THE HUMAN SELF IN ITS ANIMAL SCENES BETWEEN IBN SINA AND IBN AL-QAYYIM

This research examined the human self in its animal scenes according to Ibn Sina, the most famous philosopher of Islam and an Aristotelian philosopher. A comparison between the human self and that self by Ibn al-Qayyim and the scenes of animal disobedience has been made. The research concluded that when the human self falls into disobedience, it might take from the characteristics of some animals. Some humans have their natures like the natures of animals and their morals like that of beasts, like the dog self in greed and the donkey self that has nothing but toil and fodder, and like that of wild animal self in aggression, and like the self of a mouse in corruption. Also, some other can have harmful selves such as those of serpents and scorpions and like the pig self in eating garbage, and like the peacock self that cares about its form rather than its essence. In addition, some of them are like the noble self in its roughness, and among them is the horse soul because of goodness in their forelocks. It is better than the modern means of transportation.

objects without the outward sense perceiving it first like the sheep's perception of the opposite meaning in wolf. It is the meaning that necessitates her fearing and fleeing from it without the senses being aware of that at all. What is perceived from the wolf first through the senses and then the inner powers is the form, and what the inner powers perceive without the senses is the meaning.
Ahmed Aghbal (2006) mentioned that Ibn Sina distinguished several types of the internally perceived powers of which the common sense and associated power of memory are at the forefront of these powers. Ibn Sina says, in Kitab Al-Shifa (The Cure, 1873) "Know that the strength with which acceptance [common sense] is not the strength with which to memorize." The animal, then, has an internal perceptive power called the Fantasia power or the common sense. It receives sensory images transmitted by the senses and preserves them in a special memory called the power of imagination, and they remain there even after the absence of the sensed objects. This is followed by the power that is called imaginary in relation to the animal self and thought in relation to the human self. This power superimposes the images preserved in imagination and separates them from each other according to choice. And there is the imaginative power that perceives the intangible meanings found in partially sensory objects like the ruling power in the sheep that this wolf is fled from, and that this boy is sympathized.
As Ahmed Aghbal (2006) mentioned, this power has its own memory that preserves what the imaginative power perceives from the intangible meanings found in the partial objects. The memory power is located from the imaginative power in the position of the power of imagination from sensation, and the ratio of that power to meanings is like the ratio of this power to the tangible images. These are the powers of the animal self, and of the animal which has all the five senses, or some and not others. As for the rational human self, it differs from the animal self in that it is separate from the body according to Ibn Sina. Aristotle thinks otherwise. He believes that the self is linked to the body as its basic perfection. It exists in it as the captain in a ship plays the role of the organizing principal of the body that is inseparable from it. In Aristotle's view, the self has no activity independent of the body, because the latter shares the self's activity, and it is not possible, therefore, for the self to have an existence independent of the existence of the body.
Ahmed Aghbal (2006) says that the self-according to Aristotle is the internal principle that organizes the body and gives it its coherence and harmony, and it is not something extra that moves it from the outside. In the experience of fear and thinking, for example, it is not the self that fears or thinks, but the person as a whole is the one who lives those experiences, contrary to what Plato said.
Saying that the self-fears or thinks is like saying that it wears clothes, builds, and so on. Nevertheless, Aristotle attributed knowledge to the self. In fact, Aristotle had different and conflicting views on the issue of the relationship between the self and the body indicating that he was not completely free from the views of Plato. He sees, like his teacher, that the body is a tool used by the self, reminding us of the example of the captain and the ship that he used to clarify the relationship between the self and the body in the manner of Plato's thinking to address this issue.
This led Aristotle's neo-Platonic commentators to interpret the ideas of the First Teacher according to the principles of the Platonic doctrine, which also explains Ibn Sina's attempt to reconcile the two sages.
In his interpretation of Aristotle's views on the self, Alexander of Aphrodisias inclined to the view that the self is the image of the body, closely related to it and not separated from it. And in order to coincide with Aristotle's theory, he rejected Plato's opinion that thought has power over the body, and then he rejected the example of the captain and the ship, which caused him many difficulties. Instead of adopting the idea of the captain who leads the ship, he talked about the art of leadership to emphasize the idea that the self is the image of the body and not something accidental to it. It is the essence without which the body would not be it.
