WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Note: Still here.

Finished VBV. Nothing to write home about. The rest of the book was all about evangelising to the poor Muslimahs who are just *waiting*, abjectly miserable, for you good Christian women to save them. Oh! And one story about a woman who went on a mission to some northern African country (never named) and felt that the whole country was 'heavy' with evil. *rolls eyes*

I didn't pick my new book yet, so I don't know what it's going to be.

In under a week, I will be 29. Yay!

One of my friends got engaged, DOUBLE YAY FOR HER! He's an awesome guy and she really, really deserves to be happy. :D

I think that's about it, atm. My brain has been swallowed by fannish things.

random things

LONG WEEKEND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course, what this actually means is that I've had to work twice as hard all week to get the work done for early deadlines, and I will have to work twice as hard for the four days of work next weeks, especially since I will be on vacation the week after.

Also, I have become obsessed with trimming all the little palm/palmetto trees in our yard. I did one this past weekend and now I keep looking at all the others in the yard and thinking about how nice they'll look once I've trimmed off all the dead/dying fronds.

Still reading VBV. The last two chapters haven't been anything to talk about. One was on hijab, and it wasn't bad, actually. Which shows you how different each article can be in a collection by different authors. The author touched briefly on the ayah that command the hijab - the one in regards to Mohammed's wives and the screen that people should speak to them through, and the one commanding the rest of the muslimah's to draw their cloaks over their chests. The main thrust of the article, though, was about how the hijab, the headcovering, has become a statement of unity for those women who choose to wear it. She mentions that while many women are forced to wear it, either by cultural/national concerns or their family, there are women who choose to wear it as a statement of their faith.

The chapter I just finished up was about some cultural hints for different Muslim nations. It's aimed at giving missionary women some idea of the culture that they'd be working in, I think. I don't know enough about the cultures of the countries mentioned to judge how well the author presented them. None of the entries was entirely negative, so I think the author at least attempted and intended to present a balanced idea of the extremes one might face and some cultural no-no's to avoid. The chapter I just started is about daughter's in Islam. The author started out talking about how baby girls were seen as ornaments and burdens in Arabia and how Mohammed commanded that the people stop murdering their infant daughters. I'll do a more detailed post later, of course.

VBV - Ch. 4 Pt. 12

Oh, we are finally done with this chapter. Okay. Last two sections.

Inhabitants of Paradise Joined with Family

surah Ar-Ra'd 13:23-24 - "Gardens of perpetual bliss: they shall enter there, as well as the righteous among their fathers, their spouses, and their offspring: and angels shall enter unto them from every gate (with the salutation): "Peace unto you for that ye persevered in patience! Now how excellent is the final home!""

surah Ghafir 40:8 - ""And grant, our Lord! that they enter the Gardens of Eternity, which Thou hast promised to them, and to the righteous among their fathers, their wives, and their posterity! For Thou art (He), the Exalted in Might, Full of Wisdom."

surah at-Tur 52:21 - "And those who believe and whose families follow them in Faith,- to them shall We join their families: Nor shall We deprive them (of the fruit) of aught of their works: (Yet) is each individual in pledge for his deeds."

I don't really think this part needs commentary. People who go to heaven are reunited with their loved ones who also made it into heaven. Isn't that one of the hopes of all believers?

The Majority in Hell

The only backup for this idea that the majority of people in hell are women comes from the ahadith. I'm not a fan of the hadith. They're too all over the place and so many of them contradict the Qur'an. So I'm just going to give the short version of the answer that I have been given as to the meaning of the hadith that say women are the majority in hell. I have been told that it is not because they are women that they go to hell. Men and women have equal opportunity to go to heaven. When Mohammed was speaking in these cases, assuming that he really said them at all, he was speaking to a group of women specifically. Women who were harridans, shrews, ungrateful in their lives. Mohammed was basically warning them to mend their ways before it was too late. *shrug*

sahih Bukhari 1:2:29 - "Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The Prophet said: "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful." It was asked, "Do they disbelieve in Allah?" (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, "They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, 'I have never received any good from you.""

sahih Bukhari 4:54:464 - "Narrated 'Imran bin Husain: The Prophet said, "I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women.""

sahih Bukhari 7:62:124 - "Narrated Usama: The Prophet said, "I stood at the gate of Paradise and saw that the majority of the people who entered it were the poor, while the wealthy were stopped at the gate (for the accounts). But the companions of the Fire were ordered to be taken to the Fire. Then I stood at the gate of the Fire and saw that the majority of those who entered it were women.""

VBV - Ch. 4 Pt. 11

Oh, thank heaven. We are nearly done with this chapter! Not the book, mind, but this chapter which claims to teach people something about Islamic theology.

Let's see...

Good Deeds of Believers Rewarded?

surah an-Nisa 4:124 - "If any do deeds of righteousness,- be they male or female - and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them."

surah at-Taubah 9:72 - "Allah hath promised to Believers, men and women, gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein, and beautiful mansions in gardens of everlasting bliss. But the greatest bliss is the good pleasure of Allah: that is the supreme felicity."

surah al-Kjahf 18:107 - "As to those who believe and work righteous deeds, they have, for their entertainment, the Gardens of Paradise,"

There's more, but I think that's enough to get the point. The author takes six such verses, which promise those who believe and who do good works heaven, and compares them to one verse, surah al-Mu'minum 23:102-3 - "Then those whose balance (of good deeds) is heavy,- they will attain salvation: But those whose balance is light, will be those who have lost their souls, in Hell will they abide."

Let me say this, first, though it has nothing to do with the authors point. I would think, looking at these verses, that it should put paid to the idea that Islam is a faith of salvation by works. Each verse mentions two things: faith and works. Not one without the other, but both. Together.


Moving on...the authors point is actually that, according to the last verse quoted, Muslims have no way of knowing whether or not they are saved. They won't know until they die and are judged whether or not they managed to do enough good deeds to win God's favor. Again, it's one of these things that I can see where she's coming from, but I'm not certain that that's exactly what the verse says. Perhaps I'm reading too much of a Christian interpretation into it, but, looking at the verse is it not possible that what is being said is that the lack of good deeds, or good works, is a sign that the person is not a Believer? That they, not *because* of their lack of good works, are not saved and that the lack of 'good fruit' is merely a sign of that?


She leans very heavily on the 'lack of assurance of salvation' in Islam and I really can't get behind that. Again and again, I run up against the problem that this point of view, that we can be assured of our salvation, is erroneous. No one knows that state of their own soul, let alone anyone elses'. Salvation is a process, not a one time thing. 


Inhabitants of Paradise Will Feel No Sorrow


surah al-A'raf 7:42-43 - "But those who believe and work righteousness,- no burden do We place on any soul, but that which it can bear,- they will be Companions of the Garden, therein to dwell (for ever). And We shall remove from their hearts any lurking sense of injury;- beneath them will be rivers flowing;- and they shall say: "Praise be to Allah, who hath guided us to this (felicity): never could we have found guidance, had it not been for the guidance of Allah: indeed it was the truth, that the messengers of our Lord brought unto us." And they shall hear the cry: "Behold! the garden before you! Ye have been made its inheritors, for your deeds (of righteousness).""

Really, I'm just including this bit for completeness' sake. I've got nothing to say, and really neither does the author. Do you think we will feel pain or suffering or sadness in Heaven? No. We will be with God, with the angels and the saints and our loved ones. But most of all, we will be with God. How can you feel pain or suffering when you are in the presence of Love and Goodness? 

VBV - Ch. 4 Pt. 10

A Fatalistic Salvation

surah al-Baqarah 2:284 - "To Allah belongeth all that is in the heavens and on earth. Whether ye show what is in your minds or conceal it, Allah Calleth you to account for it. He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and punisheth whom He pleaseth, for Allah hath power over all things."

The author wants to make the point that in Islamic theology, there is no hope of salvation. She intends to pain the picture that Muslims spend their entire lives trying to earn enough good deeds to make it into heaven, even though, according to their own theology, God has already decided who is in and who is out and there's nothing they can do about it.


She starts out with the above verse. I understand what she's getting out of it, she focuses only on the last sentence of the verse. However, I don't understand it the way she does. I don't see it as a statement that God punishes whomever the whim strikes Him to punish, or anything like that. To my mind it is merely an example of the failure of human language. The entire verse is about how God is in charge of everything. Everything is His and His alone. Punishment or reward is not based on the whims of the divine, but on the laws that were set up for mankind to follow.


Anyway. She clearly has never heard of, or is ignoring, the Christian sects who believe in predestination, since she seems to believe that her (incorrect) version of Islamic theology (God deciding ahead of time who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell) only exists in Islam.


Let me lay out, briefly, her argument for terming Islamic salvation, 'fatalistic'.


All people are born muslim. Not, as she coins it, Muslim, meaning followers of the revelation of Mohammed. She quotes this hadith, sahih Bukhari 2:23:441 - "Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "Every child is born with a true faith of Islam (i.e. to worship none but Allah Alone) but his parents convert him to Judaism, Christianity or Magainism, as an animal delivers a perfect baby animal. Do you find it mutilated?" Then Abu Huraira recited the holy verses: "The pure Allah's Islamic nature (true faith of Islam) (i.e. worshipping none but Allah) with which He has created human beings. No change let there be in the religion of Allah (i.e. joining none in worship with Allah). That is the straight religion (Islam) but most of men know, not." (30.30)" 

Then she quotes sahih Bukhari 4:54:430 - "Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mus'ud: Allah's Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, "(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his (i.e. the new creature's) deeds, his livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into him. So, a man amongst you may do (good deeds till there is only a cubit between him and Paradise and then what has been written for him decides his behavior and he starts doing (evil) deeds characteristic of the people of the (Hell) Fire. And similarly a man amongst you may do (evil) deeds till there is only a cubit between him and the (Hell) Fire, and then what has been written for him decides his behavior, and he starts doing deeds characteristic of the people of Paradise.""

Her argument is this. Though we are all born 'Muslim', 'knowing' the truth of Islam (and she never corrects the impression that this means Mohammed's religion, our parents corrupt us and we can live our lives incorrectly. But none of that matters. As a matter of fact, nothing that we do matters because God, at our creation, tells an angel to write down our fate. So no matter what we do, we will wind up in a pre-determined place. The end.

Only, that's not how I read the hadith. As I see it, a) they claim that people are born 'muslim', meaning that they submit to God. Not that they are Muslims. And b) the angel is sent to write down the deeds and the fate of the soul. That does not say that God decides what that fate is for the person. God *knows* it, because He is God. But foreknowledge is different from causing the thing to be.

Aside from all of this, the author believes that Islamic salvation is 'fatalistic' because no one can ever be certain of their salvation. And I find that to be a Protestant problem. They have this idea that their salvation is 100% assured if they say the Jesus prayer or whatever their particular group has decided on. That after that, they're in the clear. But that's not the way it works. Salvation is a process, one that we live out for our entire lives. The idea that a person can say that they know they will go to heaven, or to hell, or that they can tell another person where they will be for eternity is arrogant in the extreme, and takes onto a human being what belongs to God alone.

VBV - Ch. 4 Pt. 9

Teachings Concerning Sexual Immorality

It's a really short section. It contains only two subheadings, homosexuality and adultery or fornication.

I find it sort of funny that the author quotes only two verses out of the Qur'an on homosexuality, and includes none of the ahadith. There's plenty of hadith that condemn homosexuality or even dressing/acting too much like the opposite sex. But then again, I would guess that the author herself has a major problem with homosexuality. That's just a guess, honestly, but why bother pointing out how nasty the Islamic texts are about homosexuality (or anyone who is not gender normative) when you pretty much agree with it anyway.

So this is what the author quotes.

surah an-Nisa 4:15-16 - "If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful."

The first half, that about women who are guilty of lewdness is not, as I understand it, typically understood to be speaking of lesbianism. It is typically understood to be referring to adultery/fornication. However, the author follows the commentary of Yusuf Ali, who believes that 'lewdness', in this case "refers to unnatural crime between women, analogous to unnatural crime between men in 4:16." One reason she gives for this belief is that "no punishment is specified [in surah 4:15] for a man, as would be the case where a man was involved in the crime." And I can see that point. A problem here, is, of course, that we're working with a translation. Lewdness is the word in both verses, but is the original word the same word in both verses? I don't know. If we take both verses together as referring to the same 'sin', that of homosexuality, then it provides both punishment and release. We can assume that men or women, caught and convicted of such a 'crime' are to be placed under house arrest until their deaths, or until they repent and make amends for their 'sins'.


The author doesn't quote other verses of the Qur'an that make mention of homosexuality though. She leaves out all the verses that refer to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the story of Lot. I'm not going to make this a huge post, so the other verses are: surah al-'A'raf 7:80, surah Ash-Shu'ara' 26:165-173, surah An-Naml 27:54-58, surah Al-'Ankabut 29:28-31. I really think, in spite of an alternative opinion I was presented with the other day, that it's clear, from the Qur'an alone, that homosexuality is condemned in Islam. The mentions of Lot also, I think, make it clear that the Qur'an was not meant to be all inclusive. It assumes that people already know the story of Abraham, of Lot. And it seeks to 'correct' some details. Which means that it is building on previous scriptures. It's not meant to be stand alone, and I don't see how it could ever be considered self sufficient. How can people contextualize verses from the Qur'an if they reject the texts that tell them when and how the verses were revealed? Anyway. Off topic.


The hadith against homosexuality are numerous, and less friendly than the Qur'an about it. Trying not to make this a long post, so, Sahih Bukhari 7:72:774, 8:82:820, Abu Dawud 38:4447, 38:4448, 31:4007, 31:4008, 11:2169, 32:4087, 32:4088. I should point out, again, that Abu Dawud only seems to get trotted out when someone needs a particularly violent line. Bukhari says to turn out the people who commit homosexual acts, but Abu Dawud is the one calling for death. And guess who gets listened to?


Now on to adultery and/or fornication.


surah An-Nur 24:2-3 - "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment. Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden."

Simple enough, right? You catch a couple in the act. Married or unmarried, it's the same punishment. Each party gets one hundred stripes with a whip. And they are forbidden from marrying anyone who is 'pure' of that sin. So adulterers can only marry other adulterers, etc. Or an unbeliever, a mushrikoon. So they are even forbidden from marriage to People of the Book. However, there's a problem, of course. The problem comes from the hadith. According to hadith, sahih Bukhari 7:63:195 - "Narrated Jabir: A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to the Prophet while he was in the mosque and said, "I have committed illegal sexual intercourse." The Prophet turned his face to the other side. The man turned towards the side towards which the Prophet had turned his face, and gave four witnesses against himself. On that the Prophet called him and said, "Are you insane?" (He added), "Are you married?" The man said, 'Yes." On that the Prophet ordered him to be stoned to the death in the Musalla (a praying place). When the stones hit him with their sharp edges and he fled, but he was caught at Al-Harra and then killed." This is also reported in sahih Bukhari by Abu Huraira. I'd list all the hadith that command stoning for adultery, but there's a bunch. Like, I counted 37, and I may not have seen them all. There is also a hadith that reports, via Aisha, that there was a verse that belonged in the Qur'an commanding stoning for adultery, but a goat ate it. I don't believe that that's from a book that is commonly accepted as very strong, so I mention it only in passing.

The fall out of this is that many are of the opinion that the Qur'anic injunction of whipping is for fornication - illegal sexual activity that occurs when both parties are unmarried. They are then forbidden from marrying anyone who is not also guilty of fornication, so one assumes they likely wound up marrying one another more often than not. For adultery, though, the hadith are viewed as authoritative, and people caught committing adultery, having sex with someone not their spouse, are to be stoned to death.

I don't believe that homosexuality is a sin. I know, I know, common interpretation, etc. I get it. But I cannot bring myself to condemn people whom God has made for being the way God made them. I think we got something wrong along the way with our understanding of this.

