Muslim leaders call Reagan a criminal

From the article: "I express my deep regret because Reagan died before facing justice for his ugly crime that he committed in 1986 against the Libyan children," Libya's official JANA news agency quoted Gadhafi as saying Sunday.

Gadhafi ought to learn to close his mouth. He should concern himself with dressing in something other than John Travolta's Saturday Night Fever suits. He should also consider himself fortunate that the U.S. hasn't sent him packing into a little rathole like the pig Hussein.

Just another terrorist that talks too much, and says very little. We should toss a couple bombs his way just for general principles. I've never seen more trash talk spewed like there is in the Arab world, and it is its own world. Like Neptune.

Khaddafy appears curiously unconcerned about the reaction of the United States to his recent remarks, and not just about Reagan. He forgets that, having given up some (but not all) of his major weapons programs, he is somewhat in the position that poor trusting Israel has been with Egypt after it handed over, for the second time, the Sinai, with oilfields, and airfields, and billions of dollars in infrastrcture (and the Sinai, recall, only became part of Egypt in 1922; it had always been regarded as as a corpus separatum, like many deserts, even under the long centuries of Ottoman rule). Having handed over the Sinai, Israel had no further way to make Egypt adhere to its commitments.

And Khaddafy, having handed over most of what the West wanted (and that West now knows where the rest is stashed, and how the program worked, and who, and what companies, and what countries, were involved) finds himself possibly on the receiving end, if he doesn't mind himself, of a little Treaty-of-al-Hudaibiyya in reverse, with the Infidels playing the role of the Muslim breachers of the agreement. Yes indeed, a little treachery in Tripolitania might be just the ticket to show that the counter-Jihad is here to stay. Sauce for the goose...

I already consider President Reagan as one of the greatest leaders the world has ever seen - but the very fact that so many muslim buttheads don't remember him with fondness only raises his greatness in my eyes. If gha-daffy had nice things to say about him, that would trouble me.....almost as much as the fact that lebanon even has a culture minister!

I'm sorry to hear that Reagan died. I thought he died along time ago. My feelings go out to you Americans.

Ibn,

I can't speak for others, but I do feel a void now that he is gone. He was not a perfect man, perhaps, but he was the man for the time.

Reagan stood for

God (the only real God of Israel) Country, Honor
Something Mohammed never found out.

I am not surprised by the arab / muslim reaction.
Its about time to say to the arab world
Shutup and quit your stupid complaining.

You still dont get it Morons....
the reason your contries are toast is you have followed a false God (and his false prophet).

To the americans we need to turn back to the only true God
as Ronald reagan followed

The God of Abraham , IIssac and Jacob.
The only real God and Hope for this world.
As the day of salvation is at hand.

The Arabs "bad era" started many hundreds of years before Reagan had a go at them.

man sucks for all of those native americans who lived in the america's for thousands of years with out any knowledge of the israel god "the only true one" i guess there all in hell now...

or how about all the people that lived before the israel god was created you know early cave dwelling man.. they must all be in hell as well or maybe to borrow a jim crow term "they where all grandfathered in"

so joseph,

you seem to be of the "lets give the land back the the natives" mindset. Tell me something:

Where would you like to relocate the other 280 million of us?

What do native Americans have to do with Islamic Jihad? I agree that American Indians should be treated with the utmost respect, but we have idiots with machetes, bombs, and lies that wish us dead.

Were I a Muslim, I would be careful of any analogizing with Indians. After all, the most successful imperialism in world history has been Arab imperialism. Not only did the Arabs conquer vast territories which had been peopled by non-Arab, non-Muslim indigenes, but they proceeded, using the Qur'an as their text, to convince these Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and to a much lesser extent, Hindus (and Buddhists), who were not ahl al-kitab, People of the Book, that they, the Arab Muslims, possessed the uncreated, eternal truth which the Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians (who came on as quasi-honorary ahl al-kitab) that they had simply received an imperfect, distorted version of Islam (actually, it was Islam that borrowed imperfect and distorted versions of Christianity and Judaism) -- Arab imperialism not only conquered, but insisted on the destruction of much of the pre-Islamic civilization, required that the Qur'an be read only in Arabic, which meant that Arabic was imposed on many originally non-Arabic speakers, and their own languages much diminished in importance (only in Persia, did Firdowsi help to retain the power of Persian), but Aramaic, and many other languages, virtually disappeared.

It is Arab Muslim conquest, Arab Muslim imperialism, that =far surpasses in the ferocity and completeness of its destruction of indigenous cultures, any other imperialism in the history of the world.

Were I attempting to make excuses for that Arab Muslim conquest, I would be very wary of raising an analogy with the American Indians. In "Palestine," for example, the original "Indians" are the Jews, who maintained a large presence right through 1066, and there were Jews in Safed, Tiberias, Hebron, and Jerusalem continuously until modern times, even as the countryside went, under Muslim rule and Muslim indifference to that land, to rack and ruin. That ruin, that desolation, attracted the attention of every European visitor to the area, and there were many, from the beginning of the 19th century.

Once again Hugh, thanks for a great post!

Once again Hugh, thanks for a great post!

Sorry for the echo...

no bob you completely did not get my point which was
that humans existed on this planet in there current modern form for 1000's of years before monotheist hebrew/christian/muslim god existed. and what i ment about native americans is that they lived in the usa completely seperated from the religion of the middle east and europe so those monotheist muslim,jewish,and christian god did not exist to them. thus if you take what people of faith say literally then all of those native americans did not goto heaven because they either worshipped multiple gods or they worshiped the earth and deffinetly had no clue who jesus christ was thus are excluded from heaven. why would such a god do something like that unless maybe i dont know he doesnt exist

muslimconvert said, "I realized that this is truly a beautiful religion. Yet, its disturbing to see that many muslims out there are not abiding by its laws, which is why many get the wrong image."

Those many muslims out there that are not abiding by its laws are indeed giving islam a bad name, the problem is they are a large and growing percentage of the religion and show no signs of changing their ways. In fact they believe that they are abiding by islam’s laws and that you are in the wrong, and I personally believe them over you. islam is a religion of hate and violence that can not be reformed.

“Your grandchildren will be converts to Christ.”

If there is any native american whose life, traditions, family, and very being was destroyed by settlers it was Ishi. Folks with the urge to curse the United States for native american genocide should study him.

Not only did Ishi not carry hatred for 'the people' (there were massacres, but it is not clear that settlers generally understood the impact their mere presence was having on the tribe) who destroyed his tribe, family, traditions, language...everything...he befriended them and tried to teach them what he could about who he was and his heritage. And he did this. Almost immediately, while he still lived, he was honored and helped to restore what he could of his tribe's legacy. And now Ishi and the Yahi are remembered in many ways: books, movies that the State of California buys and circulates in schools and State Parks.

The decedants of perpetrators of horrible suffering cannot undo what happened, but we can critically face the past, and try to learn something from it. Likewise, victims cannot undo suffering but they can chose how to move forward, with hatred or with resolve to improve the world. Ishi himself, the University of California, our political and social system generally, make possible memory and learning from what happened; that cannot redeem a genocide, but it creates the possibility of learning something from genocide.

Read literature from Holocaust survivors as well, Wiesel, Levi, Deblo, and try to find the hatred, the bitterness...you won't. You will find a message of memory and a plea of some sort. Western societies and traditions are receptive to these pleas; memory is a constant struggle but at least it has a chance.

Now compare and contrast the behavior and experience of these victims and the decendants of perpetrators in Muslim conquests. Have Muslims ever admitted to genocide? Have Muslims ever allowed the expression of literature and memory of the experiences of victims? Is memory even possible in Muslim society, or will memory necessarily require configuration according to strictures, principles, concepts, and prejudices of the Koran and religious authority?

What about 'Muslim victims'? Is there any literature of hope, redemption, memory along the lines of Wiesel, for instance? I don't know the answer to that, but I have never heard of such a thing. I have seen many translations of 'hate speech' from Muslims who perceive themselves to be victims and the speech (I would not even call it literature) always calls for blood.

If moral learning requires memory, and memory is impossible in Muslim society, then is moral learning possible? No, the very possibility is exstinguished because moral perfection is attained in Islam and thereby the need to criticize, think, learn and cope with the conflicts and pain of our history are by their very nature not only irrelevant but contrary to prevailing belief. These very notions require extermination, just as 'people and ideas against Islam' require 'obliteration' and 'eradication'.

Folks who love to argue against the United States from analogy using 'native american genocide' as a tool should put that argument into the appropriate context. (Besides that, the facts of such alledged 'genocides' are complex even in the case of Ishi's tribe, which was utterly destroyed. Native american memory and history deserve better than sloppy minds just trying to make a political point. Thank God these politically motivated idiots were not the ones who found Ishi or the Yahi's would be lost forever...).

Think about the native americans. A little thought with the Islamic contrast should yield a terrible conclusion: Hundreds of millions of Muslims holding up such Islam as a goal for humanity is nothing less than the most horrifying threat to human history ever conceived.

The arabs calling Mr Reagan a criminal. Thats the funniest damn thing I've heard all day. God Bless America, our troops, and Mr. Bush.

I wasn't around when Reagen was in office, but with the limited knowledge I have of this issue (this article), calling Reagan a criminal is just comical.

muslimconvert:

You had the right to notice Christianism was not for you and convert. Enjoy those memories, because those times and those rights may not come back for you.

Kyber is right. You Did have the right to convert- a right guaranteed by a non-muslim nation. If it had gone the other way around (muslim to Christian in a muslim country) you would be Dead now.

A number of people have asked me how I could have written an article about Reagan and jihad without mentioning the Afghan mujahedin or the Beirut barracks. If time permits I will address that in another piece later this week.

I'd add the US Navy rescuing the PLO from Beirut, too.

how is reagan not a criminal. where the arming of the contra's not a criminal act. was the selling of weapons to the iranians even when it was banned not a criminal act. and then lying about it to the american public about these crimes not a criminal act. quit living in dillusion about your beloved b-actor ronnie.

However, through my own research and study of the Quran, I realized that this is truly a beautiful religion. Yet, its disturbing to see that many muslims out there are not abiding by its laws, which is why many get the wrong image.

Posted by muslimconvert at June 7, 2004 10:13 PM

Try Qur'an 4:34, just for starters.

Joseph, this week, you should stop hugging your trees and have the decency to show respect for a fallen American Icon, Ronald Reagan.

"I know more about your pedophile prophet than you think. He was exactly what i said he was, a murdering, raping theiving, pedophile."
i sincerely doubt you have a right to call Prophet Muhammed a pedophile. what exactly was that whole thing some time ago, with the bishops sexually molesting and harassing children? and all those sex scandals going on in churches, till today? before you attack others, look at your own back. dont go calling others what you are. aisha was the Prophet's most beloved wife. at least they were MARRIED, unlike your bishops.
and there you go, quoting your tabari and ishaq BS thatyou getfrom BS sources. didnt i tell you that is not valid?

i sincerely doubt you have a right to call Prophet Muhammed a pedophile. what exactly was that whole thing some time ago, with the bishops sexually molesting and harassing children? and all those sex scandals going on in churches, till today? before you attack others, look at your own back. dont go calling others what you are. aisha was the Prophet's most beloved wife. at least they were MARRIED, unlike your bishops.

First, Aisha was, what, nine years old? That's paedophilia. And what kind of barbarian marries a nine year old girl?

Second, Catholic bishops aren't worshiped, let alone divine prophets of G-d.

there is no satan nor is there a god. your weakminded belief in thousands year old superstitions in our current modern society just baffles me. the only way the human race can progress to a higher level is if we finally abandon our beliefs in religion that is not compatible with the advancements in society and in science

colt why are you afraid to say God! or even god(ohhh i made it lowercase im going to be struck by lightening now.....) its just a word

It's a sign of respect. Something you clearly don't understand.

And given that the US and Israel, the two most religious Western countries, are the most scientifically advanced, how is religion holding us back?

Joseph~

The Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe was the idea of a Catholic Priest.

Copernicus was a Christian.
Bruno Hen (I have yet to read what he wrote).

Galileo.

Lots of etc.s.... So tell me: How is it that a lot of Major advances in (scientific) thinking came from Religous people? Could it be that looking to the Heavens (and God) inspired them to find out Why things are as they are?

Joseph says there is no God, or Satan.

I guess the other five billion people on this planet who bleive in a higher power must be wrong.

Colt:

Muhammad married Aisha when she was SIX, but he held off "consummating" the marriage until she was nine. Such admirable self-restraint, eh?

CGW:

Thanks, wasn't clear on the details.

Ok, this one is for Mahmoud. Guys, please tell me if my logic is too simplistic.

Mahmoud: IF, as is stated above (and it has been 10 years since I read the Koran), Mahommed took up with a child...

And IF, as the Koran states, Mahommed is God's Prophet...

Then the Koran Justifies pedophilia.

----------
I for one, being Catholic, do Not appreciate a few rogue priests messing things up for the rest of us. However, in light of the above, why even bring them up?

muslim,

Where is the line for pedophilia in your world?

Right after a babe quits nursing?

"Your children will sleep with Michael Jackson."

Muslim: You're simply another misinformed, brainscrubbed, intolerant, unrealistic........Muslim

joseph:

You never answer my question.

What will you do - convert or die?

Muslimconvert,

Islam is so beautiful that you can do your own thing. If there is "no compulsion in religion" (whatever that means) then why the fuss over the infidels?

the difference muslim piglets, is that the catholic priests were sentenced and incarcerated, where as you pigs admire mohammed for his murders and pedophilia. CGW's statement is very correct. Go play with your suicide bomber dolls, and leave the debates to the knowledgable and informed.

good bye, no more responses to you. Tell us, is your lifes so void of activity that you must follow us around on these sites and profess the same PROVEN (read previous) LIES. That is sad, and muslim.

arealamerican:
for your information that God that we Muslims worhip is the God of Abraham and Isaac. We belive in Abraham, he is one of the prophets and so is Isaac his son. We belive in both of them obviously. So I really dont get it when you say worship the real God the God of Abraham and Isaac when they are the same God. So your point doesnt make any sense.
Its about time to say to the arab world
Shutup and quit your stupid complaining.
well we are not complaing its America's foreign policy that is going into other countries that have nothing to do with them and just take over, and instead of helping they ned up ruining it.
Also if you are a real american then believe me you would follow the rights given to us Americans like Freedom of Religion and many others. So dont call your self a real american until you actually follow the laws.

First, Aisha was, what, nine years old? That's paedophilia. And what kind of barbarian marries a nine year old girl?
Second, Catholic bishops aren't worshiped, let alone divine prophets of G-d.
Posted by Colt at June 8, 2004 10:58 AM

first, all the children were... CHILDREN. thats pedophilia (learn to spell). and what kind of barbarian molests children? if you dont call that a pedophile, then you are weird. and what the Prophet Muhammed did was NOT considered to be wrong when he did it, nor is it wrong now. during that time, marriage between age differences was completely normal, as it is in many places now. and besides, the priests, or religious leders of your religion, are not even supposed to get married, are they not? were they that desperate that they had to molest children? CGW, that it what i call "admirable self-restraint". what prophet Muhammed did was completely acceptable, during that time and now. but, i doubt that child molestation was ever completely accepted by society. andm you show your lack of knowledge about Islam when you say, "Second, Catholic bishops aren't worshiped, let alone divine prophets of G-d." well then, guess what? Prophet Muhammed isnt worshipped either. since islam makes sense, we do not worship a human who is capable of flaw. We worship Allah, who is God. go read up on Islam and then say something.

oinky, since when do you have the right to tell me that i cannot post on this site? and who exactly did the Prophet Muhammed kill? and, oinky, arent you following me around when you respond? i never asked you to respond.

"joseph: You never answer my question.
What will you do - convert or die?
Posted by CGW at June 8, 2004 01:06 PM "
who exactly was telling him to convert? it is up to him, isnt it? get a life, and stop showing the extreme point of view, or rather, your point of view.

muslim:

"thats pedophilia (learn to spell)"

Get an education, or a dictionary. Paedophilia is also a correct spelling.

First you DENIED that Muhammad had sex with a nine year old, now you say he did and it's OK - then and now. Which is it?

CGW
Prophet Mohammad married Aisha when she was nine, thats true. but she was mature already. also Prophet Mohammad wanted to shwo teh people that even at a young age a person can be wise and mature enough mentally to become a husband or wife to take on that responsibilty. and he was right, Aisha became one of the people with the most knowledge of Islam and she proved that eventhough she is young she is wise and smart enough to run a household. thats all its not commiting a sin its not molesting a child or any of that ok

Muslimah:

Muhammad married Aisha when she was six. He had sex with her when she was nine. Your defense of his sick, perverted pedophilia is disgusting. There IS no defense for that sort of behavior. It was then and is now pathological. Pedophilia is a MENTAL ILLNESS.

can you read CGW, because I really dont think you do. I said the prophet married Aisha when she was matured as in she is a woman do you understand that part. regardless of her age she became a woman physically and mentally and he can marry her its not pedophilia you dimwit she is a woman. pedophilia is with children SHE IS NOT A CHILD.

Muslimah:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SIX OR NINE YEAR OLD WOMAN. PERIOD.

Muslimah:

You said:

"... we do not worship a human who is capable of flaw. We worship Allah, who is God."

Then how could Allah keep making mistakes?

Muslimah:

Allah is all-powerful; Allah is all-knowing. Why then did Allah have to abrogate verses? Why could he not get it right the first time?

Ali Dashti explains the problem of abrogation in the Qur’an in this way:

“The Qur’an-commentators and theologians collected and explained all the cases of abrogation. A previously revealed verse was abrogated by a subsequently revealed verse with a different or contrary meaning.

Change of mind after the taking of a decision or making of a plan is a normal and frequent occurrence in the lives of human beings, who cannot at any time know all the relevant facts. The human mind is limited and prone to deception by outward appearances, but is capable of learning from experience and recognizing mistakes. It is therefore fitting and desirable that men and women should revise their past decisions or plans. It is contrary to reason, however, that God, who is omniscient and omnipotent, should revise His commands. This point prompted Mohammad’s opponents to scoff that he issued an order one day and cancelled it the next day. Their protests are answered in verse 100 of sura 2 (ol-Baqara): “Whenever We abrogate a verse or order that it be forgotten, We bring a better one or a similar one. Do you not know that God is capable of everything?”

It is precisely because God is capable of everything that he would not reveal a verse and then abrogate it. Since omniscience and omnipotence are essential attributes of the Creator, He must be able to issue commands which do not need revision. Every thoughtful person who believes in One Almighty God is bound to ask why He should proclaim a command and then revoke it.

There is a contradiction in the above-quoted verse. Since God is capable of everything, why did He not reveal the better verse first?

It seems that there were hecklers in those days too, and that they were persistent. A reply was given to them in verses 103 and 104 of sura 16 (on-Nahl): “When We have replaced a verse with (another) verse – and God knows well what he sends down – they say, ‘You are a mere fabricator.’ But most of them have no knowledge. Say (to them), ‘The Holy Ghost brought it down from your Lord, truly (so), in order to confirm the believers.’”

On the assumption that the Qur’an is God’s word, there ought to be no trace of human intellectual imperfection in anything that God says. Yet in these two verses the incongruity is obvious. Of course God knows what He sends down. For that very reason the replacement of one verse by another made the protesters suspicious. Evidently even the simple, uneducated Hejazi Arabs could understand that Almighty God, being aware of what is best for His servants, would prescribe the best in the first place and would not have changes of mind in the same way as His imperfect creatures.”

pp. 155-156, 23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammed, by Ali Dashti, (Mazda Publishers, 1994)

P.S.: Your suggestion that Ayesha was mature for her age and that excused Muhammad's behaviour is pathetic. If a daughter of yours ever gets sexually assaulted as a child, I hope the person who does it uses the same argument to justify his or her behaviour.

CGW,
Let me just clarify something for you, you dont know the Islamic History, so if you kind of need help visit the islamic website www.islamonline.net not no jewish website in which you recieve your information wrong, because by the way Aisha was at the age of NINE not SIX even these facts of your are WRONG. To clarify one more thing you are a kid or a teen or whatever you are but your sex is a male and not a FEMALE so you dont know the life process of a female and how could you detect the life process of a women when your not of that same gender. How doyou know when a girl is responsible, just because men and boys cant take care of themselves it doesnt mean a girl at the age of NINE cant take care of herself. Just make sure you know how to bak up ur statements so you dont feel as stupid as you do now. Thanks:)

I must concur with CGW on many levels. Muslim, your ignorance is mind-blowing, and sickening.

Aisha was not a woman in any sense of the word. She is not physiologically a woman. She may have started menstruating at that age, but that alone doesn’t make you mature. At nine years old, the female skeletal system is incapable of handing reproduction. The female body more than likely did not start, and most assuredly did not finish, puberty at nine years of age.

Psycho-socially, she was no where near being mature…

I could go on forever with this!

I know that clinging to religious faith is important to you, muslim, but what you are overtly saying here is abject insanity, a complete disconnect from reality.

A NINE YEAR OLD CHILD IS NOT MATURE, no matter how you want to twist the facts. And twisted you are.

If you would like, I’ll shut down the server with citations from medical and scientific journals proving that point.

Arguing that a nine year-old girl is physically and mentally mature is beyond any rational argument I have yet heard on this board.

Muslim, I disagree with a lot of people on this board, but when push came to shove, I could at least respect them. I never felt the pure revulsion for them that I do for you at this moment. You disgust me.

You are an abomination before God, in any religion.

cgw,
The muslim piglet is her own worst enemy, everytime she opens her mouth, more dirt escapes. Please, do not lower yourself to her nor any other pig muslim's level. One should not argue with a psychotic. She can hang herself all alone.

Mentat
If you think that your very smart by saying all of this then your wrong. In the first place please go back to school and learn how to read. Im not that one that said the ayahs it was muslim i said the things about Aisha.

Bob first learn how to read, my name is Muslimah, muslim is a different person. And you know nothing about Islam so dont even bother judging you disgust me you people are just opinionated freaks that have very closed minds. You are all stubborn losers. oikonomakis you are the pig.
For you information i was like you all, always anti Islam and saying bad things about it, but i searched for the truth and i found soooo many flaws they are just innumerable in christianity and judaisim, and when i searched Islam and gave it a chance its a perfect religion and you are saying these things because you dont understant Islam because you are alll stupid. Well i used to be Jewish and then moved to chiristainty and now I am a Muslim and I will stay Muslim from now until forever. For I have never felt so relieved and welcome and happy in my entire life. And belive me its a geat feeling

Muslimah, New Muslim:

You obviously haven't read your own ahadith. Don't believe US, use your own muslim sources. We have,and they verify that Aisha was six when she was married and nine when she had sex. If you doubt your own ahadith, ask your imam. This is a basic part of Muhammad's history as outlined by your own cult; to deny it is to show your ignorance of what your own belief system teaches. LOOK IT UP, using muslim sources. Read the ahadith for yourself.

I am more and more convinced that islam is a religion of hate, violence and intolerance and a large number of muslims are nothing more than vicious little thugs and ignorant barbarians. More people in “The West”, Africa, the Slavic countries, India and South East Asia are beginning to believe that the only solution to the islamic problem is the Roman solution, which is to impose a Carthaginian peace on islam, once and for all.

“Your grandchildren will be Carthaginians.”

A nine year old little girl is NOT A CHILD. It is biologically impossible, sociologically impossible, and psychologically impossible.

What part of impossible do you not understand?

None of that is opinion. None of that involves your belief system. It is COLD, HARD INDISPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC FACT.

So much for your “truth.” So much for your morality.

So much for your humanity.

You are filth.

Yasmine:

The above message was meant for you, also. LOOK IT UP, read your ahadith, or ask your imam.

BTW, you have no clue as to my gender or my age. One thing's for certain - I don't make ignorant, unsubstantiated assertions, unlike you.

We here have taken the time to read your Qur'an, ahadith, and your muslim "sources"- that is why we reject Islam utterly and completely.

Bob Owens:

You may want to re-post that last, changing the first line to "NOT A WOMAN".

muslimah, what is you name muslimah or new muslim. Do you even know. Again, following the long tradition of islam, you state that everyone is lying, yet show no proof other then YOU CLAIM your own conversion. To repeat a cliche, "there is one born every minute"

Praise be the murdering paedophile.

Oh, if you want to spar with me on islam, please do. I was born, raised, and work in the arab region. I am greek orthodox, but i KNOW your koran, culture, and degeneration first hand.

uh, yeah, thatis correct. a nine year old is not a WOMAN.

This insipid, vapid little twit just has me infuritated.She was a Jew AND Christian AND a Muslim? She's a nothing. An empty vessel, searching for something to fill her with purpose and meaning, because she has none of her own.

I'm a father of a little girl, and her abject ignorance and stupidity sent me over the edge. I MUST go offline for while to cool off.

I am not a violent person. She's the kind who could change that.

Muslims in general:

The Qur’an is the perfect and infallible word of Allah. The Qur’an is a scriptural and moral code valid for all people and for all time.

Why then does Allah concern himself with a commonplace marital dispute between the Prophet and his wives? Look at these verses from sura 66.

“Prophet, why do you prohibit that which Allah has made lawful to you, in seeking to please your wives? Allah is forgiving and merciful.

Allah has given you absolution from such oaths. Allah is your master. He is the Wise One, the All-knowing.

When the prophet confided a secret to one of his wives; and when she disclosed it and Allah informed him of this, he made known to her one part of it and said nothing about the other. And when he had acquainted her with it she said: ‘Who told you this?’ He replied: ‘The Wise One, the All-knowing, told me.’

If you two turn to Allah in repentance (for your hearts have sinned) you shall be pardoned; but if you conspire against him, know that Allah is his protector, and Gabriel, and the righteous among the faithful. The angels too are his helpers.

It may well be that, if he divorces you, his Lord will give him in your place better wives than yourselves, submissive to Allah and full of faith, devout, penitent, obedient and given to fasting; both widows and virgins.”

66:1-5

Here is Ali Dashti’s explanation of why we see in the Qur’an, a Holy book supposedly valid for all people and all time, a record of a private dispute between Mohammad and his wives:

“One day Mariya [one of Mohammad’s slave-girls] went to see the prophet at Hafsa’s [one of the Prophet’s wives] house. Hafsa was not at home. He took Mariya into the bedroom and lay down with her. Hafsa came back. In great indignation she shouted at him, “Why are you lying with your slave-girl on my bed?” In order to placate Hafsa, the Prophet swore that he would never touch Mariya again. When the storm abated, and perhaps because he was fond of Mariya or affected by her hurt feelings and complaints about the interdict, he changed his mind. His conduct was justified by the revelation of the first five verses of sura 66 (ot-Tahrim):

“Prophet, why do you prohibit that which Allah has made lawful to you, in seeking to please your wives? Allah is forgiving and merciful.” (Verse 1)

Allah has given you absolution from such oaths. Allah is your master. He is the Wise One, the All-knowing.” (Verse 2)

This is evidently a reference to verse 91 of sura 5 (ol-Ma’eda), which authorizes expiation of ill-considered oaths through compensatory good deeds such as feeding or clothing ten poor persons, freeing a slave, or fasting for three days. According to one account, which is attributed to Moqatel b. Solayman, the Prophet expiated his oath about Mariya by manumitting a slave, but Hasan b. ‘Ali is reported to have said that the words “Allah is forgiving and merciful” in verse 1 mean that God forgave the Prophet.

“When the Prophet said something secret to one of his wives, and when she talked about it and God informed him thereof, he made part of it known and refrained from (making known) part of it. And when he spoke to her about it, she asked, ‘Who told you this?’ He answered, ‘The One who knows all and is informed of everything told me.’” (Verse 3)

What had happened was evidently as follows. The Prophet had let Hafsa know in strict confidence that he undertook to have no more relations with Mariya, and had asked Hafsa not to tell anyone else; but Hafsa told A’esha, and God informed the Prophet that she had done so. He then spoke to Hafsa, mentioning part of what he had been informed but refraining from mention part of it. Hafsa, thinking that A’esha had told the Prophet, asked him how he knew, and he answered that God had told him.

Every reader of the Qur’an must be amazed to encounter these private matters in a scripture and moral code valid for all mankind and for all time.

Even more amazing are the explanations given by the Qur’an commentators. One example is the following statement in the Cambridge Tafsir: “When Hafsa told A’esha about the Prophet’s secret and when God informed his Apostle that Hafsa had told his secret to A’esha, the Prophet reminded Hafsa of part of what she had said to A’esha.”

Is such women’s talk, which may occur at any time and in any corner of the world, a fit matter for inclusion in the text of the Qur’an? Do not the commentators degrade God, the Creator of the Universe, to the level of a tale-bearer reporting on Hafsa’s conversation with A’esha? In any case, the subject of the first three verses of the Surat ot-Tahrim is a commonplace dispute between a husband and a wife.

The next two verses give warnings to Hafsa and A’esha. If they persisted in grumbling and showing wifely jealousy, they would incur the Prophet’s displeasure. God was the Prophet’s protector, and the Prophet could in the last resort divorce them.

“If you two turn to Allah in repentance (for your hearts have sinned) you shall be pardoned; but if you conspire against him, know that Allah is his protector, and Gabriel, and the righteous among the faithful. The angels too are his helpers.” (Verse 4)

“It may well be that, if he divorces you, his Lord will give him in your place better wives than yourselves, submissive to Allah and full of faith, devout, penitent, obedient and given to fasting; both widows and virgins.” (Verse 5)

Although both the meaning and the occasion of the revelation of this verse are clear, commentators have tried to explain it in ways which can only make the reader smile at their naivety. According to the Cambridge Tafsir, the word thayyebat (widows or divorcees) refers to Pharoah’s wife Asiya, and the word virgins (abkar) refers to Jesus’s mother Mary, both of whom are waiting to be married to the Prophet Mohammad in heaven.

A quite different account of the occasion of the revelation of the first five verses of sura 66 should perhaps also be mentioned. According to it, the Prophet had eaten some honey at Zaynab’s house, and after he had left, ‘A’esha and Hafsa, being jealous of Zaynab, said to him, “Your breath smells bad.” On hearing this, the Prophet swore he would never eat honey again. Afterwards, (presumably after he had regretted his oath), the verse of rebuke (i.e. verse 1) in the Surat ot-Tahrim was sent down, and then the principle of compensatory expiation for breach of an oath was instituted and the Prophet’s wives were threatened with divorce in the event of persistence in their jealousy and rivalry. This report is unlikely, however, to be an authentic Hadith because it omits the matter of Hafsa’s knowledge and disclosure of the Prophet’s secret.””

pp. 136-138, 23 years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, by Ali Dashti (Mazda Publishers, 1994)

Muslims in general:

Allah is all-powerful; Allah is all-knowing. And, if there is only one God, then why do Muslims believe in Genies?

Why must Muslims believe in Genies? Ali Dashti explains why all Muslims must believe in Genies:

“Genies resemble humans but are normally invisible. There are male genies (jenni) and female genies (jenniya), malevolent genies, and benevolent genies or fairies. On rare occasions a genie is seen by a human, and it is even possible for a fairy princess to fall in love with a man or for a male genie to love a woman. …

No commentator or theologian, however, has denied the existence of genies, because they are mentioned in more than ten Qur’anic passages and are explicitly stated, in verse 14 of sura 55 (or-Rahman), to have been created by God out of smokeless fire. Moreover sura 72, which is known as the Surat ol-Jenn, states in its first two verses that a company of genies listened (to the Qur’an being recited) and said, “We have heard a wonderful Qur’an. It guides to righteousness, so we have believed in it and will never ascribe any partner to our Lord.”

The ancient Arabs, like other primitive peoples, believed in the existence of good and evil spirits, and the more readily because of the harshness and solitude of their desert environment. There is a report that when an Arab dismounted to spend the night in an uninhabited waste, he would be so frightened that he would utter supplications to the king of the fairies to shelter him and to the king of the genies to prevent impudent genies from molesting him. Verse 6 of sura 72 warns that taking shelter with genies only makes them more impudent.

While it is easy to understand why illusions and irrational ideas are so common among primitive peoples and lower classes of advanced nations, it is surprising to find them in a book deemed to be God’s word and in the preaching of a man who challenged his own people’s superstitions and sought to reform their customs and morals.”

pp. 159-160, 23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, by Ali Dashti, (Mazda Publishers, 1994)

Allah hates Muslims. He has been hating you for a long time now. Allah demonstrated that he hated you in Spain in 1492. Allah showed that he hated you at Lepanto in 1571. Allah said, "I hate you" at Vienna in 1683. Allah showed that he hated you in 1699 when the Habsburgs recovered Hungary. Allah demonstrated he hated you again in 1770 when the Russians destroyed the Ottoman fleet at Cesme. 1771 - Allah gives Crimea to the Russians. Allah gives Serbia and Greece back to the Serbs and Greeks in 1829. Allah gives Crete away - 1908. Allah gives Bulgaria back to the Bulgarians - 1909. Allah gives Bosnia-Herzegovina away - 1909. Allah gives Montenegro away - 1910. ALLAH DISBANDS THE MUSLIM CALIPHATE - 1924. Why would he do that, pray tell? 1948 - Allah creates Israel. Do you understand yet, Muslims? ALLAH HATES YOU. Allah loves Western civilization.

Here are some examples of Shariah law:

1. Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a communal, religious obligation;
2. A person who is ignorant about Islamic legal opinion must follow the legal opinion of a scholar;
3. The penalty for a Muslim apostate (someone who no longer believes in or no longer follows the tenets of Islam) is death;
4. When slaughtering animals for food, a knife must be used to cut the windpipe and gullet;
5. A woman is only eligible to receive half the inheritance of a man;
6. Marriage may be forced on virgins by their father or father’s father;
7. A non-Arab man may not marry an Arab woman;
8. A woman must seek permission from her husband to leave the house;
9. A Muslim man cannot marry a woman who is a Zoroastrian, an idol worshipper, an apostate from Islam or a woman with one parent who is Jewish or Christian, with the other being Zoroastrian; a Muslim woman cannot marry anyone but a Muslim;
10. A free Muslim man may marry up to four women;
11. Retaliation is obligatory in most cases when someone is deliberately murdered except when a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, a Jew or a Christian kills a Muslim apostate or a father or mother kill their offspring;
12. Non-Muslim subjects (Ahl al-Dhimma) of a Muslim state are subject to a series of discriminatory laws – “dhimmitude”;
13. The penalty for fornication or sodomy is being stoned to death;
14. The penalty for an initial theft is amputation of the right hand. Subsequent thefts are penalized by further amputations of feet and hand;
15. A non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim in court; a person who is “without respectability” cannot give legal testimony; a woman’s legal testimony is only given half the legal weight of a man’s (and is only acceptable in cases involving property); to legally prove fornication or sodomy requires 4 male witnesses who actually saw the act;
16. The establishment and continuation of the Islamic Caliphate (by force, if necessary) is a communal obligation;
17. Sodomites and Lesbians must be killed;
18. Laughing too much is forbidden;
19. Musical instruments are unlawful;
20. Creating pictures of animate life is forbidden;
21. Female circumcision, which includes the excision of the clitoris, is obligatory;
22. Slavery is permitted;
23. People may be bribed to convert to Islam;
24. Beating a rebellious wife is permissible; and,
25. Lying is permissible in a time of war (or jihad).

Please find below a link to a website on which I have posted the actual legal clauses for the above examples and references for same:

http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/21475

Muslims:

Allah is all-powerful. Allah is alive. He is moving. Allah is in the world. He reaches in, out and around us. He has told us he is closer to us than our jugular vein.

Allah has come to me. He came to me on 9/11. He caused me to turn on the television. He made me see his children jumping to their deaths, writhing in agony. He made me see his childrens’ pain. Allah forced me ask myself what has caused his children to kill his other children. Allah forced me to read the Qur’an. Not once. Not twice. But many times. And now, I read the Qur’an every day. Allah caused me to study the Sunnah. Allah brought the Sharia to me. Allah forced me to look upon these works. I protested. Allah, I said, why must I read these terrible, dark, hateful revelations? But Allah prevailed. I studied Islam. I sucked up this knowledge like a dry sponge.

And then Allah came to me again. He showed me my path. Allah put me on the straight path. Allah made me see that he has brought a flawed revelation to the Muslims. Allah showed me that day that my destiny is to help him destroy his flawed revelation. Allah is moving through me. He is guiding my hand. Allah is writing these words. Every day when I wake up I am filled with his spirit as he guides me to write journalists, politicians, academics and ordinary people to bring to them the truth of his flawed revelation. Allah has called me to help him destroy Islam.

Allah has called Robert Spencer. He has called Hugh Fitzgerald. He has called Ali Sina. He has called Ibn Warraq. He has called Taslima Nasrin. He pulled them out of darkness and into his light. He has called them to his struggle to destroy his flawed revelation. Allah is moving through me and through them.

And he is moving in all you Muslims. Every time he calls you to fight us, to destroy us, he is working in you to cause your destruction. For if you will not abandon Islam, he is forcing you to destroy yourselves and Islam with you. That is why he is calling you to death. That is why he is calling you out of the light and into the darkness. That is why he is calling you back. Allah is telling you to abandon Islam or face certain death at the hands of his helpers.

You think that if you bring death to us that Allah will smile on you. That he will give you power over us. That he will make us your slaves. You are wrong. When you bring us death, Allah will not smile. He will bring you destruction. He will burn and vaporize you. He will take you back to him – all of you. Allah knows he has made a mistake. Allah knows he has brought a flawed revelation. Allah is working to destroy that flawed revelation. You can see him moving everywhere. Allah has brought us a mighty victory in 1948 in Israel. Allah helped us to triumph again in Kuwait. Allah brought us victory in Afghanistan and Iraq. And Allah will bring us further victories until Muslims abandon Islam or they return to Allah.

Allah is alive. Allah is moving. Allah is working in the world. Look upon his handiwork, Muslims. LOOK. Look upon his actions in this world.

Oh, I mentioned before that Christianity was full of many flaws, but I didn't back up my statment. Well, here are only a couple:

"I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare." "Look," says the Teacher, "this is what I have discovered: "Adding one thing to another to discover the scheme of things-while I was still searching but not finding- I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all."
Ecclesiastes 7:26-28

"let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law, and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for woman to speak in the church."
1Corinthians 14:34-35

"Say to the Israelites, 'If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter...'"
Numbers 27:8

And, it seems as if not one Christian girl are not following there religion the way it should be, or did you guys make another new version of your Bible that I dont know of yet?

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head...If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head"
1 Corrinthians 11:3-6

You guys complain that our prophet had to many wives, well look at this:

"After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him."
2 Samuel 5:13

"He (Solomon) had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines..."
1 Kings 11:3

"...Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
Mark 10:11-12

"...if a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days...but if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks..."
Leviticus 12:2-5

It would be very amusing to see you guys respond to these quotes from your Bible, but I must say, Im pretty certain you guys wont, but just bring up ayahs from the Quran, and change the whole subject.

Mentat:
You aren't the only one who has posted Sharia laws, and I have corrected them before, and I have no intention of doing so again.

Salams,
Dina

cut the crap Mentat

I have alot to tell you Mentat. Please get your information straight before you go along making accusations and claims you know nothing about. People are never bribed to convert to Islam because they convert willingly after seeing that Islam gives all people their rights. As for slavery, Islam actually outlawed slavery after it was lawful in the old days. And yes a non arab can marry an arab woman if he is a muslim because then the children come out muslim but if he is not a Muslim then the children take on his religion which common sense is not what any religion wants. Yes poultry is cut from the neck but that's to make its death less painful. About Muslims killing Jews or any non Muslim that is only in time of war or simialr cases but Islam stops any Muslim from killing an inncoent non muslims no matter what religion he believes in. Beating your wife is not permissable in Islam. All you have said is wrong because Islam is the one religion that gives women more rights than other religions. Women in Islam are allowed to inherit, to go out in public, to speak their minds, to work and other things. They have many rights. They do get less than the man in inheritance but that is because they have less responsibilities economically than men who are required to provide for the family. Before making any aquisations check and make sure of your facts.

Way to go, Mentat. Keep posting them: if people don't keep having them before their eyes, these guys win. A shame they can only win by concealing...

muslimconvert:

This is an ANTI-JIHAD, ANTI-ISLAMIST site. Not everyone here is Christian or Jewish. Many are secular humanists, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc. Your so-called Biblical "arguments" hold no sway with them, and they find no need to answer them. We here have read your Qur'an, ahadith, and read from your muslim sources. That is why we reject Islam utterly and completely.

Muslimconvert:

Why do you assume that you are posting to Christians? We could be of any belief or no belief. Like most typical new Muslim converts, you are full of zeal for your new religion and eager to show how other religions are not the equal of Islam. And like most new Muslim converts, you are incredibly ignorant about your own religion. You need to do some serious study.

Take a look at at the actual legal clauses in a Sharia text from one of the 4 schools, if you are Sunni. You had better re-read the Sirat Rasul Allah because you seem to have missed a few things. Read a few thousand Hadith. And think. Think about what you are reading. You have stopped thinking. You are looking at Islam in a totally non-critical manner.

Does your family shun you now? Has your husband left you? Are you the subject of hatred and abuse? Think about why that is. You have joined a cult. You need to be deprogrammed.

When someone comes to ask you to commit violent acts against infidels, what will you say? When someone comes to you and asks that you contribute Zakat to fund terrorists in Chechnya, Thailand, Nigeria, the Philipines, Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Spain, America, Saudi Arabia, Turkey (I could go on and on; there are 68 countries in the world today which have experienced attacks by Islamic terrorists), what will you do?

muslimconvert said "It would be very amusing to see you guys respond to these quotes from your Bible, but I must say, Im pretty certain you guys wont, but just bring up ayahs from the Quran, and change the whole subject."

I would point out that we don't feel obligated to follow these ancient, archaic rules, unlike you barbarians and your disgusting sharia law.

“Your grandchildren will be divorcees.”

CGW
"This is an ANTI-JIHAD, ANTI-ISLAMIST site. Not everyone here is Christian or Jewish. Many are secular humanists, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc. Your so-called Biblical "arguments" hold no sway with them, and they find no need to answer them. We here have read your Qur'an, ahadith, and read from your muslim sources. That is why we reject Islam utterly and completely."

I don't care what you are, and if you want, I can point the many problems in those religions also.Because no one talks crap about my religion, especially when they're wrong, and when they allow their underdeveloped minds to form false assumptions. And the fact that you cant deny those those statements that came straight from your so-called Bible, proves alot to me, and makes me hold on to my religion even more.

Defender of Islam, you had better check your facts. I know more about Islam than you do. Read past my re-posting of the examples of Sharia law for a full rendering of all the legal clauses and my references for same. Not that it matters, for like any Muslim, you will literally deny what is right before your eyes.

What does the Shariah law actually state? Here are some examples of Shariah law:

1. Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a communal, religious obligation;
2. A person who is ignorant about Islamic legal opinion must follow the legal opinion of a scholar;
3. The penalty for a Muslim apostate (someone who no longer believes in or no longer follows the tenets of Islam) is death;
4. When slaughtering animals for food, a knife must be used to cut the windpipe and gullet;
5. A woman is only eligible to receive half the inheritance of a man;
6. Marriage may be forced on virgins by their father or father’s father;
7. A non-Arab man may not marry an Arab woman;
8. A woman must seek permission from her husband to leave the house;
9. A Muslim man cannot marry a woman who is a Zoroastrian, an idol worshipper, an apostate from Islam or a woman with one parent who is Jewish or Christian, with the other being Zoroastrian; a Muslim woman cannot marry anyone but a Muslim;
10. A free Muslim man may marry up to four women;
11. Retaliation is obligatory in most cases when someone is deliberately murdered except when a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, a Jew or a Christian kills a Muslim apostate or a father or mother kill their offspring;
12. Non-Muslim subjects (Ahl al-Dhimma) of a Muslim state are subject to a series of discriminatory laws – “dhimmitude”;
13. The penalty for fornication or sodomy is being stoned to death;
14. The penalty for an initial theft is amputation of the right hand. Subsequent thefts are penalized by further amputations of feet and hand;
15. A non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim in court; a person who is “without respectability” cannot give legal testimony; a woman’s legal testimony is only given half the legal weight of a man’s (and is only acceptable in cases involving property); to legally prove fornication or sodomy requires 4 male witnesses who actually saw the act;
16. The establishment and continuation of the Islamic Caliphate (by force, if necessary) is a communal obligation;
17. Sodomites and Lesbians must be killed;
18. Laughing too much is forbidden;
19. Musical instruments are unlawful;
20. Creating pictures of animate life is forbidden;
21. Female circumcision, which includes the excision of the clitoris, is obligatory;
22. Slavery is permitted;
23. People may be bribed to convert to Islam;
24. Beating a rebellious wife is permissible; and,
25. Lying is permissible in a time of war (or jihad).

In order to demonstrate to you that the above examples of Shariah law are real and valid, I will excerpt below the relevant legal clauses relating to each of the above numbered headings. First, I will repeat the heading. Then, I will excerpt the relevant legal clauses.

However, to start with, I must explain from which authority I will be excerpting these legal clauses. I will be excerpting them from a book entitled in English as the “Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law”. In Arabic it is referred to as the Umdat al-Salik and was authored by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 1368 A.D.). The English translation was edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. The book is published by Amana Publications, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.. I will be excerpting from the revised 1994 edition. The book is available for sale at http://www.amana-publications.com. It is also available at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0915957728/qid=1083543579/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-8534452-4783342?v=glance&s=books&n=507846.

