Christian Asks Muslim Man Why He Doesn’t Shake Hands With The Woman. Amazing Answer from Jewish Lady.

This issue may be brought up in the media or by non-Muslim individuals in the West who consider it to be odd. It’s the issue of Muslims not shaking hand with strangers of the opposite sex. Our Jewish friends follow the same practice. They call it Shomer Negiah and they say it goes back to the Bible.

In this video, the Muslims (Nouman Ali Khan and Hamza Yusuf), the Jewish lady (Andrea Grinberg) and a Christian preacher (Paul Washer, who laments at our Western society’s departure of valuing touch) really help us to value the teaching of not shaking hands or hugging with members of the opposite sex who you have no familial bond with. It’s heart warming as well as sad. Sad because this value for touch and guarding against sensual interactions with strangers of the opposite sex has been lost in the West. Watch the video, you’ll appreciate and/or understand the Islamic and Jewish teachings on this more.

Jewish prohibition:

The rule is that people of the opposite gender do not even touch each other, let alone shake hands, unless they are husband and wife, siblings, or children with parents and grandparents.

What is the rationale for the Jewish prohibition on men and women touching, let alone shaking hands?

The prohibition of touching (in Hebrew negiah) goes back to the Book of Leviticus (18:6 and 18:19) and was developed further in the Talmud. A person who observes this prohibition is often called a shomer negiаh. It applied not only to close contact such as hugging and kissing, but also to shaking hands or patting on the back. The practice is generally followed by traditionally observant Jews, both men and women, including Hassidic Jews, and those who are referred to as Haredim. It is also observed within the Modern Orthodox community depending on how traditional the person is. [Chabad.org]

Muslim scholar teaches the prohibition:

It is not permissible for a man who believes in Allaah and His Messenger to put his hand in the hand of a women who is not permissible for him or who is not one of his mahrams. Whoever does that has wronged himself (i.e., sinned).

It was narrated that Ma’qil ibn Yassaar said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “For one of you to be stabbed in the head with an iron needle is better for him than that he should touch a woman who is not permissible for him.”  [IsalmQA]

Jewish explanation:

To remove any myths, it can be said emphatically that it has nothing to do with impurity, or with the social or religious status of people who encounter other people.

The reason is a rather complex, even Freudian rationale. It is felt that touching a person of the opposite gender is essentially a sexual act, or at least the precursor of a sexual act. While it is true that most handshakes between men and women do not lead to sexual relations and are not even contemplated, sexual relations always begin with touching. It is also true that a handshake does communicate feelings albeit on a superficial level.
It has been recognized however, that there are many instances in which men and women can and perhaps even should, touch each other. This would apply to saving a person who is facing a life-threatening danger. Members of the health professions may obviously touch members of the opposite gender in the practice of their discipline, as may hairdressers or physical therapists as a necessary component in the practice of theirs.

Traditional Judaism, unlike some other faiths, regards touching as a highly sensual act. It takes the view that it is not only an important part of marital relations, but one that is only permitted in those relations. To shake hands as a casual courtesy and nothing more is the first step leading to the desensitization of sensuality between husband and wife.
Rabbi Baruch Emmanuel Erdstein of Safed, who holds a degree in anthropology from the University of Michigan, states that “the casual touching of members of the opposite gender can only dull our sensitivity to the sexual power of touch.”

А Further Thought

Quite apart from the sexual analysis of some commentators, some commentators point out that an individual’s body is personal, and at times to even touch is an intrusion into one’s personal dignity. According to this approach, a man should not touch a woman, nor a woman touch a man, out of respect for the space of each other as individuals—especially individuals of the opposite gender who should reserve a certain level of privacy with respect to each other. [Chabad.org]

Advertisements


Categories: Islam

69 replies

  1. Interesting how the Jewish perspective on this issue is so very similar to Islamic thought and teachings.

    It is sad how Christians have traded away so many beautiful aspects of traditional Abrahamic faith teachings for secular innovations, and that they really no longer fully understand what it is they have lost. It just highlights how far off the true path they have fallen.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Talmud + shariah = man made traditions, replacing the words of God

      Christians follow the words of God

      Like

    • Some of those “man made” traditions are quite beneficial for humanity. washing dishes and hands before meals is definitely beneficial for human beings. it could also remind someone that water is used to clean, one should keep thoughts clean. The Pharisees definitely got it right on washing and fristians are more Pharisee like in kitchens and hospitals.
      One needs a health and health helps one in worship . If you are ill because you eat with UNCLEAN hands, how is this good for you and your worship ? don’t eat with unclean hands. Don’t call women little dogs RIGHT after you told your pals to watch what comes out of your mouth.

