Talk:Jesus in Islam/Archive 1

message: This page contains several misunderstandings or misrepresentations of Christian beliefs:
*"While some Christians believe the resurrection was physical --most however understand the "resurrection" of Christ to be spiritual." (Change this to read ". . .some others understand the "resurrection" of Christ to be spiritual.": the 'physical' resurrection of Jesus is a central tenet of most Christian denominations.)
*"The Christian view essentially says that "Christ was the son of God, and man is his brother." Hence man, too, is a son of God. Jesus in fact was not "superiour" in nature, according to Christian faith, rather that Jesus's knowledge (for his time and era) was beyond that of others." (This also misrepresents Christian ideas. The 'divine' nature of Jesus -- Jesus as a son of God 'and God also' -- is another central tenet of most Christian beliefs. I recommend expunging this section entirely, leaving this: "'Muslims do not believe Isa "is God," nor was he the "son of God." They claim that this view is different from Christianity.'")
Some Christians might believe that Jesus was neither divine nor physically resurrected, but to characterize these as the views of "most" Christians is grievously mistaken.--Mirv 04:15, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Misunderstandings of Christian belief

message: What's with the weird stuff in "Isa, Eashua, and Jesus"?  The Muslim view is diametrically opposite - Muslims believe he was a true prophet of God, not an impostor - and the Gospel of Thomas bits are totally irrelevant.  I think the whole section should be deleted. - Mustafaa 01:02, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Isa, Eashua, and Jesus

message: Why doesn't this redirect to a disambiguation page? Most people who type "isa" in the box are NOT looking for information about Jesus... - Mmartins
What else is Isa?PHussein 20:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect request

message: Is this name not often used by Muslims as well? Many Muslims I know seem to most often refer to Jesus as al-sayyid al-Masih, but I wonder is this partly, out of politeness, using a name that's common to both religions? Palmiro | Talk 17:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  al-Masih 

message: I have asked several Muslims and Muslim scholars about this, and none of them ever heard of Jesus not eating meat. Where did you get this information from?
:What about abstaining from drinking alcohol? Aminz 01:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isa never ate animal flesh? 

message: I think it's objectionable that this article, throughout, refers to 'Jesus'. This is an article on Isa, a Muslim prophet, as described in the Qur'an, who *just happens to be* called Jesus by another, totally different and, for the purposes of this article, unrelated and irrelevant set of people. To refer to Isa as 'Jesus' throughout the article shows a Christian POV that I believe is inappropriate. Likewise, I think the article should refer to Mary as Maryam.
I would say that the article should read "Isa ('Jesus' in the Christian Bible)" rather than "Jesus (Isa in the Qur'an)".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.14.243 (talk • contribs) 
:For one thing, keep in mind that "Jesus" is more familiar to western ears. I don't think there's a problem with the usual use of "Isa" but was a case where an editor changed ALL "Jesus" references to "Isa", which in some cases did not make sense (something akin to "Isa, called Isa in Arabic").
:Also, wrt to Quranic quotes: the quotes originally said "Christ Jesus" as they were from a translation written for Western inquirers. I noticed that "Jesus" was always Arabicized but other words (e.g. Christ/Messiah to Masih and Mary to Maryam) were not. I wonder whether there should be  more consistency here or no? I'd like to hear peoples' thoughts. Yahnatan 13:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my personal experience, most English speaking Muslims (Americans, in my experience) use "Jesus." Yusuf Ali's translation of the Qur'an, the most popular in the West, uses "Jesus," as do some others. "Isa" is used, but not as much. I'd encourage mixing the two, with using "Jesus" more as that reflects actual usage. --JBJ 03:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the Islamic understanding of Isa/Jesus.  That is why it has the title 'Isa'.  So  it would be consistent to use the name Isa throughout, following the Qur'an, whilst making clear that the Christian English-speaking tradition uses 'Jesus', and that some English-speaking Muslims also follow the Christian usage.  This approach would be consistent with Wikipedia's 'no point of view' policy:  using 'Isa' to refer to the Islamic Christ would be more neutral here. Eagleswings 13:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Labeling this article as "The Islamic View of Jesus" is highly Christian POV and degrades the Islamic name Isa as an inferior counter part to the Christian name. It also implies that the Islamic view is some sort of an aliented view of the real thing.
Note: Wikipedia is highly Christian POV knowing that over 90% of users are Christians.
      If you want fairness, don't even bother coming here.
216.99.61.30 03:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 'Jesus' and not 'Isa'? 

