| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
That imperialist headline is Qur'an 24:55, discussed below.
Verses 21-26 of sura 24 warn the believers not to imitate Satan (v. 21) by committing sins – such as the sin of not aiding those who have left their homes “in Allah’s cause” (v. 22). This refers to the early Muslims who left Mecca and settled in Medina with Muhammad – it is a call to the new Muslims of Medina to ease their transition. Another sin to avoid is that around which this entire sura revolves: the sin of accusing chaste women of adultery, which will get the false accuser Allah’s curse in both this world and the next (v. 23). Allah will pay them back on the Day of Judgment (v. 25).
All this refers, of course, to the accusation of adultery made against Muhammad’s wife Aisha — as does the phrase “Evil women are for evil men and evil men are for evil women, and good women are for good men and good men are for good women” from v. 26, which Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam explains thusly: “Allah would not have made ‘A’ishah the wife of His Messenger unless she had been good, because he is the best of the best of mankind. If she had been evil, she would not have been a suitable partner either according to His Laws or His decree.”
Verses 27-29 lay down rules for the etiquette of visiting someone else’s house: don’t just barge in. This leads in verses 30-31 to rules for modesty. Men should “lower their gaze” (v. 30): says Ibn Kathir, “They should look only at what is permissible for them to look at, and lower their gaze from forbidden things. If it so happens that a person’s gaze unintentionally falls upon something forbidden, he should quickly look away.”
Women, meanwhile, should cover their “adornment” (v. 31). Contrary to what some Islamic apologists in the West claim today, this is not a matter of choice, but a divine commandment. Ibn Kathir explains: “This is a command from Allah to the believing women, and jealousy on His part over the wives of His believing servants. It is also to distinguish the believing women from the women of the Jahiliyyah [the society of unbelievers] and the deeds of the pagan women.”
What should they cover? In a hadith, Aisha recounts that Muhammad said that “when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands.” Even today some Muslims use this hadith to justify mandating the hijab, or headscarf, for women. In another hadith, a woman with a veil over her face came to see Muhammad; she was looking for her son, who had been killed in battle. Muhammad asked her: “You have come here asking for your son while veiling your face?” She responded: “If I am afflicted with the loss of my son, I shall not suffer the loss of my modesty.” Pleased, Muhammad told her: “You will get the reward of two martyrs for your son,” because “the people of the Book have killed him.” The Tafsir al-Jalalayn agrees that v. 31 means that when in public women should cover “all that is other than the face and the hands.”
V. 31 also says: “And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment.” Ibn Kathir continues: “During Jahiliyyah, when women walked in the street wearing anklets and no one could hear them, they would stamp their feet so that men could hear their anklets ringing. Allah forbade the believing women to do this.” And: “women are also prohibited from wearing scent and perfume when they are going outside the home, lest men should smell their perfume.”
Verses 32-34 contain laws for marriage and direct Muslims to free their slaves upon their request (v. 33), “provided,” says Ibn Kathir, “that the servant has some skill and means of earning so that he can pay his master the money that is stipulated in the contract.” Muslims should not force their slave girls to become prostitutes and live off the profits, if the slave girls want to remain chaste (v. 33).
Then verses 35-45 celebrate Allah. He is the light of the heavens and the earth (v. 35, the verse that gives this sura its name), and of the homes of the believers who pray and gives alms (vv. 36-37) – while the unbelievers live in darkness (vv. 39-40). All beings praise him in their own way (v. 41); he rules the natural world (vv. 43-44); he created every animal from water (v. 45).
But still there are those who don’t believe or only pretend to believe, and these are excoriated again, while the believers are praised, in verse 46-57. Allah has sent down signs (ayat, revelations or verses of the Qur’an, v. 46), but some only pretend to believe in Allah and Muhammad: they are not really believers (v. 47). Some of them don’t even come when Muhammad summons them (v. 48); if they were right, they would have come to him obediently (v. 49). They are wrongdoers (v. 50), while the believers, when Muhammad summons them, answer “We hear and obey” (v. 51). Those who obey Allah and Muhammad will be victorious in the end (v. 52) – a conviction that sustains many a jihadist today through setbacks and defeats.
