Lying Sinful Forelock

Tongue-tied:

It is liars also, who by their tongues cause many Muslims grief. They misinterpret verses or words, and misrepresent Islam thereby. It is very frustrating to be unable to counter such arguments when they occur, but we still can try to make our voices heard by blogging, or debating (though debates prove counterproductive to understanding Islam, which I have previously written about). I hope readers here will browse my web writing and give me a chance, so that we can have honest to goodness understanding about Islam, and reach some middle ground. Islam is not an evil religion with evil beliefs or an evil set of principles or dogmas, nor is it anti-women, or inhumane. Islam can be universally practiced today.

I am reminded today of a story about a slave woman serving food at a Sheikh’s home, it was a very prominent Islamic scholar’s home, and food and other things were served. I presume, this woman was not Muslim, or she was at any rate, a slave woman. In the story, the woman’s chest is exposed (to what degree is not mentioned), so the humble Sheikh tells his guests just not to look at her. He doesn’t abuse her, or punish her, and in fact, it is an inadvertent act, because she is not Muslim, or because as a slave-woman, she is not legally required to wear hijab in front of strange men (non-mahram men).

Robert Spencer has said that this shows Islam’s abusing or degrading women, the disrespect for women or similar things about Islam and/or Muslim men, which are untrue or exaggerated claims.

The fact is slave women are not responsible to cover in public (to the degree as free women). On the other hand if they are Muslims perhaps they would prefer to cover at minimum their body except for hands, or face – keeping their clothing modest and body properly covered including the chest or cleavage. But during the early Islamic era slavery was commonly practiced and many of the customs with regard to slaves still stood, because that was the cultural milieu. In modern times we talk about “culture shock” when people move and are forced to quickly integrate, but when early Islam is discussed, it is examined outside of any proper context or the cultural backdrop of the Arabs at the time of Muhammad, pbuh. This is not how reasonable people with the slightest understanding of civilizations would examine another culture, especially one which is quite old in time, as compared to cultures only 150 years ago; due to civilizational advancement many world cultures including Muslim-majority societies are able to embrace change, and their acceptance of international standards of human rights (which were developed and practiced by early Muslims and copied by non-Muslims, such as their views on “rights of the person” vs. rights of the state only, and “maritime law”, just to name two very different areas of law) is a sign of their progressive attitude. One can read (more) about these in “Islamic Jurisprudence” by C.G. Weeramantry.

“Then in what statement after it will they believe?” (Ch: 77, V: 50, The Qur’an)

There is nothing in Islamic literature, to my knowledge, that says slave women can be naked from the waist up. I believe this is another example of language being misunderstood or someone is lying about what the teachings are. I believe it was Robert Spencer, an evangelical Christian extremist, who said that Muslims can have these women walking around with no top. It is really amazing that anyone mentions this in today’s modern age, when there are no slaves in modern Muslim-majority countries (as opposed to some less modern), and also, Muslim men did not enjoy fantasizing about other peoples’ slave women, this is a story Spencer wants to spread about Muslims, among other ‘popular’ myths about Islam and Muslims.

Allah told the Prophet, in the Qur’an “and do not take illegal concubines”; this means that men are not to have sexual relations nor to engage in unislamic behaviors (or sexually suggestive acts, flirting or the like) with another man’s slave women, or any women he is not either married to or possesses (as a slave).

It is really unethical also, for a man of the 21st Century in a country famous for its strip teases and newer equally degrading practices as “lap dancing”, to cast aspersions at comparatively decent Muslim societies and people, no matter what age or cultural climate and especially to attribute some purely cultural practices, or even unknown examples to Islamic teachings. It is really hypocritical of him to do so.

Someone lies to cast aspersions on Muslim men because s/he likes to believe evil about them, or s/he want others to believe evil about them, whereas there is little proof that Muslims behave (or ever behaved) in this evil manner, and indeed many Muslims are the most pious and God-fearing people on earth. It is pure hatred that allows men and women among the anti-Islam speakers to judge Muslims harshly at every opportunity, while deliberately hiding their own faults to make their own sins appear small. When they lie, they pretend that they are being truthful.

Allah says, “Curse, his lying sinful forelock”, referring to the frontal lobe, the area of much (and observable) brain activity when people lie.

Verse about human creation:

An example of a word in the Qur’an which is often misunderstood is the Arabic word ‘Alaqa.

“Recite in the name of your Lord who created –“

“Created man from a clinging substance”

The clinging substance in the above verse refers to the blastocyst (the zygote immediately begins to seek nourishment from the uterus, with blood vessels, and is first a mere mass of cells) as it develops in about 12 days it begins to change in appearance; at the primary stage it is in a vegetative existence; in the first stage of human development, as it grows clings from the beginning of its life to the uterine wall. It is unfortunate that many people today continue to say that the Qur’anic description of human creation in the earliest stage is described as “a blood clot”. We know that this is not the correct interpretation, nor the right translation of the word “’alaqa”. ‘Alaqa means a clinging thing, just as it could in another context be translated as “a blood clot” such as when a blood clot is present, elsewhere in the body. But the word has several meanings, and the best most appropriate meaning should be chosen, which in the verse above, is “clinging substance” or “clinging thing”.

I give this example, as one which clearly states a scientifically proven fact. Since conception and the stages of fetal development can easily be observed by doctors, there is no reason to suspect that the word ‘Alaqa doesn’t mean a “clinging thing” (that is one possible meaning). Why should people continue to translate ‘alaqa, as a blood clot, when that is not the right meaning and there are several meanings for ‘alaqa, one of which clearly describes “clinging”?

An example should suffice to show the dishonesty of misinterpreting the word; a woman describes her husband, he is tall, muscular but has a big belly. Should she say that he is tall and muscular, would give a different impression; also mentioning that he has a protruding belly is more accurate.

The Origin of Man:

Something could appear to be a blood clot, while in fact it could be a blastocyst clinging to the uterine wall; before it begins to take on the appearance of a developing baby. But in a few days’ time, it begins to look much more like a clinging thing and less like a blood clot. Eventually the developing human looks much more like a person than a mouse, which it also looks like at some stage early in its developmental life. Should one say it looks like a mouse at one stage negate the fact that it is actually a human fetus? Of course, we’d say no.

Another Christian extremist or propagate, says that the Qur’an describes the sperm as “frozen blood”, or similarly. This is also an obviously poor translation, and also, the person who researches the topic of embryology as well as reproduction in the Qur’an and hadiths will find that this is probably not even in the most popular books on the topic, and may be found likely on some Christian website filled with other nonsensical and deliberate myths about the Qur’an and hadiths. Maurice Bucaille’s research on the Qur’an already showed, more than a quarter to a half century ago, that the Qur’anic verses about embryology and reproduction are amazingly accurate. Even the foremost expert in embryology, Dr. Keith Moore had said 25 years ago, that he believes the verses to be divinely revealed though he is not a Muslim.

The Qur’an mentions that the origin of the sperm is between the backbones and the ribs, which in the male anatomy would be where the vans deferens begins, and (only) ends at the production unit of the sperm which is the male gonads. When men choose sterilization, these tubes are tied; the way women’s tubes (the fallopian tubes which carry the egg to the nearby entrance of the uterus) are tied to prevent pregnancy. Therefore, the cycle is disrupted; the male sperm can no longer refuge in the gonads, where they would normally stay in incubation. The term “frozen blood” I believe is being mistakenly translated from “despised fluid” which can also be interpreted in Arabic as “lowly fluid” as the sperm is not by itself a higher form of creation and is basically useless without a woman’s egg to fertilize. Muslims in ancient times, based on the Quran and hadiths, didn’t think that the sperm was solely responsible for the development of the baby and that the egg was inconsequential, which was the majority view of scientists at the time of the revelation of the verses. The other explanation for this “misinterpretation” is that the “frozen blood” actually comes from another hadith about “congealed blood”, which is again another ‘possible’ “translation” for the word ‘alaqa mentioned earlier.