Hehehe, if I practice what this guy says, my wife will probably leave me in a flash :P LOL.
In any case, you are suggesting that there is a part of Qur'an which is a product of culture, not needed to be followed anymore. Is this a common view of most people in KSA, or are the literalists much more in control amongst the general population?
If you're into bondage and humiliation,it's nice to know there's a religion for you. Nobody will ever see the bruises either! Actually,Islam is a big tent. There's room for head choppers,pedophiles(peace be upon him),self-destructive nihilists(martyrs),and masochists(beating oneself into a bloody frenzy on those special days).
Hey,something for everyone....
It's interesting that you say that the Jews and Christian religions have moved on (so have others, in fact). However, I think Islam is currently at the stage where Christianity was during the time of the Spanish Inquisition - lots of nutters, lots of fanatics, oppressed women, heaps of would-be martyrs, and a few torturers (i.e. the religious police, who, like Tomas de Torquemada, seem to thoroughly enjoy their job!). So, given that Islam is "technically" in Christianity's 14th century, we've only got to wait another 600 years or so until normality rules
Islam is by date of inception in Christianity's 14th Century, but Islamic leaders should learn from the mistakes and errors of past Christian practices. There is no need to repeat our mistakes.
By brotherhood and good deeds, Islam could demonstrate its connection to the one true God/Allah.
Are there many others in Saudi Arabia who believe in women's rights and updating ancient texts to fit with modern times?
Please give a quick answer in this thread, or maybe you could write a post on this some time. Most of us blog readers know absolutely nothing about Saudis and Saudi Arabia. Thanks!
Actually, Christians don't have much room to throw stones. I was beaten by my ex-husband a few years ago, and went to a religious leader for counseling. After asking my husband (not me) for a full explanation of the incident, he turned to me and said, "while I do not condone striking you, had you been fulfilling your role as a woman in submission to your husband, you likely would not have provoked him to the point he felt it necessary to hit you."
That was the last time I ever went to that church. We divorced shortly after.
Christians really don't have much room to throw stones here...
I commend you for spotlighting this important issue and speaking out against religiously-motivated violence against women. Many Christian leaders need to do the same.
Love this one A.
This is to Mrs. A with the utmost respect...Are you SURE you don't want Mr. A to add a second wife? I make a mean spagetti sauce!! 
Deuteronomy was written by Jews, not Christians. Therefore, I'm puzzled as to why you say 'Jewish and Christian' scriptures. If your going to reference Christian Theology as written by Christians, then you need to use the New Testament.
And comparing such verses is comparing apples and oranges. Moses spoke the words you quote, not God, literally, as Muslims believe. So, if a man beats his wife, and you admonish him as a Muslim, how is he wrong? He has the literal word of God on his side. You do not. That is the jist of the problem.
Chrisitan and Muslim cultures are fundamentally different at their core, so referencing Christian history isn't going to work I think. For all of the violence in Christian history, I think it's pretty obvious, if you've ever bothered to read the New Testament or Christian scholars, that violence is anethema to Christianity. Christ eschewed violence as means to an end. Instead, he preached love, tolerance, and peace. Can you say the same of Mohammed? Islam is many things, but it is most certainly not soley a religion of peace. The Quran espouses both peace and humility but also barbaric violence and arrogance.
To try and weed out the violent aspects of Islam, whilst using context as your tool, leaves you wide open to simply throwing the whole religion out the door. Islam is not a religion of compromise, but absolutes.
The Old and New Testament are both used by Christians. I read them every Sunday at Sunday school as a kid.
Of course they are, but my statement still stands. The OT was written by Jews, not Christians. I never said it wasn't used.
Of course, to arrive at the 'wifebeating' conclusion one has to restrict one's interpretation of the word 'daraba' to mean 'physically strike', whereas this word is used in other ways: such as 'to strike an example', 'strike a tent', etc..
The New Testament was written by Jews who had just converted to Christianity. The New Testament as much a "Jewish" creation as was the Old.
