| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Over the next few days, as more details emerge about the murders of Amina and Sarah Said, we will see Islamic spokesmen on TV (Ibrahim Hooper is probably sitting for make-up as you read this) explaining that honor killing is a cultural practice that has nothing to do with Islam, and of course above all the one thing we must avoid doing in the aftermath of these murders is entertain for even a moment the possibility that Islamic attitudes and atmospherics had anything to do with the deaths of these girls. And Alan Colmes will nod sagely and agree that Islamophobia is a terrible problem, and Sean Hannity will burble about the "hijacking of a great religion," and Glenn Beck will assure us that the Qur'an teaches nonviolence, and a splendid time is guaranteed for all. No one will dream of holding the American Muslim community accountable for aiding and abetting the creation of a culture of violence against women. Oh no. That would be "Islamophobic."
And so this Yemen Times piece comes particularly ill-timed for Hooper and other Islamic spokesmen in the West, who spill large amounts of ink assuring us that oh no, no Muslim takes Qur'an 4:34, the Muslim holy book's notorious verse commanding the beating of disobedient women, at face value. Oh no. No Muslim actually beats his wife, or if he does, he does it only with a toothbrush, and anyway, well, wife-beating is cross-cultural, isn't it? It isn't as if no American wife has ever been beaten.
And certainly that's true: wife-beating is cross-cultural, but that doesn't prove a thing, and bringing it up only ensures that the Islamic community in America will, in the wake of the murders of Amina and Sarah Said, once again be absolved of all responsibility, and exempted from all accountability -- because after all, everyone does it, don't they?
Anyway, in the Yemen Times today, Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy doesn't say anything about toothbrushes, or everyone doing it, or anything at all except that women should be beaten when disobedient, because the Qur'an says so.
This is the culture that killed Amina and Sarah Said. This is the culture that killed Aqsa Parvez. This is the culture whose leaders persist in denial, obfuscation, and finger-pointing instead of honest dealing with the problem.
"There must be violence against women," by Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy in the Yemen Times (thanks to Morgaan Sinclair):
This title may sound strange, but it’s actually not just a way to attract readers to the topic because I really do mean what it indicates. Violence is a broad term, especially when used regarding women. In this piece, I want to shed light on those instances where violence against women is a must.First, we should know the meaning of the word violence. Longman’s Dictionary of Contemporary English defines violence as “behavior that is intended to hurt other people physically.” However, the term violence mustn’t be confused with other concepts and terms such as gender inequality or absence of women rights.
Occasionally – if not daily – we hear about events occurring in Islamic and Arab societies. Some human rights organizations recently have attacked violent acts against women, standing against any type of violence – even that between a father and daughter – and citing the cases of some women as examples.
Even that between a father and daughter? Horrors!
Consequently, they offer solutions such as complaining to the police, taking revenge or leaving them men, who are either their husbands, fathers or brothers – with no exceptions.One such case involved a woman whose husband allegedly had beaten her. Without revealing the husband’s reasons for doing so, such human rights organizations immediately urged the wife to complain to the police and the courts, while at the same time generalizing the instance and other similar solutions to any type of violence.
See? They should look at the reasons! What if this fellow had perfectly good reasons to beat the tar out of his wife? Then where would be if he gets locked up? Next thing you know, Britney Spears will be Emir al-Momineen!
If a man and woman are husband and wife, the Qur’an provides solutions, firstly reaffirming any logical and acceptable reasons for such punishment. These solutions are in gradual phases and not just for women, but for men also.For men, it begins with abandoning the marital bed, by opting to sleep elsewhere in the house. After this, they may discuss the matter with any respected person for the husband’s or the wife’s family, who could be in a position to advise the wife. If this also does not work, then the husband yields to beating the wife slightly. They do this because of a misunderstanding in the Quran, as the word says Darban, which is commonly understood today as beating. However, in Classic Arabic it means to set examples or to announce and proclaim. The more accurate meaning of this last one is that the husband finally has to set forth, to make a clear statement or proclamation, and if these measures fail, then divorce is preferable.
This is a false statement. Qur'an 4:34 tells men to beat their disobedient wives after first warning them and then sending them to sleep in separate beds. It is worth noting how several translators render the key part of this verse, وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ, waidriboohunna.
Pickthall: “and scourge them”
Yusuf Ali: “(And last) beat them (lightly)”
Al-Hilali/Khan: “(and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)”
Shakir: “and beat them”
Sher Ali: “and chastise them”
Khalifa: “then you may (as a last alternative) beat them”
Arberry: “and beat them”
Rodwell: “and scourge them”
Sale: “and chastise them”
Daryabadi: "and beat them"
Asad: “then beat them”
Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Al-Hilali/Khan, Shakir, Sher Ali, Khalifa, Daryabadi and Asad are Muslims. Are their translations all incorrect?
But anyway, this fellow believes in wife-beating anyway:
Similarly, wives may take actions such as abandoning the marital bed, following by leaving the husband’s home for that of their parents, brothers or any other relatives. They may do this more than once, but if such action fails, they may not continue to live with their husband and via their relatives, they may request a divorce.Despite such instructions, beating is considered a type of violence, according to human rights organizations, which urge women to complain to the police. I just wonder what kind of families our societies would have if Muslim women started doing this regarding their husbands.
Oh, libertine families, Maged! Lawless, clueless, hopeless, antinomian, hypocritical, apostate families, Maged!
Relationships between fathers and daughters or sisters and brothers also provoke argument from human rights organizations, which propose the suggested solutions for all relationships. Personally, I don’t think fathers or brothers would undertake such behavior unless there was a reason for it.
Of course! They always have very, very good reasons!
Fathers are responsible for their daughters’ behavior, but human rights organizations deny this too. Brothers also should take action regarding their sisters’ behavior, especially if their parents are too old or dead. If a daughter or sister makes a mistake – especially a moral one – that negatively affects the entire family and its reputation, what’s the solution by such organizations?
Yes. They have no solution. They don't see the wisdom of popping her one.
According to them, women should complain to the courts about any type of violence against them. Likewise, should fathers and brothers complain to police if their daughters or sisters violate moral, Islamic or social norms?Fathers should handle their daughters via any means that suits their mistake; thus, is it better to use violence to a certain limit or complain to the police? Shall such women then complain to the police against their fathers or brothers? It’s really amazing to hear this.
Oh yeah. I'm amazed, Maged.
In some cases, violence is necessary, but there must be limits. Those “good human rights organizations” don’t make any exceptions in their solutions because their aim is to serve society. Will it be a better society once we see wives, mothers, sisters and daughters going from one police station and one court to another, complaining against their husbands, fathers, brothers and even sons?As the proverb goes, “If the speaker is mad, the listener should be mindful.” This proverb is good advice for every man and woman not only to keep their ears open, but also to avoid the misleading propaganda of such organizations, whose surface aims hide other destructive ones to destroy society’s religious, social and moral norms. This matter requires consideration.
Dear readers – especially women – don’t think that I hate or am against women; rather, I simply mean to preserve the morals and principles with which Islam has honored us.
I hope my message is clear, since it’s really quite relevant to the future of our societies, which must be protected from any kind of cultural invasion.
Oh, it's clear. It's clear.
Posted by Robert at January 3, 2008 9:45 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Oh my goodness!
What could be worse than "wives, mothers, sisters and daughters going from one police station and one court to another, complaining against their husbands, fathers, brothers and even sons?"
According to the writer - beating women and girls is much better.
I would call this type of logic barbaric or savagery, but I would be doing barbarians and savages a disservice.
No "holy" book should be used as an excuse for violence.
I don't care if the Qur'an says you can - don't beat women!
Posted by: tanstaafl![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 3, 2008 10:23 AM
Wife beaters, child abusers and sociopathic cult leaders always have justifications for hurting people. "Don't force me to beat you."
I'm done listening to the excuses and rationale coming from any true believer. I've tried. Ali Sina is right: they live a in separate bubble universe with its own laws and consistencies which are contradictory and non-congruent with those of my universe. What I'm trying to do is pass along what I've learned from Ali Sina and others, including those principals and all posters of this site. We have assembled a collection of thought and material that will be sufficient to push back the current active Jihad & Islamic movement if we continue in our effort.
Never give up. It's working.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at January 3, 2008 10:36 AM
Oh, it makes all the sense in the world if you believe women are farm animals. Women are so empty headed you must beat them into obedience.
Happy 2008.
at January 3, 2008 10:51 AM
Interestinconundrum,
Farm animals can't take a flat edged shovel and hit it upside yo' head. But in Islam, if a woman does this in self defense, she's still toast at the end of the Islamic day.
http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2008/01/iran-executes-abused-mother-of-two.html
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at January 3, 2008 11:01 AM
You know, Robert, I do hope CAIR's Hooper (and all the other muslim apologists) continue to spout that "it is culture, not islam" that is responsible for wife-beating, FGM, and all other social ills.
If after being around for 1400 years, islam cannot correct all these "cultural problems," what is the point of embracing it? And to the retort that more islam is needed to solve these cultural problems, you have pointed out before that no one practices any religion perfectly. And it abundantly clear that islam is prone to so much "misunderstanding."
Islam can't fix mankind's problems. Why practice it?
Posted by: 3812Michelle at January 3, 2008 11:37 AM
3812Michelle
You're one reason they don't want a bunch of women shooting their mouths off.
That's a compliment to your argument, btw.
Posted by: Beagle at January 3, 2008 12:02 PM
After we give credit to Fox for broaching the subject of honor killing it's all downhill from there.
Posted by: Beagle at January 3, 2008 12:09 PM
Robert,
This article will provide you with ammunition for years and years. You should write to Maged and thank him. A clearer picture of a woman's life under islam could not be made.
Why any woman willingly follows islam is a mystery to me. Especially the converts.
Posted by: kutabeach at January 3, 2008 12:10 PM
"I hope my message is clear, since it’s really quite relevant to the future of our societies, which must be protected from any kind of cultural invasion.
I have to say, I agree with him on that. Our society must be protected from the islamic invasion. Too bad none of our leaders see things this clearly.
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at January 3, 2008 12:12 PM
The Fox link I'm referring to was linked somewhere, either here or Hot Air. Sorry.
They bring up honor killing seemingly only to point out it could just as easily been Innuits or Mennonites doing the dirty deed. Which is true once you abandon any rational sense of proportion and reality.
Posted by: Beagle at January 3, 2008 12:33 PM
"There must be violence against women," by Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy...
What he really meant to say is : "There must be violence against jihadis, male or female" by Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy
Posted by: AmericanTiger at January 3, 2008 12:37 PM
I always seem to get stuck on the "beat them lightly" issue. What is lightly? Now, having seen my father train a hunting dog NOT to chase chickens using a 2x4, back when they were 2x4's, I have a deep understanding on how lightly can be translated. Now before the angry posts show, the dogs were never injured, they just learned that chasing chickens didn't feel too good.(That was 20 yrs ago and he hasn't had a hunting dog since.) I realize the quote goes on to say not on the face, etc. So does that mean rubber hoses to chest, legs, or back? Closed fist, open hand only? It just illustrates the stupidity of islam. The west has learned, the hard way, just how valuable a resource women are, not just as mothers but as fellow co-workers as well. And maybe that is why it is so hard to grasp how a group can be so demeaning to women nowadays. We've grown up. Now I know I just answered my own question, it is quite obvious islam is stuck in a childish/juvenile stage, but you would think that within 1400 years there would have been some growth. Now I know someone will take exception at my branding an entire group, but as my dad used to say, "If the shoe fits, wear it." There are always exceptions to the rules, but that doesn't detract from the rules.
Posted by: Kevin at January 3, 2008 12:41 PM
I think all the parenthetical "lightly" are insertions by the translators. The direct translation doesn't have the qualifier.
Posted by: Godefroi at January 3, 2008 1:25 PM
Pickthall: “and scourge them” Yusuf Ali: “(And last) beat them (lightly)” Al-Hilali/Khan: “(and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)” Shakir: “and beat them” Sher Ali: “and chastise them” Khalifa: “then you may (as a last alternative) beat them” Arberry: “and beat them” Rodwell: “and scourge them” Sale: “and chastise them” Daryabadi: "and beat them" Asad: “then beat them”Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Al-Hilali/Khan, Shakir, Sher Ali, Khalifa, Daryabadi and Asad are Muslims. Are their translations all incorrect?
I'll add to this list
Malik (also a Muslim): " As to those women from whom you fear disobedience, first admonish them, then refuse to share your bed with them, and then, if necessary, beat them."
Our society, in contrast, is so hypersensitive to violence against women that it often neglects the parallel universe of violence against men. Numerous studies have demonstrated that wives beat their husbands in North America with approximately the same frequency as the converse, and at least one study I know shows the incidence of women using lethal weapons against their husbands is more common than the converse.
I do not accept the comeback I got from one woman when I cited one study: "Yes, but the men probably deserved it. Women don't lash out except in self defense. These guys were probably jerks".
In our society there is such a stigma attached to a man being beaten by a woman, however, that it goes underreported and/or not taken seriously by authorities. Our society even views a woman beating or abusing a husband as funny. Think about your favourite cartoons about married couples. How many "funny" cartoons depict regular violence of a man against a woman? And now the reverse? Pretty easy case to make.
What is likely true (though I know of no information to support it) is that men who abuse women generally do more serious physical damage than the converse.
I personally believe than all forms of domestic violence (that is, all that truly qualify as violence) are reprehensible.
My point here is that we have a society that, if it errs on such matters, it does so on the side of those perceived as being weaker. Though we often go overboard with it, one way in which the west has clear moral superiority over Islam is in the protection of the vulnerable. Much of the Islamist program in the west, indeed, is geared to take advantage of this tendency: as long as Muslims can sell themselves as vulnerable, weak, and disadvantaged, they will be invincible, strong and have access to unbalanced privileges.
Posted by: Archimedes2 at January 3, 2008 1:27 PM
"Now I know I just answered my own question, it is quite obvious islam is stuck in a childish/juvenile stage, but you would think that within 1400 years there would have been some growth."
There isn't going to be any growth, and there cannot be, the problem is deep within Islamic texts and traditions and nothing short of total destruction of Islam is going to make it go away.
This is a landmark article, a real piece of non-tauquiya (or whatever they call it). The person who wrote it must be incredibly foolish.
Posted by: zaphodbrx at January 3, 2008 1:34 PM
Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
From the Koran. (Caps mine.)
I hope my message is clear, since it’s really quite relevant to the future of our societies, which must be protected from any kind of cultural invasion
So Islamic societies must be protected from cultural invasion? I'm still waiting for our leaders to announce that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It's time for the West to protect itself from the Islamic invasion. (Maybe someday.)
at January 3, 2008 1:45 PM
Thank you for this article. I Digged it. More need to understand this issue. Here's a video with another example of this crazy world: http://www.ifilm.com/video/2683865
Posted by: Silly Allah at January 3, 2008 1:52 PM
"The person who wrote it must be incredibly foolish."
Posted by: zaphodbrx at January 3, 2008 1:34 PM
Arrogant is more like it. The Islamists usually say what they mean and mean what they say, right out in the open, with little to no repercussions.
at January 3, 2008 2:10 PM
A problem when there is violence toward women is
often the womens self worth and the laws that see them as being less worthy of justice.
Any one who has sat in court when the abusing man is brought before the judge can see how often the charges are dropped.
Only recently in NC choking your girl friend or wife was less of a crime then choking a stranger.
Assault on a female (girl friend or wife) could not be considered attempted murder.
I know this for a fact because my daughter was in NC when she was thrown though a sliding glass door backward, fell down a flight of stairs and then choked till she passed out. (Thank God she survived)
When she got out of the hospital and went to court it was not treated as a “true crime”.
You see, she had a relationship at one time with this man so it was just simple “assault on a female”. The man who did this got 10 days in the county jail and 1 year probation.
It was only a few years ago the law was changed and now it would be “attempted murder” because he
didn't stop choking her until he thought she was dead.
So if this was NC’s thinking just a few short years ago, what chance do these poor women have in countries who’s laws and religions not only allows for the beatings but calls for it.
It is going to be a long road here in the USA dealing with this violent mind set, not only the men but the women who stay in it.
If so many women do not have the courage or support to leave abusers and murderers how can these young girls get out from under these
men?
Islamic law is death to these poor souls.
at January 3, 2008 2:24 PM
Sounds like the latest advance in Islamic marriage counseling: A swift crack upside the head. She'll love it. Problem solved!
Posted by: rational at January 3, 2008 2:31 PM
Do you know what gets me about the 'wife-beating' verse? It's how it begins: "As to those women from whom you *fear* disobedience...". Not - "as to those women who *have* disobeyed/ offended/ etc".
This looks as though the women don't even have to have *done* anything 'bad', like not fix dinner or answer back, or do something hubby told them not to, in order to get shunned, scolded and beaten. The husband can do all the punishments listed in the verse - right up to and including the beating - if he merely *fears* "disobedience".
In other words: the beating here can be a pre-emptive strike, driven by nothing more than suspicion or fear, a suspicion and fear that the verse does nothing to discourage.
The pattern is exactly the same as in the business of breaking treaties if you fear the other side is going to break the treaty. The Quranic verse encourages people into the state of fear and suspicion which then justifies the evil action (wife-beating, treaty breaking") ...its mindset is - "watch out! they're out to get you, boys, so make sure you get *them* first".
Robert - a question - how is the word 'disobedience', in this verse 4:34, parsed by the various schools of Islamic Law? What sorts of things, in their mind, qualify as the disobedience that the husband fears his wife might be going to indulge in? If I recall correctly your quran blog on this verse focused more on the argument about what the beating consisted in, than on arguments about what level amd type of potential/ feared insubordination required punishment.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 3, 2008 3:14 PM
3812Michelle,
Couldn't agree with you more. What you describe is what I've long felt is Islam's Achilles heel....i.e. its 1400-year-old inability to create and maintain for its frustrated adherents the perfect society it promises, all while in only 200 years, an infidel, sin-filled America flourishes without the Quran explicitly guiding its ways. It's the ultimate, worldwide cognitive-dissonance phenomenom, resolving itself in opposites of the Islamic extremes....from Muslims oddly claiming "America is the most Islamic country" to anti-American Taliban-style draconianism. The folks in between can only be those who've completely abandoned any concept of sharia and pursuit of an Islamic state, contenting themselves to worship their Allah in solitary, unobtrusive peace (an Islam I can totally co-exist with). But as long as sharia and Islamic state stays prime doctrine in Islam and non-Muslims prosper without it, the ummah's cognitive-dissonance and frustrations will continue until something gives.
at January 3, 2008 3:22 PM
Aside from the beating (lightly or not), Muslim men are instructed that in order to bring their women into line they should expel the offending wife from the conjugal bed.
Non-Muslims might find this bizarre. In the West, withholding of sexual favors is what women do to men. Remember the women in "Lysistrata." But in the world of Islam, it is the women who are sexual beings, who must must have bits and pieces of their flesh cut out, lest they derive too much pleasure from swiving. It is the women who with their insensate come-hither bodies must be covered up as much as possible, to help upright Muslim men, who cannot be expected to help themselves, to help themselves.
Oh, and there is one other little detail we non-Muslims may have forgotten. That is this: if a Muslim man must punish a certain wife because she has been insufficiently submissive, and he boots her out of the conjugal bed, so what? There is another, and still another, and possibly yet another wife, not to mention all those conceivable concubines, to take the place of the wife being punished.
Posted by: Hugh at January 3, 2008 3:27 PM
Just simply replace/change the word woman and/or girl, in the article in the Yemen Journal, by man and/or boy. And then wait for understanding from those islamic scolars
Posted by: ohno at January 3, 2008 3:29 PM
In connection with this, I will share a story of the cultural subversion that so terrifies Maged. I originally read it on the United Bible Societies website, a year or two ago, but have not been able to track it down again, so unfortunately I can't give a link.
It told the story of a Muslim couple in Yemen. The husband went off to work in one of the other Gulf states. There, through contact with Christians among the other guest workers, he converted to Christianity.
When he returned, his wife got a huge surprise. Why? He came in through the door and addressed her as "my dear, dear wife"; and then went into the kitchen and made a cup of tea for her. He had *never* treated her with such courtesy and kindness. Nor was this a flash in the pan...his conduct from then on was such that she knew this was a real, deep change. In time she found out that this was because he had become a Christian and was taking seriously his new faith's requirements, such as the injunction, "Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them".
In short: the love her newly-Christian husband proceeded to lavish upon her, melted her heart, and after conversations and reading of the Christian scriptures she, too, converted.
The article didn't say what happened next, but I guess this couple would have to live as secret believers, or else try to emigrate to a more christian-friendly country.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 3, 2008 3:41 PM
As the proverb goes, “If the speaker is mad, the listener should be mindful.” This proverb is good advice for every man and woman not only to keep their ears open, but also to avoid the misleading propaganda of such organizations, whose surface aims hide other destructive ones to destroy society’s religious, social and moral norms. This matter requires consideration. - from article
So if a mugger attacks with violence, he is obviously mad, so we should not be concerned, nor report him to the police? If a husband, or brother or father, attacks a female, is he mad to do so, and should not be reported? What kind of revert logic is being used in Islam, cultural or Koranic, to justify the madness of beating women? Then if the woman complains to the police, she is mad to do so? The answer is simple. The whole Islamic norm of beating women is madness, and to use Koranic texts to validate such violence is madness magnified. Their Allah is mad, Mohammad was mad, and the whole structure of Sharia institutionalized violence against women is mad. Come to think of it, since the Islamics live in a perpetual state of rage, from cartoon riots to wife beating, the whole religion is madness. Sharia is madness. No woman deserves a beating, ever.
Escape the madness! Women of Islam, get away from the madness, and set yourselves free of Islam. This requires no consideration: They're all Sharia mad!
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at January 3, 2008 4:01 PM
Boogeyman = allahmonster
Posted by: interestinconundrum at January 3, 2008 6:04 PM
I have two questions: Does the bible sanction physical violence against women anywhere?
Second, does the Quran sanction honor killings anywhere?
Posted by: ibrahimX at January 3, 2008 11:09 PM
No need for me to write an essay. Every single one of you obviously has no idea what your rambling on about. You watch Fox News and then come on here like your an expert lol To even critisise Islam judging by your level of knowledge is laughable. You don't know about Sharia or the Qu'ran or the Hadiths or Islam. So please, please, please stop talking rubbish. You can't find any holes in the Qu'ran so you try in desperation to manipulate a verse and make it sound like it means something else. Just who is this website for exactly? Americans? doubt it as they are converting by the thousands every week.
dumbledoresarmy what a great story where did you find that exactly, united... what was it called again. Oh and the comment on wife-beating lol your such a know-it all aren't you. Bless you.
Hugh- what an inspiration fantastic story.
zaphodbrx - 'total destruction of Islam!! wow
Archimedes2- you talk about superiority over Islam and looking out for the vulnerable, we look after orphans and our elderley mate, we don't know what care homes are. After our pearents have looked after us in childhood we abandon them in some care home where they hardly ever see us. I don't think so.
Battle_of_Tours- Run women of islam, since Islam is a prison for you. The first time you come across a muslim woman ask her what she thinks. Your not gonna hear what you want to hear.
Joe Schmoe- F, as you have not explained why Islamic law is death on these poor souls, as you so eloquently put it.
To the editor, judging by some of the things published on this website, my comments are PG. They are not slanderous or annoying in anyway, on the contrary my comments being published will illustrate just how strong your views are on free speech (if they apply to the 'enemy')
Posted by: thesaracen at January 4, 2008 2:49 AM
SPECIAL SHOUT-OUT TO Isabellathecrusader- I didn't know it was just iranian men who commited adultery. Last time I checked so did western men. But thats beside the point. Islam cannot be confused with rogue states like Iran. Then again how many cases have their been of abused western woman who in retaliation have killed their husbands and have been charged with murder or manslaughter? I dare you to say none! Another case of a clown not doing her research before opening her mouth.
All you clowns on this website are linking Islam with isolated incidents committed by someone who happens to live in a muslim country. You talk as if the west is free of such crimes, which is nonsense. This is not about the shortcomings of Islam cause there are none, this is about your hatred of Islam because it does not conform to your way of life. If thats the case then no-ones forcing you to become muslims. So once again you have been mislead, which happens quite alot in your part of town(WMD'S anyone)
at January 4, 2008 3:29 AM
thesaracen:
Maybe you missed the authors' dissertation in the featured article:
"Qur'an 4:34 tells men to beat their disobedient wives after first warning them and then sending them to sleep in separate beds. It is worth noting how several translators render the key part of this verse, وَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ, waidriboohunna.
Pickthall: “and scourge them”
Yusuf Ali: “(And last) beat them (lightly)”
Al-Hilali/Khan: “(and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)”
Shakir: “and beat them”
Sher Ali: “and chastise them”
Khalifa: “then you may (as a last alternative) beat them”
Arberry: “and beat them”
Rodwell: “and scourge them”
Sale: “and chastise them”
Daryabadi: "and beat them"
Asad: “then beat them”
Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Al-Hilali/Khan, Shakir, Sher Ali, Khalifa, Daryabadi and Asad are Muslims. Are their translations all incorrect?"
This is not rambling rubbish.
I grew up in Michigan, knowing many Muslim families, and most of the daughters were scared shitless of their dads and brothers.
This does not work in America.
Muslims who follow this are not welcome here.
'Nuff said.
at January 4, 2008 3:45 AM
Poor people. Infact your all cowards. Your not man or woman enough to express your views in the open and instead cower inside this little website letting all your frustrations out on the muslims
lol.
Your intoxicasted with this belief that we want to kill all Christians and Jews and we rape woman and we mistreat them and we want to take over the world and so on and so on.BOLLOCKS.
You are all following this heretic whose gonna turn you all into paranoid low-live's, so if anything it's him you need to save yourselves from.
They say 'people fear what they don't understand'. My word has it ever been more true than it is in today's world.
at January 4, 2008 3:54 AM
HawkWatcher- Please don't hide behind woman's rights and America's moral standards. Why not just be honest and show your hatred of Islam- end of story. Thats what this is about. Your an American don't try and educate me on moral standards.
Posted by: thesaracen at January 4, 2008 6:18 AM
It seems that in Islam, the only good Woman is one who has had their Human Nature beaten out of them. They might as well have Sex with a blow up Doll and be done with it.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at January 4, 2008 7:06 AM
thesaracen -
great job in attempting to insult the intelligence and integrity of JW's commenters.
Now why don't you try to engage in some substantive rebuttal to the content of the actual posting?
Good luck.
~Godefroi de Bouillon
Posted by: Godefroi at January 4, 2008 9:55 AM
'saracen'
I did not get my information from Fox News - which I don't watch - nor in fact from any TV or radio program.
I found out that Islam was an evil cult - and that is not an insult, that is the plain unvarnished truth - long before I knew Robert Spencer existed, long before September 11th 2001. Want to know how I learned Islam is an evil cult? I read the Quran.
One of the very first things I noticed, when I did, was that the Quran tells men to beat their wives. You see: the Bible doesn't, ever.
We regulars here at Jihadwatch and dhimmiwatch are wary of the religio-political geopolitical cult known as Islam - we do not like it, and we do not trust it - not because we do not understand what it is all about, but because we DO.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 4, 2008 10:19 AM
Ha.
I do find trolls funny, especially when they accuse us of blindly following anyone.
I, like dumbledoresarmy, spent about 6-7 years studying Islam and the Quran before I found JW. I found JW only 2 years ago.
Care to explain how I knew about Islam and the Quran before I knew of JW and Robert Spencer, 'saracen'???????
Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at January 4, 2008 11:12 AM
'saracen' -
You are = You're.
Basic English seems to be a problem for you, too.
Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at January 4, 2008 11:15 AM
And they wonder why we call islam a backward religion? It's not just backwards, it's psychotic. And they say that Jihadwatch is a "hate site"! Makes you feel like the only sane man in the asylum doesn't it?
Posted by: DaveMate at January 4, 2008 11:17 AM
So Americans are converting to Islam by the thousands every day according to this poster. These silly claims of numbers and the "billion" Muslims worldwide do indicate the depth of fabrication these people will go to try to prop up their religion of death and despair. Their poor brainwashed minions know nothing else, and to leave Islam is a death sentence.
Posted by: CLL1709
at January 4, 2008 11:29 AM
This goes out to all of those on this website who believe Islam encourages a husband to beat his wife.
Godefroi de Bouillon since you brought up a good point- tell me what substantive argument have you come up with, it's not about husband's beating up wives is it? Because if it is then that's worrying as every single post seems to be repetitive and frankly it's boring me now.
A lot of you people seem to be educated people and thats what makes your hatred of Islam such a travesty, because you have added 2 and 2 and came up with 200. I wouldn't be suprised if you read Harry Potter and then concluded that he must be a pornstar. So ludicrous are your claims, and Godefroi de Bouillon I haven't attempted per se I know I have insulted you and your fellow users. Right now your probably seething with fury at the fact that you have nothing else to say, surely you can't repeat that burning issue about woman.
I don't even need to go into the countless verses to riducule your views, basic knowledge is sufficient. In Islam woman are required to be obedient to their husbands and their families. That wasn't a crime last time I checked. Now I know you drool at that word its what your eyes are fixed on. All woman should be obedient to a certain degree. What would you suggest? does being obediant affect her freedom?
The Qu'ran does not ask woman to climb a mountain for her to be seen as obediant. With obediance comes a happy relationship. Whilst the men are required to treat their wives with the utmost compassion and respect. As for beating up your woman, it's a huge shame for a man to hit a woman let alone if she's he's wife. God punishes those who do it and it angers God. Everyone will be rewarded and punished for what they do. God is the best of judges and know's best. Our prophet stressed the importance of being kind to your woman, how convenient that you forgot to mention that. End of story.
An evil cult lol what nonsense. Loving your choice of words dumbledoresarmy,too much Harry Potter making you go crazy? And no you haven't read the Qu'ran im afraid cause if you have, you will realise it's beauty and would not have resorted to this religio-political, geopolitcal gibberish you mentioned. What does that mean by the way?
It will probably go in one ear and come out the other, but if you believe your claims about Islam to be true then come up with something more concrete next time. I've heard it all, from claims about woman, slanderous comments about Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) to comments about god al-mighty Himself. Where has it got you? What have you acheieved?
To be quite honest none of you men on here give a rats arse about woman's rights, and if you claim that you are then your all lying. Its just so that you can defend you backward views on Islam and nothing more.
Posted by: thesaracen at January 4, 2008 11:33 AM
‘saracen’
This troll is scraping the barrel, but fun to have around for entertainment. Maybe a recent ‘revert’ of the West?
Anyway, troll, you missed the part about individual human rights, equality of gender, separation of religion and constitutional law. We know of the evils of Islam from study, especially reading your ‘revealed’ word of Allah in the Koran as dreamed up in your ‘perfectman’ warlord pedophile murderer rapist high priest Mohammad. But do hang around and amuse us, we could use a good laugh after all the crimes against humanity by your religio-political cult of death, killing even your own, especially ‘honor’ killing your women. The news of Islamic atrocities becomes tedious. Oh.. another one blew up…
Why would a troll want to use ‘infidel’ technology anyway? The internet was not ‘revealed’ to your perfectman, so perhaps using this medium is haram for you? Ha ha! Blown anything up of late? I love it. Islam does not deserve the title 'religion'. It's a cult.
at January 4, 2008 12:08 PM
Miss_Anthrope
I see victory on the horizon. One individual against all you so called educated people and you have nothing better to say than a useless dim-witted comment about my English. HAHA Im not even English and my English is better than your's.
All I can say is I feel sorry for you. How can you spend 6-7 years of your life and still hate Islam? Is it possible to even hate anything you spent almost a decade on? Your probably some old woman by now, who looks more like a troll than I do. As for your final point, you knew what about Islam? We don't live in the dark-ages no more, there's a thing called the Internet, TV perhaps, which will probably do you no good. Your most likely old aswell as stubborn- a trait dominant amongst your freind's.
I've made you look silly sorry to say, and all your freinds on here without once insulting your religion (not because it's the truth).
Come to think of it why am I wasting my time on this website.
This website has lost all integrity in the space of a day. So don't waste your short lives on hatred or on this website for that matter, so long my freinds, I still got love for you and I pray that one day you may see the error of your ways.
at January 4, 2008 12:10 PM
Miss_Anthrope
I see victory on the horizon. One individual against all you so called educated people and you have nothing better to say than a useless dim-witted comment about my English. HAHA Im not even English and my English is better than your's.
All I can say is I feel sorry for you. How can you spend 6-7 years of your life and still hate Islam? Is it possible to even hate anything you spent almost a decade on? Your probably some old woman by now, who looks more like a troll than I do. As for your final point, you knew what about Islam? We don't live in the dark-ages no more, there's a thing called the Internet, TV perhaps, which will probably do you no good. Your most likely old aswell as stubborn- a trait dominant amongst your freind's.
I've made you look silly sorry to say, and all your freinds on here without once insulting your religion (not because it's the truth).
Come to think of it why am I wasting my time on this website.
This website has lost all integrity in the space of a day. So don't waste your short lives on hatred or on this website for that matter, so long my freinds, I still got love for you and I pray that one day you may see the error of your ways.
at January 4, 2008 12:11 PM
Miss_Anthrope
You really don't sound very happy to me. But Ok, since you are convinced Im a troll then I must be one. 'Scrapping the barrell' did you say? hahahaha how ironic. Because I don't need to your the ones doing it everytime you reply to my posts, with all this talk about woman in Islam and how badly they are treated. 'crimes against humanity' hmmmm where have I heard that before. Now do me a favour and stop making a fool of yourself you old bag.
at January 4, 2008 12:21 PM
'Scrapping the barrell' did you say? hahahaha how ironic. Because I don't need to your the ones doing it everytime you reply to my posts, with all this talk about woman in Islam and how badly they are treated. 'crimes against humanity' hmmmm where have I heard that before. Now do me a favour and stop making a fool of yourself you old bag. - the 'saracen'
You poor little fool troll. It was me you are addressing, amd I'm not a "Miss". :)
at January 4, 2008 12:27 PM
How childish. I'll take it you've been beaten aswell. So you can also do me a favour and don't ever reply to my posts again. Your a grown man, look at what your writing!! You can't even come up with your own derogaroty word to describe me. Useless.
Posted by: thesaracen at January 4, 2008 12:37 PM
Pickthall: “and scourge them” Yusuf Ali: “(And last) beat them (lightly)” Al-Hilali/Khan: “(and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)” Shakir: “and beat them” Sher Ali: “and chastise them” Khalifa: “then you may (as a last alternative) beat them” Arberry: “and beat them” Rodwell: “and scourge them” Sale: “and chastise them” Daryabadi: "and beat them" Asad: “then beat them”
Sounds like a Muslim chorus.
Posted by: special_guest at January 4, 2008 12:47 PM
That's alot of personal vitriol for one thread. Say, thesaracen, you don't happen to have young men with sports equipment laying around the house all the time, do you?
Posted by: special_guest at January 4, 2008 12:58 PM
I have it on good faith that thesaracen is none other than Islam Said himself, trying to justify his reprehensible actions.
Posted by: tsarbomba29 at January 4, 2008 2:03 PM
tsar, that makes more sense than any of his posts.
Posted by: allahlovesporkchops at January 4, 2008 2:21 PM
Ladies and gentlemen
don't you think that 'saracen' sounds just like the 'prophet'?
He also sounds like someone cursing their cranky donkey.
We haven't gotten the full arsenal yet, though. He hasn't accused any of us of being Jewish. William Lane said that the 19th century Egyptian Muslims used that as the ultimate insult.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 4, 2008 3:07 PM
A further observation, for the regulars.
The closer any article posted here goes to the bone - the more clearly it lays bare some dark and ugly aspect of the 'religion of peace' - the more likely is it that a Disruptor will pop up and attempt to shut down or divert the discussion. Subtly, sometimes, from behind a mask; and sometimes, as now, with a naked aggression and contempt, and a disregard both for truth and common courtesy, that are terribly self-revealing.
Anything to throw sand in people's eyes; or, sometimes, to try to bully, threaten, shame, confuse and frighten them. Spiritual violence.
Let's be thankful this is a virtual community; otherwise we'd be having to call the police or the bouncers to remove the wild-eyed person in the middle of the room who is waving a broken bottle around.
Instead, all we need to do is ignore the intruder, go right back up to the top of the thread,and re-read, slowly and attentively, the article from the 'Yemen Times' columnist, an Arab Muslim who argues that male violence against erring or perceived-to-be-erring wives and daughters is necessary in order to sustain the Muslim social and religious order.
Mr Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy's article would go nicely in the 'special features' section of any new dvd edition of Theo van Gogh's and Ayaan Hirsi Ali's film, "Submission", about the religiously-approved abuse of Muslim women.
The Quran says plainly that men can and should beat their wives. It's right there, no matter what translation one uses.
Mr Al-Kholidy, a Muslim following the Quran, says men can -and, indeed, must - beat their wives...and their daughters, and their sisters. He doesn't see anything wrong with that at all. He doesn't specify what actions are worthy of a beating. He doesn't say what *kind* of a beating - but he doesn't seem interested in setting limits.
So, let's hear Robert's overview again, and the conclusion that he draws:
"this Yemen Times piece comes particularly ill-timed for Hooper and other Islamic spokesmen in the West, who spill large amounts of ink assuring us that oh no, no Muslim takes Qur'an 4:34, the Muslim holy book's notorious verse commanding the beating of disobedient women, at face value. Oh no. No Muslim actually beats his wife, or if he does, he does it only with a toothbrush, and anyway, well, wife-beating is cross-cultural, isn't it? It isn't as if no American wife has ever been beaten."
"And certainly that's true: wife-beating is cross-cultural, but that doesn't prove a thing, and bringing it up only ensures that the Islamic community in America will, in the wake of the murders of Amina and Sarah Said, once again be absolved of all responsibility, and exempted from all accountability -- because after all, everyone does it, don't they?"
"Anyway, in the Yemen Times today, Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy doesn't say anything about toothbrushes, or everyone doing it, or anything at all except that women should be beaten when disobedient, because the Qur'an says so."
"This is the culture that killed Amina and Sarah Said. This is the culture that killed Aqsa Parvez. This is the culture whose leaders persist in denial, obfuscation, and finger-pointing (oho - does that sound like 'saracen'?) instead of honest dealing with the problem."
at January 4, 2008 4:10 PM
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this). This is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation -- i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other.
So the above troll's
SPECIAL SHOUT-OUT TO Isabellathecrusader- I didn't know it was just iranian men who commited adultery. Last time I checked so did western men. But thats beside the point. Islam cannot be confused with rogue states like Iran. Then again how many cases have their been of abused western woman who in retaliation have killed their husbands and have been charged with murder or manslaughter? I dare you to say none! Another case of a clown not doing her research before opening her mouth.is a good case of Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
All you clowns on this website are linking Islam with isolated incidents committed by someone who happens to live in a muslim country. You talk as if the west is free of such crimes, which is nonsense. This is not about the shortcomings of Islam cause there are none, this is about your hatred of Islam because it does not conform to your way of life. If thats the case then no-ones forcing you to become muslims. So once again you have been mislead, which happens quite alot in your part of town(WMD'S anyone)
"So did western men" has nothing to do with the fact that Islamic men beat and kill their women. LOL! But when did the Islamics ever show an ability to reason with logic?
More logic fallacies, most of them easily found in Islamic arguments: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at January 4, 2008 5:11 PM
"Dear readers – especially women – don’t think that I hate or am against women; rather, I simply mean to preserve the morals and principles with which Islam has honored us."
----------------------
And besides, you women readers, you're supposed to understand and acknowledge that you are TOTALLY UNABLE to determine which actions are moral or not. ONLY THE MAN WHO OWNS YOU can determine if you are or aren't correctly following Islamic principles (as he understands them); ONLY HE can determine if you are sufficiently obedient, deferential, accommodating. And that, my dear, is the only consideration: HIS understanding, HIS preferences, HIS way. The only "rights" Islam grants its females it the right to quickly do whatever she is told. Forget the "Mohammed liberated women" stories. Under Islam, women are born to serve men. They have half the value of men (both in legal testimony and inheritance). What are women valued for? Cooking, cleaning, and "many sons". Makes you want to run right out and sign up, eh?
Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at January 4, 2008 5:52 PM
SARACEN!
"people fear what they don't understand"
My copy of the Qur'an tells its followers to slay infidels, cut off fingertips, chop off feet and hands!!
Hatred slithers through nearly every Surah!
WHAT'S NOT TO UNDERSTAND?
ISLAM SHOULD BE BANNED FROM THE U.S.A.
Posted by: youngtimer at January 4, 2008 6:04 PM
kutabeach said,
"Why any woman willingly follows islam is a mystery to me. Especially the converts."
Many do so under pressure from boyfriends. Many others do so for the same reason as men: the nasty parts are left out or spun, and the System of Everything is comforting - especially to those who have made mistakes in their life and figure that if there had been some authority figure forcing their actions, they'd not have made the mistakes they regret. It isn't true, lack of authoritarianism isn't why people make mistakes, but it is a comforting story to some anyways.
None of these things are as pressing as the draws to Christianity (love based spirituality that balances outer works with inner life) or agnosticism and atheism (raw scientific rationality), so in a fair fight this ultimate system stuff of Islam loses.
The fight isn't fair, though. Muslims who convert to Christianity risk their life at the hands of other Muslims. What people from other religions (or non-religion) do that today? What of them could ever have solidly justified it on the grounds of their holy texts?
sarc:
"Your not man or woman enough to express your views in the open and instead cower inside this little website letting all your frustrations out on the muslims"
Yeah, that's because you'll kill us to shut us up unless we have armed guards, becasue you can't beat us fair and square, on the merits of the argument. Duh. First they came for the poetesses...
"your an American don't try and educate me on moral standards."
Oh please. Like we're all the same as the Americans you see in the movies? I for one am not.
And anyway, compare out rates of bestiality and sex with young boys to those of any Muslim country; test the moral standards that way and see who comes out on top.
"The first time you come across a muslim woman ask her what she thinks. Your not gonna hear what you want to hear."
Many will insist that the religion is nothing but good for them, protecting their honor and such.
This is often because they fear that, without death threats and other threats of physical violence controlling their actions, they'd end up as whores. It isn't true, of course - people don't need death threats to live right. And the death threats don't usually help much anyway, they typically just push the immorality in different directions, or else lead people to be sly in covering it up.
'Nuf playing with trolls. I'm going to go make dinner for my husband who is coming home soon. A dinner which will include a glass of wine... half the joys of Abu Nuwas, and none of the perversions! Please excuse me if my life gets in the way of me responding to posts.
at January 4, 2008 7:00 PM
'Nuf playing with trolls. I'm going to go make dinner for my husband who is coming home soon- you sure he's not cheating on you? You sound like an insecure woman to me.
'Oh please. Like we're all the same as the Americans you see in the movies- your really not much of a thinker are you? With that one statement you show just how hypocritical you are. Are all muslims the same as the guys you see blowing themselves up on Fox News?
Im aware that not all Americans are the same- some are very good people. But your the minority. Your the one's the rest of America is ashamed of. Problem is you just don't want to accept that. Poor woman.
Show me the figures for beastiality that you claim occur in muslim countries. I mean surely you got facts to back up your statement right? When you do find them figures then reply to me, don't speculate because I can't take you seriously.
Im talking to a brick wall, a brick wall has more sense than the cockroaches on here.
Posted by: thesaracen at January 4, 2008 7:35 PM
You'd think that, amongst all the flames and personal attacks, thesaracen would find the space for just one valid argument.
Such hopes are folly, unfortunately.
surely you can't repeat that burning issue about womanWhy, because you won't address it?
I don't even need to go into the countless verses to riducule your views, basic knowledge is sufficient. In Islam woman are required to be obedient to their husbands and their families. That wasn't a crime last time I checked. Now I know you drool at that word its what your eyes are fixed on. All woman should be obedient to a certain degree. What would you suggest? does being obediant affect her freedom?
Let me ask you something:
Are men ever required to be obedient to their wives and families in Islam?
Why do women need to be "obedient"?
Whilst the men are required to treat their wives with the utmost compassion and respect. As for beating up your woman, it's a huge shame for a man to hit a woman let alone if she's he's wife. God punishes those who do it and it angers God.
Quran 4:34 was already posted in Spencer's original article and yet you post this complete, utter lie? I am genuinely impressed by your nerve.
To be quite honest none of you men on here give a rats arse about woman's rights, and if you claim that you are then your all lying. Its just so that you can defend you backward views on Islam and nothing more.Completely unsupported ad hominem.
How can you spend 6-7 years of your life and still hate Islam? Is it possible to even hate anything you spent almost a decade on?Argument from ignorance.
I did increase my vocabulary of insults by 500% though, so it wasn't a complete waste of my time.
at January 5, 2008 12:39 AM
thesaracen:
Are you in the UK?
I assume you're a muslim, do you put local law ahead of religious belief or vice versa?
The law is the law in America, and we stand in front of it...we don't hide behind it as you suggest.
Look, we know all muslims don't beat their wives, and we know most muslims are not evil.
You seem so disgruntled, do you want to live with us or against us?
You need to direct your anger at the hijackers of your religion, not at this website and its posters.
I'm hoping moderate muslims like yourself will help defeat the expanding violent jihad and repressive fundamentalist Islam we discuss here.
Do you have the courage to join a worldwide muslim movement to declare Osama Bin Laden and followers apostate, and fight violent Islam?
Unlike yourself, I don't consider you to be a cockroach, my religion encourages the treatment of all as equals.
Truth is, many muslims are using your religion to justify beating their wives regardless of local law.
Truth is, many killers are using Islamic beliefs as justification for their heinous atrocities, and you need to do something about it.
You might start here:
http://www.islam-watch.org/index.html
at January 5, 2008 2:06 AM
I no longer use this thread my freind, but i'll reply to your post. Yes I am a muslim, but in all honesty what you do in your lives is no interest of mine. I can't say the same for you. Muslim woman are happy to be muslim, end of story. Im not a moderate or an extremist, or a liberal or a secular muslim. I am a muslim. There is no castes or classes in my religion. I follow the the word of my lord, which if you take the time to read you may benefit from and you may even realise that what you and your freinds are saying is blasphemy in its purest form.
Your all hypocryts- HawkWatcher I take it your Christian. Then read the bible and stop drinking wine and eating pork. I have no hate for no-one on here nor am I disgruntled. I don't support any kind of violence which is not a defensive act. What you class as a defensive act is totally up to you. Going half-way around the world to some country that has no weapons nor poses a threat to your nation is not a defensive act.
You claim that muslims believe that they are superior- your talk has all the hallmarks of a dillusional who believes in the West's superiority over the rest of the world. Therefore once again your all hypocryts. You will always be a minority without a voice, no-one will even waste their time listening to your paranoid blasphemy. For some of you it may take time a hell of a long time to realise the painful truth.
Posted by: thesaracen at January 5, 2008 4:04 AM
Not a single point countered, not a single question answered.
The enemy is revealed.
at January 5, 2008 6:48 AM
Hawkwatcher - you know what gets me?
'saracen' told you that if you were a Christian you had to 'read the bible' and (therefore?) stop drinking wine and eating pork.
This reveals that 'saracen' knows nothing about the teachings of the Bible, since 'saracen' seems to think the Bible forbids Christians to drink wine or to eat pork.
Just to make things clear for any non-Muslim visitors who don't already know the Bible.
First: the Hebrew Scriptures *do not* forbid the drinking of wine. *Excessive* drinking of wine is discouraged (as it is, still, in Jewish culture), yes; but it is clear from Hebrew scripture that wine is seen as a good thing, in moderation.
One of the Psalms speaks of 'wine that makes glad the heart of man' (104: 15) and the lovers in the Song of Solomon refer to wine, and talk about vineyards. In the books of the Prophets the land and people of Israel are sometimes compared to a vine or a vineyard.
Jews throughout their history, and today, drink wine - real, alcoholic wine - at the Passover Seder.
Jesus/ Yeshua, a Jew, drank wine. At the wedding in Cana, described in the second chapter of John's Gospel, the wine runs out early. Yeshua's mother asks him to do something. He performs a miracle - transforming water into wine. The ruler of the feast is amazed by its quality, saying to the bridegroom, "every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now". In the parables the people of Israel are compared to a vineyard.
Since Yeshua drank wine, the Christian scriptures do not forbid wine altogether. *Excessive* drinking of wine is discouraged, yes; but, like the Jews, Christians see wine itself as good. Indeed, St Paul, true to his rabbinic training, advised his young protege Timothy: "drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake, and thine often infirmities" (1 Timothy 5:23]. Doctors today have discovered that red wine, taken in moderation, does have beneficial effects upon one's health.
There have been, in Jewish and in Christian history, individuals and groups that have chosen not to drink wine at all, for particular reasons (Samson and others who had taken specific vows; today, some Christian groups) but such conduct has never been seen as a requirement for the entire body of believers, whether Jewish or Christian.
As for pork: yes, Jews are indeed forbidden to eat pork (and a number of other things).
However: this rule does not apply to Christians. When Yeshua's first, Jewish, followers had to work out what to require of the Gentiles who had also begun to follow Yeshua in large numbers, they consulted together and decided that such Gentiles would not be required to conform to all the Jewish dietary and ritual laws. I quote:
"it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which, if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well" (Acts 15: 29).
Commentators and theologians argue about what precisely is involved in the first three requirements; but the fourth, to 'abstain from fornication', that is, from wanton immorality, is quite clear and all sincerely professing Christians do attempt self-control, modesty and chastity, even though, due to human weakness, they do not always manage it. (Of course, maybe 'saracen' thinks that Paris Hilton is a 'christian' - but she isn't).
So, re wine: the Biblical Scriptures, both Hebrew and Greek, Jewish and Christian, say that wine is good, and Jews *and* Christians are allowed to drink it in moderation.
Re. pork:
The Torah forbids Jews to eat pork. And so: Jews don't eat pork, just as Torah tells them. Jewish-background followers of Yeshua, also often still keep kashrut, so as to continue to identify with their nation.
Non-Jews who follow Yeshua are free to eat pork, and to remain uncircumcised, and according to the Christian scripture, which I quoted above (the book of Acts), this freedom was granted them by Yeshua's own Jewish followers.
'saracen' accuses us of ignorance, but I think that he (?) is the ignorant one, in this particular case.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 5, 2008 8:54 AM
Now, just to keep hammering on the main point under discussion, because that is what 'saracen', above all else, does not want us to do:
in the article that Robert posted for our consideration, a Yemeni Arab Muslim writing in a Yemeni Arab newspaper condones - and indeed argues in favour of - the use of violence by Muslim men, against Muslim women (wives, daughters, sisters), and he does so against the background of a verse in the Quran that clearly includes the words "*beat* them", a verse that he knows most Yemeni men are understanding as meaning exactly that.
Many Muslim men do not beat their wives, daughters, or sisters.. But some do. And when they do, they can justify their actions with the authority of the 'wife-beating' verse in Surah 4 of the Quran. See Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo Van Gogh's courageous film, "Submission", for what this means for many unhappy Muslim women.
Many, indeed most, Christian men, and Jewish men, do not beat their wives, daughters or sisters. Some, shamefully, do. But when they do, they cannot justify their actions with the authority of either the Hebrew Scriptures, or of the Christian scriptures, since there is not one verse, anywhere, in those scriptures, that expects, or implies (much less, commands!) that a man has any right whatever to hit or hurt his wife; nor is there any example of wife-beating.
Indeed, a Jew or a Christian who hits his wife has violated the many verses of the Bible that commend and command marital love. A 'christian' wife-beater has disobeyed St Paul's advice: "husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them" (Colossians 3: 19); or "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it...men ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself...let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself." (Ephesians 5: 25, 28, 33). [Note that this phrase echoes a verse from the Hebrew Scriptures - "love your neighbour as yourself" - so it is saying that in marriage, as everywhere else, the Golden Rule applies].
Yes: these same verses occur side by side with verses that teach wives to obey their husbands. But there is a very great difference between the Christian wife who obeys a loving, nonviolent Christian husband, a husband who would be willing to sacrifice his own life for her if needs be, a husband who has publicly sworn faithfulness to her and to her alone, forsaking all other, and will seek a divorce only with great reluctance; and the Muslim wife who knows that if she does not obey, or if she even answers back just once, her husband can shun, scold and beat her, or even divorce her just. like. that.; and that no matter how good a wife she is, at any time her husband likes he can bring home a second, or third, or fourth wife, or a concubine, thus forcing her to put up with a rival right under her own roof.
Quran - beat your wives.
Bible - love your wives.
Two different scriptures. Two different cultures.
NOTHING that 'saracen' says can prevent us from seeing this.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 5, 2008 9:01 AM
"...and Glenn Beck will assure us that the Qur'an teaches nonviolence, and a splendid time is guaranteed for all."
******
I've listened to Glenn Beck for about a year now, have a subscription as an "Insider".
I can guarantee, Beck would never say that.
The method that he espouses to overcome Islam is to hijack the true religion of Islam - the violent one - and make it less Islamic. Hence his conference on "Moderate Islam" etc, etc. Yeah, it's a snow job - but it could work.
Remember, he is a devout Mormon. He has seen that an offshoot of a major religion can truly hijack it, and go in a completely different direction. It can flourish doing so. The Mormon Church (LDS) has done exactly that. It is considered a "sect" now, for the most part.
If such a revolution happened, perhaps the Quran could be sidelined, like the Christians ignore Leviticus ("that was for someone else, for a different time, you know!").
He'd like to see that happen in Islam.
Make no mistake, however, he is a "hate-monger", an Islamophobe in the extreme.
He just thinks that it is better to isolate the "apostates" - the Muslim girls in short skirts and no hijabs, the ones who ignore the Quran, those who won't follow the dictates, and give them respectability in order to minimize jihadis who follow the Quran.
It worked 75 years later. We might have a Mormon as President of the U.S.!
Posted by: Kay
at January 5, 2008 11:50 AM
Back finally. Sorry it took so long.
"you sure he's not cheating on you? You sound like an insecure woman to me."
If he's cheating on me, he'd have to be away from home for more than the hours he works. He's a tech guy, he's home reading or researching for all his free time, seriously. Also, I know he loves me. Believe it or not, marriages based on love can work out quite well. Not that you apparently know or care.
You don't know me. And anyway, if he were to cheat on me, I'd divorce him. I can file the paperwork, I'm not in a Muslim country where I'm trapped even if he cheats on me.
Not that any of this matters - you know what your problem is, you don't know any form of argument other than ad hominem attacks. Everything is power and status for you, it soaks your messages, you can't argue on any other basis. There's a theological reason for this, even if you don't know it.
Truth doesn't care about power, even if you do care about power to the exclusion of truth. And, FYI, not recognizing this is the reason your home country is a hell hole. It is complicated, and relies upon reasoning and not just attempts to dominate via insults. You try reasoning, you might be able to figure it out.
"With that one statement you show just how hypocritical you are. Are all muslims the same as the guys you see blowing themselves up on Fox News?"
I hate Fox News, I hate Bush, and if the Dems put Obama up I'm voting for him.
No, all Muslims are NOT the same guys blowing themselves up on Fox news, many are wonderful people despite their religion. You are turning my position on Islam into a strawman. Look it up: 'strawman' is a concept that rests on the idea that truth isn't just about power and status.
It is the religion I am concerned about, and the fact that the religion is turning more and more good people into the folks blowing themselves up every day.
Also - you never mentioned anything about murdering people for changing from your religion. It plays into the issue on truth.
"Im aware that not all Americans are the same- some are very good people."
Then why did you make that initial comment discounting people on the basis of being American? Collectivist backtracking when the irrationality of it becomes obvious, bah.
"But your the minority. Your the one's the rest of America is ashamed of. Problem is you just don't want to accept that. Poor woman."
I'm the majority. I'm a moderate in a big city who is sick of Bush and his senseless wars, but also who has bothered to think about the ideology behind the attacks on us and our freedoms. I care deeply about women's rights, and that includes the right to, as an adult, resovle conflicts by means other than violence, unless the other person resorts to violence first.
"Show me the figures for beastiality that you claim occur in muslim countries. I mean surely you got facts to back up your statement right? When you do find them figures then reply to me, don't speculate because I can't take you seriously."
Beastiality is difficult to back up with stats, but that doesn't mean people can't notice it as a widespread cultural phenomenon. I notice how you ignore the part about sex with boys? Do your own research. You didn't back your initial comment about Americans' morality with anything other than snide, why should I do differently? Give me a reason, not an insult.
"Im talking to a brick wall, a brick wall has more sense than the cockroaches on here."
Ad hominem.
Look it up before you turn the rest of the world into a hell hole like your own country with your backward theology and perspective on truth.
Posted by: hope_and_justice at January 6, 2008 12:29 PM
sarc:
"Going half-way around the world to some country that has no weapons nor poses a threat to your nation is not a defensive act."
I agree! It shouldn't have been done. A larger percentage of American voters wouldn't have put in the guy that did it in the first place. You want to blame something for it, blame Bush, or he and his administration, or the electoral college, and not Americans generally.
We're suffering for it too, although not as much as the Iraqis. The tax money sucked out from us and going to military contractors, etc., is far FAR more than the value of the oil taken from the Iraqis, and though our troops death total is less than Iraqi deaths, it is still more than the deaths from 9/11.
But to a more pertinent point: what would beating a wife for disagreeing with one be? Would it be defensive, or would it be aggressive? You know, like Bush was aggressive.
I think it certainly wouldn't be a defensive act.
So, what makes this violence right and Bush's wrong?
Let me guess: The Koran approves on and not the other.
Your morality isn't really based on opposition to aggression. It is based on opposition to aggression when the particular instance of aggression is inconvenient for you and your maintaining of dominance.
Posted by: hope_and_justice at January 6, 2008 12:50 PM
Your all confused with this verse in the Quran (surah an-Nisaa) so let me explain. Your definition of 'beat' and the Quran and Hadiths' definition are two different things. The Quran does not in any verse allow men to abuse their wives under any circumstances. So don't seal your eyes and your hearts and at least use reason. Maybe Islam is as not bad as it appears to you.
Chapter 4 An-Nisaa Verse 34
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah has given the one more strength than the other and because they support them from their means.
(Men have been naturally endowed a stronger physical structure so it has been made their primary duty to provide for the family by going out into the world and seeking a livelihood, this is a duty they cannot abandon for any reason)
Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in the husband's absence what Allah would have them guard.
(Thus a wife is required to stay loyal to her partner and not commit adultery)
As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct warn them first
(Here we encounter the example of a wife who is being disloyal or indulging in ill-conduct, the first recommendation to try and get her to stop being disloyal is to talk to her about it, warning her and telling her about the great sin involved)
Next refuse to share their beds
(If the wife refuses to listen even after you talk to them then stop sleeping with them, Obviously if she does love her husband, she would be highly concerned at this point. However if she doesn't care for him or love him, she wont care and as a result this will only make the man angrier)
And last hit them lightly But if they return to obedience seek not against them means of annoyance: for Allah is Most High Great above you all.
(At this stage the man is obviously extremely angry at his wife for being disloyal and doing ill-conduct and may revert to physical violence. But this is not implying that a man CAN hit is wife, it is only stating what HUMANS are susceptible to in these situations. Then again this part of the surah is not generalising as God knows full well what He has created and is aware that some men are weak in their self-control.
Islam puts a prohibition even in this mans state of extreme anger, this is best described by the words of the Prophet:
Listen! Follow my advice in treating women gently. This is because they stay with you restricted. You have no right over anything belonging to them except that they do not do anything shameful. In that case you leave them alone on their beds and beat them lightly so that they do not feel the pain. Then if they obey you do not oppress them. Remember, you have some rights over your wives, and your wives have some rights over you. It is your right over them that they do not defile your bed, and do not let such people as you do not like enter your house. Remember they have a right over you that you treat them well in feeding and clothing them. (Ibn Majah, Tirmizi)
So even if the husband is enraged and his wife does not listen to him nor cares weather he sleeps with her or not, even then the maximum the man can do with regards to physical action is to hit his wife in such a way that it neither leaves marks on her nor does it cause her any pain.
This particular verse in the Quran is only addressing a human reality. Spousal abuse takes place in all parts of the world, weather it is Pakistan or Canada or America or Japan.It is committed by Christians, Muslims, Jews Atheists etc. God knows the nature of men to be physically violent when angry, that is why the maximum He has allowed, even in the worst anger fits, is for the man to 'beat' his wife in such a way that she doesn't feel any pain. And beating someone without inflicting pain or physical injury is equivalent to not beating them at all.
More evidence of this is found in the story of a companion of the Prophet who once got very angry at his wife because she was being disloyal. So he broke the smallest twig from a tree and tapped his wife on the arm with it to show how displeased he was.
The Prophet said, "Does not that man amongst you feel ashamed that he beats his wife in the early part of the day and the very same day sleeps with her having sexual intercourse? Is he not ashamed of himself?" (Tirmizi)
That is the definition of beating in Islam.
In another narration the Prophet Mohammed said, "Such people who beat their wives are not the best amongst you" (Abu Dawood).
Yet in another narration the Prophet Mohammed said, "I do not like it that I should see anyone with swollen veins of his neck, standing over his wife beating her."
The Prophet Mohammed delivered the message of God to humanity: The Quran. IF the Quran supported spousal abuse then why would the Prophet be denouncing it?
The message is very clear in Islam, a husband may not inflict physical harm upon his wife in any way and the wife may also not physically harm him. Marriage is for mutual co-operation and co-existence, thus both spouses must show love, tolerance, understanding and care for one another. The Prophet Mohammed was known for his gentleness with all people including his wives, he said, "The best amongst you is the one who shows kindness and is gentle with the members of his household."
Can it be any clearer that Islam does not support spousal abuse in any form.
What an individual or even a society does cannot be attributed to Islam or the Quran.
As for divorce, your wrong in saying the man has greater power. Infact both have equal rights, and divorce is something God dislikes. It should only be applied when no other way of continuing the relationship exists. Even then there is a waiting period between the two parties to see whether the wife is pregnant and to also allow both parties to think over the situation.
Posted by: thesaracen at January 6, 2008 1:51 PM
hope_and_justice
When you talk like that instead of calling me a troll, i'll show you respect so I apologise for my earlier comments. But don't call my religion a backward theology.
My knowledge of what the Sharia says on apostates is not in-depth for me to comment as I would only be speculating and thats a dangerous thing for me to do. Especially in the current climate where one word out-of-line will get me sent to Guantanomo Bay.
If you think im trying to side-step the issue then so be it. What you may think you know about Islam's position on apostates is totally up to you but Im not going to comment.
As for beastiality, the very people who are the cornerstones of Christian communities i.e. Bishops have been known to commit it. I've never heard of an Imam who does it. Now im not denying it occurs in muslim countries, but can you possibly deny it occurs in America. Im not even sure why you have brought up the issue as it has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam and does not tarnish Islam in anyway.
But to a more pertinent point: what would beating a wife for disagreeing with one be?
Remember the distinction you have to make that I highlighted in my previous post when it comes to the word 'beating'. I say this so you don't accuse me of condoning the abuse of woman before I write anything. The verse does not just apply to muslims it applies to the whole of mankind. It applies to both the husband and the wife. How can it be aggresive or violent if you tap your wife on the arm 'lightly'. Its not the force of the impact that will alert her it is the actual act itself. If people were to follow Surah an-Nisaa, the 'brutal' final solution would never occur in most cases. But we humans all have weaknesses.
Your morality isn't really based on opposition to aggression. It is based on opposition to aggression when the particular instance of aggression is inconvenient for you and your maintaining of dominance.
Not at all. Suicide bombings occur all the time in Iraq taking the lives of countless innocent men, woman and children. I don't care if the victims are muslim or not, if they have not agressed against you, do not touch them. So I don't agree on that point im afraid. If you follow the Quran properly you cannot attack people who have done absolutely nothing wrong to you, your family, your people, your religion or your nation. If that was not the case muslims would be attacking everything that moves and is not a muslim.
Finally if you ask any muslim, what he really wants, you will hardly get any of them say we want to be the dominant force over the earth because we strive to worship our lord in the correct manner that He has ordered us to. That does not include supressing people because they have different beliefs.
dumbledoresarmy- You say im ignorant of the bible but heres some of the things that I know and some things that I have come across. The Bible explicitly states on the issue of pork:
And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed, yet he cheweth
not the cud; he is unclean to you”.
“Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch,
they are unclean to you.” [Leviticus 11:7-8]
Your saying these are verses from the old testament
Now forgive me if im wrong, but if one section of the bible applies to jews why is it contained in your bible. Furthermore if one section prohibits something and another permits it, as in the case of pork, wouldn't that constitute a contradiction in your holy book. Wouldn't it confuse Christians? Even if you say it doesn't apply to Christains, the question remains of why it is a part of your book? Do you read one section and ignore the other? Because I would.
As for alcohol it is totally prohibited in Islam, why? Because if we followed the bible, human weakness will in most cases lead us to breaking the laws of the holy book. Now your counter-argument is going to be along the lines of 'Ad hominem'. But what more can I say.
You believe Christanity originated from Jesus Christ. So why have the old testament which was completed before Jesus (pbuh) was even born, as part of the Christian bible and then ignore certain parts of it.
Judaism, Christanity and Islam are all similar in some ways, whether you like it or not, but you won't find the Torah or the Bible in the Quran when both preceeded the Quran.
"like the Christians ignore Leviticus ("that was for someone else, for a different time, you know!"). It seems strange to ignore something that makes up part of your holy books doesn't it?
Oh and finally, just few excerpts which I know your going to love taken from the Christian website http://www.newlife-glastonbury.org/web/content/view/69/94/:
"I mean, imagine you are a young Christian reading through Exodus and Leviticus and you stumble upon verses like these:
Exodus 35:2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
Woah. So anyone who works on Sundays should be put to death. Friday is the Islamic holy day but there's no such verse in our Holy Book and since Sunday is a Christian holy day, this must apply to you.
This is my personal favourite.
Exodus 21:17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.
What were you saying about Islam? We are taught to respect our pearents and show a hugeamount of respect and compassion. But the threat of being put to death for not doing so, is something that I've never come across in our Holy Book.
"Perhaps these examples are extreme, but you may have wondered at some time what a Christian is supposed to do with the law. Do we discard it? Do we follow it? Follow parts? If so, what parts? After all, the OT contains over 600 commandments in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy that Jews were expected to obey. Are Christians expected to obey all 600 commandments? And if not, how do we know which ones to obey? Are we supposed to sacrifice if there is no temple? Even if we’d be arrested for cruelty to animals"?
Sounds like a confused Christian to me. Probably the same thing that you are experiencing yet you refuse to question the shortcomings of the bible and turn a blind-eye when the Quran says your book has been tampered with.
After I've just showed you this Christian who is advising young Christians on how to read Leviticus and other sections of the old testament
how will you able to say The old testament doesn't apply to us?
To those who have read the Quran, not once have they been confused, because with the Quran comes the Sunnah and the sayings of our prophet(pbuh) as an added 'reinforcement' to the true word of God.
at January 6, 2008 5:00 PM
hope_and_justice
When you talk like that instead of calling me a troll, i'll show you respect so I apologise for my earlier comments. But don't call my religion a backward theology.
My knowledge of what the Sharia says on apostates is not in-depth for me to comment as I would only be speculating and thats a dangerous thing for me to do. Especially in the current climate where one word out-of-line will get me sent to Guantanomo Bay.
If you think im trying to side-step the issue then so be it. What you may think you know about Islam's position on apostates is totally up to you but Im not going to comment.
As for beastiality, the very people who are the cornerstones of Christian communities i.e. Bishops have been known to commit it. I've never heard of an Imam who does it. Now im not denying it occurs in muslim countries, but can you possibly deny it occurs in America. Im not even sure why you have brought up the issue as it has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam and does not tarnish Islam in anyway.
But to a more pertinent point: what would beating a wife for disagreeing with one be?
Remember the distinction you have to make that I highlighted in my previous post when it comes to the word 'beating'. I say this so you don't accuse me of condoning the abuse of woman before I write anything. The verse does not just apply to muslims it applies to the whole of mankind. It applies to both the husband and the wife. How can it be aggresive or violent if you tap your wife on the arm 'lightly'. Its not the force of the impact that will alert her it is the actual act itself. If people were to follow Surah an-Nisaa, the 'brutal' final solution would never occur in most cases. But we humans all have weaknesses.
Your morality isn't really based on opposition to aggression. It is based on opposition to aggression when the particular instance of aggression is inconvenient for you and your maintaining of dominance.
Not at all. Suicide bombings occur all the time in Iraq taking the lives of countless innocent men, woman and children. I don't care if the victims are muslim or not, if they have not agressed against you, do not touch them. So I don't agree on that point im afraid. If you follow the Quran properly you cannot attack people who have done absolutely nothing wrong to you, your family, your people, your religion or your nation. If that was not the case muslims would be attacking everything that moves and is not a muslim.
Finally if you ask any muslim, what he really wants, you will hardly get any of them say we want to be the dominant force over the earth because we strive to worship our lord in the correct manner that He has ordered us to. That does not include supressing people because they have different beliefs.
dumbledoresarmy- You say im ignorant of the bible but heres some of the things that I know and some things that I have come across. The Bible explicitly states on the issue of pork:
And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed, yet he cheweth
not the cud; he is unclean to you”.
“Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch,
they are unclean to you.” [Leviticus 11:7-8]
Your saying these are verses from the old testament
Now forgive me if im wrong, but if one section of the bible applies to jews why is it contained in your bible. Furthermore if one section prohibits something and another permits it, as in the case of pork, wouldn't that constitute a contradiction in your holy book. Wouldn't it confuse Christians? Even if you say it doesn't apply to Christains, the question remains of why it is a part of your book? Do you read one section and ignore the other? Because I would.
As for alcohol it is totally prohibited in Islam, why? Because if we followed the bible, human weakness will in most cases lead us to breaking the laws of the holy book. Now your counter-argument is going to be along the lines of 'Ad hominem'. But what more can I say.
You believe Christanity originated from Jesus Christ. So why have the old testament which was completed before Jesus (pbuh) was even born, as part of the Christian bible and then ignore certain parts of it.
Judaism, Christanity and Islam are all similar in some ways, whether you like it or not, but you won't find the Torah or the Bible in the Quran when both preceeded the Quran.
"like the Christians ignore Leviticus ("that was for someone else, for a different time, you know!"). It seems strange to ignore something that makes up part of your holy books doesn't it?
Oh and finally, just few excerpts which I know your going to love taken from the Christian website http://www.newlife-glastonbury.org/web/content/view/69/94/:
"I mean, imagine you are a young Christian reading through Exodus and Leviticus and you stumble upon verses like these:
Exodus 35:2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
Woah. So anyone who works on Sundays should be put to death. Friday is the Islamic holy day but there's no such verse in our Holy Book and since Sunday is a Christian holy day, this must apply to you.
This is my personal favourite.
Exodus 21:17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.
What were you saying about Islam? We are taught to respect our pearents and show a hugeamount of respect and compassion. But the threat of being put to death for not doing so, is something that I've never come across in our Holy Book.
"Perhaps these examples are extreme, but you may have wondered at some time what a Christian is supposed to do with the law. Do we discard it? Do we follow it? Follow parts? If so, what parts? After all, the OT contains over 600 commandments in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy that Jews were expected to obey. Are Christians expected to obey all 600 commandments? And if not, how do we know which ones to obey? Are we supposed to sacrifice if there is no temple? Even if we’d be arrested for cruelty to animals"?
Sounds like a confused Christian to me. Probably the same thing that you are experiencing yet you refuse to question the shortcomings of the bible and turn a blind-eye when the Quran says your book has been tampered with.
After I've just showed you this Christian who is advising young Christians on how to read Leviticus and other sections of the old testament
how will you able to say The old testament doesn't apply to us?
To those who have read the Quran, not once have they been confused, because with the Quran comes the Sunnah and the sayings of our prophet(pbuh) as an added 'reinforcement' to the true word of God.
at January 6, 2008 5:03 PM
Unbelievable twaddle.
Posted by: HawkWatcher at January 6, 2008 6:39 PM
5:8 "O you who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; and never let hatred of any-one lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. Be just: this is closest to being God-conscious. And remain conscious of God: verily, God is aware of all that you do."
18:29 And say: "The truth [has now come] from your Sustainer: let, then, him who wills, believe in it, and let him who wills, reject it."
42:48 But if they turn away [from thee, O Prophet, know that] We have not sent thee to be their keeper: thou art not bound to do more than deliver the message [entrusted to thee]. And, behold, [such as turn away from Our messages are but impelled by the weakness and inconstancy of human nature: thus,] when We give man a taste of Our grace, he is prone to exult in it; but if misfortune befalls [any of] them in result of what their own hands have sent forth, then, behold, man shows how bereft he is of all gratitude!
Posted by: thesaracen at January 6, 2008 7:26 PM
Suspicion and aggression saturate the Islamic text and the Islamic faith.
It teaches the pre-emptive strike in politics and international relations -
Qur’an 8:58 “If you apprehend treachery from a people with whom you have a treaty, retaliate by breaking off relations with them.”
It also t
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)