Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"

[Anonymous]

And with that, I am getting off this thread. Start another thread on this topic of voting or reading versus reciting, but leave this for others to discuss the gospel topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Did you read Dr. Jamal Badawi's answer about this? I posted his answer. He said the last sentence asks women to pledge they will support the Prophet in whatever he asks of them. Not using precise wording but I already posted it. That clearly is a catch-all phrase and has nothing to do with purity.

I think the fact that the Prophet allowed women, even those without guardians and some with illegitimate children, to enter his tribe is a show of compassion and respect and forgiveness. In pre islamic times, a woman's pledge meant nothing because women were not respected.

We don't know that they had illegitimate children with them. That's a theory. Even if they did, presumably all sins were already wiped clear upon conversion so it no longer counted. And it may have been a show of compassion OR a clever marketing move to expand the ranks of Muslims at the time when it counted, and add a new pool of wives for Muslim men.

We don't know if women were not respected in pre-Islamic times. We only have the Muslims' word for it. Clearly, for Khadija things didn't work out so poorly, did they?

Anonymous wrote:
I know you are seeking that linear equality, the identical wording in the identical circumstance for men and women. This is the only kind of equality that matters to your western mindset. However, as was explained, Islam promotes a different kind of equality, the equality in the value of rights as opposed to identical rights. Islam promotes gender equity. /quote]
Value is a subjective concept. You may think that the right to financial support is so incredibly valuable that it outweighs the limitation in all other rights. Someone else may thing - meh, not a big deal, I'd rather work but be my own mistress. To someone else, the right to divorce at will may be incredibly valuable, and to others it may not be. Value is in the eye of the beholder.

Anonymous wrote:
Here, in the case of political involvement or voting, the oath was used frequently by the prophet for a variety of reasons. Every instance was not described in the Quran and the wording was not mentioned for every oath. Why should it be, if it was commonplace?? However, the migration of women without guardians from mecca to medina was a huge deal. It was a new situation and presented a problem. The Prophet needed guidance and thats when Allah/revealed this pledge for women. This doesn't mean men did not have a similar pledge. They may have. But this was worth mentioning because it was instructions on how to handle a new problem.

We don't know that. That's your theory. We can only say with certainty what is in the Quran, and that particular thing isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Did you read Dr. Jamal Badawi's answer about this? I posted his answer. He said the last sentence asks women to pledge they will support the Prophet in whatever he asks of them. Not using precise wording but I already posted it. That clearly is a catch-all phrase and has nothing to do with purity.

I think the fact that the Prophet allowed women, even those without guardians and some with illegitimate children, to enter his tribe is a show of compassion and respect and forgiveness. In pre islamic times, a woman's pledge meant nothing because women were not respected.

We don't know that they had illegitimate children with them. That's a theory. Even if they did, presumably all sins were already wiped clear upon conversion so it no longer counted. And it may have been a show of compassion OR a clever marketing move to expand the ranks of Muslims at the time when it counted, and add a new pool of wives for Muslim men.

We don't know if women were not respected in pre-Islamic times. We only have the Muslims' word for it. Clearly, for Khadija things didn't work out so poorly, did they?

Anonymous wrote:
I know you are seeking that linear equality, the identical wording in the identical circumstance for men and women. This is the only kind of equality that matters to your western mindset. However, as was explained, Islam promotes a different kind of equality, the equality in the value of rights as opposed to identical rights. Islam promotes gender equity. /quote]

Value is a subjective concept. You may think that the right to financial support is so incredibly valuable that it outweighs the limitation in all other rights. Someone else may thing - meh, not a big deal, I'd rather work but be my own mistress. To someone else, the right to divorce at will may be incredibly valuable, and to others it may not be. Value is in the eye of the beholder.

Anonymous wrote:
Here, in the case of political involvement or voting, the oath was used frequently by the prophet for a variety of reasons. Every instance was not described in the Quran and the wording was not mentioned for every oath. Why should it be, if it was commonplace?? However, the migration of women without guardians from mecca to medina was a huge deal. It was a new situation and presented a problem. The Prophet needed guidance and thats when Allah/revealed this pledge for women. This doesn't mean men did not have a similar pledge. They may have. But this was worth mentioning because it was instructions on how to handle a new problem.

We don't know that. That's your theory. We can only say with certainty what is in the Quran, and that particular thing isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason for this whole read vs recite is various PPs insistence that Muslims are highly recommended to read the Quran in Arabic. If one can't read it it in Arabic, one doesn't truly understand Islam. Therefore, all PPs on this and other threads are incompetent to opine on anything in the Quran or having to do with Islam because they do not read Arabic.

Various other PPs have pointed out that the vast majority of Muslims do not read Arabic, and this has been true since the inception of Islam. Illiteracy rates in the Arab world through the last century were very high. Few Muslims in non-Arab African or Asia countries can read Arabic, though millions of school children learn to recite the Quran. Nowhere in Islam would it be said that Muslim illiterates in Arabic cannot truly understand Islam.