And what indicates that the self is an essence and not an accident is that it can be attached to conflicting qualities. This is a characteristic of the essence. This evidence is the first well-known evidence in the history of philosophy to prove the essential nature of the self. We will find it frequented by the scholastic philosophers who came after Alexander, despite the difficulty of reconciling between the self being the image of the body and its being an essence that accepts different and conflicting qualities.
Ahmed Aghbal (2006) continued saying that the idea that the self is an immaterial, separate, and eternal essence is a purely Platonic idea. Plotinus only put forward this idea to find a solution to the issue of the relationship between the self and the body. But he did not provide any convincing evidence to prove this relationship. Rather, he sufficed to prove negatively. He said that the self does not exist in the body as the captain is in the ship, and that it is not linked to the body as the image is linked to the object. He added, for example, that the presence of the self in the body is like the presence of light in space. As for the evidence on which he based his objection to Aristotle, who considered the self the perfection of the body, it is that if the self was the perfection of the body, it would be possible to divide it as the body is divided. If the body is indivisible, then the self, in his belief, is indivisible. But the theory of Plotinus does not help rationalize the opposing tendencies in the self, which human experiences testify to their existence on one hand. But if we look at matters from Aristotle's perspective and consider the self the perfection of the body, then we do not know how this self can comprehend the intelligible. It is this difficulty that prompted the Peripatetic philosophers to suppose the existence of another transcendent self. But assuming the existence of this self-raised again the issue of the relationship between the self and the body, especially since the example of the captain and the ship does not show why the self is always present in the body. When Plotinus tried to find a solution to this dilemma, he fell into the dualistic view of things. He held that the transcendent self is the locus of knowledge and free of emotions, unlike the self that is attached to the body. Then, he distinguished between a worldly self that is connected to the body and shares its emotions, and a transcendent self that is not affected by the emotions of the body. Such a perception is found in Simplicius, who distinguished between a transcendent spiritual principle and a neutral spiritual principle. From this standpoint, he incorporated the Platonic conception of the self into the Aristotelian doctrine. Thus, it can be said that the actions of the neutral self are inseparable from the body while the self, as an essence, is separate from the body, like the captain who enjoys a self-existence separate from the ship, but his actions are valid in and are not separated from it.
Sabri Muhammad Khalil (2012) mentioned that Ibn Sina divides the self into cases or, in his words, into self "according to the ranks of the three powers of life of the self: plant, animal, and human being. And he believes that the plant self has three powers: gaseous (nourishing), developing (growth), and reproductive (breeding). The animal self, in addition to the powers of the plant self, has two powers: the moving (movement) and the perceiving (perception). The rational self (humanity), in addition to the powers of the plant self and animal self, has two powers: practical (behavior) and theoretical (reasoning)".
Ibn Sina's theory of the self came as an attempt to establish an Islamic theory of the self that takes from both Aristotle and Plato. In other words, the criterion for accepting or rejecting from both Aristotle and Plato was what Ibn Sina saw as being in agreement with or against the Islamic religion. We find him taking from Aristotle his definition of the self and refusing to take the answer to the question where the self came from because Aristotle denies the immortality of the self, which is contrary to religion. And he turns to Plato in answering this question because he believes that there is an agreement between him and the Islamic religion, claiming that the Platonic conception is based on the separation of the self and humanity from the body and its priority over it, while the Islamic conception is based on the unity of self and body.
Ibn Sina mentioned at the beginning of the book of Al-Shifa (The Cure, 1873) that the self is an intangible form or essence. At the beginning of the first article of this book, he reviewed three concepts related to self-definition: image, perfection, and essence. He considered the self as the image of the body that indicates the perfection of the species. The image is the perfection of a living being that makes it belong to a certain type of species. However, it is possible to distinguish between the concept of image and the concept of perfection. In that the second concept is more extensive than the first because some beings are more perfect than others without the need to contain their image as the image is a separable essence as saying the captain is the perfection of the ship, and the king is the perfection of the state. Thus, since some self is not images related to things, but rather images that are separable from it, the self must be defined as the perfection of the body, not its image. If we take this definition as for granted, then it is possible to distinguish between two meanings in perfection: perfection as a relationship that connects the self with the body, and perfection as an image or a self-existing essence. Thus, saying that the self is the perfection of the body does not necessarily include that it is a self-existing essence because we look here at the self in its relationship with the body, not as a self-existing entity. Perfection here is a concept that indicates the relationship between the self and the body, as we say that someone is a builder. The definition of building includes a building, but it does not tell us about the nature of building in itself, whether an essence or not. Sabri Muhammad Khalil (2012) believes that after the nature of the self became clear to us in its relationship with the body, being its perfection, whether the self is an essence or not remains to be known. In order to achieve this goal, we must first define the essence from the viewpoint of Sheikh Al Rayes. Ibn Sina sees that in order for a thing to be an essence, it must meet two conditions: 1) It must not be accidental that follows something.
2) It must be a self-existing entity, independent of anything else. The researcher believes that if we apply these two criteria to humans, assuming with Ibn Sina that a human being is created in a vacuum or suspended in space. He does not touch anything, and his body parts do not touch each other. This man cannot admit the existence of any external object, not even be aware of his body. Neither the outside world exists for him, nor does the body. The only thing that exists for him is a self that has no extension in length, width, or depth. This is Ibn Sina's proof of the independence of the self from the body. It is a self-existing, immaterial essence that can be perceived or conscious of in a direct and immediate way or through intuition.
And saying that the self is the perfection of the body indicates the relationship of the self to the body, not the reality of the self itself. The self, as an essence, is a self-existing entity independent of anything else, and it is not an accident added to the body.
Thus, after Ibn Sina refuted both the materialistic and mathematical conceptions of the self, he set out to prove that the self is an immaterial, self-existing essence. He concluded that only the human self enjoys this essential existence. As for the plant self and the animal self, they cannot be imagined in isolation from the body. However, we find that at the end of the analysis he tends to believe that the plant self and the animal self are independent and self-existing essences like the human self. He substantiated this by saying that everybody, regardless of its species, does not exist independently of the self, giving it the image by which it is classified within a certain species of beings (horse, human, etc.). If the body does not exist independently of the self, then it can be said that the self is its essence. The concept of essence here indicates the characteristics that distinguish it from others. If this is the case, then the self cannot be considered as one of the accidental additions to the body. It seems that Ibn Sina has overlooked the difference that between the concept of essence that denotes the self-existing thing independently of others and the concept of essence as the sum of the characteristics that distinguish something from others and make it belong to a certain species of beings. It should be noted here that the First Teacher had fallen into this confusion.
The researcher believes that Ibn Sina tried to prove the immortality of the self, evident from the relationship of the self to the body not being a causal relationship, and therefore not necessary. If so, the annihilation of the body will not lead to the annihilation of the self since the self is self-existing and independent of the body, it must be immortal. Also, the self is simple, and the body is complex, and the simple does not perish, while the complex body dissolves and perishes.
Dr . Mustafa Ashwi (2015) talked about the difference between the self and the body according to Ibn Al-Qayyim that the creation of the body precedes the creation of the self. And that the self is something that is different from the body and the body as well, even if they are linked by a strong bond that can only be separated by death. Rather, the self may leave the body at death and then return to it when placed in grave.
The concept of the self in Ibn Sina has remained ambiguous because of its various uses. When he defined the self as an immaterial essence, it is often understood that the self is nothing other than the mind as a whole unit or principle. When one of the mental intuitions performs an action, the self operates as a whole, rationalizing and conceiving that it rationalizes at the same time. Thus, Ibn Sina made the self the basis of every emotional or intellectual experience. It is the expression of self-awareness. When something happens in a person's mind and conscience, he tends to express his emotional states through the use of the first person pronoun "I". Ibn Sina went further in his conception of the activity of the self than Aristotle.
Dr. Sabri Khalil (2011) says that Ibn Sina's theory of the self came as an attempt to establish an Islamic theory of the self that takes from both Aristotle and Plato. In other words, the criterion for accepting or rejecting from both Aristotle and Plato was what Ibn Sina saw as being in agreement with or against the Islamic religion. We find him taking from Aristotle his definition of the self and refusing to take the answer to the question where the self came from because Aristotle denies the immortality of the self, which is contrary to religion. And he turns to Plato in answering this question because he believes that there is an agreement between him and the Islamic religion, claiming that the Platonic conception is based on the separation of the self and humanity from the body and its priority over it, while the Islamic conception is based on the unity of self and body. Therefore, psychiatry and clinical medicine according to Al-Razi and Ibn Sina was the correct scientific ground for psychology. At that time, it laid down its foundations gradually from the concept of essence, presentation, form, and the gradation of the self in the hierarchy of assets and its relationship to the body. It was divided functionally as mentioned by Muhammad Othman Najati in Ibn Sina's book of Sensory Perception (1980).

Categories of the human psyche
The human soul

The animal soul
The plant soul (By the soul and Who shaped it, and inspired it with its sin and its piety, prosperous is he who purified it, and failed is he who buried it!

Categories of the human soul according to Muhammad Qutb
The reproachful soul The inspiring soul The reassured soul (By the soul and Who shaped it, and inspired it with its sin and its piety, prosperous is he who purified it, and failed is he who buried it! The self is the first perfection of a natural, mechanical body living by energy, as said by the Aristotelian philosophers of Islam. Most of them agreed that "the rational human self is an essence abstract from physicality and inclusion in the body, except that it is attached to these bodies by way of management." Najati (1980) says that this is what the Platonists see as self-existing essences independent of the body and that the self has powers that move it, from which all morals emanate. The power with which thought, discernment, and consideration of the facts of matters are the rational power. The power with which anger, help, and courage, and longing, and domination, and loftiness, and the various forms of dignity form the anger power. And another in which there is lust, the request for food, and the longing for refuge is the lust power.
Self-reform comes from reforming the psychological powers that drive excess or neglect. From reforming the rational power, wisdom springs, and from reforming lust power, chastity occurs, and from reforming angry power, courage is obtained. The Arab scholars were not satisfied with the theoretical and functional division of the self, but they assigned to it major physical centers in which these selves work, which hence, matured the concept of the soul and the comprehensiveness of Arab psychology in its concepts and foundations.
Ibn Sina had a knack for classifying the self with its parts and powers: Among these theoretical, medical, and ethical consensuses, the self, its actions and diseases are considered to be related to the three powers and bodily moods. The effect of the psychological state appears in the physical characteristics between excess and failure. They believe that a person should strive with physical medicine and psychiatry in order to modify these selves, so that they do not fall short of what is intended for them and so that they do not go beyond it.
Muhammad Othman Najati (1980) says that failure in the act of the plant self is that it does not nourish, does not grow, and does not produce in quantity and manner needed by the whole body, and its excess is that it goes beyond that until the body fertilizes more than what it needs and drowns in pleasures and lust.
Najati also says the failure of the action of the angry self is that it does not have the bigotry, disdain, and help that can defeat and subdue the lust self when it desires until it prevents it and its desires and excessiveness in which arrogance and love of domination abound in it.
The failure of the act of the rational self is that it does not think of this world's astonishment and arrogance, thinking and wondering about it, and yearning to know all in it, especially the knowledge of its body in form and consequences after death.
Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Hajj ii , may Allah Almighty have mercy on him (2016) in the interpretation of the scenes of animal disobedience in Madarij al-Salikeen by Ibn al-Qayyim, the scene of animality and the fulfillment of lust, says that Ibn al-Qayyim said that this is the scene of the ignorant (They are only like cattle; nay, they are even farther astray from the Path) Alfurqan: 44). Some human beings are created to satisfy their lust. They think this way, so they would like to fluctuate in all kinds of material and sensual pleasures such as eating, drinking, and having sex. There is no difference between them and an animal except in stature and speech, said Ibn al-Qayyim. Abu Hurairah reported the Prophet (may peace be upon him) as saying (Do not treat the backs of your beasts as pulpits, for Allah has made them subject to you only to convey you to a town which you cannot reach without difficulty and He has appointed the earth (a floor to work) for you, ii Mohamed Sayed Haj is a Sudanese scholar, speaker, and sheikh who has a beautiful interpretation of the paths of the walkers by ibn al-Qayyim, born in northern Sudan in Dongola in 1972 AD. so conduct your business on it)of . n the authority of Muadh bin Anas, on the authority. iii the Messenger of Allah -may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him: he passed by people who were standing on their beasts, and he said to them: "Ride them safely, and leave them safely, and do not take them as chairs for your conversations on the roads and markets, for a beast may be better than its rider and remember Allah -the Blessed and Most High -more than him). iv Allah says Ibn al-Qayyim talked about the animal scenes of humans, and they are the ones whose natures are like the natures of animals and their morals like that of animals. Ibn al-Qayyim started talking about the selves of some people: a. The dog soul That is, his soul is similar to the dog soul. One of the natures of the dog is that it is greedy. If he encountered a carcass that would feed a thousand dogs, he would kept it for itself and prevented all other dogs approaching it . Some people are like this dog self, whose concern is to fill their stomach with any food, not caring about carrion and slaughtered. There are people who do not care about what is permissible or forbidden. Some animals are more generous than other animals such as the eagle that does not eat carrion. It eats its prey fresh after killing it and reassures it and the eagle from its height does not descend on the carrion. What is meant by carrion here is the forbidden and the world as Jesus said, peace be upon him, the world is a carrion and its seekers are dogs. Jesus, peace be upon him, found a scene of dogs joking with each other (playing). The same dogs when they passed by a carrion, they fought. Jesus said, this is how the world makes affection between loved ones. They get a partnership, then they fight. The dog has an advantage. If you feed it, it will move its tail, and if you do not feed it, it will move and bark. Is there a type of human being like this? Yes, there are people who look like dogs in this way. The judge, Abu Bakr Ibn al-Marzuban, wrote a book entitled "the superiority of dogs over many of those who wear clothes" in 617 AH. Allah says (So his example is like that of the dog: if you chase him, he pants, or if you leave him, he [still] pants.) Al-A'raaf: 176). He has made a comparison and said that the dog is loyal to his owner, but some people have no loyalty. He told a story of the most amazing fairy tales with the aim of embodying social values and meanings to correct them. He said a man went to the devil and told him "I have a problem to be solved only by you." The devil said, "tell me your problem." He said, "My problem is my neighbor." "When I borrow from him, he lends me money, and I does not return my debt to me, and when I am away, he takes care of my wife and children as much as he can." The devil * Mohamed Sayed Haj is a Sudanese scholar, speaker, and sheikh who has a beautiful interpretation of the paths of the walkers by ibn al-Qayyim, born in northern Sudan in Dongola in 1972 AD. Sunan Abu Dawud (2567), Grade: Sahih by Al-Albani in Sahih Al-jami' (2691). iv Narrated by Ahmad, Good 3/439/ 44 on the authority of Muadh bin Ans al-juhani said, "Yes, your neighbor is indeed good." The man said, "But the man is very rich. When I see him, I feel pain, and I want poverty and destruction for him. I want you to teach me something to destroy this man." He said, so the devil cried out and the little devils gathered for him. He said, "Do you see that Allah has created someone who is worse than me?" They said, 'no', and he said, "This man is worse than me." (He meets you with smile and love, and at the same time pretends to cheat and insult you.). Don't accompany people like this, it is better for you to accompany a dog. b. The donkey self Sheikh Muhammed Sayed Hajj said that some people are like donkeys, and Allah said: (indeed, the most disagreeable of sounds is the voice of donkeys.) Luqman: 19). The donkey was not created except for two things: toil and fodder to eat and work and among the people are those who were created in this world for toil and fodder. So, the more the donkey is given fodder, the more its toil increases. The donkey has no vision, and it may be one of the dullest animals, and it may be the crow. Ibn al-Qayyim traced the mention of animals in the Qur'an, so he talked about the story of the two sons of Adam when he killed his brother, and why the crow was chosen in the Almighty's saying? (Then Allah sent a crow searching in the ground to show him how to hide the disgrace of his brother. He said, "O woe to me! Have I failed to be like this crow and hide the body of my brother?" And he became of the regretful.) Al-Maaida, 31). Ibn al-Qayyim said because by killing his brother, he became a stranger, and the closest word to him at that time was the crow, the closest animal to him was the crow. He said he looked between his estrangement with himself and his remorse, and between the crow that appeared to him on the horizon as ominous for what he had done. The crow has less insight as well as the donkey . c. The wild animal self Sheikh said that among the selves are wild animal angry souls that are only made of aggression. They only take pleasure in harming others, i.e. his mission and nature is to vanquish people. He does not respect mankind and does not deal with humans through their humanity. He deals with them through his wild animal self, i.e. like the wild animal. His nature is like the wild animal nature for what comes from it (Some people are badly fierce). Everyone who follows his power of anger spreads and rages among people, strikes and kills them. His self is like a wild animal self. Ibn al-Qayyim said that the meat of wild animals is forbidden because the eaten meat affects the character. Whoever eats the meat of wild animals, his character becomes fierce. In order not to be a reprehensible character and follow a low-graded value, Allah has forbidden eating wild animals, wild animals with fangs, and birds with claws. d. The mouse self Sheikh said that some people have a mouse self. The mouse by its nature corrupt and corrupting what is around him, created for harm (Some people have nothing but harm to others). The mouse, if he enters a closet, eats from the clothes of this and that, and he destroys them, not for satiety, but for harm. That is why the Messenger of Allah, named it Al-Fawwasiqah  (mouse). If it falls into margarine and solid, what is around it is removed. And if it falls into a fluid, the whole fluid will spoil, therefore, selling it is forbidden, all of it must be taken away. The mouse is harmful, so are some people.

e. The harmful (poisonous) self
Sheikh said, "And some people are like the self of poisonous creatures, like harmful snakes and scorpions." The poison in serpents and scorpions, is it fatal? If so, he would have killed the snake and the scorpion. It is not fatal at all and not harmful at all. But the angry and malicious self is what makes a person who goes out and encounters a place that harmful. Ibn al-Qayyim gave an example of the owners of poisonous selves with the eyes of human beings, their eyes are hot (envious). Their selves are as poisonous as a serpent and a scorpion. Ibn al-Qayyim says, "the eye alone does not do anything, but the evil and poisonous self in it, if it adapts in a way of anger with the intensity of envy and admiration and comes across a defenseless person from the weapon of supplication, maybe he was damaged or hurt." Amir ibn Rabia saw Sahl ibn Hunayf doing a ghusl and said, "I have not seen the like of what I see today, not even the skin of a maiden who has never been out of doors." Sahl fell to the ground. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Why does one of you kill his brother? If you like something from your brother, say Masha Allah (God willing), Tabarak Allah (May Allah bless you), say Bismillah (by the name of Allah), remember Allah". Then he said, "Do ghusl for it." Amir washed his face, hands, elbows, knees, the end of his feet, and inside his lower garment in a vessel. Then he poured it over him, and there was nothing wrong with him. As mentioned in al-Bukhari, the Chapter of treating the evil eye. v Why? Because the treatment of a snake and scorpion's bite is of its own kind. The eye is called the eye because it is the closest outlet to the soul as he says, (When the soul is taken away the sight follows it) vi because sight is the closest outlet, so, the eye is not evil (envious), the evil is the self. Ibn al-Qayyim said, "A person may be envious, and he is blind by description only, and may be envious by voice." If some animal selves are poisonous, then some human selves are poisonous. Ibn al-Qayyim says, from a jurisprudential point of view, who is famous for being Mu'ayen (Evil eye), is it permissible for the ruler to imprison him? According to the Hanbalis, it is permissible to imprison him, and the ruler of Muslims must feed and drink him. This is an angry self that you may have adapted with envy because most envious people are Mu'ayeneen (evil eye). Imam Al-Taymouri mentioned in his book Hayat Al-Hayawan Al-Kubra (1424 AH) that Alwazag (Uromastyx) is the most envious animal. Al-Dinori says, "If an uromastyx from above looked Yahya related to me from Malik that Muhammad ibn Abi Umama ibn Sahl ibn Hunayf heard his father say, "My father, Sahl ibn Hunayf did a ghusl at al-Kharrar. He removed the jubbah he had on while Amir ibn Rabia was watching, and Sahl was a man with beautiful white skin. Amir said to him, 'I have never seen anything like what I have seen today, not even the skin of a virgin.' Sahl fell ill on the spot, and his condition grew worse. Somebody went to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and told him that Sahl was ill, and could not go with him. The v Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, came to him, and Sahl told him what had happened with Amir. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'Why does one of you kill his brother? Why did you not say, "May Allah bless you?" (ta baraka-llah) The evil eye is true. Do wudu from it.' Amir did wudu from it and Sahl went with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and there was nothing wrong with him." Narrated by ibn Majah. at milk, you open his stomach, you will find milk inside it." This suggests that the ancient Muslim scholars had talked about the nature of animals by observation and experiment, which cannot be found now in the West. It is said that the uromastyx is the opponent of Allah because it is the only animal that blew into Abraham's fire. In al-Bukhari's hadith, he said, "Alwazag is killed form the first time, and whoever does so, a hundred good deeds (hasana) will be recorded for him because it blew into Abraham's fire to stir it up." Ibn al-Qayyim wanted to prove his words in his talk about selves. He said, if the Messenger of Allah saw in a dream an animal, he would give him an interpretation befitting the animal. For example, before the battle of Uhud, he saw cows were being slaughtered. He said, "I interpreted that my companions were being killed." Ibn al-Qayyim said, "What is the relationship between cows and the Companions?" He said, may Allah have mercy on him, "Cows are the most useful animals for the earth, and the Companions are the most useful people for the nation." Second, cows have goodness, prosperity, and benefit, and so are the Companions. He said, may Allah have mercy on him, "Cows have serenity, modesty, and humility." As for seeing buffaloes in sleep means that a great man among people will die because buffaloes are the greatest and best of cows. Omar saw before his death that a turkey had pecked him three times, and the first thing he said was that a foreigner would kill him with three stabs. What is the relationship between the turkey and Abu Lulu al-Majusi? The turkey is fierce, so is Abu Lulu the Majusi. Also, the turkey is not from the rooster of society, but it is strange to it, and so is Abu Lulu al-Majusi. g. The big self Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, said, "And among the people of his nature is a pig." The pig has a bad nature, you give it good things, and it eats its garbage. It eats bad things and its vomit. Some people leave sweet and halal juices and drink forbidden wine. A type of the big self as Ibn al-Qayyim says, whoever overlooks the merits. He only mentions his shortcomings. They only look at his flaws and not his good ones. (The eye of contentment is blind to every flaw and the eye of discontentment displays all faults) h. The peacock self He said, "a person is like a peacock. His luck is adornment and frills, perfumes, shape, beauty, and cleanliness, but this is not from religion. He is a peacock who cares about his form rather than his essence." i. The camel self Ibn al-Qayyim said, "The camel is the most hateful animal; He does not forget. And some people remember you a mistake that might be from childhood. This is the camel shepherds' fault worse than other cattle shepherd". Therefore, Allah asked prophets to herd sheep because in the sheep are stillness and comfort. So, that is why the camel is the hateful animal and does not forget its abuse. j. The horse self Ibn al-Qayyim said, "The best animals, of course, are horses, because there is goodness in their forelocks till the Day of Resurrection. This means that they are better than modern vehicles such as cars and others. Horses are good. He said, "The horse is the most honorable of animals' selves and natures. Of course, whoever tames horses, learns from their natural characteristics. Also, whoever herds sheep will benefit, and whoever herds camels, his liver will be thick and his nature will be harsh and dry". Then he said, "Allah has forbidden treating wild animals, hunting animals, and birds with claws because the eaters inherit their nature". Ibn al-Qayyim said, "if a horse knows his mother, it does not have intercourse with her". If it was only one female, which gave birth and grew up, and they wanted to fertilize her, they blindfolded his eyes because he has morals that some people may not have.
Ibn al-Qayyim talks about sins in al-Jawab al-Kafi (The Sufficient Answer) (1997) in His saying, (And there is no creature on [or within] the earth or bird that flies with its wings except [that they are] communities like you. We have not neglected in the Register a thing. Then unto their Lord they will be gathered.) Al-An'aam: 38). He talked about some natures. He said, "whoever takes some characteristics of an animal, his heart changes in resemblance to that animal". Therefore, it appears in his face to those who check. Thus, the metamorphosis took place among the first nations of our Allah. He metamorphosed them into monkeys and pigs, but the Messenger of Allah  told us in Sahih al-Bukhari that (If metamorphosed a nation, He will cut off its offspring until the Day of Resurrection. This means that the existing monkeys and pigs are not the Israelis that were metamorphosed. These have been created by Allah Almighty. And at the end of time, some of Muhammad's nation will be metamorphosed into apes and pigs, this is what the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, says, "And there will be some people who will stay near the side of a mountain and in the evening their shepherd will come to them with their sheep and ask them for something, but they will say to him, 'Return to us tomorrow.' Allah will destroy them during the night and will let the mountain fall on them, and He will transform the rest of them into monkeys and pigs and they will remain so till the Day of Resurrection." vii These scenes are scenes of animal disobedience, as Ibn al-Qayyim calls them. Their owners did not benefit anything. They are like animals in their misguidance.

Conclusion
When the Noble Qur'an was revealed to the faithful Messenger, the Qur'an spoke of the self and addressed it as an independent entity and mentioned some of its different types: reassured, persistent enjoiner of evil, and reproachful. It also spoke of something else, the soul.
And Muslim jurists spoke of a dual composition of the human being, a self (which is the self-according to them) and a body. In this, they do not follow the Greek philosophers and Arab philosophers close to them in their views about the self. Rather, they looked at placing the words "soul" and "self" as in the hadith of the Prophet . A person is composed of three things, a body, a soul, and a self as seen by Ahmad Karrar Ahmad al-Shanqiti (2005).
His perception is that the human being is a body like a machine, the soul gives life to this body, which only Allah knows what it is, and the self is the main agent in man. It drives the body to where it wants. It may be persistent enjoiner of desires and suspicions, reassured that goes high in supplications, prayers, and worships, or reproachful between this and that.
The man in mental pleasures shares the angels. In other senses related to the three powers, i.e. wild animal, beastly, and devilish, he shares wild animals, beasts, and devils. That is his self has become a lustful animal. So, you should know that whoever is overcome by one of the four pleasures, his share to what he is attributed becomes more until it is complete, it would have been him.
The self has four powers: a possessively mental power, an angrily wild animal power, a beastly lust power, and an imaginative devil power.
The first is concerned with realizing the realities of things, distinguishing between good and evil, commanding good deeds, and forbidding reprehensible attributes.
The second leads to the issuance of the actions of wild animals of anger and hatred, and jumping at people with all kinds of harm.
The third, nothing comes from it except the actions of the beasts, such as the bondage of the vagina and the stomach, i.e., the desire for sexual intercourse and eating. And the fourth is about deducing the faces of cunning and tricks, and reaching the goals by deception.
And the benefit in the presence of the power of lust is the survival of the body, which is a machine for attaining the self-perfection. In the presence of anger is that it breaks the lustful and devilish image, conquers it when immersed in deception and lust, their insistence on them, because of their rebellion, they do not easily obey the rational self. Unlike the anger self, they obey it and behave with its discipline easily. (Elfeky & Elbyaly, 2017, 2019 Data can be accessed by contacting the authors. No agreements of any type were needed.