Talk:Houri

Metaphor

It is probably a metaphor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.68.214 (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

72?

Erm...I don't know if anyone has highlighted this part of the subject matter, but I'll ask anyway with no offensive intent whatsoever;

Why 72? Why is the specified quantity made or established to be 72...?

88.105.103.13 (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not well versed in Islam, but I believe the reference to 72 virgins is not from the Koran, but rather from the Hadith (a collection of traditional sayings attributed to Muhammad -- with some measure of argument about their validity among scholars). Hadith number 2,562 in the collection known as the Sunan al-Tirmidhi says, "The least [reward] for the people of Heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby." Mkultra007 (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This may have nothing to do with anything other than to show that in that day 72 parts of a thing was a subdivision of something:

"In late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, the solidus also functioned as a unit of weight equal to 1/72 of a pound."

Ref for this is wikipdias article on the Roman Coin Solidus

John5Russell3Finley (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I've often wondered if there is any Islamic commentary on 72, specifically. Other than being a multiple of 12, I have no clue. kencf0618 (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

70?

I always heard 72 up until news started coming in from the Iraq War, and then all of a sudden it seemed like it was always 70 ... now it's 72 again. In a Google Bash I get 113,000 for "70 virgins" vs. 237,000 for "72 virgins" (i.e. 1/3 vs. 2/3). Where does the 70 figure come from? Wnt (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Improve Hadith Section

The Houri#Hadith Section could do with rewriting. The grammar makes what little content there is quite difficult to read. Moreover, it doesn't give a clear explanation of what a Hadith is. 62.6.149.17 (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Baha'i

The separate article Maid of Heaven (Bahá'í) has been created now. Wiki-uk (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Confusing intro

The intro says "denoting humans and jinn who enter paradise after being recreated anew in the hereafter.[6]" - I found this confusing as it sounds like these are regular people (Muslim men and women)... whereas elsewhere it seems like they are companions for Muslims who have entered paradise.

Is this saying that they were actually humans and jinn on earth? --Chriswaterguy talk 23:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why you find that confusing, meanwhile there is plenty of text in the body that support the idea that they are regular people. Read below what I copied from the main page. As matter of fact companionship and regular people are not contradictory by any means. You can be a companion and a regular person all in one. They are the Muslims that enter paradise among humans and jinns according to the text, and they are companion to each other. Someone can be called a regular person or jinn and a companion (friend), they are two qualities that the same individual can possess. Companionship means friendship. Unless you have some other meaning to being a companion, which in this case there is not, there is no ambiguity here. Where is the confusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentoftruth (talk • contribs) 19:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it confusing as well. I expect the intro to tell me what are we talking about and some context. None found in this intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.208.240 (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Qur'an: "And [with them will be their] spouses, raised high: for, behold, We shall have brought them into being in a life renewed, having resurrected them as virgins [Chapter (Surah) Al-Waqi'a (The Event)(56):34-36] And among His wonders is this: He creates for you mates out of your own kind [min anfusikum azwajan, Lit. “from among yourselves mates (spouses, one of the pair)”] so that you might incline towards them, and He engenders love and tenderness between you: in this, behold, there are messages indeed for people who think! ... And He it is who creates [all life] in the first instance, and then brings it forth anew: and most easy is this for Him, since His is the essence of all that is most sublime in the heavens and on earth, and He alone is almighty, truly wise. [Chapter (Surah) Ar-Rum (The Romans)(30):21...27][37]

Hadith: Al-Hasan Al-Basri says that an old woman came to the messenger of Allah and made a request, O’ Messenger of Allah make Dua that Allah grants me entrance into Jannah. The messenger of Allah replied, O’ Mother, an old woman cannot enter Jannah. That woman started crying and began to leave. The messenger of Allah said, Say to the woman that one will not enter in a state of old age, but Allah will make all the women of Jannah young virgins. Allah Ta’aala says, Lo! We have created them a (new) creation and made them virgins, lovers, equal in age. (Surah Waaqi’ah, 35-37).[50]

Companions: Damrah bin Habib was asked if the Jinns will enter Paradise and he said,`Yes, and they will get married. The Jinns will have Jinn women and the humans will have female humans. quoted by Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir (Qur'anic Commentary) of Surah Rahman (55), ayah (verse) 56 In these [gardens - paradise] will be mates of modest gaze, whom neither man nor invisible being [Jinn] will have touched them then [after they have been created again].[57]

