The Achillies Heel of Islam?
Friday, March 23, 2007 at 11:42AM 
Two recent news stories illustrate Islam's public relations problem (exposing its dark side) as it spreads into the West.
In the first report (Click here: The Sun Online - News: Judge gives the OK to wife hit), "The terrified partner, a 26-year-old mum of two, filed for a quickie divorce after her husband hit her and even threatened to kill her. But the judge in Frankfurt, Germany, rejected her application — quoting a Koran verse which some have controversially interpreted to mean a man can beat his wife if she acts in an `unchaste' fashion. A divorce court judge ruled a man was right to beat and abuse his wife — because the Muslim holy book allowed it."
Can you imagine what will happen if Sharia law is ever tolerated in the West? And where is the outcry from the supposed champions of women's rights--the political left? Many on the left actually believe that Falwell, Dobson and the Christian right are the true enemies of women. The left's silence about Islam is deafening . . .
In the second news story, (Click here: Woman re-interprets Koran with feminist view | US News | Reuters.com) "A new English-language interpretation of the Muslim Holy book the Koran challenges the use of words that feminists say have been used to justify the abuse of Islamic women. The new version, translated by an Iranian-American, will be published in April and comes after Muslim feminists from around the world gathered in New York last November and vowed to create the first women's council to interpret the Koran and make the religion more friendly toward women. In the new book, Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar, a former lecturer on Islam at the University of Chicago, challenges the translation of the Arab word `idrib,' traditionally translated as `beat,' which feminists say has been used to justify abuse of women. Why choose to interpret the word as 'to beat' when it can also mean 'to go away'," she writes in the introduction to the new book. The passage is generally translated: `And as for those women whose ill will you have reason to fear, admonish them; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Behold, God is indeed most high, great!' Instead, Bakhtiar suggests `Husbands at that point should submit to God, let God handle it -- go away from them and let God work His Will instead of a human being inflicting pain and suffering on another human being in the Name of God.'"
If only feminist theologians do to Islam and the Koran what they've done to the Bible and mainline Protestantism, ironically they'll set Islamic expansion back decades!
Of course, the preaching of the cross is the best means to oppose Islam, but news reports like this along with the rise of feminist scholarship in their midst certainly cannot help the Islamic cause.
Any thoughts?
Reader Comments (15)
yes, that sort of rhetoric is quite overblown and typcially unuseful.
however, equally laughable is when these righties try to convince us that they are the evangelical heirs to women's rights crusades at the turn of the 20th century. yeah, transplant dobson back to 1910 and he's fighting for women to get the vote? something tells me his grandaddy was on the other side of that isle.
even better is when they try to link up their anti-abortion agenda to "women's rights" in china. these efforts, i think, are very disengenuous. they are not so much concerned for women's rights as they are to stomp out abortion. i find it interesting how the righties pull a trojan horse methodology by trying to link up a minority morality to a majority one: "if you are for reproductive rights you are as good as a racist chauvinist." gimme a break, piper. quit the smoke and mirrors rhetoric and just be plain about your views.
for the record, i do hold what is considered conventionally conservative conclusions on abortion, both morally AND politically. but the righties don't typcially speak my langauge.
zrim
Is that a reference to John Piper?
If so, I am horrified by any critical insinuation that his concerns are questionable.
It's unclear that shari'ah law isn't already tolerated in the west. Most of the immigrant suburbs of France are ruled by shari'ah. From what I've read, it's prevalent in the UK, Germany and Sweden. The US and Canada are heading that way in certain portions of the country like Dearbornistan, MI and Minneapolis.
See Robert Spencer's post on this as well:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015773.php#comments
You stated: "Feminism is God's judgment on Islam and Islam is God's judgment on feminism. The cross is the only way out."
Do you have an inside into the mind of God on this issue? What about Christian Feminism? Is that a judgment by God on Christianity?
zrim, I don't know what you meant by that, but that very much looks like you are talking about one of Piper's sermon (or speech, not sure) on this issue.
"reproductive rights" yeah right if we take what the "feminists" say its more like license to murder. I wouldn't give it so much sugar coating.
if you did allude to Piper's message on abortion, your comment was very distasteful otherwise just ignore this
Is "religious thing" outside of the law?
i probably did read that, but i cannot recall. sounds familiar though.
carolyn and someoneesle,
yes, that was a reference to piper's recent "sanctity of life" sunday sermon. have either of you read/heard it?
"distasteful"? how? remember that i take pretty conventionally conservative views on this issue. but the notion that those who champion RR's are also racists or bigots is just desparate flailing in the air. it is ridiculous.
carolyn, i take by "his concerns" to mean his concerns about abortion? just because we may share certain political conclusions on a matter does not mean his ends are justified. i call my views anti-abortion (not pro-life), i suppose, but i find that we on this side of the table write each other blank checks to make any argumentations. calling the other side of the table racist is what is horrifying. it isn't his concerns that are so much questionable, carolyn, but his argumentations. he promotes the social gospel of the right by his "sermonizing," and, i would be willing to bet, likes to take the liberals to the shed for their social gospel. that is duplicitous.
zrim