Original Egalitarian Order of Most Religions 'Hijacked' by Men

south african hoodia

I am trying to find books by a Jewish Cantor (female) who is also a Buddhist Nun. The women who crossover might make an intersting study. Can you direct me at all? My searches yield thousands of results so maybe I am not refining enough.Some searches of course turn up with no matches. Not so good a researcher as I thought, Linnie

I am trying to find books by a Jewish Cantor (female) who is also a Buddhist Nun. The women who crossover might make an intersting study. Can you direct me at all? My searches yield thousands of results so maybe I am not refining enough.Some searches of course turn up with no matches. Not so good a researcher as I thought, Linnie

how are you. my name is mulugeta, i live in ethiopia.

How can you write about faith if you do not have faith? How can one explain the wisdom of the spirit in the limited reasoning of the human mind. Religion is not meant to be a struggle of power between any group, sex, ethnicity, culture. You would like to treat men and women equally in everything. Yes, both sexes are equal in rights and dignity, but at the same time they are inequal in many different aspects. For example, the love a father gives to his children is not the same as a mothers love. In general men cannot express their feelings and emotions as intimately as women can. There is a reason why children come out of a women's womb and not out of a man's. A mother is the only person in the world who can give the proper love and comfort to her children...something the father will always lack, no matter how long he stays at home with his kids or raises them. On the other hand, and man's masculinity gives him the sense of a protector for his family. You cannot attribute everything in religion was purposely done by men to gain control and power over women...saying this is a biased and generalized labelling. Thus, from your arguments you can probably conclude that God was portrayed as a father because men created it that way... So , basically you are saying that religion is some fantasy created by a bunch of loonatic men in order to take over society...My dear, even though there is thousands and thousands of scientifically documented proof of miracles done to men and women, old and the young, christians and non-christians, you will never believe. There is also a reason for the apparations of Mother Mary and why millions of Christians around the world ask for her prayers and healing... evidence which you fail to mention in your article... Life is not a struggle of power Karen, but is a struggle between good and evil. The only reason religious people fear secularism is that it falsifies the true meaning behind religion and it also promotes equality of religions which is the biggest mistake because not all religions are equal in spirituality. Furthermore, a secularist state basically brainwashes it citizens into believing that life is all about drinking, working, having "fun", playing, etc... then we die off... and we don't find God... how can we be with God if we are away from the truth or cannot find it? If you want to learn something what do you do? you go read about that topic and learn something you did not know before. The same applies to God... the only way to know God is to learn about him, and learning about him requires interaction with the spirit.

Anonymous your religion is EVIL.
you condones the murder of apostates. Do you know that it only takes one page of atrocities to invalidate your peaceful religion? In fact muslims here alluded that the Quran is an easy and understandable book for all mankind for ALL Time and in the SAME breath you claim that its a difficult book just like any -other- religious texts? Why is it that muslims are SOOO CONTRADICTED.

I'm sorry to say this but Islam is full of contradictions. Immanuel and Divine Knucklehead already won the argument the moment Richard began using Argument fallacies and when the Muslimah started quoting teachings THAT ARE FROM THE DEAD PARTS OF THE QURAN. the only relevant passages in the Quran are the latest chapters not the ones before it. This is the fundamental way that Muslims teach the Quran because of Mohammed's doctrine of abrogation. Mohammed changed his mind A LOT. The last words of Mohammed deed say that Women are only worth half of a man and to hang a whip on a wall to remind her of her place. Why is it that reality also confirms this in Islamic countries? If muslim women really want to be treated like a muslimah they should just move to an Islamic country and STAY THERE. I also notice that Victoria also concluded that we should replace our thinking process with the Quran. She said it herself its a complete way of life. When a book tells you how to do everything from wipping your own ass to drinking camel urine to treat ailments is the time to remind those people that they are Backward-superstitious-third-worlders. If these people have there way with in our country they will definitely stall progress of any sort. Like they did to themselves with in there own Golden Age. Who needs science we got the Quran? I guess I should look for the sun in a muddy pond.
The Quran is not perfect. Therefor its not the word of God. It contains contradictions, it contains outdated and wrong information, It's teachings didn't save the countries that it governs. Can't get any more backwards than that. Please join humanity. We don't have ideas that teaches that the earth is a world of suffering (so that you people have the excuse to CAUSE more suffering) just so that they can taste paradise when they die. I wonder what Paradise would be for women in islam? 72 virgins? This brings up another point why is that Islamic paradise is so sinful? Do you think Jesus has as many houris as Mohammed? Can you see the difference between Buddah, Jesus and Mohammed? If I had to choose (I'm an atheist) I would probably pick between Buddah and Jesus :)

Hello! Help solve the problem.
Very often try to enter the forum, but says that the password is not correct.
Regrettably use of remembering. Give like to be?
Thank you!

Slighting Non Hijabis: Is this social justice?
Habeeb Alli

Ever so often the issue of Hijab pops up. Men, feminists, scholars and even politicians swim back and forth in this ocean of political correctness: Multiculturalism protects this piece of clothing; this is a Quranic injunction to cover! But the Hijab these days is also a fashionable statement. It's no longer the black unattractive piece J Lo would never think of donning, unless in Afghanistan or as a Non Saudi in the Kingdom! Well, well, doesn't this punctuate my point that in Western society where the grind of every day culture demands a more assertive personality the Hijab is fine; not the burqa? The Quran alludes to this identity factor: "…that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not be molested…" 33:59

The permissive Muslim countries have not been able to protect women from being battered and oppressed, so where has this Arab-styled-dress for females contributed to less harassment? Most girls are cursorily programmed to answer 'Hijab liberates' them. But having a number of Western converts wear the Hijab voluntarily is no different than the crowd of hippies wanting to explore eastern lifestyles and vowing to its absolute panacea for Western decadence. By the way don't you know of Hijab girls doing all the 'wrong stuff" too? What about the Eastern red light areas? The clientele there wear shalwar and kamis, my dear! It's a deeper Faith and God consciousness that really we should identify with. Something anyone could have and not just burqa-clad, self-righteous, non-talking-to-strangers, attention-drawers of ones sexuality. "…But the raiment of righteousness- that is the best…" 7:26

My contention is we have veiled the beautiful system Islam offers humans; that they are secured and respected, regardless of domicile. A woman is a Khalifa of God and not the seducer of Adam. Yet those women who are Faithfully conscious of their choice not to wear the Hijab in public space still complain of denigration. Why should someone give them stares? Why should she be debarred from the Masjid? Why can't she serve her community in a culturally sensitive way, just as her day job provides? There are far more verses in the Quran about Zakah and about outstanding women, like the wife of Pharoah, than on Hijab. This bandwagon has to stop and the issues of self- esteem, democracy, employment, marriage, family values, end to domestic violence, etc has to start rolling. Don't get me wrong. Hijab is absolutely a command of Allah and I'm not belittling it. But the perspective is what beats me. Imagine a Muslim man in Ottawa has the gall to come to this free and respectful country and then say audaciously in court that the Quran allows him to annihilate his wife, if she disobeys. Definitely the Judge is right in bringing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms into play and send him packing. It's the same concept the former Attorney General had when she promoted family tribunal laws based on faith. Anyone who steps out of the spirit of Islam and interprets verses to their whims and cultural fancies will be checked, which are coincidentally sanctioned by both Sharia and the Constitution. Preservation of Life is the most precious ideal in Islam according to the Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddima.

I met Zarqa Nawaz, author of Little Mosque on the Prairie . She confidently shared with me the fact that she chose to do this film, as she didn't want the world to run away that all Imams are gender biased! You will be quick to say Astaghfurullah. But haven't we seen it and heard it? Half of the mosque still can't accommodate women and those that do, still don't treat them as equals. Many a times it's the employers of these poor lip-zipped Imams that spiral this ignorance. One very traditional mosque's Imam told me he has had a battle, despite monetary contributions, to fix the room the ladies are crammed into during funeral prayers.

Hazrat Aisha was not the spokesperson of the Prophet because He was sacred of women. Weren't them the coolness of his eyes? He, on whom be peace, interacted with women and saved them from the ills of misogynist men of the day. We know Lady Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, later taught for 48 years after his demise and participated politically and theologically. Show me the organisation that has an Aisha legacy. And yet we waste time joking of events that caters for families that sit together or Muslima leading prayers! Nip it in the bud and as Mufti Saeed Palanpuri of Deoband once said in Toronto, treat the women with fairness and justice otherwise you will not bear the repercussions.

I want to see more activeness in the social justice issues, that which Islam originally played an upper role and in so doing the institutions of women's rights were able to have a reasonable and faithful grip on society. Will the media pundits steer the cameras on these real Biblical and Quranic main recipes? Help the sick. Raise money for the domestically abused. Share your Zakah with the unfortunate. Help girls get marry who are victims of cultural hibernation. Create socially acceptable entertainment. Showcase the deeper concerns for women who are underemployed and uneducated. The Quran doesn't want women to be a stockpile of dullness within the corners of some modern harem.

It seeks to liberate them where they can now do business, inherit wealth, contract their marriage and solicit their divorce and better yet lead in positions of qualifications. Bilqis was a leader and while the Quran is disgusted with her self-worship, it admires her change of Faith without grumping about her powers. Many of the wives of the Prophet were known as Saviours of the poor- "UmmulMasakeen."

From the heart that beats with sympathy will the frock of piety appeal to societies' judges. It's not an automatic uniform for respect. You wear it or not, your respect comes from your doing and more so your character. How about the fact when I saw this girl at No Frills with a headscarf and said Salam she replied I'm not Muslim. It's a Jamaican dress style! Therefore don't make it Islam's exclusive school badge. I lament the many sisters that I have lost because people judged them for their lack of a typical khimar, although their contribution monetarily to the mosque is astounding and their qualifications to make this place a better world is not lesser than Mother Theresa's. Will you be truly multicultural and like the way the Prophet treated the pious and lesser alike, sincerely embrace all into your veils of perfect love and chadors of seamless harmony?

Allah commends Blessed Virgin Mary when she took the concept of Hijab personally: 19:17 She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.

I see you Muslimahs are beyond redemption for believing in the teachings of a man who killed and murdered, enslaved innocent women and children, sold slaves in the mosque, kept dozens of slaves, committed polygamy, forced a woman to 'marry' him and have sex with him a day after he widowed by torturing and beheading her husband, and had sex with a little nine year old child.

The fact that you never even once attempted to defend your prophet on any of these charges is rather telling.

What are you going to tell your children? That Muhammad was the greatest human being that ever lived and a shining example for all humanity forever? I bet you will.

Then you wonder why the rest of us have such low opinions of Islam and Muslims.

Good luck to you all, Muslimahs. May you meet with your conscience some day.

Salaam,
Ahmed

MIA ive appreciated your patience and the interesting information youve given-

just out of curiosity i googled folk islam followed by different countries- even america-

(id say america hasnt had time to develop folk islam) but there were links for everything-

ahmed- plainly youre out of step- your mysogynist version of islam isnt making it anymore-

not only have you failed to convince us ladies that were bad muslims- youve actually reconfirmed my own impetus to unread the patriarchal propoganda that has gone unquestioned for so long-
( i thank asma beslan for that phrase)

here is a hint for your "dawa"

no one in the history of the world has ever stopped believing something ecause their beliefs were attacked-

ive requested repeatedly for you to present something anything superior- always without response-

since you have no answer-
that speaks for itself-

I responded out of courtesy that you could end the discussion at any time, since you said yours would be final, final. So what do you mean when you said 'don't get personal'? I thought it's a good thing, no?

Yes Ahmed, I understand all your points about Muhammad, the teaching of Islam, etc. All related points have been discussed. I should ultimately appreciate this as the natural process, because in a sense, you are quite attached to Islam, your name is the same with the prophet..:-) lots of material-knowledge, coupled with twisted, bias and intolerant point of views. And this should keep Islam as an interesting religion to discuss. We always need a bit of fireworks to make it alive and interesting.

And I do love it when you talk about Indonesia history, so I could tell more. Deep down I hope Ms. Armstrong or her staffs would read my writings and this thread and then do research on Indonesia history...:-)) Up until now it's still fragmented, lack of whole evidence and contemporary analysis beyond 14th century..:-( I believe it could help the Indonesian to do self-critic, at the same time increase their inner self-confidence to face the global setting.

Salam
Mia

About bare-chested women.
Friends, I remember reading a history book of the original scripts but also with the translation, there is a painting from 17th century. A boy king of Muslim Banten (old kingdom of west java) was riding his horse in the market. Beside him a couple of food vendors, one is bare-breast woman. It's a royal occassion of the king circumsion.

We believe Wali Songo (9 sufis) didn't tell the women to wear hijab/veil. And they most probably let the women going around bare-breast.

But during the colonialism there was the trend in the royal women to wear more clothes and accessories following the trend of the European women, regarded as 'the higher class'. Naturally, many common folks followed this trend, to jump onto the leader wagon. But it was said, that a woman prince protested this feudalistic idea by performing 'tapa' in the mountain.... in nude!

Not long ago, the Balinese women were bare breast. And you still could see it all the time in their paintings. The Dutch and the missionaries forced their victorian rules.

Until today, many women in the indigenous community don't cover their breasts except when the visitors stare at them curiously.

I'm not saying that women should go back bare-chest these days...we'll catch a cold easily! But the point is please look who's talking, who's projecting what if we are talking about the past. And I won't stuck in the past by cementing todays' western values within their old victorian rules.

Salam
Mia

Dear Mia,
Please don't get personal. I would like to discuss but this discussion has run out of steam.

I should add that if you say the "feminine or matriarchal character is native to Indonesia" how exactly does it prove Islam is egalitarian? I think you have not understood the difference between exceptions and generalizations.

My point is that the Original Islam as practised and preached by Muhammad was NEVER egalitarian. So it is irrelevant whether Indonesians are matriachal or observing sexual equality. Islam is not matriachal nor does it espouse sexual equality.

You keep on bringing examples of how this 'feminine' characteristics of Indonesia have been changed by the Dutch. What has that got to do with Islam? Does bare-breasted Indonesian women (yes, I do have a couple of beautiful bare-breasted Balinese paintings bought on a holiday long ago) prove Islam is egalitarian?

To prove that Islam is egalitarian you have to prove Islam is egalitarian, not what the Indonesians do or don't do. Indonesia is not Islam. The form of Islam that Indonesians practise is not representative of Islam because they are not representative of the teachings of Muhammad.

To discuss Islam we should look at what Islam actually teaches, not what idiosyncratic Muslim practises. What makes you think the Indonesian form of Islam is representative of the real Islam?

As I have said before you are free to re-interpret Islam to your heart's content. But you have just 're-interpreted' it to your liking. It is not the Islam as preached and practised by your prophet. So how does your re-interpretation of Islam change the way Muhammad and his companions practised Islam? It doesn't. You can re-interpret Islam all you like but it will never change the way Muhammad and his companions practised and preached the real Islam.

By all means soften the harsh verses, ignore the inconvenient verses, re-invent Allah's words, twist the Arabic to your liking. Do all that and it will not change what Islam is. It will only change the particular Indonesian version of Islam. In other words, your version will just be a newer edition of Sufism.

Therefore, I reject the notion that I have a 'blind-spot'. I understand Islam perfectly well to know that it should be a thing of the past.

BTW: how do you reconcile your sense of morality with the heinous behavior of your prophet? Surely a prophet of a true god would not conduct himself with such oppobrium.

Salaam,
Ahmed

You're welcomed not to continue with the discussion at any time, Ahmed.

Ahmed: "I also didn't invent the term 'folk Islam' in reference to Indonesia. If you google 'folk Islam Indonesia' I'm sure you'd see other people using it as well. The facts of Indonesian matriachy (I'm aware of the Minangkabau matriachy or adat matriarchaat) does not mean that Islam holds women to be equal to men. It does not. According to the tenets of Islamic teachings in the Quran and the hadiths, women are unequal to men. "

Mr. Instant Google should posts a disclaimer 'not responsible for misinterpretation'. In this internet age, we should be more prudent in chewing the information we got. Buset deh Ahmed...how many times did I write that feminine or matriarchal character is native to Indonesia, before more maskulin cultures from India, China, Mid-East, and Europe came? So yes, somehow the cultures erode the original matriarchal values, even in the West Sumatra where matrilineal still hold.

By the way, Balinese would still remember who made the rules for women to cover their breasts. It's the Dutch! Certainly not the Hindus/Buddhis or Muslim Kings. It's the fact where the evidences are so profound. The old Dutch in Indonesia were so victorian and class-discriminative, and were forbidden to marry Indonesia women.

Friends, the thinking of Ahmed or Miriam and a few others are fundamentalists-literalist because it's uprooted from the realities such as cultures, peoples' nature and characters, and time. The fact that Ahmed talks about Allah and Muhammad as if they were in this mailing list, is the evidence of disassociation. The fact that they talk about Muhammad is this and that - it gives some ideas of their own character, it's far from being religious or humanist.

And specifically, it has blind spot toward Muslims. Because regardless of the facts that I have pointed of 85% of 220 million Muslim in Indonesia - who welcome all religions and cultures, we are still 'disobedient muslims'.

This blind spot denies the trust which is the rights for hundred million of Muslim, because when they are reforming themselves they are called being disobedient to their own religion. There is no spiritual place for these common folks, a recognition which they need. They are not being recognised of having faith for a prophet.

Well, who said this world is fair. My professor wouldn't agree, he was the youngest in the family, yet married the oldest wife...:-(

Somehow we could live with these differences and we got the lesson learned (hikmah) from all of this.

And at least Bush admin these days is getting smarter than the rest of us here. I read somewhere today that Ms.Rice gave awards to special women on the international women day. And one of them is DR. MUSDAH MULIA who had worked on the re-interpretation of women inheritance that I have described! Yoohoo.......

Salam
Mia

final final post

Dear Mia,
I'm of the opinion that I have proven Muhammad and Islam were never egalitarian to begin with. I don't know why you would assert that the original egalitarianism of Islam has been hijacked by men. There never was egalitarianism in Islam. One only has to read the Islamic scriptures and historical records to see this.

To prove to me and others that the Original Islam under Muhammad was egalitarian would be a good start. So far, we only have Karen Armstrong's fictional account of how Muhammad instituted veiling among the Muslimahs as evidence and unfortunately that is not sufficient weight of evidence.

As for Sufism in Indonesia- that is what I have already stated and acknowledged. I'm aware of the 9 walis. However, one also has to examine the historical records of the Islamic conquests that the Sultanates embarked on to see that although there were some peaceful spreading of Islam, this was not the entire story. So it is erroneous to use Indonesia as a refutation that Islam was spread by violence. Nobody says Islam was 100% spread by violence. Bringing an exception does not prove the general case. Even in Muhammad's day there were many voluntary conversions. However, this does not excuse his use of force or coercion as a means to convert those who did not voluntarily convert.

I also didn't invent the term 'folk Islam' in reference to Indonesia. If you google 'folk Islam Indonesia' I'm sure you'd see other people using it as well. The facts of Indonesian matriachy (I'm aware of the Minangkabau matriachy or adat matriarchaat) does not mean that Islam holds women to be equal to men. It does not. According to the tenets of Islamic teachings in the Quran and the hadiths, women are unequal to men.

If some Muslims in some far flung edge of the Islamic world choose to regard women as equal to men it does not prove the general case that Islam is egalitarian. To do so means you're using an exception to prove the general case. We should really be examining the heart of Islamic teachings (not some rare exceptions) since we're talking of the general case.

Salaam,
Ahmed

As a matter of fact Ahmed, my unproven hypothesis is that the matriarchal/feminine character of Indonesia is long hijacked by men from all these cultures India (Buddha-Hindu), China (Buddha-Islam), India-Persia-Arab (Islam), European (Christianity).

Or.. in more optimistic term, Indonesian has been adjusting itself under the light of these more masculine cultures, which is only natural.

Why do you say "....Islam means matriarchal"? What I said was the egalitarian nature of Islam was compatible with matriarchal-egalitarian character of Indonesia in the old days, that was why Hindu-Buddha was easily replaced by Islam. Islam is the only religion accepted by the indigenous community, if a member decides to lead the common life with the rest of the world.

Is there any major religion in this world friendly to women???? That is the very point from Ms. Armstrong.

Yess, a bearded mullah once told me that Indonesia is such a secular country, not a real muslim country! Shame on you, he said (he would have agreed with you..:-)

Anyone studying the history of Java would know Wali Songo (9 sages), they were sufis who spread Islam in Java. Many people believe a few of them were Chinese and Persian-Arab. Their well-known method of spreading Islam was through the cultural arts & traditions. Ahmed would call this folk-Islam or 'adulterated Islam'...:-(

At least the Wali Songo didn't ask the women to veil themselves! Thank god.

If Ahmed is familiar enough with the history of Java, he would have mentioned Gajah Mada, the prime minister of Majapahit, the Hindus Kingdom who united Nusantara. Alexander the Great van Java, so to speak, Indonesian are very proud of him, who had the vision of the unity in the archipelago. He wasn't as cruel as Alexander, but use lots of political cheating ala Javanese...:-(

Yes Ahmed, there are a number of women warriors fought the war against the Dutch, who said women won't go to war?? Cut Nya Din from Aceh for example, would rather die in guerilla war than submitting herself to the Dutch. Nyi Ageng Serang from Java fought until aged and blind and got killed in the battle with the Dutch.

Throughout the history of Indonesia with the characteristic of communal-egalitarian, from time to time there have been riots (amoks) among the massess against the status quo, when our sense of inequality is breached. In this sense, Indonesia lower class has the characteristic of social-leftist. We call it 'premanism', and I was born in that kind of neighborhood.

Salam
Mia

=========================
Ahmed Hussain:
Dear Mia,
The matriachal instinct of the Indonesian people does not mean that Islam is matriachal. It only goes to show that the Islam of Indonesia is largely what is termed 'folk Islam'. If I may say you have an adulterated form of Islam since you include many 'folk' animist/Hindu practises such as 'spirit mediums' known as dukun and quasi-religious medicine men. These would be frowned upon by the real MiddleEast Islam as witchcraft/paganism.

Also, the roots of Islam in Indonesia were Sufi, though Wahabism has become predominant in recent years.

Thirdly, the wars between Hindus in Indonesia pre-Islam are irrelevant. It's a tu quoque argument that exposes the claim that 'Islam was spread in Indonesia through peaceful means' to be untrue. The Sultanates in the Malay Archipelago were highly intolerant of other religions. Though they fought each other they also spread Islam by conquest.

Salaam,
Ahmed

http://secularislam.org/blog/post/SI_Blog/
21/The-St-Petersburg-Declaration

Released by the delegates to the Secular Islam Summit, St. Petersburg, Florida on March 5, 2007

We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree.

We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience. We believe in the equality of all human persons.

We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights.

We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. These values do not belong to the West or the East; they are the common moral heritage of humankind.

We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called “Islamaphobia” in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights.

We call on the governments of the world to

reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostacy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights;

eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women;

protect sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence;

reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims;

and foster an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without coercion or intimidation.

We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy.

We enjoin academics and thinkers everywhere to embark on a fearless examination of the origins and sources of Islam, and to promulgate the ideals of free scientific and spiritual inquiry through cross-cultural translation, publishing, and the mass media.

We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine;

to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha’is, and all members of non-Muslim faith communities: we stand with you as free and equal citizens;

and to nonbelievers: we defend your unqualified liberty to question and dissent.

Before any of us is a member of the Umma, the Body of Christ, or the Chosen People, we are all members of the community of conscience, the people who must chose for themselves.

Endorsed by:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Magdi Allam
Mithal Al-Alusi
Shaker Al-Nabulsi
Nonie Darwish
Afhin Ellian
Tawfik Hamid
Shahriar Kabir
Hasan Mahmud
Wafa Sultan
Amir Taheri
Ibn Warraq
Manda Zand Ervin
Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi

To endorse the St. Petersburg Declaration, send an email.

Watch Ibn Warraq read the English version of the Declaration.
Mail this Printer friendly

Copyright 2006 Secular Islam Summit

Thank you, Ahmed, for your comments. You have been an invaluable voice in this discussion.

This discussion seems to have run out of steam, and this will be my last post. I urge all Muslims and Islamic-apologists to consider this fact - the behavior of Muhammad was utterly vile. Even by the standards of his day, Muhammad was barbaric. He killed people, enslaved women and children, tortured opponents, sold slaves in the mosque, plundered the belongings of people who never even threatened him and ordered his followers to kill all disbelievers who refused to convert or submit to Islam. In short Muhammad was a nasty guy on a par with Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun. If you don't believe me then read the Quran, hadiths and sira for yourselves. Western Islam-apologists like Karen Armstrong don't know what they're talking about and are just interested in white-washing Islam. Read the original Islamic sources for yourselves. Open your eyes and mind to the dangers of Islam. The fact that the Muslimahs here have singularly failed to even attempt to disprove one charge I made against Muhammad is rather telling. They cannot even begin to defend their prophet against the charges of his savagery knowing full well that I will provide the evidence from the Islamic sources to prove my case.

----

Mia wrote:
Miriam: "So if you think Westerners are only criticizing Islam, you should see what they are saying about their own religions. "

Yes, agreed. In fact my friends and I are critisising Islam and Muslims all the time. So more people are doing this and that's an inward looking.

Because faith and self-criticism should compliment each other, so we won't have so much of the blind spot in our beliefs as you said. Accepting the violent in each of us is part of self-critic.

This will start the process of re-interpretation in each of our religion, as times change. But in the previous discussion my example of re-interpretation is not accepted by either Ahmed and the Muslim literalists because Ahmed equates re-interpretation with the will of God. In this way they are both literalists and stuck in the past. But we all could live with it, because regardless our beliefs, what matter is our true behavior (taqwa), reflecting our faith.

Victoria asked Ahmed, what he is rejecting is quite clear, now perhaps he could share the solution?

Ahmed replies:
If Muslims want to re-interpret Islam to their own liking then go ahead. This is not a new phenomenon - it goes all the way back to the roots of Islam. It reminds of the origins of Sufism and Ahmadiyya. There are many sects in Islam and each was created by someone's re-interpretation of Islam.

Even before that, the main Sunni sect accounting for about 85-90% of all Muslims had already produced the 4 schools of fiqh. In each of these schools, the theologians produced their own interpretations of the grey areas and tried to resolve the conflicting verses and hadiths. However, none of these to my knowledge have lead to wholesale disobedience against the Quran. When Allah said something is black it is black without question. When he said it is white it is white. Only the grey areas were interpreted to determine which shades of grey was applicable.

Then there was the short period which some people called ijtihad. In this early phase between the fall of the Righteous Caliphs and the rise of al-Ghazali's orthodoxy, Islamic law could be interpreted by so-called doctors of Islam much akin to how the Rabbis interpret the Jewish scriptures. However, with al-Ghazali all that fell by the wayside and first, only the Caliph and then the Ulema (general body of scholars) had the right to ijtihad.

In a sense, everyone interprets for themselves. When Muslims read 9:29 - the infamous verse where Muhammad commanded the Muslims to kill (yes kill) all disbelievers who refused to convert or subject themselves to Muslim humiliating rule - most do not follow it. They don't go out with a knife to force a non-Muslim neighbor to convert to Islam. This is because they have 'interpreted' 9:29 to be an injunction on the ruler (or some other such re-interpretation). By doing so they are able to live more or less at peace with their non-Muslim neighbors. However, this reinterpretation does not change the essential nature of Islam as an aggressive bigotted religion that uses force rather than reason as its means to convert the disbelievers.

In Mia's case, she brings the issue of inheritance laws in Indonesia. This is not just a re-interpretation of the Quran but a total disobedience against Allah's command. This is no grey area we're dealing with. This is an out-and-out disobedience. Indonesians may feel they are allowed to disobey Allah as and when they choose. Nobody is denying them their right to do so. But their disobedience does not prove that Allah did not issue an unjust and misogynistic inheritance law. It just proves the Indonesians are ashamed of Allah's misogyny and wish to re-write Allah's words on his behalf.

When they read 4:11 where Allah tells them to give their daughters half the inheritance of sons, they translate 'nisf' to mean 'equal' rather than 'half'. In a sense, they have put themselves above Allah to 'correct' him in light of modern times.

Does this Indonesian peculiarity prove Allah is fair and just? No. It only proves the Indonesian mortals are fairer and more just than their 7th century God.

Does it mean I'm a literalist or fundamentalist for pointing out that such re-interpretation of black and white issues are in fact blatant disobedience of Allah? No. It just means I understand the difference between re-interpretation and disobedience.

So to Mia and other modern Westernized Muslims - go ahead and re-interpret Allah's words to your liking. I'm not stopping you. I applaud you in your efforts. In fact, I think you haven't gone far enough - you should re-interpret all of Allah's words to modern Westernized sensibilities (with a leftist bent). However, what you'll end up with is something that is so far from Islam that you'll be called apostates by your erstwhile Muslim brethren. That's the fate shared by the Sufis and Ahmadiyyas who are persecuted by other Muslim sects for 'perverting' the words of Allah.

If you dislike wife-beating then just ignore 4:34.

If you dislike Muslims being allowed to marry and have sex with pre-pubertal girls, then just ignore 65:4 and 33:49.

If you dislike the unfair sexist inheritance law then just ignore 4:11.

If you dislike killing non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or subject themselves to dhimmitude then just ignore 9:29.

If you dislike polygamy then ignore 4:3. Or better yet - get your husband to ignore 4:3. Good luck - he might beat you if you kick up a fuss against his new wife.

If you wish to reconcile with your ex-husband without having to marry and have sex with some other man first then ignore 2:230.

If you dislike slavery then ignore 4:3 and all the other verses that permits the Muslims to have sex with their female captives/slaves/right hand possessions.

As you can see there is much to 're-interpret' in the Quran to make it fit for the 21st century. Though implicit understanding is that Allah is unpalatable to 21st century Muslimahs.

Salaam,
Ahmed Hussain

Dear Mia,
The matriachal instinct of the Indonesian people does not mean that Islam is matriachal. It only goes to show that the Islam of Indonesia is largely what is termed 'folk Islam'. If I may say you have an adulterated form of Islam since you include many 'folk' animist/Hindu practises such as 'spirit mediums' known as dukun and quasi-religious medicine men. These would be frowned upon by the real MiddleEast Islam as witchcraft/paganism.

Also, the roots of Islam in Indonesia were Sufi, though Wahabism has become predominant in recent years.

Thirdly, the wars between Hindus in Indonesia pre-Islam are irrelevant. It's a tu quoque argument that exposes the claim that 'Islam was spread in Indonesia through peaceful means' to be untrue. The Sultanates in the Malay Archipelago were highly intolerant of other religions. Though they fought each other they also spread Islam by conquest.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Hi Miriam, tks for the reply.
The current fact is that 85% of 220 million Indonesian BERIMAN (have faith) to Muhammad as the prophet, as well as other named and unnamed prophets. Not mentioning how many Catholic/Protestan, Hindu/Buddha and other people worldwide who also have faiths. Denying this is to deny the whole reality, and won't offer solution.

Miriam: "So if you think Westerners are only criticizing Islam, you should see what they are saying about their own religions. "

Yes, agreed. In fact my friends and I are critisising Islam and Muslims all the time. So more people are doing this and that's an inward looking.

Because faith and self-criticism should compliment each other, so we won't have so much of the blind spot in our beliefs as you said. Accepting the violent in each of us is part of self-critic.

This will start the process of re-interpretation in each of our religion, as times change. But in the previous discussion my example of re-interpretation is not accepted by either Ahmed and the Muslim literalists because Ahmed equates re-interpretation with the will of God. In this way they are both literalists and stuck in the past. But we all could live with it, because regardless our beliefs, what matter is our true behavior (taqwa), reflecting our faith.

Victoria asked Ahmed, what he is rejecting is quite clear, now perhaps he could share the solution?

Salam
Mia

well ive never heard the term nteer either- it sounded like it might be one who uses the internet-

so i did a simple search it took 1 minute-

netter

n. 1. Loosely, anyone with a network address. 2. More specifically, a Usenet regular. Most often found in the plural. "If you post _that_ in a technical group, you're going to be flamed by angry netters for the rest of time!"

Jargon File

actually i wouldnt say mr plotz has brought anything to light- i read these stories all my life-
anyone who has eyes and an inclination has done so=- its not like its hidden or aything-

as a matter of fact- muslims are kind of repulsed when its suggested to them that david was spying on a woman in her bath and sent her husband off to die in a war so he could have her-

or a prophet getting drunk and having sex with his daughters- and the many other bizarre stories -

for instance miriam- i hve some very negative feelings about say- ariel sharon- (who is not a prophet at all) but i dont make ugly personal remarks about him-

why would it confuse you that we are saddened and upset when someone defames and abuses our beloved Prophet(pbuh).

just for the record then- it greatly distresses us-

so out of consideration for us as humans- now that you are aware how much it huerts us to hear someone call our Nabi(pbuh) a murderer- or other ugly appellations-

possibly just fro good manners you could also refrain from these unecessary and divisive slanders-

so in short- netters was never a negative comment-
WE ARE ALL NETTERS HERE!

peace
there really arent any similar stories like that in the Quran- i cant imagine why a person would blog something or what purpose it would serve other than to sell soem articles and maybe get a book deal-

its kind of funny i guess- but not really very enlightening-

Mia - You said:"because if I'm not mistaken, was it you who said that Ms. Armstrong should bring her case among the Muslims so they could reform themselves?" No I did not say that. I also have no idea what a netter is.

I understand that you consider the comments of Ross and Anna objectionable, but I am not sure why you put Ahmed in the same category. With Anna and Ross there are a lot of polemics, but Ahmed seems to know his Koran and Arabic etc, and therefore, he makes a worthwhile opponent for you. Of course, I am not totally objective, and I agree with what Ahmed says, but even so he appears quite fair and reasonable to me. He doesn't believe that Muhammed was a prophet, and Ahmed says that Muhammed was " a murderer, a thieving bandit, enslaver of women and children, a polygamist, a torturer, and a child-lover are all recorded by YOUR religious sources." That is the whole point. You start a priori by thinking that Muhammed was a prophet, while Ahmed(and myself) do not start with that assumption. We simply look at the facts of Muhammed's life and conclude that he was "a murderer etc", and we conclude that by going directly to accounts of Muhammed's life.

We all have blind spots in our psyches, things we just refuse to look at, and no one can force another person to look at those blind spots, people have to come to it themselves, and most people never do. In the US 35% of people still support George Bush, even though it is quite clear to the rest of the country and the world, that the invasion of Iraq was probably the biggest foreign policy blunder in US history, and as Americans we will be living with those repercussions for generations to come. So I would say that the 35% who still support Bush have a blind spot in their psyches. They cannot let go of a fixed idea of the way the world should be. Similarly in Russia there are many people who still believe that Stalin was a great leader. In Japan the current President refuses to admit, in spite of overwhelming evidence, that the Japanese used many thousands of sex slaves when they invaded China and Korea. And so it goes.

In the US we have an expression "to circle the wagons". It comes from the time when wagon trains of white settlers went across the Plains, and when they were attacked by Indians, the wagons would form into a circle, and all the settlers would get inside the circle so they could use the wagons as protection against the attack. So similarly the member of any group, religious or political, circles the wagons when they feel that their beliefs are threatened, and that is how blind spots get formed.

This is all by way of saying that even though your personal experience of Islam in Indonesia was and is gentle, there are parts of the Koran and Muhammed's life that are not at all gentle, and are quite the opposite, and that is also part of Islam.

I recently read some posts from someone who is "blogging the bible", actually he is blogging the Old Testament. Many of the stories in there are definitely not any stories I learned in Sunday school, and I am sure most observant Jews do not know these stories, because these stories very plainly show that many of the heroes of the Old Testament were pretty violent and treacherous. And yet these stories are part of the holy books of the Jews, and there have been thousands of years of learned and sagacious commentary from numerous pious scholars, yet none of those scholars has ever pointed out, how bizarre many of these stories are. It took a non-practicing, unbelieving,irreverent, secular Jew to bring these stories to light. So if you think Westerners are only criticizing Islam, you should see what they are saying about their own religions. Here is the link to blogging the Bible. I suggested in another post that someone needs to blog the Koran:
http://www.slate.com/id/2141050/

Hi Miriam, sorry I didn't realise the word 'netter' has a negative conotation. I should have said it different ways, like 'some people' or 'friends'. I brought it up, because if I'm not mistaken, was it you who said that Ms. Armstrong should bring her case among the Muslims so they could reform themselves? I illustrated that to confirm that the books indeed being discussed among the urban Muslims in Indonesia, at least from my own observation.
If you didn't say that, sorry it must have been somebody else.

And I wouldn't mind your objections to the content of the books. Your way of discussion, I notice, is far more fair, polite and sensible than Ahmed, Anna, Ross and a few others.

Victoria, the coco beef is called rendang - a popular Indonesian curry dish from West Sumatra. And I like it hot, hot, spicy. Write to me aldiy@yahoo.com for a 'secret recipee'..:-) If not, I could write here, if the others don't mind a culinary adventure...

Ahmed, I don't go around telling people about matriarchal evidence of Indonesia culture. But I think it's relevant for this thread about the egalitarian order hijacked by men.

So when I said Islam came to Indonesia by trades (like other cultures also), I didn't say there was no violence at all, did I? Violence is just part of us human nature, and the question is how we manage it.

I would like to show you another example for comparison. The Dutch came to Indonesia by TRADES also. It was VOC, the Dutch company a monopolist (remember Microsoft hehehe), who influenced Indonesia culture since 16th century. There were sporadic resistance by the local Indonesia kingdoms, because the Dutch loved to monopolise the economy. On 18th century the missionaries came along. In the 19th century the Dutch government took over. Indonesia was then 'formally' under the Dutch colony. Under the new Republic of Indonesia the government announced the war of independence against the Dutch. Remember, at that time the West was fueled by the rising euphoria of state-nationalism. As far as we remember, the war against the Dutch was more profound than anything else.

There were always sporadic wars between the kings, even before Islam came (but old Indonesia prior to 1st century CE is hardly known, data is quite fragmented). So if the kings of Demak (Muslim Javanese kingdom) for example, who went to war with the rest of Hindus Majapahit, it was just another event of the fights between the royal families. But remember Ahmed, the wars in Indonesia history was not institutionalised by the state, except the war for independence. Compare this to the pre-emptive strike of Bush administration. So, it's a different 'violence management', right?

Back to the topic of the thread. My un-contested hypothesis is that in Indonesia the matriarchal order was long hijacked by men, since the day the Indian kings came in the 1st century CE. India, China, Muslim mid-east-Arab, and European cultures are more masculine-oriented than Indonesia.

The feminine traits of Indonesia culture recognises the plurality of all cultures. I don't know any other cultures which is so open to the foreign influence than Indonesia (BTW, this would include TIP countries, Thai, Indo and Phillipine). So plurality for us is the state of nature, but Indonesia has been in the transition period especially after 30 year of totaliarianism from the military, and hundred years of conflict with the colonialist. It means we lost our ability to manage plurality as the our strength point. We haven't found that ability, yet - and under the modern global context, it is certainly a big challenge for us.

Salam
Mia

Mia - You called me a "netter". I don't know what that is, but the context makes it sound as if it is not something polite.

And yes, I am sure Karen Armstrong's books are being read by all sorts of people. Nevertheless, as Ahmed has shown, she makes a lot of mistakes in what she says, and a lot of what she says does not stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

Sorry Mia,
But perhaps you'll care to explain the military displacement of Hinduism with Islam with the fall of the Majapahit empire. The history of how the Hindus were defeated by the Muslims and had to flee to Bali is well-known.

Granted that the initial introduction of Islam to Indonesia was peaceful but then like everywhere else, once Islam gets strong, it becomes aggressive.

The 'peaceful conversion of Indonesia to Islam' is one of the more blatant Islamist lies. It looks like even the Indonesian Muslims have been taught the 'Islamic version' of history and have not thought more deeply into the inconvenient facts.

I therefore request you check out the demise of the Majapahit Empire and the fall of Hinduism at the hands of the war-mongering Muslims.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Dear Anonymous,
If you're ashamed of your prophet's behavior then don't hold me responsible for it. If you're insulted or offended by your prophet's behavior then I suggest you apostate from Islam. You obviously have a problem with having an evil prophet of an evil religion. Perhaps you could try Buddism or one of the other truly pacifist religions where their founders are beyond reproach.

The history of your prophet is well-known from the Islamic religious sources - i.e. the Quran, ahadith and sira.

That he was a murderer, a thieving bandit, enslaver of women and children, a polygamist, a torturer, and a child-lover are all recorded by YOUR religious sources. If you think I'm wrong - then please provide the evidence.

Salaam,
Ahmed

mia- i didnt know indonesia was originally a matriarchal society, what an interesting picture you paint- the first mosque i ever attended had about 150 indonesisan memebers and every sunday they came and made the most delicious food ive ever eaten in my life- and every one of them- gentle gentle-

( i was always there all day on sunday doing other things) i was always struck by how respectful and energetic they were- (as a matter of fact- coconut beef is my favoritest thing i ever ate- hmmm- maybe il make it tomorrow- i have to find a recipe- any advice?

AHMED- sorry for attacking you-

in all honesty im not so concerned about your ability or inability to speak arabic-

why dont you ever twll us what better way you have found then?
were all pretty aware of what youve rejected-

ok peace all

Ahmed: "Ladies, Let's not get personal with this. I'm not here to upset you but to offer brotherly love. I share your pain.."

Mia: I'd like to get personal..:-). In any business presentation I always share something personal...for example, showing the pictures that I took myself. And I've been sharing with you guys some of my (personal) spiritual experience.

In typical Indonesia mailing list, people like Ahmed wouldn't upset most of us, we'll be amused and gently tease each other, and joke around. Here, I'm myself amused, because for the first time, I learn the parallel thinking of fundamentalists, whether they are Christian or Muslim. I have long suspected this, but now in more clarity.

And I could share to netters like Miriam, that the books of Karen Armstrong have far reached many people of Indonesia, from my teenage nephews to the investment bankers. It means the books inspire many of the urban Muslims to re-interpret our own religion. Again, this is from my personal observation.

And I could share with the other netters, an interesting psychology of a fundamentalist, as quoted from typical Ahmed's line:
"I'm not here to upset you but to offer brotherly love. I share your pain. Believe me....I'm sure Allah was just waiting for you ladies to re-interpret his words for him, as he was too stupid to write with any clarity"

A brotherly love from Ahmed which turns into hatred in the next seconds. He insults Muhammad or allah (Ahmed's personal god), even though they are not in this mailing list...:-( Please deh Ahmed, how could we put 'love' and 'insults' in the same paragraph.

And every time Ahmed mention Indonesia, I would just love to tell more..:-) I told you that Indonesia has been plural. We were so open with the different cultural settings, which means we are friendly with visitors/strangers.

The missionary came to Indonesia in 18th century, associated with colonialism. Before that Islam came along with the trading mostly from Gujrati, India. And before that or parallel with that was Buddha and Hindu. Before that 'the orinal Indonesian beliefs' which I believe it's egalitarian and matriarchal. Islam was easily accepted and replaced Hinduism largely because of the egalitarian nature.

The egalitarian and matriarchal cultures are still evidenced in some Indonesian ethnic groups and in an indigenous community. In this community, 125 km from Jakarta, the people live in total harmony with nature, that is the underlying philosophy. Women lead most important ritual functions which simbolizes Dewi Sri, a symbol of fertility. If the wife of the village head dies, automatically he's released from that position, until he is remarried. (married women are free to go around not covering their breasts!). Make no mistake, they don't exhibit artifacts, temples or stone icons, Dewi Sri is simply an abstract feminine symbol. Not even writings, theirs is totally oral tradition. They believe in the One God (Sang Hyang) which they rarely utter in daily conversation. Evil for them simply means 'bad habits or bad deeds'. Nothing supertitious, just simply natural. They have many 'taboos' or forbidden things, such as the use of plastic, soap, metals, no animals domestications including four-legged animals, no cultivation only seasonal harvest - but one important taboo is imposing taboo to someone else. So they live in 'ascetic life', but if people want to go out of the community they could stay in the outer ring (Like the Amish-Mnenonite just for a comparison, only more 'severe'). If they want to go out of the outer ring to mix with the rest of the world then they are expected to hold Islam as the religion (not Hindu, Buddha or Christianity), because of the egalitarian characteristic.

Salam
Mia

Victoria,
Yeah, still attacking Ahmed again, I see. So what if I'm become Americanized and use nouns as verbs? Does it prove anything except I'm just keeping it simple for you?

Please think about it a moment - I'm telling you sense. No matter how you 're-interpret' Islam TODAY, you can never change what Islam was in Muhammad's day.

But I don't expect you to see this simple logic: you'll only accuse me of being a fundamentalist for interpreting the Quran the way it's written. I'm sure Allah was just waiting for you ladies to re-interpret his words for him, as he was too stupid to write with any clarity.

Salaam,
Ahmed

MIA you are totally bodacious-
your analysis and succinct wrapping up of the posters and their motives are right on-

ahdmed- ive long suspected youre john smith sitting in his mothers basement in texas-

the fact that you even take the arabic khimar (a noun) and then use it as a verb- is very telling about your alleged unproven knowledge of arabic-

i truly suspect at this point that i have a greater knowledge of arabic than you do-

what possible bearing does indonesia not being muslim in the time when islam was revealed have to do with anything anywhere?

all of your reasoning (when you use it) is the exact same simple kind that i encounter in christian fundamentalists-

since ive already made long counters to your opinions (which you state as true although have no logical or substantial quran to do so)

i wont bother again-

your obvious extreme hatred of islam is based on your own lack of knowledge about it-
turn off fox news as a source of information

Ladies,
Let's not get personal with this. I'm not here to upset you but to offer brotherly love. I share your pain. Believe me, I do. It is not easy to hear someone tell you your religion is (insert denigration of choice) and your prophet was a nasty man. It must be really painful.

Look at it this way: I'm here to strengthen your faith. If your faith can survive the blowtorch of logic and evidence then it will strengthen.

But let us correct the misconceptions about Islam. For a start, the discussion was about the 'original egalitarian order of Islam being hijacked by men.'

Therefore it is incumbent on us to examine whether the Original Islam (as practised by Muhammad and his companions) was ever egalitarian. So, even if we were to accept that Islam can be 're-interpreted' today and Allah's words can be 're-interpreted' today such that 1 is no longer 1 but 2, and 1/2 is no longer half but 1, it still does not get you around the extremely embarrasing difficulty that Allah (i.e. Muhammad) told the Muslims of his day to only give daughters half the inheritance of their sons.

{Note to Mia, in the time of the original Islam, there was no such thing as Indonesia and your forebears were Hindu or Buddhists.)

So it is undeniable that 4:11 proves that in the Original Islam (as practised by Muhammad and his companions) there was no such thing as egalitarianism.

Other evidence that there was no 'egalitarianism' in the Islam of Muhammad's day are:
- women's testimony only worth 1/2 of that of men.

- all Muslimahs were ordered to 'khimar' themselves, contrary to what Karen Armstrong asserted.

- men were allowed to beat their wives.

So, no matter how you re-interpret the Quran today you can never re-interpret the Quran of Muhammad's day. The Original Islam cannot be re-interpreted to your Western sensibilities. Sorry about that, but them's the breaks.

Salaam,
Ahmed

In Indonesia there is a popular converted Muslimah, she was a former Christian/Catholic, I forgot which one, and now an activist Muslimah. Some of us critisise her preaching because it ALWAYS denigrates the teaching of Christian.

The point is that there is still anger inside her which she should have been looking inwardly, instead of projecting it into the enemy of Islam.

They are both literalist/fundamentalists, but unlike Ahmed the former Muslim, she is far more polite, fair and intellectual. So we could live with this kind of literalism under pluralistic Indonesia.

Someone like Ahmed, Ross, Anna are potentially detrimental to the society under the leadership like Bush, for example, who nurtures this kind of fundamentalism.

But yet, the rational western democracy in America and Europe as a whole won't allow this kind of fundamentalism to dominate - if people continue to hold the true democracy.

And Ahmed's view point will be just like the dust in the wind. So cheer up, Victoria, Ahmed is singing the old song 'Dust in the Wind'

Salam
Mia

Victoria,
I'm only presenting the truth about Islam. It is up to you whether you agree or disagree. The readers will decide who makes sense and has presented the cogent arguments and evidence to support his position.

If you want to argue that 2+2 = 5 then go ahead, but when I read 2 + 2 I know it's 4. So to all you Westernized Muslims practising a watered-down, make-belief, re-interpreted to feel-good Islam - if you want to believe Allah allows daughter to get equal inheritance as sons - go ahead but any Arab who reads 4:11 can tell daughters only get half as much as sons - and there's no time limit for this ayat. It's forever.

Salaam,
Ahmed

ahmed once again all youve proven is your unadulterated hatred of islam-

Mia wrote:
this case, you are not fair only because you rephrase my sentence and put it out of context.

Ahmed replies:
I'm not aware that I'm doing anything other than paraphrasing you by freeform typing at my keyboard. I assure you I have no intention of quoting you out of context.

MIA wrote:
Of course you don't know Allah's will, but you are implying it all along - by being undemocratic of not letting other people to choose interpretations.

Ahmed replies:
How have I stopped you from choosing your own interpretations? I haven't.

All I have done is to state clearly and umbiguously that there are some very simple instructions from Allah that you can't re-interpret away without disobeying him. I think you can 're-interpret' the grey areas and not the explicit commands.

Mia wrote:
Ahmed: In short, I don't know Allah's will - that's why I don't reinterpret the Quran. To do so would be to decide in Allah's place, and it is you, not me, who are doing that."

This is in line with what the Muslim fundamentalist would say: reinterpreting text = Allah's will.

Ahmed replies:
How do you re-interpret nisf to not mean half? That is beyond me.

Mia wrote:
The discussion from Ms. Armstrong is "Original Egalitarian Order of Most Religions 'Hijacked' by Men"

Which means we, the followers have hijacked the order, not the prophets who taught the meaning of golden rules.

Ahmed replies:
This is not true as Muhammad was the biggest misogynist of all. Islam was never egalitarian because Muhammad was not egalitarian. That is what I've been saying all along. Muhammad was a bigoted sexist misogynist among other unsavory characteristics.

So Karen Armstrong's proposition is false. She assumed/mistakenly believed that the original Islam (as practised by Muhammad) was egalitarian. This is so far from the truth it's laughable. One only has to read the Quran to see the gross injustice of Islam. And that doesn't include the gross injustice in the ahadith.

Salaam,
Ahmed

In this case, you are not fair only because you rephrase my sentence and put it out of context.

Of course you don't know Allah's will, but you are implying it all along - by being undemocratic of not letting other people to choose interpretations.

Ahmed: In short, I don't know Allah's will - that's why I don't reinterpret the Quran. To do so would be to decide in Allah's place, and it is you, not me, who are doing that."

This is in line with what the Muslim fundamentalist would say: reinterpreting text = Allah's will.

The discussion from Ms. Armstrong is "Original Egalitarian Order of Most Religions 'Hijacked' by Men"

Which means we, the followers have hijacked the order, not the prophets who taught the meaning of golden rules.

Salam
Mia

Dear Mia,
I think I'm being very fair in my discussions. I'm a fair man. I just happen to disagree that some basic clear-cut verses in the Quran can be 're-interpreted' away.

I do acknowledge there are many 'flavors' of Islam but that still does not change the central core of Islam - which is the Quran.

I don't know the will of Allah and never claimed to do so. All I have done is to relate what is in the Quran itself.

Does the Quran tell Muslims to obey Allah and Muhammad? Yes.

Does the Quran tell Muslims they can disobey Allah and Muhammad by 're-interpreting' inconvenient verses? No.

There are some things that can be re-interpreted in the light of modern conditions - for example, Muslims today don't keep slaves so the verses about slavery no longer apply. This is a 'reinterpretation' of the Quran.

However, this doesn't mean that slavery was not part of Islam or that Allah had forbidden slavery or that there are no verses on slavery in the Quran. It just means that Muslims are ashamed that their prophet and god had permitted slavery and no longer wish to practise this particular aspect of Islam. But it still means that your Allah permitted/permits slavery. It's just that you have chosen to disregard Allah on this issue.

Likewise, the verse on inheritance is very clear: nisf means half. Daughters get al-nisfu.

There just is no way to 'reinterpret' this without tacit acknowledgment that Allah / Muhammad was unjust. He didn't say verse 4:11 is only valid up to the 20th century and from then on daughters are to get equal share as sons. The implication is that 4:11 applies forever.

So let's get back to the discussion of whether the 'original egalitarianism of Islam was hijacked by men'. I say no because Muhammad was a misogynist as proven by 4:11. There was no sexual equality in Muhammad's time or ever in Islam up till modern times when modern Muslims decide to disobey Allah by 'reinterpreting' his words.

In short, I don't know Allah's will - that's why I don't reinterpret the Quran. To do so would be to decide in Allah's place, and it is you, not me, who are doing that.

Salaam,
Ahmed

We all have weakenesses, but at leat be fair in the discussion, Ahmed. What I said was allah = muhammad= ahmed. It seems you are implicating yourself a god because you know the will of god, by imposing your only interpretation, by claiming 'the word of allah is your only interpretation'.

So then certainly you dont know me, as you said, by disregarding the rationale of my previous reinterpretation, as an example.

But how would I expect you to be fair in the discussion? Fundamentalists are doing anything to argue, including ignoring the other person's argument, and implicating themselves as god. Your way of thinking is unnatural, which will be selected out of natural selection, so to speak.

You still could save yourself, Ahmed. If you are no longer a Muslim, accept the pain of having struggling with Islam. Acknowledge your limitation of understanding the revelations. After all, what's count is not what we particularly belief but our true behavior (taqwa).

Salam
Mia

Mia,
I'm sure there are many Islamic 'scholars' who want to re-interpret the Quran to suit their sensibilities. However, I know that the Arabic word نص nisf means 'half'. There is no other meaning possible.

It's like you arguing black is white and white is black. Go ahead and then you call me a literalist. I don't know about you but I've always been taught nisf means 'half'.

As for your 'eye for an eye' - I'm sure if Muslims want to re-interpret 5:45 to their liking then go ahead. The real Islam as practised in Mecca and Medinah still 5:45.

I don't recall Allah giving Muslims the right to blatantly disregard his commands. Why did he hand it down then?

As for Muhammad = Allah, you're right. I think Allah was Muhammad's alter ego. If one reads the Quran, hadith and sira, you'd see Allah had no knowledge of what Muhammad was going to do in the future and kept on making convenient situational verses to bail his 'prophet' out.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Ahmed:"I don't know about you but when Allah said..."

I've already shown you a few forms of re-interpretation.

But your implication all along is: Muhammad = Allah = Ahmed.

I know you better in this case because I'm talking to you who interpret Quran literally like that. My way of discussion is more egalitarian than you, because you always say Muhammad said this, Allah said that...My way of discussing is more democratic and plural than you because I allow forms of re-interpretation, which you won't allow any beyond the limtied text. As Plato would say, you don't have this wisdom beyond what your sight, you would say that's a lake, while in fact it's a river.

So yes, naturally for you it's the end of story.

Salam
Mia

Mia,
I don't know about you but when Allah said daughters are to get 1/2 the inheritance of sons I don't see how they can get equal inheritance. You just can't re-intepret it to your liking without breaking Allah's command to you.

It's just so clear, I'm afraid. You can argue all you like but I will point to the words in the Quran. Unless you can show that somehow 1/2 in Arabic is not 1/2 but equal share then I'm afraid you've just proven yet again that you have disobeyed Allah.

End of story.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Ahmed, Muslims scholars have been reinterpreting Quran & Hadith all the time, just like other religions. That is the fact in the history.

And I have given you an example of re-interpretation of inheritance. Dr. Musdah Mulia, Indonesia women scholar on Fiqh - proposed that re-interpretation on inheritance, among others. And of course, she met great resistance, for example from people like you.

Here is another one - you gave an example of stealing. In the old days of tribalism in Arabia, stealing (among the tribe) was a high crime and rare. The punishment of 'eye for eye' was draconic such as hand amputation. However, it's being reintrepeted from time to time especially during the severe economic downturn. Today the punishment is being reinterpreted according to the modern thinking. In indonesia we do not cut peoples' hands for stealing.

salam
Mia

MIA and other muslims,

There are things you can interpret and things you can't. If something is a command from Allah that is clear and unambiguous you can't re-interpret it.

It's like saying one can re-interpret the 10 commandments to the entirely opposite meaning.

When your father taught you, 'do not steal' how else can you 're-interpret' that? You can't.

So some things you can't re-interpret because there just is no scope for re-interpretation.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Victoria, Ahmed
The position of Ahmed is clear all along. His interpretation of Quran is black and white, literal, and dichotomy:

----------
"AHMED:Let me make this clear:
The Quran explicitly and clearly says a woman gets 1/2 the inheritance of men. This is Allah talking to Muslims. No ifs. No buts. No exceptions. This is Allah's command. It is not a suggestion - it is a command.

If Muslims want to give their daughters equal share of inheritance - that is breaking Allah's command.

So don't use that breach of the Quranic command to then argue that the Quran does not provide that command or that it was merely a suggestion.

The Quranic verse is there in black and white no matter whether Muslims choose to obey it or not"
---------

This is the way of thinking of many Muslims also, especially the fundamentalists and literalist. Ahmed sees the world in black and white, unlike many of us who sees it so colorful and full of possibilities and alternatives.

Like I said the reinterpretion of syariah met great obstacles from both Muslims and non-Muslims like Ahmed who are both fundamentalists.

But it doesnt' mean we will not succeed, because a country like Indonesia has always been plural and relatively successful in keeping the fundamentalists at bay.

Salam
Mia

maybe it an east west thing ahmed but you so completely and consistently misunderstand my intentions every time-

i just asked what your reasons were for using it- i know what it means-

anyway= you really need to imagine when youre talking to me something basic-

have suspicion that my intentions are good-

just try it-and then read those good intentions into what i write=

so can i ask you something else then?

i hace been tld by every different nationality of muslim and sheikhs and learned people and alims too that if it is not forbidden in the quran it is allowed-

are you aware of this?

it seems like in your reasoning you dont take this into account so possibly its an idea you havent been exposed to- just curious- as always if you ever feel offended or put on the spot by anything i say please let me know so i dont repeat the mistake-

i still cant figure out why you keep telling me i said muslims dont veil themselves-

i really never said that and i suspect you have been confusing me with someone else all along-

i have to suspect that tis is possibly all just a language misunderstanding-
---------------
ps ahmed- since your a self confessed ex muslim- out of curiosuty and no disrespect intended-
why do you still say salaams?

just a literal greeting of peace or what?
just curious
----------
no- thats pretty clear i think- i even included the definition in the question-

how did you get that i was asking you what it meant?
ok peace then

Victoria,
How can I not mention the Hijab since I'm talking about Karen Armstrong's article which mentions the veiling of Muhammad's wives? That is the central issue here. How can I discuss the central issue while avoiding mention of the central issue?

I think you have a hang up about the veil since you brought up the fact that some Muslimahs don't veil themselves. Why bring it up in defense of Karen Armstrong? I can only think it is to say that she is right and that the general veiling of Muslimahs is only due to the 'original egalitarianism of Islam being hijacked by men.'

I'm sorry you mistook my advise as sexist - but that's the truth.

Also, I did not denigrate Mia's Islamic practises - I merely pointed out that Muslims are expected to obey Allah and Muhammad. That's in the Quran so many times I wonder how any Muslims can miss it. If Muslims choose to disobey the Quran then don't use that disobedience to prove that the Quran does not forbid a practise or permits a practise.

Let me make this clear:
The Quran explicitly and clearly says a woman gets 1/2 the inheritance of men. This is Allah talking to Muslims. No ifs. No buts. No exceptions. This is Allah's command. It is not a suggestion - it is a command.

If Muslims want to give their daughters equal share of inheritance - that is breaking Allah's command.

So don't use that breach of the Quranic command to then argue that the Quran does not provide that command or that it was merely a suggestion.

The Quranic verse is there in black and white no matter whether Muslims choose to obey it or not.

I'm also sorry you think I have trumpeted my past Islamic association - it wasn't a boast but a fact. Just like you can say you were an ex-Christian (for example) so I can make revelations about myself.

Salaam means peace in Arabic - it is not specific to any religion. The word predates Islam and even Arab Christians say this to people they meet or part from.

Salaam,
Ahmed

its funny ahmed- youre not a muslim but you are trying to prove the suoeriority of your past islamic upbringing-

im glad ahmed that you finally admitted that you brought up hijab as i was getting really annoyed that you brought it up then beratedme for tslking about it-

actually- the remark about being unladylike is an ingerently sexist remark- and is exactly the point ms armstrong was making- that men have tried to control the practice of religion and the women with it- but thats another subject-

yes exactly mia- when the byzantines brought their face veiled harem wives into persia- the women there imitated them as they also wanted to be perceived as having rich husbands and being too beautiful for the eyes of common men to bask in-

like the imitating of the priviledged in arabia-

ahmed- we are not here to compete with whose flavor of islam is more 'acute?' or accurate or superior-

i have never found it necessary to denigrate how mia practices in her cultural setting- and since its the biggest muslim community in the world- apparently ALLAH has bestowed some blessing on it and is the only one who can judge or know-

i was a novitiate in the catholic church (pre-nun) and spent years studying serious theology- but i never find it necessary to relay this to people when they discuss catholicism- its just one upsmanship and not very polite-

and somehow ALLAH led me and my western liberated philosophy to islam also- so i guess my worthiness is in the decision making of the god- not men-

mia is always so gentle and rains her reason down on us and we benefit from its peaceful shower
salaams

ps ahmed- since your a self confessed ex muslim- out of curiosuty and no disrespect intended-
why do you still say salaams?

just a literal greeting of peace or what?
just curious

Dear Mia,
Perhaps I was brought up in an environment that taught a more acute form of Islam than you. I believe some people term the Malay/Indonesian form of Islam "folk Islam" as it has been diluted by the folk traditions and practices of the area.

I come from the standpoint of the sahih hadiths and the quran. No doubt Karen Armstrong has her sources but some of her stories are not what I recognize as being the real Islam I was taught.

As for my postings being nonsense - it does not bother me as I let the facts speak for themselves. I will back up my propositions from the hadiths, (sometimes the sira) and the Quran.

Therefore, I look forward to discussion with anyone who is knowledgeable about Islam, including Karen Armstrong. If you know her perhaps you might want to invite her to discuss with me. I'm sure it will be beneficial to all concerned - who knows she might prove me wrong.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Ahmed, before I knew Karen Armstrong - I was brought up in the close-knit religious community where until today there is no hijab/veil between men and women. Most of us don't wear jilbab or covering our hair. And we still have an indigenous community (125km from Jakarta) where married women don't cover their breasts...(please don't visit that place..because they become shy by the visitors who cant keep their eyes off the breasts..:-(

And there are 85% muslims of 220 million in Indonesia. We just don't take Quran/hadith literally. I remembered many hadith (text tradition) by heart when I was in school, but they wouldn't impose it on us literally. We try to practice Islam as we understand life itself. Even the fundamentalists in Indonesia, they react as they feel toward the modern life which has 'marginalised' them. I emphatise with the fundamentalists' point of view, but I disagree with them many times over the interpretation of Quran and Hadith.

As Ms. Armstrongs' books, I wouldn't call it 'nonsense, etc' if I disagreed with it. I wouldn't call your postings as such, out of basic respect to everyone.

As I'm familiar enough with her books, like any other books she enlists all resources, including the earliest sira from four (or five?) traditions including Imam Tabari. So kindly read her books, but not in a hurry. If there is variance of interpretations, hers is only one interpretation that we all could live with.

salam
Mia

MIA,
Excuse the bluntness but there's really no way to tell someone their book is 'nonsense'.

If you got that from Karen Armstrong's book one wonders where she got her references from. I don't see anything of the like in the sahih hadiths and the quran. If you read my posts you'd see I have disproved Karen Armstrong's story about how Muslimahs, including Muhammad's wives, became veiled. Karen Armstrong said Muhammad's wives were veiled as a security measure and to differentiate them from slaves (as if people couldn't tell). This is most untrue. I believe it is pure fiction since it is not backed up by the sahih hadiths and the quran.

The sahih hadiths tell the story of how Muhammad's wives became veiled and that is totally different from the one created by Karen Armstrong. I suggest you re-read my first posts above to find out the sahih hadiths giving us the true context. Check them out if you like - you can read them yourself in the sahih hadith books or google them.

The story of how Muhammad's wives became veiled is very well known in Islam - the official version backed up by the sahih hadiths and quran is nothing like Karen Armstrong's version. Who should I believe? The sahih hadiths (regarded as the second most authentic Islamic scriptures after the Quran itself) or Karen Armstrong?

I really don't know why Westernized Muslims hang on Karen Armstrong's words as if they were the solid truth. Anyone who's studied Islam like I have cannot recognize them as anything like what we've been taught and what we've studied about Islam from the real Islamic sources.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Ahmed, Victoria
Allow me to a bit meddling in the veil/hijab discussion. Please note I focus only on your posting from 19 Feb and thereon. And please allow me that I will not quote Quran/Hadith to support my argument, simply because there is no time and I would like to make the explanation simple.

From what I understood from Ms. Armstrong article and her book "Muhammad" the veil/hijab during the prophets time refered to 'separate room' given to Muhammads' wives in their houses, when they received guests. This 'separate room' was probably divided by a piece of clothes, so that the guests would talk to the wives by listening to their voices.

The reason was because the wives became very important "PR" figures as Muhammad status rose as a sayyid. So naturally everyone would try in any way they could to approach the wives.

Needless to say that all of this disturbed the households' privacy. That's why the veil/hijab was needed. It's a matter of practicality, or PR strategy, so to speak.

But the egalitarian nature of Arabia at that time couldn't prevent some of other households to imitate such 'privilege'. You see, this was a 'follow the leader' thing. Everyone would like to jump to the same wagon with their leader, right? And later on the expanding Arabs found this practice of 'women harem/seclusion' firmly rooted in the Persian and Roman empires.

About the wearing of khimar, tudung, niqab, jilbab, and sometime people call it also niqab, veil, hijab to cover our hair and down, this is another matter. This is supposedly 'a muslimah dress code' - how to properly dress.

The CONTEXT at that time was muslimah were ordered to wear khimar/jilbab (i.e covering hair and bossom), to differentiate them from the women slaves. This is to impose the security to muslimah as people at that time easily harassed women slaves. This 'restriction' was strongly evidenced by Umar bin Khattab who was angry when a woman slave wearing the jilbab, because it was a mistaken identity. (NOW, please do not confuse the issue with slavery itself, as it is another phenomena).

Nowadays some muslimah wear jilbab and some do not. Some force the women to wear jilbab, and some protest against this. Myself, I'm against the enforcement of wearing jilbab or not wearing jilbab. Women are free to choose as they like, whether they want to wear it all the time, sometimes wear it, or not wearing it at all.
I have the same appreciation to each expression.

Salam
Mia

Victoria,
Please don't lose your cool. It is unlady-like. My purpose in this thread is to discuss Karen Armstrong's article, not whether some Muslimahs decide to veil themselves or not.

If you have no response that can help Karen Armstrong out, I don't see why I bother.

The reason why I bring up the veiling issue is because it is central to Karen Armstrong's article. If you bothered to read it you'd see she used the 'veiling of Muhammad's wives' to prove her point that the 'original egalitarianism of Islam being hijacked by men.'

That is why I bring up her original proposition and her original evidence (i.e. the veiling of Muhammad's wives) - because they are pertinent issues under discussion.

So you dislike that I bring up the veiling issue? Better take that up with Karen Armstrong. Perhaps next time she might want to improve her research on Islam before making statements that can so easily be debunked by anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the real Islam, not the make-belief, watered-down, Westernized, sanitized for dhimmi consumption, ideosyncratic Islam she peddles to the unknowing.

Salaam,
Ahmed

ahmed - you brought the subject up - 5 times!!!

why are you so obsessed?

so you think her article is nonsense- ok- thats your right-

im not going to prove to you her article isnt nonsense- she has done that for herself-

she is certainly not the only woman to make tis observation at all!

history proves her correct-

why do you care?

youre not a muslim- you insulted me at length because you wrongly assumed i dont wear hijab-

when i got tired of the insults i simply stated that i do- because its true-

its not your business!

in this contexy- all that my hijab wearing proves is how incredibly wrong you were in your rambling and derogatory misinterpertations of the simple words that i said to you-

if you have such a hard time understanding things said directly to you- and then repeated over and over for your clarification when you misunderstand every step of the way-

how can you possibly expect to be respected for your misinterpertations of 1400 year old doctrine when there are no helpers to keep redirecting you back to their meaning?

all of your understandings are based on outnoded archaic traditionas and cultural baggage-

which is exactly her point!!!!!!!

youre not even muslim!

obviously your own cultural understanding is severely threatened by the daylight of exposing truth-

your misrepresentation of islam is exactly the thing muslims all over the world are reforming and the reason people are afraid of islam!
because its a scary and bizarre mentality-

so you were raised by fundamentalists- im sorry for you-
but i was not and am not clouded by that fear mongering mentality-

youre really not going to insult or frighten me into any thing-

what have you replaced this with?
thats a more interesting question.
we understand- you disagree- ok- so what?

Sorry made a mistake. The second last sentence should be

Does your veiling or otherwise prove Karen Armstrong RIGHT? No.

Why should I move on when none of you Muslimahs have successfully defended Karen Armstrong's mistake about how the 'original egalitarianism of Islam being hijacked by men'?

I proved from the sahih hadiths and the Quran that Karen Armstrong was mistaken about this issue. She brought up the issue of the veiling of Muhammad's wives - claiming that only they and not the general Muslimah population who were initially veiled.

However, when one examines the Quran - the verses of veiling always applies to all Muslimahs, and the sahih hadiths tell us that when Muhammad decided to veil his wives he made up the general verses of veiling, none of which were specific to his wives.

So instead of discussing this issue with me, you hijacked the thread into discussing your veiling instead. Your veiling or not is apropos of nothing. The only reason you even brought it up is because you were trying to say that the Quran did not make veiling general to all Muslimahs. Otherwise, why bring it up?

Does your veiling or otherwise prove Karen Armstrong wrong? No.

Thus, Karen Armstrong's entire article is nonsense.

Salaam,
Ahmed.

ahmed- you yourself brought veiling up 5 times as i copied them for you to see-

talk about what you want-

the subject is treatment of women i religion-

staying on point to the topic is the opposite of hijacking-

denigrating islam is NOT the topic-

so i like to focus on whats being discussed-

you talk about what you like but the subject is women-

besides- shes right-

not only islam but all religions have this history-

ahmed move on!
you havent gotten past THE TITLE yet!!!

Victoria,
I have been very respectful towards you. I only make the point to illustrate your hijacking the discussion.

Instead of talking about Karen Armstrong's proposition that the 'original egalitarianism of Islam being hijacked by men' you have hijacked this discussion to whether Ahmed Hussain said you veiled yourself or not.

I wonder why you brought up your veiling or otherwise in this discussion as it is apropos of nothing.

If you veil yourself then how does it prove Karen Armstrong right? You can only 'prove' her right (in your argument) by claiming not all Muslimahs veil themselves - otherwise why bring your veiling up?

See what I'm getting at?

Salaam,
Ahmed

thank you mia that is kind of you to say what i cannot say myself-

i was talking to my husband tonight about the saying that if you backbite another person (maybe its muslim but i extend it to all people- someone may be a potential muslim or just not know it yet so i cant say who is or isnt a muslim) then you eat the dead flesh of your brother- this is a powerful image and really gives impact to the concept-

gossip and backbiting are not really stressed in christianity or any other religion that ive studied-
not stressed so powerfully-

to me- since tis is a public forum- if i respond to someone even though i address them personally it is still a form of backbiting to say something negative because it is an announcement to strangers who may read it-

so its nice when someone says what i cant-

its hard to tell someone not to do something negative without casting aspersions on their character because stating it is pointing it out publicly-

salaams

If Victoria is upset of name calling this and that in this thread on the other ones, it's only human reaction of any reasonable person. And it's not prudent for the other person to continue the name calling. In fact, it's not fair and it is a form of verbal violence.

(Victoria) and I are not ignoring the verses of Al-Quran that are being quoted here, how could we? We are just reading it beyond words.

Victoria has given lots of explanation of her reading which would have been useful if being properly discussed.

I have given one or two examples of re-interpretaton and always give examples of real life from Indonesia and the States.

Needless to say that we are not capable of understanding things about Muhammad that were being said by Ahmed, Anna, Ross, and a few others. I know for sure that I'm not capable of perceiving this hostility about ANY prophet, including Socrates and Plato who lived in the institutionally-violent Roman Greek.

If any of you are psychologist, could you possibly comment that some people are not capable of having these kind of thoughts about prophets? This is an honest question from me, because I simply can't find such hostility in my mind.

But I do have a small story to share. As a kid I was looking for god. Before age 17 I had read many books in search of god. One day I fell ill for two days (I've been physically fit person). People said I kept saying this during my high fever: god doesn't exist, god doesn't exist...I realised then that 'I killed that god who kept threatened me as a kid'. From then on I worked hard to face the real life, and at peace with god.

So what I'm saying is, perhaps Ahmed, Anna and a few others would someday realise about that thought about Muhammad that keep haunting them. And it should be easier for Ahmed, since the name Ahmed is just the best form of name Muhammad....:-)) .If Ahmed is no longer a Muslim, then he should accept the reality and be peaceful with his own quest.

Salam
Mia

well i do mind youre saying im illogical- ive laso minded the many personal insults but thats your way i guess-

it doesnt change the facts- im illogical because my facts were correct?

well thanks for the offer of teaching me islam- im alright though
peace

Victoria,
If you don't mind me saying: you are illogical. If you want to discuss Islam with me I'm willing to educate you. But if you want to argue semantics - then there's no point.

What is the difference between a khimar and a veil? They are words from different countries. Technically khimars are not veils but 'veil' a short-hand English word because khimars like hijab and tudungs are not technically face veils but they do veil other things - such as hair.

If you want to argue in Arabic then let's do so but I don't see the point.

So you say you wear the hijab - does that prove Karen Armstrong is right about the "original egalitarianism in Islam being hijacked by men." Does it prove Karen Armstrong was right in asserting that in the beginning only Muhammad's wives were veiled? I don't think so.

I do note you don't see the big issues but am easily side-tracked to the small issues you feel you can defend. Ignoring the original issue and also the issue of Muhammad's character as told by the sira and hadiths.

Salaam,
Ahmed

again ahmed- you need to actually read hwat i say instead of paraphrasing from a faulty memory-

to date ive read 5 full books on veiling in islam-

khimar doesnt mean veil- it is a specific cloth that is draped across the bosom-

i didnt say valid- look- ive posted ad nauseum just do a search on my name and read it - its easy-

to have to come back over and over and correct what ive said because youre not remebering correctly is an abuse ofmy time-

ahmed are you mental?

i said wearing hijab for white muslimahs in america is difficult after 911 as WE are a small minority-

your assumptions are reslly getting tiring-

so heres a thought- stop making them!

pretty much youve been wrong on every assumption about me that youve made- sp give up-
just ask or deal with easily gotten facts-

i doubt youve made any study at all of the issue- but you surely have alot of opinions-

when a person knows someting they dont have a need to prove their knowledge all the time-

get it?

the quran doesnt mention "veiling" it says draw the khimar (cloth) over the bosom and dont display your beauty-

most of what we know about hijab doesnt come fro quran or even sunnah but hadeeth-

mercy ahmed just go look at the pages and pages ive already spent time on and wont repeat good efforts for-

also the rude comments youve made from your false assumptions- ill just forget- since it seems you have

Victoria,
I think you did say there is no valid reason in the quran for wearing hijabs and that there are many problems with hijab wearing.

You also said that after 9/11 wearing hijab for a white muslimah is not easy - as you're a small minority.

You didn't even know the verses of veiling wrote about the khimar because you can't read Arabic. This is what you wrote:
i wonder how can people go through their lives believing that ALLAH is a misogynist abusive creator? as for the face veil- i have asked every niqabi ive ever met- every one- every time- and do you know what? every one ive asked what reason they are wearing it- not once have i had a logical and reasoned answer- not one time!!
not once has someone said -it is clearly stated here or here- and you also have not presented anything new or clear-
i have even had women have the nerve to tell me that its because their mother or father instructed them so! and ive talked to many women who are doctors and much better educated than I - but apparently this very imporatant aspect of their lives they never thought to reason out-

So what is there to figure out? The quran says Muslims who wear the khimar. Period. End of story. No ifs. No buts. No get out clause.

So if I made an assumption it is a valid assumption since you quibbled about the meaning of the verses of veiling.

Okay, let us move on - do you now accept that Karen Armstrong is wrong when she wrote that originally only Muhammad's wives were veiled and that the general veiling of Muslimahs is due to the 'original egalitarianism of Islam being hijacked by men'?

That was my original proposition that you fought against.

Oh. by the way - it must be tough knowing your prophet is a murderous scoundrel who enslaved women and children and sold them in the mosque, who had sex slaves (yes - sex slaves after butchering their husbands), tortured and murdered opponents, raided caravans and villages and had sex with a nine-year-old child?

Next time you're at the supermarket look around and see just what 9 year old girls look like and imagine what it was like for little Aisha when a 53 year old man had sex with her.

But I'm assuming, yes - assuming, you have no problems with all that.

Salaam,
Ahmed

ahmed- im not sure if you remember who i am or what ive said-

you just posted this-

I never brought up your wearing the hijab - you did.

these are your words ahmed-
you just said them to me-

now here are the 5 separate posts where YOU brought up the hijab TO ME

1) I do remember it is you who said you are not veiled. That is your choice, but I wonder why you are not veiled when Muhammad (aka Allah) ordered you to be veiled.

2) So if you want to follow the real Islam you should wear the hijab.

3) As for the veils - the Quran commands you to veil yourself. So why aren't you doing it? Surah 24:31
If you're a Sunni then you should read the sahih hadiths that tell you to wear the hijab.

4) Here is a link you can read about how 33:59 is talking about veiling.

5) As for the veiling - you are sorely mistaken. I see no refutation on your part ---

you see no refutation on my part- because ive been wearing hijab for 8 years!

you never asked if i do or dont- you just assumed i dont

and i never brought it up!

yet you start last post with telling me i brought it up-

really ahmed- you are incredible in your instant revisions-

i have posted many many times about the experience of wearingf hijab on these boards-

you make so many judgements and assumptions based on - well- nothing-

im sorry you hate islam ahmed- im sorry that youve distanced yourself from friends and family-

i know other ex-muslims who try to assimilate into their new culture by hatng islam even more than some of the racist-sectists islamophobes that abound after 911-

but ask yourself- is the company and approval of such haters really superior to the company of the muslims you left behind?

do you really think its an accident that so many westerners are discovering islam?

(for the record i did before 911)

consider the possibility that you are rejecting something of value in preference to some temporal and fleeting acceptance that isnt real anyway-

since youve repeatedly said by your estimation (when you dont know me at all) im not a muslim- if you were a muslim accusing a believer of such a thing you would become that wich you accuse one of-
youre aware of this - im aware of this- and i realize how bitter and cruel an insult you are throwing to me-

i wont give you any more opportunities to display your hatred of Muhammad(pbuh)

by responding to you any further i will be sharing your sin by enabling it-

so peace to you ( i see you still say salaam)

and salaams ahmed may you find the god

Don't get upset, Victoria.

If we disagree then let's have a mature discussion. I bring facts and you bring facts and let the facts decide.

I never brought up your wearing the hijab - you did. I am merely perplexed that someone who would call herself Muslim would admit to disobeying Muhammad and Allah. I have lived in Muslim countries among real Muslims and some of my family members are Muslims. My neighbors were Muslims and friends were Muslims but never have I heard of any Muslim who would knowingly disobey Muhammad and Allah. But suit yourself - I am addressing my points to the real islam - not some idiosyncratic "I don't obey Muhammad and Allah if I don't feel like it" type of Islam. Sorry, dear Victoria, but that to me is not the real Islam.

As for the hadiths - if you're a Sunni which I guess you to be you also have to obey the Sunnah. You have no answer to the sahih hadiths that prove Muhammad was a violent sex-slaving murderer. If you don't want to examine your religion in the light of the truth send down by the Muslims themselves then it goes to show you are following a Westernised sanitized make-belief Islam.

The other readers of this site will see what I'm getting at - and for those who did not know Muhammad was a murderous scoundrel who enslaved women and children and sold them in the mosque, who forced women (he made into widows by butchering their husbands) to have sex with him, who had sex with a little nine year old kid after dreaming of marrying her when she was merely a swaddling baby, who tortured his enemies, and who sent his followers to kill non-believers if they refused to convert to Islam or pay the Jizya, then those readers will know from your lack of response that I'm telling the truth.

In the end of the day, I am merely a MESSENGER. I bring the message of Islam. This message of Islam is from the Quran, sira and hadiths of the Muslims themselves. It is up to the readers to decide.

It is still not too late for you though, dear Victoria. Here's the chance to go through your Islamic scriptures / literature to find out if I'm telling the truth. Don't just sweep the inconvenient facts aside. If I'm telling the truth then what sort of man are you following? Someone far worse than Hitler or someone as holy and peaceful as the Dalai Lama. You decide.

Salaam,
Ahmed

you remeMber wrong ahmed- or just never knew-
i wear hijab and have written extensively about it in these forums- as ive said go read what ive posted- clearly you didnt-

youve proven nothing with your short hadeeths-

also- ITS REALLY NOT YOUR BUSINESS OR UP TO YOU TO JUDGE ANYONE OR ME IF I WEAR HIJAB OR NOT!!!

Youre continued wrong rush to judgements have invalidatd any good points you might have made.

Really its amazing that you have continued to make wrong statements about things that are right in front of you

ive already addressed AT LENGTH the subjects youve touched lightly on here and then triumphantly (and erroneously) claim youve proven anything

you havent proven anything but your own intolerance and lack of knowledge of Islam- which is i guess why you left-

millions and millions fo people disagree with you

peace ahmed you havent convinced me of anything i require a great deal of thought and depth to go into a conversation- not just blanket assertions

Victoria,
My original intention was to show Karen Armstrong is wrong about the "original egalitarianism of Islam being hijacked by males", and I have demonstrated that by showing the sahih ahadith and the verses of veiling.

It was Muhammad who instituted the misogyny of polygamy, 1/2 inheritance, 1/2 testimony worth, sex slavery etc.

Our discussion went on to discuss your particular idea of Islam since you brought it up as some sort of excuse that Islam is not as 'bad' as I made it out to be. Now, since you brought it up - it is fair game for discussion.

I do remember it is you who said you are not veiled. That is your choice, but I wonder why you are not veiled when Muhammad (aka Allah) ordered you to be veiled. He did not give you a choice. Muslims are not allowed to disobey Allah and Muhammad. The command to 'obey Allah and his prophet' is repeated so many times in the Quran that I've lost count. It's not as if you can be ignorant of this fact.

So, let us just say you practise an idiosyncratic Westernized watered-down make-belief form of Islam. I am not interested in this - I am interested in the real Islam and what it does to humans.

As for Muhammad's behavior - I don't see how you can sweep it under the carpet. You have not even refuted the idea that he murdered opponents, enslaved women and children, sold them in the mosque, had sex slaves and tortured people.

How do you reconcile such behavior with someone supposedly a prophet of God?

So believe what you will. My initial point that Karen Armstrong is ignorant of the true Islam remains.

Salaam,
Ahmed

ahmed- go back on this very page and read the extensive posts ive made on these subjects-

i guess you feel islam was a finsihed product 1470 some years ago-

im not sure what your position is ahmed- you seem to alternately hate islam- and then seem angered if you feel someone isnt practicing it to your own culturalized and strict premises-

you make some heavy accusations- perhaps you dont realize that attacking someones beliefs- or insulting their practice of it- never turns their heart toward something-

it only turns their heart away from the attacks and the insults and usually drives them further into their own belief system.

if your intention is a good one- you are not using a very effective strategy to express yourself.

i wish you peace ahmed

Victoria,
I don't make Islam hard - I just know Muslims are not allowed to disobey the Quran like you do. What's the point of Muhammad commanding you to do things and you disobey him?

So if you want to defend Islam - defend the real Islam - not your make believe Westernized "I only follow the verse I like and ignore those I don't" kind of Islam.

BTW: how do you feel about your husband's right beat you and to take other wives and to have sex with sex slaves (not that they're available to Muslims anymore due to Western secular influence)?

Sex slaves, mind you - women who's husbands were just butchered by the Muslims and then forced to have sex with their killers. Did your "great teacher" or his wife discuss that with you? Or just tell you that Muhammad was the greatest man who ever lived? I bet it's the latter, isn't it? Open your eyes, Victoria. Read up on the biography of Muhammad and re-read the Quran - it's not pretty reading.

Salaam,
Ahmed

yes ahmed- i often tell people that what i studied in my youth (and the interpertations) is superior to anything they learned in their maturity -

islam is easy ahmed- you choose to make it hard-

if it is not forbidden- it is allowed

Ross and Ahmed,
Please deh (a slang in Indonesia), I wouldn't think that Muhammad and his household knew about Valentine's?

Is Muhammad in this mailing list? It's me who remember Muhammad on the Valentine's day, and extend to you all Happy Valentine...:-)

Salam
Mia (while waiting valentines' wish from my sons...:-((

Ahmed,

You forgot to add the 72 houris to the list.
BTW your arguments are excellent, good show !!

Are you from FFI ? you sound like one. If not we'll be glad if you'd join us in the forum.

http://www.faithfreedom.org

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum

Regards

To Mia,
Valentine's Day in the Muhammad household (timing a bit compressed):

Muhammad and Khatidja and Sauda and Aisha and Hafsa and Juwayriyya and Safiyya and Umm Salama and Zaynab bint Jansh and Umm Habiba and Maimuna and Fatimah and Hind and Asma bint Saba and Zaynab bint Khozayma and Asma bint al-Numan and Rayhana and Mariah bint Sham’un and Maimuna the slave girl and Zaynab the third and Khawla and Umm Sharik.

Very romantic in the Muhammad household.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Mia,
I happen to know quite a bit more about Islam and Muhammad than you, Victoria and Karen Armstrong - having studied the subject in depth in my youth.

I also know Middle East apostates do not speak their apostacy out loud because Muhammad commanded his followers to kill apostates. Even today apostates from Islam are killed, tortured, imprisoned or otherwise punished.

Ever wondered about the holiness and divinity of that? A true religion does not need to keep adherents by coercion and threats of violence.

I also note you and Victoria are not following the real Islam but merely watered-down make-believe "I'll just ignore the verses I don't like" Islam.

Call me a literalist if you like - but I happen to know that Muslims are commanded to OBEY the Quran - not disobey it.

So does 4:11 tell Muslims to only give daughters 1/2 as much as sons? Yes or No. I think it's yes but you obviously can read Arabic and know differently.

Salaam,
Ahmed

PS: what do you think about Muhammad allowing Muslims to keep multiple wives and sex slaves? Is that sexual equality to you? I'm sure it is.

Ahmed: "Khaditja was a successful business woman - she was independent and wealthy"

Except for mispelling her name, I agree with Ahmed about Khadija. A noble woman who fell in love with the young Muhammad, her employee. They both were whom we called 'the hanifs' , good natured people who seek for the truth and regularly meditated, during the period of transition, when the old customs were breaking apart.

Khadija was Muhammad's soulmate. For the good 15 years the were together. Muhammad consulted for his wife's opinion about the first revelation. The year she died that was devastating for Muhammad.

In the spirit of Valentine's day, I remember Muhammad and Khadijah. And thanks for reminding me of this, Ahmed.

Happy Valentine, everyone!

Salam
Mia

the anonymous above is from me.

Ahmed: "Those are the opinions of your prophet. I didn't make this up. Muhammad did."

I found this pattern in all Ahmed's posting, Muhammad this..Muhammad that...Is Muhammad in this mailing list also, I wonder?

I met many ex-Muslims or non-Muslims middle easterners. I just don't recall the one with this kind of antipathy toward the figure of Muhammad.

Salam
Mia

I find that Ahmed's view and the manner of discussion has similarities with those of Muslim fundamentalist-literalist. As it happens now, in the other mailing list (Indonesian muslimah), two friends are engaging with almost the same kind of topic, women inheritance.

The literalist is on the opinion that the law of inheritance cannot be changed as it is the final word of Allah in the Quran. People should follow exactly what the text says, no other opinion. Daughters should inherit 1/2 of sons, period. This is in line with what Ahmet says. While the progressive one is more or less at the same opinion with what I wrote previously.

Yet, they both strive to be good Muslims, and believe in Muhammad - which is obviously the opposite of Ahmed Hussein here.

So....it seems that the work of Islamic text re-interpretation meet many internal and external obstacles. But the books of Ms. Armstrong just give us more inspiration and enhance our self-confidence. KEEP IT GOING GUYS!!

Salam
Mia

Mia,
What accusation you want me to prove? Go ahead and pick one and I will prove the accusation to you.

Sex slavery? No problem.

Murder of opponents? No problem.

Torture of enemies? No problem.

Banditry? No problem.

Enslaving women and children? No problem.

Selling slaves in the mosque? No problem.

What else do you want me to prove?

Read the quran, Muslimah - about the part where your husband has the god-given right to take other wives and have sex with sex-slaves. Does that make you feel good? Is that the sort of 'equality' you're thinking of when you think of Islamic equality?

How did those millions of sex slaves feel when Muslims killed their husbands and took them for slaves? I suppose it's all right since Muhammad said it's okay for a Muslim to have sex with his sex-slave.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Ahmed: "I cannot understand how Muslims can pick and choose the bits of the Quran they like - it's not a dinner menu or a smorgasbord - you don't get to pick and choose - you are commanded to obey the Quran and the Sunnah - not make up your own rules as you go along."

MIA: This is fundamentalist-literalist way of thinking - only of the opposite view. There are fundamentalists in Indonesia of course. It seemed to me the fundamentalism grew in Indonesia along with the urbanisation and modernisation.

Ahmed: Muslims have no right to re-write the Quran. If you think you can re-interpret the Quran to your liking - go ahead. This just goes to show you disagree with the original Quranic proposition. What is your reasoning for doing so? Do you find it unjust and distaste?

Who died and made you a prophet? Nobody. As a Muslim you have been commanded to follow the Quran and Sunnah. Muhammad in the Quran laid down the inheritance laws for Muslims - he told Muslims to only give daughters 1/2 the inheritance of sons. That is unambiguous and clear. If you want to change it - go ahead - what you are doing is merely proving my point - and that the Quran is unjust.

---

Ahmed: "Also, for you Muslimahs - please find out if I am telling you the truth about the character and behavior of your prophet - who murdered opponents, enslaved innocent women and children and sold them in the mosque, tortured enemies and commanded his followers to kill all those people in surrounding countries who do not want to convert to Islam. Oh... he also took sex slaves. These are all in the sahih hadiths."

MIA: This is not re-interpretation, this is accusation. I would ask myself hard questions if I had such thoughts about all prophets.

Example of re-interpretation, inheritance (I'll try to make it simple):
Context: During the ignorance period (jahilliyyah), women status were just like property and cattles. And there was expensive mahr, a price to pay for the tribe for giving their women. Please note, this was hard realities faced by women at that time.

Text of Quran and Hadis: daughters got 1/2 of sons' inheritance.

Lesson learned: Thus, the idea of women having property, even a half of men - was revolutionary. The idea was to bring the sense of equality among men and women during the transition period.

Reinterpretation.
Based on the idea of maintaining equality among men and women, nowadays the inheritance should be more or less equal. Women are now more independent and we are moving from communal lives into individual. Mahr (dowry) remains as a symbol, it lost its social-economic function. The sense of equality should reflect all these realities.

This way, we live through equality which is reflected in the way we interpret the text. And I believe this is the legacy that prophet Muhammad had left to us. We are the agents who could make the difference of re-interpreting the living Quran.

Salam
Mia

Ahmed: totally wrong. That is just your claims. Khaditja was a successful business woman - she was independent and wealthy. The rights of pagan Arab women were far superior to that of Muslim women. They had full and equal rights - before Muhammad came along.

They didn't have to cover themselves or make themselves subservient to any man. That is true equality. Muhammad stuffed that up with his sexist misogynistic views. He turned women into chattel. Now you twist things such that he liberated them.

Your prophet gave you only 1/2 the inheritance of males and your testimony is only worth 1/2 that of males because you have 1/2 of the intelligence of males. Those are the opinions of your prophet. I didn't make this up. Muhammad did.

How do you think this is equality in any sense?

Oh... and he did say Muslims can 'beat' their wives and engage in polygamy and have as many sex slaves as they like - how is that equality from a woman's perspective?

Salaam,
Ahmed

Ahmed: "I cannot understand how Muslims can pick and choose the bits of the Quran they like - it's not a dinner menu or a smorgasbord - you don't get to pick and choose - you are commanded to obey the Quran and the Sunnah - not make up your own rules as you go along."

MIA: This is fundamentalist-literalist way of thinking - only of the opposite view. There are fundamentalists in Indonesia of course. It seemed to me the fundamentalism grew in Indonesia along with the urbanisation and modernisation.

Ahmed: "Also, for you Muslimahs - please find out if I am telling you the truth about the character and behavior of your prophet - who murdered opponents, enslaved innocent women and children and sold them in the mosque, tortured enemies and commanded his followers to kill all those people in surrounding countries who do not want to convert to Islam. Oh... he also took sex slaves. These are all in the sahih hadiths."

MIA: This is not re-interpretation, this is accusation. I would ask myself hard questions if I had such thoughts about all prophets.

Example of re-interpretation, inheritance (I'll try to make it simple):
Context: During the ignorance period (jahilliyyah), women status were just like property and cattles. And there was expensive mahr, a price to pay for the tribe for giving their women. Please note, this was hard realities faced by women at that time.

Text of Quran and Hadis: daughters got 1/2 of sons' inheritance.

Lesson learned: Thus, the idea of women having property, even a half of men - was revolutionary. The idea was to bring the sense of equality among men and women during the transition period.

Reinterpretation.
Based on the idea of maintaining equality among men and women, nowadays the inheritance should be more or less equal. Women are now more independent and we are moving from communal lives into individual. Mahr (dowry) remains as a symbol, it lost its social-economic function. The sense of equality should reflect all these realities.

This way, we live through equality which is reflected in the way we interpret the text. And I believe this is the legacy that prophet Muhammad had left to us. We are the agents who could make the difference of re-interpreting the living Quran.

Salam
Mia

Victoria,
Does the Quran tell Muslims who to divide up their inheritance? Yes.

Does the Quran tell Muslims they can divide up their inheritance anyhow they like? No.

Does the Quran tell Muslims they have to obey Allah and Muhammad? Yes.

Does the Quran tell Muslims they have the right to disobey Allah and Muhammad? No.

So what's the problem?

Indonesian Muslims have gone against Muhammad when they recognized the inequality in Muhammad's seventh century creation. The fact that they disobeyed the Quran in this regard is not evidence that the Quran is right, Islam is fair to women, and Muhammad was not a misogynist.

It is quite the opposite. You have misconstrued your religion.

Salaam,
Ahmed

ahmed- it seems that your thinking patterns are exactly the sort of things that have led to oppression i the past- you say inheritance laws are set in stone- this is your inflexible idea- ask mia- shes in indonesia what inheritance laws are practiced there- possibly you come from a culture where you are taught some inflexible and calcified versions of islam- imagine that not all people are taught to think in absolutes-

yours is not the only brain and heart on the planet to interpert-
salaams

Let us discuss the main issues. I think I am answering Karen Armstrong's article which is clearly wrong in asserting that in the beginning only Muhammad's wives were veiled. Her implication is that the general veiling of Muslimahs is an example of the "original egalitarian nature of Islam being hijacked by men."

This is not true. Muhammad was the one who instigated the misogyny of Islam in his Quran and hadiths. He set in stone an unfair inheritance law. If Indonesia Muslims disobey him and inherit their sons and daughters equally this is not evidence that Islam is good but that even the Indonesian Muslims can see and are ashamed of the injustice of the Quran. Or else they would not disobey the Quran - which is a no-no as far as a pious Muslim is concerned.

I cannot understand how Muslims can pick and choose the bits of the Quran they like - it's not a dinner menu or a smorgasbord - you don't get to pick and choose - you are commanded to obey the Quran and the Sunnah - not make up your own rules as you go along.

Thus, I think all Muslimahs have to don the khimar. No ifs. No buts. Muhammad did not give Muslimahs a way out. He didn't say you can decide to not wear the khimar in certain circumstances. He told you to wear it. Period. End of story.

The fact that Karen Armstrong's book is taught at schools or universities as if it carries the truth about Islam is disappointing. She made many errors - including the claim that Aisha had reached puberty when Muhammad had sex with her - citing Tabari. Imam Tabari said no such thing - Karen Armstrong re-interpreted Tabari.

Just like the veil issue. The sahih hadiths gives the context of how and why the verse of veiling was revealed. When Umar pestered Muhammad to veil his wives - Muhammad made up the verse of veiling - which commands all Muslimahs to veil themselves. There is no verse of veiling applicable only to Muhammad's wives. I challenge all of you Muslimahs to re-read the Quran to find out if I am telling the truth or Karen Armstrong is telling the truth. If you can find a verse that says only Muhammad's wives are to be veiled then I will apologize. But I doubt it. I think she has misread verse 33:33 which does not talk about veiling at all.

Also, for you Muslimahs - please find out if I am telling you the truth about the character and behavior of your prophet - who murdered opponents, enslaved innocent women and children and sold them in the mosque, tortured enemies and commanded his followers to kill all those people in surrounding countries who do not want to convert to Islam. Oh... he also took sex slaves. These are all in the sahih hadiths.

Put yourself in the shoes of the victims - those poor women whose husbands were killed by the Muslims and then divided up among them like cattle and either turned into sex slaves or sold in the mosque.

Salaam,
Ahmed

MIRIAM: "I know a lot of Westerners who tell me that Islam once had this Golden Age of tolerance, and if it could happen once before, it could happen again. I think this is Irshad Manji's position. She continues to cling to hope that Islam can be modernized and reformed.I don't know how much Islamic history you know, but what do you think about that argument? Was this Golden Age of Islam really that golden and tolerant? Also are there any balanced books on Islamic history, something under 500 pages, that you could recommend?"

Miriam, I don't know if this could answer your question. But I happen to have the book "The Lost Discovery of Western Science (?)...." by Dick Teresi. I bought that book not because I was looking for it, but because it was attached 50% off with the purchase of the book I was looking for "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker.

The book is mostly about the history of physical science but with pretty good historical background of different civilisation including Arab-Muslim golden age. That is, more than linking the Greek culture to the Western World, but Arab-Muslim was actually one source of Western science & civilisation.

BTW, it also talked about the old science of Polynesian, who came from Java (Indonesia..:-)

And beside reading only books, I'm also impressed by the movies Kingdom of Heaven and Soldiers of God (this particular one is quite disturbing).

Salam
Mia

Ahmed: "You also said you converted by prayer and reading. I do hope you'll re-read the Quran, hadiths and sira and don't just arrogate your thinking to Western apologists like Karen Armstrong. Go to the original source and see for yourself what the real islam is."

MIA: This is Karen Armstrong's page, so it's just relevant to discuss what she wrote. FYI, I came to know Karen Armstrong's book the History of God from the mailing list. My nieces and my nephes are also fond of her books.

The book became the required reading in a couple of universities. In fact, one course was dedicated to study her book, the class was lectured by the late Cak Nur, one of the foremost (liberal) Islamic thinker in Indonesia.

Ms. Armstrong books have inspired many of us (Indonesian) to rely on ourselves, to re-interpret our own history (of Islam) in Indonesia.

Salam
Mia

Ahmed: "I know all this because I've read the hadiths and sira and saw for myself what sort of religion Islam is. I have lived with Islam, grew up with it. There is a lot of suffering due to Islam. Something for you to think about."

I think I could understand what Ahmed is saying. I remember in my college days, the Pakistani college mate was telling our professor during our lunch together, about her conversion to the Unitarian Church, with her boyfriend. She told me about the opression of women in her country, and how she grew up with it. That's why she became a Christian.

I was going to speak up, saying that Islam was not like that, it's more to the culture, etc. But then I realised her background was so different with mine in Indonesia. For her, Islam was equal to women opression, and the only way to be released from that is to join her boyfriend in the Unitarian Church. My friend took a different route from her country woman, Fatima Mernissi for example, who pioneered the re-interpretation of Quran & Hadith.

There are 85% Muslims of 220 million in Indonesia. Some mid-east mullahs would call Indonesia a secular country, while the nation ideology is more to plural (Panca-Sila). Islam came to Indonesia like other culture and religions, by trades - except that Christianity was associated by colonialism.

Ahmed, many Indonesian simply divide the inheritance equally among men & women. We do not take Quran literally. Most of us don't wear jilbab (I dont), anyway. We do not practice genital mutilation on baby girls. When some people impose the women to wear hijab, more people would go to the streets protesting. The hot debate is now on anti pornography bill, and poligamy.

Yet, all of Indonesian would love to be good Muslims, at least that's our intention. And the work of re-interpretation is on its way from Indonesia. Your pessimism will be a real challenge for us. Here I come, baby.

Salam
Mia

by consensus of muslim scholars and his peers in america- an MIT physics profess or is doubtful to be considered oe of the best minds on islamic doctrine-
as would a biotech engineer-

if to you-good maners and consideration of others is a tiny insignificant matter- it is not to me but the basis of a decent and respectful conversation.

really your assumptions are just too uch to deal with-
i continue to read Qur'an and hadeeth - it is not necessary to criticize what you dont know-
(my particular study habits)

thank you for the concern
peace and salaams

Victoria,
I wonder why you're not paying attention to the big issues and home in on the little insignificant ones.

You said you were taught by the best mind in the country and his wife. Now - that is surely an exaggeration. One would think an MIT physics professor might qualify or maybe the top NASA scientist or maybe even one of the top genetic engineers working in a biotech company. However, you're entitled to your opinion.

In Islam, an Imam means many things to different people - it may mean a caliph or a great religious leader or a sect leader as per the Shias. It can also mean the man who leads prayers in a mosque. However, it can also mean a religious teacher.

So if you say you learnt Islam from someone then that person can be considered your Imam. Get the picture? You don't have to say this person is your imam - by inference that person can be called an imam. Actually, the imam is an honorary title - it is given by adherents, students or followers. Nobody qualifies to be an imam (except for the prayer leader by his actions). Some scholars are just called 'imam' by their students.

You also said you converted by prayer and reading. I do hope you'll re-read the Quran, hadiths and sira and don't just arrogate your thinking to Western apologists like Karen Armstrong. Go to the original source and see for yourself what the real islam is.

And for goodness sake, please check out my previous post and see if I'm telling you the truth or not. It's up to you. You are important - and it's not too late.

Salaam,
Ahmed.

ahmd- again your assumptions are too much- no one said he was an imam- and he wasnt-
i said he was one of the best minds in america and by consensus of the scholars on islam here- he was-
and he died early this year- as to why he was in america thats nobodys business to judge-

stick with miriam- you both dislike islam and will ahve plenty to talk about-

this is the second time ive told you he wasnt an imam- so clearly youre not really reading what i post-

Miriam,
My knowledge of Irshad Manji is from her book, "The Trouble with Islam," and from seeing her speak several times. Her view of Islam is not what I remember and have experienced. The Ijtihad period was not a major period and was not the foundation of Islam - it was due to some liberal Ummayyad and Abbasid caliphs before al-Ghazali laid down the foundation of orthodoxy. The Righteous Caliphs did not practise what we think of as Ijtihad - it was their way or no way.

Victoria,
How is calling your imam and his wife apologists insulting them? Did they tell you about Muhammad's murders? Did they tell you that Muhammad when he was a 53 year old man had sex with a 9 year old child? Did they tell you that Muhammad had dreamt of marrying this child when she was a swaddling baby? Did they tell you that Muhammad condoned rape of female captives?

How about his enslaving of innocent women and children whom he divided among his followers and sold them in the mosque?

The imam and his wife told you Muhammad was the greatest human being who ever lived, didn't they?

They didn't tell you that Muhammad commanded Umar to go to the surrounding countries to kill all non-Muslims who refused to convert to Islam, did they?

How did you think most of the Middle East became Islamic? They didn't tell you the caliphs went on a blood bath of conquests to spread Islam according to Muhammad's command, did they?

They didn't tell you that Muhammad ordered that Arabia should be cleansed of all non-Muslims, did they?

How do they explain why Muslims, even today, will kill any non-Muslims who ventures within 12 miles of the Ka'aba? They missed out on that one too, didn't they?

I urge you to ask your Imam and his wife these questions I shown they had missed.

Good luck.

Salaam,
Ahmed

ahmed- now you are insinuating negativity about a man who was not an imam- and his wife and there is nothing reasonable about this-
really you have no idea what i know or dont know-
ill leave you to miriam and you can bash together- theres nothing to be gained by patiently absorbing inferred insults- if you cast aspersions on people ive only mentioned briefly- it bodes not well for a reasoned discourse
salaams

ahmed- islam doesnt have a monopoly on injustice or inflicting suffering- i would say your socialization has clouded your judgement- there now ive made an assumption- but its based on the many things youve revealed so its an informed one-

really if someones mind is closed or already made up- i dont refute anything they say- its pointless as ive discovered here in engaging people whose intentions become revealed after a while-

while i patently endure many judgements made- i also understand that i will not make judgements in return-
as ive repeatedly asked miriam that we agree to respectfully disagree (refused by her) i dont necessarily have to surround myself with those whose opinions mirror mine to feel comfortable-

also im not here to justify my existence as its not anyones business-
this is a forum of sharing and dialogue- when the dialogue degenerates to aspersions- i move on to forums where there is intelligent giving and taking- if you have a problemn with islam that is your business- however if all you have to offer is your own negative assessments- thats also fine- but it makes for boring and pointless exchanges-

you seem to confuse your upbringing and the people who practice it with the religion- so fine for you- we are all striving to be better people i think- the difference is- it is not necessary for me to denigrate anyones beliefs to validate my own- i havent done this so far and insha'alla never will-

really there are more enlightening topics to be had-
salaams

Ahmed,

I appreciate your knowledgeable and reasoned posts.

I know a lot of Westerners who tell me that Islam once had this Golden Age of tolerance, and if it could happen once before, it could happen again. I think this is Irshad Manji's position. She continues to cling to hope that Islam can be modernized and reformed.I don't know how much Islamic history you know, but what do you think about that argument? Was this Golden Age of Islam really that golden and tolerant? Also are there any balanced books on Islamic history, something under 500 pages, that you could recommend?

Victoria,
Let's just have a discussion about what Islam is for a Westernized Muslimah's perspective. I have lived in both spheres and so I have first hand knowledge of both Islam and the West.

If you're a Muslimah then you should follow what the Quran tells you and not pick and choose the bits you like. You're not a prophet of Islam and cannot make the rules. You're not even a man so you can't even interpret the Quran to your liking. As a woman, you're deficient in intelligence - according to your prophet. So if you want to follow the real Islam you should wear the hijab.

As for the inheritance hadith - don't get hung up on trying to wriggle out of this hole. The Quran 4:11 states clearly and unambiguously that the daughter gets 1/2 of what the son gets. That is unfair. I'm a man and even I say it's unfair.

That particular hadith is in Malik's Muwatta and is held as binding on Muslims at least of the Maliki school.

Real Muslims practising real Islam don't ask if a particular hadith is only for that particular situation and no other. They believe and follow what their prophet did and said - that is the definition of the word 'Sunnah'. Perhaps you've heard of it - Muslims are told to follow the Quran and the Sunnah. Sunnis therefore take the Sunnahs to be the teachings and example of the prophet - including the hadiths. If Muhammad did something or suggested something to someone that is sufficient to constitute part of the Sunnah - he does not have to say, 'this example is binding on all Muslims.' All he has to do is to make an example and it's understood to be binding on all Muslims - that is what Sunnah means.

I know it's tough to be a Muslimah in the US right now after 9/11. It really bewilders me that any Westerner, male or female, can convert to or remain Muslim after that event - which should have opened your eyes to what real Islam is.

So, it's up to you whether you want to talk to me or not. But you have not refuted anything I have written and I'm giving you a picture of the real Islam - not something your Westernized or apologist imam and his wife is telling you. If Islam is so good what are they doing in America?

All I can suggest for you is to open your eyes and talk to some real Muslims and ex-Muslims so you can get the other side of the story, not the rosey picture painted for you. Read the Quran, hadiths and sira - understand what your prophet taught and did. He killed people, murdered critics, raided caravans, tortured enemies (yes - he tortured his enemies), committed genocide and ethnic cleansing, took sex slaves, made innocent women and children into slaves and sold them in the mosque, and he took a nine year old little girl as a wife.

I know all this because I've read the hadiths and sira and saw for myself what sort of religion Islam is. I have lived with Islam, grew up with it. There is a lot of suffering due to Islam. Something for you to think about.

Salaam,
Ahmed

salaams ahmed- perhaps you had a bad translation but i dont get the same overeaching absolute all time spanning idea form this hadeeth-
for one- he is speaking personally to a man about his prticular situation- so his personal wealth would be relevant to that situation-

i think it is the mentality of being so literal-minded that has stagnated islam in many countries- surely youre not suggesting that the places you mention are practicing islam as it was intended-
what about indonesia? the biggest muslim country that uses sharia? their interpertations should also be considered as valuable-

try being a white woman in america publicly wearing hijab and dressing islamically after 911-
really it is the smallest of minorities-

we all have our different difficulties in life ahmed- i have no reason to live in another country- this is my home and is not really very conducive to being publicly muslim- it is like im stabbing Jesus(ata) in the back over and over again- do a search and see how other americans react to my religion- but its not the point-

possibly you have made many assumptions about me based on these tiny conversations-

on the issue of khimmar? i was taught by the best mind in the country- and his wife is very vocal very active and very knowledgeable- mary ali- if you go to pbs.org youll see her article on hijab and headcovering- i wont discuss the issue because i know your information and there is certainly more available-

as far as the western secular rights- perhaps you dont live here and arent aware of what can happen to people that arent in agreement with the staus quo- you imagine that there is justice and there is but there is also injustice as there is everywhere-

when i became muslim someone fortuitously gave me several large books by sahih muslim and i devoured them- as every hadeeth seems to be repeated about 6 times- it was an education and gave me insight also into islam as it is practiced-

Im not familiar with Irshad Manji-
you seem to have built a profile complete with many assumptions from your small interaction with me- why would you assume i dont dress islamically?

nothing about islam is abstract to me as it infiltrates every aspect of my life-

while you see things set in stone- that is your right to see as you will- i will not denigrate your faith or lack thereof-
please refrain from making statements about what my faith is for me or how it is practiced or restricted from practice as my experiences are quite different than the sister who come here from other countries-

i will continue to define myself as only i can-
i only have to justify myself to ALLAH you know,

i have deconsructed and reconstructed 24:31 many many times and am well aware of what it says-

as for the rights of women in islam- while there are muslims here who sweep problems aside- i take them into my home and act as a liaison for them in some situations and am quite aware of the damage that has been done to many of them that continues to be done to them-(especially when they fade into american anonymity without the social constraints of any sort of enforcement of islamic rights for them)
but thats another story for another time-

i would contend that there is demonization of some and idealization of some on both sides and the truth is in the middle somewhere-

as ive stated- please out of respect- make no more assumptions or judgements on my knowledge or practice or mentality as it is simply not correct-

peace

Victoria,
Islam is a barbaric religion that is still stuck in the 7th century. Nothing much changes - because the Quran is unchanging. Sure some of the bigger more insidious issues like slavery were abolished - at the insistence of the West, but at its core Islam has not changed much in the past 14 centuries.

When you read Irshad Manji and get the Westernized sanitized story about Ijtihad you get the wrong idea - the real Islam cannot be 'reasoned' away - because everything that a Muslim needs to know is in the Quran and Sunnah.

As for the Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas - what does it matter if he was rich or poor? It doesn't. A man's right to bequeath his children should be his alone. Unfortunately Muhammad being the meddlesome control-freak that he was (he even regulated which shoe a Muslim can put on first and how to go to the toilet and what to do when one is using the toilet) he set the egregious mysogynistic inheritance laws in stone.

While the world has evolved and society has change, Islam at its core is still stuck in the 7th century. If you want to sample the real Islam - not your watered down Western apologetic version - go live in a sharia country for a while. You'd be amazed. Your version is not the real version because you have the benefit of living in a Western secular society and enjoy Western secular rights - so you don't see the problem Islam causes - it's all abstract to you and someone else's problems you can sweep to the back of your mind or even make apologetics for.

As for the veils - the Quran commands you to veil yourself. So why aren't you doing it? Surah 24:31 tells you to don a khimar with the word bikumurihinna (with their khimars). Different Muslims use different khimars - i.e. hijab, niqab, burqa, tudung, chador etc.

If you're a Sunni then you should read the sahih hadiths that tell you to wear the hijab.

Salaam,
Ahmed

see this is what i mean- it seems you are crystalllizing what you read into a static and unchangeable inflexible "law"- for instance- we have no idea of the financial situation of the man in question- 1/3 might have been a fortune-

i wont go into head coverings or velis or lack of velis - because you have your opinion and i ve dealt already with this topic and im satisfied and so are you-

i have no intention of living in saudi or pakistan as ive seen the worst manners in these cultures- but it also says that the arabs are the hardest hearted of the people - the meaning inferred is that if the qur'an can melt their hearts- any heart can be melted by it-

i dont like to get into long arguments-
however - i dont see the same inflexibility that you do- i also dont imagine that islam has been diligently followed in the aforesaid cultures-

i truly do believe that there is a future i islam and i have a different persepctive-

there is no need for me to sanitize it as i have only my own soul to satisfy- there are no other influences in my decisions- no parents or family to prove anything to one way or another-

perhaps we western "apologetics" are finding a balance- there could be a good thing in it- m sorry for the negative experiences youve had- any oppression or abuse of others is unislamic or anti-god in my view-

i think it is a religion that is still evolving as is all of humanity-
peace

Victoria,
Having re-read your post, I feel I must make some additions. I had initially intended to let you go with deluding yourself but I have come to think that it is dangerous to allow you to make such statements so contrary to the real Islam that you might be also deluding some other people who are reading this discussion.

I have already shown you that the word idribohunna means 'beat her' - it cannot mean 'separate from her' as the word would be Adrabanhon.

Idrib is beat. Adrab is separate.

Idribohunna is beat her. Adrabanhon is separate from her. Just because they share the same root does not make them the same. The root Daraba has multiple meanings but only one is clear in the context and the language. But you just want to delude yourself into thinking there is no beating in verse 4:34.

Also, I provided the Quranic verse that clearly states that a sole daughter gets half the inheritance. You have not refuted this at all. If you had lived in a sharia law country you would know that a woman gets only half as much as the man.

A Muslim is only allowed to bequeath 1/3 of his wealth to his daughter - according to Muhammad. You don't even know that - so even if a Muslim wanted to bequeath to his daughter Muhammad had already limited the amount. There is no such limit to the sons, of course.

Bukhari volume 23: 36
Sa'd ibn Abī Waqqās said, The Messenger of Allāh (pbuh) used to visit me at Makkah, in the year of the Farewell pilgrimage, on account of (my) illness which had become very severe. So I said, My illness has become very severe and I have much property and there is none to inherit from me but a daughter, shall I then bequeath two-thirds of my property as a charity? He said, "No". I said, Half? He said, "No".

Then he said: "Bequeath one-third and one-third is much, for if thou leavest thy heirs free from want, it is better than that thou leavest them in want, begging of (other) people; and thou dost not spend anything seeking thereby the pleasure of Allāh but thou art rewarded for it, even for that which thou puttest into the mouth of thy wife."

See? This man has only one daughter and no other relative - yet she only gets 1/3. Who gets the rest? I presume Muhammad either took it or some very distant male relative took it.

As for the veiling - you are sorely mistaken. I see no refutation on your part - what you're writing is totally counter to Islamic teachings and practices that it's just too ridiculous. Please don't project your Western sanitized humane sensibilities into Islam - that religion is cruel, inhumane and barbaric. Go and live in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan for a few years and then you'll see the point. Your Western apologetics of Islam is nothing like the real thing.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Victoria,
I'm giving you the real Islam, warts and all, that is practised in Islamic countries - not this watered-down unreal make-belief Islam that Western apologists who have absolutely no clue about Islam are telling you.

If you want to argue Islam as a theology I am ready to educate you. However, I see no point in engaging in ad hominem attacks. My motives are irrelevant to what Islam is. The history of Muhammad and Islam is open to all - you just have to read the ahadiths and sira to see for yourself. You'd find the picture wholly shocking.

As for the niqab/hijab I can tell you that Muslimahs don't have a reason to wear them except they believe that Allah told them to. What other reason is necessary?

As for the caliphate idea - Muhammad did not create a caliphate - he did not even name a successor. There is nothing in the Quran, ahadiths and sira about Muhammad giving power to a caliph successor. So this idea that only a Caliphate is necessary for some of the more evil ideas of Islam to become legitimate is false. Firstly, why would a caliph make stoning, cutting off hands, persecution of minorities etc. legitimate? The evil is the same regardless of whether one man (yes, it has to be a man) or many men pass fatwas on Islamic issues - and these evil acts are enshrined in the Quran and Sunna.

So, best of luck to you and please take care to read up on Islam before you fall into the trap. Islam is not a religion of peace - it is a religion of war (no matter what the Muslims tell you). Which other religion would kill you if you apostate? Is that peace? I think not. Immediately - it should sound warning bells in your head - Islam is not a religion of peace at all - it is quite a vicious creation of one Muhammad bin Abdallah.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Salaams Ahmed- really when i encounter any muslim men from other cultures and they figure out (which is immediately apparent if you see me) that im an american- all of these assumptions come loaded in their engagement- you have exactly made my point several times- first of all there is no muslim central authority- theres no caliphate no government at this time that is representative of islam-

somehow i guess you assumed i go to the internet for information which i never do- i go to people -many people- if i have 1 question i ask 5 people-
and often i get 5 answers-
while you may have you own personal interpertation or what youve been taught- i have to take a poll for every questionable practice i encounter- and ive lived all over america and been to many differentr flavors ad ethnic masjids and they all have their own cultural and traditional baggage-

if you really believe what you write that is fine- but there are many different scholars and many often conflicting views about some of these issues- (especially the context in whcih you framed the beating question- thats a new one on me) now try and use your reasoining to prove to yourself the incngruity of such a concept- and the repercussions for muslim women throughout history form these awful interpertations-

possibly it has occurred to you - why would ALLAH bring such women with such mentalities to Islam?
I did not marry into it- i knew no muslims when i became one! I did it through prayer mostly and reading and study- i had no experience with many of the traditions of many who come to america with their localized islam intact-

i wonder how can people go through their lives believing that ALLAH is a misogynist abusive creator? as for the face veil- i have asked every niqabi ive ever met- every one- every time- and do you know what? every one ive asked what reason they are wearing it- not once have i had a logical and reasoned answer- not one time!!
not once has someone said -it is clearly stated here or here- and you also have not presented anything new or clear-
i have even had women have the nerve to tell me that its because their mother or father instructed them so! and ive talked to many women who are doctors and much better educated than I - but apparently this very imporatant aspect of their lives they never thought to reason out-

either youre an ex-muslim who wants to try and present muslims in the worst light to gain acceptance in your new community- or youre unable to separate your own training and emotional attachments to those who trained you to question on your own such obviously abusive doctrines-

are you aware of the eye problems that have been associated with the face and even eye veils?
do you really imagine ALLAH wants half of the world to be blind?
do you really imagine a god who thinks its okay to beat his creation?
and what about Indonesia which is the largest muslim country in the whole world?
why do they allow parents to decide what the daughter or woman inherits?

when the muslm men do everything they are supposed to i relation to their responsibilities then they can start looking around at what others are doing-

do you not see how i have to constantly rebut all the ridiculous concepts that westerners have about islam?

please for your own sake- research more deeply these subjects- as i alredy have and am quite satisfied with the highly knowledgeable and intelligent repsonses ive received from living breathing scholars whose lives are dedicated to islam- i dont have to read arabic to understand a good and detailed explanation-especially when i get it 5 or more times- ive been having these conversations my whole career as a muslimah-
as they are personally pertinent to my own life and that is the best incentive- self interest-

so=-
no clear answer on the khimar-
no beating-
and inheritance remains a personal matter-

i will respect your personal views as im used to respecting views that are wildly divergent from my own- but repsect is not acceptance
salaams and thank you for your considered response

Victoria,
I see you're not an Arabic speaker and you haven't read the Quran and hadiths. I shall be happy to enlighten you.

Victoria wrote:
first of all- the verb is daraba and it DOES mean to separate yourself from your wife

- this is one of the commonest Islamic apologetic on the internet. Frankly speaking this is a lie. Idreb means 'beat' or 'strike' - it can mean 'separate' or 'travel' but that is a different word.

The word is 'idribohunna' - hunna means her. So it means 'beat her'. You can't separate her. You beat her.

The 'separate from her' is a totally different word - 'Adrab AN hon'.

The 'AN' part is missing.

Victoria wrote:
secondly- it is a parents choice how they distribute their wealth

Wrong - read the Quran. It says,

an-Nisa' 004:011
‏يوصيكم الله في اولادكم للذكر مثل حظ الانثيين فان كن نساء فوق اثنتين فلهن ثلثا ماترك وان كانت واحدة فلها النصف ولابويه لكل واحد منهما السدس مما ترك ان كان له ولد فان لم يكن له ولد وورثه ابواه فلامه الثلث فان كان له اخوة فلامه السدس من بعد وصية يوصي بها او دين اباؤكم وابناؤكم لاتدرون ايهم اقرب لكم نفعا فريضة من الله ان الله كان عليما حكيما

Yooseekumu Allahu fee awladikum lilththakari mithlu haththi alonthayayni fa-in kunna nisaan fawqa ithnatayni falahunna thulutha ma taraka wa-in kanat wahidatan falaha alnnisfu wali-abawayhi likulli wahidin minhuma alssudusu mimma taraka in kana lahu waladun fa-in lam yakun lahu waladun wawarithahu abawahu fali-ommihi alththuluthu fa-in kana lahu ikhwatun fali-ommihi alssudusu min baAAdi wasiyyatin yoosee biha aw daynin abaokum waabnaokum la tadroona ayyuhum aqrabu lakum nafAAan fareedatan mina Allahi inna Allaha kana AAaleeman hakeeman

Allah commands you in your children to the male equal fortune of two females, so if they are women more than two, so for them two thirds of what he left, and if she is one so for her half. And to parents to each a sixth of what he left if for him a son. If not for him a son and his parents inherit (from) him so to his mother a third. So if he has brothers the mother a sixth, from after bequests and debt……

Here 4:11 states clearly that a sole daughter is only permitted HALF of the inheritance. This is clear from sharia law. If you had ever lived in a sharia country you would know this.

Victoria wrote:
thirdly- where is the veli in your reference and where is the reference in your reference?

This is ridiculous - that is the VERSE OF VEILING. It is a famous verse though there are several.

Muslims believe 33:59 was the earliest verse of veiling. Muhammad clarified it later with 24:31 (which does explicitly use the word veil). So what does it matter? Either verses still command all Muslimahs to veil themselves.

I think Karen had just read up to 33:33 and stopped reading.

an-Nur 024:031
‏وقل للمؤمنات يغضضن من ابصارهم ويحفظن فروجهن ولايبدين زينتهن الا ماظهر منها وليضربن بخمرهن على جيوبهن ولايبدين زينتهن الا لبعولتهن او ابائهن او اباء بعولتهن او ابنائهن او ابناء بعولتهن او اخوانهن او بني اخوانهن او بني اخواتهن او نسائهن او ماملكت ايمانهن او التابعين غير اولي الاربة من الرجال او الطفل الذين لم يظهروا على عورات النساء ولايضربن بارجلهن ليعلم مايخفين من زينتهن وتوبوا الى الله جميعا ايها المؤمنون لعلكم تفلحون
Waqul lilmu/minati yaghdudna min absarihinna wayahfathna furoojahunna wala yubdeena zeenatahunna illa ma thahara minha walyadribna bikhumurihinna AAala juyoobihinna wala yubdeena zeenatahunna illa libuAAoolatihinna aw aba-ihinna aw aba-i buAAoolatihinna aw abna-ihinna aw abna-i buAAoolatihinna aw ikhwanihinna aw banee ikhwanihinna aw banee akhawatihinna aw nisa-ihinna aw ma malakat aymanuhunna awi alttabiAAeena ghayri olee al-irbati mina alrrijali awi alttifli allatheena lam yathharoo AAala AAawrati alnnisa-i wala yadribna bi-arjulihinna liyuAAlama ma yukhfeena min zeenatihinna watooboo ila Allahi jameeAAan ayyuha almu/minoona laAAallakum tuflihoona

And say to the believers they lower from their sights and they protect from their private parts and they do not show their beauty except what is visible from it, and they hold in place with their head covers (i.e. veils) on their collar opening in clothes, and they do not show their beauty except to their husbands or fathers or husband’s fathers or sons or husband’s sons or brothers or brother’s sons or sisters’ sons or their women or their right hand possessions….

You are insisting on the use of a particular word but you don't see what the verse means. Ever heard of synonyms and euphemisms? Arabic is a rich language you know - there are more than one way to say most things. Here is a link you can read about how 33:59 is talking about veiling. http://www.islamicvoice.com/july.2003/religion.htm

If you knew the story of how Muhammad came to reveal the verses of veiling at the insistence of Umar the peeping tom, you'd know Karen Armstrong is plain wrong.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148:
Narrated 'Aisha: The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. 'Umar used to say to the Prophet "Let your wives be veiled," but Allah's Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam'a the wife of the Prophet went out at 'Isha' time and she was a tall lady. 'Umar addressed her and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda." He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of "Al-Hijab"

The sahih hadiths contain many accounts of how Umar was the one responsible for Muhammad making up the verses of veiling.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 395:
Umar narrated: ....And as regards the (verse of) the veiling of the women, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! I wish you ordered your wives to cover themselves from the men because good and bad ones talk to them.' So the verse of the veiling of the women was revealed.

Salaam
Ahmed

first of all- the verb is daraba and it DOES mean to separate yourself from your wife
secondly- it is a parents choice how they distribute their wealth
thirdly- where is the veli in your reference and where is the reference in your reference?

we try to be a little more clear on this forum as there are many who are not familiar with soem of the references so its best to make it available to any who want to look at it for themsleves

what would compel you to try to justify beating a woman?

it is this kind of patriarchal and bizarre thinking that is causing wars in the world right now

Karen wrote:
Only the Prophet's wives were to be covered, and this was a security measure. Muhammad's postion in Medina was very insecure and his enemies were harrassing his wives. But the other Muslim women were not veiled and took a full and lively part in the life of the city. The Koran makes it clear that men and women have equal rights and responsibilities.

That is not true, Karen. The veil of the verse applies to all Muslim women, not just Muhammad's wives.

al-Ahzab 033:059
ياايها النبي قل لازواجك وبناتك ونساء المؤمنين يدينين عليهن من جلابيبهن ذلك ادنى ان يعرفن فلا يؤذين وكان الله غفورا رحيما
a ayyuha alnnabiyyu qul li-azwajika wabanatika wanisa-i almu/mineena yudneena AAalayhinna min jalabeebihinna thalika adna an yuAArafna fala yu/thayna wakana Allahu ghafooran raheeman

Shakir O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Sorry to have to say this but such sloppy research is typical of your work, Karen. Your understanding of Islam is very poor indeed.

Karen, Karen, Karen
Unfortunately Islam has set in stone the inheritance of women at far inferior rates to that of men. While the West has moved into modernity and women are given equal inheritance, the same cannot be said for Islam where a woman gets half as much inheritance as a man.

According to sharia a distant male relative gets precedence over a sole daughter.

I wish you would see the truth about Islam instead of whitewashing it. Most people who live under Islam aren't happy because it is not a modern progressive religion.

The Koran does not give women equal rights unless you think women are worth 1/2 of men in inheritance and legal testimony, and it is okay for a man to beat his wife. Yes, I do know about idribohunna being able to read Arabic. It does not mean 'separate from your wife' it means 'beat her'.

Don’t forget about the verse that says men are made superior to women. How is that sexual equality? It says clearly in the Quran that they are not.

Ahmed Hussain

...."HAVING SEX WITH YOUR SPOUSE IS ACTUALLY CONSIDERED AN ACT OF WORSHIP..."

What about the ones that your "right hand" possess?

What about the booty acquried from holy war?

Islam is to women what Nazism was to Jews and Marxism is to Property owners!!

Armstrong is nothing but a dhimmi tool...a useful idiot...she knows nothing about True Islam!!

Talk to ex muslims....they will tell you the truth about the cult of Islam!!!

I think the posted comments clarify the nature of Islam better than the article, which appears to contain very novel- if not "corrective"- views of the Muslim world. This is all very safe to write about in our western liberalized environment though it merely furthers our own myths that history doesn't validate- that modern religions such as Christianity or Islam instituted a patriarchical environment when in most cases it eased it. Greco-Roman cultures for example, viewed women not as second class citizens- but property on the level of slaves and only particularly wealthy or politically well connected women were exempt. Christianity changed that forever in the west and brought a social and gender parity that was unheard of previously. This condition held well into the early middle ages, the quotes from Tertullian and Paul not withstanding. Even with the social oppressions that came with the Church age, the lot of the common man (and woman) was still better than it ever was and ecclesiastical institutions kept societies going in the wake of the collapse of Roman infrastructure. These in fact laid the groundwork for, among many other things we take for granted, scholasticism. And here we are now, happily biting the hand that has fed us, if not chewing it completely off- for the sake of the current status quo on feminism and anti-patriarchical thought. Before we "free women" let's "free ourselves."

Victoria

You obviously know nothing about islam otherwise you would not make false statements unless you are just an islamic propagandist.

You wrote

>>the Prophet(pbuh) never hit any woman, child or animal. He was in 2 wars so i dont know about men.
i do know that it is forbidden in the quran that one may never strike the face of another - een animals.

Hadith Salih Muslim

Book 004, Number 2127: Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was 'A'isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. HE STUCK ME ON THE CHEST WHICH CAUSED ME PAIN, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi' (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you.

well there arent any actions in the realm of ideas-
and youre not passing secrets that could endanger any lives-

actions and ideas seem pretty clearly beyond generic description- but still are you an ex-muslim?
what secrets could be revealed on a website?
troop movements?

good questions immanuel

sterness- and critique are not hostilities although maybe there are hostile intentions(just supposing not implying) but intentions and actions are different too-
i dont know immanuel i have to ponder it a bit

Victoria,

I read your question; and my answer is that under these circumstances, yes death penalty is adequate.

But according to several Sahih Hadiths, you don't need to meet al the conditions you listed above (killing people, passing informations to political enemies, ecc.): it is enough to exercise your right to freedom of religion and leaving Islam to be sentenced to death, as is coherently being implemented _today_ in many Islamic countries.

Also the fatwa you have posted (from http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Apostasy1.htm):

-----
The third type of apostate is one who leaves Islam and then ENGAGES IN HOSTILE ACTIONS AGAINST ISLAM AND MUSLIMS, e.g. knowingly engages in PROPAGANDA against Islam and Muslims blatantly ignoring facts that he is expected to know well, passes secrets to the enemy, takes part in fighting against the Muslims. Such an apostate can be punished by anything FROM EXILE TO DEATH.
-----

Here "PROPAGANDA" and "HOSTILE ACTIONS" is pretty generic if you ask me. So I ask you again: people like me, or Ali Sina, who administer websites where we are stern against Islam, attack it, criticize it, and call for Muslims to leave Islam are "enemies" who are "engaging in hostile actions" even though our battle is ideological only, motivated by our humanist convinctions and definitely don't hurt a fly?

im a tre hugger from way back mia- i couldnt agree more...

Victoria, thanks for the sharing and it's so neat the way you put it:

"i look at judaism as the foundation of the house of our religions-christianity the living rooms-and islam as the protective roof that completes and seals the home-"

And I would add, we should plant the trees to replace how much of the wooden parts we use for the house. Not mentioning how we are going to put the structure so it will be earthquake resistant...:-)

Best regards
Mia

Having lived as both wholeheartedly christian and muslim mia- i have some very real reasons why i choose islam-
DISCLAIMER- THESE ARE MY OPINIONS-

in christianity- it comes down to taking responsibility- the idea that one never really has to examine their own actions in a piercing and consistent way because at the end of it all- one is automatically "saved" and ones sins become the responsibility of the saviour- i never could reconcile mylsef to this philosophy- i have always felt deeply that i am responsible for my own ations- and it always was insupportable to me to pile my own sins onto an innocent- because u started reading and studying the bible voraciusly at an early age- i was never able to be convinced by anyone that Jesus(ata) was divine- because it just doesnt say this- one must endure circular and confusing leading rationale to even come close to believing this- and of course theres the first commandment-THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME-

Also there is the weakness in christianity to provide protection for weaker elements of society- instead leaning heavily on the idea of martyrdom and self sacrifice- which in reality leads to a victimhood mentality- and ultimately insures that the bully always wins- it just makes no sense-

celibacy- again- makes no sense- if the clergy being the most close to god dont pass it on to children- theres a sterility inherent in it-

and the idea of the individuals need having more importance than that of society- i suppose it was at that time a reaction against the subordination of the individual to the needs of society in order to simply survive- the needs of society must be addressed and met and balanced accordingly with the needs of the individual-
islam offers a template and structure for this-

the pacifism of christianity while enhancing compassion- seeks to deny the existence of violence and the lower natures of men- being in denial hasnt done anything to solve these negative interactions- actually i think its exacerbated them somewhat- because people have to make up their own rules to deal with situations that come up where its necessary to protect their home or family so to me its led to a dichotomy of mentality that cant reconcile itself and dissolves into a spiral of guilt- but is still no solution-

well i could go on alot more these are some quick thoughts -

because you are muslim and already know the islamic solutions to these proposed weaknesses and problems in christianity- i didnt bother listing the islamic counterparts-

i look at judaism as the foundation of the house of our religions-
christianity the living rooms-
and islam as the protective roof that completes and seals the home-

salaams mia i dont know if this helped but i felt compelled to share it with you

salaams

Immanuel: "Indeed Jack the Ripper and other fools were not following the example of Jesus. But someone who kills an apostate, marries a 9-years-old child or rapes the women prisoner of war are indeed following the example of Muhammad. This is true Islam, not an aberration (although it's an aberration per-se)."

MIA: If I were a Muslim (which I am), I would regard this kind of remark as a call for action. Muslims needs to read and re-interpret their Quran and reform the teachings and then live true to their beliefs and action.

IMMNUELLE: I would agree whole-heartedly with what you say, but unluckily this is unlikely to happen. The reason all attempts to reform Islam have failed is because Islam cannot be reformed. You cannot change the Qu'ran even in one word, or it ceases to be the perfect word of Allah, and the Qu'ran tells you oh so very clearly to follow Muhammad. All the reformers of Islam have failed and will continue to fail because they have the Quran and Sunnah against them. On one hand you must claim Muhammad was a messenger of God and on the other you should call not to follow him, in order to retain your humanity. These are two opposing views. The reformers want to invent a new synthesis on false premises and that can't be done. That is why reforming Islam is not going to work.

MIA: If I were a Christian, I would comment on this kind of remark that it's not fair for the Muslims, because Muslims are not being put on the equal ground with the Christians. And this is not the teaching of Jesus who possessed so much compassion. I will have to look again into myself why I keep saying that my faith is better than the others.

This will put both Muslims and Christians on the level playing field, and everyone will go to their own spiritual journey.

IMMANUELE:I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but my critic is not directed to the persons - I value a human being the same regardless of which claim of religious appartenance they make - the difference is what they believe in. And a person who is convinced of the need of imitating a prophet who, according to their own religious books, has committed such an impressive score of nasty things, is definitely not on the same level of anyone else who believes in justice, equality of dignity, and mutual respect.

MIA: Thanks Immanuelle. Your agreement should give support for the Muslims. And your scepticism should present a real challenge to them to get their action and beliefs together.
In this sense it's OK to direct criticism to the people.

Thinking emphatically with the Christian, my sense of equality would extend to the Muslims regardless of what I THINK about their religion. Doesn't Jesus extend his compassion to all of us, including the instutionally-violent Rome? Thinking as a Christian, I would seriously ask myself for this question, why I perceive my religion better than the other one? I would look for the answers to transcend the message of Jesus into myself by putting aside my limited ego.

This is the common ground between Muslims and Christian who give each other the room for everyone's belief. Their number is growing.

Best regards
Mia

MIRIAM- ive posted elsewhere- lets just agree to disagree, ok?
we obviously have differing views that arent connecting and its pointless to pick and fight-

so peace to you in your life and you to yours and me to mine-

peace

Ms Victoria,

Muslim people do not need people like you to defend their religion. All these lies which you propagate.

come on miriam- daniel pipes websites abound- if a website link contains his scholarship on islam- it is exactly like a neo-nazi defining jewish doctrine because it goes to intention-

what is the intention of the author? why would it be linked to a muslim bashing and hating website?

if i post a derogatory post invalidating say the mishnah or torah- and then at the end of the article there is a link to david duke- would you consider the scholarship of the author questionable or unimpeachable?

personally i would consider such scholarship questionable -

thats all its linked to qustionable motives and that casts doubts upon the objectivity of the authors intentions.

and youve stated yourself several times that you hate islam so i have to question your objectivity on what you present also.

doesnt that make sense?

come on miriam- i have no desire to fight any personal battles with you-
this is a panelist who is discussing islam and since im a muslim im here-
so OF COURSE i will defend my holy book if i think it being maligned!

what else should i do?

im not going to christian or jewish or atheist panelists and shoving islam down their throats in an agressive manner- but there arent many islamic friendly panelists on these boards so i stick with this forum because it seems only fair that i be able to express my own religion somewhere on this faith board!!!!!!!

Mia,

You said:
-----
If I were a Muslim (which I am), I would regard this kind of remark as a call for action. Muslims needs to read and re-interpret their Quran and reform the teachings and then live true to their beliefs and action.
-----
I would agree whole-heartedly with what you say, but unluckily this is unlikely to happen. The reason all attempts to reform Islam have failed is because Islam cannot be reformed. You cannot change the Qu'ran even in one word, or it ceases to be the perfect word of Allah, and the Qu'ran tells you oh so very clearly to follow Muhammad. All the reformers of Islam have failed and will continue to fail because they have the Quran and Sunnah against them. On one hand you must claim Muhammad was a messenger of God and on the other you should call not to follow him, in order to retain your humanity. These are two opposing views. The reformers want to invent a new synthesis on false premises and that can't be done. That is why reforming Islam is not going to work.

Islam is a religion which honors the memory of a monster and urges its followers to re-act its dangerous and anti-social behaviour. You can’t change the Quran. You can't reform a lie. You have to abandon it.

You said:
-----
If I were a Christian, I would comment on this kind of remark that it's not fair for the Muslims, because Muslims are not being put on the equal ground with the Christians.
-----
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but my critic is not directed to the persons - I value a human being the same regardless of which claim of religious appartenance they make - the difference is what they believe in. And a person who is convinced of the need of imitating a prophet who, according to their own religious books, has committed such an impressive score of nasty things, is definitely not on the same level of anyone else who believes in justice, equality of dignity, and mutual respect.

Victoria,

That article has NO link AT THE BOTTOM to a Daniel Pipes website. On its main page it does post 2 articles by Daniel Pipes out of about 100.

This article about the Koran is in no way comparable to Nazi writings about Jews, and to suggest that it is, is totally fallacious. Jews and Christian scholars have examined their holy books, the old and new testaments,in the same way the scholars in this article examine the Koran. Many of the Jewish and Christian scholars are practicing Jews and Christians, and their scholarship has in no way diminished their capacity to practice their religion. For example, one can still be a practicing Christian without believing that Mary was a virgin or that Jesus physically rose to heaven. One can be a practicing Jew without sacrificing animals to appease Jehovah, without owning slaves or believing that idolaters should be killed. In the same way, one can be a practicing Muslim without believing that the Koran is literally the word of God, and that non-believers need to be killed or converted. Examining the Koran in this way is in no way comparable to Nazi writings on the Jews.

Here is the link again for those people who have not seen it:
http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/quran1.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/199901/koran

okay- this was in response to the point i made about treason- where the 3rd type of apostate was guilty of treason and that was the issue- apostasy aside-

heres the original question-

Immanuel you re welcome to be a pacifist- i was a strict pacifist for most of my life- i still actually - i wont kill a bug literally but will take them outside- but you are projecting your own philosophy onto islam- which is a practical way for all humans to live together-

i too wish that there was no such thing s murder and treachery- but there is- choosing to do nothing is still a choice- are you saying that if you lived in a community and someone had access to information and secrets and gave it to your enemy(whether or not you even deserved to have an enemy- maybe they just irrationally hate pacifists) and then came personally to your community and killed your wife and children you would benignly wish tem peace on their way?
so they could go next door and kill your brothers wife or your mother?

im not sure where you are going with this-
i didnt say that 2 wrongs make a right-
i said that this is islamic law set down-

what is your solution?
is not exile humane?
and death seems lke it would prohibit one from further hurting innocents-

im not saying you are a pacifist but i dont know what you think humans should do to deal with this situation-

i have posted extensively on ingrid mattsons site-
now quite plainly immanuel- the issue was exactly an apostate guilty of treason-
treasonous and treachorous behavior-
i.e. passing secrets to the enemy and fighting againslt muslims- my computer is messed up and i cant copy-

so it wasnt about an apostate per se- leaving the relgion was not the punishable offense-

treachery and betrayal and active aggression to muslims was the offense-

no fatwa can be issues today- the caliphate or centralized islamic government and authority collapsed in turkey in 1924 and no sharia or fatwa can be issued period
also on mattsons site ive posted thatbut in length

this is a quick answer to a major misunderstanding on your part-

1) your premise was incorrect- it was not a punishment for apostates but for treason committed by an apostate-

2) i was pointing out the hypocrisy of the accuser
not making an analogy or justifying the practice

i did not imply it made islam better- only that the rules that the accusing poster lives by are a bit more severe and hence he is not in a position to throw stones

now that you understand the context- perhaps it makes some sense to you-
what is your solution as i posted the question above-

i just saw the fatwa post is above- you must have missed it-

but mostly- the fact that you said you feel like youre talking to a disorting mirror with a smoking machine in the center- ( i assumed you meant me since you wrote my name before the statement)
is not a good way to start a dialogue-

hello answer my questions i think youre a truth distorter-

whether youre aware of it or not- its rather insulting and unnecessary to start like that-

as ive expended a great deal of energy respectfully and with never a name being called despite overt insults and horrible names -

i feel it is unfair and im trying to explain complex issues as simply as i can and you do me a disservice-
now ive finally asked a question and have answered many many-
so before we get into other questions (assuming you retract your unkind allusion to my questionable honesty) perhaps you will share with us your superior way of dealing with the analogy stated above.
salaams
ps i was the anonymous that posted above but said so immediately in the following posts

Posted January 23, 2007 4:40 PM

id forgotten all about the insult given- ah well-

so there it is again- perhaps you answer- perhaps you dont- i tried

IMMANUEL- its not that i ignored your post- it was just really filled with a lot of awful comments-
you called the Qur'an a hoax- and said many disturbing things about the Prophet(pbuh)

it makes me a little heartsick and while i try to respond with some degree of respect- it really seems you have a fully formed and developed distaste for islam and there is nothing i could edify you with.

somehow you seem to be under the impression that Muhammad(pbuh) wrote the Qur'an. That the things expressed in it came from him- they did not.

