Prison in Hell named Bulas (Paul)

The name Paul in Arabic is “Bulas” the founder of Christianity. Did you know there is a prison in Hell called Bulas according to Hadith.

'Amr bin Shu'aib narrated from his father, from his grandfather from the Prophet (s.a.w) who said:

"The proud will be gathered on the Day of Judgement resembling tiny particles in the image of men. They will be covered with humiliation everywhere, they will be dragged into a prison in Hell called Bulas, submerged in the Fire of Fires, drinking the drippings of the people of the Fire, filled with derangement." (Jami` at-Tirmidhi  Book 37, Hadith 2680)

----------------------

Notice how the Hadith says the proud people will be dragged into prison called “Bulas بُولَسَ”. Heres the name of Paul from the Arabic Bible :

بَعْدَمَا انْتَهَى الاضْطِرَابُ، دَعَا بُولُسُ التَّلاَمِيذَ وَشَجَّعَهُمْ، ثُمَّ وَدَّعَهُمْ وَسَافَرَ إِلَى مُقَاطَعَةِ مَقِدُونِيَّةَ، (Acts 20:1)

The same name used for the prison in Hell is also used for Paul. So we can conclude from this, the followers of Paul will meet him in Hell.

some Christians may say "the God of Islam is also proud". this only goes to show how weak and idiotic they have become towards there own scripture and the general knowledge of who God is. 

if being proud or having pride was so bad, why then does Yahweh swear by the "PRIDE OF JACOB"?

 “The LORD has sworn by the Pride of Jacob: “I will never forget anything they have done.’” What is this “Pride of Jacob”(Amos 8:7)

 Note: God is out of his creation, unlike men. God has the right to be proud.  like the laws of nature does not apply to God. God is the does of all He intends. God will never be questioned for what he does, rather men will be questioned by him. we do not put God in the same category as Humans. so you claims are weak like you faith

God Almighty is above his creation. He is the Greatest, the creator of the heavens and earth. How could you even think of comparing man with God. It is God who created Paradise and Hell for men and Jinn. So the Idea of God going to Hell is obnoxious. It’s like saying if God can be a man then he can also be stupid?

Who was wrong, Jesus or Paul?

In a famous passage in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught that we ought not to worry about food or clothing. But this doesn’t seem to be borne out by Paul’s experience.Jesus tells us that as God provides for the birds and the lilies, and we are much more important than they, he will therefore also provide for us:

Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life? And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clother like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you–you of little faith? Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?’ For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. [Matthew 6: 25-33, NRSV]

In closing, Jesus says clearly that if we strive for the kingdom of God then God will feed and clothe us.

The "apostle Paul" certainly seems to be someone who strived for the kingdom of God. In 2 Corinthians, he reluctantly compares himself with other Christian leaders, listing the sufferings that he has endured in labouring as a minister of Christ:

“Are they ministers of Christ? I am talking like a madman–I am a better one: with far greater labours, far more imprisonments, with countless floggings, and often near death. Five times I have received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I received a stoning. Three times I was shipwrecked; for a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from bandits, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers and sisters…” [2 Corinthians 11:23-26, NRSV]

What Paul endured in God’s service is certainly impressive. If that doesn’t count as striving for God’s kingdom, then it’s unclear what would. Yet Paul goes on to say that God did not feed and clothe him:

“… in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, hungry and thirsty, often without food, cold and naked.” [2 Corinthians 11:27, NRSV]

So although Jesus says that God will feed and clothe those who strive for his kingdom, Paul, who strived for God’s kingdom, says that he often went unfed and naked. Who was wrong, Jesus or Paul?

Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֑ים) Genesis 1:1

Christians like Stephen Atkins tend to believe the text in Genesis 1:1 was spoken by God 5776 years ago, purely because it’s the first book in the Bible which speaks about the very first creation. It's also understood by Christians that when Yahweh said "in the beginning Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֑ים) created the heavens and earth" the plural for God was used.

Here's the problem with their understanding. Firstly the Jews tell us Moses wrote the Torah i.e. the Pentateuch (first 5 books of Moses) after he cross the red sea. this alone destroys the claim that Genesis 1:1 was written 5776 years because since its the very first book speaking about the creation.