When this is pointed out, various PPs say of course one can be illiterate and understand Islam, But those people are Muslim so they get a pass from these PPs, even as they tell literate non-Muslim PPs who are quite versed in Islam and Islamic history that they can't possibly opine on anything in Islam because they don't read Arabic.

And when one of these PPs who actually did know Arabic looked up one of the suras and found the Arabic did not support a Muslim PP's contention in the way she said it did but there was actually other support in the sura for Muslim PP's views, Muslim PP couldn't even acknowledge that maybe non-Muslim PP had provided a much better argument based on the Arabic.

I guess that would be conceding the anathema that non-Muslim PP could be qualified to understand Islam. Slippery slope from there to conceding the other knowledgeable non-Muslim PPs may have actual command of the facts and are fit to opine. Can't have that happen.

Regardless of what is happening in Muslim or Arab or NonArab countries, simply call a few Islamic schools in this country and even in other countries. You will learn that children are learning to READ the Quran there, not simply learning to memorize.

I get that you want so badly to win this fight but it is a fact that it IS recommended Muslims learn to read the Quran in Arabic. Poor people may not have access or ability and Allah/God is merciful and would not punish them for lacking ability or access, but others should try and they do. Sorry, but this is truth.

What is the truth is that most Muslims do not speak or read Arabic. Give a copy of the Quran to an average Bengali, Bosnian, Indonesian, Malay, Chechen, Azeri etc. and see what happens. You have your Arab goggles on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, it makes total sense (if you believe in the whole story) that the angel would ask Muhammad to recite, and he would say - but I don't know what to recite!

The idea that the angel would tell him to read, knowing full well Muhammad was illiterate, is what makes no sense. What would he read? Did the angel brought a book with him?

The fact of the matter is that "iqra" can be translated as "read", or as "recite", or as "say out loud or from memory". To understand what term is correct, you need to look at the context. This particular context veers toward "recite" to me. It's much more sensible that the angel would tell an illiterate man to repeat and remember the story so that he could recite it to his equally illiterate brethren later.

And this is in fact what most Muslims do, as most Muslims don't speak or read Arabic, so they don't read the Quran, they recite aloud from memory.

Your knowledge about what Muslims do seems to be based on what uneducated people do in Muslim countries. In any country, if a Muslim is able to learn to read the Quran, he does. Sunday school classes and Islamic schools across the country are filled with children learning how to read the Quran. No one I know in this country simply memorizes. How do you know "most Muslims" anyhow if you are not Muslim?

From my understanding, the Angel did bring a tablet.

Your understanding? Based on what? Show sources.

Did the Angel keep bringing the tablets for twenty years?

If so, how did they get all jumbled up in your non-chronologically ordered holy book?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason for this whole read vs recite is various PPs insistence that Muslims are highly recommended to read the Quran in Arabic. If one can't read it it in Arabic, one doesn't truly understand Islam. Therefore, all PPs on this and other threads are incompetent to opine on anything in the Quran or having to do with Islam because they do not read Arabic.

Various other PPs have pointed out that the vast majority of Muslims do not read Arabic, and this has been true since the inception of Islam. Illiteracy rates in the Arab world through the last century were very high. Few Muslims in non-Arab African or Asia countries can read Arabic, though millions of school children learn to recite the Quran. Nowhere in Islam would it be said that Muslim illiterates in Arabic cannot truly understand Islam.

When this is pointed out, various PPs say of course one can be illiterate and understand Islam, But those people are Muslim so they get a pass from these PPs, even as they tell literate non-Muslim PPs who are quite versed in Islam and Islamic history that they can't possibly opine on anything in Islam because they don't read Arabic.

And when one of these PPs who actually did know Arabic looked up one of the suras and found the Arabic did not support a Muslim PP's contention in the way she said it did but there was actually other support in the sura for Muslim PP's views, Muslim PP couldn't even acknowledge that maybe non-Muslim PP had provided a much better argument based on the Arabic.

I guess that would be conceding the anathema that non-Muslim PP could be qualified to understand Islam. Slippery slope from there to conceding the other knowledgeable non-Muslim PPs may have actual command of the facts and are fit to opine. Can't have that happen.

Regardless of what is happening in Muslim or Arab or NonArab countries, simply call a few Islamic schools in this country and even in other countries. You will learn that children are learning to READ the Quran there, not simply learning to memorize.

I get that you want so badly to win this fight but it is a fact that it IS recommended Muslims learn to read the Quran in Arabic. Poor people may not have access or ability and Allah/God is merciful and would not punish them for lacking ability or access, but others should try and they do. Sorry, but this is truth.

What is the truth is that most Muslims do not speak or read Arabic. Give a copy of the Quran to an average Bengali, Bosnian, Indonesian, Malay, Chechen, Azeri etc. and see what happens. You have your Arab goggles on.

No, I don't have my Arab goggles on. I just know because I lived in some of these countries before or have family members from there. I do not get my information from tv shows or google.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason for this whole read vs recite is various PPs insistence that Muslims are highly recommended to read the Quran in Arabic. If one can't read it it in Arabic, one doesn't truly understand Islam. Therefore, all PPs on this and other threads are incompetent to opine on anything in the Quran or having to do with Islam because they do not read Arabic.

Various other PPs have pointed out that the vast majority of Muslims do not read Arabic, and this has been true since the inception of Islam. Illiteracy rates in the Arab world through the last century were very high. Few Muslims in non-Arab African or Asia countries can read Arabic, though millions of school children learn to recite the Quran. Nowhere in Islam would it be said that Muslim illiterates in Arabic cannot truly understand Islam.

When this is pointed out, various PPs say of course one can be illiterate and understand Islam, But those people are Muslim so they get a pass from these PPs, even as they tell literate non-Muslim PPs who are quite versed in Islam and Islamic history that they can't possibly opine on anything in Islam because they don't read Arabic.

And when one of these PPs who actually did know Arabic looked up one of the suras and found the Arabic did not support a Muslim PP's contention in the way she said it did but there was actually other support in the sura for Muslim PP's views, Muslim PP couldn't even acknowledge that maybe non-Muslim PP had provided a much better argument based on the Arabic.

I guess that would be conceding the anathema that non-Muslim PP could be qualified to understand Islam. Slippery slope from there to conceding the other knowledgeable non-Muslim PPs may have actual command of the facts and are fit to opine. Can't have that happen.

Regardless of what is happening in Muslim or Arab or NonArab countries, simply call a few Islamic schools in this country and even in other countries. You will learn that children are learning to READ the Quran there, not simply learning to memorize.

I get that you want so badly to win this fight but it is a fact that it IS recommended Muslims learn to read the Quran in Arabic. Poor people may not have access or ability and Allah/God is merciful and would not punish them for lacking ability or access, but others should try and they do. Sorry, but this is truth.

What is the truth is that most Muslims do not speak or read Arabic. Give a copy of the Quran to an average Bengali, Bosnian, Indonesian, Malay, Chechen, Azeri etc. and see what happens. You have your Arab goggles on.

No, I don't have my Arab goggles on. I just know because I lived in some of these countries before or have family members from there. I do not get my information from tv shows or google.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What is the truth is that most Muslims do not speak or read Arabic. Give a copy of the Quran to an average Bengali, Bosnian, Indonesian, Malay, Chechen, Azeri etc. and see what happens. You have your Arab goggles on.

No, I don't have my Arab goggles on. I just know because I lived in some of these countries before or have family members from there. I do not get my information from tv shows or google.

Very good, then tell me what will happen when you ask an average person from the countries I listed to read a Quranic chapter to you, from the book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Did you read Dr. Jamal Badawi's answer about this? I posted his answer. He said the last sentence asks women to pledge they will support the Prophet in whatever he asks of them. Not using precise wording but I already posted it. That clearly is a catch-all phrase and has nothing to do with purity.

I think the fact that the Prophet allowed women, even those without guardians and some with illegitimate children, to enter his tribe is a show of compassion and respect and forgiveness. In pre islamic times, a woman's pledge meant nothing because women were not respected.

We don't know that they had illegitimate children with them. That's a theory. Even if they did, presumably all sins were already wiped clear upon conversion so it no longer counted. And it may have been a show of compassion OR a clever marketing move to expand the ranks of Muslims at the time when it counted, and add a new pool of wives for Muslim men.

We don't know if women were not respected in pre-Islamic times. We only have the Muslims' word for it. Clearly, for Khadija things didn't work out so poorly, did they?

Anonymous wrote:
I know you are seeking that linear equality, the identical wording in the identical circumstance for men and women. This is the only kind of equality that matters to your western mindset. However, as was explained, Islam promotes a different kind of equality, the equality in the value of rights as opposed to identical rights. Islam promotes gender equity. /quote]

Value is a subjective concept. You may think that the right to financial support is so incredibly valuable that it outweighs the limitation in all other rights. Someone else may thing - meh, not a big deal, I'd rather work but be my own mistress. To someone else, the right to divorce at will may be incredibly valuable, and to others it may not be. Value is in the eye of the beholder.

Anonymous wrote:
Here, in the case of political involvement or voting, the oath was used frequently by the prophet for a variety of reasons. Every instance was not described in the Quran and the wording was not mentioned for every oath. Why should it be, if it was commonplace?? However, the migration of women without guardians from mecca to medina was a huge deal. It was a new situation and presented a problem. The Prophet needed guidance and thats when Allah/revealed this pledge for women. This doesn't mean men did not have a similar pledge. They may have. But this was worth mentioning because it was instructions on how to handle a new problem.

We don't know that. That's your theory. We can only say with certainty what is in the Quran, and that particular thing isn't.

Its just a theory for you because you refuse to confirm it with addl research or asking scholars or imams. You inherently mistrust Muslims anyway so it would not matter even if you did speak with one. Fornication and adultery were common in Arabia pre Islam. Thus it should be obvious that there would be illegitimate children. Most historical accounts are from Arabs. If you don't trust the testimony of Arabs because you hate Islam, then refer to the testimony of the Greeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Its just a theory for you because you refuse to confirm it with addl research or asking scholars or imams. You inherently mistrust Muslims anyway so it would not matter even if you did speak with one. Fornication and adultery were common in Arabia pre Islam. