Lebanese TV presenter goes to Saudi Arabia for pilgrimage, gets sentenced to death for "sorcery"

It is ironic that the overzealous Christians who got caught up in witch trials long ago would today be defending our civilization from the evil Islam whereas the castrated modern "Christians" are not.

How do you determine the difference between black and white magic?

I see it as an attempt by one belief system to exclude or limit the competition of another belief system. Or one type of magical thinking defining another kind as evil or deviant.

The current Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses divination and magic under the heading of the First Commandment.

It is careful to allow for the possibility of divinely inspired prophecy, but it rejects "all forms of divination":

(2116) All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.

The section on "practices of magic or sorcery" is less absolute, specifying "attempts to tame occult powers" in order to "have supernatural power over others". Such are denounced as "gravely contrary to the virtue of religion", notably avoiding a statement on whether such attempts can have any actual effect (that is, attempts to employ occult practices are identified as violating the First Commandment because they in themselves betray a lack of faith, and not because they may or may not result in the desired effect).

The Catechism expresses skepticism towards widespread practices of folk Catholicism without outlawing them explicitly:

(2117) [...] Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity.

Sorcery is indeed a form of paganism as it trivializes the ineffable awe of the Creator. But persecuting people for it, especially by execution, is unjust and shows that the Islamic authorites in Saudi Arabia are at least as primitive and superstitious as any alleged wizards.
In modern cultures, sorcery is generally looked at as harmless entertainment. In any case, the power of prognosticators is usually severely curtailed when things don't turn out as they say they will. As Yogi Berra once put it, "It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future."

Ipso Facto wrote:

Islam considers magic to be an act of blasphemy. Thus, the Holy Quran say...

In an authentic saying, the Prophet of Islam p.b.u.h. said...
...........................

"The Holy Quran"? The "Prophet of Islam p.b.u.h."?

Ipso Facto, have you gone completely round the bend from practicing such tortured moral equivalence and just "reverted"?

It is not incumbent upon any Infidel to refer to the odious Qu'ran as "Holy", nor to rush to intone "Peace be Upon Him" whenever the name of the murderous Mohammed is uttered.

By the way, when was the last time *the Catholics* sentenced someone to death, either for "sorcery" or "blasphemy"?

Recall that Ipso Facto is the same Mr. Equivalence who attempted to equate "war-crimes" by the United States in WWII to the controversial Aremenian Genocide by the Turks.
If he can make that leap then anything's possible!

So sorcery is a form of magic and therefore blasphemi. And we all know what the punishment for blasphemi is according to a strict interpretation of the Sharia law.

Indeed. To believe in sorcery is to believe in "partners" to Allah (i.e., to believe in spirits who can compete with Allah in one way or another). Sorcery = Shirk. Shirk is to be punished with death according to Shariah.

Nope, its one strike on the back of the neck.

Chilling but true--their version of a "warning-shot"--to the HEAD!

"If I had the knowledge of the unseen, I should have secured abundance for myself, and no evil would have touched me" (7:188).

At least Muhammad admits that he had no control whatsoever over his base desires, that whatever knowledge he had he would have used it to the fullest to attempt to satisfy his own lusts.

If goes without saying that Jesus had such knowledge and absolute control over the seen and the unseen yet was still able to live a pure life as the true example to all.

Muhammad is an example to no one wanting to live a good and decent life. Every living being should run from the example of Muhammad.

"Some of you are just catching on to Ipso Fatso's grudge against the Catholic Church.

Fatso's been a poser here and attacked Christians before, equating all faiths as screwy."

All I did was quoting the current position of the Catholic Church on magic and sorcery. Why do you treat me like Geert Wilders? Are you an islamist?

Unlike you, I do not refer to the Qu'ran as "holy," nor do I bestow "peace be upon him" when referring to the Anti-Christ, Mohammed.

More self-projection, I guess.

No one here is confusing you with Geert Wilders. And there is no reason to bring the Church into this; their "current" position is 2,000 years old.

"It is not incumbent upon any Infidel to refer to the odious Qu'ran as "Holy", nor to rush to intone "Peace be Upon Him" whenever the name of the murderous Mohammed is uttered."

Sorry to have broken the unofficial moral code for this debate. I was just quoting an autoritative Islamic text.

"By the way, when was the last time *the Catholics* sentenced someone to death, either for "sorcery" or "blasphemy"?"

If you by "the Catholics" mean "Catholic countries" and not just those (relatively few) convicted to death by the Catholic Inquisition, the answer is 1793 or maybe 1811, in Catholic Poland:

"Doruchów witch trial, was a witch trial which took place in the village of Doruchów in Poland in the 18th-century. It was one of the most famous witch trials in Poland, and it was to be the last mass trial of sorcery and witch craft in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The trial allegedly resulted in the execution of 14 women in 1775, and led to the ban on witch burning in Poland. In reality, the trial likely took place in 1783, with six victims instead of 14, having no actual effect on the law.

In 1793, however, another - certainly the last - witch trial took place in independent Poland. During the second partition of Poland that year, a local judge in the city of Poznań cited the partitions and transition from Polish to Prussian authority as a basis for the voiding of Polish laws banning trial and executions of witches. He accepted an accusation about two women with inflamed eyes, who were said to have enchanted their neighbor's cattle. They were judged guilty of witch craft and burned (Gijswijt-Hofstra et al. 1999). In 1811 Barbara Zdunk was executed, but the trial was dubious."

Details about Barbara Zdunk:

"Barbara Zdunk, (1769-August 21 1811), was an ethnically Polish alleged arsonist and witch who lived in the city of Reszel, now in Poland but between 1772 and 1945 part of Prussia. She is considered by many to have been the last woman executed for witchcraft in Europe. This is doubtful because witchcraft was not a criminal offence in Prussia at the time. It is thus likely that she was convicted, formally at least and most probably wrongly, of arson.
In 1806, a devastating fire ravaged the city of Reszel, which burnt almost entirely to the ground. Zdunk, who was a maid known for her fondness of magic, was blamed. She was arrested in 1807, and imprisoned in the Reszel castle. With no evidence of substance available, she was still accused and found guilty of causing the fire. Zdunk was executed by burning on a funeral pyre on a hill outside Reszel in 1811, though she was apparently strangled to death by the executioner before the fire was set. It is believed today that a group of Polish soldiers were the actual arsonists. There is uncertainty as to the true reason for Zdunk's conviction, which was upheld by several appeal courts, up to the king himself. Revenge on Poland on the part of the Prussian authorities or a concession to an outraged public may have played a role, or that she was a 38-year-old woman who had a teenage boyfriend.

Similarly to the execution of Anna Göldi in 1782, who is frequently claimed to be the last person to be executed for witchcraft in Europe, it is dubious whether the trial of Barbara Zdunk can be counted as a witch trial in a legal sense.

Does this answer your question?

IF said:

"All I did was quoting the current position of the Catholic Church on magic and sorcery. Why do you treat me like Geert Wilders? Are you an islamist?"

a) They didn't; you are no Geert Wilders!

b) Not likely, but much of the anti-Catholic sentiment we are witnessing today is an attempt by Islamists to make an "Islam is equal to Catholicism" case. Hint4U: that is utter insanity.

Trying to start a witch hunt? ;-)

I wondered what the very talented though somewhat pompous and full of oneself Penn/Teller had to say about Islam and a quick google turned up some interesting bits. Another interested observer questioned whether they had done a "Bullsh*t" show for Islam in the same way they did for the Bible, answer, not likely since they are still alive.

But really, when people like them even get Islam wrong and tiptoe around it you know the West is in serious trouble.

Here Teller is on Islam:
http://www.pennandteller.com/03/coolstuff/tellerspeaks/telleressayformationofeurope.html

Over the next two centuries, two Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Islam, became aggressive. Both were based on fundamentally the same mythology, and each saw itself as the only true religion, and both wanted non-believers on ice.

Had Europe failed in its attempts to fend off those two terrifying invaders, we would -- no doubt -- have had a very different America. But what would the differences have been?

