This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Deleted the initial comments made here, as it seems to be a case of vandalism. -- Mitsukai 15:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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. -- Kizor 04:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
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. -- 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.
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? YogiHalim ( talk) 05:52, 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 [1] 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 ( 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. -- FrNANow ( talk) 20:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
-- FrNANow ( talk) 20:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
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".-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 19:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
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?
The following sentence was in the article at the end of the Etymology section:
The talk page is the proper place for such a comment, not the article itself. — CKA3KA (Skazka) 21:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
"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." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.82.106.152 ( talk) 11:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
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.
iblis is believed to be the most evil djinn[genie] and is accosiated w/ the devil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.247.122 ( talk) 15:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to replace the word 'God' with 'Allah' in this article? TheDestitutionOfOrganizedReligion ( talk) 16:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
76.66.201.129 ( talk) 11:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
How is the name Iblis pronounced? Is it Iblis or EebLees or IBlees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.110.74 ( talk) 13:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Mohamed Magdy ( talk) 16:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
God is the word universally understood in English. This Arabic site [1] sheds light on whether Iblis was an angel. Kabad ( talk) 18:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Pronounced as ib (of ibid) and lease: ib-lease. -- Kabad ( talk) 23:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
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. -- Carlon ( talk) 01:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
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.
The term Iblīs ( Arabic: إِبْلِيس) may have been derived from the Arabic verbal root BLS ب-ل-س (with the broad meaning of "remain in grief") [2] or بَلَسَ (balasa, "he despaired"). [3] Furthermore, the name is related to talbis meaning confusion. [4] Another possibility is that it is derived from Ancient Greek διάβολος (diábolos), via a Syriac intermediary, [5] which is also the source of the English word ' devil'. [6]
//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.
-- Champaign ( talk) 02:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
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? Шизомби ( talk) 03:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
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.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 21:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
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.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 12:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC) I object, because it is unneeded. 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 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! Abu Yagub ( talk) 03:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
"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. 82.46.162.198 ( talk) 15:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
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, .
Leo1pard ( talk) 15:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC) edited 16:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
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.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 14:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
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, .
Leo1pard ( talk) 18:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC); edited 18:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
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.
-- Tmason101 ( talk) 01:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Drmies Let me explain what is going on:
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, .
Leo1pard ( talk) 06:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC); edited 08:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
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.
-- Tmason101 ( talk) 12:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Sufism developed another perspective of Iblis' refusal by regarding Muhammed and Iblis as the two true 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, dualism is also degraded, that corresponds with the Sufi cosmology of 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 by some Sufis. [20] 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 and Iblis on the slopes of Sinai, told by Mansur al-Hallaj, Ruzbihan Baqli [20] 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 devil. Iblis responds, his form is just temporary and his love towards God remains the same. [21] [22]
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). [23] -- Muhammadahmad79 ( talk) 05:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
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.
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.
-- Tmason101 ( talk) 23:31, 24 June 2020 (
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?
-- Tmason101 ( talk) 17:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Is anything going to be done about the false information?
-- Tmason101 ( talk) 21:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
nowhere in the quran does it say this, could somebody fix?
a view for which there is admittedly also Qur'anic support. (this is on page 73)? Because 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? VR talk 04:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
No Muslim questions the spirituality of Iblis' nature; only the precise definition of the family of spirits to which Iblis belongs is problematical". VR talk 04:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
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.
No Muslim questions the spirituality of Iblis' nature; only the precise definition of the family of spirits to which Iblis belongs is problematical". VR talk 21:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
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.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 21:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
The Qur'an states in Surat al-Kahf, verse 50,
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!
— The Qur'an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English
Source: Tafsir al-Fakhr al-Razi (in Arabic) Hope this helps, good luck.-- TheEagle107 ( talk) 06:13, 25 July 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.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 14:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
"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.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 02:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
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. -- Etu Malku ( talk) 16:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
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.) -- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 18:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
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)-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 00:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Iblis would never prostrate nor to Allah nor other entity so might be hoax article, or for template {{ Hoax}} in introductory part. -- 5.43.81.203 ( talk) 20:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
@ 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). VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 13:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Deleted the initial comments made here, as it seems to be a case of vandalism. -- Mitsukai 15:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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. -- Kizor 04:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
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. -- 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.
