Only Part of the Story

Anon-Anon,

You are correct about my lack of posting on FFI, there are 2 reasons one is I cannot access FFI from my workplace (where I do most of my postings) and the other is that there are not enough muslims on FFI these days, the ratio of non muslims to muslims is too high. I also believe that once enough knowledge of this cult is gained thru FFI one should take the battle else where.

I have posted on other threads see karen armstrong, zaid shakir (now removed), eboo patel, mattson or akbar ahmed
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/akbar_ahmed/2007/01/islam_and_women/all_comments.html
To be fair Pamela is the only one amongst the islam related panelists who responds to anybody. I have not found regular muslim male bloggers here.

Are you a member of FFI ?

To Ross,

Maybe I'm the only one who has noticed this. Although you have been active on faithfreedom.org since 2005, which has several ex-Muslims and Muslims engaged in active debate, you restrict your posts to the threads on WaPo almost exclusively - with very rare exception - to Pamela Taylor. You seem to have directed your questions primarily to Ms Taylor and the two regular female Muslim bloggers on this forum, Jihadist and Victoria. There are several male Muslim scholars on the Forum who would be happy to engage with your questions I'm sure. I wonder why you don't post on their blogs.

Just curious.

What the hosts of faithfreedom.org are claiming is this: The militant wing of Islam is based on the Quran and the life of Mohammad. In a country, not all become soldiers; yet the military is a legitimate wing of the society. The military may sit around and twiddle their thumbs until they find a reason to swing into action. The military may swing into action to defend their country, or they might get involved in a just or unjust war. So it is with Islamic Jihadists. Such the view of the ex-Muslims on faithfreedom.org, and they quote the Quran, Hadiths and Sura to prove their point.

It would be interesting to know if Muslims from the Middle East would agree to the claim made by the post addressed to Ross (which has the stamp of Pamela Taylor's language and well constructed arguments) that women in Mohammad's time went about topless, and hence Mohammad's instruction to women to cover their breasts. The argument put forward is that Mohammad did not actually prescribe the Hijab.

Modesty and chastity in dress, talk and behaviour has been emphasised in the Quran.

Faithfreedom.org claims to be hosted by two ex-Muslims who argue that Islamic extremism can find justification in the teachings of the Quran and the life of Mohammad. The hosts invite any Muslim to prove them wrong by engaging in an open debate (based on the Quran, Hadiths and Sura) with them. They are particularly worried about the threats and punishment meted out to ex-Muslims and would like to bring world attention to the fact. Every person who reads the contents of faithfreedom.org must decide for themselves how far the hosts and other ex-Muslim members on that website are speaking the truth.

Victoria,

The Ten Commandments were given to Moses circa 1400 B.C. The three year ministry of Jesus dates to circa 26-29 or 30-33 A.D. (some estimate the year of Jesus' birth as 4 B.C.) The revelations of Mohammad began 610 A.D.; over two thousand years after the Ten Commandments were given to Moses, and over six centuries after Jesus. The Torah was written in its complete version at least one century before the birth of Jesus, and the Bible was compiled and agreed upon (from sources dating to the first century) somewhere in the third or fourth centuries. Christian Scripture was finalised and Christianity was well established at least three centuries before the birth of Mohammad. Many people consider the Quran as Bible for the Arabs, especially since it mentions almost all the Prophets of the Torah, and Jesus Son of Mary. The fact that most of the teachings in the Quran merely repeat what is already written in the Bible proves the point.

The Ten Commandments: (Exodus 20: 1-17 & Deut 5:1-21) [NIV]

1. You shall have no other gods before me.

2. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them.

3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God...

4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy...

5. Honor your father and mother.

6. You shall not murder (kill is the word used in other translations).

7. You shall not commit adultery.

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house;
You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife...
or anything the he owns.

Meaning of covet from the dictionary:

1. To desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others: to covet another's property.
2. To wish for, esp. eagerly: He won the prize they all coveted.
–verb (used without object)
3. To have an inordinate or wrongful desire

One could conclude that since Commandment 7 already deals with adultery, there should have been no need for Commandment 10, (do not steal, is repeated in Commandment 10, with do not covet belongings of others) which considers "coveting" equally wrong. Could an inordinate or wrongful desire for another man's wife be called lust? Ordinary mortals would consider it so. For some reason best known to God, the moral code summed up in only ten short commandments, chooses to emphasize lust, it being given as a separate commandment in spite of commandment 7 which forbids adultery. Accordingly in His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), Jesus teaches: "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

About punishment only when four witnesses confirm adultery

As a legal measure: Not many murderers would be brought to justice if such a basis was used for conviction of crime. The criminal court uses reliable circumstantial evidence, less than four reliable witnesses, confession by anyone involved etc. to reach a verdict.

As a moral commandment: God knows the intention of the human heart and sees all actions done in secret. Whether or not there were outside human witnesses to the act is immaterial. If according to Mohammad, adultery was to be punished with death as stipulated in the Torah (If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. Leviticus 20:10), it should be punished irrespective of the number of witnesses. What matters is whether adultery was committed or not. Number of witnesses is irrelevant. If four false witnesses were to come forward, does that make a man and woman guilty of adultery if they did not commit adultery?

Health professionals treating addictions will confirm the important role thought processes play in the mechanism of addiction. Feeding thoughts become part of the addictive process. To the addict the pleasures of preparation with thoughts are just as important and pleasant as the act itself. As to sexual addictions there are also other ways in which they manifest themselves, which does not involve the physical act with the partner. Identifying triggers, avoiding trigger situations, shifting focus etc is part of the healing process. The Ten Commandments recognizes that lust (or covetousness) is the beginning of adultery and should be dealt with at the level of thoughts. It is simply sound psychology about training the mind and emotions.

The enemies of the Prophet now have different names and come from different places than they did during the life of RasulAllah, but their insolence, vulgarity and general lack of anything resembling manners or civility have not changed at all.

Ghandi’s Words on Muhammad•… the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the 2nd volume [of his biography], I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life

George Bernard Shaw on the Messenger of Allah•I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.

Anonymous wrote:
"Of all the world's great men none has been so much maligned as Muhammad." • –British author and University of Edinburgh professor emeritus, W. Montgomery Watt

Anonymous also wrote:
It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. –Annie Besant, The Life and Teachings of Muhammad, 1932, p. 4

Why do you need assurances from non muslim westerners about the character of your prophet ?
Perhaps you find his deeds as recorded in islamic texts pretty disturbing.

Anonymous:
For the past 1400 years number of accusations were made at prophet. But nobody saw anything
unusal with his marriage to Ayesha-WHY? Because of the cultural norms of most of the entire world
at that time.

For the past most non muslims were not aware of Mo's paedophilia and anyone who dared to question would have ben put to death. It is only because the modern media is the non muslim (and muslim) world learning about the true evil character of this man. 50+ marrying little girls was not the norm of any civilisation at any point in history. normal 50 year old men do not get turned on by 6 year old girls, if they do they have a paedophiliac tendencies.

