Islamic Castration
Robert Houghton
reported, on the basis of my reading, that the survival rate of the
'operation' of castration on Africans was 10%. This figure was sneered
at, as for some reason, suspicious. I have come across independent
confirmation of the details of this dreadful practice from Jan
Hogendorn's "Hideous Trade", p 143:
"Castration can be partial (removal of the testicles only or removal of
the penis only), or total (removal of both). In the later period of the
trade, that is, after Africa became the most important source for
Mediterranean Islam, it appears that most eunuchs sold to the markets
underwent total removal. This version of the operation, though
considered most appropriate for slaves in constant proximity to harem
members, posed a very high danger of death for two reasons. First was
the extensive hemorrhaging, with the consequent possibility of almost
immediate death. The hemorrhaging could not be stopped by traditional
cauterization because that would close the urethra leading to eventual
death because of inability to pass urine. The second danger lay in
infection of the urethra, with the formation of pus blocking it and so
causing death within a few days.
"When the castration was carried out in sub-Saharan West and
West-Central Africa a figure of 90% [is] often mentioned. Even higher
death rates were occasionally reported, unsurprising in tropical areas
where the danger of
The low survival rate was reflected in the high market price paid for
young African eunuchs: the Turkish merchants paid fifteen times the
price of an unmutilated slave. I note that a death rate of 90% is a
survival rate of 10%, precisely what I reported.
Nima Rezai
["islamic" castration]
how can castration be islamic?
is it prescribed in the quran?
is it "commanded" through hadith narrations?
was it practiced in all muslim areas?
if yes, was it only practiced by muslims?
Zuiko Azumazi
news:000401c69b94$5a868bf0$4101a8c0@rhdt...
<snip>
> Some time ago ... I
> reported, on the basis of my reading, 'operation' of castration on
Africans
> I have come across independent from Jan Hogendorn's ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
But honestly, doesn't this feed originate, once again, from the infamous
"Jihad Watch" website (and it's incestuous neocon allies, "The American
Thinker" and "FrontPage magazine"), that mentions this exact same object? Is
this your supposed independent study that you happened to come across on the
basis of your reading? I put it to you Robert, this isn't your "I report" is
just another example of an echoed propaganda feed from the "neocon" lobby
intended to smear Muslims and Islam by negationism, is it not? As "I
reported" elsewhere, didn't the lickspittle editor of this exclusively
abusive website categorically state as a matter of "Jihad Watch" (a neocon
mantra) policy that:-
"Don't tell us so-and-so is an "expert" or "respected." Tell us only that
so-and-so "teaches" X or "has written" on Y or "has studied" Z. None of this
argument from authority stuff here. We'll decide, after we study what X or Y
or Z says, whether or not X or Y should be respected."
Where should we then place Jan Hogendorn - the Grossman Professor of
Economics at the Liberal Arts - Colby College - works when he wrote about
the economics of the slave trade to Christian Americas from colonial Africa?
"This study examines the role of cowrie-shell money in West African trade,
particularly the slave trade. The shells were carried from the Maldives to
the Mediterranean by Arab traders for further transport across the Sahara,
and to Europe by competing Portuguese, Dutch, English and French traders for
onward transport to the West African coast. In Africa they served to
purchase the slaves exported to the New World, as well as other less
sinister exports. Over a large part of West Africa they became the regular
market currency, but were severely devalued by the importation of thousands
of tons of the cheaper Zanzibar cowries. Colonial governments disliked
cowries because of the inflation and encouraged their replacement by
low-value coins. They disappeared almost totally, to re-appear during the
depression of the 1930s, and have been found occasionally in the markets of
remote frontier districts, avoiding exchange and currency control problems."
[Jan Hogendorn]
But what do serious historical journals say:-
"In this amply documented volume, Paul E. Lovejoy and Jan S. Hogendorn have
gone behind the published and often-cited memos of Lord Lugard, founder of
Northern Nigeria, to explore the reality of slavery under colonial rule....
Theirs is the most detailed and thoughtful analysis to date of slavery and
concubinage in Africa; their framework and the priority they attribute to
the issue may well be applicable, with some adjustment for racial
distinctions, to slave societies in the Americas. The rich narrative, based
on ample resources in archives and in oral testimony, reflects an effective
collaboration of the authors in research and writing....it is hard to
imagine a more comprehensive first effort to address this vast topic."
[Patrick Manning, American Historical Review]
"The abolition of slavery in west Africa was a largely neglected topic until
these authors, well known for previous studies of slavery and the slave
trade in Africa, began studying it in the 1970s. This thorough and scholarly
work presents their findings, which are of interest not only for historians
of Africa, but also for those concerned with comparative and world
history....Their mastery of the range of original materials has enabled them
authoritatively to lay out the political, economic, legal, and social
dimensions of their subject and to integrate these dimensions
effectively....An impressive example of historical scholarship, Slow Death
for Slavery can be considered essential reading for anyone working on west
African social and political history in the modern period. It can also be
confidently expected to become and long to remain a standard reference in
the literature on European colonialism and its impact." [Gregory Blue,
Journal of World History]
But interestingly "Jihad Watch" et al, and yourself have failed to mention
Jan Hogendorn and Paul Lovejoy's comments on dreadful "New World" slavery,
orchestrated by the Christian, Portuguese, Dutch, English and French traders
under western European colonialism in Africa? Why is that do you think? Is
this, as you often remark, 'Christian Right' double-speak of the duplicitous
variety? Maybe it's a another "Christian Right' myth?
Why shouldn't discerning subscribers should treat all "your reading and
reports" (regurgitated agitprop feeds) seriously, when obviously they don't
contain the whole truth and are taken out of context? The "hideous trade" in
agitprop, perhaps?
--
Peace
--
Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive
themselves. [Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Joubin Houshyar
Dear Robert:
The Qur'an strictly prohibits any form of disfigurement of the body.
Man Has Been Created in HIS Image. The body is sacrosanct.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=castration+hadith&spell=1
Dear Moderators, Salaam,
Again, we see a subject line that is not congruent with the content
matter.
The author of the post has absolutely and utterly failed to demonstrate
a connection between the acts mentioned and the religion of Islam.
The author needs to provide Scriptural references proving his
assertion that Islam sanctions casteration of slaves. Let us see the
citations from The Qur'an or Hadeeth that allow disfigurment of the
body of captive slaves.
As it is, he has merely shown the desperate and despicable measures
taken by weak men who while physically possessing a 'harem' of women,
were not really in possession of them at all and thus feared losing an
'honor' which they clearly never possessed ...
But that error of discernment is a failing of Mr. Houghton. We ask the
Most Merciful God to forgive him. [Luke 23.34]
On your part, your continued tolerance of this type of hate-speech is
most disconcerting. Really, what it is the purpose of this negligence
of your duties and responsibilities?
& how long are we to tolerate this on your part? [We ask for your
forgiveness as well.]
If you feel that this responsibility -- and it is a grave
responsibility given the time and place -- is too much for you and
unduly taxing of your time (cf jobs, etc.) and understanding (cf.
forgiveness), then please consider relinquishing your office to other
more worthy and responsible individuals.
/& Salaam
Zuiko Azumazi
news:000401c69b94$5a868bf0$4101a8c0@rhdt...
Well let's objectively look at the appalling "castration" phenomenon in
history, not just from Robert's so-called "Islamic" perspective. It's as if,
mythically, there wasn't any systemic Church castration; or that castrato,
weren't employed by Christians up until the modern day? But, of course
Muslims and Islamic cannot be accused of this "angelic voice" practice,
since they don't have any "angelic" choirs. Read on!
These recent reports, "Pope urged to apologise for Vatican castrations",
mentioned at this reliable link, perhaps, raises why castration might be of
topical interest with the artfully disguised "neocon" (Christian Right)
lobby in SRI:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4238564-103681,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4475617,00.html
Extracts:-
"Pope Sisto V, aware that the public craved the "voice of angels",
sanctioned their presence in the Vatican by a papal bull in 1589. "
"Many of those afflicted by ongoing human rights abuses - including genital
mutilations of women and rape as torture - desperately desire official
recognition of the terrible wrongs done to them. An apology from those
involved may be the hardest thing of all to achieve, and the most valued."
"Nicholas Davidson, an Oxford University expert on papal history, said: 'If
the Pope was going to be consistent, and if there was evidence that church
officials operated in an improper way, then an apology should be made'." [
Guardian Newspapers]
End extracts.
A good example for comparing erstwhile Muslim (practised at the margins)
with institutionalised and systemic Christian castration practices in
history is by citing Rodolphe Guilland's, "Eunuchs in the Byzantine
Empire":-
Extract:-
Eunuchs (hoi eunouchoi) were very numerous in Byzantium. According to the
very strong statement of Constantine VII, they swarmed around the Grand
Palace like flies around a cow-shed in the summer (Theoph. Cont. 318).
Eunuchs were always very sought after by the Byzantine emperors. Zonaras
writes (III 250), "Romaioi peri tous ektomias eptoeemenoi aei [the
Byzantines were always passionately excited for castrati]". In the era of
Irene (797-802) eunuchs formed a veritable swarm in the Grand Palace: ho
polus toon eunouchoon esmos [the number of the eunuchs was as a swarm of
bees] (Cedr. II 29). One could not give the emperor any more valuable gift
than eunuchs. Among the rich presents given by Danielis to Basil I (867-886)
were 300 young slaves, including one hundred eunuchs, because "he knew that
there was always room for eunuchs in the imperial palace" (Theoph. Cont.
318). Liutprand relates that Theobald I, marquis of Spoleto (929-936), after
having made prisoners of Greek soldiers, turned them into eunuchs and wrote
to the general: "Quoniam vestro sancto imperatori spadonibus nil pretiosius
esse cognovi, hos studui pauculos sibi verecunde transmittere, plures, Deo
propitio, transmissurus." [Since I know of nothing more valued by your holy
emperor than eunuchs, I have taken pains humbly to send these few to him,
and, God willing, I will send more] (Antapod. PG 136, 861).
The presence of innumerable eunuchs at the Byzantine court seems to be in
conflict with the laws that severely prohibited eunuchism. The Roman
emperors early formally prohibited this practice, at least within the
boundaries of the empire. Domitian (Ammianus Marcellinus XVIII 4) seems to
have promulgated the first such prohibition, and Nerva renewed it (Dio
Cassius 68.3; Zonaras II 506). Hadrian went even further; he applied the Lex
Cornelia de sicariis to doctors who made eunuchs of males and even to the
one who suffered the operation (Digest XLVIII 8.4 § 2). In spite of all
that, the practice of eunuchism did not disappear. Julian (361-363) had the
eunuch Macedonius as his preceptor (Socrates III 1), but he nonetheless put
the eunuch Eusebius to death and removed all the eunuchs from the imperial
palace (Zonaras III 62). True, the rulers could only legislate within the
boundaries of the empire, and it seems that there was no prohibition against
trading in eunuchs who came from foreign countries. This trade was quite
vigorous. A eunuch under the age of 10 cost 30 solidi, above the age of 10
he cost 50 solidi, and if he was skilled he cost 60 solidi (Code of
Justinian VII 1 § 5)." [Rodolphe Guilland]
End extract.
Notwithstanding, as the Christian castration article mentions above, "No
records were kept, but historians believe many operations to remove
testicles - achieved by slitting the groin and severing the spermatic
chord - were botched, leaving boys in agony and in danger of infection. The
lucky ones survived and were good enough for years of intensive training and
cosseting at musical academies.". How does this lack of "record keeping"
strike Muslims and the criticism of Islam? Muslims might ask rationally
themselves if Christians are trying to conveniently forget their own
castrations sins in history? Isn't that part and parcel of the "negationism"
technique practised by so-called "Islamic critics"? Robert, I refer you to
this "negationism" (denial of historical Christian castration crimes) link,
once more:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negationism#_note-0
But, as "straight thinkers" say, it's what western historians say about
their own history that's important, or should be, to rational subscribers,
Muslim and non-Muslim, alike. Perhaps, we should change the subject title of
this thread in SRI, and call it, "All mouth and no trousers" (see apt
Guardian article above). <G> Wouldn't that be more honestly appropriate?
--
Peace
--
Add a few drops of malice to a half truth and you have an absolute truth.
Yusuf B Gursey
castration is AFAIK forbidden in Islam. the operation was carried out
by christians, usually copts. at least so in ottoman times.
Robert
A search of the internet has failed to turn up a reference in the Koran
which forbids castration; some give the hadith as an authority for its
prohibition, but all are agreed it is forbidden.
On the other hand A.Ghosh, in "The Koran and the Kafir," states that
"the kafirs of course could be castrated at any time as they do not
fall into the category of believers."
Muslim law did not forbid trade in foreign eunuchs, and to facilitate
this slaves were, at first, castrated before importation.But according
to John J.Miller "Muslims later accepted castration within their own
lands, so long as non-Muslims performed the deed." This, of course, is
why we find Christians (probably surgeons) performing the operation for
Muslims.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:4giu39F...@individual.net...
Salam Nima,
<snip> ...
> how can castration be islamic? ...
<snip> ...
Comment"-
Like most reasonable subscribers, Muslim or non-Muslim, you think that
people, naturally, are interested in discovering the truth about Islam and
Muslims practices. This is an incorrect assumption. The historical truth, as
posited in this emotional toned subject, is just another excuse to malign
everything Islamic. Not only do simple-minded commentators, in SRI and
elsewhere, deny Islamic and Muslim history they even belligerently deny
their own historical consensus about Islam, written by eminent western
historians, if it doesn't fit in with their "neocon" (Christian Right [sic])
ideology. This is adequately evidenced in the SRI transcripts.
As I related recently we must view all of these so-called "historical
revisionism" posts as flawed. Negationism is the default technique, see this
informative link:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negationism
Extract:-
As in any scientific discipline, historians' papers are submitted to peer
review. Instead of submitting their work to the challenges of peer review,
revisionists rewrite history to support an agenda, often political, using
any number of techniques and logical fallacies to obtain their results.
Because of this, they are considered by the historian community to be
writing flawed History
Burden of proof (due to the complex nature of what can be considered a
historical "proof" - which differs from a logical proof - revisionists
sometime ask historians to further prove an event which has been reasonably
proved by historic standards, hence accepted as a fact by the historian
community).
End extract.
Under this "crooked thinking" guise, the historical truth can never be
revealed or concluded, simply because unreasonable negationists won't accept
any "truth" other than their own. Everyone else's "historical truth" is to
them a myth.
The frequent use of emotionally toned words, like "Islamic castration", and
their unscrupulous "crooked thinking" appeal, is revealed in this quick
search link:-
--
Peace
--
The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the false
appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly by
weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by
prejudice. - Schopenhauer
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Robert
Quite so, but who constituted the market for them? Christians and Copts
evidently did not perform castration in the Africa which is the area I
reported on.
The Koran forbids castration, you say, but does it forbid the
castration of infidels? And does it forbid the purchase of the
products of castration, which leads to the practice?
Robert
The castration I describe can be properly described as Islamic because
it was part of the practice of slavery which was a central institution
of Islam for 1200 years. Slavery was inherent to Islam because the
engine of Islamic expansion was jihad, and the fuel for jihad was the
booty in the form of slaves which accrued to the Muslims. The Koran
countenances slavery, Muhammad had many slaves, and Islamic law
permitted the taking of slaves; even today there are senior Saudi
clerics who teach that slavery is part of Islam and should be
reintroduced. (See al Faurzan:
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?article_ID=25518). The castration
was necessary because of the Islamic institution of the harem. The
trade in these eunuchs was within Islam.
Harems have existed in various cultures, and with them the practice of
castration, for example in China, but of course they didn't have the
sanction of the Koran.
superahmad
any Muslim if historically ture mutilated any bodyparts of human
being,slave or free is punishable by Islamic Law by the same degree of
punishment.Muslims have done bad things as have christians and jews and
hindus.actions pf Msulimas does not reflect teachings of holy prphet
Muhmmad and Quran.I chose to believe in Islam because it systematically
liberated slaves,it eradicated slavery from arabia forever.islam
brought justice for poor,social sysetm of taking 2.5% on annual cash
and gold savings(not gross income..only the annual leftover)from the
rich and paying to poor as compulsary law.Less than 1 % od Muslim these
days pay obligatory charity.so violations of Human rights by Msulims
today and historically is in no way close to Islamic Teachings.and let
me tel you something else,in france ,17th centruy farmers used to hang
11 years old publicly from trees because the starved kid stole a
chicken forn the farm.Hitler,was a bron Chritian but killed thousands
of Jews.europian colonialists killed Red Indiand and Native americans
.it was a genocide.and I should say that chrsitianity perpetrated these
horrible acts.Mongols killed hundred of thousands of Muslims in
Baghdad.and theses were budhists which later embarced islam and
transformed form savages to peaceful citizens.first World war and WWII
saw millions of lives lost ,mostly non-muslims by non-muslims.US Nuked
Hersohima and Nagasaki,now Iraq,india is killing Kashmiri fredom
fighters,Israel is oppresing and killing palestinians and you say
Mslims mutilated penises of African slaves.if Muslims wdid it,Islam
Condemns it,God Condemns it,It was punishale by lIslamic law.
I hope i make my point clear..Regards and I apologize if I have hurt
nyone's feelinsg.I have just stated Hstorical facts.If you think i am
worng ..just google it.
klei...@astound.net
superahmad wrote:
I am reduced to a cliche. I feel your hurt. No reply is possible to
almost everything you say with one little exception.
> Islam
> brought justice for poor,social sysetm of taking 2.5% on annual cash
> and gold savings(not gross income..only the annual leftover)from the
> rich and paying to poor as compulsary law.
I fear you misunderstand the classical meaning of zakat. It is not a
tax on residual income. It is a tax on wealth. It is a tax on all one's
accumulated possessions. If you own something, say, your house, and it
is worth $200,000 then the zakat due would be $5,000 This is rather
more than the usual property tax on residential properties in the
United States, but roughly the same order of magnitude.
Most of the developed countries offer their citizens more social
services than does the United States and one needs more tax income to
accomplish more. The income tax was invented as a way of paying for
wars. The social services are pretty much paid for from the property
taxes.
There are, of course, many differences, but Islam and the west are in
essential agreement about how much of the aggregated public income
should be spent of social welfare activities.
Wars, of course, have distorted this reasonable position beyond the
point of recognition.
> Less than 1 % od Muslim these
> days pay obligatory charity.
That few? But they do pay taxes?
And isn't obligatory charity an oxymoron? I call it taxation.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1151628488.2...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Salaam Yusef,
<snip> ...
> castration is AFAIK forbidden in Islam. the operation was carried out
> by christians, usually copts. at least so in ottoman times. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
You are right of course castration is forbidden in Islam. That is well
documented and all Muslims will affirm that theological truth from the Quran
and elsewhere. But the origin of this article has nothing to do with
theological or historical truth about Islam.
But "straight thinking" subscribers understand that the circumspect truth
which is Islam isn't relevant under moderator rules anymore, otherwise why
would they allow demonstrably "crooked thinking" arguments to prominently
prevail in this forum? It's as though so-called "Islamic critics"
(Islamophobes) in SRI have been given an imprimatur to intellectually
exploit unaware subscribers by legitimately perpetuating
"crypto-revisionism", as the Hoffer maxim states: "Add a few drops of malice
to a half truth and you have an absolute truth." The proof of this fact in
SRI being (as the linked Wikipedia article below states):-
"Historical revisionism ... as used in this article, describes the process
that attempts to rewrite history by downgrading, denying or simply ignoring
essential facts. Perpetrators of such attempts to distort the historical
record often use the term because it allows them to cloak their illegitimate
activities with a phrase which has a legitimate meaning."
As Denis Giron has demonstrated in his recent acute observation elsewhere,
it's easy to fool the moderators and get around SRI rules:-
news:1151394525....@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
"Here is a little exercise you might try: when you are writing a post that
does not contain a great deal of explicit references to Islam (e.g. because
it is on the subject of Christian doctrine), go back and comb over your
post, adding in some reference to a passage in the Qur'an or the various
ahaadith collections after
every other paragraph (though do so in such a way that it is relevant to the
discussion). You'll soon find that it is not all that hard to construct a
post relevant to Islam."
But getting back on track. "Islamic castration" as an SRI object is just
another gratuitous and artful politically inspired attack on Muslims and
Islam based on "negationism" and fallacious argumentation by the rabid
"neocon" camp. This simple search (3 hits) reveals where this vindictive
agitprop originated, namely, the disreputable neocon medico - Andrew
Bostom:-
Now, Andrew Bostom, as the initiating author or "amateur writer of history".
has no credible claim to authority as an expert in Islamic history or any
other sphere for that matter. All he has done is emulate, to the letter, the
dubious "negationism" (historical revisionism) technique to manufacture and
spread false historical ideas about Muslims and Islam:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negationism
Extract:-
"Historical revisionism can be used as a label to describe the views of
self-taught historians who publish articles that deliberately misrepresent
and manipulate historical evidence."
"Our primary concern is continued right-wing intimidation against the
expressions of opposing points of view, whether attacks on dissent,
intimidation of scientific researchers, or a demand for historical
revisionism -- or historical cleansing ..."
"It is sometimes hard for a non-historian to distinguish between a book
published by a historian doing peer-reviewed academic work, and a
bestselling "amateur writer of history". For example it was not until Irving
lost his British libel suit against Lipstadt and that he was found to be a
"falsifier of history", that the general public realised that his books were
outside the canon of acceptable academic histories.
The distinction rests on the techniques used to write such histories.
Accuracy and revision are central to historical scholarship. As in any
scientific discipline, historians' papers are submitted to peer review.
Instead of submitting their work to the challenges of peer review,
revisionists rewrite history to support an agenda, often political, using
any number of techniques and logical fallacies to obtain their results.
Because of this, they are considered by the historian community to be
writing flawed History. Some of their most common rhetorical and other
techniques include the following[citation needed]:
* Conspiracy theories
* The selective use of facts
* The denial or derision of known facts
* Argument from ignorance (hence the historian community's emphasis on the
importance of historical memory and historical studies)
* The assumption of unproven facts
* The fabrication of facts
* The obfuscation of facts
* Claims of "counter-genocide", leading to a confusion between victims and
executioners (for example, the Bombing of Dresden in World War II has been
said by Holocaust deniers to be a "counter-genocide", thus transforming the
German people into victims and henceforth exempting them from any kind of
moral responsibility; the term has also been used concerning the Rwandan
genocide)
* Fallacy of equivocation
* Appeal to consequences
* Irrelevant conclusions
* Burden of proof (due to the complex nature of what can be considered a
historical "proof" - which differs from a logical proof - revisionists
sometime ask historians to further prove an event which has been reasonably
proved by historic standards, hence accepted as a fact by the historian
community)
* Appeal to fear
* Appeal to spite
* Association fallacy
* Hasty generalization
* The use of attractive or neutral euphemisms to disguise unpleasant facts
concerning their own positions
* The use of unpleasant euphemisms to describe opposing facts
* The two wrongs make a right fallacy
* Wishful thinking
* Constant attack against those disputing their views (Ad hominem) (close to
slander and libel)
* Meaningless statements
End extract.
But, as an aside. here's the "triumphalism" bilgewater (moderators take note
of the artful tomfoolery manipulating SRI rules and yourselves in the
process <G>):-
Extract:-
"... Robert ("Robert" <robert...@onetel.com>) has shattered the
normal "business as usual" of this pro-Islamic discussion group. How? By
politely, but firmly, answering with facts the absurdities offered by the
usual denizens of s.r.i. Using Moderation, the usenet is normally highly
censored and protected from the search light of truth. Robert's facts,
firmness, and frankness has penetrated this curtain. Unfortunately, one
has to turn to an unmoderated usenet to offer Robert this compliment. "
Notwithstanding, the fact, that mendacity is shattering normal business
which is the "crooked thinking" Islamophobe name of the game in SRI not the
discovery of truth.
--
Peace
--
Truth gains more . . . by the errors of one who, with due study and
preparation, thinks for himself than by the true opinions of those who only
hold them because
they do not suffer themselves to think." [John Stuart Mill]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Yusuf B Gursey
Robert wrote:
> Another reply to Gursey July 2
>
> A search of the internet has failed to turn up a reference in the Koran
> which forbids castration; some give the hadith as an authority for its
> prohibition, but all are agreed it is forbidden.
then the castration is not "islamic"
the details for the ottoman period are found in the article "Khasi"
(actually it is xaSiyy not xa:Si: as the entry implies) in Enc. of
Islam II.
if this were a positive deed - like translating greek philososphy - you
say that muslims had no part in it! i.e. islamic institutional suppport
is not suffficient to get credit for good deeds, but it's sufficient
for blame for bad ones, acc. to you.
>
> On the other hand A.Ghosh, in "The Koran and the Kafir," states that
> "the kafirs of course could be castrated at any time as they do not
> fall into the category of believers."
this does not seem to be the case of the interpretation of the
ottomans.
>
> Muslim law did not forbid trade in foreign eunuchs, and to facilitate
> this slaves were, at first, castrated before importation.But according
> to John J.Miller "Muslims later accepted castration within their own
> lands, so long as non-Muslims performed the deed." This, of course, is
in the case of the Ottomans, the operation was performed outside or in
the periphary of the Empire (usually Upper Egypt) by Copts.
> why we find Christians (probably surgeons) performing the operation for
> Muslims.
when it comes to christains they become "surgeons"?!
Robert wrote:
> I reply to Gursey July 2
>
> Quite so, but who constituted the market for them? Christians and Copts
> evidently did not perform castration in the Africa which is the area I
> reported on.
>
they were acc. to my sources.
Robert
You make sophistical distinctions: you imply that because castration
was contrary to Islamic law, the widespread castration of slaves - with
a ninety per cent fatality rate to those receiving the operation, at
least in Africa - for use throughout Islam for very many centuries was
un-Islamic. In the commonsense use of the word it was thoroughly
Islamic - a part of Islamic culture.
You make a parallel with my point about the transmission of Greek
culture to the West: the translation of Greek works was done by
Christians and Jews, thus the Muslims had no hand in it. You imply that
the translation had Muslim institutional support: please produce the
evidence. The major centre of translation was Christian Toledo.The
Arabs would have seen no point in transmitting Greek learning to the
infidels; indeed they would have seen it as in their interest to keep
them ignorant. But if you are to claim that Muslims are to take credit
for institutional support of translation, they should be condemned for
their institutional support of the castration of slaves, whether it
took place on Islamic territory, or was performed by Christians.
Robert
Gursey writes of "institutional support" given by the Muslims to the
translation of Greek scientific and philosophical writings, referring
presumably to the ninth century. It's interesting to read Franz
Rosenthal, the expert on this topic, in "The Classical Heritage in
Islam". He records the facts that Azumazi denies: the translators were
almost all Syriac-speaking Christians, physicians and clergymen, (there
was one Jew and one Sabian) and they translated Syriac versions of the
Greek, and with more difficulty the Greek itself. As regards the Muslim
involvement and alleged "institutional support" he says:
"Born Muslims acted only as patrons who ordered, and paid for,
translations done by more or less professional translators with regular
salaries for their services. The famous representatives of Greek
knowledge among the Muslims of the ninth and tenth centuries, al-Kindi
... knew neither Syriac nor Greek."
.