The Anti-Hallaj

Think/measure/account (H-S-B) the people that they will be left to say We believe (H-M-N) and they will not be tried? But We have certainly tried those before them, and Allah will surely make evident those who are truthful, and He will surely make evident the liars. Or do those who do evil deeds think they can outrun Us? Evil is what they judge. Whoever should hope for the meeting with Allah – indeed, the term decreed by Allah is coming. And He is the Hearing, the Knowing. And whoever strives only strives for himself. Indeed, Allah is free from need of the worlds. (29:2-7)

Who are the people that think/account/measure (H-S-B)? They begin as people, but become God-as-Fetish-Cosmology.

The people are the fantasy Elohim, the Orbs of Creation, the Names of God (and influence) that constitute the Original Divine Body.
They are Elohim thought/accounted/measured, Divine extension in the beginning created, whose psychological origin is the beginning of this surah. They are the fantasy Divine “We” of the Qur’an. Elohim begins with (perfect) measure, and a declaration of faith: “We believe”.
And so the gods fall from grace inasmuch as their shahada means measure, means thought, means H-S-B. Then comes the threat of the test, material descent.

Simultaneously, by virtue of their fantasy nature, by virtue of the cultural-genetic body (their biological nature as nas regime, as a people, as a humankind) over which Elohim must be psychologically comprehended as a substitute fetish of the dislocated subject (in search of a body), they are tried by the shattering of their primal structure back into familial genetic substitution, now rendered Divine hypostasis.

“We have certainly tried those before them”: “We”, “trial”, “those that came before”.
We – the Parzufim, the son, the daughter, the mother, the father, the crystallization of the broken down Elohim fantasy – are the trial of precedence, the trial of lineage. The hypostatized Divine family structure is Elohim now, the “We”, in aggregate, molar form. The “We” are the trial, because the trial is lineage, the trial is the origin story, hypostasis as family, the family mythology, its opening, its middle and its conclusion.

Hence the origin story includes the intrusion of nas, prior to Divinity, begins with a substitution of spiritual for carnal, of Divine mind for material sexuality, the nas/humankind is replaced by the Divine “We” (and so vice versa), whose ultimate fetishization is the syntax of “We believe”. What intrudes? Desire for nas: for the body of mankind to be given unto the subject. The suppression of this basic desire drives and empowers the “We” (shifting from nas to Elohim) is a capitalist byproduct, spirituality as second order perversion. This spiritual fantasy is in debt to genetic/cultural/bodily/biological lineage, a debt facilitated by means of suppression/substitution/thought/measure/H-S-B.

And the subsequent act of the hypostasis (back into the trial of familial lineage) is itself a jihadic act of perversion against the body of humankind who formed the basis of its substitutive jouissance in the first place. That is, the jihadic act is against the carnality of nas-desire (nas for nas), suppressed and substituted/thought and measured in order to produce the capital of ecstasy within the order of Elohim. The effect is pure happiness: simultaneously pristine and base, the spirituality of the “We (Elohim/the True Body) believe”.

Thus the surah shifts (by the repressive act) from nas to Elohim and back (via jihad) into lineage/crystalization that asserts independence of the Body of Christ, all the while trading a currency derivative whose notional quantity is the sign of the nas.

What is “Allah” here? Allah is, of course, the voice behind the revelation and, therefore, is intimately tied to the subject.
“Allah will surely make evident those who are truthful, and He will surely make evident the liars.”
Allah is this surah’s unfolding, the process of substitution, the “making evident“ of truth and lie: Allah is repression and resultant re-expression.
Allah is unknowable in the act of deferral, the repression of the prophetic primal scene, and Allah is prophecy and prophecy speaking symptoms of that. Allah is the hidden evidence, the crime of substitution – and the lawyers for both sides. Allah is a judge here, in the sense that Allah is judgement, and judgement is the hidden evidence, the crime of passion rendering valuative/self-measuring. Allah is thought and measure, the substitutive act of the human “We” for original Orbic Elohim, ecstasy and fetish, and the second order jihadic act of fetish against that hidden body We into hypostatized Divine familial lineage.

