Talk:Iblis: Difference between revisions
GA review failed. |
|||
(9 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{FailedGA|07:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)|topic=Philosophy and religion|page=1|oldid=1233189088}} |
|||
{{Talk header}} |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes| |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject Mythology|importance=low}} |
|||
}} |
|||
Deleted the initial comments made here, as it seems to be a case of vandalism. --[[User:Mitsukai|Mitsukai]] 15:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(365d) | archive = Talk:Iblis/Archive %(counter)d | counter = 1 | maxarchivesize = 150K | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadsleft = 10 }} |
|||
This article seems kinda supicious. It staes that Iblis is a [[Jinn]], while the rather more substantial [[Shaitan]] article says that he was an angel. Not knowing anything of these things beyond what I've read here, I've left this alone. --[[User:Kizor|Kizor]] 04:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== On the origin of Iblis == |
|||
[[Quran]] does not mention in any place that Iblis, the prime [[Shaitan]], is an angel. It rather mentions in one place that he was a Jinni, and there are two references for Iblis being created from fire. Moreover, where the origin of [[angels]] and [[jinn]] is tackled it asserts that Jinn are made of fire and angels of light. There is no reference to an angel made of fire. |
|||
''shaitan'' is the name of one of the kind of Shayatin شياطين; From one side it's much like ''man'' and ''Man'', and at the same time it is an adjective that can apply to Men and Jinn, as per [[Quran]] to indicate those astray and evil inspiring persons, where in Arabic culture, Jinn, just like Men where a nation أمة who had among them the good and the bad''. Iblis' is the personal capital name of the one Shaitan who is mentioned in the Islamic genesis, and whose origin is, again, not clear. |
|||
--[[User:Alef01|Alif]] 18:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Iblis was not banished to earth for tempting Adam and Eve but rather for refusing to bow before Adam as he was created from clay, not fire as Iblis was. An interpretation by the Sufi mystic Mansur al-Hallaj holds that God was issuing a test and that he was the only one that passed this test as he was the only one who refused to bow before Adam. Iblis had faith in absolute monotheism and thus would not bow before anyone but God Himself. Iblis was so close to God he had achieved fana (annihilation of the self) and had become one with God so it was really God refusing to bow as Iblis no longer had self control. This is why al-Hallaj deemed Iblis an ideal model for Sufi Muslims, though this is just one interpretation. |
|||
:[[Mansur Al-Hallaj|Hallaj]]'s ideas do not represent Islam. It is very difficult to harmonize his ideas with what you read in the Qur'an. --[[User:Kabad|Kabad]] ([[User talk:Kabad|talk]]) 18:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: Indeed Hallaj was deemed kafir for his views about Iblis. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/60.253.112.246|60.253.112.246]] ([[User talk:60.253.112.246|talk]]) 10:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
This page also quoting al munajjid incorrectly, surat al Hijr (15:27) stated Djinn was created from fire, as the ayat before that (15:26) describe creation of man from dirt/soil. |
|||
How do we make a remark / comment over a quotation of work such as in this case? [[User:YogiHalim|YogiHalim]] ([[User talk:YogiHalim|talk]]) 05:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Could you help me to find the quote of Munajjid? I do not know where it is and how 15:27 is affecting this page, assueming you ment the article.--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 13:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
"For many classical scholars, he was an angel, but regarded as a jinn in most contemporary scholarship." |
|||
The phrasing here gives the direct impression that classical scholars believe Iblis was an angel, but contemporary scholars believe he was a Jinn. This is problematic as several of the sources that are referenced in the article, indicate a different perception. An example would be Islam, Arabs, and Intelligent World of the Jinn by El-Zein <ref>{{cite book|first=Amira|last=El-Zein|title=Islam, Arabs, and Intelligent World of the Jinn|publisher=[[Syracuse University Press]]|location=Syracuse, New York|date=2009|ISBN=978-0815635147|page=34}}</ref> wherein the author prefaces her work (in the Introduction) with : |
|||
"This book deals with the concept of the jinn in classical Islam only, corresponding to Islam's golden age, which witnessed an extraordinary flourishing of intellectual and spiritual debates." |
|||
and on the topic of Iblis (pg.44) : |
|||
"When God asked the angels to bow to Adam, they all bowed, except Iblis, who is described by some Muslim sources as a four-winged angel." |
|||
She then gives an overview of the arguments (of the time) of those who interpret Iblis as being an angel and those who interpret Iblis as being a jinn. She goes on: |
|||
"To resolve the incoherence between the two interpretations on the nature of Iblis, Muslim scholarship came up with ingenious ideas. Al-Tabari, for example, argued it is possible God created one part of his angels from light and another part from fire; Iblis possibly could belong to that group of angels who were created from the scorching winds. Al-Baydawi (d. 1286), meanwhile, had a more plausible explanation. He argued Iblis, a jinn made out of fire, was carried off as a captive by the angels during one of the combats between jinn and angels that took place on earth. Because Iblis was still a child, he grew up among angels. When God ordered the angels to bow before Adam, Iblis refused and thus revealed his true jinni nature." |
|||
I want to establish here, that this author presents a different picture. Firstly, she claims that there were two prevalent but conflicting interpretations and also two main attempts at their resolution which essentially results in those who were of the opinion that Iblis was an angel created differently from other angels (the basis of this was the Quranic verse that indicates that Iblis was "among" the angels which is taken to mean that Iblis was an angel himself, rather than that he was "physically" present at the same place as the angels in question) and those who where of the opinion that Iblis was a jinn (also directly from the Quran). Secondly, she cites at least one classical scholar on each side of the debate in addition to indicating that the interpretation that Iblis is an angel is held by only "some" scholars. Lastly, could the user who has edited to maintain the sentence in question ([[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]]) indicate where exactly in each of the 4 sources, evidence is given proving the relative popularity of the belief that Iblis is an angel among classical scholars in comparison to the belief that Iblis is a jinn. --[[User:FrNANow|FrNANow]] ([[User talk:FrNANow|talk]]) 20:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::The expression that many Classical scholars regarded him as an angel, is not cited by Amira and I never claimed that. Amira only offers the two different depictions of Iblis independend of time-period. So that exactly are you goping to stay? If you object the claim that Amira would assign Iblis angelic nature to Classical scholars, you are going to make a straw man, since noone claimed that. "Secondly, she cites at least one classical scholar on each side of the debate in addition to indicating that the interpretation that Iblis is an angel is held by only "some" scholars." Noone said that were had been no alternative views, but nevertheless, the notion of Iblis as angel was well accepted in Classical Islam. But this is given by the other sources you did not mentioned.--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 11:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::: "The expression that many Classical scholars regarded him as an angel, is not cited by Amira and I never claimed that." |
|||
::: I did not say that that is what you where claiming. What I said you were claiming, which I will repeat again, is "that classical scholars believe Iblis was an angel, but contemporary scholars believe he was a Jinn." The problem you see is the phrasing where the word "but" indicates that contemporary scholars accept a different view than classical scholars. I provided from one of the 4 related references listed, proof that this is not so. Then I asked you to please provide evidence from the sources you referenced, "proving the relative popularity of the belief that Iblis is an angel among classical scholars in comparison to the belief that Iblis is a jinn." Your phrasing indicates that the development of the belief that Iblis was a Jinn and not an angel only more recently gained popularity within Islamic scholarship. This is because you are pushing the narrative (and I personally believe this IS a baseless narrative) that Iblis is a "fallen angel" which is curiously inline with Christian theology. From my studies, there is more evidence to support that the belief that Iblis was a Jinn, made of fire and capable of disobeying God's command was a more popular view in Classical Islam. I searched the sources you referenced and I did not see any clear proof that the belief in question (Iblis is an Angel) was more popular among Classical scholars than the other belief (Iblis is a Jinn). So I need you to justify your edit! I think it is imperative that you support the claim that "Iblis as angel was well accepted in Classical Islam." The emphasis here is placed on "well accepted." |
|||
:::Now to the next issue with your response. |
|||
::: "If you object the claim that Amira would assign Iblis angelic nature to Classical scholars, you are going to make a straw man, since noone claimed that." |
|||
:::I believe you need to review my original response because I believe there is a misunderstanding. How could I object to the claim that Amira would assign Iblis angelic nature to Classical scholars, when I literally referenced an example where she does EXACTLY that! Im very confused here. I think there is a misunderstanding. To clarify, Amira did assign the idea of Iblis having an angelic nature to at least ONE scholar in her book. She also assigned the idea of Iblis having a Jinn-like nature to another CLassical scholar. From this we know that Amira claimed that at least one classical scholar argued that Iblis was an angel and at least one scholar argued Iblis was a Jinn. |
|||
:::Finally, my last issue: |
|||
::: "Noone said that were had been no alternative views." |
|||
:::By using the conjunction "but", your sentence suggests that the believe that Iblis is a Jinn is more popular among contemporary scholars than classical scholars. If so, can you point to the sources that back this up? You need to clarify that "some" classical scholars also claimed Iblis was a Jinn. If you do not make this change I will as I already have direct passages from the same set of sources that indicate that this is so. I also have alternative peer-reviewed sources but lets keep this simple for now. In other words, you need to specify that the important alternative view that Iblis was a Jinn was also shared among some Classical scholars. |
|||
--[[User:FrNANow|FrNANow]] ([[User talk:FrNANow|talk]]) 20:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::(Got the notification of your answer just now, although your signature suggest it was written last year). "indicates that contemporary scholars accept a different view than classical scholars". Isn't it a contradiction, when most classical scholars accepted Iblis as an angel in origin, named Azazil, while most scholars today regard this as an Israeliyyat and reject the view? I mean, it seems to be the best expression to point out the shift in Islamic theology and the sources explicitdly mentioned that. "Gauvain, Richard (2013). Salafi Ritual Purity: In the Presence of God." states that he was surprised when he interviewed a Salafi scholar about Iblis origin, the scholars stated Iblis was an angel, because most Salafis reject the view, despite the fact, classical sources, such as Tabari (whose Tafsir was remarkable and one of the basic tafsirs in the classical period until ibn Kathir replaced Tabari in importance with new methods, such as rejecting much material concerning supernatural creatures as "Israeiliyyat"), depict Iblis as an angel in origin. The next one is "Welch, Alford T. (2008). Studies in Qur'an and Tafsir.", who explicitdly states that "it is sometimes denied by modern scholars, among classical scholars, Iblis as fallen angel was well accepted", that clearly shows the different attitute towards the opinnion whether or not Iblis can be an angel or not. "Mustafa ÖZTÜRK JOURNAL OF ISLAMIC RESEARCH" states that " Muslim scholars mostly think of Iblis as being from the tribe |
|||
of the angels." and " in final analysis, the Muslim scholars pointed to the distinctiveness of the Jinns from the angels and stated that the word jinn should be used as the name of a species which is distinct from the human beings and the angels" also pointing out a difference. Further, the fact that most scholars today reject Iblis as angel while it was the common viewpoint in Classical Islam, is a contradiction. The problem is, most contemporary scholars held different views regarding angels, jinn and devils than Classical scholars. [[Khidr]] for example has almost no meaning today among Muslim scholars. Many scholars reject the name "Azrael" as the name of the archangel of death, although many reaccepted it again. In Classical period, there was also much about magic and pseudoscience regarding angels, jinn and devils, scholars do not teach today. So yes, contemporary scholars contradict many classical ones. Not all, since they groudn their exegesis on some classical scholars, but usually whose who had only marginally dealed with angels, jinn, devils, such as Ibn Kathir and Ibn Taimmiya (who rejected most of established teachings during their life time too, because they thought Islam had been infiltrated by Paganism. And with Paganism, they mean Shias, Asharis, Mutazilla, many Sufis, basically everyone who was not "Hanbalite at heart", to say it with Taimiyyas words.). You are right about Amira, since she does not state anything about which periods Muslim hold which viewpoints. But the other three I also mentioned here, do. These are also citing the claim. "In other words, you need to specify that the important alternative view that Iblis was a Jinn was also shared among some Classical scholars." I do not know that I am supposed to do here. For these scholars (there are even some explicitdly given as example in the article) Iblis was an angel, who was turned into a ''shaytan''. Therefore, he is also mentioned along with the jinn in magical works, who deal about jinn and ''shayatin'' (are not the same either). I think the alternative view in contrast to contemporary scholars is, that Iblis was not a jinn for many, but an angel. Tabari makes it clear, that the jinn are created from "Marijin min Nar", Iblis from "Nar as Samum" and other angels from "light". (Some sources also speak of angels created from light and fire, while the jinn from air and fire instead. It is clear they are not the same). Brill encyclopedia of Islam Three under the header "Angels", also explains the difference between the angelic tribe called "jinn" (due to their affilation to ''Jinnan'') and the genus called jinn, living on earth. Please clarify that exactly you object, other than the "but", since the "but" shows exactly the issue: A different opinnion regarding most contemporary scholarship, that "there are no fallen angels in Islam" and the Classical view that "there are fallen angels in Islam, and Iblis is one of them".--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 19:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Possible Connection to Final Fantasy Tactics Mythology == |
