?
*removed "jesus will die in his second coming", since it is rue this tradition exist, but it is not binding.
your sincerely --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  reason for some cleaning up 

message: i think many Irrelevant things are mentioned here.so, i have summered the section  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.48.108.58 (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Barnabas's version of events

message: Please assist in building this entry into a decent article of viable and resourced information. So many Islamic articles are poorly written and / or poorly cited, being derived from self-published religious sources having little to no scholarly-based findings. I removed many bogus references and requested citations to claims made. The majority of the claims needing citation are found in the sources already referenced, btw. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello VenusFeuerFalle, thank you for your edits. I would like to request you to add the fuller fields for book citations instead of the older / simpler fields as per current wiki guidelines. Please see the templates for the minimum requirement. As for deleting the citation requests, notice that the claims are not sourced nor found in nearby citations. It shouldn't be assumed that passive wikipedia readers are aware of specific dogmas or doctrinal points within Islam or within any specific branch of Islam... or that they will read further pages of a nearby citation to find the support for a claim. To avoid citing certain claims or positions mentioned in the article is to defeat the purpose of wikipedia, which is to elaborate and define things. So please either provide the actual place such claims are mentioned (page number at least), or delete the claims altogether, or return the citation needed notices. Besides this, thank you for your contributions and helping better the articles. - HafizHanif (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Sorry HafizHanif I thought, due to the amount of cite-tags, it was made by a user spamming tags, therefore I considered the cited source to provide the information. Yes, I should check it before trusting it. For the tags: The Ahmadiyya claim I removed, I added a link to their Website. For the citations of the documentary, I used the "deadlink" tag. I should have restored the removed tags now.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate your understanding. As to citing a website, I don't think that is a qualified source of reference. Something like a reputably published book, or what an Islamic scholar has published, would be qualified. -- HafizHanif (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help find valid sources 

message: Hello, 
I recently read this article again after a while and I am surprised about this section: Japanese Christian claims
Since this article is about "Islamic views on Jesus' death", this seems to be odd, here. I think this should be removed or otherwise moved to an article like "Denial of Crucifixion of Jesus" or something of the like, but it seems to be wrong to me to write down every denial in this article.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, very odd and out of place. -- HafizHanif (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the section "Japanese Christian claims" 

message: All or most discussion from year 2017 or up to year 2017 should be archived in my opinion. As a non registered user, I can't archive this myself (spam filter mistakenly preventing me). 2A10:8012:F:F548:8E4:F22:B7C3:BB85 (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: A call to archive this talk page