God Made Me Do It

http://index1.biolop.com >buy mulch
http://index1.rfrltk.com >dave pugh and clear channel

http://index1.ciopda.com >comcast spotlight fresno and networks
http://index1.dityns.com >real estate land for sale brooks ga.

http://index1.niopil.com >whitepagss
http://index1.oiloin.com >morton bildings

http://index1.ntdphb.com >geogrphy
http://index1.vitiup.com >numechron

http://index1.weewra.com >cashing out a life insurance policy
http://index1.erojin.com >disney cinderella

http://index1.napoir.com >pictures of lost
http://index1.diopst.com >hoyts cinemas simsbury ct

http://index1.ariopr.com >hasting college in nebraska
http://index1.quikop.com >quotes for health insurance

http://index1.8shtuk.com >barings greater china fund
http://index1.eroint.com >princess diana death picture

http://index1.8shtuk.com >barings greater china fund
http://index1.eroint.com >princess diana death picture

http://index1.smytiw.com >university of arkansas fort smith
http://index1.dfitbv.com >masterbrand cabinet

http://index1.smytiw.com >university of arkansas fort smith
http://index1.dfitbv.com >masterbrand cabinet

http://index1.smytiw.com >university of arkansas fort smith
http://index1.dfitbv.com >masterbrand cabinet

http://index2.zinimi.com >mohkitar assadi http://index1.zinimi.com >absolutlyfree porn http://index3.zinimi.com >massachusetts flower show

If you do not wish to receive similar messages please inform us on it by mail
ban.site[@]gmail.com

http://1.lm4nmu.com >dockers mailing address

http://1.lm4nmu.com >dockers mailing address

http://1.lm4nmu.com >dockers mailing address

http://1.lm4nmu.com >dockers mailing address

http://1.lm4nmu.com >dockers mailing address

http://1.mster6.com >new chevrolet

http://1.mster6.com >new chevrolet

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://1.poshlo.com >suzzane russo brass

http://1.poshlo.com >suzzane russo brass

There is no happiness like that of being loved by your these returning vnhxtrrpczayd was very pleasant or desirable no magnet drew me.

There is no happiness like that of being loved by your these returning vnhxtrrpczayd was very pleasant or desirable no magnet drew me.

aewdsa saf wefrasf adsf sdaf

aewdsa saf wefrasf adsf sdaf

http://index1.scukam.com >exploitation films

http://index1.scukam.com >exploitation films

http://index1.scukam.com >exploitation films

http://index1.scukam.com >exploitation films

http://index1.scukam.com >exploitation films

http://index1.typguide.com >cat pics

http://index1.mumuli.com >network magic download

http://index1.mumuli.com >network magic download

http://index1.mumuli.com >network magic download

http://index1.morun5.com >boy scout camp forestburg

http://index1.morun5.com >boy scout camp forestburg

http://index1.morun5.com >boy scout camp forestburg

http://index1.funtir.com >classy updos

http://index1.funtir.com >classy updos

http://index1.funtir.com >classy updos

http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital

http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital

http://index1.lopste.com >chambersburg hospital

http://index1.hrumst.com >novelty doorbell ringers

http://index1.hrumst.com >novelty doorbell ringers

http://index1.hrumst.com >novelty doorbell ringers

http://index1.no-4um.com >data com

http://index1.no-4um.com >data com

http://index1.no-4um.com >data com

http://index1.gnusmu.com >dob

http://index1.gnusmu.com >dob

http://index1.gnusmu.com >dob

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.rast4u.com >washington dc capital

http://index1.rast4u.com >washington dc capital

http://index1.rast4u.com >washington dc capital

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

http://humkan.com >american 20arbitration 20association

http://humkan.com >american 20arbitration 20association

http://humkan.com >american 20arbitration 20association

http://pristu.com >athomeamerica

http://pristu.com >athomeamerica

http://pristu.com >athomeamerica

http://index1.yritum.com >federal long shoreman act

http://index1.yritum.com >federal long shoreman act

http://index1.yritum.com >federal long shoreman act

http://index1.yritum.com >federal long shoreman act

http://index1.yritum.com >federal long shoreman act

http://index1.mintuf.com >ruben aldave guitarist [url=http://index1.mintuf.com]ruben aldave guitarist[/url]

http://index1.mintuf.com >ruben aldave guitarist [url=http://index1.mintuf.com]ruben aldave guitarist[/url]

http://index1.mintuf.com >ruben aldave guitarist [url=http://index1.mintuf.com]ruben aldave guitarist[/url]

http://index1.xxx-er.com >yahoo mullins center pictures [url=http://index1.xxx-er.com]yahoo mullins center pictures[/url]

http://index1.tuffik.com >jewish beef brisket [url=http://index1.tuffik.com]jewish beef brisket[/url]

http://index1.tuffik.com >jewish beef brisket [url=http://index1.tuffik.com]jewish beef brisket[/url]

http://index1.tuffik.com >jewish beef brisket [url=http://index1.tuffik.com]jewish beef brisket[/url]

http://index1.pemise.com >victoria beckham http://pemise.com >ass trip

http://index1.qycuho.com >duvet nyc http://qycuho.com >diet news

http://index1.qycuho.com >duvet nyc http://qycuho.com >diet news

http://xuxeka.com >nude girls http://index1.xuxeka.com >nude celebritys

http://xuxeka.com >nude girls http://index1.xuxeka.com >nude celebritys

http://xuxeka.com >nude girls http://index1.xuxeka.com >nude celebritys

http://batoho.com >asked question http://index1.batoho.com >tattoos of gypsy girl

http://batoho.com >asked question http://index1.batoho.com >tattoos of gypsy girl

http://batoho.com >asked question http://index1.batoho.com >tattoos of gypsy girl

http://wupiwy.com >fresh news http://index1.wupiwy.com >fetal development

http://wupiwy.com >fresh news http://index1.wupiwy.com >fetal development

http://wupiwy.com >fresh news http://index1.wupiwy.com >fetal development

http://index1.bubify.com >chipawhoo boots

http://index1.bubify.com >chipawhoo boots

http://index1.bubify.com >chipawhoo boots

http://cihuky.com >naturl sex inhancers women [url=http://cihuky.com]naturl sex inhancers women[/url]

http://cihuky.com >naturl sex inhancers women [url=http://cihuky.com]naturl sex inhancers women[/url]

http://cihuky.com >naturl sex inhancers women [url=http://cihuky.com]naturl sex inhancers women[/url]

Contrary to popular belief, the end of the year is one of the best times to look for, awesome descion

Contrary to popular belief, the end of the year is one of the best times to look for, awesome descion

Hello, nice site :)

Hello, nice site :)

Taylor has a home in the Miami suburb of Palmetto Bay that he bought two years ago. The 24-year-old player is in HjJrFiZwfKpezK his fourth season with the Redskins after playing at the University of Miami, where he was an All-American in 2003

Taylor has a home in the Miami suburb of Palmetto Bay that he bought two years ago. The 24-year-old player is in HjJrFiZwfKpezK his fourth season with the Redskins after playing at the University of Miami, where he was an All-American in 2003

The comic visited the land for the first time in decades to promote his anRrpWTYnkmcou new animated movie about bees, and he was treated like royalty literally

The comic visited the land for the first time in decades to promote his anRrpWTYnkmcou new animated movie about bees, and he was treated like royalty literally

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Nice design. Please add more smiles to your guestbook http://amateurhomevideo.tripod.com/sex/amateur-home-video.html >amateur home video
B2AVig8v4S

Nice design. Please add more smiles to your guestbook http://amateurhomevideo.tripod.com/sex/amateur-home-video.html >amateur home video
B2AVig8v4S

Nice design. Lots of useful information! Please more updates http://idisk.mac.com/asiangirlsinthongs/Public/xxx/asian-girls-in-thongs.html >asian girls in thongs
Yeyo36p9v3

Nice design. Lots of useful information! Please more updates http://idisk.mac.com/asiangirlsinthongs/Public/xxx/asian-girls-in-thongs.html >asian girls in thongs
Yeyo36p9v3

Great job. May I ask you to visit my pages and tell me your opinion? http://idisk.mac.com/asianbabecams/Public/babe/asian-babe-cams.html >asian babe cams
VZ4H4Hx8E4

Great job. May I ask you to visit my pages and tell me your opinion? http://idisk.mac.com/asianbabecams/Public/babe/asian-babe-cams.html >asian babe cams
VZ4H4Hx8E4

I just want to say thank you for taking the time & effort for put this web page together! http://amateurstraightguys.tripod.com/photo/amateur-straight-guys.html >amateur straight guys
cA62n6YW8B

Thanks for the good site and usefulinfo. I found http://www.geocities.com/weddingspeech/free/wedding-speech.html >weeding speech
92fFW9Nsav

Hi everybody! Wanna see my cool pages? Would you please also visit my homepage? http://www.geocities.com/al4alinks/adult/al4a.html >al4a
WA6jCD66gQ

Thanks for the good site and usefulinfo. I found http://www.geocities.com/thedrudgereportarchives/matt/drudge-report.html >drudge report
cA62n6YW8B

Thanks for the good site and usefulinfo. I found http://www.geocities.com/thedrudgereportarchives/matt/drudge-report.html >drudge report
cA62n6YW8B

Hi, you have awesome site. Let's help each other, please visit my homepage too: http://www.geocities.com/compassbankonline/california/mapquest-ottawa.html >mapquest ottawa
Utu74Bp3zk

Hi, you have awesome site. Let's help each other, please visit my homepage too: http://www.geocities.com/compassbankonline/california/mapquest-ottawa.html >mapquest ottawa
Utu74Bp3zk

Fascinating site and well worth the visit again. I will be back soon http://idisk.mac.com/mapdirection/Public/drive/world-weather-map.html >world weather map
E93Gunu7R2

Greetings to the author of this page. Nice site, keep up the good work http://www.geocities.com/ko3el/one/printable-halloween-masks.html >printable halloween masks
AWA443aEgrY4

Good resources here. Cheers. BTW would you please also visit my site? http://www.geocities.com/vavagann/best/this-is-halloween-panic-at-the-disco.html >this is halloween panic at the disco
khf3hbx42

anyone interested in a comprehensive discussion based on the quran- go to zaid shakirs post on the question of prayer in the month of january-

raphael i particular has done an extraordinary job of presenting free will in islam-

Salaam Ahmed,

I am sorry you feel that way. I believe humans have free will. Therefore, I understand the Qur'an under the context of free will.

Ma'a Salaam,
Megan

Hi Pamela! Enjoyed your column--congratulations!
Jenny

Megan,
With respect I don't think you have understood the conundrum.

You wrote:
He will guide whoever wants His guidance.

That is the point - the human subject has no say in the guidance. Either Allah has willed that he/she believes or Allah has willed that he/she disbelieves.

His/her human will has nothing to do with it.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Megan,
With respect I don't think you have understood the conundrum.

You wrote:
He will guide whoever wants His guidance.

That is the point - the human subject has no say in the guidance. Either Allah has willed that he/she believes or Allah has willed that he/she disbelieves.

His/her human will has nothing to do with it.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Salaam Ahmed,

I appreciate your going and finding more verses in which "man yashao" is used. The Muhammad Asad translation receives much praise, but also much criticism and I am happy to know how he has been criticized.

That being said, I want to say that I do actually understand the "conundrum" you are talking about. I spent a long time being an agnostic/practical atheist, because there are many paradoxes that come with believing in God. These paradoxes, however, are not found only in Islam. The monotheistic religions are especially prone to inexplicable conundrums, such as Free Will versus an Omniscient God. If God is omniscient, how can anyone have true free will? And if we don't have free will, then what is even the point in being religious? Why would God create humans just to toy with them and torture them in the afterlife? And of course, there is the classical omnipotence paradox: If God is all powerful, can he create a rock so big that even He cannot lift it?

You know, I've thought a lot about these questions (even before I converted to Islam). And I think every believer should think about these questions. They are an important part of developing faith and character. This is what I’ve come up with so far. My perspective, however, also evolves as my beliefs and faith evolve.
1. God is Omniscient and Omnipotent.
2. God created humans, whom He gave free will (unlike the angels).
3. God exists outside of humans and time.
4. God guides whomever He wants.
5. God has the power to take away our free will, but He is merciful and compassionate and operates within His own moral structures, upholding His covenants.
6. Humans, while created just as God wanted them to be, are not perfect. That is, they have weakness of character and moral insufficiencies (a trade off from free will). God can guide the weakest humans, if He wants to.
7. God loves His creations (there are numerous verses in the Qur'an expressing this), and therefore created a sense of God in all of us. We are born knowing God, but forget Him later. This is where God's Will comes in. Does He guide those who forget Him?

Up to here, I think most of what I said is fairly orthodox and probably most monotheists will agree with me. But now here comes my own interpretation of "God guides whom He wills." I believe this is a reminder to us that we are constantly at the mercy of God. God guides everyone at first (and I also believe God wants to guide everyone). But some people reject His guidance (and some earlier than others), while others may only follow it half way.
I don’t believe that God picks and chooses people randomly to guide. God has a covenant with us, and to fulfill it, He will guide whoever wants His guidance. But part of His covenant with us is that we submit to His will. Those of us who do not submit to Him (because we have Free Will and can choose not to) are not worthy of God’s guidance. In the end, God can choose to guide whomever He wills, and this is the most important part of the message. God, however, isn’t prone to “isms” like racism, sexism, able-ism, etc., so those of us who believe in God have no right to believe we are superior to the non-believers. God didn’t handpick us, one by one, to be his “army.”

For Megan again,
In furtherance to Muhammad Asad's unorthodox translation of 'man yashao' one notes that he is inconsistent. His unusual position has twisted himself in a knot.

I thought a bit about where else man yashao is used: it is used numerous times in the Quran. For example:

M. Asad 48:14 But God’s is the dominion over the heavens and the earth: He forgives whomever He wills, and imposes suffering on whomever He wills - and [withal,] He is indeed much-forgiving, dispenser of grace.

Walillahi mulku alssamawati waalardi yaghfiru liman yashao wayuAAaththibu man yashao wakana Allahu ghafooran raheeman

وَلِلَّهِ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ يَغْفِرُ لِمَن يَشَاء وَيُعَذِّبُ مَن يَشَاء وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا

Note how Muhammad Asad translated man yashao here in the traditional way (as opposed to his unorthodox translation in 24:35) ==>

Allah forgives who He (i.e. Allah) wills and punishes who He (i.e. Allah) wills.

Regardless, the conundrum of "Allahu yahdee man yashao" remains.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Well, sorry Victoria,
I thought since you were getting really personal with me, I can get personal with you too.

In answer to your question, I don't think Muslims are mindless automatons but many Muslims I know haven't really thought about their faith in depth. My opinion is that Muslims like to deceive themselves or each other, which is not to say that they are immoral except that they may be suffering from cognitive dissonance. It's a psychological defense mechanism.

---

For Megan when she has the time:

http://alhafeez.org/rashid/qtranslate.html

1980
Muhammad Asad, The Message of The Qur'an (Gibraltar, 1980). l edn. Translated in chaste, idiomatic English by a convert from Judaism to Islam. However, it contains some serious departures from the orthodox viewpoint on a number of Qur'anic statements. Asad appears to be reluctant to accept the literal meaning of some Qur'anic verses. For example, he doubts the throwing of Ibrahim into fire, Jesus speaking in the cradle; refers to Khidr and Dhulqarnain as mythical figures and expresses unconventional views on abrogation (Naskh) theory. (For details please see Arfaque Malik's review in the Muslim World Book Review, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1980), pp. 5-7

==> I noticed that too. IMHO 'man yashao' cannot possible mean what Asad takes it to mean. This is totally against Islamic orthodoxy which says that it is Allah's will who he guides. But if Muhammad Asad's opinion works for you then fine - but just be aware that this is counter to the general Muslim understanding.

Salaam,
Ahmed

AHMED- my husband doesnt call me vickie- it not my name-

actually a deeper discussion of this has been going on for sometime on another post-

im assuming you meant important not impotent?

in your view a person is either a mindless automaton or completely independent of an umimportant deity?

do you think theres an alternative ahmed?

As an Arabic speaker, I have to disagree with Muhammad Asad and Zamakshari.

The phrase 'man yashao' من يشاء tells us that it is Allah who is doing the willing.

Whom He wills = whom Allah wills. The "whom" bit means the person cannot be doing the willing. That's just so clear - either in English or Arabic.

This phrase is all over the Quran, by the way, including the solid evidence I gave of 28:56 which shows that it is Allah who is doing the guiding.

But then again, like Vickie keeps saying, I don't know Arabic.

---

I also don't think you understand the conundrum. You have to think a little deeper, I suspect.

If it is Allah will that someone be a Muslim or disbeliever, then that person cannot similarly will his belief. It's either Allah's will or it is not. It cannot be both. It is not a consensus. Allah either decides or he doesn't.

Now, if Allah wills a person be a disbeliever, then why fry him in hell-fire for something that was not his fault?

If it is not Allah's will that a person be a disbeliever - that is, it is the person's will/decision, then why is Allah impotent?

Salaam,
Ahmed

lovely selection megan-
i only posted the above account as an example of the first statement-
finding beauty in islam-

like megan i started by saying i didnt want to speak for pamela-

i still think its beautiful and thank moonzoo for an opportunity to share

Salaam Ahmed,

While I am entering this virtual arena late, I've been reading all the comments, and to be honest, I don't really have time to post frequently (midterm exams are upon us students), so I didn't bother getting involved. So let me preface my response with, I may or may not have any time to reply to your response. Sorry!

Thanks for your translation of that line. Muhammad Asad *does* leave commentary on the problem you mentioned:

"* Although most of the commentators read the above phrase in the sense of “God guides unto His light whomever He wills,” Zamakhsharī gives it the sense adopted in my rendering (both being syntactically permissible)."

I think it's important that both translations are possible because for one, it is written all over the Qur'an that Allah knows all that was, is and ever will be and that (two) Allah knows what is in the hearts of men. So of course, God guides whomever He wills. But I think we should take that into the context of the covenant that we have with God. When God tells us he guides whom He wills, then I think we should understand that the is no reason for God to guide those who willfully disobey Him.

This verse doesn't make the Islamic God into a callous, judgmental, spoiled child. It reminds us that God is always here for us as long as we do God and worship him.

That's my take on it, anyway.

Salaams,
Megan

Megan,
That's a very nice verse. However, I hope I might be permitted to point out a flaw in Muhammad Asad's translation.

The phrase 'yahdee Allahu linoorihi man yashao' does not mean "God guides unto His light him that wills [to be guided]" but “Allah guides to his light whom he (i.e. Allah) wills.”

يهدي yahdee - guides
الله Allahu - Allah
لنوره linoorihi – to his light
من man - whom
يشاء yashao – he wills

The will to the light is not the person’s but entirely Allah's.

This may be a fine point but a problematic one since it is Allah's will that someone believes or disbelieves. So if it is already Allah's will that a disbeliever disbelieves then why does Allah punish the disbeliever? It seems Allah has punished the disbeliever for something that is beyond his control but of Allah’s doing.

The phrase “Allahu yahdee man yashao” has always struck me as a bit of a conundrum.

