Jump to content

Talk:Jinn/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Whirlwinds and Dust Devils: Ginni and Afrit

Don't know if this is already mentioned somewhere in this article or in the editing talk page: the book Tornados, Dark Days, Anomalous Precipitation and related weather phenomena by William R. Corliss (The Sourcebook Project, 1983). This book has something on page 169 about pranks of whirlwinds and dust devils. A certain J.L.Capes (see Nature, 135:511, 1935) mentioned the names Ginni and Afrit as spirits, related to dust devils. I want to know if Ginni is (or are) the same as Jinn. DannyCaes (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

"Genies" are indeed an alternative transscription of the Arabic term جن‎ and the article mentions whirlwinds in one sentence in a sub-section of Jinn in misty forms: "The jinn are also related to the wind, and may even appear in mists or sandstorms". This could nevertheless be expanded and the belief that jinn cause sandstorms seems to be quite common. You could add the concent down there. Thanks for the literature, I would love to check this out myself.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead section and pagan beliefs

The lead section regarding this sentence " they may represent several pagan beliefs integrated into Islam" is an altered version of the former "several pagan deities integrated into Islam", which seems to have offended by some Muslim users and thus changed. But "pagan beliefs" here serves merely as an euphemism to "deities" or "spiris venerated by pagans" (which makes it a deity) and covers the actual meaning. It is further unnecessarily vague since "pagan beliefs" could also apply to rituals performed. Exactly the rituals were changed with Islam, by integrating the jinn, reducing them to mere spirits instead of deities. Further, it should not be that disputable that the jinn are even among Muslims acknowledged as former deities (in the sense of spirits venerated by humans), as in culture, they are still referred to as "masters" (In Mughal or Urdu cultures according to the body of the text). F. Meier argues that early Islam integrated many pagan deities into its system by degrading them to spirit, and the Quran speaks about jinn being worshipped by pagans, but reduced the status of jinn from that of tutelary deities. Later, the test (sourced) states "belief in the jinn was assimilated with local belief about spirits and deities from Iran, Africa, Turkey and India". It seems to be more confusing than helping to cover the jinn as subjects of worship under the disguise of "beliefs" instead of "deities". It rather seems, it is due to religious feelings (not even justified, as it seems to be based on an attempt to reconsile Islam with Christianity, in whcih jinn are absent, by denoting jinn as something similar to Wester devils, which they are simply not) and not based on accuracity. I would suggest to rewrite this part to "pagan deities" again, but add "reduced to spirits, subject to the judgment of one true God" to emphazise, Islam does not support the deification of jinn, but acknowledged this spirits were venerated before.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ali.Ramos23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Allah and God

I have changed the line "In Islam, Satan, known in Arabic as Iblees, is the iconic genie that refused to bow down to Adam when ordered to by Allah" to say God, instead of Allah. Since the article is English, the name should be translated into English also - and it means God. Allah is not a seperate name for the God featured in the Q'ran. 58.111.69.99 (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The sentence is Christian POV anyway; "In Islam, Satan, known in Arabic as Iblis..." The sentence should be "In Islam, the devil, known in Arabic as Iblis..." As to the term Allah, this is an article on an Islamic belief, therefore the term does not seem out of place, even if it could be seen as non-Muslims as Islamic-POV. 68.148.123.76 (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that statement is that you think the name "Satan" is a Christian one. It is just a transliteration of Hebrew text and is where the Quran's "Shaitan" came from. Simply, "devil" is not a name, rather a name for many demons etc. Also, before you think something is too POV-Christian or Judeo, remember that all three are intrinsically linked. We aren't talking about Buddhism vs. Wicca here. Allah theorically could be just "God," but it is easier to decode which of the three monotheistic religions is being discussed and since Christianity uses the entire Hebrew bible, this distinquish isn't necessary, unless we are talking about of course, Jesus Christ. Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move (2008)

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

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

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

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

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

  • Oppose. The article doesn't appear to prefer any one term over another. "Genie" is the name that will be most recogisable to the casual reader, and should be retained per WP:COMMONNAME. PC78 (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Regardless of what terms are coming into greater use, the general public will still know "genie" as the most common name for this entity. – PeeJay 00:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Commonname is still "genie", regardless of the modern trend in fantasy fiction. Perhaps someone should have told Christina Aguilera about the name change first, so that the most prominent recent usage isn't "genie" 70.55.84.66 (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Trimming?

