Talk:Iblis

short description

@Abo Yemen I wanted to inform you I decided to change the short description now after a redirect from al-Shaitan was created. I hesitated previously because the main function of Iblis is his fall, while the function of the Devil(s) was discussed on the Shaitan article. With the Shaitan article now being a redirect to this one, I think the short description can also be adjusted. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

It's much better now :) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 00:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath talk 09:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Iblis guards the Divine Garden.

• ... that due to the similarities in function between Iblis's web and the Hindu concept of māyā, the seventeenth-century Mughal Dara Shikoh sought to reconcile the Upanishads with Sufi cosmology?

• Source: Barry, M. A. (2004). Figurative art in medieval Islam and the riddle of Bihzad of Herat (1465-1535). Flammarion.: 246

• • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by VenusFeuerFalle (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC).

Original discussion resulting in a GAR and a five-week hold

• Please read the rules - there are NO LINKS!!! - you need at least 4 here. Put them in & I'll finish the review. Johnbod (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Ok, you have now done so. GA, AGF on hook fact/ref (the hook is virtually a quote from the article). The hook is not very clear, but nor is the article, frankly. No qpq needed. The pic is ok, if rather tall, but the caption waaaay too long! You won't get more than say "Iblis (right) guards the Divine Garden. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Johnbod, this doesn't really strike me as a "yes". I agree the hook is unclear to the average reader. I think a clearer one should be promoted, and the image is not clear at displayed size. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
      • It was a yes, but a clearer/snappier hook might be better. I don't feel qualified to suggest one, but as always, anyone else may do so. I can probably understand it better than many of our readers as I know what the Upanishads are, and who Dara Shikoh was. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
        • Not sure if I missed something, but what is the consensus about the hook now? is it fine or do I need somethign else to do?VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure either. It passed review as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps one of those who like fiddling with hooks at the last minute will find a better hook after promotion. Zanahary? Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
            • Just noting that the image is poor at thumb size, which is disappointing as it's a nice image overall and of a different art style than usually featured. If it's possible to isolate Iblis with a crop, that may make it clearer i.e. usable. Kingsif (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
              • I could upload an isolated variant for the DYK, as I did with the blue angel on the mosaic in Sant'Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna, in Devil in Christianity. Maybe give me time until weekend. I have not seen your request until now by the way. I apologize for that.
• VenusFeuerFalle I'd like to double-check the hook fact. Could you send me a copy of the appropriate page from Barry 2004? I can get it on inter-library loan, but it would probably be a lot faster if you could send me a scan. Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Sure. I have been back to the library yesterday to take a photo of the page. Would you mind telling me how I sent it to you? RoySmith
    • Since I would like to reach a closure with this article, I would simply leave a quote for the relevant passage:

      "The devil's defective spiritual vision is transcribed in medieval Islamic literature and art by various obvious symbols. Because he may only perceive and therefore only reflect God's transcendent aspect of wrath, and never God's immanent aspect of love, Satan is therefore nicknamed al-A'mash, the bleray-eyed or goggled-eyed (as he appears in Sultan-Muhammad's sixteenth century paintings), or he is called al-A'war, the blind in one eye (the distinctive attribute of the demon Dajjal the Antichrist, who thereby dooms to the same fate such as unwitting followers as the three damned "Calandar" princes in the 1001 Nights). Mystical treatises like Mahmud-i Shabistar's famous fourteenth-century manual of Sufism, the Gulshan-i Raz (Rose Bower of Mystery"), list whole series of various heresies or errorneous theological stands whose defenders are depicted as Satan's brood, and so variously described as one-eyed, bleary-eyed, too near-sighted, too far-sighted, or blind. Satan represents his own opague mental state in God's universe. But the devil is part of God's universe, not other. There is no reality other than God. Here is where Islam's relentless monotheistic drive, under the pends of such spiritual masters as al-Hallaj, 'Ayn-ul-Quzat, Sana'i, Rozbihan, 'Attar, Ibn 'Arabi, Rumi, and Jami independently carried Muslim mystical speculation to dizzy conceptual heights akin to the most rarefied summits of ndian cosmological thought. (...) Satan, unknowingly, therefore serves as God's mask. He is himself the veil (iltibas) which the Godhead weaves, as Rozbihan's glosses to al-Hallaj explain, and wherein the Godhead chooses to hide from all those unworthy to perceive the divine therein. That is, the cosmic veil is the visible universe itself, which reveals God's presence to those who known, but conceals God's presence from those who do not know. In this sense, iltibas [the veil], in Sufi speculation, may be regarded as virtually a symbolic equivalent to the traditional Indian concept of maya, the "veil of cosmic illusion." Such philosophical equivelance between Sufism and Hinduism came in fact to be perceived by a few scholars of both faiths when Sufism and Hinduism met on Indian soul, and enlightened thingers familiar with both traditions, like the seventeenth-century Mughal prince Dara Shikoh, sought to reconcile the essence of Ibn 'Arabi's teachings with the Upanishads. Indeed, Sufis's diabolic "Cloake One" also serves, like the maya which protects the secret nature of Indian divinities from the eyes of the profane, a positive cosmic function: the devil becomes God's warden, as it were, a ferocious temple guard or "keeper of the cutrain" who bars access by the unworthy unto the Godhead."

