Wives and mothers in Islam: Mother, why is your skin so green? “Ask your father.”

Son – Mother, why is your skin so green?
Mother – Ask your father.
Son – The Prophet of Allah said that  mother is three times more worthy than  father.
Mother – I’m YOUR mother, not your father’s.

From the Hadiths

The wife

Bukhari, vol. 7, # 715.

“Narrated Ikrima: ‘Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married her. Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s messenger came, Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes! When Abdur-Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him, but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment. Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s messenger! She has told a lie. I am very strong and can satisfy her, but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifaa.” Allah’s messenger said to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifaa unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” The prophet saw two boys with Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that Abdur-Rahman said, “Yes.” The prophet said, “You claim what you claim (that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow.””

Silas notes several items from this Hadith.

1) A woman was beaten by her husband because of marriage discord. The women did not commit any illegal sexual act. She was beaten and bruised because her husband said she was “disobedient” and he thought she wanted to go back to her former husband.

2) Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!

The woman was badly bruised. Her skin was green. Aisha acknowledged that the Muslim women were suffering (from being beaten) more than the non-Muslim women. Muslims today proclaim that Islam gave women rights but Aisha, the “mother of the believers” said otherwise! She said that the Pagan women were treated better!

3) Muhammad did not rebuke the man for beating his wife. In fact, he reproached the women for saying Rahman was impotent. Even though she was hurt Muhammad accepted her bruises and beating because to Muhammad it was not abuse. In Muhammad’s eyes she deserved the beating.


A man came to the Prophet and said, ‘O Messenger of God! Who among the people is the most worthy of my good companionship? The Prophet said: Your mother. The man said, ‘Then who?’ The Prophet said: Then your mother. The man further asked, ‘Then who?’ The Prophet said: Then your mother. The man asked again, ‘Then who?’ The Prophet said: Then your father. (Bukhari, Muslim).

James White again: why are peaceful Muslims not speaking out against Boko Haram?

I hate being horrible to people, especially those whom other people hate so much, who happen also to be those to whom I am very grateful for shedding so much light on the beautiful truths of God’s sovereignty and his election of sinners to salvation. Such a man is James R. White of Alpha Omega ministries. I have no criticism of his teachings on Christianity – only delight. It’s what he says about Islam and Muslims – and only one thing – which makes me a smidgin mad.

In his most recent “Dividing Line” podcast (his podcasts don’t remain accessible gratis for long) of 9 April 2015, White says he is puzzled that peaceful Muslims don’t speak out about the atrocities committed by groups such as Boko Haram and Al Shabab. All White has to do is listen to his podcast of 1 November 2012, where he quotes several passages from the Qur’an, which promotes the torture and killing of non-Muslims.

I hope that now my relatives and friends will stop thinking I’m totally under the spell of that arch-Calvinist, James White. See, I can be impartial. I am determined to be so, as all good Calvinists are. And, dear James White, thank you for all you have taught me and others.

Also, there are no peaceful DEVOUT Muslims, unless they’re liars or ignorant of the Qur’an.

Related James White: It’s sad that most Muslims believe in violence and harshness against unbelievers. Sad yes, but is it true?

Predestination: Many Christians know what it means but can’t swallow it

Those who believe scripture is God-breathed (theo + pneustos – breathed out by God; divine “expiration”) also believe that there are no deeper meanings lurking below the surface text. So, if one differs in the interpretation of a text, the interpreter is at fault. I was visiting a Christian friend who loves God and talking Bible. She said we can discuss anything but not “predestination.” I started to sputter “But, but…” I said it’s mentioned several times in the Bible. She would have none of it. She said God foreknows whether people are going to believe and as a result predestines them. Perceiving her reluctance to engage further on the topic, I left it there.

What do Arminians make of the four occasions where the distasteful term appears? Romans 8:29-30 For him he did foreknow, he also did PREDESTINATE to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did PREDESTINATE, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Romans 1 1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: 2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having PREDESTINATED us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.. 11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being PREDESTINATED according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. Arminians (you choose to be saved) says that “pre” (before) means that God can see before it happens who will believe and on that basis “destinates” (selects) believers for salvation.

My intention here is not to discuss why Arminians get it wrong (which I discuss elsewhere https://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/?s=Foreknowledge), but to state that such a dim view of “predestination” is cockeyed. I suggest they do indeed understand “predestination” but can’t swallow it.

When did Eve sin in the Garden? When she swallowed the fruit? No, when she refused to swallow the command not to. Related: Did God really say. Divine clarity and the doctrine of inspiration.”David Klassen, Shepherd’s Conference, 2015 </a

I’m thinking: perhaps it’s not just a moral will problem but an intellectual one as well, because when Adam took his bite of the fruit, he also took a bite out of his loaf. So both his will and mind fell. So not only is there – sins the Fall – no neutral will, there is also no neutral neurons.

John Calvin and the execution of Servetus

John Calvin – we Jews know what we’re talking about – is the greatest theologian since Augustine. Much drivel has been written about Calvinism. Most people, including most Christians, have an abysmal knowledge or understanding of the profound biblical principle that God so loved the world, not Mars, that he elects to save only those on whom he has mercy.

Then there’s Servetus. Calvin, you murderer, you. Why did you chop off his head, or was it burn? If you want to understand the Servetus episode (who does?) you could benefit – if you put on, as Calvin would say about understanding scripture, the right specs – from these excerpts from the “Memoirs of the life and writings of John Calvin; compiled from the narrative of Theodore Beza, and other authentic documents. Accompanied with biographical sketches of the Reformation” by Mackenzie, John, of Huntingdon, 1809.


The history of Servetus, so often referred to, and so little understood, merits the minute attention of all who are sufficiently impartial to weigh the opposing interests and circumstances which mark this tragical transaction. The blemishes, real or pretended, of the reformer, having been maliciously employed to discredit the reformation itself, heit becomes of no small importance to elucidate this point of history, and to clear Calvin from the injurious imputations which have been falsely thrown upon him.
It has been confidently pretended, and boldly asserted, that Calvin had, through life, nourished an implacable hatred against Servetus, and that the Genevese theologian had employed all his efforts to satiate it in the blood of the unhappy Spaniard; that he denounced him to the magistrates of Vienna, and occasioned him to be arrested on the day after his arrival at Geneva. Things advanced with an air of confidence are readily believed, and it is scarcely suspected that they may be false. Bolzec, however, the mortal enemy of Calvin, who wrote the life of that illustrious man merely to blast his memory, and who was cotemporary with the facts which he relates; and Maimbourg, equally known by his partialities and his falsehoods, have never dared to advance those things which modern historians have not been ashamed to risk.

The principal accusations exhibited against Servetus were, First, his having asserted in his Ptolémée, that the Bible celebrated improperly the fertility of the land of Canaan, whilst it was unfruitful and barren. Secondly, his having called one God in three persons a Cerberus, a three-headed monster. LANE CRAIG. Thirdly, his having taught that God was all, and that all was God. Servetus did not deny the truth of the principal accusations, but
whilst in prison called the Trinity a Cerberus, a three-headed monster; he also grossly insulted Calvin, and was so fearful that death would be the punishment of heresy at Geneva, as well as at other places, that he presented a petition on the 22d of August, in which he defended the cause of ignorance, and urged the necessity of toleration: the procureur-general replied to him in about eight days, and no doubt did it very ill. Servetus was condemned upon extracts from his books, De Trinitatis Erroribus, and In Ptolemeum Commentarius; from the edition of the Bible which he had published in 1552; from his book Restitutio Christianismi; and from a letter which he had written to Abel Paupin, a minster of Geneva.*

* A copy of the sentence pronounced against Servetus will not be uninteresting to the reader. “We Syndics, judges of all criminal causes in this city, having witnessed the process made and instituted against you, on the part of our lieutenant in the aforesaid causes, instituted against you, Michel de Villeneuve, in the kingdom of Arragon, in Spain, in which your voluntary confessions in our hands, made and often reiterated, and the books before us produced, plainly shew that you, Servetus, have published false and heretical doctrines; and also despising all remonstrances and corrections, have, with a perverse inclination, sown and divulged them in a book published against God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; in sum against all the true foundations of the Christian Religion, and have thereby tried to introduce trouble and schism into the Church of God, by which many souls may have been ruined and lost, things horrible, frightful, scandalous, and infectious, and have not been ashamed to set yourself in array against the Divine Majesty and the Holy Trinity; but rather have obstinately employed yourself in infecting the world with your heresies and stinking heretical poison; a case and crime of heresy grievous and detestable, and deserving of corporal punishment. For these and other just reasons moving us, and being desirous to purge the Church of God from such infection, and to cut off from it so rotten a member, having had good participation of counsel with our citizens, and having invoked the name of God that we may make a right judgment, sitting upon the tribunal of our predecessors, having God and the Holy Scriptures before our eyes, saying in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, by that definitive sentence, which we here give by this writing, you, Michael Servetus, are condemned to be bound and led to Champel, and there fastened to a stake and burned alive with your book written with your hand, and printed, until your body shall be reduced to ashes, and your days thus finished as an example to others who might commit the same things; and we command you our lieutenant to put this our sentence into execution. Read by the seigneur syndic D’Arlord.”

