Talk:Islamic mythology

Messenger of Allah
Islam was NOT founded by Muhammad. Muhammad as the founder of Islam is NEVER taught in Islam. Muhammad is rather considered "The Last Messenger of God". Islam also believes in the earlier Prophets like Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus. Believing that Muhammad is the Founder of Islam is contradictory to this doctrine. Among the main causes of this confusion is the relience on non-Muslim sources for Islamic doctrines. islamic law stipulates that non-Muslims can never be an authority on Islam nor are they allowed to teach Islam. In fact, even ignorant Muslims cannot teach Islam. Bedejim 12:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I know it was only a stub to open the page, but we must be careful not to label everything 'arabic' as 'Islamic'. I am no expert on Islamic mythology, but suppose that for instance Alladin and  Arabian Nights are 'Arabic' instead of 'Islamic'--TK

Excellent point! I agree 100 percent. I hope that those who know more will improve the page -- it sure does need improvement! -- Cayzle

I've moved this page from Islamic Mythology to Arabic mythology, not because I consider them the same but because they are clearly different. Most of the stuff here is Arabic rather than Islamic. I would recommend that we create a separate Islamic mythology article as soon as we have enough material to go in it. DJ Clayworth 21:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to define Islamic mythology clearly, the current version opens with the sentence Islamic mythology includes... and puts the restriction of ...help explanation of Islamic beliefs and we find this remark in the article : ''While some of these stories are associated in the mind of the Westerner with Islam, they do not for the most part illustrate the principles of Islam. In fact many of them predate the introduction of Islam, and contain elements contrary to Islam, and are therefore not Islamic mythology.'' which is based on the restriction mentioned above and seems inapropriate..

I am not sure what the best definition can be ,"mythology developed in Islamic cultures" seems good, a totaly different definitions would be mythology developed in a strictly Islamic context, which would cover a comparatively narrow range and include mostly Sufi mythology and elaboration of Qur'anic stories, defining the term appropriately specialy clarifying wether Islamic means associated with Islamic cultures or Islam as a religeon , helps prevent edits based merely on personal opinions.Pasha 01:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

For a start, defined Islamic mythology and did some edits , I hope my edits was in direction of improving the article.Pasha 06:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Islamic Mythology. In fact, I detest the world Islamic, as it not mentioned in the Quran or Hadith. The proper term is Muslim. I am petitioning for the entire site to be changed to Arabic Mythology, from Islamic(sic) Mythology.Tuf-Kat
 * You detest the word "Islamic" because it is not mentioned in the Hadith? That's probably because it is an English adjective, while the Hadith is in Arabic. "Islamic mythology" is not the same as "Arabian mythology" in the same way "Muslim" is not equivalent to "Arab". dab (𒁳) 17:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the Qur'an "mythology"?
I have listed the following articles from the "Islamic Mythology category" at:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion


 * Genie
 * Ifrit
 * Marid

It seems that these concepts are taken from the Quran, and since there are definitely significant numbers of people today who believe the Quran is a sacred book, they would not share the POV of some that these topics are to be classified as "Islamic mythology". Please see the above link for the general discussion. Thanks, Blockinblox 14:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments that there's a definite confusion here between "Arabic" and "Islamic". However, as to the current point, the fact that people believe a story is sacred does not disqualify it from being a myth. As used by folklorists, the term myth means "sacred story". In popular usage, "myth" means "falsehood" or "lie", but in many scholarly contexts, "myth" means a story whose tellers believe it to be anything but false. See a subsection of the Religion and mythology article [here] for more info. --Phatius McBluff 21:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am curious if Muslims would feel okay if we use the mythology explanation box on the page (or made one specific to "mythology and Islam". The general one looks like this (see right) and reads "In its broadest academic sense, the word "myth" simply means a traditional story, whether true or false. (—OED, Princeton Wordnet) Unless otherwise noted, the words "mythology" and "myth" are here used for sacred and traditional narratives, with no implication that any belief so embodied is itself either true or false."

Goldenrowley 18:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the info box is a good idea here. --Phatius McBluff 05:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed the word Farishta

 * Angels (called Farishta in Islam) - beings of light that serve as God's messengers; in Islam, these lack free will.

