Hi VenusFeuerFalle! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hi VenusFeuerFalle! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hinn (Islam), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Islam, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islamic view of angels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mystic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islamic view of angels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Qazwini. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, VenusFeuerFalle – I saw your recent edit to Gnosticism, and I read it with interest. Although I have some interest in the topic of Gnosticism, I don't know enough about the subject matter to know whether the added material is appropriate for the article or not. Other editors will be certain to review your edit and determine that. However, I notice quite a few mistakes in the material you added, mostly spelling mistakes, but a few verb forms, and one or two unclear spots. I'm willing to help you get the prose into better shape, but I'm wondering whether it might be a good idea for you to remove what you added, at least temporarily, and place it in your sandbox (see the tab all the way at the top of your user or talk page), which is a kind of work space. I'll correct the errors in spelling and verb form first; then I'll point out the unclear spots and ask you what you are trying to say and help formulate a clear phrase or sentence. If you think this would be a good idea, just revert your own edit, include an edit summary saying "Reverting own edit to work on prose", or something like that, and copy and paste all of it to your sandbox. Then let me know that you've done that, and I'll look at the material again. Once we have it in good shape, you can add it again, and then see what happens. If you really don't want to undo your edit, just let me know and I'll correct errors with my own edits, and ask you about unclear spots in comments on your talk page. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your message on my talk page telling me you had moved the material to your sandbox. I'll look at it now. I'd just like to add a reminder to sign your posts (comments) with four tildes: ~~~~. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC) I just realized that in order for me to be able to access your sandbox, you need to provide a link to it. I think it's first "User", followed by a colon, then your user name, then a forward slash (/), and finally the word "sandbox". I found a page that has a little information about sandboxes: Help:My sandbox. – Corinne (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gnostic thoughts found their way into Islam during the early medieval age. The Quran and Islamic Anthopogenetic (can this be used in religous usage?) share gnostic ideas and reapear especially among Sufi, Shia and Ismaili traditions. However, acording to Islamics beleif in strict Oneness of God, there was no room for a lower deity; the demiurge, althought, some early writings and exegesis stated, Iblis as the ruler over the lower heavens and earths. Especially in the "Um-al Kitab" Azazel resembles the gnostic demiurge. Like the demiurge, he is endowed with the ability to create his own world and seeks to imprison human in the material world, but here, his power is limited and depents on the higher God. Like the gnostic conception of human being imprisoned in matter, Islam aknowledges the human soul is a accomplice of the material world and subject to bodily desires similiar to the archontic spheres envelop the pneuma. The Ruh must therefore gain victory over the lower and material-bound psyche, to overcome his animalic nature. A human captured by his animalic desires, mistakenly claim autonomy and independency from the "higher God", thus resembling the lowr deitiy in classical gnostic traditions.
Hello, VenusFeuerFalle – Before I begin to correct the many spelling errors, I'd like to ask you if this material is sourced. It's got to be either a direct quote (in which case we'd have to put it in quotation marks or as a blockquote) or a paraphrase, but either way it has to be sourced. Do you have citations ready to add? If this represents your own thinking on the topic, that would constitute WP:Original research, so would not be acceptable in the article. Miniapolis, just for future reference, can you tell us how to create a link to VenusFeuerFalle's sandbox? – Corinne (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. That's fine. Since we now have a link to your sandbox, I think it would be best if I make the corrections there. If you don't mind, I'd rather wait until tomorrow. – Corinne (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, VenusFeuerFalle. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Demonology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jann (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jinn, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Yemeni and Soothsayer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Your article creations and content additions on important Islamic topics are much appreciated brother. Keep the good work up !!! Resnjari (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Term appears either non-notable or made-up. Does not Google, does not Wiktionary, does not appear on anything. Also, half of the article prose promotes a film.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
https://www.britannica.com/science/simoom it can be written Samum or Simoom. The film is in line with a common belief in Islamic mythology, however they are created from Samum/Simoom here instead of called that way. Thought it could clearify that "fires of Simoom" mean in Islamic literature, but in the meanwhile I think, we could simply make notes, then refering to "fires of Simoom" in other articles.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but I do not understand your accusations. I thought this category would have a better overview if they are not all listed under "M" for Muhammad, since there are many articles starting with "Muhammad". If others disagree, I do not care, but wanted to make sure all this categories are listened equal. --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(signed for you) First, let's get more collegial. I'm not accusing you of anything. Second, I see what you're doing, and I'm 50/50 on it. It doesn't make much of a difference really in this case what order the category displays in. On the other hand, if it ever did get larger, I could see why categorizing like that may be helpful. If you really think it would be helpful now, proceed ahead (you don't need my permission certainly), just as you suggested in reverse, make sure it's done to all of them. All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be more clear; I wasn't seeing initially how it was making a difference. I was comparing versions and not seeing a layout difference, not realizing that versions don't differentiate on categorization when it's done like that. My stupidity. Bleah. Everyday can be a Monday, you just have to fail harder ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thats right, you literaly do not see this change. I thought it was a rhetorical question like "I do not see, that you are doing here but I will keep an eye on you" and I did not understand, that I had done wrong xD
Ok nice, that we have solved this misunderstanding :)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Jahannam. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.
I reverted your changes, not because I disagree with them (I neither agree or disagree - I have no opinion), but because in the dispute that has arisen, BoogaLouie has rightly opened discussion on the talk page.Dorsetonian (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dorsetonian. thanks for your effort. Actually I always try to talk to the user I repeatedly revert, even invited him to discuss it on a talkpage, however the User does not talk to me back, but accuse me of "Side-owning" (that I not do and I tried to explain) and loomed to call an admin without any openness for discussion.VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, allow me to chyme in here. Unfortunately in my case, you have not talked to me and your revert seems to misunderstand the purpose of the insertion. It is not just that Jahannam etymologically comes from Gei-ben-Hinnom, but it is about how the very concept has evolved, from a physical location of child sacrifice in the Old Testament, a location of punishment during the end times in 1 Enoch to a transcendental location of post-mortem punishment of the wicket in 4 Ezra and the Babylonian talmud, a concept which we see adopted and further developed in the Quran. It isn't like the idea of Jahannam sprung out of nowhere, and it seems ahistorical to me as a trained historian to portrait it this way. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's your purpose?
Islamic mythology? What is it? The term doesn't make sense. Islam is against both myths and superstitions. Maybe you didn't get the meaning of mythology. Don't waste your time like that. Obviously this is just an advice. The Almighty has given free will to us. It's up to you how to use your time.
Ok because I see your question is serious, I will answer you. I mean the whole concept of beliefs in relation with Islam and Islamic culture, including angels, jinn, demons, the miraj, cultural practises and so on. This does not mean, that it is unreal I do not judge about it (here on Wikipedia). I guess I also wrote it above in the meanwhile. That Isla is against superstitions ccan be read from the Quran yes, but others do it not. This is also something, that should be mentioned. For example some Muslims in the Middle Ages gave psychological explanations for Jinn-sightings. I think all of this should be provided by a world-encyclopedia and not just certain exegesis, which some writers themselves beliefs to be true.
Hello VenusFeuerFalle, since you had written in the reversion of my edit in "Category:Jinn" that you would be interested in the motives of my adding another category, here I am now to explain. In the last days and weeks I have taken the task upon me to reorganize and complete the categories concerning legendary creatures by culture (see "Category:Legendary creatures by culture" and its sub-categories). The reason for this is that I myself tend to read through legendary creatures articles by browsing through the aforementioned kind of categories which I often found to be unorganized or incomplete. As such I thought that Jinn as legendary creatures of Islamic culture (or, as implemented by another user afterwards, of Arabian culture (see "Category:Arabian legendary creatures"; article history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AJinn&type=revision&diff=858534505&oldid=858533613) should also be found if specifically looking for legendary creatures by culture. So I added "Category:Islamic legendary creatures" to the already present categories for coverage of cultural origin. This was my motivation by adding this category.--Tarchunes (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer @Tarchunes: Now I would like to know how we hadnle the "demon in Islam section". Before "Jinn" was limited to the "basic-tentes" in Islam. Some Jinn didn't appeared in "orthodox Islam" as such like the Ghoul (who is even refused in one hadith) but now, sine the article started to extent and the Jinn article itselfs starts to explain "jinn" in the broader meaning in Islamic culture (there is the Ghoul indeed present), it makes sense to me, to add the "jinn-category", to the "Islamic legendary-creatures". Now the "Demons in Islam" are a sub-category, with many jinn overlaping such as "Ifrit" and "Iblis". That do you think we should proceed? I see two options. We could remove the "demons in Islm" as subcategory, (especially since some of them are not even Jinn, such as Azazel and Hinn), but then, there would be still many overlappings, since some are both jinn and demons (such as the Ifrit and the Marid) indeed. Otherweise, we could get rid of overlapping gactegories by leaving "demons in Islam" as a sub- for "Jinn", but removing those who are already mentioned in the "demons"-category. Thank you for your efforts.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think its true that the "Category:Demons in Islam" as sub-category of "Category:Jinn" can be somewhat problematic since in English "demons" isn't exclusively used only for devils (shaitan in Islam) but also for all kinds of legendary creatures with hostility in regard to humans but not being infernal demons per se. As such I'd likely remove the sub-category about demons and additionally add all those demons who are categorized as jinn to the corresponding category as well. Additionally, I believe to have read - if I remember correctly - that according to Islamic mythology the angels were created from the light of fire, the devils from the smoke of fire and the jinn from the substance of fire itself. As such, even if some jinn can secondarily become demons (such as Iblis) I'd rather keep demons and jinn apart for they are basically different legendary creatures.--Tarchunes (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, such categorization exist within Islamic mythology. So I am going to re-categorize the jinn and the demons now? If you find any deficits, don't midn to correct it, but please leave a short explanation. Thank you.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you like it. I hope this article would had already been reviewed. But it seems I will need to make further edits for it. But it may be finally a good article and it is such a central point in abrahamic theology, this topic deserves to be accurate.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An article you recently created, Prince of Darkness (Manichaeism), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Whispering(t)21:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I am sorry, I accidently hit the "save" button.
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, VenusFeuerFalle. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi, I noticed a few typos in your user page (trying to be helpful here, not critical!) - "Thus, I you think my edits are inapprociate" should be "Thus, if you think my edits are inappropriate" and "the many contributations" should be "the many contributions" - thanks for you many valuable contributions - Epinoia (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Wow I did this typoeven twice. It hurts on the mouth to pronounce it like tha, haha. Thank you very much for your advise. If you find even more (thtat probably are) typos, you are free to edit it as long there is no content change.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fallen angel
Hi VenusFeuerFalle,
Thanks to your contributions to the fallen angel article! A good religion article is hard to find. I am not planning on reviewing the article, but I did want to tell you that if you want the article to pass, you should probably add info to it about the portrayal of fallen angels in literature, film, music, etc. You should definitely discuss Paradise Lost in the article.