The Hypocrites swear they’ll leave their homes if Muhammad commanded it, but rather than swearing mighty oaths, they should just obey (v. 53). Ibn Kathir explains: “Allah says about the hypocrites who had promised the Messenger and sworn that if he were to command them to go out for battle, they would go.” However, of the Hypocrites “it is known that your obedience is merely verbal and is not accompanied by action. Every time you swear an oath you lie.” If they turn away from Muhammad’s message, they will bear the responsibility; he has done his duty by calling them to Islam (v. 54).
Then comes a momentous promise: Allah will establish the believers as rulers of the earth (v. 55). “This is a promise,” says Ibn Kathir, “from Allah to His Messenger that He would cause his Ummah [community] to become successors on earth, i.e., they would become the leaders and rulers of mankind, through whom He would reform the world and to whom people would submit, so that they would have in exchange a safe security after their fear.” Ibn Kathir then says “this is what Allah did indeed do,” and recounts some of the early Islamic conquests.
Verses 58-64 lay down instructions for when the believers’ slaves and children must ask permission before coming in Muhammad’s presence (vv. 58-59); allow elderly women to go uncovered in public (although modesty is better) (v. 60); and greetings and eating together (v. 61), as well as direct the believers to ask permission before leaving Muhammad’s presence (v. 62), for Muhammad’s summons is not like that of an ordinary man (v. 63).
Next week: Sura 25, “The Criterion.” Muhammad’s detractors say of the Qur’an: “Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening.”
(Here you can find links to all the earlier "Blogging the Qur'an" segments. Here is a good Arabic Qur’an, with English translations available; here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)
Posted by Robert at May 12, 2008 6:11 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
There are also a few discussions in the comments field at Hot Air that you may find interesting -- notably one with an indignant Catholic
Indignant . . .Catholic . . .hmmmm, Karen Armstrong reads Hot Air?
. . .// couldn't help myself, I'll finish reading the article now.
Posted by: miira![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 12, 2008 6:47 AM
Robert - I hope you are planning to release the entire "Blogging the Quran" either in book form or on CDs.
I'd love to have the series available for offline reading. :)
Posted by: DJM at May 12, 2008 7:02 AM
Robert,
I'm amazed at how much you write everyday. I'm not sure how you keep up with it - I even have problems just trying to read everything you put online.
As always, well done and I love your work.
Posted by: S Perry at May 12, 2008 7:25 AM
Robert,
In the "Hot Air" comments you discuss "returns ever diminishing". Were you aware that Hot Air appear to have closed registration and so you will get no new commentators there?
I'll comment on the Blog here, but only to point out that your "Blogging the Qur'an" series is prviding me with valuable *answers*. I've now realised your care in answering comments in "Hot Air" adds much value, so thanls also for those.
Posted by: Romney at May 12, 2008 7:38 AM
Robert -
As James Brown once sang -
"Baby, please, please, please - don't go."
The public needs to know. I have a dear friend who feels that because her Muslim friends are "nice", we should not be critical of the Qur'an or Islam. "Every religious text has violent passages...."
This is wishful thinking at the best and ostrich ignorance at the worst.
Please continue "Blogging the Qur'an."
"It is better to light a candle, than curse the dark."
Posted by: tanstaafl at May 12, 2008 8:18 AM
This extraordinary series is valuable and should continue to it's natural conclusion - the completion of the entire qur'an, and eventually made available on book or CD or even a syndicated column. (I'll happily report sightings of pigs flying)
I read your Blogging the Qur’an regularly without comment for a couple of reasons. First, I'm a regular reader of this site and post my questions/comments here since I'm not a registered user of Hot Air.
Jihadwatch, dhimmiwatch and 'Blogging the Qur'an' archives provide a treasure trove of material that is discovered by new audiences - young and old regularly. I suppose you might be surprised to see your series featured in high school aged students MySpace pages - a twist on syndication, if you will - not necessarily at the time of featured release, but tied in with specific current events.
As for the comment at Hot Air equivocating the bible with the qur'an, the commenter has a blog of their own. It should be encouraging that this blogger visited your 'Blogging the koran' series and has demonstrated a willingness to explore outside the limiting comfort of familiar diametrics.
at May 12, 2008 8:41 AM
We must lose our religious and cultural arrogance and get on board with what we have to deal with today, not thousands of years ago.
