Eunuchs, Caliphs and Sultans, pt. 3

[JesusA (imported)]

Of special significance is the passage from al-Jahiz (passage III). There the author contrasts by implication the Byzantines' attitude to castration and the castrated with that of the Muslims. The Byzantines castrate their own children, which the Muslims do not do. The dedication of their own castrated children to their houses of worship, is excluded in the case of the Muslims, because they do not have such children. It is the Byzantines who do not remove the penises of those children of theirs whom they castrate, a fact which provokes the obvious reaction of al-Jahiz: the only thing which those Christian Byzantines want to prevent is the pregnancy of their secular and monastic women, but they do not care a bit about these eunuchs having sexual intercourse with them. Such an attitude could not be more revolting and more irreligious to a Muslim. Finally, the prolongation of the sexual act and the pleasure accompanying it in a coitus with a eunuch whose phallus was not removed is something which al-Jahiz attributes to the Byzanitine claim alone.<p>Thus it would be impossible to introduce that kind of "partial" eunuchs into the harem, certainly not in great numbers. After all, what greater incentive to a secluded woman, than being able to have prolonged sexual intercourse with a male, without being exposed to the danger of bearing him children? The safest thing to do was to exclude the organ of a foreign male from the women's quarters altogether. Another important measure of safety was castration before the age of puberty in order to prevent or minimize the sexual desire, as already stated. Even so, romantic life with eunuchs in the harem could not be prevented completely.<p>*****<p>Al-Jahiz's claim about the kind of castration which the Byzantines use when they emasculate their children, as well as about the purpose of that emasculation are fully corroborated by al-Muqaddasi.... He states: "The Byzantines remove the testicles of their own children and assign them to [service in] churches (monasteries) in order that they would not be occupied with women and harmed by lust."<p>---David Ayalon, Eunuchs, Caliphs and Sultans: A Study of Power Relationships. The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (1999), 376 pp.<p>(Jesus)

[JesusA (imported)]

Of special significance is the passage from al-Jahiz (passage III). There the author contrasts by implication the Byzantines' attitude to castration and the castrated with that of the Muslims. The Byzantines castrate their own children, which the Muslims do not do. The dedication of their own castrated children to their houses of worship, is excluded in the case of the Muslims, because they do not have such children. It is the Byzantines who do not remove the penises of those children of theirs whom they castrate, a fact which provokes the obvious reaction of al-Jahiz: the only thing which those Christian Byzantines want to prevent is the pregnancy of their secular and monastic women, but they do not care a bit about these eunuchs having sexual intercourse with them. Such an attitude could not be more revolting and more irreligious to a Muslim. Finally, the prolongation of the sexual act and the pleasure accompanying it in a coitus with a eunuch whose phallus was not removed is something which al-Jahiz attributes to the Byzanitine claim alone.<p>Thus it would be impossible to introduce that kind of "partial" eunuchs into the harem, certainly not in great numbers. After all, what greater incentive to a secluded woman, than being able to have prolonged sexual intercourse with a male, without being exposed to the danger of bearing him children? The safest thing to do was to exclude the organ of a foreign male from the women's quarters altogether. Another important measure of safety was castration before the age of puberty in order to prevent or minimize the sexual desire, as already stated. Even so, romantic life with eunuchs in the harem could not be prevented completely.<p>*****<p>Al-Jahiz's claim about the kind of castration which the Byzantines use when they emasculate their children, as well as about the purpose of that emasculation are fully corroborated by al-Muqaddasi.... He states: "The Byzantines remove the testicles of their own children and assign them to [service in] churches (monasteries) in order that they would not be occupied with women and harmed by lust."<p>---David Ayalon, Eunuchs, Caliphs and Sultans: A Study of Power Relationships. The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (1999), 376 pp.<p>(Jesus)

[JesusA (imported)]

Of special significance is the passage from al-Jahiz (passage III). There the author contrasts by implication the Byzantines' attitude to castration and the castrated with that of the Muslims. The Byzantines castrate their own children, which the Muslims do not do. The dedication of their own castrated children to their houses of worship, is excluded in the case of the Muslims, because they do not have such children. It is the Byzantines who do not remove the penises of those children of theirs whom they castrate, a fact which provokes the obvious reaction of al-Jahiz: the only thing which those Christian Byzantines want to prevent is the pregnancy of their secular and monastic women, but they do not care a bit about these eunuchs having sexual intercourse with them. Such an attitude could not be more revolting and more irreligious to a Muslim. Finally, the prolongation of the sexual act and the pleasure accompanying it in a coitus with a eunuch whose phallus was not removed is something which al-Jahiz attributes to the Byzanitine claim alone.<p>Thus it would be impossible to introduce that kind of "partial" eunuchs into the harem, certainly not in great numbers. After all, what greater incentive to a secluded woman, than being able to have prolonged sexual intercourse with a male, without being exposed to the danger of bearing him children? The safest thing to do was to exclude the organ of a foreign male from the women's quarters altogether. Another important measure of safety was castration before the age of puberty in order to prevent or minimize the sexual desire, as already stated. Even so, romantic life with eunuchs in the harem could not be prevented completely.<p>*****<p>Al-Jahiz's claim about the kind of castration which the Byzantines use when they emasculate their children, as well as about the purpose of that emasculation are fully corroborated by al-Muqaddasi.... He states: "The Byzantines remove the testicles of their own children and assign them to [service in] churches (monasteries) in order that they would not be occupied with women and harmed by lust."<p>---David Ayalon, Eunuchs, Caliphs and Sultans: A Study of Power Relationships. The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (1999), 376 pp.<p>(Jesus)

[JesusA (imported)]

Of special significance is the passage from al-Jahiz (passage III). There the author contrasts by implication the Byzantines' attitude to castration and the castrated with that of the Muslims. The Byzantines castrate their own children, which the Muslims do not do. The dedication of their own castrated children to their houses of worship, is excluded in the case of the Muslims, because they do not have such children. It is the Byzantines who do not remove the penises of those children of theirs whom they castrate, a fact which provokes the obvious reaction of al-Jahiz: the only thing which those Christian Byzantines want to prevent is the pregnancy of their secular and monastic women, but they do not care a bit about these eunuchs having sexual intercourse with them. Such an attitude could not be more revolting and more irreligious to a Muslim. Finally, the prolongation of the sexual act and the pleasure accompanying it in a coitus with a eunuch whose phallus was not removed is something which al-Jahiz attributes to the Byzanitine claim alone.<p>Thus it would be impossible to introduce that kind of "partial" eunuchs into the harem, certainly not in great numbers. After all, what greater incentive to a secluded woman, than being able to have prolonged sexual intercourse with a male, without being exposed to the danger of bearing him children? The safest thing to do was to exclude the organ of a foreign male from the women's quarters altogether. Another important measure of safety was castration before the age of puberty in order to prevent or minimize the sexual desire, as already stated. Even so, romantic life with eunuchs in the harem could not be prevented completely.<p>*****<p>Al-Jahiz's claim about the kind of castration which the Byzantines use when they emasculate their children, as well as about the purpose of that emasculation are fully corroborated by al-Muqaddasi.... He states: "The Byzantines remove the testicles of their own children and assign them to [service in] churches (monasteries) in order that they would not be occupied with women and harmed by lust."<p>---David Ayalon, Eunuchs, Caliphs and Sultans: A Study of Power Relationships. The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (1999), 376 pp.<p>(Jesus)

[JesusA (imported)]

Of special significance is the passage from al-Jahiz (passage III). There the author contrasts by implication the Byzantines' attitude to castration and the castrated with that of the Muslims. The Byzantines castrate their own children, which the Muslims do not do. The dedication of their own castrated children to their houses of worship, is excluded in the case of the Muslims, because they do not have such children. It is the Byzantines who do not remove the penises of those children of theirs whom they castrate, a fact which provokes the obvious reaction of al-Jahiz: the only thing which those Christian Byzantines want to prevent is the pregnancy of their secular and monastic women, but they do not care a bit about these eunuchs having sexual intercourse with them. Such an attitude could not be more revolting and more irreligious to a Muslim. Finally, the prolongation of the sexual act and the pleasure accompanying it in a coitus with a eunuch whose phallus was not removed is something which al-Jahiz attributes to the Byzanitine claim alone.<p>Thus it would be impossible to introduce that kind of "partial" eunuchs into the harem, certainly not in great numbers. After all, what greater incentive to a secluded woman, than being able to have prolonged sexual intercourse with a male, without being exposed to the danger of bearing him children? The safest thing to do was to exclude the organ of a foreign male from the women's quarters altogether. Another important measure of safety was castration before the age of puberty in order to prevent or minimize the sexual desire, as already stated. Even so, romantic life with eunuchs in the harem could not be prevented completely.<p>*****<p>Al-Jahiz's claim about the kind of castration which the Byzantines use when they emasculate their children, as well as about the purpose of that emasculation are fully corroborated by al-Muqaddasi.... He states: "The Byzantines remove the testicles of their own children and assign them to [service in] churches (monasteries) in order that they would not be occupied with women and harmed by lust."<p>---David Ayalon, Eunuchs, Caliphs and Sultans: A Study of Power Relationships. The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (1999), 376 pp.<p>(Jesus)