Secondly, Moses wrote Genesis after he departed from Egypt with the Children of Israel. Which means Moses knew who God was since they were speaking "face to face". How then would Moses think Genesis 1:1 was speaking of gods rather the God if Moses knew God is one?

Think about it, the Book of Exodus tells us how God alone saved Moses and his followers from Pharaoh. How Moses was given the 10 commandments which says that God is One and he alone should be worshipped. If God had other gods with him wouldn't have Moses known?

Moses being the author of Genesis 1:1 knew Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֑ים) does not mean more than one God. If God was inspiring Moses to write the book of Genesis, then Moses could of easily questioned God on Genesis 1:1 asking for more clarification on Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֑ים).

It's absurd to think throughout the life of Moses's mission God kept on reminding him and his followers to "WORSHIP HIM ALONE" yet hides he has more gods with him until Moses starts to write?

according to Stephen atkins Elohim is the plural for God, yet Classicla Jewish rabbis disgree. take for instance Ibn Ezra who wrote on Gensis 1:1 saying

“E-lohim” – After we have found [the word] e-loah, we know that E-lohim is its plural form, and the root [of this] is in the nature of language. For every language has a formal form. The way of expressing formality in non-Hebrew languages is by the lesser using the plural in the presence of the greater. In Arabic the way of formal expression is for the greater to speak, as royalty, in the plural. In the Holy Tongue, the way is to refer to the greater in the plural. Like “master” (adonim), “owner” b’alim as the said, “a harsh master” (b’alim) Isaiah 19:4, “his master (b’alim) shall take”. Likewise the word “upon him” (alav), “to him” (elav), “until him” (adav). For this reason does Scripture state “He created” and not “they created”. Now from a perspective of wisdom, we know that speech is called “lip” [Hebrew parallel to the English “tongue”] since people see that words emanate from there. Likewise, the supernal human soul is called “heart”, yet the heart is [part of the] body, since the heart is the first “chariot” for it. Now is called thus [“(E-lohim)”)since all the acts of Hashem are [delivered] into the hands of the angels, who do His Will. (I will explain a bit more of the secret of the Name on the verse “for My Name is within him” – Exodus 23:21). And pay no attention to the words of [Rav Sa’adiah] Ga’on who said that man is more prestigious than angels. I’ve already explained in Sefer HaYesod that all his proofs are actually the opposite. Now we know that, amongst men, there are none more prestigious than the prophets, yet Yehoshua fell on his face before an angel of Hashem and prostrated himself, and said, “what is my master speaking to his servant” – Joshua 5:14. and likewise Zechariah and Daniel, but why should I go on? And the meaning of “G-d of hosts” is like “G-d of gods [masters]”. So the meaning of E-lohim is like “king”, and people who are involved in divine law will be called thus – but it is an adjective [lit. descriptive name], not a [true] noun – you won’t find any future or past forms. And don’t think that, since we find it written, “He makes the winds His angels” that angels are [made] from fire and wind, for that is not the straightforward way of interpreting that verse. It’s rather that David spoke initially of the work of creation, beginning with light and saying, “He enwraps [in] light” and afterwards “He spreads out the heavens” – that is, the firmament, with the waters above it, and fire, snow and wind. He [then] said that the wind is Hashem’s messenger to go to any place He may send it, likewise is fire amongst His servants, and he said, “He founded the earth upon its elements” – this is regarding the dry land. Likewise is it written, “the stormy wind does His will” Psalms 148:8

how about Rambam another renowned Jewish scholar

And it stated, Elohim (God), [which means] the master of all the forces, as the root word [here] is el, which is power; and it is a compound word, [made up of] el [and] hem (them), as if 'power' were relational (and would be understood as power of them), and 'them' refers to all the other powers; meaning 'the Power over all the powers.' And a secret will also be elucidated about this [later]. If so, the correct simple meaning of the verses is that its meaning is: At first, "God created the heavens" since he brought forth their material from nothing, "and the earth," bringing forth its material from nothing. "And the earth" includes the four basic elements, as per (Genesis 2:1), "And the earth and the heavens and all their hosts were completed," which includes the whole terrestrial globe. And so [too] (Psalms 148:7), "Praise the Lord from the earth, the sea monsters and all the depths," and besides them, [there] are many other [such references]. And behold, with this creation, which was like a small [and] fine dot, and without substance, were created all of the creations in the heavens and the earth.

