# Talk:Ifrit

Where does the gargoyle origin come from? And do we need the "Final Fantasy" reference here? Ifrits have been used in numerous games, movies and books, no need to single one out. Ausir 13:39, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, but Final Fantasy is "speshul". MasterGrazzt 15:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Other games are just as prominent in the article, but I think it's okay that it has its own mini-section, since there are so many Final Fantasy games and Ifrit is more well-known in FF than in other games (to my knowledge).Ravenwolf Zero 17:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the first part about the Islamic afreet be separated out from the rest of the article?

I wrote the Ifrits in Recent Fiction section back in December - I was looking for more info on a kind of creature I had just met in a second author's books, and took the "please add to this stub" message at face value.  I have spent some time at Wikipedia since then and can see that the section I wrote doesn't suit this project; I just deleted it.--Iestyn 06:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding this comment: "Ifrits in common mythology are jinn spirits that embody the fire." Aren't all jinn supposed to be made from (smokeless) fire? What differentiates ifrit from other jinn?

Ifrit is stronger?
but smokeless fire should be added to the article because its what makes the fire different to the one you get from burning stuff.

According to what? I really wish there were more about Arabic literature, mythology and Burton's use of Ifrit here after the Qur'ān references (especially when compared to the length of its use in popular culture and among gamers). Wikiality, alas! Khirad 03:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In Dungeons and Dragons, the singular form is "efreeti" and plural is "efreet". Is this correct Arabic? If not, what are the correct forms? Someone please add to the article. SpectrumDT 18:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The actual article of the Ifrit is woefully small in comparison to the video games they've been in.  Move it or lose it. 63.84.192.253 (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It does seem odd that references to Ifrit in computer games is as long as the rest of the article. I don't suggets the computer game references be removed (though some sourcing would be nice) but the rest of the article needs an expansion. Will do some work on this but I'm starting from scratch - anyone with some of the more useful reference works able to add anything here? Euryalus (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm recommending the merger of Ifrit in popular culture into this article.  Both articles are too short to really need to be separated, and I think the other one can be controlled better if it was a section on this page.--ip.address.conflict (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongly agree. Also, popular culture is surely more than video and roleplaying games, lets see if we can expand it a little further. Euryalus (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree A merger makes sense. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong Agree I have also put merge tags on similar articles by the same user for Marid and sprite (creature). Balor in popular culture is up for AfD, but is in the same position as these ones and just nbeeds to be recombined. To me it seems that a pp culture article doesn't work without info on what the ing actually is. Thank you --Beligaronia (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree. As above, doesn't contain sufficient information to be separate. Greggers (t • c) 17:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The part about ifrit most likely being rebellious from the following part of the article was deleted: "Ifrit's mention in the Qur'an and the Hadith, the eyewitness narratives of Muhammad's words and actions, is always in the phrase “the ifrit of the jinn” and most likely means “rebellious.”  Ifrit has come to refer to an entire class of formidable, rebellious beings, but in the confused world of underworld spirits."  It does lead one to wonder what the etymology of the word really is.  List_of_English_words_of_Persian_origin indicates it may come "from Persian afarida created being."  I think Muslims tend to believe the words in the Quran are all of Arabic origin (regardless of what non-Muslims may believe); thus, there probably is an Arabic etymology or pseudo-etymology for the word.  Incidentally, another type of jinn, the Marid really is alleged to mean rebel; the OED states "Arabic mrid, active participle of marada to rebel." Шизомби (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Because they are all actually of Arab origin, just as the goblin is from Arab folklore and culture, this is self-evident 37.220.115.217 (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Does it have some connection the vampire? I've heard of mythology, that it can be a Vampiric spirit of a murder victim seeking to avenge his/her death. The Unbeholden (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The spelling afreet is used as the main entry for the creature in the American Heritage Dictionary, the Collins English Dictionary and the Oxford Canadian. What is the source of the English spelling "ifrit"?--Sonjaaa (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I did a little editing in the section that formerly began with ""Ifrit's mention in the Qur'an and the Hadith, the eyewitness narratives of Muhammad's words," but I soon discovered that most of this paragraph seems to have been copied and pasted from this Britannica article: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/282188/ifrit
This should be either credited or re-written.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLSwiki (talk • contribs) 17:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC) 

I agree, but as copyvio it needed removing - as you've given the source, anyone can use that to either quote some of it (but not all) or as a source (which must look substantially different, not just tweaked). Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that the image depicting an alleged efreet flying over a desert may not be good enough of an image for this article. It's an amateurish photoshop job of two different artworks for the card Mahamoti Djinn from the Magic: The Gathering card game.