The subject cannot outrun Allah because any act of hiding and any act of substitution (secondary judgement, judging evil) is Allah. The running is Allah, so cannot be outrun. But who’s the subject here? “Evil is what they judge”: they are the husks of the names, the husks of the shattered Orbs, crucified as they are by this process of thought. The husks: are they the subject, nafsic reminants, egoism, undesirable underbellies? But the Orbic fantasy was a substitution that became ecstatic unto itself, the original fantasy body was a substitution for the true desired object: and we are confronted by the fact that the shattering into familial crystallization (with its totemic formulation of evil and good) is the ecstatic fetish of substitution.

Allah is not everything and everywhere, not an impersonal immanence. Not even within every person. Rather, He is a specific being, a specific voice within the circuitry of the human subject, an bodily identity contained by the subject, speaking to the subject, speaking as the subject, the subject speaking Allah. This means that Allah is your act of suppression and your consequent symptoms: the We, the Elohim/the Orbs into the familial partzufim. This means that Allah is your act of suppression and your consequent mystical experience as symptom. And “you” are the container, the body that houses this Allah-condition: for better or worse, Allah is you. “I am Al Haq” is a mystical statement: the (repressed) accurate statement is, “Al Haq is the cause and effect of my repressed desire to be the nas, to lend power to the hypostatized family and constitute the mystic I”.

This is the high irony of the line: ”Whoever should hope for the meeting with Allah – indeed, the term decreed by Allah is coming.” Allah, unlike the angels, unlike the Elohim or the even Parzufim, is human, human process. The process of meeting God is one of looking in the mirror: the mirror need not be “perfect” to grasp this, it merely needs to be functional.

“And He is the Hearing, the Knowing. And whoever strives only strives for himself. Indeed, Allah is free from need of the worlds.” From the inability to substitute the process of substitution, husks of the names, back to the crystallized womb, the Mother Goddess (Knowing, A-L-M): from Hearing (shema, martyrdom) into the ultimate object of desire, the breast of the Mother Goddess, whose other name is Eternal Void. Allah runs from the subject’s obliteration back into the Womb of desire. What is the nature of this obliteration? It is a striving (jihad) whose other name is desire: from obliteration to Void (self-flagellation in devotion to the Kali principle), a denial of the body that becomes ecstatic, in the same way that the threat of war, the threat to the body, fulfills a deep religious need, generates religious capital. But Allah is free from desire: because Allah is desire.


Prayer and the Body: Revisited

Two years have passed since I penned this piece on prayer and the body. In it, I argued for what I was experiencing at the time: that the Logos is a higher order entity, what I considered to be a real, true physicality — it’s your real body, it’s my real body — in contrast to the illusory bodies we think we occupy as part of our constructed identities within social, cultural, historically situated regimes. I then go on to define what I think real, true prayer is, for this higher order, real, true body.

Armed this hypostatized logos-body, I was able to do two things:

  1. play down the importance of differences in cultural/religious practice as mere relative paths to a common goal, while simultaneously
  2. privileging (from my self-proclaimed position as a “Muslim”) the seven movements of the Islamic salat as universal, perennial, real truth functions of the real logos-body.

The salat of the hypostatized logos-body is the true meaning of prayer and, within the higher order realm of the real body, subsuming the realms of culture and history, this salat takes an Islamic form. The sunnah of prayer, as related within the tradition of Islam, is to be read as applying not to the bodies of Muslims within a particular Islamic culture/habitus but, instead, as a primordial movement of becoming, lived out by the logos, by your true body.

What’s wrong with this picture? Constructing an entirely different, alien body (the logos-body) is a clear substitution for the genetically indigenous Muslim body, that body of the Javanese, the Bangladeshi, the Pakistani, the Arab, the Orient — a substitution born out of repressed desire for identification, for a home within that body. It’s not a higher order body — but a horizontal, metonymic shift from the object of desire (belonging to/possessing the absent cultural body, the tie of kinship/womb). As described earlier, this shift itself became fetishized, generating perverse capital (fundamentally unIslamic reading/tafsir) whose ultimate value is the pleasure of evasion.

Hence the ambiguity inherent in the characterisation of the logos-body: what is it really? It is ecstatic evasion, sexual ambiguity (not physical yet not metaphoric, not the body of Islamic culture yet fundamentally Islamic).

Importantly, the logos-body is my own experience of fetishized displacement — but now universalized across Islam — my own experience, my own ecstatic vision, prescribed as the true substitute for the inferior cultural characterisations found within the religion. Thus the positing of the logos-body operates as a further complication to the Tailorite psychopathology, wherein the fetishization of substitution becomes crystallized (as the body of truth) — and is “plugged back” into the hole of the repressed, absent, desired Muslim body — by means of a “teaching” connector — whose essential nature is fantasy, yesodic domination. The symptom of repressed desire complicates itself with a secondary fantasy, inasmuch as it forms a fantasy substance who returns to sexually re-possess that which was originally desired.