      Like

    • paulus, your god came down as a Jew. Can you show me in Torah where divorce is likened to adultery and where Torah does not ALLOW divorce? If you cannot find this, then jesus replaced the word of god, right?

      Liked by 1 person

    • “shariah = man made traditions, replacing the words of God”
      Shariah = the law of God. That term is found in your bible in Arabic,btw.
      Man made tradtions= the word of your prophet Paul who named the law of God as ( garbage)!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Paulus the words of Paul of Tarsus are not the words of God.

      Like

    • Im not bound to Torah only heathcliff. Not sure why you have a problem with abrogation of earlier revelations? Re health- I lived in Indonesia for years. It’s a Muslim country. It’s health standards are horrible. You’ve made a very incoherent argument.

      Yahya- yes they are. Sorry pal

      Like

    • “Im not bound to Torah only”
      You are not bound to the law of God at all since your prophet paul called it (garbage)!
      I hope you find the answer why Jesus will say “Get away from me, you who break (((God’s laws))) “!

      Like

    • “Talmud + shariah = man made traditions, replacing the words of God

      Christians follow the words of God”

      Uh huh, so what about:

      “A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet.”

      “But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.”

      So how many Christians follow these so-called “words of God”?

      Like

    • Hmm- you say that the sunnah you follow is not about strict obedience to what Muhammad did, but the lessons learnt, and yet you demand strict literal adherence by Christians? You disallow contextual readings of the texts by Christians? E.g a head covering was a cultural attire.

      So yes, we follow the words of God and interpretation of certain texts is the same as the way you understand your religious texts.

      We don’t follow man made traditions like Talmud or Islam

      Like

    • “Hmm- you say that the sunnah you follow is not about strict obedience to what Muhammad did, but the lessons learnt, and yet you demand strict literal adherence by Christians? You disallow contextual readings of the texts by Christians? E.g a head covering was a cultural attire.

      So yes, we follow the words of God and interpretation of certain texts is the same as the way you understand your religious texts.

      We don’t follow man made traditions like Talmud or Islam”

      LOL, what a typical response!

      The head covering was a “cultural attire”? Really? Hmm, let’s see what Paul (or whoever wrote those verses) actually said. I think it’s pretty clear that it was NOT simply a “cultural attire”.

      “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.”

      Follow the example of Christ, he says! Was Christ promoting a “cultural attire”?

      “Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.”

      So, it is proper now for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? But it was “improper” in that culture? Has the “nature of things” changed since then?

      And what about women teaching men? Has that changed too? Was that also only a “cultural” rule?

      You’re blowing hot air, as usual. You actually follow the traditions of men when you pick and choose what parts of your own Bible you want to follow. Thus, you pretend to be pious, but you are nothing more than a hypocrite. God will deal with hypocrites on the Day of Judgment.

      Like

    • as for abrogation,
      jesus told you to lose your eye if it helps you in doing wrong things, but i think you want jesus to do away with his own words because jesus died for all your lustful past, present and future thoughts, right? i guess you really don’t worry about entering hell with both eyes because your god had all lust poured on him, right?

      if head covering was “culture thing” did uncovering the head become a divine thing later on?

      Like

    • “Follow the example of Christ, he says! Was Christ promoting a “cultural attire”

      Well, Christ wasn’t a woman, so your literalism is clearly overblown.

      It’s similar, although far less grotesque, to why you don’t wipe your ass with stones. Do you chastise Muslims like yourself for not following the example of Muhammad? Do you dismiss their piety?

      1 Cor 11 is about headship- that’s the lesson. The examples of head coverings are practical applications in Paul’s time of that teaching. The application in my time may or may not be the same.

      So, little pork chop, take your self off to Saudi and start being a true Muslim before throwing ass wiped stones. After all, you have the Arab name- go be a good Arab

      Like

    • since jebus wasn’t a lady, I guess he couldn’t “fulfill” laws pertaining to women in hebrew bible. what did your god use to wipe his ass? I forget, jesus told you christians it is not IMPORTANT to wash hands before eating meal so to follow your pagan hippy jewish peasant , you probably have unwashed ass and unwashed hands.

      Like

    • quote :
      The head covering was a “cultural attire”? Really? Hmm, let’s see what Paul (or whoever wrote those verses) actually said. I think it’s pretty clear that it was NOT simply a “cultural attire”.

      no it wasn’t “cultural attire” it was about shame and shamelessness.

      For a Hebrew woman to go out uncovered was widely regarded as a disgrace (3 Macc. 4:6; b. Ned. 30b) because a covered head was a sign of modesty (b. Yoma 47b). To go out with loose hair in public (m. B. Qam. 8:6) was a greater disgrace and considered grounds for divorce (m. Ketub 7:6; b. Ketub. 72a). Paul is not imposing Palestinian customs on the Corinthians, however. The Corinthian culture also looked askance at women going out in public without a head covering. The literature suggests that it was taken for granted that respectable women would wear some kind of head covering in public (Conzelmann 1975: 185; cf. Plutarch, Mor. 232C, 267A). To shave one’s head as part as part of a vow was an accepted practice for Jewish males (Acts 18:18; 21:23-24) and females (Josephus, J.W. 2.15.1 §313). Paul assumes, however, that his readers will regard it as shameful for a woman to have her hair sheared. Wire (1990: 119) rightly infers that this appeal to shame “shows that the women he wants to persuade are not social outcasts with no pretensions of honor but consider themselves worthy of respect in the community.” The shaven head of a woman is an unnatural condition that removes nature’s covering, and it must betoken some disgrace in this culture for the argument to carry any weight (cf. Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae 837; T. Job 23:7; 24:7-10). According to Tacitus (Germania 19), the husband of an adulterous wife cuts her hair, strips her, and banishes her from the house (see also Dio Chrysostom, Or. 64:3; cf. Jer. 7:29; Ezek. 7:18). The shame attached to the shorn head of a woman runs deeper than that she might appear mannish. The shaved head is imposed upon the adulteress to expose her publicly (Winter 2001: 128-29). Paul resorts to hyperbole to make the point that if a woman appears bareheaded, it is as shameful as being shaven (Delobel 1986: 376). Since it is shameful, she needs to be covered. The verb κατακαλύπτεσθαι (katakalyptesthai) does not refer to a hairstyle in classical Greek but means “to cover up” and could also mean “to veil” (Delobel 1986: 375; LSJ 893).

      First Corinthians by David E. Garland, Baker Academic, Nov 1, 2003, pg. 520

      Like

  2. “Im not bound to Torah only heathcliff. Not sure why you have a problem with abrogation of earlier revelations?”

    your god came down as a jew. he was BOUND by the torah . he even told his pals to LISTEN to what the pharisees say because they sit on moses’ seat.

    yhwh, as an invisible god, told the jews that divorce was permitted. god said there was no problem with doing divorce. he mentioned nothing about “hardness of the heart” .
    yhwh cursed anyone who added and subtracted from the torah
    yhwh never said in the torah that divorce is like adultery . he never said that it could be done away with /abrogated.

    jesus done away with a law yhwh had no problem with

    you choose jesus over yhwh, do you , like the way you accuse the jews obey man over what god told the jews?

    Like

    • “Im not bound to Torah only heathcliff. Not sure why you have a problem with abrogation of earlier revelations?”

      yhwh told you that you can’t do away his laws by spinning them away like jesus did:

      45 All these curses shall come upon you, pursuing and overtaking you until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the Lord your God, by observing the commandments and the decrees that he commanded you. 46 They shall be among you and your descendants as a sign and a portent forever.

      your god came down as a jew and was bound by the rituals and laws set in the torah.

      Like

    • The by your logic Islam is false

      Like

    • yhwh used to do divorces and even divorced some Hebrews. when did yhwh liken divorce to adultery? jebus was born a Jew and new that the divorce rules were FOREVER, NEVER ending till heaven and earth pass away. why did yhwh as a jew blaspheme the version which was invisible?

      Like

  3. which prophet said that WHAT GOD permitted was likened to adultery.

    yhwh permits divorce, he has no problem with it. but he never LIKENS it to adultery. This is saying that for all those years yhwh put up with adultery because of “hardness of mans heart” this is a joke. yhwh would have slaughtered jesus for this blasphemy. laws which came out of yhwhs brain cannot be likened to adultery.

