De Bijbel is veranderd.

[legatus]

Ik zal nooit kunnen geloven of toegeven dat de bijbel geschreven is en nergens veranderd door wat voor invloed dan maar ook.

Vandaar dat ik ook de woorden in principe en perspectief gebruik.

en Jöel het is ook niks meer dan een Wetenschappelijke theorie die je aanhaalt: Als alle gevonden manuscripten identiek zijn, zijn ze dan onveranderd?

[Dit bericht is aangepast door legatus (20-12-2001).]

[Joël]

legatus schreef:
en Jöel het is ook niks meer dan een Wetenschappelijke theorie die je aanhaalt: Als alle gevonden manuscripten identiek zijn, zijn ze dan onveranderd?

Je kunt er in ieder geval uit opmaken dat veel documenten al heel erg lang hetzelfde zijn, en dat beweringen over pausen die met lijm en schaar aan de slag zijn gegaan allemaal onzin-verhalen zijn.

[legatus]

dat paus gedeelte ben ik met je eens, tenslotte heeft de paus niet eens zo'n grote invloed

[CraigDavid]

Joel,
you know what i think?

de bijbel is verander, niet door slecht overgeschrevn of zo (natuurlijk zla er ook iets veranderd zijn daardoor)
maar de bijbel is express verandert.

in de originele bijbel stond dat er een profeet genaamd mohammed zou komen en dat je hem dan moest geloven

eerst is de bijbel verandert en in de middeleeuwen is het ook nog eens verandert door de paus

dat is wat ik vind

sorry dat ik het nie kan bewijzen voor als je bewijzen wil, maar ik sta op het punt een tijdmachine uit te vinden dus als je even wacht dan kom ik met bewijzen

[CraigDavid]

ge·´bod (het ~)

1 bevel van een hoge autoriteit

[GeritoDM]

CraigDavid schreef:
Joel,
you know what i think?

de bijbel is verander, niet door slecht overgeschrevn of zo (natuurlijk zla er ook iets veranderd zijn daardoor)
maar de bijbel is express verandert.

in de originele bijbel stond dat er een profeet genaamd mohammed zou komen en dat je hem dan moest geloven

eerst is de bijbel verandert en in de middeleeuwen is het ook nog eens verandert door de paus

dat is wat ik vind

sorry dat ik het nie kan bewijzen voor als je bewijzen wil, maar ik sta op het punt een tijdmachine uit te vinden dus als je even wacht dan kom ik met bewijzen

Jaja, en wat moeten we hiermee? Je geeft zelf toe geen bewijzen te hebben, dus wat wil je hiermee zeggen?

[Floef]

Gerito_Di_Mare schreef:
Jaja, en wat moeten we hiermee? Je geeft zelf toe geen bewijzen te hebben, dus wat wil je hiermee zeggen?

HUH?

-vaagheid-

[Joël]

CraigDavid schreef:
in de originele bijbel stond dat er een profeet genaamd mohammed zou komen en dat je hem dan moest geloven

eerst is de bijbel verandert en in de middeleeuwen is het ook nog eens verandert door de paus

Weet je hoe voorzichtig de Joden met met wat volgens hen het Woord van God was omsprongen? Waarom zou iemand de Bijbel dan willen veranderen, en de naam van Mohammed eruit halen?

CraigDavid schreef:
dat is wat ik vind

De feiten vinden wat anders.

CraigDavid schreef:
sorry dat ik het nie kan bewijzen voor als je bewijzen wil, maar ik sta op het punt een tijdmachine uit te vinden dus als je even wacht dan kom ik met bewijzen

Waar baseer je dan nu je mening op, als je het nu nog niet kan bewijzen?

[Joël]

CraigDavid schreef:
ge·´bod (het ~)

1 bevel van een hoge autoriteit

Taalspelletje. 't Is maar net hoe strak je iets interpreteert.

[Mujahideen]

Joël schreef:
Weet je hoe voorzichtig de Joden met met wat volgens hen het Woord van God was omsprongen? Waarom zou iemand de Bijbel dan willen veranderen, en de naam van Mohammed eruit halen?

Gokje, voor geld???



[Dit bericht is aangepast door Mujahideen (22-12-2001).]

[Joël]

Mujahideen schreef:
Gokje, voor geld???

LoL.

[legatus]

ik wed een schaap en een geit.. moeten toch wel in die tijd blijven... of ben ik nou cliche?

[Floef]

Joël schreef:
Weet je hoe voorzichtig de Joden met met wat volgens hen het Woord van God was omsprongen? Waarom zou iemand de Bijbel dan willen veranderen, en de naam van Mohammed eruit halen?

Nee, om er zelf (als volk) beter uit te komen. DIT GEBEURT VAAK, dus waarom niet in de Bijbel>>

[Mirage2000]

CraigDavid schreef:


in de originele bijbel stond dat er een profeet genaamd mohammed zou komen en dat je hem dan moest geloven

Het staat er nog steeds in(Hebreeuwse bijbel) ondanks alle bewerkingen.

In het Hebreeuws: hikko mamittakim we kullo "MOHAMMADIM" zehdoodee wa ze zehraee bayna jerusalem ( Solomon 5:16)

In het Engels: his mouth is most sweet, yeah he is Mohammed altogether lovely. This is my beloved and this is my friend. O daughter of Jerusalem.

[sbink]

Joël schreef:
Het is een veel gehoorde bewering. Vooral Moslims zeggen het. De Bijbel is veranderd. Moslims moeten dat ook wel zeggen, anders zouden ze de Koran tegenspreken. Dat kan natuurlijk niet. Alleen hoeveel veranderingen zijn er nu eigenlijk in die Bijbel binnengeslopen in de loop der tijd. Natuurlijk zullen in sommige manuscripten misschien wat lidwoorden verkeerd staan, maar om hoeveel inhoudelijke verschillen gaat het nu werkelijk. Even de documenten en bronnen die we van de Bijbel hebben op een rijtje.

We beginnen bij het begin. Het oude testament. Het oude testament werd door de Joden geschreven op boekrollen. Als deze boekrollen versleten, werden ze overgeschreven en begraven. Het overgeschreven ging heel secuur, en na het overschrijven werden alle woorden, letter voor letter door 2 man gecontroleerd. Aan deze manier van overlevering hebben we in totaal een stuk of ±25 versies van het OT overgehouden. Ze zijn allemaal onafhankelijk van elkaar, in verschillende stammen, groepen gemeenschappen of whatever keer op keer overgeschreven. De oudste versie (van die ±25) dateert ongeveer uit 1000 Na Chr. Alle ±25 versies zijn identiek. Er zijn nergens inhoudelijke verschillen. Verder hebben we van het oude testament de septuaginta. Dit zijn de Griekse vertalingen van het OT, gemaakt in Alexandrië, approx. 200 voor Chr. De oudste die gevonden zijn, dateren uit 400 na Chr. Ook hier geldt weer: geen inhoudelijke verschillen, ze zijn 99,99% identiek. Dan zijn er ook nog de dode zee rollen. Gevonden vanaf 1947, dateren uit het begin van de jaartelling. Ook hier geldt weer: nergens inhoudelijke verschillen.

En dan hebben we natuurlijk ook nog het NT. Het NT wordt gevormd door ±5.000 manuscripten uit verschillende tijden en plaatsen. De oudsten dateren uit ±120 na Chr. En al die manuscripten, die allemaal hun eigen weg zijn gegaan, zijn allemaal identiek. DWZ geen inhoudelijke verschillen, die belangrijk zijn voor de betekenis.

Dus nu mijn vragen aan de Moslims die zeggen dat de Bijbel veranderd is:

Waar baseren jullie op dat de Bijbel veranderd is? (voor tegenstrijdigheden hebben we nog een heel leuk topic staan )Kunnen jullie concrete voorbeelden geven van teksten die verandert zijn, of voorbeelden van verschillende versies van documenten van de Bijel? Hoe realistisch is het om te zeggen dat er veranderingen zijn aangebracht? (En eh... In de middeleeuwen??? )


[Dit bericht is aangepast door Joël (07-11-2001).]

De bijbel die jullie nu in jullie handen heb is niet het woord van Allah/God. Er zitten hier en daar nog wat verzen die de waarheid bevatten maar DE bijbel, zoals dat in de Koran wordt aangegeven met de Injil (oftewel het evangelie) wat aan de profeet Jezus(vzmh) geopenbaard was om zijn eigen volk te onderwijzen, die bestaat niet. Geleerden zeggen dat die verloren is gegaan.

(Profeet Jezus(vzmh) predikte in het Aramees en waar is die te vinden dan ?)

Dit is geen lariekoek, ieder weldenkend mens, weet dat de bijbel van tegenwoordig is geschreven door verschillende auteurs (en nee...ze waren helaas niet geinspireerd door God of het waren ook geen geinspireerde woorden van God e.d.) en aldus ook vele tegenstrijdigheden bevat. Begin maar met Genesis al, er zijn nog steeds van die christenen die de scheppingsverhaal vd bijbel serieus nemen en denken dat de aarde iets van 6000 jaar oud is. Terwijl de moderne wetenschap van vandaag de dag, met een fout van (als ik me nog goed kan herinneren) 2% beweert dat de aarde ongeveer 12-14 miljard jaar oud is.

Dit wat ik noemde is slechts topje vd ijsberg, laten we het niet hebben over de zoonschap van Jezus of alle andere godslasteringen die nog terug te vinden zijn in de bijbel.

De christen en joodse geleerden zijn het er zelfs mee eens dat de boodschap vd bijbel die nu te vinden is, niet overeen kan komen met de werkelijke boodschap van profeet Jezus(vzmh). Iets van 90% vd bijbel is niet de leer van profeet Jezus(vzmh) maar van Paulus. Moge God mensen als Paulus vervloeken Door hem geloven nu 1,4 miljard christenen in heidense verhalen en lasteren God erg grof door te zeggen van dat God een zoon heeft. Niet alleen godslatering, maar ook door te zeggen van dat God een zoon heeft maar geen dochter Het kom over alsof God alleen van mannen houdt en vrouwen minderwaardig vindt. Een seksistiche God dus !

De Koran is daartegenover 100% het woord van God, geopenbaard door de Engel Gabriel aan de laatste profeet Mohammed(vzmh). Volkomen vrij van leugens, verdraaiingen, toevoegingen en tegenstrijdigheden. Als je de Koran met een open hart leest, dan zul je vele verzen eruit herkennen. Wat wil niet zeggen dat de koraan een kopie is vd bijbel !Nee...de Koraan spreekt over de Mensen van het Boek, en als ik jou was zou ik over de beweringen die in de Koran staan die over jullie gemaakt worden zeer serieus nemen. De christen zou geen twijfel moeten hebben om moslim te worden na het lezen vd Koran. Immers wij geloven ook in Jezus(vzmh) en in alle andere profeten en wetten die God heeft gestuurd. Dus wat is de reden waarom jullie de Islam verwerpen ? Islam is een puur monotheistisch geloof !

Wat doet een moslim verkeerd dan, behalve dat hij zich overgeeft aan God en zijn wetten naleeft, zoals Jezus(vzmh) en alle andere profeten voor en na hem dat deden?

Neem een voorbeeld aan de profeet Jezus(vzmh) ! Hij was ook een moslim !


[Dit bericht is aangepast door sbink (05-01-2002).]

[Silindistani]

Uhm, ik heb niet het GEHELE topic gelezen, maar ik wilde dit toch wel even kwijt:

The account of Satan's (Lucifer's) rebellion and fall from heaven with all his followers takes up a major portion of the plot of Paradise Lost. The Biblical sources of this occurance are brief, but early church writings had fleshed out these lines by the time Milton began composing his epic.

Dit gaat over Milton's Paradise Lost waarvoor hij veel studie heeft gedaan naar de bijbel.
Wat ik eruit opmaak is dat de bijbel verandert is. Maar ik ben geen ster in dit soort engels en ik kan het net zo goed verkeerd begrijpen.

[Mujahideen]

Joël schreef:
Het is een veel gehoorde bewering. Vooral Moslims zeggen het. De Bijbel is veranderd. Moslims moeten dat ook wel zeggen, anders zouden ze de Koran tegenspreken. Dat kan natuurlijk niet. Alleen hoeveel veranderingen zijn er nu eigenlijk in die Bijbel binnengeslopen in de loop der tijd. Natuurlijk zullen in sommige manuscripten misschien wat lidwoorden verkeerd staan, maar om hoeveel inhoudelijke verschillen gaat het nu werkelijk. Even de documenten en bronnen die we van de Bijbel hebben op een rijtje.

We beginnen bij het begin. Het oude testament. Het oude testament werd door de Joden geschreven op boekrollen. Als deze boekrollen versleten, werden ze overgeschreven en begraven. Het overgeschreven ging heel secuur, en na het overschrijven werden alle woorden, letter voor letter door 2 man gecontroleerd. Aan deze manier van overlevering hebben we in totaal een stuk of ±25 versies van het OT overgehouden. Ze zijn allemaal onafhankelijk van elkaar, in verschillende stammen, groepen gemeenschappen of whatever keer op keer overgeschreven. De oudste versie (van die ±25) dateert ongeveer uit 1000 Na Chr. Alle ±25 versies zijn identiek. Er zijn nergens inhoudelijke verschillen. Verder hebben we van het oude testament de septuaginta. Dit zijn de Griekse vertalingen van het OT, gemaakt in Alexandrië, approx. 200 voor Chr. De oudste die gevonden zijn, dateren uit 400 na Chr. Ook hier geldt weer: geen inhoudelijke verschillen, ze zijn 99,99% identiek. Dan zijn er ook nog de dode zee rollen. Gevonden vanaf 1947, dateren uit het begin van de jaartelling. Ook hier geldt weer: nergens inhoudelijke verschillen.

En dan hebben we natuurlijk ook nog het NT. Het NT wordt gevormd door ±5.000 manuscripten uit verschillende tijden en plaatsen. De oudsten dateren uit ±120 na Chr. En al die manuscripten, die allemaal hun eigen weg zijn gegaan, zijn allemaal identiek. DWZ geen inhoudelijke verschillen, die belangrijk zijn voor de betekenis.

Dus nu mijn vragen aan de Moslims die zeggen dat de Bijbel veranderd is:

Waar baseren jullie op dat de Bijbel veranderd is? (voor tegenstrijdigheden hebben we nog een heel leuk topic staan )Kunnen jullie concrete voorbeelden geven van teksten die verandert zijn, of voorbeelden van verschillende versies van documenten van de Bijel? Hoe realistisch is het om te zeggen dat er veranderingen zijn aangebracht? (En eh... In de middeleeuwen??? )


[Dit bericht is aangepast door Joël (07-11-2001).]

Je hebt misschien vaak vanuit de moslimzijde gehoord dat de bijbel een corrupt boek is en dat dit door de koraan ook bevestigd wordt. Maar wis je dat jouw EIGEN "HEILIGE" BOEK voorspelt dat de bijbel later door "man-made laws" en corruptie geincorpereerd zal worden !!?

Hier heb je de verzen uit NIV(=New International Version vd Bijbel), RSV en de Ned. Statenvertaling vd Bijbel, en let op dat de verzen NIET uit hun context getrokken zijn, iedereen is vrij om de genoemde verzen op te zoeken en juistheid te verifieren !


GOD Almighty Said: "`How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

The Revised Standard Version :"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

Jeremiah,
8:7 -Zelfs een ooievaar aan den hemel weet zijn gezette tijden, en een tortelduif, en kraan, en zwaluw, nemen den tijd hunner aankomst waar; maar Mijn volk weet het recht des HEEREN niet.

8:8 Hoe zegt gij dan: Wij zijn wijs en de wet des HEEREN is bij ons! Ziet, waarlijk tevergeefs werkt de valse pen der schriftgeleerden.

8:9 De wijzen zijn beschaamd, verschrikt en gevangen; ziet, zij hebben des HEEREN woord verworpen, wat wijsheid zouden zij dan hebben?

In de bovenstaande vertalingen vd bijbelse verzen zien we duidelijk dat de Joden de bijbel verdraaid hadden en dat ze de hele bijbel in een leugen veranderden.

Zie ook Deut. 31:25-29 waarin door Mozes(vzmh) voorspelt wordt dat de bijbel na zijn dood verdraaid zal worden !!!!!

Het boek van Mozes(vzmh) voorspelde dat de Wet(=Bijbel) gecorrupt zou worden.
Het boek van Jeremiah dat ongeveer 826 jaar na de dood van Mozes(vzmh) kwam bevestigde deze corruptie inderdaad ook.

Vergelijk deze verzen met de ayat uit de koraan:

3.78 En voorzeker, onder hen zijn er, die hun tong verdraaien, terwijl zij het Boek voordragen, opdat gij het van het Boek moogt achten, hoewel het niet van het Boek is. En zij zeggen: "Dit is van Allah," ofschoon het niet van Allah is en zij uiten een leugen tegen Allah, tegen beter weten in.


2:75. Verwacht gij, dat zij u zullen geloven, terwijl een aantal hunner het woord van Allah heeft vernomen en het verdraait, nadat zij het hebben begrepen, tegen beter weten in.

2:79. Wee daarom degenen, die een boek met hun eigen handen schrijven en dan zeggen: "Dit is van Allah", opdat zij er een onwaardige prijs voor kunnen nemen. Wee hun dan, voor hetgeen hun handen schrijven en wee hun voor hetgeen zij verdienen.

5:13. En wegens hun breken van het verbond hebben Wij hen vervloekt en hun hart verhard. Zij rukken de woorden uit hun verband en hebben een deel van hetgeen hun was vermaand, vergeten. En gij zult hen altijd oneerlijk bevinden op enkelen na, derhalve vergeef hen en wend u van hen af. Voorzeker, Allah heeft degenen, die goeddoen, lief.

5:41 En onder de Joden zijn er die naar een leugen zouden willen luisteren, dezen luisteren terwille van een ander volk dat niet tot u is gekomen. Zij verdraaien woorden, nadat zij op hun juiste plaatsen waren gezet en zeggen: "Als u dit wordt gegeven, neemt het dan aan, maar als het u niet wordt gegeven, past dan op." En wie Allah wenst te beproeven, gij zult hem tegen Allah stellig niets baten. Dit zijn degenen, wier hart het Allah niet heeft behaagd te louteren; er zal voor hen schande in deze wereld en een grote straf in het Hiernamaals zijn.

11:110. En Wij gaven Mozes voorzeker het Boek, maar men werd er oneens over; en ware het niet door een woord dat reeds van uw Heer was uitgegaan de zaak zou voorzeker voor hen zijn beslist; en waarlijk zij zijn er in een verontrustende twijfel over.

(Lees Sura 11 voor meer)


Vaak hoor ik ook de volgende smoes vd christenen: dat "hun God" eerlijk, rechtvaardig, vredelievend en meest liefend is en dat zij deze God niet in de koraan tegenkomen. Laten we eens kijken in hoeverre dit waar is.

Voordat ik doorga wil ik ff nogmaals vele naieve mensen erop laten herinneren dat de bijbel een corrupt boek is en dat zijn meeste auteurs allemaal erg mysterieus zijn ! -Niemand weet wie precies wie deze gasten zijn. Dus schrik niet als je in een boek dat door mensen is samengesteld ook pornografisch materiaal tegenkomt !

Erg ironisch om te zien dan dat ik vele christenen de volgende onzin zo vaak hoor zeggen: "Als je gelooft dat Jezus(vzmh) a/d kruis gestorven is voor je zonden en dat hij jouw redder is dan ga je naar de hemel".

Lees nu de volgende vers uit de bijbel:

"Many will say to me (Jesus) on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 7:22-23)"

Dit vers laat duidelijk zien dat de onzin die door vele Christenen verspreid wordt en, keer op keer, herhaald wordt een zeer smerige leugen is. Terwijl ze nog zelf de hele tijd denken dat ze naar de hemel zullen gaan weten ze niet eens dat ze rechtreeks in de hel zullen belanden.




[Dit bericht is aangepast door Mujahideen (30-01-2002).]

[Joël]

Mujahideen schreef:
8:8 Hoe zegt gij dan: Wij zijn wijs en de wet des HEEREN is bij ons! Ziet, waarlijk tevergeefs werkt de valse pen der schriftgeleerden.

Mujahideen schreef:
In de bovenstaande vertalingen vd bijbelse verzen zien we duidelijk dat de Joden de bijbel verdraaid hadden en dat ze de hele bijbel in een leugen veranderden.

Je weet absoluut niet wat je zegt. Dat de schriftgeleerde dingen verkeerd uitleggen betekend niet dat ze de schrift veranderden.

Mujahideen schreef:
Zie ook Deut. 31:25-29 waarin door Mozes(vzmh) voorspelt wordt dat de bijbel na zijn dood verdraaid zal worden !!!!!

"Neemt dit wetboek en legt het naast de ark des verbonds van de Here, uw God, opdat het daar tot getuige tegen u zij. Want ik ken uw weerspannigheid en hardnekkigheid. Wanneer hij, terwijl ik thans nog levend bij u ben, tegen de Here waarspannig zijt geweest, hoeveel te meer dan na mijn dood! Roept alle oudsten uwer stammen en uw opzieners bij mij smaen, opdat ik te hunnen aanhoren de volgende woorden spreke en tegen hen de hemel en de aarde tot getuige aanroepe. Want ik weet dat gij na mijn dood zeer verdergelijk handelen zult en afwijken van de weg, die ik u geboden heb; daarom zal na verloop van tijd het onheil over u komen, wanneer gij doet wat kwaad is in de ogen des Heren en Hem krenkt door het maaksel uwer handen.

Of jij interpreteerd het heeel erg fout, of ik ben gek.

Mujahideen schreef:
"Many will say to me (Jesus) on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 7:22-23)"

Dit vers laat duidelijk zien dat de onzin die door vele Christenen verspreid wordt en, keer op keer, herhaald wordt een zeer smerige leugen is. Terwijl ze nog zelf de hele tijd denken dat ze naar de hemel zullen gaan weten ze niet eens dat ze rechtreeks in de hel zullen belanden.

Teksten uit het verband rukken is ook een kunst. Lees het eens opnieuw, maar begin dit keer bij vers 21. Nu weet je dus dat je niet in de hemel komt door enkel en alleen te profeteren of boze geesten uit te drijven in de naam van Jezus (vzmh), op de manier waarop Hij (Jezus(vzmh)) het ons geleerd heeft.

[Mujahideen]

Joël schreef:
onzin

Nou niet steeds vervallen in het geven van drogredenen oke?

[Mujahideen]

Joël schreef:
Ik heb wel een leuk boek voor je gevonden waarin je meer kunt lezen over de documenten die er van de Bijbel gevonden zijn...

Evindence that demands a verdict, Josh McDowell, 1972.

Hoofdstuk 4 "The reliability of the Bible", Part 1 - Confirmation by Historical Text.

Als cirkelredeneringen en armzalige wetenschap jouw motto is, dan moet je dit boek gelezen hebben.

[Joël]

Mujahideen schreef:
Als cirkelredeneringen en armzalige wetenschap jouw motto is, dan moet je dit boek gelezen hebben.

Heb ik ook gedaan, lieve schat. .

(Ik vraag me af of je ooit ook maar 1 blik in dat boek geworpen hebt. IK BETWIJFEL HET. Ik denk dat je van te voren oordeelt. (vooroordelen dus)).

[Mujahideen]

Joël schreef:
Heb ik ook gedaan, lieve schat. .

(Ik vraag me af of je ooit ook maar 1 blik in dat boek geworpen hebt. IK BETWIJFEL HET. Ik denk dat je van te voren oordeelt. (vooroordelen dus)).

"Evidence that Demands a Verdict" dient als een bron van comfort voor de Christenen met een IQ van 80. Geen wonder dat je de Bijbel zo wetenschappelijk vindt. En nou begrijp ik waar je al die drogredenen vandaan haalt.

In de plee ermee.

[Joël]

Mujahideen schreef:


"Evidence that Demands a Verdict" dient als een bron van comfort voor de Christenen met een IQ van 80. Geen wonder dat je de Bijbel zo wetenschappelijk vindt. En nou begrijp ik waar je al die drogredenen vandaan haalt.

In de plee ermee.

Ja.. Maar zeg nou eens eerlijk? Heb je ooit ook maar 1 glimp van een letter uit dat boek opgevangen? En zo ja, kun je inhoudelijk dan ook nog verder komen dan: "In de plee"?

[Joël]

Mujahideen schreef:
En nou begrijp ik waar je al die drogredenen vandaan haalt.

Dan nog iets... Geef eens een voorbeeld van zo'n drogreden van mij?

[MoHaMeDJaLaL]

Oee ik mis een hele leuke onderwerp..

De bijbel is inderdaad verandert.
Want ik heb zelf Cristenlijke vrienden die uit het oosten komen.
En die geloven bijna als de islamitische mensen.
Wat de moslims alleen niet erkennen is dat de cristenen zeggen dat Jezus de zoon van god is.

Dat was het verschil wat betreft vergelijking van moslims en cristen in het oosten.


Met vr Mazzels

PeaCe

[Joël]

Mujahideen schreef:


Nou niet steeds vervallen in het geven van drogredenen oke?

Heb ik ergens een post geplaatst met enkel en alleen het woord "onzin", zonder toelichting?

[Joël]

Heej, een post die ik nog niet had gezien .

sbink schreef:
Geleerden zeggen dat die verloren is gegaan.

Welke geleerden zeggen dat, en op basis van welke feiten doen ze die uitspraken?

sbink schreef:
en aldus ook vele tegenstrijdigheden bevat.

http://forum.scholieren.com/showthre...threadid=89027

Discussie hierover al vaak gezien. Maar goed.

sbink schreef:
Begin maar met Genesis al, er zijn nog steeds van die christenen die de scheppingsverhaal vd bijbel serieus nemen en denken dat de aarde iets van 6000 jaar oud is.

Er zijn idd YEC die dat standpunt verdedigen. Zou ik ook kunnen doen, maar ik kan het ook gewoon heel simpel houden:

In den beginnen schipe God de hemel en de aarde. De aarde nu was woest en ledig, en de Geest Gods zweede over de wateren. En God zeide: Er zei licht. - Genesis 1:1-3

Vermeld de Bijbel hier hoeveel tijd er zit tussen de eerste 2 verzen en het 3de vers?

sbink schreef:
Terwijl de moderne wetenschap van vandaag de dag, met een fout van (als ik me nog goed kan herinneren) 2% beweert dat de aarde ongeveer 12-14 miljard jaar oud is.

Bedoel je niet 5,5 tot 6 miljard jaar? Is 12-14 miljard niet eerder de leeftijd van het universum?

sbink schreef:
Dit wat ik noemde is slechts topje vd ijsberg, laten we het niet hebben over de zoonschap van Jezus of alle andere godslasteringen die nog terug te vinden zijn in de bijbel.

Van mij hoef je je niet in te houden, hoor .

sbink schreef:
De christen en joodse geleerden zijn het er zelfs mee eens dat de boodschap vd bijbel die nu te vinden is, niet overeen kan komen met de werkelijke boodschap van profeet Jezus(vzmh). Iets van 90% vd bijbel is niet de leer van profeet Jezus(vzmh) maar van Paulus.

1% Jesaja, 90% paulus, 8% mozes --> 100% Yeshua!

sbink schreef:
Niet alleen godslatering, maar ook door te zeggen van dat God een zoon heeft maar geen dochter Het kom over alsof God alleen van mannen houdt en vrouwen minderwaardig vindt. Een seksistiche God dus !

Ja, en als God een dochter had was hij natuurlijk net zo seksistisch geweest. . Alsof het geslacht er iets toe doet. Vind de Koran vrouwen niet minderwaardig dan? Volgens de Koran staat de man boven de vrouw, en mag de man de vrouw zelfs slaan .