Ishmael a teenager who became a baby?

According to the Bible, Ishmael was 17 to 18 years old when he was sent to the desert with his mother Hagar. Miraculously as soon as he went to the desert he became a "BABY"?

How does a 17 to 18 years old teenager become a baby? How do we know Ishmael was a baby, because the Hebrew texts specifically uses the word "Naar נַ֫עַר" the same word used to describe Moses as being a baby.

When she opened it, she saw the child, and behold, the baby (NAAR נַ֫עַר) was crying. She took pity on him and said, “This is one of the Hebrews’ children.”(Exodus 2:6)

The same is used when referring to Ishmael. Notice how the angel of God said, “God has heard the (NAAR נַ֫עַר) boy crying”

God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there.

How can a 17 to 18-year-old teenager be cast under a bush crying?  “And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs (Genesis 21:15).

The question is if Ismael was a baby, which he was according to the Hebrew text, then this means Isaac was not born when they were expelled to the desert? We know from the Bible Abraham was 86 years old when Ishmael was born (Genesis 16:16). We also know Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born (Genesis 21:5). Here we have a gap of 14 years between Ishmael and Isaac, we also know Ishmael and his mother were expelled when Isaac was being weaned (Genesis 21:8) this usually is between 3 to 5 years. This would make Ishmael at least 17 to 18 minimum, without using a 5-year weaning term.  How then could a 18 year old teenager become a baby?

We call this textual corruption. This shows Ishmael was the chosen Son to be sacrificed as a test.

Raising the hands upward when supplicating to Allaah after the Adhan – alifta

February 20, 2018 By AbdurRahman.org In Adhan & Iqaamah, Dua - Occassions, Dua - Supplication Tags: Alifta.Com,Permanent Committee

The fourth question of Fatwa no. 16874

Q4: Is raising the hands upward when supplicating to Allah after the end of Adhan (call to Prayer) an act of Bid`ah (innovation in religion)?

A: After repeating Adhan and invoking Allah’s Peace and Blessings upon Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), it is recommended to say:

O Allah! Lord of this perfect call and of the regular prayer which is going to be established, bestow upon Muhammad Al-Wasilah (the highest position in Paradise) and Al-Fadilah (extra degree of honor) and raise him to Al Maqam Al Mahmud (the best and the highest place in Paradise), which You have promised him.

This statement is authentically reported from the Prophet (peace be upon him) on the authority of Jabir ibn `Abdullah Al-Ansary (may Allah be pleased with him and his father) in Sahih Al-Bukhari (may Allah be merciful to him). However, raising the hands has no mention in the report, so it is an act of Bid`ah.

May Allah grant us success. May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and Companions.
The Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta’

Member – Member – Member – Chairman
Bakr Abu Zayd – Abdul-`Aziz Al Al-Shaykh – Salih Al-Fawzan – Abdul-`Aziz ibn `Abdullah ibn Baz

Source: Fatwas of the Permanent Committee (alifta.net) > Acts of worship > Salah (Prayer) > Conditions for the validity of Salah > Knowing that the time of a given Salah has commenced as a condition for the validity of Salah > Adhan (call to Prayer) > Saying Du`a’, Dhikr and performing Nafilah Prayer between Adhan and Iqamah >

---

The following has been taken from Imam Ibn Baz’s Fatwas of Nur `Ala Al-Darb

171- What is the ruling on raising one’s hands in Du`a’ after Iqamah

Q: I have noticed that some Muslims, who are about to perform Salah (Prayer), raise their hands and supplicate immediately after the Mu’adhin (caller to Prayer) finishes the announcement of the Adhan (call to Prayer). This takes place before Takbirat-ul-Ihram (saying: “Allahu Akbar [Allah is the Greatest]” upon starting Prayer. Is this practice reported from the Prophet (peace be upon him)?

A: This action has no basis in Shari`ah (Islamic law). Nothing has been reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to supplicate between Iqamah (call to start the Prayer) and the start of Prayer. He was never reported as having raised his hands at this time. This should not be done because it is contrary to the Sunnah (whatever is reported from the Prophet).

