From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Mythology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Islam (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Arab world (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.



E — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Jinn vs. Djinn[edit]

This article and a few others seem to be self-contradictory. In a few places, Jinn and Ifrit are referred to as two subclasses of Djinns. However, this article and others also uses Djinn and Jinn interchangeably as if they were synonyms. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to know which is the correct interpretation, but that should be addressed. If anyone can clarify this issue or make the correct fixes, the article Ifrit also mixes the two conflicting usages.--Subversive Sound (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Jinn and Djinn are one and the same word in arabic, it is only a conflict in practice of transliteration. So Jinn cannot be a subclass to Djinn, as Djinn is the same word as Jinn.

Djinn is a common transliteration in languages where J is not pronounced as Djay, but rather Yay (like swedish). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and this article is in English, not any other language, so let's lose (eliminate) the d-. I knew the spelling with d- was a washout when an American visited the mosque where I worked and asked a question about "the duh-jinn." In English, the initial d- does not lend itself to clarity for the reader. So if nobody minds, I'd like to keep the spelling "djinn" only at the top of the article, in the list of alternate spellings, and delete the initial d- elsewhere. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Until I fixed a bad redirect in another article, I'd never seen the spelling "jinn"; I've always seen "djinn". While it may not be a good guide to pronunciation, usually English Wikipedia employs the most common English-language spelling for article titles and usage. Indeed, many articles that link here use the normal spelling. Serious thought should be given to renaming this article to the spelling most people would use in the search function. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


In the article it associates "genie" with the arabic term "jinni", but I had always thought that the term "genie" had come into the language from "genius loci", and thus has a latinate origin. Can somebody vaidate the etymology? -- (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's wordplay. In Latin, genius means 'a spirit'. The French word derived from this is génie. When Antoine Galland translated the Thousand and One Nights into French (1701), he noticed the chance resemblance between the two words, phonetically as well as semantically, and used génie to translate jinnī. This is how genie entered English as a word specifically denoting a jinnī from Arabic/Islamic lore. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Djinn in Islam[edit]

I am going to attempt to add a little bit about Islam and jnn because to them they are not merely myths. -gren

I edited this a bit. I wish there was better sourcing on 'Jinn in the Occult'; how much of this is genuine tradition and how much is derived from fantasy books? A clearer line should be drawn between the understandings of jinn in pre-Islamic Arabian mythology and Islam. How widespread was the belief in jinn before Islam; was it actually widespread among the Semitic peoples, or just limited to Arabs? Also, perhaps someone could improve this article by gleaning some things from the Farsi version.--Pharos 05:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

    Yeah, I would love to know what these "sorcery books" are supposed to be

The claim that Jinnn were on earth before man and all the deletions is not supported by the Qur'an. There is one verse where the Angels object to man's dominance over Earth and exclaim to God:"Would you put on Earth those who would spill blood and we worship you and exhalt you?" So there is NO identification as to who was on Earth before man, also some scholars have explained this verse as the Angels questioning the free-will man posesses that might result in bloodshed. Shape-shifting and Starwars and all that is not at all mentioned in the Qur'an. Many Hadiths are of questionable authenticity. Farmers forged teachings (Hadiths) as marketing slogans claiming that they're natural cures for example. Many cultures forged Hadiths to suit their tradition. Finally, the test of the authenticity of a Hadith is whether or not it agrees with the teachings of the Qur'an (see fourth paragraph of Isnad"does the reported tradition agree with the Qur'an?". Moreover, I'm unaware of any Hadiths supporting the claims mentioned. --The Brain 15:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, what you said "The claim that Jinn were on earth before man and all the deletions is not supported by the Qur'an", while relevant, is not entirely correct, the Quranic verse 15:26 (sura al-hijr) is definetely interpreted as being created before man... Also the hadiths about jinn being on earth are recorded in ibn kathirs "stories of the prophets". Bornemix (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Although the Qur'an does not explicitly state that the Jinn came first, we can deduce as much from the text. The Qur'an says (38:72):

To the angels: "I am about to create man from clay:

When I have finished him... Fall ye down in obeisance Unto him.

later it goes on

(Iblis) was haughty, and became one of those who reject Faith.

Because it states that Iblis is a Jinn, it is obvious that the Jinn race came first. Iblis was made from smokeless fire (38:76), and not an angel (who cannot revolt, as it has no freedom of choice). If it would be possible to bring about the comparision between Christian and Muslim exorcism in a section or atleast demons and jinn.

note: It seems that there is a confusion on the term malak(malaaikah); IMHO, we need to raise the question whether the Quran refers the malak as differnt class of beings or a certain status that beings are given. There are many instance that the malak would mean the elites/high ranks, on the other hand I am yet to find an instance where the malaaikah are refered to as a class of beings in itself. CMIIW, the influence of 7adeeth has set the malaikah to be a specific type of being, and not a certain status. It is this notion that I question.

I believe that the earth(the spirit of earth) is one of the malak that was concerned about the appointment of humans as a vicegerant on it. I would also assume that The Iblees, who is a Jinn, was also one of the malak that were around when Allah SWT challenged them to name a certain concept.

The other note I'd like to make is the article mentions of Ifreet as part of the Thousand and One Nights but it didn't mention it as part of the Quran, this is quite an ommitance? [27:39] Sahih International (modified) A 3ifreet(powerful one) from among the jinn said, "I will bring it to you before you rise from your place, and indeed, I am for this [task] strong and trustworthy."

The other thing I'd like to Question is Ibn Taymiyyah's position on the Jinn and the stereotyping them as "ignorant, untruthful, oppressive and treacherous," is something that is in contradiction to Quran, as Quran clearly says that they are just like the humans some are good and some are bad. They have helped the prophet Sulayman in his conquest. I believe that it's not the jinns that are refered in this verse: "Then, when We decreed (Solomon's) death, nothing showed them his death except a little worm of the earth, which kept (slowly) gnawing away at his staff: so when he fell down, the jinn saw plainly that if they had known the unseen, they would not have tarried in the humiliating Penalty (of their Task)." Qur'an 34:14) as they had no strong motives to gain from, rather the successors to the kings throne and his dominion would probably have been the most interested parties to the death of the King.

There is a certain sistematic negligence towards the realms of the Jinn throughout the history of mankind, and more evident is throuhgout the history of the muslim post the khilafah arrashidah. Could it be that the books of "magic" that was uncovered beneath the temple of Sulayman AS were actually the books that the prophet himself authorized the use of through maybe the malakayan of babil haroot and maroot? And that these books were hidden by the successors of the kingship in order to limit their use by the general masses after the death of the prophet?

The prophet mu7ammad himself was often accused of practicing magic, could it be that because he was reviving the tradition of Sulayman AS?

wallahua3lam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzahri (talkcontribs) 23:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if someone would be able to add something about الجن و البن that could be added to the article if it's not too trivial. The only page I could find with Google [1] doesn't seem to be cached properly. Beyond being able to recognize the letters and having a dictionary, I'd be of no real help with the page even if I could get it to come up right. Esquizombi 03:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Jinn and Binn are discussed in Ibn Kathirs "Stories of the Prophets". I might be able to add something if authorized. Bornemix (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


I can cite various sources about the Occoult and Muslim mythology, problem is that when it comes to Occoult books they're usually 50 pages of spells and rituals, many of the ones I read are in Arabic and other foreign lanuages.Some believe that the Suurah Annas is a protection from the and also the ayat/suurah from suurah al Baraat/At tawba like lakadjaakum and wamayatakillaha(It also belive that this is use to fight them)they have different powers but below than angels,some of them can be seen but some of them cannot be seen they could take any form they like.(burn this kind of inscence on a certain date and time, summon....... or the king of the tribe, his name is:...., say I command you in the name of:... Usually a higher spirit (the king of the tribe or an Angel) to do such and such) A source about Jinn and Kareens for example is: [2] It's in Arabic, yet if you can read or translate it it would confirm the edits. --The Brain 11:39, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


I corrected the etymology of Genie, which is not an Anglicization. For source, please refer to the The Harnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology by Robert K. Barnhart, 1995.

Given the description of the connotations of the original Arabic term, does anybody think it more closely relates to "phantom" rather than "ghost"?

Will someone please add the meaning of the Arabic word Jin as a juxtaposition to the latin? 21:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please add that it's common in introductions, to mention words stemming from the same linguistic root, such as: janeen (arabic for embryo, as it is hidden within the womb), and junnah (arabic for shield, as one hides behind it) Bornemix (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent External Sources[edit]

The external link of: A Jinn Paralyses Me At Night, is inconsistent with article because the answer mentioned in the website is scientifically wrong. Such symptoms lead to the recently discovered phenomenon known as Sleep Paralysis, and not demonic possession as many peoples have thought over the centuries. Don't you think that link should be removed?-- Haisook 22:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the link was meant to illustrate the belief in such creatures extending into the modern day, not to illustrate any veracity to the claim. Some notation in that regard might be appropriate.--Primalchaos 23:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed occult section[edit]

I removed the Occult section because the text is unclear to what it is referring. It mentions "the occult" and "sorcery" as if they were specific things rather than general categories. I have saved it here in case someone can categorize this information more specifically than "occult". If you can, please include a reference.

Andy 02:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Jinn in the Occult
In sorcery books Jinn are classified into four races after the classical elements, Earth, Air, Fire (Ifrit) and Water (Marid) and presumed to live in them. They are collected in tribes, usually seven, each with a king. Each king controls his tribe and is controlled by an Angel. The Angel's name is torture to the jinn king as well as his specific tribe.
Unlike white and evil witches, Jinn have free will; yet, they could be compelled to perform both good and evil acts. In contrast a demon would only hurt creatures, and an angel would only have benevolent intentions. Knowing what to ask a spirit to perform is key, as asking a spirit to perform a chore that runs counter to its natural tendencies could possibly anger the spirit into retaliating against the sorcerer.
I removed the label saying this is based on Dungeons and Dragons, it does not correpsond to the game at all.-- 09:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it doesn't correspond to the game at all. Dungeons & Dragons does indeed have four races of genie based on the classical elements, and the efreet (same word as ifrit, though spelled differently) are the genies of fire and the marids of water. Still, that doesn't mean this was "based on Dungeons and Dragons"; if this came out of some occult book, it's probably more likely that the genie races in Dungeons & Dragons are based on that. (Though with the section now removed from the article, it's a moot point anyway.) ---- (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Genie vs Jinn?[edit]

I suggest to split the two into separate article,Jinn to focus on Islamic meaning and Islamic sources and the other to refer to the English Genie! (Myth)

Genies ARE Djinn. There is no fundamental difference between the two. The term "genie" is but a French transliteration of the Arabic term "djinn".
There is a Muslim interpretation of the concept of "djinn", but there is no qualitative difference between genies and djinn. LizFL (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
^^ Agreed. To bring 'Genie' and 'Jinn' together is to bring 'I dream of Genie (TV show)' together with a serious theological concept in Islaam. -- (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


How is it, that the sections for Unicorns, Wyvern, Dragons,Minotaur,Griffin and Phoenix are clearly states as 'mythical' or 'legends' in the opening of the article -- why does this article not adopt the same standard?

Because Djinn are still prominent figures in the Muslim religion, and are not considered mythical by its practicioners. For a similar standard, see the articles on demon or angel, which are closer in context.--Primalchaos 02:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
So basically dogma. interesting, yet scary. dynamxi
There are muslims who belive the Jann described in the Quran are Extraterrestrials, and this belief is documented as having been in existance since the Early Islamic era. As such, unless you wish for Wikipedia to state that Extraterrestrial are mythical beings, there is a trans-dogmatic reason to not list the Jann as such. (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture of 'Genie'[edit]

I thought this was a picture of the Anunnaki? Since when was it a genie? It comes from arabic mythology. Though I guess it could be referred to a genie if we look at the passage

Amongst archeologists dealing with ancient Middle Eastern cultures, any mythological spirit lesser than a god is often referred to as a "genie", especially when describing stone reliefs or other forms of art. This practice draws on the original meaning of the term genie for simply a spirit of any sort.

