Talk:Jinn/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Cherrypicking?

Hello everyone! Please check out the citation number [3], which have been used several times as a reference.

Dämonenglaube im Islam

ORIGINAL: (in German)
Dämonen – im Arabischen ginn genannt – werden in der islamischen Offenbarung vielfach erwähnt. Am prominentesten treten sie in Sure 72 in Erscheinung, deren Titel al-Ginn lautet. Auch weitere Verse handeln von ihnen. Der Ausdruck ginn dient in zahlreichen Sprachen des islamischen Kulturraums bis heute als Oberbegriff zur Bezeichnung von Geistern.“ In Anschluss an ihre Erwähnung im Koran haben die ginn Eingang in die spätere islamische Überlieferung gefunden. Die sunna erwähnt sie vielfach. Die relevanten Hadite sind gemäß muslimischer Auffassung derart gut belegt, dass Fälschungen ausgeschlossen werden können (tawätur al-ahbär). Man kann die Existenz der ginn nicht in Abrede stellen, ohne den Vorwurf des kufr (Unglaube) auf sich zu ziehen und aus der Gemeinschaft der Gläubigen ausgeschlossen zu werden (takfīr). Neben Koran und Prophetenworten unterstreichen zusätzliche, im Lauf der Jahrhunderte entstandene schriftliche Quellen die weit verbreitete Akzeptanz der Existenz von Dämonen in der islamischen Welt. Selbst in modernen muslimischen Gesellschaften ist der Ǧinn-Glaube tief verankert. Infolge der Migration aus dem islamischen Kulturraum lassen sich die entsprechenden Auffassungen auch im Westen zunehmend beobachten. M. Dols macht darauf aufmerksam, dass der Ǧinn-Glaube kein strikt islamisches Konzept ist. Er beinhaltet vielmehr zahllose Elemente einer Götzenverehrung, wie sie Muḥammads Gegner zur Zeit der ǧāhiliyya in Mekka praktizierten. Gemäß F. Meier integrierte der junge Islam bei seiner raschen Expansion viele heidnische Gottheiten in sein System, indem er sie zu Dämonen degradierte. Auch T. Fahd thematisierte diese Einflüsse: Im Lauf der arabischen Eroberungen kamen die in der islamischen Offenbarung teilweise dokumentierten Auffassungen zum Geisterglauben mit entsprechenden Vorstellungen aus anderen Kulturen und religiösen Bekenntnissen in Kontakt. Neben Vorstellungen aus dem Mazdaismus und dem Gnostizismus im weitesten Sinn lassen sich v. a. Elemente aus dem Judentum nachweisen.

TRANSLATION: (in English), automatically translated by Google Translate.
Demons – called ginn in Arabic – are mentioned many times in Islamic revelation. They appear most prominently in Sura 72, the title of which is al-Ginn. Other verses are also about them. The term ginn still serves as a generic term to describe spirits in numerous languages of the Islamic cultural area. Following their mention in the Koran, the ginn found their way into later Islamic tradition. The sunnah mentions it many times. According to Muslim opinion, the relevant Hadith are so well documented that falsifications can be ruled out (tawätur al-ahbär). One cannot deny the existence of the ginn without incurring the accusation of kufr (disbelief) and being excluded from the community of believers (takfīr). In addition to the Koran and the words of the prophets, additional written sources that have emerged over the centuries underline the widespread acceptance of the existence of demons in the Islamic world. Even in modern Muslim societies, the Jinn belief is deeply rooted. As a result of migration from the Islamic cultural area, the corresponding views can also be increasingly observed in the West. M. Dols points out that the Jinn belief is not a strictly Islamic concept. Rather, it contains countless elements of idol worship, as practiced by Muḥammad's opponents in Mecca during the time of jahiliyya. According to F. Meier, in its rapid expansion, the young Islam integrated many pagan deities into its system by degrading them to demons. T. Fahd also discussed these influences: In the course of the Arab conquests, the views on belief in spirits, some of which were documented in Islamic revelation, came into contact with corresponding ideas from other cultures and religious beliefs. In addition to ideas from Mazdaism and Gnosticism in the broadest sense, v. a. Detecting elements from Judaism.

