Are women equal to men in Islamic theology? Yes!
Before proceeding it is important to clarify gender equality within religious context. Both Christianity and Islam differentiate between man and woman but this differentiation does not impact on the idea of man and woman being equal in the eyes of Islam.
In Islam the standard of judgement is Taqwa (piety) and both male and female are judged by this standard; neither of them has an advantage over the other. A good deed performed by a male is EQUAL to that performed by a woman (and vice versa).
O mankind! Lo! We have created you from male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware. [Pikthal’s English translation of Quran, 49:13]
Western modernism Vs Christianity and Islam
Neither Muslim nor Christian will disagree with the standard of piety being the yardstick for judgement as BOTH Christianity and Islam presents men and women having different roles BUT these differing roles do not affect the idea of religious equality.
ABC's Islam Deception--Part Three: Are Men and Women Equal in Islam? By David Wood
We shall feature and discuss David Wood’s video but before discussing the contents of the video we shall remind people Irshad Manji is a progressive and does not represent Muslims and nor does she have any Islamic authority; in short she is shunned by Muslims and the ABC would do well to bring in scholarly authority when discussing Muslim matters (our recommendation are Sheikh Yasir Qahdi or Sheikh Hamza Yusuf) rather than Irshad Manji.
Acts 17 Apologetics throw the Bible under the bus
The question here is; why would David Wood (a "Christian" evangelist) be using modern secularist standards to attack Islam when the SAME standards could be used to attack the Bible (EVEN MORE AGGRESSIVELY)?
The answer my friends, according to my opinion; David Wood (Acts 17 Apologetics) is not the most "Christian" of individuals and demonising Islam is high on his agenda in an attempt to get into people’s eye line; yes he is seeking attention - even if that attention comes by throwing the Bible under the bus!
David Wood talks polygamy and women
Here his basic premise is; Islam allows men to have more sexual partners than women (Muslim men are allowed to have more than one wife whilst Muslim women are limited to one husband)
This moves us onto the issue of biological clocks and the natural mindset of each gender. The respective nature of men and women is indeed different. Can David Wood name us some women who would like more than one husband? He would not be able to as naturally women are more inclined to one partner whilst the male is more inclined (naturally) to spread his seed. Perhaps this is one of the factors behind men being the more promiscuous out of the two genders and perhaps this is one of the reasons why true Christians have NO problem with polygamous figures in the Old Testament. We shall further discuss true Christian views on polygamy later on in this paper.
David Wood’s inconsistency is indirect blasphemy (in “Bible believing Christian” circles)
The Bible ALLOWS polygamy for the man (polygyny) but it is NOT allowed for women. In fact, if David Wood is consistent he will be yanking verses from the Bible as well as rejecting Moses, Solomon and ABRAHAM.
The Bible supports polygamy
Let’s be clear the Bible allows polygamy and great Biblical figures had polygamous relations (without censure):
"If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. (Exodus 21:10)
If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons… (Deuteronomy 21:15)
Many of you will know Abraham had more than one partner but you maybe unaware of Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). So if “Christian” Islamophobes want to bash Islam they will have to rip pages out of their Bible and criticise the god (according to Christians this god is the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit) of the Bible as polygamy is ALLOWED according to the Bible. Hypocrisy is uncannily common amongst the “Christian” Islamophobes!
Yes, David Wood will have to criticise Jesus, the Father, the Holy Spirit as well as Abraham in order to remain consistent!
Sex with slave women is Biblical as well as Islamic
Abraham, according to the Bible, had relations with concubines which yielded sons. The relevant verse in the Bible is Genesis 25:6:
But while he [Abraham] was still living, he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines…
So obviously sex with slave women was ALLOWED. Solomon had 300 concubines as well thus further showing the positive legal status of having concubines (slave girls) according to the BIBLE!!!
Rehoboam had MANY wives and CONCUBINES (and subsequently many sons):
…For he had taken eighteen wives and sixty concubines and fathered twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters. [2 Chronicles 11:21)
As Muslims (just like true “Bible believing Christians) we do not have an issue with Muslim men being able to have relations with slave women. Quite why the “Christians” at Acts 17 Apologetics have an issue with relations with slave women is beyond me as the Bible had NO issue with it and Biblical figures had concubines. Islamophobia does strange things to people!!!
I do want to reiterate the non-current nature of men having slave girls in current times as slavery is very much abolished [k32.0, pages 458-9 Reliance of the Traveller]
Be consistent David!!
Better than Abraham?
Is David Wood better than Abraham? No. Sadly, our David Wood uses secular feminism as his standard? Why the inconsistent standard? Because David uses anything he can lay hold of in order to demonise Islam and Muslims.
Sex with captives Vs Killing captives
Yes Muslims are allowed to have consensual sex with slave girls and captives; the marriages of female captives are annulled [o9.13 Reliance of the Traveller]. The issue of slavery is no longer current as slavery is not in force anymore [Reliance of the Traveller pages 458-9]
So Islam allows sex with slave women but what about the standard our David Wood should have used in order to maintain consistency? The Bible allows sex with concubines (slave women); we have already seen Abraham had relations with his concubines
The god of the Bible (for David Wood this includes the Holy Spirit, the Father and Jesus) allowed the KILLING of captives who were non-virgins:
Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man (Numbers 31:17)
So this “Christian”, if he is going to be consistent, will have to criticise Abraham, Moses, the Father, the Holy Spirit and Jesus BEFORE he comes knocking on the door of the Muslim if he wants to maintain consistency!
 |
| Why throw the Bible under the bus? |
As Muslims, if God did order such then we accept it and we do not criticise based on modern-secular humanist views. Our David Wood is throwing his Bible under the bus in favour of bashing Muslims with secular-humanist sticks – sticks which could be used to bash the Bible (by humanists) with GREATER FORCE!!!
David, be consistent rather than a desperate Islamophobe who throws the bible under the traffic!!!
“Surah 4:34 is a good place to start” (beating women Vs killing women)
Negeen Mayel used Surah 4:34 (inconsistently) to attack Islam. This is discussed and explained here whilst Negeen Mayel (another Christian) is taken to task for INCONSISTENCY:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/11/negeen-mayels-inconsistent-attack-on.html
Seen as David Wood uses the same argument we do not need to add much in the way of refutation but we will remind Mr Wood to be consistent
Men in charge of women in the BIBLE!!!
Yes, the Bible teaches men are in charge of women but our David Wood is Biblically unaware thus his ignorance leads to his inconsistency and indirect condemnation of the Bible.
David Wood takes umbrage with men being in charge (Surah 4:34) BUT the Bible teaches the SAME thing (see 1 Corinthians 11:3, and Ephesians 5:22-24)
David wake up from this desperate Islamophobia as it is making you look foolish and unchristian!!!
David Wood on sexual positions
Yes, David Wood is talking sex again. This time he goes to the Jalalayn commentary of Surah 2:223 and he seems to be revelling in it whilst reading it. He forgets to mention this Verse was sent down as a result of a Jewish misconception which claimed the children yielded from such a sexual position (from behind) were born squint-eyed [see Balugh al Maram Hadith 873].
The Quranic Verse makes clear this position is not a sin and Islam done away with the Jewish misconception. I do want to state anal sex is prohibited in Islam [footnote 1 in Bulugh al Maram pg 327, also see hadith 867 and 868 on the same page). One of David Wood’s colleagues (IQ al Rasooli) is infamous for claiming Islam allows anal sex!
Sex positions according to the Bible?
Firstly, in Islam, sex is a two-way relationship so wives do have a say in the way it is conducted as her enjoyment should be considered too. [More information on Islamic marital relations can be found here: http://www.zawaj.com/articles/intimate.html]
Men are in charge of women and women must obey them according to the BIBLE. If David used the same standard then he will have to claim men get to have sex with their wives in any position they fancy ACCORDING to the BIBLE.
In fact this argument can be used more vociferously, so David the next time you want to talk sex positions please open up your Bible (if you are consistent) rather than throwing it under the bus.
Who is in charge? The man (according to 1 Corinthians 11:3):
“…and the head of the woman is man…”
Does David Wood want to impose sexual thoughts on this verse? If so, then I would ask him to read Ephesians 5:22-24 as wives must submit to their husbands in everything. Yes the word EVERYTHING is used.
wives should submit to their husbands in everything. (NIV)
So who is allowed to have sex in any sexual position they want? The Christian husband!
So why all the fuss, David? Why the inconsistency, David?
Nota Bene
I just want to state; I am NOT insulting Christians or the Bible here. I am making a point of consistency. With all due respect, I have no interest in what the Bible teaches with regards to sexual positions. In my faith (Islam) marital relations are a mutual thing between man and wife so we have no concerns in this regard.
Muslims are proud of their faith whilst the Islamophobic “Christian” (David Wood) throws his religion under the bus to bash Muslims. Desperately Sad!
Muslim women competing for attention in Paradise?
David Wood goes on to claim Muslim women are not equal in Heaven either. His premise is sex (AGAIN!!). He claims (due to Muslim men having houris) Muslim women will have to compete for the affection of their husbands in Paradise. This is a load of nonsense as it is well known Paradise is a place where there is NO rancour or enmity so Muslim women will not be jealous and EVERYBODY in Paradise will be happy. Muslim women will have what their hearts desire thus they shall have their husband’s affection. (See Surat az-Zukhruf: 71, Surat al-Hijr, 47 and Surat al-Insan, 20 for a further understanding of the blissful nature we speak of with regards to Paradise)
The ultimate bliss in Paradise is the closeness to our Creator but our David Wood chooses to focus on a sexual misdirection.
As William Montgomery Watt taught; those who attack Islam with sexually charged critiques say more about themselves than about Islam.
David Wood follows Negeen Mayel (and wastes our time)
David Wood quotes the same tradition with regards to the Prophet seeing Hell (more women were present). This has ALREADY been explained to Negeen Mayel as she used the same tradition to bash Islam. Please see here for the explanation and the inconsistency therein (it also discusses the “common sense issue” and the “lacking in religion issue”):
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/11/negeen-mayels-inconsistent-attack-on.html
Women are “defective” according to St Thomas Aquinas
 |
| Women as defective? |
"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power...." Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1.
Care to explain, David…
Two female witnesses?
As David Wood went into further detail with regards to the “intelligence” or “common sense” issue we shall also append an answer from Dr Zakir Naik on the issue of female witnesses, see here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRiDaJtBXrc
David Wood: regurgitation galore
David is no pioneer; he is simply regurgitating the same tired, oft-refuted and inconsistent (and unbiblical) argumentations other Islamophobes spout.
Our David finishes off with his “Islam allows sex with prepubescent girls” canard. Thankfully he did not bother to expand upon it. If he had then this shuddering article would have been brought into play:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/11/pornographic-lies-on-abn-by-david-wood.html
Sheikh Yasir Qadhi educates us all
As Sheikh Yasir Qahdi points out this issue (womens’ rights in Islam) is current due to the secular feminist movement in the West (in recent years). I know this lecture is one hour long but it is the BEST material on the subject and cuts through standard responses and presents an overarching view on the subject – essentially it debunks “the male bias myth” outright. A debunking ALL(fair) religious people will be able to appreciate. See here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5289081445493804871#
Conclusion
Those who understand religion will never claim Islam considers females as lesser beings. Our (Muslim) standard is piety and females have as much right as a man to excel in this all-important regard. Here is a list of women NO man on the planet could ever claim to be better than: Aisha, Khadija, Fatima, Mary (mother of Jesus), Sarah, Hagar, Zipporah (wife of Moses). I could go on and on but I shall not; we all get the picture.
I just hope Islamophobes (such as David Wood) get the picture and try to be more academic and consistent by dropping this silly charade of secular sensationalism.
