Good article Waleed,

Its interesting that this excuse is never used in a Muslim/ Islamic country because rape and murder is punishable by death.

Maybe if the judge will say: "OK then, let me sentence you according to your culture or religion" this non-sense will be over.

I had a dinner last week with a father of two kids who went to school with the same MSK the gang rapist. They said he always mocked Islam and muslims, never prayed and he was 'trouble' to all Muslims. Yet he is OK with pinning his unhuman barbaric act on Islam.

Where was he when Mohamed (PBUH) said: "You are a Muslim when people are safe from your hand and your tongue".

Sometimes I wish for a jury duty on one of these case!

Waleed - There's nothing wrong with a lawyer using any possible defence to mitigate his clients actions. The problem is with our judges who tolerate this sort of defence. It's also disturbing when 12 average Australians are so intimidated by multiculturalism that their understanding of the word "tolerance" has been distorted and corrupted to the extent they feel obliged to not only listen to these defences but to accept them.

All MSK and his siblings have to do is to have their case heard in Megan Latham's court. They'll get weekend detention and little else.

We can't rely on morals when the courts are morally bankrupt.

Waleed said <<<It won't do. No law or moral code of decency, least of all an Islamic one, tolerates the deplorable murder or rape of people,>>>

Firstly, before I deal with the above, F.H. yes, you make a good point, agreed.

Waleed, I find it incredulous that you as a Muslim would make a statement like this, apparently in either ignorance or denial of your own Quranic and Hadith traditions.

Quran 33:50 - "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty."

Please be reminded, this is your own book, not some 'western anti Islam commentary'

Hadith Bukhari 367

Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle INVADED Khaibar..... (defensive ?)

We CONQUERED Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected... (F.H. are u noting this ?)
The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya binti Huyai

when the Prophet saw her...The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."

(Personal comment. The context indicates the marraige happened quite soon after the killing of her family. I find it hard to comprehend how she would willingly marry the man who orchestrated those killings.) F.H....comment ?

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection.

Now, you may notice that I have not added anything but emphasis to these quotes from your traditions.
The reader can draw his/her own conclusions about where the behavior of Skaff and company came from.

The point is, when people come here, they are subject to 'our' laws, not their culture. Culture is NO defense for breaking our law.

Waleed,
I appreciate the honesty with which you have attacked this perversion of Islam. I ask how is it that people like the 9/11 also pervert Islam as Fellow_Human said today, Quote, “the Sep11 attackers were all well educated, wealthy people with no criminal records. Ayman Zawahry was a surgeon who never committed a traffic offence.”

From what documented Muslim authority, Qur’an etc, did they learn this theology that they were so convinced this murderous act carried virtue?

Here we go again.

It was the same sort of teaching that lead to Israeli Surgeon (a well educated and devout man)Baruch Goldstein murdering 29 Islamic worshippers on the 25th of February 1994.

It was the same sort of teaching that lead to the distruction of the Babri mosque in India by Hindus, once again, devout men, which lead in turn to intercommunal violence with thousands of mostly Moslem dead.

The same sort of teaching that lead to 37 black churches being firebombed in Mississippi, particularly the 1963 burning of a church where 4 schoolgirls were killed.

All actions carried out by 'good devout men'.

The attack on 11th September 2001 is inexcusable, as are the Bali bombings and the the London and Madrid bombings.

So lets not excuse them, but lets not blame the whole of Islam for them either, in same way that I would not claim that all jews were responsible for the actions of Baruch Goldstei, or all Hindus for the destruction of the Babri mosque.

To use religion as a justification, or provocation for any criminal acts is wrong, and I believe that this is the point of the original article.

Waleed

I've talked to a number of nurses and midmives.

They've seen and delivered babies to muslim girls/teenagers who've had suffered FGM. They were born and raised here.

Some came in as young girls to casualty when the operation 'went wrong'.

Others were 15 or 16 when they bore their first kid through their mutilated genitalia.

The nurses are livid that no one, not even western feminists will listen to theirs or their doctors complaints. Must be tolerant.

An islamic practice? According to Nida ul Islam it is but not mandatory.

Thanks for the very reasonable article Waleed. However, I note that the 'usual suspects' have pounced on it as yet another excuse to bash Islam and Muslims.

It seems to me that, to a vociferous handful of xenophobic and/or racist forum members, you Muslims are damned if you do and damned if you don't: first, they demand that moderate Muslims denounce the behaviour of Islamic extremists. Then, when guys like you, Irfan or Ash do so, they ignore the reasonable dialogue that you're trying to have with them, and revert to their very unreasonable and intolerant agendas.

As I've thought for some time that nothing will satisfy the racists and xenophobes short of deportation of all Muslims, the resumption of the White Australia policy, or mass conversions to Christianity.

Keep up the good work Waleed - some of us are listening to you!

Me thinks Mr Duck is seeing reds under the bed. Not too much in this thread that reeks of racism to me. The only comment that hasn’t contributed to debate has been Mahatma’s. It’s just a tired old attempt to shut down any sort of debate by playing the old reliable “racist” card. Label people who don’t agree with you as racist, (Nazi is another good one Mahatma), and any view they have must be evil and hence should be discarded.
Mahatma; you may think you’re showing everyone how “tolerant” & “compassionate” you are but unfortunately you are showing that you are anything but.

I just want to explain where I stand in regard to Islam. Firstly, as a Christian I see Islam as being a faith that does not lead to salvation. I believe it to be a faith that was allowed to be set up by God, to test humans, in the same way that Job’s faith was tested.

Having said that, I respect the rights of Moslems to believe whatever they want to believe, so long as they, or others, don’t force their belief system on me, or on others. I also do not believe that I can, or should force my beliefs upon anyone.

This means, amongst other things, that I believe in human rights and civil liberties, but also the rule of law.

For anyone to claim that their religion, belief system or system of ethics justifies violence or control over another person, except where that violence or control serves to protect a third person, is wrong. I use this as an illustration because I believe that Christianity grants me the liberty to protect others from aggressive or controlling behaviour. Christianity does not give me the liberty to perpetrate violence against anyone on the basis of their religion.

I also see that the practice of religion must be something freely agreed to and the subject of informed consent, particularly where the practise of religion may lead to physical harm. Therefore, if a group wishes to practise any form of ritual mutilation, then this must only be carried out on those believers who have reached an age and understanding of what is going to happen and the possible outcomes.

Any ritual mutilation, or even tattooing or body piercing, of anyone who is not of an age or maturity of understanding is, as far as I am concerned, assault. The custom of under-age marriage common in some religions and cultures is also abhorrent.

No one should be able to use religion as a basis of a defence in a criminal trial, either as a complete defence or to downgrade a matter from murder to manslaughter.

As one of the people whom the know-it-all duck regards as a racist and xenophobe (even though both descriptions pertain to RACE only and NOT to religion - ignoramuses never let facts interfere with their ravings), I welcome Waleed Aly’s revelation of the stunt three criminals tried to pull in the name of his (Aly’s) religion.
What’s more, I believe there is more chance than not that the barristers concerned were not Muslim.

I just wonder what duck and the other fifth columnist Australia-haters would think if the same article were to be written by a non-Muslim.

I don’t see why even an apparently dreadful person like me would want to criticise anyone who has revealed to others that there are people who will try to corrupt his religion for their own benefit and show utter contempt for Australia and its laws, and clearly demonstrate the same outrage I feel about such things.

It is possible that Waleed Aly, unlike the majority of high-profile Muslims I have criticised, does listen to objections to Islam, or a corrupted version of it, and is concerned enough, and proactive enough to answer them in the way he has

Yes, Leigh and Hamlet, its quite striking, the only contribution which has not added to or contributed to the actual debate at hand has been Mahatma's for reasons well pointed out by Bozzie.

Makes you wonder about Mahatma's claim to have analysed cultures for 10 yrs as a proffessional anthropologist.

C'mon Mahatma, you can do MUCH better than 'name calling'.

I would have to guess that you also meant me as the 'xenophobe'etc.. but if you do, it is a slur on your own credentials, because clearly my own post was well documented and raised critical aspects of Islamic background. "Bashing" ? the mind boggles, I suppose you would describe accurate reports of Whites massacering Blacks as 'un Australian' ? At least, to be consistent you would need to.

HAMLET, a good overview of examples of the topic in other contexts !
The reason I raised the issues I did, is because Mohamed is lauded and held up as 'the' finest example of Islam in action, so to scrutinize what any devout Muslim might find when reading their Hadith is in order I feel. (sorry Mahatma, but it is)

Its also important to show how Waleed Ali's position does not quite 'ring true' claiming the Islamic religion does not containing any justification (by teaching or example) for rape etc... when clearly it does in the context of captive women.

If Mahatma was the astute proffesional he claims to be, he could have (and SHOULD have) pointed out the error if any, in my sources, or a misinterpretation of them... that would have contributed, but no.. just 'name calling'. He could have referred to "Arab Culture" to defend the practice..but again..nothing.

Never mind, it all has value, even if only to show how willfully blind some people can be in the name of political correctness.
Try again Mahatma, and if you see falsehood or error in any post, by all means point it out.

Prediction: Mahatma's next post will be "You are beneath contempt and unworthy of serious responses" ?

I'd suggest that the definitions of a crime should be fairly fixed. Independent of motives beliefs etc.

But... when it comes to punishment. Well I think that a judge should be able to take into account prospects for rehabilitation, mental state, intelligence, prior behaviour, culture etc.