|||
Elidibs (also Elidibus from FFXII) is perhaps a mis-spelling of Iblis supposedly and is the name of the 13th Lucavi (Demons in the Final Fantasy World), who happens to summon the ultimate summon in the game known as Zodiac who appears to have 4 Demonic and 4 Angelic Wings and also has something of a Red Fire around it. |
|||
as an after thought: to say that iblis is the perpitrator of all evil is a falacy if the quran is understood deeper. it says in sura 14:22 that on the day of judgement iblis will betray all who were seduced by him saying "i deny your act of associating me with allah; you believed that i was a rival to god, not me. so blame yourself" it is made amply clear that iblis is an agent of god, not a rival. reference to the devil testing devouts are found in the bible too: ref. book of job: here we see that lucifer does all he can to job, but refrains from doing what god tell him not to do. strange obedience offered by one who is supposed to be at loggerheads with god. jewish traditions relate that god told abharam to offer his son as sacrifice at the behest of satan... one wonders if this is a most secret partnership between the two to test the humans? |
|||
:In ''Job'', we also have the image of Satan as the apparent Tempter by Appointment to the Divine Court: at the beginning of the book, Satan is in heaven and God is asking him what he's been up to. "''And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it''" |
|||
:Although why God would even bother to make a creature whose only purpose was to drive mankind away from Him, has never been satisfactorily explained. If Satan can spend all of time being evil and not being punished for it, why can't we? |
|||
:[[User:Nuttyskin|Nuttyskin]] 05:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Removed inappropriate text == |
|||
The following sentence was in the article at the end of the Etymology section: |
|||
:"This whole above article on Iblis needs major rewrite. Is satan a proper noun or a noun?" |
|||
The talk page is the proper place for such a comment, not the article itself. —[[User:CKA3KA|CKA3KA (Skazka)]] 21:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Is Iblis Allah's enemy? == |
|||
''"The Qur'an depicts Iblis as the enemy of Allah, for Allah is supreme over all his creations and Iblis is just one of his creations. Unlike the Zoroastrian beliefs, all good and bad deeds are from Allah himself and only He can save humanity from the evils of His universe and His creations. Iblis' single enemy is humanity. He intends to discourage humans from obeying God."'' |
|||
This paragraph sounds paradox to me. On the one hand "Iblis is Allah's enemy", on the other hand "Iblis' single enemy is humanity." <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/144.82.106.152|144.82.106.152]] ([[User talk:144.82.106.152|talk]]) 11:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|||
Quite simply Allah has no opponent. Allah is the creator of all that is good and he may permit things that are bad but he didn't create them. Iblis can be an enemy though, sense he goes against Allah. |
|||
Actually, the Quran explisitly mentions that Iblis is the enemy of humans; according to Islamic belief he is no opponent for Allah, no one is able to be so. I would say that the above paragraph should be amended. |
|||
:One of the synonyms given to Iblis is "enemy of Allah", probably rooted in folklore to avoid pronouncing his name, since, according to some folklore, if someone speaks his name, he is present. The idea of Iblis as enemy of God probably rooted in Zorastrian influences, such as Shanameh, but Islamic theology (including several interpretations) does not depict him as the enemy of God but of Gods way for humanity.--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 13:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== iblis == |
|||
iblis is believed to be the most evil djinn[genie] and is accosiated w/ the devil. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.189.247.122|67.189.247.122]] ([[User talk:67.189.247.122|talk]]) 15:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Allah or God?== |
|||
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to replace the word 'God' with 'Allah' in this article? [[User:TheDestitutionOfOrganizedReligion|TheDestitutionOfOrganizedReligion]] ([[User talk:TheDestitutionOfOrganizedReligion|talk]]) 16:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Nope, 'Allah' is Arabic for 'God'. Just as the Christan God is 'Allah' in Arabic. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/76.66.201.129|76.66.201.129]] ([[User talk:76.66.201.129|talk]]) 11:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
How is the name Iblis pronounced? Is it Iblis or EebLees or IBlees? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/165.155.110.74|165.155.110.74]] ([[User talk:165.155.110.74|talk]]) 13:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Pronounced "IB-LEE-S". |
|||
[[User:Mohamed Magdy|Mohamed Magdy]] ([[User talk:Mohamed Magdy|talk]]) 16:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
God is the word universally understood in English. This Arabic site [http://www.islam-qa.com/ar/ref/8976] sheds light on whether Iblis was an angel. [[User:Kabad|Kabad]] ([[User talk:Kabad|talk]]) 18:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Pronounced as ''ib'' (of ibid) and ''lease'': '''ib-lease'''. --[[User:Kabad|Kabad]] ([[User talk:Kabad|talk]]) 23:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Etymology == |
|||
Could there be a possible etymological connection between the name/word Iblis vis-a-vis Persian and the PIE root word from which the English "evil" evolved? According to the Online Etymology Dictionary the term evil stems from the Old English "yfel" (Kentish "evel"); the Proto-Germanic *"ubilaz" (cf. Old Saxon "ubil," Gothic "ubils"); from the PIE *"upelo" - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evil |
|||
The Arabic Shaitan or Shayatin شياطين |
|||
is very obviously related to the Hebrew Ha-Satan both of which are Semitic languages, whereas Iblis is typically used in the Iranian tales of Shaitan, with Iranian languages as part of the larger Indo-European family. |
|||
It may be a stretch but perhaps something to look into. |
|||
--[[User:Carlon|Carlon]] ([[User talk:Carlon|talk]]) 01:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
=== Comments Inappropriately Included in Article Instead of Talk Section Where They Belong === |
|||
These comments were included in the text of the Article, under '''Naming and Etymology''', by an unknown user with IP 154.180.242.231 in response to the following material in the article. I have moved these comments here because the text of the main Article is not the place for comments like these. |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
The term ''Iblīs'' ({{lang-ar|إِبْلِيس}}) may have been derived from the Arabic verbal root {{sc|bls}} {{lang|ar|ب-ل-س}} (with the broad meaning of "remain in grief")<ref>{{cite book|first=Ebrahim|last=Kazim|title=Scientific Commentary of Suratul Faateḥah|publisher=[[Pharos Media & Publishing Pvt Ltd.]]|location=New Delhi, India|date=2010|ISBN=978-8-172-21037-3|page=274}}</ref> or {{lang|ar|بَلَسَ}} ''({{transl|ar|ALA|balasa}}'', "he despaired").<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.themystica.org/mystica/articles/i/iblis.html|title=Iblis|publisher=}}</ref> Furthermore, the name is related to ''talbis'' meaning confusion.<ref>{{cite book|first=Reynold A.|last=Nicholson|title=Studies In Islamic Mysticism|publisher=[[Routledge]]|location=Abingdon, England|date=1998|ISBN=978-1-136-17178-9|page=120}}</ref> Another possibility is that it is derived from [[Ancient Greek]] {{lang|grc|διάβολος}} ''({{transl|grc|diábolos}})'', via a [[Syriac language|Syriac]] intermediary,<ref name="freewill">{{cite journal|first=Pavel V.|last=Basharin|title=The Problem of Free Will and Predestination in the Light of Satan’s Justification in Early Sufism|journal=English Language Notes|publisher=[[Duke University Press]]|location=Durham, North Carolina|volume=56|issue=1|date=April 1, 2018|pages=119–138|doi=10.1215/00138282-4337480}}</ref> which is also the source of the English word '[[devil]]'.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/iblis-SIM_3021|title=Iblīs - BrillReference|publisher=}}</ref> |
|||
''//Yet this is false because we are all sure that there was no contact between SAE and Greek at that time due to a lot of reasons, Mainly the distance. So this possibility is invalid.'' |
|||
Yet another possibility relates this name back to the ''bene Elohim'' (Sons of God), who had been identified with fallen angels in the early centuries, but had been singularised under the name of their leader. |
|||
''// This also is false due to one reason and that is according to Islam and Christianity there was only one single Fallen angel and it is Iblis or Satan.'' |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
--[[User:Champaign|Champaign]] ([[User talk:Champaign|talk]]) 02:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Zalambur]] == |
|||
Can anyone expand on this stub about a supposed son of Iblis? I assumed initially it was vandalism, but found a search of Amazon books to show references. I don't know if there are references from hadith (and suspect there's not), perhaps it's more Arabian mythology than Islamic? [[User:Schizombie|Шизомби]] ([[User talk:Schizombie|talk]]) 03:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Although older, others are probably curious: Zalambur and his brothers are "sons of iblis" in some oral traditions (derived from some hadiths), which are (sometimes) part of humans psyche (satan flowing through his blood) induced by Iblis after he tricked Adam and Eve. They exist but are not very prominent (as far as I know). Maybe they are more important in magical writings (there also a daughter of Iblis exists).--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 13:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Page views == |
|||
{{Graph:PageViews}} |
|||
==Regarding the issue of Sources for Iblis as Angel== |
|||
[[ping|Kingofsting87]] No, the internet is a bad source. Especially, since religious missionaries know that this is the best way to psread misinformation. With good edits on Wikipedia however, it is possible to provide information apart from youtube and blogs and give academic information without requiring everyone to buy books (One of the reasons I support Wikipedia). But nevertheless you do not necessarily require to buy the book, you can also try to read it on GoogeBooks, find PDFs on the internet or go to a library.--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 21:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Splitting the "Dispute"-Section == |
|||
Greetings, |
|||
I thought about splitting the Dispute section into two parts. One for Muslim scholars and one for Orientalists. Both discusses whether Iblis an angel or a jinni (or sometimes somethigng unique but this is rare and there is not much material about this), but have different reasons to come up with their conclusions respectivly. While Orientalists debate, that Muhammad's original purpose was, and whether or not there was a shift during the development of early Islam regarding this subject, Muslim scholars, under the assumption the Quran is the unaltered word of God, discussed rather core elements of the Quran and how to understand them. For example is "Nar" rather comparable to the "Marijin min Nar" of the jinn and therefore a jinni or a dangerous form of "Nur", and Iblis is a malevolent angel (some scholars used "Nar" and "Nur" interchangable), or does "jinni" mean he is a guardian of jannah and an angel or from the species of jann and a therefore a jinn? Orientalists do not deal with the exegesis. If noone objects, I would like to create this distinction in the article, most material is already within. However, I remember some good sources regarding this, I did not used, since it would not fit the arguementation as we have it currently.--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 12:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
I object, because it is unneeded. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/82.46.162.198|82.46.162.198]] ([[User talk:82.46.162.198|talk]]) 15:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
I think this is a fantastic idea and it allows the two subsections (Muslim scholarship and Orientalists) to provide arguments theologically and historically, respectively. This allows this article to be more in line with Wikipedia’s stance on [[wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view|neutrality]] and stop future edit wars. I think, if you are up for it, you should go ahead and split it. I will help as much as I can when I free up. Thank you for all your work on this page, Venus! [[User:Abu Yagub|Abu Yagub]] ([[User talk:Abu Yagub|talk]]) 03:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Iblis as an Angel == |
|||
"And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate to Adam," and they prostrated, except for Iblees. He was of the jinn and departed from the command of his Lord." |
|||
