Wrestling with Genesis and Revelation

Posted on 2022/03/24 by Christadelphians

The inability of Christians to grasp the meaning and message of both Genesis and Revelation create a great divide in America. Christians struggle with both the beginning and culmination of the Scriptures — the Alpha and the Omega as they might be called. Both Genesis and Revelation bring a lot of baggage with them to the American religious scene.

We have great division on end-times views stemming from misadventures into Revelation. Our confused teaching has scarred our culture and created a religious society that has wasted immense energy preparing for the end of the world. The predictions have come and gone these past decades.

A few Christians are now ready, finally — at last, to leave behind the “Left Behind” mentality. Why? There have been too many false predictions. For some of us, they are hard to forget. Things got going with The Late Great Planet Earth in 1970. They heated up in 1987, and then we found it was really going to happen in 1988. Through the 90’s and even today we hear about the Middle East in prophecy. First, it was the Soviet Union. Then it was Saddam Hussein. Is it the European Union? Or is it Islam? The hot ticket for the Antichrist keeps changing hands. And who can forget Y2K? They have all come and gone and with them goes the credibility of tens of millions of Christians in America.

Genesis has been a more dangerous venture for some. Wrongly understood, it has the potential to undermine one’s faith in the God of creation.

Martin Timothy, Vaughn Jeffrey (2007) “Beyond Creation Science: New covenant creation from Genesis to Revelation” Apocalyptic Vision Press Whitehall MT

Seems a fair point. Those loudest about how Genesis must be understood have a long history of prophetic interpretative failures (from which nothing is learnt).

COD

Additional reading

+++

Grootste misverstand over de islam

Posted on 2018/05/09 by Guestspeaker

In de Volkskrant kwam de Iraans/Amerikaanse Reza Aslan aan het woord. Hij kreeg grote bekendheid in 2013 toen hij op Fox News geïnterviewd werd over zijn bestseller De zeloot – Het leven van Jezus van Nazareth en de geboorte van een religie. Presentator Lauren Green vroeg zich af waarom Aslan, een moslim, in hemelsnaam een boek zou schrijven over Jezus. Hij legde uit dat hij een godsdienstwetenschapper is en gespecialiseerd in het Nieuwe Testament, en dat hij toevalligerwijs ook moslim is. Maar de Fox-presentator was nog steeds niet tevreden:

‘Maar waarom zou u geïnteresseerd zijn in de grondlegger van het christendom?’

‘Omdat dit mijn werk is’,

reageerde Aslan verbaasd terwijl hij zijn handen op zijn borst klemde, alsof er sprake was van een pijnlijk misverstand.

Indien er een atheïst een boek over Jezus of over God zou geschreven hebben zou niemand er van opkijken, maar een moslim blijkt toch iets heel anders te zijn.

Na dat interview schoot Aslans populariteit omhoog en belandde hij in het centrum van het Amerikaanse islamdebat. Hij werd de knuffelmoslim van Amerika.

Aslan kijkt naar onze wereld en stelt:

‘Er bestaat het idee dat de beleving van de islam op de een of andere manier fundamenteel anders zou zijn dan de beleving van het christen– of jodendom. Dat is niet alleen het grootste misverstand over de islam, maar ook de bron van islamofobie, zowel aan de linker- als de rechterkant van het spectrum. De islam wordt behandeld alsof die uniek is, niet divers en eclectisch, alsof deze religie niet onderhevig is aan verandering en ontwikkeling. Alsof de islam niet bestaat uit duizend variëteiten.

Vindt ook:

Godsdienstwetenschapper: “Religie is geen keuze, geloof is een keuze”
Mensen zijn gewelddadig niet religies
Gelijk gelovenden
Lees meer in de Volkskrant: Religie is geen keuze, geloof is een keuze

+++

Gerelateerd

Infinite payment of sin by the son of God

Posted on 2016/10/25 by Guestspeaker

Jesus, the only way to God

Jeanie Shepard says she has dedicated her life to serving God, and being an example of the love of Christ. As a passionate Bible teacher, committed to inspiring and encouraging people to live their best lives now, to face their fears, and to grow stronger in the holy things of God, she believes that no other religion teaches the depth or seriousness of sin and its consequences.

We are afraid we can not agree with that, because in this world of many religious groups we can find more than one religion where the followers look at good and evil. After man came to get knowledge of good and evil that knowledge went from one to an other generation and even non-religious people thought about people going bad, what in Christendom is called sinning.

she also writes

No other religion offers the infinite payment of sin that only Christ could provide. {The Only Way}

Sculpture – head of Jesus Christ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When she means “Christ” the Kristos or Messiah delivering people she is again missing the promise to and the believe of the Jews, and in some aspect also the Muslims. Jews and Muslims look also to the Messiah. In the Islam it is also taught that Ishi/Jesus will come back and that at his return he shall come to judge the living and the dead. For the Jews, they too wait for their Messiah to come, though for them, we do agree, they look (perhaps) for an other person than we and Jeanie Shepard are looking for. Many of them shall be surprised to find out that rabbi Jeshua is really that promised one from God.

With the writer of JSM Grow in God’s Word we too believe we should look to that Christ, though her idea of that Christ is not the biblical view nor our view. She considers that Christ to be God having come to the earth and having done as if he died, because God can not die and is an eternal Spirit. Though she says to

believe we are saved by God’s grace through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. {The Only Way}

she contradict in a certain way what she says, because she does not seem to accept the personality Jesus Christ. This is a general problem with a lot of people who call themselves Christian. Instead of accepting the words of Jesus Christ and the Words of his heavenly Father they prefer to believe the human doctrines and to make Jesus into their god.
Such idea undermines the position of Jesus Christ, the man who is called by the Word of God to be the son of man and the son of God.

We all should know that God is bigger than anything that we go through; but that He is also greater than Jesus. Rabbi Jeshua knew very well his position and never claimed to be God, but made it very clear where he was standing, not able to do anything without God.

Christians should take those words of Jesus at heart. They should believe that Jesus, the sent one from God, his heavenly Father works in him and still works today. Christians should understand Jesus his position, being under God, even not able to do anything of himself. Jesus like all the people who saw the miracles could see what God the Father did. It is this God of Abraham Who authorised rabbi Jeshua, Christ Jesus, to do all these things. For all that Jesus does is done by the Power of God.

Because of God having given the authority to speak and act in His Name, this son does together with the Elohim Hashem Jehovah out of love for mankind. Everything Jesus did was out of love for God Whose Will he wanted to do, and not his own will (which he would have done when he is God). First Jesus was lower than angels, but after his ransom offering he was made higher, though God always stays the Most High.

This Most High Eternal God is the Father Who loves His only begotten beloved Son and shows him all the things that He does, and He will show him greater works than these that we may marvel. For as the Father raises up the dead and gives them life; even so God His son gives life unto whom he will. Therefore we should take heed and look at this sent one from God who may judge the living and the dead and is at the moment seated at the right hand of God (and not on God‘s throne) to be a mediator between God and man. For the Father judges no man but has committed all judgement unto the son that everyone should honour the son, even as they honour the Father.

We should take the Words of God, given in the Holy Scriptures very serious. In the New Testament we are warned that he that does not honour the son does not honour the Father Who has sent him, plus that believe in him is important for man’s salvation.

Jesus also warns the people around him that those who hear his words and believes Him (Jehovah God) that sent him (Jesus Christ, the Messiah) has eternal life and shall not come into judgement but has passed from death unto life. But you could also read this as an implication that the ones who do not want to believe God and Jesus their words shall not pass from death to life and shall not be able to enter the small gate of the Kingdom of God.

First of all we should have to look up to the One Who sent Jesus, secondly we should look at the one sent by God. For as the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the son to have life in himself and has also given him power and authority to execute judgement because Jeshua (Jesus Christ) is Son of man and the son of God in whom we should put our hope.

“17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”
18 Therefor the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, “Verily, verily I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do; for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. 20 For the Father loveth the Son and showeth Him all things that He Himself doeth; and He will show Him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. 21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will. 22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, 23 that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father who hath sent Him.

24 Verily, verily I say unto you, he that heareth My Word and believeth in Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life. 25 “Verily, verily I say unto you, the hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live. 26 For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice 29 and shall come forth—they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. 30 “I can of Mine own self do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I seek not Mine own will, but the will of the Father who hath sent Me.

31 If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. 32 There is Another that beareth witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesseth of Me is true. 33 “Ye sent unto John, and he bore witness unto the truth. 34 But I receive not testimony from man, but these things I say, that ye might be saved. 35 He was a burning and a shining light, and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. 36 But I have greater witness than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given Me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of Me that the Father hath sent Me.” (John 5:17-36 KJ21)

We may not let our mind being filled with false human thoughts, but should listen to the Word God has given us. We may also not let our heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid, by wondering what others might think if we do not follow the mainstream or do not take part in the many human traditions.

The Bible teaches that there is no other way to salvation, but through Christ. Jesus is the way to God and the path to eternal salvation for those who believe in him. No one comes to the Father except through the son, and Jesus is the only begotten son of the Father. He is the only acceptable sacrifice by which man’s sins are forgiven.

“”For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16 KJ21)

“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:23 KJ21)

All people should come to hear what Jesus has taught. He left the earth but he shall come again unto us. Those who accepted Jesus for what or who he is and love him, there can be rejoicement because they know and believe that Jesus went unto the Father, and not to himself or to take back his place as God; for his Father is greater than himself (Jesus Christ). Christians also should tell others about this son of man who is the son of God, and not a god-son, that the world may know that Jesus does not love himself but loves the Father; and as the Father gave him commandment, even so does Jeshua (Jesus Christ).

“27 “Peace I leave with you; My peace I give unto you, not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, ‘I go away and come again unto you.’ If ye loved Me, ye would rejoice because I said, ‘I go unto the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I. 29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that when it is come to pass, ye might believe. 30 “Hereafter I will not talk much with you, for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me. 31 But that the world may know that I love the Father, as the Father gave Me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.” (John 14:27-31 KJ21)

When you believe those things, then you should be able to accept and believe that

Through Jesus everyone who believes is set free from every sin; (Acts 13:38-39; 1st John 2:12). Sin has a penalty that must be paid, if not through the shed blood of Jesus finish work on the cross,

not that

the only other option is the eternal torment in hell’s unquenchable fire. {The Only Way}

because by dying all payment is given for the sins done. God does not want any other payment and tells us that when we die it is finished.

Though we may not forget that

To receive the free gift of eternal salvation, we must look to Jesus alone. We must place our trust in the finished work of the cross as our payment for sin and in his resurrection.

Salvation is available only through faith in Jesus Christ. Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved; (Acts 4:12).

Preceding articles

Irminsul, dies natalis solis invicti, birthday of light, Christmas and Saturnalia

Entrance of a king to question our position #2 Who do we want to see and to be

Marriage of Jesus 2 Standard writings about Jesus

Marriage of Jesus 8 Wife of Yahweh

Marriage of Jesus 10 Old and New Covenant

Jerusalem and a son’s kingdom

Additional reading:

+++

Islamism Rises from Europe’s Secularism

Posted on 2016/08/29 by Guestspeaker

Liberal indignation at the sight of a Muslim woman in a swimsuit says far more about the fragile state of western secularism than it does the role of Islam in European societies.

Also the covering of the body does not have to be a typical Muslim phenomena. English celebrity chef Nigella Lawson in in 2011 choose to wear the fashionable long swimsuit with a head covering, which became better known as ‘the burkini” (burqini).

Proponents of clothing bans hail themselves as defenders of European civilisation and liberators of Muslim women from their patriarchal menfolk. they consider themselves to have the right to decide for those women whom according to them cannot decide for themselves which religion they would love to adhere and how they want to be dressed.

A covered woman, by this logic, is robbed of her agency – weak, oppressed and in need of the full armour of the state.

But those not allowing those women to wear what they would love to wear and to show or not show their body parts in one way or another are now deprived of their liberty to dress how they like and of their freedom to be religious in the way they want to be religious.

*

To remember

France, Socialist government imposed a “secularism charter” = in every school, banning Christianity from educational system.

Municipalities changed enrollment form for schoolchildren eliminating words “father” and “mother”, = replacing them with “legal manager 1” and “legal manager 2”. => = George Orwell’s “Newspeak”.

“Day of Secularism” = celebrated every 9th of December.

October 2000, Nice, 105-member European Convention drafted Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union => only referred to the “cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe”.

+

Preceding articles:

French showing to the whole world their fear and weaknesses

Does Banning Face Veils Help Us Fight Terrorism?

++

Additional reading

Is Europe going to become a dictatorial bastion

On French beach French police forces woman to undress in public

Women in France running with naked bosom all right but with covered bosom penalised

France and the Burkini

Not limiting others but sharing peace with all

+++

Further reading

The surprising Australian origin story of the ‘burkini’

Burkini a boon for Muslim women

France’s War on the Burqini

French mayors dismiss suspended burqini ban

The Burqini Ban

My Burkini and I

What does it mean to cover?

Dear white people of France: being forced to undress wasn’t exactly the liberation I was longing for

+++

Related articles

France’s burkini ban is an insult to all religions and Christians must oppose it

The eternal relevance of Orwell’s Animal Farm

Beach clashes lead to third French burqini ban

Another Day, Another Burqini Ban in France

7 uncomfortable facts about France’s burkini controversy

A Burqini is not Equivalent to a Burqa

Italian imam posts photo of nuns on beach to discuss burqini ban then gets FB account blocked

Uproar over Burqini ban at French resort

Burkini ban: Norway’s right-wing Progress Party calls for full-body swimsuit to be outlawed

French women’s rights minister defends ban on ‘hostile’ Muslim swimwear

Let's condemn...

In France, the Socialist government imposed a “secularism charter” in every school, banning Christianity from the educational system. Municipalities have already changed the enrollment form for schoolchildren by eliminating the words “father” and “mother”, replacing them with “legal manager 1” and “legal manager 2”. It is George Orwell’s “Newspeak”.
After two major terror attacks in 2015, France, instead of promoting a cultural “jihad” based on Western values, responded to Islamic fundamentalism with a ridiculous “Day of Secularism” to be celebrated every 9th of December.
This narrow secularism has also prevented France from openly supporting Eastern Christians under Islamist oppression.
The empty 13th century Oude Kerk church in Amsterdam is now used for exhibitions and can be rented for gala dinners. In front of it there is “Sexyland”, offering “Live F*ck Shows”, a coffee shop for drugs and an “Erotic Supermarket” for dildos. For seven euros one can also visit…

View original post 121 more words

French showing to the whole world their fear and weakness

Posted on 2016/08/27 by Guestspeaker

Terrorist beginnings

The previous year France and Belgium had to face very serious attacks to the integrity of their nation.

In the mid-1980s Belgium had already an experience of terrorist actions. Primarily engaged in bombings within Belgium’s borders the CCC or Cellules Communistes Combattantes (Communist Combatant Cells) attacked perceived enemies of communism, specifically NATO, US and other international businesses and the Federation of Belgian Enterprises. Today many may have forgotten those Cellules Communistes Combattantes their attacks which led to several injuries and only two deaths, whilst the Bende van Nijvel or Nivelles Gang, also known as the Brabant killers managed to kill 28 people and got 40 seriously injured between 1982 and 1985, but are also left in the past.