Hey, if noone objects, I would like to attempt a little trimming. Especially parts I once wrote myself appear to be trivial, given the ammount of content the article got over the years. I would further try to summarize parts from the article, so it is not all scattered over the article.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Superstitions in Muslim societies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Superstitions in Muslim societies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstitions in Muslim societies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bookku (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

From a muslim point of view, this article is very inaccurate. Infact, the prophet ﷺ (peace and blessings be upon him) has said that the dwellers of paradise will be those...
ھُمُ الَّذِیْنَ لَا یَسْتَرْقُوْنَ وَلَا یَتَطَیَّرُوْنَ...
"...those who don't use or believe in lucky charms or bad omens" Lorchid (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Move

Move to Genie as it is the much more common name. 2A02:C7F:31CF:6400:B55F:3868:7D48:BA90 (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move (2009)

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

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


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

Survey

No, the common English name of the Orientalist-fiction character stereotype is "genie"; the common name of the Islamic creature in English is Jinn. A search on Google books shows us 600 hits for "Jinn" versus 100 hits for "Genie" when we include the term "Shaitan" to ensure we're dealing with non-Orientalist-fiction works. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 01:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose as formulated. Both articles should be at "genie" ; a subarticle specifically dealing with the Djinn can be created if needed, instead of the overall concept, which in common English is "genie", whether fictional romanticized portrayal or not. 76.66.203.102 (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Again, all English-speaking Muslims would speak of "Djinn" or "Jinn", not one of them would refer to "Shaitan is a genie..." Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 15:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Most English speakers are not Muslim, your proviso shows that it's not the English name, it's a minority group within the English speaking world's name. Are you asking for a WP:ENGVAR on this? 65.94.252.195 (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, as it says "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation.,..this avoids articles being written in a variety that is inappropriate for the great majority of its readers. For example, Australians should not stumble over Americanisms in Australian Defence Force; Americans should not find exclusively British terms in American Civil War. In a biographical or critical article, it may be best to use the subject's own variety of English". This article doesn't even mention "genies", it only talks about Djinn/Jinn - the talk of "genies" is in the "popular culture" article (which, ironically, is named Jinn in Popular Culture) Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 07:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

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

Requested move (2010)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Translation in the lead section

