#another question better to be answered by a scholar of religious studies | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

lividdreamz · 2 years ago

Note

Heya, Gemini! Sorry if I'm late for WbW, and I hope you don't mind if I try and make up for it. Going off the other one you already answered, it's a two parter, but no pressure for either!

What's an example of a "Culture between cultures" in any of your settings? As in, some shared identity or cultural phenomenon that can be seen across cultures which otherwise view themselves as very, very distinct. How does each individual group let their uniqueness shine through, within this otherwise common practice?

And now, Politics. Keeping to TCHH (since I think we've had the chance to talk about this one before!), could you tell me more about the institutions and power relationships within the Holy City? Who leads it, who runs it, is there a difference?

Cheers for the ask, mate!

Well, in regards to the question about culture, I do think one of most prevalently shared traits between them (in TCHH) has, in most part, to do with religion, which is especially surprising since all of them are so exceedingly different! Most of the religions in TCHH, in one way or another, incorporate the element fire into their religious practices—from Brechic cremation, to Enitiya’s funerary ‘baptism of fire,’ to fire-eating and fire-dancing as a tradition when it comes to Yeskeli priestesses, as well as ‘burning’ prayers written on slips of paper soaked in naphtha (a flammable liquid) . I didn’t even do this on purpose; I just found that fire as used in religious rites was really cinematic. However, considering how these cultures are entwined, it is not completely implausible that this cultural phenomenon might be the result of a cultural exchange of sorts from the past.

To be completely honest, I did end up making some small tweaks. First, renaming The Holy City. Second, giving The Holy City a twin—so now there are two, and they are, in fact, twin cities. The Sacred Cities of Raniz and Vrene. The first, Raniz, is believed to be where life began, and the other, Vrene, where life will come to an end. The Holy Powers do still reside in Raniz, though. And, just a really quick note, for clarification The Holy Powers refer to the institution at large, while The Holy Order are the sort of social stratum within The Holy Powers, as well as they rank in order of ‘importance.’ I will almost certainly be changing these names once I’ve developed this particular conlang or come across something more distinguishable.

At the top of this social ladder is TCHH’s pope-like equivalent, The Archon (I am still currently undecided on the name, but I’ll use it for now as a placeholder). The Archon, it is said, speaks to and for The Virtues (of which there are six), and has ‘final’ say on all religious doctrine. Directly beneath him are The Prophets, of whom serve a miscellany of functions depending on where The Sacred Cities are politically. They were more so soldiers during The Sacred Cities’ ‘dark age,’ and now they’re glorified missionaries, for lack of a better term. They also stand as rep. for The Archon on foreign soil—the arrival of a prophet from the Raniz to perform a matrimonial or funerary ceremony can and is symbolically interpreted as The Archon himself performing said ceremony.

The High Priests don’t necessarily fall beneath them—they’re quite neck and neck when it comes to ‘rank,’ and can even outrank Prophets in specific cases, since they serve on The Archon’s private council; The Archon himself is picked from this pool of High Priests via secret ballot, though, of course, these ballots can be tampered with or manipulated. Bribery is very common. Below The High Priests, though, are pretty much everyone else—acolytes, who are essentially a priests- and-prophets in training (most acolytes tend to be youth and children captured from borderland villages), as well as religious scholars who study manuscripts of the Hajad (which is the name of the palace where The Archon and The Holy Order reside specifically). There are an abundance of priests within The Sacred Cities—it honestly seems like there’s a prayer house on every corner, but there are priests who fall outside of the jurisdiction of The Holy Powers because of the fact that they don’t live in The Sacred Cities at all.

So, to summarise: religious scholars and acolytes are outranked by priests, who are outranked by arch-priests, who are outranked by high priests and prophets, all of whom answer to The Archon. The hierarchical system of The Holy Powers are quite complex (even I have a difficult time keeping track of all its components). I’ll probably simplify it down the line.

#so much i didn’t get to mention #and it’s not even wbw anymore smh #long post #asks #asks answered #worldbuilding #tchh #writeblr stuff

4 notes · View notes

margridarnauds · 4 years ago

Text

@inkandglitter21

This is a VERY good question! And one that I think keeps quite a few people in the field up at night, to be honest, but I’m going to give the best answer I possibly can, hence why I’m giving it its own post. My apologies in advance if this gets slightly technical - Some of this is kind of inherently technical and complicated. I also am going to HAVE to mention that I’m doing my best to represent the closest thing we can get to a consensus of the field, but that doesn’t mean that someone, in a week or so, can’t publish an article that blows this out of the water. It happens.

As a further warning, which I give every single time I discuss the issues inherent to the study of this material: I am not a religious authority. I’m a Celticist. I love the Tuatha Dé, but I can’t claim any form of spiritual connection with them. (As LGE would say, “Though the author enumerates them, she does not worship them.”) So, to anyone who reads this who might have a connection to the figures described....I can’t say anything about the relationship that you, personally, have with them. I can only say what we know, what we don’t know, and what we’re still kind of scratching our heads at with regards to the medieval material. Part of why I’ve, traditionally, sworn off talking about Bríg, Danu, and Morrigan is specifically because they tend to arouse some very strong feelings, and I never really wanted to get caught in something I couldn’t handle.

But, also. What use is a geas if you don’t break it, likely leading you to your tragic-yet-inevitable doom?

So, first off, let’s talk Lebor Gabála Érenn. MAGNIFICENT text, and a personal baby of mine. Chock full of information about the Tuatha Dé, the Fir Bolg, the Milesians, the High Kings of Ireland....basically everything a person could ever want to know. A mythographer’s dream and nightmare all in one. But, there’s a problem with it, and it’s one that I feel like Celticists have never stressed enough to the public, not the least because Celticists, as a group, tend to be a little....terrified of LGE. There are relatively few scholars who want to work with it after Macalister’s edition (to understand the reception to Macalister: A personal hobby of mine is collecting remarks other scholars have made about his edition, because they can be BRUTAL.) It has been described as “almost unreadable.” Which is kind of forgivable given the man was DYING when he made it, but still.

Why are so many scholars scared of LGE? Well, primarily, because it’s hard to say that there was one singular LGE. LGE, as we know it, was compiled in about the 11th century. Or, it began to be compiled in the 11th century. It’s a Middle Irish text (so, it’s coming significantly later than, say, Tochmarc Étaíne or Cath Maige Tuired, which are both ~9th century texts, though CMT was given revisions in the 11th century to bring it in line with LGE). And it is based off of a MUCH bigger genre of pseudohistorical texts, with many of the older texts being missing or destroyed. (The one generally most mourned by us is the one in Cín Dromma Snechta, which could have dated to as early as the 8th century and definitely contained a sort of proto-LGE. We know this because LGE cites it on occasion, so the tradition didn’t fully die out, we just don’t have the full thing.) So, to begin with, LGE is a mixed bag, based off of essentially all the work that came before it, with the scribes involved basically playing a juggling game with what prior scribes jotted down. (You can see it every once in a while, where a redactor will say something like “Certain ignorant people believe ____, but it is clearly not the case, for _________.”)

It’s almost better to view it as a scrapbook than a single text - You have about 3-4 recensions (different scholars identified different recensions) spread out over around 20 surviving manuscripts, each recension containing significant amounts of detail that vary from their counterparts. Also, studded across LGE, you have a variety of poems that are believed to date either before or at around the same time that LGE was being compiled. (Part of what drives scholars up a WALL with Macalister’s translation is that, besides not identifying the original poets for the poems featured in LGE, he also separated the poems from the text around them. And, as someone who did have to work with that translation....yeah, it is a hot mess. Sorry and RIP, Macalister, but it’s a mess.)

Now, you might wonder: Why am I telling you this? You came at me with a mythography question and I’m hitting you with manuscript studies. But THIS is the context that it’s existing in - I know it’s fairly popular to kind of talk shit about the scribes writing this stuff down, but it’s very important to understand that they were really trying their best to understand this stuff, just like we were. And, between the various recensions of LGE, we can actually SEE the tradition evolve. One of the key ways to know that Something Pre-Christian is going on is if NONE of the redactors could agree on someone. If you see someone’s depiction REALLY shifting around, you know that the redactors were having an issue with them, possibly dealing with multiple contradictory traditions.

Enter the Bríg/Dana/Anu/Morrigan problem. AKA “Things that will cause me to have nightmares.” So, let’s try to take this piece by piece.

The term “Tuatha Dé Danann” is generally accepted to be a later addition. There was not, before a certain time in the Irish mythological tradition, any notion of a goddess named “Danu”. (Established by John Carey in the article, “The name Tuatha Dé Danann”-- Essentially, the term “Tuatha Dé” was the original, but then, with the influence of the term Tuatha Dé, or “Tribe of God” to refer to the Israelites, they felt they had to disambiguate it to “Tuatha Dé Danann”, or “People of Skill”, and then people mistook “Danann” as being the name of a goddess...if I remember correctly, since I don’t have it to hand at the moment.) It is very important to establish this off the bat. Now, how did this get started? And where does this web begun to be woven? Well, I feel like someone could probably write at LEAST a MA dissertation on the topic, possibly even a PhD, and it definitely isn’t going to be me, but I can try my best.

So. The Trí Dé Dána (Three Gods of Skill).

Originally, it seems very likely that the genitive component Dána in their name was not meant to be a proper name. They were not MEANT to be perceived as “The Three Gods of Dana”, but “the three gods of skill”. As noted by O’Rahilly (and GOD, it hurts me when he’s right), the first time we really have the phrase referenced is in Cath Maige Tuired, where, he argues, and I have to agree with him, that it refers to Goibhniu, Luchta, and Credne, who Lugh goes to for weapons to fight against the Fomoire. Additionally, you have a gloss on the 9th century text “Immacallam in Dá Thuarad: Ecna mac na tri nDea nDána” that says that their mother was Bríg, though also seems to indicate, specifically, a connection with the filid, which keeps neatly with the LGE reference (and to the image of Bríg as a poetess. I don’t have enough time to talk Bríg here, but if you want to see what I had to say a while back, I made a post here) After the 12th century, though, when the name “Danu” became associated with the Tuatha Dé, a bunch of medieval scribes looked at “Trí Dé Dána” and thought, not UNREASONABLY, “Oh? This is a reference to Danu? Let’s fix that grammar!” So you have, in some later recensions of LGE, the name “Trí Dé Dána” replaced by “Tré dée Danann/Donand/Danand.” It is vital to mention, as Williams does in Ireland’s Immortals (189), that “Danu/Donu” is never attested, it’s always Donand/Danand. So, from the get-go, trying to identify “Danand” with “Anu” was going to be problematic at best. The general consensus seems to be that Bríg and Bres were the original parents of the Trí Dé, and that it’s very possible that they were, originally, specifically associated with the filid, or poets, with this fitting very neatly into both Bres and Bríg’s associations with the Dagda, Ogma, and, of course, Elatha, but that, with Cath Maige Tuired in the 9th century and the new tradition of Bres as a tyrant, it all got muddled, with traces of it lingering into LGE. (Myth and Mythography)

But, what about “Anu?” Who is this figure? And THIS, my friends, is where things REALLY begin to get fucky. She is identified in Cormac’s Glossary as mater deorum hibernensium, “Mother of the gods of Ireland” - That is beyond doubt. This ties in very naturally with the conflation of Danand/Danu as the mother of the Trí Dé Dána that we discussed earlier. It was, to a certain extent, natural that the two of them would become intertwined.

So, this means that Anu is a genuine pre-Christian figure who became entangled up with the whole Danu business?

Well....

Michael Clarke, in his exploration of the intellectual environment of medieval Ireland, points out that the reference to “Anu” is, in fact, VERY similar to both Isidore of Sevile and in Carolingian mythographical compilations relating to the Greek goddess Cybele, indicating that the scribe, when he was jotting that down, might have very well had that in mind (52-53). Does this mean that they invented ANOTHER goddess and then conflated that goddess with another invented goddess?

...not quite.

Because we still have to account for things like, for example, a mountain known as “The Paps of Anand”, which isn’t easily ascribed to a classical influence. (As noted by Mark Williams, with the typical mixture of good humor and good sense that characterizes his writing,“It beggars belief to think that the Pre-Christian Irish would not have associated so impressively breasted a landscape with a female deity.”) (189). Also, as noted by Williams, even the most skeptical argument cannot explain where Anu comes from. It seems unlikely that they would simply create a goddess out of thin air. Even Danu, as sketchy as her existence is, came from SOMEWHERE, even if it was a linguistic, instead of spiritual, basis. But THEN we have to deal with another question: If this figure is so important, why doesn’t she show up in any of the myths? Why let the Dagda, Lugh, the Morrigan, Midir, Óengus, Ogma, and Nuada have all the fun? The Dagda in particular is as close to a BLATANTLY pre-Christian deity as you can get on-page, so it can’t be chalked up to a simple “They didn’t want to depict the mother of the gods on page.” Mark Williams suggests, tentatively, that Anu might have been a minor Munster figure who swelled in popularity, possibly dropped in by some Munster-based scribes who wanted to bolster their own province’s reputation and, equally tentatively, without further evidence to go on, I have to agree with him. I believe there’s too much evidence to suggest that there was SOMETHING, but that there’s also too little to say that she had the range or influence described, and that it’s very likely that, at the very least, the scribe writing that entry had Cybele on his mind. It’s really, really a mystery, though.

Furthermore, as John Carey notes in “Notes on the Irish War Goddess”....why conflate Anu with the Morrigan? “While it may be plausible....to explain a war-goddess’s possession of sexual characteristics...it is considerably more difficult to follow that chain of thought in reverse in order to account for a land goddess with martial traits. Not is there any evident reason for a conflation of Anu/Anann and the Morrígan unless the former were to some extent linked with war already” pointing out that, relevant to the first paragraph of this, it SEEMS like her inclusion among the daughters of Ernmas was forced on the redactor by a prior tradition (271). Sometimes, she’s a fourth daughter of Ernmas, sometimes she’s a replacement for the Morrigan, sometimes, in the later texts, she’s associated with Danu. It’s like the various authors KNEW they had to include her in there somehow, but they didn’t know how, and she didn’t fit in smoothly once they did. Are we looking at a war/land goddess , obscure enough that the redactor didn’t know where to put her, deciding that she HAD to be the Morrigan/one of the Morrigan’s sisters but not knowing exactly how to fit her in? It wouldn’t be the first time multiple traditions clashed like this. Also, as noted by Sharon Paice Macleod, who gave a very thorough (if not always, in my opinion, sufficiently contextual) account of the tradition, there is a location called the “Paps of the Morrigan”, further suggesting a fertility aspect to the Morrigan that also features into Carey’s earlier argument of dual aspects to the Irish war goddess, along with Bhreatnach’s suggestion of the sovereignty goddess, who represents the land in the medieval Irish literary tradition (and into the present) also functioning as a goddess of death. (Indeed, as noted by Bhreatnach, the hag Cailb from Togail Bruidne Dá Derga, who functions as a sort of anti-sovereignty goddess, identifies herself with Nemain and Badb, at 255. Sovereignty giveth, sovereignty taketh away when you don’t fulfill your place as king.)

Basically, as with almost everything relating to pre-Christian religion in Ireland, we’ve really, really got to shrug our shoulders and go “Fuck if I know, mate.”

My best attempt at a tl;dr for...this:

LGE - WEIRD

Danu - Help us.

Trí Dé - Who’s your daddy? (Most likely? Bres originally, though it got out of hand after, like, the 12th century.)

Anu - Who are you? (Who, Who?)

Sources:

Scowcroft, “Leabhar Gabhála Part I: The growth of the text" (For the discussion on the different recensions of LGE.)

John Carey, “The Irish National Origin-Legend: Synthetic Pseudohistory”

T.F O’Rahilly, Early Irish History and Mythology

Máire Bhreathnach, “The Sovereignty Goddess as Goddess of Death”

John Carey, “The name Tuatha Dé Danann”

Mark Williams, Ireland’s Immortals (Who, really, puts this all together in a so much more cohesive way in his book, I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to get an idea of how these things develop.)

John Carey, “Myth and Mythography in Cath Maige Tuired.”

Michael Clarke, “Linguistic Education and Literary Creativity in Medieval Ireland”.

John Carey, “Notes on the Irish War Goddess”

Sharon Paice Macleod, “Mater Deorum Hibernensium: Identity and Cross-Correlation in Early Irish Mythology.”

#irish mythology #celtic mythology #danu #the morrigan #long post #REALLY long post

41 notes · View notes

theprettyinthemundane · 4 years ago

Text

Who’s right about the myths and what does it mean to be culturally Christian? (using Pan as an example)

Thanks to @will-o-the-witch for looking over the part on Judaism!! : )

Disclaimer:

The ancient world was incredibly diverse and ideas about the gods themselves and the myths varied a lot across space and time, which is something I’ll be mentioning again later. I feel like it’s important to have a better understanding about the myths since they’re so prevalent in culture. Essentially, while many people today may tend to think there’s only one “right” way to see the myths or a god this was and is not the case for many faiths. To show this, I wanted to use Pan and his parentage as an example. This also connects to a broader idea: cultural Christianity (which isn’t “bad” or “good”, it’s just something to be aware of). This isn’t about Christians either, just about how cultural Christianity can affect peoples’ perception of other faiths. Whether or not someone is Christian themselves, growing up in a Christian place can incorrectly inform how they learn about other faiths which can lead to misinformation being spread. Sometimes it can (even accidentally) reinforce very harmful ideas that can contribute to bigotry like antisemitism, which we have to fight against! (Seriously, bigotry sucks! Also I hope the way I word all this makes sense because it’s something I care a lot about!)

So, who are Pan’s parents and who’s right?

Pan is often known as Hermes’ son, even the Homeric hymn to Pan says so (1). Hermes is widely known as the “second youngest Olympian”, which would make Pan among the very youngest if this genealogy is considered (2).

However, that isn’t the genealogy everyone in the ancient world used to describe Pan. There are many variations on his parentage, and I think it’s worth going over because of how interesting it is. Who Pan’s parents are often changes depending on who you ask or where you ask it. For example, at times he has been called the son of Hermes (1, 3: pg90,151), if you ask 5th century Athenians he is the son of Chronos (3: pg42, 88), he was also known as the son of Zeus and twin of Arcas’ (3: pg43), the great grandson of Pelasgos who was a mortal, bother or foster brother of Zeus (3: pg113) and in Thebes he was believed to be the son of Apollo (3: pg180). He was also called Son of Aix (the solar goat too bright to look at, equated with Amalthea nurse of Zeus) (3: pg100). There were likely other variations too that were lost to history.

One thing worth noting is that Pan originated in Arcadia and before the Battle of Marathon in 490 BCE, his worship was mainly preformed here and it was only after that battle that his worship spread widely to the rest of Greece (4, 5). So, the myths of Pan from Arcadia are typically older and reflected older views that worshipers held of him. One example is that Pan helped Zeus in the war against the titans and these myths point to Pan’s father being Chronos (or at least placing him before Hermes’ birth):

Pan has been described as “the source of that "panic" fear with whose aid he helped the gods in their war against the Titans …” and the son of Cronos and a she-goat (3: pg42). In fact, Aeschylus believed Pan to be two gods: both of which had the power of panic and one of them fought against the titans with Zeus (3: pg42) this is interesting because in other myths Pan was able to split up into a swarm of pans, so Pan being a multiplicity of gods and also a single god isn’t unheard of (3: pg100). Overall, most people understood him to be one god (like we do today), but this just shows how much diversity there was in how people saw him.

And in Egypt he was viewed similarly to the Pan who fought in the war with the titans (as one of the oldest gods):

“…the Egyptians Pan is considered very ancient and one of the eight gods said to be the earliest…(6)”

Here he was identified with the Egyptian god Min, which may seem a bit problematic to some because otherwise they were revered as different gods (6). However, the practice of identifying gods with other gods (aka syncretism) was not uncommon in the ancient world; Hekate-Artemis, Selene-Hekate, and Selene-Artemis were identified with each other commonly (7, 8). Other syncretisms were between Isis and Demeter, Isis and Persephone, Isis and Aphrodite, and Isis and Venus (9: pg 20). I am not a classics student, but what I have taken away from this is that the identity of the ancient gods is somewhat fluid and many worshipers could have differing and even contradictory views without either of them being “wrong”, even though some likely did argue or disagree to some extent (6). I’m not claiming there wasn’t debate in the ancient world about the gods, there definitely was. What I’m saying is that people did not fight to discredit new or different ideas just because they conflicted with already established ideas. There was a great deal of variation in how people worshiped and most weren’t interested in a one “right way” to do things.

This isn’t only an ancient practice: it still happens today in Shinto in general and with the kamisama* Inari Ōkami (稲荷大神), who has been portrayed as a group of kamisama, as masculine, androgynous, and feminine (10). So in general this practice of seeing kamisama (or supernatural beings, or gods) in many different ways with acceptance is more common than one might expect (10, 11). This also happens today in Judaism, where debate is very common:

“Nevertheless, the general trend throughout Jewish history is to value debate and not to stifle it, and the history of Jewish texts supports that trend. (12)” Some examples of this are how many Jewish people debate the Talmud (a religious text) and how there are many different sects of Judaism.

One important thing for people who are interested in this subject and were raised in a Christian culture (even if they aren’t religious) is to not overextend the characteristics of Christianity onto other religions ancient or modern (this is often accidental, which makes it even more important to be aware of it). This is relevant to both ancient and modern religions such as Shinto and Judaism because misunderstanding these faiths can contribute to terrible things like antisemitism and xenophobia (more so with Judaism). So, we need to guard against bigotry like that by being open to learning and changing our opinions when they are wrong both for learning and fighting bigotry.

In fact, one scholar noted that even in Arcadia Pan’s cult and myth were not standardized although what I have mentioned before was certainly the more popular (13: pg 63) So, even though Herodotus heard from people in Egypt who worshiped Min, it is not unheard of or unreasonable to understand that some people did understand him that way. To answer the question I asked earlier: each myth about Pan’s parentage has some element of truth to it and none of them are completely “right” or “wrong”. For example, Hermes being Pan’s father echoes the fact that both of them are liminal deities and usually are shown being close to mortals (3: 178).

Conclusion:

Pan is commonly considered the son of Hermes, however there was immense variation in how others saw him, both across space and time. One specific idea- that Pan helped Zeus in the war against the titans and that he is among the eldest of the gods- would contradict the Hermes genealogy and was prevalent in some areas. This is the case in Egypt where he was conflated with the local god Min. While this could seem confusing to modern readers (both the Min thing and the various genealogy thing), many faiths both ancient and modern do not push for one “right way” of seeing things and this is important to understand when learning about these things.

Another way of looking at this concept is the idea of cultural Christianity. It does not matter if a person is religious or even Christian, by growing up in a culturally Christian place their assumptions about other faiths are automatically informed by Christianity, which does not reflect most other faiths. This is not good or bad, it’s just something to be aware of and work around so that we can better understand these other faiths. It is especially important to keep in mind today as misunderstandings about religions can contribute to dangerous bigotry like antisemitism, which we must stand against!

*In Shinto kami (or kamisama) are supernatural beings who inspire awe, they are the main object of worship in Shinto. Please don’t call Shinto kamisama “gods”, it’s inaccurate and doesn’t represent how people see them. Due to how Shinto and Japanese mythology are different from Western mythology we need to take care when talking about it to keep it in its original context.

Citations:

1: Hymn 19 to Pan Hugh G. Evelyn-White, Ed. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=HH+19

2: da Costa Martins, P. A., Leptidis, S., & De Windt, L. J. (2014). Nuclear Calcium Transients: Hermes Propylaios in the Heart. Doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.010675

3: Borgeaud, P., & Atlass, K. (1988). The cult of Pan in ancient Greece. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 13: 9780226065953

4: GARTZIOU-TATTI, A. (2013). GODS, HEROES, AND THE BATTLE OF MARATHON. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement, (124), 91-110. Retrieved June 23, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/44216258

5: Haldane, J. (1968). Pindar and Pan: Frs. 95-100 Snell. Phoenix, 22(1), 18-31. doi:10.2307/1087034

6: Griffiths, J. G. (1955). The orders of Gods in Greece and Egypt (according to Herodotus). The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 75, 21-23. Doi: 10.2307/629164

7: MANOLEDAKIS, M. (2012). Hekate with Apollo and Artemis on a Gem from the Southern Black Sea Region. Istanbuler Mitteilungen, 62, 289-302.

8: E. Hijmans, S. (2012). Moon deities, Greece and Rome. In The Encyclopedia of Ancient History (eds R.S. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C.B. Champion, A. Erskine and S.R. Huebner). doi:10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17276

9: Witt, R. E. (1997). Isis in the ancient world. JHU Press. ISBN-13: 978-0801856426

10: Smyers, K. (1996). "My Own Inari": Personalization of the Deity in Inari Worship. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 23(1/2), 85-116. Retrieved June 23, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/30233555

11: Lya. 2015. Interview with Gary Cox - Inari Faith International (VO) https://www.equi-nox.net/t10647-interview-with-gary-cox-inari-faith-international-vo

12: Mjl. Conversation & Debate. www.myjewishlearning.com. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/conversation-debate/

13: Ogden, D. (Ed.). (2010). A companion to Greek religion. John Wiley & Sons. Print ISBN:9781405120548 |Online ISBN:9780470996911 |DOI:10.1002/9780470996911

#pandeity #hellenic gods #cultural christianity #i hope i worded this well enough because i really care about this issue #happy to hear other peoples' thoughts too!#greek mythology #hellenic polytheism

56 notes · View notes

basicsofislam · 3 years ago

Text

BASICS OF ISLAM : Morals and Manners : Studying and Learning.Part4

The Qur’an mentions the adab of sitting in the gatherings where a scholar or spiritual guide is teaching to increase one’s faith and knowledge:

O you who believe! When you are told, “Make room in the assemblies (for one another and for new comers),” do make room. God will make room for you (in His grace and Paradise). And when you are told, “Rise up (and leave the assembly),” then do rise up. God will raise (in degree) those of you who truly believe (and act accordingly), and in degrees those who have been granted the knowledge (especially of religious matters). Surely God is fully aware of all that you do. (Mujadila 58:11)

When knowledge, which leads one to greater piety and a better religious life, and allows others to benefit, is added to faith, God will exalt its owner by many ranks.

God commanded the Prophet, “(O Muhammad,) Say, ‘O my Lord, increase me in knowl- edge!’” (TaHa 20:114).

In full submission to this Divine order, the Prophet prayed,

“O God, make the knowledge You have taught me benefit me, and continue to teach me knowledge that will benefit me. Increase me in knowledge. God be praised at all times.”

This prayer in which Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, asks God to make his knowledge beneficial to him is also complemented by another prayer in which he sought refuge in God from knowledge that would not prove beneficial.

Why do humans learn?

Why should knowledgeable people be so highly regarded above all others? The answer to these questions can be found in the Qur’an:

“Of all His servants, only those possessed of true knowledge stand in awe of God…” (Fatir 35:28).

So it can be said that one reason for this is that scholars make it possible for others to know God better and to better understand the message of the Prophets of God.

God’s Messenger taught that it was worthwhile to envy two things. One of these is when someone takes the possessions God has bestowed on them and spends them in the way of God. The other is when someone blessed with knowledge and wisdom becomes a teacher and shares that wisdom with others.This means that when one acquires knowledge, one should then teach it to others; it is not wrong to “envy” (desire to be like) a person who does this.

The Prophet said the following regarding studying, literacy, education, making our knowledge a source of good for others, and educating others:

“It is incumbent upon all Muslims to acquire knowledge.”

As we can see, studying and learning are of critical importance in Islam. These hadith confirm the Prophet’s teaching,

“Knowledge and wisdom are the common property of every believer; wherever they are found, they should be acquired.”

The technology we have today is without a doubt the product of knowledge. It is easy to understand, looking from the perspective of the heights of knowledge, from the science and technology that have been achieved in the modern world, why Islam emphasizes knowledge and education so strongly. Is it possible to ignore its importance when we are surrounded by all the useful fruits and products of intellectual inquiry?

Certainly we must listen well to the teachings of Islam on this matter and show greater concern for educating the next generation if we are to solve some of the current harmful trends. Instead of leaving them material possessions, we should spend our money to make sure they receive opportunities to become truly “rich” in knowledge.

Ali ibn Abu Talib said,

“Someone who has money will have to protect it, whereas a person who has knowledge will be protected by it. Knowledge is a king; possessions are captives. And when possessions are spent they diminish, while knowledge increases when shared.”

Highlighting the excellence of knowledge Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, said,

“Be of those who teach or those who learn, those who listen, or those who love knowledge. If you are not in at least one of these groups, you are headed for destruction.”

The adab of learning applies not only to those who are teaching and learning religious studies but all types of useful knowledge. Here we give some details for our younger brothers and sisters who are students, regarding the adab of learning to add to what has been quoted above:

If at first you don’t succeed do not lose heart.

Classes should be entered with a mind that is prepared and willing.

Listen to a teacher with your spiritual ears.

When you don’t understand something, always ask.

Try to make friends with successful students and get tips from them.

Always plan and organize your time.

Always try to be the best.

Don’t go on to something else until you have understood what you are working on.

If what you are studying is practically applicable, learn it through application.

Do not maintain ties with people who discourage you from learning or dislike your studying.

Be respectful and humble towards your teachers.

1 note · View note

howwelldoyouknowyourmoon · 4 years ago

Text

A History Of God – The 4,000-year quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam

“I say that religion isn’t about believing things. It’s ethical alchemy. It’s about behaving in a way that changes you, that gives you intimations of holiness and sacredness.” — Karen Armstrong on Powells.com

book by Karen Armstrong (2004)

The idea of a single divine being – God, Yahweh, Allah – has existed for over 4,000 years. But the history of God is also the history of human struggle. While Judaism, Islam and Christianity proclaim the goodness of God, organised religion has too often been the catalyst for violence and ineradicable prejudice. In this fascinating, extensive and original account of the evolution of belief, Karen Armstrong examines Western society’s unerring fidelity to this idea of One God and the many conflicting convictions it engenders. A controversial, extraordinary story of worship and war, A History of God confronts the most fundamental fact – or fiction – of our lives.

____________________________________

Review: Armstrong, a British journalist and former nun, guides us along one of the most elusive and fascinating quests of all time – the search for God. Like all beloved historians, Armstrong entertains us with deft storytelling, astounding research, and makes us feel a greater appreciation for the present because we better understand our past. Be warned: A History of God is not a tidy linear history. Rather, we learn that the definition of God is constantly being repeated, altered, discarded, and resurrected through the ages, responding to its followers’ practical concerns rather than to mystical mandates. Armstrong also shows us how Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have overlapped and influenced one another, gently challenging the secularist history of each of these religions. – Gail Hudson

____________________________________

The Introduction to A History of God:

As a child, I had a number of strong religious beliefs but little faith in God. There is a distinction between belief in a set of propositions and a faith which enables us to put our trust in them. I believed implicitly in the existence of God; I also believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the efficacy of the sacraments, the prospect of eternal damnation and the objective reality of Purgatory. I cannot say, however, that my belief in these religious opinions about the nature of ultimate reality gave me much confidence that life here on earth was good or beneficent. The Roman Catholicism of my childhood was a rather frightening creed. James Joyce got it right in Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man: I listened to my share of hell-fire sermons. In fact Hell seemed a more potent reality than God, because it was something that I could grasp imaginatively. God, on the other hand, was a somewhat shadowy figure, defined in intellectual abstractions rather than images. When I was about eight years old, I had to memorise this catechism answer to the question, ‘What is God?’: ‘God is the Supreme Spirit, Who alone exists of Himself and is infinite in all perfections.’ Not surprisingly, it meant little to me and I am bound to say that it still leaves me cold. It has always seemed a singularly arid, pompous and arrogant definition. Since writing this book, however, I have come to believe that it is also incorrect.

As I grew up, I realised that there was more to religion than fear. I read the lives of the saints, the metaphysical poets, T. S. Eliot and some of the simpler writings of the mystics. I began to be moved by the beauty of the liturgy and, though God remained distant, I felt that it was possible to break through to him and that the vision would transfigure the whole of created reality. To do this I entered a religious order and, as a novice and a young nun, I learned a good deal more about the faith. I applied myself to apologetics, scripture, theology and church history. I delved into the history of the monastic life and embarked on a minute discussion of the Rule of my own order, which we had to learn by heart. Strangely enough, God figured very little in any of this. Attention seemed focused on secondary details and the more peripheral aspects of religion. I wrestled with myself in prayer, trying to force my mind to encounter God but he remained a stern taskmaster, who observed my every infringement of the Rule, or tantalisingly absent. The more I read about the raptures of the saints, the more of a failure I felt. I was unhappily aware that what little religious experience I had, had somehow been manufactured by myself as I worked upon my own feelings and imagination. Sometimes a sense of devotion was an aesthetic response to the beauty of the Gregorian chant and the liturgy. But nothing had actually happened to me from a source beyond myself. I never glimpsed the God described by the prophets and mystics. Jesus Christ, about whom we talked far more than about ‘God’, seemed a purely historical figure, inextricably embedded in late antiquity. I also began to have grave doubts about some of the doctrines of the Church. How could anybody possibly know for certain that the man Jesus had been God incarnate and what did such a belief mean? Did the New Testament really teach the elaborate – and highly contradictory – doctrine of the Trinity or was this, like so many other articles of the faith, a fabrication by theologians centuries after the death of Christ in Jerusalem?

Eventually, with regret, I left the religious life and once freed of the burden of failure and inadequacy, I felt my belief in God slip quietly away. He had never really impinged upon my life, though I had done my best to enable him to do so. Now that I no longer felt so guilty and anxious about him, he became too remote to be a reality. My interest in religion continued, however, and I made a number of television programmes about the early history of Christianity and the nature of the religious experience. The more I learned about the history of religion, the more my earlier misgivings were justified. The doctrines that I had accepted without question as a child were indeed man-made, constructed over a long period of time. Science seemed to have disposed of the Creator God and biblical scholars had proved that Jesus had never claimed to be divine. As an epileptic, I had flashes of vision that I knew to be a mere neurological defect: had the visions and raptures of the saints also been a mere mental quirk? Increasingly, God seemed an aberration, something that the human race had outgrown.

Despite my years as a nun, I do not believe that my experience of God is unusual. My ideas about God were formed in childhood and did not keep abreast of my growing knowledge in other disciplines. I had revised simplistic childhood views of Father Christmas; I had come to a more mature understanding of the complexities of the human predicament than had been possible in the kindergarten. Yet my early, confused ideas about God had not been modified or developed. People without my peculiarly religious background may also find that their notion of God was formed in infancy. Since those days, we have put away childish things and have discarded the God of our first years.

Yet my study of the history of religion has revealed that human beings are spiritual animals. Indeed, there is a case for arguing that Homo sapiens is also Homo religiosus. Men and women started to worship gods as soon as they became recognisably human; they created religions at the same time as they created works of art. This was not simply because they wanted to propitiate powerful forces but these early faiths expressed the wonder and mystery that seems always to have been an essential component of the human experience of this beautiful yet terrifying world. Like art, religion has been an attempt to find meaning and value in life, despite the suffering that flesh is heir to. Like any other human activity, religion can be abused but it seems to have been something that we have always done. It was not tacked on to a primordially secular nature by manipulative kings and priests but was natural to humanity. Indeed, our current secularism is an entirely new experiment, unprecedented in human history. We have yet to see how it will work. It is also true to say that our Western liberal humanism is not something that comes naturally to us; like an appreciation of art or poetry, it has to be cultivated. Humanism is itself a religion without God – not all religions, of course, are theistic. Our ethical secular ideal has its own disciplines of mind and heart and gives people the means of finding faith in the ultimate meaning of human life that were once provided by the more conventional religions.

When I began to research this history of the idea and experience of God in the three related monotheistic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, I expected to find that God had simply been a projection of human needs and desires. I thought that ‘he’ would mirror the fears and yearnings of society at each stage of its development. My predictions were not entirely unjustified but I have been extremely surprised by some of my findings and I wish that I had learned all this thirty years ago, when I was starting out in the religious life. It would have saved me a great deal of anxiety to hear – from eminent monotheists in all three faiths – that instead of waiting for God to descend from on high, I should deliberately create a sense of him for myself. Other Rabbis, priests and Sufis would have taken me to task for assuming that God was – in any sense – a reality ‘out there’; they would have warned me not to expect to experience him as an objective fact that could be discovered by the ordinary rational process. They would have told me that in an important sense God was a product of the creative imagination, like the poetry and music that I found so inspiring. A few highly respected monotheists would have told me quietly and firmly that God did not really exist – and yet that ‘he’ was the most important reality in the world.

This book will not be a history of the ineffable reality of God itself, which is beyond time and change, but a history of the way men and women have perceived him from Abraham to the present day. The human idea of God has a history, since it has always meant something slightly different to each group of people who have used it at various points of time. The idea of God formed in one generation by one set of human beings could be meaningless in another. Indeed, the statement: ‘I believe in God’ has no objective meaning, as such, but like any other statement it only means something in context, when proclaimed by a particular community. Consequently there is not one unchanging idea contained in the word ‘God’ but the word contains a whole spectrum of meanings, some of which are contradictory or even mutually exclusive. Had the notion of God not had this flexibility, it would not have survived to become one of the great human ideas. When one conception of God has ceased to have meaning or relevance, it has been quietly discarded and replaced by a new theology. A fundamentalist would deny this, since fundamentalism is anti-historical: it believes that Abraham, Moses and the later prophets all experienced their God in exactly the same way as people do today. Yet if we look at our three religions, it becomes clear that there is no objective view of ‘God’: each generation has to create the image of God that works for them. The same is true of atheism. The statement ‘I do not believe in God’ has always meant something slightly different at each period of history. The people who have been dubbed ‘atheists’ over the years have always been denied a particular conception of the divine. Is the ‘God’ who is rejected by atheists today, the God of the patriarchs, the God of the prophets, the God of the philosophers, the God of the mystics or the God of the eighteenth-century deists? All these deities have been venerated as the God of the Bible and the Koran by Jews, Christians and Muslims at various points of their history. We shall see that they are very different from one another. Atheism has often been a transitional state: thus Jews, Christians and Muslims were all called ‘atheists’ by their pagan contemporaries because they had adopted a revolutionary notion of divinity and transcendence. Is modern atheism a similar denial of a God’ which is no longer adequate to the problems of our time?

Despite its other-worldliness, religion is highly pragmatic. We hall see that it is far more important for a particular idea of God to work than for it to be logically or scientifically sound. As soon as it ceases to be effective it will be changed – sometimes for something radically different. This did not disturb most monotheists before our own day because they were quite clear that their ideas about God were not sacrosanct but could only be provisional. They were man-made – they could be nothing else – and quite separate from the indescribable Reality they symbolised. Some developed quite audacious ways of emphasising this essential distinction. One medieval mystic went so far as to say that this ultimate Reality – mistakenly called ‘God’ – was not even mentioned in the Bible. Throughout history, men and women have experienced a dimension of the spirit that seems to transcend the mundane world. Indeed, it is an arresting characteristic of the human mind to be able to conceive concepts that go beyond it in this way. However we choose to interpret it, this human experience of transcendence has been a fact of life. Not everybody would regard it as divine: Buddhists, as we shall see, would deny that their visions and insights are derived from a supernatural source; they see them as natural to humanity. All the major religions, however, would agree that it is impossible to describe this transcendence in normal conceptual language. Monotheists have called this transcendence ‘God’ but they have hedged this around with important provisos. Jews, for example, are forbidden to pronounce the sacred Name of God and Muslims must not attempt to depict the divine in visual imagery. The discipline is a reminder that the reality that we call ‘God’ exceeds all human expression.

This will not be a history in the usual sense, since the idea of God has not evolved from one point and progressed in a linear fashion to a final conception. Scientific notions work like that but the ideas of art and religion do not. Just as there are only a given number of themes in love poetry, so too people have kept saying the same things about God over and over again. Indeed, we shall find a striking similarity in Jewish, Christian and Muslim ideas of the divine. Even though Jews and Muslims both find the Christian doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation almost blasphemous, they have produced their own versions of these controversial theologies. Each expression of these universal themes is slightly different, however, showing the ingenuity and inventiveness of the human imagination as it struggles to express its sense of ‘God’.

Because this is such a big subject, I have deliberately confined myself to the One God worshipped by Jews, Christians and Muslims, though I have occasionally considered pagan, Hindu and Buddhist conceptions of ultimate reality to make a monotheistic point clearer. It seems that the idea of God is remarkably close to ideas in religions that developed quite independently. Whatever conclusions we reach about the reality of God, the history of this idea must tell us something important about the human mind and the nature of our aspiration. Despite the secular tenor of much Western society, the idea of God still affects the lives of millions of people. Recent surveys have shown that ninety-nine per cent of Americans say that they believe in God: the question is which ‘God’ of the many on offer do they subscribe to?

Theology often comes across as dull and abstract but the history of God has been passionate and intense. Unlike some other conceptions of the ultimate, it was originally attended by agonising struggle and stress. The prophets of Israel experienced their God as a physical pain that wrenched their every limb and filled them with rage and elation. The reality that they called God was often experienced by monotheists in a state of extremity: we shall read of mountain tops, darkness, desolation, crucifixion and terror. The Western experience of God seemed particularly traumatic. What was the reason for this inherent strain? Other monotheists spoke of light and transfiguration. They used very daring imagery to express the complexity of the reality they experienced, which went far beyond the orthodox theology. There has recently been a revived interest in mythology, which may indicate a widespread desire for a more imaginative expression of religious truth. The work of the late American scholar Joseph Campbell has become extremely popular: he has explored the perennial mythology of mankind, linking ancient myths with those still current in traditional societies, is often assumed that the three God-religions are devoid of mythology and poetic symbolism. Yet, although monotheists originally rejected the myths of their pagan neighbours, these often crept back into the faith at a later date. Mystics have seen God incarnated a woman, for example. Others reverently speak of God’s sexuality and have introduced a female element into the divine.

This brings me to a difficult point. Because this God began as a specifically male deity, monotheists have usually referred to it as ‘he’. In recent years, feminists have understandably objected to this. Since I shall be recording the thoughts and insights of people who called God ‘he’, I have used the conventional masculine terminology, except when ‘it’ has been more appropriate. Yet it is perhaps worth mentioning that the masculine tenor of God-talk is particularly problematic in English. In Hebrew, Arabic and French, however, grammatical gender gives theological discourse a sort of sexual counterpoint and dialectic, which provides a balance that is often lacking in English. Thus in Arabic al-Lah (the supreme name for God) is grammatically masculine, but the word for the divine and inscrutable essence of God – al-Dhat – is feminine.

All talk about God staggers under impossible difficulties. Yet monotheists have all been very positive about language at the same time as they have denied its capacity to express the transcendent reality. The God of Jews, Christians and Muslims is a God who – in some sense – speaks. His Word is crucial in all three faiths. The Word of God has shaped the history of our culture. We have to decide whether the word ‘God’ has any meaning for us today.

____________________________________

Biography Karen Armstrong is the author of numerous other books on religious affairs –including A History of God, The Battle for God, Holy War, Islam, Buddha, and The Great Transformation – and two memoirs, Through the Narrow Gate and The Spiral Staircase. Her work has been translated into forty-five languages. She has addressed members of the U.S. Congress on three occasions; lectured to policy makers at the U.S. State Department; participated in the World Economic Forum in New York, Jordan, and Davos; addressed the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington and New York; is increasingly invited to speak in Muslim countries; and is now an ambassador for the UN Alliance of Civilizations. In February 2008 she was awarded the TED Prize and is currently working with TED on a major international project to launch and propagate a Charter for Compassion, created online by the general public and crafted by leading thinkers in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, to be signed in the fall of 2009 by a thousand religious and secular leaders. She lives in London.

_______________________________________

From Publishers Weekly This searching, profound comparative history of the three major monotheistic faiths fearlessly illuminates the sociopolitical ground in which religious ideas take root, blossom and mutate. Armstrong, a British broadcaster, commentator on religious affairs.., argues that Judaism, Christianity and Islam each developed the idea of a personal God, which has helped believers to mature as full human beings. Yet Armstrong also acknowledges that the idea of a personal God can be dangerous, encouraging us to judge, condemn and marginalize others. Recognizing this, each of the three monotheisms, in their different ways, developed a mystical tradition grounded in a realization that our human idea of God is merely a symbol of an ineffable reality. To Armstrong, modern, aggressively righteous fundamentalists of all three faiths represent “a retreat from God.” She views as inevitable a move away from the idea of a personal God who behaves like a larger version of ourselves, and welcomes the grouping of believers toward a notion of God that “works for us in the empirical age.”

_______________________________________

My wish: The Charter for Compassion – Karen Armstrong

Karen Armstrong TED Talk given in 2008

What God is, or isn’t, will continue to morph indefinitely unless…

_______________________________________

Richard Barlow:

‘The whole thing about the messiah is a human construct’

The Divine Principle: Questions to consider about Old Testament figures

How “God’s Day” was established on January 1, 1968

_______________________________________

Divine Principle – Parallels of History

_______________________________________

“… Many Koreans therefore have difficulty understanding and accepting religions that have only one god and emphasize an uncertain and unknowable afterlife rather than the here and now. In the Korean context of things, such religions are anti-life and do not really make sense…” LINK

#Karen Armstrong #God #monotheism

2 notes · View notes

the-quiet-winds · 6 years ago

Text

Make a Move Just to Stay in the Game (part two)

y’all already know. it’s me. it’s @ichlugebulletsandcornnuts (who probably hates how many mentions she has in her notifs (but that’s showbiz baby))

[part one]

[Part 2: Rather be a Comma than a Full Stop]

for the next couple of hours, parr walks her through some basic translations before letting the girl try a short paragraph by herself. katherine is deep in thought attempting to work out whether this particular word meant “book” or “to throw”, as well as wondering why on earth two such different meanings were assigned to the same word, when parr speaks.

“may i ask you a question?”

“of course,” katherine says politely, looking up from her translation.

“if you’ll forgive me for my curiosity, how long have you and her majesty known each other? you seem to be very close.” parr’s voice is free from judgement or skepticism, merely a natural interest from seeing them interact.

“only a couple of months,” katherine admits with a shrug. “we met the end of september, it’s february now?”

parr gives a mysterious grin.

“what?” katherine asks.

parr gives a gentle laugh, covered by her hand. “nothing, i promise.” katherine narrows her eyes slightly and parr relents. “i’ve known the queen for a while, you know. she always has claimed favorites among her staff, but then they are generally asked to leave by the king himself.” katherine cringes at this. “but it seems she’s taken you, lady katherine.” she smiles. “quite taken indeed.”

katherine frowns slightly, and parr speaks again, apparently worried. “i don’t mean to offend. i think it’s wonderful, actually.”

katherine unconsciously relaxes and she gives parr a small smile. “thank you,” she says, returning to her translations. it doesn’t take her long to finish and parr takes the paper from her, checking it through and making corrections as she goes. she hands the paper back to katherine with a grin.

“excellent work, lady katherine. there were only some small mistakes; you just need to watch out so you don’t mistake a ‘t’ ending for an ‘nt’ ending. overall, a very good first try by yourself.”

katherine grins. she looks the paper over as she shakes out her wrists and cracks her neck.

parr glances at her pocket watch then looks back to katherine.

just as she opens her mouth to speak, lady eleanor walks in, holding a tea tray.

“i was just about to ask about tea time,” parr laughs. “perfect timing.”

eleanor gives a tiny smile and ducks her head. “thank you, lady parr.”

parr is admittedly surprised as she watches katherine fix her tea: very little sugar at all, mostly milk. parr follows suit.

“lady parr?” katherine asks. parr raises her eyebrows and katherine remembers. “sorry, just parr.” the other woman smiles and gestures for her to continue. “can you tell me a bit more about you?”

parr is slightly surprised, but nods. “well, as you know, i’m catherine parr- well, catherine neville, but I can’t say i’ve ever been fond of that name. although i can’t say my first husband’s surname was much better. burgh,” she explains with a dramatic roll of her eyes that makes katherine giggle slightly. “i’m working on a book, currently.”

“what’s it about?” katherine asks curiously. parr pauses for a moment.

“methods of prayer,” she says finally.

katherine wrinkles her nose a bit and looks just above parr’s head in thought. “i’m not much of the religious sort,” she admits. a vision flashes before her eyes - one of tiny katherine howard praying every night to be saved from her horrid life, but no prayers were ever answered. “but it still sounds very interesting,” she continues. “would you let me read it someday?”

parr seems to think the question over in her head. “if i ever finish it, then i’d be happy to let you read it,” she says with a nod. “it... may be best not to mention this book to anybody else, though.”

“why?” katherine asks, confused, and parr sighs.

“it’s not entirely... safe for me to be outspoken in my religious beliefs right now.” she shakes her head slightly. “but let us not dwell on that. why don’t you tell me some things about yourself, lady katherine?”

katherine’s smile fades slightly. “well, um, there’s not too much to tell.” she looks down at the tea saucer in front of her. “i’m katherine seymour, formerly howard. i’m fifteen, hailing from lambeth. my grandmother is the dowager duchess.” she fights to hide the chill down her spine at the thought of that place. “i was brought here to serve jane...her majesty... in september as a lady in waiting, and she just took me on as her ward around six weeks ago.”

parr still looks curious. “you do seem to have a bit of formal education, and i feel i may know your father from a passing meeting, so what was your childhood like?”

“I, um...” katherine shifts awkwardly in her chair. “my mother died when i was five.”

“oh, i’m sorry,” parr says softly. katherine shakes her head.

“it’s okay, I don’t remember much about her.” she misses the pained expression that flits across parr’s face at that. “i, uh, went to a school run my my step-grandmother. we had lessons there, just not enough to teach me everything i need to know.” she decides to stay quiet about what happened for the moment; she likes parr, but she’s only just met her.

parr senses that katherine is holding back, and doesn’t know whether to press on or not. she pretends to have not seen it, then pursues a different line of questioning. “so you learned to read and write?” katherine seems a bit relieved at the change of topic. “what’s your favorite book?”

as they discuss literature, katherine seems to relax even further, whatever previous anxiety she was holding released. “i heard the chatter from outside,” another voice suddenly pops into the conversation, and katherine internally smiles at jane’s arrival. “i do hope i’m not interrupting.”

“not at all, your majesty,” parr smiles. “we were just taking a break for some tea.”

“would you mind if I joined you?” jane asks. parr hops to her feet, offering her chair to jane.

“please, take a seat,” she retrieves another chair from the corner of the room and brings it over as jane sits down, nodding her thanks to parr.

“i must admit, i’ve been missing my little seymour,” jane laughs slightly, the term of endearment slipping out without thinking. had it been in front of anyone else katherine might have been embarrassed, but parr doesn’t even react at the nickname, simply listening to jane as she continues. “how have you been getting on, love?”

katherine smiles a bit. “i’ve learned a lot already,” she says cautiously. “we’ve been working on latin a lot, actually. i really like it.”

jane smiles back. “i’m glad to hear that, love.”

parr nods in agreement. “she’s made exemplary progress for only a day’s work.” she looks to jane. “you’ve got a real bright one here, your majesty.”

“well, i always knew that,” jane smiles, looking at katherine proudly. katherine’s cheeks flush pink slightly at the praise.

“if it’s okay with both of you, when we finish today i’m going to leave lady katherine with some latin exercises to complete before our lesson tomorrow,” parr says. “nothing too much, just some things to try.”

katherine nods enthusiastically.

“i don’t think i can say no to that,” jane laughs. katherine looks so adorably happy at the thought of working on her latin, jane would never dream of squashing that excitement.

parr smiles. “i’m also going to reach out to a few fellow educators, see if any of my colleagues might like to join us at any point.” she looks to katherine, whose excitement had waned slightly. “would that be alright, lady katherine?”

she nods again, slightly more trepidatious. “that’d be alright,” she concedes quietly.

jane catches this immediately, and later when parr is packing up her belongings to leave for the day, jane pops her head around the door.

“kat, love, lady eleanor would like to know if you’d like to feed the hounds with her.” she leaves out the fact that jane had asked eleanor to do this task, and katherine lights up at the chance to see the palace’s hunting dogs. she excuses herself politely and then, when she thinks she’s out of sight, runs in a rather unladylike fashion to the corridor where eleanor is waiting. jane, meanwhile, hovers in the doorway, watching parr tidy away papers and books.

“can I speak with you a moment?” she finally says. parr looks up.

“of course, your highness. what do you wish to talk about?”

jane fiddles with her hands and parr nearly smiles - in the one day alone, she had noticed katherine doing the same thing. they really were as close as a mother and daughter could be.

“i would advise you, lady parr,” jane begins, voice hesitant, “to be careful in who you bring in to teach katherine. she is a bit...particular.” jane hates the way she says this, but doesn’t want to divulge katherine’s entire past.

parr blinks slightly, a slight frown forming on her features.

“oh, i see. well, that’s understandable, and if lady katherine doesn’t like any of my fellow scholars then of course her wishes will come first. they are all very educated, though, and it would help her a lot in her studies to have them present. unless...” she pauses for a moment, as if contemplating whether to say what’s on her mind or not. “i don’t mean to pry, your highness, but is there a specific type of person katherine would prefer to have teach her - or perhaps, a type I should avoid when asking my colleagues?”

jane stiffens slightly, unsure about exactly how to proceed. “she...well, she...” jane swallows. “there are certain men that have a tendency to just...make her uncomfortable,” she offers. “so perhaps just...choose carefully, please? for katherine’s sake.”

parr nods once. “i understand, your majesty. i will choose only people i completely trust. you have my word.”

jane doesn’t entirely know if parr read between the lines and worked it out, or if she hadn’t quite understood the full story, but jane hopes parr will stick to her promise. she decides it might be for the best if she stays close by for any lessons where parr brings a colleague.

parr gives jane a polite respectful bow and jane returns the unconventional gesture with a curtsey of her own.

“i will return tomorrow, your majesty,” parr says. “please, give my farewell to lady katherine, and remind her to watch her verb endings in the work i’ve given her.”

katherine arrives in the sitting room a half hour later, grinning and a bit warm from playing with the dogs.

jane looks up from her book when she enters and smiles. “looks like you had fun, darling.”

katherine nods and plops down on the couch next to jane, snuggling against her. “it’s been a good day,” she comments absently.

jane kisses the top of her head. “i’m glad, love.”

katherine curls up even more against her and closes her eyes. jane gives her a gentle nudge.

“remember, you’ve got work to do, young lady.”

“quick rest first, please?” katherine asks, not opening her eyes. jane chuckles.

“okay, love. half an hour, and then you need to get your work done.”

“agreed,” katherine yawns. “i’m actually kinda excited to do it, i’m just-” she yawns again, cutting herself off. jane smiles softly at her.

“get some rest, kat.”

jane still has her book open, but her thoughts are taken up with how proud she is of her girl.

katherine makes a quiet noise and jane knows exactly what it means. she closes her book and puts it on the table, allowing katherine to rest her head in jane’s lap. jane’s hands find her hair, caressing the soft and slightly tangled locks of dark hair.

katherine smiles and sighs contently at the new arrangement. her features relax as she drops off into a light doze.

jane smiles softly to herself, looking down at katherine’s peaceful face. katherine was slowly growing from a sweet little girl to a wonderful young lady, and jane couldn’t be prouder of her; she’d seen a couple of the translations katherine had been working on during the tea break, and she couldn’t believe how much katherine had learnt in the space of just one day. it was moments like this, however, with katherine fast asleep on her lap, which reassure jane that katherine growing up doesn’t mean they’ll grow apart. she’s still jane’s little seymour, no matter how tall she gets or languages she learns, and jane’s heart swells with love.

let the girl sleep a little longer, she decides, latin will still be there later.

#six the musical #six musical #jane seymour #katherine howard #catherine parr #julie and jess write #make a move just to stay in the game #hold onto me you're all i have

67 notes · View notes

doeeyeddyke · 5 years ago

Text

Some ‘I Am Malala’ Cheat Notes

Characters:

Malala The author of this memoir, a young Pashtun woman who grew up in Swat Valley, Pakistan. She went to school throughout her entire childhood, and because of her father's example, she became famous for speaking out in favor of girls' education. When she was fifteen years old, the Taliban shot Malala in response to her activism.

Ziauddin Malala's father, whose dream growing up was to start a school. He founded the Kushal School, which Malala attended throughout her childhood, and he was a constant advocate for education. Though daughters are typically less prized than sons, Ziauddin loved Malala from the moment she was born.

Tor Pekai Malala's mother, who follows the Muslim code of purdah for women. She loves Malala fiercely and serves as a role model for her. Tor Pekai did not go to school, having sold her books for candy after the first day because she was jealous of her friends who got to stay home.

Kushal Malala's middle brother, who is two years younger than her.

Atal Malala's youngest brother, who is five years younger than Kushal.

Malalai of Maiwand The Pashtun heroine who was Malala's namesake. She is famous for using her courage to inspire her people to fight against the British army and win the battle.

Rohul Amin Malala's grandfather, whom she calls Baba. He studied in India and became a great speaker, and Malala's father spent his childhood attempting to impress him.

General Zia A military general who took power in Pakistan in 1977. He is famous for encouraging the Islamization of Pakistan, and under him Pakistan became an ally of the United States.

Mohammad Naeem Khan Malala's father's friend, and the man who originally set out to start a school with him.

Hidayatullah Another of Malala's father's friends, who played a much larger role in co-founding the Kushal School after Naeem left.

Benazir Bhutto The first female head-of-state in the Islamic world, who took power in Pakistan after General Zia died. She was a profound role model for Malala.

Moniba Malala's best friend throughout her childhood, who attends school with her and provides competition for best in the class. Moniba and Malala continue to keep in touch after Malala leaves Pakistan.

General Musharraf Musharraf took power in Pakistan a few years after Malala's birth, becoming Pakistan's fourth military leader.

The Mufti An Islamic scholar who attempted to close the Kushal School because it educated girls.

Jinnah The founder of Pakistan, who set out to make it a land of religious tolerance. He was laid to rest in a mausoleum in Karachi.

Fazlullah The leader of the branch of the Taliban that took over Swat Valley.

Nawab Ali An Urdu teacher at Malala's school who refused to teach them anymore after the Taliban began to take over.

Madam Maryam The principal at Malala's school, who is like a second mother figure to Malala and the other girls at the Kushal School.

Malka-e-Noor The girl who repeatedly challenges Malala for the top spot in the class.

Safina The neighbor girl who steals Malala's favorite toy. Malala steals from her as payback, but gets caught, thereby realizing that it is better to be honest.

Abdul Hai Kakar The BBC correspondent who seeks out Malala to write the diary of Gul Makai about life living under the Taliban.

Irfan Ashraf The Pakistani journalist who assists in filming a documentary about Malala's family life under the Taliban.

Adam Ellick An American video journalist who assists in filming a documentary about Malala's family life under the Taliban.

Shiza Shahid An Islamabad native who went to study at Stanford University. She contacts the Yousafzai family after seeing the documentary about them and becomes one of their supporters, along with a role model for Malala.

Dr. Afzal Malala's father's friend, who transports them out of Swat when they escape and become IDPs for three months.

General Abbas The chief spokesman for the Pakistani army, who sends Malala's father money to pay his teachers' salaries after three months as IDPs.

Zahid Khan A friend of Malala's father who was shot in the face by the Taliban shortly before Malala was shot.

Usman Bhai Jan The bus driver, who is driving when the Taliban pulls the bus over and shoots Malala.

Dr. Javid Kayani One of the British doctors who come to Peshawar to assess Malala.

Dr. Fiona Reynolds The other of the British doctors who assesses Malala in Peshawar. She works at a children's hospital in Birmingham, and stays at Malala's side as she is airlifted to the UK from Pakistan.

Rehenna The hospital's Muslim chaplain, who helps to ease Malala's transition into this new culture.

Atuallah Khan The man who shot Malala.

Asif Zardari The President of Pakistan, who comes to visit Malala while she is in the hospital in Birmingham.

Quotes:

"Who is Malala? I am Malala, and this is my story."

Malala ends the memoir's short prologue by echoing the question that the Taliban militant asked before shooting her in the face. In these pages she finally gets the chance to answer the question, which she did not have when it happened. She claims her name and her identity, in spite of the Taliban attempting to silence her.

"I am Malala. My world has changed but I have not."

Malala ends her memoir almost the same way that she started it, answering the question that came to define her life when the Taliban asked for her in the back of the bus. She once again lays claim to her identity, and acknowledges that even though she leads an entirely different life now, she still maintains the values, principles, and goals that she has nurtured throughout her entire life.

Symbols:

Malala's Schoolbooks When Malala and her family leave Swat and become IDPs, Malala repeatedly wonders whether or not her schoolbooks will be safe and when she will be able to study them. For Malala, her schoolbooks represent the education she has received and the education she hopes to receive in the future. They are a source of hope that she will be able to accomplish her goal of promoting schooling for all girls, not only those as lucky as she is.

The Almonds After Malala gets in trouble for stealing a neighbor girl's toys, she relays a story about a time when she was younger and ate some almonds in the bazaar that her mother could not pay for. When her father found out, he went and bought all of the almonds. She says they became a reminder of guilt, but they are also a reminder to remain honest. The memory of these almonds is one of the things that keep Malala believing that honesty is the best policy.

The Burqa The burqa, which is a full-body garment covering even the face, is a symbol of the Taliban's oppression of women. Though Muslim women cover their heads for many reasons, a face covering obscures the identity of a woman, which is part of what the Taliban seeks to do. Over the course of Taliban occupation of Pakistan, women in burqas become a prominent symbol of the Taliban.

The Schoolbus The school bus on which Malala and two other girls were shot becomes a symbol of the tragedy later on. Malala includes a picture of the bus among the photos of her life that she adds in at the end of the memoir; the picture shows the bloodstains that still remain. This bus was meant to be a safe space, but, as with many other safe spaces in Swat, the Taliban corrupted it.

The Buddhas Swat Valley's ancient Buddha statues, left from when Buddhism moved through the valley, are prominent symbols of Swat's rich history and, most importantly, the region's tolerance of faiths other than Islam. When the Taliban destroy these Buddha statues, they send the message that they will not tolerate any beliefs other than Islam, and that they are eager to erase the past.

Similes and Metaphors:

"It seemed to us that the Taliban had arrived in the night just like vampires." (Chapter 9, Simile)

Malala and Moniba both read Twilight, a famous book series by Stephenie Meyer about vampires. They compare the approaching Taliban to vampires, slinking through the night and arriving unexpectedly. This is an important simile because it emphasizes the degree to which the people of Swat were caught off-guard when the Taliban began to occupy their formerly peaceful valley.

"For us girls that doorway was like a magical entrance to our own special world." (Prologue, Simile)

In this simile, Malala speaks about the entrance to the Kushal School, and how magical it felt growing up and spending every day going through these doors. For Malala, school was a sanctuary, a place where she and her friends could be themselves and focus solely on receiving an education. Even during their occupation of Swat, the Taliban could not take away their indescribable love for attending school.

Irony:

Malala vs. her father (Dramatic Irony) Malala's family constantly fears that Ziauddin, Malala's father, will be the one targeted by the Taliban because of they way he speaks out against them. No one thinks for a second that even the Taliban is cruel enough to target Malala. It is thus ironic it is Malala whom they try to kill.

Malala's Father's Stutter (Situational Irony) Despite the stutter that has impaired his speech throughout his life, Malala's father ironically devotes his life to public speaking, voicing his thoughts and rallying people to his side to stand against the Taliban. It is ironic that a man who loves poetry, words, and speaking would be cursed with such an impediment.

The Taliban and Islam (Situational Irony) Malala and many other Muslims believe that Islam is a peaceful religion, one that respects and values women and encourages tolerance and acceptance. It is ironic, then, that the Taliban claims to be fighting in the name of Islam, and yet goes against all of these accepted Islamic values.

Literary Elements:

Genre Memoir

Setting and Context Swat Valley, Pakistan, from 1997 to 2013

Narrator and Point of View Malala Yousafzai, a girl growing up in Pakistan under the Taliban’s control, narrates the memoir in first-person past tense.

Tone and Mood The first part of the memoir, when Malala is living happily in Swat, attending school and remaining at the top of her class, has a much more lighthearted tone. The tone and mood darken once the Taliban arrive to Swat Valley in 2007, and becomes much more urgent as Malala and her father step up as activists.

Protagonist and Antagonist Malala is the protagonist, while the Taliban—an oppressive Islamic fundamentalist organization that occupied Swat Valley during her adolescence—is the antagonist.

Major Conflict Though there are many struggles that accompany daily life in Swat, the primary conflict is over the Taliban's occupation of Swat. The Taliban have banned girls' education, something Malala believes is invaluable. Not only does Malala want to continue going to school, but she wants all other girls to receive an education as well, and throughout the memoir she stands up against the Taliban to promote this.

Climax The climax of the memoir occurs when a Taliban officer boards Malala's school bus, asks for her by name, and then shoots her in the face.

Foreshadowing Malala narrates this memoir in retrospect, so there are many instances where she hints at what is going to happen. A notable instance of foreshadowing occurs at the end of Chapter 23, when Malala finishes the chapter about her hospitalization in Birmingham by saying, "I didn't realize then I wouldn't be going home" (pg. 143).

Allusions Malala repeatedly alludes to Twilight, the famous book series about vampires by Stephenie Meyer. When the Taliban comes to Swat Valley, she says, "It seemed to us that the Taliban arrived in the night just like vampires" (pg. 60).

#i am malala #malala #malala yousafzai #books #memoir #notes #cheat sheet #studying #english #literature #studyblr

8 notes · View notes

arcticdementor · 5 years ago

Link

This week Jonathan Schulz, Duman Bahrami-Rad, Jonathan Beauchamp, and Joseph Henrich had their big piece on WEIRD psychology and the Catholic Church published in Science. [1] Long term readers will remember that I wrote about this piece in the American Conservative when the pre-print was published last year, and then wrote a critique of the Schulz-Henrich research program as a whole on this blog shortly after.[2] I still feel like that critique is one of the better things I have written here; in a different world I would be a grad student trying to turn that critique into its own set of research papers.

My critique withstanding, I see the "Origins of WIERD Psychology" as a landmark paper in the fields of economics, psychology, anthropology, and history. It deserves that status precisely because it is one of the few attempts to use data and theory from all four fields in one place. This is how social science should be done—and increasingly, I believe, how it will be done. I was very happy to see a version of it published in Science.

Not everybody was so happy. The paper was met with outcry on twitter. "This is a pile of hot-trash" declared one; "[none] of the authors even bothered to read a history book or talk to a historian" inveighed another. "It’s also almost unbelievably ethnocentric — what it says about Europe is wrong," we read, "and what it implies about the world beyond Europe is equally wrong." Discussion of the piece has been a crazed tumult of the contrived ("I am just very very tired. SIGHS IN ALL CAPS), the snarky ("Historians of the family are a whole field. With books. And classes that you can take. And experts and everything"), the crusaders ("its time for a heavyweight institutional response"), and the righteously enraged ("holy shit am I angry").

…

This notion that Schulz and company do not take history seriously is silly. The Science paper splits the references up between the main paper and the supplements (which none of the critics seem to have read!). Instead of bouncing between those two documents, I am going to refer to the pre-print instead, which keeps everything in one neat 174 page mega-paper. At the bottom of the pre-print we find 242 sources. By my informal count, 43 of these were written by historians. I might I have misjudged one or two of these. But I am talking about books with titles like Reordering Marriage and Society in Reformation Germany, The Transformation of a Religious Landscape: Medieval Southern Italy 850-1150, Marriage, Family, and Law in Medieval Europe and From Sappho to De Sade: Moments in the History of Sexuality. To these sources are another 20 or so works by historical economists ("Girl Power: The European Marriage Pattern and Labour Markets in the North Sea Region in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Period," Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons From Medieval Trade, etc), and a slightly smaller number by anthropologists of a historical or comparative bent (The Evolution Of Human Societies: From Foraging Group To Agrarian State, Explanation of Ideology: Family Structure and Social System, etc.). Rounding us out are a few "big think" titles by people like Jared Diamond, Francis Fukuyama, and Michael Mann. The remaining 140~ sources are devoted to research in cross cultural psychology, development economics, demography, and evolutionary anthropology.

Sweeping big history books celebrated in the discipline (think the style of William McNiell) will deal with topics like these peripherally, and do so in three or four pages citing six or seven sources. Most article-length treatments in historical journals have less than 40 sources. Schulz et. al. have met that standard. Their study includes regional surveys of medieval society in every part of Europe, a dozen Europe-wide surveys of the history of European marriage, sex, and law, and even a few primary sources. No, they have not dived into the archives for this project; none of them began their career with a 300 page dissertation on marriage records in a single Welsh parish. But historians do not demand that standard even from other historians who set out to write trans-regional surveys. Their bibliography is as good as you would expect to find in any work of comparative history—which in a way, this is.

…

Thus none of the underlying ideas here are novel. Schulz and company are not advancing some bold new thesis: they are testing an old one. The worst they have done is take an already existing theory in the field and asked, "How could we test this with statistical methods and experimental data? Does the Mitterauer-Todd-MacFarlane thesis predict actual cross cultural psychological variation today? If so, how would we know?" Their solution to this problem is clever and worth reading in full (including the supplements!).

That is all Schultz et. al. have done. They have tested and refined an existing thesis with new methods (and show how their findings accord with theories in economics and psychology). But why then, all this outcry? Why the histrionics?

…

The charitable hypothesis is that many historians are reacting this way because of the paper's venue. This has been published in Science. Like most work in Science it stuffs all the caveats and sourcing into the supplements; the smaller summary brims with all the confidence of numbers and empirical fact. Mitterauer's theory was bold but contested. His work has thirty contenders in the "great divergence" literature. Among medievalists, his take on medieval family life has not attained general consensus. But here we see it proclaimed as SCIENCE. Perish the day one stray and contested medievalist theory becomes enshrined as scientific fact!

This reaction is understandable. We live in an age when 16 year old girls wield phrases like "unite behind the science" as a rhetorical bludgeon. In our world, "the science" has immense cultural authority. However, being published in Science is not the same thing as being a part of "the science." Tally up the number of studies in a newly emerging field (say, historical population genetics) that were published in Science only to have their interpretations of the data overturned a few years later. There are a lot!

…

So there is no need for the upset. Unless the upset is about something else—which it might be. My less charitable hypothesis goes like this: When Mitterauer or another historian advances a historical thesis it is simply "one more contribution" to an argument. When a coalition of psychologists, economists, and evolutionary anthropologists advance a historical argument it is a threat.

…

Schultz and company are threatening because they use methods impenetrable to most historians and embody a positivist attitude uncongenial to these historians' broader beliefs. To receive Schultz et. al's work as a legitimate entry in the debate—as historians regularly do with the work of colleagues that they disagree with—would mean conceding that the methods psychologists and economists use to understand the world may be just as useful for understanding medieval times as a trip to the archives. It would be mean recognizing the importance of statistical literacy, and more terrifying still, accepting that the "subjectivist instincts" which rule so much of the history profession may be inadequate for answering the kind of questions social scientists may ask of them.

But the truth is that an economist and a psychologist do have methods that may be useful for understanding the medieval world. Medievalists should welcome the contributions of social scientists with the same warmness that Schulz and company embraced the research of historians. A past generation of empirical psychologists and economists would not have read 40 tomes on Medieval European society to inform their research. But they have—and created a worthy advance in the literature by doing so. They are not afraid of allowing historians into their debates. There is no reason for the historians to fear the reverse.

#scholar's stage #read the whole thing #history #social science

2 notes · View notes

wisdomrays · 5 years ago

Text

People of Action and Scholarly Ones

QUESTION: What are the lessons today’s believers should draw from the following Divine message:

“Believers should not go forth to war all together. But why should not a party from every community of them mobilize to acquire profound, correct knowledge and understanding of the Religion, and warn their people when they return to them so that they may beware (of wrongful attitudes)” (at-Tawbah 9:122).

ANSWER: God Almighty first reveals that it is not correct for all believers to simultaneously go on a military campaign and take part in war. Then He states that a party should stay behind to gain insight into the spirit of religion and that when their people come back from different fronts, these learned ones should guide them with fair exhortation, feed them with religious knowledge, and teach them what they should know; this is because those people who engaged with the enemy during warfare may have failed to receive the religious education they need.

State of the learned ones and success

In the early period of Islam, since believers told people the truth, and represented and expressed justice, they faced attacks by the antagonists of religion. In such a situation, believers could not say to the enemies coming to exterminate them, “Come on, let us sit in the mosque and discuss first.” Even if they did, those enemies, who were fixed on grudge and destruction, would have tried to demolish that mosque and bury the believers therein. In order to stand against such demolition, they fought to protect their chastity, honor, religion, home, and flag.

After the demise of the noble Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and during the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, may God be pleased with them, similar problems emerged and Muslims had to engage with enemies in different places. During the time of Caliph Abu Bakr they had to fight on eight different fronts in order to repress the cases of apostasy in different tribes. Besides, the Sassanid and Roman empires, which were the super powers of the time, also had their eyes on Muslims. Since they accosted Muslims at every opportunity, Muslims had to fight defensive wars against them in different parts of the world.

In such a situation, had everyone attended war without any exception, there would have been a serious gap in terms of religious education. In the verse mentioned above, God Almighty commands that a group of people should stay behind for scholarly purposes in order to compensate for the lack of knowledge in those who return from war. Thus He pointed out that Muslims must definitely retain their learned state and attain the horizons necessitated by the conditions of their era. If believer fail to attain such a state and horizons, it is not possible to stand against attacks on different fronts anyway.

Cultural envoys

As for the conditions of our era, when knowledge and power of discourse came to the fore, continuing to exist as ourselves will be possible by means of the power of knowledge, pen, and discourse. Therefore, the devoted souls who are the cultural envoys in our time should take their values to different parts of the world—not with weapons and brutal force, but with knowledge, wisdom, love, tolerance, and goodness. The way of peace and love opens the way that leads to hearts, whereas brutal force causes grudge and hatred to rise from the dead. For this reason, unless you remain under invasion and have no any other way but to fight, no solution should by sought through force. As for the issue of using force, it should be evaluated within a perspective of defense or eliminating an inescapable danger.

It is for this reason that the most important duty to be fulfilled with respect to Islam and humanity is going to the four corners of the world, taking our cultural values there, and in the meantime benefitting from different patterns and colors wherever we are, as far as they do not contradict our essential teachings. By coming into contact with different people in the places they go, the devoted souls will both serve as honorary representatives of our cultural values, and they will receive the beautiful sides of those cultures and present them to their own people. However, as they will be predominantly busy with their pursuits of peaceful action, they may not be sufficiently nourished in terms of knowledge and spirituality. Then, it is necessary to edify individuals well-versed in the values of our spiritual heritage, who know our essential sources better, and thus who will help those in the field of peaceful action be nourished as is necessary. Those who undertake the responsibility to deepen in correct and profound knowledge and comprehension of Islam should constantly flow like a pure freshwater spring, nourishing the altruistic souls running in the field, who should in return take what they will from that source and complete their scholarly equipment.

Scholarly ones open to both physical and spiritual disciplines

By referring to acquiring “profound, correct knowledge and understanding of the Religion,” the verse points to the fact that those who stay behind need to be equipped with knowledge pertaining to faith, Islam, and to ihsan, or perfect goodness. Together with that, the sound functioning of these values, their easily being welcome by a society (perhaps of a very different cultural background), and their being liked and valued, depends on correct discernment of non-religious realities and rules as well. Therefore, besides religion, it bears much importance to master the natural sciences, which constitute the basis for most modern sciences. It is important to carry out research in this respect, and behold appreciatively the creation displayed in nature.

While learning religious disciplines on the one hand, modern sciences should not be neglected either. He pointed out that a student’s endeavor would soar only when these two are found together. Excluding one of these two will mean leaving the other devoid of wings. One should neither make concessions from learning religious disciplines, which are the light of the heart, nor ignore modern sciences, which are the light of the mind, reason, and judgment.

In addition, this verse emphasizes the importance of love of knowledge and research. Therefore, one must make very serious efforts in order to master both the religious and modern sciences, and remain like a “student” until the end of their life. The Arabic word for student (talib) means “seeker” of knowledge. No matter whether a person studies religious disciplines or modern sciences, if that person is utilizing the essences distilled from those studies for the sake of knowing God and maintaining a sound balance, then that person will be treated as a true student or seeker of knowledge. So what does such a treatment mean? As the Messenger of God stated, God Almighty makes the way to Paradise easier to one who sets forth demanding to acquire knowledge.

Seeking knowledge is very important and the benefits a scholar can bring to society are great. Thus, one’s society is responsible for supporting seekers of knowledge and doing what they can for them. It is very difficult for someone dedicated to knowledge to devote time for anything else. Accordingly, some Islamic scholars stated that even if they wear expensive clothes and the threshold of their door is made of gold, it is still possible to give alms to seekers of knowledge, because the vitality of a nation depends on such mastering of knowledge. If this cannot be done, the nation will collapse and disintegrate. Due to this stagnancy, some cracks emerged in the Islamic world in the fifth century after the holy migration. With the recession in the 13th and 14th centuries, a complete break down and disintegration happened. We have not been able to straighten up since.

Dignified contentment and remaining under obligation

In response to people’s support and care, seekers of knowledge must do their best in terms of being worthy of such kindness and must not waste a second of their time. Through very serious planning, division of labor, and a discipline of mutual helping, these seekers must be completely focused on this task. They must devote all of their energy to the task so as to be deserving of the people’s regard for them—even if that means sleeping only four hours if necessary and devoting twenty hours of the day to studying. Who knows? When they study with such seriousness, maybe God Almighty will grant them in two years what another person can attain in ten years.

Incidentally, let me share how I feel about one issue: I feel heartbroken for those who go abroad for a PhD, but cannot finish that in even ten years. While the dire need of our country for qualified people is obvious, God will call them to account for wasting so much time. Time is the greatest capital for a human. If a person has taken such a path once, they should persevere, exert their brains, make use of all arguments they can make use of, benefit from all sources they can, and if possible, they should even finish their PhD before the time determined for them.

I wish to underline one more point concerning scholarly ones: Dignified contentment is a very important principle for those dedicated to scholarly pursuits, with respect to the honor of both knowledge and learned ones. Actually, the path of the Prophets is also based on this essential. In many verses of the Qur’an, it is stated that they said,

“I ask of you no wage for that (for conveying God’s Message); my wage is only due from the Lord of the worlds” (ash-Shuara 26:127).

In this respect, scholarly ones should not be obliged to anyone if possible, in any phase of their lives—neither while they are students, nor when they become teachers, or teacher of teachers…

May God forbid, if one does not have this feeling of dignified contentment, and if that person carries out certain tasks for the sake of some returns, such as becoming a manager, director general, MP, minister, or prime minister, then such a person cannot be saved from being obliged to other people. Unfortunately, the concessions they make on account of being obliged will not only cost them dearly, but cost their nation as well. In this respect, those who engage in scholarly pursuits must arrange their lives in accordance with the principle of dignified contentment. They must use the means of their fathers if they can, or they must make a modest living with their own means, if they can. They should live frugally, never becoming obliged to anyone and never having to make concessions.

2 notes · View notes

vanayawafer-blog · 5 years ago

Text

In the time of This Revelation, the Muslims Discovered the rulings of Islam from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)

In the time of This Revelation, the Muslims Discovered the rulings of Islam from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) through the verses of the Holy Qur'aan and the ahaadeeth of his Sunnah. Therefore there were no differences of opinion among them except with respect to some minor difficulties. If that happened, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would explain to them what was right.

When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died and the Sahaabah spread out to various regions to educate the people Islam, there seemed some differences with respect to some matters of fiqh which arose at different times and at different places. These differences were due to a number of reasons, which we will sum up here in the words of the scholars:

1-The evidence hadn't reached the person who held a different opinion, and he made a mistake in forming his opinion.

2-The hadeeth had attained the scholar, but he didn't respect the transmitter as trusted, and he believed that it went against something that was more powerful, so he followed that which he believed was more powerful than it.

3-The hadeeth had reached him he forgot it.

4-The hadeeth had reached him he knew it in a way aside from the intended meaning.

5-The hadeeth reached him it was abrogated, and he didn't understand the abrogating text.

6-He thought that it contradicted something that was more powerful than it, whether that was a text or scholarly consensus (ijmaa')

7-The scholar used a weak hadeeth as the basis for his ruling, or he derived the ruling by way of weak arguments.

For a detailed discussion of these reasons and others, visit Raf' al-Malaam'an al-A'immati'l-A'laam by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, and al-Khilaaf bayna al-'Ulama': Asbaabuhu wa Mawqifuna minhu by Shaykh al-'Uthaymeen. For more information visit us at Islamic Fiqh.

We think that what we've mentioned about the reasons for differences among the scholars i.e., with respect to matters of fiqh, will be clear to you, in sha Allaah.

Secondly:

What if the Muslim's attitude be towards differences that arise between the scholars? In other words, which scholarly opinion should the Muslim follow in matters where they differed? The answer depends:

1 -- If the Muslim is one who has studied shar'I knowledge and learned its basic principles and minor issues, and he can distinguish right from wrong concerning scholarly views, then he has to follow that which he thinks is correct and ignore what he thinks is wrong.

2 -- If he's among the rank and file, or hasn't studied shar'I understanding, and thus can't differentiate between right and wrong concerning scholarly views, then he should follow the fatwa of a scholar whose knowledge he trusts and who he believes to be trusted and religiously committed, whether he's from his own country or a different country, and differences between scholars won't matter after that. He doesn't need to change what he's doing because he hears another scholar issuing a fatwa that differs from the one he's following, unless he realizes that what he learned later on is the right view, on the basis of his confidence in the religious commitment and understanding of the second Shaykh.

The person who has knowledge of evidence is needed to follow the evidence, even if it goes against some of the imams, if it doesn't go against the consensus of the ummah. For more info checkout Guide to Islam.

youtube

The one who doesn't have any knowledge should ask the scholars, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):"So ask of people who know the Scripture, if you know not" [al-Nahl 16:43]. He must ask one who he thinks has more knowledge and is more religiously committed, but that doesn't mean that doing so obligatory, because the person who is better may make a mistake in terms of a particular issue, and the person who is considered less educated may be appropriate with regard to it. But priority should be given to following the person who is more educated and more religiously committed.

Thirdly:

If you inquire about our view on the matter of covering the face, the most correct scholarly view in our opinion is that it is obligatory to cover the face in front of non-mahram men. There is a whole lot of evidence and scholarly views concerning that, as among the Maalikis. Many of them said that it is not permissible for a woman to uncover her face in front of non-mahram guys, not because it is'awrah but because discovering it runs the danger of fitnah. But some of them think that it is'awrah. Hence women, in their view, are forbidden to go out in front of non-mahram guys with their faces uncovered.

"And when you ask (his wives) for anything you want, ask them from behind a screen"

[al-Ahzaab 33:53]

The whole woman is'awrah, her body and her voice, so it is not permissible to uncover that except in cases of necessity, like when testimony is given against her, or medical treatment, or asking her about her health difficulties. End quote.

Ahkaam al-Qur'aan by Ibn al-'Arabi (3/1578, 1579).

This verse indicates that Allaah has given permission to ask of them from behind a screen if there is some need, or when they ask a question about something. That includes all women. Because it is a basic shar'I principle that the full woman is'awrah, her body and her voice -- as stated above --it is not permissible to uncover that except in cases of necessity like when testimony is given against her, or medical treatment, or asking her about her health difficulties. End quote.

In al-Jaami' li Ahkaam al-Qur'aan (14/227) it says:

For more information on the views of Maaliki fuqaha' concerning the obligation for women to cover their faces, visit: al-Ma'yaar al-Mu'arrab by al-Wanshireesi (10/165 and 11/226 and 229), Mawaahib al-Jaleel by al-Hattaab (3/141), al-Dhakheerah by al-Quraafi (3/307) and Haashiyat al-Dasooqi'ala al-Sharh al-Kabeer (2/55).

We have discussed this issue and its evidence in more than one answer on this website. Please see the answers to questions no.

In regards to what you say about the laws in your country forbidding women to cover their faces, that's something which makes us feel very sad, to hear that covering and chastity are being opposed and wanton display and unveiling are being encouraged everywhere, especially when that happens in a country that's supposed to be Muslim.

If the laws prohibit women to cover, and you fear persecution because of covering your faces, then there's no sin on you if you don't do it in that situation, so long as that's based on necessity. So a woman should not go out of her house with her face uncovered except in cases of necessity. If she can break the law and put up with a little bit of hassle, let her do so for there is no obedience to any created being if it involves disobedience towards the Creator.

2 notes · View notes

shes-unbreakable-blog · 5 years ago

Text

At the time of the Revelation, the Muslims Discovered the rulings of Islam from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)

At the time of the Revelation, the Muslims Discovered the rulings of Islam from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) through the verses of the Holy Qur'aan and the ahaadeeth of his Sunnah. Therefore there were no differences of opinion among them except with regard to some minor issues. If that occurred, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would explain to them what was correct.

When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died and the Sahaabah spread out to different regions to teach the people Islam, there appeared some differences with regard to some matters of fiqh which arose at different times and at different places. These differences were due to a number of reasons, which we will sum up here in the words of the scholars:

1-The evidence hadn't reached the one who held a different opinion, and he made a mistake in forming his opinion.

2-The hadeeth had attained the scholar, but he did not regard the transmitter as trusted, and he believed it went against something that was stronger, so he followed that which he believed was stronger than it. If you want to read more information regarding Islamic Fiqh check out our page.

3-The hadeeth had reached him but he forgot it.

4-The hadeeth had reached him but he understood it in a way other than the intended meaning.

5-The hadeeth reached him but it was abrogated, and he did not understand the abrogating text.

6-He thought it contradicted something that was stronger than it, whether that was a text or scholarly consensus (ijmaa')

7-The scholar used a weak hadeeth as the basis for his ruling, or he derived the ruling by way of weak arguments.

We think that what we have mentioned about the reasons for differences among the scholars i.e., with regard to matters of fiqh, will be clear to you, in sha Allaah.

Secondly:

To put it differently, which scholarly opinion should the Muslim follow in matters where they differed? The Solution depends:

1 -- If the Muslim is one who has researched shar'I knowledge and learned its basic principles and minor issues, and he can distinguish right from wrong with regard to scholarly views, then he must follow that which he thinks is correct and ignore that which he thinks is wrong.

youtube

2 -- If he is among the rank and file, or has not studied shar'I understanding, and thus can't differentiate between right and wrong with regard to scholarly views, then he must follow the fatwa of a scholar whose knowledge that he trusts and who he thinks to be trusted and religiously committed, whether he is from his own country or a different country, and differences between scholars won't matter after that. He doesn't need to change what he is doing because he hears another scholar issuing a fatwa that differs from the one he is following, unless he realizes that what he learned later on is the correct view, on the basis of his confidence in the religious commitment and understanding of the next Shaykh.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-'Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

The one who has knowledge of evidence is needed to follow the evidence, even if it goes against some of the imams, if it doesn't go against the consensus of the ummah.

The one who doesn't have any knowledge should ask the scholars, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):"So ask of those who know the Scripture, if you know not" [al-Nahl 16:43]. He must ask one who he thinks has more knowledge and is more religiously committed, but that doesn't mean that doing this obligatory, because the one who is better may make a mistake in terms of a particular issue, and the one who is regarded as less knowledgeable may be right with regard to it. But priority ought to be given to following the one who is more knowledgeable and more religiously committed.

See also the answers to questions no.

Thirdly:

If you ask about our opinion on the issue of covering the face, the most correct scholarly view in our view is it is obligatory to cover the face in front of non-mahram men. There is a great deal of evidence and scholarly views concerning that, as among the Maalikis. Many of them said it is not permissible for a woman to uncover her face in front of non-mahram men, not because it is'awrah but because discovering it runs the danger of fitnah. However, some of them think it is'awrah. Hence women, in their opinion, are forbidden to go out before non-mahram men with their faces uncovered. If you liked this article and you would like to obtain more information relating to this article then kindly visit us at Guide to Islam.

"And when you ask (his wives) for anything you want, ask them from behind a screen"

al-Qaadi Abu Bakr ibn al-'Arabi al-Maaliki (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

The entire woman is'awrah, her body and her voice, so it is not permissible to discover that except in cases of necessity, like when testimony is given against her, or medical treatment, or asking her about her health issues. End quote.

This verse suggests that Allaah has given permission to ask of them from behind a display if there is some need, or when they ask a question about something. That includes all women. Because it is a basic shar'I principle that the entire woman is'awrah, her body and her voice -- as mentioned above --it is not permissible to discover that except in cases of necessity like when testimony is given against her, or medical treatment, or asking her about her health issues. End quote.

In al-Jaami' li Ahkaam al-Qur'aan (14/227) it states:

To learn more on the views of Maaliki fuqaha' concerning the obligation for women to cover their faces, visit: al-Ma'yaar al-Mu'arrab by al-Wanshireesi (10/165 and 11/226 and 229), Mawaahib al-Jaleel by al-Hattaab (3/141), al-Dhakheerah by al-Quraafi (3/307) and Haashiyat al-Dasooqi'ala al-Sharh al-Kabeer (2/55).

We've discussed this issue and its signs in more than one answer on this site.

In regards to what you mention about the laws in your country forbidding women to cover their faces, that is something that makes us feel very sad, to hear that masking and chastity are being opposed and wanton display and unveiling are being encouraged everywhere, especially when that occurs in a country that is supposed to be Muslim.

If the laws prohibit women to pay, and you fear persecution because of masking your faces, then there is no sin on you if you don't do it in that case, so long as that is based on necessity. So a woman should not go from her house with her face uncovered except in cases of necessity. If she can break the law and put up with a small amount of hassle, let her do this for there is no obedience to any created being if it involves disobedience towards the Creator.

2 notes · View notes

meme-corporation · 5 years ago

Text

In the time of the Revelation, the Muslims Discovered the rulings of Islam from the Prophet

In the time of the Revelation, the Muslims Discovered the rulings of Islam from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) through the verses of the Holy Qur'aan and the ahaadeeth of his Sunnah. Hence there were no differences of opinion among them except with regard to some minor difficulties. If that occurred, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would explain to them what was correct. For more info checkout Islamic Fiqh.

When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died and the Sahaabah spread out to various regions to educate the people Islam, there appeared some differences with regard to some matters of fiqh which arose at different times and in various places. These differences were due to a number of reasons, which we will sum up here from the words of the scholars:

1-The evidence had not reached the one who held a different opinion, and he made a mistake in forming his opinion.

2-The hadeeth had attained the scholar, but he didn't regard the transmitter as trusted, and he believed that it went against something that was stronger, so he followed that which he believed was stronger than it.

3-The hadeeth had reached him he forgot it.

4-The hadeeth had reached him he understood it in a way other than the intended meaning.

5-The hadeeth reached him it was abrogated, and he didn't understand the abrogating text.

6-He thought that it contradicted something that was stronger than it, whether that was a text or scholarly consensus (ijmaa')

7-The scholar used a weak hadeeth as the basis for his judgment, or he derived the judgment by way of weak arguments.

We think that what we've said about the reasons for differences among the scholars i.e., with regard to matters of fiqh, will be clear to you, in sha Allaah.

youtube

Secondly:

What should the Muslim's attitude be towards differences that arise between the scholars? In other words, which scholarly opinion should the Muslim follow in matters where they differed? The answer depends:

1 -- If the Muslim is one who has researched shar'I knowledge and learned its fundamental principles and minor problems, and he can distinguish right from wrong concerning scholarly views, then he must follow that which he thinks is correct and ignore that which he thinks is wrong.

2 -- If he is among the rank and file, or hasn't studied shar'I knowledge, and thus cannot differentiate between right and wrong concerning scholarly views, then he should follow the fatwa of a scholar whose knowledge he trusts and who he believes to be trusted and religiously committed, whether he is from his own country or a different country, and differences between scholars won't matter after that. He does not have to change what he is doing because he hears another scholar issuing a fatwa that differs from the one he is following, unless he realizes that what he learned later on is the correct perspective, on the basis of his confidence in the religious commitment and knowledge of the second Shaykh. Also checkout our blog Guide to Islam for more information.

The one who has knowledge of proof is required to follow the evidence, even though it goes against some of the imams, if it does not go against the consensus of the ummah.

The one who does not have any knowledge should ask the scholars, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):"So ask of people who know the Scripture, if you know not" [al-Nahl 16:43]. He must ask one who he thinks has more knowledge and is more religiously committed, but it does not mean that doing so obligatory, because the one who is better may make a mistake with regard to a specific issue, and the one who is regarded as less knowledgeable may be right with regard to it. But priority should be given to following the one who is more knowledgeable and more religiously committed.

Thirdly:

If you ask about our view on the issue of covering the face, the most correct scholarly view in our view is that it is obligatory to cover the face facing non-mahram men. There is a great deal of evidence and scholarly views concerning that, as one of the Maalikis. Many of them said that it is not permissible for a woman to uncover her face facing non-mahram men, not because it's'awrah but because discovering it runs the risk of fitnah. However, some of them think that it is'awrah. Hence women, in their view, are forbidden to go out in front of non-mahram men with their faces uncovered.

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

"And if you ask (his wives) for anything you want, ask them from behind a screen"

The whole woman is'awrah, her body and her voice, so it's not permissible to discover that except in cases of necessity, like when testimony is given against her, or medical treatment, or asking her about her health difficulties. End quote.

Ahkaam al-Qur'aan by Ibn al-'Arabi (3/1578, 1579).

Al-Qurtubi (may Allaah have mercy on him), who is also Maaliki, said:

This verse suggests that Allaah has given permission to ask of them from behind a screen if there is some need, or when they ask a question about something. That includes all girls. Because it's a fundamental shar'I principle that the entire woman is'awrah, her body and her voice -- as stated above --it is not permissible to discover that except in cases of necessity like when testimony is given against her, or medical treatment, or asking her about her health difficulties. End quote.

In al-Jaami' li Ahkaam al-Qur'aan (14/227) it says:

To learn more on the perspectives of Maaliki fuqaha' concerning the obligation for women to cover their faces, see: al-Ma'yaar al-Mu'arrab by al-Wanshireesi (10/165 and 11/226 and 229), Mawaahib al-Jaleel by al-Hattaab (3/141), al-Dhakheerah by al-Quraafi (3/307) and Haashiyat al-Dasooqi'ala al-Sharh al-Kabeer (2/55).

We have discussed this problem and its evidence in more than one answer on this site. Please see the answers to questions no.

In regards to what you say about the laws in your country forbidding women to cover their faces, that is something which makes us feel quite sad, to hear that masking and chastity are being opposed and wanton display and unveiling are being encouraged anywhere, especially when that happens in a country that is supposed to be Muslim.

If the laws prohibit women to pay, and you fear persecution because of masking your faces, then there's no sin on you if you do not do it in that situation, so long as that is based on necessity. So a woman should not go from her home with her face uncovered except in cases of necessity. If she can break the law and put up with a little bit of hassle, let her do so for there is no obedience to any created being if it involves disobedience towards the Creator.

2 notes · View notes

margridarnauds · 6 years ago

Text

greenwitchpinkcrystals replied to your post “It turns out that every time I see “Danu” listed as an “Earth...”

Why

So, first off, let’s get this out of the way: This is not meant to affect ANYONE’S religious or spiritual practices. If you have a relationship with any of the Tuatha dé that doesn’t fit a given analysis, I’m not going to be the one who says “No, that’s wrong.” That’s YOUR relationship and your belief system, and I’m not going to touch that. That is NOT my place.

What I’m talking about is purely on an academic level, reading the original medieval texts, and I will say that what I’m about to say, while I think it LEANS towards what I believe the academic consensus is, is not holy writ either. I fully admit that, if it came down to assigning myself to EITHER anti-nativist or nativist, I would probably class myself in with the anti-nativists, AKA The Party Poopers of Celtic Studies, as you’re probably going to find out soon.

On a more simplified level, there are three figures from Irish Mythology who I do NOT like discussing simply because they tend to elicit very strong reactions from people when Commonly Accepted Truths are questioned: Bríg, the Morrigan, and Danu. All three of them tend to activate my fight or flight response when they’re brought up (and, most of the time, my option of choice is FLIGHT.)

Point 1 (AKA “In Which Rachel Rants About 99% Of The Over-Generalizations of the Tuatha dé Into a Given Function”)

it’s nearly impossible to concretely assign almost ANY of the Tuatha dé to a function. They aren’t really...a PANTHEON like that, if you look at the texts. They’re an ever-shifting cast of figures loosely tied together by a sprawling body of texts, poems, and genealogies who, while they MIGHT have had a pre-Christian past, are being primarily used as literary figures. And it’s nigh impossible to tell where the one begins and the other ends, especially since the Tuatha dé SHIFT depending on the text (and sometimes even in the same text!)

One of my favorite examples is Lugh. Generally regarded as one of the best figures of the Tuatha dé, the hero of Cath Maige Tuired, master of all skills. A GOOD GUY, right? Except...in Sons of Tuireann, he brutally manipulates the deaths of three men simply because he decided that he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. And in the Dindsenchas poem Carn Ui Neit, where he kills Bres. And in How the Dagda Got His Magical Staff, where he kills Cermait for sleeping with his wife. And the main text where he’s a Shining Hero, Cath Maige Tuired, is generally accepted by scholars these days (most notably John Carey and Mark Williams) agree that the text primarily comes out of a 9th century context and is meant to be basically a bolster for the literary elite in light of the Viking invasions (the Fomorians come from Lochlann “Land of Lakes,” which can either mean “Norway” or “Norse occupied Scotland” in a medieval Irish context). It’s not that Lugh is NOT a pre-Christian figure, because the figure Lugus with Gaul is...pretty indicative that there’s SOMETHING, but we have no idea WHAT. And, really as far as the Tuatha dé are concerned, there are probably...less than five figures I would SOLIDLY say we have any evidence for worship for and an idea of where they MAY have fit. Give or take one or two depending how I’m feeling on a given day. (Obviously, some people, even on the more skeptical side of things, can be more or less generous than me; I’m just a naturally very suspicious person. The ‘less than ten’ thing should not be taken as any indication of a consensus here.)

Basically, they couldn’t even agree on how these guys were supposed to behave, much less give them a FUNCTION. Their powers, what and who they’re associated with, etc. all is variable, and it’s impossible to tell which figures were genuine pre-Christian figures and which ones were literary figures who were invented to serve the purposes of the time. (Also, there are some figures who are highly associated with the literary elite but who...don’t pop up in any of the folktales that adapt the same stories, which leads me to suspect that their MAIN association was with the literary elite and they didn’t have any real influence out of that. See: Bres. I WANT my special boy to have been a Big Figure who was worshipped and respected, but the evidence, to ME at least, strongly suggests that he was a figure strongly associated with the literary elite who was tacked on as a villain to Cath Maige Tuired.)

So, my tl;dr here is that, really, it’s hard to assign a “mother goddess” or “Fertility goddess” to the Tuatha dé because, simply put, there is no way to assign that kind of specific function to almost ANY of the figures of the Tuatha dé. How they’re depicted really depends more on what the individual scribe wanted to convey rather than consistently associating them with ONE thing, and even in cases like Cormac’s Glossary, which DOES give a FEW of them functions, it’s....shaky at times, as we’re about to deal with. There are figures who ARE mothers, but it’s hard to really say that they’re...THAT associated with it. Generally speaking, the designation seems to be given to female figures in the text mainly because...they couldn’t think of anything else to apply to women? Ditto for “Fertility”. (See: Bríg. There is no reason to assume that Bríg had ANY association with fertility, and yet it’s a claim I see regularly trotted out.)

Point 2 (AKA “Okay, but what about DANU? Who IS said to be ‘Mother of the Gods?’”):

Even by the usually-shaky standards of Irish Mythological continuity, (D)anand (not Danu in any of the medieval texts) is...strange, as far as her background. Not in a “There are like ten layers of literary stuff lightly sautéed on top of a Pre-Christian background” way, but in a, “Holy Shit, they REALLY created a goddess out of nothing, didn’t they?” way. The tl;dr is that, INITIALLY the Tuatha dé Danann were...the Tuatha dé. Just “Tuatha dé.” Which translates out very, very roughly to “God-Tribe.” Which WORKED but also, unfortunately, was the same term used for the Israelites in the Bible, which caused Confusion understandably.

And, well. I’m going to let Mark Williams explain the rest, since he’s the man with the PhD (Also, if you have ANY interest in how our current conceptions of the Tuatha dé have been formed, I HIGHLY recommend this book. It’s a VERY solid, accessible book that doesn’t bog itself in academic jargon and instead tries to create something that can be read and enjoyed by anyone, and unlike me, he’s very open as far as the possibilities):

This tangle indicates two things: first, the origins and developments of the mysterious Donand are not fully recoverable, and secondly the idea that Irish paganism knew a divine matriarch named Danu cannot now be maintained. The compilers of ‘Cormac’s Glossary’ may have been quite correct that there had once been a goddess called Anu or Ana associated with the Paps mountains, since it beggars belief to think that the pre-Christian Irish would not have associated so impressively breasted a landscape with a female deity. On the other hand it is suspicious that so important a figure as the glossary’s ‘mother of the Irish gods’ should go unmentioned in the early sagas, teeming as they are with former gods and goddesses. This raises the possibility that Ana/Anu may have simply been a local Munster figure, less familiar or even unknown elsewhere in Ireland.

Michael Clarke foes further, and suggests that the lofty description of Anu/Anu in ‘Cormac’s Glossary’ may itself owe more to medieval learning than to pagan religion, and result from a monastic scholar musing learnedly on the goddess Cybele, mother of the classical gods...He also quotes Isidore, Irish scholars’ favourite source for the learning of Mediterranean antiquity, who describes Cybele in striking terms: “They imagine the same one as both Earth and Great Mother...She is called Mother, because she gives birth to many things. Great, because she generates food; Kindly, because she nourishes all living things through her fruits.”

This, as Clarke notes, is so close to the Irish glossary entry that it is hard to avoid the suspicion that the ‘personality’ of the goddess Ana-’who used to feed the gods well’-has been cooked up in imitation of the classical deity. That Clarke’s analysis may be right is suggested by a distinctive oddity in the ‘Ana’ entry: While traces of the activities of divine beings are constantly detected in the landscape in Irish tradition, nowhere else is a natural feature described as part of a divinity’s body. This is rare even for the better-attested gods of classical tradition, with the signal exception of the great mother-goddesses of the eastern Mediterranean, of whom Cycle, the ‘Mountain Mother’, came to be the most prominent. Ana/Anu is simply not on the same scale or plane of representation as síd beings like Midir or Óengus, and it is telling that the Paps of Ana were imagined (by the early thirteenth century at the latest) as a pair of síd-mounds, the separate and unconnected dwellings of different otherworldly rulers.

(Ireland’s Immortals, pg. 189-190)

So, just as much as it’s hard to assign a function to MOST of the Tuatha dé, it’s even harder to really....SAY whether Ana actually existed prior to a certain period of time. She definitely wasn’t called “Danu;” that form of her name is never used at that point.

Was there a figure who was “Mother to the Gods?” I don’t know. Maybe there was! Maybe she was the Great Mother Goddess of the pre-Christian Irish! I’m not going to claim to KNOW one way or another until we invent time machines and I can properly go back in time to shake an answer out of Cormac in person. But it’s impossible to know and the evidence is scant at best, definitely not worthy of the press she gets. I wish I could tell you. I really do, even if the answer was something that I personally wouldn’t like. But then, we wouldn’t have a field, either.

#greenwitchpinkcrystals #long post #irish mythology #i tried to make this as short and succinct as possible and i still failed #whoops #danu #celtic mythology

13 notes · View notes

savedfromsalvation · 5 years ago

Link

Compiled by Jim Walker

Biblical Pornography

"Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses."(Ezekiel 23: 19-21)

"and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions." (Ezekiel 23: 21, NRSV)

Comment

The story of the sister whores, Aholah and Aholibah gives a moral lesson against the sins of the flesh. But why does God have to describe their adventures in such pornographic detail? Does God love porn?

What parent would want their children reading verse 21 about comparing the size of men's penises to donkey genitals and the sperm flow to that of horse issues?

As any adult religious parent might believe, such lustful descriptions, if culled from secular sources, would corrupt children should they happen to read them. Should it not also corrupt children if read from the Bible?

Cain's Wife?

"And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch." (Genesis 4:17)

Comment

What wife? At that time only Adam & Eve, Cain and Abel existed on the Earth. The only possibility comes from, either a grave omission from the Bible, or his mother Eve served as his wife. The second possibility would mean incest.

After Cain killed his brother, God protected him by setting "a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." (verse 14). Considering the earth supposedly had only Adam's family, who should kill him? And what kind of mark could have protected Cain? From the absurdity of this story, it should not surprise why anyone would read into it what they wanted. Certain inane beliefs resulted such as the common belief that the "mark of Cain" meant the dark skin of the "Negro" race.

David Uncovers Himself

"And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod. So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet. And as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal Saul's daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart." (II Samuel 6:14-16)

"Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel today, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!" (II Samuel 6:20)

Comment

Imagine King David dancing and leaping with all his might while uncovering himself to the crowd.

David's wife, in effect, says, "Well, you certainly made an ass of yourself at the temple today leaping and dancing about like an idiot and exposing yourself."

Note: An "ephod" describes an embroidered robe that looks similar to a woman's dress.

Death To Adulterers

"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:10-11)

Comment

Few Christians today consider death as a punishment for adultery; no doubt because so many Christians, themselves, practice sexual liaisons with other people's spouses.

Note, however, that a growing number of heterosexual fundamentalists have begun to call for the death penalty for homosexuals simply because Leviticus 20:13 calls for the death of a man who lies with mankind (homosexuality).

Drugs And Aphrodisiacs

"Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the field; let us lodge in the villages. Let us get up early to the vineyards; let us see if the vine flourish, whether the tender grape appear, and the pomegranates bud forth: there will I give thee my loves. The mandrakes give a smell, and at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved." (Song of Solomon 7:11-13)

Comment

The poetry of the Songs of Solomon give Scriptural testimony for love, sex and the beauty of the female body, a rare and usually ignored portion of the Bible by many fundamentalist Christians.

The mandrakes mentioned here describe a Mediterranean herb of the nightshade family of plants. To this day in the Middle East, people believe it overcomes impotence in men and acts as a powerful aphrodisiac. Even the roots have a decidedly phallic appearance. Ancient physician, Galen, wrote that pomegranate possessed antifertility properties. Many women in ancient days used pomegranate, (as well as other plants) for birth control, with little interference from religious or political authorities. Studies in the 1930s showed that pomegranate reduced fertility in laboratory animals, much as modern contraceptive pills do. [Archaeology, March/April 1994]

(See also Genesis 30:14)

Cook With Human Feces!

"And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them." (Ezekiel 4:12-13)

Comment

Holy shit cakes, Batman! How many good Christians today realize that their God has coprophilic tendencies?

One wonders what nutritional or moral value it would serve the people to cook their food with human feces, as God ordered. God here has also ordered the voyeuristic operation without explanation. Although in verses 14-15 the poor Israelites complain about eating abominable flesh, God (in his "wonderful" grace) changes his mind and allows them to substitute human feces with cow feces. Gee, thanks a lot God! (as if cow excrement makes much of a difference). You'd think the Creator of the entire universe might have given his "chosen ones" a soufflé or a bagel or something. Please, anything better than shit-cakes! One might also wonder: how can an all-knowing and perfect God (but a scat-God nevertheless), change his mind?

Eating Dung And Drinking Piss

"But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?" (II Kings 18:27)

Comment

Whatever moral lesson an adult might gain from such questionable verses, one can only wonder. How many parents realize that their children, who might come across such filthy passages, could get the wrong message?

Any mention of eating feces and drinking urine in any secular writing would get considered obscene and sick by any righteous minded Christian. Then why should it not receive the same consideration if found in a bible? Might we ask what artistic or social value this verse presents?

Note the word "piss" stands as one of the censored vulgar words of the public television industry. If Christians wish to censor such language from secular sources, then it behooves them to give themselves as an example and thus censor the obscene verses from their own Bible.

(See also Isaiah 36:12)

Boil and Eat Your Son

"And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son...." (II Kings 6:28-29)

Comment

According to the Bible, a horrible famine took place in Samaria where in desperation, the people ate whatever they could. The cannibalistic eating of a son may provide sufficient nutrition for a mother but disregards the puissant nature of humans to protect their young. Although the Bible does not explain if the son had already died or if the parent deliberately killed him for food, this dreadful example goes against human nature.

Long before bibles or written language, humans evolved as social animals that required the protection of their offspring. Only the dogmatic insistence of a belief-system could supersede the natural instincts of humans. Hopefully readers of the Bible who might one day experience a famine will not subvert their natural instinct for this kind of horrific example in Scripture. May I suggest that if you cannot control your belief to eat your children, sacrifice your priest and eat him instead; that way you gain far more protein for you and your children, and when you say grace, you'll have someone to really thank for your food.

Expose Her Breasts!

"Behold, I am against thee, saith the LORD of hosts; and I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, and I will shew the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame. And I will cast abominable filth upon thee, and make the vile, and will set thee as gazingstock."(Nahum 3:5-6)

"Look, I am against you!- declares Yahweh Saboath- I shall lift your skirts as high as your face and show your nakedness to the nations, your shame to the kingdoms. I shall pelt you with filth." (Nahum 3:6, The New Jerusalem Bible)

Comment

Some think these verses describe a genius of a poet. If judged as such, it can only come from its sharpness and vividness. But it also describes vulgarity and hatred, even if it aims against the harlotry of the city of Nineveh.

Few scholars today believe that these verses come as a direct quote from God. But a fundamentalist who believes every word of the Bible, must also accept these words as Godly. If so, then how can one not see God in a cruel vulgar light?

"Filth" here refers to dung. (See also Malachi 2:2-3 where God says "I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces...")

Fatal Orgasm

"And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also." (Genesis 38:7-10)

Comment

The term "onanism," from the name Onan, has come to stand for masturbation which has suffered a fate similar to sodomy in the sense that it has evolved to have a meaning far different from its original usage.

Dictionaries define onanism as "male masturbation" or "Uncompleted coitus." According to interpretations of the Bible, Onan removed his penis from his partner's vagina before he ejaculated so that his seed fell onto the ground. This displeased God so much that he killed him! Onanism has also received a another definition of "self pollution" which has caused misery throughout the centuries. God killed Onan because, rather than to impregnate his brother's wife-- thus extending his line, Onan chose to interrupt his coitus before he could impregnate Tamar. Onan had a logical reason for doing so, one that involved Jewish law of those ancient days. During Biblical times, any child born to the wife of the eldest son died without heirs - and if his wife had no children sired by a relative of her dead spouse - then the dominance would pass to the second son. Onan stood to lose a great deal if he complied with his father's order. Had he been asked to marry his brother's wife, thus transferring her to his possession, he no doubt would have completed the act. Then the resultant child would have been his, legally as well as physically.

Some time during the centuries, the character of the sinful act was changed. Instead of being recognized as a seldom performed interrupting of coitus, it became accepted as any form of self-stimulation that resulted in orgasm, and the entire character of the deed became altered. Onanism came to mean a sinful act of masturbation! This has resulted in a general bad impression of masturbation even in secular beliefs. For example many a parent has told his son not to masturbate for fear of going blind. [I masturbated only until I needed glasses, Ed.]

Fecal disposal

"And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall they camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee." (Deuteronomy 23:13-14)

Comment

These verses ask us to believe that God has concern for fecal waste disposal outside a military camp because God personally wishes to walk within the camp. Now really!

God Given Hemorrhoids

"The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed." (Deuteronomy 28:27)

"But the hand of the LORD was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods, [even] Ashdod and the coasts thereof" (I Samuel 5:6)

"And it was [so], that, after they had carried it about, the hand of the LORD was against the city with a very great destruction: and he smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had emerods in their secret parts." (I Samuel 5:9)

Comment

When Israel felt rebellious against God's plan, He threatened them with type of plague: "emerods" or by today's terminology, "hemorrhoids."

No wonder why so many atheists consider God a pain in the ass. But then again, Christians and Jews develop hemorrhoids too. If you happen to develop hemorrhoids, then you can trust the Bible that God considers you an enemy.

God's Bowel Diseases

"Behold with a great plague will the LORD smite thy people and thy children, and thy wives, and all thy goods: And thou shalt have great sickness by disease of thy bowels, until thy bowels fall out by reason of the sickness day by day." (II Chronicles 21:14-15)

"And after all this the LORD smote him in his bowels with an incurable disease. And it came to pass, that in process of time, after the end of two years, his bowels fell out by reason of sickness: so he died of sore diseases. And his people made no burning for him, like the burning of his fathers." (II Chronicles 12:18-19)

Comment

Another among many instances in the Bible where the Lord smites, not only men, but all the people including women and children.

Why God would concern himself with giving an incurable cruel bowel disease where the person's guts spill out of the abdomen, goes beyond human decency and comprehension.

God's Fecal Fetish

"If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it." (Malachi 2:2-3)

Comment

Amazingly God appears to have a fecal fetish.

This commandment to the priests told by the Lord gives example of the Satanic threats of curses He seems to enjoy. What should one think of a God that would smear feces upon the faces of his creations? Such vulgarity can hardly give good example to high morality.

Howl And Strip Naked

"Therefore I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked: I will make a wailing like the dragons, and mourning as the owls." (Micah 1:8)

Comment

The minor prophets felt influenced from Isaiah and these words of Micah indicate that he would imitate Isaiah's nudist actions as an adjunct to his prophesying.

Picture in your mind a religious man of today stripping and running around totally nude and prophesying in public, wailing and hooting at the top of his lungs. No doubt the police would snatch him up in a second while citizens stare in embarrassment. It just goes to show how far we have demeaned ourselves and our bodies as shameful.

(See also Isaiah 20:2-4)

Incestuous Relations

"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man." (Genesis 2:23)

"And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground." (Genesis 4:1-2)

"And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch..." (Genesis 4:17)

Comment

Since Eve came from Adam and due to God's edict to "be fruitful and multiply," this describes the first incestual relationship.

In 4:17 one must infer incest for Cain would have had to have sex with either his own mother, Eve, or an unnamed sister.

For other examples of Biblical incest see Gen. 20:12 where Abraham married his half-sister Sarah; Gen. 19:30-38 where Lot's daughters had intercourse with him; Gen. 38:16 where Tamar had sex with her father-in-law Judah.

People should become aware that many of today's incestuous abuses occur in Christian families and many use Biblical scripture for its justification.

Passing Wind

Wherefore my bowels shall sound like a harp for Moab, and mine inward parts for Kirharesh. (Isaiah 16:11)

Comment

This passage refers to the flatulent passing of gas in musical fashion from the bowels of a prophet. Could this represent a rare instance of humor in the Bible?

Piss Crimes

"therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jerobo'am, and will cut off from Jerobo'am him that pisseth against the wall..." (I Kings 14:10)

Comment

If God brings evil, then what makes Him different from Satan?

Although the unsanitary practice of urinating on walls might have caused serious erosion of the mud walls, bringing evil appears excessive punishment for such a minor offense.

Note, the word 'pisseth' translates from the Hebrew word 'shathan' [shaw-than'] which means to make water, i.e. urinate, or piss.

(See also I Kings 16:8-11, I Kings 21:21, and II Kings 9:8-10.)

Pisseth Against Walls

"And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends." ( I Kings 16:11)

Comment

Consider that many Christians tell us to believe all of the Bible, must we also include this vulgar language as the inspiration of God?

(See also I Kings 14:10, 21:21; II Kings 9:8.)

Prophesy in the nude

"At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia; So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt."(Isaiah 20:2-4)

Comment

Although Saul acted on his own, God gave Isaiah a direct injunction to prophesy in the nude, and that it should continue for three years.

God seems not the least offended by nudity when it comes to prophesying, yet he imbues his followers with shame over nudity associated with sex, especially when it involves pagan sex worship.

(See also Micah 1:8)

The Sacred Penis

"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."(Deuteronomy 23:1-2)

Comment

Consider the religious man who happens to accidentally receive an injury to his testicles (stones) or the loss of his penis (privy member). According to the Bible, and regardless of his righteousness or goodwill toward men, mind you, but just because he lacks a penis, he should never enter a Church or Temple.

Also pity a poor man born of a mother who, for whatever reason, including rape, may have born him out of wedlock. He too should, according to the Bible, never enter the Lord's congregation.

Note: The bastard Jesus broke God's word whenever he stepped into a Temple. Do you suppose God had him crucified for this reason?

2 notes · View notes

shalimares-blog · 5 years ago

Text

At the time of This Revelation, the Muslims Discovered the rulings of Islam from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)

At the time of This Revelation, the Muslims Discovered the rulings of Islam from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) through the verses of the Holy Qur'aan and the ahaadeeth of his Sunnah. Hence there were no differences of opinion among them except with regard to some minor difficulties. If that occurred, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would explain to them what was correct. If you liked this article and you would like to obtain more information relating to this article then kindly visit us at Islamic Fiqh.

When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died and the Sahaabah distribute to various regions to teach the people Islam, there seemed some differences with regard to some matters of fiqh which arose at different times and in various places. These differences were due to a number of reasons, which we will sum up here from the words of the scholars:

1-The evidence had not reached the person who held a different opinion, and he made a mistake in forming his opinion.

2-The hadeeth had reached the scholar, but he did not regard the transmitter as trusted, and he thought it went against something that was stronger, so he followed that he thought was stronger than it.

3-The hadeeth had reached him he forgot it.

4-The hadeeth had reached him he knew it in a way aside from the intended meaning.

5-The hadeeth reached him it had been abrogated, and he did not know the abrogating text.

6-He thought it contradicted something that was stronger than it, whether that was a text or scholarly consensus (ijmaa')

7-The scholar used a weak hadeeth as the basis for his judgment, or he derived the judgment by way of weak arguments.

We think that what we have mentioned about the reasons for differences among the scholars i.e., with regard to matters of fiqh, will be clear to you, in sha Allaah.

Secondly:

In other words, which scholarly opinion should the Muslim follow in things where they differed? The answer depends:

youtube

1 -- If the Muslim is one who has studied shar'I knowledge and learned its basic principles and minor problems, and he can distinguish right from wrong concerning scholarly views, then he must follow that which he thinks is correct and ignore what he thinks is wrong.

2 -- If he is one of the rank and file, or hasn't studied shar'I understanding, and thus cannot distinguish between right and wrong concerning scholarly views, then he must follow the fatwa of a scholar whose knowledge that he trusts and who he believes to be trusted and religiously committed, whether he is from his own country or a different country, and differences between scholars won't matter after that. He does not need to change what he is doing because he hears another scholar issuing a fatwa that differs from the one he is after, unless he realizes that what he learned later on is the correct perspective, on the basis of his confidence in the spiritual commitment and understanding of the next Shaykh.

The person who has knowledge of evidence is required to follow the evidence, even if it goes against some of the imams, if it does not go against the consensus of the ummah.

The one who does not have any knowledge should ask the scholars, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):"So ask of people who know the Scripture, if you know not" [al-Nahl 16:43]. He should ask one who he thinks has more knowledge and is more religiously committed, but that does not mean that doing this obligatory, because the person who is better may make a mistake with regard to a particular issue, and the person who is regarded as less educated may be right with regard to it. But priority should be given to following the person who is more educated and more religiously committed.