The Qur'an is the word of ALLAH transmitted by the angel Jibreel(Gabriel) to the Prophet(pbuh)

you also state there are many hadiths where the Prophet(pbuh) called for the killing of apostates.

ok here- ill just repost the question as is-

sorry miriam- the article has nothing to do with danile pipes- it has a link o the bottom of it to a daniel pipes website- he really is a questionable source of information on islam- why did you post that link to that site then?
the article has enough to do with that website that it put its own link to it at the end. i dont know why they did that. it just daniel pipes is all.
i never said he wrote it.

i really do believe that we have to be really conscientious about information is all- i wont like i said post a neo-nazi exegesis on jewish law and this is the equivalent from an islamic perspective.

Any site i go to i do that-follow the links to find out the whole story and where the information is garnered.

ANONYMOUS- ive also seen these interpertive practices with the writings of amina wadud and asma beslan to some degree-
it is confusing sometimes-
i did consultation for a man who works in artificial intelligence teaching computers to dream- we developed a symbologic system based on some hermeneutic model -
personally im happy to see new interpertations
we all bring our own mindsets to any set of information we encounter and filter it accordingly.
salaams

miriam relax- i really am just a stickler for detail and theres nothing personal it is difficult to wade through the many sources out there

Victoria & Miriam,
I'm not too familiar with websites on religion, so I hope I'm not guessing it wrong.

The website that Miriam suggested on the temporary review on Quran - I think is not biased on Islam. It seemed to talk about one particular method of Quran interpretation which I also read - and for me these books are not easy to read. This is called hermenetic interpretation with the new genre of ulama that strirring up the controversy, Arkoun, Fazlur Rahman, Abu Zaid, etc...In Indonesia the youths are lead by Ulil Absar Abdalla. There is a large gap between them and the understanding of common folks, partly because it's not easy to read their interpretation.

Quote from the website:
"THE gulf between such academic theories and the daily practice of Islam around the world is huge, of course -- the majority of Muslims today are unlikely to question the orthodox understanding of the Koran and Islamic history. Yet Islam became one of the world's great religions in part because of its openness to social change and new ideas. (Centuries ago, when Europe was mired in its feudal Dark Ages, the sages of a flourishing Islamic civilization opened an era of great scientific and philosophical discovery. The ideas of the ancient Greeks and Romans might never have been introduced to Europe were it not for the Islamic historians and philosophers who rediscovered and revived them.) Islam's own history shows that the prevailing conception of the Koran is not the only one ever to have existed, and the recent history of biblical scholarship shows that not all critical-historical studies of a holy scripture are antagonistic. They can instead be carried out with the aim of spiritual and cultural regeneration. They can, as Mohammed Arkoun puts it, demystify the text while reaffirming "the relevance of its larger intuitions."

Increasingly diverse interpretations of the Koran and Islamic history will inevitably be proposed in the coming decades, as traditional cultural distinctions between East, West, North, and South continue to dissolve, as the population of the Muslim world continues to grow, as early historical sources continue to be scrutinized, and as feminism meets the Koran. With the diversity of interpretations will surely come increased fractiousness, perhaps intensified by the fact that Islam now exists in such a great variety of social and intellectual settings -- Bosnia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, the United States, and so on. More than ever before, anybody wishing to understand global affairs will need to understand Islamic civilization, in all its permutations. Surely the best way to start is with the study of the Koran -- which promises in the years ahead to be at least as contentious, fascinating, and important as the study of the Bible has been in this century.

Best regards
Mia..PS: Indonesia is missing from the review!

Immanuel: "Indeed Jack the Ripper and other fools were not following the example of Jesus. But someone who kills an apostate, marries a 9-years-old child or rapes the women prisoner of war are indeed following the example of Muhammad. This is true Islam, not an aberration (although it's an aberration per-se)."

If I were a Muslim (which I am), I would regard this kind of remark as a call for action. Muslims needs to read and re-interpret their Quran and reform the teachings and then live true to their beliefs and action.

If I were a Christian, I would comment on this kind of remark that it's not fair for the Muslims, because Muslims are not being put on the equal ground with the Christians. And this is not the teaching of Jesus who possessed so much compassion. I will have to look again into myself why I keep saying that my faith is better than the others.

This will put both Muslims and Christians on the level playing field, and everyone will go to their own spiritual journey.

Best regards
Mia

Victoria

I have said this now TWICE. This article was FIRST printed in the Atlantic by someone writing for the Atlantic. The fact that the site which has the article now for free at this point in time has nothing to do with the article. If I wanted to pay $24.95 and get a subscription to the Atlantic, I could get it off their site. So stop confusing the issue. The article has all sorts of valid information in it no matter whose site it is on. Read the article. It never mentions Daniel Pipes, was not funded by Daniel Pipes, has nothing to do with Daniel Pipes. It is about the latest scholarly research about the Koran. The other stuff on this site has NOTHING to do with the article.
Here it is on the Atlantic site, the same article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/199901/koran
If you want to pay the subscription and send us all the full version, go ahead.

actually miriam- the site if you go to it-
derafsh-kaviyani.com has many articles and 'questions' answered by daniel pipes-

that is why i always try scrupulously to examimine the sources of anything i post and make sure that i allow people to speak for themselves- if it is a question on judaism- i only print a jewish persons perspective-

i wouldnt go to a neo-nazi site to get their opinion on judaism- and going to daniel pipes whose whole mission is islam-bashing as a source for information on islam is the equivalent-

i would say the Atlantic in printing material from a site that has daniel pipes as one of its main commentators has breached its claim of balance.

Well, yes- of course you have to read it all IMMANUEL- because the answer youre asking for has already been given-

i think it goes without saying that the assumption is you read all of the words-
if you say theres no response and then say you havent read it- what can i do about that?

post it again so you can not read it again?
IMMANUEL- despite the fact that youve out and out stated- i hate your religion and everything you believe in- i have still answered you with courtesy and facts-

that is all i can do.
salaams

Victoria,

That article has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Daniel Pipes. The article was originally published in the Atlantic magazine at www.theatlantic.com. It was written by Toby Lester, a contributing editor at the Atlantic. It is now available only to Atlantic subscribers, which I am not, but is available for free at the link that I sent. Also IMHO the Atlantic is one of the most intelligent and balanced political and cultural magazines in the US.

Victoria,

I answered your long thread post about apostasy and you didn't even comment my reply.
In the end, you didn't answer if, according to Islam, apostates like Ali Sina who don't hurt nobody but attack Islam ideologically should be killed.

Now, I didn't read the thread from the start: do I have to read it all, or could you just write the question?

Adnan,

Indeed Jack the Ripper and other fools were not following the example of Jesus. But someone who kills an apostate, marries a 9-years-old child or rapes the women prisoner of war are indeed following the example of Muhammad. This is true Islam, not an aberration (although it's an aberration per-se).

miriam- thats the same daniel pipes link you posted before- hes not a very unbiased writer- hes the biggest islamaphobe and muslim hater in america!

i think he has questionable motives and may not be a reliable source for objective factual information.

To Adnan,

According to some scholars in the field about 1/5th of the Koran is unintelligible even to native Arab speakers:
http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/quran1.html

If you want to know what Jesus actually said or did, as opposed to what has been added at a later date for political purposes, you might want to look at what some scholars in the field think are original sayings and deeds at:
http://www.westarinstitute.org/
Polebridge/Subject/subject.html

BTW, one of the scholars in this field, Marcus Borg, has written several articles in this On Faith series.

ADNAN- you wont find an aramaic translation of the bible because aramaic wasnt a written language but only a spoken language later committed to writing at the time of the life of the Prophet Jesus(ata).

i agree wholeheartedly that one should go to the source instead of listening to peoples opinions about other religions and beliefs-

as far as translations of the bible- i recommend the New World Translation that the jehovahs witnesses use- not because i advocate their relgiion- but it is generall y recognized by biblical scholars as one of the most true translations-

also for balance look at the douay version- it is the bible catholics used to use (they use the jersusalem now-paraphrased into modern language and kind of dumbed down for mass consumption)
not for the translation itslef- but because it contains the apocrypha- which are several books not found in other bibles at all- they were removed during the reformation.

salaams

I thank Mia for her honesty and sharing her own spiritual questions and journey with us- she gives us a true picture of a pwerson who honestly seeks and finds-
i have gotten alot of value form your posts, Mia.

Hi Mia,

If you were so deeply touched by Ms Armstrong's books to the point of tears, then your own Self or God or Allah, or whatever one wants to call it, will lead you forward.

Thanks for the reminder about the great number of Muslims who live in Indonesia and Malaysia, and about whom Americans don't hear very much.

Dear all

This is my first visit to this site and i have spent hours going through the comments [I am a Muslim].

I have tried to read the NIV Bible and am happy with what I have learnt from it. I am looking for Aramaic translations as well but have not made much progress. I am reading the Bible because I understand that Christianity cannot be understood just by observing Christians.

Likewise, Islam can be no more measured by Talibans or 911 suiciders than Christianity can be grasped by examples set by Jack the Ripper or the Boston Strangler. They are abberations.

But people DO form impressions from such examples.

Now what if all that you and I have known about Islam and Christianity are untrue? How will we ever know? What if my mother is wrong? And my teacher too? And Ms. Armstrong?

Honestly, how many of you have tried to find about Islam on your own? Read the Qur'an ... understand what it asks of us. If you are convinced of its' falsehood, it cant possibly hurt you. Or are you afraid that it may just be true?

I advocate for no religion ... but find out from 'authentic' sources (e.g. about Hinduism from the Bedes ...not from Ramayan which is an mythological epic). Otherwise all your opinions are just 'hearsay' .. not based on any true understanding - but just repetitions of what you have read in so-and-so magazine ... and what so-and-so has said dated Jan 29 etc etc etc ...

Believe that YHWH / God / Allah ... will show you the right path if you WANT to find it .. but if your hearts are closed .. ah! Well, that knowledge is the prerogative of my Lord.

Peace be on those who receive guidance.

january 22 2:12 pm
IMMANUEL- that is not ture- the question has already been addressed at the above stated time-

the question was a hypothesis following a long post on apostasy- i guess you didnt read my response ive made many references to the question as it is the only one ive ever asked anyone- and have patiently and concientiously answered every question youve asked.

miriam- the heavy accusations referred to the violent and cruel behavior remark-

you said-
. Everyone searches for role models(heroes or heroines) who embody those qualities. And once you think you have found a path and role model that will lead you to the desired goal, it is difficult to step off that path. But I would also say that the sincerity of your own heart will lead you forward, even if the path and role model that you have chosen is not as noble as you had originally thought.

i have been through many paths myself- when i find a lack of nobility- i hve no trouble stepping off that path-
perhaps you speak for yourself- ad that is your prerogative-
but for me- the deeper i search- the more nobility and beauty i find specifically i islam-
the core of islam is not problematical- your perception of it leads you to that conclusion- and youre welcome to your own conclusions- but they are not mine-at all-

one thing i find is that it has never been necessary for me in my life to point out the shortcomings of others beliefs in any way- this is sort of a spiritual oneuosmanship that i dont like to engage in- and its counterproductive-

-whether youre aware of it or not- your negative impressions of islam are your own- and while you may find others to fuel the fire- it serves little purpose to denigrate ones beliefs to a believer-

we can certainly just agree to disagree- but you are actively maligning the Prophet(pbuh) (as you yourself stated you wouldnt even finish one biography- you are overstepping any bounds of respect-
please refrain from assuming that you have any insight into my spiritual life- your asessments are far off and its simply not necessary to denigrate islam or its followers- i personally do not live in lala land only accepting what is pleasant but delve deeply into all the issues- especially the widely misunderstood ones-please do not liken muslims like me to others you have known who only look at whats plesing- you diminish my faith and mentality by these comparisons.
let us just agree to disagree because there is no purpose that can possibly be interperted as good in spreading more misinformation.
Read martin lings biography and learn about the Prophet(pbuh)- but please- refrain from further aspersions.
All i can say is you really have no idea who i am or what my own personal activism in islam consists of-
you do not have to worry- when something needs to be spoken out against in my community- i am up to the task- and need no reminders-
you to your belief and me to mine miriam-
but i promise i will not intolerant of your beliefs-
i expect the same in return
salaams

Miriam,
Honestly, I dont' 'feel' about Muhammad the way I feel about the more real persons like Muhammad Iqbal who came to my dreams, or Ms. Armstrong who made me cry reading her books.

From time to time I experience glimpses of the Quran, although I've been discussing the Quran practically all my life, and more now with friends.

I know what the sufis said: Read the Quran as if it were revealed to you.

This is such a challenge from the heroic sufis, in which I'm nowhere to it. Quran was revealed to Muhammad, how could it be happening to the regular guys??? What Ms Armstrong did to me is she broght Muhammad to my doorstep. Am I dare to greet him? Honestly and sadly, I don't have that feeling yet.

Best regards
Mia

Like I said, I came to 'understand' the Quran, upon the beautiful literary interpretations of my professor on some of the biblical text of King James. At that time I also frequented the church nearby my office, just to listen to the rehearsal of the classical music. Now I forgot, what was the theme I was reading. And indeed, it's not point. It's the reading beyond text and symbols, as Richard Stanza said it.

Years later the books of Ms. Armstrong brought me to further confront the realities, not only Muhammad, but also all other teachings. For me it's a call for action. A few months ago I completed her book Buddha. I was depressed for a few days (i.e thinking outloud), and receded later by taking a particular action. I realised then that my prayers in many sense are a form of yoga. So I took yoga classes, and it's my daily practice now, including how I would improve my solat (muslim prayers) with yoga.

Her book that I'm reading now the Great Transformation is about the teaching of the prophets of the Greek, India, China and Jewish, as well as the background history. In all my sincerity, I'm not capable of ill-feelings toward these prophets that are mentioned and all prophets without names. If I don't understand something I question myself and keep looking for the answers. The books of Ms. Armstrong talk to me in this way.

(When I hate someone, I keep that person in my heart, and I don't stop asking myself why I hate that person. Sorry, this is just a habit which runs in the family, and not because we are that nice. I just simply don't feel comfortable of keeping hard feelings, especially to prophets).

I certainly understand Miriam's point of view, since I used to share it and ignored it. Again, it's a call for action. Moderate Muslims cannot let their mosques being hijacked by the fundamentalists. I stop going to the mosque in the neighborhood to listen to these preachers, but this cannot go on forever.

But I also want to share with you a fact to give some illustrations upon Miriam's comment: "the behavior that we see today in much of the Muslim world, is not a distortion of Muhammed's message, but a fulfillment of his message"

The fact is there are 85% Muslims of 210 million in Indonesia plus 30 million in Malaysia. It's a sheer number compared to mid-east populations. We have been Muslims since 10th century. Indonesia has been open to all cultural influences from India, China, Arab and European, etc - with the background of its original culture of egalitarian and matriarchal (we had lots of women queens, saints and prophets). It's plural Muslim country, so to speak. These days we are in the transition from communal culture into individualism in the global context. We are going through 'cultural clash' within Islamic conservatism, liberal and moderate ones. Not mentioning all these natural and man-made disasters!! I'm glad that I'm here to witness this (and involved too), but it's going to be the long process and perhaps it will not be achieved within our life time. Yet, in the meantime we all can share the lesson learned, the dreams, our creativity and imagination.

Best regards
Mia

Knucklehead wrote:
["Principles and standards?

Yes Richard...we can all see your views of what is "just, ethical and moral"...]

Good! Keep it that way in pure Islamic perspectives and not in your whimsical, hateful, disparaging and warmongering drumbeats as seen in your Faithfreedom International Juvenile Hell-Hole.

Hi Victoria,

As for my "heavy accusations" that you and Mia are in denial or only focusing on the pleasant, I don't see those as heavy accusations, because everyone does this, and I also have done it many times in the past, and probably still continue to do it. Everyone searches in one way or another for beauty, truth and goodness, and everyone hopes that the path that they have chosen will lead them there. Everyone searches for role models(heroes or heroines) who embody those qualities. And once you think you have found a path and role model that will lead you to the desired goal, it is difficult to step off that path. But I would also say that the sincerity of your own heart will lead you forward, even if the path and role model that you have chosen is not as noble as you had originally thought.

And I no longer consider myself as a Sufi, just for the reasons that I have explained. When I read just the objective FACTS of what Muhammed had done, the murder in cold blood of his enemies, the taking of so many wives, including the woman whose father and relatives were slain first, the marrying of such a young girl like Aisha when he was a much older man, all this stuff about apostasy and infidels, the wars and conflicts right from the very beginning of Islam, and its spread over so much of the earth by conquering, and then when I look at the behavior of so many Muslim countries today, I cannot but think, that unlike Christianity in which the Inquisition and the crusades etc were a DISTORTION of Jesus' original message, the behavior that we see today in much of the Muslim world, is not a distortion of Muhammed's message, but a fulfillment of his message. And that the CORE of Islam is problematical.

I would also say that a lot of the CORE of the Old Testament is problematical. But none of the Jews that I have ever met pay any attention to that problematical core, but instead take the uplifting parts of the Old Testament, and they just try to live decent lives. And I am sure most Muslims do the same, just try to live decent lives.

Victoria,

please re-pharse your question, I honestly could not understand which question is.

Oh BTW, just yesterday an imam in a mosque of Italy said that it's ok to beat one's wife, because the Qu'ran says so. Now, would you please write him and explain why he is wrong? Thank you. Before we kick his sorry ass out of our country, that is.

You can read an automated translation of his article here (it's on main Italian newspaper, you can use Google to tranlsate it ):

http://tinyurl.com/2ftuhj

Richard Stanza wrote:

"I have been talking about their PRINCIPLES or STANDARDS of living a just, ethical and moral life"

Richard Stanza wrote:

"Beheading them would be far less painful for this kind of specie; rather they must be chopped piecemeal and shredded into gazillion pieces from toes up very slowly and left to rot in planet Neptune"

Principles and standards?

Yes Richard...we can all see your views of what is "just, ethical and moral"...

You are indicative of the schitzophrenic nature of those who support an Islam that speaks of peace for its OWN members and hate, violence and death for others.

You are one sad excuse for a human being...

miriam- your statement suggests that mia ( or myself) are in some sort of denial- or 'focusing on what is pleasant' and outright ignoring or rationalizing what is "violent cruel behavior".
those are heavy accusations-

as to the westerners that youve read- ive been in many of the largest cities in america and ransacked their library shelves- and ive found very little muslim friendly material-

so youve already made your mind up which is fine-
but you are completely wrong in your asessment of
islam itslef- and what you perceive peoples intentions to be- mine couldnt be farther from looking for what is agreeable or pleasant-
and i am satisfied for verifiable reasons with my understanding-

but how can one be a sufi and anit-Muhammad(pbuh)?

the sufic orders are drawn from islam- period.

the sufi teachers were all mystically inclined muslims- theyre entire raison d'etre springs form islam-

theres simply too many sufis to name here-

why dont you read martin ling's biography of Muhammad(pbuh) he has also written on sufism and may be more to your liking philisophically-

it is odd that you follow sufism- who all have looked to the Prophet(pbuh) as a hero- and yet fail to find value i his teachings---

salaams

IMMANUEL- STILLWAITING FOR AN ANSWER TO THE QUSTION

Hi Mia,

Yes, one could say that the Sufi community where I used to live was based on the perennial philosphy.

I started to read the book about Muhammed by Karen Armstrong but could not read it. And the reason I could not read it(does Ms Armstrong read the comments here? I hope she does) is the following:

I just wondered whether Ms Armstrong was really willing to let go of her idealizations, her projections, her desire for a hero, her desire to more tolerant towards Islam than other people in the west, and just look as objectively as possible at the facts about Muhammed's life.I can understand how her books inspired you and brought you to tears. But the question for me is: is what she recounts true? I think so many western scholars, in their wish to not offend and in their fear of being labeled Orientalist, have been afraid to seriously question the Islamic view of their history, and I think Ms Armstrong falls into this category.

I understand that Muhammed lived at a very different time as ours, and customs were very different then, and it is hard for us to judge what he faced or did not face, but there are just too many stories in the Koran, too many statements made by Muhammed that I and others find totally objectionable, and explanations as to why he did or said that, just seem like justifications for very violent, cruel behavior. So you might believe all these justifications and think those are reasonable explanations, and you can focus on the parts that inspire you, and in your own life be a very kind and caring person, which you very much seem to be, but people like myself will continue to look for our heroes elsewhere.

Thank you for the conversation.

Ross wrote: ["What you are implying is that Allah does not exist and islam is not really a religion."]

Wrong. That is not what is implied nor stated.

["For muslims the foundation of islam lies in their belief that the quran is Allah literal word."]

I have been talking about their PRINCIPLES or STANDARDS of living a just, ethical and moral life.

The problem with you folks is that you don't understand what's being talked about and bring other irrelevant issues to deter the subject. This is another very common trait witnessed at Faithfreedom Int'l and often happens when there lies no substantial answers to back up your claims.

I'm not a fundamentalist!
(...or maybe I am)

I'm from the family whom some would call us fundamentalists. And I would like to share with you the story of a making of a fundamentalist.

Ms. Armstrong books took me to the reality I have been running from. If you do not confront and accept the pains, the faults, all the mistreatments...you will see nothing else but misery, and that's how you would see the world.
When you accept your pains, the realities will come to you naturally.

For a long time I was unable remember that my brothers, sisters and I indeed had a wonderful childhood. But things are revealing itself.

We did have happy childhood, with big families, big relatives and friendly neighbors, eventhough it was a very poor, working class neighborhood. My family run small stores and my grandfather run a religious school.

We were not rich but quite respected. I would come to the mosque quite early in the morning, or in the evening. Many of our activities seemed to be hold around the mosque including playing. I remember my childhood best friend, the Christian lived next to the mosque. I remember sitting eagerly listening to the women preacher who inspired me very much with her energy. I remember our breakfast together at the mosque with the rest of the community. I remember the whole family worked hard to make small businesses of home industries. I remember working with my neighbors to recycle unused papers and bottles.

I remember playing with my Dad brushing his hair and pulling off his immature white hair. I remember riding the Ducati motorbike very proudly with my Dad. I remember playing hide and seek with friends under the full moon. I remember everything now.

At the late seventies throughout the eighties our poor neighborhood was one of the earliest neighborhood in Jakarta to be modernised. Jakarta was transforming itself to be the modern city like now. And that was the start when my happy memory seemed to be buried and forgotten.

I remember they forced the people in the neighborhood to move out with very little compensation because of the rampant corruption. I remember looking at the bulldozer grinding down the last house where they were going to build the shopping areas. The owner of the house stayed wandering in the vicinity, his mind went crazy. We lost our relatives and neighbors.

I remember my Dad lost the negotiation under duress with the military officers. We lost half of our big, comfortable house. Our stores were also removed and my parents and the other shop owners opened the store on the river banks, where no one came to buy. We lost our business. My Dad went ill, depressed and became violent and irrational. The same happened with my grandfather who was unable to rebuild the religious school. My home was like hell, I'd rather be in school. My father died young. My mother then raised 9 small children.

Our neighborhood was deteriorating, morally and economically (until now). My best friend, although I pretended not knowing, quit her school and became a part time prostitute. She had to work to feed her brothers, sisters, and avoided her abusive Dad. Our friendship was a silent one. My other friend got pregnant and killed her baby. Suddenly the neighborhood were filled prostitutes and many people liked to get drunk. The life was unbearable. There is no safe place for the children to play.

The mosque suddenly filled by hardliners (until now!!). I no longer understood what they preached. My women preacher died also. And they wouldn't let women to preach again.

That's what I remembered going to my teens. When I couldn't take it any longer, I ran to the States. Twelve years later I came back for I couldn't forgive myself for running away.

Now I'm living nearby my brothers and sisters, good natured, wonderful men and women who had endured such times. They were at some point involved in Islamic hardliners, but became moderate over the years as our lives gradually improved. We take care of our mother, a simple and hard working woman who would easily break into smile to a stranger.

I'm not a fundamentalist, but I'm a witness.

Best regards
Mia

Richard Stanza wrote:
BUT discounting its pagan ancient rituals including their belief that their 'holy book' is of a supernatural one.

What you are implying is that Allah does not exist and islam is not really a religion.
For muslims the foundation of islam lies in their belief that the quran is Allah literal word.

(part 3)

In the end, you proved that according to some verses, one could conclude that apostates should not be killed. But this doesn't change the validity of the hadiths. Your interpretation is subjective to "wanting to see the things" a certain way, and however there are no verses or hadiths that clearly tell to not kill apostates - as opposite as Sahih hadiths who are very specific and clear about this.
All the Muslims who kill apostates are going to be punished for this by Allah? They will be punished for following the sunnah? If they are not, this automatically makes killing of apostates legit. If they are, this invalidates the Qu'ran and ultimately all of Islam.

*Saying that your interpretation makes _you_ think that you should not kill apostates* is not enough. You must theologically ensure that no Muslim will do this in the name of Islam, and you can't do this.

How can you follow someone who commanded to kill apostates? What's their fault if they just don't believe anymore? Can you force someone who is not convinced to believe? You can force someone to do something under the threat of a gun or knife, you can even force someone to fight at your side: but if a Muslim becomes convinced that Allah is not God or that there is no God, how can you convince him of the contrary? Why should you kill him?
And if he stops believing of being Muslim, why should he keep silent and not tell this to anyone? Perhaps Islam is afraid of the words and actions of apostates? Your religion is so insecure and weak to the point of needing to silence the voices who oppose them with force, like your assassin prophet did against those who criticized him? If Islam is truth, if it is from God, can't it just silence them with reasonable arguments and good manners?
I personally received death-threats from Muslims for criticizing Islam. Thugs and brainless murdereds who kill for Allah don't prove that Islam is a true religion. Why Allah would need assassins? If he was God, couldn't he just answer our legitimate questions and doubts? "BELIEVE IN ME, OR ELSE MY BRAINLESS FOLLOWERS WILL KILL YOU" IS NOT AN ANSWER WE ACCEPT.

But an insecure man like Muhammad needed terrorists at his service to kill everybody who tried to shatter his narcisistic dream of power. This shows how false and delusional he was. Muhammad was not a prophet: a true religion from a true God would not demand the death of apostates.

(part 2, last part will follow)

"In the context of an emphasis on preserving the life of each and every individual the above verse mentions only two crimes for which a person can be killed:

1) Murdering another human being;

2) Spreading mischief (fasad) in the land.

The recompense for those who wage war against God and his Messenger[4], and strive with might and main for mischief through the land[5] is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and for them in the hereafter is a severe punishment. (5:33)"

Too bad that fasad, or "spreading mischief", is also considered apostasy.
Tafseer of Ibn Kathir about verse 2:11 states:

#========================
In his Tafsir, As-Suddi said that Ibn `Abbas and Ibn Mas`ud commented,

(And when it is said to them: "Do not make mischief on the earth,'' they say: "We are only peacemakers.'') "They are the hypocrites. As for,
("Do not make mischief on the earth''), that is disbelief and acts of disobedience.'' Abu Ja`far said that Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that Abu Al-`Aliyah said that Allah's statement,
(And when it is said to them: "Do not make mischief on the earth,''), means, "Do not commit acts of disobedience on the earth. Their mischief is disobeying Allah, because whoever disobeys Allah on the earth, or commands that Allah be disobeyed, he has committed mischief on the earth. Peace on both the earth and in the heavens is ensured (and earned) through obedience (to Allah).'' Ar-Rabi` bin Anas and Qatadah said similarly.
#========================

Or perhaps you think that Ibn Kathir, Maududi, al-Tabari, ecc. ecc. got everything wrong and only you are right.

"Hence: a) there is no mandatory death penalty in the Qur`an for any crime; and b) since the Qur`an does not prescribe the death penalty even for crimes more serious than simple apostasy, death penalty for apostasy as such has no place within the Qur`anic perspective."

Again, this is your personal opinion, your interpretation. Guys over at Islam Q&A made a fatwa about the need of killing apostates:
www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=12406&ln=eng

this Italian website thinks the same:
www.islamnet.it

Mr. Anjam Choudrey thinks otherwise:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4

Many, many, many more thinks otherwise today and now.

"1) Those who ally themselves with a group with whom Muslims have a peace treaty;
2) Those who want to keep neutrality, committing themselves to peace with both the Muslims and their own people who had not accepted Islam;
3) Those who provide no real guarantee of peace to Muslims and by all indications ally themselves with non-believers engaged in hostilities towards Islam."

The first two types of apostates are to be left in peace while the third one is to be treated like any non-believers in a state of war..."

So how do apostates like Ali Sina are to be treated? He doesn't make "war" phisically, he doesn't harm you, but he wages war to Islam intellectually - by using free speach and founding FaithFreedom. So, what kind of apostate is him? Are you going to kill him for his belief and his strong disagreement with Islam?

"3) The third type of apostate is one who leaves Islam and then engages in hostile actions against Islam and Muslims, e.g. knowingly engages in propaganda against Islam and Muslims blatantly ignoring facts that he is expected to know well, passes secrets to the enemy, takes part in fighting against the Muslims. Such an apostate can be punished by anything from exile to death."

I think you have answered yourself here.

"And God knows better!"

Because apparently, he didn't bothered explaining it clearly what to do in his clear, perfect book. How pitiful!

(part 1, more will follow)

I have read your article.
Here is my brief comment to it.

"The desire to “improve” the image of Islam among non-Muslims
Most of the negative imaging of Islam is done by a relatively small minority of Christians and Jews and those writers and reporters who are under their power."

Conspiracy and victimism, a classic. Gotta love Muslims blaming "the evil jews" for everything when they should blame their own brothers for the bad image of Islam.

"But is the death penalty for apostasy really “good” for Islam and Muslims? Does it prevent apostasy? The death penalty may indeed discourage some from apostasy, but it would also encourage hypocrisy. And is it really better to have a lot of hypocrites among Muslims than to have a lot of apostates?"

Notice how the writer doesn't care about the self-explanatory right to BREATH that someone who is no longer convinced about Islam has. He just cares what is better for Islam, not about the foolishness of slaying someone simply because he doesn't share his religious beliefs.

"Some will say that the previous generations of Muslims also reached their decisions on the basis of the Qur`an and the authentic ahadith. This is true but if this means that the majority in previous generations could not be wrong, then that is precisely the sort of attitude that the Qur`an is condemning in the above verses."

Agreed, what the majority did in the past is not necessarily right - claiming this would be committing the logical fallacy of "argumentum ad populum".
But here we are not talking about Muslims who did this in the past, we are talking about -=Muhammad himself=- who did and ordered to do. We have Sahih Hadiths who report this, and NO ONE that reports him saying that apostates should not be killed. How do you think to stop Muslims who killed, are killing NOW and will kill apostates in the future based on these hadiths? You didn't answered yet to this.

"3) In some cases when the whole ummah agrees that a certain interpretation of some Qur`anic verses or ahadith is unacceptable, then the person who holds such an interpretation may become an apostate by a decision of the ummah."

So after telling us the contrary, you are now telling us that what the majority chooses is right? Isn't this democracy, the man-made laws that Islam condemns?

"It is a significant fact that the Book of God does not prescribe any punishment for apostasy."

It is significant indeed, it shows us that far from being a "clear guidance" and a "straight path", that book is a hoax. Why a "clear path" would feature such contradictory examples and such complex reasoning?

"Many Muslims would immediately say, The Qur`an does not tell us everything. We need to go to the Hadith to find guidance on matters not touched by the Qur`an. But while this is true of matters of detail, this is not true of fundamental issues."

So, your point briefly is:
"I know that the hadiths say that apostates must be killed. But since this is a fundamental issue, we must not let this to the hadiths."

This is your interpretation, but nothing makes us think that this should be the _only_ right way to look at this issue. Indeed many Muslims who kill apostates for what is in the hadiths are just using their own, valid Islamic interpretation. They are following the Sunna, this is hardly un-Islamic is it?

"The punishment for apostasy is not a detail that we can expect God to leave for ahadith, especially if that punishment is death, since taking the life of a person, if done without a just cause, is regarded by the Qur`an as tantamount to killing all human beings (5:32)."

But none the less, your prophet himself did and ordered to do. That prophet that 33:21 and many other verses _order_ you to obey and follow, that prophet which is called "Al-Insan Al-Kamil", the perfect example for all Muslims of every time. Perhaps those Muslims who kill apostates will be punished by Allah for doing what the Qu'ran tells them to do, following the prophet? AND IF THERE IS NO PUNITION for killing apostates, this means it is permissible.

"It is thus a natural conclusion to draw that the absence of any legal penalty for apostasy in the Qur`an means that God never intended any such penalty to become part of Islamic Shari‘ah."

No, it is just _YOUR_ conclusion - the conclusion of the vast majority of Muslims is different. They read that the Qu'ran say to follow Muhammad and Muhammad killed apostates, simple as that. Now will you please go in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and explain them the "right" way to interprete the Qu'ran? Good luck about coming back alive, you'll need it.

"That is NOT an answer to the QUESTION asked? I will repeat it one more time:

How does the Geneva Articles presented by you earlier, give the right and command to Capital Punishment in US, unthinkable mass murders of innocent lives, destruction of properties around the world, ethnic cleansing and genocide of entire cities and towns around the world?"

-I didn't presented any articles from Geneva, learn to read.

-Your question is irrelevant, has nothing to do to the problem I posed. Still, you claim I am a "trained parrot"? You need a lesson in basic logic, kid.

-My question is very simple: it is right to kill apostates who don't harm you phisically and who are just inviting people to leave Islam? Answer, yes or no.

Richard Stanza, stop embarassing yourself any further: nobody will ever believe that you are an "American Christian" after what you said. You are a brainwashed, brain-dead Muslim zombie like the ones who slay innocent people around the world shouting "Allahu Akbar" to their demonic, satanic spirit. The likes of you are the reason we take our stand and fight against the barbarism which is of Islam.

Being a Mexican Christian myself, born and raised in the United States and traveled many parts of the world, including the Islamic ones, I have come to the conclusion that Islam is the most duable, viable and ethically and morally a sound, justified and peaceful religion, supported by its "principle teachings" BUT discounting its pagan ancient rituals including their belief that their 'holy book' is of a supernatural one.

By that statement, I must confess that it is the people within and outside of Islam's fold that are misinterpreting its valuable asset and especially some of their wishful leaders that advocate their own convoluted, personal and biased agendas in order to rob the weak, poor and the illeterates.

When Islam is properly analyzed and understood, it is the best and most simplistic, applicable and meaningful way of living a life. Ofcourse, there will always remain criticisms, arguments and hatred which can be debated, like in any other spiritual, social, economic and political arenas, but only one will remain outstanding, and that is Islam.

Hi Victoria,
you are quite knowledgeable person, I enjoy reading your posts. Keep it cool, some discussions become a bit out of the line. Yes, there is no 72 angels specifically mentioned in the Quran, it's actually from unauthentic hadith, yet it was a perception that was going on my young brain.

Miriam, thanks for sharing yours. My distant in-laws are American-Jews by birth. We enjoy our wonderful friendship all these years, and often discuss religious issues, since they are always very curious about Islam. Once they even asked me to give a class-room talk at the school where their children attend, about Islam in Indonesia! We are an ocean a part, but close at heart, and I put their pictures on the dining room. Every time we meet we make it a very special family reunion.

Is the community you used to live the one so-called the one with perennial philosophy?

You know, every day I recite the name Muhammad (and Ibrahim) in my regular prayers. I know his life story by heart, like many Muslims do. He is so dear in our daily lives. But yet....honestly, I didn't 'feel' him. When I was in my teens, I read wonderful poems by Allama Muhammad Iqbal, the Pakistani sufi and philosopher. He inspires me so deeply so I keep reading his books. He's the one who has been close to my heart, as if I saw him sometimes in my dreams, once I felt as if he called me to approach him.

But Prophet Muhammad? I didn't know what to think of him except that he is a prophet. But why didnt I 'feel' him?

Until I read the book of Muhammad by Karen Armstrong...I burst into tears, as if Ms. Armstrong brought Muhammad into my door! Suddenly he's not so distant figure anymore.

Miriam, like I said, I never thought of any prophet as indecent person, but to think of Muhammad as if he were 'a regular guy' in my house was simply unthinkable. I started to think, perhaps there are some parts of his life story which I've been sweeping it under the rug, and avoided it to confront it my self. That is, I had been in your situations, but I chose to ignore it. Ms. Armstrong just did it to me again, to confront the issue, to accept the pain and the faults. Only then I could see my way.

Muhammad lived in rugged, primitive community, which was totally different with the community where Jesus lived, amongst highly cultured Jews and powerful Rome. Muhammad appreciated the teachings of Jews and Christians, after all Islam was not a new revelation. He consulted the Jews so often, and many became his friends. But it must have hurt him to find some Jews tribes in Madina were at conflict with the new Muslims, and made secret plot with the (Muslim) hypocrites to erase Muslims altogether from Madina. Muslims were attacked by the Quraish outside Madina, and inside the city they were pitted by the Jews and the hypocrites, both who broke the Madina peace agreement with Muslims. It was highly critical and survival situations, and at that time the solution of putting the death to the tribe was in line with war traditions, as it was expected. Anyhow, one Jews tribe was allowed to leave Madina.

You should also read the part when Muhammad finally initiated peace with the Quraish at Makkah. Hundreds thousand Muslims camped outside Mecca without arms, since their intention was to make the pilgrimage. They could have easily became sitting ducks and killed by Quraish. Yet, with his insights Muhammad could smell the peace in the air, and finally next year they entered Mecca without bloodshed at all, except one or two put to death penalty.

Best regards
Mia

Richard Stanza is evidence what islam does to people, even to those non muslims who who sympathize with it.

Beheading??

Chopped piecemeal and shredded into a gazillion pieces??

Is this what is meant by the religion of piece (peace)?

Salam (or salami as you seem to prefer chopping)
Gonzo

Do you think people will think better of you Mr Stanza, for your insane, homicidal ranting, or do you think they will think worse of you? Do you think you have gained sympathy and support via you raving, genocidal posts or do you think you have lost it? You are proving all those who say you are a bigot, a murderous fascist and an ignorant and pious bully absolutely correct! They could not have done a better job of making you look bad themselves if they'd have wanted to. Mr Stanza, you have done it for them. Is this your peaceful religious message "Behead everyone! Chop everyone to pieces"?

victoria wrote: ["and since no one has read what i posted before- it seems like a waste of time to continue-"]

Yes, you mustn't waste time with knuckleheads for they will consistently bicker and mourn 24/7, as it is certified in their INTERNATIOAL Hell-Hole website. No matter what you write to educate them, they will continue to harass and abuse.

As mentioned earlier and anyone can witness it that The Faithfreedom International is a hell-hole playground for parentless miscreants. They are specially cloned and germinated species of Satanic Cult of California, Polygamist Cult of Arizona, Paradise Striptease Club of New York, Columbine School of Colorado, Hollywood Comedians of California, Cracker Jackpots of Nevada and Ku Klux Klan of Tennessee, all residents in disguise of their invented "golden rule" called the Faithfreedom International Rule.

What is even more shocking is that these people hate and abuse their own medias, their own people and in fact EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE who favors Muslims, not to mention extreme racism on colored people. The Quran talks about these people as Devil’s Advocates who refuse to listen and understand for they are Dumb, Deaf and Blind. Beheading them would be far less painful for this kind of specie; rather they must be chopped piecemeal and shredded into gazillion pieces from toes up very slowly and left to rot in planet Neptune.

["...How does the Geneva Articles presented by you earlier, give the right and command to Capital Punishment in US..."

Anonymous, for the nth time, two wrongs don't make one right so stop spamming logical fallacies.]

That is NOT an answer to the QUESTION asked? I will repeat it one more time:

How does the Geneva Articles presented by you earlier, give the right and command to Capital Punishment in US, unthinkable mass murders of innocent lives, destruction of properties around the world, ethnic cleansing and genocide of entire cities and towns around the world?

[Killing someone who is not hurting anyone just because he doesn't share your same world view IS EVIL. Are you human enough to understand this?"]

The reasons to punish an apostate has already been stated. You keep repeating like a trained parrot by your terrorist cult leader who knows nothing else. When confronted with reverse psychological questions, you start dancing around and bring issues irrelevant to the question itself. Get a life and learn to live, kid.

Basically, the Islamic perspective on the killing of atheists and apostates is thus "whatever we did, we were told to do it by Allah so it is okay"

So, Victoria's arguments are basiclly the old "I was only following orders" argument...

Hmmmmmm, where have we heard THAT before?

Please "cease and desist" with your ridiculous ranting Mr Stanza, you are making a complete fool of yourself.

"...How does the Geneva Articles presented by you earlier, give the right and command to Capital Punishment in US..."

Anonymous, for the nth time, two wrongs don't make one right so stop spamming logical fallacies.

An apostate who thinks, like I do, that Islam is an evil cult that preaches hatred, intolerance and terror, has all the right to criticize it - not insulting it - like those who disagree with Islamic vision of the world do.

Killing someone who is not hurting anyone just because he doesn't share your same world view IS EVIL. Are you human enough to understand this?

"[Stanza doesn't know WHO THE HELL he's replying to half the time, as long as he can rant away from his position as the arrogant, ignorant and hateful self-elected master-race thinker that he is.

You mixed up who your quotes Stanza...look for your self...you don't know who said what...as always, you're just plain wrong.]"

So now you've started crying about whom I should or should not address to. LOL, the importance of message is clear and addresses ALL knuckleheads of Faithfreedom Internatiional Juvenile Hell-Hole.

"[As far as I can see, Both of you are just trying to lie your ways out of an indefencible corner where genocide, oppression and hate colour the views you hold.]"

Was there an indefencible corner to begin with??? You seem to be running away from answering the following:

How does the Geneva Articles presented by you earlier, give the right and command to Capital Punishment in US, unthinkable mass murders of innocent lives, destruction of properties around the world, ethnic cleansing and genocide of entire cities and towns around the world? And you have the courage to pick upon rare cases of apostasy? In Islam, apostates are given indiscriminate warnings before they are capitalized to rest, less they continue to curse, abuse, harm, incite violence, break governing moral rules and laws, which may even lead to war amongst their own people. Don’t like it, then leave or migrate, put up, live with it or simply shut up? GOT IT?

POSTED AT 4:40 QUESTION

Oh, I noticed a very important thing. In the defintion of apostasy it also figures:

(someone who) Rejects a part of the Qur`an after recognizing it to be a part of the Qur`an.

So you agree with this definition of apostate, and you recognize _ALL_ of the Koran as the word of Allah?

Victoria,

I am reading the article you have posted, taken from

http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Apostasy1.htm

Will let you know.
I didn't see your question - but in your 2nd-to-last reply I couldn't identify any - perhaps your question was:

"what is your solution against someone who is guilty of treachery and betrayal and active aggression"?

well- this i think is the last thing ill do-
perhaps you might understand it is difficult to be patient all the time - by calling my religion evil and inhumane- goodness and badness is from ALLAH- and is not put in us from an outside relgion- it simply is or is not- good cannot likewise be imposed from a relgion- but examples can be taught to people that can affect them-

i have already asked a detailed question of you- if you dont want to answer it fine by me- im pretty done- go look at the mattson and esposito- youll see a small sample-
plase stop telling me what you imagine i have to follow- islam is so much deeper than the simple literal versions people-

ive only asked one question and have answered with effort many many- so i think if you tellme my relgion is evil and inhumane-i really dont know wha you expect me to reply- that says it all-

see ow this person wong accuses me of something he read posted by dave b? that was a conversation on another post her borught over here with all its intended mis-statements- i never said anysuch thing- but it is part of a quote-
well- here it is - go at it if you like-

nonymous:

Q & A

THE PUNISHMENT OF APOSTASY IN ISLAM

Part I: The Qur`anic Perspective

By

Dr. Ahmad Shafaat

(February, 2006)

Question

As-salam ‘alaykum,

Dear Dr. Shafaat,

I visited your site. There is a lot of valuable information available in your site. I have many queries regarding Islam that trouble my mind. I would be much grateful to you if you could answer those queries. To start with, I have much trouble understanding the punishment of apostasy. Do you believe that the punishment of apostasy is death according to Islam? Is this not against the freedom for an individual to adopt any faith? Please explain.

Thanks.

Regards,
Mohd.

Answer

Wa 'alaykum al-salam! Thank you for your email. The fact that you have many queries suggests that you think and reflect about Islamic teachings. This is wonderful, since the Book of God instructs us to do such thinking and reflection. I would insha` allah answer your questions according to the ability God grants me.

The question you have raised about the punishment of apostasy in Islam, like any other question related to Islam, needs to be answered in the light of the Qur`an and the authentic ahadith. I repeat this well-known principle here because many Muslims, even scholars are often influenced by some extraneous considerations in arriving at their Islamic opinions. Thus some reject the death penalty for apostasy out of a desire to “improve” the image of Islam among non-Muslims. Others, on the other hand, insist on that penalty out of a concern that rejection of the penalty will encourage apostasy. There are also some who are influenced by a tendency to stick to traditional views no matter what. At some point the death penalty for apostasy was widely accepted among Muslims and many of us feel that what our earlier generations accepted must be correct and must be accepted by us also. Since such extraneous influences can mislead us, let us first try to free our minds from them.

The desire to “improve” the image of Islam among non-Muslims

Most of the negative imaging of Islam is done by a relatively small minority of Christians and Jews and those writers and reporters who are under their power. These people are not going to simply stop if we rejected the death penalty for apostasy. They will just find something else to paint Islam negatively. The only way they can stop is if the challenge of Islam is removed and Muslims start behaving like them. The Holy Qur`an talks about such Jews and Christians when it says:

Neither the Jews nor the Christians will be pleased with you (O Muhammad) till you follow their millah. Say: “Surely, the guidance of God is the (true) guidance”. And if you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, then you would not have any protector or helper against God. (2:120)

Here by “Jews and Christians” the Holy Qur`an does not mean “all Jews and Christians”, since elsewhere it says “they are not all alike” (3:113). What is meant in the above verse is that some or many Jews and Christians will not be pleased with you till you become like them. It is also relevant to note that the Holy Qur`an tells us that we should expect a lot of negative, hurtful, talk from some Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims:

You shall certainly be tried and tested in your possessions and persons and you shall certainly hear from the people given the book before you and those who associate partners with God much grieving talk. But if you are steadfast and disciplined, then that is of the (required) resolve in affairs. (3:186)

Consequently, let us not even think about rejecting or accepting something as Islamic only in order to “improve” the image of Islam among non-Muslims. Islam as taught by God and the Messenger is beautiful and the best way to improve the image of Islam is to understand it properly and then represent it faithfully.

Concern that doing away with the death penalty may encourage apostasy

This attitude views rejection of the death penalty for apostasy as being soft on apostasy. But it misses the point that God, who knows everything in the heavens and the earth, and his Messenger who is guided by him, know the best way to protect Islam and Muslims. In the Holy Qur`an God tells the Prophet to say:

“Do you inform God of that which he knows not in the heavens and the earth?” (10:18; see also 13:22).

In their context these words are addressed to the non-believers who worship some beings other than God in the hope that they will act as intercessors before God. But the words are clearly applicable each time we try to ignore what God has sent down and start making Islamic rules on the basis of some other considerations, even if it be for the “good” of Islam and Muslims.

But is the death penalty for apostasy really “good” for Islam and Muslims? Does it prevent apostasy? The death penalty may indeed discourage some from apostasy, but it would also encourage hypocrisy. And is it really better to have a lot of hypocrites among Muslims than to have a lot of apostates?

Muslims generally do not leave their religion. In recent times the number of Muslims converting to Christianity has increased but that is because: a) Christians have power and wealth which they use in very aggressive missionary effort; b) Muslims have fallen into ignorance and poverty due to the ineffective leadership of our `umara` and ‘ulama`. Consequently, the best way to reduce apostasy is to increase knowledge of Islam and to combat poverty, ignorance and other problems that plague the Muslim world.

Tendency to stick to the traditional views

If some Muslims insist on the death penalty for apostasy out of a concern to discourage apostasy, others do so simply because of a tendency to cling to traditional views no matter how much evidence exists against them. This attitude is un-Qur`an since the Book of God says:

When it is said to them: “Follow what God has sent down,” they say, “Nay! We shall follow what we found our fathers following.” What! Even if their fathers did not understand (ya‘qilun) anything and they were not guided? (2:170)

And when it is said to them: “Come to what God has sent down and to the Messenger,” they say, “Enough for us is that which we found our fathers following.” What! Even if their fathers did not know anything and they were not guided? (5:104; see also 43:23-24)

The tendency to follow without thinking the ideas passed on by earlier generations is what misled many Jews and Christians, as we learn from the following verse:

Say (O Prophet): “O people of the book! Exceed not the limits in your religion ignoring the truth, and do not follow the vain desires of people who went astray before and who misled many, straying from right path. (5:77)

It is true that these verses are addressed to non-Muslims, but there is no reason to think that the attitude condemned here cannot be found among Muslims. Every error that was or is committed by non-Muslims can be and is committed by some Muslims also and therefore what the Qur`an says to non-Muslims also has a message for us.

Hence let us not be overly influenced by the fact that the death penalty for apostasy has been held to be Islamic by a majority of people in many previous generations of Muslims. Let us examine the evidence of the Qur`an and the authentic ahadith and then reach a decision. Some will say that the previous generations of Muslims also reached their decisions on the basis of the Qur`an and the authentic ahadith. This is true but if this means that the majority in previous generations could not be wrong, then that is precisely the sort of attitude that the Qur`an is condemning in the above verses.

If we turn to the Qur`an and authentic ahadith after freeing ourselves from the extraneous influences of the type I have mentioned above, the situation becomes crystal clear: there is no legal punishment for apostasy in Islam, whether death or any other. The Qur`an and authentic ahadith teach us to treat apostates like other kuffar, whose treatment varies from kindness to killing depending on the circumstances and on the degree of hostility they show towards Islam and Muslims. I will insha allah present evidence for this view in two parts. In this first part, I will insha allah show that the death penalty or any other legal punishment for apostasy is contrary to the Qur`an. And in the second part I examine the ahadith about apostasy and show with God’s permission that those ahadith that prescribe the death penalty do not come from the mouth of our and God’s beloved Prophet (may God bless and honor him evermore).

WHAT IS APOSTASY?

Before discussing the question of punishment of apostasy, it is well to define what apostasy is.

A person commits apostasy (irtidad) or becomes an apostate (murtadd) if he describes himself a Muslim and then at a later time takes one of the following actions in a public way:

1) Converts to another religion, e.g. becomes a Christian or Buddhist or Baha`i etc.

2) Rejects a part of the Qur`an after recognizing it to be a part of the Qur`an. For example, all those “Muslims” who opposed the Shari‘ah-based arbitration in family and business disputes in Ontario[1] have become apostates if they knew well that a great part of the Shari‘ah that they opposed is based on the Qur`an. May Allah guide them back to Islam.

3) In some cases when the whole ummah agrees that a certain interpretation of some Qur`anic verses or ahadith is unacceptable, then the person who holds such an interpretation may become an apostate by a decision of the ummah. For example, Ahmadis insist on being called Muslims and they indeed profess and practice much of Islam like most Sunni Muslims. But they believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadiyan in the British colonial India was a prophet and in order to prepare room for this belief they interpret khatm nubuwwah in a way different from the rest of the ummah.. The ummah has rejected their interpretation of khatm nubuwwah and Mirza’s claims for which this interpretation is devised. The ummah has also declared this group as non-Muslims and banned their entry into Makkah. Finally, the falsehood of Mirza’s claims has been proved by history[2]. Consequently, all converts from Islam to Ahmadism are apostates.

Normally, however, having an interpretation of a part of the Qur`an or Hadith different from the one held by other Muslims does not result in apostasy. For example, if the people who rejected Shari‘ah-based arbitration in Ontario would have said that the way rules of Shari‘ah are interpreted and applied is not faithful to the teachings of God and his Messenger and argued for more discussion about correcting the interpretation and the application before adopting Shari‘ah-based arbitration, they would not have committed apostasy. But they opposed Shari‘ah as such and for this reason they should be considered apostates.

An apostate is different from a hypocrite (munafiq). A hypocrite is a person who is outwardly willing to say/do what a Muslim says/does but in his heart has decided not to believe in Islam. An apostate, in contrast, is someone who openly and knowingly does or says something that makes him a non-Muslim after he had called himself a Muslim.

It also needs to be pointed out that we should distinguish apostasy from a state of kufr that many Muslims may privately pass through during the process of their growth towards the state of iman. In most Muslim families we have some members who express disbelief about the existence of God or about divine revelations or about the hereafter. Muslims have wisely and correctly tolerated such disbelief because they recognize that the way to iman is not always smooth and may pass through doubts and confusion (cf. Qur`an 6:76-79, 93:7). However, if a Muslim expresses his disbelief in the form of a declared position and insists on its truth publicly, then he will be considered an apostate.

THE ABSENCE FROM THE QUR`AN OF ANY PENALTY FOR APOSTASY

It is a significant fact that the Book of God does not prescribe any punishment for apostasy. Many Muslims would immediately say, The Qur`an does not tell us everything. We need to go to the Hadith to find guidance on matters not touched by the Qur`an. But while this is true of matters of detail, this is not true of fundamental issues. God knew that while the Qur`an would be preserved faithfully, the authenticity of ahadith will remain subject to doubts in most cases. Therefore, he would make sure that all the basic teachings would be included in the Qur`an while leaving some details to ahadith so that the size of the Qur`anic text remains manageable for memorization. Looked in this way the absence in the Qur`an of any punishment for apostasy becomes very significant.

The punishment for apostasy is not a detail that we can expect God to leave for ahadith, especially if that punishment is death, since taking the life of a person, if done without a just cause, is regarded by the Qur`an as tantamount to killing all human beings (5:32). Even lesser penalties for theft (cutting of hands, 5:38), illicit sexual intercourse (100 lashes, 24:2), and unsubstantiated accusation of adultery (80 lashes, 24.4) were not considered by God as matters of details to be left to the ahadith. Therefore there is no reason why God would consider the more serious penalty of death for a more serious sin of apostasy as a matter of detail to be left to ahadith.

It is also significant that the Qur`an refers to apostasy several times (2:217, 3:86-90, 4:137, 9:66, 9:74, 16:106-109, 4:88-91, 47:25-27) and yet does not prescribe any punishment for it. Had the Qur`an not mentioned apostasy at all, we could have perhaps argued that there was no occasion for the Qur`anic revelation to deal with this subject and it was therefore left for the Holy Prophet to deal with. It may also be noted that almost all the verses that refer to apostasy are found in surahs said to be belonging to the Madinan period when the Islamic state had been established and penalties for crimes could be prescribed and applied. Only 16:106-109 appears in a surah identified as Makkan.

It is thus a natural conclusion to draw that the absence of any legal penalty for apostasy in the Qur`an means that God never intended any such penalty to become part of Islamic Shari‘ah.

THE DEATH PENALTY FOR APOSTASY CONFLICTS WITH THE QUR`AN

The evidence against any legally prescribed penalty for apostasy in Islam does not rest only on the fact that the Qur`an does not prescribe any such penalty while referring to the subject of apostasy many times. We can go further and state that:

a) There is no mandatory death penalty in the Qur`an for any crime.

b) The death penalty for apostasy in fact conflicts with the Qur`an.

The truth of the above statements can be seen by examining the verses: 5:32-33, 45, 2:178 and 4:88-91.

Qur`an 5:32-33, 45, 2:178

In 5:32, after relating the story of the murder of Habil by his brother Qabil, God says:

On that account We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole humanity: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole humanity. Then although there came to them Our Messengers with clear (guidance), yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. (5:32)

In the context of an emphasis on preserving the life of each and every individual the above verse mentions only two crimes for which a person can be killed:

1) Murdering another human being;

2) Spreading mischief (fasad) in the land.

Nowhere else the Qur`an mentions any other crime for which the death penalty is considered. There are, of course, verses that mention killing during a war in the way of God. But that is different from killing as a penalty for a crime. Moreover, in the Qur`anic understanding the objective of even killing in a war is to stop or punish crimes similar to the two mentioned in the above verse -- violence and mischief -- when committed in an organized way by a tribe or nation ((2:191-193, 2:217, 4:88-91 etc)).

Hence the above-mentioned two crimes exhaust all possible cases for which the Qur`an considers the death penalty[3]. And in both of these cases, the death penalty is not mandatory in the Qur`an.

In case of spreading mischief in the land, the Qur`an says in the next verse:

The recompense for those who wage war against God and his Messenger[4], and strive with might and main for mischief through the land[5] is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and for them in the hereafter is a severe punishment. (5:33)

There is no prescribed mandatory death penalty here. Even when the person wages war against God and his Messenger along with striving in the land for mischief, death is considered only one of several options, starting from exile. If such is the case with persons who wage war against God and his Messenger and actively seek to spread mischief in the land, then the question of death as a prescribed penalty for an apostate who continues to lead a peaceful life after his sin of apostasy can hardly arise within a Qur`anic perspective.

A little later in the same surah, al-Ma`idah, the Qur`an deals with the other crime – murdering another human being -- for which death penalty can be applied:

And We ordained for them in [the Torah]: “Person for person, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal.” But if anyone remits the retaliation as charity, it shall be an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what God has sent down, such are the transgressors (zalimun)[6]. (5:45)

The above verse refers to what God commanded the Jews through the Torah, but in the following verse the Qur`an gives a more balanced law to the Muslims:

O you who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But if one (who killed) is forgiven by the brother of (the one killed) against ransom, there should be follow up in fairness and payment to the heir in handsome gratitude. This is a concession from your Lord and a mercy (from him). Then whoever exceeds the limit (of the ransom agreement) after this he shall have a painful chastisement. (2:178)

Again there is no mandatory death penalty. If the relatives of the murdered person accept ransom, the death penalty can be removed.

Hence: a) there is no mandatory death penalty in the Qur`an for any crime; and b) since the Qur`an does not prescribe the death penalty even for crimes more serious than simple apostasy, death penalty for apostasy as such has no place within the Qur`anic perspective.

Qur`an 4:88-91

The four verses, 4:88-91, when carefully examined, also show that the Qur`anic perspective conflicts with the death penalty for apostasy. The first two verses state:

Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two groups regarding the hypocrites? God has cast them backward (arkasa) because of what they have earned. Do you want to guide him whom God has made to go astray? And he whom God has made to go astray, you will not find for him any way. They wish that you reject faith as they have done, so that you all become the same. So take not protectors/friends from them till they emigrate in the way of God. But if they turn away, seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither protectors/friends from them nor helpers. (4:88-89)

This passage begins by talking about hypocrites, that is, people who had declared themselves Muslims but in their hearts had decided not to believe in the teachings of Islam. The demand that they should do hijrah fi sabil allah (emigrate for the sake of God) shows that they are not the hypocrites of Madinah but are living among non-Muslims in Makkah and possibly elsewhere. Verse 98 of the same surah shows that these people were not doing hijrah despite the fact that they were able to. The reason for their not doing hijrah was their hypocrisy. Makkan non-believers who had persecuted Muslims for years, would not have tolerated in their midst any true Muslims. They would have accepted among them only those “Muslims” who had stopped taking their “islam” seriously and felt more comfortable among non-believers, hostile to Islam, than among Muslims. These hypocrites pretended to be Muslims because they wanted to be secure from both sides (see 4:91). And Makkan non-believers did not force them to publicly renounce their “islam” because they found them useful for gathering information about Muslims or for some other subversive actions against the ummah.

In order to defeat these hypocrites in their game and force them to clearly choose between Islam and kufr, God commanded them to do hijrah. Their obedience to this command meant that they had chosen Islam and their disobedience meant that they had chosen kufr. Those who chose kufr in this way became apostates, since previously they called themselves Muslims. Thus the verses are a source of guidance for us regarding the way the apostates are to be treated.

At first sight the words “seize them and kill them wherever you find them” would suggest that they are to be killed. But this is quickly seen to be wrong if we read the next two verses:

Except those who join a group between you and whom there is a (peace-) treaty or those who approach you with their hearts restraining them from fighting you or fighting their own people. Had God willed he would have given them power over you and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you and do not fight you but give you (guarantees of) peace, then God has opened no way for you against them.

You will find others that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people. Every time they are sent back to temptation they give in to it. If they do not withdraw from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace, nor restrain their hands, seize them and kill them, wherever you find them. In their case We have provided you with a clear warrant against them. (4:90-91).

These verses clarify the command “seize them and kill them”. The apostates who rejected Islam by failing to emigrate as commanded by God are divided into three categories:

1) Those who ally themselves with a group with whom Muslims have a peace treaty;

2) Those who want to keep neutrality, committing themselves to peace with both the Muslims and their own people who had not accepted Islam;

3) Those who provide no real guarantee of peace to Muslims and by all indications ally themselves with non-believers engaged in hostilities towards Islam.

The first two types of apostates are to be left in peace while the third one is to be treated like any non-believers in a state of war: they are to be seized and killed wherever they are found. Notice that the Qur`an uses the words “God has opened no way for you against them” in connection with the apostates of the first two types. This means that the Qur`an actually prohibits killing those apostates who want to live in peaceful terms with the Muslims.

Thus according to the Qur`an the apostates are to be treated like other kuffar: If they want to live in peace with the Muslims, they are to be left in peace and if they assume a hostile attitude, then they are to be treated accordingly.

Additional Evidence

There are some other Qur`anic verses that, although not as conclusive as those discussed above, nevertheless reveal a perspective that is at odds with a legal penalty for apostasy. Thus the Qur`an is very emphatic that victory belongs to truth. It says:

“Truth has come and falsehood has vanished. Surely, falsehood was bound to vanish” (17:81)

“Nay, We fling the truth against falsehood and it destroys it and behold it then vanishes” (21:18)

In other passages it predicts the victory of Islam because it is the religion of truth:

He it is who has sent his Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth that he may make it prevail over all (corrupted expressions of) religion (48:28; see also 9:32-33, 61:8-9).

These verses show that the Qur`an is founded on a complete confidence in the validity of the following three principles:

1. Truth is bound to win over falsehood.

2. Islam is founded on truth.

3. Islam will therefore prevail.

Within this perspective Islam has no need for keeping people under its fold at pain of death. Such measures befit those systems that are essentially built on falsehood because that is the only way their followers can hope to slow down their inevitable march to defeat and disappearance. For a “religion of truth” it is more advantageous if people are free to examine ideas and then choose the religion or ideology or system they want. This is why the Qur`an establishes the following famous principle:

There is no compulsion in religion. Right has become distinct from wrong. So whoever rejects evil and puts faith in God has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks. And God is hearing, knowing. (2:256)

This verse is usually understood to mean that people cannot be compelled to become Muslims but they can be compelled to stay Muslims. But the words, “no compulsion in religion” are very general. They should apply equally to entering or leaving any religion, including Islam. One may try to argue against this general understanding of the verse as follows:

A person cannot be compelled to enter Islam but a person who is a Muslim is subject to the laws of Islam and those laws require death for leaving Islam.

This argument would have had force only if we are able to establish that the Qur`an prescribes the death penalty for apostasy like it prescribes penalties for theft, zina` etc. But in the absence of any such prescription, we must take the words “no compulsion in religion” in their general sense and understand them to be applicable for both entering and leaving Islam[7].

Moreover, apostasy is a move from islam to kufr. But what if we cannot establish the islam of a person? For example, consider a person born in a Muslim family who at one point described himself as a Muslim according to custom but he never really believed in Islam. If he then renounces Islam, is he really moving from islam to kufr? Is he really bound by the laws of Islam considering that he never really made a choice to live by them?

From the confident conviction that the message of the Qur`an is based on truth and therefore will prevail, comes also the Qur`anic condemnation of fitnah, persecuting people for their religion, which is described as worse than killing in battle:

And fight in the way of God those who fight you but do not transgress due limits … al-fitnah is worse than killing (in battle). … Fight them till there is no fitnah and the religion is for God (alone) (2:191-193; see also 2:217).

These verses refer to the fighting that the non-believers were waging against the Prophet and his followers. This fighting was part of their fitnah or persecution of Muslims, aimed at suppressing the Islamic movement. The verses commanded the Muslims to fight back because fitnah is worse than killing in battle and so they should choose the lesser of the two evils. The fighting should continue till there is no more fitnah and the religion is for God. The words “the religion is for God (alone)” are closely related to “there is no more fitnah” and mean that the choice of religion is a matter between a person and God and not to be determined by force. Contrary to what some commentators suggest the words do not mean, “till everyone accepts Islam” because it is definitely known that the Prophet made peace with many tribes even though they had not accepted Islam (see e.g. 4:90 discussed earlier) and because the Qur`an explicitly states that when the non-believing opponents incline to peace the Prophet should do the same (8:61).

That the death penalty for apostasy conflicts with the Qur`anic perspective is also shown by those verses in which it is stated that the Messenger came not as a watcher over people but only as one who clearly declares the truth: 5:92, 99, 13:40, 16:35, 82, 24:54, 29:18, 36:17, 42:48, 64:12. Significantly, the first of these verses is addressed to the believers, since it is after explicitly addressing the believers and giving to them some laws (5:90-91) that the verse says:

“And obey God and obey the Messenger and beware (and fear God). Then if you turn away, know that our Messenger’s duty is to simply convey (the message) clearly. (5:92)

The Qur`an then continues addressing believers, giving some further regulations, and then says again:

On our Messenger there is no obligation but conveying (the message). And God knows what you reveal and what you conceal (5:99)

In 5:92 and 99 the Muslims are not told that if you turn away then death penalty awaits you but rather they are told that the Messenger has done his duty by conveying the message to you and now it is up to you whether you want to stay faithful to him or whether you want to turn away from him[8].

DEALING WITH APOSTASY

As observed above the Qur`an expects us to deal with apostates like other kuffar. Therefore the Qur`anic guidance for dealing with the apostates is essentially the same as its guidance for dealing with other kuffar. Briefly, this guidance is that we should treat them according to the degree of friendship or hostility they show to Islam and Muslims. To translate this into more specific guidance we can divide apostates in three categories and see how each category is to be treated:

1) An apostate leaves Islam because of ignorance of Islam or some confusion that leads him to think that his new religion or way is truer and better. Such a person will be willing to listen to the Muslims if they want to show him that he has made a mistake. The Muslims should treat him kindly and argue with him in the best possible way. (60:8, 16:125). But Muslims should be careful not to show him more kindness than they show to other Muslims, for, otherwise the apostate may be encouraged to stay an apostate.

2) An apostate leaves Islam, not out of a belief that he is moving to something truer and better, but to satisfy some of his worldly desires, e. g., to get greater importance or more comfortable life or greater acceptance of his lifestyle such as homosexual lifestyle. A sign of such an apostate is that he shows little inclination to listen to any reasoning. If such an apostate does not engage in any hostile activity against Islam and Muslims, he should not be subjected to any active hostility (4:90). But since he has clearly preferred kufr over iman the following commandment of God will apply:

O you who believe! Do not take for friends and allies (even) your fathers and your brothers if they love disbelief more than faith: if any of you do so, they are the wrong doers. (9:23)

According to some traditions “this ayah was revealed concerning those nine men who after apostasy went to Makkah”. (Panipati, Tafsir Mazhari)

Beyond avoiding friendship and alliance with apostates of this second type, the Muslims can impose boycott against them, since such boycott was imposed by the Prophet on the three Companions mentioned in 9:118. These three Companions did not commit apostasy but simply failed to join the Muslims in jihad without a good reason.

3) The third type of apostate is one who leaves Islam and then engages in hostile actions against Islam and Muslims, e.g. knowingly engages in propaganda against Islam and Muslims blatantly ignoring facts that he is expected to know well, passes secrets to the enemy, takes part in fighting against the Muslims. Such an apostate can be punished by anything from exile to death.

And God knows better!

APPENDIX

Here we reproduce the Qur`anic verses about apostasy that have not been already discussed:

2:17 They ask you about fighting in the sacred month. Say: “Fighting therein is a great (offence); but preventing (people) from following the way of God, denying him, preventing access to the Sacred Masjid, and driving out its people is a greater (offence) and al-fitnah (oppression) is worse than killing (in battle).” And they will not cease fighting you until they turn you back from your religion if they can. And if anyone among you turns back from his religion and dies as a disbeliever, then the works of such as these will be lost in this life and in the hereafter they will be the dwellers of the fire, abiding therein forever.

3:86 How shall God guide those who reject faith after their belief and after they bore witness that the Messenger was true and after clear (signs) had come unto them? God guides not unjust people.

3:87 They are those whose recompense is that on them (rests) the curse of God, of the angels, and of all humankind.

3:88 They will abide therein. Their torment will not be lightened and they will not be given any respite -

3:89 Except for those that repent after that, and make amends (by righteous deeds), for, verily God is forgiving, most merciful.

3:90 But surely those who disbelieved after their belief and then went on increasing in their disbelief, never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have gone astray.

4:137 Surely those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe (again) and (again) disbelieve, and go on increasing in disbelief, God will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way.

9:66 Make no excuses. You have disbelieved after your belief. If We pardon some of you, We (may) punish others amongst you, for they are guilty.

9:74 They swear by God that they did not say, but they did say the word of disbelief and they disbelieved after their islam and meditated a plot which they were unable to carry out. And (by this) they avenged nothing except that God and his Messenger had enriched them of his bounty! If they repent, it will be better for them; but if they turn away, God will punish them with a grievous penalty in this world and in the hereafter. And there is none for them on earth as a protector or helper.

16:106 Whoever disbelieved in God after his belief – not he who is forced to do so while his heart is content with faith but he who opens his breast to disbelief - on such wrath from God, and theirs will be a great torment.

16:107 This is because they loved the life of this world more than the hereafter and God does not guide those who disbelieve.

16:108 They are those upon whose hearts, ears, and eyes God has set a seal, and they are heedless.

16:109 No doubt, in the hereafter they will be losers.

47:25 Surely those who have turned back (to their state of kufr) after the guidance was made manifest to them, Shaytan has enticed them and filled them with false hopes.

47:26 This is because they said to those who hate what God has revealed: "We will obey you in part of the matter”. But God knows their secrets.

47:27 Then how (will it be) when the angels take their souls at death, smiting their faces and their backs?

[1] This refers to a decision made by the government of Ontario, Canada, to allow Muslims to settle family and business disputes according to the Shari‘ah, just as the Jews and Christians had been allowed for years to settle similar disputes according to their laws and traditions. But even though the decisions made by the Shari‘ah arbitration were subject to approval by the Ontario courts and going to the arbitration was completely voluntary, there was great hue and cry against the idea of Shari‘ah arbitration. The most negative role was played by some “Muslims” who did not want anything to do with Shari‘ah under any shape or form. Finally, the Ontario government decided to do away with all faith-based arbitration.

[2] Mirza seems to have been encouraged if not produced by the British colonialists, whose hatred of Islam and practice of subversive and divisive activities among Muslims is well known. Their role in creating two of the world’s most dangerous problems – the Israeli problem and the Kashmir problem – and their recent invasion of Iraq as junior partners of the USA war machine are manifestations of the same tendencies among their ruling class.

Mirza’s claims changed over time and he finally settled for the claim that he was both the returned Jesus (may peace be upon him) and Imam Mahdi. These claims have been proved false because Mirza died without achieving any of the main things that Imam Mahdi or the returned Prophet Jesus is expected to do in his lifetime, regardless of whether we refer to Jewish or Christian or Islamic expectations.

[3] Some scholars would assert that even when a Qur`anic list is exhaustive, the Hadith can add new items to the list. For example, in 4:23-24 the Qur`an lists the categories of women with whom marriage is prohibited. After giving the list the Qur`an explicitly says: “All other women are lawful” for marriage. However, there is widespread consensus among scholars on another prohibition: marriage at the same time with a woman and her maternal or paternal aunt. This prohibition is supported by a hadith. But: 1) there are grounds for raising reasonable doubt about the authenticity of this hadith (see my book, Punishment for Adultery in Islam: A Detailed Examination, Chapter 1, Note 5, www.islamicperspective.com); 2) even if the hadith is authentic, prohibition of marriage with a woman and her aunt is a minor detail and is not to be compared with taking the life of a person.

[4] This is applicable equally to those who rebel against a properly constituted Islamic state as to those rulers who force people to disobey the laws of God, e.g. by prohibiting the wearing of hijab or jailing or torturing or executing people for criticising the rulers in the light of Islamic teachings. If Islamic forces get upper hand on such rulers they can be exiled, maimed, crucified or otherwise executed.

[5] This is applicable not only to highway robbers and other armed criminals but also to rulers who by their repressive rule cause corruption in the land and betray Islamic causes.

[6] This verse provides an illustration of the fact that even when the Qur`an explcitly refers to an earlier tradition it improves it. The provision and encouragement to forgive by not retaliating or by accepting ransom is not found in the extant Torah tradition, which only talks of retaliation. See Exodus 21:23-25, Leveticus 24:20 and Deutronomy 19:21. This last passage in fact says: “Show no pity”.

[7] Some Muslims understand the words “there is no compulsion in religion” to mean that even Muslims cannot be obliged to follow the laws of Islam. This is an error. The freedom given in the Qur`an is the freedom to choose a religion. But once a religion has been chosen, a person can be obliged to follow some of its laws (5:43, 47). In particular, once a person has freely chosen to accept Islam, he or she can and in some cases must be obliged to follow its laws. This is similar to the way a person who freely enters a country is obliged to follow the laws of that country.

[8] Here the reader should once again avoid confusion by recalling what was said in the previous note (7).

I SINCERELY DOUBT ANYONE HAS STRUGGLED THROUGH THAT AND I EXPECT MANY MANY MISINTERPERTATIONS AND UGLY MOTIVES ATTACHED WHERE THEY DONT EXIST-
IT IS WHAT IT IS
SALAAMS

Victoria,

today I am overloaded with work and I don't think I will be able to reply till evening, that is, when most Americans are sleeping.

For now I only want to narrow my issue: I am not talking of "treachery and betrayal and active aggression", I am talking of the decision of leaving Islam alone, eventually made public and advertised. I add the RIGHT of inviting other Muslims to leave Islam: this must be allowed, as Muslims are allowed to invite other people to Islam.

The Sunnah of Muhammad speaks of simple apostasy, doesn't mention active aggression or treachery. It, quite simply, says that people who leavs Islam must be killed.
This is a Sahih Hadiths which shows the actions of your prophet, not an article where someone else is voicing his or her opinion; the difference, which is quite big, is that a Sahih Hadith has religious authority, a personal opinion has not.

These are actions of the prophet that because of the verses 33:21 and similars, as a Muslim you are ordered to obey, follow and take as an example. In the Qu'ran which you have to follow because you believe that is the word of Allah pure and eternal and unchanged.

I won't ask you if you would kill an apostate yourself, you already answered no. I ask you what you, and we, can do to prevent other Muslims from doing this, because many, MANY Muslims in the world state clearly that they will kill apostates because Muhammad said so in the Sunna.

This shows that there are good Muslims, like you, and bad Muslims, like the one who threaten others because of their free religious choice.
But why you are good and they are bad? You are good, because you have enough humanity to see that you can't force an opinion on someone by threats of death and violence. They are bad, because they follow what their religion tells them to do.
So as you can see the praecepts, the religion of Islam is the problem; it is Islam that orders to do bad things, the fact that "good" persons don't follow them doesn't make them any better.

In the end, Muslims are as much better as a person depending as less follows the evil and inhumane teachings of Islam.

Yes, exactly what do you mean by calling non-muslims the enemy? Is that how you see the rest of the world outside Islam? If someone leaves Islam and becomes "kufir" in your eyes, then they are the enemy? If they agree with non-muslims then they are agreeing with the enemy for you? So you see all non-muslims as enemies! Yes, "the religion of peace" says if you're one of us - "a muslim" - you're okay, otherwise you are the enemy!

you are misunderstanding- there is voluminous posts onthe subject on mattsons boards- substsntiated and coherent- you havent browsed far enough back
there was a previous ayat quoted that was being discussed-

Victoria avoids the question, giving contradictory statements - "Islam is against killing apostates...Islam kills apostates".

Stanza doesn't know WHO THE HELL he's replying to half the time, as long as he can rant away from his position as the arrogant, ignorant and hateful self-elected master-race thinker that he is.

You mixed up who your quotes Stanza...look for your self...you don't know who said what...as always, you're just plain wrong.

As far as I can see, Both of you are just trying to lie your ways out of an indefencible corner where genocide, oppression and hate colour the views you hold.

What a pair of arrogant, pious, fascists!

I'm sorry, but expressing independace from Islam is NOT the same as "aiding the enemy" in a war...and who exactly is the "ENEMY" as you call them, these who apostates are giving aid to by leaving Islam?

Are non-Muslims "the enemy" for you?

That says it all!

Fern has such a lovely way of viewing things-

always with the best intentions-

salaams

well immanuel perhaps youll have an answer-
or maybe not-

in any case- salaams

(to my oft repeated question i mean)

Fern wrote: "We need to oppose those who would make the vessels dirty without condemning those who are are seeking to fill the vessel with pure "water".

There are too many "pure waters" on sale. The least expensive one is Islam and the "rich" can't afford it.

> Since then I encounter different ways of interpreting the Quran...

That's a key point in reading any scripture. Some Christians are what I would call "Leviticus christians" focusing most of their attention on that book of the old testament versus the Sermon on the Mount. Some try to live their lives according to what Jesus said in the Sermon.

The same is true for Muslims.

Looking around, we see ample evidence that both kinds of Christians and both kinds of Muslims are out there in the world filling books, web pages and their neighborhood with how they see the world.

Literalists read texts and take them literally. Others see symbolic and inner meanings to the texts.

Christianity and Islam are vessels. If someone puts filthy water in the vessel, then there will be a stench. If there is pure water in the vessel, then people will find the result pleasant.

We need to oppose those who would make the vessels dirty without condemning those who are are seeking to fill the vessel with pure "water".

Immanuel you re welcome to be a pcifist- i was a strict pacifist for most of my life- i still actually - i wont kill a bug literally but will take them outside- but you are projecting your own philosophy onto islam- which is a practical way for all humans to live together-

i too wish that there was no such thing s murder and treachery- but there is- choosing to do nothing is still a choice- are you saying that if you lived ina community and someone had access to information and secrets and gave it to your enemy(whether or not you even deserved to have an enemy- maybe they just irrationally hate pacifists) and then came personally to your community and killed your wife and children you would benignly wish tem peace on their way?
so they could go next door and kill your brothers wife or your mother?

im not sure where you are going with this-
i didnt say that 2 wrongs make a right-
i said that this is islamic law set down-

what is your solution?
is not exile humane?
and death seems lke it would prohibit one from further hurting innocents-

im not saying you are a pacifist but i dont know what you think humans should do to deal with this situation-

i have posted extensively on ingrid mattsons site-
now quite plainly immanuel- the issue was exactly an postate guilty of treason-
treasonou and treachorous behavior-
i.e. passing secrets to the enemy and fighting againslt muslims- my computer is messed up and i cant copy- it is knucleheads response above -

so it wasnt about an apostate perse- leaving the relgion was not the punishable offense-

treachery and betrayal and active aggression to muslims was the offense-

no fatwa can be issues today- the caliphate or centralized islamic government and authority collapsed in turkey in 1924 and no sharia or fatwa can be issued period
also on mattsons site ive posted thatbut in length

this is a quick answer to a major misunderstanding on your part-

1) your premise was incorrect- it was not a punishment for apostates but for treason comiited by an apostate-

2) i was pointing out the hypocrisy of the accuser
not making an analogy or justifying the practice

i did not imply it made islam better- only that the rules that the accusing poster lives by are a bit more severe and hence he is not in a position to throw stones

now that you understand the context- perhaps it makes some sense to you-
what is your solution as i posted the question above-

i just saw the fatwa post is above- you must have missed it-

but mostly- the fact that you said you feel like youre talking to a disorting mirror with a smoking machine in the center- ( i assumed you meant me since you wrote my name before the statement)
is not a good way to start a dialogue-

hello answer my questions i think youre a truth distorter-

whether youre aware of it or not- its rather insulting and unnecessary to start like that-

as ive expended a great deal odf energy respectfully and with never a name being called despite overt insults and horrible names -

i feel it is unfair and im trying to explain complex issues as simply as i can and you do me a disservice-
now ive finally asked a question and have answered many many-
so beofre we get into other questions (assuming you retract your unkind allusion to my questionalbe honesty) perhaps you will share with us your superior way of dealing with the analogy stated above.
salaams
ps i was the anonymous that posted above but said so immediately in the following posts

Knucklehead wrote: "Oh, and k i l l i n g apostates is not only Islamically correct - it is mandatory."

OH ABSOLUTELY!!! Now what's your problem, knucklehead? Can't you understand Capital Punishment underlying Islam's principles?

Knucklehead, how does the Geneva Articles presented by you earlier, give the right and command to Capital Punishment in US, unthinkable mass murders of innocent lives, destruction of properties around the world, ethnic cleansing and genocide of entire cities and towns around the world? And you have the courage to pick upon rare cases of apostasy? In Islam, apostates are given indiscriminate warnings before they are capitalized to rest, less they continue to curse, abuse, harm, incite violence, break governing moral rules and laws, which may even lead to war amongst their own people. Don’t like it, then leave or migrate, put up, live with it or simply shut up? GOT IT?

You are not even capable to understand your own footings and here you are accusing Islamic governments. What a joke you are? You seriously need a nipple to suck upon and stop crying. If you can’t find one, then seek help or fill out one of your state services’ applications to provide you with one (you can make a special request if nipples are in shortage).

You've chosen an excellent title that suits you best, and that too, a divine one!!!!!!!!!!!

Richard,

I wrote that, not kuncklehead. Also I don't understand the point of your reply, could please reformulate it?

Anonymous,

your reply does not address our point - in fact, it's a logical fallacy called "tu quoque" - the fact other countries/culture perform injustice doesn't make the Islamic law better. In short words, if I say that A is bad you answer that B too is, it doesn't affect A.

Comparing it to death penalty is of no help either, for death penalty is inflicted on people alleged guilty of severe crime, while stopping being a Muslim is just to stop believing - quite rationally, nonetheless - that Allah is God and Muhammad was a prophet. Or do you think that is right to kill someone for their personal beliefs?

Such gross violation of human dignity, such cruelty is unworthy of being called religious. A true religion based on a true God would not ask the death of apostates. This rule only show how weak and insecure Muhammad was, and consequently, Allah.

Knucklehead, how does the Articles presented above command Capital Punishment in US, unthinkable mass murders of innocent lives and destruction of properties around the world? And you have the courage to pick upon apostacy? You seriously need on nipple to suck upon and stop crying.

You've chosen an excellent title that suits you best, and that too, a divine one!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Oh, and k i l l i n g apostates is not only Islamically correct - it is mandatory."
OH ABSOLUTELY!!! Now what's your problem, knucklehead? Can't you understand Capital Punishment underlying Islam's principles?

You are not even capable to understand your own footings and here you are accusing other governments. What a joke you are?

One more:

Sahih Buukhari Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:

Narrated 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

Oh, and k i l l i n g apostates is not only Islamically correct - it is mandatory. I could quote literally hundreds of Islamic fatwas website claiminig this, even here in Italy were necromonger, pardon Muslim, infiltration is pretty low - but the best proof of this comes from Bukhari's Sahih Hadiths - who has a full chapter named "dealing with apostates"

However:
Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
Narrated 'Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have k i l l e d them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then k i l l him.'"

Just one of many.

Ha ha it worked, it's enough to keep "violent" words away by putting spaces in the middle! However:

Victoria,

I feel like I'm talking to someone in a room with many distorcing mirror and a smoking machine in the center, to steal a brilliant metaphore from Ioshkafutz.

One, simple, question - since we have to start from a, abheit small, common ground:

Do you actually recognize the Sahih Hadiths, the Siraat Rasoul Allah and Tabari's history compendiums as correctly reflecting the life and deeds of Muhammad, that Muhammad whose Qu'ran ordered to follow and take as an example for all Muslims of all times?

If your answer is yes, and I don't see how it could be otherwise given that we don't know much about him out of those texts that the vast majority of Muslims recognizes as accurate since hundreds of years, _how can you claim_ that he was not a fundamentalist?

Simple as that. I'm waiting for your answer.

Knucklehead, how does the Articles presented above command Capital Punishment in US, unthinkable mass murders of innocent lives and destruction of properties around the world? And you have the courage to pick upon apostacy? You seriously need on nipple to suck upon and stop crying.

You've chosen an excellent title that suits you best, and that too, a divine one!!!!!!!!!!!!

knucklehead what are you talkng about genocide for?
non-muslims werent mentioned- it is actions against muslims- it is treason- theres no contradiction there-

hostile actions against islam and muslims- there is no mention of any other religion-or any genocide whatsoever-

passing secrets to the enemy- takes part in fighting against muslims-
this is treason not genocide-

and it punishable by death or exile
in america its punishable by death there is no exile option

miriam-

IBN WARRAQ IS FAITHFREEDOMS DARLING POSTER CHILD-
he is virulently anti-muslim and this is wikipedia

bn Warraq is the pen name of an author of several books on Islam. He currently lives in the United States. He is an outspoken critic of Islam who has written extensively on what he views as the oppressive nature of Islam and religion in general.

The name Ibn Warraq (Arabic ابن وراق, most literally "son of a papermaker") is a pseudonym that has traditionally been adopted by dissident authors throughout the history of Islam.[1] Among the few personal details known about his life is that he was born in 1946 in Rajkot, India, to Indian-Muslim parents who soon emigrated to Pakistan, and that he studied at the University of Edinburgh under the scholar Montgomery Watt.[citation needed]

Ibn Warraq has written several books, covering such topics as the origins of the Qur'an and the life of Muhammad. Other books seek to promote secular humanist values among Muslims. In March 2006 a letter he co-signed entitled MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism with eleven other individuals (most notably Salman Rushdie) was published in response to violent and deadly protests in the Islamic world surrounding the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.[2] Herbert Berg has labelled him polemic and inconsistent in his writing.[3]

Karen Armstrong is a westerner and has written 2 books on the life of Muhammad(pbuh)
perhaps it would be better to read a neutral perspective

but in all honesty- in the imterest of fairplay- i always let people define themselve-
e.g. i read what jewish people have to say about their own religion etc--
and ibn ishaq- stay away form him hes extreme
martin ling also wrote a biography of Muhammad(pbuh)
another westerner-
i think hes easy reading

i would daresay if ibn warraq were my source it would be a deathknell for me too

I posted a response about the k i l l i n g of apostates but it said "waiting for moderatore approval" and has not yet been posted.
Maybe because it contains the "t o k i l l" verb inside it? Is this automatic censorship?

So Islam says it is treason to be anything but a Muslim and actually SAY SO?

Treason? No!

Genocide? yes!

The following is taken from the "Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide"

Genocide:

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide. "

http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm

Thus, the desire to kill, harm or uproot a group, for example non-Muslims or apostates or atheists on the ground of their identity in a religious context, is defined as GENOCIDE and NOT "treason"...

ok?

Hi Mia,

Thanks for your replies and for your personal story. It has helped me realize something that I might have been missing when I have thought about Islam.

It has also brought up more questions that I don't have answers to.

I can see that you have found deep meaning and spirituality in your religion, and that you are not a fundamentalist.

I was brought up in a not very religious Jewish American family. My father was really an atheist, he was not at all interested in what the Bible had to say, but he very much felt culturally and ethnically a Jew. In my early 20's I decided I would read the Old Testament cover to cover to see what was actually in there, although I already knew some of the stories from Jewish Sunday school. So I started reading, and I was somewhat appalled. The ancient Jews were constantly sacrificing animals to God, and they were constantly engaged in warfare. There was a lot of blood in the Old Testament. I only got about 1/3rd of the way through, and decided that I wanted none of it, that this was a religion that I did not want to sign on to. So I went searching and found the teachings of Hazrat Inayat Khan, an Indian Sufi, who spoke of the ideals at the core of all religions.I lived in one of these communities for about 6 years.

We did not engage in many traditional Muslim practices, nor did we think of ourselves as Muslims. But I always assumed that Muhammed was a great religious leader.

About 8 years ago I decided to read a biography of Muhammed. I forget who wrote it. The author was a westerner, and he did not appear to be hostile to his subject, it was just a straightforward account of Muhammed's life. But then I cam to the part in the biography where Muhammed slays 600 men in cold blood. They had already surrendered, they were defenceless, and they were slain. I asked myself, if Muhammed is this holy man as I had always assumed, how could he have done this? Then I decided that my assumptions were wrong, that maybe he was not some holy, ideal man. And I compared him to Jesus, who never did anything remotely similar, and who I do think was a very wonderful human being.

The death knell for my assumptions about who Muhammed was, came when I came across the book about Muhammed by Ibn Warraq. It is barely readable or understandable, which is a shame, but what I have concluded since that book, is that Muhammed was not a holy man, he was a warlord, and all the writings of the Koran came post de facto to justify his political power and conqquests. I realize I might be wrong about this, but to be honest, that is where I am at at this point.

I understand that individual Muslims can find great inspiration in the Koran. The Jews that I grew up with were not bloodthirsty, animal sacrificing beings. They picked the inspiring things from the Old Testament, and ignored the rest of it, and so I assume, one can do the same with the Koran.

Thank you once again for having this conversation with all of us.

re you serious knuckleheaded one?

that is treason.

what is the punishment for treason in america?
is it exile?

is there an option?

no knucklehead it is death

passes secrets to the enemy- takes part in fighting against muslims?

·son /ˈtrizən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tree-zuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
[Origin: 1175–1225; ME tre(i)so(u)n

—Synonyms 1. Treason, sedition mean disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government. Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government. Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense. 2. See disloyalty.
Dictionary.com

ok?

Okay Victoria...which is it?

"it is unislamic to kill an apostate"

OR

"The third type of apostate is one who leaves Islam and then engages in hostile actions against Islam and Muslims, e.g. knowingly engages in propaganda against Islam and Muslims blatantly ignoring facts that he is expected to know well, passes secrets to the enemy, takes part in fighting against the Muslims. Such an apostate can be punished by anything from exile to death"

Becasue YOU WROTE THEM BOTH!

You say "it is unislamic to kill an apostate" and then you say "an apostate can be punished by anything from exile to death".

Which is it?

Your arguments stated off weakly and have declined since then...now you're saying the first thing that comes into you head.

Which is it THIS time?

"To murder an apostate or not to murder and apostate, that is the question"

I have READ the Koran...

i posted on the bottom of ingrid mattsons (the muslim womans) page becaue there is also a discussion going on there)

it is unislamic to kill an apostate
go and read it

the post on dhimmi was in response to ROSS-

i have the incredible good fortune to have been a student of the bible and other religious texts most ofmy life- this is my nature and my interest-

i came to islam on my own- i didnt marry into it- i prayed for 2 years a prayer i wont bother you with-

and study- somy decision tobe a muslim is a conscious one and im very lucky that i havent had many traditions and culturals superstitions to confuse the issue-

itis definitely the intention you bring to it-
forinstance- i notice many here who have bad intentions and somewhat jaundiced eyes in their interpertations of islam- and take the simplest literal sentence without reading the following one- and try to construct some philosophy out of it and then project it on muslims as if this were islam-

let us define ourslelves- we are capable-

what i see are people who are already indoctrinated by the media and they dont even know it- i became muslim 2 years before 911- the next day everyone became an authority on islam!

MIA- read hadeeth and sunnah- make your judgements about the treatment of women from those sources-

immanuel- most emphatically - MUHAMMAD(PBUH) WAS NOT A FUNDAMENTALIST!!!!!

iwill not repeat what ive said onthe other site but you are wlecome to take a look-

i read everyones posts unless they are prohibitively long and unsolicited or simply misrepresentative- (its easy to recognize the old cut and pastes- as a matter of fact- when i do searches often i have to weed through the first page to the second to finally get to a true islamic site written by muslims)
i would suggest that anyone doing a search just go right to the 2nd page for info-

MIA-areyou aware that there are no 72 virigins in the Qur'an? there was some sheikh who came later and created that idea through some crazy reasooning- are tyou reading a translation with footnotes?

i siggest you look up asma baslan(i think thats her last name) unreading patriarchal interpertations-

you will love her-
salaams all

YOURE RIGHT KNUCKLEHEAD- ITS NOTGOOD ENOUGH-'
BECAUSE ITS NOT TRUE
GO READ THE POST

"Victoria wrote:

I really would like to post a paste on apostasy- it is long though- and since no one has read what i posted before- it seems like a waste of time to continue ... ive posted at length articles that ive read and enjoyed an conveyed what islam is- and instead of getting one single intelligent response- someone changes the subject"

The problem with your and Richard Stanza's "arguments" is that you DON'T answer anyone's questions about what happens to apostate men or WOMEN.

What you DO is to refer to Islamic texts, that have neither value nor meaning to anyone but Muslims, that in your opinion justify WHY it is okay to commit the MURDER of apostates and atheists and polytheists...

It's comparable to a Nazi using Hitler's "Mein Kampf" to explain the holocaust and then calling that an "explanation" of Hitler's GENOCIDE without admitting any fault and without stating the fact that GENOCIDE is an act of MURDER and not just a word that is facilitated by reference to some text or other.

You seek to make a normative position of GENOCIDE and it simply won't fly!

"Islam has the RIGHT to murder of atheists and apostates because..." is what you're telling us and you're using you OWN texts from your OWN particular and limited world view as if they WERE the norm...

Not good enough Victoria...nowhere NEAR good enough!

That's not education, that's indoctrination...

Immanuel has an excellent point. When scripture calls for killing nonbelievers, that outweighs any good that may be found in the rest of scripture. This applies to the Bible as well as to the Koran. From my perspective, the God of the Old Testament acts like a murderously abusive father. Maybe the solution is to take the advice of Harris and Dawkins and to view the Bible and Koran not as infallible words of deity but as important cultural artifacts like the Iliad and the Elder Edda.

Hi Immanuel,
I read your post as I'm writing mine, as well as others. Many have similarities. So I guess it's for everyone, and anyone could refer back to my post as it has become public.

Regards
Mia

Dear Mia,

were you referring yourself to my post?

In my family they never teach us to think of the prophets as dishonored men. We believe in thousand of prophets for all kind of people. On the dinner table, the only character being despised was Suharto and cronies. I grew up hating him and now we threw him away after 30 years of totaliarianism.

I do have a lingering problem that these prophets seem do not address women as I wish them to do. But I gradually realise that they were men of their time. Their action is bound within their time, but the basic message of liberation should go beyond that.

If I interpret them the way I wish to be literally, this would be against their central message, that is to reduce their teaching to our limited perception.

So we live in our time into the future. The only way of interpreting their teachings is to apply their universal messages into every man and woman.

Best regards
Mia

So far I didn't addressed any specific issue, other than the treatment on women; I've seen you have spoken of many, including the "myth" of the good treatment of dhimmi - for sake of being on topic however, I will talk about the condition of the woman, by addressing your detailed, well-documented post on wife beating.

But before I comment, I have to make another generic premise:

---

Islam _does_ have good teachings. It wouldn't had such a score of decent, peace-loving persons amidst its ranks if it wouldn't be so.

Like many moderate Muslims, you quote those good verses that speak of tolerance, patience, virtue, _humanity_. But, as I showed and will eventually show yet again in my posts, there are also those "bad", mysoginist, intolerant, violent ones, both in regards of women and other subjects: it cannot be denied that those evil teachings are part of Islam's doctrine at least as much as the "good" ones, for Muhammad himself was a fundamentalist.

So which Islam is right? Doesn't this shows its intrinsec contradiction? Islam, like many other faiths, has a little bit for everyone; the problem is, that this particular faith has a little, or better a lot, also for religious intolerant thugs and despotists who wants to impose their belief with force: just like the emancipated woman who is fighting for women's rights you have quoted, also this kind of nasty people will find plenty of evidence to support their claims.

In the end, Islam's goodness don't makes its evil look any better, and even if it was only once that Muhammad called for killing the non-believers, it would be already 100% too much to be the Word of God.

If someone don't steal for 99 days out of 100 and robs a bank only in the 100th, he is still a thief.
If someone marries 10 women and sleeps with only one 9-years old kid he is not only a potential pervert, he is also a pedophile.
If Muhammad speaks of poetry and nonsense in 99 verses out of 100 and only in the 100th writes that he wants to kill kafirs/polytheists/jews, he is still an evil person calling for murder.

See my point?

Friends,
Like other biblical texts, Quran is not easy to read that's for sure. Yet, it was one of the first book and language I read before my mothers' tounge.

So I've been reading Quran all my life. I always liked to recite it outloud and tried it in different tunes. Singing and chanting, so to speak. It always give us (Muslims) some kind of 'spiritual magic' every time the Quran is rehearsed.

But that didn't mean I liked to 'read' it. When I was young reading the interpretation of the Quran made me depressed. Although there are plenty of 'beautiful words' that will be easily accepted by all of us, yet as a young person I reacted negatively against many things in the text. Why were women subjugated, eye for eye qishas law, all those punishment, 72 angels, fruits and wine in heaven??? etc. Yet, I 'grew religiously' with that, and thinking all along the Quran as 'THE LAW', although I objected to that kind of law. I was torn apart.

In my college years I took an english course where the professor assigned as the required reading some texts from the Bible of King James version. The biblical words sound amazing to me, and took me to tears everytime I read it. For the whole smester I read the Bible in such a way. Somehow that experience made me to read the Quran again in different way. And it will never be the same again the way I 'read' the Quran. I no longer read it as the Book of Law, but the source of spiritual inspirations. I finally found my Quran..

Since then I encounter different ways of interpreting the Quran, there are many books and discussions available these days. The books of Ms Armstrong touch me so completely. I believe, many Muslims owe her this much.

Best regards
Mia

Hi Miriam,
Yes, I did browse through the website and got the idea, because I also read the books it mentioned which is written by Arkoun and Abu Zaid.

I just wanted to correct a bit from your first posting, when you said Quran is written 200 years after Muhammad's death. Quran was encoded just after his death and that hadith is indeed the written form of sunna codified 200 years later. I quoted from the website:

"Uthman convened an editorial committee of sorts that carefully gathered the various pieces of scripture that had been memorized or written down by Muhammad's companions. The result was a
standard written version of the Koran. 'Uthman ordered all incomplete and "imperfect" collections of the Koranic scripture destroyed, and the new version was quickly distributed to the major centers of the rapidly burgeoning empire.

During the next few centuries, while Islam solidified as a religious and political entity, a vast body of exegetical and historical literature evolved to explain the Koran and the rise of Islam, the most important elements of which are hadith, or the collected sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad; sunna, or the body of Islamic social and legal custom; sira, or biographies of the Prophet; and tafsir, or Koranic commentary and explication..."

Miriam I do get your message that many muslims regard Quran by 'text only' and forget the context, to the point that the text becomes 'holy'. The fundamentalists read it as such that they miss the entire points.

And nowadays many muslims try to re-interpret the Quran under different lights. In Indonesia many of us engage in this kind of discussions at home, in the office, in the gatherings, in the neighborhood, in cafes, and mailing lists. And of course, the fundamentalists and the orthodox blantantly oppose to this.

For example, in my family my sister vows to distribute the family inheritance evenly between her daughter and sons. We are very religious family and we are trying to reinterpret our Quran and Hadith progressively. Right now in Indonesia we are engaging in public debates regarding hot polygamy issue. The government finally restrict the polygamy requirement although not banning it.

Do not forget Indonesia is a big predominantly muslim country, 210 million!

best regards
Mia

Interesting, I will continue tomorrow - now it's 1:25 a.m. here.

Victoria,
indeed you posted your sources but could you be a bit more precise? They come for encyclopedia, or have their basis in the Koran or Sunna?
Since I don't know beforehand your degree of knowledge of Islam, I want ot ask you if you are aware of what is considered to be Allah's law according to Islam and what is not.
The names you quoted in your definition of dhimmi are all Hadiths?

Annymous, I wouldn't know if I'm talking to you since you don't sign yourself and you are not the only anonymous here.

b (used with object)
1. to perplex or amaze, esp. by a sudden disturbance or surprise; bewilder; confuse: The complicated directions confounded him.
2. to throw into confusion or disorder: The revolution confounded the people.
3. to throw into increased confusion or disorder.
4. to treat or regard erroneously as identical; mix or associate by mistake: truth confounded with error.
5. to mingle so that the elements cannot be distinguished or separated.
6. to damn (used in mild imprecations): Confound it!
7. to contradict or refute: to confound their arguments.
8. to put to shame; abash.
9. Archaic.
a. to defeat or overthrow.
b. to bring to ruin or naught.
10. Obsolete. to spend uselessly; waste.
[Origin: 1250–1300; ME con

which meaning of confound do you intend immanuel?
to confuse?
to mingle?
or to put to shame?

you are wrong on all accounts-
i do not confuse the doctrine with actions- rather i do the opposite which try to distinguish between the two

i dont mingle doctrine with actions but treat them as two separate entities

and i dont ever put the doctrine of islam to shame although some actions i certainly condemn and put to shame

are you sure you were talking to me?

IMMANUEL- i have posted at length using my own words backed by sources- it wasnt good enough-

i real everything others post and also look at the links- out of respectfor their expression-

i can see you havent read any of what i posted-
everyone screams that im misrepresenting islam and tell them what other muslims say-

so i did-
and now you say its invalid because its a paste-
ive read your pastes-
yes it requires effort to take anothers point of view into consideration

if that effort is too much then it is not directed at you so ignore it

but you forgo your right to criticize and be taken seriously if you dont even bother to try to learn or stretch your mind-
continue to cling to your preconceived ideas and only read that which agrees with them

i have no desire to engage in circular arguments

Richard wrote:

"What "Holy Book" does YOUR terrorist cult leader preach which is a reflection of faithfreedom? Is it the "Golden Rule" of insanity and inhumane deliberations that is tagged onto a wholesale salvation store for beggars to comprehend?"

Richard,

this has few or nothing to do with what I wrote, but since you asked I will answer. I have my beliefs, but I don't mind if someone has different opinions from me - as long as their belief will not lead to damage for other persons.
I follow the Golden Rule, and although my ethic standard is more complex, I believe the GR to be the very minimum praecept to be universally followed and implemented to not fall in chaos and anarchy.

Other than that, I don't fully understand what you mean, but you still did not comment my observation on Islam's evil teachings about women.

Victoria,

copy-pasting big wall of text is of no use in such a debate.
I also noticed, like many others here, that you tend to confound the _doctrine_ of Islam with the _actions_ of its followers.

I will make it clear: I have nothing against Muslims as persons: they are my brothers and sisters in mankind, endowed with the same rights I have.

But, I have a problem with the ideology of Islam, as is taught in the Quran, and lived by Muhammad, and reported by Tabari, Imam Muslim, Imam Bukhari, Ibn-Ishaq, Imam Maududi, Ibn Kathir, ecc. ecc..

That is the doctrine of Islam, and according to their own sources it despises equality, freedom of religion, peace as we mean it, as it teaches hate and violence toward the unbelievers.

Said this, I personally know many Muslims that are good persons and loyal citizen - directly proportional to how much they DON'T follow Islam.

I really wouldlike to post a paste on apostasy- it is long though- and since no one has read what i posted before- it seems like a waste of time to continue-

ive posted at length articles that ive read and enjoyed an conveyed what islam is- and instead of getting one single intelligent response- someone changes the subject-

when i see anothers post- i read all the words- think about it with an open mind- and respond specifically to the text-

i have some very good posts in mind but i think no one will read them- just search them with jaundiced eyes and try and find something ugly- even if they have to make it up-

so why should i waste my effort?

since thereis no response to what ive already taken the trouble to research and present-
i annot assume it will be any different-

others here just wait to say their piece without listeningto anythin that conflicts with their own preconditions-

that is not dialogue

when i post something ans am proven wrong i come back and say to the poster- you are right i was wrong-
that is manners

so if you really want a dialogue stick with the subject and when thats exhausted we can tackle a new one-

Your Guide to Islam.
Definition: A fatwa is an Islamic religious ruling, a scholarly opinion on a matter of Islamic law.

A fatwa is issued by a recognized religious authority in Islam. But since there is no hierarchical priesthood or anything of the sort in Islam, a fatwa is not necessarily "binding" on the faithful. The people who pronounce these rulings are supposed to be knowledgable, and base their rulings in knowledge and wisdom. They need to supply the evidence from Islamic sources for their opinions, and it is not uncommon for scholars to come to different conclusions regarding the same issue.

As Muslims, we look at the opinion, the reputation of the person giving it, the evidence given to support it, and then decide whether to follow it or not. When there are conflicting opinions issued by different scholars, we compare the evidence and then choose the opinion to which our God-given conscience guides us.
----------------------------------

In the majority of Arab countries, however, Islamic law has been codified in each country according to its own rules, and is interpreted by the judicial system according to the national jurisprudence. Fatawa have no place in the system, except to clarify very unusual or subtle points of law for experts (not covered by the provisions of modern civil law), or to give moral authority to a given interpretation of a rule.

In nations where Islamic law is not the basis of law (as is the case in various Asian and African countries), different mujtahids can issue contradictory fatawa. In such cases, Muslims would typically honour the fatwa deriving from the leadership of their religious tradition. For example, Sunni Muslims would favor a Sunni fatwa whereas Shiite would follow a Shi'a one.

There exists no international Islamic authority to settle fiqh issues today, in a legislative sense. The closest such organism is the Islamic Fiqh Academy, (a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)), which has 43 member States. But it can only render fatawa that are not binding on anyone.

[edit] Legal implications of a fatwa

There is a binding rule that saves the fatwa pronouncements from creating judicial havoc, whether within a Muslim country or at the level of the Islamic world in general: it is unanimously agreed that a fatwa is only binding on its author.

there you have it ross- 2 separte sources- the last is wikipedia

ive told you before fatwas have no binding power over any muslim - simply put thereis no centralized islamic government to issue a fatwa-

UNANIMOUSLY AGREED THAT A FATWA IS ONLY BINDING ON ITS AUTHOR-it really cant be clearer than that

Richard,

The above post was my reply.

Why dont you visit FFI to see where its interest lie:
http://www.faithfreedom.org

or perhaps you have already made up your mind about it, in which case you can read this short introduction:
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=2&page=1

"Faith Freedom stands for freedom of faith. We are against Hate, not Faith. We revere human rights not human beliefs. We endeavor to be factually correct, not politically correct."

Ross, YOUR lamented agendas will become a conflict of Faithfreedom International's interests and no use for Islam.

"i do not intend to be misled from the topic- the topic is women in religion"

Okay...more specifically then...on the subject of women in Islam...what happens to women who are apostates, atheist or polytheists in Islam?

I don't know if I can phrase it any simpler.

What does Islam say about WOMEN who become apostate or are atheist or polytheist?

That can't mislead anyone who isn't intent upon being "mislead".

Richard Stanza wrote:
The Internet Police MUST abandon that site which only brings disgrace and embarrassment to world humanity.

Richard an Islamic FATWA against the authors will be more effective.
The charge: Blasphemy against Islam.

Or perhaps start a street protest with signs like
"Behead those who insult islam"

A POWERFUL VOICE FOR WOMEN IN ISLAM SPEAKS-

A’ishah’s legacy
Amina Wadud looks at the struggle for women’s rights within Islam.

I converted to Islam during the second wave feminist movement in the 1970s. I saw everything through a prism of religious euphoria and idealism. Within the Islamic system of thought I have struggled to transform idealism into pragmatic reforms as a scholar and activist. And my main source of inspiration has been Islam’s own primary source — the Qur’an. It is clear to me that the Qur’an aimed to erase all notions of women as subhuman. There are more passages that address issues relating to women — as individuals, in the family, as members of the community — than all other social issues combined. Let’s start with the Qur’anic story of human origins. ‘Man’ is not made in the image of God. Neither is a flawed female helpmate extracted from him as an afterthought or utility. Dualism is the primordial design for all creation: ‘From all (created) things are pairs’ (Q 51:49).

Therefore, when the proto-human soul, self or person (nafs) is brought into existence, its mate (zawj) is already a part of the plan. The two dwell in a state of bliss: the Garden of Eden. They are warned against Satan’s temptation but they forget and eat from the tree. When the Qur’an recounts the event in the Garden, it uses the unique dual form in Arabic grammar showing that both were guilty. The female is never singled out and chastised for being a temptress.

Ultimately, the two seek forgiveness and it is granted. They begin life on earth untainted by a ‘fall’ from grace and with no trace of original sin. On the contrary, in Islam the creation story for humans on earth begins with forgiveness and mercy as well as a most important promise or covenant from God. He/She/It will provide guidance through revelation. Adam is the first prophet.

Furthermore, the Qur’an is emphatic that since Allah is not created then He/She/It cannot be subject to or limited by created characteristics, like gender. That Arabic grammar carries gender markers has led even the best Arab grammarians erroneously to attribute gender to the thing referred to. Modern feminist studies have analyzed this gender bias in language.

Islam brought radical changes regarding women and society, despite the deeply entrenched patriarchy of seventh-century Arabia. The Qur’an provides women with explicit rights to inheritance, independent property, divorce and the right to testify in a court of law. It prohibits wanton violence towards women and girls and is against duress in marriage and community affairs. Women and men equally are required to fulfill all religious duties, and are equally eligible for punishment for misdemeanors. Finally, women are offered the ultimate boon: paradise and proximity to Allah: ‘Whoever does an atom’s weight of good, whether male or female, and is a believer, all such shall enter into Paradise’ (Q 40:40).

In the period immediately following the death of the Prophet, women were active participants at all levels of community affairs — religious, political, social, educational, intellectual. They played key roles in preserving traditions, disseminating knowledge and challenging authority when it went against their understanding of the Qur’an or the prophetic legacy.

The Prophet’s favorite wife A’ishah, from whom the prophet said we should learn ‘half our religion’, was sought after as an advisor to the early jurists. In the famous ‘Battle of the Camel’ she was an army general. The prophet even received revelation while resting his head on her lap. Unfortunately, this period passed before it could establish a pattern sustainable as historical precedent. And the name of A’ishahs cannot erase what was to happen to the status of women in the following thousand years.

During the Abbasid period, when Islam’s foundations were developed, leading scholars and thinkers were exclusively male. They had no experience with revelation first hand, had not known the Prophet directly and were sometimes influenced by intellectual and moral cultures antithetical to Islam.

Female Islamists handed out booklets – written by men – with titles such as ‘The Wisdom behind Islam’s Position on Women’

In particular, they moved away from the Qur’an’s ethical codes for female autonomy to advocate instead women’s subservience, silence and seclusion. If women’s agency was taken into consideration it was with regard to service to men, family and community. Women came to be discussed in law in the same terms as material objects and possessions. (This is today reflected in Pakistan’s rape laws which treat the offense as one of theft of male private property with no consideration for the woman’s rights). Not until the post-colonial 20th century would Muslim women re-emerge as active participants in all areas of Islamic public, political, economic, intellectual, social, cultural and spiritual affairs.

Today Muslim women are striving for greater inclusiveness in many diverse ways, not all of them in agreement with each other. At the Beijing Global Women’s Conference in 1995, nightly attempts to form a Muslim women’s caucus at the NGO forum became screaming sessions. The many different strategies and perspectives just could not be brought to a consensus. On the Left were many secular feminists and activists who, while Muslim themselves, defined Islam on a cultural basis only. Their politics was informed by post-colonialist and Marxist agendas of nationalism. Concrete issues of women’s full equality: standards of education, career opportunities, political participation and representation were understood in Western terms. The cultural imposition of veiling was to them a symbol of women’s backwardness; for them full entry in the public domain and other indicators of liberation were reflected in Western styles of dress.

On the far Right, Muslim male authorities and their female representatives, known as Islamists, spearheaded a reactionary, neo-conservative approach. They identified an ideal Islam as the one lived by the Prophet’s companions and followers at Madinah. All that was required today was to lift that ideal out of the pages of history and graft it on to modernity adopting a complete shari’ah state, unexamined and unquestioned and opposed to modern complexity. Then life would be perfect. There were no inequities towards women because the law was divine and the matter of patriarchal interpretation was irrelevant. Female Islamists representing this viewpoint handed out booklets (written by men) with titles such as ‘The Wisdom behind Islam’s Position on Women’. Although the arguments were not intellectually rigorous or critically substantial they held a substantial sway. Ironically, these arguments would also form part of the rhetoric used by secular feminists to discredit human-rights and social-justice advocates who were in the middle ground, who insisted on fighting from within an Islamic perspective, or who happen to wear hijab.

As the term ‘Islamic feminism’ gained currency in the 1990s through scholars and activists, it would clarify the perspective of a large number of women somewhere between Islamists and secular feminists. While they would not give up their allegiance to Islam as an essential part of self-determination and identity they did critique patriarchal control over the basic Islamic world-view. Islamic feminism did not define these women, and many still reject the term. However, the term helped others to understand the distinction between them and the two dominant approaches for Muslim women’s rights.

Today more women are active in the discussion and reformation of identity than at any other time in human history. By going back to primary sources and interpreting them afresh, women scholars are endeavoring to remove the fetters imposed by centuries of patriarchal interpretation and practice. By questioning underlying presumptions and conclusions they are creating a space in which to think about gender. Drawing upon enduring principles of human rights, enshrined in the text, they extract meanings that can interact with the changing moral and intellectual circumstances of the reader. And women scholars and activists are also busy constructing a system of legal reforms that can be implemented today for the full status of women as moral agents at all levels of human society.

This moral agency is a mandate of the Qur’an and cannot be restricted by any amount of historical precedent, social custom or patriarchal aspiration. The long-term success of this project lies in the fact that it is all happening within Islam. And the rationale for change comes from the most trustworthy and reliable source of Islam itself — the Qur’an.
Amina Wadud

Amina Wadud is an Islamic Studies Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Virginia

as i have respectfully answered- i provided you with a website to go to-

i do not intend to be misled from the topic- the topic is women in religion-

i can only provide a source for you- i cant actually read it for you-

instead of remarking on the posts ive made- you want to dictate to me what subject matter i post on-

i have answered you twice-

if you choose to ignore what ive provided you yourself are responsible-

actually richard stanza answered you already- if you continue to pretend you are not being answrred because the answers dont fit your preconceived prejudices that is not my business.

Thank you for not answering the question, Victoria, it simply confirms my opinion that you have something to be hide on the subject of how apostates, atheists, polytheists are treated in Islam.

I went to the "expert"...I recieved no answer...

At least this implies that you must have some humanity in your heart in order to recognise that the truth would be impossible to justify.

So many words and it's still so hard to hide behind them...isn't it?

AS FOR WIFE BEATING IT IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN-
I HAVE BORNE WITH PATIENCE MANY FALSE ASSERTIONS BY MANY POSTERS- AND HAVE BEEN CRITICIZED FOR NOT RESPONDING

IT WAS OUT OF COURTESY NOT TODOMINATE THE CONVERSATION BECAUSE THE POSTS ARE SO LONG

I REALLY DOUBT THE DETRACTORS WILL ACTUALLY READ THIS BECAUSE I DONT THINK THEY REALLY WANT TO LEARN- BUT ISLAM SHOULD BE REPRESENTED BY MUSLIMS IN CASE THERE ARE ANY THAT BELIEVES THIS OVERT LIES

1- Wife beating is not allowed in Islam!

Wife beating anytime and for any reason is never allowed in Islam. There is however a questionable condition where Allah Almighty seems to allow the husband to beat his wife, and that is after he gives her two warnings to stop showing ill-conduct and disloyalty.

Before we start, I'd like to first say that because Arabic is a complex language, and because Allah Almighty purposely and carefully chose certain words to be placed in certain Noble Verses, I strongly believe that Allah Almighty allowed for the interpretation of NOT beating wives to be valid. In other words, a Muslim man would not be going against Allah Almighty's Divine Will if he doesn't beat his wife, and instead, deserts her by leaving the house and living for instance with his parents for a period of time until the disobedient wife comes back to her senses, which would be as equivalent as the first interpretation, since the end result is the same, which is to discipline the bad wife and to get her back on the Right Path of what makes GOD Almighty satisfied with her.

Let us look at Noble Verses 4:34-36 "(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. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

(35). If ye fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family, and the other from hers; if they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation: For Allah hath full knowledge, and is acquainted with all things.

(36). Serve Allah, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess: For Allah loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious;"

The Arabic word used in Noble Verse 4:34 above is "idribuhunna", which is derived from "daraba" which means "beat". The thing with all of the Arabic words that are derived from the word "daraba" is that they don't necessarily mean "hit". The word "idribuhunna" for instance, could very well mean to "leave" them. It is exactly like telling someone to "beat it" or "drop it" in English.

Allah Almighty used the word "daraba" in Noble Verse 14:24 "Seest thou not how Allah sets (daraba) forth a parable? -- A goodly Word Like a goodly tree, Whose root is firmly fixed, And its branches (reach) To the heavens". "daraba" here meant "give an example". If I say in Arabic "daraba laka mathal", it means "give you an example".

Allah Almighty also used the word "darabtum", which is derived from the word "daraba" in Noble Verse 4:94, which mean to "go abroad" in the sake of Allah Almighty:

"O ye who believe! When ye go abroad (darabtum) In the cause of Allah, Investigate carefully, And say not to anyone Who offers you a salutation: 'Thou art none of a Believer!' Coveting the perishable good Of this life: with Allah Are profits and spoils abundant. Even thus were ye yourselves Before, till Allah conferred On you His favours: therefore Carefully investigate. For Allah is well aware Of all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:94)"

So "daraba" literally means "beat", or "go abroad", or "give" but not in the sense to give something by hand, but rather to give or provide an example.

Important Note: Notice how Allah Almighty in Noble Chapter (Surah) 4 He used "daraba (4:34" and "darabtum (4:94)", which are both derived from the same root. He used both words in the same Chapter, which tells me that "daraba" in Noble Verse 4:34 means to desert or leave, since that's what its derived word meant in Noble Verse 4:94. The next section below will further prove my point.

I am sure there are more Noble Verses that used words derived from "daraba" in the Noble Quran, but these are the only ones I know of so far. In the case of Noble Verse 4:34 where Allah Almighty seems to allow men to hit their wives after the two warnings for ill-conduct and disloyalty, it could very well be that Allah Almighty meant to command the Muslims to "leave" the home all together and desert their wives for a long time in a hope that the wives would then come back to their senses and repent.

2- Noble Verses and Sayings that support the prohibition of any type of wife beating:

The following Noble Verses and Sayings from the Noble Quran and Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him respectively seem to very well support the above interpretation:

"...Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them...(The Noble Quran, 2:231)"

"If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:128)"

Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"

Narrated Mu'awiyah ibn Haydah: "I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2138)"

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: "He who believes in Allah and the Hereafter, if he witnesses any matter he should talk in good terms about it or keep quiet. Act kindly towards woman, for woman is created from a rib, and the most crooked part of the rib is its top. If you attempt to straighten it, you will break it, and if you leave it, its crookedness will remain there. So act kindly towards women. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 008, Number 3468)"

"O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (The Noble Quran, 4:19)"

"And among God's signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect. (The Noble Quran 30:21)"

"Women impure for men impure. And women of purity for men of purity. These are not affected by what people say. For them is forgiveness and an honorable provision. (The Noble Quran 24:26)"

Narrated Abu Huraira: "Allah's Apostle said, 'The strong is not the one who overcomes the people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself while in anger. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab), Volume 8, Book 73, Number 135)"

Narrated Abu Huraira: "A man said to the Prophet , 'Advise me! 'The Prophet said, 'Do not become angry and furious.' The man asked (the same) again and again, and the Prophet said in each case, 'Do not become angry and furious.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab), Volume 8, Book 73, Number 137)"

Abu Huraira reported: "I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: One is not strong because of one's wrestling skillfully. They said: Allah's Messenger, then who is strong? He said: He who controls his anger when he is in a fit of rage. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Virtue, Good Manners and Joining of the Ties of Relationship (Kitab Al-Birr was-Salat-I-wa'l-Adab), Book 032, Number 6314)"

Allah Almighty loves those who restrain anger: "Those who spend (freely), whether in prosperity, or in adversity; who restrain anger, and pardon (all) men; for Allah loves those who do good. (The Noble Quran, 3:134)"

THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT WIFE BEATING IS NOT ALLOWED AND REPULSIVE TO ISLAM

go to toledomuslims divine knuclehead-

as the subject is women i religion i will stay on point- if you really interested that site will help you-

since you didnt comment on the post i made ill assume you didnt read it--

this is why you only go to the source for any information-

the orienalist that miriam quoted seems to be unaware of the solidly documented and widely disseminated histroy that any simple search will supply--

""The Koran is a scripture with a history like any other -- except that we don't know this history and tend to provoke howls of protest when we study it." the howls are not coming from muslims-

History of the Quran

by Syed Abul 'Aala Muadoodi

In this Book, the Holy Prophet's life, the history of the Arabs and the events which occurred during the period of the revelation of the Quran have not been mingled with the Divine Verses, as is the case with the Bible. The Quran is the pure word of God. Not one word therein is not divine. Not a single word has been deleted from its text. The Book has been handed down to our age in its complete and original form since the time of Prophet Muhammad. From the time the Book began to be revealed, the Holy Prophet had dictated its text to the scribes. Whenever some Divine Message was revealed, the Holy Prophet would call a scribe and dictate its words to him. The written text was then read out to the Holy Prophet, who, having satisfied himself that the scribe has committed no error of recording, would put the manuscript in safe custody. The Holy Prophet used to instruct the scribe about the sequence in which a revealed message was to be placed in a particular Surah (chapter). In this manner, the Holy Prophet continued to arrange the text of the Quran in systematic order till the end of the chain of revelations. Again, it was ordained from the beginning of Islam that a recitation of the Holy Quran must be an integral part of worship. Hence the illustrious Companions would commit the Divine verses to memory as soon as they were revealed. Many of them learned the whole text and a far larger number had memorized different portions of it.

Method of preservations of the Quran during the Prophet's time

Besides, those of the Companions (pbut) who were literate used to keep a written record of several portions of the Holy Qur'an. In this manner, the text of the Holy Qur'an had been preserved in four different ways during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (PBUH):

1. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) had the whole text of the Divine Messages from the beginning to the end committed to writing by the scribes of revelations.
2. Many of the Companions learned the whole text of the Qur'an, every syllable of it, by heart.
3. All the illustrious Companions, without an exception, had memorized at least some portions of the Holy Qur'an, for the simple reason that it was obligatory for them to recite it during worship. An estimate of the number of the illustrious Companions may be obtained from the fact that one hundred and forty thousands Companions had participated in the Last Pilgrimage performed by the Holy Prophet (PBUH).
4. A considerable number of the literate Companions kept a private record of the text of the Qur'an and satisfied themselves as to the purity of their record by reading it out to the Holy Prophet (PBUH).

Method of preservations of the Quran after the demise of the Prophet

It is an incontrovertible historical truth that the text of the Holy Qur'an extant today is, syllable for syllable, exactly the same as the Holy Prophet (PBUH) had offered to the world as the Word of God. After the demise of the Holy Prophet, the first Caliph Hadhrat Abu Bakr (PBUH) assembled all the Huffaz and the written records of the Holy Qur'an and with their help had the whole text written in Book form. In the time of Hadhrat 'Uthman (PBUH) copies of this original version were made and officially dispatched to the Capitals of the Islamic World. Two Of these copies exist in the world today, one in Istanbul and the other in Tashkent. Whosoever is so inclined may compare any printed text of the Holy Qur'an with those two copies, he shall find no variation. And how can one expect any discrepancy, when there have existed several million Huffaz in every generation since the time of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and in our own time? Should anyone alter a syllable of the original text of the Qur'an, these Huffaz would at once expose the mistake. In the last century, an Institute of Munich University in Germany collected FORTY-TWO THOUSAND copies of the Holy Qur'an including manuscripts and printed texts produced in each period in the various parts of the Islamic World. Research work was carried out on these texts for half a century, at the end of which the researchers concluded that apart from copying mistakes, there was no discrepancy in the text of these forty-two thousand copies, even though they belonged to the period between the 1st Century Hijra to 14th Century Hijra and had been procured from all parts of the world. This Institute, alas! perished in the bombing attacks on Germany during World War II, but the findings of its research project survived. Another point that must be kept in view is that the word in which the Qur'an was revealed is a living language in our own time. It is still current as the mother tongue of about a hundred million people from Iraq to Morocco. In the non-Arab world too, hundreds of thousands of people study and teach this language.

The grammar of the Arabic language, its lexicon, its phonetic system and its phraseology, have remained intact for fourteen hundred years.

A modern Arabic-speaking person can comprehend the Holy Qur'an with as much proficiency as did the Arabs of fourteen centuries ago. This, then, is an important attribute of Muhammad (PBUH), which is shared by no other Prophet or Leader of Religion. The Book which God revealed to Him for the guidance of mankind is today's in its original language without the slightest alteration in its vocabulary.

"You don't care but yet you do. You don't have a problem but yet you do. You don't want Islam to be forced upon you but yet you "make" them force upon you. It doesn't bother you but yet it bothers you. It doesn't harm your life but yet it harms your life"

I can see by the confusion and bitterness in your words that what I wrote really touched a nerve...

You can't stand that your ideology is without meaning to others and it's driving you insane, right?

If Islam doesn't think, and Muslims do, then try thinking before you post then you won't look so confused and ignorant will you.

"Victoria":

As an "expert" then...tell us all what happens to apostates in Islam?

What does Islam preach about apostates, atheists, polytheists and homosexuals?

Let a Muslim speak for Islam and tell us, Victoria...

Only try telling us all about these things without being highly offensive to us and remember that some of us have read the Koran too.

"Personally, as an atheist, I don't care what a Muslim thinks, believes or feels with regard to him/herself...that's his/her business.

It's what Islam thinks, does and endorses being done to OTHERS that I have a problem with."

Islam doesn't "think", Muslims do!!!

You don't care but yet you do. You don't have a problem but yet you do. You don't want Islam to be forced upon you but yet you "make" them force upon you. It doesn't bother you but yet it bothers you. It doesn't harm your life but yet it harms your life. The Star Trek convention has surely baptized you with a pretty title of "The Divine Knucklehead".

muslim womens league

MWL is a nonprofit American Muslim organization working to implement the values of Islam and thereby reclaim the status of women as free, equal and vital contributors to society.

Search
Adultery
Islamic Analysis of Zina Punishment in Nigeria
Civil Rights
It Could Happen Here
Divorce
An Islamic Perspective on Divorce in Islam
Reflections on Marriage and Divorce in America
Economic Rights
Economic Rights of Women
Gender Equality
Gender Equality in Islam
The Eminence Islam Attaches to Women
General
Issues of Concern for Muslim Women
Health
Adolescence
Cancers
Contraception
Eating Disorders
Female Sexual Dysfunction (FSD)
General Health
Menopause
Menstruation
Mental Health
Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs)
Inheritance
An Islamic Perspective on Inheritance
Legal Rights
Women in the Legal System
Letters to the Editor
MWL's letter to CBS's 60 Minutes
Female Circumcision Ban Nullified
The Veil Returns in Surge of Tradition
Egyptian Woman Scarred by Hate
Marriage
Reflections on Marriage & Divorce in America
Marriage Challenge - How Hard Can it Be?
Media
How Media Forms Perceptions
Middle East
Rule of the Rapists
An Eyewitness Report in Afghanistan
Afghanistan's Taliban: "Not a valid interpretation of Islam"
The Current State of Affairs in Iraq
Political Rights
Women in the Political System
An Islamic Perspective on Women in Politics
Pre-Islamic Arabia
Women in Pre-Islamic Arabia
Quran
Qur'anic References Regarding Women
The Abuse Verse
Religious Persecution
Religious Persecution in Europe
Freedom of Thought, Conscience, Religion or Belief
September 11
Desperate for Ramadan: Seeking Refuge from the Fear and Rage of Sept. 11
Reflections on the Anniversary of Sept. 11
A Silent Victim of 9/11
MWL President's Message
Sexuality
Sex and Sexuality in Islam
An Islamic Perspective on Sexuality
Sexual Harassment
Breaking the Silence
Social Interactions
Social Interaction in Islam
Sources
Intellectual Background: Islamic Sources of Information and their Development into Islamic Law
Spirituality
Spiritual Role of Women
Violence Against Women
An Islamic Perspective on Violence Against Women
Domestic Violence
Honor Killings: An Islamic Perspective
An Islamic Perspective on Female Genital Mutilation
Women's Dress
An Islamic Perspective on Women's Dress
Women's Dress in Dangerous Times
To Veil or Not to Veil, that is the Question
An Identity Reduced to Burka
Home
Publications
MWL
3010 Wilshire Blvd. Suite #519
Los Angeles,CA 90010
(626) 358-0335

Copyright © 1999-2007 Muslim Women's League. All Rights Reserved. This information is protected by the copyright laws of the United States.
Contact us for more information.

The Eminence Islam Attaches To Women

by Harun Yahya

Harun Yahya

The position of women in Islam has recently been an issue of debate. Some misconceptions arise, either from traditional practices which are thought to be "Islamic," but are not, or else from prejudices. However, the real issue is how women are regarded in the Islamic faith, and when we look at this, we see that Islam gives women great social value, freedom and comfort.

Women in the Qur'an

God's commandments about the status of women and the relations between men and women, which have been revealed to us through the Qur'an, consist of full justice. In this regard, Islam suggests equality of rights, responsibilities and duties between the two genders. Islam is based on sympathy, tolerance and respect for human beings, and does not discriminate against women in this matter.

The examples of good morals communicated to us in the Qur'an are universally compatible with human nature, and are valid for all stages of history.

Respect for women and women's rights fall within this. In the Qur'an God insists that the tasks and responsibilities of women are the same as those of men. Furthermore, while performing these tasks and responsibilities men and women must help and support each other:

The men and women of the believers are friends of one another. They command what is right and forbid what is wrong, and establish prayer and pay alms, and obey Allah and His Messenger. They are the people on whom Allah will have mercy. Allah is Almighty, All Wise. (Qur'an, 9:71)

God emphasizes that believers will be rewarded in the same manner according to their deeds, regardless of their gender.

Their Lord responds to them: 'I will not let the deeds of any doer among you go to waste, male or female - you are both the same in that respect... (Qur'an, 3:195)

Anyone who acts rightly, male or female, being a believer, We will give them a good life and We will recompense them according to the best of what they did. (Qur'an, 16:97)

In another verse, Muslim men and women are considered together, and it is stressed that both have the same responsibility and status in God's sight:

Men and women who are Muslims, men and women who are believers, men and women who are obedient, men and women who are truthful, men and women who are steadfast, men and women who are humble, men and women who give alms, men and women who fast, men and women who guard their private parts, men and women who remember Allah much: Allah has prepared forgiveness for them and an immense reward. (Qur'an, 33:35)

In the Qur'an there are many more verses stating that men and women are exactly equal in terms of their tasks and responsibilities and their rewards or punishments in return. There are a few differences in social issues, but these are for the comfort and protection of women. The commands of the Qur'an regard the congenital differences between the two genders resulting from their creation, and suggest a system maintaining equal justice for men and women in this light.

Islam does not see women as objects. Therefore, it is not seen appropriate that a woman of good morals should marry a man of bad morals. In the same way, it is not permitted for a woman of bad morals to marry a man of good morals:

Corrupt women are for corrupt men and corrupt men are for corrupt women, Good women are for good men and good men are for good women. The latter are innocent of what they say. They will have forgiveness and generous provision. (Qur'an, 24:26)

Also as regards marriage, the duties and responsibilities of couples towards each other require equality. God demands that both spouses be protective of and supervise each other. This duty is expressed in the Qur'an in the following words.

They are covers for you and you for them... (Qur'an, 2:187)

Many rules and commandments exist in the Qur'an regarding the protection of women's rights on marriage. Marriage is based on the free will of both parties; the husband has to provide economic support for his wife (4:4); the husband has to look after his ex-wife after divorce (65:6).

The Islamic Emancipation of Women
As the verses make clear, Islam brings justice to male-female relations and puts an end to harmful practices resulting from customs and traditions of pre-Islamic societies. One example is the situation of women in pre-Islamic Arab society. The pagan Arabs regarded women as inferior, and having a daughter was something to be ashamed of. Fathers of daughters sometimes preferred to bury them alive rather than announce their birth. By means of the Qur'an, Allah prohibited this evil tradition and warned that on the Judgment Day such people will definitely have to account for their actions.

In fact, Islam brought with it a great emancipation for women, who were severely persecuted in the pagan era. Prof. Bernard Lewis, known as one of the greatest Western experts on the history of Islam and the Middle East, makes the following comment:

In general, the advent of Islam brought an enormous improvement in the position of women in ancient Arabia, endowing them with property and some other rights, and giving them a measure of protection against ill treatment by their husbands or owners. The killing of female infants, sanctioned by custom in Pagan Arabia, was outlawed by Islam. But the position of women remained poor, and worsened when, in this as in so many other respects, the original message of Islam lost its impetus and was modified under the influence of pre-existing attitudes and customs. 1

Karen Armstrong, another Western expert on Islam, makes the following comment:

We must remember what life had been like for women in the pre-Islamic period when female infanticide was the norm and when women had no rights at all. Like slaves, women were treated as an inferior species, who had no legal existence. In such a primitive world, what Muhammad achieved for women was extraordinary. The very idea that a woman could be witness or could inherit anything at all in her own right was astonishing. 2

In fact, during the many centuries that followed Prophet Muhammad, women of the Islamic societies had a much higher social position than the women of Christendom. Karen Armstrong emphasizes that, during the Middle Ages;

... the Muslims were horrified to see the way Western Christians treated their women in the Crusader states, and Christian scholars denounced Islam for giving too much power to menials like slaves and women. 3

Anna King, a modern Muslim woman and a convert - or, better to say, a revert - to Islam, explains the Islamic emancipation of women as follows:

Islam first gave women their rights in a time when women were nothing but the property of men. Islam gave women the right to buy and sell on their own, own businesses and express her views politically. These were all basic rights which the American woman was not granted until relatively recently! It also encouraged women to study and learn Islamic knowledge, breaking a ban which several religions had stipulated, which forbid women to acquire any religious knowledge or touch religious texts... It also abolished the practice of marrying a woman without her consent. Thus, one would have to be very stubborn indeed to refuse such obvious facts and proofs that Islam was women's first liberator.

The tendencies to see women as "an inferior species" who has no right for education and that must be totally secluded from the society arose much later in the Islamic world, as a result of deviations from the right Qur'anic path.

Conclusion

Thus we can say that the mentality that despises women, excludes them from society and regards them as second class citizens is a wicked pagan attitude which has no place in Islam.

In fact, devout women are depicted as good examples for mankind in the Qur'an. One is Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. Another is the wife of the Egyptian Pharaoh who, despite her husband's wickedness, is also described as an ideal Muslim. (see, 66:11-12) The Qur'an also describes very gentle conversations between the Prophet Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (27:42-44), and between Moses and two young ladies (28:23-26), which symbolize the civilized social relationship between the two genders.

Therefore, it is impossible for a Muslim to have a bigoted approach to women. In a society where true Islamic morals are practiced, immense respect and sympathy will be shown to women, and it will be ensured that they can live in freedom and comfort.

The fundamental rule in Qur'anic exegesis is ensuring that the derived meaning is in conformity with the integrity of the Qur'an. When this is considered, it is seen that all the rules mentioned to us by Allah regarding women form a social structure allowing them to live in the most comfortable and happiest way. In a society where all the moral values mentioned by Islam are practiced comprehensively, the social position of women becomes even more exalted than in societies that we today regard as modern.

Thank you Miriam, for a clear and accurate analysis of the situation!

An orientalist writing that they are too deferential to muslim sensibilities?

and then goes on to be highly offensive?

ive stated many times- it is not really honest to make posts where someone who has antipathy or questionable motives speaks for another-

let muslims speak for themsleves- and christians-for themselves etc...

it seems suddenly everyone with a computer thinks theyve become an expert- but does little more than simple searches to anti-islamic websites and then presents them as some sort of 'proof' against islam.

Hi Mia,

I only quoted one site and that was the one with the article by Toby Lester, which first appeared in the Atlantic magazine. The Atlantic has it in their archives and you have to pay to see it, so that is why I sent the site that I did, where it is free:Here it is again:

http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/quran1.html

From your reply I am not sure if you actually read the article or are just going on what you already know to reply to what I said.

I want to summarize what I think are key points made in that article:
1."The mainly secular effort to reinterpret the Koran -- in part based on textual evidence such as that provided by the Yemeni fragments -- is disturbing and offensive to many Muslims, just as attempts to reinterpret the Bible and the life of Jesus are disturbing and offensive to many conservative Christians. Nevertheless, there are scholars, Muslims among them, who feel that such an effort, which amounts essentially to placing the Koran in history, will provide fuel for an Islamic revival of sorts -- a reappropriation of tradition, a going forward by looking back."

"Placing the Koran in history". So rather than the Koran being the inerrant word of God, it becomes a document created by, possibly inspired, but fallible human beings. BTW, this is what many Jews and Christians have done with their holy texts. The Jesus Seminar is one such group and you can google them and find their website.

2."What the Yemeni Korans seemed to suggest, Puin began to feel, was an EVOLVING(my emphasis) text rather than simply the Word of God as revealed in its entirety to the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century A.D.......The orthodox Muslim view of the Koran as self-evidently the Word of God, perfect and inimitable in message, language, style, and form, is strikingly similar to the fundamentalist Christian notion of the Bible's "inerrancy" and "verbal inspiration" that is still common in many places today."

3.Western scholars of the Koran have perhaps been too deferential to Muslim sensibilities, and are too concerned with being labeled Orientalists:
""The Koran is a scripture with a history like any other -- except that we don't know this history and tend to provoke howls of protest when we study it. Nobody would mind the howls if they came from Westerners, but Westerners feel deferential when the howls come from other people: who are you to tamper with their legacy?"

4.Sincere Muslims who have challenged the view of the Koran as the inerrant view of God, have been persecuted and have had to flee for their lives.

5.Much of the Koran is difficult to understand even for fluent Arabic speakers:
"GERD-R. Puin speaks with disdain about the traditional willingness, on the part of Muslim and Western scholars, to accept the conventional understanding of the Koran. "The Koran claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or 'clear,'" he says. "But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims -- and Orientalists -- will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible."

6. The story in the Koran was created long after the events that happened and projected back into time:
"Wansbrough applied an entire arsenal of what he called the "instruments and techniques" of biblical criticism -- form criticism, source criticism, redaction criticism, and much more -- to the Koranic text. He concluded that the Koran evolved only gradually in the seventh and eighth centuries, during a long period of oral transmission when Jewish and Christian sects were arguing volubly with one another well to the north of Mecca and Medina, in what are now parts of Syria, Jordan, Israel, and Iraq. The reason that no Islamic source material from the first century or so of Islam has survived, Wansbrough concluded, is that it never existed.
To Wansbrough, the Islamic tradition is an example of what is known to biblical scholars as a "salvation history": a theologically and evangelically motivated story of a religion's origins invented late in the day and projected back in time."

Personally, as an atheist, I don't care what a Muslim thinks, believes or feels with regard to him/herself...that's his/her business.

It's what Islam thinks, does and endorses being done to OTHERS that I have a problem with.

It doesn't harm my life is someone wants to believe in various deities, think the world is flat or go to a Star Trek convention and learn to "speak Klingon".

Follow Islam is you must, just DON'T think you have the right to make me do it, or that you have some divine right..and I find this the most amusing of all...to "punish" me for not doing so.

The U.N. universal declaration of human rights is based upon the idea that each human being is a universal subject. That means we each have the right to define ourselves and NOT to be defined by religion or cultural dogma!

If you wish to follow Islam, then follow Islam. DON'T force other to do so. DON'T promote the killing of apostates. DON'T talk about "punishing" the unbeliever for not wanting to believe what you believe.

It's as simple as that!

Immanuel wrote: "The point is, that Islam is a cult created by a terrorist, a man who preached intolerant, hateful ideas and praecepts, who is against freedom of religion and speech"

What "Holy Book" does YOUR terrorist cult leader preach which is a reflection of faithfreedom? Is it the "Golden Rule" of insanity and inhumane deliberations that is tagged onto a wholesale salvation store for beggars to comprehend?

Let as assume that the message of FaithFreedom was one of hate: I don't deny many people there hate Islam, many of them have their personal reason for this - I prefer to say that we /disagree/ with Islam.
However you are just skipping the main point:

The point is, that Islam is a cult created by a terrorist, a man who preached intolerant, hateful ideas and praecepts, who is against freedom of religion and speech, and whose ultimate aim is to submit the whole mankind until "all religion is for Allah alone". This man practiced what he preached and in his holy book ordered to his followers to follow his example.

The (alleged) incitement to violence doesn't change this fact, nor change the evidence that this website brings.

As such, I invite you to stay on topic (and answer my post).

Mark:

"Live and let live"?

Since when did Islam do that?

You are another example of the bigot and fool in perfect combination!

Islam calls for the "punishment" of atheists, polytheists, apostates, homosexuals etc. Is that a lie? Is stating that fact an act of hate? Ask any Imam and he'll tell you it's the truth!

Is it hate for an atheist to oppose those who seek his or her extermination? Is it hate to suggest that Muslims don't have ANY authority to "punish" ANYONE?

You call telling the truth an act of hate? You call objecting to the genocide of apostates and atheists an act of hate?

You make me sick, Mark!

You are one sad, pathetic excuse for a human being!

Very true Mark. I'm glad you observed and would sincerely invite the Washington Post, Karen Armstrong and all others intellectuals to witnessed it. Every thread, every section and in fact the entire site is infected with extreme hatred, jealously, deceit, violence, vulgarity, profanity and bickerings of noisy miserable kids who have chosen this hell-hole as their play grounds. These individuals are certainly not the kind any decent parent would raise them as such.

Richard, i agree with you. Faith freedom international is filled with hatred and bigotry against the adherants of the world's second largest religion. I have visted their forum and the hatred for the Muslim people and their joy at unfortunate acts of violence against them is disgusting, it could lift your faith in humanity if you didnt know these were a tiny group of facist haters who have nothing to do in life.

Live and let live, faith fredom needs to learn the golden rule, i've never seen such horrible people. stay clear if that site.

Richard,

I am the admin of the Italian section of FaithFreedom International; this said, aren't you "imposing your particular view" on us by calling for censorship?

By the way, other than in the forums were indeed there is a lot of unnecessary bashing and unscholarly debates (moderation addresses only personal threats), you won't be able to prove any of your point referred to the articles featured on the main site: we stand for factual accuracy, not political correctness.

More here:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/6.htm

Someone mentioned that site much earlier where I had a chance to browse around. My goodness, much to my dismay, I was literally shocked to read some of the beligerent topics and posts branded and advertised there. I left with the ONLY CONCLUSION, and that is: ignorant, hateful, bigoted, deceitful, bashful and miserable individuals .... the road to juvenile hell. The Internet Police MUST abandon that site which only brings disgrace and embarrassment to world humanity.

Richard Stanza:

Even though killing and/or the oppression on ethnic, religious or political grounds in order to obliterate a belief or ethicity is defined as genocide by the U.N. you still feel the need to promote this stance on apostacy?

The carrying out of acts of barbarity within territorial grounds is not a social and cultural right any more than it was for the Ku Klux Klan. You can do it of course, but it only reflects a lack of the same evolution you seem so incapable of truely understanding.

I have read the Koran and I was quite disapointed, I must say!

What could any civilised culture fear so much that it feels it must oppress, hurt and even kill an individual simply for having his or her own views?

But then again, knowledge, freedom and pride have always been things feared by the ignorant, the weak and the bully.

"stop bickering and creating flames of violence."

Richard,

A Muslim's profession of faith is "la ilaha illah allah muhammad ur rasoul allah" - "there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger".
This means that what Muhammad brought as a message - the Koran - is Allah's word, and must be believed in its entirety.

The vast majority of Muslims agrees to this, e.g., if you don't believe in all the Koran as a whole, you are not a Muslim. They go even further: they believe the Koran to be the written as is today before the beginning of history, word by word, letter by letter, in Arabic.
The Koran is unchangeable, in fact to state that it was changed is a heresy for which people has been killed before.

you also said:
"Get that embedded in your head and don't ever impose westernized rules over eastern cultures."

I never said I want to in my post. But it's a fact that Islam deprives women of their rights as human beings, and consider their dignity inferior to men's - this is what I said.
But I also don't believe in moral relativism, and if someone's beliefs (exercited in freedom of expression and religion) go against the rights of someone else, than this is not good - regardless if this values are western, or not.
Do you agree to the Golden Rule?

"For instance, Quran calls out for "cutting of thief's hands" as a punishment. This is not practiced today,"

This is indeed practiced in countries where the Shar'ia law is upheld, together with stoning of the adultress (not lashing, as the Qu'ran says - because numerous Hadiths report of stoning of adultress ordered by the Prophet Muhammad).

"Besides, it was an ancient practice administered long before Islam came into being, as much of the Quran is penned from previous scriptures. DID YOU KNOW THAT???"

No need to scream, really.
So what? It was a barbarious practice that Islam did not abolish - quite the contrary, it made it mandatory.

"You are not only ignorant but unecessarily hateful"

I don't think I am ignorant, in fact I dare to state to know Islam better than the vast majority of Muslims (it doesn't take that much, roughly 60% of them being illiterate and /or analphabete); and hateful... where exactly I am being hateful? Perhaps, labeling mysoginists and vilifying praecepts for what they are is "hate" in your eyes? I am the hater, or the one who wrote and made mandatory such hateful praecepts?

"stop bickering and creating flames of violence."

Uh?

See the wonderful treatment of women in Islam

*****WARNING********
Please be advised that the images in this video are NOT EASY TO WATCH. They are NOT suitable for children or people with heart conditions. As unfortunate as it is, this brutal and inhumane action is part of the reality in Iran under the rule of the mullahs and we are presenting it here to further expose the atrocities committed by them.

http://www.iran-e-azad.org/stoning/video.html

More here:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/6.htm

To The Divine Knucklehead,

You are mixing the concept of "word of God" to that of "using your senses".

Apostacy is defined within their own territorial religious boundaries, not outside of it. If one doesn't obey THEIR LAW or speaks against it and continues to live within their boundaries, then its an obvious case and must be punished. Every country has its laws: you break it, you get punished, demoted or deported. On the contrary, laws keep chaning or amended for the better, slowly but surely.

Read the BOOK before you make further ignorant claims; stanger as it gets.

Benjamin said, “Christian belief requires one to either accept the book's validity in whole, or not at all….. Either the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God (inclusive of those passages that may not make everyone comfortable) or it becomes the 'Cherry Picker's Bible' and loses its credibility.”

I am always left wondering how anyone who makes a claim for the inerrancy for the Bible can read scripture devoid of their own personal psychological history and/or the baggage of their respective culture. This feat appears to me insurmountable. Even if one were to concede that the Bible was inerrant and that the particular translation chosen was universally agreed upon as perfect, it would amount to little consequence. And the same principle applies to the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita and all the writings of the other great religions as well. Whenever we get caught up defending this or that specific scriptural passage or its interpretation we inevitably fall into the same trap.

It seems to me a false dichotomy to suggest that in matters of religion and spirituality that we have only two choices: our way (from whatever tradition you care to choose) or the wrong way. In fact there are endless ways to walk the spiritual path. Claiming to have the one and only way, regardless of ones religious tradition, may provide some personal comfort, but it is a position that most frequently leads to judgment, intolerance or worse.

As to “cherry picking” the Bible or other sacred texts, this would appear, given the responses above, to be unavoidable. Most, if not all I fear, appear guilty of it.

Speaking directly to the point of how women have been treated by religions through the ages, I’d suggest they’ve been treated about as well as their respective patriarchal societies have treated women generally. This is to suggest, not too well. And after reading all the postings in this thread I must say that discussions about sex and the relations between men and women tend to bring out the darker side of most people. The stridency of the respective positions is a bit disheartening and makes me wonder as to whether progress in this area of the human experience is even possible.

Richard Stanza:

"Majority of Muslims of TODAY have evolved"

Really?

Isn't it true that Muslims consider the Koran to be the true and absolute word of God?

So if, for example, it says in the Koran that a thief's hand should be cut off, and I quote you "Quran calls out for "cutting of thief's hands" as a punishment", then the Muslim who doesn't agree with that is being "decent, moral and peaceful" inspite of the Koran and not because of it?

The decency and morality would seem to stem more from Western secular humanism than totalitarian submission to religious dogma...right?

Decently, morally and peacefully refering to a book that defines non-Muslims as "evil"?

What happens to apostates in Islam? Decently, morally and peacefully speaking?

You seem to be defining your own position as an arrogant, hateful and ignorant bigot as being "decent, moral and peaceful".

What a strange view of the world you have!

Richard Stanza wrote:
as much of the Quran is penned from previous scriptures. DID YOU KNOW THAT???

You'd be sentenced to death for blasphemy in any islamic country if you made a statement like that in public. DID YOU KNOW THAT???

Immanuel,

What Muslim's holy book calls out for is NOT a dominant rule in existence in TOTALITY, although much of it is. Majority of Muslims of TODAY have evolved and are living a decent, moral and peaceful life thoughout the world in accordance to living standards of their own, NOT OF THE WEST. Get that embedded in your head and don't ever impose westernized rules over eastern cultures.

For instance, Quran calls out for "cutting of thief's hands" as a punishment. This is not practiced today, otherwise majority of the Muslims seen today would be handless by now. Even if you did find such cases, they are negligible. Besides, it was an ancient practice administered long before Islam came into being, as much of the Quran is penned from previous scriptures. DID YOU KNOW THAT???

You are not only ignorant but unecessarily hateful and it seems that most of your kind are miserable with your own lives living in a "westernized state". Once again, get over it, get a job, get a life and stop bickering and creating flames of violence.

"The Koran makes it clear that men and women have equal rights and responsibilities."

I can't believe how a famous, acknolwedged person could write such inaccuracies. This statemente is plain wrong, both if we consider the Qu'ran alone and even more so if we take into account the Hadiths.

Islam is not only the Qu'ran, Islam is also the deeds and examples of Muhammad (Sunna). The "Sahih" Hadiths (that is, the ones that are considered since hundreds of years the "true" accounts on the life of Muhammad, which are used even today to legiferate and promulgate the Shar'ia) are among the most mysoginist religious praecepts to have ever existed.

In it, the women are called deficient in intelligence (because the Qu'ran says that a woman is worth half a man when witnessing on a court - nice example of circular logic) and in religion (because they cannot pray well during menses); it is said that hell-dwellers will be mostly women, that women are bad omen together with house and horse, that a woman who refuses sex to her husband is cursed by angels all the night.

The Qu'ran alone gives Muslims permission to rape the female captives of war(4:24), clearly states that men are superior to women(2:228), consider them like completely subject to their husband's will (2:223), who can beat them if they are rebellious (4:34).

This Karen Armostrong is politically correct to the point of being able to lie to herself, in order to avoid "offending people's sensibilities".

Having read the Koran, I can only wonder at why the Islamic mind must construct the identity of the Muslim by means of the vilification of the "unbeliever". It starts in the second surah and continues. The unbeliever is produced in the Islamic discourse as "evil" as a "disease" as being "worthy of terrible punishment" all in order to construct Islamic identity via binary oppostion, i.e. the Muslim is produced as all the things (good) that stand in opposition to the unbeliever (evil). The non-Muslim is instantly stigmatised and defined as evil in itself, not by any action or crime but simply by the act of non-belief. Is it evil to not believe the things you believe? Should one construct a religious and social system on that premise? Are these the "beliefs" that modernity fails to satisfy? The need to measure one's self by hatred of "the other"?

Karen Armstrong said:
The 7th century Koran gave women rights of inheritance and divorce that women in the West would not get until the 19th century

LIE. The koran gives women half the inheritence of a man. And it also gives them half the testimony of a man in court.

Karen Armstrong said:
There is nothing in the Koran to suggest that all women should be veiled and secluded from society. Only the Prophet's wives were to be covered.

True. However the koran ALSO states, MANY times that good muslims emulate their "prophet" So if the "prophet's" wives are to covered up than it follows the muslim's wives be covered up.

Karen Armstrong said:
this was a security measure. Muhammad's postion in Medina was very insecure and his enemies were harrassing his wives

ANOTHER LIE. Muhammad's position in medina was infact VERY secure. The REAL reason for this was because of one of muhammad's peeping tom friends. He watched one of muhammad's wives take a dump if Im not mistaken.

So basicly muhammad lies the responsibility OF NOT GETTING SEXUALLY HARRASED on the women's shoulders instead of scolding the peeping tom. What a hypocrite.

Karen Armstrong said:
But the other Muslim women were not veiled and took a full and lively part in the life of the city.

ANOTHER LIE.

Bakhari V1 B9 #486:
Aisha: you make us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys.

Aisha also states that the muslim women have it harder than non-muslim women.

Also, does this sound like it is liberating to women, THIS IS IN THE QURAN RIGHT NOW.
Quran 4:34: As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, and BEAT THEM.

I dont know what books you have been reading but your views on islam ARE EXTREMELY DISLOCATED.

Islam is called the religion of peace. Can a Christian or Atheist aid worker who spoonfeeds Sub Saharian starvelings even set foot in Medina or the Mecca? No. Only Muslims are allowed in. That is tribality, a way of saying: the worst of ours is still better than the best of yours.

There are 28 regional wars involving Islam versus other religions, wars against Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, etc. Nigeria, Sudan, Israel, India, Thailand, Philippines. Quite a track record for a religon of brotherhood and peace.

In the physical capitals of sunni and shia Islam, what is honestly the condition of women? In the former women aren't even allowed to drive. In the other they must dress in black chadors. This is liberation? Respect? Intelligence? Honesty?

All Islamic countries are undemocratic. After 1400 years and lots of pressure, lots of "religious volume", prayers from the minarets, month long ramadams, death or social death for apostasy, proibition against the teaching of other faiths, etc. the results of the Islamic ethos are undeniable. And indefensible.

War, oppression, 50% of humanity (women) denied basic rights, death for apostasy... What's Ms. Armstrong defending? Islam honors women? The religion)s) of Hijabs, chadors, burquas honor women? The Koran tells men to till them like fields and to even "scourge" them and to marry up to four of them and to divorce them with a "talaq talaq talaq" and Islam honors women?

Hello, Ms. Armstrong, hellooooo! Is anybody home?

You and your ilk make unecessary and unsubstantial exaggerations and conjectural historical claims to defame and demean the Muslim world. You people are a disgrace and an embarrassment unto yourselves and the entire world society for creating mischief, hatred and violence. You should be punished and thrown behind bars if you continue to make problems for humanity. Put up, live with it and stop bickering.

Victoria

May I point out that every time you chose the easy way out by shoving aside any evidence and/or critique that doesn't suit you as 'false'', 'wrong site', 'wrong people'.

How can you deny the facts of Islam history which was out for secular power through wars from the beginning with that Caliphate, and at the head a murderous 'prophet'who allready intended to attack India but couldn't because he died. The facts are all there for eveybody to read.

As a muslim historian says: 'muslims can deny their history of wars and invasions but that doesn't mean it goes away".(writes Nahed Selim)

You idealise the "Ottoman empire" well let me tell you that that was established through brutal wars. The Ottoman Empire was One Big War Machine, the Turks were feared for their cruelty, and their use of sex-slaves shut-up for life in their 'harems'. If you don't believe me go and look at their concubine quarters in the Topkapi palace in Islanbul; and ask the Hungarians what they think about the mountains of skulls piled-up because of Turkish cruelte; and other people in the Balkans, and of the course the Greeks.

Also remember that other sultans and sheikhs ultimately kept thousands of women imprisoned in their harems; and there are hardly any other religions in Islamic countries; in some they are not allowed at all; and in all they are oppressed.

The through Islam conquered peoples in Lebanon, India, Persia, Irak .... know their own history fas better than a 'Victoria' who ónly wants to idealise her 'religion' and its history - agáinst all evidence that Islam was established through war and invasions and enforced conversions.

If you want an Islam Theocracy, you want dictatorship and the oppression under 'One rule for all'of people - and you may ask yourself why you want that e.g. do you want to be one of the women as in Iran who belong to the 'decency police' and who pull at women's clothes to make sure they are 'properly dressed the Islamic way' and if not report them to the police who shuts them up in jails; and some of which dangle from the gallows?

Or would you like to live in S.A., Afghanistan were the sharia is in full fling, women are second class citizens and live in Hell on earth?

And no I do not 'live in an Islamic country'(thank God for that on my bare knees!) but I have been in many including Afghanistan wherein, SHAME on Islam, millions of muslim women bear the brunt of 'decency laws' as enforced by Islam's Virgin Cult.

NONE of you muslims, nor anyone else, have any proof whatsoever how the sura's and the rest of the Quran came about as there is no authenticated archaeological evidence even to proof that that Caliphate ever existed. The first Quran wasn't published untill some 100 years after the death of Muhammed, and before that contradictory sura's were in circulation. Question is who chose the right or the wrong sura's some of which muslims admit they don't know if they are 'from the hand of Muhammed'.

The sura's were written in Qurashi dialect, then translated into High Arabic, but scientists now discover that all of the Quran is not even 'pure Arabic' but that sentences and words have been (wrongly!) translated from Hebrew, Aramaic (language of Jesus-Christ) and even Greek. And of course those Islam Arabs needed to try and destroy Christianity and Judaisme so that they could jusify looting their Holy Books for Islam; and without that looting hardly any 'Islam'!

And it is not about your 'kindness and humor' but about the despicable cruel, intolerant, discriminating, hating 'Allah'/Quran and hadiths, and that Totalitarian Secular/Theocratic Dictatorship Islam.

You never answer questions as obviously you don't wánt to read/understand what other people write e.g. I have asked you why the respected muslims Bukhari, Muslim and Sirat Rasul Alla write these dreadfull stories about your 'prophet' e.g. that he had a poet and young girls murdered; and why such stories do not exist about Jesus-Christ.

You try to convince us with hand-picked sura's about the rights of women in Islam - but prefer not to read the other sura's/hadieths which contradict these - apart from their proof - the abyssmal situation of millions of muslim women in Islamic countries.

Denying this won't get you anywhere Victoria!

I therefore suggest that you carefully read and think about what people say and not pull the wool over your ówn head in order not to see the truth.

Ross wrote:
"The west (or other non muslim countries) has no such problems with people of any religion living on their land. BUT CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY NON MUSLIMS DO NOT HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS ON MUSLIM COUNTRIES ? Please look up the word DHIMMI."

Sure they do. Every country has its own constitution and hence governing laws which must be obeyed in accordance to their rules. You cannot expect a westernized girl running around in bikini or mini-skirts in Islamic countries, for example, yet they are "free" to wear any "modest" dress without having to wear a hijab. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Dhimmi has nothing to do with Muslims of TODAY. "jizya" tax everyone must pay if one lives, works and utilizes the countries resources regardless of citizenship for their own protection. It is exactly the same case as in US and other countries.

You and your ilk make unecessary and unsubstantial exaggerations and conjectural historical claims to defame and demean the Muslim world. You people are a disgrace and an embarrassment unto yourselves and the entire world society for creating mischief, hatred and violence. You should be punished and thrown behind bars if you continue to make problems for humanity. Put up, live with it and stop bickering.

Miriam, quoting from your line:
"A lot of research points to the Koran having been compiled from fragments of Jewish, Christian and other ancient texts about 200 years after Muhammed's death. Which means that the Koran is NOT the word of God as heard by Muhammed."

From the sites you recommended, as well as the general opinion, the text which was written 200 hundred years after Muhammad's death is called HADITS. Hadis is the selected written text from SUNNA. Sunna is the living tradition of the Prophet and his companions with was already deeply embedded in Arabia by that time.

Quran itself was compiled a few years following Muhammad's death, during Khalifa Utsman, also from your recommended site, and the general consensus.

Hadis is regarded as 'the supporting text' for Quran when doing the intrepretation. Hadis is indeed (a written) tradition, and not the revelation itself. Talking about women, there are plenty of hadiths which contains mysoginist attitude toward women which violates the central message of Quran.

If there are similarities of Quranic-Hadits teaching with older religions, indeed Muhammad never claimed to bring a new religion, the central message is just the same like other religions.

Best regards
Mia

The following link is an excellent article about the possible origins of the Koran. It was originally published in The Atlantic magazine in 1999. Unfortunately, I have not seen a similar article about more current research. I can only suppose that scholars are afraid to publish more recent research. A lot of research points to the Koran having been compiled from fragments of Jewish, Christian and other ancient texts about 200 years after Muhammed's death. Which means that the Koran is NOT the word of God as heard by Muhammed.
http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/quran1.html

Anna - thank you for your bravery and independence of mind. You are NOT a hate monger as some on this site would have it, but life has brought you to a point where you see clearly. It is better to see the bitter truth than live a rose-colored life of lies.

> i think when hatred is the impetus behind thoughts it poisons the mind beyond any capability of
> rational and objective conveyance

Victoria, that's exactly true. When more positive impulses are present, we can have an interesting discussion of the good and bad that have been and are present in all cultures. We can also talk about what Karen Armstrong brought up - that in all religions the role of women specifically is improving. Of course there are setbacks like the Taliban, but in general the role of women is changing for the better if much too slowly in places like Saudi Arabia.

Over the years, I've debated with an Islamist who lives in England and is a member of Hizb ut Tahrir, which some consider an extremist organization. We have our areas of fundamental disagreement, to be sure. But I was surprised about how strongly he promoted the role of women including lauding his sister who is a successful professional.

ANNA- i dont bother attacking peoples beliefs or views because it is tacky and unkind- and i am secure in my own-

you have posted info from a lebanese christian in australia- its an anti-muslim site- that is its only reason for being-

ive engaged you with humor and kindness-

im sorry youre stuck in a muslim country right now and this provides you with some outlet for your frustration-
but it doesnt validate your hatred-

it must be a deeper issue with you and thats your business-

as stated above-
hatred poisons the mind beyond the capacity for objective reasoning-

i only let people represenrt themsleves-\

your posts are questionable because their sources are not practicing muslims.

salaams

Victoria

Quote: "for instance a non- muslim lived in islamic society enjoying its social and infrastructure services- the tax paid was less than the taxes paid by americans- everyone pays taxes- a non- muslim was under the protectorate of their society- and was exempt from military service- however if they wanted to serve in the militarty- their taxes were not paid"

A Theocracy (Islam or otherwise) is állways a dictatorship wherein the particular laws of that óne religion are applied to everybody - whether they like it or not - and dissent is not possible. Islam is potentially as dangerous and fascistic as Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China .... and in fact the Quran has been compared to Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'.

One present-day example is the Theocracy of 'Allah' in Iran where muslims and others are dangling from the gallows (including young women!) for having 'sinned against decency', for 'being homosexual', for 'offending Islam' all punished according to Allah's 'sharia' and with a tiny minority of other, persecuted, religions allowed. Iran has only abolished stoning to death for 'adultery' under pressure of the international community, but in countries like Sudan, North Nigeria and Afghanistan stoning to death still occurs. Dhimmies have to pay móre tax than muslims, and muslim rule in Spain (yet another invasion by Islam!) has been idealised in favour of Islam. The Islam Turks úsed, fórced christians to fight in their army! And in Istanboel thousands of christians were murdered (I'll give you that history some other time).

Here follows two examples of what réally happened during 10 centuries of Islam conquests and rule, and brings in the points you make about the 'just'(LOL!) treatment of christians and other dhimmies':

http://phoenicia.org/persecution1860.html

Libanon:
"630 Two years before Muhammad’s death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a report that a huge army had amassed to attack Arabia, but the report turned out to be a false rumor. The Byzantine army never materialized. He turned around and went home, but not before extracting “agreements” from northern tribes. They could enjoy the “privilege” of living under Islamic “protection” (read: not be attacked by Islam), if they paid a tax (jizya).

This tax sets the stage for Muhammad’s and the later Caliphs’ policies. If the attacked city or region did not want to convert to Islam, then they paid a jizya tax. If they converted, then they paid a zakat tax. Either way, money flowed back to the Islamic treasury in Arabia or to the local Muslim governor.

632-634 Under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr the Muslim Crusaders reconquer and sometimes conquer for the first time the polytheists of Arabia. These Arab polytheists had to convert to Islam or die. They did not have the choice of remaining in their faith and paying a tax. Islam does not allow for religious freedom. .......

From The Rise of Islam to The Massacres of Badr Khan Beg
650 A.D.
Many monks and ascetics were killed by the army of Sa'd along the Byzentine border, especially in the monastery called "The daughters of Five Churches" at Ra's Ayn (in modern Syria). (Michael G. Morony, Iraq after the Moslem Conquest, 1984, P. 379, Also J.B. Chabot, CSCO, Scr. Syri 56, Louvain, 1937)
661-680 A.D.
During the Patriarchate of Mar Gewargis I, the Ummayad Caliph Muawiyyah demanded gold from the Patriarch. The Patriarch refused and was imprisoned. The Christians were persecuted and their churches were destroyed.

686-701 A.D.
During the Patriarchate of Mar Khnanishu I, the Caliph Abd al-Malik imprisons and tortures the Patriarch and places another bishop in his place. Abd al-Malik was the first to insist on the collection of the poll tax from the Christians.

737 A.D.
The Caliph Mahdi decrees that all churches built since the Muslim conquest be destroyed. Over 5000 Christians from Halab were forced to accept Islam or death.

852-858 A.D.
During the Patriarchate of Mar Theodosius, the caliph Mutawakkil persecuted the Christians. He imprisoned the Patriarch on the false suspicion of spying for the Byzantines, and he decreed that the Christians should wear special badges as a sign of degradation.

873 A.D.
The famous Assyrian physician and translator, Hunayn Bar Iskhaq, was executed by the order of Caliph Mutawakkil.

884-892 A.D.
During the Patriarchate of Mar Youhannan III a mob of Arabs attacked and plundered the monastery of Dakil Ishu.

987-1000 A.D.
During the Patriarchate of Mar Mari, the Arabs of Baghdad rioted against the Christians and destroyed the church of Mart Maryam and the monastery of Dakil Ishu.

1014 A.D.
During the reign of Caliph Qadir, the Muslims sacked the houses of the Christians in Baghdad, and destroyed and burned down many of their churches. The Caliph, at the same time, destroyed the church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem, and other churches in the same city. The Caliph ordered the town criers or heralds in each place to announce that, according to the will of the ruler, all his subjects should embrace his religion. The Christians and the Jews who did so should be rewarded; if they resisted, and did not change their religion, they should be punished. They were not allowed to have rings on their right hand, nor ride on a horse (only on donkeys). If they disregarded the order, their whole property was forfeited to the state, and they were expelled from the country. Many Christians emigrated to the Roman territory, others embraced Islam, but a great number remained and defied the ordinance. They wore crosses of gold and silver around their neck to show their religion. The Caliph ordered that every Christian who wore a cross of gold or silver should have it exchanged for a wooden one, weighing 4 pounds. If they resisted, they should be put to death.

1020-1025 A.D.
During the Patriarchate of Mar Ishuyabh IV, Kurds attacked Edessa and carried of 3000 captives.

1072-1092 A.D.

During the Patriarchate of Mar Abdisho II, the soldiers of Sultan Toghrel Beg sacked the monastery of Kamul and killed 20 monks.

1231 A.D.
Mar denosios Saliba II murdered during a Kurdish attack in Tur Abdin, Turkey. Mar Denosios preached the Syriac orthodox theology in Bartilla, Iraq untill he was above 80 years old. (Habib Hanona, The Church of the East in the Nineveh Plain, 1991, P. 130)

1258 A.D.
Although Hulaku Khan spared the Christians of Baghdad when he sacked the city, he was persuaded by some Arabs that the Assyrians of Tikreet were disloyal. Consequently, one of every twenty men was put to death and his children were taken prisoner.

1261 A.D.: The coming of the Kurds
Thousands of Assyrians flee the Nineveh plains villages of Bartillah, Bakhdida (Qaraqosh), Badna, Basihra, Karmlis towards Arbil to escape the overwhelming numbers of Kurds who were ordered by King Salih Isma'il to emigrate from the mountains of Turkey to the Nineveh plains. The villages were looted and thousands who did not reach Arbil were butchered by the newcomers. The nuns' monastery in Bakhdida (Qarqosh) was invaded and it's inhabitants were brutally massacered. (Bar Hebraius, Summary of the History of the lands, Arabic edition P. 492-497)

1268 A.D.
The sultan of Egypt seized Antioch, in Syria, in the month of June. All men were killed, churches torn down and many children carried into captivity. Mar Khnanishu, bishop of Gazarta, was sent to prison and condemned to death. He was stoned to death and his body was hanged on the gates of the city.

1285 A.D.
Arabs and Kurds attack Arbela, killing, looting and destroying the houses of the Assyrian inhabitants. Isa Bar Mokates (an Assyrian), the governor of Arbela, is hung by his feet and burned alive.

1288 A.D.
According to the 12th century Bar Hibraius, a battle took place among the Kurds and Tatars near the village of Bakhdida (Qaraqosh). At its end, the kurds chose 12 of the bravest and best looking young men from the village and killed them to show their strength and secure their presence. (Bar Hebraius, Syriac Civic History, Arabic edition P. 516)

1289 A.D.
Kurds attack over 70 Assyrian towns. Over 500 men are killed and 1000 children are carried away into captivity.

1295 A.D.
Kazan Khan, a mongol ruler, orders the demolition of churches in Mesopotamia. Mar Yabhalaha, Patriarch of the Assyrian Church, is imprisoned and tortured by Arabs; the church of Mar Shalita is destroyed. Here is a description of how the Holy Patriarch was treated: The Catholicos [Patriarch] was buffeted the whole night long by those who had seized him. And in respect of the venerable men who were with him, the Arabs tied some of them up naked with ropes; others cast aside their apparel and took to flight, and others cast themselves down from high places and perished. And they suspended the Catholicos by a rope, head downwards, and they took a cloth used for cleaning and they put ashes in it, and tied it over his mouth, and one prodded him in the breast with a skewer, saying, 'abandon this faith of yours so that you will not die; become a Muslim and you shall be saved'. And then a great tumult took place, and the peoples of the Arabs came with a great rush to destroy the great church of Mar Shalita, the holy martyr, and they destroyed it.

1297 A.D.
Ala Al-Din, son of Jaja, a mongol, marches against the city of Amedia in Assyria and conducts massacres, burns churches, and carries away over 12,000 Assyrians into captivity.

1310 A.D.
Arabs, with the help of the Mongols, capture Arbela and massacre all of the inhabitants that could not be sold as slaves. Here is a description of the event:"'And they [Assyrians] went out at daybreak on the Sabbath, with their sons, and daughters, and wives, without any weapon, and without a sword, and without a knife, and when the wicked people of the Arabs saw that they had come down, they were filled with a fierce passion, and they drew their swords, and they slew them from the greatest of them to the least, without pity and without fear". Of those who held out in the fortress: "Famine vanquished them completely! Widows stretched out their hands and wept, and there was none to bind up what was broken. And there was absolutely no one to bury the dead. Who was there who had strength enough to dig a grave? Orphans died on the dung heaps. Others fell down dead in their houses and dried up, and others hurled themselves down from the wall, and those [Arabs] who were below received them on their swords, and hacked them to pieces. Their visages are blacker than ashes, and they cannot be recognized. Their skins have shrunk on their bones, and have dried up, and become like wood. Far happier are those who have been slain by the sword than those who have been slain by hunger".

1324 A.D.
The Bakhdida (Qaraqosh) village is attacked Many homes as well as, 4 churches were burnt. (Habib Hanona, The Church of the East in the Nineveh Plain, 1992, P. 139)

1361 A.D.
Mar Gregorios Bit Qinaya who was exiled from Bartillah, Iraq moves to Baghdad where he was killed. (Isaac Armalah, Abna' Al-Zamaan, Lebanon, 1924, P. 43)

1369-1400 A.D.: The Coming of Timurlane
The origins of the Assyrian mountaineers in the inaccessible Hakkari region, as well as the disappearance of the Christians of Central and Northern Asia can be attributed to the coming of that scourge of humanity, Timur, known in the West as Timurlane, a corruption of "Timur

lenk" (Timur the Lame). He "was a fanatical Muhammadan," says John Stewart, "who was bitterly opposed to everything Christian. . .he pitilessly harassed Christians who would not renounce their faith."

A Turkish tribal leader who claimed decent from Genghis Khan, Timur established his power in 1369 by usurping Chagatni Khan in Samarkand. By 1380, he had directed his armies to Persia. Thirteen years later, he established his reign over Mesopotamia and Persia. After taking the city of Isfahan he ordered the construction of pyramids of over 70,000 human heads, and on the ruins of Baghdad his army built a pyramid of 90,000 heads. The Assyrian Christian city of Tikrit was besieged for weeks by an army of 72,000. As soon as it fell to Timur's army the entire city was devastated with its inhabitants killed.

Timur continued to march north and plundered and murdered thousands of Christians on the way. When all was done, the Assyrian Christian empire was left in ruins, with their Church of the East pushed back to Assyria and its mountains. "Christianity received no support from the feeble Il-Khans of the 14th century, and though details are wanting, it is quite certain that the Christians were cruelly persecuted; the goods of their merchants were confiscated, their churches were destroyed, and those who refused to accept Islam and could not escape were slain. . .Before the end of the 14th century Christians had practically ceased to exist in Persia, Central Asia, and China. In 1392-93, Timurlane captured Baghdad, and nameless atrocities were committed by his soldiers in the city; the Christians who managed to escape fled for their lives to the mountains of Kurdistan and the districts near Mosul." (The Monks of Kublai Khan, pp. 91-92)

1578 A.D.
A kurdish force of 10,000 attacked the Assyrian city of Urmi [in Iran], and killed, looted and carried off over 1000 Assyrian prisoners. Soon after this, the Turkish Pasha of Rawandoz sacked the villages of Alqosh and Tel Kepe, and pillaged the monastery of Rabban Hormizd, killing many monks and one bishop.

and so on ..with the more or less same story for Egypt, Libanon, India, Persia, Hungary .....

"when the europeans were killing the mentally ill because they believed they were possessed by devils- the ottoman empire was curing the mentally ill with music therapy"

Well, now it is the reverse and wé have to rescue mentally ill muslim children from their backward muslim parents.

Quote: but you havent seen me attack or belittle anyones beliefs or views"

You don't have to bother as the Quran/hadiths do that for you!

i think when hatred is the impetus behind thoughts it poisons the mind beyond any capability of rational and objective conveyance

Ross the only thing youve posted about dhimmi is by bat ye'or a self confessed muslim hater- her works and her scolarship have been discredited by real scholars.

you cant ignore someones motivations- if i wrote a hateful diatribe about christians for example- one would be within their rights to question the validity of my scholarship.

but you havent seen me attack or belittle anyones beliefs or views-
i will however stand up for my own views

bit i dont pretend to be objective as does bat ye'or
who always states that she is an egyptian- but is a jewish writer and has an agenda.

im not saying all jewish people hate muslims or vice versa- but she has personally expressed publicly her hatred of islam.

so lease dont bother to post her hate literature as fact

youll notice that i neve post an opinion of one for another

if i post a hindu scripture for example- i only use hindu sources

if there is an exegesis posted it would be a hindu commenting on their own text

texts written by a person who claims to hate those she is writing about is by any standards- corrupted by their subjective opinion

for instance a non- muslim lived in islamic society enjoying its social and infrastructure services- the tax paid was less than the taxes paid by americans- everyone pays taxes- a non- muslim was under the protectorate of their society- and was exempt from military service- however if they wanted to serve in the militarty- their taxes were not paid-

everyone at that time in history when there were under the protection of someone

for instance the ottoman empire was based on islamic rules- and rescued most of the jewish people from the catholic genocide- giving them the land of smyrna(now Izmir).

do we have any other examples of one culture rescuing another from genocide?

when the europeans were killing the mentally ill because they believed they were possessed by devils- the ottoman empire was curing the mentally ill with music therapy-

peace

for 1000 yearsin spain jewish people lived and flourished under muslim rule
more than a 1000 i india- otherwise all indians would be muslims now wouldnt they? but theyre not- theyre hindus because they were let to their religion
the ottoman empire had jewish people in the highest levels odf its government and was known for its education

The People of Dhimma
Dhimmies, or the People of Dhimmas, are Jews and Christians who live under Islamic government. Unlike what many people think, Dhimma is not a derogatory term at all. In fact, the word Dhimma means promise. This is because these people are promised to live peacefully and be protected under Islamic law. In fact, Prophet Muhammad made this very clear in his Hadeeth [Prophetic statements]:
1. "Whoever harms a Dhimmi, then he has harmed me. Whoever harmed me, then he has harmed God" [Tabarani]
2. "Whoever harms a Dhimmi then I will be his opponent. Whoever I'm his opponent, I will defeat him on the Day of Judgment" [al-Khateeb].
3. "Whoever oppresses a person of contract [Dhimmi], or he takes some of his rights, or overburden him, or takes something from him without consent, then I will be his opponent on the Day of Judgment" [Abu Dawud].
The Muslims scholars expounded on these rules. For example, al-Qarafi, a Maliki [one branch of Islamic law] scholar said, "The contract of Dhimma necessitates responsibilities upon us because they [Jews and Christians] are in our protection, our promise, the promise of God, the promise of his Prophet, and the religion of Islam. So whoever attacks them even by an evil word, backbiting their honor, or any kind of harm, or he assisted in such, then he has forsaken the promise of God, His Prophet, and the religion of Islam" [al-Furooq]. Ibn Hazm, a Dhahiri [another branch of Islamic law] scholar, said, "If someone was under Dhimma law, and the enemy came to our land looking after him, then it becomes obligatory upon us that we come out and fight them and that we die before they get to him. This is to protect the person who is in the protection of God and His Messenger. To turn him to his enemy is negligence of the contract of Dhimma" [Maraatib al-Ijmaa'].

WELL THERE YOU HAVE THE TRUTH
a muslim will die to protect the dhimm

Long live patriarchy

RICHARD wrote:
Muslims living in western countries have "THEIR RIGHTS" to live in accordance to what is termed "free societies" in as much as is "YOUR RIGHTS". You have NO RIGHT to harrass, disgrace and demean them of their moral ethnic values. This is the LAW OF THE LAND which you yourselves have disobeyed. Speaks volumes. Put up, live with it and stop bickering.

The west (or other non muslim countries) has no such problems with people of any religion living on their land. BUT CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY NON MUSLIMS DO NOT HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS ON MUSLIM COUNTRIES ? Please look up the word DHIMMI.

After reading quite a few posts, I went back to reread what Karen Armstrong actually wrote. Too many people ignore what she wrote.

I for one applaud her comments. Rather than buying the fear, hatred and "They're the evil enemy" comments being 'sold' here, I buy and support hers. Her comments offer a path forward. The others are a recipe for terrible wars.

Richard Stanza

Let is to be know to you that I feel deeply, deeply OFFENDED by EVERYTHING Islam stands for, but unfortunately our governments were so stupid to allow Islam, our enemy from her beginning, into our countries.

Whát "rights" of muslims? To blatanly offend us with their islam displays, to threathen us with violence in our own countries, to MISUSE the freedom of religion wé (and not Islam!) established dressed in their offending headscarves and niqaab's, and with óur London, Paris, Amsterdam packed with muslim scarves, jellabah's, and mosques!

Muslim have shown no respect whátsoever for our cultures, preach Apartheid; and that with in their own countries persecution to murder of christians and with their 'Allah' who orders christians to be "destroyed"!

Ms Armsstrong please pay attention. TKH says that to know lies is to believe them else you don't know them, "A true theologian has faith." TKH is surely going to hell, the land of the ignorant. How ignorant?

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul tells us TKH has sold h/er soul and is most likely a Moses imitator leading as many as possible to hell. Remember TKH, the leader gets to wherever the herd is going first. You are leading and not driving the sheep to slaughter, one of the sheep yourself?

Nit-picking exclusive Muslim cases from news media to vent your points across on its totality is sheer ignorance, hatred and bigotry having perverted minds. I have personally met few Muslims and have known countless others, most of whom are morally and ethically sound, intelligent, knowledgeable and wise, FAR better than westernized culture as a WHOLE. History is not even close to their current affairs, but more so depicts on people like yourselves. Muslims living in western countries have "THEIR RIGHTS" to live in accordance to what is termed "free societies" in as much as is "YOUR RIGHTS". You have NO RIGHT to harrass, disgrace and demean them of their moral ethnic values. This is the LAW OF THE LAND which you yourselves have disobeyed. Speaks volumes. Put up, live with it and stop bickering.

TKH

On the dót! Karin Armstrong is indeed 'adding ignorance to the masses'! How can ány serious researcher/theologian put Jesus-Christ, the Buddha, and Muhammed on óne and the same spiritual value line as based on Karin Armstrong's babbles, and with Buddhist nuns 'who are getting more rights, muslims women are getting more rights, and christian women are getting more rights' - leaving a VAST gap concerning theological and religeous-sociological differences.

The following for Victoria who idealises Islam from a person who went to live in an Islamic country, as copied from another forum and which confirms what I wrote earlier but now 'from the horses mouth':

"I hope the forum will understand if I have to be a little vague on personal details as I live in an Islamic country with a high degree of surveillance of its citizens and residents and a strong inclination toward chopping off heads.

I am a Christian by birth but have long been rather agnostic when it came to the details of the religion. I am a Westerner who works in a Muslim country as a contractor and I have been here for nearly two years now.

What has struck me most about the Muslims here has been their depravity. I understand that all men are dogs and it is something that I try to control out of respect and kindness for the female gender. But Muslim men have a ready excuse to indulge all kinds of depravity by example of the Prophet.

The Prophet made small girls lawful, quick marriages for lustful men and quickie divorces are lawful FOR MEN, additional wives so husbands don't get too bored with one old hag, and of course the right to rape one's slaves/servants. Masha'allah! What man wouldn't want to be a part of this religion!!!

Then there is anger. I have never been in a place where people are so unkind and discourteous to one another yet almost all are "brother Muslims." Many of the Muslim men keep video files on their cell-phones that show executions and beheadings. They LOVE THEM! They show them to each other and laugh. They try to show them to me but I turn away.

I have listened to many try to convince me of all the people I need to hate. I need to hate Jews, Shiites, prostitutes, Americans, Hindus, apostates, Africans and any dark-skinned people in general. They have an unlimited number of enemies.

Simply being here has cause me to become agitated and hostile. I work hard to control this personal anger and understand now more than ever how important the Christian message really is. Islam is corrosive to the soul. I used to believe that Islam was part of the grand Abrahamic tradition. I used to believe that it was misunderstood and maligned by Islamophobes in the West. But my time in several Islamic countries now has shown me the light. Islam is an evil cult."

Ms. Armstrong, your commentary only adds ignorance to the needy masses. A true theologian has faith and adds clarity while seeking ultimate truth. You should take time here on earth to undo what you have done and continue to do in irresponsible commentaries such as this one.

Crime is worse in muslim countries and the worst offenders in western countries are muslims, this is evident from the large proportion of muslim prisoner when compared to the population. In muslim countries many crimes and not even tried nor are the offenders arrested, for example a raped woman needs four witnesses to prove the rape.

Richard Stanza

Beware of the lies used to foster islam as ídeal and without sin'as domestic violence, drugs, prostitution, crimes are rampant álso in Islamic countries - except that these do not publish statistics.

Note that in my country women's refuges are pácked with mostly muslim women fleeing from violence at home. And of course few (if any) women's refuges exist in Islamic countries where women have few rights, are treated like second-class citizens, cán't divorce because 'the husband earns the money' and where only the middle-classes have been to school.....

Muslim women in the West who say that: 'they are not raped because of their headscarf' must be joking as the Taliban raped little girls, women under chador's, and the same happens in Iraq and Iran, ....ánd in the 'holy land of the prophet' were muslim women who have come to work there from e.g. Indonesia are raped and return home traumatised.

Don't forget that in áll Islamic countries censureship is normal and e.g. in Pakistan the authorities didn't back-up the woman who was gang-raped - untill she exposed this crime to the Western press.

Read also this:

http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2678
Iran's Sex Slaves Suffer Hideously Under Mullahs

"A measure of Islamic fundamentalists' success in controlling society is the depth and totality with which they suppress the freedom and rights of women. In Iran for 25 years, the ruling mullahs have enforced humiliating and sadistic rules and punishments on women and girls, enslaving them in a gender apartheid system of segregation, forced veiling, second-class status, lashing and stoning to death.

Joining a global trend, the fundamentalists have added another way to dehumanize women and girls: buying and selling them for prostitution. Exact numbers of victims are impossible to obtain, but according to an official source in Tehran, there has been a 635 percent increase in the number of teen-age girls in prostitution. The magnitude of this statistic conveys how rapidly this form of abuse has grown. In Tehran, there are an estimated 84,000 women and girls in prostitution, many of them are on the streets, others are in the 250 brothels that reportedly operate in the city. The trade is also international: Thousands of Iranian women and girls have been sold into sexual slavery abroad.

The head of Iran's Interpol bureau believes that the sex-slave trade is one of the most profitable activities in Iran today. This criminal trade is not conducted outside the knowledge and participation of the ruling fundamentalists. Government officials themselves are involved in buying, selling and sexually abusing women and girls.

Many of the girls come from impoverished rural areas. Drug addiction is epidemic throughout Iran, and some addicted parents sell their children to support their habits. High unemployment -- 28 percent for youth 15 to 29 years of age, and 43 percent for women 15 to 20 years of age -- is a serious factor in driving restless youth to accept risky offers for work. Slave traders take advantage of any opportunity in which women and children are vulnerable. For example, following the recent earthquake in Bam, orphaned girls have been kidnapped and taken to a known slave market in Tehran where Iranian and foreign traders meet.

Popular destinations for victims of the slave trade are the Arab countries in the Persian Gulf. According to the head of the Tehran province judiciary, traffickers target girls between 13 and 17, although there are reports of some girls as young as 8 and 10, to send to Arab countries. One ring was discovered after an 18-year-old girl escaped from a basement where a group of girls were held before being sent to Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. The number of Iranian women and girls who are deported from Persian Gulf countries indicates the magnitude of the trade. Upon their return to Iran, the Islamic fundamentalists blame the victims, and often physically punish and imprison them. The women are examined to determine if they have engaged in "immoral activity." Based on the findings, officials can ban them from leaving the country again.

Police have uncovered a number of prostitution and slavery rings operating from Tehran that have sold girls to France, Britain and Turkey as well. One network based in Turkey bought smuggled Iranian women and girls, gave them fake passports, and transported them to European and Persian Gulf countries. In one case, a 16-year-old girl was smuggled to Turkey, and then sold to a 58-year-old European national for $20,000.

In the northeastern Iranian province of Khorasan, local police report that girls are being sold to Pakistani men as sex slaves. The Pakistani men marry the girls, ranging in age from 12 to 20, and then sell them to brothels called "Kharabat" in Pakistan. One network was caught contacting poor families around Mashad and offering to marry girls. The girls were then taken through Afghanistan to Pakistan where they were sold to brothels.

In the southeastern border province of Sistan Baluchestan, thousands of Iranian girls reportedly have been sold to Afghan men. Their final destinations are unknown.

One factor contributing to the increase in prostitution and the sex-slave trade is the number of teen girls who are running away from home. The girls are rebelling against fundamentalist-imposed restrictions on their freedom, domestic abuse and parental drug addictions. Unfortunately, in their flight to freedom, the girls find more abuse and exploitation. Ninety percent of girls who run away from home will end up in prostitution. As a result of runaways, in Tehran alone there are an estimated 25,000 street children, most of them girls. Pimps prey upon street children, runaways and vulnerable high-school girls in city parks. In one case, a woman was discovered selling Iranian girls to men in Persian Gulf countries; for four years, she had hunted down runaway girls and sold them. She even sold her own daughter for $11,000.

Given the totalitarian rule in Iran, most organized activities are known to the authorities. The exposure of sex-slave networks in Iran has shown that many mullahs and officials are involved in the sexual exploitation and trade of women and girls. Women report that in order to have a judge approve a divorce they have to have sex with him. Women who are arrested for prostitution say they must have sex with the arresting officer. There are reports of police locating young women for sex for the wealthy and powerful mullahs.

In cities, shelters have been set up to provide assistance for runaways. Officials who run these shelters are often corrupt; they run prostitution rings using the girls from the shelter. For example in Karaj, the former head of a Revolutionary Tribunal and seven other senior officials were arrested in connection with a prostitution ring that used 12- to 18-year-old girls from a shelter called the Center of Islamic Orientation.

Other instances of corruption abound. There was a judge in Karaj who was involved in a network that identified young girls to be sold abroad. And in Qom, the center for religious training in Iran, when a prostitution ring was broken up, some of the people arrested were from government agencies, including the Department of Justice.

The ruling fundamentalists have differing opinions on their official position on the sex trade: deny and hide it or recognize and accommodate it. In 2002, a BBC journalist was deported for taking photographs of prostitutes. Officials told her: "We are deporting you ... because you have taken pictures of prostitutes. This is not a true reflection of life in our Islamic Republic. We don't have prostitutes." Yet, earlier the same year, officials of the Social Department of the Interior Ministry suggested legalizing prostitution as a way to manage it and control the spread of HIV. They proposed setting up brothels, called "morality houses," and using the traditional religious custom of temporary marriage, in which a couple can marry for a short period of time, even an hour, to facilitate prostitution. Islamic fundamentalists' ideology and practices are adaptable when it comes to controlling and using women.

Some may think a thriving sex trade in a theocracy with clerics acting as pimps is a contradiction in a country founded and ruled by Islamic fundamentalists. In fact, this is not a contradiction. First, exploitation and repression of women are closely associated. Both exist where women, individually or collectively, are denied freedom and rights. Second, the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran are not simply conservative Muslims. Islamic fundamentalism is a political movement with a political ideology that considers women inherently inferior in intellectual and moral capacity. Fundamentalists hate women's minds and bodies. Selling women and girls for prostitution is just the dehumanizing complement to forcing women and girls to cover their bodies and hair with the veil.

In a religious dictatorship like Iran, one cannot appeal to the rule of law for justice for women and girls. Women and girls have no guarantees of freedom and rights, and no expectation of respect or dignity from the Islamic fundamentalists. Only the end of the Iranian regime will free women and girls from all the forms of slavery they suffer.

Dr. Donna M. Hughes is a professor and holds the Carlson Endowed Chair in Women's Studies at the University of Rhode Island. She wishes to acknowledge the Iranian human-rights and pro-democracy activists who contributed information for this article.

If readers have information on prostitution and the sex-slave trade in Iran, contact Hughes at dhughes@uri.edu.

Read more at: www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/.

What upset me most in Karin Armstrong is that she present various religion in a Women's Weekly way = 'happy go lucky they are all the same'.

How simplistic can you get! Yet people who think no further, also believe that The Da Vinci Code is true, swallow what she says wholesale - particularly, and understandably muslims, who need all the help they can get to justify their abjective 'religion'!

What's the point of such a STUPID LAW where a criminal leaves his own home to live in yet another (westernized prison)? Need to take control of crimes, then hand the criminal over to a Muslim. No wonder Muslim countries have the lowest overall crime rates than any Non-Muslim or Western countries. As a matter of fact, Karen Armstrong and many such intellectuals speak The "irrevocable" Truth, from social, political, religious and historical standpoints combined.

