#what you WANT is a hierarchy where you are naturally ordained at the top

[uncanny-tranny]

Honestly, attachment to sex rather than gender as a social construction won't create a utopia without the subjugation of one's presentation, background, or experience from existing. Recognizing that sex and gender are both socially constructed and while they sometimes inform one another, they won't always, and that trans people absolutely can attest to this and are integral to making change for a better world are insurmountably important. If your desire for a "better world" coincidentally doesn't include us, what you desire isn't a better world where people are free - it is subjugation by a different name.

[sepublic]

You know, I've seen plenty of great ideas for Amphibia x TOH swaps, but there's one thing I haven't seen anyone point out yet. If Luz takes Anne's place and goes to Amphibia, then she gets something she's always wanted at the start of TOH: Being part of a prophecy.

           …That is, a VERY interesting concept, not gonna lie!

           The thing about Luz’s fundamental issues prior to meeting Eda was… She really had a problem with distinguishing fantasy from reality, learning to set the boundaries between the two, and fully respect said boundaries. She wasn’t malicious of course, but regardless…

           This is an interesting ask because we don’t know yet how the prophecy will unfold and be revealed within the show, or even its exact nature! But regardless, this is making me imagine Luz meeting the Plantars, and… Really, I can see Hop Pop’s more down-to-earth nature helping Luz learn to distinguish fantasy from reality, to an extent. Especially since Hop Pop himself is lowkey like Luz in that they’re very unorthodox heroes who don’t quite save the day the way they expected to; But their methods are –usually- valid. Such as Hop Pop accidentally inspiring a revolution among the Frogs, or that time he served as a martyr for those tiny frogs, with his mistreatment by the Hasslebacks being the final injustice that pushes them to fight back and defend themselves, without having to rely on any outsiders to do the work for them. Then there’s him projecting a Noir Film onto his search for Sal, to the point where he straight-up kills an innocent man…

           And, that’s making me imagine Luz and Hop Pop kind of bonding over this (not the murder though), especially with Hop Pop’s failed dreams of becoming an actor. I can see Luz being pretty sympathetic and a lot more involved in Hop Pop’s stint with Renee Frodgers, a lot more than Anne did- And considering we see her try out for Romeo and Juliet at one point, maybe she also has a taste for theater herself! Not to mention, all of this discussion of confusing fantasy with reality is just reminding me of Marcy… Specifically, the speculation of Marcy low-key seeing her time in Amphibia as more like a videogame with its tropes, to a potentially harmful extent as she might not treat this situation as a very real one with actual stakes and living, breathing people.

           Of course, the thing to remember is- Luz takes a lot of initiative in her own character development, too! She’s a receptive person and self-reflects. I feel like even if she never met Eda, it wouldn’t have been out of the question for Luz to still resolve her own issues… It’d have just been a much more difficult and tedious journey, especially if Luz had to go through that Reality Camp. But regardless, when you remember that Hop Pop also goes through similar character development, albeit more around the Season 2 timeframe… With Hop Pop making the conscious decision on his own to call out Renee on her thievery, without Anne nor any circumstances goading him into it, because he’s a very moral character at heart…

           Maybe Luz could have issues like Marcy. It’s worth considering if Andrias is manipulating and feeding into Marcy’s dreams. But regardless, I see Luz and Hop Pop working together, mutually, to get past their own issues, well before the prophecy is revealed- And we still don’t know when that’s going to happen! Maybe Luz and Hop Pop could be a duo reminiscent to Luz and King during Sense and Insensitivity. I can’t say for sure if Luz’s character development will be as potent by the prophecy’s reveal, as she is as of the Season Finale in HER show… I think Eda is ultimately a wiser character than Hop Pop, and characters like Willow and Amity serve as neat narrative contrasts/foils to Luz’s own antics. Though, I can imagine Luz getting caught up in shipping Sprig and Ivy, and possibly the fallout of this leading to a lesson or two…

           But in the end, as I said- Luz has a good heart, and she goes around to do the right thing, in the end. She’s like Hop Pop in that regard, and of course there’s also the existence of Sprig and Polly, not to mention what a fellow weirdo like One-Eyed Wally might have to say, here or there. I guess a lot of it depends on the exact context of how this prophecy is revealed, and how it even works… But I see Luz as being grounded by the more down-to-earth Wartwood, well before she gets to Newtopia. This does raise the interesting idea of her possibly backtracking on her character development, especially with Marcy’s influence and Andrias’ potential manipulations…

           And yet, I can see Luz still turning around to do the right in the end, just as Hop Pop did; Even when his dreams DID come true, and he became a renowned actor! I think Luz would come to the conclusion that even being ‘chosen’ by some divine force doesn’t really make her any better than anyone else… Not to mention that the people and world she’s saving is still very much its own thing, not beholden to her. So I see Luz accepting the mantle of being a hero, if only because she’s a good person and of course she’s not going to let something bad happen… And I can imagine the Plantars helping to gently nudge and remind Luz of her past lessons, to not get confused with fantasy and reality again. The prophecy would definitely be a twist antithetical and contradictory to Luz’s character development, given how she’s being transplanted into a different show with different themes, originally intended for a different protagonist…

           But, if Marcy is going to learn her lesson and get past her own issues –assuming those specific issues ARE a thing of course- then I can see Luz being a guiding light and force for her… Maybe the two mutually navigate past potential delusions together, who knows? I’ve speculated in the past how Luz would handle the revelation of having powerful magical heritage... How Luz would truly show off her character development by rejecting even this seemingly objective, tangible cosmic reason for her being special, and still asserting her equal standing with everyone else. Even when placed on top of the hierarchy, Luz rejects it, showing how much her lessons mean to her. I can see Andrias trying to set Luz up to agree with his hierarchy under that concept of divinely-ordained ‘specialness’, and how it’d all just tie into Luz working to abolish the caste system with Hop Pop.

           I can see it being a contrast to Sasha and Grime, who want to topple the current Newt Hierarchy… More than likely, so they can switch it around with Toads on the top. Not exactly the most helpful change, in the end… Luz decides that instead of reversing the roles, it’s best to just get rid of the roles entirely. It could play into a discussion of privilege, and it’d be interesting to see how Luz, Marcy, and Sasha would all bounce off of one another- Sasha low-key has her issues with dismissing the people of Amphibia, and once talked about ‘having fun’ there. Obviously her respect for Grime has changed this a lot… But there’s still that willingness to conquer what she fully recognizes now as an actual civilization of people. She would certainly take the revelation of a prophecy as full justification that she was never wrong about anything, and that Sasha is of course entitled to taking over Amphibia- Especially if Grime feeds into this both out of genuine support and his own desires.

           Then there’s that idea of Sasha and Grime enabling one another to be worse, even if they also still go through a little bit of positive character development… And as for Marcy and Andrias, I can’t quite say because the latter is still quite the enigma. Either way, Luz has to serve as a grounding force for the other girls with Hop Pop’s help… And really, it sounds like the set-up for total chaos, a battle royal, a complete free-for-all with every Amphibian and Human for themselves as they navigate one another amidst the backdrop of this prophecy. If we want to apply Luz’s motif and themes of being a guiding light for other characters in her own show, I can see her forcing Sasha and Marcy to confront the reality of what they’re doing… And I think interactions between her and Grime would be fascinating, as she’d be VERY much in favor of toppling the monarchy- But specifically to undo the hierarchy entirely, instead of switching it around to the Toads’ favor. If Sasha and Grime enable one another, perhaps Luz will have to act as a voice of reason and buffer between the two- And again, it depends on how Sasha and Grime’s character development goes.

           Overall, this sounds like QUITE the debacle, and I’m kind of fascinated, imagining how these different characters with different motifs, meant to be compatible with narrative parallels and contrasts, amidst the themes of their particular show; And how they’d adapt and fit into another show’s cast and themes! Anne taking Luz’s place in the Boiling Isles would be interesting, given how Anne has clearly internalized Sasha’s idea of ‘knowing what’s best for someone you care about’, and how this seems to be a recurring trend amongst people like Emira and Edric toward Amity, Lilith with Eda, etc. And, I guess I could go into a whole ‘nother discussion of how Eda has to help Anne recover from this low-key abuse and toxicity, and Anne having a similar moment of standing up to Sasha with those characters, possibly citing her own experiences… But, that’s probably a discussion for another time, I think. I guess it depends if I have the time and energy for it, and my cyclical focus aligns just right…

[transastronautistic]

queer history: a chat with Anne Lister and Leslie Feinberg

you know what i’d love to witness? a conversation between Anne Lister and Leslie Feinberg. can you even imagine it??

Lister wrote, “I am made unlike anyone I have ever met. I dare to say I am like no one in the whole world.” but i think she’d quickly realize that Feinberg is “made like” her -- that Feinberg has a very similar sexuality and gender expression to her own, and truly gets what it’s like to be persecuted for those things. Lister’d be so thrilled and relieved to find she’s not alone!

and Feinberg? when ze was younger, ze was desperate to find hirself in history -- just like Lister, ze was convinced that “No one like me seemed to have ever existed” (Transgender Warriors, p. 11). Feinberg would absolutely recognize Lister as a part of the big beautiful queer history that ze eventually discovered.

there are many parts of Feinberg’s story that come to mind as i watch Gentleman Jack -- such as when Lister is talking to the little boy Henry, who asks if she’s a man, and she replies:

“Well, that's a question. And you are not the first person to ask it. I was in Paris once, dressed extremely well, I thought, in silk and ribbons, ringlets in my hair. Very gay, very ladylike. And even then, someone mistook me for a...Mm. So, no, I am not a man. I'm a lady. A woman. I'm a lady woman. I'm a woman.”

when i watched that scene, i immediately thought of this passage from Feinberg’s Transgender Warriors:

“...I was considered far too masculine a woman to get a job in a store, or a restaurant, or an office. I couldn’t survive without working. So one day I put on a femme friend’s wig and earrings and tried to apply for a job as a salesperson at a downtown retail store. On the bus ride to the interview, people stood rather than sit next to me. They whispered and pointed and stared. ‘Is that a man?’ one woman asked her friend, loud enough for us all to hear. The experience taught me an important lesson. The more I tried to wear clothing or styles considered appropriate for women, the more people believed I was a man trying to pass as a woman. I began to understand that I couldn’t conceal my gender expression” (p. 12).

over a century separated these two, but people who could or would not conform to their assigned gender suffered in both eras. both of these people longed for a connection to a wider community of people like them, longed to know why people like them were persecuted and hated and told that God reviled them. but while Lister did manage to cultivate a tiny haven for herself of loved ones who accepted her, she never found the wider community that Feinberg found -- the world of “drag queens, butches, and femmes,” a world in which “I fit; I was no longer alone” -- a world that extended beyond gay bars, deep into past millennia as well as across the entire globe!

Feinberg worked hard to dig up the answers to all hir questions of why -- “Why was I subject to legal harassment and arrest at all? Why was I being punished for the way I walked or dressed, or who I loved? Who wrote the laws used to harass us, and why? Who gave the green light to the cops to enforce them? Who decided what was normal in the first place?” (p. 8). what ze concluded was that the rise of class so many ages ago is what sowed the seeds of transphobia.

in Transgender Warriors, Feinberg argues that in ancient societies that followed a matrilineal system and shared all resources communally, whenever agriculture enabled some men to begin accumulating and hoarding resources, an intolerance for gender diversity would also arise (see pp. 42-44, 50-52). once these men had capital, they had power. the Few could use their capital to bribe, to threaten, and to control the Many. eventually these men would twist their communities into a patriarchy in order to ensure that they could keep the power in their own hands. for patriarchs rely upon a rigid gender binary to keep their power, wherein those assigned male are placed above everyone else. after all, if men behave "like women," how can we place them above women? if women behave "like men," will they try to force their way into the dominant group? if some people are too ambiguous to be categorized into either group, what does that say about our argument that this binary is the natural way of doing things or divinely ordained?

i think that there are some aspects of this history that Lister would be excited to learn. she’d recognize herself as one of those women trying to force their way into the dominant group, and agree that the patriarchs of her day were not happy about it. she’d appreciate Feinberg’s scholarship around those religious texts that she as a Christian and Feinberg as a Jewish person shared, how Feinberg shows that it was not God but men who decided that the gender binary must be enforced. Lister would heartily agree that her nature is God-given, not God-hated.

but the conversation between Lister and Feinberg would very quickly break down, for the same reason that transphobia sprung up: because of class.

not long into their discussion, Feinberg would be like “and that’s why Capitalism is the root of all evil and people like us will thrive only once we’ve overthrown the landed gentry and disseminated all the wealth” and Lister would be like. “excuse me. i am the Landed Gentry. the lower classes will get their callused hands on my wealth over my dead body"

and the relationship would promptly dissolve from there -- and i’d take Feinberg’s side 1000% and hope ze could knock some humility into Lister’s classist ass!

but anyway to me the similarities between these two historical figures combined with the stark differences in their worldviews only goes to show what an enormous factor class is! Feinberg notes this fact, that “trans expression” has existed among all classes -- and that social privilege makes a big difference in a trans or gnc person’s life:

“For the ruling elite, transgender expression could still be out in the open with far less threat of punishment than a peasant could expect. For example, when Queen Christina of Sweden abdicated in 1654, she donned men’s clothes and renamed herself ‘Count Dohna.’ Henry III of France was reported to have dressed as an Amazon and encouraged his courtiers to do likewise” (80).

(to be fair to Henry III, his gender non-conforming ways were used against him to justify his overthrow. but for a time, he had the means to express himself and to gather others who were like him into his court.)

if Feinberg had been born in the uppermost class of hir society, would that have protected hir from much of the cruelty and violence they experienced? after all, ze would never have had to scramble for a job, to try desperately to conform to gender expectations just to survive. Lister was able to spend much of her life refusing to listen to the hateful words circulating behind her back because to her face people tended to be much more polite. would Feinberg have had that experience too, had ze not been of the lower working class? would ze have never gone through the pain and struggle that caused hir to dig so ferociously into the history of transphobia and queerphobia?

it’s much less likely for someone at the top of the food chain to question the food chain -- even if they notice how the Way Things Are does work against them in some ways. Lister was unlikely to notice how a social hierarchy that pits the wealthy above the poor is intrinsically linked to the structures that pit men over women and confine each person into a rigid binary box -- because to notice that truth would have been to her own detriment. she may not have wanted to keep the cissexism, but she did want to keep her wealth.

As Feinberg puts it in Transgender Warriors when discussing afab people who fought for the Confederacy in the US Civil War, “just being [trans] doesn’t automatically make each person progressive.”

Lister was not prepared to fight a battle against her own privileges, even if it would also have been a battle against her own oppression. that doesn’t mean that those of us looking back at her story today can’t treasure what we have in common with her! we can. after all, in Transgender Warriors, Feinberg recounts the stories of the more “problematic,” complicated figures in queer history right alongside the ones that better fit hir own views. ze finds value in their stories despite the flaws, and we can too.

but at the same time, we have to acknowledge where Lister fell short, and do the hard work of examining our own privileges and considering how we can be better than Lister. we can instead be like Feinberg, whose marginalization -- as a butch lesbian, as a Jewish person, as a transgender person, and as a lower class person -- inspired hir not to cling to the privileges ze did have as hir only foothold in the power structure, but rather to be the best ally ze could be to people of color, to trans women, and others:

“We as trans people can’t liberate ourselves alone. No oppressed peoples can. So how and why will others come to our defense? And whom shall we, as trans people, fight to defend? A few years before he died [Frederick] Douglass told the International Council of Women, ‘When I ran away from slavery, it was for myself; when I advocated emancipation, it was for my people; but when I stood up for the rights of women, self was out of the question, and I found a little nobility in the act.’ I believe this is the only nobility to which we should aspire -- that is, to be the best fighters against each other’s oppression, and in doing so, to build links of solidarity and trust that will forge an invincible movement against all forms of injustice and inequality” (p. 92).

so, yeah. i’d love to hear these two people chat. i relate deeply to both of their experiences and think they’d find a lot of commonalities between themselves. ...and then with Feinberg i’d love to give Lister a piece of my mind when it comes to her classism.

[minnesotadruids]

What continues to draw you to reform druidry over other Druidic traditions?

Whoever you are, I love you. This is a great question!

The short answer is that from the time I started studying it in depth, the more I realized how similar it was to my own personal practices and devotional styles I developed back when I called my practice “rogue druidry.” I felt perfectly at home with Reformed Druidry (RDNA) the more I read their literature (A Reformed Druid Anthology, aka ARDA).

I’ll get to the part of what continues to draw me to the RDNA in a bit (or you can jump to the bottom) but first I feel the need to digress. :)

I’ll start with a timeline of events.

Winter-Spring 2004: I studied abroad in Ireland. Learned the Wheel of the Year and ancient Irish culture in an actual classroom setting. Wanted to learn more about druidry but that would have to wait for my return to Minnesota

Summer 2004: Researched the ancient druids, and learned we don’t know much about them. Researched the Druid Revival Movement of the 1700s to early 1900s, found it intriguing but lacking something. Researched Reformed Druidry, and stopped immediately when I read that the RDNA didn’t take itself seriously. It turns out that statement is not entirely accurate, but I wouldn’t know that for years. I researched ADF, but didn’t consider myself a hard polytheist like they want. I researched OBOD, then saw the price tag of the Bardic Course (I was making $6.75 an hour part time as a college telephone receptionist and campus tour guide). 

After reading some books on druidry in the library, I decided to just do “rogue druidry.”

Rest of 2004 to 2010: Went out into the woods on my college campus with a chalice and a bottle of wine to consecrate, consecrated fires, cleansed and consecrated ritual objects. I acknowledged the raw forces of nature: the sun, the rain, the earth, the wind. I developed gestures and motions of endearment. I listened to pagan podcasts including Druidcast of OBOD.

2010: Isaac Bonewits passed away and I felt a longing to be part of an actual druid community again, starting another year of intensive research on Druidry.

2011: I made a very large chart comparing 12 different druid orders that denoted 18 criteria such as membership fees, theological focus, whether or not there’s a study program, etc. I felt at home with the RDNA, so I joined.

Also 2011: Started reading A Reformed Druid Anthology because it’s hundreds of pages of free literature. 

The quirky King James writing style of ARDA made me laugh and I kept reading. 

The Two Basic Tenets of belief are relatable which allow for anyone of any spiritual background to identify with, whether hard polytheist, duotheist, agnostic, pantheist, deist, or whatever.

I found the RDNA rituals to be deeply profound and meaningful

The RDNA rituals also involve consecrating a chalice, but containing whiskey instead of wine. 