    Like

  4. I say if you think shaking hands is a sexual act, you have a problem.

    Like

  5. If you have a problem, just about anything can act as a trigger Faiz.

    Like

    • But surely you understand that in general, sight and touch are the two main ways for people to become sexually excited.

      Like

    • In our part of the world, a refusal to shake hands is seen as extremely rude behaviour. It will be interpreted as an active resentment against another fellow being. It’s also an unpleasant sexualization of people in trivial everyday situations.

      Like

    • “In our part of the world, a refusal to shake hands is seen as extremely rude behaviour. It will be interpreted as an active resentment against another fellow being. It’s also an unpleasant sexualization of people in trivial everyday situations.”

      Thank you for proving the point. You follow, to use Paulus’ words, the “traditions of men”. You follow your cultural norms rather than what you were commanded to follow by your savior.

      Like

    • Wrong Faiz. We are all coequal – to shake hands is an expression of that fact.

      Like

    • “Wrong Faiz. We are all coequal – to shake hands is an expression of that fact.”

      You can be “coequal” in other ways, like equal pay. Do you support that?

      Also, according to the Bible, men and women are not equal. That is why a woman cannot teach a man.

      Like

    • “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ”; Galatians 3:28.

      Like

    • So you don’t answer the question and instead try to distract by appealing to a vague verse.

      Do you support equal pay for men and women?

      If men and women are “equal”, then why can’t a woman teach a man?

      Like

    • Shake hands is not uncommon in many so called Muslim countries. So, the Muslims in Europe who go home (wherever it is for those born here), will not be able avoid the handshake so easily. The phenomenon has rather arisen among Islamists living in the West, referring to the notion that it is important to keep physical distance to the opposite sex, of “respect”.

      Like

    • You’re mistaken. Just because the Saudis shook hands does not mean it is common. Besides, the Saudi family is not exactly the best example of Muslim norms.

      I dont doubt that there may arise situations where you may have to shake hands with a member of the opposite (e.g. a job interview) and it will be unavoidable. But it should be something that should not be done unnecessarily.

      You still won’t answer my question. Do you support equal pay for men and women?

      And how are men and women “equal” if one cannot teach the other?

      Like

    • …take a look at this well behaved Arabian man for instance, who politely shakes hands with an American woman without hesitation:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/20/melania-trump-arrives-saudi-arabia-without-headscarf-two-years/

      Like

    • It is very unusual to refuse to shake hands in so called Muslim countries. A Muslim man said he will take women in hand because he believed that this potential sin is far less than the sin to insult and hurt a fellow human being. This is one of many different Muslim interpretations and individual choices.

      Like

    • What do you base this on? One picture showing the Saudi king shaking hands with Melania Trump? Sorry, but you need more evidence.

      I take it from your refusal to answer my questions that you don’t actually believe in the “equality” of men and women. So that was just an empty statement. Not surprising, given what Paul actually said about the subject.

      Like

    • Here is an example of an African Muslim man who politely shake hands with a British woman: http://www.nairaland.com/2770817/buhari-shakes-hands-queen-elizabeth

      Like

    • Sigh… (I’m actually sighing)…

      You still don’t get it. A few pictures don’t prove your point.

      The important point here is that you claim to believe in “equality” but your religion simply does not. No equal pay. No women teaching men.

      Like

  6. Paulus wrote:
    “”Follow the example of Christ, he says! Was Christ promoting a “cultural attire”””

    Well, Christ wasn’t a woman, so your literalism is clearly overblown.

    That’s the most retarded thing I have EVER heard in my life. WOOOOOW!

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Well, first of all we shouldn’t mix up Christianity and modern Christian deception. Just like ‘the woman has to cover her head because she is inferior to man’ becomes ‘cultural attire’ the obvious prohibition of touching women in Christianity is denied.

    The problem with Christians and the Torah is not that they believe it to be abrogated but that they criticise and attack the principles of the Torah.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Lassie barked:

    “Well, Christ wasn’t a woman, so your literalism is clearly overblown.

    It’s similar, although far less grotesque, to why you don’t wipe your ass with stones. Do you chastise Muslims like yourself for not following the example of Muhammad? Do you dismiss their piety?