The book is self-described as follows:

This work is the first translation of a standard Islamic legal reference in a European language to be certified by al-Azhar, the Muslim world’s oldest institution of higher learning. It presents an explanative interpretation of ‘Umdat as-salik, a classic Sunni manual of Sacred Law by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) that comprises the legal work of Imam Nawawi, the great thirteenth-century Shaf’I hadith scholar and jurisprudent. Ibn Naquib’s famous handbook carefully summarizes the conclusions of Nawawi’s legal encyclopedia al-Majmu’ on all aspects of practicing Islam, from prayer, marriage, jihad, and inheritance to the other facets of Islamic life. [from the rear cover of the book – letter writer’s note]

On the Amana Publications website, the book is described as follows:
'Umdat al-Salik wa 'Uddat al-Nasik (Reliance of the Traveller and tools of the Worshipper) is a classic manual of fiqh. It represents the fiqh rulings according to the Shafi'I school of jurisprudence. The appendices form an integral part of the book and present original texts and translations from classic works by prominent scholars such as al-Ghazali, Ibn Qudamah, al-Nawawi, al-Qurturbi, al-Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar and other, on topics of Islamic law, faith, spirituality, Qur'anic exegesis and Hadith sciences. It has also biographical notes about every person mentioned (391 biographies), bibliography of each work cited (136 works), and a detailed subject index (95 pages). Of the 136 works drawn upon in its commentary and appendices, 134 are in the original Arabic. The sections and paragraphs have been numbered to facilitate cross-reference.
"There is no doubt that this translation is a valuable and important work, whether as a textbook for teaching Islamic jurisprudence to English speakers, or as a legal reference for use by scholars, educated laymen, and students in this language."
Dr. Taha Jabir al-'Alwani, International Institute of Islamic Thought
(Herndon, VA; December 1990)
"...We certify that this translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community (Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'a)."
al-Azhar, the Muslim world's most prestigious institution of higher Islamic learning (Cairo; February, 1991)
"This translation is a remarkable piece of work that will prove to be indispensable to the English-speaking Muslims and to any Western student of Islam ..."
Dr. A. Kevin Reinhart, Middle Eastern Studies Association Bulletin (27.2, 1993)
"This is a truly magnificent piece of work that will prove to be indispensable to the English-speaking Muslims and to any Western student of Islam ..."
Dr. Farhat J. Ziadeh, Journal of the American Oriental Society, JAOS (115.1, 1995)
"...We have here in English an authoritative compendium of Muslim Law. All this makes it a valuable resource and reference, which anyone interested in Islam will want to have in his/her library."
Dr. John A. Williams, The Muslim World (85.1-2, 1995)
This is an impressive piece of work...We recommend it to all English-speaking Muslims, and to anyone who is interested in Islamic Law."
Dr. Mokrane Guezzou, Muslim World Books Review, MWBR (15.3, 1995)

The reference for the above descriptions is: http://www.amana-publications.com/amana_bestsellers.shtml.

However, there may be someone who is reading this who is thinking that perhaps this legal reference is not truly representative of Islamic Sacred Law and the writer is providing us with incorrect and misleading information. To anticipate such a reaction here are the first few paragraphs from the introduction to the book (pp. vii-viii):

The four Sunni schools of Islamic law, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’I, and Hanbali, are identical in approximately 75 percent of their legal conclusions, while the remaining questions, variances within a single family of explainers of the Holy Koran and prophetic sunna, are traceable to methodological differences in understanding or authentication of the primary textual evidence, differing viewpoints sometimes reflected in even a single school. The present volume, “Umdat al-salik [The reliance of the traveler], represents one of the finest and most reliable short works in Shafi’i jurisprudence, a school with perhaps fewer scholarly differences on rulings than others because its main resource is the recension of Imam Nawawi, the great thirteenth-century Shafi’i hadith scholar and jurisprudent who upgraded the work of previous generations in terms of the authenticity and application of hadith evidence. The author of Umdat al-salik, Ibn Naqib, closely follows the order and conclusions of Nawawi’s encyclopedic al-Majmu: sharh al-Muhadhdhab [The compendium: an exegesis of the “The rarefication”] with its addendum, al-Takmila [The completion], by Ibn Naquib’s own sheikh, Taqi al-Din Subki. The present volume is virtually an index of the conclusions of the Majmu, and readers interested in evidence from Koran and hadith for the rulings of the present volume can find them there, or, Allah willing, in a forthcoming sister-work to be called The Guidance of the Traveller.

In an age when some Muslims are calling for an end to the four schools of jurisprudence in order to make way for a single school exclusively taken, it is claimed, from the texts of the Koran and hadith, it might be wondered: why offer Muslims a book from a particular school at all? The answer, in part, is that each school does not merely comprise the work of a single Imam, but rather represents a large collectivity of scholars whose research in Sacred Law and its ancillary disciplines has been characterized by considerable division of labor and specialization over a very long period of time. Among the specialists in the field of hadith, for example, who were Shafi’is are such scholars as Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud, Ibn Kathir, Dhahabi, and Nawawi; while the school has also had many Koranic exegetes, scholars of the sciences of Arabic and legal specialists, most of whom were actively involved in contributing to the school’s jurisprudence. The result of this division of labor has been a body of legal texts that are arguably superior in evidence, detail, range, and in sheer usefulness to virtually any recent attempt to present Islam as a unified system of human life. For most nontraditional works seen up to the present have been one-man efforts, while the classic texts have been checked and refined by a large number of scholars, and the difference is manifest. At the same time, it is fairly safe to say that there is no single work from any of the schools that has everything, and an impartial student of jurisprudence must surely feel that the research of the schools should not only be learned and transmitted, but also sorted out and recast into a form accessible and suited to Muslim needs today.

Regarding this needs for relevance, it will be noticed that the basic text Umdat al-salik is by no means the only thing in the present work. Three introductory sections in the form of a “user’s guide to the Sacred Law” precede the basic text, personal ethics and character (akhlaq) to Islamic spirituality and tenets of faith, while a final biographical section tells readers who the figures mentioned throughout the book’s legal texts are. Though these separate parts cover a considerable range of topics within the Islamic ethic, the aim in gathering them has been to achieve a unitary reference work that is eclectic in neither subject matter nor scholarly sources.

As for subject matter, the emphasis of the book is on the path we now travel, to paradise or hell, and it is this that unites the work and determines the relative importance of the questions treated; why, for example, a legal discussion from Nawawi’s Kitab al adhkar [The book of the remembrances of Allah] on unlawful slander (ghiba) must be given equal weight to a section on the sunnas of ablution (wudu) from Umdat al-salik, and so on.

As for the sources, the authors translated are, with few exceptions, well-known scholars of the Shafi’i school of jurisprudence and Ash’ari school of tenets of faith, as appears in their biographies. The many who were Sufis were of the strictest observance of the Sacred Law. While such affiliations, and indeed much of what can be termed traditional Sunni Islam, have not been spared the criticism of certain post-caliphal Muslim writers and theorists, the authors of the present volume and their positions do represent the orthodox Muslim intellectual and spiritual heritage that has been the strength of the Community for over a thousand years, and the means through which Allah has preserved His religion, in its purest and fullest sense, to the present day. (letter writer’s emphasis)

Thus, as you can see, the legal texts which I will be quoting are truly representative of orthodox Sunni Muslim legal thinking and do not misrepresent the Sunni Muslim legal point of view in any way. Accordingly, please find excerpted below the legal texts associated with the headings outlined above including all relevant page references. The following symbols within the excerpts mean as follows: A: comment by Sheikh ‘Abd al-Wakil Durubi; N: comment by Sheikh Nuh ‘Ali Salman; n: remark by the translator; and, O: excerpt from the commentary by Sheikh ‘Umar Barakat.

1. Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a communal, religious obligation

pp. 599-603

O9.0 JIHAD

(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad,

“We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”
The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:

(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);

(2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);

(3) “Fight the idolaters utterly” (Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”

Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight, himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.)

THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD

09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O: the evidence for which is the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

“He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,”

and Allah Most High having said:

“Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each, Allah has promised great good” (Koran 4:95)

If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year.

The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can.

0.9.2 Jihad is personally obligatory upon all those present in the battle lines (A: and to flee is an enormity) (O: provided one is able to fight. If unable, because of illness or the death of one’s mount when not able to fight on foot, or because one no longer has a weapon, then one may leave. One may also leave if the opposing non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force).

0.9.3 Jihad is also (O: personally) obligatory for everyone (O: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (O: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for the non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means. All of which is if conditions permit gathering (A: the above mentioned) people, provisioning them, and readying them for war, then whoever is found by a non-Muslim and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in whatever way is possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he knows he will be killed if he does not surrender, then he may either surrender or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to an indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible.

WHO IS OBLIGED TO FIGHT IN JIHAD

Those called upon (O: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation) are every able-bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane.

….

THE OBJECTIVES OF JIHAD

0.9.8 The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) – which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself – while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden – who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled” (Koran 9:29),

the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

“I am the last, there will be no prophet after me.”

this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)).

0.9.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya)) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, people of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi (y21), 6.48-49)).

2. A person who is ignorant about Islamic legal opinion must follow the legal opinion of a scholar

p. 20

b5.0 THE OBLIGATORINESS OF FOLLOWING QUALIFIED SCHOLARSHIP

b5.1 (Muhammad Sa’id Buti:) Because scholars accept the evidence from Koran, sunna and reason as complete and intersubstantiative that the ordinary person or learned one not at the level of textual dedication and ijtihad is not entitled but to follow a qualified mujtahid who has a comprehensive grasp of the evidence – they say that a formal legal opinion (fatwa) from a mujtahid is in relation to the ordinary person just as a proof from the Koran and sunna is in relation to the mujtahid. For the Koran, just as it obligates the scholar thoroughly versed in it to hold to its evidences and proofs, also obligates (n: in the verse quoted above at b2.1) the uninformed person to adhere to the formal legal opinion of the scholar and his ijtihad (ibid., 73).

3. The penalty for a Muslim apostate (someone who no longer believes in or no longer follows the tenets of Islam) is death

pp. 595-598

o8.0 APOSTASY FROM ISLAM (RIDDA)

(O: Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst. It may come about through sarcasm, as when someone is told, “Trim your nails, it is sunna,” and he replies, “I would not do it even if it were,” as opposed to when some circumstance exists which exonerates him of having committed apostasy, such as when his tongue runs away with him, or when he is quoting someone, or says it out of fear.)

o8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

o8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

o8.3 If he is a freeman, no one besides the caliph or his representatives may kill him. If someone else kills him, the killer is disciplined (def: o17) (O: for arrogating the caliph’s prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties).

o8.4 There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die).

o8.5 If he apostatizes from Islam and returns several times, it (O: i.e. his return to Islam, which occurs when he states the two Testifications of Faith (def: o8.7(12))) is accepted from him, though he is disciplined (o17).

o8.6 (A: If a spouse in a consummated marriage apostatizes from Islam, the couple are separated for a waiting period consisting of three intervals between menstruations. If the spouse returns to Islam before the waiting period ends, the marriage is not annulled but is considered to have continued the whole time (dis: m7.4).)

ACTS THAT ENTAIL LEAVING ISLAM

o8.7 (O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

(1) to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah;

(2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;

(3) to speak words that imply unbelief such as “Allah is the third of three,” or “I am Allah” – unless one’s tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of oblivion (A: a friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1 (O:))), for these latter do not entail unbelief;

(4) to revile Allah or his messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

(5) to deny the existence of Allah, His beginningless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

(6) to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

(7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it;

(8) to mockingly say, “I don’t know what faith is”;

(9) to reply to someone who says, “There is no power or strength save through Allah”: “Your saying ‘There’s no power or strength, etc.’ won’t save you from hunger”;

(10) for a tyrant, after an oppressed person says, “This is through the decree of Allah,” to reply, “I act without the decree of Allah”’;

(11) to say that a Muslim is an unbeliever (kafir) (dis: w47) in words that are uninterpretable as merely meaning he is an ingrate towards Allah for divinely given blessings (n: in Arabic, also “kafir”);

(12) when someone asks to be taught the Testification of Faith (Ar. Shahada, the words, “La ilaha ill Allahu Muhammadun rasulu Llah” (There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah)), and a Muslim refuses to teach him it;

(13) to describe a Muslim or someone who wants to become a Muslim in terms of unbelief (kufr);

(14) to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma’, def: b7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak’a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);

(15) to hold that any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

(n: ‘Ala’ al-Din ‘Abidin adds the following:

(16) to revile the religion of Islam;

(17) to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;

(18) to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;

(19) to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

(20) to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-‘Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24).)

There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)

p. 109, f1.3

f1.3 Someone raised among Muslims who denies the obligatoriness of the prayer, zakat, fasting Ramadan, the pilgrimage, or the unlawfulness of wine and adultery, or denies something else upon which there is scholarly concensus (ijima’, def: b7) and which is necessarily known as being of the religion (N: necessarily known meaning things that any Muslim would know about if asked) thereby becomes an unbeliever (kafir) and is executed for his unbelief. (O: if he does not admit he is mistaken and acknowledge the obligatoriness or unlawfulness of that which is there is scholarly consensus upon. As for if he denies the obligatoriness of something there is not consensus upon, then he is not adjudged an unbeliever).

4. When slaughtering animals for food, a knife must be used to cut the windpipe and gullet

p. 364-365

j17.4 The necessary condition for slaughtering any animal which is within one’s capacity to slaughter (O: domesticated or wild) is to cut both the windpipe and the gullet (O: windpipe meaning the channel of breath, and gullet meaning the channel of food and drink which lies beneath the windpipe. ….

The slaughterer should cut swiftly and not take his time such that he has to cut two or more times.

5. A woman is only eligible to receive half the inheritance of a man

p. 477-478

L6.3 (N: A summary of X’s husband’s share:
- ½ if there is no inheriting descendant
- ¼ if there is an inheriting descendant.
- The husband’s share is not eliminated by anyone.)

L6.4 (N: A summary of X’s wife’s share:

- ¼ if there is no inheriting descendant
- 1/8 if there is an inheriting descendant
- The wife’s share is not eliminated by anyone.)

6. Marriage may be forced on virgins by their father or father’s father

p. 522, m3.13

GUARDIANS WHO MAY MARRY A VIRGIN TO A MAN WITHOUT HER CONSENT

m3.13 Guardians are of two types, those who may compel their female charges to marry someone, and those who may not.

(1) The only guardians who may compel their charge to marry are a virgin bride’s father or father’s father, compel meaning to marry her to a suitable match (def: m4) without her consent.

(2) Those who may not compel her are not entitled to marry her to someone unless she accepts and gives her permission.

Whenever the bride is a virgin, the father or father’s father may marry her to someone without her permission, though it is recommended to ask her permission if she has reached puberty. A virgin’s silence is considered as permission.

7. A non-Arab man may not marry an Arab woman

p. 523, m4.2

m4.2 The following are not suitable matches for one another:

(1) a non-Arab man for an Arab woman (O: because of the hadith that the prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,

“Allah has chosen the Arabs above others”)

8. A woman must seek permission from her husband to leave the house

p. 538

PERMITTING ONE’S WIFE TO LEAVE THE HOUSE

m10.3 (A: A husband may permit his wife to leave the house for a lesson in Sacred Law, for invocation of Allah (dhikr), to see her female friends, or to go to any place in the town. A woman may not leave the city without her husband or a member of her unmarriageable kin (def: m6.2) accompanying her, unless the journey is obligatory, like the hajj. It is unlawful for her to travel otherwise, and unlawful for her husband to allow her to.) (n: In the Hanafi school, it is not unlawful for her to travel beyond city limits without a husband or member of her unmarriageable kin unless the distance to her intended destination exceeds ca. 77 km./48 mi. (al-Lubab fi sharh al-Kitab (y88), 1.105).)

m10.4 The husband may forbid his wife to leave the home (O: because of the hadith related by Bayhaqu that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,

“It is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to allow someone into her husband’s house if he is opposed, or to go out if he is averse”).

But if one of her relatives dies, it is preferable to let her leave to visit them.

9. A Muslim man cannot marry a woman who is a Zoroastrian, an idol worshipper, an apostate from Islam or a woman with one parent who is Jewish or Christian, with the other being Zoroastrian; a Muslim woman cannot marry anyone but a Muslim

p. 529

m6.7 It is unlawful for a Muslim man to marry:

(1) a Zoroastrian woman;

(2) an idol worshipper;

(3) an apostate from Islam (murtadd, def: o8);

(4) or a woman with one parent who is Jewish or Christian, while the other is Zoroastrian.

(5) (N: It is not lawful or valid for a Muslim man to be married to any woman who is not either a Muslim, Christian, or Jew; nor is it lawful or valid for a Muslim woman to be married to anyone besides a Muslim.)

10. A free Muslim man may marry up to four women

p. 530

m6.10 It is unlawful for a free man to marry more than four women.

11. Retaliation is obligatory in most cases when someone is deliberately murdered except when a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, a Jew or Christian kills a Muslim apostate, or a father or mother kill their offspring

pp. 582-584
o.1.0 WHO IS SUBJECT TO RETALIATION FOR INJURIOUS CRIMES

…

o1.1 Retaliation is obligatory (A: if the person entitled wishes to take it (dis: o3.8)) against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right. ….

o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:

…

(2) a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;

(3) a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);

(4) a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.

12. Non-Muslim subjects (Ahl al-Dhimma) of a Muslim state are subject to a series of discriminatory laws – “dhimmitude”

pp. 607-609

o11.0 NON-MUSLIM SUBJECTS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE (AHL AL-DHIMMA)

o11.1 A formal agreement of protection is made with citizens who are:

(1) Jews;
(2) Christians;
(3) Zoroastrians;
(4) Samarians and Sabians, if their religions do not respectively contradict the fundamental bases of Judaism and Christianity;
(5) and those who adhere to the religion of Abraham or one of the other prophets (upon whom be blessings and peace).

o11.2 Such an agreement may not be effected with those who are idol worshippers (dis: o9.9 (n:)), or those who do not have a Sacred Book or something that could have been a Book.

(A: Something that could have been a book refers to those like the Zoroastrians, who have remnants resembling an ancient Book. As for the pseudoscriptures of cults that have appeared since Islam (n: such as the Sikhs, Baha’is, Mormons, Qadianis, etc.), they neither are nor could be a Book, since the Koran is the final revelation (dis: w4).)

o11.3 Such an agreement is only valid when the subject peoples:

(a) follow the rules of Islam (A: those mentioned below (o11.5) and those involving public behavior and dress, though in acts of worship and their private lives, the subject communities have their own laws, judges, and courts, enforcing the rules of their own religion among themselves);
(b) and pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya).

THE NON-MUSLIM POLL TAX

o11.4 The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of gold) per person (A: per year). The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon.

It is collected with leniency and politeness, as are all debts, and is not levied on women, children, or the insane.

o11.5 Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

(1) are penalized for committing adultery or theft, though not for drunkenness;
(2) are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);
(3) are not greeted with “as-Salamu alaykum”;
(4) must keep to the side of the street;
(5) may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;
(6) are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;
(7) and are forbidden to build new churches.

o11.6 They are forbidden to reside in the Hijaz, meaning the area and towns around Mecca, Medina, and Yamama, for more than three days (when the caliph allows them to enter there for something they need).

o11.7 A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan Sacred Precinct (Haram) under any circumstances, or enter any other mosque without permission (A: nor may Muslims enter churches without their permission).

o11.8 It is obligatory for the caliph (def: o25) to protect those of them who are in Muslim lands just as he would Muslims, and to seek the release of those of them who are captured.

o11.9 If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated (dis: o11.11) (A: though if only one of them disobeys, it concerns him alone).

o11.10 The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

(1) commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her;
(2) conceals spies of hostile forces;
(3) leads a Muslim away from Islam;
(4) kills a Muslim;
(5) or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

o11.11 When a subject’s agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14).

13. The penalty for fornication or sodomy is being stoned to death

p. 610

o12.0 THE PENALTY FOR FORNICATION OR SODOMY

o12.1 The legal penalty is obligatorily imposed upon anyone who fornicates or commits sodomy (A: provided it is legally established (def: n11.2(O))) when they:

(a) have reached puberty;

(b) are sane;

(c) and commit the act voluntarily;

no matter whether the person is a Muslim, non-Muslim subject of the Islamic state, or someone who has left Islam.

o12.2 If the offender is someone with the capacity to remain chaste, then he or she is stoned to death (def: o12.6), someone with the capacity to remain chaste meaning anyone who has had sexual intercourse (A: at least once) with their spouse in a valid marriage, and is free, of age, and sane. A person is not considered to have the capacity to remain chaste if he or she is has only had intercourse in a marriage that is invalid, or is prepubescent at the time of marital intercourse, or is someone insane at the time of marital intercourse who subsequently regains their sanity prior to committing adultery.

If the offender is not someone with the capacity to remain chaste, then the penalty consists of being scourged (def: o12.5) one hundred stripes and banished to a distance of at least 81 km./50 mi. for one year.

14. The penalty for an initial theft is amputation of the right hand. Subsequent thefts are penalized by further amputations of feet and hand

o14.0 THE PENALTY FOR THEFT

o14.1 A person’s right hand is amputated, whether he is a Muslim, non-Muslim subject of the Islamic state, or someone who has left Islam, when he:

(a) has reached puberty;

(b) is sane;

(c) is acting voluntarily;

(d) and steals at least a quarter of a dinar (n: 1.058 grams of gold) or goods worth that much (A: at the market prices current) at the time of the theft;

(e) from a place meeting the security requirements normal (A: in that locality and time) for safeguarding similar articles (def: o14.3);

(f) provided there is no possible confusion (dis: o14.2(3)) as to whether he took it by way of theft or for some other reason.

If a person steals a second time, his left foot is amputated; if a third time, then his left hand; and if he steals again, then his right foot. If he steals a fifth time, he is disciplined (def: o17). If he does not have a right hand (N: at the first offense), then his left foot is amputated. If he has a right hand but loses it after the theft (O: by an act of God) but before he has been punished for it, then nothing is amputated. After amputation, the limb is cauterized with hot oil (A: which in previous times was the means to stop the bleeding and save the criminal’s life).

15. A non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim in court; a person who is “without respectability” cannot give legal testimony; a woman’s legal testimony is only given half the legal weight of a man’s (and is only acceptable in cases involving property); to legally prove fornication or sodomy requires 4 male witnesses who actually saw the act

p. 635

o24.0 WITNESSING AND TESTIFYING

…

o24.2 Legal testimony is only acceptable from a witness who:

…

(e) is religious (O: meaning upright (o24.4) (A: and Muslim), for Allah Most High says,

“Let those of rectitude among you testify” (Koran 65:2),

and unbelief is the vilest form of corruption, as goes without saying).

o24.3 Nor is testimony acceptable from someone who:

…

(3) … is without respectability (def: o24.2(f)), such as a street-sweeper, bathhouse attendant, and the like.

o24.7 The testimony of the following is legally acceptable when it concerns cases involving property, or transactions dealing with property, such as sales:

(1) two men;

(2) two women and a man;

(3) or a male witness together with the oath of the plaintiff.

o24.8 If testimony does not concern property, such as marriage or prescribed legal penalties, then only two male witnesses may testify (A: though the Hanafi school holds that two women and a man may testify for marriage).

o24.9 If testimony concerns fornication or sodomy, then it requires four male witnesses (O: who testify, in the case of fornication, that they have seen the offender insert the head of his penis into her vagina).

16. The establishment and continuation of the Islamic Caliphate (by force, if necessary) is a communal obligation

pp. 638-639

THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF THE CALIPHATE

o25.1 (Mawardi:) The reason the office of supreme leadership has been established in Sacred Law is to fulfill the caliphal successorship to prophethood in preserving the religion and managing this-worldly affairs. The investiture of someone from the Islamic Community (Umma) able to fulfill the duties of the caliphate is obligatory by scholarly consensus (def: b7), though scholars differ as to whether its obligatory character is established through reason or through Revealed Law.

pp. 642-644

THE THREE WAYS A CALIPH MAY BE INVESTED WITH OFFICE

o25.4 The caliphate may be legally effected … (1) by an oath of fealty … (2) … by the caliph appointing a successor … (3) through seizure of power by an individual possessing the qualifications of a caliph (H: meaning by force …) [letter writer’s emphasis]

17. Sodomites and Lesbians must be killed

pp. 664-665

p17.0 SODOMY AND LESBIANISM

p17.1 In more than one place in the Holy Koran, Allah recounts to us the story of Lot’s people, and how he destroyed them for their wicked practice. There is consensus among both Muslims and the followers of all other religions that sodomy is an enormity. It is even viler and uglier than adultery.

p17.2 Allah Most High says:

“Do you approach the males of humanity, leaving the wives Allah has created for you? But you are a people who transgress” (Koran 26:165-66).

p17.3 The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

(1) “Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him.”

(2) “May Allah curse him who does what Lot’s people did.”

(3) “Lesbianism by women is adultery between them.”

18. Laughing too much is forbidden

p. 755-756

r19.0 JOKING

…

r19.2 Excessive joking is blameworthy and forbidden, since it eliminates one’s dignity and reserve, and creates resentment in certain situations and people. It also causes immoderate laughter, which kills the heart. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said to his companions,

…

“Avoid excessive laughter, for too much laughter kills the heart.”

19. Musical instruments are unlawful

pp. 774-775

r40.0 MUSIC, SONG, AND DANCE

MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
r40.1 (Ibn Hajar Haytami:) As for the condemnation of musical instruments, flutes, strings and the like by the Truthful and Trustworthy (Allah bless him and give him peace), who

“does not speak from personal caprice: it is nothing besides a revelation inspired” (Koran 53:3-4),

let those who refuse to obey him beware lest calamity strike them, or a painful torment. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

(1) “Allah Mighty and Majestic sent me as a guidance and mercy to believers and commanded me to do away with musical instruments, flutes, strings, crucifixes, and the affair of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance.”

(2) “On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.”

(3) “Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage.”

(4) “This community will experience the swallowing up of some people by the earth, metamorphosis of some into animals, and being rained upon with stones.” Someone asked, “When will this be, O Messenger of Allah?” and he said, “When songstresses and musical instruments appear and wine is held to be lawful.”

(5) “There will be peoples of my Community who will hold fornication, silk, wine, and musical instruments to be lawful ….”

All of this is explicit and compelling textual evidence that musical instruments of all types are unlawful (Kaff al-ra’a’ ‘an muharramat al-lahw wa al-sama’ (y49), 2.269-70).

20. Creating pictures of animate life is forbidden

p.958

w50.0 THE PROHIBITION OF DEPICTING ANIMATE LIFE (from p44.1 (n:))

HADITH EVIDENCE OF THE PROHIBITION OF DEPICTING ANIMATE LIFE

w50.1 (‘Abd al-Ghaffar ‘Uyun al-Sud:) One should realize that the prohibition of picture making is extremely severe, that it is counted among the enormities, and the threats against doing it are very emphatic. Bukhari and Muslim relate that a man came to Ibn ‘Abbas (Allah be well pleased with him and his father) and said, “My livelihood comes solely from my hands, and I make these pictures. Can you give me a legal opinion about them?” Ibn ‘Abbas told him, “Come closer,” and the man did. “Closer,” he said, and the man did, until he put his hand on the man’s head and said: “Shall I tell you what I heard from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace)? I heard the Messenger of Allah say,

“`Every maker of pictures will go to the fire, where a being will be set upon him to torment him in hell for every picture he made.’

“So if you must, draw trees and things without animate life in them.”

21. Female circumcision, which includes the excision of the clitoris, is obligatory

A NOTE FROM THE LETTER WRITER:

Since I began to study the Shariah, a deliberate mistranslation of the text in the Reliance of the Traveller (the book from which I am excerpting the legal clauses in this letter) regarding female circumcision has been brought to my attention. The mistranslation was brought to my attention through my reading the witness statement of Mark Durie, Senior Associate with the title of Associate Professor in the Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics of the University of Melbourne, Victoria, who makes this statement for the respondents, Catch the Fire Ministries Inc, and Pastors Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scott, who are the subject of a complaint brought by the Islamic Council of Victoria Inc. in the State of Victoria, Australia.

If you wish to learn more about the case, Mr. Durie’s witness statement is available online at: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001307.php. Also, more information about the case is available online at: http://www.catchthefire.com.au/.

The information regarding the mistranslation is on page 50 of the witness statement. As Mr. Durie states, the Arabic at e4.3, p. 59 is mistranslated as follows:

This is translated by Nuh Hah Mim Keller as follows:
“Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)”

However what the Arabic actually says is:
“Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris (this is called HufaaD).”

This deceptive translation obscures the Shafi’i law, given by ‘Umdat al-Salik, that circumcision of girls by excision of the clitoris is mandatory.

The above quotation can be found on page 50, Witness Statement of Mark John Durie, http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/Witness%20Statement.pdf.

22. Slavery is permitted

LETTER WRITER’S NOTE:

Although slavery is the subject of elaborate legal prescriptions in Shariah law, the translator of the Reliance of the Traveller, Nuh Ha Mim Keller, declined to translate the Shariah law sections pertaining to slavery because “… the issue is no longer current ….” (p.459) Of course, people in the Sudan and other Muslim countries might disagree with Mr. Keller’s assertion. If you are interested in finding out what the Shariah law is regarding slavery, there are many books which forthrightly discuss the legal prescriptions, one original and esteemed translated source being the The Distinguished Jurist’s Primer, Volume 2 by Ibn Rushd (known as the philosopher, Averroes in the West). It is available at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1859641393/qid=1083687107/sr=5-3/ref=cm_lm_asin/102-8534452-4783342?v=glance.

However, the Koran is unambiguous on the matter of slavery:

33:50 - "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom Allah has given you as booty."

23:1 – “Blessed are the believers, who are humble in their prayers; who avoid profane talk, and give alms to the destitute; who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful to them) ….”

24:31 - “Believers, turn to Allah in repentance, that you may prosper. Take in marriage those among you who are single and those of your male and female slaves who are honest.”

24:33 – “You shall not force your slave-girls into prostitution in order that you may make money, if they wish to preserve their chastity.”

4: 24 – “You are also forbidden to take in marriage married women, except captives whom you own as slaves.”

4:92 – “It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer except by accident. He that accidentally kills a believer must free one Muslim slave and pay blood-money to the family of the victim, unless they choose to give it away in alms.”

23. People may be bribed to convert to Islam

p.270, h.8.14

THOSE WHOSE HEARTS ARE TO BE RECONCILED

h.8.14 The fourth category is those whose hearts are to be reconciled. If they are non-Muslims, they are not given Zakat [letter writer’s note: Zakat is a kind of tithe that all Muslims are required to pay], but if Muslims, then they may be given it (O: so that their certainty may increase, or if they are recent converts to Islam and are alienated from their kin).

Those to be reconciled include:

(1) the chief personages of a people (O: with weak Islamic intentions) whose Islam may be expected to improve, or whose peers may be expected to enter Islam;
(2) or the heads of a people who collect zakat for us from Muslims living near them who refuse to pay it, or who fight an enemy for us at considerable expense and trouble to themselves.

24. Beating a rebellious wife is permissible

p. 540, m10.12

DEALING WITH A REBELLIOUS WIFE

m10.12 When a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife (nushuz, dis: p42) (O: whether in words, as when she answers him coldly when she used to do so politely, or he asks her to come to bed and she refuses, contrary to her usual habit; or whether in acts, as when he finds her averse to him when she was previously kind and cheerful), he warns her in words (O: without keeping from her or hitting her, for it may be that she has an excuse. The warning could be to tell her, “Fear Allah concerning the rights you owe to me,” or it could be to explain that rebelliousness nullifies his obligation to support her and give her a turn amongst other wives, or it could be to inform her, “Your obeying me [def: (3) below] is religiously obligatory”). If she commits rebelliousness, he keeps from sleeping (O: and having sex) with her without words, and may hit her, but not in a way that injures her, meaning he may not (A: bruise her,), break bones, wound her, or cause blood to flow. (O: It is unlawful to strike another’s face.) He may hit her whether she is rebellious only once or whether more than once, though a weaker opinion holds that he may not hit her unless there is repeated rebelliousness.

25. Lying is permissible in a time of war (or jihad)

pp. 744-745

PERMISSIBLE LYING

R8.2 The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,

“He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good or says something commendable is not a liar.”

This much is related by both Bukhar and Muslim, with Muslim’s version recording that Umm Kulthum added,

“I did not hear him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things: war, settling disagreements, and a man talking with his wife or she with him (A: in smoothing over differences).”

This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissible for a given interest, scholars having established criteria defining what types of it are lawful. The best analysis of it I have seen is by Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali, who says, “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N: i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. … Whether the purpose is war, settling a disagreement, or gaining the sympathy of a victim legally entitled to retaliate against one so that he will forbear to do so; it is not unlawful to lie when any of these aims can only be attained through lying. But it is religiously more precautionary in all such cases to employ words that give a misleading impression, meaning to intend by one’s words something that is literally true, in respect to which one is not lying, while the outward purport of the words deceives the hearer, though even if one does not have such an intention and merely lies without intending anything else, it is not unlawful in the above circumstances.”

I hope that you have found these examples of Shariah law to be instructive and educational.

Yours sincerely,

Mentat

muslimconvert-

talk crap about your religion? your religion is crap! nothing but a barbaric death cult. Repent before it it too late. God isn't going to let you in to heaven with the stench of mohamed on you.

"Your grandchildren will be reverts"

hey defender of islam pig,
funny how you say islam outlawed slavery, yet today islam is the only (ahem) religion that accepts slaves, Sudan, CAR, Uganda, etc. Everybody can quote the koran or the bible, or the torah, but the reality is islam is a corrupt copy of judiasm. Then a paedophile gigolo named mohammed preached whatever was convenient for his needs at the time. Please one can not defend islam, one can yell and scream that we infedils are lying,but that is not proof. Yes the bible does say certain politicly in-correct things, but (pay attention) christians DO NOT PRACTICE those offensive biblical quotes. YOU muslims have not evolved and never you shall.

Oink to your pig brothers

This sickens me.

What a filthy pervert.

Mentat:

Dina ran away to post the same Biblical stuff on the June 5 Bush thread.

muslim convert has missed the point completely
on polygamy. It isnt about whether Muhammad
practised polygamy in 7th century AD. It is
about practice of polygamy amongst muslims now.
We can accept that Muhammad was a mortal and prone to mistakes and forgive him.

Every other religion has banned
polygamy by law now. Will the Islamic republics
ban polygamy ?

This debate is most interesting. Have seen same on many other blogs. Bottom line is what we already know in the civilized world, muslims don't want to live in peace. So, consequently, they won't. God Bless America, our troops, and Mr. Bush.

Muslimconvert,

You seem to have a pretty low opinion of those who do not hold your religious views - as evidenced in the following comment: "It would be very amusing to see you guys respond to these quotes from your Bible, but I must say, Im pretty certain you guys wont, but just bring up ayahs from the Quran, and change the whole subject." And, your comment seems to imply that just because you cannot see any answers to the quotes you have given from various biblical sources, somehow those answers do not exist. That is a mistake on your part.

Having studied both Christianity and Judaism, I can argue both. I might not cover all the quotes, because even I have limits on the tedious nature of trying to explain something ad nauseum.

Quote: ""I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare." "Look," says the Teacher, "this is what I have discovered: "Adding one thing to another to discover the scheme of things-while I was still searching but not finding- I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all."
Ecclesiastes 7:26-28

Ok, this is called wisdom literature, it is meant to be read in small doses and the person who reads is meant to reflect upon the passage as they read it carefully. Ecclesiastes (Kohelet) was written by king Solomon, the wisest man of his age - possibly of world history, but I won't belabour that. Let's start with a careful reading and then review it with a different eye. Nowhere does he say, at any time that ALL women are a trap and a snare. He says that the woman herself, "who IS a snare, whose heart IS a trap and whose hands ARE chains." This is a specific type of woman and a righteous man will have the wisdom to see through her and her designs and will escape them. But a sinner (A FOOL) won't see through her, won't see her designs and he WILL be ensnared. As to Kohelet's summation at the end, he says quite clearly that he is sifting through humanity one by one "Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher (Kohelet), counting one by one, to find out the account: Which yet my soul seeketh ..."; and the summation quote, which you failed to add, buy which is attached to it: "Lo, this only have I found, that G-d hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." I would have you note that he says that only one in a thousand men are upright - that doesn't say much about the men. One in a thousand is pretty negligible; it is not a cause for celebration.

As to the women? I don't know, I am not Solomon, perhaps he could not locate this in the women of his time. Knowing the nature of women, I pretty much agree with a fair share of the assessment. It is hard to find a righteous person. Women are a rather sneaky bunch if you ask me. They are skilled (extremely skilled) with passive agressive meanness. They smile sweetly as they stick the dagger into your heart. I am not surprised that Kohelet came up to this conclusion.

Quote 2: "let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law, and if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for woman to speak in the church."
1Corinthians 14:34-35

This is a letter written to the church in Corinth by Paul - who was an apostle to the Gentile converts in the Greco-Roman world. It was written to a specific congregation that was encountering a specific problem, that of noise during the middle of the services. The women of this congregation had a problem, apparently, with hearing what was being said and as a result, they were talking to their husbands, asking them to tell them what had just been said. Being as these women were in a section unto themselves, they were calling out in the middle of the services, "Honey, what did he say? I didn't hear that." As a result, the services were being disturbed and Paul said to tell the women they need to keep quiet in the congregation. It doesn't mean they cannot address the congregation, if need be, they are simply not to interrupt the services at that moment. If they have any questions, they can ask their husbands about it later.

Quote 3: "Say to the Israelites, 'If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter...'"
Numbers 27:8

(shakes head) Do you even read the context of the verse you are quoting from to understand what is really going on before you quote it?? I notice you did not complete the verse you are quoting and using an elipsis to say there is more. Ok, I'll put it simply here. The context of the verse you have quoted is in the section of the daughters of Zelophchad. It is a revisiting of a ruling and a specific problem that took place when Zelophchad died and there were no sons to accept his inheritance. (My gosh, this particular section of the Torah goes to express and to show just how enlightened Judaism is when it comes to females and inheritance.) So, the daughters come to Moses and say, essentially, "Our father has dies without a son and his name and inheritance is going to be lost in Israel as a result. Please don't let this happen. Give us an inheritance in our father's name so his line does not disappear from the people of Israel." Moses goes to G-d and G-d tells him to award the inheritance to the women because they are right. This is not a "flaw," this is an enlightened ruling. If not for this, then all women would never have any form of inheritance whatsoever. It is just a further explanation of the rules that are to be in place when it comes to inheritance. And, please do not think this is without a context either. The context is about the land they are to receive when the children of Israel enter into Canaan.

Quote 4: "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head...If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head"
1 Corrinthians 11:3-6

This is a Christian version of a Jewish principle. Judaism is the betrothed bride of G-d. Christians view themselves as the "bride of Christ." It is the same idea in a different context. The culture of the time in the Greco-Roman world, specifically in the Jewish context, is that a woman covers her head to show respect and fidelity. Only prostitutes went around with their hair uncovered. Apparently, the Church of Corinth had problems because the women decided they did not have to follow with customs and decided to go around with their heads uncovered. They even did this in church. As a result, other people would come into their congregations and see the women looking like prostitutes and it was not going over very well. Such behaviour was viewed as immodest and shameful. It is interesting to note - on a sidebar that in the Torah, where you have one mention of a woman's hair being uncovered, it is done in the context of the Sotah - or, the woman who is accused by her husband of infidelity. The first thing that happens with her is the priest takes her and uncovers her hair. This is considered to be the heighth of immodesty and in the world of that time was VERY shaming.

Quotes 4 & 5 were handled quite well by Kepha. Kings were a blight upon Israel, rather than a blessing. What the Torah warns about, as quoted above, is exactly what happened. They multiplied wives and horses for themselves and that was the beginning of the end. Monarchy was a very iffy thing for the Jewish people.

Quote 6: "...Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
Mark 10:11-12

There is a difference between Judaism and Christianity here - as is evidenced in this verse from Jesus. Judaism allowed/allows for divorce; Christianity does not - or, rather, I should say, it doesn't allow for remarriage after divorce. This was Jesus' words, it was his interpretation of how things should be in the ideal world. The two religions take a different stance on this issue. However, they remain consistent with their stand - there is no wishy-washiness with it.

Quote 7: "...if a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days...but if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks..."
Leviticus 12:2-5

Jews would call this law a "Hoq," which is a specific kind of law that makes no rational sense. There is more than one form of commandment in Judaism. Mishpatim, which are laws that make rational sense: such as "Thou shalt not murder." This is a rational law and is easy to understand. If you have a civilization where murder is permissable, then your civilization will not stand very long. It will fall into anarchy. Therefore a law saying you cannot murder your neighbor makes absolute and logical sense. A choq (hoq) is a law that seems to have no logical sense - such a kashrut (kosher) laws. Why not eat pig? What is wrong with pork? It tastes good and makes good eating. Why not blend wool and flax and wear them together? They make a nice material. These are hukim (plural of hoq), they don't make rational sense. In the end, you either decide to take these on faith, or you do not. That is what this law is. A woman has a male child and she is not to be touched (sexually) by her husband for 7 days and if she bears a girl it is for 14. Big deal.

Lastly, do not conflate Christianity and Judaism. Christians do not believe in keeping the Torah. They do not ascribe to all of Judaism's thoughts and practices. If they did they would be more like Jews. Jews, on the other hand, do not believe in Christian doctrines - such as the deity of Jesus. To put the two together in the same breath is highly disingenous.

Paula, I am impressed. However, there is a lot that the New Testament takes from the Old, and as a Calvinist, I see precedent for the NT Presbyterial/Congregational form of church government in the way the synagogues of the diaspora were operated. Also, in Colossians, Paul speaks of Baptism as Circumcision, and in COrinthians, he speaks of Christ as our passover... well the list goes on.

Further, much as I disagree with him about much, I am grateful to Mahmoud for introducing at one point something about the contexts of Qu'ranic verses. Part of my answer was to pull out more Scriptural context. However, since the Christian Bible (especially the Old Testament) covers a lot more history and has a larger message than the Qu'ran, the appreciation of its contexts is a correspondingly more difficult task.

Dina,

You don’t even bother trying to hide your lies, do you?

One of the very first thing Mohammed personally did in the beginning of Islam in 634 was to behead 600 Jewish men, and sell their wives and children into slavery.

Islam is responsible for creating more slaves than any other single religion on Earth.

You somehow are able to spew the lie that the Torah copies the qu’ran, even though the Torah predates it by over a millennia. That’s over a thousand years.

Keep the lies coming, Dina.

We find them quite amusing.

owens, you said: "Islam is responsible for creating more slaves than any other single religion on Earth." uh huh. try going from 200,000 to 700,000 within 50 years. (this is during the years of slavery.) workers that the muslims have are treated as their owner's equals. you think we follow everything our religion says, then we muslims also follow this order, which is to treat our workers very fairly. i dont think that the african americans enjoyed their life as slaves. not even slaves, more like animals, because im sure you know at least a little about that horrible time in american history.
"You somehow are able to spew the lie that the Torah copies the qu’ran, even though the Torah predates it by over a millennia. That’s over a thousand years." the torah was sent down before the quran. actually, all the books were sent down before the quran: the torah, bible and the scrolls, and all brought the same message. yet there was one little thing- the people who recieved that book always changed it to suit their own personal needs. so, if it was constantly being changed, dont we need another book that will teach the next people? the quran has never changed, nor will it ever be changed.

you know, all work and no play, etc.

“You seem to have a pretty low opinion of those who do not hold your religious views-“
No, I have a low opinion for those who insist on spreading crap about Islam.

Posted by Dina at June 9, 2004 04:51 PM

Actually, Dina, I thought I was responding to muslimconvert - it was she who made the posting to which I was commenting. Unless, you ARE muslimconvert, which I doubt.

enough said.

To bring up a subject from earlier in the thread about child brides, here is an example of why young girls (children) being married is a potential disaster: http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200401/tows_past_20040116_b.jhtml .

According to my friend, who saw this particular show, there are thousands of young girls in Africa who are married as children. They become pregnant at a very early age when they are physically too small to bring a child to term. Their pelvises are too small for the babies they are carrying. Then, in the birth of the child, they develop fistulas, or holes which are created in their tissues from the tearing that takes place in the labor and delivery. After the birth of their child they are suddenly faced with another problem: both their bowels and urine leak out of the holes made from the tears in their bodies and they begin to smell. Their husbands then decide to build a hut outside where they are banished as a result. It is all very sad.

Although there a people on this thread who have said that a nine year old is not too young to be sexually involved, I challenge them to look a little further into the wisdom of marrying a pre-pubescent girl to anyone. It is not only a travesty to the girl - should such a problem result - it is absolutely sick on many levels.

Yeah, Paula, lots of horrific and extremely painful and crippling things happen to young girls who are forced to carry babies at too young an age. But you forgot one major thing: they're just females. So it doesn't matter. Females are 3rd class behind the farm animals. They're there to alleviate a man's "needs" and to whelp his kids. If she dies, well, he can just marry another one. Easy peasy. This is Islam.

Seriously though, it's truly despicable that they wouldn't care about these things. Truly, truly despicable. God Bless these poor children! (But not Allah. He doesn't care. He's part of the problem.)

So, Dina, you fault me for a certain concern for a wife who developed a few serious health problems (since it seems you MUST know)? Do you think I should convert to Islam so I could take a second as a seminal spitoon?

And what flaws in the Bible did I admit? Did I ever claim to buy into feminism beyond suffrage and equal pay for equal work?

Another thing, Dina. My wife comes from a land where the whole idea of female literacy was introduced by "fundamentalist" Christian missionaries, and she has a Master's, thank you. Had God blessed us with better health and a few daughters, we'd have educated them, too. It seems you get your idea that we are against female education from Margaret Attwood's _Handmaid's Tale_, no? It's the 2oth century feminazi veersion of the legend of Little Saint Hugh or Simon of Trent--and my guess is that Ms. Attwood probably loves you Muslims less than she loves us. At least I have the decency to recognize that Salman Rushdie probably wrote _Satanic Verses_ for an audience closer to him than myself, rather than take it as the last word on South Asian-origin Muslims.

taranis, for your information, i also saw that Oprah special when the women are being abused. to let you know, none of thise women are muslims.
300 years ago, there was a large confrence held in the Vatican, and many prestigious christian leaders were called to attend. the subject: does the woman have a soul?

as a woman, what am i supposed to think of that?

Paula, Aisha was not pregnant at age 9.

Yes, muslimpride, thankfully for her she was not... but the point is, she could have been had the situation worked out differently. And, that was the whole point I was driving at. A girl being sexually active at the age of nine is criminal.

why dont you tell that to your preists?

why dont you tell that to your preists?