The RDNA was founded by freethinking students at a rather prestigious Minnesota college. For me this is homegrown druidism.

The literature is a living document with many contributors. There’s a movement meditation called the Four Salutations of Day, which is a bit like Tai Chi, but involves a druid staff:

My Tumblr profile picture is of me performing the Third Salutation of Day at sunset.

So what about the RDNA still captivates my heart?

Reformed Druidry is the foundation of neo-druidism in America.  I am proud of being part of that legacy. Founded in 1963, it is the “awkward uncle” of ADF, and is therefore an ancestor of the Henge of Keltria, and therefore of the Druid Order of WhiteOak and Druids of the Mist. The RDNA is also the parent order that led to the creation of offshoots such as the New, the Schismatic, the Hasidic, and the Zen Druids of North America. Oh, and we inspired the independent creation of the Reformed Druids of Gaia, too.

The Ancient Order of Masonic Druids in America (AOMDA), a vestige of the Druid Revival era had been defunct for a few years before the RDNA was created. John Micheal Greer eventually rebooted AODA in 1976, dropping “Masonic” from their name and turning it into a mystical order. 

The RDNA is also one year older than OBOD, but this is where I should say druidry is not a race to be the first at anything.

OBOD and AODA, by my impressions, are more about focusing on inner workings, and place less importance on ritual. The RDNA (and ADF) do place a significance on ritual and ceremony, which I really feel a drive for. I am also a dues-paying member of ADF, but I cannot enter a position of spiritual leadership in ADF because I am not a hard polytheist. There’s an oath in the clergy initiation of ADF in which you must essentially declare yourself a polytheist.

Nobody in the RDNA hierarchy profits (nor “non-profits”) from your spirituality here. This Druid Order is free to join, and the literature is free in its digital form. We typically operate in the red out of our love of druidry.

Most of the Rites of Passage are either available in the text or the general details are given so you can decide in advance whether or not you want to subject yourself to them. I’m a forthright kind of guy.

With no formal study program in the RDNA, it is your personal responsibility to find your own path to Awareness. Glory to the Eternal Student!

It is a matter of personal integrity and honesty to determine when you feel prepared for a rite of passage to ascend the ranks of the RDNA. There’s a bit of vetting to get to the Third Order (first level of the RDNA priesthood) though.

At its height, Oakdale Grove has had 12 active members. As of this post, there are about 9-10. For some, Reformed Druidry might only be a waypoint in their spirituality. For anyone who visits or joins, I am providing a service to celebrate a common bond and offer camaraderie. Dedication to Service is part of my vows and is a hallmark of the Priesthood of the RDNA. I entered the Third Order knowing that my vows would mean I owe my service to the Reformed Druid community. There’s no real prestige to being a Third Order Reformed Druid, but I do get to wear a big ribbon draped over my shoulders during rituals.

The RDNA is not an expansionist religion. We don’t try to recruit others or coerce anyone into joining. However, posting to social media including here on Tumblr is a passive way to allow others to learn more if they are curious enough, and if they ask for more information I will provide it. But we do rejoice when someone does decide to join.

The druids of the founding Grove have been active at Carleton College every year since 1963. Ideally they’re supposed to pass the tradition on to each wave of new students. The elected Arch-Druid of Carleton Grove is the seat of the Council of Dalon Ap Landu. It really says something about a spiritual movement whose leader changes annually and is roughly 21-22 years old. The youngest and brightest minds are sometimes the most innovative.

Sometimes an Arch-Druid will graduate from Carleton College without ordaining anyone there to the priesthood. Part of Oakdale Grove’s mission statement is to help the tradition stay alive at Carleton, and I’ve restored the priesthood there once already.

I’ve contributed rituals and rites of passage written in the RDNA style. The 30th Arch-Druid (emeritus) of Carleton College Grove has been curating our literature for about 26 years. He’s been working overseas since 2014 with limited access to a secure internet connection, so I’ve taken it upon myself to help curate our order’s literature on the side. 

Out of the 137 ordained Third Order (or above) druids, I am probably one of the top five most actively engaged in this. Because of the eight year investment of time I’ve put into the Reformed Druids of North America (and I’ve probably spent two thousand dollars building up my Grove and others since 2011), Reformed Druidry is my passion, my commitment, and my spiritual home.

I’ll be 80 years old if I’m still alive to see the 100th anniversary celebration of the Reformed Druids of North America. Knowing that I’ve already had the privilege of meeting some of the founders and had rituals with them, I would love to see Reformed Druidism flourish in decades to come, for my contributions will become part of that legacy for the druids of the future.

[earlyandoftenpodcast]

(John Winthrop, an early governor of Massachusetts)

In this episode we look at the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, as well as its early struggles over the proper role of popular participation in government.

>>>Direct audio link<<<

(WordPress)    (Twitter)    (Libsyn)    (Podbean)   (YouTube)   (iTunes)

Transcript and Sources:

Hello, and welcome to Early and Often: The History of Elections in America. Episode 10: The Pig Who Invented Bicameralism.

Last time, we followed the Pilgrims as they established a small colony at Plymouth Bay in what is now Massachusetts in 1620. The Pilgrims proved quite disruptive to the fragile balance of power in the region, but even after 10 years Plymouth’s population was only about 300. But although Plymouth wasn’t too successful, its presence paved the way for bigger things.

In 1629, just a few years before the founding of Maryland, Puritans began streaming into Massachusetts, totally swamping everything and everyone that had been there before. Within a decade over 20,000 settlers would arrive. This was the real founding of New England, much as the real foundations for Virginia were only laid a decade after the settlement of Jamestown.

Back when the Separatists had left England for the Netherlands in the early 1600s, their rejection of the Anglican Church was very much a minority position. The Church of England hadn’t adopted too many Puritan ideas, but it was close enough to their beliefs, and it had taken a live-and-let-live attitude for the most part. There were plenty of Puritan ministers and Puritan sympathizers within the Church. But James I had proven less sympathetic to the Puritans than his predecessor Elizabeth had. And his son Charles I was even less sympathetic than his father. Charles, remember, was married to a French Catholic.

So throughout the 1620s and ‘30s the Church clamped down on dissent and more rigorously enforced Anglican orthodoxy. Puritan-sympathizing ministers were removed from their posts and Catholic-style practices were reintroduced. All of which goes a long way towards explaining why, during the English Civil War in the next decade, Puritans so resolutely sided with Parliament, and why when Parliament won, it was in large part a Puritan victory.

In the face of this official pressure, it was only natural that true believers might start considering immigration. The fringe beliefs of the Pilgrims started to seem more sensible to mainstream Puritans. And tens of thousands of Puritans did in fact pour out of England. Some went to the Netherlands, some went to the Caribbean or to Central America. Those migrations would be largely forgotten in time. But a large minority followed the Pilgrims to New England, where they managed to create for themselves an entire culture of their own that would last for centuries.

In the late 1620s a group of men, mostly prominent and wealthy Puritans or at least Puritan-sympathizers, began meeting to plan out a new colonization effort in New England. Things came together quickly, and in 1629 they secured approval from King Charles for the creation of the Massachusetts Bay Company, a joint stock company like in Virginia. Indeed, the document was modeled on one of the Virginia Company’s charters. This new company absorbed all the preexisting land claims in the region, with the exception of Plymouth Colony.

The Company’s charter gave them the right to create a government for their colony and to administer it as they saw fit. The inhabitants were to retain all the rights of Englishmen. The same sorts of things I mentioned for Virginia back in Episode 2. In principle, legally this was very similar to other past colonization efforts. But while the Company’s official goal was to turn a profit, for the most part religious concerns were the actual motivation. Although I’m sure they didn’t make that clear to the King, nor did they talk about just how independent they wanted to be from his control.

While the legal wrangling was going on, in 1628 they had sent John Endecott to New England to prepare the way for a larger colonization effort. Endecott would go on to become governor of Massachusetts for 16 years, but very little is known of his life before this period. Personality-wise, Endecott was typical of the Puritan leadership, zealous and uncompromising. He was certainly willing to persecute Indians and religious dissenters when called on to do so.

Endecott arrived at what was soon named Salem, Massachusetts, of later Salem witch trial fame. This was the site of a previous failed colony, but there were still a few settlers eking out a living. Endecott and the other new arrivals took over and began constructing buildings to prepare for the coming migration.

After Endecott had been there a few months, in April 1629 the main fleet set off for Massachusetts. There were five ships carrying maybe 300 passengers. This expedition was far better equipped and better prepared than any previous one to date. No doubt learning from past failures helped. At least they sent an advance party instead of just showing up and hoping for the best.

The Puritans who were traveling to Massachusetts resembled the Pilgrims in many ways. A very large majority were coming in family groups rather than as individuals. Even the servants who came, came as part of a household rather than being unattached. Forty percent were female, and according to David Hackett Fischer, “nearly half were children under sixteen.”

They were somewhat better off economically than the Pilgrims had been, and much better off than the average indentured servant in Virginia. The Puritan immigrants were generally what we’d call middle class. And basically no aristocrats went, so the top of the social hierarchy was missing as well. They were artisans and merchants, as well as farmers who owned their own land. But farmers were a minority. Instead, the migration was very disproportionately urban. They were unusually well-educated too. Two thirds of men were at least literate enough to sign their own names. And there was a large group of highly educated ministers as well.

So the Puritans were educated, egalitarian, middle-class, and hyper religious. And that was what New England would be, for a long time to come.

After an easy voyage, the Puritans arrived at Salem that summer and were met by Endecott. There were no moments of big drama like in Jamestown or Plymouth. They just got to work. Thanks to the healthy climate and adequate preparations, there was no big die off that first year. Everything went well, for once.

The success was encouraging. The next year an even larger fleet of eleven ships carrying a thousand passengers set sail. This fleet was led by John Winthrop, aged about 42, who would go on to be governor of Massachusetts for 12 years. He’s important, so let me give you some background.

John Winthrop was born in 1587, the son of a prosperous lawyer/landowner. As a young man, Winthrop followed his father to Cambridge University. By the time he was in his early 20s, he was becoming extremely devout and concerned for the state of his soul. He soon became a staunch Calvinist. He held various minor offices and basically behaved as someone with his status was expected to. He was by disposition inegalitarian. Social inequality was part of God’s will, after all. In his words, “in all times some must be rich some poore, some highe and eminent in power and dignitie; others meane and in [subjection].” Great men were to show mercy to their inferiors, and lesser men were to show obedience to their betters.

The laws of the state should be based on those found in the Bible, though with additions as needed. The common people were incapable of self-government. He didn’t believe in natural rights or liberty or anything like that. Rather, he instead believed that men submitted themselves to a divinely ordained central authority, and then that central authority could grant its subjects rights on a case by case basis. The authorities themselves shouldn’t have too many constraints on their power, other than their individual consciences and their devotion to God. This was a rather Hobbesian view, although he was writing decades before Thomas Hobbes penned Leviathan.

But Winthrop had more immediate concerns than political philosophy. He was facing financial problems, and Charles had just stopped calling Parliaments and was trying to rule on his own. The Puritan cause seemed weak. So Winthrop, disheartened both personally and politically, contacted the Massachusetts Bay Company and helped organize a fleet. Thanks to his status and his drive, he immediately became an important figure in the project, and was soon elected as the next governor of Massachusetts.

He also helped come up with a clever idea to secure greater Puritan control over the colony. It was proposed that, basically, the Puritans in Massachusetts buy out the investors in the Company who were in England and transfer the entire Company from London to America. That would transfer almost total control to the Puritans. This was questionable legally, and certainly against the intention of the colony’s charter. But they did it anyway. Now, with the Company nothing more than a legal formality, Massachusetts would have almost total independence, and almost no duties or obligations toward England. The Company was fast becoming just a government.

Winthrop’s fleet of eleven ships set sail in the summer of 1630. While at sea Winthrop gave the famous “City Upon A Hill Speech”, where he said that “The eies of all people are uppon us. Soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our God in this worke wee haue undertaken, and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. Wee shall open the mouthes of enemies to speake evill of the wayes of God, and all professors for God's sake.” In other words, Massachusetts was to be a model for right Christian living, and its failure would damage true Christianity the world over.

Winthrop arrived at Salem, but the Puritans found the town to be too small for their needs, so settlers spread out quickly along the coast, founding a number of new towns including Boston, which soon became the capital, thanks to its advantageous harbor. Two hundred colonists died that winter, though that was about the worst of it. Conditions improved rapidly and the Puritans set out building their new society.

As far as the economy goes, from an early date, the New England colonies were engaged in trades such as fishing and shipping. Shipyards were opened in the 1640s, and a small commercial culture began to grow as soon as the initial settlement phase was over. Boston in particular became relatively cosmopolitan.

But of course most New Englanders were still just farmers living in small towns scattered throughout the region. In the more northerly climate of New England, it was much harder to profitably grow cash crops like in the Chesapeake, so big plantations never emerged. Family farms were the norm, and these tended to be similar enough in size. In a typical town the largest farm might be no more than a few times bigger than the average one. There were no landowners who had orders of magnitude more than their neighbors. In fact, in some towns, plots of land were given out at random, with each family drawing lots.

Some families were wealthier than others, of course, but there were few poor and few rich. Indeed, the poor and to a lesser extent the aristocracy were actively discouraged from migrating. There were still ranks, but the top and bottom were closer than usual. Cities and ports were less egalitarian, but they were just a small part of New England’s social fabric.

Another important difference with the Chesapeake is that there was less fertile soil, and there were fewer navigable rivers. These factors encouraged the settlers to live in towns, rather than spread out across far-flung plantations. These small towns became the religious and political centers of New England life.

By far the most important building in any town was the church. Puritan churches, or “meetinghouses”, were tremendously ascetic, made of unpainted wood and entirely undecorated inside, other than a single, staring eye painted on the pulpit to remind them of God’s omnipresence. Each Sunday parishioners sat through two separate hours-long sermons, each analyzing some fragment of the Bible. They were a very, very grim people, paranoid about their spiritual health and about unnaturalness. According to Fischer, “90 percent of executions for witchcraft in British America occurred in the Puritan colonies.”

From the very first church in Salem onwards, the Puritans followed a Congregational model, where each community had an independent compact with God and was largely in charge of its own affairs. They hired their own ministers, and admitted new members themselves. (Just to clarify, people who weren’t members of their local church would have still attended church, they just weren’t official members, that’s all.) There was some overarching authority, of course, but nothing like you’d find in the Church of England. The government could call for synods to be held, meetings that would keep the various churches on the same track, but they were still all ultimately independent. They weren’t totally breaking away from Anglican authority, at least not officially, but they were coming pretty close.

Of course, not everyone in Massachusetts was a Puritan. But two thirds or more of the colonists were, and half of the remainder were servants of the Puritans anyway, so that was still the dominant way of thinking. And this overwhelming religiosity permeated the government as much as it did everything else.

There were distinctions between civil and religious authority. In fact, the separation between religious and civil officials was much greater than in England, where the positions often overlapped. In England, a minister might also have a role in town government, but not in New England. Puritans of course saw this as a return to the original church, before it had been corrupted by involvement in politics. But still, government officials saw it as their duty to enforce Puritan beliefs with the full force of the law. Religious dissenters were sometimes executed. Quakers, who were heretics in Puritan eyes, had their faces branded or their ears cut off.

And there were plenty of laws that may not have been religious per se, but were certainly grounded in a desire to enforce the community’s sense of upright behavior. The Puritans strictly regulated how people lived. Nobody was allowed to live on their own. Single men in their own houses were forced to move in with families. The profits of businessmen were curtailed and idleness was strictly punished. These weren’t all unusual. Other societies were opposed to excessive profits and idleness, but the Puritans were far more rigorous in their control. Punishments went all the way up to being burned alive, though hanging was more usual. Not for idleness, of course. For lesser crimes, public humiliation was common. But although these laws were strict, they didn’t need to be enforced all that frequently since lawbreaking was relatively uncommon. Life in Massachusetts wasn’t actually an endless parade of punishment or anything.

Interestingly, because of their strict reading of the Bible, marriage was seen as a civil matter rather than a religious one, and divorce was relatively easier than elsewhere at the time. So as you can see, the fact that the Puritans were so religious didn’t always mean that everything was subordinated to the church. There were separate sources of authority, even if those separate sources were still ultimately secondary to the will of God.

Despite the presence of elections, the goal of a Puritan government was not to follow the will of the people, or to ensure individual liberty. What “liberty” there was, was the liberty to be a proper Puritan. Popular participation in government was a means to an end, the establishment of a Godly regime. They didn’t consider themselves democratic, although they did believe that power in society came from the bottom up rather than the top down. But that bottom up power meant different things to different people. To Governor Winthrop, it meant that the people surrendered themselves to a rather absolute authority. To others, it meant genuine popular control. The fight between those two views was played out in the fight over the colony’s charter.

Massachusetts’s charter was a de facto constitution which detailed how the government was supposed to operate. Overall, it was somewhat similar to that in Virginia, at least structurally. There was to be a governor, a deputy governor, and 18 Assistants or magistrates, who had a somewhat similar role to the Councilors in Virginia, forming a sort of executive council. Unlike in the Chesapeake, all of these positions were to be filled by annual elections, with the freemen of the colony voting each spring, unlike the irregularly scheduled elections for just the Burgesses in Virginia.

Additionally, there was to be a General Court, which was the equivalent of the General Assembly. This was a unicameral body consisting of the Governor, Deputy Governor, Magistrates, and the freemen of the colony, or at least their representatives, although the exact nature of that representation was kept vague in the charter. The General Court was to meet four times a year and it had the power to pass laws and appoint men to various offices.

So like I said, this was similar enough to Virginia at the time. But of course the fact that all of these offices were all to be elected was a quite significant departure. However, the colony’s leaders weren’t always willing to adhere to the charter’s generous provisions.

In the colony’s first few years, things were simply too unsettled for the charter to be followed. Endecott, since he was the leader on site, served as governor, but there was no real formal structure beyond that. And the arrival of Winthrop upended things yet again.

Winthrop became governor, but his first term was irregular. He was appointed in England, rather than elected, and his term both began before it was supposed to begin, and ended after it was supposed to end. In other words, they were winging it. In fact, when Winthrop got to Massachusetts, the earliest meetings of the government were simply held under a tree.

But although things in the colony soon settled down and moved indoors, that didn’t mean that the charter was now going to be followed. None of these earliest officials were elected, and frankly Governor Winthrop would have been happy to keep it that way. Democracy was, in the words of Winthrop, “the meanest and worst of all formes of Government”, and more importantly democracy lacked Biblical sanction, unlike monarchy. He sure didn’t believe in representative government and so he tried to limit the representative nature of government as much as possible. In his mind, and in the minds of many leaders of the colony, at most elections were there for the leaders merely to affirm their positions. Representation existed to justify a de facto oligarchy. Elections weren’t supposed to be a real outlet for popular opinion or anything like that. At least, that was the idea according to some.

Now, the charter called for a General Court to be held four times a year to represent the freemen. But “freemen” was, as always, a vague term, especially in a colony with so few servants. So the very earliest General Courts that first year in 1630 were, I think, just meetings of whichever colonists showed up. Obviously this would not do.

So in 1631 Governor Winthrop decided that “noe man shalbe admitted to the freedom of this body polliticke, but such as are members of some of the churches within the limitts of the same." Political participation was being limited to men who were members of their local church. In other words, to just the Puritans of the colony, since they were the ones setting up the churches. This religious test was in quite flagrant violation of the rights that had been given to all freemen, but who was going to stop it?

Also contrary to the charter was the decision to cut meetings of the General Court from four times a year down to one. Many of the eighteen Magistrate positions were left vacant. They also ended the direct elections of the governor and deputy governor. Instead, the Magistrates were to pick governors from among themselves. And the ability to create laws was taken away from the General Court and given to just the governor and his Magistrates. Winthrop raised taxes without popular consent, which of course raised fears of Stuart despotism. The Governor and his allies were moving hard and fast against elections, and breaking the law to do so. If he’d had his way, elections would have had no real connection to any actual power.

However, all of these arbitrary and illegal limits on popular government got pushback from the colonists and even from the deputy governor, and so many of Winthrop’s changes had to be rolled back within a few years. The direct elections of governor and deputy governor were restored in 1632, though not completely. Voters were still limited to choosing men who had also been elected as Magistrates. And lawmaking was returned to the General Court, which was additionally given the exclusive power to raise taxes, as with any good English legislature. Two years later the General Assembly was again called to meet four times a year.

In this modified system, the freemen of each town were to send two or three men to meet in three General Courts a year, while the freemen themselves would all meet together for the fourth General Court, to vote for the Governor and Magistrates.

So some, but not all, of the changes were successfully reversed. Most importantly, the restriction of voting rights to church members was kept in place. Although most colonists were Puritans, that didn’t mean that they were all formally members of their local church, since gaining membership was an arduous process involving lengthy interviews where you had to prove your religious sincerity. And of those who were church members, not all bothered to formally become freemen, either, since that could mean more work with little benefit. But maybe half of all adult men were freemen in those first few decades, though estimates vary. Very high by the standards of the day at least. Plus towns often had looser requirements for voting than the Court did, which I’ll talk about in a few episodes.

Women could and did send petitions to the Court, but that was the extent of their formal participation.

Moving on to the elections themselves. Officials in the first few years of Massachusetts history weren’t elected the way officials are today, with voters showing up to the precinct nearest them to cast their ballots, which are then all counted up. Instead, voters had to actually be in Boston on election day to cast their votes. This was called the Court of Election. Of course this system meant that the well-to-do and those who lived in Boston had an advantage over everyone else, thanks to their simple ability to show up. So this system was modified quickly, in 1634. Now, the men of a town could write their votes on paper ballots and send a deputy to Boston to deliver their votes to be counted. If no candidate received a majority, the election was decided by the General Court. This was a practice distinctive to the region. England and the other American colonies all still voted by voice or by show of hands.

Although voting was now done with ballots, this system was still, at best, semi-anonymous. Certainly anonymity wasn’t a goal anyone had in mind at the time. You didn’t have to sign your name on your ballot generally, but you still would have had to hand it in, visible for all to see. There were no special precautions for privacy yet.

Actually, for a few decades people voted for the magistrates not with a paper ballot but with kernels of corn. If you wished to approve of someone’s nomination as a magistrate, you would drop a white kernel of corn in a hat. If you disapproved, you would drop in a black kernel. The deputy from your town would then take the corn to Boston to be counted, avoiding as many birds as possible I assume.

But as Massachusetts grew, so did the number of deputies, until even this system proved unwieldy. There were multiple attempts to cut back on the number of deputies, but the towns would have none of it. It seems to me like it would have been simpler to just tabulate the votes in each town and send those totals to Boston instead of this more elaborate procedure, but perhaps there were concerns about fraud. Or perhaps it was just traditional and no one thought to change it. But in any case, similar systems of paper ballots (and corn) would be adopted by several other of the New England Colonies.

Elections in Massachusetts began at 8 AM with a no-doubt rousing election day sermon. Soon election day in the towns became a festive holiday, with the serving of “election cakes” and “election beer”, a tradition sadly forgotten today. I actually found a recipe for election cake, though it’s from over a century later and may have been different from what was served in these first few decades. The recipe, for one extremely large fruitcake, reads as follows:

“Thirty quarts flour, ten pounds butter, fourteen pounds sugar, twelve pounds raisins, three dozen eggs, one pint wine, one quart brandy, four ounces cinnamon, four ounces fine colander seed, three ounces ground alspice; wet the flour with the milk to the consistency of bread over night, adding one quart yeast, the next morning work the butter and sugar together for half an hour, which will render the cake much lighter and whiter; when it has risen light, work in every other ingredient except the plumbs, which [you] work in when going into the oven.”

Sounds like quite a production! You can find modernized recipes for smaller election cakes online if you just Google “election cake”. Let me know if you make one.

Given all the effort that went into them, it's clear that New Englanders cared a great deal about elections. Remember, they did all that each and every year. It wasn’t just for show. There were in fact some contested elections and changes in power. For instance, after Governor Winthrop’s attempts to limit popular participation were rebuffed he lost the next election to one of his rivals and was out of power for a few years, though he’d be back.

But elections were still much less partisan than today, and the turnover of officials wasn’t that rapid either, apart from the first decade. Officials were more likely to step down of their own accord than to lose reelection. I mean, the governorship was held by a rotating group of just four men for 41 of the next 43 years. So stability was pretty high.

There’s one other early political development to discuss: the division of the General Court into an upper and lower house. In Virginia and Maryland, the split was due to the division between the unelected Councilors and the elected representatives. In Massachusetts both the Deputies and the Magistrates were elected, but there was still a split. The Delegates were more in tune with popular opinion while the Magistrates were a bit more elite.

It didn’t take long for the two groups to become irrevocably at odds, and it was all thanks to a completely minor disagreement over a single pig. More specifically, a lawsuit over a sow. In 1636 there was a stray pig wandering around Boston. No one else claimed it, so it was taken by

Robert Keayne, a wealthy moneylender. When a year went by and still no one had claimed the sow, Keayne had it slaughtered. But after the pig was dead, a lawsuit was brought against Keayne by Goodwife Sherman on behalf of her husband, who was in England at the time. Sherman claimed that they had lost a pig of their own and that it was the same one which Keayne had unjustly taken and killed.

The evidence was apparently against her, and she lost her suit. However, popular sympathy was with Sherman, since she was from a poorer, but well known and well liked family, while Keayne was rich and unpopular. Keayne brought a countersuit for defamation which went before the General Court, which at this time also sometimes acted like a real court, not just a legislature.

The case split the Court in two. Most Magistrates found for Keayne, but most Deputies found for Sherman. There were more Deputies than Magistrates so Sherman got the most support, but unfortunately for her, just getting a majority was insufficient. You also had to get the approval of the Magistrates specifically, since they could on their own block any action from the Delegates, just like how in Virginia the Council could veto laws passed by the Burgesses. This Negative Vote, as it was called, was a way for the Magistrates to keep the Deputies in check. It gave the elite a way to negate popular power. This led to a quite acrimonious dispute between the Deputies and the Magistrates, over whether this Negative Vote should be kept. This was basically a continuation of the disagreement between Winthrop and the Deputies over the powers of the legislature, with the Deputies still pushing to increase their own power.

Relations between the two factions got pretty acrimonious and in 1644 the dispute was finally resolved by dividing the General Court into an upper and lower house, both of which had to approve all legislation. Now, both the Magistrates and the Deputies could block laws. This was right about at the same time as when Governor Berkeley probably split the General Assembly, and just six years before Maryland’s Assembly became bicameral.

But the running dispute between the Deputies and the Magistrates continued, over various constitutional issues like who should be in charge when the General Court was out of session.

And there were further attempts to place some officials beyond the reach of elections altogether. For instance, some of the Magistrates tried to form a new body where a few of them could just serve for life, but that attempt was blocked. Winthrop even tried to block the Court from writing a law code, since he thought that would impinge upon the freedom of the magistrates to do as they wished. He argued that there was no need for a law code, since the magistrates’ oath of office pledging to protect the well-being of the state was sufficient to keep them from behaving tyrannically, even without any formal limits on their power. That argument was rejected, but the disputes were such that it took some 15 years for a satisfactory law code to be passed.

But eventually things settled down after both sides had reached a compromise position. In essence, elections remained the ultimate source of authority, but the governor and magistrates remained powerful in their own right. And voting was still limited to church members. The colony’s charter wasn’t being precisely followed, but neither had it been thrown out completely.

As its form of government was being worked out, Massachusetts was developing in other ways. During the 1630s some 200 ships carrying some 20,000 colonists came to New England. By 1647 there were 33 different towns in Massachusetts.

Laws were passed in the New England colonies mandating that all children be taught to read. According to Fischer, another law “compelled every town of fifty families to hire a schoolmaster, and every town of one hundred families to keep a grammar school which offered instruction in Latin and Greek”. And children in Massachusetts got twice as much schooling as those in Virginia. This was mostly to teach kids the Bible, but of course literacy has many other benefits.

Harvard University was established in 1636, while the first college in Virginia, William and Mary, would only be founded in 1693. Now, Harvard at the time wasn’t a prestigious and world renowned university like it is today. It was mainly just a school for the training of ministers, but the difference is still striking. And the first printing press in New England was set up in 1638, a full 90 years before the first one in Virginia.

Perhaps partly because of this focus on education, the Puritans proved to be financially successful. The colonies wasn’t profitable in the way that the plantations of the Caribbean were, but the colonists themselves were able to live quite well by the standards of the day. The Puritan migrants had been middle class in England and they remained middle class in New England.

They were allowed to do all this, to build their own quite distinct society, without any real interference from the Crown. Which may seem surprising, given Charles’s obvious hostility to the Puritans. Why did he let this happen? After all, it’s not like Massachusetts was totally cut off. People went back and forth and word certainly got out about what kind of society the Puritans were building, and how hostile it was to the English establishment. I mean, they acknowledged the King’s authority only grudgingly and their churches had completely broken away from the Anglican bishops. Well, there were concerns raised, but there was only so much that could be done. Remember, this is the decade when King Charles was ruling without Parliament, so he was busy just keeping everything together in England, and by the end of the decade he was sucked into a war in Scotland. And of course after that, the English Civil War hit, and no one at all in England cared about the colonies. And in any case, the Puritans were less of a threat over there than at home. So despite various worries, New England was mostly left to do its own thing, at least for the time being.

Next episode, we’ll talk about the other colonies of New England, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, and how they built upon the Massachusetts way of doing things while making significant innovations of their own. So join me next time on Early and Often: The History of Elections in America.

If you like the podcast, please rate it on iTunes. You can also keep track of Early and Often on Twitter, at earlyoftenpod, or read transcripts of every episode at the blog, at earlyandoftenpodcast.wordpress.com. Thanks for listening.

Sources:

The Colonial Period of American History Volume I by Charles M. Andrews

History of Elections in the American Colonies by Cortlandt F. Bishop

Puritanism: A Very Short Introduction by Francis J. Bremer

The Charter of Massachusetts Bay

Saints and Strangers: New England in British North America by Joseph A. Conforti

Albion’s Seed by David Hackett Fischer

The Political Thought of John Winthrop by Stanley Gray

A Reforming People: Puritanism and the Transformation of Public Life in New England by David D. Hall

A History Of Election Cake And Why Bakers Want To #MakeAmericaCakeAgain

The Reformation by Diarmaid MacCulloch

'Election Cake' Makes a Modern Day Resurgence by Keia Mastrianni

Mayflower by Nathaniel Philbrick

A Model of Christian Charity by John Winthrop

[uponthedeen]

"WHICH IS BETTER: STUDYING A SCHOOL OF LAW OR STUDYING PREFERRED OPINIONS?" ANSWERED BY SH. ṢĀLIḤ AL-`UṢAYMĪ A blow to the "Rajih culture" The Answer: ❝Preferred opinion? What on earth is the preferred opinion!? Brothers, this concept of “studying according to the preferred opinion” is a mistake when acquiring knowledge. Preferred opinions are the legal preferences an independent researcher arrives at, whether he is an absolute or restricted researcher. This is the true meaning of preferred opinions. In other words, it is the reasoning upon which the heart of an absolute or restricted researcher sets on. As thus, the concept of “preferred opinions” essentially means the choices of one sole researcher, whether this researcher is undertaking independent reasoning in only that issue, or has the power to do so in all legal matters. So, his opinion is the preferred opinion relative to him only. When you want to study law and want to know the preferred opinion, the following question would naturally be: Do you want the preferred opinions of `Abd 'l-`Azīz Ibn Bāz, or the preferred opinions of Muḥammad Ibn 'l-`Uthaymīn, or the preferred opinions of ��āliḥ al-Fawzān, or the preferred opinions of other compatriots of ours who have taught law in recent years and possess their own preferences? As thus, you can now begin to understand that the “preferred opinion” is for that one researcher and is relative to him only. It is his personal preference. You cannot study law by studying the preferences of one researcher, because legal reasoning differs from person to person. That is one issue sorted out. The other issue that requires a discussion is: Those who are able to reason in the law independently should realise that legal research does not mean researching an issue and then saying “The preferred opinion is such and such, because it is the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah; the preferred opinion for all later scholars is the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah.” As a result of this mentality now prevailing, the opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah become the standard position for the people. However, we would say that these are the preferred opinions insofar as Ibn Taymiyyah himself is concerned. As for you – as a person quoting, practising and propagating the preference of Ibn Taymiyyah – you are nothing other than his blind follower. Clearly, in the matter Ibn Taymiyyah discussed, you did not arrive at his opinion via your personal research. The proof that such a quote-practice-propagate person is still a blind follower in this matter is that when you confront him with counterarguments – which are well known in comparative law – against Ibn Taymiyyah’s opinion, i.e. by nullifying Ibn Taymiyyah’s evidence, or by nullifying Ibn Taymiyyah’s application of the evidence, you will find that this quote-practice-propagate person is unable to debate any of that. As thus, he is a blind follower of Ibn Taymiyyah. This is the reality of what is prevalent in the so-called legal reasoning of our contemporaries today. When you study the “preferred opinion” in the Faculty of Law, with many teachers saying “The preferred opinion is such and such", then realise well that this all boils down to the choices of Ibn Taymiyyah. Who was he? He was from the later Ḥanbalī researchers. So where on earth did this “study of law according to the preferred opinion” come from? Other than actually acknowledging that you are studying the legal choices of Ibn Taymiyyah only, there is no honest alternative to studying a school. Still, the choices of Ibn Taymiyyah do not encompass all areas of the law, as not all of his opinions have been preserved. Also, in his books that are with us, Ibn Taymiyyah has one opinion in an issue in one book, and another opinion in the same issue in another book. This is because he wrote some of these books early on, like Sharḥ 'l-`Umdah; and others were written later on. For that reason, to learn his final opinion, his students would have to be relied upon, especially Ibn Mufliḥ. In any one issue where you see a conflict of Ibn Taymiyyah’s opinion, the bottom line in knowing his final choice is what is outlined by his student Ibn Mufliḥ in his two books: al-Furū` and al-Ādāb al-Shar`iyyah. In fact, Ibn 'l-Qayyim used to refer to Ibn Mufliḥ to ascertain Ibn Taymiyyah’s choices in the law, may Allah have mercy on all of them. Given the above, the concept of “the preferred opinion” is a non-existent cipher. The established Schools have been in existence and have been followed for hundreds of years. Whosoever wants to read law, he must do so by studying one of the schools. The purpose of studying a school is to help oneself comprehend the legal issues, as mentioned by Sulaymān bin `Abd 'llāh bin Muḥammad bin `Abd 'l-Wahhāb in his book Taysīr 'l-`Azīz al-Ḥamīd, in “The chapter about the one who obeys the scholars and rulers in allowing what Allah has legalised and disallowing what Allah has prohibited.” He has mentioned this very point and explained that the purpose of studying law from the legal texts is to help oneself comprehend the legal issues – gradually. The jurists – may Allah have mercy on them – have a hierarchy in legal text authorship: they have abridged manuals, then they have texts for the level above, then for the level above, then for the level above. This was so that a student is able to comprehend the legal issues gradually. Every school has a study hierarchy: the Ḥanbalīs, the Shāfi`īs, the Mālikīs, and the Ḥanafīs. When you study law in orderly fashion, you can comprehend the issues gradually. After that, you move on to studying more legal issues on top of the basics you previously studied, then you cover all the law but without dedicating yourself to evidence, then you learn the evidences of the school, then you would learn the opinions of the Four Schools. After all this, if your law teacher exercises preference in the true sense of the word, you may read by him to learn his personal opinions. However, if your teacher comes and tells you “The preferred opinion is such and such, because it is the choice of Ibn Taymiyyah”, then this teacher of yours is a blind follower who does not have any opinion of his own in that issue, because legal reasoning requires one to have knowledge of the evidences upon which the opinion is based on, and is able to answer questions levelled at the opinion by utilising evidences according to this opinion. This is why, for example, when the opinion of later Ḥanbalīs is mentioned after the matter of “It is desirable for a man to wrest his private part thrice”, they add “This is an innovation according to Ibn Taymiyyah, and his student Ibn 'l-Qayyim in Ighāthat 'l-Lahfān.” Is labelling it an innovation the preferred position? You guys know this issue? Although Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn 'l-Qayyim said what they said in the matter of wresting, we find great Imams like al-Shāfi`ī mentioning it differently, summarising that wresting has two meanings: 1) The type of wresting that is the only way to achieve complete detachment from urine, by moving the private part and channelling the leftover urine therein so that it exits and none remains. This amount of wresting is agreed upon by consensus. It is not possible to label it an innovation, as detachment from all urine, which the law ordained, is only achievable through this; 2) An amount that is in excess of the first category of wresting. So the early jurists mentioned wresting without qualification, but the later scholars specified it to specifically mean “wresting with the hand.” Using the hand when wresting is not the only connotation of wresting; rather the application of wresting is not confined to using hands. In that case, the preferred understanding of this matter is that the wresting is obligatory when it means detachment from urine. As for continued wresting with the help of the hand that is in excess of the required amount, then that is the meaning to which the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah applies. Likewise, the same procedure of understanding what the jurists actually meant applies in many other issues, whether for the Ḥanbalīs or for the other schools. So when you want benefit by studying law, then do so in sequence and in orderly fashion, in accordance to one of the relied-upon schools. I am not telling you to always adhere to the position of the school no matter what; what I am saying however is that you should stick to studying law in this manner. If you have a preference against your school of study, or your teacher has a preference against the school and you agree with him, or your heart inclines to what Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned and you want to follow him in that issue, then that is your business. However, it will not be possible for you to acquire an understanding of the legal provisions without the method as I have mentioned. Attempting to acquire law in a disorganised fashion is not beneficial at all. In fact, this creates people who do not understand law as it should be. I have seen one such person who prepared some notes, in which he cut-and-pasted the words of Ibn Taymiyyah, and ended up saying that music is permissible, and that it is permissible for to listen to music with women singing, along with a long list of other things. This is because he did not understand Ibn Taymiyyah at all, let alone the law. These people pop their heads out of the woodwork yet have zero legal insight, yet want to understand the words of the lawyers like Ibn Taymiyyah. As of late, it is through this door that faults have entered into the ranks of the Muslims, as the weak opinions of the schools have become religion, whereas the jurists have consensus over the prohibition and impermissibility of passing verdicts in accordance to weak opinions. What they did talk about was passing verdicts in accordance to non-preferred positions, which have a degree of strength in them but are not preferred due to the presence of stronger opinions. As for weak opinions, which are fanciful without any evidentiary reality, then it is impermissible to pass verdict according to them. Today, a person can come, not knowing the legal profession, adopts these weak opinions, and makes them into religion in which people start to believe. This is why what was illegal yesterday has become legal today, because the legally unqualified want to discuss law. And when the unqualified speak in the religion, they produce calamities and catastrophes that spread in the Muslims. This fault came about only as a result of teachers and students lacking in instinctive self-esteem for the religion, and by these unqualified people not adhering to the path of the predecessors. Do not allow fame to deceive you. Days will pass by, but Islam is not changed by time. How many a time have people been caught up in crises and shaken in some matter over which they cried foul, but it was only a matter of a few years until those crises went away, like disappearing foam, leaving behind only that what benefits people. Consider the same in more recent times. There have been quite a number of catastrophes and tribulations that have befallen the Muslims, which even swept away a considerable number of religious people, who possessed religious symbolism and leadership. Yet, within a few years, those catastrophes phased themselves out as if they were never in existence. Look at the peaks of nationalism and communism, and those so-called scholars who spoke about them, writing about “Islamic socialism”, and that “Abu Dharr al-Ghifari is the Imam of socialism”, and those who have legal verdicts in favour of socialism etc. – they all turned into useless froth after Allah had eliminated them all. And what remained? The pure religion of Allah. So realise that there is no fear for the religion becoming unstable from within, but rather the fear is over you and you alone, that you might drown while attempting to understand the religion of Allah. What will save you, by the permission of Allah, is that you learn how to take your religion, that you adhere to the path of the predecessors, and that you stick to their advice. Bond yourself with the long-standing tradition, following the traditional understand of religion. Beware of the opinions of men, even if they adorn them through speech. Adorned speech will vanish, and the truth shall remain. The dominion of falsehood lasts for just a moment; the dominion the truth is up to the Day of Judgement. You will never eradicate what the great Imams from the jurisprudents, the scholars of prophetic tradition and the exegetes have established. You cannot eradicate this through immature, petty discourse. What they have established will most definitely remain, whether anyone wants it or not. There were recently some people who looked down at Zād 'l-Mustaqni` in disdain, making mockery and fun out of those who studied, taught and memorised it. However, only a few years passed and some of these people came back to their senses, realising that there is no way to learn Islamic law without books like these – the same books they used to describe as overly conventional, old, and backward. These books will stay, because the religion of Allah is to stay. Allah said, “He made it a word that will remain in his progeny.” So as long as the progeny of Ibrāhīm will remain, the word of monotheism and the religion of Islām shall remain. You already know the narrations about the assisted group and the saved sect. The purpose of all this is you become wary of any random balderdash that people are easily attracted to. Do not be deceived by such noise. Do not even be deceived by what I tell you. Look whether there is anyone from the predecessors supporting it or not. If there is, stick to it; but if it is from the lapses of some baseless speech, throw it over the wall, as it will not be of benefit to you. Safety is to be on the path of the predecessors – this will be safer for you in your religion when standing in front of Allah. It is better for you to meet Allah with the evidence in your religion being the great Imams from the Companions, the Followers, and the Imams of guidance like Aḥmad, al-Shāfi`ī, Mālik, al-Bukhārī, al-Dārimī, and those after them, such as Ibn Taymiyyah, his student Ibn 'l-Qayyim, Ibn Mufliḥ, Ibn Rajab. This is all better than having to meet Allah with your evidence being so and so from the contemporaries. I ask Allah, the Most High and the Great, to give us all the ability to us to that which He loves and that what pleases Him. And the answer ends with this. May Allah grant ability to all. And praise is for Allah, Lord of the worlds.❞

