Talk:Jahannam

message: Can someone please explain... "The following Translation of the Qur'an is a work of several contributors over time. Most common citations can be expected from Translations by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall, Farook-i-Azam Malik, Muhammad Asad and Yusuf Ali."
...who ruined the copies of the Quran at Wikisource? freestylefrappe 00:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Quran

message: More than a couple of the in-text citations to Qur'an are inaccurate and have nothing to do with what was referenced in the text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.225.192 (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qur'an citations 

message: 7 gates or 8? Who writes this stuff? Ackie00 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gates 

message: The external links given on this page is not in accordance with the seriousness of the topic. The links should either be changed with links which give actual information on this topic or they should be removed. Suleyman Habeeb 15:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem About the External Links Section

message: *Support --Striver 15:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: In the article it is stated that one can leave the Jahannam and go to paradise, however the Qur'an states that:
: [2:161-162] Verily those who reject faith and die rejecting - on them is Allaah's Curse and the Curse of the Angels and of all mankind. They will abide therein: their penalty will not be lightened, nor will respite be their lot
: [5:37] Their wish will be to get out of the Fire, but never will they get out therefrom: their Penalty will be one that endures
: [43:74] The unbelievers shall endure forever the torment of Hell. The punishment will never be lightened, and they shall be speechless with despair
Is there a need for a clarification?
Nova77 00:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaving the Jahannam 

message: The article ends with: "Jahannam itself has been based on Shaitun." and continueing with :"Shaitun is known as the devil in Islam. When Allah himself created Adam, Shaitun felt superior..." 
The devil in Islam is Shaitan, and he is the one who felt superior.
El jalapeno (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Shaitun? 

message: Seems like an Evangelical may have had is hands on this article. Why does it say Malik "claimed", the Quran "claimed." I understand not everyone is Muslim and believes the Quran or Imam Malik but is this language even befitting an Encyclopedia? Why is it not, "the Quran says...." and so on and so forth.....this is strange,--GibranMahmud (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claimed*(Is this even Wiki speak?) 

message: The Qu'ran does say that those kill themselves will go to Hell but it also says 
"God forgiveth not
That partners should be set up
With Him; but He forgiveth
Anything else, to whom
He pleaseth; to set up
Partners with God
Is to devise a sin
Most heinous indeed."
-Qur'an 4:48
So do people who kill themselves go to Hell or not? 86.40.141.29 (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can Suicide Be Forgiven Or Not? 

message: Jahannam-Description-Inhabitants-Second Paragraph-First Sentence.
I suggest replacing this sentance with the complete Hadith from the same source cited.
105.182.129.178 (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Suggestion 

message: Answering Islam is not a sympathetic source but it is not NewsMax or Fox News. Also we need more secondary sources in this article. I have rvted Wiqi55's deletions. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting Answering Islam 

message: There is an image depicting Angel Gabriel and Muhammed (SAW) in this article. All forms of images and depictions
of the Prophet Muhammed (SAW) are strictly forbidden in Islam. This image is offensive for muslims reading this article.
May I suggest that this image is removed to make the article less contraversial.
Thank You  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.240.179 (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Muhammed (SAW) 

message: Is the part "literalism" even usefull? it compares Islamic concept of hell with christian concept, but metaphorical reading on hell is not limited to christianity. furthermore, it just quotes someones own experience and does not tell about an objective fact on Islamic believe. Especially Ahmadiyya and some mystic branches hold on a metaphorical reading on hell. maybe there are some non-official opnions about metaphorical hell among Quaranits. Wether hell is metaphorical or not, rather depends on the branch of islam or the place you meet muslims, I guess. thus shouldn't this passage be removed? (including the opposing part, hell is also metaphorical aftetthat?)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am late is arguing against your comment and deletion, but as I said in the edit, the observations of someone who has spent decades "Living among and observing Muslims as a religious activist is certainly worthy of a sentence". What the Muslim masses — as opposed to writers, scholars — think, is by definition important. And this Parshall is in a position to comment on that. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "literalism" usefull? 

message: As the article says:
"Most of how Muslims picture and think about Jahannam comes from the Qur'an, according to scholar Einar Thomassen, who found nearly 500 references to Jahannam/hell (using a variety of names) in the Qur'an." The article goes one to say next to nothing about what the Quran says about Jahannam. I intend to restore the much of the sourced text on Quran and  Jahannam  that @User talk:VenusFeuerFalle has deleted. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for rewriting and adding a "Quran" section. I usually attempt to clear the Islam-section from the primary-source usement. Sometimes concent that could be used somethere else goes down. This article now may be easier to understand, how the different concepts are influenced since the Quran is indeed the primary source, but still looks much more encyklopedic than simply making references to certain verses over the entire article.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: well thank you for the thanks but I'm restoring what you deleted. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: rewriting by VenusFeuerFalle

message: Edit summary by VenusFeuerFalle: <BR>
(‎Christan Liberalism: added a tag for source, since it is a bit to unpresice, claiming that certain theologicans besides modern universalists, can object "Jahannam" since it is the same issue in Christian doctrine. Especially, because the Islamic notion of hell is also a thought as a purgatory. Further the last two senctences contradicts each other. Why don't we remove it simply? there was a man who did not find certain interpretation among his people around? why is this notable?)<BR>
A tag message in the text reads:<BR>
This whole section still seems dubios to me. It is reading like a talkshow-discussion between liberal/Secular Christs and Islamic apologetic, not as an encyclopedic entry which provides information.|date=April 2018}} 
A few points in reply:
*If you have a more precise term than ‎Christian Liberalism, please add it. (Liberal Christianity is a wikipedia article I might add.) But there are very different interpretations of Christianity: Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and "liberal" Christians who (along with there other differences with Fundamentalists, and Evangelicals) have a lot of trouble with the idea of a loving God dishing out everlasting suffering and torment to sinners in the afterlife. This should be contrasted with Jahanam.  I picked modern universalists because I had their doctrine downplaying fire and brimstone in writing. Do you seriously deny that other Christians ("theologicans besides modern universalists") also disagree with hell as eternal suffering and torment?
*"Islamic notion of hell is also a thought as a purgatory", i.e. temporary. For Muslim sinners yes. For everyone? no (We are talking aoburt mainstream Islam here)
*WHERE is the contradiction???  Most Muslims believe in "the bluntness and severity of their doctrine of hell," but there are also "symbolic interpretations of hell among Muslims"  
*Forget about deleting Parshall's statement. Anyone who has spent any time with mainstream practicing Muslims is aware of a much more evangelical, literal, conservative interpretation of the Quran than many modern, educated Christians have of the bible. Someone who has spent decades in the a Muslim society in "interfaith" dialogue deserves a place in this article. Hell yes, it is notable.
Another point is whether the devil lives-in/rules-over hell. Before I restored old edits, VenusFeuerFalle's editing left this: 
<P>Whereas Christian culture often depicts hell as the dominion of the Devil and retreat of evil,[Note 3] Jahannam is a place of punishment, purification and imprisonment[67] of sinners, including Satan.[68][69] The Devil may at least be thought as governing hell until the Day of Judgment.[70]
The problem is VenusFeuerFalle deleted sourced material saying the opposite, 
<BR>"... To begin with, Hell is not the headquarters of Shaytan and his devils as is the popular idea in Western culture. ..."
<BR> He/she left the source (The Complete Idiot's Guide to Islam) but not the  link I provided to where someone could read what it said!  
<P>This is not the way to edit in wikipedia VenusFeuerFalle. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  More dispute 

message: Editor VenusFeuerFalle deleted (for the second time) a couple of paragraphs in the lede.<BR> 
The edit summary reads:
(reverting edits, which were removed, because they did not fit to the article anymore (how, why, who goes to hell can better be explained in the different sections about jahannam concepts instead of the lead section, causing a misleading or confsing introduction. the notion of hell as seat of the devil with the islamic comparation is better writen in the former version, since it is more detailed. Parshalls views, who are already disputed do not need an extension.<BR>
:Cannot agree. "how, why, who goes to hell " are very basic and deserve a short summary in the lede introduction. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So, add a summary. Just make sure it's actually a summary. What was deleted wasn't a summary at all, it was equivalent to an entire section. The lead was too long, and as such did not comply with MOS:LEAD. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we talking about the same lede??? The lede to this article with three short paragraphs?? There are many, many ledes in wikipedia far longer. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many, many articles that don't comply with our best practices, in this case MOS:LEAD. That doesn't mean we should have one more. I see you reverted it back, and again it suffers from the same problems as earlier: it appears to include material not covered in the body of the article. The lead is supposed to be a concise overview of the major points in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

text: This part is not universally true within Islam:
According to the Qur'an, on the Last Day[Note 1] the world will be destroyed and all people and jinn[11] will be raised from the dead to be judged by Allah as to whether they deserved to be sent to paradise (Jannah) or hell.[12] Hell will be occupied by those who do not believe in God (Tawhid), have disobeyed His laws, and/or reject His messengers.[7] One group that will not have to wait until the Last Day to enter hell are "Enemies of Islam", who are sentenced immediately to Hell upon death.
In Islamic mythology/theology some prophets such as Muhammed and Idris observed people in Jahannam, thus people are not dammed to hell AFTER the day of judgment but also before (not limited to "enemies of Islam"). Remember that "Hell" is in Islamic mythology inside the earth before the day of judgment, but brought forth after that. Additionally, "the dead" are not dead in the sense of non-existing but are already on the otherside that can also be "Hell" (not the same as after the day of judgment). And who exactly goes to hell and who not is something up to theological issiues. For Ghazali for example, one does not neccessarly goes to hell, if he not goes to paradise. All these different point of views I tried to sum up in the "concept section", the only universal idea about Jahannam seems to be, that it is a place of punishment.(thats why I shortened the leadsection, after creating the "concept"-section).
Otherwise we could make two different pages one about "Jahannam" as the hell after the Last day, and the seven underworlds before the Last day.
VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute about the lede 

message: I still can not understand meaning of the "Christan Liberalism"-section.
On one hand, there is a Christian missionary called "Phil Parshall" (with disputed notability), who asserts that "he ever met a Muslim who has attempted to undercut the bluntness and severity of their doctrine of hell.", a statement with less significance since "not meeting such a Muslim" says nothing about the acutal Islamic beleive. For example, you can live in a village with the majority of Muslims, but no woman wears a niqab, although it is (of course) an Islam-related clothing. And on the otherhand, even without citing Mouchanad Kchoride, the article itself shows us, that there are metaphorical explanations of hell (for example among ahmadiyya muslims) but also made by Sufi-scholars much earlier. This seems to be not summary of religious comparation, but presenting different point of views within a "Islam-debate", like on the TV. That encyclopedic significance does the personal experience of a  Christian missionary has on this subject? Some counts for Kchoride who is jsut mentioned as a counterbalance for Parshalls thesis (he implied by his statment).
Next thing I that to dispute is the lead of this section:
"In modern times some Christians and Christian denominations (such as Universalism) have rejected the concept of hell as a place of suffering and torment for sinners on the grounds that it is incompatible with a loving god"
Even traditionalistic scholars (who are also forrunners of contemporary Wahhabism) such as Ibn Taymiyya hold, that Hell is not eternal not even for "unbelievers", because it would "match with God's mercy" (remember almost every surah invokes the names "rahman" and "rahim"). Accordingly such Universalistic thoughts were already present during the Middle ages in Islam, even made by conserative traditionalists but this introduction misleads to the image of Islam missing any such "universalistic ideas". And all this is even mentioned in the article (that's why I removed it before, since it is no all within the article mentioned, this section does not makes sense anymore).VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literalism comparative theology usefull? 

message: I see that this edit removed my insertion where I added two sentences about the pre-quranic history, about which, I think there is little doubt. The islamic notion of Jahannam has evolved from the concept of Gehinnom which the  the Babylonian talmud interprets as a post-mortem transcendental place of punishment, whose roots however are in the valley of Gei-ben-Hinnom first mentioned in 2 Kings as an accursed place where child sacrifices had taken place. This evolution from a physical location to a transcendental place of punishment is far more than just etymology. It is cultural evolution at work and therefore, I'd say, highly relevant. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh I see, I am sorry, thought it was turning the article into a dictionary entry. Didn't get the purpose, I am sorry. Yes, a historical context is important and the babylonian talmud played a significant role in developing Islamic cosmology.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Sounds like a good idea but I would have to do a bit of reading first, I think one should study the sources for Gehenna#Rabbinical_Judaism, Jewish eschatology and World to come, but I am not sure when I would have time to do so. Can't make any commitment right now. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development from Gehinnom to Jahannam isn't  just etymology 

message: Hello,
I wonder if there is too much about Iblis and his devils in hell. The section originally talked about that, in comparison to Christianity, Islam would not share the image of Satan ruling or inhabiting hell. Then some counter examples were added. Now it turned into a "Satan in hell"-section basially and only loosely talking about comparative religion. Only Dante's inferno is left. The rest is basically talking about Satan's position in hell, often fragmentarily clinched together. And I am not sure if these are actually all popular writings. A cosmological treatise concerning the seven earths often claim that hell is in the lowest earth and that Satan is in there, however, Satan usually doesn't appear in hell, when actually talking about hell. In hadiths, as far as I know, the devils are only imprisoned in hell during Ramazan/Ramadan. I would like to suggest to move parts of this to a seperate section, like "Inmates and their sins". Then, I suggest, we keep mentionings of Satan in the comparison-section to Dante's inferno and Kitab al-Azama.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satan in Hell 

message: Hello
The article is called "Jahannam" for the Islamic concept of hell in general. While it is true that this is the mostly used term for the concept of hell, precisely "jahannam" refers to the upper most layer of hell only. It is the purgatory for Muslims. Maybe the lack of importance for other hell's layers for Muslims is the reason why hell and jahannam or so ofted invoked synonymously. However, would it be worth to create a "jahannam" article for this hell's layer and rename this article, or rename this article in order to avoid the (wrongful) identification with Islam's hell with "jahannam"? Jahannam is also considered a beast sometimes, and it is thought to perish, while an-Nar is hold to be eternal for most.
Example for sources: "Roads to Paradise: Eschatology and Concepts of the Hereafter in Islam (2 Vols.): Volume 1: Foundations and Formation of a Tradition. Reflections on the Hereafter in the Quran and Islamic Religious Thought / Volume 2: Continuity and Change. The Plurality of Eschatological Representations in the Islamicate World. (2017). Niederlande: Brill. p.374"; Lange, C. (2016). Paradise and Hell in Islamic Traditions. Vereinigtes Königreich: Cambridge University Press. p.232"; "Gardet, L., “D̲j̲ahannam”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Consulted online on 18 January 2023 doi:10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_1930 First published online: 2012 First print edition: ISBN 9789004161214, 1960-2007" VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: While you are technically correct that Jahannam is only the upper layer of hell, that is a technical distinction that is largely lost on the masses. Jahannam is used colloquially to mean in the simple, common name sense. I would suggest leaving it as is and clarifying the finer details of the distinctions between the different names for hell in the etymology and general body material. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! People would probably just be confused otherwise. A stand alone article for the upper most layer is probably not worth it anyways. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hell (Islam)  redirects to Jahannam --Louis P. Boog (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming? "Hell (Islam)"