Talk:Angels in Islam

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.--68.92.95.219 (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)

I think this article has too much wrong informations, first of all what are these photos? These aren't existing in Islam, according to Islam, we don't know the view of the angels, we just know that they are helping the only god ALLAH and they are created by the light. Don't let everyone to write a article about religions, please.

91.63.227.71 (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Disputed angels

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)

Edit War over the image

@Canistia and @Iskandar323

There have been compelling arguements for the image suggested by Iskandar323. Canistia's arguement for reverting Iskandar's suggestion is that the consensus was made on another article. However, I wonder how such a discussion would end up differently here? Can't we just transfer the conclusion from the other article to this one? Why should Canistia's suggestion be preferred on this article? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and, in fact, raising an almost identical discussion to the existing discussion on this talk page would essentially be a WP:FORUMSHOP and a waste of community time. I see that Canistia has raised a point about not using the same image on multiple images, but if that's in a guideline, it's one I'm unfamiliar with, and nothing in my experience suggests it is even remotely the case. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Though incidentally, even based on that newly proferred point, are least two other novel angel imagery candidates were provided in the pre-existing discussion, so that still would not justify reverting to the anatomically bogus image. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I see that in the previous discussion, there is an image of an angel used previously on this article. I wonder why it has been removed. Couldn't we just use the one with the yellow background instead again? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, now that you mention it, I recall the main image being that other picture. It appears a now-blocked editor switched the image here on 5 Feb in an summary-less edit as part of a series of similar problematic edits. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Individual Angels

I have a question regarding the list of angels: The list mentions the Cherubim and Seraphim (those around the throne), and the archangels respectively. However, the archangels and the "angels around the throne" are usually considered to be of the same order (muqaribiyun). Would it make sense to move them up the the Archangel-Section above or to give a briad introduction into "God's Near Angels" (which are basically the Islamic coutnerpart of "Archangels") or should we just leave it that way until better sources are available? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Invalid revert

@Simple non combat the recent removal of concent are supported by the guidlines mentioned in the edit-summary. I want to point out that you have failed to provide any of them in your revert of my removal. In good faith I want to kindly remind you to legimate your reverts.

If you have questions regarding those reverts, you can use section for discussion. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)