Talk:Gospel in Islam

message: first of all thank u very much for your help about sending citation style.
i have corrected the wordings as per your instructions, wold u please replace the following templates from there,
"The text in this article or section may be incoherent or very hard to understand, and should be reworded if the intended meaning can be determined."
See the talk page for details.
thank u very much for ur help for citation styly on my talk page.
Thanks
--Farrukh38 (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnamed Section

message: it states:
"Disputed areas of text within the Injil include references where Jesus is called the Son of God by his followers and the events that occurred after Jesus' death. The majority of Muslims believe that instead of Jesus dying on the cross and then being resurrected, he was never crucified, but ascended into heaven.
Although parts of the Injil are generally believed to have been corrupted over time, the original Injil is, nonetheless, a revelation from God to Jesus in the eyes of Muslims. It is therefore treated as such, and belief in it is necessary, as is prescribed by one of the six Islamic articles of faith."
Like to see some references to this part, I believe that Muslim Scholars reject the Bible outright as a whole and thy have never identified areas of conflict and areas of agreements and simply state the Qur'an is the correct and it replaces the Bible, is a disputed area since the Qur'an requests from Muslims to read the scriptures
Please correct me if you have another opionion  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Lewison (talk • contribs) 02:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accurcy of the Injil Section 

message: Which "versions" of Qur'an is this statement speaking of? As far as I know there is only one version and even the pagination is (almost totally) preserved between different prints.
:There are several slightly different systems of verse-numbering within the Suras.  One particularl system seems to be used most commonly on the internet, but if you do any deep reading, you'll probably encounter the other systems. AnonMoos 03:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  - exact place depends on version of the Qur'an 

message: Jesus' age at the time was 33 years old, and Muslims believe that as soon as people enter heaven, their age would also be 33 years old.
Source? I'm a Muslim and I have never heard of that. (unsigned by 64.172.99.223, 18:30, 11 May 2005) 
* I'm glad I'm not the only one.  I'm deleting it.  If someone can find a decent source for that assertion, they can put it back.  --Skoosh 22:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everyone's 33 in heaven? 

message: I've just edited a number of Islam-related articles to clear away incorrect and loose (and possibly ignorant) statements that the Injil = gospels, Torah = Tawrah and Zabur = psalms. It is not just a matter of using the Arabic transliteration and equating it with any other one, but these words actually mean different things . Can I urge other editors aware of these misconceptions to clear away the incorrect implications inherent in the alleged equalities. ---Mpatel  (talk) 17:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
:Well, injil is quite simply the Arabic word for Gospel. That Muslims generally believe that the Christian Gospel as it stands now is a corrupted version of an original divine revelation to Jesus is another question. Generally the word refers to the Christian gospels. Palmiro | Talk 15:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearing away misconceptions 

message: I sense a Bias in Interpretation... Anyone else?
:In the article? Or in the Muslim insistence that the Qur'an is invulnerable to tahrif?
:If the former, I can't see it. If the latter, I must say it doesn't hold water. It all hinges on the supposed specialness of the Qur'an, which is conditional upon one believing it actually is all it's supposed to be. The book has always struck me personally as disappointing - monotheism lite: probably quite life-changing for someone who has had no prior awareness of Judaism or Christianity, but for those of us mainlined on that philosophy from childhood, it's just something to encourage the reader to try the Tanach, the Torah and the Talmud. I also find in it the unwavering suspicion of its being a convenient church of ethnic unity for what were the emergent Arab kingdoms.
:Nuttyskin 08:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: At one point, the article says that the word Injil was also used to describe the scriptures of the Christian contemporaries of Muhammad, but at another point it says that it was always used to mean the revelation of God to Jesus. Which is it? KittyHawker 20:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity 

message: ::(I moved Farrukh38's post to its own section. Editor2020:)
Editor2020 is not considering the facts written in Qur'an. people are writing about Qur'an that Quran says about injil as Gospels.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farrukh38 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Farrukh38,
I'm trying to help you, but you will not be allowed to make the articles unreadable. The page so badly messed up that it was necessary to go back to a coherent version to get a fresh start. Now, if you have a problem with a claim in the article, put it here on the talk page--properly posted, not just stuck anywhere on the page, and we'll deal with it.--Editor2020 (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Incoherent Edits

message: Could the Injil have been the theorized lost Q document? 70.58.5.52 (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If Q really is lost. Try Gospel of Thomas, and some citations from the partially or fully lost Injil. Said: Rursus (☻) 23:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q document? 

message: The article is very confusing,
:"The Injil (Arabic إنجيل (or Injeel) is one of the five"
it says, but later it occurs that nobody have any copy of Injil, making it a lost book, or a hypothetical book (whose hypothesis then?), or a legendary book. Could it be that the term "Injil" is confused, as it might refer to the four gospels of the new testament as it is today, or what islamic researchers and authors expect it to be. The section Difference from the Gospels indicates such a confusion. Then shouldn't the article describe Injeel as a legendary or hypothetical book, who is generally believed (in the moslem world) to have been the origin of the four Gospels? Said: Rursus (☻) 23:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing

message: Hello everybody.Is there no indentification in the Qura'n of the  apostles(al-Haariyoon) of Isa.Thank you very Much.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Apostles

message: All what we know about the injeel from the Qur'an and hadith:
* It is the revelation sent by Allah to his prophet Jesus
* It has undergone tahrif over time, however some of the original beliefs it contained remained known to some of its followers
Now whether it came in 4 parts of 10 parts, whether it contained a single chapter or a number of chapters, whether it was an entire book or just a script, we don't know that and you won't find any evidence for it in the Qur'an or hadith. I removed some references to the christian gospels or the New Testament. 
Muslims do not believe in the current christian gospels or the New Testament, it is not part of their faith and that's something that no reputable Islamic scholar would say given the abundant verses in the Qur'an on tahrif of the Injeel. Also statements by christian scholars (if any) should be added to its own section and not mingled with the text.
Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says The word Injil occurs twelve times in the Qur'an and refers to the Book of revelation given to the Prophet Jesus. Is this "book of revelation" a reference specifically to the book of revelation (one segment from the christian bible), or does it refer more generally to books that were divinely revealed (and if so, does it only mean the gospels, or the hypothetical lost original gospel on which the surviving gospels are based, or does it cover bits throughout the entire new testament and christian bible?)? Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Injil and the Christian gospels or New Testament