This is an archive of past discussions about Jinn. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Does this belong here?

Hello, I wonder about some organizational things on this page. At first I thought the "angelic tribe" called "jinn" should be mentioned somewhere on the wiki, but I am not sure, if this belongs to this page or it should get it's own short page, probably becoming one of the many islam stubs. Actually, apart from the term "jinn", it has just slighty to do with the jinn as a creature and is more about the angelic tribe called "jinn", due they protected "jannah" in islamic lore. They are hold to be a clan created from the fires of samum (in this case divided from the ordinary jinn, as created from a mixture of fire and air). But it could be distracting, because the separation between an origin from "samum" and "marijin min nar" is just made, as long the existence of this angelic tribe is accepted (it is not universally accepted, since some traditions hold on a literal interpretation of the word "jinn" in Quran Surah 18:50).

That would you recommand and what do you think about it?

Furthermore, should be some parts in the section "in Islam" be reorganized, like dividing into "in islamic folklore (ghouls, silat, possession, shapeshifting, beating them with silver and so on, does not appear in the Quran and just slighty in hadith-collections and interpretations on this beings, can differ from a more theological/philosophical point of view, and the folklore. But I would just suggest the reorganization, if we are adding the "jinntribe"-part int this page, since just with this part, we would gain enough content for exegetic interpretations, to divid into folklore and "theology".--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHERE BOOKS LIKE FORZUNI AND ROBERT LEBLING'S BOOK GET THEIR INFORMATION FORM

CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHERE BOOKS LIKE FORZUNI AND ROBERT LEBLING'S BOOK GET THEIR INFORMATION FORM IF THEY DON'T GET INFORMATION FROM RELIABLE SOURCES IT SHOULD BE REMOVED.

E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.27.243 (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Jinn vs. Djinn

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 213.89.32.9 (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)

Etymology

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? --138.163.0.43 (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

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. johan.i.zahri@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzahri (talk • contribs) 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)

Sources:

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)

Etymology

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?82.6.114.172 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

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

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.--64.230.84.131 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.) ----98.151.192.86 (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Genie vs Jinn?

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. --186.45.179.220 (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Mythical?

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. 71.96.101.186 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. 68.148.123.76 (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture of 'Genie'

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...

65.97.14.167 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

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

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

Questions about the Genie's relationship to the Roc

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 12.5.63.11 (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Shaitan?

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)

djinn

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)

Genie vs. Jinn

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 24.227.159.148 (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

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)

Move

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 ^{(talk•contribs)} 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

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]]

Esoteric Theories

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 58.169.218.58 (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 195.202.51.7 (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Granting wishes

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 70.178.74.131 (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed corrections to the Arabic etymology

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

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?

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

"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 (talk • contribs) 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) 105.129.48.225 (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Different Jinn/ Genie Jobs and names

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

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

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. 67.176.160.47 (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 72.22.237.7 (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)

Singular and plural

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

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

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). 212.87.13.78 (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been suggested that the pre-Islamic, Zoroastrian, word "Jaini", referring to evil spirits that bring famine and misfortune, as the root of the word. 50.121.72.11 (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merger (2011)

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 65.89.40.2 (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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Cin

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

"Some or no facial hair"

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. --174.53.133.114 (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

parallel world

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

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. 192.91.171.42 (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Rasûl-üs-Sakaleyn - The Prophet of demons

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 99.192.82.198 (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Magic lamp

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

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)

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 42.60.68.55 (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 ON THE JINN==

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 39.40.38.117 (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Some stuff i think seemed a bit odd

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 119.154.211.142 (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)

Zoroastrian roots of the word

It has been proposed that the original source of the word, may in deed, be pre-Islamic. In Zoroastrian Persia, before the coming of Islam, evil female spirits called jaini were thought to cause disease and misfortune. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.72.11 (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Phrase "putting the genie back into the bottle"?

That particular idiom should be added as I've often heard the idiom with someone not being able to "put the genie back into the bottle", meaning that a certain thing can't be fixed or is an impossible task as a consequence of something being done by the person/people with that person/people being affected because thing that happened by being released is dangerous (i.e. saying "once it's done, there's no putting the genie back into the bottle")

131.230.75.121 (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Genies? (Attention needed)

The fact that I can find no mention of genies in a bottle or the granting of 3 wishes is a great disservice to the readers of this online encyclopedia. Even in Aladdin, his genie was not portrayed as a "jinn" and that was supposedly about an Arabian prince! Furthermore, this article does not mention how "genie" is derived from "jinn" at all. The romanized version was "djinn," while genie was derived from French from genius and aren't even pronounced the same. It is clear by the consensus above agrees that this is not the same mythical character so why does genie redirect here?

Take zombies for example, its name and animated unconsciousness came from Haitian mythology and was picked up by Americans during the 1914-1935 occupation of Haiti first shown to the US audience and abroad as White Zombie (film), even though in western culture it is depicted as an undead figure who eats brains rather than a live person enslaved by a sorcerer's magic potions. Should this be the same article? --Yes. There is definitive linkages. Should Santa Claus and Saint Nicolas have the same page? --No, Saint Nicolas during his life never had such name applied to him and he is a living biograpghy rather than a mythical character. He also never rode a flying sled and had fictional beats gliding him through the air. His sainthood was simply applied to an old pagan character, just as Santería and Voodoo gods such as Ogun should not be the same page as its Catholic saint. African gods were simply hiding their gods behind the Catholic saint days (which is argably pagan in root) so they could continue worshipping their deity.

Again, this article mentions no linkage to the western genie whatsoever other than they share a similar name. "Jinn" is also not an Arabic word and was borrowed from Latin, so if genie is too not related to Arabic, then how shouldn't that be a different article.

The only Islamic connection (or really an Arab connection since a western genie isn't Islamic), is the fact that the character is from the ancient Arab world and has its head rapped.

If anything "genie" must be mentioned in other cultures as this is the style used in the zombie article to add information of its derivatives to an already existing character. Please include and incorporate somehow. It's almost 20-17 and I can't find information on how a genie can grant 3 wishes; totally unacceptable. Savvyjack23 (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jinn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

definition

Demon in english usage refers to evil spirits. But jinn are not evil spirits, thus the introduction is missleading. An source based on interpretation of Ibn Taymiyah should give the definition of Jinn in general, since islamic beleif on Jinn exceeds his essays. Even Peris (fairys) who are believed to be good are classified as Jinn, but ignored or unknown to Ibn Taymiyah. We should use a more widespread translation of the word Jinn. The article later mentioned, Ibn Taymiyah generally believed Jinn are commonly evil and demonic, thus he does not embrace the islamic concept of jinn in general. Jinn are just "demons" in the meaning of ancient greek daimon, an intermediary being lower then the heavenly plane, helpful and not harmful, resembling human in a way etc. . But this is not the english usage of demon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenusFeuerFalle (talk • contribs) 10:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Jinn subcategory of Jinn?