http://magiccards.info/scans/en/7e/84.jpg
http://magiccards.info/scans/en/al/65.jpg
Not only are they not representations of a traditional efreet, neither of them are even an efreet in the fictional work from which they originate. 75.114.229.143 (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The beginning of this article is nearly identical to the Encyclopedia Britannica online.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ifrit  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.127.228.127 (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 
The offending text was first added here and was (at that time) a straight copy of Britannica: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ifrit&diff=271900520&oldid=271575162. It's been reworded frequently since 2009 but is still obviously derived from that copied work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.118.82 (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC) 

Hello,
Could you please explain me, why you think the Christian-part is unnecessary? I thought it kind of itneresting that the "Ifrit" is aknowledged inter-religious in Islamic-influenced countries. However I did not find any reason given for this remove. Thanks for explanation.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fire ghost. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 04:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, 
I am looking for source for the popularculture-section. Unfortunately, I do not find much about Afarit in fiction. It would be a shame to remove the section entirely especially since Afarit are Iconic for some franchises such as Final Fantasy. Does anyone else, who watches or edits this article, knows about sources with references to Ifrit in fiction?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ifrit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 11:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
See comments below, prose is a little rough but I'll copy edit this week.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Referencing is thorough, just need to format references appropriately.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
The image captions made me think that there may be more aspects of the afarit that are not covered in the article.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Yes, does a good job of presenting folk beliefs in a neutral manner.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Extensive use of appropriate images throughout.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I'll place this on hold for one week, to allow time to address the comments below.  It's a fascinating topic and you've done a good job of synthesis a broad range of scholarly material. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC) All of my concerns have been resolved, I'm happy to pass as GA. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


### Comments
Spelling: Since Afarit is used frequently in the text, shouldn't it be listed as one of the spellings at the top?
Capitalization: According to WP:MOSISLAM, Words of Arabic origin should be written out in lower case, except at the beginning of a sentence, and italicized.  So I think ifrit and afarit should not be capitalized.  I'll leave it up to you if you want them in italics, personally I think that would be overkill.
Lead: I don't think it's necessary to include all possible transliterations in the lead, I would just include the two or three most common.
Lead: Per WP:LEADCITE, it's not necessary to include citations in the lead as long as the information is cited in the article body.
Quranic citation: In "Islamic scriptures", is the text about sura an-naml a direct quote?  If so consider using a quote template or italics to distinguish it from the surrounding text.
References: For your references, please use a reference template instead of just writing out the citation, so it formats properly. Examples of this are #3 and #15.
References: It seems like references #2, 4, 5, and 14 are all to the same Encyclopedia of Islam entry.  Can you combine these?
References: For reference #6, please provide an English translation of the title, using the "trans-title=" parameter of cite web.
I have a German Book at home, witht he same statement, maybe this one is better as source, since it is usually more likely to retrace for most readers.
References: Reference #30 is missing a page number.
References: For reference #29, since it's a four-volume work, please provide the volume number.
Prose: The prose is a little idiosyncratic, like it was written by a non-native speaker, no problem though I'll revise it this week.
References: Is #31 available online? If so please include a URL.
I have not find an online version.
