Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.

[Skynet]

1.) The Prophet Muhammad was illiterate during his conversation with the angel Gabriel. But did he ever learn to read and write later in his life?

2.) Muhammad's final days were him bedridden before he passed away due to illness. I'm sure there's many speculations, but does anyone know or theorize the cause of death? An overall frail constitution, exposure to the elements, poison, fever, etc?

[Formless]

1.) The Prophet Muhammad was illiterate during his conversation with the angel Gabriel. But did he ever learn to read and write later in his life?

As far as I know, he remained illiterate to the end of his days. This was proven by the truce held between him and Quraish named after the village where it took place, "Al-Hudaibiyah Truce'.

The Hudaibiyah Truce story, for the curious

After Mohammad migrated to Madinah, Quraish remained in Makkah, and they did not allow any of Mohammad's followers to attend the Holy mosque peacefully. However after 9 years of settling in Medinah, Mohammad decided that it was time to commit to an Umrah so his followers would learn about it. When they marched in great numbers towards Makkah, they stopped at the 'Mi'qat'* To change into a pilgrim's attire of a simple white cloth around the waist and another cloth over the shoulders. However they had their weapons with them to fend off any attacker as it was a wilderness of 400KM between the two cities. When Quraish learned of their approach and confirmed they had their weapons, they gathered their forces and stood before Makkah. When Mohammad was informed about that , he stopped at Al-hudaibiyah village and sent Othman to tell Quraish that they only came to commit to their religious duties and they had no desire to fight, and their weapons were only to protect themselves from bandits or beasts of prey.

Quraish told Othman that they didn't wish to fight either , and they let him alone to proceed to the holy mosque. However his return to Mohammad was delayed (reasons were never confirmed). This is when Mohammad asked his followers to vow to fight Quraish if they killed Othman. Five days and then a messenger was sent from Quraish to tell Mohammad that they won't mind allowing them into Makkah just this once. His answer was a threat that he will fight them for his religious rights. The messenger when returned convinced Quraish that they should settle for a truce as the men who follows Mohammad were ready to die for their prophet. And hence the Truce happened. Which brings us the proof of his illiteracy.

When they wrote the terms of the truce, Ali Bin Abi-Talib was the man to write down the terms from the Muslims' side. When he wrote 'Mohammad God's true prophet', Quraish objected to that name, demanding his name be written as he was known, Mohammad Bin Abdullah. Ali refused saying, "You are his true prophet and no one can take that away from you." To which Mohammad answered, "Then show me where is it written." When Ali pointed it out, he crossed it out himself. This was just a few years from his death which.

2.) Muhammad's final days were him bedridden before he passed away due to illness. I'm sure there's many speculations, but does anyone know or theorize the cause of death? An overall frail constitution, exposure to the elements, poison, fever, etc?

He had a fever which lead to his death. There are speculations that he was poisoned. However, these speculations relate to a time when he was served a poisoned lamb ... three years prior to his death. Some say he confessed to his wife Aisha that ,'He still taste the food he refused in Khaibar.' They say he once visited the village of Khaibar, and a Jewish lady served him and his companion a poisoned lamb. But it was said that Mohammad took one bite and spatted out, leaving one to wonder if he swallowed any poison at all. And if it lingered in his body for three years?

I'm comfortable knowing he died of fever. However, some might want to believe otherwise.



*Al Mi'qat is the place where pilgrims are required to change their clothing into the simple garments of white cloths for men or simple threaded dresses for women, before they reach Makkah. Based on where you're coming from, a Mi'qat is on the path to reach Makkah, and it is mandatory to stop there. Imaging an invisible range around the area of Makkah where these Mi'qat , which are very small villages or settlements line up around the are of Makkah.

[Skynet]

Bathroom Hygiene and Etiquette: So a thing I've heard is common in the Middle East is the addition of a shattaf (a spray hose bidet basically) in restrooms. I've heard this derives from a teaching that one should use water to rinse one's posterior of fecal matter.

A Wikipedia article discussing the matter went over some rather precise matters: enter the restroom with the left foot first, stay silent when doing your business, etc.

I imagine that the use of water is done for sanitary reasons, and the facing away from the Qibala a respect issue, but what of the others like the left foot? Also, how common are the various forms of etiquette/hygiene in Muslim countries? Which aspects have variance, and which are more or less universal (do Shi'ites have different toilet etiquette than Sunnis)?