Companions of companions Al-Hasan Al-Basri said that the word houri implies the righteous women among mankind who are rewarded with paradise as related in the Tafsir of Tabari quoted by Muhammad Asad in his tafsir "Message of Quran"[31] concerning the following ayah: We have created [their Companions] of special creation, and made them virgin-pure [and undefiled after their old age in this life] (Qur’an, Surah Al-Waqia(56):35-36 Ibn Sirin mentions Abu Huraira using houri to solve a dispute of whether there are more women or men going to paradise.[55]

Explainers of the Qur'an Tabari Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari mentions that all righteous women, however old and decayed they may have been on earth, will be resurrected as virginal maidens and will, like their male counterparts, remain eternally young in paradise.[31] Ibn Kathir says that the houri "are delightful virgins of comparable age who never had sexual intercourse with anyone, whether from mankind or Jinns, before their husbands."[58] by commenting,"in the other life, after they became old in this life, they were brought back while virgin, youthful, being delightfully passionate with their husbands, beautiful, kind and cheerful."[56] Al-Qurtubi reconciled between the hadith of making the majority of the habitants of Hell and Paradise women by suggesting that the women that will form the majority in hell will be among the sinners that will stay there temporarily and will be brought out of Hell and enter Paradise. Thereafter the majority of the people of Paradise will be women.[59] Fakhr al-Din al-Razi comments that the companions of paradise mentioned in Qur'an 44:54 include “[even] those toothless old women of yours whom God will resurrect as new beings”[60] and observes that inasmuch as a person’s eye reflects his soul more clearly than any other part of the human body in Qur'an 52: 20.[31]

It is very clear that by all the above means of explanation these are regular people meaning regular humans and jinn living in paradise after being resurrected again. So to answer your question "yes they were actual humans and jinn on earth and they are still humans and jinn but now not on earth but in paradise Studentoftruth (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The companions are feminine in gender. Read the Quran Arabic corpus and find the form of the noun used. It is feminine. Do not remove contributions that have a factual support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyTwoCopperCoins (talk • contribs) 23:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly contradicting the following section in the main article and creating a lot of confusion:

Classical Arabic usage

According to classical Arabic usage in the time when the Qur'an was recited by Muhammad, Hur'in is made of two words Hur as well as In. The word 'Hur' is the plural of both Ahwar (Masculine) and Hawra (Feminine) which literally translates as "white-eyed", or persons distinguished by Hawar, signifying "intense whiteness of the eyeballs and lustrous black of the pupils." (ref: Qamus ), hence 'the purity' (ref: Tafsir al'Tabari, and Tafsir al-Razi in 3:52). And as for the phrase, "In it is the plural of both 'Ayan' (Masculine) and 'Ainao' (Feminine)", it was also used to refer to the beautiful eyes of the wild-cow whose eyes are blond. In general, this word implies 'most beautiful eye' irrespective of the person's gender. Thus, it seems that the most appropriate English rendering of the compound word Hur'In might be: "Companions pure, most beautiful of eye." and it is applicable to both male and female.

Even though parts of Qur'an talk to the male figure there is a clear message that includes both humans.

For example:

The Believers, men and women, are protectors one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practise regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His mercy: for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise. ( سورة التوبة , At-Taubah, Chapter 9, Verse 71)

Allah hath promised to Believers, men and women, gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein, and beautiful mansions in gardens of everlasting bliss. But the greatest bliss is the good pleasure of Allah. that is the supreme felicity. ( سورة التوبة , At-Taubah, Chapter 9, Verse 72)

women impure are for men impure, and men impure for women impure and women of purity are for men of purity, and men of purity are for women of purity: these are not affected by what people say: for them there is forgiveness, and a provision honourable. ( سورة النور , An-Noor, Chapter 24, Verse 26)

For Muslim men and women,- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah.s praise,- for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward. ( سورة الأحزاب , Al-Ahzab, Chapter 33, Verse 35)

and so on, verses are numerous. Unless you have evidence that exemptions are made based on gender, the general principle is that is refers to both genders even though it is addressing the man.

Are only the females going to be ressurected as virgins as the Qur'an says? The clear answer is NO!!! Males will be resurrected as virgins too. Recreation is for both. Unless you have evidence to suggest males are not going to be virgins and pure when resurrected, you are relying on mere allusion.

Read the following hadith:

Narrated 'Aisha: Allah's Apostle said, "The people will be gathered barefooted, naked, and uncircumcised." I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Will the men and the women look at each other?" He said, "The situation will be too hard for them to pay attention to that." (Sahih Bukhari, Book 76, Hadith 34)

What is "uncircumcised" referring to? To males ONLY. But then how does the question go "Will the men and the women look at each other?" So even though it talks about the qualities of a group of people in this case males (uncircumcised, virgins) it means even the women which by the way don't get circumcised as the males do.

The point you are trying to make is included in the Qur'an section, read it carefully:

...although their descriptive qualities are feminine, as alluded to, by the Hadiths...

So it is the descriptive qualities and not the words itself feminine gender to start with!!! I think you can understand that gender specific descriptive qualities do not necessarily say that the other gender is not included, that is why after so many verses referring to the male figure, all other verses affirming same thing for females and males alike were revealed, because some people insinuated the same thing you are trying to do.

(Studentoftruth (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

Islamic female circumcision exists and is practised by Muslims in several countries. Circumcised cannot only refer to males, in such a context.

In Surah 78:33, the noun for the Arabic word relating to "companion" is feminine, the words describe feminine attributes and the traditional acceptance has been of the "companions" being feminine - to the point that barely any Hadiths (if any, even) speak of them in the masculine sense. Your explanation of the "descriptive qualities" is weak, and without any basis.

"Women of purity for men of purity" has no bearing on the fact that the "companions" are terminologically feminine, as women according to the Quran enjoin their husbands in "paradise", the latter additionally receiving the feminine "companions". Islamic polygamy supports this conclusion, and refutes your weak argument thoroughly.

Selectively deeming Hadiths as "weak" or "strong" is used as a tactic to "justify" anything. --MyTwoCopperCoins (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Female circumcision has never been established in Islam, practiced by many people as happen to be Muslims but in a traditional sense in those regions is practiced by people of other religions. Go do your own research on the topic if not convinced. No one is saying houri are not female and that is human recreated females...but what you claim is that males are excluded from the general meaning... houri itself is not feminine in gender. I told you in most cases Qur'an addresses the males but it is made clear within the same book that does not mean the females are excluded.

Of course companions of males are gonna be females and vice versa, do you see any verse where says females are gonna have female companions? I have no patience to discuss polygamy now, but to say that as much as it allows, the wife can put in her contract of marriage that the husband marries no other female beside her. This is a long discussion...but Qur'an says it is closer to justice to marry one. How you missed that part, I wonder in your selective readings.

Descriptive qualities are well established in grammar as often as two people are referred with same name! Go learn some classical arabic grammar before you claim anything.

Hadiths are a science of their own! I do not have time to explain you this well-established science. Read on your own!

Then have you read in main article pair?

"Thus shall it be. And We shall pair(zawajnahoom: pair them, marry them). Note zawj (lit., “a pair” or - according to the context - “one of a pair”) applies to either of the two sexes,a man to a woman and a woman to a man, as does the transitive verb zawaja, “he paired” or “joined”, i.e., one person with another)them with companions pure, most beautiful of eye."[Chapter (Surah) Ad-Dukhan (The Smoke)(44):54]

"And [with them will be their] spouses, raised high: for, behold, We shall have brought them into being in a life renewed, having resurrected them as virgins [Chapter (Surah) Al-Waqi'a (The Event)(56):34-36]

And among His wonders is this: He creates for you mates out of your own kind [min anfusikum azwajan, Lit. “from among yourselves mates (spouses, one of the pair)”] so that you might incline towards them, and He engenders love and tenderness between you: in this, behold, there are messages indeed for people who think! ... And He it is who creates [all life] in the first instance, and then brings it forth anew: and most easy is this for Him, since His is the essence of all that is most sublime in the heavens and on earth, and He alone is almighty, truly wise. [Chapter (Surah) Ar-Rum (The Romans)(30):21...27]

Houri are female humans (not additional non-human companions (!?!)) as you claim. According to leading tafsir and Muslim scholars. Abu Ubayda said that the recreated women of this life referring to

"We have created [their Companions] of special creation, and made them virgin-pure [and undefiled after their old age in this life] (Qur’an, Surah Al-Waqia(56):35-36)

were mentioned in the previous verse:

"And Hur (fair females) with wide lovely eyes. Like preserved pearls."(Qur'an, Surah Al-Waqia(56):22)

quoted by Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir (Qur'anic Commentary) of Surah Waqia (56), ayah (verse) 35-36

Artat bin Al-Mundhir said:

"Damrah bin Habib was asked if the Jinns will enter Paradise and he said,`Yes, and they will get married. The Jinns will have Jinn women and the humans will have female humans. ' "

quoted by Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir (Qur'anic Commentary) of Surah Rahman (55), ayah (verse) 56:

"In these [gardens - paradise] will be mates of modest gaze, whom neither man nor invisible being [Jinn] will have touched them then [after they have been created again]."

Female humans and jinn humans, that die and have been resurrected as the males, not additional whatever...companions, humans are humans...is it unclear what a resurrected female human is or a resurrected male human for that matter?

Al-Hasan Al-Basri said that the word houri implies the righteous women among mankind who are rewarded with paradise as related in the Tafsir of Tabari quoted by Muhammad Asad in his tafsir "Message of Quran" concerning the following ayah: Same for males:

Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari mentions that all righteous women, however old and decayed they may have been on earth, will be resurrected as virginal maidens and will, like their male counterparts, remain eternally young in paradise. comparable age who never had sexual intercourse with anyone, whether from mankind or Jinns, before their husbands."

Ibn Kathir says that the houri "are delightful virgins of comparable age who never had sexual intercourse with anyone, whether from mankind or Jinns, before their husbands." by commenting,"in the other life, after they became old in this life, they were brought back while virgin, youthful, being delightfully passionate with their husbands, beautiful, kind and cheerful."

Fakhr al-Din al-Razi comments that the companions of paradise mentioned in Qur'an 44:54 include “[even] those toothless old women of yours whom God will resurrect as new beings” and observes that inasmuch as a person’s eye reflects his soul more clearly than any other part of the human body in Qur'an 52: 20.

These are well known Muslim scholars. If you do not have the slightest idea, go to a library and read about them. I can assure you they are not some made up website mistranslating words.

I do not see "additional" nowhere in Qur'an! I wanna know where this "additional" is, if anywhere at all.(Studentoftruth (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC))

References

Christoph Luxenberg

This article does not have any reference to the new interpretation and translation of German scholar Christoph Luxenberg (author of The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran) which derives the word "houri" (which does not have an Arabic etymology) from Aramaic and Syro-Aramaic Christian mythology and translates it as "grapes in paradise". See this YouTube video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.138.124 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hadith

According to WP:ISLAMOR, hadith alone should only be used when quoted by secondary sources. This article contains a large amount of hadith quotes that are both without secondary sources and superfluous.Bless sins (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Verses of Chapter named Romans in the Qur'an

And among His wonders is this: He creates for you mates out of your own kind^C so that you might incline towards them, and He engenders love and tenderness between you: in this, behold, there are messages indeed for people who think! ... And He it is who creates [all life] in the first instance, and then brings it forth anew: and most easy is this for Him, since His is the essence of all that is most sublime in the heavens and on earth, and He alone is almighty, truly wise.

— Quran, sura 30 (Ar-Rum), ayat 21...27

These verses state that God creates mates out of their own kind. Humans are created for humans and jinn for jinn. The scholar Ibn Kathir explains verse 21 of Chapter Romans in the Qur'an in his tafsir (commentary) as such:

"This refers to Hawwa'. Allah created her from Adam, from the short rib on his left. If Allah had made all of Adam's progeny male, and created the females from another kind, such as from Jinn or animals, there would never have been harmony between them and their spouses. There would have been revulsion if the spouses had been from a different kind. Out of Allah's perfect mercy He made their wives from their own kind, and created love and kindness between them."

Verse 27 of the same chapter (The Romans) in Qur'an emphasizes the easiness of the repetition of creation of God. Since what he created a first time has been done and noone can deny that, then a second time is as easy. Ibn Kathir comments on this verse:

"(And He it is Who originates the creation, then He will repeat it; and this is easier for Him.) Ibn Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said, "This means it is easier for Him. Mujahid said: "Repeating it is easier for Him than originating it, and originating it is easy for Him. This was also the view of `Ikrimah and others. Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, said that the Prophet said:"(Allah says; "The son of Adam denied Me, and he had no right to do so. And he reviled Me, and he had no right to do so. As for his denying Me, it is his saying: `He will not remake me as He originated me' -- while originating the creation is not easier for Me than re-creating him. ..."

This shows that even in paradise, houri as a word of its own meaning refers to humans and jinns (not just humans), but as explained in the main text by another commentary of Ibn Kathir, humans will be married to humans and jinn will be married to jinn.

Artat bin Al-Mundhir said:

Damrah bin Habib was asked if the Jinns will enter Paradise and he said, 'Yes, and they will get married. The Jinns will have Jinn women and the humans will have female humans.'

— Ibn Kathir, Tafsir ibn Kathir

Quoted by Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir ibn Kathir of sura Rahman (55), ayah (verse) 56:

In these [gardens - paradise] will be mates of modest gaze, whom neither man nor invisible being [Jinn] will have touched them then [after they have been created again].

— Ibn Kathi, Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Thus, the verses should remain in the text as their meaning explains and support essential aspects of the article.

Studentoftruth (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Terrorism

It is said that that terrorists are heavily influenced by this 72 virgin theory. It should be added.Ovsek (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

not done it isnt actually true. They believe that they will get afterlife even though they kill muslims and others plus do haram deeds which means they are gonna go to hell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.204.195 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Article semi-protected for a couple of days to prevent the continued unexplained blanking of sourced content . The article may well need a cleanup, but significant content removals need to be discussed here on the talk page so consensus can be obtained.

Edit requests can also be made here on the talk page in the usual manner. Happy to discuss if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV? Attention from an expert may be needed.

I have some concern that this article does not present a neutral point of view. In particular, it appears that a lot of the citations are from biased sites (many of which are to dead or broken links, and need to be repaired), and the overall tone of the article seems implicitly condemnatory. I'm not religious, let alone Islamic, but I am concerned that the article is not very neutral. Moreover, it relies heavily on direct quotes without much information on the various interpretations of these texts. Many verses are provided, but there is a lack of scholarly input about them. I'm also concerned that this article reads too much like an essay or report, and isn't very encyclopedic. Should I also tag this article as such? I'm no expert in Islam, and especially not of the houri, but I think this article could benefit from an expert review. Having said that, should I mark this article with NPOV and requiring attention from an expert? Or no? Any input is appreciated. Lastly, considering all these problems, maybe we should downrank this to C-Class status? –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 08:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Houri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061015071335/http://www.npwj.org/?q=node/2027 to http://www.npwj.org//?q=node/2027

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The promise of Houri in motivating martyrdom

Note: I raise this issue in all due respect to Muslims and Islam.

It is very common for people to say that a terrorist is (supposedly) motivated by the promise of 72 virgins. I don't think I'm exaggerating to say that I have heard this said hundreds of times.

I'd like to see this issue directly addressed in this article.

• Do modern terrorists think they will be rewarded with virgins? (Even as un-Muslim as that might be.)
• Do some mullahs teach this? Or sects of Islam that believe it?
• If not, how did this cultural meme get started among non-Muslims?
• What do mainstream Muslims think about it?
• Are there Quranic verses that refute it?

PS: I appreciated this article. It's well written and I wish I had found it years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.68.216 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that foot soldier Terrorists (versus planners) are often not the brightest most well-informed members of Islam. Nor are the their few sponsoring Imams necessarily mainstream Islam. In fact if you believe spokesmen for Westernized Islam, terrorists groups are really various unofficial layman Islamic organizations. But more importantly, do intelligent Muslims really think there is sex in heaven given that the direct obscured presence of Allah is far better than sex? Why does sex in paradise matter? Perhaps all the rewards stated are merely an allegorical way of saying that believers will be valued and respected by Allah to a level as if these material rewards were given on Earth. Or maybe terrorists understand that and simply realize that materialistic Western atheists need simplistic statements of material rewards as an explanation.

As to the 70 versus 72. I suspect that is merely sloppy reporting by Western journalists to whom the difference is insignificant or poor translation. As to why 72? Probably partially a cultural lucky number like 3 or 7 or 9 or 13 (paganist references slipping into scripture speaking in common cultural terms as part of proselytizing) then reinforced by references to mythical iconic harem owners. Some historical Islamic rulers were known to have harems so large that some wives were never actually encountered (too many). So 72 is probably the upper limit ascribed to one or more historical Islam figures who supposedly used their entire harem - an average of 5 nights per year if only one on one. 70.114.136.69 (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I cant understand what you want to say. Btw, Allah/Muhammad taught his followers that they will get 72 virgins. Simple! Swingoswingo (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Contemporary psychology in The Quran.

A common idea in contemporary psychology is also that "sexual deviance" is where "the demons go". Which really is taught by The Quran aswell. Shaytan is an idolater. And many men complain about a wife with ideas that hamper their sexual life, such as supposedly feminism and womens causes. The Huri in this context, becomes ofcourse a paradisical idea of good and natural sex, unhampered by idols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.164.8 (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Muslim Issue

Whether 72 Houri is given to Muslim martyrs, after their death.It is debate over the Hadith and this is Muslim issue or debate not a Non Muslim issue.Those who claim Muslim martyrs get Houris are also Muslims. As a Shia Muslim currently working in the Thousand Lights Mosque in Chennai.It is wrong to say Non Muslims claim this.Mohammed rasool ahmed (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Houri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060404091305/http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1PRPhenixHorn.html to http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1PRPhenixHorn.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927000819/http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=996 to http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=996

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

POV issue

Article needs a NPOV section of the use/misuse of this concept by advocates of violent jihad and terrorism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but this doesn't seem to be an NPOV dispute. Eperoton (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Insofar as a glaring omission slants the POV of an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Original research

Much of this article is original research, where the editor has interpreted the Qur'an and the hadith to describe the Islamic concept of Houris. The article must use scholarly, secondary sources instead.Bless sins (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep. The article is on my to-do list and I've rounded up a few academic sources, which I can share privately if anyone else is interested in working on it. Eperoton (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Page views

Leo1pard (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Repeated attempts to make this article messy

A user who appears to operate out of his or her account has repeatedly done edits like:

• Scattering information of the Quran here and there,
• Disregarding the alphabetical order of links to other articles,
• Putting the word 'bject' next to a category,
• Making references non-linear.

I would like to ask, what is the point of edits like this, in case s/he attempts to do it again? Leo1pard (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Error in verse 55:72

On this article, there is an error in quoted verse, 55:72. Please the reference to this page. It should be : حُورٌ مَّقْصُورَاتٌ فِي الْخِيَامِ ---٧٢ http://tanzil.net/#55:72

Thank you.

Houris = Nymphs?

Our page states that: "In Greek mythology, a nymph is any member of a large class of female nature spirits, sometimes bound to a particular location or landform. Nymphs often accompanied various gods and goddesses, and were the frequent target of lusty satyrs." Houris appear to be physical beings, not spirits, are not semi-divine, and their virginity is constantly emphasized, thus leaving no correlation except being female characters in a religious tradition and that both terms are used in English for female beauties. Given that this is not the subject of the article, I have removed all references to nymphs which have been added by some individuals to this article.Moonlight2001 (talk)

Suggested Revisions

I have attempted to make the first few paragraphs of the article more neutral and objective. I feel this article is currently a mosh pit of Anti-Islam and Muslim apologist editors, and hardly makes for unbiased reading. In my opinion, this article needs a thorough revision, along the lines of:

1 Etymology & Origins

2 Description & Number

• Quran
• Hadith & Commentators
• Reference to 72 Virgins (I feel it fits better here)
• Sexuality/ [3?] Carnal Knowledge in Paradise (the "Alternative Interpretations" section is overblown, could be summarized in one sentence)

3 Views

• Sunni View (this section definitely needs to be trimmed, the aim is not to present every available text on the topic)
• Shiite View (probably needs to be expanded, doesn't fit under description)
• Sufi view (I would love to see this one)
• Western view
• Misconceptions (needs shortening with more content, too apologetic)

4 See Also

5 References: notes and citations need to be fixed.

• External links are mostly dead or irrelevant and should be removed entirely.

Also:

• Too much reliance is made on Ibn Kathir.
• Art of this genre would help complete the article (preferably one Middle Eastern and one Western depiction), but this seems to be oddly absent.

I would love to hear other editors' perspectives in this regard, as I feel this would be too major a redo to go ahead without consultation across the board.

Moonlight2001 (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you please remove all references relating to IslamQA as well? It has clearly been declared an unreliable source on WP:RS

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.156.92 (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Moonlight2001 I would support the above proposal, providing the widely conflicting positions on Virgins / Raisins / Grapes / Pleasures etc by the writers of Hadiths, Tafsirs, Islamic scholars etc is acknowledged. Positions should be succinct summaries - not long and complex essays or massive {quotes}. This NPOV re-balancing should be more than just some PC tweaking. Refer also to the unresolved issues raised above at 12. The promise of Houri in motivating martyrdom.

It is reported that a 9/11 attacker, Nawaf Al-Hazmi, had been given the houri-virgins promise. This concern, across the world, can not be written off as just anti-Islam bias.

Refer:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/jan/12/books.guardianreview5

https://www.memri.org/reports/72-black-eyed-virgins-muslim-debate-rewards-martyrs

https://islamqa.info/en/answers/10053/will-men-in-paradise-have-intercourse-with-al-hoor-aliyn (246,505 views) Koreangauteng (talk)

Removing Notice

Do other editors agree that both issues have been adequately addressed at this point in the revision? --Moonlight2001 (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

kurva mat'

suka bliat'