I saw this domain for sale, according to the appraisals, its worth over $5000.00 usd. It has just the perfect amount of keywords….

However, you have only convinced me that we are in a HOLY WAR (in the sense that others have used it – us against them).

I don’t give a hoot what the Khoran says, or the bible for that matter. I know what I was taught. And it is more than evident what they are taught.

There will be no resolving this without bloodshed. So be it. I didn’t want to go in the “rapture” anyway. I rather stay and fight.

You thread-jackers here need to go blog the Bible somewhere else. This is about the Koran. You’re just wasting our time dealing with your sophomoric comments and pseudo-questions.

Bryan, please keep your finger close to the “ban” button for these goofs.

Friend of the Jawa, Robert Spencer, is like Mojo Nixon’s Elvis today: he’s everywhere. John Derbyshire reviews his new book Religion of Peace?—Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t. Robert Minter interviews him here. And Pam interviewed him yesterday…

While you are right about the fact that accepted social practices were vastly different in ancient times, it’s also true that not all civilizations practiced slavery and misogyny – e.g. the Zoroastrian Persians (the villains of the history fiction movie 300). Those things did exist in the pre-Christian Roman empire, so that Christians (and Jews) inherited the practice, and were then left to do what they judged normal.

But consider the sweeping changes Mohammed made in Arabia, and one will see why Islam does deserve the opprobrium that it gets. For instance, a lot of customs near and dear to the pre-Islamic Arabs – from idol worship onwards – were stamped out by Mohammed, who couldn’t bear the thought of anyone but himself Allah being worshiped. On the status of women itself, it’s worth noting that his first wife Khadijah (whom Muslims love to tout as an example of female emancipation in Islam) was an independent trader in pre-Islamic Arab society – Islam wasn’t what gave her the right to be independent. Similarly, she voluntarily chose Mohammed – no honor killings were involved as a result of her decision (again, contrast that with today, if a Muslim girl anywhere wants to marry an Infidel guy).

The narrative behind this chapter of the Quran is that Arab (and other non-Muslim) women actually lost most of their rights and dignity once Islam arrived at the scene.

Is that the same story with Christianity and Judaism? Did women in pre-Christian and pre-Jewish societies (except maybe the Greeks?) have more rights than their Judeo-Christian successors?

If I could never bring myself to sacrifice my son as Abraham would have or plunge a sword into the bellies of the children and babies of my enemies is it appropriate for me to worship a God that would ask me to do so?

frreal on August 19, 2007 at 11:33 PM

I don’t like it when people say nowadays “God is telling me to XYZ” because he’s not really. When God told Moses to take off his shoes next the burning bush, God really did. When God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham knew it was God telling him, because God had spoken directly to him many times before. Abraham knew that it was the right thing to do, even though it made no sense in human terms, because it was coming directly from the source of all goodness.

The Israelites also knew directly from God what those babies would grow up to if not killed. No one would be justified in doing that without a direct command to that from God. Only God could know exactly what would happen if those infants were left to live. They would have grown up to be people who really did sacrifice people for religion, by placing live infants on burning altars.

A more difficult question is why God did’t tell someone to kill Hilter or Stalin as an infant, but we don’t know what is has prevented without out knowing it, or what the long term consequences of Hilter and Stalin actions are compared to what alternatives could have been.

Robert Spencer on August 19, 2007 at 6:25 PM

as much as I truly, truly appreciate your countless hours of research and commentary on the Quran, and though I may find your book undoubtedly illuminating and provacative my cynical deconverted self can’t help but note the nuance of your statement. The way I interpret your emphasis is that if you think the Quran is bad, the Bible is no where near as atrocious.

I come from a perspective that it shouldn’t even be open for debate. There shouldn’t even be an initial yeah, yeah the Bible has some atrocities but you should see what they do in the Quran. My opinion is that an omnibenevolent God, an ever merciful God ought to be at least as merciful as myself. If I could never bring myself to sacrifice my son as Abraham would have or plunge a sword into the bellies of the children and babies of my enemies is it appropriate for me to worship a God that would ask me to do so?

I won’t presume to have read your book Robert, because I haven’t. I simply want to worship a God that doesn’t require other MEN to interpret his word for me and decide which books I ought to read (canonization) and which books don’t belong. If I can’t place myself in 1000 BC and stomach the act of plunging a sword into the heart of an infant boy for the approval of God there is something wrong. Either I am unfaithful or there is something wrong with the request.

Bryan would prefer I not comment if I have nothing that pertains to the Quran. That’s well and good except I can only comment on the comments being made and the responses to my comments. I can only comment within the realm of the things I am familiar with. I am not familiar with the Quran however I have no problem dismissing it as I have dismissing the Bible. I can of course, jump on the bandwagon and say those crazy Muslims they will believe anything. Is that what you want Bryan? I ask with all due respect.

Perhaps we need a blogging the Bible weekly thread to coincide with the blogging the Quran thread. Yes we have Slates version… but how about one that comes from a Conservative site? It seems these religious threads tend to generate quite a bit of traffic. Just a thought anyways or a test a faith even?

Next week: My knowledge of The Bhagavad Gita!

Robert Spencer on August 19, 2007 at 6:43 PM

That’s okay, I got a copy in LAX from this bald headed dude.

It’s not any process, but simply reading the Bible, that liberated Europe. Robert’s work shows how doomed Islamic Reformation is, because the Quran is an uninspired, iron-age mess.

Risks in a Muslim Reformation
By Diana Muir,
Sunday, August 19, 2007; B07

File under, be careful what you wish for? Ex:

Hassan al Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood; Sayyid Qutb, a leading Muslim Brotherhood thinker; and Ibn Wahab, the founder of modern Salafi, or Wahhabist, Islam, call upon Muslims to return to the uncorrupted beliefs and practices of early Islam and to become as pure as Salafis, or the first three generations of Muslims. To become, as it were, Puritans.

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 101:
Narrated Safiyya bint Shaiba:

The Prophet gave a banquet with two Mudds of barley on marrying some of his wives. (1 Mudd= 1 3/4 of a kilogram) .

Whoops. I see I left some things unanswered.

Also, is the Islamic law that states that if a woman is molested by her father-in-law, she becomes her husband’s mother – addressed in this chapter or another? As you may recall, this is modeled after Mohammed’s marriage to Zainab.

It doesn’t say quite that. Zeinab is referred to in sura 33, so we won’t be there for awhile.

Also, is there anything in the Quran that puts a lower limit on a marriage age for a girl?

No, that’s based on Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha, as in these ahadith.

What is the explanation for Mohammed allowing himself as many wives as he liked, while allowing his followers only 4?

He was exempt from this provision as a favor from Allah, in recognition of his exalted prophetic role.

Also, I recall that in 2:223, which refered to the wife being a tilth, you mentioned that it’s interpreted as allowing only vaginal sex, as opposed to anal. But doesn’t a good portion of Islamic jurisprudence use this as signifing the actual role/value of women in Islamic society?

Yes. I did not mean to imply that the only use made of this verse was the one I outlined, and referred to Qutb’s explanation of the verse, which does detail in role and value of women in Islamic society.

Also, is the Islamic law that states that if a woman is molested by her father-in-law, she becomes her husband’s mother – addressed in this chapter or another? As you may recall, this is modeled after Mohammed’s marriage to Zainab.

Also, is there anything in the Quran that puts a lower limit on a marriage age for a girl?

on August 19, 2007 at 5:58 PM

Is there any reason that the number of wives a man can have is capped at four?

Some kind of natural reason? No.

And I’m assuming that the reference to slave women doesn’t count towards any number…that any number of slave women can be “used”?

Yes.

And how can it be that, if sex is merely for procreation, that slave women would come into play?

It isn’t just for procreation. It’s fun for men and women alike — more for women, which is why they must be tightly controlled.

I see that Islam puts women in the position of being the one’s who, by their nature or physical appearance, initiate the sexual urges in men, ergo the burka…or at a minimum, head scarves.

My main question would be…Do many Islamic men these days take more than one wife? It just seems that I don’t see it that often.

Yes, it happens. A man has to be wealthy enough to care for both (or all), so that cuts down on the rate of polygamy considerably.

on August 19, 2007 at 4:02 PM

Robert, I have a question regarding the Islamic concept of marraige. When enumerating the people a man may not marry, we come to verse 24: “And all married women except those whom your right hands possess…”

Huh? I think this means that a female slave can have 2 legitimate husbands! One, her first husband also presumably held in captivity, and two, her owner.

No. Islamic law stipulates that if a woman is taken captive in war, her marriage is immediately and automatically annulled (cf. ‘Umdat al-Salik o9.13).

Will you share your knowledge of the Talmud in Hot Air soon?

Sure. In fact, I’ll do it right now:

The Talmud. Hmmm. Mishnah and Gemara. There’s the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud. Lots of volumes. A lifetime of study would not encompass it.

There. Done. That’s my knowledge of the Talmud.

Next week: My knowledge of The Bhagavad Gita!

verse 15 gives the consequences of women guilty of ‘lewdness” (Yusufali and Pickthal) or “indecency” (Shakir). Similarly, Yusfali in verse 16 seems to be the only translation that implies homosexuality, “If *two men* among you …”, while the other translations seem to me to be ambiguous in their meaning.

My question is how many translations are given to passages like these?

Ali and Rodwell have “two men.” Hilali and Khan, on the other hand, explicitly rule that out: they have “And the two persons (man and woman)…” Most others are ambiguous. Meanwhile, some speak of “indecency,” and some of “adultery.”

Given the apparant ambiguity to my Western eyes, it seems it can mean nearly anything I wish it to. How sure are we that v16 is describing homosexual acts?

Well, as you can see above, mainstream commentators see it that way, but not all commentators. Ibn Kathir reports that Mujahid said that 4:16 “was revealed about the case of two men who do it.”

You describe lewdness as “sexual immorality”. This immorality is in the eye of the beholder. Can lewdness be interpreted as merely showing too much skin or some other minor infraction?

Islamic law on this has not generally considered 4:16 to apply simply to women who aren’t adequately covered, but to sexual immorality, which is delineated in detail as to what it is and what it isn’t in that same law. It includes adultery, fornication, homosexuality, etc.