You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 03, 2016, 10:04:14 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.  (Read 35177 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline FormlessTopic starter

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #500 on: September 05, 2015, 01:45:22 PM »
This next question is more a comparative faith thing, but is asked due to its relationship with Islam at various points in history.

The Druze: So there's this religious group in the Middle East known as the Druze.  I've variously heard them described in different ways: as their own religion entirely separate from the Abrahamic faiths, as an offshoot of Islam, and as an Islamic sect.  From their Wikipedia page, they seem akin to a sort of syncretic faith, taking and combining traditions from non-Abrahamic sources (such as ancient Greek philosophers) while still being monotheist and loyal to the Abrahamic God. 

Encyclopedia Britannica mentions that the Druze religion developed out of I'smailite Muslim religious traditions.


The Wikipedia page mentions that Druze are not considered Muslims by many, and have been persecuted due to this.  The mention of their belief that God incarnated into various human forms, including a caliph in 1018 AD would seem to be the major point of contention, in regards to mainstream Muslim opposition of God being human.

So what is the Druze relationship to Islam specifically?  Are they considered People of the Book by Muslims?  Or are they grouped with the non-Abrahamic beliefs such as paganism/atheism/etc?

Too many explanations , and zero confirmed sources for me.

Some say they're a group that believes in God ( Allah ) and that's about it. Though most of their teachings are identical to Islam's teachings.

Some say its a group that believes that God did not have any prophets on earth and he never declared any true religion , so they worship him for the omnipresence they believe he has.

And some say its a group that came to existence to ' falsify ' Islam , the way Islam falsified the holy religions before.

There's even the question of its origin and the time it came to existence. Some say it started in Egypt , other says it started in Iraq , or Shaam. Some say it started in the 10th century , while other claim it started in the 8th century.

This is what I know about this group.

Offline FormlessTopic starter

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #501 on: September 05, 2015, 01:46:46 PM »
You could do worse than quoting Nassar:



I'm sure the Wahabbists/Salafists loved him.

Hah ... I see what you mean. ::)

Offline FormlessTopic starter

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #502 on: September 05, 2015, 01:49:11 PM »
*flops in with a random question*

ive checked out this thread every now and again out of curiosity so maybe this was already answered and I just missed it.


But is it possible that Djin and Nephilim are the same thing or totally different beings?

No, Djinn are creatures of fire created directly by Allah. Nephilim are, at least in popular theory, the off-spring of Angels (The Sons of God) and humans (The Daughters of Adam). In the Qur'an it is written that Angels cannot reproduce. There are giants though, though my memories of them are a bit vague, I remember them having a prophet called Hud, they themselves were called the Ad people. But anyway, hope Formless can elaborate.

Exactly how Wajin said.

Islam does not have the concept of ' Nephilims '. While Jinn ( Djinn ) are spirited creatures created from fire.

Online Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #503 on: September 05, 2015, 01:53:13 PM »
Exactly how Wajin said.

Islam does not have the concept of ' Nephilims '. While Jinn ( Djinn ) are spirited creatures created from fire.

Ah okay :) Thank you.

Offline Wajin

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #504 on: September 05, 2015, 03:34:17 PM »
Ah okay :) Thank you.

For further information, Christian sources generally say that the angels who were the fathers of the Nephilim were fallen angels. According to Islam, Angels are faithful to Allah and incorruptible. The islamic satan is a Djinn, explaining how he can be evil, as Djinn have the potential to be either good or bad like humans.   

Offline Skynet

« Last Edit: September 07, 2015, 11:24:55 PM by Skynet »

Offline Skynet

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #506 on: October 03, 2015, 12:57:53 AM »
The term "Mohammedan:" For quite some time in Europe, Muslims were more commonly described by this name as followers of the Prophet Mohammed.  Many Muslims did not care for the term, as it implied that they worshiped the man as a God.  The term gradually fell out of use in the West in favor of "Muslim," although I recall seeing the term used as recent as 1940.

