Talk:Jinn: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:30, 24 June 2024 editLouis P. Boog (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users43,851 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 13:45, 20 December 2024 edit undoDimadick (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers805,585 editsNo edit summary
(146 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown)
Line 5:		Line 5:
	{{WikiProject Islam \|importance=high}}		{{WikiProject Islam \|importance=high}}
	{{WikiProject Arab world \|importance=high}}		{{WikiProject Arab world \|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Occult\|importance=high}}
	{{WikiProject Middle Ages \|importance=low}}		{{WikiProject Middle Ages \|importance=low}}
	{{WikiProject Folklore \|importance=high}}		{{WikiProject Folklore \|importance=high}}
Line 11:		Line 12:
	\| algo = old(90d)		\| algo = old(90d)
	\| archive = Talk:Jinn/Archive %(counter)d		\| archive = Talk:Jinn/Archive %(counter)d
	\| counter = 2		\| counter = 4
	\| maxarchivesize = 75K		\| maxarchivesize = 75K
	\| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}		\| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
Line 18:		Line 19:
	}}		}}
	<!-- Update the bot settings if you move the page, see WP:POSTMOVE. -->		<!-- Update the bot settings if you move the page, see WP:POSTMOVE. -->

	== Recent deletions ==
	{{ping\|TheEagle107}} here we go again. Please make yourself familar with the discussion and respond o the objection before adding reverted edits over and over again.

	===Oversized images"===
	{{ping\|Skyerise}}<br>
	I recently . These were by ] as "" or because "". 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. --] (]) 01:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

	:Please see the ] and ]. 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. ] (]) 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

	===Belief in jinn and belief in Islam===
	{{ping\|VenusFeuerFalle}}<br>
	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 ], 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) '''''' in the lede
	:''Although they are not one of the ], or ], like Angels, they are mentioned in the ], and so considered necessary for a good Muslims to believe in (at least according to Amira El-Zein).<ref name="El-Zein-2009-x">{{cite book \|last1=El-Zein \|first1=Amira \|title=Islam, Arabs, and the Intelligent World of the Jinn \|date=2009 \|publisher=Syracuse University Press \|location=Syracuse, NY \|page=x \|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JjTctEZXHCQC&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&dq=superstition++in+islam&hl=en&source=newbks_fb#v=onepage&q&f=false \|access-date=10 March 2024}}</ref>

	VenusFeuerFalle 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 ''' 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.<ref name="Nünlist-2015"/>{{rp\|style=ama\|p=33}}

	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."<br>

	I also added text in the ] section of the article
	:1) a few lines about the revivalist reasoning on the issue (see note) by noted revivalist Maududi ...

	:''... and revivalist preacher ],{{Efn\|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".<ref name="Maududi-intro-72">{{cite book \|last1=Maududi \|first1=Syed Abu-Ala' \|title=Syed Abu-Ala' Maududi's Chapter Introductions to the Quran \|publisher=International Islamic University of Malaysia \|url=https://www.iium.edu.my/deed/quran/intro/i072.html#H_072_3 \|access-date=12 March 2024 \|chapter=72. Jinn. Reality of Jinn}}</ref>}} insist belief in jinn is essential ...''

	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 (] went into exile after being accused of apostasy, in part for his alleged disbelief in Jinn)<ref name=Cook-2000>{{cite book \|last=Cook \|first=Michael \|year=2000 \|title=The Koran: A very short introduction \|publisher=Oxford University Press \|isbn=0-19-285344-9 \|url=https://archive.org/details/koranveryshorti00cook \|url-access=registration \|pages=}}</ref>

	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 ] section. Jinn are mentioned 29 or so times in the Quran. They have a surah named after them. ], ], ], 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" (]) is ] (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 <br>
	..... wouldn't this be the very definition of ''not'' "petty"! <br>
	Another question, Does this text not belong in ]? (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 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 ({{cite journal \|last1=Hassan \|first1=M Kamal \|title=he Influence of Mawdudi's Thought on Muslims in Southeast Asia: A Brief Survey \|journal=The Muslim World \|date=July-October 2003 \|volume=93 \|issue=3/4 \|page=429 \|url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/216437384?sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals \|access-date=14 March 2024}}) <br>
	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 ], 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 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.
	--] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
	::(Actually I included your edit summaries above. --] (]) 16:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC))
	:::Yep, thank you. So where exactly is the question? {{ping\|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 ]. 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. ] (]) 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 ]. Accordingly, you could cite the highest ranking Islam scholar from ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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.
	:
	{\| style="border-top: solid thin lightgrey; background: transparent; padding: 4px;"
	\| ] '''Response to ]:'''
	\|-
	\| style="padding-left: 1.6em;" \| 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. <br/><br/> 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 ]. It appears to me (knowing very little) that Jinn being an "essential" feature of Islam is closer to a ] view than a mainstream position, so in that sense I lean toward ]'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, ] I believe you would have better success in navigating disputes with more civil language, as {{URL\|1=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jinn&diff=prev&oldid=1213407309\|2=edit summaries like this}} seem unnecessarily combative to me. <br/><br/> If my input doesn't help reach a resolution here, I suggest raising this at ] where subject matter experts may be able to weigh in. Cheers - <!-- Template:Third opinion response --> ] (]) 23:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
	\|}

	:<blockquote>I believe you would have better success in navigating disputes with more civil language</blockquote> 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. ] (]) 22:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
	::{{ping\|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. --] (]) 18:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
	:::Since this has nothing to do with the article, see personal talkpage ] (]) 13:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

	====Note====
	The ], ] said: "It is necessary to believe in the existence of jinn, because they are mentioned in the Holy Qur'an".<ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.azhar.eg/details/ArtMID/821/ArticleID/29852\|title=الإمام الأكبر خلال برنامج "الإمام الطيب": الجن طائفة خفية وإنكار وجوده يعد تكذيبا لما جاء في القرآن\|website=azhar.eg\|publisher=] Portal\|language=ar\|archive-url=https://archive.ph/cFuJd\|archive-date=13 Apr 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.youm7.com/3822124\|title=الإمام الأكبر: الجن طائفة خفية وإنكار وجوده تكذيبا لما جاء فى القرآن\|website=youm7.com\|publisher=]\|language=ar\|archive-url=https://archive.ph/jymA9\|archive-date=13 Apr 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.shorouknews.com/news/view.aspx?cdate=06062018&id=4b9f08ae-8be3-4673-96fc-00fdbd6ab862\|title=فيديو.. شيخ الأزهر: الإيمان بالجن ضروري لأنه ذكر في القرآن.. وتلبسه الإنسان «خيالات»\|website=shorouknews.com\|publisher=]\|language=ar\|archive-url=https://archive.ph/s4otw\|archive-date=12 Apr 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web\|url=https://www.masrawy.com/news/masrawytv/details/2018/6/5/1370611/\|title=شيخ الأزهر: الجن طائفة خفية والإيمان بوجوده واجب\|website=masrawy.com\|publisher=]\|language=ar\|archive-url=https://archive.ph/Wry5a\|archive-date=13 Apr 2024}}</ref> There are numerous references to jinn in the ] and ] (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 –] their origin is different from that of man.

	] (d. 321/933) said in his ] 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 (d. 769/1368) composed a work of 140 chapters on this topic, entitled '''' ({{lang-ar\|آكام المرجان في أحكام الجان}}), which was summarized by ] (d. 911/1505).<ref>{{cite book\|editor=Cenap Çakmak\|title=Islam: A Worldwide Encyclopedia \|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=c6fOEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA880\|date=2017\|publisher=]\|isbn=9781610692175\|page=880}}</ref> In this work there is a chapter about the existence of jinn and disagreement about them ( or ). Badr al-Din al-Shibli said that ] (Imam al-Haramayn) in his work {{ill\|al-Shamil fi Usul al-Din\|ar\|الشامل في أصول الدين (كتاب)}} (The Compendium on the Principles of Religion) said: "Many philosophers, the majority of ], and all heretics denied the existence of the ] (devils) and jinns.... ] said: Many ] affirm the existence of jinn in ancient times and deny their existence now... Imam al-Haramayn (i.e. ]) said: ...(There is) a ] of all scholars in the era of the ] and ] on the existence of jinn and devils..."] (]) 05:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

	:@] 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. ] (]) 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). ] (]) 20:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
	:I just gonna drop this here: ]. 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. ] (]) 20:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


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

	;(Notes and references)
	{{reflist}}
	{{notelist}}

	==Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Mythology==
	{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Yavapai_College/Introduction_to_Mythology_(Spring_2024) \| assignments = ] \| start_date = 2024-01-16 \| end_date = 2024-05-10 }}

	<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 01:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)</span>

	==Dispute resolution of deletions on belief in jinn and belief in Islam==
	The issue of deletions on Belief in jinn and belief in Islam by VenusFeuerFalle can be found at ] --] (]) 16:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

	:@], @] WP:DRN discussion moderator seems to be waiting for further inputs from both of you.

	] (]) 02:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
	:Some observations
	:@] Your input request @ ] was better at giving brief synopsis of dispute but that seem to be now archived. I suggest you update the link of the same at WP:DRN
	:@] both of you may have some misunderstandings about content as of now but my perception is both of you together work further on this article to make it GA or even FA.
	:I would like to share some observations content improvements in the article, let me know if you are going for GA review. ] (]) 03:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
	::Although I hate being this type of person. Louis P. Boog usually enters editing an article after I did for a long time, and usually decreases the quality. This happened to several articles I edited, including ], ], ], ], ]. Often not even the basic manual of style guides are paid attention to. For example, since 2022 the user uses ';' instead of '==' for sub-headers, so I need to constantly clean up. I told them multiple times about deconstructive edits, but ignores everything I say, sometimes trying to report me. I think there is enough reason to have bad faith here. Please keep an eye on them. THis user is not pushing a GA article, since none of the articles I left them, have ever achieved GA after disrupting them. ] (]) 19:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
	:I am listing here users who edited this talk page previously and still active (]) . If for more inputs or review either of you may wish to ping them. But if you ping then ping all of them.
	* User:Ashmoo
	* User:savvyjack23
	* User:Primalchaos
	* User:Iskandar323
	:] (]) 04:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
	::Thank Bookku. Have updated link to ]. --] (]) 14:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
	::@], @], @], @]
	::Greetings users! As recent editors of the Jinn article, you may be interested in giving input on a dispute at the Dispute resolution noticeboard , concerning edits in that article on the connection between belief in jinn and belief in Islam. Thank you. --] (]) 14:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
	:::Small note: In my search I found them among who edited this talk page Idk of the article page. ] (]) 14:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
	:::@], @]
	:::Fyi: The WP:DRN discussion seems to be .
	:::] (]) 06:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
	::::Thanks again. will proceed with ] as by ] --] (]) 19:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
	::::'''For ref and record''': Following is link of dispute summary by LPB at ] before DRN
	::::* ]
	:::::] (]) 07:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
	===Earlier talk page discussion===
	for anyone interested there does not seem to be any discussion in the Jinn article talk page archives about belief in Jinn being or not being a necessary belief in Islam. ( I look this up.) --] (]) 15:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

	==Reverting of ] after closing of Dispute Resolution discussion==
	] "due to lack of response by one editor". i.e. ]. Volunteer moderator ] ended with this:

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


	So I, the filing editor (]), made the edits ] and ... ], who couldn't be bothered to make a response to the Dispute resolution discussion, with the summary "this was not the resolution".

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

	:@] and @] Pl. take note that WP:DRN is not a binding solution so win by absence of other side at WP:DRN is of very temporary nature. So advice all the sides not to engage in any further reverts.
	:The final step for you to go for ] (also follow ])
	:Or you can take pause in discussion here and request inputs at ] (this being primarily ] issue or at ]. And there after go for ]. (My personal recommendation is you take a chance at ] for more inputs before going for RfC for wider feedback.
	:] (]) 01:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
	::I also suggest all to go through or re-read policies ], ], ], ].
	::** I suggest to check already available refs in the articles ] and ] for RS and also check if their importance has been cited in any reliable journals and academic books available at google scholar and google books. Take input help of ] forum to confirm if any source can be considered RS or not.
	::** I suggest read the article body again and write down your own lead in your own sand box and then compare if you find the present lead has a proper weight from reliable contents made in the rest of the body. Such an exercise may help you in RFC discussion and during good article and feature article nomination reviews.
	::** I suggest @] to take their references at ] to have community inputs which of their references can be considered as reliable.
	::Last but least to all incl. @] please confirm you are signing your comments properly so other visiting users do not get confused by mistake.
	::] (]) 01:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
	:::I do sign my comments, I just respond rarely, since I mostly response then there is new information. Until now, I am still waiting for my initiate objection (I this time even repeated) to be adressed. Until then, I will be waiting. I repeat it here again: Religions scholars, unlike scholars of religions, are not reliable sources, sources need to be understood in context, the lead is a sumamr yof the article. Whether or not jinn are a dogma, is no promiment element in the article and thus giving undue weight in the lead. I am still waiting for a proper response, instead I get revert after revert with the claim "but authentic source how dare you!". And no matter how often I talk to them on talkpages, they just ignore whatever I say, keep on quoting sources with no relevance, express indignation, and then go to an admin or disappear for a month. Last time, the source provided did not even supported their statement, similar thing happened with the other user last year on another article. For unexperienced users who do not want to engage in civil discussions, we have the Sandbox function. ] (]) 02:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
	::::Give them time to find academic sources at google scholar / google books approach ], WP:NPOVN then WP:RFCBEFORE then ] many times inputs from different users help as I said earlier. ] (]) 02:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
	:::I will probably not be online for a few days or a week. Maybe I have time for a quick check in. In case once again, my absense is taken as an agreement to edits my objections are left unanswered in the first place. ] (]) 02:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
	:::Fyi: As a discussion facilitator I placed an input request at ] with a note to provide inputs @ this article talk page itself. ] (]) 02:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
	::::As a discussion facilitator Input request also posted @ ], ], ], ], ] project talk pages. ] (]) 03:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Input request made @] since the article falls under :Category:Supernatural and GliderMaven seem to have substantially contributed to the article ] as per ] ] (]) 04:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
	:Have you actually read what ] or have you just taken it literal? ] (]) 02:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

	::I'll take the liberty to ping some users here who are often editing Islam-related articles, and are recently active: {{ping\|Yasinzayd}}, {{ping\|Apaugasma}}, {{ping\|DivineReality}}, {{ping\|Aqsian313}}, {{ping\|Albertatiran}} and {{ping\|Aafi}} Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!--] (]) 02:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
	:::Looking at the last "undo" of edits under exegesis, I think it is fine to leave @]'s edits there. They are indeed relevant. Regarding Islamic studies, we must understand that in Islam, the opinions of great scholars hold much weight. So citing them as a source should be acceptable. Whether or not one chooses to follow that opinion is another story. But being exposed to different opinions and knowing who different scholars are is an important element in studying Islam.
	:::Regarding this in the intro: "Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran." First of all there are some typos and also I think there is ijma' anyways and it's not a matter of ikhtilaf to my knowledge. I would change it to: "Belief in the Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Qur'an." I think it's fine to include that. Regarding this topic: if one disbelieves in any part of the Qur'an, they have left Islam entirely according to Sunnis. Also it is mentioned in Aqida Tahawiyah upon which there is ijma': So yes, a Muslim must believe in the existence of Jinn to be a Muslim to my knowledge and I am unaware of any opinion to the contrary. I think citing Aqida Tahawiyah as a source is a good idea. That's my view. Take the best of it.
	:::] (]) 03:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
	::::<blockquote> Regarding Islamic studies, we must understand that in Islam, the opinions of great scholars hold much weight.</blockquote> Not really, since in Islam there is no official clergy and who is trustworthy and who is not is eventually up for the individual. Apart from this claim to be factually wrong, it is besides the point since it is against the neutral point of view policy mentioned above. ] (]) 14:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
	:::I '''oppose''' the insertion into the lead. The lead is a summary and should not contain anything not already present in the body of the article. But these facts ''have not'' been added to the body of the article. I suggest that the adding editor find an appropriate place in the ''body'' of the article to add the fact, work with other editors until it is done in a place and a way that other editors do not object to. ''Only then'' would it be appropriate to start as discussion as to whether it should be in the lead and if so, how much weight it should be given. ] (]) 10:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
	::::@] But it ''is'' present in the body of the article. In the section.
	:::::''... many Muslim scholars, including the ] scholar ] and the ] scholar ], believe they are essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran.<ref name="Nünlist-2015"/>{{rp\|style=ama\|p=33}} ...
	::::The dispute being discussed or ], includes adding a bit more to this section. --] (]) 20:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC) {{reflist}}
	:::::Typically, if there is only one sentence about something in the body, that's not enough to give it enough weight to also add it to the lead. If the article goes more in depth about a topic, say a paragraph or two, ''then'' a sentence in the lead might be considered. But you are going to need more than one proponent of the position and of course sufficient third-party sources to support more material in the body before it makes sense to bring it up in the lead - otherwise the lead would be the size of the body, if every sentence was equally important! ] (]) 21:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
	::::::The lede is pretty long. The sentence
	:::::::''Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran.
	:::::: ... not so much. The issue -- a requirement to be a true Muslim -- pretty important. But I will drop the issue for now. --] (]) 01:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

	I would suggest adding this paragraph to the lead: "The word 'jinn' and its variants are mentioned 29 times in the ],<ref>{{cite book\|author=Robert Lebling\|title=Legends of the Fire Spirits: Jinn and Genies from Arabia to Zanzibar\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uxKJDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT44\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2010\|isbn=9780857730633\|page=44}}</ref><ref>{{cite book\|author=Judy Wanjiru Wang’ombe\|title=Lived Experiences of Ideologies in Contextual Islam\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IWP4EAAAQBAJ&pg=PT22\|publisher=Langham Publishing\|publication-date=2024\|isbn=9781839739576\|page=22}}</ref> and ] is even named after them.<ref>{{cite book\|author=Wahid Abdussalam Bali\|translator=Haytham Kreidly\|title=The Cutting Edge: How to Face Evil Sorcerers\|url=https://archive.org/details/TheCuttingEdgeUpload/mode/2up\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2015\|isbn=978-2-7451-5074-5\|page=28\|quote=It is enough evidence that the jinn exist since there is a whole Surah in the Quran that talks about the jinn. The word "jinn" was mentioned in the Quran twenty-two times. The word "Al-Jann" was mentioned seven times,}}</ref>" Or at least it should be mentioned in the lead that there is a ] that talks about the jinn.<ref>{{cite book\|author=Juan Eduardo Campo\|title=Encyclopedia of Islam\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OZbyz_Hr-eIC&pg=PA402\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2009\|isbn=9781438126968\|page=402}}</ref>

	Here are some sources that might be of interest:
	{{talkquote\|... These two passages provide the strongest textual verification of the existence of jinn within Islam. Belief in the existence of jinn is considered equivalent to belief in the existence of angels, one of the primary articles of faith in Islam, and consequently, to disbelieve in them would be ]. The majority of Muslims believe jinn to be a species of spiritual beings created by God out of smokeless fire long before he created humans out of mud. God gave jinn the earth to inhabit. They are drawn to both good and evil.<ref>{{cite book\|editor1=Sarah Lamb\|editor2=Diane P. Mines\|title=Everyday Life in South Asia\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=828fOvb61wIC&pg=PA278\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2010\|isbn=9780253354730\|page=278}}</ref>}}


	{{talkquote\|In Islam the existence of jinns is axiomatic: according to Muslim belief, jinns were created of fire, in contrast to the angels, who were created from light. They are considered more powerful than men, but less powerful than angels. The jinn is capable of humanly impossible tasks, and the intelligence of the jinn is considered much superior to that of humans. The belief in jinns is so strong in Muslim and Arab thought that ] judge disbelief in jinns as ] – except for the ], who dare to question their existence.<ref>{{cite book\|author=Aicha Rahmouni\|title=Storytelling in Chefchaouen Northern Morocco\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OHWjBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA57\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2014\|isbn=9789004279131\|page=57}}</ref>}}


	{{talkquote\|The jinn are considered by some authorities to be an integral part of the Islamic faith due to their inclusion in the Quran.<ref>{{cite book\|author=William E. Burns\|title=They Believed That?: A Cultural Encyclopedia of Superstitions and the Supernatural around the World\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hEvEEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA137\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2022\|isbn=9781440878480\|page=137}}</ref>}}


	{{talkquote\|Jinn are an integral part of both traditional and Gnostic Islamic belief. They are referred to 25 times in the Qur'an, not counting ] (“The Jinn”).<ref>{{cite book\|author=Mark A. Caudill\|title=Twilight in the Kingdom: Understanding the Saudis\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZbjOEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA92\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2006\|isbn=9780313084850\|page=92}}</ref>}}


	{{talkquote\|The jinn are an integral part of the Muslim tradition from the Qur'an onwards and thus are inescapable even for the modernists (who often see them as internalized psychological states).<ref>{{cite book\|editor1=Paul Robertson\|editor2=]\|title=All Religion is Inter-Religion: Engaging the Work of Steven M. Wasserstrom\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kx6XDwAAQBAJ\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2019\|isbn=9781350062221\|page=138}}</ref>}}


	{{talkquote\|... Some Muslims educated in the modern Western tradition maintain that mentions of angels and jinn in the Koran should be taken allegorically rather than literally, but they are in a small minority, and even they never quite lose their fear of the jinn.<ref>{{cite book\|author=]\|title=Islam & Muslims: A Guide to Diverse Experience in a Modern World\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=X_Z8DAAAQBAJ&pg=PT72\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2006\|isbn=9781473643918\|page=72}}</ref>}}


	{{talkquote\|According to traditional Islamic faith, djinns were created by Allah out of smokeless fire (). As such, Muslims generally consider these creatures part and parcel of the living world and believe that they actively participate in the lives and social interactions of humans, as do angels and Iblis (i.e., Satan) for that matter.<ref>{{cite book\|editor1=]\|editor2=Jan Dirk Blom\|title=Hallucinations: Research and Practice\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CGW363NKe3kC\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2011\|isbn=9781461409588\|page=237}}</ref>}}


	{{talkquote\|Jinn are supernatural entities created by God before the creation of Adam. Whereas Adam was created from clay, the jinn were created "from the fire of a scorching wind" (Q 15:27) or "from fire free of smoke" (Q 55:15). They are mentioned several times in the Qur'an as well as in numerous other genres, including ] (biography), ] (tradition), ] (theology), and adab (literature). Belief in their existence continues in many predominantly Islamic countries to the present day, and fascination with these creatures in the West is evidenced by their appearance in popular movies and novels. Although they feature prominently in folklore, jinn are also taken quite seriously by Muslim scholars, both medieval and modern. Like humans, jinn have free will, and although many of them were converted to Islam by the Prophet Muhammad, others despaired at the coming of the new religion.<ref>{{cite book\|editor1=Coeli Fitzpatrick\|editor2=Adam Hani Walker\|title=Muhammad in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia of the Prophet of God\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DOTNEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA321\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2014\|isbn=9781610691789\|page=321}}</ref>}}


	{{talkquote\|Common narratives usually portray jinns as evil or mischievous, but they can also appear to be as morally complex as human beings. Muslim scholars have taken their existence seriously, even considering the legal question of whether jinns and humans could intermarry; Mālik, foundational figure for the Māliki legal school, argued that such a marriage was not itself a violation of sacred law, but added that it seemed undesirable. One hadith scholar in the eighteenth century presented a narration whose chain of transmission included two jinn reporters.<ref>{{cite book\|author=]\|title=Magic In Islam\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ih13CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA63\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2016\|isbn=9781101983492\|page=63}}</ref>}}

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

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

	::Can some of this information be included in the article? --] (]) 16:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

	===Refs to this section===
	{{Reflist-talk}}

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

	{{talkquote\|II. In official Islam the existence of the d̲j̲inn was completely accepted, as it is to This day, and the full consequences implied by their existence were worked out. Their legal status in all respects was discussed and fixed, and the possible relations between them and mankind, especially in questions of marriage and property, were examined. Stories of the loves of d̲j̲inn and human beings were evidently of perennial interest. The Fihrisl gives the titles of sixteen of these (308) and they appear in all the collections of short tales (cf., e.g., Dāwūd al-Anṭākī, Tazyīn al-aswāḳ , Cairo 1308, 181 ff.; al-Sarrād̲j̲, Maṣārīʿ al-ʿus̲h̲s̲h̲āḳ , Istanbul 1301, 286 ff.). There are many stories, too, of relations between saints and d̲j̲inn; cf. D. B. Macdonald, Religious attitude and life in Islam, 144 ff. A good summary of the question is given in Badr al-Dīn al-S̲h̲iblī (d. 769/1368), Ākām al-mard̲j̲ān fī aḥkām al-d̲j̲ān (Cairo 1326); see also Nöldeke’s review in ZDMG, lxiv, 439 ff. Few even of the Muʿtazila ventured to doubt the existence of ¶ d̲j̲inn, and only constructed different theories of their nature and their influence on the material world. The earlier philosophers, even al-Fārābī, tried to avoid the question by ambiguous definitions. But Ibn Sīnā, in defining the word, asserted flatly that there was no reality behind it. The later believing philosophers used subterfuges, partly exegetical and partly metaphysical. Ibn K̲h̲aldūn, for example, reckoned all references to the d̲j̲inn among the socalled mutas̲h̲ābih passages of the Ḳurʾān, the knowledge of which Allāh has reserved to himself (Ḳurʾān, III, 5). These different attitudes are excellently treated in the Dict , of techn. terms , i, 261 ff.; cf. also al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ, lxxii. }} --] (]) 16:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

	:Please sign your posts, so we can properly reply to it and know who is participating in the discussion. I would ignore this comment entirely, for these reasons, if my comment made above does not apply here as well. I also recommand to read the entire article, since the article states multiple times that most Muslims believed in jinn from the very beginning up to the post-modern period and "even after graduating in medicine" this believe may not change.--] (]) 15:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
	::@] I suggest you drop updates to Lead until you have improved consensus on rest of the article body and so first focus what updates you are looking in the rest of article body.
	::May be you copy the article body in your personal Sandbox update it and then propose specific changes.
	::] (]) 03:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

	====Refs to this sub-section====
	{{Reflist-talk}}

	=== Proposed rewriting of body of article ===

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

	:Noted, give me a day or two to go through. ] (]) 03:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
	:There are some improvements, yet same parts need a more fleshed out spelling. <blockquote>who "worked out" the consequences implied by their</blockquote> reads like a subtile thread. Given that you previously tried multiple times to add that a Muslim received death-threats for stating that jinn do not form an external reality (a position definately present in Medieval Age Islam as cited in the article), it cannot be ruled out that this is exactly what you have in mind. <blockquote>Jinn have been called "an integral part" of the Muslim tradition or faith, "completely accepted" in official Islam; prominently featured in folklore, but also taken "quite seriously" by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars</blockquote> might also suffer from a citation overdosis and some weasal words. Ask yourself, what is "official Islam"? What is the difference between "Muslim tradition" and "Muslim faith"? What does "quite seriously" mean? Bad writing might decrease the quality of an otherwise pretty decent article, which could soon meet GA or even FA standards. The prominence of jinn in Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and the Quran, is made clear right below the paragraph you want to add. WIth other words, without your addition, it is exactly the next thing the reader is gonna read. The quesiton here is, how is this repeation an improvement? ] (]) 21:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

	::Here are some more sources for you:
	{{talkquote\|Muslims accept the existence of the jinn as part of their faith.<ref>{{cite book\|editor=]\|title=Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BFZsBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA420\|series=Routledge Encyclopedias of the Middle Ages\|volume=1\|publisher=], an imprint of ]\|publication-date=2006\|isbn=9781135456030\|page=420}}</ref>}}


	{{talkquote\|The belief in jinn is very much alive in Morocco and like the belief in angels and the devil it is part of ].<ref>{{cite book\|editor=]\|title=Moroccan Migration in Belgium: More than 50 Years of Settlement\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5nI7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA310\|series=CeMIS Migration and Intercultural Studies\|volume=1\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2017\|isbn=9789462701168\|jstor=j.ctt21c4s72\|page=310}}</ref>}}


	{{talkquote\|Islamic dogma lists humans as the third spiritual creature created by Allah after angels and jinn.<ref>{{cite book\|author=Charles H. Brewton\|title=Muslim Mechanics: The View from Behind the Curtain\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=q2uxEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT75\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2023\|isbn=9781803410517\|page=75}}</ref>}}

	And finally, here is an written by one of the researchers of the ]. Cheers!] (]) 01:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
	;references
	{{reflist}}

	== 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 ]. 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 ] 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.":

	<blockquote> "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."</blockquote>

	and

	<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

	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 ] then): <blockquote>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 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.</blockquote>

	Special attention should be paid to this part though: <blockquote>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</blockquote>

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

	== ]? ==
	Hello everyone! Please check out the citation number ]], which have been used several times as a reference.
	{{quote box
	\|border=2px
	\|align=center
	\|bgcolor=Cornsilk
	\|title=Dämonenglaube im Islam
	\|halign=left
	\|quote='''{{sc\|Original:}}''' {{in lang\|de}}<br/>
	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.

	'''{{sc\|Translation:}}''' {{in lang\|en}}, automatically translated by ].<br/>
	Demons – called ginn in Arabic – are mentioned many times in Islamic revelation. They appear most prominently in ], 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 ]. 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.
	\|salign=right
	\|author=Tobias Nünlist
	\|source=<small>{{cite web\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yoE_CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1\|title=Dämonenglaube im Islam\|page=1}}</small>
	}}

	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 ] (d. 1749/1162) that he took the general covenant from all the denominations of jinns, and initiated seven of the kings of the jinn.<ref>{{cite book\|editor1=]\|editor2=]\|title=Eighteenth-century Renewal and Reform in Islam\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EZ9QAQAAIAAJ\|location=]\|publisher=]\|publication-date=1987\|isbn=9780815624028\|page=118\|quote=Other spectacular achievements were that he took the ''‛ahd al-'amm'' from all the ''tawa'if al-jinn''. In his turn, al-Bakri initiated seven of the kings of the jinn.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book\|author=Frederick de Jong\|title=Sufi Orders in Ottoman and Post-Ottoman Egypt and the Middle East: Collected Studies\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iC4KAQAAMAAJ\|volume=48 of Analecta Isisiana\|location=]\|publisher=Isis Press\|publication-date=2000\|isbn=9789754281781\|page=236}}</ref> This is also mentioned & on the Arabic Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 22:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

	:Apart from ] the Arabic Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
	:@]
	: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.
	:@] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.
	:::] (]) 06:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
	::{{Cquote\|quote=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\|author=Bookku}}
	Yes, exactly! 👍
	::{{Cquote\|quote=Your suggestion on Mustafa ibn Kamal al-Din al-Bakri (d. 1749/1162) is separate point you wish you want to be included?\|author=Bookku}}
	Yes, exactly! 👍--] (]) 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. --] (]) 19:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
	;References
	{{reflist}}

	==Pre-RfC==		==Pre-RfC==
Line 377:		Line 62:
	*<small><small>Fyi: of these on going discussion has been given at ], ] ]. ] (]) 11:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC) </small></small>		*<small><small>Fyi: of these on going discussion has been given at ], ] ]. ] (]) 11:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC) </small></small>
	:<small><small>Also a pre-intimation of these on going discussion has been given at ]. ] (]) 07:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)</small></small>		:<small><small>Also a pre-intimation of these on going discussion has been given at ]. ] (]) 07:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)</small></small>
			::* ] Link for easy reference. ] (]) 13:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

	===Next step===		===Next step===
Line 398:		Line 84:
	* ] is almost getting ready. RfC format suggestion request has been made at ]. ] (]) 12:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)		* ] is almost getting ready. RfC format suggestion request has been made at ]. ] (]) 12:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

			== RfC: Proposed additions of text 1 ==
	== ] ==
	Hello everyone, I would like to suggest removing ] from the article, because it gives too much ] to present the views of other religions, while the main topic of the article is ] in ], NOT ]! According to Islamic belief, jinn are REAL creatures, not ] creatures like ] and ]. The section seems to me irrelevant, and a combination of ] & ]. So I suggest deleting this section completely or just moving it to ], or to any other appropriate article.--] (]) 19:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

			<!-- ] 14:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1724853665}}
	: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 ] trend" (to quote the ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 00:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

			In section "Islam": Should the following sentence be added to "Islam" section in the article?
	*'''Comment''': <u>Requesting synopsis / summary</u> so other users to understand share inputs in the discussion if they wish. (]).

			{{talkquote\|Jinn have been called "an integral part" of the Muslim tradition<ref>{{cite book\|author=Mark A. Caudill\|title=Twilight in the Kingdom: Understanding the Saudis\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZbjOEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA92\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2006\|isbn=9780313084850\|page=92\|quote=Jinn are an integral part of both traditional and Gnostic Islamic belief.}}</ref> or faith,<ref>{{cite book\|author=William E. Burns\|title=They Believed That?: A Cultural Encyclopedia of Superstitions and the Supernatural around the World\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hEvEEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA137\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2022\|isbn=9781440878480\|page=137\|quote=Jinn are considered by some authorities to be an integral part of the Islamic faith due to their inclusion in the Quran.}}</ref> "completely accepted" in official Islam;<ref name=EI-2-English/>
	:<small><small>*Fyi: Updated ], ], ] intimation, intimated input requests to substantial and active contributors to article /talk ] (]), ] (]) and talk page there of namely User names Bloodofox, Nyarlat 1920, RealLifeRobot, Last1in, Phatius McBluff, Gizziiusa, Alarichall. ] (]): IZAK, Doug Weller; ] (]) :RiskAficionado </small></small>
			prominently featured in folklore,<ref name="Olomi-prominently-2021">{{cite book \|last1=Olomi \|first1=Ali A. \|title=The Routledge Companion to the Qur'an \|date=2021 \|page=149\|publisher=Routledge \|location=N.Y. \|access-date=24 July 2024 \|chapter=14. Jinn in the Quran \|quote=The jinn feature prominently in Islamic folklore as ambivalent and mischievous supernatural forces. \|url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Routledge_Companion_to_the_Qur_an/-GtHEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=jinn+prominently+featured+in+muslim+folklore&pg=PT225&printsec=frontcover}}</ref> but also taken "quite seriously" by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars,<ref>{{cite book\|editor1=Coeli Fitzpatrick\|editor2=Adam Hani Walker\|title=Muhammad in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia of the Prophet of God \|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DOTNEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA321\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2014\|isbn=9781610691789\|page=321}}</ref> who "worked out" the consequences implied by their existence -- legal status, the possible relations between them and mankind, especially in questions of marriage and property.<ref name=EI-2-English>{{cite encyclopedia \|chapter=Djinn \|title=Encyclopaedia of Islam New Edition Online (EI-2 English) \|editor1= D.B. MacDonald \|editor2=H. Massé \|editor3=P.N. Boratav \|editor4=K.A. Nizami \|editor5=P. Voorhoeve \|url= https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/EIEO/COM-0191.xml \|access-date=27 July 2024 \|quote=II. In official Islam the existence of the d̲j̲inn was completely accepted, as it is to This day, and the full consequences implied by their existence were worked out. Their legal status in all respects was discussed and fixed, and the possible relations between them and mankind, especially in questions of marriage and property, were examined.}}</ref> }} 13:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

	{{collapse top\|Important articles content stages <nowiki>{{dif\|\|}}</nowiki> since starting of this section discussion:}}
	* Pl. feel free and help keep difs updated as necessary as discussion moves ahead.
	1) {{dif\|1224829866\|dif before first removal of sectionComparative mythology}}

			{{collapse top\|Ref-list and Author brief for Proposed additions of text 1}}
	2) {{dif\|1224847409\|Brief moment of Section removal (by TheEagle107) stage}} which is restored and pruned and updated by VFF further in following stages
			{{collapse top\|Reflist for Proposed additions of text 1}}

			{{Reflist-talk}}
	3) {{dif\|1224875684\|Removal 1 by VFF}}, {{dif\|1224876894\|an update by VFF 1224877326\|removal 2 by VFF}}
			{{collapse bottom}}
	* ]
	{{collapse ~~bottom}}~~		{{collapse top\|Author brief for Proposed additions of text 1}}
			* Ref 1
	] (]) 03:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
			** '''Published by:''' ]
			** '''Author brief:''' Mark A. Caudill is a 15-year U.S. Foreign Service officer who served in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, from 1999 to 2002. Currently he is Vice Consul, U.S. Consulate General, Istanbul, Turkey.
			* Ref 2
			** '''Published by:''']
			** '''Author brief:''' William E. Burns . Visiting and Part-Time Faculty, Department of History, Columbian College of Arts & Sciences
			William Burns is a historian who lives in the Washington, D.C. metro area with interests in the early modern world and the history of science.
			* Ref 3 ]
			* Ref 4
			** '''Publisher''': ]
			** '''Author brief:''' Ali A. Olomi is assistant professor of history at Penn State Abington and an affiliated scholar with the Rutgers Center for Security, Race and Rights. ... Olomi holds a Ph.D. from the University of California Irvine.
			* Ref 5
			** Publisher: ]
			** Author brief: ] :University of Leicester \| LE · School of Historical Studies
			{{collapse bottom}}
			{{collapse bottom}}
			*<small>This is the first question in this series, for more info pl see discussion facilitator's brief in discussion sub-section. 13:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)</small>
			*<small><small>Fyi: Intimated the RfC request at project talk pages namely:], ], ], ], ], ], ]</small></small>

			===Survey===
	:It's hard to decide how wide to cast the net in sections like this, but I agree with @] 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, ] 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.) ] (]) 11:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
			*<small> Since editors are open for improvement in the sentences, reasonable discussion precedes any vote is preferred.13:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)</small>
	::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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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 ] 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? ] (]) 14:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::I am OK with anything that reflect the ] of the Misplaced Pages editors, and that generally comply with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, especially ], ], ] and ].] (]) 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 <u>following brief synopsis of above discussion</u>. for details pl. refer above.
	:<small><small>*Fyi:intimated input requests to substantial and active contributors to article /talk, ] (]) :HouseGecko, GenoV84; ] (]):Sunriseshore, ‎ Gog the Mild; ] (]):Pogenplain; ] (]):Johnbod; ] (]):Billjones94; ] (]):Wiqi55; ] (]): Sodicadl, User-duck, StarkReport, Guavabutter, AgisdeSparte; </small></small>
	{{collapse top\|Important articles content stages <nowiki>{{dif\|\|}}</nowiki> since starting of this section discussion:}}
	* Pl. feel free and help keep difs updated as necessary as discussion moves ahead.
	1) {{dif\|1224829866\|dif before first removal of sectionComparative mythology}}

			===Discussion:Proposed additions of text 1===
	2) {{dif\|1224847409\|Brief moment of Section removal (by TheEagle107) stage}} which is restored and pruned and updated by VFF further in following stages
			{{collapse top\|The brief of main ] discussion}}
			The brief of main ] discussion is, Both sides seem to maintain neutrality of the article, the main consideration before proposed RfC likely to be ] how much to cover.] says (in the article-body ]) importance of jinn-belief (in Islam- and Muslim world) has been highlighted sufficiently already. ] says that is not sufficient enough and important scope exists to increase the weight, without it being undue. Similarly in case of rejection of Jinn, VFF feels present coverage is sufficient where as LPB finds some scope on that count too.

			* Highlighted sentences in ] will be for consideration one by one, as advised at ].
	3) {{dif\|1224875684\|Removal 1 by VFF}}, {{dif\|1224876894\|an update by VFF 1224877326\|removal 2 by VFF}}
			*] has multiple proposed additions.
	* ]
			] (]) 13:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC) as discussion facilitator.
	{{collapse bottom}}		{{collapse bottom}}
			:*<small>Suggestions/ comments which help improve sentence, coverage or RfC question are welcome.13:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)</small>
	* User:TheEagle107 feels section ] to be irrelevant, and a combination of ] & ]. So suggests deleting the section completely or just moving it to ].
			====Proposed additions of text 1 - Discussion====
	* 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."
			*<small> Above is break for easy editing and navigation</small>
	:*VFF is okay with removal of 'Comparison of Buddhist Deva with islamic jinn'.
			Sources need to have page numbers to make it easy to verify. ] (]) 14:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
	{{collapse top\|VFF opinion on why and how much to keep Judaism and Christianity related comparison}}
			:<small>@] requesting your attention ] (]) 14:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)</small>
	".. 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. .."
			::@] No page number in {{cite book \|last1=Olomi \|first1=Ali A. \|title=The Routledge Companion to the Qur'an \|date=2021}} which is from google books, but 1) cite includes chapter and 2) link takes readers to the page.
			::Have not been able to find article in ''Encyclopaedia of Islam'' to find page number. Brill, the publisher of EI, is "temporarily unavailable" in The Misplaced Pages Library (it was last time I check also). If you have another source for EI available to WP editors I will be happy to check. --] (]) 01:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
			:::@], it is usual to not give a page number in an encyclopedia or a dictionary, because they are usually organized alphabetically and the entry name is enough.
			:::@], you have the option to use {{tl\|cite encyclopedia}} for such citations if you want. I think this URL: https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/EIEO/COM-0191.xml or {{doi\|10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0191}} will be useful for that Brill encyclopedia. Part of the text is displayed, while the rest is ], but it proves that the encyclopedia exists and has relevant contents. ] (]) 05:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
			::::Well that explains why I had an issue its under Djinn, not jinn. ALso it does not prove the cite supports the text. Can you quote the part that does? ] (]) 09:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
			:::::On my suggestion LPB made page number requests at resource exchange. So far ] answers , hopefully LPB will update those in RfC question sentences by tomorrow.
			:::::I suppose, but, your basic question seems bit different ".. its under Djinn, not jinn. .." can be answered by @].
			:::::Btw, I raised a help question "Requesting help in ascertaining, What is "official Islam"? to the authors D.B. MacDonald and H. Massé" at ]. Let us see if what info may come up from ref desk. ] (]) 10:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I assume you have read the whole source? ] (]) 11:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Oh of course, You also can verify by Following for Wikipedians provided by ] volunteer . I have included quote at at ] Do you want me to copypaste the quote here too? or quote can be included the in the sentence ref itself, you suggest ] (]) 13:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::: Then it needs re-working as it looks like an almost verbatim copy and paste. ] (]) 15:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::@], do you have any – maybe we could call them "non-policy" concerns about this? Because I notice that ] you expressed concern that the source doesn't verify the text, and ], not even six hours later, you're saying that you think the source verifies the text so well that it's a possible ] problem.
			:::::::::::Back-to-back opposite claims feels like someone throwing up every objection he can think of, in the hope that one of his objections will be agreed with and he'll be able to keep the text out. Would you mind telling us what your actual, underlying concerns are? ] (]) 15:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::NO, I did not I expressed concern then the answer to that came back as what looks like a copy vio. They can just re-write this and that concern is also addressed. ] (]) 15:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::Since sentence formation is changed and <u>also juxtaposed with other authors</u> it may have been bit close but technically not a serious issue I suppose. Anyways as discussed my concern about term "official Islam" seem to need change; below I have presented alternate suggestion. Purpose of RfC is not just support / oppose but suggesting improvements. may be you can provide your valuable inputs how it can be improved further. ] (]) 18:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::@] thanks. ] (]) 11:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::@], ], ], I've added a quote from ''Encyclopaedia of Islam'' provided by (, July 27) to . As well as changed text from
			::::::::::::::'"completely accepted" in official Islam', to
			::::::::::::::'"completely accepted" in "official" or mainstream Islam'--] (]) 21:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::Reference Desk Humanities also found the --21:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
			*Comment about '''"Official Islam"''':
			:The term "Official Islam", certainly used by RS, still seems to be <u>too contextual and finding alternate wording may be better.</u> But what do authors D.B. MacDonald, H. Massé. Title: Ḏj̲inn. Encyclopaedia of Islam mean by the term "Official Islam"?
			{{collapse top\|Jacques Waardenburg's definition of "Official Islam"}}
			:“.. In mediaeval Islamic thought, the term “official” Islam is applied to what is religiously lawful, and what consequently, enjoys divine sanction. Its contents are held to go back to the Qur’anic text considered “revelation” and ancient “Sunna”. ..” ~ '''Waardenburg, Jacques.''' “Official, Popular, and Normative Religion in Islam” - Islam, Historical, social and political perspectives Berlin de Gruyter GMBH & Co (2002)
			:Retrieved from Ed.Rippin, Andrew. Defining Islam: A Reader. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2016. Page 209 (available on google books)
	{{collapse bottom}}		{{collapse bottom}}
			{{collapse top\|Inputs from Humanities ref desk}}
	:*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. .."
			:The question was also presented at ] WP user answers so far received indicate:
	* 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,.. "
			** ".. It means "standard/mainstream/mainline" Islam (coming in Shia and Sunni ..). As supported by Islamic scholarship, or most of it. ..";
	* '''Waiting for more inputs:'''
			:** ".. Possibly written Islam as defined by trained and educated Ulama, as opposed to more folklorish or popular concepts? ..";
	Do sources support saying jinn are a mythical creatures?--] (]) 12:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
			:** ".. contrasts "official (Sunni) Islam" with "vernacular Islam", which incorporates beliefs based on vernacular legends. While the term "official Islam" is not explicitly defined in the (Németh, Kinga (2024)) article, it is connected in the text to the points of view of "Islamic institutions", "scholars of Islam" and "schools of Islam". .."
			{{collapse bottom}}
			:] (]) 17:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
			::Some relevant dictionary meanings of word "Official" as 'adjective' from google search: formal, ritualistic, authoritative. . ] (]) 12:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
			:::@], we will keep discussion on word 'official' in this sub-thread. I think may be, 'authoritative Islam' will be better term.
			:::After going through google scholar I realized some new generation academics like Richard McGregor are not comfortable with “popular versus official” Islam categorization may be since calling any practice of Islam un-official can be contentious. Secondly, in recent academics, seems, wording 'official Islam' is used much more for the versions/ schools/ practices supported by respective regimes of respective countries.] (]) 04:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
			* Suggesting another version for sentence:
			:{{talkquote\|Jinn have been called "an integral part" of the Muslim tradition or faith, "completely accepted" in mainstream Islam; significantly featured in folklore, but also considered "quite solemnly" by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars, who "figured out" the implicit repercussions expected through existence of Jinn -- their legal status, the possible relations between them and mankind, especially in questions of marriage and property.}}
			:] (]) 18:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
			::<u>Pl. suggest further improvements / alternatives to above </u> ] (]) 18:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
			::::@] (]) Have to disagree with your new version above. Firstly You can't paraphrase text and then put it in quotes. A quote <s>has to use the same text.</s> by definition copies the words quoted. you may change the wording to avoid copyright infringement, but surely quoting a few key words and phrases -- "official", "worked out", "quite seriously" -- cannot be a violation of copyright! (Also, in English usage and this context, "quite solemnly" (which implies some ceremonial feature) is not really <s>the same as</s> a good paraphrasing of "quite seriously".) --] (]) 01:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 01:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I have discussed word official in sub-thread above. I think you have a point in 'Firstly You can't paraphrase text and then put it in quotes'. a) may be you can think about changes in wording that is not in quotes. b) Whether <u>fully accepted in authoritative Islam</u>, <u>very seriously</u>, <u>figured out</u> can be equally effective without quote. Certainly my primary concern is distancing from CR issues, otherwise I don't have any objection as such. ] (]) 04:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

			* The RfC is being rescinded (temporarily withdrawn per ] by editor who started the RfC) after discussion at ] and <u>shall be restarted after their some Wiki-break by ]</u> in more simpler format to facilitate improved user participation.] (]) 16:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
	:Just for clarification: User VFF did not "continued with removal" but restored parts of the removed content by @]. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 @] is fine too, the dispute seems to be resolved (on my part). ] (]) 18:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

			==RfC -- In the article section "Islam", should the following sentence be added at the beginning?==
	: '''Keep but it needs to be modified.'''
			{{closed rfc top
	: Rename from "Comparative mythology" to "Historical context"; that is the paradigm under which antecedents are typically discussed.
			\| result = There is '''consensus''' to add the proposed content. As several editors proposed some changes or offered qualified support, this close does not preclude further changes to the wording in the normal course of editing and discussion. ] (]/]) 00:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
	: 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 ] are not mentioned. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::I want to have a look at that later. ] (]) 18:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::'''Comments'''
	::<blockquote>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."</blockquote>
	::Appreciate the edit, it makes things much clearer. Nothing to object.
	::<blockquote>"William of Conches" sentence should be removed. I cannot tell why it is relevant."<blockquote> 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 @])
	::<blockquote>"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."</blockquote> 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 ] 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): <blockquote>"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.</blockquote> It is the closest I was able to find.</blockquote> 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 ] sufficiently discusses the role of the jinn in pre-Islamic times by two separate sections, including one dedicated ]. 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 @] pointed out correctly and failed to be acknowledged by @] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	::::This would technically fall under Original Research. Would you mind to have a look on ]? 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. ] (]) 21:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::::{{ping\|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 ] 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 ] that was stated above. The section should be removed or its title should be changed and rewritten in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, particularly those related to ], ], and ]. For detailed information about the jinn and their relation with humankind, see ]. Peace.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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."). ] (]) 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 ] for further information. ] (]) 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.] (]) 06:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
	*:@] @]
	*:@]
	*:I urge neutral summary / synopsis of above discussion up til now. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
	*:::@] Slightly longer real life wiki-break seems usual to all users at this talk page. @ indicates issues still need to be sorted out. IMO Section wise Summary from involved users would have helped better. ] (]) 06:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

			<!-- ] 02:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1728525667}}
	== Page Number request ==
			In the article section "Islam", should the following sentence be added at the beginning?
			{{Quote frame\|Jinn have been called an integral part of the Muslim tradition<ref>{{cite book\|author=Mark A. Caudill\|title=Twilight in the Kingdom: Understanding the Saudis\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZbjOEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA92\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2006\|isbn=9780313084850\|page=92\|quote=Jinn are an integral part of both traditional and Gnostic Islamic belief.}}</ref> or faith,<ref>{{cite book\|author=William E. Burns\|title=They Believed That?: A Cultural Encyclopedia of Superstitions and the Supernatural around the World\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hEvEEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA137\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2022\|isbn=9781440878480\|page=137\|quote=Jinn are considered by some authorities to be an integral part of the Islamic faith due to their inclusion in the Quran.}}</ref> completely accepted in official Islam;<ref name=EI-2-English/>
			prominently featured in folklore.<ref name="Olomi-prominently-2021">{{cite book \|last1=Olomi \|first1=Ali A. \|title=The Routledge Companion to the Qur'an \|date=2021 \|page=149\|publisher=Routledge \|location=N.Y. \|access-date=24 July 2024 \|chapter=14. Jinn in the Quran \|quote=The jinn feature prominently in Islamic folklore as ambivalent and mischievous supernatural forces. \|url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Routledge_Companion_to_the_Qur_an/-GtHEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=jinn+prominently+featured+in+muslim+folklore&pg=PT225&printsec=frontcover}}</ref> <s>It is also taken quite seriously by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars</s> Medieval and modern scholars have studied the consequences implied by their existence,<ref>{{cite book\|editor1=Coeli Fitzpatrick\|editor2=Adam Hani Walker\|title=Muhammad in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia of the Prophet of God \|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DOTNEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA321\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2014\|isbn=9781610691789\|page=321 \|quote=Although they feature prominently in folklore, jinn are also taken quite seriously by Muslim scholars, both medieval and modern.}}</ref> <s>who worked out the consequences implied by their existence</s> legal status, the possible relations between them and mankind, especially in questions of marriage and property.<ref name=EI-2-English>{{cite encyclopedia \|chapter=Djinn \|title=Encyclopaedia of Islam New Edition Online (EI-2 English) \|editor1= D.B. MacDonald \|editor2=H. Massé \|editor3=P.N. Boratav \|editor4=K.A. Nizami \|editor5=P. Voorhoeve \|url= https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/EIEO/COM-0191.xml \|access-date=27 July 2024 \|quote=II. In official Islam the existence of the d̲j̲inn was completely accepted, as it is to This day, and the full consequences implied by their existence were worked out. Their legal status in all respects was discussed and fixed, and the possible relations between them and mankind, especially in questions of marriage and property, were examined.}}</ref>}} --] (]) 01:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

			Why this RfC??
	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: <blockquote>"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)."</blockquote> 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). ] (]) 13:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
			*Some important Muslim scholars and a good many Muslims in parts of the Muslim world, hold that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith,<ref name="Nünlist-2015"/>{{rp\|style=ama\|p=33}} (similar to the widely held that Muslims must believe in the ], i.e. ]s, ], ], ], etc.), since jinn are mentioned in the Quran.
			*A number of sentences, bits of text and citations expanding information on this subject and , have been deleted from the article since April.
			*The sentence above in the blue is part of this collection of text and citations. For those interested, the whole bunch can be found , in a proposed rewriting of body of article.
			*To see discussion of issue, check sections above , and . -- ] (]) 01:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

			Note: this effort has been going on since (maybe) April, but I thought I'd give it one last try. If the first one flies I'll try others. --] (]) 01:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
	== Disruptive edits and refusal to elaborate on the talkpage ==

			{{collapse top\|Ref-list and Author brief for above proposed addition }}
	@] makes constantly ] 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 @] can still muster ], 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? ] (]) 16:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC) edit: Oh and they started spamming my talkpage... must be something personal.--] (]) 16:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
			{{collapse top\|Reflist for proposed addition}}

			{{Reflist-talk}}
	:The issue is now referred to ]. Pl give <u>there</u> your sides in 150- 200 words without personalizing; Soon proceeding to RfC formatting so urging patience from both sides. ] (]) 17:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
			{{collapse bottom}}
	::Thanks, since he vandlied again, I reported him. Hoepfully he just gets deleted. Especially since he started spamming my talkpage. Enough is enough. ] (]) 17:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
			{{collapse top\|Author brief for proposed additions (above)}}
	:::It seems Eagle is edit warring/engaging in ]. Objecting to use of "Mythology" in section title does not entail all section content should be deleted. I think it should be kept. ] (]) 17:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
			* Ref 1
	* @], @]
			** '''Published by:''' ]
	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 since the issue was listed at ]. Let us take positive note of article ".. 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, <u>When things go off the track come back to the track of content discussion.</u> Let us come back to mood of cheers and happy editing. ] (]) 02:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
			** '''Author brief:''' Mark A. Caudill is a 15-year U.S. Foreign Service officer who served in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, from 1999 to 2002. Currently he is Vice Consul, U.S. Consulate General, Istanbul, Turkey.

			* Ref 2
	: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. ] (]) 03:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
			** '''Published by:''']

			** '''Author brief:''' William E. Burns . Visiting and Part-Time Faculty, Department of History, Columbian College of Arts & Sciences
	: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 ], while the first sentence in the lead states that jinn are ] creatures! {{Cquote\|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 ] for further information.\|author=VenusFeuerFalle}}
			William Burns is a historian who lives in the Washington, D.C. metro area with interests in the early modern world and the history of science.
	Anyway, for my part, I will accept the consensus of Misplaced Pages editors whatever it is, and I hope the other user will do the same. Peace.
			* Ref 3 ]
	] (]) 03:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
			* Ref 4

			** '''Publisher''': ]
	: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). ] (]) 03:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
			** '''Author brief:''' Ali A. Olomi is assistant professor of history at Penn State Abington and an affiliated scholar with the Rutgers Center for Security, Race and Rights. ... Olomi holds a Ph.D. from the University of California Irvine.
	:If you are seriously requesting a source, it would have suffices to ]. 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. ] (]) 03:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
			* Ref 5

			** Publisher: ]
	== RfC formatting ==
			** Author brief: ] :University of Leicester \| LE · School of Historical Studies

			{{collapse bottom}}
	<small>{{Editconflict}}</small> Please suggest <u> neutral questions </u> for RfC.. ] (]) 03:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
			{{collapse bottom}}
	: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.--] (]) 11:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
	::* Would you not be including LPB's questions too?
	::* I suggest write <u>neutral summary</u> (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.] (]) 13:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
	:::Of course, ]'s suggestions and concerns should be included as well. Take, for example, ]: {{Cquote\|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.\|author=Louis P. Boog}}
	:] should be added or not?--] (]) 11:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

	==RfC: Is the Comparative mythology section relevant?==
	<!-- ] 19:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1720378868}}
	{{rfc\|reli\|soc\|rfcid=6289A77}}
	Should the "]" section be included in the article? As previously mentioned in the ], jinn are real creatures, at least according to the vast majority of Muslims, both Sunni and Shi'a. ] suggested renaming the title to "Historical context", while ] sees that the section with its current title (i.e., comparative mythology) should be kept as it is, per ].--] (]) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

	===Discussion===
	*My suggestion:
	**Change heading to something like '''Comparative belief/mythology'''
	**trim section
	**change opening sentence:
	::''In Comparative mythology, 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.
	:to something like
	::''Islamic notions of jinn have been compared by scholars to earlier Jewish and Christian ideas of supernatural beings or preternatural creatures, especially those of angels, spirits, and demons. --] (]) 01:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose any change'''. Misplaced Pages ], which treat things like djinn as mythology; Islamic beliefs must be confined to the "Islam" section and clearly labeled / attributed as such, and cannot alter or inform the text of other sections outside of brief attributed mentions of those beliefs. Neither do I agree with the implicit argument here that using the term "mythology" is somehow offensive to people of faith - a folk-mythology with no religious or textual basis can form around or alongside a faith, and is often referred to as mythology in that context. We must reflect the language used in high-quality academics; while I'm usually reluctant to cite it, ] clearly applies here. (Finally, I will note that the assertion that "most" Muslims believe in Djinn as literal, non-allegorical sources, repeatedly made above as a justification for these proposed changes, doesn't seem to actually be backed by any sources. Many religious texts incorporate local mythology in various ways; that does not mean that it is all accepted as literal truth by every believer. The mentions of ] in the Bible, for instance, do not mean that all believers think Leviathan literally exists; that article rightfully describes it in both religious and mythological terms.) ] is the correct academic term for an entire field of study that covers things like eg. the flood myth or primordial chaos; we mention the founding myth of the Egyptian captivity used in Judaism (and faiths descended from it) in that article, too. Using it here is entirely correct. Christianity, the Bible, and so on are mentioned repeatedly in our article on Comparative Mythology; similarly, ] describes it as a ] in its first sentence and throughout. There is no particular reason why we would defer to religious sensibilities over academic ones solely in the case of Islam. --] (]) 17:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
	*:@] <small><small>Just for info, in above talk page discussions I am playing just role of discussion facilitator. There is tendency of longer real life Wiki-breaks at this talk page hence slow speed of discussion, still it's good discussion has moved on.</small></small>
	*:Since RfC-OP does not seem to be around let, keeping individual belief parts aside, let me try to put up policy and guideline wise their likely questions to facilitate the discussion.
	: Comparative Mythology may be very well a correct academic term, but is it used by respective sources being used in the article? if yes then which one?
	: Similarly RfC-OP seem to contest use of the term "Mythical creature" in infobox and seem to wish to see WP:RS for the same. Where as the other user seem to say it's obvious so ref not needed there. What is your opinion on that?
	*::<small>On side note I suggest to go through talk page discussion, User:Louis P. Boog may come up with one more RfC about their own questions.</small>] (]) 04:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

	::::@]: Do academics consider angels or devils part of mythology (myth, stories)? And if so, does that mean academics don't understand that some people consider them religious figures, part of their religious belief? And if academics do consider angels or devils part of a religion, a belief system, what's the difference between them and jinn? Jinn are, after all, mentioned in the Quran and in hadith of Islam.
	:::::Belief in jinn is not included among the six articles of ], as belief in angels is. Nontheless, many Muslim scholars, including the ] scholar ] the ] scholar ], the theologian ],<ref>{{cite book\|\|quote=
	Anderseits verweist Ibn Hazm ähnlich wie Ibn Taymiyya darauf, dass sich die Muslime in der Bejahung der Existenz von Dämonen einig seien (]). Auch die Christen, Zoroastrier, Sabier und die meisten Juden, hier mit Ausnahme der Samaritaner, würden sich zustimmend zum Geisterglauben äußern. Ibn Hazm schließt seine Überlegungen zur Existenz von ginn mit der folgenden, für die Position traditionalistischer Kreise bezeichnenden Bemerkung: "Wer die ginn leugnet oder über sie Umdeutungen ersinnt, durch die er sie aus der äußeren Welt hinausdrängt, ist ein ungläubiger Polytheist (käfir mušrik), dessen Blut und Besitz vogelfrei sind (haläl ad-dam wa-äl-mäl)." Mit dieser Aussage brandmarkt Ibn Ḥazm das Leugnen der ǧinn als kufr (Unglaube) und bezeichnet all jene als vogelfrei, die die tatsächliche Existenz von Dämonen nicht akzeptieren.
	<br>{{sc\|Translation:}}''' {{in lang\|en}}, automatically translated by ].<br/>
	On the other hand, Ibn Hazm, like Ibn Taymiyya, points out that '''Muslims are united in affirming the existence of demons (])'''. Christians, Zoroastrians, Sabians and most Jews, with the exception of the Samaritans, would also express their approval of the belief in ghosts. Ibn Hazm concludes his reflections on the existence of ginn with the following remark, which is representative of the position of traditionalist circles: "'''Whoever denies the ginn or thinks up new interpretations of it by which he pushes it out of the external world is an unbelieving polytheist (käfir mušrik), whose blood and property are outlaws (haläl ad-dam wa-äl-mäl).'''" With this statement, Ibn Ḥazm brands the denial of the Jinn as kufr (disbelief) and describes as outlaws all those who do not accept the actual existence of demons. \|author=Tobias Nünlist
	\|source={{cite web\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yoE_CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA33\|title=Dämonenglaube im Islam\|page=33}}</ref>
	:::::and more recently revivalist preachers ],{{Efn\|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".<ref name="Mawdudi-72-2739">{{cite book \|last1=Mawdudi \|first1=Sayyid Abul \|title=Towards Understanding the Quran \|publisher=Archive.org \|page=2739 \|url=https://archive.org/details/tafhim-al-quran/Tafhim%20Al-Quran/page/n2737/mode/2up?view=theater \|access-date=11 May 2024 \|archive-url=https://archive.org/details/tafhim-al-quran/Tafhim%20Al-Quran/page/n2737/mode/2up?view=theater \|chapter=72. AlJinn}}</ref><ref name="Maududi-intro-72">{{cite book \|last1=Maududi \|first1=Syed Abu-Ala' \|title=Syed Abu-Ala' Maududi's Chapter Introductions to the Quran \|publisher=International Islamic University of Malaysia \|url=https://www.iium.edu.my/deed/quran/intro/i072.html#H_072_3 \|access-date=12 March 2024 \|chapter=72. Jinn. Reality of Jinn}}</ref><ref name="72. Jinn">{{cite web \|last1=Maududi \|first1=Syed Abu-Ala' \|title=72. Jinn. Syed Abu-Ala' Maududi's Chapter Introductions to the Quran \|url=https://www.islam101.com/quran/maududi/i072.htm#HEADING295 \|website=islam101.com/ \|access-date=11 May 2024}}</ref>}} and ],{{Efn\|From ''Essentials of the Islamic Faith'', "As mentioned earlier, jinn are a species of invisible beings. A short Qur'anic chapter is named for them, and in it we learn that a band of jinn listened to Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, and some became believers: ..."<ref name="Gülen-JaTF-2001">{{cite web \|last1=Gülen \|first1=Fethullah \|title=Jinn and Their Functions \|url=https://fgulen.com/en/fethullah-gulens-works/essentials-of-the-islamic-faith/jinn-and-their-functions \|website=fgulen.com, Essentials of the Islamic Faith \|access-date=5 May 2024 \|date=14 September 2001}}</ref> "Jinn can harm the body and cause physical and psychological illnesses. It might be a good idea for medical authorities to consider whether jinn cause certain types of cancer, since cancer is an unordered and diseased growth in the body that we can describe as cellular anarchy".<ref name="Gülen-JaHB-2001">{{cite news \|last1=Gülen \|first1=Fethullah \|title=Jinn and Human Beings \|url=https://fgulen.com/en/fethullah-gulens-works/essentials-of-the-islamic-faith/jinn-and-human-beings \|access-date=5 May 2024 \|website=fgulen.com, Essentials of the Islamic Faith\|date=14 September 2001}}</ref> }} believe they are essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran.<ref name="Nünlist-2015"/>{{rp\|style=ama\|p=33}}<ref>see also
	*{{cite book\|editor=]\|title=Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BFZsBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA420\|series=Routledge Encyclopedias of the Middle Ages\|volume=1\|publisher=], an imprint of ]\|publication-date=2006\|isbn=9781135456030\|page=420 \|quote=Muslims accept the existence of the jinn as part of their faith}} and
	*{{cite book\|editor=Cringuta Irina Pelea\|title=Culture-Bound Syndromes in Popular Culture\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Hs7bEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT296\|series=] Research in Cultural and Media Studies\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2023\|isbn=9781000982787\|page=296\|quote=The existence of jinn, “who are believed in Islam to be part of the Creation, and dwellers of the imaginal,” has also been verified in the 72nd sūrah (“chapter”) of the Holy Quran, “Al-Jinn.” It is believed by the Quran commentators, both Shias and Sunnis, that jinn exist and even reigned the world before the rise of Adam.}}</ref> Openly expressing of doubt about the existence of j̲inn was not common even amidst the ]; and among the erstwhile philosophers, ] also, tried to skip the question with vague definitions. ] was an outlier-- he outrightly rejected their existence.<ref name=EI-2-English/> In present-day Islam, only a "small number" believes that jinn in the Quran should be understood symbolically instead of literally.<ref>{{cite book\|author=]\|title=Islam & Muslims: A Guide to Diverse Experience in a Modern World\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=X_Z8DAAAQBAJ&pg=PT72\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2006\|isbn=9781473643918\|page=72}}</ref> (In 1995 a Professor ] was accused of blaspheme and apostasy, in part for his alleged disbelief in Jinn.<ref name=Cook-2000>{{cite book \|last=Cook \|first=Michael \|year=2000 \|title=The Koran: A very short introduction \|publisher=Oxford University Press \|isbn=0-19-285344-9 \|url=https://archive.org/details/koranveryshorti00cook \|url-access=registration \|pages=}}</ref> He left Egypt for exile after a joint statement calling for his killing was issued by a group of professors at ], the "theological centre of Egypt".)<ref>{{cite book \|url=http://blog.malakut.org/nkermani(cut).pdf \|chapter=From revelation to interpretation: Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd and the Literary study of the Qur'an \|first=Navid \|last=Kermani \|title=Modern Muslim Intellectuals and the Qur'an\|publisher=Oxford University Press \|year=2004 \|page=170 \|editor1-first=Suha \|editor1-last=Taji-Farouki\|ref=FRINHAZ2004}}</ref><ref>{{cite book\|last1=Murphy\|first1=Caryle\|title=Passion for Islam: Shaping the Modern Middle East: The Egyptian Experience\|date=2002\|publisher=Simon and Schuster.\|isbn=0743237439\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Rjj48T4zrb8C&q=Passion+for+Islam+%3A+Shaping+the+Modern+Middle+East%3A+the+Egyptian+Experience+by+Caryle+Murphy\|access-date=10 December 2015 \|quote= "it took one week for my name to be cursed all over Egypt. Even in my village they were saying I was teaching heresies to the students..."}}</ref> --] (]) 01:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::: I think its obvious academics see them as mythical since they are compared to the demons of the Testament of Solomon, the gny' from Palmyra, the spirits of Jubilees et cetera. ] (]) 02:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::But they are also figures of belief are they not, for the reasons described above?
	:::::::And since this is an article about Jinn, isn't it more appropriate to have an opening sentence in the section like:
	::::::::''Islamic notions of jinn have been compared by scholars to earlier Jewish and Christian ideas of supernatural beings or preternatural creatures, especially those of angels, spirits, and demons.'' --02:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose change''' to current section {{summoned by bot}}. Jinn are not real entities regardless of any particular religious beliefs and we should not shy away from that fact, until such time that proof is discussed in peer reviewed literature. We should rely on the best sources and talk about the belief in relation to other beliefs. '']''<sup>]</sup> 14:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

	===Ref===
	{{reflist}}

	== Comparative mythology Sources ==

	Greetings,
	I remember about a month ago, there was work ont he Comparative Mythology section.
	@] maybe "A Comparison of Superstitious Beliefs and Rituals in Buddhism and Islam \| Pastoral Psychology (springer.com)" is another good source for you. It could be attached tot he shedim and exorcism rituals section t compare to general beliefs in ghosts/spirits in folklore. ] (]) 22:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

	== Discussion Summary ==
	===VenusFeuerFalle (VFF)===
	There is an ongoing discussion about some edits months ago, involving me VenusFeuerFalle (also referred to as VFF), @] (referred to as LPB), @] (referred to as Eagle), and @].

	'''The dispute on the Article'''
	The dispute was initiated by Louis P. Book. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jinn&diff=1212903926&oldid=1212649443). The edit was reverted by me and an edit summary was given.

	The next step by LPB was to revert without paying any attention to the objection raised. Instead, he (mis)quoted the source given. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jinn&diff=1213249234&oldid=1213074711) The quote comes from the author's introduction, explaining the necessity of her scholary work, not saying that there is a dogmatic obligation to believe in them as a Muslim.

	At this point it should be mentioned that I caught the same User misquoting other sources previously to support their own position. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1214053357&oldid=1213830185). Here, the User in question also accused me of bias for disagreeing of their edits. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1213005483&oldid=1213001895) I want to mention that I always explained my reverts, as I did in the dispute referred to here as well. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1216445118&oldid=1214851832)

	I want to take the oppoturnity here, to point out that the User in question has picked out sources for one specific position in a dispute within Islamic doctrines (here: that jinn are devil) and this is the position also presented by ] (Jinn and Human Beings - Fethullah Gülen's Official Web Site (fgulen.com)), a source, the User in question later uses.

	Back to the Jinn article: LPB' next step, after the revert of my revert (without any explanation), was to elaborate even further on their own position. (https://Jinn: en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jinn&diff=1213276884&oldid=1213074711). Apart from ignoring input by another User, the edits just got worse. While the first one was a misinterpretation of a reliable source, the next one is a reference to a religious authority (and according to the Misplaced Pages entry, also advocate of ] as seen here: ]). Religious authorities are ''not'' reliable sources (] and ]), even ''if'' the author was not an Islamist, it is still unreliable. Here it is important to highlight the difference between ] and ].

	Afterwards, I undid their edits, and ''exlained with each step'' why they have been reverted. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jinn&diff=1213541420&oldid=1213323568) A few days later and the first extensive discussions happened. This is also the time when Eagle joined and reverted my edits, I want to remember, the ones I explained. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jinn&diff=1219313447&oldid=1218417996)

	For context, it is noteworthy that Eagle has history opposing my edits when they contradict what could bes be explained by their own beliefs. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AIblis&diff=1035359841&oldid=1035298167) Here, similarly ommitting other notable sources, and apart from that, even the Arabic webpage does not support their claim, if they had read it entirely. It is relevant in sofar as the second user seems to have a personal bias against my edits, which also explains their improper behavior on the talkpage, explored in the next section. (It is also noteworthy, that Eagle uses similar sources to that of LPB, which is mostly relying on blogs who argue for the identification of jinn with satans,
	:This is ''not'' a dispute about "identification of jinn with satans". It's about adding information about how "Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith".
	:As for "blogs who argue for the identification of jinn with satan", I may have missed something but I honestly don't know what the hell VFF talking about. --] (]) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
	and omitting other positions also prevailing in Islamic tradition as also mentioned in secondary literature).

	'''Talkpage'''
	The first section was "Recent deletions", I am not sure, but I think it might have been me who opened the discussion, as a repsonse to LPB's or Eagle ignoring my edit summary. I remember the "here we go again"-quote, as a reference that I had to help the Users just a while ago on the ] article talkapge, as mentioned above. Here, I asked them to consult the talkpage instead of just reverting a revert and adding even worse sources. LPB and Eagle choose to ignore that. (])

	Things get even more complicated then Eagle appears and makes even more inappropriate sugggestions and now even wants the lead-section to mention that jinn are essential (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1219515661&oldid=1219490069), while the lead is only a summary of the entire article.


	Then Eagle starts accusing me of cherry picking (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1220790249&oldid=1220782001). Ironically, the attentive user will have realized it is the source from which the fact many Muslim scholars denied the existence of jinn derives from. Beginning with "hey everyone check out" with the header "cherry picking" feels more like stirring up hate against other users (in this case me) rather than being interested in a neutral resolution.

	Then, while still waiting for responses to my objections, BPL made edit suggestions instead.
	:It is a bit frustrating that on the one hand questions to VFF are answered like :
	:''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.
	:On the other hand VFF is patiently "waiting for responses to my objections" --] (]) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
	He can do that, but I think it is easier to discuss the issue directly. Unfortunately, none of the changes consider my previous objection and I was asked to explain each suggestion again. At this point, I hoenstly, got frustrating because now I have to reply to each point seperately, while it is still the very same issue I had at the very beginning, still left unanswered, now with even worse sources, such as Fetullah Gülen, who falls under "religious authority" and can be dismissed for the same reasons as mentioned above (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1224873430&oldid=1220998939).

	Before any dispute is settled, Eagle points to another topic and opens a discussion about the coparative mythology section (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1224874019&oldid=1224753229). I do not see what is the point here, apart from spreading confusion, but I had hope that it could settle the previous edit war for good. Instead, the discussions are similarly bad and the religious bias shines through again, asking if "there is proof that jinn are mythological creatures" (no, they are biological ones of course). (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1225277164&oldid=1225274554). Eagle also started another edit war about this, and also ignored me pointing out that ].

	The user also objected to "comparative mythology" in general and removed it at some point entirely, again, I had to restore it, and they claim that they are willing to accept any consensus (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1225693738&oldid=1225685395), but then starts an entire poll to question the general consensus on the talkpage about the section on comparative mythology.

	Meanwhile, Eagle also spammed my talkpage with several "warnings" for not conforming to their demands (User talk:VenusFeuerFalle: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages), which could lead to an immediate ban (]) I also I first wanted to report, but then had not the time to deal with this none-sense (I might chance my mind though, then this is the only way to get rid of this awful discussion).

	User Eagle also talked behind my back, since I got not notified and accusing me of "gaming the system" and gathered other users against me (which could also be considered cavassing). (There is nothing personal. Actually, neutrality is enough to solve the problem, at least for me. But the real problem is that some users think they are smarter than everyone else and trying to ] (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ABookku&diff=1229682833&oldid=1223782163). On a second thought, I should definately reporting Eagle for several reasons. LPB and Bookku seem to try their best, although I am not sure if things go clean here anymore.

	'''Summary'''
	Overall, LPB made an edit with original research, unreliable authors, and misquoting a source. After being reverted, the User decided to addd even more questionable sources, made even worse edits, and ignored all notifications on the talkpage, until evne more people reverted them. Then Eagle appeared and sided with PBL, and opened so many discussions, partly with accusations and harrassment. Furthermore, Eagle decided to gather support also by tagging other users they believed to side with them on polls and talking on other Users talkpages behind the back of those who are involved in this discussion.

	Eagle has opened several other discussions and the original subject of dispute got lost. Given the previous dispute and the evidence for religious bias, I conclude that this dispute is '''purely personal and misses any encyclopedic value'''. I am willing to give ''the involved users one last chance'', to make ''one clear suggestion'', I want to respond one last time. ''Then ''we can go step by step over to the other ones. If it fails, I will not reply to that anymore, and then either the edits meet the Wiki-Criteria or they don't. If they '''do not meet them, they will be reverted''', no matter of you understand the reason or not. Because, I just feel my time being wasted. If the users again '''derail the discussion'''s, '''I will report''' Eagle and let an admin check on '''all involved users''' for canvassing, harrassment, and potential sockpuppetry.

	I wasted about two hours for this awful response I had to do because of this awful discussion, I have nothing to do with but applying guidlines and being too kind to actually engage with reasoning. I would have been better if I just dropped a link like a robot and reverted the edits without any good will. ] (]) 00:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

	===Louis P. Boog===
	My suggested edits to the Jinn article are posted in blue of <nowiki>"{{talkquote\|"</nowiki> in ]. The basic idea is encapsilated in the sentence I'm trying to add to the lede
	{{talkquote\|Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran.<ref name="Nünlist-2015"/>{{rp\|style=ama\|p=33}}}}

	While it is unlikely that many people would suggest Jinn are a major part of Islam, the suggested edits (using some research by ]) only include

	*a few sentences to the ] section (which I would rename '''Belief''') summarized in ] as 3 points

	1) whether this statement should be allowed in the lede
	:Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran.(p33)
	2) whether revivalist preacher Abul A'la Maududi should be included among two other scholars listed who support this position (i.e. belief in Jinn is a necessary part of Islam). (The point here being that Maududi has/had a huge following and readership);<br>
	3) and whether as evidence of the significance of this belief, a brief description of the troubles of Nasr Abu Zayd "who was threated with death for apostasy" in the 1990s "(in part) because he didn't believe in jinn", should be included in the article. (The significance here is that belief in the apostasy of Nasr Abu Zayd in his country (Egypt) was so widespread that even one of the police officers guarding his house referred to him as a "kafir" when asked about him). (He lamented that "it took one week for my name to be cursed all over Egypt. Even in my village they were saying I was teaching heresies to the students...")<ref>{{cite book\|last1=Murphy\|first1=Caryle\|title=Passion for Islam: Shaping the Modern Middle East: The Egyptian Experience\|date=2002\|publisher=Simon and Schuster.\|isbn=0743237439\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Rjj48T4zrb8C&q=Passion+for+Islam+%3A+Shaping+the+Modern+Middle+East%3A+the+Egyptian+Experience+by+Caryle+Murphy\|access-date=10 December 2015 \|quote= }}</ref>

	*and one long sentence in the ] section.

	To help resolve the dispute I (with the help of ]) hashed it out on the talk page, apealed to took the issue to
	* answered by User:StereoFolic
	* ]
	*] --] (]) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

	====Reply to VFF summary====
	:Below is VenusFeuerFalle's Discussion Summary from above chopped up with replies by myself to make the point and counterpoints easier to read.
	There is an ongoing discussion about some edits months ago, involving me VenusFeuerFalle (also referred to as VFF), @] (referred to as LPB),
	:(He is mispelling my name -- it's Boog not Book.) --] (]) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
	@] (referred to as Eagle), and @].

	'''The dispute on the Article'''
	The dispute was initiated by Louis P. Book. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jinn&diff=1212903926&oldid=1212649443). The edit was reverted by me and an edit summary was given.
	The next step by LPB was to revert without paying any attention to the objection raised.
	:Actually I rewrote my edit, addressing your complaint that "the lead is a summary of the body off text." I shortened the edit of the lede and put the extra in "the body of text". --] (]) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
	Instead, he (mis)quoted the source given. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jinn&diff=1213249234&oldid=1213074711) The quote comes from the author's introduction, explaining the necessity of her scholary work, not saying that there is a dogmatic obligation to believe in them as a Muslim.
	:A misquote???.
	:Here is what the author said: [listing answers to the question "why write a book" on the jinn?: "... secondly, although belief in jinn is not one of the five pillars of Islam, one can't be Muslim if he/she doesn't have faith in their existence because they are mentioned in the Qur'an and the prophetic tradition."
	:"one can't be a Muslim" certainly sounds like an obligation. --] (]) 02:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

	At this point it should be mentioned that I caught the same User misquoting other sources previously to support their own position. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1214053357&oldid=1213830185). Here, the User in question also accused me of bias for disagreeing of their edits. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1213005483&oldid=1213001895)

	:accused you of "bias"? My talk page post did say I wanted to know "why a short piece of information from a scholarly source indicating the popular belief in Shaitan being a jinn should be deleted" <s>--] (]) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)</s> ... sounds more like a question than an accusation.--] (]) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
	I want to mention that I always explained my reverts, as I did in the dispute referred to here as well. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AShaitan&diff=1216445118&oldid=1214851832)

	:, (in reference to , the professor threatened with death for blaspheme, cited by me as evidence that belief in Jinn can be important:) "noone cares if some dude went to exile for denial, this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper...." --] (]) 02:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

	I want to take the oppoturnity here, to point out that the User in question has picked out sources for one specific position in a dispute within Islamic doctrines (here: that jinn are devil) and this is the position also presented by ] (Jinn and Human Beings - Fethullah Gülen's Official Web Site (fgulen.com)), a source, the User in question later uses.

	Back to the Jinn article: LPB' next step, after the revert of my revert (without any explanation), was to elaborate even further on their own position. (https://Jinn: en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jinn&diff=1213276884&oldid=1213074711).

	Apart from ignoring input by another User, the edits just got worse.
	:Not sure which particular edit he's referring to but one he reverted was of an edit I made following a Dispute_resolution_on the noticeboard session done by ] which ended with Robert McClenon stating:
	::'''' . ''The filing editor'' ''has stated that he wants to make three edits to the article. The other editor did not reply. The filing editor should make the edits boldly.''
	:VFF deleted my bold edits. --] (]) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
	While the first one was a misinterpretation of a reliable source, the next one is a reference to a religious authority (and according to the Misplaced Pages entry, also advocate of ] as seen here: ]).
	:Yes, Maududi is an Islamist but last time I checked that did not exclude him from being an important figure in contemporary Islam. --] (]) 02:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

	Religious authorities are ''not'' reliable sources (] and ]), even ''if'' the author was not an Islamist, it is still unreliable. Here it is important to highlight the difference between ] and ].
	:Both of the "religious authorities" I want to briefly mention in the article (] and ]) are religious scholars. Maududi has written a multi-volume commentary on the Quran. Religious authorities are not ] on the doctrine or history of a religion, But I put it to you that they ''are'' reliable authorities on their ''own'' interpretation of religious doctrine when clearly stated. And when they have a large following, their interpretation is notable. Yes, you will have a hard time finding academic scholars of Islam commenting on all aspects of the doctrines of Gülen and Maududi (such as doctrine on Jinn), but the fact stands that they are notable and they have spoken (Maududi especially) on Jinn. --] (]) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC) --] (]) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

			===Survey===
	Afterwards, I undid their edits, and ''exlained with each step'' why they have been reverted. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jinn&diff=1213541420&oldid=1213323568)
			('''Support''' add sentence; '''Oppose''' don't.)
	:(The link is to a revert by Davemck, not you, with an edit summary of "renumber duplicate parm", whatever that means.) --] (]) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
	A few days later and the first extensive discussions happened. This is also the time when Eagle joined and reverted my edits, I want to remember, the ones I explained. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jinn&diff=1219313447&oldid=1218417996) --] (]) 02:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

			*'''Support''': The sentence is concise, supported by reliable sources. Its relevance to the subject I think can be demonstrated to anyone spending even a short amount of time researching the subject. Interest and belief in Jinn is overwhelmingly Islamic. --] (]) 01:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
	For context, it is noteworthy that Eagle has history opposing my edits when they contradict what could bes be explained by their own beliefs. (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AIblis&diff=1035359841&oldid=1035298167) Here, similarly ommitting other notable sources, and apart from that, even the Arabic webpage does not support their claim, if they had read it entirely. It is relevant in sofar as the second user seems to have a personal bias against my edits, which also explains their improper behavior on the talkpage, explored in the next section. (It is also noteworthy, that Eagle uses similar sources to that of LPB, which is mostly relying on blogs who argue for the identification of jinn with satans, and omitting other positions also prevailing in Islamic tradition as also mentioned in secondary literature).
			*'''Support''': per the previous discussions, I believe this is required.--] (]) 19:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. {{summoned by bot}} It needs some work, but it makes sense to have an introduction to the topic before going into the specifics. ] & ]<sub>(])</sub> 15:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
			::Any suggestions for "work" on the sentence? --] (]) 18:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

			*'''Comment''': The sentence can be shortened to those parts that are discussed in length in the actual article. This RfC should be listed under religion. ] (]) 03:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
	'''Talkpage'''
			::Oops! Pardon my sloppiness -] (]) 18:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
	The first section was "Recent deletions", I am not sure, but I think it might have been me who opened the discussion, as a repsonse to LPB's or Eagle ignoring my edit summary. I remember the "here we go again"-quote, as a reference that I had to help the Users just a while ago on the ] article talkapge, as mentioned above. Here, I asked them to consult the talkpage instead of just reverting a revert and adding even worse sources. LPB and Eagle choose to ignore that. (])
			::What do you see in the sentence that isn't discussed in length in the actual article? --] (]) 18:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::I misread the proposal and thought this is going to the "beginning" of the entire article. The sentence is quite long, however. It can probably be divided at "folklore". ] (]) 03:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
			::::I've divided it into two at that point. --] (]) 16:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

			*'''Question''' - What's with all the ]s? "an integral part", "completely accepted", "quite seriously", "worked out". I hope these aren't intended to go into the article? ] (]) 06:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
	Things get even more complicated then Eagle appears and makes even more inappropriate sugggestions and now even wants the lead-section to mention that jinn are essential (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1219515661&oldid=1219490069), while the lead is only a summary of the entire article.
			::NOT intended to be scare quotes. More like copyright quotes. Intended to indicate it is exactly the terms/phrase the source used and avoid problems with the Misplaced Pages copyright police. --] (]) 17:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
	:] hasn't made an edit since June 2 but I should note that what he does suggest at the link above is adding to the lead:
			::So, yes, they are intended to go into the article.--] (]) 17:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
	:that ''"The word 'jinn' and its variants are mentioned 29 times in the ],<ref>{{cite book\|author=Robert Lebling\|title=Legends of the Fire Spirits: Jinn and Genies from Arabia to Zanzibar\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uxKJDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT44\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2010\|isbn=9780857730633\|page=44}}</ref><ref>{{cite book\|author=Judy Wanjiru Wang’ombe\|title=Lived Experiences of Ideologies in Contextual Islam\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IWP4EAAAQBAJ&pg=PT22\|publisher=Langham Publishing\|publication-date=2024\|isbn=9781839739576\|page=22}}</ref> and ] is even named after them.<ref>{{cite book\|author=Wahid Abdussalam Bali\|translator=Haytham Kreidly\|title=The Cutting Edge: How to Face Evil Sorcerers\|url=https://archive.org/details/TheCuttingEdgeUpload/mode/2up\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2015\|isbn=978-2-7451-5074-5\|page=28\|quote=It is enough evidence that the jinn exist since there is a whole Surah in the Quran that talks about the jinn. The word "jinn" was mentioned in the Quran twenty-two times. The word "Al-Jann" was mentioned seven times,}}</ref>" Or at least it should be mentioned in the lead that there is a ] that talks about the jinn.<ref>{{cite book\|author=Juan Eduardo Campo\|title=Encyclopedia of Islam\|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OZbyz_Hr-eIC&pg=PA402\|publisher=]\|publication-date=2009\|isbn=9781438126968\|page=402}}</ref>
			:::I strongly feel that these read as scare quotes far more than attestation quotes, particularly because the quoted sections are so short (two or three words each). If the statements are well sourced enough, it should be fine just to cite them and continue to use wiki-voice. The little citation markers next to the words already serve the purpose you intend. Let me put it this way, for the purposes of the RFC, I '''support''' the text to be included in the section, but '''only if''' the quotation marks are removed. Otherwise, I feel that the natural reading is the opposite of what you want to say, and more importantly, opposite to what the sources say. Scare quotes are a thing. ] (]) 00:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
	:How is this "inappropriate"?? It's backed by secondary sources, would not take up that much space in the lede, and is ''not'' stating that Jinn are "essential". --] (]) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
			::::OK, I'll try that. It won't add a large quantity of copyright material so maybe it won't matter. --] (]) 17:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I don't believe quoting two words in succession is the same thing as plagiarism, especially when supplying the citation. Good work. I agree with @]. ] (]) 22:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' I'm surprised it's even an RfC (which you covered above, so thank you). Good source material, informative, improves the article. Well done. ] (]) 22:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' This is a great contributation and the sources are excellent.
			*'''Qualified support.''' The sentence is on the right track but overstates the situation. There is no monolithic "official Islam," so it comes across as tendentious to make a blanket assertion that jinn is "completely accepted." After all, the prevalence section begins: "'''Though discouraged by some teachings of modern Islam...'''" Furthermore, the article does not discuss "official Islam," so this is tough for the lead. I'd also remove "quite seriously" as if arguing the point. Instead, I'd suggest: "Medieval and modern scholars have studied the consequences implied by their existence..." Also, tradition and faith can be combined. Thanks. ] (]) 00:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
			::Used your suggested replacement of "quite seriously", but deleting "official Islam" is more problematic. --] (]) 16:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' It is backed up by RS and gives a good idea of the significance of jinn in various islamic civilizations, thoughts etc. ] (]) 22:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''':It seems a bit redundant. It seems like different sources used different terms to describe the same thing, that Jinn are part of Islamic belief, and these terms are just strung together. This might create a sense of emphasis that is not intended. Reads almost like a legal argument. ] (]) 15:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
			::It's a summary of what comes below, so it sounds like the more in depth description below. Different sources using different terms to describe much the same thing is an indication of agreement by at least some different sources. --] (]) 16:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
			{{closed rfc bottom}}

			Added to Islam section. --] (]) 15:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
	Then Eagle starts accusing me of cherry picking (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1220790249&oldid=1220782001). Ironically, the attentive user will have realized it is the source from which the fact many Muslim scholars denied the existence of jinn derives from. Beginning with "hey everyone check out" with the header "cherry picking" feels more like stirring up hate against other users (in this case me) rather than being interested in a neutral resolution.

			== Stone Jinn ==
	Then, while still waiting for responses to my objections, BPL made edit suggestions instead. He can do that, but I think it is easier to discuss the issue directly. Unfortunately, none of the changes consider my previous objection and I was asked to explain each suggestion again. At this point, I hoenstly, got frustrating because now I have to reply to each point seperately, while it is still the very same issue I had at the very beginning, still left unanswered, now with even worse sources, such as Fetullah Gülen, who falls under "religious authority" and can be dismissed for the same reasons as mentioned above (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1224873430&oldid=1220998939).

			"Stone Jinn", is an object containing the spirit of a Jinn, there has to be a reference in this article about an actual Stone Jinn.
	Before any dispute is settled, Eagle points to another topic and opens a discussion about the coparative mythology section (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1224874019&oldid=1224753229). I do not see what is the point here, apart from spreading confusion, but I had hope that it could settle the previous edit war for good. Instead, the discussions are similarly bad and the religious bias shines through again, asking if "there is proof that jinn are mythological creatures" (no, they are biological ones of course). (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1225277164&oldid=1225274554). Eagle also started another edit war about this, and also ignored me pointing out that ].

			18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)] (]) ] (]) 18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
	The user also objected to "comparative mythology" in general and removed it at some point entirely, again, I had to restore it, and they claim that they are willing to accept any consensus (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJinn&diff=1225693738&oldid=1225685395), but then starts an entire poll to question the general consensus on the talkpage about the section on comparative mythology.

			:Please provide some reliable sources. ] (]) 19:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
	Meanwhile, Eagle also spammed my talkpage with several "warnings" for not conforming to their demands (User talk:VenusFeuerFalle: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages), which could lead to an immediate ban (]) I also I first wanted to report, but then had not the time to deal with this none-sense (I might chance my mind though, then this is the only way to get rid of this awful discussion).
			::@] I'm doing my best to prove the "stone jinn" ] (]) 08:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::You do that with reliable sources. ] (]) 12:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::early arab believe that the jinn emerged out of a gemstone and not a lamp. ] (]) 13:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Ok that's great. But, again, we depend on reliable sources to say that. ] (]) 13:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Mutazilites and Jinn-Possession ==
	User Eagle also talked behind my back, since I got not notified and accusing me of "gaming the system" and gathered other users against me (which could also be considered cavassing). (There is nothing personal. Actually, neutrality is enough to solve the problem, at least for me. But the real problem is that some users think they are smarter than everyone else and trying to ] (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ABookku&diff=1229682833&oldid=1223782163). On a second thought, I should definately reporting Eagle for several reasons. LPB and Bookku seem to try their best, although I am not sure if things go clean here anymore.

			@] Greetings,
	'''Summary'''
			I noticed that your recent edits were reverted as they did not comply by ]. However, your additions resemble topics covered by source meeting the Misplaced Pages standards. As such, I want to invite you to check out:
	Overall, LPB made an edit with original research, unreliable authors, and misquoting a source. After being reverted, the User decided to addd even more questionable sources, made even worse edits, and ignored all notifications on the talkpage, until evne more people reverted them.
			* Dein, Simon; Abdool Samad Illaiee (2013). "Jinn and mental health: looking at jinn possession in modern psychiatric practice"
	:Did these people include anyone besides yourself? (There was another unrelated issue -- Comparative mythology -- that I edited after a RfC seemed to come to a conclusion. I was wrong, and part of my edit was reverted by User:Aquillion.) --] (]) 02:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
	Then Eagle appeared and sided with PBL, and opened so many discussions, partly with accusations and harrassment. Furthermore, Eagle decided to gather support also by tagging other users they believed to side with them on polls and talking on other Users talkpages behind the back of those who are involved in this discussion.

			I hope the paper helps you to get your next edit accepted.
	Eagle has opened several other discussions and the original subject of dispute got lost. Given the previous dispute and the evidence for religious bias, I conclude that this dispute is '''purely personal and misses any encyclopedic value'''. I am willing to give ''the involved users one last chance'', to make ''one clear suggestion'', I want to respond one last time. ''Then ''we can go step by step over to the other ones. If it fails, I will not reply to that anymore, and then either the edits meet the Wiki-Criteria or they don't. If they '''do not meet them, they will be reverted''', no matter of you understand the reason or not. Because, I just feel my time being wasted. If the users again '''derail the discussion'''s, '''I will report''' Eagle and let an admin check on '''all involved users''' for canvassing, harrassment, and potential sockpuppetry.

	~~I wasted about two hours for this awful response I had to do because of this awful discussion, I have nothing to do~~ with ~~but applying guidlines and being too kind to actually engage with reasoning. I would have been better if I just dropped a link like a robot and reverted the edits without any good~~ ~~will.~~ ] (]) 00:49, 22 ~~June~~ 2024 (UTC)		with best regards ] (]) 03:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

			:Thank you for your feedback @]. In this edit I used more reliable citations. I use a quote from the ], which was written directly by ], one part of the book discusses his interpretation of the rejection of jinn possession. Apart from that, I also added quotes from books such as ] by ] and the book ] by ], one part of which discusses the opinion of the Mu'tazilah scholar, ] regarding his rejection of the phenomenon of jinn possession. ] (]) 05:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Please bear in mind that you are an editor like the other users involved in the dispute, and not some authority to decide who will be given "one last chance". We would all like to spend my time on other things. As for "canvassing, harrassment, and potential sockpuppetry", feel free to investigate me. --] (]) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC) --] (]) 02:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
	====Ref====
	{{reflist}}

Latest revision as of 13:45, 20 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jinn article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jinn. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jinn at the Reference desk.

This

level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mythology High‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islam High‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arab world High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occult High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Folklore High‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pre-RfC

The brief of main Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC discussion
The brief of main Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC discussion is, Both sides seem to maintain neutrality of the article, the main consideration before proposed RfC likely to be WP:DUE how much to cover.User:VenusFeuerFalle says (in the article-body Jinn) importance of jinn-belief (in Islam- and Muslim world) has been highlighted sufficiently already. User:Louis P. Boog says that is not sufficient enough and important scope exists to increase the weight. Similarly in case of rejection of Jinn, VFF feels present coverage is sufficient where as LPB finds some scope on that count too. Highlighted sentences in LPB's sandbox will be for consideration. Bookku (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC) as discussion facilitator

The brief of main Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC discussion

The brief of main Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC discussion is, Both sides seem to maintain neutrality of the article, the main consideration before proposed RfC likely to be WP:DUE how much to cover.User:VenusFeuerFalle says (in the article-body Jinn) importance of jinn-belief (in Islam- and Muslim world) has been highlighted sufficiently already. User:Louis P. Boog says that is not sufficient enough and important scope exists to increase the weight. Similarly in case of rejection of Jinn, VFF feels present coverage is sufficient where as LPB finds some scope on that count too. Highlighted sentences in LPB's sandbox will be for consideration. Bookku (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC) as discussion facilitator

(most of this "Pre-RfC" procedure is following the advise of Bookku )

Proposed rewrite of the article has been updated with most if not all of suggestions of TheEagle107

@VenusFeuerFalle, do you wish to contest any of the sources added in the Proposed rewrite?
What if any parts of the rewrite are you willing to accept? (I will be available to reply off and on May 6 and May 7.) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I object to your suggestions based on WP:OR, WP:NOTNP, and the lenghty quotes might even touch on copy right infringements. Furthermore, there is no clear improvement, since the prominence of jinn is already covered sufficiently in the article. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

OR and CR expectations can be fair enough, so let us check. Earwig doesn't show major concern on CR side ( I can see just two sentences used from fgulen.com in Quote=parameter, that seems fair use to me). Pl. mention, if you find any thing more specific.

If you can be more specific which specific sentences are OR concerns can help better.

Bookku (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Fyi: This is to keep users informed that User:TheEagle107 and another user have expressed interest in contesting relevance and WP:DUE / WP:UNDUE weight of content coming under section Jinn#Comparative_mythology. This is likely to further deepen the scope of ongoing discussion. This aspect and some aspects discussed at WP:NORN make me feel that some users at proposed RfC may discuss borderline WP:FRINGE aspects/concerns. So I suggest users to pre-study policies and guidelines relevant to WP:FTN too. Happy editing. Bookku (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Original Research

and more recently revivalist preachers Abul A'la Maududi, and Fethullah Gülen,

CR might be on

Publicly expressed doubt of the existence of j̲inn was uncommon even among the Muʿtazila; and among the earlier philosophers, even al-Fārābī, tried to avoid the question with ambiguous definitions. Ibn Sīnā was an exception -- he flatly denied their reality. In contemporary Islam, only a "small minority" believe that jinn in the Quran should be interpreted allegorically rather than literally

since it sounds like lenghty quotes from the sources. Taking a greater look at the source I furthermore doubt that this (Hachette Livre | Hachette Livre is the world’s third-largest trade publisher | Hachette.com) is a reliable publisher.

I further want to point out that the importance of jinn-belief has been highlighted sufficiently already.

Belief in jinn is not included among the six articles of Islamic faith, as belief in angels is. Nontheless, many Muslim scholars, including the Hanbalī scholar ibn Taymiyya and the Ẓāhirī scholar ibn Hazm, believe they are essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran. It is generally accepted by the majority of Muslim scholars that jinn can possess individuals. This is considered to be part of the doctrines (aqidah) of the "people of the Sunnah" (ahl as-sunnah wal-jammah'a) in the tradition of Ash'ari

There is an example form the Zahiris, from the Hanbalites, and pointed at a consensus among Asharites in general that jinn are undeniable part of Islam. I do not see why there needs to be a more vague discussion about whether or not they are part of the creed or not or who may have denied them. The latter is problematic from a research view point as there is no sufficient analysis on who might have denied them. It is, for example, not clear if Maturidites consider jinn to be real or a merel psychological phenomena, as mentioned next in the section

"Māturīdī focuses on the dynamics between jinn and humans based on Quran 72:6. He states that seeking refuge among the jinn increases fear and anxiety, however, not because of the jinn, but due to the psychological dependence of the individual towards external powers"

it is furthermore not clear, how important the belief in jinn as external instead of internal things has been. In later Islamic theology, such as the writings of Ghazali, we see that "metaphors" have been considered "real", further blurring the lines between metaphor and reality, as mentioned in the Shaitan article: <blokquote>" Al-Ghazali (c. 1058 – 1111) reconciles the literal meaning (Ẓāhir) with Avicennan cosmology based on reason. According to the philosophers (falsafa), the word 'angel' refers to "celestial intellects" or "immaterial souls". Ghazali opined that devils might be of a similar nature, that is, that they are celestial immaterial objects influencing human minds."

Facing the complicated matter about the relationship between "reality" and "metaphor" in Islamic theological discourse, I think we should not overestimate the discussion about the reality of jinn. Jinn are an integral part of Islam, this is nowhere to be denied and the article as it is now, makes this clear. However, the nature of these jinn is up to debate. As also mentioned int he article, some consider 'jinn' to be a neutral term for angels. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

As a discussion facilitator I initiated WP:RSN#Hachette Livre to seek community inputs about reliability of the source. CR concern seemed for two sentences only so temporarily I re-paraphrased the sentences a little, since LPB have mentioned they may be on break and we do not know when they will join back.

About your OR concerns rlated to sentence about 'Abul A'la Maududi, and Fethullah Gülen' I shall let that be for LPB or RfC to address. Bookku (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Fyi, LPB has requested inputs on the OR issue at No original research/Noticeboard Bookku (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Fetullah Gülen is not a scholar, but a sect-founder and falls outside of neutral view point in religious matters. Apart from the lack of reliablity by Gülen, he also lacks authority. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested update as highlighted in the sandbox seem to have 4 paragraphs, consisting 9 sentences around 12 inline refs and around 15 supportive refs in foot note by TheEagle107. Please count and confirm/ correct me as needed.

VenusFeuerFalle /other participants let us know if numbering those sentences will help?
@TheEagle107 Please confirm foot notes referred by you are just supportive foot notes or you wish to add some thing from there for RfC. Being clearer the better. Bookku (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bookku: I just want to make it clear to other users who will try to resolve this dispute that there are three editors (Louis P. Boog, me and DivineReality) who are holding the same point of view, which is that belief in jinn is necessary in Islam, because jinns are mentioned in the Qur'an and authentic hadiths, while VenusFeuerFalle disagree or just have another point of view, which in my opinion is considered WP:UNDUE & WP:FRINGE. Therefore, VenusFeuerFalle opposes adding this to the lead of the article, and even cherry-picked that source, thus giving a false balance in coverage.TheEagle107 (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Before we discuss on the sources, I would like to get clean with the accusations towards me. @TheEagle107 has thrown a lot of accusations, from cherrypicking, to "playing the system" and I expect that the User backs it up. Such accusations should not be thrown around lightly. If Eagle wants to retreat their accusations, it is fine, but they need to make it clear and owes me an apology. Before, I refuse to spend time in debates concerning sources or citations. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle @Louis P. Boog Please refer to discussion at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_437#Hachette_Livre discussion indicates First publisher Intercultural Press a Nicholas Brealey Publishing Company along with a good review for the book hence WP:RSN discussion seem to suggest to consider "Islam & Muslims: A Guide to Diverse Experience in a Modern World" by Mark Sedgwick. as WP:RS. If you wish to contest it then you would need to go for RfC or else would need to accept the same as RS. Bookku (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle, @ Bookku I'll wait a few days for a reply and then add the sentence and citation. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle, @Louis P. Boog Brief summary of inputs about 'Abul A'la Maududi, and Fethullah Gülen' at Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard#Notable scholar's own work acceptable or OR? (Link need to be updated as gets archived :"..Over all consensus seem to be forming OR is not much concern in this case; but side note suggestions seem to be importance of weighing content on other counts like supporting with whether it has been talked about by other scholars importance of Jinn to Islam in the interim centuries? foremost is whether substantially supported by secondary academic sources for the relevant content last but not least WP:DUE. .." Bookku (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Noone is objecting to the calim that jinn are important. This is a strawman @Louis P. Boog and @TheEagle107 made up for themselves. It is something only they debate. In case the disote is still ongoing, I am still waiting for my answers above. If they cannot find them, it is, honestly, their fault, because they failed to respond to my inquiries and instead decided to lead discussions with themselves. I never said that jinn are not important in Islam, and it is hoently, no my job to explain to them what I said. I cannot force people to read properly and after dozens of replies ignoraing my original statement, I withdraw from their discussion. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Reference list for this section (reflist-talk)
References ""Cin" diye bir varlık var mıdır?". kurul.diyanet.gov.tr (in Turkish). Directorate of Religious Affairs. Archived from the original on 5 May 2024. Kur'ân-ı Kerîm'de cinlerin alevli/dumansız, yalın ateşten yaratıldıkları zikredilir (bkz. el-Hicr, 15/27; er-Rahmân, 55/15). Ayrıca Kur'ân'da "Cin sûresi" adıyla bir sûre mevcut olup, daha birçok âyette ve sahih hadislerde cinlerden bahsedilmektedir. Bu bakımdan cinlerin varlığı gerçek olup her müminin buna inanması gerekir. Ursula Baumgardt; Goggo Addi (2000). Une conteuse peule et son répertoire (in French). Éditions Karthala. p. 78. ISBN 9782845861046. La croyance aux djinns étant acceptée par l'islam, leurs occurrences dans les textes ne peuvent pas être interprétées comme indices de syncrétisme religieux. Arnold van Gennep, ed. (1908). Revue des études ethnographiques et sociologiques (in French). Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner. p. 206. La croyance aux djinns est du reste admise par l'Islâm orthodoxe. Claude Mesmin (2023). La Bienveillance: une aide ethnoclinique aux patientes issues de la migration (in French). La Route de la Soie - Éditions. p. 124. ISBN 9782493255501. Comme le rappelle Hamid Salmi, « Si les Djinns ne sont pas mentionnés parmi les cinq croyances nécessaires, il reste que leur existence est de foi en Islam puisque le Coran en parle à maintes reprises », ce qui signifie qu'ils sont donc familiers à tous les musulmans et qu'on ne peut les ignorer. "Ахмед Тангиев: «Колдовство — один из величайших грехов»". gazetaingush.ru (in Russian). Ingushetia (newspaper). Archived from the original on 5 May 2024. Некоторые неграмотные люди отрицают существование джиннов, однако слова «джинн» и «шайтан» вместе с производными от них словами использованы в Коране соответственно 29 и 85 раз, поэтому вера в их существование является обязательной для каждого мусульманина. "Жинлар". islom.uz (in Uzbek). Archived from the original on 5 May 2024. Мўмин-мусулмонлар жин деб аталувчи махлуқотлар борлигига иймон келтирадилар. Уларни оддий ҳолатларда кўриб бўлмайди. Биз улар ҳақидаги маълумотларни энг ишончли манбалар, Қуръони Карим ва ҳадиси шарифлардан оламиз. .... Шу билан бирга қадимда ҳам, ҳозирда ҳам жинларни умуман инкор этадиганлар бор. Улар жин ҳақидаги ҳар бир сўзни афсона, бекорчи гап дейишади. .... Ислом эса жин ҳақида худди бошқа масалалардаги каби ҳақиқатни баён қилади. Ислом жин борлигини исбот қилиб, у ҳақидаги тўғри тасаввурни баён этиб, нотўғри тушунчаларни рад этади. .......... Мўмин-мусулмон инсоннинг Қуръонда келган ҳар бир хабарга иймон келтириши фарз. Худо кўрсатмасин, Қуръондаги бирор хабарга шубҳа билан қараш, ишонмаслик кофирлик бўлади. Шундан келиб чиқилса, жин ҳақида Қуръонда оят келиши уларнинг борлигига иймон келтиришни барча мусулмонларга фарз қилади. "ماهیت و ویژگی‌های جن و انس در قرآن و روایات و جایگاه آنان در نظام آفرینش". herzjavad.ir (in Persian). Archived from the original on 5 May 2024. سراسر‌ دنیا و مسلمانان به وجود جن اعتقاد دارند. مسلمانان معتقد هستند که جن‌ هم‌ مانند انسان روز قیامت در بارگاه الهی قضاوت می‌شود. Elahe Vakili (2008). ویژگی های خلقت جن از منظر قرآن و روایات (PDF) (in Persian). Ministry of Science, Research and Technology (Iran). pp. 101–125.

Reference list for this section (reflist-talk)

References

""Cin" diye bir varlık var mıdır?". kurul.diyanet.gov.tr (in Turkish). Directorate of Religious Affairs. Archived from the original on 5 May 2024. Kur'ân-ı Kerîm'de cinlerin alevli/dumansız, yalın ateşten yaratıldıkları zikredilir (bkz. el-Hicr, 15/27; er-Rahmân, 55/15). Ayrıca Kur'ân'da "Cin sûresi" adıyla bir sûre mevcut olup, daha birçok âyette ve sahih hadislerde cinlerden bahsedilmektedir. Bu bakımdan cinlerin varlığı gerçek olup her müminin buna inanması gerekir.
Ursula Baumgardt; Goggo Addi (2000). Une conteuse peule et son répertoire (in French). Éditions Karthala. p. 78. ISBN 9782845861046. La croyance aux djinns étant acceptée par l'islam, leurs occurrences dans les textes ne peuvent pas être interprétées comme indices de syncrétisme religieux.
Arnold van Gennep, ed. (1908). Revue des études ethnographiques et sociologiques (in French). Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner. p. 206. La croyance aux djinns est du reste admise par l'Islâm orthodoxe.
Claude Mesmin (2023). La Bienveillance: une aide ethnoclinique aux patientes issues de la migration (in French). La Route de la Soie - Éditions. p. 124. ISBN 9782493255501. Comme le rappelle Hamid Salmi, « Si les Djinns ne sont pas mentionnés parmi les cinq croyances nécessaires, il reste que leur existence est de foi en Islam puisque le Coran en parle à maintes reprises », ce qui signifie qu'ils sont donc familiers à tous les musulmans et qu'on ne peut les ignorer.
"Ахмед Тангиев: «Колдовство — один из величайших грехов»". gazetaingush.ru (in Russian). Ingushetia (newspaper). Archived from the original on 5 May 2024. Некоторые неграмотные люди отрицают существование джиннов, однако слова «джинн» и «шайтан» вместе с производными от них словами использованы в Коране соответственно 29 и 85 раз, поэтому вера в их существование является обязательной для каждого мусульманина.
"Жинлар". islom.uz (in Uzbek). Archived from the original on 5 May 2024. Мўмин-мусулмонлар жин деб аталувчи махлуқотлар борлигига иймон келтирадилар. Уларни оддий ҳолатларда кўриб бўлмайди. Биз улар ҳақидаги маълумотларни энг ишончли манбалар, Қуръони Карим ва ҳадиси шарифлардан оламиз. .... Шу билан бирга қадимда ҳам, ҳозирда ҳам жинларни умуман инкор этадиганлар бор. Улар жин ҳақидаги ҳар бир сўзни афсона, бекорчи гап дейишади. .... Ислом эса жин ҳақида худди бошқа масалалардаги каби ҳақиқатни баён қилади. Ислом жин борлигини исбот қилиб, у ҳақидаги тўғри тасаввурни баён этиб, нотўғри тушунчаларни рад этади. .......... Мўмин-мусулмон инсоннинг Қуръонда келган ҳар бир хабарга иймон келтириши фарз. Худо кўрсатмасин, Қуръондаги бирор хабарга шубҳа билан қараш, ишонмаслик кофирлик бўлади. Шундан келиб чиқилса, жин ҳақида Қуръонда оят келиши уларнинг борлигига иймон келтиришни барча мусулмонларга фарз қилади.
"ماهیت و ویژگی‌های جن و انس در قرآن و روایات و جایگاه آنان در نظام آفرینش". herzjavad.ir (in Persian). Archived from the original on 5 May 2024. سراسر‌ دنیا و مسلمانان به وجود جن اعتقاد دارند. مسلمانان معتقد هستند که جن‌ هم‌ مانند انسان روز قیامت در بارگاه الهی قضاوت می‌شود.
Elahe Vakili (2008). ویژگی های خلقت جن از منظر قرآن و روایات (PDF) (in Persian). Ministry of Science, Research and Technology (Iran). pp. 101–125.

Fyi: A pre-intimation of these on going discussion has been given at WP:NPOV/N, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Religion WT:ISLAM. Bookku (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Also a pre-intimation of these on going discussion has been given at WP:FTN. Bookku (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1 Link for easy reference. Bookku (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Next step

@ VenusFeuerFalle, @Louis P. Boog, @ TheEagle107

In brief: wait for VFF to join back or 7 days since VFF not editing. After that we shall begin RfC formatting step, then RfC.
I had intimated VFF at their user talk page also, about ongoing input request discussions regarding RS and OR concerns raised by VFF at respective notice boards namely WP:RSN#Hachette Livre, No original research/Noticeboard.
But VFF do not seem to be active since May 11th, as such VFF and LPB both are used to taking some days editing gap (possibly for real life) and I feel it's best to respect each others editing gaps hence I suggest to wait for 7 days, if at all VFF wishes to get reviewed notice board discussion with one more opinion again. ( I can help VFF in requesting another experienced user for review if VFF requests me so)
- Also note that notice board inputs are valuable guiding posts but last call is taken in RfCs.
If you see the above discussions not moving ahead at notice board, and also not automatically archived after 7 days (since VFF not editing), then close by using collapsing template {{collapse top|Discussion closure join for further discussin at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC}} {{collapse bottom}}

I hope above helps. Last but not least let me appreciate all you three are reasonably co-operating with my suggestions as discussion facilitator with sincerity and patience. We shall collapse this subsection when we move to next step. Bookku (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog and @TheEagle107 Taking into account inputs received from WP:RSN#Hachette Livre and WP:OR/N see if you wish to consider any changes in the updates (under consideration (your sandbox) to bring for RfC.

Let us know if you need some more time for preparation or you are ready for RfC formatting stage? Bookku (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, give me some time to add my suggestions.--TheEagle107 (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@TheEagle107 Why don't you also create your own sand box and then discuss with LPB and then here at RfC. Bookku (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright, sorry for further delay, I got over 18 notifications last time I logged in and was still busy, so I couldn't do much but minor stuff at break. Now, I am mostly done, but now the notifications tell me that the discussion on the Board is closed. If everyone is fine by that, I would start at the point of the results of the discussion. We don't need to make a big fuzz about it in my opinion, when this discussion gets strict to the point. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@ TheEagle107 and VenusFeuerFalle; this seem to be second instance, within four days, of POV template tagging and the revert. I also do not know nuances about POV template hence I shall refer the same to WP:NPOVN for inputs. Mean while I urge patience to both sides to avoid reverts since any way we are in process of sorting out through discussion. I also urge to provide neutral summary of various parts of disagreements so we can proceed towards RfC formatting step. Bookku (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
When the template should be used can be read here: Template:POV. Per " In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." Misplaced Pages Users are required to remove these templates. I cannot follow your request on a summary of the dispute, since I do not sense a dispute. @TheEagle107 makes edits and objections already adressed and clarified but choose to ignore these. Especially after their most recent comments
"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."
and
" For detailed information about the jinn and their relation with humankind, see Essentials of the Islamic Faith."
there is good reason to assume that @TheEagle107 is not here to build an encyclopedia but to further personal religions views. I am also waiting for over 3 weeks not for them to adress the points I raised, instead, the User added new discussions or talked about ther personal opinions. For my part, I decided to go with Misplaced Pages:Avoiding difficult users, until the User complays with the proper protocol of the talkpage usage. And edits not confirming to Misplaced Pages guidlines will be, of course, still reverted. Ignorance does not provide someone with a greencard. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Primary preparation of RfC question is almost getting ready. RfC format suggestion request has been made at WT:RFC. Bookku (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed additions of text 1

In section "Islam": Should the following sentence be added to "Islam" section in the article?

Jinn have been called "an integral part" of the Muslim tradition or faith, "completely accepted" in official Islam; prominently featured in folklore, but also taken "quite seriously" by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars, who "worked out" the consequences implied by their existence -- legal status, the possible relations between them and mankind, especially in questions of marriage and property.

13:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Ref-list and Author brief for Proposed additions of text 1

Reflist for Proposed additions of text 1

References

Mark A. Caudill (2006). Twilight in the Kingdom: Understanding the Saudis. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 92. ISBN 9780313084850. Jinn are an integral part of both traditional and Gnostic Islamic belief.
William E. Burns (2022). They Believed That?: A Cultural Encyclopedia of Superstitions and the Supernatural around the World. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 137. ISBN 9781440878480. Jinn are considered by some authorities to be an integral part of the Islamic faith due to their inclusion in the Quran.
^ D.B. MacDonald; H. Massé; P.N. Boratav; K.A. Nizami; P. Voorhoeve (eds.). "Djinn". Encyclopaedia of Islam New Edition Online (EI-2 English). Retrieved 27 July 2024. II. In official Islam the existence of the d̲j̲inn was completely accepted, as it is to This day, and the full consequences implied by their existence were worked out. Their legal status in all respects was discussed and fixed, and the possible relations between them and mankind, especially in questions of marriage and property, were examined.
Olomi, Ali A. (2021). "14. Jinn in the Quran". The Routledge Companion to the Qur'an. N.Y.: Routledge. p. 149. Retrieved 24 July 2024. The jinn feature prominently in Islamic folklore as ambivalent and mischievous supernatural forces.
Coeli Fitzpatrick; Adam Hani Walker, eds. (2014). Muhammad in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia of the Prophet of God. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 321. ISBN 9781610691789.

Author brief for Proposed additions of text 1

Ref 1
- Published by: Bloomsbury Publishing USA
- Author brief: Mark A. Caudill is a 15-year U.S. Foreign Service officer who served in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, from 1999 to 2002. Currently he is Vice Consul, U.S. Consulate General, Istanbul, Turkey.
Ref 2
- Published by:Bloomsbury Publishing USA
- Author brief: William E. Burns . Visiting and Part-Time Faculty, Department of History, Columbian College of Arts & Sciences

William Burns is a historian who lives in the Washington, D.C. metro area with interests in the early modern world and the history of science. ref: columbian.gwu.edu

Ref 3 Encyclopaedia of Islam
Ref 4
- Publisher: Routledge
- Author brief: Ali A. Olomi is assistant professor of history at Penn State Abington and an affiliated scholar with the Rutgers Center for Security, Race and Rights. ... Olomi holds a Ph.D. from the University of California Irvine.
Ref 5
- Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing USA
- Author brief: Richard Bonney :University of Leicester | LE · School of Historical Studies

This is the first question in this series, for more info pl see discussion facilitator's brief in discussion sub-section. 13:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Fyi: Intimated the RfC request at project talk pages namely:Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Religion, WT:ISLAM, WP:NPOVN, WP:FTN, WT:MYTH, WT:ARAB, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Middle Ages

Survey

Since editors are open for improvement in the sentences, reasonable discussion precedes any vote is preferred.13:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion:Proposed additions of text 1

The brief of main Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC discussion
The brief of main Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC discussion is, Both sides seem to maintain neutrality of the article, the main consideration before proposed RfC likely to be WP:DUE how much to cover.User:VenusFeuerFalle says (in the article-body Jinn) importance of jinn-belief (in Islam- and Muslim world) has been highlighted sufficiently already. User:Louis P. Boog says that is not sufficient enough and important scope exists to increase the weight, without it being undue. Similarly in case of rejection of Jinn, VFF feels present coverage is sufficient where as LPB finds some scope on that count too. Highlighted sentences in LPB's sandbox will be for consideration one by one, as advised at WT:RFC. LPB's sandbox talk page has multiple proposed additions. Bookku (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC) as discussion facilitator.