Hello, I would like to discuss about the section in folklore "5 distinct categories of jinn". "jinn" here meaning "invisible beings below angels" include marid, ifrit, schaitan, jinn and jann. Hughes, Thomas Patrick. Dictionary of Islam. 1885. "Genii" pp is a great source for information about the concept of jinn, but since jin are mentioned here as subategory of jinn, it can cause confusion. furthermore the subcatergory shaitan do not share all characteristics of the jinn-concept. They do not become believers, they do not die and some scholars like Zakariya al-Qazwini argued they are created from smoke not from the fire of jinn. additionally the concept of shayateenn was probably taken from monotheistic sources, while the jinn are taken from paganism and reduced their deities to lower spirits (the latter is explained in a study about islamic belief in supernatural beings, unfortunately just available in german). I suggest, this article, especially refering to the Jinn, should like it already does in "islamic theology" explain the usage of the word, but focus on the specific jinn/genii; the intermediary being, with free-will, from "marijin min nar" created , and therefore not focus on other "invisible creatures" (Jinn as category) like Peris, Ifrits, Devils/Demons, and just mention them parenthetically. For example "with the islamic spread, spiritual entities and deities among other cultures were designated or reduced to jinn", how it happened in iran for example with diw/peri. (it should be mentioned some scholars like tabari still distinguished between a Peri and a Jinni, thus here "jinn" apply to invisible creatures in general again and not just to this specific creature, which this article focus on. --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

discussion about lead

Since jinn is not limited to Quran and Islamic text, I do not see why it should mentioned in the lead, that they are mentioned "frequently" since it is just around 22 times in Quran. Islamic texts just take notion of jinn, how they were used before. since the article was partly rewritten to avoid primary focused or distracting content, the lead must change as well to fit the new layout. That jinn are one of several creatures in Islam created by God for example just apply if we take the notion of jinn, mentioned below in "islamic theology" with the "other creature"-part. --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you be a leittle more clear? I can't tell if you want Islam mentioned in the lede, or don't want it mentioned... DA1 (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean, that "Jinn" is both subject to Islam and Islam-influenced society. A lot of Jinn-beleive does not derived from the Quran. The whole Magic, possession and tutelary-deity stuff is adapted from local folklore. The Quran itself does not say much about Jinn, except being created from a kind of fire, living during Solomons reign in his Kingdom and Sure 72. And even here, the term Jinn can be up to debate, that the Arabic term 'Jinn' actually refers to. For example the part "created Jinn and man to serve Me" can also mean "the interior of human and the exterior of human are created to serve Me". I think the Quranic part should therefore be in the Islam-section, a interpretation part for the Quranic accounts in another section and the folkloric accounts on Jinn also in another section. Stating in the lead, that may just apply to a part of the rest on Jinn, seems to be unmatching I guess. Especially since the most notions of believe dervied from Extra-canonical soures, commonly local folklore.Sorry for responding that late, did not see this edit here before and also forgot about this issue here.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

translation suggestion

Do you think it is accurate to say that "jinn" can also be translated as "genius" (in the sense of the mythological genius)? THe dictionary of patrick hughes also use the term "genius" in reference to Marid, or to you think 'genius' is just used as a transliteration but not as a translation? Since both the Roman Genius and the Jinn are moraly ambivalent (like spirits and unlike demons), but in turn are partly physical (unlike the spirit, but like the demon), the Genius may be the closest Western equivalent. However I am not sure, since the usage of "Genii" can also be just a transliteration and and even a connection between the Roman Genii and the Arabian Jinn is suggested it is also disputed. What do you think about addin "Genius" as translation to "spirit and "demon, depending on source" in the lead section?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The Jinn: from / not from Mesopotamia?

@Katolophyromai and Javiero Fernandez: This section is for you both to discuss and hopefully resolve the content dispute you're currently engaged in. Hopefully, this will suffice, but if not, remember there are still other forms of dispute resiltion for you to engage with. Just a friendly reminder that's that's always preferable to merely reverting, notwithstanding massive edit-summaries. Take care, —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Javiero Fernandez: In reply to your edit summary, Lebling does say that popular beliefs about jinn in pre-Islamic Arabic were heavily influenced by ancient Mesopotamian beliefs. On page nine of "Chapter One: Origins," after having spent the last eight pages talking the close similarities between jinn and entities from ancient Mesopotamian mythology, he states, and I quote his words exactly:

Two streams of knowledge are at work here: One was the folk interpretation of jinn, which, as we have seen, is largely Mesopotamian in origin, developed in cities, towns and villages with an eye towards the desert, and incorporating age-old regional beliefs about nature spirits, demons and divinities. The other stream was channeled by Greek and Roman philosophers and proto-scientists, and focused on the role of 'demons' (in Greek, daimones) as intermediaries between men and gods. Belief in demons was widespread in the Greco-Roman world; it may have originated in Mesopotamia as well but underwent considerable evolution and refinement at the hands of such thinkers as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Porphyry and Augustine.

He then goes on to spend the next page or so talking about the influence of Greco-Roman philosophy on pre-Islamic beliefs about jinn. In other words, Lebling is saying that traditional folk beliefs about jinn were predominately derived from ancient Mesopotamia; whereas the views of the educated on the subject were mainly derived from Greco-Roman philosophical ideas about daimones. You may not agree with these statements, but our job here at Wikipedia is to record what reliable sources tell us. It seems to me (and I could be wrong about this) that your edits here are less motivated by a desire to accurately reflect the sources and more by a desire to play down or eliminate all information about non-Arabian and/or pre-Islamic influences on the concept of jinn. This is not a good motivation to have when writing what is theoretically supposed to be an objective encyclopedia article on the subject.

Regarding the image, I had already provided one source discussing the motif of the "winged genie" in ancient Mesopotamian art before your edit in which you claimed, contrary to evidence, that that statement was uncited. Now, see this edit right here (which I have since reverted myself), in which I provided additional citations to two sources with photographs of the carving in which they both clearly identify it as a "winged genie," as well as an additional scholarly source discussing the motif of the "winged genie" in ancient art (in addition to the one I had already provided, the same one which you conveniently chose to ignore).