Tobias Nünlist, "Dämonenglaube im Islam". p. 1.

In addition, recently, I have found something interesting, which I think should be included as well in the article body. Among the achievements of the Hanafi-Sufi scholar Mustafa ibn Kamal al-Din al-Bakri (d. 1749/1162) that he took the general covenant from all the denominations of jinns, and initiated seven of the kings of the jinn. This is also mentioned here & here on the Arabic Wikipedia.--TheEagle107 (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Apart from the fact you cannot use Wikipedia as a source for other sources the Arabic Wikipedia is in a catastrophic condition in religious matter in general, I do not see how your comment contributes to anything. Most people here will probably not be able to read the Arabic Wikipedia, and the other links are only snipshits. Maybe you provide a translation for all the other readers as it has been done in the sources you copied here for mysterious reasons. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

If it is still about the discussion whether or not jinn are an important part of Islam, just re-read the discussion again, since noone except you and the user with the questionable edits since 2 years discuss this. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@TheEagle107

1) Just for clarity, are you trying to say that despite using 'Tobias Nünlist' as a substantial source in the articles, point in the above highlighted part of 'Tobias Nünlist' is not given due weight in the article or you are trying to say some thing else?

2) Your suggestion on Mustafa ibn Kamal al-Din al-Bakri (d. 1749/1162) is separate point you wish you want to be included? or you are trying to connect dot with 'Tobias Nünlist' or 'importance of Jinn in Islam'. If that is a separate I suggest separate sections /sub sections for separate points.

@VenusFeuerFalle I understand and respect your study and effort in this topic area still may be you need to bear with some discussions until go through RfCs as conclusive part of WP:DR process.

As said earlier I respect your grip on the topic, and you can weigh the sources still quite a good number of sources TheEagle107 referring seem to be from university presses. Keep the Arabic part aside ref of Levtzion seem to be from an University press. Bookku (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if my response came off as interuptive. I just could not shale off the feeling that it was an implicit reproach to me, as I added the source and did the translation of the article as well. The claim for "cherrypicking" in this content sounded like there was an accusation of me being cherry picking then it came to Tobias Nünlist's "Daemonenglaube in Islam", hence my response. I hope the resolution can be made without opening entirely new sections with implicit accusations of working intentionally against the neutrality of the article. Apart from that, I would love to withdraw from this discussion. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand some times certain some micro-aggressive usages are used for get some tactical advantage in the heat of discussions, many times incautiously but later may end up in discussions spiral getting off the track.

I urge every one not to repeat micro aggression Usages like 'cherry picking', 'user with the questionable edits since 2 years'. Don't leave discussions keep them on healthy track of content issue resolution.

Instead of cherry picking may be we can utilize terms like 'surprise' or at the most 'strange' or 'disappointing,. At times we express disappointment but need not repeat disappointment again and again. Use phrases like request to have a re-look or re-visit, to add emphasis write (emphasis added) in a bracket or at the most 'read again' in a bracket. I suggest to collapse this incl my this comment and move on towards healthy discussion.

Bookku (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

“ are you trying to say that despite using 'Tobias Nünlist' as a substantial source in the articles, point in the above highlighted part of 'Tobias Nünlist' is not given due weight in the article ” — Bookku

Yes, exactly! 👍

“ Your suggestion on Mustafa ibn Kamal al-Din al-Bakri (d. 1749/1162) is separate point you wish you want to be included? ” — Bookku

Yes, exactly! 👍--TheEagle107 (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

My questionable edits notwithstanding, I don't see how ...

One cannot deny the existence of the ginn without incurring the accusation of kufr (disbelief) and being excluded from the community of believers (takfīr). In addition to the Koran and the words of the prophets, additional written sources that have emerged over the centuries underline the widespread acceptance of the existence of demons in the Islamic world. Even in modern Muslim societies, the Jinn belief is deeply rooted.

can't be added to the pile of other sources indicating belief in Jinn is important in Islam. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Page Number request

The sentence "The Quran condemns the pre-Islamic Arabian practice of worshipping or seeking protection from them" has an incomplete citation. I tried to find the statement (or a similar one) in the source, but could not find it. On the other hand, there is a similar sounding one in "Routledge Revivals: Medieval Islamic Civilization (2006): An Encyclopedia - Volume I". Unfortunately, the Google Book review is not transparent about the page number. It can be said, however, that the statement is under the entry 'Jinn'. The statement in question goes as follows:

"The most important source for understanding the concept of jinn in Islam is the Qur'an, which strongly condemns the worship of the jinn by the Arabs before Islam and their search for protection from them (72:6)."

Should we simply replace "South Asian Folklore: An Encyclopedia" by "Routledge Revivals: Medieval Islamic Civilization"? (maybe this was even the original source and then things got messed up during some edits). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits and refusal to elaborate on the talkpage

@TheEagle107 makes constantly disruotive edits I have a go soon, so maybe somone else could keep an eye on them. In my opinion, the User needs to be reported and banned, however @Bookku can still muster good faith, I found myself unable to. They constantly say something, and then you check it, it is just not true. I for my part User is simply motivated by religious bias as seen in their refusal of accepting basic Jargon and interfering unreliable sources in their recent comments here, while at least some users it seems they are considered to be simply struggling to understand the meaning of these guidlines (or not familar with them themselves). What is the opinion on others regarding their edits? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC) edit: Oh and they started spamming my talkpage... must be something personal.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The issue is now referred to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#POV tagging : please guide about Jinn. Pl give there your sides in 150- 200 words without personalizing; Soon proceeding to RfC formatting so urging patience from both sides. Bookku (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, since he vandlied again, I reported him. Hoepfully he just gets deleted. Especially since he started spamming my talkpage. Enough is enough. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems Eagle is edit warring/engaging in WP:DE. Objecting to use of "Mythology" in section title does not entail all section content should be deleted. I think it should be kept. Pogenplain (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• @TheEagle107, @VenusFeuerFalle

Apprehensions are understandable but in the heat of the moment we do not realize mistakes on our own sides. This time situation seem to have been saved since the issue was listed at WP:NPOVN. Let us take positive note of article protecting admin's note ".. further edit warring would probably cause a need to long-duration partial blocks to prevent the impact on other editors ..". Let us, take differences in stride and try to move on by helping in forming neutral summary so that discussion can move on towards RfC formatting. We all are aware of importance of focusing on content; I suggest and urge, When things go off the track come back to the track of content discussion. Let us come back to mood of cheers and happy editing. Bookku (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

If you can make sense out of the user, go ahead. With best efforts, I do not get through them. I think I made multiple times clear that the issues are. But with their last response, I just think they do not understand what is said. Neither their posted wikiguidliens make sense, nor their templates, nor their responses on the talkpage. For example, they said I would have said taht jinn are not an essential part of Islam previously, and listed about 10 sources stating otherwise. The thing is, neither I nor the article said that. Quite contrarily, the article does say that jinn are essential to Islam and was once added by myself. If you can communicate with the User properly, go ahead, I give up on them. Either they do not want to understand me or is not able to, this is not mine to decide. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I have only one direct question: Where are the sources that say that jinn are mythical creatures? Well, after more than a month of discussion and providing many sources that support my position, the user's answer was the sky is blue, while the first sentence in the lead states that jinn are invisible creatures!

“ On "Mythology": The term "mythology" does not need to be proven to you, since the term is academic jargon and in line with all the guidlines you listed here. See WP:BLUESKY for further information. ” — VenusFeuerFalle

Anyway, for my part, I will accept the consensus of Wikipedia editors whatever it is, and I hope the other user will do the same. Peace. TheEagle107 (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Serious question. Do you really not understand what people write you? Because this would explain a lot of your responses and replies. Until know, I just assumed you have a religious personal bias, but if you really quote the correct comment, yet fail to grasp its meaning, when I might have been mistaken about you. Nonetheless, you are required to spam my talkpage, or you will have been on the admin-page again soon (this is not a threat but a clarification). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are seriously requesting a source, it would have suffices to check the article. By the way, when someone responses to you and there are blue letters, it is a link usually related to the response. You need to click on it for more details about the arguement (or to read into the topic). For example, the meaning of "mythological cerature" would have been explained to you as here: "A legendary creature (also called a mythical or mythological creature) is a type of fantasy entity, typically a hybrid, that has not been proven and that is described in folklore (including myths and legends), but may be featured in historical accounts before modernity." If you had clicked on it, we would not have needed any discussion about it. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC formatting

(edit conflict) Please suggest neutral questions for RfC.. Bookku (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest something like: Please answer with a brief statement of why, on your view, the section should be or should not be: 1) deleted, or 2) its title should be renamed, or 3) merged into another section, or 4) moved to an appropriate article.--TheEagle107 (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Would you not be including LPB's questions too?
• I suggest write neutral summary (without any personal complaints) for sections: Pre-RfC, Comparative mythology and Real/ religious/ Mythical creature or not issue.

While writing summary include links to previous notice board discussions (update when archived).

It will help you in suggesting questions and help RfC participating users in understanding the issues better. Bookku (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course, User:Louis P. Boog's suggestions and concerns should be included as well. Take, for example, this:

“ My questionable edits notwithstanding, I don't see how ...

One cannot deny the existence of the ginn without incurring the accusation of kufr (disbelief) and being excluded from the community of believers (takfīr). In addition to the Koran and the words of the prophets, additional written sources that have emerged over the centuries underline the widespread acceptance of the existence of demons in the Islamic world. Even in modern Muslim societies, the Jinn belief is deeply rooted.

can't be added to the pile of other sources indicating belief in Jinn is important in Islam.

” — Louis P. Boog

Template:POV should be added or not?--TheEagle107 (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Comparative mythology

Hello everyone, I would like to suggest removing this section from the article, because it gives too much weight to present the views of other religions, while the main topic of the article is jinn in Islam, NOT comparative mythology! According to Islamic belief, jinn are REAL creatures, not mythical or legendary creatures like unicorns and centaurs. The section seems to me irrelevant, and a combination of WP:OR & WP:FRINGE. So I suggest deleting this section completely or just moving it to Comparative mythology, or to any other appropriate article.--TheEagle107 (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree (mostly) and had the comparative section on my eye for a long time. Comparative mythology can be a valid sub-section, since "in the wake of the recent Multiculturalism trend" (to quote the Islam article), the role of jinn is indeed subject of much academic debate. Especially how they compare to Christian demons and devils.

I see, you already removed it because of your reasoning "it is Islam and not non-Islam" despite the very introduction stating otehrwise. Sighs. Alright, here we go again. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

So, lets discuss which parts should be removed and why. First, Jinn are "not a strictly Islamic concept; they may represent several pagan beliefs integrated into Islam" as the lead explains and is supported by two sources and also covered by most of the text below (It helps to actually read the article before entering a discussion). However, there is a good point made by asserting that there is an overemphasize on comparative mythology. Comparing Buddhist Deva with islamic jinn is sourced only once by a quick reference. Of course Muslim authors identified devas with jinn, but by making them jinn, not by similarities between those two concepts. I think this can be removed without further dispute. The Ancient Mesopotamia section reiterates mostly the parts of "pre-Islamic Arabia", with the letter being much better.

I would keep the Judaism section though, since this comparasion has been made several times and "shedim" even has become the Hebrew word for "jinn". It was once part of the Quran section due to analysis of the Quran, but deided to remove it below. The Christianity setion is aprtly of value. While the interpretation by Abraham Ecchellensis is neat to know, it had no impact on a historical scale. The term used for Bible translations is OR again and also worthless from an encyclopedic viewpoint. The discussion about fallen angels on the other hand, is frequently discussed even in academic circles also to understand the cultural exchange between Hellenistic ideas and Islam, and Islam in Andalus and its impact on European religion, including astrology and Medieval Philosophy. Maybe it even needs some additions.

Since Eagle decided to remove everything, I am sure Eagle is fine with any removal of the content. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Requesting synopsis / summary so other users to understand share inputs in the discussion if they wish. (Consider these tips).

*Fyi: Updated WP:FTN, WT:MYTH, WT:ISLAM intimation, intimated input requests to substantial and active contributors to article /talk Mythology (xtools), Comparative mythology (xtools) and talk page there of namely User names Bloodofox, Nyarlat 1920, RealLifeRobot, Last1in, Phatius McBluff, Gizziiusa, Alarichall. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion (xtool): IZAK, Doug Weller; WT:ISLAM (xtool) :RiskAficionado

Important articles content stages {{dif||}} since starting of this section discussion:
Pl. feel free and help keep difs updated as necessary as discussion moves ahead. 1) dif before first removal of sectionComparative mythology 2) Brief moment of Section removal (by TheEagle107) stage which is restored and pruned and updated by VFF further in following stages 3) Removal 1 by VFF, removal 2 by VFF article current stage

Bookku (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to decide how wide to cast the net in sections like this, but I agree with @VenusFeuerFalle that it's useful to have a 'comparative mythology' section in this article. Readers may want to know what pre-Islamic traditions have been incorporated into the concept of jinn in the wide Islamicate world, and also to know what evidence there is for the array of beliefs on which Islam drew in its earliest stages. (For what it's worth, Elf has a section 'Equivalents in non-Germanic traditions', which is a bit messy and unfocused, but no-one as far as I know has ever objected to the idea of the section being there.) Alarichall (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Mesopotamia had impact on a wide range of different demonic and spiritual ideas. The pre-Islamic jinn section deals precisely with jinn and provides a great deal about jinn before the advent of Islam. So, I am finw with that being removed. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Take a chance if both sides can come on same page. Any way RfC is in offing but even before that if okay to both sides, I can extend input request umbrella further for more thorough discussion. For example the article Ancient Mesopotamian religion (xtools) has been edited by User:Midnightblueowl and they seem to have strong GA FA level article experience. But in that case I shall try to invite top active users of most relevant and articles internally linked in this Jinn article. (can't predict which users would join for providng inputs). Other way round is we take up the issues to notice FTN and NPOV notice boards boards one after other for more inputs. Let us know which one both sides would prefer the first option or second option, or just RfC? Bookku (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I am OK with anything that reflect the consensus of the Wikipedia editors, and that generally comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially WP:NPOV, WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:OWN and WP:VERIFYOR.TheEagle107 (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Comparative mythology, Due, Fringe or Undue?

Relisting:Above discussion deserves inputs at least from few more users (before we go for RfC) that too preferably from users who contributed to related articles so they know the nuances better. Hence relisting the question with following brief synopsis of above discussion. for details pl. refer above.

