Understanding Islamic Society

[RajeshA]

lakshmikanth ji,

abundance can cause a lot of confusion for those whose intellect cannot keep up. Scarcity can often provide the assurance that one knows the relevant.

[RajeshA]

Post by Carl in "Indo-UK News & Discussion 9th Aug 2011" Thread

Didn't say that I bought everything that is said at all, but my point is to highlight how their community views. It varies from place to place in the UK . In the city where I live, there was a recently a BBC documentary into extremism here. The way it was phrased and ran - really pissed a lot of people of here. They didn't mention this Al Muhajiroun linked group here had been banned from all the mosques, its members banned, to the point where the local community filed reports with the police, they can only meet in their own houses. The govt decided to allow them to take a protest (with the usually virulently islamist placards - only 10 people turned up for the protest with police giving them security) out here on the streets - which pissed off people living here. Climax came when the group booked a hall in a community centre (outside their local area) for their annual meeting (lets ignore the fact that these people couldn't even hold their meetings in 2 or 3 mosques (6 or 7 in the city in total) and 2 community centres in the area) and the police arrested about 10 or 11 of them. But why were they even given permission to hold it in the community centre in the first place?

Then there was another incident where a somali and yemeni - brainwashed by the above group to fight for al shabaab - these 17 year olds left to kenya on his way to somalia. The father went to the police and a team of officers along with the boys fathers went to kenya and managed to track down his son in somalia and the boys were I think arrested and brought back to the UK. Of course, little press coverage of this - it did make it to BBC.

These incidents do back up that view

shyamd ji, I understand where you're coming from. Looking at such incidents from the outside will logically lead to your current PoV. But let me try to provide a view of the same dynamics from the inside.

1. Here in the US also there are hardcore Wahabi sections in any major Moslem settlement, along with the rest of them. By "hardcore Wahabbi" I mean the al-Mohajiroun types who rant and rave in public at kaafirs, and even at other regular Moslems. They themselves would never even go near a regular mosque, except to create a commotion - that's why they're debarred and usually have their own mosques. They accost others demanding to know their "minhaj", and they are in turn ostracized by others, though they do manage to spin the youngsters' minds with their propaganda questioning traditional fiqh, and the youngsters then go around asking for clarifications.

2. Then there are the less obnoxious but ideologically still Wahabi types, who base their doctrine on the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah. I've seen some of the brightest young Somali lads here take this line. They have the ability to rigorously argue against the "Sufi" and other traditions of their own community and the larger Islamic community. But they are allowed to mingle in any mosque and congregation, because they have impeccable manners. They are not ostracized. So the only difference between this section and the one above is 'adab' (etiquette).

3. Then there are the various other Deobandi, Barelvi, Gulenist, Naqshbandi and Shadhili 'Sufi' types in these mosque congregations. Here's the important thing: They don't consider the attitudes of the Wahabis to be wrong, they merely consider it out of place in the current time. In fact they believe it is even necessary for youngsters to go through a "Wahabi phase" in order to internalize certain things about the tradition. What they don't like is the bad publicity it brings when outsiders see the same thing, especially because of the politicized atmosphere about Islam these days.

A friend of mine is a convert and married to a Somali lady and has children from her. He takes a deep interest in the religion and community affairs, and is currently taking training to be an 'alim at a seminary, having given up his job. He often mentors young Somali boys. Often some of them get involved in terrorist plots right here in the US, while others want to go back and fight in Somalia. From time to time the FBI approaches him with questions on certain individuals in his community. He has to often struggle with himself about what to divulge and what not to. He wrestles with these moral questions. In the end, he asks himself: "What would damage the community more - not telling on them, allowing them to do something terroristic, and then the whole community may suffer a backlash? Or telling the FBI, which can then let the law take its own course?" Especially if the agents promise to treat them as juveniles according to certain laws, he will divulge. It goes without saying that he strongly feels that Moslems are being oppressed in the US and other parts of the world. Once when I mentioned the problems of Coptic Christians in Egypt, he brished it aside angrily, suggesting they were acting on America's instance to subvert the emergence of an Islamic Egypt. Etc.

What I'm pointing out is that it is not about "hardcore Islamists" versus "moderate Moslem citizens", but rather about management of certain intrinsic dynamics within the community that is settled in non-Moslem societies. It must first be seen in this proper perspective, before a real solution can be proposed.

[jamwal]

Cross-post:
PAKISTAN AND THE MALAISE
B.R.Ambedkar on Islam
The Hindu-Muslim problem has two aspects to it. In its first aspect, the problem that presents itself is the problem of two separate communities facing each other and seeking adjustment of their respective right and privileges. In its other aspect, the problem is the problem of the reflex influences which this separation and conflict produces upon each of them. In the course of the foregoing discussion we have looked at the project of Pakistan in relation to the first of the aspects of the Hindu-Muslim problem. We have not examined the project of Pakistan in relation to the second aspect of that problem. Yet, such an examination is necessary because that aspect of the Hindu-Muslim problem is not unimportant. It is a very superficial if not an incomplete view to stop with the problem of the adjustment of their claims. It cannot be overlooked that their lot is cast together: as such they have to participate in a course of common activity whether they like it or not. And if in this common activity they face each other as two combatants do, then their actions and reactions are worth study, for they affect both and produce a state of affairs from which, if it is a diseased state, the question of escape must be faced. A study of the situation shows that the actions and reactions have produced a malaise which exhibits itself in three ways:
(l) Social Stagnation,
(2) Communal Aggression, and
(3) National Frustration of Political Destiny.
This malaise is a grave one. Will Pakistan he a remedy for the malaise? Or will it aggravate the malaise? The following chapters are devoted to the consideration of these questions.

CHAPTER X

SOCIAL STAGNATION


I
[Muslim Society is even more full of social evils than Hindu Society is]

The social evils which characterize the Hindu Society, have been well known. The publication of Mother India by Miss Mayo gave these evils the widest publicity. But while Mother India served the purpose of exposing the evils and calling their authors at the bar of the world to answer for their sins, it created the unfortunate impression throughout the world that while the Hindus were grovelling in the mud of these social evils and were conservative, the Muslims in India were free from them, and as compared to the Hindus, were a progressive people. That such an impression should prevail, is surprising to those who know the Muslim Society in India at close quarters.

One may well ask if there is any social evil which is found among the Hindus and is not found among the Muslims.

Take child-marriage. The Secretary of the Anti-Child-marriage Committee, constituted by the All-India Women's Conference, published a bulletin which gives the extent of the evil of child-marriage in the different communities in the country. The figures, which were taken from the Census Report of 1931, are as follows :—

[Agnimitra]

I have always thought that the best way to deter Jihadis is to burn their bodies and "immerse" the ashes in the gutter. I was thinking on same lines.
Why do we bury them in Indian soil. We can just cremate them hindu ways, may be close to LoC for bakis to see.

If peaceniks or WKK raise any voice we can put the argument since terrorists have no religion it doesn't matter what is done to their dead remains.

Well as far as Islam is concerned, that tactic has been taken into consideration. A mujahid who dies fighting the kafir becomes a shaheed (martyr). The implications of that is that the shuhada (martyrs) do not have to go through the suspense of the life of waiting in the Grave, nor the tension of resurrection and Judgment Day. They get a straight pass to Jannat, immediately. In fact, being martyred in jihad is the only definite way of ensuring Jannat in Islamic theology. Everything else is uncertainty. So, you kafirs can do whatever you want with the dead bodies of martyred jihadis, but you can't deny them what Allah has promised.

As far as I know, in Jannat the same body is reinvigorated but they don't get new bodies to enjoy the luxury. Perhaps you can give some info on that in the "Understanding Islamic Society" thread.

RajeshA ji, there are different classifications of "shaheed" in Islam. For example, a believer who dies due to floods or earthquake with his faith and a good opinion of Allah (husna dhan) in tact is also a martyr. But the person who dies fighting in jihad is the highest kind of martyr. The pathway to heaven for each of these classes is different.

"Allah's Apostle said, 'Five are regarded as martyrs: They are those who die because of plague, abdominal disease, drowning or a falling building etc., and the martyrs in Allah's cause.'" (Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:82)

"I heard the Prophet saying, 'Whoever is killed while protecting his property then he is a martyr.'" (Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, 3:43:660)

Etc. So for instance, if floods kill hundreds in Pakistan or an earthquake killed hundreds in PoK, or a tsunami in Indonesia, then the Sheikhs have declared that they are all martyrs. Whereas if an earthquake strikes Indian Gujarat or the same tsunami kills Indians or Lankans, or a hurricane hits New Orleans, then the same Sheikhs have declared that it is Allah's wrath for their sinful or stubborn denial of the Final revelation.

