Talk:Islamic view of angels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Mikal or Mika'il NOT Mikhail[edit]

The name is Mikal according to Holy Qur'an 2:98, or Mikail according to various Hadith. Transliterated from words MEEM-KAF-LAM. Kaf = k

Very early stuff[edit]

Just noting that I have removed the picture named 'Muhammad recieiving revelation from Gabriel' as DEPICTIONS OF THE HOLY PROPHET ARE FORBIDDEN. Thanks.

109.157.213.225 (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


Respects and commendations to the original author of this article; but I would refer my statement to the grammatical and linguistical guises this article is written in. Although it appears very factual and accurate (considering I'm a Muslim myself), it sounds more like a rebuttal to some Christian doctrine and beliefs. I would propose a re-writing of the first 4 sections under title. 60.226.28.198 10:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the poster above, and would add that the implied Christian doctrine is also wrong and misleading. I too recommend removing the contrasts to Christianity and focus on what Islam believes.

A.Reader 00:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No. You do not delete contrasts to other religions. This is not how it is done on Wikipedia. The contrasts are helpful to distinguish between other faiths. freestylefrappe 06:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
To me the contrasts offered are misleading and not from a NPOV. this is beautful


As the article states, the main difference between the attributes of Angels in Islam and Christianity is that in Islam Angels do not have free-will, and are made of light, whereas in Christianity Angels do have free will, and are entirely incorporeal.

I agree to the above. I found that the article conveyed that Islam and Christainity had the same view of angels. The Islamic view is that they don't have free will. When I saw the article, the section Attributes of Angels was not the Islamic view and therefore I have made the necessary changes. Azhad 09:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that Muslims also believe in Jinns should be breifly mentioned, and a link provided to the subject. I'm not sure why Iblis, who is not an angel, deserves almost half of the space dedicated to the attributes of angels.

Malik Vs Malak in Arabic[edit]

Malik is different from Malak Malik stands for king Malak is a reference to an angel

IIRC it's Malakh not Malak. Malik is Malik. the throaty 'H' sound is transliterated as KH while the normal H sound is transliterated as H and the normal K sound is transliterated as K.

  • Wrong, its Malak (from root ma-la-ka, arabic word meem-lam-kaf)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.163.120.149 (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Not all Christian faiths believe in angels[edit]

Some Christian protestant churches do not have any official beliefs on angels, though they do not deny people believing them. Some also says angels are only symbolic, not "truly" existing. 193.65.112.51 08:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  • What connection does this statement has with this article? We are discussing about the angels in Islam but you are talking about Christians that don't believe to angels. Of course everyone has his/her own opinion but these opinions have nothing to do with this article. With respect, Deliogul 21:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Rename[edit]

  • Support, so it can follow precedence of all other Islam-specific articles of topics that are broader than only Islam.--Striver 02:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Houri[edit]

I've deleted the suggestion to be merged with Houri. They are two completely different creations --Mlaheji 06:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, they're different topics. --Matt57 02:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits by User:90.199.116.165[edit]

90.199.116.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) performed these edits on this page. (I've reverted said edits.) Some of the text added (under the "Notes" section) belongs here on the talk page. Other edits removed text from the article and replaced it with unwikified essay-like text. Editors more familiar with the subject matter should review the text from the link above and restore any useful text. Powers T 13:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


Judeo-Christian Angel Names[edit]

This is pretty ridiculous. The article is about ANGELS IN ISLAM. As such, the judeo-christian forms should be in brackets, and the Arabic forms should be placed in prominence. This is inappropriate and should be changed immediately. Such blatant ethnocentrism is almost as bad as expressing POV in an encyclopaedia. 90.215.30.193 (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree wholeheartedly. The names used in the Qu‘rān should be the ones used in the article. I'm making the change. ILuvEire (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


Jundallah[edit]

I have read on Books.Google.com which entitled "Tempat Bersejarah dlm Kehidupan Rasulallah" (Historical Places in Muhammad's Life) by Hanafi Muhalawi page 25. It's written that when Muhammad Mi'raj to Sidrat al-Muntaha with Gabriel, in the first heaven (ar-Rafi'), he saw a huge angel rode a horse, suited with light and surrounded by 70.000 angels. They were called Jundallah.[1]

Reference[edit]

angels of Babylon[edit]

Aren't both Harut and Marut angels of Babylon?Mewoone (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

sorry I saw now the information about Harut and Marut Mewoone (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Illustrations[edit]

Can we remove the illustrations that imply any image of the prophet muhammad? I know it's supposed to help, but it's offensive to muslims, as it's against islam to make any illustration of the prophet (he specifically asked not to). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.158.236 (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


I'm sorry, but we don't do that. We are neutral towards religions and if we removed everything that was offensive to some people we'd have little left. Wikipedia is not censored. Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

depiction of prophet mohammed[edit]

heya, here is a thought: If the artistic depiction of the prophet Mohammed is forbidden in the Islamic faith, then it should not be put up on any Islamic webpages. Since there is occasional controversy about this type of media, I feel it should be removed, but I will not rock-the-boat.

