March 23, 2017

June 15, 2013


Sex and Jihad – the Failure of Modern Hermeneutics

Over the past few weeks I’ve been slowly coming to the conclusion that there is a massive similarity in the way our society is handling the two “religious” questions of homosexuality and violent Islam. In both areas there has been a singular failure to read religious texts as they were intended to be read and to understand how they were intended to be applied. As our Western world turns both to the Bible to understand what it says about sexuality and to the Qu’ran to understand what it says about Jihad we see clear evidence of this malaise.

Perhaps you would not have put these 2 subjects together - sex and jihad. Let me try and persuade you otherwise.

Sex and reading the Bible

By now most of us are familiar with the standard revisionist approach to the question of sexual ethics in the Bible. Clear prohibitions are “uncertain” or “relate only to cultic prostitution” and so on. As we move into the New Testament it’s common to assert that Jesus had nothing to say on the subject. There’s not really anything new that’s been written in the past 20 years or so and yet the same tired arguments are rolled out.

There are, of course, corresponding answers. Readers will be interested in the extensive writing of Robert Gagnon in this area - lots of good material there. I also have a lot of time for John Richardson‘s What God Has Made CleanAt the heart of much of this debate is the key question “how do we read these texts today?” i.e. what is our hermeneutic?

While the Post-moderns have a lot to answer for, one thing they taught us well is to take care when we read any text. Post-modernism comes in for a kicking in many areas (and rightly so, slippery thing that it is) but the original Post-moderns were often very good readers who we can learn a lot from. No less so when they read the Bible. Paul Ricoeur makes a telling observation on Biblical hermeneutics when he refers (Essays on Biblical Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 52) to,

Jesus Christ himself, exegesis and exegete of Scripture…

It’s a brilliant turn of phrase. Jesus is the exegesis (the correct reading) of the Bible and, at the same time the exegete (the correct reader) of the Bible. He is the lens through which we read everything in the Scriptures and He gives us the definitive reading. As a result the answer to all theological questions pass through Him (and, we might add, through His cross - but that’s another discussion). And all of a sudden we realise that there is a consistent way of reading the Bible that makes sense of all those allegedly difficult passages - Jesus is the key. Everything written beforehand points inexorably to Him and to what He came to do. He provides the interpretive grid for everything we read in the Bible and, at times, speaks authoritatively Himself on that same Bible. We therefore understand that much of the Old Testament does not stand alone but points to and is fulfilled in Jesus and His life, death and Resurrection. This is not a strange novelty but long understood and, of course, affirmed regularly in the New Testament.

Answering this same question, Tim Keller helpfully notes:

Once you grant the main premise of the Bible—about the surpassing significance of Christ and his salvation—then all the various parts of the Bible make sense. Because of Christ, the ceremonial law is repealed. Because of Christ the church is no longer a nation-state imposing civil penalties. It all falls into place. However, if you reject the idea of Christ as Son of God and Savior, then, of course, the Bible is at best a mish-mash containing some inspiration and wisdom, but most of it would have to be rejected as foolish or erroneous.

That last sentence is worth noting in and of itself. Liberal “Christianity” shares the same hermeneutic that the rest of our culture has because it shares the same base assumption - that Jesus is not the Christ, the Son of God and Saviour as traditional readings of the Bible have understood Him. There is a common foundation of unbelief that underpins the common approach to the Bible.

We see this worked out in the key issue itself, human sexuality. Jesus is the exegesis in that He presents Himself as the Bridegroom of the His bride, the church (so Matt. 25:1 et seq., Mark 2:19 = Luke 5:34, John 3:29). In doing so He draws upon frequent similar language in the Old Testament where God portrays Himself as the loving faithful husband of His bride, His people (so Isa. 62:5, Jer. 3:1, Hos. 3:1 etc.). The New Testament Apostolic authors also take up the same theme (e.g. Eph. 5:22 et seq., Rev. 19:7 etc.). The correct reading of those OT texts finds their fulfilment in Jesus and He Himself makes that clear. And He speaks clearly on the topic of human sexuality too, citing Genesis 2:24 as the definitive created order for human sexual expression:

Mark 10:6-9 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

There is a clear trajectory in all of this, the hermeneutic isn’t hard to understand. What is clear, however, is that not liking the obvious conclusion of that hermeneutic leads people down strange paths of inconsistency and, frankly, just poor reading.

