Talk:Iblis/Archive 1

Deleted the initial comments made here, as it seems to be a case of vandalism. --Mitsukai 15:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article seems kinda supicious. It staes that Iblis is a Jinn, while the rather more substantial Shaitan article says that he was an angel. Not knowing anything of these things beyond what I've read here, I've left this alone. --Kizor 04:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

On the origin of Iblis
Quran does not mention in any place that Iblis, the prime Shaitan, is an angel. It rather mentions in one place that he was a Jinni, and there are two references for Iblis being created from fire. Moreover, where the origin of angels and jinn is tackled it asserts that Jinn are made of fire and angels of light. There is no reference to an angel made of fire.

shaitan is the name of one of the kind of Shayatin شياطين; From one side it's much like man and Man, and at the same time it is an adjective that can apply to Men and Jinn, as per Quran to indicate those astray and evil inspiring persons, where in Arabic culture, Jinn, just like Men where a nation أمة who had among them the good and the bad''. Iblis' is the personal capital name of the one Shaitan who is mentioned in the Islamic genesis, and whose origin is, again, not clear. --Alif 18:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Iblis was not banished to earth for tempting Adam and Eve but rather for refusing to bow before Adam as he was created from clay, not fire as Iblis was. An interpretation by the Sufi mystic Mansur al-Hallaj holds that God was issuing a test and that he was the only one that passed this test as he was the only one who refused to bow before Adam. Iblis had faith in absolute monotheism and thus would not bow before anyone but God Himself. Iblis was so close to God he had achieved fana (annihilation of the self) and had become one with God so it was really God refusing to bow as Iblis no longer had self control. This is why al-Hallaj deemed Iblis an ideal model for Sufi Muslims, though this is just one interpretation.


 * Hallaj's ideas do not represent Islam. It is very difficult to harmonize his ideas with what you read in the Qur'an. --Kabad (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed Hallaj was deemed kafir for his views about Iblis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.253.112.246 (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This page also quoting al munajjid incorrectly, surat al Hijr (15:27) stated Djinn was created from fire, as the ayat before that (15:26) describe creation of man from dirt/soil. How do we make a remark / comment over a quotation of work such as in this case? YogiHalim (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you help me to find the quote of Munajjid? I do not know where it is and how 15:27 is affecting this page, assueming you ment the article.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"For many classical scholars, he was an angel, but regarded as a jinn in most contemporary scholarship."

The phrasing here gives the direct impression that classical scholars believe Iblis was an angel, but contemporary scholars believe he was a Jinn. This is problematic as several of the sources that are referenced in the article, indicate a different perception. An example would be Islam, Arabs, and Intelligent World of the Jinn by El-Zein wherein the author prefaces her work (in the Introduction) with : "This book deals with the concept of the jinn in classical Islam only, corresponding to Islam's golden age, which witnessed an extraordinary flourishing of intellectual and spiritual debates." and on the topic of Iblis (pg.44) : "When God asked the angels to bow to Adam, they all bowed, except Iblis, who is described by some Muslim sources as a four-winged angel."

She then gives an overview of the arguments (of the time) of those who interpret Iblis as being an angel and those who interpret Iblis as being a jinn. She goes on: "To resolve the incoherence between the two interpretations on the nature of Iblis, Muslim scholarship came up with ingenious ideas. Al-Tabari, for example, argued it is possible God created one part of his angels from light and another part from fire; Iblis possibly could belong to that group of angels who were created from the scorching winds. Al-Baydawi (d. 1286), meanwhile, had a more plausible explanation. He argued Iblis, a jinn made out of fire, was carried off as a captive by the angels during one of the combats between jinn and angels that took place on earth. Because Iblis was still a child, he grew up among angels. When God ordered the angels to bow before Adam, Iblis refused and thus revealed his true jinni nature."

I want to establish here, that this author presents a different picture. Firstly, she claims that there were two prevalent but conflicting interpretations and also two main attempts at their resolution which essentially results in those who were of the opinion that Iblis was an angel created differently from other angels (the basis of this was the Quranic verse that indicates that Iblis was "among" the angels which is taken to mean that Iblis was an angel himself, rather than that he was "physically" present at the same place as the angels in question) and those who where of the opinion that Iblis was a jinn (also directly from the Quran). Secondly, she cites at least one classical scholar on each side of the debate in addition to indicating that the interpretation that Iblis is an angel is held by only "some" scholars. Lastly, could the user who has edited to maintain the sentence in question (VenusFeuerFalle) indicate where exactly in each of the 4 sources, evidence is given proving the relative popularity of the belief that Iblis is an angel among classical scholars in comparison to the belief that Iblis is a jinn. --FrNANow (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The expression that many Classical scholars regarded him as an angel, is not cited by Amira and I never claimed that. Amira only offers the two different depictions of Iblis independend of time-period. So that exactly are you goping to stay? If you object the claim that Amira would assign Iblis angelic nature to Classical scholars, you are going to make a straw man, since noone claimed that. "Secondly, she cites at least one classical scholar on each side of the debate in addition to indicating that the interpretation that Iblis is an angel is held by only "some" scholars." Noone said that were had been no alternative views, but nevertheless, the notion of Iblis as angel was well accepted in Classical Islam. But this is given by the other sources you did not mentioned.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "The expression that many Classical scholars regarded him as an angel, is not cited by Amira and I never claimed that."


 * I did not say that that is what you where claiming. What I said you were claiming, which I will repeat again, is "that classical scholars believe Iblis was an angel, but contemporary scholars believe he was a Jinn." The problem you see is the phrasing where the word "but" indicates that contemporary scholars accept a different view than classical scholars. I provided from one of the 4 related references listed, proof that this is not so. Then I asked you to please provide evidence from the sources you referenced, "proving the relative popularity of the belief that Iblis is an angel among classical scholars in comparison to the belief that Iblis is a jinn." Your phrasing indicates that the development of the belief that Iblis was a Jinn and not an angel only more recently gained popularity within Islamic scholarship. This is because you are pushing the narrative (and I personally believe this IS a baseless narrative) that Iblis is a "fallen angel" which is curiously inline with Christian theology. From my studies, there is more evidence to support that the belief that Iblis was a Jinn, made of fire and capable of disobeying God's command was a more popular view in Classical Islam. I searched the sources you referenced and I did not see any clear proof that the belief in question (Iblis is an Angel) was more popular among Classical scholars than the other belief (Iblis is a Jinn). So I need you to justify your edit! I think it is imperative that you support the claim that "Iblis as angel was well accepted in Classical Islam." The emphasis here is placed on "well accepted."


 * Now to the next issue with your response.


 * "If you object the claim that Amira would assign Iblis angelic nature to Classical scholars, you are going to make a straw man, since noone claimed that."


 * I believe you need to review my original response because I believe there is a misunderstanding. How could I object to the claim that Amira would assign Iblis angelic nature to Classical scholars, when I literally referenced an example where she does EXACTLY that! Im very confused here. I think there is a misunderstanding. To clarify, Amira did assign the idea of Iblis having an angelic nature to at least ONE scholar in her book. She also assigned the idea of Iblis having a Jinn-like nature to another CLassical scholar. From this we know that Amira claimed that at least one classical scholar argued that Iblis was an angel and at least one scholar argued Iblis was a Jinn.


 * Finally, my last issue:
 * "Noone said that were had been no alternative views."


 * By using the conjunction "but", your sentence suggests that the believe that Iblis is a Jinn is more popular among contemporary scholars than classical scholars. If so, can you point to the sources that back this up? You need to clarify that "some" classical scholars also claimed Iblis was a Jinn. If you do not make this change I will as I already have direct passages from the same set of sources that indicate that this is so. I also have alternative peer-reviewed sources but lets keep this simple for now. In other words, you need to specify that the important alternative view that Iblis was a Jinn was also shared among some Classical scholars.

