What will really happen after you die?

I admit it. All I did was throw out an example that was not necessarily true. And it barely suit my case at all. My direct point was not that your foot testifies against you, rather that some of your body parts may testify against you. ANY part of your body may do that. However, I have no proof that your foot specifically testifies against you, I just threw out an example.

I'll say it again: my personal opinion is that my body be left intact in the grave. My true stance is that organ donation is okay in most circumstances.

ghoklebutter

This wasn't about the foot - it was about the body being "in tact" not being explained by another part filling in for the missing part. If the whole body was required with all body parts, then there must have been a reason for that, regardless of the excuses you make up to suggest it doesn't matter.

So your "personal opinion" is different from your "true stance" - that much is for sure. I think my stance on something is based entirely on my opinion. There's the confusion I was on about!

There's some interesting stuff on paedophilia in Islam here:

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Pedophilia_in_the_Quran

Should I start a new thread on this?

RationalAtheist your link isnt working? It says access denied "this site is restricted"?Gambler_3

It works for me - I'm trying to copy and paste some of it in here - or in a new thread - there's so much. But GS keeps throwing up "no tag" errors, so I'm deleting brackets and trying to make it work in the GS forum editor. No luck so far though.

The well-known historian and scholar 'Allama 'Imad-ud-Deen Ibn Katheer writes in his 'Al-Badayah' about Sayedah Asma' daughter of Hazrat Abu Bakr': Asma' died in 73 A.H. at the age of 100 years. She was ten years older than her sister 'Aishah. Now according to this report 'Asma' would have been 27-28 years old at the time of Hijrah and since she was ten years older than Sayedah 'Aishah, therefore the age of Sayedah 'Aishah would have been 17 or 18 years at the time of Hijrah. Accordingly, her birth falls about four or five years before the Call, and her age at the time of the consummation of marriage in 2 A.H. will work out to 19-20 years.

ghoklebutter

This wasn't about the foot - it was about the body being "in tact" not being explained by another part filling in for the missing part. If the whole body was required with all body parts, then there must have been a reason for that, regardless of the excuses you make up to suggest it doesn't matter.

So your "personal opinion" is different from your "true stance" - that much is for sure. I think my stance on something is based entirely on my opinion. There's the confusion I was on about!

There's some interesting stuff on paedophilia in Islam here:

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Pedophilia_in_the_Quran

Should I start a new thread on this?

RationalAtheist

Like I said before, there is no evidence suggesting that a certain body part will testify against you depending on your sin. Zero evidence. Therefore even if God doesn't give you new body parts, other body parts can still testify against you. Unless you have evidence otherwise, your argument is invalid.

My personal opinions relate to my personal feelings. My true stance relates to my not-so-personal feelings. I think organ donation is good, there's not much room left for discussion here.

Attention all Islamic paedophile argumentalists!

Please move along to the new thread I created!

Ta.

Gambler_3

I would give you the whole article, but you might just pass it off as an apologetic website. This was just a tidbit from the article.

Like I said before, there is no evidence suggesting that a certain body part will testify against you depending on your sin. Zero evidence. Therefore even if God doesn't give you new body parts, other body parts can still testify against you. Unless you have evidence otherwise, your argument is invalid.

My personal opinions relate to my personal feelings. My true stance relates to my not-so-personal feelings. I think organ donation is good, there's not much room left for discussion here.

ghoklebutter

I say there is evidence for this in God wanting the complete body parts when you die to help him judge you: It would suggest that if God didn't want all of your body parts, God wouldn't have asked for all of them.

Can you have feelings that are not so personal? which ones are they? Could you explain this divide a bit further for me please? When do you act on your feelings and when do you act on your true stance?

If you think organ donation is good, why do you want to be buried in tact? Is that the difference between your personal feelings and your true stance? If so, which is which, and why?

There is always plenty of room for discussion, especially when fundamental stuff like this goes unresolved.

I say there is evidence for this in God wanting the complete body parts when you die to help him judge you: It would suggest that if God didn't want all of your body parts, God wouldn't have asked for all of them.

Can you have feelings that are not so personal? which ones are they? Could you explain this divide a bit further for me please? When do you act on your feelings and when do you act on your true stance?

If you think organ donation is good, why do you want to be buried in tact? Is that the difference between your personal feelings and your true stance? If so, which is which, and why?

There is always plenty of room for discussion, especially when fundamental stuff like this goes unresolved.

RationalAtheist

But since there is no evidence, then it doesn't matter either way. And show me where God asks humans for their body parts. 

My personal feelings are that I like my body to be intact in the grave. It is not my will, it's just the way I want things to be. I act on my stance when obviously, an organ donation is necessary. 

But since there is no evidence, then it doesn't matter either way. And show me where God asks humans for their body parts.

My personal feelings are that I like my body to be intact in the grave. It is not my will, it's just the way I want things to be. I act on my stance when obviously, an organ donation is necessary.

ghoklebutter

There is evidence here:

The interplay between social and religious factors can be seen in the special status accorded in Islam to the dead. Death of the physical body called for specific rites of ritual purification involving washing and shrouding, and essentially inspired by references in the Qur'an to the 'torment of the grave', it was discussed whether or not a person can continue to feel pain after death. It was believed that on the Judgment Day the dead will be raised in their physical bodies, and in the condition in which they had passed from the physical world. A famous example is the tradition of the Prophet stating that those who die in the holy war (jihad) will appear before God still bearing their wounds, which will, however, smell as sweet as musk.

from here:

http://www.answers.com/topic/islam-and-the-body

And some more evidence here (with an interesting bit about that jurisprudence you like) :

a) The first and foremost is that Allah Almighty has honoured the human. Allah Most High says: "And verily we have honoured the children of Adam" (Surah al-Isra, V.70).

As such, it is a well established principle of Shariah that all the organs of a human body, whether one is a Muslim or a non-Muslim, are sacred and must not be tampered with. To take benefit from any part of a human is unlawful (haram).

Allah Almighty made humans the best of creations and created everything for their benefit. Allah Most High Says: "It is He, who has created for you all things that are on earth." (Surah al-Baqarah, 2.29).

Thus, it is permissible for a human to take benefit from every creation of Allah which includes animals (under certain conditions), plants and inanimate things. As such, it would be unreasonable to place humans in the same category of the above things by giving permission to use parts and derive benefit out of their body that necessitates cutting, chopping and amputating parts of the body. This is certainly unreasonable and unlawful on a human body.

A very famous Hadith prevents the usage of human parts. Sayyida Asma bint Abi Bakr (Allah be pleased with her) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: "Allah's curse is on a woman who wears false hair (of humans) or arranges it for others". (Sahih Muslim, no. 2122).

Imam Nawawi (Allah have mercy on him) writes in the explanation of this Hadith: "If human hair is used, then it is unlawful by consensus, whether it's the hair of a man or woman, because of the general narrations that prohibit this. And also, it is unlawful to take benefit from the hair and all other organs of a human body due to its sanctity. The hair of a human along with all his body parts must be buried". (Commentary of Sahih Muslim by Nawawi, p. 1600).

The Jurists (fuqaha) have stated that in the case of extreme necessity and when there is no alternative available, even unlawful things, such as pork and alcohol, become permissible. However, even in such a situation, consuming or deriving benefit from a human body still remains unlawful.

It is stated in al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya: "If a person feared death due to hunger and another person said to him: "Cut my hand and consume it" or he said: "Cut a part of me and eat it", it will be unlawful for him to do so. Similarly, it is impermissible for a desperate person to cut part of his own self and eat it". (al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, 5/310).

Allama Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) explains: "Because the flesh of a human remains unlawful even in forceful situations". (Radd al-Muhtar, 5/215)

Imam Ibn Nujaym (Allah have mercy on him) states: "It is impermissible for the one who is dying out of hunger to consume the food of another person who is also dying out of hunger; neither will be permissible to consume any part of the other person's body". (al-Ashbah wa al-Naza'ir, p. 124).

The Fuqaha have also stated that if one was compelled by force to kill another human, it will not be permissible, even if his own life was in danger. (See: al-Kasani, Bada'i al-Sana'i, 7/177 & Ibn Qudama, al-Mugni, 9/331).

Imam al-Marghinani (Allah have mercy on him) states regarding the sanctity of a human: "It is unlawful to sell the hair of a human, as it is (unlawful) to take benefit out of it, for a human is honoured and sacred, and it is not permissible to disgrace any part of a human's body". (al-Hidaya 4.39)

A human body is sacred even after his/her death. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: "Breaking the bone of a dead person is similar (in sin) to breaking the bone of a living person". (Sunan Abu Dawud, Sunan Ibn Majah & Musnad Ahmad).

The great Hanafi jurist and Hadith Imam, Abu Ja'far al-Tahawi (Allah have mercy on him) writes in the explanation of this Hadith: "The Hadith shows that the bone of a dead person has the same sanctity and honour as the bone of living person". (Mushkil al-Athar).

In another Hadith it is stated: "Harming a believer after his death is similar to harming him in his life". (Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba).

Also, the books of ****cal scholars are full with examples indicating the impermissibility of deriving benefit out of a human body due to it being honoured.

In conclusion, the human body, dead or alive has great significance. It is honoured and sacred, and because of the sanctity that is attached to it, it will be unlawful to tamper with it, cut parts of it or dishonour it in any way.

b) The cutting of and tampering with a human body amounts to mutilation and deformation of a divinely created body (muthla), which has clearly been prohibited in Shariah.

Qatada (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) used to encourage giving in charity and prevent Muthla". (Sahih al-Bukhari, 2/206)

In another Hadith, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: "Abstain from Muthla". (Sahih Muslim, 2/82).

This is also supported by the verse of the Qur'an, where Allah Allah Almighty mentions the words of Shaytan, when he said: "I will mislead them and I will order them to slit the ears of cattle, and to deface the (fair) nature created by Allah" (4: 119).

To deface the fair nature created by Allah, both physically and spiritually, is what Shaytan likes and orders to practise.

As far as the permissibility of blood transfusion in cases of need is concerned (See below, for the ruling on blood transfusion and donation, which was posted earlier), it does not necessitate the cutting of human parts or any surgical procedures on the body, rather it is drawn and transfused by means of injection, thus it is akin to human milk that is extracted without any surgical procedures.

c) The human body and parts are not in our ownership in that we may fiddle with them as we desire. It is a trust (amanah) that has been given to us by Allah Almighty. As such, it will be impermissible for one to sell, give or donate any organs of his body. Islam has forbidden suicide for the same reason. There are many texts of the Qur'an and Sunnah that clearly determine this. Thus, it will be unlawful for one to give his organs to another.

d) It is unlawful for an individual to inflict harm upon himself or others. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: "It is unlawful to inflict harm upon your self and others, (la dharar wa la dhirar)". (Mustadrak of al-Hakim)

The famous principle states: "Harm can not be removed by a similar harm" (meaning, in order to remove harm from another individual, it is impermissible for one to harm himself)". (Ibn Najaym, al-Ashbah, P. 123).

Therefore, it will be impermissible for a living person to donate part of his body due to it being harmful for him.

e) The principle of Islamic jurisprudence states: "When the evidences of prohibition conflict with the evidences of permissibility, preference is given to prohibition". (Ibn Nujaym, al-Ashbah wa al-Naza'ir).

In view of the above and other evidences, according to this group of scholars, it is unlawful to transplant organs, whether it be of a living person or a dead body, and whether there is a need or otherwise. In other words, there is no permissibility whatsoever for the transplantation or donation of organs.

Isn't organ donation always necessary? I can't understand that caveat, which appears in some hadith too.

Has your wish to be buried in-tact have anything to do with your faith? And will you donate your organs now, as your religion may indicate that you should?

RA I think you misunderstood me. I meant that there is no evidence that a specific body part will testify against you depending on your sins.

Interesting article, however.

RA I think you misunderstood me. I meant that there is no evidence that a specific body part will testify against you depending on your sins.

Interesting article, however.

ghoklebutter

I think you're evading the inevitible response! I've never said there was that evidence, but you did agree that God wants all your body parts for the "physical" bodily appearance on judgement day

I think you're evading the inevitible response! I've never said there was that evidence, but you did agree that God wants all your body parts for the "physical" bodily appearance on judgement day

RationalAtheist

Oh no I'm not evading it. Like I said I meant something different. 

I just said the article was interesting, that's all.

Oh no I'm not evading it. Like I said I meant something different. 

I just said the article was interesting, that's all.

ghoklebutter

Let's leave it you evading, since; a) you said you meant something different, when you'd accused me of not understanding you when I did and clearly stated our difference of opinion. And b) you fail once more to get to the point of the reason for the complete physical body being wanted, if you say some parts of it are not needed.

I agree about the interestingness - it was only half the article too! 

Let's leave it you evading, since; a) you said you meant something different, when you'd accused me of not understanding you when I did and clearly stated our difference of opinion. And b) you fail once more to get to the point of the reason for the complete physical body being wanted, if you say some parts of it are not needed.

I agree about the interestingness - it was only half the article too! 

RationalAtheist

Now I get it. I meant that god doesn't need a specific body part for testifying against the human, not necessarily that God doesn't need a whole human being for judgement.