Jihad and reading the Qu’ran

So what does all this have to do with Islam and Jihad? Simply put, our Western culture exhibits exactly the same deliberately blind lack of any understanding when it approaches another tricky “religious” topic, this time the question of the validity of Islamic “terrorism”.

A few weeks ago 2 men murdered a British soldier on the streets of Woolwich in the UK. Here’s one of the men’s explanation for what he did, filmed immediately after the atrocity. (Caution - some disturbing images)

And here the transcript of what he said (except for the [bracketed section] which I have corrected) with citations from the Qu’ran referenced,

The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one. It is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. By Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone.

So what if we want to live by the Sharia in Muslim lands? Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and call us extremists and kill us? Rather you lot are extreme. You are the ones that when you drop a bomb you think it hits one person? Or rather your bomb wipes out a whole family? This is the reality.

By Allah if I saw your mother today with a buggy I would help her up the stairs. This is my nature…

We [are forced by the Koran in Surah At-Taubah ... many many Ayah through the] Koran ...  we must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands women have to see the same.

You people will never be safe. Remove your governments, they don’t care about you. You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? You think your politicians are going to die? No, it’s going to be the average guy, like you and your children.

“So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so we ... so you can all live in peace. So leave our lands and we can all live in peace.

“That’s all I have to say. Allah’s peace and blessings be upon you.

We’ll return to this in a while.

What has been noticeable in the response of politicians in the UK, mirrored by the mainstream media, is the general consistency of argument that this murder (while initially labelled as “Islamic terrorism”) is not representative of Islam or has no grounding in Islam. Prime Minister David Cameron said,

This was not just an attack on Britain – and on our British way of life. It was also a betrayal of Islam – and of the Muslim communities who are give so much to our country.

There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.

and the Muslim Council of Britain had this to say,

Eye-witnesses suggest that the murderers made Islamic slogans during their heinous action and were thus motivated by their Islamic faith.

This is a truly barbaric act that has no basis in Islam…

Nothing in Islam to justify this act.

No basis in Islam.

The problem is that it’s simply not true. But that’s not to say the question isn’t complicated.

Islam has a messy and, quite obviously, violent history. From the very beginning Islam has been blatantly expansionistic. Rather than being a “religion of peace” it is a religion of submission. In fact that’s what the word Islam means; “submission” - submission to Allah. As you read through the Qu’ran this much is perfectly obvious - the rule of Islam, the Caliphate, is a very earthly kingdom that was instituted in the early decades and then centuries of it’s existence at the point of the sword once the opportunity for persuasion had failed,

When Muhammad first began to receive “revelations” from God, in 610, he lived in Mecca, a major center of polytheistic worship. As he preached his monotheistic message, he encountered indifference and then growing resistance. Over 13 years, persecution against him and his small band of followers eventually became so severe that they finally left Mecca and emigrated to Medina (then known as Yathrib) about 220 miles to the north.

In Medina, Muhammad gathered many followers—along with political and military power. After eight years of raids and battles, he conquered Mecca and instituted Islam in place of the city’s polytheism.

According to Firestone, “Muslim scholars came to the conclusion that the scriptural verses regarding war were revealed in direct relation to the historic needs of Muhammad during his prophetic mission. At the beginning of his prophetic career in Mecca when he was weak and his followers few, the divine revelations encouraged avoidance of physical conflict.”

After the intense persecutions that caused Muhammad and his followers to emigrate to Medina, however, they were given leave to engage in defensive warfare. As the Muslim community grew in strength, further revelations broadened the conditions under which war could be waged, “until it was concluded that war against non-Muslims could be waged virtually at any time, without pretext, and in any place.”

The later verses, known as the “Sword Verses” (9:5 and 9:29), were considered by Muslim scholars to have cancelled the previous verses mandating kindness and persuasion. Expansionist jihad became the explicit norm.

That this was believed amongst the early Muslims, those closest to the original events, is evident from the pattern of the next few centuries:

In one sense Islam brought peace, but it was an enforced peace at threat of death. The submission of Islam was extended as wide as possible.

At this point we need to observe that, just as with the Bible, there is a question of hermeneutics here. When do the “sword verses” apply? Is it right to consider Islam now permanently in the “Medina” stage (ie expansionary or in control in a land) or are there some Muslims who are “in Mecca” (ie in a minority in a strange land)? Of course, for many Muslims living in the West the situation is far more “Mecca” than “Medina” and yet the “Medina” paradigm still exists in one important sense which we will now turn to.

The chapter of the Qu’ran containing the “sword verses” cited above is well worth reading in full.  In particular it has these texts,

5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

...

28. O you who believe (in Allah’s Oneness and in His Messenger (Muhammad )! Verily, the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, and in the Message of Muhammad ) are Najasun (impure) . So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah) after this year, and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you if He will, out of His Bounty. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

...

122. And it is not (proper) for the believers to go out to fight (Jihad) all together. Of every troop of them, a party only should go forth, that they (who are left behind) may get instructions in (Islamic) religion, and that they may warn their people when they return to them, so that they may beware (of evil).

123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who are the Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).

There are also these to take on board, from Surah 2.

178. O you who believe! Al-Qisas (the Law of Equality in punishment) is prescribed for you in case of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But if the killer is forgiven by the brother (or the relatives, etc.) of the killed against blood money, then adhering to it with fairness and payment of the blood money, to the heir should be made in fairness. This is an alleviation and a mercy from your Lord. So after this whoever transgresses the limits (i.e. kills the killer after taking the blood money), he shall have a painful torment.

179. And there is (a saving of) life for you in Al-Qisas (the Law of Equality in punishment), O men of understanding, that you may becomeAl-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).

It’s well worth bearing in mind that these verses were given when Islam was in it’s ascendancy. According to some Islamic sources well over a third of the Arabian peninsula was already under their control. They are certainly “later” texts and so abrogate much of what has come before when Islam was on the defensive in the “Mecca” years. It’s not my intention here to enter into a detailed analysis of the texts (instead I point the reader to pieces such as this which provide a comprehensive assessment of such ayah).

Here we see a major basis for Islamic violence against others and, in particular, for much Islamic anger with the West (and indeed with some of their own leaders) today. Despite the command of 9:28, unbelievers have “come near Makkah” (in Saudi Arabia) and done so at the invitation of the King of Saudi Arabia. The stationing of Western troops in Saudi Arabia in 1990 in response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait caused no small crisis in the Kingdom and led to Al Quaeda denouncing King Saud’s government and leaving the country.

What is important to realise, then, is that for many Muslims the unbelievers in their Muslim lands (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan) are in the “Medina” context. Islam rules in those places and so the unbelievers fall under the rule of the “sword verses”.

With all this is mind, we can return to the question of what the Woolwich killer had to say and whether we ourselves can say that their actions “have no basis in Islam”. I think at this point it’s easy to argue that the actions of the Woolwich killers, while truly barbaric and even denounced by much of their own community, have a solid basis in Islam by any reasonable reading of the Qu’ran. The appeal to “an eye for an eye” (the principle of equality seen in 2:178 and reiterated in 5:45) is on the basis that “Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers”. If Surah 2:178 is to be taken seriously by a devout Muslim then what we saw on the streets of Woolwich is an entirely logical outcome. It is interesting, also, to note the demeanour of the man in the video footage. He is obviously agitated, the adrenaline still pumping through his body, but there is a deliberate calmness about him. When he says “if I saw your mother today with a buggy I would help her up the stairs. This is my nature…” I have no reason to disbelieve him. His apology that women had to witness the event was no charade.

And yet, despite this, he calmly and deliberately chose to behead a British soldier in broad daylight and then to rush armed police when they arrived. It was an entirely rational considered act and in his brief statement he explain the rational consideration that had led to it - he had read his Qu’ran and done what it told him to do.

Sex and Jihad - the lessons of hermeneutics

So what can we learn from all this? Modern readers of texts quite often are really bad at it! In both cases the ignorance of the text’s own trajectory and internally-explained hermeneutic leads to the imposition of a framework that is alien to the text itself and causes the poor reading. In the case of the Bible and sex it ignores both what Jesus has to say and what explanatory resolution He brings to the deep question of the relationship between Old and New Testament. In the case of the Qu’ran there is not even the slightest evidence of an attempt to grapple with the Medina/Mecca question nor to explain the “sword verses”. Instead all we get is the recurrent mantra of “Islam is a religion of peace” despite the quite obvious Qu’ranic and historical evidence to the contrary. It betrays a quite sophomorically blinkered approach to the whole subject matter.

Christians need to bear all this in mind as we enter into discussion and debate amongst our community. We simply cannot assume that our culture’s understanding of religion and particularly Christianity is built upon some actual intellectually-honest knowledge. It’s not just the new (pop) atheists who read this way, although they are particularly guilty since so many of them claim to have knowledge about things they are clearly ignorant about, but more widely so many of those we are reaching out to simply don’t know what we’re talking about but will often fill their ignorance with our society’s assumptions.

We can react with frustration and anger at this or, perhaps, see it as a unique opportunity.

For someone like me who grew up in the church and learned true stories out of the Bible from a very young age, there’s something quite refreshing when I meet someone who hears the Bible (and particularly the gospel narratives) for the very first time. That wonder and amazement is a real encouragement to us as we see people’s eyes and hearts open up, particularly as we get to then explain about the Lord Jesus Christ.

More generally we therefore need to take every opportunity to explain what difference Jesus makes to the big questions of life - starting with the public questions about sex and then moving on to the core matters of the gospel (a link which the Bible itself, as we have seen above, makes clear).

And for the same reason I think we ought to try and find a way to urge greater honest engagement with the questions of Jihad in the Qu’ran. That’s important because without proper understanding of these things the West will never get to grips with a meaningful response to Islamic terrorism. More importantly, a society that reads a text like the Qu’ran properly will also be a society that reads the Bible properly and therefore come to a better understanding of Jesus Himself whose kingdom (we ought to add in a discussion like this) is truly one of peace and not of this world.


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

14 comments

Nice article, thanks. And not something that occurred to me. Although I’m concerned that in many cases it might not only be a dishonest reading but ignorance of the Koran and Hadith together with observing and listening to peaceful and moderate Muslims as though they were authoritative that leads to claims such as David Cameroon’s. Although the dishonest reading (“You are taking those sura’s out of their proper historical context”, “What about the violent passages in the bible, aren’t they just as bad? Yet Christians emphasize the verses on love and forgiveness, so surely Muslims do the same.” etc.) provides a quick and easy defence mechanism when confronted with the text.   

But you are right in pointing out the similarity: in both cases, too many people are trying to read what they want to believe into the text (usually finding meanings which our wiser forefathers would never have countenanced) rather than grappling with what is clearly actually said on a careful reading.

[1] Posted by Boring Bloke on 6-15-2013 at 05:45 AM · [top]

I am reminded of Habakkuk 1:4, and the memorable phrase “justice goes forth perverted.”

The Hebrew word translated “perverted” has as its root “to twist or bend.”  Instead of a “straight line” application of the Law of Moses to the cases and issues before them, those in power were twisting it to get desired outcomes.

And so it goes.

[2] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 6-15-2013 at 06:42 AM · [top]

As supplementary material to David’s excellent analysis, I would add “Underdogma: How America’s Enemies Use Our Love for the Underdog to Trash American Power” by Michael Prell.  It applies beyond America to western civilization in general.  Add this to the liberal white guilt felt by those leading western nations these days, and the anti-colonialist mindset of Obama, and you have a perfect storm for those wishing to tear apart western civilization and replace it with their own despotic desires.

I wonder if the pacifist, neo-anabaptists out there feel it is O.K. to have the church militant challenge these despots in waiting with the sword of truth in God’s Holy Bible, or if even that is deemed to violent?

[3] Posted by Daniel on 6-15-2013 at 02:45 PM · [top]

I grew up watching Star Trek, and learned that when Captain Kirk won the fight, had his opponents life in his hands, and then spared him, the aliens became morally enlightened and moved toward a society where justice and mercy reigned.  Naively, I accepted this as right and universally inevitable.  The first time I met a Muslim man, he showed only contempt for mercy and love - saw them as signs of weakness - and I realized that our Christian values by themselves will not conquer violence and hate.

[4] Posted by Michael D on 6-15-2013 at 04:57 PM · [top]

Daniel #3, that’s a good description of the perfect storm.  We’ve lost knowledge of the western values that proclaim and protect human rights in the first place.  So many seem to believe in (although they don’t use these terms) a philosopher king or benevolent despot model.  So many really think that government is (or can be) populated with capable, magnanimous people who just want to put in an honest day making life better for everybody else, and would do just that if they were not fettered by abstractions like human rights and a rule of law.

In happier news, I have a CMA pastor pal who leans Anabaptist, but leads his church in an annual 40 days of prayer for evangelism of Muslims, including unsparingly honest info of what “the religion of peace” is doing to people in the countries it dominates.

[5] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 6-15-2013 at 05:19 PM · [top]

Michael D, you make a good point. Famously, St Francis preached the Gospel to the Sultan to no affect.  This Muslim saw before him St Francis whom many consider to be the most Christ-like man who ever lived and surely only saw a ragged and emaciated failure. 

Islam from the start has placed a premium on success. Mohammed used it as proof that God was with him.  Islam was sold to many a new believer by that success.  Much is made of being impressive to others.  Huge mosques are built to maximize how many people can be crammed into one place.  Its uniformity is also tailored to impress.  Many converts were made after Muslim armies conquered new lands. Who is the strong horse here,  they could say to the newly subject people. You’re God is false because you lost. 

As has been discussed in another thread,  there couldn’t be a better designed antithesis to Christianity than Islam.  No big lie is obviously untrue.  The insidious ideas that are conveyed by Islam come cloaked in seemingly fair guise.  Most Muslims never give a thought to any of it.  They just see the peaceful parts in their day to day lives, while not realizing that they are infected and are carriers of the darker ideas of this religion.

[6] Posted by StayinAnglican on 6-15-2013 at 07:04 PM · [top]

One further thought on the above.  Its almost like Muslims have been deliberately inoculated against being open to the Gospel. I think that historically most people have been at least open to the Good News.  This natural openness is shut down by the teachings of Islam particularly targeting Christianity since the most distinctive teachings of Christianity are explicitly denied in the Koran.  It seems to be the only religion founded from the get go denying Christian doctrine and accusing Christian teachers of corrupting the true message of Jesus.

But this shouldn’t cause us to despair.  We just have to work harder and smarter to reach Muslims for Christ.  We have to start with the understanding that they represent a very special case. They are a people suffering under a particularly ferocious form of spiritual attack.

[7] Posted by StayinAnglican on 6-15-2013 at 08:18 PM · [top]

The Ricoeur quote is a bullseye!

It would do our churches well to throw away all the silly “how to” principles-to-live-by books as well as the WAY offbase Borg, Spong, and any other Emergidiculous chaff, and focus on three (Sunday School) classes:

(1) Hermeneutics 101
(2) Canonicity & Authority History 101
(3) Jesus in the Old Testament—-this one would take a very long time smile

[8] Posted by WWS-Savannah on 7-4-2013 at 08:09 AM · [top]

“Its almost like Muslims have been deliberately inoculated against being open to the Gospel.”

Personally, I think Islam is one of the cleverest things ever invented by Satan.  It takes so many things core to Christianity (Trinity, Virgin Birth, Incarnation, lack of emphasis on dietary restrictions, and even the use of wine as a sacrament) and twists twists their presentation these doctrine in order to make them sound repulsive and makes them strong taboos that are difficult for many Muslims to get past long enough to give a fair hearing the Gospel.  It also claims to offer the same thing a Christianity, namely everlasting Paradise. 

One of the things we often fail to appreciate about the Greco-Roman pagans was that if nothing else, the early evangelists did not have much difficulty convincing them that their current religion would lead to an unpleasant afterlife, because that is pretty much what they already believed about Hades.  Granted a few legendary heroes might end up in Elysium, but that was hardly something accessible to the commonplace man.

[9] Posted by AndrewA on 7-18-2013 at 05:57 AM · [top]

[10] Posted by AndrewA on 7-19-2013 at 07:27 AM · [top]

So what does all this have to do with Islam and Jihad? Simply put, our Western culture exhibits exactly the same deliberately blind lack of any understanding when it approaches another tricky “religious” topic, this time the question of the validity of Islamic “terrorism”.


This intentional blindness was made clear today when the news media reported that the bloody war which is being led by Islamic Jihadists in Mosul as the acts of “insurgents”. when will we accept the fact that “Islamic Jihadists” are who they say they are, they are “Islamic Jihadists”?
But if you prefer to remain ignorant the news media can help you do that by reporting that President Obama has made a momentous decision about how we should pronounce the word GIF.
http://news.yahoo.com/-this-is-how-president-obama-pronounces—gif-153554734.html

[11] Posted by Betty See on 6-13-2014 at 05:15 PM · [top]

There is a doctrine and practice of sexual jihad in Islam - the men of Islam are taught misogyny by the Koran and other Islamic texts and by their culture.  They practice rape and sex trafficking even with children, because of their disrespect of life, of women and because of their sense of entitlement.  Little boys are also used as sex slaves in Afghanistan among the Pashtun.  A harem is de facto sexual slavery.

Why don’t the liberal left, feminists and the UN scream bloody murder about Islamic ‘Rape Culture’ and its centuries-old ‘War on Women’ (FGM, rape, honor killings, forced child marriages, etc.)?  Politics? Hypocrisy? Dishonesty? Oil?  Fear of Islam?

[12] Posted by St. Nikao on 6-14-2014 at 06:51 AM · [top]

The Bible clearly teaches - from beginning to end - God’s respect for women and the tragedy, pain and spiritual consequences when this respect is not given.

The Commandment to honor Father AND Mother, Moses giving an inheritance to the daughters of Zelophehad and the whole idea of sexual purity, not committing porneia, giving the whole self to GOD’s control symbolized by the circumcision, having no sexual worship rites like all the other religions - all these were radical departures from history and heathen culture. 

GOD’s laws were to make Israel distinctive, more godly, orderly, merciful, prosperous and peaceful (true peace, not forced submission) than all the surrounding nations and tribes.  Israel worshipping the One True GOD, living according to His Ways, was means for GOD to reveal His character, His Truth and His Love.

Islam misuses and abuses GOD’s first gift to man…and its texts, teachings and actions contradicts GOD’s character, Truth, Love and Life.

Islam’s fruit is war, lust, lies, deception, hate, racism, genocide, corruption, anger, rape, misogyny, abuse.

Islam’s fruit is the opposite of the Fruit of the Holy Spirit.

[13] Posted by St. Nikao on 6-14-2014 at 07:06 AM · [top]

What I can’t understand is why there are so many illiterate Muslims in countries like Afghanistan where our troops had difficulty teaching Afghan soldiers to defend themselves because many of them were illiterate, we know that Muslims disapprove of women being educated but why are so many men illiterate and therefore easily lead by those who teach them Jihad?

[14] Posted by Betty See on 6-14-2014 at 11:30 AM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.