Oh you fancy, huh

However blunt this may seem, there is no room in Islam for homosexuality.  In fact, the Qur’an and Hadith condemns homosexuality. Allah (SWT) created the woman from man in his infinite mercy. Thus, the woman was created for man to enjoy and protect. In addition, there are duties for both men and women in Islam.  For example, men are the protectors and maintainers of the household and the imam, or leader.  The woman takes care of the household and obeys her husband as it is her entry into Paradise. So how could there be a separate category of “effeminate men”? It is mind boggling in this day and time (and place) for Muslim men to dress like women wearing the clothing of women and jewelry. However, during the time of the Prophet (PBUH) the Mukhannathun of Medina were a group of men who imitated women with clothing, henna, and jewelry. These men were reversing gender roles although there is little evidence of these men being homosexual. Obviously there was a strong reaction to these effeminate men of Medina.

            The Prophet (PBUH) cursed effeminate men and mannish women.  These effeminate men were going against the natural order of things and demonstrating irreligion. Men should not be acting like women-it was not right.  These men of Medina became the middlemen amongst the women despite the disproval of the Prophet. They would play matchmaker between the men and women even. There were different views concerning this group of effeminate men.  Some people appreciated these men for their wit and charm. Other people, like the Prophet, believed that these men demonstrated immorality and irreligion and were against their actions. Besides dressing like women and being in the company of women (imitating their behavior and way of speech), these men became musicians. These men used tambourines and played lighter songs.  Soon, the peoples of Medina decided to punish these effeminate men of Medina by castration. As musicians, these men were seen as a threat to society. Women would hear the music being played from afar and swoon.  This angered the men and the Mukhannathun were castrated. 

            Despite these effeminate men imitating women in behavior, there was little evidence that these men were homosexual.  Were they sexually attracted to women or men? Al Garad and Al Dalal are the only two who have explicit homosexual evidence. This of course is a problem.  There is no such thing as homosexuality in Islam!  There is no place.  Men are for women, and women for men. The two were made for each other.  There is no anal sex in Islam at all so how can two men be together for one?  They were not designed to be together. Just like the story of the men that had sex with another man and after said that the rock would testify against him on the Day of Judgment. Overall, the effeminate men were of lower status. It was insulting for one to be called a Mukhannathun if he was not.  These men faced varying degrees of repression by state. As indicated by the mass castrations, these effeminate men and the imitation of women by men in general became unacceptable.

            Although homosexuality in Islam is unacceptable (and has no place), marriage in Islam is entirely acceptable.  In fact, marriage is extremely important. It is narrated by Anas that the messenger of Allah (SWT) said “When a man marries, he has fulfilled half his religion, so let him fear Allah regarding the other half.” Marriage in Islam is so important in that it completes half your deen or half your religion. Men and women were created as company for one another and so they can procreate and live in peace and tranquility. There is so much mercy in being married. Allah opens the doors of Jannah (Paradise) to the women who obey and are grateful to their husbands. There is “etiquette” for both men and women in regards to marriage. For example, it is the duty of the man to make sure that he pleases his wife sexually but the wife must not turn down her husband if he desires her sexually. There is a set of guidelines regarding marriage and the role of the men and women in regard to marriage.  By following the set of guidelines ordained by Allah (SWT), may the married couple enter Paradise, Ameen. Amongst the Muslims, there is a sort of “craze” when it comes to marriage. Marriage is the only way to have a companion of the opposite sex, to have any sexual relations, and with all the blessings in marriage, it is said that “if you have the means to be married, then it is better for you.”

            In closing, as the quote goes Islam is perfect, Muslims are not. There are guidelines in Islam regarding everything-how to clean yourself, how to eat, etc. Thus there are guidelines in place for how to act as a man and how to act as a woman.  The effeminate men of Medina were exhibiting behavior not according to Qur’an and Sunnah. No matter who thought it was acceptable for these men to imitate women, it is unacceptable.

Umm...Reality check

“Transformation or transition?”…that is the question.  Well, just my question.  When it comes to Ibn Battuta’s very interesting and ”wild” last journey from Morocco to “the land of the blacks,” would it be most accurately labeled as a sort of transformation or a transition?  Trans means “change” and surely Ibn Battuta experiences changes during his journey to this new land.  Transition is defined as the change from one position, state to another.  Transformation is defined as a change in form or function.  So, I conclude here that transition and transformation differ in the sense that transformation is a more dramatic change in form, in structure or in character.  Still, it is in my opinion that Ibn Battuta’s journey was a transition, change in position, but also a transformation in perception as well as character.  It is no doubt that his journey to the “land of the blacks” was very significant and there are consequences both perceived and direct.

Ibn Battuta’s journey in layman’s terms was a slight “reality check.”  It is worth exploring here the issue of normativity.  Like most, Ibn Battuta perceived the culture and practices of those in Morocco to be “normal.”  This is what he was accustomed to, and in agreement with, despite all his traveling.  But, what is normal in Morocco may not be “normal” elsewhere and there were obvious differences in practices in the land of the blacks than what Ibn Battuta considered “normal.” I may go further to say that Ibn Battuta did not like or did not agree with those differences that he found.  For example, of the people of Iwalatan, Ibn Battuta found their behavior strange and their manners outlandish.  He goes on to say that he has never witnessed such behavior in all his travels except for in a non-Muslim country.  He was most surprised by the fact that men derive their genealogy from their maternal uncle and not their father.  In addition, he identified the lack of sexual jealousy in men as absurd.  He could not understand why men and women, who were not related, were close companions.  Men and women who were lawful for marriage should not be alone together without a third party and there is no such thing as “male/female” companionship outside the realm of marriage.  It was something he could not wrap his head around for these men and women were righteous and pious believers otherwise.  The women he says were pious in the company of men although they were not veiled and the men were righteous as well.  He recalls the qadi in Iwalatan who had made pilgrimage be in the company of a beautiful young girl.  Ibn Battuta retreated upon seeing her with him while the qadi and the women remained very confused.  Their norm was much different.

Overall, among the blacks, there were qualities that Ibn Battuta liked and those that he disliked.  He liked the qualities they possessed regarding Friday dress in preparation for prayer and how they meticulously  observe the prayer times and the beating of which they instill these qualities in their children.  There were on the other hand things that he disliked among the blacks.  The main issue he had was the naked manner in which these slave women would present themselves to the sultan even during the holy month of Ramadan, private parts not covered.  This behavior was very strange to Ibn Battuta because it was not the norm for Moroccans.

Like Battuta, I cannot wrap my head around the holiness of the black people and both the companionship between the men and women as well as the presentation of the slave women.  Especially for the pre-modern period.  The two just don’t seem to go.  As he mentions, this was not the norm for most of the Muslim lands he traveled to.  Thus, I think it is safe to say that this journey represents a transformation, or change in the perception of Ibn Battuta.  Whether he liked it or not or whether he agreed with it or not, his awareness of the world definitely changed and the journey was again a “reality check.”  

Living in Islam? Islamdom? *shrugs*

There seems to be some obvious ways in which the “symbiosis” of Non Muslims and Muslims shaped both organisms over time.  When any different groups of people are “forced” to live with each other, there are often ways in which their living situation has shaped the individual involved.  For example, if you live on a college campus in the very same room as another organism with a different set of beliefs whom you’ve never lived with before, you will learn to at least exist peacefully with them (one would hope).  You might learn to appreciate their set of belief systems, adopt their habit of leaving the door open during the day, or get hooked on their favorite television show.  You may also share things like a microwave or a television.  This is similar to  the situation with the Muslims, Jews, and Christians living in Islamdom.  Before exploring the issue at hand, or how the “symbiosis” of Non Muslims and Muslims has shaped the parties involved, some terminology needs to be addressed.  First up is this word “symbiosis.”  The life definition of symbiosis is the prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species, often to their benefit.  Does “symbiosis” accurately label the relationship between the Non Muslims and Muslims in Islamdom?  Sure the Muslims, Jews and Christians were different and they were associated and at times they even benefitted each other.  But, the extent to which the relationship between Muslims and Non Muslims was symbiotic is arguable.  Also, what is meant by how did they symbiosis of non-Muslims and Muslims “shape” both organisms over time?  By “shape,” I mean fit.  Thus, in what ways did the symbiosis of Non Muslims and Muslims fit both organisms over time?

Instead of discussing the symbiosis of  the two categories of Non Muslims and Muslims, we should examine the symbiosis of Muslims and Jews and Muslims and Christians.  Let’s start with the “Jews of Islam.”  There are a couple of ways in which the relationship between the Jews and the Muslims shaped both organisms over time.  Jews and Muslims had extensive and intimate contacts involving intellectual association, cooperation and comingling.  This reflects the easy-going nature between the Jews and the Muslims.  These two “organisms” seem to coexist peacefully.  The symbiosis fit them well.  Jews provided a lot of prophetic information for Muslim scholars as they were very educated about the Prophets.  This ties in the idea of “benefit” that is included in the definition of symbiosis.  The Jews benefited the Muslims in this way.  However, the Jews were also able to make a way for themselves living in Islamdom as well.  This was often through the practice of medicine or the handling of money.  This brings to mind a personal friendship.  I was best friends with a Jewish girl named Judith, who I called Jewdy.  As a Muslim, being friends with her was very easy because we had so much in common.  For instance, we shared some of the same dietary restrictions and she understood the importance of my prayer obligation.     Dietary laws, martyrdom, etc. are some of the ways in which Muslims and Jews “fit” or shared in common.  A Jew was much more likely to convert to Islam first than to convert to Christianity during the pre modern age.  To me it seems that Jews and Muslims “fit” and could live together sharing with and benefiting thoughts and ideas and even faith (as some Jews converted to Islam).

            The relationship between the Christians and the Muslims though strikes me as less “beneficial” to either party in comparison to the relationship between Muslims and Jews.  It seems that their relationship was a little less “involved.” In matters of conversion, there were some Christian converts.  These always sparked the interest of the Muslims who found some benefit then out of spreading Islam.  When the Jews converted to Islam, it was less significance to the Muslims and more of something that was “inevitable.”

            It seems that in large part, the relationship between the Muslims and Non-Muslims “fit” all parties meaning that it worked for them.  They were able to not only live peacefully but also share and adopt each other ideas, become close friends in some instances and share intellectual property. 

"Seek knowledge from the cradle to the Grave" - Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)

In life, people will have different opinions regarding almost anything from the best candy to the use of cell phones in public school.  However, there are some things that simply must be accepted as truth.  The importance of knowledge in Islam reflects a point of truth, provided numerous evidence.  As the famous quote by Prophet Muhammad goes, “Seek knowledge even as far as China.”  This was directed to the believing men and women of the Islamic community and Muslims today still live by this hadith.  The hadith is otherwise known as “Seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave.”  Either way, knowledge is an essential component of Islam as it is central to worship and goodliness.  Learning is seen as worship since the learning of Qur’an and hadith and “the law to which the revelation pointed” is commanded by God for his servants.  The knowledge that God commands of his servants regarding guidelines by which to live can be passed down from generation to generation.  Think about it this way, if Islam were an organism, it would consume knowledge and the hearts of the people.  Islam would reproduce through madrasa’s, interactions between people (including dawwah), etc.  
So, what exactly are madrasas?  Madrasa is a noun of place derived from the verb meaning “to study.”  Before madrasas, most studying, especially religious study, was done in the mosque.  The distinction between mosque and madrasa is a little of a blur and should “remind us that the transmission of knowledge for Muslims was an act of piety.  Simple.  But, what exactly is studied at madrasas?  This is where things get difficult to discuss.  There are some scholars who say that madrasas in Damascus lacked a curriculum and that learning was dependent on the teacher and/or the student.  Most scholars can agree that madrasas were a turning point in medieval culture history.  Still, to what extent did madrasas dominate education?
It seems that Chamberlain believes that although madrasas were a significant turning point in higher education during this period, there was nothing too special about it.  Learning had been going on prior to the formation of the madrasa in these circle groups and in the mosque.  The name of the madrasa also seemed to hold little weight in comparison with the name of the professor, or shaykh, which seemed to be most important.  Chamberlain discusses the differences between universities in Europe in relation to madrasas as he discusses a lack of curriculum within madrasas, an informal learning style, the lack of a “degree” from specific madrasas, etc.  Berkeley on the other hand seems to have a different outlook on madrasas and holds them to a higher significance than Chamberlain.  The tone of both Chamberlain and Berkley’s introduction are quite different from each other.  Chamberlain seems more critical of madrasas being something special while Berkley seems to find madrasas exceptionally important.
More specifically, Berkley seems to have a milder tone.  Speaking of the elite and their relationship with madrasas, he says that the madrasas were “established and endowed as a pious act by wealthy individuals.”  On the other hand, Chamberlain states that the ruling elite funded madrasas to benefit themselves. Was the funding of madrasas a pious act of the elite group or was it merely seeking self-gain?  Chamberlain seems to critique the aspects of the madrasa institution.
In my humble opinion, like both Berkley and Chamberlain and most scholars I believe that madrasas were important in the higher learning.  Most importantly though, I believe that madrasas reflect the importance of learning and knowledge in Islam.  Going back to Islam as an organism, madrasas are the descendent of Islam meaning that madrasas are of high standing.  What bothers me about Chamberlain is that he seems to be too busy comparing madrasas to universities elsewhere and it reflects a sense of discretization.  Does it matter if madrasas lacked a curriculum during this period?  Learning was still taking place.  Madrasas were new.  What is more important is that the Islamic community was placing an emphasis on learning as commanded by God.  The madrasas were specialized institutions of learning due to all that they embodied.  They were a step from learning in the mosque to something that was “bigger” and better able to serve the purpose of seeking knowledge.  Case closed.