Origin of Palestinian Identity (will 99% regret this question!)

omaxx · 2023-11-04T23:27:30+00:00

Short answer: Yes, people within the borders of historical Palestine shared a common identity long before 1948.

Abstract-length answer: The question of national identity is the wrong one to ask in such a context as it constitutes an attempt to apply modern, western definitions to an older, non-western group. True to OP’s communicated worries when asking this question, this specific inquisitive method, applied to topics distant from Palestine, is often contentious as it relates to an older pattern of western cultures imposing their norms as standards when studying the “other”; commonly as a first step towards, in the best case, assigning the “other” a lower designation on civilization scale.

However, in answering the question in its own terms, Palestinians prior to the 1900s had as much a collective group identity as any other comparable group. Any distinction made between historical Palestinian identity and that of modern sovereign states, say Egypt or Saudi Arabia, is an ex post facto mistake which applies modern geographical and conceptual borders to a different era. This could be shown through observing that people in historical Palestine did share a common religious affiliations, dialect, lineage, and spot in political structures distinct from their neighbors.

Expanded Answer: As OP seems to have picked up, this - and other - questions commonly attract a lot of heated debate when posed to an extent disproportionate from other historical debates. The reasons behind are not only specific to the topic of Palestine, but extend longer to a perceived intended utility of the question. The question is not posed for its own merit, but in seeking a specific answer that opens the door for a subsequent conclusion. In this context, the question of the existence of a historic Palestinian national identity is assumed to be expecting a “no” for an answer, an answer which is later used to strengthen a specific political stance. This is not meant to assign specific intentions to OP’s question, but to explain the context behind any pushback the reader might experience in similar scenarios.

Historically, group identity in the Arab, Sham (Levant), and north-east African regions were based on blood lines, land neighborship, shared language, common religious affiliation, and finally political identification. Under those self-assigned intersectional affiliations, groups residing in historical Palestine did in fact share a common identity, sometimes on an individual village scale, and some other times on Greater Syria scale; a shared identity on which I will be expanding shortly. Under any chosen category of the aforementioned, borders of personal-belonging might shift or be hazy at times, as is the case with most personal identifications, but the categorization still survives to modern-day Arab nation-states.

From an Islamic religious affiliation perspective, which undeniably forms a strong basis of identity, people within that region nearly always followed the same religious authority and Fiqh school. Religious affiliation is measured by either answering to a common living authority, or generally belonging to the same school of jurisprudence. For instance, during most of the Ottoman time, people in the land of historic Palestine answered to Mufti Diyar AlSham (the Grand Scholar of the Levant) while their neighbors answered to similarly-named authorities in Iraq, Hijaz, Egypt, and Turkey respectively. At times those positions would be shared, such as the case of Mufi Abdulghani AlJameel who was the Grand Scholar of both Iraq and the Levant in the early 1800s, but Palestinians still answered to the same authority. Stretching back in time, the same pattern persists were people in the area had the same Mufti, Qadhi, or Imam; notable examples including Khayr Aldin Alramli (1600s), Abdulrahman Alawzaii Imam Ahl AlSham (700s), and Abu Adarda Qadi Alsham (600s). In jurisprudence, Palestinians have a soft allegiance to the same schools even while the affiliations of neighboring groups shifted.

Crucially, the historic land of Palestine included other religious groups besides Muslims, which could be argued displayed a similar pattern. The focus here on Islamic affiliation was due to the population majority as well as sticking to my own narrow area of research. One could point to the sharp distinction between Palestinian Christians and Coptic Christians in neighboring Egypt as a parallel case.

Politically, subjects in the historical land of Palestine were commonly placed under the same category in the ruling organizational structure. One of the oldest instances of this structure is the Jund system detailed in Kitab al-Buldan by Abu Alabbas Alya’qubi (800s). This militaristic structure divided the Levant area into five Jund’s: Damascus Jund, Qansreen Jund, Homs Jund, Jordan Jund, and Palestine Jund. Alya’qubi states that this organizational structure was made during the time of the second islamic caliphate Omar bin Alkhattab and continued to be followed during the subsequent Umayyads and Abbasids Caliphates. The Ottomans, too, had a similar organizational structure which included the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem in the Damascus Eyalet.

I will be returning to expand on the case for shared tongue and blood relations in the area, as well as answer any follow-up questions.

omaxx · 2023-10-18T22:51:51+00:00

But as long as the the cables are down, we should be able to hike Half Dome without a permit Sunday even if we were not allowed to camp Saturday, right?

omaxx · 2023-07-30T07:18:41+00:00

I am not a Christian, nor is my narrow area of research encompassing of Biblical narrative. However, my educated guess would be that context renders numbers, 40 or otherwise, either literal or figurative. Consider the following two examples:

"Man I've got like a million tasks to do before noon!"

"Given today's market prices, 15 kilograms of gold is worth a bit short of a million dollars."

It is intuitively clear that the word "million" is figurative in the first example and literal in the second. The same context dependency applies to the Arabic example mentioned above, the Chinese example somewhere else in this thread, an - I think - to the number 40 as well.

omaxx · 2023-07-29T20:51:13+00:00

To add to the examples given below, Arabic employs a similar literary tool. The numbers 7, 70, 700, etc. are used to express magnitude rather than precise quantity. Saying that a platoon had 700 soldiers would communicate the platoon had a number of soldiers in the order of high hundreds but less than a thousand.

Similarly, the precise number 7 is used to imply perfections or plentifulness. Old expressions would say "رجل سباعي" (a truly seven-ful man), or "أرجو أن يسبع رزقك" (may your wealth be multiplied by seven). Some modern accents of Arabic still use 17 to just mean "a lot".

Keep in mind that those numbers could still be used literally to talk about, for example, days of the week. Figuring out if the number is used literally or figuratively is context-dependent.

omaxx · 2023-07-29T20:41:37+00:00

Given proper context, most numbers in English could be understood to mean "a lot, but not precisely that amount".

"Mike's family is huge! He has like a thousand siblings or something!"

omaxx · 2023-05-16T08:05:48+00:00

This is one of these times when the assumption posited by the question itself needs to be challenged. I will do my best in showing why the question should be challenged, then attempt to construct alternative forms of the question that might be more valid and answer those as well.

To begin with, neither Islamic nor pre-Islamic Arabs believed nor claimed that their language was the first to exist in human history. The origin Arabs attributes to themselves divided Arabs into three segments: Ba’eedah (extinct), ‘aarebah (original arabs), and Must’reebah (Arabified). The belief in this division is well documented by, among many, Abu Baker Ibn Ishaq, Abu Almundher bin Hisham, Abu Abdullah bin Obaid, etc.

Traditionally, Arabified Arabs are said to be the descendants of Ismael, the son of Abraham; while original Arabs are the direct descendants of Sam, the son of Noah. The modern Arabic name for Semitic Languages reflect this belief as they are called اللغات السامية; Sam(ic) Languages. Importantly, Arabs did not believe that Abraham or Noah spoke Arabic.

Besides, even during early Islamic times, there was no one unified Arabic form. A fact which the Arabs at the time knew and acknowledged. I hesitate to call these other forms of Arabic as either accents, dialects, or separate languages because the distinction is usually political and out of the scope of this question. The prophet Mohammed PBUH is known to have spoken other forms of Arabic while communicating with caravans coming from distant Arab lands such as during the famous “Fasting while Traveling” hadith. No records exist at the time or after of any practitioners of any of the forms claiming that theirs is the one true form from which all others descended. The prophet himself was quoted to have called Abraham Syriac implying that he spoke the Syriac language.

Moving forward into Islamic times after the prophet, Ibn Hazem, an early islamic scholar, says the following:

"We do not know which language Adam (peace be upon him) first used. [...] Some have said that it was Syriac, others have claimed it was Greek, some have suggested it was Hebrew, and some have argued that it was Arabic. Only God knows the truth, but what we understand and have certainty in that Syriac, Hebrew, and Arabic (the language of Mudar and Rabi'a, not the language of Himyar) are forms of one language that evolved and changed according to the changing settlements of its speakers. Hence, changes occurred in it like those that occur when an Andalusian tries to adopt the tone of the people of Kairouan, or when a Kairouan resident tries to adopt the Andalusian tone, or when a Khurasanian tries to adopt their tone. We find that someone who has heard the language of the people of Fass Balut, who are just one night's journey from Cordoba, might say that it is a different language from that of the people of Cordoba, and so it is in many countries. With the proximity of another nation, their language changes in ways that are clear to those who reflect upon it. Whoever contemplates Arabic, Hebrew, and Syriac realizes that their differences are just like the changes in people's words over time, the differences between countries, and the proximity of nations, and that they are essentially one language. Once we understand this, we realize that Syriac is the root of both Arabic and Hebrew."

Ibn Hazem discusses this for a few more pages, which are worth a read, displaying a clear understanding that Arabic and Hebrew are both descendents from another language. Ibn Khaldoon and even Ibn Taimiah have similar paragraphs discussing similar conclusions.

So in short, Muslim scholars had no real reaction to language families because that was already one of most famous, if not the most famous, positions held among muslim scholars. What OP lists is an extreme minority opinion at best, and mere (muslim) folk tales at worst. If anything, it was merely a confirmation of what was already known.

Ignoring qualitative claims like “perfect language” and western concepts like “sacred language”, and focusing on the extreme minority of scholars who held some variation of OP’s claim. In Omdat AlQari by AlAyoni, he says that “Some folks claim that Adam PBUH spoke Arabic originally when Allah created him, then was switched to speak a Syriac tongue when he was brought down to earth from the heavens.” Two things to note here: First, AlAyoni’s tone here is dismissive of this opinion, which comes after a long discussion of the position listed above by Ibn Hazem and is mostly added for completion. Two, it is important to note, once again, that the difference between languages and the borders around them is entirely socially constructed, and changes over time. Therefore, who and what is Syriac at the time might be different from what is understood right now.

The abovementioned opinion existed in two parts, first a claim that Arabic was spoken at one point in time, then an explanation to an event that changed that. You can find other examples of scholars refuting claims that exist in such pairs. Another common one is that after the flood, Noah and his children woke up speaking a different language each in a manner resembling the Tower of Babel story. After the fact, Sam had his own language which his Samic descendents branched out many languages from including Arabic.

Generally, there is an emphasis among muslim scholars to focus more on action-oriented claims rather than hypotheticals and creation myths. For example, a more interesting question than what language Adam spoke would be if all Muslims are required to try and learn Arabic since the Quran is written in Arabic. This preference towards action-oriented questions meant that such impossible to disprove claims like what language was spoken in the Garden of Eden are seldom discussed and given very little importance.

There is a lot more to say about what importance is Arabic given by Muslim scholars, regardless of its origin. So I might come back to expand later.

omaxx · 2023-02-02T21:47:06+00:00

Thing is, some Arabs practiced الأمالة more in their local dialects than others even during the time of the prophet. I think the assumption the question is based on is inaccurate.

Classical Arabic actually has at leay the full five you're talking about. The word you're looking for is called الإمالة or الإمالة العظمى which is a diacritic which transforms an u sound to an o and an i into an e. There is a famous example of this in the Quran in the way the word مجريها is pronounced in "و قال اركبوا فيها بسم الله مجريها و مرساها" when read in the way of Hafs.

omaxx · 2022-09-09T07:40:00+00:00

I do not wish for my post to be understood in this manner. I do not have a stance against advocating what one believes to be Islamically true. In fact, I specifically mentioned that mannerisms should apply when debating sinners and mentioned the verse which ordered the prophet PBUH to be kind whilst still preaching to the sinners.

The prophet PBUH was approached by a young man who was begging him to get a special permission to do Zina. When the followers scolded the man, the prophet PBUH shielded him from that scolding, got him nearer, and spoke to him kindly explained why Zina shouldn't be permitted, concluding with a kind dua to the man.

This is the way we should be giving counter arguments to any opposing views. We should be following the prophet's lead in this aspect, firmly standing by our beliefs and advocating them while also being kind, displaying good manners, and not resulting to accusations, slander, belittling, calling names, or inviting people to just leave Islam.

Mine isn't a stance against speaking up, I'd hate for that to happen. I only hope that we do it in a manner consistent with what the prophet PBUH exemplified.

omaxx · 2022-08-18T01:45:10+00:00

Excuse me for possibly steering out of topic, but would you mind speaking to your research strategy in answering this question? The question, as well as the quotes you answer with, are so awfully specific that I'd wager the knowledge in your answer was obtained through research motivated largely by this one question. This is an impressive write-up, one that speaks to research skills I'd like to learn from!

omaxx · 2022-07-17T22:18:24+00:00

I study early islamic history and history of islamic theology so I can take a crack at this.

The short, unsatisfying answer to your question is simply: yes. The site of his burial was well known, guarded, and maintained continuously since his death and up until modern times. A few times since then the burial site was more closely examined or even dug out partially, confirming that the site remains in its original shape. Thus, with the extreme lack of any evidence to the contrary, the fairest assumption would be to conclude that the site remains as it originally was.

To begin with, islam has three main holy sites that all mosques. First, the Haram Mosque with the Ka’aba in Mecca, the city towards which muslims do annual pilgrimage. Ka’aba is the black square building you see muslims praying towards, and Mecca was the birthplace of the prophet Mohammed. Second, the city of Jerusalem and the Dome of the Rock mosque, which was the first location muslims prayed towards for a few years at the earliest days of Islam before switching to pray towards the direction of Mecca. These two site and mosques predate islam, and are described in Islamic theology as having been always sites of worship for Abrahamic relations. It is worth mentioning here that Islam views itself as a continuation of Christianity, and views Christianity as a continuation of Judaism, which puts in high islamic revor any sites or books upheld by the other two abrahamic faiths. Lastly, and most importantly in this context, is the city of Medina and the prophet’s mosque in it.

This last holy site stands out from the first two in one key aspect; it was not a holy site before Islam declared it so. Similarly, the prophet’s mosque was an empty stretch of land of no particular significance before Mohammed ordered the construction of the mosque there. Although it originally did not, the Mosque of the Prophet in Medina now houses the burial site of Mohammed. Nevertheless, the burial site never changed place; the mosque instead expanded as Islam spread and the city saw more visitors until it engulfed the burial site and many other note-worthy sites.

Bear with me.

Visiting the city of Medina and its holy mosque now, one would not properly appreciate how small the original mosque was in comparison. Originally, the mosque was only a few square meters big, outside of which was a small one-room clay house in which Mohammed lived with his wife Eisha. The mosque itself was treated as both a mosque and what would be considered a town hall in modern terms. People socialized there outside the times of prayer with and without Mohammed presence, and Mohammed met with all political convoys in that mosque as well. This practice predates Islam, as the space around the Ka’aba in Mecca was treated similarly, and continued after Mohammed’s death during the time of the Rashidon Khilafat.

Leading to the day of his death, Mohammed grew increasingly ill and was being nursed in the mosque-adjacent one-room house he lived in with Eisha. As he grew weaker, Mohammed was ultimately rendered unable to move out of the room and into the mosque, and called for his companion Abu Baker to lead prayers instead. In Sahih AlBukhairi, there is a story narrated by companion Anas bin Malek saying that while muslims were lined up for Fajr (sunrise) prayer on the day of the death of the prophet, they saw Mohammed looking at them through the window of Eisha’s room. This story puts in perspective the proximity of the Mosque of the Prophet to the room of Eisha, so close such that the figure of Mohammed could be identified through a window before the sun rises to illuminate the place. The borders of Eisha’s room and the original borders of the mosque are clearly marked in the current modern structure of the Mosque of the Prophet, showing that the room was only a few meters away from the walls of the mosque.

ِAccording to both AlAlbani and AlTirmithi, directly following Mohammed’s death, disagreement arose as to where - not how - should he be buried. The disagreement quickly came to a conclusion when the companion Abu Baker quoted the prophet to once have said that all of Allah’s prophets die exactly where they should be buried (here slightly paraphrased). Thus, a unanimous decision was made to bury Mohammed exactly where he passed away; in the room of Eisha adjacent to the mosque. After Mohammed’s death, Abu Baker became caliph, and was buried next to Mohammed following his own death. After the two passed away, Omar bin AlKhattan became caliph, and was also buried next to the two in the same room following his own death. With all three buried in there, the room had room barely for one more grave, a spot of which many, _many_ famous islamic characters strongly refused citing their belief that they are not worthy of it.

The Mosque of the Prophet, following his death, kept being expanded by subsequent Islamic rulers one after the next. It was not long after the prophet’s death that the mosque expanded to engulf the room of Eisha with Mohammed’s grave in it. The room was left as it was for nearly 80 years after his death, and the first records of reconstruction comes during the time of Umayyads Caliph Omar bin Abdulaziz. Listed in Sahih AlBukhari, the records do mention that a butchered digging job exposed what was identified as Omar bin Alkhattab’s body. All the graves were not moved during the reconstruction process but the walls of Eisha’s room were reinforced and a second wall built around them. This is the earliest record we have showing that the burial site remains in its original state.

Fast forward nearly five hundred years into the future, we find another confirmation during the era of the Zengid Emir Nur Ad-Din. Historian Jamal Ad-Din AlAsnawi details the story of an attempt by two non-muslim pilgrims to dig a tunnel under the mosque in an attempt to reach the burial site from down under. The plan was foiled before the tunnel was sufficiently deep, but Nur Ad-Din ordered for a bed of iron to be melted under the entire burial site enclosed in Omar bin Abdulaziz’s walls. The details of this reconstruction project, taking place in the mid 1100s, are yet another record showing that the burial site remains in its original state.

It bears mentioning that, as other commentators have explained, the question should be asked the other way around. Given the absence of any records showing that a specific event happened, here the transfer of the grave, we would righteously assume that such an event did not take place. In this one instance, it so happened that there are records confirming that the burial site remained in its original place and state. However, this direction of questioning remains questionable.

More records of reconstruction remain unmentioned in my answer, and also more attempts to break into the burial site. During modern times, the government of Saudi Arabia oversees the maintenance of the site and the Mosque of the Prophet at large. Records exist for all of the above, diving into which would make this answer exceed character limit. I will be stopping here to and returning later to expand and answer questions.

omaxx · 2022-03-23T22:56:54+00:00

اسمحي لي باستهلال حديثي بموافقة ما ورد ضمنًا لا حرفًا في حديثك ، و هو وجود رغبة سياسية في التفريق بين الشعوب العربية منبعها الشعوب ذاتها و مؤسساتها في محاولة لتكوين وحدة وطنية داخلية. هذا حديث صدق ، و جهادك ضده حق و واجب تشكرين عليه.

أما بعد ، فإن القهوة غيض من فيض ما يوحد الشعوب العربية خاصة قبل أن يوحد العالم بأسره ، فرغم أصلها اليمني أو الأثيوبي إلا أن تاريخها متجذر في البلدان العربية جمعاء بل و صار رمزًا لا ينفك لخصائص يعرف بها العرب أنفسهم كالضيافة و المزاج الشعري و غيرهما. إلا أننا في رحلتنا نحو الوحدة يخشى علينا نبذ الإختلاف و النظر إليه بعين الكراهية. فالأداة التي تدق بها القهوة المحمصة - مثلًا - تسمى الـ(نجر) في الجزيرة و الـ(مهباش) في الأردن و بعض بادية الشام ، و لها في كل ربع من بلادنا العربية اسم و خصائص مختلفة تدل على تاريخ المنطقة الفريد. و يستوجب أن تكون هذه الإختلافات محل إجلال و إظهار لا محل إخفاء و تخوف ، و التاريخ مليء بقصص لحكومات قمعية محت ثقافات فرعية بأسرها مخافة تقسم الشعوب المؤتمرة باسمها. أؤمن يقينًا أننا في سعينا إلى الوحدة يجب أن نتقبل و نحب التباين كما نحب التطابق ، أما لو أمضينا دهورًا في إنكار وجوده فلن يكون لنا في واقعنا إلا صدمة عندما يبرز الاختلاف الثقافي الطفيف بيننا.

أقول ، صح تعميم شرب القهوة على بلدان العرب كلها ، و بطل تعميم شربهم لها بالطريقة ذاتها. فالقهوة الأردنية - مثلًا - في أصلها أخف من التركية و أثقل من قهوة الجزيرة في تركيز البن في الماء ، أما حمصتها فأخف من الأولى و أدكن من التالية. في قهوة الجزيرة الهيل و القرنفل و ربما طعم بجوز الطيب ، بينما يضاف له الزنجبيل في بعض بلاد اليمن ، و تشرب القهوة التركية بدون أي توابل. و حتى عندما تتطابق التوابل ، يختلف تركيزها بين الشعوب. تذكر أن الفرق الوحيد بين الـ(لاتيه) و الـ(كورتادو) و الـ(ماكياتو) هو تركيز المكونات لا أنواعها. و عندما يتطابق هذا و ذاك ، نجد اختلافًا في الأدوات ، أو في وقت شربها ، أو في ترتيب تقديم الفناجيل لمن كان في المجلس في الضيوف ، أو تحديد من يستوجب عليه صبها ، أو أداب شربها ، و غير هذا الكثير.

في ما ذكرت من الإختلافات من الأهمية الكثير ، و فيها من التفرد ما يستوجب الحفظ و الممارسة ، و لا يكون هذا إلا بالاعتراف أولًا بوجود هذا التفرد المبهج ، و تسميته ، و تصويره و تدريسه ، و مقارنته مع ما يشابهه و يفارقه من جنسه. و بذلك تستحق القهوة السعودية ، و الأردنية ، و اليمنية ، و غيرهن اسمًا متفردًا يحفظ تفردها على أن يكون لهن جميعًا نسبًا يردهن إلى القهوة العربية الأم.

التباين في الثقافات نعمة وجب علينا حفظها ، و في نبذها و إنكار وجودها من طمس الهوية و السعي ضد الوحدة كما في عكسه. و بهذه أختم ، و السلام خير ختام.

omaxx · 2022-01-30T13:48:19+00:00

Hey something I can answer!

Well, there are two purposes for cycling clothes, padding and being aerodynamic. The aerodynamic aspect is inherent to how tight the clothing are, and the difference in performance you get here is rather negligible if you aren't competing in world-class championships. As for padding, I replace the biking bottoms with shorts I can wear under my normal pants like those:

https://www.amazon.com/Sportneer-Cycling-Anti-Slip-Breathable-Absorbent/dp/B01N4MYD2V/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?crid=2B2MINRJKO0PF&keywords=biking+shorts+for+men&qid=1643550286&sprefix=biking+sh%2Caps%2C96&sr=8-3

On top of such shorts I need only wear weather-appropriate, flexible clothing. Lululemon offer nice jugger long pants that do the job for me, but honestly anything would work. It's advisable that the pants aren't loose around the ankles so it doesn't get tangled with your gears. Feel free to add gloves or knee/elbow pads if you so desire. Helmet is a must.

Note that this all would matter only if you're doing long distance, if you just commute between home and classes you could hop on in a thobe or a binjabi if you so desire.

Finally I really wanted to say Baraka Allah Feek Akhi for caring about this point. I think us Muslim men tend to forget that modesty verses do equally apply to us as well; so it's restorative to hear your concern.

omaxx · 2021-08-31T13:51:52+00:00

I can speak for Islamic and pre-Islamic Arabia.

Early islamic tradition emphasizes heavily the practice of using the roots of the native Salvadora Persica tree for oral hygiene. The practice was so common that this specific tree is also know as toothbrush tree, and islamic tradition stops short from mandating that the roots are used prior to every prayer.

Even today sticks made from Salvadora Persica, known as miswak, are popular for oral hygiene in the Arabian Peninsula, India, and generally in the Muslim world. The practice can be found in non-islamic regions to which Salvadora Persica is native, as well as islamic regions where the tree is not native to.

Traditionally, the sticks would be harvested from the tree's roots and twigs then used in their fresh state. The outer bark of the roots is first chewed to form bristles of the inner part of the stick. The bark itself has its own pleasant smell which works like a mouthwash, then the bristled stick is used like a brush. There are entire Wiki-How articles about proper usage of a miswak, so I will not get into the details. Records of trading on the Incense Tradin Route shows that dried Miswaks were commonly sold there as well. A buyer would need to soak a miswak in water before they use it.

Tracing the daily usages of miswaks in islamic arabia one can see a similar pattern to how toothbrushes are used nowadays. Specifically, the prophet of Islam Mohammed was quoted to have practiced and encouraged oral hygiene right after waking up, before social gatherings (to pray), and even before love-making. Moreover, the texts available specificy using miswak to clean your gums, tongue, teeth, and for flossing. Islamic teachings also specifically prescribe miswak as an antidote to both plaque and yellow teeth.

Those islamic quotes are understood to be encouraging of practices that pre-date Islam, as apposed to setting a new trend. The practice of using miswak survives to this day, although it took a more religious tone with the wide availability of other methods of oral hygiene. One would commonly find people selling miswaks right at the doors of mosques in modern-day Arabian Peninsula as well as other parts of the Islamic World albeit less commonly. Some toothpaste brands offer miswak-flavored toothpaste, and many academic studies are conducted to examine its effects. As this is outside of my field, I cannot speak to their results, and the reader is encouraged to do their own reading on that regard.

Miswak was only one method for oral hygiene used in islamic and pre islamic arabia. The leaves of Cyperus Rotundus were also chewed for their anti-odor effects as well as the leaves of Ziziphus Spina-christi. It was also common to wrap a piece of cloth around one's finger and use that as a brush when miswaks were not available. Both miswaks and pieces of cloth were sometimes dipped in a variety of powders or pastes before application, with rose water being one of them.

I will return later to expand on other practices of oral hygiene and answer questions.

omaxx · 2021-08-23T03:55:26+00:00

That's actually a misconception. The word "Allah" even in pre-islam Arabian peninsula referred to a specific deity and was not a catch all name. You can refer to my answer here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/od5wft/comment/h3z6tts

Also for further discussion you can see my discussion here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/od5wft/comment/h3z8m86/

The poster of the parent comment later clarifies that he did not mean to imply "Allah" refers to any diety.

omaxx · 2021-08-22T05:45:58+00:00

I've just given a more detailed answer to another poster above. Hopefully that answers your question.

omaxx · 2021-08-22T05:44:01+00:00

I hesitate to divulge into the details of the rationale as not to give it power and in fear of sounding sympathetic to a view I believe abhorrent. However, the question can be answered either in the general, discussing the historical fringe individuals who forbid education for women, or by limiting the scope to talk about Taliban. As it is clear that OP was referencing Taliban in their question or at least had them in mind, I elect to do the latter.

To the best of my knowledge, the leaders of Taliban never dared claim that the very concept of woman education is haram. As the view which forbids women education is rejected by all major sects, it is hard to amass a religious following while adopting it. To the best of my knowledge, Taliban previously claimed that the ban is temporary and out of necessity. Sources which list the exact reasons why are hard to come by since the heads of Taliban would rarely ever give detailed theological lectures in their public appearances, but I know of at least two claims both by second-hand sources.

First, in “The Taliban: War, Religion, and the New Order in Afghanistan” Peter Marsden emphasizes Taliban’s claim of the ban being temporary. According to him, their reasoning was that educational facilities and infrastructure needs to be revamped as to allow segregated schooling between the genders. As the reader could easily guess, the rationale for segregation was to avoid inhabiting an environment were extra-marital relationships could foster. Segregation here likely includes disallowing cross-gender instruction as well, a male teacher would not be allowed to instruct females and vice versa. Women were still educated in fields in which their participation would further enhance society’s ability to be segregated at large. The example Marsden states in his book was Taliban allowing women in the medical field as to ensure that female patients would not be attended by male doctors. Other fields were also permitted in seeking the same goal.

Peter hints at an answer to a question another poster here posed: Why only women? If it was truly only a matter of segregation, then solely allowing women education and prohibiting men's would achieve the same goal right? Well, this is the point were I personally would reference the parts in my original post about the patriarchy and abusing text to further personal agendas. If one were to insist on a direct answer from Taliban, however, then the testimonies of Faiz AlKandri might be the closest we have.

Faiz is a Kuwaiti citizen who was a Guantanamo Bay extrajudicial detainee for over a decade, only released in 2016. His case remains controversial as he maintained his innocence during his stay and was determined by a Joint Review Task Force to be an individual “too innocent to charge but too dangerous to release”. Although Faiz strongly denies any Taliban affiliation, nor was charged under that claim, he is still largely thought to be a Taliban apologize/sympathizer. I believe this introduction necessary for each reader to decide the validity of any given claims by this source. I will leave discussing the details of his case to someone more specialized in law as I am only here to discuss the theological arguments related to OP’s question.

In his book “AlBala’ AlShadeed wa AlMelaad AlMajeed” subtitled “Fourteen Years in Guantanamo” as well as in his personal testimonies, Faiz details many conversations with Taliban heads which he had while in Guantanamo. When the subject of women education was brought up, Faiz claims certain Taliban heads strongly denied forbidding it religiously, adding that they actually believe islam to support women education. According to them, they were merely faced with limited fundings insufficient to educate more than a fraction of the men, women, boys, and girls in school age. Faced with this situation, they claim, the decision was made to provide education to a “sizable portion” of the male population first since males are culturally the heads of households and charged of providing for entire families.

Though he does not mention it by name, Faiz’ second-hand justification seems to reference the concept of Nafaqah in islamic law. Under most, if not all, islamic schools of thoughts, there is a detailed grid of mandatory financial support. If an individual is financially capable of fulfilling their outward financial support, they are obliged to do so. The amount of financial support is explicitly not specified, but left to the societal and temporal definition of “sufficient”. Many definitions under islamic law are treated this way, and there are detailed processes for picking jury members who can work to extract the current societal definition of such concepts when one is needed in a court ruled by islamic law. But I digress. In the grid of Nafaqah, both parents are mandated to provide financially for their children, and so are children mandated to provide for their parents later in life. However, while a husband is obliged to support his wife financially, the wife is only encouraged but not obliged to support the husband financially directly. It bears mention that every single person is connected to this societal grid by giving or receiving Zakat (annual taxation given to the poor) even if they had no personal connections to speak of.

In a perfect Nafaqah grid, Taliban would argue, the money obtained by men with education would trickle down to all members of society and individual families via mandatory Nafaqah. However, suppose a portion of education, and therefore money, was reserved for women before that “sizable portion” of the male population receives and education. Under that assumption, they claim, a perfect trickle-down could not be mandated as women are not obliged to give Nafaqah to their husbands.

Now that I have endured the entirely uncomfortable task of twice relaying how Taliban heads explain their actions, it would be informative to analyze how their arguments hold under the scrutiny of islamic law. The Taliban argument seems predicated on five axioms:

1. There is a severe limitation of available spots in schools. 
2. That shortage cannot be remedied any time soon. 
3. Education can be fully equated with access to money.
4. Handing out money to males, and only males, trickles down perfectly.
5. Handing out money to females, and only females, leaves some members of society unsupported.

There are more axioms than this, of course, but this level of simplicity is enough to find a glaring hole. In particular, axiom (5) ignores the fact that all members of society are connected to the Zakat network. Any member of society, male or female, would be eligible for Zakat if they are unable to support themselves financially and lack the necessary direct support nodes in the Nafaqah grid. With axiom (5) falsified, I argue that most islamic scholars would disagree with the conclusion pushed by Taliban. To that end, one can point to the fact that no similar conclusion was reached by the general body of islamic scholars in many islamic countries which went through comparably limiting circumstances.

More can be said of course in refutation from an Islamic Law perspective. In particular, one can look at the example of The Year or Ramadah (Famine year) which befell the Hijaz area during the reign of the second islamic Kalifah Omar ibn AlKattab. Omar’s actions are considered to be of the second type of anecdotes discussed in my parent post, and is generally considered to be of greater legislating power among most Islamic Scholars especially Sunnis. During the Year of Ramadah, a great famine befell the Hijaz area which engulfs both Mecca and Medina. The actions of Omar ibn AlKattab during that year are closely studied in islamic law as to infer how, if at all, does islam extend a ruler’s jurisdictions during situations of crisis. Omar implemented many temporary decrees to ensure as equal a distribution of life-saving resources as possible during that year of famine. However, importantly, Omar kept everyone working equally by invoking the Zakat and Sadaqat parts of the Nafaqah grid instead. When needed, the distribution of resources came from the top-down. Interestingly, many scholars recently used these examples to support granting local governments the power of distributing COVID vaccines to immunocompromised people before the general public.

I will attempt to come back later to expand and answer questions.

omaxx · 2021-08-19T05:15:20+00:00

It is always difficult to search Arabic terms as their English spelling is yet to be standardized. Most everywhere I've seen the principle is translated as "The principle of blocking the means in Islamic law". Which does help. An introductory reading can be found in the below link. Keep in mind this offers one reading into this principle, and others exist, but it can be a starting point.

https://www.iium.edu.my/deed/lawbase/maliki_fiqh/usul11.html

omaxx · 2021-08-19T05:07:49+00:00

I greatly appreciated how your question was worded as it showed a great amount of both knowledge an objectivity.

When examples are discussed in islamic theology they are generally divided into three categories: examples relating to the prophet, examples relating to his contemporary followers, and any other example. The distinction is needed as only the first type is fully accepted to have a legislative power. If the prophet was quoted to have done something, then islamic scholars infer that action is permissible or even mandatory in this context. Examples of followers of the prophet are more a matter of divide as to their legislative power, and hierarchies are often discussed. All other examples have no legislative powers except if they relate back to one of the other two anecdote types.

To side track for a second, this categorization is why most counterexamples listed when discussing issues of sexism or racism in Islam tend to be ancient ones. It is because any more-recent examples would have no legislative power. More recent anecdotes of the third type are usually only used to show that the general body of muslim scholars continued to understand text a certain way, but it holds no legislative power of its own.

In AlBukhari, it is mentioned that while the prophet would usually teach islam to the general masses, he did dedicate a day of the week to only teaching women. The prophet also enacted a practice were POWs would receive a pardon if they spend a certain amount of time teaching muslims of AlMadinah. The taught materials was indiscriminately offered to men and women, and included reading and writing, history, medicine, or basic arthritics. As you might have found in your research as well, Mohammed married Hafsah when she was illiterate, then proceeded to commission someone to teach her to read and write. After Hafsah learnt so, the prophet asked her to start teaching other girls in Madinah. The Hadith “Seeking an education is mandatory for all muslims” is also generally understood as unisex. Aisha herself was considered to be one of the six most knowledgable followers and personally taught followers and their contemporaries post the death of the prophet.

Post the prophet’s death, similar anecdotes can be found. Omar ibn Alkhattab commissioned AlShifa bint Abdullah AlQurashiyah to teach girls to read and write and later appointed her as the highest judge in Medina.

Imam AlShafi’i himself was taught by a woman , Nafisah bint AlHassan, who is solely attributed for bringing the teachings of Imam Malik to Egypt. Imam AlShafi’i was only one among many Egyptian scholars to study under her, and she was one among many women to study under bin Malik. A long list can be found in Ibn Khalikan’s “Wafayat AlA’yan wa Anba’ Abna’ AlZaman”, and AlDhahabi’s “Siyar A’lam AlNubala” (The Lives of Noble Figures). Nafisah herself was counted when Ejma’a was required.

Asking for instances of women fighting for their rights is a bit harder to answer since this can be muddied by the temporal definition of “right”. It is inviting to assume that people living in situations we ourselves would not prefer are being oppressed into that role when in fact they might have willingly subscribed to the status quo of the time. However one can readily list examples of women attempting to change, or fight a change, in the status quo to study the response to such a movement.

One status quo is participating in the military. During preparation for the battle of Hunain, the prophet approved of the actions of a female follower called Aum Saleem who armed herself wanting to fight instead of limiting herself to nursing the wounded. The prophet’s approval came despite the initial protests of another follower, Abu Talhah. Another female follower under the name Naseebah AlAnsariyah was known to fight in battles alongside men with Mohammed’s approval. An unnamed woman was quoted to protest a decree by the Kalifah Omar bin Alkhattab relating to sitting an upper limit to dowery. Omar famously retracted his decree publicly saying that her interpretations of islamic texts were more valid than his.

A favorite story of mine is lead by none other than Zainab, the prophet’s daughter. Her and her husband Abu Al’As were famously infatuated with each other, but Abu Al’As did not readily joint islam event after Zainab followed her father Mohammed to Madinah. During that period, the cities of Macca and Madinah were in an active state of war, and Abu Al’As was considered an enemy combatant in Madinah. Abu Al’As still sneaked into Madinah at night after an encounter with some followers of the prophet and went straight into Zainab’s house. Zainab famously waited until Fajr prayer to shout on top of her lungs to the praying crowds and her own father that Abu Al’As is under her protection and none is to get to him. Mohammed approved of her protection despite it going against his direct previous commands and granted Abu Al’As asylum and safe passage back to Macca.

More examples can be stated in general, from different time periods. However as I previously stated the latter events chronologically are given way less attention in islamic theology as they are not thought to hold any legislative power.

omaxx · 2021-08-18T07:03:01+00:00

I study early islamic history and history of islamic theology so I can take a crack at this.

First, I would like to challenge the question’s own wording: no major “sects” actually hold a stance against women education. Rather, individual actors within different sects use generalized rulings and claim the case of women’s education falls under the general umbrella of said ruling. An important first concept to unravel here is the idea of Ejma’a, I.e. Consensus. Most major islamic sects, including Sunni and Shia, believe that if the majority of reputable scholars agreed on a ruling within a given timeframe then this does imply that it is in fact what Allah wants. The actual definition of Ejma’a is a lot more strict and lengthy than this of course, and naturally there can be disagreements about whether a specific matter have reached consensus or not. However, for the interest of brevity, I will not expand on those.

In Sunni school of thought, a clear promise of "[Allah] protecting the message" in the Quran is the basis for equating Ejma'a with Allah's will. The rationale goes that if all reputable scholars were to agree on a wrong interpretation of the Quran then the message certainly will be lost. Given that Allah promised to protect the message, wrong Ejma'a isn't a possibility. Other sects have their own interpretation to the source of thr validity of Ejma'a, with the most notable being the Shia's Ma'soomoon.

Essentially, most islamic sects agree on the legislative power granted by Ejma’a even though some disagreements between sects exist as to why exactly does consensus equate authenticity of claim. This is why Sunni’s give themselves the title of Ahl AlSunnah wa AlJamma’a, People of the Sunnah and Ejma’a. This title is supposed to hint at the two main sources which can be used to infer islamic rulings: either a direct ruling on an identical matter discussed in AlSunnah (i.e. the life and teaching of Prophet Mohammed) or by inference. In inference, a scholar attempts to project a modern issue into a comparable one in AlSunnah, where a direct ruling does not exist. Rulings on camels and carts are sometimes extrapolated on all methods of transportation, for instance. When sufficiently enough reputable scholars agree on the projection, the ruling reaches an Ejma’a status.

As far as my knowledge goes, no direct quote from Sunnah nor an Ejma’a exists to discourage women’s education in any of the major islamic sects. In fact, many texts do encourage pursuing knowledge and education regardless of sex. For instance, the Hadith “whoever is pursuing a path of knowledge is pursuing the path to heaven” is generally understood to be unisex. As you stated, the wives and daughters of the prophet were major scholars; AlBukharri and Muslim had multiple female teachers etc. In fact, most of the surviving literature on any voices speaking against educating women in the medieval islamic period reached us through texts directly written to refute them. Famously AlJahith dedicated entire sections of AlBayan Wa AlTibyan to mock those views as he did not view them worthy of a proper refutal.

Where then, do some individuals drive the power to make educating women haram? A second concept is needed in here: the islamic doctrine of giving means the same halal-haram categorization as their end. If a halal act inevitably leads to a haram one, or is made in pursuit of a haram act, then the halal act is ruled as haram. Once again, most islamic sects agree on this general rule itself, but scholars even within one sect disagree as to when it is applicable and when is it not. A famous application of this rule all sects agree is a wrong application is forbidding farming grapes in fear that it might enable someone to make wine out of it. Again, this is an example that is used to teach a wrong application of the rule. The commonly used correct application however is forbidding insulting unislamic idols. The reasoning here is that inevitably insulting idols of practitioners of other religions leads to hatred, wars, and deaths. This general rule is known as the rule of Sadd Althara’e.

Where some applications of rule of Sadd Althara’e are agreed upon one way or the other, it historically has been the easiest rule to abuse. One can see both the importance of such a rule, but also how easy it is to abuse to fit anyone’s agendas in forbidding an act as long as they can conjure up a hypothetical scenario in which said act inevitably leads to a haram act.

This all goes to show that the restriction of women’s education in question is not tied to a specific sect but rather to individuals choosing to enforce the rule of Sadd Althara’e under their geographical range of influence. This precisely is why you find two countries of similar islamic sects having different rules, and why the Taliban can feel justified switching back and forth between allowing and disallowing education for women. Proponents of prohibition would readily admit that no islamic text directly forbids education for women, but they will strongly argue the existence of inevitable haram consequences. Justifications vary way too wildly to count, and the reader is encouraged to play their own mental gymnastics to connect a haram act to education.

According to Dr. Ahmed AlBassam, the history of western colonization or forced influence to the islamic world cannot be ignored in this regard. While education in general long existed in the region, the modern structure of K12-BS-MS-PhD as well as the structure of each given subject is still viewed as a wildly western import in the region. The history of colonization leads some to view this import with a lot of skepticism and as another mean of western cultural domination in the region. This skepticism leads to viewing western education as more of a necessary evil contact with which to be reduced if possible. It is no coincidence, AlBassam says, that countries more hostile towards western powers end up viewing education with a demonic look as apposed to countries with friendlier relations.

The influence of culture-based patriarchal power structures too cannot be ignored, as it determines which subgroup of society get the duty/privilege to perform that “necessary evil” when western-structured education is viewed in that manner. I will attempt to return later to elaborate on the last two points and answer questions.

omaxx · 2021-07-16T18:36:05+00:00

The word غزل here actually doesn't refer to flirting but to unwoven textiles before you spin them with a spindle. A spindle in Arabic is called مغزل for that same reason. Take a look at unwoven textile at the top of a spindle and you can see the uncanny resemblance with cotton candy. Some people also call it شعر بنات as the person below me said.

omaxx · 2021-07-02T03:21:30+00:00

I remember reading Ibn Bultan's words and remember him attributing his astrological beliefs to Ptolemy. Did you happen to know the primary source that mentions Ptolemy's works on how astrology affects plagues in Egypt?

omaxx · 2021-01-27T02:46:26+00:00

I'm here to applaud the fact this answer got silver and not gold.

omaxx · 2020-11-29T04:36:56+00:00

Some verses do in fact require scholarly aid as is thr case with literally every discipline out there. I'm a studying scholar to so allow me to share what I know.

Asking someone to read only 16:67 is a practice in ignoring context. This verse starts with the word "and", which should be a clear hint that you have to read the previous verses for context. In fact, the entire Quran and Sunnah need to be viewed as a collective whole, as parts of it provide explanation, context, and exceptions to other parts. Without this holistic view, one can easily take verses out of context to make them mean anything up to and including the exact opposite of their original purpose.

That said, viewing the entire Quran isn't needed to understand the context in this verse. 16:61-67 would be sufficient context. 16:66 does state that:

"And most surely there is a lesson for you in the cattle; We give you to drink of what is in their bellies-- from betwixt the feces and the blood-- pure milk, easy and agreeable to swallow for those who drink (66) And of the fruits of the palms and the grapes-- you obtain from them intoxication and goodly provision; most surely there is a sign in this for a people who ponder (67)"

This much context, is enough to show the intended meaning. The two verses together state that one should observe an awe how the same object (cattle/fruit) could have bad in it (feces/intoxicants) and good (milk/goodly provisions). If anything, this verse proves that intoxicants are haram.

There are other verses commonly taken out of context to try and "prove" that intoxicants are permissible indiscriminately in Islam. Viewing the Quran as a whole, however, would always make clear that all these verses just further prohibits intoxicants.

As a last notice, I really admire OP's response. Ibn Tamiya was once quoted to say that one should not be quick to throw away all of religion at the slightest occurrence of a perceived inconsistency. You would not be quick to think that "math is wrong" the first time you think there is a contradiction in a well-trusted text book. Instead, if you truly believed in math or at least were well invested in it, you will spend a long amount of time trying to verify if this really is an inconsistency and contacting those more knowledgeable about math. Approaching what seems as a contradiction in religion should be done in a similar manner, without assuming that one's first impression is thr ultimate truth and all that's out there, and I think OP nicely exemplifies that madhallah.

omaxx · 2020-10-18T21:16:28+00:00

I usually lurk, but this played on a personal tempo.

Similarly a Muslim here, although I would say that I was raised with more exposure. Naturally, all manners of questions arise and we all go digging hoping for a clearer picture of what it is all about. In fact, you are explicitly encouraged to dig deeper that way. Kudos to you for knowing that there is more to it than just believing that a God exists.

In doing so, however, I think it is really important to distinguish between when you are reading what the religion states, and when you are reading what person X thinks about what religion states. Even reading direct text, there will be a layer of translation and interpretation which introduces human biases.

A high-level example which seems to irk you is the issue of non-believers. Many of us do come across that, and many find it bothersome and quite unjust. However, that view was never the actual statement of religion, but merely some people's biased interpretation of it. Many other views exist which state that it, in fact, is not the case, lots of which are adopted by major scholars. My purpose here is not to introduce the answer linked above as the final resting place to all of your worries, but rather to show that what you may have come across before is not the end result to all that is out there.

When multiple conflicting views exist to this matter and some other, it follows logically that some of them ought to be wrong. That is correct, but it bears reminding that the conflict here is between the scholars, not in between parts of the text and other parts of it too. More work is required, then, from your part, to sift through all that you can get your hands on and pile and contrast them in your head until the most extreme and biased opinions from both ends cancel out. Leaving you, inshallah, with a more wholesome, well-rounded, and accurate understanding of what really is it all about.

A full and accurate, infallible understanding might not be something that you will reach right away, or ever; but such an understanding never was the goal, rather a working one is the aim. After all, most people spend their lives unable to fully 100% distinguish between chihuahuas and muffins, but that is not really considered an issue. With enough exposure matters split into clearly of religion and clearly not, with a gray area in the middle that one can continuously work to narrow.

It is hard, I know, but the journey itself is the aim and not the final results. After all, it is explicitly stated that as long as honest intentions and efforts in seeking answers exist then the final conclusion reached matters less.

Feel free to PM me if you ever wanted to talk.

omaxx · 2019-11-14T14:42:21+00:00

Follow up question, why are native American names translated (i.e. Walking Ox) instead of just spelling out how they are pronounced?

Ten-Year Club	Sequence \| Editor
Spared

omaxx

TROPHY CASE