The Wikipedia entry for the term mentions it got phased out around the mid-1960s, a decade rather known for a lot of social progress in the West.  So what happened?  Muslim social movements?  Greater awareness and/or relations between Western and Muslim countries?  Some movies/books/etc using the correct term got popularized and thus entered the linguistic collective?

Offline FormlessTopic starter

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #507 on: October 03, 2015, 04:59:43 PM »
The name may refer to the same religion , but it goes against the teachings to relate the religion to the prophet. Afterall , Mohammad was a messenger , and not the one who created the religion itself.

Maybe it was a way to refer to muslims back then? In Europe it was far from the center of the Islamic nation so such terms may come to be as a way to identify a new group?

My guess is that people learned how the term ' Mohammadan ' isn't as accurate as ' Muslim '. Since the former refers to the prophet , while the latter refers to the religion itself.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #508 on: October 04, 2015, 07:06:09 PM »
How has the news of the Hajj stampede progressed in Saudi Arabia?

Is the footage of the Saudi Royal motorcade/procession causing it common knowledge?

Offline FormlessTopic starter

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #509 on: October 04, 2015, 07:25:38 PM »
How has the news of the Hajj stampede progressed in Saudi Arabia?

Is the footage of the Saudi Royal motorcade/procession causing it common knowledge?

While this is better fitted for another thread ... I really did not see any actual footage of any royal motorcade that caused the stampede. ( Of course the cause of the stampede is different altogether. ) Whatever footage of any royal motorcade was shot after the incident. When the king himself wanted to be in the scene after it happened.

There was an official statement by Prince Khalid Al-Faisal who denied that rumor when it was first shown in a British news channel.

In a different thread , or via PM I can provide a better explanation of how it happend. Though most news sources covered it. It depends on which ones you prefer to listen to and wish to believe.

Offline Skynet

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #510 on: October 06, 2015, 10:16:55 AM »
Religious Authorities & Titles:

So throughout history I've seen various jobs and occupations dealing with those learning, studying, and enforcing Islamic teachings.  Imams, Qadi, Ulama, Mufti, et cetera.

In some cases they seem to overlap, or were particular to certain eras.

Imam: Equivalent to a priest or religious scholar, although the specifics of the role differ between Sunni and Shi'a Islam.

Qadi: Islamic judge of the Sharia.  Historically the role has existed since the early Caliphate and into Ottoman times.  Is Qadi still a modern-day role, or is it now occupied by more modern terminology such as the Ulama?

Ulama: Those studied in Islamic law, history, sciences, etc.  Wikipedia denotes that they're a specialized role of imams.

Allamah: Honorary title for the most learned students of Islamic jurisprudence.

Mufti: High-ranking Muslim scholars who are studied in a variety of fields and the ones capable of issuing fatwas.  Originated during Ottoman times, although I've seen the term used today in the case of Saudi Arabia.

Mullah: A Muslim educated in religious law.  Wikipedia says that the term has ambiguous origins.  Tends to be popular mostly among Shi'a and Pakistani Muslims.


From a cursory glance a lot of them seem to overlap, with core differences mostly based on era and sect.  Still, I wanted to know of any differences or similarities beyond religious studies and law.  For example, was there anything qadis did that differed from the Ulama?  Could a member of the Ulama or Mufti fill the role of Imam in Sunni Islam for the purposes of mosque management?

Offline FormlessTopic starter

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #511 on: October 07, 2015, 12:32:58 PM »
Just a bit of linguistic clarification ... What Skynet is correct but ...

Quote
Qadi: Islamic judge of the Sharia.  Historically the role has existed since the early Caliphate and into Ottoman times.  Is Qadi still a modern-day role, or is it now occupied by more modern terminology such as the Ulama?

Qadi simply means ' judge '. It isn't a strictly religious term like ' Mufti '. Same goes for ' Ulama ' which is the plural of ' Aa'lem ' which means ' Scientist.

As for the difference , its in the meaning of each word.

A Qadi is a judge who oversees a courtroom. A ' Aa'lem ' is a man who studies religion ( Or any science for that matter , but we're looking at it from a religious perspective in this case ). The Ulama have just attained a greater level of knowledge in their field.

The true difference lies between the ' Mufti ' and the rest of these titles. While a Mufti can be a ' judge ' , the role reserved for Judges for its tedious and crucial effect on everything. SO the Mufti is left with issuing Fatwas that govern the day to day matters and whatever new things that spawns in a commoner's life. You can say the Mufti holds a greater role than anyone else since he needs to be as knowledgeable as an ' Aa'lem ' , as stern as a ' Qadi ' , and as strict as an ' Imam '.

I hope this clarifies it. :-)

Offline Skynet

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #512 on: October 07, 2015, 11:06:39 PM »
Your answers help, as usual Formless.

Another thing I've been wondering:

Are dairy and egg products from haram animals forbidden to eat as well?  I presume eggs are, considering that the yolk is technically an embryo, but what about milk and cheeses?

Offline FormlessTopic starter

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #513 on: October 08, 2015, 12:03:14 PM »
Are dairy and egg products from haram animals forbidden to eat as well?  I presume eggs are, considering that the yolk is technically an embryo, but what about milk and cheeses?

Honestly ... I don't know.

I mean forbidden animals for muslims are usually animals that people do not normally eat. Except for pork. So aside from pork , I can't really comment.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #514 on: October 08, 2015, 12:31:39 PM »
Got curious, went looking.  Found this, which might not be exhaustive, but I have to say that I didn't see anything on the haram list that was a notable dairy producer, or really much that would be a commercial source of eggs.  Maybe turtle eggs and/or crab roe, but that was it on the egg front.  The birds that were listed were things like birds of prey or scavenging birds, so even finding their eggs would be a case of desperation-level searching.

Now, I will say that there were a number of things on the haram list that are commonly eaten.  They wouldn't fit Jewish kosher laws (which are quite similar to haram/halal laws as I understand both), but I hear gator and snake are tasty if prepared right, and the bivalves and crustaceans are quite popular.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #515 on: October 10, 2015, 11:15:00 AM »
Honestly ... I don't know.

I mean forbidden animals for muslims are usually animals that people do not normally eat. Except for pork. So aside from pork , I can't really comment.

 I must ask, why are muslims forbidden to eat pork?

Offline Wajin

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #516 on: October 10, 2015, 11:24:55 AM »
I must ask, why are muslims forbidden to eat pork?

"Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah , and [those animals] killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a head-long fall or by the goring of horns, and those from which a wild animal has eaten, except what you [are able to] slaughter [before its death], and those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and [prohibited is] that you seek decision through divining arrows. That is grave disobedience" at you [are able to] slaughter [before its death], and those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and [prohibited is] that you seek decision through divining arrows. That is grave disobedience" - Al-Mā'idah 5:3

I am was quite happy to have my Qur'an at hand, and when I asked when I was a child, this was the explanation I was given. My Imam merely pointed me to this without explaining it further. If formless has a better explanation, seeing as he lives in a Muslim majority country.

Offline Skynet

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #517 on: October 10, 2015, 11:47:25 AM »
On a semi-related note...

Dogs and cleanliness: So a thing I've heard is that many Muslims view dogs as impure or unclean to the point that physical contact is to be avoided.  I do know that Iran and Turkey have banned the sale and ownership of dogs at various points in time, although I don't how much of it was due to religious reasons vs. other ones.  A Muslim Politician in a town council in the Netherlands tried and failed to ban dog ownership as well.  I do know that one of the reasons Iran did it was that they viewed the owning of dogs as a Westernized hobby and therefore bad.  Some British Muslims were angry at coming into contact with bomb-sniffing dogs, claiming that such contact harmed their religious vows.

However, Wikipedia says that the Qu'ran does not support the viewpoint of uncleanliness.

Quote
The Qurʼan contains three mentions of dogs:

Verse 5:4 says "Lawful for you are all good things, and [the prey] that trained [hunting] dogs and falcons catch for you."
Verse 7:176 says that if you drive a dog away, it lolls out its tongue, panting, but if you leave it alone, it lolls out its tongue anyhow.
Verse 18:18 describes the Companions of the Cave, a group of saintly young men presented in the Qurʼan as exemplars of religion, sleeping with "their dog stretching out its forelegs at the threshold." Further on, in verse 22, the dog is always counted as one of their number, no matter how they are numbered. In Muslim folklore, affectionate legends have grown around the loyal and protective qualities of this dog, whose name in legend is Qiṭmīr.

