Talk:Iblis

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. —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 [1] 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)

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)

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)