She obviously hasn't been reading Jihad Watch. The koran is for all times.
Hasn't been reading the bible much either is she is just studying Genesis and Exodus.
And I suspect that her husband will think that western culture is better than islamic culture after serving in the middle east or afghanistan. Our arrogance? I have no intention of losing my cultural arrogance. Thanks, but no thanks. Our culture is better. Maybe your religion isn't? You don't sound like you have much faith.
If you don't think the west is better, go live with the muslims for a while.
That is, billions of people who are rejecting terrorism under the name of their religion (we Christians might want to remind ourselves of our darker days and the Crusades when pointing fingers) who are ready to move ahead. This is clearly evidenced by the plethora of Muslim groups like “Terrorism is not Us” and “Terrorism has no Religion”, etc., Muslim scholars reaching out to the pope…..
~Amy Proctor
"Billions of people rejecting terrorism?" There's only 1 billion muslims and 40% to 90% of them think murdering apostates is fine. Where do you get your numbers?
Again with the crusades, blah, blah blah Karen Armstrong says.... blah, blah, blah.
Muslims scholars reaching out to the pope? To tell him that we need dialoge so that we can ALL understand that islam is tolerant, ~ until it gets strong enough to take over that is.
Your faith had darker days...and then there was a reformation. Islam will have NO reformation. The koran is for ALL times and for ALL people and for the WHOLE world.
Doesn't Christianity FOLLOW the teachings of Christ? Not the Old Testament? Why do supposed Christians keep bringing up the Old Testament to prove they are not worthy? Maybe if they would stop doing that there would still be a thriving Christian population in Bethleham, land of their saviours birth, instead of a few cowering Christians, who are afraid to raise their heads.
Ann~
Keep turning your other cheek. Maybe if it gets slapped enough you'll wake up. Before your children are forced to become muslims. But if you don't think your faith is any better, maybe it won't matter to you?
Robert - Keep up the good work please. You are read by more people than you know about. There are lots of lurkers who never post. And many others who read your works that are copied into other places.
at May 12, 2008 9:57 AM
I am not registered to comment at Hot Air, but I really wanted to respond to Amy's comments.
I myself have read the Bible. You know what happens? I come across something that is opaque and I find myself asking, "Well, what is that all about?" For example, "Why is the sacrifice of Abel accepted but not Cain's?" "Lot's daughter's did what with him?" "Why is Jacob's treachery rewarded?" and those are just off the top of my head recalling questions from Genesis.
So what do I do with these questions? I don't just give a dumb, happy grin and say, "Well it's in the Bible so it must be okey-dokely!" Instead I try to find out how Jews and Christians throughout the ages have considered these passages. What do the Fathers of the Church say, what do Biblical scholars say, what do Jewish rabbis say?
I could go on at length about interpreting each of the points you raised, but that would deprive you of the useful exercise of researching something. On the other hand, I am not sure you would. It seems to me from your criticism of David's behavior that you must have flung the Bible from your hand in mid-verse. Otherwise you might have noticed the second part of 2 Sam 11:27, "But the LORD was displeased with what David had done." Hello??? That's a clue in the text itself about how to view the behavior, and it is fundamentally dishonest of you to present this as a problem of Biblical morality. You are simply taking refuge in willful ignorance of both the Bible and the Koran.
Robert is in fact providing context about each and every part of the Koran. He is systematically, week-by-week going through the Koran and showing how Muslim commenters view the passage.
Comments at Hot Air are closed, but Jihad Watch is open, and anyone with an alternative commentary is entirely welcome to post it.
Most people are too lazy to wonder why adulterers are not stoned to death in Jewish or Christian societies, and why they are in Muslim societies. They buy into a watered down historical determinism that says, "Ah yes! Islam is such a young religion, and we used to stone adulterers back in the day, and I am sure Muslims will grow out of it." I suppose that if you turn your head and pretend you don’t see what is going on in Muslim societies and even Muslim communities in the west that you think that you will have nobody’s blood on your hands. Countless women can be put in prison or murdered for the crime of being raped, and you can ignore it, and feel ever-so-good about yourself for being tolerant and respectful of other religions.
Perhaps Robert could post this at Hot Air where Amy commented. If so, thanks.
at May 12, 2008 10:09 AM
and another thing...
Amy asked, "Are we prepared to condemn Judaism?" My answer, "Yes, of course. And I am prepared to condemn Christianity, and Islam and any other religion that walks through the room." It is up to the religion to convince ME that it should be treated respectfully, and not MY job to put on a Stepford wife smile whenever anyone talks about religion.
at May 12, 2008 10:14 AM
That ~Ann~ should have been to ~Amy~. Who probably won't read any of this anyway and is just trying to link her blog.
Posted by: Borg at May 12, 2008 10:27 AM
The Tafsir al-Jalalayn agrees that v. 31 means that when in public women should cover “all that is other than the face and the hands.”
So what is the idea behind the burkha or even the cover that shows only the eyes? It can't be anywhere in the Quran if numerous sources say Mohammed said to cover all but the FACE and hands. Where did the Taliban (or anyone else in Islamdom) get that from?
at May 12, 2008 10:39 AM
PMK ~ It seems like the original order was to cover all but the face and hands. The adornments could be shown by stamping the foot (meaning adornments were jewelry and ankle bracelets) but that became the veil, which because woman are all 'vagina's, the whole body should be unrecognizable. Some say that veils were common, but then only Mo's wives wore the veil so they could be told from the unbelievers. Later all the believers women wore the veil, which then turned into the all encompasing sheet. Including gloves and un-needed glasses to hide the face.
This was started by one of Mo's friends, which he convieniently got a matching revelation about shortly after his friends request.
The one or two eyes part is in parenthesis so I don't think they were original to the koran. Instead they are a commentary which has become part of the standard printing.
I could be wrong. See these links to muslim sites for explanations.
http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=tell+your+wives&translator=5&search=1&start=0
http://www.inter-islam.org/Actions/Hijbdu.html
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/womens/niqaab.htm
Posted by: Borg at May 12, 2008 12:02 PM
And to anyone reading this that thinks the literal interpretation of the koran is in the past, try reading Sheik Osama bin Ladin's Letter to America. He quotes the koran multiple times and lists the verse so you can check it. The same out of context way that we do here. Did muslims complain? Isn't he being a "Sheik" a koran expert? Muslims the world over adore him. He says islam will conquer the world. Why do 90% of muslims polled adore him?
It's not the past for muslims.
It is the present.
And the future.
Posted by: Borg at May 12, 2008 12:21 PM
Borg,
Great links. I had to laugh out loud at the following segment from the second link. These Muslims really have projection problems. They're so busy trying to prove how great they are they can't see just how badly they treat others.
The kuffaar say that Islam has enslaved its women by enforcing them to stay in their homes and cover themselves when they come out. How very wrong they are! What have the kuffaar given their women; prizes for displaying their bodies and exposing them to the risk of rape and molestation. Insecurity of losing their husbands to beautiful mistresses. Constant battle with nature to look young and pretty enough to keep your man with you! On the contrary, Islam elevates its women to the peak of respect and saves a woman from disgrace and humiliation, giving her a chance to be treated like an honourable human being and not a mere sex object for the lustful desires of bestial miscreants.
Treating women as honourable human beings when they can divorce a woman for the "sin" of being infertile?
Western women have the insecurity of losing their husbands to beautiful mistresses when Islam gives men four wives and countless mistresses?
Islam elevates its women to the peak of respect? So THAT'S why they have to walk behind their men and subject themselves to the control of the eldest son! A child can tell them what to do if that child is male! That must also be why an Iraqi killed his only daughter for the sin of "TALKING" to an infidel. His sons joined him in the act of stomping her throat and afterward they were congratulated(!) by the local police.
I never understood just how gallant Islam was until today!
Posted by: PMK at May 12, 2008 12:26 PM
A few words about those dastardly Crusaders, mentioned above.
In historical times, the land called variously Palestina (Gk), Israel, Judea-Galilee-Samaria, Syria, Lesser Syria, and several other names (the Levant, for example), originally was settled by Philistines and Cannanites. It was taken from them by the Israelites. It was taken from them by the Assyrians and Babylonians. Jews (Judeans) were restored to residency, but not rule, by Persia. Independent Jewish rule was reestablished by the Macabbees for about 200 years, beginning in about 150 B.C. Then, the Romans took over and directly or indirectly ruled the region for about 600 years, the last 250 or 300 years from Constantinople. Jews and Christians lived in the area at that time.
In the 7th century, Muslims invaded and took the land by force, imposing Islam or servitude (dhimmi status) on the inhabitants.
The crusades were simply an attempt by Christians to retake (liberate, if you will) the region from the most recent imperialist conquerors, the Muslims. They were briefly and only locally successful in the effort, and finally, Muslims reestablished hegemony over the land -- until the 20th century, when Jews once again wrested a measure of control of a part of the territory from its Ottoman (specifically Syrian) hegemons, rulers, imperial dictators.
Whine, whine, moan, moan... The process is called history. There are winners and losers, and it's sometimes difficult to tell which is which without a program.
Posted by: golfdad at May 12, 2008 1:22 PM
Another sin to avoid is that around which this entire sura revolves: the sin of accusing chaste women of adultery, which will get the false accuser Allah’s curse in both this world and the next (v. 23). Allah will pay them back on the Day of Judgment (v. 25).
Does this mean that the father who kills his daugher, or the brother who kills his sister, just because of an unsubstantiated suspicion of adultery, is cursed? If so, then why are such people cheered on in the islamic-occupied world? And if not, what then does it mean?
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at May 12, 2008 2:46 PM
and another thing...Amy asked, "Are we prepared to condemn Judaism?" My answer, "Yes, of course. And I am prepared to condemn Christianity, and Islam and any other religion that walks through the room." It is up to the religion to convince ME that it should be treated respectfully, and not MY job to put on a Stepford wife smile whenever anyone talks about religion.
Posted by: AnneCrockett at May 12, 2008 10:14 AM
-----------------------------------------------
That is a great answer, AnneCrockett.
I am a Christian, and I want more than anything for you, too, to be a Christian. However, if I want your conversion to Christianity to be sincere and real, and not phony (e.g. just to get rid of me), then the only thing I can do is gentle persuasion with my words and my actions. I.e., I can "love" you into becoming a Christian: by helping you when you need it, or by perhaps doing something good for you in response to something bad you do to me (this is only a hypothetical example).
Also, I can secretly pray that God would convince you.
You see, if Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter) is really genuine, and if our God really is the real God, then I don't have to force you to do anything; I merely have to live in such a way that you see Jesus in me; and then, from time to time, say a word or two about Jesus.
This is one of the biggest reasons that Islam is a phony religion: they have to force people to believe; they can't leave the convincing part up to their god. If their god was real, then they wouldn't have to force a thing.
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at May 12, 2008 2:59 PM
Mr Spencer
keep going! Finish it out, and then get it published.
I read BOTH your 'Blogging the Quran' over at Hot Air (and ALL the comments!) and the discussion here as well.
I don't comment at 'Hot Air' as I am reluctant to register on too many sites - there, I simply sit quietly in the corner with my coffee and 'eavesdrop'. But add me to the roll of 'readers'.
The people who comment there are a different bunch, overall, from those who comment here, which makes it interesting to compare. I enjoy watching your dialogue with the questioners.
I recommended 'Blogging the Quran' to a fellow-parishioner who had just borrowed, and read, my copy of the Quran (N Dawood translation) - I said if she wanted some useful insights, that was *the* place to go.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at May 12, 2008 9:04 PM
From Above:-
“Women, meanwhile, should cover their “adornment” (v. 31). Contrary to what some Islamic apologists in the West claim today, this is not a matter of choice, but a divine commandment. Ibn Kathir explains: “This is a command from Allah to the believing women, and jealousy on His part over the wives of His believing servants. It is also to distinguish the believing women from the women of the Jahiliyyah [the society of unbelievers] and the deeds of the pagan women.”
