The story of Satan in Islamic tradition

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   


Sequence of narration...

- Jinns were created before Adam
- They lived on earth as communities
- They were extremely wicked and corrupted in their ways
- They were driven out of the land by an army of angels
- Satan(Iblis) was among the Jinn but he worshiped God
- He was given the rank of an angel
- God created a new kind of being from clay (Adam)
- The angels asked if the new being would also spread corruption on earth, like the Jinn.
- Satan grows jealous of the new being
- His jealousy turns to pride and looks down upon the new being
- God commands the angels to prostrate before the new being, they comply
- Satan (who had the rank of an angel) refuses to
- Satan being made of fire says he is better than Adam who was made of clay
- Satan ends up being cursed by God
- Satan asks God for respite till the day of judgement
- Satan then swears to lead humans astray
- Satan is told that he would have no power over the true servants of God

Enjoy.


IMO, this gives a background to the Biblical story of Satan misleading Adam / Eve into eating the fruit. Satan's plan was to mislead mankind, so it explains why Satan decided to deceive somebody just minding their own business, not posing a threat to him, or even being aware of him.


edit on 13-4-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 01:17 AM
link   
S`n f, I enjoyed that. I didn`t realise the story of iblis from the Koran was similar to the story of satan`s damnation in the bible. Forgive my ignorance.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Ranong
 


I didn`t realise the story of iblis from the Koran was similar to the story of satan`s damnation in the bible.

Iblis is an Arabic corruption of the Greek word diabolos, meaning devil. The Arabian peninsula in the days of Muhammad was hemmed in by 'Roman' (actually Greek) Empire to the north and west, and Greek influence on Arab culture was definitive. Much of what was 'revealed' to Muhammad were Greek Christian ideas, distorted by word-of-mouth transmission and misunderstanding. For example, the story of Jesus's birth in the Koran has all the marks of a folk-tale, in contrast with the mainly down-to-earth (though by no means entirely factual) accounts offered in the New Testament.

Ideas in the Koran are similar to Christian and Jewish ideas because Christian and Jewish traditions were their source. This has been well established by Western scholars.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Its a nice watch! Thanks for the video.

Jealousy does opens the gates of wrong doing.

What i find interesting in Qur'an is how iblis addresses God, he says, "because You have wronged me"!!

Thats typical denial of personal responsibility and non acknowledgement of freedom of choice when it doesn't suit iblis.

Its the height of arrogance and some people have it, "because i got messed up(i deny that i did it to myself)so i will mess up as many i can"
others are arrogant to lower degrees, going through life blaming everyone except themselves for misfortunes but taking full credit for any good they achieved.

Hope we learn a lesson from it and
may Allah protect us from going on the path of iblis!
Ameen.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Ideas in the Koran are similar to Christian and Jewish ideas because Christian and Jewish traditions were their source.


According to early biographies on Muhammad's life written by devout Muslims, at one time Muhammad and his Muslims prayed towards Jerusalem, not Mecca.


Muslims used to pray towards Jerusalem, but Muhammad changed this direction, the Qibla, to instead direct Muslims to face towards the Kaaba in Mecca on the basis of having received divine intervention.

Isra and Mi'raj


Much of the Koran is a modification of Christian and Jewish tradition.

edit on 14-4-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Who can forget the Satanic Verses?

The Satanic verses refers to Allah via Muhammad having apparently sanctioned the worship of three pre-Islamic Meccan goddesses but subsequently deciding that these verses were not sent by Allah but rather by a devil.

The Satanic Verses do not appear in the Koran however they do appear in the first biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq, and also appear in other biographies of the prophet's life. Some theorize that Muhammad allowed the worship of the Meccan goddesses as a political move to gain support from the Meccans.

Nonetheless, not only do the verses contradict that Allah is the one and only god, they also suggest that if some of the messages that Muhammad thought were from Allah were actually from the devil, how many more verses in the Koran could be the work of the devil rather than Allah?

Hence the reason why Muslims around the world basically went ballistic at the time in 1988 with world-wide riots and a death sentence fatwa was issued by Iran when the Book by Rushdie, the Satanic Verses was published.

Link
The Satanic Verses


edit on 14-4-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Iblis is an Arabic corruption of the Greek word diabolos, meaning devil.

Wrong.
Iblis is derived from the Arabic balasa, meaning "he despaired".
The English word "devil", however, is derived from the Greek "diabolos".



the story of Jesus's birth in the Koran has all the marks of a folk-tale, in contrast with the mainly down-to-earth (though by no means entirely factual) accounts offered in the New Testament.