Thank you for your advise. I once retreated Miltons Paradise Lost, just like I did for the Zohar. I hoped I could avoid it, but it very likely should be mentioned here, But I finally included the Zohar here, I will try to find good sources for Milton (I once found some but not enough for me to add them here). I am glad you obviously like the article. Have a nice day too--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-
The article uses a lot of terms that will be unfamiliar to readers that aren't well-trained in theology, particularly in the "Polytheism and Dualism" dection.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Hello @Rosguill:, nice to meet you too. I was busy the last weeks, so I didn't reply yet. I want to edit the article again and you tell me, if it becomes more clear, if you want :)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fallen angel you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The term athari seems to have gained currency among English-speaking Muslims, but a systematic source review in Talk:Traditionalist_theology_(Islam)#Source_review showed that it's not a term widely used in English-language RSs, which is why the article has the name that it does. In fact, last time I checked, I could find only two academic books using it. We need to revert your change on Sunni Islam, also because the rest of the section was written around the more common term. Eperoton (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. What surpirsed me, since I thought that "Traditionalists" would be the less academic term. I mean it sounds like Atharis would be closer to traditions, than Maturidi and Ashari (that at least is not the case for Maturidi, who can be linked to Hanafa). I recently read about Atharis (one time in Wikipedia about Ibn Kathir) and now by searching for Maturidi Creed. But that was rather accidental. Thank you for clearing me up.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't like the term "traditionalist". For a lay reader, it's likely to cause confusion between the intended technical meaning ("tradition" as translation of "hadith") and the common meaning (contrasted with untraditional). However, we have to follow the prevalent usage in RSs. Eperoton (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello VenusFeuerFalle, I noticed that you have been adding POV tags to sections in the Hindu-Islamic relations article. Please read the instructions at template:POV for using the template. In particular, it is very important to initiate a talk page discussion first. Also, please be specific about the issues you want to raise. Vague references like "the source" do not clarify to the other editors what you are talking about. Best regards, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, after your revert I added a discussion on the talkpage. I do not remeber to say "the source", but that I sayed something like "the following primary source", since there is one specific I gues it is clear, that I meant. If I had the time, I would also rwrite the section on myself, but there are still some other issues on other articles, I think that should be fixed. With best regards--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thank you. If I had time, I would look into further detail. I hoped afte the tag, someone else could be encouraged to investigate the topic further, especially since some parts are not sourced or so misleading one could call them wrong. It is also missing certain important details, for example the Brahmins, and who exactly is allowed to eat meat, who not, how and why for hinduism. I left a note on the talkpage, but I want finnaly edit the Islamic mythology section, I am waiting for this some months ago but always did something else.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On 21 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fallen angel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Church Fathers such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Lactantius accepted the association of the angelic descent myth with the "sons of God" passage in Genesis 6? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fallen angel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fallen angel), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
I have done the first article by know (Franz J. Müller). Since this is not my favorite topic, there are some words, I do not use in English frequently (not even in German), such as pamphleta (to be honest, I never heard or read it, before). Nevertheless, I hope it helps you. If you find grammar mistakes or some phrasing, what could be improved, be bolt and improve it. But I think the content this is about is clear.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reminder. I actually forgot it, I am sorry. I will try it, but the next days there is many stuff to do for me in private. I hope it is not urgent, so I would translate them within the next two weeks if it is okay for you.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I translated the article for Jakob Schmid. Again, there are some Jura-related words I do not know the proper English counterpart. But I guess it suffices.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the request, this weekend, it seems I have more to do than expected before. I will probably delay your requests for another week. I am sorry.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know, I have not forget you. But there are still some edits on Wikipedia, I think are urgent, and I had for a longer period in mind, but was still unable to make. I hope I will come to translate the rest the weekend or at least next week. Sorry.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I am ill. I do not know when I feel better. Further, I still have much left todo, and because of my illness, evrything takes longer. I might do some edits here, I once prepared but I doubt I will have the energy and time to translate longer articles.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Law of nature (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hi, it seems that you reverted my edit to the Iblis page.
As someone who's particularly fascinated by Islam, I've noticed that according to a common consensus amongst trusted and respected Muslim scholars along with sources from the hadith and the Quran (which is the most authentic and genuine islamic source), Iblis not being an Angel is considered to most as a fact. The issue here is that the page is supposed to be about what is believed about Iblis (as Islam is a religious belief) so the fact that most muslims think Iblis isn't an Angel coupled with the evidence I provided means that having "Iblis was an angel created from fire" before him being a jinn makes no sense.
Kingofsting87 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC
Kingofsting87 Hi, finally someone who actualy goes to the talkpage instead of just removing that seems to be unsound. I actually thought I expanded the whole article to an extend, it is selfevident that Iblis is also an angel in Islam. Since we are on the talkpage now, I can tell something more personal, I, a born Muslim myself, did not even know that Iblis angelic nature was denied by some scholars, only knew him as an angel before I started consulting the Internet. No, iblis is directly referred to as an angel by many Islam scholars. It is rather a modern consens to regard him as a jinn, especially among Salafi scholars. Since most literature available especially for Western people, we only get to know that Salafis want us to know. Regarding the fire issue: As with many Semitic views, fire and light were often seen as the same, and the fire of the jinn, is not as often errorneously assumed by many English speakers I met (also some Germans), a "pure fire", but rather a "fire in the air" (compare to the daimon). For example in one of Suyutis works, angels consist only of fire, no light mentioned at all. Unfortunetaly, I did not find his work about jinn, yet. Would be indeed interesting to compare. The so called "Israeliyyat" which forms the basis to reject the Islamic accounts of Iblis being an angel, had been well accepted by many Classical scholars, such as Tabari, Baydawi Alusi and so on. In the Quran translation of Muhammad Asad, Iblis is also clearly an angel. I once read a blog, there Tabari was misquoted as stating "Iblis never had been an angel, he was for the Jinn what Adam is for mankind", that probably derives from IslamQA (thats there I found it on the first place), but this is, uhm, obviously just a lie. In the translation of Tabari it is clear that Tabari says he prefers to regard Iblis as an angel. But of course it is a great issue if allegded authentic scholars, simply give out false information. (similar troubles I had with the general identity of that a "jinn" actually is in Islam). All the sources of IslamQA, IslamAwakening, the series of Islamic doctrine by Sulaiman Ashqar, all belong to the same Salafi School of Thought. Thus the so called "consens" is actually just their own consens, often contradictional to earlier scholars, who are misinterpretated (or simply lied about, since I can hardly imagine, they did not know).
" the fact that most muslims think Iblis isn't an Angel", do they? Maybe today, since this is the view promoted on the internet. When I go to the mosque and ask people there, they also never heared about Iblis as a jinn, just because of Surah 18:50. But they do not use the Internet to get information.
"common consensus amongst trusted and respected Muslim scholars "; which? Salafi scholars of the MuslimBrotherhood such as Munajjid, Sulaiman Ashqar and so on?
"hadith and the Quran" without interpretation the Quran can say many things. I would recommand to compare several traditions from different periods and different schools of thoughts, for example a modernist Quran (for example Muhamamd Asad), a Salafi/Wahhabi based Quran (Ibn Kathir is often used) a Classical Quran (such as Tabari) and for Sufi I have no Quran but could recommand "Futūhāt al-Makkiyya" by Ibn Arabi (yes, here Iblis is a Jinni again, but the idea of jinn is again different than in the account of Tabari). Also that a hadith exactly means can differ, the Quran even more.
I see a major issue in the fact, that the idea "Iblis must be an angel" is based on false assumptions such as
Angels NEVER disobey (never directly attested by the Quran. And the prominent vers 6:66 just talks about Zabaniyya, and the context was, that the Polytheists, treated Muhammad that they will allign with the keepers of hell to overthrow Muhammad later, whereupon the vers was revealed, that the keepers of Hell, are always siding with God. When were is another verse at least cited on a German Salafi-page, in 21:27, and I actually do not know how there an angel can even be interpretated. There is nothing about angels, only a statment about "they disobey not and not talk without permission" (or something the like) but honestly, where did the angels get from? They are not mentioned. Surah 2:30 and the following even imply that angels at least COULD fail. The point there Islam differs is only, that angels never feel disdain towards God, and this does Iblis not. Furthermore, God is not even objecting Iblis so called "disobedience", because he only punishes Iblis AFTER he explained they he did not prostrate. Refusing the command was not even considered a fault. Ironically, Muslims often refer to Judaism, when it comes up to angels obedience, but although true, that Islam heavenly drew from Jewish angelology, and jewish angels not disobey, that Satan become Satan due to his disdain towards human is shared. Nevertheless Jewish do not see "free-will" in the angels. So, no angels in Islam are not like "robots", they only always choose to side with God (the article emphazise that by the way), but can nevertheless err or disagree with God about certain subjects. (some sources even talk about a lot of fallen angels convinced by Iblis, but this was never satisfyingly explained and, as far as I know, never appeared in a tafsir.
Angels are of light and jinn from fire: Uhm no. "jinn" in the Quran bsacily encompass both angels and devils. There is no distinction in the Quran itself. later, in hadith and tafsir, we have angels created from light, contrasted with jinn from "marijin min nar" (that is not even pure fire, bu a mixture of fire, probably something like hot wind. Also mentioned in the given source by Mc Auliffe), but hadith (but disregarded by Salafis!) speak of angels of created from water, fire, snow and much more. One angel half ice and half fire also exists as half light and half ice, showing how close light and fire had been considered (they even sound almost the some "nur" and "nar"). Oh and Muslims often thought of as "fire" and "light" something akin, "nar" was something like "bad sun light" and "nur" "mercyful moon light" (because in the desert, the light of the sun wasn't that appreciated as in Europe). So, although angels are generally from light, we have many other things from which angels can be created, especially fire ( in some sources even fire only).
He is called a jinn in Surah 18:50: Although I just repeat the article; "jinn" has many meanings. "Covered" (this alone has two different meanings in Tabari Tafsir: One, "covering obedience, meaning simply "iblis disobeyed", not the point Tabari agreed with!) and "something consealed from sight", a point Tabari agreed with, that means, the jinn, Iblis, the angels, all are invisible, and can be called "jinn". Further, it might be related to "jinan". For example, QuazwinI is called -winI because he comes from Quazwin. I am from Germany, thus I would be "GermanI" and so on. Iblis is therefore called, JinnI (and yes, the Arabic says JinnI not simply jinn), that means in this context, he was an angel from Jinan (the Garden). Although disregarded by Salafi schoalrs today, we can no delete an Islamic tradition which existed over centuries, just because Muslims today do not like them anymore. This tradition is by the way, the one ascribed to Ibn Abbas and ibn Masud via three different Isnads ( as far as I am concerned, more authentic thatn Hasan of Basris interpretation).