Malik
Why should we listen to the musings and ramblings of an ex con like yourself? You have stated amply in the past your disdain for Christianity quite well and time and time again your flawed logic has been slapped down like a red headed step child who missed his ritalin dose. Please keep your venom on your blog. That is about the only place you haven't been kicked out of.. Yet.
" The New Testament was written by Jews who had just converted to Christianity."
Ergo, it was written by Christians, not Jews. This isn't difficult.
Word games aside, the New Testament is just that, new. To quote from the OT and attribute it to Christians, who had no role in creating it, is erroneous. Though the Apostles may have been Jewish by birth, by embracing Christianity, they were rejecting Judaism. Hence, Alhamedi's associating of the verse and Christians isn't accurate. Find a New Testament passage espousing violence against your wife, or anyone else for that matter and you'd have a point. Islam is very explicit in this regard and their is simply no parallel in the NT.
Drat. Left my name out.
Good point Rupert. Sadly to those like Malik aka Abu Sinan aka ExCon/ExFelon aka Marc Springer's ilk he/they will never accept it.
Rejecting Judaism? So what exactly did Jesus mean when he said "Not one jot or tittle of the old law shall change until earth and heaven come to pass."?
The only venum here "Haha" is yours. Stick to the issues and stop following me around like the troll that you are.
This is the same "HaHa" who posts at my blog under numerous different ISPs, from different states, under at least four different names. Coward. Come out and say who you are and stop running your mouth. Stop the corwardly attacks and stick to the issues.
Just sticking to the TRUTH Malik. You are a felon. Someone who spent some HARD time for some serious crimes. Your hatred for the West is legandary and you have stated more than once your vile disregard for Christains. So why should anyone listen to you with the baggage you carry? Your own bias is your undoing.
Alhamedi -
We haven't left it that far behind. Catzmeow speaks the truth. It is less tolerated today, but still out there.
"Rejecting Judaism? So what exactly did Jesus mean when he said "Not one jot or tittle of the old law shall change until earth and heaven come to pass."?"
As I have said before, Malik - if you read the verses preceding and following that one, Jesus was mocking the status quo.
You can't read the NT like the Koran, as, unlike the Koran, the New Testamane has something called 'context' and 'story' - and isn't a collection of quotes put together at Othman's request in order of decreasing length and requires a seperate 40 volume set of Hadith in order to comprehend which verses cancel out which other verses and which verses Omar pressured Mohammed into making up.
But I don't expect you to understand Islam, Malik. You never have, and never will. I pity your lack of sight.
Abu Sinan,
Ah, I just perused your blog, which explains some things. I should say that I am not a Christian or Muslim. Simply, someone who like studying religion.
"So what exactly did Jesus mean"
You can interpret that verse for yourself, as I'm sure you have. I would suggest reading the verse before it. Christ's death fulfills Jewish prophecy is one that makes sense to me.
But if your argument rests on that single verse, then it's pretty shaky. My point is that Jesus simply didn't advocate violence, but Mohammed did, many times, in both word and deed.
If Alhemdi truly wants to address the problems that he lists in his post, then Muslims need to focus on Islamic scripture, not Christian or Jewish. But if, as Alhemdi suggests, that you simply write it off as a 1400 year old book or a case study in anthropology( as much as I agree), then why not write off the whole thing? The fundamental principle on which Islam rests is that the Quran is the immutable word of God. The Quran is the base. If you can cherry pick what you find desirable, then the base weakens and crumbles. That's what drives fundamentalists.
.
.
I think Jesus, like Mohammed, had different approaches to different problems. Mohammed, like other Jewish prophets, indeed used force. God, as expressed in The Torah, exhorts the Israelites to slaughter whole tribes and ethnicities, He commands them to slaughter certain cities, down to the women, children and even animals. All three faiths have a history of violence, as do their followers, all of which are based, to one extent or another, on their religious texts and histories. I have no issue with this. My only issue is when a critical eye is ONLY used with Islam.
No Ethan, I will never understand the Islam that you and bin Laden esposes. His Islam is YOUR Islam. So you re right, I will never get your version of my religion, but that is okay, I dont have to.
"HaHa" all you do is follow me around spouting nonsense. I could make all sorts of claims about you as well and follow you all around the internet. It is clear you have no interest in this subject, your only interest is in attacking me.
Internet "keyboard warriors" are like that. They say all sorts of things they would be far too scared to say in person. You claim to know everything about me, so why dont you come on over to my house and we can deal with this like men? No? Of course not, cowards like you are too scared. You are happy to play your games behind your keyboard and monitor.
People here might not like my ideas or what I say, but they see through your stalking as well, just like they did on my blog.
I will not address you again, but I really hope you take me up on my offer and come on over to the house. But I wont hold my breath. Until then, how about address one of my posts for once?
I think Jesus, like Mohammed, had different approaches to different problems ... My only issue is when a critical eye is ONLY used with Islam.
The chronicled words and deeds of Jesus are far fewer than those of Mohammed. Surely Mohammed had differing ideas on different problems. But violence was one of those ideas and it figures prominently. I simply don't see how you can make that argument about Jesus.
As for the 'critical eye', currently that would make sense wouldn't it? If there was an epidemic of Christian, Hindu, or Buddhist suicide bombers, then you would have a point. But their isn't. I'm simply taking the terrorists at their word. If they quote Islamic scripture, hold up the Quran to the camera at every opportunity, then you need to approach it from that perspective. I've done that, and what I've read and studied clearly indicates to me that they have a point.
Do you, as a Muslim, not believe that Islam is superior to other religions? That Islam should be spread until the entire world submits to it? That there are infidels and they should be treated as second class citizens? That your wife(s) can be beaten? That you can own slaves, etc.
Certainly some of these can be balanced by the more tolerant verses in the Quran, but the overall point is clear, at least to me. To become defensive when non Muslims read the same thing while others shout it in their face 24/7 strikes me as unreasonable.
.
.
How much of all this violence is the fault of the Koran itself,and how much is to blame on what a violent Arab culture WANTS to see in the Koran? I'm sure a peaceful sort of fellow can find just as much justification in the Koran as Zarqawi does. One problem is that the peaceful man can't use the Koran to prove Zarqawi wrong. Another problem is that Zarqawi will lop the guy's head off for trying.
Let's just start over....
so why dont you come on over to my house and we can deal with this like men?
Was this one of Mohammed's approaches? Are words that offensive?
Why are you a follower Alhamedi? You don't believe in the literal words. Is there mystical content embedded somewhere? Or,are you afraid someone will follw the koran and kill you for changing religions? I assume you latched onto the religion because you were born into it. I can't see someone converting to something they can't believe literally.
A very brief defense of Judaism for those of you who bash it on this thread:
The "Old Testament," which we call the Tanach, consists of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. Much of it contains history, including the history of non-Jewish people like Adam and Eve, Noah, and Job. It covers events that took place in Neolithic times and the Bronze Age, as well as more recent times. To read it as if it's a prescription for "how to act" is ridiculous, and all you educated people should know better.
Imagine blaming modern English people because they painted themselves blue in the olden days. That's the same kind of thinking.
Jesus, as described in the New Testament, is one person or God's son, depending on your belief. The New Testament is not a history book in the same way that the Old Testament is.
Apples and Oranges!
As a Jew, I'm tired of reading all the silly stuff about Jews on the Internet. Inform yourselves!
"I can't see someone converting to something they can't believe literally."
Maury--
It happens all the time, in all manners, by all peoples....
Saudigirl, the word 'daraba' from the original Arabic text of the Quran may have one or more multiple meanings, but they are unlikely to correspond to the English ones, such as 'strike a tent'.
Although interestingly, the English words 'drub' and 'drubbing', meaning 'to defeat severely' or 'to beat; to thump' are derived from the Arabic 'daraba'
Abu
It would seem you have some issues you need to work out. Somebody has gotten under you skin and it is causing you to ITCH.
From what I see Islam allows for certian behaviors that are unaaceptable in the modern world. The fact that Islam condones wife beating (one expample)and the realtive silence from the religious leaders of Islam is again cause for alarm. A recent poll in the UK indicates around 25% of Muslims in the UK would not report knowledge of a bombing plot to law enforcement. That is a scary number. What is this saying to the rest of the world?
"It happens all the time, in all manners, by all peoples...."
Scott,are you talking about people who go to church,or wherever,just to be social? I can understand if Alhamedi finds comfort in the rituals,or the social scene,or even if he practices Islam because everyone he knows does.
A pair of Mormons drop by every now and then. There's zero chance I'll become a Mormon,because I can't believe a pepsi is sinful,or that me and the wife will inherit our own planet. As much as I like the Mormon tabernacle choir,I can't believe the teachings. Still,I suppose some folks would join for the music,LOL.
More than a bit bizarre, aside from Ha Ha and his little friend having there little tiff online (thanks for sharing but has SFA to do with the blog), the majority of comments seem to be my book is better than your book??? Who cares?! the blog is interesting to read right or wrong thats all that matters.
If I believe or not, if I pray or not thats something me and God will chat about much (hopefully) later.
As for which religion is better nothing wrong with any of them just the nutters inside them that screws it up...
Get a life and get out of other peoples lives.
To the author of the blog..outstanding.. thought provoking and sometimes fun
Catzmeow,
Your ex-husbands church was in West Virginia, right? You gotta love them inbred scotch-irish.
(Note to self: stop playing with rattlers)
"the majority of comments seem to be my book is better than your book??? Who cares?"
Haven't seen any proseletyzing. Are we reading the same blog?
A good read.
Best Selling Books Tell the Horrors of Forced Marriage
Stories of the suffering of young Muslim women forced into marriage are best sellers in Germany. But are these books about rape, violence and abuse socially beneficial or simply a cynical and salacious way of making money?
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/
...,370415,00.html
Just when Arab News was beginning to redeem itself, (Being a Christian living in Saudi I Read it every day), they come up with this pearler. Punishing a disobedient Wife, I just had to send it to my wife in the UK, no doubt if I were to treat her this way I would wake up with something sharp sticking out of my chest. Women have rights too you know.
Rupert, up until the US invasion of Iraq the most prolific suicide bombers were Hindu Tamils. Were there any such similiar "looks" and Hinduism as a religion? Did anyone claim that Vishnu motivated these Tamils to blow themselves up and kill hundreds of people?
Or was the conflict seen in the real politic terms in which it was fought?
Salaam all,
There are several authors doing research on the extent Islamic scholarship may have misinterpreted the Qur’an due to the patriarchal and at times misogynistic culture of the scholars. A few names that come to mind are Asma Barlas, Rifat Hasan, Amina Wadud and Laila Ahmed.
I particularly do not believe the Qur’an allows husbands to beat their wives. It contradicts everything else God teaches in the Qur’an as well as the example of the prophet (saws).
For more info, check out the site below (and a little excerpt):
http://www.islam-democracy.org/
d...arlas_paper.pdf.
TOWARDS A THEORY OF GENDER EQUALITY IN MUSLIM SOCIETIES, by Asma Barlas
"I believe that it is in light of the foundational ayat about divine ontology and human equality that Muslims should read the Qur’an’s provisions on social issues, like maintenance, divorce, polygyny, evidence-giving, and so-called “wife-beating.” I have pointed out that not only can each of the four words—darajah, faddala, qawwamun, daraba—on which Muslims hang patriarchal readings of the Qur’an be read differently if we read them with attention to context, grammar and syntax, as Wadud urges, but that they also can be understood differently if we read them with the entirety of the Qur’an’s teachings in mind, as the Qur’an itself asks us to do. Dominant readings of the so-called misogynistic verses ignore the totality of these teachings and, indeed, undermine them by making it seem that in religious matters, the Qur’an grants women and men equality but that in social matters, it privileges men. It is incoherent to maintain that women are equal to men in the sight of God, but unequal in the sight of men. Such a view suggests that divine speech is riddled with an enormous contradiction and, as believers, we simply cannot accept it. Rather, we need to recognize that the problem lies not in divine speech but in our failure to read it in a just and ethical manner."
