Talk:Jinn

Category "Quranic words and phrases"

Recently, the Categroy "Quranic words and phrases" were added. Since the catergory is only about the term, but not about the concept, the category was removed again. However, I think it might make sense toa dd this category, given this specific section of the article:

"In Quranic interpretation, the term jinn can be used in two different ways: as invisible beings, considered to be, along with humans, thaqalān (accountable for their deeds), created out of "fire and air" (Arabic: مَارِجٍ مِن نَّار, mārijin min nār). as the opposite of al-Ins (something in shape) referring to any object that cannot be detected by human sensory organs, including angels, devils, and the interior of human beings."

This article also covers the meaning of this term, not only the concept, although the main focus is on the concept. But since Islamic exegesis is inconsistent in using the term as a concept on its own and as a term with various meanings, we might add the category "Quranic words and phrases". VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The Movie Section and Suggestion for "Jinn in Horror Movies"

The article itself is pretty long, and a large part seems to be the popular Culture section. There is muhc literature analyzing jinn as a motif in Horror Movies. We have a Genii in Popular Culture article but mostly featuring "Western" tropes of the "Genie in the Bottle". Do you think there should be an article about jinn in Horror Movies? I would suggest that we leave only an outline on jinn in Horror movies, a few references to confirm jinn d feature as a Horror Trope in modern times, and then move most details to the new article. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Merging

What do other editors of this article think about merging parts of theology and exegesis, and folkoric content? Many content is written like a list of depictions of jinn from different sources, but could be changed into one prose text. Similarly, theology and exegesis contain double content such as the position of the Asharis about jinn-possession. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Main image

Currently if you look at the main image, it says it is a jinn, which you can tell because, as the caption claims anyway, it has hooves, which is seemingly the only determining factor of whether something is a jinn or not? But if you click on that image, however, it says it is a div. Div are described as having tusks like a boar, which this image does. Divs are not jinn, so one of those pages is clearly incorrect. But the caption says it is a jinn, because hooves! Yet if you click on the red jinn image on the same page, you get a jinn without hooves. Can someone who knows these things do something to fix this? 2601:840:8080:4B10:6D5B:B488:A666:9E21 (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I did some research on the Kitab al Bulhan to determine what the images are about. Unfortunately, it is not clear. It seems they could indeed be divs (demons) or jinn (genii). We know that the main image is jinn from the description saying "ghoul" (which is a jinni). If you think that is a mistake, please let us know.

Regarding the seven jinn kings, who are sometimes also described as divs or ifrits instead, we cannot say for sure, how they relate to the (other) jinn. Remember that the article says in the section "interpretation": "the term jinn can be used in two different ways:

as invisible beings, offspring of abu Jann considered to be, along with humans, thaqalān (accountable for their deeds), created out of "fire and air" (Arabic: مَارِجٍ مِن نَّار, mārijin min nār).

as the opposite of al-Ins (something in shape) referring to any object that cannot be detected by human sensory organs, including angels, devils, and the interior of human beings"

It is possible that the jinn-king are only jinn in the secondary meaning of the term, an invisible entity. The section speaking about the jinn-kings is related to the tradition of Islamic magical practises, in which terms like jinn are rather ambiguous and my not have hooves. However, to avoid confusion, the note about "hooves" could be removed from the main image.

Thank you for your input, it is well appreciated. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Recent deletions

@TheEagle107: here we go again. Please make yourself familar with the discussion and respond o the objection before adding reverted edits over and over again.

Oversized images"

@Skyerise:
I recently enlarged some images of jinn. These were mostly reverted by Skyerise as "oversized" or because "only lead image should be manually enlarged". I realize that if Skyrise is opposed to my changes then there is no consensus for them, but for the record they were enlarged because at least on the settings for most laptops or phones they were small, cramped, hard to see. It's not as though space is limited and larger images squeeze out text. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see the image use policy and MOS:IMGSIZE. The degree of enlargement was excessive. Users have the ability to customize their image size and therefore we should not simply conform an article to a single editor's personal preferences. Skyerise (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Belief in jinn and belief in Islam

@VenusFeuerFalle:
I've made two attempts to include mention of belief in jinn being considered a necessary part of belief in Islam according to some scholars. Both were completely reverted by VenusFeuerFalle, who's reverted pretty much every edit I've made to Islamic articles in the last week or so. Below is what happened, and my case against the reverts.

