Question:While taking bath, it's said that one should not keep head under shower for more than one minute, is it true?
Answer:It's not in order.
Question:If my wife wants me to masturbate in front of her, is it then allowed?
Answer:You are not allowed to do it with hand, but your wife is.
Question:I had a hair replacement where an artificial scalp was placed on the central bald part of my head. Now while doing wudu', I can't do mas-h on central part of my head. Is there any other alternative?
Answer:Wiping artificial hair is not in order, if there were empty position the fourth front part of the head, he may wipe it, otherwise it is obligatory to remove the artificial hair if it were possible; if there were no time, tayammum would be obligatory.
One of the best parts about a seminary education is that you get to spend time thinking about the logic of regulations like this. I'm actually a big fan of Leviticus as a result, and I wish the Grand Ayatollah nothing but the best.
Check it—a while back a friend of mine wrote to Sistani and got an answer. I guess that's really not all that incredible, but it seemed awesome to us. I think it says that Christmas trees are permissable so long as they're not called Christmas trees.
As in so many things, I've already been there and done that, chum. In this case exactly a year ago today, which is remarkable, so I do congratulate you on your splendid timing.
I think the question profgrrrrl links to must mean, "It is not permitted to make oral sex obligatory; if the wife agrees to do it, that's okay but disgusting."
It is obligatory to have oral sex; precaution (use of prophylactic) not permitted. If she agrees (to use of prophylactic during oral sex) that is very disgusting (as I imagine it would be).
These are complex issues. Perhaps some forms of oral sex are obligatory and others not. The Ayatollah has thus far not differentiated between different forms of oral sex, but as we know there are two main different types. Maybe one type is only permissable; the other type (in which one might use a prophylactic device -- except that they are banned) is mandatory.
The conclusion would be that the Ayatollah does not support the use of dental dams. And we must all agree with the Ayatollah that they sound gross.
I've never quite understood why the Sistani site gets all the press. It's not, in fact, unique at all. The Ayatollah Khameini, Supreme Leader of Iran, has a website of his own, also featuring a Q & A section. Admittedly, he doesn't get into quite as much sex stuff, but there is this fascinating look at contraception:
Q 234: One of the methods of preventing unwanted births is the use of contraceptive pills, and women who take these pills get blood spots during and outside their menstrual period. What is the rule applicable to these spots?
A: If these spots do not possess the characteristics mentioned in Islamic law for menstruation [haydh], they will not be considered menstruation [haydh]. Rather the rules of excess bleeding [istihadah] will apply to them.
Now I'm not as up to date on my istihadah as I might be, so I'm not quite sure I grasp the upshot....
Well, in common practice for most folks regarding istihadah, if it looks like haydh you treat it like haydh, no matter what would be regulating the hormones that cause it. Interesting that they would make the distinction.
Hey, I had no idea about Khamenei's site, thanks. But Khamenei answers with a subtle distinction and wooden prose befitting a serious scholar. Sistani, with his combination of topics and funny translations, sounds less like Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and more like Crazy Uncle Sistani. I, for one, am ready to declare Operation Freedom & Stuff a success.
Are there sites like this for orthodox Jews, where, instead of getting a straight answer to your question, you get lengthy back-and-forth from the Talmud? That would be awesome.
As I suspected. The first question ("Why is there such a small number of Jewish people?") is answered with a question. ("Why are there fewer diamonds than lumps of coal?")
Q: Rabbi Fineman! Why do you always answer a question with a question?
- And why should I not answer a question with a question?
I think what the Internet needs now is a Scottish Highland Presbyterian Q & A site.
Q: Reverend MacCrimmon! Is extramarital sex permissible?
A: Aye, just as long as neither of ye enjoy it.
Q: Reverend MacCrimmon! Is it permitted to fight against the English on the Sabbath?
A: Aye; it's a work of necessity and mercy.
Q: Reverend MacCrimmon! Is it better to pray to the Lord in English or in the Gaelic?
A: Ye'd talk to a Frenchman in French, or a Swede in Swedish, if you could; so talk to the Lord in the Gaelic.
On the way back from the coffee shop the other day, I passed a student and an older man, presumably his religious leader, having a serious conversation. The older man was saying that if the woman was unfaithful... And the young guy broke in and said, no, not if she's unfaithful, just if she sleeps with someone else.
First I thought, hey Mr. Imam, this one's going to take a lot of long walks. Then I thought, maybe that's Mr. Bitch! Too young, though. It was kind of cute, an earnest young guy trying to work out his rules for living with a calm mentor. Then, I have to confess, I thought about this obsession with sex rules, regulating women, and I wondered if I was seeing some surfaced tip of islamic radicalism around campus. I have to admit, my suspiciousness of islamic fervor runs pretty deep.
but why should people want to agree to something that is disgust?
It is only disgust when used in combination with dental dams; otherwise it is obligatory. I think the Ayatollah focuses on the woman's agreement to use of dental dams, because she would be more likely to suggest using them. That is what the Ayatollah thinks, although it is more likely that neither party would suggest use of dental dams. The Ayatollah probably thinks that the woman is more likely to suggest use of dental dams because he has seen the movie "Booty Call" starring Tommy Davidson, in which that is the case. There is no other reference to dental dams in Western culture; perhaps also in Islamic culture "Booty Call" is the only source for dental dam information.
Either way, they are forbidden. That seems like a just and fair rule to me.
I thought about this obsession with sex rules, regulating women, and I wondered if I was seeing some surfaced tip of islamic radicalism around campus.
Pretty much all religions are obsessed with rules about the most fundamental phsyical concerns: eating, sex, and hygiene. Hey, if you can control what someone eats, who they fuck, and when they bathe, you pretty much own them. Which is the goal of religion.
Pretty much all religions are obsessed with rules about the most fundamental phsyical concerns
I imagine that's mostly right - fish on fridays and whatnot. It just seems like at the moment certain strains of islam and fundamentalist protestantism spawn violent reactions against those who follow other norms.
Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (New York, 1966), 115, 121:
any structure ... is vulnerable at its margins. We should expect the orifices of the body to symbolize its especially vulnerable points. Matter issuing from them is marginal stuff of the most obvious kind. Spittle, blood, milk, urine, faeces or tears ... bodily parings, skin, nails, hair clippings and sweat.
Conclusion: there are no provisos on oral sex between two people who are not husband and wife.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 2:55 PM
Question:While taking bath, it's said that one should not keep head under shower for more than one minute, is it true?
Answer:It's not in order.
Question:If my wife wants me to masturbate in front of her, is it then allowed?
Answer:You are not allowed to do it with hand, but your wife is.
Question:I had a hair replacement where an artificial scalp was placed on the central bald part of my head. Now while doing wudu', I can't do mas-h on central part of my head. Is there any other alternative?
Answer:Wiping artificial hair is not in order, if there were empty position the fourth front part of the head, he may wipe it, otherwise it is obligatory to remove the artificial hair if it were possible; if there were no time, tayammum would be obligatory.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 2:58 PM
One of the best parts about a seminary education is that you get to spend time thinking about the logic of regulations like this. I'm actually a big fan of Leviticus as a result, and I wish the Grand Ayatollah nothing but the best.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 3:08 PM
Check it—a while back a friend of mine wrote to Sistani and got an answer. I guess that's really not all that incredible, but it seemed awesome to us. I think it says that Christmas trees are permissable so long as they're not called Christmas trees.
Posted by Kriston | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 3:10 PM
But what, exactly, does this mean?
Question:I want to know the ruling on oral sex?
Answer:It is obligatory precaution not permissible; it's very disgust if she agrees.
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 3:28 PM
That one wasn't quite clear to me.
Kriston, it is incredible. I mean, I know the guy's a medieval theocrat, but you have to admire how seriously he takes his role as a religious guide.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 3:32 PM
As in so many things, I've already been there and done that, chum. In this case exactly a year ago today, which is remarkable, so I do congratulate you on your splendid timing.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 3:39 PM
I think the question profgrrrrl links to must mean, "It is not permitted to make oral sex obligatory; if the wife agrees to do it, that's okay but disgusting."
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 3:40 PM
A less tortured reading is:
It is obligatory to have oral sex; precaution (use of prophylactic) not permitted. If she agrees (to use of prophylactic during oral sex) that is very disgusting (as I imagine it would be).
Posted by textualist | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 4:22 PM
Except that that doesn't square with the other statements regarding oral sex, in which it doesn't sound obligatory.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 4:26 PM
These are complex issues. Perhaps some forms of oral sex are obligatory and others not. The Ayatollah has thus far not differentiated between different forms of oral sex, but as we know there are two main different types. Maybe one type is only permissable; the other type (in which one might use a prophylactic device -- except that they are banned) is mandatory.
The conclusion would be that the Ayatollah does not support the use of dental dams. And we must all agree with the Ayatollah that they sound gross.
Posted by textualist | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 4:49 PM
That would be a compelling reading, but I'd need some evidence that the Ayatollah has ever contemplated that other type of oral sex.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 4:55 PM
Someone with greater satirical power should write the equivalent Q&A for other world leaders. I'm not up to the grand task, but I hold out hope...
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 5:04 PM
Q: Is oral sex permitted?
Clinton: Yes.
Q: Is oral sex permitted?
GWB: Why do you hate freedom?
Ok, I've done the easy ones. Next?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 5:24 PM
Q: Is oral sex permitted?
Clinton: It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 5:49 PM
See, my issue with the whole thing is that it "is very disgust if she agrees" but not disgust if he's into it? huh?
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 7:10 PM
I don't think it's the agreeing that's disgusting, but the happening (for which the agreeing is a precondition).
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 7:26 PM
Oral sex is something women do to men, didn't you know?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 7:26 PM
Q: Is oral sex permissible?
A: [Ward Churchill] Only if you take AIM.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 7:31 PM
but why should people want to agree to something that is disgust?
and who cares who is on the giving or receiving end? can't both sides have something positive to them and not be "disgust"
ugh. i feel "disgust" now :)
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 8:06 PM
I've never quite understood why the Sistani site gets all the press. It's not, in fact, unique at all. The Ayatollah Khameini, Supreme Leader of Iran, has a website of his own, also featuring a Q & A section. Admittedly, he doesn't get into quite as much sex stuff, but there is this fascinating look at contraception:
Q 234: One of the methods of preventing unwanted births is the use of contraceptive pills, and women who take these pills get blood spots during and outside their menstrual period. What is the rule applicable to these spots?
A: If these spots do not possess the characteristics mentioned in Islamic law for menstruation [haydh], they will not be considered menstruation [haydh]. Rather the rules of excess bleeding [istihadah] will apply to them.
Now I'm not as up to date on my istihadah as I might be, so I'm not quite sure I grasp the upshot....
Posted by Matthew Yglesias | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 9:29 PM
Well, in common practice for most folks regarding istihadah, if it looks like haydh you treat it like haydh, no matter what would be regulating the hormones that cause it. Interesting that they would make the distinction.
Posted by profgrrrrl | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 9:39 PM
Hey, I had no idea about Khamenei's site, thanks. But Khamenei answers with a subtle distinction and wooden prose befitting a serious scholar. Sistani, with his combination of topics and funny translations, sounds less like Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and more like Crazy Uncle Sistani. I, for one, am ready to declare Operation Freedom & Stuff a success.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 9:56 PM
Are there sites like this for orthodox Jews, where, instead of getting a straight answer to your question, you get lengthy back-and-forth from the Talmud? That would be awesome.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 10:39 PM
Like this?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 3-05 10:49 PM
As I suspected. The first question ("Why is there such a small number of Jewish people?") is answered with a question. ("Why are there fewer diamonds than lumps of coal?")
Q: Rabbi Fineman! Why do you always answer a question with a question?
- And why should I not answer a question with a question?
I think what the Internet needs now is a Scottish Highland Presbyterian Q & A site.
Q: Reverend MacCrimmon! Is extramarital sex permissible?
A: Aye, just as long as neither of ye enjoy it.
Q: Reverend MacCrimmon! Is it permitted to fight against the English on the Sabbath?
A: Aye; it's a work of necessity and mercy.
Q: Reverend MacCrimmon! Is it better to pray to the Lord in English or in the Gaelic?
A: Ye'd talk to a Frenchman in French, or a Swede in Swedish, if you could; so talk to the Lord in the Gaelic.
etc...
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 02- 4-05 3:11 AM
On the way back from the coffee shop the other day, I passed a student and an older man, presumably his religious leader, having a serious conversation. The older man was saying that if the woman was unfaithful... And the young guy broke in and said, no, not if she's unfaithful, just if she sleeps with someone else.
First I thought, hey Mr. Imam, this one's going to take a lot of long walks. Then I thought, maybe that's Mr. Bitch! Too young, though. It was kind of cute, an earnest young guy trying to work out his rules for living with a calm mentor. Then, I have to confess, I thought about this obsession with sex rules, regulating women, and I wondered if I was seeing some surfaced tip of islamic radicalism around campus. I have to admit, my suspiciousness of islamic fervor runs pretty deep.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 02- 4-05 7:42 AM
but why should people want to agree to something that is disgust?
It is only disgust when used in combination with dental dams; otherwise it is obligatory. I think the Ayatollah focuses on the woman's agreement to use of dental dams, because she would be more likely to suggest using them. That is what the Ayatollah thinks, although it is more likely that neither party would suggest use of dental dams. The Ayatollah probably thinks that the woman is more likely to suggest use of dental dams because he has seen the movie "Booty Call" starring Tommy Davidson, in which that is the case. There is no other reference to dental dams in Western culture; perhaps also in Islamic culture "Booty Call" is the only source for dental dam information.
Either way, they are forbidden. That seems like a just and fair rule to me.
Posted by textualist | Link to this comment | 02- 4-05 8:59 AM
No, not Mr. B., but clearly some nice, upstanding, intelligent young man. I certainly hope he holds his ground on this one :)
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 4-05 9:14 AM
I thought about this obsession with sex rules, regulating women, and I wondered if I was seeing some surfaced tip of islamic radicalism around campus.
Pretty much all religions are obsessed with rules about the most fundamental phsyical concerns: eating, sex, and hygiene. Hey, if you can control what someone eats, who they fuck, and when they bathe, you pretty much own them. Which is the goal of religion.
Posted by Mithras | Link to this comment | 02- 4-05 10:54 AM
Pretty much all religions are obsessed with rules about the most fundamental phsyical concerns
I imagine that's mostly right - fish on fridays and whatnot. It just seems like at the moment certain strains of islam and fundamentalist protestantism spawn violent reactions against those who follow other norms.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 02- 4-05 11:05 AM
Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (New York, 1966), 115, 121:
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 4-05 11:19 AM