Talk:Jahannam: Difference between revisions

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)

Gates

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

7 is the right number here. Suleyman Habeeb 15:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Problem About the External Links Section

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)

thanks a lot to the brother who did teh necessary changes Suleyman Habeeb 19:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Rename

• Support --Striver 15:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction

A correction of facts for the most severe level of Hell. It is Hawiyah which is was translated by Yusuf Ali as "a bottomless Pit" and by Shakir as "the Abyss". The stated inhabitants are correct.

Huthamah is actually for those who hoard their wealth. Refer to Al-Humaza:2-6 (104:2-6)

Leaving the Jahannam

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)

The verses speak of the Kaafiroon, those who reject the Truth after knowing of it. This is their punishment, however for someone who did both good and bad but did not acheive Paradise it is possible and likely that they will be purified of their sins in the Fire and later enter Paradise. Musa as-Salafi 08:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that Islamic ideology stresses the Mercy of Allah, and that accordingly He can and by logic eventually forgive everyone who was condemned to Jahannam. ~~A Muslim~~ 74.181.32.91 (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is Shaitun?

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)

Cc Adi 8.38: ‘Chaitanya-mangala’ shune yadi pashandi, yavana seha maha-vaishnava haya tatakshana   If even a great atheist hears Shri Chaitanya-mangala, he immediately becomes a great devotee.   Cc Adi 8.40: Vrindavana-dasa-pade koti namaskara aiche grantha kari’ tenho tarila samsara   I offer millions of obeisances unto the lotus feet of Vrindavana dasa Thakura. No one else could write such a wonderful book for the deliverance of all fallen souls.

The kalpa is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā (8.17): sahasra-yuga-paryantam ahar yad brahmaṇo viduḥ. One day of Brahmā is called a kalpa. A yuga, or mahā-yuga, consists of 4,320,000 years, and one thousand such mahā-yugas constitute one kalpa. The author of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta says that if one does not take advantage of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, he cannot be delivered for millions of such kalpas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.126.140 (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Citations and References

Can someone please point out the wrongly given citations? Also can someone give an example of references that are from independant authors and third-party publications? It would help in improving the article. 119.154.24.200 (talk) 05:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources generally fall into three categories: primary, secondary, and tertiary. An example of primary sources would be direct citations of the Qur'an. Second-hand sources would be something akin to a specific scholar or cleric's commentary on the subject, such as the Mohd citation. Tertiary would be something that synthesizes, summarizes, or amalgamates primary and secondary sources, such as a dictionary, encyclopedia, or almanac, an example being the New Encyclopedia of Islam citation.

As the policy I linked will tell you, it is not encyclopedic to have an article such as this be almost entirely based on improper synthesis and excessive primary source usage. Peter Deer (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there a specific limit to how many times you can use a source whether it be primary, secondary or tertiary? 119.154.78.192 (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing quite so cut and dry, more that articles should not be dependent on or constructed almost entirely around a single source, and definitely not a primary source (though there is such a thing as too many inline citations - for instance, if you cited every occurrence in the Qur'an where it says "there is only one God" to verify a single sentence to that effect, it would be absurd. As with all things, the main concern is encyclopedic quality of content. Peter Deer (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If suppose someone uses the same tertiary source along with a primary source like the Qur'an, will that be acceptable. And is hadis and sunnah considered to be a primary source?119.154.50.56 (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That's quite tricky business. I would say that Hadith, as they are accounts by eyewitnesses and participants in the events (according to their own purport) that they qualify as primary sources. Generally speaking, articles should rely mostly on secondary sources, as primary sources such as the Qur'an and Hadith can be misinterpreted and put forth as original research. For instance, it would be inappropriate and unencyclopedic to cite Sahih Bukhari in the Moon article with the citation "The moon has been cut in half.^[1]" or, in a more pertinent example, to cite the Bible saying "Christians believe the kingdom of God to be a mustard seed^[2]" The difficulty with primary sources is using them in such a way that does not advance a particular position or belief in the matter, thus violating Wikipedia's policies of neutrality and no original research.

...suffice it to say, in my experience editing most of Wikipedia's Islam-related articles, that the Qur'an and Hadith are usually cited the wrong way, and too much at that. Peter Deer (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What about Islamic exegesis, does it count as a primary source and what about this article [1], does it count as secondary source? 119.154.9.199 (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Exegesis is secondary, Encyclopedia are tertiary sources (Iranica cites a number of secondary sources in its articles, and generally it is better to use it and compendia like it as a means of finding secondary sources to cite...much like using Wikipedia for research, actually.) Iranica is commonly cited, and would be appropriate for broad summaries. Peter Deer (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Does the Exegesis need to come from an 'official' site or any site using it can be cited? Is it allowed to cite different exegesis on the same subject to prove a point? Can you give an example of how to write the Exegesis on the article. 119.154.8.37 (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:RELIABLE and WP:CITE are the ones to look at for those. Peter Deer (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"Double standard" is seen here. Someone removed contents he disliked, such as "According to Sahih Bukhari 4:54:483 to 4:54:486, Muhammad said that fever is from the heat of the hell, and may be cooled with water.", while some other sections of the article using refs citing the Quran and hadiths are spared. --Mewaqua (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research:

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.

Wikipedia:Policy shopping:

Usually it starts off as a violation of maintaining a neutral point of view. You source the statements proving it isn't a violation, and suddenly it's a violation of WP:Reliable sources. You double check your sources, find additional sources, and ensure they are all within WP:RS, and suddenly it's a violation of WP:WEASEL, WP:NOT, or something as ridiculous as a WikiProject's style guides. If all else fails, the user making the object resorts to simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments.

--Mewaqua (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Claimed*(Is this even Wiki speak?)

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)

Can Suicide Be Forgiven Or Not?

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)

---

Suicide is a Major Sin, That means it "can" be forgiven by Allah. At the same time, Some Muslim sinners will spend time in Hell for their sins before entering Jannah.--Mando Salama (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)