Talk:Jahannam

Quran

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)

Qur'an citations

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)

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)

Christian Lange is not a credible source for the Location of Hell in Islam. Citation 10 is to be reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.41.212.116 (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is your objection for Christian Lange as source for studies of Islamic hell ?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2019 (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)

Edit Suggestion

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)

Deleting Answering Islam

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)

Picture of Muhammed (SAW)

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)

Clearly images and depictions of the prophet are not as strictly forbidden in Islam as you believe, as this image was created by a Muslim. 2602:306:CF44:A3B0:18F4:CA2C:1DE0:7AD9 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

description?

It´s a long article but seems to be largely related to primary sources. It often argues with "the Quran says" or "the hadith says" and even the other sources often just refer directly to the primary sources. It seems to be described superficially. It explains in detail the punishment in the Quran (even twice) for "unbelievers" according to (some) Islam beliefs, but does not show the meaning of it and how it affected the actual belief in Islam. (have sunni and shia the same imagination of hell? Are there any allegories? influences from Judaism? and so on...) Maybe some parts (like the second explaination of punishments mentioned in the Quran) can be deleteted and chapters for the differenct views of different schools be added? --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed it replies too much on primary sources. I have tried to add secondary sources.

But long article? Not by wikiped standards.

It explains in detail the punishment in hell as described by the Quran? But that is a large part of what the Quran (and hadith) has to say about jahannam or the fire.

needs to say whether sunni and shia have the same imagination of hell? Are there any allegories? influences from Judaism? and so on... If you have that information please add it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"literalism" usefull?

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)

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)

rewriting by VenusFeuerFalle

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)

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)

well thank you for the thanks but I'm restoring what you deleted. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

More dispute

Edit summary by VenusFeuerFalle:
(‎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?)
A tag message in the text reads:
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:

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,
"... To begin with, Hell is not the headquarters of Shaytan and his devils as is the popular idea in Western culture. ..."
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!

This is not the way to edit in wikipedia VenusFeuerFalle. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Dispute about the lede

Editor VenusFeuerFalle deleted (for the second time) a couple of paragraphs in the lede.
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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Literalism comparative theology usefull?

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)

Development from Gehinnom to Jahannam isn't just etymology

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)

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) edit: Could you add how the Jewish "hell" developed into Jahannam? I guess this would contribute much to the article.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: 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)

Satan in Hell

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)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Colgate University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Renaming? "Hell (Islam)"

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)

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)

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)

Hell (Islam) redirects to Jahannam --Louis P. Boog (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)