But I guess my personal explanations are secondary, but I thnik it is helpful, that I explain it, if the sources do not speak forthemselves. Regarding the authencity, just check the sources, two of them explicitdly state, that contemporry scholars just deny that Iblis had been an angel, although he clearly is in earlier Islam. And this is just that it is. Sad but true. But ßplease do not blame me, but blame the Salafis, who made up their own Theology and just called everything they did not liked an "Israeliyyat". The fact they can not really be trusted as "authentic islam scholars" is the fact they quote Ibn Taimiyya, who was until the collapse of Ottoman Empire, not even accepted as Islam scholar. Whhabis first had to write several defense-treatises to integrate him to Islam again and contemporary scholars cite him as if he had been a renowed scholar of Islam for the last 700 years, that he was not. Similar contemporary schoalrs are often in odd with classical Islam and the nature of Iblis, is one of this misteachings (at least as long they do not confess, that he had been an angel for many, although not for all.)
I hope I could help you. If not, jsut ask questions but please be straight forward, not braod questions such as "how is it possible". And sorry for the delay, ironically, there had been a prayer during my writing. And now I would like to go to bed. Good evening--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I was wrong at one point yesterday: The idea that tabari called Iblis a jinni and not an angel, was from IslamAwakening (also used as source here sometimes, for thatever reason), not from Salafi Shaikhs. The Salafis from MuslimBrotherhood, admit there had been traditions as Iblis as angel, but refuse them on the ground of "Israeliyyat", not matter how well established this tradition is or was.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
“The angels were created from light, the jinn were created from smokeless fire and Adam was created from that which has been described to you.” [Muslim, Ahmad, al-Bayhaqi and Ibn Hibban].
Al-Hasan al-Basri said: "Iblis was not one of the angels, not even for a single moment. He is the father of the jinn, just as Adam (peace be upon him) is the father of mankind." This was narrated by al-Tabari with a saheeh isnad (authentic chain).
"Al-Hasan al-Basri said: "Iblis was not one of the angels, not even for a single moment. He is the father of the jinn, just as Adam (peace be upon him) is the father of mankind." This was narrated by al-Tabari with a saheeh isnad (authentic chain)" exactly this was the one from IslamAwarness. But I guess you did not intented to look up for the quote right? What exactly do you want to assert? (please make your point always clear and provide "arguments", not "assertion to "common sense"". I am not interested to interpretate your assertions, especially not if I already explained it already. For example I will not talk about the "Sahih Muslim" hadith, since I explained it already.)(talk) 18:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC) edit: I do not want to be offensive or rude, but I wanted to mentioned the base of argumentation, because I am kind of afraid, I will have to guess, the whole discussion, if I not emphazise that "Quoting" is no argument. I had such "discussion" in the past, and I am really tired of discussions, there people just make illicit arguments and are actually merely referring to intuitive reasoning. Such "pseudo-arguments" are to broad to be answered, and I already guessed about your answer above. I am undecided, you whether wanted to quote the same phrase of IslamAwarness (I doubt others use this as well, since the claim made there is misleading, Tabari distanced himself from Hasan Basri) just to support me, you showed them because, you think it "disprooves" that I stated before (if so: How?) or you are just collecting material about that topic? I am not sure.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that your edits are biased and subjective. Nowhere does it flat out state that Iblis was an Angel with most sources saying he was a Jinn (not believed to be the same). Kingofsting87 (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Nowhere does it flat out state that Iblis was an Angel." I am now quoting Amira Al Zein: "The case of Iblis (Satan) One of the crucial issues related to the mythical battls waged between the angels and the jinn on Earth at the beginning of time concerned the nature of Iblis: was he a jinni made out of fire or an angel made out of light? Musli scholars differ as to whether Iblis was the chief of angels who led the battles against the jinn on Earth or whether he was a repenant jinni who disagreed with the evil jinn and who decided at a certain time to join the angels. The Quran is not very clear about it. In what follows, I will attempt to explain the two positions. (next chapter) Iblis as Angel." So you state the sources given do not explicidly state that Iblis is an angel, but they obviously do. Another example: "Al harith is one of the names given to Satan in Muslim theology. In this context, he is still an angel sent to fight the disobedient jinn/angels on Earth. You can even find it in primary writings of Muslims by yourself and check it online here: "https://archive.org/stream/TheCommentaryOnTheQuranVol.1ByAlTabari/The+commentary+on+the+Quran%2C+vol.+1%2C+by+al-tabari_djvu.txt" Welch, Alford T speaks of it directly: "Although someties denied, that iblis had been a fallen angel was well accepted by classical scholars" (with reference to baydawi and Tabari. If you can speak German, I would also recommand you a translation of Abu Ashaq Ahmad at Talabi Qisas al Anbiya. Now I showed you two primary sources and two academic sources, which state exactly what you denied here. You accustation what my edits are biased are not grounded, since I just state, that the sources state too. SO please for the next time, state exactly that is biased and there one of the sources is lacking the content it cites. I mean everything about Iblis as angel here is cited and the sources provide exactly this information. Have a nice day (or night. For me it is night now)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, friend! It seems to me that your edits on Adam in Islam display your personal feelings regarding Iblis and his nature as an "angel." As you said, Wikipedia takes a neutral standpoint. So, my suggestion is that we change the sentence
Returning to the Quran, when God asked all the angels to prostrate before Adam, they all obeyed, except Iblis. He said, "I am made from fire, when Adam is from clay. I am better than him. I am not going to prostrate before him."
to
According to the Quran, when God asked the angels and Iblis to prostrate before Adam, they all obeyed except Iblis, who claimed, "I am better than him. Thou createdst me of fire while him Thou didst create of mud."[1]
This sentence takes a neutral standpoint by singling out Iblis as the important character from amongst the angels. I will implement this change, and if you disagree, let us talk here instead of reverting the edit. Thanks! --Abu Yagub (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, "It seems to me that your edits on Adam in Islam display your personal feelings regarding Iblis and his nature as an "angel."" nope false impression. I dont have any "feelings". In my opinnion, it would have been the better decission to side with the angelic origin of Iblis instead of the jinn origin, as I think, in the long term, Iblis ' functions are more akin to that of Islamic angels than of jinn. However this debate is not our concern here and I am not a Shaikh, so my personal opinnion does not bear any weight. Removing both Iblis as an angel, and as a jinn, is neverthless an obligation for the neutral point of view on Wikiedia, you mentioned before. If you are curoius about Iblis' being an angel, I recommand the main-article (Iblis). There are also many sources exploring this debate. I am not sure however, if it is appropraite to freely add "iblis" to the command, as the Quran only adresses the angels. We would make an addition in favor of a certain interpretation and I do not think this is going to the right direction.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous people here complaining of you forcing your personal beliefs onto Wikipedia articles so I do think there is a little bias, but that is beside the point. I finalized the edit and made it as neutral as possible (depending on whichever view, this sounds correct): According to the Quran, God commands the angels to prostrate before Adam wherein all amongst them obeyed except for Iblis, who claimed, "I am better than him. Thou createdst me of fire while him Thou didst create of mud."[1]
Yeh, doesnt surprise me, that "numerous people complain". But you guys complain on the wrong side. Complain to your (so called) people of knowledge and teachers they have withdrew the entirety of Islamic knowledge from you. I evenstarted providing the original Arabic sources, still many people I repeatly have to talk about on Wikipedia, remain in denial. I would not trust a scholar, Sheikh or Mufti, who is not even honest with me in basic matters regarding his domain. But this is you matter not my. I even made a compromise against my own conscience on the fallen angel article in favor for the Salafi-narrative. With such repeatedly impudent assusation towards me, I really regret this. I really wish, there would be a greater honest engagement among people who are interested in Islam. Unfortunately, this is asking for too much, obviously. Whether or not, you carried any bias in your edits, I will observe. Calling "aggadic" material "israeliyyat" and "foreign" is a matter of Salafism/Ahl i Hadith is not representive for Islam. And thanks heavens, there are smart scholars who have analyzed this issue extensivly. It seems study of Islam is in the end up to Western scholars, tanks to increasing lack of honesty or knowledge among the ulama. And matters of Iblis is just one of several issues, with current Islamic "theology" (if this can even be called "theology", it is a shame for real Islamic theology back then). By the way, " let us talk here instead of reverting the edit" also kinda funny, since you inserted your own version before discussion the subject here. It sometimes look like, Muslim editors are really just about pushing their Salafi-Agenda here. Sad! Strikinly, there seems to be a correlations between a langauge a specific Wikipedia uses and a language in which "IslamQA" is visited. Maybe you guys should consult less unauthentic (but popular) webpages and read a book. And no, not from Saudi Arabia, it is the same trouble like the IslamQA-Webpage.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not here to argue, but just because some people use "iraeliyyat" for political purposes, it does not mean that nothing can be properly deemed as from the iraeliyyat. You keep jumping to conclusions about peoples' true motives yet you are clouded by your own. I will not continue this conversation any further and I will not even open to see your reply. I mean no disrespect to you and I wish you all the health and peace of mind. Thank you for your contributions on Wikipedia and for coming to a neutral standpoint in a civilized manner. --Abu Yagub (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft exists for a reason. If you think your internet connection might fail, consider using Microsoft Notepad. Regardless, saying, "oh I'll put sources for this claim up later," does not absolve you of the need to source your mainspace edits. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any use of continue this discussion. I am only shocked by the lack of cooperation. That is all. If you consider rule over reason, when let it be it. I always try to use reason first, when the rule. For the next time, I will just stick closely to the rule obiously expected (even if they make no sense in certain circumstances) or just skip the edit and take it for myself. Have a good day.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Contradictory"
I don't disagree with your removal of that statement, as it was uncited, but I believe what was intended by it was to claim that there were internal contradctions within Gnostic belief systems. Again, noting, I think you were right to remove it. Just clarifying what I think they intended. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As written, the article is too dependent on interviews with the subject, and needs additional citations from independent, secondary sources. From a brief skim, the German article includes at least one more secondary source, and others likely exist elsewhere.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
I currently do not know which sources I left out, but I remember were was one part, hard to translate but with no specific meaning and strange statement, so I didn't use it. I doubt this one used better sources. I knew German Wikipedia for being less flexible than English, so I am surprised about the low standart of the German article. When I have time for doing greater edits, I will look up for better verifications. As stated by my User-page I am currently not doing much here on Wikipedia. Maybe another editor finds some sources for better verfications in the meantime, at last this is not a single-propject.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no! I see. I slipped and wrote my comment below the wrong image! I am terribly sorry, I just saw the "Alert!" button thought of showing the place of licence and added my comment on the lowest part of the discussion without realizing I entered a new one. Please just handle it if I haven't stated anything. --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that clarification. @Fastily: please take note the comment that led to your fast deletion request was, in good faith (see above), posted in the wrong discussion and was actually associated with a different image. Dmoore5556 (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would not to, since I can not find the copyrights. It is easy to upload an image what is older than 150 years, as I usually do, but this one is too close to get involved into copyright issues. Maybe I can check the license more extensivly when I have more time again. Although I am not ill anymore, I am currently going through a harder phase of my life. I did not even find time for the other translations, and I am really sorry for that. When I am editing on Wikipedia here, it is only because I use to get into my special interests (what is basically, philosophical worldviews including different legendary creatures, such as demons, ghosts, fallen angels, but also deities and their relationship towards creation, the devil and so on) to recover. And as I do, I write my researches I do in free-time down and add them to Wikipedia. Currently all my focus outside my sepcial interests are absorbed by my efforts on real-life problems. I do not want to disappoint you, but also not keep you waiting. When I feel better, I will try my best to make the requested articles great, but until when, it can be helpful to find another translator.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Telling or teller!?
Hi dear VenusFeuerFalle, thanks for your critical comments on my notes regarding the story of Harut and Marut in account of Shia Muslim scholars. I found them quite helpful and instructive. As you said, there is no explicit reference to the two angels at page 208, but the text explicates an ontological view about such beings as angels, God and intellect. According to Quran both Harut and Marut were angels [not another existence] who descended onto the earth: ...what was sent down to the two angels at Babylon, Harut and Marut...(2:102).
So I just held to develop an argument based on Shia discourses just to refute the possibility of transgression by infallible angels. The validity of sources, however, as you mentioned must always be under scrutiny. Anyway, I appreciate your scholarly attention in this regard.
Thank you very much for you nice words. Some Quranic scholars also render "m-l-k" in Sura 2:102 as "malikayn" (kings). I do not how Shias interpretate it and wether or not there are shifting tendecies over the years. In Sunni Islam for example, the notion of fallen angels was well accepted, even Iblis was seen as an angel and Sura 18:50, when the Quran coutns Iblis among the jinn, this was attributed to his position aas keeper of Jannah, but not to the jinn-genius, in contrast to contemporary Sunnis, there are not fallen angels anymore. The "Citation"-Tag isn't necessarily bad, and if there is no strong objection, such tags might stay for years, but if another Wikipedian possess a valid source, he might notice the tag and add the source, otherwise, even Wikipedians who have the source, would not add them, since they regard the part as suopported (I hope I did not messed up the sentence too much). I would like to go to add a "Shia"-section for the article Angels in Islam, since I finally found a reference especially for Shia-Angels on the BRILL Encyclopedia. If you have access, I would recommand you to read about it, is quiet interesting. It states exactly what you mentioned, that Shia Islam emphazise more than Sunnism the infalliblity of angels, due to their close connection to the Imams. This is also supported by the interpretation of Ja'far al-Sadiq who made a distinction between Iblis and the angels already in early Islam. however, I am not entirely sure if there are not at least "minor fallen angels" (In Islam, fallen angels could be categorized into two: Disobedient and Fallen). I do not know if there are at least angels who err. But maybe it was simply falsly attributed to Jafar Al Sadiq by later scholars. If such disagreement exists within Shia Traditions, it would be great if we can explore and mention it on Wikipedia. Whats also the reason why primary source alone often fail varification in religious matters. Most religious scholars aren't aware of shift within the correspondin religions theirselves.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ifrit you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article Ifrit you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ifrit for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. I changed the picture, but I can not write an edit-summary (for unknown reasons). I hope the over picture works, if not we could also skip it.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo VenusFeuerFalle, the new picture has the same problem as the old one: what do you think about the one which I put now? Vorerst, Buon Natale! :-) Alex2006 (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Alessandro. Sorry, I had some issues with my browser the last days, I could not check out the next picture (it always crashed). The one you picked would be my least favorite, although I personally like it the most, it is primarily an Egypt deity. But we can choose any of the pictures in the article, I fine with all of them :) Thanks for your concern.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but unfortunately the other two at 100px are too blurry, and this picture of the Egyptian deity is in the article: let's choose this one then! BTW, the article is beautiful, my compliments: I knew the jinn, but not the ifrit. Cheers! Alex2006 (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be bale to translate the below article for the German wikipedia? I have been
making requests to translators on the List of German translators. Have not yet had any replies.
Quote: "There are very few German stub articles, because, by early 2009, many articles were often contested before allowing short contents. Articles that are nearly perfect, but only 99% correctly translated, might be hated, because they must pass the verification-step for style & content, which is almost like passing a test as semi-featured articles. There seems to be a compulsion (or obsession) to get German articles verified, as if the non-verified articles would be considered harmful trash. The push or drive to verify articles causes frequent severe mindsets on German Wikipedia. Imagine the horror if a new article were to need 3 volunteer days of source verification: Mein Gott! Whereas a 98%-accurate article might be considered, in the English wiki, as fairly good information (for free), in DEWIKI users would rather it be deleted or hidden." I do not know how German-Wiki handels lists and I do not want to translate the whole list just to be deleted later because "sources are too unreliable" or "format not acceptable" or "not worth to be metnioned". At the end, I have to discuss it on the Talkpage against several members, with one admonition in my back, while every argument by me (sometimes with more than onel source) is considered invalid just because it is against a popular opinion. I rather recommand to use the English Wikipedia, since 1) more people are active 2) it is global 3) despite the lower verification needed, still has better quality (for example, for years, there had been an article containing a section about "Azazel in Quran" despite the fact not even the term exists in the Quran) and if something is disputed, you can tag it while in German Wiki not. I am sorry to disappoint you, but I currently must save my free-time. I want to improve one article soon in German, but only because I feel resonsible for it, and try to avoid writign in the German Wiki. I am sorry. I know the German-Wiki might get better, if we translate articles from English, but the "quality level" of German_Wiki ist just annoying and does not even serve the purpose.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
while devil may use as synonym of both demon, foocubus and imp but this term also used for specific being and they had their own differences
for example demons are eldritch abominations with bat-wings and ram-horns
devils either punished or enslaved former humans, angels and fallen angels who turned into demons by strongest force either god, satan, any good or evil supernatural being or even mad scientist, human or big-red beings with unnatural horn, bat-wings and prehensile tails
demons associated to evilness by general, but devils only associated to sins, temptation, slanderousness and shaitanism
also not all types of devils are demons, bogeys are devils but they are not type of demons
So basically, a devil is somehow related to theology? It deals with sin, punishment and so on? I German, we also have such distinctions. In German, we use "devil" (Teufel) for spirits, opposing God and "demons" (Dämon), for neutral spirits, interacting witht he physical world. In English, "demons" are as far as I understand, always evil. An author about jinn (Amira El Zein) for example strictly said, some scholars confused Evil Jinn, with "Demons" (she only referred to the Shayatin as demons. Other sources, especially about jinn as evil spirits, also refer to them as demons and to shayatin as "devils". I am not entirely sure, I comprehend the distinction completly, but I will try to learn them by observing the category. A question, would you assign the Zabaniyya (angels of hell, or the servants of the angels of hell) to devils, since they punish the sinners, or not, since they do not sin by themselves?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't sure about Zabaniyya they maybe just demons not devils because they just associated to evil, not sinners or evils themselves, demons in english also can be neutral or good without ascension or bless but that very-rare, while devils just evil personal characteristics (in most case that made person bad not evil in necessarily,but in some case maybe devil be good or neutral depending on circumstances, but that rearer than demons), tiny demons or satans, demons just type of supernatural beings so there are some example while demons neutral or good unlike devils that not related to personality just religion what decided what demons are.
this example to clarify what I said about devils: killers mainly evil, but if that killer executioner killed doomed criminal that make him good person not evil
I don't think demons concept have any difference to other german language because it is just christian concept borrowed from greco-roman myths
yes, I also think of them as Greek Daimons, but it seems, the English language got another meaning. On Wikipedia, "demons" is used for several "evil spirits", some sources object for example calling evil jinn "demons" and an English dictionary I recently checked alsod efined demons as "evil". But that you said is also that I thought before. Oh, Wikipedia also clearly distinguishes between "Daimon" and "Demon". Turkish Wiki for example uses them interchangeably. Maybe (US) English is too strong influenced by Chrstian perspection on the term "demon", so the meaning shifted?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
in islamic texts they use demon as translation of jinn and devil for shaitans and ifrits
Is this universal? I only know Sulaiman Ashqars "demons and devils" from his book series on Islamic creed, but I really doubt he presented it well. Maybe we can find a consens on the talkpage someday. I personally would prefer to translate jinn simply as jinn or genie. I wonder how it is written in Turkish? Would Turks translate "jinn" as "demons"? I guess I have some research to do about that.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surely demons aren't daimons/genii they just based from them, that made demons just main supernatural beings not personality or sub-type like devils, so sometimes used for natural beings but rare. also unlike greek daimons, christian concept of demons is always negative even if they didn't made them evil, they are associated to evil, hell and many of them are false gods. but in all case they still just supernatural beings not rank or something like that.
Yes that international they used devil for ifrits and shaitans, but jinn some times translate as jinn or demon even if not evil because they associated to evil by general.
Thanks for addressing me. I did not even know the Jinniyya is a seperate class, always thought it is just the female form of a jinni. That also means, unfortunetaly, I have not enough information about it either. But I will think about it, if I encounter something about the Jinniya. Yes, many types of jinn and demons are still unexplored in English literature. I recently read about (forgot the name) a demon more powerful than marid and ifrit and about multiple "Iblisses" (abalaisa). I thought there exists only one. But I haven't find much about them either.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see, you added a category, and the Jinniyat are indeed female jinn. I am not sure, if we found a source for that, since most sources describe jinn in general, but not specific with one genderrole. I found soething about jinn and sexuality, but just about sexuality in general, not about a specific gender. One source even suggested that jinn were usually female and the shayatin male (that sounds unreasonable to me).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think female different than male, maybe just in modern myths when they confused jinn with other female supernatural beings, by the way I just asked you to create article about female jinn because there is article in arabic wikipedia, so If you allow please let me know after your permission if there is any source at least if we can't create complete article we can create stub-article
When I find something, I want to remember it. Next weeks I will probably be busy, but if I find soething about female jinn in general, I want to assist you creating a stub.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the "Islam" section to "Groups", since it seems to be more apprpriate. I am unsure about the shayatin. I excluded them for now. Maybe we can reenter them, and put the marid, fallen angels, tawaghit and semum, among them. Dew and Peri are rather "jinn-like" (some do not even include them among the jinn), since the peri have another origin and another attitue towards humans than jinn usually have. The Dew are mor akin to Shayatin, always evil and more monstreous or ogre-like than really jinn.