[Formless]

Bathroom Hygiene and Etiquette: So a thing I've heard is common in the Middle East is the addition of a shattaf (a spray hose bidet basically) in restrooms. I've heard this derives from a teaching that one should use water to rinse one's posterior of fecal matter.

A Wikipedia article discussing the matter went over some rather precise matters: enter the restroom with the left foot first, stay silent when doing your business, etc.

I imagine that the use of water is done for sanitary reasons, and the facing away from the Qibala a respect issue, but what of the others like the left foot? Also, how common are the various forms of etiquette/hygiene in Muslim countries? Which aspects have variance, and which are more or less universal (do Shi'ites have different toilet etiquette than Sunnis)?

That link pretty much nails it down. ;D

But regarding the left foot, the prayers and the prohibition of the right hand, i think it relates to the time when these teachings were passed down.

See a Muslim does the regular things with his right side, like eating or drinking or hand shaking... etc. While the left side is for things like washing oneself. Back then, wiping wasn't a luxury available for everyone. Hence why rinsing with water would require the use of hand, while in modern times, you rinse then you wipe with toilet papers.

This is also why one would walk to a place like the lavatory with their left leg.

But here's the kicker in this issue. These teachings have been abolished from the religious classes in schools in my country two years ago. One might wonder how true they were ...

[Oniya]

The whole 'right good, left bad' thing was common in a number of cultures - it's the reason we speak of 'dexterity' and 'being sinister'.

[Formless]

it's the reason we speak of 'dexterity' and 'being sinister'.

I understand the 'being sinister' part. But I am intrigued how 'dexterity' plays into this. Can you elaborate, Lady Oniya?

[Oniya]

dexter = on the right (Latin)
sinister = on the left (also Latin)

[Formless]

Ahh, I wasn't aware its a linguistic reference.

Thank you, Lady Oniya. ;D

[Oniya]

Ahh, I wasn't aware its a linguistic reference.

Thank you, Lady Oniya. ;D

I've spent far too many years assailing the New York Times Sunday Crossword.  ;D

[Kaspider]

We've been told the devil eats with the left hand and therfore we should only do stuff with the right except those things listed above.

Some people are just naturally left handed. Is that something you can change as a kid. Train him to be right handed?

[Formless]

We've been told the devil eats with the left hand and therfore we should only do stuff with the right except those things listed above.

Some people are just naturally left handed. Is that something you can change as a kid. Train him to be right handed?

I can speak for my society, which is during my childhood years, everyone must use their right hand, even left handed people. Since most of our dishes are edible using the hands , it made for some awkward sights at times.

I wouldn't say children were trained as much as just forced into it. The last thing a child wanted was everyone telling him that he's feeding satan.

This also extends to 'handing things to others'. Before, it was pretty much an insult if you handed someone anything with your left hand, or if they took it from you with their left hand.

Some groups still hold on to this mantra, while others already disregards it.

[Oniya]

We've been told the devil eats with the left hand and therfore we should only do stuff with the right except those things listed above.

Some people are just naturally left handed. Is that something you can change as a kid. Train him to be right handed?

They used to try to do that when I was growing up (more because it was easier to teach everyone to write the same way than any esoteric reason).  It can be done, but usually handwriting suffers as a result. 

[Skynet]

Half-Siblings and Polygamy:

1. Although polygamy is not necessarily universal, I imagine that men who have more than one wife are likelier to sire children with several women. Is there a term in the family structure for siblings who share the same father, but have different mothers? Were they all referred to as "brothers" and "sisters" as long as they had paternal similarity, or were there different terms used such as "half-brothers," "maternal brothers," etc?

2. Was it expected/encouraged for a man in a polygamous relationship to bear children with all his wives, or was it acceptable to have children with only a portion of them?

3. Was the division of labor and domestic duties slightly or significantly different than a monogamous marriage? I can imagine that more hands around the house can get more accomplished, but at the same time that was more mouths to feed, more room needed in the house, etc.

I recall an earlier answer saying that polygamy mostly existed among wealthier families and was not necessarily commonplace, but it was a thing I wondered about in how this affected things like family structure. And apologies if this question has been answered already.