Now firstly, the highest kind, the jihadi martyr, is not considered dead, but rises immediately without having to go through the grave.

"And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: 'They are dead.' Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not." (Quran, 2:154)

"Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord. They rejoice in the Bounty provided by Allah: And with regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined them (in their bliss), the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve. They glory in the Grace and Bounty from Allah, and in the fact that Allah suffereth not the reward of the faithful to be lost (in the least)." (Quran, 3:169-171)

Secondly, Allah has decreed a bargain for those who make the ultimate sacrifice:

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme." (Quran, 9:111)

Another similar aayat is more general, and applies to different classes of martyrs, not just the jihadi warrior:

"Those who leave their homes in the cause of Allah, and are then slain or die,- On them will Allah bestow verily a goodly Provision: Truly Allah is He Who bestows the best provision." (Quran, 22:58)

Moreover, martyrdom is more about intention (niyat), than about the actual occurrences on the ground. Therefore, the actual sequence of events is almost immaterial, provided one goes into it with the pure intention of being a martyr:

"It has been narrated on the authority of Anas b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah (may peace he upon him) said: Who seeks martyrdom with sincerity shall get its reward, though he may not achieve it." (Hadith from Sahih Muslim, 020:4694)

The bargain that Allah has promised means that he is far more forgiving of the sins of martyrs. Actually the Quran says that even a believer with even an atom's worth of sin will have to at least pass over Hell before entering Heaven. But Allah also says that He is likely to forgive this to martyrs. Thus, in all matters the Quran sets up a theology of a very, very terrifying and difficult passage to Heaven, but then holds out the promise of forgiveness, and encourages believers to "compete with one another for Allah's forgiveness" and Prophetic intercession. Allah's forgiveness encompasses anything that defiles body and soul. For example, it is reported that once after a battle, the Prophet and companions were taking count of the dead. The Prophet suddenly had a faraway look in his eyes, as if watching something happening in the heavens. He told the companions that one of the martyrs was being taken up above by two angels (which was not surprising), but the Prophet was amazed that they were also washing the martyr's limbs. It so happens that the night before the battle, that martyr has gone and had sex with his wife one last time, and then in the morning he had gone into battle without the compulsory ghusl (purificatory bathing after coitus). Thus, the angels were compensating for that defilement by doing the ghusl for him while they were raising him to Heaven.

Also, compared to other types of martyrs, the highest jihadi type of martyr goes to the highest level of paradise (Jannat al-Firdous), which is otherwise reserved only for the Prophets and the Most Righteous of Mankind.

"Haritha was martyred on the day (of the battle) of Badr, and he was a young boy then. His mother came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostle! You know how dear Haritha is to me. If he is in Paradise, I shall remain patient, and hope for reward from Allah, but if it is not so, then you shall see what I do?' He said, "May Allah be merciful to you! Have you lost your senses? Do you think there is only one Paradise? There are many Paradises and your son is in the (most superior) Paradise of Al-Firdaus.'" (Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, 5:59:318)

Etc, etc. Lastly, technically while the highest type of jihadi martyr goes straight to Heaven, they are so much in love with martrydom that they don't mind going through resurrection and even rebirth. This exalted sentiment is expressed by the Prophet himself as follows:

"By Him in Whose Hands my life is! I would love to be martyred in Allah's Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred." (Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:54)

"The Prophet said, "Nobody who enters Paradise likes to go back to the world even if he got everything on the Earth, except a Mujahid who wishes to return to the world so that he may be martyred ten times because of the dignity he receives (from Allah)." (Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:72)

[RajeshA]

Carl ji,

thanks for the background. As I understand it, the "martyrs in the cause of Jihad" do not have to go through the grave.

Something I wrote earlier:

Well actually Islamic eschatology mentions the life in the grave: al-Barzakh, where Muslims stay for a long long time before the Day of Judgment!

Some Hadiths also mention, that Muhammad said that if somebody should speak to him at his grave, Muhammad will hear him, implying he is very much aware, perhaps active in his life in the grave!

Now I can't remember which Hadiths they were, I would have to search. But if Prophet Muhammad said so, then he is living in the grave - al-Barzakh.

You suggest that the "martyr in the cause of Jihad" would go directly to some Jannat. My question relates to the body! What does Islamic eschatology say on that?

1. Does one
   1. remain as a soul, without a physical body and the pleasures of Jannat are enjoyed by the soul, even though the pleasures spoken of are physical in nature, or
   2. have his earthly body, his remains repaired, reinstated and reinvigorated as complete and new, or
   3. receive a new body, similar to one had on Earth, only more potent?
2. Are the last rites and burial of a Muslim relevant only as far as al-Barzakh, his life in grave, is concerned or does his body play any role in Jannat as well, and in particular as far as "martyrs in the cause of Jihad" are concerned?
3. Where does the saying "the martyrs body smelled of roses come from"?

[RajeshA]

Symbolisms of basic islamic imagery in jihadi propaganda

Author: Dr. Maria Alvanou
Italian Team for Security, Terroristic Issues and Managing Emergencies

[Agnimitra]

RajeshA ji,

The sum total of all Quranic and Hadith narrations cannot be logically fitted together from a physical point of view. For example, did Imam Hossein's beheaded body decompose after Kerbala? If so, how can he be called Seyyed ul-Shuhada (master of all martyrs)? If not, is there proof? Did the Prophet's body decompose? Can we check?

Of course we can't check, but the logic of it all finally rests on two things:
(a) The invisible essence of the body which remains in our spines as we live, and then stays in the place that the body dies.
(b) The subjective experience and freedom of movement of the soul during al-Barzakh, which depends on one's degree of faith and works.

According to the faith and deeds performed by that person, a different place is fixed for the soul to remain. It stays in that place until the Day of Resurrection. Some stay underneath the "Arsh" (the pedestal of God, which is above the 7 heavens), some remain at "Aala Illiyyeen" (the highest point), some remain at the well of Zam Zam, and a great many good souls remain in their grave. So while the body and soul always remain connected, the souls of some can roam very freely after death (during Barzakh) while those of others may have lesser degrees of movement. It all goes with the whole subjective experience of Barzakh itself.

The souls of infidels are imprisoned. Some are imprisoned in the well of "Barhoot", some in "Sajeen" (the lowest point in Earth), and some at their place of cremation or burial.

The Hadith also says that when a Muslim dies, the soul's path is opened and it can go wherever it pleases. But here again it depends on the "rank" or degree of faith of the believer. The Prophets, the jihadi martyrs, and the 'best of mankind' are above the rest.

But any good believer will have a good experience in the grave. The grave will be wide and beautiful like a garden, and filled with the aroma of paradise. All they need to do is answer three questions correctly - Who is your lord? What is your religion? Who is your Prophet? The whole experience of Barzakh hinges on these, and the relative appearance of the angel of death, of leaving the body, and of the grave all depends on whether one is a believer or not, and how many of one's sins have not been forgiven while still alive.

On the other hand, a non-believer will have a painful experience of seeing his body go, the angel of death himself will appear terrifying, the two angels that interrogate the soul appear terrifying, and the grave itself appears very constricted, horrifically uncomfortable and crushes one, or according to some narrations one may be clobbered on the head and sent hurtling to the lowest point of Earth, all the while being bitten by snakes, scorpions, and many other forms of torture.

Regarding the body itself, for most believers the body apparently rots in the grave, but the essence of the body is supposed to be within the spinal column (like the kundalini) and is invisible to human eyes. That essence remains in the place of burial. If the person was eaten by a tiger, then it remains there, and that will be the place the person is questioned on the articles of faith before Barzakh experience begins. Post-Barzakh, God uses that essence to resurrect the entire body at that place on Judgment Day.

Moreover, as an article of faith, the bodies of the Prophets and martyrs supposedly never die or rot into the soil. They remain whole and fragrant, as if embalmed and mummified! This is somewhat like the samadhis of Hindu saints, who are buried upright rather than burned, with the belief that their bodies remain forever un-decomposed, in some sense.

So there are a number of differing narrations about the fate of the body and soul in Islam, and each may be applicable to different "ranks" of the faithful. All these details are found either in Judaism/Christianity or other Eastern traditions (Zoroastrianism/Hinduism). Many other innovative details are added here and there, sometimes denied by one sect or the other.