DYK for Ifrit
On 25 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ifrit, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although afarit are not necessarily components of a person, but independent entities, a common belief in Islamic Egypt associates them with part of a human's soul? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ifrit. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ifrit), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
I once tried to create my own fandome writing about Demons in Islam, yes. Because on Wikipedia you are limited to a higher standart, but I haven't the time to extent it.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will do it my self, my wiki for everything not just religions
I used to be a Mormon and this is strictly what they teach. I provided a secondary source. If you think BBC is not reliable, I will be glad to provide better sources. Nashhinton (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, I am sorry I stated it needs a source only, while it get sourced. But an issue here remains, though. Thanks that you like the article. Good sources are hard to determine for beginners (I do not know if you are or not. Also forgive me my strange expressions, English is only my secondary language, but I dislike writing in German Wikipedia and I need English anyway at university. I already thought you are from Mormon, since this is the way people telling about theri faith or their former faith start to write on Wikipedia (I did too, when writing about Islam). First of all, one needs to udnerstand that Wikipedia is, since it is often misunderstood: Wikipedia is a tertiary sources. Scholary works use Primary sources, this is the very source you analyze, Secondary sources, one who writes about their analysis, and Tertiary sources, which is a consolidation of the analysis of the secondary source (sometimes, but rarely of the primary source). Wikipedia is the third. On Wikipedia, we do not do research on ourselves, we just collect that others already worked out. We do not make researchon ourselves. This would be primary research. For example, when I "work" on some Islam related articles, I can not refer to the Quran to support a view. For example I can not say "The Quran comamnds Muslims to kill innocents" and add a certain verse supporting this view, neither can I say "the Quran does not encourage war, but only defense and is peaceful" and cite sources for this arguements. That I can do is, searching for scholars (reliabale scholars), on Google (since most Webpages are merely blogs everyone can write I do not recommand that), or Google Books (here you have watch out whether it is self-published or not) or (best search engine I think) or Google Scholar, and look up if I find someone who wrote about it. Probably I will find a scholar (lets call them X here), who is an expert on the field of "violance in Quran interpretation" and discusses both the Quranic verses, the different interpretations hold by Muslims over several centuries (something we as casual Wikipedians can not do, one of the reasons, we should not do research on ourselves) and if there are any sociological or linguistical reaons for the different approaches. Then I can gather all that scholar X concluded and add it to Wikipedia. In your case, it is technically true, that you wrote (I read it when I was on the article, but I did not added it, I will come back to this later), but you can not support it with a source, presenting the Mormon point of view. Everybody knows, that, if you post a link to the Mormon Church itself, presenting exactly that you wrote, that you are right, but it is still flawed as it is original research again. This might look stupid but it is not. Imagine the case, someone creates a webpage for Mormonism, but gives inaccurate informations about their beliefs. In this case, someone who is not an expert on the field, would use it and everyone would agree upon it. This is not merely an unlikely event, but actually happens, for example in Islam articles, I am often working on. Many people use the webpage "IslamQA as a source. It is a webpage issueing fatwas and answers questions about Islam. But, it is a Salafi webpage, answering the questions according to their own point of view. Some of their teachings are even contrary to many traditional opinnions. Here, it is good, we have to limit ourselves to experts, who can analyze the primary sources. I also used one for a reference to a hadith quoted in the article, until the reviwer reminded me, the source here is an internet source, I can not use. In this case, I knew the webpage was right, but I can not use it either. I hope my explanation was helpful.
Regarding Mormonism on fallen angels: I wanted to add them, but I did not found much about them. I found some references to Satan and Lucifer, but this article is about the idea of fallen angels themselves, not about any fallen angel every occured. It is not a history article, about that fallen angels have done in different cultures, but explaining the concept people had about them over the years. A section for Lucifer's story in Mormonism, might be noteworthy in the Lucifer article, not even sure about it, but fallen angel is more about the idea behind fallen angels itself. I do not want to disappoint you, and you are of course free to look up in the recommanded Google Engines, or in university libaries, yourself, maybe you find more than I did, but I doubt it. Maybe more articles, papers and books will be published soon about it. If you want to write about your own research, I would recommand to write a book instead. Takes a lot of work, but it is fun and you are free to write that you want about.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the citation as it is not islamic. Eve being punished with Childbirth isn't an islamic beleif and the source does not come from the Quran or Hadith. Sources independent to Quran and Hadith can not be labled as islamic and generally come under folklore or cultrual beliefs. After reviewing the page I've found a lot of incorrect information. As for myself it's clear to see what's true and what is false but I fear that the information may be misleading to those who lack strong islamic knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmason101 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course where are more sources than Quran and Hadith, if you mean by hadith only the kutub al Sitah. Most of Muslim beliefs derive from Qisas Al Anbiya, Tafasir and similar works. Also much Islamic beliefs are local beliefs assimilated. If we skip all that, we would mispresent about 70% of that Muslims actually believe.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for proactive expansion and upadate support/input help the following (So far neglected but important topic) articles, if possible. Even if you feel focus area bit different still contribution of few line may help bring in some different perspective and also help Wikipedia goal of neutrality. If you can't spare time but if you know any good references you can note those on talk pages.
What do you mean when you say "there is also no "pre islamic saudi arabia"". Are you stating that there wasn't a time in Saudi Arabia when Islam did not exist?
Saudi came later. We could write "today Saudi Arabia". Stating, "Pre Islamic Saudi Arbia", is like stating something happened in Turkey before 1924. The states did not exist yet.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Biased Text (Jinn)
The rules of the page is to keep it Neutral. This means 1. Avoiding personal opinions / critisism 2. Only using informaton based on text.
We need to keep the text relevant to the subject of the page, so saying something like "Islam took the idea from so and so..." belongs on the Criticism_of_Islam
--Tmason101 (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can not see, why this should be criticism. It jsut explains that Islamic jinn are. Some Muslims even venerate jinn for protection by offering them food. (this also shows us, that they are not akin to the Christian demons). (read: "The revenge of the Jinns: spirits, Salafi reform, and the continuity in change in contemporary Ethiopia JO - Contemporary Islam" to see some differences between the Salaf and traditional concept of jinn)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tmason101, that's not criticism, it's just the truth. There's nothing unusual about religions borrowing ideas from pagan beliefs - the Christian feast of Easter is, after all, takes its (English) name from a pagan god... GirthSummit (blether)17:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"is a critism. It does not belong on the page" is complete and utter nonsense. If you keep editing from that PoV you will have difficulties here. Heiro17:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit 1. Simply saying "It's just the truth" is not enough evidence. There is no factual evidence for such a claim. 2. Using an example from one religion does not mean it's the same across another. Please don't generalise religion especially on here.
Tmason101 You're right - 'the truth' was a poor way to phrase it. Around here we talk about sources, rather than evidence - we don't conduct research, or discuss whether things are true, we discuss what sources say. The content you removed was sourced - so, it belongs in the article, unless it's your contention that the source isn't reliable. If you want to argue that, I suggest you go do so on the talk page of Jinn - this isn't the place for that discussion. GirthSummit (blether)17:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I adressed this in talk already. "The content you removed was sourced - so, it belongs in the article" Only if it is relevant to the subject of the page. I can add information about how to cook a meal and it can be sourced.
This claim is nowhere sorted as "Criticism" in any secundary literature. Further, it can only be seen as "criticism", as long as one belives Islam was a revealed religion without any effect from pagan religions, and this conclusion can only be justified from a Muslim Point of View. And even here, it is disputeable, as jinn are simply the pagan deities, regarded as lower spirits. Thus, it does not criticise anything. What is this "criticism" supposed to be? Because the word "Pagan" appears? Is it criticism to state that the idea of the creation of jinn is taken from the Babyloian Talmud? Or is this acceptable? The statement that "jinn are of pagan origin", just itnroduces the reader to the subject, therefore it is no criticism. Especially since there is no Christian or even Western coutnerpart, it is reasier to udnertand the jinn as "pagen nature spirits". I think the entire dispute here is, that there is something related to the word "pagan" and linked to "Islam". The bias here is rather, that some Users seem to feel angered by the connnection between both, although it is even further explained within the article. The article explains the jinn as "nature spirits, who eat drink and die and mirror the society of the pagan Arabs". How are these creatures not related to the pagan belief? Or another point: Jinn related to astrology. Or jinn in magic or as benevolent spirits in Muslim folkore? How are all these beleifs no pagan? One might argue, this is not "Islam". The only point I can agree with Tmason101 here is, that most stuff of jinn is not based on Quran and Sunnah. But most Muslim traditions, are not based on Quran and Sunnah alone either. Only the Salafi strant of Islam started to exclude all other sources. And their idea of "jinn" is pretty similar to the Christian demon. But their point of view is not the common depiction of jinn in Islam, mostly even contrary. If one feels bothered, we could add in the lead, tat there is a distinct notion of jinn among contemporary Salafi strant of Islam (it is also explained in the article), but than the lead would look like "jinn are ..., but Salafis disagree and think instead they are...". A similar issue we have with the Iblis article, there people are bothered by noting the contradiction between traditional Islam (as whole) and and contemporary scholarship (an angel in most Classical works and a jinn today). The issue here is not a flaw of Wikipedia, nor of the academics cited here but of Islam-Identity.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Flat Earth
I've already demonstrated that the Quran states the earth is round. So why was my edit regarding the "flat earth" removed?
--Tmason101 (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, can you please stop making new sections everytime, especially when you are on my personal talkpage. I explained it on the talkpage for Islamic mythology, already.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Warning
Firstly, Iblis was a Jinn was was initially treated as an angel, who then was named the "Shaytan" (Devil) due to his disobedience to God, according to the Quran, so there is no conflict as to whether he was an angel, jinn or devil. Secondly, you are committing an act of WP:Vandalism with your act of messing up of the reference by Webster and removing a whole bunch of WP:RS, not to mention that it was close to an WP:edit war. The correct thing to do is to mention that Iblis was a Jinn who was initially treated as an angel, not push your POV due to some misunderstanding that there is a conflict as to whether Iblis was an angel, jinn or devil (when in reality he is considered to be all of those, in the manner that I explained to you), so do not do this again. Leo1pard (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of the statements you make about Iblis, is confirmed by the Quran. Neither he was treaten as an angel, nor that he is a jinn. Surah 18:50 has different interpretations and different translations. For example, Muhamamd Asad translates "jinni" as "invisible creatures" (including angels). Tabari does basically the same. The misunderstanding is rather, that there is a misudnerstanding. Tabari clearly denounced the view that "Iblis is a jinn" on "weak knowledge" (Tafsir Tabari translated by J. Cooper). Just check it out. Similar you find discussing such matter on Baydawi, if you think all the Orientalists discussion this subject are mistaken. If there is a conflict about Iblis being an angel/jinn/devil or not, is up to the reader. I personally see none either, but this doesnt matter on our responsibilites on Wikipedia. To your second claim, there you accuse me of vandalism, while you add citation not even supporting your edits, that is much worse than just reverting something. Please check your sources and do not try to go away by simply threaten me. Otehrwise we will consult an Admin. And since you cite content while the citation clearly does not support you, so you basically mislead readers intetionally and accuse otehr wikipedians of vandalism is rather bad for yourself. So check your sources and remember the stuff I told you, read the additional source I recommand you. When, everything should be clear.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, as per 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 Qur'an, since you wanted to talk about the Qur'an, plain and simple, and an additional reference (Muhammad Mahmoud (1995). Creation Story in "Sūrat Al-Baqara," with Special Reference to Al-Ṭabarī's Material: An Analysis"] Journal of Arabic Literature.) is provided. Leo1pard (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I am not interested in talking to someone who answers with a judgment value, in soemthign I know I am right with simply a bolt "wrong". I do not even have to justify my reverts as you do not even akcnowldge the sources. But I give you an answer nevertheless. The Quran actually says he was one of the "jinni". the term used for jinn is actually "jann". "Jinni" here can either mean he was "one of many jinn", or he was "one of the jinan (heaven)", therefore called jinni. It is explained in the very article itself. So I dont see the point of dispute here. To me, it looks like you urgently want to force your own interpretation or the interpretation you favor into the article.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
18: 50) And (remember) when We said to the mala'ikah (angels); "Prostrate to Adam." So they prostrated except Iblis (Satan). He was one of the jinn; he disobeyed the Command of his Lord. Will you then take him (Iblis) and his offspring as protectors and helpers rather than Me while they are enemies to you? What an evil is the exchange for the Zalimin.