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? YogiHalim ( talk) 05:52, 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 [1] 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 ( 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. -- FrNANow ( talk) 20:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
-- FrNANow ( talk) 20:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
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".-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 19:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
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?
The following sentence was in the article at the end of the Etymology section:
The talk page is the proper place for such a comment, not the article itself. — CKA3KA (Skazka) 21:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
"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." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.82.106.152 ( talk) 11:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
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.
iblis is believed to be the most evil djinn[genie] and is accosiated w/ the devil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.247.122 ( talk) 15:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to replace the word 'God' with 'Allah' in this article? TheDestitutionOfOrganizedReligion ( talk) 16:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
76.66.201.129 ( talk) 11:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
How is the name Iblis pronounced? Is it Iblis or EebLees or IBlees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.110.74 ( talk) 13:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Mohamed Magdy ( talk) 16:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
God is the word universally understood in English. This Arabic site [1] sheds light on whether Iblis was an angel. Kabad ( talk) 18:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Pronounced as ib (of ibid) and lease: ib-lease. -- Kabad ( talk) 23:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
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. -- Carlon ( talk) 01:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
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.
The term Iblīs ( Arabic: إِبْلِيس) may have been derived from the Arabic verbal root BLS ب-ل-س (with the broad meaning of "remain in grief") [2] or بَلَسَ (balasa, "he despaired"). [3] Furthermore, the name is related to talbis meaning confusion. [4] Another possibility is that it is derived from Ancient Greek διάβολος (diábolos), via a Syriac intermediary, [5] which is also the source of the English word ' devil'. [6]
//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.
-- Champaign ( talk) 02:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
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? Шизомби ( talk) 03:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
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.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 21:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
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.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 12:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC) I object, because it is unneeded. 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 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! Abu Yagub ( talk) 03:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
"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. 82.46.162.198 ( talk) 15:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
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, .
Leo1pard ( talk) 15:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC) edited 16:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
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.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 14:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
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, .
Leo1pard ( talk) 18:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC); edited 18:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
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.
-- Tmason101 ( talk) 01:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Drmies Let me explain what is going on:
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, .
Leo1pard ( talk) 06:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC); edited 08:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
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.
-- Tmason101 ( talk) 12:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Sufism developed another perspective of Iblis' refusal by regarding Muhammed and Iblis as the two true 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, dualism is also degraded, that corresponds with the Sufi cosmology of 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 by some Sufis. [20] 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 and Iblis on the slopes of Sinai, told by Mansur al-Hallaj, Ruzbihan Baqli [20] 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 devil. Iblis responds, his form is just temporary and his love towards God remains the same. [21] [22]
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). [23] -- Muhammadahmad79 ( talk) 05:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
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.
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.
-- Tmason101 ( talk) 23:31, 24 June 2020 (
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?
-- Tmason101 ( talk) 17:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Is anything going to be done about the false information?
-- Tmason101 ( talk) 21:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
nowhere in the quran does it say this, could somebody fix?
a view for which there is admittedly also Qur'anic support. (this is on page 73)? Because 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? VR talk 04:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
No Muslim questions the spirituality of Iblis' nature; only the precise definition of the family of spirits to which Iblis belongs is problematical". VR talk 04:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
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.
No Muslim questions the spirituality of Iblis' nature; only the precise definition of the family of spirits to which Iblis belongs is problematical". VR talk 21:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
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.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 21:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
The Qur'an states in Surat al-Kahf, verse 50,
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!
— The Qur'an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English
Source: Tafsir al-Fakhr al-Razi (in Arabic) Hope this helps, good luck.-- TheEagle107 ( talk) 06:13, 25 July 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.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 14:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
"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.-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 02:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
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. -- Etu Malku ( talk) 16:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
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.) -- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 18:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
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)-- VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 00:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Iblis would never prostrate nor to Allah nor other entity so might be hoax article, or for template {{ Hoax}} in introductory part. -- 5.43.81.203 ( talk) 20:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
@ 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). VenusFeuerFalle ( talk) 13:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
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)