Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Donate Shop PBS Search PBS
Photo of Bill Moyers Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers Journal
Bill Moyers Journal
Watch & Listen The Blog Archive Transcripts Buy DVDs

« Polls: Undercover journalism | Main | It's an Old Story... »

Extended Interviews with Four Muslim Women

As you saw in last week's interview with Imam Zaid Shakir, Journal Producer Candace White spoke with four Muslim women in the San Francisco Bay area about being a Muslim woman in America:

Saliah Shakir is the wife of Imam Zaid Shakir. Like him, she converted to Islam during a tour of duty with the Air Force.

Sadaf Khan studied at Zaytuna for four years and is now the Institute's Office Manager. She is also the Institute's fundraising coordinator and at the start of the 2007 school year, will assist in coordinating school curriculum.

Marwa Elzankaly is a litigation attorney and currently a provisional partner in her firm. She earned her law degree from Santa Clara University in 1999 and passed the bar the same year.

Uzma Husaini works as an editor in Zaytuna's publications department which includes SEASONS Journal and the Zaytuna Curriculum Series. She received her ijazah (license) to teach tajweed from Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi. She teaches a weekend class in Qur'anic recitation at Zaytuna as well as a class in Islamic studies at Las Positas Community College in Livermore, CA.

For extended interviews with all four women, click here. And as always, please join the conversation by commenting below.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/212

Comments

Interesting how 'Faith' groups have only SOME morals and obey SOME of the commandments. 'Faith' groups are not trying to stop Mormons from having several wives (adultery and perversion there). Plus, forcing underaged girls to marry old men - Disgusting! Funny how some people are allowed to have more than one spouse while some aren't even allowed just one - doesn't seem fair or right. Is the definition of marriage - Between Man and Woman and Woman and Woman? 'Faith' groups supported Bush who LIED to start a war in Iraq which resulted in and continues to result in American Soldiers deaths. 'Faith' groups supported McCain who had multiple affairs while married to his first wife.

I am sure ALL 'Faith' groups people who supported Bush's corrupt war in Iraq, made their children join the military. Otherwise, I can't imagine how disappointed Bushwackers must be in their children who decided to go to college and not join the military.

If Miss California would have been FOR Gay Marriage, the radical Right Wing fanatics would have dug up whatever dirt they could. The REAL problem here is WHY is there any dirt to dig up in the first place? Why do beauty contestants have nude or party photos of them floating around?

I like the look of your new website. I'm a lanchester cricketer and i've just set up a new site for the club. I

would appreciate your feed back cheers

It was brought to my attention that the link I provided doesn't work. I will attempt to fix that, if possible.

The problem appears to be in the unlining of the link which alters part of the address. If it doesn't work again you can go to this address:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/index.html

Click on The Library
then click on Religion
then click Islam and the Muslim World
click Jews in Arab/Islamic Countries
and, finally, click The Treatment of Jews in Arab/Islamic Countries

Here is an excerpt from the article:

"Violence Against Jews

At various times, Jews in Muslim lands were able to live in relative peace and thrive culturally and economically. The position of the Jews was never secure, however, and changes in the political or social climate would often lead to persecution, violence and death. Jews were generally viewed with contempt by their Muslim neighbors; peaceful coexistence between the two groups involved the subordination and degradation of the Jews.

When Jews were perceived as having achieved too comfortable a position in Islamic society, anti-Semitism would surface, often with devastating results: On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power.

Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in "an offensive manner." The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.(6)

Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole communities were wiped out by Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830 and Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 hundred Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.(7)

Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854-859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Koran's prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344).(8)

As distinguished Orientalist G.E. von Grunebaum has written:

It would not be difficult to put together the names of a very sizeable number of Jewish subjects or citizens of the Islamic area who have attained to high rank, to power, to great financial influence, to significant and recognized intellectual attainment; and the same could be done for Christians. But it would again not be difficult to compile a lengthy list of persecutions, arbitrary confiscations, attempted forced conversions, or pogroms.(9)

The situation of Jews in Arab lands reached a low point in the 19th century. Jews in most of North Africa (including Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Morocco) were forced to live in ghettos. In Morocco, which contained the largest Jewish community in the Islamic Diaspora, Jews were made to walk barefoot or wear shoes of straw when outside the ghetto. Even Muslim children participated in the degradation of Jews, by throwing stones at them or harassing them in other ways. The frequency of anti-Jewish violence increased, and many Jews were executed on charges of apostasy. Ritual murder accusations against the Jews became commonplace in the Ottoman Empire.(10)

By the twentieth century, the status of the dhimmi in Muslim lands had not significantly improved. H.E.W. Young, British Vice Consul in Mosul, wrote in 1909:

The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed.(11)

The danger for Jews became even greater as a showdown approached in the UN over partition in 1947. The Syrian delegate, Faris el-Khouri, warned: "Unless the Palestine problem is settled, we shall have difficulty in protecting and safeguarding the Jews in the Arab world."(12)

More than a thousand Jews were killed in anti-Jewish rioting during the 1940's in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Yemen.(13) This helped trigger the mass exodus of Jews from Arab countries."

Good evening, Mustafa.

No need to apologize for any delay. Most of us have lives which limit the time we can spend blogging. This might well be my last post in this particular thread. I thank you for your attentiveness towards my observations.

First, let me state that I do appreciate, for the benefit of Muslim women, the great effort many scholars have put forth to teach such a mild understanding and application of Sura 4:34. It is comforting to know that some,perhaps even many, Muslim men strive to treat their wives with respect. However, despite these noble efforts, I am not blind to the oppressive application of that “recommendation” by Muslim men in both past and present times. Unfortunately, owing to these differences of opinion, the ultimate course of acceptance demanding every Muslim’s obedience is Allah’s own words to Mohammed. Is it not? Those words, Sura 4:34 in the Quran, are simply stated and says what it says. Now, based on Allah’s words alone, Allah does give men permission to hit or strike lightly, or to beat or scourge, their wives under specific circumstances. Whether a man chooses to exercise his right in that matter, may well be up to his own choosing, but still there is no generosity towards the women affected by Allah’s direct statement granting men such an oppressive right over his wife.