Now, I am willing to budge a little and say that perhaps, if you really, absolutely think it is undue, we can trim some of the material dealing with specific ancient Mesopotamian demons, but we definitely need to mention the influence of both Mesopotamian demons and Greco-Roman daimones on pre-Islamic beliefs about jinn. Furthermore, we also definitely need to include mention of the Palmyrene ginnayê, since Lebling spends three pages talking about them and the "Etymology" section of this very article already states (with a citation supporting it) that some scholars think the Arabic word jinn itself is derived from the Palmyrene Aramaic word ginnayê. I would personally very much prefer to discuss specific parallels, as in my original, because I think this gives better historical context and makes the similarities more apparent, but, if you are absolutely, vehemently opposed to this, I am willing to limit the matter. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The source states "the folk interpretation of jinn", and not that the belief of the Arabian/Islamic Jinn is "derived from ancient Mesopotamia", as you stated here. But perhaps most importantly, it clearly states that "the specific origins of jinn belief are in dispute and shrouded in confusion and mystery". Therefore, your edits cannot be added to a section devoted to the history of the subject of this article, that is the Arabian/Islamic Jinn. You are welcome to add them to the comparative mythology section if you want. And lastly, please don't throw assumptions of bias when your Google Books links simply highlight the word "Mesopotamia". Thank you. Javiero Fernandez (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

For clarification, my edit summary said: "popular beliefs were mainly derived from ancient Mesopotamia while educated beliefs were derived from Greco-Roman daimones." When I said "popular beliefs," I meant folk beliefs about jinn, not necessarily the broader belief in jinn itself. Second of all, this statement was specifically referring to pre-Islamic beliefs. Obviously, beliefs about jinn have changed considerably over the course of the past 1,500 or so years and, as far as I was concerned, contemporary beliefs about jinn were never subject of our discussion, hence why the edit summary is written in the past tense, using the word "were" rather than the word "are." I assumed the context in which I said it and the fact that the edits in question were in the section titled "Pre-Islamic Arabia" would make this evident. Also, note the use of the word "mainly," which was intended to clarify that I was not talking about all pre-Islamic folk traditions about jinn, just some of them. In other words, what I was saying was that many pre-Islamic folk traditions about jinn were of Mesopotamian derivation (i.e. there was "strong influence"), so my original edit summary is actually saying the same thing I say above and in my edit summary here on the talk page; I merely adjusted my wording in the text above to make what I was trying to say more clear. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources listed for the "winged genie" do not mention its relation to the Arabian/Islamic, or the "modern, recognizable form", Jinn. Also, as mentioned before, the pre-Islamic Arabia section concerns the history of the Jinn, and not the "folk interpretation" of them. Javiero Fernandez (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Javiero Fernandez: I think the problem we are running into here is that you clearly have a set idea in your head of what a "real" jinn is, but this article is not based on what you think a "real" jinn is. It is about what reliable sources tell us people believe about jinn or have believed about them in the past. The "history of jinn" that you speak of is, in fact, the history of what people have believed about them. The "folk interpretation" of jinn is entirely within the scope of this article and is, to a large extent, a focus of this article. I am willing to leave out the image of the carving of the Mesopotamian "winged genie," since you are correct that the sources there fail to clearly establish a direct connection between the "winged genie" and Arabian jinn. However, there is absolutely no justifiable reason why the sentence about pre-Islamic beliefs in jinn being shaped by ancient Mesopotamian mythology and Greco-Roman philosophy should be excluded. It is immediately relevant to the article; it is adequately sourced; and it is essential to defining what a "jinn" is. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. If you are wondering what this article is "based on", please read the lede. When referring to the article, I used the term Arabian/Islamic Jinn, since that is what the lede reads and, thus, what the article is about. As for the pre-Islamic Arabia section, the source makes perfectly clear of no exact origin for the Jinn. Stating a Mesopotamian folk interpretation as an origin after what have been established wouldn't be coherent or logical. And regarding the Greco-Roman Daemon, I would add that to the comparative mythology section as well. Javiero Fernandez (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

adding a "To-Do-List"?

Hello, I would like to see this article at least on an B-Class or even an "good-Article", since it is a central topic in Islamic mythology, but still ranked C-Class. Editing this article gets even harder, due to the boundaries of this subject, even within Islam, the lines between the depictions of Jinn are often blurred and assimilated to local folklore. For now, this article focusses on Jinn, since they were established in Islam and how they developed through Asia and north Africa with some references to modern view.

I am uncertain, how we could improve this article significantly and which content we need for this. Some things I would suggets are:

rearranging some sections suhc as making "depictions" and "Supernaturality" into one section with some sub-sections.
splitting "science"-section and increasing it by adding more statistics also how dominant the believe in Jinn is today and so on. Also splitting it apart from "modern"-section. Also adding stuff for the "Modern-section" (there are just some references)
If not too much, creating sub-categories for Jinn in different cultures, this could also shorten the "development"-section making it less Culture-focused (although it is unavoidable to note some cultural jinn depictions)
improving the witch-craft section, especially the "Week-day"-section, the importance of that doesn't seem to be made (and I simply don't get it no matter how often I read it)

I guess if we could make a to-do-list there we can make a consens, on how we want to improve this article, it would be helpfull for further edits and to stay within the scope of this article. --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Possible problem with VenusFeuerFalle's edits

I'm wondering if VenusFeuerFalle read the referenced sources before making changes to the text, such as this change. Thinker78 (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Thinker78: What exactly do you mean? The change you linked here is about: "Jinn are also regarded as assistance of soothsayers, who reveals information from the past, the Jinn knows, because his lifespan exceeds those of humans" to "Jinn are also regarded as assistants of soothsayers. Soothsayers reveal information from the past, present, and future; the Jinn can be a source of this information because their lifespans exceed those of humans". The source given here states: "So the jinn do not know "hidden things" and foretellers who claim to receive their confidences are simply charlatans. However, since the jinn live very long lives, exceeding hundreds and even thousands of years, the evil-ones among them may falsely impersonate dead, with whom communication is impossible, sharing, detailed information about the past with those who supposedly communicate with the spirits of the deceased." How does this not reflect, that it cites? I am not sure, but stating, you are wondering, whether or not I read the sources for my edits, seems to imply, you blame me for adding stuff, without reading the sources. If you do so, please be more precise about your accusation. I can not relate, that exactly you mean or what you are objecting, here. Second, please ping me. Otherwise I can not answer your accusations. Maybe this was just a misunderstanding, especially since it is already several months ago (I only saw it here, accidently). I hope after quoting the source, it is more clear.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

VenusFeuerFalle You make so many edits and you are not watching the page? : / I was just wondering if you read the sources or not or if you were inserting your commentary regardless of what the sources said. That's all. --Thinker78 (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess I oversee it. Usually I check my Watchpages, but not always. Yes, I am reading the sources. For short references, I usually consult GoogleBooks, but only use it, if the context gets clear. Otherwise I search in the library for the whole book. Yes, I am doing many edits. Many content I already knew before, others I read from the books. For example I only needed about 4 days for the whole "Dämonenglaube im Islam" by Tobias Nünlist (about 500 pages). If yu doubt a claim, just tell me. I would like to quote the certain reference, since I could indeed misinterpretate something, and I think it is important, that others can comprehend the edits and do not only trust them blindly.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

"condemned to heaven"

Taken from the article, sounds wrong. 62.242.41.180 (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I fixed that, didn't realized how odd this can sound before. Thank you--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources and other possible issues

@BoogaLouie: Hello, as I see, we have a disagreement about some edits here. Please do not take it personal. There are some, disagreements, which at first glance are incomprehensible. Therefore, I would like to move to the talkpage, especially to avoid edit-wars, and because our explanations in the "revert-bar" is only limited. I replaced the (as far as I think unimportant, but this does not matter) note, that "jinn are mentioned dozens of time" by a source by Robert Lebling. He counts 29 times (I know it may vary, depending on, which words you actually count as "jinn"), that is far less in comparation to angels and devils (both around 88 times). Changing "dozens" to a more concrete number, should not be subject for debate, but I think it is a significant change, since otherwise, one might assume, the Quran gives extensive descriptions about jinn (to be honest, they are rather marginal described).