I am not a muslim and I have no authority or backing for my assertion, just common sense.

If you have an article about a religion, then that article should not denigrate a principle of the religion. Though once again, I am not Islamic and I don't really know what they think.

Eliotmclellan (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Muhammad/images - allow plenty of time. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Wiqi55 removed the pic again, saying Islamic view of angels‎; 12:40:59 . . (-261) . . Wiqi55 (talk | contribs) (Removing image. Perhaps those who keep re-adding this image should first engage in the discussions at Talk:Muhammad/images. See my two long comments in the section concerning this image.) [rollback]. UNfortunately, I have no idea which posts he means, and really the argument ought to be here, or at least very clearly linked to from here. Just "see another very long talk page for two unidentified posts" isn't a very helpful edit summary William M. Connolley (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
See below Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • In general, I think the main thrust of the debate has been relating to how many Muhammad images there are per page. The community has decided that they will be allowed per WP:NOTCENSORED, and that's almost certainly a non-starter. However, there have been reasonable points raised there about how many images there are per page (i.e. making sure it doesn't seem like we're putting way too many there just for the sake of doing so). As for this page - since this would be the only such image on the page, I don't think that debate has any application, and as such there is no reason to remove the image. Kansan (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No justification for image in this article[edit]

See the following edit, particularly item number three: [1]

See also this edit: [2]

