Talk:Azazil

Angel/Jinn debate
In the case of traditions whereas Iblis has been thought of being Azazil, he is considered an angel. Ibn Abbas relates the term "jinni" in Surah 18:50 to "jinnat" (heaven) not to jinn, while Hasan Al Basri does, but rejects that Iblis has been named Azazil once. Note that Azazil does not appear in the Quran. Salafism, also called "Mainstream"-Islam in our modern terminology, rejects the ibn Abbas version (although accepted by most scholars prior to Salafi-Reform-Movements) as an Israeliyyat (a tradition held to be introduced by Jews). Nevertheless, most Muslims who used "Azazil" as a name for Iblis, had no trouble with identifying him as an angel. An expectation are the Brethen of Purity, who regared Azazil as a pious jinn who was elavated to the rank of angels, however, this appears not very often, when the name "Azazil" is used. Whose who reject the angelic nature of Iblis, usually also refuse to use the name "Azazil". The suffix -el already implies his angelic nature, while "-lis" is common among names of jinn.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

These two sentences are therefore conflicting your previous statements. "In many Islamic and Islam-related traditions, Azazil (Arabic: عزازيل Azāzīl, also known as Arabic: حارث Ḥārith ) is the name of Iblis before he was expelled from heaven." "He is usually seen as an archangel, but also regarded as a jinn according to some reports."

Majority of muslims considers him a jinn because of the Quranic verse which I mentioned before (which seems to have been deleted). According to your view, this by definition means that majority do not believe that Azazil as his name. This is also not reflected in the wordings you used "usually seen as an archangel" Thirdly "jannat" is always the word used to refer to the heavens/gardens in the Quran and "jinn" are used to refer to a species made of fire everywhere in the Quran (surah Rahman). They are two different Arabic words that share the same root letters. Please provide your reference of Ibn Abbas that is contrary to this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminath006 (talk • contribs)