Ask the Muslim Guy, Part Deux

[Tahireh]

oblongo,
Having looked at the two articles, my first inclination is to say, harshly and emphatically, that they are garbage, pardon my French. That the author subscribes to the same view of Islam as Muslim misogynists is clear, but that it is an accurate representation of Islam at all is something I dispute.

I’ve posted earlier (see the last page of the previous thread for example) about the position of women in Islam, and I’m not sure what to add to this debate.
Two things to remember:

1. Everything has a context
2. Hadith (the reported sayings of the Prophet) can be deceptive, and not all are reliable reports.

“O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them… On the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and Allah will bring about through it a great deal of good.” (Surah 4:19)

A woman is not to be married against her will – if she is not consulted about this, she has the right to dissolve the marriage – and she can seek divorce for any number of reasons, though divorce is considered to be highly undesirable – even the reason that she finds her husband impossible to look upon. She is to receive a dowry, gift of monetary or material value, before the marriage, which she keeps even in the case of divorce. She keeps her name and her bank account – any money that she earns or gains during her marriage is hers and hers alone; her husband has no claim on her property. (and any money she contributes to the household is considered to be charity)

Men are awarded, according to the Qur’an, a degree of advantage over women because they are traditionally expected to provide for them. This is the “supremacy” referred to. If this situation does not exist – for example, if the woman is helping to support the household or whatnot – he no longer holds this degree of advantage. Therefore this is an issue of expectations of financial support and no inherent female/male supremacy issue. An “obedient” wife, in the Qur’an, is obedient to GOD, not to her husband. It’s very easy, today, to look at the gender division of roles with a biased eye, but considering the pre-Islamic society, a commandment from God for men to provide for their families and not leave their wives bereft of financial support was a great help up. Context counts!

“And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women.” (Surah 2:226)

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

Regarding sex in marriage, since marriage is considered the only means by which sex can be lawfully engaged in, both women and men are to make themselves sexually available to one another. And the man’s duty in this – and his wife’s right over him – is to ensure that he satisfies his wife before himself.

Polygyny:
To imply that the Qur’an views this institution as some sort of glorious sexual free-for-all is more than a gross misrepresentation – it ignores what the Qur’an has to say about the subject altogether.
Seeing as the Prophet was married exclusively to his first wife, Khadijah, for twenty-five years, ending only in her death, and that most of his later wives were elderly and widowed, that would hardly seem to indicate that there were baser motives in his contracting multiple marriages.

“And [following on from the instruction regarding orphans in the previous verse] if you have reason to fear that you might not act equitably towards orphans, then marry from among (other) women such as are lawful to you - (even) two, or three, or four: but if you have reason to fear that you might not be able to treat them with equal fairness, then (only) one - or (from among) those whom you rightfully possess. This will make it more likely that you will not deviate from the right course.” (Surah 4:3)

And then the Qur’an goes on to read:
“And it will not be within your power to treat your wives with equal fairness, however much you may desire it…” (Surah 4:129)

This would seem to indicate that multiple marriages are reserved for specific situations, and further that they are discouraged on the basis of fearing injustice. Lobbying for polygyny rights outside of this scenario would, in my view, be contrary to the Qur’anic message – not that it hasn’t been abused in the past. But polygyny is rare even in the Muslim world, so it would seem to bear out my suspicions.

Wife-beating:
“Do not beat your noble wife like a slave.” – Prophet Muhammed

One recent Qur’anic translation (Ahmed Ali, 1993) of the verse traditionally used to condone wife-beating (however mild; it’s been almost universally considered to be a symbolic rather than physical act – but no matter) is offered as follows:
“As for women you feel are averse, talk to them suasively; then leave them alone in bed (without molesting them) and go to bed with them (when they are willing).” (Surah 4:34)

And footnoted:
For the three words fa-‘izu, wa-hjuru, and wa-dribu in the original, here translated ‘talk to them suasively,’ ‘leave them alone (in bed–fi 'l-madaji‘),’ and ‘have intercourse,’ respectively, see Raghib, Lisan al-‘Arab,and Zamakhshari. Raghib in his al-Mufradat fi gharib al-Qur’an gives the meanings of these words with special reference to this verse. … Raghib points out that daraba metaphorically means to have intercourse, and quotes the expression daraba al-fahl al-naqah “the stud camel covered the she-camel,” which is also quoted by Lisan al-‘Arab. It cannot be taken here to mean ‘to strike them (women).’ This view is strengthened by the Prophet’s authentic hadith found in a number of authorities, including Bukhari and Muslim: “Could any of you beat your wife as he would a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?” There are other traditions in Abu Da’ud, Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and others, to the effect that he forbade the beating of any woman, saying: “Never beat God’s handmaidens.”