In any case, there is a separate section devoted to this image, so finding my long edits (and other comments), as I mentioned in the edit summary, wouldn't be difficult. Wiqi(55) 13:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are all twaddle frankly. This is a clear image of an early example of the pretty consistent conventional appearance of angels in Islamic art, which draws on Chinese styles, and remains traditional up to the 19th century and I suppose later. There is no reason to regard the figure as female - the costume is clearly unsuitable for anyone with breasts. The intention is to represent a genderless figure with a beautiful figure, as in all Islamic (and Christian) depictions of angels. The arguments for illustrating the article are the same as for Muhammad and all articles. You have badly misread Arnold's reference, which refers to much earlier periods. As you say, the image (in "Muhammad") is already under discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images#Muhammad_and_Gabriel, where a consensus is emerging to keep it. I have already noted your previous two removals of the image from this article there, and will add this one. You are edit-warring, and should stop. If you can add referenced material on the genderless nature of angels in Islam, that would be useful. I can see I need to expand on angels in Islamic art. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you should try replying to each of my points separately. Note also that objects of Islamic art isn't relevant to the religion of Islam, unlike this article. Any view or interpretation appearing here must be well-grounded on the religious texts and scholarship. It must also refer to traditions that go back to the Prophet. It must also refer to the opinions of Islamic scholars. These are the rules that apply to Islam and other articles related to the Islamic religion. If that is not the case, than we shouldn't link this article from Islam, because historical trivia and 19th-century poetry books isn't really relevant to Islam. As for Arnold, since you're the one known for misrepresenting sources and failing to admit it, I'd say read that book more carefully. Also, I agree that the argument on the number of images isn't really applicable here. But we have to find an RS that links this image to the religion of Islam, and to Islamic (the religion) views of Angels. Otherwise, it should be removed. Wiqi(55) 14:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The article is "Islamic view of angels", and this covers the Islamic traditions of representing them in art, just as the traditions in other religions are represented in those articles. I prefer to read less outdated sources than Arnold, As I've said many times - on the specific matter try pp 171-173 here. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time understanding Wiqi55's objections, having looked at the links provided (thanks). The arguements presented therein don't seem terribly relevant to this article. Nor do I really understand the arguments just above. Why It must also refer to the opinions of Islamic scholars for example? Wiqi55 appears to be setting a very high bar for the inclusion of images, a bar that certainly isn't applied to other pages or other topics William M. Connolley (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The opinions of random people from history, some of them are not even known to be Muslims (like the artist of this image) are irrelevant to this article. The tradition you speak of is not known to be a religious tradition, sanctioned and supported by religious authority to have it included here. If you disagree, just find me the name of single Islamic scholar and a book title, from any school of Islamic theology, that thought this image is representative of the looks and views concerning angels in Islam (the subject matter of this article), especially with regards to the first revelation. And we will be set by then. I'm OK with this image being added to the Islamic art article, but this article is about the Islamic religion. Wiqi(55) 15:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Wiqi55, everyone is familiar with your arguments, both here and at Talk:Muhammad/images. They have been firmly rejected by the community; please move on. Doc Tropics 15:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
WMC, I'm certainly not setting a high bar. That's how things work in claiming anything about Islam or Islamic history. If you're saying that this is a valid Islamic view, then you have to back it up with sources. For example, we recently had a discussion on whether Islam being derived from Peace being an opinion worthy of inclusion in the Islam article. See how many references to Islamic scholars I had to cite to make my case.[3]. This is customary when dealing with views about Islamic history. If a view is notable or valid, then you must have a list of scholars to back it up. Wiqi(55) 15:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Asking for every pic in wikipedia to be backed up by a specific source asserting it may be used in that context is a very high bar; you most certainly are asking for higher levels of "proof" than are used elsewhere. Please don't confuse the issue by mixing up attribution of text with attribution of pix. In any other article the train of thought would go: (1) no pic? oh dear (2) here is a pic. It shows an angel, and M (3) OK, in it goes. See how many references to Islamic scholars I had to cite to make my case: you're really suggestnig we'd need to cite multiple scholars to allow the pic to be included? that is quite unreasonable William M. Connolley (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
A pic needs to be instructive (informative, useful). Having an image of a Dog in the Cat article isn't acceptable. In this case, we have reliable (and primary sources) stating that Angels in Islam do not have feminine attributes, and during the first revelation, Gabriel was terrifying. This image, however, misinforms the reader about Angels in Islam (subject matter of this artice) and during the first revelation. This is a reasonable argument that only a POV-pusher would not understand. Wiqi(55) 16:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
If it is indeed true that we have reliable (and primary sources) stating that Angels in Islam do not have feminine attributes, and during the first revelation, Gabriel was terrifying then it would be an excellent idea to add that information, with sources, to, err, lets see: perhaps to the Islamic view of angels article. I look forward to you doing so William M. Connolley (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
However, do bear in mind that angels can have contradictary properties (e.g. Muhammad said that Gabriel had 600 wings and archangels (namely Gabriel and Michael) are described as having thousands of wings), and who knows there may be different strands of thought. So unless your (currently unrevealed) source is truely definitive it is unlikely to rule out female-looking angels. I notice you haven't complained that it has the wrong number of wings William M. Connolley (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
No, I won't be wasting my time editing this article, which all of a sudden shifted from an article on Islamic theology and religious views to Islamic art and historical trivia (and no other editor complained). If other editors are ignoring RS and WP:DUE, than this is not the time to write a informative article on the subject. To answer your question, though, according to EI2 the prophet only saw Gabriel in his true form twice, at the first revelation and during the ascension (600 wings, monstrous size, stretching over the horizon). But as a rule, Gabriel only appeared to the Prophet as an ordinary strong man. This is the most common "Islamic view" of Gabriel that needs to be here, and often expressed as fact in other encyclopedias. Anything that contradicts this view should be added on the authority of someone (i.e., named scholar). Having an anonymous image (or many of them) that contradict this view isn't really helpful (as the first thing readers will see is the image, and may or may not read the text, also an image is worth a paragraph or two of misinformation). Note also that none of the RS and paper encyclopedias that I've checked mentioned anything about Islamic paintings of angels in their articles on the subject. This should tell us something about the presence of these paintings here. Wiqi(55) 22:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The text has changed little since 2010 - it still contains much material that I suspect is essentially folklore with little scholarly support, which no one seems to be questioning in the same way. Personally, as a concesssion to modern Sunni sensibilities, I don't mind letting the huge template have the top of the page, & the image being lower down - rather as is done at Muhammad & other key Islamic articles. Johnbod (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Sunni sensibilities is not one of my concerns. But I've seen non-Muslim editors being misinformed by this image, thinking that it represents an Islamic view about the first revelation and Gabriel. But this is not the case, and there is no disagreement between the various Islamic schools that Gabriel appeared in human form as "an ordinary strong man" (to use the wording of EI2) or the angel form mentioned above (and was terrifying), both different from what is seen in the image. There is also no point in showing an image that is possibly not drawn by a Muslim and does not illustrate Islamic views about Gabriel and the first revelation. Perhaps you should find another image with some relevant text next to it (like the opinion of notable scholar about the subject). In any case, the article needs secondary sources, and shouldn't cite the primary texts directly. Added OR tag. Wiqi(55)
Just higher up, you said I won't be wasting my time editing this article. Are you planning to stick to that, or not? I've seen non-Muslim editors being misinformed by this image - have you now? Please provide some evidence for that. Gabriel appeared in human form as "an ordinary strong man" (to use the wording of EI2) or the angel form mentioned above (and was terrifying) - feel free to provide citations for that, and to include the text in the article. Don't feel free to continue your unreasonable campaign to remove images William M. Connolley (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
To answer your question: I didn't ask a question. But since you offer: what is the exact source for the 600, and the thousands, claim; and how do you resolve the contradiction? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflicts) (@Wiqi55) Content doesn't need to be "sanctioned and supported by religious authority" to be included, nor is the scholarship of Muslims either more or less valuable than anyone else's scholarship. This is not a theological work; it's an encyclopedia. I agree with WMC that you're attempting to set the bar unreasonably high. The standards for including an image here are the same as on happiness or walrus or rutabaga or any other article. Rivertorch (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you, of course. What I meant is that any view presented here as an "Islamic view" (i.e., related to the Islamic religion) must be deemed "Islamic" first by an RS. Do you agree with this? Or else, how would you differentiate between the opinion of random people (some of them might not even be Muslims and not representative of Islam), and opinions that are worthy of being included in this article? We do need an RS for these things. Otherwise, why bother have the word "Islamic" in the title if the opinion of any random person in history is allowed in (even if such an opinion is not notable, or not considered by anyone as representative of "Islamic view of Angels"). Also note that images convey information and are subject to WP:DUE. Wiqi(55) 18:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, yes. But the image isn't being presented as a view or an opinion; it's simply an illustration. If you think the image in this context violates WP:DUE (i.e., WP:NPOV), then am I correct that you don't object to the presence of the image per se but believe its prominent placement is problematic? Suppose we moved it down further on the page and put a different image in its place? Can you suggest such an image? Rivertorch (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I would've agreed with you if the title of this article was any different, but the goal of this article is to express the "Islamic view of angels". Anything that appears in this article is supposedly part of that "Islamic view". Moreover, an illustration of a spiritual event is an interpretation of how that event went. It is bound to be a one view of that event, and being here, one "Islamic view" (without really presenting an RS to support it). To quote WP:DUE: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." (emphasis mine) Thus we just need an RS that says that Angels in Islam are considered to have feminine attributes or that when Gabriel appeared for the first Revelation it looked beautiful. This is the meaning expressed by these images, which happens to directly contradict Islamic texts and other RS on the subject, even though the goal of this article is to actually explain these texts and to represent the subject in proportion to what is found in RS. What's funny about this, is the editor adding these images (Johnbod) thought that Gabriel appeared beautiful on the Revelation based on looking at these images. So the editor adding these images has actually misinformed himself using them, and now he wants to misinform everyone else. Wiqi(55) 20:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I think I understand what you're saying now. The basic structure of your argument is logical enough, but I'm afraid it begins with a false premise: that "anything that appears in this article is supposedly part of that "Islamic view". No. The potential subject matter of a Wikipedia article goes way beyond the narrow confines suggested by its title. (In this case, the singular "view" of the title is likely misleading, but that's another thread.) Rivertorch (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
So you're saying it's OK to fill an article on "Islamic view of angels" with images that does not represent even a single "Islamic view of angels" (where Islamic here in both cases refers to the religion). I think what you really mean is that reliable sources are not important in determining the content of articles. But that is exactly the opposite of what WP:DUE says: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.", which explicitly applies to images. Wiqi(55) 01:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
"The religion" cannot be restricted to what one or more scholarly traditions say (or don't say). It is also what believers in the religion do in a religious context. In fact I think images of angels are far less of an issue in Islam than ones of the prophet, & if I can find RS will include what I can discover on the matter. Of course to Wahhabist & similar varieties they will be objectionable, but that is not the whole of Islam. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The opinions of random artists isn't an "Islamic view". You first have to prove that a) these images were done in a Islamic context (and not cultural, other religions, or by unbelievers), and b) considered representative of an "Islamic view of angels" by an RS. Both are either not true or disputed. And as we've seen elsewhere, only editors ignorant of the subject will consider these images informative, even though they're actually misinformation. Wiqi(55) 12:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Wiki's edits have now led me to set up a Commons category and add a 4-pic gallery here, which Wiki55 has reverted, & I've restored. Since the impression is evidently about that Islamic depictions of angels are restricted to "historical trivia and 19th-century poetry books" (above), I think it important to show that there is a much wider Islamic tradition - probably wider than that of Depictions of Muhammad. Since we are all watching, can we have views on whether such a gallery should be in the article. When I have time I will add a section on the artistic tradition. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Gallery vote[edit]

  • Support See above. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Against Create another article (Depictions of Angels In Islamic art), which can be linked from this article in the See Also section. And any view presented here in "Islamic view of angels" must be based on Islamic sources, notable, and does not misinform the reader on the subject matter of this article. Wiqi(55) 16:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Abstain because votes ≠ consensus. If I did vote, I'd vote "not now", since adding additional images during a content disagreement about images seems unnecessarily inflammatory. Rivertorch (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - per Johnbod above. Best to add from as many sources as possible, to present a wider perspective. We would just want to make sure that the captions reflect the source. The statement that "...any view presented here...must be based on Islamic sources" is fallacious and not based in policy. Also, there is always disagreement about images in Islam-related articles; it is continuous and unavoidable, but we can't let that stop us from improving articles. Doc Tropics 16:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The exiting link to Commons has over a hundred depictions of angels in Islam. So the question is, "why these several in the article were handpicked?" A reasonable answer is that they show different aspects of depictions. Now the second question is "what aspects are covered?" If the answer can be found in the article (or may be added to the article from reasonable sources), then these images must accompany the corresponding text. Otherwise, i.e., they show nothing new, then there is no reason to handpick and better the reader looks for the "wider perspective" into the whole broad gallery in the Commons. Otherwise this handpicking is nothing but wikipedian's POV (he likes these 5; she likes other 5. So what? Edit war? copy whole Commons here, to satisfy all tastes?). Yceren Loq (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Your first point, ... these images must "accompany the corresponding text"..., is patently false as it is not based on any extant policy in any way; it's simply not true. All that is required is that an image be a useful illustration in an article. Your second point is an extremely minor detail about selection which can easily be resolved by good-faith editors; not really a valid reason to exclude the images altogether. Doc Tropics 02:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Your aggressive tone is not justified. Since I did not cite any policies, the statement "must accompany" is my opinion, and I am entitiled to it. You also meisread my posiotion. I did not say the images must be excluded. I said the section "gallery" is useless. There is the whole category in Commons, linked. My position that you must prove that the image is "useful" by attaching it to the text. In other words your demeaning "extremely minor detail" is in fact the center of my position: one must not throw it a heap of pictures; this should be done in a meaningful way. One can copy the whole Commons here under the vague claim "they are useful". Yceren Loq (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment - the objections against here seem to be opposed to any form of depiction, and are presumably religiously based, and therefore invalid. Answering, endlessly, the pseudo-objections seems pointless, since they aren't the real problem William M. Connolley (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. Your comment may be easily read as a personal attack, probably blinded by "presumably anti-muslim-based" desire to put image of Muhammad on every pretext, to oppose the alleged "Islamic intolerace". Treating other's objections as "pointless" without actually reading them is inacceptable editing behavior. Yceren Loq (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think my response can be read as a PA, and (just to be clear) was mostly directed towards Wiqi55. However, your own intemperate reply could very easily be read as a PA. Your own assertion that I've failed to read the objections is certainly false; let us see if you apply the standards you demand of others and retract that attack William M. Connolley (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I see you persist in your aggressive attitude, now by turning tables. Let me prove my points. (1) Your message is a personal attack, since you say "presumably religiously based". Shall I cite the policy to explain you, a a wikipedia old-timer, why it is a personal attack? The rest of my statement is merely a mirror of your comment, which as I suspected, was interpreted by you as a PA, which just proves my point about yours. (2) My reply is an explanation how your remark may be seen, since you obviously see nothing wrong with your words, but you are quick to judge mine as "intemperate". To explain further, let it be known that I am not Muslim, so I did not oppose the images of Muhammad. However I am well aware of the probing an poking of Muslim sensitivities in wikipedia. And your phrase is nothing but a piece of flaming of this kind. It is an old trick of an "English gentleman" to insult a "savage" verbally, get his English nose kicked by an enraged "savage" in order to get a pretext to drag the "savage" into the court for an attack. (3) My assertion that you failed to read objections is based on the fact that you described it ('en masse' with all obections, indiscriminately) as 'presumabley religiously based', which is bullshit. Assuming good faith that you are not a stupid man, I put forth a lesser offense and asserted that you merely didn't read my suggetion. (4) Now, let us see if you can rise above personal bickering and address my sugestion about article content. Yceren Loq (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The images were a quick selection based on the technical quality of the reproduction, geographical and time spread (given we already had an early image in the text), and clarity of the image. Of course I am happy to discuss alternatives. The Mi'raj image is a featured picture on the Turkish WP, and a famous image (Arnold spends a page discussing it). Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand that your selection was quick (just as quick was your creation of the useful category in Commons). However please comment on my position that images are to 'illustrate some point of an article; this is their purpose, you must agree. If you cannot explain which point they illustrate, then why not simply send peopple to Commons, where one can see all them. Even ones of poor quality may have something important you missed, but someone else may find useful. Yceren Loq (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I've said above that I intend to create a section on the depiction of angels in Islamic art, once I have found decent sources on the subject, which would cover this, and also ways in which the images depart from or go beyond references in the Qu'ran and Hadith (something I also think is the case with much of the current text). Meanwhile I think the gallery is adequate as a sampling of typical depictions in Islamic art. I could add a section now from past reading, but not reference it very well, as I've not yet seen a good source with comprehensive coverage of the subject. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Now that your intentions are clear, we at least may keep the gallery from uncontrolled growth. Any additional inclusion must be justified by a good reason. Yceren Loq (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wiqi55, again[edit]

I don't understand (or agree with) Moving image, per talk [4] so I've reverted it, and Wiqi55's other changes. As discussed above, W's edits seem purely motivated by a dislike of images, and set unreasonable barriers for inclusion of them, so have no basis. I can also see no clear discussion of moving the image - that, too, seems to be based on minimising image use. Nor is the OR tag valid William M. Connolley (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I did mention above that I personally did not object to the image not being in the lead, as a concession to religious sensibilities, like Muhammad etc. Much of the text is unreferenced, & secondary sources largely absent. The article needs improving and expanding with better sources - we can all agree on that. It would be good if Wiki55 could do this on the existing religious text, & I am trying to get a good source on the artistic tradition, in which I would cover divergences in depictions from what textual descriptions there are. I think meanwhile the article might be left alone for a while, unless good material is being added. I expect Wiki is correct about the appearance of the angel in the text pic (some? of the texts are here, no.s 454-461), & that is an issue that should be mentioned, though from what I've seen so far the sum of the accounts give an account that is not exactly as clear-cut as Wiki55 suggests. Any online secondary sources in English would be welcome. I seen you've softened the tag to "additional citations" - there is a case for either version, but I expect there is not much literal OR here. Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, in a minor compromise I moved the image out of the lede. In doing so I noticed we have two enormous templates here: so we really need them both? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, I've made the Adiqua template into a collapsible one, in line with most other templates around. Next stop, the Islam one William M. Connolley (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Johnbod, don't confuse articles on Islamic theology with those about Islamic art. Those paintings are not known to have been part of a religious pictorial tradition (which doesn't exist according to Arnold). They have no place here unless they can illustrate the religious views of somebody, which in this case can only be one school within one sect in a specific section. The Gallery gives them more space and historical value then they're worth. I can rewrite the article, cite secondary sources, introduce views of other Islamic sects, etc, but then any POV-pusher can show up, citing WP:NOTCENSORED and lacking knowledge about WP:DUE, would insist on adding images that completely misrepresent the information found in the paragraphs next to them. It isn't worth it for me, and perhaps that issue needs to sorted out first. In any case, I think having only the relevant images here and a "Depiction of" article, similar to how the image issue is handled in the case of Muhammad, would be the more reasonable approach.
WMC, a couple of editors, based on seeing this image, made the assumption that Gabriel in Islamic theology was supposed to look "very beautiful" or have effeminate features (just search for the word "beautiful" in the section devoted to this image at Talk:Muhammad/images). Other editors also thought that this image effectively describes the first revelation (which is false, of course). Furthermore, if we consider what WP:IMAGE states, that "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate", then in this case we know that the Islamic view of Gabriel on the first revelation is nothing like what is seen in this image (according to EI2 and the Hadith cited). This would be a good argument for the removal of this image in any other context. Since you're the one who reverted moving this image to a neutral section, perhaps you should now explain how this specific image is relevant to the text next to it, better then any other image, or how it illustrates the Islamic view of Gabriel in the first revelation. Wiqi(55) 23:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
just search for...: no thanks, it is your assertion: if you want to prove it, please provide diffs or exact quotes. The relevance of the image to the article is obvious. As to the rest, you might want to take a look at Gabriel in Islam. From that page Gabriel in his true form. He had six hundred wings, each of which covered the horizon. There fell from his wings jewels, pearls and rubies; only God knows about them." To me, dripping jewels suggests a feminine side. And the most unambiguous error in the depiction - the wrong number of wings, and failing to depict them covering the horizon - you don't care about at all. Why not? The answer to all of this is fairly obvious: that various religious (Muslim) image makers have interpreted angels in a variety of ways, based on contradictory texts William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
