Talk:Shaitan

Shaitan in Dune

Removed from the article:

"Shaïtan is also one of the names of the giant worms in the novel Dune by Frank Herbert."

I can't remember or corroborate this, so I removed it from the article.

Well, read Dune again. Look at eg: "... fragments of melange, which Shaitan sometimes left behind in his passage." (Heretics of Dune), "Melange explosion brought Shaitan. No sandworm could resist a spice blow in its territory" (Chapterhouse Dune). It's how people call the worms after the death of Leto II, obviously after the word for Satan...

shaitan and shai-hulud are both names for the worms in dune; shaitan is the name of the worms when the rage and attack in the early books, but then in heretics of dune (i never read chapterhouse), the worms are always considered to be shaitan, because their have some of leto ii's essence/consciousness in them, and are more malicious towards humans, and more intelligent (they were animals in books 1-4).

Why has this information on Dune been removed? Unless there is a valid reason (and keeping this a religious article is not a valid reason, nor is it scholarly), please do not remove this information.

To my knowledge, the Fremen never referred to the sandworm as Shaitan. The Fremen referred to him as Shai'hulud or a Maker. Sheeana was the first to name him Shaitan after he killed her family. This was a shock to the Priests of the Divided God who considered Sheeana to be blessed because she could stand in the presence of the Divided God without being killed. Although Sheeana was the Tyrant's "sandrider", she was not really a Fremen. Being related to or decended from Fremen does not make you a Fremen. This is proven by the fact that there was at times intermarriage between sietch and village, yet there was disrespect for the people living in the villages even though they were distant relatives. What marks a true Fremen is following The Way. I conclude that no Fremen ever referred to the sandworm as Shaitan.

Yes, Shaitan is the name for the divide god in the later books of the Dune series. Leto II actually states that people will call him Shaitan when he returns. Sheeana does this in "Heretics of Dune" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heretics_of_Dune) and in "Chapterhouse". 128.111.119.34 17:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Joe in CA

Misc Info

shaitan (singular)/shayateen (plural; i dont know dual) is also a category of jinni (see here); should that be included? Nateji77 08:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Removing crap

• Shaitan was also the Chaldean form of the Egyptian god Set.

Somebody please back this with something. Sweetfreek 01:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

This sort of attitude towards information is unscholarly and uncalled for. It might not be backed up, but its certainly not "crap".

Clarity and Bias in the Garden of Eden

"...nor does the Quran mention anything that there was another tree."  

This makes no sense. I would fix it, but I have no idea what the original editor was trying to say.

More importantly than that, the italicized portions of "Shaitan and Adam and Eve" have a very anti-Judeo/Christian bias. I'm taking them out altogether.

Speaking of clarity and bias, what exactly is implied by the whole section about Tree of Life in Bible or "In Islam, the notion that God 'feared' that Adam or Eve would eat from that tree and rival Him is something completely contradictory to the concept of Almighty God." This seems to be, if not wholly irrelevant to an article on shaitan, at least completely biased. I have removed this material as it is largely irrelevant anyway, and hardly up to scholarly standards as the information is incorrect.

I'm also removing "Also, it must be stressed that unlike the Bible, the Qur'an does not blame or state that Eve goaded her husband into eating the forbidden fruit, nor does it relieve Adam of any blame for disobeying either." This article is not a comparison of the Hebrew Bible and the Quran, and this information is moreover irrelevant to an article about shaitan.

The article claims to be only pertaining to Islam, but throughout there are erroneous references to Judeo/Christian beliefs. Why? This peer reviewer is giving up on deleting the irrelevent and incorrect information (whoever wrote them put them in italic to emphasize their personal beliefs) as the writer seems hell bent on replacing them. This peer editor is giving up on trying to fix an unscholarly article and will leave the incorrect information be, to reflect the largely uneducated nature of this article.

Language needs to be brought up to a higher academic standard

Much language used in this article, particularly the last section, conveys a large deal of the opinion of the writer outside of an academic discussion. Someone please clean this up. Ex.: "harsh wild earth"

The article was obviously not written by one whose native tongue is English.

Speaking of: "One should not underestimate the so called, “power of suggestion”, such as the Nazi war propaganda machine." Should probably be reworded or removed. "This should not be taken to indicate that Iblis is weak in his abilities to tempt humans." conveys the same thing without the irrelevant Nazi reference, but I'm not sure if should be there at all. --Hexalm 17:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Links commented out

Who removed those links and why?

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but you can find out by using the "history" tab at the top of the article page. -- Beland 02:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

clean up...

I found this in a comment; I'm deleting that from the article and putting it here where it is less likely to cause confusion and more likely to get a response

The term "Iblis" was most likely borrowed from the Spanish word "diablos" ("devil") by the Moorish invaders of Christian Spain. Doesn't make sense. Iblis was written long before the Moorish conquest, please find a source.

Diablos was Greek in origin. You are correct, this statement is wrongIthinkIwannaLeia (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Mythology of Shaitan

AlShaitan lured Adam and Hawwa' into eating from the tree. For that Allah damned AlShaitan, but delayed punishment until Doomsday. In Islamic view Shaitan was not cursed by God because of luring Adam and Eve but because of refusing to bow down to Adam , see Iblis There are other middle eastern mythologies concerning Shaitan differing from common Islamic view , a famous example is Yezidi sect's beliefs , Yezidi's are believed to predate Islam and are believed to consider Shaitan a name of their deity.I shall verify what I have in memory and add some information about their view of Shaitan .Please help if you have information about Yezidis.Pasha Abd 21:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the Yezidi view needs to be added. Skyerise (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Islam Template

As I understand things Shaitan is the Islamic equivalent of Satan or the Devil or what have you. Should the {{islam}} template be added? I mean, is this "part of a series of articles about Islam"? -Kode 22:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Shayṭān (شيطان) is the equivalent in Islam of Satan in Christianity. The Islamic view of Satan, has both commonalities and differences with Christian and Jewish views.

that needs to be reworded. the article on satan doesn't cite him as the judeo-christian equiv of shaitan.--Missilepenguin! 00:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary Fiction --

In The Black Stallion Returns by Walter Farley, we learn that the original name of the horse was Shaitan. (This name seems to have been changed to Shetan in The Young Black Stallion and in later editions of the books. But it's just a different spelling of Shaitan, AFAIK.)

