Talk:Jinn

Pre-RfC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Original Research

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

CR might be on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference list for this section (reflist-talk)
References

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

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

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

Next step

@ VenusFeuerFalle, @Louis P. Boog, @ TheEagle107

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @ TheEagle107 and VenusFeuerFalle; this seem to be second instance, within four days, of POV template tagging and the revert. I also do not know nuances about POV template hence I shall refer the same to WP:NPOVN for inputs. Mean while I urge patience to both sides to avoid reverts since any way we are in process of sorting out through discussion. I also urge to provide neutral summary of various parts of disagreements so we can proceed towards RfC formatting step. Bookku (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  When the template should be used can be read here: Template:POV. Per " In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." Wikipedia Users are required to remove these templates. I cannot follow your request on a summary of the dispute, since I do not sense a dispute. @TheEagle107 makes edits and objections already adressed and clarified but choose to ignore these. Especially after their most recent comments

  "You can say Jinn are the “demons of Islam”. A Qur'ānic chapter (72) is named after them. Please note also that there is not a single source in the whole article that says that jinn are mythical creatures. Anyone who objects to that must show me the source along with the text."

  and

  " For detailed information about the jinn and their relation with humankind, see Essentials of the Islamic Faith."

  there is good reason to assume that @TheEagle107 is not here to build an encyclopedia but to further personal religions views. I am also waiting for over 3 weeks not for them to adress the points I raised, instead, the User added new discussions or talked about ther personal opinions. For my part, I decided to go with Wikipedia:Avoiding difficult users, until the User complays with the proper protocol of the talkpage usage. And edits not confirming to Wikipedia guidlines will be, of course, still reverted. Ignorance does not provide someone with a greencard. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

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

RfC: Proposed additions of text 1

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

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

13:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Reflist for Proposed additions of text 1 References Author brief for Proposed additions of text 1 Ref 1 Published by: Bloomsbury Publishing USA Author brief: Mark A. Caudill is a 15-year U.S. Foreign Service officer who served in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, from 1999 to 2002. Currently he is Vice Consul, U.S. Consulate General, Istanbul, Turkey. Ref 2 Published by:Bloomsbury Publishing USA Author brief: William E. Burns . Visiting and Part-Time Faculty, Department of History, Columbian College of Arts & Sciences William Burns is a historian who lives in the Washington, D.C. metro area with interests in the early modern world and the history of science. ref: columbian.gwu.edu Ref 3 Encyclopaedia of Islam Ref 4 Publisher: Routledge Author brief: Ali A. Olomi is assistant professor of history at Penn State Abington and an affiliated scholar with the Rutgers Center for Security, Race and Rights. ... Olomi holds a Ph.D. from the University of California Irvine. [1] Ref 5 Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing USA Author brief: Richard Bonney :University of Leicester | LE · School of Historical Studies

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

Survey

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

Discussion:Proposed additions of text 1

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

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

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

Proposed additions of text 1 - Discussion

• Above is break for easy editing and navigation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'"completely accepted" in official Islam', to

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

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

• Comment about "Official Islam":

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

Jacques Waardenburg's definition of "Official Islam"

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

Inputs from Humanities ref desk

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

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

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

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

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

• Suggesting another version for sentence:

Jinn have been called "an integral part" of the Muslim tradition[1] or faith,[2] "completely accepted" in mainstream Islam;[3] significantly featured in folklore,[4] but also considered "quite solemnly" by both medieval and modern Muslim scholars,[5] who "figured out" the implicit repercussions expected through existence of Jinn -- their legal status, the possible relations between them and mankind, especially in questions of marriage and property.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Why this RfC??

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

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

Ref-list and Author brief for above proposed addition

Reflist for proposed addition References Author brief for proposed additions (above) Ref 1 Published by: Bloomsbury Publishing USA Author brief: Mark A. Caudill is a 15-year U.S. Foreign Service officer who served in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, from 1999 to 2002. Currently he is Vice Consul, U.S. Consulate General, Istanbul, Turkey. Ref 2 Published by:Bloomsbury Publishing USA Author brief: William E. Burns . Visiting and Part-Time Faculty, Department of History, Columbian College of Arts & Sciences William Burns is a historian who lives in the Washington, D.C. metro area with interests in the early modern world and the history of science. ref: columbian.gwu.edu Ref 3 Encyclopaedia of Islam Ref 4 Publisher: Routledge Author brief: Ali A. Olomi is assistant professor of history at Penn State Abington and an affiliated scholar with the Rutgers Center for Security, Race and Rights. ... Olomi holds a Ph.D. from the University of California Irvine. [2] Ref 5 Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing USA Author brief: Richard Bonney :University of Leicester | LE · School of Historical Studies

Survey

(Support add sentence; Oppose don't.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Stone Jinn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mutazilites and Jinn-Possession

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

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

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

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

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