The first (somewhat clumsy) attempt in the lede

Although they are not one of the Five Pillars of Islam, or Six Articles of Faith, like Angels, they [jinn] are mentioned in the Quran, and so considered necessary for a good Muslims to believe in (at least according to Amira El-Zein).

VenusFeuerFalle reverted this with the edit summary:

"Undid revision 1212903926 by Louis P. Boog (talk) El Zein is no authority of Islamic theology, furthermore, the lead is a summary of the body off text. The debate how they are a dogma or not is too petty for the lead-section. Also it you need to watch the tone. Are "Mutazilites" "bad Muslims" for rejecting that "jinn" means "spirit"?"

The second attempt was with a much shorter mention in the lede

Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran.

reverted with the edit summary:

"The Book dedicates an entire chapter how Muslim schoalrs doubt the existence of jinn, putting this into the lead gives undue weight and as mentioned several times before, the user needs to evaluate the context fo the sources used. The lead section is a sumamry and jinn are not even a genuine Islamic concept."

I also added text in the Exegesis section of the article

1) a few lines about the revivalist reasoning on the issue (see note) by noted revivalist Maududi ...

... and revivalist preacher Abul A'la Maududi, insist belief in jinn is essential [to the Islamic faith] ...

reverted with the edit summary

"→‎Exegesis: tone, they can only assert an opinion, since they are no authority. And this revivalist is certainly promotion of subjective ideas and not backed up by any relaible source."

2) ... and I made mention of an incident where an Egyptian university professor was threatened with death (Nasr Abu Zayd went into exile after being accused of apostasy, in part for his alleged disbelief in Jinn)

reverted with the edit summary:

"noone cares if some dude went to exile for denial, this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. and yes, this is about exegesis."

Reply

• The lead section is a sumamry and jinn are not even a genuine Islamic concept.

The one sentence I put in the lede is a summary of the what is in the articles Exegesis section. Jinn are mentioned 29 or so times in the Quran. They have a surah named after them. Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Hazm, Abul A'la Maududi, and others seem to think they are an Islamic concept. They are major figures in Islam.

• The debate how they are a dogma or not is too petty for the lead-section
• noone cares if some dude went to exile for denial, this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper.

If a "dude" (Nasr Abu Zayd) is threated with death for apostasy (in part) because he didn't believe in jinn (he also didn't believe in slavery), and if belief in his apostasy in his country (Egypt) is so widespread that even one of the police officers guarding his house referred to him as a "kafir" when asked about him
..... wouldn't this be the very definition of not "petty"!
Another question, Does this text not belong in Exegesis? (where the issue of belief in jinn being a necessary part of Iman was raised)? OK, but it should be moved, not deleted.

• this revivalist [i.e. Maududi] is certainly promotion of subjective ideas and not backed up by any relaible source.

Maududi has been called "the most influential" of the contemporary Islamic revivalist scholars (Hassan, M Kamal (July–October 2003). "he Influence of Mawdudi's Thought on Muslims in Southeast Asia: A Brief Survey". The Muslim World. 93 (3/4): 429. Retrieved 14 March 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link))
As far as exegesis goes, he is the author of a 6-volume translation and commentary of the Qur'an. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be based on reliable sources and not editor's opinions on who is an "authority"? What is this text doing in a section on Exegesis, you might ask. Well, what is discussion of whether the majority of Muslim scholars think "that jinn can possess individuals" doing there? Is that found in tafsir?

• you need to watch the tone. Are "Mutazilites" "bad Muslims" for rejecting that "jinn" means "spirit"?

I specifically stated "(at least according to Amira El-Zein)". She was the source (she's the author of a book on Jinn), and stated in her book "one can't be a Muslim if he/she doesn't have faith in their [the jinns'] existence because they are mentioned in the Qur'an and the prophetic tradition." I made a point of toning down her contention a bit by saying you can't be a good Muslim, suggesting disbelievers in jinn were being lax rather than apostates. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I think I answers all your objections in my edit summaries. When you want to discuss the issue, please include my reasons and object to those. I do not intent to go forth and back. I furthermore have provided you kindly with several resources on for relevant guidlines. I am willing to discuss potential editing disagreement, but not to repeat myself again. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

(Actually I included your edit summaries above. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC))

Yep, thank you. So where exactly is the question? @TheEagle107: you seem to be puzzled by the same question.

In summary, I do not object to the claim that some scholars think jinn (which is also a vague term in Islamic terminology, as stated in the article) that one needs to believe in them. I object to adding this to the lead section. The blue links lead to the corresponding guidlines by the way. I expect participants to make themselves familiar with them when engaging in a topic. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC) edit: remember that a religious scholar is not a scholar of religion. Maybe some confusion comes from that. Some states do not make a proper distinction (such as Türkiye). A scholar of religion makes research about what religious people believe, how and why. A religious scholar interprets scripture and tells what people believe. The latter ones violate the the Wikipedia neutrality. Accordingly, you could cite the highest ranking Islam scholar from Diyanet on Islamic matters and it would have no effect at all. It is the duty of the religious scholars to make sure their results are in accordance with the religion's beliefs, not the other way around (or their religion loses creditablity if they rely on "ancient roots" or something). Similar goes for the "Iblis" debate, we have so often. Even if Muslim scholars today find out that "he cannot be an angel because we haven't considered hadith x y", it doesn't matter. As soon as notable scholars in the past have opined differently, Islamic history will always be affected by the past. Scholars of religion will merely notice and desctibe the changes of that belief, and the causes of said change. I hope this helps why some of your sources are not considered reliable according to Wikipedia standards. If you have questions do not bother to ask me. I am eager to help as long as people actually listen instead of hostilizing. [apparently this was VenusFeuerFalle]

Response to third opinion request:

It seems that several different pieces of content are under dispute here, but with the way this thread is scattered with lengthy quotes and subsections makes it difficult to understand. Lacking a clear, succinct description of exactly what the disputes are, I can only weigh in from my impressions. Descriptions about what is an is not accepted orthodoxy in a religion as widespread and varied as Islam must be very carefully qualified with attribution and consideration to due weight. It appears to me (knowing very little) that Jinn being an "essential" feature of Islam is closer to a fringe view than a mainstream position, so in that sense I lean toward VenusFeuerFalle's positions. If that position is indeed fringe, that doesn't totally rule out including it, but it means the information must be carefully and conservatively presented, and probably doesn't belong in the lede. That said, VenusFeuerFalle I believe you would have better success in navigating disputes with more civil language, as edit summaries like this seem unnecessarily combative to me. If my input doesn't help reach a resolution here, I suggest raising this at WikiProject Islam where subject matter experts may be able to weigh in. Cheers - StereoFolic (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe you would have better success in navigating disputes with more civil language

Thanks for the advise. I prioritize civil language and kind words. However, this specific user appears since about 2 years frequently after I edited an article, makes some rather disruptive edits, and then leaves the article. Some of these disruptions are basic formats such as using ' ; ' instead of ' == ' for headers. In the beginning I cleaned up after them and kindly reminded them to use the proper formation, did not stoppe after a year. I left some articles completely to them after constant edit warring about nothing without any sign of cooperation, and they left them in a worse state than before and then never touched them again. I hoped that direct speech might be a better way for communication. If this does not work either, I will completely give up on them. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle:

Was unaware I was edit warring with you! Do you have some links to these ... "disruptive edits" and "constant edit warring"?