The lead states that "jinn" has the broader meaning of "demon or spirits-depending on source". While it is true, neither translation is accurate and rather serves a purpose within a specific framework. For example, an author writing about possession in Middle East, is likely to refer to jinn as "demons", while in the theological sense, when they are contrasted with devils and angels, or their moral ambiguity comes into play, they are rather translated as "spirits". However, neither translation really fits. Demons are usually the evil entities, not necessarily theologically associated, but yet generally harmful. Spirits on the other hand are usually incorporeal. Even this is often commented on, if a work goes into detail about jinn. For example in "Magic and Divination in Early Islam" the part by Joseph Henninger states "using the term "spirits" for these beigns must not lead us to assume that their nature was altogether non-physical and immaterial." Tobias Nünlst (cited) likewise uses an introduction to define the term "Dämon" (demon/daimon) first. There is a section specifically about bodily interactions with the world, but the translation of "spirit" (just like "demons") appears to me rather confusing. It is true, that jinn are "spirits" in Muslim Philosophy (in the tradition of ibn Sina and al-Farabi), but they pretty much have their own understanding of jinn. The most similar Western concept, wether they are etymological related or not, remains the Roman Genii. I propose to remove the translations, because they are not helpful. What do others think?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It is a bit leading to have this material appearing first thing in the article. The subsequent part, labelling them 'creatures' is obviously more accurate and pertinent. I would not delete the literary comparisons, but move the material down the lead and rephrase it by saying something like: "Though not a precise fit, descriptive analogies that have been used for these beings in Western thought include ... " Iskandar323 (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure how muhc this would actually help and not rather confuse. And mostly, terms like "demons" or "spirits" are not used to describe them, but rather because they fit the "working template" (sorry, I am not sure if this is the right term in English). For example, anthropologists tend to view any harmful supernatural entity as a "demon". As long as the paper, chapter or article talks about jinn as entities who possess others or bring illnesses. In a philosophical work, which shows Neo-Platonic influences, the term "spirit" is more likely to be invoked. Eventually nothing of them really fits, because the concept of jinn doesn't exist in Western culture. Most close would be the Greek Daemon I guess. I would tend write rather something like that they are sometimes transalted as "spirit"/"demon", similar to the shaitan article in which the translations "demon"/"devil"/satans" are offerred. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I can't even remember writing that response - honestly, you're reading the sources, so I say just follow whatever translations the strongest experts in the fields provide. Although, as you say, spirits is perhaps the better direct analogy in Western thought and might better reflect the moral neutrality of jinn. As jinn are beings of fire, as opposed to angels as beings of light, or humans as being of earth/blood, the Western terminology of 'spirit' lends itself better descriptively. If you think spirit of fire, you get something wispy, but with 'demons of fire' everyone is suddenly thinking 'balrogs', which jinn are definitely not. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, sorry for the late reply, I wanted to reply and forgot it later. I will wait a little bit and see if someone else has an opinnion on this. I think it is also noteworthy, that they are created from fire, but not fire themselves. Especially in the Turkic regions, they are even avoiding bonfires, because they are afraid of the light. However, the fire itself is sometimes considered a breeding place for the jinn. "Air" is also an important aspect, since "marijin min nar" (unfortunately often translatde as smokeless fire, which gives the impression jinn are entirely fire) is supposed to refer to a mixture of fire and air. Basically, they are the hot blurred air you see on a very sunny and hot day. Jinn are also not elementals, this is what I would get if someone speaks about "fire spirits", a term used sometimes by Lebing for example, who also clarifies only their origin is fire, not necessarily their nature. Most sources leave the term jinn untranslated nowadays, as far as I can tell. Thanks for your opinion. best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