Not sure what you mean by that as Jesus is born miraculously of a virgin in both the Koran and the New Testament. In case you were referring to the part where Jesus spoke as a baby... no big deal. If we accept that he was born of a virgin, then accepting Jesus speaking as a baby is no big deal.



Ideas in the Koran are similar to Christian and Jewish ideas because Christian and Jewish traditions were their source. This has been well established by Western scholars.

Well, western scholars aren't exactly the experts on Islam.
If you reject a Muslim scholars ideas on the west, then expect Muslims to reject the ideas of western scholars on Islam.






edit on 14-4-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 



Much of the Koran is a modification of Christian and Jewish tradition.

Well, the Jews say the same thing about Christian beliefs... that it was a modified version of the Jewish religion....and somebody else can claim that the Jews got their idea from somewhere else.



they also suggest that if some of the messages that Muhammad thought were from Allah were actually from the devil, how many more verses in the Koran could be the work of the devil rather than Allah?


Regarding the Satanic verses , I've already covered that topic more than once here. this post, for example. I'm not going to go back and forth on this.




Islam acknowledges that Mohammad made a mistake by mentioning those names.
Its also known that the angel Gabriel chastised Mohammad for uttering those names, under the influence of Satan. Mohammad took back his words, following which, the Meccans resumed their persecution of Muslims.


edit on 14-4-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Wrong.
Iblis is derived from the Arabic balasa, meaning "he despaired".
The English word "devil", however, is derived from the Greek "diabolos".

That is pretty far-fetched—though popular with Muslim scholars for obvious sectarian reasons. The Arabic Bible translates diabolos as iblis.


Well, western scholars aren't exactly the experts on Islam.

On the contrary, they are the only reliable experts. Muslim scholars are far too biased; they lack the necessary detachment to be able to say anything trustworthy about their sources.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



reply to post by ollncasino
 


Its interesting how you both chose to comment on Islam in general than the OP in specific.

Concentrating on OP would be much more productive if some self reflection is tried.

However you are free to continue your way, maybe it gives the desired kicks that you need.

All the claims put by you can be found only on anti-islamic sites and can be proven baseless by a little research by anyone who seeks to verify rather than believe anything by you blindly.

The ones who don't, are just looking for justification for superiority of their faith and a source of self gratification.

Linking salman rushidie to Qur'an would be like linking 'da vinci code' to Bible!

Hope everyone takes the lesson from OP than getting into unproductive debate, they will be answered ofcourse.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 





That is pretty far-fetched—though
popular with Muslim scholars for
obvious sectarian reasons. The Arabic
Bible translates diabolos as iblis.

The Arabic Bible translates God(Elohim) as Allah, but according to your 'deep' research 'Allah' could be the chief idol! So the conclusion-arabic christians are idolators!!


On the contrary, they are the only
reliable experts. Muslim scholars are
far too biased; they lack the necessary
detachment to be able to say anything
trustworthy about their sources.

what about western scholars that agree with muslim scholars? Or you equate unbiased scholarship only to anti islamic scholars?
Will any western scholar that agrees with Islam, be labelled as biased by you?



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

All the claims put by you can be found only on anti-islamic sites and can be proven baseless by a little research by anyone who seeks to verify rather than believe anything by you blindly.


Are you referring to the Satanic Verses or the fact that early Muslims prayed toward Jerusalem?

Both are found in early biographies on Muhammad's life written by early Muslims, not in anti-islamic sites as you claim.

The problem with the Satanic verses, for Muslims, is that if Muhammad was fooled by verses from the devil pretending to be messages from Allah, how many verses in the Koran could perhaps not be from Allah but rather from the devil?


Originally posted by logical7

Linking salman rushidie to Qur'an would be like linking 'da vinci code' to Bible!


Salman Rushdie was linked to the Satanic Verses when the Ayatollah of Iran issued a death fatwa against him in 1989 in response to him writing about the Satanic verses in his book. The fact that Muslims rioted around the world causing many deaths also fixed the Satanic Verses, Islam and Salman Rushdie in many people's minds.

The Satanic Verses


Originally posted by logical7

Its interesting how you both chose to comment on Islam in general than the OP in specific.


The title of the thread is" The story of Satan in Islamic tradition".

What could be more relevant than the Satanic Verses?



