Apparently "Tanatu" refers to pedantic extremists!

So there I was, minding my own business and wasting time on the Internet, and I decided to google the name that I post under. And I discovered something remarkable. Apparently there is a Muslim hadith explaining that the "Tanatus" shall be ruined!

Wait, really? Who are these doomed Tanatus, anyway?

Well, it turns out that the Fatwa Department of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has a website which very helpfully answers exactly this question. Allow me to quote the question and a selection from the answer.

QUESTION: What is meant by the term ”Tanatu`” and what is meant by the Hadith: “Ruined are those who insist on hardship in matters of the Faith.”

ANSWER: All perfect praise be to Allah. Blessings and peace be upon Prophet Mohammad.

In principle, the term ”Tanatu`” means probing into a matter.”Motanatioon” refers to those who probe into matters unnecessarily.... Ibn Atheer stated: “ (Motanatioon) in the above Hadith are those who probe into matters and insist on hardship in what they say.” [An-nihayah Fi Ghreeb Al-Hadith Wa Al-Atharr]. The term “ Tanatu` “ was used by the Arabs to describe those who show off in their speech and employ awkward words when addressing people so as to win their hearts, and this is forbidden in Islam. [In other words, pedants.]

Later, it was used to describe whoever insisted on hardship in matters, whether by words, or deeds, and so they become far from moderation and balance, which are the spirit of Islam. Some instances of “ Tanatu` “ are: inquiring about non-existent juristic issues, and details of the unseen which none knows but Allah, such as the Spirit and The Day of Resurrection." More meaning go under the term Tanatu' as follow: proclaiming the legal illegal, innovations in religious matters, and insisting on hardship in religious practices, doctrines and thoughts.... [In other words, extremists.] 

Moreover, Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) said (What means): "The religion (of Islam) is easy, and whoever makes the religion a rigour, it will overpower him. So, follow a middle course (in worship); if you can't do this, do something near to it and give glad tidings and seek help (of Allah) at morn and at dusk and some part of night". {Bukhari}....

There's more, but that should give you the gist. "Tanatu" refers to niggling detail when it comes to religious doctrine, to agonizing over every jot and tittle, and to making the compliance with doctrine a matter of pain and anguish for everyone else. Just the word for people like me whose compulsions for pedantic exactitude are so obvious. Now if only we weren't all coming to a bad end!

In the spirit of ... umm, ... scholarly exactitude, the exact reference for this hadith is: Sahih Muslim, Book 34, Number 6450. You can find similar explanations of the text here or here. They all agree that Tanatu is a bad thing.

Oh well. Maybe there is still time for repentance.

           

You can just do things!

A long-expected party

The Ecosophian community is an informal collection of people who follow the books and blogs of John Michael Greer. There is no formal organization; nobody collects dues, or organizes formal events, or publishes meeting minutes. But if you check out either of his blogs—Ecosophia, or Toward Ecosophy—you'll find many of the same people commenting over and over. And of course there are plenty of people (I'm one of them) who rarely comment or post, but who read the materials regularly.

For a few years now, there has been a social gathering of ecosophians in Providence, Rhode Island, on or around the summer solstice.In the past, this gathering generally took the form of a big potluck. I remember seeing the announcements and thinking, "Gosh, wouldn't that be fun!" Of course I never went, because I don't live anywhere near to Providence. There was no simple or easy way to pop over and bring a contribution to the feast, so I didn't think about it beyond that.

You can just do things.

Last year, Greer traveled to Glastonbury, England, in early June. He announced his plans the previous November, and in the end his visit turned into a kind of impromptu convention. People gave talks and workshops. There were (by all accounts) good food, good beer, and good conversation. Of course it sounded like a delightful time in the run-up before it happened; and it sounded even better afterwards. But I'm an American, after all. Glastonbury is a long ways away. I toyed with the idea of going there, but I didn't take it very seriously. So in the end I stayed home, and read about it after the fact.

You can just do things.

Then after the 2025 potluck, the man who regularly organizes the events in Providence proposed that "next year" (meaning 2026) he wanted to change it up a bit. Why not hold a convention in Providence, just like the one in Glastonbury? Surely we have people on this continent who would like to give talks on some ecosophian-related topic? Or workshops? It can't be that hard. So he put out an announcement in July of 2025, for the following year, to get people's attention and start them thinking.

