Talk:Iblis/GA1

[News]

GA Review: responses.

← Previous revision​	Revision as of 23:47, 28 April 2024​
Line 34:	Line 34:
*In response to Ahendra's remarks, the lead section is a bit long compared with the overall size of the article, and I do think the middle two paragraphs could be shortened a bit. But the general rule of thumb is that a lead section should touch on the subject matter of every top-level heading, and I wouldn't want it to be reduced too much. In any case, I don't think any major changes to the lead are necessary for meeting the GA criteria.	*In response to Ahendra's remarks, the lead section is a bit long compared with the overall size of the article, and I do think the middle two paragraphs could be shortened a bit. But the general rule of thumb is that a lead section should touch on the subject matter of every top-level heading, and I wouldn't want it to be reduced too much. In any case, I don't think any major changes to the lead are necessary for meeting the GA criteria.
:: I tried, without the lead becoming confusing. I think trimming the lead comes with the issue that the points are not clear. This is an issue adressed in one of the points below, when the positions of "angel vs jinn" need more elaboration.
*However, Ahendra's point about the relationship with the Christian concept of Satan is valid. English-speaking readers are likely to be more familiar with the Christian concept and wonder how Iblis relates to it. The topic may not need its own subsection; it could perhaps be brought up when the article discusses the relationship with the term ''Shayṭān''.	*However, Ahendra's point about the relationship with the Christian concept of Satan is valid. English-speaking readers are likely to be more familiar with the Christian concept and wonder how Iblis relates to it. The topic may not need its own subsection; it could perhaps be brought up when the article discusses the relationship with the term ''Shayṭān''.
:: Is a quick mentioning sufficient? It has been added.
*Speaking of which: that discussion is somewhat confusing. It says that ''Iblīs'' and ''Shayṭān'' aren't interchangeable but doesn't entirely explain how they differ, even though Awn 1983 says they largely ''are'' interchangeable.	*Speaking of which: that discussion is somewhat confusing. It says that ''Iblīs'' and ''Shayṭān'' aren't interchangeable but doesn't entirely explain how they differ, even though Awn 1983 says they largely ''are'' interchangeable.
:: The only part of Awn stating that I can find is "While the Qur’anic references to Iblis deal primarily with these two religious myths, it should not be assumed that these passages constitute the only Qur’anic references to an Islamic devil figure. On the contrary, the name Ash-Shaytan, Satan, appears more than fifty times in the text of the Qur’an.* Within the two myths described above, the titles are virtually interchangeable, with the name Iblis being used in the context of man’s creation and the Devil’s fall, while the title Ash-Shaytan is reserved for the enticement of Adam and Eve", which sets Iblis in direct relationship to the story of Adam's fall in Garden Eden. I think it is important to note the part "''Within the two myths described above''". As stated and cited in the lead, the figures differ in their function. I do not know why the source shows page 122 though, it should have been 46. I decided to highlight the relevant parts: <blockquote>"The predominance of the use of Ash-Shaytan over Iblis in the hadith collections of Al-Bukhari, Muslim, and Ibn Maja points to more than simply a semantic preference. It does not seem rash to suggest that each title portrays the Islamic devil figure in a distinct light. '''The name Iblis, as seen earlier, is intimately linked with the development of a complex, mythic personality; Iblis is ascetic, devoted worshipper, master of the heavens, guardian of Paradise, defender of the Throne, arrogant, prideful, impetuous, etc. One cannot paint him only in blacks and whites.''' There is too much conflict and ambiguity in his make-up, and it is this very complexity that adds vividness and depth to his portrait. (...) The title Ash-Shaytan, as employed in the hadith, views the Muslim devil from a substantially different perspective. We are confronted '''more with a malevolent force than with a highly nuanced personality'''. The focus is not on Iblis/Ash-Shaytan’s interior psychic processes but rather on the ruinous effects this evil force has upon the lives of men and women. This should not seem strange considering the heightened concern of the hadith with human praxis. '''Ash-Shaytan is more often than not one-dimensional; he is evil, cunning, and wily; his delight is to lead mankind astray'''. There is little ambiguity here. It is generally in the few specific references to Iblis by name that his personality comes to life in all its complexity."</blockquote>
*"This is the major opinion among Arab scholars, who maintain the tradition that the personal name of this being was ʿAzāzīl." I'm not sure what "Arab scholars" is supposed to mean here; is it scholars of the Arabic language, or scholars who are Arabs? And if the latter, are they Islamic scholars or scholars of a particular academic field?	*"This is the major opinion among Arab scholars, who maintain the tradition that the personal name of this being was ʿAzāzīl." I'm not sure what "Arab scholars" is supposed to mean here; is it scholars of the Arabic language, or scholars who are Arabs? And if the latter, are they Islamic scholars or scholars of a particular academic field?
:: Added the name (for the Arabic scholar) mentioned in the source. This is mostly to highlight the Muslim perception of the etymology and not meant to be an etymology by modern standards.
*It's not clear why the ''Kitab al Magall'' is relevant to the etymology. According to the article about it, it's a post-Quranic source, so it doesn't seem like it would be of help tracing the word's pre-Quranic evolution. If the book's characterization of Iblis is noteworthy, it would belong in one of the theological sections below.	*It's not clear why the ''Kitab al Magall'' is relevant to the etymology. According to the article about it, it's a post-Quranic source, so it doesn't seem like it would be of help tracing the word's pre-Quranic evolution. If the book's characterization of Iblis is noteworthy, it would belong in one of the theological sections below.
:: The source made not clear that ''Kitab al Magall'' is post-Quranic. Re-checking the source with this in mind, the theory proposed here probably falls under fringe, since no other source covers this up. Removed this part.
*"Since fire overcomes clay, he owes to destroy Adam like fire destroys clay" — Do you mean "vows to destroy"?	*"Since fire overcomes clay, he owes to destroy Adam like fire destroys clay" — Do you mean "vows to destroy"?
:: Yes it is supposed to say "vows", not "owes". Fixed.
*"disagree on whether Iblis belongs to a group of angels called jinni due to their origin from paradise, or if he was distinct from the angels, the progenitor of the jinn". I think this needs some more explanation for readers who are unfamiliar with Islamic traditions about how angels and jinn relate to each other. Is it an established tradition that angels are progenitors of the jinn?	*"disagree on whether Iblis belongs to a group of angels called jinni due to their origin from paradise, or if he was distinct from the angels, the progenitor of the jinn". I think this needs some more explanation for readers who are unfamiliar with Islamic traditions about how angels and jinn relate to each other. Is it an established tradition that angels are progenitors of the jinn?
:: No it is rather that Hasan subsituted the jinn with the devils. I agree this needs some elaboration. However, jinn are usually a distinct topic in itself (except then they are merged with the devils). I added the source used below which explains Iblis' angelic interpretation using the term "jinni" (in this context) as a nisbah and not to designate "jinn" and not the genus.
*The name of the character in ''Vathek'' is apparently spelled "Eblis".	*The name of the character in ''Vathek'' is apparently spelled "Eblis".
:: This is the common transscription of the ''alif'' by Orientalists at the time. Similarly, ''Azrael'' might be spelled ''Ezrael'' or the demon ''Ifrit'' as ''Efrit''. Transscriptions with the leter A and I also exist (''Afrit'', ''Izrail'', etc.) Fixing the transscription used throughout the novel though, due to quote. The spelling variant is introduced in the lead-section.
*The limited Google Books preview of Cavaliero 2010 seems to show Cavaliero comparing Eblis in ''Vathek'' to the versions of Satan found in the Book of Job and the works of John Milton rather than Dante. Because I can't see the passage you're citing, could you quote it?	*The limited Google Books preview of Cavaliero 2010 seems to show Cavaliero comparing Eblis in ''Vathek'' to the versions of Satan found in the Book of Job and the works of John Milton rather than Dante. Because I can't see the passage you're citing, could you quote it?
:: I would need to get access again first, but I want to put it on my list.
*The second paragraph about ''ash-Shahid'' is unusual because you don't describe the reception of any of the other literary works listed here. Is there a particular reason for highlighting this one, and for highlighting only the reactions from Salafis and not other Muslims?	*The second paragraph about ''ash-Shahid'' is unusual because you don't describe the reception of any of the other literary works listed here. Is there a particular reason for highlighting this one, and for highlighting only the reactions from Salafis and not other Muslims?
:: It was simply because it was the only reception I found when I did research back then. It is kinda odd indeed to have only one reception.
*Awn 1983 is a single text with a single author; why is it cited chapter-by-chapter?	*Awn 1983 is a single text with a single author; why is it cited chapter-by-chapter?
:: I do not know. It was probably something done by another user over time. I never managed to configurate tweaks, so sometimes Users use them to formate the sources. Usually it is a great help, but sometimes it is doing strange things to sources. For example, the entire mis-reference to ''Iblis'' and ''Shaytan'' being used as separate terms. Maybe you might have a view on the source again. I want to restore the Awn sources properly, since it should be only one work not multiple chapters.

Okumaya devam et...