    1 Cor 11 is about headship- that’s the lesson. The examples of head coverings are practical applications in Paul’s time of that teaching. The application in my time may or may not be the same.

    So, little pork chop, take your self off to Saudi and start being a true Muslim before throwing ass wiped stones. After all, you have the Arab name- go be a good Arab”

    LOL, this must be one of your dumbest posts ever! I actually thought that maybe you were starting to turn a new leaf but it seems you are still a mook. Once a mook, always a mook! Hahaha!

    I agree with Believer. Your comment about Jesus not being a woman is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard! Surely you are not so stupid? Wouldn’t Jesus also serve as a role model for Christian women? He doesn’t have to be a woman to do that, you dignbat!

    According to Paul, to follow Jesus’ example, Christian women should cover their heads. But you want us to think that it was only a “cultural attire”. Was it part of Jesus’ culture? 😉

    Lassie, why are you so obsessed with Muslims rear-ends? The lying spirit within you seems to be a pervert. LOL!!

    So now you think I am an Arab? Holy/lying spirit fail! How’s the weather there in Australia? Are you descended from British criminals?

    The lying spirit in you is misguiding you towards hell. Maybe you deserve a new nickname. I christen thee…Cerberus, the dog of hell. Actually, it makes sense. Cerberus has three heads and you believe in a triune god. What a coincidence! 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  9. “But surely you understand that in general, sight and touch are the two main ways for people to become sexually excited.”

    And yet you would allow a homosexual Muslim like PW to shake hands with other men? To be in the same room praying with other men? The Legalism of Islam simply unwinds the faith so easily

    Like

    • Oh Cerberus, how desperate are you?

      Notice that I said “in general”. Learn to read you mo-mo. There are always exceptions, but IN GENERAL, human nature dictates that sight and touch are two gateways to sexual excitation.

      Now I don’t know to what extent brother Paul struggles with his urges. I also don’t think it is appropriate to be talking about him when he is not here to clarify anything. So, your little red herring just exposes the kind of person you are. You are a despicable Gentile dog, who only deserves to be mocked and laughed at.

      Like

    • In other words you won’t be consistent. That’s what legalism breeds.

      Like

    • “That’s what legalism breeds.”

      did yhwh free us from what came out of his own mind? in other words, did yhwh free us from himself?

      in other words is that what love breeds? yhwh put on the children laws and rituals which he knew they could not keep because it would breed legalism? so yhwh gets killed to put an end to his “legalism breeding” laws?

      Like

    • hey paulus, your thoughts on the following quotes :

      Islam even argues that people only benefit from the revelation when they possess ‘taqwa’, meaning the claim is made in the very first statement of the Quran, right after surah Fatiha, meaning the claim that Islam is simply about following rules is about as dumb as it comes. The majority of the Quran is about belief, rejection of shirk and the concept of accountability, and yet, you continue to repeat, ad nauseum, despite knowing the falisty of the claim, that Islam is simply about rules. “It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards East or West, but it is righteousness…” Islam is about total submission to God, the Lord of the Heavens and Earth, and this submission includes not only the body, but mind and soul. It inlcludes total submission to his purpose, meaning the moral good and claiming it is about mindless ritualism and legalism is about as stupid a claim as it gets.

      Like

    • how about this quote paulus?

      And my reply would be that God has revealed laws to man for OUR honoring and OUR guidance. He does not need our devotion and obedience to honor Him. He was honored before He created us and He will be honored when we are in our graves. Rather, following the Sacred Law is the way that WE honor HIM, but we do not “bring” Him anything and He is not increased by anything we do. “I am” and He simply is. Our following the laws is because it is sensible to follow the guidance of the One Who created us, the Loving, the Gently-Kind, the Raiser, the Intensely Mericful who knows us better than we know ourselves and knows what is best for us. “The prayer is the mi`raj (spiritual ascent) of the Believer” and the one who is constantly mindful of God – His Exalted rank, His Presence, His Beauty, His Majesty, His awe-inspiriting Magnificance – and worships him mind, body and soul will find Him “right in front of you”. Our obedience, whether it is in our dealings with our wives and children, proper and punctual performance of the congregational prayer or paying the poor-tax, is our way of drawing near to God. It is an illumination for the heart and strengthening of our spirit, just as sin is a darkening of heart and strengthening of our lustful, unrestrained nature. I’m getting preachy, my point is that if you think Muslims worship God as a demand for recompense, I am afraid you have completely misunderstood.

      Like

    • “Islam is about total submission to God, the Lord of the Heavens and Earth, and this submission includes not only the body, but mind and soul.”

      This is popular to say ininternet polemics because this discussion has arisen before. But in reality, and by that I mean what I saw first hand living in a Muslim nation, speaking their language and trying to understand their faith and culture, it is completely legalistic. People observe the rituals without comprehending the meanings or purposes. As an example how do Muslims treat homosexual Muslims? Your legalislism and rules mean that the sexes are segregated, but you are inconsistent when it comes to gays.

      Like

  10. “Well, first of all we shouldn’t mix up Christianity and modern Christian deception. Just like ‘the woman has to cover her head because she is inferior to man’ becomes ‘cultural attire’ the obvious prohibition of touching women in Christianity is denied.
    The problem with Christians and the Torah is not that they believe it to be abrogated but that they criticise and attack the principles of the Torah.”

    Where does it say in the Torah that a woman should cover her hair or restrict her social contact?

    We don’t have to obey Rabbinic traditions.

    Extreme covering and restriction of social contact is an islamic innovation based on one event in the life of Aisha?

    My understanding of the NT is that the woman doesn’t cover her head or be silent in the church because she is inferior but because she sinned first and the redemptive order of things requires an additional covering during worship to reflect that mankind is saved by the man Jesus Christ. He reconciled all things to God.

    Like

    • Some scholars think that Paul thought that angels could have sexual attraction towards women with long hair.lol

      Like

    • Ignoramus,

      Regardless of your “understanding of the NT”, the point is that how many Christian women follow the rules of the Bible? Why aren’t you outraged that most Christian women in western countries disregard the rule of covering their hair?

      And what about talking in church? How many Christian women follow that rule?

      And what about teaching men?

      We can on and on. You guys a hypocrites. You don’t even follow your own Bible.

      Like

    • “Some scholars think that Paul thought that angels could have sexual attraction towards women with long hair.lol”

      Exactly! Why else would Paul have mentioned the angels? He was clearly referring to the Genesis story and the “sons of God” (bene ha-elohim) who mated with human women.

      Like

  11. To quote Leviticus 18 in this context is ridiculous as it is talking about completely uncovering the the nakedness of the woman as a euphemism for sexual relations.

    Like

  12. “1 Timothy 2:9

    In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; ”

    Paul disagrees, as so often, with the Islamic view of things. Disagreeing with the notion that a woman’s hair must be covered at all times for social converse. Otherwise it would make no sense for him to say that the hair must not have a certain style.

    We go along with him as we consider him to be inspired.

    Like

    • “We go along with him as we consider him to be inspired.”

      he is inspired because he told you to style your hair like modest pagan greek women? why has lizzie schofield done short back and side?

      Like

    • LOL, what desperation! Paul clearly stated that women should cover their hair.

      Notice also that Paul (or whoever wrote 1 Timothy) said that Christian women should not adorn themselves with jewelry or expensive clothes. How many Christian women follow that rule? You shot yourself in the foot!

      Like

    • they wear gold crosses to show people how “persecuted ” they are.

      Like

  13. “People observe the rituals without comprehending the meanings or purposes. As an example how do Muslims treat homosexual Muslims? Your legalislism and rules mean that the sexes are segregated, but you are inconsistent when it comes to gays.”

    what are you trying to say?
    if there was a female gay she would be segregated too. what has female going to the female section and male to the male section got anything to do with “comprehending the meaning and purpose” ?
    i don’t get it.

    Like

  14. “But in reality, and by that I mean what I saw first hand living in a Muslim nation, speaking their language and trying to understand their faith and culture, it is completely legalistic”

    you passing judgement on a people, you are assuming they are completely robotic and don’t know what they are doing. this is the sick disease your pauline jesus has placed in your mind to trash and put away guidance from your yhwh and ALSO judge other peoples and culture. hundreds and thousands are all robotic and just going by rote?

    Liked by 1 person

  15. “Notice that I said “in general”. Learn to read you mo-mo. There are always exceptions, but IN GENERAL, human nature dictates that sight and touch are two gateways to sexual excitation.”

    Let’s not forget that under anachronistic Sharia women and infidels are unclean.

    So it would be going against Islamic male supremacy principles to shake hands with either.

    Like

    • Lol, madman has opened his mouth once again. Don’t you get tired of being humiliated?

      “No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as first-fruits to God and the Lamb.” Revelation 14:3-4

      So, according to your Bible, having intercourse with women “defiles” you. LOL! I wonder how we’re supposed to have babies!

      Now as for your lie about Islam and women, can you provide evidence? You continue to be haunted by a lying spirit.

      You guys are a Godsend! You make it so easy to expose you for the liars and hypocrites you are, which in turn makes it easy to expose your pagan religion. Hahaha!

      Thank you Allah for allowing us to expose lying pagans like madman.

      Like

  16. Here is another bombshell from Paul. The secular Christians on this forum must really be embarrassed about this one!

    “It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” 1 Corinthians 7:1-2.

    Ouch!!

    Like

  17. ““No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as first-fruits to God and the Lamb.” Revelation 14:3-4”

    This is a vision. The 144, 000 are symbolic of a much greater number of redeemed who possessed some spiritual virtue which is symbolized by virginity.

    Perpetual virginity is probably not in view here. Virginity in view of a future marriage. So your analogy is false.

    O ye who believe! Draw not near unto prayer when ye are drunken, till ye know that which ye utter, nor when ye are polluted, save when journeying upon the road, till ye have bathed. And if ye be ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have touched women, and ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith). Lo! Allah is Benign, Forgiving. 4:43

    (1) Narrated ‘Aisha: The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, “Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people).” I said, “You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away. for I disliked to face him.”  (Book #9, Hadith #490)

    (2) Narrated ‘Aisha: The things which annual prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a woman. I said, “You have compared us (women) to donkeys and dogs. By Allah! I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in (my) bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I disliked to sit and trouble the Prophet. So, I would slip away by the side of his feet.”  (Book #9, Hadith #493)

    Quite demeaning for a woman to be on a par with a donkey and a dog don’t you think Faiz?

    [9.28] O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.
    [9.95] They will swear to you by Allah when you return to them so that you may turn aside from them; so do turn aside from them; surely they are unclean and their abode is hell; a recompense for what they earned.
    [9.125] And as for those in whose hearts is a disease, it adds uncleanness to their uncleanness and they die while they are unbelievers.

    Faiz I recommend you stick to biology and night-raids. Otherwise you are out of your depth.

    Like

    • Lol, madman just doesn’t know when to keep his mouth shut! You see, madman, we know that you are just another ignoramus who gets his “knowledge” about Islam from cutting and pasting articles from JihadWatch. We know that you don’t actually do any legitimate research? Out of depth? Yep, sounds just like you!

      The first Quranic verse refers to not praying after lamastum, which is sexual intercourse! Try again, loser!

      You are such a clueless pagan that you don’t even realize that the ahadith you quoted actually refute you! That’s the problem with idiots who cut and paste. Lol!

      Notice in ahadith that Aisha (ra) refuted the idea that women annul the prayer. She gave evidence for it. Try again loser!

      I’m a little short on time, so I will come back and respond to the rest of your laughable post later InshaAllah. For now, you can wallow in your humiliation. 😉

      Liked by 1 person

  18. Don’t have sex with your wife on Friday Faiz. It could affect your prayers 🙂

    Like

    • Holy Spirit fail! Thank you for exposing the Satanic mindset that you have! Only a perverted pagan like you would talk about people’s sex lives!

      You can have sex with your wife whenever you want, you pathetic pagan. But you have to take a bath before you pray. Makes sense doesn’t it?

      You make this too easy madman! Refuting pagans like you is easier than fishing in a bucket. Hahahaha!

      Like

  19. The madman said:

    “This is a vision. The 144, 000 are symbolic of a much greater number of redeemed who possessed some spiritual virtue which is symbolized by virginity.

    Perpetual virginity is probably not in view here. Virginity in view of a future marriage. So your analogy is false.”

    Lol, madman is getting desperate. 144000 is a pretty exact number. No symbolism there! Considering that the author believed that the end would come in his lifetime, it’s understandable that he thought that such a small number of people would be saved. The population was much smaller in his time.

    Perpetual virginity is in view here. He specifically said that these people did not DEFILE themselves by having sex with women. Having intercourse defiles a person according to the author. Hahaha! Good luck perpetuating the human race. That’s BIO 101 for you. 😉

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: