Talk:Mukhannath

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Untitled comments

Mm ... I was strolling along and noticed this thing. I think this article is in need of some sort of cleanup or perhaps even deletion at this point, though I believe this is a perfectly valid topic. This lacks references, and it would be great if somebody provided some sort of explanation of the passage (and is somewhat outlined in the external links) which seems to be floating in the middle of nowhere. Otherwise, I think that the passage should be scrapped for now. I've left mostly everything the way it was, the only thing I think is worthy of mention is that the bulk of the article seems to have derived from here: http://transsexueel.web-log.nl/log/2900449. Lily McDermott 22:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well... I personally am one of these people. I am a muslim. I am a transsexual. This passage of wikipedia is valueable. It explains how I can be both of those things, to people who are neither. It educates people, muslim and non muslim, as to the status of those who are either transsexual or intersexed in Islam. Most people assume that from Morocco to the River indus anything but being "straight" will result in a death warrant. While it is true homosexuality is Haram(forbidden). In the Sharia being either intersexed or a classic primary transsexual are permissible. With one caveat there has to be "something in body" that will be cured by the operaton. This can vary from as sever as having both parts formed and working to haveing a really messed up endocrine system. Which,from my personal observation, most classic primary transsexuals have. 66.92.130.180 22:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no evidence of any physical, neurological, or endocrinological differences outside of the male norm has ever been found. i am open to the search for evidence, obviously. still no unrefuted documentation on this has been made, in the form of any study, collection of case reports, or shared medical experience. 206.248.168.241 19:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. Various studies have found that there are many subtle differences between transsexuals, gay men, and straight men. If you look at the wikipedia page on transsexualism they are all cited there.
On the topic of this article I have found some information on some of the Mukhanathin of Medina. I will look for some other sources of it then incorporate this into the article.

[1]

Munkhannathun in Early Islam
Like other ancient cultures, writings from early Islam record a transgender culture. People known as mukhannathun lived in the cities of Mecca and Medina (in present-day Saudi Arabia). Mukhannathun were "an identifiable group of men who publicly adopted feminine adornment... in clothing and jewelry." They are described in the hadith, which are accepted prophetic traditions, according to historian Everett Rowson.25
Hit was a mukhannathun who lived about the time of the Prophet Muhammad, around A.D. 630 in the Western calendar. Because women could be accompanied only by their children, female slaves, and mukhannathun, these last were well positioned to supply inside information about prospective brides to eager suitors. In describing a girl's charms to a potential suitor, a mukhannathun had to be discreet, however, and Hit earned condemnation for being too explicit, even crude in this regard.
According to one of the Prophet's wives, Hit told the Prophet that if he was victorious in taking a certain city, he should "go after Gbaylan's daughter; for she comes forward with four and goes away with eight." The reference was to the four belly wrinkles that wrapped around the sides of her body, so that eight could be seen from the back, a sensuous image for the time. The Prophet was outraged and said, "Do not admit these into your presence." According to Asian scholars, "The Prophet's words imply that the mukhannathath's awareness of what men found attractive in women was proof of his own sexual interest in them, and that this is the reason that he and others like him should be barred from the women's quarters." Hit was thus condemned not for "expressing his own appreciation of a woman's body, but describing it for the benefit of another man." Granting a "license to be with women" was appropriate only for "one whose limbs are languid and whose tongue has a lisp by way of gentle natural constitution, and who has no desire for women and is not. . . in evil acts." Despite Hit's transgression, mukbannathun continued to play a significant role as matchmakers for eligible bachelors who, as a rule, had little opportunity to meet eligible women.
Tuways was a mukhannathun who was born in A.D. 632 and died in A.D. 711 at the age of eighty-two. He was distinguished as a musician who sang "art music" using measured rhyme. He was a musical innovator and trained the next generation of musicians, relying on a kind of tambourine called a duff. He was married and had fathered children. Tuways was a "leader of a group of male professional musicians who publicly adopted women's fashions and were appreciated for their wit and charm as well as their music, but were disapproved of by others who saw their music and flippant style as immorality and irreligion." They were not matchmakers like Hit.
Al-Dalal was also a mukhannathun, less cultured than Tuways and, like Hit, best known for getting into trouble. Though physically beautiful and charming, al-Dalal's wit was crude and seriously irreligious. According to one story, "He farted during prayers and said, 'I praise Thee fore and aft!'" He was also a go-between who arranged assignations, and is depicted as encouraging immodesty and immorality in women. AlDalal was close to two scandalous women in Medina who were said to engage in "horse-racing, and while riding to have shown their anklebracelets." The women were killed, and when al-Dalal fled to Mecca, the women there viewed him as a threat: "After killing the women of Mcdma you have come to kill us."
Al-Dalal's sexual orientation was toward males. He "adored women and loved to be with them; but any demands [by them for his sexual favors] were in vain." In one story, a Syrian commander overheard his singing and invited him to visit. Al-Dalal refused to sing unless he was sold a beautiful servant boy. The commander meanwhile wished for a slave girl of a particular and very voluptuous description, which al-Dalal arranged. Another story relates that "after arranging a marriage, al-Dalal would convince the bride that her sexual excitement at the prospect of the wedding night was excessive and would only disgust her husband, and then he would offer to calm her down by having sexual intercourse with her first. He would then go to the groom, make the same point, and offer himself, passively, to cool him down as well." The outraged and "jealous" ruler Sulayman then ordered all mukhannathun castrated:
"They are admitted to the women of Quraysh and corrupt them." Interestingly, even with explicit testimony about al-Dalal's homosexuality, which is condemned in the Quran, it was the corruption of women that was used to justified the punishment, not effeminacy or homosexuality.26
Although the castration of mukhannathun as punishment begins a repressive period for gender-variant people in Mecca and Medina, the supposed victims showed curious reactions:
Tuways: "This is simply a circumcision which we must undergo again."

al-Dalal: "Or rather the Greater Circumcision!"

Nasim al-Sahar: "With castration I have become a mukhannath in truth!"
Nawmat al-Duha: "Or rather we have become women in truth!"
Bard al-Puad: "We have been spared the trouble of carrying around a spout for urine."
Zill al-Shajar: "What would we do with an unused weapon anyway?"
Reports of gender-variant entertainers resurface one hundred years later, in A.D. 813, again using the tambourine-like duff, together with a particular drum and a long-necked lute called a tunbar. Wit, more than music, now defined the presentation, described as "savage mockery, extravagant burlesque, and low sexual humor."

--Hfarmer 07:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a book that actually has this exact quote in it. Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People By Joan Roughgarden--Hfarmer 08:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the word "castration" does not actually usually mean "removal of the penis" (as it's currently used in the article)... AnonMoos (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fun with google translator

[2]

I input the arabic text given here for mukhanathun and get "the lady boys" as the translation. Also interesting to me is that if I take the word "transvestite" translate it into arabic, then from arabic back into English using their tool I get transsexual. Also the arabic text from what little I know seems to read more like the way mukhanathin (singular) should sound. Notice the three dots at the end (reading right to left now) المتخنث . Here is how I read that from left to right. The vertical bar and the line following it denote the ubiqutos "Al" the characters in between resemble the ones in the text we have here on wikipedia. Last but not least the three vowel dots on the end sound like eeen as in Al-mukahathin. I thiks we should consider changing this text. Perhaps someone more expert in Arabic than I cay say which is more correct to use. --Hfarmer (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about that a bit more I am now totally confident to replace that spelling.

Not sure exactly what you mean -- مخنثون mukhannathūn (note long vowel) is the "sound" nominative plural form, while مخنثين mukhannathīn (again, with a long vowel) would be the "sound" accusative/genitive plural form. In colloquial Arabic, mukhannathīn would be used in all grammatical case contexts, but in standard written or Classical Arabic, mukhannathūn is the basic plural dictionary form or "citation" form (if you want to cite the word in the plural). The form mukhannathin with short vowel, spelled مخنث would be the genitive SINGULAR form, but the final -n in the singular (marking indefiniteness) would not ordinarily cooccur with the definite article... AnonMoos (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woah I never realized that arabic had an accusative plural form. :-? So what I gather from your expert advice is that there are classical and coloquial variations. So what we should do is use the one that is appropriate to the source. Perhaps using the colloquial term would be best for the title. and the classical term when citing sources from back in the Islamic golden age? --Hfarmer (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the usual practice at Wikipedia is to go with standard written Classical Arabic unless there's some specific reason to do otherwise. AnonMoos (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourceless Quote

The quote of al-Nawawi is not in its cited source. I looked through the source (The Effeminates of Medina) and al-Nawawi (in the context mentioned in this article) is only brought up in the notes stating that a different scholar quoted al-Nawawi, but there is no quote in the actual text nor are the words in this article in the text. If anyone is aware of any writing of al-Nawawi that actually address mukhannathun to cite or replace the current text with, that would be very helpful. Yasmamba (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then the quote is not "source less" there are many literary works from the distant past which survive only through quotes by other scholars. That said the original source for this seems to be Riyad us Saliheen comments on one of the hadith by him. The only translated copies I can find have comments that can't be from that time period. Talk of western women and what not. That said, Rowson quoting a scholar who quoted Nawawi is sufficient. That is how scholarship works most of the time. One need not reinvent the wheel to use it. --2601:243:1002:977B:FD98:11B4:D644:6B47 (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more willing to accept that, if it weren't for the fact that the quote itself is still nowhere in the source directly or indirectly. In the source under note 32 it says that Ibn Hajar quotes al-Nawawi in his composition of Fath al-Bari, but the actual text that references note 32 says: “Both al-'Ayni and Ibn Hajar repeat al-Kirmani's distinction between involuntary and voluntary effeminacy, but go on to say that the man who is constitutionally, as opposed to affectedly, effeminate must make efforts (takalluf) to stop being so; if he does not do so, he becomes blameworthy, ‘especially if he seems to take pleasure in (his effeminacy).’” which gives a very different impression than al-Nawawi's alleged “A mukhannath is the one (‘male’) who carries in his movements, in his appearance and in his language the characteristics of a woman. There are two types; the first is the one in whom these characteristics are innate, he did not put them on by himself, and therein is no guilt, no blame and no shame, as long as he does not perform any (illicit) act or exploit it for money (prostitution etc.). The second type acts like a woman out of immoral purposes and he is the sinner and blameworthy.”
I see a lot of people quote al-Nawawi as saying this (and I don't doubt that he probably did), but when I look around for sources, all I find is this Wikipedia article, and the source for the quote doesn't even have the quote in it. The text needs to be reframed as a paraphrase of what is in the actual source if in the least the text of Riyad al-Saliheen commenting on al-Nawawi can't be found and sourced. It makes more sense to remove the alleged quote and replace it with what is said about al-Kirmani's view (which closely parallels al-Nawawi's): “Al-Kirmani(d. 7861 1384), defining a mukhannath as a man who imitates women in his speech and acts, distinguishes between constitutional (khilqi) and affected (takallufi) effeminacy, only the latter being blameworthy.” All I mean to say is that if an article has a direction quote with a source, the direct quote should be traceable to the source.Yasmamba (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since I also can't find it, I did as you suggested and just said "scholars including al-Kirmani". Dragoon17 (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

Mukhannathun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added stuff about Medina mukhannathun

Hey all,

The mukhannathun in Medina during the Umayyad days were really the most notable ones, as in the ones that are mentioned the most often in historical sources and little tales, so I tried to make them a more prominent part of the article. I described the two most frequently-mentioned ones (Tuways and al-Dalal) but if anyone has more information on any of the others, please add it in. Dragoon17 (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mukhannath&oldid=1209240565"