Saturday, March 24, 2012

Answering Muslims: Islamic Bookstore Sells out of Violently Misogynistic "A Gift for the Muslim Couple"

David Wood posted an article about a book describing how Muslim marriages should run.  He not on;y points out a passage from the Qur'an many Muslims use to tell them that they should beat their wives and wives should allow themselves to be beaten. I realize some people might read this and not follow the link so here is the Qur'anic passage:

Qur'an 4:34—Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

The book the article that David writes about attempts to explain how would someone live this out:

Page 45 contains the rights of the husband, which include his wife’s inability to leave “his house without his permission,” and that his wife must “fulfil his desires” and “not allow herself to be untidy ... but should beautify herself for him ... ”

In terms of physical punishment, the book advises that a husband may scold her, “beat by hand or stick,” withhold money from her or “pull (her) by the ears,” but should “refrain from beating her excessively.”

Yup, Marital bliss alright. The truth is that not all Muslims would agree with that. But like David Wood observeed:

I hate to break this to everyone, but if Tarek Fatah rejects what this book says about beating women, he's not a "moderate" Muslim. He's not a Muslim at all, because he accepts Western values as a higher source of morality than the Qur'an.

Answering Muslims: Islamic Bookstore Sells out of Violently Misogynistic "A Gift for the Muslim Couple"

ID.Plus: Insight into Fundamentalist Atheism

Dr Peter S Williams posted the following video on his blog and I agree that it does show one of the ugly sides of fundamentalism: refusal of discussion. Religious people are not the only ones guilty of doing this. It is unfortunate that people can be so busy throwing accusation at people that they don't see their own blindness. I also found it interesting that many the atheist running the so-called "Reason Rally" only want to interact with the caricature of Christianity embodied by the Westboro Baptist Church. It's like they don't want to reason - just pontificate.




ID.Plus: Insight into Fundamentalist Atheism

Common Runner Injuries [infographic] | Daily Infographic

[via]

Common Runner Injuries [infographic] | Daily Infographic

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Why do some Bibles omit portions of Daniel and Esther? Akin Says: Luther

James Swan has posted a really great response to Jimmy Akin who was answering the question of why most Protestant Bibles don't have the longer versions of Daniel and Esther. Swan also explodes the myth that Martin Luther tried to get rid of those parts of Daniel and Esther. This is a great article. The video being responded to is below.





Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Why do some Bibles omit portions of Daniel and Esther? Akin Says: Luther