[sanjaykumar]

Glad someone brought this up.

Eschatology is a very fruitful avenue of study, more specifically comparative eschatology and the insight it provides on the degradation and debasement of some religions.

[RajeshA]

Carl ji,

thanks for delving into the question.

Regarding the body itself, for most believers the body apparently rots in the grave, but the essence of the body is supposed to be within the spinal column (like the kundalini) and is invisible to human eyes. That essence remains in the place of burial. If the person was eaten by a tiger, then it remains there, and that will be the place the person is questioned on the articles of faith before Barzakh experience begins. Post-Barzakh, God uses that essence to resurrect the entire body at that place on Judgment Day.

Moreover, as an article of faith, the bodies of the Prophets and martyrs supposedly never die or rot into the soil. They remain whole and fragrant, as if embalmed and mummified! This is somewhat like the samadhis of Hindu saints, who are buried upright rather than burned, with the belief that their bodies remain forever un-decomposed, in some sense.

That is what I was trying to get at. There is a specific eschatology regarding the

1. importance fo burial of the body
2. bond between the essence of the body to some part of the physical body (spinal cord)
3. post-physical death state of the bodies of martyrs

So what happens if there is no burial of the body of a martyr but rather a cremation of his physical body, where the spinal cord turns to ashes, ashes are turned to powder and the powder is distributed all over the place or say mixed with the food of certain animals. Just a hypothetical situation! Would that in any way perturb the sensitivities of martyrs? Or would a different eschatological explanation kick in?

Further questions to ponder over:

a) That what travels to Jannat, upon a martyr's death - is it the physical body and/or its parts, is it the essence of the body which is otherwise trapped in the spinal cord, is it the soul?

b) Which body do they use to experience the pleasures of jannat? From what is it reconstituted - from the parts of the physical body, from the essence of the body (which was trapped in the spinal cord), or from the soul itself?

[Agnimitra]

RajeshA ji,

I asked around, and apparently there is a well-known authentic hadith stating that the spirits of the martyrs are in the breasts of green birds in Paradise. The 'Shaykh al-Akbar' (to sufis) Ibn 'Arabi says a bit about this:

Ibn 'Arabi - Two Chapters from the Futûhât al-Makkiyya

Molana Rumi is supposed to have expanded on it as well but no one could provide a reference. I'll have to dig it up sometime.

a) That what travels to Jannat, upon a martyr's death - is it the physical body and/or its parts, is it the essence of the body which is otherwise trapped in the spinal cord, is it the soul?

AFAIU, the bodily essence from the spinal column remains in the space of the body's final resting place (decided within a few hours of physical death).

b) Which body do they use to experience the pleasures of jannat? From what is it reconstituted - from the parts of the physical body, from the essence of the body (which was trapped in the spinal cord), or from the soul itself?

The full experience of Jannah is in the infinity after Barzakh, Hashr (resurrection) and Judgment Day. After Qiyamat, those who enter different levels of Paradise shall experience it with a spiritual body and soul. Also, most schools of Islam subscribe to the concept that one needs a Body to worship God.

As for during Barzakh itself, as explained there are different freedoms of movement of the soul and its subjective experience, and the martyrs have the greatest (apart from the Prophets and Best of Mankind). At that time, wherever they may choose to roam, they experience it with the soul, I suppose. But let me inquire more about this.

[ramana]

That "soul in a bird story" is from Vetal stories in Hindu India.

[Agnimitra]

From Ibn Arabi's book -

One sound hadîth tells us as follows: 'The life-breath of the person of faith will be a bird perching on the trees of the Garden until it returns to his body on the Day of Resurrection' (Ibn Maja, Zuhd 32; Nasa'i, Jana'iz 117, etc.).

'Green' birds are mentioned in another sound hadîth, referring to the situation of martyrs after death: 'Their spirits are inside green birds . . .' (Muslim, Imara 122, etc.).

What do they mean by the life-force? Rooh? Is that the soul and is it non-different from the body's essence? If so, then they're saying that the rooh of the martyr resides NOT at the final resting place of the physical body, but secure within the breast of a bird of paradise. I suppose the implications of that would be that their bodies are now transcendental and cannot be defiled?

That "soul in a bird story" is from Vetal stories in Hindu India.

Soul in bird? Hmm, that's news to me, though Hindu works are full of metaphors of the soul as a bird. Maybe its a subtle semantic matter!

द्वा सुपर्णा सयुजा सखाया समानं वृक्षं परिषस्वजाते । तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्त्यनश्नन्नन्यो अभिचाकशीति ||
-- ऋग्वेद म.1| सू.164| म.20||

"There are two birds in one tree. One of them is eating the fruits of the tree, while the other is witnessing the actions." - RgVeda 1.164.20

This one is originally from the RgVeda but repeated in the Upanishads and other texts.

[Agnimitra]

What do they mean by the life-force? Rooh? Is that the soul and is it non-different from the body's essence?

OK got some more info on this. This "essence of the body" or life-breath" (rooh) is in the 'ajb al-dhanab. The 'ajb al-dhanab literally means "the coccyx (lowest point of the spinal column) does not rot". It is understood in different ways.

The mutakillimun are those Aristotelian philosophers in Jewish and later Islamic philosophy who have a certain contempt for theologians. They say it is a single indestructible atom of the physical body from which the body will be recreated in the hereafter.

OTOH, a popular theologian like Imam Ghazali and some of the philosophers say it is the soul itself (nafs).

Ibn Arabi said these were possible, but that he had an epiphany (fath/fateh) about the reality of the matter, telling him that the 'ajb is the eternal essence (jawhar al-baqi) which is the locus of the spirit, or the wick to the spirit's flame.

Iranian philosopher Molla Sadra said that the 'ajb is the power of the imagination, which connects man with the world of nature. For him, the significance of its being the part from which the re-creation in the hereafter is made is that the hereafter is the realm of pure imagination, which imagination is instant creation. So for him the faculty of the creative imagination, which is only part of man in this world, will be all of man in the next.

As far as the distinction between the soul (nafs) and the spirit (ruh), the Naqshbandis seem to have fleshed this out the most. The essence of it is that the nafs is the meeting of the spirit and the body, and that there are different "modes" of it depending on its attachments: nafs, 'aql, qalb, sirr, and so on. The ruh is both a category of these and also beyond them and/or inclusive of them, depending on how the word is being used in context.

So I guess one way of putting it together would be -- The nafs can be thought of as the evolute of the ruh in its cycle of engagement with matter. Or alternatively, that the ruh is the efficient cause while the 'ajb al-dhanab is the material cause of the nafs' trajectory? At any time its qualitative state can be shown on a register of purity depending on its degree of entanglement vs. felicity, or confusion vs. knowledge. Corresponding to that register, one can chalk up scales of love, knowledge, ability and creative imagination. At any time, there is a relative register of stable gain (maqam), linked with the nature of one's metacognition (faith) as well as the portion of one's sins that have been forgiven here on Earth. Based on this state at the time of death, different people have different subjective experiences of Barzakh.

[Agnimitra]

Some more responses on this issue:

The Qur'an talks about the Martyrs as alive and being provided for 'inda Rabbihim - with their Lord. And it has been stated that a True Martyr's body does not decompose. In fact, it is indestructible - at least in it's last known form. This is the same for Messengers, Prophets, Siddiqeen, and Saleheen. There is a strong connection between their bodies and their Spirit which is "attached" to Allah.

Martyrs are given ijazah (permission and empowerment) to raise from the grave 10 times and fight others again on earth, this is known about the saintly Shuhuda. Thus there is a relationship between body and soul as they are given special ijazah from Allah to raise again. Also they are not called dead, but they are situated in a Maqam (spiritual station).

A real true shuhada's body does not rot and it is forbidden by the earth, this is also the Maqam for Prophets, Saints, shuhada, and Saliheen-Pious folk. There are Hadith (Bukhari) that the Prophets are given Rizq (nourishment) in their Graves from Allah.

There are other Hadith that say that the Sahabah (companions) who were made Shuhuda "are swimming right now in the rivers of Paradise." So their ability to experience it is almost instantaneous, irrespective of the position of their bodies.

Souls in Heaven have bodies and skins too but without fault or ugliness meaning they will be reinvigorated, perfect, complete and new and beautiful as this is the nature of Jannah beauty, and it increases on the day of Jumu'ah (Friday) that your wife takes you to bed.

