Cannibalism in Islam

[Laly]

Cannibalism is permitted according to the Shafii legal school. See the chapter ‘Eatables’ from the very important legal book by Nawawi (XIIIth century), pillar of Islamic fiqh:



https://archive.org/details/minhaj_a...e/480/mode/2up

Can you imagine that?!

By the way, the Shafii legal school is one of the four official Sunni legal schools and the four legal schools consider themselves to be mutually valid.

[Atlantic Reptilian]

Cannibalism is permitted according to the Shafii legal school. See the chapter ‘Eatables’ from the very important legal book by Nawawi (XIIIth century), pillar of Islamic fiqh:



https://archive.org/details/minhaj_a...e/480/mode/2up

Can you imagine that?!

By the way, the Shafii legal school is one of the four official Sunni legal schools and the four legal schools consider themselves to be mutually valid.

I hope this isn't true, but if it is, it sounds like the mentality of treating "gentiles" differently, but such ideas are extremist and have occurred previously. Whether you are muslim or not, it's your choice whether you want to follow such ideas or not, unless of course you live in a theocracy.
I have never heard of or seen a muslim eat another human being.

[Laly]

I hope this isn't true, but if it is, it sounds like the mentality of treating "gentiles" differently, but such ideas are extremist and have occurred previously. Whether you are muslim or not, it's your choice whether you want to follow such ideas or not, unless of course you live in a theocracy.
I have never heard of or seen a muslim eat another human being.

It is the truth, the truth you don’t want to see. It’s in total compliance wit Islam in general, with Islamic mentality. But you or your friend black hole prefer to insult me, to treat me of retarded…

If you don’t know that Islam makes a big difference treatment between Muslims and non-Muslims, then you are really ignorant about Islam.

Muslims are superior according to Islam and the “people of the book” have the humiliating status of dhimmi, when they are under Islamic rulers.

“So do not weaken and do not grieve, and you will be superior if you are [true] believers.” (surah 3:139)

“You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah . If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient. (surah 3:110)

The verse 9:29 is absolute ugliness. It’s one of the jihad’s verses:

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – fight until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”

And we see that the payment of the jizyah must be done in a state of humiliation (wa houm saghiroun). Ibn-Khaldoun wrote: “A tribe pays the taxes only after being resigned to the most humble submission: fiscal docility. The taxes are a mark of the submission and of the oppression that the proud souls can’t stand, unless they prefer death.” (Ibn-Khaldoun, Discours sur l’histoire universelle, translation Monteil, volume 1, p. 281, Imprimerie catholique, Beirut, 1967.)

It is the jurist Mawardi, in the XIth century, who really defined dhimmi status. His considerations on it, based on elements from the Quran and the Sunnah, have had great repercussions on the different Islamic legal schools, on the different sharias, bringing a great model of dhimma contract. Apart from the clause on the obligation to pay the special tax that is the jizyah, there are other dispositions:

“[The dhimmis] mustn’t attack nor degrade the sacred Book of the Muslims; nor accuse the prophet of lies or quoting him with contempt; nor speaking about the Islamic religion in order to blame it or to contest it; nor undertaking a Muslim woman in order to have illicit relationships with her or to marry her; nor diverting a Muslim from his faith nor harming a Muslim or his goods; nor helping the enemies or welcoming their spies.”

Mawardi also recommends that “the dhimmi wear a dinstinctive sign (al-ghiyar) and a special belt (al-zinnar); they can’t elevate constructions higher than the ones of the Muslims; they can’t sound their bells [but they are obliged to hear the horrible sound of the muezzin so many times a day...], they can’t read their books and their pretentions relative to Ozeyr [the son of God for the Jews, cf. Surah 9:30] and to the Messiah; they can’t drink wine publicly or exhibit porks and crosses publicly; they are obliged to inhume their death people secretly, without showing tears and lamentations; they are forbidden to use horses, them being pureblood or half-blood, but they can use mules and donkeys”.

These excerpts come from Mawardi, Les status gouvernementaux ou règles du droit public et administrative, translation by Fagnan, Typographie Jourdan, Algiers, 1915.

The status of dhimmi encompasses public and penal restrictions. There is no equality between the Muslims and the dhimmis.

For example, when the Coptic Boutros Ghali Pasha was assassinated by a Muslim in 1910 and the tribunal condemned the culprit to a death penalty. But then, the grand mufti declared the judgement contrary to the Islamic law because a Muslim murderer can’t be subjected to a death penalty for having killed an infidel, so the judgement was annulled. (Gabriel Baer, Studies in the social history of modern Egypt, University of Chicago press, Chicago, 1969, p. 451)

[Atlantic Reptilian]

It is the truth, the truth you don’t want to see. It’s in total compliance wit Islam in general, with Islamic mentality. But you or your friend black hole prefer to insult me, to treat me of retarded…

I can only stand for my own words, and the fact is that I have not insulted anyone. You are the one being offensive about muslims, which is totally uncalled for and inappropriate.
And no, I'm not denying that there are bad people among immigrants but it's still not fair to say these kinds of things because it comes off as you trying to polarize different groups of society which in turn isn't going to work well at lowering the crime

If you don’t know that Islam makes a big difference treatment between Muslims and non-Muslims, then you are really ignorant about Islam.
Muslims are superior according to Islam and the “people of the book” have the humiliating status of dhimmi, when they are under Islamic rulers.
“So do not weaken and do not grieve, and you will be superior if you are [true] believers.” (surah 3:139)

“You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah . If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient. (surah 3:110)

The verse 9:29 is absolute ugliness. It’s one of the jihad’s verses:

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – fight until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”
And we see that the payment of the jizyah must be done in a state of humiliation (wa houm saghiroun). Ibn-Khaldoun wrote: “A tribe pays the taxes only after being resigned to the most humble submission: fiscal docility. The taxes are a mark of the submission and of the oppression that the proud souls can’t stand, unless they prefer death.” (Ibn-Khaldoun, Discours sur l’histoire universelle, translation Monteil, volume 1, p. 281, Imprimerie catholique, Beirut, 1967.)

It is the jurist Mawardi, in the XIth century, who really defined dhimmi status. His considerations on it, based on elements from the Quran and the Sunnah, have had great repercussions on the different Islamic legal schools, on the different sharias, bringing a great model of dhimma contract. Apart from the clause on the obligation to pay the special tax that is the jizyah, there are other dispositions:

“[The dhimmis] mustn’t attack nor degrade the sacred Book of the Muslims; nor accuse the prophet of lies or quoting him with contempt; nor speaking about the Islamic religion in order to blame it or to contest it; nor undertaking a Muslim woman in order to have illicit relationships with her or to marry her; nor diverting a Muslim from his faith nor harming a Muslim or his goods; nor helping the enemies or welcoming their spies.”
Mawardi also recommends that “the dhimmi wear a dinstinctive sign (al-ghiyar) and a special belt (al-zinnar); they can’t elevate constructions higher than the ones of the Muslims; they can’t sound their bells [but they are obliged to hear the horrible sound of the muezzin so many times a day...], they can’t read their books and their pretentions relative to Ozeyr [the son of God for the Jews, cf. Surah 9:30] and to the Messiah; they can’t drink wine publicly or exhibit porks and crosses publicly; they are obliged to inhume their death people secretly, without showing tears and lamentations; they are forbidden to use horses, them being pureblood or half-blood, but they can use mules and donkeys”.

These excerpts come from Mawardi, Les status gouvernementaux ou règles du droit public et administrative, translation by Fagnan, Typographie Jourdan, Algiers, 1915.

The status of dhimmi encompasses public and penal restrictions. There is no equality between the Muslims and the dhimmis.

For example, when the Coptic Boutros Ghali Pasha was assassinated by a Muslim in 1910 and the tribunal condemned the culprit to a death penalty. But then, the grand mufti declared the judgement contrary to the Islamic law because a Muslim murderer can’t be subjected to a death penalty for having killed an infidel, so the judgement was annulled. (Gabriel Baer, Studies in the social history of modern Egypt, University of Chicago press, Chicago, 1969, p. 451)

Well, I'm not an extremist and I don't take such things literally. To read a book like that is just autistic.

[Mejgusu]

That sounds scary, I am a Muslim, personally I never read or got taught such things but I heard rumors. I always questioned such happenings in the past but I heard that some irregular soldiers of Ottomans bite the ears of Balkan and Nears Eastern enemis out, especially women. Very unsettling stories, you are a very good researcher laly, you should make online courses in history or sociology, maybe you could be a housewife with PhD?

[Laly]

I can only stand for my own words, and the fact is that I have not insulted anyone. You are the one being offensive about muslims, which is totally uncalled for and inappropriate.
And no, I'm not denying that there are bad people among immigrants but it's still not fair to say these kinds of things because it comes off as you trying to polarize different groups of society which in turn isn't going to work well at lowering the crime

You have liked the posts where I am insulted. I don't care if you feel bad about all I say about Islam, which is very sourced, based on my long time studies of Islam, including with university professors of Islamology. I don't care if you want woke trigger warnings because of your sensitivities, I will continue to talk about the Islamic ideology.

It's the reality that is polarising and I am describing it. Nowadays, it is not permitted to describe the reality as it is.

Well, I'm not an extremist and I don't take such things literally. To read a book like that is just autistic.

The official reading of the Islamic Holy Scriptures is literal. In Islam, there is the supremacy of the letter, over the spirit. In fact, this is due to the fact that the Islamic Holy Scriptures are considered to be the uncreated word of God and so, because of the limited human cognition, it is necessary to avoid as much as possible the allegory, the metaphor, as it is the effect of the subjectivity of the human mind, of an individual consciousness, of imagination. It is not objective as something objective is something whom the reality imposes itself to the spirit independently from any interpretation, from any affective or personal element. That’s why orthodox Islam rejects allegory, except when it’s explicitly induced by the text.

[Atlantic Reptilian]

That sounds scary, I am a Muslim, personally I never read or got taught such things but I heard rumors.

From what I have heard, these extremist ideas have made a rapid spread during the recent century.

I always questioned such happenings in the past but I heard that some irregular soldiers of Ottomans bite the ears of Balkan and Nears Eastern enemis out, especially women.

Such behavior is totally foreign to me. It must be something more than just religion.

[Atlantic Reptilian]

You have liked the posts where I am insulted.

Yes, but the thing is, you can't select which part you want to like or not like. There is no such function for a post.

I don't care if you feel bad about all I say about Islam, which is very sourced, based on my long time studies of Islam, including with university professors of Islamology. I don't care if you want woke trigger warnings because of your sensitivities, I will continue to talk about the Islamic ideology.

I don't feel bad about it, but I'm trying to tell you that if you act offensively you will not be appreciated.

And who are these scholars of Islamology?

It's the reality that is polarising and I am describing it. Nowadays, it is not permitted to describe the reality as it is.

You are describing your perspective of something through your own lens. There can be vast amounts of errors here without anyone being aware of it. Hence I urge you to be more careful.
You are permitted to do so and it's not up to me so stop assuming things that haven't been said.

The official reading of the Islamic Holy Scriptures is literal. In Islam, there is the supremacy of the letter, over the spirit. In fact, this is due to the fact that the Islamic Holy Scriptures are considered to be the uncreated word of God and so, because of the limited human cognition, it is necessary to avoid as much as possible the allegory, the metaphor, as it is the effect of the subjectivity of the human mind, of an individual consciousness, of imagination. It is not objective as something objective is something whom the reality imposes itself to the spirit independently from any interpretation, from any affective or personal element. That’s why orthodox Islam rejects allegory, except when it’s explicitly induced by the text.

I disagree. The abstract has always been and will always be. It's up to the will and cognition of a human to decide if they are willing to read or not. This is why some people excel at i. e. mathematics and others do not.

[Laly]

Yes, but the thing is, you can't select which part you want to like or not like. There is no such function for a post.

I don't feel bad about it, but I'm trying to tell you that if you act offensively you will not be appreciated.

And who are these scholars of Islamology?

You are describing your perspective of something through your own lens. There can be vast amounts of errors hair without anyone being aware of it.
You are permitted to do so and it's not up to me so stop assuming things that haven't been said.


I disagree. The abstract has always been and will always be. It's up to the will and cognition of a human to decide if they are willing to read or not. This is why some people excel at i. e. mathematics and others do not.

It's almost not permitted to say that the vast majority of crimes are due to immigrants, to describe Islam based on Islamic sources and to draw rational conclusions from it.

The scholars of Islamology I know are Sami Aldeeb Abu-Salieh and Guillaume Dye. But I have read many others too.

You may say that the allegoric/spiritual/abstract reading is very important and I agree with that. In Christianity, it's the contrary of Islam, there is the primacy of the Spirit over the Letter. But that has nothing to do with Orthodox Islam, where there is the supremacy of the letter over the spirit/allegory/abstraction, which are rejected. You must keep in mind that contrary to Christianity, Islam is a dîn, a law, which must be implemented concretely on earth, so you must have concrete laws, based on the Holy Scriptures of Islam, which constitute legal texts.

[Atlantic Reptilian]

It's almost not permitted to say that the vast majority of crimes are due to immigrants, to describe Islam based on Islamic sources and to draw rational conclusions from it.

Sure, there has been some censoring of such claims.

The scholars of Islamology I know are Sami Aldeeb Abu-Salieh and Guillaume Dye. But I have read many others too.

I will have a look at that.

You may say that the allegoric/spiritual/abstract reading is very important and I agree with that. In Christianity, it's the contrary of Islam, there is the primacy of the Spirit over the Letter. But that has nothing to do with Orthodox Islam, where there is the supremacy of the letter over the spirit/allegory/abstraction, which are rejected. You must keep in mind that contrary to Christianity, Islam is a dîn, a law, which must be implemented concretely on earth, so you must have concrete laws, based on the Holy Scriptures of Islam, which constitute legal texts.

Ok. But is your criticism not better directed towards the extremists (Orthodox Islam)?