Tuesday, December 1, 2009

The Women of Islam


Time

For his day, the Prophet Muhammad was a feminist. The doctrine he laid out as the revealed word of God considerably improved the status of women in 7th century Arabia. In local pagan society, it was the custom to bury alive unwanted female newborns; Islam prohibited the practice. Women had been treated as possessions of their husbands; Islamic law made the education of girls a sacred duty and gave women the right to own and inherit property. Muhammad even decreed that sexual satisfaction was a woman's entitlement. He was a liberal at home as well as in the pulpit. The Prophet darned his own garments and among his wives and concubines had a trader, a warrior, a leatherworker and an imam.

Of course, ancient advances do not mean that much to women 14 centuries later if reform is, rather than a process, a historical blip subject to reversal. While it is impossible, given their diversity, to paint one picture of women living under Islam today, it is clear that the religion has been used in most Muslim countries not to liberate but to entrench inequality. The Taliban, with its fanatical subjugation of the female sex, occupies an extreme, but it nevertheless belongs on a continuum that includes, not so far down the line, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan and the relatively moderate states of Egypt and Jordan. Where Muslims have afforded women the greatest degree of equality--in Turkey--they have done so by overthrowing Islamic precepts in favor of secular rule. As Riffat Hassan, professor of religious studies at the University of Louisville, puts it, "The way Islam has been practiced in most Muslim societies for centuries has left millions of Muslim women with battered bodies, minds and souls."[...]

30 comments :

  1. The Islamic world is 1.5 billion people. In many places where Islam is practiced there are deep rooted tribal practices that have not been entirely replaced by the Muslim religion which has only been practiced for several generations.

    Female circumcision is one example of a tribal practice that is forbidden by Islam but which persists in some areas.

    This barbaric practice is ABSOLUTELY forbidden by Islam and yet the Western media often cites genital mutilation as an example of Islam's barbarism against women.

    "Al-Azhar Supreme Council of Islamic Research, the highest religious authority in Egypt, issued a statement saying FGM/C has no basis in core Islamic law or any of its partial provisions and that it is harmful and should not be practiced. In fact, this pre-Islamic barbarity runs contrary to the Islamic tenet which dictates that a man should make sure his wife enjoys their lovemaking."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Another thing that we are led to believe by the Western media is that wife beating is permitted in Islam. This is also entirely false.

    Wife beating anytime and for any reason is never allowed in Islam.

    There is one verse (Quran 4:34) that Christians quote that seems to allow the husband to beat his wife, but as Muslim scholars point out, this is only if the verse is mistranslated, out of context.

    The verse actually instructs a husband whose wife causes problems (she appears to be unfaithful or on the road to infidelity) in their marriage to first talk to her about it, then leave the marital bed, then {adriboo} his wife, and all of this in view of pursuing a reconciliation as is evident from the subsequent verse 4:35.

    The Arabic word used here, {adriboo), has several dozens of meanings, such as: 'to beat', but also: 'to forsake, to avoid, to leave'.

    How do we know which interpretation to choose? One way to find out, is to relate this verse to other verses in the Qur'an and to check if the meanings make sense. In this case, let us look at verse 24:2, which describes what should be done in case of adultery :

    "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes..." (Qur'an 24:2)

    This verse establishes the principle that for men and women, equal actions lead to equal punishment.

    Suppose {adriboo} means: 'to forsake, to avoid', 'to separate, to part' .

    Verse 4:34 now says that when a wife causes a problem in the marriage, her husband should first talk to her about it, then leave their bed (forsaking his sexual satisfaction), then avoid her even more (not talking to her anymore, leaving the room when she enters it, and possibly even leaving the house for a while), in order to prevent things from getting worse, and on the contrary to let things cool down and create enough space in view of increasing chances of a reconciliation.

    This sounds like a very logical chain of events.

    And in fact this is what Judaism also prescribes. If a woman is seen in a yihud situation with another man, she is warned twice and then if she does it again, her husband should go to the Beit Din to seek a divorce. And in Judaism a man who intends to divorce his wife must forsake relations with her.

    Beating a wife, would also contradict hadiths which repeatedly say: “do not beat believing women!”.

    It would also contradict Islam's instructions about anger – which (unless it is caused by injustice) he explained to originate from Satan (just as Judaism attributes anger to Avoda Zara). One should not act upon ones anger, lest one would do things one would regret later. When you are angry when you are standing, sit down. And when you are still angry when you are sitting, then lie down. Interpreting this verse as allowing a husband to beat his wife, surely contradicts these rulings on anger.

    In short, Islam treats women almost exactly as Judaism does. Does this mean that all Muslim men treat their wives and daughters as they should according to Islam? Of course we know that is not true.

    But it is also not true among Jewish men either.

    Islam is based upon Judaism. Sharia is based upon halacha. There are very few differences. If Islam is sexist and mistreats women, then Judaism does also.

    I do not believe that to be the case.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Once again from the official Saudi translation(if they couldn't be bothered to get it right, then they deserved to be misunderstood)
    34. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to God and to their husbands), and guard in the husband's absence what God orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property, etc.). As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, God is Ever Most High, Most Great.

    Where in Judaism do you EVER see that is is permitted for a husband to beat his wife.

    To see what actual Imams that were trained in Saudi Arabia, but live in a western and forward country like the UK have to say about women simply watch this.

    To be blunt your Islamist propaganda is little more than large pile of horse manure and worth far less. Considering your lack of basic knowledge of Judaism, and its inner workings, and your ardent defense of Islam, I am beginning to think that you are Islamist missionary posing as a Jew, and quite frankly doing a fairly poor job of it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mekubal,

    Insults and denigration are unworthy responses to a legitimate intellectual discussion.

    Since you claim with such great certainty that there is no place in Judaism for beating one's wife, I assume that you do not count the Rambam as a Jewish source. Very strange for someone who claims to have a deep knowledge of Judaism and its inter workings.