I removed the word Farishta. I'm a muslim from Indonesia and never heard the word 'Farishta', neither in Indonesia, nor Australia, nor any muslim sites I visited. The islamic word for angel is Malaaykah. Persian or Urdu words should not be used if you want to talk about any Islamic concept or any myth inspired from Islam. Kunderemp (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC on myth and religion
I invite all editors participating in this article to join the discussion at Proposed change to policy on ambiguous words in religious articles, as it has a bearing on the contents of this article.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not just about atheist/Christian/Jewish criticism of Islam
This is not just about whether the stories in the Quran are true. As with Christianity and Judaism, there's a huge amount of post-Scriptual, indisputable mythological material, including pious and semi-pious legends, fantastic stories about jinns and the like, etc. The entire magical world of the Arabian nights belongs to Islamic mythology. And it's absurd that five out of six sentences in the lead of an article titled "Islamic mythology" are currently devoted to a defence of the view that Islam don't have no mythology, cuz it's all TRUE!!!--91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Beliefs and mythology
Here the article should related to mythologies in Islamic culture and not on Islam itself.Messiaindarain (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC) It seems this article is not being treated in the same way as Christian mythology and Jewish mythology, but instead reading as polemical article.

Eve in Islamic Creation Belief?
I stumbled on this page for some info on Islamic creation myth/belief. But there is not much here. Mostly a comparison with Judeaism and Christianity. Don't think it's the end of the world, but there seems to be some 'vital' info missing too. First there is: "God molded clay, earth, sand and water into a model of a man. He breathed life and power into it, and it immediately sprang to life. And this first man was called Adam." But then goes on: "God placed the couple in a beautiful garden in Paradise" No mention about how that couple came to be ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.37.254 (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here - have flagged the "couple" with a clarification request - /* Islamic creation narrative */ the previous paragraph describes only Adam - where does the couple come from?Richwil (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Unneeded
This opening mollifying line is not needed- Many Muslims believe that these narratives are historical and sacred and contain profound truths.. We are already explaining "mythology" and as in Christian and Jewish articles of similar natures we do not need to explain that some see these as truths. This article needs to be treated the same as Christian, Greek, Jewish, Irish, etc.... tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Question
In the Islamic creation belief passage it is written: "God molded clay, earth, sand and water into a model of a man. He breathed life and power into it, and it immediately sprang to life." Where was it said or written that including clay God also molded earth, sand and water into the form of a human? Is there any reference for this statement? 119.154.23.102 (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Number of Days in Islamic Creation Belief
Indeed, the translation of scripture is something that warrants careful treatment. Therefore one must guard against mistranslated material. The article seems to indicate some sort of confusion in the Quran regarding the number of days involved in the creation of the heavens and the earth. The article goes on to say that scholars have already resolved this, but the damage is already done in the mind of the reader. The statement that alludes to a contradiction (i.e. the contrast made between 6 and 8 days) gives the impression of being a statement of fact, so that even when it is said that scholars claim that it is in fact 6 and not 8, the reader is left in doubt as to what to believe.

In several places in the Quran it is stated that the heavens and earth were created in 6 days. There is no ambiguity in any of these and it is taken as an established principle. In chapter 41 verse 11 of the Quran where a more detailed description is given, there is a word that has been the subject of mistranslation. This word (pronounced "thuma" if I'm not mistaken) has three (3) meanings. It can be translated to indicate sequential action, parallel action, or simply as "moreover". Given the fact that 6 days is taken as being established, translating the word in Q41:11 to indicate sequential action would be incorrect. Translators are not above making mistakes.

I would advise that Islamic scholars such as Dr. Jafar Idris, Shayk Hamza Yusef and Shayk Yusef Estes be consulted in these matters. Kirk10p99 (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Terminology section
The original first section "Issues surrounding the term 'mythology'" was deleted on 6 February 2012, with the edit summary "This doesn't belong here. It belongs in mythology, which is already linked. Only 1 sentence was Islam-specific." Since myth and mythology are commonly misconstrued (for instance, "The contents of this section aren't mythological (myths involve gods)"), I think a brief section on terminology would be useful to readers who cannot reasonably be expected to first follow the mythology wikilink. Perhaps this proposed introductory section could use some of the original material. Keahapana (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Islamic eschatology
I think many people are confusing topics in Islamic eschatology, with mythology.

Please refer to THIS PAGE If this stays, I do not understand why the current topics in this article should be subject to deletion. See such fabulous beasts here: http://www.mazdapublishers.com/book/of-serpents-and-dragons-in-islamic-art

Assessment comment
Substituted at 19:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Title is not correct
I wanted to state that this article really needs to be deleted. There is no concept in ISlam such as Islamic mythology. Im quite sure that this article will not stand around much longer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.223.111 (talk) 04:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has been around for eleven years. It needs improvement, but it's not going to be deleted.  There are stories that some Muslims tell which are not necessarily in the Quran but which qualify as mythology by secular academic standards.  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamic mythology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201161759/http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/pillars/fasting/tajuddin/fast_76.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/pillars/fasting/tajuddin/fast_76.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Citation Request
Regarding the following passage "Adam is according to Islam, both the first human and the first prophet." really needs a ciation? If so, what exatly is objected? The fact that Adam is the first Prophet is very common in Islam, also that he is the first human. There might be varying positions regarding the claim "first human", since some Medieval scholars and Sufis asserted there had been a humans or human-like creatures, but these are rather minor itnerpretation differing from the common Islamic mythology itself. So, what exactly is requested here?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Page Review Request (Biased Text)
Rather than focusing on Myths associated with islam, the page is heavily biased as uses personal opinions rather than islamic sources. The page has listed an islamic figure as a "supernatural creature". It's important that the correct information is given — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmason101 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Personal Opinion Removal Request
The page is about "myths" assosiated with Islam. There is a seperate page for Critism of Islam. Text on the page must be kept relevant to the subject and must originate from Quran or Hadith to be labelled as "Islamic". Personal opinions must not be added in order for the text to be neutral. This page is about "Mythology"

The context of following citation does not refer to a myth assosiated with islam but refers to an opinion, therefore it is irrelevant.

"The Oxford Companion to World Mythology Devid Leeming writes:[2]

I have treated the sacred narratives of the "great religions", including the monotheistic Abrahamic religions, as myths, not to deprecate those religions, but simply because to a believer in one religion the stories -- especially the supernatural ones -- of another religion tend to be seen as myth rather than history." --Tmason101 (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

False Information Removal
There was a section which stated that Muslims believed the Earth was flat. There is no textual evidence in Quran to support this. Infact, the Quran (Chapter 79, Verse 30) contradicts this statement by saying the Earth is shaped like an Egg. Eggs are not flat in nature and have a curved appearance.

--Tmason101 (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That Muslims beleived and that the Quran stated are two different things. The first is about that Muslims believe that the Quran states, and the second is about that the Quran actually states.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit revision
I've already explained that "Quran (Chapter 79, Verse 30) contradicts this statement by saying the Earth is shaped like an Egg."

Can you explain why the edit was reverted?

--Tmason101 (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * First, although the Quran might state, that the earth is like an egg, Muslims obviously did not read it this way. It might be because the Quran is not stating this in the original language, or it is because Muslims in the past were too stupid to read the Quran propberly. Either way, Wikipedia is not a "Quran learning"-Webpage, but an encyclopedia. So it does not matter how to itnerprete the Quran properly. An encyclopedia about beliefs just covers that people contributed to their believes, but it does not tell you, that one should believe.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * because Wikipedia policy says you shouldn't use religious texts to make an argument. See WP:PRIMARY. Religious scriptures are primary texts, and policy says that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Are you not aware that religious scriptures are often interpreted differently by different people? Doug Weller  talk 09:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

"It might be because the Quran is not stating this in the original language" 1. "It might" means you don't have a definative answer. 2. The statement shows your lack of knowledge on Islamic Scripture as it is clearly stated in the Arabic text.

"or it is because Muslims in the past were too stupid to read the Quran propberly" Rather than trying to guess the answer, let's put our biases aside and look at strictly at the facts. 1. During the 7th Century the round Earth had not been proven so it was common to believe the Earth was flat in most places across globe. This was not an Islamic teaching in any way shape or form, infact the idea predates Islam by far 2. Early Islamic sources contradict the "Flat Earth" model. The idea of a Flat Earth is not of Islamic Origin so you can not claim it's Islamic mythology.

I want to remind you of the very first sentence on the page: "Islamic mythology is the body of myths associated with Islam and the Quran"

As you can see the flat earth is 1. Pre-Islamic 2. Not found in the quran.

Thank you.

--Tmason101 (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * And yet you still need independent reliable sources. You don't seem to be listening. Doug Weller  talk 11:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Again I'm going to show the the first line on this page: "Islamic mythology is the body of myths associated with Islam and the Quran".

This flat is is from neither of those two things. And I've already provided proof from the Quran itself. You can't use the "You can't use the Quran arguement" on a page that is talking about the Quran. The verse (Chapter 79, Verse 30) contradicts this claim. If you guys are going to put false information on these pages and revert any edits to correct them I will have to flag the page and the accounts involved.

--Tmason101 (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That first line you quoted sets it out quite clearly: "the body of myths associated with Islam and the Quran" does not mean the same as "a body of myths taken directly from the Quran". To say that something is not in the Quran, or that there is a verse of the Quran that contradicts it, is not an argument against something being part of a body of myths associated with Islam, or with the Quran. The idea of the flat earth being a traditional medieval representation amongst Islamic societies doesn't seem to be controversial - I came across this with a few seconds of Googling. I imagine there are scholarly sources discussing this that would be more up-to-date than the source we currently used in the article, and so I expect that this content could be refined or expanded upon, but removing it wholesale because your interpretation of the Quran says it can't be so isn't going to fly. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Flat Earth Misinformation
"According to popular ideas derived from cultural beliefs."

1. Every single culture / nation on the planet believed the Earth was flat. It's not associated with Islamic beliefs. I know Christians who believe in Evolution, it does not make Evolution a Christian concept. 2. As you've clearly said, it's a cultural belief, not religious so it does not belong on the page "Islamic Mythology". a. It is NOT Islamic. b. The Quran destroys the flat Earth model. There is a difference between Religion and Culture and from an Academic point of view, thew two must not be confused with one another.

Tmason101 (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * see 's post above. Also Myth of the flat Earth and Flat earth. Your first statement is simply wrong, you don't seem to know your history. Evolution isn't associated with Christianity but Creationism is, although it's a minority view. We do not use religious texts to prove a point, so your comment about the Quran is irrelevant. But in any case the article is now clear that it was only a popular view, not the view of Islamic astronomers (obviously, since they were students of Hellenistic astronomy. Doug Weller  talk 11:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think your latest edits put this into context really well - big improvement. - I'm pretty sure you've been given the link to our edit warring policy in the past, but just in case, I've linked to it again. Repeatedly removing information when you know the removal is contested is a really fast and efficient way to get your account blocked from editing - please don't do it. If you are reverted, discuss and gain consensus on talk pages before reinstating any changes. Note that edit warring isn't only reverting more than three times in one day - that's just a bright line that will get you immediately blocked. The policy explains it all in detail, please read it and ask questions if you're not sure about anything.  Girth Summit  (blether)  11:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was actually unsure whether you guys were serious or not. I never try to assume bad in people but you guys have made your intentions very clear. You're doing this intentionally. That's quite sad if I'm honest. Very sad.
 * will you please stop creating a new section every time you add a post, and sign your posts - see WP:TP for details. Your last post makes no sense - yes, we are intentionally maintaining the quality of our articles, and just added some well-sourced information to this one to put the stuff that you're concerned about into appropriate context. I assume that's what you're alluding to, but I don't pretend to know why you think it's very sad.
 * On the other hand, if I have misinterpreted you, and you are actually accusing Doug or myself of editing in bad faith, please be explicit that that's what you're saying - having first read NPA, so you understand what it is that you would be doing, and what the likely results would be of making such an accusation. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Requesting help in article expansion
Hi,

Greetings, Requesting you to have a look at


 * Superstitions in Muslim societies and also Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies

Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.

Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Quran and sayings of prophet are primary source w
Quran and sayings of prophet of Islam are primary source in pages of religion of Islam. not original research. don't remove Quran citations in this page Zahida2013 (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not how Wikipedia works; see WP:PRIMARY for the meaning it has here in Wikipedia. I have reverted your addtion; you are free to start a discussion about inclusion of your additions here . Lectonar (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Lectonar I checked on wp:primary I just expanded on older citations of primary sources The Quran verses to make them easily retrievable to the reader. primary sources are allowed if from reputable publisher. I used the standard Quran citation engine used everywhere else in Wikipedia. Zahida2013 (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Quran verses are usually just used, comparable to the Biblical quotes, to emphazise or refer to a statement. Quoting sacred scripture is prone to misrepresenting. One of the issues is, for example, that "angels never disobey Allah". This even once made it to a "GA article", just because people had good faith and didn't paid much intention, unaware that this verse was not applying to Islamic angels in general. Not even most mufassirs applied this to all angels, some people who desperatly wanted to do primary research, however, did. And they basically made up their own interpretation of the Quran (without the required education). This wa a case of spreading misinformation across Wikipedia. Next, Bible and Quran have various different versions. You can't really quote the Quran, you can just quote a translation. And even then, the Quran needs authorized exegetes to be interpreted. Wikipedia would do bad, if Wikipedia would allow everyone to interprete the Quran. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi you did not respond to my grievance about deleting my hard work contribution to this page
 * You and User:VenusFeuerFalle have deleted them. They were citing of primary sources of verses being claimed as mythology. This way the reader can not understand the article if not presented with verses citations, and in the future any body can add something outside of Islam corpus and critique them as Islamic mythology. It is already in the article even given it 2 long paragraphs. This is like forcing up lies on Islam and then study them and make a study. The citation of Karen Bauer not expert in Arabic language yet giving her such space to discuss grammer only Arab born people can understand. This is becoming disinformpedia Zahida2013 (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please inform yourself about the purpose of a Tertiary source (see also: WP:ABIAS. I am sure this will solve the issue. Since, as a non-academic, you might never have heard from these terms and thus misinterprete the goal of Wikipedia, I would give you a brief introduction. (Please note, I do this voluntarily as an empathic response as someone from a non-academic household): In short, a primary source is a text you take as evidence. It can be the text to study itself, a letter of a famous historical person, archeological findings etc. To interprete this findings appropriately, you need the corresponding education to do so. This isn't a secular bias by the way, same applies, since this is the topic here, to Quranic interpretation. Without the proper education, one isn't allowed to interpret the Quran. Secular people, usually don't interprete the Quran neither, since they have not the qualification t do so. Only some "comparative theologians" may do under the assumption, that different religions have the same grounds, therefore, a Christian theologian could also interprete the Quran. Secular scholars take the interpretations by Muslim scholars, and test them on reliablity, reputation, and historical significance. These scholars include Tabari, Suyuti, ibn Taimiyya, ibn Kathir, depending on the subject. If you want to study Asharism, scholars rather take Ghazali instead of ibn Taimiyya. If they want to know about the sources for Salafis, they prefer ibn Taimiyya of course, since he championed the Salafi methodology. A secondary source is a source, which has done this research on a primary source. It is usually a paper or a book, published by Peer reviewed publishers to ensure reliablity and avoid bias as muhc as possible. These are the works done by scholars and the sources used on a tertiary source. Tertiary sources are encyclopedias. They gather the information deducted by scholars doing secondary research, which is, research on primary sources. O course, information might be outdated or misunderstood. Scholars are still humans, subject to error and bound by time. One of these discussions has recently been hold on an article about Maturidites and Asharites. For long, Western scholars believed that they are essentially the same. New research revealed, they are not. If a source makes questionable statements, you can bring it up to the talk-page. I am sure, most fellow Wikipedians will be reasonable not to use outdated or contradicted material. However, we cannot make our own research here, not matter how sure we are about being right. This would just end in chaos and Wikipedia would end up as a forum of opinions rather than a collection of knowledge from research and science. It doesn't even matter how good or professional your research is, since Wikipedia is not publishing research, it will be considered a flaw rather than good work. And this doesn't turn Wikipedia into "disinformpedia". If a lot of infos are questionabl,e, we can put a template at top, as I did, because I didn't found  this topic well elaborated or backed up by secondary sources. Wikipedia can be a treasure cove of knowledge, if you know how to use it. And it is fun to edit, if you know how. When I started, it took me years as well. Practise makes the master (as we say in Germany). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I
 * aswprevented from providing primary source (Quran verses being referred to by the page and it's secondary and tertiary sources) on a wiki page about Islam
 * I request arbitrary or mediation Zahida2013 (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * God created man from pottery like fine clay called Salsal (silicone?) (Quran 55:14.
 * (Quran 7:189) which is clear and does not need interpretation {He is the One Who created you from a single soul, then from it made its spouse so he may find comfort in her. After he had been united with her, she carried a light burden that developed gradually. When it grew heavy, they prayed to Allah, their Lord, “If you grant us good offspring, we will certainly be grateful.”}.
 * (silicone?)
 * Prophet's saying "Eve was made from the rib of Adam" (Sahih Bukhari no 3331).
 * Zahida2013 (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * God created man from pottery like fine clay called Salsal (silicone?) (Quran 55:14.
 * (Quran 7:189) which is clear and does not need interpretation {He is the One Who created you from a single soul, then from it made its spouse so he may find comfort in her. After he had been united with her, she carried a light burden that developed gradually. When it grew heavy, they prayed to Allah, their Lord, “If you grant us good offspring, we will certainly be grateful.”}.
 * (silicone?)
 * Prophet's saying "Eve was made from the rib of Adam" (Sahih Bukhari no 3331).
 * Zahida2013 (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Zahida2013 (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Zahida2013 (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Zahida2013 (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Art 353 Art of the Islamic World
— Assignment last updated by R72zzr (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)