Again, that there has been a patriarchal bent to traditional interpretations of Islam, and that there have been misogynistic tendencies expressed over the centuries, is undeniable. But that these exist within Islam as revealed to the Prophet, or that they existed in the Prophet’s own mind and practice, is something that I simply have not seen to be the case. And quite honestly, I would think that we women who convert to Islam would tend to be even more cautious about investigating just what we were getting into ;).

Oh-- you wanted hadith?

“The best among you are those who are who are kindest to their wives.”

“No believer should be angry towards his wife. If some of her qualities are displeasing, there will be many other qualities worth appreciation.”

“Women are the twin halves of men.”

“Paradise lies beneath the feet of the mothers.”

[Tamerlane]

Just as a little addendum to Tahireh’s last ( excellent ) post, I’ll very briefly make mention of the Kharijites ( because I was just reading a smidgen about them today ). They were undoubtedly the first fundamentalists in Islam ( delineating themselves in the mid-seventh century ), insisting that the Koran should be taken literally, with no attempt at interpretation. But despite ( or because of? ) their fundamentalism, they held to an ideal of absolute equality between the sexes, with both men and women fighting on the battlefield and with the status of children determined by the joint status of the parents.

They were a bit grim ( no smoking, drinking, singing, or laughing ) and elitist ( they weren’t very open to non-Arab Muslims ), but it does kind of stand on its ear the old idea of Muslim fundamentalisn being inherently anti-women .

• Tamerlane

[Tamerlane]

Well, actually, since I really don’t know what characterizes the different sects of Islam, maybe the question I should have asked was: What sects of Islam would work best to make up an Islamic state that could be true to the different sects of Islam, govern themselves accordingly, and would not be threatened by, but rather would be able to interact with and trade with Western societies.

Hrrrmmm…You know, with your permission, I think I’m not going to touch that . Partly out of simple ignorance ( I simply don’t have quite the encyclopedic breadth to tackle that one in a reasonable fashion ), partly to avoid stepping on any more toes than necessary.

But I think what I was wondering with that question too, was can a theocratic state, in this instance, an Islamic one, be a viable player in the increasingly global economic arena where technology considerably shortens time and distance boundaries?

Well, keeping in mind I am not in favor of any sort of theocracy, I’d say yes. The Wahhabi faith may reject any innovation to Islam adopted since the tenth century, but I don’t think it has a fundamental problem with fax machines, for instance.

Depends how you define your terms of course, but Iran is essentially a theocracy ( or a partial democracy overseen and dominated by a theocracy ) , and it functions. Maybe not great, but it’s limping by. Part of that may be that in some ways it is a “rational theocracy” in that most branchs of government aren’t explicity theocratic at all. The day to day details of running things is generally not administered by mullahs ( the biggest exception of course being in some areas of security ).

And I think you could have more liberal Islamic theocracies that are perfectly functional, maybe even pretty decent places to live. Again, not my ideal. But IMHO not outside the realm of possibility.

However, my concern is that humans tend to fear what we don’t know or understand, and I fear that this is part of the process going on with some conservative Muslim clerics, perhaps the very ones brainwashing fellas to go destroy the “Great Satan.” Western societies are about more than “tube tops” and “leather minis,” just like Muslim societies are about more than just veils and jihads. Westerners have innovations in technology, medicine, and even an examination of the socio-economic and political struggles (e.g. the Civil Rights Movement in America or our present day struggles over the concept of race and gender) that form a part of Western history provide valuable insights into the human condition and may lend themselves readily to establishing common ground to build relations with non-Western societies. But we can’t do that if Muslim countries shut themselves away from Western cultures out of fear of being somehow tainted by them. Likewise, Western cultures should not shut themselves away from interacting with Muslim cultures.

I think that for Muslim clerics and/or government officials in Muslim countries to essentialize Western societies to the point that a populace may only get or accept one narrow view of Westerners is dangerous and really does not give credit to Muslims to make up their own minds that although some folks may wear short skirts, that doesn’t make those folks bad and that doesn’t mean that Muslims have to wear short skirts either. Likewise, just because Muslim women decide to dress modestly I don’t think that makes them bad, and it doesn’t mean I have to go out and dress the way they do just because I’ve been exposed to their culture. They’re just different, and engaging that difference can help folks grow and enrich, reinforce, or revise views of what modest behavior can and should be. We all have to live on this planet. To censor one society from another out of fear of being tainted by them doesn’t help us to progress. I’m not saying that all Muslims censor themselves from Western societies, but I am disturbed by essentializations of Western and Muslim cultures that promote fear rather than understanding.

Well, what can I say - I agree .

[loolia]

Tahireh,

Thanks for Ahmed Ali’s translation of 4:34. I often like to use that one. I think his is my favorite translation.

Also, some have mentioned that the verse about men having an advantage over women ONLY applied in the time after a divorce - ie; a man can marry right after and a woman has complete her 'idda or waiting period. It at least makes more sense than God telling us that we are created equally and then saying that men have an advantage since they bring home the paycheck. That is as silly as saying that women have an advantage since they have the wombs.

It’s just too bad that so many Muslim-majority countries do not have their laws on marriage, divorce, etc. based on Islam, but on “Hislam.” Women in Egypt, for instance, recently received the right to divorce (without having to prove abuse which took forever in court) even though it is religiously permissable. The men there lost their right to “talaq al-ghiyabi” just saying “I divorce you” three times in a row - and they were upset!
Women paying the dowries in Pakistan. You get the picture as I am sure you are aware of these things.

Things like that really tick me off. I sometimes wonder why Muslims are wondering why non-Muslims can’t take Islam seriously. My question would be “Why can’t Muslims take Islam seriously without twisting it.” I see one picture when I study Islam, and another when I deal with Muslims. The intelligent, rational, studious, questioning, knowledgeable Muslims I meet are mostly on-line. Too many of the folks I meet in person are too concerened with admonishing each other over fingernail polish. sigh

Fortuneately, I have met a few wonderful Muslims here where I live. Thank God for being urban. It gives me some hope.

[celestina]

{{{Tamerlane}}} Thank you for answering my questions. I appreciate your insights.

[Deacons_Trucked]

After reading totally thru parts 1 and 2, I still dont feel like my question has been answered…but maybe thats because its way more simplistic.
I still have no idea why some Muslims/Arabs hate us so much!! I mean enough for them to want to kill thousands of Americans…I keep hearing it said that we treat Islam with arrogance, that we kill their people all the time, that our attention is always directed toward the good of Israel. So how does this justify killing us en masse?

I guess part of my confusion goes back to the fact that I have never understood the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. I have no idea why there are so many problems over there.

Can someone briefly explain the basis of the Palestinian/Israeli fighting, and give me some good examples of what we have done to make these people hate us so much? Someone told me “…remember that the US ain’t all good. It does some pretty horrific stuff in other countries…” but I have no idea what it IS we have done.

And just telling me, “Well, the US supports Israel” wont help, because I dont understand why our doing that is such a big DEAL.

[IzzyR]

Two articles from UPI:

Prominent Muslim cleric denounces bin Lade

Christians in Islamic countries targeted

[rjung]

*Originally posted by Deacons Trucked *
I still have no idea why some Muslims/Arabs hate us so much!!

I’m not a Muslem Guy, but I’ll take this one…

ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST HATRED FOR DUMMIES

Q: Why do some Islamic fundamentalists hate Westerners/the US so much? Can’t they leave us alone?

A: There are many reasons/excuses why some Islamic fundamentalists hate the West (and, by extension, the United States). Not all of the reasons are valid, but hate-filled people rarely need valid reasons for feeling the way they do.

The most prominent reasons are:

1. The United States supports Israel against the Palestinians. This annoys some folks because they see it as being unfairly one-sided – instead of either staying out of Middle Eastern affairs or supporting both sides fairly, the US chooses to back Israel against Palestine 99% of the time (at up to $2 billion a year in weapons). If you must, think of two schoolkids fighting over a basketball, and a big kid who consistently helps one kid but not the other.

2. The United States has troops in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is home to two of Islam’s most holy artifacts (Mecca and Medena), and non-Muslems are not allowed to go in those areas. Unfortunately, some Islamic fundamentalists take a broad interpretation of this rule, and say that merely having Americans anywhere in the country is “desecrating” the land and breaking that rule. This is one of Osama bin Laden’s big gripes, and he has also denounced the Saudi government for letting the Americans stay there.