Even so the inclusion of this picture may be a little misleading... 21:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The imagery is consistent with pre-Islamic depictions of the jinn, but if a suitable replacement could be found that wasn't overly Western, I'd be all for it.--Primal Chaos 19:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Stroud[edit]

I removed the following paragraph from the article. Someone might want to edit and re-add it. Tesseran 18:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Also the trilogy of book's by Jonathan Stroud Named the bartimeus trilogy which is based on the Arabic Dijini. These books are a story of jinn which are super natural called upon in pentacles by modern day magicians who run the country. The jinn in these story's are hard to control and if you get the encantation wrong then the jinn will destroy you. It saids in the book that the jinn come from another place entirely, a place of hazards and destruction. Only one magician was ever able to go to the place and come back alive-this was the Mgician from ancient Egypt a royal prince called Potolemy-but horribly misfigured. All the other magicians have gone their for their own greed and never came back to earth, the other one person who was ever sucsessful was commoner by the name of Kitty Jones.

Genie as a thief[edit]

Ref. are correct & online.Rana Ammar Mazhar 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions about the Genie's relationship to the Roc[edit]

I'm reading the B&N Classics edition of Arabian Nights, and there's a particular passage in The Story of Aladdin that confuses me. I'm hoping someone could clarify...

Aladdin is tricked into believing that his palace would be even more beautiful if a Roc's egg were suspended from the ceiling of one of the palace's rooms. When he asks the Genie to acquire a Roc's egg and suspend it for him, the genie replies: "How, thou wretch! Is it not enough that I and my companions have done everything thou has chosen to command? Wouldst thou repay our services by such unparalleled ingratitude, as to command me to bring thee my master, and hang him up in the midst of this vaulted dome? For this crime thou dost deserve to be instantly torn to atoms, and thy wife and palace should perish with thee."

This seems to imply a very specific relationship between Rocs and Genies which I had never heard of before. Is this to be taken literally to mean that Rocs are the masters of Genies? Even if not, why is it that Genies hold such great respect for the Roc? Is there any other text that anyone knows of which explains this more?

(and by the way, the three-wishes restriction does not come from this story: Aladdin uses the genie on many many, many occasions - I haven't been counting, but three was easily passed before he even began pretending to be a prince.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


The article says that Shaitan is a class of djinn, but the hyperlink states that Shaitan is equivalent to the Christian Satan. Which is it? Ashmoo (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Satan, in Islam, was a Djinn. He has little helpers (demons?) that are also Djinn. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 13:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


I notice Djinn redirects here... however, Djinn, while being synonymous with Genie, is also the name of an alcoholic beverage. As such, should it really re-direct straight here with no mention of the drink of the same name? Crimsone (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for a disambiguation page.--Primal Chaos (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (2008)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To either Djinn or Jinn (moving the current disambiguation page to Jinn (disambiguation)). To quote the article:

Awareness about the origins of the genie, and the use of the original spelling jinn has become more common today. Usually, the term djinn is used by authors who wish to convey a more serious interpretation of the legendary entity, rather than the comical genies that the Western public has become used to, such as Robin Williams' character in Aladdin.

The article already prefers these terms over "genie", and that should be reflected in the title. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The article doesn't appear to prefer any one term over another. "Genie" is the name that will be most recogisable to the casual reader, and should be retained per WP:COMMONNAME. PC78 (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Regardless of what terms are coming into greater use, the general public will still know "genie" as the most common name for this entity. – PeeJay 00:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Commonname is still "genie", regardless of the modern trend in fantasy fiction. Perhaps someone should have told Christina Aguilera about the name change first, so that the most prominent recent usage isn't "genie" (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Genie vs. Jinn[edit]

I notice that the article uses the term 'Jinn' much more than Genie. This is strange, as spelling should follow that which is established by the article title. If many people have problems using the word 'Genie', I think the article's name should be changed, instead of having the inconsistency in the article itself. Ashmoo (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to second the motion for a change in the article's name. It would be more appropriately titled "Jinn," and then list "genie" as an English variant of the name. This change would bring the article into compliance with other similar articles here. I was very surprised by this when searching for Jinn here today. Ninja housewife (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that the article is primarily about the Islamic being rather than as depicted in popular culture, the proper title should be the Arabic "jinn" not "Genie."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It would make so much more sense to have "Genie" redirect to "Jinn." Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"In popular culture" and notability[edit]

I have removed a number of entries in the "In popular culture" section, and shortened a few others. The edits are here and here.

For inclusion, a reference surely has to have some cultural impact. This could be via a work which presents a characterisation of djinn that has caught the public imagination, or by a more passing reference in a work with considerable signifciance in its own right (for example the Salman Rushdie book). Otherwise non-notable books which mention djinns, or passing mentions of djinns on TV shows, have no appreciable cultural impact and cannot accurately be considered a representation of djinns in popular culture.

In two cases there were also extended plot summaries of books mentioning djinns. Entries should note the work, a short summation of ithe depiction or significance of djinn within it, and its cultural impact if this is not obvious. Longer plot summaries would be better placed in an article about the work itself, rather than here.

This is all a bit longwinded, so I'll stop here. Obviously I'd welcome any other views on the entries I removed. If there's disagreement, let's discuss here and see if consensus can be reached. Euryalus (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I believe that these two articles should be merged but I can see that the length might be an issue. To me G. in pop culture wouldn;t be a likely search term, and also that these entries would be better represented if information on what a genie was traditionally was on the same page. thank you, have a nice day. :) --Beligaronia (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that importance cited? I bet you could probably come up with a cite indicating how the genie from Disney's Aladdin may have shaped popular perception, but all the others would likely be so called "self-citing", and the list would spiral out of control. Having a separate article also helps keep this one clear of such repetitive allusions. Mintrick (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Allah and God[edit]

I have changed the line "In Islam, Satan, known in Arabic as Iblees, is the iconic genie that refused to bow down to Adam when ordered to by Allah" to say God, instead of Allah. Since the article is English, the name should be translated into English also - and it means God. Allah is not a seperate name for the God featured in the Q'ran. (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The term "Allah" is well-known throughout the English-speaking world and does not require translation. ... discospinster talk 01:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is Christian POV anyway; "In Islam, Satan, known in Arabic as Iblis..." The sentence should be "In Islam, the devil, known in Arabic as Iblis..." As to the term Allah, this is an article on an Islamic belief, therefore the term does not seem out of place, even if it could be seen as non-Muslims as Islamic-POV. (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


I am opening a second request to move this to either Djinn or Jinn, as these are the actual terms for this being. "Genie" may have been popularied in 19th century Orientalism in the West, and be most familiar because of "I Dream of Jeannie", "Genie in a Bottle" or "Aladdin and the Genie", but anybody with an ounce of knowledge about Islam would know these are an entirely fictitious being with a similar name, Djinn do not "grant wishes", they do not interact with humans at all. To say "But this is how people from Chicago refer to it!" is like saying the article on "Christians" on the Arabic wikipedia should be titled "Cross-worshippers" or "Polytheists". Or should we move Saint Nicholas to Santa Claus, since Santa is more famous?

For the sake of reference, I went to Google Books instead of Google, so we can have slightly more scholarly works than "I had a genie grant me a harem of dancing girls" on Livejournal, and there are ~800 references to Jinn+Fire+Islam, ~500 references to Djinn+Islam+Fire, and only 300 references to Genie+Islam+Fire. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 15:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a separate article is better. The term Genie is so ingrained in Western culture, that I can't see it being replaced on English Wikipedia. The Genie article should stick clearly to what the term means in Western culture. But a separate article (linked from Genie) on Jinn should give the Islamic perspective. As you say, ' ... these are an entirely fictitious being with a similar name ... '. Similar name and fictitious. A page move does not do the whole situation justice. Therefore I advocate separate articles. MP (talkcontribs) 15:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm good with that as well, although I think Genies in popular culture and Jinn are all that is really needed; Genies don't "exist" in any way to discuss except in books like 1001 Nights, and television shows, Disney movies, etc. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 16:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Assyrian image[edit]

The following should be removed or edited. It is not 8th Century AD nor is it Islamic.

[[File:Blessing genie Dur Sharrukin AO19664.jpg|thumb|An 8<sup>th</sup>-century Islamic depiction of a Djinn]]

Requested move (2009)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to rename this article. Feel free to rename Jinn in popular culture.  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

GenieJinn — "Jinn" is the name of the religious phenomena in Islam (also Djinn), "Genie" is the anglicised version found in 19th century Orientalist fiction. So while "Jinn" is appropriate for the article on the "angels"; "Genie" is alright for the pop culture section. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


  • Comment - Be sure to keep the above discussions in mind; namely, #Move. @harej 03:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't understand the request, one way or the other, both articles should be named the same way, why are the two articles being named oppositely, and moved in opposite directions? (talk) 05:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Djinn" should be the article about the religious phenomena - I don't really care about what the pop culture article is named - I suggested "genie" due to the talk at #Move of people going "But people remember Robin Williams!". Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 14:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Common name in English is "genie". However, making an article specifically about Jinn in Islam would be a good idea. (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
No, the common English name of the Orientalist-fiction character stereotype is "genie"; the common name of the Islamic creature in English is Jinn. A search on Google books shows us 600 hits for "Jinn" versus 100 hits for "Genie" when we include the term "Shaitan" to ensure we're dealing with non-Orientalist-fiction works. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 01:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose as formulated. Both articles should be at "genie" ; a subarticle specifically dealing with the Djinn can be created if needed, instead of the overall concept, which in common English is "genie", whether fictional romanticized portrayal or not. (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Again, all English-speaking Muslims would speak of "Djinn" or "Jinn", not one of them would refer to "Shaitan is a genie..." Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 15:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Most English speakers are not Muslim, your proviso shows that it's not the English name, it's a minority group within the English speaking world's name. Are you asking for a WP:ENGVAR on this? (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, as it says "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation.,..this avoids articles being written in a variety that is inappropriate for the great majority of its readers. For example, Australians should not stumble over Americanisms in Australian Defence Force; Americans should not find exclusively British terms in American Civil War. In a biographical or critical article, it may be best to use the subject's own variety of English". This article doesn't even mention "genies", it only talks about Djinn/Jinn - the talk of "genies" is in the "popular culture" article (which, ironically, is named Jinn in Popular Culture) Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 07:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Esoteric Theories[edit]

I personally don't think the idea about harvesting genie energy deserves to be on this page, and though I might be convinced otherwise (I think maybe it's just not explained very thoroughly), I am absolutely sure that "esoteric theories" is the wrong title for that subsection if we do decide to let it stay. See wiktionary's definition of esoteric:

1. Understood only by a chosen few or an enlightened inner circle. 2. Having to do with concepts that are highly theoretical and without obvious practical application. 3. Confidential; private.

Can anyone suggest a better title or try and convince me that this section should stay in the page at all?

Even if I were a Muslim I would concede that harvesting energy from Jinns is nonsense. This section is, at best, random/useless trivia. I'm removing this. Philmac (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it, I'm open to renaming the section, but do not delete sourced information. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 15:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because something is sourced does not mean it has merit or deserves to be in a Wikipedia article. If the idea that Jinns could be harvested to solve our current energy crisis was, for example, a belief held by most Muslim scholars, then it would deserve to be here. This idea is only held by very few individuals and it is supported by neither the Quran or contemporary science. It is trivia. Wikipedia discourages trivia sections. If it can be demonstrated that this is a "theory" that is gaining momentum, that it is commonly held within the Muslim or scientific community, or that it is supported by the Quran or Hadith, then it deserves to stay, but until then this section has no place in this article. Philmac (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If there was a whole movement in the Islamic world to produce energy from Jinn, it should be included. But since it is just one guy, it qualifies as a Fringe Theory. Ashmoo (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed it again, leave it removed, the person who said this, has no validity, notability, and what he says is just ridiculous. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a nother nonsensical esoterical section: "Among the paranormal community, aliens are considered to be jinn living at higher dimensions. One particular alien species called Draconian or Reptilian possesses characteristics of a dragon with wing and tail, who can shapeshift into any form and prey on humans. For some, Satan could be considered as simply a Reptilian entity, only God knows. " What for the love of whatever have aliens to do with this and since when do we know of ANY "particular alien species"? It sounds like someone wrote that from thei role-playing game handbook. Can we remove this? [[12:23 28 August 2012 ]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Granting wishes[edit]

This article does not say anything about the one thing that a Westerner perceives a genie to do: Grant wishes to anyone who summons them.

This concept isn't even exclusive to the Western world, either. Take, for example, this TV episode right here.

Outside of Islamic culture (and maybe even within it, just not exclusively), the only a genie does is grant wishes, and yet, when I do a Ctrl+F search for "wish" or any variant thereof, it appears nowhere in this article. What gives? Having an article on genies without talking about granting wishes is like having an article on Al Capone without talking about bootlegging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed corrections to the Arabic etymology[edit]

In the Etymology section of the article, someone entered:

..."jinnah" is the singular...

I submit that whoever wrote that should either cite a reference or not mind if it gets changed. Because the authoritative reference I would cite (Hans Wehr, 4th ed., p. 164) says: جني jinnī is the singular noun (the singulative number or "noun of unity," formed from collective nouns in Arabic by the suffix ة -a(t) or ي -ī), as well as an adjective. And the word جنة jinnah actually means 'possession, obsession; mania, madness, insanity'.

It may be that the editor who wrote that confused the two suffixes that form the singulative in Arabic. Generally, -a(t) is used for animals, plants, and inanimate objects, while -ī is used for sentient beings like humans and jinn. If whoever wrote that can substantiate jinnah with a cite, they should include the cite, or I propose to correct it.

The use of jinn as a singular form comes from Persian and Urdu usage, where Arabic plurals are often treated as singular. However, it's a grammatical error in Arabic. Aside from all the debate over whether to say "genie" or "jinn," at least the English word genie implicitly preserves the singular form of the Arabic. I propose using "jinn" as a collective/plural form only, and stick to "jinnī" for the singular. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of Jinn in Spiritual Healing, Black Magic & Sorcery[edit]

In most part of Southeast asia, spiritual healing and sorcery still exist and widely used/ practiced. Bomoh (Malaysia)/ Dukun (Indonesia), are spiritual practicioners, and most, if not all, have association with jinn(s), are able to perform rituals in both healing, as well as, sorcery.

My knowledge is limited to these two countries, however, other countries like Thailand, Vietnam, China, mostly Asian countries do have such practises, with the use of their medium and "spiritual being" to assist, and are carry out their wishes/ miracles/ .

There're numerous school of teaching among the Bomoh and Dukun, and majority are based on the classes/ type of Jinn(s) that are used for their practice. Majority of the Jinn used are passed down thru' generation, as they are outlive the human a few hundred of years. The Jinn and practioner will have to enter a term of condition (or in some lucky cases, no condition). Once the term of condition is met, the bomoh/ dukun will be the master for the jinn (however, due to that very condition, it may seems that the term will benefit the jinn more, hence is the really master).

Example of condition can be (this a just a some example, there can be ridiculous ones too): - 1. Sacrificial for blood i.e. most common-chicken blood, a drip of blood from it's master (bomoh) one a month. 2. Passing of Jinn for specific no. of generation down (e.g. 7 generation - own bloodline, voluntary/or unvoluntary). In some cases, the off-spring don't even know that it had been passed to them upon the death of the former owner). 3. To be in trance to summon the jinn. 4. Marriage... yes, between Human & Jinn.

In any case if there've been long association with Jinn, there will be symptoms/ habit that will developed to the human. It's sometimes said that if the association is for a long period (years), the Jinn will be able to occupy and share human's body (auto-trance). This means that the human soul and the jinn can be in the same shell. In some instance, when a person passed away (soul left the body), the Jinn can be the one that's left in the body. There's limited (to my knowledge) to what they do.. blinking of eyes, murmuring, feeding (to survive) and if it's one of the condition, to pass the jinn to off-spring and this is not done. Then the person will keep on living, till the body can no longer survive as host for the jinn. In most cases that i see, the one of the family members will carried to be the host to pietness/ sympathy.

Yes, bomoh/ dukun can exorcise Jinn from out of the body, mostly when ones are "possessed", the occupiers are Jinn(s). There can be several Jinns in a human host, hence the person will behaviour different depending on whose taking possession of the body. Bomoh/ Dukun can use their Jinn to pull out the Jinn(s), however, this depend on how strong their Jinns and the one that possessing the victim. There's also another way, where no Jinn will be used. This will require skills that are thought by Jinn(s), passed down from generation to generation. Bomoh/ Dukun will need to know the class of the Jinn(s), their condition, weaknees and good negotiation/ lying skill (yes, it's true.. Jinn are free-will being).

Jinn can't kill people physically (in most cases), I have yet know/ see otherwise. They can manipulate human to perform their wishes, or create a scenerio, to move human. e.g. Get a bird to fly near victim, then victim moved and to side of road and got hit by car. There are some pre-conditional before you can sent them for a task. If it involves looking for someone, it will need bodily fluid from that someone, or or other matters, like nails/ hair.

I was taught that Jinns are just 7 steps aways from us and travel to a destination in minutes where it takes hours/ days. Yes, there're jinn(s) can bring you luck, however, can also be true, if it's said to be otherwise.

Why Is There A Picture Of A Cave In This Article?[edit]

The cave in the picture was named by American cavers, and has no relationship to Genies/Djinn in a historical/mythological context. For example, would we have a picture of the Grand Tetons in an article about breasts? No, that would be not be tangential and unlike an encyclopedic article. If someone can explain to me the relevance of the cave picture, I would appreciate it. Storrer.chris (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Posses" in islam[edit]

"However, jinn often harass and even possess humans, for various reasons, such as romantic infatuation, revenge, or a deal made with a practitioner of black magic" this information is incorrect to what i know, also, there is no source to prove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramrom95 (talkcontribs) 20:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"However, jinn often harass and even possess humans, for various reasons, such as romantic infatuation, revenge, or a deal made with a practitioner of black magic"

Well, its half correct, at least in relation to what Moroccan's believe. Jinn are known to harass and/or possess humans (or other animals for various reasons (good and evil). (lived in Morocco for two years) (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Different Jinn/ Genie Jobs and names[edit]

Sorry my language is not good enough but I would like to add Jinn jobs in my culture (Arab)

Al Amar: (العامر) jinn who live in the houses and toilets. They follow different religious and they don’t harm anybody but in rarely cases. Al Amar who lives in the toilets follows the Shitan orders.

Al qareen: (القرين) each person is born with A Qareen , their job is to whisper evil thought. And another one will whisper good thought.

Al Qareena Am Al Sapean: (القرينه ام الصيبان) she has many names and Arab believe that king Suliman (Solomon) saw her sat upon the carpet (flying Carpet) . Arab believes her power is to kill children in the mother's womb. Stop women from getting Pregnant and to kill any children within the age of 7 years.

Al slaa (السعلاه): She lives in the desert and most likely show as women. If she saw a human she will strangulate him but before that she will play with him like mouse and cat! What is strange about her that she is afraid of wolf.

Al Delhab ( الدهلب):This kind of monster live in the sea. people see him as human figure but with sea stone as skin and gathered around him Algae. He follows the ships to destroy it and kill the people on it.

Al Shq ( الشق) : half human and half animal!

And there are many others who live in the sea, divers, planets and mountains

(such as the story of Aladdin when he said open semsem (I think he was asking the jinn of the mountain or the Jinn of the earth(undergound).Mewoone (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The ring[edit]

Shouldn't there be a section for the ring of king Suluman? The ring which control all Jinn (Just myth) Mewoone (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Jinn in the Bible[edit]

the part about Jinn in the Bible is uncited, and has poor grammar. 1st, what is the original Bible? and Bible should be capitalized. Then the second sentence should be translations of the Bible. (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's cited now. Your suggestion for better grammar also included. Thanks تسلیم (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If I may add, a 19th century translation of the Bible into (then contemporary) Arabic is of dubious import to cultures and languages which existed more than a thousand years prior. The "old" Arabic/Persian translations mentioned are also dubious, first because which translation is being referred to is not cited and it is quite easy to do so (there is an extensive and widely agreed upon system for citing biblical manuscripts and translations). Second, an Arabic translation of the Bible could not have existed before the Arabic language itself, which did not coexist with biblical era cultures. In short, "Jinn in the Bible" would be more aptly "Use of 'Jinn' in Bible Translations". I suggest this change be made.DefiningEternity (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed "The Old King James version uses the word Gin in place of Jinn, Amos 3:5, Job18:9, Job40:24, Is24:17" from this section. Two of the passages in question (Job 40:24 and Isaiah 24:17) do not have gin/jinn in their English translation at all. The passages that do have gin (Job 18:9 and Amos 3:5) use the word in its (then) contemporary English sense (tool or trick) to translate the Hebrew paḥ (trap or snare). DefiningEternity (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This section should be removed. 'Ability to possess people' is hardly unique in religious or non-religious mythology. Trying to draw some sort of connection between two religious books based on this is fallacious, dishonest, and seems to be more aimed at a particular religious agenda versus simply stating facts. If other feel this information should remain, I would propose the section be renamed and the 'jinn-like' attributes of many different mythological creatures be compared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This whole section is a big accumulation of problems. The only piece of solid information I see here is the use of "jaann" in Van Dyck's OT, which I'm preserving, although Van Dyck's OT is known for its eccentric lexical choices and its significance to the topic of jinn is doubtful.

In order:

1) Talking about "old Arabic translations" is meaningless without further details. What is "old"?

2) Identifying seraphim with jinn just because they "cover" themselves with wings is a piece of "original research" (flight of fancy) that doesn't belong in a reference work.

3) "Those" Urdu translations refers to nothing already mentioned. What are they?

4) "Majnoon" is a common word meaning "insane" and a reference to jinn can't be inferred from it.

5) Iblis is a standard Arabic term for the Devil. While in Islam Iblis is classified among the jinn, pointing to use of this term in Christian texts as a reference to jinn makes no sense. The notion of the Devil is shared between Islam and Christianity, while the notion of jinn is not.

6) If there are specific comparisons in Islamic sources between jinn in the Islamic tradition and demons in the Christian tradition, they should be sourced and they don't belong in this section. Just because there are similarities, doesn't mean that there are "jinn in the Bible", except in the trivial sense of applying the notion of "jinn" to all evil spirits.

7) All the citations of Van Dyck's NT translation given here use "iblis" or "majnoon", which is irrelevant here, as discussed above. In other places I checked Van Dyck's NT uses the word "shaytan" to refer to demons, as do medieval Christian Arabic sources such as the Arabic Infancy Gospel.

8) The passage about the Testament of Solomon is irrelevant to this section.