But a later hadith mentioned that dog saliva was unclean:

Quote
The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: "If a dog licks the vessel of any one of you, let him throw away whatever was in it and wash it seven times."

The Maliki school of thought that this is less due to some innate dirtiness of dogs, and more due to simple cleanliness reasons.

Another suggested that dogs should only be owned under specific circumstances:

Quote
The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: "Whoever keeps a dog, his good deeds will decrease every day by one qeeraat (a unit of measurement), unless it is a dog for farming or herding." In another report, it is said: "... unless it is a dog for herding sheep, farming or hunting."

So it seems there are are about three popular views: "they're immoral to own except under certain circumstances," "not immoral but they're unsanitary," and "unclean even to touch."  The last one seems more a misinterpretation of the cleanliness thing, the idea that since you should wash yourself it means that there is something intrinsically impure about dogs.

Does this seem correct?
« Last Edit: October 10, 2015, 12:25:07 PM by Skynet »

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #518 on: October 10, 2015, 12:09:10 PM »
I must ask, why are muslims forbidden to eat pork?

There's a very similar rule under the Jewish kosher laws

Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. (Leviticus 11:3)
...
And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. Leviticus 11:7)

There are a couple of practical reasons that the pig would be a bad thing to use as food at the time the laws were written.  One would be the risk of trichinosis (parasitic diseases would also account for the forbidding of shellfish and certain fish without fins or scales).  Another one is that pigs aren't really adapted to the region, and would require an extensive use of resources that could easily be used to cover the needs of more people than the pigs could feed.

Offline FormlessTopic starter

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #519 on: October 10, 2015, 02:31:04 PM »
I must ask, why are muslims forbidden to eat pork?

"Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah , and [those animals] killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a head-long fall or by the goring of horns, and those from which a wild animal has eaten, except what you [are able to] slaughter [before its death], and those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and [prohibited is] that you seek decision through divining arrows. That is grave disobedience" at you [are able to] slaughter [before its death], and those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and [prohibited is] that you seek decision through divining arrows. That is grave disobedience" - Al-Mā'idah 5:3

I am was quite happy to have my Qur'an at hand, and when I asked when I was a child, this was the explanation I was given. My Imam merely pointed me to this without explaining it further. If formless has a better explanation, seeing as he lives in a Muslim majority country.


There's a very similar rule under the Jewish kosher laws

Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. (Leviticus 11:3)
...
And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. Leviticus 11:7)

There are a couple of practical reasons that the pig would be a bad thing to use as food at the time the laws were written.  One would be the risk of trichinosis (parasitic diseases would also account for the forbidding of shellfish and certain fish without fins or scales).  Another one is that pigs aren't really adapted to the region, and would require an extensive use of resources that could easily be used to cover the needs of more people than the pigs could feed.

Rightly so.

However , Pork meat was mentioned 4 times in the qur'an. The one mentioned by Wajin.

And three other verses

Verse 173 , Sura 2
Verse 145 , Sura 6
Verse 115 , Sura 16

In each verse , Pork was mentioned in the company of either the ' dead ' , the ' strangled ' the ' foul ' , or the ' bloodied '. Some people thought that Pork was deemed ' vile ' ( for the lack of a better word ) when compared to other creatures like the Lamb or Cow.

But this begged the question of why was it forbidden when God created it as a domestic animal? You could consider a Boar as a dangerous animal , but Pork ... I wouldn't know myself. But this is what one could easily draw from these verses.

I myself am not certain of Christianity forbids pork at all , because it seems strange how Judaism came before Christianity , and it forbade pork , then Christianity came , and then Islam followed and renewed the forbiddance. It just sounds strange to me to be honest.

Offline FormlessTopic starter

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #520 on: October 10, 2015, 02:42:53 PM »
On a semi-related note...

Dogs and cleanliness: So a thing I've heard is that many Muslims view dogs as impure or unclean to the point that physical contact is to be avoided.  I do know that Iran and Turkey have banned the sale and ownership of dogs at various points in time, although I don't how much of it was due to religious reasons vs. other ones.  A Muslim Politician in a town council in the Netherlands tried and failed to ban dog ownership as well.  I do know that one of the reasons Iran did it was that they viewed the owning of dogs as a Westernized hobby and therefore bad.  Some British Muslims were angry at coming into contact with bomb-sniffing dogs, claiming that such contact harmed their religious vows.

However, Wikipedia says that the Qu'ran does not support the viewpoint of uncleanliness.

But a later hadith mentioned that dog saliva was unclean:

The Maliki school of thought that this is less due to some innate dirtiness of dogs, and more due to simple cleanliness reasons.

Another suggested that dogs should only be owned under specific circumstances:

So it seems there are are about three popular views: "they're immoral to own except under certain circumstances," "not immoral but they're unsanitary," and "unclean even to touch."  The last one seems more a misinterpretation of the cleanliness thing, the idea that since you should wash yourself it means that there is something intrinsically impure about dogs.

Does this seem correct?

Dogs are an interesting creature. But there is so many wrong interpretations around the world when it comes to Islam's view about them.

It is true that whatever a dog ' licks ' or ' violates ' should be washed seven times. And the first time it should be washed with dirt.

But that never meant that you cannot have a dog. And this is where most interpretations go wrong. Some took these instructions as dogs being ill-fitted as companions to humans. But that isn't true. Some forbid owning dogs as pets , or animals altogether. And that is flatout wrong.

The tale of the Cave's folk and their dog occurred thousand of years before Islam's time , just to be clear. ( A curious tale to be sure. )

But what really matters is one Hadith ( or tale ) that Mohammad said. Of a man who was promised Heaven because of a dog , and a woman promised Hell because of a cat.

He said that a man once found a dog near an abandoned village in the desert. The heat of summer was at its peak , and the dog was licking the sand near the village's well hoping to taste the least bit of humidity to water its tongue. The man decided to help the dog so he climbed down the well , scooped water with his shoes and held one side between his teeth to keep the other side from spilling. And he served the dog as much water as he could drink. For that he was promised Heaven.

A woman however somewhere else , was troubled by a cat trying to eat some of its fowl. So she finally captured it and locked it in a tiny hole in her house. Where no bugs could even crawl in. She left the cat there until it died. Never allowing it water or food. And for that she was promised Hell.

Another thing about owning dogs , as guards for one's house or as companions for hunts. That happened even during the Prophet's time. So having a dog within one's household isn't forbidden at all. And just a misinterpretation by some folks.

Lastly , pets are allowed in Islam. The biggest proof was one companion of Mohammad best know as ' Abu Hurairah ' , the name translates to ' The one with the kitten ' , who used to carry a small kitten in his sleeve wherever he went. And that man relayed thousands of Hadiths from Mohammad because he was with him almost everyday and night.

So I hope this helps. :-)

Offline Skynet

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #521 on: October 10, 2015, 03:56:40 PM »
Ages and Eras:

So various civilizations often organize broad historical time periods into eras, based upon a recurring element.  For the Western world, this included things such as the Dark Ages, Middle Ages, Renaissance, Industrial Revolution, and the Cold War.

In the history of the Muslim world, I've seen two broad eras mentioned: Jahiliyyah, or "Age of Ignorance" as a catch-all for pre-Islamic Arabia (600 AD and before); then the Islamic Golden Age represented a centuries-long expansion of economic, scientific, and literary growth (700 to 1200 AD).

I take it that this might be specific to the Middle East and Arab world, in that Muslims with their own local history (Indonesian/Pakistani/etc) incorporate more their own trends than things which happened in far-off countries.  But I wanted to know if many Muslim countries had their own overall listing of eras akin to how the Western world split up history into the above-mentioned ages.  I imagine that the term "Dark Ages" wouldn't have fit the ascendant Rashidun Caliphate at the time.

