Talk:Iblis
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iblis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | Iblis has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
short description
@Abo Yemen I wanted to inform you I decided to change the short description now after a redirect from al-Shaitan was created. I hesitated previously because the main function of Iblis is his fall, while the function of the Devil(s) was discussed on the Shaitan article. With the Shaitan article now being a redirect to this one, I think the short description can also be adjusted. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's much better now :) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 00:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Did you know nomination
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath talk 09:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
( )
Iblis guards the Divine Garden.
- ... that due to the similarities in function between Iblis's web and the Hindu concept of māyā, the seventeenth-century Mughal Dara Shikoh sought to reconcile the Upanishads with Sufi cosmology?
- Source: Barry, M. A. (2004). Figurative art in medieval Islam and the riddle of Bihzad of Herat (1465-1535). Flammarion.: 246
- Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article status by VenusFeuerFalle (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.
VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC).
Original discussion resulting in a GAR and a five-week hold
|
|---|
With that, I would also like to ask, if there are any further objections RoySmith, Zanahary, Kingsif, Johnbod?
|
Reopened per WT:DYK. New review needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- @VenusFeuerFalle:
Reviewing the article is beyond my capabilities so this will not be a full review, but I agree with Johnbod that the hook as currently written needs to be changed. I'm a big history buff myself, but the hook is probably too specialist and relies a background in Indian history. My suggestion, if it is possible, would be to reword the hook to be less reliant on history knowledge. There's a good point to be made here, but right now it's hard to parse. If that is not feasible, another solution would just be to propose a different angle. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
- Would something along the line like "similarities in function between the Sufistic concept of Iblis's web and the Hindu concept of māyā have been considered?" work?
- Yes, it would be better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- Can we then just take that one or do I have to officially reqrite a second suggestion?VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- @VenusFeuerFalle: I would propose another hook. I would also go much simpler than that.--Launchballer 13:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly, I still think even the first hook is great. I do not see how this is too specific or anything. If there is a general consensus that you cannot trust the average internet user to have basic education on geography, I am sorry, but when I am the wrong person for a understanding what you can expect from the average reader. I think everyone knows what Maya is and everyone knows what Sufism is. If thats not the case, I am sorry, but what is a good hook. That Iblis is compared to Satan? At this point we are at straightup translations.VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- The only thing I can think of which is not basically either directly from the Quran or an inconclusive discussion mgiht be the story of Iblis fighting the jinn: "First the jinn were obedient, but over time immorality increased and, when they became infidels, God sent an army of angels, headed by Iblis to defeat them". But this is only interesting if you already believe in such stories and of no historical or cultural value.VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- "If there is a general consensus that you cannot trust the average internet user to have basic education on geography, I am sorry ... I think everyone knows what Maya is and everyone knows what Sufism is." XKCD 2501 is, as quite often, very relevant. For hooks that might actually work (I'm sorry to say that the first hook is light-years away), perhaps we could try:
- ALT1: ... that similar to how European portrayals of demons depict them with aspects of pagan deities, Islamic depictions of demons such as Iblis showcase attributes of Hindu gods?
- ALT1a: ... that Islamic depictions of demons such as Iblis showcase attributes of Hindu gods?
- ALT2: ... that a minority theory holds that the name of Iblis, the leader of the devils in Islam, derives from the Ancient Greek diábolos, which was also the origin for the English word "devil"?
- ALT2a: ... that a minority theory holds that the name of the leader of the devils in Islam derives from the Ancient Greek diábolos, which was also the origin for the English word "devil"?
- ALT3: ... that the dispute over the fundamental nature of Iblis, the leader of the devils in Islam, dates back to the formative stages of Islam?
- ALT3a: ... that the dispute over the fundamental nature of the leader of the devils in Islam dates back to the religion's formative stages?
- ALT1: ... that similar to how European portrayals of demons depict them with aspects of pagan deities, Islamic depictions of demons such as Iblis showcase attributes of Hindu gods?
- Any of those work? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- I would WP:DYKTRIM the first half of ALT1, 'hide' Iblis in ALT2 and ALT3 under "the leader of the devils in Islam", and reword the end of ALT3 to "the religion's formative stages". Gets them out of using commas.--Launchballer 13:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Reviews needed for ALT1a, ALT2a, and ALT3a. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- I would WP:DYKTRIM the first half of ALT1, 'hide' Iblis in ALT2 and ALT3 under "the leader of the devils in Islam", and reword the end of ALT3 to "the religion's formative stages". Gets them out of using commas.--Launchballer 13:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- "If there is a general consensus that you cannot trust the average internet user to have basic education on geography, I am sorry ... I think everyone knows what Maya is and everyone knows what Sufism is." XKCD 2501 is, as quite often, very relevant. For hooks that might actually work (I'm sorry to say that the first hook is light-years away), perhaps we could try:
- @VenusFeuerFalle: I would propose another hook. I would also go much simpler than that.--Launchballer 13:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- Can we then just take that one or do I have to officially reqrite a second suggestion?VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it would be better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
- Would something along the line like "similarities in function between the Sufistic concept of Iblis's web and the Hindu concept of māyā have been considered?" work?
- @VenusFeuerFalle:
Thinking about it, I'd trim ALT2a further, to ALT2b: ... that a minority theory holds that the name of the leader of the devils in Islam derives from the same origin as the English word "devil"?, but as it and ALT1a both use offline sources and would require a quote, I approve ALT3a.--Launchballer 19:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Launchballer, for ALT1a, see "And just as medieval Christian European renditions of the devil mostly derive, with an obvious anti-‘pagan’ note of scorn, from Graeco-Roman depictions of the god Pan and the goat-legged and goat-horned satyrs, so the Persianate portrayals of Iblls and his minions are mainly and just as recognizably ferocious caricatures of naked and bangled Hindu deities - also seen in the Mahayana scrolls - but here and now turned into monsters: such as Ganesh, with his characteristic elephant head, and Vishnu in his incarnation as a boar, or rather seen as a human body with the head of a tusked boar." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wow, that's a long sentence. I also approve ALT1a.--Launchballer 20:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- First thank you very much for your suggestions. I would go with ALT 2a: it is probably the least controversial. ALT 3 is more interesting but then we are overrun by ultra-conservatives. ALT 1 is true, but I don't think we should emphazize it too much, as this is very specifically for those who portray the demons as Divs. The Indian influence probably coems by accident not by a direct demonization (Persians demonized Indian gods, Muslims accepted the demons of the Persians as demons). So even though it is true (and what the source states), I wouldn't phrase it like this, especially not for a DYN. I think the the Diabolus etymology is fine, but I would remove the "minority" from that quote, as it is pretty much the most widely accepted hypothesis in Islamic studies.VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wow, that's a long sentence. I also approve ALT1a.--Launchballer 20:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Seems to be consensus to keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Per @Zanahary: at Template:Did you know nominations/Iblis. Launchballer 16:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks @Launchballer.
This shouldn't have passed GA. It has unquestionably valid cleanup tags, making it eligible for QF. It contains a lot of unclear prose, for instance:This dispute goes back to the formative stage of Islam. These two conflicting opinions are based on the interpretations of ibn Abbas and Hasan al-Basri respectively.[20]: 6 Muslim scholars then followed one of these two interpretations.
The first sentence certainly needs further explanation, and the last implies that Muslim scholars together chose one unidentified interpretation.If angels can sin or not is disputed in Islam. Those who say that Iblis was not an angel, but a jinni, argue that only jinn (and humans), but not angels are capable of disobedience.
This is ungranmmatical.The Mu'tazilites, absolving God from all negative associations, ...
This absolutely needs further explanation and precision.Sufi formulations of mystical union derive from careful and sustained dedication to the conflicts arising from the intricacies of the conflicts addressed in the school of kalam.
What does this mean? What is careful and sustained dedication to the conflicts arising from the intricacies of the conflicts addressed? Multiple layers of conflicts? I truly do not understand anything about Sufi thought from this sentence.Those who remain at the circle of lā, they worship the nafs (carnal desires) instead of God.
This is ungrammatical.In reference to the interpretation of the events in Surah 2:30-34, when the angels complain over mankinds' potential to shed blood and cause injustice, Islamic hagiographic narratives relate this to the previous story.
This is baffling and ungrammatical.The article also has a consistent problem with in-text attribution, reporting both narrative elements of stories about Iblis (which are, of course, not factual and must be sourced in-text, as in "In the Quran...", "One tradition holds...", etc.) and interpretations in Wikivoice. Examples follow:The angels passing by Adam were scared. Most afraid was Iblis. To overcome his anxiety, he enters Adam and moves through the body. He concludes that "this is hollow clay", whereas Iblis is "fire". Since fire overcomes clay, he vows to destroy Adam like fire destroys clay: "You are nothing – because of his ringing – and you were made for nothing! If I am to rule over you, I will kill you, and if you are to rule over me, I will rebel against you."
This story's source is not named; it's in Wikipedia's voice.Iblis is part of God's universe and does not form an exterior reality independent of God. He is God's veil, the visible universe itself, which hides the Godhead from the unworthy.
Whose interpretation is this? It is stated as simple fact, when it is obviously not.The article also repeats the story of Iblis's refusal to prostrate himself before Adam many times across sections, and it is not clear why. Discussion of whether Iblis is a jinn is also spread across sections.Iblis was a unique individual, described as both a pious jinni and an angel before he fell from God's grace when he refused to bow before the prophet Adam. After this incident, Iblis turned into a shaytan.
is located in the final "In culture" section, where Iblis's appearances in arts are discussed, and nowhere earlier. Why? Shouldn't it be in the theology section?There are more problems with the article, most of which are tagged inline. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)- Thank you @Launchballer for the notification. Ill look into this tomorrow cus I'm going to sleep now 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- To be honest, most of your complains just show a lack of either comprehending the style encyclopdies are written and the meaning of academic writings, or complains about the writing style. There have been a few valid requests, but most are not. It is either clarified in the very sentence before or in the body of the text. If the texts are so hard to understand it might be because you struggle with the subject, because two non-native speakers from different linguistical backgrounds had no issues with understanding the topic. If you have an idea how to improve, I request you a last time kindly to jsut go ahead and improve the tone. It should be an easy fix. Yuo already ruined the DYN with just disruptive positions, because after the complains you brought here, I could not find any serious one. So please keep on with being constructive or I will consdier reporting you for disruptive behavior, because until now, most of your objections are either willful ignorance or simply the inability to deal with the subject matter. But in both cases it is up to you. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Is it up to me? Yes, please report me for disruptive behavior. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Given that even a reviewer, who is not allowed to interfer with the article they review "may be bold and simply fix them" and udner the assumption we all share the common goal to improve articles, I see no reason why you should not. But okay, lets keep focused. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what point you are trying to make, but you should know that you're mistaken about GA reviewers not being allowed to "interfere" with the articles they review. Reviewers editing nominated articles is a normal and explicitly allowed part of the GAR process. I don't know what that has to do with me, though. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Given that even a reviewer, who is not allowed to interfer with the article they review "may be bold and simply fix them" and udner the assumption we all share the common goal to improve articles, I see no reason why you should not. But okay, lets keep focused. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Is it up to me? Yes, please report me for disruptive behavior. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- The article seems to mention nowhere that Iblis is said to have tempted Adam and Eve, as explained (for one) on page 18 of Peter J. Awn's Satan's Tragedy and Redemption: Iblis in Sufi Psychology. This strikes me as a major omission. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Over at Talk:Iblis#Unclear?, VFF asked why I tagged the sentence
In reference to the interpretation of the events in Surah 2:30–34, when the angels complain about mankind's potential to shed blood and cause injustice, Islamic hagiographic narratives relate this to the story about angels' battle with the jinn.
as needing clarification. I responded that the sentence is ambiguous in implying that either the angels’ complaints or Islamic hagiographic narratives are in reference to “the interpretation” (which is not clear) of the events in Surah 2:30–34. VFF did not respond to my reply, but did remove the tag without changing the prose.VFF also unilaterally removed the clarification tag on the following prose in the lead:Others have strongly rejected sympathies with Iblis, considering them to be deceptively instigated by Iblis. Rumi's poetic work Masnavi-e-Ma'navi explores this form of deception in detail: when Iblis wakes up Mu'awiya to the morning prayer, he appears to have benevolent intentions at first, but it turns out, Iblis is just hiding his true malevolent motivations.
The relationship between the phrases preceding and following the colon are not clear (how is "Iblis is just hiding his true malevolent motivations" an "explor[ation of] this form of deception in detail"?), and the sentence is ungrammatical. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC) - I'm afraid I must vote to delist this article. There are too many issues with prose, many of which have been left unresolved even as tags are removed, and there is at least one major element of Iblis's narrative (his temptation of Adam and Eve) missing from the article. I also raised a sourcing concern at WP:RSN#Islamic University of Gaza Journal of Islamic Studies, though that source may not actually be problematic—hence my raising it for discussion rather than moving to remove it from the article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- It didn't have the tags when passed for GA; these were I think all added by Zanahary yesterday, and he is not best placed to call them "unquestionably valid". I removed several on a quick pass. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Of course, I’m not suggesting that these tags predate the review. I’m saying it shouldn’t have passed because of the problems in the article—which the recently-placed tags refer to. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Jumping in as someone who contributed to the review here, I personally felt in over my head with this article (not speaking on behalf of anyone else here) and even though this review passed through three different sets of hands, that does not mean it is free of mistakes. I realize now I should have asked for some more help with this review but hindsight is 20/20. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 05:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the re-assessment request. I think a lot of issues can be done quickly. Other issues, I disagree with and may discuss here. Currently, I have a tight schedule again (thats why I was eager to get these reviews done quickly). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Of course, I’m not suggesting that these tags predate the review. I’m saying it shouldn’t have passed because of the problems in the article—which the recently-placed tags refer to. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'm presently taking a look at the article. In full transparency, I'm doing so in response to a message VFF sent me on Discord where we happen to be friends, where they asked me to do so while expressing essentially the same concerns as they have in their above replies.
- My initial appraisal is broadly that there is a clear need for improvements in diction and clarity to the prose in areas, but the article's coverage and organization is fundamentally balanced and sound by GA standards. That is to say, I don't see any need for the imbroglios or quarreling expressed so far. We all want our articles to be better, and it seems straightforward to make this article better, so let's do that without impersonally wielding or rejecting the GAR process here. Remsense 🌈 论 22:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- @VenusFeuerFalle because I can't help myself—which citation style do you prefer in this article,
{{rp}}or{{sfn}}? Remsense 🌈 论 00:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)- @Zanahary, are the tagged issues I've tackled so far resolved to your satisfaction? Remsense 🌈 论 17:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Remsense, I find
In Sufism, the concept of union with God, while fundamentally mystical in nature, has been described in a manner informed by the academic debates concerning God's nature within the school of kalam.
to be still confusing, while better than its predecessor. When we say it "has been described…", is that in Sufism? Is it by scholars receptively describing the Sufi concept of union? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)- @Zanahary: good catch. Now? Remsense 🌈 论 18:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that’s great, thank you! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Zanahary: good catch. Now? Remsense 🌈 论 18:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Remsense, I find
- personally, rp but most Users seem to use sfn VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Zanahary, are the tagged issues I've tackled so far resolved to your satisfaction? Remsense 🌈 论 17:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
- @VenusFeuerFalle because I can't help myself—which citation style do you prefer in this article,
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unclear?
@Zanahary could you please elaborate what is unclear about the following sentence: "In reference to the interpretation of the events in Surah 2:30–34, when the angels complain about mankind's potential to shed blood and cause injustice, Islamic hagiographic narratives relate this to the story about angels' battle with the jinn"? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- It implies that either the angels’ complaints or Islamic hagiographic narratives are in reference to “the interpretation” (which is what?) of the events in Surah 2:30–34, and it’s ambiguous which of those is true. Maybe someone else who’s commented at the GAR can chime in; I recommend pinging and asking there. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
@Zanahary I also want to inform you, I had to change your requested "copy edt" in the Sufi lead-section as it was misrepresenting the source. If you have any objection to the forumation, for whatever reason, please raise your objeciton immediately, not 2 weeks later again, after the discussion already reached a consensus (only you disagreed with). And also, make a suggestion what would be better, without (!) making false claims or violating the source!
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.