No provision is necessary.
"Allah(God) has forbidden you only what dies of itself and blood and the flesh of swine and that over which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked; but whoever is driven to (it), not desiring nor exceeding the limit, then surely Allah is forgiving, merciful." 006:145
i.e. you can eat pork if starving or if it is forced on you. No harm, no foul. It is eating it willingly that is a sin.
But this is in reference to consumption of pork for food. The OP is concerned with desecration of remains with some or all of a pig carcass, which appears to put the soul of the dead in some jeopardy. Perhaps, using the refernce you provided, provisions could be made? Or perhaps it can be interpreted to say any sufficiently involuntary contact with a pig leaves the victim blameless?
I must admit, I find the whole notion of perdition-by-pig to be theologically suspect, but is it safe to say some Muslims actually hold the belief that to be buried with a pig is to be damned?
Personally, I’d rate this right up there with the placing of pigs on airplanes as a deterrent in the wake of 9/11.
I am rather convinced that such things or similar happened now and then in the history of mankind and that occasionally it might still happen. Such tactics are nothing new and not restricted to particular religions, countries, ethnicies, whatever.
There is no other “use” of this verse needed but reading it. It does not talk about “contact” with pigs, it talks about consuming pig meat, which is in certain cases allowed.
This is clear enough, no? Why do you want to read more or something else then what is written? Why do you insist that when a dead Muslim gets burried with a dead pig (I do hope for the pig it is dead by then) there is some twisting and turning of Quranic texts needed in order to make the Muslim “blameless”?
A. Read the text again and my points 1 and 2
B. In addition: Be aware of it that the Muslim has nothing to do with what people do to his body after he died.
C. Come to the obvious conclusion that said Muslim
In order no to spoil completely the cosy little hate fest that some posters seem to be building up here
Yes, there are sure enough Muslims by the dozens who would take such an act as something insulting to the most imaginable extreme. You surely would not have done this to some of the people I know without having their whole family coming after you to make you pay for it. But no, it is not “damning”. It has less to do with the pig-on-a-dead-Muslim as with the clear intent to use this to insult Islam and the commands of Al Qur’an, using a dead Muslim as your tool. So the only thing that you would get out of it are indeed Muslims willing to switch from normality to the extreme (For some it doesn’t take much).
However I have seroius doubts that someone who was brought to believe that suicide with the goal to kill civilians is in line with Islam, would bother much about his body brought into contact with a porc after the deed is done. Since such a person is also indoctrinated enough to believe that his action guarantees him a free ride straight to heaven, I don’t think that anything at all could ever shake that firm belief or could ever “contaminate” what is left over of his body and prevent happening what he has pictured that shall happen.
Salaam. A
I think you are seriously misconstruing my interest in these questions. I’m trying to get to the bottom of why a Muslim would have a problem with coming into contact with dead pig after expiring. That is the whole point of putting pig fat on a bus, or burying a body with a pig’s carcass. What, if any is the scriptural basis? Where does this idea that Mohammed will not bless the soul, and hence it is damned, come from? Is it extrascriptural folklore, or is this problem referred to somewhere explicitly in scripture? It’s been a long time since I read the Qur’an, but I cannot even think of where to look for some relevant passage. Perhaps there is some other authoritative text that refers to this; I don’t know. That’s why I’m asking.
I do not know why the reference to the consumption of pork was provided, but I gave the poster the benefit of the doubt, and at least considered it. I did express my oppinion, though, that it may have no relevance to the issue of dead bodies and their contamination; but I could not dismiss the reference out of hand, because I cannot claim to have sufficient understanding of what a Muslim theoligical authority would make of all this. It would not have occurred to me, actually, to read anything more into the passage than what you have proposed. It was Tamerlane who brought it up, and I tried to figure out why. Where was my insistence? I simply expressed curiosity.
After all, if the entire notion that contaminating bodies with pigs puts the soul in jeopardy is patently absurd, it’s safe to assume there may be very little to he OP’s question but urban legend. However, there appears to be something to it all, be the practice done by Russians or others, and I’m really very curious about it. Okay?
Do you recall ever seeing or meeting a Turk in Vietnam? This is strange because it is the second time I’ve recently heard this claim but I’m inclined to reconsider if you were actually there.
If there was a dead Muslim wrapped in a dead pig each & every time this mildewed old Urban Legend was dragged out of the basement, then there wouldn’t be any living Muslims.
And no pigs, either!
So there! 
A Muslim dies every time the legend is brought up?
Yep. That would be my interpretation, barring any other passage to support the idea of defilement. And such a passage I cannot find. By the way I think I misattributed that particular quote ( I think that one is actually 16:145 ). But that’s okay - all the Qur’an’s passages that mention pork say essentially the same.
Nope. Or at least it is not normative. It is not inconceivable that some Muslim cultures somewhere have adopted such a belief, but if so it certainly isn’t common.
The closest would be the comments from the Old Testament ( which says not to touch even a dead carcass as they are unclean ), perhaps certain hadith. The Qur’an basically just has a few slightly different iterations of the above quoted passage. You can certainly find legalistic discussions that mention the idea of short term ritual impurity from inadvertently eating haram food ( though even this is disputed by some as being folklorish ). However I have never run across anything that mentions pork in relation to defilement of corpses.
In Islam the living would certainly be troubled by such sacrilege, but I have never heard of anything that could be done to a corpse that invalidates any presumed spiritual reward ( or punishment for that matter ). It is your deeds that count - not the activities of others. For example there are certain funerary procedures prescribed by Islam, but failure to perform them properly does not reflect on the deceased far as I can tell. Instead they are spoken of as meritous deeds to be performed by the living to show respect.
Nowhere that I am aware of.
If it exists as a belief at all and isn’t just a mistaken jump to conclusions, then as far as I know it would be extrascriptural folklore.
Do you know what the word “If” means? Your barnacle-encrusted reading skills annoy me no end. :mad:
Aaaah!
Still wasn’t worth a though.
Thank you for your answers to my questions.
AND an angel gets its wings!
I think that maybe my post was not clear enough.
There is no other problem then the one I described.
I highly doubt that Jews will ever put fat of a pig on a bus.
I said already: there is NO scriptural basis for whatever people not familiar with Islam might make of this.
I wonder when you heard a Muslim claim that there is “such an idea”.
As I said and explained in my first post: There is no such problem. I also explained why Muslims nevertheless would take such an act as insulting to the extreme.
No there is not. If there would be one, I would have given it to you in my first post = I would not have said that there was nothing if there was indeed something.
I think Tamerlane gave it to make it clear that only the consumption of porc is prohibited and even permitted under certain circumstances.
Yet I explained that there is no connection with “porc on a dead body” and the commands of Al Qur’an.
I said what the theological answer is. Of course one you can come up with questions like: What if the person was not dead and swallowed consciously some of the meat or the blood (or whatever)… Is that sinful or not… etc… etc…
Yet the consensus needs to be (or needs to come down to): There can be no sin in something yo do not inflict on yourself, don’t do yourself out of free will or don’t instigate yourself for it to happen (to yourself or someone else).
I really don’t see a Muslim stipulating in his last will that his corpse must be wrapped in porc meat or telling the world that he demands to be fed porc while dying.
Probably you have a case against me that I maybe saw more “insistence” then you intended it to be. Yet you still insist while you were already given the explanation.
Yes it is. Yet a story as thos one claiming that “wrapping dead Muslims in porc has this or that effect” is not a Muslim invention, is it? If it shows something then only the fact that those who invent this have no clue about Islam.
Like I said: probably this case is urban legend, yet there are enough examples of similar actions undertaken to insult the enemy. Things like this should be placed in that context = maybe similar happened occasionally in the past and maybe similar shall occasionally happen now or in the future.
In the same context you can place people stepping deliberately on a cross in front of devoted Christians or spitting on the Bible or other Holy Books; In the same context you can place certain things that happened in the Abu Graib prison.
It all comes down to infuriating/insulting/denigrating the (perceived or real) enemy.
Tamerlane:
Your numbering of the verse was correct.
VI, 146 and 147 handle about the Jewish dietary laws. These verses should be placed in the context of theological disputes between Muhammed and the Jews in Mecca. There were already such tensions before the Hidjra took place = before in Medina these disputes intensified leading to a rupture between the Muslim and Jewish communties there.
VI, 146/147 are explained as pointing out to and about the Jews: What we say (God by means of revelation to Muhammed) is right this in contradiction with the Jews who claim that these prohibitions where dictated to them by Israel (Jacob) himself. (see for example Tabari VIII,77)
Salaam. A
Heh. Heh heh.
[Channeling the movie Airplane]
Aldebaran: I don’t get it. Why did you think I was inventing things just to be argumentative? The idea that a soul could be damned by contact with pig’s flesh was suggested in the Snopes article referenced by Mr. Blue Sky, which is of indeterminate validity, apparently. Again, I simply did not dismiss the possibility out of hand, despite my doubts. That is all.