--FrNANow (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * (Got the notification of your answer just now, although your signature suggest it was written last year). "indicates that contemporary scholars accept a different view than classical scholars". Isn't it a contradiction, when most classical scholars accepted Iblis as an angel in origin, named Azazil, while most scholars today regard this as an Israeliyyat and reject the view? I mean, it seems to be the best expression to point out the shift in Islamic theology and the sources explicitdly mentioned that. "Gauvain, Richard (2013). Salafi Ritual Purity: In the Presence of God." states that he was surprised when he interviewed a Salafi scholar about Iblis origin, the scholars stated Iblis was an angel, because most Salafis reject the view, despite the fact, classical sources, such as Tabari (whose Tafsir was remarkable and one of the basic tafsirs in the classical period until ibn Kathir replaced Tabari in importance with new methods, such as rejecting much material concerning supernatural creatures as "Israeiliyyat"), depict Iblis as an angel in origin. The next one is "Welch, Alford T. (2008). Studies in Qur'an and Tafsir.", who explicitdly states that "it is sometimes denied by modern scholars, among classical scholars, Iblis as fallen angel was well accepted", that clearly shows the different attitute towards the opinnion whether or not Iblis can be an angel or not. "Mustafa ÖZTÜRK JOURNAL OF ISLAMIC RESEARCH" states that " Muslim scholars mostly think of Iblis as being from the tribe

of the angels." and " in final analysis, the Muslim scholars pointed to the distinctiveness of the Jinns from the angels and stated that the word jinn should be used as the name of a species which is distinct from the human beings and the angels" also pointing out a difference. Further, the fact that most scholars today reject Iblis as angel while it was the common viewpoint in Classical Islam, is a contradiction. The problem is, most contemporary scholars held different views regarding angels, jinn and devils than Classical scholars. Khidr for example has almost no meaning today among Muslim scholars. Many scholars reject the name "Azrael" as the name of the archangel of death, although many reaccepted it again. In Classical period, there was also much about magic and pseudoscience regarding angels, jinn and devils, scholars do not teach today. So yes, contemporary scholars contradict many classical ones. Not all, since they groudn their exegesis on some classical scholars, but usually whose who had only marginally dealed with angels, jinn, devils, such as Ibn Kathir and Ibn Taimmiya (who rejected most of established teachings during their life time too, because they thought Islam had been infiltrated by Paganism. And with Paganism, they mean Shias, Asharis, Mutazilla, many Sufis, basically everyone who was not "Hanbalite at heart", to say it with Taimiyyas words.). You are right about Amira, since she does not state anything about which periods Muslim hold which viewpoints. But the other three I also mentioned here, do. These are also citing the claim. "In other words, you need to specify that the important alternative view that Iblis was a Jinn was also shared among some Classical scholars." I do not know that I am supposed to do here. For these scholars (there are even some explicitdly given as example in the article) Iblis was an angel, who was turned into a shaytan. Therefore, he is also mentioned along with the jinn in magical works, who deal about jinn and shayatin (are not the same either). I think the alternative view in contrast to contemporary scholars is, that Iblis was not a jinn for many, but an angel. Tabari makes it clear, that the jinn are created from "Marijin min Nar", Iblis from "Nar as Samum" and other angels from "light". (Some sources also speak of angels created from light and fire, while the jinn from air and fire instead. It is clear they are not the same). Brill encyclopedia of Islam Three under the header "Angels", also explains the difference between the angelic tribe called "jinn" (due to their affilation to Jinnan) and the genus called jinn, living on earth. Please clarify that exactly you object, other than the "but", since the "but" shows exactly the issue: A different opinnion regarding most contemporary scholarship, that "there are no fallen angels in Islam" and the Classical view that "there are fallen angels in Islam, and Iblis is one of them".--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible Connection to Final Fantasy Tactics Mythology
Elidibs (also Elidibus from FFXII) is perhaps a mis-spelling of Iblis supposedly and is the name of the 13th Lucavi (Demons in the Final Fantasy World), who happens to summon the ultimate summon in the game known as Zodiac who appears to have 4 Demonic and 4 Angelic Wings and also has something of a Red Fire around it.

as an after thought: to say that iblis is the perpitrator of all evil is a falacy if the quran is understood deeper. it says in sura 14:22 that on the day of judgement iblis will betray all who were seduced by him saying "i deny your act of associating me with allah; you believed that i was a rival to god, not me. so blame yourself" it is made amply clear that iblis is an agent of god, not a rival. reference to the devil testing devouts are found in the bible too: ref. book of job: here we see that lucifer does all he can to job, but refrains from doing what god tell him not to do. strange obedience offered by one who is supposed to be at loggerheads with god. jewish traditions relate that god told abharam to offer his son as sacrifice at the behest of satan... one wonders if this is a most secret partnership between the two to test the humans?


 * In Job, we also have the image of Satan as the apparent Tempter by Appointment to the Divine Court: at the beginning of the book, Satan is in heaven and God is asking him what he's been up to. "And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it"
 * Although why God would even bother to make a creature whose only purpose was to drive mankind away from Him, has never been satisfactorily explained. If Satan can spend all of time being evil and not being punished for it, why can't we?
 * Nuttyskin 05:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed inappropriate text
The following sentence was in the article at the end of the Etymology section:


 * "This whole above article on Iblis needs major rewrite. Is satan a proper noun or a noun?"

The talk page is the proper place for such a comment, not the article itself. &mdash;CKA3KA (Skazka) 21:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Iblis Allah's enemy?
"The Qur'an depicts Iblis as the enemy of Allah, for Allah is supreme over all his creations and Iblis is just one of his creations. Unlike the Zoroastrian beliefs, all good and bad deeds are from Allah himself and only He can save humanity from the evils of His universe and His creations. Iblis' single enemy is humanity. He intends to discourage humans from obeying God."

This paragraph sounds paradox to me. On the one hand "Iblis is Allah's enemy", on the other hand "Iblis' single enemy is humanity." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.82.106.152 (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC). Quite simply Allah has no opponent. Allah is the creator of all that is good and he may permit things that are bad but he didn't create them. Iblis can be an enemy though, sense he goes against Allah.

Actually, the Quran explisitly mentions that Iblis is the enemy of humans; according to Islamic belief he is no opponent for Allah, no one is able to be so. I would say that the above paragraph should be amended.


 * One of the synonyms given to Iblis is "enemy of Allah", probably rooted in folklore to avoid pronouncing his name, since, according to some folklore, if someone speaks his name, he is present. The idea of Iblis as enemy of God probably rooted in Zorastrian influences, such as Shanameh, but Islamic theology (including several interpretations) does not depict him as the enemy of God but of Gods way for humanity.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

iblis
iblis is believed to be the most evil djinn[genie] and is accosiated w/ the devil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.247.122 (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Allah or God?
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to replace the word 'God' with 'Allah' in this article? TheDestitutionOfOrganizedReligion (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, 'Allah' is Arabic for 'God'. Just as the Christan God is 'Allah' in Arabic.

76.66.201.129 (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

How is the name Iblis pronounced? Is it Iblis or EebLees or IBlees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.110.74 (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Pronounced "IB-LEE-S".