This is coming straight from the Qur'an (18:50), which is the highest source of authority in Islam. |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/82.46.162.198|82.46.162.198]] ([[User talk:82.46.162.198|talk]]) 15:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:: What is your point? I mean, the verse is explained in great detail, including the exegesis on the verse. Literally, the Quran does not even say "jinn" in Arabic" but "jinni", while the creature created from "smokeless fire", that is actually either "marijin min nar" or "nar as samum", that is more appropriately translated as "mixture of fire" and "poisonous fire" (''s-m-m'' from the Semitic root for "poison" or "venom") is "Jann" not even "jinn". Therefore, there is no reason to use the verse to exclude Iblis from being an angel based on the source. And many Muslims are aware of it, and the disucssion also entered the works of the mufassirs (exegetes). When you argue, the Quran determines that Islam is, when we should use the Quran Arabic language and not a translation done later, especialy not, when the transaltions are restricted to a narrow range of interpretations and traditions. And when we encoutner that scholars have a deviant or even contrary reading of the Quran than we have today, we should wonder, there the change was made. For Wikipedia, there our own research is discouraged, and we only gather the work already done by scholars, going into detail is unnecessary.--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 21:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: Wrong, as per the [[Classical Arabic]] (different to [[Modern Standard Arabic]]) text of the Qur'an, he was a [[jinn]] who was initially treated as an angel, so he is both a fallen angel and jinn, according to the Arabic Qur'an: |
|||
{{quote|وَإِذْ قُلْنَا '''لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ''' اسْجُدُوا لِآدَمَ فَسَجَدُوا إِلَّا إِبْلِيسَ كَانَ مِنَ '''الْجِنِّ''' فَفَسَقَ عَنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّهِ ۗ أَفَتَتَّخِذُونَهُ وَذُرِّيَّتَهُ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِن دُونِي وَهُمْ لَكُمْ عَدُوٌّ ۚ بِئْسَ لِلظَّالِمِينَ بَدَلًا |
|||
And when We said to '''''lil-Malāʾikah'' (to the Angels)''': "Prostrate to Adam." So they prostrated except Iblis. He was of '''''al-Jinn'''''; he disobeyed the Command of his Lord. Will you then take him and his offspring as ''awliyāʾ'' rather than Me while they are enemies to you? What an evil is the exchange for ''aẓ-Ẓālimīn, ''.|Qur'an, [[Al-Kahf|18]]:50.<ref name="Cite quran|18|50|t=y|s=ns">{{Cite quran|18|50|t=y|s=ns}}</ref>}} [[User:Leo1pard|Leo1pard]] ([[User talk:Leo1pard|talk]]) 15:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC) edited 16:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
=== Muhammad Mahmoud as source === |
|||
The source is already used within the article and does not provide any new information within the recent edits. it rather emphazise the contradictional statements within Islamic traditions. First the opnion of Ibn Abbas, stating that Iblis is an angel, batteling the jinn "And so, a subplot tradition attributed to Ibn 'Abbas recounts that the earth was first inhabited by the jinn who soon turned wicked and vile and started murdering each other. Seeing this, God sent Iblis down at the head of angelic troops who could slay them and set them fleeing to remote parts of the eart" and "is. Most of the authorities agree that Iblis belonged to one of the angels' tribes called the jinn who were created of flaming fir" in contrast to "By contrast, the second account maintains that he was originally among those jinn against whom the angels had fought. It was after one such battle that Iblis, still a young child, was taken captive. He thus grew up among the angels and worshipped with them, excelling eventually in worship and learning". Here the source provided to challange the statement, there are different depictions of Iblis, only supports it: "PT's material offers two distinct accounts: one of a patrician, noble Iblis and another of an ignoble Iblis who works his way up." There is no support in any of the [[WP:RS]] to challange inconsistency among the Muslim scholars regarding Iblis' identity.--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 14:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: Firstly, look at the actual [[Classical Arabic]] text of the Qur'an, which says that he was a jinn who was initially treated as an angel, before saying that the [[WP:RS]] which state that he was either an angel or jinn cannot be reconciled. [[User:Leo1pard|Leo1pard]] ([[User talk:Leo1pard|talk]]) 15:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC); edited 16:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:: The text does not say that! It is your [[WP:OR]], and you already misused several sources on several articles! I won't discuss it any further, since I have already explained everything about the topic, both on my talkpage and on the corresponding talkpages. I can just recommand you '''again''' to read through the articles itself. Most you come up with is already stated and explained there, read all the advises I gave you and also check out [[WP:MOSISLAM]], [[WP:OR]], and especially [[MOS:ISLAMOR]]. There is nothing more I can do for you. Assueming [[WP:GF|Good faith]], my last hope for you and for the sake of Wikipedia, I will ahve to let an admin explain it to you. Maybe someone with more influence will make you listen. Have a good day.--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 17:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::: {{u|VenusFeuerFalle}} Stop your anti-Qur'anic [[WP:Bias]] and [[WP:OR]]! Not only have you shown yourself to be [[WP:bias]]ed against [[WP:RS]], by doing things like [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_and_names_mentioned_in_the_Quran&diff=963910869&oldid=963901248 this] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_and_names_mentioned_in_the_Quran&diff=963896774&oldid=963864629 repeatedly], despite repeated warnings ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Iblis&diff=prev&oldid=964044527] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VenusFeuerFalle&diff=prev&oldid=964045131]), you have shown yourself to be against what the Qur'an says! [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Harut_and_Marut&diff=964108752&oldid=964104092 Your threat] to use an admin against {{u|Faissaloo}} and myself is a [[WP:Boomerang]], I am warning you, because I now have plenty of reasons to show an admin what you have done wrong! |
|||
{{quote|وَإِذْ قُلْنَا '''لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ''' اسْجُدُوا لِآدَمَ فَسَجَدُوا إِلَّا إِبْلِيسَ كَانَ مِنَ '''الْجِنِّ''' فَفَسَقَ عَنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّهِ ۗ أَفَتَتَّخِذُونَهُ وَذُرِّيَّتَهُ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِن دُونِي وَهُمْ لَكُمْ عَدُوٌّ ۚ بِئْسَ لِلظَّالِمِينَ بَدَلًا |
|||
And when We said to '''''lil-Malāʾikah'' (to the Angels)''': "Prostrate to Adam." So they prostrated except Iblis. He was of '''''al-Jinn'''''; he disobeyed the Command of his Lord. Will you then take him and his offspring as ''awliyāʾ'' rather than Me while they are enemies to you? What an evil is the exchange for ''aẓ-Ẓālimīn, ''.|Qur'an, [[Al-Kahf|18]]:50.<ref name="Cite quran|18|50|t=y|s=ns">{{Cite quran|18|50|t=y|s=ns}}</ref>}} [[User:Leo1pard|Leo1pard]] ([[User talk:Leo1pard|talk]]) 18:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC); edited 18:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
=== Islam teaches that Iblis was not an Angel === |
|||
The devil as an angel is a belief which comes from Christianity. Muslims believe he was not an Angel but a Jinn. There is no confusion about this Muslim world. Islamic text clearly explains that he was not an Angel. |
|||
Comparing this to the Islamic teachings shows that this information is highly inacturate. I guess it might be easy mistake for people who have not studied Islam properly. The person writing this sounds like they have no idea what they are talking about. I would be quite embarrassed to put this on a public wiki lol. |
|||
--[[User:Tmason101|Tmason101]] ([[User talk:Tmason101|talk]]) 01:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: {{u|Tmason101}} Or at best, a Jinn who was treated like an Angel, putting all the [[WP:RS]], besides the Qur'an (since {{u|VenusFeuerFalle}} talked about what it said) together, but I see that VenusFeuerFalle has other ideas, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=964139448 reporting me] for [[WP:Vandalism]] (when he himself is guilty of that ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_and_names_mentioned_in_the_Quran&diff=963910869&oldid=963901248] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_and_names_mentioned_in_the_Quran&diff=963896774&oldid=963864629], despite repeated warnings from me ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Iblis&diff=prev&oldid=964044527] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VenusFeuerFalle&diff=prev&oldid=964045131]) that he can't just go round deleting [[WP:RS]] to support his POV), and without a prior notification on my talk-page. [[User:Leo1pard|Leo1pard]] ([[User talk:Leo1pard|talk]]) 06:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{u|Drmies}} Let me explain what is going on: |
|||
: Firstly, VenusFeuerFalle had made [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_and_names_mentioned_in_the_Quran&diff=prev&oldid=962348967 this edit] to ''[[List of characters and names mentioned in the Quran]]'', saying "demons are not a sub group of jgenies (at least not more than angels are). Also fixing the header for "Supernatural" it was messed up." |
|||
: I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_and_names_mentioned_in_the_Quran&diff=prev&oldid=963696606 then] decided to use the word ''[[Shaitan|Shayāṭīn]]'', which applies to "evil Jinn" (Islamic POV)<ref>Robert Lebling ''Legends of the Fire Spirits: Jinn and Genies from Arabia to Zanzibar'' I.B.Tauris 2010 {{ISBN|978-0-857-73063-3}} page 22</ref><ref>Gordon Melton, Martin Baumann ''Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices, 2nd Edition [6 volumes]'' ABC-CLIO 2010 {{ISBN|978-1-598-84204-3}} page 117</ref><ref>Frederick M. Smith ''The Self Possessed: Deity and Spirit Possession in South Asian Literature and Civilization'' Columbia University Press 2012 {{ISBN|978-0-231-51065-3}} page 570</ref> like Iblis (who is also regarded as a [[fallen angel]]).<ref name="Silverstein 01-2013">{{cite journal |last=Silverstein |first=Adam |title=On the original meaning of the Qur’ānic term ''al-Shaytān al-Rajīm'' |journal=[[Journal of the American Oriental Society]] |year=January 2013}}</ref><ref name="Massimo2013">{{cite book |first=Massimo |last=Campanini |title=The Qur'an: The Basics |publisher=[[Routledge]] |location=Abingdon, England |year=2013 |isbn=978-1-1386-6630-6}}</ref><ref name="Briggs2003">{{cite book |first=Constance Victoria |last=Briggs |title=The Encyclopedia of God: An A-Z Guide to Thoughts, Ideas, and Beliefs about God |publisher=[[Hampton Roads Publishing Company]] |location=[[Newburyport, Massachusetts]], the U.S.A. |year=2003 |isbn=978-1-612-83225-8}}</ref><ref name="Welch2008">{{cite book |first=Alford T. |last=Welch |author-link=Alford T. Welch |title=Studies in Qur'an and Tafsir |publisher=[[Scholars Press]] |location=[[Riga]], [[Latvia]] |year=2008 |page=756}}</ref><ref name="Gauvain2013">{{cite book |first=Richard |last=Gauvain |title=Salafi Ritual Purity: In the Presence of God |publisher=[[Routledge]] |location=[[Abingdon-on-Thames|Abingdon]], [[England]], the [[United Kingdom|U.K.]] |year=2013 |isbn=978-0-7103-1356-0 |pages=69–74}}</ref><ref name="Öztürk 12-2009">{{cite journal |first=Mustafa |last=Öztürk |journal=Journal of Islamic Research |volume=2 |date=2 December 2009}}</ref><ref name="Awn1983">{{cite book |first=Peter J. |last=Awn |title=Satan's Tragedy and Redemption: Iblīs in Sufi Psychology |publisher=[[Brill Publishers|Brill]] |location=[[Leiden]], the [[Netherlands]] |year=1983 |isbn=978-9-0040-6906-0 |page=18}}</ref> |
|||
: Before I put in these references, Venus [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_and_names_mentioned_in_the_Quran&diff=prev&oldid=963782125 insisted] "they (''Shayāṭīn'' and ''Jinn'' are stil distinct. and no, Surah 18:50 is not a good source (one of the reasons why we avoid OR on wikipedia)." |
|||
: After some other edits by Venus, I then [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_and_names_mentioned_in_the_Quran&diff=next&oldid=963782464 corrected] some peculiar glitches with these references<ref name="Webster2009">{{cite book |last=Webster |first=Richard |title=Encyclopedia of angels |year=2009 |publisher=[[Llewellyn Publications]] |location=[[Woodbury, Minnesota]], the [[United States|U.S.A.]] |isbn=978-0-7387-1462-2 |page=97 |url=https://books.google.com/?id=eWyN0PkuhdEC&pg=PA97&dq=angel+israfil+islam#v=onepage&q=angel%20israfil%20islam&f=false |edition=1st}}</ref><ref name="Britannica">{{cite encyclopedia |title=Israfil |url=http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/296909/Israfil |encyclopedia=[[Encyclopaedia Britannica]] |access-date=2012-11-20}}</ref> (Webster's references had an improper part in the location: "|location=Woodbury, he will blow the trumpet when the day comes to the end Minn" and I corrected "|work=Encyclopaedia |publisher=Britannica" in the 2nd reference to "|encyclopedia=[[Encyclopaedia Britannica]]"), and I put in all these [[WP:RS]] to say "Don't you know that the Devil (Iblis) is regarded as both a Jinn and a Shaytan?" |
|||
: Venus then [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_and_names_mentioned_in_the_Quran&diff=next&oldid=963864629 removes all these the reliable sources that I put in], besides reversing my corrections to these references<ref name="Webster2009" /><ref name="Britannica" /> (like putting ", he will blow the trumpet when the day comes to the end Minn" back into the section of "location" in the first reference), saying "shayatin is a seperate type of creature (children of Iblis). Iblis is regarded as an angel, a jinn or somethign entirely else, depending on source and Quran-interpretation, but always becomes a shaitan. As long as we assign Iblis to the shayatin everything should be correct. But shayatin are not simply "evil jinn". They are only "jinn" in the sense of invisiblity, twhich also applies to angels." as if his [[WP:POV]] is important enough to remove a whole bunch of reliable sources! |
|||
: I then [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_and_names_mentioned_in_the_Quran&diff=next&oldid=963896774 undid his revert], protesting against his removal of reliable sources, saying "Not according to the [[WP:RS]] that I posted!" besides correcting these references,<ref name="Webster2009" /><ref name="Britannica" /> but then Venus [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_and_names_mentioned_in_the_Quran&diff=next&oldid=963901248 removed the references] and messed up these references<ref name="Webster2009" /><ref name="Britannica" /> again, saying "your sources do not cover up your claim at all. Some deal with Iblis affiliation and also tell the same as I told above. So I recommand you to read the sources you use completely. Second they do not categorize the spiritual creatures. For what I would recommand you Amira El Zein (Intelligent world of the jinn), there the several creatures are explained in their attributes and different categories." |
|||
: Then I tried to reason with him, and others whom he got into a dispute or contact with, here and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leo1pard&diff=next&oldid=964055425 there], but he persisted with nearly edit-warring against me here and there, and he [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iblis&diff=951582025&oldid=951518450 incorrectly said] that the above mentioned Verse of the Qur'an (18:50) does not say that Iblis is a Jinn to [[Special:Contributions/82.46.162.198|82.46.162.198]], for which I had to refute him using the Verse to say that according to the Qur'an, Iblis was a Jinn (since Venus was talking about the Qur'an), but Venus [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iblis&diff=964110043&oldid=964101821 continued to pretend] that the Verse didn't say that Iblis was a Jinn, and after I warned him to stop this [[WP:Bias]], Venus then decides to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=964139448 report me] for [[WP:Vandalism]] (when he himself is guilty of that ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_and_names_mentioned_in_the_Quran&diff=963910869&oldid=963901248] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_and_names_mentioned_in_the_Quran&diff=963896774&oldid=963864629], despite repeated warnings from me ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Iblis&diff=prev&oldid=964044527] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VenusFeuerFalle&diff=prev&oldid=964045131]) that he can't just go round deleting reliable sources to support his POV, not to mention that he is [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Iblis&diff=964075097&oldid=964044527 nearly edit-warring] with me), and without a prior notification on my talk-page. |
|||
{{quote|وَإِذْ قُلْنَا '''لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ''' اسْجُدُوا لِآدَمَ فَسَجَدُوا إِلَّا إِبْلِيسَ كَانَ مِنَ '''الْجِنِّ''' فَفَسَقَ عَنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّهِ ۗ أَفَتَتَّخِذُونَهُ وَذُرِّيَّتَهُ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِن دُونِي وَهُمْ لَكُمْ عَدُوٌّ ۚ بِئْسَ لِلظَّالِمِينَ بَدَلًا |
|||
And when We said to '''''lil-Malāʾikah'' (to the Angels)''': "Prostrate to Adam." So they prostrated except Iblis. He was of '''''al-Jinn'''''; he disobeyed the Command of his Lord. Will you then take him and his offspring as ''awliyāʾ'' rather than Me while they are enemies to you? What an evil is the exchange for ''aẓ-Ẓālimīn, ''.|Qur'an, [[Al-Kahf|18]]:50.<ref name="Cite quran|18|50|t=y|s=ns">{{Cite quran|18|50|t=y|s=ns}}</ref>}} [[User:Leo1pard|Leo1pard]] ([[User talk:Leo1pard|talk]]) 06:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC); edited 08:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: I noticed now that another user whom VenusFeuerFalle got into a dispute with has reported Venus to the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User causing repeated edit wars and misrepresenting articles|Administrators' noticeboard]], so I have gone there. [[User:Leo1pard|Leo1pard]] ([[User talk:Leo1pard|talk]]) 08:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: {{u|Leo1pard}} Honestly, that doesn't surprise me. It's our job to correct these errors when we see them especially when they are being added for malicious purposeses. |
|||
Now it terms of Iblis, there is no dispute about him in the Islamic world. The idea of this "ongoing debate" is comepletely false. '''''He was a Jinn who was given "the rank" of an Angel.''''' (It's easier to convince people of a lie if it is partly true.) Also shayateen are [[Jinn]]. Evil Jinn are refered to as Shayateen, they are not a seperate creation. I tried to fix this many months ago but I see it has been reverted for an odd reason. |
|||
If we are going to decide to write about a religious belief, we must take it upon ourselves to do adequate research. |
|||
--[[User:Tmason101|Tmason101]] ([[User talk:Tmason101|talk]]) 12:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: {{u|Tmason101}} And that's what I tried to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_and_names_mentioned_in_the_Quran&diff=prev&oldid=963864629 make clear] at [[List of characters and names mentioned in the Quran]], but VenusFeuerFalle [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_and_names_mentioned_in_the_Quran&diff=963896774&oldid=963864629 just wouldn't listen], saying something like "shayatin is a seperate type of creature (children of Iblis). Iblis is regarded as an angel, a jinn or somethign entirely else, depending on source and Quran-interpretation, but always becomes a shaitan. As long as we assign Iblis to the shayatin everything should be correct. But shayatin are not simply "evil jinn". They are only "jinn" in the sense of invisiblity, twhich also applies to angels" [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=964139448 or] "<nowiki>{{vandal|Leo1pard}}</nowiki> promoting his own interpretation of religious texts into articles. providing valid sources, but they, however, do not support his claim. I pointed that out several times, yet he blames me for biases and keeps on with his edits and ignores all my responses on the talkpages. (it is over several articles) Since the User ignored answers and simply repeats his arguements for his edits, I thought it is vandalism and not just disruptive editing or edit war. The sources are pretty clear, but simply ignored for the sake of the User's favored religoius beliefs ..." amongst other things! Surprised at his stubbornness, I decided to investigate why a person who identifies himself as a Muslim would go against something that is commonly accepted among Muslims, that Iblis was a Jinn and ''Shaytan'' (Devil) who was an enemy of [[Allah]], and I noticed some interesting things in this talk-page, the article, and from his userpage: |
|||
: 1) As mentioned in [[Iblis#Sufism|this section of the article]], some [[Sufism|Sufis]] are pro-Iblis! |
|||
{{quote|[[Sufism]] developed another perspective of Iblis' refusal by regarding [[Muhammed in Islam|Muhammed]] and Iblis as the two true [[monotheism|monotheists]]. Therefore, some Sufis hold, Iblis refused to bow to Adam because he was devoted to God alone and refused to bow to anyone else. By weakening the evil in the Satanic figure, [[Dualistic cosmology|dualism]] is also degraded, that corresponds with the [[Sufi cosmology]] of [[Sufi metaphysics#Waḥdat al-Wujūd (Unity of Existence)|unity of existence]] rejecting dualistic tendencies. The belief in dualism or that ''evil'' is caused by something else than God, even if only by one's own will, is regarded as ''[[Shirk (Islam)|shirk]]'' by some Sufis.<ref name="Awn, page 104">Awn, page 104</ref> For Iblis' preference to be damned to hell, than prostrating himself before someone else other than the "Beloved" (here referring to God), Iblis also became an example for [[unrequited love]]. |
|||
A famous narration about an encounter between [[Moses in Islam|Moses]] and Iblis on the slopes of [[Mount Sinai|Sinai]], told by [[Mansur al-Hallaj]], [[Ruzbihan Baqli]]<ref name="Awn, page 104"/> and [[Ghazzali]], emphasizes the nobility of Iblis. Accordingly, Moses asks Iblis why he refused God's order. Iblis replied that the command was actually a test. Then Moses replied, obviously Iblis was punished by being turned from an angel to a [[shaitan|devil]]. Iblis responds, his form is just temporary and his love towards God remains the same.<ref>{{cite book|first=Richard|last=Gramlich|title=Der eine Gott: Grundzüge der Mystik des islamischen Monotheismus|publisher=[[Otto Harrassowitz Verlag]]|location=Weisbaden, Germany|date=1998|ISBN=978-3-447-04025-9|page=44|language=German}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|first1=Joseph E. B.|last1=Lumbard|first2=Ahmad|last2=al-Ghazali|title=Remembrance, and the Metaphysics of Love|publisher=[[SUNY Press]]|location=Albany, New York|date=2016|ISBN=978-1-438-45966-0|pages=111–112}}</ref>|}} |
|||
: 2) From his userpage, he appears to be a [[Gnosticism|gnostic]]-[[Panentheism|panantheist]], [[Liberalism and progressivism within Islam|liberal]], [[Sufism|Sufi]]-[[Sunni Islam|Sunni]] [[Mysticism|mystic]], among other things. |
|||
: 3) From earlier sections in this talk-page (''[[#On the origin of Iblis|On the origin of Iblis]]'' and ''[[#Is Iblis Allah's enemy?|Is Iblis Allah's enemy?]]''), VenusFeuerFalle took a somewhat pro-Iblis view that runs contrary to the beliefs of mainstream Muslims and the teachings of the Qur'an, apparently preferring some other references on Islamic theology to what the Qur'an says! |
|||
:: A) In ''Is Iblis Allah's enemy?'', [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iblis&diff=877717608&oldid=877717277 Venus said] "One of the synonyms given to Iblis is "enemy of Allah", probably rooted in folklore to avoid pronouncing his name, since, according to some folklore, if someone speaks his name, he is present. The idea of Iblis as enemy of God probably rooted in Zorastrian influences, such as Shanameh, but Islamic theology (including several interpretations) does not depict him as the enemy of God but of Gods way for humanity." |
|||
:: B) In ''On the origin of Iblis'', Venus [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iblis&diff=906666514&oldid=906609266 got into an argument] with another user, {{u|FrNANow}}. |
|||
:: C) After [[Special:Contributions/82.46.162.198|82.46.162.198]] ([[User talk:82.46.162.198|talk]]) made the section ''[[#Iblis as an Angel|Iblis as an Angel]]'' to say ""And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate to Adam," and they prostrated, except for Iblees. He was of the jinn and departed from the command of his Lord." This is coming straight from the Qur'an (18:50), which is the highest source of authority in Islam." Venus [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iblis&diff=next&oldid=951518450 got into an argument] with this user also, saying "What is your point? I mean, the verse is explained in great detail, including the exegesis on the verse. Literally, the Quran does not even say "jinn" in Arabic" but "jinni", while the creature created from "smokeless fire", that is actually either "marijin min nar" or "nar as samum", that is more appropriately translated as "mixture of fire" and "poisonous fire" (''s-m-m'' from the Semitic root for "poison" or "venom") is "Jann" not even "jinn". Therefore, there is no reason to use the verse to exclude Iblis from being an angel based on the source. And many Muslims are aware of it, and the disucssion also entered the works of the mufassirs (exegetes). When you argue, the Quran determines that Islam is, when we should use the Quran Arabic language and not a translation done later, especialy not, when the transaltions are restricted to a narrow range of interpretations and traditions. And when we encoutner that scholars have a deviant or even contrary reading of the Quran than we have today, we should wonder, there the change was made. For Wikipedia, there our own research is discouraged, and we only gather the work already done by scholars, going into detail is unnecessary." |
|||
: Putting these together, it seems that VenusFeuerFalle is one of [[Iblis#Sufism|those Sufis]] who take a positive view of Iblis (contrary to the beliefs of mainstream Muslims, besides other Sufis like [[Rumi]]), which would help to explain why he would get into arguments with people like 82.46.162.198, FrNANow and myself, over what exactly Islamic texts or [[WP:RS]] say about Iblis, or other matters! [[User:Leo1pard|Leo1pard]] ([[User talk:Leo1pard|talk]]) 13:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC) edited 13:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:: Honestly, this is getting serious. You are accusing me of things, and make assumptions about me as a person, make [[WP:CONSPIRACY|conspiracy theories]] about me, for the sake of your editor biases.--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 21:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::: {{u|Tmason101}} If you want to look up for spiritual teachigs, yes an encyclopedia is the wrong place. And no "shayatin" are not "simply evil jinn". Evil jinn as called "Shayatin", but there are also "Shayatin" as a seperate group. If you would actually read Robbert lebling you would know this. He states on page 22: Evil jinn are of three kinds: 1. fallen angels (shayatin) (this are by the way the actual "shayatin") 2. unbelievers among the jinn (this are the "evil jinn") 3. pagan deities. You could also read Amira El Zein, she is more explicit about it. Maybe it is confusing due to the ambiguity of the term "jinn", as it can refer to both a genus and a designation for "invisible entities" (including angels in this case!). So Iblis is a "jinn" in the sense of an invisible creature, but not in the sense of a genus called "jinn". The "Shayatin jinn" (who are Iblis' progeny are distinct from the genus called "jinn". You could even read this in tafasir). You could actually just read the article, I once tried to make the article clear enough to be understood. And accusing me here of "advocating satan" is going out of hand!--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 21:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:: {{u|VenusFeuerFalle}} Pay more attention to what I said. I said "Putting these (the evidences, including [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iblis&diff=877717608&oldid=877717277 this reply of yours]) together, it '''seems''' that VenusFeuerFalle is one of [[Iblis#Sufism|those Sufis]] who take a positive view of Iblis," not that you definitely are, and now I see that you have taken a different stance. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_and_names_mentioned_in_the_Quran&diff=963910869&oldid=963901248 Initially], you were acting as if the views on whether Iblis was a fallen angel or jinn were irreconcilable, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iblis&diff=next&oldid=964669548 now], you are saying that fallen angels can be regarded as being among the kinds of evil Jinn, when I was trying to say that the views on whether Iblis was a fallen angel or jinn were reconcilable all along! [[User:Leo1pard|Leo1pard]] ([[User talk:Leo1pard|talk]]) 16:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC); edited 17:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
=== Conclusion === |
|||
I went through the entire issue in detail and I think it is not even worth arguing about. Obviously there are different interpretations of Iblis, According to some he was the most learned and according to others he was not, likewise according to some he is a devil and according to others he is an astray angel. Both the viewpoints should be mentioned in the article clearly, please see [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:RNPOV]]. We can not use our own research, we just have to state whatever is written in reliable sources, please see [[WP:SYNTHESIS]]. As far as the Quranic text is concerned, For me and for all Muslims it is the most reliable, authentic, Holy and Sacred text on the face of this earth but there are many Non-Muslims in the World which makes Quran a controversial book that is why whenever it is to be cited in the articles, it must be properly Quoted, please see [[WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV]]. Otherwise, we can just rely on Scholarly reliable sources to make a statement. I think, There is no special need for citing the quranic text in the article as it is already established that iblis is a Jinn according to most of the Islamic scholars, and in my point of view there are two types of angels, Nur - those who are created from light and have no free will and Jinn - those who are created from fire and have a free will (this free will made some of them Shaytan or Devil). <ref>{{cite book|title= |
|||
Islam, Arabs, and the Intelligent World of the Jinn|last=El-Zein|first=Amira|publisher=Syracuse University Press|date=16 Oct 2009|isbn=0815650701|page=46|quote=Al-Tabari, for example, argued it is possible God created one part of his angels from light and another part from fire; Iblis possibly could belong to that group of angels who were created from the scorching winds.}}</ref> --[[User:Muhammadahmad79|Muhammadahmad79]] ([[User talk:Muhammadahmad79|talk]]) 05:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
== Intentional Misinformation == |
|||
{{u|leo1pard}} Yes thank you for clearing this up. I think that they may be doing this intentionally. This isn’t the first instance, there’s been numerous amounts false information and I don’t think it is a coincidence at all. |
|||
--[[User:Tmason101|Tmason101]] ([[User talk:Tmason101|talk]]) 23:31, 24 June 2020 ( |
|||
{{u|Muhammadahmad79}} I agree, this one is a minor issue which can be overlooked. My problem is personal opinions are being used instead of facts and false information is being used. This is being done intentionally and should be taken quite seriously. Maybe you can help us correct these? |
|||
--[[User:Tmason101|Tmason101]] ([[User talk:Tmason101|talk]]) 17:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== False Information == |
|||
Is anything going to be done about the false information? |
|||
--[[User:Tmason101|Tmason101]] ([[User talk:Tmason101|talk]]) 21:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== iblis an angel? == |
|||
nowhere in the quran does it say this, could somebody fix? |
|||
: The sources are literally given in the article. What exactly do you want to have fixed?--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 00:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: {{ping|Sultan.abdullah.hindi}}, before we make yet another section, which is never fully discussed either, let's continue this very same issue here once again. And actually it does not surprise me, we would discuss this issue here, after you objected the images. First, the statement "but some scholars also opine that Shaytan was actually an [[angel]] simply on the grounds that "it makes better sense"." you edited here has ''several'' issues: 1. "Shaytan" is not a proper name. It confuses the genus of devils (Shayatin/Shaitan) with both Iblis and the jinn. The terms ''jinn'' is quite ambigious as well, but this is anotehr discussion. 2. the argument is not "it makes better sense", but I see, same sources got lost during the several manual reverts, because this statement is under constant attack, without any proper reason given (check all the started discussions but never finished) probably just because it contradicts contemporary teachings from many scholars, and I wonna add them after this entry here. Yet, your statement is not backed up. Welch only states, "it is denied" (that Iblis is an angel for many classical commentators), not "because it made sense to them". 3. and this is the most problematic one, it is not that the sources say! Just to be sure, we are talking about the same, add another quote, if I am missing something, I will list the relevant claims here: '''(1)'''"Shaytan (please note this is for the sake of the structure of the book, quoting the very Salafi-Muslims the author is talking about, not for the proper name of the entity, we are discussing here. Shaytan/Shayatin have their own article) is either from the ''jinn'', or from the angels, or originally an angel that became a ''jinn''." (all of these opinions also appear in the article by the way.) '''(2)'''"For Ghazali's notion that Iblis was "the peacock of angels" until he disobeyed God, at which point he was transformed into the most hideous of creatures, see: http//forum.alfnnan.org/showthread.php?t=126730." '''(3)''' "I conclude this section by drawing attention to an age-old debate regarding the question of Shaytan's origins. Once again, the main issue here concerns the degree to which Salafism undoes the cultural traditions and practises. (Note: The article originally said, most Salafi-scholars, even more in accordance with this source, but we decided not to use the term "Salafism", since it felt too offensive for other contemporary scholar, inclined to regard Iblis as a jinn as well, thus we rewrote this part to "contemporary scholars" instead of "salafi scholars") (I will skip here some sentences not mentioning "Shaytan" or Iblis, for legal reasons). '''(4)''' The observation struck me as strange (a Shaikh called "Shaytan" the "peacock of angels", before this sentence) on this aprticular point, the scholars of Ansar al Sunna vertainly do hold the reputation of clashing with the poular Egyptoan tradition. Like the Saudi Arabian scholars, the Ansar al Sunnah elites follow a '''minorty of of classical authorities''', including Hasan al-Basri and more definitively Ibn Taymiyya (Majmu' al-fatawa) and his student Ibn Kathir (Tafsir al-Quran) (I want to point out, since you accused me of biased writing, all these are mentioned in the article by me!) in arguing that Shaytan was originally a member of the jinn and, tehrefore, had never been an angel. Indeed, when I aksed about this subject in 'abdin, I was informed that there was no doubt on the matter: Shaytan was originally created, from fire, a member of the jinn. In defence of this view, the Qur'an explicitly confirms Shaytan's as a member of the jinn (Q.18:50), and acknowledges that he was created from fire (Q. 7:12; 38:76). Nevertheless, on that particular day, in Shubra's al-Tawhid mosque, this Ansar al Sunna shaikh chose to '''agree with the majority of Sunni Muslim scholars by describing Shaytan as having been created an angel''', a view for which there is admittedly also Qur'anic support. (this is on page 73) '''(5)''' "Although it is '''sometimes denied that Iblis was a fallen-angel, this was fully accepted by the classical commentators''', e.g., Baydawi, 1:51,; see also Tabari, 1961, 1:83." '''(6)''' (now we come to the source removed after a while) "According to the letter of the story in the Qur’an, Iblis is a being of objective existence. However, his ontological nature is not clear.However, the 50th verse of the Sura Kahf remarks that Iblis is from the Jinns." (...) "On the other hand, '''Muslim scholars mostly think''' of Iblis as '''being from the tribe of the angels'''. According to the narration ascribed to Ibn ‘Abbas, his real name is ‘Azazil." (here it also becomes clear; it is because Sunnis hold the Sahaba in high regard and the Sahaba usually regarded Iblis as an angel called Azazil. The footnote here refers to "Abû al-Muzaffar al-Isferâyinî,al-Tabsîr fi al-Dîn, ed. Kamal Yûsuf el-Hût, Beirut, 1983, p. 155;Fakhr al-Dîn ar-Râzî,al-Arba‘în, ed. A. Hijâzî al-Sakka, Cairo, 1986, I. 350") The text itself is ''The Tragic Story of Iblis (Satan) in the Qur'an'' by Mustafa Öztürk. Tell me there I wrote against the claims of the sources!--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 22:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*{{u|VenusFeuerFalle}} can you expand on {{tq|a view for which there is admittedly also Qur'anic support. (this is on page 73)}}? Because [https://quran.com/18/50?translations=38,101,20,19,22,21,18,17,85,84,95 Quran 18:50] clearly says Iblis was a Jinn. Of course, we can't use the Quran as a source ([[WP:RSPSCRIPTURE]]), but I'm curious as to how the source above justifies its assertions?'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Vice regent|talk]]</sub> 04:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I think [https://brill.com/view/title/1399 this source] (page 24 onward) seems better than the sources currently used in the article for the angel vs jinn debate. It seems to actually go into the details and not just gloss over them (like Gauvain does). Ultimately, this source says that this debate is not as significant as it seems because the author writes "{{tq|No Muslim questions the spirituality of Iblis' nature; only the precise definition of the family of spirits to which Iblis belongs is problematical}}".'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Vice regent|talk]]</sub> 04:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Vice regent}}, I actually used the other source below, but not for the chronigal changes over time. Most Muslim scholars today agree that Iblis is not an angel, but a jinn. Awn explores this issue in exegetical literature. The issue is however, adressed in almost every serious work about the Islamic devil. The Quranic terminology is usually depended on the exegetical tradition, and in English also a matter of translation. The term (not the word) ''jinn'' in Surah Al Kahf has variously been understood to refer to 1. a tribe of angels who are named after '''jannah''', therefore called ''jinn'', but still differ from the Genus of the jinn. (Awn disucsses this point, but as far as I remember misses to make clear, that the angelic tribe called al-jinn, is still distinguished from the Genus of jinn. This is also the reason why I didn't used Awn as the main-source for the discussion. To back up my claim, I would like to refer to [[https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/angels-COM_23204?s.num=1&s.f.s2_parent=s.f.book.encyclopaedia-of-islam-3&s.q=angel]]) 2. refer to "unseen entities in general, both angels, devils as well as other creatures like the jinn-genus known from Pre-Islamic Arabia 3. that Iblis ist not an angel. All three exist since the early age of Islam. Therefore, it is wrong to claim that Iblis is solely an angel or solely a jinn in Islam. Within Muslim sources, poets, tafsirs, Quran translations (the one by Muhamamd Asad for example translats Surah 18:50 as "one of the invisible creatures" adding the note "here an angel" (I could also check up the exact quote on request) and so on, we find Iblis as both "Angel only" "jinn only" or even something unique. In English Quranic translations, the matter of "jinn" is threaten poorly anyways. In some instances, when the translations mention "jinn created from fire", while it actually only refers to "jann", which is another exegetical topic, why this matters. Unfortunately, many scholars today ommit the vast tradtions regarding supernatural creatures in Islam. And there is research about this phenomena, in the social studies, like "The revenge of the Jinns: spirits, Salafi reform, and the continuity in change in contemporary Ethiopia JO - Contemporary Islam" (I dont have the link right now.) Evidence for Iblis being an angel, would for example, be, that Surah 2:34 when it speals of "all angels prostrate themselves; except iblis", at least this was one of the main objections against iblis being not an angel, asserted by Tabari (his tafsir in Arabic is linked below in his quote). ANother one could be that jinn are usually paired with humans, and not are not related to the angels of the world of the angels throughout the Quran. I guess this was pinted out by Arno Eichler. My intention regarding my disputes with {{ping|Sultan.abdullah.hindi}} was about the lead-section, in which I tried to summarize the view points of Muslim scholars. Since almost no one (officially) holds Iblis to be an angel today (there are of course, Imams/Shaikhs who think otherwise), I think it is rather misleading to say, there is still much of a dispute in contemporary scholarship, while we find quite the opposite in earlier sources, in which Iblis is usually seen as an angel called Azazil, who is cast down from heaven and becomes a devil, procreating the devils. However, it is not the case, that all scholars agreed to this viewpoint. [[Al-Taftazani]] for example recommands his Muslim readers, to argue against other Muslims who claim that Iblis is an angel. The view point that Iblis was more likely an angel, was probably more accepted earlier, because many of the Sahaba (Muhammads companions) hold this view, while today, most scholars advise not to follow the Sahaba regarding doctrinal matters, but only hadiths of Muhammad himself. I personally do not only rely on the academical works for my knowledge by the way, my personal experiences with former fellow Muslims is, that Iblis is still often regarded as an angel by other Muslims, even if they have a less sophisticated explanation for Surah 18:50 than the scholars. For example I once heard, Allah just called Iblis a jinn, to curse him, becaus he behaved like a jinn, not like an angel. Hope this clarifies some points regarding this matter.--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 15:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{U|VenusFeuerFalle}} I think I see what you're saying but I would say that the current lead is phrased inappropriately. I would write it as, {{tq|Muslims have agreed on the spiritual characteristics of Iblis, but early Muslims differed on whether to categorize Iblis as jinn or angel. Most contemporary Islamic scholars regard Iblis as jinn.}} |
|||
:::Also, which early scholars considered Iblis to be angel? Awn mentions [[Al-Tabarsi]], but who else?'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Vice regent|talk]]</sub> 15:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Well, a jinni is not necessarily a spirtual entity. For Hasan al Basri, an early advocate for rejecting Iblis' angelic nature, thought of him as comparable to Adam. Some scholars, who regarded Iblis to be an angel are mentioned below in the article. Here are some I personally know, might include some of the listed ones: [[Ibn Abbas]], [[Ibn Masud]], [[Tabari]], [[Ashari]], [[Qadi Baydawi]] [[Al-Tha'alibi]], [[Al-Damiri]] (although I think Al-Damiri's treatise is not a good one regarding opinnions. He lists a lot of facts, but contradicts himself throughout the work about their proper interpretations). The way you suggest to phrase it, sounds like there has been a little dispute, which has soon be clarified in favor for Iblis being a jinni, which is not accurate. This is not how it happened. Muslim thinkers between 1850-1920 (early Modernist Salafism) even tended to think about Iblis clearly being an angel, almost unanimously ([[Muhammad Abduh]], [[Rashid Rida]], [[Muhammad Asad]]), but since they failed to reach out to the majority of the Muslim world today, the opinions of Wahhabism-Salafism based on Ibn Taimiyya and Ibn Kathir (who both consider Iblis to be a jinn) and the Muslim Brotherhood (including the writings of Sayyid Qutb, who is actually not even qualified to write an exegesis), the opinnion that Iblis is not an angel prevailed and superseded the other. Also in non-theological works, but poets, which had a great influence on the every-day Muslim beliefs, like the Masnawi or the Naghul Balagha, Iblis appears as an angel. I also think we should not downplay this either. And I think one of the main-reasons, why some Muslim authors object this lead is because it contradicts the fundamental presenation of today Salafism-Sunnism. They present themselves as the "original Muslim theology uphold by the Sahaba" and this lead-section just proofs this self-image to be inaccurate. I do not think we should edit it in a way, it missrepresents reality, just in favor for peace for someones religious feelings, although we should not hurt them. But in the end, it is basically, the Salafism-Sunnism' own mistake; when they promote the "original Islam", they should accept the beliefs of the early Muslims in every matters, or drop this image of "pure original Islam" altogether (that every academic agrees upon, that they are not anyways).--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 19:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Can you provide scholarly secondary sources for those claims? The wording I proposed is similar to what a [https://brill.com/view/title/1399 scholarly source] says "{{tq|No Muslim questions the spirituality of Iblis' nature; only the precise definition of the family of spirits to which Iblis belongs is problematical}}".'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>[[User talk:Vice regent|talk]]</sub> 21:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: This is rather the summary of studies regarding the jinn, which are in most accounts placed among humans. And this is also the reason why I have not taken Awn regarding this matter; Tabasi (or Awn's interpretation, I haven't done enough research about Tabasi to judge his opinnion about the jinn, unlike about Tabari, who is also the basis for Sunni-Tafsir) seem to argue about wether the jinn are a sub-category of angels or a creature on their own. But not everytime we speak about ''jinn'', we indeed talk about this possible sub-category. The heavenly tribe in question, called ''jinn'' is without any doubt spiritual. But a contrary opinnion, which places Iblis among the jinn regards him more like an animal. (''source'') I would like to give this quote from the Encyclopedia of the Quran, for this important distinction: "(...) Abu Ishaq al Thalabi (d. 427/1036) solves this riddle [wether Iblis is an angel or a jinn] by concluding (Kashf, 5:340, on Q15:27) that most angels were indeed created from light, but the tribe of angels named "al-jinn" to which Iblis belonged was created from fire of samum (according to al-Thalabi "smokeless fire," cf. Q 15:27, while the genus of jinn was created from marij (shooting out) of fire (also "smokeless" [in Arabic 55:15 and 15:27 are different unlike most translations]; cf. 55:15). (https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/angels-COM_23204?s.num=0&s.f.s2_parent=s.f.book.encyclopaedia-of-islam-3&s.q=angels).This story referred to in the encyclopedia also appears in Tafsir [[Tabari]], Tabari with one of the oldest and most basic tafsir in Sunni-Islam. His quote is within the article, and a link to an Arabic version of his tafsir included, I would like not to quote him here again. In case we speak Iblis being a jinni (as a jinn, not as the angelic tribe, we talked before), we usually find Iblis being adopted by the angels, or otherwise elavated to the angelic realm: "This gave rise to lengthy and inconclusive debates about wether Iblis should be regarded as an angel or a jinni, includingvarious stories about how, as a jinni, Iblis was adopted by the angels in Heaven, as well as the suggestion that the ''jinn'' are a subtribe of the angels (al-Tabari 302, on Q18:50;cf. Awn, 26-9).(https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/devil-satan-COM_25991?s.num=0&s.f.s2_parent=s.f.book.encyclopaedia-of-islam-3&s.q=Satan) When we speak of Awn's account of Iblis being a jinni, it is more about the question if his tribe can be considered "angelic" or not, but indeed spiritual, unlike, I would say, the genus of jinn, cited above who are supposed to dwell on earth (or even underground). I do not remember a source, which makes it explicit, I only vaguely remember that the jinn, but not the angels are, for example, featuered in treatises about animals and defined as "animals with a subtle body". But I found this one: "Nevertheless, scholars discuss at length about the quality' of the |
|||
jinni body: whether it is dense or subtle. If it is dense, how is it said that |
|||
they are stronger than man?I". Others retain that the jinn are pure spirits with no bodies whatsoever." (https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/bitstream/123456789/32691/1/On_quranic_jinn.pdf). Now regarding the second opinnion ("Others retain that the jinn are pure spirits with no bodies whatsoever.") This is basically again a tradition in which the lines between angels and jinn are blurred or the ''jinn'' entail angels. This is also the case for Ibn Arabi, who contrary to the claim that most scholars hold Iblis to be an angel, stated that most people regard Iblis to be the anestor of jinn. However, he seems to use ''jinn'' and angels interchangeable or once again, the jinn as a sub-class of angels: "Ibn ‘Arabī states that genies are “all that which is concealed (mustatir): angels and other beings”" (https://ibnarabisociety.org/jinn-spirits-futuhat-al-makkiyya-chapter-9-garcia-lopez-anguita/). I would argue, that Tabasi/Awn only talks about wether or not, Iblis' tribe called ''jinn'' (who are in any case spiritual) can be considered angels, but that the actual jinn/genus of the jinn (as the encyclopedia of the Quran calls it) are not necessarily spiritual, rather hae a subtle body. In the case of Awn, who limited his research on Iblis and his nature, does not go into depth when it comes about the jinn as a seperate class of creatures, besides the angels adn devils. But since, on the Wikipedia, we also have an article about the very genus of jinn, we should be careful not to confuse the "the heavenly tribe in question called ''jinn''" and "bodily earthly genus of jinn" and also take this into consideration when we decide about how to write the lead. Another possibility would be, to explicitdly mention that only within Salafism-discourse, Iblis is clearly a jinn like "Muslim sources disagree wether Iblis was an angel or a jinn, only the majority of Salafi-scholars finally ruled out that Iblis must be a jinni". Sorry for the delay, had my second vaccine shot last Sunday, and either felt ill or had to work.--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 21:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
The Qur'an states in [[Surat al-Kahf]], verse [https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/18/50/ 50], |
|||
{{Quote frame|text=And (recall) when We said to the angels, "Prostrate before Adam!" and they all prostrated, but Iblīs did not; '''he was of the jinn''' (created before humankind, from smokeless, scorching fire), and transgressed against his Lord's command. Will you, then, '''take him and his offspring''' for guardians (to rely on and refer your affairs to) rather than Me, when they are an enemy to you? How evil an exchange for the wrongdoers!|source=''[[The Qur'an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English]]''}} |
|||
* This means that Iblis (Satan) was not of the angels, as the Qur'ān openly declares that the angels are sinless, always doing what they are commanded by God and never disobeying Him ([https://quran.com/16/49-50 16:49–50]; [https://quran.com/66/6 66:6]). Satan belongs to the species of jinn, which, like humankind, have free will and can either obey or disobey God. |
|||
* Angels in Islam are understood not to have free will, while jinns do. |
|||
* Unlike humans, angels do not eat or drink, or engage in sexual relations, since they are sexless (without gender); therefore, they do not reproduce sexually with one another. |
|||
* The verse also mentions Satan's offspring. However, angels do not have offspring, so it is necessary that Satan should not be one of the angels. |
|||
'''Source:''' [https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=4&tSoraNo=18&tAyahNo=50&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 Tafsir al-Fakhr al-Razi] {{in lang|ar}} Hope this helps, good luck.--[[User:TheEagle107|TheEagle107]] ([[User talk:TheEagle107|talk]]) 06:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: The tafsir regarding this are literally given above and within the article. Why such online-tafsirs are insufficient should become clear after reading a tafsir or a scholary source regarding this matter. "Angels in Islam are understood not to have free will, while jinns do." this is also wrong. But as long as this does not matter for the discussion I would like not to go deeper into the discussion, since this is not a forum.--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 21:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Another option would be not to mention this dispute at all in the lead section and move this paragraph to the dispute section. Although most scholars at least refer to this dispute once, it does not need to be that present in the article. We could write something like "is the leader of devils", with the "devils" being the only entitiy, all sources seem to agree upon. Only what he has been before seems disputed.--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 14:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:: I thought about something like: |
|||
{{Quote frame|text="Iblīs (alternatively Eblīs, Iblees, Eblees or Ibris)" is the leader of the devils in Islam. The Quran presents him among the angels over several Surahs, when God commands them to prostrate themselves before Adam. Iblis, boasting being created from fire, declined to follow the order as was cast out from heaven and condemned to hell as punishment. Because of his fall from God's grace, he is often compared to Satan in Christian traditions. |
|||
In Islam there are different traditions regarding Iblis' origin and nature.(reference to "Muhammad Mahmoud" possible) |
|||
According to one, Iblis used to be an archangel called Azazil, appointed by God to purge the world from pre-Adamite/primordial beings (I whish we would have an article on "chaos entities" which are not deities, like they appear in Persian and Arabian lore. The [[Chaos gods]] at least lists the hinn and binn, which are often exchangeable for jinn for what matter. I am open for suggestions to phrase this properly. I would like to avoid to mention the jinn here entirely, so it does not interfere with the other account.) to make it a dwelling place for humans. However, Iblis and his fellow angels objected the creation of humanity and turned into their enemies. |
|||
Another traditional account depicts Iblis as a pious jinn, who is endowed with free-will. Because of his piety, he worked his way up to heaven until he was accepted among the angels. But when God created Adam, and all the angels were commanded to prostrate themselves, Iblis' original nature betrayed him and he refused to follow the command, leading to his downfall. |
|||
In Islamic tradition, Iblis is often identified with ash-Shaitan ("the Devil"), often known by the epithet ar-Rajīm (Arabic: ٱلرَّجِيْم, lit. 'the Accursed'). While the term Shaitan is used also for an entire genus of devils, Iblis himself is an individual and often holds a more ambivalent role in Islamic traditions."}} This is my alternative suggestion for the lead. The part with the tendency who regards Iblis as angel and who as a jinn, could be integrated somewhere below.--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 02:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Iblis in literature and philosophy == |
|||
This article would benefit from the ideas of Peter Lamborn Wilson in his writing "Iblis: The Black Light" especially the philosophical concept of Iblis representing the Imagination that would not prostrate itself to the Intellect. --[[User:Etu Malku|Etu Malku]] ([[User talk:Etu Malku|talk]]) 16:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Translation of Devil and Satan == |
|||
I found the source: "Islamic studies separate shaytān from Iblīs. The Qurʾanic shayātīn (pl.) denotes a category of impersonal evil spirits, while Shaytān (sing.) signifies the tempter of people from the time of Adam and Eve (Qur. 2:36). Iblīs appears in the history of the refusal to prostrate himself before God created Adam (Qur. 7:11–18, 15:36–44, 17:61–64, 18:50, 20:116, 26:94–95, 38:71–84). The traditional distinction between Satan (Iblīs) and Devil (Shaytān) inherently conflicts with the etymologies of the words." (Pavel V. Basharin; The Problem of Free Will and Predestination in the Light of Satan’s Justification in Early Sufism. English Language Notes 1 April 2018; 56 (1): 119–138.) --[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 18:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Jafar as-Sadiq? == |
|||
There is a source claiming that Jafar al-Sadiq may have agreed with Tabari that Iblis is called a "jinni" is a reference to being are guardian of paradise (''khazin al-jannah'') from [[al-Wazir al-Maghribi]]. Given it doesn't make much sense, if Jafar al-Sadiq would hold an opposite position, people like Abu Hanifa and many others, could infere that Iblis was an angel, we might pay attention to this claim. This is contrary to the source in the article attributed to al-Qummi argued that Iblis was taken captive as a jinn who ruled the earth. Maybe both used Jafar al-Sadiq as an authority to support their own view. But finally, it looks like it is less a consens or fact, but raher a mere attributation. Therefore, I would remove Jafar al Sadiq from this list. (source: Tafsir al-Tabari and Shica Tafsirs |
|||
M orteza K arimi - N i a |
|||
Islamic A za d University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran |
|||
mkariminiaa@ gmail.com)--[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 00:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Relation to religion or faith == |
|||
Iblis would never prostrate nor to Allah nor other entity so might be hoax article, or for template {{Tl|Hoax}} in introductory part. --[[Special:Contributions/5.43.81.203|5.43.81.203]] ([[User talk:5.43.81.203|talk]]) 20:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Image == |
|||
{{ping|CorrectieTik}} Hey, I just want to adress the dispute ove rthe image. Although the one with the black man is a great depiction, it is still somethat ambigious since it is a Siyah Kalam depiction of largely unknown tales, containing a figure which has similarities with the depiction of Iblis. In contrast, the one with the angels represents a reoccuring motif and is explained in an academic source. For this reason, we should keep the one with the angels. (I start thinkig that the Siyah Kalam might be a bad take anyways, since there is literally just one source about it and this even noted that most of the legends can't be reconstructed and relies on interpretation of art only). [[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 13:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:: This is a copy of the dialoge on my talkpage with the tagged user: |
|||
{{blockquote|This user is constantly reverting additions I have made to the article about Iblis. I have given good reasons for the image change. But without reason ('oh you are not correct' is hardly a good reason) it is reverted. This user is not the 'boss' of the article, and has to accept different views on the subject. Especially because the picture I changed and added as the main/first picture, was on top of the page before. So there is no doubt the image is a correct depiction of the figure of Iblis. Further reverting back is just bordering vandalism by now. And this needs to stop. This isn't about ego, but about creating a platform with correct information. Which I tried doing, and user VenusFeuerFalle is not. CorrectieTik (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
You keep on with reverting back without even replying here. You are vandalizing. CorrectieTik (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
This is factually wrong, I mean. This is the first responde of you. And still you added nothing factual for matters of resolution, instead going to blame me. This violates the Wikipedia guidlines. As long as the tone remains inappropriate, there is no reason to reply to any further comment. I would also recommend to read into the definition of vandalism, instead of throwing the term around. Since your recent edits lacked neutral point of view as there is no support for your claims while the others are backed up by clear points and a source, you start stepping into grey areas. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
edit: I see we are on my talkpage again. So there is still no response by you. You need to reply on the talkpage of the article if this is about the article. Not my talkpage. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
You dont reply at all to arguments iv made. And this is a good place to discuss your behavior of reverting changes made by people. As this is an issue with YOU not the page about Iblis. As the pictures features on the page anyway. So this is about you vandalizing and threatening me, so it belongs on YOUR talk page. CorrectieTik (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Please listen to me finally, and bring your concerns to the talkpage. You know that. I am going to be nice and do this for you. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
I made several arguments, to which you did not reply. You dont get to threaten me with "youre going to be in trouble". I suggest you leave the picture alone, as you 1. have not given any valid reason to be against the picture 2. The picture features on the page anyway, so why do you care so much if its on top or in the middle? It seems utterly useless to pick this fight with me. Again: you are not the boss or owner of the article. CorrectieTik (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)}} |
|||
::If the user doesn't watch their tone in future replies, I will leave it to an [[WP:ADMIN]]. This user keeps attacking me and calls their attacks "arguements". I don't think I need to respond to any of this. Nontheless, I decided to help the user at first despite the [[WP:NOPA]]. I offered several guidlines to read through, did actually showed support for the debated issue, and tagged them here for the proper place of debate. But I don't see anypoint to discuss, if the User decided to demonize me anyways. |
|||
== Little problem with the "he was raised to the level of angels"-narrative == |
== Little problem with the "he was raised to the level of angels"-narrative == |
||
This is pretty popular and even mentioned among many cited sources, however, I couldn't find, after reading through about 10 tafasirs in Arabic, not even one such story. And non of these sources do cite material, ecept for Tobias Nünlist Daemon belief in Islam. A German work with a lot of material regarding jinn, div, devils, angels, and satans in Islamic Medieval Age tradition. He attributes this to the [[Brethren of Purity|Ikhwan as Safa]], anonymous authors on Islamic legends with clear Neo-Platonic tendencies. The closest thing I found in tafsir is, that Iblis was taken captive by the angels,a fter he was sent down to earth to the jinn as a judge. But even here, he judges them and we don't know if he was an angel or a jinni in this report (They read him as "from the jinn" instead of "one of the jinn"). But still, there is no "works his way up to heaven". This is not to say that Iblis is always an angel. But those who say he is not, think of him mostly as the father of the jinn, not as an individual member from the pre-Adamite jinn. I am really unsure what to do. On one hand, there are a lot of references in reliable sources, probably due to contemporary popularity, but on the other hand, it doesn't seem to reflect anything established in Islamic exegetical tradition. [[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 18:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
This is pretty popular and even mentioned among many cited sources, however, I couldn't find, after reading through about 10 tafasirs in Arabic, not even one such story. And non of these sources do cite material, ecept for Tobias Nünlist Daemon belief in Islam. A German work with a lot of material regarding jinn, div, devils, angels, and satans in Islamic Medieval Age tradition. He attributes this to the [[Brethren of Purity|Ikhwan as Safa]], anonymous authors on Islamic legends with clear Neo-Platonic tendencies. The closest thing I found in tafsir is, that Iblis was taken captive by the angels,a fter he was sent down to earth to the jinn as a judge. But even here, he judges them and we don't know if he was an angel or a jinni in this report (They read him as "from the jinn" instead of "one of the jinn"). But still, there is no "works his way up to heaven". This is not to say that Iblis is always an angel. But those who say he is not, think of him mostly as the father of the jinn, not as an individual member from the pre-Adamite jinn. I am really unsure what to do. On one hand, there are a lot of references in reliable sources, probably due to contemporary popularity, but on the other hand, it doesn't seem to reflect anything established in Islamic exegetical tradition. [[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 18:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
:Update: I found this [[WP:WSAW|essay]] on what to do if sources are wrong. However, since this is a huge step, and contradicting quite a few sources also used in the article, I would like to know if others know any better and could find support that the idea that Iblis was "a pious jinni elavted to tha rank of angels" has ever been considered by any (traditional) Muslim scholar. [[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 12:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Update: I checked Awn's Satan-Book to look up for the primary source. It seems to be be [[Tarikh Khamis]] which tells about two of Iblis' origins. However, as a sixteenth Century compliation, I am not sure, how muhc it actually represents Islamic traditions regarding this matter. [[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 00:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{Talk:Iblis/GA1}} |
Latest revision as of 07:12, 23 July 2024
Iblis was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 23, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iblis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Little problem with the "he was raised to the level of angels"-narrative
[edit]This is pretty popular and even mentioned among many cited sources, however, I couldn't find, after reading through about 10 tafasirs in Arabic, not even one such story. And non of these sources do cite material, ecept for Tobias Nünlist Daemon belief in Islam. A German work with a lot of material regarding jinn, div, devils, angels, and satans in Islamic Medieval Age tradition. He attributes this to the Ikhwan as Safa, anonymous authors on Islamic legends with clear Neo-Platonic tendencies. The closest thing I found in tafsir is, that Iblis was taken captive by the angels,a fter he was sent down to earth to the jinn as a judge. But even here, he judges them and we don't know if he was an angel or a jinni in this report (They read him as "from the jinn" instead of "one of the jinn"). But still, there is no "works his way up to heaven". This is not to say that Iblis is always an angel. But those who say he is not, think of him mostly as the father of the jinn, not as an individual member from the pre-Adamite jinn. I am really unsure what to do. On one hand, there are a lot of references in reliable sources, probably due to contemporary popularity, but on the other hand, it doesn't seem to reflect anything established in Islamic exegetical tradition. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Update: I found this essay on what to do if sources are wrong. However, since this is a huge step, and contradicting quite a few sources also used in the article, I would like to know if others know any better and could find support that the idea that Iblis was "a pious jinni elavted to tha rank of angels" has ever been considered by any (traditional) Muslim scholar. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- Update: I checked Awn's Satan-Book to look up for the primary source. It seems to be be Tarikh Khamis which tells about two of Iblis' origins. However, as a sixteenth Century compliation, I am not sure, how muhc it actually represents Islamic traditions regarding this matter. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Iblis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: VenusFeuerFalle (talk · contribs) 19:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: A. Parrot (talk · contribs) 06:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I will review this article, but it may take about a week to familiarize myself with it and give it a full review.
Some problems I note to start with:
- When describing Iblis's origin story (both in the lead section and the body), the text switches between present and past tense. It should be one or the other.
- Three of the section headings use Arabic terms that won't be familiar to most readers. I feel like it's especially important for section headings to be comprehensible because they're the reader's guideposts for navigating the text. "Qiṣaṣ exegesis" is acceptable because the term is explained in the first sentence of the section, but the other two headings need to be changed.
- Several of the links in the "See also" section are of dubious relevance. I don't see how Gnosticism, Mastema, Mara (demon) or Questions of Bartholomew are relevant at all. Harut and Marut are at least from Islamic tradition and not that of some other culture, but if they don't have a direct connection to Iblis, they should be removed as well. The other links do have some relationship with Iblis, but it would be preferable if they could be incorporated into the text.
- As you've responded to these comments in edit summaries, I'll clarify my thinking here.
- Kalam may be an untranslatable term, but to someone not versed in Islamic tradition, it's not an intuitive way to organize the article because its meaning is opaque. I'm also not sure why these three sections (Quran, Affiliation, and Function) are grouped under Kalam but the two that follow (Satan's Monotheism and Qiṣaṣ exegesis) are not. All the traditions about Iblis are derived from the text of the Quran, are they not? It might make more sense to have the section on the Quranic material stand on its own (similar to how you organized Harut and Marut), and then have the next four sections, all of which cover subsequent theological speculation, under a single header—"Interpretations", perhaps?
- As for the see also section, a major problem in Wikipedia is something I have elsewhere dubbed "original-research-by-see-also", in which links are added to the see also section to imply a connection between two topics that isn't stated in article text or the sources. The reason I objected to Mastema and not Samael is because the current text of the article on Samael makes a sourced comparison between the two, and the current text of Mastema's article does not. But it would be better if this article made the connections clear in its text, to avoid the impression that original-research-by-see-also is going on here. I won't insist on this point for GA status, but it is greatly preferable. A. Parrot (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I apologize for the delayed reply, I probably missed the notification and the edits on my watchlist due to some isues on another article's talkapge, I got involved.
- The reason for excluding Qiṣaṣ from Kalam is that Qiṣaṣ is a separate genre in which mostly mythologies are discussed. Satan's Monotheism could be included under Kalam though it is more commonly found outside of theological treatises. Iblis' affilation, the Quranic meaning, and the "refutation of the Dualists" (i.e. Iblis' function) is something you find in works about Islamic Creed, hence the classification (for example Taftazani's commentary on al-Nasafi). If your suggestion still stands, I want to re-arrange it accordingly, since I have no objection towards that either.
- The inclusion of Mastema was mostly due to the GA I made a few years ago on fallen angel. I do not think that Mastema is a noteworthy conenction, merely some scholars (i.e. Patricia Crone I think) drew connections. It is not important though, I am gonna remove it. If the article itself mentions Samael, I think it would go too offtopic, as the connection is only made in later midrashic works. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- On a second thought, the current order has the strength that the Quran section can deal with various meanings of the Quranic text (for example on Surah 18:50, since here, multiple readings are possible), whereas the other sections are explicitly about discussions Muslim scholars do during theological speculations. One example can be found on "A Commentary on the Creed of Islam Sad al-Din al-Taftazani on the Creed of Najm al-Din al-Nasafi - Teftazani. EARL EDGAR ELDER", a PDF is online available, but for copy-right reasons, I do not want to post it here. He discusses how to respond to Iblis being called an angel and sketches out the function. There is, however, no Quranic exegesis (Tafsir), neither is here anything about Satan's Monotheism. These are (mostly) separate genres after all.
- Brill encyclopedia uses the term "narrative exegesis" for "construct [of] an autonomous tale around verses of the Qurʾān" on the article Miʿrājnāma. Though such stories can be included into tafsir, it is not the same as the interpration of the Quran (though used in support of certain propositions). I changed the translationa ccordingly. The original term used was "aggadic" as it is also used sometimes. However, since the term is closely related to voccabulary of Studies of Judaism, I decided to refrain from that term.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I still object to the use of Kalam as a section heading. Section headings are there to guide readers so they know where to look to find information. In an English-language encyclopedia, most readers are not going to know what kalam is or what kind of information they'll find in a section with that title. Non-English words may sometimes be usable in section headings, but I think generally only in cases where the terms are integral enough to the topic itself that they should be covered in the lead section. E.g., ancient Egyptian conception of the soul is a pretty poor article, but the Egyptian names for aspects of the soul are sensibly used as section headings because they're core to the topic and are briefly defined in the lead. A. Parrot (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Would you go with "Theology"? Alternatively something like 'Muslim Creed' though this would be aqida, could be used. Theology is probably more clear though. I also checked a few unrelated sources (on the Brill enycclopdia of Islam) yesterday, indeed using the term "aggadic" for narrative exegesis. As an alternative suggestion to "narrative interpretation". Let me know your thoughts and I will go will go with them. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I still object to the use of Kalam as a section heading. Section headings are there to guide readers so they know where to look to find information. In an English-language encyclopedia, most readers are not going to know what kalam is or what kind of information they'll find in a section with that title. Non-English words may sometimes be usable in section headings, but I think generally only in cases where the terms are integral enough to the topic itself that they should be covered in the lead section. E.g., ancient Egyptian conception of the soul is a pretty poor article, but the Egyptian names for aspects of the soul are sensibly used as section headings because they're core to the topic and are briefly defined in the lead. A. Parrot (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer:: If i may add, perhaps the main header should be reduced, and the details should be moved into subsections. only include the general definitions & remarks about Iblis should be left in the main header/opening text. perhaps the definition of Iblis and its comparation with Satan from Christian bible deserve its special subsection Ahendra (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, I haven't had time to treat it as thoroughly as it deserves, but I think it can become a GA with some work. Thiese are the points I've noticed so far.
- In response to Ahendra's remarks, the lead section is a bit long compared with the overall size of the article, and I do think the middle two paragraphs could be shortened a bit. But the general rule of thumb is that a lead section should touch on the subject matter of every top-level heading, and I wouldn't want it to be reduced too much. In any case, I don't think any major changes to the lead are necessary for meeting the GA criteria.
- I tried, without the lead becoming confusing. I think trimming the lead comes with the issue that the points are not clear. This is an issue adressed in one of the points below, when the positions of "angel vs jinn" need more elaboration.
- However, Ahendra's point about the relationship with the Christian concept of Satan is valid. English-speaking readers are likely to be more familiar with the Christian concept and wonder how Iblis relates to it. The topic may not need its own subsection; it could perhaps be brought up when the article discusses the relationship with the term Shayṭān.
- Is a quick mentioning sufficient? It has been added.
- Speaking of which: that discussion is somewhat confusing. It says that Iblīs and Shayṭān aren't interchangeable but doesn't entirely explain how they differ, even though Awn 1983 says they largely are interchangeable.
- The only part of Awn stating that I can find is "While the Qur’anic references to Iblis deal primarily with these two religious myths, it should not be assumed that these passages constitute the only Qur’anic references to an Islamic devil figure. On the contrary, the name Ash-Shaytan, Satan, appears more than fifty times in the text of the Qur’an.* Within the two myths described above, the titles are virtually interchangeable, with the name Iblis being used in the context of man’s creation and the Devil’s fall, while the title Ash-Shaytan is reserved for the enticement of Adam and Eve", which sets Iblis in direct relationship to the story of Adam's fall in Garden Eden. I think it is important to note the part "Within the two myths described above". As stated and cited in the lead, the figures differ in their function. I do not know why the source shows page 122 though, it should have been 46. I decided to highlight the relevant parts:
"The predominance of the use of Ash-Shaytan over Iblis in the hadith collections of Al-Bukhari, Muslim, and Ibn Maja points to more than simply a semantic preference. It does not seem rash to suggest that each title portrays the Islamic devil figure in a distinct light. The name Iblis, as seen earlier, is intimately linked with the development of a complex, mythic personality; Iblis is ascetic, devoted worshipper, master of the heavens, guardian of Paradise, defender of the Throne, arrogant, prideful, impetuous, etc. One cannot paint him only in blacks and whites. There is too much conflict and ambiguity in his make-up, and it is this very complexity that adds vividness and depth to his portrait. (...) The title Ash-Shaytan, as employed in the hadith, views the Muslim devil from a substantially different perspective. We are confronted more with a malevolent force than with a highly nuanced personality. The focus is not on Iblis/Ash-Shaytan’s interior psychic processes but rather on the ruinous effects this evil force has upon the lives of men and women. This should not seem strange considering the heightened concern of the hadith with human praxis. Ash-Shaytan is more often than not one-dimensional; he is evil, cunning, and wily; his delight is to lead mankind astray. There is little ambiguity here. It is generally in the few specific references to Iblis by name that his personality comes to life in all its complexity."
- The only part of Awn stating that I can find is "While the Qur’anic references to Iblis deal primarily with these two religious myths, it should not be assumed that these passages constitute the only Qur’anic references to an Islamic devil figure. On the contrary, the name Ash-Shaytan, Satan, appears more than fifty times in the text of the Qur’an.* Within the two myths described above, the titles are virtually interchangeable, with the name Iblis being used in the context of man’s creation and the Devil’s fall, while the title Ash-Shaytan is reserved for the enticement of Adam and Eve", which sets Iblis in direct relationship to the story of Adam's fall in Garden Eden. I think it is important to note the part "Within the two myths described above". As stated and cited in the lead, the figures differ in their function. I do not know why the source shows page 122 though, it should have been 46. I decided to highlight the relevant parts:
- "This is the major opinion among Arab scholars, who maintain the tradition that the personal name of this being was ʿAzāzīl." I'm not sure what "Arab scholars" is supposed to mean here; is it scholars of the Arabic language, or scholars who are Arabs? And if the latter, are they Islamic scholars or scholars of a particular academic field?
- Added the name (for the Arabic scholar) mentioned in the source. This is mostly to highlight the Muslim perception of the etymology and not meant to be an etymology by modern standards.
- It's not clear why the Kitab al Magall is relevant to the etymology. According to the article about it, it's a post-Quranic source, so it doesn't seem like it would be of help tracing the word's pre-Quranic evolution. If the book's characterization of Iblis is noteworthy, it would belong in one of the theological sections below.
- The source made not clear that Kitab al Magall is post-Quranic. Re-checking the source with this in mind, the theory proposed here probably falls under fringe, since no other source covers this up. Removed this part.
- "Since fire overcomes clay, he owes to destroy Adam like fire destroys clay" — Do you mean "vows to destroy"?
- Yes it is supposed to say "vows", not "owes". Fixed.
- "disagree on whether Iblis belongs to a group of angels called jinni due to their origin from paradise, or if he was distinct from the angels, the progenitor of the jinn". I think this needs some more explanation for readers who are unfamiliar with Islamic traditions about how angels and jinn relate to each other. Is it an established tradition that angels are progenitors of the jinn?
- No it is rather that Hasan subsituted the jinn with the devils. I agree this needs some elaboration. However, jinn are usually a distinct topic in itself (except then they are merged with the devils). I added the source used below which explains Iblis' angelic interpretation using the term "jinni" (in this context) as a nisbah and not to designate "jinn" and not the genus.
- The name of the character in Vathek is apparently spelled "Eblis".
- This is the common transscription of the alif by Orientalists at the time. Similarly, Azrael might be spelled Ezrael or the demon Ifrit as Efrit. Transscriptions with the leter A and I also exist (Afrit, Izrail, etc.) Fixing the transscription used throughout the novel though, due to quote. The spelling variant is introduced in the lead-section.
- The limited Google Books preview of Cavaliero 2010 seems to show Cavaliero comparing Eblis in Vathek to the versions of Satan found in the Book of Job and the works of John Milton rather than Dante. Because I can't see the passage you're citing, could you quote it?
- I would need to get access again first, but I want to put it on my list.
- Here a quote I found from the second source:
I wonder the notability though, especially sinc Dante's Inferno is probably inspired by Islamic depiction of Iblis being frozen in the deepest layer of hell and al-Ma'ari's Story of the Night Journey. I could not find a verification for the first source apart fromBeckford constructed his Orientalism to comprehend Western literary traditions: the Satan of Milton's Paradise Lost echoes through the presentation of Eblis just as the Hall of Eblis reminds us of Dante's Inferno. We must not dismiss Beckford's Orientalism as merely a fabrication based on his own European experience because that view does not give sufficient weight to the thorough knowledge of customs, literatures, languages, and legends of Persian and Arabia that forms his unique vision.
"When they all meet Eblis, who speaks their doom, they see not a Satanic figure in the Dantean image or even the leader of the Dance of Death, but one "whose person was that of a young man, whose noble and regular features seemed to have been tarnished by malignant vapours. In his large eyes appeared both pride and despair, his hair retained soe resemblance to that of an angel of light."
- The second paragraph about ash-Shahid is unusual because you don't describe the reception of any of the other literary works listed here. Is there a particular reason for highlighting this one, and for highlighting only the reactions from Salafis and not other Muslims?
- It was simply because it was the only reception I found when I did research back then. It is kinda odd indeed to have only one reception.
- Awn 1983 is a single text with a single author; why is it cited chapter-by-chapter?
- I do not know. It was probably something done by another user over time. I never managed to configurate tweaks, so sometimes Users use them to formate the sources. Usually it is a great help, but sometimes it is doing strange things to sources. For example, the entire mis-reference to Iblis and Shaytan being used as separate terms. Maybe you might have a view on the source again. I want to restore the Awn sources properly, since it should be only one work not multiple chapters.
@VenusFeuerFalle: I apologize for not responding for the past few days. I've had difficulty finding time to concentrate on this review because of off-wiki obligations that will keep me tied up for at least the next couple of weeks. As it stands, I don't think the article meets the GA criteria 1a and 3a, because there is some awkward prose (no doubt because English isn't your first language) and some important points that won't be entirely clear to a reader unfamiliar with the topic. The problems can be overcome with detailed feedback, but I'm afraid I can't provide it at the moment. You could seek another reviewer, or you could wait two weeks until I can give the article the attention it deserves. I'm open to whatever you decide. A. Parrot (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am fine with waiting 2-3 weeks. The 1 Week proposal is very thight sometimes. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Restart
[edit]@VenusFeuerFalle: Many apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I'm trying to re-engage with the article by fixing small prose faults while looking out for larger problems to note later. I will continue to work on it over the next few days. A couple of overarching issues that come to mind so far:
- The citations for individual studies in journals, or chapters in books, give page ranges for the length of the study, but not for the specific page being cited. The specific pages need to be cited in order for me to check the text against its sources.
- Re: the title of the kalam section, "theology" would be fine. But I still don't understand why the Quran section falls under this heading while "Satan's Monotheism" and "Narrative exegesis" stand on their own.
A. Parrot (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Satan's Monotheism is an idea beyond theology. It also appaers in poetry or essays outside the Kalam discourse. al-Hallaj who is famous for defending Iblis and the Pharao is not a mutakallim (theologian) yet, one of the most cited source when both scholars as well as "artists" refer to the idea of Satan's monotheism. As far as I am aware of Christian society, there is a rather strict distinction between the religious world and the "mundane" world. Religious topics then are closely related to theology. In Islamic culture, one might do "History", Zoology, or poetry and still invoke jinn, Satan, or popular "religious tropes". "Satan's monotheism" being one of them.
- I want to take care of the page-numbers as soon as possible. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I see you've added them in many citations, but not all. I was going to look at the citations for "This led to a dispute among the mufassirūn (exegetes)…", because it's not clear which is the "term" that sentence refers to. But Citations 18 and 19 lack page numbers, and Citation 20 gives page 146 for a paper that ends on page 144. A. Parrot (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Closing. The subject matter of this article (Islamic theological discussions that will be unfamiliar to most English-speaking readers) and the obstacles faced by the nominator and primary author (writing in English when it is not their first language) mean that it has significant comprehensibility problems. These problems are mild enough that I believe they could be overcome in a GA review, but only through sustained back-and-forth engagement between the nominator and the reviewer. I regret that I failed to engage with it sufficiently when starting the review, or for a long time thereafter. When I returned my attention to it, I wanted to give the nominator plenty of time to respond. But VenusFeuerFalle has not replied, nor edited at all, in more than two weeks, so I feel I must fail the article. A. Parrot (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- B-Class vital articles in Philosophy and religion
- B-Class Islam-related articles
- Mid-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- B-Class Mythology articles
- Low-importance Mythology articles