It's not as if some god took up a pen and wrote out a
how-to book for "his" creation to follow.

Exactly. There is conflicting evidence as to who wrote the text(New Testament) but this doubt about who or what inspired it concerns everyone it seems.

One of the things about the Quran (of which there is no doubt about the author per "us") that is explained in detail is the fact that the Creator abrogates the text (Quran) and for the reason
of making it easier on the adherent. There are clues however that indicate a "genetic" connection between two parties, the Jews and the Muslims plus an additional feature or two like the simplification of dietary law. The Quran was intended for all people not just those genetically linked to the line of prophethood. This is the conflict in fact between the Torah tradition and Xtian.

The abrogation of dietary law and circumcision law appears to have
been abrogated in the New Testament but we cannot know in fact if
that abrogation was man made or Creator given unless we turn to the
Quran which states that it was "not ordered" for "them" as in Xtians.

Why? It isn't completely clear but it does highlight a very important point and that would be the symbiotic relationship between Judaism and Christianity which vary a great deal in terms of the notion of prophet versus "rabbi" versus Creator and forms a distinct background when the Quran asks: Ask them why it is they disagree on these issues (more than just dietary law and circumcision..there are many views that differ including one of the most important and

that would be the "profession" of one's religion to others in order to "convert" them which is prohibited in Orthodox Judaism and full throttle in Xtian missionary ideologies).

Like I said..there are many ways to view Islamic Law and to limit it
to the way Arabs view it or other impoverished or undereducated
people living in oppressive environments is to limit Islam to the
Arabic or perhaps Indonesian societies. Islam is free to anyone and
anyone is free to look at the laws and study their application. It
is a serious irresponsibility to leave it to those you don't respect
as per your posts.

Take polygamy. Are men naturally polygamous or should they be? Hmm.

Does the Quran order men to be polygamous?

There isn't a good answer to the first question and it could be
argued that women can have multiple partners as well. However, only
one half of that population gives birth to the physical
manifestation of the sexual act and hence, the economic burden of it
if it cannot be proven that a father exists or she knows who the
father is.

Now, does the Quran actually order it and what kind of women would
agree to it in the first place? No, it doesn't order it but it
permits it and encourages it for widows (of war especially and for
indigent "slaves" who agree to consensual sex with their employer
or "sponsor" i.e. those whom your right hand (suggesting the
legality of the relationship) possesses.

Not many women who are rich or "well bred" i.e. of an upper
socioeconcomic "order" would agree to the sharing principle. The
instruction is fully intended for impoverished women. The Quran
actually orders men (and they must be submitting muslims to enjoy
the four wives rule...not just any old cad who "says" he is a
muslim) that if they cannot support two or three or four women then
to only marry one. THAT is very clear in the Quran.

There are some who say that the part about "whom your right hands
possess" is akin to legalized rape but that is also not true. The
Quran explicity says that it is forbidden to "prostitute" a woman
i.e. to use her sexually regardless of whether your hand possesses a
contract with her or not. That includes war booty which says the
captor must be married if the "soldier" intends to "go into her".
I'd say though that the days of women as war booty are pretty much
gone but the days of rape as part of war and pillage are very much
still with us.

Regarding women's rights and Islamic law to a woman who cites misogyny in Islam as her single complaint:

No one said Islam was for you. :) Nor are Islamic laws "for you"
to either appreciate or apply in your life. Those laws are for
muslims. Whether or not they apply their laws well or are able to
apply them in acceptable ways in a modern world is something for
their scholars to hammer out. It is clear that if a muslim
practices "barbaric" things outside of Islamic states (and we could
say that even covering a head of hair appears barbaric in Western
societies that approve of public nudity partial and impartial to
some degree) that Western societies have overridden Islamic law:

Turkey prohibits covered women from attending public university or
holding government jobs.

It is a two way street you know.

And I can only relate the data, I didn't write the Quran. :) And I
am duty bound to relate it in the best way I can.



I might add that in the many years I've lived in Islamic societies
I've not seen one stoning. I have heard of a few lashings and
certainly public beheadings but never a stoning. I've seen a number
of cases of "honor killing" but the Quran doesn't support killing
fornicators and adulterers. It is more like a "natural
quarantining" of fornicators that we can all say exists as part of
the problem i.e. you cannot fornicate alone nor can you commit
adultery alone and those people must marry each other. Not that it
is applied in real life and who could regulate such an affair as the
secret liaison of lovers who practice discretion and who is able to
marry a couple? I can marry a couple provided I have the
appropriate witnesses. :) In fact, I offered to marry my daughter
to her "betrothed" during the Israeli invasion this summer so that
they could both stay under my roof legally. As well, I'm sure there
are many muslims in which the union is between a virgin and a non
virgin.

I'd say that the actual application of the law is more about social discretion and a resistance to embrace a kind of liberty as it is in the West which has resulted in far less good than people are willing to admit is due to this "social liberation". I'd also say that evidence in Western society demonstrates that large numbers of people desire a return to the "old days" when they didn't have to deal with so many impoverished and unwed mothers. You only have to watch a few episodes of Maury Pauvich (sp?) to know that people need to know who the father of a child is in order to administer economic justice to the child. Islam says a TREMENDOUS amount about the economic justice of the child and the "orphan" but it is seldom as highlighted as these notorious lashings and "honor killings" (and mind you, honor killing is more of an Arabian tradition than an actual law in Islam) but those lines have become blurred. Actual honor killing (as I've mentioned elsewhere) mean the MALE is killed and it is a male that takes a woman against her will and the will of her family. Basically a kind of "rape". If a young woman declares
she has been raped HE must face Islamic law and it isn't lenient. But if the young woman loves her partner there is no reason she shouldn't marry the man either willingly or unwillingly (the shotgun wedding technique). This proves the "fornicators are to marry fornicators" supposition of the law which is very clear about that.

If she refuses to marry her "rapist" (if you will and I'm saying she
admits to the act but refuses her own responsibility) then she might
face public ocstracism (note the Mike Tyson situations in which
women claim rape but it appears the act was consensual and hence
these women usually face ocstracism IN THE WEST). But if a person
believes in "love" they know that a man who desires her as a mate
will look past that and marry her anyway and this happens all the
time in Islamic countries.

Love you know is a many splendoured thing. And the way I see
it, "natural law" has its way of creeping into our view without our
giving it permission.