JINN AS AN ALLADIN TIME

As we all know the jinn or jinnah is a Arabic word. The jinn according to ARABIAN NIGHTS JINN WAS FIRSTLY SEEN WITH ALLADIN ALSO, called as ALLADIN ka chirag. 2409:4089:AD10:3935:0:0:4ECA:820E (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be good to add Alladin to this article. Maybe in popular culture, folklore, further reading, see also. Thinker78 (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
FWIW there is already a mention of the Aladdin story in 1001 nights on the page. But Genies in popular culture is the resting place of most of the material on jinn in popular culture. The questions raised about this division of the material is the point of the talk about merging the two pages above. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, the Jinn from Disney's Alladin is not much to do with the Oriental jinn beliefs. It is taken from a story about a specific type of spirit (ifrit or marid) inspired by Persian divs. It might be placed in the Popular Culture Article, but apart from the name and the loose inspiration from an Oriental Tale, they don't have much in common (partly they are even opposites). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge, given the differences between western conceptions of genie and islamic concept of djinn, and distinct cultural associations; forum shopping following AfD also noted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination)); no consensus on alternative suggestions; improvement needed agreed. Klbrain (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the rewrite of the article, TompaDompa (talk · contribs) However, if all the duplicated explanations were removed, the article would generally encompass a paragraph and can easily be merged into the main article. I would like to propose a merge until such time as it grows so large for the main article it must be split off, if ever. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Support: I agree that such a move makes sense for now. "In popular culture" content is normally integrated, short of exceptional length issues or other circumstances. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Support: Yes, this would fit the article nicely. Maybe it could be merged with the Islamic popular culture section, and a short explanation for the Western and Muslim culture differences could be provided.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose: As I have said said before, e.g. in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction: If there is sufficient coverage in WP:Reliable sources to write a prose article about X in fiction/popular culture/whatever then such a separate article should exist (I don't think this is a terribly tall order – see e.g. eco-terrorism in fiction and space stations and habitats in fiction, which—full disclosure—were both rewritten as prose articles by me), and if there isn't sufficient coverage to do that then we shouldn't have a "in popular culture" section in the main article about X. We just had an AfD about this, and there is enough coverage for a separate article to exist. That merging the content from Genies in popular culture here would not make this article prohibitively lengthy is really beside the point. Merging the content here would also make it more difficult to expand upon it properly for a stand-alone article. Procedurally, I think it's questionable to propose a merge immediately after WP:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination) was closed as "keep"—that gives off the impression of trying to circumvent the outcome of the deletion discussion since nobody in that discussion suggested either merging or redirecting here as an WP:Alternative to deletion, either before or after the rewrite on 26 March. At the very least, the participants of the AfD should have been pinged: @Jclemens, Dream Focus, Piotrus, Rorshacma, Daranios, Shooterwalker, and BennyOnTheLoose: please weigh in on this. In the meantime, I have expanded Genies in popular culture a bit more. TompaDompa (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I just saw an article duplicating the definitions of what a 'Djinn' is followed by two paragraphs of popular culture examples that could quite easily sit in the main article. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose as WP:Forum shopping. Assuming I'm reading the timestamps correctly, barely 10 minutes elapsed between the close of the AfD--which had the option of enforcing a merge--and the posting of this suggestion. If you want to overturn an AfD result, WP:DRV is appropriate. Otherwise, a merge discussion should wait the recommended period per WP:RENOM absent some new, compelling information. Having said that, on the merits I agree with TompaDompa: IPC articles are just fine and should exist. I appreciate that the proposer here believes this will improve Wikipedia; I disagree entirely. Jclemens (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    As far as I know, a "keep" in an AfD does not preclude a merge, it just means the content in the article merits preservation somehow. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the article passes GNG and can exist as a stand-alon entry. However, a summary should be added to the current empty section there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I can honestly see the merits in both sides of the debate here, so I don't have a strong enough opinion to advocate for either position. Rorshacma (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Neutral, leaning oppose. Thanks for pinging me. I think there is enough material here to support a stand-alone article, so I don't see the need for a merge. It is not as yet so long that it would in my view be a problem in the target article either, though. However, I find it very important that really none of content worked out here would be lost in a merge. Leaning oppose also because I think the article still has potential for futher expansion if one were to look into still more detail, e.g. if there are any more notable examples in the former list version. Daranios (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as a WP:CONTENTFORK. This largely duplicates information in the main Jinn article. Genies are a cultural invention, and the sentences about Islam, One Thousand and One Nights, and other old Arab sources are what this main article is about. More than half the article is duplicated, and could easily flow from one section into another. Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and this is a new proposal that should be evaluated on the merits of how this information should be organized. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I would have another suggestion... (is it allowed during a poll? I am actually not sure, if not I am sorry, I will delete it. I couldn't find anything about it). How about moving "Genies in popular culture" to something like "Genie in the bottle" The "Genie in Popula culture" is usually about a wish granting Genie, who is basically the opposite of the jinn (jinn are free-willed beings without supernatural abilities, while the Genie in Western popular culture is an enslaved entity, with supernatural powers), and further the Genie in Western Media originate from the Persian Divs (sometimes called Marid or Ifrit in Arabian sources and thus confused with the jinn). The popular cultural depiction of jinn, as really the Arabian/Islamic jinn-creature, are mostly featuring in Middle Eastern Horror or Mystery movies. This jinn-article could provide information about the jinn in popular culture, and the "Genie in Popular Culture", could be about the "Genie in the bottle". We would just need to rename the latter. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, but at the same time, aren't ifrit a subdenomination of jinn? (Not sure about Divs or Marid) Iskandar323 (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
We have to follow the sources, and I don't think this suggestion is really consistent therewith. The conflation of different types of supernatural entities is ultimately an aspect of the pop-cultural depiction here. TompaDompa (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
The div (sometimes translated as ifrit or marid) are conceptually different. In this case the term is basically used to denote "something powerful and supernatural". Outside of Arabian Nights, ifrits are usually spirits of hell, powerful jinn, or ghosts of the dead. I don't know exactly how marids are used however. Nontheless, the "ifrit" in Arabian Nights seems to be a translation from Persian to Arabic. They are not really close to the Arabian jinn. But I am also concerned about the sources, since in many, the "spirit" in Arabian Nights is unfortunately referred to as a "jinni". But this Western popular understanding of Arabian Nights "jinn" (which is rather a div), is distinct from the Middle Eastern jinn as either human-like beings or Horror elements. (It is remarkably ironic that in Western Media jinn are essentially known for being bound and having magic, while they are in ME free creatures explicitly without magic, though). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I strongly oppose the merge of the Genies in popular culture to Jinn due to the same reasons done by those that are against it. To the closer of this discussion if this merge does happen, I am asking that you include any information that details about Jinn being able to grant wishes to people as I can't find anything about it on the page for Jinn. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Islamic mythology" or rather "Islamic culture"?

Thinking about changing this, since jinn-beliefs aren't necessarily an Islamic belief only, although most academic sources focus on jinn when dealin with Islam. Since jinn are mostly a folkloric concept, Jews and Christians might as well believe in jinn. For example "The Moroccan Demon in Israel" mentions jinn (jnun) beliefs among Jews in Morocco. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It would more accurately be described as "Arabic culture", hence the pre-Islamic section. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Category "Quranic words and phrases"

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

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

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

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

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

Merging

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

Main image

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

Thanks for pointing this out. I did some research on the Kitab al Bulhan to determine what the images are about. Unfortunately, it is not clear. It seems they could indeed be divs (demons) or jinn (genii). We know that the main image is jinn from the description saying "ghoul" (which is a jinni). If you think that is a mistake, please let us know.
Regarding the seven jinn kings, who are sometimes also described as divs or ifrits instead, we cannot say for sure, how they relate to the (other) jinn. Remember that the article says in the section "interpretation": "the term jinn can be used in two different ways:
as invisible beings, offspring of abu Jann considered to be, along with humans, thaqalān (accountable for their deeds), created out of "fire and air" (Arabic: مَارِجٍ مِن نَّار, mārijin min nār).
as the opposite of al-Ins (something in shape) referring to any object that cannot be detected by human sensory organs, including angels, devils, and the interior of human beings"
It is possible that the jinn-king are only jinn in the secondary meaning of the term, an invisible entity. The section speaking about the jinn-kings is related to the tradition of Islamic magical practises, in which terms like jinn are rather ambiguous and my not have hooves. However, to avoid confusion, the note about "hooves" could be removed from the main image.
Thank you for your input, it is well appreciated. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Mythology

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

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

Recent deletions

@TheEagle107: here we go again. Please make yourself familar with the discussion and respond o the objection before adding reverted edits over and over again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenusFeuerFalle (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)edit dif

Oversized images"

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

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

Belief in jinn and belief in Islam

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

The first (somewhat clumsy) attempt in the lede

Although they are not one of the Five Pillars of Islam, or Six Articles of Faith, like Angels, they [jinn] are mentioned in the Quran, and so considered necessary for a good Muslims to believe in (at least according to Amira El-Zein).[1]

VenusFeuerFalle reverted this with the edit summary:

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

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

Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran.[2](p33)

reverted with the edit summary:

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

I also added text in the Exegesis section of the article

1) a few lines about the revivalist reasoning on the issue (see note) by noted revivalist Maududi ...
... and revivalist preacher Abul A'la Maududi,[a] insist belief in jinn is essential [to the Islamic faith] ...

reverted with the edit summary

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


2) ... and I made mention of an incident where an Egyptian university professor was threatened with death (Nasr Abu Zayd went into exile after being accused of apostasy, in part for his alleged disbelief in Jinn)[4]

reverted with the edit summary:

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

Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think I answers all your objections in my edit summaries. When you want to discuss the issue, please include my reasons and object to those. I do not intent to go forth and back. I furthermore have provided you kindly with several resources on for relevant guidlines. I am willing to discuss potential editing disagreement, but not to repeat myself again. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
(Actually I included your edit summaries above. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC))
Yep, thank you. So where exactly is the question? @TheEagle107: you seem to be puzzled by the same question.
In summary, I do not object to the claim that some scholars think jinn (which is also a vague term in Islamic terminology, as stated in the article) that one needs to believe in them. I object to adding this to the lead section. The blue links lead to the corresponding guidlines by the way. I expect participants to make themselves familiar with them when engaging in a topic. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC) edit: remember that a religious scholar is not a scholar of religion. Maybe some confusion comes from that. Some states do not make a proper distinction (such as Türkiye). A scholar of religion makes research about what religious people believe, how and why. A religious scholar interprets scripture and tells what people believe. The latter ones violate the the Wikipedia neutrality. Accordingly, you could cite the highest ranking Islam scholar from Diyanet on Islamic matters and it would have no effect at all. It is the duty of the religious scholars to make sure their results are in accordance with the religion's beliefs, not the other way around (or their religion loses creditablity if they rely on "ancient roots" or something). Similar goes for the "Iblis" debate, we have so often. Even if Muslim scholars today find out that "he cannot be an angel because we haven't considered hadith x y", it doesn't matter. As soon as notable scholars in the past have opined differently, Islamic history will always be affected by the past. Scholars of religion will merely notice and desctibe the changes of that belief, and the causes of said change. I hope this helps why some of your sources are not considered reliable according to Wikipedia standards. If you have questions do not bother to ask me. I am eager to help as long as people actually listen instead of hostilizing. [apparently this was VenusFeuerFalle]
Response to third opinion request:
It seems that several different pieces of content are under dispute here, but with the way this thread is scattered with lengthy quotes and subsections makes it difficult to understand. Lacking a clear, succinct description of exactly what the disputes are, I can only weigh in from my impressions.

Descriptions about what is an is not accepted orthodoxy in a religion as widespread and varied as Islam must be very carefully qualified with attribution and consideration to due weight. It appears to me (knowing very little) that Jinn being an "essential" feature of Islam is closer to a fringe view than a mainstream position, so in that sense I lean toward VenusFeuerFalle's positions. If that position is indeed fringe, that doesn't totally rule out including it, but it means the information must be carefully and conservatively presented, and probably doesn't belong in the lede. That said, VenusFeuerFalle I believe you would have better success in navigating disputes with more civil language, as edit summaries like this seem unnecessarily combative to me.

If my input doesn't help reach a resolution here, I suggest raising this at WikiProject Islam where subject matter experts may be able to weigh in. Cheers - StereoFolic (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Thanks for the advise. I prioritize civil language and kind words. However, this specific user appears since about 2 years frequently after I edited an article, makes some rather disruptive edits, and then leaves the article. Some of these disruptions are basic formats such as using ' ; ' instead of ' == ' for headers. In the beginning I cleaned up after them and kindly reminded them to use the proper formation, did not stoppe after a year. I left some articles completely to them after constant edit warring about nothing without any sign of cooperation, and they left them in a worse state than before and then never touched them again. I hoped that direct speech might be a better way for communication. If this does not work either, I will completely give up on them. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@VenusFeuerFalle:
Was unaware I was edit warring with you! Do you have some links to these ... "disruptive edits" and "constant edit warring"?
I admit I have still sometimes used ' ; ' instead of ' == ' for headers, but infrequently. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Since this has nothing to do with the article, see personal talkpage VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Note

The Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Ahmad al-Tayyib said: "It is necessary to believe in the existence of jinn, because they are mentioned in the Holy Qur'an".[5][6][7][8] There are numerous references to jinn in the Qur'an and Hadith (sayings of Prophet Muhammad). According to Islamic belief, jinn are real creatures. Characteristics they share with human beings are intellect and freedom to choose between right and wrong and between good and bad, but according to the Qur'an [55:14–15] their origin is different from that of man.

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

The Hanafi scholar Badr al-Din al-Shibli (d. 769/1368) composed a work of 140 chapters on this topic, entitled Ākām al-Marjān fi Aḥkām al-Jānn (Arabic: آكام المرجان في أحكام الجان), which was summarized by Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911/1505).[9] In this work there is a chapter about the existence of jinn and disagreement about them (here or here). Badr al-Din al-Shibli said that al-Juwayni (Imam al-Haramayn) in his work al-Shamil fi Usul al-Din [ar] (The Compendium on the Principles of Religion) said: "Many philosophers, the majority of Qadariyya, and all heretics denied the existence of the shayatin (devils) and jinns.... Al-Baqillani said: Many Qadariyya affirm the existence of jinn in ancient times and deny their existence now... Imam al-Haramayn (i.e. al-Juwayni) said: ...(There is) a consensus of all scholars in the era of the Sahaba and Tabi'een on the existence of jinn and devils..."TheEagle107 (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle Idk if these things are already addressed in previous discussions. May be you wish to address or reply and also create a FAQ so every time you need not repeat over and over again. Bookku (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeh it is the same as ever, I even filled my Wikipage with that, but it does not help when Users refuse to read anything and just drop random quotes, no one asked for. (it is actually always the same two or three Users. At least one of them tried to improve). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I just gonna drop this here: WP:OR. And before you go around and enter the desired outcome into a Google Search engine, make sure you actually hit what has been objected to. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


Jinns are mentioned many times in the Qur'an. Not only does the Qur'an repeatedly mention jinns, one of its chapters is even named after them. I think the right question here should be: "Is believing in the Qur'an part of Islamic faith or not?!"The six articles of the Islamic faith are: 1. Belief in God 2. His Angels 3. His Books (including the Qur'an) 4. His Messengers 5. The Last Day (the Day of Judgment) 6. Belief in al-Qadar (God's predestination, preordainment, decree, destiny, fate).--TheEagle107 (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
(Notes and references)
  1. ^ El-Zein, Amira (2009). Islam, Arabs, and the Intelligent World of the Jinn. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. p. x. Retrieved 10 March 2024.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Nünlist-2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Maududi, Syed Abu-Ala'. "72. Jinn. Reality of Jinn". Syed Abu-Ala' Maududi's Chapter Introductions to the Quran. International Islamic University of Malaysia. Retrieved 12 March 2024.
  4. ^ Cook, Michael (2000). The Koran: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. pp. 46–47. ISBN 0-19-285344-9.
  5. ^ "الإمام الأكبر خلال برنامج "الإمام الطيب": الجن طائفة خفية وإنكار وجوده يعد تكذيبا لما جاء في القرآن". azhar.eg (in Arabic). Al-Azhar Portal. Archived from the original on 13 Apr 2024.
  6. ^ "الإمام الأكبر: الجن طائفة خفية وإنكار وجوده تكذيبا لما جاء فى القرآن". youm7.com (in Arabic). Youm7. Archived from the original on 13 Apr 2024.
  7. ^ "فيديو.. شيخ الأزهر: الإيمان بالجن ضروري لأنه ذكر في القرآن.. وتلبسه الإنسان «خيالات»". shorouknews.com (in Arabic). Al-Shorouk. Archived from the original on 12 Apr 2024.
  8. ^ "شيخ الأزهر: الجن طائفة خفية والإيمان بوجوده واجب". masrawy.com (in Arabic). Masrawy. Archived from the original on 13 Apr 2024.
  9. ^ Cenap Çakmak, ed. (2017). Islam: A Worldwide Encyclopedia [4 volumes]. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 880. ISBN 9781610692175.
  1. ^ In his introduction to the Quran, Maududi defends "the reality of the jinn" against the influence of "modernism", the failure of modernists to believe in what cannot be perceived, and their idea that the jinn of the Quran were not supernatural invisible beings but actually "savage and wild mountain tribes, and sometimes the people who used to listen to the Quran secretly".[3]