    Rambam in Hilchot Ishut (The Laws of Women) 21:10 says

    "Every woman who refuses to do one of the labors which she is [customarily] required to do [for her husband], he [the husband] strikes her, even with a whip."

    So, whereas the Saudi translation of Islam speaks of a light beating, Rambam permits the whip!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mohan wrote:

    Rambam in Hilchot Ishut (The Laws of Women) 21:10 says

    "Every woman who refuses to do one of the labors which she is [customarily] required to do [for her husband], he [the husband] strikes her, even with a whip."

    So, whereas the Saudi translation of Islam speaks of a light beating, Rambam permits the whip!
    ------------
    Classic misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the Rambam.

    The Rambam is not referring to the husband disciplining his wife but rather to the beis din.

    רמב"ם אישות כא:י

    כל אשה שתמנע מלעשות מלאכה מן המלאכות שהיא חייבת לעשותן כופין אותה ועושה אפילו בשוט,

    The Rambam is referring to the beis din not the husband as you mistranslated

    Aside from that there are many sources which explicitly prohibit the husband from hitting his wife. Furthermore your interpretation leads to a major inconsistency in the Rambam himself!

    Rambam (Hilchos Chovel u’Mazik 4:16): If a man beats his wife he must pay her immediately for all the damage, suffering and all her embarrassment and the husband derives no benefit from the payment. If she wants to give the money to someone else she can give it. This is the ruling of the gaonim [who were stricter than the Tosefta in that the husband no longer receives any benefit from the payment]. Furthermore her husband must have all her medical issues cured.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mohan/Shoshi,

    Nice of you to join the conversation, and as is typical with only partial and faulty knowledge of the facts. In truth, unlike the piece of Qur'an that I quoted and the video will expound, Judaism, considers the woman(which is the aspect of Malchut) to be, though seemingly by human appearance the weaker, in fact to be the higher and greater. Thus in the morning blessing she states, "who made me according to His will". רצון Thus showing that all women are rooted in רצון which is Keter, where as only the greatest and most purified souls of greatest of the Tzadikim will ever achieve this lofty level.

    So please tell me how Islam(which views women as inferior) and Judaism(which views them as superior) are at all similar. These are polar opposites, and this is basic Hashkafa, it is Judaism 101.

    So I am not insulting JerseyGirl, rather I am ardently defending the Torah against one, who the more they speak the more it becomes apparent that they have no connection with it. Therefore I call that into question, as well as state the obvious propagandist nature of her comments. I make absolutely no apologies if defending the holiness and supremacy of Torah offends you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In Quran 4:34 "deriboo" is translated as "to send out" pr "to go out" not to "beat". The root of the word "deribo" is the same as the Hebrew "bo", to come. The mother who tells her children "yalla bo" is not saying "I will beat you", the meaning is "let's go".

    The confusion here is that there was an Arabic dictionary published some years ago that translated "to go", "to leave" as "beat it" which was the colloquialism in English for "get out of here" at the time.Ever since that time, the meaning of Quran 4:34 has been distorted mainly by Christians to mean that Islam permits wife beating.

    One does not have to know very much Arabic, or in this case even Hebrew to see that the correct translation is "to go, send out, leave" and not "to beat".

    Both Islam and Judaism view women similarly and Christianity views both faiths as denigrating to women in the same ways.

    Some of the beliefs that both Islam and Judaism share that Christians describe as denigrating to women are for example:

    1. Both Islam and Judaism have a "menstrual taboo". Both faiths believe that a woman must purify herself in a ritual bath before resuming even casual contact (or the case of Islam) sexual relations with her husband. Christians consider this practice to be denigrating to women.

    2. Both faiths do not allow women to be religious leaders or to serve in a religious court. Both faiths do not accept the testimony of women as witnesses in a religious court. Christians consider this to be denigrating to women.

    3. Both faiths require that men pray separately from women. In Judaism, women must remain sequestered behind a screen or similar separation so as not to even be seen by men who are praying. Both Islam and Judaism consider communal prayer services optional for women. Christians consider these practices to be denigrating to women.

    4. Both faiths require that women cover themselves in such as way so as not to be attracting to men. Christians consider this to be denigrating to women.

    5. Both faiths marry with a civil contract in which a man acquires a wife with a ring or coin (Many Sephardim use a coin). Christians consider this to be denigrating to women.

    6. Both faiths do not allow a woman to initiate a divorce proceeding, but a man can divorce his wife at will. Christians consider this to be denigrating to women.

    7. Both faiths forbid men from hearing women sing or perform. Christians consider this to be denigrating to women.

    8. Both faiths forbid men from talking and mingling with women they are not closely related to. Christians consider this to be denigrating to women.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Maybe this is a better translation of "deriboo" as well as another illustration of the fact that 2/3s of all Arabic words have Hebrew roots.

    Deriboo- "Derech bo". "Hit the road".

    The Christina missionaries would have a field day with that translation. LOL, something like "if you don't like your wife anymore take her head and smash it into the street".

    Quran 4:34 is not talking about "hitting" or "beating" one's wife. Just separating from her.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In Quran 4:34 "deriboo" is translated as "to send out" pr "to go out" not to "beat". The root of the word "deribo" is the same as the Hebrew "bo", to come. The mother who tells her children "yalla bo" is not saying "I will beat you", the meaning is "let's go".

    The confusion here is that there was an Arabic dictionary published some years ago that translated "to go", "to leave" as "beat it" which was the colloquialism in English for "get out of here" at the time.Ever since that time, the meaning of Quran 4:34 has been distorted mainly by Christians to mean that Islam permits wife beating.

    One does not have to know very much Arabic, or in this case even Hebrew to see that the correct translation is "to go, send out, leave" and not "to beat".


    This is an utter lie. First I brought you the Saudi approved translation.

    Second I provided a link where Saudi trained Imams actually elucidate these principles.

    Further evidence and ample amounts of it can be found by perusing the video files found here.

    Third and most importantly is that your linguistics are completely off.

    Yalla in Arabic, means the same thing as Bo in Hebrew.

    Arabic is much like Hebrew, in that it is based on three letter root words, with the same basic fixtures for making things into command tense. The root for the word you bring is not BO, it is DRB in the Qur'an it is Idr'boo(which is command form for they shall DRB=beat) followed by Hunna=them. For a detailed analysis by an aetheist see this, notice he also bring a number of translations by muslim authors so claiming a xtian intentional mistranslation is simply a lie.

    4. Both faiths require that women cover themselves in such as way so as not to be attracting to men. Christians consider this to be denigrating to women. Also not true. See the Ben Ish Hai's laws for women, where he specifically states that a woman must dress in such a way as to be attractive to her husband. She simply is not allowed to expose certain parts that are considered private. This is a far cry from a Hijab, which in the link from previous post you will notice is the standard for Muslim woman unless she wants to be beaten.

    6. Both faiths do not allow a woman to initiate a divorce proceeding, but a man can divorce his wife at will. Christians consider this to be denigrating to women. Also not true. The Gezeira of Rabbeinu Gershom stipulates that a woman must give her consent before a husband can give a get(divorce). Furthermore there are several reasons and ways with which a woman can petition a B"D to force her husband to give a get, thus she can initiate a divorce.

    There are a great many more inaccuracies that you present about Judaism, I simply have not the time or the patience to provide full halakhic rebuttals. The above however should show enough of your propaganda and lies for what they truly are.

    ReplyDelete
  10. to Daas Torah and Mekubal:

    I was previously aware of what you said regarding the interpretation of this line of the Rambam. My point is that Islam,like Judaism,is defined and practiced in ways that differ from literal words of our Holy Books, including some of the literal words of our sages.

    Someone who wants to bash Judaism by picking out key phrases from our sages' writings has an easy time. I don't think we should treat other faiths the way we ourselves hate to be judged.

    Islam has as many variations as Judaism does, if not more. Anyone who has been in Israel knows that the dreaded Va'ad Ha-snius, which is led by very people who look very Rabbinical, carry out or support despicable deeds.

    I do not believe they represent "real" or "normative" Judaism any more than I believe that the Wahhabis represent ALL of Islam or even mainstream Islamic thought.

    For example, Egypt isn't Wahhabi, and Egypt has more than triple the population of Saudi Arabia.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mekubal said when responding to Jersey Girl's list:

    " JG 4. Both faiths require that women cover themselves in such as way so as not to be attracting to men. Christians consider this to be denigrating to women. Mekubal: Also not true. See the Ben Ish Hai's laws for women, where he specifically states that a woman must dress in such a way as to be attractive to her husband. She simply is not allowed to expose certain parts that are considered private. This is a far cry from a Hijab, which in the link from previous post you will notice is the standard for Muslim woman unless she wants to be beaten."

    Please forgive me if I'm being insulting, Mekubal, but this is a non-sequitur. JG was discussing about how women need to appear IN PUBLIC, to men they are not married to, while Ben Ish Chai was referring to how women should appear in PRIVATE to their husbands.
    In PUBLIC, both religions have the same motivating principle: that men follow their eyes and women need to dress modestly in public so that the men will be better able to control their inclinations.

    Then further:

    "JG 6. Both faiths do not allow a woman to initiate a divorce proceeding, but a man can divorce his wife at will. Christians consider this to be denigrating to women.
    Mekubal: Also not true. The Gezeira of Rabbeinu Gershom stipulates that a woman must give her consent before a husband can give a get(divorce). Furthermore there are several reasons and ways with which a woman can petition a B"D to force her husband to give a get, thus she can initiate a divorce."

    Once again, another non-sequitur. Jersey girl was talking about INITIATING a divorce, and Mekubal responded by stating what a Jewish woman's rights are after her husband has initiated the divorce.

    A Jewish man can declare his intention to divorce his wife, deposit a get with the local Beis Din, and then if his wife doesn't accept it, still obtain a heter meir Rabbonim and marry another woman. Jewish women do not have this option.

    As far as I know, the same rules apply to Islam.

    Christians definitely see this inequality between the freedoms that men have, that women don't, to be a denigration to the women of both faiths.

    Regarding the statement that women are elevated in Judaism, I agree completely that this is what our religion says and means, yet I have heard many many Rabbonim say that women lead men to sin (proof being Adam and Chava), that a man who converses too much with his wife is a fool because the wives engage in foolishness, that a wife cannot be entrusted with the Kashrus of the home and the husband must supervise her, that the wife cannot be trusted that she has immersed in a Mikveh without a receipt, and many other things that are clearly place a woman's status below that of a man.

    You take the position that the filmed Imams speak for Islam in general. Does that mean that the Rabbis who denigrate women speak for Judaism? (or do you have different standards of fairness and justice for us vs. them?)

    If you are learning about Islam, I would give you the same advice that I would give to someone learning about Judaism: learn the differences between denominations, and see what the acknowledged sages of those denominations have to say.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Once upon a very long time ago, when I was a student at SJ Hebrew H.S. we were assigned to read a book called "Jews and Arabs", by S. D. Goitein.(1956).

    The preface to this book reads as follows:

    "Of all the societies with which Jews and Judaism have come into contact through the centuries, none has borne their imprint or itself marked them more profoundly than the great medieval civilization which, for want of a more precise term, is best labeled “Islamic".

    Islam “is from the very flesh and bone of Judaism. It is, to say, a recast, an enlargement of the latter, just as Arabic is closely related to Hebrew.”

    "Because of this close kinship, Judaism, for its part, “could draw freely and copiously from Muslim civilization and, at the same time, preserve its independence and integrity far more completely than . . . in the modern world or in the Hellenistic society of Alexandria.”

    In the pages of his historical account, Goitein described Islam as "an act of God's Mercy" (ie in contrast to the paganism among the tribes of the era).

    Jews flourished under Muslim rule in places like Spain, Morocco, North African in general and various parts of the Middle East.In fact, the Quran itself gives specific guidelines for the followers of Islam to base their relationship with any non-Muslim; including Jews, who must be treated on the basis of Birr (kindness) and Qist (justice) (Surah 60 verse 8).

