|This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.|
||This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.|
||This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.|
Article clean-up tag
This article is very hard to read, and would be better to be reorganized and put into prose and written like an encyclopedia rather than just presenting lots of info, names, quotes.
The issue is likely that the article seems to be a combination of original research and Quran quotes. It would be better to get reliable and secondary sources, such as books, about the Islamic angels to help structure the information. See Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
As the article is in English please could sources also be in English. AmirAliParvez (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
General dicussion about the conepcts of angels
Before starting an edit war, maybe we can talk about some issues here. For example I saw, despite the source, a user revite the statement, that the devil asppears as both angel and jinn. he actually appears as both, not just as an jinn among the angels, but also as a fire made angel in islamic accounts. the islamic belief differs, if the isalmic devil is a jinn or angel. more information about it is given in the related article (which was changed into "demon islam" even if this article does not exist and does not even makes sense. fixed it to). and this is why the word "Mostly" must stand before "they are created out of light, the source I gave now, shows the account in islamic beleif, of a tribe of angels, created out of fire. according to this, some muslims beleif in angels, which can be created out of fire. maybe this thought, came from the biblical seraph. and there ist the next point. a hadith, can not be used to explain the islamic concept of something, because hadiths (even if they are sahih) do not reliable represent the islamic belief. that´s why an encyclopdia prefers to use secundary sources. else, everyone could use there own favortie quot from a primary source and interpretate that, the way they want. secundary sources show, that people actually belief or think about a topic. primary sources can be used to point out a statement. Yours sincerely
--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Salaam and Hello. In the section "Angel's impeccability" please could citation of the specific supporting Quaranic verse(s) be added after the following claim, "This is supported by verses describing angels with personal traits and being tested." The current citation directs to a non-English website which unless you speak that language is unintelligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmirAliParvez (talk • contribs) 12:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I deleted a line about Iblis being an angel due to the description in the Quran of Iblis as jinn, which are a separate category of created entity from angels. I replaced it with the following: "It should be noted that Iblis is not of the angels as he is described in the Quran as being of the jinn" and cited a supporting Quranic verse.AmirAliParvez (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
shoul we add a section separate for their essene? since angels are mostly created out of light and angels from fire or ice just appear in some hadiths or in further interpretation, maybe it is better to discuss it on a separate section, instead of adding a longer passage in the generall introduction?--VenusFeuerFalle edit: new section is done (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 26 January 2018
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Islamic view of angels → Angels in Islam – Do you agree about, that the name of this article is unnecessary long? Why not simply "Angels in Islam", instead of always typing this long article. Actually it seems to be "illogical". Then we say "Islamic view on angels" it assumes, that angels are an objective real existing creature, and Islam has its own different view on them. About that kind of angels do we talk? Christians or Jewish or Zoroastrians, and now have an article about Islams view on them? No, we are talking about that the "angels" are in Islamic belief and not how Islam views them in other religions. Next there are different concepts of Angels within the Islamic belief, thus it is not simply "this Islamic view". Thats why I suggest a renaming of this article. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. — Zawl 09:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support While I disagree that "view of angels" implies that angels are real beings, the article refers to them as "angels in Islam", so there is no reason not to have it at that title. There was no rationale given when it was moved away from the title in 2006.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support I agree with Zxcvbnm. --Phonet (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment – VenusFeuerFalle, what would you – and others – think about the title Islamic angelology, in line with the article Christian angelology? A cursory search finds that the term is used in the relevant literature. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting idea and I also thought about to line it with the Christian article. Unfortunately, Islam has no established doctrin of angels, besides the four Archangels, thus it is not angeloLOGY, since there is were is no "logy".--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- @VenusFeuerFalle: Christianity doesn't really have a singular "established doctrine of angels" either, though. (In particular, note the large differences between Roman Catholic and Protestant thought with respect to angels.) And the suffix -logy doesn't denote a particular doctrine but rather merely, as Wiktionary puts it, "A branch of learning; a study of a particular subject." With respect to Islam, it does appear that the term Islamic angelology is used; see here, here, and here, for example. Do you find that the scholarly literature on the subject tends to reject the term for some reason? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I often read, that there is no "angelology" in islam, since angels were never studies or established, the way, it was in christianity. I will check your sources and think about it until the comming days, searching more sources and so on. (it is already late there I live) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenusFeuerFalle (talk • contribs) 21:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- @VenusFeuerFalle: Might it be worth withdrawing the RM for the time being to give you some more time, if you're going to be reviewing the literature over the next few days? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- No, I think it is not worth to withdraw the request, since others already voted. But we can evaluate weather we take "Islamic angelology" or "Angels in Islam" in line with Judaism, here. I still think there is no real "study" of Islamic angels beside researching for, how Muslims view angels, but Muslims have just barely doctrine of Angels (except archangels and some subordinates like, munkar and nakir), therefore prefer to use "Angels in Islam". However I think we could name it "Angels in Islam" or "Islamic angelology", but would prefer the first. I think it should not be named "Islamic view on angels", others could make their position clear, if they prefer the latter, but I do not think, we should withdraw the movingrequest, just because another name could be better, if there is no reason to prefer "Angelology" over "Angels in".--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Odd inclusion in "see also"
There are three things in "see also", one of which is "Sariel". Though looking at that article identifies him as an angel, that article mainly talks about him in Jewish tradition, and makes no reference to Islam. Thus it doesn't seem to be of much relevance to this article, unless there are some major things missing from that article.--184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- I also wondered why Sariel is mentioned here. Maybe someone else knows the relationship to Islam. If not, I think it should be removed indeed.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- I would say remove. Specific names of angels should not be listed when List of theological angels is linked. Radhamadhab Sarangi (Talk2Me|Contribs) 16:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Removed "Sariel" per above discussion. Radhamadhab Sarangi (Talk2Me|Contribs) 17:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The recent edits added the "disputed" section again (something I also had in mind before I used the asterix (*)). Aren't Harut and Marut not also disputed, since some exegetes such as Hasan al Basra regarded them as kings instead of angels? Should we add them to "Disputed"?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)