Paragraph Move Proposal

There is a wonderful table about each day of the week and their relation to angels and jinn. However, I wonder if this is not rather something for the article Worship of heavenly bodies. In Islamic tradition, the seven planets are not consequently called jinn, but also ruhanniya (as a reference to the "spirits inhabiting the planets") and are not a reflection of genuine jinn belief, although some source do identify them as jinn. Yet, since in Arabic every "invidible being" can be jinn, the designation of "jinn" does not suffice to be significant for a jinn-article, or else it also needs to include angels and turning the focus of the article in "spirits in Islam" in general. It should be noted however, that in modern times, according to Magic and Divination in Early Islam, the seven planets are frequently identified with jinn or at least jinn-like entities. However, the concept behind that is more related to Hellenistic Planet Worship, and less to genuine Islamic (including the entire culture) jinn-beliefs.

Carboni, Stefano writes in "The Book of Surprises (Kitab al-bulhan) of The Bodleian Library.":

"In the Kitab al-bulhan a couple of images are missing in this section on the jinns and we can refer to the Ottoman copies in order to reconstruct the full series of the seven ‘Kings of the Jinns’, each one connected with a specific day of the week, an angel, a planet and a metal following many literary treatises on magic and talismans."

and

Among the extant illustrations in the Kitab al-bulhan, the ‘Red King’ (al-malik al�ahmar) is the jinn of Tuesday and here the talismanic symbols are evident both in the monotonous repetition of individual letters (in this case, the letter ‘ta’), and numbers, and in the so-called ‘spectacle symbols’ originally deriving from the Kabbalah or other mystical and magical traditions (fol. 31r). The Red King of Tuesday has a close relationship with Mars, the planet of war, and is consequently depicted as a monstrous being riding a lion while holding a sword and a severed head.

Thus, the idea of jinn-kings are int he citations linked to the planets.

An excerpt from "Saif, Liana. The Arabic influences on early modern occult philosophy.", sheds more light on that matter (and I would add this to the article Worship of heavenly bodies then):

The word used in these Arabic texts to denote spirit is ruhaniyya. In the Picatrix, which Hermann could have read in Arabic, the author explains that the knowledge of the correspon�dences of things and their astral origins is essential in order to invite the ruhaniyyat to bestow their powers into a talisman or ritual.65 But he adds that we must prepare our spirits by theurgic rituals in order to commu�nicate our will to the stars and their ruhaniyyat. 66 It is notable that in magic these ruhaniyyat tend to be endowed with more personality and a level of tangibility, in contrast with the ruhaniyyat we encounter in the context of natural philosophy and astrology. In the Picatrix we read: The ruhaniyya may appear in the spiritual world [of the magus] as a person that converses and teaches him what he desires, it may endear him to kings and sultans, tie and unravel any matter he wills [... ] and answer the caller with what he wants [... ] talismans are the most Celestial Souls and Cosmic Daemons 181 powerful choice for attracting a ruhaniyya [ ... ] and that is because the natural properties, through the ruhaniyya, can perform wondrous acts singlehandedly.

Special attention should be paid to this part though:

reconciled in the Ghaya. Peripatetic causality is used to account for the existence of occult properties in all things – minerals, plants, animals, anything used in a magical operation – which are given by the stars in the process of generation and corruption. Neoplatonism elucidates the power of signs and its impact on the soul of the operator whose knowledge of these signs enables her to organize the elements of magical practice towards a specific purpose. Furthermore, the spiritual powers mentioned in the text, especially those related to the stars, are explained as the multiplication and individuation of the Universal Soul through emanation, distancing them from traditional ‘demons’ or ‘devils’, Jinn or shayateen (Arabic: devils) as we shall see in detail in Chapter

Accordingly, I propose that the minor references within the body of the text can stay, to move the table to the proposed article. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jinn/Archive_2&oldid=1256342348"