The Quran’s devil is striking not because he solves the problem of evil, but because he refuses to. The Quran deploys two registers. “Iblis” names the rebel at the prostration test; “al-Shaytan” names the tempter thereafter. The semantic history of shaytan intersects Arabic roots (distance/rebellion; burning/heat etc) and older West-Semitic usage (satan “adversary/accuser”), reflecting a diachronic widening from concrete to abstract senses (rope-snare; heat-wrath; rebellion-demonic opposition). The Quran’s usage grounds this history within a rigorously monotheist discourse.

This shift, a proper name to a role, foreshadows the text’s refusal to make evil metaphysically co-eternal with God while insisting on its historical & psychological realness. Classical tafsir already wrestles with the name: Tabari derives Iblis from ablasa (“despair”), while Alusi prefers a loanword analysis and notes its diptote status; Jeffery in Foreign Vocabulary of the Quran argues a Christian pathway (Syriac/Greek diabolos) ; under Q. 18:50 Razi reports covers an extensive debate regarding this and briefly the opinions in favour of Iblis’ angelic nature. Silverstein in Original Meaning of al-shaytan al-rajim argues that al-rajim is better heard as “banished, driven off” rather than “stoned,” an exile term that fits the text’s legal and cosmic register. Monferrer-Sala’s philology On the Arabized Nominal Form Iblis makes a strong case for an Arabized nominal borrowed from Greek diabolos via Christian Aramaic; the Quran receives the name and then rewrites it.

It seems that Quran sustains deliberate polyvalence: it never collapses Iblis into metaphysical dualism, yet uses him to stage recurring questions about justice, freedom, guidance. Whitney Bodman in The Poetics of Iblis suggests that the text wants us to meet him afresh each time: the seven episodes are to be read “in isolation from one another” (read scenes in situ rather than harmonizing them, and sets them against five mythic “logics”: combat myth, heavenly prosecutor, watcher myth, fallen-angel myth, and rivalry) so that each surah’s angles and emphases can do their own theological work, and the result is a figure who oscillates between character and actor, between local meaning and archetype.

Quranic devil is not a single flat villain but a deliberately layered figure whose meaning emerges only when you read across scenes, registers, and intertexts. The text toggles between Iblis as a character with a voice, history, and pathos, and shaytan as a type or function, an “actor”. That split, character versus role, underwrites the Quran’s pedagogy: when........

© Greater Kashmir