The Tamil Tigers have done about 200 suicide bombings. There have been 127 attacks by Palestinian "suicide" bombers. Israeli and Palestine Security forces apprehended an additional 179 "suicide" bombers before they could carry out their attacks. (stats Sept 2003)
So while the Tamil Tigers may have had more successful in the number of bombings it doesn't look like the Palestinians are too far behind in the "try as you can" department. In fact you could argue Abu the Palestinians are on top. Tigers have trained with the PLO in the past but have been pretty quite since 2001.
I dont argue your numbers. But they certainly show that Islam is not the "reason" people do suicide bombings, as the religious affiliation varies greatly. In Lebanon there were more than a couple Christian suicide bombers, including women. Many, if not most, of the Kurdish suicide bombers came from secular or even socialist organisations. Like Robert Pape recently said in his excellant book on the issue, the motivation is occupation and politics.
Good post Lene, you have got it!
The Koran is the direct unaltetered word of Allah. Is should need no interpretatio and anyone who thinks so is a kuffar. If Allah commmands that I need to beat my wife because she is disobedient then I have to by Allah's words through the prophet (swt). Allah knows best. Men and women have equal rights before Allah, but Allah has made men a step above women. That is in the Koran. You are not a Muslim if you cannot see that, and bound for hellfire.
Were there any such similiar "looks" and Hinduism as a religion? Did anyone claim that Vishnu motivated these Tamils to blow themselves up and kill hundreds of people?
Or was the conflict seen in the real politic terms in which it was fought?
Abu Sinan,
My comment wasn't about suicide bombers per se, merely pointing out that this is the dominant form of violent 'expression' used by Islamists.
The Tamils have a clearly defined purpose and don't inject religion as the overwhelming, motivating factor. Tamils are a race, not a religion. They compromise many religions. Their purpose is to maintain and protect their culture.
Islamists on the other hand, have many objectives, all motivated by Islam. The Jews can't be in Palestine or even exist as a nation, because according to Islam, once a country is under Muslim rule, it must always be. Christians are routinely attacked and killed in Pakistan and Indonesia simply because they are Christian or are prothelyzing to Muslims, both no-no's in Islam.
All this is obvious to non Muslims and even to some practicing Muslims. To deny the linkage is patently absurd. Islam is religion and politics combined. You can't have one without the other. Every political grievance has a religious motivation.
How does a white German become a mouthpiece for the Palestinians? There are many injustices in the world, compromising many peoples and religions. It's because they are *muslim*, therefore, it's religious.
.
.
Your citation of the Deuteronomy speak about the death penalty, but don't note that the parents are not allowed to carry out the trial and the sentence by themselves.
They are prescribed to bring their son in front of a judge.
The judge could have dismissed the accuses, or given a lesser penalty if guilty.
Islam give near any muslim the duty and the right to try and punish people, even without warnings.
Islam, as monolitich it is, has no head on hearth, so pretty any muslim can do what he want and use Quran to justify it.
The stronger muslim sect will always be right, the other will be dead.
The Tamils do, infact, use religion from time to time. They recently had some issues with what local governments planned to do with areas around Hindu Temples. Tamils are not a religion, but the vast majority of them are Hindu. Having had a Muslim friend who was Tamil I was given a pretty good picture of what things are like in the Tamil communities.
You talk about "Islamists" but I would contend that is a pretty wide generalisation to talk about. There are many types of "Islamists" and by all means, most of them are actually non-violent. The violent Islamists are actually a minority within a minority. I suggest you read Tariq Ramadan's books on the subject for a better understanding of the differences in the various "Islamist" movements.
Yes, Christians are attacked by Muslims in Indonesia and elsewhere, and Muslims are attacked by Christians in Eastern and Western Europe. Again you are pointing to things that Muslims or Islam do not have a corner on.
Sure religion and politics are combined, but I would contend that even if the religion of the people in these places were different, the conflicts would still be raging. Do you think that the Palestinian community would accept Israeli occupation any more than the Muslim community does? Many of the best known figures in the Palestinian resistance come from Christian backgrounds. I contend that if you removed Islam from almost every place where Muslims are in conflict that the conflict would remain, albeit in a differing fashion, but the issues at the root of the conflict would still be there.
I am a white American of German ancestry. I am not a "mouthpiece" for anyone, rather I just give my own personal view on the issue. There are many injustices in the world. As an American I have been very supportive of the fight for American Indians rights, but we arent talking about American Indians are we. This is no more a "religious" issue because Muslims are involved than the US civil war was a "religious issue" because Christians were involved. The conflicts would exist with or without Islam, as they do all over the world where Islam plays little or no role.
By the way, Asharq al Awsat has published an interview with Rania. It is not a good interview, no suprises there for Asharq, but here it is anyways.
http://www.asharqalawsat.com/eng...ction=5&
id=1350
The Tamils do, infact, use religion from time to time.
Read what I said( again! ): don't inject religion as the overwhelming, motivating factor.
I never said never. It's a matter of degree.
"but I would contend that even if the religion of the people in these places were different, the conflicts would still be raging."
Pointless speculation. It's much more informative to look at other places, such as India. 'Victim' of 200 years of British occupation, toppled by a peaceful Ghandi. And well integrated into the global economy to boot. Politics doesn't fully explain the current Muslim problem( which isn't really current, but I'm digressing).
.
.
"but Allah has made men a step above women."
Tell you what, Abu Jihad (Did you really call your son "Jihad", what a great idea, I'll call my next kid "genocide"), if you come over to Galway you can tell my mother that, she still works in the market there, and then when youve spat your teeth out, you can try and figure out why she can punch your lights out when youre a step above her.
Padraigh, "Abu Jihad" is just trying to make a point with his name. Yeah, dont mess with Irish women. I have spent a lot of time in Belfast and the Armagh area. I wouldnt try that move in either place.
"Don't Mess with Texas"
For sure don't mess with Texas Women,
you might wind up in the hospital!
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
All of the 3 monotheistic religions are guilty of violence, however I will say this:
In light of the fact it is 2005 with media available to most, we should be evolved enough to know that wife abuse and child abuse is hardly the way to solve issues.
One hit by an ill tempered man can lead to a vicious cycle. I would have to seriously ask any man who resorts to this, one question?
Would you rather your wife and children please you due to love and respect, or because you beat them?
That would be classified as the old fear factor which trust me, kills all love AND respect.
Is this a marriage? Hardly.
Our author, Ghada Al-Hori, obviously feels the need to bring in some academic support for his argument. But I suspect these psychiatrists are imaginary, like those imaginary friends he had when he was a child. Which psychiatrists, exactly? What are their names? Hannibal Lecter, wasn't he a qualified psychiatrist?
Being an adoring fan of the Lecter books, I can say with some authority that Dr. Lecter would have made Mr. Al-Hori disappear with very little fanfare and would have invited Clarice to a rather delightful dinner party shortly thereafter.
Dr. Lecter doesn't tolerate rudeness. Most especially not rudeness to women.
Actually, Ghada el Hori would be a woman, given that Ghada is a female name. So is she allowed to be rude to women or not? Probably Lector would haveleft her alone as he would have preferred Egyptians (with fava beans)
Alhamedi,
You are correct in that Christians no longer stone their children, but I think you misunderstand the reason. This stoning was the last refuge of peace for a family that found itself fully betrayed by its own, in a time when family was the difference between survival and starving poverty. This law, on a civic level, made sense at the time.
On a theological level, as a Christian, I believe that this command holds in SPIRIT what it used to hold in PHYSICAL demands of these parents. If a young man or woman threatens the stability of the entire family by their direct and knowing rebellion, it is better to cut them out of the family than to allow the family to wither under their abuse. (See the prodigal son parable, in which the seperation was allowed, partially, for that very reason.) Not to say that this seperation should be sought. The covenant we hold with God is one of spirit and truth, now that Christ provides the way, and we need not react physically to others' performance of physical acts that deny the commands of God. Instead our behaviour should reflect, as the father in the parable of the prodigal son, the peace and strength, even in great sorrow, of an unconditionally loving Father God. The LAWS haven't changed, but their PHYSICAL expression has.
(I also agree that beating your wife cannot be considered an act of love. See the writings of Paul in the new testement of the Bible for the applicable command.)
Commenting by HaloScan