Since you have been talking to me about what the Qur'an says, should I remind you that you're supposed to believe in the Qur'an, since you're supposed to be a Muslim like myself? Don't you read the Arabic Qur'an for yourself, or don't you know any Arabic at all? Leo1pard (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel obligated lie about certain subjects for the sake of Islam, since when I write on Wikipedia I commited myself to its guidelines. If I held the position, the aim of Wikipedia is contrarry to my pesonal beliefs, when I would not edit on Wikipedia, but create my own webpages. It is as easy as it is. Playing the "personal attack"-card ("if you want to be a muslim like me, you ahve to write such and such") is exactly the reason why many Muslims get under general suspection of vandalizing Western institutions. And honestly, from my personal view, the Quran translation you use is a bad one. (I am not a convert, so I never used the modern Salafi translations anyway and yes this makes me feel to be able to judge newcomer traditions.) But this is all I have to say about my personal views, since they dont matter. Just work in accordance witht he aim of Wikipedia or drop it alltogher. And dont push me to the religion here. This is just rude and impudent.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to reason with you in my talk-page, and it's not just about translations, but about what the Arabic Qur'an or different WP:RS say which you don't take into consideration, please refer here. Leo1pard (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took the dispute to the corresponging talkpage, on the Iblis article. Meet you there. Plese stop repeating the same issue over and over again on my talkpage. It just messes this up and I think everything has been said. You just have to akcnowledge I have written to you, instead of ignoring it and repeating the same objection over and over again.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Centre of Muslims
As-Salam O Alaikum! Brother,
I recently created Wikiproject Centre of Muslims. It is created to improve the articles about places with more than 80% of Muslim Population. After sometime the percentage could be reduced to 50% (places with majority Muslim Population). Similar wikiprojects are working like in the case of [Australia], The only difference is that their scope is countrywide and scope of this Wikiproject is larger, i.e Muslim World.
Alekum Selam! Thank you very much for your invitation and the trust you give me. The more it hurts I have to let you down. Unfortunately, I can not spend as much effort into Wikipedia as I did a few years ago. I am usually just checking my watchlist since months, with sometimes short edits. Creating an entire new project is currently simply too much to me. I wish the best for you and your project! --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
What exactly was wrong? Just tell me that was wrong. YOu told me it was due to grramamtical reasons. Now you say it is due to an edit war. Can you not even decide, what exactly I have done wrong?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You wrote improper English, the material was not verified, and you are edit warring over it. All of it. If that is too hard to understand, perhaps you really are not competent enough to edit here. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited God in Islam, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Andalusian, Eon and Mystic.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstitions in Muslim societies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bookku (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rape in Islamic law epic discussion
Hi VenusFeuerFalle. A few months ago, an editor (Mcphurphy (talk)) requested me to be a third opinion in a discussion they were having, although there have been opinions of other editors since. That discussion and controversy turned out to be a big scholar debate in the talk page of the article Rape in Islamic law. Given that you have interest in Philosophy and Islam, maybe you would like to delve into it. Regards,--Thinker78 (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for requesting my opinion. I had a quick look at the article and also some first thoughts. But to gain an objective view, I need some time to think about it and especially to articulate my thoughts, since it is a sensitive topic.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khan.
Hi Venus. Given that your interest is in mythology, have you heard of myths about people being replaced by look-alike embodied spirits or similar thematic?--Thinker78 (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can be more precise: My first thoughts are faries/paries and jinn. Faries and Paries are said to abduct humans and jinn can take the form of humans trying to mimick them or possess them. But this seem to be a special occasion. In a broader sense, the shayatin are said to whisper into the minds of people, tempt them into doing their commands, until the personality changed entirely to the evil behavior of this demon. But this one does not replace the human, only "overwrites" them. At least the jinn (ghoul for example) are shapeshifters, so they would be able to replace a person. But I can not recount a specific event in which exactly this happened.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
checking in with a translation request. I noticed that there is no english Wiki Page for Langston Uibel (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langston_Uibel). He is a bilingual Actor born in London. He starred in the Show "Unorthodox" and will be in the new season of How to sell Drugs Online (fast). Also, he was in the "THE HEIST" at Super Bowl. I thnk he is relevant for the english community as well as the German.
Weel, I can see the edit-wars caused by this. And Islam is much harder since it has, unlike Christianity and Judaism, no authority to draw clear lines. This is why I think it won't work.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 9
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
Actually I worked on Hughes references in my sandbox but probably even before me adding the same to the article some user noticed the same and without referring to my sandbox, preemptively objected on article talk page to using Hughes being a missionary and among the orientalists.
Like other orientalists I did not come across much scholarly studies about Hughes apart from two one unjustifiably making him stand in the line of rest of orientalists by referring to last paragraph preface to A dictionary of Islam where he says useful to many;—to the Government official called to administer justice to Muslim peoples; to the Christian missionary engaged in controversy with Muslim scholars; to the Oriental traveller seeking hospitality amongst Muslim peoples;... considering this statement to be prejudicial purpose. But same scholar seemed to ignore next sentence to the student of comparative religion anxious to learn the true teachings of Islam;—to all, indeed, who care to know what are those leading principles of thought which move and guide one hundred and seventy-five millions of the great human family,.. and besides in second para of preface itself Hughes very clearly states ..this "Dictionary of Islam" is not intended to be a controversial attack on the religious system of Muhammad, but rather an exposition of its principles and teachings... So he is very clear in his preface "Although compiled by a clergyman who has had the privilege of being engaged in missionary work at Peshawar for a period of twenty years,..." he does not intend to use his dictionary as a purposeful controversial attack but just doing a neutral cyclopedic work for understanding of the people who were not aware.
Though he has not mentioned name of editor with authors name, his preface indicates He is specially indebted to Dr. F. Steingass, of the University of Munich, the author of the English-Arabic and Arabic-English Dictionaries, for a careful revision of the whole work.. So he has got crosschecked from non missionary scholar.
Besides reading through his texts does not show any deliberate prejudicial treatment; He seems to have relied on translations of Ibn Khallikan plus some locally available scholars in Arabic. Besides sitting in Peshawar he seems to have detailed information on Wahabi theology Saud politics with Ottomans rather Hughes is one of the few sources on Saud Ottoman correspondence. He seems to be one of early authors to take note of practices among Muslim societies in English language. IMHO if at all one can criticize Hughes but ignoring Hughes at all does not do justice to studies of Muslim societies.
But since some Wikipedia users do have objections may be we will need to have alternate sources at our hand which we might need to search from sources Hughes used and the same sources used by modern scholars.
@Bookku: greetings, I do not realy understand the objection. What is the objection regarding the dictionary? Being an Ottoman decendant and a former Muslim, I have not seen many misrepresentations within his work so far. The so called "true teachings of Islam", many users object are usually adhering to the Salafi strant of Islam, which only gained popularity in the 20th Centruy. Older works may deviat from the so called "true teachings", but not because the sources are biased, but because the newer Muslim Orthodoxy is in contrast to the odler teachings regarded as orthodox during the time of Thomas Hughes. Therefore, I conclude, it is just many Muslims are not aware of some drasticall changes within the Islamic teachings. Muslim scholars spend much time and effort to assimilate Islam to Western values and to get rid of superstition (as regarded by rationalists), but this is just part of a movement. Censoring such older sources would just lead to religions censorship, something I think Wikipedia should avoid (as a source of information). But something I thought about for a longer time: maybe we should, on Wikipedia, make a distinction between "modern Islam" (Orthodox Islam since the 20th Century) and Islam in general. For example, stuff often criticised by Muslim users, such as the fact that jinn are merely reinterpretations of pagan deities/spirits or that Iblis was an angel, or that light and fire have been considered the same thing, a flat earth carried by a bull, are part of the "older" and "Medieval Age" Islam, something most Muslims can not identify with, and feel bothered. Would it help to make further and clear distinction between the modern (often called "true teachigns of Islam") Islam and the "traditional islam", which is still permeating much of the Near Eastern Culture? But no, we should not use "Arabic" texts only, since many Arabic texts have clear biases regarding unpopular opinnions within the Islamic faith (or even following political agenda). Further it is often merely quoting the Quran out of context without any scholary analysis. We can keep them as quotes, but we should not start Original Research.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On related subject as part of expansion of Superstition_and_religion I have been working on Draft:Superstitions in Christian societies There is lot of European self introspection literature on this subject, but in comes intermingled with related topic so I started a Draft:Irrational beliefs (this is forms more from psychology discipline point of view but seem to relate to religion in some contexts), requesting you to visit Draft:Irrational beliefs and help expand the same if topic interests you.
BTW by any chance if you can take a translation request of a women's rights article from English to Turkish Wikipedia then pl. let me know.
Bookku, sorry for the late reply, needed a break from Wikipedia discussions. I try my best not to fall into Oriental nor Muslim biases. Both sources have some. Other topics seem to be interestig but I guess I can not take much more under my watchlist currently. I wonna have a look to the Turkish article you requested me to translate,, however.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC) edit: Oh it was English into Turkish. It is usually harder, but I would have a look at it and decide when.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there is something going on within the academic discourse currently, trying to make a sharper distinction between Middle Eastern Culture and Islam as religion. This will, however, probably not affect this article so far. It might nevertheless impact articles like Islamic philosophy and Ibn Sina, as their itnerpretaion of Islam is often contrary to the basic teachings of Islam.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Div (mythology), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hydra, Deva and Turkish.
Great song to Mani probably a 14. Century Turkish text to praise Mani, probably from Ughirs who converted to Manichaeim. It is not among the seven treatises. As far as I remember, it was about Manichaean texts back then. It has nothing to do with the canonical scriptures, it is just one among other Manichaeam texts found across various Manichaean sub-cultures. Thanks for pointing this out. I will remove this.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Signature at the end of your comment
Hey,
You should always remember to put your signature at the end of your comment. Here is an example where your signature is placed in the second last paragraph.VRtalk19:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
In this recent edit, you use "Thessaloniki" as a plural noun. It appears from the Thessaloniki article that this is the name of a city, so it should be singular.
Also, you write that these folks (the Thessalonians?) are warned not to "fall for" Satan. In English, to fall for someone is to fall in love with that someone. In another sense one can fall for a deception, which perhaps is closer to what you mean, but the object of "for" in that case can't be a person or other agent.
Not sure what it would be for someone to fall "into Satan's judgement". Do you mean that Satan makes a judgement about that someone or that the someone is thrown into the lake of fire along with Satan?
Regarding the "fall into judgment", I tried to be as close to the source as possible. The source states: "The Thessalonians are told of Satan's obstacles (3.1) and warnted not to give cause to the Adversary (Satan) to utter reproaches against them and to fall thereby into the judgment of Satan (5.1)." I think the author wants to point out the similarities between the Biblical depiction of Satan and the Rabbinic threefold role Satan as "seducer, accuser and destroyer". The next sentences is: "It looks as if Satan is excercosing functions of obstructor, agent provocateur, police chief, judge, jailer, and disciplinarian." In my personall opinnion, this part reflects the function of Satan in 1 Enoch, but I try to be as close as possible to the source. Should I extend the sentence further for sake of clarification?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your new phrasing does reflect your source and clears up the ambiguities that were troubling me. I don't really think that your contribution belongs under Devil in Christianity § Acts and epistles, though, unless you can tie it to Acts or to an epistle somehow. 2 Thessalonians 2:9 –12 does mention Satan
... who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned.
Here, the consequence of Satan's deception of the unrighteous is that God misleads them in turn, which leads to their damnation, not to any sort of delivery to Satan.
Doesn't your source cite a source that you can use, so that you can at least slot the matter in the article appropriately?
As far as I understood, the source summarizes both Thessalonians. There is no other source or citation apart from these references ((3.1)(5.1)) regarding this matter. Should I remove it? I just found this part yesterday, when adding the pagenumbers and thought it might be usefull.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you to remove it. While I don't know what you mean by "(3.1)" and "(5.1)", the only reference to Satan in the epistles to the Thessalonians, other than the one quoted above, is at 1 Thessalonians 2:18, which reads "For we wanted to come to you—certainly I, Paul, wanted to again and again—but Satan blocked our way."
In short, nothing in the Thessalonian epistles attributes to Satan the role found in the Book of Enoch.
Ok, I remove this. I actually checked it and couldn't find any trace of Satan directly and thought it might be implicit asserted by any Christian or exegetical speech I am not aware of. (3.1) and so on are the references used by the source. I will just remove this part.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
List of spiritual entities in Islam
Please note that the Quran makes a clear distinction between Angels and Jinn. You must read the Quran in translation before making persumptions. The Quran enlightens that Jinn consists of two, the Shayateen and Jinn. Please read before making persumptions respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:ADC5:175:FA00:E842:9613:B950:5132 (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting some article expansion help
Greetings,
Previously I had approached your talk page with an article expansion request for different article, this time approaching with request for a little different one, usually I do approach users for expansion from some what related topic changes list for example recently you seem to have edited Devil in Christianity, hope you would not mind approaching with such article expansion request.
Thanks for your request. I am, as you can tell from my User page, I am quite busy currently and try to focus only on a small amount of articles and not expand too much. I started the Devil in Christianity article a while ago, and feel like I should finish it. Whether or not I start preparing a new one for GA, might depend on my efforts and energy for future articles. I would also like to bring at least the demon and the jinn artcile to GA, but I am not sure about it. Two such huge articles are however, beyond my budget I want to invest to Wikipedia.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a formatting error on your talk page that is causing multiple sections to have a baklava to the left of them (or maybe that's intended?). If I have your permission, I can fix it. Or you can add |} after Cengizsogutlu's baklava post.VRtalk15:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Sounds good. How do I do it? I easily lost focus on too much little stuff. I also just discovered the TW function a few days ago, despite editing since years.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are some instructions at [User:MiszaBot/config#Setting up archiving]] and some quick examples right below there. Ping me if you need some help, I'm happy to help.VRtalk17:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of spiritual entities in Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sakhr.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of spiritual entities in Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zar.
In the "Tree of the knowledge of good and evil" article, you reverted my edit since "Quran is not a valid source." Although I agree Quran itself is not a valid source,it looks like in this case it would be acceptable since the supposed section seems to be a citation of the Quran and it is about the islamic view of the said topic.Also there are several other references in that particular article that references the Quran.So by that logic, there will be forever no way to reference it properly. Waltzingmogumogupeach (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I am sorry then. Citing the Quran when a quote to support an already cited statement is ofc fine. I wasn't paying enough attention then or confused because I had too many OR articles related to Islam again. My fault when,
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Devil in Christianity you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your description of the problem of the article at this title and have started a Requested Move. And every culture has a worldview. Skyerise (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hello. i'll leave the edit to you to avoid conflicting edit. i just want to ask about the line:
Israfil is mentioned in a hadith as the angel nearest to God, mediating the commands of God to the other archangels
i think it should be grouped/ merged to single paragraphs with :
Meanwhile, According to a Tabi'un tradition which sourced from a Tabi'un named Abdurrahman ibn Sabith, the task of Israfil were transmitting tasks from God to another archangels such as Gabriel, Mikail, and Azrael
I am offering a second opinion, at your GAR of Devil in Christianity. In order not to overload you, I will do no more until you indicate you want more. Does that work for you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am completely fine. I just had no time to answer properly. I think I will do latest on Sunday. I am not sure if I have time on saturday due to some appointments. Thanks for taking over the review. I will also proceed with offering the citations requested lately.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard regarding . Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "LGBT_in_Islam".The discussion is about the topic LGBT in Islam.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
The article Devil in Christianity you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Devil in Christianity for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Devil in Christianity
On 18 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Devil in Christianity, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the earliest representation of the devil might be a mosaic in San Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna from the 6th century, in the form of a blue angel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Devil in Christianity. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Devil in Christianity), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi VenusFeuerFalle, just would like to notify you that I'm new to Gulen, and so didn't know much about him. I found about him in the Jinn article on citation 51, since he is not a good authority on the subject just thought you might find it interesting to maybe remove his citation in the Jinn page if you'd like too. Also, since I'm here, I posted on Talk:Vathekjust to understand if there was any problem with my Div edit, if not I'd like to re-include it. Thank you. Danial Bass (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for notifying me and this keen observation. The citation is because it cites exactly the position hold by Gulen. "F. Gülen, leader of Hizmet movement, also related jinn to illnesses, when he put forward the idea that jinn may be the cause of schizophrenia and cancer, and that the Quranic references to jinn as "smokeless fire" could, for that matter, mean "energy"." This is a claim made by Gulen, not a general depiction of jinn, neither a scientific conclusion. It is simply how Gulen interpretes jinn in his works. He might be right or wrong, but nontheless, it is merely a post-modern interpretation.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, understood. I also made an unrelated edit on "Div" in Vathek, it was removed since the revert was grouped along with my Jinn citation edit. As I understand there is no issue with the "Div" edit, I'll just re-include it yeah. Thanks for the explanation. Danial Bass (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting Iblis’ “dispute section”
Hi Venus,
To avoid current and future edit-warring, I think that we should implement what you suggested on Iblis. Like i mentioned on that talk page, I will definitely help you categorize/edit when I free up. Please let me know if, through this, we have reached consensus. Like I said on that talk page, thank you for all your contributions!
Abu Yagub (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to take this issue to the talk page. But remember, taht the change must be justified, not keeping the information. You need to justify your assertion and explain why Russel is a minor opinion and doesn'Ät reflect scholarly conensus. I also recommend to read the article first. Because you were making a new section (theology dispute) about exactly what is just two sub-sections below (Theology#Affiliation), I assume you haven't. I think many misunerstandings could be dissolved by reading the entire article. For example, Russel just agrees what other scholars on Islam have to say, such as Eichler Paul Arno and Dammen McAuliffe, Jane. If you still disagree and think the article is doing wrong, you are free to explain your issue on the talkpage. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think Russel is a minor opinion! I just think that his statements should be attributed to him so that they do not seem argumentative. And it allows statements to be backed by scholarship. In short, the sentence is fine as long as it is not phrased in a way that is subjective/argumentative.
Abu Yagub (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this judgment of Russel is so well received and implied, it doesn't need to have a name. It is not really a statement of Russel, no deduction of his works, it is nothing his name is notworthy. Even those Muslim scholars who consider Iblis to be a jinn, admit that he appears to be an angel in most Surahs by immediately pointing at Surah 18 (where Iblis is called a "jinni") to direct the reader to the assumption Iblis cannot be an angel. Because without Surah 18, there is nothing really making you doubt that Iblis could not have been an angel. Maybe that he is created from fire, but this is still nothing necessary. I would keep the name out. As stated above, it is also very much the opinion of other scholars, and not even a conclusion, it is just sketching how Iblis is portrayed. In my opinion it shouldn't even have a citation because it is so obvious like "citing the sky is blue". I don't want to discuss at this point if Surah 18 is sufficent to depict Iblis as not an angel or not. It is only important on Wikipedia to acknowledge both opinons exist within Muslim theology, and that in academic discourse, there isn't a consensus either what he was originally meant to be. The fact we don't even know if jinn were all types of supernatural creatures or only the specific Arabian minor deity, makes it even harder.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, do you think that the “origin and classification” section should be renamed to “academic discourse”? Since the “theology” section contains info about his origin and classification?
Abu Yagub (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, was busy the last days. I also would like to take this to the Iblis talkpage, because more people could join the discussion. Here it not seen by anyone but us. Maybe this motivates other people to add contributions and also helps to udnerstand the issues better. The most common edits are edit wars about Iblis being an angel or a jinn, and often people stating that he would never have been seen as an angel. I can't even count how often I had this discussion, despite that even quotes from famous Muslim scholars such as Tabari appear throughout the article. The idea of "academic discourse" is a good suggestion, I think this might actually be the better header yes.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Erlik, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iranian mythology.
I have never seen them before in any article, and couldn't find any rule defining them as a header, if there is one, I am completely fine with it. It just looks odd, if only one user uses them.
Came across following ref. You may have a look if it is interesting enough.
Regourd, Anne. "Chapter 2 A Twentieth-Century Manuscript of the Kitāb al-Mandal al-sulaymānī (IES Ar. 286, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia): Texts on Practices & Texts in Practices". Amulets and Talismans of the Middle East and North Africa in Context. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004471481_004
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
@TheEagle107:You have some nerve telling an accomplished editor, with over five years experience, many barnstars, and at least two articles brought to Good Article status, to get more familiar with policies and guidelines such as the prohibition of test edits in the article space. All of us editors make mistakes, but VenusFeuerFalle has been an outstanding contributor, not deserving of this lecture. Peter Brown (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't know why some users are so eager to insist on Maturidism and Asharism being the same. It was a trend in the Ottoman Empire to unify different sects to strengthen society. Many orientalists adapted this view, they thought that Asharism and Maturidism would be the middle grounds between Athari and Mu'tazilite. Rather recent studies show that Maturidism is a thing on its own. SO I kinda get the confusion. However, I don't understand the vigor insistence that they are the same, instead of adapting to new information. Maybe it is due to religious feelings, political bias, or just that the newer sources have some isues I overlooked. Unfortunately, it is never made clear. Sighs, I will go back tot he talkpage and try again. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this to the talkpage, and according to my knowledge, you choose to ignore the points I made. Also, not every addition needs a consensus first. Some additions are obvious, such as this one. If you wish, we can discus this issue first, especially since in this case, newer studies contradict older ones. So a scholary publication isn't sufficient, we must evaluate the sources. However, please actually read them in that case. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for May 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tengrism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spirit and Physic.
The Gospel of Bartholomew information is cited, and was added upon consensus of two editors. I see you enjoy removing large sums of information from articles which I think is despicable. You can move information, add words, change things around, but yes that takes effort. I encourage you to make efforts. They are small, but sourced information should not be purged like this. Twillisjr (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and if you don't watch your tone (as you failed to properly adress your issue on my page here), I will not respond to you. Just a quick reminder to keep your decency. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Waltzing around deleting peoples efforts to add information to the world is not decent and that is what you do. Disrespect at its finest begins with not deleting information. Twillisjr (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
In my mind, I've supposed that the historical Islamic schools of philosophy are equal descendants of Hellenic tradition as the schools across Christendom are. So, I would consider the history together, especially given that there was never a total cessation in dialogue between the two realms. What do you think? Remsense (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, let me thank you for consulting the talkpage, since this isn't something which could be discussed in a few edit summaries. If you disagree, I am fine if we keep the older version first. However, I think it is displeasing to have a history section for Islam as long as it compares three different schools which exist simultaneously. I will go into details first, but want to give a summary at the end in case it is too much to read.
If you mean by school of philosophy, the different theological schools (Ashari, Athari, Maturidite etc.), I would strongly disagree on at least two of them. Mu'tazilitesa re undoubtly influenced by Hellenism, something they are often criticised for. This is also the reason why I sorted them by school of thought. They often have doctrines unique to other schools. Some details are mentioned in the article or the main articles of the corresponding school of thought. Such unique ideas include, the idea of God as first cause, free-will (there is free-will among other schools but the way they conceptualize it, isn't similar). Asharis, Maturidites, and probably Atharis don't view God as a first cause, but as permanent cause (Occasionalism). Asharis did have adopted a lot of Mu'tazilite ideas (which is especially evident from the writings of Razi, Ghazali, and ibn Arabi). However, Atharis are famous for rejection of Hellenistic ideas. Maturidites rather had contact with Persians and Indians than Greek culture. This is probably also the reason why their "theodicy" is so distinct. As included in the article now, Maturidites partly don't even have evil in the Hellenistic sense of an abomination. It is rather a threat to humans but nontheless part of the divine order. This is probably a result of debates with adherences of Persian religions. However, it seems to be alien to the Hellenistic debate. It is clear that it is essentially the same question, but it seems, without Hellenistic concept. The notion that God is "all good", while clearly a propositiona ccepted by Mu'tazilites (and some degree by Asharites) doesn't seem to bother Maturidites and Atharis.
If it is clear (or sources make clear), that specific Muslim scholars such as ibn Sina, al Farabi, or Ghazali to take up the arguements put forth by the Greeks, then it is a direct response to that and the arguement is within the history of Greek philosophy.
In short: Maturidites and Atharis developed their own thoughts on philosophy. Maturidites were largely undiscovered because they mostly flourished in Central Asia, Persia, and India, therefore developing independently from Hellenistic philosophy. While Asharis and MU'tazilites are proposing Islamic thoughts based on Greek philosophy, same doesn't seem to be true for the other two schools of thought.
One proposed solution: Maybe, parts of the Islam section could be added to the history, whenever a Muslim scholar made a direct reference to Hellenistic philosophy, whereas another section remains to cover different Muslim ideas independent of Hellenistic philosophy but with the obviously same question in mind. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I deeply appreciate your knowledge and scholarship where I have comparatively little! This answers the bulk of my questions on the matter, I do think the way you're approaching it makes sense, thank you so much for putting the effort into this reply. Remsense (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Warning
Hello. You posted a complaint (permalink) on the admin noticeboard, whose title read Harrassment over an image (emphasis added). You were queried (by myself) as to where is the proof of "harassment"?, then adding the following instruction for you to: Just quote a sentence or two accompanied by a pertinent WP:DIFF. I later also added that I don't like un-proven claims of WP:HARRASMENT to just be left hanging there — see WP:ASPERSIONS. So we'll see what VenusFeuerFalle has to say about that. But you have not done as instructed, instead posting at length (a lot of text with no accompanying evidence/diffs). So what I require from you now is an explanation as to why you failed to do so. This message also serves as a formal warning against engaging in WP:ASPERSIONS (unevidenced accusations of harassment), which if you repeat, may be subject to sanctions. Thank you. El_C17:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the harrassment is contextual and not one explicit statement. If someone keeps posting condenscending remarks on one's talkpage despite several instuctions not to do so added by defmatory remarks, I considerd this harrassment. As a non-native English speaker, the translation of my native language might have some differences in meaning, I was not aware of. If I was mistaken that this falls under harrassment, I apologize and request to know, which type of report would have been more fitting.
"But you have not done as instructed, instead posting at length (a lot of text with no accompanying evidence/diffs)." I must disagree with this. Several diff-versions have been added in the form of a link. And I followed the instruction to add a quote to the link-differences. The Version differences are formated in numbered links. I don't know why this is the case. I am not a programmer. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit I did not harass you at all. If anything it is the other way around with your fixation of the picture you do NOT dispute being in the center of the article instead of on top of it.
Maybe you should not have reported me at all, and just should have stopped with the edit wars and you should have explained why youre determined to change my edit back. You still havent explained why it is so important to you that the picture is not on top. CorrectieTik (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article "Sexuality in Islam"
I've already talked about this in Talk: Sexuality in Islam#The state of this article, but, seeing your edits on the matter, could you take a look at the article? It seems to be in a pretty bad state, especially scope-wise. (Of course you might also disagree with me about its state, but I'd like to be informed on how this would be a fair scope and treatment of this subject.) Uness232 (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your edits, from what I have read until now. There is a lot of evidence that homosexuality is perceived in a negative light, simply by projecting the Evangelical views onto Islam (just like a lot of other metaphysical, esepcially essentialists, assumptions have been accepted without a second thought, but is often contrarily to the Muslim understanding of things prior to Imperialism. Therefore, there is some sort of gap, between Muslim scripture/jurisprudence and modern Muslim's attitude. My main concern was regarding the claim that there is a clear prohibition or even prescribed death-penalty.
I was about to make a few more additions, based on the paper "Countering Islamic conservatism on being transgender: Clarifying Tantawi's and Khomeini’s fatwas from the progressive Muslim standpoint", because, despite the article being about LGBT in general, it deals only with homosexuality in the lead-section. The paper is about the place of tarns people in Islamic law and society. Since I am double invested in this matter, as a non-binary person socalized as a Muslim individual, I would be glad if you would have a second eye on the edit I am about to make. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The edit seems perfectly fine to me, and adds much needed content to the lede. More could be done to talk about gender-non-conforming identities in traditional settings, but I don't see anything unbalanced about the coverage as of now. I was talking about a different article though, Sexuality in Islam, which is in much worse shape (I'd argue the LGBT article is fine content-wise anyway).
I think in that article specifically, and also more generally in "X in Islam" articles, more must be done to separate "legal discourse/jurisprudence/fiqh" with "Islam", as while the religion has taken a legalistic turn over the last two centuries, the two are not co-extensive. So phrases like "Islam says", "Shari'a states" must be replaced with attributed scholarly opinion, "X scholar states", and non-legalistic realities, historical, mystical and heterodox (if common enough) beliefs should be addressed within their context (are they still popular? how are they justified if not by literal reading? etc.).
I really don't know why you are sending me this article. I do not intented to guess a normativity in edits. If you have a request, please be explicit about it. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello there. I noticed you reverted my edit and resd your reasoning on it. Please note that the header removed didn't have any sources, and contained some pretty bold claims. Please let me know what i can do to redo this the right way, as i'm not that well versed on wikipedia.
Cheers Western.galilee (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After checking, yes you are right. I apologize, it was a mistake on my behalf. I mistakenly thought there was a source. Maybe were was once a source and it got lost during an edit-war. However, there was no source. I assumed, you just threw tafsirs at a cited sentence to debunk the earlier one. In a rush, I didn't checked my assumptions. There are often edits motivated by religious biases rather than actual sources, so I just considered this as a routine revert. I want to pay more attention again. However, I have a request. Could you add the Surah and ayat in which Tabari debunks this hadith? The page number alone isn't helpful because there are several published versions of the tafsir. With the Surah and Ayat, however, I (and everyone else) could check the source themselves. Thank you advance! VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits on transgender and intersex issues of the articles only reflects the liberal view of the topic, not conservative views, thus it is not balanced and partial, you have removed many conservative references and added liberals, you didn't do the balance between the two views, you are betraying with the neutrality. Also seeking attention of User:TheAafi. 202.134.14.156 (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You just showed the sources that legalised transsexual issues, not the resources that restricted and forbide it, thus this is clear partiality and deviation of neutral point of view. 202.134.14.156 (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are playing a game of partiality on a topic using wikipedia and no one can attention to the matter? how weird is that? Can you change the XY sex-determination system of human which is present in every cell of a human, yet it is not discovered. Thus transgender surgeries does't help to produce the opposite reproductive cell or gamete because every cell's xy/xx gene system of the body denies to do it given by God. Ancient texts of the time of prophet Muhammad (pbuh) never allowed such kind of acts, let alone the operations, he used to send the exile from the society. You are just deforming their reproductive system, which is never allowed in the texts of Quran and Muhammad (pbuh). 202.134.14.156 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure if I have ever significantly edited on this article. I find myself a nobody to offer an opinion on this because this is not the field of which I have any significant knowledge. I am sorry. ─ The Aafī(talk)18:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, it would be better to use the article's talk page and state what issues you have with it, and what reliable and verifiable sources support "the balance" that you are talking about. (Note: I have not been through this article) ─ The Aafī(talk)18:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Islam, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on Page Ownership. Thank you. — MusenInvincible (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Fallen angel for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
; see Talk:Fallen angel for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Ifrit at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. FAISSALOO(talk) 21:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
; see Talk:Devil in Christianity for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