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 





Are you referring to the Satanic Verses or the fact that early Muslims prayed toward Jerusalem?

i am referring to the interpretation of those events,
Sk0rpie answered the claim of satanic verses,
the change of Qiblah(direction of prayer) is an event marking a start of a new Ummah(nation) of muslims and restoration of Kabah as a centre for monotheism like the founder Abraham pbuh started.

Salman Rushdie was linked to the
Satanic Verses when the Ayatollah of
Iran issued a death fatwa against him
in 1989 in response to him writing
about the Satanic verses in his book.

his work was fiction and the fatwa was issued because he insulted the prophet, Jibrael, Salladin Ayubi etc, your interpretation that he was to be killed as he reavealed a secret that was hushed up is very questionable, its not a secret that the 3 idols were mentioned by Muhammad pbuh and the pagans rejoiced as they hated monotheism but it was corrected by Jibrael. If Muhammad pbuh intended to use it why would have he corrected it without taking benefit from it.

Catholic priests/nuns don't marry, the reason is that they dedicate their life to God.
Someone can come and say that they are gay and refer the fact that they don't marry as a proof for it, thats interpreting a fact the way it suits the interpreter. There is little to no scholarship behind it, its using selective information to prove an already desired conclusion.


The title of the thread is" The story of
Satan in Islamic tradition". What could be more relevant than the
Satanic Verses?

your post is directed to the title more like "Islam is from the satan"
you just don't say it directly, its more like sensational journalism "it makes us wonder how many more verses are by the devil...(dramatic momentary silence).."
if you take the story as authentic then take it fully. ".... and Jibrael came and corrected any verses that were not from Allah"
if not then you only take a part that suits you as true, selective reporting is a talent of MSM to make black look white and vice versa. If you want to show Islam as black then.. Go figure!!



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Scorpie


IMO, this gives a background to the Biblical story of Satan misleading Adam / Eve into eating the fruit.


When you say "Biblical," you need to be more specific. Genesis 3 has no Satan in it. A Satan who is an opponent of God is an early Christian invention, and then later authors like Mohammed, Dante and Milton adapted him to the needs of their audiences. The character in the actual Jewish Bible story is Serpent. The Satan who is elsewhere in the Jewish Bible is either an aspect of God (as angels sometimes are) or else a tester of men and God (as in Job).

Serpent is a well-established type found throughout human traditional stories. It is also misleading to say that Serpent "misled" the Woman (he didn't talk to Adam). The literary device used in the story is famliar: God tells part of the truth about the consequences of being a god, and Serpent tells the other part. The whole truth is a synthesis of the two advisers' statements.

That becoming a god has a downside and requires preparation are cross-cultural story motifs. Abrahamics think of a divinity who is unique, unbecome, unrelieved and immortal, so the point of such stories is often lost in cultures dominated by Abrahamic faiths. Genesis 3 develops these points in two ways:

~ In the trial scene, Adam betrays the woman, rather than insisting that God keep his word as spoken. Odds are good that God wouldn't have destroyed his images, and would have dealt moderately with them once his bluff was called, but even if that were not the case, Adam's betrayal shows his utter unreadiness for divinity. (That Adam has covered the family jewels is a beautiful irony; why bother? Dude had no stones worth concealing.)

~ The "punishments" of Genesis 3 are more candid elaborations of the gifts partially described in chapter 2. Yes, humans are the masters of the planet (2), but they need to work for it (3). Yes, humans shall be fruitful and multiply (2), but there is a fundamental design flaw in adapting the mammalian body plan to women, and so it's gonna hurt women like hell to have a baby (3). Even being an animal image of a god has a downside.

(However, this is also one of the very few celebrations of women's sexuality as sexuality anywhere in the Abrahamic canons, also parallelling a celebration in 2, which is itself rare for celebrating women equally with men. It is fairly obvious, then, as if it wasn't anyway, that this is not originally a devout Abrahamic story. Another clue is that a "religious act" is often a human re-enactment of something that was done by a god. Idol-making is re-enacting what God Elohim did in Genesis 2. Whoever first told this story apparently made idols, or admired those who did.)

Other points:


In case you were referring to the part where Jesus spoke as a baby...


That's from non-canonical Christian sources (but not "heretical" authors, just intentionally apocryphal - fan fiction, in modern terms). This particular silliness appears to be lifted from the so-called Syriac Infancy Gospel, which itself derives from earlier sources. These were entertaining stories, not religious doctrines. Well, not until Mohammed recycled them.