I guess the far more important issue is about the part, there you contrast the jinn to angels. First you used a direct reference to the corresponding hadith as I remember, than you used a (selfpublished?) book, based on a "Sola scrpitura" reading of Islamic sources. There might be some reliable secondary sources, from an academic point of view, which quotes this hadith, BUT nevertheless, there is a problem concerning this hadith, as also pointed out in academic works (the over book mentioned before lacks): In the past, Islam did not contrasted jinn and angels as we are accustomed today. Today, we commonly read something like "God created three intelligent creatures. The angels, the jinn, the humans. The jinn and humans have free-will, angels not. But both angels and jinn are spirits. Iblis is jinn, since he disobeyed God. He is also a devil, as devils are evil jinn". But this is by no means, the classical concept, Islamic tradition holds.

I will give you some examples. In Islamic tradition, we frequently encounter "angels supposed to be created from fire" (I know there are also some of water and so on). One concern here is about Iblis (who was also considered an angel in classical Islam, but not exclusively). Another and unrelated to Iblis (Iblis as angel already shows the less significant and also indicates the problematic distinction between angels and jinn by free-will and light/fire)tradition asserts, that angels of punishment were created from fire (muslims probably took over this idea from Judeo-Christian sources, which played a significant role in Islam, although disregared today). The "fire" (or light) of angels is rather something like "fine light" also sometimes explained as a part of fire, while the jinn fire is rather related to "hot air" (a source I used recently elsewhere also pointed out, that the translation of "marigin min nar" as "pure fire" as used by some English Quran-translations, is rather errornous. If you wish, I link it here). Our language does not divids fire and light the same wayas Muslims did in the past (remember that people like Tabari even regarded is as the same.) Further significant (also pointed out by a scholar I recently used) "nar" and "nur" already shows a close realtionship between both, we do not have in our language). Just referring to the hadith (which didn't even had such a high authority as it has for most contemporary scholars), would assert positions that do not existed in Islam most of the time.

To summarze my points: In Islam, we also find angels created from fire, just like jinn are not really related to fire, that could be contrasted with the angels light. The next point is, "free-will", is a philosophical concept, much broader than it could be written here shortly. And yes, we also have angels with "free-will" in Islamic traditions. Islamic scholars, who gave them a "free-will", did not equalized it with the same ammount as given to jinn and humans, but stating they had "no free-will" would imply, they are desireless robots, that is not true. Instead of asserting confusion concepts, I would like to leave it out. That is also the reason I wrote, they are like humans subject to damnation (or reward), but did not talked about free-will or something the like. I remember, I once wrote about "angels free-will" here. A section I am not rpoud of, since I guess it needs more extension and must be more detailed. But I think that such a section is necessary nevertheless (Maybe the "fallen angel"-article can replace it someday). As Robert Lebling points out, how angels decision-frameworks works exactly, was never completely developed by Islamic scholars (probably the reason modern scholars dropped the idea entirely). But we have explanations such as "they have free-will, but do not want to act against God", "angels have no free-will to rebel against God, but can nevertheless err (for example by opposing Adam as vicegerent)" or "they only have no free-will as long they remain angels" (and the like). But now contrasting the "free-will" of jinn to angels would just mess up the article or content fork (to the angel section). I hope we can assume good faith in each other, I explained my concerns here good enough and that we rather debate here, instead of edit-warring. With best regards --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply

no complaint about "29 times".
`Today, we commonly read something like "God created three intelligent creatures. The angels, the jinn, the humans. The jinn and humans have free-will, angels not. But both angels and jinn are spirits. Iblis is jinn, since he disobeyed God. He is also a devil, as devils are evil jinn". But this is by no means, the classical concept.` OK, but if this is what oodles of Islamic websites are saying and a corresponding number of pious Muslims believe, it must be given some kind of presence in the article. Googling around I see there is controversy in this area https://www.quranandfaith.com/angels-made-from-light/ but angels created from light is sourced to Saheeh Muslim. https://www.islamreligion.com/articles/2782/angels-part-1/#_ftn21352 https://islamqa.info/en/answers/843/al-malaaikah-angels

(to be continued) --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Continued

Please note the comment section in https://www.quranandfaith.com/angels-made-from-light/ as an example of "what oodles of Islamic websites are saying and a corresponding number of pious Muslims believe":
- admin on July 10, 2018 at 8:04 am "سلام عليكم There is no indication in Quran that Angels were created from Light / NUR, Sadly its a lie and assumption made by scholars."
- Reply Abdul-Ahmid on January 25, 2019 at 12:15 am "You are the biggest liar! Woe to you for trying to change the word of the Creator!!!"

Obviously there is strong opinion on the subject and Wikipedia would be doing a service to Muslims and others to sort out the facts of the matter, what scholars say, why, where they disagree. (I hope you have time to flesh out with citations and so on the case about arabic distinctions on "fine light" and "hot air")

Also obvious is that most of this issue belongs on the Angels in Islam page, but I hope we can put some on this page if only as a note (you'll notice I added a note section above the citation section).

With best regards --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply to reply

Good idea to make several points. It is far less confusion now.

Obviously there is strong opinion on the subject and Wikipedia would be doing a service to Muslims and others to sort out the facts of the matter, what scholars say, why, where they disagree. Yes, as fare as I observed, many Muslims feel rather bothered by Wikipedia than regarding it as usefull, also opposing we are using images here, claiming that all the images were drawn by non-Muslims or "Shias" in the past. I guess this reflects the attitute of many (and according to my observances) Western Muslims (Germany fewer than English-speakers, Turks far less, but gaining popularity); adhering to a rather puritanian Islam than a traditional Islam (Do not confuse "Traditional" with "traditionalistic" (Athari). We already had a dabte about "Tradictionalistic vs Athari", unfortunetely, we find out that most source indeed refer to Ataris as "traditionalistic" that makes everything just more confusing. I guess, Websites, such as IslamQA, are one of the most consulted sources for Islam-related questions and highly regarded. If something speaks against them (that will happen frequently, if we observe Islam in the past and also outside of Arabia, for example Central Asia or India), many Muslims consider this as a "bida" or "innovation of the Devil to disort Islam" or something the like (or my favorite, Evil Zionists are actually running Wikipedia, whose main-goal is nothing else, than destroying Islam via Internet). But you get the right point. Wikipedia must explain how the different views in Islam are related and, who holds them and why.
Googling around I see there is controversy in this area https://www.quranandfaith.com/angels-made-from-light/ but angels created from light is sourced to Saheeh Muslim It seems, that the Admin there is a Quranite. Strikingly, the Quran never mentioned from that angels are supposed to be created from. And since the Quran never explores how Iblis is related to angels, I would, from a historical perspective, consider "jinn" indeed to be intented as a species compassing both angels and demons and not, as Islamic traditions put forth, that jinn are an entirely new species. Accordingly, whose who only adhere to the Quran, might belief that there are only human and jinn. This was appearently also the belief of Modernist Salafis, who tried to explain Islam by solely by the Quran. Now we come to the hadith. Whose who adhere to Quran and Hadith alone (such as Ahl i Hadith and Wahhabism and its offshoots) it is quiet clear, we have two distinct creatures, one from fire one from light. But another issue arises, if we further accept other Islamic traditions, not limited to the two Sahihs and the Quran alone. In Miraj Writings for example, we have an angel made of fire and ice (interestingly, this angel also exists, but more rarely, as light and ice), or angels created from tears. We have many exceptions about the origin of angels. Just to give you another example, that even puzzled me today, the hadith concerning a battle between angels of mercy and of punishment, exists (according to "Satan Tragedy and Redemption in Sufi Psychology") as angels of mercy fighting Iblis (No scholar I read before however, pointed out, that Iblis is here a replacement for angels of punishment). From that exactly angels are created from, might be less clear than it seems at first (One of the reasons, I want to write on the Angels in Islam, article again). But now back to the jinn. From that the jinn are created from is pretty clear, since also the Quran states that jinn are created from fire (here, it doesn't matter, if angels are included or not). I don't think that the Sahih Muslim hadith is necessary.
(I hope you have time to flesh out with citations and so on the case about arabic distinctions on "fine light" and "hot air") of course. But it might be far more complicated, and give me some time, will ya? Since it was scattered through an encyclopedia over 5 volumes. I would like to present you the relevant psentences here. For now, I would also like to provide you another source (also about "nur and nar") and about the issue of angels free-will. So you can also make your own opinion. Wait until my next edit here.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit: Here are the sources I wanted you to get "THE NATURE OF "IBLI$H IN THE QUR'AN AS INTERPRETED BY THE COMMENTATORS" and "journal of Islamic research the tragic story of satan mustafa özturk" (I do not know wehter or not there are legal issues, to link the pdf here directly, but if you enter this to google, you should find the corresponding article. I didn't forget about the other sources. But as I stated, it is much harder to collect them.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I found the significant parts. I would like to quote them here, but add the exact source, so yuo can check it up on yourself, too:

Volume 3 p.45: "Iblis, of whom it is just been said that he alone among the angels refused, justifies his disobedience (q.v.) saying that he was created from nar(the usual, but not necessarily appropriate here, is "fire"), and therefore he should not have prostrate himself before a creature, "of clay" (q.v.; tin). Does this mean that it justifies his status as a jinn? According to local traditions, the nar from which the jinn are created (see below) most certainly does not corespond with "fire" (q.v.) while in ancient tradition of Near East . and, a fortiori, in the Bible - angelic nature is clearly "igneous" (cf. the Seraphim, etc.) (...) The Quran says nothing about the material from which the angels are created. The Islamic tradition regards them as being made from "nur", the "cold light of the night", that of the moon (q.v.), which is also the light of guidiance and of knowledge, precisely the opposite of nar, which is diural and solar. As opposed to the jinn, who are incontestably figures from local beliefs (...) [continueing on page 48] (...) And yet their nature is stated to be different from that of humankind. The Quran says that they are made from nar'. The usual translation , "fire", probably makes no sense in this context. THe image conjured up is taht of a representation of wreath of smoke and mirages of "burning air of solar day" and not that of flames. This metaphorical transposition could also be recognized in numerous quranic uses of the concept nar(regarding the nature of jinn, see Q15:27 "created from the fire of al Samum; and 55:15, "min marijin min narin", a difficult formulation whoch would make the jinn "unformed beigns created from the reverberated heat" and not, as in some translations - such as that of Kazimirski - beings created from "pure fire without smoke"; see for attempt a more precise explanation of the two passages, Chabbi, Seignur, 190 f.)
Volume 5 p. 118 The merciful angels are made of nur, which can be translated as "cold light", while the angels of punishment are made of nar, "fire", indicating distinctions of both density and weight. (I added it because it is closely related to the topic)

I will probably go to sleep soon. With I hope the sources given help you. With best regards --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to mention the name of the Book, only refered to the page: "encyclopedia of the quran" by Jane Dammen McAuliffe--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Second Reply

@VenusFeuerFalle: I guess after all this my main concern is that the second definitions of jinn requires some more explication. Others will correct me if I'm wrong but I do not think too many non-scholarly Muslims have even heard of the concept put forth in

* As the opposite of al-Ins (something in shape) referring to any object that cannot be detected by human sensory organs, including angels, demons and the interior of human beings. Thus every demon and every angel is also a jinn, but not every jinn is an angel or a demon.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

and because of that the definition needs more than just citations.

Here is an example of something we could add:

`Some scholars have ~~argued against a clear division between~~ pointed out scripture and argued for destriptions of jinn and angels that do not fit neatly into the beings being distinct and separate. Ibn 'Abbas implies jinn were a subset of angels: `Iblis was from a tribe of angels called the "Jinn". They were created from the flaming fire (min nar alsamum) from among the angels.`

Q.18:50 states: "And when We said to the angels, 'Bow yourselves to Adam'; so they bowed themselves, save Iblis; he was of the jinn`", which suggests Iblis was both an angel and jinn. ^[5]

I have to go now too. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Second reply to reply

I do not have much time today either, but I would like to respond quick. Such definition of "jinn" is often implied for example by Ibn Arabi or Modernist Salafis (Rida, Muhammad Asad). We should not err in that, that whose you claim that Iblis is an angel, do think of "jinn" as something that is not distinct from angels. I guess Tabari provides the most differentiated view: Accordingly we have "Jinn" (as creature or "Pre Adamite), "Jinn" as a group of angels (they are NOT the same), "Jinn" as general designation for something invisible, and angels (fruther they are devils/demons (shayatin, who are the offspring of Iblis). Tabari based his interpretations on Ibn Abbas and Ibn Masud, but adhere to the notion of "jinn" in this specific context (18:50), that Iblis is "an invisible entitiy". That most scholars of islam didn't heard that would be strange, I always thought that Tabari is basic for an Imam/Shaikh. (Otherwise , I recently talked to a friend, who learned in Turkey and claimed to have studied Tafsir-Tabari, but claimed that he "Never heard that Iblis would be an angel". Otherwise, it seems he was not honest too me. After I confronted him with a translation of Tabari-Tafsir, he confessed that "Tabari might have said something of the like" but tried to avoid further discussion and he didn't replied to me since then.

I you wish, I would further give you an online version of the abridged version of Tafsir Tabari (it is a shame, that it is not translated into Western languages. And even a Turkish Online version (at least for free) was shortened, actually the interesting disuccsion about Tabari arguing and evelating the "Jinn", was cut out.

It seems, most Islamic schoalrs simply do not want to talk about different interpretations. That Islam scholars simply do not know the second meaning, I wonder how they could have avoided this in their whole career. Exept they only have theri very own little interpretation of Islam. For example in Saudi Arabia, non Wahhabi-Sunni sources are strongly discoured. Many scholars we meet online and whose who educate Islam scholars over the globe, are usually of Wahhabi origin, that could explain their inexperience.

Here is the Tafsir ^[6] (must be in the section for Surah 2:34).

For Wikipedia, we can not be concerned that is wrong within the Islamic knowledge today, but yes, we could extend the second definition. Or even make a second article. For example in the Turkic Wiki, we have two separate "jinn"-article. One for the Jinn as spirits (called Jinn in islam) and one for Jinn in general. But I do not know whether or not it works in the English Wiki, since in Turkic, "Jinn" as a creature only, also applies to the Latin Genius, and creatures similar. But we could think of splitting into "Jinn" and "Jinn (word)" or something of the like. But we should discuss the idea before making such as split extensively.

Well, I just realized that I gave you the wrong link. You can look it up if you wish but it is not that I wanted you to give. I saved it on my PC, currently I am just on my LapTop. I do not know when I can provide you the source I actually wanted to give you. The inforamtion is also given within the Books mentioned here, but it is often easier to udnerstand while reading the entrie source. I am sorry. I have to go now. Edit: It was "Al-Tabari J. Cooper W.F. Madelung and A. Jones"--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I further remembered that "jinn" is also used for "strange animals, such as mermaids or fairies (Peri). On the other hand we have the jinn distinct from such creatures (As Purgstall (an early Orientalist) pointed out, some considered the Peri to be created from aroma and not from "smokeless fire"). I guess such creatures also fall within the second definition of "jinn" as something "invidisible". Just wanted to note that one here. It might be helpfull.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Third reply

Not entirely clear on some of your points and have to get to work on another article so may not have time to do much more on this one but don't be discouraged about spinning off another article for Jinn in general or at least another section. They existed in Arab culture before revelation to Muhammad. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes I know. And the fact that the Arabs obviously regarded the angels and demons from Zoroastrianism, Judaism and so on, also a "jinn" doesn't make it more easy. I am busy the next days and I would like to write about Tengrism next. Jinn isn't my main-focus either, currently (emphazising "curretnly"). But thanks for the discussion and maybe, even some readers benefit from there. I will keep in mind, that this article needs further improvements.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion references

^ Scott B. Noegel, Brannon M. Wheeler The A to Z of Prophets in Islam and Judaism Scarecrow Press 2010 ISBN 978-1-461-71895-6 page 170
^ University of Michigan Muhammad Asad: Europe's Gift to Islam, Band 1 Truth Society 2006 ISBN 978-9-693-51852-8 page 387
^ Richard Gauvain Salafi Ritual Purity: In the Presence of God Routledge 2013 ISBN 978-0-710-31356-0 page 302
^ Husam Muhi Eldin al- Alousi The Problem of Creation in Islamic Thought, Qur'an, Hadith, Commentaries, and KalamNational Printing and Publishing, Bagdad, 1968 p. 26
^ Fr. Edmund Teuma, O.F.M. Conv. "THE NATURE OF "IBLI$H IN THE QUR'AN AS INTERPRETED BY THE COMMENTATORS" (PDF). um.edu.mt. p. 12. Retrieved 17 March 2019.
^ https://archive.org/stream/TheCommentaryOnTheQuranVol.1ByAlTabari/The+commentary+on+the+Quran%2C+vol.+1%2C+by+al-tabari_djvu.txt

Etymology section

How can the term "jinn" both have a clear Arabic etymology and be of uncertain origin? Assuming the uncertain origin section is correct, the Arabic etymology would need to be presented as another theory rather than a fact.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Move the Article

Jinns are more Know by the Name of Genie, so the Article can be Better if the Name was Genie and not Jinn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatechismDatabase (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure they are? I more frequently raed 'Jinn' thatn 'Genie'. 'Genie' they are usually referred to in older works (first half of last century and before) but in contemporary scholarship, they are usually referred to as 'Jinni'. Nevertheless, it could help to define that exactly this article should be about, since 'Jinn' is somehow ambiguous and the article was, as it seems, just about different occurences of the term within Islamic works, but failed to grasp the meanings of the word and the idea behind it. A 'Genie' is by the way used of "intermediary spirits" (although rarely) in Middle Eastern lore, comparable to the daimon, but only retroperspective (for example by denoting the "Winged Jinni"), while 'jinn' is used in an Arabic context refferign to to different things. But before we decided this, I would not move this article anymore.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Need conditions of Correct Exorcism

Assalaamu Alaikum.
There are certain conditions, i.e, Primary Do’s and Don’ts without which the Ruqya is almost zero-effective.
I checked the articles Exorcism , Exorcism in Islam and Jinn.
How come the details of those conditions are missing are missing?
e.g.-

http://www.ruqyaqa.com/0018-how-do-i-protect-my-home-from-jinns.html
http://www.ruqyashariyah.org/articles-and-books
http://www.ruqyashariyah.org/exorcism-in-islam-by-dr-abu-ameenah-bilal-phillips
http://www.ruqyaqa.com/books.html
https://muhammadtim.com/ruqyah/a-response-to-those-who-defend-taweez
http://www.ruqyaqa.com/0007-should-we-burn-taweez.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verycuriousboy (talk • contribs) 09:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Verycuriousboy (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

VerycuriousboyWhat is it about those websites that makes you think they would be considered reliable sources?GirthSummit _(blether) 10:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Girth SummitMost information are from published book, many are from practical experience. Verycuriousboy (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Verycuriousboy Have you read the guidelines at WP:RS? Ruqyaqa.com is a blog by a person called Kamal Ahmed. Ar-Ruqyah Ash-Shariyah is the website of a former Yahoo group, who set up their own blog. Muhhamadtim is the blog of a person called Muhamad Tim Humble. None of these is an RS for anything. It is possible that the published books they draw information from may be RS, if they are scholarly and reliably published - if so, please present those sources. Please do not attempt to add any content to any page based on these blogs. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Good Day. Those websites has reliable books or quotations from Hadith. 2 e.g. out of many- http://www.ruqyaqa.com/uploads/2/5/2/5/25255474/how_to_protect_yourself_from_jinn_and_shaytaan.pdf , http://www.ruqyashariyah.org/sites/default/files/books/Selected%20Fatwas%20on%20Faith%20Healing%20and%20Witchcraft.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verycuriousboy (talk • contribs) 10:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

"Jejhal Jiniri"?

The article mentions a folk tale of "Jejhal Jiniri". I can find nothing about this on the Internet except for this very article. Is it real? What is the story and where can it be found? 2A00:23C5:FE0B:700:2D27:4BC9:5098:5BAE (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. Tales about jinn are often scattered through Muslim-World and it is hard to collect and analyze them all. Wikipedia however, is limited to the source offered by scholars, such as Orientalists, and Anthropologists, thus everything wirtten here, needs a source for varyfication, except it is self-explanatory or explicitly said in a linked article. If you find something suspicious, you can add a WP:CITENEED: Citation needed|reason=Your explanation here|date=November 2019 (write the statement in two of these brackets : { }.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The Imam Ali picture

A question regarding the identity of the demons. Are these demons indeed jinn or are they rather Div? As far as I know, in early period, Div and jinn had been used synonymously, but later onwards, Div became something like a "giant" or "ogre", much more physical than jinn, while jinn remain something like hybrids. Are there any veryfications or was it just an interpretation of a Wikiauthor who summarized all demons to jinn? Unfortunate, I can hardly read the text on the manusrcipt. Maybe someone else can tell something about this issue?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

"Shahnama Studies III: The Reception of the Shahnama" speaks about depictions of very similar creatures, but calls them "div". Now the question is, if jinn and div had been seperate creatures during this time.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Distinguishing from Gin

From a phonetic standpoint, I can see why. And I get that transcription from Arabic into Latin characters isn't completely standardized.

But, on the other hand, they're both spirits that good Muslims avoid letting into their homes, so maybe we should merge the two? (j/k) Ian.thomson (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

whose two? The "Ginn" in the "Ginn and Shayatin" part? I used the transscription "Ginn", because I also used "Shayatin" the not-translated transscription, since it is hard to tell, whether shayatin are devils or demons. My intention was to have the term "Ginn" untranslated. Maybe we should find a consens for the proper translation for "jinn" and "Shayatin" respectivly among Wiki-Islam Project. Jinn might be translated as "demons" or "spirits" or simply "jinn", depending on source, while "Shayatin" might be translated as "demons" or "devils" or "satans". Both spirits are distinct, jinn are not necessarily avoided, some "good muslims" also believe in protection by jinn form shayatin or evil jinn. Also jinn are much more physical. For example, it is regarded as possible, you accidently bum into a jinni while walking. Most academic sources also distinguish shayatin and jinn. It is rather in mdoern literature, both are merged. Some English works, who only deal with "demons" in general usually do not make such distinctions, but whose who deal with demons in detail, also differentiate both. In German for example both a seperated and, if even done, later mered togeher, if the lines get blurred. So, maybe we should find a consens for translations? I have never done that before, finding a conens on a WikiProject. I am not sure how to start that.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Gin is a strong alcohol (or "spirit"). The "{j/k}" is short for "joking." I was jokingly suggesting that this article and Gin both be merged because of puns. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I see, I thought it was about the section I recently added. But yes right, Muslims try to avoid both. Well, it is funny right now.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Subliminal Bias

Can an admin review some of the text on the first two paragraphs. The statements like “adapted” or “incorporated” are incorrect and the sources are not from Qur’an and Hadith. Tmason101 (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Contradictions to biases.

Personal biases must be kept separate. The text must be relevant to the subject of the page.

“ The exact origins of belief in jinn are not entirely clear.[19]”

The text here clearly states that the origins are Unkown so saying it’s a pagan concept is a contradiction when we don’t know where it came from. Tmason101 (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect information.

Islam did not integrate pagan beliefs. It’s a monotheistic religion. It’s closer to the narrative of Christianity and Judaism. Satan did not bow down to Adam. This is not found in pagan beliefs. Tmason101 (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tmason101: Please let us discuss the issue here. What exactly is your problem witht he claim now? I see many objections in your claim. Can we please deal witht hem step by step? At least, you are deleting content cited by verified sources. If you argue like that, I can merely respons, that the first claim, that Islam did not integrated pagan beliefs to be false. Not only regarding Jinn, but also other ideas, like the Kaba. And yes, it is a monotheistic religion, but this does not contradic integrating pagan beliefs. Monotheism developed form paganism. It is not closer to Christianity and Judaism, since even Christianity and Judaism have entirely different narratives. How Satan plays into this, is oscure. Do you identify the jinn with Satan? First, Satan is not necessarily a jinn, but even if so, there are jinn in Islamic mythology clearly distinct from the type Satan belongs to. This is not only that academics say, but also Islamic tafsir provide explicitly. And the jinn are not even close to the Christian demons. THe Christian counterpart would be, if even, the Shayatin. And even there are differences. So please make your points clear, also why you distrust the source, or if you withdrew, why this sources form "Islam Criticism" (this was your arguement in your last revert)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle:

The page needs to be kept neutral. Critism of islam belongs on the Criticism_of_Islam page.

Islamic Critism and Biases

The following statement suggests that Islam took the idea from other religions and intergrated it's beliefs with pagan beliefs. This belongs on the Criticism_of_Islam page, not the Jinn page. This is an opinion, the statement can not be verified with factual evidence.