Mannen zijn voogden over de vrouwen omdat Allah de enen boven de anderen heeft doen uitmunten en omdat zij van hun rijkdommen besteden. Deugdzame vrouwen zijn dus zij, die gehoorzaam zijn en heimelijk bewaren, hetgeen Allah onder haar hoede heeft gesteld. En degenen, van wie gij ongehoorzaamheid vreest, wijst haar terecht en laat haar in haar bedden alleen en tuchtigt haar.

[CraigDavid]

Joël schreef:
Vind de Koran vrouwen niet minderwaardig dan? Volgens de Koran staat de man boven de vrouw, en mag de man de vrouw zelfs slaan .

echt een zieke opmerking
dat klopt voor geen meter

----
Islam's attitude toward woman is a dream come true for anyone who is interested in equal rights and feminism - really interested, not just because of a "cool feminist" fad. Take an open-minded look at some of the articles on RIGHTS and you'll see what I mean. Please do not confuse androcentric behaviour of men with the real teachings of Islam. That's like blaming the car for the irresponsibility of a driver.

---
1. INTRODUCTION
Five years ago, I read in the Toronto Star issue of July 3, 1990 an article titled "Islam is not alone in patriarchal doctrines", by Gwynne Dyer. The article described the furious reactions of the participants of a conference on women and power held in Montreal to the comments of the famous Egyptian feminist Dr. Nawal Saadawi. Her "politically incorrect" statements included : "the most restrictive elements towards women can be found first in Judaism in the Old Testament then in Christianity and then in the Quran"; "all religions are patriarchal because they stem from patriarchal societies"; and "veiling of women is not a specifically Islamic practice but an ancient cultural heritage with analogies in sister religions".

The participants could not bear sitting around while their faiths were being equated with Islam. Thus, Dr. Saadawi received a barrage of criticism. "Dr. Saadawi's comments are unacceptable. Her answers reveal a lack of understanding about other people's faiths," declared Bernice Dubois of the World Movement of Mothers. "I must protest" said panellist Alice Shalvi of Israel women's network, "there is no conception of the veil in Judaism." The article attributed these furious protests to the strong tendency in the West to scapegoat Islam for practices that are just as much a part of the West's own cultural heritage. "Christian and Jewish feminists were not going to sit around being discussed in the same category as those wicked Muslims," wrote Gwynne Dyer.

I was not surprised that the conference participants had held such a negative view of Islam, especially when women's issues were involved. In the West, Islam is believed to be the symbol of the subordination of women par excellence. In order to understand how firm this belief is, it is enough to mention that the Minister of Education in France, the land of Voltaire, has recently ordered the expulsion of all young Muslim women wearing the veil from French schools!1 A young Muslim student wearing a headscarf is denied her right of education in France, while a Catholic student wearing a cross or a Jewish student wearing a skullcap is not. The scene of French policemen preventing young Muslim women wearing headscarves from entering their high school is unforgettable.

It inspires the memories of another equally disgraceful scene of Governor George Wallace of Alabama in 1962 standing in front of a school gate trying to block the entrance of black students in order to prevent the desegregation of Alabama's schools. The difference between the two scenes is that the black students had the sympathy of so many people in the U.S. and in the whole world. President Kennedy sent the U.S. National Guard to force the entry of the black students. The Muslim girls, on the other hand, received no help from any one. Their cause seems to have very little sympathy either inside or outside France. The reason is the widespread misunderstanding and fear of anything Islamic in the world today.

What intrigued me the most about the Montreal conference was one question : Were the statements made by Saadawi, or any of her critics, factual? In other words, do Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have the same conception of women? Are they different in their conceptions ? Do Judaism and Christianity , truly, offer women a better treatment than Islam does? What is the Truth?

It is not easy to search for and find answers to these difficult questions. The first difficulty is that one has to be fair and objective or, at least, do one's utmost to be so. This is what Islam teaches. The Quran has instructed Muslims to say the truth even if those who are very close to them do not like it: "Whenever you speak, speak justly, even if a near relative is concerned" (6:152) "O you who believe stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor" (4:135).

The other great difficulty is the overwhelming breadth of the subject. Therefore, during the last few years, I have spent many hours reading the Bible, The Encyclopaedia of Religion, and the Encyclopaedia Judaica searching for answers. I have also read several books discussing the position of women in different religions written by scholars, apologists, and critics. The material presented in the following chapters represents the important findings of this humble research. I don't claim to be absolutely objective. This is beyond my limited capacity. All I can say is that I have been trying, throughout this research, to approach the Quranic ideal of "speaking justly".

I would like to emphasize in this introduction that my purpose for this study is not to denigrate Judaism or Christianity. As Muslims, we believe in the divine origins of both. No one can be a Muslim without believing in Moses and Jesus as great prophets of God. My goal is only to vindicate Islam and pay a tribute, long overdue in the West, to the final truthful Message from God to the human race.

I would also like to emphasize that I concerned myself only with Doctrine. That is, my concern is, mainly, the position of women in the three religions as it appears in their original sources not as practised by their millions of followers in the world today. Therefore, most of the evidence cited comes from the Quran, the sayings of Prophet Muhammad, the Bible, the Talmud, and the sayings of some of the most influential Church Fathers whose views have contributed immeasurably to defining and shaping Christianity. This interest in the sources relates to the fact that understanding a certain religion from the attitudes and the behaviour of some of its nominal followers is misleading. Many people confuse culture with religion, many others do not know what their religious books are saying, and many others do not even care.

BACK TO TOP



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. EVE'S FAULT

The three religions agree on one basic fact: Both women and men are created by God, The Creator of the whole universe. However, disagreement starts soon after the creation of the first man, Adam, and the first woman, Eve. The Judaeo-Christian conception of the creation of Adam and Eve is narrated in detail in Genesis 2:4-3:24. God prohibited both of them from eating the fruits of the forbidden tree. The serpent seduced Eve to eat from it and Eve, in turn, seduced Adam to eat with her. When God rebuked Adam for what he did, he put all the blame on Eve, "The woman you put here with me --she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it." Consequently, God said to Eve:

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you."

To Adam He said:

"Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree .... Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life..."

The Islamic conception of the first creation is found in several places in the Quran, for example:

"O Adam dwell with your wife in the Garden and enjoy as you wish but approach not this tree or you run into harm and transgression. Then Satan whispered to them in order to reveal to them their shame that was hidden from them and he said: 'Your Lord only forbade you this tree lest you become angels or such beings as live forever.' And he swore to them both that he was their sincere adviser. So by deceit he brought them to their fall: when they tasted the tree their shame became manifest to them and they began to sew together the leaves of the Garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: 'Did I not forbid you that tree and tell you that Satan was your avowed enemy?' They said: 'Our Lord we have wronged our own souls and if You forgive us not and bestow not upon us Your Mercy, we shall certainly be lost' " (7:19:23).

A careful look into the two accounts of the story of the Creation reveals some essential differences. The Quran, contrary to the Bible, places equal blame on both Adam and Eve for their mistake.Nowhere in the Quran can one find even the slightest hint that Eve tempted Adam to eat from the tree or even that she had eaten before him. Eve in the Quran is no temptress, no seducer, and no deceiver. Moreover, Eve is not to be blamed for the pains of childbearing. God, according to the Quran, punishes no one for another's faults. Both Adam and Eve committed a sin and then asked God for forgiveness and He forgave them both.

BACK TO TOP



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. EVE'S LEGACY

The image of Eve as temptress in the Bible has resulted in an extremely negative impact on women throughout the Judaeo-Christian tradition. All women were believed to have inherited from their mother, the Biblical Eve, both her guilt and her guile. Consequently, they were all untrustworthy, morally inferior, and wicked. Menstruation, pregnancy, and childbearing were considered the just punishment for the eternal guilt of the cursed female sex. In order to appreciate how negative the impact of the Biblical Eve was on all her female descendants we have to look at the writings of some of the most important Jews and Christians of all time. Let us start with the Old Testament and look at excerpts from what is called the Wisdom Literature in which we find:

"I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare....while I was still searching but not finding, I found one upright man among a thousand but not one upright woman among them all" (Ecclesiastes 7:26-28).

In another part of the Hebrew literature which is found in the Catholic Bible we read:

"No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman.....Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" (Ecclesiasticus 25:19,24).

Jewish Rabbis listed nine curses inflicted on women as a result of the Fall:

"To the woman He gave nine curses and death: the burden of the blood of menstruation and the blood of virginity; the burden of pregnancy; the burden of childbirth; the burden of bringing up the children; her head is covered as one in mourning; she pierces her ear like a permanent slave or slave girl who serves her master; she is not to be believed as a witness; and after everything--death." 2

To the present day, orthodox Jewish men in their daily morning prayer recite "Blessed be God King of the universe that Thou has not made me a woman." The women, on the other hand, thank God every morning for "making me according to Thy will." 3 Another prayer found in many Jewish prayer books: "Praised be God that he has not created me a gentile. Praised be God that he has not created me a woman. Praised be God that he has not created me an ignoramus." 4

The Biblical Eve has played a far bigger role in Christianity than in Judaism. Her sin has been pivotal to the whole Christian faith because the Christian conception of the reason for the mission of Jesus Christ on Earth stems from Eve's disobedience to God. She had sinned and then seduced Adam to follow her suit. Consequently, God expelled both of them from Heaven to Earth, which had been cursed because of them. They bequeathed their sin, which had not been forgiven by God, to all their descendants and, thus, all humans are born in sin. In order to purify human beings from their 'original sin', God had to sacrifice Jesus, who is considered to be the Son of God, on the cross. Therefore, Eve is responsible for her own mistake, her husband's sin, the original sin of all humanity, and the death of the Son of God. In other words, one woman acting on her own caused the fall of humanity. 5 What about her daughters? They are sinners like her and have to be treated as such. Listen to the severe tone of St. Paul in the New Testament:

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I don't permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner" (I Timothy 2:11-14).

St. Tertullian was even more blunt than St. Paul, while he was talking to his 'best beloved sisters' in the faith, he said: 6

"Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil's gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die."

St. Augustine was faithful to the legacy of his predecessors, he wrote to a friend:

"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman......I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children."

Centuries later, St. Thomas Aquinas still considered women as defective:

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence."

Finally, the renowned reformer Martin Luther could not see any benefit from a woman but bringing into the world as many children as possible regardless of any side effects:

"If they become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there"

Again and again all women are denigrated because of the image of Eve the temptress, thanks to the Genesis account. To sum up, the Judaeo-Christian conception of women has been poisoned by the belief in the sinful nature of Eve and her female offspring.


If we now turn our attention to what the Quran has to say about women, we will soon realize that the Islamic conception of women is radically different from the Judaeo-Christian one. Let the Quran speak for itself:

"For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise-- For them all has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward" (33:35).

"The believers, men and women, are protectors, one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil, they observe regular prayers, practise regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His Mercy: for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise" (9:71).

"And their Lord answered them: Truly I will never cause to be lost the work of any of you, Be you a male or female, you are members one of another" (3:195).

"Whoever works evil will not be requited but by the like thereof, and whoever works a righteous deed -whether man or woman- and is a believer- such will enter the Garden of bliss" (40:40).

"Whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has faith, verily to him/her we will give a new life that is good and pure, and we will bestow on such their reward according to the best of their actions" (16:97).

It is clear that the Quranic view of women is no different than that of men. They, both, are God's creatures whose sublime goal on earth is to worship their Lord, do righteous deeds, and avoid evil and they, both, will be assessed accordingly. The Quran never mentions that the woman is the devil's gateway or that she is a deceiver by nature. The Quran, also, never mentions that man is God's image; all men and all women are his creatures, that is all. According to the Quran, a woman's role on earth is not limited only to childbirth. She is required to do as many good deeds as any other man is required to do. The Quran never says that no upright women have ever existed. To the contrary, the Quran has instructed all the believers, women as well as men, to follow the example of those ideal women such as the Virgin Mary and the Pharoah's wife:

"And Allah sets forth, As an example to those who believe, the wife of Pharaoh: Behold she said: 'O my lord build for me, in nearness to you, a mansion in the Garden, and save me from Pharaoh and his doings and save me from those who do wrong.' And Mary the daughter of Imran who guarded her chastity and We breathed into her body of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His revelations and was one of the devout" (66:11-13).

BACK TO TOP



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. SHAMEFUL DAUGHTERS?

In fact, the difference between the Biblical and the Quranic attitude towards the female sex starts as soon as a female is born. For example, the Bible states that the period of the mother's ritual impurity is twice as long if a girl is born than if a boy is (Lev. 12:2-5). The Catholic Bible states explicitly that:

"The birth of a daughter is a loss" (Ecclesiasticus 22:3).

In contrast to this shocking statement, boys receive special praise:

"A man who educates his son will be the envy of his enemy." (Ecclesiasticus 30:3)

Jewish Rabbis made it an obligation on Jewish men to produce offspring in order to propagate the race. At the same time, they did not hide their clear preference for male children : "It is well for those whose children are male but ill for those whose are female", "At the birth of a boy, all are joyful...at the birth of a girl all are sorrowful", and "When a boy comes into the world, peace comes into the world... When a girl comes, nothing comes."7

A daughter is considered a painful burden, a potential source of shame to her father:

"Your daughter is headstrong? Keep a sharp look-out that she does not make you the laughing stock of your enemies, the talk of the town, the object of common gossip, and put you to public shame" (Ecclesiasticus 42:11).

"Keep a headstrong daughter under firm control, or she will abuse any indulgence she receives. Keep a strict watch on her shameless eye, do not be surprised if she disgraces you" (Ecclesiasticus 26:10-11).

It was this very same idea of treating daughters as sources of shame that led the pagan Arabs, before the advent of Islam, to practice female infanticide.

The Quran severely condemned this heinous practice:

"When news is brought to one of them of the birth of a female child, his face darkens and he is filled with inward grief. With shame does he hide himself from his people because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain her on contempt or bury her in the dust? Ah! what an evil they decide on?" (16:59).

It has to be mentioned that this sinister crime would have never stopped in Arabia were it not for the power of the scathing terms the Quran used to condemn this practice (16:59, 43:17, 81:8-9). The Quran, moreover, makes no distinction between boys and girls. In contrast to the Bible, the Quran considers the birth of a female as a gift and a blessing from God, the same as the birth of a male.

The Quran even mentions the gift of the female birth first:

" To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. He creates what He wills. He bestows female children to whomever He wills and bestows male children to whomever He wills" (42:49).

In order to wipe out all the traces of female infanticide in the nascent Muslim society, Prophet Muhammad promised those who were blessed with daughters of a great reward if they would bring them up kindly:

"He who is involved in bringing up daughters, and accords benevolent treatment towards them, they will be protection for him against Hell-Fire" (Bukhari and Muslim).

"Whoever maintains two girls till they attain maturity, he and I will come on the Resurrection Day like this; and he joined his fingers" (Muslim).

BACK TO TOP



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Education of Women

The difference between the Biblical and the Quranic conceptions of women is not limited to the newly born female, it extends far beyond that. Let us compare their attitudes towards a female trying to learn her religion. The heart of Judaism is the Torah, the law. However, according to the Talmud, "women are exempt from the study of the Torah."

Some Jewish Rabbis firmly declared "Let the words of Torah rather be destroyed by fire than imparted to women", and "Whoever teaches his daughter Torah is as though he taught her obscenity"8

The attitude of St. Paul in the New Testament is not brighter:

"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

How can a woman learn if she is not allowed to speak? How can a woman grow intellectually if she is obliged to be in a state of full submission? How can she broaden her horizons if her one and only source of information is her husband at home?

Now, to be fair, we should ask: is the Quranic position any different? One short story narrated in the Quran sums its position up concisely. Khawlah was a Muslim woman whose husband Aws pronounced this statement at a moment of anger: "You are to me as the back of my mother." This was held by pagan Arabs to be a statement of divorce which freed the husband from any conjugal responsibility but did not leave the wife free to leave the husband's home or to marry another man. Having heard these words from her husband, Khawlah was in a miserable situation. She went straight to the Prophet of Islam to plead her case. The Prophet was of the opinion that she should be patient since there seemed to be no way out. Khawla kept arguing with the Prophet in an attempt to save her suspended marriage. Shortly, the Quran intervened; Khawla's plea was accepted. The divine verdict abolished this iniquitous custom. One full chapter (Chapter 58) of the Quran whose title is "Almujadilah" or "The woman who is arguing" was named after this incident:

"Allah has heard and accepted the statement of the woman who pleads with you (the Prophet) concerning her husband and carries her complaint to Allah, and Allah hears the arguments between both of you for Allah hears and sees all things...." (58:1).

A woman in the Quranic conception has the right to argue even with the Prophet of Islam himself. No one has the right to instruct her to be silent. She is under no obligation to consider her husband the one and only reference in matters of law and religion.

BACK TO TOP



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. UNCLEAN IMPURE WOMAN ?

Jewish laws and regulations concerning menstruating women are extremely restrictive. The Old Testament considers any menstruating woman as unclean and impure. Moreover, her impurity "infects" others as well. Anyone or anything she touches becomes unclean for a day:

"When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening" (Lev. 15:19-23).

Due to her "contaminating" nature, a menstruating woman was sometimes "banished" in order to avoid any possibility of any contact with her. She was sent to a special house called "the house of uncleanness" for the whole period of her impurity. 9 The Talmud considers a menstruating woman "fatal" even without any physical contact:

"Our Rabbis taught:....if a menstruant woman passes between two (men), if it is at the beginning of her menses she will slay one of them, and if it is at the end of her menses she will cause strife between them" (bPes. 111a.)

Furthermore, the husband of a menstruous woman was forbidden to enter the synagogue if he had been made unclean by her even by the dust under her feet. A priest whose wife, daughter, or mother was menstruating could not recite priestly blessing in the synagogue. 10 No wonder many Jewish women still refer to menstruation as "the curse." 11

Islam does not consider a menstruating woman to possess any kind of "contagious uncleanness". She is neither "untouchable" nor "cursed." She practises her normal life with only one restriction: A married couple are not allowed to have sexual intercourse during the period of menstruation. Any other physical contact between them is permissible. A menstruating woman is exempted from some rituals such as daily prayers and fasting during her period.

BACK TO TOP



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. BEARING WITNESS

Another issue in which the Quran and the Bible disagree is the issue of women bearing witness. It is true that the Quran has instructed the believers dealing in financial transactions to get two male witnesses or one male and two females (2:282). However, it is also true that the Quran in other situations accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man. In fact the woman's testimony can even invalidate the man's. If a man accuses his wife of unchastity, he is required by the Quran to solemnly swear five times as evidence of the wife's guilt. If the wife denies and swears similarly five times, she is not considered guilty and in either case the marriage is dissolved (24:6-11).

On the other hand, women were not allowed to bear witness in early Jewish society. 12 The Rabbis counted women's not being able to bear witness among the nine curses inflicted upon all women because of the Fall (see the "Eve's Legacy" section). Women in today's Israel are not allowed to give evidence in Rabbinical courts. 13 The Rabbis justify why women cannot bear witness by citing Genesis 18:9-16, where it is stated that Sara, Abraham's wife had lied. The Rabbis use this incident as evidence that women are unqualified to bear witness. It should be noted here that this story narrated in Genesis 18:9-16 has been mentioned more than once in the Quran without any hint of any lies by Sara (11:69-74, 51:24-30). In the Christian West, both ecclesiastical and civil law debarred women from giving testimony until late last century. 14

If a man accuses his wife of unchastity, her testimony will not be considered at all according to the Bible. The accused wife has to be subjected to a trial by ordeal. In this trial, the wife faces a complex and humiliating ritual which was supposed to prove her guilt or innocence (Num. 5:11-31). If she is found guilty after this ordeal, she will be sentenced to death. If she is found not guilty, her husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing.

Besides, if a man takes a woman as a wife and then accuses her of not being a virgin, her own testimony will not count. Her parents had to bring evidence of her virginity before the elders of the town. If the parents could not prove the innocence of their daughter, she would be stoned to death on her father's doorsteps. If the parents were able to prove her innocence, the husband would only be fined one hundred shekels of silver and he could not divorce his wife as long as he lived:

"If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, 'I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,' then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said I did not find your daughter to be a virgin. But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity.' Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of the town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

BACK TO TOP



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. ADULTERY

Adultery is considered a sin in all religions. The Bible decrees the death sentence for both the adulterer and the adulteress (Lev. 20:10). Islam also equally punishes both the adulterer and the adulteress (24:2). However, the Quranic definition of adultery is very different from the Biblical definition. Adultery, according to the Quran, is the involvement of a married man or a married woman in an extramarital affair. The Bible only considers the extramarital affair of a married woman as adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22, Proverbs 6:20-7:27).

"If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel" (Deut. 22:22).

"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death" (Lev. 20:10).

According to the Biblical definition, if a married man sleeps with an unmarried woman, this is not considered a crime at all. The married man who has extramarital affairs with unmarried women is not an adulterer and the unmarried women involved with him are not adulteresses. The crime of adultery is committed only when a man, whether married or single, sleeps with a married woman. In this case the man is considered adulterer, even if he is not married, and the woman is considered adulteress. In short, adultery is any illicit sexual intercourse involving a married woman. The extramarital affair of a married man is not per se a crime in the Bible. Why is the dual moral standard? According to Encyclopaedia Judaica, the wife was considered to be the husband's possession and adultery constituted a violation of the husband's exclusive right to her; the wife as the husband's possession had no such right to him. 15 That is, if a man had sexual intercourse with a married woman, he would be violating the property of another man and, thus, he should be punished.

To the present day in Israel, if a married man indulges in an extramarital affair with an unmarried woman, his children by that woman are considered legitimate. But, if a married woman has an affair with another man, whether married or not married, her children by that man are not only illegitimate but they are considered bastards and are forbidden to marry any other Jews except converts and other bastards. This ban is handed down to the children's descendants for 10 generations until the taint of adultery is presumably weakened. 16

The Quran, on the other hand, never considers any woman to be the possession of any man. The Quran eloquently describes the relationship between the spouses by saying:

" And among His signs is that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that you may dwell in tranquillity with them and He has put love and mercy between your hearts: verily in that are signs for those who reflect" (30:21).

This is the Quranic conception of marriage: love, mercy, and tranquillity, not possession and double standards.

12. MOTHERS
The Old Testament in several places commands kind and considerate treatment of the parents and condemns those who dishonor them. For example, "If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death" (Lev. 20:9) and "A wise man brings joy to his father but a foolish man despises his mother" (Proverbs 15:20). Although honoring the father alone is mentioned in some places, e.g. "A wise man heeds his father's instruction" (Proverbs 13:1), the mother alone is never mentioned. Moreover, there is no special emphasis on treating the mother kindly as a sign of appreciation of her great suffering in childbearing and suckling. Besides, mothers do not inherit at all from their children while fathers do. 42

It is difficult to speak of the New Testament as a scripture that calls for honoring the mother. To the contrary, one gets the impression that the New Testament considers kind treatment of mothers as an impediment on the way to God. According to the New Testament, one cannot become a good Christian worthy of becoming a disciple of Christ unless he hates his mother. It is attributed to Jesus to have said:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he can not be my disciple" (Luke 14:26).

Furthermore, the New Testament depicts a picture of Jesus as indifferent to, or even disrespectful of, his own mother. For example, when she had come looking for him while he was preaching to a crowd, he did not care to go out to see her:

"Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone to call him. A crowd was sitting around him and they told him, 'Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.' 'Who are my mother and my brothers?' he asked. Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said,' Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother.' " (Mark 3:31-35)

One might argue that Jesus was trying to teach his audience an important lesson that religious ties are no less important than family ties. However, he could have taught his listeners the same lesson without showing such absolute indifference to his mother. The same disrespectful attitude is depicted when he refused to endorse a statement made by a member of his audience blessing his mother's role in giving birth to him and nursing him:

"As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, 'Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.' He replied, 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.' " (Luke 11:27-28)

If a mother with the stature of the virgin Mary had been treated with such discourtesy, as depicted in the New Testament, by a son of the stature of Jesus Christ, then how should an average Christian mother be treated by her average Christian sons?

In Islam, the honor, respect, and esteem attached to motherhood is unparalleled. The Quran places the importance of kindness to parents as second only to worshipping God Almighty:

"Your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him, And that you be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in your life, Say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, But address them in terms of honor. And out of kindness, Lower to them the wing of humility, and say: 'My Lord! bestow on them Your Mercy as they Cherished me in childhood' " (17:23-24).

The Quran in several other places puts special emphasis on the mother's great role in giving birth and nursing:

"And We have enjoined on man to be good to his parents: In travail upon travail did his mother bear him and in two years was his weaning. Show gratitude to Me and to your parents" (31:14).

The very special place of mothers in Islam has been eloquently described by Prophet Muhammad:

"A man asked the Prophet: 'Whom should I honor most?' The Prophet replied: 'Your mother'. 'And who comes next?' asked the man. The Prophet replied: 'Your mother'. 'And who comes next?' asked the man. The Prophet replied: 'Your mother!'. 'And who comes next?' asked the man. The Prophet replied: 'Your father'" (Bukhari and Muslim).

Among the few precepts of Islam which Muslims still faithfully observe to the present day is the considerate treatment of mothers. The honor that Muslim mothers receive from their sons and daughters is exemplary. The intensely warm relations between Muslim mothers and their children and the deep respect with which Muslim men approach their mothers usually amaze Westerners. 43

BACK TO TOP



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. FEMALE INHERITANCE

One of the most important differences between the Quran and the Bible is their attitude towards female inheritance of the property of a deceased relative.

The Biblical attitude has been succinctly described by Rabbi Epstein: "The continuous and unbroken tradition since the Biblical days gives the female members of the household, wife and daughters, no right of succession to the family estate. In the more primitive scheme of succession, the female members of the family were considered part of the estate and as remote from the legal personality of an heir as the slave. Whereas by Mosaic enactment the daughters were admitted to succession in the event of no male issue remained, the wife was not recognized as heir even in such conditions." 44

Why were the female members of the family considered part of the family estate? Rabbi Epstein has the answer:
"They are owned --before marriage, by the father; after marriage, by the husband." 45

The Biblical rules of inheritance are outlined in Numbers 27:1-11. A wife is given no share in her husband's estate, while he is her first heir, even before her sons. A daughter can inherit only if no male heirs exist. A mother is not an heir at all while the father is. Widows and daughters, in case male children remained, were at the mercy of the male heirs for provision. That is why widows and orphan girls were among the most destitute members of the Jewish society.

Christianity has followed suit for long time. Both the ecclesiastical and civil laws of Christendom barred daughters from sharing with their brothers in the father's patrimony. Besides, wives were deprived of any inheritance rights. These iniquitous laws survived till late in the last century46.

Among the pagan Arabs before Islam, inheritance rights were confined exclusively to the male relatives. The Quran abolished all these unjust customs and gave all the female relatives inheritance shares:

"From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large --a determinate share" (4:7).

Muslim mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters had received inheritance rights thirteen hundred years before Europe recognized that these rights even existed. The division of inheritance is a vast subject with an enormous amount of details (4:7,11,12,176).

The general rule is that the female share is half the male's except the cases in which the mother receives equal share to that of the father. This general rule if taken in isolation from other legislations concerning men and women may seem unfair. In order to understand the rationale behind this rule, one must take into account the fact that the financial obligations of men in Islam far exceed those of women (see the "Wife's property?" section).

A bridegroom must provide his bride with a marriage gift. This gift becomes her exclusive property and remains so even if she is later divorced. The bride is under no obligation to present any gifts to her groom.

Moreover, the Muslim husband is charged with the maintenance of his wife and children. The wife, on the other hand, is not obliged to help him in this regard. Her property and earnings are for her use alone except what she may voluntarily offer her husband.

Besides, one has to realize that Islam vehemently advocates family life. It strongly encourages youth to get married, discourages divorce, and does not regard celibacy as a virtue. Therefore, in a truly Islamic society, family life is the norm and single life is the rare exception. That is, almost all marriage-aged women and men are married in an Islamic society. In light of these facts, one would appreciate that Muslim men, in general, have greater financial burdens than Muslim women and thus inheritance rules are meant to offset this imbalance so that the society lives free of all gender or class wars. After a simple comparison between the financial rights and duties of Muslim women, one British Muslim woman has concluded that Islam has treated women not only fairly but generously. 47

BACK TO TOP



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. PLIGHT OF WIDOWS

Because of the fact that the Old Testament recognized no inheritance rights to them, widows were among the most vulnerable of the Jewish population. The male relatives who inherited all of her deceased husband's estate were to provide for her from that estate. However, widows had no way to ensure this provision was carried out and lived on the mercy of others. Therefore, widows were among the lowest classes in ancient Israel and widowhood was considered a symbol of great degradation (Isaiah 54:4).

But the plight of a widow in the Biblical tradition extended even beyond her exclusion from her husband's property. According to Genesis 38, a childless widow must marry her husband's brother, even if he is already married, so that he can produce offspring for his dead brother, thus ensuring his brother's name will not die out.

"Then Judah said to Onan, 'Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother' " (Genesis 38:8).

The widow's consent to this marriage is not required. The widow is treated as part of her deceased husband's property whose main function is to ensure her husband's posterity. This biblical law is still practiced in today's Israel [9]. A childless widow in Israel is bequeathed to her husband's brother.

If the brother is too young to marry, she has to wait until he comes of age. Should the deceased husband's brother refuse to marry her, she is set free and can then marry any man of her choice. It is not an uncommon phenomenon in Israel that widows are subjected to blackmail by their brothers-in-law in order to gain their freedom.

The pagan Arabs before Islam had similar practices. The widow was considered a part of her husband's property to be inherited by his male heirs and she was, usually, given in marriage to the deceased man's eldest son from another wife.

The Quran scathingly attacked and abolished this degrading custom (4:22).

Widows and divorced women were so looked down upon in the Biblical tradition that the high priest could not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a prostitute:

"The woman he (the high priest) marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, so he will not defile his offspring among his people" (Lev. 21:13-15)

In Israel today, a descendant of the Cohen caste (the high priests of the days of the Temple) cannot marry a divorcee, a widow, or a prostitute. 49 In the Jewish legislation, a woman who has been widowed three times with all the three husbands dying of natural causes is considered 'fatal' and forbidden to marry again. 50

The Quran, on the other hand, recognizes neither castes nor fatal persons. Widows and divorcees have the freedom to marry whomever they choose. There is no stigma attached to divorce or widowhood in the Quran:

"When you divorce women and they fulfil their terms [three menstruation periods] either take them back on equitable terms or set them free on equitable terms; But do not take them back to injure them or to take undue advantage, If anyone does that, he wrongs his own soul. Do not treat Allah's signs as a jest" (2:231).

"If any of you die and leave widows behind, they shall wait four months and ten days. When they have fulfilled their term, there is no blame on you if they dispose of themselves in a just manner" (2:234).

"Those of you who die and leave widows should bequeath for their widows a year's maintenance and residence. But if they [the widows] leave (the residence) there is no blame on you for what they justly do with themselves" (2:240).

BACK TO TOP



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. POLYGAMY

Let's now tackle the important question of polygamy. Polygamy is a very ancient practice found in many human societies. The Bible didn't condemn polygamy. To the contrary, the Old Testament and Rabbinic writings frequently attest to the legality of polygamy. King Solomon is said to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3) Also, king David is said to have had many wives and concubines (2 Samuel 5:13).

The Old Testament does have some injunctions on how to distribute the property of a man among his sons from different wives (Deut. 22:7). The only restriction on polygamy is a ban on taking a wife's sister as a rival wife (Leviticus 18:18).

The Talmud advices a maximum of four wives [12]. European Jews continued to practice polygamy until the sixteenth century. Oriental Jews regularly practised polygamy until they arrived in Israel where it is forbidden under civil law. However, under religious law which overrides civil law in such cases, it is permissible [13].

What about the New Testament? According to Father Eugene Hillman in his insightful book 'Polygamy reconsidered'," No where in the New Testament is there any explicit commandment that marriage should be monogamous or any explicit commandment forbidding polygamy" [14].Moreover, Jesus hasn't spoken against polygamy though it was practiced by the Jews of his society. Father Hillman stressed the fact that the church in Rome banned polygamy in order to conform to the Greco-Roman culture (which prescribed only one legal wife while tolerating concubinage and prostitution). He cited St. Augustine, "Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife" [15].

African churches and African christians often remind their European brothers that the Church's ban on polygamy is a cultural tradition and not an authentic Christian injunction.

The Quran, too, allowed polygamy, but not without restrictions:

"If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one" (4:3).

The Quran, contrary to the Bible, limited the maximum number of wives to four under the strict condition of treating the wives equally and justly.

It should not be understood that the Quran is exhorting the believers to practice polygamy, or that polygamy is considered as an ideal. In other words, the Quran has "tolerated" or "allowed" polygamy, and no more, but why? Why is polygamy permissible or allowed? The answer is simple, there are places and times in which there are compelling reasons for polygamy. Islam as a universal religion suitable for all places and all times couldn't ignore these compelling reasons.


In most human societies, females outnumber males.
1. In the U.S. there are, at least, eight million more women than men.

2. In a country like Guinea there are 122 females for every 100 males.

3. In Tanzania, there are 95.1 males per 100 females [16].

What should a society do towards such unbalanced sex ratios?


There are various solutions, some might suggest celibacy, others would prefer female infanticide (which does happen in some societies in the world today !). Others may think the only outlet is that the society should tolerate all manners of sexual permissiveness: prostitution, sex out of wedlock, homosexuality, etc.

For other societies , like most African societies today, the most honorable outlet is to allow polygamous marriage as a culturally accepted and socially respected institution.

The point that is often misunderstood in the West is that women in other cultures do not necessarily look at polygamy as a sign of women's degradation. For example, many young African brides , whether Christians or Muslims or otherwise, would prefer to marry a married man who has already proved himself to be a responsible husband. Many African wives urge their husbands to get a second wife so that they do not feel lonely. 56 A survey of over six thousand women, ranging in age from 15 to 59, conducted in the second largest city in Nigeria showed that 60 percent of these women would be pleased if their husbands took another wife. Only 23 percent expressed anger at the idea of sharing with another wife. Seventy-six percent of the women in a survey conducted in Kenya viewed polygamy positively. In a survey undertaken in rural Kenya, 25 out of 27 women considered polygamy to be better than monogamy. These women felt polygamy can be a happy and beneficial experience if the co-wives cooperate with each other. 57

Polygamy in most African societies is such a respectable institution that some Protestant churches are becoming more tolerant of it. A bishop of the Anglican Church in Kenya declared that, "Although monogamy may be ideal for the expression of love between husband and wife, the church should consider that in certain cultures polygyny is socially acceptable and that the belief that polygyny is contrary to Christianity is no longer tenable." 58

After a careful study of African polygamy, Reverend David Gitari of the Anglican Church has concluded that polygamy, as ideally practiced, is more Christian than divorce and remarriage as far as the abandoned wives and children are concerned. 59 I personally know of some highly educated African wives who, despite having lived in the West for many years, do not have any objections against polygamy. One of them, who lives in the U.S., solemnly exhorts her husband to get a second wife to help her in raising the kids.

The problem of the unbalanced sex ratios becomes truly problematic at times of war. Native American Indian tribes used to suffer highly unbalanced sex ratios after wartime losses. Women in these tribes, who in fact enjoyed a fairly high status, accepted polygamy as the best protection against indulgence in indecent activities. European settlers, without offering any other alternative, condemned this Indian polygamy as 'uncivilized' [18]. 60

After the second world war, there were 7,300,000 more women than men in Germany (3.3 million of them were widows). There were 100 men aged 20 to 30 for every 167 women in that age group [19]. Many of these women needed a man not only as a companion but also as a provider for the household in a time of unprecedented misery and hardship. The soldiers of the victorious Allied Armies exploited these women's vulnerability. Many young girls and widows had liaisons with members of the occupying forces. Many American and British soldiers paid for their pleasures in cigarettes, chocolate, and bread. Children were overjoyed at the gifts these strangers brought. A 10 year old boy on hearing of such gifts from other children wished from all his heart for an 'Englishman' for his mother so that she need not go hungry any longer [20].

We have to ask our own consciences at this point: What is more dignifying to a woman? An accepted and respected second wife as in the native Indians' approach, or a virtual prostitute as in the 'civilised' Allies approach?

In other words, what is more dignifying to a woman, the Quranic prescription or the theology based on the culture of the Roman Empire?

It is interesting to note that in an international youth conference held in Munich in 1948 the problem of the highly unbalanced sex ratio in Germany was discussed. When it became clear that no solution could be agreed upon, some participants suggested polygamy. The initial reaction of the gathering was a mixture of shock and disgust. However, after a careful study of the proposal, the participants agreed that it was the only possible solution. Consequently, polygamy was included among the conference final recommendations. 63

The world today possesses more weapons of mass destruction than ever before and the European churches might, sooner or later, be obliged to accept polygamy as the only way out. Father Hillman has thoughtfully recognized this fact," It is quite conceivable that these genocidal techniques (nuclear, biological, chemical..) could produce so drastic an imbalance among the sexes that plural marriage would become a necessary means of survival....Then contrary to previous custom and law, an overriding natural and moral inclination might arise in favour of polygamy. In such a situation, theologians and church leaders would quickly produce weighty reasons and biblical texts to justify a new conception of marriage". 64

To the present day, polygamy continues to be a viable solution to some of the social ills of modern societies. The communal obligations that the Quran mentions in association with the permission of polygamy are more visible at present in some Western societies than in Africa. For example, In the United States today, there is a severe gender crisis in the black community.

1. One out of every twenty young black males may die before reaching the age of 21.
2. For those between 20 and 35 years of age, homicide is the leading cause of death. 65

3. Besides, many young black males are unemployed, in jail, or on dope. 66

4. As a result, one in four black women, at age 40, has never married, as compared with one in ten white women. 67

5. Moreover, many young black females become single mothers before the age of 20 and find themselves in need of providers.

The end result of these tragic circumstances is that an increasing number of black women are engaged in what is called 'man-sharing'. 68 That is, many of these hapless single black women are involved in affairs with married men. The wives are often unaware of the fact that other women are 'sharing' their husbands with them. Some observers of the crisis of man-sharing in the African American community strongly recommend consensual polygamy as a temporary answer to the shortage of black males until more comprehensive reforms in the American society at large are undertaken. 69 By consensual polygamy they mean a polygamy that is sanctioned by the community and to which all the parties involved have agreed, as opposed to the usually secret man-sharing which is detrimental both to the wife and to the community in general. The problem of man-sharing in the African American community was the topic of a panel discussion held at Temple University in Philadelphia on January 27, 1993. 70 Some of the speakers recommended polygamy as one potential remedy for the crisis. They also suggested that polygamy should not be banned by law, particularly in a society that tolerates prostitution and mistresses. The comment of one woman from the audience that African Americans needed to learn from Africa where polygamy was responsibly practiced elicited enthusiastic applause.
Philip Kilbride, an American anthropologist of Roman Catholic heritage, in his provocative book, Plural marriage for our time, proposes polygamy as a solution to some of the ills of the American society at large. He argues that plural marriage may serve as a potential alternative for divorce in many cases in order to obviate the damaging impact of divorce on many children. He maintains that many divorces are caused by the rampant extramarital affairs in the American society. According to Kilbride, ending an extramarital affair in a polygamous marriage, rather than in a divorce, is better for the children, "Children would be better served if family augmentation rather than only separation and dissolution were seen as options." Moreover, he suggests that other groups will also benefit from plural marriage such as: elderly women who face a chronic shortage of men and the African Americans who are involved in man-sharing. 71

In 1987, a poll conducted by the student newspaper at the university of California at Berkeley asked the students whether they agreed that men should be allowed by law to have more than one wife in response to a perceived shortage of male marriage candidates in California. Almost all of the students polled approved of the idea. One female student even stated that a polyganous marriage would fulfil her emotional and physical needs while giving her greater freedom than a monogamous union. 72 In fact, this same argument is also used by the few remaining fundamentalist Mormon women who still practice polygamy in the U.S. They believe that polygamy is an ideal way for a woman to have both a career and children since the wives help each other care for the children. 73

It has to be added that polygamy in Islam is a matter of mutual consent. No one can force a woman to marry a married man. Besides, the wife has the right to stipulate that her husband must not marry any other woman as a second wife. 74

The Bible, on the other hand, sometimes resorts to forcible polygamy. A childless widow must marry her husband's brother, even if he is already married (see the "Plight of Widows" section),regardless of her consent (Genesis 38:8-10).

It should be noted that in many Muslim societies today the practice of polygamy is rare since the gap between the numbers of both sexes is not huge.

One can, safely, say that the rate of polygamous marriages in the Muslim world is much less than the rate of extramarital affairs in the West. In other words, men in the Muslim world today are far more strictly monogamous than men in the Western world.

Billy Graham, the eminent Christian evangelist has recognized this fact: "Christianity cannot compromise on the question of polygamy. If present-day Christianity cannot do so, it is to its own detriment. Islam has permitted polygamy as a solution to social ills and has allowed a certain degree of latitude to human nature but only within the strictly defined framework of the law. Christian countries make a great show of monogamy, but actually they practice polygamy. No one is unaware of the part mistresses play in Western society. In this respect Islam is a fundamentally honest religion, and permits a Muslim to marry a second wife if he must, but strictly forbids all clandestine amatory associations in order to safeguard the moral probity of the community." 75

It is of interest to note that many, non-Muslim as well as Muslim, countries in the world today have outlawed polygamy. Taking a second wife, even with the free consent of the first wife, is a violation of the law. On the other hand, cheating on the wife, without her knowledge or consent, is perfectly legitimate as far as the law is concerned! What is the legal wisdom behind such a contradiction? Is the law designed to reward deception and punish honesty? It is one of the unfathomable paradoxes of our modern 'civilised' world.

BACK TO TOP



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16. THE VEIL

Finally, let us shed some light on what is considered in the west as the greatest symbol of women's oppression and servitude, the veil or the head cover. Is it true that there is no such thing as the veil in the Judaeo-Christian tradition? Let's set the record straight.

According to Rabbi Dr. Menachem M. Brayer (Professor of Biblical Literature at Yeshiva University) in his book 'The Jewish woman in Rabbinic literature', it was the custom of Jewish women to go out in public with a head covering which, sometimes, even covered the whole face leaving one eye free [22]. He quotes some famous ancient Rabbis saying,"It is not like the daughters of Israel to walk out with heads uncovered" and "Cursed be the man who lets the hair of his wife be seen....a woman who exposes her hair for self-adornment brings poverty."

Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the presence of a bareheaded married woman since uncovering the woman's hair is considered "nudity".77

Dr. Brayer also mentions that "During the Tannaitic period the Jewish woman's failure to cover her head was considered an affront to her modesty. When her head was uncovered she might be fined four hundred zuzim for this offense." Dr. Brayer also explains that veil of the Jewish woman was not always considered a sign of modesty. Sometimes, the veil symbolized a state of distinction and luxury rather than modesty. The veil personified the dignity and superiority of noble women. It also represented a woman's inaccessibility as a sanctified possession of her husband. 78 It is clear in the Old Testament that uncovering a woman's head was a great disgrace and that's why the priest had to uncover the suspected adulteress in her trial by ordeal (Numbers 5:16-18).

The veil signified a woman's self-respect and social status. Women of lower classes would often wear the veil to give the impression of a higher standing. The fact that the veil was the sign of nobility was the reason why prostitutes were not permitted to cover their hair in the old Jewish society. However, prostitutes often wore a special headscarf in order to look respectable. 79 Jewish women in Europe continued to wear veils until the nineteenth century when their lives became more intermingled with the surrounding secular culture. The external pressures of the European life in the nineteenth century forced many of them to go out bare-headed. Some Jewish women found it more convenient to replace their traditional veil with a wig as another form of hair covering. Today, most pious Jewish women do not cover their hair except in the synagogue. 80 Some of them, such as the Hasidic sects, still use the wig. 81

What about the Christian tradition? It is well known that Catholic Nuns have been covering their heads for hundreds of years, but that is not all. St. Paul in the New Testament made some very interesting statements about the veil:

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head" (I Corinthians 11:3-10).

St. Paul's rationale for veiling women is that the veil represents a sign of the authority of the man, who is the image and glory of God, over the woman who was created from and for man.

St. Tertullian in his famous treatise 'On The Veiling Of Virgins' wrote, "Young women, you wear your veils out on the streets, so you should wear them in the church, you wear them when you are among strangers, then wear them among your brothers..."

Among the Canon laws of the Catholic church today, there is a law that require women to cover their heads in church [25]. Some Christian denominations, such as the Amish and the Mennonites for example, keep their women veiled to the present day. The reason for the veil, as offered by their Church leaders, is "Th

[Joël]

Doe geen moeite, geef volgende keer gewoon de url:

http://islamicity.com/mosque/w_islam/intro.htm

.

[CraigDavid]

of http://www.themodernreligion.com/w_main.htm

[Mujahid]

McCaine schreef:
Van deze bewereingen van jou wil ik wel eens een bron zien. De statistische kans dat er nooit wijzigingen zijn aangebracht is namelijk wel errug klein... (dat geldt overigens voor de koran evengoed)

De Quran is van een onbetwistbare authenciteit. Kan je van de Bijbel niet zeggen!

[Evangelion]

Mujahid schreef:


De Quran is van een onbetwistbare authenciteit. Kan je van de Bijbel niet zeggen!

Heb je hier bewijzen voor? Of ga je net zoals onze bijbelfanaat alles maar ontwijken?

[Mujahid]

Evangelion schreef:


Heb je hier bewijzen voor? Of ga je net zoals onze bijbelfanaat alles maar ontwijken?

Ja, natuurlijk. Maar ik wil het groots aanpakken met veel argumenten en uitspraken van ( onafhankelijke ) geleerden, dus je hoort wel spoedig iets van me.