Images: Great selection of images, however they leave me wanting to know more.  Who is Arghan Div? Who is Makhan and why is he embracing an Ifrit? Who is the Chief-Ifrit? If there is any information available about these images and the mythology associated with them, please add it to the article text.  The images even make me think it might be possible to add information about depictions of the afarit: they are large and have fangs in two of the images, and in the one from the Book of Wonders I was a little confused. Is the Malik al-Aswad the ifrit?  So the Chief Ifrit and the Malik al-Aswad are the same entity? --Cerebellum (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
As far as I understand, yes "Malik al-Aswad" is "the black king", here a chief-ifrit. Maybe I can extend th picture section, but I am always cautious regarding Islamic paintings, since they had been less examined than many Western pictures and the tradition they are about are often unknown. For example, the Chief-Ifrit picture is said to derive from a "dream", that means, the artist believed to have seen the ifrit in his dream or got an inspiration from "the other world" to draw them. It is not as with in Christian arts, when artist always tried to cover a well-known myth (such as the angelic fall) over and over again. Also there is no fixed demon-hierarchy, we could identify certain jinn and afrit with others. I (but I can not add this here since this would be Original Research) know about a tale in the Ikhwan as Safa, when jinn complain to an ifrit-king about human's misdeeds on earth and how they treat other intelligent life. I suspect the picture is about such a story, probably well known in Classical Islamic culture, but not covered by academic sources in our time, probably since it is much harder to identify pictures to their corresponding narartives. I recently also found a book of pictures regarding super natural cretures. The author wrote, he does not know to which narrative it belongs, probably to a today unknown oral-tradition, while I myself recognized most of the figures. I think the same is about the "Chief-Ifrit"-picture, the exact source can not be determined, and maybe the artist just drew that he imagined. Regarding Arghan-Div, I only found a short reference to the image in secondary sources, that means, it is indeed an ifrit and the story exists (it is about the uncle of Muhammad) but no further explanation of the story and how it was composed. I am uncertain, a short-reference would suffice. Maybe there should be a larger section explaining afarit in paintings?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
First, thank you for reviwing the article. I will fix the issues as soon as possible. For the references, it might take some days. Regarding the picture I will write a comment after a few fixes.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I understand you're limited to what the secondary sources say.  I do think a section about afarit in paintings would be helpful, but only if the sources support it. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I rechecked the source I found and I am uncertain about adding an entire section for "ifrit in art", despite I would really like to. I think about the possibility or add at least an explanation for the pictures, so they do not stand out. I mean, suddenly there is an ifrit called "Arghan Div" without any relation to the article, I would add at least a short explanation if not an entire section.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC) edit: I would really like to add the story narrated in the source to the Popular Culture Section, but the source itself does no give a clear origin of the story. Probably it is an oral tradition and I think, for an encyclopedia entry, too vague. However the picture is well explained, I will extend the description. A specific "in Art"-section seems to be impossible. The depiction of them is too ambiguous. The afarit in Egypt usually look like Egypt Deities or ghosts, the Morrocan afarit like Monsters, the afarit in The Nights like Divs (another type of demon in Islam).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Did another read through and copy edit, want to make sure I understand properly: the Shabak believe that Ali existed before the creation of Adam?? --Cerebellum (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes indeed, both Muhammad and Ali existed before Adam there. The notion that Muhammad existed before Adam was also prominent among Muslims prior to the various Salafi-movements (movements which frist tried to rationalize Islam). Maybe this was also a reason Muslims were surprised when Jesus claimed to have existed before earth was created. I once read some Muslims assert the same about Moses, but this one was less popular than the same idea about Jesus, Ali or Muhammad. (I am a Sunni descendant of Ottoman heritage, and also know about pre-existing of Muhammad. The idea is basically that the soul of Muhammad existed before biological men, but was later sent to earth in eathly flesh and blood.) In short,  yes the Shabak community beliefs Ali existed before Adam as somethign like a "spiritual human", before the earthly human (Adam) have been created.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC) edit_ just in case you are interested:  "M.J. KISTER ADAM: A STUDY OF SOME LEGENDS IN TAFSIR AND HADIT LITERATURE Approaches to the History 0f the Interpretation of The Qur'an, Oxford 1988 p.129" mentiones a narration about Ali mentioned in the heavens, when Adam roamed paradise, concluding Ali and Muhammad existed before Adam. But only the Shia version is said to include Ali, here.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Fascinating, thank you!  Reminds me of the Christian idea that Jesus existed before the world as well.  Ok, thank you for your edits on the article, I'll close out the review. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the review.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Moradeldin:
Greetings. You reverted an edit done years ago, without any expalnation. Could you please clarify your objection here? The image isn't taken from the book, the book describes the image. It is the source for the claims made there. This is also how it passed the GA check. That is why I reverted the edit years ago. Why do you think this one is the bad one? Has anything been overseen which makes the new one better?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
@VenusFeuerFalle:
Hello. The issue isn't that the image is from the book or not, the description itself is misleading, inaccurate, in-creditable, and offensive in islamic belief, what was the source that this book used, sources for such important icons must be credible and acceptable that can go back to the time of the prophet not just some book written by a random guy,  Hamza son of abdulmutaleb was a real man that lived around the time of the prophet, he didn't have any encounters, aid or whatsoever from ifrits or any jinn creature, this is defined in islam as magic which is extremely forbidden, to say that about such an important icon is simply defamation. (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I see, so it is a disagreement with that the sources say, due to personal beliefs? I see no objection to the source other than you stating, "I don't believe this to be part of Islamic tradition". Already suspected this, because these are the most common edits without proper explanation. But Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. I think it is good, because I frequently see English speaking Muslims to misunderstand Islamic tradition, or they are just misinformed due to a lack of reliable sources in English language (scholars from Saudi Arabia aren't good ones, but they seem to be the most often cited). Control over jinn and demons is quite common, and not necessarily evaluated negatively. See Solomon. Jinn and demons aren't inherently magical either. Jinn are often related to the unseen, but, unlike demons in Christianity, aren't necessarily evil. Muslim Jinn are even known to aid Muslim humans. In case of the ifrit, the term "div" indicates this is actually a demon or evil spirit, but such have often been enslaved. Even Muhammad is said to have bound an ifrit, but released them later. Without offense, I would recommand to read the article, especially when they are cited or reviewed. Often, issues might be explained by reading the article or related articles. I think there isn't something specfic about Hamza enslaving demons, but at least Solomon shuld be asseccable.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
It is not based on a personal belief, it is a fact. There is no creditable source that states that there was any form of communication between Hamza and any ifrit or jinn. The book that is used as a reference does not provide any actual source for such a claim, nothing from Quran or authentic hadith books.
It is true that jinns are not necessarily evil, however Muslim jinns do not aid or come in contact with muslim humans (no creditable sources say otherwise) . Enslaving, coming in contact or requesting aid from a jinn is considered in Islam as a form of magic ( there are about three other forms ) which is a grand sin in Islam, please read the following:
https://versebyversequranstudycircle.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/tafseer-al-baqarah-ayaat-102-103-2/
Which also shows that the prophet Solomon (king Solomon) was not a magician according to Islamic belief.
The prophet Muhammed peace be upon him wasn't a magician either and he did not bind any ifrit:
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:461
please also read the jinn chapter of the Quran so that you have more information about jinn in Islam:
https://versebyversequranstudycircle.wordpress.com/category/quran-tafseer/juz-29/al-jinn/
As it is evident that both image and its description are historically inaccurate and incorrect, it should be removed and replaced with something else that is more relevant. Moradeldin (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, but not necessary. Have a Quran at home, read another one, work with Qurans frequently, use tafsir in my papers (even in Arabic). Noone is considered a magician here. YOu seem to make false deductions. Controlling a Div is not considered a way of sorcery. Divs are thought to be easily bound, especially when you have a pious character. "If you bind the div, you will set out for the royal pavilion with Solomon" is a common phrase in Islamic Medieval Literature. If you are pious, jinn and div wouldn't harm you. Devils and Div are thought not to be able to harm a believer. The image implies the opposite of that you assert: It emphazises the pious character of Hamza. I think your deduction is the following:

Jinn are magical creatures, who, if they appear, are summoned by sorcery
Sorcery is a sin
The man in the picture is a sinless guy or at least free from major sins like sorcery
The man in the picture has summoned a jinn/div
-> this image is a contradiction or one of the premise is false
To me it appears, you think the third premise would be challanged by the image. I would rather argue that it is the first and the fourth ones. I doubt the man has summoned the jinn/ifrit/div. This premise relies on the first one, that jinn are "magical creatures who if they appear, are summoned by sorcery". The idea that demons or spirits are closely linked to occult practises is a Western one. In Middle East, spirits are demons are usually thought to be "all around us". You might encoutner a jinn, just by traveling into abandoned ruins or in a dark forest. Devils, Div etc., (the spirits with less free will and assocaited with evil) influence us (in Middle Eastern Islamic view) on everyday life. I think Hamza might just have dealt with the div, no summoning or sorcery implied. You youself state that Solomon could easily enslave jinn and demons without using magic, I think this is the case with Hamza. I know, there are some strants, appearently in Western Islamic societies, in which the demonic is metaphorically speaking "banished" to the occult, probably a remant of the underlying Western tradition. I usually don't see Western people, no matter if Muslims or not, who think that demons exist outside of magic. And although this is a legimitate position within Islam (Mutazilites, and some Sufis in line with Ghazali and ibn Arabi seem to have held such positions), it is not universal. This is what I meant by "personal". I want to clarify, this wasn't meant as an offense or stating that your view is "deviant" (I just realized, I might have expressed myself improper in this point), I am just stating that the assumptions you have about Demons in Islamic traditions is one of others. There are Muslims (both ordinary Muslims as well as scholars) who don't think that interaction with demons happens at all, except you summon them, while others think, they are all around us. I further recommand to read yourself into this specific topic, before judging, controlling a div isn't considered a sign of sorcery, but rather a sign of virtuase behaviour. Note that some demons are also used rather symbolically. I hope I could help you.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I am originally from north Africa and I am aware of what jinns are in islam. "If you bind the div, you will set out for the royal pavilion with Solomon" what is the source of this phrase ?
Hamza was not a sinless guy however he was not aided by any div whatsoever. Please provide an authentic source (from Quran or Hadith as these are the authentic sources for any claims in Islam or about characters in Islam) for this image. "I think Hamza might just have dealt with the div, no summoning or sorcery implied" this is all guessing something that never happened there is not one story that talks about Hamza encountering any jinn or divs.
Since you seem to know Arabic (based on you using tafsir in Arabic) please find the following: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/استعانة_بالجن . This shows two points, first is that the majority of scholars stated that using the aid of jinn is considered polytheism in Islam not to even mention that it is considered a form of magic in Islam (the magic part is not that they are summoned by sorcery, it is the way to come in contact with jinn without the jinn materializing) and second is that neither the prophet nor his companions did ever use the help of a div or a jinn which by the way was one of the basis used in the ruling of the first point.
The assumption that "If you are pious, jinn and div wouldn't harm you" is not true in islam. as shown in the tafsir link that i posted earlier, in islam only god protects from all harms including that of jinns and only he can allow it to happen for whomever he wishes.
I repeat the main point again this image is baseless and is a mere lie about Hamza and there is no authentic source that says otherwise. Moradeldin (talk) 05:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Neither is Wikipedia a source for Wikipedia, nor are "Quran and Hadith" a criteria. Islam is broader than just "Quran and Hadith" (which is a reform movement rooting in the last century). This is also the reason why I stated "personally belief" above. Because understanding Islam solely on "Quran and Sunnah" is a Salafistic approach. It is completely valid on a personal level, but not on an encyclopedic one. Refering to Biblie/Quran/hadith verses is a form of Original Research. We as Wikipedia Users aren't qualified to analyse the material, therefore we stick with that secondary sources say. If some secondary sources contradict each other or have striking mistakes, we can discuss them on the talk page, as we did here. Your claim was basically, the source must be mistaken, because Hamza would never consulted magic, because magic is inherently evil. I showed you this is not true. The reviwer of the article had no trouble with the source either (so the sources are checked by independent reviewers). Now you say, the sources are invalid because it is not "in Quran and Sunnah". I am pretty sure they are, or at least derive from them to some decree, otherwise Muslims wouldn't have accepted it (it is an image made by Muslims, and a story told by Muslims). You can rebuke them, make takfir over them or whatever, but this is just a personal opinnion, not a scholary one. We, on Wikipedia, stick with the secondary literature. The sources for Islam related topics aren't an exception. We don't start making WIkipedia a blog with random Quran and Hadith quotes for our preferred opinnion. Please make yourself familar with WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:OR, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not to understand how articles are written on Wikipedia. The quote I referred aove is within the Div article, I would recommand to read into related articles to get a better overview on the topic. On this point, I would like to end the disussion, because I think everything has been said. Have a nice day, and a good bayram the upcoming days!--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
very simple show the sources which you claim are from the Quran and Hadith to some decree or the muslim which you say draw this or said that that had happened, and no not Salafistic it is the Sunah, not my personal belief because unlike this image which clearly you don't have any source validating its content not to mention that drawing of creatures is haram in islam which means that any muslim who has the faintest knowledge would know this is absurd, I do not speak without a reference or knowledge, slafastic!! slafastic!!!!! unbelievable, islam is not to be changed as people desire whoever was there is the only person to be believed, if i said you have wings and can fly,  without even seeing or without knowing that from anyone who actually saw you you that is a pure lie anyone denying that is just delusional.
What are your sources?!!!! Moradeldin (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
There is no need to proof you wrong, because you haven't prooved anything or claimed anything substantial. This is not some "dawah/missionary" debates in which it is about who can trick the other person into falling into a fallacy. There are clear guidlines, I showed them to you.  By the way, I just realized you contradicted yourself: On one hand you say Hamza is a historical figure, on the other hand you say, he is a religious/mythological figure who can only be known through Quran&Sunnah. Whatever you prefer, this image was made by an artist (call him a Muslim, a mushrik, a kafir or whatever), this image was made, and depicts an ifrit (or div), with Hamza. Like it or not, this image exists. I won't take further steps to explain the possible origin for this, I am not in the position to do so, nor am I willing at this point to repeat myself. I merely thought, it would be helpful. If you think I am biased, you are free to invite a third opinnion (WP:THIRD). with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
first, I am not wrong, second, you are an Ignorant, third, whoever said anything about dawah, do you even know what dawah means, I don't care if anybody becomes a Muslim or not.
Hamza is a historical and religious figure no contradiction please read about what islam is before you embarrass yourself more than that.
and last but not least البينة علي من ادعى . Moradeldin (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Great. Please cite a reliable source to support your preferred version.  --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
My preferred version doesn't have this image as its source is not reliable. Moradeldin (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Many of these entities like the Djinni and Ifrit are pre-Islamic. Before Islam began, the Arabian peninsula was polytheist and had multiple deities representing various aspects of nature. Ergo "Islamic culture" is a misnomer; the culture of the Arabian peninsula and northern Africa is Arab so we should be saying Arab culture instead. Even in modern times there are different cultures who share the Islam faith and many cultures in the Middle East that do not. Persians, Turks and Kurds are also Muslim but their cultures are different from Arab culture so their pre-Islam mythologies were different as well. And many people in southeast Asia are Muslim but their cultures definitely do not include Djinni or Ifrit.
Use "pre-Islam" if you need to but seeing religion mixed up with culture really grinds my gears sometimes. They are two different things. 162.247.228.13 (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of entities originating from Arabian culture, the ifrit doesn't seem to be one of them. There is no record available to mention ifrits prior to the Quran. There is no pre-Islamic section, because they probably didn't existed. Most people who believe in the existence of ifrits do so, because of Islam, not Arabian culture. If Arabian culture was the common ground, ifrits wouldn't feature in Turkish, Indian, and Malaysian culture. However, they do appear throughout all cultures who share being culturally Islamicate, I think "Islamic" is the correct term to use. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
"If Arabian culture was the common ground, ifrits wouldn't feature in" Cultural diffusion does not work this way. Certain ideas can spread from one culture to others through contact. Dimadick (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I think I expressed my thoughts poorly. What I mean is, all the cultures who share beliefs in ifrits, are Islamic cultures but not Arabic ones. Maybe they have an Arabic origin, but there is no evidence for that. The idea of the ifrit could as well be of Persian origin and spread across Islamicate cultures under the term "ifrit". In other words, other Muslim cultures might have identified the term ifrit in the Quran with a familiar spirit of their own culture. From this culture, the ifrit spread across the Muslim world. There is, up to my knowledge, no evidence for ifrits in pre-Islamic Arabia. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
What are you talking about??  How is it not from the Arab culture, when it came from the Arabs and was mentioned in the Qur’an, and it is known that it is a type of jinn that goes back to the Arab culture, and the name is Arabic, and there are words that have the same meaning and name in the Arabic language, so why do you rave and say that it is not Arabic?  ?  If the Islamic culture itself is Arab, how do you separate them from each other at all? 176.29.121.136 (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I think your take on MENA (Middle East and North Africa) culture is too simply. Cultures in the MENA region usually influenced each other, not forced their views on a "subjugated" culture. There is, thereore, no linear progress of one culture to the other. Yes, the term (!) ifrit appears in the Quran, the meaning is not clear. It seems (!) it was mostly an epiphet, there is no evidence that it was necessarily seen as a spirit of the udnerworld or ghost. However, we know that at later stages ( since around the Middle Age), ifrits were associated with ghosts or spirits of the undeworld. In Turkish, it is even the term for fiends. This could be a reinterpretation of Persian Div applied to the ifrits (see also the images about ifrits bearing resemblence to Divs). It could also be the case that the Quran doesn't define the ifrit as such, because the readers were expected to know about the ifrit as an underworld spirit. In short, we don't know what concept the term ifrit was associated with in the 7th century, but we know what they are in later centuries. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I said the Arabic culture, the Qur'an was revealed in Arabic, and in North Africa there were Berbers and the minorities living in the caves, but the Persians and other races, the Qur'an was revealed before the conquest of the country, and I was also influenced by the Arabic culture, not the other way around, thanks to Islam and the rise of civilization. Islamic Arabia and conquests during the Caliphate of Al-Rashad and Al-Umayyad, the simplicity of the Arabic culture, and I think I mentioned before that the name was mentioned in Arabic before, and also the name was revealed in the Qur'an, and it has a real meaning, and it is basically the Jinn of the Arabic culture before Islam, even the Arabs used to worship it. Al-Jin in the Arabian Peninsula, there are many proofs, not a single proof, you just don't want to acknowledge the matter, and how the meaning is not clear in the Qur'an?? I believe that you do not know the Arabic language, and what is the relationship between the presented picture and the page on which the drawings are written by a Persian person and talking about an Arab warrior 😂 No one knows the shape of the jinn, so this picture is not a proof, so don't try to argue, and how do we know who is the one who is related to Ifrit, even though it is I said that it is mentioned in the Qur'an and the meaning of its name (Al-Khaith - Al-Makar - Al-Dahiyya - Al-Dahi Al-Bayth Al-Sharir - Al-Shaft al-Qawy) and specifically about intelligence and malice in the Arabic language.We know what a ifrit is from the time of the advent of Islam and even before 103.252.90.177 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)