As for fornication, I don't believe that people should be running around having random sex. That opinion has far less to do with divine law and more to do with the dangers thereof, both physical and emotional. People tend to be happiest monogamous. Serial monogamy, perhaps, but still.

Adultery is a different matter. More than anything else, you have made a commitment, a promise to your spouse to be faithful. Adultery is the betrayal of that trust. There are people who have polygamous marriages, people who have open marriages. Those are different cases, assuming that all parties are aware of, and in agreement with the arrangements prior to the marriage. In that case, there is no trust being betrayed.

VBV - Ch. 4 Pt. 8

Okay. Divorce. Take two...

surah al-Baqarah 2:224-237 covers divorce. I'm not going to quote the whole thing, but if you want to you can click on the link to check it out.

The first portion of an Islamic divorce listed in the separation. A separation period is not, as I understand it, required prior to divorce, but just like in many marriages, some couples may want to try it.

" And make not Allah's (name) an excuse in your oaths against doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons; for Allah is One Who heareth and knoweth all things. Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing. For those who take an oath for abstention from their wives, a waiting for four months is ordained; if then they return, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. But if their intention is firm for divorce, Allah heareth and knoweth all things."

The problem with the separation period, historically, was this: men would 'separate' from their wives, which meant that they still had to support the wife financially, food, etc. but they didn't live or act as a married couple. For the husband, not such a big deal, considering that most men of the time had more than one wife, plus female servants who were lawful for them to have intercourse with. So it's not like they were all alone, unlike the wife, who was placed into a sort of limbo. Technically she was still married, but she didn't have all the rights of a wife in 'good standing'. And she was unable to find a new husband, because she was still married. Many husbands would use this period as an indefinite sort of punishment for wives they were angry with. The above verses, along with this hadith:

sahih Bukhari 7:63:213 - "Narrated Nafi:Ibn 'Umar used to say about the Ila (which Allah defined (in the Holy Book), "If the period of Ila expires, then the husband has either to retain his wife in a handsome manner or to divorce her as Allah has ordered." Ibn 'Umar added, "When the period of four months has expired, the husband should be put in prison so that he should divorce his wife, but the divorce does not occur unless the husband himself declares it. This has been mentioned by 'Uthman, 'Ali, Abu Ad-Darda, 'Aisha and twelve other companions of the Prophet .""

Show that Mohammed intended to end the use of this period as a punishment for the women. The separation could only legally last for four months. At the end of that period, the husband had to either actually divorce his wife, or they had to reconcile.


It seems to typically be the men who ask for the divorce, and I'm not entirely clear on what is required, Islamically, to divorce one's wife. From what I've read, all the man seems to need to do is say, 'I divorce you' to his wife and mean it while he is not angry or otherwise non-compose, and the wife is not menstruating.


sahih Muslim 9:3473 - "Ibn 'Umar (Allah be pleased with them) reported that he divorced his wife while she was menstruating during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). 'Umar b. Khattib (Allah be pleased with him) asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) about it, whereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Command him ('Abdullah b. 'Umar) to take her back (and keep her) and pronounce divorce when she is purified and she again enters the period of menstruation and she is again purified (after passing the period of menses), and then if he so desires he may keep her and if he desires divorce her (finally) before touching her (without having an intercourse with her), for that is the period of waiting ('idda) which God, the Exalted and Glorious, has commanded for the divorce of women."

" 228: Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise."

After the divorce is official, the woman goes into a waiting period, Iddah, for three months. The entire point of this seems to be to ensure paternity. If she comes up pregnant, then she remains in Iddah until the child is delivered. If not, then she is free to seek another marriage.

" 229: A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold Together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness. It is not lawful for you, (Men), to take back any of your gifts (from your wives), except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. If ye (judges) do indeed fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by Allah; so do not transgress them if any do transgress the limits ordained by Allah, such persons wrong (Themselves as well as others)."

In Islam, a single couple can marry three times, based on the beginning of this verse. This verse is also the basis for the concept of khul'ah, which is the process by which a woman seeks divorce from her husband. The woman essentially has to pay her husband to divorce him, either giving back her mahr or paying him above and beyond the worth of the mahr. And even then, she is warned in a hadith that Paradise is forbidden to a woman who asks for a divorce without good reason.

sunan Abu Dawud 2218: "Narrated Thawban: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If any woman asks her husband for divorce without some strong reason, the odour of Paradise will be forbidden to her."

I should remind everyone that the hadith of Abu Dawud seem to be among the generally unused and unaccepted. But I include it because this seems to be what the ruling is based on. There is an example of the khul'ah in sahih Bukhari 7:63:197 - "Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The wife of Thabit bin Qais came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I do not blame Thabit for defects in his character or his religion, but I, being a Muslim, dislike to behave in un-Islamic manner (if I remain with him)." On that Allah's Apostle said (to her), "Will you give back the garden which your husband has given you (as Mahr)?" She said, "Yes." Then the Prophet said to Thabit, "O Thabit! Accept your garden, and divorce her once.""

Okay. So, the couple may marry and divorce three times. After the third time, they are forbidden to one another. Until after the ex-wife has married and divorced a different man. And this can't just be an 'in name only' marriage. It must be a true marriage, with the intent to remain married, and with the couple living as a married couple, i.e.: sex. If that happens, then the original husband and wife pairing can marry each other again, if they so choose.

" 230: So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), He cannot, after that, re-marry her until after she has married another husband and He has divorced her. In that case there is no blame on either of them if they re-unite, provided they feel that they can keep the limits ordained by Allah. Such are the limits ordained by Allah, which He makes plain to those who understand."





There is also this idea known as the triple Talaq (divorce), wherein if the man says 'I divorce you' three times in a row to his wife then their divorce is final and irrevocable. It's my understanding that this is a practice accepted by some Sunni, but rejected by the Shia. I believe this is based off of some hadith, but honestly, every page that I try to go to to find out which hadith so I can share them has shut down or is having technical difficulties. So we're s.o.l. there.

" 233: The mothers shall give such to their offspring for two whole years, if the father desires to complete the term. But he shall bear the cost of their food and clothing on equitable terms. No soul shall have a burden laid on it greater than it can bear. No mother shall be Treated unfairly on account of her child. Nor father on account of his child, an heir shall be chargeable in the same way. If they both decide on weaning, by mutual consent, and after due consultation, there is no blame on them. If ye decide on a foster-mother for your offspring, there is no blame on you, provided ye pay (the mother) what ye offered, on equitable terms. But fear Allah and know that Allah sees well what ye do."

If the women, in her initial Iddah, is found to be with child, her Iddah lasts until she gives birth. After that, she keeps custody of the child for two years according to this verse, though I recall reading that the child remains in the custody of the mother until it is seven, at which point it goes into the custody of the father since it is a part of the fathers' household and family. Either way, the father remains responsible for the upkeep of the child and the mother.

I don't really have a whole lot of comments on this one. You can be certain that there was maybe a quarter of this information in the books section, but I figured, what the hell. It's the second time I've had to do this post, and so help me, if blogger eats this one, I'm saying screw it. Anyway.

Divorce is divorce. We are taught that God hates it, but that it is allowed because of the hardness of men's hearts. I'm not a big fan of the Islamic version of divorce because it seems to be very easy to do and heavily weighted in the favor of the men as far as who can decide when to get a divorce and the women don't seem to have a lot of power or say in the matter. But then again, I think people should be far more careful about who they marry in the first place.

VBV - Ch. 4 Pt. 7

Mut'a - Temporary Marriage

This is a section I'm not really sure what to do with. I'm aware that there exists this idea within Islam of temporary marriages. However, it is not contained within the Qur'an. The references to it that I have seen are all ahadith, and we know how I feel about them. I don't believe that the idea of mut'a is very widely accepted in Islam. The idea, though, is that men can marry women for a predetermined length of time. Three days, at the least. And then they divorce, and there's no sin on either of them.

From what I can gather it was something that was allowed, pre-Islam, and then Mohammed forbade it after the battle of Khaibar. I'm just going to reproduce the hadith referenced and the Qur'anic verse that the author says is used to support it and leave it at that.

sahih Bukhari 7.62.13o - " Narrated 'Abdullah: We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah's Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, "Shall we get ourselves castrated?" He forbade us that and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract and recited to us: -- 'O you who believe ! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.' (5.87)"

sahih Bukhari 7.62.52 - " Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah and Salama bin Al-Akwa': While we were in an army, Allah's Apostle came to us and said, "You have been allowed to do the Mut'a (marriage), so do it." Salama bin Al-Akwa' said: Allah's Apostle's said, "If a man and a woman agree (to marry temporarily), their marriage should last for three nights, and if they like to continue, they can do so; and if they want to separate, they can do so." I do not know whether that was only for us or for all the people in general. Abu Abdullah (Al-Bukhari) said: 'Ali made it clear that the Prophet said, "The Mut'a marriage has been cancelled (made unlawful).""
sahih Bukhari 9.86.91 - " Narrated Muhammad bin 'Ali: 'Ali was told that Ibn 'Abbas did not see any harm in the Mut'a marriage. 'Ali said, "Allah's Apostle forbade the Mut'a marriage on the Day of the battle of Khaibar and he forbade the eating of donkey's meat." Some people said, "If one, by a tricky way, marries temporarily, his marriage is illegal." Others said, "The marriage is valid but its condition is illegal.""

And the verse from the Qur'an surah al-Ma'idah 5:87 - " O you who have believed, do not prohibit the good things which Allah has made lawful to you and do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors."

So from what I can see, mut'a marriage was made impermissible, but those who want it to be allowed say that if Allah said it was okay, then it has to still be okay. Only I don't see where Allah ever said it was okay. There's no mention of it in the Qur'an, and if it's not in the Qur'an, it's not from Allah. Or at least that's the theory I'm working with.

VBV - Ch. 4 Pt. 6

Polygamy.

surah an-Nisa 4:3 - " If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice."

surah an-Nisa 4:129 - " Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire: But turn not away (from a woman) altogether, so as to leave her (as it were) hanging (in the air). If ye come to a friendly understanding, and practise self-restraint, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

This'll be quick. Historically, many societies were polygamous. Specifically, polygynous, meaning that men were allowed to have more than one wife. We have examples of this in the OT. Jacob had more than one wife - Rachel and Leah, as well as their handmaidens. Whether or not he 'married' the maids, he was permitted to have sex with them and acknowledged his children by them. David, Solomon, yadda.

And while modern society has shifted to monogamy, it's a cultural change. There is, to my knowledge, no explicit teaching in the Bible that says, one man, one woman. There are plenty of things that are interpreted that way, but that's a matter of interpretation. There do exist Christian (and I'm not talking about the Mormons. I don't count them.) polygamists. And they have their own interpretations. So let's not get all judgy on the Muslims here, okay?

The Qur'an, here, *limits* the number of wives that a Muslim man can take. He puts a cap on it at four. Prior to this, there was no such limit. They could marry as many as they liked. But there are more conditions placed on it than just the number. A Muslim man is only supposed to marry more than one woman if he can be equal to all of his wives in all ways. Equal support, equal affection. No favorites. They must all be treated exactly the same by him. Which, as is further pointed out in the next quoted verse, is impossible.

It seems to be another one of the instances where a limit is placed on a pre-existing practice, even as it is shown that the practice is not actually preferred. Change needs to be made slowly for it to take root. You can't just say, 'no!' and not have backlash. You have to change the thoughts of the people before you can change the practices. Considering that polygyny is still practiced in Islam, clearly this wasn't entirely done away with, but it was changed, adapted from what came before.

I really don't have an issue with polygamy. It's not for everyone, obviously. Some of us don't share well *raises hand*. But it does work for some, and as long as everyone involved is an adult who made the decision informed and freely, I've got no issues. Unless, like some, they are defrauding the government, claiming to be single women in order to receive aid. But that I tend to hear about with Mormon's more than Muslims.

VBV - Ch. 4 Pt. 5

And we're back. We rejoin our posting series in progress, after the brief interlude where pretty much everyone sat around, stared at their news source of choice and went, WTF? and then there was cheering. Speaking of people who distort Islam...back to the Caner book!

The Disciplining of a Wife

I told you we would get to the other half of the surah an-Nisa 4:34 verse. For refresher purposes: " Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)."

But we're dealing with only this section: "As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)."

The problem with this verse should be pretty obvious. It commands the beating of a man's wife. And we, as modern day people, are shocked and appalled. We sit there, mouths gaping open, wondering how anyone can believe that this is the word of God when it is telling men that they may hit their wives. But here's the thing. This was not written in modern times. I remind you, again, that at the time the Qur'an was written, men owned their families. They could do pretty damn much whatever they wanted, and no one would say anything at all. If they wanted to, if they felt they had cause, they could beat their wives to death. And this wasn't just in Arabia. This was all over the world. Men could 'discipline' their wives up to very recently in history, even in America and it was overlooked, ignored, because she was his wife and it was his business. Thankfully, things have changed. But let's get back to this part of the verse.

In spite of the proper horror that we feel for spousal abuse, this is (again) one of those moments where you have to take the context into account and understand that this was a step forward, at the time. Now, Mohammed (and Allah, if you believe that the Qur'an is divine), are making men go through a process *before* they start beating on wives they think are being disloyal or treacherous. First, speak to them. Air your issues. It might not be the calm discussion we would view, hell, it might be an argument. But that can solve a lot of problems, getting things out that way. If that doesn't work, no sex! The husband can sleep in a separate room for up to four months, in Islam. And, given that polygamy is permitted in Islam, it doesn't mean that he's not getting his needs met, necessarily. Just that he's expressing his displeasure with her conduct. Not, perhaps, the way we would do it today, but at the time...logical and even sensible. And it puts some distance between the initial anger over whatever the issue is, gives the wife (assuming she is really in the wrong), a chance to correct, before the husband is allowed to resort to physical discipline. Again, and I cannot overstate this enough, to modern minds, it is never okay for a man to hit his wife. But this was not modern times. I know that all the translations I have read include the parenthetical '(lightly)' after the beating instruction. I have read opposing points of view as to whether that is a translator's attempt to make it more palatable or what is actually meant. Unless I learn Arabic, and classical, Qur'anic Arabic at that, I will never know.

I do know that it is said that Mohammed was meant to be an example to the Muslims. That he was, perhaps, the embodiment of the sentiment we hear in this quote: 'Preach the Gospel always, when necessary, use words.' Meaning, while he gave the Qur'an to the people, he, more than that, embodied the spirit behind the letter. And Mohammed was, it is reported, never known to have hit any of his wives. And you *know* he had problems with that many wives. It's even been reported, on several occasions, some of his difficulties. There was the incident of Aisha being accused of infidelity, the 'honey' incident. And likely many more we never knew about. If Mohammed is taken to be the perfect Muslim and all Muslim's are meant to emulate him, then none of them would ever raise a hand to their wives. But that's in a perfect world, and we know that there is spousal abuse in Muslim households, just as there is any Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, Jewish, etc. Pick a label, you can find someone who claims it who is an asshole.

The author claims that this hadith (and you know how I love the hadith) proves that the permissable beating may be very brutal: Sunan Abu Dawud 11.2142 - " Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife."

I'm not sure how she gets that. In the first place, it is a part of my admittedly shoddy knowledge of ahadith that Dawud is not one of the books considered to be very reliable. As such, it is hardly every quoted. So the reliability of the hadith is in question, I believe. Secondly, I can't get it to say: 'beat the shit out of your wife if you want to, no one cares' no matter which way I squint at it. Does it seem to make the discipline that goes on in a household a private matter? Yes. Does that mean that, perhaps, a wife's near infidelity won't become public knowledge so that she is not shunned or mistreated by the general populace? Yes. I'm not saying it's a perfect situation. Just that it doesn't say what she thinks it says. At least not that I can figure.

The rest of the verse from the Qur'an states that if the wife, at any point, repents, returns to correct behavior, that the husband is to forgive and forget. He can't keep bringing the incident up, needling about it. It's saying, 'You had a problem. It's solved. Move the hell on.' Good advice, I think.

She also references, but does not quote, another hadith. This from sahih al-Bukhari 7.72.715 - " Narrated 'Ikrima: Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" When 'AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, "By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this," holding and showing the fringe of her garment, 'Abdur-Rahman said, "By Allah, O Allah's Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa'a." Allah's Apostle said, to her, "If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa'a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you." Then the Prophet saw two boys with 'Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), "Are these your sons?" On that 'AbdurRahman said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,"

Which seems to support the belief that if a woman was being mistreated by her husband she could appeal to one of the wives of Mohammed, who would bring the case before Mohammed himself. I find it likely that the women could also approach Mohammed directly, but in this case the woman seems to have been in the wrong, so maybe she wanted some extra support from Aisha. Who knows. 

VBV - Ch. 4 Pt. 4

The Responsibility of a Wife.
We start with part of surah an-Nisa 4:34 (I'm giving you the whole verse, of course): " Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)."

She quotes only the part about righteous women being devoutly obedient and guarding what Allah would have them guard. But let's look at the whole thing, barring the last sentence because that gets its own section in the book so we can talk about it then.

As to the beginning. "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means." I can feel some peoples' hackles going up. Mine used to go up too, honestly. 'Men are not stronger than women! If God made us equal, how can this be? Does God like men more?' *waves* It is true that there are women who are physically stronger than men. I can personally lift more weight and probably kick the butts of a good portion of the men I know. But that's now, in modern times. Back in the day women didn't lift weights or do cardio. I'm not saying they were weak, because life was harsh and most women didn't lay around on pillows and eat dates. They were busy running the house, feeding their family, getting water, walking long distances. They weren't weak, but there wasn't anything like 'strength training'. They weren't even usually allowed to fight. So the men got all of the battle training. It was just the division of labor back then. Men tend to be, in the general sense, physically stronger than women. And our bodies are made in slightly different ways on top of that. The same methods of work, of training the body, don't produce the same results across the board. Women have to work harder to get and stay fit, in general.

So men are the protectors of women because they are the stronger sex. Okay. I've got no real argument with that. It is, unless you start nitpicking it, a true statement. What about the 'maintainers' part? The Qur'an puts the responsibility on men to pay for the household. They're responsible for all the bills - food, clothing, heat, a/c, electric, cable, internet. Well, okay. Not those specific things at the time of the revelation, but just to give you the picture. The men had to pay for, or otherwise provide, *everything*. Women didn't contribute financially to the household at all. They could make their own money, if they had a trade, and it was theirs to keep. They didn't have to hand it over or throw it in the common pot. Other cultures at the same time either didn't allow women to work at all, or what they made became the property of their husband/father/male guardian. Nowadays, just because of the way of the world, the economy in most places, women have to work to help support the house. Things change. But then again, there are plenty of households who function on one income. So it's all a matter of what you believe and what is most important to you. I for one would love to be a stay at home wife/mother at some point. However, I also like my luxuries. I would not be happy without the internet or tv! :)

I view this as stating some basic facts that are extremely relevant to the time and place at which they were revealed. But what about the section that the author quotes? Who is the wife to be devoutly obedient to? Her husband? That seems to be the tack that the author takes. It's not what I was taught. I was taught that the wife is to be devoutly obedient to Allah. That's one of the things, a main point of Islam. Each individual person is responsible for themselves, to Allah alone. So the phrase isn't saying that the wife must obey her husband as though her were God. That would be...not shirk, I don't think, but close probably. Raising someone up on that high a pedestal. So the wife must be obedient and observant of the commandments of Allah. That's all that is saying. Then 'guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard.' What does that mean? I was taught that it was just a reminder to the women of their responsibilities toward Allah in relation to their husbands. Just because their husband is absent doesn't mean that the wife can suddenly start having over people (men) that might give rise to the rumours of impropriety. It might seem extreme to us, but it was the culture of the time and it wasn't limited to Arabia or Muslims. It was everywhere. Even now I can tell you that a man and a woman going off together makes the rumours start.

At my own work there is a married man who is friendly with an unmarried woman. They eat together all the time, go out all the time, without his wife or her fiance. You think people don't speculate that their having an affair? It's a nearly automatic assumption. There is also the connotation of the wife guarding the husbands property while he is gone. Taking care of the house and everything in it while the husband is off earning their living. Would you expect anything different in modern times? The wife letting strangers come and giving them all the furniture, maybe? Or selling things off? I think the idea is that the wife is to maintain the household in her husbands absence just as she would if he were standing beside her. Otherwise, she is doing what she does not for the right reason - because it is her part of the marriage, making it a way of being obedient to Allah, (not to say that taking care of the house is the only thing women are meant to do. Just that marriage is a partnership and each individual has their jobs to do, and each marriage is different in that respect. Division of labor.) but because of more earthly reasons. It shows a lack of care and love for the relationship.

The cap on this section is this quote from the author: "If a woman in Islam wishes to be considered righteous and to be found worthy of paradise, she must fulfill the duties that have been given to her as a wife...for though she is a believer, according to Islam, if she is ungrateful to her husband, she will not go to paradise but to hell."

This refers to an hadith: Sahih Bukhari 1.2.28 -
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
The Prophet said: "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful." It was asked, "Do they disbelieve in Allah?" (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, "They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, 'I have never received any good from you."

I tend to avoid the hadith because I don't really get them. I distrust them, because I don't understand how to tell the good ones from the bad. Meaning the ones that are viewed as authentic vs. the ones that are viewed as questionable. But I'll say briefly how this reads to me. I don't see it saying that women are going to hell just because they are women. It doesn't even read that women cannot complain or question their husbands without going to hell. It's about women who have been treated well - whose husbands have fulfilled all their duties to their wives and the wives are still nasty and ungrateful. Harpies, we call them. Shrews. It's less about the specifics of them maligning and mistreating their husbands than it is about that behaviour highlighting a character flaw in those women. If they're that nasty to someone who treats them well then they're probably the worst back biting, gossipy, mean and nasty women out there. This is more a call for these women to change their ways. An early warning, as it were.

In addition, it is my understanding that hell, in Islam, is not a permanent state of being for the majority of people. It's kind of treated like purgatory. People go to hell to pay for the sins that they did not finish 'paying' for in life. But eventually the scales are balanced, or whatever metaphor you like, and they are released from hell and allowed into heaven.

What annoys me about the quote from the author is it reflects a misrepresentation of Islamic theology. No one's salvation depends on another person in Islam. Every individual is responsible for themselves. Do we each have responsibilities that involve others? Yes. But they also have them on us, and ultimately all these responsibilities belong to Allah. But it is up to each individual to fulfill their obligations. They rise or fall based on their deen alone. Unlike, say, Mormonism where the wifes position in the afterlife is dependent on a) being married to a man and b) his position in the afterlife.

VBV - Ch. 4 Pt. 3

The subheading for this one is 'The Wife as a Possession'. It's really very short. First we have the old standard:

surah al-Baqarah 2:223: " Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe."

I point out, again, like a broken record, that the author only uses the first part of the verse, ending with 'approach your tilth when or how ye will'. I admit that this one gave me problems too, especially before I read the entire verse. I, on my own, decided that this was an example of the mentality of the age. Wives, in all cultures and religions of the time were essentially property. Valuable only for the prestige they might bring, if they were exceptionally beautiful or had some other quality, or for the number of sons they bore. Sons, not daughters. Because girls were burdens. It's not an attitude limited to one culture or another.

The tafsir I've read, however, has this explanation, basically. This verse follows on the verse that prohibits sex between a married couple while the wife is menstruating. Anal sex, by the way, is also considered forbidden. Just in case you were wondering. Anyway. The two verses, 222 & 223 are connected. First the Qur'an says that men are forbidden from having/asking for sex from their wives while they are menstruating (which, depending on the woman is either a good thing or just annoying), then it explains that once she has cleansed herself (I think the word is ghusl) the man is permitted to come to her in any way that Allah has allowed. Which is where the 'tilth' or 'field' comes into play. The field is a fertile image, reminding/hinting at the vagina and the womb. So the verse, along with the preceding is informing the men that they should only have sex with their wives in the proper time and orifice. Which is what a *lot* of Christians will tell you as well. We may not like the imagery, but it is what it is. The Qur'an was written in an agricultural society 1,400 years ago. What they would find understandable and meaningful is not necessarily what we do.

The next surah she cites as making the wife a possession is surah al-'Imran 3:14 (but not all of it, just the part she wants...): " Fair in the eyes of men is the love of things they covet: Women and sons; Heaped-up hoards of gold and silver; horses branded (for blood and excellence); and (wealth of) cattle and well-tilled land. Such are the possessions of this world's life; but in nearness to Allah is the best of the goals (To return to)."

This is one of those cases where 'I do not think that means what you say it means' comes into play. Yes, women are listed as amongst the things that men covet. Is that really a surprise to anyone? Is it a statement of approval? I think not. Merely one of fact. Men want women, sons, money, land, cool toys, fast cars and lots of all of them. "Such are the possessions of this world's life" - these are the things we can have in this world. But they don't last into the next, and that's reflected in the next section "in nearness to Allah is the best of the goals (to return to)". Don't Christians say that closeness to Christ, to God, is the true goal of our lives? It seems to me that this is saying the same thing. There are the riches of the world and the riches of eternity.

VBV - Ch. 4 Pt. 2

The next bit deals with the 'Doctrine of Marriage'. I'm breaking the chapter up into even smaller bits, so this will just be about the 'Selection of a Wife'.

We start out with a selection of surah:

Surah al-Baqarah 2:221 - " Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe: A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allures you. Nor marry (your girls) to unbelievers until they believe: A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever, even though he allures you. Unbelievers do (but) beckon you to the Fire. But Allah beckons by His Grace to the Garden (of bliss) and forgiveness, and makes His Signs clear to mankind: That they may celebrate His praise."

Surah al-Ma'idah 5:5 - " This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good)."

We'll deal with these two first. I think it goes without saying that the author only quotes the bits that she wants and not even the entire verse. But that's not such a problem here as it was in some of the last section's verses. The author claims that these two verses show a contradiction with the Qur'an. In fact, it is not a contradiction. There is a distinction made between idolators (unbelievers), believers (Muslims), and People of the Book (Christians and Jews). I neither speak nor read Arabic, so I must trust those who can. Idolators are mushrikeen, while the People of the Book are 'Ahl al-Kitab. So there is no contradiction. Muslims are forbidden from marrying anyone who is an idolator - meaning the pagans. They are permitted, however, to marry People of the Book - because they are all of the same faith 'family' - the Abrahamic faiths and, according to Islamic theology, all worship the same God and spring from the same monotheistic instructions.

As an aside, I refer you again to Becky's article about the permissibility of Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men. It has long been held that the instructions in al-Ma'idah 5:5 restrict the marriage to People of the Book to Muslim men. However, Becky makes an excellent argument for the view that the instruction is actually to both men and women.

The next quote is surah al-Nisa 4:23-24 - " Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father's sisters, Mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters; foster-mothers (Who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,- no prohibition if ye have not gone in;- (Those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful;- Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise. "

My 'problem' with this really only comes into play when the author comments 'For the most part, this list would be endorsed by Western society.' I'm questioning which part of the list Western society would say is okay to marry that the Qur'anic list forbids?

VBV - Ch. 4 Pt. 1

This is a long chapter, so I'm going to break it up a little. We'll just see how long this takes. The chapter is titled The Qur'an, the Hadith, and Women.

The first subsection in this chapter is titled The Doctrine of Creation. The author starts with the angels arguing with Allah over his plan to create mankind to populate the earth. Here's something I never quite got, so maybe someone knows. If angels in Islamic theology have no free will, how are they questioning Allah's plan? Anyway. The reference is surah al-Baqarah 2:30. Oh! For the record, I use Qur'an.com for online Qur'an referencing, since it has a couple of different translations available for comparison and Tafsir.com to look up the tafsir on verses. I'm not sure that this verse really needs looking into, at the moment though. The key factor, I believe, is mentioned by the author. "Allah was creating man that he might have a relationship with him; relationship being the context within which love is given and received." No, Muslims don't refer to Allah as their father or have the same sort of interactions that Christians are used to. But here's a question for you. Why did God (or Allah) create people at all? Does He *need* our worship? Does He derive power from it somehow? No. So God (under whatever name) must have created humanity from either some sadistic impulse to watch us screw everything up, or out of love.

Allah then proceeds to create human beings. It is my understanding of the creation story in Islam that man and woman were created around the same time, but separately. Unlike the Biblical creation story where Adam is created and then God takes a rib out and makes Eve, making her merely an extension of man. What, no, I don't have a problem when people take that story literally, why do you ask? Anyway...according to the Qur'an (Surah Al-Hijr 15:28-29) man was made out of clay which Allah dried and then breathed life into. *waggles hands* No more odd than any other creation story, and I assume we all know that man was not *actually* formed out of clay. Perhaps we can look at it to say that Allah took raw materials (the ancestor that we had in common with the apes) and tweaked it a bit. Whatever. I actually find the details unimportant, but that's just me.

The author quotes *part* of Surah Al-A'raf 7:189 in regards to the creation of women. The entire surah actually runs: It is He Who created you from a single person, and made his mate of like nature, in order that he might dwell with her (in love). When they are united, she bears a light burden and carries it about (unnoticed). When she grows heavy, they both pray to Allah their Lord, (saying): "If Thou givest us a goodly child, we vow we shall (ever) be grateful." The author only quotes the first sentence. Anyway. Man (Adam) is made in the 'image' of God, and Woman (Eve/Hawa) is made in the image of man. Making her, also, a reflection of God. I like that she is not created merely as a part of man, but that she is created similarly to him, but separate from him. The author does quote a hadith (7.62.114) saying that woman was created from the rib of man, but that's hadith, not Qur'an and so...*shrug*. It's not officially Allah's word, right? If it contradicts the story in the Qur'an, I assume that it is incorrect. I mean, it is from Sahih Bukhari, and I guess, if I tried I could mesh the two stories, since the Qur'an leaves out details because the stories are already supposed to be well known, but as I was taught the creation story of Islam, woman was created separate but equal with man. Which means that she has the same moral and religious rights and duties as a man.

The author argues that in Christianity there are two camps as to the relationship between men and women. In one camp are the Egalitarians - those who see no distinction in gender roles. The other camp are the Complementarians - those who view the genders as equal in value, but distinct in role and authority structure. Interpreted, this means that the egalitarians believe that men and women are equal. Women can do anything that a man can do in the church structure, including being pastors, elders, leading the church, etc. Complementarians believe that, in the eyes of God each person, man and woman is of equal value to God. However, there are some roles that are given to men and some that are given to women. It will surprise no one that the roles of authority are all reserved for the men. The author claims that in Islam, the relationship is that if 'Islamic disciplinarianism'. The man takes a protective stance over the woman and...the author doesn't explain anything else. I actually view Islam's genders roles as rather complementary. Men have their roles and women have theirs. They complement each other, at least, they're meant to. Again, keep in mind that no situation is perfect and there will always be people (sometimes a lot of them) who abuse whatever system they're in.

She moves on to the old stand-bys to prove that women are 'less' in Islam.

Surah al-Baqarah 2:228 - And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree [of advantage] over them.

*Again*, the author only quotes *part* of the verse. The whole verse (from the same translation used in the book, which is Yusuf Ali) is: Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

So this is all about the proper behavior in a *divorce*. There is supposed to be a waiting period ('Iddah) of three months before the divorced wife can marry again. The main practical purpose of this would be for tracking whose child is whose. Assuming that the couple were having normal marital relations (there are different rules of divorce when the marriage hasn't been consumated), then there remains the possibility that the woman is pregnant with her ex-husbands child.

There is also mention of the fact that, during this period, the couple may be reconciled. (Assuming this is not their third divorce, in which case another set of rules kicks into effect. But we'll get to those, I'm certain.) There's a lot going on here that seems to me to be meant to give the couple chances to reconcile. I think that the line about women having rights similar to the rights against them refers to the woman's right to also want her husband back. Obviously, both parties have to agree to the reconciliation, but everyone is allowed to reconsider and to fight for what they want. On top of that, it is also a pointed reminder that the wife has rights against her husband inside of the marriage. The right to be clothed, fed and taken care of on an equal level with the husband. Not treated like a servant or a slave and abused.

An interesting tidbit from the tafsir is that a woman's word alone was to be taken in matters of pregnancy/menses. Hers was the count that mattered, which is why the warning that she was not to hide what is in their wombs. They shouldn't lie to extend the 'iddah or to shorten it.

But what about the 'degree of advantage' over women? Historically it makes sense because men were in the greater position of authority. It's traditionally interpreted to mean that men are stronger and just generally a little bit better than women. But what if it's an additional warning? A reminder that the man's responsibilities are greater because they tend to have the cultural advantage?

Surah al-Baraqarah 2:282 - Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her.

*twitch* AGAIN, it is not the complete verse! - O ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as Allah Has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear His Lord Allah, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If they party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her. The witnesses should not refuse when they are called on (For evidence). Disdain not to reduce to writing (your contract) for a future period, whether it be small or big: it is juster in the sight of Allah, More suitable as evidence, and more convenient to prevent doubts among yourselves but if it be a transaction which ye carry out on the spot among yourselves, there is no blame on you if ye reduce it not to writing. But take witness whenever ye make a commercial contract; and let neither scribe nor witness suffer harm. If ye do (such harm), it would be wickedness in you. So fear Allah; For it is Good that teaches you. And Allah is well acquainted with all things. If ye are on a journey, and cannot find a scribe, a pledge with possession (may serve the purpose). And if one of you deposits a thing on trust with another, let the trustee (faithfully) discharge his trust, and let him Fear his Lord conceal not evidence; for whoever conceals it, - his heart is tainted with sin. And Allah knoweth all that ye do.

*flail* It's very clearly a specific instance. A business transaction. I know this has been used to say it's for every case, but I think if you read the whole context it makes more sense as being just in this case. And that would be because it was *unusual* for women to have a lot of dealings in business in this time period in any culture. There were, of course, exceptions (Khadijah, as an example), but in the main, women didn't deal with these things all the time. Does that work in modern times? No.

There are some hadith referenced, but you know what? I'm not bothering. They're the ones about women being deficient in intelligence, yadda yadda. Go here, read this blog post: Deficiency of Women? That's how I understand it and that's all I've got to say about that.

The other part I've read was about the inheritance laws and I'm not touching that because I don't understand how that all breaks down. I know that women get less than men if following the strict Qur'anic formulae. I don't know how many people do that now daysget less than men if following the strict Qur'anic formulae. I don't know how many people do that now days, but in historic context, it makes sense since the burden was all on the men of the household to support the women. In most cultures anything that the wife owned really belonged to her husband, so (not that this was referenced in the chapter) the fact that women were permitted to keep their own money for themselves was a step up.

And this took way longer than I planned. I may need to break the chapter down into even smaller sections.

VBV - Ch. 3

Not much to say about this chapter. It's about famous women in Islam. The thing I find ironic is the book goes on and on about how oppressed women are and have always been under Islam, but then it devotes a whole chapter to women who were a big deal in Islam and makes a point of saying that these are only a few examples out of thousands.

I don't deny that there are women who are oppressed under the name of Islam. But that's not anything new, or anything that belongs only to Islam. Women are oppressed or have been oppressed under pretty much every theology or philosophy known to have ever exist. But the authors' goal is obviously to make Islam out to be terrible and awful and something that people need to be rescued from. The hilarious and sad thing is that they so far fail in their purpose all on their own. Which is not to say that people don't fall for this crap, of course.

VBV - Ch. 2

This chapter was surprisingly not as bad as it could have been. The author was a former muslimah, so maybe that had something to do with the lack of specific vitriol toward Mohammed's wives?

The author takes a very simple approach. She lists each wife, in the order that they married Mohammed and tells a little bit about them and about how long they were married to Mohammed. Of course, each marriage ends either with the wife's death or at Mohammed's death.

We actually start with Aminah, Mohammed's mother. It's a brief, four paragraph section mentioning the name of Mohammed's father and the facts of his becoming an orphan.

Khadijah, of course, is Mohammed's first wife. I admit to having a little bit of a romantic notion about Mohammed and Khadijah. I like to think that they really did love one another. In a time and place where he was more than within his rights to marry multiple women, he stayed married only to Khadijah her entire life. I've heard the argument that she controlled the money. Well...not really. She only retained control of the business of one of her first two husbands because there was no one else. Once she married Mohammed, it was all his, technically. So he *could* have married someone else. He chose not to.

After Khadijah's death, Mohammed married Sawdah bint Zam'ah. She was a widow and it seems a very practical sort of thing. She needed a husband and he needed someone to take care of his four daughters. I'm not saying that they didn't love each other - we really don't know. Merely that it was a very good idea from both sides of the equation. Things back then weren't like modern times. People did not, in the main, marry for love. They married because of arrangements by the family, for position, for money, for power. To secure treaties and end blood shed.

Mohammed's next wife (and the most controversial) was Aisha bint Abu Bakr. Again, I think this was a very practical kind of marriage. Abu Bakr was Mohammed's closest companion. On one hand, how better to secure the friendship than to become members of the same family? In that same vein, most people in power are toppled by those next in line. People that they view as close friends. One thinks, though, that they might hesitate if that meant hurting their own child as well. (Historically, this is not always true. But it's a possibility.) One thing that annoyed me in this section was the author's automatic assumption that Abu Bakr would have killed Aisha at birth if not for Mohammed's orders. We have no way of knowing what he would have done, so why are we attributing the worst motive? There is also the assumption that Abu Bakr cared nothing for Aisha in the way the author says that he 'just gave her away'. Again, it was a different time and the marriage, from Abu Bakr's perspective, was a good one.

Mohammed's fourth wife was Hafsah bint Umar ibn-Khattab. Again, I see the reasoning as similar to that of his marriage to Aisha. Cementing a close tie with Umar would have been even more critical since Umar had been one of the greatest and most violent opponents of Mohammed and Islam.

Zainab bint Khuzaimah was known as Umm ul-Masakeen, 'mother of the poor and the needy'. She cared for people who had very little, giving them food and shelter as she could. She was a widow of the Battle of Uhud, and Mohammed married her. Perhaps seeing one of the virtues he wanted to instill in the ummah personified in her?

Hind bint abi Umaya was another widow of the Battle of Uhud. Hind, like Hafsah, was a well educated woman.

Zainab bint Jahsh is the woman who was a cousin of Mohammed. She was married to his adopted son, Zayd. Neither one of them seem to have wanted to marry one another, but Mohammed insisted that it was the will of Allah. Later on, Zayd and Zainab would divorce and Zainab would marry Mohammed. This is the incident that is taken to prove that adoption in Islam is not the same thing as being a natural child.

Juwairiyah bint Al-Harith was a captive of war who went before Mohammed to plead for her release. Instead, he offered her a deal. Marry him and he would set all the captives from her tribe free. One could look at it and say that Mohammed was just really smitten with her beauty, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. Whatever else you might want to say about Mohammed, he wasn't an idiot. I assume that there was some political advantage to this move.

Ramlah bint Abu Sufyan is an odd case. She was the daughter of Abu Sufyan, someone who was a huge villain early on in Islamic history, but who later converted to Islam. There's some question over whether his conversion was sincere or just to save his own butt, but that's neither here nor there. Ramlah was either divorced or widowed (no one's quite clear on whether she divorced her husband because he converted to Christianity or if she remained married to him until his death.) Either way, Mohammed heard that she was alone in Abyssinia and sent someone to propose on his behalf. She agreed and they were married by proxy. They only got to be together six years after their wedding. Again, I see practical, political reasoning behind this marriage.

Safiyya bint Huyayy was a Jewish captive who was the daughter of the leader of the tribe Mohammed had just wiped out. She converted and married Mohammed. In spite of some accusations that she remained Jewish in secret, Mohammed remained convinced that Safiyya's conversion was sincere.

Maymuna bint Al-Harith was a distant relative of Mohammed's. She had been married twice. Her first husband divorced her and her second husband died. After this, she requested to marry Mohammed.

The last 'wife' was Maria al-Kibtia. I say 'wife' because there's apparently some debate over whether Mohammed ever married her or if she remained a slave-mistress. She gave Mohammed a son, Ibrahim, who died when he was 18 months old.

My only real quibble with this chapter is that the author insists that the Bible wants men to only have one wife, while the Qur'an, and therefore Allah, wants men to have multiple wives. On the first half, I say that it is clearly open to interpretation. Men in the OT had multiple wives as a matter of course. There is no clear cut injunction anywhere in the Bible for men to only have one wife. There are things that can be read that way, but just ask any Christian who believes in polygamy and they'll show you alternative readings. On the second half, yes, the Qur'an technically allows for up to four wives, and men have gone beyond that and had more than that under the name of Islam. However, it never says that it's a good idea, or that they *should* have more than one wife. As a matter of fact, the instruction is that if the men don't believe that they can treat each wife equally in all things - and that includes affection - then he should only marry one. Since it's actively impossible to be fair in all things to people it's a heavy indication that the men should only have one wife.

VBV - Ch. 1

Right, so there was absolutely nothing of interest in the introduction. So we're ignoring it. I should say that this book is a collection of essays/articles written by Christian women. So Mr. Caner (supposedly a former Muslim) is merely the 'editor' and he only 'edited' for spelling, etc. All other content is each authors.

So, this first chapter is supposed to be the testimonies of four women who converted the Christianity from Islam. Three of them were born Muslim and one was raised nominally Christian, converted to Islam, and later left Islam and became Christian. I'm not going to go into their stories because, really, the article doesn't. They're very brief. Here's the pattern: "I was a Muslim, and I was oppressed and abused. Islam didn't makes sense to me, and then I met some Christians/saw Billy Graham on tv and felt all warm and cuddly inside." Got it? Moving on to what *I* want to talk about from this chapter.

Nitpick #1 - The reference to jihad as a holy war. Look, I get that that's the usage it has in the media and even the usage that some terrorist groups put it to. But it's not the *only* or even *main* meaning, and someone who used to be a Muslim should know that. Again, if you're going to argue with Islam (or anything), argue with what it really is. Not what you want people to be afraid of.

Nitpick #2 - In listing the five pillars of Islam, the author lists the first as 'Shahada (confession of Allah). Like I said, this is a nitpick. The shahada is not *just* the confession of Allah. It includes acknowledgement that Mohammed is his prophet. See, if it was just bearing witness that there is no god but God, then Jews and Christians could agree with it too. It's the bit about Mohammed that sets it apart. Again, not a big deal, really, but it annoys me. Someone who was a Muslim should know that.

The author argues that anyone who has studied Islam and Christianity and compares Allah with Yahweh will see that they're different gods. Which is not entirely true. There are a million and one lines to be drawn between the god of the OT and Allah. And since the god of the OT is the same god as the one in the NT, the similarities and comparisons must remain.

"The Allah of the Qur'an requires good works, but the Yahweh of the Bible requires faith in Jesus Christ (John 3:16). Islam claims that God can have no son, and that Jesus Christ was only a prophet like Muhammed."

It's true that *one* of the things required for salvation in Christianity is faith in Christ. It is, in fact, the main thing. But it's not the only thing.

James 2: 14-16 - 14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

It's a very Protestant thing, to insist on sola fide, which is an un-Biblical concept. Faith and works go hand in hand. Both religions, Christianity and Islam, ask for faith and works, working together.

"because He claimed to be God (John 8:58). In other words, He was either who He said He was, or He was a madman. This is a stumbling block for Muslims." 

Only not so much, since they believe that much of the Bible is corrupted. So there's not reason for them to believe that Christ ever claimed that he was God. As far as Muslims are concerned, these words never passed Christ's lips because he was a prophet and so certainly not a madman and he, being a prophet, would never overstep his bounds and tell people he was god, causing them to worship him and fall into shirk.

"Wherever Christians live, lost and dying people surround them."

Oh, that's just annoying and arrogant. You *cannot* approach people as though they are all some sort of pet project. Yes, it is a Christian mandate to spread the Gospel, to make all people aware of the message of Christ. But there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. The sentence above is an example of the wrong attitude. You share the Gospel by living it, and part of that is having love and respect for every person around you, whether they are Christian or not. Looking at them with pity and trying to shove your faith down their throat for 'their own good' is not the way to go. Be a good person, a good Christian and make *friends*. Real, honest friends. Maybe some day they'll want to talk religion and then you can sit down and talk. As friends. And maybe they'll come to see the truth in Christianity. Or maybe you'll find the truth in Islam. Or maybe you'll all have a good laugh and go out to dinner and see a movie. There's more to life than trying to make people agree with you.

The author makes it seem as though every Muslim is out to kill people who leave Islam. Are there people out there who believe that that is mandated by God? Yes. But, at least in the West, people enter and leave Islam all the time. Making it seem as though just be speaking out these women, who one and all live in the US are risking their lives, especially considering they don't give their full names is just pouring fuel onto a fire and hoping it starts a wildfire.

"many young women are lured into Islam by Muslim men. In order to marry a Muslim man, the woman must 'convert' on paper. Often believing they are discovering the whole truth for the first time, these women abandon faith backgrounds that never seemed real or important to them in order to pursue love and the close culture of Islam."

Thus does the author negate and denigrate any and all women who may have, oh, I don't know, studied Islam and come to the conclusion, to faith in the fact that Islam is the correct and final revelation. Are there women who convert because they fall in love with a Muslim man? Yes. Sometimes they come later to a real faith in Allah. Sometimes they don't. But really, their 'conversion' is not real. A person should only convert if they really believe. It should never be for another person. And that goes for *any* religion. Aside from all of that, Muslim men *are* permitted to marry women 'of the Book' - Jews and Christians. There's some debate over whether or not Muslim women are allowed to marry believing Jews and Christians (for an article on this, see Becky's article 'Are Muslim Women Allowed to Marry Non-Muslim Men?') But, you know what, people of all faiths and walks of life are unhappy, looking for the right fit for themselves. It's not just that women who come from bad backgrounds convert to Islam because they think it will make their lives better. I believe that the majority of converts do so because they find something that works for them, even if it doesn't turn out to be a lifetime thing. They learn something and hopefully at the very least, they come out knowing more about themselves, stronger in some fashion.

"Islam is a religion based upon mystical experiences, and Muslims are familiar with the idea, so perhaps the Holy Spirit does speak on this subjective, emotional level to draw Muslims to the truth. Although Islam claims that Muhammad's revelations are from Allah through the angel Gabriel, experiences of peace and love are characteristic only of the true God who is recognized by Christianity."

*sigh* *ALL* religions are based on mystical experiences. They're meant to take us out of ourselves, to make us connect to the greater reality. To show us life after death as a goal, a possibility, and the concept of a transcendent Creator being. On top of that, Islam, according to it's adherents, is a rational faith. Which, admittedly is a matter of perspective, but I find it funny that the Christians are claiming that Islam is all about emotions and funny visions and the Muslims are claiming the same thing about Christianity, both viewing themselves as the rational choice. Religion isn't rational, end of story. The last sentence though, is just...I don't even know what to say. It's flat out *wrong*.

And that's it for this chapter. Next chapter is all about Mohammed's wives. :) I'm going to go do something more productive than this, like watch Hawaii 5-0 and read The Haunting by Shirley Jackson. Then in about half an hour I'm going to go to sleep. *Far* more productive. :D