WHA?

I just caught the tail end of a commercial on Starz for Torwhood: Miracle Day.

WTF is this? Is this the 'American Torchwood' I've heard about and been ignoring?

SPN - Mommy Dearest

Title is a ref. to Joan Crawford and her uh, special child rearing tactics, I'm sure.

*flail* CROWLEY! I MISS YOU CROWLEY!!!!

That line alone is what will get you killed.

I am overly amused that the background music for the bar scene was 'I Believe in Miracles'.

Dean, man, if you're human, why would it work on you?

I- the- the LOOK when Cas stopped saying- I- *dies of slashy glee*

Hi Tara! Lenore!

Oh, yeah. No one saw this coming. *rolls eyes*

Good boy Cas. Also, that was a tad cold. The whole, 'we needed to movie this along'.

'smitey mcsmiterdon'

Good going Dean, now Cas is pouting.

Well that was easy.

Dean - 'tough love', not always the answer.

Huh?

Dean saved his boyfriend!

The kids are totally plants....

Uh. I don't really have a lot to say, obviously. I'm too busy staring at the tv.

Oooohhh...so Crowley caused this? That is...kind of ironic. And amusing.

Also, I love Mary Winchester's actresses.

Is Eve lying or on crack? Or is Crowley really alive?

*ponders* Is Cas doing something with the souls in heaven?

I really do like Eve. I mean, she's not a nice...let's go with 'person', but I like her. I like her...

The kids. What'd I say? Yeah. That's right. Kids are evil. Supernatural has proved this.

Boys, just work for the mother of all monsters. Okay?

Noo.....that was way too easy. She can't be dead!

Dear Supernatural - please to stop killing off the cool female characters. Kay?

Crowley? Wait, does Meg still have Cas' sword? That'd explain the stab wound...

Not that Cas' sword is the only thing that can kill monsters, just I don't remember Meg giving it back.

Unless Cas and Crowley are working together. Huh. Maybe...all those souls...yeah. To win the war, I could see it.

CROWLEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *is dead from glee*

preview: *flail* that is all

God Save the Queen! and the mosque thing again.

Or, uh...whatever they say. So I accidentally got up in time to watch William and Kate walk down the aisle. Her dress was gorgeous! Except for the train. I'm not a big train fan on wedding dresses. I mean, it was lovely and all, just not my thing. And we won't talk about how I DVR'd the event on two different channels so I can watch it all later. Because I don't care, really. Not British, don't have a monarch. And maybe that's the problem. The Kennedy's are all dead, and they were our 'royalty'. So now we need another family like that.

Anyway...

So I think I found an email address for the Imam of the local mosque. I tried to go back to the page I found it on today, but it appears to be having some difficulties. Anyway. Would it be appropriate to email the Imam directly? I wouldn't just email a priest directly...or is that just me?

Another thing is that there's this site called Why Islam that has this 'service' where you can email or call them and they will try to set up a visit to a local mosque. So.

Here's the thing. I'm obsessive. Not OCD, though I joke about that. Just obsessive. I get an idea and sometimes it sticks and it won't go away. At all. This has all the signs of being that.

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.

Doing Things Alone

I don't do things alone. I mean, aside from necessities, and even then I put them off as long as I can. But I don't like to go to the movies by myself, or shop, or eat out. And that's actually becoming annoying, because, for instance, I want to eat at this one deli. It makes sense for me to do so. I work out on Sunday and I need to eat lunch right afterward, right before I go to the movies. This deli is a very healthy place, so it's a much better option than any of the other restaurants in the area or eating mall/movie theater food.

But I haven't been going because I don't have anyone to go with me.

Well, screw that. I am determined to go eat my lunch Sunday in this deli. By myself. And screw anyone who thinks that I'm some weird lady, eating all by herself. *flips the imaginary people judging her off*

Also, just for the record, if either Donald Trump or Sarah Palin gets elected president next year? I'm going to need a viable other country to move to. Just putting it out there.

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.