Msubotin (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move (2010)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

GenieJinn — The article (now at "Genie") deals with the jinn in Islamic culture(s). The title is probably what least worries me but it is clearly not in line with common usage in reliable secondary sources written in English - which is where we are supposed to look to determine the appropriate title for any article (per WP:Article title and WP:RS; I hope that's common knowledge among at least the experienced editors). For some evidence in recent literature on jinn, see the further reading section (freshly added). Incidentally, a similar request was made by User:Sherurcij in November last year, but the resulting discussion was a poor show, with Sherurcij's arguments being just flatly ignored. Cavila (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Partial support I don't have a strong opinion on Jinn versus Genie, but I certainly support JinnJinn (disambiguation). Typing "Jinn" should go directly to the Jinn/Genie page because it's by far the major usage and should not need to be disambiguated from a minor Japanese band. Just take a look at the incoming links to the Jinn page - most if not all refer to Jinn/Genie, not the band. Adpete (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose "genie" is the form usually used by people in general, and would be recognized by them, not "djinn" or "jinn". Unlike those two, it is an English word. (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
As you're new to Wikipedia, I can hardly blame you for being unaware of our naming policies on these matters. Please familiarise yourself with WP:Article title, which in a nutshell states that "article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." In such sources on the present subject, it's "jinn" which rules the roost, not "genie". Cavila (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe the IP editor was simply favoring the "recognizable to readers" criterion, which is just as important as "usage in reliable English-language sources". Powers T 12:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
That would be understandable if s/he hadn't read past "in a nutshell". Cavila (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Support While I normally favour the most popular spelling, this article is 99% about Arab/Islam jinn, rather than the European conception of the Genie, so I would favour it being moved to jinn or djinn. I would also support splitting into 2 articles, Genie (for the European version) and Jinn (for the Arab one). Ashmoo (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Lots of genies are bottled up here: "Jinn in popular culture". Cavila (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...I Dream of Jinn... with a spritz of lime. — AjaxSmack 19:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Support I think moving Genie to Jinn is the most appropriate here. Also I would support the creation of an article on the Westernised concept of a 'genie' with an article at that title. If however consenus is against the creation of such an article I suggest, that Genie become a redirect to Jinn with the first sentence highlighting both terms, ie something like Jinn or Genie is... which the current Genie article lacks. My only question would be why 'Jinn' would be the prefered term over 'Jinni'. The Genie article seems to indicate that 'Jinni' is the corrent term. Which is it? -France3470 (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
There's a a brief comment about the etymology of the word here on this talk page, which basically says that jinnī is the singular form in Arabic, while the singular use of jinn in English derives from Persian or Urdu usage. Be that as it may, the requested move concerns English usage only. Besides, jinn are often spoken of in the plural anyway. Cavila (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay sounds good. Thanks for the clarification. -France3470 (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Singular and plural[edit]

A remark I made about Arabic and Urdu grammar was referenced in the green area above by Cavila and France3470. My point was that the Urdu usage of a plural form with a singular meaning is an error vis-à-vis Arabic grammar. I did not mean to recommend that we adopt this Urdu usage in English. This is an article written in English about an Arabic word, so Urdu grammar has no place in it.

A plural form can be acceptable as an article title. Many articles are titled that way. The previous title "Genie" was a singular. As it stands now, "Jinn" is a plural (more precisely, it's in the collective number, but for practical considerations here it functions exactly the same as a plural). The corresponding singular is jinni. In that case, the lead needs editing for consistency of number, which I am now going to do.

There had previously been an explanation of the singular and plural forms in this article, which clarifies the matter. Someone deleted it a couple months ago for unknown reasons (or for no reason at all?), but it's been restored now. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense Sentence[edit]

This sentence near the start of the article reads as nonsense:

"Some research by the American Jewish Committee has shown that the belief in jinn has fallen compared to the belief in angels in other Abrahamic traditions."

In particular, the words, "has fallen" make no sense in this context. This sentence should be made comprehensible or deleted. (EnochBethany (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC))

I had the same thought. Ashmoo (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Jinn's name origin[edit]

The article says that the translation of the Arabic jinn into "genie" occurred in 17th century and was suggested by the similarity of the words in Arabic and French. But, doesn't the same similarity suggest, that the Arabic "jinn" can be possibly actually *borrowed* from Latin "genius"? At last, the Roman Empire conquered a large part of the Middle East rather early, and even in these parts which have never been conquered, the influence of the Roman culture (even if not the language itself, but the influence of Latin was anyway bigger than it it commonly thought, as shown by some Egyptian papyri) must have been very strong and lasted for centuries. At the other hand, the concept of "genius" was widespread among Romans, so the word might have leaked into Semitic languages, even if the idea itself was misunderstood (genius is a sort of a spirit, but it is a personal spirit of a man, not a standalone ghost). (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merger (2011)[edit]

Though the "Jinn in popular culture" page is rather long, it should be reworked and merged into this page. Otherwise, neither is complete: the "Jinn" page is without much to make djinn seem relevant to modern, non-Islamic readers, while the "Jinn in popular culture" page lacks the background for what djinn are and how their representations in pop culture vary from their depictions in religion. -Mosemamenti (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I second the proposed merger. Your point of non-Islamic readers not understanding how Jinn is relevant fits perfectly into a description of me. After reading through the Jinn in popular culture article, I felt as if I had a much better understanding. --Rayne117 (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree 100%. If someone wants to find out about the Jinn, they will likely be interested in the Jinn in Popular Culture.[citation needed] Why make a link to a separate article. Tkilson (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This would be ridiculous; the idea that readers can only understand this ancient religious belief by reading about Robin Williams in Disney's Aladdin. Fictional accounts of Djinn rarely have anything to do with traditional views of them, and adding lists of trivia to this article would hardly be beneficial. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

While the notion that this article is probably better understood with a preparatory knowledge of pop culture is indeed pretty ridiculous, the original notion for unification is sensible. However, as the Jinn in popular culture list is so exhaustive, the amount of information contained there simply can't be summarized without omitting data. Therefore the only remaining option would be to paste the information in entirety and likely eclipse the original article. For supposedly rare people like myself who don't want pop culture with their history, this would be a huge inconvenience. A summary paragraph of that page here would be nice, but ultimately the two should remain separate. Reprah (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Alternatively, we could rename that article Genie, to make clear the distinction. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Merging would be unacceptable if the word "Genie" is not used in the title. I would not have been able to locate the page otherwise - as a common wiki reader I think that the culturally relevant name is critical to the page's success. I had no idea what Jinn was until I read this page and would not have been able to locate it if this was merged into a page that was called Jinn in popular culture.

So to sum up - go ahead and merge. That is fine, but please, ENSURE that the page name contains genie as this is how this subject is widely known in our culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no - merger Djinn or Jinn are not genies as some suggest Western Christian culture - and therefore Western Political culture - does not recognise the spirit world except in a negative sense. "Good" spirits are only described as "Angels". In many denominations the belief is that ALL spirits are evil. Consequently no understanding is possible in those religious/social cultures who do not recognise the existence of such beings and their relationship with living humans. Genies, as portrayed in western culture, are physical creatures able to perform miraculous acts beyond normal human capability. They are definitely not spirits because they manifest in physical form. They are fantasy.

To condemn the serious discussion of Jinn with flippant examples of western derisive cartoon characters denies people the opportunity to develop understanding of the spirit world and how it interfaces with humans.

Having separate Wiki pages offers some hope of separating the two classes of concept - Western and Arabic. The Arabs were there first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuborama (talkcontribs) 11:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

First, I think this page needs serious reorganization. Is there a way we could classify the listings in each category by date, or by author, or by something? It's very difficult to scan the list and find information at this time. Second, I think we need to differentiate between jinn and genies. They are not exactly the same, because the way the Western and Eastern worlds view these beings is very, very different. If we could first separate which books/films/etc. refer to genies and which refer to jinns, we could add the jinn references to the jinn page and the genie ones to the genie page. Hewagpc (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the proposed merger. The article jinn uses religious sources for its content. So its different from the idea of genie in popular culture of the West which only relies on fictional fairy-tales which mention genies living in oil lamps, granting people wishes -- such genies are not related to the genies of the Quran. Khestwol (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


in Turkish. Böri (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"Some or no facial hair"[edit]

Seriously? "Most probably had some or no facial hair"? Would you also say that most probably were tall or weren't? Most probably were or were not on fire? Come on, now. -- (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

parallel world[edit]

Should the phrase "parallel world" really be used here? The phrase is usually only used in sci-fi settings and (only recently) in actual scientific hypothetical discussions. It is not the term usually used when discussing either mythological or theological topics. I would suggest that unless we can find a source stating that it is an appropriate term, its use borders on OR or supposition. Wickedjacob (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Wish-granting in folklore[edit]

In the lede we have the claim:

The earliest of such Jinn stories in folklore originate in the book of the One Thousand and One Nights.

The reference given for this is to the tale "The Fisherman and the Jinni" from One Thousand and One Nights. It does not establish the factual claim that this is the earliest story about wish-giving genies in folklore. (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Rasûl-üs-Sakaleyn - The Prophet of demons[edit]

An appellation of Muhammad is Rasûl-üs-Sakaleyn. Because Muhammad met several times the jinns at night. A masjid (Masjid-e Jin) was built at a future date to the memory of this phenomena. According to the İslam Demons (jinns) are not bad beings. Some of them are good jinns. Therefore the moslems use a rosary (99 beads) glorify to jinns without knowing. Arabic letter VAV is used for jinns. Vav is written like a number 9. V and 9 are two symbols of demons. All suras in Koran begin with the letters VAV and SIN سو. VAV is in latin V form and arabic is 9 form. Therefore an amulet (muska) that a V form has is a symbol of jinns, a symbol of a rewerse pyramid too. Arabic SIN is like a "W" form with the latin letters. Accordingly, each two-letter is 96 or 69. The number of Allah is 66 (W=SIN=6-66) and the number of Jinns is 99 (VAV=9 or 99)

A sura (also spelled surah, surat; Arabic: سورة‎ sūrah): سو‎ = 96 = 9w
VAV = 9 = V
SIN = W = 6
SIN+VAV = 69
VAV+SIN = 96
Sorry for my english --Sinallah (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not accept original research, nor do we push any agenda. Do not attempt to use this site as a forum for your personal beliefs. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree, this is your personal original research. otherwise, provide reliable citations of your claimsGrandia01 (talk)

I also agree. Please, use citations. This is your own beliefs. None of what you said is something I have read anywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Magic lamp[edit]

Why does "magic lamp" redirect to this article if magic lamps are not discussed anywhere in the article? Tad Lincoln (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I wondered that too. In the course of reducing the hatnotes from many to one, I discovered that many similar terms to "magic lamp" redirect here. I've tagged them for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Magic lamp listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Magic lamp. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. (and 10 other similar redirects) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk: Genie (junyi)[edit]

I would like to ask for an wikipedia page under Genie (junyi) which was previously deleted by other users. Appreciate it if someone could provode an word copy of this article. Thanks (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The previous article "Genie" was renamed to this article "Jinn". "Genie" now redirects here. Does that answer your question? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


I NEED YOU TO AUTHENTICATE THIS ARTICLE'S SOURCES i think some books are written by christian writers who wrote what they heard without checking it so please can you authenticate all of its sources. like about the marid ghul stuff for Islam just use the Quran and authentic hadith because I think thats all Muslims can rely on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Some stuff i think seemed a bit odd[edit]

If we can't usually see jinn then how are there pictures on the page and why is robert leilings book used as a source he appears to not know much about them and be gathering folktlaes if what i am saying is correct then we should use authentic material instead of this because how are jinn associated with the days of the week? It does not appeal to my common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

At the moment, Lebling (who co-wrote with Tahir Shah) is cited exactly once, as one of two sources for a mention of Ibn al-Nadim's Kitāb al-Fihrist. The images are simply artists' conceptions of jinn from the past six centuries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)