I never said the translations “to hit or strike lightly” was unsubstantiated. I said it was subject to interpretation. Even your articles convey that some scholars disagree with these more moderate scholars. However, what these opposing sides will agree on is that Allah granted husbands the right “to hit” or “strike likely” the wife he suspects of disloyalty.

Sahih Muslim #2127:
…When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'Aisha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?

That Mohammed struck Aisha on the chest, enough to cause her pain, contradicts the assertion by some scholars that Sura 4:34 allowed for no abuse. I think most persons will admit that it is abusive to strike anyone in the chest.

In the Bible book of 2Peter, chapter 2 and verse 19, it states “For whoever is overcome by another is enslaved by this one.” Culture can provide a cover for one’s slavery, but no real escape is possible for anyone who continues to bend the knee to the master of his choosing. The Lord Jesus Christ said, “There is nothing hidden except for the purpose of being exposed.” (Mark 4:22 )

As for the Taliban and how they ran Afghanistan, you say that is not what you meant by an Islamic State. It was one type of Islamic State to which I had referred, not you. And, I might add, that strange men, who were permitted to beat women in the streets of Afghanistan for some perceived malfeasance could have been reasoned their authority in this regard from Mohammed’s allowing another man to strike Mohammed’s wife.

Sahih Muslim #3506:
Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: Abu Bakr came and sought permission to see Allah's Messenger. He found people sitting at his door and none amongst them had been granted permission, but it was granted to Abu Bakr and he went in. Then came 'Umar and he sought permission and it was granted to him, and he found Allah's Apostle sitting sad and silent with his wives around him. He (Hadrat 'Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Holy Prophet laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter of Kharija when she asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah's Messenger laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money. Abu Bakr then got up went to 'Aisha and slapped her on the neck, and 'Umar stood up before Hafsa and slapped her saying: You ask Allah's Messenger which he does not possess. They said: By Allah, we do not ask Allah's Messenger for anything he does not possess….

When any human being, especially one who is believed to have loved all humanity, laughs when a man speaks about slapping a woman on the neck, he reveals his own depravity. How such a person could become revered as a prophet of God is beyond all sensibility.

Bukhari volume 8, #828
Narrated Aisha: Abu Bakr came to towards me and struck me violently with his fist and said, "You have detained the people because of your necklace." But I remained motionless as if I was dead lest I should awake Allah's Apostle although that hit was very painful.

“I do wonder why my definitions of 'terrorism' and 'victims' should be called to question, given that I have as little to do with terrorism as I assume you do, and that Muslims are not responsible for most terrorist attacks, if statistics from the EU are any indication.”

They are called into question because of the teachings in the Quran regarding the infidels.

”A beautiful tradition of the Prophet Muhammad states, "None of you believes until he loves for his brother what he would love for himself." Most interpreters understand the "brother[hood]" referenced to encompass all of humanity, and that value is central to Islam.”

Most interpreters might well believe that, but obviously not all believe that. Just as not all believe they should not abuse their presumed rebellious wives. Full circle. The rationalizing that someone had the best intentions at heart or in mind doesn't necessarily provide the truth of the matter.

”But it's not my title, and the book wasn't written by a Muslim. It discusses how the Jewish community benefited under Islamic rule, not how “[the Bible and the Qur'an] are in agreement.” I think the author’s research carries weight because he’s not known for a pro-Islamic bias; rather, he has been criticized by scholars such as Edward Said for the contrary.”

Thank you for that clarification about the book. Here is a link providing another perspective about the Jews under Islamic rule:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/antisemitism/Jews_in_Arab_lands_(gen).html

“I hope my response helps, and I pray that God blesses you and increases you in good.”

Thank you, and may the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless you as well.

Dear Kelly,

I apologize for my delayed response. I'm sorry if anything I said caused confusion. Hopefully I can clarify my statements here.

"The article you shared says one thing at the start but then draws a distinction between the righteous, obedient wife and the wife a husband fears disloyalty or rebellion."
I think the reason you perceive a contradiction is that the article distinguishes between "beating" and "strik[ing] lightly," and there is a difference. Muslim scholars disallow the former but permit the latter under the following circumstances:


  • "The husband is only allowed to use his hand or the equivalent of a miswak, a tooth-stick... giv[ing] her a symbolical tap with this very light object."
  • "[H]e may not strike in anger, beat, bruise, or harm his wife." and "He may not strike her face or any other delicate part of the body."
  • "[H]e does not have to do this, but is merely allowed if circumstances warrant."
  • The permission is only effective "IF THEY COMMIT A MANIFEST INDECENCY," as the second article quotes from hadith (sayings from the Prophet Muhammad). "Manifest indecency" is defined in the hadith as a euphemism for adultery, which threatens the foundation of marriage.

Your other contention is that the translation of darb as "to hit or strike lightly" is unsubstantiated. On what basis, then, should the translation "to beat" be given precedence?

My Arabic teacher once explained that a subtle difference exists between "translation" and "meaning." The former is interpretation, while the latter contains any one of the denotations implied by a word. To ascertain the meaning of a word in the Qur'an, it must be contextualized. As I have mentioned, the translation "to beat" has no basis in the context of the Prophetic model, a legislative source of Islam. The Prophet Muhammad and his companions did not understand this phrase as "and beat them," evinced by the respect and love with which they treated their wives. If ever they used the dispensation, they respected the conditions stipulated above. This example suffices to show the only acceptable definition of darb in the verse is "to strike lightly," because historically it has not been understood otherwise. Anyone who misconstrues this meaning to attack Islam is as much at fault as anyone who misconstrues this meaning to harm his wife, because both make the same fundamental error.