You can just do things.

Wife's view of her move

This evening after dinner, I was sitting at my computer browsing through some old posts and trying to get up the energy to write you about my trip last weekend. In the process, I realized that I used to inject a lot more drama into my posts than I do today, by the simple expedient of quoting Wife's perspective on whatever was going on.

Of course, mostly I don't interact with her any more. I drive to visit her at Son1's apartment a couple of times a year (see, for example, here and here). And even when I find something funny to email her, she very rarely responds.

But back in late May I sent her some information about a Japanese cat, who was made station master of a local train station, and who (after dying) was enshrined as a Shinto goddess. You can find her story here. This email triggered a response (though very little of it had to do with the cat). Writing to me the same day that I got this phone call from Son2, Wife told me all about her thoughts on Son2's upcoming marriage to Beryl, and about her fears related to moving. Here is what she said about the move.

Dream with Father

This will be short, because the dream happened in the middle of the night. I woke up to pee and repeated the core bit to myself but didn't write it down. Now, in the morning, that core bit is all I remember.

Anyway, somewhere in the middle of a dream about something else I saw Father. He was at a moderate weight, which means he was thinner than he had been for most of the time I was alive. He saw me and moved to get closer, which I interpreted as wanting a hug.

I gestured to stop him, and then told him that if he hugged me, I'd have to kill him. He backed off without complaint, though he looked very disappointed. 

At the time, I thought of it in terms of setting and enforcing clear boundaries between us ... which I suppose you could say it was.

Without context, that sounds like an incredibly harsh way to set boundaries. But I realize I have talked about my relationship with my father in posts before now, and in context—also considering that this was a dream—I don't feel like it was so crazy. You can find some of those posts at the following links: from 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2023.  

           

Fearing for your children's future

Tonight in the UU Sangha I attend, we started reading a new book for our dharma study, a book by Thich Nhat Hanh about Fear. So during the discussion period, people began discussing their fears. And I heard several of them express fear for their children or grandchildren.

Debbie, for example, is afraid for her grandchildren because her daughter Mattie, and her son-in-law (Mattie's husband), are such martinets, and always yell at their sons (Debbie's grandchildren). Debbie said she's not afraid of dying for her own sake, but she's afraid of the consequences for her grandsons if one day suddenly she's no longer there for them. (To be clear, there's no imminent threat. Debbie's in her early seventies, and she has various ailments that are consistent with her age, including periodic bouts of long COVID and atrial fibrillation. She also has celiac disease, that seems to be slowly morphing into a more generalized autoimmune sensitivity. But she's not on a timeline, with "X years to live"!)

But then another member is worried about his children, too. (I'm pretty sure I haven't given him a name yet.) His kids—a son and a daughter—are legal adults but just barely. They were both adopted out of a dreadful situation, spent their whole childhood being oppositional, and regularly make terrible decisions. So their lives aren't going well, to nobody's surprise. And he's deeply troubled by this.

I think there was someone else too, but I forget the details.

Of course this is common. At some level, everyone who has kids wants those kids to have a wonderful life, free of the spectres that so routinely blight the lives of Other People. That's why I was so upset at the idea that Wife was going to live with Son 1: I wanted him to be able to have adventures in his life (if he wanted them, of course) and I figured there would be no adventures if he were looking after her. As a secondary concern, I feared that living with Wife would ruin his relationship with Wife, although I figured that he was honorable enough he would never throw her out on the street. (Turns out that I called that secondary concern exactly.) 

Wife will be moving soon!

I got a call this afternoon from Son2. Right away he asked if I had a few minutes, because he wanted to discuss a number of things with me.

It was 2:00 or 2:30 in the afternoon, and I was just finishing up breakfast. (I spent too much time this morning pissing around on the Internet.) So of course I told him Sure, I've got time. What's up?

Well.

You all remember Dorcas? Son1's girlfriend? It turns out that not only is she a Ph.D. candidate, but she owns a condominium. Free and clear. No remaining payments. Son1 has decided that he would rather live with her than with Wife (his mother). Maybe that's not a surprise. So he's going to move out of the apartment that he currently shares with Wife. Wife can't afford the apartment on her own, so she has to find somewhere else to live.

Apparently Son1 and Son2 have been discussing this topic at considerable length for some time. At this point, the plan is to move Wife to an independent apartment within walking distance of the house that Son2 and Beryl currently rent. Son2 says that they will stop in a couple of times each week, to make sure that she has meals prepared ahead, and to make sure that she is still surviving OK. He plans to make up a list of non-negotiable demands: that she regularly take her medications, that she not drink, and a bunch of others. If she violates those, then they'll put her in an assisted-living facility where she has no freedom whatsoever. Son2 admitted that the main reason for not putting her in one right now is that they cost too much. I pointed out that Wife would hate an assisted-living facility because she values her freedom so highly; but I added that in general, the less freedom she has, the better her quality of life will be. This is because she reliably makes terrible decisions. Son2 agreed.

Why is she moving to be near Son2 and Beryl, who are far away in a different state? 

Because Son1 is really, really sick of her. Apparently in the very first conversation, Son1 assumed she would have to be near him. But as soon as Son2 remarked that—logically—she could be near either of them, from that moment Son1 took it as settled that she would live near Son2 and not near him.

There was probably more. I don't remember right now. Son2 called me in the first place to ask some details about Social Security and Disability. I told him what I remember, but suggested that he should double-check the details. He said he will.

I also told him to keep me in the loop on the topic of paying Wife's bills. I explained that I'm on a strict budget this year—in fact I'm taking home (in retirement income) only 77% of what Son2 is (and that doesn't count Beryl's earnings)—but I also figured that somehow I still have some responsibility here, at least as long as my sons think they do! I'm the one who married her, after all. I'm the one who saddled them with her as a mother. It's true that I spent thirty years paying her bills more or less single-handedly. But I can't just let it be their problem.

To put it another way: when they can wash their hands of her, so can I.

This evening I got a long email from Wife where she talked about this development, and spent considerable time complaining about it. Maybe I'll put all that in another post. 

           

Forgetting

I was talking with Debbie the other day. In and around everything else, I told her about my last visit to see Mother ... and about my concerns that Mother is getting so forgetful. (I didn't go into details. On the other hand, she dealt with her own mother's decline, so she understands the idea.)

Anyway, in and around talking about how much of a change this is in Mother, since she used to be sharp as a tack, I suddenly remarked on something else.

I have a regular weekly call with Marie. And over the last few months there have been a number of times—two? three? four? something like that—when she has mentioned casually some discussion we had a few months earlier and I haven't remembered it.

So what? Right? How big a deal can it be?

This is where I start to sound unspeakably arrogant. But you have to understand that, for me, what I am about to say is not arrogance but simple reality.

It's a big deal. What I am used to—for decades now, really for my whole life if it comes to that—is that if someone references a conversation we had some time in the past, I remember it! Verbatim. I am used to remembering conversations from a decade ago well enough to be able to say, "Wait, is that what you thought I was saying? Oh no! It's true I used those words, but then I followed up by saying this other thing in the very next breath. And in context I was talking about something totally different." Even if the conversation was ten years ago or more, it would make no difference. I must have made that exact declaration to Wife dozens of times over the course of our marriage, because she was always pulling out some lunatic opinion ... insisting it was mine ... and then justifying herself with, "But you said ...!!" 

And now when Marie tells me that I recommended she buy a bell on this or that website—advice which she took—I have no recollection of the discussion. Sure, it sounds logical. I might have said it. I don't dispute that I said it. But I have no memory of saying it.

My memory used to be flawless. Unimpeachable. The final authority in any dispute. Now? As far as I can tell, now my memory is still pretty good, but no longer perfect. Now it's pretty good, but more or less normal.

How the mighty have fallen.

I know, I know ... it's arrogant to go on like this. And self-centered. Rude. Antisocial. "Not to mention other adjectives," as Tom Lehrer once put it.

It's also depressing. I'm getting old.

In other news, I'm starting to feel it in my knees every time I go up or down stairs. Even a year ago, I think that wasn't true.

Maybe if I lost weight, that might help my knees. Would it help my memory?