So in this case, based on the information present (and having limited knowlege of law) I would have thought that the father is guilty of murder.

But then, based on a number of factors - it could very well be that the maximum sentence is not applicable. In a nutshell - I am happy to see cultural factors and beliefs taken into account in sentencing. I would not necessarily see the mitigating factors presented being representative of the entire cultural or religious group though. This is just an argument made to the court. Not necessarily a generalized truth.

[Is it possible that factors affecting sentencing are not tested to the same degree as guilt/innocence?]

So... there are situations where I could see a member of religions splinter groups (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, any) getting lesser sentences than the maximum. Essentially based on them being otherwise decent members of the community and/or having a moral code of sorts (if flawed) that can potentially be fixed.

While no one in Australian society ought to benefit from entertaining these depraved excuses of the disguised antics of a cultural bogeyman, I think it too much of an irony to deduce statements to i.e., Muslims don't tolerate such pathetic excuses for barbarism. Australian law shouldn't either."

This is because this statement underscores a bewailing myth that over-shadows each pathetic lie, eating at the core of the defective cultural idioms associated to terror and violence, at the heart of this type of narthex in human ethnology.

Under the lawyers, and today's judges, we are becoming more often further lost, due to the idolatry which sits between these so called cultural idioms.

It is indeed I believe, the case where as a great sage himself recently proclaimed, "We can't rely on morals when the courts are morally bankrupt" themselves.

White Wombat:

you wrote:

“But... when it comes to punishment. Well I think that a judge should be able to take into account prospects for rehabilitation, mental state, intelligence, prior behaviour, culture etc.”

Judges do take all of these factors into account. In NSW the maximum available sentence for manslaughter is 25 years. For murder it is ‘rest of life’, but most first time, ‘ordinary’ murders get about 20 years to serve. ‘Rest of Life’ is generally used for people who kill for profit, or if there are particular factors which show that both punishment and community protection are paramount, where prospects for rehabilitation are not particularly good.

For manslaughter the usual is between 3 to 10 years.

I do not know what the killer in the quoted case got, but I would imagine that the judge would have had to stick to guidelines so that the killer did not get a sentence more suitable for murder, but not be let out tomorrow either.

The test usually explained to the jury for provocation for jury deliberations, at least in NSW, refers to the actions that the common man would take in such situations: not the common Turkish man, or the common Moslem man, but the common man, as defined by normal English usage.

We do not now, and can never know, what basis the jury used in reaching their decision, and this is the way that it should be.

I would also suggest that anyone interested in this topic consider the case of Said Morgan

See

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/10-years-later-vigilante-officer-is-finally-happy/2005/01/15/1105582768095.html?from=moreStories

(It pays to do some research.)

It is important to realise that, unlike the TV show ‘Law and Order’, that, by the way I am almost addicted to; juries in Australia do not play a part in sentencing.

Judges spend a lot of time and thought on sentencing, they sometimes are 'corrected' by Courts of Ciminal appeal, but most of the time their decisions match community standards, it is only when there is massive variance that these are publicised.

Watch the news tomorrow, and check out the NSW Supreme Court website for remarks on sentencing being handed down. ("Most recent decisions")

Should be interesting reading.

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/caselaw/ll_caselaw.nsf/pages/cl_sc

Sorry, I was in error, todays hearing was 'submissions on sentence' and not passing of the sentences, so we shall just have to wait. It will be interesting to read what submissions have been made.

The case, by the way, involves a group of young men, of Islamic background, but evidently not of belief, as you will see from below.

the remarks on sentencing for these young men's previous trials can be found at:

http://caselaw.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/isysquery/irl3ded/2/doc

You have written a fine, clearly stated article Waleed. You are a credit to your profession and your religion.

I would argue that it is somewhat wrong for a lawyer to argue ‘any possible defence’. A lawyer is obligated to argue only what he is instructed to argue by his client – not whatever excuse can be concocted for the courts. I am in no position to judge how this particular argument was formed and make no assertions but in my experience with the justice system, I doubt MSK had the nous to formulate the basis for the argument himself.

For God’s sake BD, you never prove or even dent a thing with your continuos ‘insightful’ quotes from a book you know nothing about and a religion you cannot begin to understand through the intractable mindset of your fundamentalist beliefs. For every quote you present, a similar quote appears in the Bible. Get over it.

Moreover, do not use the ‘its actions of Jesus’ that matter and should be compared to Mohammed (PBUH). The Old Testament is just as valid to Christians as the new and you have to take the good with the bad. Just leave the interpreting and decision-making with respect to the Qur’an to those who believe in it and I am sure you can be counted on as a source for Bible quotes and insights.

Philo, I would suggest that it is not the book that is the source of the perversion, rather the teachers in the community that pervert the book and manipulate the student to their ends. Are the teachers of religious bent in the white supremacist sects in the US not doing a similar thing to the imams who misrepresent the Qur’an to their students?

This article is about Law, not Religion. Try to stay on the subject please.

The irrational Reason is at it again - The justification given by the lawyers of MSK is based in their religious culture - Pakistani Islam. Of course all persons not Muslim cannot have the slightest intellectual insight into the deep and meaningful religion of Islam, only indoctrinated muslims according to the "irrational". No wonder rape and murder is justified in the cause of Allah and terrorists rewarded with doe-eyed virgins because only Muslims understand the Qur'an. Western women are unintelligent sluts who are akin to slave girls when captured. You should know that B-D. Muslims have a superior intellect and understanding of the divine revelation - hogwash.

Thanks for that, Reason. Certainly a sane prophylaxis for the vituperous invective that followed it, about which no more should be said - I've noticed that it only encourages them :)

Boaz: "Prediction: Mahatma's next post will be "You are beneath contempt and unworthy of serious responses" ?"

Nope David, you're not beneath contempt. Well at least your ideas and boorish way of putting them aren't :)

You did notice the smiley, didn't you?

Mr duck,
How do interpret the quacking of the irrational Mr Reason?

Quote, "For God’s sake BD, you never prove or even dent a thing with your continuos ‘insightful’ quotes from a book you know nothing about and a religion you cannot begin to understand through the intractable mindset of your fundamentalist beliefs. For every quote you present, a similar quote appears in the Bible. Get over it.

Moreover, do not use the ‘its actions of Jesus’ that matter and should be compared to Mohammed (PBUH).

Christians use the OT to give context to the message of the Lord Jesus Christ, because it was out of that nationalistic Israeli context that the universal faith in the words of Christ was born; a universal message for every man not based in Abrahamic nationalism.

The OT only applied to Israel, and Islam being decendants of Abraham assumed its laws applied to them and have adopted its spirit into their message. The killings and genocide of nationalism as found in the OT by applying the pure laws of Abrahamic descendants is still carried on by his descendants especially in Islam.

Christ Jesus message is identified by his servant attitude, actions that demonstrate care and sacrifice, and wisdom based in forgivness, his life was the message - the example to us of a pure relationship with God. Mahomet was focused in his new found relationship with Abraham and his religious lineage. Comparison of their messages and practices is important and must not be dismissed as un-Reason-abull.

Duck, I suppose I put the 'kiss of death' on your response :) by pre-empting it.
Never mind. You are quite managable :) <-- note smiley also.

I don't mind criticism, but I do expect what I say to be treated seriously and critiqued on evidence.

Guys like Reason who amaze me. Now using 'PBUH' for Mohammed, and I'm wondering ...-had had some kind of conversion to Islam experience ?

All the symptoms are there "You know nothing about..."
is probably the one must typical response of a Muslim to sharing with them the less palatable aspects of Mohamed's life.

Reason, firstly, that is incorrect, I happen to know a considerable amount about the hadith and also the Quran, speaking from ignorance is not exactly my preferred method of interacting.

In regard to the Old Testament, while I accept there is the mention of judgements and wiping out of certain peoples for their wrongdoings on a massive scale, this was related to such practices as infant sacrifice and many other things.

The issue of Mohammed and his treatment of the Jews, needs to be treated separately because it is not having the same context.

Your problem Reason, is that you need to do some work yourself on Old Testament introduction, and how to understand such characters as King David, Solomon etc. The one marked difference between 'bad actions' of David (for example) is that he REPENTED of them. "Place in me a clear heart oh God... my sin is ever before me" and there is NO such repentance by Mohamed for the murder (yes, murder) of various individuals who 'got in his way'.

So, I have to issue you with a mild rebuke here for gross misrepresentation and character assasination.

I find your assessment of my post quite remarkable. Here is the sequence (again)

1/ Waleed claimed Islam would NEVER justify rape etc
2/ I showed how it is a) allowed and b) practiced. (on captives)

If you can't see this then I'm reminded of Jesus words "There are none so blind as those who 'will' not see"

blessings

BoazD,

Are you sure you want to compare women rights in Quran versus other scriptures?

OK then, here is the Islam position on women rights revealed 1,400 years ago to pagan Arabs:

Surah Women (4) consists of 177 verses talking about women rights: to maintain their maiden names, to have their own financial entity, to be treated well by their husbands and supported (financially & emotionally). In case of a divorce, she has the right for arbitration (to correct her husband) and supported if divorced until she finds another husband (4: 1-12, onwards). The rights went as far as ‘men should not date women in secret but reveal’ the relationship (in marriage).

Here are women rights in NT/OT:
- The ‘right’ to have a master (her husband) (You and I know the Hebrew and Arabic word ‘yasud’ ie to dominate and enslave).
- The ‘right’ to marry her rapist (her lucky father gets 50 shekels though).
- The ‘right to be kicked out of the house and isolated in a kiosk during PMS and after child birth for 30 days (60 days if she gives birth to a female).

Come on BD, You can blough and misrepresent but you can't win a straight forward scripture comparison and we both know it, thats why you run the personal attack on Mohamed (PBUH).

Women rights in Islam is like the bega cheese: better by a country mile!

F.H.
kind thanx for your 'cut paste' poste :) getting lazy arrrr....

My comments here were not about 'womens rights' they were specifically about the claim made by Waleed, and the real position spelt out in the Quran and in the practice of the Prophet and his companions.

F.H. you are indeed going askew in trying to suggest that the laws related to cultural/social life in Israel (the laws you mentioned fit that category) are applicable in the broader '10 commandments' sense
for all time.

The one about the girl raped who can be married by her attacker is indeed sad, and I believe it was a 'lesser of 2 evils' situation.
If she had already been disgraced through rape, who else might want her ? So, I assume the intended understanding would be that he raped her out of desire which when rightly chaneled through family responsibility, could have a better outcome. Thats the best 'spin' I can put on it, I believe that situation was very 'concessional' not 'instructive.

Comparing this with Sura 23.5-6 it is point blank clear instruction for all time,-end of story 'this is how it is' because it is in the context of the 'believers' and what characterizes them.

One might say its on a par authority wise with Johns gospel "A new commandment I give to you" there is no contextualization, interpretation, concession, its THIS IS MY COMMAND, and clearly for all time.

The other 'rights' a woman has, as spelt out in the New Testament (which shows the true 'spirit' of the Old.. are as follows:

The right to a man/husband who will love her as himself, pours himself out for her, as Christ loved the Church.

A woman in Islam has the right to be 'whacked' by her hubby if she is naughty :) and I've DONE the research on the word used, and please don't try to tell me it means 'gentle tap'.

But please, this topic is not about 'womens rights' we can have that discussion on another thread.
its about the 'cultural bogeyman' and Waleeds claims

Quote: "No law or moral code of decency, least of all an Islamic one, tolerates the deplorable murder or rape of people."

Obviously Waleed has not read the Koran or even newspapers recently. Actually, the lawyers have a point. Did not the great prophet of Islam tell Muslims they could rape their married female slaves at anytime? Did not he say to kill infidels "wherever you find them"? How about such statements as "So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam" and "Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers."

So - hate, anger, murder, oppression, discrimination, forced marriages, suicide bombers, fatwas and threats, honor killings, female genital mutilation, stonings, torture, rape, racism, killing of children (Beslan), as well as the continuing propagation of hate in literature and in the mosques against infidels, Christians, Jews and any other group they dislike - these are the fruit of Mohammud and his religion. The concept of "human rights" is NOT usually associated with Islamic countries, except if prefixed with 'lack of'. Iran is calling for the murder of every man, woman and child in Israel. How Islamic!

Most of the time they say these issues are "cultural" and have nothing to do with Islam, except they seem to be so often associated with the Muslim world and Islamic communities. Remember, "Islam is a complete system of life."

Things will get much worse as the numbers of Muslims in the West grows, especially if Multiculturalism continues as public policy and educational doctrine. Radical Muslims will hate, kill and rape, while moderates will make excuses saying is is not the 'real' Islam.

Tell me, Waleed, how many times does a Muslim have to make excuses like this before he begins to suspect that there may be something very rotten in Islam?

Kactuz

Later….

I open my browser to Yahoo to check my email and there it is in the news section….

JAKARTA (Reuters) - Three teenage Christian women were beheaded on Saturday by two assailants wearing helmets in eastern Indonesia as they walked to school near the Muslim town of Poso…

NEW DELHI - Near-simultaneous explosions rocked the Indian capital Saturday evening, tearing through a bus and two markets crowded with people shopping for gifts for a Hindu festival. At least 58 people were killed and dozens wounded in …

Earlier this week the president of the ISLAMIC Republic of Iran announces that he wants to kill every man, woman and child in Israel.

Last week I had to read about a Coptic nun being knifed in Egypt by some brave Muslim man, for “insulting” Islam.

It is always the same old story. I may be wrong, but these may be the work of the friends, or better, co-worshipers, of our Muslim posters here at OLO. This is not a culture, this is a mad, evil and morbid faith that causes either moral blindness and denial, or hate and murder. How disgusting and pathetic is this religion called Islam. Yet, It is truly worthy of its founder -- a man who was (as recorded in Islam’s own writings) a slaver, torturer and murderer.

Does it ever end? More excuses? FH? Waleed? Irf? Maybe the girls were killed because of Bush or US policy in Iraque. Maybe it was because of the Palestinian conflict! Who knows, it may even be the Crusader’s fault.

Tell me, dear Muslims, how many more little girls and children have to die for Muslims to stop, think and consider the nature of Islam? How many more rapes will it take for you to ask yourselves “why”? This moral and intellectual blindness is utterly contemptible.

Maybe the beheadings have something to do with this:
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?search_text_box_dsn4=23445&lv=browse&formtrans=dgn%3D4%7C&ln=eng&ds=qa&sensitivity=2&searchquestions=1&searchtitles=1&searchanswers=1&searchsources=1&pg=result&offset=0&msubmit=1&submit.x=45&submit.y=5
(Q&A number 23445 at http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng )

Too disgusted to write any more.

John Kactuz

BD,

Sorry for the cut & paste but the questions are repetitive!.

I referred to explicit women rights and minorities rights in our scripture. You can't point me to any so far, OT mentions 3 wives to Abraham and 'right hand possessions'.

Anyway, enjoy the weekend.

Kaktuz,

You are stuck mate!

It seems you formed a view and you are only willing to consider whatever supports it. Even muslims websites, you ignore the most popular sites for modern day muslims (like the modernreligion.com) and quote from the least popular ones.

You also mix politics history and religion too (Iran/ Israel).

As for Egypt, unfortunately some coptic christians and Muslims fell into the vicious circle of hate. The poor Pope Shenouda had to apologise for the hate preached behind his back in some churches in Alexandria.

I believe they should work together similar to how they worked in 1919 (priests talking in Mosques and Imams in churches) about how to support one another.

Sad!

F.H. I'm sorry man, but you are simply putting up straw ladies here.

Let me remind you of the topic..... and the quote from Waleed which I was responding to:

"No law or moral code of decency, least of all an Islamic one, tolerates the deplorable murder or rape of people."

Now, lets take them one by one,

1/ Murder

Ka'ab ibn al-Ashraf. The facts.

a) He wrote poetry against Mohammed
b) Mohammed had him murdered. (the Hadith uses the word 'murder')
c) I'm not aware of any 'repentance' for this act by Mohamed. (in contrast to King David)

2/ Rape.

Quran 23:5-6 "sex with captive slaves is allowed"

Various other references which I'm sure you are aware of in the Hadith
Indicate Mohamed did not condemn the IMMEDIATE rape of captive women after the victory at Khaiber.

So, (as justice Higgins would say) "on the facts" there is no other conclusion which can be reasonably drawn, than that Islam as a faith, on the grounds of its foundational documents and historical traditions, either allows murder (of enemies) and rape (of captives), or, does not see such things as we would view them. In either case, it is an abhorrent act.

One could add about the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence, in which there are stronger or weaker views on such matters as 'insulting the prophet' attracting the death penalty. None of these views changes the facts cited above, and each school bases its conclusions by and large on those documents, though there are some which claim there is room for re-interpretation, (but I would ask 'on what grounds')

So, I've addressed the topic, (again) and demonstrated that the assumptions made by the author are inconsistent with the faith (as documented in Quran and Hadith) he claims to represent.

Perhaps he should have prefaced his article with "I am of the such and such school of interpretation which believes such and such"...it would have made understanding him a little easier.

BD or BDs,

There are either many of you using the same PC (or you are extremely forgetful!).

Even though you keep initiating the 'my religion is better than yours', my above posting proves beyond doubt that, comparing scripture to scripture proves Quranic teachings a lot more 'pro women' rights.

You failed to bring any arugument from your scripture that supports the argument you initiated so now you resort to the 'hear say' stories written by Jewish tribes!

I am still waiting on 'women rights' in your scripture, there are 177 in the Quran.

Until then, enjoy these new sites:

http://www.islamonline.net
http://www.islamonline.com
http://www.whyislam.org

And a new think tank on Islam and democracy:

www.islam-democracy.org

As a woman who regularly posts on this forum (formerly as Trinity) I have always been treated with respect by Fellow Human, however I have been regularly condescended to by BD and other christians.

Thank you FH - your actions and words are in accord.

Back to the thread - once again Waleed has hit the mark. I note from this forum the rants indulged in by posters who use any excuse to deride those they view as different and therefore 'less equal' than their high and mighty selves - barbaric indeed.

Much love to all - especially the narrow minded ;-)

Rants? Narrowminded? Stuck? Well, excuse me for thinking that evil is bad. I gave been wearisome bringing these issues up again and again. How terribly inconsiderate of me to inconvenience you folks with talk of suffering and death.

Fodem-se! It will be a cold day in hell before I turn my backl on evil.