Finally as for a martyrs and wives being 72 there will be two earthly wives and 70 from Jannah itself.

Two earthly wives means if a man has one wife now in this Dunya he will be given a second wife that lived on earth, who never married, and so he will be given two Dunya wives and the Dunya wives will be greater in beauty then the Houris.

Wives Of Believers In Paradise (point 7)
http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/sp2-gfh_e.html#9

And a man's wife in Dunya is thus his wife on the next world, except the divorced - she gets someone else and if your husband dies and your re-marry your heavenly husband is the last one you marry on earth.

And a wife will be taken to the same level as her husband in the next world so if the husband is pious she is pulled to his rank.

That hadith I had quoted earlier about the martyr who lays with his wife the night before battle, and the next day the Prophet claims to observe the angels performing ghusl on him as he is taken to heaven...it appears to fulfill the Law. Even though it seems to contradict another fiqh position that it is required to perform ghusl on a Moslem who has died but if the Moslem dies in Jihad (i.e as a Shaheed) then no qhusl is required.

Or perhaps the way to understand it is that no human execution of ghusl is required because the angels take care of it. I think that about sums up a part of the general exemption for those who have made the sacrifice, the "bargain" that Allah has promised them in the Qur'an.

RajeshA ji, nevertheless, there is a weakness in all this fiqh (Law) and theology in the problem of the post-mortem integrity of the corpse, and its relation w.r.t. the souls experience of Barzakh and prospects on Judgment Day. Whatever the angels might compensate for, the claim has been made that the body does not disintegrate, and if that can be shown not to be physical in its sense, then it undermines the physicality of a lot of fiqh commandment!

It is doubtful whether it is possible to reconcile the gaps in fiqh by purely material logic. Rather, the gaps and contradictions will find their resolution only in theological ways like the above hadith -- (a) By the compensation by angels in reward for some sacrifice, and (b) The relative subjective experience of Barzakh. Thus, the theology seems to complement the fiqh to fill in the gaps or contradictions.

Lastly, from a philosophical and inspirational point of view it suggests to me that as far as Allah is concerned, there is no scarcity of Bodies, yet Life is precious. But I think Moslems in general tend to superimpose a one-to-one relationship between Life and an instance of a body (unlike, say, Hindus/Buddhists/Sikhs who believe in transmigration of the soul and the use of the body as a loving sacrifice - yajna). However, there are examples and words of Moslem martyrs and the Prophet that teach the opposite of what a lot of Moslems seem to believe theologically. I recall the hadith about the famous prayer by one of the Companions, praying to be martyred AND mutilated, so that when his Lord asked him "Where are your ears? Where is your nose?", he could have the satisfaction of replying, "I lost them - for You."

[RajeshA]

However, there are examples and words of Moslem martyrs and the Prophet that teach the opposite of what a lot of Moslems seem to believe theologically. I recall the hadith about the famous prayer by one of the Companions, praying to be martyred AND mutilated, so that when his Lord asked him "Where are your ears? Where is your nose?", he could have the satisfaction of replying, "I lost them - for You."

I presume when we talk about Lord, we are talking about Allah and not Muhammad. Though as you speak of one of the Companions, you speak of contemporaries of Muhammad, and so Lord could refer to Muhammad as well.

But if it refers to Allah, then it is indeed very interesting, for a man would then stand before Allah with a body without ears and nose, which he would have lost in a battle in the temporal world. If he can lose his ears and nose, he can lose many other body parts as well, enough body parts that he may not the necessary ones to enjoy his promised rewards. So it is indeed an interesting hadith.

Martyrs are given ijazah (permission and empowerment) to raise from the grave 10 times and fight others again on earth, this is known about the saintly Shuhuda. Thus there is a relationship between body and soul as they are given special ijazah from Allah to raise again. Also they are not called dead, but they are situated in a Maqam (spiritual station).

This is a bit weird. Unlike the Dharmics notion of reincarnation, which involves a new birth, this on the other hand sounds a lot more like Zombies and the Undead horror movie scenario. But be as it is, and even if the spirit or the soul resides far away from the body, say at Maqam, the body still needs to be intact for it to rise again from the grave. After all in this world we can't be talking about new bodies that the souls receive to fight, for that is an issue for Jannat. And if it is the same body, the body would indeed need to be "serviceable", but if it is turned to dust and ashes, the ten times for fighting may be a privilege thwarted.

A real true shuhada's body does not rot and it is forbidden by the earth, this is also the Maqam for Prophets, Saints, shuhada, and Saliheen-Pious folk. There are Hadith (Bukhari) that the Prophets are given Rizq (nourishment) in their Graves from Allah.

Everybody's body rots in the grave, (unless properly mummified or frozen or preserved otherwise). But if the Muslims do not exhume the bodies of martyrs they may not find out, and if they find out, they may say that his martyrdom was perhaps not genuine but reject any revision in the eschatology.

In any case Shuhada's body is accorded more privileges by the eschatology - it does not rot. If the body was immaterial to the eschatology regarding Martyrs, the body would not have been allowed privileged treatment.

There are other Hadith that say that the Sahabah (companions) who were made Shuhuda "are swimming right now in the rivers of Paradise." So their ability to experience it is almost instantaneous, irrespective of the position of their bodies.

Okay I guess they did not go through the life of the grave, but then the souls are allowed some degree of freedom even as the body lies in the grave. So it could simply be the soul which was allowed a glimpse of Heaven as part of its level of mobility.

As Iranian philosopher Molla Sadra says the hereafter is the realm of pure imagination, it could also mean the soul is given the power to imagine Jannat, that Jannat is projected into the "mind" of the soul.

Though it could mean that in reality the body of the Shuhuda would be in the grave, and his soul given a lot of freedom, including the ability to imagine Jannat, but it is still not the real thing with the whole physicality of the heavenly experience.

Souls in Heaven have bodies and skins too but without fault or ugliness meaning they will be reinvigorated, perfect, complete and new and beautiful as this is the nature of Jannah beauty, and it increases on the day of Jumu'ah (Friday) that your wife takes you to bed.

If this is the body which restored from the rooh situated in the 'ajb al-dhana, the coccyx of the spinal cord, then it makes sense, but for that the availability of the coccyx would be necessary. In case it gets burned, and turned to dust and ashes, the rooh may not be available for the restoration of the body.

he will be given two Dunya wives and the Dunya wives will be greater in beauty then the Houris

Meaning the Houris would be uglier than a Martyr's present wife!

Rather, the gaps and contradictions will find their resolution only in theological ways

This 'resolution' can however be directed in the direction of desirable outcomes, thus establishing fiqh which exhorts to physical integrity and post-mortem dignity.

[Agnimitra]

it is indeed very interesting, for a man would then stand before Allah with a body without ears and nose, which he would have lost in a battle in the temporal world. If he can lose his ears and nose, he can lose many other body parts as well, enough body parts that he may not the necessary ones to enjoy his promised rewards. So it is indeed an interesting hadith.

Well, it was his wish to appear that way before Allah and have that conversation. That conversation would happen on Judgment Day - not his stay in Jannah thereafter. His body would be restored, to perfection at age 33.

"It is He who first creates and then reverts it. This is how His law works inevitably. His semblance is of the most sublime in the heavens and the earth. He is all-mighty and all-wise." [Qur'an 30:27]

I am coming around to the understanding that Islamic fiqh is bounded by subjectivity. In this schema, theology provides a sort of creative segue. So whatever way one may try to criticize or subvert, there will be some theological or creative explanation for how Allah outwits those who wish to outwit His laws.

In Hindu understanding, there is a tension between Vedic karma-kanda ritual law, Epic heroism, and Upanishadic thought. We find that things that do not qualify as per the ritual law can still cross over based on heroic sacrifice and humility. It appears as if many Vedic heroes and martyrs transcended the karma-kanda understanding of defilement or morality via a heroic route, wherein heroism triumphs salvationism. Their message seems to be that rules are meant to be transcended, though not broken. It appears that there is a similar trace in Islamic tradition also.

[RajeshA]

I am coming around to the understanding that Islamic fiqh is bounded by subjectivity. In this schema, theology provides a sort of creative segue. So whatever way one may try to criticize or subvert, there will be some theological or creative explanation for how Allah outwits those who wish to outwit His laws.

Well of course Allah cannot be outwitted, but in the temporal thanks to Allah, we have only to deal with the Mullahs, and they can be motivated to express a certain type of fiqh which later becomes difficult to overturn.