*Fyi:intimated input requests to substantial and active contributors to article /talk, Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia (Xtool) :HouseGecko, GenoV84; Pre-Islamic Arabia (Xtool):Sunriseshore, ‎ Gog the Mild; Judaism in pre-Islamic Arabia (Xtool):Pogenplain; Islamic culture (Xtool):Johnbod; Schools of Islamic theology (Xtool):Billjones94; Muslims (Xtool):Wiqi55; Islam (Xtool): Sodicadl, User-duck, StarkReport, Guavabutter, AgisdeSparte;

Important articles content stages {{dif||}} since starting of this section discussion:
Pl. feel free and help keep difs updated as necessary as discussion moves ahead. 1) dif before first removal of sectionComparative mythology 2) Brief moment of Section removal (by TheEagle107) stage which is restored and pruned and updated by VFF further in following stages 3) Removal 1 by VFF, removal 2 by VFF article current stage

• User:TheEagle107 feels section Jinn#Comparative_mythology to be irrelevant, and a combination of WP:OR & WP:FRINGE. So suggests deleting the section completely or just moving it to Comparative mythology.
• Though User:VenusFeuerFalle agreed partial deletion, VFF says ".. Comparative mythology can be a valid sub-section, since "in the wake of the recent Multiculturalism trend" (to quote the Islam article), the role of jinn is indeed subject of much academic debate. Especially how they compare to Christian demons and devils."

• VFF is okay with removal of 'Comparison of Buddhist Deva with islamic jinn'.

VFF opinion on why and how much to keep Judaism and Christianity related comparison

".. keep the Judaism section though, since this comparasion has been made several times and "shedim" even has become the Hebrew word for "jinn". It was once part of the Quran section due to analysis of the Quran, but deided to remove it below. The Christianity setion is aprtly of value. While the interpretation by Abraham Ecchellensis is neat to know, it had no impact on a historical scale. The term used for Bible translations is OR again and also worthless from an encyclopedic viewpoint. The discussion about fallen angels on the other hand, is frequently discussed even in academic circles also to understand the cultural exchange between Hellenistic ideas and Islam, and Islam in Andalus and its impact on European religion, including astrology and Medieval Philosophy. Maybe it even needs some additions. .."

• VFF seem to have continued with removal of Mesopotamia related content but not happy about the removal. And says ".. Mesopotamia had impact on a wide range of different demonic and spiritual ideas. The pre-Islamic jinn section deals precisely with jinn and provides a great deal about jinn before the advent of Islam. .."

• Received just one input up til now, Alarichall says, ".. it's useful to have a 'comparative mythology' section in this article. .. It's hard to decide how wide to cast the net in sections like this,.. "
• Waiting for more inputs:

Do sources support saying jinn are a mythical creatures?--TheEagle107 (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Just for clarification: User VFF did not "continued with removal" but restored parts of the removed content by @TheEagle107. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I have given stages dif of related content in collapse template above and that's self descriptive. I did not see 'Mesopotamia related content' restored but read you are not pleased, hence the wording and since both sides still seem to have reservations hence we are requesting more inputs. Let's hope we get some soon. Bookku (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no quarrels about the current state. I merely considered the removal of all the content an overdo. If @TheEagle107 is fine too, the dispute seems to be resolved (on my part). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep but it needs to be modified.

Rename from "Comparative mythology" to "Historical context"; that is the paradigm under which antecedents are typically discussed.

I have made an edit replacing "scholars discussed how the jinn fit into the Judeo-Christian concept of demons" with "scholars discuss the relationship between Islamic notions of jinn and earlier Jewish and Christian ideas of supernatural beings or preternatural creatures, especially those of angels, spirits, and demons."

The restriction to "demons" does not make sense as the section itself also mentions relationships to angelic beings, and also misses potential relations to spirit/spirit-like entities from the pre Islamic period.

"William of Conches" sentence should be removed. I cannot tell why it is relevant.

Sentence beginning with "In Islamic tradition, jinn and angels form two entirely different species" should be removed. This basic distinction should be stated earlier in the page, not here.

The first paragraph ends with a citation of the Quran Seminar Commentary but no page number. I checked this volume (its open access) and could not verify any support in it for the content of the first paragraph.

At the same time this section ignores almost all the scholarly work relating Quranic/Islamic-era jinn to pre Islamic ideas. Where is Josh Falconer's paper "Familiar Spirits in the Qurʾān: Retracing the Origins of the Jinn" ? Where is Valentina Grasso's paper "Historicizing Ontologies: Qur’ānic Preternatural Creatures between Ancient Topoi and Emerging Traditions" ? I have not read it but this book may contain much material of relevance https://www.amazon.ca/-/fr/Tengour-Esma-Hind/dp/2806609607. Nicolai Sinai's Key Terms of the Quran is low-lying fruit for citation, and discusses historical context of the jinn idea on pp 180-181 for Arabian background and late antique background in 183-186. It seems jinn mentions in pre-Islamic Arabic poetry are not mentioned. Pogenplain (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

For whatever my input is worth - The article is "Jin" not strictly "Jinn in Islam", I don't see how having a section comparing to other religions is undue weight. Content within the section can be kept or deleted if it is OR or not. Sodicadl (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I want to have a look at that later. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments

I have made an edit replacing "scholars discussed how the jinn fit into the Judeo-Christian concept of demons" with "scholars discuss the relationship between Islamic notions of jinn and earlier Jewish and Christian ideas of supernatural beings or preternatural creatures, especially those of angels, spirits, and demons."

Appreciate the edit, it makes things much clearer. Nothing to object.

"William of Conches" sentence should be removed. I cannot tell why it is relevant."

While he was influenced by Arabic writings, his distinction between "higher demons" and "lower demons" in turn influenced astrological works by al-Buni and al-Razi and their "demonology". However, this is not clear and, after checking, not adressed properly in the source. It is probably a remnant of the recently (by myself) moved "table" of the seven jinn-king, since they deal with the ambiguity between the ruhaniyya and jinn-kings. Lack of scholarly support makes it plausible to remove that (as per OR as stated by @Sodicadl)

"Sentence beginning with "In Islamic tradition, jinn and angels form two entirely different species" should be removed. This basic distinction should be stated earlier in the page, not here."

I disagree here, since this is speficically related to the issue of comparative theology/mythology. In Islam the term "jinn" has a double meaning as stated in the exegesis section. It is used as a term for all supernatural beings (including angels and demons) when they morality is left ambigiuos and also for a specific supernatural species. The notion of jinn and angels being clearly distinct is the result of discussion in comparative mythology/theology. If this is rather confusing, I suggest to delete it entirely and not to move it.

The citation of the first paragraph might refer to the following part of the work (pp. 378-388):

"Several participants in the Notre Dame gathering wanted these beings to be fallen angels, meaning those “sons of God” who descended to mate with the “daughters of men” according to Gen 6:2–4 and whose story is developed in 1 Enoch (the Enoch book preserved in Ethiopic). This seems impossible to me. For one thing, there is absolutely nothing in the tradi�tion on the fallen angels at any time in its long history to suggest that these angels tried to, or even could, fly back to eavesdrop on proceedings in heaven; and the ǧinn in Q 72 are never actually called angels.

It is the closest I was able to find. How much this does support the claim made here, I leave open to the opinion of other Users.

Regarding the last part, I think the section on Jinn#Pre-Islamic era sufficiently discusses the role of the jinn in pre-Islamic times by two separate sections, including one dedicated Jinn#poetry and soothsaying. This is also my reply to the adressed concerns in the opening paragraph: I do not think the section needs to be re-named "Historical context", since the article does discuss the pre-Quranic, and post-Quranic image of jinn pretty extensively. As @Sodicadl pointed out correctly and failed to be acknowledged by @TheEagle107 this article is not about "Jinn in Islam" but "Jinn". As the article already mentions in the introduction, "Jinn are not a strictly Islamic concept; they may represent several pagan beliefs integrated into Islam", the existence is rather popularized through the Quran and Islam.

The focus should be on the inclusion of the comparative mythology; how much similarities between jinn and demons/angels from Judeo-Christian tradition discussed in literature should be included, if included at all. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I can get behind much of this and I understand you are fine with deletions of the two individual sentences making up the second paragraph. Based on Quran Seminary Commentary quote, at least one can say that the sentence about Augustine's views is not supported ? "They bear similarities to Augustine's descriptions of fallen angels as ethereal, since jinn seem to be considered as the same substance." I have removed this as well since Augustine does not seem to be mentioned. Pogenplain (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This would technically fall under Original Research. Would you mind to have a look on Fallen Angel? The source is used in a simialr way in the lead section to discuss the distinction between fallen angels and jinn in interreligious dialogue? Else, I would just copy most of your edit and paste it over, if you do not mind. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sodicadl: Jinn is an Islamic religious-based term/concept/definition for a species of super­nat­ural invisible beings, known as ‘genies’ in West­ern lexicon. You can say Jinn are the “demons of Islam”. A Qur'ānic chapter (72) is named after them. Please note also that there is not a single source in the whole article that says that jinn are mythical creatures. Anyone who objects to that must show me the source along with the text. So somehow I agree with the suggestions of User:Pogenplain that was stated above. The section should be removed or its title should be changed and rewritten in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly those related to WP:NPOV, WP:MAINSTREAM, and WP:VERIFYOR. For detailed information about the jinn and their relation with humankind, see Essentials of the Islamic Faith. Peace.--TheEagle107 (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Back to idea of a rename to "Historical context". Jinn can be conceived in broader terms than just the Islamic tradition, but it is also true that the page is heavily oriented to the Islamic perspective and a Comparative mythology or Historical context section should be written with that in mind. As it is the CM section compares Islamic belief/ritual with pre-Islamic (1) Christian angels (2) Jewish Solomonic stories (3) Jewish ritual. Though it is clearly lacking in detail, anyway - sure there is a Pre-Islamic section but this section does not do the task of comparing (and identifying similarities/differences) between Quranic/Islamic and pre-Islamic spirits. Also, while "Historical Context" studies have done the task of making these comparisons (which is what Id place the work of Falconer, Grasso, and Sinai in), I do not know of specialized comparative mythology experts/literature on this subject. Pogenplain (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

For clarification:

Jinn are only considered "demons" within anthropological context, when discussion "demonic possession" in Islamic culture (see: "Women and Demons: Cult Healing in Islamic Egyp" or "Sexual Intercourse btween humans and demons in Islamic tradition" by Pierre Lory).

When talking about Islamic theology/cosmology/demonology, 'demons' mostly matches 'shayatin' not (evil) jinn. (see for example "Demons, Jinn and Figures of Evil in the Qurʾān" by Guillaume Dye, "Commanding Demons and Jinn: The Sorcerer in Early Islamic Thought" by Travis Zadeh, or Amira el Zein "Islam Arab and the Intelligent World of the Jinn".)

Even in some Anthropological studies, identifying jinn with demons has been considered to be too reductionistic and a distinction is made. (See: "Muhaimin, A.G. (2006). The Islamic Traditions of Cirebon: Ibadat and Adat among Javanese Muslims. ANU E Press."). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

On "Mythology": The term "mythology" does not need to be proven to you, since the term is academic jargon and in line with all the guidlines you listed here. See WP:BLUESKY for further information. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Requesting mid-discussion synopsis: Summary along with important edit dif will help understand progress, remaining disagreements, communication gaps and help nominally observing users too. Bookku (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Pogenplain @VenusFeuerFalle

  @TheEagle107

  I urge neutral summary / synopsis of above discussion up til now. Bookku (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I have been absent for a few weeks now. I really could not effort to go into lenghty discussions. Is this debate still ongoing? I do not want to enflame a discussion whihc might have been settled for the time of my absence. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  @VenusFeuerFalle Slightly longer real life wiki-break seems usual to all users at this talk page. Edits by LPB @ indicates issues still need to be sorted out. IMO Section wise Summary from involved users would have helped better. Bookku (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)