Talk:Islamic view of the Last Judgment

about the claim that the quran implies that jesus will deny godhood

i am the original author of this article. Someone edited the bit of text where i wrote that Jesus will deny Godhood, changing it to "the quran and hadith IMPLY that Jesus will deny" Godhood. The fact is the quran and hadith EXPLICITLY mention that Jesus will deny Godhood and renounce this as a lie. So i'm changing it back to what it was. This article is meant to convey a representative account of the Muslim beliefs on the day of judgement. The editor who added the "imply" clause is obviously unfamiliar with primary muslim texts. Unsigned comment by 62.240.103.248

about using sections such as "before judgement" and "after judgement"

Hi, i'm the original author of this article again. A user edited the article, dividing it into subheadings that imply a certain temporal order. While this seems a good organizational device, I had originally wished not to force a given order of events, but merely suggest or hint at one. The use of such headings as "before", "during", "after", etc is not the best option because we simply do not know for certain the ordering of the events mentioned in the article. such an ordering is not explicitly given in the texts, and thus inferring it is error-prone. So i'm removing the subheadings.

An ordering is surely inferred in my text, but it's just that the subheadings lend it an air of certainty that is simply not present. Unsigned comment by 62.240.103.248

The original intent and philosophy of this article

Original author of article here. The attitude i've striven to take in this article is to give the account of that day only as given explicitly in the primary texts of Islam, while refraining from any references that strain interpretation and refraining from any interpretations of the accounts.

First, I think I need to clarify something. This article has been wikified already! Every now and then I find a wikify tag stamped on the page, even though it has already been written and edited and re-edited according to wikipedia conventions and has been enhanced wikifiably-speaking by one or more editors other than this author.

Then comes the question of the content itself. Someone had added something about the moon eclipsing and the sun and moon merging then went on to state that the sun over the people's heads on the day of judgement is our "sun-moon". I've removed all of this. Newsflash. Whether the verse cited by that person says exactly that or not is really beyond the scope intended for the article. The emphasis on our state or conditions as humans on that day is complicated enough to deal with as a text without going into further complications on which sun or star is it over the people's heads on that day. Another newsflash, Our universe in its current state, has billions of suns , aka stars. God can produce stars at will and so this author doesn't know whether the star over people's heads when they are gathered will be our own sun, but takes it as a point at best secondary to the main event in the content, viz. our gathering and judgement as a species; a situation that even if one does not believe it, still is dramatic enough to ponder. So that insertion clearly deviated from my stated purpose of giving as sober and direct account as i could from what is readily readable from the Quran and the hadith - hence the lengthy section of direct quotations of some of the relevant hadiths - which means that i haven't even gotten to the quranic verses yet , i'm still scouring the hadiths from the sets of the sources of this article.

Someone else (maybe the same person) also wrote that those who participated in unbelief in their life would remain forever in hell. That also is not true. The line is drawn at those who have died as unbelievers. Islamic teachings clearly show that someone who engaged in unbelief but has repented in their lifetime would most likely be forgiven. This is exactly the kind of uneducated guesses on who gets saved and who doesn't that I sought to avoid in the original version of the article.

Furthermore, I consciously avoided using any material from the so-called "islamic" websites on the Web. The only valid references for this article should be from the quran and the hadith - again to avoid using interpreted tripe and nonsense that deviates from the original accounts with all sort of phantasmagorial nonsense. The accounts in the primary text are heavy enough as it is and difficult to deal with , without adding yet further needless complications. In writing this article, the author even abstained as much as possible from citing the classical works of islamic theology, other than the two primary sources (the quran and the set of the hadith.) For this reasons the discussion that was here about any copyright violations from I don't know what website, is moot. For the article in its intermediate state, as left by its author did not cite any websites; only information confirmed from the hadiths.

As to the user(s) who repeatedly insinuate that the article is of inferior quality! i'm not sure what quality that person was talking about, presumably his presumption of a sort of "Wikipedia-class" quality. I would suggest he look around some of the 633,990 entries articles on wikipedia with an average of around 9000 edits per page, and then explain to us what or whose idea of quality he proposes all authors should adopt? Insofar as an english article, this article undergoes recurrent edits by this author for grammar, orthography, organization and bent. While that user complains about quality, this author himself has to return to this page periodically to repair the article from numerous false claims, personal interpretations, etc, added by other users that debases the information in it rather than enhance it.

I've also had the courtesy to make references to other theologies , particularly protestant theologies; and in addition i've had the courtesy to add links to other religions' versions of the day of judgement; something the writers of the other religious accounts don't often bother to do in their articles.

Perhaps accusing me of vandalism is a bit much..especially considering how much work ive put into fixing up this page. i will revert and more edits which take out facts. just because u dont like the sources doent mean u can just remove stuff. im trying to incorporate information from as many sources as possible to have a world-view. if u have a source that specifically dispells something in the article then present it, otherwise stop editing out info. freestylefrappe 22:26, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

HELLO i have been reading this discussion page and i feel that the origianl author is in fact correct that you should not mess with facts that people may not nesseceraly (please excuse my poor spelling)know is not correct or not quite correct. however i feel that the origianl author should try not to get so stressed about people making changes to the article because if you join things like this then you must understand that people will make changes to what they think or believe. i do not imply any nastiness here but i think the author should not worry about small things and just change back the hings that are of great incorretness. Also to the author i congratulate you on the trueness of this article and thankyou for the rivertin expressionism of your writing.. yours sincerly cool_girl_wants_info.