"Even if a modern state is not run the way the Taliban ran Afghanistan."
Whoa. That's not at all what I meant by an "Islamic state." In no way does the intolerant Taliban movement represent an Islamic state. As history shows, Islamic governments have permitted and protected freedom of religion and interreligious cooperation, yielding some of the greatest and most fruitful societies and empires. The Muslim Heritage site provides several examples of this great legacy.

"I will point out that you and Imam Zaid Shakir disagree, as I understand Zaid's response to Mr. Moyers when he implied that Muslim women have a subservient role in religious matters."
I don't think I disagree with my teacher. He explained, "[T]here are certain rituals that have certain forms that a majority of scholars feel should be conducted in certain ways," and I agree. But his statement doesn't "impl[y] that Muslim women have a subservient role in religious matters," as you claim.

"Also, as any diplomat or politician knows, words can be used to mislead the hearer when used artfully. Your response on behalf of these women raises questions about what is a 'terrorist' in your mind and who are the 'victims'."
Well, I'm not a politician, and neither is Imam Zaid. I'm not trying to manipulate semantics; I'm trying to be blunt. You can see Imam Zaid’s treatment of the subject here. I do wonder why my definitions of 'terrorism' and 'victims' should be called to question, given that I have as little to do with terrorism as I assume you do, and that Muslims are not responsible for most terrorist attacks, if statistics from the EU are any indication.

"In what way are they your brothers and sisters?"
According to each of the Abrahamic traditions, we are all "children of Adam," and I think those bonds should be honoured. A beautiful tradition of the Prophet Muhammad states, "None of you believes until he loves for his brother what he would love for himself." Most interpreters understand the "brother[hood]" referenced to encompass all of humanity, and that value is central to Islam.

"The title The Jews of Islam conveys a suggestive and misleading concept."
Perhaps. But it's not my title, and the book wasn't written by a Muslim. It discusses how the Jewish community benefited under Islamic rule, not how “[the Bible and the Qur'an] are in agreement.” I think the author’s research carries weight because he’s not known for a pro-Islamic bias; rather, he has been criticized by scholars such as Edward Said for the contrary.

I hope my response helps, and I pray that God blesses you and increases you in good.

Jennifer, you make a valid point and I respect anyone's challenging the concept of belief itself outside the realm of past or present expressions of faith. Despite how simple-minded I am, I too have questioned belief in an unknown god.

After I understood the answer to that question I turned to why I believed in this God who is proclaimed in the Bible, this God which has been interpreted in a variety of ways, although all such ways have been perceived and used basically the same way. Herein lies the misdirection for the so-called unbelievers who attempt to judge “belief” by the merits of what men have taught rather than observing simply what is belief. It is not possible to find the reality or objective truth concerning this concept of belief from someone else anymore than can the person who experiences it pass it on objectively to another. In fact, to approach the challenge in that fashion omits the scientific approach towards knowledge and understanding. I only mention this because, as I’ve observed, often the atheist or agnostic also relies upon the words of the Bible to disprove belief. Belief and what one chooses to believe are two distinct topics and should not be confused with each other.

In my experience, those who trust implicitly that only science can reveal truth often limit themselves to what is tangible and/or the physical laws of the universe which impact only our physical state or environment. And yet the existence of belief in God since the beginning of man’s historical record, irregardless of what various men believe or have believed to be god, provides empirical evidence that man has an intrinsic desire to attain to something which presently appears beyond our reach. What makes man tick in this way?

What is it that attracts humans to desire a connection to something more grand than ourselves? I believe that question is no less valid than the ones we’ve already found the answers to like: why is the sky blue and is the earth flat; why does it rain; why do we get sick and die; and so on....

It appears to me that the one thing all humans long to achieve is the high end of what we believe is possible. No society, religious or otherwise, has yet been able to attain such goodness in a way that accomplishes what is equally good for everyone. This truth is largely owing to the fact that we humans cannot agree on what is good. Despite this lack of agreement among us about who or what this thing is or how to attain it, this intrinsic desire within humans remains a powerful testimony to the kind of beings we humans actually are. Throughout history, humans have sought to control other humans by playing on their sensitivity to this very real ideal. But should the misuse of this ideal concept necessarily render that ideal a falsity? What do you think and why?

Both Christians and Muslims ask outsiders to read and study more of their cultural doctrine, but do not open themselves to questioning the very concept of belief, the history of myth, the human brain's role in belief, and potentially why people believe in deities or cultural indoctrination in the first place.

Even this dialog has people examining the Bible and Koran as if it's a given that there is a supernatural being somewhere "who" has spoken to at least some people, and we only need to figure out what this being really said.

Both Islam and the fastest growing Christian sects in the U.S. limit the participation of women in society in profound ways.

It's interesting to hear what "believers" have to say, and yet it almost appears to be a taboo to discuss the source of belief itself. It's more of a debate about which of these ancient belief systems is more valid in its portrayal of what the supernatural being, "God" or "Allah" really meant to say.

Men are sexist animals in any culture. Imagine a life without them.

"Kelly, do you believe the Bible is only authoritative when Jesus is speaking? That seems to contradict 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is God-breathed."

There is no contradiction at all. How does one discern what is Scripture or inspired (spirit) of God in any written or spoken words? 1John 4:1-3 provides this answer: "Beloved ones, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world. Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God, but every spirit that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the spirit of the anti-christ that you heard was coming, and even now is already in the world."

"If you begin to argue cultural tradition it is only fair to argue in return that the verse on "wife-beating" is traditionally seen as restrictive. If you say St. Paul's words, are an attempt to accomodate historical circumstances, the words of the Qur'an that limit historical abuse seem very benevolent in intent."

It is not the same because Paul's words in 1Tim. 2:11 originated with himself rather than the Spirit of God, just as he himself stated that he was the one desiring a certain behavior from women. I do not worship Paul, I worship God and am obligated to obey only God's Word.

