Great, I will conduct an in-depth historical and theological analysis of Iblis in Islam, drawing from classical Islamic sources (Qur'an, Hadith, Tafsir), medieval scholarship (Al-Tabari, Al-Ghazali, Ibn Arabi), and contemporary academic works on Islamic theology and history. The research will explore theological interpretations, philosophical discourse, and literary representations. Additionally, I will include linguistic exegesis of Qur'anic verses and classical Arabic terminology regarding Iblis, and analyze modern interpretations in Arab literature and pop culture. I will integrate Arabic and English sources to ensure a comprehensive study. I will let you know when the research is complete.

Iblis in Islamic Thought: A Comprehensive Analysis

1. Introduction and Analytical Context

Iblis – often equated with Satan in Islam – is a pivotal figure in Islamic thought, embodying the archetype of disobedience to God and the personification of evil. His Quranic narrative (the refusal to bow to Adam and subsequent expulsion from God's grace) has been central to Muslim reflections on sin, free will, and divine justicewww.saet.ac.uk www.researchgate.net. Across history, interpretations of Iblis have sparked major theological debates and shifted with evolving scholarly perspectives. Early Muslim theologians, for example, debated who or what Iblis is (a fallen angel or a jinn), and why he rebelled, using his story to discuss free will and predestination. Mystical thinkers later offered paradoxical readings of Iblis – at times recasting him as a tragic lover of God – which clashed with more orthodox condemnations. In modern scholarship, Iblis’s story is analyzed comparatively (alongside Biblical and apocryphal parallels) and symbolically, yielding new interpretations in literature and popular culture. This enduring intrigue attests to Iblis’s significance: he is not only the Quran’s primary villain but also a mirror reflecting each era’s theological and moral preoccupations.

Major historical debates surrounding Iblis include:

Angelic or Jinn Nature – Classical scholars wrestled with Quran 18:50, which names Iblis as a jinn, versus earlier lore treating him as a fallen angel. This raised questions about whether an angel could disobey God at allwww.saet.ac.uk www.um.edu.mt.
Free Will vs. Predestination – Iblis’s disobedience provoked discussion on human and jinn free will. Did Iblis rebel by his own choice, or was he fulfilling a role in God’s predestined plan? Different Islamic theological schools (e.g. Muʿtazilites vs. Ashʿarites) used the story to argue their views on divine justice and powerwww.researchgate.net en.wikipedia.org.
The Problem of Evil – Iblis personifies the existence of evil in a world governed by a just God. Scholars have long debated why God allowed Iblis to tempt humanity and how his rebellion fits into a theodicy (justification of divine goodness). Some held that Iblis exposes those weak in faith, thus ultimately serving God’s wisdomwww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk.
Obedience vs. Reason – The story was cited in debates about religious obedience and analogical reasoning. A famous maxim from early Islam warns that “the first to use qiyās (analogical reasoning) was Iblis” – referring to Iblis rationalizing that fire is superior to clay – and thus cautions believers against letting human reason contradict God’s commandswww.saet.ac.uk.
Sympathy or Condemnation – Most Muslim scholarship portrays Iblis as the unredeemable enemy of God, yet a few mystical writings audaciously “sympathized” with Iblis’s plight or interpreted his rebellion in a more nuanced light. This created tension between orthodox views (which see “no reason to have sympathies for him”en.wikipedia.org) and mystical or philosophical perspectives that found hidden meaning or even a form of misguided devotion in Iblis’s revoltwww.saet.ac.uk traditionalhikma.com. Over time, these debates have evolved. In the formative centuries of Islam, scholars focused on scriptural and linguistic analysis of the Quranic Iblis narrative. Medieval theologians and Sufis then expanded the discussion to moral and mystical dimensions, sometimes arriving at dramatically conflicting interpretations. In recent academic discourse, the figure of Iblis is studied historically and literarily: researchers compare Islamic narratives of Iblis with ancient near-eastern motifs and examine how interpretations of Iblis reflect broader societal values (from medieval Sufi metaphysics to modern feminist critiques). Through each era, Iblis remains a foil against which Muslims explore obedience and rebellion, ego and humility, God’s mercy and wrath. The following analysis traces these developments through classical sources, medieval scholarship, philosophical literature, contemporary academia, and modern cultural representations.

2. Classical Islamic Sources

Qur’an – The Primordial Rebellion: In Islam’s sacred scripture, Iblis is the personal name of the Devil and the quintessential adversary of God and humanity. The Qur’an mentions “Iblīs” by name 11 timeswww.saet.ac.uk, almost always in the context of the creation of Adam and Iblis’s refusal to bow to him. The term shayṭān (Arabic: شيطان, “devil” or “Satan”) appears far more frequently, describing Iblis by role or any devils generally, while “Iblis” functions as a proper name for this singular beingwww.saet.ac.uk en.wikipedia.org. In the Quranic narrative (found in verses such as 2:34, 7:11–18, 15:30–44, 17:61–65, 18:50, and 38:71–85), God creates the first human, Adam, and commands the angels to prostrate to him. All the angels obey except Iblis, who “refused and acted arrogantly, and thus became one of the disbelievers” (Qur’an 2:34). When questioned by God, Iblis protests: “I am better than him; You created me from fire and created him from clay” (Qur’an 7:12) – a claim of superiority based on originwww.saet.ac.uk. For this prideful disobedience (istikbār), Iblis is cursed and cast out of God’s grace. He is granted a request to have respite until the Day of Judgment, during which he vows to mislead and tempt humankind away from the straight path, sparing only those truly devoted to God. The Qur’an thus presents Iblis as a warning and a test: an unseen tempter (often termed “al-Shayṭān al-rajīm,” the “accursed/devilish Satan”) whose rebellion and guile highlight the importance of obedience, humility, and faith in Goden.wikipedia.org.

Linguistic Exegesis and Etymology: Classical scholars analyzed the language and terminology the Qur’an uses for Iblis with great detail. Many Muslim exegetes, eager to defend the purely Arabic nature of the Qur’an, argued that “Iblīs” derives from an Arabic root b-l-s (balasa), relating to despair or being cut off from hopewww.saet.ac.uk. Al-Ṭabarī (d. 923), in his tafsīr, supports this derivation: he suggests Iblīs is formed from ablasa (“he despaired”) and thus interprets it to mean “one who despairs of God’s mercy,” citing early traditions that “God caused Iblis to despair of every good” as a result of his disobediencewww.um.edu.mt. In one report Ṭabarī transmits, Iblis’s original name was “al-Ḥārith” before his fall, symbolizing that his very name changed when he became mublis (despairing, without hope)www.um.edu.mt. Other commentators noted that Iblīs is a grammatical diptote (a noun of foreign origin or irregular pattern in Arabic), which hinted at a non-Arabic origin. Indeed, Iblis has no plural form and no Arabic semantically related words, unlike shayṭān (which comes from a root meaning “to stray” or “to burn”). Some classical scholars, such as al-Alūsī (19th c.), acknowledged that Iblis “was compared by the Arabs to foreign words” and thus treated as a proper noun of non-Arabic originwww.um.edu.mt. Modern philological research strongly supports a foreign origin: most scholars today derive Iblīs from the Greek diábolos (“devil”), likely via Syriac dīyābuluswww.saet.ac.uk. The resemblance in meaning is clear – diabolos in Biblical usage means accuser/slanderer (and became the Latin diabolus, Old French deable, etc., for Devil). The Qur’an’s lack of pre-Islamic references to “Iblis”en.wikipedia.organd its unusual linguistic form suggest the term was adopted into Arabic with a specific, singular reference to the Devil figure. Muslim exegetes like al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī (d. 1108) who insisted on an Arabic root did so to uphold the doctrine that the Qur’an contained no foreign vocabularywww.saet.ac.uk. Nonetheless, both views agree on the conceptual point: the name encapsulates Iblis’s condition as utterly forlorn and cut off from divine grace.

Qur’anic Terminology and Key Concepts: Several Arabic terms and phrases in the Qur’an’s Iblis narratives became important in classical exegesis. For instance, the Qur’an describes Iblis’s defiance with the verbs aba (“he refused”) and istakbara (“he acted proudly”)www.saet.ac.uk, underscoring that the root of his sin was arrogance (kibr). It also labels him “min al-kāfirīn” (“among the disbelievers”) after his refusal (Q.2:34), leading theologians to discuss whether Iblis was the first unbeliever and how a jinn or angel could “disbelieve” given they conversed directly with God. Another crucial term is jinn (Arabic: جنّ), the category of beings to which Iblis belongs according to Q.18:50: “he was one of the jinn, and he disobeyed the command of his Lord.” The word jinn comes from a root meaning “hidden” (j-n-n), as one report in Ṭabarī’s exegesis notes: “God did not call the jinn by this name except because they are unseen (majūnna), and He did not call human beings ‘ins’ except because they are visible”www.um.edu.mt. Unlike angels (malā’ika), who are made of light and are inherently obedient, jinn in Islamic cosmology are created from smokeless fire and possess free will (and thus can disobey). The Quranic text thus decisively classifies Iblis as a jinn rather than an angel, which has important theological implications: it preserves the principle that angels do not disobey God openly (Qur’an 66:6), while explaining Iblis’s fall by his jinn nature. However, the Qur’an also narrates God’s command as addressed to “the angels”, with Iblis included among them. This apparent tension (Iblis associated with angels in duty, yet actually a jinn) prompted extensive commentary, as discussed below.

Hadith and Sirah – Satanic Encounters: The hadith literature (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad) and sirah/qiṣaṣ (prophetic stories) further expand on Iblis’s character and role. While not as central as in the Qur’an, Iblis (or ash-Shayṭān) appears in numerous anecdotes and sayings that illustrate his methods of temptation and the believer’s means of protection. A well-known hadith states, “Indeed, Satan flows through the son of Adam like blood”www.saet.ac.uk, indicating the pervasive and intimate influence Iblis/Shayṭān seeks to exert on the human soul. This metaphor – cited by al-Ghazālī and others – portrays Iblis as literally coursing through a person’s veins, whispering evil suggestions (waswāsah) into the heart. Another tradition describes how “Satan puts his snout on the heart of the son of Adam; if the person remembers God, Satan slinks away, but if he forgets, Satan devours the heart”www.saet.ac.uk. Such vivid imagery in the hadith complements the Qur’anic depiction of Iblis as a deceiver lurking “on the straight path” to ambush humans (cf. Q.7:16-17). The Prophet Muhammad is depicted in hadiths giving practical advice to counter Iblis: for example, seeking refuge in God by saying “aʿūdhu billāhi mina ’sh-shayṭān al-rajīm” (Qur’an 16:98) before reciting Qur’an or when anger arises, since anger is “from Satan.” Other narrations identify moments when Iblis particularly tries to interfere: during prayer (causing distractions), at the time of birth (it is said every newborn cries at Satan’s touch, except Mary and Jesusmuslimhope.com), and at the approach of death (to cause last-moment doubt).

Early Islamic lore (much of it extra-canonical and drawn from pre-Islamic or folkloric sources) further embellishes Iblis’s story. For instance, some qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’ (stories of the prophets) relate that Iblis had been named ‘Azāzīl before his fall – a name possibly of Hebrew origin, found in some Jewish apocrypha. He was said to have been extraordinarily devout, even attaining a rank among the angels despite his jinn originwww.um.edu.mt. One narrative holds that Iblis/Azazil was a sort of steward of Paradise or a leader of a host of angels/jinn who battled unruly jinn on earth before Adam’s creationwww.answering-islam.org. Such accounts, while not found in the Qur’an or authentic hadith, made their way into early commentaries and reflect attempts to “fill in the gaps” of Iblis’s backstory. They portray Iblis as originally noble and pious, which makes his subsequent pride and fall an even starker cautionary tale. For example, Saʿīd ibn Jubayr (a famous early commentator) is cited as saying Iblis had once been a “Jeweler of Paradise” – an angelic title – and even a guardian of the Garden’s treasures, before he disobeyedwww.um.edu.mt. Another report claims Iblis spent thousands of years in worship prior to Adam, and his conceit grew from this distinction. Though these narrations vary greatly, their presence in tafsīr shows the early Muslim imagination grappling with how the greatest sinner could emerge from a heavenly context. They underscore the moral: no amount of former piety can excuse disobedience or pride against God’s command.

Ṭabarī and Early Tafsīr: Tafsīr (Quranic exegesis) literature of the classical period provides our clearest window into how early scholars interpreted Iblis’s role. Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭabarī, author of one of the earliest comprehensive Quran commentaries (late 9th century), gathers numerous traditions on the Iblis verses. Ṭabarī records both viewpoints on Iblis’s nature – that he was once an angel versus always a jinn – with copious chains of transmission from the Prophet’s companions and later authorities. On Quran 18:50, Ṭabarī notes that “the majority of Muslim scholars” believed Iblis had originally been an angel who fell from gracewww.um.edu.mt www.um.edu.mt. He presents three major arguments, attributed to Ibn ‘Abbās and other early authorities, in favor of Iblis’s angelic origin: (1) Iblis had been in the company of angels and given commands alongside them, which implies he was of their kind; (2) he had a rank or title among angels (e.g. guardian of heaven) prior to disobedience; and (3) early linguistic analysis sometimes treated “jinn” in Q.18:50 as a descriptor of a group of angels who guarded Jannah (heaven), not the separate earthly jinn specieswww.um.edu.mt www.um.edu.mt. However, Ṭabarī also fairly summarizes the opposing view (held “especially by the Muʿtazilites,” he noteswww.um.edu.mt): that Iblis was never an angel, but a jinn all along, and that the Qur’an’s clear statement on his creation from fire must take precedencewww.um.edu.mt. Proponents of this view pointed out that the Qur’an mentions angels were created from light (per a hadith) and never describes them as created from fire, whereas Iblis explicitly said “You created me from fire” (Q.7:12)www.saet.ac.uk. Furthermore, the Qur’an calls Iblis a jinn in distinction to angels, and consistently depicts angels as obedient by nature, implying Iblis could not have been purely angelicwww.um.edu.mt. Ṭabarī himself leans toward reconciliating these positions: one report he includes suggests Iblis was a jinn who had been “raised among angels” – effectively an “adopted” angel – which is why he was with them and under similar obligationwww.um.edu.mt. In Ṭabarī’s narrative, Iblis’s disobedience thus does not prove angels can sin; rather, it proves that an exceptional jinn allowed into angelic rank could still exercise his free will to rebel.

Through such analyses, classical exegetes extracted theological lessons. Many highlighted pride as Iblis’s defining transgression: he was the first being to make a false analogy (arguing his fiery nature was superior to Adam’s clay) and the first to defy God’s direct command out of envyen.wikipedia.org. His story thus became a paradigm of ‘ibra (lesson): it warned believers against arrogance and against using one’s own reason to justify disobedience. As one commentator succinctly put it, “Three things ruined Iblis: his transgression (maʿṣiyah), his arrogance (istikbār), and his making comparisons (qiyās)”en.wikipedia.org. Classical Arabic vocabulary in these exegeses reinforces the moral polarity: Iblis is described as kāfir (ungrateful, unbeliever), rajīm (pelted, i.e. expelled and accursed), and ʿaduww Allāh (enemy of God). By contrast, the angels are karāmāt (noble) and muṭīʿūn (obedient). The starkness of this contrast in the early sources underscores the theological stakes – Iblis represents the antithesis of the ideal servant of God.

In sum, the primary Islamic sources – Qur’an, hadith, and early tafsīr – portray Iblis as a real and potent spiritual force of evil, whose dramatic fall from a station among the angels serves as the opening chapter in the human saga. Linguistically, his very name evokes despair and devilry. Scripturally, his story illustrates the consequences of defying God’s command, and provides a cosmic explanation for the presence of temptation and sin in the world. Even in these foundational texts, however, there was room for interpretation and debate (angel vs. jinn, fate vs. free will), indicating that understanding Iblis was not a simple matter. These classical depictions set the stage for later theological elaboration: medieval Muslim scholars would inherit the basic Quranic portrait of Iblis but delve deeper into its philosophical and spiritual implications, sometimes in novel ways.

3. Medieval Islamic Scholarship: Divergent Visions of Iblis

As Islamic thought evolved through the medieval period, so did the interpretations of Iblis. Major scholars grappled with reconciling Iblis’s story with Islamic theology (kalām), exploring its spiritual lessons in Sufism, and even raising bold philosophical questions. In this period we see striking contradictions and tensions: Iblis is variously cast as the worst of sinners, the subtle tempter of souls, a tragic figure performing a divine mission, or even a lover of God in disguise. The views of al-Ṭabarī, al-Ghazālī, and Ibn ‘Arabī (among others) illustrate the spectrum – from orthodox theologian to mystic philosopher – and the debates that arose between them.Al-Ṭabarī (d. 310 AH/923 CE) – Historian of Satan: Ṭabarī, who lived on the cusp of the formative and classical eras, represents the more hadith-based and “encyclopedic” approach to Iblis. In his Tafsīr, as noted, he preserved multiple opinions from earlier authorities about Iblis. Likewise, in his Taʾrīkh (history) and Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyāʾ narratives, Ṭabarī compiled lore about the creation of Adam and the fall of Iblis. He does not philosophize at length on Iblis’s motives but rather transmits and systematizes the traditions. For example, Ṭabarī reports the dialogic encounter between God and Iblis in detail, including Iblis’s vow to attack humans “from every direction” (cf. Q.7:17) and God’s pronouncement that the seduced will fill Hell alongside Ibliswww.saet.ac.uk. Through Ṭabarī’s conservative lens, Iblis is a cautionary figure: the first rebel against divine authority and the ongoing adversary of the faithful. Importantly, Ṭabarī’s work highlights a tension that later scholars would debate – the apparent conflict between God’s omniscience/omnipotence and Iblis’s ability to disobey. Ṭabarī sometimes pauses to clarify that Iblis’s rebellion only occurred by God’s permissive will, not outside of it, but he stops short of fully resolving the theological paradox. This left fertile ground for later theologians to discuss issues of qadar (destiny) and ikhtiyār (free choice) using Iblis as a case study. Overall, Ṭabarī’s contribution was to gather the raw material – scriptural verses and prophetic reports – about Iblis, thereby preserving the range of early views. This made his tafsīr a reference point for both orthodox and heterodox arguments in centuries to come.

Al-Ghazālī (d. 505 AH/1111 CE) – Orthodox Theologian and Spiritual Ethicist: Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, one of Sunni Islam’s most influential theologian-philosophers, addressed the topic of Iblis from both a doctrinal and a devotional perspective. Writing in the 11th century, a time of tension between philosophers, theologians, and mystics, al-Ghazālī tried to harmonize these perspectives with orthodoxy. In works like Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn (The Revival of the Religious Sciences), particularly in the section “ʿAjāʾib al-Qalb” (Marvels of the Heart), Ghazālī delves into how Satan infiltrates the human heart and how one can repel himwww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. Ghazālī fully accepts the orthodox portrayal of Iblis as the deceiver and tempter – there is no hint of the sympathy for Iblis that some Sufis would express. Instead, he is interested in practical theology: How does the believer combat Iblis’s whispers (waswasah)? How does one distinguish satanic suggestions from one’s own nafs (ego) or even angelic guidance? In answering these, Ghazālī often cites hadith and classical wisdom. For example, he mentions the Prophet’s saying that “Satan runs in the bloodstream of Adam’s son”www.saet.ac.ukto emphasize vigilance. The “battlefield” between a person and Iblis is the soul – especially the heart (qalb) or lower self (nafs) – and Ghazālī describes this battle in almost clinical detail. He enumerates the “entryways” (darāʾib) of Satan into the heart – such as anger, lust, envy, and heedlessness – and prescribes the dhikr (remembrance of God) and disciplined morality as fortificationwww.saet.ac.uk.

In Ghazālī’s famous allegory, the heart is like a fortress under siege: the devil (Iblis) seeks any crack in the walls to slip his soldiers (temptations) insidewww.kalamullah.com. Only by illuminating the heart with knowledge (‘ilm) and remembrance can one expose and thwart these intrusionswww.kalamullah.com. Such imagery continues the line of thinking from earlier hadith: knowledge and piety cause the “dawn” that exposes Satan’s plotswww.kalamullah.com. Notably, Ghazālī does not question why God allows Iblis to tempt humans – he takes that as a given test of life. Instead, he focuses on personal responsibility: since Iblis appeals primarily to the base instincts and passions, humans must restrain these passions to deprive Iblis of his opportunitywww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. This ethic is very much in line with Sunni orthodoxy and mainstream Sufism, which Ghazālī helped integrate. His stance also implicitly rebukes some of the more speculative or lenient views of Iblis: Ghazālī would likely view any attempt to exonerate Iblis or downplay his evil as itself a “deception of the devil.” In fact, a later scholar (Ibn al-Jawzī) wrote an entire book Talbīs Iblīs (The Devil’s Deception) echoing this concern – identifying how Iblis tricks even scholars and ascetics, including by sowing false theological ideas. Ghazālī’s approach in Iḥyāʾ is a positive counterpart: to show how sound theology and spiritual practice can defeat Iblis’s stratagems.

In addition to these ethical discussions, Ghazālī touches on Iblis when discussing obedience versus intellect. In Faḍāʾiḥ al-Bāṭiniyya and other works, he criticizes those who use rational analogy inappropriately in religion, often referencing Iblis’s fall as the dire consequence of prioritizing one’s reasoning over God’s explicit orderwww.saet.ac.uk. He reiterates the lesson that Iblis was the first “false analogizer” – saying “fire is superior to clay” – thereby implying that true wisdom for believers lies in humble submission, not arrogant logic-chopping. Ghazālī’s nuance, however, is that reason itself is not evil (he was a philosopher-theologian after all), but ego and envy can distort reason, as happened with Iblis. Thus, we find in Ghazālī a balanced but firm orthodox view: Iblis is the enemy and deceiver to be fought through piety, and his tale is a warning against pride and misuse of reason. There is no overt mystical rehabilitation of Iblis in Ghazālī’s writings; he remains a negative figure, yet one whose existence has the pedagogical purpose of testing and strengthening the believer’s faith.

Ibn ʿArabī (d. 638 AH/1240 CE) – Mystical Philosopher of Iblis: In stark contrast to Ghazālī, the Sufi mystic Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn ʿArabī offers one of the most controversial and complex reinterpretations of Iblis in Islamic thought. Writing in the late 12th–early 13th century in the Islamic West (Andalusia) and Near East, Ibn ʿArabī developed a philosophy often called “wahdat al-wujūd” (Unity of Being) and wrote esoteric commentaries on Quranic stories in works like Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam. Within this framework, he presents Iblis not simply as a villain, but as a tragic figure who actually epitomizes a certain kind of unyielding monotheistic devotion – a concept later termed “Tawḥīd al-Iblīs” (Satan’s monotheism or the devil’s unicity of God)traditionalhikma.com. According to Ibn ʿArabī, when God commanded the angels to bow to Adam, Iblis refused out of an (misguided) interpretation of loyalty to God. Iblis’s reasoning (as imagined by Ibn ʿArabī and earlier Sufis like al-Ḥallāj) is that God alone is deserving of prostration – Iblis would bow only to the Creator, not to any creature, even if that creature was honored by Godwww.saet.ac.uk. In other words, Iblis overheard the command to bow, but through his intense focus on God’s exclusive right to worship, he could not bring himself to bow to Adam. This interpretation transforms Iblis’s sin of disobedience into an overzealous act of devotion (albeit a misguided and pride-tainted one). Ibn ʿArabī stops short of declaring Iblis innocent – indeed, he acknowledges Iblis’s envy of Adam and his failure to see the Reality of God in Adam – but he sees a deeper irony: Iblis, in his own distorted way, loved God so much he couldn’t dilute that love by obeisance to anotherwww.saet.ac.uk.

Ibn ʿArabī also emphasizes the metaphysical role of Iblis. In his cosmology, every being, even the devil, has a function in manifesting God’s attributes. Iblis manifests the divine names related to jalāl (majesty, rigor) – such as al-Muḍill (the Misleader) and al-Qahhār (the Subduer) – as a necessary counterpart to the prophets and saints who manifest God’s names of jamāl (beauty, mercy)traditionalhikma.com www.saet.ac.uk. In one bold passage, Ibn ʿArabī has Iblis argue that he is in fact obeying God’s will (irāda) by disobeying God’s command (amr). That is, the command was to bow, but God’s will (in the grand scheme) was to test the angels and humankind and bring about a new level of spiritual drama – and Iblis fulfilled that will by refusing. This aligns with the mystical idea that God’s “hidden secret” or plan required Iblis’s disobedience to set the stage for the human story and the manifestation of all divine attributes. Ibn ʿArabī describes Iblis as saying something akin to: “I did not truly rebel; had I really been a rebel against God’s will, I would not have said ‘by Your might I will mislead them’ (Q.38:82) acknowledging Your might. In fact, my ‘disobedience’ was itself service to God’s deeper purpose”www.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. This concept – that Iblis’s apparent disobedience conceals a form of obedience on a higher cosmic level – was startling and problematic to many orthodox scholars.

The tensions and contradictions in these interpretations are obvious. Where mainstream Sunni theology, as represented by Ghazālī, sees Iblis as a cautionary tale of pure hubris deserving unmitigated blame, Ibn ʿArabī’s mystical perspective dares to see Iblis as “a lover in separation”, an almost pitiable figure who suffers the spiritual pain of carrying out the divine plan of negativitytraditionalhikma.com. Ibn ʿArabī even implies that Iblis’s punishment is unique: he burns in the fire of separation from the Beloved (God), a fire of divine jalāl that is perhaps more intense than the physical Hell prepared for ordinary sinnerswww.saet.ac.uk. To be clear, Ibn ʿArabī is not encouraging disobedience or praising Iblis’s envy; rather, he is offering a theodicy in which even evil is subsumed under God’s all-encompassing wisdom and love. In his view, Iblis’s greatest mistake was that he couldn’t see beyond the letter of tawḥīd (God’s oneness) to recognize God’s light present in Adam. Thus, he failed to obey the real divine command, which was to bow to Adam as a vessel of God’s spirit. This subtle philosophizing did not convince more literalist scholars, but it profoundly influenced later Sufi literature (poetry, narrative, philosophy), leading to what scholars call the “rehabilitated Iblis” motiftraditionalhikma.com www.saet.ac.uk.

Unsurprisingly, such views brought criticism and charges of heresy. Many orthodox scholars accused Ibn ʿArabī (and others with similar ideas, like ʿAyn al-Qudāt and al-Ḥallāj) of battifying Iblis – that is, turning the clear Quranic villain into something of an anti-hero, which they saw as a distortion of scripture. For instance, the famous Hanbali scholar Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 1201) wrote Talbīs Iblīs decades before Ibn ʿArabī’s major works, but it can be read as a pre-emptive strike against any sympathy for Satan. In it, Ibn al-Jawzī catalogs the “deceptions” of Iblis across different groups of Muslims – and he specifically condemns some Sufis for speaking of Iblis in lenient or admiring tones, calling this one of Satan’s greatest trickswww.sifatusafwa.com. Later, fatwas were issued by scholars like Ibn Taymiyya denouncing Ibn ʿArabī’s more extreme statements (e.g. the idea that Iblis and Pharaoh actually followed God’s will in their actionsal-islam.org). The tension here is between exoteric theology, which demands condemnation of Iblis as wholly evil (and stresses that the Qur’an itself portrays Iblis as damned with no hint of redemption), and esoteric thought, which searches for meaning in even the darkest divine decrees.

Other Medieval Perspectives: Between the poles of Ghazālī and Ibn ʿArabī, many other scholars weighed in on Iblis. Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 1209), a great theologian and philosopher, devoted passages of his Qur’an commentary to analyzing Iblis’s arguments. He viewed Iblis’s refusal as a mix of flawed logic and ego – an example of how even a genius (and Iblis is sometimes considered clever) is ruined by vanity. Al-Rāzī refutes Iblis’s “better than Adam” analogy point by point, to show that obedience to God should never be contingent on one’s own reasoningwww.saet.ac.uk. Sufi poets like Rūmī (d. 1273) dramatized the encounter of Iblis with prophets and saints to draw out moral lessons. In Rūmī’s Masnavī, for example, there is a story of Iblis debating with the caliph Muʿāwiya that echoes many of Ibn ʿArabī’s themes but concludes with a more orthodox moral. Rūmī lets Iblis voice a passionate defense of himself – claiming to still love God deeply and only to be fulfilling a divinely assigned rolewww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk– to the point that Muʿāwiya cannot rebut him and complains to God that “I cannot prevail against Iblis’s arguments”www.saet.ac.uk. Yet, in the end, Rūmī has Iblis reveal a deceit (that he woke Muʿāwiya for prayer only to induce pride), reaffirming that even if Iblis speaks truth occasionally, he ultimately cannot be trustedwww.saet.ac.uk. This poetic approach acknowledges the logical power of Iblis’s self-justification (perhaps warming the audience to consider the complexities of predestination and sincere devotion) but then reasserts the conventional view that Iblis is a liar and the faithful must stay alertwww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk.

Another figure, Najm al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 1256), a Persian Sufi, wrote that Iblis was punished because his worship was based on his own perception of God’s greatness rather than God’s actual command – a subtle distinction meaning true worship requires effacing one’s ego completely (something Iblis failed to do)www.researchgate.net. In essence, many Sufis critiqued Iblis not for lack of devotion, but for a devotion corrupted by self-love and inability to see God’s beauty in creation.

Thus, medieval Islamic scholarship on Iblis is characterized by divergence: Theologians like Ghazālī and al-Rāzī emphasized Iblis as an example of sinful pride and the necessity of submission to God’s will, aligning with a strict reading of scripture. Mystics and philosophers like Ibn ʿArabī, al-Ḥallāj, and Rūmī ventured more speculative interpretations, finding in Iblis’s plight profound mysteries about God’s love, the nature of worship, and the interplay of ẓāhir (outer law) and bāṭin (inner truth). These interpretations did not exist in isolation; they actively responded to one another. The contradictions – an Iblis who is at once the worst of creation and yet perhaps the most extreme example of ardent monotheism – forced Muslim thinkers to clarify core doctrines. Could God’s wisdom encompass even the devil’s rebellion? Most Sunni scholars answered firmly that Iblis is accursed and not to be exonerated, often citing Qur’an 7:13 where God says “Get down from [Paradise], it is not for you to be arrogant here”, as well as the unanimous belief that Iblis’s eternal punishment is a just consequence. Yet the very presence of alternative views, preserved in literature and Sufi tradition, ensured that the figure of Iblis continued to provoke rich discourse on the paradoxes of theology: mercy and wrath, free will and fate, outward religion and inner truth. This medieval spectrum set the stage for how later Islamic philosophy and literature would handle the symbol of Iblis, either building on the mystical nuances or reinforcing the orthodox stance.

4. Islamic Philosophy and Literature: Iblis Reimagined

Beyond formal theology and Sufi theorizing, the figure of Iblis permeated Islamic philosophy and adab (literature), often as a symbol or character in imaginative works. Philosophers, influenced by Greek thought, sometimes interpreted Quranic stories allegorically, while poets and storytellers found in Iblis a rich character to explore moral and psychological themes. In Sufi poetry, Persian literature, and philosophical allegories, Iblis was reimagined in various guises – from the embodiment of the ego to a tragic foil that brings out the best and worst in human nature.Philosophical Approaches: Islamic philosophers (falāsifa) of the medieval period – figures like al-Fārābī, Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna), and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) – did not focus extensively on Iblis as a personal figure, but their understanding of evil and metaphysics provided a backdrop for interpreting Iblis’s existence. Many philosophers adopted a Neoplatonic view of evil as the absence of good (a privation of being) rather than an active force. In such a framework, Iblis could be seen less as an ontological person and more as a personification of the privation of good or the lower faculties of the soul. For instance, Ikhwān al-Ṣafā (the Brethren of Purity, a 10th-c. philosophical fraternity) wrote esoteric treatises where angels and devils symbolized aspects of the human rational soul versus the passionate soul. An “Iblis” in this context might symbolize the intellect misguided by pride or the imaginative faculty run amok. The Brethren, and later philosophers like Suhrawardī, often conveyed ideas through fables: one could imagine (though the Brethren themselves do not explicitly do so) a fable where Iblis represents the material intellect that refuses to bow to the divinely illuminated human spirit. Such allegorical readings were not mainstream exegesis, but they show how Islamic philosophy allowed seeing Quranic figures as symbols in a grander metaphysical drama.When philosophers did mention Iblis explicitly, it was often in the context of discussing prophecy or the soul. Avicenna, for example, in his Remarks and Admonitions, touches on demonic whisperings as psychological phenomena – essentially internal thoughts that can lead one astray, an approach somewhat demythologizing Iblis. For rationalist thinkers, Shayṭān could be interpreted as a metaphor for the nafs al-ammārah (the soul that commands evil) within each person. This idea overlaps with Sufi thought (which often equated the greatest “Satan” with one’s own ego). Thus, while the philosophers did not deny Iblis’s existence outright (as that would contradict scripture), they tended to abstract the concept of Satan. A 20th-century scholar aptly noted that in much of Islamic philosophy, “Iblis and the satanic forces are treated as allegories of the darkness in the human intellect and the pull of matter against the soul’s ascent”thequran.love. This rationalist reframing means that the dramatic persona of Iblis was somewhat muted in the strictly philosophical genre, yet the influence is seen in how later intellectuals (e.g., in the modern era) have sometimes described Iblis as a metaphor rather than a literal demonthequran.love durham-repository.worktribe.com.

Sufi Literature and Poetic Imagination: While dry philosophy edged Iblis toward abstraction, Sufi poetry and narratives gave Iblis vibrant new life as a character. We have already seen how Rūmī and others wrote dialogues and debates involving Iblis. Persian Sufi literature in particular contains sympathetic and philosophical portrayals of Iblis. Farīd ud-Dīn ʿAṭṭār (d. 1221), in his poetry, occasionally alludes to Iblis in paradoxical terms – for example, highlighting that admonitions to saints often come in the guise of Iblis’s temptations which they overcome, thereby demonstrating their virtue. ʿAyn al-Qudāt Hamadānī (d. 1131), a Persian Sufi martyr, wrote an impassioned defence of Iblis in his works, so much so that modern scholars identify a distinct “devil’s monotheism” theme in his writingstraditionalhikma.com traditionalhikma.com. In one of his letters, ʿAyn al-Qudāt addresses God saying (to paraphrase): “You blame Iblis, but he refused to bow because he saw only Your glory – his sin was in his vision of Tawḥīd. Who among us has that devotion?” He thus paints Iblis as a fallen lover – exactly as Ibn ʿArabī would later systematize. This sympathetic strain in Sufi literature was controversial but persistent. It cast Iblis as Mazlūm (oppressed or misunderstood) – the one who took on the worst fate to ultimately serve God’s purpose. Such an image might echo through poems where a lover takes on blame for the beloved’s sake, a common Sufi metaphor.

One striking literary motif is the dialogue between a prophet and Iblis. Various anecdotes have Prophet Moses, Jesus, or Muhammad meet Iblis and question him. In a story attributed to Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, Iblis supposedly gave Moses tips on three times/places to watch out for him, and Moses asked him if he ever regretted his sin, to which Iblis replied, “My pride will never allow me to repent.” In a twist on this, some Sufi tales imagine the prophet offering Iblis a chance to repent and Iblis refusing on theological grounds (“How could I, if God willed me to this role?”). These folk narratives, while not canonical, show the enduring fascination with Iblis’s inner state and the what if of redemption. They humanize (or at least personalize) Iblis in a way that the Qur’an does not, pondering the intractability of his pride.In classical Arabic adab literature (prose belles-lettres), Iblis appears in parables and proverbs. Writers would use “clever as Iblis” or “deceptive as Iblis” to describe particularly cunning characters. For instance, the proverbial trickster character Juḥā is sometimes described as outwitting Iblis in jokes, reflecting a popular wish to get one over the Devil. The “Book of Misers” by al-Jāḥiẓ (9th c.) and other satire occasionally invoke Iblis for humor or hyperbole. Moreover, in ethical treatises directed at princes (mirror-for-princes literature), authors would warn rulers of “the Iblis of arrogance” or “the Iblis of tyranny” that could infest their hearts – essentially using Iblis as a personification of moral pitfalls.A notable work bridging literature and philosophy is the “Tawāsīn” of al-Ḥallāj (d. 922), which includes “Tāsīn of Before-Time and Ambiguity” – an enigmatic chapter presenting a conversation between Iblis and God. Ḥallāj depicts Iblis as a proud lover who paradoxically obeys by not obeying (very similar to ideas we ascribed to Ibn ʿArabī). This was written in a highly poetic, symbolic manner, illustrating how literary form allowed exploration of heterodox ideas that straightforward prose might have rendered too stark. The moral tension in such texts is palpable: readers are prompted to understand Iblis’s position, perhaps even empathize, yet ultimately to realize what differentiates a saint from Satan is humility and surrender.Court Literature and Drama: There is evidence that by the medieval period, stories of Iblis and his interactions had entered public consciousness enough to be performed or recited. Some storytellers elaborated the duel of wits between Iblis and the angels, or between Iblis and certain saints. For example, one tale recounts how the cleverness of a pious man trapped Iblis: a holy man managed to make Iblis admit, unwittingly, the limits of his power, thereby humiliating him. These are akin to folklore and serve to reassure the average believer that the devil can indeed be defeated by piety or cleverness.In summary, Islamic philosophical and literary traditions expanded the portrayal of Iblis far beyond the terse Quranic account. Philosophers minimized his personal role, treating “satanic” as an adjective for irrational or evil tendencies in the cosmos or soul. Literati and Sufis, on the other hand, often maximized his role – making Iblis a central character in poems, debates, and tales to explore nuanced moral and spiritual questions. We see Iblis used as:

A symbol of the ego (nafs) – the internal satan that each person must overcome, as in many Sufi homilies.
A tragic anti-hero – especially in Persian Sufi poetry, where he can appear as the dark lover of God, thereby highlighting the mercy personified by Prophets (Iblis’s foil).
A didactic example – in popular prose and didactic poems, reminding of the perils of pride and the importance of obedience, sometimes in a more entertaining or relatable format than formal theology.
A character in dialogues – allowing authors to stage theological arguments dramatically. In these dialogues, Iblis can be witty, learned, and even convincing – only to be refuted by a prophet or undone by his own inherent flaw. This literary device enriched Islamic pedagogy, making abstract lessons concrete. One of the earliest full-fledged “literary Satan” pieces in the Islamic world is the Azerbaijani play “Iblis” (1918) by Huseyn Javid (though outside the medieval period), where Iblis is a character commenting on human folly during World War Ien.wikipedia.org. But long before modern plays, the seeds of viewing Iblis as a dramatis persona were sown in the medieval imagination. The contradictions in interpretation continued to manifest: an orthodox scholar might read Rūmī’s sympathetic lines about Iblis and append a stern note that “this was merely to convey a lesson, not to absolve the Devil.” A philosopher might allegorize Iblis to the point of abstraction, which a Sufi poet would find too bloodless and thus re-personify him in emotive verse. Through it all, Iblis proved a malleable and compelling figure – a canvas onto which Islamic thinkers and writers painted their deepest concerns about reason and obedience, love and justice, the inner self and the outer law.

5. Contemporary Academic Perspectives

In the modern era, academic scholars – Muslim and non-Muslim alike – have turned the analysis of Iblis into a subject of historical, literary, and theological inquiry. With the rise of critical historical methods, comparative religion, and new interpretative lenses (e.g. feminism, post-colonialism), the figure of Iblis is now studied not only within faith traditions but also as a cross-cultural archetype and a mirror of Islamic intellectual history. Contemporary scholarship on Iblis often revisits the classic debates with fresh tools: analyzing the Qur’an’s narrative context, tracing parallels in earlier lore, examining how different interpreters’ social contexts influenced their readings, and exploring Iblis’s function in Islamic imagination and practice.Several key areas have attracted scholarly attention:

Comparative & Historical Studies: Modern researchers have carefully compared the Quranic Iblis story with earlier Jewish and Christian narratives of rebellious angels or demons. They have noted that while the name “Iblis” is unique to the Qur’an, the motif of an angel refusing to bow to a newly created human has precedents in apocryphal texts like The Life of Adam and Eve, The Cave of Treasures, 2 Enoch, and other late antique writingswww.saet.ac.uk. In these pre-Islamic sources, a high-ranking angel (often called Samael or Azazel) refuses God’s command to honor Adam and is cast out of heaven – remarkably similar to the Quranic outline except that the Qur’an pointedly calls Iblis a jinnwww.saet.ac.uk. Scholars such as Pavel Pavlovitch and Sergey Minov have investigated these parallels, suggesting that the Islamic version might be part of a Near Eastern storytelling tradition that the Qur’an reshapedwww.saet.ac.uk. For instance, the detail of Iblis arguing “I am created from fire, he from clay” is found almost verbatim in some Syriac Christian textswww.saet.ac.uk. Contemporary academics are careful, however, to avoid simplistic claims of “borrowing”; instead, they explore how the Qur’an engages with and transforms earlier motifs to align with its strict monotheism and theological vision (e.g. by introducing the concept of jinn to resolve the theological issue of an angelic rebellion)www.saet.ac.uk. This comparative approach has broadened understanding of Iblis’s significance by placing Islam’s devil in the wider context of ancient angelology and demonology.
Quranic Studies & Linguistics: Modern scholars of Qur’anic studies, like Arthur Jeffery and more recently Whitney Bodman, have revisited the linguistic debates on Iblis’s name and narrative structure. Arthur Jeffery, in The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’an, famously argued that “Iblīs” is indeed a loan-word from Greek, noting the phonetic and semantic correspondence with diaboloswww.saet.ac.uk. This view, now widely accepted, illustrates a shift from the classical reluctance to admit foreign elements. Additionally, contemporary analysis of the Quranic text highlights how the Iblis episodes are distributed and possibly meant to be read in light of each other (a kind of intertextual reading within the Qur’an). Some scholars observe that Surah 15 (Al-Ḥijr) and Surah 38 (Ṣād) give a more detailed, almost mythic telling of Iblis’s fall, while Surah 2 and 7 integrate it into admonitions to the Children of Adam, suggesting layers of meaning – historical/cosmic and ethical – that the Qur’an is conveyingen.wikipedia.org. The academic field known as “tafsir studies” also examines how early interpretations (like those of Ṭabarī, Muqātil, etc.) were influenced by linguistic and narrative ambiguities in the Quranic text. For example, the Quran does not explicitly state the moment Iblis turned disobedient – did his pride develop instantaneously upon Adam’s creation or was it festering? Such questions lead modern scholars to analyze the grammar and narrative sequencing in the Qur’an for clues, often in tandem with classical exegesis. The upshot is a more nuanced understanding of Iblis’s role in the Qur’anic worldview: he is at once an individual character in a story and an archetype for any being that fails the test of recognizing God’s wisdom.
Theological Analyses (Kalām and Philosophy): Contemporary Islamic theologians and Western scholars of religion have revisited medieval debates on predestination and free will through the lens of Iblis’s story. One 2018 study by Pavel Basharin, for instance, examines “Satan’s justification in early Sufism” to understand how notions of free will and destiny were argued in Islam’s intellectual historywww.researchgate.net. Basharin shows that early Sufis like al-Ḥallāj and ʿAyn al-Qudāt, in defending Iblis as a victim of God’s predestining power, were also covertly engaging with the broader kalām dispute between Jabriyyah (determinists) and Qadariyyah (free-will upholders)www.researchgate.net. By contrast, other Sufis like Rūzbihān al-Baqli responded by condemning Iblis anew, effectively siding with the free-will argument that Iblis chose disobedience. Modern scholars trace these threads to illustrate how conceptions of Iblis often reflected a scholar’s theological leanings: a more free-will oriented theologian emphasized Iblis’s arrogant choice, whereas a more predestinarian mystic might view Iblis as compelled by divine willwww.researchgate.net. In recent years, scholars have also used Iblis’s case to discuss the nature of God’s commands in Islamic thought. Some point out that Iblis’s story raises the question of “ethical logic” in revelation: God commanded something that Iblis found apparently illogical (to bow to a lesser creature), testing submission versus reason. This has been paralleled to other tests in Islamic narrative (like Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son). Thus, articles and monographs now explore Iblis’s function in what might be called the divine pedagogy of the Qur’an – teaching humans about the limits of rationalizing God’s orderswww.saet.ac.uk. The enduring “qiyās of Iblis” argument is frequently cited in contemporary discourse about Islamic legal theory as well, where it serves as a cautionary tale about misuse of analogy in sharīʿa reasoningwww.saet.ac.uk.
Literary and Cultural Studies: Modern scholarship has also shifted to treat Iblis as a literary figure and cultural symbol. Researchers like Whitney Bodman (author of The Poetics of Ibliswww.archesbookhouse.com) examine how narrative techniques in the Qur’an and later literature create the character of Iblis and to what effect. Bodman argues that the Qur’an intentionally leaves Iblis somewhat mysterious – for instance, not detailing his past – which allows later imagination to fill in the blankswww.saet.ac.uk. This narrative ambiguity made Iblis a flexible symbol for various authors. Contemporary analyses of folk tales, poetry, and even visual art in the Muslim world consider how Iblis is depicted and what that says about popular theology. Some scholars note that in many Muslim societies, Iblis/Shayṭān is a very tangible part of daily language and practice (e.g. saying “aʿūdhu billāh” when tempted), showing how the scholarly image of Iblis filters to a practical levelnews.rice.edu. Others, like Travis Zadeh, explore intersections of demonology and magic – how medieval sorcery manuals or amulet texts treat Iblis as the arch-demon to be warded offen.wikipedia.org. Another fascinating area is gender and Iblis: a few modern scholars (and writers like Nawal El-Saadawi, as we’ll see) have reflected on how Iblis’s rebellion might be read in light of patriarchal authority. For instance, some feminist interpretations draw a parallel between Eve in Christian lore (often blamed for the fall) and Iblis in Islamic lore – both carry a heavy burden of blame and both have been somewhat maligned by later interpretations. While this is more in the realm of modern thought than classical exegesis, it highlights the fresh questions that 21st-century thinkers bring: e.g., does Iblis’s refusal to “bow to another” unintentionally echo any human egalitarian impulse, or is it purely egoistic? Such questions can be provocative, and not all are pursued in mainstream scholarship, but they indicate the expanding horizons of inquiry.
Bias and Context in Sources: Contemporary academics also critically examine primary and secondary sources on Iblis for potential biases. For example, when studying Ṭabarī’s or Ibn Kathīr’s tafsīrs, modern scholars consider how these scholars’ theological orientations (Ṭabarī’s Sunni universalism, Ibn Kathīr’s Ashʿari literalism) colored the way they presented Iblis. Was Ṭabarī neutral in presenting the angel vs. jinn debate, or was he subtly privileging one? Modern analysis suggests Ṭabarī, while thorough, did privilege reports (like those from Ibn ‘Abbās) that made Iblis initially angelic – possibly reflecting a more ancient Near Eastern mindset of a “fallen angel” that early Muslims still entertainedwww.um.edu.mt www.um.edu.mt. In contrast, later medieval commentators writing under more rigid orthodoxies might systematically reject that view. Similarly, Sufi writings defending Iblis are read in context of authors often persecuted or martyred (Ḥallāj, ʿAyn al-Qudāt), suggesting their sympathy for the outcast Iblis paralleled their own feelings of alienation within orthodox societytraditionalhikma.com. Modern scholars like Mohammed Rustom analyze these contexts to argue that talking about Iblis was sometimes a coded way for mystics to talk about themselves or about tensions in Islamic orthodoxytraditionalhikma.com. In sum, contemporary scholarship treats Iblis not just as a theological topic, but as a historical, literary, and cultural phenomenon. Key recent contributions include in-depth studies of Sufi views (e.g. Peter J. Awn’s Satan’s Tragedy and Redemption which examines Iblis in Sufi psychology), entries in encyclopedias that compile classical opinions (e.g. Louis Gardet’s entry “Iblīs” in Encyclopaedia of Islam), and interdisciplinary works linking Iblis with psychology or anthropology of religion. One might also note the work of Indonesian scholar Nasr Abu Zayd, who discussed how narratives like Iblis’s can be interpreted symbolically to find new meaning relevant to modern values (though Abu Zayd himself focused more on hermeneutics broadly).Contemporary debates often revolve around how literally to take Iblis today. Some modern Muslim thinkers influenced by scientific rationalism lean towards seeing Iblis as a metaphor for the human capacity for evil, rather than a literal fire-being with horns. On the other hand, traditional seminaries continue to teach Iblis as a real individual jinn, emphasizing continuity with classical doctrine that he and his offspring actively tempt humans. Progressive interpretations, as reflected in some modern commentaries, suggest that “whether Iblis is an external being or a metaphor for internal impulses, the moral of the story remains to resist evil and arrogance”thequran.love durham-repository.worktribe.com. This indicates an attempt to bridge traditional belief with modern sensibilities.

Overall, modern academic perspectives highlight that understanding Iblis is not merely an exercise in recounting a myth; it is a window into how Muslims conceive of evil, freedom, authority, and the divine-human relationship. By tracing the trajectory of Iblis’s interpretations, contemporary scholars gain insight into broader historiographical shifts: from ancient shared lore to distinctly Islamic theology, from medieval scholasticism to colonial-era reformulations (when figures like Iblis might be reinterpreted to align with rationalist ideals), and into the present, where global literature and media allow Iblis to be a subject of novels, films, and even political rhetoric (as the next section explores). Each new perspective does not so much replace the old as add another layer to the rich palimpsest of meanings surrounding Iblis.

6. Modern Interpretations and Pop Culture

In the modern period, Iblis has transcended the bounds of scripture and scholarship to become a potent symbol in literature, art, and popular culture of the Muslim world – particularly in the Arab world but also in South Asia, Iran, and beyond. Contemporary Muslim writers and artists have reinterpreted Iblis in light of current issues: colonialism, materialism, gender relations, and the confrontation between tradition and modernity. At the same time, the figure of Iblis/Shayṭān continues to appear in folk expressions, proverbs, and media, showing the enduring cultural life of this Quranic character.Modern Arabic Literature: Some of the most daring and profound reimaginings of Iblis come from modern Arab novelists and poets. A landmark example is Naguib Mahfouz’s novel “Awlād Ḥāratinā” (Children of Gebelawi, 1959), an allegorical saga of humanity told through a local Cairene neighborhood. In this highly symbolic novel – which caused an uproar for its bold religious allegory – Mahfouz portrays a character named Idrees who clearly represents Ibliswww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. Gebelawi, the patriarch of the alley, stands in for God, and his various sons symbolize figures like Adam, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. Idrees is the eldest son who feels unjustly passed over when Gebelawi chooses a younger son (Adham/Adam) to manage the estate. Idrees protests the decision, refuses to submit to it, and is expelled from his father’s presence – paralleling Iblis’s refusal to honor Adam and subsequent expulsion by Godwww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. In Children of the Alley, Idrees (Iblis) argues that Gebelawi’s command is unjust, calling out what he sees as tyranny. He says he would rather rule in the shadows (becoming a gang leader, a “bandit”) than live under what he perceives as despotismwww.saet.ac.uk. Mahfouz uses this Iblis-figure to critique authority: Idrees’s defiance reflects an intellectual who demands reasons for authority’s actions, essentially “putting reason…as the fundamental test”www.saet.ac.uk. The novel thereby casts the Iblis vs. God conflict as a parable about power and freedom. Idrees accuses his father (God) of injustice and refuses to accept a social order he finds illegitimate, even if it means alienationwww.saet.ac.uk. Through Idrees, Mahfouz voices the modern question: must one obey authority (even divine authority) unquestioningly, or can protest be principled? While Mahfouz does not exactly endorse Idrees – the novel shows the suffering that comes from his rebellion – he presents his viewpoint with remarkable sympathy and complexity. This caused conservative backlash; religious authorities in Egypt saw the novel as impious for seemingly equating God with an unjust patriarch and Iblis with a voice of reason. Mahfouz even faced a failed assassination attempt decades later partly due to the lingering outrage over this workwww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. Children of the Alley thus exemplifies how Iblis’s story has been appropriated to reflect social and political rebellion. Mahfouz’s Idrees is essentially Iblis in a modern setting, expressing disillusionment with inherited authority – a theme resonant in a post-colonial, increasingly secular intellectual climate.

Another major Arab writer, Nawal El-Saadawi, offers a feminist interpretation in her novel “Jannāt wa Iblīs” (translated as The Innocence of the Devil, 1994). El-Saadawi, an Egyptian feminist, sets much of the story in a mental asylum where characters named Ganāt (Arabic for “heaven/paradise,” ironically) and a young man nicknamed Eblis (Iblis) interactwww.saet.ac.uk. In this satirical, allegorical novel, God and the Devil are both present as patients/inmates in the asylum, and their roles are interrogated. The female protagonist, Ganāt, has been labeled insane for defying patriarchal norms – essentially for refusing to “bow” to the dominance of menwww.saet.ac.uk. Throughout the story, we see how women in her family suffered under men’s oppression, and Ganāt identifies with Iblis as a fellow rebel against unjust authoritywww.saet.ac.uk. In a climactic moment, before Ganāt dies, she writes a note to Eblis: “You are the only one among the slaves who refused to kneel. Your head never bends down.”www.saet.ac.uk. Here El-Saadawi clearly paints Iblis as a model of resistance against tyranny – in her context, the tyranny of patriarchy. Iblis becomes almost heroic, the only one with the courage not to submit to an unjust order. In the finale (a radical twist), God finds Iblis’s lifeless body and laments, calling Iblis “O my son!” and asking forgivenesswww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. God admits that the world was upside-down, that society made Iblis the scapegoat while declaring God innocent, but in truth “He who has authority is responsible… Forgive me, my son. You are innocent.”www.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. This astonishing reversal of the traditional narrative serves El-Saadawi’s feminist and social critique: it suggests that those in power (men, patriarchal God-figures) blame the rebel (Iblis, woman, the Other) for the world’s evils, but perhaps the blame is misplaced. El-Saadawi’s God character essentially owns up to the injustice done to Iblis and, by extension in the allegory, to women and all oppressed peoplewww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. Bias and context: Clearly, El-Saadawi’s portrayal is driven by a sociopolitical agenda – it deliberately inverts a sacred narrative to shock readers into questioning religious and gender hierarchies. Many devout readers find such treatment blasphemous or at least highly unorthodox, but it demonstrates how elastic the symbol of Iblis has become in modern imagination. The Innocence of the Devil equates Iblis’s refusal to bow with women’s refusal to bow to men, thus reframing a cosmic rebellion as a cry for equality and justicewww.saet.ac.uk.

Moving from novels to drama, Tawfīq al-Ḥakīm, one of Egypt’s foremost playwrights, wrote a play “Al-Shahīd” (“The Martyr” or “The Witness”, 1953) that features Iblis in a philosophical plotwww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. In this play, sometimes compared to Dostoevsky’s “Grand Inquisitor” parablewww.saet.ac.uk, Iblis decides to seek repentance and attempts to enter heaven (in the Christian setting, he visits the Pope, etc.). The premise is that Iblis is tired of being cursed and wants to find mercy, but the heads of various religious establishments refuse him because their institutions depend on the existence of the Devil – without a devil, their narratives of sin and salvation crumblewww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. Al-Ḥakīm uses Iblis to satirize organized religion: the Pope, a Rabbi, and the Shaykh of al-Azhar each turn Iblis away, implying that institutional religion needs an antagonist to maintain powerwww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. Finally, the archangel Gabriel tells Iblis that it’s “too early” – the world’s order would be upset if he changed his rolewww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. In a poignant exchange, Iblis asserts that he actually loves God deeply and that his “rebellion” has been part of the harmony of creation: “If I had really wanted to rebel… But I love. My love for God is the secret strength by which the structure holds together… the secret of the harmony of His laws.”www.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. Here, Al-Ḥakīm echoes the Sufi idea of Iblis’s “obedient disobedience”, yet he presents it in a modern existential light: Iblis is a sufferer, dutifully playing the villain because that is the cosmic role assigned to him – a job he fulfills without joy and with deep self-loathingwww.saet.ac.uk. The play ends with Iblis remaining as the Devil, essentially martyring himself by continuing to be the foil to God’s mercy, because the world “is not ready” for universal forgivenesswww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. Al-Ḥakīm’s Iblis is thus a tragic figure upholding the status quo out of a kind of love for God’s design, in line with mystical interpretations, yet the play’s critique is aimed at human religious authorities and the inflexibility of societal structures.

Popular Culture and Media: In everyday modern culture of Muslim societies, Iblis or “Shaytan” is invoked in various ways. The Iranian revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini famously labelled the United States the “Great Satan” in 1979, a slogan that persists in Iranian discoursenews.rice.edu. Here “Satan” was used as a metaphor for a powerful corrupting influence and arch-enemy, showing how the religious concept easily translates into political rhetoric. On a more domestic level, calling someone “ya Iblis!” (O Iblis) can be a teasing insult in Arabic for a particularly naughty or sly person. The word “shaytanic” might describe temptations like music or Western fashion in conservative circles, indicating how Iblis is blamed for perceived moral deviances.

In film and television, direct portrayal of Iblis has been cautious due to religious sensibilities about depicting holy or unholy figures. However, there are instances: in religious TV serials (e.g., stories of prophets produced in Iran or the Arab world), Iblis is sometimes represented by an actor shrouded or a disembodied voice tempting Adam and Eve. In children’s cartoons or educational programs, Iblis might appear as a classic devil figure (though often toned down) to personify the concept of evil whisperings. A Bengali horror movie “Iblis” (2022) even uses the name for a modern supernatural storylinewww.imdb.com, indicating the term’s recognition beyond the Arab world.

In music and visual arts, one finds Iblis referenced as well. Some Middle Eastern metal or rap songs use Iblis or “Shaytan” as a symbol of rebellion or to critique hypocrisy. Artists have drawn Iblis in political cartoons – for example, depicting corrupt politicians or terrorists as having the shadow of Iblis behind them. The flexibility of the image allows it to be a tool of critique; ironically, just as medieval scholars used Iblis to critique each other (e.g., “this group was deceived by Iblis”), modern commentators use Iblis to critique social ills (e.g., “ISIS is Iblis”).One should note that these modern cultural productions often reflect broader theological shifts. The sympathetic or complex portrayals (like in Mahfouz, El-Saadawi, al-Ḥakīm) emerge from a climate of questioning and reinterpreting tradition – they reflect a modernist or secularizing shift, where figures like Iblis can be reimagined apart from dogma to serve as literary devices or social metaphors. Conversely, mass pop culture also includes staunchly traditional representations – for instance, simple morality plays or sermons where Iblis is nothing more or less than the deceiver leading people to hell, reinforcing orthodox warnings.Finally, modern technology and globalization introduced Iblis to new contexts: One can find the name “Iblis” in fantasy novels or video games (created in the West but borrowing Islamic terms for exotic flair). For example, some videogames featuring demons will name a boss “Iblis” to signify a powerful devil figure, though often disconnected from the Quranic story. This appropriation sometimes lacks understanding of the cultural weight of the name, but it shows Iblis’s entry into a global lexicon of evil figures alongside Lucifer, etc. In the Islamic world itself, there is occasional unease or discussion about such uses – does calling a fictional villain “Iblis” trivialize the religious concept? Reactions vary, but it underscores that Iblis as a symbol has traveled far beyond its scriptural origins.In modern art and literature, one sees that Iblis often reflects the broader theological/philosophical shifts of the time:

Increased focus on individualism: Sympathetic portrayals of Iblis highlight individual conscience against authority, paralleling modern emphasis on personal freedom (Mahfouz’s Idrees or El-Saadawi’s Eblis as proto-existential rebels).
Questioning of divine justice: Works like al-Ḥakīm’s or El-Saadawi’s directly or indirectly question the fairness of Iblis’s fate, echoing modern theological wrestling with the problem of evil.
Use as social critique: Iblis becomes a mouthpiece to criticize political tyranny, patriarchy, or religious dogmatism – issues at the forefront of modern thought that would scarcely be addressed via this route in pre-modern times.
Retaining moral teaching: At the same time, popular usage in media and sermons keeps alive the age-old moral of Iblis’s story – to beware of arrogance and temptation. Many Muslims still primarily understand Iblis in the traditional sense: the devil whispering to each of us to skip prayers or commit sins, a daily spiritual struggle rather than a literary metaphor. Thus, modern interpretations range from creative subversion to straightforward didacticism. Iblis in 21st-century culture can be a complex anti-hero in a novel, a symbol on a protest poster, and the same night be invoked in a mosque as the epitome of accursed evil. This multiplicity itself reflects the pluralism of contemporary Islamic thought. The figure of Iblis continues to be a powerful touchstone for exploring rebellion, evil, and fate – ensuring that discussions about him remain as relevant as ever, albeit in new forms and forums.

7. Synthesis and Conclusion

The journey of Iblis in Islamic thought – from Qur’anic origins to contemporary culture – reveals a figure as multilayered and dynamic as the tradition itself. At its core, the story of Iblis has provided Islamic civilization with a means to talk about the nature of evil, the limits of obedience, and the justice of God. In classical sources, Iblis emerges as the quintessential cautionary figure: an act of prideful disobedience that establishes the moral framework for human choice. The Qur’an and Hadith fix Iblis’s role as the avowed enemy of humankind, and early exegesis codified that view, while wrestling with textual nuances (was he angel or jinn?) and drawing linguistic connections that enriched his symbolism (Iblis as “despairing one”). We saw that even in those early centuries, debates around Iblis were already debates about broader issues – free will, the role of reason, and the integration of pre-Islamic ideas into Islam – reflecting a community defining its theology.As Islamic thought matured, medieval scholars projected onto Iblis the tensions within their own intellectual milieu. Theologians like al-Ṭabarī and al-Ghazālī reinforced the orthodox stance: Iblis’s fall was a just consequence of his arrogance, serving as a stern lesson against disobeying God or letting ego overrule divine commanden.wikipedia.org. Mystics and philosophers, however, introduced creative dissonance. Figures like Ibn ʿArabī and al-Ḥallāj dared to explore contradictions – the idea that Iblis, in a twisted way, upheld monotheism even as he earned God’s cursetraditionalhikma.com. They identified “mysteries” in the narrative: for instance, that God’s will can differ from His command, and Iblis became the enactment of that paradoxwww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. Such interpretations, while always controversial, were preserved in Sufi literature and extended the legacy of Iblis into a symbol of tragic love and metaphysical sacrifice. The historiographical shift here is evident: early Muslim scholars generally saw Iblis in monolithic moral terms (evil, condemned), whereas by the high medieval period, intellectual currents (especially Sufism) allowed for far more ambivalence and even a measure of admiration for certain aspects of Iblis (e.g. his steadfastness to what he perceived as tawḥīd). This indicates a shift from a strictly didactic approach to scripture towards a more dialectical and explorative approach in some circles – a shift that did not replace orthodoxy but coexisted with it in tension.

The Islamic philosophical tradition contributed relatively little to Iblis’s “character development” but provided a language to talk about evil that influenced later interpretations. By treating Iblis as an allegory or a cosmic principle, philosophers paved the way for modern demythologizing readings (e.g., the idea that Iblis represents the principle of negation or entropy in the universe, or simply the human ego). Meanwhile, in the cultural arena, poets and storytellers ensured Iblis remained a vivid persona. The rich tapestry of Islamic literature – from ghazals to qasidas, from parables to plays – often turned to Iblis when probing themes of hubris, despair, or unrequited longing for the divine. Through these mediums, the image of Iblis softened and sharpened by turns: softened when he appears as a lonely, tortured soul in Sufi poetry, and sharpened when used as a stock villain in morality tales. This dual legacy meant that when the modern period arrived, thinkers inherited a complex Iblis – one firmly denounced in scripture and law, yet intriguingly humanized in some esoteric writings.Modern scholarship and creative expression have further transformed discussions of Iblis. With the tools of historical criticism, scholars have demystified some aspects (showing, for instance, how much of “Iblis lore” parallels earlier Judeo-Christian narrativeswww.saet.ac.uk), yet at the same time cast new light on uniquely Islamic contributions (like the introduction of jinn to demonology, and the emphasis on God’s absolute authority even in the face of evil). The key debates remain recognizable – free will vs. predestination, the role of reason in faith, God’s justice in allowing evil – but they are now engaged with in a more comparative and academic register. For example, what medieval mutakallimūn once debated in terms of Quranic verses and hadith, contemporary scholars discuss with terms like “theodicy” and draw parallels to Christian debates about Lucifer, enriching the conversation but also moving it somewhat into the academic sphere removed from popular discoursewww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk.

One notable historiographical shift is in the attitude toward interpreting Iblis. Traditional exegesis often operated with a sense of caution or even censorship – certain ideas (like pity for Iblis) were marginalized as heretical “deceptions of Iblis” themselveswww.sifatusafwa.com. Modern thinkers, by contrast, sometimes purposefully adopt Iblis as a devil’s advocate to challenge norms. This can be seen in literature (e.g. El-Saadawi making Iblis a feminist icon) and even in theology (where some reformist thinkers use the Iblis story to argue for the compatibility of Islam and rational inquiry, warning that blind obedience without understanding could be “satanic” in result). The willingness to play with the narrative’s boundaries marks a shift towards a more critical and symbolic engagement rather than a purely devotional or literal one.

Throughout these developments, primary sources have been scrutinized for bias and context by modern scholars. We now understand, for instance, that much of the hadith and tafsir narrative embellishment on Iblis (like his pre-Adam history) likely entered Islamic tradition through converts or storytellers who blended scripture with folklorewww.saet.ac.uk. Recognizing these influences helps separate the Qur’an’s portrayal (brief, archetypal) from later accretions (colorful and detailed). It also cautions us about bias: some early Israelite narrations cast Iblis/Azazil in a certain light perhaps to align with angelological concepts; later Sunni orthodox scholars emphasized hadith that conformed to their theological stances (as seen with Ṭabarī favoring angelic origin reports from Ibn ‘Abbāswww.um.edu.mt www.um.edu.mt). Meanwhile, Shi‘i traditions sometimes have distinct takes (though not covered above, Shi‘i hadith sometimes equate Iblis’s refusal with those who refused to acknowledge ʿAlī’s authority – showing a sectarian use of the symbol). Every interpretation of Iblis comes with a context and sometimes an agenda, and modern historiography tries to unravel those threads.

Key findings of this analysis include: the extraordinary adaptability of the Iblis figure (able to serve as villain, teacher, rebel, or scapegoat depending on the interpreter’s need); the centrality of Iblis’s story to Islamic discourse on pride and obedience (nearly every major Islamic thinker had to articulate a view on Iblis, implicitly or explicitly); and the way attitudes towards Iblis often mirror attitudes towards God’s nature (a harsh view of Iblis correlates with a theology stressing God’s justice and wrath, whereas a nuanced or empathetic view of Iblis appears in theologies exploring God’s love and mystery).Areas for further research remain plentiful. One promising direction is a deeper study of how non-textual folk beliefs about Iblis (in charms, exorcisms, everyday superstition) have interacted with the learned discourse – an anthropological approach to “Iblis in lived Islam.” Another is comparing Iblis with similar figures in other traditions (like the figure of Mara in Buddhism, or Prometheus in Greek myth) to see how conceptions of divine rebellion differ or converge – this could illuminate unique aspects of the Islamic Iblis (for instance, unlike Prometheus who is sometimes a hero for stealing fire, Iblis is rarely if ever seen as simply heroic; even sympathetic Sufis portray him as tragically mistaken, not a champion of humanity). Additionally, psychological and psychoanalytic readings of Iblis could be fruitful: examining Iblis as representing the shadow self or the process of individuation in a Jungian sense, for example, might yield new insights into why this figure fascinates the collective imagination.Finally, as technology and society evolve, the image of Iblis will likely find new expressions. In an age of AI and cyberpunk, one could imagine “Iblis” being the name for a rogue AI in a Muslim author’s sci-fi novel – the archetype of the rebel creature against its creator might map onto human creations rebelling against humans. How Islamic thought will address such analogies could be an area of future theological creativity: drawing lessons from Iblis’s saga for humanity’s own role as a creator of potentially rebellious beings.In conclusion, Iblis in Islam is far more than a simple villain. He is a mirror – reflecting each era’s deepest questions and anxieties. In him, scholars found a canvas to debate destiny and morality; mystics found a dark light to contrast God’s overwhelming light; poets found a tragic character to evoke pathos and warning; and ordinary believers found a tangible enemy to blame for their missteps even as they also found in his story a reminder of the perils of pride. The academic study of Iblis, as outlined, shows a rich interplay of text and context, continuity and change. It teaches us that a figure seemingly cast in black-and-white in scripture can generate a spectrum of interpretations – each illuminating something about the interpreters and the time in which they live. And so, the analysis of Iblis is ultimately an analysis of Islamic thought itself, in all its diversity and dynamism. As new chapters of this story are written in contemporary discourse and future thought, Iblis remains, paradoxically, both the ever-accursed outcast and one of the most enduring companions of the Muslim intellectual journey.

Bibliography

Primary Texts and Classical Sources:

The Qur’ān. English translation by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. (References to Quranic verses about Iblis include 2:34, 7:11–18, 15:30–44, 17:61–65, 18:50, 20:116, 38:71–85.)
Al-Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar. Jāmiʿ al-bayān ʿan taʾwīl āy al-Qurʾān (Commentary on the Qur’an). Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1954. Vol. 1 (Sūrat al-Baqara) and Vol. 15 (Sūrat al-Kahf) contain discussions of Iblis’s refusal and naturewww.um.edu.mt www.um.edu.mt. Ṭabarī compiles early narrations, including those from Ibn ʿAbbās, on Iblis’s origins and the angel/jinn debate.
Al-Ghazālī, Abū Ḥāmid. Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn (The Revival of the Religious Sciences), Book 21 Sharḥ ʿAjāʾib al-Qalb (Marvels of the Heart). Translated by Walter James Skellie as The Marvels of the Heart. Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae, 2010. Ghazālī discusses how Satan whispers into the human heart and ways to repel himwww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. Contains the hadith “Satan flows in the bloodstream of Adam’s son” and anecdotes like Jesus and the rockwww.saet.ac.uk.
Ibn al-Jawzī, Abū’l Faraj. Talbīs Iblīs (The Devil’s Deception). 12th century; Arabic ed. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, 1983. (Partial English translation by Bilal Philips, 1996.) A polemical work condemning various sects and sufis by illustrating how Iblis allegedly tricked themwww.sifatusafwa.com. Useful for understanding orthodox criticism of heterodox ideas about Iblis.
Rūmī, Jalāl al-Dīn. Mathnavī-i Maʿnavī (Masnavi), ed. and trans. Reynold A. Nicholson, 8 vols. London: E.J.W. Gibb Memorial, 1926–1934. (See Nicholson’s translation, Book II, story of Iblis and Muʿāwiyawww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk.) Rūmī gives Iblis a voice to present his case in a balanced narrative, reflecting sympathetic Sufi perspective tempered by orthodox conclusionwww.saet.ac.uk.
Al-Ḥallāj, Manṣūr. Kitāb al-Ṭawāsīn. 10th century, ed. Louis Massignon (Paris, 1913). Contains Tā-Sīn al–Sirāj (on Iblis and Pharaoh) in which al-Ḥallāj portrays Iblis as a tragic figure who refused to bow out of devotion to tawḥīd. Provides early mystical perspective on Iblis later echoed by Ibn ʿArabī. Secondary Scholarship (Historical and Theological Analyses):
Awn, Peter J. Satan’s Tragedy and Redemption: Iblīs in Sufi Psychology. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1983. A comprehensive study of the figure of Iblis in classical Sufi thought, focusing on al-Ḥallāj, ʿAyn al-Qudāt, and otherstraditionalhikma.com. Explores the theme of “Satan as a tragic lover of God” and how Sufis reconciled that with Islamic monotheism.
Basharin, Pavel. “The Problem of Free Will and Predestination in the Light of Satan’s Justification in Early Sufism.” English Language Notes 56, no.1 (2018): 119–138. Analyzes early Sufi writings that “justify” Iblis (e.g. Ḥallāj) versus those that condemn him (e.g. Rūzbihān), linking these positions to debates on qadar (predestination)www.researchgate.net. Provides insight into how theological stances influenced attitudes toward Iblis.
Bodman, Whitney S. The Poetics of Iblīs: Narrative Theology in the Qur’ān. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Divinity School, 2011. Examines the Quranic Iblis narratives and their reception, arguing that the Quran deliberately crafts Iblis with ambiguity to provoke theological reflectionwww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. Also discusses pre-Islamic background and later interpretations; includes analysis of Iblis in modern literature (Iqbal, Mahfouz, etc.).
Bodman, Whitney. “Iblīs.” St. Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology (online), ed. Brendan N. Wolfe. 2022. (Open-access article)www.saet.ac.uk. A concise yet thorough overview of Iblis in Islamic tradition, covering Quranic etymology, typology of non-human beings (angels, jinn)www.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk, heritage of Iblis in tafsīr, kalām, Sufism, and modern literaturewww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. Good synthesis of classical and contemporary perspectives with citations.
Gardet, Louis. “Iblīs.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Vol. III. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Classic encyclopedia entry summarizing the Islamic narrative of Iblis and various interpretations through history. Useful for a quick reference to orthodox Islamic doctrine on Iblis and differences in Sunni/Shi’i lore.
Teuma, Edmund. “The Nature of Iblis in the Qur’an as Interpreted by the Commentators.” Islamic Culture 59 (1985): 71–88. (Also available via University of Malta repository)www.um.edu.mt www.um.edu.mt. Discusses how six classical commentators (including al-Ṭabarī, al-Zamakhsharī, al-Qurṭubī, al-Rāzī, al-Bayḍāwī, and al-Alūsī) interpreted Iblis’s nature and name. Details the philological debate on the name’s originwww.um.edu.mtand the angel vs. jinn arguments each mufassir presentedwww.um.edu.mt www.um.edu.mt.
Wheeler, Brannon. Mecca and Eden: Ritual, Relics, and Territory in Islam. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006. Contains a chapter on the fall of Iblis and Adam, examining early Islamic adaptation of Biblical fall narratives and the development of the Iblis story in relation to the concept of Eden and sacred space. Highlights how certain Judaeo-Christian elements were Islamized (e.g., Iblis’s role compared to Lucifer). Modern Literature and Cultural Studies:
al-Ḥakīm, Tawfīq. Al-Shahīd (“The Martyr”). In Three Plays by Tawfiq al-Hakim, trans. Denys Johnson-Davies. Washington, D.C.: Three Continents Press, 1981. (Original Arabic play 1953.) A modern play featuring Iblis as a character seeking repentancewww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. Provides a 20th-century literary perspective blending Islamic motifs with existential questions; commentary on the need for evil in institutional religionwww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk.
El-Saadawi, Nawal. The Innocence of the Devil (Jannāt wa Iblīs). Translated by Sherif Hetata. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. A novel using the characters of God and Iblis in a feminist allegory about patriarchy in Egyptwww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. Notable for its inversion of the God-Iblis dynamic and its bold social commentary. Introduction by Fedwa Malti-Douglas provides context on the controversy and themes.
Iqbal, Muhammad. Payām-e Mashriq (Message of the East). Lahore: 1923. (English translation by Hadi Hasan, The Message of the East, Lahore, 1977). A collection of poems responding to Goethe’s West-östlicher Divan. Includes a poem in which Iqbal puts words in Iblis’s mouth to critique Western materialismwww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. Iblis is depicted as the spirit of worldly prowess and pride; Annemarie Schimmel’s Gabriel’s Wing (1963) analyzes Iqbal’s use of the Iblis motifwww.saet.ac.uk.
Mahfouz, Naguib. Children of the Alley (Awlād Ḥāratinā). Translated by Peter Theroux. New York: Doubleday, 1996. (Original Arabic 1959.) An allegorical novel retelling religious history through a Cairo neighborhood, featuring Idrees as the Iblis figurewww.saet.ac.uk www.saet.ac.uk. Contains a preface by Mahfouz (1995) discussing the public reactionwww.saet.ac.uk. This work illustrates the use of Iblis’s story to comment on social injustice and was highly controversial in the Islamic world.
Rustom, Mohammed. “Devil’s Advocate: ʿAyn al-Quḍāt’s Defence of Iblis in Context.” Studia Islamica 115.1 (2020): 81–106. Examines the Persian Sufi ʿAyn al-Qudāt Hamadānī’s writings on Iblistraditionalhikma.com traditionalhikma.com, situating them within the “school of passionate love” (madhhab al-ʿishq) and showing how he anticipated Ibn ʿArabī in some respects. Useful for understanding the continuity and innovation in mystical interpretations of Iblis.
Sinai, Nicolai. “An Angelic Fall and a Primeval Harvest: Iblīs in the Qur’ān and Late Antiquity.” In The Qur’ān in Context: Historical and Literary Investigations, edited by A. Neuwirth et al. Leiden: Brill, 2010. An academic article comparing the Quranic fall of Iblis with late antique angel fall narratives, analyzing how the Qur’an departs from earlier models (especially by introducing Iblis’s dialog with God and the notion of respite until Judgment)www.saet.ac.uk. Good for situating Iblis in historical context.
Doostdar, Alireza. The Iranian Metaphysicals: Explorations in Science, Islam, and the Uncanny. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018. While not focused on Iblis per se, this anthropological work discusses contemporary Iranian engagements with the supernatural (including belief in jinn and Satan) and modern discourses that reconcile or conflict with scientific rationalism. Relevant for understanding modern Shi‘i perspectives on Satan (as referenced in Doostdar’s lectures, e.g., analysis of Khomeini’s “Great Satan” rhetoric)news.rice.edu.
Rice, Valentine M. “Iblīs in Mujūn Literature.” Journal of Arabic Literature 8 (1977): 50–64. Discusses portrayals of Iblis in Arabic mujūn (bawdy or irreverent) literature, showing a lighter side of how Iblis was used in humorous or cynical poetry under the Abbasids. This niche study reveals the cultural versatility of Iblis’s image, even as a figure of satire. By examining these sources – from scripture and classical commentary to modern novels and academic analyses – one gains a comprehensive view of Iblis’s place in Islamic thought. Each source, in its own genre and context, contributes a piece to the puzzle of how Muslims have understood the Devil in their midst: at times an external tempter to be feared, at times a mirror of their own inner failings, occasionally a subject of empathy or intellectual curiosity, and always a catalyst for profound questions about God, humans, and the nature of evil.www.saet.ac.uk www.researchgate.net