It's reasonable to guess that if Islam *as it is today* were ruling modern America, the rights of individuals would count less. But we really should ask: Given that the Muslims had relatively sophisticated mathematics and substantial access to the ancient Greek thought, might their culture have taken a different turn if it had been exposed to France's vineyards and England's cold and fog? Is there anything intrinsic in Islam that makes it more destructive to reason and science than Christianity?

Is there something in the chillier, darker climate of Europe that permits reason to pierce, here and there, the psychotic armor of religions born in the desert?

Christianity is not exactly a sane or tolerant faith. Nor does it play well with reason and science. If the Muslims had won at Tours, would Islam have stretched as much as Christianity did? Or would the Inquisition just have had different costumes? Would Galileo have been persecuted by imams?

If the broomstick fits... :-)

"Sorcery is indeed a form of paganism as it trivializes the ineffable awe of the Creator. But persecuting people for it, especially by execution, is unjust and shows that the Islamic authorites in Saudi Arabia are at least as primitive and superstitious as any alleged wizards."

The term "pagan" is a Christian adaptation of the "gentile" of Judaism, and as such has an inherent Abrahamic bias, and pejorative connotations among Western monotheists, comparable to heathen and infidel also known as kafir (كافر) and mushrik in Islam. For this reason, ethnologists avoid the term "paganism," with its uncertain and varied meanings, in referring to traditional or historic faiths, preferring more precise categories such as polytheism, shamanism, pantheism, or animism.

So by your own definition the Christian churches - christians - have acted unjust for hundred of years by the persecution of heretics, witches and sorceres.

The first case in Christianity was in 383 when Priscillian of Avila was executed. He was accused of Manichaeism, but the official reason for burning him was witchcraft. The last case took place in Poland in 1793 or 1811 where witches were burned on the stake.

So the Christians burned heretics, sorcerers and whitches for a period of 1,428 years. Islam only for 1,388 years and counting ... ;-)

The burning alive of witches was justified by Exodus 22:18, Deuteronomy 18:10, Galatians 5:19 and John 15:6: "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6)

"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6)

Surely you are sophisticated enough to understand the allegory of the vine and branches? Why suggest it is something other than that?

"I am the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without me ye can do nothing."

There can't be any fruit on a branch that doesn't remain on the vine. Only an abiding branch will bring forth good fruit. So every Christian bears fruit; there is no such thing as a fruitless Christian. Jesus said, "Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit" (Matt. 7:17). Jesus even said you can tell whether a man is saved or not by his fruit: "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matt. 7:16). He says basically the same thing in John 15:5. Although it may be difficult to find, there will always be fruit in the life of a believer. There may be lapses when he doesn't experience the fullness of abiding in Christ, but there will be fruit in his life because the indwelling Christ will produce it.

And as dead wood is burned in the fire so will those without Christ face the fires of Hell - in the next life.

That´s the advantage of Christianity compared to Islam. Interpretations and practicies may change because of growth in reason and morality.

Actually many present day Christians have adoptated secular ethical norms and behave rather tolerant and humanistic. Some of them even adhere to the the modern norms making child marriage (and peadophilia) immoral. We just need to convince some Chatholic priests that sex with alterboys or small girls is sinful. Maybee exorcism could solve the problem without going outside the religious paradigme?

I guess this means that Penn and Teller, and David Copperfield, well, stage magicians in general, should probably consider scratching off Saudi Arabia from any vacation itineraries they're planning.

That makes me think of an idea for David Blaine's next magic stunt: go to Saudi Arabia and perform magic on a street corner and see how many hours he can last.

Ipso Facto's post reveals something probably unintended: the relative lateness in time in history of those witch trials in various parts of Europe is rather ironic, as I learned from my History of Christianity professor at the American university I attended years ago: I.e., the bulk of witch trials occurred long after the Dark Ages, yea, long after the Middle Ages, and coincided with those far more humanist eras, the late Rennaissance and early Enlightenment, when in fact the hold of Christianity had long been loosening, letting loose all manner of heterodox and heretical belief into society. That, combined with the fact that the increasingly skeptical Moderns were tending to arouse an unfortunately rigidly doctrinaire attitude from the Christians, both sides thus tending to neglect or forget the rich philosophical tradition of the medieval era.

" ... much of the anti-Catholic sentiment we are witnessing today is an attempt by Islamists to make an "Islam is equal to Catholicism" case. Hint4U: that is utter insanity.

As an agnostic I don´t belong to that crowd. To me any organized religion is wishful magical thinking or superstition. I view their different tenants soly from an ethical point of view. The problem is that logically there can only exsist ONE monotheistic religion in the world. As we have three each of them must define the other two as false beliefs.

Historically the Catholics have been more positive and tolerant towards Islam than the evangelical Lutherans.

" ... Modern scholars, such as Sprenger, Noldeke, Weil, Muir, Koelle, Grimme, Margoliouth, give us a more correct and unbiased estimate of Mohammed's life and character, and substantially agree as to his motives, prophetic call, personal qualifications, and sincerity. The various estimates of several recent critics have been ably collected and summarized by Zwemer, in his "Islam, a Challenge to Faith" (New York, 1907). According to Sir William Muir, Marcus Dods, and some others, Mohammed was at first sincere, but later, carried away by success, he practised deception wherever it would gain his end. Koelle "finds the key to the first period of Mohammed's life in Khadija, his first wife", after whose death he became a prey to his evil passions. Sprenger attributes the alleged revelations to epileptic fits, or to "a paroxysm of cataleptic insanity".

The morals of Islam:

"That in the ethics of Islam there is a great deal to admire and to approve, is beyond dispute; but of originality or superiority, there is none. What is really good in Mohammedan ethics is either commonplace or borrowed from some other religions, whereas what is characteristic is nearly always imperfect or wicked."

(Quoted from article in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917)

Luther defined Islam as a Christian Heresy in the Augsburg Confession from 1530:

Chief Articles of Faith

Article I: Of God.

Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting; that is to say, there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and yet there are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And the term "person" they use as the Fathers have used it, to signify, not a part or quality in another, but that which subsists of itself.

They condemn all heresies which have sprung up against this article, as the Manichaeans, who assumed two principles, one Good and the other Evil: also the Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians, Mohammedans, and all such. They condemn also the Samosatenes, old and new, who, contending that there is but one Person, sophistically and impiously argue that the Word and the Holy Ghost are not distinct Persons, but that "Word" signifies a spoken word, and "Spirit" signifies motion created in things.

"That´s the advantage of Christianity compared to Islam. Interpretations and practicies may change because of growth in reason and morality."

But be careful not to suggest that man is somehow improving upon the message of Christ by softening it or changing it. The words of Christ in the allegories he shared are just as correct then as they have always been. If some have misinterpreted them and we think that we now have some better interpretation does not change anything. The rightness and wisdom were there from the start. Modern man can add nothing to the discussion, in fact, for the most part modern Christianity has watered down the message of Christ and substituted liberal messages more acceptable to a pablum seeking people unable to accept harsh criticism and still sit in the pews and contribute in the collection baskets. All that anyone will accept is happy talk and unfortunately that results in a perverted message and Christians incapable of even condemning Islam in the modern era.

Ipso

read David Bentley Hart, 'Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and its Fashionable Enemies', the chapter entitled "Intolerance and Persecution".

It contains a few surprises.

"As entertaining as it might be, for instance, to think of the Middle Ages as a time of inquisitors burning thousands of witches at the stake,

"it was not until the early modern period - especially from the late sixteenth century through the middle of the seventeenth - that a great enthusiasm for hunting witches sprang up in various regions of Western Europe and, over three centuries (say, from the middle of the fifteenth century to the middle of the eighteenth) claimed anywhere from thirty thousand to sixty thousand lives,

"though not generally at the prompting or with the approval of the Catholic church.

"As far as the church's various regional inquisitions are concerned, their *principal role* {Hart's emphasis} in the early modern witch hunts was to suppress them: to quiet mass hysteria through the imposition of judicial process, to restrain the cruelty of secular courts, and to secure dismissals in practically every case.

"It is true, admittedly, that belief in sorcery and magic persisted from the antique through the early modern periods, and true also that there were practitioners of folk magic and even a few of 'maleficent' magic...

"But during the better part of the Middle Ages most magic practices were largely ignored or treated with lenience - a sentence of penance and reconciliation with the church, for instance, such as one finds in early 'penitentials' - *and belief in the real efficacy of magic was treated as a heathen superstition* (my emphasis - dda}."

Quite right Hugh - if I recall the exhibit I saw illustrated a defendant being tortured to confess by having stones piled on a board or door on top of him until he died.
He never did confess. Pretty similar to the Inquisition, actually.

Thanks for that link. Teller is obviously another moral-equivalence idiot steeped in the Leftist's skewed view of history. So, I think he should be encouraged to arrange a show in Mecca, say during the Hajj. That way he will be able to learn first hand about all those wonderful virtues of Islam he extols. (But before going he might first want to dispel all those nasty rumors about his homosexuality.)

"But be careful not to suggest that man is somehow improving upon the message of Christ by softening it or changing it. The words of Christ in the allegories he shared are just as correct then as they have always been. .."

I admit that the second part of the commandment, Mark. 12:31: "The second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these" comes very close to my own ethics based on rational thinking.

The problem with this commandment is that it does not explicidly make a distinction between wishes and needs independent of wishes. Also, just like the Golden Rule, it does not specify the duties toward one self and gives no reason for the obligations towards other persons. Belief is not a reason.

As persons we are all without exception by our reason obliged to follow "The ethical demand of consistency". If some of us understand this as a religious obligation and not just a logical claim is a private matter and it need not make any significant difference when it comes to practical policy.

Also the minor differences may be corrected through new interpretations.

The ethical demand of consistency implies a rational minimal claim which apply to any person: You should act in consistence with that other persons can live as persons without going beyond the conditions allowing yourself to live as a person.

You should therefore help other persons in need of assistance if you can do it without too much risk to your own existence.

In such a situation I think that a Christian acting in accordance with "the greatest commandment" would go further to save the life of a fellow man. What do you think?

Only one person, Giles Corey, was put to death that way. The rest were hung.

I am well aware of the history, and I agree that the Inquisition was not nearly as bad as its present reputation. In the protestant countries much more witches were burned denied any legal rights or due process. Luther suffered from whitchomania and blamed the Catholic Church to be too lenient in cases of witchcraft.

"... though not generally at the prompting or with the approval of the Catholic church."

Let us not forget that Pope John XXII formalized the persecution of witchcraft in 1320 when he authorized the Inquisition to prosecute sorcery. Thereafter papal bulls and declarations grew increasingly vehement in their condemnation of witchcraft and of all those who "made a pact with hell."

In 1484 Pope Innocent VIII issued the bull "Summis desiderantes" condemming women as evil animals and authorizing two inquisitors, Kramer and Sprenger, to systematize the persecution of witches. Two years later their manual, Malleus Maleficarum, was published with 14 editions following between 1487-1520 and at least 16 editions between 1574-1669.

A papal bull in 1488 called upon the nations of Europe to rescue the Church of Christ which was "imperiled by the arts of Satan." The papacy and the Inquisition had successfully transformed the witch from a phenomenon whose existence the Church had previously rigorously denied into a phenomenon that was deemed very real, very frightening, the antithesis of Christianity, and absolutely deserving of persecution.

It was now heresy not to believe in the existence of witches.

As the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum noted, "A belief that there are such things as witches is so essential a part of Catholic faith that obstinately to maintain the opposite opinion savors of heresy."

Passages in the Bible such as "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" were cited to justify the persecution of witches. Both Calvin and Knox believed that to deny witchcraft was to deny the authority of the Bible. The eighteenth century founder of Methodism, John Wesley, declared to those skeptical of witchcraft, "The giving up of witchcraft is in effect the giving up of the Bible." And an eminent English lawyer wrote, "To deny the possibility, nay, actual existence of Witchcraft and Sorcery, is at once flatly to contradict the revealed Word of God in various passages both of the Old and New Testament."

Very few witches were actually burned at the stake after conviction by the Inquisition. You are quite right when you note:

"But during the better part of the Middle Ages most magic practices were largely ignored or treated with lenience - a sentence of penance and reconciliation with the church, for instance, such as one finds in early 'penitentials' - *and belief in the real efficacy of magic was treated as a heathen superstition*"

That changed dramatically with the publication of "Malleus Maleficarum" in 1486 when belief in witchcraft changed status from "heathen superstition" to official Chatholic dogma.

St. Margaret Clitherow was a Catholic martyred by the Church of England for harboring priests (how pope-ish!)

She was crushed under 800 lb. of rock.

I thought I'd add this little post since we changed the thread topic from Islamic death sentences to Christian ones. There'll all the same, ya know.

Oh, quite a while ago I understand that the Mullahs in Iran had decided that 'Harry Potter' was all a Zionist plot...

I won't comment on consistency at this time but generally note that it is or should be at least impressive to even non-Christians who examine with serious rigor, the Bible. The amount of depth, the amount of comparisons of verses going through all the books old and new testament, is staggering. One could literally study the bible their entire life and still find new revelations in it on your death bed. In comparison the Koran is a brutish grunt of disjointed texts devoid of beauty, intelligence, grace, complexity, wisdom, knowledge, in the way that the Bible is overflowing. Even if one is not a Christian, if one is serious, it takes a genuinely serious effort to seriously discredit the bible in toto. Most who dismiss the Bible are mere babes in terms of their own knowledge of it.

Margaret Clitheroe (or Clitherow) was judicially murdered in the 16th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Clitherow

She was not killed for witchcraft, but because she refused to plead innocent or guilty, after having been accused of the political crime of 'harbouring Roman Catholic priests'.

Interestingly, she was an adult *convert* to Catholicism...and married to a *Protestant* (with a Catholic clergy brother!) who did not hinder her attempts to assist the Catholics who were at that time undergoing a political persecution; nor did her Protestant husband appear to have opposed their son's decision to go abroad to study to become a priest. Margaret's decision to refuse to plead seems to have been undertaken in order to protect her family.

Interestingly, Elizabeth I is said to have *disapproved* of the killing, and rebuked the citizens of York for it.

The English Catholic poet, Gerard Manly Hopkins, wrote a poem about her.

Barbaric and tragic as Margaret's death was, the society in which she lived still seems to me to have been rather different in atmosphere from that of Muslim Saudi Arabia.

"judicially murdered" is what this newscaster will be in Saudi Arabia...

"Barbaric and tragic as Margaret's death was, the society in which she lived still seems to me to have been rather different in atmosphere from that of Muslim Saudi Arabia."

I guess if you weren't Catholic it was.

My point here is not equating the religions. It was a parody of someone else here whose continual attempts to do so has become tiresome.

"In 1484 Pope Innocent VIII issued the bull "Summis desiderantes" condemming women as evil animals"

Where have we seen posts like Ipso Facto's before? -- littered and peppered with 1,001 factoids that serve to obfuscate the few essential points under contention, and which in addition require us to expend time tracking down to verify, and when we do, we find sometimes subtle, sometimes blatant mischaracterizations in his reportage.

That historical claim quoted above smells preposterous and dubious. But I don't feel like hunting it down.

"In 1484 Pope Innocent VIII issued the bull "Summis desiderantes" condemming women as evil animals"

Hesperato: "That historical claim quoted above smells preposterous and dubious. But I don't feel like hunting it down."

I do, because we must be sceptical and question everything, like Buddha said:

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

So I went on double checking my source and comparing it to other sources. My primary source is a Danish book of quotations. With Reference to Pope Innocent VIII and his bull "Summis desiderantes" it says: "Kvinden er et ondt og ufuldkomment dyr" (The women is an evil and imperfect animal).

But is it true that the papal bull include those exact words?

According to my new and more authoritative source the author of the Danish quotation book seems to mix up some parts of the papal bull and its atmospherics with the text of "Malleus Maleficarum" empowered by Pope, and sums up the most negative description of women from the two sources in the quote.

Malleus Maleficarum is considered one of the most evil books ever written. In my opinion The Qur’an tops the list, followered by the Complete Works of Lenin and Mein Kampf.

Here some relevant quotations from my new source:

"The Malleus Maleficarum (The Witches' Hammer) was a thorough witch-hunter's manual. It was written in the witch mania during the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Contained in it were complete instructions on the prosecution of witches. First published in Germany in 1486, it quickly proliferated into many editions spreading throughout Europe and England. The impact of the work was felt in witch trials on the Continent for almost 200 years.

The work's authors were two inquisitors of the Dominican order, Heinrich Krammer and James Sprenger. These two men were empowered by Pope Innocent VIII in his Bull of December 9, 1484 to prosecute witches throughout northern Germany. The purpose of the papal edict was to squash the Protestant opposition to the inquisition and to solidify the case made in 1258 by Pope Alexander IV for the prosecution of witches as heretics.

It was the opinion of the Church that the secular arm, the civil courts was not punishing witches enough on the basis of their Maleficia. The effects of the Bull 'Summis desiderantes affectibus' (Desiring with Supreme Ardor) and the Malleus Maleficarum soon spread beyond Germany, going throughout Europe and into England. Both Protestant and Catholic civil and ecclesiastical judges quickly adopted it.

...

A basic tenet is that not to believe in the existence of witchcraft is a heresy since God acknowledged witches. The sexism of the Malleus Maleficarum is unmistakable:

Although the work states both men and women can become witches, women are more susceptible. Several reasons for this are given: "Because the female sex is more concerned with things of the flesh than men"; being formed from a man's rib they are "only imperfect animals" and "crooked" whereas man belongs to a privileged sex from whose midst Christ emerged. The authors' main reason for the increase in witchcraft among women laid in the "vile contention between married and unmarried women." And, "They warned against the 'spitefulness of womankind.'"

The authors protested they were not misogynists but their entire work contained a pathological hatred of women. And the reader having a psychoanalytical viewpoint would readily agree when coming on their lengthy commentaries on witches' ability to hamper the generative powers of men, and to disturb sexual relationships in general."

(Source "The MYSTICA" - encyclopedia of the occult, mysticism, magic, paranormal and more..."

Link:

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/m/malleus_maleficarum.htm

One of the reasons we enter into a free debate is to learn from each other. I am grateful for all the things I learned on this site from contributors who are much more knowledable than me in the finer details of Islam. And I am grateful to Hesperato for sowing doubt in my mind so I could learn from my little mistake of relying on a single source.

Ipso Facto wrote:

"By the way, when was the last time *the Catholics* sentenced someone to death, either for "sorcery" or "blasphemy"?"

If you by "the Catholics" mean "Catholic countries"...

In 1793, however, another - certainly the last - witch trial took place in independent Poland...

Does this answer your question?
...................

Why yes, it does. Perhaps now we can begin to deal with other scourges of our time, such as doctor's indiscriminate use of bleeding and purges—oh, wait—that hasn't been a serious problem since the *18th century*.

Or perhaps we can finally take on the injustice of the press gang? Oh, wait...

Sorry, only the first four words of your reply made any sence to me: "Why yes, it does". Thank you for that!

If you want to discuss other subjects please formulate the questions in a concistent way. By the way, the key words here are "sorcery" and "punishment".

...it says: "Kvinden er et ondt og ufuldkomment dyr" (The women is an evil and imperfect animal).

A little problem in your translation: "The women is" is grammatical nonsense.

...the author of the Danish quotation book seems to mix up some parts of the papal bull and its atmospherics with the text of "Malleus Maleficarum" empowered by Pope...

Oh? And what is your proof that that particular Pope "empowered" that text? (You also need to define "empower" in that context.)

...and sums up the most negative description of women from the two sources in the quote.

Also not yet substantiated by you is whether these particular women were deemed evil by the "Malleus Maleficarum" because they were witches, or because they were women. You just try to slide that in to augment the general ambiance of your Gestalt of claims. You in fact slide in innumerable such factoids to create a general impression, but each one examined closely turns out to be unsubstantiated, and sometimes when hunted down mischaracterized.

You go on to quote from some source that states claims but provides no sources, secondary or primary, for the reader to check.

One of your paragraphs pasted in comes closer, but unfortunately continues to neglect to provide sources for the reader to check:

E.g.:

Although the work states both men and women can become witches, women are more susceptible. Several reasons for this are given: "Because the female sex is more concerned with things of the flesh than men"; being formed from a man's rib they are "only imperfect animals" and "crooked" whereas man belongs to a privileged sex from whose midst Christ emerged.

Okay. What I need now is edition and page number for each of these claims; and an online version of the one this source of yours is using would be nice, so I can go straight to the source and see for myself.

More from your paste:

The authors protested they were not misogynists...

Now that's interesting. It sounds like there might have been an argument presented in the Malleus Maleficarum distinguishing the purported ostensibly misogynous statements therein from a position that may be defensibly not misogynous. But we'll never know if we only rely on your wholly tendentious source which, of course, does not elaborate on that interesting phrase quoted above -- except to claim, without specific citations, that it's not true.

Ipso Facto,

While your efforts at following up may be appreciated, and while the quote you provided ostensibly supports the claim of misogyny defended in that 16th century book, I do not wish to spend more of my time unraveling this particular warp & weave of questions. To me the more relevant issue is that Christianity has progressed and is no longer a danger (if it ever was), while Islam has not, and too many of the Muslims who come forward to claim they represent a harmless and even reformist Islam turn out to be either demented or in fact extremists who were lying. The danger from innumerable Muslims today trying to kill us in horrific ways is simply too pressing to burden our concern about it with abstrusely dusty questions of history that no longer apply. In another context, having majored Western history in college and having read copiously in various aspects of it over the years (particularly before 911 when the grotesquely alarming danger of Islam came on my radar and demanded more of my time as a concerned citizen), I might well be interested in taking time to read about the Malleus Maleficarum and its misogyny. Certainly, the possibility that the authors of that text apparently (according to your source) presented an argument denying their misogyny would be an excellent thesis for any young graduate student in European history to research and publish.

Ipso Facto wrote:

Sorry, only the first four words of your reply made any sence to me: "Why yes, it does". Thank you for that!

If you want to discuss other subjects please formulate the questions in a concistent way. By the way, the key words here are "sorcery" and "punishment".
....................

I'm sorry, Ipso Facto—I suppose my references were too obscure for you. My point is this: even if, as you claim—and this can be debated—there was a terrible threat to "witches" in the West right up until the 18th-century, this *is no longer the case*.

this what I meant by my references to doctors' indiscriminate use of bleeding and the press gang—these were serious issues in the 1700s. Like witch trials in the West, they are *not so today*.

We can discuss the fine points of the 15th-century Malleus Maleficarum all day long—but this is no more that an ugly historical curiosity in the West today—and it has been no more than that *for centuries*.

Meanwhile, this poor, foolish Lebanese TV prognosticator has been *sentenced to death* in "modern" Saudi Arabia.

I do not believe the "key words here are 'sorcery' and 'punishment'". I believe the key words are "Islam" and "barbarity".

A hadith says that reading of lines as used by the prophet Daniel is OK, that refers to Astrology. The wise men who came from Iran, are found in the gospels. Matthew 2:1-2, properly translated refers to Magi, who came to pay homage, not to worship Jesus. They could see the future by astrology, but that is not fortune telling. Palmistry is allowed as well it is not fortune telling, it is a practical means to correct problems in your life before they happen. Evolution tells us someday that we will be like the angels. When that happens we will have cosmic wisdom. In the meantime astrology, and palmistry help us grow to be like angels.

Fortune telling is where one uses a scared ancient science and prostitutes it by requiring money be offered for the service. Astrology, and palmistry may be used in acquiring a cure for a patient, so the cure may be paid, but in that case the person must have a qualifying license in medicine. A few medical doctors even today use astrology, and palmistry to help them cure the patient.