69 million page views

Islam and Lisa's accusations (you wish)

Reader comment on item: Islamophobia?

Submitted by The Scholar (United States), Nov 28, 2005 at 22:02


You are simply trying anything to prove Islam and his Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) are bad. Unfortunately, you did not convince me!

Now you are saying that I am a man from the 7th century! Well, I won't respond to such silly remarks! Anyway, I contend with what Thomas Carlyle wrote in "Heroes and Hero Worship in History" in 1840: "The lies (Western slander) which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only." I also liked his statement "A silent great soul, one of that who cannot but be earnest. He was to kindle the world, the world's Maker had ordered so."

Every time you find a verse in the Quran or a Hadith that goes against your own prejudice, you claim there is a contradiction. I personally doubt that you read the Quran and the Hadith as you said or even the bible for that matter. By the way, there are examples of miracle done by the Prophet, so please look closely in the Sira!
I am trying to respond to all your comments, but in case I forget anything, please remind me while you are answering my questions herein!

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.

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. 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!
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??"

You rejected all the references to women in the old testament, and the decrees dictating that raped women should be killed, etc under the claim that the old laws of the Old Testament were abolished by Jesus. Where exactly did he say that? The references I found from the bible say:
"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"
"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.' (Matthew 23:1-3)"
Doesn't this mean that these laws still apply? Even if these laws do not apply, why did God send them in the first place? What is the idea of sending such a controvertial law and then abolishing it? Did god "repent" again as he repented once (as written in the Bible)?
You then provide the following comment on one of the verses I provided:

"Leviticus 15:18-20 (New International Version)
Again this is an old law
Jesus was very clear with this regard, he said " what makes a person unclean is the bad words coming from a person's mouth" there is no such concept that is linked to a human natural aspects in Christianity, a woman can pray and can do all of her religious duties during menstruation."

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!

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:
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.
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!
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!! 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."

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?
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).

Another explanation says that the Arabic word: "idribuhunna" used in the Noble Verse 4:34 above is derived from "daraba" which means "beat". The issue with all of the Arabic words that are derived from the word "daraba" is that they don't necessarily mean "hit". The word "idribuhunna" for instance, could very well mean to "leave" them. It is might be like telling someone to "beat it" or "drop it" in English.
By the way, even those who believe that men have the right to beat their wives, believe that beating can only be symbolic, only allowed as a last resort to save the marriage and even under these conditions, can only be done by lightly tapping with a "Sewak" (a tooth brush) without leaving any marks.

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. It is right that you should also adopt the same attitude." 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).

Shaff'a bint Abdullah bin Abd Shams was entrusted by Umar Ibn Al Khattab to supervise the administrative market affairs. Umar used to seek her counsel, pay due regard to her and hold her in high esteem (Al-Isabah).

Women Scientists, Scholars, and Teachers:
Zaynab bint Sulayman (d. AH 142/759 CE), she acquired a mastery of Hadith, gained a reputation as one of the most distinguished women scholars of Hadith of the time, and counted many important men among her pupils.
Umm Ad-Darda' was held by Iyas ibn Mu`awiyah, an important scholar of Hadith of the time and a judge of undisputed ability and merit, to be superior to all the other Hadith scholars of the period, including the celebrated masters of Hadith like Al-Hasan Al-Basri and Ibn Sirin.
Amrah bint `Abdur-Rahman was considered a great authority on traditions related by `A'ishah. Among her students, Abu Bakr ibn Hazm, the celebrated judge of Madinah, was ordered by the caliph `Umar ibn `Abdul-`Aziz to write down all the traditions known on her authority
`Abidah Al-Madaniyyah, `Abdah bint Bishr, Umm `Umar Ath-Thaqafiyyah, Zaynab the granddaughter of `Ali ibn `Abdullah ibn `Abbas, Nafisah bint Al-Hasan ibn Ziyad, Khadijah Umm Muhammad, `Abdah bint `Abdur-Rahman, and many other women excelled in delivering public lectures on Hadith.

In the fourth century we find Fatimah bint `Abdur-Rahman (d. AH 312/924 CE), known as As-Sufiyyah on account of her great piety; Fatimah, granddaughter of Abu Dawud of Sunan fame; Amat Al-Wahid (d. AH 377/987 CE), the daughter of distinguished jurist Al-Muhamili; Umm Al-Fath Amat As-Salam (d. AH 390/999 CE), the daughter of the judge Abu Bakr Ahmad (d. AH 350/961 CE); Jumu`ah bint Ahmad, and many other women, whose classes were always attended by reverential audiences.

Also known as an authority on Al-Bukhari was Sitt Al-Wuzara, who, besides her acclaimed mastery of Islamic law, was known as the musnidah (the great Hadith authority) of her time, and delivered lectures on the Sahih and other works in Damascus and Egypt. Classes on the Sahih were likewise given by Umm Al-Khayr Amatil-Khaliq (AH 811/1408 CE–AH 911/1505 CE), who is regarded as the last great Hadith scholar of the Hijaz. Still another authority on Al-Bukhari was `A'ishah bint `Abdul-Hadi.

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".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 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.)