"That you (i.e. Muhammad) do not guide whom you like and but Allah guides whom He wills and He is more knowledgeable with the guided.” (Qur'an 28:56)

Salaam,
Ahmed

MOONZOO: You said:
"Please, Pamela, let us know what you regard as the most beautiful verse of the koran. (I assume you have read the book as I have). Please let us know why you regard the verse of the koran to be beautiful. It is the literal word of "allah" after all, so the verse must be surpassingly wonderful, yes?"

Now, I'm not Pamela, and I don't intend to speak for her. I am quite certain she has her own favorite verses of the Qur'an. Yes, the Qur'an, as a whole, is a beautiful book, but like all great books, it has its most wonderful parts. 24:35 is my own personal favorite:

"God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The parable of His light is, as it were, that of a niche containing a lamp; the lamp is [enclosed] in glass, the glass [shining] like a radiant star: [a lamp] lit from a blessed tree – an olive-tree that is neither of the east nor of the west – the oil whereof [is so bright that it] would well-nigh give light [of itself] even though fire had not touched it: light upon light!
God guides unto His light him that wills [to be guided]; and [to this end] God propounds parables unto men, since God [alone] has full knowledge of all things."
(translation by Muhammad Asad)

How can you deny the beauty of that?

Victoria,

All religions have some kind of prayer and that includes satanists, as far as harmony is concerned you'll find this with many other religions, cults or other groups. What distinguishes the good from the bad is what is written in their scriptures so providing verses(s) from the quran would go a lot further in answering MOONZOO 's question.

Victoria,
Whatever. I do know that Adrab an hunna means 'separate from her' and Idrib (no an) hunna means 'beat her'. If you doubt read 43:5 where 'separate from object' is written as 'adrabuAN object', not 'idrib(no AN) object'.

How much clearer can I make it. I don't understand you mean by vagueness. I take it you want me to list all the meanings of the root word daraba so you can pick and choose the meaning you like without considering the context and the grammar.

I think you have run out of argument in support of your selective interpretation of the Quran - which was counter to the Arabic, but please feel free to delude yourself.

Salaam,
Ahmed

your continued vagueness and inability to offer any comment at all on what is supposed to be your own language leads me to conclude that you dont knwo arabic at all ahmed-

you keep posting the exact same limited answer-

MOONZOO- even though your question wasnt addressed to me - i will share one aspect i find beautiful-

as a muslim- prayer is a most ever constant force in my life- my husband and i rise before sunrise every day and join in prayer- and during the day wherever he is- i know that were both praying around the same time-

one of the most beautiful things ive contemplatd is the fact that when i think of the entire world as a whole- (muslims pray at strictly proscribed times)
i know that like a great flower unfolding moving across the face of the earth in a rhythm and like a great unseen dance (well seen by ALLAH) there is the pattern of the rising and prostrating of believers in some beautiful unison- like the greatest most sublime clock of adoration- and that any given second in the day or night- constantly as the sun moves in its orbit- there is someone saying the words we all say- in the same language-in a perfect harmony, with the exact same intent-worship and a giving of the heart to our god- just giving-(we do the petition part after prayer if we choose)

thanks for giving me the chance to express this.

peace and salaams

it is in this we all share a certain cohesiveness isnt it

i submitted that in the forum on prayer-

it isnot a quranic verse but just my own experience and i find it a very beautiful and unifying aspect of islam-

does this satisfy your request for beauty?

peace

Pamela said:

I, for one, believe there is much of beauty in Islam, but am not willing to live my life in the 10th century.

I say to Pamela:

Please, Pamela, let us know what you regard as the most beautiful verse of the koran. (I assume you have read the book as I have). Please let us know why you regard the verse of the koran to be beautiful. It is the literal word of "allah" after all, so the verse must be surpassingly wonderful, yes?

Also, please, let us know one thing about islam you regard as beautiful.

I am perplexed about your understanding of beauty, just as I was perplexed about your understanding of why you thought the highly sexualized belief systen called islam would be regarded as prudish.

Jane wrote:
Thank you, Ahmed, for your REASONED replies. As a non-Muslim, when I read articles like Pamela's, or Ms Armstrong's or Ingrid Mattson's, I have the impression that they are only presenting a very small slice of Islam, but I don't have more solid information with which to challenge their arguments. So I depend on people like you to do that for me. So thank you for your service to truth.

Ahmed replies:
Thank you for your kind words. It is always good to weigh up all sides of an issue before finalizing one's viewpoint.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Victoria,
I take it you did not want the verb form but the multiple meanings of the root word 'daraba'. These are two different things.

I have already acknowledged that the root word 'daraba' has multiple meanings. However, you just can't apply any of these meanings as and when you like. Why do you pick one meaning out of the many to suit yourself?

The grammatical construct tells Arabs that idribohunna means 'beat her'. If you want to mean 'separate from her' you use adraboANhunna.

How can I make it clearer than that? Even the Quran uses that grammatical form. In 43:5 when it wants to say, 'separate from' it uses "adraboAN object". This is not the same as in the nine cases where it uses 'dribo (no AN) object" which means 'beat' or 'strike' it.

If you think you can get this from faithfreedom.org then go for it - I'm sure there are Arabic speakers and ex-Muslims there too. I don't see how you expect me to say something different when they are telling you the truth. Don't take my word for it - pick up the tafsirs pre-dating the latter-half of the 20th century and the meaning is clear.

Salaam,
Ahmed

are you saying that you can give a definition?
thats what i was asking- ask me a word inenglish- ill gove you a full definiton and synonyms too from my brain- not a dictionary-

itis something one does when one speaks a language fluently-

there aremany different tasfirs (expositions)

i find it incredible that you cant give a definiton for a word that has 10 different meanings-

i could get the sameinformation youve given me on faithfreedom-

I must make a correction above when I wrote that nowhere in the Quran does a derivation of daraba mean separate. But it proves my point that idribohunna is beat her and adrabANhunna means separate from you.

43:5 says:

افنضرب عنكم الذكر صفحا ان كنتم قوما مسرفين

Afanadribu AAankumu alththikra safhan an kuntum qawman musrifeena

Do we MOVE AWAY FROM YOU the remembrance forgivenes that you were a nation neglecters.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Victoria,
I don't know what you're talking about since I base my knowledge on what I have been taught and that is not grammar. I don't claim to be a grammarian. I only know that Idrib means to hit/strike/beat. That is in the Quran. Everytime idrib is mentioned in the Quran it means beat, except in 3 verses which has nothing to do with women or separation.

As you know - the Quran is the foundation stone of Classical Arabic. It's a circular argument I know but that's the case. If you want to know the meaning of an Arabic word it is best to refer to the Quran.

So in about 9 times in the Quran idrib is used - and each time it means strike or beat. No where in the Quran is 'daraba' or its derivation used to mean 'separation'.

As for the tafsirs - why shouldn't I use the tafsirs since the tafsir masters were experts in Classical Arabic while neither of us are. It's something called 'evidence.

I wonder why up till the 20th century idribohunna means 'beat her'? Are you expecting us to believe that Allah made a mistake and misled the Muslims until some Westernized Muslim decided that idrib means 'separate'?

As for the hadiths - I'd rather think the Quran takes precedence. If the hadiths go against the Quran you have to go with the Quran. Hadiths are often contradictory - even the Quran is.

I wonder if you had read the entire chapter in Abu Dawud. If you had then you would have read this:

Book 11, Number 2141:
Narrated Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab: Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) as saying: Do not beat Allah's handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.

Probably you don't know that Abu Dawud can be a tad contradictory. In fact, Muhammad was highly contradictory - it all depended on his mood at the time.

If you read the hadith above from the same source - you'd see Muhammad giving permission to Muslims to beat their wives.

So I'd rather let the Quran speak as the final authority on Islamic matters - and the tafsirs and the language tell me that idribohunna means 'beat her'.

Salaam,
Ahmed

on kindness to wives and forbidding beating

"...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)"

ahmed- i know the website you got that from-

now ill ask again-

from your own knowledge of arabic would you expound onthe verb forms-

funny how you claim to believe instrict adherence to the quran and literal interpertaion (similar to christian fundamentalists ive heard) but then fall to tasfeer-

i ask for an explanaton form your knowledge of the language and you present that old chestnut-

matthew 10:
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth.
I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 For I have come to turn `a man against his father, a daughter
against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me
is not worthy of me;

luke 22:

35 [Jesus] asked them [the eleven apostles], "When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
They said, "No, not a thing."
36 He said to them, "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled."
38 They [the disciples] said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"It is enough," he replied. (NRSV)

luke 12:

49 "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

so ahmed- again- could you give us a definition?
yourself?

About Idribohunna and adrabanhunna one only has to go to tafsirs - all the tafsirs dating before the twentieth century write as 'beat' her, not separate from her.

Idriboohunna أضربوهن

Adriboo Anhunna اضربوا عنهن

The word Idrib is also used in other places in the Quran. When Allah told Moses to strike the rock in 7:160 the word is idrib. When Allah told Moses to strike the sea to create a dry path he used the word idrib 20:77.

When you're commanded by Allah to take a branch or reeds and strike it on the ground the word is idrib (38:44).

When the Quran uses daraboo it means move or travel. You move in the world travel in the earth e.g. 3:156, 73:20 and 2:273. I'm not aware the word darab in the Quran is ever used to mean separate. I think people are "stretching" when they go from daraboo = move or travel to daraba = separate.

Note also that the phrase is 'daraboo fee al-ard' = move/travel in the earth. Thus the Quran never uses daraba or its deraviation to mean separate. The context is clear since idrib is always 'strike' or 'beat'.

Salaam
Ahmed

Pamela wrote:

Ahmad,

I agree that the classical interpretation of the Qur'an and classical legal rulings of Islam have been very much discriminatory against women. That does not mean they are the only possible ruling or that they are the only possible interpretations. Or the only valid interpretations. I do not believe we have to take the word of Ibn Kathir, or Al-Ghazali, et al, as sacrosanct. They are just men, their understanding was colored by the people who paid their livings, by social norms that promoted heirarchacal power structures, their notions of what it meant to be a man or a woman. Notions of gender that we now know were based upon fallacies or different understanding of what public good entailed.

Ahmed replies:
Muhammad was also a man and so were the Righteous Caliphs. Millions and millions of Muslim Arab women have also read the Quran and see no problem with the interpretation of the Imams. Then here comes the twentieth century converts and apologists/proselytizers with Western sensibilities and they decide to come up with a totally different interpretation to what Muslims have understood for the past 14 centuries.

I, too, read the Quran and can see the misogyny in there. After all, how can one describe polygamy, permissibility of sex with female sex slaves, ½ inheritance, ½ testimony to mean anything but misogyny. But I’m sure you have some reason to ignore or explain all these.

Pamela wrote:
Unfortunately, people who are about the business of seeking more humane, progressive, or liberal understandings are in a bit of a bind. On the one hand, both the Muslim and the western world are crying out for a reformation of Islam, but as soon as you start to discuss different understandings you are attacked as being unauthentic. You can't have it both ways. Either we are going to reform things, emphasizing the positive, wonderful aspects of the Qur'an and finding ways around the problematical verses, commentary and rulings, or we are stuck forever in the 10th century. I, for one, believe there is much of beauty in Islam, but am not willing to live my life in the 10th century.

Ahmed replies:
I applaud people like Irshad Manji and yourself for seeking a softer more humane, progressive and liberal understanding of Islam. However, I don’t think Islam can be reformed since the entire premise is suspect, some might even go so far as to say evil. I urge you to re-read the Quran again, paying particular attention to the violent and misogynistic verses. If you can identify ‘bad’ verses then it stands to reason the Quran was not from a true god.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Jihadist wrote:Ahmad Hussain.

I was being ironic. You don't know everything:).

Ahmed replies:
I was being sarcastic. Irony has nothing to do with it.

Jihadist wrote:

Ahmad : No – it is you who are being selective by ignoring the real reason why Islam subsumed Hinduism in Indonesia. Like I said, I grant you that the introduction of Islam into Indonesia was peaceful but like everywhere else, one Islam becomes powerful it becomes aggressive. Hence the fall of the Hindu Majapahit empire and why most of Indonesia, except Bali, became Muslim. One should really examine the history of Islam properly before falling for the Muslim lies.

Jihadist: Here, let me give you some tips/hints on right direction - Malacca Sultanate, Malacca port/entreport, - Aceh 14th/15th century

Ahmed replies:
Exceptions don’t prove the rule. The spread of Islam throughout the Malay Archipelago is not the Malaccan Sultanate.

Jihadist wrote:
Ahmad: In the Philippines, the Sultanates of Maguindanao and Sulu also spread Islam by the sword. The division between Philippines, Malaya, Indonesia and Borneo is an artificial modern day creation. In medieval times up until the 18th century those areas were just different parts of the Malay archipelago. Muslim sultanates sprang up and conquered different islands and were in turn attacked and conquered by other sultanates. If one examines the wars and history of conquests in those areas one can see the spread of Islam coincident with the spread of the sultanates.

Jihadist : It was Sulu and Mindanao and what, nothing about Spanish atrocities in forcing people to convert to Christianity and to colonise the Philippines and naming it in honour of King Philip?

Ahmed replies:
Two wrongs don’t make a right – it’s called the logical fallacy of “Tu Quoque”. Perhaps you might want to look it up.

Secondly, as a non-Christian I don’t care.

Jihadist wrote:
Ahmed : I take it you cannot find a single verse in the Bible where Jesus Christ told his followers to spread Christianity by the sword. Thank you very much.

Jihadist : Nah, I was just being polite not to recall on Jesus words and actions in the Temple.

Ahmed replies:
As I recall it he did not kill anyone. Kicking the money lenders out is clearly not on the same level as wholesale slaughter of opponents and enslaving women and children, is it?

I do hope you have the humanity to tell the difference. Muslims have that problem, I notice of equating Muslim murder with minor incidents.

Jihadist wrote:

Ahmad : Ahmad:Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386: Narrated Jubair bin Haiya: 'Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans…. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you {i.e. Persians} till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master."

See what I mean? Your prophet’s naked aggression against people who had nothing to do with him is very clear.

Jihadist : What, no have time to peruse your ready stock quotes from Suras in the Quran and down to Hadiths? And not what the Prophet actually said, but one of his Companions?

Ahmed replies:
Even the Quran is hearsay – Muhammad never wrote anything down but dictated it to his companions whom years later wrote them down. If we were to use your excuse the Quran itself is suspect since the process of transmission of bother the Quran and the sahih hadiths are exactly the same – via the memories of the companions.

Next Muslim excuse.

Jihadist wrote:

Ahmed : I’ve just demonstrated the poverty of all your arguments. If there is a lesson here to be gleaned then it must be that the position of Islam is weak.

Ahmad again : I don’t care what you think about my motives. I stand by my arguments and evidence (from Islamic holy scriptures).

Jihadist: Or course. I just don't want you to be blubbering and stammering in trying to explain the Incarnation and the Trinity, or why there is no God etc.

By the way, if Islam is so weak, you truly, really have nothing to worry about right?

Yes, you are a man who knows everything and understands nothing. Faith alway win, over reason unfortunately. That is what absolutely terrifies you.

I really would like to go on and on with you, but there are things I need to do at work and home.

For what it is worth, I find you interesting and delicious. Would really love to have you at one of my dinner parties. But leave your notes behind as memory aids and for sly references okay:)

Best regards

Ahmed replies:
If you invite me to one of your dinner parties make sure you stock up on Kristal champagne and beluga caviar. I’m quite partial to those.

But seriously I don’t worry about Islam except for it’s insidious evil spreading throughout the world. If Muslims leave Islam in Islamic countries I wouldn’t even care but they immigrate to Western countries and then try to spread it there.

Salaam,
Ahmed

i guess we all worship different things jihadist

who are we to judge?

Enialios Doson,

Good for you. Never knew you consider your dog's poo to be god. Good thing you did not burn your boots, only to clean them :)

I accidentally stepped on god this morning and I then had to clean my boots :-)

MS. TAYLOR

You don't have to be defensive about the so-called problematic Suras in the Qur'an.

In war nowadays, Muslim states are not exactly taking booty and slaves as bounty of war. The go by international law. See Iran-Iraq war.

As for the Hudud, you will remember that Hudud means limits. Whatever punishment is stated there for adultery, theft etc, the punishment prescbribed in the Suras of the Qur'an are the ultimate, the most extreme limits allowed by Allah Almighty.

Only extremists like Taliban goes for it, and Allah knows best that man would recoil from such punishment to be inflicted on another man and in insisting on stingent criterias of proof when accusing anyone of adultery or theft.

And besides, as for the Hadiths, following the Prophet to a T in daily life is a bit of a strech as the Prophet is a man of his time and would have beards like everyone else. He would used a razor if there is one.

With increasing education in traditional Muslim societies, the change will come in looking at the Hadiths again in its proper historical context as well the Qur'an. Muslim ulemas have been abrogating Suras of the Qur'an that contradicts by using the sequence of it being handed down to the Prophet.

We look at what Muslim converts like you, Victoria and Ingrid Mattson thinks and say about Islam. Your views and perspectives are untainted by traditional practices and culture believed to be part Islam, like female genital mutilation in Africa, and forced marraiges in the Indian subcontinent.

And reform in Islam is best by Muslims themselves. Including you, Victoria, and Ingrid Mattson. Not by Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Daniel Pipes. Nobody in the Islamic world, if they know of them, regard them seriously. We already know what they are talking about. They are ignored for they know not what is happening in the Islamic world who are not just Somalians and Arabs, but also Indonesians, Turkish, Malaysians, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and Central Asians.

I am not dismissing western based Islamic thinkers and scholars, but the majority of Muslims are living in developing countries from Morocco to Indonesia with their own cultural particularities, homegrown Muslim thinkers, modernizers and Shariah court systems. We never use the word "reform" of the religion except in the context of reforming Shariah laws.

There is a lot of learning and relearning between western Muslims and Muslims in developing countries I am glad to say in many, many serminars and conferences held. It will go on and on, and with the Internet, the global umma has a chance to speak with one another across oceans and chasms. It draws us closer as a community, it enables to also understand those who are of other faiths and other countries.

LKT
I am glad you see humour in the silliness of it all:)

There are people actually who do that for a living. A sort of "Muslim truth squad" to tell the truth about Islam and digging up obscure Hadiths which most Muslims don't even know about. Hadiths,after all, are secondary sources for the Muslim ulema to formulate the Sunnah if the Qur'an does not address it.

You will always see them in all threads where a Muslim panelist of On Faith appears. Whatever the topic in On Faith, they go into the sex life of the Prophet or the violent aspects of Islam. You never see them in the threads of non-Muslim panelists.

How to recognize them? Some telling phrases - the Prophet is a pedophile, Islam is spread by the sword, Islam is disrimitory towards women etc.

As for me, I always have a ball with them. With apologies to Ms Pamela Taylor for muddying her thread.

"So I'm not sure that momogamy is necessarily the only variation of human sexuality that we have to accept."

I am not sure who this "we" is? What two adults want to do with one another is their business. What I want to do with my life is my business. And if someone tells me that they have received a revelation from God that I should accept a polygamous or polyamorous lifestyle, I will tell them to go mind their own business. And for sure I will not set them up as a great prophet of love and truth.

What a hoot!! I haven't had so much fun and been amazed by so many people in a long time. I'm reminded of "get a life," but I wouldn't want to insult so many erstwhile respondees. I never realized, but have now seen the light -- the best reason to believe in God is so that you can sit here at your computer and read rabid believers of one religion attack another person's religion! Go at it!!

What a hoot!! I haven't had so much fun and been amazed by so many people in a long time. I'm reminded of "get a life," but I wouldn't want to insult so many erstwhile respondees. I never realized, but have now seen the light -- the best reason to believe in God is so that you can sit here at your computer and read rabid believers of one religion attack another person's religion! Go at it!!

Ahmad,

I agree that the classical interpretation of the Qur'an and classical legal rulings of Islam have been very much discriminatory against women. That does not mean they are the only possible ruling or that they are the only possible interpretations. Or the only valid interpretations. I do not believe we have to take the word of Ibn Kathir, or Al-Ghazali, et al, as sacrosanct. They are just men, their understanding was colored by the people who paid their livings, by social norms that promoted heirarchacal power structures, their notions of what it meant to be a man or a woman. Notions of gender that we now know were based upon fallacies or different understanding of what public good entailed.

Unfortunately, people who are about the business of seeking more humane, progressive, or liberal understandings are in a bit of a bind. On the one hand, both the Muslim and the western world are crying out for a reformation of Islam, but as soon as you start to discuss different understandings you are attacked as being unauthentic. You can't have it both ways. Either we are going to reform things, emphasizing the positive, wonderful aspects of the Qur'an and finding ways around the problematical verses, commentary and rulings, or we are stuck forever in the 10th century. I, for one, believe there is much of beauty in Islam, but am not willing to live my life in the 10th century.

Moonzoo

Your comments do raise important questions about monogamy. I have to admit, I feel a lot of ambivalence about monogamy/polygamy. I was raised in a society which puts a lot of emphasis on monogamy, but I also was raised in the era of free love. I have friends who believe in and practice polyamory. They have little problem with hot, steamy sex with a variety of partners. So I'm not sure that momogamy is necessarily the only variation of human sexuality that we have to accept.

As for heaven, the Qur'an mentions beautiful youths who presumably will be for the women, but I tend to view most of those descriptions as carrots. We won't really know what Heaven is like till we get there.

And finally, as for pairs. They are not necessarily sexual pairs. Night and day, heaven and earth are not sexual pairs. Just because some organizism recreate themselves asexually does not mean they have no pairing.

ill tell you what- i look forward to ms taylors upcoming book- i just read her bio up there- harvard divinity school - first woman to serve as imam in centuries-

despite all this she is the only panelist i have seen on these boards who RESPONDS and responds again-
if nothing else she is a woman of exellent manners-

salaams all

again ahmed- prove jihadist wrong and give us the lowdown on the grammar and verb forms there-

also your thoughts on if it is not forbidden it is allowed

ROSS- SORRY ABOUT THE MISUNDERSTANDING ON MY PART-

the interesting thing is though- that i ended up proving pamela's point (and islams) about the sterility of a life in abstinence-

but i had to live it and prove it to myself and i could go on and on (as you know i do)

so sorry for the misunderstanding-

im not able to post links today but ill get back to you on that point about muslim women marrying non muslim men-

ahmed- since youre fluent in arabic- perhaps you could elaborate on the syntax and grammatical construction of the verb 'beat her'

now personally ive had alot of conversations with learned people who not only were proficient in th classic arabic of the quran- but hafiz and alim and knowledgeable aout the finer points-

so if you could please- expound on this verb and the form for us please-

ive heard it done many times and look forward to your contribution-

The word is idribohunna = beat her.

To separate from her the word is = adrabANhunna.

Ahmad Hussain.

I was being ironic. You don't know everything:).

Ahmad : No – it is you who are being selective by ignoring the real reason why Islam subsumed Hinduism in Indonesia. Like I said, I grant you that the introduction of Islam into Indonesia was peaceful but like everywhere else, one Islam becomes powerful it becomes aggressive. Hence the fall of the Hindu Majapahit empire and why most of Indonesia, except Bali, became Muslim. One should really examine the history of Islam properly before falling for the Muslim lies.

Jihadist: Here, let me give you some tips/hints on right direction - Malacca Sultanate, Malacca port/entreport, - Aceh 14th/15th century

Ahmad: In the Philippines, the Sultanates of Maguindanao and Sulu also spread Islam by the sword. The division between Philippines, Malaya, Indonesia and Borneo is an artificial modern day creation. In medieval times up until the 18th century those areas were just different parts of the Malay archipelago. Muslim sultanates sprang up and conquered different islands and were in turn attacked and conquered by other sultanates. If one examines the wars and history of conquests in those areas one can see the spread of Islam coincident with the spread of the sultanates.

Jihadist : It was Sulu and Mindanao and what, nothing about Spanish atrocities in forcing people to convert to Christianity and to colonise the Philippines and naming it in honour of King Philip?

Ahmed : I take it you cannot find a single verse in the Bible where Jesus Christ told his followers to spread Christianity by the sword. Thank you very much.

Jihadist : Nah, I was just being polite not to recall on Jesus words and actions in the Temple.

Ahmad : Ahmad:Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386: Narrated Jubair bin Haiya: 'Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans…. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you {i.e. Persians} till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master."

See what I mean? Your prophet’s naked aggression against people who had nothing to do with him is very clear.

Jihadist : What, no have time to peruse your ready stock quotes from Suras in the Quran and down to Hadiths? And not what the Prophet actually said, but one of his Companions?

Ahmed : I’ve just demonstrated the poverty of all your arguments. If there is a lesson here to be gleaned then it must be that the position of Islam is weak.

Ahmad again : I don’t care what you think about my motives. I stand by my arguments and evidence (from Islamic holy scriptures).

Jihadist: Or course. I just don't want you to be blubbering and stammering in trying to explain the Incarnation and the Trinity, or why there is no God etc.

By the way, if Islam is so weak, you truly, really have nothing to worry about right?

Yes, you are a man who knows everything and understands nothing. Faith alway win, over reason unfortunately. That is what absolutely terrifies you.

I really would like to go on and on with you, but there are things I need to do at work and home.

For what it is worth, I find you interesting and delicious. Would really love to have you at one of my dinner parties. But leave your notes behind as memory aids and for sly references okay:)

Best regards

Pamela:

Are you married? How many wives does your husband have? Does he have deep meaningful sexual relations (such as you describe) with all his wives, or is that none of your business? Do you think that the deep, meaningful and amazingly intimate moslem sex between you and your husband has any relevance to his deep meaningful and amazingly intimate moslem sexual relations with his other wives? BTW, you do know that Mohammed had sex with many wives, many more than allah permitted any other human being, as well as slave girls and girls he won in battle? You do know that, do you not?

Pamela, do you have any objection to your husband having deep meaningful moslem sex with you, and then going to the next room and having the same deep sex with his other wife? Or do you find that exciting and profoundly human?

BTW, you do understand that multiple wives is part of islam, do you not?

And Pamela, when your husband is having deep meaningful and amazingly intimate sex with his fecund tilths with overflowing milkful breasts - - such as your own - - in other words, when he has that meaningful moslem sex with the many young, hot virgins he gets in heaven, who will you be having meaningful, amazingly intimate hot moslem sex with?

Pamela,
I will reply to your long post about 4:34 and 4:128-130 later since it is very long.

Suffice to say that daraba in the context of 4:34 does mean beat.

The word is idribohunna = beat her.

To separate from her the word is = adrabANhunna.

They are similar but not the same. Muslim apologists try to fool people by picking the root meaning that suits them. Granted the root word daraba has many meanings but that is not to say the end words have all those meanings.

Also, there is a problem with Muslims picking and choosing the meaning to suit their sensibilities. For centuries Arab Muslims, including the tafsir masters, have understood idribohunna to mean 'beat her'. Then suddenly in the twentieth century, due to modern sensibilities, Muslims began to make apologetics to twist the meaning to mean 'separate from her'.

I'd rather believe that the great Arabic tafsirs masters such as al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, as-Suyuti, ibn Razi and al-Zamakshari knew Classical Arabic better than all of us and they all explain daraba as 'beat'.

Regardless, 4:34 talks about the punishment a husband meats out to his wife when she is DISOBEDIENT as the punishment stops when she OBEYS him.

Some people translate Nuzhuz to mean leave or exit or desertion. Thus, 4:34 may be a Muslim husbands punishment to stop a wife from leaving him - including beating her. This meaning is supported by 4:128.

Perhaps the meaning of 'nushuz' should be estrangement rather than disobedience since it applies to both husband and wife. Nevertheless, in the wife's case nushuz is counterpointed by the word "ataAAna" which means obey. This word is also used when Muslims are commanded to obey Allah - so it seems a woman must obey her husband otherwise she has committed nushuz and becomes a nashiza.

Lastly, the fact that the Quran prescribes the right of husbands to 'punish' their wives should be of concern to modern women.

Salaam,
Ahmed

I have always found it odd when people make the claim that the Qur'an affirms that everything in creation is made in pairs. The Qur'an may very well affirm that, but not everything in creation is made in pairs. Yeast Cells, eukaryotes, bacteria, protozoa, prokaryotes. Not made in pairs. I wonder why the Qur'an would make such a false claim? Could it be the author was unaware that such organisms exsisted? If that is the case it only leads to doubt the validity of the quran and it's author.
Another odd point on the pair claim is, how can 4 wives and numerous female slave concubines and 1 male be considered a pair? How can 2 wives and 1 husband be considered a pair?
It was these points that have always shown to me that islam is simply another man made "religion" created to control of the masses and ensure the "prophet" was well taken care of. Hardly spiritual or divine.
Sorry Pamela, your rhetoric is no better than the next person's "divine" book.

Jihadist wrote:
Ahmad Hussain, I still don't trust you:)

And a good game we have running here.

I had though you were "Sayeed". You have the same tone and cadence in the way you write, and words used as him. If you're not, sorry.

Ahmed replies:
No – sorry to disappoint you. I’m not Sayeed. Don’t know who he is.

Jihadist wrote:
You really go creative and selective with history eh. I am a South East Asia Muslim and should know the history of my region. We were animists, then Hindus then Buddhists, then Muslim in insular Southest Asia. In the Philippines, Islam was making headway but the Spaniards spread it by the sword and invoking God.

Ahmed replies:
No – it is you who are being selective by ignoring the real reason why Islam subsumed Hinduism in Indonesia. Like I said, I grant you that the introduction of Islam into Indonesia was peaceful but like everywhere else, one Islam becomes powerful it becomes aggressive. Hence the fall of the Hindu Majapahit empire and why most of Indonesia, except Bali, became Muslim. One should really examine the history of Islam properly before falling for the Muslim lies.

In the Philippines, the Sultanates of Maguindanao and Sulu also spread Islam by the sword. The division between Philippines, Malaya, Indonesia and Borneo is an artificial modern day creation. In medieval times up until the 18th century those areas were just different parts of the Malay archipelago. Muslim sultanates sprang up and conquered different islands and were in turn attacked and conquered by other sultanates. If one examines the wars and history of conquests in those areas one can see the spread of Islam coincident with the spread of the sultanates.

Jihadist wrote:
Ahmed replied:
"I'm yet to see anyone produce evidence that the violent spread of Christianity was due to a command from Jesus Christ and not in spite of it."

There you go:) All in all, very tragic is it not, in spite of of Jesus not commanding the violent spread of Christianity, all its adherents fought wars in the name of God and Christianity from the Pope calling for the first Crusades to President Bush. And the worst wars in the last centuries are between Christians. Where is Jesus's teachings. And the churches collaborated with the Nazis. And Bush invoke God too no, to go into Iraq.

Ahmed replies:
I take it you cannot find a single verse in the Bible where Jesus Christ told his followers to spread Christianity by the sword. Thank you very much.

In contrast, let me produce this from the sahih hadiths:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386:
Narrated Jubair bin Haiya: 'Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans…. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you {i.e. Persians} till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master."

See what I mean? Your prophet’s naked aggression against people who had nothing to do with him is very clear.

Jihadist wrote:
Ahmad Hussain, this is fun sport. You cherry pick on us, we do the same to you:)

Well Ahmad Hussain, whoever you are, I have indulged you enough in your research papers:)
Only Catholic and evangelicals are as obsessed as you are.

Last obvious lesson for you:

As a non-Muslim, stop pretending to be interested in Islam for Islam's and Muslims own good.

Reason - Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes tried and it didn't work.

Surely a man like you, who knows everything, would also understand why, and not have to ask anyone:)

Ahmed replies:
I’ve just demonstrated the poverty of all your arguments. If there is a lesson here to be gleaned then it must be that the position of Islam is weak.

I don’t care what you think about my motives. I stand by my arguments and evidence (from Islamic holy scriptures).

But thanks for acknowledging that I know everything. That is not true, of course. There are one or two things I do not know.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Pamela:
Ahmad

Of course you have to look elsewhere -- do you expect to pick one verse and get the everthing that God has to say about a matter? Nothing in the Qur'an (or any other Holy Book) works this way.

Ahmed replied:
Thanks for the rapid response. It is refreshing to see an author defending her articles, unlike some others.

I think I do know how the Quran works. I only want to know how you can make links between hadiths and the Quran without the evidence to link them. I’ve read many tafsirs and the fatwas that link the different sources but they always give the reason why the link is there. Otherwise, who’s to say the link is valid?

Pamela wrote:
As for 2:28 -- let me quote it in whole: Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart, three (monthly) courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back in that case if they desire a reconciliation. For women the likeness of that which is against them, and men have a degree over them.

Now, does this mean that men have an absolute advantage in everything, at all circumstances over women? That God preferred men to women? Not the way I see it.

The verse is clearly addressing a particular situation -- the dissolution of a marriage. Women are instructed that they should wait to remarry, until they determine whether they are pregnant or not. If they are pregnant, they should not hide their pregnancy, and the men are advised it would be better in that circumstance to take them back (to be active fathers to their children, and to support their wives through childbirth, etc).

It then goes on to say that what is for women is equal to what is against (or over them). It doesn't mention rights, and there is no reason to believe it is talking in general. Further, in addressing this particular situation where women are confronted with having been divorced in the very early stages of pregnancy, it makes a great deal sense, whereas abstracted and turned into some statement of human worth it denies everything else the Qur'an has to say about men and women.

It is a disadvantage to be pregnant and divorced. This is what is meant when the verse talks about what is "against or over women." But the admonition to men to take them back balances that out. That is what is "for them," what Allah has manadated to mitigate the burden women alone have to bear (men after all do not get pregnant). Thus, equation is evened out. Women have something going against them -- the disadvantage of finding yourself without a support system and your child without a father in the home -- and something going for them -- the admonition that it is better for men to take the wives back in this situation.

The degree of men over women, it would seem obvious, lies in not having to deal with this issue, or perhaps in that there is no way women can force a man to take her back even though she might desperately want him to.

Again, is this the way every Muslim understands this verse? No. 1.5 billion people are not going to have a unified approach to anything. It is an understanding that can be used to address problems in the Muslim world, I believe so.

Ahmed replied:
I don’t share this interpretation. There is no need to say the word ‘rights’ for the meaning to be construe, Arabic being such a rich language. The context is clear. I see this meaning in the tafsirs. Ibn Kathir talks about rights in reference to 2:228.

And they (women) have rights (over their husbands as regards living expenses) similar (to those of their husbands) over them (as regards obedience and respect) to what is reasonable,)

This Ayah indicates that the wife has certain rights on her husband, just as he has certain rights on her, and each is obliged to give the other spouse his due rights. Muslim reported that Jabir said that Allah's Messenger said:

«فَاتَّقُوا اللهَ فِي النِّسَاءِ، فَإِنَّكُمْ أَخَذْتُمُوهُنَّ بِأَمَانَةِ اللهِ، وَاسْتَحْلَلْتُمْ فُرُوجَهُنَّ بِكَلِمَةِ اللهِ، وَلَكُمْ عَلَيْهِنَّ أَنْ لَا يُوطِئْنَ فُرُشَكُمْ أَحَدًا تَكْرَهُونَهُ، فَإِنْ فَعَلْنَ ذَلِكَ فَاضْرِبُوهُنَّ ضَرْبًا غَيْرَ مُبَرِّحٍ، وَلَهُنَّ رِزْقُهُنَّ وَكِسْوَتُهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوف»

a(Fear Allah regarding your women, for you have taken them by Allah's covenant and were allowed to enjoy with them sexually by Allah's Words. You have the right on them that they do not allow anyone you dislike to sit on your mat. If they do that, then discipline them leniently. They have the right to be spent on and to be bought clothes in what is reasonable.)

Bahz bin Hakim said that Mu`awiyah bin Haydah Al-Qushayri related that his grandfather said, "O Messenger of Allah! What is the right the wife of one of us has'' The Prophet said:

«أَنْ تُطْعِمَهَا إِذَا طَعِمْتَ، وتَكْسُوَهَا إِذَا اكْتَسَيْتَ، وَلَا تَضْرِبِ الْوَجْهَ، وَلَا تُقَبِّحْ، وَلَا تَهْجُرْ إِلَّا فِي الْبَيْت»

(To feed her when you eat, buy her clothes when you buy for yourself and to refrain from striking her on the face, cursing her or staying away from her except in the house.)

Waki` related that Ibn `Abbas said, "I like to take care of my appearance for my wife just as I like for her to take care of her appearance for me. This is because Allah says:

﴿وَلَهُنَّ مِثْلُ الَّذِى عَلَيْهِنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ﴾

(And they (women) have rights similar (to those of their husbands) over them to what is reasonable.)'' This statement is reported by Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abu Hatim.

Allah said:

﴿وَلِلرِّجَالِ عَلَيْهِنَّ دَرَجَةٌ﴾

(but men have a degree (of responsibility) over them.)

This Ayah indicates that men are in a more advantageous position than women physically as well as in their mannerism, status, obedience (of women to them), spending, taking care of the affairs and in general, in this life and in the Hereafter. Allah said (in another Ayah):

﴿الرِّجَالُ قَوَّامُونَ عَلَى النِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ اللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُواْ مِنْ أَمْوَلِهِمْ﴾

(Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means.) (4:34)

This is from the tafsir of al-Jalalayn where Imam as-Suyuti and Imam al-Mahalli also understand the verse to talk about rights.

Divorced women shall wait by themselves, before remarrying, for three periods (qurū'in is the plural of qar'), of purity or menstruation - these are two different opinions - which begin from the moment of divorce. This [stipulation] applies to those who have been sexually penetrated but not to those otherwise, on account of His saying, there shall be no [waiting] period for you to reckon against them [Q. 33:49]. The waiting period for immature or menopausal women is three months; pregnant women, on the other hand, must wait until they give birth, as stated in the sūrat al-Talāq [Q. 65:4], while slavegirls must wait two months, according to the Sunna. And it is not lawful for them to hide what God has created in their wombs, of child or menstruation, if they believe in God and the Last Day. Their mates, their spouses, have a better right to restore them, to bring them back, even if they refuse, in such time, that is, during the waiting period, if they desire to set things right, between them, and put pressure on the woman [to return]; the statement is not a condition for the possibility of return, but an incitement [to set things right] in the case of repealed divorce; the term ahaqq, 'better right to', does not denote any priority, since, in any case, no other person has the right to marry them during their waiting period; women shall have rights, due from their spouses, similar to those, rights, due from them, with justice, as stipulated by the Law, in the way of kind conjugality and not being harmed; but their men have a degree above them, in rights, as in their duty to obey their husbands, because of their [the husbands'] payment of a dowry and their [husbands] being the bread-winners; God is Mighty, in His Kingdom, Wise, in what He has ordained for His creatures.

This is from Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs who also understand the verse to mean ‘rights’:

(Women who are divorced) through one or two pronouncements of divorce (shall wait) shall wait a certain time called the waiting period, (keeping themselves apart, three (monthly) courses) for three menstruation periods. (And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal) their pregnancy (that which Allah hath created in their wombs) of offspring (if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back) to take them back as their wives (in that case) during the waiting period or if they are pregnant (if they desire reconciliation.) This is because in the early period of Islam, when a man divorced his wife via one or two pronouncements of divorce, he had a better right to take her back after the lapse of the waiting period, before her marrying again. Later, the right to take one's wife back was abrogated by the saying of Allah: (Divorce must be pronounced twice). Similarly, a man had a better right to take his wife back if she were pregnant, even if he had pronounced her divorce a thousand times. This was however abrogated by Allah's saying: (divorce them for their (legal) period) [65:1]. (And they) have rights) and inviolability with their husbands (similar to those) of their husbands (over them in kindness) in kind companionship and intercourse, (and men are a degree above them) in relation to the reasoning faculty, inheritance, blood money, as witnesses in court and also that which they owe them in terms of expenditure and service. (Allah is Mighty) in that He is vengeful vis-à-vis whoever leaves that which is between a husband and wife of rights and inviolability, (Wise) regarding that which He has ruled between them.

This reminds me of the passage in the book “Animal Farm” by George Orwell:

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Ahmad Hussain, I still don't trust you:)

And a good game we have running here.

I had though you were "Sayeed". You have the same tone and cadence in the way you write, and words used as him. If you're not, sorry.

You really go creative and selective with history eh. I am a South East Asia Muslim and should know the history of my region. We were animists, then Hindus then Buddhists, then Muslim in insular Southest Asia. In the Philippines, Islam was making headway but the Spaniards spread it by the sword and invoking God.

Ahmed replied:
"I'm yet to see anyone produce evidence that the violent spread of Christianity was due to a command from Jesus Christ and not in spite of it."

There you go:) All in all, very tragic is it not, in spite of of Jesus not commanding the violent spread of Christianity, all its adherents fought wars in the name of God and Christianity from the Pope calling for the first Crusades to President Bush. And the worst wars in the last centuries are between Christians. Where is Jesus's teachings. And the churches collaborated with the Nazis. And Bush invoke God too no, to go into Iraq.

Ahmad Hussain, this is fun sport. You cherry pick on us, we do the same to you:)

Well Ahmad Hussain, whoever you are, I have indulged you enough in your research papers:)
Only Catholic and evangelicals are as obsessed as you are.

Last obvious lesson for you:

As a non-Muslim, stop pretending to be interested in Islam for Islam's and Muslims own good.

Reason - Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes tried and it didn't work.

Surely a man like you, who knows everything, would also understand why, and not have to ask anyone:)

Pamela,
Of course I realize that Muhammed "recited" the Quran, and that Muslims believe it was a revelation from God. Very well then, challenge God, as well as the human who claims to be speaking the words of God.
You say that you did do this questioning 20 years ago, and converted at that time. The difference between us is that I also questioned, and instead of converting to Islam, I was on the whole shocked and disheartened by what I found in Islam. And I don't mean that I was just shocked by what is or has been practiced as Islam. I was shocked by the very source documents, by so many statements in the Quran, and by so much of Muhammed's behavior.

As for this forum, and its purpose, I am not trying to convert you or correct your beliefs.But you are writing what I consider to be half-truths or untruths in a public forum, which I think I have a responsibility to respond to.

Jane,

your choice of words, "challenge Muhammad himself (assuming that he wrote the Qur'an, which according to much modern schoalrship is very debatable)" is amusing as most Muslims would aver very forecefully that indeed Muhammad did not write the Qur'an, rather it was a revelation from God.

Nonetheless, I take your point that I should question the Qur'an and Muhammad's character. I did just that some twenty years ago. Then I converted. :) Perhaps some day I'll post the story of how that happened.

Your comments through thread do raise an interesting point as to the purpose of this dialogue. Is it for commentators/posters to try and convince one another their beliefs are correct, or for each of us to learn something from one another, and hopefully thereby enrichen our own spirituality and religious understanding? When I participate in dialogues with my Christian friends, I don't go hoping to convert them to Islam, and if they expect that I will embrace the Trinity they are going to be sorely disappointed. ButI have learned much about how people relate to God, how their spirituality enriches their lives, and their experiences have helped me have a riches spiritual life, too. I hope that some of that occurs on this forum as well.

Ross,

I personally believe that marriage between Muslims and non-Muslims is acceptable in the circumstance where each partner agrees to respect the religious practice of the other. The Qur'an mentions that marriage with people of the Book is acceptable, and though the language is gendered, much of the language of the Qur'an is gendered, but is acknowledged as referring to both sexes.

I do believe that in the case of two people who are very committed to their religious this may prove more difficult than they imagine before they are married, have kids, and inlaws with expectations.

to Pamela:

You said that "The Qur'an is a living book, it cannot be left, encrusted, in interpretations that are now centuries old."

What some of us are saying is "go further". Don't just challenge old interpretations of the Quran, challenge the QURAN ITSELF, challenge Muhammed himself(that is, of course, assuming that he wrote the Quran, which, according to much modern scholarship is very debatable.) Come to the Quran with unbiased and objective eyes, not just with the eyes of a believer, but as if you were reading a document from some ancient religion that no one living today knows anything about or practices. And what do you think of Muhammed's behavior and statements then?

victoria wrote,
ross- i never heard anyone say that islam frowns on abstinence!

If your post was a reply to my post at "Posted February 21, 2007 10:17 AM " then please re read that post. I'm not questioning abstinence,
monasticism and celibacy. My questions to Ms. Taylor are regaring relationship between muslim women and non muslim men w.r.t to her article.

Thank you, Ahmed, for your REASONED replies. As a non-Muslim, when I read articles like Pamela's, or Ms Armstrong's or Ingrid Mattson's, I have the impression that they are only presenting a very small slice of Islam, but I don't have more solid information with which to challenge their arguments. So I depend on people like you to do that for me. So thank you for your service to truth.

P.S. I am not Christian, I am not of any religion, although I have informally studied all the major religions of the world. I have read some of the sayings and actions of both Jesus and Buddha, and I found nothing problematic with what they said and did. But when I read about Muhammed, there were so many things that I disagreed with. The major one, is this emphasis on believers as opposed to non-believers, on apostasy, on infidels. As soon as the world gets divided into this sort of us and them, then we are talking no longer about religion, which is people's personal beliefs about the meaning of life, but about political control. People need to be free to question everything, every political and religious authority without fear. I don't see that freedom within Islam. If a belief system needs to kill those who no longer believe in that belief system or who criticize it, it is no longer a religion but a system for political control.

ross- i never heard anyone say that islam frowns on abstinence!

i will tell you from my own experience- yoyu know i was franciscan before right?

having lived in different kinds of monastic environments i will tell you with absolute certainty that people will find ways to distract themselves-

no one can think solely of god every minute-
i was really headed for the carmelites- who are the most reclusive and cloistered community in the world (for women) totally self sufficient- grow their own food- weave their own cloth! make their own music and lead a life utterly devoid of worldly distractions-
it is a contemplative order-

monasticism and celibacy are incomplete ways to develop humans-
we are sexual beings- denial of this doesnt really foster more closeness to god- sometimes it feeds into a frenetic compulsive-

( i remember in the early 80s i spent a week at a retreat at the hare krishna temple- the palace of gold in new vrindavin moundsville west viriginia-

omigod- those crazy krishnas made me a nervous wreck- it was spring and the sexual tension was palpable- they were chanting like fiends constantly- and contrary to settling anyone down- it seemed to heighten their anxiety til it was a bizarre aggressively annoying experience-
all that "focus" on god was making me mental- as it was a desperate attempt to deny their own natural urges and sublimate the expression of their sexual energy)

people think that by sublimating sexual energy it can be redirected to greater service of humans and god- but in reality it creates a frustration and tension that cannot be ignored-

and people will also be territorial and petty and grouchy and compulsive and nervous and everything else- in oter words they will continue to be people just like anyone else-

also the most simple of wisdoms in dealing with the outside world is absent- it never gets developed- its like being in a protected teenage world forever-

also and this is the big one for me-

i think that to make the ultimate self indulgence of being concerned only with ones own selfish salvation displays a self centeredness that is really awful- it precludes real concern for the affairs of the human race and everything is viewed through the perspective of how it affects ones personal salvation-

there are many gentle and sensitive people who are drawn by this life- but i also found it to be a sort of cowardly running away from the difficulties and just plain sufferings of being a human-

i found it an imbalanced practice of the human condition- and an unnatural way for people to try and live-

there is spiritual oneupsmanship and competition just like anywhere else- we dont transcend being homo sapiens by beibg homo religioso-

there are the same quarrels and disagreements and petty disputes that accompany any other group of peoples interacting-
well i could go on and on on this subject but ill quit- it is always interesting to me to see how people idealize the lives of monastics-

there is also a practice called active meditation in contemplative communities- where ones actions are all offered to god and remembrance is constant- i think of the whole of islam as a form of active meditation- we are engage in and active and participatory in life and history and human affairs and that requires a greater self control and deeper strength than the false confines of a secluded and protected community- one has to become an adult when one encounters the world- the protection and separation of monastic life doesnt allow these matuire aspects to develop fully- one never has to sink or swim and learn the subsequent discernment and wisdom lessons that happen with sinking and learning to swim-

i say they are poised on the ocean of humanity without the necessary skills to swim with all the different fishes-

this is my personal experience and of course is subjective-

Pamela wrote:
This view of sex, pleasure, intimacy and love reflects Islam's understanding of human nature. The Qur'an affirms that everything in creation is made in pairs. Heaven and Earth. Salt water and fresh water. Male and Female. Having a mate is part and parcel of being a created creature. God alone is single. God alone is complete with no need of any partner. Sex, then, is the manifestation and fulfillment of the essence of humankind as created beings.

On a more personal level, I am struck that this affirmation of sex tells us something interesting about God as understood by Islam. On the one hand, the Prophet taught us that the highest achievement a believer can strive for is the constant awareness of God. And yet, at the same time, Islam frowns on monasticism, and on abstinence, and encourages this act which pretty much guarantees our focus will be somewhere else. God, then, is not petty, or jealous.

Ms. TAYLOR,

I have the following question(s):
Do your views abut man - woman relationships also apply to muslim women married to non muslim men ?
If your answer is YES then does it not contradict the quran/sharia i.e. muslim women are not allowed to marry non muslim men ?
If your answer is NO then does it not make the islamic God look petty ?

Thanks

Ahmad

Of course you have to look elsewhere -- do you expect to pick one verse and get the everthing that God has to say about a matter? Nothing in the Qur'an (or any other Holy Book) works this way.

As for 2:28 -- let me quote it in whole: Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart, three (monthly) courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back in that case if they desire a reconciliation. For women the likeness of that which is against them, and men have a degree over them.

Now, does this mean that men have an absolute advantage in everything, at all circumstances over women? That God preferred men to women? Not the way I see it.

The verse is clearly addressing a particular situation -- the dissolution of a marriage. Women are instructed that they should wait to remarry, until they determine whether they are pregnant or not. If they are pregnant, they should not hide their pregnancy, and the men are advised it would be better in that circumstance to take them back (to be active fathers to their children, and to support their wives through childbirth, etc).

It then goes on to say that what is for women is equal to what is against (or over them). It doesn't mention rights, and there is no reason to believe it is talking in general. Further, in addressing this particular situation where women are confronted with having been divorced in the very early stages of pregnancy, it makes a great deal sense, whereas abstracted and turned into some statement of human worth it denies everything else the Qur'an has to say about men and women.

It is a disadvantage to be pregnant and divorced. This is what is meant when the verse talks about what is "against or over women." But the admonition to men to take them back balances that out. That is what is "for them," what Allah has manadated to mitigate the burden women alone have to bear (men after all do not get pregnant). Thus, equation is evened out. Women have something going against them -- the disadvantage of finding yourself without a support system and your child without a father in the home -- and something going for them -- the admonition that it is better for men to take the wives back in this situation.

The degree of men over women, it would seem obvious, lies in not having to deal with this issue, or perhaps in that there is no way women can force a man to take her back even though she might desperately want him to.

Again, is this the way every Muslim understands this verse? No. 1.5 billion people are not going to have a unified approach to anything. It is an understanding that can be used to address problems in the Muslim world, I believe so.

Ok, that post was getting long, so I thought I'd break this reply up.

Many people are criticizing/questioning Islam's approach to women in a lot of different arenas... marriage, inheritance, witnessing, etc. This could turn into a long conversation as these are major issues, and further they are issues which Muslim themselves are grappling with.

Some Muslims approach these topics/verses very literally and perhaps apologetically, others say they were appropriate to their historical time but no longer applicable, yet others try to come to grips with them being true to the text while still searching for solid interpretations that are not prejudicial against women. I fall into that third group, although I can articulate for you the positions other take.

So, let us me clear here. There are verses in the Qur'an that I find problematical. Verses that many, many Muslims struggle to come to terms with. This is not unique to the Qur'an. (Just ask my Catholic, Baptist, Hindu, Buddist sisters.) But as a Muslim, as a woman, as an observer of how those verses have been used and abused to restrict women's life choices and to justify what I consider criminal behavior in the Muslim community, grappling with them is very important to me.

Take, verse 4:34 that outlines how to deal with open rebellion (nushuz in arabic) on the part of a wife. I have many thoughts about that particular verse.

1) It cannot be taken in isolation. Shortly after this verse are other verses 4:128-130 which address women, laying out their options if they face rebellion (again the term is nushuz) from their husbands. The verses tell them that it is best to reconcile (presumably with the same procedure outlined just a few verses earlier), but that if they choose to divorce, God will provide for them. Unfortunately, most people, Muslims included, rarely refer to this second verse which provides for equity between men and women.

2) Translations of the Qur'an more often than not reflect the biases of the translator. Take the term nushuz that I mentioned above. In 4:34 it is usually translated as "rebellion", but in the later part, the translators translate it as "abandonment."

Clearly there is a huge difference in tone, not because of the Arabic, but because of the translation. The idea that men and women both have to deal with "nushuz" (whether that be rebellion or abandonment) and that both should follow a process to try and reconcile, and both have recourse to divorce if that process fails, is to me very empowering. The translators, however, have diminished that empowerment by their selective translation, which seems to assume that a husband cannot rebel against a wife.

Similarly, at the end of 4:34, the final step in this process of reconciliation is described with the word "daraba." This is often translated as beat or even scourage. Daraba, however, has dozens of meanings, from having sexual intercourse, to making an analogy (along the lines of striking a parable), and so on.

I recently had the pleasure of listening to Laleh Bakhtiar, who has just finished the first translation of the Qur'an by a woman, talk about her approach to translating "daraba." She described how she has always heard that the Prophet never hit a woman (or a child). And yet, we know that there were marital issues -- that in one situation, he even moved out of his home for a month because of a conflict.

Laleh went and talked to dozens of scholars and asked them how this could be. She asked if there were any commands in the Qur'an that the Prophet did not follow, and they all concurred that no, he had followed the Qur'an in all matters. Then she asked, did he ever hit his wives? And they all replied no, he did not.

The answer to this apparent conundrum, Laleh concluded, was that the verse has been misunderstood. If the Prophet, in a situtation much like one described in the Qur'an did not hit his wives, but separated himself from them for a month, then the Qur'an must not be telling men to hit their wives. Further, one of the many meanings of daraba is in fact "to leave," the very thing that the Prophet did in that situation.

I found her analysis, especially in light of the level of her engagement with the scholarly community, to be profound and inspirational. As a person who is opposed to physical solutions to problem -- I don't believe in spanking a child, and I support diplomatic solutions rather than war -- the notion that the solution to estrangement is hitting (even if it is mitigated as many scholars do by severely limiting it, saying it must not harm, bruise, or humiliate, and even if it is an option available equally to men and women) to be very problematical. Laleh's analysis then, is very welcome.

However, even though verses 4:128-130 and Laleh's analysis give my own heart ease in this matter, I am very well aware that the verse remains extremely problematical. The vast majority of Muslims are still going to believe that daraba means hit or beat. Men are still going to use this verse to excuse domestic violence, despite the scholars limitations on it.

People are going to look at the first part of the verse in which men are described as "qawamun" of women -- a term which literally means they stand up for women -- as meaning they are women's bosses. They are not going to look at the part of that verse that talks about some men spending their wealth on some women as an acknowledgement that men throughout most of human history have traditionally been providers, rather that a prescription that men must be providers.

Given all that, it seems to me that Muslims who believe as I do, need to be very proactive in promoting our understandings, our unwillingness to tolerate domestic violence, or to allow the Qur'an to be used to justify it. We need to advocate for humane interpretations of the Qur'an, to sponsor educational and awareness raising campaigns regarding what it means to be a women, and the importance of human rights for all human beings regardless of gender (and race, and orientation, etc), so that those humane interpretations sink in rather than bounce of preconceptions colored by patriarchal notions. We need to push for laws that deal strongly with men (or women) who abuse their spouses, and so on.

I think we also need to challenge our community to truly engage with the Qur'an. We hear a lot in the Muslim community about the need for new interpretations. I've come to understand that when many Muslims talk about new interpretations, they mean getting rulings about issues which haven't been discussed yet by the scholars, they do not mean challenging old rulings. I personally think it is long past the time when we need to revisit and challenge old rulings. The Qur'an is a living book, it cannot be left, encrusted, in interpretations that are now centuries old. That doesn't mean throw them all out, but take a rigorous look at how these ruling were devised, whether they adhere to the principles in the Qur'an, or actually deviate from them (as I believe many of the most egregious ones regarding women do), and make an exhaustive study, a holistic study of the sources to revise our understanding, to bring it more in line with the precepts of equality and justice which are so strong in the Qur'an.

Well, this has also gotten to be a long post, and I haven't even gotten to some of the other hot button topics. Perhaps suffice it to say, that in each of these instances, there are analyses which set my heart at ease, and which can be used to promote human and civil rights for women in the Muslim world.

Dear Pamela,
Thank you for your response on the tilth verse.

I do not see the context you mentioned in the quran. I also do not see the link between the hadiths you alluded to and that particular verse.

The fact that couples can have respectful love for one another was already well known before Islam. Many cultures also value respectful mutual love between cultures. One doesn't need a God to tell people what comes naturally.

You're right that the analogy of women as tilth is troubling. However, it was your God who used that analogy. I think it's not only biologically inaccurate but also disrespectful to women.

Please note that the verse 2:223 is written from the male perspective - it is all about the male needs - and nothing at all about the woman's needs. To derive the latter you had to delve elsewhere. The question is why Allah did not see fit to make mutual respect part of the verse - or part of the Quran for that matter.

The domination by males over their wives is repeated many times in the Quran. Even in 2:228 where Allah says that Muslimahs have rights similar to their rights on them, Allah could not help himself by stressing that Men have a degree over women.

In other words: Allah said women have equal rights to men, but men have a superiority over women. Huh? Make sense to anyone?

Salaam,
Ahmed

Again there are way too many issues to comment on, and I hope that over the next few weeks and months we'll have time to continue this conversation either on this thread or on other questions that are posed of the panel.

Just some rumination...

On tilth... this is, of course, a much used analogy. We know it's biologically incomplete (or perhaps better said, to make it biologically complete one has to remember that the man's seed is inert until fertilized by the woman's or vice versa). But even if it is not biologically accurate, it is an obvious way to speak of copulation and ejaculation. I don't think you necessarily have to read a lot of objectification of women into, although of course, some people historically have.

When I approach this verse, it's with the knowledge that men were questioning if it was ok to be free in their relations with their wives -- did they have to limit how often they had sex, was sex to be only for procreation, were they expect to use only the missionary position, etc. The verse, then, is saying, no whatever pleases you is fine. Sex is not just for making babies. In that context, I appreciate the meaning.

I'd like to echo the people who have said that Qur'anic interpretation is not to be done by picking an isolated verse and taking whatever meaning you want... there is a historical context, there are related verses, and hadith. So when I read that you can go to your wives as you please, I remember the Prophet's advice that the man should think of his wife's pleasure as well. I think of the verses that talk about men and women as protecting garments for one another. And so on. When these verses and hadith are contemplated as a fabric which paints a picture of how Islam views sexual relations, I see a picture of mutually satisfying sex.

On a personal level, I've got several reactions to the idea of women as tilths. On the one hand, I recognize that it can be, and has been, interpretted in a very derogatory way. But at the same time, as a mother to four, I relate to my own body very much as fertile ground. I conceive quickly, carry well, and birth easily. My breasts overflowed with milk to nurture that seed which had grown within me. As a mother of twins, I feel particularly fecund. So the imagery of tilth is not at all a negative image, but rather an acknowledgment of feminine creative power, much like the concepts we see in Mother Earth or Goddess narratives.

Still, the negative use to which the image has been put is very troublesome. The question, as always, is do abandon the imagery, or try to reclaim it? Do I embrace it as it represents something powerful and good to me, or reject it because some men take it to mean women have no say in sexual matters. Because it resonates so strongly for me with my personal experiences of birthing, I'd like to reclaim it.

Jihadist wrote:
Of course Islam is spread by the sword the same way Christianity did.

Ahmed replied:
I'm yet to see anyone produce evidence that the violent spread of Christianity was due to a command from Jesus Christ and not in spite of it.

However, the Quranic verses and the sahih hadiths prove that Muhammad ordered his followers to spread Islam by the sword.

See the difference? No - I suppose you wouldn't.

Jihadist wrote:
Oh, wait, Islam is not spread by the sword in South East Asia and Central Asia, but by traders and missionaries. Hmm.. and Christianity is not spread by the sword in Latin America. Oh, wait, there were all these descecrations of Indian culture and wiping out of South American Indian civilizations.

Ahmed replied:
This is an oft-repeated Islamist lie. Islam was spread in Indonesia by Muslim warriors. The initial conversion of the Sultan of Demak was peaceful - granted. But then he went and conquered the Hindu Majapahit empire and wiped Hinduism off most of Sumatra and Java by the sword. Muslims only tell the initial part of the story of how Islam came to Indonesia by the Arab traders and missionaries and forget to tell the second part - which is the spreading by the sword.

Central Asia was spread by violence too. The Arabs conquered much of Central Asia up until the 9th century and spread Islam by the sword. Then the traders spread Islam. But then the Samanids and the Qarakhanids also spread Islam by the sword - to be followed by the spread of Islam by the Seljuks and later the Ottomans. I think you ignored much bloodthirsty history to come up with your apologetic.

Besides, it is a logical fallacy to point to an exception to make the case for a general rule - that is called the logical fallacy of generalization or 'composition'. The general case is that Islam was spread by the sword - throughout the Middle East, Central Asia, Eastern Europe and India.

Jihadist wrote:
Surely you are not doubting Ras, a Sri Lankan who would know his own country's particular experience. Surely you are not going overboard with what you are "promoting" as the standard and tired spiel that Islam is spread by the sword?

Ahmed replied:
No. I'm not going overboard when I point out the truth, no matter how unpalatable it is to you. Muslims are extremely proud of their conquests - which did not happen with feather dusters but with scimitars. I can also point out the bloodthirsty nature of Muslim conquerors in their zeal to spread Islam and shed kafir blood. For example, Mahmud of Ghazni.

Jihadist wrote:
As for Daral Harb and Darul Islam, hmm, let me recall....Oh yes it is a term given centuries ago to distinguish between borders that are disputed and fought over and to distinguished from settled, peaceful states.

Ahmed replied:
Not true. Muslims divide the world into Dar ul Islam and Dar ul Harb - and that is not only in times of 'peace'.

Jihadist wrote:
Oh wait, now there are at least 50 Muslim majority countries in the world right with their own borders. Sovereign states. Now, let me see, which Muslim country is at war with another country, Muslim or not? Ahh.... Somalia was invaded by Ethiopia. Ah yes, there is Iraq, but that is within the border.

Ahmed wrote:
That is because Muslims are in the decendancy and the non-Muslims are in the ascendancy. Turn it the other way around and you'll see Muslims attack other country. History tells us that.

Ethiopia invading Somalia is only at the behest of the Government of Somalia to defeat the Islamic rebels. Just because the rebels are Muslims doesn't make them the legitimate government.

America invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussain kicked out the UN inspectors. Or have you forgotten that already.

Jihadist wrote:
And if you are Arab but not Muslim, please note that even a Christian Arab would defend Arabs as a whole regardless if they are Christians, for example Edward Said. Pan-Arabism is very strong.

Ahmed wrote:
Why should I defend untruth? You're projecting your 'Ummah' concept onto me. I am anti-Islam, not anti-Arab.

I happen to believe that when you take someone's side you take the morality of his/her side of the argument. You don't defend a rapist without being also complicit in the crime of rape (unless you're a defense attorney). Likewise you don't defend a Muslim just because he/she is a Muslim without taking on the morality of his/her position. The concept of 'blindly defending the Ummah' is morally indefensible for that reason IMHO.

Jihadist wrote:
I should be charging you for giving lessons on how to masquerade as a Muslim and/or Arab here in these On Faith threads. Next time try names like Syed Hussein Alsagoff, Mohamed Ariff, Abdul Rahman. Sajeed and Rubina has been used. And I look forward to your future guises here.

Ahmed replied:
Thanks for telling everyone you're a master of disguise.

Jihadist wrote:
Give it a rest Ahmed Hussain. Can't fool a Sri Lankan Buddhist, much less a Muslim. There is such a thing as Muslim sensibilities that comes across no matter how they speak and write, and what they write and speak about.

Ahmed replied:
But I'm not a Muslim so your Muslim sensibilities do not apply. I have never claimed to be a Muslim so I don't know what you're on about. All you see is an Arabic name and you assumed. I generally let my knowledge of Islam speak for itself.

Jihadist wrote:
If you call yourself Crusader, I would be happy for you are at being honest about it, as people calling themselves Concerned the Christian Now Liberated or Ambassador for Christ did.

Ahmed replied:
Why should I when I'm not Christian?

Salaam,
Ahmed

Victoria,
Thank you for the free psychoanalysis. However, I must disappoint you: I do not wish to see a literalist interpretation of Islam by you or any Muslim. That would be just too harsh on the world.

However, there are some concepts in Islam that you cannot shy away from, no matter how liberally you interpret Islam. To do so would be to no longer practise the 'real' Islam. You may not know what the 'real' Islam is but I assure you that I do. It is the Islam that is practised by millions of Muslims who have no access to liberal Western secular democratic freedoms. That is the real Islam. What you are practising has not been practised by Muslims before the last century or so.

As for the 'unpalatable' things about Islam - have you read the ahadiths and sira about Muhammad's life - how he killed people, ordered murders and assasinations, raided caravans and murdered the caravan drivers, enslaved women and children, tortured his opponents, forced the women (whom he made into widows by butchering their husbands) to 'marry' him, kept sex slaves and had sex with a little nine year old child? Are these things you're talking about when you mentioned 'unpalatable' facts about Islam?

Or are you talking about the 'stonings for adultery', the 'hand-chopping', the forcing divorced wives to marry and have sex with another man before returning to their husbands, the polygamy, the wife-beating?

These are facts that I cannot reconcile with someone who purports to be the prophet of God. If God permits someone like that to be his prophet then I disown this god. Perhaps you should consider doing the same.

Salaam,
Ahmed

AHMED- im developing a theory about you-

i think that you have a strong desire to see islam practiced in a pure fashion- but have been raised in an atmosphere of religious intolerance and have seen some of the more distasteful and maybe even dangerous misaplications of islam-

i think that youve reacted against some of the justification for violence and oppressive behavior that youve seen others engage in-

consider this- consider that they were wrong in their misinterpertations-

you know thereis no arab or non arab in islam-

perhaps you dont even remember why you have an attachment to the practices of some you may have been raised around-

it seems instead of questioning the validity of the most extreme and fundamentalist and rigid interpertations- you deep down consider them as the "real" islam-
but your conscience wont allow you to accept this on a conscious level-

so you react against the worst elements which you yourslef are personally and painfully aware of-

now consider that it is not necessarily islam that is at fault here-

i think its time you started questioning the intitial teachers to you of your religion-

and go back and redress hadeeth and sunnah and quranic passags youve always accepted in a certain light and re-examine them from your own new and hardwon perspective-

i think youre reacting to alot of hypocrisy youve encountered and are searching for an islam without hypocrisy-

i get the feeling you think western thinkers (like myself) are picking and choosing through islam to only accept that which is palatable and fits in with a preconceived philosophy- and what doesnt fit in- is simply dismissed or rejected-

this isnt so in my case- many things were quite a surpise to me and i had to rearrange my thinking many times to accomadate islam-

i have to accomadate this religion- if i try to make it accomadate me then im nothing more than a hypocrite-

im struggling for balance and i think you are struggling to reconcile yourself also-

however i could be completely wrong and if ive made any false assumptions plase forgive my forwardness as my intentions were to understand you and not to criticize in any way

salaams ahmed

Whatever Ahmed Hussain:)

Of course Islam is spread by the sword the same way Christianity did. Oh, wait, Islam is not spread by the sword in South East Asia and Central Asia, but by traders and missionaries. Hmm.. and Christianity is not spread by the sword in Latin America. Oh, wait, there were all these descecrations of Indian culture and wiping out of South American Indian civilizations.

Surely you are not doubting Ras, a Sri Lankan who would know his own country's particular experience. Surely you are not going overboard with what you are "promoting" as the standard and tired spiel that Islam is spread by the sword?

As for Daral Harb and Darul Islam, hmm, let me recall....Oh yes it is a term given centuries ago to distinguish between borders that are disputed and fought over and to distinguished from settled, peaceful states.

Oh wait, now there are at least 50 Muslim majority countries in the world right with their own borders. Sovereign states. Now, let me see, which Muslim country is at war with another country, Muslim or not? Ahh.... Somalia was invaded by Ethiopia. Ah yes, there is Iraq, but that is within the border.

And if you are Arab but not Muslim, please note that even a Christian Arab would defend Arabs as a whole regardless if they are Christians, for example Edward Said. Pan-Arabism is very strong.

I should be charging you for giving lessons on how to masquerade as a Muslim and/or Arab here in these On Faith threads. Next time try names like Syed Hussein Alsagoff, Mohamed Ariff, Abdul Rahman. Sajeed and Rubina has been used. And I look forward to your future guises here.

Give it a rest Ahmed Hussain. Can't fool a Sri Lankan Buddhist, much less a Muslim. There is such a thing as Muslim sensibilities that comes across no matter how they speak and write, and what they write and speak about.

If you call yourself Crusader, I would be happy for you are at being honest about it, as people calling themselves Concerned the Christian Now Liberated or Ambassador for Christ did.

o i forgot-

one of the best things that islam specifically has taught me is that one has to have suspicion of good for other peoples intentions-

i cant tell you how many times the active practice of this philosophy has turned situations around or raised the level of communication-

this is a purely islamic idea- it is not stressed inany other religious doctrine ive practiced-
while there may be elements or versions of this idea- i have never hear it stressed or highlighted so clearly-

it really helps alot when i encounter someone with clearly bad intentions but a desire to express something maybe they themselves dont even know what it is-

but no one want to be called bad or invalid-

i have to say ive never had the experience of encountering an angry person and poiting their irrationality out to them and had them suddenly agree and become rational-

some people just want to vent or be sneaky and i think most people are smart enpough (especially here) to recognize it when it happens-

wow - how nice to just talk a little and not justify my existence!

salaams

Thank you Ras and Friend for your encouragement-

Im an american woman who became muslim through my own active seeking 8 years ago- i didnt knw any muslims at all whe i became one- so i entered a culture shock when i started to interact with muslims- i wasnt socialized to make distinctions in who i would orwould not be rude to or defend- tome any human who is being treated unfairly is deserving of defense-
as a eurocentric american born revert people have always been hyper alert to notice any iota of prejudice coming from me-
since ive been so indoctrinated to treat people based on their character and actions- it is really taboo to be a biased white person in america-

ive noticed the phenomenom of muslis closing circles to defend others muslims but ive also noticed that its usually along ethnic or racial
lines-

i have remarked many times that this defense must be extended to everyone- and heres my reasoning which wont change for anything-

muslims have to not backbite and must defend other muslims-

here is the rub- for years apparently whithout my being conscious of it before i reverted- i actually was a muslim- i just hadnt gotten to the point where i knew how to define myself that way-

i cannot look into another persons heart- i do not know that my lack of compassion for them might be the tiny breaking point that drives them from islam- i have to assume everyone has within them the capacity to be muslim or may become one- or if they reject islam they may reclaim it when they see that there are kind ones out there-

so i dont know- when we strip away the social and media conditioning of -LIBERATED for example- ( i always call concerned liberated heres why- he used to be concerned the christian then popped up one day the liberated- so i assume he is moving towards some goal spiritually)we may find a person whose heart is closer to islam than some who think they already are muslims!

obviously LIB as a deep desire to get to the truth, and cut through hypocrisy- these are valuable and brave characteristics- if he gets a little zealous in his defamation of islam maybe its because hes been fed alot of really bad infromation-

getting angry back wont solve anything- (although sometimes i do tease him alot)

its hard not to respond with meanness with more meanness- but it makes me more patient to so i have to say thanks for the opportunity to test myself and polish my heart clean-

the only time i get impatient is when people deliberately present hateful propoganda as truth-

the only refutation for that is a patient presentation of the truth-

ahmed- it is personal when you cast aspersions on the Prophet(pbuh)- or islam- as that is how i structure my life- when you attack islam and its adherents you are making an agressive verbal violence to me personally-

i find that when a person gets to the point of making personal observations- or derogatory remarks it is because they are frustrated that they have no valid reasonable rebuttals so they descend to hitting below the belt-

sometimes people will get quite viscious in their remarks and all i can do then is remove myself from their line of fire-

i do find however that while i may slip and make an observation in a sarcastic way of a persons presentation or thinking process- that to do so to a muslim actually is taboo so while i try to never do it to anyone- i NEVER do it to another muslim-

i like the adage-

TINY MINDS TALK ABOUT THINGS
MEDIOCRE MINDS TALK ABOUT PEOPLE
GREAT MINDS TALK ABOUT IDEAS

i hope we can all be great here
peace

Hello, hello!

There seems to be a lot of action here from the usual suspects. And the saner ones got here ahead of me before I could whack the rabid ones:)

FRIEND
You are a very brave person. Sorry to see you got thrashed by Concerned. No place here for peaceniks obviously. Or those seeking civilised discussions with people of other faiths.

RAS
Be careful. Soon they'll be calling you a Muslim apologist or defender or terrorist lover.

Thank you both Ras and Friend for endeavouring to strive for a civil discussion between Muslims and non-Muslims here. We are quite used to this bile by now since the Crusades. We certainly don't judge all of their co-beleivers or non-believers by what they said.

And Ras, you got me thinking about Ahmad Hussain. You may be right there. Even when Muslims have their differences on social, political and religous issues, we close ranks when insulted and assualted by those outside the faith. The umma instinct is very strong.

We can critisise ourselves, but not outsiders. Even the warring Sunnnis and Shiites in Iraq are unified in condemning the Finns during the Prophet Muhammad PBUH cartoon controversy last year. And on what the Pope said about the Prophet in his speech later last year.

It is no suprise for me to see self proclaimed "former Muslims" or self proclaimed "Muslims" coming into Muslim websites in English or here to say the very same thing what the the evangelicals said about the Prophet.

Easy to identify as they made slips that not even a real former Muslim would make. For example, in another thread there was one self-prclaimed "former Muslim" who claimed that he knows what he is talking about as he "came from an Islamic background".

Nothing wrong with a real former Muslim making his views known, but a real former Muslim would have said that his parents are/were Muslims; or he came from a Muslim family, or his family is Muslim, or he came from a Muslim community/society or country, never "from an Islamic background" or "have an Islamic background". Only people outside the faith who studied Islam for whatever reason would say that they have an Islamic background.

It is very interesting to see the lenght some would go to get Muslims going for their own reasons. In promoting their faiths and beliefs, they don't highlight the positives of their own faiths, but to denigrate others. Don't seem to be winning a lot of converts to their faith and beliefs that way.

I, for one, sometimes do have fun with them to drive them up the wall. They are studying our responses on the questions posed by them so they can better give counterpoints the next time. Their questions are of genuine interest, but purposely for subsequent bashing. I do know a genuine discussion/debate when I see, read and hear one. This "sport" has been, and is still done for too long by non-Muslims going into Muslim websites. They are usually ignored there.

I will never respond to them just to exasperate, infuriate and irritate them. Here in this thread, they, again put forth the private life or sex life of Prophet Muhammad PBUH to glean Muslim responses to better react to them the next time. Attacking the Messenger is their hallmarks. Never can get them to talk about their notions of God though.

What they know about the Prophet is from Muslim sources after all - The Qur'an, Hadiths and the biographies, which all Muslims already knows way before them and which they have to study in college, missionary colleges or privately. Some Mulsim scholars, academics and, more importantly the ulema, are taking a more critical look at the Hadiths the came down. Even the physical description of the Prophet is contradictory in the Hadiths.

By some estimates, there were over a million Hadiths circulating around before being compiled. Some estimates are half a million. It was vetted and verified by a process of determining the chain of transmistters as well as the reliability and credibility of the transmitters and the source of the original Hadiths. The Hadiths that we have today were compiled some three hundred years after the Prophet's death.

Aishah, a wife of the Prophet, and Abu Huraira, a Companion of the Prophet are among the important sources of the Hadiths. Abu Huraira is not as close to the Prophet as Aishah would be as his wife. In studying the Hadiths, we are looking at the originators of the Hadiths, and whom they are aligned with politically.

As you know, after the death of the Prophet, the nascent Muslim umma community had differences over who is to be the leader to succeed the Prophet and was fraught with armed conflicts over the issue. Certainly, all have their own ideas and would recall something the Prophet said and did to justify and rationalise their points. They all think they are doing the right thing for the Muslim umma.

Of course this restudying of the Hadiths is happening quietly in Muslim academic, ulema circles and institutions. This is the Muslim equivalent of looking at the Dead Sea Scrolls. Can't put it out until we are very historically certain in some ways. The Hadiths, as the supplementary source of the Qur'an in the Sunnah that guides Muslims everyday, is too important to be dismissed.

So, now I hope you understand why I was being such an insolent baggage when those outside of Islam who are patronizingly telling us what to think, what to do, and how to do it to better ourselves.

And Ras, as you are a Buddhist, I know what I did with some here seem silly, but hey, Muslims are not taught to turn the other cheek. But now that we want to turn the other cheek ike good Christians as they wanted, it seem to drive some really crazy. Can't do anything right with them eh, and I am certainly having a ball being irreverent with them :)

And Ras, always a pleasure for me to visit Sri Lanka. Those delectable hoppers and curries and the gorgeous gems. Which woman can resist those?:)

Peace be with you and to Friend too.

Dear Ras,
Just because someone has a Arabic name does not make him a Muslim. I am certainly no Muslim even though I am quite familiar with Islam.

Also, I understand the concept of defending the Ummah - which is one of the more egregious elements of Islam. It divides people into two camps - dar al Islam and dar al harb. That is not a useful division as it means that one defends a fellow Muslim purely because he's a Muslim and no other reason. That Muslim being defended could be in the wrong. To blindly defend someone who might be wrong or evil is morally reprehensible, in my opinion since one takes on the morality of the person one defends.

Lastly, it is a stretch to claim that Muslims are victims since they have victimized other people throughout their history. How did Islam become the dominant religion in the Middle East and in Northern India? Certainly not through peaceful proselytizing. Please read up on the Islamic conquests and the bloodthirsty nature of the Islamic invaders and what they did for Allah and Muhammad.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Mr. Ahmed Hussain

Respectfully, I do not think you may be a true Muslim man in spite of polite Islamic greetings. You speak like a pretender, not a real Muslim. A Muslim would always defend one another when attacked by anyone outside even if they do not agree with themselves. A Muslim man would benefit from all what you say and would defend it. In Sri Lanka, Hindus are terrible and there is Tamil Tigers who do suicide bombings. They invented it. The Muslims are victims, like Buddhists of these killing Hindu Tamils and to go away from their homes to be safe. Mr. Concerned do not sound like a sincere person to me to me and he attacks and attacks. This is not right action right thinking and right path. I find western people hypocrites and like to pretend they know everything and have our best interest and to tell us what to do and think. Mr. Concerned is always telling Muslims what to do. He is not respectful of anyone who do not think like him. He hates all Muslims here. I have read all his postings and I see he is not a sincere man with Muslims. He is always trying to show them he is better no matter what they say and do. He is a very bad example for Christians who want to always quarrel with Muslims.

Respectfully yours

Ras

Ras,
You'll find most critics are not indulging in personal attacks but merely disagreeing with the points put forward by our Muslim contributors. That is what a discussion is about - putting opposing points of view. I do note that many of the Islamic contributors are wrong in their assertions - do I just let these assertions pass because I want to be nice? Or do I challenge their veracity and/or logic knowing what I know about Islam?

If I merely want to listen and accept what people say I wouldn't be joining this discussion. Or do you expect everyone to just agree with whatever Muslim contributors tell us about Islam?

Also, I think your earlier post is a logical fallacy: the poster had used his aid of a Muslim to show he was not a hater of Muslims. However, being disagreeable to Islam (as opposed to Muslims) is another matter. However, I do note that Muslims regard any criticism of Islam and Muhammad as personal slights or insults. Please do not fall for that trap.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Mr. Concerned,

I wish to quote you - Actually, yesterday I helped a Muslim from the United Arab Emirates in finding specialized medical care in the USA and Germany. Ditto last year for Muslims in Dubai and Indonesia.

It is like insulting the Jews and then excusing the self by saying:

(a) I was drunk

(b) some of my friends are Jews

(c) I save some Jews from the Holocaust

I am a Sri Lankan Buddist who read here but seldom say anything. I have been reading many what people write. Everytime a Muslim put something, you attack them. You have been stalking and have been very, very unkind to Victoria and Jihadist. What did they do to you? Why do you hate them so much when you are so polite to people of your own faith and other faith? Is that Christian?

Yours respectfully

Ras

Salaam Pamela Taylor and all the other Muslims and fellow travellers,

Please feel free to respond if you want to bounce off an alternative (i.e. non-apologetic) view of Islam with me. I will be happy to oblige you so you can 'strengthen' your faith.

After all, if your faith is true and your heart is pure, there should be no problems answering the tough questions I will put to the forum.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Mommadona,

Priceless!!!

You could actually say the same thing about Jesus since he was also illiterate. It gives added credence to JD Crossan's conclusions that the NT passages are over 60% embellished.

After reading the Quran for the first time, I had this bizarre vision....

I saw Muhammed sitting in a room, whispering these words to another man, "I need a drink of water". Then THAT man whispered words to the next person...and so on and so on....out the door, down the street, up the hill.....

the person sitting on top of the hill was scribbling furiously. He jumps up and yells:

"ALLAH NEEDS TO DRINK THE OCEAN FOR US TO SURVIVE!"

It's an old game, called "Gossip".

"Friend?",

If you want to get off security risk lists, then simply renounce and condemn the militant and demeaning passages of the Koran. I am, by the way, not a bigot. I simply state the obvious problems with Mohammed and the book someone else wrote in his name.

Actually, yesterday I helped a Muslim from the United Arab Emirates in finding specialized medical care in the USA and Germany. Ditto last year for Muslims in Dubai and Indonesia.

Pamela, Victoria and other Muslims and pro-Muslims, ignore debating these fools, they are hate filled and wont accept your logical refutations, look what they say behind your backs:

"Anyone fancy replying to this islamic moron ?"

They have a bigoted hate filled forum where they are trying to get fellow bigots to come here and spew their nonsense, you have no idea what nasty names they are calling you, stuff like braindead leftist, self hating liberals, muslim zombies, idiots etc.

Muslims and pro-Muslims, i advise you not to waste time with these hate filled bigots, just ignore then and let them rant with themselves, i felt offended for you with the amount of names and backbiting they did to pro-muslims on this discussion topic.

Wow, a great article followed up by the usual horse pucky...

Jihadist and Victoria, as usual you two have done a commendable job in defending your faith from the usual attacks. I always look forward to your commentary and discussions as I usually learn something new about Islam. I wonder how many of your attackers are Christians and if they realize they are violating the golden rule?

It depresses me that people take religion so seriously. Never having been indoctrinated into a religion....it seems strange that people accept their beliefs so uncritically.
Voltaire said that if there were no god the people
would invent one. If one believes that proposition,
then isn't it quite likely that that is what has happened...many times and in many places?
And Mark Twain wrote that "The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion to be foolish,
teaches me to suspect that my own is also."
Bearing in mind that religion is tearing the world apart right now,surely we should be praying less and thinking more.

Heaven in Islam.chaste women as if they were eggs 37.48.Houris with lustrous eyes 44.54.maidens,clean whom no man or jinn has touched 55.56.fair beautiful companions 55.70.We have made them virgins 56.36.voluptuous girls without breasts(that means little girls) 78.33.rivers of wines 47.15.As you see,men will drink from the river of wine and have sex with girls without breasts and chaste women if he has much Viagra pills.Let me remind you,drinking wine on this earth is a Sin.There is no any Description for Women.

Amina wrote:
Thanks for the video and photo gallery links, but the point of the discussion here was not to bash Islam, but to explore how various religions view and treat sex.

This video shows how women are treated in islam. On one hand we have Pam praising sex in islam and on the other we see moslem women being stoned in sharia sponsored events mainly because they had casual sex.

Are you saying we must turn a blind eye to such atrocities ?

Ms. Taylor, you have still not answered this:

Ms. Taylor wrote:
The Qur'an affirms that everything in creation is made in pairs. Male and Female. Having a mate is part and parcel of being a created creature

Then why are muslim men allowed 4 wives, why did the prophet marry atleast 12 women and had concubines ? Why is there a reward of 72 houris for men in heaven ? How does that translate to pairs ?

Pamela,
Are you aware that not all creatures are made in pairs? There are many creatures that are asexual or unisexual. Thus, your Allah is ignorant of the creatures he supposedly created.

Also, here are somethings you might want to bear in mind about the sexual equality in the Quran:

1. Man can beat wife - verse 4:34
2. Women are tilth for men to enjoy as and when they like - verse 2:223
3. Women get 1/2 inheritance - verse 4:11
4. Women's testimony worth 1/2 of men's - verse 2:282

Finally, reading your article one wonders if the peoples of other cultures/religions do not have possess the human characteristics of love and respect between men and women. You had to be told to love your spouse because without Muhammad's instructions you were unable to do all the good stuff you mentioned in your article.

I can think ancient cultures like the Indians, Egyptians and Chinese who long predated Islam also possessed the ideal of love between couples.

Salaam,
Ahmed

Victoria, Just A Muslima and my fellow Muslims,

Thank you for bringing sanity back to this thread.

A Hanuman like me can never resist playing up to the worst fears of Islamophobes to see what they really think of us. Turns out, in some, it is never far from the surface. Makes for interesting research materials if one is studying chasms, misunderstandings and assumptions.

It is stating the obvious that all Muslims are guided by the Qur'an and Sunnah. Is there not the Ijtihad and the Ijma that Muslims used centuries ago to decided on Sunnah and formulate Shariah laws?

Or are we leaving it to men to insist that the Gate of Ijtihad remain closed. Men have been interpreting, formulating and enforcing the Shariah Laws for centuries now based on their reading of the Qur'an and consulting the Hadiths. I need not go into detail to say how it was naturally biased towards men, in divorce, for example.

Thank God a Muslim woman can be in Islamic banking and financial instruments with no investments in pornography, gambling, alcohol, arms/weapons, pork products. Surely that is not encouraging the source of drunkardness, gambling debts, war weapons and mass degradation of women to say the very least. I like to think that as being "progressive" in some way. And I'm a fan of Pamela Taylor. She makes me think.

The "retrogressive", for example, hair-split endlessly over whether to look at the new moon, or the calculations/calender for determining Ramadan's Eid. Of course, this is just my personal view on what is progressive and what is retrogressive in contemporary Islamic societies and nations:)

Peace be with us.

Pamela:

The Qur'an does make a distinction. Let's be honest with non-Muslims and Muslims, please. The Qur'an says that men are the maintainers of women and that they "have a degree over them." Whatever you think this degree is (physical strength, as many do, or perhaps some sort of social superiority as some others do), that is a distinction in their positions and roles. A big one, some might say. Then there is the fact that the Sunnah elaborates on this further, and that, regardless of whatever today's Progressive movement is called says about the Sunnah, most of the Muslims in the world accept the Sunnah and act by it.

Further, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and give him peace, may have been compassionate and caring towards a man who "lacked male talent," (whatever that means... perhaps he was a eunuch... perhaps impotent, and unable to consummate a marriage with a woman), but that is no indication that he approved of homosexual behavior. Of course Islam calls us to compassion and gentility. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, was kind and compassionate to the local drunkard too -- doesn't mean that we have to start approving of drinking and reversing 1400 years of Islamic scholarship because drinking is considered socially acceptable in this time and place. There is a difference between treating everyone with kindness and approving of their behavior.

i have enjoyed the good will gentle encouragements shown on this forum- many names i dont recognize-

i hope to see further posts from this responsive panelist and also see more of the people whove made such reasonable remarks

salaams all

thanks for being patient in my ruminations i hope i didnt run anyone off with my indulgence

Victoria and Jihadist (aka Crusader),

You still don't get it. Your Koran is used 24/7 to sanctify the killing of non-believers and even fellow Muslims. That scares the hell out of us. Since your prophet was illiterate, the words of the Koran are not his anyway but of some militaristic scribe seeking to convert non-believers via the sword. This worked well in the Middle Ages but we non-believers are not going to tolerate it in the 21st century. Stay out of our neighborhoods and off our planes until your Koran teaches nothing but peace for all of humankind, believers and non-believers.

the whole quran and hadeeth and sunnah indicate the lawful manner- so now you understand that indeed it is a holisitc statement understood by muslims to be so- there are many instances where such matters are elucidated-

jane reported-
"there should be words and kisses" before sex. Fair enough. And then another report from Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim that there should be foreplay before sex, although no mention as to what that foreplay might consist of.

do you think they should have supplied a how to manual? isnt that a little vulgar?
can you imagine if they had elucidated on that subject?

respect is given to the people and freedom also that they will figure these things out on their own-

gives imagination free reign id say-

what an unusual and strange thing to expect-

the parameters of sexual conduct are given some attention in othe wuran and sunnah even hadeeth-

the premise of the quran itslef is this

IF IT IS NOT FORBIDDEN- IT IS ALLOWED

that leaves everything pretty open- otherwise we would provbably have some goofball somewhere trying to legislate us in our bedrooms-
how oppressive and creepy!

in doing a deed in a lawful (halal or approved) manner- we should be rewarded as we are for every thing we do - good or bad-

i cn see your confusion as i was confused at first when i saw this hadeeth-
ive seen translations that use the word worship instead of charity-

(kind of like 1corinthians 13 where the word love is removed and charity inserted in some bibles)
i always thought it ruined that passage

the arabic word is sadaqa which is any charity or good deed or anyting offered to another for the pleasure purely of ALLAH-

but aside from translation woes-

the issue of french kissing during fasting is this-

we also refrian from sexual intercourse from sunup to sundown when we fast-
but that doesnt mean that we stop showing deep and loving affection for each other- we cn still be very affectionate without sex being the end result-

its really rather romantic-
its no big deal to control ones impulses a little during the day-

it makes us appreciate it that much more when we can 'indulge' again after sunset---
salaams

youre right jihadist- ok- after this- i realized that there may be a misunderstanding-

i wasnt at all meaning to imply that gonzos interpertation is the opposite of what was stated as its not- its kind of revealing simply how people impose their own bd intentions on what they read-
heres what gonzo said-

The emphasis is on (assuming you have no issue of being referred to as a tilth) "approach your tilth when or how ye will". Pickthall's translation reads as " go to your tilth as ye will". "As ye will" is somewhat biased in favour of the man; the woman is not given a choice. What if you, as a woman, do not wish to have sex at that time?

see?
no favor is shown to the man- it only tells the husband that he controls with his will his OWN sexual fate and direction- since men and women are expected to obey the 'rules' equally- it actually implies that sexual determination is an issue of free will of the parties involved-

we are supposed to have suspicion for the good- not the bad in islam- a beautiful and deep concept that is really unique to islamic philosophy-

when people have controlling or questionable motives and overlay their own intent onto a given verse- it reveals their own weaknesses- not the weakness of the verse-

that is wat i was saying about interperting from a holistic viewpoint-

we are exhorted over and over ad nauseum in the quran to aspire to the highest motivations in our actions-

the quran is not written to the lowest common denominator- it is not written so people can see what they can get away with- how they can interpert to justify their own desires to control or oppress others- but the exact opposite-

when people get such creepy meaning out of it- its not the corruption of the text i question- it is the corruption in the heart of the interperter that should be questioned-

i was just thinking- thats all
a salaamu alaikum wa rahmatulahi wa barakatu to all my friends

Pamela,

I went to the link to your blog to see what Muhammed and the Koran had to say about sex as "an act of worship" or "sex as pleasure and intimacy between two human beings that can be holy", and I am not at all convinced that what you quote justifies what you said.

You quoted the following:
"The Prophet said: Enjoining good is a charity, forbidding evil is a charity, and in sexual intercourse there is charity.” The companions, surprised, asked: “O Messenger of God! When one of us satisfies his desire, does he also get a reward?” Muhammad replied: “Do you not see that if he were to do it in a unlawful manner, he would be punished for that? So if he does it in a lawful manner, he will be rewarded.”
There is no indication in this quote as to what "a lawful manner" means.

Then there is a report from Aisha that Muhammed would suck her tongue while fasting. That proves nothing one way or another.

Then there is a story from Anas ibn Malik that "there should be words and kisses" before sex. Fair enough. And then another report from Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim that there should be foreplay before sex, although no mention as to what that foreplay might consist of.

None of the quotes or stories above have convinced me in any way that Muhammed considered sex as "holy", however "holy" might be interpreted, or as an "act of worship", however that might be interpreted.

However, I do remember the story of Muhammed marrying a woman whose father, brothers and kinfolk had just been killed by Muhammed, and I wonder how she felt about sex with Muhammed. And I remember stories of women being given as wives or sexual slaves to various men in Muhammed's retinue after military conquests. How did these women feel about sex with their new mates? I find these stories a lot more revealing than a couple of quotes about engaging in words or foreplay before intercourse.

Victoria, ignore Concerned,

Islamic/Muslim "wishy wash"? Or, is it wishy washy? I do know JD Crossan is still a Catholic and now with his second wife after his first wife died.

Are we expected to congratulate Concerned for condemning evey militaristic passages in the OT and NT when many Christians hold the whole text with reverence?

Actually, what the Christians do with Bible is not our concern. After all, the Prophet did say in a Hadith that Muslims should get involved with what do not concern us.

So, let us leave them to update, revise, delete or condemn their own Holy Book. It is not our business. They know best what is good for themselves.

Possibly this is a double post-

LIB_ it wasnt comments about islam- but about how people think- evidenced by the post by gonzo=

Gonzo assumes that there is an inferred or implied opposite side of the coin to the verse he posted-

actually - it simply is what it is- this is smeting ive noticed especially from american thinkers- they are dualist and assume an opposite is implied-

for instance in islam- in the qur'an if it is not orbidden- it is allowed- this forces people to take what is written and not try to add their own anticipations or what one might consider a logical progression( which is pretty much subjective)

certainly this reoning is also used but the point of this is to disallow NEGATIVE connatations to be validated-

like the over reaching assumption that women have no say in their own sexual destiny!!!!
there are other places and hadeeth and sunnah aplenty to counter this perception-
interpertation is a holistic effort-
not a literal restricted pinpointed and horseblind enterprise

this is not stated there- but gonzos own reasoning led them there for whatever reason-

my husband laughed at that-

im trying to hone in on why people read the same thing but come up with such different ideas-

but im not here for that-
heres a bbc reported poll-

Last Updated: Monday, 19 February 2007,
Poll sees hope in West-Islam ties
Placard at London demonstration
Radical groups on both sides are blamed for fuelling conflicts
Most people believe common ground exists between the West and the Islamic world despite current global tensions, a BBC World Service poll suggests.

In a survey of people in 27 countries, an average of 56% said they saw positive links between the cultures.

Yet 28% of respondents told questioners that violent conflict was inevitable.

