Acting like animals, swap places, I thought you might come up with a better logic to prove your point.
I was given the status of "Asharaf-ul-Makhlooqat" by my creator, I would much rather have that instead of considering myself an animal for I have an ability to act like one.
Im speaking from a secular perspective. From a religious perspective, there's no point in even asking the question.
Also, im assuming you don't believe in evolution, so that's another reason why such a debate is pointless.
But even as far as Ashraf Ul Makhlooqat is concerned, my point was simply that people dont often act as if they are deserving of such a title as Ashraf ul Makhlooqat. Dogs may run around sniffing each others rears all day, but the loyalty of a Dog would put many humans to shame. These simple minded creatures, despite their tiny brains, have massive hearts. Isn't the unflinching love and devotion of a dog a reflection of the divine?
And when humans butcher each other, what is that a reflection of?
Our form is animal yet our nature is sapient, conscious, vocal and imaginative ... we have the ability to betray our in built desires to eat, hunt and fornicate ... because we have a nature that is somewhat angelic as well ... We are neither angels who do not need these lower functions of waste and copulation nor are we animal in the sense of being dumb and constrained to our natures ... We have choice and we nourish our souls and our bodies in balance ... If we stay like that then we can be called Ashraf Al Makhluqat ... We are made in the best design, but that gives us fewer excuses to act ignorant and foolsih.
Dogs may run around sniffing each others rears all day, but the loyalty of a Dog would put many humans to shame. These simple minded creatures, despite their tiny brains, have massive hearts. Isn't the unflinching love and devotion of a dog a reflection of the divine?
You may enjoy a book called 'The Moral Lives of Animals.' It challenges the notion that homo sapiens are the only species with moral sense and talks about how much of animal behavior follows principles embodied in ancient moral codes, from the Ten Commandments to the New Testament. Interesting stuff.
Even the language we use to refer to an animal's life reflects a certain hubris. Animals are killed or sacrificed, but human beings are murdered.
You may enjoy a book called 'The Moral Lives of Animals.' It challenges the notion that homo sapiens are the only species with moral sense and talks about how much of animal behavior follows principles embodied in ancient moral codes, from the Ten Commandments to the New Testament. Interesting stuff.
Even the language we use to refer to an animal's life reflects a certain hubris. Animals are killed or sacrificed, but human beings are murdered.
I will definitely look into that. Thanks.
Yes, the way we use language does speak volumes for who we are as a society...
let me quote something I read in an article online a couple of days back to describe the difference between humans and animals "It is evident that at the time of his birth, after passing through certain stages,** man is no better than a weak animal and has no distinction over other animals, except for his potentiality of becoming a human being**"
you define anything by what the thing does. Let's take this in steps. Follow along.
1) I will assume you agree human beings have a soul.
2) Human beings do physical things and non-physical things (in the tangible vs non-tangible sense but not quite the same)
3) Eat, sleep,move, reproduce, communicate, build & destroy - physical things humans do.
4) Love, feel - non-physical things humans do.
5) Animals do all of these physical & non-physical things too
6) Therefore there is no fundamental difference between other animals and human beings
7) But there are differences - because humans have been to the moon, humans invented cell phones, humans wrote books
8) The differences on analysis turn out to be one of degree - how much knowledge one has vs the other
9) Taking many of the traits then - knowledge, logic, etc - humans score over most animals - common factor seems to be brain activity
10) But there are some traits that animals score over humans - dogs better smell, eagles have better eye sight, cats have better muscles and so on
11) Therefore it is further confirmed that at the met level there really is very little difference between human and animals
12) And therefore there really is no valid reason to assume other animals do not have a soul
I believe that other than humans, no other creations of God has the soul in the context of word 'rooh' mentioned for it in Quran. Why? Because Allah breathed of his own spirit into humans. It's not true for other creations.
I believe that other than humans, no other creations of God has the soul in the context of word 'rooh' mentioned for it in Quran. Why? Because Allah breathed of his own spirit into humans. It's not true for other creations.
Question:
What is the "rooh?" Is it consciousnesses, is it personality? Is it just so ethereal vapor that has no significance until we die? Where does it reside, and how does it manifest itself. Where does it go when people are drunk, or mentally retarded?
What is it of the human "rooh," the very breath of God, that distinguishes it from an animals?
On what do we base the conclusion that Animals have no rooh? Did God breath anything into them? If having a "Rooh" means you are an human, then does not having a "rooh" mean you are an animal? So do humans that function at the level of animals not have this "rooh?"