[Formless]

Half-Siblings and Polygamy:

1. Although polygamy is not necessarily universal, I imagine that men who have more than one wife are likelier to sire children with several women. Is there a term in the family structure for siblings who share the same father, but have different mothers? Were they all referred to as "brothers" and "sisters" as long as they had paternal similarity, or were there different terms used such as "half-brothers," "maternal brothers," etc?

2. Was it expected/encouraged for a man in a polygamous relationship to bear children with all his wives, or was it acceptable to have children with only a portion of them?

3. Was the division of labor and domestic duties slightly or significantly different than a monogamous marriage? I can imagine that more hands around the house can get more accomplished, but at the same time that was more mouths to feed, more room needed in the house, etc.

I recall an earlier answer saying that polygamy mostly existed among wealthier families and was not necessarily commonplace, but it was a thing I wondered about in how this affected things like family structure. And apologies if this question has been answered already.

1- Technically speaking, they are called brothers and sisters. However, to differ between siblings from the same parents, and those who only share a single parent, the former can be called 'Shaqeeq'.

Of course siblings can also share the same mother and different fathers. But there is a third type of siblinghood, its more cultural than it is Islamic. Its called 'Breast Siblinghood'. Not sure if this is common in other parts of the world, but if two children were breastfed by the same woman, they are considered siblings, even if that woman was not the mother of any of them.

2- There's a Hadith by Mohammad encouraging Muslims to sire many children. The gist of the Hadith was that he wanted to show off to god that his nation was the grandest.

3- It really depend on each house hold. In earlier years, whoever had more than wife, would be more fair as to not overwork one while leaving the other doing nothing. But in recent years, while not often to marry more than woman, its done in spite, rather than ... whatever reason one might seek to marry a second or a third wife.

The concept of Polygamy in Islam was supposedly to perserve lineage, but also to provide safety and social acceptance to women. The way we were told in our youth, is that a woman is desired by man, and the longer she lives single and unmarried, the more she'll be prone to fall into the wrong path, or one will take advantage of her. So marriage is like a protective shell. (For the lack of a better word.)

Of course Polygamy in Islam is one sided. A man can marry up to four wives at the same time, while women cannot have more than one husband at the same time.

Hope that answers your question. :-)

[Oniya]

1- Technically speaking, they are called brothers and sisters. However, to differ between siblings from the same parents, and those who only share a single parent, the former can be called 'Shaqeeq'.

Of course siblings can also share the same mother and different fathers. But there is a third type of siblinghood, its more cultural than it is Islamic. Its called 'Breast Siblinghood'. Not sure if this is common in other parts of the world, but if two children were breastfed by the same woman, they are considered siblings, even if that woman was not the mother of any of them.

I've heard the term 'milk-brother/milk-sister' used in some historical fiction/fantasies (which tend to be Euro-Christian in structure).  There was some implication that the two children would be nursed at around the same time, so a teen would not necessarily refer to an infant as their 'milk-sibling', but a five-year gap wouldn't be pushing it too much. 

[Formless]

I've heard the term 'milk-brother/milk-sister' used in some historical fiction/fantasies (which tend to be Euro-Christian in structure).  There was some implication that the two children would be nursed at around the same time, so a teen would not necessarily refer to an infant as their 'milk-sibling', but a five-year gap wouldn't be pushing it too much.

I see.

Well, here, it used to be common when everyone lived in small villages rather than the big cities. There's always a few women who could nurse the infants when their mothers couldn't. So usually children of the same age end up with this kind of bond.

[Skynet]

This may be a little bit too broad, but what are the major differences between the four major schools of fiqh in Sunni Islam? If such a thing can be reduced to the context of a forum post?

[Trigon]

This may be a little bit too broad, but what are the major differences between the four major schools of fiqh in Sunni Islam? If such a thing can be reduced to the context of a forum post?

My understanding is that the difference is mostly political, at least where Sunni and Shia are concerned: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-16047709

Basically, the difference is between who should have been the heir to Muhammad after his immediate death. Since then they have evolved on their own historical  trajectory, and clashed with one another from time to time.

[Formless]

This may be a little bit too broad, but what are the major differences between the four major schools of fiqh in Sunni Islam? If such a thing can be reduced to the context of a forum post?

The four schools differs in subtle matters that do not impact the basic pillars of Islam.

An example would be how one school agrees that the Zakat should be based on the annual earnings of one's entire collective of business, while other schools think that each business should be counted separately.

I myself do not think I can count all the differences between them. And what makes it harder to pinpoint is how some of these differences can be easily debunked or changed. I think it requires the knowledge of a man who studied these schools thoroughly. :-\

[Sabre]

This may be a little bit too broad, but what are the major differences between the four major schools of fiqh in Sunni Islam? If such a thing can be reduced to the context of a forum post?

Schools of Jurisprudence in Sunni Islam are divided based upon legal theories and principles of an eponymous founder - or at least attributed to one. They differ not only on interpretation of law, but also the philosophy and discipline in studying and applying it. In its most reductive forms you could categorize them by what they accept as the next best source of binding religious law after the Quran and Hadith: Hanbalis accept only individual opinions of Muhammad's closest companions, Shafi'is accept the consensus of Muhammad's close companions and then their individual opinions and then legal analogy, Malikis accept the broader traditions of the city of Medina itself, and Hanafis are like the Shafi'is only after analogy they also accept a judge's personal preference/communal good and then local customary law.

That's how it was in the early days of course. Over time the different schools came to begrudgingly accept one another's rulings and methodologies as legally applicable if not preferable, sort of like how two states in a federated republic would accept the rulings of each others' courts despite having their own laws in place. There were also other schools of fiqh that gradually disappeared. Bear in mind though that the above is only the most broad generalization, because the schools themselves mostly differentiate on their approach to individual cases rather than on general principles - thus you may get Hanbalis that accept the legality of a consensus among Muhammad's companions or contemporary religious scholars, or Hanafis that prefer the traditions of Medina over those of locals in their rulings. What really sets them apart is which legal treatises written by certain historical legal scholars they uphold as exemplary of law.

Plus, there are other schools of thought beyond the four legal schools of fiqh that Suuni Islam can be divided into, and there can be quite a bit of overlap at times since it all mostly comes down to one's personal allegiances to a spiritual teacher in law, theology, or even none at all.

[Evergreen]

Hello everyone! I've decided to enlighten myself about Islam. Especially about it's view upon homsexuals. I'm torn between opinions and facts. Some say, The Quran itself does not condemn homosexual activity. There certainly are gay Muslims so I guess it's more of an environmental trait? Other's say that the Quran itself condemns homosexuals. It basically says that killing them is the only way to save them? What is the source of this hatred, how did it originate and why it is so rooted in the Islam community? I would be really grateful if someone could contemplate on this?

Also as a reference her's a clip I recently stumbled upon. Is islam really as cruel toward same sex shenanigans as this guy in the clip claims?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faSKWFZE1zE

[Kaspider]

Homosexuality is a major sin in Islam. It started from the people of Lut (Lot). They would prefer young boys or men over women and that's why they were destroyed. Some people refute that they did not indulge in sexual penetration and all that. There are a lot of debates but it is understood that those people had lust towards men. As this verse from the the Quran explains.

And [We had sent] Lot when he said to his people, "Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds?(80)Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people."

Note how it only says 'approaching with lust and desire'. I guess desire is the basis of any relationship. I could love a man without any sexual desire then would that be lawful?

[Formless]

I will admit I did not watch the video, past the 3:07 mark.

"Let us start with the basics, which is not Islamic scriptures itself, but the reality."

That is what the video maker says. I guess he doesn't care what the Qur'an says and cares about what people do. I suppose the same way some people do not care what ISIS does as long as they say their Muslims.

Not to mention the video maker denies gender-fluidity? I'm not certain if I understood him well, but starting a video by bashing someone else is a recipe for extremism.


But allow me to explain a few things from my own view.

As Niinja said, Qur'an did mention Homosexuality in the story of Prophet Lot.

Now before I explain this story in finer details, I'd like to point out that this is the only time where Homosexuality was mentioned in the Qur'an. Mentioned in 3 Suras, though all pointed to the story of Lot

Now the Story of Lot when he received the word of god, his people were already Homosexual. It was not something they suddenly craved, but it was akin to a way of life. In Sura 26, Verses 155-156 [Do you approach males among the worlds, And leave what your Lord has created for you as mates? But you are a people transgressing.] This is what Lot said to them, after he received the word of god.

Now the people of Lot did not listen to him, and they threatened to banish him. Lot, fearing for the safety of himself and his family, prayed for god to protect him. And god sent three angels down to earth, in the image of three handsome men. But they did not go to the village of Sadoom (Lot's village), instead they went to Ibraham, to tell him that god will bless him with a child, and to tell him that they are on their way to Sadoom to punish the people there.

They finally arrived there, and knocked on Lot's door as stray travellers. He welcomed them inside, but Lot's wife, who hated him, went to the village to tell its people that Lot had guests whose beauty are incomparable. So they wished to have them for themselves. They went to Lot's house and were honest about their intentions, and even when Lot offered his daughters just so they would spare his guests, the people refused. But the angels, told Lot to not worry and that they are angels sent from god. They told him to escape before the break of dawn, as once the sunrises tomorrow, everyone will be punished.

The punishment, and this is interesting, was never mentioned in the Qur'an. Everything I mentioned above was actually written in the Sura 25. But the punishment which we hear about, are only mentioned in Hadiths.

Now, if homosexuality was in fact a grave sin, why wasn't it punished by god when they first committed it? And the people of Sadoom did not try to enforce their sexual wishes upon Lot, no scripture that I know ever mentioned it. So was the punishment really about homosexuality, or a punishment for threatening a messenger of god?

I leave it to this point, because this is my own take upon it. It is up to the beholder to perceive it as they wish.

Now another point. Female homosexuality was never mentioned in Qur'an.

However, with all of this said, A great number of Muslims condemn homosexuality. There are numerous Hadiths that speaks of it as a sin. And any community that condemn homosexuality follows these Hadiths. Is it wrong? Well, my god took it upon himself to punish those who he deemed punishable, and did not write in his holy book for us to do it. Not the same way he spoke of how to punish adultery, or theft, or murder.

But we as Muslims, love our prophet. We follow his word, because god chose him as his messenger. But now we have so many sources that speaks of how Mohammad condemned this way of life. And it is indisputable no matter which Imam you'll ask. We are taught that we should never attempt this sin, we are taught that it is wrong, and we are taught that one's soul is banished from heaven when they do it. (Which means they will eternally live in hell in the after life.) This is why Islam is against homosexuality. If we try to reform this aspect, it will take a lot of work, and probably decades or centuries to correct it. Can we prove these Hadiths to be false or true? I don't think so. But if we're a religion of tolerance, then it is best to leave everyone to face their own judgment on the very day of judgment.

I myself have nothing against any sexual preference. Doesn't affect me in anyway so it is none of my business.

Hope this answers the question. :-)

[Evergreen]

Thanks a lot for this detailed explanation! The story with the three angles sounds rather interesting.

One more thing. If for example me (I'm a lesbian) and my girlfriend would move to Iran or any other Muslim country which condemns homosexuals. Would we be killed?

[Skynet]

Thanks a lot for this detailed explanation! The story with the three angles sounds rather interesting.

One more thing. If for example me (I'm a lesbian) and my girlfriend would move to Iran or any other Muslim country which condemns homosexuals. Would we be killed?

IANAL, but the punishments vary from what I've heard in places. Morocco does not execute homosexuals, but they are punished with jail time, and foreigners and nationals are treated very differently. In the United Arab Emirates (according to Travel-Wiki) it's illegal, but treats it as a mental illness which can be changed and cured so they're often put in asylums. Apparently there are 5 Muslim countries where homosexuality is legal, but they're in the minority. Also there are sources claiming that around the 1800s the Ottoman Empire decriminalized male same-sex activity, although I wouldn't call it homosexuality (it was in discussion mostly of man-boy pederasty, which I don't view as the same as two grown men who are attracted to each other).

As for Iran, homosexuality is punishable by death to my knowledge. Homosexuals often avoid execution by undergoing sex reassignment surgery as the only legal alternative ("I'm not a gay man, I'm a heterosexual woman with a female brain and male body!"). This is not because they're actually transgender, though. It's akin to the analogy of "if I'm going to be shot in the head or the leg, I'll pick the leg."

The Iranian government's laws are more accepting of transgender people in viewing it as an unchangeable aspect of identity of who they are, whereas sexual orientation is something people do. This does not mean that the general population is tolerant (there's still a lot of transphobia). This apparently began back in the 1980s when Ayatollah Khomeini heard the plight of a transgender woman, and after he and a bunch of religious scholars consulted the Qu'ran they could not find any passages advocating or condemning it, so they allowed it to be permissible. Or at least that's the official story.