I admit I have still sometimes used ' ; ' instead of ' == ' for headers, but infrequently. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Since this has nothing to do with the article, see personal talkpage VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Note

The Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Ahmad al-Tayyib said: "It is necessary to believe in the existence of jinn, because they are mentioned in the Holy Qur'an". There are numerous references to jinn in the Qur'an and Hadith (sayings of Prophet Muhammad). According to Islamic belief, jinn are real creatures. Characteristics they share with human beings are intellect and freedom to choose between right and wrong and between good and bad, but according to the Qur'an [55:14–15] their origin is different from that of man.

Al-Tahawi (d. 321/933) said in his celebrated work on the fundamentals of the Islamic creed: "He (i.e. the Prophet Muhammad) has been sent to all of the jinn and the entirety of humanity with truth, guidance, light, and illumination."

The Hanafi scholar Badr al-Din al-Shibli (d. 769/1368) composed a work of 140 chapters on this topic, entitled Ākām al-Marjān fi Aḥkām al-Jānn (Arabic: آكام المرجان في أحكام الجان), which was summarized by Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911/1505). In this work there is a chapter about the existence of jinn and disagreement about them (here or here). Badr al-Din al-Shibli said that al-Juwayni (Imam al-Haramayn) in his work al-Shamil fi Usul al-Din (The Compendium on the Principles of Religion) said: "Many philosophers, the majority of Qadariyya, and all heretics denied the existence of the shayatin (devils) and jinns.... Al-Baqillani said: Many Qadariyya affirm the existence of jinn in ancient times and deny their existence now... Imam al-Haramayn (i.e. al-Juwayni) said: ...(There is) a consensus of all scholars in the era of the Sahaba and Tabi'een on the existence of jinn and devils..."TheEagle107 (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle Idk if these things are already addressed in previous discussions. May be you wish to address or reply and also create a FAQ so every time you need not repeat over and over again. Bookku (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeh it is the same as ever, I even filled my Wikipage with that, but it does not help when Users refuse to read anything and just drop random quotes, no one asked for. (it is actually always the same two or three Users. At least one of them tried to improve). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I just gonna drop this here: WP:OR. And before you go around and enter the desired outcome into a Google Search engine, make sure you actually hit what has been objected to. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Jinns are mentioned many times in the Qur'an. Not only does the Qur'an repeatedly mention jinns, one of its chapters is even named after them. I think the right question here should be: "Is believing in the Qur'an part of Islamic faith or not?!"The six articles of the Islamic faith are: 1. Belief in God 2. His Angels 3. His Books (including the Qur'an) 4. His Messengers 5. The Last Day (the Day of Judgment) 6. Belief in al-Qadar (God's predestination, preordainment, decree, destiny, fate).--TheEagle107 (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

(Notes and references)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Mythology

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Queso Misterioso (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Queso Misterioso (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Dispute resolution of deletions on belief in jinn and belief in Islam

The issue of deletions on Belief in jinn and belief in Islam by VenusFeuerFalle can be found at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Jinn_2 --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle, @Louis P. Boog WP:DRN discussion moderator seems to be waiting for further inputs from both of you.

Bookku (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Some observations

@Louis P. Boog Your input request @ WT:ISLAM was better at giving brief synopsis of dispute but that seem to be now archived. I suggest you update the link of the same at WP:DRN

@VenusFeuerFalle both of you may have some misunderstandings about content as of now but my perception is both of you together work further on this article to make it GA or even FA.

I would like to share some observations content improvements in the article, let me know if you are going for GA review. Bookku (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Although I hate being this type of person. Louis P. Boog usually enters editing an article after I did for a long time, and usually decreases the quality. This happened to several articles I edited, including Jahannam, Jannah, Islamic eschatology, Spirit possession and exorcism in Islam, Shaitan. Often not even the basic manual of style guides are paid attention to. For example, since 2022 the user uses ';' instead of '==' for sub-headers, so I need to constantly clean up. I told them multiple times about deconstructive edits, but ignores everything I say, sometimes trying to report me. I think there is enough reason to have bad faith here. Please keep an eye on them. THis user is not pushing a GA article, since none of the articles I left them, have ever achieved GA after disrupting them. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I am listing here users who edited this talk page previously and still active (Sourced from xtools) . If for more inputs or review either of you may wish to ping them. But if you ping then ping all of them.

• User:Ashmoo
• User:savvyjack23
• User:Primalchaos
• User:Iskandar323

Bookku (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank Bookku. Have updated link to WT:ISLAM. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ashmoo, @savvyjack23, @Primalchaos, @Iskandar323

Greetings users! As recent editors of the Jinn article, you may be interested in giving input on a dispute at the Dispute resolution noticeboard here, concerning edits in that article on the connection between belief in jinn and belief in Islam. Thank you. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Small note: In my search I found them among who edited this talk page Idk of the article page. Bookku (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog, @VenusFeuerFalle

Fyi: The WP:DRN discussion seems to be closed by the moderator with some suggestions.

Bookku (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again. will proceed with Wikipedia:Be bold as suggested by Robert_McClenon --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Earlier talk page discussion

for anyone interested there does not seem to be any discussion in the Jinn article talk page archives about belief in Jinn being or not being a necessary belief in Islam. (Bookku suggested I look this up.) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Reverting of WP:BOLD after closing of Dispute Resolution discussion

Dispute Resolution discussion closed "due to lack of response by one editor". i.e. VenusFeuerFalle. Volunteer moderator Robert McClenon ended with this:

Closed due to lack of response by one editor. The filing editor has stated that he wants to make three edits to the article. The other editor did not reply. The filing editor should make the edits boldly. If the edits are reverted, he may follow the advice in the discussion failure essay, and may note this proceeding, or they may submit a Request for Comments,which should be neutrally worded, and preferably in three parts. I am willing to provide assistance in submitting an RFC if requested. Do not edit-war. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

So I, the filing editor (Louis P. Boog), made the edits boldly here and ... VenusFeuerFalle, who couldn't be bothered to make a response to the Dispute resolution discussion, reverted the edits with the summary "this was not the resolution".

My questions for the deleter @VenusFeuerFalle:

1. "this was not the resolution"? how so? the resolution started with "The filing editor should make the edits boldly."
2. wikipedia help page gives a number of suggestions to avoid wholesale reverting, such as "Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits" (Wikipedia:Reverting#When_to_revert). How is following the advice of the Dispute resolution volunteer disruptive??? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog and @TheEagle107 Pl. take note that WP:DRN is not a binding solution so win by absence of other side at WP:DRN is of very temporary nature. So advice all the sides not to engage in any further reverts.

The final step for you to go for WP:RfC (also follow WP:RFCBEFORE)

Or you can take pause in discussion here and request inputs at WP:NPOVN (this being primarily WP:DUE issue or at WT:ISLAM. And there after go for WP:RfC. (My personal recommendation is you take a chance at WP:NPOVN for more inputs before going for RfC for wider feedback.

Bookku (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I also suggest all to go through or re-read policies WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE, WP:RNPOV, WP:PROPORTION.

• • I suggest to check already available refs in the articles Abul A'la Maududi and Nasr Abu Zayd for RS and also check if their importance has been cited in any reliable journals and academic books available at google scholar and google books. Take input help of WP:RSN forum to confirm if any source can be considered RS or not.
  • I suggest read the article body again and write down your own lead in your own sand box and then compare if you find the present lead has a proper weight from reliable contents made in the rest of the body. Such an exercise may help you in RFC discussion and during good article and feature article nomination reviews.
  • I suggest @TheEagle107 to take their references at WP:RSN to have community inputs which of their references can be considered as reliable.

Last but least to all incl. @VenusFeuerFalle please confirm you are signing your comments properly so other visiting users do not get confused by mistake.

Bookku (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I do sign my comments, I just respond rarely, since I mostly response then there is new information. Until now, I am still waiting for my initiate objection (I this time even repeated) to be adressed. Until then, I will be waiting. I repeat it here again: Religions scholars, unlike scholars of religions, are not reliable sources, sources need to be understood in context, the lead is a sumamr yof the article. Whether or not jinn are a dogma, is no promiment element in the article and thus giving undue weight in the lead. I am still waiting for a proper response, instead I get revert after revert with the claim "but authentic source how dare you!". And no matter how often I talk to them on talkpages, they just ignore whatever I say, keep on quoting sources with no relevance, express indignation, and then go to an admin or disappear for a month. Last time, the source provided did not even supported their statement, similar thing happened with the other user last year on another article. For unexperienced users who do not want to engage in civil discussions, we have the Sandbox function. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Give them time to find academic sources at google scholar / google books approach WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN then WP:RFCBEFORE then WP:RFC many times inputs from different users help as I said earlier. Bookku (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I will probably not be online for a few days or a week. Maybe I have time for a quick check in. In case once again, my absense is taken as an agreement to edits my objections are left unanswered in the first place. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Fyi: As a discussion facilitator I placed an input request at WT:ISLAM with a note to provide inputs @ this article talk page itself. Bookku (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

As a discussion facilitator Input request also posted @ WP:NPOVN, WT:MYTH, WT:ARAB, WT:WikiProject Middle Ages, WT:WikiProject Religion project talk pages. Bookku (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Input request made @GliderMaven since the article falls under :Category:Supernatural and GliderMaven seem to have substantially contributed to the article Supernatural as per xtools Bookku (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Have you actually read what bold means or have you just taken it literal? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll take the liberty to ping some users here who are often editing Islam-related articles, and are recently active: @Yasinzayd:, @Apaugasma:, @DivineReality:, @Aqsian313:, @Albertatiran: and @Aafi: Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!--TheEagle107 (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the last "undo" of edits under exegesis, I think it is fine to leave @TheEagle107's edits there. They are indeed relevant. Regarding Islamic studies, we must understand that in Islam, the opinions of great scholars hold much weight. So citing them as a source should be acceptable. Whether or not one chooses to follow that opinion is another story. But being exposed to different opinions and knowing who different scholars are is an important element in studying Islam.

Regarding this in the intro: "Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran." First of all there are some typos and also I think there is ijma' anyways and it's not a matter of ikhtilaf to my knowledge. I would change it to: "Belief in the Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Qur'an." I think it's fine to include that. Regarding this topic: if one disbelieves in any part of the Qur'an, they have left Islam entirely according to Sunnis. Also it is mentioned in Aqida Tahawiyah upon which there is ijma': https://www.abuaminaelias.com/aqeedah-tahawiyyah/ So yes, a Muslim must believe in the existence of Jinn to be a Muslim to my knowledge and I am unaware of any opinion to the contrary. I think citing Aqida Tahawiyah as a source is a good idea. That's my view. Take the best of it.

DivineReality (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Islamic studies, we must understand that in Islam, the opinions of great scholars hold much weight.

Not really, since in Islam there is no official clergy and who is trustworthy and who is not is eventually up for the individual. Apart from this claim to be factually wrong, it is besides the point since it is against the neutral point of view policy mentioned above. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I oppose the insertion into the lead. The lead is a summary and should not contain anything not already present in the body of the article. But these facts have not been added to the body of the article. I suggest that the adding editor find an appropriate place in the body of the article to add the fact, work with other editors until it is done in a place and a way that other editors do not object to. Only then would it be appropriate to start as discussion as to whether it should be in the lead and if so, how much weight it should be given. Skyerise (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skyerise But it is present in the body of the article. In the Exegesis section.

... many Muslim scholars, including the Hanbalī scholar ibn Taymiyya and the Ẓāhirī scholar ibn Hazm, believe they are essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran. ...

