TMI - Muslims not encouraged to use ‘RIP’, says National Fatwa Council
Following the death of Karpal Singh and the outpouring of grief, Muslims were reminded by the National Fatwa Council today that they were not encouraged to use the phrase “Rest in Peace" (RIP) to a non-Muslim because the term had Christian connotations.
I suppose that's fair enough, but what about 'Amin'?
'Amin' is of course derived from (or the same as) the Judeo-Christian 'Amen'. This word first occurred in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible), specifically in Numbers 5:22.
In the Hebrew Bible the word means "so be it".
Its first occurrence was in a response from a woman accused of adultery, to a priest who subjected her to a test of divine curse, as the Bible (Tanakh) tells us as follows:
12 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him,
13 And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner;
14 And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled:
Angry hubby suspected his wife of committing adultery so took her to the temple to see the priest.
15 Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.
16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord:
17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:
18 And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:
19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:
20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The Lord make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the Lord doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
Thus the Hebrew priest required the accused female to imbibe the cursed water which carried the divine threat, if she had committed adultery, of causing her belly to swell, and her thigh to rot.
Insofar as the consequences of that divine curse could be described, I suppose that's the extent the biblical authors could go without appearing to be gross and graphic and also religiously 'decent' as well, wakakaka.
And the accused had to respond to the threat of that curse in her acceptance (grudgingly or otherwise, wakakaka) of "So be it; so be it".
It's not unlike the ordeal by fire that Rama (in the Ramayana) resorted to to test Sita's chastity after rescuing her from Ravana, the Demon King of Lanka. The latter was in fact a proper and respectful gentleman to Sita while she was in his custody, far more than the suspicious cad Rama.
 |
Sita's trial of chastity by fire
apparently she must be so pissed off with Rama that she
disappeared into Mother Earth after her successful ordeal |
Then softly Rama spoke, “O Sita, you are the embodiment of tolerance and forbearance. Moreover, you represent purity at its highest. But you have lived under the shelter of Ravana. I know the fire of your chastity has prevented Ravana from even touching your nail. But I have my own limitations. As a king I am answerable to my people, and therefore, I would like you to prove you purity in front of all (publicly) so that in future people on this earth would not cast doubt – dare not put any blame – of infidelity on your noble character.”
Thus addressed, Sita responded by saying, “O my lord, how true you speak! Yes, by your grace, Ravana could not – dared not – come near me. I am as pure as Fire. Hence I will prove purity of my character by passing through the raging fire flames.”
Soon a huge fire was ignited. The flames reached high up in the sky. Everyone retreated two steps backwards. Sita approached the Fire and prayed, “O Fire God – Agni Deva -, this humble daughter of yours prays to you protect her if she is pure. But if Sita has ever thought of any other man other than Rama — in thought or word or deed, nay even in dream — O Fire God, reduce me to ashes. Of what use such a body to me that is corrupt!”
Of course the author had to show that suspicious Rama was compelled by his people.
Anyway, those ancient Indians liked ordeal (or cleansing, purification) by fire as evident in their (now abolished-by-law) practice of sati whilst the Hebrews depended on just frightening the shit of the accused with a bit of mumbo-jumbo holy water.
 |
| sati |
Mind you, a divine curse is a very heavy form of psychological threat. Today we can still see this threat of divine curse being applied in courts where witnesses and the accused are required to swear on a Holy Book (of the individual's religion or like atheistic kaytee, take an affirmation, wakakaka), or in traditional Chinese oath-taking (when challenged by another party), the sembelih of a white cockerel before, but not within, the compound of a non-Buddhist* temple (chaam peh kay lai chew chua), which incidentally was allowed and accepted by the British courts during colonial days.
* Buddhism doesn't allow slaughter of life forms in its temple premise
 |
| don't be around when two Chinese parties want to make a challenging oath |
As mentioned, the threat of a divine curse is still fairly potent today when some dare not take such oath or refuse to take such oath when giving evidence, and thus would be less likely to convince the court of the reliability of their evidence or witness accounts.
Continuing with the biblical Numbers Chapter 5:
23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:
24 And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.
25 Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the Lord, and offer it upon the altar:
Yessirree, in the end the temple priests would of course get the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal uncontaminated by oil or frankincense, thank you, wakakaka.
The English Bible translates 'Amen' as 'verily' or truly', which carries a slightly different meaning to the original meaning of 'so be it', the latter being a sort of grudging acceptance.
And if we were to further trace the etymology of this word, it goes way back to Pharaonic Egypt where it was a reference to the Egyptian Almighty God, Amen (sometimes spelt Amun).
Apparently before the Hebrews entered Canaan (without Moses), Moses reminded them of how to conduct themselves before their God through the threat of 12 divine curses.
And we know through Sigmund Freud (himself a Jew) that Moses was an Egyptian, not the modern Arabic Egyptian but the ancient version.
The 12 curses of Moses have been recorded in Deuteronomy 27:15-26 where 3 are on various types of incest and one on bestiality. You know, whenever I read a hate-email from a western source about alleged or suspected Muslim terrorists committing acts of bestiality with goats and camels, I laugh as I would be reminded of Deuteronomy 27:21, which says:
‘Cursed be anyone who lies with any animal.’ All the people shall say, ‘Amen!’
So to those hate-emailers, I would recommend them to read the Bible as it shows the Hebrews were among the first in that region to bonk animals or Moses would not have come up with that divine curse in Deuteronomy 27:21, wakakaka.
Moses compelled the Hebrews to respond to each curse with the word 'Amen', a reference to the Egyptian Almighty by that name.
But of course when the Bible was written, the scribes had had trouble reconciling this swearing by the Hebrews, supposedly a monotheistic race, to an ancient Egyptian God.
And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada answered the king, and said, Amen: the LORD God of my lord the king say so [too] - 1 King 1:36 (KJV).
So they conveniently and cleverly attributed the meaning of the word to what we know of it: either 'so be it' as in the Hebrew Bible or later, 'verily/truly' in the English one.
So, will the National Fatwa Council discourage Muslims from using the word 'Amin' because this term had and still has connections to the Judeo-Christian religions?