FH - Let it not be said I didn’t cooperate with you. I have written an email to Sidi Faraz Rabbani (www.themodernreligion.com) at faraz@tazkiya.net. I am sure he will clear up this terrible delusion I have asked about the character of the man you admire. Here is the text:

Mr. Rabanni,

I was referred to your site by a Muslim known as Fellow Human at the Online Opinion forum (OLO) in Australia. Nice site yours, but you omitted some details…

The issue is the hate, anger, and brutality so characteristic of Islam. I attribute it to Mohammed – a man that is not and never was an example for anybody. He was a murderer, torturer, slaver and even a wife-beater. I believe his life explains the violence that is the essence of Islam.

I would like you to explain or justify these five actions listed below.

Here are the references:

[Here I put quotes and references to five events from the life of Islam's great prophet]

1. Brutal torture of thieves, Bukhari 52:261 (Mohammed, torturer}.
2. Mohammed beating his 9-year old wife Aisha, Muslim 4:2127. (the wife-beater)
3. Tabari's count of raids conducted by Mohammed. Tabari IX:118 and IX:115 (bandit, plunderer, slaver)
4. Mohammed saying that shagging married slave women is fine. (Rapist, slaver, adulterer)
5. Murders of Abu Afak, Asma bint Marwan and her 5 children by the prophet's men. (petty vile murder)

[I am not putting the complete text because of the word limitation]

I notice on your site that you use and refer to other events from these same sources. You have my permission to post these questions in the “debate” section of your site. This email and your replay will be posted at OLO at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3830

Cordially,

John Arthur (AKA Kactuz)

Well, that was easy!

Now all we have to do is wait a day or so and I'm sure that Old Rabbani will answer my email and clear everything up. He says he has 2000 articles on his website (www.themodernreligion.com) so I am sure he has very precise and easy answers that will fully explain these "misunderstood" events from the life of Islam great and noble prophet.

I am sure that the explanations for these events are all there on the website, I just wasn't able to find them in the dozens of pages praising that shining example of virtue known as Mohammed. I am so stupid - thinking that Muslims may be avoiding certain issues! How silly of me.

Maybe he will surprise us all and post directly to OLO! He has the link. Wow, that would be an honor!

Then maybe he can explain those "misunderstandings" (mentioned above) that happened Indonesia, India and Egypt. Maybe the real culpits were Zionists, or who knows, a narrow-minded, stuck, prickly old man living in the boondocks, surrounded by cactus.

I can hardly wait. I just tingle with anticipation to finally, after almost 5 months, have a Muslim explain these things to little old me. Gosh, gee-whiz, whippee doo! FH, thank you so much for providing me with this site reference.

Kactuz

Agora vamos falar seriamente. Chega de brincadeira! So quero ver se este cara vai responder - afinal de contas estamos falando de vida e morte, dor e lagrimas, liberdade e escravidao.

Kaktuz,

Glad you got it off your chest, let me try another way, I am sure you are listening but I can’t explain:

Islam = Quran = God’s revealed message = Written and documented during the life of the prophet. Loving, peaceful message of 6,226 verses that preach humanity, creation, worship, women rights, social rights, neighbour and animals rights (there is even a section about bees rights!).

Hadith as a source is a questionable ‘hear say stories’ that was collected 2-4 centuries after the prophet’s death. Credible hadith should be a) narrated and b) does not conflict with the Quran. Plane and simple to all Muslims.

Aisha, first hadith when asked about prophet Mohamed (PBUH) manners she said “his manners were the Quran”. The Quran is as sharp as blaming the prophet for not smiling to a blind man (as I am sure you read it).

Let me take another statistical impossibility: Jesus (PBUH) from the age of 12 till 33, have about 300-400 stories documented about him including in the banned bibles (Gospel of Barnabos). All the history of the Israelites prophets, kings teachings and biographies over thousands of years are 31,000 verses approximately.

Now Prophet Mohamed lived 23 years of the revelation time receiving the Quran, teaching and interpreting it (6,226). In addition to his responsibility as a prophet king (like Moses, David). Where would he get the time for all the narrated and non-narrated hadith (57,000 to 65,000 including the Israelites tribes input!).

If this arguments (logic and numeric) does not help you nothing will.
I hope I am making some sense, ..to anybody…

Scout,

Was wondering what happened to Trinity (re-incarnated as Scout)..
Glad you are still around, we missed your insights. It is amazing to see the spectrum from Kaktuz, BD and Philo in one end to Trinity and Reason on the other.

Peace,

F_H: let me concur with Scout, from the perspective of a tolerant, agnostic Anglo-Aussie male. On the basis of the content and tenor of the comments posted in this forum, a dispassionate observer would have to conclude that by far the most vitriolic and hateful ideas and sentiments emanate from the anti-Islamic camp, which consists mainly of Christian fundamentalists and secular xenophobes.

In contrast, posts from those who identify as Muslim are invariably reasonable, patient and accommodating - particularly given the degree of provocation that is often evident.

My opinion is that religious fundamentalists of any persuasion share with racists and xenophobes a projection of their own alienation onto the objects of their hatred and intolerance. On reading many of their comments, it appears that some commentators relish conflict and have no other way of dealing with it than to exacerbate it. My namesake once said something like "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", which I think is quite pertinent to what passes for debate in this forum sometimes.

Despite my generally tolerant disposition, I'm beginning to have wistful moments where I imagine that it could be possible for all public religious observance of any description to be banned. Surely that would be possible under a general climate of increasingly authoritarian legislatures, such as we seem to have now in Australia?

Mahatma Duck wrote:

"Despite my generally tolerant disposition, I'm beginning to have wistful moments where I imagine that it could be possible for all public religious observance of any description to be banned. Surely that would be possible under a general climate of increasingly authoritarian legislatures, such as we seem to have now in Australia?"

Well, the singing of the Kiwi and English national anthems would be banned. All the state law courts would have to have their crests removed, because they contain, in translation, the words "God and my right".

Would you also ban the use of the word'God' in public? Would mean that nearly TV and movies would receive far different ratings.

And anyway, the banning of public religious observance would be of itself a public religious act.

If experience has shown us anything over the last 5,000 years or so, the one sure way to encourage the growth of any religion is to persecute it.

The only way, that works, to truly repress any religion is to either kill all of that religions adherents and destroy all its texts and monuments, or to exile its members in such a way that their children may be removed from them and used to the state's advantage, in the way that the Turks used the Janissaries, the pre-teen sons of Christian families drafted into the Turkish army as elite troops.

And I don't think anyone wants to see that particular experiment happen again.

On Topic:
Philo, the justification given by the lawyer for MSK is not a defence based on their cultural practices and beliefs – they are using it as an excuse for their excesses to minimise their punishment.

Criminal law creates the defence of ‘honest but mistaken belief’. That is - could it be held that the belief in the defendant’s mind was reasonable and real? If their culture were as they claim, then the defence would be a real option. As this is not the case, the lawyer raised their cultural understanding, flawed though it is, should be a mitigating circumstance. This is not the same as a defence.

I simply do not think the claim by the defendants was a direct instruction from them to their lawyer but more likely a tactic employed (in my opinion unethically) by the lawyer, to attempt to minimise the punishment of the offenders, via a shorter sentence.

Off Topic:
I state that anyone not of the belief system they argue regarding is incapable of understanding the true depths and meanings of that belief.

It is fine to be able to read – I can read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations – but could put whatever interpretation I wished into it until a person conversant in economic theory set me straight. Now if two or more experts in the field had differing opinions, well, they have a right to argue.

Outsiders should simply listen and learn – not judge from a perspective that precludes true understanding. Particularly those of a doctrinaire, superior view towards other beliefs.

I simply state – expound the virtues of your own beliefs and leave the criticism of others to those who truly know and understand the meaning.

By the way, I am not a Muslim and do not wish to be. If they choose to attempt to create a theocracy here, I would fight them as vehemently as I would a fundamental Christian theocracy.

Hamlet,
I think the Duck was being ironic…

The nice Mr Reason now wants all debate to cease and no difference of opinion to be expressed. The only question I ask; What is he doing on an Opinion Forum. He finds points of view from others opinions and beliefs offensive and should be kept to onself, as only the true believers know the full extent of their beliefs. To all you who believe in ghosts and faries we will not degrade your genuine belief so we will not offend you.

I would encourage all you atheists to keep your opinions to yourself and stop the criticism of religion! On second thoughts No! We would have nothing to discuss, as you will note opinions on religion on this Forum draw the most comment. It is totally un-reason-able to expect people to keep their opposition to an opinion to themselves. Please show some objectionable - reason.

Quote from Reason, "I simply state – expound the virtues of your own beliefs and leave the criticism out; to those who truly know and understand the meaning."

Fh, bad news...... That email (faraz@tazkiya.net) on the site you recommended is bad. The page is:
http://www.themodernreligion.com/index2.html
Please indicate another site.

“Loving, peaceful message”? Are you sure? Do you have some private, individualized abridged version? Wow! Are you sure there are no verses there in the Quran that some people may find not to be so “loving” and “peaceful”?

So the Hadiths are “questionable”. Hum, do other Muslims know this? Please give links to Islamic sites that reject the Hadiths and say that they are false or questionable.

By the way, have you considered the implications of that statement? At least that remark means that you recognize the true nature (and problems) with these writings. Do other Muslims reject the Hadiths as integral to the Sunnah? Do you know what it means if you reject the Hadiths? (although you have used them here at OLO in your comments) and other Muslims don’t? Think about this. If you can’t figure it out then ask me and I will explain it to you.

Oops. Not all the references in the email were from the Hadiths. Are you saying you believe Muslims can screw their married female slaves at will? (my paraphrase!). I can only find 4 things that are totally repugnant there, yet you say this (Quran 4:24) is part of Allah’s “loving” and “Peaceful” message. You sure?

So, recapitulating, I have asked that you...
1. provide links to Islamic sites that meet your criteria of “good sources” so I can check them out.
2. give me references to Muslim sites that reject the Hadiths and quality them as unreliable or questionable.
3. Confirm that Allah gives his blessing to slavery, adultery, and rape (verse 4:24).

One thing about you, FH, I may doubt your judgement and moral principles, but nobody can say that you don't try hard or that you are not responsive. Somethimes I think you sit next to your computer all day and all night, just waiting to respond to the next posting. I count on you to help me with these matters!

Kactuz

FH, I want to correct your statement on the Copts: “coptic christians and Muslims fell into the vicious circle... Pope Shenouda had to apologize for the hate preached behind his back in some churches:

That is so distorted it cannot be forgiven. Murder and persecution is unacceptable! Three months ago I mentioned the Coptic problem, and you dismissed it.

Now read these:
http://missmabrouk.blogspot.com/2005/10/stgergis-three-killed-dozens-wounded.html#links
http://egyptianperson.blogspot.com/2005/10/my-opinion-regarding-moharam-bek.html
http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=2351
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/globalvoices/2005/10/24/religious-harmony-severed-in-egypt/
http://mychristianblood.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/10/22/islamic-riot-in-alexandria-againist-christians.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/egypt_religious_conflict
http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lord-have-mercy.html
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=14830
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A66F025D-0E21-4863-95BF-F5369F08AA58.htm

Did you think I wouldn’t check the story? Once again Muslims kill and persecute and you pretend it is otherwise. Tell me, do you actually read the news or do you make it up and distort it so that it makes you feel good?

It was not the Coptic Pope that apologized, but someone else (not involved) hoping to calm things. It was not Christians rioting. One Muslim blogger saw the play (done once, two years ago!) and didn’t even find offense. Muslims just wanted an excuse to kill and riot (see events in France)...

It will get worse. I fear for the Copts. One day the followers of the Religion of Peace may kill or expel the rest of them (as they have done to the Jews and half of the Egyptian Coptic community in the last 50 years), instead of just the usual persecution and discrimination (not to mention the murders, rape, and other classic Islamic habits).

So you and other Muslims here at OLO do dozens of postings about minority rights and how Australia discriminates, yet when I mention the plight of minorities in Islamic countries - well, basically your position is “they deserved it for offending Islam”. Muslims riot, destroy and kill and you couldn’t care less! You make excuses, distort the facts and shrug it off as “so what?” How pathetic and cowardly! Reprobates! How about an apology?

Out of curiosity, what do you think would happen to me on the streets of Alexandria, if your fellow Muslims there knew of what I think and say about Islam and Mohammed? Give it your best guess! In fact, what do you think of blasphemy?

kactuz

Scout. Please don't confuse 'passion and confidence' for the more negative concept of 'condescending'. The only comment to you I would apologise for is the one where I said "Trinity dear".... but that was tongue in cheek :) a mood thing I guess.

To all, specially 'Tolerant' Mahatma .. I'm wondering how the parents of those 3 teenage Christian girls beheaded by Muslim radicals in Sulawasi would feel about your views ?

Islam= Mohamed + Quran + Hadith = "Sunnah"

F.H. the way you put it, suggests you believe the Quran exists eternally and by itself, and is the 'abiding word of God for all time'..... (and hence you would justify 23:5-6 as applicable today.)

Scout and Mahatma and Reason .. do you actually 'believe' F.H. on his 'all verses of peace' etc ? if yes, I urge you guys to become informed, if no, then please take the trouble to take him to task over such misrepresentation.

Mahatma, you speak of tolerance, and 'fundamentalist Christians/hate/xenophobes' etc..

It makes me feel that the pointing out of truth/fact is not relevant to you. As I've said repeatedly, "If I'm wrong.. please indicate where"? and I repeat this request.

TOPIC.. Waleed stated "No religion justifies rape" (refer previous post) and I have demonstrated the falsehood of this claim on the basis of the Quran and Hadith.

If Sura 23 which is an outline of 'the Believers' attibutes, and is clearly a lifestyle commended by God and not intended to be of any limited duration, but on-going, then, clearly the sexual use of captive women is 'lawful'. (today/now) I'm afraid this is beyond scary and is contradictory to Waleed's claim.

You only have to ask a muslim 'what are the attributes of a believer in the Quran' ? and the obvious place to refer is the chapter on "The Believers" Sura 23.

So, to Reason, Scout and Mahatma, "do you support sexual use of captive women today" ? If not, why are u condemning me ? (and Kactuz)

I would appreciate deeply a thoughtful response to this.

On the issue of 'Old Testament' and captive women.

Lets look at some important points.

-Sexual use of captive slaves was not allowed.
-Marraige to captive women after a 1 month time of grieving was allowed.
-If the marraige did not work out, she was freed to go/do as she chose.

Given the prevalence of 'plunder and rape' today, (specially during WW2) the immediate and opportunistic ill treatment of women in an orgy of victorious power by all sides during conflicts, it tends to make the Old testament approach seem rather conservative and restrained. It is also a stark contrast to the Islamic practice.

The 2nd point, and most important, is that the New Testament 'fulfills' the Law of Moses. i.e. the concept "Love your neighbour as yourself" is the over-riding proviso for all human behaviour. (and yes, it includes me expecting as good as I give on this forum) So, it is not valid at all to suggest that the Old Testament rules regarding human conflict in the context of Israel's geo-political history can be made into some unchanging "law" of conflict for today.

The Quran is unlike this. It is viewed by various schools in different ways:

http://www.uga.edu/islam/shariah.html

The opening sentence is:

<<Islamic law contains guidelines and rules for all aspects of a Muslim's life, such as how to pray, the proper way to conduct a business transaction, how to bury the dead, as well as crimes and punishments. Traditionally, these laws were based largely upon the Qur'an and the sunnah, which is the practice of the Prophet.>>

I draw your attention to the very last phrase. "practice of the prophet"

Then:
The Hanbali School .. derives its decrees from the Qur'an and the Sunnah, which it places above all forms of consensus, opinion or inference. (sunnah=practice (behavior) of Mohamed)

Now you understand John Ks passion and my insistence on evaluating Islam and Waleeds claims on the basis of its foundations.

Thanks Reason - unfortunately subtlety is usually wasted upon the one-eyed, mostly Christian extremists here. I see that our resident evangelists are still going at it hammer and tongs, trying to provoke conflict with the much better-mannered Muslim and secular contingent.

I repeat, mostly for the benefit of Boaz, that the tedious rantings of the Muslim bashers is every bit as irrelevant to those of us who are not religious as are the selective quotes from ancient Islamic texts that they insist on posting here as 'evidence' to back their prejudice - as if their own mythology isn't replete with numerous graphic tales of rape, pillage and destruction. While these might constitute 'truths' to the credulous, their facticity is another question entirely. To us agnostics it's all a matter of strategic interpretation anyway, typically deployed in furtherance of sectarian political projects.

With respect to the most recent horrific incident in the tit-for-tat ethnic/religious conflict in Sulawesi, it might be advisable for the Muslim-bashers to read a little history of the area before apportioning blame solely (or even mostly) to Muslims. Christianity was introduced to the area by Dutch missionaries and colonists just over a century ago in a cynical effort to exert political control over the largely autonomous Malay sultanates who dominated the coastal areas and rivers. This artificial division - deliberately created by a European colonial power - simmered away relatively peacefully until exacerbated by Suharto's 'transmigration' policies from the 1970s. Since then, there have been numerous atrocities perpetrated by Christians and Muslims alike in the name of their religions. A dispassionate analysis may be found at http://www.insideindonesia.org/edit70/Poso1.htm .

Once again I find myself thinking wistfully about a world without religion as a mechanism for the conscription of the gullible in political conflicts... and that's only slightly ironic :)

Kaktuz,

On the Copts topic I happen to have lived in Egypt for 29 years (In a Catholic school and Coptic neighbourhood).

Muslims Copts relations only went sour during the end of time of President Sadat, who, amongst other actions, supported the right wing Islamist to combat the Marxcism that grew strong in Egypt in the times of Nasser.

Since Sadat assassination by Islamic Jihad (who he sponsored), there was lots of incidents in the south that pushed some of the extreme groups on both sides apart.
Apart from political and social discrimination, there was a new ‘Theological’ type that started appearing (mainly in the low income/ workers) in the society: that is both sides in this group ‘prefer’ to deal with their own people.
As an example, last August in Egypt my brother was looking for an apartment to buy and he found a nice one. Only to be told that the Christian owner of the building ‘prefers’ to keep the building ‘Christian’ whatever that means. I had Iftar with Coptic friends in Sydney last week and we never thought that day will come.

As for violent reaction, this is sadly a part of the Arabic/ North African culture is that they can easily resort to violence on any topic of argument. When the local news in Cairo revealed the pervert priest who used to sexually abuse his victims during confession. What happened?
- Riots in the streets by Christians (accusing the government of discrimination)
- Female victims were ‘forced’ to silence and not prosecute the pervert.

Most people there are not mature enough to process events, faith and actions separately. Nothing of what is happening in Egypt has anything to do with Islam or Christianity.
Having said all that, I believe the ball is always in the majority’s court to restore the trust and heal the wounds, which is the Egyptian Muslims majority.

