Talk:Jannah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

The reason goes back to two simple words: Jannah and Ahbitu, both found in 2:35 and 2:36 respectively. The word Jannah means "garden." Allah put Adam and his wife, Hawwa in a garden. The word for Heaven in Arabic is not Jannah, although it is sometimes synonymous. The word most accurately used for the next life is "Akhirah" or "Next (world)" The only time the word Jannah is used when talking about the next life is to emphasize that it will be like a beautiful garden, even better than what we have on earth. It must be pointed out that in Surah 18, Allah uses the word Jannah to refer to both a garden on Earth as well as one in Heaven. (See the story of the Owners of the Garden. (18:31-32) Jannah is a generic term for place of beautiful plant life.

http://www.islamicedfoundation.com/articles/article3.htm

--Striver 19:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? I suggest a page move then. Zazaban 15:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What about a proper etymology then? The reason I ask is because I read somewhere (I forget where) that Jannah and Jinn are derived from the same root, being that Jannah, in this life, is something unseen. I don't know if thats correct. So basically I want someone else to do all the work :P Theonlykman 00:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] I Delete the climate description.

Hey, in the descriptions of heavens i delete the information about the climate. It does'nt mention which surah and ayat it is taken from, and i could'nt find it in the holy quran, so this climate information has no basis.

[edit] Sexual companionship?

I have to object to this section: "The hadith also strongly support a belief in an element of sexual companionship. Collected by Imam at-Tirmidhi in "Sunan" (Volume IV, Chapters on "The Features of Heaven as described by the Messenger of Allah", Chapter 21: "About the Smallest Reward for the People of Heaven", hadith 2687) and also quoted by Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir (Qur'anic Commentary) of Surah Rahman (55), ayah (verse) 72: “ "It was mentioned by Daraj Ibn Abi Hatim, that Abu al-Haytham 'Adullah Ibn Wahb narrated from Abu Sa'id al-Khudhri, who heard the Prophet Muhammad saying, 'The smallest reward for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are eighty thousand servants and seventy two houri, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine and ruby, as wide as the distance from al-Jabiyyah to San'a. „"

Not only is the conclusion that "ahadith strongly support a belief in an element of sexual companionship" not sourced, but nowhere in the hadith cited is sexual companionship explicitly mentioned. Hoor can simply be a "pure companion". Some think this connotes sexual virginity, but others believe that it means spiritual purity. The allusion to sexuality in Jannah is metaphorical. Intercourse is arguably the pinnacle of human physical pleasure. As such it makes a good metaphor to describe the metaphysical pleasure that a believer can attain in Heaven.Theonlykman 00:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality in the Islamic heaven is not a metaphor. See: Houri#Sex in paradise. Infact that reminds me I should copy over some descriptions there to this page as well. From that article "Muhammed saying that men in heaven would have sex with one hundred virgins in one day". There ya go, thats not metamorphical now is it? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wine

Arrow740, do you really want the simple paragraph expanded with full primary/secondary/tertiary sources? I do have them but didn't think it would be such a controversial issue. Why is it a problem if its non-intoxicating? We could do the same for every word in that list and I don't think that would be productive to the article. → AA (talk • contribs) — 19:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not in the same surah, so there is a good chance of contradiction. Get an RS. Arrow740 22:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You know its kind of funny. To say that the wine will be non-intoxicating, its like saying "a poison that doesnt kill", or "a red hot iron rod which doesnt burn", or "a ball of cotton which isnt soft". If wine isnt intoxicating, its not wine anymore, its just Gatorade.
Anyway, AA - I'm seeing the verse. The non-intoxication does not refer to wine, but to some kind of water. See:
037.045 
YUSUFALI: Round will be passed to them a Cup from a clear-flowing fountain, 
PICKTHAL: A cup from a gushing spring is brought round for them, 
SHAKIR: A bowl shall be made to go round them from water running out of springs, 

037.046 
YUSUFALI: Crystal-white, of a taste delicious to those who drink (thereof), 
PICKTHAL: White, delicious to the drinkers, 
SHAKIR: White, delicious to those who drink.

037.047
YUSUFALI: Free from headiness; nor will they suffer intoxication therefrom.
PICKTHAL: Wherein there is no headache nor are they made mad thereby.
SHAKIR: There shall be no trouble in it, nor shall they be exhausted therewith.
See, this is NOT wine as you can see. To suggest that it is, is definitely OR. Any comments? What you can do here, is add another entry for some "Non-intoxicating water" and qoute this verse.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
"Non-intoxicating water"? Water is by its nature non-intoxicating. So, there would be no need to mention it (which is in the final verse of the ref cite above). There are, I'm sure many scholarly commentary, on the above verses and since, due to the rewrite, it's currently not needed, I'll just point to the the following secondary source: Death and Islamic Understanding of Afterlife - Heaven And Hell. Science Encyclopedia.
For discussions on how wine can be non-intoxicating read up on the US Prohibition era - for your benefit here's a starting point: Woodcock & Grapemen. Time.
→ AA (talk • contribs) — 08:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Well the evolution of Muhammad's thought on alcohol is plain to see in the Quran, and it's amusing how contradictory the final result is. Your point on wine is well-taken, if it weren't for the mind-altering quality of it, it wouldn't be drunk. Arrow740 23:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If wine isnt intoxicating, its not wine anymore, its just Gatorade.<---

gatorade doesn't taste like wine. but I think, it's not that the wine intoxicating (well, maybe it is, but that's not the point).. even if it toxicating, people in jannah couldn't sleep, couldn't be exhausted, and of course couldn't be drunk.N-K Person 17:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Itaqallah's rewrite

I see Itaqallah has conveniently taken out the hadith where it was mentioned that people would have sex in heaven. Although it was a good rewrite, it has taken out some important facts and details out of the article. I will deal with this 'softening' of the article later. Sex in Jannah is elaborate in detail in Islam; there are many hadiths for it and so it deserves its own section. I'll make such a section at some point. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

i "conveniently" took out all the primary sources, the mention of intercourse still remains (in the way EoI expressed it). i don't see any justification for a section on "Sex in Jannah", while it may perhaps be something of personal interest to you, the EoI (the best source we could be using here) certainly doesn't apply any excessive weight in that direction. ITAQALLAH 00:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Primary sources can be used. The rest of what you said is not true as well. You have took out hadiths and everything and all the important details disappeared from the article. They'll come back when I make that section. By the way what policy can you give to justify your "rewrite"? If its not supported by policy, it should be reverted. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Please also apply your rewrite engine to the huge Conditions quotefarm. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
see WP:V and WP:RS. the aim is to base our reporting on reliable secondary sources, not on primary sources. as for your second comment, the EoI discusses mainly descriptions (actually, the EoI says virtually nothing about conditions of acceptance). but i'll give that a go too sometime. ITAQALLAH 01:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not forbidden to use primary sources. I've moved the Conditions back to the bottom until its rewritten. That doesnt look good at the top. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
well as the core content policies say, we should rely on reliable secondary sources. i don't see any pressing need for primary source usage, except that you want to emphasise a particular aspect of your own choosing (see WP:UNDUE). primary texts describe paradise itself and its various aspects in significant detail (as EoI states), not just intercourse. as for your move, i don't really mind either way for now. ITAQALLAH 01:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
As I said, its not forbidden to use primary sources. If we find secondary sources, its better, but its not the only option. Well yes, other aspects should also be explained in more details where possible. If detail doesnt exist for anything, thats what it is. I was asking for policies to support your rewrite. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heaven -> Paradise

Jannah is commonly translated as "Paradise" not "Heaven". Thus, I'll change the wording.Vice regent 20:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Firdaws is the source of the English term Paradise, or at least both share a common source. If it's true, this is worth mentioning. Laughlaugh (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)