Jump to content

Talk:Jannah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

terminology

[edit]

The reason goes back to two simple words: Jannah and Ahbitu, both found in 2:35 and 2:36 respectively. The word Jannah means "garden." Allah put Adam and his wife, Hawwa in a garden. The word for Heaven in Arabic is not Jannah, although it is sometimes synonymous. The word most accurately used for the next life is "Akhirah" or "Next (world)" The only time the word Jannah is used when talking about the next life is to emphasize that it will be like a beautiful garden, even better than what we have on earth. It must be pointed out that in Surah 18, Allah uses the word Jannah to refer to both a garden on Earth as well as one in Heaven. (See the story of the Owners of the Garden. (18:31-32) Jannah is a generic term for place of beautiful plant life.

http://www.islamicedfoundation.com/articles/article3.htm

--Striver 19:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? I suggest a page move then. Zazaban 15:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about a proper etymology then? The reason I ask is because I read somewhere (I forget where) that Jannah and Jinn are derived from the same root, being that Jannah, in this life, is something unseen. I don't know if thats correct. So basically I want someone else to do all the work :P Theonlykman 00:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Delete the climate description.

[edit]

Hey, in the descriptions of heavens i delete the information about the climate. It does'nt mention which surah and ayat it is taken from, and i could'nt find it in the holy quran, so this climate information has no basis.

== Sexual companionship?

Wine

[edit]

Arrow740, do you really want the simple paragraph expanded with full primary/secondary/tertiary sources? I do have them but didn't think it would be such a controversial issue. Why is it a problem if its non-intoxicating? We could do the same for every word in that list and I don't think that would be productive to the article. → AA (talk • contribs) — 19:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the same surah, so there is a good chance of contradiction. Get an RS. Arrow740 22:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know its kind of funny. To say that the wine will be non-intoxicating, its like saying "a poison that doesnt kill", or "a red hot iron rod which doesnt burn", or "a ball of cotton which isnt soft". If wine isnt intoxicating, its not wine anymore, its just Gatorade.
Anyway, AA - I'm seeing the verse. The non-intoxication does not refer to wine, but to some kind of water. See:
037.045 
YUSUFALI: Round will be passed to them a Cup from a clear-flowing fountain, 
PICKTHAL: A cup from a gushing spring is brought round for them, 
SHAKIR: A bowl shall be made to go round them from water running out of springs, 

037.046 
YUSUFALI: Crystal-white, of a taste delicious to those who drink (thereof), 
PICKTHAL: White, delicious to the drinkers, 
SHAKIR: White, delicious to those who drink.

037.047
YUSUFALI: Free from headiness; nor will they suffer intoxication therefrom.
PICKTHAL: Wherein there is no headache nor are they made mad thereby.
SHAKIR: There shall be no trouble in it, nor shall they be exhausted therewith.
See, this is NOT wine as you can see. To suggest that it is, is definitely OR. Any comments? What you can do here, is add another entry for some "Non-intoxicating water" and qoute this verse.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-intoxicating water"? Water is by its nature non-intoxicating. So, there would be no need to mention it (which is in the final verse of the ref cite above). There are, I'm sure many scholarly commentary, on the above verses and since, due to the rewrite, it's currently not needed, I'll just point to the the following secondary source: Death and Islamic Understanding of Afterlife - Heaven And Hell. Science Encyclopedia.
For discussions on how wine can be non-intoxicating read up on the US Prohibition era - for your benefit here's a starting point: Woodcock & Grapemen. Time.
→ AA (talk • contribs) — 08:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the evolution of Muhammad's thought on alcohol is plain to see in the Quran, and it's amusing how contradictory the final result is. Your point on wine is well-taken, if it weren't for the mind-altering quality of it, it wouldn't be drunk. Arrow740 23:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If wine isnt intoxicating, its not wine anymore, its just Gatorade.<---

gatorade doesn't taste like wine. but I think, it's not that the wine intoxicating (well, maybe it is, but that's not the point).. even if it toxicating, people in jannah couldn't sleep, couldn't be exhausted, and of course couldn't be drunk.N-K Person 17:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itaqallah's rewrite

[edit]

I see Itaqallah has conveniently taken out the hadith where it was mentioned that people would have sex in heaven. Although it was a good rewrite, it has taken out some important facts and details out of the article. I will deal with this 'softening' of the article later. Sex in Jannah is elaborate in detail in Islam; there are many hadiths for it and so it deserves its own section. I'll make such a section at some point. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i "conveniently" took out all the primary sources, the mention of intercourse still remains (in the way EoI expressed it). i don't see any justification for a section on "Sex in Jannah", while it may perhaps be something of personal interest to you, the EoI (the best source we could be using here) certainly doesn't apply any excessive weight in that direction. ITAQALLAH 00:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources can be used. The rest of what you said is not true as well. You have took out hadiths and everything and all the important details disappeared from the article. They'll come back when I make that section. By the way what policy can you give to justify your "rewrite"? If its not supported by policy, it should be reverted. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please also apply your rewrite engine to the huge Conditions quotefarm. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:V and WP:RS. the aim is to base our reporting on reliable secondary sources, not on primary sources. as for your second comment, the EoI discusses mainly descriptions (actually, the EoI says virtually nothing about conditions of acceptance). but i'll give that a go too sometime. ITAQALLAH 01:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not forbidden to use primary sources. I've moved the Conditions back to the bottom until its rewritten. That doesnt look good at the top. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well as the core content policies say, we should rely on reliable secondary sources. i don't see any pressing need for primary source usage, except that you want to emphasise a particular aspect of your own choosing (see WP:UNDUE). primary texts describe paradise itself and its various aspects in significant detail (as EoI states), not just intercourse. as for your move, i don't really mind either way for now. ITAQALLAH 01:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, its not forbidden to use primary sources. If we find secondary sources, its better, but its not the only option. Well yes, other aspects should also be explained in more details where possible. If detail doesnt exist for anything, thats what it is. I was asking for policies to support your rewrite. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven -> Paradise

[edit]

Jannah is commonly translated as "Paradise" not "Heaven". Thus, I'll change the wording.Vice regent 20:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Firdaws is the source of the English term Paradise, or at least both share a common source. If it's true, this is worth mentioning. Laughlaugh (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. For those who are Muslims, the Farsi origin goes back to the teachings of the ancient Iranian Prophet who was sent by Allah. But to those who are non-Muslim, it is believed that both the English (Germanic) and Arabic (Semitic) are rooted in a primitive tongue, with English sharing roots with Persian according to the modern myth of an Indo-European race. But this secularistic human lore is rejected as heresy by the believers.--MuslimKnight786 (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conditions of going to Paradise

[edit]

The quote "If the people of the book deny Muhammad(SAW), they will never enter jannah, because he has been sent." Is not true and should be removed. I read the source of this little quote and it explains exactly what the Qur'an meant when talking about the people of the book. The Qur'an says,

"Indeed, those who have believed [in this Prophet] and those who became Jews and Christians and the Sabians who [truly] believe in God and the Day of Judgment and do good deeds, they shall have their reward with their Lord and they shall neither have fear [for the future] nor any remorse [for the past]. (2:62)"

Jews and Christians both deny The Prophet Muhammad(SAW) but it says in the Qur'an that they can enter Paradise. "The verse does not say that all the mentioned groups shall enter Paradise; on the contrary, it says that Paradise is not the right of any group – as the adherents of the respective groups would like to believe – but is the right only of those who truly believe in God and in the Day of Judgment and do good deeds." http://renaissance.com.pk/juncrit2y1.htmlDumaka (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names of rivers and springs

[edit]

These name are missing in this article and in Garden of Eden (would it be applicable there too?). The following is what I collected at first glance, and may contain mistakes:

Please confirm if the above is correct and if there is a reliable source for it. Wiki-uk (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Editing References

[edit]

Reference Number 7 incorrectly states Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 605 when in fact the number is 606. I don't know how to edit it so I hope someone will do it.--71.108.123.20 (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"eructation" means belching

[edit]

"eructation" means belching. is that the right word? i don't know anything about it, but it seems an odd idea, that the food will be digested by the act of belching. 01:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Michael Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.224.120 (talk)

Let's not have an edit war over the picture

[edit]

User:Patience99, I don't understand your objection to the picture. Of course it's not an accurate representation of a supernatural place--nobody claims that it is. Neither is it claimed to represent the beliefs of all Muslims. It's labeled as an artist's representation of such a place. Many articles have similar artist's representations of supernatural places.

Do you have any reason for removing the picture, other than the general objection that Muslims have with some pictures? Since Wikipedia is not censored, Muslim prohibitions against some pictures do not apply. Neutron Jack (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see this has nothing to do with anybody mistaking the image as a real representation of Jannah but a red herring. There is a possibility that Muhammad is featured in it that is the real problem. @Neutron Jack:, it now says that it is an artists representation is because I added it when I moved the image down. It was attempted as a compromise that I've seen work for other Islamic images. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, great--now we've got a paragraph of original research, which will have to be deleted. Patience99, do you know what original research means? Are you even reading this? Neutron Jack (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutron Jack: agreed. The image certainly add value to article in informing readers how historical communities of Muslims may have viewed the concept of the afterlife, regardless of it's accuracy. I'm also curious why @Patience99: assumes they know better than the artist, consider that whomever produced that image was, presumably, Muslim themselves. Dolescum (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dolescum- Check Islamic beliefs on the creatures present in the picture. The descriptions of heaven and stages. Souls journey after death and judgement day. The name "Mohammed's paradise" is an indication towards me thinking that the artist was not a Muslim(although im not sure). + Thats the problem, its not accurate which provides a false idea of the concept of afterlife. Which contributes as to why I recommend the removal of the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patience99 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been and checked, Patience99. The piece in question was painted in 11th Century Persia. Given that the area was part of the Abbasid Caliphate at that time and numerous other Persian minatures exist with Arabic inscriptions, the artist certainly was Muslim. Dolescum (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to the comments you posted into the article:
  • creatures such as winged half horse humans and winged human also does not correspond.
  • Sky number seems strange also since there is 7 heavens in Islam and it shows 8 above earth in the picture. Could be referring to 8 doors of heaven, it is unclear what the creatures or sky number represent. Jannah has many stages.
    • There are only 7 not eight in the image. There is what appears to be a ladder in the lower centre of the image and 7 heavens above that. Earth is represented by the green area and the buildings.
CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the earliest extant depiction of the Prophet (and other Islamic figures, I suppose) is from the late 13th century. So this image can't be from the 11th century. Whoever wrote that description is clueless. And claims of "frequently shown" should be qualified, becasue such imagery are only found in Persia starting from the Ilkhanate period, and later in areas with strong Persian influence. Thus the use of such imagery may give undue weight to fringe or uncommon views. Also, in short articles it is reasonable to assume that an image is worth a 1000 words, and certain controversial/secterian views conveyed through imagery should be balanced (per WP:NPOV). Wiqi(55) 23:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, that image is not claimed to depict Muhammad, therefore it's perfectly possible that it could be from the 11th century as the earliest known depiction would have to actually know that Muhammad was being depicted, no? Do correct me if I'm wrong or you can shed further light on the matter, though we do seem to be going off on a tangent here. Dolescum (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Dolescum:, I took a closer look and immediately remembered this other image. Notice the striking similarity between the two images (fire, frame, etc). They're most likely part of the same collection if not the same work, which is a book of Persian poetry produced in Kashmir in the early 19th century. IIRC, the other image was also misdated here on Wikipedia as being from 11th century, but was later fixed after I raised the matter. Wiqi(55) 18:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Wiqi55:, I agree the styles are similar. Where are you going with this? Dolescum (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just fixed the date on commons. It should be less confusing now. Wiqi(55) 14:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jannah. 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:

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) 06:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

revert with no explanation

[edit]

the editor known as @User:VenusFeuerFalle reverted my edits with no edit summary. Any explanation? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

explanation is given? and you find your very concent below in it's specific section. I used to structure this article for a while, do not want it again to be a blog-like presentation over how the jahannam is desribed, thus I made separate sections, I do not understand why some user find it so hard to put the edits in the sections (you are the second one, who wants to write specific details in the lead)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

move?

[edit]

Hello, I am curious about your opinnion in regard of the "Non-Muslims in Jannah"-section. I think this may belong to the eschatology article, because it is a theological question, who and who not will be rewared and who will be pusnished. It also about other afterlife locations such as hell or Araf, losing focus on 'Jannah' but still focus on eschatology. This article about "Jannah" would be focus on how Jannah it self is depicted in Islam and not about the theological dispute, who will go in the afterlife. Accordingly I want to suggest, we make a section in the "eschatology Islam" article a section about "conditions for salvation" (I think the other article is still missing such questions but needs them) and delete the "non-muslim in Jannah" section, just focusing on the depictions of Jannah itself in this article here.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

four years later I'm answering your question. Yes.
Moving it to Islamic eschatology, and leaving behing a few sentences summarizing. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jannah&oldid=1194898265"