Dare to face the truth, stop making excuses of this pathetic character.

Anonymous wrote:
Dr. Annie Besant-'And you look at the women whom he married, you will find that by every one of them an alliance was made for his people, or something was gained for his followers, or the woman was in sore need of protection''

"Narrated Ibn Aun:
I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.” Volume 3, Book 46, Number 717:

Annie Beasant is correct in this case, I guess the loot and the women and children of the Bani Mustaliq were for his followers.

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Sahih Bukhari 5.236.
Narrated Hisham's father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari 5.234
Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 41, Number 4915, also Number 4916 and Number 4917
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151
Narrated 'Aisha:
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3311
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

Dr. Annie Besant-''But do you mean to tell me that the man who in the full flush of youthful vigour, a young man of four and twenty (24), married a woman much his senior, and remained faithful to her for six and twenty years (26), at fifty years of age when the passions are dying married for lust and sexual passion? Not thus are men's lives to be judged. And you look at the women whom he married, you will find that by every one of them an alliance was made for his people, or something was gained for his followers, or the woman was in sore need of protection''

Aysha was 9 year old when she got married to prophet [Bukhari vol7 Book62 No64].

For the past 1400 years number of accusations were made at prophet. But nobody saw anything
unusal with his marriage to Ayesha-WHY? Because of the cultural norms of most of the entire world
at that time .

It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. –Annie Besant, The Life and Teachings of Muhammad, 1932, p. 4

"Of all the world's great men none has been so much maligned as Muhammad." • –British author and University of Edinburgh professor emeritus, W. Montgomery Watt

VICTORIA
Why don't you read what the founder of faithfreedom.org has to say,then you can judge wheather it is credible or not.

anon-anon
the 10 commandments dont mention lusting

i think you're confusing that with Jesus(ata) statement that if you look at a woman with lust you are committing adultery in your heart.

i canot recall anywhere in the qu'ran where it enumerates the traits of the adulterous woman- but it certainly focuses on the positive traits and standards of fidelity that women and men are exhorted to emulate.

in this way, i guess the qu'ran is different than the bible.

you are not punished for intentions in islam-
as a matter of fact- if you have the intention to do some wrong, and do the right action instead- you are actually given the blessings in your cosmic deed count of a GOOD deed!

of course ALLAH is aware of our intentions- it is the great mercy of ALLAH that we are not judged harshly for our intentions- and again, judged postively if they do not manisfest nto action

the near impossibility of actually finding 4 different witnesses to the act of adultery rather points to the rarity of being able to islamically punish in this world.

of course men and women are held equally responsible before ALLAH, and on this earth, men are punished as well.

but again, the circumstances necessary for such punishment to even occur are so prohibitive to that process (4 witnesses found to impose punishment)

why would you believe faithfreedom as a credible source for information about muslims?

Pamele wrote:
All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab;also a white has no superiority over a black, nor a black has any superiority over a white. (From the Farewell Sermon)

Yet another one of Pamela's deceptions (trying to project a cultish directive as a moral gem for humanity). The above message pertains to muslims only. There is no equality for apostates of islam irrespective of their colour or ethnicity, only death awaits them. There is no equality for jews and christians irrespective of their colour or ethnicity, only a second class status is reserved for them. There is no equality forother religious groups irrespective of their colour or ethnicity, only a fate worse than dhimmi's is in store for them.

What happened to 6 year old Aishah's rights when she was married off to 54 year old Mo ?

My previous post went missing. Please excuse if this turns out to be a repetition.

The post addressed to Ross seems to be from Pamela. This is continuing on the same theme that has been pursued by Ross for several months.

To Pamela:

Mohammad accepted the teachings of the Prophets of the Book and Moses and Jesus are mentioned several times in the Quran.

The Ten Commandments puts lusting on the same footing as adultery and killing. The intentional stance of adultery is treated as seriously as the act of adultery itself. The Book of Proverbs mentions seven times the seductive ways of an adulterous woman. Does the Quran have an equivalent? In what way does Islamic teaching differ?

Does Allah who can read the intentions of the human heart and see what is done in secret, not see adultery when it is done in secret? Why then does Islam punish only if there are four eye witnesses? Why are only women punished when they are caught, and not the men?

On Faithfreedom one commented that Muslim men and women behave in strict accordance to Islamic protocol with other Muslims (treating males like brothers and females like sisters) only because they are afraid of the terrible this-worldly consequences (from their families and fellow Muslims) of doing otherwise. They show their real moral colours only with non-Muslims, flirting with the opposite sex in situations they would never dream of doing with Muslims. Would you define such behaviour as religious hypocrisy or double standards?

My previous post has gone missing

At age 25, Mohammad married his boss, a woman fifteen years his senior. So women could not have been all that subjugated before Mohammad introduced Islam.

Mohammad himself married more than four women(including a six year old child) after the death of his first wife, with whom he was in a monogamous relationship for 25 years. Why?

he Qur’anic verses thus should be divided into two categories namely 1) contextual and 2) normative. The normative pronouncements of the Qur’an are eternal and while re-thinking issues in Islamic Shari‘ah, particularly pertaining to women’s rights the normative pronouncements will have precedence over the contextual. But during the early centuries contextual often had precedence over normative and it was quite ‘normal’ then. And hence these formulations became widely acceptable in that society. These laws were thought to be normative then and hence struck deeper roots in society as well as in hearts and minds of the people as well and came to acquire status of immutability with the passage of time.

Thus even if hadith is accepted as divine its contextuality will have to be kept in mind. It is also said, and rightly so, that the Prophet explained the Qur’anic verses through his words and deeds and who knew the meaning and import of the Qur’anic verses better than the Prophet. Quite true. But the question of contextuality remains. The holy Prophet, while dealing with the given society, could not have gone beyond its context in explaining and practising the Qur’anic pronouncements. Again it can best be illustrated with an example of women’s status in that society. While explaining the cause of revelation of the Qur’anic verse 4:34, all classical commentators like Tabari, Fakhruddin Razi and others maintain that the Prophet allowed a woman (daughter of his companion) right to retaliate against her husband who had unjustly slapped her but, in view of the prevailing social ethos it laid to unrest among the men and Qur’an reversed the Prophet’s decision. This once again shows that the question of contextuality is very important and highly relevant in all judicial pronouncements be they those of the Prophet or other Islamic jurists.

However, much of this spirit of justice and equality was lost when the Islamic doctors legislated under the influence of their own social ethos. The Qur’anic categorical imperatives were ignored, as pointed out before, in favour of those verses which were of the nature of concession to the age. There are many instances of this. The polygamy, for example. Firstly, it was a permissive measure in some circumstances (large number of war widows and orphans to be taken care of as many men perished fighting in the battle of Uhud) with great emphasis on justice to all the wives (their number not exceeding four). It was great advance over the pre-Islamic practice of marrying unlimited number and without any obligation towards the wives.

Secondly, the verse on polygamy (4:3) is followed by the verse 4:1 which emphasises sexual equality in the words that ...”Lord Who created you from a single being (min nafsin wahidatin) and created its mate of the same (kind) and spread from these two many men and women...” and the verse 4:2 which talks of justice for orphans and widows. Then polygamy is permitted provided one marries with widows and orphans (and not any women) and there also justice with all wives is a must failing which one must marry only one. No one before had insisted on such conditionalities for plurality of wives. Thirdly, the verse 4:129 states that even if you desire you cannot do justice between wives and ends by saying that do not leave the one with total disinclination and incline towards the other leaving the first in suspense. If the verses 4:3 and 4:129 are read together polygamy is as good as not permissible. But the jurists, in order to avoid implications of reading the two verses together invented various explanations and took resort of hadith to keep possibility of polygamy open. And, much worse, in practising it, conditionality for justice was hardly enforced. In today’s conditions polygamy should be done away with in order to implement the Qur’anic conditionality. Abolition of polygamy will serve the end of justice far better than its practice today. The arguments that men are more sexual or that in case there are more women than men, it will be better to permit polygamous marriages to avoid immoral relations etc. are all attempts at human rationalisation than divine intention. These arguments do not hold much water as there may be excess of women over men in one country and excess of men over women in another. And prostitution and immoral sex thrived even when men could marry any number of wives and also keep slave girls without limit.

Also, normatively speaking the Qur’an has conceded all rights to women which were available earlier only to men. She could exercise her right to divorce her husband as men could divorce her at will. The Prophet permitted a woman called Jamila to divorce her husband - against his will and without consultingg him - just because she did not approve of his looks. While the verse 2:229 permits her to liberate herself from an unsatisfactory marriage by suitable compensation to husband (i.e. returning the dower amount) the verse 4:35 gives her right to appoint an arbiter of her own to settle the marital dispute or agree to divorce. Also, the Qur’an requires of men to keep their wives in goodly manner and to leave them, if necessary, in a benevolent manner. And the verse 4:19 lays down that women could not be inherited or taken as wives against their will. men are also exhorted in this verse not to take a portion of what they have given to their wives and to treat them kindly. It was also emphasised in 9:71 that believing men and believing women are each others friends and they (both men and women) enjoin good and forbid evil. Thus both enjoy equal obligations and from this verse jurists like Abu Hanifa have concluded that a woman can become Qadi i.e.judge as it is her obligation also to enjoin good and forbid evil.

It is argued from the verse 4:11 that a daughter inherits half that of son and hence man is superior. Some modernists also argue on the basis of this verse that it is injustice to a daughter as she has been given half that of son and hence it is bias against female sex. It is simply not true. From one perspective one can say it was a cautious reform in favour of daughters. In pre-Islamic society daughters did not inherit at all and now they were given right to inherit half that of son. From another perspective it could be argued that it was not bias against daughter that they were given half that of son but daughters were duly compensated by mehr (dower amount at the time of marriage) whereas sons had to loose out by paying dower to their wives. And the wives do not have to spend anything by way of maintenance as it is enjoined upon the husbands to maintain their wives. Also, a woman inherited as wife and mother too. Moreover she did not contribute to family wealth in those days by way of earning but now she does and her portion could be increased in view of the changed conditions. Thus the Qur’an has done no injustice to her in matters of inheritance also.

Another question is of hijab (veil). There is no injunction in the Qur’an that she veil her face. The verse 24:31 only lays down that women should not display their adornment and fineries publicly and that they should cover their breasts (tribal women in those days used to leave their breasts uncovered) and that they should not strike heir feet with anklets in public so as to draw attention to their adornments. In this verse both men and women have been asked to lower their gaze (4:30-31) and to restrain their sexual passions. As for what constitutes adornment and what should be displayed and what should be not, there are sharp differences of opinion. These differences are human and every commentator has his views. But Tabari, the noted classical commentator has summarised the views of many eminent jurists in his Jami‘ al-Bayan. According to him adornment means 1) adornment of dress or the clothes that a woman wears; in other words, she is not required to cover the clothes she wears; 2) it means the adornment which the woman is not required to cover, such as collyrium, rings, bracelets and her face; 3) the exception (illa ma zahara minha) relates to a woman’s clothing and her face.

These were opinions of the theologians of those days. Today the sensibilities in this respect are very different and the scope of the exception can be made much wider subject to - and that is real intention behind it - to restrain sexual passion and protect ones chastity. To prevent extra-marital sex is the responsibility of both men and women and not of women alone, as per the Qur’an. Also, both should avoid wearing sexually stimulating dress. They should wear dignified dress. Covering of face by women is not required in the Qur’an at all. It was cultural practice of some post-Islamic societies. The Qur’an also does not require women to be confined to homes. On the contrary they could earn and what they earned was theirs alone as per 4:32 (And for women is the benefit of what they earn). The cultural practices like confining women to home were sought to be legitimised later by inventing suitable ahadith or by far fetched interpretations of the Qur’an.

In conclusion it should be said that if one goes by those verses of the Qur’an which belong to the normative category or which are of the nature of laying down principles and givers of value, men and women should enjoy equal rights in every respect. It would be necessary to re-read and re-interpret many verses which were used for centuries to subjugate women in Muslim societies. This subjugation was more cultural and patriarchal than Islamic or Qur’anic. The whole corpus juris of Islam relating to women needs to be seriously re-thought on the basis of Qur’an.

Anonymous wrote:
Quran gives equal rights to women.

You don't quite trust bukhari OK, then let us see what the Quran says about women. It says “men have a degree (of advantage) over them” 2:228 ; that the witness of woman is worth half of that of man 2:282; that women inherit half of their male siblings, 4:11-12; that a man can marry two or three or four women 4:3; that if a women becomes captive in a war, her Muslim master is allowed to rape her 33:50; that if a woman is not totally submissive to her husband she will enter Hell 66:10; that women are “tilth” for their husbands (to cultivate them) 2:223; that men are in charge of women, as if women were imbeciles or minors who could not take care of themselves; that they must be obedient to their husbands or be admonished (verbally abused), banished from the bed (psychologically abused) and beaten (physically abused) 4:34.

ROSS,
Bukhari whom you quoted was born 200 years after prophets death in khazakistan.He travelled all the way to Arabia to collect sayings of prophet.But the memory and intelligence of people from whom he collected such sayings are not known.Moreover cultural prejudices prevailed.Prophet encouraged what is known as ijtihad (i.e. exerting oneself to solve newly arising problems if no precise guidance was available in the Qur’an and Prophet’s Sunnah). Quran gives equal rights to women.

Feudal culture put severe restrictions on women.Cultural prejudices are not easy to fight.Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, a noted Urdu poet and thinker from India (d.1938) was greatly in favour of ijtihad. He wrote in his Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam ‘“The ultimate spiritual basis of all life, as conceived by Islam, is eternal and reveals itself in variety and change. A society based on such a conception of Reality must reconcile, in its life, the categories of permanence and change. But eternal principles when they are understood to exclude all possibilities of change which, according to the Qur’an, is one of the greatest ‘signs’ of God, tend to immobilise what is essentially mobile in its nature.” (Pp,147-48).