Jinn and E.T.???

"There was no translation for jinn in English language until recently, so it can be now be easily translated as E.T. (the Extra-Terrestrial)." What is this? This is completely unscholarly and subjective. Could this please be removed? There is already a fairly good article on the Jinn/Genies on Wikipedia and information can be borrowed from there.

Non-NPOV lingo

The line "Why? It could be that humans are higher creation than angels, or Allah desired to expose Iblis, or both of these two reasons. There are some other reasons which are unknown because Allah has the Divine Plan and we humans are not preview to all of Allah's Divine Plan." is a very long way from NPOV, indeed it seems to assume that the existance of God is verifiable fact. This goes for a good deal of this article. It should be re-written in a more scholarly tone. (Yes, I am a grumpy atheist, bah humbug!)Sceptic-all 16:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm also a grumpy atheist, but this is a page on a religious topic. It seems utterly impossible to discuss any subject regarding Islam, Christianity, or Judaism without assuming the existance of God. The point I would agree with you is that there seems to be a large deal of interpretation going on here, and this isn't the place for a sermon. Vvibbert (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

pov check

I think there is some Christian-based bias in the entire introductory paragraph. We don't define Satan in terms of Islam's Shaitan, so why should the opposite be true? I think there should be a way of defining Shaitan for the first paragraph in a way that doesn't do so simply in term's of Christianity's version of the same idea. samrolken 06:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Jinns, genies and humans: to be clarified

Quote from article:

In Islam, Allah created everything in pairs. The pair for a human is a jinn, two beings of higher intelligence created with free will. In between the pair of jinn and human there could be lots of other creation with higher intelligence like jinn and human. Qu'ran tells that the jinn race was created long, long before the human race. And, for long time humans were nothing, not even mentioned.

This is confusing. Does the first reference to "pair" refer to the human - jinn combination, or does it mean that jinns are themselves a pair? And does "pair" here have anything to do with the customary use in these contexts of referring to male and female. Also, does "humans were nothing" mean they were of little consequence, or that they literally did not yet exist? And "long, long time..." is not accepted Wikipedia usage, no matter how evocative it might be in these religious contexts. I would edit this, but not being sure of the intended meaning, I will wait for some clarification. Myles325a 04:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad article

This article definitely needs some help from someone more knowledgeable. Iblis=Satan=The Devil, while Shaitan (as I understand it) can equal both The Devil (Iblis)/a devil (i.e. an evil jinn) or Satan/a satan. I've also heard the word used by Hindus in Indian movies, and I'd like to know more about that. I'm pretty sure it was also used by the pagans in the movie Dragnet (1987 film), of all things! Thus my suspicion is that the word is not limited to Islam. Шизомби (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The article certainly needs work, especially to differentiate between what is actually in the Qur'ān and what is commentary by others. One aspect that needs exploring is the relationship of Iblis to Shaitan. A brief look at the Qur'ān would suggest that there are more than one Shaitan and that Iblis was one of their number. Possibly Iblis has, because of his exalted state as one who was initially greatly favoured and given a place with the Angels, become synonymous with the leader of the Shaitan. This needs to be confirmed with references to a Islamic/Qur'ānic Scholar. From the Qur'ān it appears that the Shaitan were Jinn. Jinn had free will and therefore could choose to obey. Some or all disobeyed and became 'unbelievers' i.e. Shaitans. If there were an example of an obediant Jinn this could help complete this article? I can't find any references to Shaitan that originate outside of Islam or Islammic influence johnmark† 20:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Bandh Darwaza and Purana Mundir were two Indian movies in which the word was used by Hindus. I'm quite sure there's reference to obedient jinn in hadith, I seem to recall one about Muhammad claiming to meet some. I'll have to see if I can turn it up. But perhaps Genie would be the better article for that, here just a mention could be made. Actually, it occurs to me that it would be interesting to look into why in Islam the Devil is a jinn and in Judaism and Christianity, a fallen angel. Was it a tradition adopted from another religion or sect? Шизомби 04:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Iblis vs. Shaitan

What, precisely, is the difference between Iblis and Shaitan? In the Iblis article (as well as in the Shaitan article) it is clearly stated that Iblis (in the former article) and Shaitan (in the latter) are both the Islamic equivalent of the entity known as 'the serpent' — or, Satan. Now, is Iblis synonymous with Shaitan? And if so, why do two separate articles exist? Someone please clarify this matter for me. Grammaticus VII (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the relation between Iblis and Shaitan is synonymous with the relation between Lucifer and Satan. What I mean is, Iblis was Iblis, then he did something to put him in a bad position with the divine being, and then became Shaitan. Atebo88 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As a Muslim, this is what the majority Muslim belief is:

Iblis was an exalted one from among the jinnat (plural of jinn). He disobeyed Allah (SWT) and was banished to Earth and allowed to lead humans astray; but he and his followers will beg for mercy on the Day of Judgment but Allah SWT will deliver Iblis and his followers (both the jinnat and humans) to where he promised Iblis before he was expelled: hellfire. Now, Iblis and all the jinnat who follow him (note: there are jinnat that do not follow Iblis) are referred to as shayateen (singular form is shaytan). Humans are sometimes also referred to as "shaytan" but that is as an adjective, similar to calling someone devilish or satanic.

Iblis is the personal name for one particular shaitan. In the language (also mentioned in the article) 'shaitan' is an adjective given to creatures (ins and jin) who are astray. Much like ˤIfrit عفريت is an adjective to those who are resourceful and/or cunning.

When Quran tells the story of the original Shaitan it refers to him as Iblis. this story of course is reminiscent of the Jewish tradition.

In the folk mind the difference is not immediately noticeable, however.

The article does need to be written in a not-in-world tone :)

--Alif (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone knowledgeable about this (preferably a Muslim) ought to indicate that "shaitan" is not what the article seems to imply (that is, that "Shaitan" is the name of the Islamic devil), but rather a title (I'm not too sure about this, but from what I've read so far that seems to be the case). TheDestitutionOfOrganizedReligion (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Searching for additional material

Hello, The shayatin are often associated with the fires of the sun. For example in Suyutis " Al-Hay’a as-samya fi l-hay’a as-sunmya", shayatin seem to be created from the fire of the sun (samum?). Between the horns of a shaitan rises the sun, and sun-worship was often associated with the shayatin (not only with jinn as with statue-worship). Tobias Nünlist (2015) recorded what shayatin plague humans especially during mid-day when the sun is at the highest point. Does everyone got more material concerning the relation between shayatin and the sun? Also interesting, the shayatin are associated with the sun, and the angelic tribe of Iblis associated with the fire of the sun, but no source explicitly relates them both. Maybe someone found something about what here? I guess these things could improve the article.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Requesting help in article expansion

Hi,

Requesting you to have a look at

• Superstitions in Muslim societies and also Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies

Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Superstitions in Muslim societies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Superstitions in Muslim societies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstitions in Muslim societies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bookku (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Many of these sources need to be verified; entire article possibly needs revamp or deletion

Hello, posting this because a lot of this article feels like the information is suspect. At least one of the references says nothing related to its cited sources (Cites 17 and 18), and I'm getting the sense that much of the rest of the article is original research or describing information about jinns. Please consider this when updating or reading the article. Thank you! 99.199.24.188 (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Amira El Zein translates the "Shayatin" as "Demons" (the children of Iblis). Other authors might prefer translating them as "devils". Regarding the other source, it states: "' However,

the mulassirs point to two major differences between the 'regular' jinn and the devils: l) while among the former there a¡e Muslims, christians, Jews, polytheists' 132 Ecounes R¡ctus and heretics, the devils are exclusively atheists; 2) thejinn, though generally living longer than humans, eventually die, while devils do not die unless Iblis dies (this will happen only with the fi¡st blow of the trumpet at the end of the world). can one, then, assume that the two are in fact one? Or that they are merely two extremes of the same class of creatures?" The source itself is not vague, Islam is. Since Islam never established a clear demonology, there are blurring lines between several demons (Ifrit and Marid, Div and Ifrit, Jinn and devils). I am well aware that contemporary mainstream Islam regards "Shayatin" as simply unbelieving jinn, but this does not represent the Classical version of jinn and shayatin well, which are in some works clearly distinct entities (often the devils are oppositions to angels, while the jinn are the opposition to humans). For example in Suyutis "Al-Hay’a as-samya fi l-hay’a as-sunmya" (When I remember the source well), Shayatin do not appear in any relation to the jinn. In many works Jinn are just something mysterious and occult, one might encpunter in dark places, while the Shayatin are clearly opposing God. In matters of occultism, they are often conflated. Generally, when it comes to the issue of invisibility, shayatin and jinn are mconflated, but only in this regard. This is also confirmed by Amira El Zein. Most of the article was once written by me, after I split up the "Devil (Islam)" article, which was not possible to distinguish between devils, jinn and Iblis properly, because it was based on the false but famous assumption, the Shayatin are "simply unbelieving jinn". So please explain there was Original Research done?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

images

@Sultan.abdullah.hindi: Greetings, I see you are really bothered by the images. Your arguement was, the Siyah Kalam are not representing Muslim art, because it is of Buddhistic or Shamanistic origin. Siyah Kalam might have been of Turkic, Persian or Mongol origin and used Indian Art-Style, when converting to Islam. Siyah Kalam also might have been a Muslim their whole life and just used the Eastern Art-Style in his paintings. Non-Arab Art-Style is common among Muslim Art, when depicting supernatural creatures, probably because in Arab regions, prohibition against iconographical depictions usually have been taken more serious there. But this does not change the fact, this is Art done by Muslims, to represent parts of their beliefs. It seems however, you disagree with this point. Taken from the edits on the Dajjal-article, I remember you stating, that Islam should be based on the first three generations of Muslims. However, this is a very narrow definition not reflecting the actual Muslim Legacy. Articles are about much more than just reflecting the alleged beliefs of the Sahaba and Taibun. And that exactly they believed can not be precisly reconstructed anyways. Your approach would exclude much of Muslim heritage, for example, Siyah Kalam Arts in this specific case. If you however, disagree with this, it would be recommanded to discuss this issue on the talkpage first, or even the WikiProjectIslam in general, as this is a disagreement with the very structure of the Project. With best regards --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: This is very disturbing. Instead of focusing on the issue at hand, which is the misrepresentation of the beliefs of over 1.6 billion Muslims on this planet on one of the most widely used online encyclopedia, I am afraid that you have instead chosen to focus on attacking me/my beliefs personally. Where did I say that "Islam should be based on the first three generations of Muslims" and even if I did do that, it wouldn't even be an academically incorrect opinion. Do you want to know why? Go to any authoritative book of Islamic jurisprudence to find out. The evidence on which Islam is based, which is preserved unlike your claims of 'alleged beliefs', is the Qur'an, the Sunnah (not simple the Ahadis), the Ijma'a (consensus) of the Sahaba (not the first three generations) and Qiyas (analogical reasoning). All real Islamic scholars trace a lineage for their knowledge through the first three generations. There are other sources than those mentioned before upon which the scholars have differed. Siyah Qalam isn't one of those and is clearly influenced by Buddhism and Shamanism, not simply local culture, and is clearly not something representative of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today of whom many if not most believe in not seeing Shaytan or Iblis in his real form. Islam is not a culture and Islam is definitely not based upon arbitrary and subjective choices and opinions. Something which is not authorized by the scholars should not be used to represent something Islamic. So, even if Siyah Qalam was a Muslim, his actions do not define or represent Islam on its own. The same applies to ISIS or Al-Qaeda. You can't take something that is not part of Islam and make it a part of Islam or at the least, portray it as representing Islam simply because some Muslim or some extremist group chose to do something. And it's not regional either. This is the one part where Orientalists and Islamophobes unarguably failed. They took folk superstitions/misunderstandings and imposed that on all Muslims portraying it to be a sort of valid Islamic belief. Yes, it can be considered a work by a Muslim and can be included in the form of a section of the article. Kindly reconsider this. - Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I remember ""Islam should be based on the first three generations of Muslims"" from the Dajjal article, as I stated. If I am mistaken, I am genuinely sorry and beg your pardon. Maybe I have confuse you. The images are frequently a subject of debate and I am, just like many other Wikipedians, are aware that images of living creatures are upsetting for many Muslim users in our time. But this does not change anything about the fact, these are depictions of certain entities related to Muslim belief, even made by Muslims themselves. We all can not decide that Muslims believe or should believe. When an artist decides to make a pictural depcition of his faith, we have an Islamic depiction of this. No matter how much we oppose it or not. None of us can decide that Muslims are supposed to believe and neither you nor me can define Islam in accordance with our own interests. And I am sure you have the best intentions but I think by your claim that "Folklore" does not represent Islam accuratly, is kinda problematic, since "Islam" is the religion Muslims believe in. You can not just say, Muslims believe in X and when fail to contain that Muslims actually believed in. Contemporary Orthodoxy is just another of many facetes of Islam and Muslim belief and we can not decide on our own, which one reflects Islam better. The same issue remains in Christianity too by the way. We have, for example, many depictions of Lucifer remaining in hell, while "Orthodox" (or Catholic) Christianity usually does not teach this. Orthodox clericy mostly tries to impose their "correct faith" upon the masses, often in contrast to their actual beliefs. This happens in all religions with a religious authority. But since Wikipedia is neutral, we do not disctinguish between "official religion", and "actual religion". As long as it is clear, this is not a "official shaitan"-depiction, but merely an interpretation I see no troubles. I am further convinced, people who are interested in Islam or any religion, learn, that images of the supernatural depend on the fantasy of the artist.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Additionally: "The next generation of Muslims after the ṣaḥābah, who were born after Muhammad died but knew personally at least one ṣaḥābah, are called Tābi‘ūn (also "the successors") and the generation after them, who knew at least one Tābi‘, are called tābi‘ al-tābi‘īn.[3] The three generations make up the salaf of Islam." This basically just confirms what I objected earlier. It is not appropriate to reduce Islam to the Salafi-ideology that Islam merely consists of these three generations, or better to say, what is perceived as them. And Orientalism is not on the same level as Xenophobia (Islamophobia in disguise).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: Look, mate, I don't know what your problem is. I would like to see where I said it since I cannot find any such statement. Art, painting and so-called images of a creature that cannot be seen in its real form by the human eye is definitely dubious, to say the least. You really come off as a pretentious person as you neither have a proper understanding of my position nor do you understand the academic tradition in Islam.
""Islam" is the religion Muslims believe in" - Nope. Those who believe in Islam are Muslims and not those who do not believe in it and claim to be Muslims. The converse is not true. You should learn the definition of Islam from an actual and authentic theological source (or sources) rather than making fallacious statement. I would also recommend that you pick up an actual book of theology.
"This basically just confirms what I objected earlier." - Oh really, Sherlock? Does it? Do you even understand what you are saying? I am convinced that you do not. At this point, it is almost like taking to a wall.
"None of us can decide that Muslims are supposed to believe and neither you nor me can define Islam in accordance with our own interests." - ALLAH subHanah can and he has. You cannot. Your "own" beliefs and perception of Islam are irrelevant. The supplication we make in Suratul-Fatiha is to be guided on the straight path of those who were rewarded and not of those who were misguided or cursed. If your "own" beliefs do not conform to that of those who were granted certainty of a reward (Rasulullah (ﷺ) and the Sahaba (radiyallahu 'anhum)), then your beliefs are irrelevant and do not represent Islam.

Frankly, I am through discussing with you. You can keep your whitewashed, chainless, baseless, foreign and ignorant interpretation of Islam to yourself and you can follow your own whims and desires and encourage others to do so as well if you want. It will never be Islam. - Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

So Islam is, that Sultan-abdullah-hindi, states that it is? And if he invokes the name of 1.8 billion people, it is true? Instead of relying on supportless claims, provide evidence for your claims, instead of going into personal mode and looking for reasons outside of yourself, not to be understood. Best regards--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you should take a course on logic and on english for speakers of second language as well. "You should learn the definition of Islam from an actual and authentic theological source (or sources) rather than making fallacious statement. I would also recommend that you pick up an actual book of theology." Kindly stop pretending to understand what you don't. Your responses reveal your lack of understanding in that you repeatedly put claims on me which I did not make. The burden of proof isn't on me, dude, but I'll recommend a book for you anyways. Go through al-Aqeedah at-Tahawiyyah, al-Fiqh al-Akbar for starters. - Sultan.abdullah.hindi (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd personally like to take Paul and his teachings out of Christianity, but alas, the theologians have decided otherwise. We are reporting on current views, not archaic ones (except as history). Skyerise (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 14 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, defaulting to no move. No such user (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Shaitan → Shayatin – Match first mention of topic in lead sentence; also Shaitan is a Yezidi deity, this space is needed for an article on that deity. Skyerise (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Agree: I had this in mind, until I read Wikipedia guidlines want ti use the singular, but since this concept is usually only referred to in the plural, this should be an exception. I think this is also the reason why some readers and authors confuse this article with "Iblis" (As-Shaitan).— Preceding unsigned comment added by VenusFeuerFalle (talk • contribs) 15:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• demons (Islam)? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't use "demons in Islam", because the term "demons" is not quite defined. For a short time we also translated "shayatin" to "demons, but deicided to switch back translating "shayatin" as "devils" instead, since the term demons is sometimes used for "jinn" (usually by researchers investigating this matter on folklore and demonic possession) and "div". We also have a section about Demons in Islam in the demon article. Although the Shayatin are demons, not all demons are shayatin, rather the shayatin are their own type of genus within Islamic cosmology and mythology.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Britannica styles it shaitan, and the term seems dominant on an ngram. So I don't see a persuasive argument as to why this move is necessary, or compliant with WP:COMMONNAME. Also, the assertion that "this space is needed for an article on that deity" doesn't seem valid, in any event this looks like the primarty topic for the term.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The spelling shaitan is the most common in Google Ngrams; although shaytan is also commonly used, both are far more common than shayatan. The topic mentioned by nom should be created at Shaitan (Yazidism), which is not a deity since that religion is monotheistic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I would like to make an objection to the analysis of that statistic: When people search for "Shaitan" they probably refer to "THE Shaitan" (Iblis) not to the minor devils this article is about. Therefore, I don't think the statistic is a good representation, since it represents two different topics (one time, Satan, the other time, devils). "Shaitan" doesn't exist in Yazidism. It is simply a term Yazidis avoid, likewise they avoid "Teufel", if they live in German. But it is not an entity on its own.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disporving the claim made by Eternal83

Just to clarify this matter for every editor: @Eternal83: claimed the sources it the lead wouldn't back up the claims. Amira EL Zein (cited) states: "The prophetic tradition expands on this issue, clearly differentiating between the three kinds of intelligent beings according to their dwelling in hell or in paradise: "One kind of beings will dwell in Paradise, and they are the angels; one kind will dwell in Hell, and they are the demons; and another kind will dwell some in paradise and some in hell, and those are the jinn and the humans."--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: I think it's clear why this article is screaming for help. It's citing fringe interpretations of Islamic knowledge and presenting them as mainstream. This is extremely deceptive and really spits in the face of the spirit of Wikipedia. If you want to mention fringe opinions, feel free to do so, but clearly label them as such while making it abundantly clear what the majority opinion is. And the opinion held by the majority of Muslims on the nature of (a) shaitan or shaytan is not a "3rd invisible species". You would do well to cite actual Islamic literature written by reputable Islamic scholars when talking about such fundamental Islamic topics. --Eternal83 (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

3 vs 4 intelligent beings

A continuation of the discussion from my user Talk page:

Thank you for the detailed reply. I don't think anything you said differs from what I suggested as the right path forward for the article. You acknowledge yourself that the common, or as you said "simplified", view is a valid one, even though the view you presented on the article is one that aligns with your personal opinion. As such, I don't see how my suggested compromise is contrary to what you're saying or problematic in any way. Since we are talking about Shayatin, I don't want to get sidetracked into the nature of Iblis or the free will of angels for the purpose of this discussion, although I appreciate your diligence in presenting the differing views on that. I would, however, still need to see the exact Islamic sources that mention explicitly and unambiguously the existence of Shayatin as a separate species. I don't know Turkish so I can't read the one you provided. With regards to the sources I listed above, I agree that some are more credible than others, however, my main point is not argue which view is correct, but to demonstrate that the view of the majority (whether it is the most correct or not) is different than what is written on this page. The "simplified" view is what most Muslim children learn in school, grow up with, and die believing, so this is why in my opinion, it must be mentioned. Here is what I'm suggesting as the opening text:

Shayāṭīn (شياطين; devils or demons), singular: Shaiṭān (شَيْطٰان) are evil beings in Islamic belief, inciting humans (and jinn) to sin by “whispering” (وَسْوَسَة, “waswasah”) to the heart (قَلْب qalb). The common belief among Muslims is that devils are from among jinn and humans, however other views suggest that they are a third type of invisible being, besides the noble angels and jinn, that are grotesque and created from hell-fire.

The rest of the article can be tweaked to align with this style, where the view of the majority is stated, and the other "sophisticated" views care cited as separate. Like this we would be presenting a healthy diversity in viewpoints, while not omitting the view commonly held view. Let me know what you think of that and we can make these changes for the time being, pending further discussion and examination of sources. Eternal83 (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

We cannot know what "most Muslims" actually learn at school, although we might have an impression, except you have reliable data about this. I would love to see any type of poll or similar representative statistics about his. I remember (Friedl, E. (2020). Religion and Daily Life in the Mountains of Iran: Theology, Saints, People. Vereinigtes Königreich: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 86) that some modern Muslim teachers speak of jinn instead of devils. However, this doesn't change much, since there are "devils" as a unique creature on their own in Islam (poems, exegesis, qisas, etc.). Even if most Muslim schools teach something deviant from actual Muslim theology, poems, writings, this shouldn't affect the article, since Wikipedia is based on academical research, not serving a pedagogical purpose to promote certain teachings. I agree, Muslim scholars teaching something contrary to actual Muslim tradition is seriously bad. When it is even more important that independent sources offer reliable knowledge. Although I apprecaite your suggestion for compromise, I think it must be declined, since it is neither backed up by any source (even contrary to other sources), missing the purppose of the article (the article is not about the adjective "shayatin" referring to something evil, but about the concept of devils as the offspring of Iblis.) Neither can we rewrite the article, since, as the article is about devils and not about jinn, most sources do not reflect the issue about "evil jinn". The hadith section solely speaks about Iblis, his followers and devils, how they tempt into sin etc., not about jinn who, for example, eat dunk, the "brothers from the jinn" or how their types and if some of them fly through the air. The sources for the Quran select and show how devils appear throughout the Quran. And unlike jinn, who have free-will, the devils are frequently sent by God. This cannot be said about jinn. Next, we have the interpretation section, in which we have the notion that devils, for example, live longer than jinn. How do you imagine to rewrite this so it fits the idea that jinn and devils are the same? Even those who agree that devils are a "type" of jinn although not exactly jinn, point out the differences between jinn and devils (like immportality until Judgement Day for the devils). Abu Mufti makes a very clear distiction, but I wonna recheck this this week, when I go to the libary, hope they still have the book, I wonna quote it here, so eveyone can read it. I couldn't find an acessable online version and someone already made a quotation request elsewhere. Devils are also linked to blasphemy and the unholy. For example, reading the Quran is thought to ward off devils. How can this be applied to evil jinn, when evil jinn can convert to Islam after reading the Quran? If jinn and devils are equal, this is a contradiction, and not in Islamic literature in general, but in some teachings (whose who equate devils and evil jinn). Because the sources often speak clearly about devils and not about jinn/evil jinn, I don't think it is possible to simply rewrite the article, nor is it useful since the article is about Iblis' offspring not about jinn. Here is the translation for the Turkish source btw: "Commentators have put forward different views on the interpretation of the word Jann. It is possible to collect these views in the following five points: 1. Ancestor of jinn. According to those who hold this view, the Jann and its descendants, and Iblis and his descendants, the devils, are completely separate groups of jinn. Because jinn die, they are divided into believers and unbelievers. The devils, on the other hand, will die with Iblis, and they are all infidels. The majority of scholars are of this opinion. 2. [It is] Iblis. Hasan-i Basri, Katade b. Diâme and Mukātil b. Scholars like Solomon adopted this view. Some authors argue that giving the meaning of Iblis to Jann is related to a story in the Old Testament (see TA, XI, 10). Because in the Old Testament, when he [Iblis] was in the Garden, Hz. It is stated that the serpent, which represents the evil spirit of the Jews, deceived Eve (Genesis, 3). It is known that this snake is Iblis. The same interpretation is given to the Qur'an (al-A'raf 7/11-12), which states that the Jann was created from fire and that Iblis was superior to Adam on the grounds that he was created from fire and that he did not prostrate to him for this reason. It is also possible to stop. 3. A group that has been transformed into a snake from a jinni. 4. Synonym of jinn, [a] type of jinn other than devils. 5. In the Qur'an, Hz. Creatures mentioned by the angels (al-Baqara 2/30) with whom they battled on earth and shed blood before Adam was created." (https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=4&tSoraNo=18&tAyahNo=51&tDisplay=yes&Page=5&Size=1&LanguageId=1). Here, we have many different usages, only Hasan al-Basri's line conidering devils, jinn, Iblis to be all the same, which is considered a minority view. If many Muslim teachers really teach this view, when they are obviously teaching a minority view, at least compared to earlier Muslim scholars.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

However, I realized, we could remove this 3/4 classes- entirely. I don't think this is a relevant information at all. And since there is no consens within Islam either, and it depends on how you count (for example, if you include divs and afarit), you could came up with even more. Or what about the Houri? How do they fit into this system. I think this number should be removed entirely. I hope this satisfies both sides of the arguement. I would rewrite this immediatly.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is the quote from the commentary on Abu Hanifa's writings: "This topic is inspired by a passage in Abu Mufti's commentary on al-Fiqh al-absat, ->ms. C. fol 31v 12ff./ed. Kautari 55,2ff. The commentator provides new material and refers to the Suras 6, 149/150 and 5, 48/53: all angels, with exception of Harut and Marut (->Sura 2,102/96) were created to obey, but all devils, with exception of Ham Ibn Him Ibn Laqis Ibn Iblis, were created for evil. Finally, the commentator adds (I. 657) that "man and ginn (al-ins wa-l-ginn) are created with their nature (fitra)"."--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I added a note that Mu'tazilah were in the general opinnion that jinn whisper to humans. Given that this is a line followed by al-Farabi, ibn Sina, and later (although he declared "takfir" on them) Ghazali, and ibn Arabi, who don't distinguish between devils and jinn, it looks like equating jinn with devils roots in Hasan al-Basra's account on jinn and devils. Since he equated Iblis with al-Jann, it makes sense what those who adhere to his view, do not distinguish between them. However, this still doesn't seem to be the general opinnion among Muslims when we look up Muslim sources.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Not wanting to bomb too much input here, but this might also be noteworthy: "Now, the definition of "man" by reference to the familiar form of the human body succeeds in differentiating the object defined from all other bodily objects. A taxonomy of these is provided by al‐Baghdādī, who explains that bodies (sg. jism) are divided into those that grow and those that do not grow. The former are subdivided into plants and animate beings (ḥayawān), which are further subdivided into those that are sensible to us and those that are normally insensible to us, but which may become sensible in the hereafter or in exceptional situations. The latter subdivision, that of insensible animate beings, includes four classes (jins): angels, houris, jinn and demons." This article is about the concept of a human being in Ashariyya thought. (Classical Ash'arī Anthropology: Body, Life and Spirit. Von: Shihadeh, Ayman, Muslim World, 00274909, Oct2012, Bd./Jhrg. 102, Ausgabe 3/4) Here, demons/devils are listed again as separate to jinn.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Quran section has dubious single source

The Quran section has a single source: YOUNG, M. J. L. (1966). "THE TREATMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EVIL IN THE QUR'ĀN". Islamic Studies. 5. Retrieved November 7, 2021. This source, if you ignore the citations, is only 5 pages long. And some of the wording in the article is just as long as the sparse mentions in the article. Example, the current state on Wikipedia: "According to Quran 28:36-38, God made the devils slaves for Solomon," The corresponding section of the journal article: "God was able to enslave them to force them to work for the believing Solomon (XXXVIII : 36-8)" Also note the chapter of the Qur'an cited is 38, but here on Wikipedia it's listed as 28. The journal article is from 1966, by someone seemingly Western. It was published in Islamabad, but the sources cited within skew towards people with other European names. Islamic commentators are rarely mentioned (and even when they are, it's through reference to another Western source, with only one exception), and instead the Qur'an is cited directly most of the time, seemingly making it mostly the interpretation of a (very probable) non-Muslim orientalist. For instance, one thing that I've found to be a common source of confusion/controversy among Western commentators, but extremely rare among Muslim commentators, is whether Iblis was a fallen angel (a discussion of this is another topic, but it's just a flat "no" for Muslims). It's just presented straight as a legitimate view for discussion and building upon in this journal article. Views in the article are not differentiated by where they came from (such as by sect). But again, most of them seem to be not Muslim views, but the views of the author and other orientalists. Any of these things on their own might not necessarily make it a bad source, but put together, I find it a very poor choice to present as representing the (or any) Muslim view of shaytan in the Qur'an. And since the Quran section is lifted solely from this article (and not even properly copied), I don't think it can be considered accurate/reliable. Elainexe (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The source in question deals with the idea of evil in Islam in general. Devils are subject tot he concept of evil. If there is a better source to analyze evil spirits (distinct from jinn since this is not the jinn article), you are welcome to add them here. The text is from 1966 which is great, since this means it is less influenced by Salafism and their biases. Be aware that a lot of metaphysics changed at the end of the last century due to the influence of Salafism. For example that Satan is "not a fallen angel but one of the jinn" is pretty much Salafistic (if you drop the tradition of Hasan who merged jinn and shayatin into one categroy of being). I see there your objection is coming from, but please make sure to use sources and instead of critizing "Western scholarship" to hold a more critical attitude towards Salafi-scholars. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

A second source, essentially repeating the same points in question, confirms the paper. Is there another source which elaborates on a distinct view regarding the devils? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Doubled content thanks to disruütive edits?

There has been a few disruptive edits by anonymous Users who removed the claim that the shayatin in the Quran operate under the Quranic concept of God. Not it seems, this claim appears twice in the section:

Yet, despite the reluctant nature of the shayāṭīn, they are ultimately under God's command, working as his instruments and not forming their own party. According to Quran 38:36-38, God made the shayāṭīn slaves for Solomon, God assigns the shayāṭīn as companions to the unbelievers (7:27), and God sends the shayāṭīn as enemies to misbelievers to incite them against each other (19:83). It is God who leads astray and puts people on the straight path. Both good and evil are caused by God in Islam.

and

Despite their reluctant nature, the shayāṭīn are ultimately under God's command and do not form their own party. According to the Islamic doctrine of tawḥīd, both good and evil are prescribed by God. Quran 2:168 explicitly warns people not to follow the Šayṭān, implying that humans are free to choose between the path of God or the one of Šayṭān. However, Šayṭān only promises delusion and there is no success in following his path (4:120). In the Quranic story of Iblīs, who represents the shayāṭīn in the primordial fall, shows that they are subordinative to and created by God, by means of functioning as tempters. Šayṭān can only act with God's permission (58:10). God tasks the shayāṭīn as companions to the misbelievers (7:27), and to incite them against each other (19:83). After convincing sinners to remain in their disbelief, the shayāṭīn betray their followers when faced with God's judgement

should they be merged? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The second paragraph gives literally the same sentiments expressed in the above paragraph, albeit with more context. So yes it is being repeated and has to be removed promptly. 182.183.2.179 (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Albertatiran, @Mhhossein, @Materialscientist, @Iskandar323, @Sodicadl can any of you check it. First para contain the material just with poor wording while the the next para gives more details with professional wording. But the content and the sources is the same ditto. 182.183.2.179 (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Besides the duplicate nature of the text, the content needs to be supported by reliable sources. Quranic verses are wp:primary sources and not useable here on their own. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The inline references to the Quran are supported by at least one secondary source. According to (MOS:ISLAMOR) it does not fall under No Original Research. The meaning of the text is derived from the sources offered, not the author of the article. References to the Quran only guide the reader to the primary source mentioned by the scholarly interpretation.

If the article fails to achieve that or the sources are questionable, please let us know on the talkpage. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Then which change is actually the debate topic here? --Mhhossein ^talk 10:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The section "In the Quran" is disputed over these two paragraphs:

Yet, despite the reluctant nature of the shayāṭīn, they are ultimately under God's command, working as his instruments and not forming their own party. According to Quran 38:36-38, God made the shayāṭīn slaves for Solomon, God assigns the shayāṭīn as companions to the unbelievers (7:27), and God sends the shayāṭīn as enemies to misbelievers to incite them against each other (19:83). It is God who leads astray and puts people on the straight path. Both good and evil are caused by God in Islam.

and

Despite their reluctant nature, the shayāṭīn are ultimately under God's command and do not form their own party. According to the Islamic doctrine of tawḥīd, both good and evil are prescribed by God. Quran 2:168 explicitly warns people not to follow the Šayṭān, implying that humans are free to choose between the path of God or the one of Šayṭān. However, Šayṭān only promises delusion and there is no success in following his path (4:120). In the Quranic story of Iblīs, who represents the shayāṭīn in the primordial fall, shows that they are subordinative to and created by God, by means of functioning as tempters. Šayṭān can only act with God's permission (58:10). God tasks the shayāṭīn as companions to the misbelievers (7:27), and to incite them against each other (19:83). After convincing sinners to remain in their disbelief, the shayāṭīn betray their followers when faced with God's judgement (Quran 3:175;8:48; 43:38).

There have been some edit warring, ending up in these similar paragraphs been shown at the same time. I think one was a rewrite of the later, mistaken as "removal of sourced content". S, it has been restored. Therefore, there are two paragraphs with almost identical content. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Deleting relevant sourced information

@VenusFeuerFalle:

In the Etymology and terminology section there is a brief mention about how

Islamic tradition disagrees as to whether shayāṭīn are a sub-category of jinn or form a distinct group of creatures on their own.

I put in what I called a "factoid" from a book by an anthropologist (Barbara Drieskens) on the subject, after the above sentence:

(At least in "popular" Islamic understanding in Egypt, shayṭān "tends to be identified" as a jinn, and not as the fallen angel.)

This was deleted by VenusFeuerFalle with the edit summary:

"noun: factoid; plural noun: factoids an item of unreliable information that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact." Why should we add misinformation just because they are popular? Furthermore, this article is aout Shayatin not Shaytan.

I rewrote and added it again. He deleted it again with the summary:

"... what does this notion even have to do with that? Please use the talkpage, it needs a discussion."

So here I am for the discussion of why a short piece of information from a scholarly source indicating the popular belief in Shaitan being a jinn should be deleted. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Because of context. It is clear from both the body of the text as well as the sources given that there are different beliefs regarding the nature of these entities.

It has never been said that shayatin are not also jinn (even angels are considered jinn in some traditions), therefore, the information does not add anything. Quick contrarily, the source before already established said that shayatin and jinn might have been merged into the same entity at a later stage of Islam.

A quick note about a random study about a limited number of Muslims, in a very specific area, at a very specific time, with an ambiguous term, is too specific when the paragraph speaks about the broader meaning and usage.

If there is sufficient information available, including prooving the required notability, concerning the prevailing opinion on the identity of this very specific yet vaguely defined creature, we can evaluate to make such a section. Given the lack of classification and organization of folkloric beliefs, this is unlikely to happen. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It has never been said that shayatin are not also jinn (even angels are considered jinn in some traditions), therefore, the information does not add anything.

Well, at least one academic scholar (M.M. Knight) appears to be saying just that; implying that Shaitan as jinn and Shaitan as fallen angels are two different points of view:

"the Devil tends to be identified in popular understanding as a jinn, rather than a fallen angel." (M.M. Knight, Magic in Islam , Tarcher, 2016, p.63)

He cites a study you find too limited but that doesn't mean there aren't others.

So yes, "different beliefs regarding the nature of these entities" should be described in all their complexity and context, including the Devil being identified as a jinn rather than a fallen angel. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

"The Devil tends to be identified in popular understanding as a jinn, rather than a fallen angel.", so you compeltely misrepresented the reference? You are aware that this can have consequences if done on purpose? However, given the similarities between "the Devil" (Iblis) and Shayatin "Satans"/"Devils", I give you the benefit of the doubt. The source you cited is not about this article, please read your sources carefully. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle:

Sounds like I'm in trouble!
But even the article itself seems to disagree with your statement, i.e. It has never been said that shayatin are not also jinn ...
From the Etymology and terminology section: Islamic tradition disagrees as to whether shayāṭīn are a sub-category of jinn or form a distinct group of creatures on their own.

If they're a distinct group how can they also be jinn!--Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

apologies for the late reply, the last two weeks really caught me up.

Glad you admit you made a mistake. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will respond accordingly.

It has never been said that shayatin are not also jinn

The Arabic term jinn can refers to invisible ceatures in general, similar to the Greek Daimon or English spirit. Especially within the Quranic context, the term was understood to refer to angels, demons, tutelary deities, the Devil, etc. This can be read on the explanation of the Quran in Surah 37:158 by the mufassirun, such as al-Jawzi. Of course, the famous confusion in Surah 18:50 also deals with that issue. Thus, yes a shaitan is also a jinn in the broader sense of the term (and an angel is a jinn too). However, there are also jinn in the strict sense of the term, referring to the pre-Islamic tutelary deities. These are usually considered distinct from both angels and jinn created from "smokeless fire" (marijin min nar).

There is a disagreement in Islamic tradition, since early tafsir, as mentioned by Tabari, that either, 1) "Iblis is the ancestor of all jinn (strict sense)" and "jinn and devils are the same creatures" and 2) "jinn (strict sense) lived on earth before mankind" and "Iblis is from a tribe of angels who becomes a devil". This might help to understand your concerns mentioned here:

"Islamic tradition disagrees as to whether shayāṭīn are a sub-category of jinn or form a distinct group of creatures on their own"

The second variant has jinn, devils, angels distinct, the first one has jinn and devils being equal. To add even more confusion, the second variant calls Iblis and his angels jinn because they are from jannah. It is not clear from the English translations of the Quran, but in Arabic, the terms Garden, Heaven, Daemon, Covered, are all similar. Accordingly, there are different opinions in Islamic scholarship. These are all the opinions of the mufassirs, they are not my opinions neither my exegesis.

I hope it helped to solve some confusions.

with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

(References)

Shaitan as Evil Jinn

As per WP:DISPUTED, I dispute the addition "they are evil jinn" by "Shaitan | Jinn, Demons & Devils | Britannica". The source states that "In the system of evil jinn outlined by the Arab writer al-Jāḥiẓ, the shaitans are identified simply as unbelieving jinn." The source quotes Jahiz's definition of the term 'Jinn'. The quotation, however, continues "Al-Jahiz defines jinn as various spirits defined by their behaviour; a malicious and wicked jinn is called a s̲h̲ayṭān, a jinn lifting a heavy weight and listening at the doors of Heaven is a mārid, a jinn of great intelligence is called an ʿabḳarī, a jinn entirely good and pure is an angel".

Evident from the full quote, it is evident that Jahiz speaks about the term 'jinn' as any spiritual entity (jinn, angels, and devils) and not about the genus of jinn. Several other sources within the text have established that the majority of Muslim scholars share a threefold classification of spirits (jinn, angels, and devils) and that non-Muslim jinn differ from the shaitans. It needs to be shown how the other inline citations are wrong or why Jahiz uses the jinn in the narrow sense and not in the broader sense of the term.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)