message: Y'know, under ther Islamic Views of Jesus section.--143.92.1.33 06:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, for the same reason Christian views of Jesus isn't merged into that article. This is just the Islamic version of that page, a fellow daughter article of Religious perspectives on Jesus. -Silence 10:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay but I though Jesus was the word used in English.--Greasysteve13 04:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of Jesus, does this article derive its sources from anywhere in particular, we're trying to get references for Jesus, and the paragraph we have from this article has no references in it, and I don't see any references in this article :/. Homestarmy 17:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Jesus article is getting pretty long (77K) and already summarizes this article. Keep it here. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 07:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I vote for "No". --Aminz 07:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this article deals with a sufficiently distinct concept to be worth having in its own right. Also, it is too long to be realistically merged into the main Jesus article. Palmiro | Talk 21:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If length, rather than POV forking, is really the issue, it should be redirected to "Jesus in Islam", with a very prominent link back to the main Jesus article atop the page.Timothy Usher 06:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus in Islam is a redirect back to this article. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 13:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be merged with [[Jesus]]? 

message: Anonymous editor, one of many changes you've been making to this article is the replacement of,
“Antipathy between Christians and Jews” with "Christian's [sic] hate to the Jews".  That strikes me as rather unnecessary and inflammatory.  What's your reasoning here?Timothy Usher 11:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit is ungrammatical, to begin with. Pecher Talk 12:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don;t control what is reverted. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 19:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Christian's [sic] hate to the Jews"

message: In the section Jesus neither crucified nor killed, I may have misunderstood which are the views of the Ahmadi and which the views of mainstream Muslims. I'd appreciate it if someone would have a look. Tom Harrison Talk 00:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ahmadi 

message: Where should we be using these?
If we always use italics, some sections will be all italics, which is bad.Timothy Usher 08:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Italics and blockquotes

message: The chief deficiency of this article, as it stands now, is the complete absence of academic views on Jesus in Islam. Namely, it is nowadays an agreement among researchers that Muslim views on Jesus come from apocryphs, not gospels, which in itself gives an interesting insight into the formative influences on Islam. Pecher Talk 10:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic views 

message: What about "Jesus (prophet in Islam)", or "Jesus (prophet according to Islam)"? "Jesus (prophet according to Islam)" does not have any religous POV. This will also consider Pecher's point that we are not talking about a different Jesus. Let's compromise. 
Aiden, AE and Palmiro do not like Islamic views of Jesus. Can you please let me know if "Jesus (prophet in Islam)" is religously POV? Thanks --Aminz 22:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh... I have no problem with Islamic views of Jesus. I had a problem with Jesus (Prophet of Islam) because it assumes prophethood and is not the name actually used in Islam. Frankly I didn't have a problem with Isa to begin with, but if we are trying to reach a compromise I like Islamic views of Jesus just as there is Christian views of Jesus and Jewish views of Jesus. —Aiden 22:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am fine with this title as a compromise even if Isa was the best title. And it no longer implies prophethood but clearly what Jesus is in Islam. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 22:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anonymous editor, I think in the sense that the title now clearly states that he is a prophet in Islam, it is even better than Isa. --Aminz 22:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also OK with this. Palmiro | Talk 16:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New suggestion 

message: there are lots of saying in Isa (Jesus Christ) pages specially from Muslim Editors the so called return of Jesus Christ Physically, is there any one who can share something on this subject, as it is very important, I think important than to discuss names  phippi46 22:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Phippi46, Please have a look at the section "Jesus to return" of the article and let us know what specific information are you looking for. thx. --Aminz 04:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear Phippi46, I don't know enough to be able to answer your question. I am only writing my personal thoughts for whatever its worth is. Before answering this question, Christians and Jews may be of help here since Bible says Elijah was taken up to heaven and will return in the end times. I have one point: The Qur'anic verses regarding the Garden of Eden are very clear that the Garden of Eden was not on earth.  So, "assuming this story is not meant be metaphorical/philosophical", there is possibility of life somewhere else; or at least this question could be asked there as well. I hope my answer had been useful. --Aminz 09:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear Phippi46, I can now see your point and your perspective. Please note that this issue has not much Qur'anic support (but mostly Hadith support). My "POV" is that this issue even if true should not be a significant article of Muslim faith. I think the relevant Qur'anic verses are 43:61 - 4:159 - 21:105. You may want to check these verses in their context. One can easily set aside 4:159 as it could be read in two ways. 21:104-105 could be interpreted somewhat different. The most tough verse is 43:61 stating that "And Jesus shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment)". One may want to assume this verse is supposed to mean that we are much closer to the end times, in what scale I don't know. I "think" but not sure that there are other Qur'anic verses saying the Hour is even closer but nothing has happened either since 2000 years ago or 1400 years ago. I don't know. As to the story of Adam and Eve, the story is clearly tries to answer our fundamental philosophical questions. Some consider it metaphorical but I think this is a minority interpretation. One may ask where has the conversations between Adam, angels and God took place (before their dwelling in Garden). The story seems to be just a story or a tale but an interesting one :) And finally my understanding, the most straightforward reading of the Quran does not imply that Adam and Eve didn't have physical existence. I know I didn't answer to your question at all but this was all I know. Take care, --Aminz 10:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Phippi46, thanks for your comment too. Actually, it doesn't make sense that a human body could  go out side of the atmosphere in the first place. This is not explainable I think. Some scholars believe the verb “mutavafika” in verse 3:55 implies that God caused the bodily death of Isa. That's another possibility. I don't know. I would like to talk with you regarding the story of Adam and Eve more but I am currently in the finals week. Can we please postpone our discussion to 10 days or so? Thanks --Aminz 03:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Can some one provide some information on this ...'' 

message: I dont know if the naming issue is over, but this is my suggestion:
Jesus
*Christian views of Jesus
*Islamic view of Jesus <- this article
*Jewish view of Jesus
*Mormon view of Jesus (Jesus in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
--Striver 14:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the other pages are created, and so is this one. Im not talking about creating pages, im taking about naming them. Lest follow the convention set by the other articles and call this "Islamic view of Jesus", a accurated and good name. Isa can redirect here.--Striver 10:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's a bad idea, but I'd prefer to let everything settle for a few weeks. Tom Harrison Talk 14:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Striver's proposal. There is no legitimate reason for this article to be named differently from the rest. Pecher Talk 17:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Striver is absolutely right.Timothy Usher 04:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Striver is so right it hurts. This is an incredibly obvious naming selection. Islamic view of Jesus makes vastly more sense than Jesus (prophet in Islam) for so many reasons, not least of which is that parentheses are used for disambiguating between different people, not for labeling the topic of an article. In other words, it would only make sense to name the article as we currently have it named if there were multiple people named Jesus, one of whom was a prophet in Islam, and another of whom was the guy the Jesus article is about; since that is not the case, naming the articles as we have done is incredibly misleading and will probably confuse loads of people in the long run. -Silence 01:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that Striver's suggestion is a good one. (And I didn't want to miss a chance to say so!) Does anyone disagree with Striver's idea? Tom Harrison Talk 01:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: I was surprised to see that a number of the passages cited as quotes from the Qur'an do not accurately quote what the citation says. It looks like someone has often substituted "God" where the translator has written "Allah." I don't care what translation we use, but it seems obvious to me that we have to quote without modification. Am I misunderstanding something? Tom Harrison Talk 00:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, you're absolutely right.  The words are those of the translators, and should be left unaltered.Timothy Usher 01:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: ::Yes but that is more pov forks than necessary. It works in the case of Jesus since Isa can be discussed as the word like Timothy claimed Yeshua is. But it doesn't work for the other ones since it will crease only dozens of POV forks for each perspective. So it works on this page but not others. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm... in that case, what is the arguement for not merging Musa into Moses? --Striver 16:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Article differences are large and the article's length is too much for the page. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 16:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To beging with, i do agree that the articles should not be merged, it was a hypothetical question. I do not see how the arguement "article differences are large" is a hinder to merge, but i do agree "article's length is too much for the page". So what we basicly have is a break out. What are we breaking out? The Islamic view of the historical person. Am i misstaken? --Striver 16:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Striver it's not necessary to add that notice to all talk pages. It's fine, it has worked differently for the Isa one, leave other ones as they are since it will only result in too many pov forks breaks.  --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 16:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bro, the reason im doing this is because i honestly belive that it is wrong to have it this way. We cant have a article named <English name of x> and another one <Arabic name of x>, and then let <English name of x> be about the Judeo chritian view, while the <Arabic name of x> is about the Islamic view. Remeber that Christian Arabs also use  <Arabic name of x>.
Think about the poor reader who has to go all these artical if it  happend, you are suggesting several artical on one person, well it will not be surprised if you see one day Communists view of Jesus (PBUH) and so on.. you will allow all kind of POVs to let in and it will be a Mess, please try to give readers a break and make their life easy just to settle one Messave Aritical with all information needed included.  phippi46 16:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes could be too many breaks in case of other articles. But it works for Jesus in this case since ALL of the articles are big enough not to be merged. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 17:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that is the correct name when the reach a large size. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 17:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Again we can't simply merge them all because of the size. These are accurate breaks. And the title isn't simply Musa, it's Musa (prophet) which is a Muslim view. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 17:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break

message: Please see Talk:Qur'anic account of Solomon, Talk:Ibrahim and Talk:Nuh--Striver 07:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solomon & others

message: I have never heard any scholar besides Deedat support the [[Swoon hypothesis]. I made this clear in the article until someone proves this is false. --Ephilei 04:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swoon theory 

message: I don't think this article should describe Muslims as believing Jesus is the Messiah as the meaning of messiah on wikipedia or any dictionary (savior, ruler, deliverer, promised one) contradicts what Muslims believe. I know the Qur'an entitles Jesus as Masih which means Messiah, but I have yet to seen any Muslim explain why in any cohesive manner. I'd appreciate your thoughts. --Ephilei 04:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: he is described as "maseeh", as it is believed by Muslims that when he returns during the end days he will fight against the Anti-Christ, ridding the world of his evil, and then assume global rulership, ruling by islamic revelation. his mentioning in the qur'aan as "al-maseeh" is thought to indicate a second return (as well as what he will do during it) and a number of hadeeth support this explanation of why the word maseeh is used. hope that helpsITAQALLAH 04:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quran normally uses that noun for people, from which they are known. Jesus was already known as "Maseeh". Secondly, Maseeh literally means, anointed one. One of many explanantions is that, among Israelites, people who were reserved for temple of Solomon, used to be anointed with oil in their hair. When Jesus was born, he had miraculously oily hair, which was described as anointed by God. Although all prophets are anointed but sometimes a specific title is given to someone particular. For a discussion over it, please see . TruthSpreaderTalk 06:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus is the Messiah? 

message: Months ago I vastly improved the "Isa not God nor the Son of God" section (in my humble opinion) and someone reverted immediately, only saying "the old version was good enough." Someone reverted the change again without explanation (that I can see). So I unreverted. Is there something wrong with my version no one is explaning? Is it because it somewhat implies that the Qur'an mistakingly confuses a physical son with a spiritual son? Let's please talk instead of continuing to revert. --Ephilei 05:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible vandalism 

message: Somebody removed huge chunks. I reverted it --Striver 07:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the edit summaries? Reverting several commented edits with a claim of "mass deletion" is inappropriate IMHO. Weregerbil 10:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: rv

message: Why does the "Basic Muslim beliefs concerning Jesus" section exist? Isn't this the purpose of the intro? I propose trimming it down and merging it. All the trimmed out details can be moved to their respective sections. --Ephilei 20:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why summary of beliefs? 

message: The article is greater than the suggested size. I've already made the article as concise as I can without eliminating info so it seems the next step is to move some section onto their own articles. I'm starting with Islamic view of Jesus' death. I don't really like the title so please think of something better. Perhaps the Islamic view of Jesus' second coming will be next. --Ephilei 19:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article too big 

message: In the Qur'an, Zachariah is Mary's adopted guardian but in the Bible they are relatives. In both accounts, Jesus is born to Mary while she is a virgin. The Qur'an makes no mention of Mary's fiance, Joseph. Unlike in the Bible, Jesus performs several miracles as an infant and child.
I do believe that this part is Christian POV. It's stating that Mary assuredly had a fiancée and that the Qur'an overlooked it. Something along the lines of this would perhaps work a little better: "Unlike in the Bible, there is no mention of a spouse in Mary's life in the Qur'an." 
I don't support either one of these religions but in the name of encyclopedic entries...
--70.30.56.94 04:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian POV 

message: Do we really need this here? The article is about Jesus' role in Islam, and the history of the name is not relevent. Capitan Obvio 15:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology? 

message: The article states that the qur'an missinterpreted the christian trinity to include a female. That is not even Christian POV, that is CONTEMPORAL Christian POV, since the arab christians held a trinity that included her mother. --Striver 19:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the Qur'an say Christians believe in a trinity that includes a female? Tom Harrison Talk 20:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like Muslim bias. Thans for the alert. I'll revert it. --Ephilei 02:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian POV

message: An anon deleted the two paragraphs beginning, "There is confusion that the sonship of God and divinity are the same in the Bible. In the Bible, sonship of God signals a special relationship..." I'm not especially attached to that material, but I wouldn't want to see it removed without any reason given. Tom Harrison Talk 12:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Muslim bias. Thans for the alert. I'll revert it. --Ephilei 02:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe related?

message: The article says that the Qu'ran calls Jews and Christians to remain faithful to the book they do have... I see the reference to Jesus gospel being a light, but I don't see a reference to a Qu'ran verse that "calls Jews and Christians to be faithful to the book they do have."
Could someone add that, or is this description not accurate?  Thanks. KBecks 20:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand this right, the reference to Jesus's gospel being "a light" only refers to the gospel Islam claims was lost forever, when a small group of Christians somehow systematically eradicated all the thousands and thousands of copies of the Gospel, re-wrote them and redistributed those thousands of new copies back to where they destroyed them, and wrote all mention of the event out of history, while simultaneously somehow making sure nobody ever talked about it again. (Despite the fact that pretty much all of Christendom would of noticed, and certainly would of tried to fight back.)Homestarmy 13:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  and calls Jews and Christians to remain faithful to the book they do have 

message: In the section regarding islamic views on Jesus' death, somebody changed the wording of the quote in the Quran about the crucifixion. Translations of the Quran clearly refer to Jews, NOT Pharisees. I have fixed the error. Live-info 17:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quranic quote

message: I must say that I am not Muslim, but it has been my observation that Muslims tend to keep ALL the names of their prophets and important Qur'anic figures in Arabic, or in the Latin phonetic transcription of Arabic. That is why I wonder why whenever Wikipedia addresses the Islamic view on a prophet/figure that is common to Islam, Judaism and/or Christianity, the Judeo-Christian name is still used althrough the article/section (with the exception of the first few lines). Is there an answer to this? Case and point: 
*In the Is'haq article, it says "English: Isaac", and continues using this form. Even though most English-speaking Muslims (in my experience) would say "Is'haq", or "Ishaq", or "Ishaqa" in West Africa. 
*In the Islamic section of the Ishmael article, he is still refered to mostly as Ishmael, as oppsed to "Ismail", "Ismaila", or "Soumaila" in West Africa.
Most importantly:
*In the Islamic view of Jesus article, most of the article refers to Jesus as such, as opposed to what the Muslims (in my experience), even in the English-speaking world, would refer to him as, namele "Isa", or "'Isa", or "Issa" in West Africa. 
The only article where the English transcription of Arabic is consistebtly used, is in the Ibrahim article.
So my question then becomes, does Wikipedia take the position that in English the Judeo-Christian naming takes precedence over all else? Does that mean that Palestinian Prime-Minister should now be knwn in English as Ishmael Haniyeh, as opposed to Ismail Haniyeh? Or Arab League Secretary General, as Amr Moses, instead of Amr Musa? I am just wondering. Themalau 02:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of Islamic Prophets 

message: In the 'Jesus' discussion page there has been some discussion regarding whether that page should be more neutral rather than being slanted primarily toward Christianity. I in fact just set up a poll to gauge opinion as to how the topic should be introduced in that article. If anybody monitoring this discussion wishes to register an opinion in that poll please do so.
--Mcorazao 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll regarding the 'Jesus' article

message: Karl, why are you removing sourced material?? --Aminz 10:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because "the sourced material" or should we say the latest quote that you found, doesn't make much sense where you just placed it. -- Karl Meier 10:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is not about the Christians being the "Sons of God". Another thing is that adding such a claim without attributing it to it's source is against NPOV and common sense. -- Karl Meier 10:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it says: "The Christians are no more the sons of God than is Jesus himself". As for the Islamic point of view that Jesus was not God, that is already mentioned in that section, and repeating it is superfluous. -- Karl Meier 10:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The quotation marks makes it more acceptable, and event though I still think it's pretty redundant and superfluous, then on second thought I don't believe it's such a big issue. I'll leave it for now, and take a look at some of the other things that are more important to change in this article. -- Karl Meier 14:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This quotation "The Christians are no more the sons of God than is Jesus himself." (and yes, that is what it actually says, Aminz. I am confused why you don't know which way it is.) is totally pointless. Who is claiming that the Christians are the Sons of God? Turned around ("Jesus is no more the son of God than the Christians are."), it makes a bit more sense, but a) I don't know what the EoI is saying, b) it is still an unnecessary attack. Str1977 (smile back) 14:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and why try to diminish the distinctions between Christianity and Islam? KittyHawker 20:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourced material 

message: Changing "most of the muslims" to "most Muslims" - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style BAPhilp 20:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Most

message: Most of this page is included within the Jesus page in its own section. Can you please update that section if you update this. :ChrisG 16:28, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Other article

message: I rewrote the section. I just copy/paste what I removed here.
*Appraisal of Mary, daughter of Imran: , , , , , ,  
*Purity and virginity of Mary: , , , ,  
*Appraisal of Jesus: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  
*Pregnancy of Mary and birth of Jesus: , , , ,  
*Jesus as. Kalimat Allah dan RahmatNya: , ,  
*Jesus spoke while he was still a baby: , , , , , ,  
*Jesus was helped by the Holy Spirit (Arabic Ruh al quds (Gabriel)): , ,  
*Jesus' miracles: , , ,  
*Jesus' attributes: ,  
*Jesus was sent to the Israelites: , , , , , , , , 
*A precursor to Muhammad: 
*The followers of Jesus asked for table's spread: ,  
*Plans to murder Jesus:  
*Jesus was raised: ,  
*Jesus will return at the end of the world:  
*Christians worshipped Jesus as God: , , , , , ,  
*Jesus is not God: , ,  
*Jesus didn’t claim to be God: ,  
*Suggestion not to follow the Christians:  , , , , 
*Antipathy between Christians and Jews: , ,  
*The Gospel was revealed to Jesus: , , , , , 
*Mentions of the Gospel: , , , , , , , 
 
--Aminz 00:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to Jesus in the Qur'an - Topical 

message: I have deleted the following from the introduction:
 Other than Christians, the Muslims are the only group that recognize Jesus as an actual historical figure. The Qur'an and Bible are the only ancient texts that mention Jesus.
Both these statements are false. Jesus is mentioned by Tacitus as the founder of a new religious sect (Annals XV), and most people believe in his existence as a historical figure. Oliverkroll 23:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from intro

message: Regarding this edit of mine : We should not write NT's view. We can mention the view of mainstream Christianity. There are passages used by some to argue for divinity of Jesus and there are passages used to some to argue against it. --Aminz 04:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Son of God 

message: - Atif and Homestarmy, many Muslims, such as myself, believe that the Qur'an is open for interpretation. I feel that you are censoring my right as a contributor/editor of Wikipedia to add to the viable content of the site. My "Research" is certainly not "Original". 
- I do not believe that the Qur'an "rejects the divinity of Christ". I know others share my viewpoint. If a Muslim believes that Christ was "divine", does that make him "not" a Muslim? And, if a person, who is not a "Muslim", believes that the Qur'an is "inspired", is it not also his right to interpret the Holy Scripture?
- Some of my Christian friends feel the same way.
- Therefore, I ask that a more correct wording replace "The Qur'an rejects the idea that virgin birth implies that Jesus is divine - the example of Adam [Qur'an 3:59] is used in argument against such belief."
I suggest: "Some believe that the Qur'an rejects the idea that virgin birth implies that Jesus is divine - that the example of Adam  is used in argument against such belief. Others believe that it supports a claim to Christ's divinity - that it compares the two (Adam and Jesus) as having been the only two born (or created) without "natural" birth. (See Bible: 1 Cor. 15:22)" 
or
"Most believe that the Qur'an .... "
- But the Holy Scripute is open for interpretation, which is why we have so many different sects and denominations within Islam, as well as Christianity.
- No, your "interpretation of the Qur'am might '[reject] the idea that virgin birth ....'" But to say that the "Qur'an rejects" it, this in my opinion, is not scholarly, and certainly not fair to those that interpret the same passage of Holy Scripture differently than you. Hypocritus (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll tell you one thing that struck me with your edits. The first sentence says "...the Qur'an rejects the idea that virgin birth implies that Jesus is divine - that the example of Adam " Note that the subject of the sentence if the Qur'an, and the citation is a citation from the Qur'an. The second half of your sentence was "...it supports a claim to Christ's divinity - that it compares the two (Adam and Jesus) as having been the only two born (or created) without "natural" birth. (See Bible: 1 Cor. 15:22). Note, again the subject of the sentence is the Qur'an, but this time the citation is not from the Qur'an but the bible. It is a logical fallacy to say the Qur'an states X, while giving a citation not from the Qur'an. So the question remains: do you have a citation from the Qur'an that supports the second sentence? If not, can you cite a reliable theologian or scholar of Islam that interprets the Qur'an to imply these things?-Andrew c [talk] 01:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements of the following type: The Qur'an rejects the Divinity of Jesus