Are you claiming that the Koran's Sura 4:34 was not given by Allah to Mohammed? If that is the case, then that would be a fair comparison. I would like to know on what basis the individual Muslim discerns which Koranic verses originate with Allah and which ones don't. Please explain.
However, if Sura 4:34 in the Koran is understood to be Allah's words through his Prophet, then the one believing that Allah is God would come under obligation from Allah to obey it.

Which words in the Qur'an "limit historical abuse"?
Whichever they might be, your statement shows you are at least agreeing that abuse of some sort has been mandated by Allah. I appreciate your honesty.

"Proverbs contains some of the more egalitarian nejoinders to beat people that I have seen in scripture, with no instructions on other approaches to try first. Some are as follows:
Proverbs
19:25 Flog a mocker and the simple will learn prudence; rebuke a discerning man and he will gain knowledge.
19:29 Penalties are prepared for mockers, and beatings for the backs of fools.
20:30 Blows and wounds cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being."


These first three Proverbs you offered up are not instructions, but rather statements (proverbs) which King Soloman believed to be true.

"23:13-14 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod he will not die. Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death."


Soloman offers up this command. Whether or not one is obligated to believe it originates with God I will leave for each individual to test its spirit. I will however discuss it's presumed wisdom.

This applies to a child, not a wife. It is sometimes necessary for a parent to inflict punishment upon a child to instill in him a fear of disobedience until he is mature enough to reason and discern dangers that might cause him great harm or death. In such cases it is a protection to the child.

Look back at 19:25, a simple person, a person without understanding, when flogged would learn "prudence", that is to be wary; whereas the discerning person will gain knowledge merely with a "rebuke".

Since Allah permitted the marrying of child females, it might make sense that such a child-wife would lack discernment, but that would not be the case with an adult wife. However, any man who would marry a child would only demonstrate his own lack of discernment.

To reiterate: Proverbs 23:13-14 applies to the rearing of children. It does not apply to a man's wife or the mother of his children. For a husband to beat his wife merely because he suspects her of disloyalty or rebelliousness is exactly the profile of a jealous man, and the Bible says jealously is rottenous to the bones. Jealousy grows into lack of trust and lack of trust grows into hateful and despicable intentions, just as Cain, despite God's warning to him, would not get control of his anger.
Additionally, how would children learn to "honor their father AND mother" and to "not forsake the law of your mother" when she is being treated like a child by her husband? Nothing good can come from that kind of situation, only contempt. (Proverbs 6:20; Exodus 20:12 )

"Of course, if you think only the teachings of Jesus are relevant then these verses seem to be a non-issue."

That is correct. These Proverbs are Soloman's and their spiritual quality, if any, should be tested out by the Word of God, who was with God in the beginning and was manifested in the fleshly life of Jesus Christ.

Thank you for your kind words.

Kelly, do you believe the Bible is only authoritative when Jesus is speaking? That seems to contradict 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is God-breathed.

If you begin to argue cultural tradition it is only fair to argue in return that the verse on "wife-beating" is traditionally seen as restrictive. If you say St. Paul's words, are an attempt to accomodate historical circumstances, the words of the Qur'an that limit historical abuse seem very benevolent in intent.

Proverbs contains some of the more egalitarian nejoinders to beat people that I have seen in scripture, with no instructions on other approaches to try first. Some are as follows:

Proverbs

19:25 Flog a mocker and the simple will learn prudence; rebuke a discerning man and he will gain knowledge.

19:29 Penalties are prepared for mockers, and beatings for the backs of fools.

20:30 Blows and wounds cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being.

23:13-14 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod he will not die.
Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.

Of course, if you think only the teachings of Jesus are relevant then these verses seem to be a non-issue.

Dear Sarah, may the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," who is also the God and Father of Jesus Christ, bless you and your household with HIS Word.

Do you know what a red herring, conversationally speaking, is? It is something used in a discussion to mislead or distract listeners from the topic at hand. The discussion here has centered around the Quran’s authorization for husbands to beat disobedient wives, as it is stated in chapter 4, verse 34. At no time did I speak about or against the Muslim woman’s covering of herself. However, I will respond to the Biblical text you challenged in comparison to the Koran's teaching.

At 1Timothy 2:11, you confuse Paul’s personal wishes as being equal to the The Word of God, as have many Christian men throughout history. Paul distinguishes those words as his as he continues his point in the next verse saying, "I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence." Notice that Paul did not say that God or Jesus gave that direction. On the other hand, God’s Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, said “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” (John 8: 31-32 )

The Apostle Paul’s teachings, as with anyone else’s, must be understood in the context of Jesus’ teachings and not vice versa because, as even Paul admits, “Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:11) Those words harmonize with Jesus’ own statement about his position when he stated, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6 )

At no time did Jesus Christ, the Word of God, subjugate women to a subservient position to men. Thus, Paul’s words at 1Timothy 2:11, could apply to nothing other than cultural tradition. No person should fall into the trap of trying to equate traditions with the Word of God, for Jesus Christ said this about those who do: “You hypocrites! Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said ‘This people honors me with their lips, yet their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me because they teach commands of men as doctrines.' “ (Matthew 15:7-9; Isaiah 29:13-14 )

Sincerely,
kelly

Dear Kelly, peace of God and of God's Christ be with you. Complimented you responded. You say let the Qu'ran speak for itself. Several issues:

first I looked for similar scriptures in the Bible went to 1 Timothy 2. Paul states, "A woman should learn in quietness and full submision.I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, she must be silent."(1 Timothy 2:11)

In the Qur'an our Prophet, peace be upon him, addresses God directly as a result of one of his wives questions, I beliee, Umm Salama. Her answer is in the Qur'an.

Additionaly, we are told to derive half of our religion from a woman, the so called child wife of Prophet Muhammed, peace be upon him, Aisha. (Significantly, that was 1400 years ago, can we please be realistic about changes in human development. I.E. Go to southamerica or other nearly original societies and see differences in bone structure and development?)

regardless. I am in quite a hurry. Do you think a hand kerchief on the face when we are authorized to teach is better or worse than total silence throughout history?

It may be a matter of style.

sincerely, sarah

Sorry, RichCarp, I accidentally left off the verb definition to the word scourge. Here it is:

scourge |skərj| noun 1 historical a whip used as an instrument of punishment. 2 a person or thing that causes great trouble or suffering : the scourge of mass unemployment.

verb [ trans. ] 1 historical whip (someone) as a punishment. 2 cause great suffering to : political methods used to scourge and oppress workers.

Hello RichCarp.

"About Western Religion....Always, tenaciously clinging to thier own belief that they hear the voice of God more clearly, they know mind of God more fully and personal rapture is their proof."

I don't know what "rapture" you speak of.

Words have meanings and the only posters on this blog attempting to change the meanings of a specific word used in Islam's revered book, an Eastern religion, are the adherants to that book.

scourge |skərj| noun 1 historical a whip used as an instrument of punishment.

beat |bēt| verb ( past beat ; past part. beaten |ˈbētn|) [ trans. ] 1 strike (a person or an animal) repeatedly and violently so as to hurt or injure them, usually with an implement such as a club or whip

Mustafa, thank you for your respectful reply concerning our disagreement. This is a quote from the first article you linked to which I previously replied:

"As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For God is Most High, great (above you all). Pickthall's translation is, " Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High."

As you can see, one translator chose the word "beat," while the other chose the word "scourge." The Arabic word is "wadribouhounna," from the root word "darb." Linguistically, "darb" has many meanings, some of which include to hit or strike lightly. The English translations may be misleading in some cases and that is why it is important to go to the Arabic sources and see how the scholars have interpreted this verse."

The article you shared says one thing at the start but then draws a distinction between the righteous, obedient wife and the wife a husband fears disloyalty or rebellion. Also, I saw nothing in the link offered up by Anonymous that disagrees with the information from your links.

You also replied: "Your claim is flawed because no modern state is ruled by Islamic law. By the way, the author of the second article I provided, Shaykh Gibril, lives in Syria."

Even if a modern state is not run the way the Taliban ran Afghanistan, if any one aspect of Islamic law or traditon is enforced, then that particular law rules in that state. Besides, Iran's fairly recent history demonstrates how quickly the tide can change with the oppression of women and the women did not have a choice in the matter. As Zaid Shakir related in his interview with Bill Moyers, just because the culture of a land induces a Muslim into a more moderate practicing of his faith, it does not change what he knows to be the truth.

You said: "I could rebut that assertion by quoting Biblical passages out of context, but I refuse to misrepresent your faith like some have misrepresented mine."

You don't have to because nothing and no one misrepresents my faith better than the Quran. I am not trying to be offensive. I am simply stating the truth in that regard.

You said: "Not true. Please read the NYT article, "A Secret History". Anyway, having met the women in the interview, I don't think they would mind my answering on their behalf that they condemn all terrorist attacks and sympathize with all the victims."

I will read that article later, but for now I will point out that you and Imam Zaid Shakir disagree, as I understand Zaid's response to Mr. Moyers when he implied that Muslim women have a subservient role in religious matters. Also, as any diplomat or politician knows, words can be used to mislead the hearer when used artfully. Your response on behalf of these women raises questions about what is a "terrorist" in your mind and who are the "victims".

You concluded your disagreement with these words: "As a Muslim, I have nothing but utmost respect and love for my Jewish and Christian brothers and sisters. Altruism is an Islamic tradition initiated by the Prophet and exemplified by Islamic societies in Andalusia, the Ottoman Empire, and elsewhere. A book my teacher recommended about this topic is The Jews of Islam by Bernard Lewis. Imam Zaid spoke in the same vein in his lecture, Love for Humanity. I hope you watch it."

"Brothers and sisters"? In what way are they your brothers and sisters? The title The Jews of Islam conveys a suggestive and misleading concept. A Jew cannot maintain his religious heritage and simultaneously practice Islam. Neither can a Muslim maintain his faith in Islam and be united with Jewish tradition. The Bible and the Quran are revered books with opposing ends. You know this to be true as well as I do, so let's not pretend they are in agreement.

About Western Religion. I read the blogs, there's this one, he's right about this verse and another; she's right about that verse. Always, tenaciously clinging to thier own belief that they hear the voice of God more clearly, they know mind of God more fully and personal rapture is their proof. Let me say to you; be wrong about your beliefs, doubt them every day. In this way you can learn from others what God wants you to know not what you want to. Listen to their voices hear them like the birds in the morning as they come to your ear, see their faces like the break of dawn on the waters. Be humble and care about what God wants not what you want. In this way you will love his messengers. This is why you are.

Dear Kelly,

Thank you for your questions. I hope and pray that God blesses you with all that is good, even if we can't agree on everything.

I just wanted to respond to some of the claims you made. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to read and respond to the article by Answering Islam. Having perused other articles on that site, I found them rife with sophistries and distortions to which several rebuttals have been authored. To begin:

"Whether a Muslim wife is subjected to light abuse or extreme abuse is up for individual interpretation, according to the articles you linked."
Not really. As the first article begins, "Not only is wife beating not endorsed [in Islam], it is strictly prohibited... Islam does not allow abuse." The verse in question is not open to interpretation because the Prophet Muhammad, whom his wife deemed "a walking Qur’an" and whose example is therefore legislative, never hit his wives. He explained, "The best of you is the one who is the best to his wives, and I am the best of you to my wives." The Prophet’s interpretation of the verse in Sura an-Nisa’ contradicts the YouTube cleric’s heterodox misrepresentation, and whoever agrees with the latter has fallen into folly that is irreconcilable with the Qur’an and the Prophetic model.

"Thus, it appears that the extent of the physical abuse is determined by the law of the land... In lands where Islamic law rules, such as where the man in that video likely resides, Muslim men are not so restrained."
According to the YouTube video, this man lectures in Qatar, a state as secular as most of the Middle East. Your claim is flawed because no modern state is ruled by Islamic law. By the way, the author of the second article I provided, Shaykh Gibril, lives in Syria.

"That is because no other religious book besides the Koran plainly teaches such behavior."
I could rebut that assertion by quoting Biblical passages out of context, but I refuse to misrepresent your faith like some have misrepresented mine.

"Maybe they weren't asked... because they're women and therefore lack any kind of authoritative voice concerning Islamic teachings."
Not true. Please read the NYT article, "A Secret History". Anyway, having met the women in the interview, I don't think they would mind my answering on their behalf that they condemn all terrorist attacks and sympathize with all the victims.

"At the core of Islam is its contempt for the 'people of the book' who are the Jews and, to a lesser extent but included nonetheless, Christians."
I disagree. As a Muslim, I have nothing but utmost respect and love for my Jewish and Christian brothers and sisters. Altruism is an Islamic tradition initiated by the Prophet and exemplified by Islamic societies in Andalusia, the Ottoman Empire, and elsewhere. A book my teacher recommended about this topic is The Jews of Islam by Bernard Lewis. Imam Zaid spoke in the same vein in his lecture, Love for Humanity. I hope you watch it.

I think that response is sufficient. Hopefully you will benefit from my answers.

Your brother in Humanity,
Mustafa

Good question. Maybe they weren't asked that out of respect for the Islamic tradition; specifically, because they're women and therefore lack any kind of authoritative voice concerning Islamic teachings. Just a guess....

Imam Zaid Shakir skirted the question because he did not answer it fully. He told Mr. Moyers he hoped this part would be aired because he condemned all killing of innocents by lunatics, be they killed by bombs in Iraq or on 9/11.

What Shakir did not clarify is who he considers to be innocent. He said he condemned such acts of violence towards innocents be they against Muslims, Christians or whoever (notice he couldn't say Jews.) It is impossible for any journalist to uncover the real attitudes of so-called "mainstream" or "moderate" Muslims without addressing the teachings of the Koran. At the core of Islam is its contempt for the "people of the book" who are the Jews and, to a lesser extent but included nonetheless, Christians.

How come the women were not asked the litmus test question of whether they condemn 9/11 (or fill in the latest Muslim act of violence)? It was required by Imam Zaid Shakir along with Kieth Ellison

Thank you, Anonymous. I knew it was the 4th chapter but my copy of the Koran does not include verse numbers, which is why I was not able to answer Maria directly. The link you provided is very informative and enlightening.

I agree with differences concerning wives which exists between Islam and Christianity. I also find it intriguing that the Koran gives the husband his authority over his wife because he provides of his property for her. In comparison, the Bible reveals that mammon originates with humans rather than God and that "the love of money is the root of all evil." The union which the God of the Bible created resulted in "the two" becoming "one flesh".

One more note from the Bible about a prophecy which I find fascinating with respect to Islam. The prophecies of Daniel 11 reveal that the last king of the north to rise up in the end times would come with a god even his forefathers did not know and that he would recognize no other god and that he would have "no desire for women".

Ezekiel 38 might identify this king as Gog of Magog, main chieftain of "Meshech and Tubal". My Bible Atlas shows Meshech to be Turkey. Tubal, as a city, is also in Turkey. Tubal as a country stretches from southern Turkey down to Saudi Arabia. Ezekiel 38 also identifies Gomer of Togarmah coming from the "farthest part of the north". Togarmah was once the northernmost part of Turkey.

We must each choose which god we will believe and serve.

Even if some American Muslims presume the best about the passage in the Koran under discussion, it will not last. The Wisdom which exists in God's true Word says that what you obey will be master over you. Those words, apart from any rationalization, state what they state and that spirit will force them into submission to it. If they disbelieve what their husbands are capable of doing to them they should watch the movie, based on a true story, "Not Without My Daughter" starring Sally Fields.

Maria and Kelly, 4:34 is the verse Mr. Moyers asked Imam Shakir about. Six translations of 4:34, and extensive analysis, are provided in the article "Wife Beating in Islam" by someone named Silas. I am no expert on the Qur'an, but I know evasion when I see it. I didn't notice any obvious evasion in Silas's article, but I did see obvious evasion in Imam Shakir's answer to Bill Moyers's question.

Not sure why my reply to Maria did not post, but will try again.

Maria, I don't know what you're trying to say. Bill Moyers raised the passage in question and Imam Shakir did not deny its existence. Neither have any of the profressed Muslims on this blog denied it. I suggest you ask them for the specific verse numbers you are seeking. I'm not a Muslim.

I specifically responded to two articles Mustafa linked. Those articles discuss the "linguistic implications" of the word Mustafa feels gets misinterpreted. After reading those articles, I recognize that the interpretation can be understood two ways: lightly beating one's wife; or severely beating one's wife. The word "beat" is not toned down by using the term "scourge" instead. Neither the cleric who appears in that youtube video stressing the divine right of husbands to beat their wives if you suspect them of wrongdoing or the lesser lightly beating of one's wife dissolves the truth about the Koran's admonishment. Thus, the only thing that distinguishes the extremist Muslim from the moderate Muslim is the law of one's land and the times we find ourselves living in--even as Imam Shakir explained in the interview.

Hi Sarah. I do feel sad about the abuses against the Constitutional rights that many in your community have undergone since 9/11. Unfortunately, in my opinion, Bush is not a very bright person. But his irrational response to 9/11 should in no way distract any of us from an honest discussion about what the Koran teaches and how those teachings are applied by its various sects. I am a Christian who finds fault with Christianity's history, past and present, but my faith is based on the Bible not on its believers. I think it is just as fair to let the Koran define its teachings rather than its followers, be they moderates or extremists.

I rarely take time to see videos, but took a minute to watch both the interviews with the hijabi women and with Imam Zaid. What a gift! It was so inspirational to see these women receive recognition for the way they role model a viable solution to modern day problems like the widespread sexual transmission of HIV and other STD's, as well as the problems of the societal breakdown of a working family structure due to promiscuity. Modesty, and chastity, prominent values in any working society according to any world religious tradition are so often given too littel attention.

I thought the interview with Imam Zaid was and will continue to be a blessing to a community under pressure in the United States- thank you for your interest in a balanced portrayal of our religion.

Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and habeus corpus, fundamental rights that the founding fathers established in the very beginnings of our nation have been attacked by the Bush Regime under the guise of perpetuating freedom and democracy. Evidence indicates that the September 11th attacks could have been prevented had proper protocols, well established norms for preventing terrorist attacks, been even minimally followed. As the Bush administration continues to portray a minority and fringe group of people, as yet undetermined by any publicly known evidence as indicative of widespread practices of a religion followed by over 1 billion people world wide, it is imperative that we keep the local communities affected by this war in the forefront for their protection.

Thank you for airing this interview with a beloved leader of our communities. He is well known for his stance against the military industrial complex. He can provide guidance for us all at this time, and it is a blessing to have more time to listen to his views, his humor, and his perspective.

I agree with the points of Kelly but I took this person's advice and read the Koran twice now ,I dont didnt find the specific reference to "Wife Beating",so I am a little confused whether its the muslims who are being conservation or the rest of the world.These are people who are inviting everyone to visit them ,their home and know their faith !!!!!Again Kelly,specific chapter and verse number please to support your claim.

imagine no religion!

Mustafa, the links you provided do not support your claim. Whether a Muslim wife is subjected to light abuse or extreme abuse is up for individual interpretation, according to the articles you linked. Considering the youtube link shared by another poster, that cleric chooses an interpretation different from your point of view. The articles you linked support his view as well. Thus, it appears that the extent of the physical abuse is determined by the law of the land. In America, mainstream Muslims are restrained by our form of government from mistreating their wives severely. In lands where Islamic law rules, such as where the man in that video likely resides, Muslim men are not so restrained.

It is true that no other religious book would be accused of permitting violence against women. That is because no other religious book besides the Koran plainly teaches such behavior.

The only ones with an "agenda" here are those Muslims who are seeking to deceive others about their so-called "moderate" form of worship in an effort to convert America, over time, into an Islamic State.

Never judge a book by its cover. Never judge Islam by its "mainstream" adherents. The Koran alone is responsible for teaching Islamic truth and what you obey will gain the mastery over you.

Like the Imam explained, the "times" dictate moderate behaviors. But Muslims seek to change our "times".

I enjoyed the interview and highly respect Imam Zaid, Thank you for having him on your show.

Thank you for the airing the interview with Imam Zaid Shakir and the extended interview with the four muslimahs. Both were positive examples of what the overwhelming majority of Muslims in America believe and practice.

Thank you for a wonderful interview. I thought it was wonderful that you gave Imam Zaid an opportunity to respond to your questions. Also, I believe Imam Zaid presented a balanced picture of Islam in America.

Bravo to PBS for airing this program and bravo to Imam Zaid. I have long admired Mr. Moyers but was sorely disappointed in the same, tiresome questions. I pray that they were asked because these are the usual politically- inspired media bytes that accompany any mention of Muslims or Islam. Can we please get beyond the wife-beating, democracy-hating, never condemning violence issues? Surely there are other questions to be asked and answered that will directly or indirectly explain away what 'some' would prefer Americans believe about Islam and Muslims - whatever 'their' agenda may be.
Thank you!

Mr. Moyers, I just now had the time to watch last week's program. I agree with one of the media reviews you shared in your report that this Iman is actually a radical disguising himself as a moderate.

I wish you would have asked him to be specific about what other way the beating of a wife is to be concluded by the context of its chapter in the Quran.

Also, although he claims he is against the killing of all "innocent" persons, the question about his basis for classifying persons as innocent or guilty was not addressed. Throughout the interview, the Iman's words were carefully chosen.

When your guest, Mr. Moyers, spoke in the context in which he mentioned Madaline Albright as one example, his real anger and bitterness became evident. His history of growing up impoverished and the injustices he has witnessed here in America is what led him to Islam, but he never specifically explained the connection he found. Have you read the Koran, Mr. Moyers? I think those of us who have understand fully what it is that your guest has found and there is nothing tolerant about it.

Bill Moyers talks with Imam Zaid Shakir on June 22 was a breath of fresh media air. It was a true representation of Muslims in America. Thank you for taking your time to listen to the mainstream Muslims and letting us tell our story.
Zahid & Lubna

Thank you for airing this excellent interview. I learned a lot.

Thank you for a great, intelligent, and fair interview. Finally a program I can say represents us as american muslims. Praise the Lord!

Thank you Mr. Moyer for presenting “objective” or “non-partisan” media. Major religions can co-exist in harmony in the United States. Our differences should not affect our ability to coexist.

Thanks for airing a truly objective, and respectfully-conducted interview of Imam Zaid Shakir. More often than not mainstream Muslim scholars are not included in the media dialogue. I think it is important that the mainstream Muslim voice be given a chance so that a better understanding of Islam and Muslims may contribute to a better US society as a whole.

Thank you for airing this program. Fair interviews like this help to make this world a better place by increasing understanding between people.

Thank you PBS for the Imam Zaid's interview. We need more such appearances in order to dispel misgivings about Islam and integrate the society. We have a long way to go and channels like you are a beacon of hope in this age of biased hate filled one sided media coverage.

wow, i read the transcript and i thought it was really encouraging...

First, anonymous, I want to thank you for your question and for seeking clarification.

Second, I urge you to read the following two articles, the first by one of my teachers and the latter by a scholar whom I respect. They discuss the linguistic implications of the phrase "wa'dribuhunna" and place the verse into a relevant exegetical context.
Is It A Distortion To Say That Wife Beating Is Allowed In Islam?
Wife Beating
If you still have misgivings after reading these essays, feel free to ask.

Third, I watched the video to which you linked and I regret that such a message is being propagated. But I don't believe that this person's message represents Islamic teachings, and I don't believe that the voice of an extremist fringe should be brought forth to belie my faith. I hope you understand that most Muslims, both scholars and laymen, reject such arguments.

Imam Zaid offers some pertinent comments as well, and I advise you to watch the interview.

As a Muslim I would to thank Bill Moyers and PBS for airing the interview with Imam Zaid Shakir. Finally, our voice was heard and I hope to see more in the future from Bill and PBS.

Mr Mustafa

you need to read sureh nesa

and then preach here

also write to this mullah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWGA8i6scYY

I want to thank PBS for airing this enlightening interview with Imam Zaid, a mainstream and articulate representative of Islam.

To the anonymous poster who asks, "Why can't [the Ayatollahs] issue a fatwa against wife abuse?" we respond that Muslim scholars are unanimously against "wife abuse." If certain men, who happen to be Muslim, are beating their wives, their actions do not represent Islamic teachings. Does a Christian man beat his wife because the Bible sanctions spousal abuse? Such crimes are not confined to Muslims but are perpetrated by transgressors of all faiths. Neither the Qur'an nor any other religious text sanctions such violence, as you might have realized had you seen the interview.

Kudos to PBS for airing this interview of a mainstream muslim. There are millions of us out there, I am glad that at least one of our voices, and a most articulate one at that (Imam Zaid Shakir), was heard by the masses, thanks to Bill and PBS. Keep up the good work!

Thank you very much to PBS for conducting this interview. I look forward to many more genuine attempts aimed at obtaining/presenting fair minded and balanced views of Islam and Muslims.

Imam Zaid is our teacher and an inspiration. Thank you for all the hard & sincere work you conduct for the good of this Ummah. You are always in my prayers. May Allah Subhaanahu wa Ta'aala reward & protect you and all your loved ones. Amin.

Thanks for the great interview.

I met two wonderful moslem women today who shared their sad story of being abused by their husbands. Both have been helped by the crisis center and are living in a safe house for now. lady A told me that her husband battered her with the intention to kill her and destroyed her birth certificate, passport, and other documents.

Lady B reports that her husband did anything to have her deported to her birth country in addition to physical and psychological abuse.


Ayatollahs are quick to issue a fatwa against anyone who criticize Islam or Muhammad.

Why can't they issue a fatwa against wife abuse?

I really want to extend my gratitude to PBS and Bill Moyers for these episodes. They are truly informative and I admire the dialogue and quiet of these interviews. Rather than using the sensationalism so prevalent in other mediums we see here conversation. Thanks!

I have the outmost respect for these women you have interviewed. I have no objection to those who want to cover their hair. However, I no longer wish to cover my hair as I find it attracting more attention to me. I continue to dress modest and work as physician.

I can not accept the Islamic law regarding women in the following matters:


-penalty for loss of life of a woman vs a man (a man's life is worth twice a woman)

-inheritance law

-punishment for a disobedient spouse (men can beat their wife and what can a woman do ? I guess pray)


-a female witness vs a male witness (2 female witness = one male witness)

-women are not allowed to work as a judge, for example Ms Shirin Ebadi, the noble peace prize laureate, was denied practice as a judge after the Islamic government took over in Iran.

We do not practice medicine according to 1400 years ago. I believe we should not live according to the laws of 1400 years ago either. It is time to have the courage to amend and reform opressive/unjust laws of Islam regarding women, punishment for theft (hand must be cut off and is practiced in Saudi Arabia), and adultery (stoning, being practiced in Saudi Arabia and Iran), etc.

Peace to all

Thank you Mr. Moyers for the eye-opening interview with Zaid Shakir. Let's let Muslims tell us who they are in their own words. To think that some consider him anything other than balanaced and fair is frightening. Please interview more articulate passionate Muslims like Mr. Shakir.

Thank you for Mr. Moyers' show on PBS regarding the Muslim cleric.

It must have been the first time I was able to hear from a Muslim leader articulate his faith.

Thank you PBS for that program. It was one for the ages.

Your interview of Imam Shakir was a breath of fresh air in the suffocating environment of Islamophobic mainstream commercial media. Keep up the good work.


I just want to commend PBS for the interview with Imam Zaid, an opportunity for the public to hear a balanced perspective from an American individual who happens to also be Muslim. By bringing such pieces, PBS continues to live up to its purpose as a media outlet in society: which is to offer its viewers quality programs from all ends of the intellectual and ideological spectrum, hence increasing mutual understanding and encouraging dialogue between all American people. And this will only serve to strengthen us as a nation with a common societal objective: to live in peace and freedom.

Thank you for the wonderful interview with Zaid Shakir. We, muslims are not given the chance to speak in the media and everybody talks about us except us. I hope we continue to see more programs like this and I thank Bill for doing this episode.

Post a comment

THE MOYERS BLOG is our forum for viewers' comments intended for discussing and debating ideas and issues raised on BILL MOYERS JOURNAL. THE MOYERS BLOG invites you to share your thoughts. We are committed to keeping an open discussion; in order to preserve a civil, respectful dialogue, our editors reserve the right to remove or alter any comments that we find unacceptable, for any reason. For more information, please click here.

THE MOYERS BLOG
A Companion Blog to Bill Moyers Journal

Your Comments

Podcasts

THE JOURNAL offers a free podcast and vodcast of all weekly episodes. (help)

Click to subscribe in iTunes

Subscribe with another reader

Get the vodcast (help)

For Educators    About the Series    Bill Moyers on PBS   

© Public Affairs Television 2008    Privacy Policy    DVD/VHS    Terms of Use    FAQ