3 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Scholar's comments and answers

Reader comment on item: Islamophobia?
in response to reader comment: Islam and Lisa's accusations (you wish)

Submitted by Lisa (Canada), Nov 30, 2005 at 21:13

Dear Scholar

==You provided comments on the verses you liked and then just kept silence on the ones you could not comment on. I am still waiting for your comment on the following verse:
1 Timothy 2 (New International Version)
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.==

as John Bastile mentioned there are divine rules taught and lived by Jesus that can not be changed and church rules that are evolving and changing as long as they comply with Jesus interpretations of the ten commandments, Jesus' rules and teachings, I am Catholic and old enough to tell you that these rules have never been implemented in any church I know, women read the bibles in churches and have great contribution, nuns are devoted women who preach and teach the bibles as example of the women who accompanied Jesus throu out his life. Women are free to not only teach but also to have leadership roles in the church, however, women in Catholicism are not allowed to become priests. We believe that this may change in time, I personaly don't see this as discrimination against women.

==You did not believe that in Islam women had the right to divorce themselves, or to put their own conditions in their marriage contract. I proved you wrong, but you preferred to ignore this subject altogether.==

Scholar, if a woman can dictate her husband ability to remarry, then the verse in Quran should make it clear, it should say instead of "if fair" it should say "on the condition of the first wife's acceptance". I heard it from many high profile teachers of Islam like Sharawi and Qaradawi, "men can not be forbidden nor can be put under any condition against what Allah has granted them". Please read and ask your mullahs about this. So even if any contract says that a woman can dictate that her husband can not remarry another woman, and then the husband went and married another woman, i.e. in Islamic courts the judge will grant the man what was granted to him by Allah. full stop.

But what is your opinion on this, since muslims think that Quran is a full book that contains rules about all aspects of life, then why didn't Allah made it clear in the verse that a man can only remarry after his wife's acceptance, and why didn't Muhammad asked for permission from his previous wifes before his remarrying, for the sake of setting good example, and please tell me why did Allah permitted the beat of women?.

==I understand why you did that especially if we compare this to the rigid Christian rules regarding divorce and marriage! You did not comment on inheritance in Christianity and why wives did not enjoy their financial freedom for more than 1800 years! In spite of this, you still claimed that women had higher status and rights in Christianity and Judaism. I have given multiple verses from the bible that just puts Christianity and Judaism out of the picture, and then showed you how Christian leaders thought of women (I guess they used the bible as a reference). But you still claim that women had their rights! Please comment on my previous statements about Eve's ole in Adam's expulsion from Heaven! Wasn't this used for centuries against women under Christianity? You wanted examples of women business women and scholars, I am giving you many examples at the end, so please let me know what you think about these examples!==

Through out history the church followed the rules of the countries they lived in, if it is true that inheritance was unfair to women at then, it has nothing to do with what Jesus message of equality and fairness to humanity not only to women. Scholar can't you see that Quran provided rules in the 7th century and Muhammad claimed that these rules apply to all times and all places on earth, however, these rules can not be justified now, example: cutting a thief's hand is a 7th century rule, do you think it works now?. My opinion that it didn't work in the 7th century either

==I personally believe that the rules for divorce in Christianity is the highest form of injustice for women, and unfortunately, this law has not changed in 2000 years! I have given you examples and proofs of the right of women in Islam to request and get divorce but it seems that you do not like to comment on such examples! You claim that Islam has come with laws that are 1400 years old that are not suitable for today's world, I only have one question for you: "are you serious, it seems to me that Islam's laws are the ones that are still applicable??" ==

So divorce rules in unjust to women!, can you tell me why is that?. The social problems of divorce are so huge whether for women, men, children and the society. Divorce is simply not permitted according to Jesus because marriage is considered as an eternal relationship between A man and A woman, so both will stay together in a sacred life for bad and for good until death separate them, let me give you an example: if you give a toy to a child and told him that this is his only chance to get a toy, so the child will do whatever he can in his power to keep the toy from corruption and keep it in a good condition, if the same child knew that he can have another toy if this toy was corrupted, then he will not be as careful in keeping it intact. Marriage is never easy for both partners when considering the many challenges of life and considering the differences in personalities, but the marriage that Jesus was talking about is unselfish, patient and loving relationship. Preparation for a marriage is done very carefully in Christianity, they both have to go through months of counseling sessions before they step into one door together, if preparation was done right and both parties know what their rights and obligations then a divorce will be only available in severe cases. After all who said that following Jesus' example is easy for both women and men?
Jesus elevated the status of the woman and her value and kept her presence as a wife and not a divorcee... God stressed the inadmissibility of divorce except for a fatal flaw, namely marital infidelity. Therefore the divorces due to anger, incompatibility and inadequate sexual performance are not legitimate divorces in God's sight. Any man or woman who divorces for such reasons, then remarries is viewed as an adulterer by God. Therefore this is the new testament view of divorce.

==It seems to me that you do not much about Christianity. Please refer to what I said again about the issue:
"At the present time, just as in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church argues against the ordination of women priests, because a menstruating priestess would "pollute" the alter. [Reuther, Rosemary, Religion and Sexism, New York, 1974, p. 272ff] The Catholic Encyclopedia still declares that women are inferior to the male sex, "both as regards body and soul."
Please respond to this!==

The catholic church still argues about women priests not because menstruating will pollute the alter, if this is the case then women should not accept sacraments during menstruating, should not be allowed to hold the bible or pray while menstruating like in Islam. The church simply argues this because Jesus didn't assign any woman to be one of his apostles, i.e. to travel around the world and spread the word of GOD. I can guess why Jesus didn't do that, but this matter is still open, and some other churches allowed women priests, Catholic church didn't.

==You provided the famous example of how Jesus responded to adultery as if this is what should be done regarding adulterers! What if it was a man and not a woman who committed adultery? Would it have been an example of tolerance, or just an example of discrimination? Is this tolerance or lawlessness? Basically, since nobody is without a sin, then we should leave adulterers without punishment. In Islam the punishment for adultery in both sexes is the same. Adultery is a crime against the society and against the spouse! Why should such a crime be left unpunished? What other crimes can be tolerated? I actually see this as a teaching against women seeing that most of the adulterers are men!. Anyway, according to the following source, this section was not even in the bible:
(http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/bible/historical-construction/catholic-distortions/):
"==
I have provided this example to show you that Jesus has changed the old testament laws with regards to adultery because you have quoted in a previous statement the punishment of adultery and linked it to Christianity. If you think that Islam is treating adultery by punishing those who commits adultery according to Quran (stoning) then I guess Muhammad is the first to be stoned. Imagine if Christians believes in this kind of punishment, then most Muslims including your Mullahs should be stoned by Christians. When you say "lawless", Christians do not claim that the bible is a book of law, we admit that the bible is meant as a divine message to humanity, to show Gods unconditional love, we don't claim that the bible is a set of rules that will tell us when to wash our hands, how to hold the wholly book, what to say before and after we go to the bathroom, etc

==Take, for example, the popular story (John 7:53-8:11) in which Jesus saves a woman from being stoned as an adulteress. It is from this passage that Christianity draws the oft-paraphrased advice, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."
Interestingly enough, this entire story (or periscope) is missing from the earliest version of John. It is also missing from early Latin translations of the text, missing from older versions used in the Holy Land and in fact, according to the 12th century Byzantine scholar Euthymius Zigabenus (the earliest church father to comment on the passage), accurate copies of the Gospel of John do not and should not contain it. Furthermore, if one blocks out the entire little story, John 7:52 flows just fine into John 8:12, lending further credence to the idea that the passage was simply inserted after the fact. Who inserted it, and why, remains a mystery. ==

I don't have a clue what you are talking about here, but this is a long discussion that we may need to delay until I gather more information

==You complained that I did not include the whole verse in Ephesians 5:23 (New International Version):
23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

Jesus for you is a god, or a son of god, right? so when the man is compared to him with regard to women, I guess the analogy is clear for anybody who is not prejudiced enough to think!==

The analogy is not clear to people who has no clue about Jesus' teachings and Jesus' life. To make it simple for you, the meaning is that as much as Jesus loved his church as much as a man should love his wife, what is so confusing about this? in the whole verse it says that a man leaves his parents and joins his wife, a husband and a wife will be one body. It doesn't mean that the husband is the wife's master

==You have commented on the verse that women should not speak in Church by telling me to check a web site, please include the answer for everybody to see maybe somebody would understand the logic!
The conclusion in the web site says "To conclude that women are not allowed to speak or be in positions of leadership is inconsistent with the facts that women indeed did speak teach and exercise authority in the early church."
So basically, this site is trying to find a modern excuse for this verse, but did not really provide any plausible explanation except that there had been women who taught before in church!! ==

Women who accompanied Jesus had important roles in spreading his words such as Mother Mary, another example is Aliazar's sister.

==Well, explain to me the following then:
Taken from ""http://www.atheistsunited.org/wordsofwisdom/Hernandez/women.html"
"Today, the Reverend Jerry Falwell, head of the "Moral Majority", strongly opposes equal rights legislation because it "defies the mandate that the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church." "Furthermore," Falwell states, "I believe that at the foundation of the womens liberation movement there is a core of women who were once bored with life, whose real problems are spiritual problems. These women have never accepted their God-given roles."
The Southern Baptists, the nations largest Protestant denomination, voted at their 1984 convention against the ordination of women, stating they must "preserve a submission that God requires." The resolution cites the Bible in holding that women should not be placed in authority over men in churches "lest confusion reign."
Just as in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church argues against the ordination of women priests, because a menstruating priestess would "pollute" the alter. [Reuther, Rosemary, Religion and Sexism, New York, 1974, p. 272ff] The Catholic Encyclopedia still declares that women are inferior to the male sex, "both as regards body and soul." ==

You know Scholar, you can quote whatever you want, I can bring zillions of web sites against Islam not only from non muslims but from muslims who abandon islam, how about you check www.faithfreedom.com

==Regarding Polygamy, your favorite subject, let me first remind you of the conditional verse in the Quran about Polygamy. Also note that many of the examples of polygamy in Quran were before this verse:
(Quran 2-3). If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.
As I explained before in Islam, the woman has the right to put a condition in the marriage contract preventing the man from remarrying! Doesn't this solve the problem? Does not this provide the woman with the protection she needs (from your point of view?) But at the same time provides the flexibility needed if a man has to remarry for various reasons?==

I have replied to this, I am not going to waste my time in commenting on your statement i.e. "polygamy provides the flexibility needed if a man has to remarry for various reasons"

==Your second favorite subject: women beating, you used the following verse from the Quran:
Quran (4- 34): "Men [as husbands] are responsible for their women because God has made the one superior to the other [in different spheres] and because they spend of their wealth. Therefore, righteous women are obedient [to their husbands] and guard their secrets as God has also guarded secrets. As for those from whom you fear refusal of obedience, admonish them and [if this does not effect their behavior then] leave them alone on their beds and [if even this does not effect their behavior then] beat them."
This verse can only be understood with the following verses and Hadith
1) (Quran: 4- 19) "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 Allah brings about through it a great deal of good."
2) (Quran 2-241). For divorced women Maintenance (should be provided) on a reasonable (scale). This is a duty on the righteous.
3) "None of you will flog his wife like a donkey and later towards the end of the day have intercourse with her". (Bukhari).
4) He once warned: "A large number of women have come to Muhammad complaining about their husbands. Those husbands are not the best amongst you". (Riad Us-Saliheen).
5) "The best of you is one who is best towards his family and I am best towards the family". (At-Tirmithy.
6) "None but a noble man treats women in an honourable manner. And none but an ignoble treats women disgracefully". (At-Tirmithy).
Now to the explanation (from http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/spot_full_story.asp?service_id=793):
The above verse can be explained in two ways. Firstly, it is clearly stated in this verse that men might only beat their wives in the case of "Nushooz" or disobedience. In fact, Allah Almighty has allowed beating wives as the last resort for husbands, a man should warn his wife first, and if she is still stubborn, then he may stop sleeping with her, and then if she is still disobeying him then he might beat her (slightly).==

I am convinced now, I should have read (beat her slightly) before complaining that women are allowed to be beaten in Islam. Scholar, can't you understand the concept here, whether beat her slightly or not, the idea is having power over women, why women can be considered "Nashez" and a man had the right to beat her (slightly) and bring her to the "obeying house, biat elta'a", please be honest with yourself and admit that this is not what you claim as JUST for women in islam


==Check the following example from Omar Ibn Elkhattab's legacy:
'Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA) said that a man came to his house to complain about his wife. On reaching the door of his house, he hears 'Umar's wife shouting at him and reviling him. Seeing this, he was about to go back, thinking that 'Umar himself was in the same position and, therefore, could hardly suggest any solution for his problem. 'Umar (RA) saw the man turn back, so he called him and enquired about the purpose of his visit. He said that he had come with a complaint against his wife, but turned back on seeing the Caliph in the same position. 'Umar (RA) told him that he tolerated the excesses of his wife for she had certain rights against him. He said, "Is it not true that she prepares food for me, washes clothes for me and suckles my children, thus saving me the expense of employing a cook, a washerman and a nurse, though she is not legally obliged in any way to do any of these things? Besides, I enjoy peace of mind because of her and am kept away from indecent acts on account of her. I therefore tolerate all her excesses on account of these benefits. quoted in Rahman, Role of Muslim Women page 149
Examples of women merchants in early Islam:
Qailah Umm-Bani Atmar, one of the merchant ladies. She said, "I am a woman who buys and sells". (Al Isabah). ==

Do I really have to comment on this? So a husband should treat his wife nicely because she does this and that, how about if a wife doesn't or can't do housework, what happens then?

== your examples about muslim women ==

Good for them, I want to ask the same question though, how come muslim women not allowed to go to mosques, if they do in some cases, they have to sit back behind men, and how come muslim women are not allowed to lead prayers in mosques?

God bless

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Scholar's comments and answers by Lisa

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List
eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2020 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)