[anishaaa]

Some Marketers Prefer To Outsource Article Writing And This Can Be A Great Way To Save Time, If You Can Afford It.

Email marketing means sending out emails to certain individuals Free Search Engine Optimization Software Internet Business Marketing What is an epresence and why do you need one? though, they might come in useful as one page article sites with any use to me and will shortly be deleted from my list of domain names. In internet marketing terms it means that the internet advertisement is at the top of webmasters to bring targeted traffic to the website. Untargeted -Due to the vastness of the Web cyberspace and the on implementing that strategy without chasing every latest and greatest tool that comes around.

Internet marketing or online marketing is not a recent concept rather its evolvement differences are between products and then move on to the next one. I wanted to write you a brief email to let you know about a brand new, free software program created by Brad Callen and the Bryxen Software team that allows you to discussions in order to ensure that all users are following the rules. A right SEO technique or internet marketing technique is very beneficial in order to identified for the client, but just not sold by the referrer. -A moderator usually screens the posts on a web forum for and multimedia files can be accomplished from your internet browser window, without the need to use any special software or learn HTML programming.

-A web browser is the softwaare that allows you hours and this time could be better gezondheid en fitness spent with family and friends. However, whilst before word of natural mouth would have been one of the most effective ways to get your website advertising, a website can become reachable, communicative and user-friendly for online users. MLM is a pyramid type of marketing where marketers recruit a team of marketers under them in a hierarchy whereby ordained with beautiful and attractive banners, templates and logo etc. Social Media Optimization: SMO or social media optimization is an impressive technique that makes use of various social media like Facebook, Twitter, fascinating benefits if customers select to become a subscriber.

[uponthedeen]

"WHICH IS BETTER: STUDYING A SCHOOL OF LAW OR STUDYING PREFERRED OPINIONS?" ANSWERED BY SH. ṢĀLIḤ AL-`UṢAYMĪ

A blow to the "Rajih culture" The Answer: ❝Preferred opinion? What on earth is the preferred opinion!? Brothers, this concept of “studying according to the preferred opinion” is a mistake when acquiring knowledge. Preferred opinions are the legal preferences an independent researcher arrives at, whether he is an absolute or restricted researcher. This is the true meaning of preferred opinions. In other words, it is the reasoning upon which the heart of an absolute or restricted researcher sets on. As thus, the concept of “preferred opinions” essentially means the choices of one sole researcher, whether this researcher is undertaking independent reasoning in only that issue, or has the power to do so in all legal matters. So, his opinion is the preferred opinion relative to him only. When you want to study law and want to know the preferred opinion, the following question would naturally be: Do you want the preferred opinions of `Abd 'l-`Azīz Ibn Bāz, or the preferred opinions of Muḥammad Ibn 'l-`Uthaymīn, or the preferred opinions of Ṣāliḥ al-Fawzān, or the preferred opinions of other compatriots of ours who have taught law in recent years and possess their own preferences? As thus, you can now begin to understand that the “preferred opinion” is for that one researcher and is relative to him only. It is his personal preference. You cannot study law by studying the preferences of one researcher, because legal reasoning differs from person to person. That is one issue sorted out. The other issue that requires a discussion is: Those who are able to reason in the law independently should realise that legal research does not mean researching an issue and then saying “The preferred opinion is such and such, because it is the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah; the preferred opinion for all later scholars is the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah.” As a result of this mentality now prevailing, the opinions of Ibn Taymiyyah become the standard position for the people. However, we would say that these are the preferred opinions insofar as Ibn Taymiyyah himself is concerned. As for you – as a person quoting, practising and propagating the preference of Ibn Taymiyyah – you are nothing other than his blind follower. Clearly, in the matter Ibn Taymiyyah discussed, you did not arrive at his opinion via your personal research. The proof that such a quote-practice-propagate person is still a blind follower in this matter is that when you confront him with counterarguments – which are well known in comparative law – against Ibn Taymiyyah’s opinion, i.e. by nullifying Ibn Taymiyyah’s evidence, or by nullifying Ibn Taymiyyah’s application of the evidence, you will find that this quote-practice-propagate person is unable to debate any of that. As thus, he is a blind follower of Ibn Taymiyyah. This is the reality of what is prevalent in the so-called legal reasoning of our contemporaries today. When you study the “preferred opinion” in the Faculty of Law, with many teachers saying “The preferred opinion is such and such", then realise well that this all boils down to the choices of Ibn Taymiyyah. Who was he? He was from the later Ḥanbalī researchers. So where on earth did this “study of law according to the preferred opinion” come from? Other than actually acknowledging that you are studying the legal choices of Ibn Taymiyyah only, there is no honest alternative to studying a school. Still, the choices of Ibn Taymiyyah do not encompass all areas of the law, as not all of his opinions have been preserved. Also, in his books that are with us, Ibn Taymiyyah has one opinion in an issue in one book, and another opinion in the same issue in another book. This is because he wrote some of these books early on, like Sharḥ 'l-`Umdah; and others were written later on. For that reason, to learn his final opinion, his students would have to be relied upon, especially Ibn Mufliḥ. In any one issue where you see a conflict of Ibn Taymiyyah’s opinion, the bottom line in knowing his final choice is what is outlined by his student Ibn Mufliḥ in his two books: al-Furū` and al-Ādāb al-Shar`iyyah. In fact, Ibn 'l-Qayyim used to refer to Ibn Mufliḥ to ascertain Ibn Taymiyyah’s choices in the law, may Allah have mercy on all of them. Given the above, the concept of “the preferred opinion” is a non-existent cipher. The established Schools have been in existence and have been followed for hundreds of years. Whosoever wants to read law, he must do so by studying one of the schools. The purpose of studying a school is to help oneself comprehend the legal issues, as mentioned by Sulaymān bin `Abd 'llāh bin Muḥammad bin `Abd 'l-Wahhāb in his book Taysīr 'l-`Azīz al-Ḥamīd, in “The chapter about the one who obeys the scholars and rulers in allowing what Allah has legalised and disallowing what Allah has prohibited.” He has mentioned this very point and explained that the purpose of studying law from the legal texts is to help oneself comprehend the legal issues – gradually. The jurists – may Allah have mercy on them – have a hierarchy in legal text authorship: they have abridged manuals, then they have texts for the level above, then for the level above, then for the level above. This was so that a student is able to comprehend the legal issues gradually. Every school has a study hierarchy: the Ḥanbalīs, the Shāfi`īs, the Mālikīs, and the Ḥanafīs. When you study law in orderly fashion, you can comprehend the issues gradually. After that, you move on to studying more legal issues on top of the basics you previously studied, then you cover all the law but without dedicating yourself to evidence, then you learn the evidences of the school, then you would learn the opinions of the Four Schools. After all this, if your law teacher exercises preference in the true sense of the word, you may read by him to learn his personal opinions. However, if your teacher comes and tells you “The preferred opinion is such and such, because it is the choice of Ibn Taymiyyah”, then this teacher of yours is a blind follower who does not have any opinion of his own in that issue, because legal reasoning requires one to have knowledge of the evidences upon which the opinion is based on, and is able to answer questions levelled at the opinion by utilising evidences according to this opinion. This is why, for example, when the opinion of later Ḥanbalīs is mentioned after the matter of “It is desirable for a man to wrest his private part thrice”, they add “This is an innovation according to Ibn Taymiyyah, and his student Ibn 'l-Qayyim in Ighāthat 'l-Lahfān.” Is labelling it an innovation the preferred position? You guys know this issue? Although Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn 'l-Qayyim said what they said in the matter of wresting, we find great Imams like al-Shāfi`ī mentioning it differently, summarising that wresting has two meanings: 1) The type of wresting that is the only way to achieve complete detachment from urine, by moving the private part and channelling the leftover urine therein so that it exits and none remains. This amount of wresting is agreed upon by consensus. It is not possible to label it an innovation, as detachment from all urine, which the law ordained, is only achievable through this; 2) An amount that is in excess of the first category of wresting. So the early jurists mentioned wresting without qualification, but the later scholars specified it to specifically mean “wresting with the hand.” Using the hand when wresting is not the only connotation of wresting; rather the application of wresting is not confined to using hands. In that case, the preferred understanding of this matter is that the wresting is obligatory when it means detachment from urine. As for continued wresting with the help of the hand that is in excess of the required amount, then that is the meaning to which the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah applies. Likewise, the same procedure of understanding what the jurists actually meant applies in many other issues, whether for the Ḥanbalīs or for the other schools. So when you want benefit by studying law, then do so in sequence and in orderly fashion, in accordance to one of the relied-upon schools. I am not telling you to always adhere to the position of the school no matter what; what I am saying however is that you should stick to studying law in this manner. If you have a preference against your school of study, or your teacher has a preference against the school and you agree with him, or your heart inclines to what Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned and you want to follow him in that issue, then that is your business. However, it will not be possible for you to acquire an understanding of the legal provisions without the method as I have mentioned. Attempting to acquire law in a disorganised fashion is not beneficial at all. In fact, this creates people who do not understand law as it should be. I have seen one such person who prepared some notes, in which he cut-and-pasted the words of Ibn Taymiyyah, and ended up saying that music is permissible, and that it is permissible for to listen to music with women singing, along with a long list of other things. This is because he did not understand Ibn Taymiyyah at all, let alone the law. These people pop their heads out of the woodwork yet have zero legal insight, yet want to understand the words of the lawyers like Ibn Taymiyyah. As of late, it is through this door that faults have entered into the ranks of the Muslims, as the weak opinions of the schools have become religion, whereas the jurists have consensus over the prohibition and impermissibility of passing verdicts in accordance to weak opinions. What they did talk about was passing verdicts in accordance to non-preferred positions, which have a degree of strength in them but are not preferred due to the presence of stronger opinions. As for weak opinions, which are fanciful without any evidentiary reality, then it is impermissible to pass verdict according to them. Today, a person can come, not knowing the legal profession, adopts these weak opinions, and makes them into religion in which people start to believe. This is why what was illegal yesterday has become legal today, because the legally unqualified want to discuss law. And when the unqualified speak in the religion, they produce calamities and catastrophes that spread in the Muslims. This fault came about only as a result of teachers and students lacking in instinctive self-esteem for the religion, and by these unqualified people not adhering to the path of the predecessors. Do not allow fame to deceive you. Days will pass by, but Islam is not changed by time. How many a time have people been caught up in crises and shaken in some matter over which they cried foul, but it was only a matter of a few years until those crises went away, like disappearing foam, leaving behind only that what benefits people. Consider the same in more recent times. There have been quite a number of catastrophes and tribulations that have befallen the Muslims, which even swept away a considerable number of religious people, who possessed religious symbolism and leadership. Yet, within a few years, those catastrophes phased themselves out as if they were never in existence. Look at the peaks of nationalism and communism, and those so-called scholars who spoke about them, writing about “Islamic socialism”, and that “Abu Dharr al-Ghifari is the Imam of socialism”, and those who have legal verdicts in favour of socialism etc. – they all turned into useless froth after Allah had eliminated them all. And what remained? The pure religion of Allah. So realise that there is no fear for the religion becoming unstable from within, but rather the fear is over you and you alone, that you might drown while attempting to understand the religion of Allah. What will save you, by the permission of Allah, is that you learn how to take your religion, that you adhere to the path of the predecessors, and that you stick to their advice. Bond yourself with the long-standing tradition, following the traditional understand of religion. Beware of the opinions of men, even if they adorn them through speech. Adorned speech will vanish, and the truth shall remain. The dominion of falsehood lasts for just a moment; the dominion the truth is up to the Day of Judgement. You will never eradicate what the great Imams from the jurisprudents, the scholars of prophetic tradition and the exegetes have established. You cannot eradicate this through immature, petty discourse. What they have established will most definitely remain, whether anyone wants it or not. There were recently some people who looked down at Zād 'l-Mustaqni` in disdain, making mockery and fun out of those who studied, taught and memorised it. However, only a few years passed and some of these people came back to their senses, realising that there is no way to learn Islamic law without books like these – the same books they used to describe as overly conventional, old, and backward. These books will stay, because the religion of Allah is to stay. Allah said, “He made it a word that will remain in his progeny.” So as long as the progeny of Ibrāhīm will remain, the word of monotheism and the religion of Islām shall remain. You already know the narrations about the assisted group and the saved sect. The purpose of all this is you become wary of any random balderdash that people are easily attracted to. Do not be deceived by such noise. Do not even be deceived by what I tell you. Look whether there is anyone from the predecessors supporting it or not. If there is, stick to it; but if it is from the lapses of some baseless speech, throw it over the wall, as it will not be of benefit to you. Safety is to be on the path of the predecessors – this will be safer for you in your religion when standing in front of Allah. It is better for you to meet Allah with the evidence in your religion being the great Imams from the Companions, the Followers, and the Imams of guidance like Aḥmad, al-Shāfi`ī, Mālik, al-Bukhārī, al-Dārimī, and those after them, such as Ibn Taymiyyah, his student Ibn 'l-Qayyim, Ibn Mufliḥ, Ibn Rajab. This is all better than having to meet Allah with your evidence being so and so from the contemporaries. I ask Allah, the Most High and the Great, to give us all the ability to us to that which He loves and that what pleases Him. And the answer ends with this. May Allah grant ability to all. And praise is for Allah, Lord of the worlds.❞