Comments:-
To translate Jahilliyyah as [the society of unbelievers] may not be correct as the word ‘Unbeliever’ denotes that one is all out in defiance and does not wants to believe in view of the vested interests; like the Christian or Jews that they have evolved certain myths like the monopoly about God (of owning Him), where as, even the last superseding commandment of God, in shape of Quran is very much here with us but they insist (in defiance) that peoples salvation rests with the Christianity only. While envying the Last Commandments; Christian may like to indulge in maligning it but may not be ready to take any heed.
Where as 'Jahilliyah' can be described as a society which is deprived of knowledge, civility and education; they followed the primitive customs of their ancestors and were stuck with the old rut of traditions found in their culture. They were void of any comprehension to grasp and evaluate the subject delicate matters, like covering of women bodies etc in public; and that they were in need of strenuous painstaking efforts to educate and groom them to attain the required civility level that Quran describes.
-------------
Adabarez
at May 12, 2008 9:30 PM
"and that they were in need of strenuous painstaking efforts to educate and groom them to attain the required civility level that Quran describes.
Posted by: Adabarez"
I have seen imitaters of uswa-hasana, al insan, al kamil who have spent a lifetime making strenuous painstaking efforts grooming themselves to attain the required civility level that quran describes and I must say that I cannot use the word "civil" to describe them. "Sub-animal", "Barbarians"(with apology to barbarians), "Zombies"(this is about perfect) are the words that one can safely employ in describing these people. But then, I am a kaffir, and a jahil of the jahillya as well and I obviously cannot understand the perfection of the quran. OTOH, I think I do understand it very well.
at May 13, 2008 3:01 AM
Arjun Savak,
When every thing is viewed with prejudice; wearing the tinted glasses and coloured then every thing will certainly look stained, with smears and smudgy.
Savak; there are many more pleasant things in this world to do other than goose chasing.
--------
Adabarez
at May 13, 2008 4:48 AM
Declares the Lord, the LORD Almighty.
While talking about women in our multicultural societies; when we turn the pages of history, we find the old scriptures revealing for us:-
Isaiah 3; Judgment on Jerusalem and Judah
[1] See now, the Lord, the LORD Almighty, is about to take from Jerusalem and Judah both supply and support: all supplies of food and all supplies of water,
[2] the hero and warrior, the judge and prophet, the soothsayer and elders…, [16] The LORD says, "The women of Zion are haughty, walking along with outstretched necks, flirting with their eyes, tripping along with mincing steps, with ornaments jingling on their ankles.
[17] Therefore the Lord will bring sores on the heads of the women of Zion; the LORD will make their scalps bald."
[18] In that day the Lord will snatch away their finery: the bangles and headbands and crescent necklaces, [19] the earrings and bracelets and veils, [20] the headdresses and ankle chains and sashes, the perfume bottles and charms, [21] the signet rings and nose rings, [22] the fine robes and the capes and cloaks, the purses [23] and mirrors, and the linen garments and tiaras and shawls.
[24] Instead of fragrance there will be a stench;
instead of a sash, a rope;
instead of well-dressed hair, baldness;
instead of fine clothing, sackcloth;
instead of beauty, branding.
[25] Your men will fall by the sword, your warriors in battle.
[2] The gates of Zion will lament and mourn; destitute, she will sit on the ground.
With such a clear verdicts and admonishes highlighted in Quran; Muslim finds them selves at receiving ends ;left with no choice but to adhere to the Last Commandments in Quran and strive with true sprit ;lest they are placed defunct like old denominations. God forbid!
-------------
Adabarez
at May 13, 2008 5:40 AM
Observe 'adabarez' ripping scripture out of context.
He forgets those who, like me, have read the whole thing.
The passage 'adabarez' so wickedly misquotes, from early in the book of Isaiah, circa 500 BC, was written prior to the Babylonian captivity of the people of Judah.
It is HISTORIC. It refers to a judgement which was about to happen, and which is NOW (as we today look back on this passage) over and done with: a judgement which was painful, but limited and temporary, and which was FOLLOWED, as Isaiah foresaw, by the return from Babylon and the rebuilding of the Temple. (One may note also that the book of Isaiah describes severe judgements falling on various Gentile nations - why? because they have attacked Judah and Jerusalem).
I REPEAT: the judgement referred to here is NOT FINAL, as our ignorant, Jew-hating 'adabarez' foolishly supposes, and as he is trying to deceive us into thinking. IT WAS FOLLOWED BY RESTORATION. Isaiah himself makes it very clear, over and over, throughout the whole of his book, that YHWH is faithful and will not, in the end, abandon his Beloved, but take her back, heal her and restore her.
God is angry at injustices; He punishes, but in order to correct and purify, not destroy, his people. The focus of the passage cited, when viewed in context, is not female modesty or immodesty, what women wear or do not wear, but what might be called 'conspicuous consumption'.
'adabarez' carefully skips from verses 1 and 2, to verse 16, omitting such things as verse 15, which clearly condemns historic injustices practised AT THAT TIME by some among God's people e.g. 'what do you [rulers] mean by crushing my people, and grinding the faces of the poor?'
And 'adabarez' resolutely ignores the verses that FOLLOW, in chapter four. Those verses promise that when the punishment is over, Judah and Jerusalem will be RESTORED by God:
"In that day the Branch of the LORD will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land will be the pride and glory of the survivors in Israel. Those who are left in Zion, who remain in Jerusalem, will be called holy, all who are recorded among the living in Jerusalem. The Lord will wash away the filth of the women of Zion; he will cleanse the bloodstains of Jerusalem by a spirit of judgement and a spirit of fire.
'Then the LORD [i.e YHWH] will create over all of Mount Zion and over those who assemble there a cloud of smoke by day and a glow of flaming fire by night {note well: this is like the cloud and fire that led the people out of Egypt - Exodus 13: 21-22; it is the Shekhinah, the glory of the Presence of YHWH}; over all the glory will be a canopy. It will be a shelter and shade from the heat of the sun, and a refuge and hiding place from the storm and rain". Isaiah 4: 2-6.
Similar passages, looking past the terrors of a period of temporary judgement and suffering, to a future of joyful restoration, in renewed relationship with YHWH, are found again and again in the book of Isaiah.
Take a look at chapter 12, 1-2 - 'In that day you will say, 'I will praise you, O LORD. Although you were angry with me, your anger has turned away and you have comforted me. Surely God is my salvation; I will trust and not be afraid."
Or chapter 54: "Do not be afraid; you will not suffer shame. Do not fear disgrace; you will not be humiliated. You will forget the shame of your youth and remember no more the reproach of your widowhood. For your Maker is your husband - the LORD Almighty is His name - the Holy One of Israel is your redeemer...The LORD will call you back as if you were a wife deserted and distressed in spirit - a wife who married young, only to be rejected, 'says your God. 'FOR A BRIEF MOMENT I abandoned you, but WITH DEEP COMPASSION I WILL BRING YOU BACK. In a surge of anger I hid my face from you for a moment, BUT WITH EVERLASTING KINDNESS I will have compassion on you, says the LORD your redeemer.' [VERSES 4-8].
Or 54:v 10 - 'Though the mountains be shaken, and the hills be removed, yet MY UNFAILING LOVE for you will not be shaken, nor my covenant of peace be removed", says the LORD [YHWH] who has compassion on you.'
See that phrase, 'adabarez'? - "*unfailing love*". It means what it means. Love that never ends. God's love for Israel.
No-one who has read the *whole* of the book of Isaiah would EVER believe that God - YHWH, I mean, *not* the usurping, lying Arab false god 'allah' - would EVER abandon the Jews, the people of Israel.
The same absolute certainty that judgement is temporary, a mere episode of anger framed within an ongoing relationship of everlasting love, is expressed by the prophet Jeremiah, who lived through the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem. Jeremiah 31: 35-36:
"Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar: the LORD of hosts is his name:
"If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, 'then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever'. Of course, when Jeremiah wrote, the sun, the moon and the stars were seen as permanent, so what he is in fact saying, is that Israel will never stop being God's people.
'adabarez' - please refrain from misquoting the Bible in order to try to 'prove' that the Jews, the people of Israel, have been abandoned by their God. You will only make yourself look ridiculous.
at May 13, 2008 8:17 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)