Iqbal states in the above book very boldly, “The only alternative open to us, then, is to tear off from Islam the hard crust which has immobilised an essentially dynamic outlook on life, and to rediscover the original verities of freedom, equality, and solidarity with a view to rebuild our moral, social and political ideas out of their original simplicity and universality.” (Pp-156). Iqbal thus maintains that ijtihad is necessary to rebuild the law of Shari`ah in the light of modern thought and experience.

"I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were women....[because] they are ungrateful to their husbands and they are deficient in intelligence. " (The Prophet Muhammad) Sahih Bukhari V 2, B 24, N 541

It is generally thought that Islam treats women unfairly and gender justice is not possible within Islamic law known as the Shari‘ah law. This assertion is partly true and partly untrue. True as far as the existing shari‘ah laws are concerned. Untrue, as the existing laws were codified during 2nd and 3rd centuries of Islam when general perspective of women’s rights was very different from today’s perspective. The Qur’anic verses which are quite fundamental to the Islamic law, were interpreted so as to be in conformity with the views about gender rights prevailing then.
[Institute Of Islamic Studies,Mumbai,India]

It is important to note that scriptural injunctions are always mediated through prevailing social ethos. Also, and it is more fundamental to framing of laws based on scriptures, scriptures both reflect the given situation and also transcend it. There cannot be any scripture - revealed or otherwise - which is uni-dimensional i.e. it reflects only given situation. Every scripture tries to go beyond what is given and it faces stiff opposition from those who loose out if the transcendental perspectives are spelled out and enforced. The scriptures condemn prevailing social malaise and provide a new vision. Those who benefit from the new vision embrace the new faith. Those who loose oppose it tooth and nail. But, the vested interests and those who want to perpetuate the old order have their own strategies. Soon they find ways and means to hijack new religion to their own benefit. This is done in number of ways: 1) They capture political power and religion becomes part of political establishment and looses its initial revolutionary thrust as it is appropriated by the ruling classes; 2) they convert religion itself into an establishment and a power-structure develops around it. Religion is then used more for distribution of favours than for spiritual enrichment; 3) intellectual resources are used to restore status quo ante and this is done chiefly by interpreting the scriptures in a way which will rob it of its transcendental thrust. Thus a theology is developed which is supportive of status quo. One must distinguish between what scriptural pronouncements are and what theology is woven around it. Scriptural pronouncements are divinely inspired and hence transcendental and theological formulations are human and hence often contradict divine intentions. Scriptural pronouncements are an option for the weaker sections whereas theological formulations are weapons in the hands of powerful interests. It is therefore necessary that theological formulations be continuously challenged by scriptural pronouncements. One must strive to build up creative tension between theological and scriptural. While scripture remains immutable with its transcendental spirit, theology must change facing new challenges and newly emergent situations.

Those who oppose any change in theological formulations and shari‘ah laws are those who loose their dominant position and the priesthood who monopolise theology and religion for them is instrumental in promoting their interests rather than spiritual source of inner enrichment. The priesthood, monopolising theology, project it as divine and immutable. The run of the mill faithfuls’ understanding of religion is mediated through the priesthood and hence they are made to believe that theology as formulated by them or their predecessors is divine and hence immutable. Any change will amount to changing the divine will.

In Islam, it is common belief that the shari‘ah is divine and hence immutable. Whenever any measures for gender justice are proposed one meets with this stock argument. It is important to note that shari‘ah, though undoubtedly based on the Holy Qur’an, is a human endeavour to understand the divine will. It is an approach to, rather than divine will itself. The priesthood i.e.

the community of ‘ulama projects it as a divine end itself and hence refuse to admit any change. ‘The Shari‘ah is divine’ has become a commonly accepted position. Thus what was thought of women’s rights during the early period of Islamic history has come to be the final and immutable. Even to think of, much less changing it, is, interfering with the divine, and hence an unpardonable sin.

As pointed out above, there is big gap between the scriptural i.e. the Qur’anic pronouncements, and, Shari‘ah formulations. While the Qur’anic pronouncements are purely transcendental in spirit, the Shari‘ah formulations have been influenced by human situation as well as human thinking on all related issues. Women were in subordinate position in the patriarchal societies and this subordinate relationship came to be reflected in the Shari‘ah laws relating to her rights. The transcendental divine spirit was conveniently ignored and the prevailing situation was rationalised through contextual Qur’anic pronouncements. As pointed out above, there is always a creative tension between what is and what ought to be in scriptures. However, this tension is often resolved in favour of the prevalent rather than the emergent and prevalent is eternalised by rationalising certain divine pronouncements. [Institute Of Islamic Studies,Mumbai,India]

by an incredible coincidence, MSNBC is on the tv with a show about the exact place that i worked before- the very same streets and shelters, lakeshore drive, chicago.

they just gave stats that 7,000 young people are homeless with only 200 facilities to house them.
that is only the young ones.

bush had proposed a plan 6 years ago to cut off funding for all of the homeless shelters n america to end the homeless problem.
it is supposed to be in effect by 2010, when bush will conveniently beout of office anyway, and it will be the new administrations problem.

basically what this will do is force the homeless who are currently trying to get nto transitional housing, to go to state mental hospitals or even jails.

in my short life i have seen the problem of homelessness burgeon into the overwhelming social problem it is today.

TO VICTORIA?
No, that is not possible as that is not the year i was born.

However, is it of some interest to you?
Why not come out of anonymity and simply ask?

BEEN THERE- well, actually you havent shown that youve been there at all.

you just visited a neighbor and witnessed evidence of her pain, didnt experience it yourself.
that somewhat dimishes the experience of women who actually HAVE been there.

telling someone to 'get out of there' is not the same as HELPING them to get out of there.

and of course following up.

take an abused woman into your home-
if that is too much, even a beloved pet,
offer to store some items for someone-
usually when a woman leaves a situation like that it is with the clothes on her back, and under desparation-
leaving behind family photos, important papers
you can visit a homeless shelter, any homeless shelter and find women who have been abused-

we used to have girls form colleges come in and give manicures, and do make-overs.
they were just girls and didnt know much about it, but that didnt matter.
what mattered was that they CARED, and their small efforts helped the ladies FEEL a little cleaner, nicer, prettier,pampered if only for a few moments and bolstered their self esteem.
just your time can mean so much

if THAT is too much you can
donate clothing you no longer use, houslehold goods are in demand for when they find transitional housing, makeup, shoes,
and if even THAT is too much, at least recognize that it is a nationwide (nay worldwide) problem-

at the least, don't CONTRIBUTE to that problem by falsely and irresponsibly finding someone else to blame, for something that isnt so easily and conveniently wished away with such blame.
what you encountered was not islam, but domestic abuse.

possibly you dont realize that simply telling someone to leave is actually adding to their despair.

you are implying to a person who has little control over their lives that it is their fault they are suffering-

further diminishing an already destroyed self esteem by placing the blame on them and telling them what they already knows, isnt actually helping at all.
just making you feel as if you have done something.

your quick foray into the life of this woman exposed a problem to you-
you indicated the woman was pakistani-
pakistani and indian culture have extreme social taboos inherent in them that the wife does not leave the husband.

its a little better in islam, because the wife actually has the right religiously, where this is not so in hinduism, but the social constrictions and shame are so strong, that to do so would cut these women off completely from their own culture, making them in addition to the many many problems they will encounter to just survive, cuts them off from their own society making them isolated and alien in a society that is not their native one.

even to get the help they need, and go to a shelter if that is their only option, a woman has to be in the process of getting beaten, and find a way to escape their abuser long enough to call the police, and when the police get there they have to denounce their husband in front of him,(something some women do not have the courage to do)and the police have to take them to the shelter.

it is a decision to bring shame upon their family, (from their perspective) and one not easily entered into.

i challenge you to find a shelter for abused women.
you cannot find an address.
one must be brought their by the police.
that is how it works.

i hope some of these suggestions have given you some impetus to do some small action that may be helpful to the women who need it so desparately.

Remember, you mentioned the year of your birth in one of your posts as 1960?

getting rid of islam would certainly substantially reduce violence around the world

wouldn't it be sublimely simple if what these ladies suggested were true.

if only we could get rid of the muslims, all violence would disappear.

no one would ever inflict pain upon another again!

Here's another story about violence against the weak.

"Sgt. GAMAL IBRAHIM (a former member of the UN K-9 Corps) abused the Golden Lab police dog (named BUDDY) assigned to him. The incident was so severe -the dog had to be removed and Mr. Ibrahim was reassigned."

http://www.myfoxny.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=4527045&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

I own Labs. They are the MOST docile and affectionate creatures on earth.

Noregrets:

My introduction to Islam was through a Palestinian family in my upper middle class neighborhood. The Mother became depressed when her daughters graduated from high school, took off their head scarves, and left the family. She would pace around her yard all day long. Her daughters came to me and asked me to visit her. I had never really spoken with her before -except the usual "nice day" exchanges. She was in her 50s and had bruises over her legs and arms. I went into her house to sit with her and was astounded. Violence was in every room. The doors would not shut because a fist had been run through them. The water in the bathroom ran constantly because the faucet in the tub had been kicked off. I could go on and on. It was horrific. I told her daughters to get her out of there. They moved and I never found out what became of her.

I too became angry with a religion that promotes violence and condones the abuse of women.

I am an American atheist married to a non-practicing Muslim - an anomaly in and of itself. I entered into the marriage knowing little about Islam and having no pre-conceived ideas of prejudices a/b the culture.

Unlike my husband, my brother-in-law is a devout Muslim, married with two children. I began to question his character though, when I noticed that every time we visit, at least one member of his family is bruised.

He has said to my face, "I'm not racist or anything, I just don't like black people".

We broke fast last week at the brother's house with a few other folks. Around the dinner table, I listened to crude and degrading jokes pertaining to homosexuals as well as snorts of disgust centered around some woman in an highly controversial Islamic leadership position (b/c she's a female leading males and apparently this is forbidden??!!).

During after-dinner coffee, we watched a very popular soap opera on Arabic TV in which a man grabbed a woman by her hair and smacked and shoved her for about 2 minutes. I almost threw up and looked away, but everyone else in the room did not even flinch.

Finally, I heard a couple of of the men denounce the high rates of unpunished domestic violence in the US as compared to the Arab world. They really believe this. I was speechless.

There is more, but I won't belabor my point. Will someone please let me know if there is ANYTHING redeeming about Arab/Muslim culture b/c I'm fast becoming permanently angry at them.

If these are American Muslims, what is it like in their home countries. Tunisia? - it's supposed to be one of the most liberated of the Arab countries (not middle east)?

I agree with Hitchens - based on personal experience alone, both growing up Christian (and being beaten in the name of "do not spare the rod") and through my negative experiences with my in-laws.

Nothing good comes out of religion that cannot be found in us without it.

The whole of islam is a FLAW, taking islam out of a muslim would make him or her a secular human and this would result in a society where there is no more death for apostasy, no more marrying 9 year olds, no more chopping hands for theft,no more treating people with different religious background an dhimmis, no more imprisonment / punishment for blasphemy , no more stoning for adultery, no more killing of innocents to gain 72 houris in paradise and so on ....

who is the blog owner here ? whenever I tried to post I get a response like my message is held for approval by the blog owner.

Victoria, Victoria,

Again you fail to come to grips with the flaws of Islam/Mohammed. The historic Mohammed was a hallucinating, womanizing, warmongering and plagiarizing Arab. The new koran's first line would say as much. After that what else could one enter in the new book of Islam? Nothing!! i.e. Islam by historical analyses reverts to secularism (defined as religious skepticism or indifference).

WHAT LIB?

ARE YOU?

TALKING ABOUT?

Victoria, Victoria,

If the flaws in Islam were fixed, secularism would be all that remains.

bgone- turkey was a secular democracy for 80 years.
even secularism can have it's zealots, can't it?

to try and legislate religion out of a system in lieu of a purely secular society didn't really work there.

because it's not what most people want.

so, what kind of democracy would you propose?

o yes, can you point to ANY area of the world in the last millenia that were not dominated by patriarchies?
and are you somehow under the impression that this has changed?

I know God exists,because I was raised to know,by loving parents and many years of study and discussion with others of me faith.
As I have often said before,the essence of faith lies in the difficulty of believing in the impossible.God is comfortable with the impossible.
It comes easy to him,but is difficult for us.It is simply a test.
A supreme effort is needed to overcome this by suspending disbelief and thus suspending the impossible and giving ourselves over to a new way of thinking.A way of thinking that bypasses the purely logical and rational,and aims for something greater,something higher,something truly blissful;
namely...acceptance! Acceptance of the illogical;acceptance of the irrational;acceptance of the childlike innocent state of what Mutshimin called "notknowing",of being a blank slate,of being what might appear to be ignorant, to the uninitiated,but is the one true way to connect with to our maker,and the supernatural splendor of the world on the other side.
Schools should stop filling our children's heads with knowledge.They don't need knowledge.They need a relationship with the Lord,and knowledge is the impediment to achieving this.
Love to all.
F.O.

Pamela said, "A look at the history of various communist states, the European monarchies, or even our own American democracy with its disenfranchisement of blacks, women, Native Americans, the glbt community, etc, for the vast majority of its existence goes to prove that religion is not alone in having to deal with the evils Hitchens elucidates."

Just a couple of things you seem to either not know or have carelessly left out.

European monarchies were born of Christianity, pope crowned the kings, exclusively male co-dictators from the beginning. It took a religious revolution to end that, if it's ended, (three US presidents kneeling before the dead pope).

There is at least one former communist state that is attempting to be a free enterprise democracy where Muslims spill barrels of blood attempting to turn it into an Islamic state. Sad but true, the US government comes down on the side of the Islamic rebels, accuses Russia of all sorts of things. "Islam destroy freedom" is all the Qu'ran really says isn't it?

The US is not a democracy. It's a Christian nation. If you don't believe me ask your host.

The world has never seen a secular democracy so anything you say about one is pure speculation.

Religion destroys, all religions destroy. We have our own recorded history to tell us that Christianity destroys. We have the Bible to tell us Jews destroyed. And, we have Islam presently in the process of destroying. Destroying freedom. At a minimum, the freedom to sin in private.

Hadith for today:

"The Prophet used to kiss and embrace (his wives) while he was fasting, and he had more power to control his desires than any of you. Said Jabir, "The person who gets discharge after casting a look should complete his fast."

Ayah for Today:

"To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, God is most powerful for their aid;-

(They are) those who have been expelled from
their homes in defiance of right,- (for no
cause) except that they say, "our Lord is
God". Did not God check one set of people by
means of another, there would surely have been
pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues,
and mosques, in which the name of God is
commemorated in abundant measure. God will
certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for
verily God is full of Strength, Exalted in
Might, (able to enforce His Will).

(They are) those who, if We establish them in
the land, establish regular prayer and give
regular charity, enjoin the right and forbid
wrong: with God rests the end (and decision)
of (all) affairs."

Pamela Taylor quotes from a sanitized version of the farewell Sermon that has cropped up in recent times.

The sentence "also a white has no superiority over a black, nor a black has any superiority over a white" was never uttered by Muhammad. In fact Muhammad believed that the white slave had a higher market price than the black slave. Nor did he say anything about the Arab vis a vis the non-Arab.

I quote the real version of the last sermon from Sirat Rasulallah by Ibn Ishaq, the first biography of Muhammad. Page 651 in the 17th reimpression by the Oxford University Press, translation by A. Guillaume

"Know that every Muslim is a Muslim's brother, and that the Muslims are bretheren. It is only lawful to take from a brother what he gives you willingly, so wrong not yourselves."

Muhammad belived in the brotherhood of Muslim men but not equality.

he fully accepted that a Muslim could be the slave of and owned by another Muslim but would carry a higher price.

Here is another line from the same last sermon:

"You have rights over your wives and they have rights over you. You have the right that they should not defile your bed and that they should not behave with open unseemliness. If they do , Allah allows you to put them in separate rooms and to beat them but not with severity."

Ms. Taylor with her lies and misrepresentations has lost her right to write in the Washington Post or Newsweek. Shame on her.

The following authentic hadiths from Imam Malik's Muwatta shed clear light on the true nature of Islam.

The first hadith proves that Muhamamd was an extremely cruel man who did not hesitate to kill people by stoning.

The second hadith proves that Muhammad practiced and condoned slavery. He even priced white skinned slaves higher than dark skinned slaves, reflecting the market forces in the Arab world.

Book 41, Number 41.1.5:

Malik related to me from Yaqub ibn Zayd ibn Talha from his father Zayd ibn Talha that Abdullah ibn Abi Mulayka informed him that a woman came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and informed him that she had committed adultery and was pregnant.

The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to her, "Go away until you give birth."

When she had given birth, she came to him. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to her, "Go away until you have suckled and weaned the baby."

When she had weaned the baby, she came to him. He said, "Go and entrust the baby to someone."

She entrusted the baby to someone and then came to him. He gave the order and she was stoned.

Book 43, Number 43.7.5:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Abu Salama ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf from Abu Hurayra that a woman from the Hudhayl tribe threw a stone at a woman from the same tribe, and she had a miscarriage. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave a judgement that a slave or slave-girl of fair complexion and excellence should be given to her.

paganplace- what exactly are your particular religious practices?

ive never heard you say-

im a generatio9n behind the baby boomers myself-

they were creating communes like crazy all over the place- new societies- new paradigms etc-

i saw more than a few in their last throes of existence- and one ting they all had in common was they ALL developed some sort of set of laws-
they all developed some morality-
(some of it pretty hit and missed and short-sighted, delaing with things as they occurred)

others based on eastern religious traditions which were, lets face it- alien to the mindsets of those trying to live it- and always with some very strong willed person who decided what was right or wrong-

people when they get in groups- WILL develop laws-
as far as letting people decide their own morality- i dont know if youve been around many prisons- or where in the social spectrum youve spent the most amount of time-

but there simply are people out there who have no inner guidance- no conscience- no concern for the well being of their fellow humans-

everyone is DEFINITELY not capable of managing themselves- most people have no desire to do so, and welcome the burden of personal repsonsibility being lifted from their shoulders-

ive certainly seen alot of violence in my life that had no threat at its inception- but was self directed from the offender-

and if people only act violently when threatened,
exactly where is the threat coming from if not a person with some form of inner violence?

some people are violent and angry and destructive.

so what are your belifs in particular anyway?
i never thought to ask before.

And this isn't to say religion and the religious can't be a positive force in society, but historically, certain religions have been content to sit upon, and capitalize upon certain injustices, until both empowered to and, really, shamed into, speaking and acting by more secular forces.

A little quibbling:

"A look at the history of various communist states, the European monarchies, or even our own American democracy with its disenfranchisement of blacks, women, Native Americans, the glbt community, etc, for the vast majority of its existence goes to prove that religion is not alone in having to deal with the evils Hitchens elucidates."

Actually, all of these injustices were in fact promulgated and justified by certain religions, along with ancillary ideas of 'Divine Right of Kings' and the Calvinist translation of this into the ideas of capitalist success as equating to 'divine favor of the elect.'

To wit, you can't say it's a problem, inherently, of American secularism, simply because signing the Constitution didn't suddenly make these ideas go away. To this day, while many are moved by faith to seek social justice, (as long as that fits their idea of religion) ...the most regressive and actively-bigoted forces *in* our secular society in fact are using, or at least reacting to, the religious elements of definitively-non-secular forces *in* a secular society, which by stated intent and structure does *not* exclude them from society.

You can't say that the American Constitution is really 'pro-slavery,' for instance, just because the issue had to be left for future generations to resolve.

And it was then religious regressiveness, as it remained welll unto this century, not real reason or secularism.

"Humans are pack animals, and like most packs we naturally establish hierarchies. We stake out our territory and defend it so that we will have access to the resources we need to ensure the survival of the pack (and thus the survival of the individuals who live in the pack)."

Well, packs establish *pack orders,* ....certain human religions decided this was best expressed as 'hierarchies.' To the point they decided that far more pack-like organizations just had to go. However violently this just happened to justify taking resources from these 'inferior unnatural savages.'

"The reason we need laws to deal with violence, whether based on need, greed, or intolerance, is because humans are prone to be violent."

When threatened, or told they are threatened. Laws need not be a statement that humans are inherently bad and violent, needing giverning by commandment.

They can also be a statement that we are capable of managing ourselves so it doesn't have to come to that kind of thing.

" The reason we have laws to maintain human and civil rights is because humans are prone not to give those rights to others, particularly on the basis of gender, orientation, race, and tribal (or ethnic or national) affiliation."

I would say, humans are only inclined to deny others rights and dignity when they are taught it is neccessary to do so, or that they are being deprived of something by *not* doing so.

We are capable of understanding and enlightening our own instincts without *demonizing* them.

This is one place where I find hardline atheists wanting, actually, ...they, too, measure humanity by abstract written ideals, and not as the thinking, loving, spiritual, and sometime dangerous animals we are.

And the most dangerous thing about certain forms of religion are in fact the way they convince people that certain things related to control are (soul) survival or (religious) reproductive or (spiritual) pain-pleasure buttons....

When nothing *really* says they have to be.

Babu,

I see like many of us you have been brainwashed in believing in satan aka, an ugly wingie talking flying fictional thingie.

You might want to consider Edward Schillebeeckx's take on Hell and satan:

He reasons that the Singularity does not tolerate imperfection in the spiritual realm. Therefore, any soul dying in mortal sin will simply disappear since hell the imperfect state does not exist. (i.e. no Hell, no satan)

As a young lady I was raised to believe in Tinkerbell.
Though me friends laughed at me when
I wore my T.B.bell and star at school,the realization
that they thought I was a little crazy actually helped strengthen my faith.
It also helped that my religion had no church,because as mother said the whole world is our church,especially the bottom of our garden where pixies often gather at midnight.
I've tried many times to observe the midnight frolics in our garden,but the pixies were always ahead of me,and never appeared when I was spying on them.
But of course,common sense tells me that pixies
have good reason to remain unseen.People would
destroy them,just as they did in Ireland hundreds of years ago.
So,out of respect I stopped bothering them.
I don't need to see them,or Tinkerbell.
I mean I know they are there,and that's the main thing.And I know they hear my prayers.

I've been an atheist eversince Sep 11 2001.
It made me realize that religion really is not just silly, but dangerous in the extreme.
Before this,I was uninterested in religion,but felt that generally it was a force for good,even if kind of illogical.
But Sep 11 did it for me.Enough already with the silly skygods,who live,if anywhere,inside our heads.

There's a big difference between reality and the supernatural ideas of religion.Reality is real,the supernatural is make believe.

Teaching children to believe in ghosts,and spirits,and gods, and a heavenly paradise amongst the clouds where good people go after death,is outrageous.
Suicide bombers and other religious folk may believe that nonsense,but not me,or my children.

Ms Taylor,

As is your habit (and, frankly, your right), you partially elucidate Islamic scripture to make a dubious non-point. It is interesting that even one of On Faith's more perceptive contributors has no answer for Hitchens's basic challenge.

Many humans feel pity for the suffering and help, if they are able, though they have little belief in any last day or angels or prophets. Irrational belief is unnecessary to encourage us to help our fellow humans, or to order and structure an ethic of decency; such an ethic need not be extorted or scared out of humans who feel such empathy naturally.

What you say about the best of religion may have some limited merit. But the best of religion is unnecessary to combat the evils we are discussing, and the rest of religion does more to exacerbate them than anything else.

Well, well The Jihadist is back and still she has not come to grips with the flaws in Islam and what would happen if they were corrected i.e.

If the flaws in all the foundations of contemporary religions were fixed, would there be any "gods" or "god reps" left??????? Jesus would definitely be downgraded to a well-meaning preacher/peasant.

And Mohammed, he would be downgraded to the warmongering, womanizing, plagiarizing, and hallucinator that he was.

When you respond to satan by trying to reason with him you stoop down to his level.

And then of course you open the platform to those who easily forget Hitchens is the handmaiden of the devil and begin to bash other religions just as he possibly hopes they will do.

Let the Church deal with people like Hitchens who have made free speech into a joke!

Excommunicating satan will hardly help though!

Often on this blog the religious posters refer to atheists as arrogant. Jihadist, I find you an arrogant Muslim. I wonder if it is the nature of your religion that is at the root cause of that arrogance. It seems that you must be in a constant defense mode here at On Faith. You remind me of the rabid Christians who are always defending their religion. It seems to me that a little humility would serve both religions better. Is it part of your game plan to try and keep people in a constant state of fear?

bill/bob:

PLEASE NOTE: a Muslim's strict allegiance is not to America but to their ideological group- Islam. There is no choice for true Muslim believers. Although they live among us, they do not hold traditional American ideals.

PRESIDENT OF THE MUSLIM AMERICAN SOCIETY PROCLAIMS "JIHAD WAY" IN UTUBE VIDEO:

A member of Virginia's Commission on Immigration resigns just hours after videos of him condemning Israel and advocating “the Jihad way” were watched by Governor Tim Kaine’s office.

The videos of Dr. Esam Omiesh were posted on www.youtube.com Governor Kaine says he knew nothing about the doctor’s extreme views and asked him to resign immediately yesterday after hearing what he'd said.

"Obviously, somebody speaking favorably about the Jihad, I mean, that is not appropriate. It certainly in my view doesn't represent the opinions of Muslims living in Virginia and I know many Muslims in Virginia who would find that troubling and I found it troubling as well,” Governor Tim Kaine said.

Governor Kaine says his office did a complete background check before appointing Dr. Omeish, but says nothing out of the ordinary was discovered.

--Dr. Omeish will say he has "been misunderstood" or "taken out of context" -but have a look and judge for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lajn3zOoWt4&eurl=

The scriptures sound good. However, it is the practice of the folks who so calle dabide to the scriptures.
I hate to say Ms. Taylor. You are the remnant of the 60s . "Give peace a chance". Find one muslim country that you would truely want to live in.
I was born and lived in East Africa. There is a significant muslim influence there. The bottom line was, unitl the colonialist came, the previous coloniast were muslims. The primary mode of wealth was to subjugate the blacks into slavery. This created the primary superiority complex of the muslim. This was also true in Afghanistan, India and the rest of the "colonies" throughout the world.
Freedom is a western concept and thank God that I came to realise the beauty of it.

Finally, take a look at the last colonial muslim power - the Turks. I don't think you would give them too credence on truth, and freedom

A non-essentialist & non-reductivist but nonetheless historically informative definition of 'religion' would have been helpful - - -

X is a religion if X has at least a majority of the following characteristics: . . . . . . . . .

Otherwise claims about the vices or virtues of religion-as-such or a particular religion are worthless and only invite self-serving defensiveness from the so-called "faithful" of all "faiths", religious & non-religious, naturalist & non-naturalist, X & non-X!

As it was once well put, all of us live by "the substance of things unseen, the evidence of things hoped for", that is, that part of each person's web of beliefs in which we each, respectively, put our ultimate trust, only to be vindicated or not by living by those beliefs.

Jihadist, I started off by thinking that you were making a fair and reasonable point (to an extent) until you wrote:

"As the Islamic Menace, I am only too happy to be a part of it - irrational, illogical, delusional unwash hordes who never heard of nor care for Voltaire et al, and dangerously so for the fearful Hitchenses and Harrises of the world. The smell of fear in others for one is an irrestible and addictive fragrance."

While I have the upmost respect for Pamela K. Taylor and I imagine I could sit down and have a reasonable debate, your odious comments shows what is rotten certain Islamic sects. I for one would fight every inch of the way if you or likeminded people like you ever come into power. Do you support the hanging of gays and stoning of adulterers aswell? Maybe you should be concentrating on the big rather than small Jihad eh?

Jihadist, I started off by thinking that you were making a fair and reasonable point (to an extent) until you wrote:

"As the Islamic Menace, I am only too happy to be a part of it - irrational, illogical, delusional unwash hordes who never heard of nor care for Voltaire et al, and dangerously so for the fearful Hitchenses and Harrises of the world. The smell of fear in others for one is an irrestible and addictive fragrance."

While I have the upmost respect for Pamela K. Taylor and I imagine I could sit down and have a reasonable debate, your odious comments shows what is rotten certain Islamic sects. I for one would fight every inch of the way if you or likeminded people like you ever come into power. Do you support the hanging of gays and stoning of adulterers aswell? Maybe you should be concentrating on the big rather than small Jihad eh?

Jihadist, I started off by thinking that you were making a fair and reasonable point (to an extent) until you wrote:

"As the Islamic Menace, I am only too happy to be a part of it - irrational, illogical, delusional unwash hordes who never heard of nor care for Voltaire et al, and dangerously so for the fearful Hitchenses and Harrises of the world. The smell of fear in others for one is an irrestible and addictive fragrance."

While I have the upmost respect for Pamela K. Taylor and I imagine I could sit down and have a reasonable debate, your odious comments shows what is rotten certain Islamic sects. I for one would fight every inch of the way if you or likeminded people like you ever come into power. Do you support the hanging of gays and stoning of adulterers aswell? Maybe you should be concentrating on the big rather than small Jihad eh?

Jihadist, I started off by thinking that you were making a fair and reasonable point (to an extent) until you wrote:

"As the Islamic Menace, I am only too happy to be a part of it - irrational, illogical, delusional unwash hordes who never heard of nor care for Voltaire et al, and dangerously so for the fearful Hitchenses and Harrises of the world. The smell of fear in others for one is an irrestible and addictive fragrance."

While I have the upmost respect for Pamela K. Taylor and I imagine I could sit down and have a reasonable debate, your odious comments shows what is rotten certain Islamic sects. I for one would fight every inch of the way if you or likeminded people like you ever come into power. Do you support the hanging of gays and stoning of adulterers aswell? Maybe you should be concentrating on the big rather than small Jihad eh?

Ramadan is *the month of Nightmare,Oppression and Compulsion* in islamic countries.
*No compulsion in islam*.Big Lie.
Malasia.Date 2007

-People are *obligated* and *enforced* to put their money at so-called *islamic bank*.
-Mouse faced malay women are *enforced* to put on *headscarf* and not to wear *tight trousers and t-shirt*
-*Fast Police*(islamic SS units) are observing people whether they keep *fasting* or not,if you dont fast,you are punished by beating and jail.
-At Universities(madrasa indeed),sisters(harem) and brothers(salam) are *enforsed* to sit *separated places*
-Article 11 Matter.Prominent Lawyer,Mr.Imtiaz is being treatened by the muslim cannibals.
-PAS,Medieval Party of Malasia clearly declares that if they take control,Sharia will be *enforced* to apply.

Fasting,which is an *adaptation* from ancient pagan custom,is absolute *farmful* for Human Health.

Assalamu Alaikum
Imam Pamela Taylor

I came by to see if you wrote anything on Ramadan. Been reading a lot about what it meant for others from other Muslim blogs from Morrocco to the Philippines.

Too bad nothing about Ramadan here, but of course, of course, of course, I saw what Christopher Hitchens said about religion is the topic for On Faith discussion this week. LOL

The best thing about On Faith is that, one can read only the essays one wants to, and not ever having to read up what other posters wrote by not going into the threads.

Back to Ramadan, I always have non-Muslims over for Iftar and the Ramadan dinner after Maghrib prayers. So, it would be a pleasure to have the pagans here I know and love over for Ramadan dinner and Iftar if it weren't for distance to destination - Paganplace, Wiccan, Terra Gazelle, Lepidopteryx. They have a zest for life, value life, recognise and respect the symbiotic relationship between man and nature.

As for athiests, that's trickier. The Asian non-Muslims and atheists are not like American atheists. Non-Muslims are always invited over during celebrations for Muslim festivals. They came with respect for the belief of another as only believers would and could. American atheists makes me wary and leery of sharing my religious festivities with them, including having them over for Ramadan Iftar and dinner.

It makes my eyes role up even to think American atheists, who proudly maintain that they don't have to respect anyone's beliefs or faith; who think belief in God is a stupid and delusional belief in the supernatural; that all religions are evil and repressive and such, to be my invited guests.

God, if they accept the invitation, just think of their spittle all over the dinner and guests in mouthing off on religious rites and traditions. Just the types to spoil everyone's convivial mood and communal good time and to never invite them ever again except for an Atheist Only Cocktail hour with lost of alcohol, chips and dips and nothing more. Oh, and then play John Lennon's "Imagine", followed by Monty Python's "Life of Brian". Atheists are so easy and cheap to please when it comes to having a good time. Barbeques and birthday parties are good enough for a get-together. Beer sloshed Toga parties too perhaps.

Christopher Hitchens, a former English public schoolboy with a U class background who barely graduate from Oxford with a third class degree and flirted with leftish pinkish-reddish ideology knows that - athiests are easy and cheap to please. Especially American atheists taken in by a plummy English accent, beer belly and clever way with words that are quite portable, quotable and, finally very disposable. Christopher Hitchens, after all, is the Germaine Greer of the Anti-Theist Popular Front.

As the Islamic Menace, I am only too happy to be a part of it - irrational, illogical, delusional unwash hordes who never heard of nor care for Voltaire et al, and dangerously so for the fearful Hitchenses and Harrises of the world. The smell of fear in others for one is an irrestible and addictive fragrance.

I'll "see" you here after Ramadan perhaps Pamela.

To Ramadan the Blessed Month
Peace be with you

Thank you and best regards
J

"Among the verses of the Qu'ran we find ..."

Are there other verses of the Qu'ran that do not promote equal rights for those with different beliefs?

Are you selecting the verses you like and ignoring the verses you don't like?

"Me wonders":

If the flaws in all the foundations of contemporary religions were fixed, would there be any "gods" or "god reps" left??????? Jesus would definitely be downgraded to a well-meaning preacher/peasant.

And Mohammed, he would be downgraded to the warmongering, womanizing, plagiarizing, and hallucinator that he was.