"Since jinn are neither innately evil nor innately good, Islam was able to adapt spirits from other religions during its expansion. Jinn are not a strictly Islamic concept; they may represent several pagan beliefs integrated into Islam." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmason101 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

"This belongs on the Criticism_of_Islam page, not the Jinn page." is complete nonsense. As is your stance on what keeping an article "neutral" means. You need a serious refresher on what WP:NPOV actually means and if you have never read that particular policy page, now would be a good time to go and do it. Also, sign your posts, you've willy nilly left unsigned comments on at least 3 pages by my count. Put four tildes or this ~~~~ after your posts and it will be signed and datestamped. It is required.He iro 17:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Tmason101 So you have. Please keep the discussion here, instead of spreading out onto user talk pages. I'm going to assume that your comment about adding content on making meals was just you being silly. You've offered no rationale for how this is in any way critical of Islam, or why it's not relevant to this article. Until you do that, there's nothing more to say. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit

It was a fair statement. Just because something is sourced does not mean it belongs on a page. It needs to be relevant --Tmason101 (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It is relevant because the source introduces the reader to jinn, the topic this article is about. Importance is veryfied.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Requesting help in article expansion

Hi,

Requesting you to have a look at

Superstitions in Muslim societies and also Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies

Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 06:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Biased Page (Misinformation)

Can we be reasonable here. Why has this page become a criticise Islam page rather than informing people about Jinn? The Islam is literally called “Jinn” why is there so much biased text criticising Islam? Can someone responsible answer for this? Tmason101 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Where is here criticism? There is much stuff, unsuual to Salafi theology. I usually see opposition to Salafi doctrines in English speaking formus, and usually here I found the most sources as written from Salafi point of view. I have less troubles in Turkish or German websides in that matter. But this is not criticism of Islam, it is simply a contradiction to te Salafi point of view. But this is a fail of Salafi theology, which is in odds with the traditional Muslim views, and therefore they bite each other. The Salafi point of view is nevertheless explained in below. It is at the bottom of the text, because it is a recent development, apearing late in history. One disputed example is the part about jinn being "pagan". No Muslim had troubles with integrating pagan ideas into Islamic cosmology. It is basically that jinn are. They are not fallen angels, "demons", the "devils servants in Islam", whose roles had been applied to the Div and Shayatin (who are also not the "unbelieving jinn" as proposed by Salafism) neither is Iblis a jinn, with Hasan Al Basri and Mutazilites an exception (a minority view). Jinn are mere nil-roles, the myterious and simply the pagan deities their divine status taken away.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Marijin min Nar

Marijin min nar does not mean light. Nur is usually translated as light, and just refers to a transcedent light, sometimes thought of as "thin fire" in Medieval Islamic philosophy and science. (see also "Nünlist 2015"). Another term is "daw'". "Smokeless Fire" is just smokeless fire, not light or anything else. It is a term usually used as translation for "marijin min nar", which is actually "a mixture of fire" often explained as the part of a flame which passes into air (see also Mc Auliffee encyclopdiea of the Quran). Please stop writing "light" in brackets, it does not mean this, it does not translates as this and there is (according to my knowledge) no (offical) exegesis stating this.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Visual Art of the Jinn

Hello, I am a student editor. I included a section on depictions of the jinn in visual art as part of an assignment for my course. There were not all that many sources on that subject, and most of them pertained to architectural and talismanic representations or to depictions of Iblis or the Seven Jinn Kings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali.Ramos23 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed name change to 'Jinn in Islam' and new 'Jinn in Mythology' article be created

Resolved

– Added disclaimer that article is about Jinn in Islam and added links to Aladdin and Tutelary deities to fully cover the subject.DHHornfeldt (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is in an Islamic perspective throughout and that should be clear from the title. It does not deal with the animistic history of ancient Mesopotamia, nor the pop culture icon of the 'genie in the lamp.' There is a thousand years of history that is dismissed as Pre-Islamic and given little attention, creating problems like this incoming link from the Demon wikipedia page:

"According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, "In Chaldean mythology the seven evil deities were known as shedu, storm-demons, represented in ox-like form."[25] They were represented as winged bulls, derived from the colossal bulls used as protective jinn of royal palaces.[26]"

The name Jinn in Islam was chosen to match Angels in Islam title format.

I further suggest a new page titled "Jinn in Mythology" that gives treatment to early Semitic (or Sumerian?) origins of the Jinn and influence on later Jewish, Christian and Islamic mythology, as well as a section on connections to the Greek daimon and Roman daemons and their Proto-Indo European roots. A "Jinn in Mythology" page could also devote a section to 1001 Nights and the entrance of the Genie, wishes, and the lamp into popular culture with links to the Genies in popular culture main article. DHHornfeldt (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Disagree, the Quran took descriptions about jinn from Judaism, and merged it with Pre-Islamic Arabian concept of jinn. There is no clear line defined by Islam. The "orthodox" teachings about jinn as "spirits with free-will" are just a modern or even post-modern phenomena, and does not even reflect that is written within Muslim sources themselves (as explained in the section for Jinn in modern Islam). Also there is not much material about jinn, apart from the Islam-Related studies. The Sumerian origins are basically the same as the "demons". If they feel out of place, we should think about moving the section to the demon article.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Images

Hello, it still bugs me, even after it has been a while: But Iblis in a jinn-only artcile seems to be wrong. I know he is perceived as a jinn in contemporary scholarship, and also the source relates the well-known story about Iblis being adopted by the angels and taken to heaven, but still Iblis is a unique creature and I think he is not representative for either jinn nor for the angels. I once wrote in the article Angels in art about Iblis, but merely because the article was already talking about "black angels opposing Adam". So the motif of Iblis, and punishing angels was already presens. But here, as long as Iblis does not appear as one of the Afarit and merely among the angels, it is kinda wrong. Iblis has features he shares with jinn, such as burning eyes, but simultaneously which belong to devils or div, like his claws (they also have burnign eyes). So it is not clear that the author had "jinn" in mind, when drawing Iblis in this picture. I would however, like to Iblis#Iconography pretty much as it is written in this article. Within the jinn article, it is just like, the entire article talks about jinn, and suddenly "Iblis" appears, because he is sometimes coutned among them. But even as a jinni, he is an individual with unique virtual expressions and characteristics. I think we should generally treaten Iblis as much under the article Iblis as possible.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

[1] Scott B. Noegel, Brannon M. Wheeler The A to Z of Prophets in Islam and Judaism Scarecrow Press 2010 ISBN 978-1-461-71895-6 page 170

[2] University of Michigan Muhammad Asad: Europe's Gift to Islam, Band 1 Truth Society 2006 ISBN 978-9-693-51852-8 page 387

[3] Richard Gauvain Salafi Ritual Purity: In the Presence of God Routledge 2013 ISBN 978-0-710-31356-0 page 302

[4] Husam Muhi Eldin al- Alousi The Problem of Creation in Islamic Thought, Qur'an, Hadith, Commentaries, and KalamNational Printing and Publishing, Bagdad, 1968 p. 26

[5] Fr. Edmund Teuma, O.F.M. Conv. "THE NATURE OF "IBLI$H IN THE QUR'AN AS INTERPRETED BY THE COMMENTATORS" (PDF). um.edu.mt. p. 12. Retrieved 17 March 2019.

[6] ttps://archive.org/stream/TheCommentaryOnTheQuranVol.1ByAlTabari/The+commentary+on+the+Quran%2C+vol.+1%2C+by+al-tabari_djvu.txt

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]