Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Do you question the existence of verses on abrogation?

The Quran was delivered to a largely illiterate population. It's preposterous to claim that a book like that requires scholarly commentary to be understood.

As it stands, you have a verse on abrogation in a book that's not arranged chronologically. Not exactly a recipe for clarity, is it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

^^^ 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.

This particular group of women did not have suitable guardians - Islam does not consider non-Muslim husbands fit for guardianship over Muslim women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Do you question the existence of verses on abrogation?

The Quran was delivered to a largely illiterate population. It's preposterous to claim that a book like that requires scholarly commentary to be understood.

As it stands, you have a verse on abrogation in a book that's not arranged chronologically. Not exactly a recipe for clarity, is it.

I thought one of the claims of Sunnis is that you DON'T need a priestly class to help you understand Islam. This is precisely because Mohammed was illiterate and the Quran, as God's words dictated directly to Mohammed, are perfect and perfectly clear on its own. The Sunnis think the Shias got this all wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Do you question the existence of verses on abrogation?

The Quran was delivered to a largely illiterate population. It's preposterous to claim that a book like that requires scholarly commentary to be understood.

As it stands, you have a verse on abrogation in a book that's not arranged chronologically. Not exactly a recipe for clarity, is it.

I thought one of the claims of Sunnis is that you DON'T need a priestly class to help you understand Islam. This is precisely because Mohammed was illiterate and the Quran, as God's words dictated directly to Mohammed, are perfect and perfectly clear on its own. The Sunnis think the Shias got this all wrong.

Hush, woman! There's like thousands of people enrolled in King Abdulaziz University and other outfits like this. You want them all to go hungry? You want their families to starve?

[Anonymous]

I looked up an a pledge of allegiance to Muhammed that preceded the womens' pledge. This involved men. Most accounts just say the pledge was to to fight for Muhammed if he needed defense. The most detailed version I saw said:

The Ansâr (Helpers) asked the Messenger of Allâh Muhammad about the principles over which they would take a pledge. The Prophet answered:

To listen and obey in all sets of circumstances.
To spend in plenty as well as in scarcity.
To enjoin good and forbid evil.
In Allâh’s service, you will fear the censure of none.
To defend me in case I seek your help, and debar me from anything you debar yourself, your spouses and children from. And if you observe those precepts, Paradise is in store for you.

This is not in the Quran as the women's pledge was so one has to rely on later accounts. The more detailed version above could have been embellishment as other accounts seem to stick to fighting for Muhammed. Some general direction to be good and obey, but mostly it is about defense. Quite different really from the oath taken by the women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

^^^ 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.

This particular group of women did not have suitable guardians - Islam does not consider non-Muslim husbands fit for guardianship over Muslim women.

That's not the point. The point is, this women's pledge comes off as a one-time exception that allowed women to make this purity pledge on their own cognizance. Just this once, and only because they lacked guardians to make the pledge for them.

Presumably these immigrant women were quickly put under Mohammed's protection or were found husbands. Because, as you have pointed out, the woman's role is generally as half of a couple and living independently without a guardian is not the norm.

Men were always able to pledge things like purity on their own cognizance. So whether or not men were required to make a similar purity pledge (which you have no way of proving), the Quran wouldn't have needed to write out a similar one-time exception for them. Let's be very clear: the existence of an exception for women in no way proves that men might have had to make a similar purity pledge.

The upshot is that this does NOT seem like it's giving women permanent voting rights or, for that matter,a ny other rights to make their own pledges or decisions. in fact, quite the opposite. Once an immigrant women was re-established with a guardian, presumably everything would return to the norm, which would be that the new guardian makes all the decisions (purity or other pledges) for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

^^^ 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.

This particular group of women did not have suitable guardians - Islam does not consider non-Muslim husbands fit for guardianship over Muslim women.

But yes, PP is right. The assumption is that women need male guardians. In the case of these women who did not have Muslim fathers, husbands, or brothers, Muhammed appears to have been taking the guardianship upon himself until such time as they acquired a suitable male guardian through marriage to a Muslim or conversion of a male family member.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Do you question the existence of verses on abrogation?

The Quran was delivered to a largely illiterate population. It's preposterous to claim that a book like that requires scholarly commentary to be understood.

As it stands, you have a verse on abrogation in a book that's not arranged chronologically. Not exactly a recipe for clarity, is it.

The prophet himself was illiterate but was commanded to learn how to read. So yes it is expected that muslims should at least try to learn how to read the Quran.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Do you question the existence of verses on abrogation?

The Quran was delivered to a largely illiterate population. It's preposterous to claim that a book like that requires scholarly commentary to be understood.

As it stands, you have a verse on abrogation in a book that's not arranged chronologically. Not exactly a recipe for clarity, is it.

You have not provided the verses or text yet. Please provide proof of what you claim.

Also, move this to a new thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Do you question the existence of verses on abrogation?

The Quran was delivered to a largely illiterate population. It's preposterous to claim that a book like that requires scholarly commentary to be understood.

As it stands, you have a verse on abrogation in a book that's not arranged chronologically. Not exactly a recipe for clarity, is it.

The prophet himself was illiterate but was commanded to learn how to read. So yes it is expected that muslims should at least try to learn how to read the Quran.

As far as I know he was commanded to recite, not to learn how to read. There is a difference. I think it is more accurate to say Muslims most often through the ages learned to recit the Quran, not to read it, even those who were Arab. Illiteracy rates in Arab countries were very high well into the 20th century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Do you question the existence of verses on abrogation?

The Quran was delivered to a largely illiterate population. It's preposterous to claim that a book like that requires scholarly commentary to be understood.

As it stands, you have a verse on abrogation in a book that's not arranged chronologically. Not exactly a recipe for clarity, is it.

The prophet himself was illiterate but was commanded to learn how to read. So yes it is expected that muslims should at least try to learn how to read the Quran.

As far as I know he was commanded to recite, not to learn how to read. There is a difference. I think it is more accurate to say Muslims most often through the ages learned to recit the Quran, not to read it, even those who were Arab. Illiteracy rates in Arab countries were very high well into the 20th century.

That is correct. The commandment of "Recite!" is often mistranslated as "Read!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Do you question the existence of verses on abrogation?

The Quran was delivered to a largely illiterate population. It's preposterous to claim that a book like that requires scholarly commentary to be understood.

As it stands, you have a verse on abrogation in a book that's not arranged chronologically. Not exactly a recipe for clarity, is it.

You have not provided the verses or text yet. Please provide proof of what you claim.

Also, move this to a new thread.

Oh yawn.

Ayat Al-Baqarah 2:106
"Any message which, We annul or consign to oblivion We replace with a better or a similar one. Dost thou not know that God has the power to will anything?" (Muhammad Asad)

"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (Yusuf Ali)

"They question, O Muhammad, the wisdom of abrogation in certain circumstances. None of Our revelations or signs, secondary in character, do We terminate, but We replace it with a better or equivalent substitute; do you not know that Allah is Qadirun (Omnipotent) to effect all things." (al-Muntakhab)

Do you question that Quranic verses aren't arranged chronologically?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Do you question the existence of verses on abrogation?

The Quran was delivered to a largely illiterate population. It's preposterous to claim that a book like that requires scholarly commentary to be understood.

As it stands, you have a verse on abrogation in a book that's not arranged chronologically. Not exactly a recipe for clarity, is it.

The prophet himself was illiterate but was commanded to learn how to read. So yes it is expected that muslims should at least try to learn how to read the Quran.

As far as I know he was commanded to recite, not to learn how to read. There is a difference. I think it is more accurate to say Muslims most often through the ages learned to recit the Quran, not to read it, even those who were Arab. Illiteracy rates in Arab countries were very high well into the 20th century.

And most Muslims don't speak or read Arabic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But yes, PP is right. The assumption is that women need male guardians. In the case of these women who did not have Muslim fathers, husbands, or brothers, Muhammed appears to have been taking the guardianship upon himself until such time as they acquired a suitable male guardian through marriage to a Muslim or conversion of a male family member.

But not before their former husbands were reimbursed for the dowries they spent on their wives who decided to up and leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

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.

Have you completed reading the Quran? Sins can be repented for. And one can not be held accountable for sins when they did things unknowingly. This is Islam. It says Allah /God is merciful and forgives sins throughout the Quran. A convert begins anew. Truth.

You discount what all Arabs say and what ANY muslim says. So whose historical testimony will you trust? Who, besides Arabs or Muslims, could have written historical accounts of pre islamic Arabia? You want proof that, conveniently for you, does not exist.