One stated they were built by the last jinn king, ibn Jann who ruled in the age before humanity.
The Great Pyramids have always captured our imagination. For medieval Muslims, they were a relic of a ancient age of knowledge; an edifice of magic, astrology, and the jinn.
A thread-
One stated they were built by the last jinn king, ibn Jann who ruled in the age before humanity.
Eventually a great jinn war broke out in which the angels sided with the goodly jinn and drove out the wicked ones.
The ifits arrive as mighty zawbaa, or whirlwinds of sand while the ghul lead unwary humans into the desert so they may eat them.
The historian Mas’udi claims the pyramids were actually built as a tomb for Hermes who becomes associated with the Prophet Idris or the Biblical Enoch.
He goes on to say Hermes was the first prophet granted knowledge of the future. He was taught the science of astrology, medicine, and divination.
They heated the stones with great fires then poured vinegar over them to rapidly cool and crack them.
He could not uncover its legendary treasure.
These spirits watch over the tombs, leading the unworthy away from its mysteries.
Talismans made using the dust of the pyramids at the correct astrological time are said to grant the mage ancient wisdom and secrets.
They were also connected with Gemini, the constellation Orion, and the star ash shira or al jawza (Sirius).
Repeatedly we see knowledge as the true treasure.
They reflect not only an interest in the pyramids, but an enduring belief in the existence of ancient knowledge.
Abu Ma’shar and Idrisi writing a thousand years ago are closer to us in time than to the builders of the pyramids.
https://t.co/OWDXsBjUiR
More from Religion
1. A)Yes , monotheism does mean there is one God & all other gods are false.
But your statement that it also mean " that God is my God " is misleading . It depends on the doctrine of that monotheistic religion .
From Islamic monotheism , Allah never said that he is Creator of Arabs . He is Creator if all in creation . So from a doctrinal pov your statement doens't hold up .
B ) how did u write Advaita = hindu philosophy ? Do u want me to mention difference between Advaita and dvaita ?
" There is no concept of shirk in Hinduism " . This is a red hearing , No One claimed Hinduism also has concept of shirk .
2. Tribal God ? In Islamic doctrine . No where it says Allah is Only God of Quraish tribe .
It was always " ilahi n Naas " , not to mention islamic was always about one's belief & not race/ethnicity , So it was never tribalistic in its Nature
& If someone's doctrine is to be Questioned for being tribalistic , It's Hinduism . It's a ethnico religion . Originated on the banks of Indus river , With special mentions to " Aryans " in 4 vedas.
Even after 4000 yrs , 95% of it's followers live in India .
But your statement that it also mean " that God is my God " is misleading . It depends on the doctrine of that monotheistic religion .
\u201cMonotheism\u201d does not mean \u201cGod is one.\u201d It means \u201cthere is one God, that god is MY god, all others are FALSE gods.\u201d
— Sankrant Sanu \u0938\u093e\u0928\u0941 \u0938\u0902\u0915\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0928\u094d\u0924 \u0a38\u0a70\u0a15\u0a4d\u0a30\u0a3e\u0a02\u0a24 \u0a38\u0a3e\u0a28\u0a41 (@sankrant) January 27, 2021
There is no concept of \u201cfalse gods\u201d in Advaita or Hindu philosophy, no concept of \u201cshirk.\u201d
Monotheism is an imperialist ideology of intolerance and erasure. https://t.co/WsDX6pzK5R
From Islamic monotheism , Allah never said that he is Creator of Arabs . He is Creator if all in creation . So from a doctrinal pov your statement doens't hold up .
B ) how did u write Advaita = hindu philosophy ? Do u want me to mention difference between Advaita and dvaita ?
" There is no concept of shirk in Hinduism " . This is a red hearing , No One claimed Hinduism also has concept of shirk .
2. Tribal God ? In Islamic doctrine . No where it says Allah is Only God of Quraish tribe .
It was always " ilahi n Naas " , not to mention islamic was always about one's belief & not race/ethnicity , So it was never tribalistic in its Nature
Most Hindus don\u2019t understand this (Sikhs do even less).
— Sankrant Sanu \u0938\u093e\u0928\u0941 \u0938\u0902\u0915\u094d\u0930\u093e\u0928\u094d\u0924 \u0a38\u0a70\u0a15\u0a4d\u0a30\u0a3e\u0a02\u0a24 \u0a38\u0a3e\u0a28\u0a41 (@sankrant) January 27, 2021
Neither Sanatan nor Sikhi is \u201cmonotheistic.\u201d Monotheism is an ideology of supremacy, the elevation of a petty tribal god to the pretense of the Universal. It is ignorant tribalism universalized.https://t.co/yZkdxr7emP https://t.co/JDhOHnmGIT
& If someone's doctrine is to be Questioned for being tribalistic , It's Hinduism . It's a ethnico religion . Originated on the banks of Indus river , With special mentions to " Aryans " in 4 vedas.
Even after 4000 yrs , 95% of it's followers live in India .
A TINY THREAD ON NON-ACCEPTANCE OF ATHEISTS IN SOME HINDU HOLY BOOKS.
Many RW Hindus with confused identity think that Hinduism accepts Atheists.
What do some of the Hindu sacred texts say on this topic? Let's see.
Shri Krishna was 100% clear on importance of Shaastras as we already know.
Shri Rama was also clear on what should be done to atheists.
Ayodhya Kanda of Valmiki Ramayana.
https://t.co/lbCkEkPobA
Maharaaj Manu on Atheists.
Bhagvan Ved Vyas Ji in Shanti Parva of Mahabharata said this to his son Shukadeva regarding Atheists.
Many RW Hindus with confused identity think that Hinduism accepts Atheists.
What do some of the Hindu sacred texts say on this topic? Let's see.
Shri Krishna was 100% clear on importance of Shaastras as we already know.
Shri Rama was also clear on what should be done to atheists.
Ayodhya Kanda of Valmiki Ramayana.
https://t.co/lbCkEkPobA
Maharaaj Manu on Atheists.
Bhagvan Ved Vyas Ji in Shanti Parva of Mahabharata said this to his son Shukadeva regarding Atheists.
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
