Dissecting dead bodies in Islam

[NewFreeMind]

The point I am trying to make is that just religious figures have made sure to create a cruel and harsh God that does not really exist. I am into heavy research on this and there are hints for you regarding the word for "forbidden" in Arabic which is as you may already know "haram". However, it is ridiculous actually since it would be quite illogical to call a place "forbidden" unless people are not allowed to go there such as "Al-masjed al-haram. At least I for one perceive this as contradictory.

Ha-Ra-Miim = To forbid/prevent/prohibit, make or declare unlawful, deprive, to be sacred/inviolable/entitled to reverence or respect or honour, deny or refuse a thing, render one hopeless, denied prosperity, render unfortunate, ill-fated, persist obstinately, persist in contention or litigation or wrangling, be refractory or untractable, bind a thing hard, refrain from a thing, overcome someone in contending for stakes or wagers in a game of hazard, to be in a state of prohibition, protect or defend oneself.

In ancient Middle-East, the rooms with trophy-women were called "harem". Why do you think it was so? They were not called "forbidden" but perhaps "sacred" or "goodies".

There are several hints at its non-meaning as "forbidden" by studying linguistics. If people simply concentrated on things like this they would soon realize the Arabic as used in Quran is very different from the commonly understood version of it by sectarians. I wish that more people would understand that Quranic Arabic has been twisted immensely to say what it does not really say.

What exactly is your point here, you're saying that the word haram has two different meaning.
Haram can both mean forbidden and sacred; So in the case of masjid-al-haram it means it's sacred.
where do you think it's the contradiction?

Numerous times I have repeatedly said that the word الله (allah) is not really a name but it means "Such Who Is". People do not comprehend that words like له اله الله ال (lah, elah, allah, al) all have relevancy linguistically and also. Allah is a cryptic construct obviously made by the 'Higher Intelligence' itself. Morphologically I have mentioned that Allah would mean "Be Such Such Who" (plus possible argument by sentence application). If you seek the root in ancient lexicons it can be found in Alif-Lam-(Lam).

Furthermore there is other signs such as that Allah is never used together with the word يا (ya) that is used for addressing someone. No one in Quran says "ya Allah" ever in Quran. You can verify this yourself. However, a lot of people say "Ya Rabb" in Quran as Rabb is a personal address for the 'Higher Intelligence'. Rabb is like saying God in English, not allah.

If you care to read a few extract from Edward Lane's lexicon from the 19th century which is based on definitions from several ancient Arabic lexicons albeit interpreted in English, I can give you words that are based around the root ال (AL). Each of these are branded under the root ال.

الإِلُّ (alal)‐ also signifies God: [like the word אֵל or rather 165 as used in Hebrew:] (T, S, M, K:) so say Muj?hid
and Esh‐Shaabee: (T:) and so it is said to signify in the verse of the Kur cited above: (

Hence, وَفِىُّ الإِلِ A fulfiller, performer, or keeper, of the compact, or
covenant. (TA, from a trad.) ―

‐ Good origin. (K.) So, accord. to some, in a saying of Aboo‐Bekr, which see below. (TA.) ―

‐ Relationship; or nearness with respect to kindred; (Fr, T, S, M, R, K;) as also ↓ إِلَّةٌ , (Fr, T, K,) of which
the pl. is إِلَلٌ . (K.) So in the Kur [ لَا يَرْقُبُوا فِيكُمْ إِلَّا ,[ 9:8 (Fr, T) They will not regard, with respect to you,
relationship; (Bd, Jel;) accord. to some. (Bd.) And so in a trad. of 'Alee, يَخُونُ العَھْدَ وَ يَقْطَعُ الإِلَّ [He is
unfaithful to the covenant, and cuts the tie of relationship].

I hope you pay attention to that اله is used here above. Same is used for the sectarian's silly god with a lower-case letter. But اله is meaning "Such Be as Who" or "Such be of Whom" in English. Rabb is exclusively the word in Quran that refers to what you usually refer to as God.

I am offering you both sides of the coin, but you have to read me obviously.

I am sorry but I have some difficulty understanding this, I'm not going to ask you to explain this as you already did; it's just that I am not sure about what those acronym represent (T,S,MK,K Bd,Fr and so on). Can you please just refer me a link that I can use to read how to interpret that?

That is often committed pedagogical mistake. It is always best to intensify to disclose why something is not allowed rather than simply telling the child it is forbidden for them. If something is only perceived as a prohibition then they will not care so much to obey them. Usually only fear of punishment will keep them obeying your law and even then many children challenge that. One should give children as much information as possible and give them a solid foundation to begin their life. Sometimes we have problems with our own invented etiquette and customs which have no real reason to uphold them and explaining them to kids can be troublesome.

It is the lack of information by every parent and adult on Earth which causes the situation we have. If people had the right perception to begin with and not letting themselves be corrupted by the state of the community, then people would not need any prohibitions and they would abstain from such as alcohol without a law against it.

You cannot prohibit people from seeking means of intoxicating themselves in order to be high. They will always find other methods. Like I told you, the solution is changing the life perception of people rather than reinforcing some strictness of the law.

Massive campaigns against smoking has had immense effects on the community. Smoking has gone down tremendously. The campaigns highlight the effects of smoking such as lung cancer.

If alcohol was attacked in campaigns the way smoking was and the behavior abnormalized, it would have a similar impact on the consumption. But alcohol consumption is a normalized behavior in the societies today and this makes its consumption continue almost as strongly as before. There are also people who call themselves scientists who claim that moderate alcohol consumption is healthy, so many people do not really realize the negative impacts of its consumption.

Those who continue with drug abuse despite everything, such as smoking, are exposed to peer pressure from negative influences or careless enough to make themselves addicted. Drugs are often a way to escape a dreadful everyday.

The key is to act pedagogically and psychologically with people to change their behavior rather than slamming a prohibition in their faces.

However this is not how the real world works, it's not always possible to educate someone and just expect they will understand it. In primary school you don't read books from universities.
Children are not capable of understand the real meaning behind what they're told so you have to put actions in place to prevent that they don't harm themselves by doing so.

If I tell a child that you can't drink alcohol because is bad and it can cause diseases and so on and then have alcohol that is within his/her reach; should he/she decide to reach it to drink it anyway, what are my options? let him/her do it or physically stop them from doing so(so to forbid them in essence)

I disagree with your comment in regards to campaigns having massive influence on the public. Matter of fact is that they had very little influence; Several studies and surveys showed that people didn't really care.
People were surveyed about how much impact did pictures of damaged lungs,throat on cigarette packs had on them. The majority said that they know it was bad but there are so many other bad things that can kill you so smoking shouldn't be really the main issue.

However,studies have suggested that smoking has gone down as a results of smoking bans in restaurants and indoor areas (therefore smoking indoors is forbidden,prohibiting people from smoking , nothing to do with educating)

I don't think the forbidding something should be classified as something bad and there's a very fine line between strongly not recommending and forbidding; I will have to do some research into this but let me ask you something. Is it there something in the Quran that explicitly forbids something or everything is expressed as non recommendation?

Thanks

[Man of Faith]

What exactly is your point here, you're saying that the word haram has two different meaning.
Haram can both mean forbidden and sacred; So in the case of masjid-al-haram it means it's sacred.
where do you think it's the contradiction?

No, a word in Arabic does not have two totally different indications. Either it means forbidden or sacred. Do you not see the contradiction?

If words are used for different applications, then they at least have something similar in common. Do you see anything similar with "forbidden" and "sacred"? No, they are totally incompatible with each other. Totally illogical.

This is the way that ancient interpreters have been able to use interpretation acrobatics by simply just claiming it means different things in various contexts.

Do you realize the level of misunderstanding it can impose if a person is to interpret haram if it in one occasion mean sacred which means it is very goodly/sanctified and then in another means forbidden. It may cause problem.

I am sorry but I have some difficulty understanding this, I'm not going to ask you to explain this as you already did; it's just that I am not sure about what those acronym represent (T,S,MK,K Bd,Fr and so on). Can you please just refer me a link that I can use to read how to interpret that?