This present day also after the bombings at the airport and metro of Brussels, and the several terrorist attacks by Islamic terrorists all over the country, made the Belgium a little bit more alert They had tears for the victims (Christians, atheists, but also Muslims) but also very sensitive to continue to live on, not giving in to the Islamic terrorists, fearing everything about Muslims.

Taken by fear and covering clothes

The French seem to be taken so much by fear they start panicking as soon as they see a Muslim man or Muslim woman. Even worse, when they notice a Muslim woman in covering clothes or in a swimsuit they get in a terrible state and start using bad words and doing abusive degrading, humiliating actions. Do they really think such devout person, covering her body parts, would be a threat for their life?

Several majors of French cities and several politicians tried to limit the way women can chose their dress. On Thursday, the council of state, France’s highest administrative court, and judicial and advisory body, examined a request by the French Human Rights League to scrap the burkini bans which were imposed and caused already several disturbing and very embarrassing terrible humiliating situations.

Women in France facing fines and humiliation for wearing burkinis (Photo AFP/Getty)

Beachwear ban and infringement on basic freedom

The bans – made in the form of mayoral decrees – followed the Bastille Day attack in Nice and the murder of a priest in Normandy. Though they do not explicitly use the word burkini but instead ban

“beachwear which ostentatiously displays religious affiliation”,

citing reasons such as the need to protect public order, hygiene or French laws on secularism, many women wearing too much covering clothes were reprimanded and those with a burkini were forced to take it off and to pay a fine.

At a hearing before the state council on Thursday, lawyers for the rights groups in the Villeneuve-Loubet case argued that the bans were feeding fear and infringe on basic freedom.

Lawyers argued that the short-term decrees are illegal and had good reason to declare such bans to be against human rights of liberty, in a state which had liberty in its ensing, having Liberty, Equality and Fraternity as their three core values.

Burkini ban

The film-temple Cannes was the one to start all the fuss and gave the kick-off for banning the burkini because it

“could risk disrupting public order while France was the target of terrorist attacks”

by which you may wonder how such covering up of the body, still showing it is a woman in the dress, would disrupt public order. When the way of dress would create others to react negatively, the state should react on those who take on a racist attitude and not on the one who wears ordinary clothes. The second reason of imposing the restriction should ring strange bells in our ears: It is said those town imposed this law because burkinis ‘are’

“not respectful of [the] good morals and secularism”

of France. Where we do have to question which those good morals are, when you see all that body exploitation, commercial nudity, fornication, a.o.. Against the secularisation we can understand, noticing that the state wants to exclude any from of religion, Judaism, real Christianity, though not objecting the pagan Roman Catholic Church because those Catholics do not do much with their religion and for those few priests and nuns who are in such minority, why should the state bother, because most people do not take them serious.

In France though most would oppose when a nun was forced to take off her habit on a beach, though lots of French people did find it right to have Muslim women to be forced to take off their (often even less covering) clothes. We even got to see where some police officers ‘helped’ to take off the clothes of a woman who was not quick enough according to their liking. It was really degrading to see such a humiliation in public in a so called Western civilised society.

Sexual objectification

In that French society suddenly fashion designers when designing nice clothes for Muslim women are called to help the people to set up against the governement and against public order.
France’s women’s rights minister, Laurence Rossignol, accused the designers of high-fashion burqinis and hajib headscarve of encouraging the “imprisonment of women’s bodies.” Would she also accuse the high fashion places of France to encourage the Caucasian men to consider women as a sex object and lookism target or making women attractive to be the treasure of man and as such imprison them in Western capitalist society? Why suddenly fashion for Muslim women becomes ‘Sexual objectification‘ when it is not for Caucasian non-religious and Catholic people?

The objectification of women, is an important idea in feminist theory and psychological theories derived from feminism and feminist shall have a new task in coming up for the rights of Muslim women, who are now clearly deprived of their own free choice to cloth them selves in a way they find appropriate according to their faith.

Fear for God searching and finding people

Mainly males protesting of the covered ladies bodies should have us wonder if those men do not have an other problem. And if they seriously think persons wearing such clothes could impose a danger to the community, they should come to give a better explanation. Lots of them are afraid of islamisation of their country and think that when more people show their devoutness more French people would be put to shame and shall come to consider to change their secular life and perhaps consider to come to look for God again. For many this is clearly also a problem. Many are very much afraid that people shall start wondering about their faith and about the Truth. Many are really fearing that several people may come to know God better and come to see how the Catholic Church mislead them so much.

Forcing women to go for protection

By forcing the Muslim women to cloth in a different way than they want to do for their faith, the French push them in a corner and shall make certain groups stronger, because they shall support those women and help them. In this way we have already the Algerian businessman and political activist Rachid Nekkaz who previously founded the organisation “Touche pas à ma constitution” (English: “Don’t touch my constitution”, a play on the slogan of the NGO SOS Racisme: Touche pas à mon pote), which pledged to pay the fine of any women convicted of wearing the burqa in public, now also has created a fund to pay for any fines incurred by women wearing burkinis, and has already helped several women by paying their €38 fine.

But also radical preachers shall get to pull the women to their site, showing how pervert modern society has become, and how much the State does everything to get people away from God. The latest measures forbidding to wear any religious symbol on public adds to the proof of the willing secularisation of the State.

At the same time the governement in France does everything to create more hate between its population and in Allah or God believing people.

Nekkaz called the burqini ban

“symptomatic of the French government’s efforts to eliminate Islam, bit by bit, from the constitution”,

adding that the French government

“wishes to battle against the visibility of Islam in France”. {Meet the man paying off burqini fines in France}

But believers in God should see the Nation wants to go even a step further. Clearly this week they have taken the step to make it very clear that they are prepared to start the battle against the visibility of any God loving group of people, being it Jews, Christians or Muslims.

Public suppression and rejection of religion

La Sophia Lara, who is currently a student reading Latin and Italian at University in Scotland, whilst she is a linguist at heart, her interests and passions also expand to ‘philosophical’ contemplations (used in the slightest of terms), travelling and making YouTube videos on her channel, reacts rightly on her blog

A France which prides itself for liberté, égalité, fraternité, has unfortunately fallen short in recent times, with more social division and social prejudice arising within the country, due to the public suppression and rejection of religion; the consequent of which has led to violent eruptions. It is also precisely through the social persecution of the wider islamic community in such acts which aim to strip them of their beliefs, that it seems that the French government are validating individuals’ fears, rather than attempting to diffuse them. I personally believe that the government has made very little effort to try to remedy the severance, and have instead trumped the terrorist acts as a way to divert the attention away from their own failed model of harmony. {France’s banning of the ‘Burqini’ is the rejection of its founding principles}

Suppression of dissent

In France we may notice that because of the fear for terrorist attacks and because of the fear of the unknown (the lack of knowledge of what really Islam is and should be) suppression of dissent has come to demand its place in that nation of liberty and so called freedom.

The non believers in a god or the God form the group which is more powerful than those who believe in the Almighty Divine Creator of heaven and earth, has taken advantage of the present situation to directly censor, persecute and oppress those believers in the God of gods (Allah).

Lots of French do not want to give an ear to the other victims of the terrorist attacks and do not want to know more about Islam and how certain groups are misusing that religion its name to create war and anger. They do not want to take time to consider all facts and to engage with and constructively respond to or accommodate the other party’s arguments or viewpoint.

Sticker art arguing that dissent is necessary for democracy.

For many French people, Muslims are now considered a dissent perceived as a threat, against whom action must be taken, and should be repressed plus considered as “dissidents” to get rid off.

In several blogs we could find such reactions blaming ‘all Muslims’ for the agony which came over France.

