Talk:Jesus in Islam

Sockpuppets notice

Just as a heads up, this article has been extensively edited by SheryOfficial sockpuppets. There were many of those before 9 February 2022‎ ( , most of them reverted), but since that date the sockpuppets they used on this article were Special:Contributions/119.63.138.0/24, Al-Biruunii, Special:Contributions/137.59.217.180, Cheezhai, and Special:Contributions/119.73.112.0/24. They have done a fair bit of edit warring, and posted this talk page post (2nd reply). It also appears that most of the non-reverted edits to this article were by them. Anything they have changed may be undone, per WP:BANREVERT. One possibility is to restore this 7 February revision, though given the many edits by others I have not immediately done so in this case. Their most recent edit to this article is this one ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

False illustration of Jesus

It is impossible to verify any illustration of Jesus in Islam and illustrations of Jesus are strictly rejected and forbidden. Any illustration of Jesus is appropriate only outside an Islamic context and is unacceptable in this page which is specifically about Jesus in Islam. It has no basis in Islam. Wikieditor969 (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

MOS:CALLIGRAPHY and such. Your position has been stated repeatedly in many places, and always rejected as against fundamental tenets of Wikipedia. DMacks (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Is there are a reason why you insist that an image that is universally unaccepted in Islam must be on the page instead of an image that aligns with how Jesus has actually always been illustrated in Islam (his name in calligraphy). This isn't to say that the image must be removed from the "Jesus" page, but it makes no sense to have an image on the "Jesus in Islam" page that has no basis in Islam. What is the purpose of even having a "Jesus in Islam" page in the first place if it doesn't even accurately portray him from an Islamic perspective as the page title would suggest? It misleads readers into thinking that this is how Jesus is portrayed in Islam while this is the furthest thing from the truth. This would be like putting a pagan mockery image of Jesus on the "Jesus" page instead of an image that aligns with how he is depicted in Christianity. Wikieditor969 (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Islam holds no sway over Wikipedia. DMacks (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

When did I make that claim? Wikieditor969 (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

"is universally unaccepted in Islam" sounds clear that you think the key idea is how Islam sees or feels about it. But regardless, the image appears to come from a historic collection of Islamic art and manuscripts. DMacks (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Islam holds no sway over wikipedia, but you have to understand that it is naturally going to be considered when a page is specifically about a subject's significance in Islam. If this was a neutral article about something like "particle physics" then I can understand if you'd object to any religious consideration, but given that this page is about Jesus's significance in Islam, shouldn't it be Islamically accurate? Isn't that the whole point of having this page "Jesus in Islam" when "Jesus" exists? Why would an image that has no Islamic basis be included in this page? It is simply out of place for a page like this. Furthermore, a random collection of Islamic art and manuscripts from some obscure source at some random time in history that has essentially no legitimacy amongst contemporary Islamic scholars does not count as a serious source to pull imagery for this page from. Just because the source may claim to be Muslim or Islamic doesn't mean it actually is. For example, if a random Christian source from the 13th century claimed Jesus had 10 children (he has 0 according to Christianity) and drew a image of him with these 10 children, would it be appropriate to include this image on the official "Jesus" page as the main image of the article? No, because that image has no basis in Christianity which is the angle that page is coming from. The same is true regarding the "Jesus in Islam" page, it is concerning Jesus's significance in Islam, so it would be appropriate to have an illustration that accurately represents his universally accepted depiction in Islam for centuries instead of desperately forcing one that is universally rejected and comes from an Islamically illegitimate source. Wikieditor969 (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

"[S]houldn't it be Islamically accurate?" No.—Chowbok ☠ 00:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Nobody knows what Jesus looked like with certainty, since photography was not around back then. ~2026-29324-90 (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. We don't redact iconography simply because it's blasphemous. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

And random user-generated calligraphy is even worse than nothing, since it's WP:OR and maybe even WP:NPOV depending what it contains. DMacks (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mention anything about blasphemy here. Wikieditor969 (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You said that it's against Islam to depict the prophets in the way the status quo image does. You also said basically the same at Special:Diff/1304415666. Have you noticed that I filed a WP:ANI report about you? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

There may be an argument here, similar to Talk:Muhammad#Frequently_asked_questions,_please_read_before_posting #4, that calligraphy could be a WP-better WP:LEADIMAGE for this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mention anything about blasphemy here. I'm seeing a pattern where you deny the plain meaning of what you say. It's not helping your cause. Wikieditor969 (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

"illustrations of Jesus are strictly rejected and forbidden in Islam". DMacks (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

WP is outside an Islamic context, even when it covers islam-related subjects, see WP:RNPOV. Out of curiosity, what do you see as the difference between an illustration of Jesus and a false illustration of Jesus? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this. I am Muslim too but there is a rule in wikipedia that states that:

"Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."

It is Haram(Forbidden)in isllam but wikipedia says 'No'.

WP:NOTCENSORED ~2026-40787-21 (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I Agree with you, brother. The only request is...

can some one change the picture?

PLEASE COVER THE FACE OF ISA(AS) OR ELSE YOU ARE REPRESENTING SOMEONE ELSE AS PROPHET Muhammad(SAW) SAID SO SinplicityOverused598 (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Honorific

Why is there an Islamic honorific in the box about Jesus? Are honorifics not usually omitted? ~2026-14073-95 (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

This article is about Jesus as he is viewed by Muslims. The honorific is thus fitting. JJP_Master (she/they) 02:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)