The dispute being discussed or that was discussed, includes adding a bit more to this section. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Typically, if there is only one sentence about something in the body, that's not enough to give it enough weight to also add it to the lead. If the article goes more in depth about a topic, say a paragraph or two, then a sentence in the lead might be considered. But you are going to need more than one proponent of the position and of course sufficient third-party sources to support more material in the body before it makes sense to bring it up in the lead - otherwise the lead would be the size of the body, if every sentence was equally important! Skyerise (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The lede is pretty long. The sentence

Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran.

... not so much. The issue -- a requirement to be a true Muslim -- pretty important. But I will drop the issue for now. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest adding this paragraph to the lead: "The word 'jinn' and its variants are mentioned 29 times in the Qur'an, and one of its chapters is even named after them." Or at least it should be mentioned in the lead that there is a whole chapter in the Qur'an that talks about the jinn.

Here are some sources that might be of interest:

... These two passages provide the strongest textual verification of the existence of jinn within Islam. Belief in the existence of jinn is considered equivalent to belief in the existence of angels, one of the primary articles of faith in Islam, and consequently, to disbelieve in them would be heretical. The majority of Muslims believe jinn to be a species of spiritual beings created by God out of smokeless fire long before he created humans out of mud. God gave jinn the earth to inhabit. They are drawn to both good and evil.

In Islam the existence of jinns is axiomatic: according to Muslim belief, jinns were created of fire, in contrast to the angels, who were created from light. They are considered more powerful than men, but less powerful than angels. The jinn is capable of humanly impossible tasks, and the intelligence of the jinn is considered much superior to that of humans. The belief in jinns is so strong in Muslim and Arab thought that Muslim theologians judge disbelief in jinns as heresy – except for the Mu'tazila, who dare to question their existence.

The jinn are considered by some authorities to be an integral part of the Islamic faith due to their inclusion in the Quran.

Jinn are an integral part of both traditional and Gnostic Islamic belief. They are referred to 25 times in the Qur'an, not counting surah 72 (“The Jinn”).

The jinn are an integral part of the Muslim tradition from the Qur'an onwards and thus are inescapable even for the modernists (who often see them as internalized psychological states).

... Some Muslims educated in the modern Western tradition maintain that mentions of angels and jinn in the Koran should be taken allegorically rather than literally, but they are in a small minority, and even they never quite lose their fear of the jinn.

According to traditional Islamic faith, djinns were created by Allah out of smokeless fire (Qur'an 15:27). As such, Muslims generally consider these creatures part and parcel of the living world and believe that they actively participate in the lives and social interactions of humans, as do angels and Iblis (i.e., Satan) for that matter.

Jinn are supernatural entities created by God before the creation of Adam. Whereas Adam was created from clay, the jinn were created "from the fire of a scorching wind" (Q 15:27) or "from fire free of smoke" (Q 55:15). They are mentioned several times in the Qur'an as well as in numerous other genres, including sira (biography), hadith (tradition), kalam (theology), and adab (literature). Belief in their existence continues in many predominantly Islamic countries to the present day, and fascination with these creatures in the West is evidenced by their appearance in popular movies and novels. Although they feature prominently in folklore, jinn are also taken quite seriously by Muslim scholars, both medieval and modern. Like humans, jinn have free will, and although many of them were converted to Islam by the Prophet Muhammad, others despaired at the coming of the new religion.

Common narratives usually portray jinns as evil or mischievous, but they can also appear to be as morally complex as human beings. Muslim scholars have taken their existence seriously, even considering the legal question of whether jinns and humans could intermarry; Mālik, foundational figure for the Māliki legal school, argued that such a marriage was not itself a violation of sacred law, but added that it seemed undesirable. One hadith scholar in the eighteenth century presented a narration whose chain of transmission included two jinn reporters.

Peace.TheEagle107 (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Noone here disputes if the jinn are important or not. This is completely besides the point. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Can some of this information be included in the article? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Refs to this section

References

Suggestion for addition to Exegesis subsection

Following Bookku's suggestion that I do research in WP:RS I looked up Jinn in the wikipedia library and found material in Encyclopaedia of Islam New Edition Online (EI-2 English) I think should go in the Exegesis subsection. It seems to indicate pretty strongly that "the existence of the d̲j̲inn was completely accepted" in early Islam. I would just add parts of it to the article now but that would distract from the discussion at hand.

II. In official Islam the existence of the d̲j̲inn was completely accepted, as it is to This day, and the full consequences implied by their existence were worked out. Their legal status in all respects was discussed and fixed, and the possible relations between them and mankind, especially in questions of marriage and property, were examined. Stories of the loves of d̲j̲inn and human beings were evidently of perennial interest. The Fihrisl gives the titles of sixteen of these (308) and they appear in all the collections of short tales (cf., e.g., Dāwūd al-Anṭākī, Tazyīn al-aswāḳ , Cairo 1308, 181 ff.; al-Sarrād̲j̲, Maṣārīʿ al-ʿus̲h̲s̲h̲āḳ , Istanbul 1301, 286 ff.). There are many stories, too, of relations between saints and d̲j̲inn; cf. D. B. Macdonald, Religious attitude and life in Islam, 144 ff. A good summary of the question is given in Badr al-Dīn al-S̲h̲iblī (d. 769/1368), Ākām al-mard̲j̲ān fī aḥkām al-d̲j̲ān (Cairo 1326); see also Nöldeke’s review in ZDMG, lxiv, 439 ff. Few even of the Muʿtazila ventured to doubt the existence of ¶ d̲j̲inn, and only constructed different theories of their nature and their influence on the material world. The earlier philosophers, even al-Fārābī, tried to avoid the question by ambiguous definitions. But Ibn Sīnā, in defining the word, asserted flatly that there was no reality behind it. The later believing philosophers used subterfuges, partly exegetical and partly metaphysical. Ibn K̲h̲aldūn, for example, reckoned all references to the d̲j̲inn among the socalled mutas̲h̲ābih passages of the Ḳurʾān, the knowledge of which Allāh has reserved to himself (Ḳurʾān, III, 5). These different attitudes are excellently treated in the Dict , of techn. terms , i, 261 ff.; cf. also al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ, lxxii.

--Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Please sign your posts, so we can properly reply to it and know who is participating in the discussion. I would ignore this comment entirely, for these reasons, if my comment made above does not apply here as well. I also recommand to read the entire article, since the article states multiple times that most Muslims believed in jinn from the very beginning up to the post-modern period and "even after graduating in medicine" this believe may not change.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog I suggest you drop updates to Lead until you have improved consensus on rest of the article body and so first focus what updates you are looking in the rest of article body.

May be you copy the article body in your personal Sandbox update it and then propose specific changes.

Bookku (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Refs to this sub-section

References

Proposed rewriting of body of article

here (in my Sandbox).
Includes my version and bits from TheEagle107 --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Note: all specific changes/proposed edits are in the blue highlight of {{talkquote| to distinguish them.
@Bookku: notifying you first Bookku for your comments before sending general notice to all involved users. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Noted, give me a day or two to go through. Bookku (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

According to the Qur'an 34:12–13, God subjugated the jinns under the control of Solomon so as to have their assistance in the construction of huge buildings. They used to perform tasks for Solomon that required great skill, wisdom, and technical expertise. I am not 100% sure if the text of the article mentions anything about this; if not, then it probably should. Good work anyway!

Here are some more sources for you:

Muslims accept the existence of the jinn as part of their faith.

The belief in jinn is very much alive in Morocco and like the belief in angels and the devil it is part of Islamic dogma.

Islamic dogma lists humans as the third spiritual creature created by Allah after angels and jinn.

And finally, here is an interesting article in Arabic about jinn in Islam written by one of the researchers of the Muhammadan League of Religious Scholars. Cheers!TheEagle107 (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

references