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.

Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
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.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.)
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.
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:
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:
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link