Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"

[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.

Do you know Quranic Arabic? What you state is wrong. Iqra is the word used and it means READ, not recite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

If proof doesn't exist, that's OK. Just let's not pretend that it does and says things like "pre-Islamic Arabia was a horrible, horrible place....until WE showed up!"

Although Khadija's example tells me things were not all that bad for women.

You are agreeing with me that new converts would not have been held responsible for fornication in the past, so what are you arguing about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Do you know Quranic Arabic? What you state is wrong. Iqra is the word used and it means READ, not recite.

My husband is Arab and he says it's "recite". He can out-Quranic Arabic you from here to Mecca.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Think of all the various situations involving women at that time:
1) nonmuslim wives of newly converted muslim husband: christian and jewish wives may not be forced to convert so no compulsion for them to convert to Islam. Husband is considered guardian of faith in the family but must permit wife to practice her faith. Oath may be given to her if she wants admission to tribe and agrees to support the prophet.
2) pagan wife of newly converted muslim husband:the marriage can not last if wife refuses to convert to one of Abrahamic faiths.
So she would not be given the oath to take.
3) newly converted muslim wife of pagan husband: This is the new situation. Before verse was revealed, these women were sent back to Mecca. God/Allah asked the prophet to not send these women back, but to simply question them to make sure they were muslim, then offer the oath, and admit them into the tribe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Not that PP, but I am a history major. There's definitely some evidence about pre-Islamic Arabia, looking into things like the kaaba and the tradition of throwing stones at the idols, both of which were part of pre-Islamic traditions that were incorporated into Islam. Although I know that much as a medieval history major, I don't know anything about promiscuity in pre-Islamic Arabia.

A good parallel with the secular research into pre-Islamic Arabia would be the secular research into books like that of Thomas. The latter, at least, you seem to appreciate.

[Anonymous]

You forgot newly converted Muslim woman with Christian or Jewish husband. That is not permitted in Islam as far as I know. Okay for wife to be non-Muslim person of the book, not okay for husband. Probably because religion is viewed as being passed down through the male line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

^^^ 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.

Think of all the various situations involving women at that time:
1) nonmuslim wives of newly converted muslim husband: christian and jewish wives may not be forced to convert so no compulsion for them to convert to Islam. Husband is considered guardian of faith in the family but must permit wife to practice her faith. Oath may be given to her if she wants admission to tribe and agrees to support the prophet.
2) pagan wife of newly converted muslim husband:the marriage can not last if wife refuses to convert to one of Abrahamic faiths.
So she would not be given the oath to take.
3) newly converted muslim wife of pagan husband: This is the new situation. Before verse was revealed, these women were sent back to Mecca. God/Allah asked the prophet to not send these women back, but to simply question them to make sure they were muslim, then offer the oath, and admit them into the tribe.


I'm not sure what your point is.

1) Do you have any proof that a christian or jewish wife could be administered the oath if she "agrees to support the prophet" without converting? Because that's not what the verses actually say. Moreover, the fact that christian and jewish women are "not forced to convert" isn't proof of anything like voting or political rights. It's just saying something like, "we won't force you to do something you don't want to do." Not that we're going to let you help run our community or give you anything like political rights.

2) So what if a pagan wife of a newly converted muslim isn't given the oath? And too bad for her, because her marriage gets dissolved - looks like she has no choice in that! But then, she's not a muslim or even a person of the Book, so she basically has no rights at all.

I still don't get how this purity oath isn't a temporary exception, drawn up as a one-time expediency to address your situation #3. Viz, once she swears that she will conduct herself as a proper muslim wife, then she gets a proper muslim husband. And everything reverts to the normal guardianship situation, where her husband makes all the legal decisions on her behalf.

This is quite different from granting permanent political rights.

[Anonymous]

Reposting for formatting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Think of all the various situations involving women at that time:
1) nonmuslim wives of newly converted muslim husband: christian and jewish wives may not be forced to convert so no compulsion for them to convert to Islam. Husband is considered guardian of faith in the family but must permit wife to practice her faith. Oath may be given to her if she wants admission to tribe and agrees to support the prophet.
2) pagan wife of newly converted muslim husband:the marriage can not last if wife refuses to convert to one of Abrahamic faiths.
So she would not be given the oath to take.
3) newly converted muslim wife of pagan husband: This is the new situation. Before verse was revealed, these women were sent back to Mecca. God/Allah asked the prophet to not send these women back, but to simply question them to make sure they were muslim, then offer the oath, and admit them into the tribe.

I'm not sure what your point is.

1) Do you have any proof that a christian or jewish wife could be administered the oath if she "agrees to support the prophet" without converting? Because that's not what the verses actually say. Moreover, the fact that christian and jewish women are "not forced to convert" isn't proof of anything like voting or political rights. It's just saying something like, "we won't force you to do something you don't want to do." Not that we're going to let you help run our community or give you anything like political rights.

2) So what if a pagan wife of a newly converted muslim isn't given the oath? And too bad for her, because her marriage gets dissolved - looks like she has no choice in that! But then, she's not a muslim or even a person of the Book, so she basically has no rights at all.

I still don't get how this purity oath isn't a temporary exception, drawn up as a one-time expediency to address your situation #3. Viz, once she swears that she will conduct herself as a proper muslim wife, then she gets a proper muslim husband. And everything reverts to the normal guardianship situation, where her husband makes all the legal decisions on her behalf.

This is quite different from granting permanent political rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You forgot newly converted Muslim woman with Christian or Jewish husband. That is not permitted in Islam as far as I know. Okay for wife to be non-Muslim person of the book, not okay for husband. Probably because religion is viewed as being passed down through the male line.

No, 'cause the husband is the leader of the house, and a non-Muslim cannot be a leader over a Muslim. Muslims are wife takers, not wife givers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you know Quranic Arabic? What you state is wrong. Iqra is the word used and it means READ, not recite.

My husband is Arab and he says it's "recite". He can out-Quranic Arabic you from here to Mecca.

Please provide the full definition for iqra then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you know Quranic Arabic? What you state is wrong. Iqra is the word used and it means READ, not recite.

My husband is Arab and he says it's "recite". He can out-Quranic Arabic you from here to Mecca.

Please provide the full definition for iqra then.

Didn't she just do that? Maybe I'm missing something....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you know Quranic Arabic? What you state is wrong. Iqra is the word used and it means READ, not recite.

My husband is Arab and he says it's "recite". He can out-Quranic Arabic you from here to Mecca.

Here is one view from understanding-Islam.com:
The translation of the first verse of Surah Al-'Alaq by different scholars also shows that it is 'Read' i.e. 'Read in the name of your Lord, Who created' (Al-'Alaq 96:1)

When the Angel Gabriel ordered the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to read; the Prophet (pbuh) said 'I cannot read'. This further strengthens the meaning of Iqra as 'Read'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you know Quranic Arabic? What you state is wrong. Iqra is the word used and it means READ, not recite.

My husband is Arab and he says it's "recite". He can out-Quranic Arabic you from here to Mecca.

Please provide the full definition for iqra then.

Didn't she just do that? Maybe I'm missing something....

I am not considering her husband as an authoritative source.

[Anonymous]

Here's a Muslim source saying it means "recite" in this context, not "read".

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__to_read_or_recite__that_is_the_question__was_muhammad_really_illiterate__

[Anonymous]

One more
Why Does the Qur'an Open With Iqra' (Recite, Read)? Print E-mail
Written by mquran.org
Friday, 10 November 2006
http://mquran.org/content/view/9187/9/

The Divine command to proclaim Islam opens with the sublime imperative: iqra'. Usually translated as "recite," it also means to "rehearse aloud" or to "read." It is addressed to humanity, as the Prophet represents humanity in its relationship to God. Iqra' is thus a universal injunction, an opening for each individual to move away from imperfection and toward virtue and happiness both in this world and the next.

Iqra' is a command to read the signs the Creator placed in creation so that we can understand something of His Mercy, Wisdom, and Power. It is a command to learn, through experience and understanding, the meaning of His creation. Moreover, it is an infallible assurance that the creation can be read, that it is intelligible. The better we learn to read it, the better we grasp that the created world is a single universe whose beauty and harmony reflect the Guarded Tablet (85:21) upon which, by the Divine decree, all things are inscribed.