site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   1518 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for August 30, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So, what are you reading?

I finished al-Ghazali's Banes of the Tongue, which was well worth the read. I can dimly see some aspects of Islam, and in particular the hadith "Beware of the believer's intuition because he sees by the light of God" has caught my eye. There is a sense of leaving uncovered what God has covered and not speaking about what doesn't concern you; in particular, if one is gossiped to, the gossip says more about the gossiper than the one who is spoken about. It has kindled an interest in ways of knowing which might arise from an Islamic mindset.

What is forbidden is supposition [about another's alleged evil ways], and supposition is an expression of what the soul believes is reliable, and the heart inclines toward. God says, O you who have believed, avoid much negative assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin [Q. 49:12]. The reason for its unlawfulness is because the secrets of the hearts are known only to the Knower of the unseen, so it is not for you to believe in another’s wickedness unless it is disclosed to you by observation and cannot be explained away.

The book is quite comprehensive, talking about things like arguments, joking, praising or being praised, and I'm sure to be revisiting this often.

I have not come across that hadith before, interestingly, but I have come across, in my experience, Islam having very strong taboos against making assumptions about other people. Barring the most extreme circumstances, it is not for you to judge another person non-Muslim, because you cannot see into their heart. It is not for you to ever say that so-and-so is going to heaven and so-and-so is going to hell, because you cannot know the condition of their soul, and their final fate rests in God's hands only.

This is one of the places where Islam is, I would hazard, closer to Protestantism than it is to Catholicism. There are some places it seems to have more kinship with Catholicism (the emphasis on law, community practice, etc.), but it shares with many strains of Protestantism a deep reticence to make definitive judgements about matters that properly belong to God.

It's not that judgements can never be made. There is a procedure for declaring someone takfir. But it is truly the nuclear option and there is, traditionally at least, an extreme reluctance to use it. (Some more radical groups in the 20th century have gotten more willing to; I take that as a negative development.)

Barring the most extreme circumstances, it is not for you to judge another person non-Muslim, because you cannot see into their heart. It is not for you to ever say that so-and-so is going to heaven and so-and-so is going to hell, because you cannot know the condition of their soul, and their final fate rests in God's hands only.

This is the official stance of Catholics as well. We know all people are saved through the Catholic Church, but we cannot judge if someone isn't a mystical member of the Catholic Church or not. We can tell you what makes up the matter of a grave sin, but we cannot tell you if any individual person has actually committed that sin which requires full knowledge and their own volition. We do not affirm that any specific person is in Hell or damned.

You do, however, affirm that specific people are saved. Canonisation, for instance, involves making the formal judgement that the person canonised is in Heaven.

In this world, at least, I think Catholicism tends to be more confident than Protestantism in making clear pronouncements about whether a person is currently in a state of grace or a state of sin. The sacramental economy is visible in Catholicism, whereas I think Protestants tend to emphasise the invisible church more.

Judas has to be an exception, right? “Woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.”

That is a topic of massive debate among Catholics. There is the "Dare we hope?" camp that says we should hope that any given individual is saved, and yes that includes Judas. And there is the camp that says "Jesus wouldn't have said that unless Judas was going to Hell."

See the "What about Judas?" question here: https://www.wordonfire.org/hope/

Indeed, the longest section of the book (almost a third, though the book itself is relatively short at 166 pages) is dedicated to backbiting and gossip, particularly about others' faults or what they would not want said about them. Muhammad apparently described backbiting as the metaphorical equivalent of devouring the flesh of your brother.

The corrupt may conceivably be truthful in his report, but it is not allowable for you to believe him.

And one of them said, "If what a gossiper conveys to you is true, it means that he is bold enough to vilify you to your face, in which case the one from whom he conveyed it is more deserving of your clemency, because he did not vilify you to your face."

Among the consequences of having wicked suppositions about people is spying. This is because the heart is not satisfied with just supposition—it seeks verification and so is occupied with spying, and this is also forbidden, as God says: And do not spy [Q. 49:12]

As often is the case, there is an attempt to delineate the terms which resembles legal reasoning, and a focus on harms and benefits. I found this definition rather striking:

Slander amounts to gossip unless it is conveyed to someone who is feared, then it is called "slander." The Prophet said, "The one who slanders one people to another people is like someone without guidance..."

I'm sure that the choice of the word "slander" may be subject to the nuances of translation. Nevertheless I believe the meaning behind this is found in the following:

Hammad b. Salama said, A man sold a slave and said to the buyer, "He has no defects except gossiping." The man said, "I accept him." So he bought the slave and after a few days with him the slave said to the man's wife, "Your husband does not love you. He plans to take a concubine. If you take a razor and while he is asleep cut some hair from the top of his head, I can use it in magic that will return his love to you." Following that, he spoke to the husband and said, "Your wife has taken a lover and wants to kill you. Pretend to her that you are sleeping so that you can find out for yourself." So he pretended to be asleep and his wife approached him with a razor to cut some hair, but he thought she wanted to kill him, so he jumped up and killed her instead. After this, the wife’s family came and killed the husband, and a feud arose between the two tribes that went on for years.

In other words, the basic intent behind all of this is the avoidance of such terrible harms up to and including war.

That's not gossiping, though? Gossiping is the careless sharing of (usually slanderous) rumours, with little concern to their accuracy. What the slave is doing here is conscious, malicious trickery.

As often is the case, there is an attempt to delineate the terms which resembles legal reasoning, and a focus on harms and benefits.

Islam is certainly a religion of law to a much greater degree than Christianity. A common Islamic criticism of Christianity is that it is a regression; it has not transcended the need for law and replaced with grace, but rather by abandoning law it has removed the possibility of grace.

One consequence is that you find that legal reasoning occupies a much higher place in Islam, and abstract theology a much lower place. There is theology in Islam, but it's fair to say that fiqh occupies a higher place; much the same way that canon lawyers exist in Christianity, but are more peripheral. If you think about the major schisms in Christianity, they are mostly about what is permissible to believe, whereas the divides in Islam tend to be more legal or even political in nature.

This is a tendency and not absolute. There are theological differences in Islam - for instance, a noticeable difference between Sunni and Shia is over the question of whether God should be wholly identified with his attributes. Some Islamic thinkers have argued (e.g. here) that the Qur'an simply does not have a theology, but rather has an 'ergatology', a doctrine of works. I think that's going a bit too far myself, and the Qur'an does have a theology, but it is true that the Qur'an is primarily concerned about how to live well.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats