Talk:Harut and Marut/Archive 1

Archive 1

Scholarly Interpretation

Dear scholars, would any of your clean up this section. There is a long paragraph which does not make any sense to me. I would dearly love to know your contribution - by what I can understand it seems to have merit but I can't be certain as the English is poor. [Mohammed Azeem, London, 7th August 2009] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.245.29 (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Kabbalah?

Did these angels teach the kabbalah? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.54.14 (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Most secular scholars consider Kabbalah to have emerged in Medieval Spain, a full 2000 years after the time of the Babylonian empire. Even the earliest-known mystical text that the Kabbalist tradition is based on (the Sefer Yetzirah) was written many centuries after the fall of Babylon. I think this story is more about the origins of sorcery.Yonderboy (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

POV Dispute

I flagged the "Sunni interpretation" section as not representing a Neutral Point of View. The POV in this section definitely does NOT represent that of ALL Sunni ulema, only those from one sect that has claimed authority for only the past 100 years out of 1500 years of Islamic history. I would like to see this section broken up into two sections: one that presents the stories as they were told in their original sources, and another that presents the criticism. In the meantime, I will look to see if I can find versions of this story in Sufi sources (anyone else's contributions certainly appreciated). Yonderboy (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing that. I'm bogged down in other projects right now, but I wish you well in your search and will be very interested to see what you find out! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow how about this: Rumi's Masnavi. http://books.google.com/books?q=harut+marut+masnavi Yonderboy (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

REMOVING AN APPARENT CONTRADICTION

(196.201.51.21 (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)) Under the subheading dealing with the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community's viewpoint on Harut and Marut, reference has been made to two different commentaries published by it which contradict each other. I would therefore like tto draw your attention to the fact that, the first viewpoint, that quoted from Maulana Muhammad Ali, is that of the Lahore Ahmadiyyat ( a group that is quite distinct from the mainstream Ahmaadiyya Muslim Community that is headed worlwide by a Khalifa - Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad). The second viewpoint, that quoted from the Holy Quran with short Commentary whose editor was Malik Ghulam Farid, is that of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community headed by Khalifatul Masih - Khalifa of the Promised Messiah. Presently, Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad is the Khalifatul Masih. Thanks. (196.201.51.21 (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305200127/http://www.thegodisone.com/koran.pdf to http://www.thegodisone.com/koran.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Page views

Leo1pard (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Shia Islam Source

Hello, please check the given ISBN Number, I could not find it anywhere, neither amng Google Scholar, Google Books, nor in any of the Online Libaries.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Page restructuring for clarification

I've restructured the page and changed some wording in order to clarify the distinction between the quranic and folk narrative. This article could still use some more work but I don't have access to the relevant literature needed. Would also appreciate some better organisation and subheading of "Scholarly Discussion of the Folklore", some things in there don't really fit their subheadings. Faissaloo (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit war about the story

@Halveleaps: Let's talk about the issue here, please. So we are not limited in our responses and can also talk about issues regarding sources.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: Very well. I looked at the source you posted and it is from the Journal of Shi'a Islamic Studies, so I am guessing this story is likely accepted in Shi'a Islam. While I have no problem with people posting Shi'a sources, I would like to make sure that the entire post is evenhanded and not biased in one way or another. At the current moment, the story is posted at the very top of the page and reflects a belief that the majority of Muslims would not agree with. I would advise that you add a disputed tag or a comment stating that this is a widely held Shi'a belief and one that the majority of Sunni Muslims do not agree with, or something along those lines to show that this story is not accepted by the vast majority of Muslims.

@Halveleaps: I do not think it is a common Shia Story. You also find it in Sunni works. I could go and check another source. I just recently read it again, I just have to watch out I do not post the primary source. Twelfer Shia Islam oppose the idea of fallen angels even more often as far as I know. Jafar Al Sadiq already stated that Iblis is a jinni, while Sunnis still hold him to be an angel. But one does not deduct the other. I will recheck the sources. Thanks for the adivise. Just do not make bolt changes please, I will be back soon.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not find there the source states it is Shia. I only find on page 153, that it is an "Israeliyyat" (in Classical Islam, often used and accepted while today usually rejected) and it was told by Tabari (Sunni Scholar) and attributed to Ibn Abbas. Well, several opinions are attributed to him, so maybe he did not sayed that but it seems many Muslims belived it. I will look up for further evidence for the Story in Sunnism.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This one also mentiones the story and also tells about the shift in Islam, that some stories, especially about angels, are often accepted in Islam, but opposed by many modern scholars: "Stephen Burge Angels in Islam: Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti's al-Haba'ik fi Akhbar al-malik". --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It also seems it was accepted by important early sunni scholars such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Sorry, the first one needs payed access and the second one is in Turkish. But Google Translate can help here. Therefore, I can not relate that this story is foreign to Sunnism, at least in Classical Sunnism.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not a concept is foreign to Sunnism is besides the point, it must be shown to be a widely held view within Sunnism. Faissaloo (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

How is the populartiy of content important?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT, this folk story is not from a canonical source within Islam and this isn't a controversial view even between Sunnis and Shias. Nothing justifies the weight it's been given in this article. FAISSALOO_(talk) 00:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

For canonification of Islamic folkloric angels, see Stephen Burge "Angels in Islam: Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti's al-Haba'ik fi akhbar al-mala'ik". Actually most of Islamic angels is only preserved in folklore. Since Salafism dominates the Main-stream of Islam today, such stories might seem odd to readers only familar with contemporary Islam (there such stories are strongly rejected, but this does not make them less part of earlier Islamic theology, and beliefs). But wikipedia is not about promoting certain theological thoughts or supporting agendas, but gathers beliefs humans held together. Criticism and modern rejection of the story is also explained within the article. Since rejection of the story, entered the discourse rather in modern times (it also already exited but didnt find much adherence in late Classical era), and in classic Islam, the story was common enough to expect the reader or the Muslim to know the story, and this specific story is these angels (harut and marut) are associated with, it would be rather biased to downplay its significance by asserting it is "just" folklore or "a minor opinnion" of "certain sects".--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC) We also mention in the header, it is the "classical story", taing out any bias. It clearly states, it was the story associated with these angels in Classical Era. The fact, it neither appears in the Quran nor in canonical hadith doesnt matter, since approaching Islam by Quran and Sunnah only is also a modern phenomena. In Classical Islam, that today is called "israeliyyat" for example, was once easily seen as part of Islamic beliefs. Although the story of Harut and Marut seem to have an impact on Jewish thought not the other way around, but this is another topic.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not currently adequately depicted in the article and the idea that this is a common story is just incorrect. The term 'classical story' in no way accurately depicts the widely held validity of this story, the term 'folklore' is accurate or as you have said, israiliyat. The fact that this is the status of the story must be appropriately represented within the text of the article. Additionally some of the assertions you've made go against WP:GOODFAITH, please have a read of it. FAISSALOO_(talk) 09:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The article clearly says that it is the majority position regarding their story in Classical Islam. Also in Classical Islam, that today is called "Israeliyyat" was generall accepted. Also, folklore would never exclude something as part of Islam. As stated before, we can not downplay something, just because it is disliked or rejected today by certain sects of Islam. --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC) edit: I think I am just repeating myself over and over again. I already showed above, that the story was accepted by most early scholars. Also I gave you secondary sources analyzing the importance of the story (as we as Wikipedians aren't allowed to decide this on our own anyway). I am well aware that many contemporary Muslim scholars reject the story, especially since they emphazise angel's nobility and this story endangers this theological teaching. And therefore, exclude them, by stating they are errorneously introduced into Islam, and held by the "uneducated folkloric people". But even this rejection is based on false presumption. First, most of Sunnism is based on folklore. Researches estimate that about 70% of Sunnis actually followed only folkloric Sunnism. With the access to internet and many censoring going on, the number of "orthodox Sunnis" increased the last years. So folklore is part of Sunnism and the mainstream discourse anyway as Sunnism was often transmitted orally. And even many writing scholars mentioned the story. Second, because something is called an Israilliyat, it doesn't mean it is foreign import. Often the label is just used to justify rejection of Islamic narratives, modern scholars feel indisposed with. Israiliyyats further played an important role in the period of Classical Islam. And it is not even a "fact" it is taken from Jewish sources, as there is evidence, the story rather affected Jewish theology. but I explained all this already above. And again, I can only repeat myself, the issues here is not with Wikipedia, but within the Muslim theological discourse. If scholars start rejecting much of established material, of course it backfires. Muslim scholars can not reject established Islamic material, without considering the consequences. Especially, when the claim has no bases. Some troubles can be found within the jinn belief, which was changed drastically in modern scholarship and differs from the traditional view. Regarding the "goodfaith". I do not know that you want to suggest with this. I am pretty sure, you just want the best, this is the reason I try to explain you the matters here. I hope it helped you.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

If what we call the so called 'classical Islam' you're referring to is 'israiliyyat' in contemporary language why oppose referring to them as such? The meaning of the term 'classical Islam' is not readily apparent to a reader. Additionally you shouldn't cite entire books, see WP:PAGENUM FAISSALOO_(talk) 18:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I feel joshed. The very next paragraph states: "The 14th-century scholar Ibn Kathir interprets the story of Harut and Marut in a more modern manner of rejecting Isra'iliyyat; although regarding their story as sound in chain of narrations, but since it goes back to Ibn Abbas and not to Muhammad himself, he asserts Muslims should not follow this narrative." Afterthat, we have an entire section about criticizing the story. "Some Islamic exegetes prefer to view Harut and Marut as ordinary men than actual angels, who learned magic from devils since their legend cannot be certainly attributed to Muhammed.[7] This also shall defend the impeccability of angels, as already asserted by Hasan of Basra,[8] but mostly emphasized during the Salafi-movement.[9] Contrary, the story was accepted by many Muslims Medieval Islam and also cited by influental scholars such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal." Yet, you tell me, it is not clear in the article. I start thinking it is not about the style of the article, but rather that it contains information, contradicing some Islam interpretations, therefore, desired to be removed entirely, or downplayed in a way, it just tells how one should never ever, listen to "such stories" (as some Muslim scholars do). Reading the article again, I think it is even overemphazising criticism, especially in the Shia section. But I will leave it the way it is I think. Additionally, we are on the talkpage, we are more free to talk here, since it is the palce we openly discuss issues. And the source I gave you is also mentioned in the article ikn the corresponding article. It is page 13-14. All this makes me think you are not interested in a dialogue, nor in imporving the article, but rather want the article matching personal beliefs. I think everything is explained, and there is nothing wrong with the article. Maybe it even gives not enough weight to the story, since it is simply summarized here withuot further context.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I made a few changes, hope it is now clear enough. For Burge the wrong pagenumber was given. On the internet there are actually different sources provided, one actually lacks this part, so I recommand to check the book.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

My issue was that the origins of the story were not accurately depicted as part of the story's section itself and so it might have confused people approaching it. The changes you have made are much better, I've made two minor tweaks to it: the removal of the assertion that it is canonical and the birth and death years for Tabari since they're mentioned in his article. If you're ok with those I'm ok with dropping this issue. Also once again, please refer to WP:GOODFAITH. FAISSALOO_(talk) 23:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I will not withdraw information or cited content, just because people feel bothered by that. It is clear, that the popularity "canonized" the story and it was also held by the earliest known Quran commentator. I am not looking to reconsile facts with others personal beliefs, I just write that the sources offer. I do not agree with all that sources tell myself, but our personal beliefs do not matter. This is an encyclopedia. If someone wants to learn Islam from an Islamic viewpoint, I recommand to buy tafasir, ask Muslims or an Imam/Hocca.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as rude or condescending, I am new at editing Wikipedia, but I consider myself sufficiently knowledgeable on Sunni Islam and wanted to make sure nothing was being misrepresented or left out. Salam. (Halveleaps (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC))

Selam (I prefer the Turkish transscription), I do not think you are rude or the like. I always like to support new members and are glad for everyone who helps. I assume you have high knowledge about contemporary Islam, but this is often less about Islam in the past. That is often an issue here.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Faissaloo, User:Leo1pard, I need you two to consider whether this should be undone. The editor was righteously blocked for edit warring, and I believe their removal was POINTy. As far as I can tell, the content is verified in the reference and relevant. Its removal could have been cited as vandalism as well, but I don't want to do any more reverting. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm in favor of reverting that edit, it provides much needed context FAISSALOO_(talk) 16:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The reference does show that the story goes back to the lifetime of Muhammad, but indirectly, as it is about the Quranic narrative of these 2 angels, so I have kept it focused on the Quranic narrative, rather than directly saying that it goes back to Muhammad's lifetime. Leo1pard (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Islamiyat

Harout Marout la waqia in urdu 37.111.180.60 (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Major Changes

The article had a few issues: There was an extensive section about different references about whether angels can sin in Islam or not. There is a section talking about it on Angels in Islam and an even larger section on the main article fallen angel.

This section was dissolved into a history section, dealing with the placement of the story of Harut and Marut in the course of History. A placement for the Quranic part was made and the usually subsequent narrative explained afterwards. The quote by Tabari stayed unlike ibn Kathir, because the quote by ibn Kathir doesn't add anything to the article. It mostly focuses on devils and how they teach sorcery. It seems to have been placed her simply to offer an alternative to the story by Tabari (which actually deals with Harut and Marut). The source was also merely a direct quote from a purchased tafsir without any academic references, comparable to a Quran-quote.

For short references, a section about "wider interpretations" was added in contrast to tafsir. It might need some extentions to be justified.

The etymology was moved from the lead to a section, since the lead is supposed to introduce and summarize the matter, not provide new information (WP:LEAD).

The discussion was reduced to the key points and some academic references were added. Another source is tagged, since the link is dead now and might need a better source for verification.

The occasion for this major edit was the newly published Book used throughout the main body to provide a reasonable historical placement of the tales concerning Harut and Marut, whcih were not possible previously. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

GA?

The article finally got the attention it deserves in secondary literature. However, does it suffice for a GA check? Some minor changes might be required such as formating, translation of German and Turkish sources. However, do other editors think the content suffices to be considered GA? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Fallability

Where does the idea come from that angels can't sin or that they don't have "free-will" (the existence or degree of free-will is debated anyways in Islam). There are several sources both Academic as well as Muslim which clearly show that angelic infallability is simply a matter of debate, and mostly advocated by those influenced by Qadariyya ideas on free-will (Hasan, Razi, ibn Arabi etc.) and some Shiites, but no main-stream opinion. The articles Iblis and Angels in Islam might be helpful resources for starters. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harut and Marut/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: A. Parrot (talk · contribs) 22:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to fail this article immediately, given that the nominator has passed other GAs successfully, but it has a serious problem with Criterion 1a. Often the historical context is not clearly described, so a reader unfamiliar with it will be confused, and this problem is exacerbated by some strange choices of wording.

For example, the sections "History" and "Tale of Harut and Marut" have unclear scope and significant overlap. Both allude to the tradition of the Watchers, but they don't clearly explain what that tradition is, and the text seems to alternate between calling that tradition a Jewish and a Christian belief, rather than clearly stating its origins (a non-canonical tradition that originated in Judaism and was adopted by many early Christians).

The section on angelic impeccability is better, but it would benefit from some reorganization. Generally it's a good idea to go from the more general to the more specific—maybe say near the beginning which traditions consider angels to be fallible or infallible, and then refer to the opinions of specific scholars within those schools of thought.

Regarding wording problems, some examples are:

• "The angelic pair is exemplary for angels in Islamic tradition to be tested and potentially fail." I think this is trying to say that these angels are used as supporting evidence for the Islamic tradition that angels are fallible.
• "Muslim authors… advocate to free angels from sin in general, due to their lack of bodily impulses" — meaning they argue that angels are free of sin?
• "As evident from al-Jāḥiẓ, the case of Harut and Marut were exemplified for the very phenomenon of fallen angels in Muslim culture." I don't know what this means, though it may be the same as the sentence in the lead section that I quoted above. You probably need to explain specifically what al-Jāḥiẓ says about Harut and Marut.

I haven't thoroughly examined the other criteria, but I do note a sourcing problem for the translation of Surah 2:102. The Perseus page that is linked in Citation 3 includes three English translations of the passage, but the translation given here does not match any of them. The translation Wikipedia gives should conform to a cited source. (I'm not sure I would use the versions at Perseus, because the Pickthall uses some archaic vocabulary and the other two don't feel sufficiently Anglicized. I have a copy of The Study Quran and can substitute its translation if need be.)

Let me know if I need to clarify anything. If it looks like my initial concerns are being addressed, I will check the article against the other criteria in a week. A. Parrot (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Greetings, and thanks for your time and efforts,

I see that the article still has some major issues in regards of formatting, which can be solved within a week however. I have, however, not expected that there is still so much trouble about the content though. This article is by far not my greatest work. It is rather the best I expect this article could become. Maybe it is a case of

"It appears that the article is as good as it will ever get, and will never meet the standards. (Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria."

as per WP:RGA. I will try my best to improve the quality of the adressed issues within the week. However, if this does not help for a better understanding, I can see why this article might not suffice to GA Status. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

" I have a copy of The Study Quran and can substitute its translation if need be" Nontheless, I would welcome a translation by Seyyed Hossein Nasr. The only freely accessable one I found besides Perseus' s Sahih international, and their's is full of commentary-additions. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

"more general to the more specific—maybe say near the beginning which traditions consider angels to be fallible or infallible" I will look for a source which goes into detail regarding this matter. Until now, I only found that (both academic as well as Muslim primary) sources have contradictional statements regarding the status of angels. The best I found was the association with angels lacking free-will among the Mutazilites. I will look up if there is more classification done. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Having seen no improvement here in the past week, I'm afraid I have to fail the article. To be clear, I don't get the impression that the sources don't exist to cover this topic adequately. Most of the essential points of the topic seem to already be present in the article, but they're presented in an unclear way. (My remark about saying which schools of thought interpret the story in particular ways was only a suggestion for how to organize that section, not an insistence that the article must do so.) I think the problems are fixable, and if they were in the process of being addressed, I would be willing to give it another week.

As the nominator does have a good track record, I encourage continuing to work on the article over the long term. If it is nominated again somewhere down the road, I'd be willing to review it again—if you're worried about having to wait another three months for a reviewer, feel free to contact me. A. Parrot (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for not putting the required efforts to save the article from failing GA. I think I need some time to put further work into it, to make the structure clear and check out some of the sources again. If you are willing to do a GA, I worked simultaneously on two separate, but related articles, in the mean time. If you still want to review the next time, I would appreciate if you check out Iblis and Shaitan. They may have a similar issue of loose structures I simply do not realize, of working on these articles for quite a time. I am not necessarily asking for a GA review, rather on your first opinion if it could pass a check. I want to nominate it, when I feel free to do so. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)