The movement from ecstasy of the fetish to hypostatized body to the secondary fantasy of re-possession gains its capital from continued suppression of the original desire for the Muslim body: and so when she appears at the end of the movement, she is of course not recognized as such but, instead, relegated to one relative cultural body amongst a multiplicity, to be educated into the truth. But here’s the crux of the matter: she isn’t one relativity amongst many to be brought into the “truth” — she’s the  privileged object of desire (inasmuch she is a proxy for absence) — and the absolute truth (the logos in prayer, enunciated as a Tailorite lesson, the fantasy of her domination) — owes its  genesis and its return to her hidden meaning.

“Your body is unimportant, while my body is bread, my blood the wine, so eat my flesh and drink my blood.” 

Within the landscape of the Tailorite psychopathology, April 2010 represents a creative epiphany, wherein substitutive fetishization reaches its hysterical peak and, to the casual observer, it should be clear that the wheels have come off of my pretense at being Muslim. From that month onward, the position shifts into a less ecstatic, more introspective and paranoid mode and eventual recognition of what works it has wrought, and a confrontation with its hidden intentions.

Slavery and indirection

Narrated ‘Aisha: ‘Utba (bin Abi Waqqas) said to his brother Sa’d, “The son of the slave girl of Zam’a is my son, so be his custodian.”

So when it was the year of the Conquest of Mecca, Sa’d took that child and said, “He is my nephew, and my brother told me to be his custodian.”

On that, ‘Abu bin Zam’a got up and said, “But the child is my brother, and the son of my father’s slave girl as he was born on his bed.” So they both went to the Prophet.

Sa’d said, “O Allah’s Apostle! (This is) the son of my brother and he told me to be his custodian.”

Then ‘Abu bin Zam’a said, “(But he is) my brother and the son of the slave girl of my father, born on his bed.”

The Prophet said, “This child is for you. O ‘Abu bin Zam’a, as the child is for the owner of the bed, and the adulterer receives the stones.”

He then ordered (his wife) Sauda bint Zam’a to cover herself before that boy as he noticed the boy’s resemblance to ‘Utba. Since then the boy had never seen Sauda till he died. (Sahih Bukhari)

The slave girl is a subordinate plateau of your selfhood/world/life. This aspect of your life exists in potential with respect to immanence (reception of Prophecy). A “boy” is the idealised product: ideal gnosis, the product of marriage.

The hadith deals with the fragmented, scattered version of this ideal. It considers its own indirection: the prison of its indirection being the awful trope of civil laws relating to slavery of the 7th century, subverted here. There hadith does not legitimate civil slavery, it subverts the laws of slavery, treating them as a metaphor for indirection, for fragmentation, for scattering of truth into the matter (slavegirl) of your situated habitus (7th century or 21st).


Because the slavegirl is not married: and her consummation exists outside of marriage and outside the household that possesses her. Prophecy does not unite with this plateau directly: instead, production of truth derives from intermediate (apparent) interaction with the Others (habitus, social situation, that which exists externally to the house of your selfhood).

This product is apparently in the custody of its father and the uncle: but they are intermediate (apparent, false) versions of Harun and Musa. (As it has been written — Safiyah/Shekhina, wife of Prophecy, is the daughter of Harun and the niece of Musa.) Intermediate, apparent, false versions of the diamond dialectic mate and relate with your throwness (into a 7th or 21st century prison of power/language gaming), yielding an indirect truth.

Indirect truth is still truth, not by telecommunication, but by Grace of God: its ownership belongs to the real you, the real household, as it moves, wheeled, trans-temporally along tracks of gilgul/reincarnation.

And so the son (next incarnation) of the slavegirl’s owner inherits the child, the indirect truth, Gracefully acquired.

How is this truth Gracefully acquired? By mention of the Prophet’s wife, Sauda bint Zam’a: by the ritual of her veiling before indirection. That is, her veiling before the boy is the indirection, fragmentation, ironic misprison of the truth (boy) contained (indirectly) in this hadith.

The hadith is her veiling, the boy’s truth the product of the Self ironically mated with an external, apparent, temporary tribal habitus of (a profoundly unfair) 7th century civic law.

God ordaining crucifixion

What kind of God ordains crucifixion for treason?

The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and make mischief in the land, is to kill them, crucify them, or cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides. (5:33)

This is not to be read as an ordinary legal punishment: instead, as a law of (meta-)physics, just like the law of gravity, only concerning the system of the soul as it relates to your Real body (not your biological form).

Furthermore, it should not be read as a linear temporal, causal sequence (do wrong, get punished) — but, like the rest of the Qur’an — trans-temporally.

You’ve got a Prophetic core to your true self, and you have components of your wider self that are either in harmony or rebellious to that true nature.

The meaning of the verse is: those aspects of your selfhood that wage war against your innate (Prophetic) nature are, by their very nature, killed — that is, temporary perturbations of the wider Love from which we source our being.

That is,

psycho-spiritual rebellion against our innate Prophetic nature of Love = killing = falsity = temporary flux = dukkha = suffering = impermanence

So the rebellion is not so much punished (causally) by dukkha/killing — the rebellion is dukkha/killing.

And dukkha is the crucifixion of Christ. Because God’s Love descends into matter, and that is the messiah, but is sublimated to matter’s suffering, the Christ of Light suffers in the dukkha/impermanence of darkness. The material forms of interpretation, in particular, the possibility of reading this verse in any other form than this — are crucifixions of that Christ of Truth.

… or cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides. (5:33)

A different perspective on dukkha is given: it is is the result of disruption of the diagonal conduits: between either

  • the right hand of Love/Hesed and left foot of Submission/Hod. Where there is a disconnect between God’s Love and the Submissive characteristic of the human: and so Submission (immanentization) is taken without Love’s Grace, and shuts down, creating a universe of worship without Love, Slavery and religion and dogma — vacated of Love.
  • the left hand of Judgement/Gevurah and the right foot of Victory/Netzah. Where is a disconnect between the differential fabric of reality (Judgement/Shariah) and Victorious reception/revelation of God’s word: that is, where there is no reading of the signs (that exist within the fabric, that are the fabric, that are differentiated) of the Qur’an, and hence no Victory, no revelation, no hearing of God, deafness.

Again, these punishments are not temporal — they are definitions of rebellion, of falsity, of dukkha. And they will pass: the ordination is that they will pass. There is a crucifixion. But that crucifixion is a illusion — it only seems so. Because it is Christ crucified by semblance, by simulacra, by illusion, by mara.

After crucifixion there is resurrection.

What kind of God ordains crucifixion for treason? A God who’s Love flows through, downward, into dukkha, that suffers impermanence through us, alongside us, a God of Love that we return to, in Love, by means of this punishment, through realising our Prophetic nature, which is the ebb and flow of Love itself, read from Love into Praise and Judgement into Victory.

Ramadan Reading: a Few Notes on the Twenty-Second Juz

Note 1: The impossibility of telecommunication

Much of the thirty third surah concerns the impossibility of communication. (From false sons, rules of inheritance and Prophetic law violation, Qur’an takes us again and again to reformation, inheritance, impossible communication, miracle.)

Allah has not made for a man two hearts in his interior. And He has not made your wives whom you as your mothers’ backs. And he has not made sons of your adopted sons: your saying of your mouths, but Allah says the truth, and He guides to the way. (33:4)

The wife is not the mother’s back: meaning, the maternal orb’s basis (which is nothingness) is not to be equated with the Wife of Immanent Reception. Because it is from the former’s absence that Light is brought down into the latter’s blackness. And phases (lunar cycles) of marriage and divorce.

The maternal orb’s basis (which is nothingness) offers a line of impossible communication that gives birth to the miraculous son. And it is her shutting off from the world that gives birth to this son: her facing the father, her back to the daughter, her nothingness that communicates, that feeds, that sustains. This impossible communication is distinct from the telecommunication fantasy (constructed as a means to power within, for example, the teacher-student paradigm, which is nothing more than capital).

“Your saying of your mouths” is the adopted, proxy son, the false son, capital, imagined as telecommunication from sender to receiver (exchange between teacher and student). There is no real telecommunication between the family of names and the lower orders of the fragmented slave signs. The slave signs stand in proxy, as if they were communicating in Truth — but this is mara — for the slave signs are “of your mouths” but not of the real you, adopted, substitution. The cables of interpretation are set in place, but they are themselves adoption and substitution — interpretation is sign for sign displacement, crystallised around a particular (impermanent) sign regime/means to power.

Note 2: Closer to you than your own nafs

The Prophet is closer to the the believers than their own nafs, and his wives are their mothers. And those of relationship are more entitled in the decree of Allah than the believers and the emigrants, except that you may do to your close associates a kindness. That was in the Book inscribed. (33:6)

Prophecy runs through the believers, as a core, with the believer-collective a nafsic coating, a flesh vehicle. His wives, as both feminine weaponry and localized mothers — constitute embodied, internalized/ingested/virally populated symbols of the Kitab. And are consequently absent from the believers, from the ummah of your mind, always — they are the mothers, precisely.

And inheritance, entitlement to the decree of Allah, is the relationship of kinship between the orbic circuitry, when viewed as a family: “And those of relationship are more entitled in the decree of Allah than the believers and the emigrants, except that you may do to your close associates a kindness.”

Daily life is external to that familial circuit, are waveforms of belief and emigration into Medina, cycles of lifetimes. But the orbic machinery itself is at the centre of the city, its power supply, its generator.

Note 3: Above and below

O you who have believed, remember the favor of Allah upon you when hosts came to you and We sent upon them a wind and armies you did not see. And ever is Allah , of what you do, Seeing. When they came at you from above you and from below you, and when eyes shifted, and hearts reached the throats and you assumed about Allah assumptions. The believers were then put to a severe test and were most violently convulsed. (33:9-11)

These are the hosts of the Demiurge: they come from above and below — the antithesis of victory and matyrdom — attacks above (“against” the orb of victory, Musaic baqa) below (“against” the orb of submission, Harunic fana).

These hosts are illusion alone, a temporary, false differential sourced from the Musa-Harun complement.

Hearts reach throats because the body goes into meltdown in the face of this assault — violently convulsing — and becomes stressed by the differential, to breaking point, so that it undergoes annihilation, the qalb of the metamodel reaching vocalization (as death and rebirth is archetype carriage/vocalization).

The soul shards of the you, the sections/fragments of belief exist in fear of this meltdown, naturally retracting, drawn back (backs turned) to the houses (house basis idolatry), the shells of their former lives:

And when a section of them said: “Now there is no place for you to stay, so turn back.” when a section of them was seeking permission from the Prophet to leave, saying: “Our houses are exposed,” although they were not exposed; they only wished to flee. (33:13)

Note 4: Conquest

And He brought down those who supported them among the People of the Kitab from their fortresses and cast terror into their hearts a party you killed, and you took captive a party. And He caused you to inherit their land and their homes and their properties and a land which you have not trodden. And ever is Allah , over all things, competent. (33:26-27)

The People of the Kitab are generations of you, your preceding, past lives, having undergone the hosts, the attack above and below, the destruction, the terror. Some parts of you are discarded, “killed”, while the Truth within you, your slave-aspects, are captivated. And you are reformed, regenerated, inheriting land and the houses (the shells). The “land which you have not trodden” is Fadak, the exception to this process of conquest, Fatima’s inheritance, accessible via transition.

Note 5: Wives of the Prophet

O wives of the Prophet, you are not like anyone among women. If you fear Allah, then do not be soft in speech, lest he in whose heart is disease should covet, but speak with appropriate speech. (33:32)

The wives of the Prophet are his multiplicity of immanent planes, differential receptivity. If difference is rendered soft, it becomes permissive, dulled. If its speech is “hard” in its explicit performative logic, its judgement and law, then it reflects the light.

And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity, O people of the household, and to purify you with purification. (33:33)

The wives of the Prophet abide within houses because they are houses, Divinity immanentized (purified with purification) across the houses of belief. They are therefore not displayed, but, instead, are impossible exceptions (hijab’s impossible possibility).

Note 6: The fifth wife

And when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor, “Keep your wife and fear Allah ,” while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him. So when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you in order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the command of Allah accomplished. (33:37(

Zayd is the slave of Prophecy. He uses the wife, living off her produce temporarily, as a slave, as a false son. Temporary, semblance of understanding. But, bringing comfort to the believers, Prophecy takes this same field of the slave and — by breaking the law of 4 — creates a Davidic song to Bathsheba that succeeds. That is to say, the slave reads — but there is no understanding, only an illusion of telecommunication. Then Prophecy (miraculously) reads — and there is true understanding in grace and comfort, the impossible (Fadakian) communication of exception (breaking his own law of 4 wives).

O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to marry her, only for you, excluding the believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess, [but this is for you] in order that there will be upon you no discomfort. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful. (33:50)

These verses speak to the Prophetic element within the subject, excluding the believers/nafsic surrounding ummah. The right hand’s possession are conduits or joins within the Prophetic skeleton. The paternal uncles/aunts are the fractal (self-resembling) resonance of orbs across the right hand side of the skeleton. The maternal uncles/aunts are the fractal (self-resembling) resonance of orbs across the left hand side of the skeleton. In resonance across the broken shards of the multi-verse, each forms a DNA within the particular daughter/immanent plane into which Prophecy descends.

Note: Scattering

But those who disbelieve say, “Shall we direct you to a man who will inform you when you have scattered in complete scattering, you will be in a new creation? (34:7)

Those of disbelief (those outer components of the self) stand in natural suspicion to the inner Prophetic agency positioned at the core of your journey. And his message is itself recitation, a recitation function that takes the scattered shards of Adamic language and (again and again, at all levels and perspectives on the multi-life) reconstitutes these into the Messianic child.

Juraij and talking babies

(From narration of Abu Huraira in Sahih Bukhari) The Prophet said. None spoke in cradle but three.

(The first was) Jesus.

(The second was), a man from Bani Israel called Juraij. While he was offering his prayers, his mother came and called him. He said (to himself), ‘Shall I answer her or keep on praying?” (He went on praying) and did not answer her, his mother said, “O Allah! Do not let him die till he sees the faces of prostitutes.” So while he was in his hermitage, a lady came and sought to seduce him, but he refused. So she went to a shepherd and presented herself to him to commit illegal sexual intercourse with her and then later she gave birth to a child and claimed that it belonged to Juraij. The people, therefore, came to him and dismantled his hermitage and expelled him out of it and abused him. Juraij performed the ablution and offered prayer, and then came to the child and said, ‘O child! Who is your father?’ The child replied, ‘The shepherd.’ (After hearing this) the people said, ‘We shall rebuild your hermitage of gold,’ but he said, ‘No, of nothing but mud.’

A talking baby is gnosis-transmission’s birth, in passage through the birth canal of the ayat complex. The baby Jesus is its archetype: when comprehended, a talking baby speaking its own birth.

But preceeding that baby (the hadith works backward in precedence). Preceding Jesus is a fantasy Jesus, the pseudo-baby of Juraij, the baby of Gnostic misprison, of Love’s Truth encoded within an ayat complex that is Satanic (disrutive), when viewed from a religious perspective (a perspective of the group, of the worshippers in revolutionary assembly).

The signs are of Divine origin but, as physicalized, scattered Truth, possess a temporary Satanic mode of illusion that presents obstruction, tongue-tiedness, mis-communication, birth pains/danger through false attribution: the Satanic underbelly of the canal (the danger of birth), the shells of religious dogma, containing the residue of Truth locked in the walls of their temporary stasis.

The Satanic illusion has the character of psychosis/chaos/confusion, but a crystallization that necessarily mirrors/mimics (in blasphemy) the crystallization of the ayat complex itself.

In particular, there is a Satanic Mother to the Divine Mother (an Imaginary Mother of Psychosis to mirror the Divine Mother of Knowledge). The mother of this hadith is not his Real Mother — but, rather, the Illusory byproduct of the Real womb through which the hadith passes into Christian birth — she is psychosis, a mara that mocks Motherhood. (Lilith as death to infants.)

She calls to the subject (Juraij), wishing to move him from the Temple of his Dhikr into the fields of differentiation (that he might become unfaithful to his wife who is the Torah/Qur’an itself, that entity known also as the Shekhina). This is the meaning of “seeing the faces of prostitutes”: it is their faces which are the point, the cultural, social, religious, evolving surfaces, plateaus, planes (faces) that constitute the valuation schemata, the sign regimes that we are all obliged to engage with — before we die.

Juraij never leaves the fort of his Temple, he does not gaze upon the faces of prostitutes. Instead, (in Satanic subversion of the case of Jesus) there is a kind of immaculately substituted conception, the child of gnosis is born, not through Juraij’s dhkir but somehow through the Shepherd and the prostitute.

The shepherd is an aspect of the subject, a priest form, in orbit of Juraij. Juraij never leaves the fort, but the shepherd is the substituted projection of Juraij, inasmuch as it is a misprisoned Prophetic/Imamic image of the subject within a particular religious regime (at any point in any particular lifetime). The shepherd has a relationship to Juraij as a proxy for the actual Prophetic conduit — a sign-for-sign substitution (the sign of sign shift) for the conduit. The shepherd is the subject’s religious leadership, the subject’s inceptive capacity to engage with the cultural, social, sign regime of the war-religion(s) that surround it. And it is this shadow self, this religious identity that mates with the face of our throwness (our essentially random/prostitutional/cultural/localized throwness).

Because this act begins with substitution, the regime becomes enraged with Juraij: that is to say, the act of substitution is transformed into an act of expulsion and death from/to the regime, at the moment of imaginary (misprisoned) generation between the priestly function and the prostitutional. And there is a morality/shariah in this (objectively) unjust move: for the act of sign-for-sign (Juraij-for-shepherd) substitution constitutes the regime/logic’s only relationship relationship to Juraij — their relationship is purely fantasy. A fantasy of misjudgement. Therefore the shariah behind the mob’s judgement is logical with respect to its localized, tribal substitutional fabric: “The shepherd committed zina, so we will burn down the Temple as a scapegoat.”

Another way to put it is: this hadith is a nightmare of Divine signs turned upside down, through which Juraij is invariant. The regime overpowers him (and also itself dies) by means of its surplus of valuation: just as existence is surplus of Love, sign regimes exceed themselves in their valuative capacity, in the sense that a valuative logic pre-empts its own demise by virtue of its supremum/infimum lattice structure (every logic is defined by virtue of its structural implosion, at the points of tautology and contradiction, at the fantasy shephardic/Qutubic polar coordinates of that regime’s globe).

And from this religious regime’s implosion, whose anger is raised as the over-valuation (credit crisis) of its own shariah (its zina taboos lead it to this), from the implosion we find the pseudo-baby of Juraij, speaking the higher truth at the end. The Truth is born out, even through the fantasy of this second story.

Truth (from the higher realm) feeds the components of the broken engine (the mob/collective within) — anger subsides and gives way to regret: and the request to reassemble a new Temple/body (of mud) is made. The request was originally for one of Gold — the shattered collective request a pure transcendence from life (religion as a valuative regime is transcendental in whatever form it takes) — another golden calf. That is their innate voice, tending towards reassembly in a heaven of their own conception. But the reassembly is of mud — a new body/temple is constructed, into which is placed Juraij, to live on and die (similarly, but constructively) another day.

And in this way, a teacher is impossible, communication is impossible (it’s a fantasy shepherd and a mob), but still there is gnosis.

Two perspectives on God, karma and skin flaying

Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. (4:56)

View 1 (from last year’s Ramadan Reading)

This is a description of the process of denial. To deny is to “live through” a configuration of signs, a self-inscription of ayat, that fails to unlock its potential light in realisation and understanding of what its meaning is (its meaning is submission). This self-inscription, lived autobiography constitutes a “life” and is called a Robe of Days or a “skin”. When Adam and Eve ate from the Tree and fell into this space of Judgement, they became naked and God equipped them with garments of “skin”. Before this they occupied a plane where such skin (of differentiation) did not have any meaning. The went from unity to fragmented lives of garmenting, of weaving garments, of growing skin.

The best skin, the best garment is one that believes in the signs — that has trust, security, belief — in the signs all around us: this belief is self-awareness of what the signs refer to, as we individually configure them to form the skin itself.

In contrast, denial is a particular archetype that runs throughout Time, throughout the Differentiation of Fiery Judgement and “lives through” multiple skins that burn away. They are robes that are tattered and faulty, so fall away. The skins of deniers thus act as shells for denial to pass through.

View 2 (from an email I wrote today)

That which I wrote last year, I still affirm: the verses concern the wheel of karma, and the skins are skins of reincarnation, gilgul. And gilgul, skin shedding, life = dukkha.

While gilgul leads every soul out of the fire and into the gardens of jannah — it is, nevertheless, painful. Painful: these signs of the Qur’an we read — they are a pained life.

My God is pure Love. These verses are painful, and my God of Love doesn’t happily recite these verses to me, because He bestows Love, not fear.

My God’s Only Word is crucified by these verses, so that we might all be saved from the hellfire!