Talk:Iblis/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: VenusFeuerFalle (talk · contribs) 19:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: A. Parrot (talk · contribs) 06:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I will review this article, but it may take about a week to familiarize myself with it and give it a full review.

Some problems I note to start with:

• When describing Iblis's origin story (both in the lead section and the body), the text switches between present and past tense. It should be one or the other.
• Three of the section headings use Arabic terms that won't be familiar to most readers. I feel like it's especially important for section headings to be comprehensible because they're the reader's guideposts for navigating the text. "Qiṣaṣ exegesis" is acceptable because the term is explained in the first sentence of the section, but the other two headings need to be changed.
• Several of the links in the "See also" section are of dubious relevance. I don't see how Gnosticism, Mastema, Mara (demon) or Questions of Bartholomew are relevant at all. Harut and Marut are at least from Islamic tradition and not that of some other culture, but if they don't have a direct connection to Iblis, they should be removed as well. The other links do have some relationship with Iblis, but it would be preferable if they could be incorporated into the text.

As you've responded to these comments in edit summaries, I'll clarify my thinking here.

Kalam may be an untranslatable term, but to someone not versed in Islamic tradition, it's not an intuitive way to organize the article because its meaning is opaque. I'm also not sure why these three sections (Quran, Affiliation, and Function) are grouped under Kalam but the two that follow (Satan's Monotheism and Qiṣaṣ exegesis) are not. All the traditions about Iblis are derived from the text of the Quran, are they not? It might make more sense to have the section on the Quranic material stand on its own (similar to how you organized Harut and Marut), and then have the next four sections, all of which cover subsequent theological speculation, under a single header—"Interpretations", perhaps?

As for the see also section, a major problem in Wikipedia is something I have elsewhere dubbed "original-research-by-see-also", in which links are added to the see also section to imply a connection between two topics that isn't stated in article text or the sources. The reason I objected to Mastema and not Samael is because the current text of the article on Samael makes a sourced comparison between the two, and the current text of Mastema's article does not. But it would be better if this article made the connections clear in its text, to avoid the impression that original-research-by-see-also is going on here. I won't insist on this point for GA status, but it is greatly preferable. A. Parrot (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for the delayed reply, I probably missed the notification and the edits on my watchlist due to some isues on another article's talkapge, I got involved.

The reason for excluding Qiṣaṣ from Kalam is that Qiṣaṣ is a separate genre in which mostly mythologies are discussed. Satan's Monotheism could be included under Kalam though it is more commonly found outside of theological treatises. Iblis' affilation, the Quranic meaning, and the "refutation of the Dualists" (i.e. Iblis' function) is something you find in works about Islamic Creed, hence the classification (for example Taftazani's commentary on al-Nasafi). If your suggestion still stands, I want to re-arrange it accordingly, since I have no objection towards that either.

The inclusion of Mastema was mostly due to the GA I made a few years ago on fallen angel. I do not think that Mastema is a noteworthy conenction, merely some scholars (i.e. Patricia Crone I think) drew connections. It is not important though, I am gonna remove it. If the article itself mentions Samael, I think it would go too offtopic, as the connection is only made in later midrashic works. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

On a second thought, the current order has the strength that the Quran section can deal with various meanings of the Quranic text (for example on Surah 18:50, since here, multiple readings are possible), whereas the other sections are explicitly about discussions Muslim scholars do during theological speculations. One example can be found on "A Commentary on the Creed of Islam Sad al-Din al-Taftazani on the Creed of Najm al-Din al-Nasafi - Teftazani. EARL EDGAR ELDER", a PDF is online available, but for copy-right reasons, I do not want to post it here. He discusses how to respond to Iblis being called an angel and sketches out the function. There is, however, no Quranic exegesis (Tafsir), neither is here anything about Satan's Monotheism. These are (mostly) separate genres after all.

Brill encyclopedia uses the term "narrative exegesis" for "construct [of] an autonomous tale around verses of the Qurʾān" on the article Miʿrājnāma. Though such stories can be included into tafsir, it is not the same as the interpration of the Quran (though used in support of certain propositions). I changed the translationa ccordingly. The original term used was "aggadic" as it is also used sometimes. However, since the term is closely related to voccabulary of Studies of Judaism, I decided to refrain from that term.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I still object to the use of Kalam as a section heading. Section headings are there to guide readers so they know where to look to find information. In an English-language encyclopedia, most readers are not going to know what kalam is or what kind of information they'll find in a section with that title. Non-English words may sometimes be usable in section headings, but I think generally only in cases where the terms are integral enough to the topic itself that they should be covered in the lead section. E.g., ancient Egyptian conception of the soul is a pretty poor article, but the Egyptian names for aspects of the soul are sensibly used as section headings because they're core to the topic and are briefly defined in the lead. A. Parrot (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Would you go with "Theology"? Alternatively something like 'Muslim Creed' though this would be aqida, could be used. Theology is probably more clear though. I also checked a few unrelated sources (on the Brill enycclopdia of Islam) yesterday, indeed using the term "aggadic" for narrative exegesis. As an alternative suggestion to "narrative interpretation". Let me know your thoughts and I will go will go with them. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer:: If i may add, perhaps the main header should be reduced, and the details should be moved into subsections. only include the general definitions & remarks about Iblis should be left in the main header/opening text. perhaps the definition of Iblis and its comparation with Satan from Christian bible deserve its special subsection Ahendra (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I haven't had time to treat it as thoroughly as it deserves, but I think it can become a GA with some work. Thiese are the points I've noticed so far.

• In response to Ahendra's remarks, the lead section is a bit long compared with the overall size of the article, and I do think the middle two paragraphs could be shortened a bit. But the general rule of thumb is that a lead section should touch on the subject matter of every top-level heading, and I wouldn't want it to be reduced too much. In any case, I don't think any major changes to the lead are necessary for meeting the GA criteria.

I tried, without the lead becoming confusing. I think trimming the lead comes with the issue that the points are not clear. This is an issue adressed in one of the points below, when the positions of "angel vs jinn" need more elaboration.

• However, Ahendra's point about the relationship with the Christian concept of Satan is valid. English-speaking readers are likely to be more familiar with the Christian concept and wonder how Iblis relates to it. The topic may not need its own subsection; it could perhaps be brought up when the article discusses the relationship with the term Shayṭān.

Is a quick mentioning sufficient? It has been added.

• Speaking of which: that discussion is somewhat confusing. It says that Iblīs and Shayṭān aren't interchangeable but doesn't entirely explain how they differ, even though Awn 1983 says they largely are interchangeable.

The only part of Awn stating that I can find is "While the Qur’anic references to Iblis deal primarily with these two religious myths, it should not be assumed that these passages constitute the only Qur’anic references to an Islamic devil figure. On the contrary, the name Ash-Shaytan, Satan, appears more than fifty times in the text of the Qur’an.* Within the two myths described above, the titles are virtually interchangeable, with the name Iblis being used in the context of man’s creation and the Devil’s fall, while the title Ash-Shaytan is reserved for the enticement of Adam and Eve", which sets Iblis in direct relationship to the story of Adam's fall in Garden Eden. I think it is important to note the part "Within the two myths described above". As stated and cited in the lead, the figures differ in their function. I do not know why the source shows page 122 though, it should have been 46. I decided to highlight the relevant parts:

"The predominance of the use of Ash-Shaytan over Iblis in the hadith collections of Al-Bukhari, Muslim, and Ibn Maja points to more than simply a semantic preference. It does not seem rash to suggest that each title portrays the Islamic devil figure in a distinct light. The name Iblis, as seen earlier, is intimately linked with the development of a complex, mythic personality; Iblis is ascetic, devoted worshipper, master of the heavens, guardian of Paradise, defender of the Throne, arrogant, prideful, impetuous, etc. One cannot paint him only in blacks and whites. There is too much conflict and ambiguity in his make-up, and it is this very complexity that adds vividness and depth to his portrait. (...) The title Ash-Shaytan, as employed in the hadith, views the Muslim devil from a substantially different perspective. We are confronted more with a malevolent force than with a highly nuanced personality. The focus is not on Iblis/Ash-Shaytan’s interior psychic processes but rather on the ruinous effects this evil force has upon the lives of men and women. This should not seem strange considering the heightened concern of the hadith with human praxis. Ash-Shaytan is more often than not one-dimensional; he is evil, cunning, and wily; his delight is to lead mankind astray. There is little ambiguity here. It is generally in the few specific references to Iblis by name that his personality comes to life in all its complexity."

• "This is the major opinion among Arab scholars, who maintain the tradition that the personal name of this being was ʿAzāzīl." I'm not sure what "Arab scholars" is supposed to mean here; is it scholars of the Arabic language, or scholars who are Arabs? And if the latter, are they Islamic scholars or scholars of a particular academic field?

Added the name (for the Arabic scholar) mentioned in the source. This is mostly to highlight the Muslim perception of the etymology and not meant to be an etymology by modern standards.

• It's not clear why the Kitab al Magall is relevant to the etymology. According to the article about it, it's a post-Quranic source, so it doesn't seem like it would be of help tracing the word's pre-Quranic evolution. If the book's characterization of Iblis is noteworthy, it would belong in one of the theological sections below.

The source made not clear that Kitab al Magall is post-Quranic. Re-checking the source with this in mind, the theory proposed here probably falls under fringe, since no other source covers this up. Removed this part.

• "Since fire overcomes clay, he owes to destroy Adam like fire destroys clay" — Do you mean "vows to destroy"?

Yes it is supposed to say "vows", not "owes". Fixed.

• "disagree on whether Iblis belongs to a group of angels called jinni due to their origin from paradise, or if he was distinct from the angels, the progenitor of the jinn". I think this needs some more explanation for readers who are unfamiliar with Islamic traditions about how angels and jinn relate to each other. Is it an established tradition that angels are progenitors of the jinn?

No it is rather that Hasan subsituted the jinn with the devils. I agree this needs some elaboration. However, jinn are usually a distinct topic in itself (except then they are merged with the devils). I added the source used below which explains Iblis' angelic interpretation using the term "jinni" (in this context) as a nisbah and not to designate "jinn" and not the genus.

• The name of the character in Vathek is apparently spelled "Eblis".

This is the common transscription of the alif by Orientalists at the time. Similarly, Azrael might be spelled Ezrael or the demon Ifrit as Efrit. Transscriptions with the leter A and I also exist (Afrit, Izrail, etc.) Fixing the transscription used throughout the novel though, due to quote. The spelling variant is introduced in the lead-section.

• The limited Google Books preview of Cavaliero 2010 seems to show Cavaliero comparing Eblis in Vathek to the versions of Satan found in the Book of Job and the works of John Milton rather than Dante. Because I can't see the passage you're citing, could you quote it?

I would need to get access again first, but I want to put it on my list.

Here a quote I found from the second source:

Beckford constructed his Orientalism to comprehend Western literary traditions: the Satan of Milton's Paradise Lost echoes through the presentation of Eblis just as the Hall of Eblis reminds us of Dante's Inferno. We must not dismiss Beckford's Orientalism as merely a fabrication based on his own European experience because that view does not give sufficient weight to the thorough knowledge of customs, literatures, languages, and legends of Persian and Arabia that forms his unique vision.

I wonder the notability though, especially sinc Dante's Inferno is probably inspired by Islamic depiction of Iblis being frozen in the deepest layer of hell and al-Ma'ari's Story of the Night Journey. I could not find a verification for the first source apart from

"When they all meet Eblis, who speaks their doom, they see not a Satanic figure in the Dantean image or even the leader of the Dance of Death, but one "whose person was that of a young man, whose noble and regular features seemed to have been tarnished by malignant vapours. In his large eyes appeared both pride and despair, his hair retained soe resemblance to that of an angel of light."

• The second paragraph about ash-Shahid is unusual because you don't describe the reception of any of the other literary works listed here. Is there a particular reason for highlighting this one, and for highlighting only the reactions from Salafis and not other Muslims?

It was simply because it was the only reception I found when I did research back then. It is kinda odd indeed to have only one reception.

• Awn 1983 is a single text with a single author; why is it cited chapter-by-chapter?

I do not know. It was probably something done by another user over time. I never managed to configurate tweaks, so sometimes Users use them to formate the sources. Usually it is a great help, but sometimes it is doing strange things to sources. For example, the entire mis-reference to Iblis and Shaytan being used as separate terms. Maybe you might have a view on the source again. I want to restore the Awn sources properly, since it should be only one work not multiple chapters.

@VenusFeuerFalle: I apologize for not responding for the past few days. I've had difficulty finding time to concentrate on this review because of off-wiki obligations that will keep me tied up for at least the next couple of weeks. As it stands, I don't think the article meets the GA criteria 1a and 3a, because there is some awkward prose (no doubt because English isn't your first language) and some important points that won't be entirely clear to a reader unfamiliar with the topic. The problems can be overcome with detailed feedback, but I'm afraid I can't provide it at the moment. You could seek another reviewer, or you could wait two weeks until I can give the article the attention it deserves. I'm open to whatever you decide. A. Parrot (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with waiting 2-3 weeks. The 1 Week proposal is very thight sometimes. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Restart

@VenusFeuerFalle: Many apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I'm trying to re-engage with the article by fixing small prose faults while looking out for larger problems to note later. I will continue to work on it over the next few days. A couple of overarching issues that come to mind so far:

• The citations for individual studies in journals, or chapters in books, give page ranges for the length of the study, but not for the specific page being cited. The specific pages need to be cited in order for me to check the text against its sources.
• Re: the title of the kalam section, "theology" would be fine. But I still don't understand why the Quran section falls under this heading while "Satan's Monotheism" and "Narrative exegesis" stand on their own.

A. Parrot (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Satan's Monotheism is an idea beyond theology. It also appaers in poetry or essays outside the Kalam discourse. al-Hallaj who is famous for defending Iblis and the Pharao is not a mutakallim (theologian) yet, one of the most cited source when both scholars as well as "artists" refer to the idea of Satan's monotheism. As far as I am aware of Christian society, there is a rather strict distinction between the religious world and the "mundane" world. Religious topics then are closely related to theology. In Islamic culture, one might do "History", Zoology, or poetry and still invoke jinn, Satan, or popular "religious tropes". "Satan's monotheism" being one of them.

I want to take care of the page-numbers as soon as possible. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I see you've added them in many citations, but not all. I was going to look at the citations for "This led to a dispute among the mufassirūn (exegetes)…", because it's not clear which is the "term" that sentence refers to. But Citations 18 and 19 lack page numbers, and Citation 20 gives page 146 for a paper that ends on page 144. A. Parrot (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Closing. The subject matter of this article (Islamic theological discussions that will be unfamiliar to most English-speaking readers) and the obstacles faced by the nominator and primary author (writing in English when it is not their first language) mean that it has significant comprehensibility problems. These problems are mild enough that I believe they could be overcome in a GA review, but only through sustained back-and-forth engagement between the nominator and the reviewer. I regret that I failed to engage with it sufficiently when starting the review, or for a long time thereafter. When I returned my attention to it, I wanted to give the nominator plenty of time to respond. But VenusFeuerFalle has not replied, nor edited at all, in more than two weeks, so I feel I must fail the article. A. Parrot (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)