Become a Muslim today:
http://www.ediscoverislam.com/
FEEDBACK: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
29 comments:
Can someone provide me the hadit that Ester is referring to w.r.t taping your wife with a tooth stick.
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus 12:2)
"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)
Silence The Woman!
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)
Comment
Another case where the Bible makes it quite clear that women live for man and must submit to them.
Stone The Woman!
"If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;" (Deuteronomy 22:22)
"Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:24)
Comment
(Read also Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
The discovery of a bride lying with another man can yield disastrous results.
If the wife's parents can produce tokens of the damsel's virginity and spread the cloth before the elders of the city, the husband has to pay the bride's father one hundred silver shekels and he may not send his wife back to her parents as long as she lives. But if the bride's virginity does not satisfy the requirements, the husband can get rid of her by letting the men of the city stone her to death.
Wives, Submit Yourselves!
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)
Comment
These words of Paul describe another instance for the calling of the submission of women to their husbands. Note that the all inclusive "everything" could it allow husbands to submit their wives to anything, including rape, beatings, slavery, etc????
good job on owning the excon david wood
A'kum guys ,
exo21:10 '..If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights..'
mat19:9 '..I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery..'
exo21:10 clearly outline that polygny is ok in the OT. Now comes to mat19:9. No issues with divorcing the wife due to immorality. Lets shorten mat19:9 a bit '..I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife .. and marries another woman commits adultery..'. According to mat19:9 , if you DON'T divorce the wife and marry another , it is OK by mat19:9. According to mat19:9 , there is no limit (per Quran4:3) to how many the person can marry as long as he does not divorce his wives. Am I right to say that mat19:9 permit unlimited polygny? Any comments from our christian friends?
I have no problem debating David but the thing is he:
1) Doesn't publish your comment.
2) Publishes your comment then refuses to respond.
3) Publishes then responds by making fun/attacking the Muslim because, well he/she is a Muslim and uses the Acts 17 followers comments to further bash the Muslim in order to gain momentum.
Yahya, you focus way too much on the Acts 17 crowd. Let them be. Allah will expose them, just as he exposed Ted Haggard and Jimmy Swaggart.
Yes, yahya is obsessed. But the ides that he doesn't have to expose them b/c Allah will do the exposing (of his shin?) rests on the false assumption that Allah is the true God.
No - Yahya's not obsessed, nor is his plan to discredit the Acts 17 Apologetics Team.
I personally asked him to post a rebuttal to David's post. I felt it was necessary. Simple as that.
Fee Aman Allah
RefutingActs17
P.S. You're referring to me anon, not Snow.
Anon: Yes, yahya is obsessed. But the ides that he doesn't have to expose them b/c Allah will do the exposing (of his shin?) rests on the false assumption that Allah is the true God.
You're an idiot. After you were shamefully defeated on the other thread on the issue of Islam's spread and the hadith about Aisha, you still have the audacity to spew your nonsense? Man you are one pathetic loser.
Good job Yahya. Honest feedback:
1. I love how motivated you are.
2. Calling out Acts 17 is something that needs to be done for the amount of trash they spew in the guise of an academic form.
3. I like how this article was concise. I feel like some of your articles become slightly tangential and a little wordy. I think you would be much more effective if you kept in simple and concise, yet extemely informative.
I only tell you this because I love you for the sake of Allah Azza wa Jaall
P.S. Allah will expose these kuffar, however having trust in Allah must also be combined with action. Yahya is providing action and he will be extremely blessed if Allah uses him as one of the tools to expose these evil people..
much love.. mike
mike: Calling out Acts 17 is something that needs to be done for the amount of trash they spew in the guise of an academic form.
I disagree. Academicians are not sex obsessed fools like David Wood and co. Their stuff is more appropriate for Jerry Springer.
Hello Yahya:
I haven't been here for a while,I quickly read most of the new articles.Your ideas are the subject of an upcoming article in avraidire.com.They are now always in French but can be translated using GOOGLE TRANSLATE:
http://translate.google.com/#
I will try to answer your objections.
YOUR MAIN OBJECTION
It is MOSAIC LAW,correct?For example,there are some 12 capital punishments:for adultery,blasphemy,homosexuality,slave-trading of Jews,apostasy,etc.Take death for apostasy,it is against human rights,correct?Against the Golden Rule of Jesus.WHY is it there at all?
THE SITUATION OF THE JEWS
For YEARS (according to the OT)the Jews had seen miracle after miracle with their own eyes.They knew the power of God,they say miracles in Egypt,then the sea was opened,miracles after that.Finally Moses went up to a mountain to talk with God.But the Jews commited idolatry.Moses came down, broke the law and several thousand were killed.
WHAT WAS IN THAT LAW?
We know at least the 10 commandments were there and it is ASSUMED the 12 or more capital punishment ones also.Maybe yes,maybe no,we don't know.
LATER
Moses went up again,in total 613 laws,plus the death penalty ones.Maybe they were later added or not,we dont know.
THE PEOPLE WERE GIVEN A CHOICE
The Jews decided to accept the law.They knew there was death for apostasy.But if they accepted they would become the CHOSEN PEOPLE of God and he would PROTECT them if they followed his law.They said yes because they KNEW he really existed.YOU and I have never seen miracles day after day like them,or even one miracle.
WHAT IF THEY HAD SAID NO?
God would have got another Chosen People.It doesn't mean the Jews would not have been able to go to heaven,they would,via the NOAHIDE LAWS(the laws for the Gentiles).
MOSAIC LAW WOULD LATER BE PERFECTED UNDER THE NEW ALLAINCE/COVENANT(the Law of the Heart)
Its essence is eternal,but in JEREMIAH 31:31-36 is a propehcy of the new covenant brought by Jesus.
i love how christians quote jeremiah 31:31-36 all the time about a new covenant
1) these verses in now way indicate that the mosiac law will be done way with.
2) its funny isnt how thier God is talking just to Israel, no one else!!! he dosent say " behold i will make a new covenant with the gentiles" does he? no he states there will be a new covenant with the house of israel no one else, and following verses in noway indicate that they will reject actually it insinuates that they will accept and thier sins will be forgiven.
so i dont see why christians keep coming upwith this verse ragarding a completely new covenant when it says nothing to that affect.
Hello Marat:
The new covenant of JEREMIAH 31:31-36 is also for the Gentiles because in ISAIAH 42:1-6 it also talks of a COVENANT,here refering to the Messiah and his significance for all the nations:
"Behold! My Servant whom I uphold,
My Elect One in whom My soul delights!
I have put My Spirit upon Him;
He will bring forth justice to the GENTILES..... He will not fail nor be discouraged,
Till He has established justice in the EARTH;.....
“ I, the LORD, have called You in righteousness,And will hold Your hand; I will keep YOU(NOTE:Messiah)and give YOU(NOTE:Messiah) as a COVENANT(NOTE:the Messiah himself will be the basis for the covenant) to the people,As a LIGHT to the GENTILES."
NOTE:it talks of a COVENANT having to do with the Messiah,now the Messiah is the OT is for the JEWS and also for the non-Jews.
ABOUT PAUL
I noticed several Muslims made reference to 1 COR 11:3/1 Cor 11:6/1 COR 14:34-35,in effect that those verses are anti-woman.When you analyse the context it isn't so.Read the avraidire.com article where it treats those verses and alot more.
http://www.avraidire.com/2010/06/can-women-preach-and-be-ministers-in-a-church/
In fact at the end of the article it shows that Paul himself considered an UNVEILED WOMAN with LONG HAIR as being the same as a veiled woman(1 COR 11:13-15)
ABOUT MOSAIC LAW
There is one law that says that if you FALSELY accuse someone of X crime and you are proven wrong then your punishment is to receive the same punishment you intended for the other.
DEUT 19:15-20,is where it is.I say this because in DEUT 22:13-19 it says if a man falsely accuses a woman of not being a virgin he has to pay money and she has to be WITH HIM for the rest HIS LIFE.OK,from DEUT 19:1-20 we see his life will be VERY SHORT,he would be killed after paying since if he had NOT been proved false then SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED:
"One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime, the two people involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time.
The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a LIAR, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite,then DO TO THE FALSE WITNESS as the WITNESS INTENDED TO DO TO THE OTHER PARTY. You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. "
@YFC777
I don't know if an actual hadith exists. Sheikh Zayed does state the opinion of most companions was that of a light slapping with a toothbrush type object.
I hope that answers the question.
I believe there is a good video of Abdur-rahman Green on this subject too. Please do look it up.
Obviously, as a Christian you are not going to take issue with that as burning women alive as punishment was dictated by Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit (according to your beliefs).
So we must always be contextual and consistent.
Peace
@ibn
Yeah, you are correct. I was thinking the same thing. I do have a fair few bits planned (or in the pipeline) with regards to that crew so I can't see them not featuring in future posts (inshaAllah) BUT I do plan to lessen the focus on them. InshaAllah
The thing is they are easy blog posts and pretty sensational as well as they are cartoonish in their actions and arguments.
For instance I have material saved of David Wood making another crazy sex claim (yes another!) and he is making a crazy torutre claim (which he just made up!).
As for Shamoun...he keeps sending messages of hatred my way so I keep featuring them.
As for Nabeel Qureshi...well, let's put it this way his dishonesty is becoming a real concern. I have ANOTHER video in the pipeline demonstrating such.
Also Samar Gorial sent me a flier for the next Jesus or Muhammad show. Rather than just advertising it I want to review it so there will be more mention of that crew, sadly.
I take your critique on board and I know what you mean. If you give somebody like Acts 17 enough rope they will hang themselves.
@Mike
Thanks for the critique and encouragement
Don't worry I don't take anything to heart and I am trying to make things simpler and more concise.
Firstly it saves me time and secondly it is easier for any interested reader.
@minoria
I have not seen your comments on AM lately; perhaps you realised (and became sick of) the deceit and hate-mongering ways on that site or perhaps you have been busy
I do want to clarify, I am not objecting to the OT laws or even criticising them. The reason why I brought them up was because Negeen and David were bashing Islam without considering the OT. They were being inconsistent and throwing their own Bible and traditions under the bus in order to attack Islam.
Many Christians bang on about the hijab BUT the hijab is instructed in the BIBLE.
Many Christians bang on about violence in Islamic history but do not bother to mention the violence which the god of the OT allowed and ordered.
Many Christians bang on about polygamy BUT it is allowed according to the BIBLE.
However,you are free to respond but please do realise this important distinction of me claiing for coinsistnecy rather than negative critique
@miniora,
thanks a lot for providing that information about little dogs/puppies (kunaria) in your old post, and thanks for writing an article about it.
sorry for mispelling your user name minoria (aka minority)
I tried to send this before,I think it didn't get through,if it did,ignore the repetition:
Hello Anymousing:
I am glad you found the article good.And Antoine had the great idea of posting a picture of a cute puppy.There is so much to write about,whether about purely Christian themes or about Islam.
Hello Yahya:
I did post recently about Asia Bibi on AM.A big difference between AM and avraidire.com is that AM is far more into current events while avraidire.com is far more like answeringinfidels.com,articles that are for reference.That is why there is more polemic.
ABOUT EPHESIANS 5
There has been Muslim criticism of it but first:
BASIC IDEA:
The questions is "WHAT is the ESSENTIAL ETHICAL idea of Jesus and Paul?"It is the Golden Rule,that is WHAT DETERMINES how to apply SECONDARY verses like EPHES 5.
For the reference verses:
http://www.avraidire.com/2010/04/le-coeur-ethique-de-jesuspaul-et-le-nt/
TO TRANSLATE INTO ENGLISH use GOOGLE TRANSLATE
http://translate.google.com/#
JESUS SAID:
"Be as INNOCENT as DOVES,and as SLY as SNAKES".Translation:"Be GOOD but do not be STUPID".
BACK TO EPHES 5:
One has the impression that many people read a Muslim article and did not verify the verses BEFORE and AFTER the citation which sometimes CHANGES things.
THE WHOLE TEXT IS:Ephes 5:21-33:
IT BEGINS:
"SUBMIT to ONE ANOTHER out of REVERENCE for CHRIST."
NOTE:this is a GENERAL statement to all believers.
THEN:
"22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."
NOTE:but from the STATEMENT from before it is understood that HUSBANDS should also SUBMIT to WIVES.
"Submit in everything to husbands".As Jesus said "innocent as doves and sly as snakes".Common sense tells us in what is GOOD,reasonable,not if your husband tells you jump from a building,kill her mother,etc.
THEN:
"25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. "
TWICE MEN ARE TOLD TO LOVE THERE WIFE LIKE HE HIMSELF
FIRST TIME
"28 In this same way, husbands ought to LOVE their WIVES as their OWN BODIES(NOTE:this is in accord with the GOLDEN RULE:"Do to others as you oul...")
. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church."
SECOND TIME
"33 However, each one of you also must LOVE his WIFE as he LOVES HIMSELF, and the wife must respect her husband. "
I tried to send this before,I think it didn't get through,if it did,ignore the repetition:
Hello Anymousing:
I am glad you found the article good.And Antoine had the great idea of posting a picture of a cute puppy.There is so much to write about,whether about purely Christian themes or about Islam.
Hello Yahya:
I did post recently about Asia Bibi on AM.A big difference between AM and avraidire.com is that AM is far more into current events while avraidire.com is far more like answeringinfidels.com,articles that are for reference.That is why there is more polemic.
ABOUT EPHESIANS 5
There has been Muslim criticism of it but first:
BASIC IDEA:
The questions is "WHAT is the ESSENTIAL ETHICAL idea of Jesus and Paul?"It is the Golden Rule,that is WHAT DETERMINES how to apply SECONDARY verses like EPHES 5.
For the reference verses:
http://www.avraidire.com/2010/04/le-coeur-ethique-de-jesuspaul-et-le-nt/
TO TRANSLATE INTO ENGLISH use GOOGLE TRANSLATE
http://translate.google.com/#
JESUS SAID:
"Be as INNOCENT as DOVES,and as SLY as SNAKES".Translation:"Be GOOD but do not be STUPID".
BACK TO EPHES 5:
One has the impression that many people read a Muslim article and did not verify the verses BEFORE and AFTER the citation which sometimes CHANGES things.
THE WHOLE TEXT IS:Ephes 5:21-33:
IT BEGINS:
"SUBMIT to ONE ANOTHER out of REVERENCE for CHRIST."
NOTE:this is a GENERAL statement to all believers.
THEN:
"22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."
NOTE:but from the STATEMENT from before it is understood that HUSBANDS should also SUBMIT to WIVES.
"Submit in everything to husbands".As Jesus said "innocent as doves and sly as snakes".Common sense tells us in what is GOOD,reasonable,not if your husband tells you jump from a building,kill her mother,etc.
THEN:
"25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. "
TWICE MEN ARE TOLD TO LOVE THERE WIFE LIKE HE HIMSELF
FIRST TIME
"28 In this same way, husbands ought to LOVE their WIVES as their OWN BODIES(NOTE:this is in accord with the GOLDEN RULE:"Do to others as you oul...")
. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church."
SECOND TIME
"33 However, each one of you also must LOVE his WIFE as he LOVES HIMSELF, and the wife must respect her husband. "
oh boy. when minoria starts spamming, there's no end to it.
ABOUT POLYGAMY
Jesus was God and his view on polygamy determines the CORRECT interpretation of MOSAIC LAW.Who should know Mosaic law better than God?
HE CONDEMNED IT
In MATT 19:9/LUKE 16:18 he said if a man DIVORCES his WIFE and MARRIES ANOTHER he commits ADULTERY.
He was refering to a DIVORCE that he considered invalid,so the man was STILL MARRIED (for Jesus).So his SECOND marriage made him have TWO WIVES(for Jesus),yet he calls it ADULTERY,so polygamy is condemned.
DEUT 17:17
It talks about the king of the Jews and says "he will NOT MULTIPLY his WIVES."
Does it mean not to have 100 wives but it is ok with 3-5?That is one understanding of it.Another is it means NOT have more than ONE wife.From Jesus we know THAT is the CORRECT interpretation.
THE OTHER LAWS:
They are:
EXODUS 21:10:"IF he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights."
DEUT 21:15:" IF a man has two wives..."
They are a toleration for those who disobey (as Jesus said that EASY DIVORCE was tolerated by God but not approved) but that is all,not a approval of polygamy(based on Jesus'interpretation).
"25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
Do the Muslims realize this passage literally tells husbands to do anything for their wives, even if it causes them torture, pain, and death? "Gave" himself - paradidomi 1) to give into the hands (of another) 2) to give over into (one's) power or use 2a) to deliver to one something to keep, use, take care of, manage..
There is no more beautiful teaching than Jesus’ teaching. It is Godly beyond godliness.
minoria ,
From you '..He was refering to a DIVORCE that he considered invalid,so the man was STILL MARRIED (for Jesus).So his SECOND marriage made him have TWO WIVES(for Jesus),yet he calls it ADULTERY,so polygamy is condemned..'
mat19:9 '..anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery...'. To appreciate this verse in a clearer manner , lets shorten it a bit , mat19:9 '..anyone who divorces his wife..and marries another woman commits adultery..'.
It merely state anyone who divorce his wife and marry another commits adultery. However there is no prohibition for the man to marry another while being married (ie. no divorce and marry another). It becomes worse as there is no limit to how many one can marry (and not divorce his wives). In essence its polygny without limit. Deut17:17 ('..He must not take many wives..') is the closest verse in the bible outlining the number of wives a person can marry. How many is 'many wives'? 10 / 20 / 100?? The issue of 'ONE' is not even considered.
I just don't understand why christians keep condemning polygamy whereas it is clearly stated in the bible that polygamy without limit is allowed.
There is no explicit statement in the bible that state 'marry only one' (apart for elders / deacons).
This statement is only found in the Quran. Quran4:3 '..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..'
hello Sam:
You stated:
"mat19:9 '..anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery...'. To appreciate this verse in a clearer manner , lets shorten it a bit , mat19:9 '..anyone who divorces his wife..and marries another woman commits adultery..'.
It merely state anyone who divorce his wife and marry another commits adultery. However there is no prohibition for the man to marry another while being married (ie. no divorce and marry another)."
Condamnation of polygamy is clearly implied because for Jesus the marriage with the first wife is still valid.
If Jesus had said "WRONG","BAD","IMPROPER" instead of ADULTERY then you could say:
"The BAD thing was NOT marrying the other woman but NOT taking care of the first wife,of ABANDONNING her."
GENERAL PRINCIPLE
From Jesus' statement on a SPECIFIC situation one can easily get a GENERAL PRINCIPLE that is against polygamy.There is a Muslim called ZAKI in avraidire.com who read a short article I wrote on the idea said something similar"no,it is only about divorce".He was even cursing me.
http://www.avraidire.com/2010/11/jesus-etait-il-pour-ou-contre-la-polygamie/
NO POOR AMONG YOU
DEUT 15:4:
"...there shall be NO POOR AMONG YOU; for the LORD shall greatly bless thee in the land which the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance to possess it."
There was a group of 4,000 called the ESSENES and they were 100% AGAINST SLAVERY.Why?
It seems it was based on DEUT 15:4 since the ones who were debt-slaves and Jewish(working for 7 years free to pay their debt)were debt-slaves because they were POOR.
But since the command is to have NO POOR then the general principle got would be to condemn the idea of slavery in principle,in itself.
The way to hold a husband is to keep him a little jealous; the way to lose him is to keep a little more jealousy.
Post a Comment