User talk:Eternal83
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
Hello Eternal83, please refrain from intetionally disruptive edits. You said I should check the sources, but I advise you the same. Here we go: "el-Zein, Amira (2009). Islam, Arabs, and Intelligent World of the Jinn. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. ISBN 978-0-8156-5070-6.": "Tje 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." The other source is the "Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies" and can be accessed here: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/shaytan-COM_1054. Amira even promoted in this subject, so she probably has the proper knowledge on this matter, while you have a misinterpretation of one Quranic verse. You could also read the rest of the article, to educate yourself about this matter. The way you reverted the change, did not offered any chance to expect good intentions, but come close to a rant. I quote and comment that you wrote: "There is no proper reference to there being 3 types of invisible beings (this is a lie, there is in the citations and even more in the article. This is simply false.(why?) As well as being "grotesque creatures",(why? Source? Proof?) again, no proper reference (there are plenty of)and actually contrary to mainstream (which mainstream? Salafis? Like IslamQA whose teachings are contrary to most of Islamic sources?) definition of Shaytan. Post(We arenÄt on social media, there are no posts) this kind of stuff is a disservice as it's misinformation.(you mean like this webpage?: https://islamqa.info/en.) Please check your sources (I just did. Wasn't good for you)" If you have a genuine interest in participating on WIkipedia, please make yourself familar with the guidlines. I provided a link for the most important ones on this subject already. You choose to ignore and get personal instead. Also discouraged. If you cannot articualte yourself in a civil manner, you might get blocked. --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC) I want to add, if you have a genuine interest in improving Wikipedia, and you disagree with cited content for reasonable matters, you can always bring this to the talkpage.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Venus,
I'm actually new on Wikipedia, but I disagree with you that my posts are disruptive, when I'm actually trying diligently to fix an obvious error. The source you cited for "3 invisible species" no doubt did their own research, but with due respect, are not an accredited scholar of Islam. Just because they published a book with their own personal conclusions doesn't mean these conclusions are correct, especially if they're contrary to that of the majority of scholars who have devoted their lives to the study of Islam.
Secondly, on what basis do you refer to the verse I quoted as a "misinterpretation"?
Lastly, it's clear that you have an issue with Salafis and IslamQA, however, at no point did I mention either Salafis or IslamQA, but I did mention mainstream, in other words, the opinion of the majority. As you are well aware there are many, many, many, fringe opinions in the Islamic scholarly circles, and it's fair to mention them in a Wikipedia article, but with a clear disclaimer that they are NOT the view of the majority, while clearly stating what the majority view is. Otherwise Wikipedia wouldn't be anything but a collection of fringe opinions, which isn't useful for anyone.
I'm sorry that you took my edits personally, it's really nothing personal towards you as I don't even know you.
--Eternal83 (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well mainstream Islam distinguishes between three types. We have the angels, the jinn and the progeny of Iblis. The tradition of Hasan al-Basra merges jinn and Iblis' progeny, this is followed by the school of ibn Sina, Ghazali and ibn Arabi (including scholars who built on this traditions). Still, most sources indicate a distinction between these three. I agree with you, that there should be a section about the concept of "shayatin" as an epiphet for both unbelievers among the jinn and humans (I assume this is that you are refering to when saying, there are only two types of entities). However, there isn't much about literature exploring more than just a short reference to the term "shayatin" as a way to describe evil jinn and evil humans and is by no means the universal one. Wikipedia doesn't allow fringe sources. For the rules of considered sources, please check WP:RS. If the sources there fall under the unreliable sources, you can also tag them as "[better source needed]", see [[[better source needed]]] for more information. Nevertheless, I strongly recommand first to read yourself into the subject. By the way, and this is rather personal, I used to believe "shayatin" are simply "evil jinn" and "evil humans", too. Basically also due to Surah 6 and also due to Surah 114. My first reaction was similar, although not equally adversarily, towards sources claiming the opposite, that the scholars might be mistaken or interprete Islamic texts trough the lense of Western culture. I