Fatwas of Nur `Ala Al-Darb > Volume 6 > Book of Salah > Chapter on Adhan and Iqamah
http://www.alifta.net/Fatawa/fatawaDetails.aspx?languagename=en&View=Page&PageID=1228&PageNo=1&BookID=8

Related Link: https://abdurrahman.org/salah/adhan-call-to-prayer

The Quran Does NOT Say that Sperm is Created from between the Backbone and Ribs

Understanding Verse 86:7 According to the Prophet’s Disciples, the Salaf, and the Classical Scholars

Question:

A Christian man named David Wood is claiming that the Quran says that semen is created from between the male’s backbone and his ribs. Modern science, however, tells us that semen comes from the testicles. David Wood is claiming that this proves that Prophet Muhammad was a false prophet. He, along with others, are making fun of the Prophet for not knowing where semen comes from.

The verse that David Wood cites is as follows:

Now let man but think From what he is created! He is created from A drop emitted—Proceedings from between the backbone (sulb) and the ribs (tara’ib). (Quran, 86:5-7)

Can you please clarify this issue?

Answer by Dr. Ibn al-Hashimi:

In the Name of Allah, the Most Glorious, the Most Beneficent.

I was asked by brother Bassam Zawadi to answer your question. He hoped that due to my medical background, I would be able to properly address your concern. However, the truth of the matter is that I did not even need a medical education to answer your question; rather, all that I needed was a bit of common sense. Insha-Allah, I will address your question in full detail, leaving no doubt in the matter.

Before I begin, I’d like to thank brother Bassam, and give a quick plug for his website, www.call-to-monotheism.com. It’s an excellent website and a great resource for the English-speaking Muslims of the world. May God reward the tireless efforts of brother Bassam, who day in and day out combats the rising tide of Islamaphobia, which threatens peace and stability on this earth.

I’d also like to thank Shaykh Salman al-Oudah of www.IslamToday.com, one of the greatest scholars of our time. This reply would not have been possible without him. May God reward him. 

Introduction
The translation used by Mr. David Wood is horribly inaccurate. The correct translation of ‘sulb’ is not backbone, nor does the word ‘tara’ib’ indicate the man’s ribs. Let us review the verse in question:

So let man consider from what he is created. He is created from an emitted fluid that issued from between the sulb and the tara’ib. (86:5-7)

Mr. Wood has understood the verse to mean that both ‘sulb’ and ‘tara’ib’ refer to the male. In other words, the fluid emitted refers to the semen, and it comes out from in between the sulb and the tara’ib. However, the truth of the matter is that the word ‘tarai’b’—according to the Arabic—is actually referring to a female body part. Much like the English word ‘penis’ can only be ascribed to a male, the word ‘tara’ib’ can only be applied to a female. 
This is not apologetic modernism or revisionism; the classical works of Quranic commentary throughout the last 1400 years confirm this view categorically. In other words, the sulb belongs to the male, and the tara’ib belongs to the female. This is the view of the Muslims since the last fourteen hundred years, and there is consensus (ijma) on this matter, since the time of the Sahabah (the Prophet’s disciples) until today.

Shaykh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî of IslamToday.com writes:

The phrase “mâ’ dâfiq” (emitted fluid) is not restricted in meaning to sperm but is used in Arabic for both the sperm and the egg. Ibn Kathîr, in his commentary on this verse, writes: “It emanates from the man and the woman, and with Allah’s permission, the child comes forth as a product of both.”

…The words translated as “backbone” (sulb) and “ribs” (tarâ’ib) are not understood in Arabic to belong to the same person. Arabs understand the “sulb” to refer to a part of the male body and the “tarâ’ib” to a part of the female. Ibn Kathîr states: “It refers to the ‘sulb’ of the man and the ‘tarâ’ib’ of the woman…” He then quotes this interpretation on the authority of the Prophet’s companion Ibn `Abbâs. This same understanding is given in all the major classical works of Qur’anic commentary.

Many non-Arabs misinterpret this verse because they think that sulb and tara’ib refer to different body parts of the male. In reality, tara’ib is feminine, and refers to the female’s body part. For fourteen hundred years, all of the scholars have held this belief, and not a single classical scholar has ever differed on this point. The reason is that the Arabic makes it clear that tara’ib refers to a feminine body part, and not a male one. 

Lane’s Lexicon says:

Tara’ib: … most of the authors on strange words affirm decidedly that it (tara’ib) is peculiar to women. (Lane’s Lexicon, p.301) 

All of the major commentaries of the Quran confirm that the tara’ib is peculiar to women. Ibn Katheer writes in his tafseer (commentary) of the Quran:

It (fluid) emanates from the man and the woman, and with Allah’s permission, the child comes forth as a product of both. (Tafseer Ibn Katheer)

Tafseer al-Jalalayn says:

Issuing from between the sulb, of the man, and the tara’ib, of the woman. (Tafseer Al-Jalalayn)

Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafseer Ibn Abbas says:

That issued from between the sulb of the man and the tara’ib of a woman.
(Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafseer Ibn Abbas)

---------------------------

So let man consider from what he is created. He is created from an emitted fluid that issued from between the sulb and the tara’ib. (86:5-7)

Shaykh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî of IslamToday.com writes:

The phrase “mâ’ dâfiq” (emitted fluid) is not restricted in meaning to sperm but is used in Arabic for both the sperm and the egg. Ibn Kathîr, in his commentary on this verse, writes: “It emanates from the man and the woman, and with Allah’s permission, the child comes forth as a product of both.”

…The words translated as “backbone” (sulb) and “ribs” (tarâ’ib) are not understood in Arabic to belong to the same person. Arabs understand the “sulb” to refer to a part of the male body and the “tarâ’ib” to a part of the female. Ibn Kathîr states: “It refers to the ‘sulb’ of the man and the ‘tarâ’ib’ of the woman…” He then quotes this interpretation on the authority of the Prophet’s companion Ibn `Abbâs. This same understanding is given in all the major classical works of Qur’anic commentary.

breasts (plural) in Arabic is الثديين  althadiiyn. Now interestingly in Ezekiel 23:3 

in the Arabic Bible the word for breasts is Taraib, ترائب,. The question is why 

didn’t they use الثديين althadiiyn and instead used ترائب Taraib? Well the reason 

behind is this is, the word ترائب Taraib describes the female in a whole, unlike 

the word breast الثديين althadiiyn which is specific. The other reason is 

“embarrassment” since Ezekiel 23 is giving a description of two harlots 

and their indecent behaviour, the Arabic Bible thought it would be better 

to use the word ترائب Taraib to describe the actions towards the women in a 

less vulgar way and avoid using names of specific body parts for the readers. 

For example the Arabic Bible would translate it as “ the (women) were 

touched by men” not “their (breast) were pressed by men” the wordings 

change the description portrayed by the author.

ترائب Taraib  is a unique Arabic word for women.

Lane’s Lexicon says:

Tara’ib: … most of the authors on strange words affirm decidedly that it (tara’ib) is peculiar to women. (Lane’s Lexicon, p.301) 

All of the major commentaries of the Quran confirm that the tara’ib is 

peculiar to women. Ibn Katheer writes in his tafseer (commentary) of the Quran:



It (fluid) emanates from the man and the woman, and with Allah’s permission, 

the child comes forth as a product of both. (Tafseer Ibn Katheer)

Thus when the Quran uses the word “Taraib” it is referring to the women. Now coming to the word sulb. Sulb صُلْبِ mean “loins” we can also confirm this from the Arabic Bible. Exodus 1:5 used the word صُلْبِ sulb to describe the offspring of Jacob. صُلْبِ sulb is a masculine word and will not be used for the female gender, its only used for males. Thus, صُلْبِ sulb and tara’ib are separate from each other male and female.  

So Surah 86 is not referring to the man only, rather the verse is referring to man and women together. “Fluid that issued from between the man and the women”


-------------------------

Hyperfine Description of Human Creation in the Three Dark Zones in Quran

Gamal H. E. Hassanein

Most commentators interpreted the three dark zones mentioned in Surah Az-Zumar, 39, Ayah 6 of the noble Quran as; the darkness of the abdomen, the darkness of the uterus and the darkness of the placenta. According to contemporary embryology, this interpretation would be a matter of debate. The aim of the current study was to put an acceptable scientific interpretation of these zones which document their hyperfine description in holy Quran. The present study, based upon other verses revealed in Quran, postulated that the appropriate interpretation of these zones , from outside to inside , would be the cavity of the uterus, the cavity of the chorionic vesicle and the amniotic cavity. The harmful effect of exposing early embryonic stages to light would explain the importance of darkness in these zones. In addition, the three zones disappear during the 18th to 20th weeks (5th month) of pregnancy due to fusion of membranes separating these zones. At this time, embryo is only growing after finishing the developmental stages. In conclusion: This article finds that Quran was hyperfine in describing that creation passes through stages which are proceeding in three dark zones. The three zones are only existing during progress of embryonic stages and disappear after their completion.

Article Details

How to Cite

HASSANEIN, Gamal H. E.. Hyperfine Description of Human Creation in the Three Dark Zones in Quran. QURANICA - International Journal of Quranic Research, [S.l.], v. 7, n. 2, p. 1-10, dec. 2015. ISSN 2590-4167. Available at:

-------------------------

Bible plagiarises Aristotle!

in the Book of Job (10:10), Job is made to say,

"Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast fashioned me as clay; and wilt thou bring me into the dust again! Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews."

This comparison of embryogeny with the making of cheese is interesting in view of the fact that precisely the same comparison occurs in Aristotle's book On the Generation of Animals, Ibid, pp. 64-65

---------------------------

"Sperm" between the backbone & ribs is not the correct reading. The arabic word used in Surah 86:6 is مَاءٍ (water) not نُطْفَةً (sperm). The correct reading should be "water" between the backbone & ribs. From context Surah 86:5-8 is speaking about the creation of man.

how does Jayda Fransen feel about her "Bible" now?

Jayda Fransen, Britain First spokes woman. a racist and bigot who claims to be Christian and often refers to her devout ‘Roman Catholic background’, so devout that she goes on marches on a Sunday when surely the most devout Christian would be in church. And also, for a devout Christian to scream abuse at someone because of a different religion and ethnic background…..I find most UN-Christian. She loves attacking Muslims and Islam purely on the basis of her weak understanding and lies from others.  The question is how well does she know her own Bible?, after all she claims to be a devout "Roman Catholic" let's ask Jayda Fransen how she understands the following statements found in her Roman Catholic Bible.

"Give me any plague, but the plague of the heart: and any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman." (Ecclesiasticus 25:13)

"If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, and give her a bill of divorce, and let her go." (Ecclesiasticus 25: 26)

"The whoredom of a woman may be known in her haughty looks and eyelids. If thy daughter be shameless, keep her in straitly, lest she abuse herself through overmuch liberty." (Ecclesiasticus 26:9-10)

"A silent and loving woman is a gift of the Lord: and there is nothing so much worth as a mind well instructed. A shamefaced and faithful woman is a double grace, and her continent mind cannot be valued." (Ecclesiasticus 26:14-15)

"A shameless woman shall be counted as a dog; but she that is shamefaced will fear the Lord." (Ecclesiasticus 26:25)

"For from garments cometh a moth, and from women wickedness. Better is the churlishness of a man than a courteous woman, a woman, I say, which bringeth shame and reproach." (Ecclesiasticus 42:13-14)

Also The Catholic Bible states explicitly that: 

“The birth of a daughter is a loss." (Ecclesiasticus 22:3) 

In contrast to this shocking statement, boys receive special praise: 

"A man who educates his son will be the envy of his enemy." (Ecclesiasticus 30:3)

A daughter is considered a painful burden, a potential source of shame to her father: 

"Your daughter is headstrong? Keep a sharp look-out that she does not make you the laughing stock of your enemies, the talk of the town, the object of common gossip, and put you to public shame" (Ecclesiasticus 42:11) 

"Keep a headstrong daughter under firm control, or she will abuse any indulgence she receives. Keep a strict watch on her shameless eye, do not be surprised if she disgraces you." (Ecclesiasticus 26:10-11)

Since Jayda Fransen is a devout "Roman Catholic" how does she feel to read her Bible, which she promotes as peaceful and loving degrades women.