    Goitein describes how Jews welcomed Mohammed when he arrived in Madinah at the time of Hijrah (migration), along with the rest of the city's inhabitants because he signed treaties with the city's Jewish, Christian and polytheist tribes before he arrived there.

    It was based on these treaties that Mohammed established the Mithaq al Madinah, the constitution of Medinah, the first constitution of the world, under which, any Jew who followed the Muslims was entitled to their assistance and the same rights as anyone of them without any injustice or partisanship.It said the Jews are an Ummah (community of believers) alongside the Muslims. The Jews have their religion and the Muslims theirs. As well, it noted that each will assist one another against any violation of this covenant.

    Muslim Spain, a "golden era" of creativity and advancement for Muslims was also one for Jews.While Europe was in its Dark Ages and Jews were reviled there, Muslims in Spain during the same period worked side by side with Jews in developing literature, science and arts.

    Jews flourished under Muslim rule in Egypt and throughout North Africa as well, achieving very high positions in government.

    The very widespread popular notion that present day Arab-Jewish hostility is but another chapter in a long history of mutual animosity is totally false. If there is one thing the past makes clear it is precisely that Arabs and Jews can live together peacefully and in a mutually beneficial relationship.

    How comes it then that, for the modern headline-reader, the very title of Goitwein's book, "Jews and Arabs" will seem to epitomize racial and even religious incompatibility and strife?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yalla is actually a contraction of two words. "Ya" which is a preposition used to call someone else. And "ala"- to go, the Hebrew equivalent is "lech" to "go". "You go" or "hurry up" is the modern colloquial usage.

    The Quran is written in Ancient Arabic, not the modern colloquial usage. Native Arabic speakers struggle to understand the language of the Quran and therefore must rely upon the commentators to discern the proper meaning of the verses, just as we Jews rely upon our Sages in order to properly understand the Torah. .

    The meaning of the verb "daraba" in the Quran is to "go out".

    For example in Quran 14:24 "daraba" is used again to mean "go abroad" for the sake of G-d Almighty:

    "O ye who believe! When ye go out (darabtum) In the cause of Allah"

    The word used in the Quran for flog, whip or punish is "ijlidu" as used in Quran 24:2 and 24:4.

    Quran 4:34 is frequently interpreted by Islamic scholars as giving women complete control over their own income and property, while obliging men to be responsible for maintaining their female relatives:

    "Men are in charge of women...because they spend of their property (for the support of women)."

    In fact Quran 4:35 continues to describe the arbitration process in case of a separation:

    "And if ye fear a breach between them (the man and wife), appoint an arbiter from his folk and an arbiter from her folk".

    When read in context, this would surely support the correct definition of "daraba" as "to drive out of (the marital) bed".

    In support of this correct translation of "daraba" as to "drive out" (from the marital bed) Quranic scholars cite that the Arabic root word "daraba" derives from the prosaic example "the stud-camel covered the she-camel".(Raghib, Al-Mufridat fi Gharib Al-Qur'an).

    It is interesting to me that the Ancient Arabic of the Quran is often more readily understood in relation to Ancient Hebrew than to Modern Arabic.

    For example when we read "derabo" as "derech bo".

    "Bo" in the Torah (as in Parshat Bo) is translated as "go", rather than "come".

    And "derech" is "road or way".

    Read "derabo" again as "derech bo" and you have "go on your way" or in modern colloquial English, "hit the road", "beat it".

    Interesting, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Read "derabo" again as "derech bo" and you have "go on your way" or in modern colloquial English, "hit the road", "beat it".

    Interesting, isn't it?


    Why should I, that simply is not what it means. I am not only relying on my own, shoddy at best Arabic linguistic skills, but I am relying on dozens of MUSLIM translations of the Qur'an into English. Please tell me why all of these translations use the the word DRB as Beat or Hit, but you don't. You have no basis for this. Secondly you have been caught in your own trap of inconsistancy. Earlier you stated that the root was BO and now you say something different. You have shown that you are fully willing to lie to paint Islam in a positive light.

    Similarly you stated in this post that all muslims were fluent in the Arabic of the Qur'an. Now you say they are not. It cannot be both ways. You cannot say that they are when it suits your purposes and that they are not when it suits your purposes.

    Why is it that the dozens of Muslim translations of the Qur'an, some even officially backed the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, can't seem to understand this passage of the Qur'an the same way that you do? If it were one or two I would say that you have a point. If they were done by non-muslims I would grant you the point. But being that they have all been done by top Muslim clerics, and they all say to beat the wife... one can only deduce that these Muslim clerics and scholars, their equivalant to the Rabbis of our religion, know far better than you. The result being that for whatever reason you are spreading false information in an attempt at propaganda. All that remains is to discern the reason.

    ReplyDelete

  15. In PUBLIC, both religions have the same motivating principle: that men follow their eyes and women need to dress modestly in public so that the men will be better able to control their inclinations.

    Not true. The Ben Ish Hai is very clear that a woman should dress the same in private as she does in public. Which by the way is the general guidline in Judaism. The difference is that in Judaism a woman is encouraged to be attractive, and to dress attractively, granted within the bounds of Tzniut. Whereas in Islam a woman is expected to cover from head to toe. The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia(The Gadol HaDor for all Sunnis) has said if she does not, to beat her.

    Once again, another non-sequitur. Jersey girl was talking about INITIATING a divorce, and Mekubal responded by stating what a Jewish woman's rights are after her husband has initiated the divorce.
    .

    A Jewish man can declare his intention to divorce his wife, deposit a get with the local Beis Din, and then if his wife doesn't accept it, still obtain a heter meir Rabbonim and marry another woman. Jewish women do not have this option.

    First I gave clear instance of how a woman could INITIATE a divorce. You chose to disregard that.

    As far as Heter Meah Rabbanim that is a very controversial issue, especially as to its application. However either a woman or a man can get a Heter Meah Rabbanim, which means that 100 Rabbis have agreed to this thing. The Heter is to break the other part of R' Gershom's gezeira concerning the taking of multiple wives. A practice which is allowed and even encouraged in Islam. While every branch of Judaism has come to accept upon themselves the Gezeira, as they see polygamy as denigrating to women, Islam does not, because they see women in a lower state anyway.


    You take the position that the filmed Imams speak for Islam in general. Does that mean that the Rabbis who denigrate women speak for Judaism? (or do you have different standards of fairness and justice for us vs. them?)

    I take the word of the Gadol HaDor of the Sunni Muslims, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, and the word of the Gadol of the Shi'ites, the Ayatollah as speaking for the majority of Islam yes. If you can bring me proof that both R' Eliashiv and R' Ovadiah Yosef say these things... then I will say they speak for a majority of Judaism.

    Furthermore it is not just one or two filmed Imams. At the second link I posted, you will find the supreme religious leaders of several Islamic countries encouraging the beating of women. The rape of immodestly dressed women, and other things to horrible to speak. If they say these things to their own public, then we have a right to judge them by them. When it is more than simply a few scattered clerics but rather the Spiritual leaders of Nations and entire Islamic denominations, than I am forced to see that as the standard view of Islam.

    For instance, on account of the number of Gedolim that have in word or deed swept child abuse under the rug and advocated protecting the abuser, I am forced to say that, as sad as it may be, that this is also a valid view within Judaism. Perhaps not that held by the majority, but a valid view of some branches.

    So when many, if not all of the major Islamic leaders denigrate women, say to beat them, rape them and such. I hold them to the same standard, that this is a valid view within Islam. Since their most influential leaders say these things, I feel that it is accurate to say that this is the majority view within Islam.

    ReplyDelete
  16. On a Halakhic note. Speaking any other religion, including Islam, in such a way as to cause it be honored is a violation of the laws of Avodah Zerah as found in the Shulhan Arukh, which explicity forbids speaking of ANY other religion positively.

    Specifically for Sephardim the Ben Ish Hai and R' Ovadia Yosef have ruled that this applies as well to Islam, that its supposed Monotheism does not exempt it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Recipients and PublicityDecember 2, 2009 at 2:00 PM

    TIME magazine is presently a notorious pro-Obama/Muslim leftist apologistic and activist mouthpiece. From the moment TIME was bought out and swallowed up into radical leftist Ted Turner's CNN-AOL-TIME-Warner media conglomerate it became an ultra-liberal radical rag.

    As a magazine TIME only publishes articles that will help the ultra-leftist and pro-Islamic Obama regime's agenda. And since the regime of Obama is a combined leftist, pro-Islamist alliance of ultra-liberals, Marxists and pro-Islamists, TIME magazine, and CNN that provided Obama with unlimited air time during his campaign.

    Thus CNN-TIME-Warner are the Obama regime's perfectly co-ordinated mouthpieces as they speak with one voice. You may enjoy this short 2 minute YouTube video "I will follow him" parody of the liberal media's love affair with Obama.

    In this case they are whitewashing Islam and making it into what it is not. So pay little attention to what TIME says beyond knowing that it is what the Obama regime wants to see in print. Long gone are the days when TIME was a reliable and prestigious source of reporting and news respected by the high and mighty of the world. It is now just a low class trashy-flashy magazine.

    Whilst you are all at it, Robert Spencer over at his blog, praises Jihad Watch has a new post, Wafa Sultan speaks! (December 1, 2009), a woman doctor formerly from Syria who has become a fierce critic of Islam's treatment of women and of Islam in general and has just written a book about the subject.

    Oh, and hi Bright Eyes, haven't seen you around for a while, unless you are Jersey Girl's sockpuppet that is.

    You may also be enlightened by Robert Spencer's post concerning The Left's love affair with Islam by Chuck Hustmyre (December 1, 2009):

    "The union between the American Left and fundamentalist Islam seems like a marriage made in hell. The Left hates religion, particularly Christianity, and has succeeded in ripping nearly all vestiges of it from American public life...So why does the American Left hate Christianity yet love Islam?...In unambiguous terms, fundamentalist Islam has announced again and again that it despises the values, culture, and traditions of America. The American Left does too. Consistent with the Arabic proverb that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the American Left has formed an alliance with fundamentalist Islam to transform this country into something far removed from its Judeo-Christian origins and ideals...Yet, the American Left continues to serve as apologist-in-chief for fundamentalist Islam. Why? Because deep down American Leftists are terrified of Islamic fundamentalists...The American Left's affair with fundamentalist Islam is essentially a love-fear relationship. The Left loves Islam's hatred of America and its desire to radically change this country, but the Left also fears what militant Muslims are capable of, especially if they turn their murderous rage on their so-called friends. So the Left, like Neville Chamberlain with the Nazis, walks a tightrope, appeasing Muslims at every turn, offering excuses for Islamic violence, and hoping Muslim fundamentalists won't bite the hand that feeds them their excuses."

    ReplyDelete
  18. Transcript of a an Egyptian Cleric explaining this aspect of the Qur'an that was aired on Egyptian National Television. In other words yet another State sponsored cleric of an Islamic country.


    Galal Al-Khatib: One of the husband's rights is to discipline his wife if she is disobedient. What does the word "disobedience" mean? Disobedience is to leave the house without the husband's permission, to refuse to obey the husband in bed, to speak to the husband impolitely, or to do the opposite of what he likes. All these are forms of disobedience. Religious law has instated several measures of disciplining a disobedient wife. These measures must be followed consecutively. You cannot jump to the third measure before despairing of the second, and you cannot jump to the second before despairing of the first. The order must be followed. The first measure for reforming a disobedient wife is to admonish her. The husband should talk to her gently, reminding her of God, and reminding her that if she wants to enter Paradise, she must obey him. He must tell her that by pleasing her husband, she pleases God, and that his rights supersede the rights of her parents.

    [...]

    Okay, if admonishing doesn’t work, the next measure is "banishment." Some say that the wife should be banished from his bed, while others say he should refrain from having sex with her, although I do not agree with the latter view, because having sex is one of the rights of the husband, so how can he discipline her by depriving himself of sex? It's enough if he refrains from smiling and saying nice things to her, and instead, he gives her the cold shoulder, but he has the right to have sex with her, even during banishment.

    Okay, he's tried admonishing, he's tried banishment – but nothing. Her emotions are numb, and she says: Good riddance. So what is the next measure? "...and beat them." Beating. The Prophet Muhammad said that the beatings should be light, and that one should avoid the face, or the sensitive areas, which might lead to broken bones, or might leave a mark that would spoil her beauty, whether on her face or anywhere on her body. Beatings that draw blood, or break bones, or leave a scar, a black mark on the skin, or any obvious mark, which would make people know that she was harshly beaten – this is forbidden.

    He should make her feel that he wants to reform her, and let her know that he is displeased with her. It is like saying: None of the measures that work with sensitive people work with you. A word would be enough for any wife with lofty morals, but with you, words do not help. Then he attempts a new direction, appealing to her femininity and emotions, by making her feel that he doesn't want her or love her. When this doesn't work, he says to her: With you, I have reached a stage which is only appropriate for inhumane people – the stage of beating.

    Beating is one of the punishments of religious law. What kind of people are beaten? Virgin adulterers, both men and women, are beaten as a means of discipline. Who else is beaten? A person who committed an offense and was sentenced by the judge to beatings. Who else is beaten? Someone who committed a crime. By beating his wife, the husband is saying: You've committed a grave sin that merits beatings.


    I have been accused of holding a double standard between muslims and Jews. Please bring me the words of a Chief Rabbi saying such derogatory words against women. Most especially being given air time one state sponsored television to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  19. PS. Since you will probably refute my statement that a Jew is permitted to enter a mosque, it is even on askmoses.com. Jews do not consider Islam to be avoda zara since they worship the same G-d as we do:

    http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/255,2400/Am-I-allowed-to-enter-a-church-or-mosque.html

    I asked the shaila of a Gadol more than 25 years ago and I am permitted to listen to the Sufi music I love (there is not danger of kol Isha either for those who hold that it is a woman's voice when recorded), attend a Sufi concert and listen to all sorts of religious music from Morocco and Egypt that I really enjoy and find spiritually inspiring.

    Actually, last time I attended a Sufi concert in NYC, the MC announced that the after reception (vegetarian) was being catered by a well known kosher caterer under hashgacha. I was not the only religious Jew there who was grateful for the free kosher food and the incredible show of hospitality on the part of our Sufi hosts from Egypt.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm not Mohan.


    shoshi

    ReplyDelete
  21. Mekubal said "As far as Heter Meah Rabbanim that is a very controversial issue, especially as to its application. However either a woman or a man can get a Heter Meah Rabbanim, which means that 100 Rabbis have agreed to this thing. The Heter is to break the other part of R' Gershom's gezeira concerning the taking of multiple wives. A practice which is allowed and even encouraged in Islam. While every branch of Judaism has come to accept upon themselves the Gezeira, as they see polygamy as denigrating to women, Islam does not, because they see women in a lower state anyway."

    NOT TRUE! No woman, in either religion, has the option to have two husbands. EVER.

    Furthermore, in Islam, a husband can only take a 2nd wife with the consent of his 1st wife. I don't know how Judaism holds on this particular question.

    Also, in Islam, the woman is only supposed to dress modestly in public. In the privacy of her home, she does as she pleases. If a male guest comes to the home, the woman is expected to be modest in front of him, which is why, if the home is large enough, there are parts that are 'haram' (or 'harem') to a guest, in that they are forbidden because the women are immodestly dressed in that part of the home.

    Ben Ish Hai does not say that a woman should dress the same in the home as on the street.

    The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia is not the head of the Sunnis. To the contrary, the Saudi's are Wahhabi, which is a minority sect of Sunni. How minor? Approximately 1.7%.

    Nevertheless, I do not doubt that there are Islamic leaders who permit lightly beating the wife under circumstances. However, the text you quoted does seem to imply that there first needs to be some sort of religious judgment, which is very similar to our own requirements. As Daas Torah explained, Rambam wasn't talking about taking the law into your own hands.

    As far as Chief Rabbis making remarks about women that could be seen as derogatory, I could fill a book. Not because the Rabbonim are against women, but because their words can easily be twisted to seem that way.

    How about the morning Tefillah (shelo asani isha)? Without explanation that sure looks bad, especially when juxtaposed to goy and aved.

    Or, when Rabbi Ovadia Yosef said of a group of women that they were were '"stupid" women who do not act "for Heaven's sake," but merely because "they want equality."' that would, on the surface, seem to clearly imply that equality of the sexes is an anti-Jewish idea.

    Or, when the woman was beaten for riding the #2 bus (a "Mehadrin" bus) to the Kotel in November of 06 and was publicly criticized by Rabbeim for reporting the incident! this would also seem to imply an accepted inequality.

    Or, how about the whole existence of an Agunah and the unwillingness of even one of the Gedolim to start a Rabbinical movement to Halachically put an end to the possibility? How can that possibly look like anything other than institutionaized abuse of women?

    Or, what about Orthodox Jewish views on a woman's minyan? This gives the impression that women's prayers are irrelevant!

    These things all look very bad. But are they?

    I'm no fan of Islam, but I am a fan of truth and fairness. There is a saying in English "people in glass houses should not throw stones." It's pretty easy to "prove" how Judaism discriminates against women, just like it's easy to "prove" Islam does.

    I sincerely believe that both religions, at their core, treat women pretty much the same, but if you're looking for excuses to paint a negative picture of either, there is plenty of ammunition available.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If entering a Mosque causes Muslims to feel good about their religion or causes others to see Islam as a valid path to HaShem. It is forbidden under the Halakhot of Avodah Zara.

    If eating the food of Muslims, even certified Kosher, would make them feel better about their Religion or make others view them as charitable and worthy to learn about HaShem from. It is forbidden under the Halakhot of Avodah Zara.

    Considering what the head Sufi Imam of Egypt says here I personally would stay far away from any offers of hospitality as we see that it is only an underhanded attempt to trick us into converting.
    Mahmoud Al-Masri: My dear brothers, we want to repent, and we want to take by the hand those people who have not yet repented. We should feel pity for them. By Allah, we should not be tough with them. These people are sick. They are sinners. We should feel pity for them, we should care for them. We should act like doctors who care for the sick. You should care for them and feel great pity for them, and seek any ingenious way to make a person repent.


    I’d like to tell you a very nice story. Once there was a Muslim who lived next to a Jew. The Muslim saw in the Jew a measure of goodheartedness – however small – and he wanted to find any way to make him convert to Islam. So he went to him and asked: “Don’t you feel the need for Islam? Why don’t you become a Muslim?” The Jew said: “The only thing preventing me from becoming a Muslim is that I love drinking alcohol. I would have become a Muslim ages ago, but the only thing stopping me is that I am an alcoholic.”


    The Muslim devised a plan. He said: “No problem – become a Muslim, and continue to drink.” The Muslim didn’t meant this, of course, but he said to him: “Become a Muslim, and continue to drink.” The Jews said: “Fine.” He said: “I proclaim that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” The Muslim said to him: “Now you have become a Muslim. If you drink alcohol, we will carry out the punishment for drinking alcohol on you, and if you renounce Islam, we will kill you.” So the man remained a Muslim and never drank alcohol again. This was a nice trick by this good Muslim.


    You insist that they serve the same god. Abir Yaakov(Abuchatzeira) in Pituhei Hotam, as well as the Chida state that this is not the truth, that in fact they server the Sitra Achra. In fact they both state that Arabs and Muslims have no Chesed, and that everything they do is with ulterior motives to cause harm. Considering that both of these Tzadikim were niftar before the birth of Zionism you cannot blame that on their views. Considering that both lived their entire lives in the suppose they had seen the best of what that religion had to offer, and this is what they came up with.

    ReplyDelete
  23. NOT TRUE! No woman, in either religion, has the option to have two husbands. EVER.
    Never said they could

    Furthermore, in Islam, a husband can only take a 2nd wife with the consent of his 1st wife. I don't know how Judaism holds on this particular question. Not true. He only needs the wife's permission if they are to live in the same house. If he is willing to provide seperate support for her without diminishing what he provides to his first wife, he may do as he pleases.

    Ben Ish Hai does not say that a woman should dress the same in the home as on the street. Not true. The Ben Ish Hai specifically states that from the time a woman arises until she goes to sleep at night she needs to be dressed modestly as befitting a bat Yisrael. Also there is a basic halakhic principle known as Chadrei Chedarim, meaning that one should behave exactly the same way in the most private place in the house as when they are in public.

    The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia is not the head of the Sunnis. To the contrary, the Saudi's are Wahhabi, which is a minority sect of Sunni. How minor? Approximately 1.7%.
    Not True. He is Salafi which is the largest and fastest growing sub-sect of Sunni Islam. The countries that consider themselves to be Salafi and under his spiritual guidance are Afghanistan, Albania, Egypt, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, as well as the Sunnis of Syria and his native Saudi Arabia. Wahabism(if it exists as the Saudi Government denies) is a sub-sect of Salafi-Sunni Islam. However the Grand Mufti denies any involvement.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Nevertheless, I do not doubt that there are Islamic leaders who permit lightly beating the wife under circumstances. However, the text you quoted does seem to imply that there first needs to be some sort of religious judgment, which is very similar to our own requirements. As Daas Torah explained, Rambam wasn't talking about taking the law into your own hands.

    That is an intentional misread of the text, which is actually a transcript of a live broadcast. He makes it abundantly clear that the husband decides when he has tried the other things and that they do not work. Those other things being a verbal reprimand and spousal rape.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I don't understand where Mekubal gets his information. Wahhabi'ism is the official religion of the Saudi Royal family.

    Wikipedia's entry on this says "The Saudi royal family and official creed of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is Salafism or Wahhabism, although other branches of Islam, like mainstream Sunnism and Shiism are strongly present in the Kingdom."

    The statement seems clear that the mainstream brands of Islam are not what the Saudi official gov't practices.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thank you, Jersey Girl, Mohan and Bright Eyes for your insightful comments.

    ReplyDelete
  27. CIA fact book. I trust them more than I do Wiki on account of people's lives depend on the factbook. Whereas a simple glance at the discussion page will show that the argument of Wahabism is comming mostly from a non-muslim(probably xtian) majority who force their view.

    Also if you would have bothered to watch the dispatches link you would have seen that the Saudi royal family in an official statement deny the existance of Wahabism and claim that Saudi Arabia(and themselves) are a Sunni Islamic state.

    You have accused me of being unfair. I on the other hand consider fair to be taking people at their word unless their actions belie their words.

    ReplyDelete
  28. We should not trust the CIA for unbiased information about Islam.

    The CIA has sponsored the "War on Terrorism" which is defined by the CIA itself as "the military, political, legal and ideological conflict against Islamic terrorism and Islamic militants".

    President George Bush stated that one of the goals of the "war on terrorism" is to win the "war of ideals".

    On September 16, 2001 George W. Bush referred to the war in Afghanistan as a Crusade saying: "This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."

    Christianity has been crusading against Islam for 1000 years. In the course of Christianity's crusade against Islam, countless Jewish lives have been lost.

    Many scholars consider the Shoah to be a "crusade" against the "Judaizing" of Europe, an attempt to restore Europe's Christian heritage.
    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/34949/what_do_the_crusades_and_the_holocaust.html?cat=9

    Adolf Hitler himself claimed to be a "crusader" purging the Jewish influence (which included Bolsheviks, Gypsies who allegedly descend from Jews and homosexuals) for the glory of G-d.
    (See Mein Kampf Chapter 10.
    also:
    Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html
    "From Luther to Hitler: The History of Fascist-Nazi Political Philosophy" by William M. McGovern).
    and Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestant Church's "On Jews and their Lies" upon which Hitler based "Mein Kampf". Hitler refers to Luther's work ).

    The history of the Jews and the Crusades became a part of the history of anti-Semitism for the Jews in the Middle Ages. The call for the First Crusade touched off new persecutions of the Jews that would continue on and off for centuries.

    In the First Crusade flourishing communities on the Rhine and the Danube were utterly destroyed by some crusaders (German Crusade, 1096). In the Second Crusade (1147) the Jews in France suffered especially. Philip Augustus treated them with exceptional severity during the Third Crusade (1188). The Jews were also subjected to attacks by the Shepherds' Crusades of 1251 and 1320.

    Also, the social position of the Jews in western Europe distinctly worsened, and legal restrictions increased during and after the crusades. They prepared the way for anti-Jewish legislation of Pope Innocent III. The crusades resulted in centuries of strong feelings of ill will on both sides and hence constitute a turning point in the relationship between Jews and Christians.

    The Jews almost single-handedly defended Haifa against the crusaders, holding out in the besieged town for a whole month (June-July 1099) in fierce battles. At this time, a full thousand years after the fall of the Jewish state, there were Jewish communities all over the country. Fifty of them are known and include Jerusalem, Tiberias, Ramleh, Ashkelon, Caesarea, and Gaza.

    Jews fought side-by-side with Muslim soldiers to defend Jerusalem against the Crusaders.

    Most of what I know about Islam, I learned from my father who comes from the house of a Chief Rabbi.

    In Morocco, Rabbis taught school children about both Islam and Christianity actually to prevent Jews from being misled into either faith.

    My father and my paternal grandfather (a"h) knew a great deal about Islam, most of which was learned directly from Muslim clerics or from Islamic texts.

    ReplyDelete
  29. A few facts you obviously missed in regards to the Crusades. First was that they were a response, not to religious propogation but rather to brutal subjugation that included the destruction of Christian and Jewish shrines, slaughter and ransoming of pilgrims, and the imposition of Dhimmi status and other forms of humiliation that the muslims imposed upon their chosen enemies that lead the leaders to send letters begging for aid both to the Pope and to the Khans of China. Both of which responded.

    The martial incursions to the east as well as the into Europe forced the then neighbors of Islam to view them as a threat to not only their religious freedoms but also their culture and way of life.

    On the European side you had a pacified Europe that wished to retain a martial culture which lead to having a bored warrior class. While those countries bordering the European incursions of the varying Muslim Emirs had an outlet for their warriors, nations such as England and France(aside from fighting and killing each other) did not. Hence they were to become the major players in the Crusades.

    There also came the problem of exploding populations in the lower classes, which would later lead to things such as plagues, but for now there also was a means of population control. As knights and nobles rarely suffered or died in combat on account of the European invention of Steel armor, for them it was little more than a fox hunt. However, as most foot soldiers were recruited from the lower classes and had little to no armor, they died by the thousands.

    Thus the crusades were a means for European leaders to maintain political and social stability, it was simply guised in the form of a religious action as a way to lead to the masses to their deaths.

    As far as Historical innaccuracies there was no German crusade. The first Crusade was made up almost entirely of French Crusaders, who sailed, and a Peasant Army under Peter the Hermit who marched through Europe, and attempted to do damage to Jewish communities on their way.

    As far as the Rhine, the Bishop of the Rhine moved the Jewish Ghetto within the precincts of his Bishopric and requested that all wear a Yellow star of David(its first appearance as a Jewish symbol). He then turned out his Papal guards to defend the Jews from the Crusaders, declaring that for every dead body wearing a Yellow Star he would execute two of his guards. His incentives were quite effective and the Jewish community was mostly spared. Hitler Mah Shmo, used this as a means of influencing the Jews of Germany to wear a Yellow Star, he wickedly drew upon this high point of German Jewish history to initially win the trust of Germany's Jews.

    As far as Jews fighting alongside muslims, please see above link on Dhimmi, essentially under Islamic law non-muslims are forbidden from owning or taking up arms under any circumstances.

    While a month long Siege may seem like a long time in today's warfare. In medieval warfare it is laughably short. Most sieges lasted 6months to a year at least. Take the siege of Rhodes where just 100 knights a little over 1000 foot soldiers held for six months against an army of 20,000.

    Or more impressively the Siege of Malta where Sulamein brought 48,000 to fight against 500 knights and 5600 foot. This one lasted five months and ended in utter failure for the muslim armies. Despite the mechanical advances of siege engines due to the advent of gun powder, and the introduction of cannon and mortar o the battlefield.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The issue is not whether Judaism permits wives to be beaten by their husbands - or any one else - nut that the civil societies in which most Jews live now prohibit it. Muslims, mostly living where there is no civil society, have no such constraint on their behavior.

    We must consider how much Jewish behavior has been improved by the good fortune of its practioners to live in Western Civilization which alone is responsible for the wealth and liberties its inhabitants enjoy. This civilization is secular, irenic, tolerant. it is true the Judaism, unlike Islam, is no longer a missionary belief that seeks to compell others to submit to tis well, But that is to the credit of goyisch Western values, and not any virtue inherent in Isalm. A little modesty is appropriate here, and acknowledgment that if you are told there is wisdom to be found among the nations of the world - believe it.

    Muslims who emigrate the United States, by and large, have submitted to the superior politcal and economic culture of the West, as have Jews done for some centuries. Since Islamic societes are unlikely to acheive this reformation on their own, we need either a crusade to bludgeon them into better behavior - or Exclusion acts that bar them and their poisonous values from the West. Either will work, but the time to choose is now.

    Traditional Jews should not care what civil society says, but only obey the principal of Dinah DiMachoota Dina. (best transliteration I can do). One day, perhaps Traditional Jews can live again in a world where adulterous daughters of priestly descent can be cpmvocted pm adultery and be executed with hot lead poured down their throat, and Sabbath breaksers stoned. For now, I am glad most Jews live in the USA.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.