It must be confessed, that the intolerant spirit of the age dictated the sentence of Servetus at Geneva; but, it is not equally evident that Calvin was the author of that atrocity, and that he laboured with ardour to accomplish it.

On the 27th of October, Servetus was condemned to be executed. It Hzhappened same day.

The civil and ecclesiastical jurisprudence of the tribunals with respect to heresy, was undoubtedly grossly inconsistent with the spirit of Christianity, and the principles of equity. But if we could transport ourselves into that age, and contemplate the circumstances in which Calvin was placed, divesting our minds of prejudice, we should no doubt perceive that the sentence was that of the civil judges, and that they strictly followed the ordinary course of the law; that Calvin followed the judgment of all the ecclesiastics of his time, and complied with the sanguinary laws of every country in Europe against heretics.
It cannot, however, be denied, that in this instance Calvin acted contrary to the benignant spirit of the gospel. It is better to drop a tear over the inconsistency of human nature, and to bewail those infirmities which cannot be justified. He declares that he acted conscientiously, and publicly justified the act. Cranmer acted the same part towards the poor Anabaptists in the reign of Edward VI. This doctrine they had learnt at Rome, and it is certain, that, with a very few exceptions, it was at this time the opinion of all parties.* The apostles John and James would have called down fire from heaven; Calvin and Cranmer kindled it on earth. This, however, is the only fault alledged against Calvin; but, “Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.”
“It ought, however,” says a sensible writer, “to be acknowledged, that, persecution for religious principles was not at that time peculiar to any party of Christians, but common to all, whenever they were invested with civil power. It was a detestable error; but it was the error of the age. They looked upon heresy in the same light as we look upon those crimes
which are inimical to the peace of civil society; and, accordingly, proceed to punish heretics by the sword of the civil magistrate. If Socinians did not persecute their adversaries so much as Trinitarians, it was because they were not equally invested with the power of doing so.

It was the opinion that erroneous religious principles are punishable by the civil magistrate, that did the mischief, whether at Geneva, in Transylvania, or in Britain; and to this, rather than to Trinitarianism or to Unitarianism, it ought to be imputed.*

The killing of Christian students at Garissa university: did Shabab misunderstand the Qur’an?

Last week the Somali militant group Shabab attacked Garissa University College, and killed more than 100 Christian students. Did they misunderstand the “peaceful” teaching of the Qur’an that there is no compulsion in religion, and that, therefore, people are free to choose their poison? Not at all, for they know that the Qur’an, as it clearly says, is the clearest book on the planet, which is enough to make it the eternal word of Allah. This book contains no boobs, and thus perfectly describes the doctrine of abrogation, which states that where apparent contradictions exist, the older revelations are abrogated (cancelled and superceded) by later revelations. Hence the bit about no compulsion in religion, which “came down” when Muhammad had little power, was abrogated by the following verses when he had supreme power.

Fight Jews and Christians and subdue them:

Qur’an (9:29) – “Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures (the Bible) were given as believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.”

As for other religions or secularists, slay them:

Qur’an (9:5) – “When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.”

So did Shabab misunderstand the Qur’an? Of course they did; If Christians (or Jews) don’t want to convert but are prepared to pay a tribute tax and feel humiliated – permanently, there lives are spared. The ones they should kill, if they don’t want to convert to Islam, is the rest – such as Western politicians and liberals with their icky “The Holy Qur’an says…”

Facebook and the resurrection

None of Christ’s disciples were expecting Jesus to rise from the dead. The Jewish leaders believed more in that possibility – what irony!; they had Roman soldiers guard the tomb. If there is anything on facebook that is crucial to your life – and death, it is the fact of the Resurrection.  At the end of your life you will be faced with two books – Facebook and the Book that will show the face beneath.  Here is Richard Ganz on the Resurrection.