Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I have this image of the good folks at CAIR shaking their heads over this thread and trying to figure out how to get OP to stop already. I have no doubt OP sent the link to her buddy at CAIR, probably before people started recalling OP's many insults about grannies with STDs and Christian-evangelical-crusader-Islamophobes. CAIR's reaction is anyone's guess. I imagine they're dismayed at OP's combative approach, unorthodox debating techniques and outright insults, none of which is doing much for Islam. |
Anonymous
Yes, there clearly is, isn't there? It has to do with your inability to understand the concept of future tense in this verse. First, there is no evidence whatsoever that women seeking to join Muslims in Medina were arriving with "2-4 illegitimate children seeking admission into the tribe" (you just made that up.) The verse very clearly says, "when believing women come to you seeking allegiance". It says nothing whatsoever about children. Neither men nor women were asked to promise that they didn't have illegitimate children. Your insistence on commonplace fornication would have made that illogical anyway (we only have the word of the Muslims that pre-Islamic Arabs were devoted fornicators but let's roll with this for the moment). Women seeking allegiance were asked to promise they WILL not do it in future. Men were not. |
Anonymous
"Hooper! Hooper! There's this chick who won't stop calling." "'bout what?" "Says people on some parenting site won't agree with her." "For real?" "Uh-huh." "Tell her I'm in a meeting. A three-day retreat or something." |
Anonymous
CAIR doesn't care. CAIR concerns itself primarily with identifiable donors, politicians and organizations that have been critical of Islam or Muslims - entities they can publicize and advocate against. Anonymous Internet forums are simply not a part of that. |
Anonymous
|
NP--I still don't see what this oath of loyalty had to do with voting rights. The contention is that by engaging in the oath women agreed to be loyal to Mohammed as leader of the Islamic state unless he betrayed certain principles, in which case they could withdraw their pledge. This sounds like what we call voting with one's feet, which I don't think anyone would confuse with electoral voting.
It seems to me that women were allowed to make the pledge if they agreed to certain conditions like not fornicating but men were not. This sounds very tribal to me--you can become part of our tribe as long as you don't embarrass us. It was special for women because typically women were part of either their father's tribe or their husband's tribe and could not switch tribes. It was hard for men, but doable. The early Islamic community, however, offered a tribe for women to switch to even if they had husbands. This was in itself pretty extraordinary, and I would guess the Islamic community needed to make sure these women would not disgrace them. It is a long Arab tradition that women bear the honor of the tribe, and wrong moves on their part bring dishonor to the tribe, which is to be avoided at all costs. Thus, no fornicating, number one bringer of dishonor on a tribe (and still today). Also, for good measure, no lying or stealing or slander or disobeying the leader, Muhammed, who no doubt became their substitute male guardian. The women in essence lived in their new tribe, the Islamic community, under his protection, unless of course they married a Muslim male. Male converts did not present all these social pitfalls that women did, and, thus, likely did not have to agree to all these conditions in making their pledge of loyalty. The honor of a tribe does not rest upon its male members. So in sum, Islam provided a way for women to join a new tribe on her own. This was remarkable for the time. There really is no need to embellish upon this and say that it gave women voting rights. |
Anonymous
The reason there is no evidence from your standpoint is because you still have not studied this part of Islamic history. |
Anonymous
Where is it written in Islamic history that women were arriving in Medina with 2 to 4 illegitimate children? |
Anonymous
Please provide proof that Prophet Muhammad said this. Also, I have read the Quran many times. It was not as confusing for me. But maybe that is because I had teachers far more knowledgeable than I was explaining it to me. Those who do not understand it can read the footnotes of Yusuf Ali as he sometimes provides historical context. If you still don't understand it, but want to, its time to sit with a scholar and ask him or her. This is better than bashing the holy book for not making any sense and mocking our prophet for justifying seemingly arbitrary changes. Maybe there is something you overlooked or misunderstood so check your understanding of the Quran with one who understands Quranic arabic and islamic history. |
Anonymous
Since you apparently watched the show, you know that there are quite a few ancient documents that purport to convey Jesus' teachings. We still have some of these. Some of them were written close to Jesus' life and others were written a century or two later. Some were a bit silly, but others merited serious consideration. Some were gnostic and others were not. It was up to the early church fathers to decide which to include in the Bible. It goes without saying that they decided Thomas wasn't authentic. |
Anonymous
| ^^^ it should have gone without saying.... |
Anonymous
If stealing, forging lies, fornication were all expressly forbidden, which they were, then it goes without saying that men coming into the tribe would have had to abstain from these to gain admission into the tribe and to simply be a Muslim. It was spelled out in an oath for women because Allah/God was giving instructions to the Prophet on how to handle a new situation, the flood of women arriving into Medina, seeking admission into the Prophets tribe, WITHOUT husbands or guardians, and sometimes with children. That an oath with prohibitions was spelled out for women does not imply restrictions did not also exist for men. Thats faulty reasoning. We know these same prohibitions and restrictions are part of Islam. Its spelled out over and over throughout the Quran. They just were not spelled out like the oath was spelled out because here, God was providing instructions on a new dilemma with women seeking admission, without husbands present and yet with children. As far as fornication & adultery being commonplace, it was. As were other kinds of bad behavior. But if you insist that a Arab Muslims word, account, or testimony is inherently false, then you will discount 99% of historical accounts because Arabs would naturally be the ones to report on their own history. You can't come to the table to understand Islam with a prejudicial mind. If you do, then it is no surprise to anyone that you disregard everything you hear. |
Anonymous
I was not quoting. I was using language to paint a visual picture of a typical scene at that time. I was asking you to essentially picture a caravan of people riding on camels, with many women, traveling unaccompanied perhaps (no guardian present), bringing along with them their children, some their husbands and some perhaps of undetermined paternity, 2-4 per refugee woman. Historical accounts say some were lying and saying all their children belonged to their husbands. What was the Prophet to do? Allah/God provided the verse 60:12 and 60:10 to command the Prophet ensure they were indeed converts to Islam, and then asked the Prophets not to send them back to Mecca. Now please provide the text where you implied the Prophet said Allah makes arbitrary changes in his laws. |
Anonymous
You don't know that. That's just your projection. Besides, it's your own claim that upon conversion, all sins are wiped clean so it shouldn't have mattered if these children - who you insist, without evidence, were accompanying women - were illegitimate. Restrictions exist for both men and women. The Quran provides no evidence men were asked to give the same pledge as women before promising allegiance. Everything else is just your mental acrobatics. And yes, pre-Islamic history is written by Muslims, so by definition it is biased. You are confusing Arabs with Muslims. Khadija's example shows women in pre-Islamic Arabia could have had quite a nice little life. |
Anonymous
That picture exists only in your mind. It could have easily been something else. I wonder how you came up with the 2-4 number. Why not 3-5? Are you sure? Perhaps 6 to 7? What historical accounts? Quran? That's your history book? I'll give you a little hint: history is usually told in chronological order. Not longest to shortest or vice versa. |
Anonymous
^^^ I'm not the person you're talking to, but I am 8:40/8:59 who used "it goes without saying" before you used it just now. I wasn't using "it goes without saying" as evidence so much as to restate the obvious, i.e., choices were obviously made. You're trying to use "it goes without saying" as a substitute for evidence. That doesn't work. We'd all still like to see an actual verse directed at men. The underlying assumption to your argument seems to be that women need guardians for everything else, but an exception is being made for this particular pledge, just this one time. That hardly suggests that women were free to speak independently of a guardian in any other situation, like voting or pledging to other things. |