His body would be restored, to perfection at age 33.

Restoration requires having a construction plan (rooh) and/or some part of the original. As far as I understand, that is stored in the corpse of the fallen itself, and under some circumstances may not be available.

Of course, Allah can have a back-up construction plan stored somewhere else, but that is not what the current understanding is.

[Lauka]

FUgly Truth...???????????














Islamic society



Dr Farrukh Saleem

The writer is the Pakistani Executive Director of the Centre for Research and Security Studies, a think tank established in 2007 and an Islamabad-based freelance columnist.

We Muslims must wonder why is that only Muslim States like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are being attacked by the Christian West.
Why do we get pushed around by them with the former President of the US George Bush calling it a crusade?
Why is that Muslim States often depend on the West for survival, even Saudi Arabia, the epicentre for Islamic fundamentalism (i.e. Wahabism) is dependent on American largesse for their survival?
While they preach Wahhabi Islam all over the world, they allow American bases within a few hundred kilometres from the Holiest Shrines of Islam.
There are an estimated 1,476,233,470 Muslims on the face of the planet: one billion in Asia, 400 million in Africa, 44 million in Europe and six million in the Americas.
Every fifth human being is a Muslim.
For every single Hindu there are two Muslims, for every Buddhist there are two Muslims and for every Jew there are one hundred Muslims.
Ever wondered why Muslims are so powerless?
Here is why: There are 57 member-countries of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), and all of them put together have around 500 universities; one university for every three million Muslims.
The United States has 5,758 universities and India has 8,407.
In 2004, Shanghai Jiao Tong University compiled an 'Academic Ranking of World Universities', and intriguingly, not one university from Muslim-majority states was in the top-500.
As per data collected by the UNDP, literacy in the Christian world stands at nearly 90 per cent and 15 Christian-majority states have a literacy rate of 100 per cent.
A Muslim-majority state, as a sharp contrast, has an average literacy rate of around 40 per cent and there is no Muslim-majority state with a literacy rate of 100 per cent.
Some 98 per cent of the 'literates' in the Christian world had completed primary school, while less than 50 per cent of the 'literates' in the Muslim world did the same.
Around 40 per cent of the 'literates' in the Christian world attended university while no more than two per cent of the 'literates' in the Muslim world did the ásame.

Muslim-majority countries have 230 scientists per one million Muslims.
The US has 4,000 scientists per million and Japan has 5,000 per million.
In the entire Arab world, the total number of full-time researchers is 35,000 and there are only 50 technicians per one million Arabs (in the Christian world there are up to 1,000 technicians per one million).
Furthermore, the Muslim world spends 0.2 per cent of its GDP on research and development, while the Christian world spends around five per cent of its GDP.
Conclusion: The Muslim world lacks the capacity to produce knowledge!

Daily newspapers per 1,000 people and number of book titles per million are two indicators of whether knowledge is being diffused in a society.
In Pakistan, there are 23 daily newspapers per 1,000 Pakistanis while the same ratio in Singapore is 360. In the UK, the number of book titles per million stands at 2,000 while the same in Egypt is 20.
Conclusion: The Muslim world is failing to diffuse knowledge.
Exports of high technology products as a percentage of total exports are an important indicator of knowledge application.
Pakistan's export of high technology products as a percentage of total exports stands at one per cent.
The same for Saudi Arabia is 0.3 per cent; Kuwait , Morocco , and Algeria are all at 0.3 per cent, while Singapore is at 58 per cent.
Conclusion: The Muslim world is failing to apply knowledge.

Why are Muslims powerless?
.....Because we aren't producing knowledge,
.....Because we aren't diffusing knowledge.,
.....Because we aren't applying knowledge.
And, the future belongs to knowledge-based societies.
Interestingly, the combined annual GDP of 57 OIC-countries is under $2 trillion.
America, just by herself, produces goods and services worth $12 trillion; in China $8 trillion, in Japan $3.8 trillion and Germany $2.4 trillion (purchasing power parity basis).
Oil rich Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar collectively produce goods and services (mostly oil) worth $500 billion;
Spain alone produces goods and services worth over $1 trillion, Catholic Poland $489 billion and Buddhist Thailand $545 billion.
Muslim GDP as a percentage of world GDP is fast declining.
So, why are Muslims so powerless?
Answer: Lack of education.

All we do is shout to Allah the whole day and blame everyone else for our multiple failures!

READ ON ...................


Totally Brilliant, how come they don't see this?
What can be done about it?
I have to admit, this is brilliant...never heard it put this way...so succinct and to the point...plain and simple!!! Whoever thought this out is nothing less than a genius.

The Muslims are not happy!

They're not happy in Gaza,
They're not happy in Egypt,
They're not happy in Libya,
They're not happy in Morocco,
They're not happy in Iran,
They're not happy in Iraq,
They're not happy in Yemen,
They're not happy in Afghanistan,
They're not happy in Pakistan,
They're not happy in Syria,
They're not happy in Lebanon.
So, where are they happy?

They're happy in Australia,
They're happy in Canada,
They're happy in England,
They're happy in France,
They're happy in Italy,
They're happy in Germany,
They're happy in Sweden,
They're happy in the USA,
They're happy in Norway,
They're happy in Holland,
They're happy in Denmark.

Basically, they're happy in every country that is not Muslim and unhappy in every country that is!

And who do they blame?

Not Islam.
Not their leadership.
Not themselves.

THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!

And then, they want to change those countries to be like.... THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM WHERE THEY WERE UNHAPPY!

[RajeshA]

Finally as for a martyrs and wives being 72 there will be two earthly wives and 70 from Jannah itself.

Two earthly wives means if a man has one wife now in this Dunya he will be given a second wife that lived on earth, who never married, and so he will be given two Dunya wives and the Dunya wives will be greater in beauty then the Houris.

Wives Of Believers In Paradise (point 7)
http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/sp2-gfh_e.html#9

And a man's wife in Dunya is thus his wife on the next world, except the divorced - she gets someone else and if your husband dies and your re-marry your heavenly husband is the last one you marry on earth.

And a wife will be taken to the same level as her husband in the next world so if the husband is pious she is pulled to his rank.

Carl ji,

how does it work if after a martyr has died, his wife in Dunya marries another person. In fact in the FATA, there was some time ago, a big fight over who gets to marry the wife of a commander and thus get control over his money (and his wife).

[Agnimitra]

how does it work if after a martyr has died, his wife in Dunya marries another person. In fact in the FATA, there was some time ago, a big fight over who gets to marry the wife of a commander and thus get control over his money (and his wife).

The wife will always be with her last legally wedded husband on Earth. So if a jihadi martyr's wife decided to re-marry after he was dispatched to his 72, then she doesn't get to be with him in case he is in Jannat al-firdaus. Rather, she will end up wherever her new husband ends up when he croaks.

The Prophet put very severe restrictions that none of his principal wives could re-marry after he left the planet. In fact, there are Qur'anic verses that were revealed to drive the point home. No one should dare to possess them. This included the great tradition narrator Ayesha, who was still quite young when the Prophet passed away. The Shi'a do narrate ahadith (accepted by Sunnis too) that some companions would stay over at Ayesha's home, and once she taught them how to properly bathe according to Prophetic tradition by demonstrating it and guiding them through it. In fact, the specific ghusl (bath) that she taught them was ghusl e janaabat, which is meant for after there is a discharge of semen (due to wet dreams or sexual intercourse). This is used by Shi'as to cast aspersions on Ayesha's character (because she had waged war against Imam 'Ali). They question why some companions slept over at her place, and how the occasion for discussing this specific kind of ghusl came up during that time, etc. Yet, Sunnis consider Ayeshah "Umm ul Momineen", the Mother of all Believers, and so all her teachings are to be understood as motherly, and this attempt to cast aspersions on her character are greeted with ballistic outrage. In any case, it is to be understood that the Prophet's wives were to remain faithful to him in spirit as well as body after his passing away.

However, the traditions for the Companions and the generation after that was quite different. Because it was a period of almost continuous jihad, there was a fairly rapid "turnover" in terms of revolving door marriages. Not only was polygamy very common (because there would presumably be more women who need protection than there are men), but also the Companions would regularly marry a fellow companion's wives if they happened to be martyred in battle. It was very common, passing wives around (after the deaths of their husbands). So from this we gather that since every man was a Mo'men and a jihadi, it was more important that the population of women without husbands (and therefore protection) did not get out of hand. Thus, if a woman's husband died as a martyr, she should re-marry and there would be no spiritual loss because she is honoring two principles - (1) Not setting bad and unsustainable precedents by remaining unmarried after his death, and (2) Marrying another husband who was also a jihadi fighter who would be similarly rewarded in the Afterlife, thereby not denying herself a good station (rutbah) there as well.