With that, I would also like to ask, if there are any further objections RoySmith, Zanahary, Kingsif, Johnbod?

Indeed - I never had any in the first place. Can we progress this now please. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Since it is almost a month old by now, and a thing supposed to be done within not more than 2 weeks, can someone just accept it by now? If still after 2 weeks none of the objectors replied, the objection cannot be that strong. And double check should still be possible as the quote has been made accessable for everyone here.VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

No, I still object. The hook is long-winded and makes no sense to someone unfamiliar with Upanishads, which is a lot of people. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

That's asking too much from a 200-char hook, really. If you can't suggest a better hook (and nobody has so far), time to let go. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Broad comprehensibility is too much to ask of a DYK hook? The hook is incomprehensible, the image is unreadable, and the article is full of prose like If angels can sin or not is disputed in Islam. Those who say that Iblis was not an angel, but a jinni, argue that only jinn (and humans), but not angels are capable of disobedience… This view is also found to be prominent among many Salafis. The Sunni school holds on to the doctrine of predestination, al-Razi being an exception,  and asserts that…. The article consistently uses Iblis' instead of Iblis's, which is ungrammatical. How about this article be subjected to the thorough copyedit and review that it should have received when it passed GA, and then someone can write a coherent hook? If not, then the nominator can let go.꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems your objection is much more than just the DYK nomination then. I wonder why you did not mention anything during the GA review, it took long enough. And it would also be helpful to adress your true concerns earlier rather than waiting almost a month after you raised entirely different objection. This is everything but constructive. But okay, let's put that aside and let's aderss your concerns: Regarding the spelling, both variations are fine: https://www.grammarbook.com/blog/apostrophes/apostrophes-with-words-ending-in-s/ If the source is mistaken, feel free to enlighten us or fix it yourself. It shouldn't take longer than 5 minutes. Now regarding the hook: I do not see how it is incomprehensible. If you know neither Sufism, nor Iblis, nor the Upanishads, maybe it is a great moment to click on the highlighted bright blue Wiki-Links? The article is not about an American subject afterall, so being introduced to something new is unavoidable at this point. If you have a better suggestion, as stated previously, feel free to make a suggestion, be constructive! Because as it is now, the hook does qualify as a hook: It is interesting, something new to learn, offers information the reader probably did not know, etc. ZanaharyVenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t take part in the review. The article is full of truly poor prose, and it shouldn’t be on the front page until it’s copyedited. I think my position—that the article is unsuitable for featuring and that its proposed hook is poor—is clear now.꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

If you think the article has serious issues, you should propose a Good article Nominee reassessment. I doubt you will bring it through, as three independent Users had a look at this article, without any major objections. However, this is the DYK nomination, not the GA accessment. And apart from your personal distaste for the article, you are left to explain properly, because it is everything but clear what you mean, you have not contributed anything constructive yet. I do not want to be rude, but I am currently inclined to disregard your opinion on this entirely (WP:WHATISCONSENSUS), as you bring nothing to the table but vague criticism and advises which even contradict grammar rules. Please clarify specifically what your concerns are or I suggest to proceed with the review.Zanahary As you Johnbod have been the reviewer, I would like to invite you to share your current opinion on the DYN. As far as I understood, you were fine with the hook as it is now. The objection raised by Zanahary about the picture has been adressed as well.

I might start a GA reassessment, but I don’t have to in order to oppose this article’s featuring on DYK, because this is a separate review process—if it weren’t, the article could just be checked for basic eligibility and the GA review would stand in for any review of content. The idea that this my comments are based on my “personal distaste” for the article are confusing and unfounded; I’ve been clear that I find the article to have unacceptable issues in its writing, with lots of its prose being ungrammatical and/or unclear. And I still disagree with your arguments that the hook is suitably comprehensible to a broad audience. And please see MOS:POSS. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I've touched up some (minor) prose issues, but otherwise I agree you should start a GA reassessment if you feel that strongly. It's not a good situation if an article is a GA but not held suitable to be a DYK on the sorts of issues you mention, and I don't believe the view of a single editor should be enough to bring this about. The subject is one where clarity is next to impossible to achieve, & I still believe the article is ok for Dyk. What do others think? Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

For anyone checking in to see what the fuss is about, I've placed inline tags in the article.꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that the vast majority of tags at least are valid (I don't care to figure out appropriate weighting) and would be cause for this to quickfail at WP:GA. I strongly recommend a GAR.--Launchballer 10:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that to me many seem clearly pointy and excessive. It would have been quicker4 to fix than tag some minor English points. But I suppose thyis just goes to show that a determined editor who dislikes the article for some reason can derail a dyk. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Good lord, enough about me mysteriously "disliking" the article—it’s a very cool topic and I expressed interest in reviewing it back when it was nominated (someone else got there first). But it is full of ungrammatical prose, truly unclear language (which I couldn’t quickly fix), strange organization (with the story of Iblis refusing himself to prostrate before Adam being repeated many times across sections without variation), and has a habit of stating in wikivoice what absolutely must be attributed in-text. The GAR script isn’t working for me, so if anyone (Launchballer?) can just make a blank reassessment page for me, I can write the rationale.꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how and where you "expressed interest" (not on the article talk), but yes, I did start a review some 24 hours after the nom went up, since which time you have dogged my review and the article, telling me I think things I don't, not responding to requests, & raising vague complaints, now followed by a carpet-bombing of tags. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

telling me I think things I don't I literally don't know what you're talking about. I expressed interest on some contest page or something, and then VFF came to my Talk to ask if I'd like to take up the review, as the original reviewer hadn't been active, and I declined. There's a detailed GAR now, so hopefully you no longer feel my complaints are "vague".꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I created the GAR page. If this stays GA, you may ask at WT:DYK for this to be reopened.--Launchballer 17:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Reopened per WT:DYK. New review needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: Reviewing the article is beyond my capabilities so this will not be a full review, but I agree with Johnbod that the hook as currently written needs to be changed. I'm a big history buff myself, but the hook is probably too specialist and relies a background in Indian history. My suggestion, if it is possible, would be to reword the hook to be less reliant on history knowledge. There's a good point to be made here, but right now it's hard to parse. If that is not feasible, another solution would just be to propose a different angle. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Would something along the line like "similarities in function between the Sufistic concept of Iblis's web and the Hindu concept of māyā have been considered?" work?

Yes, it would be better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Can we then just take that one or do I have to officially reqrite a second suggestion?VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: I would propose another hook. I would also go much simpler than that.--Launchballer 13:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I still think even the first hook is great. I do not see how this is too specific or anything. If there is a general consensus that you cannot trust the average internet user to have basic education on geography, I am sorry, but when I am the wrong person for a understanding what you can expect from the average reader. I think everyone knows what Maya is and everyone knows what Sufism is. If thats not the case, I am sorry, but what is a good hook. That Iblis is compared to Satan? At this point we are at straightup translations.VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of which is not basically either directly from the Quran or an inconclusive discussion mgiht be the story of Iblis fighting the jinn: "First the jinn were obedient, but over time immorality increased and, when they became infidels, God sent an army of angels, headed by Iblis to defeat them". But this is only interesting if you already believe in such stories and of no historical or cultural value.VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

"If there is a general consensus that you cannot trust the average internet user to have basic education on geography, I am sorry ... I think everyone knows what Maya is and everyone knows what Sufism is." XKCD 2501 is, as quite often, very relevant. For hooks that might actually work (I'm sorry to say that the first hook is light-years away), perhaps we could try:

• ALT1: ... that similar to how European portrayals of demons depict them with aspects of pagan deities, Islamic depictions of demons such as Iblis showcase attributes of Hindu gods?
  • ALT1a: ... that Islamic depictions of demons such as Iblis showcase attributes of Hindu gods?
• ALT2: ... that a minority theory holds that the name of Iblis, the leader of the devils in Islam, derives from the Ancient Greek diábolos, which was also the origin for the English word "devil"?
  • ALT2a: ... that a minority theory holds that the name of the leader of the devils in Islam derives from the Ancient Greek diábolos, which was also the origin for the English word "devil"?
• ALT3: ... that the dispute over the fundamental nature of Iblis, the leader of the devils in Islam, dates back to the formative stages of Islam?
  • ALT3a: ... that the dispute over the fundamental nature of the leader of the devils in Islam dates back to the religion's formative stages?

Any of those work? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I would WP:DYKTRIM the first half of ALT1, 'hide' Iblis in ALT2 and ALT3 under "the leader of the devils in Islam", and reword the end of ALT3 to "the religion's formative stages". Gets them out of using commas.--Launchballer 13:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviews needed for ALT1a, ALT2a, and ALT3a. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I'd trim ALT2a further, to ALT2b: ... that a minority theory holds that the name of the leader of the devils in Islam derives from the same origin as the English word "devil"?, but as it and ALT1a both use offline sources and would require a quote, I approve ALT3a.--Launchballer 19:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Launchballer, for ALT1a, see "And just as medieval Christian European renditions of the devil mostly derive, with an obvious anti-‘pagan’ note of scorn, from Graeco-Roman depictions of the god Pan and the goat-legged and goat-horned satyrs, so the Persianate portrayals of Iblls and his minions are mainly and just as recognizably ferocious caricatures of naked and bangled Hindu deities - also seen in the Mahayana scrolls - but here and now turned into monsters: such as Ganesh, with his characteristic elephant head, and Vishnu in his incarnation as a boar, or rather seen as a human body with the head of a tusked boar." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Wow, that's a long sentence. I also approve ALT1a.--Launchballer 20:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

First thank you very much for your suggestions. I would go with ALT 2a: it is probably the least controversial. ALT 3 is more interesting but then we are overrun by ultra-conservatives. ALT 1 is true, but I don't think we should emphazize it too much, as this is very specifically for those who portray the demons as Divs. The Indian influence probably coems by accident not by a direct demonization (Persians demonized Indian gods, Muslims accepted the demons of the Persians as demons). So even though it is true (and what the source states), I wouldn't phrase it like this, especially not for a DYN. I think the the Diabolus etymology is fine, but I would remove the "minority" from that quote, as it is pretty much the most widely accepted hypothesis in Islamic studies.VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Iblis

The following discussion 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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Seems to be consensus to keep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Per @Zanahary: at Template:Did you know nominations/Iblis. Launchballer 16:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Launchballer.
This shouldn't have passed GA. It has unquestionably valid cleanup tags, making it eligible for QF. It contains a lot of unclear prose, for instance:

This dispute goes back to the formative stage of Islam. These two conflicting opinions are based on the interpretations of ibn Abbas and Hasan al-Basri respectively.[20]: 6  Muslim scholars then followed one of these two interpretations. The first sentence certainly needs further explanation, and the last implies that Muslim scholars together chose one unidentified interpretation.
If angels can sin or not is disputed in Islam. Those who say that Iblis was not an angel, but a jinni, argue that only jinn (and humans), but not angels are capable of disobedience. This is ungranmmatical.
The Mu'tazilites, absolving God from all negative associations, ... This absolutely needs further explanation and precision.
Sufi formulations of mystical union derive from careful and sustained dedication to the conflicts arising from the intricacies of the conflicts addressed in the school of kalam. What does this mean? What is careful and sustained dedication to the conflicts arising from the intricacies of the conflicts addressed? Multiple layers of conflicts? I truly do not understand anything about Sufi thought from this sentence.
Those who remain at the circle of lā, they worship the nafs (carnal desires) instead of God. This is ungrammatical.
In reference to the interpretation of the events in Surah 2:30-34, when the angels complain over mankinds' potential to shed blood and cause injustice, Islamic hagiographic narratives relate this to the previous story. This is baffling and ungrammatical.

The article also has a consistent problem with in-text attribution, reporting both narrative elements of stories about Iblis (which are, of course, not factual and must be sourced in-text, as in "In the Quran...", "One tradition holds...", etc.) and interpretations in Wikivoice. Examples follow:
The angels passing by Adam were scared. Most afraid was Iblis. To overcome his anxiety, he enters Adam and moves through the body. He concludes that "this is hollow clay", whereas Iblis is "fire". Since fire overcomes clay, he vows to destroy Adam like fire destroys clay: "You are nothing – because of his ringing – and you were made for nothing! If I am to rule over you, I will kill you, and if you are to rule over me, I will rebel against you." This story's source is not named; it's in Wikipedia's voice.
Iblis is part of God's universe and does not form an exterior reality independent of God. He is God's veil, the visible universe itself, which hides the Godhead from the unworthy. Whose interpretation is this? It is stated as simple fact, when it is obviously not.

The article also repeats the story of Iblis's refusal to prostrate himself before Adam many times across sections, and it is not clear why. Discussion of whether Iblis is a jinn is also spread across sections. Iblis was a unique individual, described as both a pious jinni and an angel before he fell from God's grace when he refused to bow before the prophet Adam. After this incident, Iblis turned into a shaytan. is located in the final "In culture" section, where Iblis's appearances in arts are discussed, and nowhere earlier. Why? Shouldn't it be in the theology section?

There are more problems with the article, most of which are tagged inline. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Launchballer for the notification. Ill look into this tomorrow cus I'm going to sleep now 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 20:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, most of your complains just show a lack of either comprehending the style encyclopdies are written and the meaning of academic writings, or complains about the writing style. There have been a few valid requests, but most are not. It is either clarified in the very sentence before or in the body of the text. If the texts are so hard to understand it might be because you struggle with the subject, because two non-native speakers from different linguistical backgrounds had no issues with understanding the topic. If you have an idea how to improve, I request you a last time kindly to jsut go ahead and improve the tone. It should be an easy fix. Yuo already ruined the DYN with just disruptive positions, because after the complains you brought here, I could not find any serious one. So please keep on with being constructive or I will consdier reporting you for disruptive behavior, because until now, most of your objections are either willful ignorance or simply the inability to deal with the subject matter. But in both cases it is up to you. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Is it up to me? Yes, please report me for disruptive behavior. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Given that even a reviewer, who is not allowed to interfer with the article they review "may be bold and simply fix them" and udner the assumption we all share the common goal to improve articles, I see no reason why you should not. But okay, lets keep focused. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what point you are trying to make, but you should know that you're mistaken about GA reviewers not being allowed to "interfere" with the articles they review. Reviewers editing nominated articles is a normal and explicitly allowed part of the GAR process. I don't know what that has to do with me, though. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The article seems to mention nowhere that Iblis is said to have tempted Adam and Eve, as explained (for one) on page 18 of Peter J. Awn's Satan's Tragedy and Redemption: Iblis in Sufi Psychology. This strikes me as a major omission. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Over at Talk:Iblis#Unclear?, VFF asked why I tagged the sentence In reference to the interpretation of the events in Surah 2:30–34, when the angels complain about mankind's potential to shed blood and cause injustice, Islamic hagiographic narratives relate this to the story about angels' battle with the jinn. as needing clarification. I responded that the sentence is ambiguous in implying that either the angels’ complaints or Islamic hagiographic narratives are in reference to “the interpretation” (which is not clear) of the events in Surah 2:30–34. VFF did not respond to my reply, but did remove the tag without changing the prose.

VFF also unilaterally removed the clarification tag on the following prose in the lead: Others have strongly rejected sympathies with Iblis, considering them to be deceptively instigated by Iblis. Rumi's poetic work Masnavi-e-Ma'navi explores this form of deception in detail: when Iblis wakes up Mu'awiya to the morning prayer, he appears to have benevolent intentions at first, but it turns out, Iblis is just hiding his true malevolent motivations. The relationship between the phrases preceding and following the colon are not clear (how is "Iblis is just hiding his true malevolent motivations" an "explor[ation of] this form of deception in detail"?), and the sentence is ungrammatical. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must vote to delist this article. There are too many issues with prose, many of which have been left unresolved even as tags are removed, and there is at least one major element of Iblis's narrative (his temptation of Adam and Eve) missing from the article. I also raised a sourcing concern at WP:RSN#Islamic University of Gaza Journal of Islamic Studies, though that source may not actually be problematic—hence my raising it for discussion rather than moving to remove it from the article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It didn't have the tags when passed for GA; these were I think all added by Zanahary yesterday, and he is not best placed to call them "unquestionably valid". I removed several on a quick pass. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Of course, I’m not suggesting that these tags predate the review. I’m saying it shouldn’t have passed because of the problems in the article—which the recently-placed tags refer to. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Jumping in as someone who contributed to the review here, I personally felt in over my head with this article (not speaking on behalf of anyone else here) and even though this review passed through three different sets of hands, that does not mean it is free of mistakes. I realize now I should have asked for some more help with this review but hindsight is 20/20. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 05:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the re-assessment request. I think a lot of issues can be done quickly. Other issues, I disagree with and may discuss here. Currently, I have a tight schedule again (thats why I was eager to get these reviews done quickly). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm presently taking a look at the article. In full transparency, I'm doing so in response to a message VFF sent me on Discord where we happen to be friends, where they asked me to do so while expressing essentially the same concerns as they have in their above replies.

My initial appraisal is broadly that there is a clear need for improvements in diction and clarity to the prose in areas, but the article's coverage and organization is fundamentally balanced and sound by GA standards. That is to say, I don't see any need for the imbroglios or quarreling expressed so far. We all want our articles to be better, and it seems straightforward to make this article better, so let's do that without impersonally wielding or rejecting the GAR process here. Remsense 🌈 论 22:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle because I can't help myself—which citation style do you prefer in this article, {{rp}} or {{sfn}}? Remsense 🌈 论 00:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Zanahary, are the tagged issues I've tackled so far resolved to your satisfaction? Remsense 🌈 论 17:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Remsense, I find In Sufism, the concept of union with God, while fundamentally mystical in nature, has been described in a manner informed by the academic debates concerning God's nature within the school of kalam. to be still confusing, while better than its predecessor. When we say it "has been described…", is that in Sufism? Is it by scholars receptively describing the Sufi concept of union? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Zanahary: good catch. Now? Remsense 🌈 论 18:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that’s great, thank you! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

personally, rp but most Users seem to use sfn VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2025 (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.

Unclear?

@Zanahary could you please elaborate what is unclear about the following sentence: "In reference to the interpretation of the events in Surah 2:30–34, when the angels complain about mankind's potential to shed blood and cause injustice, Islamic hagiographic narratives relate this to the story about angels' battle with the jinn"? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

It implies that either the angels’ complaints or Islamic hagiographic narratives are in reference to “the interpretation” (which is what?) of the events in Surah 2:30–34, and it’s ambiguous which of those is true. Maybe someone else who’s commented at the GAR can chime in; I recommend pinging and asking there. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Zanahary I also want to inform you, I had to change your requested "copy edt" in the Sufi lead-section as it was misrepresenting the source. If you have any objection to the forumation, for whatever reason, please raise your objeciton immediately, not 2 weeks later again, after the discussion already reached a consensus (only you disagreed with). And also, make a suggestion what would be better, without (!) making false claims or violating the source!