Talk:Iblis

Little problem with the "he was raised to the level of angels"-narrative

This is pretty popular and even mentioned among many cited sources, however, I couldn't find, after reading through about 10 tafasirs in Arabic, not even one such story. And non of these sources do cite material, ecept for Tobias Nünlist Daemon belief in Islam. A German work with a lot of material regarding jinn, div, devils, angels, and satans in Islamic Medieval Age tradition. He attributes this to the Ikhwan as Safa, anonymous authors on Islamic legends with clear Neo-Platonic tendencies. The closest thing I found in tafsir is, that Iblis was taken captive by the angels,a fter he was sent down to earth to the jinn as a judge. But even here, he judges them and we don't know if he was an angel or a jinni in this report (They read him as "from the jinn" instead of "one of the jinn"). But still, there is no "works his way up to heaven". This is not to say that Iblis is always an angel. But those who say he is not, think of him mostly as the father of the jinn, not as an individual member from the pre-Adamite jinn. I am really unsure what to do. On one hand, there are a lot of references in reliable sources, probably due to contemporary popularity, but on the other hand, it doesn't seem to reflect anything established in Islamic exegetical tradition. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Update: I found this essay on what to do if sources are wrong. However, since this is a huge step, and contradicting quite a few sources also used in the article, I would like to know if others know any better and could find support that the idea that Iblis was "a pious jinni elavted to tha rank of angels" has ever been considered by any (traditional) Muslim scholar. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Update: I checked Awn's Satan-Book to look up for the primary source. It seems to be be Tarikh Khamis which tells about two of Iblis' origins. However, as a sixteenth Century compliation, I am not sure, how muhc it actually represents Islamic traditions regarding this matter. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Iblis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: VenusFeuerFalle (talk · contribs) 19:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: A. Parrot (talk · contribs) 06:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I will review this article, but it may take about a week to familiarize myself with it and give it a full review.

Some problems I note to start with:

• When describing Iblis's origin story (both in the lead section and the body), the text switches between present and past tense. It should be one or the other.
• Three of the section headings use Arabic terms that won't be familiar to most readers. I feel like it's especially important for section headings to be comprehensible because they're the reader's guideposts for navigating the text. "Qiṣaṣ exegesis" is acceptable because the term is explained in the first sentence of the section, but the other two headings need to be changed.
• Several of the links in the "See also" section are of dubious relevance. I don't see how Gnosticism, Mastema, Mara (demon) or Questions of Bartholomew are relevant at all. Harut and Marut are at least from Islamic tradition and not that of some other culture, but if they don't have a direct connection to Iblis, they should be removed as well. The other links do have some relationship with Iblis, but it would be preferable if they could be incorporated into the text.

As you've responded to these comments in edit summaries, I'll clarify my thinking here.

Kalam may be an untranslatable term, but to someone not versed in Islamic tradition, it's not an intuitive way to organize the article because its meaning is opaque. I'm also not sure why these three sections (Quran, Affiliation, and Function) are grouped under Kalam but the two that follow (Satan's Monotheism and Qiṣaṣ exegesis) are not. All the traditions about Iblis are derived from the text of the Quran, are they not? It might make more sense to have the section on the Quranic material stand on its own (similar to how you organized Harut and Marut), and then have the next four sections, all of which cover subsequent theological speculation, under a single header—"Interpretations", perhaps?

As for the see also section, a major problem in Wikipedia is something I have elsewhere dubbed "original-research-by-see-also", in which links are added to the see also section to imply a connection between two topics that isn't stated in article text or the sources. The reason I objected to Mastema and not Samael is because the current text of the article on Samael makes a sourced comparison between the two, and the current text of Mastema's article does not. But it would be better if this article made the connections clear in its text, to avoid the impression that original-research-by-see-also is going on here. I won't insist on this point for GA status, but it is greatly preferable. A. Parrot (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer:: If i may add, perhaps the main header should be reduced, and the details should be moved into subsections. only include the general definitions & remarks about Iblis should be left in the main header/opening text. perhaps the definition of Iblis and its comparation with Satan from Christian bible deserve its special subsection Ahendra (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I haven't had time to treat it as thoroughly as it deserves, but I think it can become a GA with some work. Thiese are the points I've noticed so far.

• In response to Ahendra's remarks, the lead section is a bit long compared with the overall size of the article, and I do think the middle two paragraphs could be shortened a bit. But the general rule of thumb is that a lead section should touch on the subject matter of every top-level heading, and I wouldn't want it to be reduced too much. In any case, I don't think any major changes to the lead are necessary for meeting the GA criteria.

• However, Ahendra's point about the relationship with the Christian concept of Satan is valid. English-speaking readers are likely to be more familiar with the Christian concept and wonder how Iblis relates to it. The topic may not need its own subsection; it could perhaps be brought up when the article discusses the relationship with the term Shayṭān.

• Speaking of which: that discussion is somewhat confusing. It says that Iblīs and Shayṭān aren't interchangeable but doesn't entirely explain how they differ, even though Awn 1983 says they largely are interchangeable.

• "This is the major opinion among Arab scholars, who maintain the tradition that the personal name of this being was ʿAzāzīl." I'm not sure what "Arab scholars" is supposed to mean here; is it scholars of the Arabic language, or scholars who are Arabs? And if the latter, are they Islamic scholars or scholars of a particular academic field?

• It's not clear why the Kitab al Magall is relevant to the etymology. According to the article about it, it's a post-Quranic source, so it doesn't seem like it would be of help tracing the word's pre-Quranic evolution. If the book's characterization of Iblis is noteworthy, it would belong in one of the theological sections below.

• "Since fire overcomes clay, he owes to destroy Adam like fire destroys clay" — Do you mean "vows to destroy"?

• "disagree on whether Iblis belongs to a group of angels called jinni due to their origin from paradise, or if he was distinct from the angels, the progenitor of the jinn". I think this needs some more explanation for readers who are unfamiliar with Islamic traditions about how angels and jinn relate to each other. Is it an established tradition that angels are progenitors of the jinn?

• The name of the character in Vathek is apparently spelled "Eblis".

• The limited Google Books preview of Cavaliero 2010 seems to show Cavaliero comparing Eblis in Vathek to the versions of Satan found in the Book of Job and the works of John Milton rather than Dante. Because I can't see the passage you're citing, could you quote it?

• The second paragraph about ash-Shahid is unusual because you don't describe the reception of any of the other literary works listed here. Is there a particular reason for highlighting this one, and for highlighting only the reactions from Salafis and not other Muslims?

• Awn 1983 is a single text with a single author; why is it cited chapter-by-chapter?