Mohamed Magdy (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

God is the word universally understood in English. This Arabic site sheds light on whether Iblis was an angel. Kabad (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronounced as ib (of ibid) and lease: ib-lease. --Kabad (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Etymology
Could there be a possible etymological connection between the name/word Iblis vis-a-vis Persian and the PIE root word from which the English "evil" evolved? According to the Online Etymology Dictionary the term evil stems from the Old English "yfel" (Kentish "evel"); the Proto-Germanic *"ubilaz" (cf. Old Saxon "ubil," Gothic "ubils"); from the PIE *"upelo" - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=evil

The Arabic Shaitan or Shayatin شياطين is very obviously related to the Hebrew Ha-Satan both of which are Semitic languages, whereas Iblis is typically used in the Iranian tales of Shaitan, with Iranian languages as part of the larger Indo-European family.

It may be a stretch but perhaps something to look into. --Carlon (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments Inappropriately Included in Article Instead of Talk Section Where They Belong
These comments were included in the text of the Article, under Naming and Etymology, by an unknown user with IP 154.180.242.231 in response to the following material in the article. I have moved these comments here because the text of the main Article is not the place for comments like these.

The term Iblīs (إِبْلِيس) may have been derived from the Arabic verbal root ب-ل-س (with the broad meaning of "remain in grief") or بَلَسَ (balasa, "he despaired"). Furthermore, the name is related to talbis meaning confusion. Another possibility is that it is derived from Ancient Greek διάβολος (diábolos), via a Syriac intermediary, which is also the source of the English word 'devil'.

''//Yet this is false because we are all sure that there was no contact between SAE and Greek at that time due to a lot of reasons, Mainly the distance. So this possibility is invalid.''

Yet another possibility relates this name back to the bene Elohim (Sons of God), who had been identified with fallen angels in the early centuries, but had been singularised under the name of their leader.

// This also is false due to one reason and that is according to Islam and Christianity there was only one single Fallen angel and it is Iblis or Satan.

--Champaign (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Zalambur
Can anyone expand on this stub about a supposed son of Iblis? I assumed initially it was vandalism, but found a search of Amazon books to show references. I don't know if there are references from hadith (and suspect there's not), perhaps it's more Arabian mythology than Islamic? Шизомби (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Although older, others are probably curious: Zalambur and his brothers are "sons of iblis" in some oral traditions (derived from some hadiths), which are (sometimes) part of humans psyche (satan flowing through his blood) induced by Iblis after he tricked Adam and Eve. They exist but are not very prominent (as far as I know). Maybe they are more important in magical writings (there also a daughter of Iblis exists).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of Sources for Iblis as Angel
Kingofsting87 No, the internet is a bad source. Especially, since religious missionaries know that this is the best way to psread misinformation. With good edits on Wikipedia however, it is possible to provide information apart from youtube and blogs and give academic information without requiring everyone to buy books (One of the reasons I support Wikipedia). But nevertheless you do not necessarily require to buy the book, you can also try to read it on GoogeBooks, find PDFs on the internet or go to a library.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Splitting the "Dispute"-Section
Greetings, I thought about splitting the Dispute section into two parts. One for Muslim scholars and one for Orientalists. Both discusses whether Iblis an angel or a jinni (or sometimes somethigng unique but this is rare and there is not much material about this), but have different reasons to come up with their conclusions respectivly. While Orientalists debate, that Muhammad's original purpose was, and whether or not there was a shift during the development of early Islam regarding this subject, Muslim scholars, under the assumption the Quran is the unaltered word of God, discussed rather core elements of the Quran and how to understand them. For example is "Nar" rather comparable to the "Marijin min Nar" of the jinn and therefore a jinni or a dangerous form of "Nur", and Iblis is a malevolent angel (some scholars used "Nar" and "Nur" interchangable), or does "jinni" mean he is a guardian of jannah and an angel or from the species of jann and a therefore a jinn? Orientalists do not deal with the exegesis. If noone objects, I would like to create this distinction in the article, most material is already within. However, I remember some good sources regarding this, I did not used, since it would not fit the arguementation as we have it currently.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC) I object, because it is unneeded. 82.46.162.198 (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a fantastic idea and it allows the two subsections (Muslim scholarship and Orientalists) to provide arguments theologically and historically, respectively. This allows this article to be more in line with Wikipedia’s stance on neutrality and stop future edit wars. I think, if you are up for it, you should go ahead and split it. I will help as much as I can when I free up. Thank you for all your work on this page, Venus! Abu Yagub (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Iblis as an Angel
"And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate to Adam," and they prostrated, except for Iblees. He was of the jinn and departed from the command of his Lord."

This is coming straight from the Qur'an (18:50), which is the highest source of authority in Islam. 82.46.162.198 (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * What is your point? I mean, the verse is explained in great detail, including the exegesis on the verse. Literally, the Quran does not even say "jinn" in Arabic" but "jinni", while the creature created from "smokeless fire", that is actually either "marijin min nar" or "nar as samum", that is more appropriately translated as "mixture of fire" and "poisonous fire" (s-m-m from the Semitic root for "poison" or "venom") is "Jann" not even "jinn". Therefore, there is no reason to use the verse to exclude Iblis from being an angel based on the source. And many Muslims are aware of it, and the disucssion also entered the works of the mufassirs (exegetes). When you argue, the Quran determines that Islam is, when we should use the Quran Arabic language and not a translation done later, especialy not, when the transaltions are restricted to a narrow range of interpretations and traditions. And when we encoutner that scholars have a deviant or even contrary reading of the Quran than we have today, we should wonder, there the change was made. For Wikipedia, there our own research is discouraged, and we only gather the work already done by scholars, going into detail is unnecessary.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Wrong, as per the Classical Arabic (different to Modern Standard Arabic) text of the Qur'an, he was a jinn who was initially treated as an angel, so he is both a fallen angel and jinn, according to the Arabic Qur'an:

"وَإِذْ قُلْنَا لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ اسْجُدُوا لِآدَمَ فَسَجَدُوا إِلَّا إِبْلِيسَ كَانَ مِنَ الْجِنِّ فَفَسَقَ عَنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّهِ ۗ أَفَتَتَّخِذُونَهُ وَذُرِّيَّتَهُ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِن دُونِي وَهُمْ لَكُمْ عَدُوٌّ ۚ بِئْسَ لِلظَّالِمِينَ بَدَلًا

And when We said to lil-Malāʾikah (to the Angels): "Prostrate to Adam." So they prostrated except Iblis. He was of al-Jinn; he disobeyed the Command of his Lord. Will you then take him and his offspring as awliyāʾ rather than Me while they are enemies to you? What an evil is the exchange for aẓ-Ẓālimīn, ."

- Qur'an, 18:50. Leo1pard (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC) edited 16:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Muhammad Mahmoud as source
The source is already used within the article and does not provide any new information within the recent edits. it rather emphazise the contradictional statements within Islamic traditions. First the opnion of Ibn Abbas, stating that Iblis is an angel, batteling the jinn "And so, a subplot tradition attributed to Ibn 'Abbas recounts that the earth was first inhabited by the jinn who soon turned wicked and vile and started murdering each other. Seeing this, God sent Iblis down at the head of angelic troops who could slay them and set them fleeing to remote parts of the eart" and "is. Most of the authorities agree that Iblis belonged to one of the angels' tribes called the jinn who were created of flaming fir" in contrast to "By contrast, the second account maintains that he was originally among those jinn against whom the angels had fought. It was after one such battle that Iblis, still a young child, was taken captive. He thus grew up among the angels and worshipped with them, excelling eventually in worship and learning". Here the source provided to challange the statement, there are different depictions of Iblis, only supports it: "PT's material offers two distinct accounts: one of a patrician, noble Iblis and another of an ignoble Iblis who works his way up." There is no support in any of the WP:RS to challange inconsistency among the Muslim scholars regarding Iblis' identity.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Firstly, look at the actual Classical Arabic text of the Qur'an, which says that he was a jinn who was initially treated as an angel, before saying that the WP:RS which state that he was either an angel or jinn cannot be reconciled. Leo1pard (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC); edited 16:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The text does not say that! It is your WP:OR, and you already misused several sources on several articles! I won't discuss it any further, since I have already explained everything about the topic, both on my talkpage and on the corresponding talkpages. I can just recommand you again to read through the articles itself. Most you come up with is already stated and explained there, read all the advises I gave you and also check out WP:MOSISLAM, WP:OR, and especially MOS:ISLAMOR. There is nothing more I can do for you. Assueming Good faith, my last hope for you and for the sake of Wikipedia, I will ahve to let an admin explain it to you. Maybe someone with more influence will make you listen. Have a good day.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Stop your anti-Qur'anic WP:Bias and WP:OR! Not only have you shown yourself to be WP:biased against WP:RS, by doing things like this repeatedly, despite repeated warnings, you have shown yourself to be against what the Qur'an says! Your threat to use an admin against and myself is a WP:Boomerang, I am warning you, because I now have plenty of reasons to show an admin what you have done wrong!

"وَإِذْ قُلْنَا لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ اسْجُدُوا لِآدَمَ فَسَجَدُوا إِلَّا إِبْلِيسَ كَانَ مِنَ الْجِنِّ فَفَسَقَ عَنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّهِ ۗ أَفَتَتَّخِذُونَهُ وَذُرِّيَّتَهُ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِن دُونِي وَهُمْ لَكُمْ عَدُوٌّ ۚ بِئْسَ لِلظَّالِمِينَ بَدَلًا

And when We said to lil-Malāʾikah (to the Angels): "Prostrate to Adam." So they prostrated except Iblis. He was of al-Jinn; he disobeyed the Command of his Lord. Will you then take him and his offspring as awliyāʾ rather than Me while they are enemies to you? What an evil is the exchange for aẓ-Ẓālimīn, ."

- Qur'an, 18:50. Leo1pard (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC); edited 18:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Islam teaches that Iblis was not an Angel
The devil as an angel is a belief which comes from Christianity. Muslims believe he was not an Angel but a Jinn. There is no confusion about this Muslim world. Islamic text clearly explains that he was not an Angel. Comparing this to the Islamic teachings shows that this information is highly inacturate. I guess it might be easy mistake for people who have not studied Islam properly. The person writing this sounds like they have no idea what they are talking about. I would be quite embarrassed to put this on a public wiki lol.

--Tmason101 (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Or at best, a Jinn who was treated like an Angel, putting all the WP:RS, besides the Qur'an (since talked about what it said) together, but I see that VenusFeuerFalle has other ideas, reporting me for WP:Vandalism (when he himself is guilty of that (, despite repeated warnings from me  that he can't just go round deleting WP:RS to support his POV), and without a prior notification on my talk-page. Leo1pard (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Let me explain what is going on:


 * Firstly, VenusFeuerFalle had made this edit to List of characters and names mentioned in the Quran, saying "demons are not a sub group of jgenies (at least not more than angels are). Also fixing the header for "Supernatural" it was messed up."


 * I then decided to use the word Shayāṭīn, which applies to "evil Jinn" (Islamic POV)  like Iblis (who is also regarded as a fallen angel).


 * Before I put in these references, Venus insisted "they (Shayāṭīn and Jinn are stil distinct. and no, Surah 18:50 is not a good source (one of the reasons why we avoid OR on wikipedia)."


 * After some other edits by Venus, I then corrected some peculiar glitches with these references (Webster's references had an improper part in the location: "|location=Woodbury, he will blow the trumpet when the day comes to the end Minn" and I corrected "|work=Encyclopaedia |publisher=Britannica" in the 2nd reference to "|encyclopedia=Encyclopaedia Britannica"), and I put in all these WP:RS to say "Don't you know that the Devil (Iblis) is regarded as both a Jinn and a Shaytan?"


 * Venus then removes all these the reliable sources that I put in, besides reversing my corrections to these references (like putting ", he will blow the trumpet when the day comes to the end Minn" back into the section of "location" in the first reference), saying "shayatin is a seperate type of creature (children of Iblis). Iblis is regarded as an angel, a jinn or somethign entirely else, depending on source and Quran-interpretation, but always becomes a shaitan. As long as we assign Iblis to the shayatin everything should be correct. But shayatin are not simply "evil jinn". They are only "jinn" in the sense of invisiblity, twhich also applies to angels." as if his WP:POV is important enough to remove a whole bunch of reliable sources!


 * I then undid his revert, protesting against his removal of reliable sources, saying "Not according to the WP:RS that I posted!" besides correcting these references, but then Venus removed the references and messed up these references  again, saying "your sources do not cover up your claim at all. Some deal with Iblis affiliation and also tell the same as I told above. So I recommand you to read the sources you use completely. Second they do not categorize the spiritual creatures. For what I would recommand you Amira El Zein (Intelligent world of the jinn), there the several creatures are explained in their attributes and different categories."


 * Then I tried to reason with him, and others whom he got into a dispute or contact with, here and there, but he persisted with nearly edit-warring against me here and there, and he incorrectly said that the above mentioned Verse of the Qur'an (18:50) does not say that Iblis is a Jinn to 82.46.162.198, for which I had to refute him using the Verse to say that according to the Qur'an, Iblis was a Jinn (since Venus was talking about the Qur'an), but Venus continued to pretend that the Verse didn't say that Iblis was a Jinn, and after I warned him to stop this WP:Bias, Venus then decides to report me for WP:Vandalism (when he himself is guilty of that (, despite repeated warnings from me that he can't just go round deleting reliable sources to support his POV, not to mention that he is nearly edit-warring with me), and without a prior notification on my talk-page.

"وَإِذْ قُلْنَا لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ اسْجُدُوا لِآدَمَ فَسَجَدُوا إِلَّا إِبْلِيسَ كَانَ مِنَ الْجِنِّ فَفَسَقَ عَنْ أَمْرِ رَبِّهِ ۗ أَفَتَتَّخِذُونَهُ وَذُرِّيَّتَهُ أَوْلِيَاءَ مِن دُونِي وَهُمْ لَكُمْ عَدُوٌّ ۚ بِئْسَ لِلظَّالِمِينَ بَدَلًا

And when We said to lil-Malāʾikah (to the Angels): "Prostrate to Adam." So they prostrated except Iblis. He was of al-Jinn; he disobeyed the Command of his Lord. Will you then take him and his offspring as awliyāʾ rather than Me while they are enemies to you? What an evil is the exchange for aẓ-Ẓālimīn, ."

- Qur'an, 18:50. Leo1pard (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC); edited 08:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I noticed now that another user whom VenusFeuerFalle got into a dispute with has reported Venus to the Administrators' noticeboard, so I have gone there. Leo1pard (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Honestly, that doesn't surprise me. It's our job to correct these errors when we see them especially when they are being added for malicious purposeses.

Now it terms of Iblis, there is no dispute about him in the Islamic world. The idea of this "ongoing debate" is comepletely false. He was a Jinn who was given "the rank" of an Angel. (It's easier to convince people of a lie if it is partly true.) Also shayateen are Jinn. Evil Jinn are refered to as Shayateen, they are not a seperate creation. I tried to fix this many months ago but I see it has been reverted for an odd reason.

If we are going to decide to write about a religious belief, we must take it upon ourselves to do adequate research.

--Tmason101 (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * And that's what I tried to make clear at List of characters and names mentioned in the Quran, but VenusFeuerFalle just wouldn't listen, saying something like "shayatin is a seperate type of creature (children of Iblis). Iblis is regarded as an angel, a jinn or somethign entirely else, depending on source and Quran-interpretation, but always becomes a shaitan. As long as we assign Iblis to the shayatin everything should be correct. But shayatin are not simply "evil jinn". They are only "jinn" in the sense of invisiblity, twhich also applies to angels" or " promoting his own interpretation of religious texts into articles. providing valid sources, but they, however, do not support his claim. I pointed that out several times, yet he blames me for biases and keeps on with his edits and ignores all my responses on the talkpages. (it is over several articles) Since the User ignored answers and simply repeats his arguements for his edits, I thought it is vandalism and not just disruptive editing or edit war. The sources are pretty clear, but simply ignored for the sake of the User's favored religoius beliefs ..." amongst other things! Surprised at his stubbornness, I decided to investigate why a person who identifies himself as a Muslim would go against something that is commonly accepted among Muslims, that Iblis was a Jinn and Shaytan (Devil) who was an enemy of Allah, and I noticed some interesting things in this talk-page, the article, and from his userpage:


 * 1) As mentioned in this section of the article, some Sufis are pro-Iblis!

"Sufism developed another perspective of Iblis' refusal by regarding Muhammed and Iblis as the two true monotheists. Therefore, some Sufis hold, Iblis refused to bow to Adam because he was devoted to God alone and refused to bow to anyone else. By weakening the evil in the Satanic figure, dualism is also degraded, that corresponds with the Sufi cosmology of unity of existence rejecting dualistic tendencies. The belief in dualism or that evil is caused by something else than God, even if only by one's own will, is regarded as shirk by some Sufis. For Iblis' preference to be damned to hell, than prostrating himself before someone else other than the "Beloved" (here referring to God), Iblis also became an example for unrequited love.

A famous narration about an encounter between Moses and Iblis on the slopes of Sinai, told by Mansur al-Hallaj, Ruzbihan Baqli and Ghazzali, emphasizes the nobility of Iblis. Accordingly, Moses asks Iblis why he refused God's order. Iblis replied that the command was actually a test. Then Moses replied, obviously Iblis was punished by being turned from an angel to a devil. Iblis responds, his form is just temporary and his love towards God remains the same."


 * 2) From his userpage, he appears to be a gnostic-panantheist, liberal, Sufi-Sunni mystic, among other things.


 * 3) From earlier sections in this talk-page (On the origin of Iblis and Is Iblis Allah's enemy?), VenusFeuerFalle took a somewhat pro-Iblis view that runs contrary to the beliefs of mainstream Muslims and the teachings of the Qur'an, apparently preferring some other references on Islamic theology to what the Qur'an says!


 * A) In Is Iblis Allah's enemy?, Venus said "One of the synonyms given to Iblis is "enemy of Allah", probably rooted in folklore to avoid pronouncing his name, since, according to some folklore, if someone speaks his name, he is present. The idea of Iblis as enemy of God probably rooted in Zorastrian influences, such as Shanameh, but Islamic theology (including several interpretations) does not depict him as the enemy of God but of Gods way for humanity."


 * B) In On the origin of Iblis, Venus got into an argument with another user,.


 * C) After 82.46.162.198 (talk) made the section Iblis as an Angel to say ""And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate to Adam," and they prostrated, except for Iblees. He was of the jinn and departed from the command of his Lord." This is coming straight from the Qur'an (18:50), which is the highest source of authority in Islam." Venus got into an argument with this user also, saying "What is your point? I mean, the verse is explained in great detail, including the exegesis on the verse. Literally, the Quran does not even say "jinn" in Arabic" but "jinni", while the creature created from "smokeless fire", that is actually either "marijin min nar" or "nar as samum", that is more appropriately translated as "mixture of fire" and "poisonous fire" (s-m-m from the Semitic root for "poison" or "venom") is "Jann" not even "jinn". Therefore, there is no reason to use the verse to exclude Iblis from being an angel based on the source. And many Muslims are aware of it, and the disucssion also entered the works of the mufassirs (exegetes). When you argue, the Quran determines that Islam is, when we should use the Quran Arabic language and not a translation done later, especialy not, when the transaltions are restricted to a narrow range of interpretations and traditions. And when we encoutner that scholars have a deviant or even contrary reading of the Quran than we have today, we should wonder, there the change was made. For Wikipedia, there our own research is discouraged, and we only gather the work already done by scholars, going into detail is unnecessary."


 * Putting these together, it seems that VenusFeuerFalle is one of those Sufis who take a positive view of Iblis (contrary to the beliefs of mainstream Muslims, besides other Sufis like Rumi), which would help to explain why he would get into arguments with people like 82.46.162.198, FrNANow and myself, over what exactly Islamic texts or WP:RS say about Iblis, or other matters! Leo1pard (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC) edited 13:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Honestly, this is getting serious. You are accusing me of things, and make assumptions about me as a person, make conspiracy theories about me, for the sake of your editor biases.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If you want to look up for spiritual teachigs, yes an encyclopedia is the wrong place. And no "shayatin" are not "simply evil jinn". Evil jinn as called "Shayatin", but there are also "Shayatin" as a seperate group. If you would actually read Robbert lebling you would know this. He states on page 22: Evil jinn are of three kinds: 1. fallen angels (shayatin) (this are by the way the actual "shayatin") 2. unbelievers among the jinn (this are the "evil jinn") 3. pagan deities. You could also read Amira El Zein, she is more explicit about it. Maybe it is confusing due to the ambiguity of the term "jinn", as it can refer to both a genus and a designation for "invisible entities" (including angels in this case!). So Iblis is a "jinn" in the sense of an invisible creature, but not in the sense of a genus called "jinn". The "Shayatin jinn" (who are Iblis' progeny are distinct from the genus called "jinn". You could even read this in tafasir). You could actually just read the article, I once tried to make the article clear enough to be understood. And accusing me here of "advocating satan" is going out of hand!--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Pay more attention to what I said. I said "Putting these (the evidences, including this reply of yours) together, it seems that VenusFeuerFalle is one of those Sufis who take a positive view of Iblis," not that you definitely are, and now I see that you have taken a different stance. Initially, you were acting as if the views on whether Iblis was a fallen angel or jinn were irreconcilable, and now, you are saying that fallen angels can be regarded as being among the kinds of evil Jinn, when I was trying to say that the views on whether Iblis was a fallen angel or jinn were reconcilable all along! Leo1pard (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC); edited 17:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion
I went through the entire issue in detail and I think it is not even worth arguing about. Obviously there are different interpretations of Iblis, According to some he was the most learned and according to others he was not, likewise according to some he is a devil and according to others he is an astray angel. Both the viewpoints should be mentioned in the article clearly, please see WP:RS and WP:RNPOV. We can not use our own research, we just have to state whatever is written in reliable sources, please see WP:SYNTHESIS. As far as the Quranic text is concerned, For me and for all Muslims it is the most reliable, authentic, Holy and Sacred text on the face of this earth but there are many Non-Muslims in the World which makes Quran a controversial book that is why whenever it is to be cited in the articles, it must be properly Quoted, please see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Otherwise, we can just rely on Scholarly reliable sources to make a statement. I think, There is no special need for citing the quranic text in the article as it is already established that iblis is a Jinn according to most of the Islamic scholars, and in my point of view there are two types of angels, Nur - those who are created from light and have no free will and Jinn - those who are created from fire and have a free will (this free will made some of them Shaytan or Devil). --Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 05:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Intentional Misinformation
Yes thank you for clearing this up. I think that they may be doing this intentionally. This isn’t the first instance, there’s been numerous amounts false information and I don’t think it is a coincidence at all.

--Tmason101 (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2020 (

I agree, this one is a minor issue which can be overlooked. My problem is personal opinions are being used instead of facts and false information is being used. This is being done intentionally and should be taken quite seriously. Maybe you can help us correct these?

--Tmason101 (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

False Information
Is anything going to be done about the false information?

--Tmason101 (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

iblis an angel?
nowhere in the quran does it say this, could somebody fix?
 * The sources are literally given in the article. What exactly do you want to have fixed?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , before we make yet another section, which is never fully discussed either, let's continue this very same issue here once again. And actually it does not surprise me, we would discuss this issue here, after you objected the images. First, the statement "but some scholars also opine that Shaytan was actually an angel simply on the grounds that "it makes better sense"." you edited here has several issues: 1. "Shaytan" is not a proper name. It confuses the genus of devils (Shayatin/Shaitan) with both Iblis and the jinn. The terms jinn is quite ambigious as well, but this is anotehr discussion. 2. the argument is not "it makes better sense", but I see, same sources got lost during the several manual reverts, because this statement is under constant attack, without any proper reason given (check all the started discussions but never finished) probably just because it contradicts contemporary teachings from many scholars, and I wonna add them after this entry here. Yet, your statement is not backed up. Welch only states, "it is denied" (that Iblis is an angel for many classical commentators), not "because it made sense to them". 3. and this is the most problematic one, it is not that the sources say! Just to be sure, we are talking about the same, add another quote, if I am missing something, I will list the relevant claims here: (1)"Shaytan (please note this is for the sake of the structure of the book, quoting the very Salafi-Muslims the author is talking about, not for the proper name of the entity, we are discussing here. Shaytan/Shayatin have their own article) is either from the jinn, or from the angels, or originally an angel that became a jinn." (all of these opinions also appear in the article by the way.) (2)"For Ghazali's notion that Iblis was "the peacock of angels" until he disobeyed God, at which point he was transformed into the most hideous of creatures, see: http//forum.alfnnan.org/showthread.php?t=126730." (3) "I conclude this section by drawing attention to an age-old debate regarding the question of Shaytan's origins. Once again, the main issue here concerns the degree to which Salafism undoes the cultural traditions and practises. (Note: The article originally said, most Salafi-scholars, even more in accordance with this source, but we decided not to use the term "Salafism", since it felt too offensive for other contemporary scholar, inclined to regard Iblis as a jinn as well, thus we rewrote this part to "contemporary scholars" instead of "salafi scholars") (I will skip here some sentences not mentioning "Shaytan" or Iblis, for legal reasons). (4) The observation struck me as strange (a Shaikh called "Shaytan" the "peacock of angels", before this sentence) on this aprticular point, the scholars of Ansar al Sunna vertainly do hold the reputation of clashing with the poular Egyptoan tradition. Like the Saudi Arabian scholars, the Ansar al Sunnah elites follow a minorty of of classical authorities, including Hasan al-Basri and more definitively Ibn Taymiyya (Majmu' al-fatawa) and his student Ibn Kathir (Tafsir al-Quran) (I want to point out, since you accused me of biased writing, all these are mentioned in the article by me!) in arguing that Shaytan was originally a member of the jinn and, tehrefore, had never been an angel. Indeed, when I aksed about this subject in 'abdin, I was informed that there was no doubt on the matter: Shaytan was originally created, from fire, a member of the jinn. In defence of this view, the Qur'an explicitly confirms Shaytan's as a member of the jinn (Q.18:50), and acknowledges that he was created from fire (Q. 7:12; 38:76). Nevertheless, on that particular day, in Shubra's al-Tawhid mosque, this Ansar al Sunna shaikh chose to agree with the majority of Sunni Muslim scholars by describing Shaytan as having been created an angel, a view for which there is admittedly also Qur'anic support. (this is on page 73) (5) "Although it is sometimes denied that Iblis was a fallen-angel, this was fully accepted by the classical commentators, e.g., Baydawi, 1:51,; see also Tabari, 1961, 1:83." (6) (now we come to the source removed after a while) "According to the letter of the story in the Qur’an, Iblis is a being of objective existence. However, his ontological nature is not clear.However, the 50th verse of the Sura Kahf remarks that Iblis is from the Jinns." (...) "On the other hand, Muslim scholars mostly think of Iblis as being from the tribe of the angels. According to the narration ascribed to Ibn ‘Abbas, his real name is ‘Azazil." (here it also becomes clear; it is because Sunnis hold the Sahaba in high regard and the Sahaba usually regarded Iblis as an angel called Azazil. The footnote here refers to "Abû al-Muzaffar al-Isferâyinî,al-Tabsîr fi al-Dîn, ed. Kamal Yûsuf el-Hût, Beirut, 1983, p. 155;Fakhr al-Dîn ar-Râzî,al-Arba‘în, ed. A. Hijâzî al-Sakka, Cairo, 1986, I. 350") The text itself is The Tragic Story of Iblis (Satan) in the Qur'an by Mustafa Öztürk. Tell me there I wrote against the claims of the sources!--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * can you expand on a view for which there is admittedly also Qur'anic support. (this is on page 73)? Because Quran 18:50 clearly says Iblis was a Jinn. Of course, we can't use the Quran as a source (WP:RSPSCRIPTURE), but I'm curious as to how the source above justifies its assertions?VR talk 04:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this source (page 24 onward) seems better than the sources currently used in the article for the angel vs jinn debate. It seems to actually go into the details and not just gloss over them (like Gauvain does). Ultimately, this source says that this debate is not as significant as it seems because the author writes "No Muslim questions the spirituality of Iblis' nature; only the precise definition of the family of spirits to which Iblis belongs is problematical".VR talk 04:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I actually used the other source below, but not for the chronigal changes over time. Most Muslim scholars today agree that Iblis is not an angel, but a jinn. Awn explores this issue in exegetical literature. The issue is however, adressed in almost every serious work about the Islamic devil. The Quranic terminology is usually depended on the exegetical tradition, and in English also a matter of translation. The term (not the word) jinn in Surah Al Kahf has variously been understood to refer to 1. a tribe of angels who are named after jannah, therefore called jinn, but still differ from the Genus of the jinn. (Awn disucsses this point, but as far as I remember misses to make clear, that the angelic tribe called al-jinn, is still distinguished from the Genus of jinn. This is also the reason why I didn't used Awn as the main-source for the discussion. To back up my claim, I would like to refer to []) 2. refer to "unseen entities in general, both angels, devils as well as other creatures like the jinn-genus known from Pre-Islamic Arabia 3. that Iblis ist not an angel. All three exist since the early age of Islam. Therefore, it is wrong to claim that Iblis is solely an angel or solely a jinn in Islam. Within Muslim sources, poets, tafsirs, Quran translations (the one by Muhamamd Asad for example translats Surah 18:50 as "one of the invisible creatures" adding the note "here an angel" (I could also check up the exact quote on request) and so on, we find Iblis as both "Angel only" "jinn only" or even something unique. In English Quranic translations, the matter of "jinn" is threaten poorly anyways. In some instances, when the translations mention "jinn created from fire", while it actually only refers to "jann", which is another exegetical topic, why this matters. Unfortunately, many scholars today ommit the vast tradtions regarding supernatural creatures in Islam. And there is research about this phenomena, in the social studies, like "The revenge of the Jinns: spirits, Salafi reform, and the continuity in change in contemporary Ethiopia JO - Contemporary Islam" (I dont have the link right now.) Evidence for Iblis being an angel, would for example, be, that Surah 2:34 when it speals of "all angels prostrate themselves; except iblis", at least this was one of the main objections against iblis being not an angel, asserted by Tabari (his tafsir in Arabic is linked below in his quote). ANother one could be that jinn are usually paired with humans, and not are not related to the angels of the world of the angels throughout the Quran. I guess this was pinted out by Arno Eichler. My intention regarding my disputes with  was about the lead-section, in which I tried to summarize the view points of Muslim scholars. Since almost no one (officially) holds Iblis to be an angel today (there are of course, Imams/Shaikhs who think otherwise), I think it is rather misleading to say, there is still much of a dispute in contemporary scholarship, while we find quite the opposite in earlier sources, in which Iblis is usually seen as an angel called Azazil, who is cast down from heaven and becomes a devil, procreating the devils. However, it is not the case, that all scholars agreed to this viewpoint. Al-Taftazani for example recommands his Muslim readers, to argue against other Muslims who claim that Iblis is an angel. The view point that Iblis was more likely an angel, was probably more accepted earlier, because many of the Sahaba (Muhammads companions) hold this view, while today, most scholars advise not to follow the Sahaba regarding doctrinal matters, but only hadiths of Muhammad himself. I personally do not only rely on the academical works for my knowledge by the way, my personal experiences with former fellow Muslims is, that Iblis is still often regarded as an angel by other Muslims, even if they have a less sophisticated explanation for Surah 18:50 than the scholars. For example I once heard, Allah just called Iblis a jinn, to curse him, becaus he behaved like a jinn, not like an angel. Hope this clarifies some points regarding this matter.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you're saying but I would say that the current lead is phrased inappropriately. I would write it as, Muslims have agreed on the spiritual characteristics of Iblis, but early Muslims differed on whether to categorize Iblis as jinn or angel. Most contemporary Islamic scholars regard Iblis as jinn.
 * Also, which early scholars considered Iblis to be angel? Awn mentions Al-Tabarsi, but who else?VR talk 15:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, a jinni is not necessarily a spirtual entity. For Hasan al Basri, an early advocate for rejecting Iblis' angelic nature, thought of him as comparable to Adam. Some scholars, who regarded Iblis to be an angel are mentioned below in the article. Here are some I personally know, might include some of the listed ones: Ibn Abbas, Ibn Masud, Tabari, Ashari, Qadi Baydawi Al-Tha'alibi, Al-Damiri (although I think Al-Damiri's treatise is not a good one regarding opinnions. He lists a lot of facts, but contradicts himself throughout the work about their proper interpretations). The way you suggest to phrase it, sounds like there has been a little dispute, which has soon be clarified in favor for Iblis being a jinni, which is not accurate. This is not how it happened. Muslim thinkers between 1850-1920 (early Modernist Salafism) even tended to think about Iblis clearly being an angel, almost unanimously (Muhammad Abduh, Rashid Rida, Muhammad Asad), but since they failed to reach out to the majority of the Muslim world today, the opinions of Wahhabism-Salafism based on Ibn Taimiyya and Ibn Kathir (who both consider Iblis to be a jinn) and the Muslim Brotherhood (including the writings of Sayyid Qutb, who is actually not even qualified to write an exegesis), the opinnion that Iblis is not an angel prevailed and superseded the other. Also in non-theological works, but poets, which had a great influence on the every-day Muslim beliefs, like the Masnawi or the Naghul Balagha, Iblis appears as an angel. I also think we should not downplay this either. And I think one of the main-reasons, why some Muslim authors object this lead is because it contradicts the fundamental presenation of today Salafism-Sunnism. They present themselves as the "original Muslim theology uphold by the Sahaba" and this lead-section just proofs this self-image to be inaccurate. I do not think we should edit it in a way, it missrepresents reality, just in favor for peace for someones religious feelings, although we should not hurt them. But in the end, it is basically, the Salafism-Sunnism' own mistake; when they promote the "original Islam", they should accept the beliefs of the early Muslims in every matters, or drop this image of "pure original Islam" altogether (that every academic agrees upon, that they are not anyways).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you provide scholarly secondary sources for those claims? The wording I proposed is similar to what a scholarly source says "No Muslim questions the spirituality of Iblis' nature; only the precise definition of the family of spirits to which Iblis belongs is problematical".VR talk 21:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is rather the summary of studies regarding the jinn, which are in most accounts placed among humans. And this is also the reason why I have not taken Awn regarding this matter; Tabasi (or Awn's interpretation, I haven't done enough research about Tabasi to judge his opinnion about the jinn, unlike about Tabari, who is also the basis for Sunni-Tafsir) seem to argue about wether the jinn are a sub-category of angels or a creature on their own. But not everytime we speak about jinn, we indeed talk about this possible sub-category. The heavenly tribe in question, called jinn is without any doubt spiritual. But a contrary opinnion, which places Iblis among the jinn regards him more like an animal. (source) I would like to give this quote from the Encyclopedia of the Quran, for this important distinction: "(...) Abu Ishaq al Thalabi (d. 427/1036) solves this riddle [wether Iblis is an angel or a jinn] by concluding (Kashf, 5:340, on Q15:27) that most angels were indeed created from light, but the tribe of angels named "al-jinn" to which Iblis belonged was created from fire of samum (according to al-Thalabi "smokeless fire," cf. Q 15:27, while the genus of jinn was created from marij (shooting out) of fire (also "smokeless" [in Arabic 55:15 and 15:27 are different unlike most translations]; cf. 55:15). (https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/angels-COM_23204?s.num=0&s.f.s2_parent=s.f.book.encyclopaedia-of-islam-3&s.q=angels).This story referred to in the encyclopedia also appears in Tafsir Tabari, Tabari with one of the oldest and most basic tafsir in Sunni-Islam. His quote is within the article, and a link to an Arabic version of his tafsir included, I would like not to quote him here again. In case we speak Iblis being a jinni (as a jinn, not as the angelic tribe, we talked before), we usually find Iblis being adopted by the angels, or otherwise elavated to the angelic realm: "This gave rise to lengthy and inconclusive debates about wether Iblis should be regarded as an angel or a jinni, includingvarious stories about how, as a jinni, Iblis was adopted by the angels in Heaven, as well as the suggestion that the jinn are a subtribe of the angels (al-Tabari 302, on Q18:50;cf. Awn, 26-9).(https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/devil-satan-COM_25991?s.num=0&s.f.s2_parent=s.f.book.encyclopaedia-of-islam-3&s.q=Satan) When we speak of Awn's account of Iblis being a jinni, it is more about the question if his tribe can be considered "angelic" or not, but indeed spiritual, unlike, I would say, the genus of jinn, cited above who are supposed to dwell on earth (or even underground). I do not remember a source, which makes it explicit, I only vaguely remember that the jinn, but not the angels are, for example, featuered in treatises about animals and defined as "animals with a subtle body". But I found this one: "Nevertheless, scholars discuss at length about the quality' of the

jinni body: whether it is dense or subtle. If it is dense, how is it said that they are stronger than man?I". Others retain that the jinn are pure spirits with no bodies whatsoever." (https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/bitstream/123456789/32691/1/On_quranic_jinn.pdf). Now regarding the second opinnion ("Others retain that the jinn are pure spirits with no bodies whatsoever.") This is basically again a tradition in which the lines between angels and jinn are blurred or the jinn entail angels. This is also the case for Ibn Arabi, who contrary to the claim that most scholars hold Iblis to be an angel, stated that most people regard Iblis to be the anestor of jinn. However, he seems to use jinn and angels interchangeable or once again, the jinn as a sub-class of angels: "Ibn ‘Arabī states that genies are “all that which is concealed (mustatir): angels and other beings”" (https://ibnarabisociety.org/jinn-spirits-futuhat-al-makkiyya-chapter-9-garcia-lopez-anguita/). I would argue, that Tabasi/Awn only talks about wether or not, Iblis' tribe called jinn (who are in any case spiritual) can be considered angels, but that the actual jinn/genus of the jinn (as the encyclopedia of the Quran calls it) are not necessarily spiritual, rather hae a subtle body. In the case of Awn, who limited his research on Iblis and his nature, does not go into depth when it comes about the jinn as a seperate class of creatures, besides the angels adn devils. But since, on the Wikipedia, we also have an article about the very genus of jinn, we should be careful not to confuse the "the heavenly tribe in question called jinn" and "bodily earthly genus of jinn" and also take this into consideration when we decide about how to write the lead. Another possibility would be, to explicitdly mention that only within Salafism-discourse, Iblis is clearly a jinn like "Muslim sources disagree wether Iblis was an angel or a jinn, only the majority of Salafi-scholars finally ruled out that Iblis must be a jinni". Sorry for the delay, had my second vaccine shot last Sunday, and either felt ill or had to work.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The Qur'an states in Surat al-Kahf, verse 50,

Source: Tafsir al-Fakhr al-Razi Hope this helps, good luck.--TheEagle107 (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This means that Iblis (Satan) was not of the angels, as the Qur'ān openly declares that the angels are sinless, always doing what they are commanded by God and never disobeying Him (16:49–50; 66:6). Satan belongs to the species of jinn, which, like humankind, have free will and can either obey or disobey God.
 * Angels in Islam are understood not to have free will, while jinns do.
 * Unlike humans, angels do not eat or drink, or engage in sexual relations, since they are sexless (without gender); therefore, they do not reproduce sexually with one another.
 * The verse also mentions Satan's offspring. However, angels do not have offspring, so it is necessary that Satan should not be one of the angels.
 * The tafsir regarding this are literally given above and within the article. Why such online-tafsirs are insufficient should become clear after reading a tafsir or a scholary source regarding this matter. "Angels in Islam are understood not to have free will, while jinns do." this is also wrong. But as long as this does not matter for the discussion I would like not to go deeper into the discussion, since this is not a forum.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Another option would be not to mention this dispute at all in the lead section and move this paragraph to the dispute section. Although most scholars at least refer to this dispute once, it does not need to be that present in the article. We could write something like "is the leader of devils", with the "devils" being the only entitiy, all sources seem to agree upon. Only what he has been before seems disputed.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I thought about something like:

This is my alternative suggestion for the lead. The part with the tendency who regards Iblis as angel and who as a jinn, could be integrated somewhere below.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Iblis in literature and philosophy
This article would benefit from the ideas of Peter Lamborn Wilson in his writing "Iblis: The Black Light" especially the philosophical concept of Iblis representing the Imagination that would not prostrate itself to the Intellect. --Etu Malku (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Translation of Devil and Satan
I found the source: "Islamic studies separate shaytān from Iblīs. The Qurʾanic shayātīn (pl.) denotes a category of impersonal evil spirits, while Shaytān (sing.) signifies the tempter of people from the time of Adam and Eve (Qur. 2:36). Iblīs appears in the history of the refusal to prostrate himself before God created Adam (Qur. 7:11–18, 15:36–44, 17:61–64, 18:50, 20:116, 26:94–95, 38:71–84). The traditional distinction between Satan (Iblīs) and Devil (Shaytān) inherently conflicts with the etymologies of the words." (Pavel V. Basharin; The Problem of Free Will and Predestination in the Light of Satan’s Justification in Early Sufism. English Language Notes 1 April 2018; 56 (1): 119–138.) --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Jafar as-Sadiq?
There is a source claiming that Jafar al-Sadiq may have agreed with Tabari that Iblis is called a "jinni" is a reference to being are guardian of paradise (khazin al-jannah) from al-Wazir al-Maghribi. Given it doesn't make much sense, if Jafar al-Sadiq would hold an opposite position, people like Abu Hanifa and many others, could infere that Iblis was an angel, we might pay attention to this claim. This is contrary to the source in the article attributed to al-Qummi argued that Iblis was taken captive as a jinn who ruled the earth. Maybe both used Jafar al-Sadiq as an authority to support their own view. But finally, it looks like it is less a consens or fact, but raher a mere attributation. Therefore, I would remove Jafar al Sadiq from this list. (source: Tafsir al-Tabari and Shica Tafsirs M orteza K arimi - N i a Islamic A za d University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran mkariminiaa@ gmail.com)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Relation to religion or faith
Iblis would never prostrate nor to Allah nor other entity so might be hoax article, or for template Hoax in introductory part. --5.43.81.203 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Image
Hey, I just want to adress the dispute ove rthe image. Although the one with the black man is a great depiction, it is still somethat ambigious since it is a Siyah Kalam depiction of largely unknown tales, containing a figure which has similarities with the depiction of Iblis. In contrast, the one with the angels represents a reoccuring motif and is explained in an academic source. For this reason, we should keep the one with the angels. (I start thinkig that the Siyah Kalam might be a bad take anyways, since there is literally just one source about it and this even noted that most of the legends can't be reconstructed and relies on interpretation of art only). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a copy of the dialoge on my talkpage with the tagged user:

"This user is constantly reverting additions I have made to the article about Iblis. I have given good reasons for the image change. But without reason ('oh you are not correct' is hardly a good reason) it is reverted. This user is not the 'boss' of the article, and has to accept different views on the subject. Especially because the picture I changed and added as the main/first picture, was on top of the page before. So there is no doubt the image is a correct depiction of the figure of Iblis. Further reverting back is just bordering vandalism by now. And this needs to stop. This isn't about ego, but about creating a platform with correct information. Which I tried doing, and user VenusFeuerFalle is not. CorrectieTik (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

You keep on with reverting back without even replying here. You are vandalizing. CorrectieTik (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC) This is factually wrong, I mean. This is the first responde of you. And still you added nothing factual for matters of resolution, instead going to blame me. This violates the Wikipedia guidlines. As long as the tone remains inappropriate, there is no reason to reply to any further comment. I would also recommend to read into the definition of vandalism, instead of throwing the term around. Since your recent edits lacked neutral point of view as there is no support for your claims while the others are backed up by clear points and a source, you start stepping into grey areas. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC) edit: I see we are on my talkpage again. So there is still no response by you. You need to reply on the talkpage of the article if this is about the article. Not my talkpage. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC) You dont reply at all to arguments iv made. And this is a good place to discuss your behavior of reverting changes made by people. As this is an issue with YOU not the page about Iblis. As the pictures features on the page anyway. So this is about you vandalizing and threatening me, so it belongs on YOUR talk page. CorrectieTik (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC) Please listen to me finally, and bring your concerns to the talkpage. You know that. I am going to be nice and do this for you. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC) I made several arguments, to which you did not reply. You dont get to threaten me with 'youre going to be in trouble'. I suggest you leave the picture alone, as you 1. have not given any valid reason to be against the picture 2. The picture features on the page anyway, so why do you care so much if its on top or in the middle? It seems utterly useless to pick this fight with me. Again: you are not the boss or owner of the article. CorrectieTik (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)"


 * If the user doesn't watch their tone in future replies, I will leave it to an WP:ADMIN. This user keeps attacking me and calls their attacks "arguements". I don't think I need to respond to any of this. Nontheless, I decided to help the user at first despite the WP:NOPA. I offered several guidlines to read through, did actually showed support for the debated issue, and tagged them here for the proper place of debate. But I don't see anypoint to discuss, if the User decided to demonize me anyways.