Use Google and browse for "Lane's Lexicon". You can find reference to the ancient lexicons in question in it. Okay, because I am so kind I will do the job for you:

?A The ?Asas? of Ez‐Zamakhsheree.
AA Aboo‐'Amr Ibn‐El‐'Ala, and Aboo‐'Amr Esh‐Sheybanee: each being cited simply by the
name of ?Aboo‐Amr?
AAF Aboo‐'Alee El‐Farisee
ADk Abu‐d‐Dukeysh
AHat Aboo‐Hatim Es‐Sijistanee
AHei Aboo‐Heiydn
AHeyth Abu‐l‐Heythem
AHn Aboo‐Haneefeh Ed‐Deenawaree, author of the ?Book of Plants?
?AM ?Aboo‐Mansoor (same as Az).
AO Aboo‐'Obeydeh
A?Obeyd Aboo‐'Obeyd
AZ Aboo‐Zeyd
Aal El‐Aalam
Akh El‐Akhfash
As El‐Asma?ee
?Az El‐Azheree (same as AM), author of the ?Tahdheeb?
B The ?Basd'ir,? by the author of the ?Kimonos?
?Bd El‐Beyddwee's ?Exposition of the Kurds?
Bkh EI‐Bukharee
Btl El‐Batidyowsee
?CK The Calcutta edition of the ?K?moos?
Dmr Ed‐Demeeree
?EM The ?Exposition of the Mo'allakdt,? printed at Calcutta
?F El‐Feyroozdbddee, author of the ?K?moos?
?Fei El‐Feivoomee, author of the ?Misbah?
Fr EI‐Farra
Fs The ?Faseeh? of Thaalab
?Ham The ?Exposition of the Hamdseh,? (?Hamasae Carmina,?) by Et‐Tebreezee
?Har El‐Hareeree's ?Makamat,? the Commentary on; 2nd edit, of Paris
Hr El‐Harawee
IAar Ibn‐El‐Aarabee
I?Ab Ibn‐Abbas
?I?Ak Ibn‐Akeel's ?Exposition of the Alfeeyeh of Ibn‐Mdlik,? edited by Dr. Dieterici
Iamb Ibn‐El‐Ambdree
IAth Ibn‐El‐Atheer El‐Jezeree, (Mejd‐ed‐Deen,) author of the ?Nihdyeh?
IB Ibn‐Barree, author of the ?Annotations on the Sih?h,? with El‐Bustee
?lDrd Ibn‐Dureyd, author of the ?Jemharah? &c.
IDrst Ibn‐Durustaweyh
IF Ibn‐Faris, author of the ?Mujmal?
?IHsh Ibn‐Hishdm, author of the ?Mughnee?
IJ Ibn‐Jinnee
IKh Ibn‐Khalaweyh
IKoot Ibn‐El‐Kooteeyeh
IKt Ibn‐Kuteybeh
IKtt Ibn‐El‐Kattaa
?IM Ibn‐Mukarram, (commonly called in the Tdj el‐'Aroos ?Ibn‐ Mandhoor,?) author of the
?Lisan el‐'Arab?
IO Ibn‐'Odey's
?ISd Ibn‐Seedeh, author of the ?Mohkam?
ISh Ibn‐Shumevl (En‐Nadr)
ISk Ibn‐Es‐Sikkeet (Yaak'oob)
?lbrD Ibrdheem Ed‐Dasookee
?J El‐Jowharee, author of the ?Sih?h?
?JK A MS. supposed to be the ?Jami'? of El‐Karmdnee: a lexicon founded upon the ?'Eyn,?
with additions from the ?Tekmilet el‐'Eyn? of El‐Khdrzenjee
?JM The ?J?mi'? of the Seyyid Mohammad
?Jel The ?Exposition of the Kurds? by the Jelaleyn
Jm The ?Jemharah? of Ibn‐Dureyd
?K The ?Kamoos?
KI The kadee 'Iyad
?KL The ?Kenz el‐Loghah,? of Ibn‐Maaroof; an Arabic‐Persian Dictionary
?KT The ?Kitab et‐Taareefat?
Kf The ? Kifdyet el‐Mutahaffidh?
Kh EI‐Khaleel, commonly supposed to be the author of the ?Eyn?
?Kr Kuraa, author of the ?Munjid?
Ks El‐Kisa‐ee
?Ksh The ?Keshshaf? of Ez‐Zamakhsheree
Kt El‐Kuteybee
Ktr Kutrub
?Kull The ?Kulleeyat? of Abu‐l‐Baka
?Kur The ?Kuran?
Kz El‐Kazzdz
?Kzw El‐Kazweenee
?L The ?Lisan el‐Arab?
Lb El‐Leblee
Lh El‐Lihyanee
Lth El‐Leyth Ibn‐Nasr Ibn‐Seiydr, held by El‐Azberee to be the author of the ?Eyn,? which he
calls ?Kitab Leyth?
?M The ?Mohkam?
?MA The ?Mukaddamet el‐Adab? of Ez‐Zamakhsheree
?MF Mohammad Ibn‐Et‐Teiyib El‐Fdsee, author of ?Annotations on the K?moos?
?MS The ?Mukhtar es‐Sih?h?
Mbr El‐Mubarrad
?Meyd El‐Meyddnee's ?Proverbs?
?Mgh The ?Mughrib? of El‐Mutarrizee
Mj The ?Mujmal ? of I bn‐Fdris
?Msb The ?Misbdh? of El‐Feiyoomee
?Mtr EI‐Mutarrizee, author of the ?Mughrib?
?Mughnee The ? Mughni‐l‐Lebeeb ? of Ibn‐Hishdm
?Mz, The ?Muzhir? of Es‐Suyootee
Nh The ?Nihdyeh? of 1 bn‐El‐Atheer El‐Jezeree (Mejd ed‐ Deen)
Ns En‐Nesa‐ee
O The ?Ob?b? of Es‐Saghdnee.
?PS The ?Persian Translation of the Sih?h?
R The ?Rowd ? (? Er‐Rowd el‐Unuf?) of Es‐Suheylee
?S The ?Sih?h.?
?SM The seyyid Murtada, author of the ?Taj el‐'Aroos.?
Sb Seebaweyh
Seer Es‐Secrdfee
Sgh Es‐Saghdnee, author of the ?Ob?b ? and of the ?Tekmileh ?fi‐s‐Sih?h?
Sh Shemir
?Skr Es‐Sukkaree, author of an ?Exposition of the Deewan El‐ Hudhaleeyeen?
Suh Es‐Suhevlee, author of the ?Rowd?
?T The ?Tahdheeb? of El‐Azheree
?TA The ?Taj el‐'Aroos?
?TK The ?Turkish Translation of the Kamoos?
TS The ?Tekmileh fi‐s‐Sih?h? of Es‐Saghanee
?TT The ?Tahdheeb et‐Tahdheeb?
Th Thaalab, author of the ?Faseeh?
?W El‐Wdhidee's ? Exposition of the Deewan of El‐Mutanebbee,? edited by Dr. Dieterici
Yoo Yoonus
Yz El‐Yezeedee
?Z Ez‐Zamakhsheree.
Zbd Ez‐Zubeydee, author of an ?Abridgment of the Eyn?
?Zj Ez‐Zejjaj

I disagree with your comment in regards to campaigns having massive influence on the public. Matter of fact is that they had very little influence; Several studies and surveys showed that people didn't really care.

That is because more is required. You have to change the perception of people on a deeper level. There has to be some (good) indoctrination on deep level from a societal perspective. If you pump out information but the mental level of people is incompatible, then the social information will be ineffective. It says itself. You have to use a sound strategy in changing people, starting very early in life.

If a population has bad mental health, then more people will also begin to abuse narcotic substances in order to handle the pressure. It is an evil circle. These people will often do it despite every issued information by the authorities.

However,studies have suggested that smoking has gone down as a results of smoking bans in restaurants and indoor areas (therefore smoking indoors is forbidden,prohibiting people from smoking , nothing to do with educating)

Smoking was on the downfall after massive campaigning as well. If you study socioeconomic differences you can see that people will low education tend to be smoking on overall more than those with high education. Because the people with low education are less bright in their minds, this means they will be less likely to absorb the issued information by the authorities while the ones with high education will heed it. They are also often the people with the best health, the high education people.

You see a connection. It is better to educate and inform the society and make sure people are kept out of low socioeconomic conditions to make information campaigns effective.

Is it there something in the Quran that explicitly forbids something or everything is expressed as non recommendation?

It uses the wording: "Not goodly/wholesome to"

Be safe
Amenuel

[NewFreeMind]

No, a word in Arabic does not have two totally different indications. Either it means forbidden or sacred. Do you not see the contradiction?

If words are used for different applications, then they at least have something similar in common. Do you see anything similar with "forbidden" and "sacred"? No, they are totally incompatible with each other. Totally illogical.

This is the way that ancient interpreters have been able to use interpretation acrobatics by simply just claiming it means different things in various contexts.

Do you realize the level of misunderstanding it can impose if a person is to interpret haram if it in one occasion mean sacred which means it is very goodly/sanctified and then in another means forbidden. It may cause problem.

Thank you, now I understand your point.
What I am wondering is that these sort of terms that have contradictory meanings, are known as contronyms, do exists in other languages as well and have different meaning depending on the context, for example the following words have contradictory meanings depending on the context:

Hold up: To support, or to impede
Left: Remained, or departed
Transparent: Invisible, or obvious
Wear: To endure, or to deteriorate

In other languages such as italian and latin also have these antonyms, they are called neutral words though as they are not negative or positive, but the can have opposite meaning depending on the context (therefore both negative and positive)

So if done now, it was done with ancient languages such as latin and it seems to appear in the arabic language as well like you suggested, what exactly is wrong ?

Use Google and browse for "Lane's Lexicon". You can find reference to the ancient lexicons in question in it. Okay, because I am so kind I will do the job for you:

Thanks a lot, I will read into that so I can understand your cryptic message

That is because more is required. You have to change the perception of people on a deeper level. There has to be some (good) indoctrination on deep level from a societal perspective. If you pump out information but the mental level of people is incompatible, then the social information will be ineffective. It says itself. You have to use a sound strategy in changing people, starting very early in life.

If a population has bad mental health, then more people will also begin to abuse narcotic substances in order to handle the pressure. It is an evil circle. These people will often do it despite every issued information by the authorities.

Smoking was on the downfall after massive campaigning as well. If you study socioeconomic differences you can see that people will low education tend to be smoking on overall more than those with high education. Because the people with low education are less bright in their minds, this means they will be less likely to absorb the issued information by the authorities while the ones with high education will heed it. They are also often the people with the best health, the high education people.

You see a connection. It is better to educate and inform the society and make sure people are kept out of low socioeconomic conditions to make information campaigns effective.

Those studies are not conclusive and they don't link smoking with education because the link is unclear; however they suggest that this happens during adolescence and is as a result of many factors such as environment, family status and obviously education but my point is education alone can't help,forbidding such things is necessary.

The people in high education are in better health because they can afford a better life;
A rich person smoking is more likely to be in good health than a poor person and yet the poor can be smarter; the education itself doesn't set the rules.

I agree that education is vital but again I don't see how such thing can work without the presence of prohibition.
I believe we both are adults and have a good education and good common sense, yet I might think that having drugs is fine(even if I am aware that it damages me); hadn't there been a law to punish me for such consequences, I might have started using drugs extensively and publicly.
There's a law to stop though, now you say can argue that I will find another means/ways to find drugs and do them in silence without getting caught but such situation will be more contained as you stop a person's bad behaviour from harming those that are around him in a more controlled manner(someone will still get harmed but less damage to compare to a situation where drugs were not forbidden by law).

It uses the wording: "Not goodly/wholesome to"

I checked those words and they have nothing to do with forbidden, am I missing something?

[hanslan]

Salam, I don't find any restrictions in the Quran regarding dissecting dead bodies.  The dead are recommended to be buried otherwise the decay can cause harm to humans living nearby and also leaves behind an awful stench.  Its just about respect to the living when dealing with dead bodies especially  when an autopsy is required.

[Zulf]

What I am wondering is that these sort of terms that have contradictory meanings, are known as contronyms, do exists in other languages as well and have different meaning depending on the context, for example the following words have contradictory meanings depending on the context:

Hold up: To support, or to impede
Left: Remained, or departed
Transparent: Invisible, or obvious
Wear: To endure, or to deteriorate

In other languages such as italian and latin also have these antonyms, they are called neutral words though as they are not negative or positive, but the can have opposite meaning depending on the context (therefore both negative and positive)

So if done now, it was done with ancient languages such as latin and it seems to appear in the arabic language as well like you suggested, what exactly is wrong ?

In English, we can have two different words with the same spelling, e.g. fly (insect) & fly (like a bird). These are two different words in meaning, but the same word in terms of spelling.

In Arabic however, there is one level more to keep in mind. The roots. Arabic is not like English in it's word structure. The debate will now be: Is it possible for one particular root to have opposing or unrelated meanings?