3. The United States is imposing sanctions against Iraq. This cheeses off some people because they see the sanctions as punishing innocent Iraqi women and children, while doing nothing to get Saddam Hussein out of power.

4. The United States is always meddling in middle eastern affairs. There’s a long history behind this one, but suffice it to say that there is some factual basis for this claim. These include overthrowing Iran’s elected government and replacing him with an American-friendly Shaw, goading Afghanistan into fighting the Soviets, setting Iran and Iraq into war with each other, and supporting various unsavory governments in the region just because they’re willing to sell oil to the USA.

5. An inferiority complex towards the West. Several thousand years ago, the middle east was a region rich in culture and education and literature – many ideas of mathematics and philosophy were first developed there, long before the Greeks and Romans came onto the scene. Yet all these achivements were lost after several thousand years of Christian “crusades” and Western imperialism, leaving the people and the land broken and poor as a result. Nowadays, some folks wonder how much better off they’d be if the West hadn’t interfered with them, and blame them (us) for their ills today.

Again, note that these aren’t the only reasons, nor are they necessary valid (or even completely accurate ). Not all Muslems feel this way, and not all Islamic fundamentalists subscribe to all of these points. But if you’re wondering why some folks in Pakistan are willing to go into the streets and chant “Death to America!”, this is a good place to start.

So how does this justify killing us en masse?

It doesn’t. But you’re thinking logically, and terrorist zealots don’t use logic.

[Deacons_Trucked]

So how does this justify killing us en masse?

It doesn’t. But you’re thinking logically, and terrorist zealots don’t use logic.

Hahahaha…well thru all this, I keep telling myself that I am trying to apply logic to people and actions that arent logical, and that therefore I am kicking a dead horse.

I am just still so blown away by all this and I am trying to make sense of it…which I know is pretty futile. But thank you for the insight.

So my next question is:

Why kill our innocent citizens (including Muslims in the WTC and African US embassies) who have nothing to do with Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or Pakistan? What will killing thousands of everyday Americans prove?

[rjung]

*Originally posted by Deacons Trucked *
Why kill our innocent citizens (including Muslims in the WTC and African US embassies) who have nothing to do with Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or Pakistan? What will killing thousands of everyday Americans prove?

As I understand it, Osama bin Laden wants two things to happen:

(1) A revenge-driven America indiscriminately starts a war in the middle east. This pisses all “right-thinking” Muslems, who get together, condemn the Americans, and rally behind ObL, the Taliban, and their brand of fundamentalism Islam.

(2) Repeated terrorist attacks in the US spook American citizens. Coupled with continued American defeat in Afghanistan (bin Laden believes his soldiers can outfight Americans on their home turf), the United States gets sick of fighting its “war on terrorism” that we pack up, go home, and stop interfering in the middle east so he’ll leave us alone.

So yeah, Osama bin Laden wants to start a war, so he can rally the Islamic fundamentalists together and build his power base. He also figures the US is a “paper tiger” that will chicken out once a war gets tough, so he’s hoping for a chance to humiliate another superpower (the Soviets were the first) and make himself look even better.

[Truth_Seeker]

I have read the entirety of both threads with fascination bordering on awe. Muslim Guy, Tamerlane and everyone else who has been participating have produced a wide-ranging, erudite and yet accessible discussion that’s definitely one for the books. Not bad for a randomly selected group of strangers! It almost gives me hope . . .

 Here's my question, specifically for Muslim Guy. Now that the thread is winding down, perhaps you can give us some insight into the future.

 If I could distill one theme from this thread, it's that Islamic fundamentalists like the Taliban and even the Saudis are distorting the "real" Islam. At best, they  impose cultural norms and call it religion. At worst, they severely distort the teachings of Islam in pursuit of political goals and so create terrorism, intolerance, suicide bombers and the like.

So, based on Muslim Guy's analysis, the Taliban aren't  "real" Muslims, they're heretics. The problem is that, distorted or not, millions of Muslims are accepting the Taliban-brand of Islam as (you should pardon the expression) gospel truth and rejecting the liberal approach offered by Muslim Guy and scholars like him. Moreover, -- and I hope Muslim Guy will speak to this -- moderate and even liberal Muslims do consider the Taliban to be "real" Muslims, albeit an extreme sect.

 Here is the dilemma facing the West. Muslim Guy's version of Islam is perfectly compatible with a multicultural democracy. The Taliban's version of Islam is not. It is, from the West's perspective, completely unnacceptable. No adherent to "Talibanism" could ever peacefully exist in the United States, for example, because the entire basis of our society violates the Taliban's religious principles. If the Muslim world is unwilling to clean its own house and extinguish radical fundamentalism, does this mean the West will find itself in a permanent religious guerilla war? Worse, will the Muslim world rally to the defense of its religious "brothers," thereby creating a wider conflict? What should we do?

[IzzyR]

I wonder if you could comment on this article: New York Cleric’s Departure From Mosque Leaves Mystery. Particularly the claim in the final paragraph that

Yigal Carmon, the Israeli founder and director of the Research Institute, insisted that the Web site interview purportedly with Mr. Gemeaha was typical of mixed messages from Muslim leaders. “They are saying one thing in Arabic in their world, and another in English or other languages, because they live in two worlds,” he said.

[straykat23]

I understand that during Ramadan that Muslims can eat, have sex, etc., only betweeen sunset and sunrise. Are there accommodations made for those in less temperate climates? Those close to the equator have twelve hours of daylight, twelve hours of nighttime. What about a Muslim living in US Alaska or other northern countries where there is no sun for close to 24 hours per day?

There are accommodations made in other Koran dictates that are quite reasonable (if body washing is impossible, it can be done at a later time). I haven’t found anything similar regarding sunrise/sunset rules, or is this just a common sense rule understood by Muslims? If there is no sun between 4PM one day until noon the next, what hours would be acceptable for fasting?

[Dignan]

originally posted by Tamerlane:
since marriage is considered the only means by which sex can be lawfully engaged in

I also understand that a Muslim man is permitted by the Koran to have sex with his slaves. Is that correct?

[Muslim_Guy]

To everyone,
Sorry I’ve been away for so long. I got caught up in so much online and offline activity the past month that I was overextended and couldn’t catch up for a while. Thanks to everyone for your many expressions of support. I just got back from a visit to the University of South Carolina, where I attended an interfaith conference called “Paths to the Heart: Sufism and the Christian East.” It was wonderful to see Eastern Orthodox prelates and scholars finding mutual understanding with Sufis. Especially focusing on the Hesychast prayer of the heart / Sufi dhikr (remembrance of God), and how much they share in common. See, there has already been a movement toward mutual understanding and acceptance between Muslims and Christians, and nothing is going to stop that. It will continue.

Tahireh, your contribution is especially valuable, and I would like to encourage you to keep posting! We especially need to hear from Muslim sisters who have been silenced too long by the male establishment. I would rather read your posts than write my own!

I don’t know where to start with answering questions. I’ll just plunge in, and if I missed anybody, please pardon the oversight and remind me.

I keep seeing this question repeated all over the place: “Why do Muslims hate us?” Actually, what we need to understand is that for a long time now the Muslims have been asking “Why do the Americans hate us? We never did anything to them.” But no one in America ever noticed. Until recently. I wish we could have started a dialogue under peaceful conditions. Just to note for the record that it was the Muslim side that started asking that question first. Decades ago.

Oh yeah, as far as non-Muslims supposedly “violating” the sacred precincts of Mecca and Medina by being in Saudi: (I think I discussed this already) the boundaries of the areas in the Hijaz where non-Muslims are not allowed are well-defined and extend outside Mecca for only a few miles in any direction. The excluded area in Medina is smaller, no bigger than the city limits, I think. The American troops are stationed in the Eastern Region of Saudi (al-Mintaqah al-Sharqiyah), several hundreds of miles away from the sacred precincts. So to look at it rationally, objectively, this is a non-issue. Only a shameless demagogue would attempt to inflame this into a religious issue, which it ain’t.

Tamerlane, I saw John Cale perform “Sabotage” live at the Cleveland Agora in 1980. He rocked.

Did I miss anything? I’ll get to it next post.

[Tamerlane]

*Originally posted by Dignan *
**

originally posted by Tamerlane:
since marriage is considered the only means by which sex can be lawfully engaged in

I also understand that a Muslim man is permitted by the Koran to have sex with his slaves. Is that correct? **

Hmmm…I don’t remember everything I’ve said, but I don’t think that was me .

But in answer to your question - Yeah, more or less. Provided said slaves are unmarried, anyway. Concubinage was an established custom, hence the huge harems maintained by some sovereigns. Obviously, since the ruler was only allowed four wives ( if that - see modern theological disputes raised by some ), those massive harems consisted largely of slaves.

Islam’s relationship with slavery is actually an interesting and sticky question. On the one hand slavery seems to be subtly discouraged by the Koran - Just for example the freeing of slaves was certainly considered among the “good works” one could do as an individual to help expiate sin. On the other hand it was not explicitly haram ( forbidden ), but rather tolerated. The second Caliph, Umar, a man noted for his extreme piety, was murdered by one of his disgruntled Persian slaves.

In point of fact slavery in several guises was very central to Islamic culture for quite a long time. Not only was there concubinage, but also household slavery, agricultural slavery ( witness the major ‘Zanj Revolt’ in southern Iraq by African agricultural slaves in the mid-Abbasid period ), and most fascinating of all, military slaves ( mamelukes ).

The most famous case of the latter was of course the Mameluke state of Egypt and Syria, who took credit for stopping the Mongols advance in the Middle-East ( a little exaggerated, but with a kernel of truth ), who were the dominant military and economic power for a good two centuries until overshadowed and absorbed by the Ottomans, and who lingered as a self-perpetuating caste until exterminated by Muhammed Ali in the early 19th century. But they’re only the most famous example of many.

Muslim Guy: Good to see you back . And John Cale rules .

• Tamerlane

[oblongo]

I posted a link to an article by William Dalrymple earlier, but no one replied to it. Assuming that it was overlooked, I hope to rbing it up again. Here is the basic thesis of the article:

The links that bind Christianity and Islam are so deep and complex that the occasional confrontations should perhaps more properly be looked upon as a civil war between two different streams of the same tradition than any essential clash of civilisations. When the early Byzantines were first confronted by the Prophet’s armies, they assumed that Islam was merely a variant form of Christianity, and in some ways they were not so far wrong; Islam, of course, accepts much of the Old and New Testaments, obeys the Mosaic laws about circumcision and ablutions and venerates both Jesus and the ancient Jewish prophets.

Indeed, the greatest theologian of the early church, St John of Damascus (d. 749), was convinced that Islam was at root not a new religion, but a variation on a Judaeo-Christian form. This perception is particularly remarkable as St John had grown up as a young Arab aristocrat in the Ummayad Arab court of Damascus – the hub of the young Islamic world – where his Orthodox Christian father was the Chancellor. St John himself was an intimate boyhood friend of the future Caliph al-Yazid, and the two boys’ drinking bouts in the streets of Damascus were the subject of much gossip in the capital.

Later, in his old age, St John took the habit at the desert monastery of Mar Saba where he began work on his great masterpiece, The Fount of Knowledge. The book contains an extremely precise critique of Islam, the first ever written by a Christian, which, intriguingly, John regarded as a form of Christianity and closely related to the heterodox Christian doctrine of Arianism. (After all, this doctrine, like Islam, took as its starting point a similar position – that God could not become fully human without somehow compromising his divinity.)

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=98990
Does anyone more knowledgeable than me have any comment on this?

[Muslim_Guy]

Oblongo, yes, that article was really excellent. I agreed with it completely and it was so well researched and written, I have nothing to add to it. It just goes to show that the Brits actually have a clue on this matter (unlike my fellow Americans). I bookmarked that article and am sharing with everyone I can think of. Thank you very much for posting it!

[Truth_Seeker]

Dear Muslim Guy,

Very glad to see you back on this board. Two questions, first, based on everything you've said, are the Taliban really Muslims? (I posed this question at greater length in an earlier post.) Second, can you explain the concept of usury in Islamic law? Christianity also had a prohibition on usury but it interpreted usury to mean charging a very high rate of interest. (A prohibition many western countries still have.) My understanding is that Islamic law forbids charging any interest at all. I know, however, that Islamic countries do have banking systems. How do they work?

[mangeorge]

Yeah, welcome back Muslim Guy.
Sort of off-the-subject, but I have learned a lot from this thread, and shared it with some friends.
I was wondering if there is some means of spreading the word. Maybe a book? I don’t know, but I hate to see it simply fade into ths archives.
Stuff like this reinforces my faith in humanity. I wanna share.
Peace,
mangeorge