The brief of main Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC discussion

The brief of main Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC discussion is, Both sides seem to maintain neutrality of the article, the main consideration before proposed RfC likely to be WP:DUE how much to cover.User:VenusFeuerFalle says (in the article-body Jinn) importance of jinn-belief (in Islam- and Muslim world) has been highlighted sufficiently already. User:Louis P. Boog says that is not sufficient enough and important scope exists to increase the weight, without it being undue. Similarly in case of rejection of Jinn, VFF feels present coverage is sufficient where as LPB finds some scope on that count too.

Highlighted sentences in LPB's sandbox will be for consideration one by one, as advised at WT:RFC.
LPB's sandbox talk page has multiple proposed additions.

Bookku (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC) as discussion facilitator.

Suggestions/ comments which help improve sentence, coverage or RfC question are welcome.13:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed additions of text 1 - Discussion

Above is break for easy editing and navigation

Sources need to have page numbers to make it easy to verify. Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog requesting your attention Bookku (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven No page number in Olomi, Ali A. (2021). The Routledge Companion to the Qur'an. which is from google books, but 1) cite includes chapter and 2) link takes readers to the page.

Have not been able to find article in Encyclopaedia of Islam to find page number. Brill, the publisher of EI, is "temporarily unavailable" in The Misplaced Pages Library (it was last time I check also). If you have another source for EI available to WP editors I will be happy to check. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, it is usual to not give a page number in an encyclopedia or a dictionary, because they are usually organized alphabetically and the entry name is enough.

@Louis P. Boog, you have the option to use {{cite encyclopedia}} for such citations if you want. I think this URL: https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/EIEO/COM-0191.xml or doi:10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0191 will be useful for that Brill encyclopedia. Part of the text is displayed, while the rest is WP:PAYWALLED, but it proves that the encyclopedia exists and has relevant contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Well that explains why I had an issue its under Djinn, not jinn. ALso it does not prove the cite supports the text. Can you quote the part that does? Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

On my suggestion LPB made page number requests at resource exchange. So far WP:REREQ answers 1, 2 hopefully LPB will update those in RfC question sentences by tomorrow.

I suppose, but, your basic question seems bit different ".. its under Djinn, not jinn. .." can be answered by @Louis P. Boog.

Btw, I raised a help question "Requesting help in ascertaining, What is "official Islam"? to the authors D.B. MacDonald and H. Massé" at humanities ref desk. Let us see if what info may come up from ref desk. Bookku (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I assume you have read the whole source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh of course, You also can verify by Following this Brill link for Wikipedians provided by WP:REREQ volunteer . I have included quote at at humanities ref desk Do you want me to copypaste the quote here too? or quote can be included the in the sentence ref itself, you suggest Bookku (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Then it needs re-working as it looks like an almost verbatim copy and paste. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, do you have any – maybe we could call them "non-policy" concerns about this? Because I notice that above you expressed concern that the source doesn't verify the text, and down here, not even six hours later, you're saying that you think the source verifies the text so well that it's a possible WP:COPYPASTA problem.

Back-to-back opposite claims feels like someone throwing up every objection he can think of, in the hope that one of his objections will be agreed with and he'll be able to keep the text out. Would you mind telling us what your actual, underlying concerns are? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

NO, I did not I expressed concern then the answer to that came back as what looks like a copy vio. They can just re-write this and that concern is also addressed. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Since sentence formation is changed and also juxtaposed with other authors it may have been bit close but technically not a serious issue I suppose. Anyways as discussed my concern about term "official Islam" seem to need change; below I have presented alternate suggestion. Purpose of RfC is not just support / oppose but suggesting improvements. may be you can provide your valuable inputs how it can be improved further. Bookku (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing thanks. Louis P. Boog (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@ Bookku , Slatersteven, WhatamIdoing, I've added a quote from Encyclopaedia of Islam provided by Reference Desk Humanities (What is "official Islam"? ~ Encyclopaedia of Islam, July 27) to proposed version of Jinn article. As well as changed text from

'"completely accepted" in official Islam', to

'"completely accepted" in "official" or mainstream Islam'--Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Reference Desk Humanities also found the page number of a cited sentence in book The Routledge Companion to the Qur'an --21:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment about "Official Islam":

The term "Official Islam", certainly used by RS, still seems to be too contextual and finding alternate wording may be better. But what do authors D.B. MacDonald, H. Massé. Title: Ḏj̲inn. Encyclopaedia of Islam mean by the term "Official Islam"?

Jacques Waardenburg's definition of "Official Islam"
“.. In mediaeval Islamic thought, the term “official” Islam is applied to what is religiously lawful, and what consequently, enjoys divine sanction. Its contents are held to go back to the Qur’anic text considered “revelation” and ancient “Sunna”. ..” ~ Waardenburg, Jacques. “Official, Popular, and Normative Religion in Islam” - Islam, Historical, social and political perspectives Berlin de Gruyter GMBH & Co (2002) Retrieved from Ed.Rippin, Andrew. Defining Islam: A Reader. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2016. Page 209 (available on google books)

Jacques Waardenburg's definition of "Official Islam"

“.. In mediaeval Islamic thought, the term “official” Islam is applied to what is religiously lawful, and what consequently, enjoys divine sanction. Its contents are held to go back to the Qur’anic text considered “revelation” and ancient “Sunna”. ..” ~ Waardenburg, Jacques. “Official, Popular, and Normative Religion in Islam” - Islam, Historical, social and political perspectives Berlin de Gruyter GMBH & Co (2002)

Retrieved from Ed.Rippin, Andrew. Defining Islam: A Reader. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2016. Page 209 (available on google books)

Inputs from Humanities ref desk
The question was also presented at Humanities ref desk WP user answers so far received indicate: ".. It means "standard/mainstream/mainline" Islam (coming in Shia and Sunni ..). As supported by Islamic scholarship, or most of it. .."; ".. Possibly written Islam as defined by trained and educated Ulama, as opposed to more folklorish or popular concepts? .."; ".. contrasts "official (Sunni) Islam" with "vernacular Islam", which incorporates beliefs based on vernacular legends. While the term "official Islam" is not explicitly defined in the (Németh, Kinga (2024)) article, it is connected in the text to the points of view of "Islamic institutions", "scholars of Islam" and "schools of Islam". .."

Inputs from Humanities ref desk

The question was also presented at Humanities ref desk WP user answers so far received indicate:

- ".. It means "standard/mainstream/mainline" Islam (coming in Shia and Sunni ..). As supported by Islamic scholarship, or most of it. ..";

- ".. Possibly written Islam as defined by trained and educated Ulama, as opposed to more folklorish or popular concepts? ..";
- ".. contrasts "official (Sunni) Islam" with "vernacular Islam", which incorporates beliefs based on vernacular legends. While the term "official Islam" is not explicitly defined in the (Németh, Kinga (2024)) article, it is connected in the text to the points of view of "Islamic institutions", "scholars of Islam" and "schools of Islam". .."

Bookku (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Some relevant dictionary meanings of word "Official" as 'adjective' from google search: formal, ritualistic, authoritative. Link to some weak matches from thesaurus.com. Bookku (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Louis P. Boog, we will keep discussion on word 'official' in this sub-thread. I think may be, 'authoritative Islam' will be better term.

After going through google scholar I realized some new generation academics like Richard McGregor are not comfortable with “popular versus official” Islam categorization may be since calling any practice of Islam un-official can be contentious. Secondly, in recent academics, seems, wording 'official Islam' is used much more for the versions/ schools/ practices supported by respective regimes of respective countries. Bookku (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting another version for sentence:

Jinn have been called "an integral part" of the Muslim tradition or faith, "completely accepted" in mainstream Islam; significantly featured in folklore, but also considered "quite solemnly" by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars, who "figured out" the implicit repercussions expected through existence of Jinn -- their legal status, the possible relations between them and mankind, especially in questions of marriage and property.

Bookku (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Pl. suggest further improvements / alternatives to above Bookku (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@ Bookku (talk) Have to disagree with your new version above. Firstly You can't paraphrase text and then put it in quotes. A quote ~~has to use the same text.~~ by definition copies the words quoted. you may change the wording to avoid copyright infringement, but surely quoting a few key words and phrases -- "official", "worked out", "quite seriously" -- cannot be a violation of copyright! (Also, in English usage and this context, "quite solemnly" (which implies some ceremonial feature) is not really ~~the same as~~ a good paraphrasing of "quite seriously".) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC) Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I have discussed word official in sub-thread above. I think you have a point in 'Firstly You can't paraphrase text and then put it in quotes'. a) may be you can think about changes in wording that is not in quotes. b) Whether fully accepted in authoritative Islam, very seriously, figured out can be equally effective without quote. Certainly my primary concern is distancing from CR issues, otherwise I don't have any objection as such. Bookku (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The RfC is being rescinded (temporarily withdrawn per WP:RFCEND by editor who started the RfC) after discussion at WT:RFC and shall be restarted after their some Wiki-break by Louis P. Boog in more simpler format to facilitate improved user participation. Bookku (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC -- In the article section "Islam", should the following sentence be added at the beginning?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to add the proposed content. As several editors proposed some changes or offered qualified support, this close does not preclude further changes to the wording in the normal course of editing and discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

In the article section "Islam", should the following sentence be added at the beginning?

Jinn have been called an integral part of the Muslim tradition or faith, completely accepted in official Islam; prominently featured in folklore. ~~It is also taken quite seriously by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars~~ Medieval and modern scholars have studied the consequences implied by their existence, ~~who worked out the consequences implied by their existence~~ legal status, the possible relations between them and mankind, especially in questions of marriage and property.

--Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Why this RfC??

Some important Muslim scholars and a good many Muslims in parts of the Muslim world, hold that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, (similar to the widely held that Muslims must believe in the Six Articles of Faith, i.e. Angels, the oneness of God, holy books, Prophets, etc.), since jinn are mentioned in the Quran.
A number of sentences, bits of text and citations expanding information on this subject here here here and here, have been deleted from the article since April.
The sentence above in the blue is part of this collection of text and citations. For those interested, the whole bunch can be found here, in a proposed rewriting of body of article.
To see discussion of issue, check sections above here, and here. -- Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: this effort has been going on since (maybe) April, but I thought I'd give it one last try. If the first one flies I'll try others. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Ref-list and Author brief for above proposed addition

Reflist for proposed addition

References

Mark A. Caudill (2006). Twilight in the Kingdom: Understanding the Saudis. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 92. ISBN 9780313084850. Jinn are an integral part of both traditional and Gnostic Islamic belief.
William E. Burns (2022). They Believed That?: A Cultural Encyclopedia of Superstitions and the Supernatural around the World. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 137. ISBN 9781440878480. Jinn are considered by some authorities to be an integral part of the Islamic faith due to their inclusion in the Quran.
^ D.B. MacDonald; H. Massé; P.N. Boratav; K.A. Nizami; P. Voorhoeve (eds.). "Djinn". Encyclopaedia of Islam New Edition Online (EI-2 English). Retrieved 27 July 2024. II. In official Islam the existence of the d̲j̲inn was completely accepted, as it is to This day, and the full consequences implied by their existence were worked out. Their legal status in all respects was discussed and fixed, and the possible relations between them and mankind, especially in questions of marriage and property, were examined.
Olomi, Ali A. (2021). "14. Jinn in the Quran". The Routledge Companion to the Qur'an. N.Y.: Routledge. p. 149. Retrieved 24 July 2024. The jinn feature prominently in Islamic folklore as ambivalent and mischievous supernatural forces.
Coeli Fitzpatrick; Adam Hani Walker, eds. (2014). Muhammad in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia of the Prophet of God. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 321. ISBN 9781610691789. Although they feature prominently in folklore, jinn are also taken quite seriously by Muslim scholars, both medieval and modern.
Cite error: The named reference Nünlist-2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Author brief for proposed additions (above)

Ref 1
- Published by: Bloomsbury Publishing USA
- Author brief: Mark A. Caudill is a 15-year U.S. Foreign Service officer who served in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, from 1999 to 2002. Currently he is Vice Consul, U.S. Consulate General, Istanbul, Turkey.
Ref 2
- Published by:Bloomsbury Publishing USA
- Author brief: William E. Burns . Visiting and Part-Time Faculty, Department of History, Columbian College of Arts & Sciences

William Burns is a historian who lives in the Washington, D.C. metro area with interests in the early modern world and the history of science. ref: columbian.gwu.edu

Ref 3 Encyclopaedia of Islam
Ref 4
- Publisher: Routledge
- Author brief: Ali A. Olomi is assistant professor of history at Penn State Abington and an affiliated scholar with the Rutgers Center for Security, Race and Rights. ... Olomi holds a Ph.D. from the University of California Irvine.
Ref 5
- Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing USA
- Author brief: Richard Bonney :University of Leicester | LE · School of Historical Studies

Survey

(Support add sentence; Oppose don't.)

Support: The sentence is concise, supported by reliable sources. Its relevance to the subject I think can be demonstrated to anyone spending even a short amount of time researching the subject. Interest and belief in Jinn is overwhelmingly Islamic. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Support: per the previous discussions, I believe this is required.--TheEagle107 (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Support. (Summoned by bot) It needs some work, but it makes sense to have an introduction to the topic before going into the specifics. Ships & Space_(Edits) 15:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Any suggestions for "work" on the sentence? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The sentence can be shortened to those parts that are discussed in length in the actual article. This RfC should be listed under religion. Senorangel (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Oops! Pardon my sloppiness -Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

What do you see in the sentence that isn't discussed in length in the actual article? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I misread the proposal and thought this is going to the "beginning" of the entire article. The sentence is quite long, however. It can probably be divided at "folklore". Senorangel (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I've divided it into two at that point. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Question - What's with all the scare quotes? "an integral part", "completely accepted", "quite seriously", "worked out". I hope these aren't intended to go into the article? Fieari (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

NOT intended to be scare quotes. More like copyright quotes. Intended to indicate it is exactly the terms/phrase the source used and avoid problems with the Misplaced Pages copyright police. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

So, yes, they are intended to go into the article.--Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I strongly feel that these read as scare quotes far more than attestation quotes, particularly because the quoted sections are so short (two or three words each). If the statements are well sourced enough, it should be fine just to cite them and continue to use wiki-voice. The little citation markers next to the words already serve the purpose you intend. Let me put it this way, for the purposes of the RFC, I support the text to be included in the section, but only if the quotation marks are removed. Otherwise, I feel that the natural reading is the opposite of what you want to say, and more importantly, opposite to what the sources say. Scare quotes are a thing. Fieari (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll try that. It won't add a large quantity of copyright material so maybe it won't matter. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe quoting two words in succession is the same thing as plagiarism, especially when supplying the citation. Good work. I agree with @Fieari. Pistongrinder (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Support I'm surprised it's even an RfC (which you covered above, so thank you). Good source material, informative, improves the article. Well done. Pistongrinder (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Support This is a great contributation and the sources are excellent.
Qualified support. The sentence is on the right track but overstates the situation. There is no monolithic "official Islam," so it comes across as tendentious to make a blanket assertion that jinn is "completely accepted." After all, the prevalence section begins: "Though discouraged by some teachings of modern Islam..." Furthermore, the article does not discuss "official Islam," so this is tough for the lead. I'd also remove "quite seriously" as if arguing the point. Instead, I'd suggest: "Medieval and modern scholars have studied the consequences implied by their existence..." Also, tradition and faith can be combined. Thanks. ProfGray (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Used your suggested replacement of "quite seriously", but deleting "official Islam" is more problematic. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Support It is backed up by RS and gives a good idea of the significance of jinn in various islamic civilizations, thoughts etc. Durraz0 (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment:It seems a bit redundant. It seems like different sources used different terms to describe the same thing, that Jinn are part of Islamic belief, and these terms are just strung together. This might create a sense of emphasis that is not intended. Reads almost like a legal argument. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a summary of what comes below, so it sounds like the more in depth description below. Different sources using different terms to describe much the same thing is an indication of agreement by at least some different sources. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2024 (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.

Added to Islam section. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Stone Jinn

"Stone Jinn", is an object containing the spirit of a Jinn, there has to be a reference in this article about an actual Stone Jinn.

18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Truffle457 (talk) Truffle457 (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Please provide some reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223 I'm doing my best to prove the "stone jinn" Truffle457 (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

You do that with reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

early arab believe that the jinn emerged out of a gemstone and not a lamp. Truffle457 (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok that's great. But, again, we depend on reliable sources to say that. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Mutazilites and Jinn-Possession

@Zircons40 Greetings, I noticed that your recent edits were reverted as they did not comply by WP:RS. However, your additions resemble topics covered by source meeting the Misplaced Pages standards. As such, I want to invite you to check out:

Dein, Simon; Abdool Samad Illaiee (2013). "Jinn and mental health: looking at jinn possession in modern psychiatric practice"

I hope the paper helps you to get your next edit accepted.

with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback @VenusFeuerFalle. In this edit I used more reliable citations. I use a quote from the Al-Kashshaaf, which was written directly by Al-Zamakhshari, one part of the book discusses his interpretation of the rejection of jinn possession. Apart from that, I also added quotes from books such as Al-Alam by Khayr al-Din al-Zirikli and the book al-Tafsir al-Kabir by Fakhruddin Razi, one part of which discusses the opinion of the Mu'tazilah scholar, Al-Jubba'i regarding his rejection of the phenomenon of jinn possession. Zircons40 (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: