The author then goes on to say that the Hadith relayed by Umar (who's authority we Shia do not validate but still...) regarding the punishing of adulterers and the mindfulness of observing hijab are probably complete fabrications brought about by Umar's misogynistic tendencies.

...... I also find the idea that the Hijab wearing in Iran is solely a product of Umar's mysogyny quite insulting.

[Troy W. Martin's JBL article, "Paul's Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A Testicle Instead of a Head Covering," (JBL 123/1 [2004] 75 84) was discussed in the May 2004 issue of The Christian Century. Members may read the complete JBL article online by clicking Publications, Journals, then Journal of Biblical Literature.]

Paul: Female hair too sexy to go unveiled

The apostle Paul wanted women to cover their tresses while praying because he — like the rest of Hellenistic culture then — believed that the long hair of adult females was the sexual equivalent of male testicles, according to a newly published study.

Citing writings from Aristotle, Euripedes and the disciples of Hippocrates, the "father of medicine," Troy W. Martin of St. Xavier University in Chicago said that Paul reflected the physiology of his time in believing that the hair of adult women "is part of female genitalia." Martin's article appears in the spring issue of the Journal of Biblical Literature...

Clive Durdle wrote:

The author then goes on to say that the Hadith relayed by Umar (who's authority we Shia do not validate but still...) regarding the punishing of adulterers and the mindfulness of observing hijab are probably complete fabrications brought about by Umar's misogynistic tendencies.

...... I also find the idea that the Hijab wearing in Iran is solely a product of Umar's mysogyny quite insulting.

Why do you find it insulting? He is wrong.

Clive Durdle wrote:

The author then goes on to say that the Hadith relayed by Umar (who's authority we Shia do not validate but still...) regarding the punishing of adulterers and the mindfulness of observing hijab are probably complete fabrications brought about by Umar's misogynistic tendencies.

...... I also find the idea that the Hijab wearing in Iran is solely a product of Umar's mysogyny quite insulting.

Why do you find it insulting? He is wrong.

The idea of modesty is in fact a response to the Greek medical idea that women's hair contains semen.

[Troy W. Martin's JBL article, "Paul's Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A Testicle Instead of a Head Covering," (JBL 123/1 [2004] 75 84) was discussed in the May 2004 issue of The Christian Century. Members may read the complete JBL article online by clicking Publications, Journals, then Journal of Biblical Literature.]

Paul: Female hair too sexy to go unveiled

The apostle Paul wanted women to cover their tresses while praying because he — like the rest of Hellenistic culture then — believed that the long hair of adult females was the sexual equivalent of male testicles, according to a newly published study.

Citing writings from Aristotle, Euripedes and the disciples of Hippocrates, the "father of medicine," Troy W. Martin of St. Xavier University in Chicago said that Paul reflected the physiology of his time in believing that the hair of adult women "is part of female genitalia." Martin's article appears in the spring issue of the Journal of Biblical Literature...

http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/ar ... icleId=271

Juliuseizure wrote:I'm 70 pages into the book and have hit a snag whereby it sounds as though the author is diverging from mainstream Islam to a high degree. It's very well written and a fascinating guide in many ways but these divergences set alarm bells ringing. I did some research into the author, Reza Aslan, and notice he "fled" the Iranian Islamic revolution. Not sure why...

This book has been translated into 13 languages and named one of the 100 most important books of the last decade. It was also the only interpretive book on Islam on the shelves at Waterstones.

The main divergences so far seem to be that Aslan says the polygyny of the Prophet (pbuh) were the result of attempts at political expediency in order to build ties with other communities through marriage, and that all the Ummah of Yathrib, although practising polygyny because of all the war widows, surely idealised monogamy. He then says that the Qu'ran makes it perfectly clear monogamy is the preferred model for marriage and contradicts itself where it says only have multiple wives "if you can treat them all equally" (4:3) and then "you will never be able to treat your wives equally" (4:129) which is evidence the polygyny of the early Ummah should be taken in historical context and should not be practised in the modern day, a view, the author states, which is held by the overwhelming majority of the modern Ummah. Well, I've read the verses of the Qu'ran he quotes and his translation seems highly debatable - the terms "equal" and "equally" are not used in both verses.

The author then goes on to say that the Hadith relayed by Umar (who's authority we Shia do not validate but still...) regarding the punishing of adulterers and the mindfulness of observing hijab are probably complete fabrications brought about by Umar's misogynistic tendencies.

I find the idea that the Prophet pbuh only married multiple women in order to build political allegiances and that the Quran contradicts itself to that end...disconcerting. I also find the idea that the Hijab wearing in Iran is solely a product of Umar's mysogyny quite insulting.

The author then writes that the Quran was largely a product of the cultural values around at the time anyway, so presumably nothing it says should be taken particularly seriously. I stopped reading at that point.

Here's a quote from the author: "A lot of scholars, myself included, believe the future of Islam, especially Islamic democracy, rests in the Shia world. It's Iran and Iraq where the most exciting experiments are being carried out." Well, at least we agree about one thing.

cavarka9 wrote:

Juliuseizure wrote:I'm 70 pages into the book and have hit a snag whereby it sounds as though the author is diverging from mainstream Islam to a high degree. It's very well written and a fascinating guide in many ways but these divergences set alarm bells ringing. I did some research into the author, Reza Aslan, and notice he "fled" the Iranian Islamic revolution. Not sure why...

This book has been translated into 13 languages and named one of the 100 most important books of the last decade. It was also the only interpretive book on Islam on the shelves at Waterstones.

The main divergences so far seem to be that Aslan says the polygyny of the Prophet (pbuh) were the result of attempts at political expediency in order to build ties with other communities through marriage, and that all the Ummah of Yathrib, although practising polygyny because of all the war widows, surely idealised monogamy. He then says that the Qu'ran makes it perfectly clear monogamy is the preferred model for marriage and contradicts itself where it says only have multiple wives "if you can treat them all equally" (4:3) and then "you will never be able to treat your wives equally" (4:129) which is evidence the polygyny of the early Ummah should be taken in historical context and should not be practised in the modern day, a view, the author states, which is held by the overwhelming majority of the modern Ummah. Well, I've read the verses of the Qu'ran he quotes and his translation seems highly debatable - the terms "equal" and "equally" are not used in both verses.

The author then goes on to say that the Hadith relayed by Umar (who's authority we Shia do not validate but still...) regarding the punishing of adulterers and the mindfulness of observing hijab are probably complete fabrications brought about by Umar's misogynistic tendencies.

I find the idea that the Prophet pbuh only married multiple women in order to build political allegiances and that the Quran contradicts itself to that end...disconcerting. I also find the idea that the Hijab wearing in Iran is solely a product of Umar's mysogyny quite insulting.

The author then writes that the Quran was largely a product of the cultural values around at the time anyway, so presumably nothing it says should be taken particularly seriously. I stopped reading at that point.

Here's a quote from the author: "A lot of scholars, myself included, believe the future of Islam, especially Islamic democracy, rests in the Shia world. It's Iran and Iraq where the most exciting experiments are being carried out." Well, at least we agree about one thing.

It is important to translate in in many modern forms and flood them and give it a spin of glowing approval, we can win this war if the translations are up to modern standards, then when ordinary muslims read, they will choose the more moral one over the other one.

Varangian wrote:

Clive Durdle wrote:A revolution I understand not many Iranians actually wanted. Yes they wanted to get rid of the Shah, but I don't think they wanted Khomeni. Hussein asked the Shah shall I assassinate Khomeni for you, the Shah declined the offer!

Onyx8 wrote:Looks are important?

Khamenei has taken a firm stand against what has been described as "greatest domestic challenge in 30 years" to the leadership of the Islamic Republic — the 2009 Iranian election protests. He has stated that he will neither reconsider vote results nor bow to public pressure over the disputed reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.[88] "By Allah's favor, the presidential election was accurately held, and the current matters should be pursued legally."[89] In a public appearance on June 19 he expresses his support for the declared winner Ahmadinejad and accused foreign powers — including Britain, Israel and the United States — of helping foment protest against the election results.[90] In particular, he singled out Britain, perceiving the country as the "most evil" of its enemies.