Wikipedia has a History of Islam page, but tends to refer mostly in regards to the empires at the time (Rashidun/Ummayad/Abbasid/Ottoman) and often uses Western comparison as a reference point ("Event X occured in the High Middle Ages").
« Last Edit: October 10, 2015, 04:07:26 PM by Skynet »

Offline FormlessTopic starter

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #522 on: October 11, 2015, 03:22:33 PM »
Well our history ( The Arabian Peninsula's ) Isn't any different from what you've mentioned , Skynet.

There's the pre-islamic era , which as the name means , full of spiritual ignorance , slavery , barbarianism and tribalism.

We relate our histories to the nations that risen and fell through time , following the prophet's message.

However , from a non-Islamic perspective , there is a very long history that involves the Peninsula , Egypt & Persia.

The Ma'reb kingdom , Thamood , Aad , the Pharaohs. And while these have been mentioned through Islamic lore , in Qur'an and Hadiths , they aren't directly related to islam.

I suppose reading more about these ancient kingdoms might be interesting. But then again , history can be fascinating. :-)

Offline Skynet

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #523 on: October 11, 2015, 07:36:51 PM »
Well our history ( The Arabian Peninsula's ) Isn't any different from what you've mentioned , Skynet.

There's the pre-islamic era , which as the name means , full of spiritual ignorance , slavery , barbarianism and tribalism.

We relate our histories to the nations that risen and fell through time , following the prophet's message.

However , from a non-Islamic perspective , there is a very long history that involves the Peninsula , Egypt & Persia.

The Ma'reb kingdom , Thamood , Aad , the Pharaohs. And while these have been mentioned through Islamic lore , in Qur'an and Hadiths , they aren't directly related to islam.

I suppose reading more about these ancient kingdoms might be interesting. But then again , history can be fascinating. :-)

I love history; the only problem is that there's so many events and societies, and so little time here on Earth to study them all.

Who has a soul? So an interesting thing I've encountered in Islam is the concept that all animals have souls and can honor God, albeit they do so in ways we would not recognize.  Which I think may tie into Formless' explanation earlier of the woman who starved a cat to death being destined for Hell?

Anyway, in Islam, beyond humans, jinn, and animals, are plants considered to have souls?  Is there such a thing as a living being which has no soul?  Also, is the concept/cautionary tale of people selling their souls to the Devil/Iblis a thing which occurs in Islam like in Christianity?
« Last Edit: October 11, 2015, 07:41:44 PM by Skynet »

Offline Vekseid

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #524 on: October 11, 2015, 07:59:18 PM »
Rightly so.

However , Pork meat was mentioned 4 times in the qur'an. The one mentioned by Wajin.

And three other verses

Verse 173 , Sura 2
Verse 145 , Sura 6
Verse 115 , Sura 16

In each verse , Pork was mentioned in the company of either the ' dead ' , the ' strangled ' the ' foul ' , or the ' bloodied '. Some people thought that Pork was deemed ' vile ' ( for the lack of a better word ) when compared to other creatures like the Lamb or Cow.

But this begged the question of why was it forbidden when God created it as a domestic animal? You could consider a Boar as a dangerous animal , but Pork ... I wouldn't know myself. But this is what one could easily draw from these verses.

I myself am not certain of Christianity forbids pork at all , because it seems strange how Judaism came before Christianity , and it forbade pork , then Christianity came , and then Islam followed and renewed the forbiddance. It just sounds strange to me to be honest.

Islam does not derive from Christianity, really. I understand that Unitarianism had a presence in Arabia pre-Islam, and it along with other Eastern churches may have informed his theology but probably didn't define it.

Islamic scholarship mentions Hanif, which combined with Muhammad's claimed descent might mean that they were a theological sibling of Judaism in much the same way that Samaritans were/are.

Christianity, however, did not have so pleasant a relationship with the Jews.

There was the doctrine that the Jews committed deicide, for one. The many Gnostics considered the Abrahamic god (as in, Allah) to be outright evil, and this seems to be less controversial to some early Christian scholars than the roles Gnostics were willing to permit women to hold in society.

Christianity's ties to Judaism is in this sense even looser than Islam's.