BD,

Stay on the subject ‘Mr Challenger’ before we move to the next topic: slavery.
I referred to women rights in our Holy Book, if you can’t keep up just say so.

BD (sigh) - Your constant references to adult women as 'girls', your denigration of our abilities to defend ourselves - our autonomy, your belief that women should answer to their men who answer to god......I could go on about your patronising views of women's abilities, but I really have better things to do. BD - I do believe that you have a good heart, however, you are so blinkered you cannot even see how condescending you are. Ironical that you actually have more in common with muslims than you do with people like me (athiest) - you both believe in god!

On topic - actually when I think about your continual denigration of muslims and women's autonomy you are extremely barbaric - therefore the above is on topic.

Well the OLO police woman is now back scouting the posts keeping everyone in check so that no serious passionate debate happens. She does not read the posts or examine the truth, as she said herself, just wants to be accepted by nice people.

Hi Scout... a minor point please. "girls" is the term used for those 3 Teenage victims .. they were 15 yrs old.. they are not 'women'.
Where do you get 'adult females' from in connection with this ?
How in the heck am I attacking 'female independance, and ability to defend themselves here' ?

Mahatma, you have degenerated yet again to name calling, rather than debate.
-Prejudiced
-One eyed
-Extremist
-Provoking Conflict
-Ranting Muslim basher
-Condescending (Scout)

Not bad ! :) Maybe you can try for 7 names next time, and you lot 'rant' at me for being a 'ranter' :)

Lets go back to the ISSUE.

1/ Waleed (commendably) claims its wrong to use 'religion' as a defense for bad behavior.
2/ Waleed then claims in support of his position

<<No law or moral code of decency, least of all an Islamic one, tolerates the deplorable murder or rape of people,>>

Now, I've been making the point, that his supporting claim is in fact in error.

-I show evidence to this effect, and I'm name called, abused, accused, and suffused with 'muslim basher' etc....

Have I called anyone here EVEN ONE NAME....
So, perhaps this says volumes about my debating opponents position ?
(point weak,- abuse your opponent)

Mahatma, 'selective quotes' ? for goodness sake, you are supposed to be a scholar ! My faith in your ability to analyse is suffering a crisis.

Quoting from the 10 commandments when speaking of 'Gods intention for us' is quite valid.
Quoting from an outline in the Quran on "The Believers Attributes"
or the foundations of Islamic law is just as valid.

No one has shown me the invalidity of this line of reasoning.

F.H. stick to the topic :)

BD (shaking my head in sorrow) you pepper your posts regularly with references to women as girls - suggest you check your posts in the User Index to refresh your memory.

Now take off your blinkers and have a good hard look - do you not think it barbaric when people throw things like the KU Klux Klan, Spanish Inquisition, witch burning etc and then go on to claim that Christianity gives rise to criminal/terrorist activity?

Is this not a generalisation?

Are there not many compassionate and charitable christians who abhor the many horrors committed in the name of christianity?

If you can answer YES to any of these questions, then do you not agree that Waleed's article has merit?

Scout.. "some1 needs a hug !" .... I'd offer it myself, but you would probably need post traumatic stress counselling :) after all, I'm barbaric ya....

I'm sorry if my occasional references to 'women' as girls worries you, I must say in my defence, that I've actually surveyed a number of women of different ages, (no, not 'just' from my church) including old, and none thus far are concerned or offended, they even see it as a complement.

On your comment about KKK etc, yes, by 'that' line of reasoning it would be quite intolerable and offensive if we were lumped into a Christian 'mould' based on their behavior. Actually it often happens.

But what your not quite appreciating, is that your reference is tied to events far removed from the core/foundation events and doctrines of the faith.

It's not a difficult thing, to simply compare the teaching and life of Christ with the behavior of the KKK etc, and see that there is a gulf of difference between the 2. A person of open and informed mind would then ask why? and look more closely at the matter.

So, if I may humbly take this back to my line of reasoning. I'm not looking at the behavior of Muslims in Pakistan or Iran, and how they treat Christians, and then saying "Ah.. Islam is this or that"

It should be clear by now, that I'm going right back to the very tap root of that faith, to its own founder, and the one major document left by him, as he himself said "I leave you 2 things, the Quran and my Sunnah" (his example) He said this in his last sermon.

It could be said scout, that there is no finer or more accurate measuring stick for "Islam" than these. I'm just using those most reliable measuring sticks to refute the claim by Waleed as mentioned previously.

If he had left out that one claim, not one of my posts would be here.
Pls don't worry, F.H. will survive :)

Well, the full judgement is not yet available on the Lawlink website, but it seems that the Judges of the NSW Court of Criminal appeal were not impressed with the 'my culture made me do it' justification given by appellants in the matter of the K brothers and their sentences for aggravated sexual assault.

I am quoting news reports here - so any of you who are lawyers could argue for this to be excluded as hearsay, but this is what one of the Judges is reported to have said.

"In dismissing the sentence appeals of all three men in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, Justice Michael Grove criticised an argument put forward on behalf of MSK.

Justice Grove said it was "inappropriate" for a lawyer to have described MSK as a "cultural time bomb" and blame the rapes on his upbringing in Pakistan.

He dismissed the argument that MSK had raped the girls because he had traditional views of women from his upbringing as a Muslim in Pakistan.

"If it was intended to suggest that differences might be observed in behaviour in the respective cultures of Pakistan and Australia, there was, and is, not the slightest basis for concluding other than that in both places all women are entitled to respect and safety from sexual assault," Justice Grove said.

"The expression 'cultural time bomb' was, to say the least, inappropriate and inapt.

"It would understandably be regarded as offensive by those who fell within the scope of its insult."

The article was found on both the SMH and Daily Telegrapg websites.

BD "Scout.. "someone needs a hug !" ...." - that is condescending!

Vilifying an entire religion for the actions of a few nutters as you do repeatedly is ignorant and therefore barbaric.

Yet again all you have achieved is to drive me further from ever seriously considering christianity as a valid philosophy.

I know you mean well.... but you really need to expand your world view.

Cheers m'dear

Scout,
B_D's endeavouring exposure of the religions foundations, to show it condones actions foreign to good society. It doesn't eminate out of life and values we recognise will build good community.

When evaluating philosophy examinae the life and attitudes of its founder. To understand the philosophy of Ghandi learn his life and attitudes. To understand Buddah learn his life and attitudes. To learn about Christ examine his life and attitudes. To learn about the philosophy of Mahomet examine his life and attitudes. Quote, "Vilifying an entire religion for the actions of a few nutters as you do repeatedly is ignorant and therefore barbaric."

Examine carefully the mind out of which attitudes are expressed in behaviour. I've not seen B_D vilify any single person acting outside the values and norms of the founder of the philosophy. You are assuming all philosophies hold your morality. Because you find some civilised persons upholding the sensitive values you espouse, doesn't mean they learned them from the founder of their philosophy.

If the KKK are murdering Afro-Americans, that's action not beased in the life and attitudes of Christ. In fact it is the very opposite. Do you believe they follow the attitudes and behaviour of Christ? If their behaviour is the same as its founder then they must be Christians, if not then they are following the spirit of another from whom they receive guidance and example.

This is the claim of Christ that the father of his spirit was God, and the works and words of his father he will perform and speak. It's our recognition that his spirit is from God, [i.e.son-of-God] expressing the very attitudes and mind of God by life that initiates our faith in him. In fact we recognise the spirit he expressed was greater than the human Jesus who could have reacted very normally in conflict situations, but he recognised it was the very spirit of God in him that motivated his compassionate forgiving attitudes. Recognising the spirit of the person identifies the very foundation of their belief system and what philosophy they follow.

Philo, on the 2nd Nov you posted "Well the OLO police woman is now back scouting the posts keeping everyone in check so that no serious passionate debate happens..............." your post had nothing to do with thread, you just wanted to insult me.

And now you want me to give serious consideration to your latest post. I will do so only when you and your ilk treat others with whom you disagree with RESPECT. You have regularly cast aspersions on my intelligence - yet you persist with your claims regarding the 'superiority' of your religion over everyone else's beliefs - spiritual or otherwise.

I do not waste my time on people who both treat me with condescension and whose obvious agenda is to create division between people of differing cultural beliefs. You are contributing to the sadness and hostility in this world. You claim a belief in the philosophy of Jesus Christ - yet you never practice what he preaches.

A little respect, Philo.

Scout, you have to remember where BD and Philo are coming from in regard to women.

First thing I would confess is that I am an Anglican, of the Sydney Diocese, and I agree with the diocese interpretations of the scriptures. In that I don't believe that anyone should be a 'priest' of the church, as all are equal.

Having said that I believe that women and men are equal in Christ.

The following passage, however, demonstrates the traditional Christian view of women: 1 Timothy 2

Women Instructed

9Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,
10but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.

11(V)A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.

12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.

14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

15But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

-- == --

It seems to me that if DB amd Philo espouse these principles, then there is no way of them taking you or any other woman seriously. If I were you, I wouldn't waste my time, nor be offended, because they simply cannot help it.

Scout,
You’ve recognised difference between behaviour unbecoming followers of the founder. Point taken! Sorry my earlier post offended your sense of good community, and sensitivity; it unbecoming to a person calling himself, “a follower of Christ.” Note Hamlet attempts to offend B_D and me, its water off a ducks back.

What B_D has done is identify what the prophet taught and lived by and how this translates into like behaviour in his followers. That is why B_D and myself constantly say; examine the founder not the followers. Followers constantly do their own thing. The founder of the idea or truth best demonstrates the validity of their truth.

When rapists claim cultural example of their truth and such demonstrated by the founder, then is not their sense of cultural morality questionable by another set of morals? So it’s our morals that enhance or destroy our society that judges the validity of another philosophy. We have people everyday in courts justifying the basis of their believed truth.
Mahomet established his truth and from it set about murdering all those that opposed him, and he allowed rape of captive women because he believed it was all right with Allah.
“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts) 6. Except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands possess,.. for then, they are free from blame” [al-Mu’minoon 23:5-6]
Does this sound like an ideal society evaluated by our Christian standard? Perhaps he murdered and raped those that were less than ideal citizens, but such does not give absolute validity to his moral behaviour, “kill the infidels … rape the captive women”. This was recently demonstrated in Ambon Indonesia when Muslim men massacred Christian men with machetes and took as sex slaves the wives and young girls of the Christians they had slaughtered.

Terrorists do not perceive the Christian morality of, “thou shalt not kill”; or Muslim rapists captured girls, “lust not after thy [unbelieving] neighbours wife ” applies to them, they justify their morality on another principle, “God will assist you to destroy the unbelievers.”
See www.islam-qa.com

Philo - apology accepted, thank you.
Agreed - terrorists do not recognise christian value: 'thou shalt not kill' - which is not exclusive to christians BTW. However terrorists are not terrorists because they are muslim, they are terrorists for the same and varied reasons of terrorists throughout human history.

Completely disagree that Islam is a cause of terrorism it is simply a religion like any other which has been used for good or ill like any other including christianity.

In other words this is the point that Waleed had been trying to make: that focusing on real or perceived differences between cultural beliefs and then distorting them to claim that these beliefs are evil is a barbaric approach. I would say that this a typical approach used throughout history to de-humanise the 'other'. This is what you and BD have been doing.

Hamlet - thank you for your support.

Philo,

Examine BOTH the founder AND the followers!

Not that you will have much luck with Muslims.. They are, as they say in Latin America, cabeza dura (hard heads). For two whole months I when out to forums, Muslim Q&A sites, and Muslims blogs trying to get them to recognize the obvious.

Using their own scriptures and historic accounts, I pointed out the incidents of torture, murder, slavery, rape, etc... by their prophet and his followers. I then asked Muslims to explain or justify those actions. Silience.

Out of about 30 to 40 attempts, the single honest response was that the actions were "problematic." That was at altmuslim.com. I even asked them to just tell me if that is what it says, in simple terms, even if they don't believe it or wccept it. Nada, zilch. I asked them to reject the hadiths, and only our fearless friend FH responded, basically saying they were unreliable (which is news to the other 99.9% of Muslims). Oh course, FH has previously defended the Hadiths here at OLO and even quoted from them, but consistency is almost as hard for a Muslim as honesty.

It is not easy! I don't think the idiots in France have a clue as to what they are up against. It would be funny if not so tragic.

Kactuz

BD (& Philo & Kaktuz)
The three "mosque"-teers :-)

Before I respond, I would interpret your inability to quote ‘women rights’ in your scripture that there is nothing to match women rights in the Quran.

On slavery, here is the Quran position to pagan arabs to wipe out slavery:

2:177…righteous is he who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels and the scriptures and the prophets; and giveth his wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask and to set slaves free; and observe proper worship and payeth the poor-due…

5:89 Allah will not you to task for that which is unintentional in your oaths, but He will take you to oaths which you swear in ernest. The expiation thereof is the feeding of ten of the needy with the average of that wherewith ye feed your own folk, or the clothing of them, or the liberation of a slave, …

90:11-13 but he hath not attempted the Ascent* Ah, what will convey unto thee what the Ascent is* (It is) to free a slave* and to feed in the day of hunger* An Orphan near of kin* Or some poor wretch in misery.

You got the picture: in brief “freeing a slave” became the norm to repent from repeatable sins or want to be a true believer.

Please quote me anywhere in the Bible where it is explicitly mentioned to ‘free slaves’, all my readings refer to it as an acceptable ‘status quo’.

And btw, if you insist on the challenger role, be professional enough and answer rather than the ‘duck, weave and change the subject” approach you adopt.. Be a first class missionary not the Liverpool street ones.

Scout,
Thanks! However you continue to be naive about the sacred text of the Qur'an that inspires justification for death to kafir and rape of captured slave women. Persons who follow the teachings of Christ hold the very opposite position, "Love your enemy" "He that hateth his brother is already a murderer", and "He that lusteth after a woman has committed adultery in his heart already". Read the New Testament text and the Qur'an to establish if both espouse the same message.

To quote you, "Completely disagree that Islam is a cause of terrorism it is simply a religion like any other which has been used for good or ill like any other including christianity."

Waleed and Fellow_Human are Westernised Muslims and they suffer the same threat as us from orthodox Muslim believers. They do not follow the Qur'an to the letter of its revelation. I suggest you visit the Muslim question and answer site: http://63.175.194.25/index.php?cs=prn&ln=eng&QR=2527&dgn=4&dgn=2 and find out from their scholars what is their attitude to western women including Christian and Jew. For more answers click on home page.

F_H I will endeavour to answer your question more fully as my 24 hour limit restricts me. Question: Please quote me anywhere in the Bible where it is explicitly mentioned to ‘free slaves’, all my readings refer to it as an acceptable ‘status quo’.

What I can say here is that Christian Believers were to recognise that in Christ all are free men, there is neither slave or free i.e. there was to be no class system. Those believers who were slaves of unbelievers were to serve their masters as though they were serving God. Examples of this are demonstrated in Joseph, Daniel. Especially Onesimus who had become a believer while sharing imprisonment with Paul. If Christians had non-believing masters this was not to impede their service but they were to serve with more diligence. Christ never captured women as sex slaves, this is only found in Islam

F.H. I appreciate your 'humor' :) truly.. its good.

I'll address all your points in terms of one principle, and underline that the Christian concept of social life is NOT one of a list of 'rules and laws' it is the application of a principle of....

"Love your neighbour as yourself"

This applies to women, to slaves, to economics to all things.
The Jews had (have) 634 extra rules which they seek to use to cover "specific" areas of life to which they apply the 10 commandments.
Its not neccessary, following the golden rule in all things is all that is needed.

SLAVERY.. 'would you like to be a slave' ? NO.. so don't treat other human beings in such a way. "There is no longer slave or free"... i.e.. take the ESSENSE out of slavery, treat people fairly as your own family, don't use them for SEX and don't beat or ill treat them.
And most obviously, if there is an opportunity to free them and establish them in life independantly ..DO IT. (as my wifes people did when they came to Christ.. want to come to the village where they were given land and buffaloes etc ?)

WOMEN ditto. but within the framework of the authority structure laid down in Scripture, which of course while giving the male the leadership role, says that leadership must be 'love your wife as your own body'.
As for property rights, they already had them in the Old testament. Anything deviating from this is CULTURAL not 'scriptural'.

The New Testament (which interprets the old) does not under any circumstances even for a moment suggest a man can have more than one wife, and especially LEADERS.... unlike another 'religion' I know of :)

So.. having addressed your 'issues/red herrings' I'll now seek to clarify something for Hamlet

HAMLET
I hope the above gives more insight on 'where' we are coming from.
The verses you offer, should all be taken in the framework of the above and they apply 'within the church'. Women in that day had their own business also.

Remember the first Christians served happily under the Roman Empire even enduring persecution; they never envisage establishing Government. The New Testament embodies the Christian message that views all men as servants or ministers of God with the practical outcome of serving each other. Jesus identified himself as the servant of the people. He said that he did not come to Lord over men [judge] but to serve and give his life in sacrifice to save others.

The NT doesn’t identify matters for State reform, it is assumed that as the message changes people in political power its values will influence their decisions. The message is focused upon personal decisions and intimate practises. Naturally as Christ followers if they occupy government their Christian attitudes should formulate policy and practise. That is why under the influence of Pauline theology during the reformation it impacted political conscience and led to great, prosperous free societies. Hence Westminster politicians are called ministers of the crown [crown = people.] As this influence diminishes so Western societies will fall back into legalism and enforced State control over the people.

In following Christ there was to be no Lords except God, all were answerable personally and directly to God. Christ never used a person against their will. Christians were to treat all persons as their equal. Hence the admonition to recognise there is no slaves or freemen in Christ, nor race identity with the admonition there is neither Jew nor Greek. They were all to be one united body serving each other.

The NT identifies submission and service of husbands to God, wives to husbands, children to parents, servants to masters. Conversely there is caring responsibility of husbands to wives, parents to children and bosses to their staff.

There was never any thought of capturing persons as slaves and especially as the property of as is the case with Mahomet who captured women and girls as sex slaves. This practise is still sanctioned in Islam even today, demonstrated in Indonesia in the last five years. I’ve videotapes of young Christian girls who’ve escaped to tell horrific murderous stories

BD,

I thought you challenged me on ‘scripture to scripture’ not ‘philo’sophical interpretation?

Anyway, I think I made my point on Islam’s position on women rights & slavery.

Philo,

The word ‘kafir’ have a spectrum of meanings: ungrateful, wicked, unbeliever, infidels, etc..

The ‘fight’ scenarios you refer to in our Holy scripture is ‘those who fight you’ and always followed with ‘shall not transgress’ or ‘until they persecute you no more’

On your ‘westernised Muslim”, in my view are those who apply good western values (openness, environmental awareness, human and social awareness) to become better Muslims. The famous 19th century Imam (Mohamed Abdou) when asked about Europe quoted a famous phrase: “In the West, I have seen Islam without Muslims; in the East I have seen Muslims but no Islam”.

Kaktuz & Philo,

You cannot process understanding of Islam through a Christian framework. Few key differences I noticed:

- You assume importance of an Imam or a sheikh’s opinion as important as a Priest or Cardinal opinion: this is not correct since religious scholars have no ‘holiness’ like under your model. Their role is only at the ‘opinion’ level and could be right or wrong. They have no authority over the Holy scripture, while in your religion the pope and the church decides what your faith is and isn’t. You are not allowed (in most cases) to process the bible on your own.

- Hadith (Mohamed PBUH sayings) came to existence 200 years after the prophet’s death. Early founders of Islam intentionally ignored collecting it because Islam is the message (Quran) and not the messenger. Hadith has never been part of Islam and should be taken cautiously (what conflicts with God’s teachings is overlooked). In your scenario, God, the message and the messenger is one thing: you actually worship Jesus, we don’t worship Mohamed (PBUT both).

- Orthodoxy in Islam means contextual understanding and applying thinking and common sense throughout the teachings. An orthodox Muslim is the least likely to offend or harm another being.

Fellow_Human,
It is nice to see someone trying their best to explain what others do not understand. I gain a little more insight each time you add to the discussion.

Like some others I feel there are problems within Islam – but much like there are with the Christian faiths. And I’m sure you would agree with this. Too bad few see or recognise this – it is something that could bring the moderates closer together.

Keep doing what you are doing. I wish there was a way to help get your message to those Muslims who are confused and angry, it would help a great deal. Much like I wish there was a way to break through the brick walls of some minds in the Christian world.

If it were to start with the heads of all the religions, it would be a good start – as you say, Christians take their lead from these people – as do the Muslims take their lead from the Imams, even though they have no official role like a pope o

Hi Reason,

Thanks for your support, I actually meet with a fairly good number of young Muslims (including new converts) in Sydney whenever possible and most of them are just beautiful smart kids (although playing rugby with 8 of them last night is not the best idea!) but their understanding of Islam and its foundation is superficial and in some cases incorrect.

Totally agree with your point: Orthodox Muslims are never a worry they may be strict but can never be harmful; angry youth with ‘egg-shell’ understanding of Islam is where the risk might be.

You touched the worry I am living which is if we don’t reach them another Salafi website or chat room will ( I have already seen worrying examples). I am planning a website or blog to assist them with proper contextual education; I believe I already have 80-90 young audience to begin with.
Another 2 hours off my 5 hours sleeping time, anyway, that’s the bit that I can do. Last thing any Muslim wants is innocent blood in his/her name

No thoughts today - too busy, roo tired.
Today I would just like to share a few comments I came accross today on the topic here:

Quote:
The deep problems the European “social model” suffers from are not focused on by our friends on the Left. The demographic death spiral, massive structural unemployment, increasing levels of crime (at or exceeding American levels in most cases), bureaucratic stasis which holds down growth and prevents the creation of new businesses, a business community focused on rent-seeking, a stifling PC multiculturalism, an unresponsive and unaccountable government at national and Union levels – this is all off the radar. And the biggest of all these elephants crowded into the room is the very large, unassimilated, unemployed and unemployable, welfare-supported Muslim minority. Warehoused in public housing projects which have been abandoned by the police, with no opportunity for gainful work, yet supported by relatively lavish benefits, this community has been a time-bomb waiting to go off. We now see that the French state, one of the most expensive, intrusive and arrogant there is, falls on its face when it is asked to perform its core function of providing physical security to lives and property.

The above is from
http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/003686.html

Also 3 more very good articles:

1. Europe's Wahhabi Lobby
Extremists get together to worry about intolerance.
by Stephen Schwartz
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/174gxfos.asp

2. Show Them Who Is the Boss in France
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/444

3. The Barbarians at the Gates of Paris (from 2002 but on the dot)
by Theodore Dalrymple
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1515278/posts

The question is... who has benefited from this situation? The events of these past weeks were totally predictable. Why did they let it go year after year? Think about it!

That's all.
kactuz

Fellow_Human,
I respect your good intention, but situations like the Youth riots in France indicate faith in practise in Islam does not modify behaviour. Their interpretation of Islam actually incites conflict. All I can say you would not find 10,000 true followers of Christ creating such destruction and chaos.

I recognise they don't interpret the Quran like you, but that's the point. We've no threat of violent action from you or your like, but to retain a civilised society we need you and your like to teach the modifications that create good citizenship. The Afgan cameleirs brought to Australia posed no threat to our society and made great contributions. Many recent elements we've allowed into Australia want to overthrow the principles of social cooperation and intelligent contribution to Western society.

From your comments, quote" "You cannot process understanding of Islam through a Christian framework."

I realise that! I cannot accept sex slaves as sanctioned by God as did Mahomet. Such action is barbaric in my conscience and view of Christ. I hold a totally different morality where all persons are to be treated equal,i.e. "Love your neighbour as yourself". When Jesus used these words he was speaking to Jews who despised their Samaritan neighbours, yet it was the Samaritan that demonstrated real neighbourliness.

For your interest the Pope is one of the last persons I take scriptual advice from. I have written commentaries on the Biblical text that the Pope would denounce as blasphemy. If you read my last post you would see I hold that each person is personally responsible to God. I don't place the security of my life and future in the views of the Pope, but examine truth for myself.

Quote, "- You assume importance of an Imam ..opinion as important as a Priest ... not correct religious scholars have no ‘holiness’ like under your model. They have no authority over Holy scripture, while in your religion the pope and the church decides ... You are not allowed (in most cases) to process the bible on your own."

Jesus and Slaves:
Luke 4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are physically beaten.”

Jesus saw part of his mission was to deliver captives from slavery. Slavery was used by a conquering nation to keep their assumed enemy oppressed and weak. Jesus, unlike Mahomet, envisaged a society where all men are equal and everyman's life is fulfilled

Christ views everyone as equal servants of God with the practical outcome of serving each other. Jesus identified himself as the servant of the people. He said that he did not come to Lord over men [judge and enforce laws] but serve and give his life to save others.

More people modify their lives by receiving good attitudes of service than by receiving a legal judgment about their behaviour.

As influence of the Christian moral conscience diminishes in Western societies they will fall back into legalism and enforced State control over people.

http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=10896

Consider council given upon the Qur'an by leading imams on sex outside marriage with captured girls

"It may appear distasteful to copulate with a woman who is not a man's legal wife, but once Shariah makes something lawful, we have to accept it as lawful, whether it appeals to our taste, or not; and whether we know its underlying wisdom or not. It is necessary for a Muslim to be acquainted with the laws of Shariah,.. but it is not necessary for him to delve to find the wisdom of these laws because knowledge of the wisdom of some of the laws may be beyond his puny comprehension. Allah Ta'ala has said in the Holy"
Qur'an: "Wa maa ooteetum min al-ilm illaa qaleelan" which means, more or less, that, "You have been given a very small portion of knowledge". Hence, if a person fails to comprehend the underlying wisdom of any law of Shariah, he cannot regard it as a fault of Shariah (Allah forbid), it is the fault of his own perception and lack of understanding, because no law of Shariah is contradictory to wisdom.

A slave girl can be possessed and even bought and sold, thus, this right of possession, substituting as a marriage ceremony, entitles the owner to copulate with her. Shari'ah is still valid today

Note to HAMLET:

In NT times prostitutes braided their hair, had it uncovered, and wore lots of gold and pearls. Thus the NT writer's calls for modesty are the same as if a pastor encouraged 21C women not to come to church wearing very provocative clothing.

Also, women in those days were not educated as much as the men. Some scholars have said that women and men used to sit on different sides of the church, and when the (then uneducated women) did not understand something, they would yell out to their husbands, thus disrupting the Church service. Others have said that the women used to yell out to their husbands on moral points, e.g. the pastor might say "do/don't do something", and the women would yell out to their husbands the equivalent of "told you so".

The references to Adam and Eve are perplexing. Re: verse 15, I think you have a bad English translation, as I've heard this reference to child-bearing to be about the Christ-Child bearing?

IDK. But in Jewish culture (many of the early Christians were Jewish/exposed to Jewish culture), the highest honour a woman could receive was to be married to/to give birth to a Rabbi or man of high Jewish standing. So maybe the NT writer is trying to say, if you continue in faith, love, sanctity, self-restraint (calls to all Christians by the way, as seen in other parts of the Bible), the added blessing that comes in mothering/being married to a man of respect will be yours. (E.g. instead of tearing down your man, lift him up).

Anyway I know this is an old thread, but thought my post might clarify. A friend of mine was recently reading a book entitled "why not women" which speaks a lot on these points. It also brings up how "radically feminist" (though perhaps not in a Davinci code kind of way) Jesus was for his culture in the way he treated women (defining marriage as a man leaving his family for his wife, refering to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham" when only men were called "sons of Abraham", freeing the repentant woman caught in adultery who was in trouble even though the male adulterer wasn't, etc.) The NT also talks about the equality between "male and female".