So I suppose in jihadized communities in TSP also, since everyone is involved in the spirit of jihad in one way or another as the Companions and the next generation after them were, therefore they also reason that its OK to look forward to the simple God-given pleasures of life such as tasting different women as a way of taking care and reassuring their comrades who may be martyred, that their wives and children will always find a pious home in case they are fortunate enough to be martyred.

Remember, the Prophet said that in the End of Days, those Moslems who are pious fighters, especially those who follow the Mahdi's movement, are equivalent in rank to his own Companions. Thus, the End of Days offers an unprecedented spiritual bonanza - to be of an equivalent rank as the Sahaba (contemporary Companions of the Prophet). This spiritual bonanza is the main prize, and the simple earthly pleasures that go with it are merely Allah's way of sweetening the 'bargain' He speaks of in the Qur'an.

[brihaspati]

There is some deeper psychological twisting here than is apparent superficially.

It was not so that there was no psychological problem in having a shared pool of wives - it was a recognized problem. People resented this a lot. Since the founder himself was claiming and using Judaic memes - the sanction against "coveting neighbour's wife" is also an issue.

However, the main thing was that there is some narrative evidence - that Arab women of the period were quite free to seek physical pleasures, in return for material "payment". Women served as priests of the chief female goddesses - worshiped by both genders across both nomadic and settled populations. They would often be involved in explicitly sexual memetic rituals as parts of older magic/nature/fertility based religions. No one saw anything wrong in it. [There is a lot of ranting against the "female dog" pointing towards Hekate the popular goddess, and the associated imagery of naked/loosely-clothed/sexual woman - in the early ahadith].

The founder was faced with both a public as well as a private problem. The more freely available sex could not be opposed - if he wanted at all to have the rudiments of an army. So he needed to control the sexuality of the women and structure it towards on-demand, one-way satisfaction for the men - that still basically maintains the older Arab tradition of sex-on-demand.

Three things to note for those who are curious to research it:
(a) the founder's very strange innovation of hila/khula [the first has been adopted into GV languages as liberation+maintenance ] by which a divorced wife must have sexual consummation of marriage with another man before she can be divorced by the second hubbie so that the former hubbie could remarry her. There are several ahadith on this - quoted even in Bukhari - all making it a Sunna, and sourced directly from the founder. The expression used is roughly - "must taste the honey of [new husband]". There is some merry debate in subcircles about whether it also meant sanction for "oral" without other "sorts" of penetration - which is a huge source of confusion in the jurisprudence schools.

(b) Carl ji - you missed the story about - the supposed original dispute between Aisha and Ali. This was about once Aisha having fallen behind on a certain journey, and Aisha being then guarded or accompanied by a young jihadi - that too after nightfall. When they reached camp and caught up with the others, Ali is supposed to have raised a finger of suspicion. Founder shrewdly quashed the possible rift by declaring Aisha's "innocence".

(c) The famous journey at night to the "Rock" and hence to "heaven" happened after the founder had gone to visit another woman who made dinner for him, and where he probably fell asleep - since he was seen by someone coming away from that lady's house next morning. That was when he revealed his fantastic night journey the previous night.

Thus socially, the Arabs were not tolerant of promiscuity - but the radicalism represented by the founder - both needed as well as manage social displeasure arising out of use of sexual promiscuity as a militant motivator. That Ali protested, or the story of "night journey" had to be told, or the founder himself banned his widows from remarrying [the suras were revealed to him allegedly coinciding with his young wife talking with a smiling face to a young jihadi] - shows that "sharing or swapping" was not an easy psychological thing for them.

To go deeper into a possible model as to why the "sharing" was adopted over and abovce the strong known reactions in humans [each gender would like greater access to more from the opposite gender, but equally against giving same rights to the opposite gender] - would mean a certain psychological line of thought - perhaps not safe for the thread or forum.

[brihaspati]

Also compare it with the forest dwelling "naxalites" of our own desi vintage. They have adopted virtually the same model. There could be a link between extreme miltary fanaticism, ideological extremism, possible difficulty with having monogamous heterosexual relations connected in turn to homosexual tendencies, and shared/objectification-sale-buy/dehumanization of women as sexual objects only - route.

[Prem]

Ghusa-Le-Jannabat debate
Note the smile and twinkle in the eye of Shadai Mullai

[RajeshA]

Carl ji,

I often come across this transitional and transactional nature of Islamic marriages, where remarriage is often encouraged to such an extent, that widows do not have much of a say in it.

As you explained above, it is obvious that a Jihadi is a big time sucker. Someone sends him to do Jihad. He goes and blows himself up or gets shot down, while his "friends" make merry with his woman and his money. But since this is the norm, he is asked to accept it as such and to focus on love of Allah and all that jazz.

But what if a Jihadi really loves a woman? He may get 72 houris, two of them even from this Dunya, but he cannot be assured that the woman he has today would also unite with him in the afterlife. He is being asked to not only forego of her in this life for the sake of Allah, but for all his sacrifice, the rules forbid him to partake in something he already had before the sacrifice. No amount of love for Allah can give him his love (his wife) back.

Allah can intercede and kill the woman before she remarries again, but then this sounds a lot like Sati, something abhorred in Islam.

So for a man who loves his wife, what is a Jannat without her?

And a woman who then remarries another Jihadi, can never really be sure that he would die a martyr, and hence she too would get his 'rutbah'! So her shot at 'rutbah' is quite uncertain!

The 'rutbah' of her dead Jihadi husband, she cannot partake in, as she will have to remarry again, and the 'rutbah' of the next at the time of marriage is uncertain, and if the next one does indeed martyr himself, it still doesn't mean much, because she will have to remarry still again. So it is a false hope.

A Jihadi who dies cannot have his woman in afterlife, and a woman who marries a Jihadi cannot partake of his 'rutbah' either. I would say a might big screwing, should one think about it.

[Agnimitra]

To go deeper into a possible model as to why the "sharing" was adopted over and abovce the strong known reactions in humans [each gender would like greater access to more from the opposite gender, but equally against giving same rights to the opposite gender] - would mean a certain psychological line of thought - perhaps not safe for the thread or forum.

...

Also compare it with the forest dwelling "naxalites" of our own desi vintage. They have adopted virtually the same model. There could be a link between extreme miltary fanaticism, ideological extremism, possible difficulty with having monogamous heterosexual relations connected in turn to homosexual tendencies, and shared/objectification-sale-buy/dehumanization of women as sexual objects only - route.

Yes there is a link, and it should be of interest. One thing i have noticed is that one can trace the extent of "radicalization" of (Islamist or even some leftist type) communities in India from observing the sexual patterns they develop (at a group level, rather than individual level). In fact, "radical" in the context of pair bonding seems even more appropriate than in applying this psychosis to other aspects of human behavior!

For instance, I recall quite a few years back a Malayali friend of mine told me of the increasing trend of divorce-and-swapping of women among the Malabar Moslem community. This was in direct proportion to the increasing influences drifting in from the gulf, including from the Habibi Sufi brotherhood from Yemen. Similarly, the increasing, or more appropriately the "revitalized" radicalism in Hyderabad also saw a marked increase in the inflow of Iranian (perhaps some were Afghan) wives that began to circulate in the local Hyderabadi Moslem community -- not the "ashraf" this time but the average local convert; not just the Shi'a Moslems, but Sunni, too. In fact there was such a significant increase in the circulation of Iranian women that some of them found their way into the prostitution business. Obviously, whichever networks were involved in getting Iranian brides into the country also had lines into the pimping business.

Similarly, I have hung out with older generation Indian leftists, and often a perverse sort of "sexual liberation" is in evidence among them in terms of "sharing". Earlier I thought it was because they were associated with the 1960's culture in America (many of them frequently travelled to the UK and sometimes the US), but there is more to that. You have already mentioned the case of the Naxal fighting cadre who actually live in the forests, but I have spotted a similar characteristic among the intellectual "activist" types, such as lawyers and others who are active in the countryside or elsewhere. I wonder whether this idea about sexual pairing is related psychologically with other traits of consciousness. In any case, it is worth monitoring the sexual patterns at a community level.

One psychological aspect that does come to mind is the way sexual instincts are classified along a "hunter--gatherer" continuum. The "hunter" type is less invested in long-term relationships and driven more by initial physical attraction, made more intense by a mutual acknowledgment of the temporariness of the relationship. The gatherer type is supposedly driven more by considerations other than sexual attraction per se, and invested more in developing a long term relationship after the first sexual encounters. Usually they say males tend to be on the hunter side and females on the gatherer, but that's only a stereotype. In any case, I presume increasing "radicalization" would imply sexual dichotomy where the aggressive and reactive "hunter" dipole would want to create a system where there is sex on-demand, while also providing a contractually enforced system so that the "gatherer" dipole is always cared for and allowed to breed fruitfully.

Also, an important distinction -- What I had referred to in my previous post was in a rota based on martyrdom of the husband and the re-distribution of his wife/wives among the brotherhood. But what I am referring to in this post is the use of talaaq (divorce) to set in motion the same rota, even while jihadi casualty turnover has yet to begin, or is minimal.

Moreover, there is considerable material in Islam to encourage being satisfied with one's wife, etc. E.g., "marriage is half of one's deen" is a famous hadith, or that the thing Allah considers the most makrooh (disgusting but not forbidden) is divorce. (Of course there are other ahadith that say that things that Allah considers makrooh in normal times He tolerates or even encourages during wartime). However, in other respects there is a fascinating prioritization. E.g., adultery (zinaa) is considered a far less serious sin than becoming involved in monetary transactions involving interest (ribaa). This is actually quite fascinating to me, the relative relationship between laws governing finance and women, and the derivatives and instruments related to these two areas (both of which are represented by "Lakshmi" in Indic tradition). JMT.
-------------------

RajeshA ji,

I guess the lesson here is to understand and observe all these laws about Life, Death, Barzakh, Hashr and Hereafter from a subjective point of view existing outside the 4 dimensions of space-time. Otherwise it certainly is absurd, with lots of grey areas and uncertainty. Fiqh and theology can only lead perhaps like steps to a point of such observation, and that observatory is unanimously declared to be the heart of the Slave of Allah - mersaad ul-'ebaad. In getting there, one must at some point relinquish all earthly attachments, nay, subdue them into being contemptible (taskheer in the Qur'an) or even kick them away, since they are inherently earthly and therefore "maili-kuchaili" (as described by the Paki mulla much loved on BRF and from where we learned about pindliyon ke goode).

[RajeshA]

RajeshA ji,

I guess the lesson here is to understand and observe all these laws about Life, Death, Barzakh, Hashr and Hereafter from a subjective point of view existing outside the 4 dimensions of space-time. Otherwise it certainly is absurd, with lots of grey areas and uncertainty. Fiqh and theology can only lead perhaps like steps to a point of such observation, and that observatory is unanimously declared to be the heart of the Slave of Allah - mersaad ul-'ebaad. In getting there, one must at some point relinquish all earthly attachments, nay, subdue them into being contemptible (taskheer in the Qur'an) or even kick them away, since they are inherently earthly and therefore "maili-kuchaili" (as described by the Paki mulla much loved on BRF and from where we learned about pindliyon ke goode).

So whereas Sanatan Dharma and Islam both tells us to look beyond the material world,

1. Sanatan Dharma says that the material world is Maya, whereas Islam says that the material world is dirty.
2. Sanatan Dharma emphasizes the spiritual bliss of Nirvana, whereas Islam emphasizes the ideal physicality of Jannah.
3. Sanatan Dharma "seduces" one with the ultimate form of what a Dharmic pursues in this world but finds insufficient - knowledge, whereas Islam too seduces one with the ultimate form of what an Islamic pursues in this world but finds insufficient (in quantity or quality) - sex!
4. As such in this world Sanatan Dharma encourages pursuit of knowledge for the "seduction" to be effective, whereas Islam encourages pursuit of sex (but not its fulfillment) for its seduction to be effective
5. On the way you get Hindus doing well in education and professions, whereas one gets Islamics only interested in sexual offences, love jihad, controlling the woman, animal sex, and what not

[Agnimitra]

[*] As such in this world Sanatan Dharma encourages pursuit of knowledge for the "seduction" to be effective, whereas Islam encourages pursuit of sex (but not its fulfillment) for its seduction to be effective

Definitely the latter is true for jihadi mobilization to some extent, though through pain even that finds a sort of "sublimation". But "knowledge" of certain kinds is definitely restricted. Here's another input on martyrdom:

Bismillah

Sayyid shaheed {Hossein, the Master of all Martyrs} is the honour that all Shuhudah taken their barakah from.

It says the 1st to make an action takes from its rewards or sins if copied by others who then copy that action.

Qabel {i.e., the Biblical 'Cain'} killed Abel and then saw a bird digging in the ground to bury something so he did the saw now, now whoever kills someone on earth Qabel will take from that action of sin too which will be added to him.

Similarly, the sunnah of being Shuhudah and its honour must go back to the holy Prophet-(s) for its honour and for this to happen Sayyid Hussain is by blood and body that connection to the secret.

The holy Prophet's-(s) sunnah of Shuhudah is thus through Sayyid Hussain, as "He-(Sayyid Hussain)is from me and i'm-(holy Prophet-s) from him". So all Shuhudah are honoured through holy Prophet-(s)who gives that barakah from him through his grandson Sayyid Hussain, whoever Sayyid Hussain is also called his son. Thus the "sunnah Sacrificial Ibramhic lamb" in a sense too.

Now you may ask why were such trials given, simply Allah tests his slaves based on their Birr {piety and righteousness} and Maqam {spiritual station}, the highest are Prophets, Saints, Pious down to common folk. We all are tested by Allah based on our Iman level and the test is based on the level of that Iman by Allah. So Prophets or Saints are given bigger or severe tests then the rest of us this is due their level. A Simple example in a classroom the teacher can only test his best students with a difficult exam were as the others are given a less grade of exam so both will passed based on their level.

Finally as for the Shuhudah they are at a "level of Dhawq-tasting" {dhawq/zauq = spiritual relish, like "rasa" in SD} that is not of this world but the next world we have no business of that and it is not our affair, the affair is with Allah alone and people need to be humble and understand when to stop and put the pen down and close ones opinions and just "Islam-Surrender". {Therefore, one must not question or be curious about activities of those who have a higher maqam than you, especially if your conscience does not understand those activities.}

Also, the first martyr is supposed to have been a woman.
The story: "Night of Miraj and the Hairdresser of Pharaoh's Daughter and childrens Scent of musk"

from Ibn Abbas:
"On the night on which I was taken on the Night Journey (Isra'), a beautiful fragrance came to me. I said: O Jibreel, what is this beautiful fragrance? He said: This is the fragrance of the hairdresser of Pharaoh's daughter and her children. I said: What is their story? He said: Whilst she was combing the hair of Pharaoh's daughter one day, the iron comb fell from her hand and
she said, "Bismillah (in the name of Allah)."

The daughter of Pharaoh said: 'My father?' She said: 'No. My Lord and the Lord of your father is Allah.' She said: 'I will tell him about that.' She said: 'Yes.' So she told him and he summoned her and said: 'O So and so, do you have a Lord other than me?' She said: 'Yes, my Lord and your Lord is Allah.'

He ordered a baqarah (lit. "cow" or large pot ) made of copper be heated up, then he ordered that she and her children be thrown into it. She said: 'I have a request to make of you.' He said: 'What is your request?' She said: 'I would like my bones and my children's bones to be gathered together in one cloth and buried.'

He said: 'This will be done for you.' He ordered that her children be thrown into it in front of her, one by one, until they came to
the last one who was an infant boy who was still being breastfed. It was as if she wavered because of him, but he said: 'O mother, go ahead, for the punishment of this world is easier to bear than the punishment of the hereafter.

Narrated by Imam Ahmad in al-Musnad

[Agnimitra]

From the Director/Producer of a BBC documentary "Make me a Muslim":
Make Me A Muslim: What brings women to faith?

[Agnimitra]

X-post from Islamophobia and Islamism thread.

UK: 'Traces of pork DNA' found in Halal prison meat

The Ministry of Justice is to suspend a firm supplying meat to prisons after tests found that it may have provided pies and pasties described as Halal - but with traces of pork DNA.

...

Under Islamic law, Muslims are strictly forbidden to eat pork.

In a statement, Mr Wright said the Prison Service was investigating the incident "as a matter of urgency".

He added: "This is an absolutely unacceptable situation and one which we regret greatly.

"Clearly this must be distressing for those affected and they can be reassured we are doing everything we can to resolve the situation."

...

Editor of the Muslim News, Ahmed Versi, said the development was disturbing.

"This is very serious because no Muslim would ever eat pork meat - anything to do with pork - and it must be very distressing for those in prison who have been given this meat to realise they may have been eating food which was contaminated with pig."

"Uh oh, sorry about that". One hopes that the pious prisoners' agitated 'ajb ul-dhanab finds this display of British embarrassment soothing in al-Barzakh.

[Agnimitra]

Decoding facial hair in the Arab world

During the Mubarak-era, beards were a no-no in Egypt - but now they're back in fashion with a vengeance. In the Arab and Muslim world, facial hair signifies a lot more than personal style, writes Cairo-based journalist Ashraf Khalil.

...

In Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood members generally tend to go with the full but well-groomed beard and moustache. However Salafists - the ultraconservative fundamentalist Muslims - like to let their beards grow long and wild, often leaving their upper lip clean-shaven as a nod to how the Prophet Mohammed wore his own beard 1,400 years ago.

Some within the Salafist camp take things an extra step and dye their beards with henna, producing a range of colours from maroon to bright pumpkin orange.

...

I spent two years reporting for the Los Angeles Times in Iraq after Saddam Hussein's overthrow, and my visual appearance was a key element in my ability to move around safely.

[RajeshA]

X-post from Islamophobia and Islamism thread.

UK: 'Traces of pork DNA' found in Halal prison meat

"Uh oh, sorry about that". One hopes that the pious prisoners' agitated 'ajb ul-dhanab finds this display of British embarrassment soothing in al-Barzakh.

It is of course scientifically proven and in Hadiths attested that if a man has eaten pork at least two times in his life, the pork fat has accumulated around the 'ajb ul-dhanab, the coccyx of the spinal cord, where the rooh is located. It is not known that this pork fat layer around coccyx can be removed in any other way except surgically once it is deposited.

If a man, who has eaten pork dies, his rooh becomes imprisoned in his 'ajb ul-dhanab, the coccyx, and in Al-Barzakh, in the grave, the rooh cannot move around.

Even on the Day of Judgment, it is possible that the rooh cannot free itself of the surrounding pork fat layer, and thus not be punctual for the Judgment, a likely consequence of which is Jahannum for Allah knows why the rooh is late.

So it is indeed criminal of British authorities that they have spoiled the chances of many Muslim guests in prison to enter Jannat.

[kenop]

Similarly, I have hung out with older generation Indian leftists, and often a perverse sort of "sexual liberation" is in evidence among them in terms of "sharing". Earlier I thought it was because they were associated with the 1960's culture in America (many of them frequently travelled to the UK and sometimes the US), but there is more to that. You have already mentioned the case of the Naxal fighting cadre who actually live in the forests, but I have spotted a similar characteristic among the intellectual "activist" types, such as lawyers and others who are active in the countryside or elsewhere. I wonder whether this idea about sexual pairing is related psychologically with other traits of consciousness. In any case, it is worth monitoring the sexual patterns at a community level.

Madam Pompadour’s Chessboard

“Everyone has to give something to get into power. Men give money and women usually give their bodies,” says Ramnika Gupta matter-of-factly. In her seventies, Ramnika is a member of the CPI(M), a tribal rights champion, former trade union leader and politician who—to use her own phrase—has “passed through the hands” of several men in her quest for political power.

[ramana]

Essentially when there are no Kafirs or Jews the Islamists turn on each other for purity and end of days or Qayamat.

BTW same thing happened with the two huge WWs in the Christian West.

[harbans]

It is of course scientifically proven and in Hadiths attested that if a man has eaten pork at least two times in his life, the pork fat has accumulated around the 'ajb ul-dhanab, the coccyx of the spinal cord, where the rooh is located. It is not known that this pork fat layer around coccyx can be removed in any other way except surgically once it is deposited.

If a man, who has eaten pork dies, his rooh becomes imprisoned in his 'ajb ul-dhanab, the coccyx, and in Al-Barzakh, in the grave, the rooh cannot move around.

Even on the Day of Judgment, it is possible that the rooh cannot free itself of the surrounding pork fat layer, and thus not be punctual for the Judgment, a likely consequence of which is Jahannum for Allah knows why the rooh is late.

So it is indeed criminal of British authorities that they have spoiled the chances of many Muslim guests in prison to enter Jannat.

So actually it is very very easy to stop Jihadi's in their tracks..

[AbhiJ]

Islamic Toilet Etiquette

The Islamic faith has particular rules regarding personal hygiene when going to the toilet. This code is known as Qadaa' al-Haajah where they must always wipe down not up. Eating any food while on the toilet is strictly forbidden.

Issues of chirality, such as whether one uses the left or right hand and foot to step into or out of toilet areas, are derived from hadith sources. The only issue which the Qur'an mentions is the one of washing one's hands especially following going to the toilet which is mentioned in verse 5:6.

A Muslim must first find an acceptable place away from standing water, or people's pathways or shade. They are advised that it is better to enter the area with the left foot, facing away from the Qiblah.

While on the toilet, one must remain silent. Talking, answering greetings or greeting others is strongly discouraged. When defecating together, two men cannot converse, nor look at each other's genitals. A man should not touch his genitals with the right hand.

When leaving the toilet, one is advised to leave with the right foot, and also say a prayer – "Praise be to Allah who relieved me of the filth and gave me relief." It is also reported in the Hadith of Bukhari that whenever Muhammad went to the toilet, he said "In the name of Allah, O Allah! I seek refuge with You from all offensive and wicked things" (alternate translation: "from evil deeds and evil spirits").

[ramana]

Is surfing/texting smartphones while on the throne allowed?

[sanjaykumar]

I hope so

[Prem]

.Top Muslim cleric says Islam would not exist if not for death of apostasy threat .

[Agnimitra]

Related to the integrity of one's corpse and its significance in al-Barzakh:

Londonistan: Organ donation bill 'horrible'

The Reverend Aled Edwards and Geraint Hopkins from Cytûn (Churches Together in Wales), Saleem Kidwai from the Muslim Council of Wales, the Reverend Carol Wardman from the Church in Wales and Stephen Wigley from the Methodist Church in Wales all objected to the introduction of an opt-out system of consent.
...
Mr Kidwai explained that although the Koran states that "whoever saves a life saves mankind in its entirety" and that the overwhelming majority of Muslim scholars deem it worthy to donate, some Muslims are very uncomfortable with the proposals and so he could not support them.

But the devil is in the details...
Islam Q&A: In Islam is it allowed to donate your organs to people that need it, when the die?

It is permissible to transplant an organ from a dead person to a living person whose life or basic essential functions depend on that organ, subject to the condition that permission be given by the deceased before his death, or by his heirs after his death, or by the authorities in charge of the Muslims if the identity of the deceased is unknown or he has no heirs.
...
The use or benefit that is under discussion is a benefit that is dictated by necessity in order to keep the beneficiary alive or to keep some essential or basic function of his body working, such as his sight and so on, provided that the beneficiary is one whose life is protected by sharee’ah.

The bolded part is key. So, a Moslem living in a non-Moslem society may agree to donate his organs post-mortem if the recipient is a Moslem or even a non-Moslem, because they are bound by a covenant of peace and protection (i.e. the citizenship status of equal rights, etc. in the non-Moslem country). However, in jihad, that is different. If the organs of dead jihadis were to be harvested for beneficial purposes, it would be against shari'ah, since the harvesters and the beneficiaries are not protected by shari'ah, since they are "waging war against Allah" according to the theologians that instigate and support jihad. The same defilement would apply to organs that were removed from the corpse in a non-medical context. From a non-Islamist perspective, I presume harvesting of organs from dead jihadis and respectful cremation of their remains would not be nearly as barbaric as the kind of mutilation practiced by jihadi troops. The organs serve a public good, and the dead jihadi can get some sawaab (spiritual merit) from at least one God, while his ashes from the cremated remains can be reverentially handed over in a kalasha to his horde, according to the very same standards and traditions that we apply to our own deceased.

[skaranam]

while talking to a muslim...how do i find out if he/she is a Shia / Sunni / Barlevi / Ahemediya / Bora..or what ever