Richard Stanza wrote:
Yet it surmounts to highest crime rates statistically of all non-western countries combined inclusive of punishments!!!

That's because western coutries keep statistics, in most muslim countries women cannot even register a complain !

Here's some of the replies a western muslim women abused by her arab husband in a country like saudi is likely receive:

ARAB-IN-LAWS: You do not satisfy his needs, anyways western woman are known to have loose morals so we are not surprised if you did something to annoy him.

POLICE: Abused ? Ha, Ha, Ha .... you are not supposed to be here without a male relative... ( they call her husband to pick her up ).

LOCAL IMAN: This is all part of the relationship. In islam he is allowed to beat you if you do not behave.... (Then he quotes some more of those nice quran verses).

AMERICAN EMBASSY: You should have read our website before moving with your husband to an islamic country, since you are his spouse you are automatically a citizen of this country I'm afraid we cannot help you.

AT THE AIRPORT (trying to escape): The visa on your passport shows you are married to a muslim, so we cannot allow you to board without a letter from your spouse.

HUSBAND: (More abuse here) I cant believe you complained against me. BTW next week I'm getting engeged to my cousin Shabnam, the marriage will be two months later.

The wife by now has lost all hope and resorts strictly praying 5 times a day and reading some of the peaceful verses from the quran (cause it is the only book around) to convince herself for all those sacrifices she'll be rewarded in paradise by allah and will end up beside her husband with his reward of 72 houris and Shabnam of course.

"DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS FORBIDDEN AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW IN WESTERN COUNTRIES! BASTA and end of discussion!"

Yet it surmounts to highest crime rates statistically of all non-western countries combined inclusive of punishments!!!

Victoria

For heaven's sake step out of the 7th century!
We have éverything and more than those Arab laws which we do not need at áll and which are archaic and obsolete.

Cant you see how ridiculous it is to debate 'whether or not a husband is allowed to hit his wife softly or not'ín the 21st century?

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS FORBIDDEN AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW IN WESTERN COUNTRIES! BASTA and end of discussion!

Considering 'a muslim man IS being allowed to hit his disobedient wife:-
a) he has to reason with her
b) he's allowed to deny her his bed'; and
c) if the disobedient wife still doesn't want to listen the husband may hit her.

In the particular sura the verb "dharban" is used and here it's definition:

"the verb "dharban" is exactly the same verb used in the statement that tells muslims to strike their enemies above the neck- ie, behead them. If you remember the Nick Berg case, you may recall that not only is beheading an extremely greusome, it also requires an exceptionally hard strike. There is absolutely no reason to believe that dharban means light anything- everytime the word is used in the Quran as strike, it implies extreme force or violence.

It is also the same root verb used in the verse about chopping off the fingers of enemy soldiers. "light tap that leaves no mark " How could anyone arrive at that nonsens! Unfortunately, people in Arabic speaking nations understand what dharban and all its derivative words mean and you cant fool them with this apologist nonsense about "light tap that leaves no mark". They strike like the Quran says to strike."

What concerns: "from an islamic perspective...
HAVING SEX WITH YOUR SPOUSE IS ACTUALLY CONSIDERED AN ACT OF WORSHIP.

Muhammed with his 12 wives (or more?) must have done an awfull lot of 'worshipping'. 'LOL'!

Quote: "the Prophet(pbuh) never hit any woman, child or animal. He was in 2 wars so i dont know about men."

Let me help you out of that dream as your 'prophet' raped women himself, and allowed the rape of women prisoners of war by his soldiers:

"The following is the story of Safiyah Bint Huyeiy Ibn Akhtab, the Jewish woman who was captured when Muhammad’s troops attacked Kheibar and brought her to the Prophet as part of his share of the booty.
This story, is reported in the Book of Tabaqat Safiyah was seventeen and very beautiful when Muslims killed her father, husband and many of her relatives. In the same day the Prophet of Allah wanted to sleep with her. Here is the exact text of the story:

She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of the Prophet the whole night. When, in the early dawn, the Prophet saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: "I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account".

The Prophet prayed for Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (Ibn Hisham, p. 766) Safiyah had requested the Prophet to wait till he had gone a stage away from Khaibar. "Why?" asked the Prophet. "I was afraid for you on account of the Jews who still happened to be near at Khaibar!"

The reason Safiyah rejected the sexual advances of the 57-year-old Muhammad should be obvious to any objective person. I believe most women prefer to mourn than jump into bed with the killer of their father, husband and many relatives on the same day of their death. But the fact that the prophet of Allah could not contain his sexual urges for one day to let this young girl grieve, says a lot of his thinking and moral character.

“The next day a Walima (wedding-feast) was arranged on behalf of the Prophet…

Note that the historian is saying that the wedding took place one day after the prophet got private with Safiyah and made his moves to have sex with her. This presented no problem for the Muhammad as he had his Allah reveal a verse personally agreeable to himself saying it is okay to sleep with women captured in war without marrying them even if they are married.
“And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess…” (Qur'an 4:24 )

Raping female captives with permission of the 'prophet':

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri,
Quote: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them.
So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."

Sahih Bukhari: Volume 9, Book 93, Number 506: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri,
Quote: That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interrupt us.
The Prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection....."

Victoria this a sincere warning for you:

Islam is nót a religion but an evil Saitanic cult. In fact Allah/Djibriel/prophet form the Unholy Trinity of Islam and are the Antichrist as predicted in the New Testament with Muhammed 'the False Prophet' Gog and Magog out to destroy the world.

You don't have to believe me just read carefully what Muhammed says which demonstrate that he was working for the Prince and the Power of the Air, the Lord of Devils, the Prince of Darkness, the Great Deceiver, the Adversary—Satan:

Ishaq:510 “When the Apostle looked down on Khaybar he told his Companions, ‘O Allah, Lord of the heavens and what they overshadow, and Lord of the Devils and what into error they throw, and Lord of the winds and what they winnow, we ask Thee for the booty of this town and its people. We take refuge in Thee from its evil and the evil of its people. Forward in the name of Allah.'

Not to mentioned the prophet's: 'Satain's Sura's' which Islam wisely 'forgot to include in the Quran'.

Disagree. One can not make a reliable commentary from a few episodes in history taken out of context. It amounts to sensationalism for reasons other than the sake of truth. We should be more responsible in our approach to teaching the masses.

Excellent work by Armstrong. I must confess that she seems naturally gifted with the wisdom to understand the gist of religious matters, in this case, Islam. Afterall, she is an intelligent, knowledgeable and a specialist in theology, unlike many wannabies here. Keep up the good works and continue enlightening the boastful, the grunting and the ill-hearted masses.

Regrettably, Karin Armstrong has caused untold damage to moral, ethical and religeous 'Veritas' by having her books published.

Karen Armstrong (as does Islam) claims that Islam is a 'natural development, a continuation of the Abrahamic religions: Judaisme & Christianity.

That cannot be true because:
a) Islam is nothing more than a Heresy which came about OUTSIDE Judaisme and Christianity (two existing monotheistische religions as the time of Muhammed)

b) 'Allah' waged a full-on war on Judaisme and Christianity (and Jews and christians), in fact attempted a coup wherein Állah' tried to destroy both religions in favour of his new ARABIC religion - and that through large-scale but falsified plagerisme of the Holy Books of others.

c) It makes no sense at all that YWH of the Jews in Judaisme, who had allways spoken directly to the Jews also when YHW was angry with them; would change his mind, turn away from his Chosen People the Jews; chose an analphabetic non-Jew to be 'his last messenger'; then curse the Jews, and tell his 'muslims': 'to kill them wherever you can find them'.

d) In de Quran a number of ludricous mistakes about Judaisme and Christianity e.g.:
'Moses was Mary's mother';
'Mary is one of the Trinity'
Mary is therefore 'a Goddess in Christianity';
'Abraham went to Mecca to lay the foundation stones for the Kabah'

The mind boggles! Why would Abraham, a Jew in Judaisme and long dead when Islam appeared, wánt to go to Mecca to lay the foundation stone for a HEATHEN temple'?

Thoss Arabs didn't have a monotheitic tradition they could fall back on (and the sura's too few for a complete religion) and therefore ruthlessly attacked and misused Judaisme and Christianity to their Islam ends.

That Karin Armstrong doesn't realise the húge misdeeds of 'Allah' in the Quran truly amazes me, ór has her hatred for christianity born out of her experiences as a nun hcompletely veiled her intellect?

Unfortunately this means that Karen Armstrong condones the ruthless attack by the cruel, intolerant, discriminating 'Allah' on the Greatest Humanist, Socialist, Reformer of 'la condition humaine' Jesus-Christ.
Jesus in the Quran is an insult to Jesus-Christ if only because Jesus-Christ is a true Man of Peace which the secular War Lord and murderer of people Muhammed never was!

Jesus in the Quran is ruthlessly used by 'Allah' to his ówn ends also to facilitate conversion of christians to Islam: 'your Jesus is also in the Quran'. But that is nót Jesus-CHRIST of Christendom but an insulted, degraded and blasphemed Jesus-CHRIST.In fact the Spiritually DEAD God of Christendom - as replaced by the 'Allah' the ARAB god in favour of Islam.

Islam/Allah has stooped into grossly unenthical depth by insulting other religions including blasphemy. 'Allah', in a very deliberate and calculating way, tries to destroy Christianity by attacking her PIVOTAL Spirituality:

1) Gabriel was the angel who Announced the Birth of Jesus-Christ to Mary and can therefore be considered the Beginning of Christianity.

2) According to Islam Djibriel 'came back after 600 years to tell Muhammed that he had lied to Mary'(!!!) - and announces the Beginning of Islam.
But Gabriel álso (and 'mysteriously'?) has changed character and from the Sweet Angel in Christianity has changed into Djibriel a sectarian hating warmonger out to destroy people.

The use of Gabriel from 'Beginning of Christianity' to 'Beginning of Islam' clearly shows the destruction Islam intended for christianity; as is of course Islam's denying Jesus-Christ's Crucifiction and blaspheming the God/Messias of Christendom.

After having tried to destroy Christianity and Judaisme, and having cursed and threathened Christians and Jews with death and destruction, 'Allah' dares to turn around and say that he: 'accepts the people of the Book'! Which 'Book'- except the Holy Books of christians and Jews which do not belong to the Arabic Islam and were grossly misused by Islam?

That Karen Armstrong can defend Islam I'm at a loss to understand, and that she even finds excuses for a 'prophet' who by no standards of decency can be considered a 'holy man'is a complete mystery.

I hope therefore that Karin Armstrong be so kind to explain to us who she thinks 'Christians' are as according to the very Islam/Quran she defends these do not exist at all.

hello angel. indifference is not hostility it is self-defense. our bodies have hard wired drives which we must develop controls for. looking at your picture for example, forces me to exercise on of my own and move on. God Bless you child.

I was wondering on which verses, in the Koran, Ms Armstrong is basing her statement "The Koran makes it clear that men and women have equal rights and responsibilities"? The reason why I wonder this is because there are numerous verses in the Koran that contradict this.

For example:

Al-Baqara (2:223) - Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will...

Al-Baqara (2:282) - ...And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not (at hand) then a man and two women, of such
as ye approve as witnesses, so that if the one erreth (through forgetfulness) the other will remember...

An-Nisa (4:34) - Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

These verses in the Koran highlight only some of the ways in which women do not have equal rights in Islam.
It seems odd to me that someone who has published a number of books on the subject of Islam has managed to overlook these verses when making an unsupported statement such as "The Koran makes is clear that men and women have equal rights and responsibilities". Based on the verses above (as the tip of the iceberg) one could reasonably assume that the Koran does not make it clear and in fact seems to indicate that men have superiority over women.

Unless Karen Armstrong is referring to this verse:

Al-Baqara (2:228) - ...And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

Please note the part "men have a degree over them"

The only other possible explanation could be based on the quote by George Orwell.

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"

Regards,
Gonzo

Ms. Armstrong uses several debating mistakes in her islamic assement. She attempts to compare Christianity with islam. If one is right why would we need the other? If the first is wrong, why bother with it? Instead of arguing with us about what woman should cover themselves, she should spend her time arguing with the islamic scholars who help make the laws in lands controlled by sharia law. Fact is, no matter how much Ms. Armstrong wants to pretend, those that know islam has deemed the rule for woman being covered goes farther than mohammed's wives. I have read the koran several times and I am left wondering how many times Ms. Armstrong actually has read it. It would seem by her words, she read a book entirely differnet than the korans I have read. She is misleading the masses, and I, who know, will not allow her to continue. Don't preach to us Ms. Armstrong, we do not care about islam, take your tales of joy to those that live and breath and make laws based on islam, those that know islam inside and out. You are rather quiet when it comes to addressing that group. Could it be that the true followers of that oh so peaceful religion you puff and gloat about would issue a fatwa against you for being a heretic? I know the truth and I will make it my mission that others know also. Take to the ones who live in sharia controlled lands Ms. Armstrong, they love islam as much as you do.

Victoria You are a Maniac

and I mean that as an all out compliment.

what energy and dedication you have, let alone all of your ideas and volume of comments.

i don't always agree with you but you have the
MOST ADMIRABLE virtue
of engaging with the vital issues of Islam and its detractors
and soulfully telling us the way you see it..

Praise to your energy and good will.

People always talk about Adam & Eve like they both had equal knowledge of what was permitted & what was not. They didn't. Adam grew up in the Garden of Eden, Eve was brought there after Adam was at least old enough to remember. When Eve made the mistake of breaking one of the restrictions of her new place of residence, she was guilty of ignorance, not intent. Adam, on the other hand, knew the restrictions, & he did it anyway.

That story seems to me a lot more complicated than just 2 kids breaking a restriction. But that's another issue.

Anna:

It's a fact. Muhammad gave one of his wives a hard time while the others had it pretty soft. Mamie Stover proved one woman was sexually to equal a whole Marine division. How do you think Muhammad would fare with an equal number of women?

Jihad suiciders do not get 72 virgins. They get one 72 year old virgin. That's what happens to people who don't read the fine print.

"As for Prophet Muhummad have multiple wives, he never had more than 4 at any one time. Many of the wives he took were widows of battles that the Muslims fought against their enemies."

How do you know? Muhammed had 'Allah's permission to rape slave girls 'water them to your liking' and here they are:

Muhammed's Female slaves:
Salma Um Rafi', Maymuna daughter of Abu Asib, Maymuna daughter of Sa'd, Khadra, Radwa, Razina, Um Damira, Rayhana, Mary the Coptic, in addition to two other maid-slaves, one of them given to him as a present by his cousin, Zaynab, and the other one captured in a war.

These should have kept your 'prophet' sexually busy - and that apart from his wives the number of whom range from 4 - to 22. One of the above-mentioned slave women was Mary the Coptic (christian Egyptian) by whom Muhammed had an extra-marital son who died.

If your Muhammed was so concerned about children why then did he allow child-marriages 'from the age of menstruating'? The vagina of a girl of say 9 years old in bed with an adult gets ripped to bits, and incontinency and/or infertility can be the result as állways life-long trauma. Maybe Aisha remained childless because of that? And why didn't Muhammed FORBID female circumcision if he 'loved children' so much? Surely you know what the result of that is = 3 million of muslim girls who are yearly sexually maimed for life.

Quote"As for Prophet Muhummad marring a 5 to 6 year old girl. Tell the whole story. That was a huge controversy, in the Muslim community. They said she was too young. But he was commanded by God to do it."

Thank God one muslim who admits that what the prophet did wasnt considered 'normal' in the 'muslim community'. Your 'prophet' misused 'Allah' after Aisha's father had objected to Muhammed marrying her (you ask yourself why such a 'good'marriage proposal would have been refused by a father) but, Muhammed: 'went to Allah who gave him permission for marrying Aisha'.

Who cán believe that, ór 'Allah' condones pedophiles raping children! A normal man doesn't feel the physical or emotional need to have his 'grandchild' in his nuptial bed!

Quote: "Also, this girl, whose name is Aisha, would today be considered a genius, it was said she was a whole lot smarter than she should have been for the her age."

Sure! Anything to excuse the prophet's pedophilia. What you are saying is that it is O.K. to marry a child without her consent to an old men 'because she is a clever child'. LOL!

Quote: "When the Koran was finally being compiled in written book, Aisha, was one of the people consulted as to how the verses were written."

Who told you so, and how do you know that is true? Nóthing is know for certain about the 'prophet's life as their is no tangible/visible archaeologically authenticated evidence that the 'prophet' ever existed. 'The Life of the prophet'was not written untill some 100 years áfter his death by Arabs who had no known him.

"She even led her own army during a Muslim civil war to decide who should lead the Muslim community at one point, her or the Prophet's nephew Ali."

Sure! There are lots of non-verifyable stories about 'Aisha'. In the 'Battle of the camel'she tried to have Ali murdered. 'Nice girl'we call that.

Quote: "These are lessons that I, my family, and my community knows, and which Saudi Arabia and Iran deny or have conveniantly forgotten."

I'd say that the S.A. in the 'holy land of the prophet' and the mullah's in Iran know the Islam and the 'sharia' inside out - and use them for their terrorising muslims.

Quote: victoria:
"and aisha was taken to live in the home of the Prophet(pbuh) for several years before the marriage was consumated."

Poor Aisha!

for muslims interested in a debate about Islam join: faithfreedom.org/forum

faithfreedom? you are misinterperting what you read- when i read anything i hae an open mind- stay away from the haters- this is islam- it is not opinions of people- this is just the quran-

"Verily for all men and women who have surrendered themselves unto God, and all believing men and believing women, and all truly devout men and truly devout women, and all men and women who are true to their word, and all men and women who are patient in adversity, and all men and women who humble themselves before God, and all men and women who give in charity, and all self-denying men and self-denying women, and all men and women who are mindful of their chastity, and all men and women who remmber God unceasingly: for all of them has God readied forgiveness of sins and a mighty reward." (33:35)

"I shall not lose sight of the labor of any of you who labors in My way, be it man or woman; each of you is equal to the other (3:195)"

O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the desires (of your hearts), lest you swerve, and if you distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well acquainted with all that you do. (Qur'an 4:135)

O mankind! Reverence your Guardian-Lord, Who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, his mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women--fear Allah, through Whom you demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (that bore you): for Allah ever watches over you. (Qur'an 4:1)

The believers, men and women, are protectors, one of another: they enjoin what is just and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His Mercy: for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise. (Qur'an 9:71)

It is also based on the statement of Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), “ Oh Mankind! Your Lord is One. Your (grand) father is one. All of you belong to Adam (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Adam is created of soil (earth dirt). Truly, the most honorable person in the Sight of Your Lord, the Almighty Allah, is the most pious among you. There is no superiority for an Arab over a non-Arab. There is no superiority for a non-Arab over an Arab. There is no superiority for a red (race) person over a white person. Likewise, there is no superiority of a white over a red (race) person except for the level of piety (mindfulness of God, the Almighty Allah in life and practices)”[18].

no subjective personal opinions here- just the quran- as it really is

Dear Karin Armstrong

I have been wanting for a long time to write to you as I am exasperated by your analysis of Islam and Christianity. But no doubt in your lofty ivory tower you'll refuse to hear my voice of protest.

I can understand that an X-nun is anti- Christianity, but nót that an academic (which you claim to be) makes gigantic mistakes when comparing Islam to Christianity.

For the record: Islam is a Heresy of Christianity [and Judaisme] and that includes wholesale (but distorted) plagerisme, Blasphemy of Jesus-Christ, cursing Christians (and the rest of 'worthless mankind'!) by 'Allah' in the Quran, and that in 'Allah's ruthless but failed attempt to destroy Christendom and Judaisme in favour of Islam.

Would you like me to show you exáctly how and why 'Allah' attacks Christianity by attacking the most essential Spirituality in Christendom? Please let me know.

'Allah' even openly admits to his murderous intentions for christians and Jews in his Quran:

Qur’an 59:2 “It was He who drove the People of the Book from their homes and into exile. They refused to believe. You did not think that they would go away. And they imagined that their settlement would protect them against Allah. But Allah’s came at them from where they did not suspect and terrorized them. Their homes were destroyed. So learn a lesson O men who have eyes. This is My warning. Had Allah not decreed the expulsion of the Jews, banishing them into the desert, He would certainly have punished them in this world, and in the next they shall taste the torment of Hell Fire.”

Obviously you have nót "learned that lesson" and keep on defending murderous Islam that has been Christendom's enemy from its beginning - and proven it through 10 centuries of Islam invasions and wars wherein throusands of christians and the rest of 'worthless mankind' perished at the hands of Allah's Vengefull Sword.

Christianity was spread by word of mouth for some 300 years while Islam started off as a religion wherein war was instituted with Muhammed as the first Caliph who murdered as he saw fit. Muhammed was a despicable, cruel, intolerant child-molester,thief and murderer which, according to you 'is normal in a prophet'.

Is it really? If, as Islam blasphemously maintains: 'Christ is a prophet' He never ever waged wars, had people murdered, nor married a child, nor instituted child-marriages, prostitution, cutting-off hands, and stoning to death for adultery as instituted in the 'sharia'.

On the contrary you should know that Christ defended and forgave the adultrous woman and was a Great Socialist, Humanist and Reformer of archaic Jewish laws.

In conrast Islam is a step back for humanity into the dark times of the Old Testament wherein stoning also was allowed.

Islam's claim to 'freedom of religion'is totally negated when the Quran writes:

"Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them"
(Surah 9:30)

Besides every muslim awaits the death sentence for 'leaving Islam and the muslims'.

'Allah' even stoops to taunt christians with:

Quran Surah 28: The Narrative:
2. Allah will taunt Christians on the day of their doom, saying: Where are My partners whom ye imagined? 62-64

I cannot see 'Allah' other than a loathsome, discriminating, intolerant, cruel 'god' yet the 'enlightened Karen Armstrong' defends this 'god of Islam' to the detriment and danger to the culture in which she was born.

Where in christianity (in éssence ónly the N.T.)
do you find polygamy as allowed in Islam? You call that 'Islam giving rights to women'? And where in the N.T. says Jesus-Christ that women are allowed to be raped as in:

Quran 70:22-30 "..... who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them: he that lusts after other than these is a transgressor..."

Oh yes, I forgot to mention that 'Jesus-Christ had numerous slaves and fckd slave-girls to his liking' and allowed women prisoners of wars to be raped as did Muhammad warning his soldiers ónly not to indulge in 'coitus interruptus'.

http://phoenicia.org/persecution1860.html

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15311
for a comprehensive listing

I would lóve to know Karen Armstrong what your réal agenda is. Does your hate for Christianity come from your personal experience as a nun? In the meantime you are the laughing stock of Christendom theologians/academics; while the whole of rotten Islam celebrates you defending Islam.

You write: "The Koran makes it clear that men and women have equal rights and responsibilities."

Where in the Quran do you find that? I read instead:

4.34. Men are guardians over women because Allah has excelled men [over women] and because men earn the money which women [only!] spend'. Good women are those who are obedient [to their husbands]and who keep their secret(virginity/vagina]. And from those [women] from whom you fear disobedience admonish her and leave her alone in her bed [the muslim mán can then have sex with another wife!] and [physically] punish her. ......."[the infamous 'hit her softly'!]

24.31."And say to believing women that she must cast down her eyes, control her passions, and not to show her beauty except that what should be seen.....{whatever that may mean]...." and so on to prove Karin's Armstrong's 'equal rights for women in Islam'! LOL!

"Muslim feminists are developing an Islamic feminism, which looks back to the Koran and the Prophet, pointing out that the emancipation of women was a project dear to Muhammad's heart."

You must be jóking Karin Armstrong, or you swallow wholesale Islam propaganda! Kadesha was allready an independent business woman befóre Islam came about; and Cleopatra far, far more emancipated than any muslim woman can claim even today!

Please be so kind to respond to what I write as I'd lóve to be wrong about my enemy Islam/Quran and as a result 'muslims'!

A salaamu alaikum mia- very touching and positive post-

NO RELIGION IN DALLAS- well youll be pleased to know that in islam women do NOT take their husbands name upon marriage- but retain their own family name and individual identity stays intact.

About inheritance in Islam men to women.

This is my thought on this particular subject in the Quran. Muhammad lived in the ignorant (jahiliyyah) society, when women were regarded as property just like the cattles. When Muhammad revealed that women had the rights 1/2 of the inheritance, this is truly revolutionary, since it's elevated the status of women to share the ownership.

Nowadays, women are more independent and our sense of gender equality has improved. The inheritance law should reflect the message of equality that Muhammad brought. For example, in Indonesia many Muslims simply divide the inheritance equally between men and women.

Dear Ms. Armstrong: Thank you for your commentary. You have provided negative glimpses into the words of very prominent figures in history without providing context and without mentioning the goodness that these figures have represented (i.e., Church Fathers, Tertullian, St. Augustine). In one commentary, you manage to teach the masses why they should not like these leaders. This is very wrong. This is irresponsible.

Question: Who in their life on this earth would like to be known only by the few errors they made in their speech or writing? Would you want this to happen to you? I certainly wouldn't. Think about that.

Point: If one is going to mention someone else's apparent error, one should explain in detail why they apparently made this error and what they have done to overcome it. We would want the same done for us centuries after we have attempted to do good on earth.

Ms. Armstrong,
Your book A history of God gave a profound impact on the way I look at my religion and my spirituality. In fact, my whole life, because religion is an important part of me as an Indonesian Muslim.

I have read other books: The Battle for God, the Holy War, Muhammad, Buddha and now I'm reading The Great Transformation.

Your books 'talk to me'. My tears roll down as the lines strike me deeply. I can't believe that a person's book could touch someone else and change her forever.

I wish I could give a small thing in return, a token of deep appreciation. I keep an Indonesian art craft in my room, I hope I could give it to you someday.

Warm regards
Mia

In my opinion, no religion has a monopoly on evil or goodness, whether Christianity or Islam. Both are religions used by human beings for their own purposes - to find meaning & spiritual growth, or as justifications to oppress others or wage wars. In the end, the source is still ultimately the human spirit, which is capable of both good and "evil". This is why both Christians and Muslims alike are capable of acts of great good, as well as acts of atrocity.

However, I must add that monotheistic religions (1 God only) such as Christianity and Islam do tend to encourage less tolerance of other religions, since there is no room in their worldviews for multiple Gods.

Sarah:

Name the terror greater than hell. You cant because hell by design is the greatest terror men could think up.

Now if you want to talk about terror on this earth and not just the threat of hell then maybe the inquisitions, Nazi holocost or even Salem witch trials could be used. But then there are those who spent their last few minutes on earth trapped in a burning inferno, twin towers. Muslims may have been behind but they're coming up fast.

Is there a connection between the threat of hell and the threats made by terrorists today? Maybe just a hint to get them started with their mindless schemes?

Is it so that all suicide attackers expect they are going to a heaven of smoe kind while their victims are going to hell, that they are just giving God a little head start help?

Does the same thing apply to women? When women have sex with the wrong man, (or other woman) not authorized by God should they be sent on to hell right away or should we wait until they die of natural causes? What do the religious authorities say about that now? What did they say about that when government was their puppet? Is this a Christian nation? Is our government beholding to the moral majority? Any part of it?

Women's rights came by way of liberals, the immoral ones. You don't find them in church. You have never found women's rights there either.

Considering that religion is just a collection of superstitions passed down through generations, it's better that women aren't sucked into the religious hierarchy.

The tradition of keeping women out of religion goes back to the time when being a church leader was a successful, comfortable career -- women were kept out to lessen competition.

Eventually if enough women see the light -- that major religions tend to demean them -- they'll have second thoughts about the worth of religion and abandon it. The world will be a better place without the fear mongering, prejudicial doctrines espoused by major religions.

I feel sorry for women like Mrs. Jackson. Notice what she calls herself? She doesn't even have her own identity.

I feel sorry for women of any religion who have been brainwashed to believe they should defer to men. Men aren't smarter - and my husband would be the first person to tell you that.

Then again, he's biased. We only have daughters and we're raising them to believe men and women are equal.

Ok, peeps...it's been fun...but gotta run.....Party time....woohoooooo

In this century you hear of Muslim terrorists, but before that...there many other terrorists, non-muslims. By today's terms, early Americans fighting the British would be considered terrorists by British.

Oh forgive me Bgone, what I was trying to say was that on a daily basis, it's the non-muslim who commit those nasty crimes. Like what you hear on your local news. 911: I agree, if it was them who did it, they're in hell. They're just as bad.

:-)

Did you hear where Muslim men kill their wives or daughters if they disgrace them? Only a fool belives that only Christiand kill or rape, etc. So far, there have been only Muslim terrorists. Remember how over 3000 Americans were killed on 9/11. They were killed by Muslims!!! Joseph Anthony

THANK YOU IBN ASWAD you touched lightly on a little knownin the west fact about islam- a womans money is her own- the husband is obligated to support his wife financially in the same style of life that he enjoys- her lodgings- clothes- food- education- even luxuries and allowances are taken care of-

a muslim woman on the other hand does not need to spend her own money on anything- her own needs or those of her children- she keeps all monies she earns or inherits or is given etc...
the husband cannot touch it.period

not very fair to the men id say but that is how it is...

ROSS if youre so disrespectful to imply i am deceptive i will not answer you with respect.

it is people with brains like betty that i speak to- instead i think you may poison people with your biased and prejudiced misinformation.

you to your religion and me to mine- we will agree to disagree.
peace

Sarah:

If I heard what you said, Muslims or anyone I knew about molesting, raping, murdering, etc I'd dial 911.

911 rings a bell. Let's see, ah, oh year, 9-11-2001 when Mulsims demonstrated how civilized they are. Now Americans don't like to judge a whold group by the actions of a few but we didn't just try and kill the individual Japanese that bombed Pearl Harbor. Some Americans are real gullible. Now take faith for example. Good luck selling all that love Muhammadism causes people to have.

To person who wrote under "Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:"

Whatever u said goes the same to Christians killing others, rapist, kidnappers, priest child molestors (mostly if not all Catholics)....all of which are Christians. U don't hear Muslims molestors, serial killers in USA....

Hello To All:

From Birth's first Breath,
All Creatures walk

Into the Light of Death's
Last Breath.

Our Existence seems so brief--

Best to Live Life to
The Greater Good in All Things!

Love, Love, Love--Equally and
Unconditionally.

Victoria,

Actions speak louder than words. The beating of women by the Taliban who supposedly follow the dictates of Mohommed's Koran is never mentioned in your commentary supporting Islam.

Neither is the butchery of the Shiites and Sunnis towards each other.

Again, I note: The actions of the Taliban, Shiites and Sunnis make Islam a sham. When these three groups join the modern, mature world, then you might want to make favorable commentary about your religion.

Do We Americans Know What We Are Talking About
When We talk about Islam

Ibn Aswad al-Jazeera says

One ought to make themselves conversant with the whole body of Islamic jurisprudence or even a good part of it before making comments in public.

I certainly realize in reading the discussions of Islam on this site, that there is much that I do not know.

So I generally applaud Ibn's caution

and am grateful to the generous response to questions that practicing Muslims have provided here.

There is a reason men in Islam are granted a greater inheritance than women. The reason is that men are obligated to provide for the complete care of his household. While women are not. A woman's inheritance and earnings are not obligated to any household upkeep not even her own. And any inheritance or wealth that a woman brings to a marriage is her's to keep vis-a-vis her husband. Likewise, "mahr" or bride wealth is a protection for the wife and solely her property to dispose of as she see's fit. So Ms Armstrong is correct in her observation about the egalitarian treatment of women by the norms of Islam. The treatment of muslim women by muslim men on the other hand is altogether another issue.

One ought to make themselves conversant with the whole body of Islamic jurisprudence or even a good part of it before making comments in public. The greater part of conventional wisdom and popular culture as regards Islam is neither wise in many senses nor cultured.

As churches get more feminized, with women in leadership positions, will men stop attending?

and aisha was taken to live in the home of the Prophet(pbuh) for several years before the marriage was consumated.

aisha led the sunnis- ali's faction became the shia- just for the record shia comprise 13% of the muslim population

I am an American Muslim from a very religious family. My parents are originally from Pakistan. My mom is right now finishing up her Ph.D. in psychology. I have numerous female cousins who lawyers, doctors, and accountants. My grandmother was a Montazorri teacher in Pakistan. All these strong women never let a mere male stand in there way, they stood up for rights because they new God/ Allah was on their side and took strength from their religion.

As for Prophen Muhummad have multiple wives, he never had more than 4 at any one time. Many of the wives he took were widows of battles that the Muslims fought against their enemies.

Remeber back at that time, people did not have Social Security or Medicaid to take care of Widows with Children. If you didn't have any relatives to take care of you, than it was very likely that you would be out on the streets and prostituting to feed yourself and your children.

I know of at least one of Prophet Muhummad's wife's who initiated a divorce against him when she was able to take care of herself independently (or maybe it was that she fell in love with someone else).

As for Prophet Muhummad marring a 5 to 6 year old girl. Tell the whole story. That was a huge controversy, in the Muslim community. They said she was too young. But he was commanded by God to do it. Also, this girl, whose name is Aisha, would today be considered a genius, it was said she was a whole lot smarter than she should have been for the her age.

Later, after the Prophet died, became a great teacher for the young Muslim community of the next generation for those people who never met the prophet. Who better than the wife to answer questions on what prophet would have done in a situation. When the Koran was finally being compiled in written book, Aisha, was one of the people consulted as to how the verses were writtn.

She even led her own army during a Muslim civil war to decide who should lead the Muslim community at one point, her or the Prophet's nephew Ali.

These are lessons that I, my family, and my community knows, and which Saudi Arabia and Iran deny or have conveniantly forgotten.

The leaders their just have bullies in power who like to tell people who they consider inferior what to do, whether they are women, minorities, foreigners, teenagers/young people, other religious groups, poor, handicapped, educated, the other, ....

The overall tenor of this piece is sound, but the author makes one obvious error: the books of Timothy and Titus were indeed written by the Apostle Paul. The salutation portions of these letters make this clear, and both the early church and modern theologians agree. Some have cited that the vocabulary used in these letters is unlike that used by Paul elsewhere, but this is the backbone of an unconvincing (and definitely minority) viewpoint. For the author of this piece to state definitively that Paul was not the author of the books of 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus is at the least disengenuous considering she fails to note that this view is, at best, controversial.

The second oddity of the piece is to laud the gospel accounts that give women their proper credit as of equal standing before God, but then to suggest this original gospel was "hijacked by men" and drug back to the "old patriarchy" (most notably by the mysterious, unknown charlatan who the author suggests wrote the books of Timothy and Titus). The problem with this school of thought is that the very nature of Christian belief requires one to either accept the book's validity in whole, or not at all. Several passages of scripture make this clear. Either the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God (inclusive of those passages that may not make everyone comfortable) or it becomes the 'Cherry Picker's Bible' and loses its credibility. For the author of this piece to suggest one portion of it has value, and another portion does not, diminishes the entirety of the whole of canon (including those parts, presumably, that the author of this piece likes). If the author doesn't believe the book was divinely inspired, and thus is open to disparate critiques from one segment to the next, this is fine... but if the book is bogus, and Jesus says scripture is the truth, then who cares what he had to say about women if his vouching for scripture is just a flapping of the gums? Or anything else for that matter?

At any rate, those are a few thoughts.

P.S. Stating that "Augustine said that all women, even wives and mothers, must be avoided" is a crude turn-of-phrase... Augustine had hang-ups about the sexual act, but the author's phrase that all women were to be "avoided" is a dramatic device that twists Augustine's views and boils them down in a way neither he or the church body felt.

excellent comments mr? metaferia-

The sahaba (companions ofthe Prophet(pbuh) came and asked Rasul(pbuh) who they should give the first and highest respect to.
He replied, "your mother."

they asked again- after our mother who gets our respect?

He replied,"Your mother."

they said- ok, after that who do we give the highest respect to?

He repleied, "Your mother."

They asked yet again- (it would seem it wasnt the answer they wanted doesnt it?)

He replied, "Your father".

peace

I think like most of you, all religions to a certain degree are unkind to women. As an example,tacit approval or condoning of female circumcision is done at the watchfull eye of some religions. All religions have treated women as second class citizens. The leadership role of guiding a particular religion is given to men.The only time religious men are sympathetic to women is when they remember their wives, sisters, mothers, daughters and niecies.
I come from Ethiopian Orthodox Family. I am proud of this ancient faith group which is woven to my culture, literature and faith. Like most orthodox Christians women do not preach in the pulpit. I see a lot of progress in many protestant churches and in Reform Congregations in Judiasim. We badly need reformation in every religion through interfaith dialogue.Any religion that negates the leadership of the mother of humanity must examine and reform itself. There have been many reformations of religions in history. The problem with all religions are their difficulties to interpret the texts as civilization moves forward in changing times and paradigm shifts. We are in the space age, in the time of instantaneous communications and medical advances of genetic engeenering which raise myriad views of ethical dillemas. All religions must be capable of interpreting their respective texts to changing times. If not they can be rigid and fundamentalist.We know already how fundamentalism hurts humanity and religion itself. Rigidity sometimes brings ossification that negates human civilization and compassion. Religion is accepted as a culture than a practice of faith and reflection.This is why young people are losing interest in classical liturgy or long preaching /worship. Teachings must be specially tailored to young people. All religions must also incorporate tolerance, welcoming, peace,dialogue,generational interpretation, finding common ground and establish a voluntary institution of communality.We cannot afford to have another Hitler whose scientists were given a specific task of proving that Jesus was of the Arayan race; or other terrorists and the likes of Bilidan or Zawahiri who interpret the Qoran in their own way. Sometimes I am facinated by the interpretation of the bible by different people even as a Christian;- take these two examples:
"For to all those who have , more will be given,and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away" (Mathew 29:25). "Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." (Mathew 20: 23-24).Both can be justifications of moral issue for Hugo Chavez or Adam Smith(Wealth of Nations). A fair consensus builder goes to "compassionate capitalism" that is responsible for humanity, the environment and God himself. These are some examples I found to be perplexing when interpreted by various scholars.

Likewise, there are many passages regarding women in many religious texts. It is high time that all religions reflect on the role of women's leadership and capability by opening the glass ceiling. It may not happen in our life time; surely, because of our ethical progression we may see a woman Pope or Imam. It may seem blasphemous now for many religions, but collective "free will" for good , when it accumulates over time, it can MOVE A MOUNTAIN!!

DAVE- i mean this respectfully and dont intend to demean your knowledge- but i myself am a muslim- and i dont claim to have knowledge of what the muslim sitting next to me believes- let alone the majority of muslims.

if youve seen this actual factual literal translation of the word before- then calling it a 'game' doesnt diminsh the fact that its irreconcilably true.

OK- FIRST THE TITLE OF THE BOOK YOU CITED IS WRONG

IT IS 'STANDING ALONE IN MECCA-'

SECOND- im familiar with ms. nomani- she is of pakistani descent and is highly critical of the very backward interpertations of that culture-

i am sure you left the most important part of her critique out-

this is her words--

A Gender Jihad For Islam's Future
By Asra Q. Nomani

Sunday, November 6, 2005

BARCELONA -- Several months ago, when a group of Spanish Muslims approached city officials here about sponsoring a conference on Islamic feminism, one responded, "Isn't that an oxymoron?" That's what many people believe. To conservative Muslims, the phrase is an insult to Islam. But to many moderate Muslims -- and I count myself among them -- an Islamic feminist movement fits with the religion's early teachings and offers one of our best hopes for countering extremism. Indeed, those of us who have joined the movement since it emerged in the 1990s have come to understand that Islam needs to go back to its progressive 7th-century roots if it is to move forward into the 21st century.
Continue reading "Washington Post: A Gender Jihad for Islam's Future"

she rocks and is a loud voice in islam and a valid one--

you also neglected to mention mr al-shehas other book- misonceptions in islam-

i dont even think youre aware that the books you cited are critiques of badly motivated interpertations of the quran and their unfair and islamically incorrect subsequent treatment of women in some cultures- and then they go on to elaborate where these ideas are wrong and inform us of the truth about islams proscriptions.

ms. nomani's mission to prove the equality of women in islam from quranic- hadeeth- and sunnah-
(sayings and actions of the Prophet(pbuh) respectively- actually disproves your contention.
the fact that you used her portrayal of an injustice and presented it as "widely accepted"
would not be acceptable to ms namoni-

i know- i actually read her writings.
she would make an excellent panelist here.

The words and deeds of Muhammad, written down in the official Hadiths, plus Allah's declarations in the Quran on the "rights" of women, continue to have a destructive effect on Muslim females throughout the world.

Muhammad is reported as saying in one hadith that "...the majority of people in Hell are women." He also said that he had not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you (women)."

He explained that, according to the Quran, the testimony of two women witnesses are equal to that of one man in a court of law. (Sura 2:282).

Sura (4:34) is one that will warm the hearts of women everywhere. "Good women are obedient... As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to bed apart and beat them." Footnote 3

To this day, the proper way to beat a woman is still a matter of concern in the Muslim world. Spain's Muslim imam, Mohammed Kamal Mustafa, published a book in the year 2000 which included advice to men on the correct way to beat their wives.

A good Muslim should strike "... only the hands and feet, using a rod that is thin and light so that it does not leave behind scars or bruises on the body."

The goal "... should be to cause psychological suffering and not to humiliate or physically abuse his wife."

Another book, by Kemak Guran, says it's alright to beat your wife as long as you "...do not strike the face and only beat them moderately."

The most horrifying examples of Muhammad's legacy are in the Muslim nations of the Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and parts of Nigeria. The former Taliban Islamic government of Afganistan, purveyor of physical torture, rape, and public executions of women for minor infractions, should rate at the top of the list.

Muhammad loved women. He no doubt believed that every man should own at least one--which, in fact, he did. Some of his harem of thirteen were slaves who were captured on raids and jihads. Included was a beautiful Jewish woman whose husband, father, and brother had been beheaded by Muhammad's men, the result of a successful jihad against Jews from the Medina area of Saudi Arabia.

Today in the Sudan, "radical" Muslims from the north continue to conduct a similar campaign against the Christian/Animist south.

As with Muhammad's jihad against the Jews, the Sudanese Muslims kill the men and take the women and children as slaves to use for sex, torture, or to sell. Slaves are forced to walk north through harsh environments. Those who complain are beaten or killed.

Muhammad, technically a pedophile, set the standard for marrying young girls. He wed his favorite wife Aisha when she was only six. However, he did wait until she was nine before consummating the marriage.

In Iran, under sharia (Islamic law), the legal age for women to marry is nine. Young girls are often forced to marry middle-aged men. This also takes place in other Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, where Muslim men travel to Thailand, Kampuchea, and other asian countries to buy young girls from cash- strapped parents.

Under Islamic law, women are separated from the men and many jobs are off limits because the sharia forbids placing women in compromising positions with men. They cannot apply for a passport or travel without written permission from their husbands or fathers. And under sharia, women are stoned to death for adultery.

In Nigeria, some regional Muslim governments have invoked a form of sharia in which women who have children out of wedlock are guilty of adultery.

Three women have received the death penalty for this "crime," One verdict has been overturned on appeal after worldwide protests. The other two women will be executed after weaning their babies. The women will be placed in pits up to their waists or necks and stoned to death by Muslim men. The men who impregnated the women have not been charged.

Once again, Muhammad set the standard of proof for adultery by a woman when his youngest wife Aisha was rumored to have engaged in extracurricular activities with another man. Muhammad was greatly troubled until Allah told him that if no one could find four witnesses to verify that the act of adultery took place, then any claim of sexual misconduct was false.

Such a claim seems absurd to us, but since Allah was the author, it's obvious He works in mysterious ways.

Except these days women who are raped in Muslim countries can't find four witnesses to the criminal act. Under Muslim "logic", then, she must be guilty of fornication or adultery and is punished for being raped.This could mean anything from 100 lashes and prison time to the death penalty.

Then there is the insanity of "honor killing". It happens in Muslim countries and, recently, in England to a Muslim girl. If a girl in a Muslim family does anything to dishonor the family (the men of the family), she must be killed.

A case in Jordan occurred after a young girl was raped by an older brother. Another brother had the task of reclaiming the family's honor. He did so by slitting the helpless child's throat. The killer received seven years in prison (unusual, often the killer goes unpunished--example, Pakistan recently). The brother who raped his sister walked free.

If you happen to be a Muslim woman and you live under the sharia, you can thank or blame either Muhammad or Allah. Of course, if it's Allah, you must accept your situation since He's always right.

Oh, the Muslim men who do good deeds, like killing unbelievers, go straight to Heaven where they are serviced by plenty of virgins.

But what about women? What rewards do they receive for being a good, obedient Muslim wife? The Quran doesn't say. This is not exactly cause for joy.

All of you non-Muslim ladies out there might want to consider Muhammad's (and Islam's) view of women before hooking up with those fun-loving jihadists. Just remember, you can join anytime you want but you can never leave.

Victoria,

Here you are, I see you are trying your islamic deception here after giving up on the Akbar Ahmed article about women in islam here:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/akbar_ahmed/

Wannabe,

how many wives did some of the other prophets of God have?

Take a look at your Bible.

Women,Dogs,Donkeys...I saw The Hell it was full of Women...Women are Dirty Creatures.Woman is Vile.Woman can not be witness because woman is Moron she may forget so two women equals one man.Woman can not be judge because woman is Weak Characterized Creature she can not make decision correct.Man can take four women and whenever he likes he can kick them off but woman can not take four men and she has no right to divorce her husband.Man can beat women this Right given by God.You shall give Two to Son but One to Daughter.Woman is dirty creature but Eight Years Old Girl is Clean Creature.

The Western god, the 'conscious collective' is a feeling of empathy with grief shared by all in a similar social position. It is a class concept.

The 'super being' is the antithesis of 'organism', a natural and valid tendency to do the right thing that is expected for the collective good. For example; (with the exception of a few) plants naturally grow upward and towards the sunlight. When all people agree on something that validly supports life, miracles can happen.

Both concepts 'conscious collective' and 'super being' are not the true God, they are social phenomena.

God is above and beyond the physical and social worlds. God manifests through works of the believers. God does not monitor your action, or rescues and condemns you. You are free to do your own thing, and responsible for the consequences.

Why doesn't God intervene to save the innocents? Maybe not directly, but by strong faith and convictions the work can be done. We have non believers and Materialistic politics dictating the nature of our world. The dominating decisions affecting our lives are not of God, but of men and women dictating the course of our survival.

Until such a time when the majority of decisions favour principles of life and justice, (not according to US or UK or Israel's laws or Islamic and etc), we will continue to suffer the consequences.

I read a comment that said "Did Karen Armstrong take a look at the Quran?"

She has written several books on Islam. You should check them out and learn something new.

Mrs. Jackson is Not a Second Class Christian Wife

She must be a Unitarian. Or a liberal Episcopalian.

The basic test of First class-

vs. Second Class
Citizenship

is who has the power to make decisions in your polity.

In Catholicism,women don't. In fundamentalist Christian sects, generally women have no say as well.

They may be worshipped. But they have no power.

What a loaded question...How has religion treated women....like crap..I feel..we are treated less than second-class citizens..what happens in religion carries into every aspect of our lives...we allow ourselves to be treated that way without even realizing it..we may be equals at home but big deal...I want equality everywhere I go and in everything I do....One of the best ways to ensure we will always been seen and treated as equal contributing members is to start with religion.....Probably why I have nothing to do with religion...much better atmosphere in which to raise my three sons....Oh yes I am married going on 28 years...best thing we have done is to have to no religion that dictates how we must treat each other.....

It's comforting to know that I wasn't the only one to notice the moronic selectiveness of facts used in this article. Actually, to call them facts is to be very generous.

People have already pointed out the obvious sections of the Koran that don't fall in line with Karen's story. I do love how she drops the word "wives" and quickly hurries on. Muhammad had either 11 or 13 of them, there is some debate on the matter. One of them was 5 or 6 years o