"Western" has nothing to do with the quality of scholarhip. I believe the poster meant "people who speak without fear of being branded on the nose for identifying antecedents of Koranic stories," that is, people beyond the writ of verses 68: 15-16. That would largely be the Western world. Nobody there much cares whether or not devout-Muslim "scholars" accept these obvious truths, or believes Muslims would say so publicly if they did accept the obvious, given the grisly penalty attached to saying aloud this specific truth in the wrong place.

logical7


Its interesting how you both chose to comment on Islam in general than the OP in specific.


Given that the character of Iblis is central to Islam, it is impossible to discuss either topic divorced from the other. This is a discussion board. Both will be discussed here, together, just as the Koran will be discussed here together with its antecedents.
-
edit on 14-4-2013 by eight bits because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



When you say "Biblical," you need to be more specific. Genesis 3 has no Satan in it.

That Satan deceived Adam and Eve through a talking snake is what I've been taught by Christians.
If it wasn't Satan who deceived Adam and Eve, then who was it, according to you? Some snake in the garden?


That's from non-canonical Christian sources (but not "heretical" authors, just intentionally apocryphal - fan fiction, in modern terms). This particular silliness appears to be lifted from the so-called Syriac Infancy Gospel, which itself derives from earlier sources. These were entertaining stories, not religious doctrines.

If a talking baby Jesus appears silly, then the idea of a virgin giving birth to it should appear silly as well. Some people seem to be picking and choosing the accounts that sit well with them.



"Western" has nothing to do with the quality of scholarhip. I believe the poster meant "people who speak without fear of being branded on the nose for identifying antecedents of Koranic stories,"

A "western" scholar can merely give an opinion on something that is alien to his own culture. His scholarship does not turn opinion into fact, as some posters here seem to think so.
As for antecedents of Koranic stories, there are plenty of those in the Bible. Muslims understand that most of the Koran repeats Biblical tales.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



That is pretty far-fetched—though popular with Muslim scholars for obvious sectarian reasons.

Far fetched or not... thats what the word in Arabic means. Deal with it.
Also the idea of "Iblis" being derived from the Greek "diabolos" seems to be popular with you for obvious reasons.



The Arabic Bible translates diabolos as iblis.

Thats because the greek word for devil "diabolos" was used in bible. It was the language it was originally written in... so what now, the New Testament was basically one grand Greek epic with Greek ideas?

Also, The Arabic Bible also translates God as "Allah".



On the contrary, they are the only reliable experts. Muslim scholars are far too biased; they lack the necessary detachment to be able to say anything trustworthy about their sources.

They are the "only reliable scholars" only according to some westerners.

One can just as well say that Western scholars are far too biased towards their own culture to entertain a Chinese or Indian or African scholars take of western culture.

edit on 14-4-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 





Given that the character of Iblis is central to Islam, it is impossible to discuss either topic divorced from the other.

according to what/which source/scholar is character of iblis central to Islam?? 'Sheikh eightbits'?

Is it non muslims who will teach muslims about what Islam is or what the central theme of Islam is?

Islam is based on a simple and stupid to disagree idea of One God. A Creator whom we call Allah, but all beautiful names belong to Him and it doesn't matter who calls on Him and by what name or in which language. He is the Creator of everything and everyone.

Humans are the best of His creation but not the only(refer OP)

iblis is a inspiration of what not to be like and an enemy to anyone who wants to do good and avoid harming self and others.

Satan/devil is not just among jinns but among humans too, anyone who misleads people to do wrong, spreads misinformation purposefully, creates misunderstandings knowingly to cause fights and then tries to hide, look innocent or worst present itself as victim!! is a shayatin/devil.


Surah 114 Al-Naas(The Mankind)

Say, I seek refuge with the Lord of mankind,

The King of mankind,

The God of mankind

from the evil of the prompter,

who prompts and then hides away,

who whispers in the hearts of mankind,

whether from amongst jinns or men.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 



Is it non muslims who will teach muslims about what Islam is or what the central theme of Islam is?


Well, that's exactly what they imagine and fantasize about....that non-muslims or anti-Islamic folks have the correct interpretation of the Koran and are in a position to teach muslims about our religion.

If one isn't willing to go to Nazi sources to learn about Jews, then he shouldn't go to anti-Islamic sources to learn about Islam.

That said, I think he meant to say that "Iblis" is essentially an Islamic concept as opposed to a Christian or a Jewish one....(you don't find the name "Iblis" in Hebrew or Christian texts).... like how Satan or Beelzebub are "central" to the Bible, in the sense those words are not found only in that text and not in the Koran.

Or maybe I'm wrong....if he meant something else, he can always elaborate.

edit on 14-4-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Scorpie


That Satan deceived Adam and Eve through a talking snake is what I've been taught by Christians.


Yes, as I said in my post, that version of Satan is a Christian invention. As far as Chrisitans are concerned, "The Bible" is both Testaments. Some of the epistles in the New Testament include allusions to the Eden story. These variously imply intentional misconduct by a "Devil" figure. You'd have to ask your Christian teachers which verses they personally relied upon to tell you about this, and how they would reconcile their chosen verses with the black letter text of Genesis 2-3. Fortunately, we still have the black-letter story available to read.


If it wasn't Satan who deceived Adam and Eve, then who was it, according to you? Some snake in the garden?


"Some snake in the garden" is what's in the text. He is an instance of the character Serpent, who appears throughout world traditional literature. He is a "stock character," found in many a myth. Also, I don't think anybody "deceived" the Woman. The whole truth emerged in two parts: God's take on it and Serpent's take on it. Neither source lied exactly, but neither source told the whole truth, either. "Deceived" is from the Woman's speech. It is her reaction to Adam's betrayal. Serpent had indeed omitted to mention what a crappy god Adam would turn out to be.


then the idea of a virgin giving birth to it should appear silly as well.


The fact remains, however, that the talking baby derives from a source who, so far as anybody can tell, proposed it for wholesome entertainment. Personally, I don't have a dog in the fight over Mary's sex life, who the father of Jesus was, if anybody, whether Mary ever had sex after Jesus was born, etc. Obviously, many other people do have opinions about all those things.


Some people seem to be picking and choosing the accounts that sit well with them.


As opposed to what? The accounts are incompatible. You can believe neither, or the one, or the other, but not both, because they can't both be true.


A "western" scholar can merely give an opinion on something that is alien to his own culture. His scholarship does not turn opinion into fact, as some posters here seem to think so.


The original comment about "Western" wasn't mine. As I've already said, I didn't interpret the poster's remark the way you did, or even anything close to you. The observation in question is simply and obviously a fact. Whose opinion does or doesn't faithfully reflect the fact doesn't matter to me. Why a Westerner in the West is free to speak her mind about facts, while others elsewhere aren't free to do that, does matter to me.


As for antecedents of Koranic stories, there are plenty of those in the Bible.


OK, I think we're in agreement there.


Muslims understand that most of the Koran repeats Biblical tales.


Well, "repeat" is a little misleading, since, for example, a Crucifixion in which Jesus doesn't die can hardly be said to "repeat" the Biblical Passion. Rather, the Koran often combines Biblical material with non-canonical (and in this case, obviously heretical) Christian (and other times, Jewish) antecedents.

Either way, a lot of the Koran is recycled tales of the ancients. Some people try to pursue scholarship under circumstances where they couldn't say that aloud, even if most everybody, including Muslims, would know what they're talking about, and, I'd bet, give some weight to the idea that what they're saying is the truth.

logical7


according to what/which source/scholar is character of iblis central to Islam?? 'Sheikh eightbits'?


Sheikh Scorpion, you mean? Have you read the OP? I have no idea whether Scorpie is qualified to teach Muslims or not. However, he says he is a Muslim, and I take him at his word.


Islam is based on a simple and stupid to disagree idea of One God.


As it happens, I was aware that Islam is a monotheistic religion. Since you pretend this would be news to me, and then call my ideas stupid, I'll end our conversation here. Feel free to U2U me when you're prepared to have a serious conversation without cheap shots and name calling.



posted on Apr, 14 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
The problem with the Satanic verses, for Muslims, is that if Muhammad was fooled by verses from the devil pretending to be messages from Allah, how many verses in the Koran could perhaps not be from Allah but rather from the devil?

Considering how many verses in the Qu'ran contradict first hand Sacred Scripture it could be that a whole lot were not from God but rather from the devil! Either that, or Muhammad just transposed them very, very poorly from the original sources. Or he did the poor transposing on purpose to fit an agenda - which would have been an evil act and inspired by the devil. Or perhaps it was a bit of all three of those. Who knows ...





top topics
 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join