Asked twice about the existing causes of friction, 52% said they were a result of political disputes and 58% said minority groups stoked tensions.

Only in one country, Nigeria, where Christian and Muslim groups often clash violently, did a majority of those polled (56%) cite religious and cultural differences between communities as the root cause of conflict.

Poll results: Common ground or conflict?

Doug Miller, president of polling company Globescan, said the results suggested that the world was not heading towards an inevitable and wide-ranging "clash of civilisations".

"Most people feel this is about political power and interests, not religion and culture," he said.

It is worth noting that most victims of Islamic intolerance and terrorism are Muslims themselves
He pointed to the polarisation of communities in Nigeria as a warning sign to others, but hailed the results from Lebanon, a country frequently caught up in conflicts.

Some 78% of Lebanese strongly believed West-East tensions were politically motivated, while 68% felt common ground could be found between the West and the Islamic world.

Minorities blamed

The BBC poll asked approximately 1,000 people in each of 27 countries three questions about their interpretation of the world they live in.

Most expressed the belief that ongoing clashes could be resolved without violent conflict.

Pie chart

Indonesia, home to the world's largest Muslim population, was the only nation where most people (51%) said violence was inevitable.

But the results showed that a significant minority of those polled appeared pessimistic about the future.

"There is clearly pessimism about the inevitability of events," Mr Miller added.

"But twice as many people believe common ground can be found. There are real opportunities for peacemakers here."

The most positive respondents came from Western nations, with 78% of Italians, 77% of Britons and 73% of Canadians saying it is possible to find common ground.

Many blamed intolerant minorities for fuelling disputes and disagreements.

Some 39% of all respondents said minorities on both sides were to blame.

Just 12% said mainly Muslim minorities were to blame, and only 7% pointed the finger at Western fringe groups.

VIEWS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MUSLIM AND WESTERN CULTURES
Can find common ground Violent conflict inevitable
France 69% 23%
Germany 49% 39%
Great Britain 77% 15%
India 35% 24%
Indonesia 40% 51%
Italy 78% 14%
Kenya 46% 35%
Lebanon 68% 26%
Nigeria 53% 37%
Russia 49% 23%
Turkey 49% 29%
US 64% 31%

aw rats- too bad the pie chart wasnt shown- it makes it obvious-

at the end of the broadcast the pollster commented- ( i wrote it down)
the intolerant minorities on both sides seem to be the main cause of tension for the west and islam

yours for understanding, tolerance, and reason

a poll thats been on bbc last 2 days

E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Poll sees hope in West-Islam ties
Placard at London demonstration
Radical groups on both sides are blamed for fuelling conflicts
Most people believe common ground exists between the West and the Islamic world despite current global tensions, a BBC World Service poll suggests.

In a survey of people in 27 countries, an average of 56% said they saw positive links between the cultures.

Yet 28% of respondents told questioners that violent conflict was inevitable.

Asked twice about the existing causes of friction, 52% said they were a result of political disputes and 58% said minority groups stoked tensions.

Only in one country, Nigeria, where Christian and Muslim groups often clash violently, did a majority of those polled (56%) cite religious and cultural differences between communities as the root cause of conflict.

Poll results: Common ground or conflict?

Doug Miller, president of polling company Globescan, said the results suggested that the world was not heading towards an inevitable and wide-ranging "clash of civilisations".

"Most people feel this is about political power and interests, not religion and culture," he said.

It is worth noting that most victims of Islamic intolerance and terrorism are Muslims themselves
Anon, UK
Send us your comments
Read the findings of the poll [1.5MB]
Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
Download the reader here
He pointed to the polarisation of communities in Nigeria as a warning sign to others, but hailed the results from Lebanon, a country frequently caught up in conflicts.

Some 78% of Lebanese strongly believed West-East tensions were politically motivated, while 68% felt common ground could be found between the West and the Islamic world.

my mouse is messed up so more follows

ASAK Sis. Pamela;

Keep up the great writing and work. Never let anything or anyone deviate you from your path!!

I'll look forward to many more great articles form you!

_Naeem
www.AmericanRamadan.com

Victoria,

And the Islamic "wishy-wash" continues.

Show some examples of Islam changing from within?

And JD Crossan is still a Catholic.

And yes indeed, I renounce and condemn every militaristic passage in the OT and NT. Ditto for every passage in favor of slavery and for those passages that demean females. Please do the same for the Koran.

Ross, Concerned et al hyperventilating on the Prophet, Muslims and Islam,

Take a deep breath. Can dish it out but can't take it?

Must learn to answer for your beliefs too instead of just questioning others'. And you never ever answered simple questions posed about your beliefs.

And judging by words used such as con game, significant stupidity etc, does it mean that the questions posed to y'all can't be answered persuasively and intellligently:)

Hello Pam,

A good article, though there are a number of things I disagree with:

Firstly, you seem overlook what the Koran has to say about a woman's position in the sexual relationship:

Surah 2 -The Cow (Al-Baqara) 223:
YUSUFALI: Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will;
but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah. And know that ye are to
meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe.

The emphasis is on (assuming you have no issue of being referred to as a tilth) "approach your tilth when or how ye will". Pickthall's translation reads as " go to your tilth as ye will". "As ye will" is somewhat biased in favour of the man; the woman is not given a choice. What if you, as a woman, do not wish to have sex at that time?

The examples you gave were from the hadith, which are only supplemental to the Koran (which is the word of God and thus the ultimate authority).

The second point, that I disagree with, is your assertion that Allah is not petty or jealous.
Again the Koran states differently; many verses speak of Allah punishing those whose only crime is to disbelieve in him. For example, refer to the following verses (although there are many more):

2:24, 2:39, 2:85, 2:104, 2:221, 3:10. 3:77, 3:116, 3:196, 4:56, 4:97, 5:5, 5:10, 5:72, 6:70, 7:36, 8:35, 9:49, 9:74, 10:04, 10:45, 13:5, 16:63, 17:8, 19:83, 22:9, 25:36, 30:59, 38:27, 42:26, 46:34, 66:6, 98:6.

Regards,
Gonzo

I think people whe they say 'religion' dont even think about what it is to begin with- different religions are like different languages that use their voices to express our connection with the god-

i wouldnt denigrate science because im not fluent in the language (for instance latin) of science-

when one focuses on the extreme and worst examples of peoples behavior (or misunderstanding)of the language of religion- and juxtaposes it against the best examples of their own religion (or language) they are making an imbalanced unfair and false connection between the two-

liberated- while you commend crossan for his leaving the priesthood- in order to do so he had to break and oath and vow- alifelong committment and promise to god-

do we condemn him for being inconsistent?
and all catholics for his disloyal behavior?

you choose to commend it- and fine for you-

we are all growing and evolving spiritual beings- as our understanding grows- so do our perceptions of what is right and wrong- clearly it was right for him to make a promise when he was younger- and he examined the rightness of tis proise in is current life and found that he has changed as a being and it no longer fits him-

this is an example of a spiritual being reinterperting their own language-

pigeonholing all muslims as the same being is as ludricous as saying all white peole cant dance-

i find that some people tend to take a very rigid literal interpertation of the quran wen they want to criticize it-

but a very liberal and broad interpertation of their opwn language when they want to justify something -

like liberated's broad view of catholicism- yet restrictive and fundamental literalist understanding of quran-

actually joseph you are dead wrong in your assessment that pamela practices as a minority-

islam itself is undergoing a massive reformation from within-

part of the discussions here are being reviewed by muslims themselves-

it is not necessary to change the quran to adapt to "modernist" views- the quran as it stands is a cohesive whole-

i believe most muslims would agree that it does contain a prescient message that anticipates situations that havent even been dreamt of yet-

contrary to what is proosed- most muslims ARE in agreement with many of the basics-

if you try to impose your perceived divisions from the outside on musims-
you are disregarding their more valid right to define their own selves and religions than the rights of others to judge a language they havent really had any experience speaking---
peace

To LKT: I understand that there's hardly a religion around that hasn't persecuted some group, but for the purposes of this discussion started by Pamela, she is speaking of Islam in this context, not other religions. So I wasn't just bashing Islam, I mention Islamic specifics because the post was about Islam.

"Sadly those of us who deny religion a place in our personal lives often do so because of the atrocities that have been perpetrated in the name of one or another religion."

Yes, many do reject religion for that reason. However, there are plenty more reasons why religion (any religion) isn't worth the time of day. If any particular religion is such a nobel cause, as is claimed above, as well as actually being inspired by a benevolent diety, then these atrocities wouldn't happen.

"If religion were a pure art form not practiced by human beings, perhaps its appeal would be more universal, or in your terms 'warm and fuzzy.'"

The appeal of religion *IS* universal. More people adhere to some religion than do not. Warm and fuzzy doesn't mean universal either, it means Pamela is sugar coating, if not ignoring completely the very real problems today that are associated with sex and the value and control of females as it's viewed in the light of Islam.

Assalaamu Aleikum!

Thank you, Pamela, for such a beautifully written piece on sexuality and Islam!

To the writer who asked, what if a woman wants rough red-hot monkey love I would suggest that there are different ways of reading the hadith.

(1) The Prophet (pbuh) approached his wives with tender caresses and soft kisses....

or

(2) The Prophet (pbuh) approached his wives with loving consideration in the way that they wanted to experience erotic pleasure.

Looking at the hadith too literally we often loose the sense of its essence. I run into the same question with prayer, as I speak and understand very little Arabic

(1) The Prophet (pbuh) prayed always in Arabic

or

(2) The Prophet (pbuh) prayed always in the language he was raised in, the language that was most fully expressive to and from his heart.

Both are true, but I can only do one or the other in following Muhammed's example. I believe that Islam is a universal religion because it consists of simple, clear, and adaptive principles -- not because people should be forced into some procrustean monocular interpretation. (And I pray mostly in English as God knows His words in all languages, but I need to take in the meaning of the prayer, rather than risk falling into mechanically babbling the sounds of a foreign tongue in rote recitation.)

In sex we are most individual and most unique. Qur'anic rules (1) raised the bar for respect for women (So do we follow the example by keeping them at rules established in 7th C. Arabia, or do we better honor the Qur'an by continuing to raise standards towards equality?); (2) protect the clarity of patrilineage; and (3) mandate modesty and discretion. It rather leaves the details of who does what and how for the loving partners to decide.

Of course practice under repressive regimes has been different from the ideal, but this is not unique to Islam. Misogyny has long and vicious traditions in Christianity, including the torture and burning alive of uppity women. Someone raised the argument of sectarian violence in Islam as if it never occured between Protestants and Catholics. We even hear of orthodox Jews in some Israeli neighborhoods throwing stones at their less observant brothers and sisters.

And on the other side "Islamic" condemnations against music, although the Muslim world is filled with many beautiful musical traditions, and against astrology, even though -- especially in the Abassid dynasty -- astrology was practiced, developed and much advanced by Muslims. In my travels in Muslim countries I have fond great respect for astrology, especially in Iran.

Of course that's nothing to do with the subject at hand and it's sad that any public discussion about Islam has to contend with bigots on one hand and neo-puritans on the other.

You're off to a wonderful start, Pamela! Keep up the great work.

Sans:

What part of the Islamic world are you referring to when you say that the rest of the Muslim world wouldn't agree with Pamela's article? I know Muslims from all over the world, and as evidenced by the longevity of their marriages and the number of children produced, something fun, beautiful and meaningful is happening behind closed bedroom doors. Even in societies where women are covered up like "faceless ghosts" as you put it.

I'm one of them. Only I should point out that even though I now live in a Muslim country, nobody is imposing any dress code or form of bondage on me. It's my choice--I can look as modern and liberated as you judge acceptable, thereby becoming a feast for lustful eyes, or I can dress like I do and reserve my most feminine and sexual side for the person most deserving of it--my husband.

Ross:

Thanks for the video and photo gallery links, but the point of the discussion here was not to bash Islam, but to explore how various religions view and treat sex.

Pamela did a superb job of dealing with this topic from an Islamic perspective. Islam recognizes the need for physical and emotional fulfillment. It neither exploits this need nor represses it. Islam offers moral guidelines; Muslims choose to obey them or not and will stand accountable before God.

Nonetheless, I find it interesting that some people make it their mission to go off topic and spread sensational accounts of Muslim women who are victimized by their societies and culture. Rather than fall for the hype, please educate yourself by talking to Muslims who are in front of you. One can't deny that atrocities are occurring, but they are happening in spite of Islam, not because of it. One shouldn't conclude that these actions are representative either of Islam or all Muslims. In the same sense, Muslims shouldn't conclude that all of the sexual misconduct and impropriety among Catholic priests is representative of all clergy, or even all Catholics.

I also find it amazing that an accusation of pedophilia is made on account of the Prophet's marriage to Aishah. Had the Prophet married only young girls, there might be grounds for such an accusation. But Aishah was the only child bride of the Prophet. She was not, however, the only child bride in the world. The tradition was common in Arabia and other parts of the world, and was not exclusive to the new religion of Islam. Average age at onset of puberty and cultural influences on emotional maturity also need to be taken into account.

Peace everybody,
Amina

Celsius:I am sick of people criticising the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) simply because he was a homicidal paedophile.

A. al-Z: Then you'll be absolutely edified to read about his other cruel deeds!

Celsius: Hitler's Einzatzgruppen murdered Jews just like Mohammed watched after the siege of Medina, but you never see Hitler critised.

A. al-Z: Uh-huh....Maybe you've been hanging out with Muslims too much. Muslims tended to NOT criticized Hitler's actions against the Jews because it is exactly in accord with Islamic intentions towards Jews. The historical record is pretty bad for Muslim involvement with the Nazis. Look at the Handschar Division of Bosnian Muslims in WWII or the Chechen collaboration with the Nazis. Besides that there is a lot of criticism of Hitler for his policies. Where you have been all this time is another matter.

Celsius: And there are thousands of evil paedophiles in prisons all over the world, but you never see any of them singled out like Mohammed (pbuh).

A. al-Z: Well, ol' Mo never really had to face the music about this in his lifetime did he? If he had then he would have realy been booted around and placed in protective custody like pedophiles are nowadays. In this sense you should be grateful that ol' Mo got away with his crimes.

Celsius: People say that Mohammed (pbuh) made up the Koran simply for his own benefit? Well so have many others who claimed to be messengers from God, e.g. Jim Jones, but when was the last time anyone said anything bad about them?

A. al-Z: All of these sick religious leaders have been criticized with lots of people saying lots of bad things about them on an everyday basis. They led a lot of people to stupid deaths (as well as wasted lives). Jim Jones was a sicko. So was Charlie Manson, David Koresh,The Church of the Aryan Nations and many others. So there, it was very recently that someone (namely me) said anything bad about them.

Congratulations Pam:

You've been suckered into the world's biggest con game. Any mention of sexuality im Islam is bound to
bring up the subject of policies towards females in Islamic societies. When there are more honor-killings and murders of apostates in the West what will you do then?

I am sick of people criticising the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) simply because he was a homicidal paedophile.

Hitler's Einzatzgruppen murdered Jews just like Mohammed watched after the siege of Medina, but you never see Hitler critised.

And there are thousands of evil paedophiles in prisons all over the world, but you never see any of them singled out like Mohammed (pbuh).

People say that Mohammed (pbuh) made up the Koran simply for his own benefit? Well so have many others who claimed to be messengers from God, e.g. Jim Jones, but when was the last time anyone said anything bad about them?

Pamela, I am thrilled to see you have responded to thoughtfully and tactfully to some of the comments on this thread, even though you really didn't have to. But I'm not surprised! You are exceptional at facing criticism head on.

I agree, this thread is not the appropriate time to bring up politics of Islamic countries in the first place. Our panelists are given questions and asked to respond to them. It would be out of line for Pamela to decide that the question wasn't good enough and post her own political beliefs instead.

Thank you, Pamela, for a job well done.

Jihadist (aka Crusader),

You noted: "You too shy to talk about why JD Crossan left the Catholic priesthood, and got married? Never mind. We Muslims don't care. After all, sex is natural and no one should be celibate. God never ask anyone to be celibate. Good for Crossan."

I am not shy about JD leaving the priesthood and getting married. I applaud him for it and I like a majority of Catholics, believe celibacy is outdated and should be removed as a condition of priesthood.

And your continued citations of poor examples of Christianity, e.g. Henry XIII and contemporary religious sex offenders, to sanctify the actions of your illiterate, spirit-visiting, sky-riding, horny "prophet" and passages of the Koran that demean women and call for the death of all non-believers is beyond significant stupidity.

There are obviously far too many issues to deal with in a single response, and many of the commentators are obviously simply anti-Islam, however, some thoughts engendered by the commentary...

1) What one wears outside the home and what repressive laws one must live under have little impact on one's sexual life within the home. That many Muslim don't believe in free sex doesn't mean they don't believe in good sex with their partner.

2)Many regimes in Muslim countries have horrific human rights records, and Muslims must demand change, but that has little bearing on the topic we were asked to address this week, which was what the religion's view of sex is, and why. There are forums for addressing politics; this one is for theology, spirituality, and faith.

3) There are Muslim men who beat their wives or who have committed an honor killing, just as there are American men who beat their wives or who have killed their ex and her new boyfriend in a fit of jealous rage. No one would suggest that those men represent the ideal. Nor would we attack the Western ideal because a huge percentage of American men fail to live up to it. So too, Muslim men who behave in criminal ways towards their spouses should not be viewed as the ideal, or even as the norm; they are criminals and they are the exception. That does not absolve us from dealing with these men, with tough laws and advocacy and education programs, but their actions in no way negates the ideal.

4)There are many ways to look at religion. We can look at what it teaches or we can look at on the ground practices. Picking and choosing a few examples (usually the most horrific and un-Islamic examples), is not a sound methodology. I am not aware of a Kinsey report for the Muslim world, thus it seems to me that any attempt at quantifying the sexual experiences of modern Muslim is going to be a haphazard study at best. Theology, however, is much easier to pin down as we have clear records of what Prophet Muhammad taught.

4) On Pedophilia. There are conflicting reports about Aisha's age. The bulk of the material points to the fact that she was most likely in her late teens at the time of their marriage. http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_151_200/ayesha_age_the_myth_of__a_prover.htm. is an excellent article laying out the arguments for believing she was much older than the most commonly quoted sources say.

Interestingly, similar discrepancies can be found regarding the age of many of the Prophet's companions. For instance, reports of the age of his son-in-law, Ali, vary by over a decade. Seems like the ancient Arabs may have been as fixated on youthful beauty as Hollywood producers.

Nonetheless, the fact that many Muslims do believe Aisha was a child bride is something Muslims must contend with. Fortunately, in the vast majority of the Muslim countries the legal minimum age for marriage is in the late teens. It seems to me that we need to be advocating strongly for girls education. That is the first step in improving on many fronts, including young marriage ages.

The simple solution is to update the book that all Muslims follow. With the current passages that demand death for non-believers, that reduce women to third class citizens and that give an OK to slavery to include harems, makes the Koran an out of date document and a threat to the world peace as witnessed by the daily butchery of Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims by suicide bombers who follow the same book.

It is probably impossible to describe the beliefs and practices of an entire religious community. There are more than 1 billion Muslims in the world, and probably more than 1 billion ways that Islam is practiced. You cannot deligitimize the way that one group practices their religion by pointing out that another group practices it differently.

Pamela, in this forum and in others, provides insight into how one group views and practices their religion. I find it very beautiful and I thank her for sharing this with us.

I'm truly disappointed and disgusted by many of the posts on this forum. Who are you define what beliefs are and are not part of Islam? Yes, you can cite history and you can cite scripture, but you cannot speak with authority about how all of the world's Muslims interpret the scripture or historical events. It is for this reason that insights from individuals such as Pamela are so valuable. Do they represent the views of all Muslims? Almost certainly not, but they certainly represent some.

It's interesting to me that many people who are so critical of the way some people practice certain aspects of Islam are the same ones who attempt to discredit more progressive Mulsims. It certainly makes me question their motivations.

Dear Pamela, you handled an important yet very sensitive subject in such a delicate manner. Congratulations!

Faizal Kayum

Jihadist wrote:
Evangelicals have been focussing on the Prophet Muhammad PBUH sex life in the minutest detail.

Why should anyone not focus on his sex life ? If he makes the claim of prophethood then he must be subject to a higher set of moral standards. And lust is not the not sin he is accused of. Greed, pride, anger etc are amongst the list of vices he possessed.

Imagine if you have a 50 year old neighbour who one day claims he has received visions from God, one year later he comes home with a 9 year old girl claiming to be his wife, now will you believe this man really received messages from God ?
If your answer NO then what is so different about Mohammed ?
Why do you believe the quran is the word of Allah ? and how do you prove that Allah if he exists is not satan in disguise ?

Ross,
Evangelicals have been focussing on the Prophet Muhammad PBUH sex life in the minutest detail instead of explaining on the Trinity, the Incarnation for Muslims for decades now.

Do you think Muslims will be seriously moved by what you said here and there as what you know is from Muslim sources? You will need to explain St. Paul and St. Augustine to Muslims better. It that harder than telling us what we already know about the Prophet and the evangelists' obesssion?

The Prophet Muhammad PBUH is a man. So, now, give me the facts on Jesus. Is he human or divine? And what is JD Crossan writing about?

Halozcel,

Glad you read up on Carmina Burana from the Wikipedia. I am a Muslim woman, I am opening my mouth here, at home and at work.

Peace be with you both.

Carmina Burana from Wikipedia.Most of poem and songs appear to be the work of Galiard CLERGY.Carl Orff collected from BENEDICTINE ABBEY.The collection is divided 6 section.Carmina ecclesiastica(song on RELIGIOUS THEMES),Carm.moralia,Carm amatoria,Carm potoria,Ludi RELIGIOUS PLAYS,Supplementum.What is this?Beatles I wanna hold your hands,Elvis Presley Blue Swede Shoes,Ray Charles.Listen to Ray.Unchain my heart...yes First of all Unchain your head.Woman can not open her mouth in Islam.I dont say No compulsion in Islam,the respectful tale writer says.Completely wrong.What does 9.73 and 2.193 mean.

Jihadist wrote:
As for the links you are providing, those are atheistic websites given to their own "propoganda" against religion and/or Islam. I've seen them already. It is like watching a KKK lynching and deciding that all Christians are like that.

The KKK do their lynching in secrecy and are HUNTED not SPONSORED by the US government. Whereas the stoning is commited in accoradnce with the quranic sharia laws and are events sponsored by islamic governments (only for muslims of course). These events are prevalent in many muslim countries like Saudi, Afganistan (under taliban), Iran etc.

The problem is this cult like every other cult brainwashes its followers they go to any lenghts to justify Mo's paedophilia, here is list of the excuses we have collected over the past 3 years:

1. Marrying 6 year olds was ok in those days.
2. Girls matured sooner in those days.
3. Girls matured sooner in dry climates.
4. To teach her true islam.
5. She was a reject (had marriage proposals turned down) so he done her a favour.
6. To establish a relationship with Abu Bakr.
7. She was Allah's gift to him via the angelic dream.
8. Married her when she was 6 but consummated when she was 14.
9. I don't see what the problem is.
10. You are a "#"£$"£!$##' I'll chop your head off.
11. Allah gave him this priviledge, you are just envious.
12. Why do you only bash Mo even catholic priests perform such acts.
13. Sleeping with 9 year old by marrying her is better than raping her!
14. Aisha was in dishonour, she had been 'playful' in her youth and Muhammad was kind to her to marry her, to save her from lifetime of shame.
15. If Mo was a paedophile then why was Aisha the only minor among his wives. (This excuse was given by JAGOTI on this panel)

Ms. Pamela Taylor do you have an excuse ?

Jihadist wrote:
Quite an evangelical against pedophilia.

Why not ? Do you not believe paedophilia is a serious crime ?

Jihadist wrote:
I am quite interested with Henry XIII and his six wives leading to the formation of the Church of England and seperation from the Catholic Church.

Henry "VIII" was no prophet nor did he claim to be one, Anglican do not honor him nor insert pbuh after his name. I believe he was an evil man but atleast he did'nt sleep with minors.

Jihadist wrote:
I am also fascinated by current occurences of Catholic priests being protected by the church from charges of pedophilia.

Again Priests are not prophets, I for one would like to see them arrested.
Instead of defending Mo you are indulging in the Tu quoque fallacy, just because Catholic Priests or Anglican Henry VIII commit acts of fornication does not make Mohammed right, does it ?

Jihadist wrote:
By the way, how can you prove for certain that the Prophet actually had sex with Aishah when she was nine?

He married her when she was 5 or 6 and he took her into his household when she was 9. This is evidence that he planned to have sexual relations with her. Based on this many muslims countries allow marriage with 9 year old girls. There is also a hadith that describes a THIGHING technique used by Mohammed on Aisha.

It is unnatural for a man of 54 to look at a 9 year old girl sexually. Look around you how many 50+ year old men do see going around with 9yr old girls ?

Jihadist wrote:
He treated her more like a beloved daughter and she is one of the primary source of all the Hadiths on the Prophet

Then who stopped him from adopting her like a daughter ? He did adopt Zaid as a son.

Jihadist wrote:
The Prophet and Aishah have no children.

That's probably because the child's reproductive organs were damaged by that pedophile.

Ross,
I remember you from the Karen Armstrong thread on prayers :) You said the same things. Quite an evangelical against pedophilia.

Actually, while you are really obsessed about the sex life of Prophet Muhammad PBUH, I am quite interested with Henry XIII and his six wives leading to the formation of the Church of England and seperation from the Catholic Church.

I am also curious about Popes having children before in history in spite of the Catholic clergy, both nuns and priests not allowed to marry.

I am also fascinated by current occurences of Catholic priests being protected by the church from charges of pedophilia. I have been reading Marci Hamilton's "God vs the Gavel".

I have also been reading up on how pious Christians in the US justify slavery, you know, to learn from your experiences. How the KKK lynch the blacks before, segregation and such to, again learn from your experiences.

By the way, how can you prove for certain that the Prophet actually had sex with Aishah when she was nine? He treated her more like a beloved daughter and she is one of the primary source of all the Hadiths on the Prophet, the Hadiths which are the source of all that you known about the Prophet apart his biographies. That says a lot about Muslims don't it, in not attempting to make Prophet Muhammad PBUH into a divine creature.

The Prophet and Aishah have no children. After Khatijah died, whom he had five children with, he only had a son with his other women, a son who died.

If you read anthropolgy and history, people marry really young in history, from the Pharoahs right up to Mahatma Gandhi. A girl is considered a woman once she got her menses, and girls can have their first menses in pre-teen years.

Muslims don't believe in Original Sin, so sex is not a problem or a guilt. And, if Prophet Jesus PBUH was actually married, as the Da Vinci Code supposes in fiction, it will not raise a single Muslim eyebrow. After all, Muslims see the Prophet Jesus PBUH as a mortal who performed miracles by the grace of God.

As for the links you are providing, those are atheistic websites given to their own "propoganda" against religion and/or Islam. I've seen them already. It is like watching a KKK lynching and deciding that all Christians are like that.

Have fun here Ross:)

Salaams Sister Taylor- thank you for your input- you've a beautiful and elegant way of expressing what is a celebration and joy in life-

also i commend you for your responsiveness to the people posting- i hope its a pattern developing- we see little of the panelists after they submit their articles and its a testament to a caring and consistent individual-

my monkey girlfriend has revealed the moonchild within her i see- well im with you there sister-
i cnt imagine what life would be like without ludwig v in the background as the soundtrack of it-

well this has been pleasant i must say-
salaams off i go to pet the cat

Yet more Islamic wishing for things that don't actually happen in real life.

Tragic propaganda!

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

Ms. Taylor wrote:
Islam frowns on sex

How is that possible when the pedophile prophet himself enjoyed sex with 9 year old aishah ?

Ms. Taylor wrote:
Thus, it's not just sex for procreation, or sex to relieve masculine needs, but sex as pleasure and intimacy between two human beings that can be holy.

intimacy between Two humans ?? What possible pleasure could the 9 year old Aishah get with that old fat wrinkly lump in bed with her ? That child did'nt even have a choice !

Ms. Taylor wrote:
The Qur'an affirms that everything in creation is made in pairs. Male and Female. Having a mate is part and parcel of being a created creature

Then why are muslim men allowed 4 wives, why did the prophet marry atleast 12 women and had concubines ? Why is there a reward of 72 houris for men in heaven ? How does that translate to pairs ?

Ms. Taylor, what islam boils down to is worshipping a fake (alter ego) of a sexual pervert called Mohammed. Those who do not bow before this allah are called dhimmis and Kafirs meant to be humiliated and killed, those who commit apostasy are sentenced to death. Open your eyes Ms. Taylor the only rewards for muslim women in allah materialistic paradise is to share their husband with 72 voluptous houris.

Halozcel,

Mashallah!

Carl Orff's "Carmina Burana" is not church music. It is secular music. It is about the seasons. Never mind its almost pompous bombast is and was used as background music for going into battles in movies and documentaries.

As a matter of fact, I love the lyrics for the solos and choir in Carmina Burana. Apart from celebrating the seasons, it was really about the illicit goings-on in medieval monastries.

And as to what you wrote in your post re what is wrong and what is right, the sex act is not wrong, except outside the bounds allowed by Islam. Pamela Taylor got it right.

By the way, drunk or not, deaf or not, how can I resist listening to Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata?" He has not to be drunk when he wrote that, and it is not church music, but a musical ode to love, like Layla and Majnun.

Are we are at war here against Beethoven for being a "drunk", Carl Orff's Carmina Burana and people who casually read astrology? And Beethoven is not a Muslim. Rumi was a drunk too, and he wrote beautiful poetry.

This is one jihad you are espousing here where you can count me out. As you said, there is no complusion in Islam. Let Almighty Allah be the final judge of what is right or wrong, who goes to heaven or hell, not you, not me. We know what is wrong, what is right and it is our choices to do right or wrong according to the Qur'an. You know this already as a fellow Muslim.

In the meantime, I am getting off here to listen to Lucia Popp sing Dvorak's "Song to the Moon" from his opera Rusalka. Then to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan. He is a most sublime and stirring singer in praise of Almighty Allah.

Salam.

From the website of Dear Pamela Taylor,That is the standart(right) Religion,but most among mankind understand not.In arcitle,God created mankind...ability to recognize right and wrong.Which one is correct.Astrological sign Cancer.Astrology is a big Sin in Islam.You like Carmina Burana and Beethoven.Car.Bur.is a church music and Beethoven was an alcoholic.No compulsion in Islam.O Propet,strive hard against the unbeliever and Be harsh with them 9.73...and fight them until persecution is no more and religion is for Allah 2.193.They are quite literally equal partners to one another.Allah has made the one of them to EXCEL the other4.34.Respectful Pamela what you write is unfortunately not correct.

Hello Concerned:)

What? No promo for any of JD Crossan's books:)

And the same questions asked of Muslims in every threads in On Faith regardless of issues posed:)

Frankly, I have never heard of Bin Jabrain nor do I care for the views of one Muslim. Just the same way I don't care for the views of Pat Robertson or Ann Coulter nor do I take their views, or your views, as representing the views of all Christians or atheists, whichever it may be.

You too shy to talk about why JD Crossan left the Catholic priesthood, and got married? Never mind. We Muslims don't care. After all, sex is natural and no one should be celibate. God never ask anyone to be celibate. Good for Crossan.

See you around Concerned. Have fun here :)

Alidost,

OK, give us some references that show how the Sunnis and Shiites love each other. Hmmm, from : "http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/03/iraq.cleric.ap/index.html

"Al-Sistani was apparently referring to Abdullah bin Jabrain, a key member of Saudi Arabia's clerical establishment, who last month joined a chorus of other senior figures from the hardline Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam that regards Shiites as infidels.

Bin Jabrain described Shiites as "the most vicious enemy of Muslims."

Now there are some real love statements from the fellow followers of the Koran!

The OP said:

"Perhaps even more astonishing, he instructed Muslim men that they should not lay with their wives as though they were animals, but to begin with kisses and caressing, to ensure the woman's pleasure."

What about women who like hot animalistic monkey love? Did the prophet make an exception for them?

More importantly, why do you care about the sexual opinions of some old warmongerer who died 1400 years ago, if he ever lived at all?

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

You have a lot to learn about Shias, Sunnis, and Islam and Qur'an.
Learn about those first, and then come here and read about sex in Islam.

Pamela,

The Shiites and Sunnis continued butchery plus the militancy and degradation of women in various passages of the Koran makes Islam a sham religion. Correct these deficiencies and then get back to us about sex.

Nice topic, Pamela. You have initiated a very important discussion.

Dear barakahusseinobamalovesislam, I think it is great that you are venting in this forum, and hopefully not acting out your aggression using violent means. It is also important that you try to actually research the topic before forming an opinion. I assume that when you use the term "islamics" you are probably referring to Muslims or followers of Islam.
There are a number of books that touch on the topics you mention: interacting with people of other faiths, gender issues, etc. I would suggest that you read "Islam and the Destiny of Man" by Charles Le Gai Eaton. It is an excellent book when it comes to understanding Islam and also very inspiring, no matter what your faith, ideology or political views.

Best wishes,
medicus

P.S. please say hi to barack :)

To Sans:

What religion has not persecuted some group or individual in the name of "God?" Sadly those of us who deny religion a place in our personal lives often do so because of the atrocities that have been perpetrated in the name of one or another religion. If religion were a pure art form not practiced by human beings, perhaps its appeal would be more universal, or in your terms "warm and fuzzy."

Sadly the rest of the Islamic world doesn't seem to share your warm and fuzzy views on sex, Pamela. They cover women to the point where they are faceless ghosts. Women cannot leave the house unattended without fear of being beaten. They are routinely raped and then killed because that rape brought "shame" on their families. And that's amongst the myriad of other abuses women go through in Islamic countries every day. Saudi Arabia is currently implementing (and has been) a gender apartheid. And what's the reason? Sexual Female sexuality control via religion.

Women would be better off being granted some basic human freedoms than have a good time in bed, when it comes down to brass tax.

I've noticed you mention the opposite pairs as well "...Heaven and Earth. Salt water and fresh water. Male and Female. Having a mate is part and parcel of being a created creature..."

And that's all Wonderful, unless you are a homosexual. *THAT* kind of sex is unholy, and punishable by death in most Islamic countries. But it is still sex nonetheless, just not *appropriate* sex as defined by arbitrary standards from bronze age men making 7th century scribblings.

Not quite what you'd expect from a warm and fuzzy enlightened religion.

and why do we care about islamics having great sex? im just so darn happy that they enjoy themselves in the rack. that gives us a reason not to care about the commands that islamics not take jews, christians and hindu's as friends, and not to work with them and lastly - to kill them if they dont convert or pay tribute. then there is that great way to paradise - strapping a bomb on yourself and walking into an icecream parlor and murdering old women and children. then there is the beheading that they tape and put on the net. and lets not forget their love for sports and those wonderful hangings and beheadings and other forms of murder for a great half time show. yes - we should all be happy that they have good sex.

Terrific article and responses, Pamela. They should be more widely published

Peter Taylor (Australia)

Pamela,
I am so excited for you! And I love your article-I'm so glad that someone remembers that God gave us the physical act of love as a gift, not a curse!
Looking forward to many more articles!
Isabel

Oops..Thats Glenn.

Nice to read an enlightened piece about Islamic ideology; someone tell Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji, to start reading these pieces and also Gless Beck to dare to interview you!

Beautiful article Pamela. I too am looking forward to many more.

Salaams Sis Pamela: Alhamdulillah for a great start. I also look forward to reading many more articles, Insha Allah.

Pamela, I thoroughly enjoyed your article. Very articulate and learned so much.

Excellent piece Pamela.

Javed Akbar

Always love to read your thoughts, Pamela. Keep up the great work!

LKT,

Of course some have posited that each half of the pair is opposite to the other and used this not only to forbid homosexuality, but also to posit that men and women are complementary rather than equal: the male outward looking, the female inward looking, the male rational, the female emotional.

I do not believe, however, that the Quranic notion of "pairs" fits these interpretations. The word for "huband" is the same as the word for "wife." There is no disctintion between them linguistically, thus there is no imputation of oppositeness. Perhaps even more interesting, in Arabic pairs that are seen as male and female in Western lore (the sun and the moon, or the earth and the heavens, for instance) are both female.

The traditional understanding that homosexuality is forbidden in Islam has much more to do with the story of Lot. There are alternative readings of those verses, which suggest that the Lot story has more to do with rape than homosexuality. Another reading of those verses suggest that the story is about a people who wholesale practiced homosexuality regardless of their inherent sexuality (much as men in Afghanistan will take a young male lover as a show of status, whether they are gay or not). While these readings are still not normative, it is to be noted that a man "who lacked the male talent" was a friend of the Prophet's family and regularly visited with his wives. Clearly, then, the Prophet's example is of acceptance and cordiality, not hositlity, discrimination or hatred.

Congratulations Pamela on a job well done.

Looking forward to reading more of your comments.

Great first article! I look forward to reading many more.

Ah, Pamela... you've managed to deftly pull the veil aside on such a hot and even often frenzied topic with true panache. It's about time both Muslims and non-Muslims alike come to a clear idea and its presentation to themselves and the world about something so essential to our natures and relationships. And done briskly, no nonsense, and with grace. And to include so beautifully "a yearning toward the Divine" as part of our spiritual and even biological natures. It also de-mystifies "the other," Muslims as misogynistic and heartless anti-sensualists, when we should recognize Allah has created this world as a mercy and a divine teaching as well...and with balance, enjoy its pleasures... I look forward to your further meditations... al-hamdulillah and thanks.

Is your pairing analogy "male and female" used as an argument against homosexuality by Quranic scholars? Just what is the basis of Muslim rejection of homosexuality?

Congratulations on your new gig :) Your article is very well thought out and really supports the foundation for a new look at how the Quran and hadiths view sex, contrary to many Western misconceptions and the pervasive tribal patriarcy of some Muslim countries. When we hear of honor rapes and women being stoned to death, it is apparent that the work you do for the equality of women in Islam is all the more important. God bless you and grant you success.

Ya Haqq!