needed to read Muslim sources, I haven't accessed until when, first, to accept that the scholars are indeed right. In case you are interested, I recommand the webpage "altafsir.com". There is the tafsir Tabari. In Surah 2:30-34 and Surah 18:50-51 he writes about jinn, angels and devils. with best regards --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate you bringing the discussion focus back to the heart of the matter. Firstly, I looked at the link you provided however I did not find Tabari as one of the available tafsirs on that page. I also have yet to find a single Islamic site or lecture that backs up the idea that there are "3 invisible species" and that the shayateen are "grotesque". In fact, it's basic Islamic creed that Allah SWT created only 3 sentient species, but only 2 of them are invisible. Here are some links I found:
-https://www.abuaaliyah.com/2014/10/14/the-difference-between-the-jinn-and-shayateen-devils/
-https://subulassalaam.com/articles/article.cfm?article_id=112
-https://www.islamiqate.com/4295/whats-the-difference-between-iblis-and-shaitaan
-https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/48z2yu/whats_the_difference_between_jinns_and_shaytaan/
Videos:
-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG1-u9r7hDM&ab_channel=SheikhAzizbinFarhanAlAnzi-EnglishOfficial
-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl0DK9a63BU&ab_channel=BayyinahInstitute
Even the mainstream Shia view agrees:
As you can see, it's clear that all Muslim sources say the same thing regarding jinn and shayateen, and this is indeed the mainstream view that most Muslims, Sunni or Shia, are taught in school. Does it mean it's the only view, or that it's the most correct? Absolutely not, but my issue with this article is that the most commonly held view of nearly 2 billion Muslims is not even mentioned, which is why I'm not letting this issue go. If you wish to continue presenting the current view in the opening paragraph, I don't mind, so long as the most commonly held view is clearly stated first, and labelled as such. Is that a reasonable compromise?
Lastly, for my own knowledge, could you please give me any Islamic website that backs up the idea of 3 invisible species (suggesting Allah SWT created 4 or more intelligent species)? As well, I still would like to know why you deem the aya that I quoted as misinterpreted.--Eternal83 (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- There are a lot of materials, I think I know many of them. Unfortunately, this is a busy week, and this topic takes much time. I am glad you answered here and I would really appreciate when you decide to join Wikipedia for more than just the shaitan article, despite the rather unfortunate start. But please make yourself familar with the guidlines, like reliable sources etc. (I remember sending you one last time). Youtube videos and forums like reddit are not considered reliable, because this can reflect the opinion of every person and not necessarily a majority or mainstream view. It can, but this is not necessary. However, official youtube channels can be an exception as (as far as I know). I would like to explain possible misconceptions here. But to give you a proper answer, I need more time. As you can tell from my User-Page, I am rather busy this week. Inshalah I will answer you at the end of the week.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough, will be awaiting your response. Just to clarify, I did not join Wikipedia to edit this particular article, however it did appear in a list of articles that needed cleanup, and was shocked at how erroneous it was right from the first paragraph. Hopefully this matter can be resolved quickly so we can present the most accurate information to the masses instead of what is there currently. I appreciate your busy-ness, however do you not have even one Islamic source to support what you've written on this page? I would also like to research and perhaps be proven wrong, but at this point my search to support your view is yielding nothing, nor have you responded on my alleged misinterpretation of the Qur'anic verse, or any of the links I provided. Eternal83 (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Salam, so I am still busy, so I still don't know when I might reply again. Maybe this will take longer than expected. I haven't gone through all the links provided, given not all of them are reliable source and I know much of these webpages. I will give a comment own my own on some of the links. Afterwards, I will explain, where they might be right, and where I think they are wrong and why. I will go on giving you some source, analyzing the phenomena of changing perspectives about "Islamic demonology" (I know there is no canonical demonology like in Christianity, but I think you get the picture). I will when comment on my personal experience about this, as I already alluded to it in my last reply. This personal experience, however, isn't a valid source on Wikipedia of course, but I think it might be helpful to understand the subject. I will when proceed on giving some sources from Muslims.
- The first thing that strikes me is, that all source I checked (reddit, Islamhelpline, al-Islam.org,) without hesitation assign Iblis to the (common ) jinn. Given, that many people consider Iblis to be a jinni, most scholars seem to make a distinction between iblis and the other jinn. The next point is, there are even traditions about Iblis being an angel. (I give the interpretation on Surah 18:50 "kana min al jinni", later when turning to the Muslim sources). Ommiting the diversity of interpretation in Islam (only counting those ascribed to the sahaba or tabi'un, like ibn Abbas or Hasan al-Basri, who are the most famous sources for this debate about Iblis' nature), seems kind of weird to me. They can adhere to any view they consider true and probably are, as specialists in this matter, better in judging, but they should at least outline the different viewpoints for the sake of neutrality. Regarding the "Islamhelpline" I couldn't even verify them. Not want to be disrespectingful, but I must doubt the competence. They could also just quote most popular views circulating through the internet without having a received a proper education in this matter. Sayyed Mohammad Al-Musawi is a better source. However, as many revisionists, his understanding of the supernatural in Islam seems to be simplfied. This is something often happening on revivalist movements, which downplay the supernatural elements within Islamic belief and tradition, often summarizing them. Usually, they advocate the following pattern about supernatural creatures: There are angels and jinn. Angels are created from light and jinn from fire. Angels are always obedient and jinn sometimes good sometimes evil. The evil jinn are called "devils". Sometimes, evil humans can also be calle "devils". They cite some sources from Quran and Sunnah to support their viewpoint. In my view point, they aren't showing contrary points equally valid or even better (because, this might be more coherent). For example, the absolute obedience of angels; they often cite Surah 66:6. But this verse specifically refers to Zabaniyah (Angels of hell). As far as I know, Abu Jahl once said, if he wouold go to hell, he would team up with the "demons in hell" and assault heaven, whereupon it has been revealed, that only servants of God are guarding hell. So this "obedience" part has a proper context. Contrary to the view, all angels are mind-less "robots", is for example Surah 2:30, when angels object the creation of Adam. Given, those scholars say, this was not an objection, but a question out of curiosity. THis might be true, still they acted on their own will. God didn't commanded them to ask and develope curiousity. Exegesis on Surah 2:102 about Harut and Marut once again, offers a story about angels erring. It is not necessarily true, but possible, some scholars both among Sunnis as well as Shias consdiered this. Most scholars think that angels are good, at least, they wouldn't intentionally violate any of God's orders. Al-Taftazani writes for this reason, that Iblis could not be an angel, and considers Iblis a jinni. Nevertheless, he does so in opposition to other Muslims who regard Iblis an angel, and, he regards it as possible that angels might err. Yet, they wouldn't intentionally act against God. The idea seems to be, that having deeper insights into the nature of God, the less inclined are you to disobey (this might be a reason to regard Iblis as an angel again, since if he were a jinn, witht he same insights of an angel, he should be equally incapable of disobedience). Maturidi is said to hold the view that angels and prophets are not obedient because of their initiate nature, but because of their insights to God. I want to explain that Iblis' disobedience, in case he is an angel, is often explained by that God made him "rebellious". So it is not Iblis' will but his destiny why he is evil. (if you are curious, I recommand "Basharin, Pavel V. (April 1, 2018). "The Problem of Free Will and Predestination in the Light of Satan's Justification in Early Sufism". English Language Notes. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press. 56 (1): 119–138."). This fits the Quranic claim that God leads astray who he wants and who he wants to guide. Yes, this view also finds Quranic support. Now back to the links. As said above, many revivalists promote a simplified version of supernatural. Speaking about all differences, and all arguements, is too much to write, I am sorry. So I limited myself to the case of obedience of angels. A paper analyzing the simplification of Islamic supernatural is this one "The revenge of the Jinns: spirits, Salafi reform, and the continuity in change in contemporary Ethiopia". The title speaks about Ethiopia, but as far as I remember, it speaks about the presentation of jinn on the internet in general, and how it spreads through the internet. Now, my personal experience is, that many people using the internet often adhere to the idea your sources used (angels, jinn, good, good/evil, no specific devils). This is aprtly true to my real-life experience, but with the exception that Iblis was mostly considered an angel. So there would be Iblis (tempting people to sin so they will be damned, jinn mostly evil, and angels). First I thought this might be some unique Turkish interpretation, but I found some Arabs subscribing to the same view too. One (a Kurd) even made a disticion between jinn and devils as two seperate creatures. Strikingly, they all have in common, they didn't use the internet to access information about Islam. So, I think there might be a correlation between using the internet to gather information, and adhering to the "simplified demonology" and the "more complex demonology" when not using the internet. This is my thought about this, and why I think we need to be cautious when using reddit, youtube and simialr sides. I will nevertheless provide an Online Source later. Although most online sources use the simplified version, not all do. As stated in my previous reply, I myself once thought that devils are just evil jinn/evil humans. Although regarding Iblis as some sort of "angel", I would have subscribed to the idea that there are only two supernatural creatures (angels and jinn). In Tafsir Tabari, one of the earliest and most influential tafasir, I found that "devils" (Shayatin" are usually used for the progeny of Iblis, while still asserting that "Shayatin" can be "evil animals, evil humans, evil jinn". Interestingly, Tabari also includes animals. And while this seems to agree with the "simplified version", Tabari uses the term "jinn" differently than most scholars. He argues that "jinn" is a term appplied to both angels, and other creatures. I think it is clear, and academics who studied this subject agree with that (for example Amira, I cited above and is cited in the article shaitan), there is also a specific creture called "jinn". So Tabari basically divids jinn into "angels, (genuine) jinn, and devils". You also find this in (https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-the-quran/*-EQCOM_00010 or https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/*-COM_0642?lang=de I don't remember which one). The scholars speak about "genus of jinn" and tribe of angels called "jinn" (this is the verison verified by ibn Abbas by the way). I think the most unambiguous distinction I found was in a translation of "Abu l-Lait as-Samarqandi's commentary on Abu Hanifa al-Fiqh al-absat: Introduction, text, and commentary". He mentioned jinn and humans as beings with fitra and angels and devils as fixed beings (there has been a quote request, I wonna head to the libary soon, and check this again). I remember him writing that "all angels are obedient except Harut and Marut, but all devils disobedienet except for a grandson of Iblis". Here again, we have the angelic obedience, but framed differently, they are contrasted by the devils, not the jinn. The jinn, beings with free-will, are akin to humans, and do not dwell in heaven. I recognized, similar ideas are used in Islamic poetry, like the Masnavi (although a poem", it is an important book. Poems had a much higher value than in the Western world, in which they are often limtied to aesthetics). When my mind was opened to the idea that devils and jinn are different, I viewed many passages of the Quran differently, and honestly, to me, it makes more sense this way (and even strenghens tauhid, because it asserts that not only good and evil are from God, but also obedience and disobedience we may encoutner in life). This is, again, a personal opinnion. But it is clear that many Muslim sources seem to have made the threefold distiction. I promised another source: This (https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/can--cin) is a Turkish soure, and although I also found Turkish sources, adhering to the simplified view (only two supernatural creatures), this encyclopdic entry states that most scholars would adhere to the view that there are devils, the offspring of Iblis, and jinn, the offspring of Jann. (Jann is also the term used in the hadith speaking about angels created from light and "jinn" from fire. So this ahdith is actually silent about jinn in general and the devils). If you wish, I inshalah make a translation next time. But this edit is long enough and starts lagging. Despite scholars, more often in the past it seems, believed in three classes of supernatural creatures, not all did. Hasan Al-Basra, Ibn Sina (this is my conclusion from reading, not the academic one), al-Ghazali and Ibn Arabi only distinguished between jinn and angels as well. Strikingly, their concept of jinn seem to resemble the Greek Philosophy Daimon, an intermediary spirit, between the realm of the divine (heaven?) and earth. They present the jinn as moody unreliable and tricky beings who are partly like angels (subtle) but have bodily desires like earthly beings. This notion of jinn seem to have replaced the "devils", especially since Hasan al-Bsri argues that jinn are the offspring of Iblis (usually, the offspring of Iblis are the devils and the jinn have existed prior to the devils). But since there is this conflation of jinn and devils, there appears a section about both in the jinn article. However, the Shaitan article, speaks about the concept of devils only, it doesn't mention the ambiguitiy. It first did, I decided to remove it when, because I think it is not helpful to add a dispute in every section about the supernatural creatures. It is about the devils only, and some scholars, like ibn Arabi, Hasan Al Basra and Ghazali merged them into one being. It is completely fine, if they think it is right. But this article should be about "shayatin" only. Oh, I think I should explain Surah 6 in this context. Those who argue there are only two types of supernatural beigns, state that "shayatin al ins wa al jinn" refers to "devilish in shape (ins) and devilish invisibile (jinn), while whose who think that devils are seperat class of beings argue, these are devils who tempt among humans and jinn, and then humans and jinn, tempted by devils, cause trouble among humans and jinn respectively. If wished, we could also have a talk here, about which interpretaion might be right, or is more likely to be right. Nevertheless, I think it is clear that both viewpoints exist among Muslim sources and both are valid. This text took me over an hour (I guess), especially due to laggs, Please pardon spelling mistakes and grammar issues. As stated above, again it might take some time until I reply, but I think there is much you wonna check yourself anyways, since this is a lot of content. Take your time. Best regards --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Salaam Venus. 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) 17:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Let's move this discussion to the article's talk page Eternal83 (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)