To Wiki: As I understand it, the texts says Gabriel appeared to Muhammad on a large number of occasions, and once appeared as an "ordinary man" and once in his "true form" covering the horizon etc. How he looked at other times is not I think specified; the depiction here clearly matches neither of the appearances just described very well, but is a conventional way of depicting angels in Islamic art. I am not aware that I have expressed any opinion as to the success of the artist here in making Gabriel look "beautiful", but I have said many times that to see the figure as feminine is just a mistake - your mistake and not the artist's. Since Muslims at the time knew angels were genderless and beautiful, it is not a mistake they would have made - nor would his costume have seemed especially feminine to them I think. We have covered the issue of whether this article should be purely a description of orthodox religious views; I note that your very recent contributions here and at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 take a very different view as to the effect of having "Islam" or "Islamic" in an article title, nor does the present text of this article meet the requirements you express here. As I've said, I hope we can get to a stage where this article has text that gives the orthodox Islamic religious view, and covers but distinguishes traditional and folkloric extensions of it, and has a short section on angels in Islamic art, which notes how depictions differ from the accounts in the primary religious texts. But there is some way to go on all fronts. Note that the depiction of angels comes from both Sunni and Shiah contexts, and also from Arabic-speaking ones - it is much more widespread than the depiction of the Prophet, with no use of compromise veiling etc. Would it be better to use another picture in the text? I do believe we should have a picture, but accept this one has issues which we cannot fully reference in the text at present. One of the single figures? I will add this image to Commons one day, and there are a number of individual angel portraits that can be taken from the Freer Gallery of Art website. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
WMC, the "beautiful" argument is just one problem with this image. The 600+ wings of Gabriel, its huge size covering the horizon, and the Prophet being terrified from its looks, are all arguments that unequivocally affirm that this image does not in any way reflect an Islamic view of the first revelation. I'm not aware of any contradictory texts about the first revelation that you speak of. You may need to cite them first before deciding to use this image. We can then move this image next to such texts. And your personal opinion about the "dripping jewels" account (which is not unanimously accepted) is largely irrelevant. Your statement that "To me, dripping jewels suggests a feminine side" is just WP:OR. Also, neither the author of this book nor the artist are considered Muslim (it is disputed). So none of your points are valid.Wiqi(55) 18:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
All that you claim is OR, is in turn OR by you. The 600+ wings of Gabriel - nice try, but no cigar. The article actually says Muhammad said that Gabriel had 600 wings - though of course, this is sourceless. And it contradicts 'Most notably, archangels (namely Gabriel and Michael) are described as having thousands of wings (also sourceless). In other words, just because this image doesn't fit one of your patterns doesn't make it wrong, because there are multiple self-contradictory patterns. Someone (who knows about this stuff, quite possibly you, certainly not me) ought to correct the text on this page. I can't. I don't know if Gabriel is supposed to have 1, 2, 4, 600, 600+ or a thousand wings. Having grown up in the C-of-E tradition, I'm quite used to religion being self-contradictory William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Johnbod, all editors at Talk:Muhammad/images (and also in the previous discussion I referred to) agreed that Gabriel is depicted in this image with effeminate features. The Prophet only saw Gabriel twice in its true form (mostly in the horizon). Some sources add another two occasions (both in the sky too). But "as a rule" he only appeared (to the Prophet and others) as an "ordinary strong man" (there is no reference to "effeminate" features anywhere, and certainly not at the first revelation). EI2 is clear on this (see entry "Djabrāʾīl"). If a notable scholar of a specific sect speculated how angels appeared to the prophet in other forms and in other occasions, we can add their opinion, with a suitable image next to it, but only in a section specific for that scholar or sect. Also linking an image to a sect should not be done in an arbitrary fashion, based on speculation or geographical locations. We need to refer directly to the textual sources considered valid by each sect. Individual scholars and Sultans have been known to have tendencies towards one sect or another, and to mix elements from different sects (and even from different religions). So each view needs to be linked to its adherent and presented per WP:DUE. As for the word "Islamic", it has a double meaning that needs to be made clear. It can refer to the religion or to the civilization. The term "Islamic civilization" encompasses Muslim and non-Muslim elements in contexts that can be both religious or secular. The way this article is written and being linked to suggest that we are speaking of "Islamic" in the religious sense. Since these paintings are not known to have been part of a religious tradition, we can only use images here for illustrative purposes, and no Galleries or Islamic art (civilization) sections. Wiqi(55) 18:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Section "Islamic mysticism"[edit]

It has no encyclopedic content; a very long quote which uses the word "angel" once and does not give any hint how Islam views angels. Therefore I sugegst it removed. There are thousands of poems which use the word "angel". Shall we recite them all in wikipedia? Yceren Loq (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It was recently moved from the Islamic section of angel. I agree & the belief that humans are in some way transmigrated to be angels does not seem at all orthodox. It would need a lot of contextual text to be justified here. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm guilty. I moved it here whilst cleaning up duplication there, as I said when dealing with that section Don't know if this really belongs or not, leaving that to others [5]. I didn't want to be accused of deleting valuable content :-). I have no opinion as to whether it should stay or not William M. Connolley (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: There are many angel out there that we dont know[edit]

there are many many angels in Islam that not informed to human. Maybe Allah thought better for human to do not know them. So, Allah did not notify. Maybe they are the guardian of sea, the guardian of mount, the plant keeper, or the confuse bringer, or other else.

i agree that we add this note is this article.

There's some: >> Rahma angel : mercy bringer to the house >> Judallah : the warrior of Allah And there are group of angels, such as: 1. Group Faariqot (Qs.77:4) 2. Group Mulqiyat (QS.77:5) 3. Group Naaziat (Qs.79:1) 4. Group Naasyithot (Qs.79:2) 5. Group Saabihat (Qs.79:3) 6. Group Saabiqot (Qs.79:4) 7. Group Mudabbirat (Qs.79:5) 8. Group Muaqqibat (QS.13:11) 9. Group Muqqosimat (Qs.51:4) 10. Group Shooffat (Qs. 37:1) 11. Group Zaajirat (Qs.37:2) 12. Group Taaliyat (Qs.37:3) 13. Group Hamalatu’l Arsyi (QS.40:7) 14. Group Hamalatu’l Arsyi Delapan (QS.69:17) 15. Group Paradise level-2 keeper ukhrawi (Qs.39:73) 16. Group Hell level-2 keeper ukhrawi (Qs.39:71) 17. Group Malaikat Alam Mahsyar (Hadits-2 Nabi) 18. Group Mursalat (Qs.77:1) 19. Group Aashifat (QS.77:2) 20. Group Naasyirat (Qs.77:3) 21. Group Karubiyun (Hadith)

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunarta (talkcontribs) 10:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


Agree Sir! Check my explanation and reference above.

SKULLSPLITTER (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Template[edit]

William M. Connolley has suggested that, only one template from below shall be kept on the article,

If to do so, {{Islam}} is better suitable in this regard --nafSadh did say 20:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I chose the other because the Islam template is large, green and ugly. It isn't really clear we need *either* template - they don't need to appear on every article related to Islam William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Your comment regarding Islam template is not nice. Anyway, leave it --nafSadh did say 04:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you meant by that. You aren't going down the "if you don't like my template you don't like my religion route", I hope William M. Connolley (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
ROFL! are you crazy!? I just said, you shall not tell some template is ugly. Nor your personal preference is accountable in Wikipedia. To me, the the Islam template is complete, greenas in green earth and nice ;-) --nafSadh did say 09:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Still not really sure what you mean. Why should I not say I think a given template is ugly? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
because you told “Islam template is large, green and ugly” in your first comment in this section. --nafSadh did say 15:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Already three editors acted [6], [7],[8] against your edit leading to a majority consensus through edit. --nafSadh did say 15:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I still don't understand you. I know I said the template is large, green and ugly. What I don't understand is why you think I should *not* say this (you shall not tell some template is ugly). Why not? Is that template beyond criticism? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
If you you want to criticize a template you shall do that in that particular template's talk. I told You shall not say it here coz it is beyond this page's discussion. Anyway, calling something ugly that is widely being used is not nice. --is nafSadh nosy? 15:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you're wrong. And I notice you've decided now that you prefer having two templates on the page. Sigh. Well, if all three of you are determined to overburden the page with templates, I can't be bothered to try to make the page look sensible, so I'll leave you to it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd prefer to have Islam only ;-) But Wikipedia is not just a place of my or your view. So, I'm keeping both, until someone else remove Aqidah. Aqidah is less suitable here, coz Aqidah generally (to Muslims) means only authentic set of beliefs and all views presented here about Angels are not verified through Qur'an and Hadith; but they have remained amongst Muslims. Aqidah is pure POV while WP is about NPOV. let's be cool for a while --is nafSadh nosy? 17:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Now[edit]

How is the article now? 119.154.69.174 (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup required: Can't use primary source alone[edit]

Guys, you can't put up views cited only with primary sources, the Quran and the hadith are primary sources. You need reliable secondary sources first, and then you can elaborate with primary sources (but the guideline is to keep the split at most even 50/50, while its better to keep it tilted in favor of secondary sources). Right now, there are large chunks of text that are only sourced with primaries, against guidelines. See WP:Identifying reliable sources cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 16:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Islamic view of angels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)