Those who do not want to believe a woman can decide herself to wear a burkini deny the right of that woman to decide for herself

In France there are lots of people who do not seem to believe a Muslim woman can be strong enough to decide for herself to wear what she wants. There are even some people, like a Dutch blogger, who want to believe because a female wants to cover her body she is giving a sign that when it would not be covered she is allowed to be raped and should be found guilty of doing so. That is turning it all the way around (wrongly). By not allowing those women to dress as they want, the state gives the signal that it does matter how people are dressed and how female beings give a signal to men if they are ready to be taken as wife or be subject to be used as something else.

Any woman should have the own right to decide what she wants to wear without any man giving a connotation to what she wears.

So called nothing to do with racism but for safety reasons

When the burkini ban has nothing to do with racism and anti Islam religion do we not to question

How can a piece of clothing be a threat?
How can Burkini decrease the level of security?
How can they decide what women should wear to the Beach?
How is this even a topic of discussion?! {Burkini a threat…}

Is the Moroccon, Tetouan, Swedish Sarah not right in posing

they think by forcing us to dress a certain way they are helping us… They are the ones oppressing muslim women by taking away their rights do be who they want to be and dress how they want to dress. {Burkini a threat…}

Why should any person who does not want to walk naked have not the right to cover her body up? Be her or him a Jew, Christian, Muslim, atheist or a pagan believer, who may have the right to decide what she or he has to wear?

The Swedish blogger writes

I’m so tired of the “what should muslim women wear” discussion. If my sisters don’t want to be half naked while swiming, they shouldn’t be forced. If my sisters want to cover up, they should be able to. And if my sisters want to be free, let them be free.

Stop trying to set us free from a decision we freely made!!
Stop trying to label us.
You do you, and we are going to do us and just keep being awesome.🙂{Burkini a threat…}

Madonna, France has a message for you: You can’t swim with us. #youcantsitwithus – Exclusive Madonna Holiday in France

21st century witch hunt

Texan Cartoonist Clay Jones wrote

Western Europe is proving we’re not alone in the United States with our racism, xenophobia, and mass stupidity. I’m still recovering from the hate rally I attended last week.

Human Rights groups asked France’s highest court to strike down the ban, and they agreed. The court ruled that the ban

“seriously, and clearly illegally, breached the fundamental freedoms to come and go, the freedom of beliefs and individual freedom.”

I’ll add to that with “yeah.”

and drew a very good cartoon, which you can find on his site: Claytoonz: burkini.

Maryana Kovalchuk hits the nail on the dot to think of a new witch hunt. She writes

An affront to women. A sign of intolerance towards cultural diversity and integration. A step to prejudice, discrimination, segregation and an insult to everyone who worked hard against them. {Universal concern: not naked enough}

and ads the very confronting nice picture.

the-rapture-1999-shirin-neshat-1397865366_org

Caption from film ‘Rapture’, 1999, Shirin Neshat

We only can hope the French will find a solution to avoid further Islamic terrorist attacks and shall not try any more to take away the attention of the French public, from the real problem France does not seem to be able to manage.

Please continue reading:

Does Banning Face Veils Help Us Fight Terrorism?

Islamism Rises from Europe’s Secularism

Preceding articles

A world with or without religion

Women their education and chances to become a parliamentary

Find also to read

Additional reading

+++

Further of interest

+++

Angst voor ouderwetse regels en verlies van christenen

Posted on 2016/06/10 by Guestspeaker

In het Nederlandstalig gebied van West-Europa zijn er heel wat die extreme ideeën hebben. Beiden maken elkaar bang en willen de anderen doen geloven dat zij deze contreien gaan of moeten overheersen.

De grote toestroom van immigranten doet veel mensen denken dat diegenen die zich hier willen komen vestigen, zich niet zullen aanpassen aan onze westerse samenleving en dat zij hun geloof aan de anderen zullen gaan opdringen.

Velen die zo bang zijn vergeten dat het enkel diegenen die zwak in hun eigen geloof staan bekeerd zullen kunnen geraken. Doch bekering loopt niet zo van een leien dakje. Wij moeten echter bewust zijn dat sommige geloofsgroepen weinig vergen om een bekeerling op te nemen en dit doen met aanlokkelijke slogans maar weinig diepgang. Gevolg hiervan zal zijn dat sommige van die bekeerden na een tijdje wel de waarheid zullen gaan inzien en die gemeenschap dan ook de rug zullen gaan toe keren. Hiertoe moet de rest van de maatschappij ook openstaan en er voor zorgen dat die ontmoedigden dan terug opgevangen kunnen worden in een ordelijke maatschappij.

Dat uit een studie van 2013, die nu zeer in de belangstelling is, blijkt dat in Nederland en vijf andere Europese landen tweederde van de ondervraagde moslims hun religieuze wetten belangrijker vinden dat de wetten van de landen waarin zij leven moet ons niet verwonderen. In wezen zouden de geloofswetten voor elke gelovige de basis waarden moeten vormen voor hun leven. Ook in het Christelijk geloof wordt er gevraagd om uit de wereld te stappen en zeker nooit akkoord te gaan met staatswetten die indruisen tegen de wetten van God. Bij de meerderheid van de Christenen is het echter zo dat zij zelf veel wetten van God niet na leven en eigenlijk weinig of geen interesse hebben in de beleving van het geloof of van God. Waar zij zich hoofdzakelijk aan houden zijn de heidense feesten en de menselijke tradities die eveneens meestal gebaseerd zijn op heidense gebruiken.

Dat er zo veel jongeren aangetrokken worden tot het islamitische geloof zou de mensen in het westen meer vragen moeten doen stellen. Indien veel christenen zich zouden gaan bekeren tot de islam zegt dat niet meer over die christenen dan over de islamieten?

Men kan er niet naast zien dat in de jaren 60–70 van vorige eeuw heel wat Turken en Marokkanen naar hier zijn gekomen om meer te verdienen en zich een beter leven op te bouwen. Van die gezinnen bracht de meerderheid een conservatievere levensstijl mee dan de meerderheid in hun land. Die zeer oude conservatieve godsdienstbeleving bleef hier in hun kinderen ingedrukt geworden. Ook zij moesten zich houden aan de klassieke geloofsbeleving meet al de gebruiken van hun ouders hun heimat. Door hun afzondering en dikwijls het leven in ghettos kon hun geloofsbeleving stagneren en gingen velen niet mee met de tijd.

Door institutionele uitsluiting en stigmatisering kon de ‘underdog’ groeien en kreeg men uitvergrote verkeerde beelden. Bepaalde politieke partijen zagen hierin de kans schoon om zich te richten op hen die anders zijn dan de plaatselijke bevolking.

WLM – roel1943 – Koran (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In beide groepen, moslims en niet moslims geraakten valse beelden aangenomen gedachten die niet altijd kloppen met de werkelijkheid. Zo hebben bijvoorbeeld moslims in Duitsland aanmerkelijk minder rechten dan in Nederland. Sterker nog: in geen enkel Europees land hebben moslims zoveel rechten als in Nederland. Nochtans voelen vele moslims in Nederland onterecht behandeld. Ook in België geraken meerderen ook meer gefrustreerd. Vooral de media die mee helpen om een angstpsychose te creëren helpen er aan mee om de ontevredenheid aan te scherpen.

Ook al willen de leden van het Christendom, en voornamelijk dan de Katholieken, geloven dat zij de grootste ware geloofsgemeenschap is, kan de Islam zich veroorloven te zeggen dat 1 op vier Islamiet is. Van de totale wereldbevolking in 2009 (6,8 miljard) werden er namelijk 1,57 miljard mensen als moslim geboekstaafd. Er leven ook meer moslims in Azië dan in het Midden-Oosten. Ook al zou slechts vijf procent van de Europese bevolking of ongeveer 38 miljoen mensen, aanhanger van de Islam zijn moeten wij er rekening mee houden dat er een veel grotere groep is die niet behoort tot de algemeen erkende geloofsverenigingen of Moslimexecutieven.

Het zijn die anders gelovige moslims die zoals anders gelovige christenen toch ook een belangrijke geloofsgroep vormen. Ook in België zegt men dikwijls ‘de christenen’ maar doelt men op de katholieken en vergeet men heel wat christenen die heel andere gebruiken en geloofsovertuigingen hebben dan die Rooms Katholieken. Zo ook zijn er onder de Islamieten heel wat verschillende strekkingen die niet allemaal dezelfde regels hebben, laat staan de zelfde geloofsopvattingen.

Erg is het gesteld met de fundamentalistische groepen die zo veel aandacht krijgen in de media dat de gewone mens wel begint te geloven dat zij ‘de Islam’ voor stellen. Vooral de Moslimexecutieve of in het algemeen de Islamitische raden hebben hiertoe bij gedragen door niet tijdig tegenwind te geven en er op te duiden waar Alquada, ISIL, ISIS, IS of Daesh en Bokoharam dingen deden die indruisen tegen het ware islamitische geloof.

Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life bracht in 2009 naar voor dat Islam is de tweede godsdienst in de wereld na het Christendom, dat ongeveer 2,2 miljard volgelingen heeft. Nu zeven jaar later ziet het Christendom de zeer grote groei van die Islam als een bedreiging aan en beseffen velen dat er heel wat meer moslims zijn dan de geregistreerden.

In België is dat duidelijk te zien aan de vele streken waar meer dan de nu normale 25% moslims kan vast gesteld worden.

Die enorme groei van de laatste jaren, waarbij ook veel meer vrouwen met hoofddoek een gewoon straatbeeld zijn geworden, boezemt velen angst in dat het nog meer gaat doorzetten door de toestroom van migranten.

The Balkans Chronicles getuigt van zulk een angst in de volksmond. De auteur wil de mensen doen geloven dat de meeste mensen gewoon niet bewust zijn dat de islam niet zomaar een religie, maar een totalitaire politieke cult-achtige ideologie is, die zijn volgelingen dwingt tot blinde gehoorzaamheid, leert intolerantie, brutaliteit en alle moslims en niet-moslims vergrendelt in een strijd die rechtstreeks voortvloeien uit de 7e eeuw nomadische, roofzuchtige, Bedoeïen culture. {Islam is hier om Europa over te nemen!}

Waar hij dit vandaan haalt mag Joost weten. Hij schrijft verder

Deze politieke ideologie heeft als doel, de wereld te onderwerpen,hetzij vreedzaam door middel van zending en migratie, hetzij met geweld door middel van de heilige oorlog of jihad… {Islam is hier om Europa over te nemen!}

Zonder oog te hebben wat bepaalde zogenaamd christelijke groepen hebben uitgespookt de vorige eeuwen, hun moorddadige acties in de doofpot stekend, kijkt hij wel naar tegenreacties van Islamitische groepen.

Ook wijst hij met een boze vinger naar de migratieproblematiek waarin hij een verder gevaar van islamisering ziet. Hij schrijft:

In landen waar moslims met oorlogsvoering de sharia niet dwingend kan opleggen, daar wordt gebruik/misbruik gemaakt van migratie. Indonesië, Maleisië, Centraal Azië en delen van India dankzij migratie werden geïslamiseerd. Migratie is slechts een verkapte verovering en het zal pas eindigen wanneer de hele wereld is veroverd.Er zijn nu 57 staten waarin de islam regeert…

Europa wordt binnenkort een ‘islamitische staat’, waar de shari’ah geldt! De opkomst van de islam, betekent ook de opkomst van de sharia wetgeving in ons rechtssysteem.Veel menende term ISLAMISERING niet helemaal begrijpen.Met islamisering wordt niet alleen de toename van de moslimpopulatie bedoeld, en ook niet de militaire verovering van het land door moslims of de stichting van een islamitische staat. Islamisering is een proces waarbij de religie sluipenderwijs alle aspecten van het leven gaat domineren. {Islam is hier om Europa over te nemen!}

Dit lijkt wel Vlaams Blok of Vlaams Belang praat en is niet gestoeld op werkelijkheid maar getuigd ook van een onderschatting van het huidige staatsapparaat. Alsook onderschat het het vermogen van de Europese Unie als gemeenschap van federale staten die ook zelf hun eigen zeg in eigen land mogen doen.

Londen is een mooi voorbeeld hoe zijn gedachte over de komende twintig jaar, werkelijkheid kan worden en er niet alleen genoeg islamitische kiezers in dat Europa zullen zijn, maar dat er ook anderen er voor zullen kiezen om op een Islamiet te kiezen als burgemeester of als President! Heeft men er in het verleden zo veel vragen bij gesteld als het een Katholiek, Protestant, Niet gelovige, Humanist, Boeddhist of anders gelovige was die zich kandidaat stelde in een gemeente of in het land voor een kiesbare plaats?

Hebben die Christenen die zo bang zijn dat hun geloofsgemeenschap zal verminderen zich zorgen gemaakt toen atheïsten de burgemeesterposten gingen opeisen of parlementszetels gingen innemen? Waar waren dan die bezorgde christenen toen wetten werden goedgekeurd die tegen hun christelijk geloof ingingen? Toen leek het allemaal heel gewoon of moest iedereen maar mee op de kar van de vooruitgang klimmen.

Wat heeft men gedaan toen men gemeenschapsscholen or rijksscholen oprichtte, of protestantse Bijbelscholen of Joodse scholen terwijl men nu bezwaren heeft tegen sharia erfenissen, sharia scholen, en sharia banken in Europa?

Dat in Amsterdam polygame huwelijken officieel worden geregistreerd door de gemeentediensten is dat niet gewoon der werkelijkheid voor waar nemen? Trouwens heel wat Belgische blanke mannen houden er ook meerdere vrouwen op na, zonder dat zij al doende geregistreerd zijn. Is hun buitenechtelijke verhouding dan zo veel beter dan de echtelijke verbintenis van diegene die openen bloot voor meerdere vrouwen zorgt en hun goed behandelt?

Heel wat zogenaamde christenen zien er geen bezwaar in om seks te hebben voor het huwelijk of om met nog anderen seks te hebben als zij al door de echt met iemand anders verbonden zijn. Sommigen houden er zelfs van om van de verscheiden geslachten te snoepen en enkelen vinden het heel aangenaam om met meerderen tegelijk de liefde te bedrijven en vinden er zelfs geen bezwaar in om er mee te pronken.

De normen en waarde in onze westerse samenleving zijn zodanig laag komen te staan dat bepaalde bevolkingsgroepen terecht een halt toe roepen tegen die decadentie. Dat het voornamelijk Islamieten zijn, getuigd alleen maar hoe weinig christenen echt met het geloof bezig zijn en zich aan de regels van hun heilige boeken willen houden.

Sommige debatten zoals rond de hoofddoeken zijn dikwijls zaken die wij eerder bij de katholieken ook gezien hebben. De kinderboom generatie hebben hun ouders nog weten gescheiden zitten in de kerk en zagen hun moeders nog gesluierd en ofwel met hoedje of met hoofddoek de straat op gaan. Voor veel jongeren vandaag is dat niet meer gekend, maar dat wij ze gerust eens onze familie albums eens voor leggen.

Vele christenen zijn vergeten hoe de nonnen hun kapsels waren of hoe priesters in habijt rond liepen. In sommige landen is dat nog gewone praktijk.

Kan men niet inzien dat bepaalde islamitische groepen nu in een zelfde fase zitten als de christenen in de vorige eeuw hebben mee gemaakt?

Ook bij de moslims ziet men een duidelijke trent dat jongeren hun geloof minder diep beleven dan hun grootouders en ouders. Maar dat er terecht nu een opleving komt in geloofsbevraging is een feit waar wij in het westen beter zouden nadenken wat er in onze eigen cultuur verkeerd is gelopen. Indien christenen zo bang zijn dat het christendom zou ‘overwonnen’ worden door de islam, zouden zij zich dan niet beter aan de regels van die christelijke leer houden?

Betreft regels aan anderen opleggen moet iedereen die in het westen komt wonen zich aansluiten bij de rechtsbepalingen van dat land. Anders moet hij of zij dar niet wonen. Indien dat duidelijk wordt gemaakt aan hen die naar hier komen mag dat ook geen probleem vormen.

Iedereen, moslims maar ook christenen moeten zich er bewust van zijn dat geen enkele religie het recht heeft zich op te dringen aan anderen.

Analoog aan de uitspraak de Spaanse minister van Justitie López Aguilar (op 11-09-2004 ), geldt ook hier hetzelfde wat de Australische minister van Onderwijs Brendan Nelson zei:

“Indien u en uw achterban niet van plan zijn onze wetten, waarden en omgangsvormen te accepteren, hoort u hier niet thuis en dient u de koffers te pakken, paspoorten in te leveren en Australië te verlaten!” …

Maar dit hoeft niet in te houden dat zij niet hun eigen gebruiken en wijze van geloofsuitvoering zouden mogen hebben. Zolang zij de vrijheid van een ander niet beperken en niemand schade berokkenen met hun geloofsbeleving moet deze ook vrij blijvend kunnen uitgevoerd worden.

$Nederlands: Hans Janmaat, fractievoorzitter va...$

Hans Janmaat, fractievoorzitter van de centrumpartij, tijdens een televisieuitzending in de zendtijd voor politieke partijen. Nederland, 8 februari 1984. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dat een stem voor de PvdA, SP, Groen, Groenlinks, CDA, CD&V, N-VA, Liberalen of D66 een stem zou zijn voor Sharia, voor de burka’s, hoofddoekjes, moskeeën, gescheiden zwemmen, gescheiden klassen en ga maar door is een onterechte uitspraak. Mogen wij er ook op wijzen dat wij, die nu nog leven, zelf nog dat gescheiden zwemmen hebben gekend. Natuurlijk moeten wij niet terug naar die oude tijd toen onze ouders nog met die lange zwempakken het zeewater in gingen en wij niet met ontblote benen en armen mochten lopen. Misschien kan de oudere generatie de jongeren daar misschien even terug aan herinneren. Ook al hebben deze, zoals de schrijver van dit stuk, zich ook heftig tegen die ouderwetse ouders en de maatschappij verzet. Wij zijn er zelfs de barricaden voor opgeklommen in 1968 en hebben er niet tegen opgezien om naakt te lopen of in communes te leven. Zo is de wereld van één uiterste naar een ander gegaan en ziet het er naar uit dat de wereld nu terug naar een ander (vroeger) uiterste wil gaan.

Om te zeggen

Nergens ter wereld bestaat er een goed functionerende islamitische samenleving...

is de waarheid geweld aan doen en er niet in geloven dat zoals het christendom geëvolueerd is, de Islam ook zal evolueren en gebonden zal zijn aan het tijdsgebeuren..

Allowing dress code according liberty of religion

Posted on 2015/12/16 by Bijbelvorsers

In this contemporary world with many refugees coming into our regions from Muslim countries, lots of people become afraid their culture may take over ours. Undoubtedly the last ten years we have seen the dresses of many women changing to less colourful hip fashionable dresses into monotone long dresses which are associated with Muslim faith.

Habillement modeste pour des musulmans et des non-musulmans (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

With the knowledge that observing hijab and covering the woman’s face in front of men would be established in the saheeh Sunnah that explains the Book of Allah according certain groups of Muslims. We should know that not all groups or denominations of the Islam do restrict women with strict dress codes which seem to limit their freedom, according our Western view.

It seems that certain Muslim women are convinced that the words

“and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)”

mean that this covering the face came from the Prophet, because he was there and they asked him about everything that they did not understand about their religion.

When we want to live in a free democratic state we should allow to everybody the right to live according to their faith. This means that we also should respect those women who do want to cover their face with a veil, like they consider their religion wanting this from them.

Preceding articles

The Dress Code for Women in the Quran

Meditating Muslimah on “hijab to be a religious obligation”

Coverings Worn by Muslim Women

+++

Vernon Hills students join their Muslim peers in wearing hijabs (dailyherald.com)
Muslim Students Association Hosts High School ‘Walk a Mile in Her Hijab’ Event (dailysurge.com)
Live now: Buckhorn, leaders on Muslim support (abcactionnews.com)
Wheaton College Professor Comes Out Wearing Hijab, Quotes ‘Pope Francis’: ‘We All Worship Same God’ (christiannews.net)
Young Muslim Americans say discrimination is ‘worse now than after 9/11’ (fusion.net)
School Forces Students to Write ‘There Is No God But Allah’ (patriotupdate.com)
Wheaton College professor wears hijab as sign of solidarity (dailyherald.com)
Christian professor wears Hijab – Zionists hit the Wall (rehmat1.com)
Fleeing The Hijab (everydaygyaan.com)
The Legality of Muslim Exclusion (acslaw.org)

The Dress Code for Women in the Quran

Posted on 2015/12/16 by Marcus Ampe

Naturally the Quran is not the only source of law that is authorised by God. In that book is clearly also referred to the previous letters of men of God, like the books of Moses and the minor and major prophets.

It is good to see how certain people of the Muslim faith want to mix the writings of those prophets with the writings of ordinary beings who lived after Muhammad and brought their own rules into books they say all Muslims have to follow.
As such we do have to know and Muslims also should have to know, that what happened in Judaism and in Christendom also happened in Islam. Also in that religion human thought for many became more important than the Words of God Himself.

The niqab has become a symbol of the Muslim faith. It is worn by many Muslim women in public areas and in front of non related males. Worn mainly in the Arab world and in the Muslim countries of Africa and Asia it has become part of our streetview as well the last ten years.

Everybody should see that many Muslim scholars have invented extreme rules for women’s dress which are not found in the Quran. In our previous article we showed that some say that women should be totally covered except for their face, while others who are even more extreme, say that all women must be covered from head to toe except for two holes for the eyes to see! They should know if they want to dress accordingly they should take into account the dress-code of the country where they are willing to live in. In many European countries we may not walk naked on the streets, so we do have to respect that limitation of freedom, but also the opposite people may not be dressed so that nobody can recognise who is behind the outer garments.

To remember

1- Quran source of law that is authorised by God (6:114).

2- Quran complete + fully detailed (6:38, 6:114, 6:89 and 12:111).

3- God calls on His true believers to make sure not to fall in the trap of idol worship by following the words of the scholars instead of the words of God (9:31).

4- God calls those who prohibit what He did not prohibit, aggressors, liars and idol worshippers (5:87, 6:140, 7:32, 10:59).

The command to follow the Quran alone is given very clearly in the Quran, see: Dozen Reasons

Quranic guidelines for women’s dress

First Rule: The Best Garment

“O children of Adam, We have brought down to you garments to cover your private parts, as well as for adornment, yet the garment of reverence is the best. These are some of God’s signs, perhaps they will remember.” 7:26

To revere God + know that He is always watching us = basic rule for dress code in Quran

Any woman knows quite well what is decent + what is revealing => not need to be told <= know how to maintain righteousness + how not to

Second Rule: Cover your Bosoms

in 24:31 = God commands women to cover their bosoms = crucial words mentioned in connection to this topic, namely the ‘hijab [Any partition which separates two things (e.g. that which separates God from creation)]’ + the ‘khimar’.

The word ‘hijab’ in the Quran

Hijab = term used by many Muslim women to describe their head cover

‘hijab’ = veil or yashmak + screen, cover(ing), mantle, curtain, drapes, partition, division, divider.

in the Quran:

7 times: 5 of them as ‘hijab’ + 2 times as ‘hijaban’ => verses: 7:46, 33:53, 38:32, 41:5, 42:51, 17:45 & 19:17.

None used in Quran in reference to what traditional Muslims call today ‘hijab’ = head cover for Muslim woman!

‘hijab’ = old Jewish tradition => infiltrated into hadith

Religious Jewish women still cover their heads most of the time + especially in the synagogues, at weddings + religious festivities = cultural =/= religious

Some Christian women cover their heads in many religious occasions while nuns some years ago also covered their heads all the time, though that seems long forgotten

‘hijab’ = traditional dress + has nothing to do with Islam or religion

Mixing religion with tradition = form of idol-worship = implies setting up other sources of religious laws besides law of God.

‘khimar’ in Quran:

in 24:31 While the 1 basic rule of Dress Code for Muslim women can be found in 7:26, 2nd rule of dress code for women can be found in 24:31.

Some Muslims quote verse 31 of sura 24 as containing the ‘hijab’, or head cover, by pointing to the word, khomoorihinna, (their khimars), forgetting that God already used the word ‘hijab’, several times in the Quran.

the words of God – 24:31 are:

“And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to guard their private parts and not to show their adornments except that of it which normally shows. They shall cover their cleavage with their ‘khimar’. They shall not show their adornments except in the presence of their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, other women, their slaves, the male attendants who have no sexual desire and the children who are yet to attain awareness of women’s nakedness. They shall not strike their feet so as to reveal details of their hidden ornaments. You shall repent to God all you believers, so that you may succeed.” 24:31

Arabic word khimar = cover => Any cover such as a curtain, a dress, table cloth, blanket, a coat, a shawl, a shirt, a blouse, a scarf etc.

Third Rule: Not to reveal any of their adornments

found in 24:31 = God commands women not to reveal their adornments (beauty spots) except what is normally apparent (face, hair, lower arms and lower legs .. etc).

” …. not to show their adornments except that of it which normally shows.”

very general term = to allow women freedom to decide on what is shown of her body.

Righteous women = make correct decision so as to conform to general code of morality, + also according to time, place + occasion.

word ‘zeenatahunna’ (adornments) in this verse refers to woman’s beauty spots which carry a sexual connotation, examples are “thighs, breasts, back side … etc) > expose details of certain parts of body.

For more detailed analysis of 24:31 please go to: Corruption of 24:31

Fourth Rule : Lengthen your Garments

“O prophet, tell your wives, your daughters and the wives of the believers that they shall lengthen their garments. This is better so that they will be recognized and not molested. God is Forgiver, Merciful.” 33:59

not say how long is long => God knows we will be living in different communities + have different cultures => insists that minor details of this dress code will be left for the people of every community to decide for themselves, as long as righteousness is always maintained.

Many Muslim scholars have invented extreme rules for women’s dress which are not found in the Quran < => There are no words anywhere in the Quran which command women to cover all their bodies

Preceding article:

Meditating Muslimah on “hijab to be a religious obligation”

Additional reading

Scripture words written for our learning, given by inspiration of God for edification

+++

Meditating Muslimah on “hijab to be a religious obligation”

Posted on 2015/12/16 by Marcus Ampe

The recent attacks on Niqab wearing female bring up some earlier discussions I had last year and this year with different people of different religions. in Belgium burka’s may be forbidden but not much is done against those who still wear it. The regional government of Ticino has introduced fines of up to $13,000 for women (or presumably men too) wearing a burka or niqab in public.

With the many Muslim refugees coming into Europe and with Muslim terrorists having become more active in our own regions people have become more afraid for those women and perhaps also men who are dressed so that we can not recognise who is behind the clothes.

Under Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the previous Canadian government had hoped to persuade the Supreme Court of Canada to hear its case for striking down lower-court rulings that allowed women to wear the niqab — a face covering used by some Muslim women — at citizenship ceremonies. He was floundering in the polls until he turned the niqab into a hot-button issue. Some say he’s distracting voters from his poor management of the economy, his war on the environment and his anti-refugee policy.

Interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose, who was a member of the Tory government that filed the leave to appeal, issued a statement Monday following the Liberals’ announcement.

“The new government is entitled to end this appeal,”

she said.

But Ambrose added:

“As a woman who has advocated for women’s rights around the world my entire adult life, I do not believe the niqab affirms the equality rights of women and girls, nor does it reflect the values of an open, tolerant society. This is a matter for which the government must now answer.” {Liberals drop legal bid to ban niqab at citizenship ceremonies}

The hatred shown to women who wear a veil should have many to rethink how those shouting awful words are educated.

Be careful when you want to watch this video: the language used in this video is awful and can be shocking

People also should see that there is a big difference in the outer garments and that in the 1950ies women in our regions also wore veils and head scarf and this should still be possible today by all women, not only Muslim women and had nothing to do with giving women no rights.

In a 2014 discussion with Meditating Muslimah about the Muslim faith and some articles I wrote on the Ottoman Empire plus about the hijab to be or not to be a religious obligation she wrote:

First let me say that I think on most things we actually agree– i.e. religion should be separate from state, and no state should be dictating to its citizens what they have to do or believe when it is a matter of personal faith and choice. Our disagreement is over what the Ottoman empire and Turkish government do/ have done on this subject.

My knowledge on this subject comes from being married to a Turk, but also more than that because I have many Turkish friends; one of whom, a very good friend of mine, also happens to be a Turkish historian specializing in the Ottoman Empire and history of the early Turkish republic.

My definition of religious freedom is being able to freely practice the tenants of one’s faith without interference from the government (as long as doing so does not harm anyone else). By this definition, the fact of the matter is that under the Ottoman Empire there was religious freedom in that anyone of any faith was free to live out their faith. Yes, the empire was strongly intertwined with Islam. But they did not prevent people of other faiths, namely Christians and Jews, from living out their faith freely. No one was forced to wear anything. No one was forced to be Muslim. Christians and Jews lived peacefully and freely alongside Muslims in the Ottoman Empire for centuries.I believe what you are thinking of when you speak is about modern day Saudi Arabia. Personally, I disagree with their forcing everyone to abide by their version of sharia law; not only is it un-Islamic to force people to live by sharia, but many of the rules in their version of ‘sharia’ have no basis in the Quran or hadith.

In those articles on different platforms and on her site I also discussed the ‘Islamic Hijab (Veil)’ and wondered about the responsibility both men and women have in applying Hijab, as well as addressing the doubts one may have, and logically explaining ‘Why Hijab?’.

In my historical articles I looked at woman in the previous centuries, deprived of her human values and transposed to a material thing used by men for enjoyment or sometimes used as a slave and how the danger exist certain groups are willing to come to such a situation again. The fact remains that the exploitation of a woman and deprivation of her rights, the confiscation of her humanity reached a point where it became difficult for modern man to imagine, but we at present time can imagine how certain groups again try to push women in a certain corner and do not want them to show their own self to others.

For those who are upset by certain Muslim traditions and views I would like to bring to the attention a remark from Discovering Anthropology

In line with the specification, we were told to discuss the disadvantages that women face in the developing world and then discuss whether the West has helped the developing world to lessen the disadvantage faced by women living there.

…

I thought about the law in France that introduced the banning of the Burka in public. The aim of the law was, at least in part, to enable the integration of all sections of society by reducing perceived pressures on women to conform to what was thought of as male oppression in certain communities. In this example, it seems, the women who it effected most were consulted the least, thereby possibly subjecting many of them to alienation or a different form of oppression.

It seems to me most things we talk about in our society are linked to some core values that we hold. We are, I think, often unaware of how much our Western values shapes the way we think and how that can result in us imposing what we believe to be helpful measures that can dis-empower people from various minorities or from other parts of the world. {Cultural Bias}

When women who want to live according to their faith are feeling no t at ease to wear a headscarf in public our society is at risk to bring discrimination under its citizens. when women (or men) feel that anything they say or do is perceived as representing Islam, even if it is not correct, and they get the feeling always to be walking on eggshells and when they do not like being labeled and therefore have to abandon that what they would love to do, we are in big problem. {Why we stopped wearing the hijab – Canadian Muslim women reveal their reasons for removing the headscarf in public –}

Women wearing hijab

No objections should be made for women in the West wearing a headscarf, a hijab, a shayla, a khimar or wearing a al-amira or the more closed chador. Concerning the niqab there may be many debates and controversy, but in the West we should reject when it leaves only some place for the eyes and does not see the whole face. The use of a burka should be prohibited for security reasons and for the possible restrictions for the person wearing it, that may be behind it. though we must recognise there are also many differences in sorts of burkas. The burka worn throughout Middle Eastern nations and most Muslim nations around the world, with a few liberal or democratic governments being less strict about its use can leave just a small line open in front of the eyes or can show more of the eyes..

According to me Islam may be a religion of balance, moderation, and modesty that places a strong emphasis on the maintenance of proper boundaries, whether social or moral. The practice of hijab among Muslim women is grounded in religious human doctrine, yet the Qurʾan does not require it. To cover their faces is according to me a man-made religious ordinance and not a Low from Allah, but in case women would like to wear a head scarf this they should be able to do. Concerning the burka, that is a whole different matter and this should not be allowed for the reasons said above.

Meditating Muslimah reacted

…

It doesn’t matter whether or not YOU believe hijab to be a religious obligation. Many Muslim women (including myself) read the Quran and decide for themselves that it IS a religious obligation, or at least that they believe it is an important part of their faith, something that God wants them to do as a part of being modest. This is their opinion, and their right to decide. They have a right to live their faith how they feel they are supposed to. However, I do want to point out that there is a flaw in your understanding of the Quran verse you quoted. The flaw is in the translation of the original Arabic word: “they should draw their veils over their bosoms.” The word ‘veil’ here is ‘khimar’. It means a garment/ scarf / veil that covers the head (and possibly also face). So the implication is that the head covering should also cover the chest (there is some disagreement as to what exactly a khimar was, but most agree it was a shawl type garment that covered the head. This is why some such as myself do not feel it obligatory to cover the head). There is also another verse that discusses covering, again using the word ‘jelabib’ in Arabic: “O (most illustrious) Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters, as well as the women (wives and daughters) of the believers, to draw over themselves some part of their outer garments (when outside their homes and when before men whom they are not forbidden to marry because of blood relation). This is better and more convenient for them to be recognized (and respected for their decency and decorum) and not harassed.

God is indeed All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate” (Quran 33:59). The word “outer garment” here is actually the word ‘jelabib.’ There is of course some disagreement between Muslims regarding what exactly a jilbab/ jelabib is, but most agree that it means a loose outer garment that also covers the head. But because neither of these verses are clear, many, including myself, understand when Muslim women choose not to cover their heads.

Those who insist that covering completely in niqab (covering the face, i think this is what you mean by burka) or even insist on telling Muslim women that they MUST were hijab are wrong in forcing their beliefs on others, however, it does not mean they misinterpret the Quran or that they say there is something there that is not — who are we to judge who is right or wrong in the interpretation of something that is not clear today?
It is however considered a historical fact, and discussed throughout authentic hadiths, that the wives of the Prophet Muhammad were required to cover their whole bodies and faces (in order to protect themselves and the Prophet from rumors of adultery). Some of the believing women may have chosen to follow their example in that time. I believe there is nothing wrong if someone chooses to follow this example too in modern society, though personally it is not my preference. For more on the definitions of khimar and jilabib you can see here: http://www.al-islam.org/hijab-muslim-womens-dress-islamic-or-cultural-sayyid-muhammad-rizvi/quran-and-hijab

Hijab

Additional reading

+++

Not making any remarks based on the intellect or logic

Posted on 2015/08/05 by Guestspeaker

Perak Mufti Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria reminded federal ministers yesterday against issuing statements based on logic and intellect when it comes to Islam, claiming that the intellect is influenced by desires and subsequently susceptible to the devil.

In a report carried by Malay daily Sinar Harian, the Perak mufti also warned Muslim ministers against deriding and belittling Islamic laws, as they risk breaching their oath of loyalty that was made in the name of Allah.

All religions are based on faith, but Islam is more actively opposed to the intellect and reason than the others. Contrast, for example, these two statements, the first from Christianity’s holy book, and the second from Islam’s:

“Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you…” — I Peter 3:15

“O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you….A people asked such before you; then they became thereby disbelievers.” — Qur’an 5:101, 102

Read in browser »

and read more about what Jihad Watch writes

Islam is based on the acceptance of an iron dogma that one dare not question. This forms habits of mind that make it well-nigh impossible for its most fervent adherents to take up the cudgels of rational debate in any effective way, even when they wish to.

> Malaysian mufti: “Islam is based on faith…Don’t make any remarks based on the intellect or logic”

	On to a baptismal ce… on Get Your Wonderful Disease-pro…
	Reden om kennis in u… on Fundamenten van het Geloof 13…
	What is expected of… on Lovers of God, seekers and lov…
	What is expected of… on Being in tune with God
	Wat wordt er van een… on Wettisch tegenover wet
	Wat wordt er van een… on Fundamenten van het Geloof: 7.…
	Intense conflict in… on A multi-front war between Isra…
	Wat betekent het om… on Kerkzijn in een ik-gerichte…
	What does it mean to… on Being Religious and Spiritual…
	What does it mean to… on Members of the ecclesia unitin…
	What does it mean to… on How do I know if I’m cal…
	What does it mean to… on The Pastor Theologian
	No necessity for fas… on 8 Reasons Christian Holidays S…
	How to find out that… on Lovers of God, seekers and lov…
	How to find out that… on Patriarch Abraham, Muslims, Ch…

Stepping Toes

Things said on this site possibly can upset someone

Tag Archives: Islam

Wrestling with Genesis and Revelation

Additional reading

Related

Grootste misverstand over de islam

Gerelateerd

Infinite payment of sin by the son of God

Additional reading:

Further reading

Islamism Rises from Europe’s Secularism

Additional reading

Further reading

Angst voor ouderwetse regels en verlies van christenen

Lees ook:

Verwant aan het christen zijn en bekering

Verdere bedenkingen van anderen

Related articles

Allowing dress code according liberty of religion

The Dress Code for Women in the Quran

Additional reading

Further reading

Meditating Muslimah on “hijab to be a religious obligation”

Further reading

Not making any remarks based on the intellect or logic

Additional reading

Related

Rate this:

Share this:

Gerelateerd

Rate this:

Share this:

Additional reading:

Further reading

Related articles

Rate this:

Share this:

Additional reading

Further reading

Related articles

Rate this:

Share this:

Terrorist beginnings

Taken by fear and covering clothes

Beachwear ban and infringement on basic freedom

Burkini ban

Sexual objectification

Fear for God searching and finding people

Forcing women to go for protection

Public suppression and rejection of religion

Suppression of dissent

Those who do not want to believe a woman can decide herself to wear a burkini deny the right of that woman to decide for herself

So called nothing to do with racism but for safety reasons

21st century witch hunt

Find also to read

Additional reading

Further of interest

Related articles

Rate this:

Share this:

Lees ook:

Verwant aan het christen zijn en bekering

Verdere bedenkingen van anderen

Related articles

Rate this:

Share this:

Related articles

Rate this:

Share this:

Additional reading

Further reading

Related articles

Rate this:

Share this:

Further reading

Related articles

Rate this:

Share this:

Related articles

Rate this:

Share this: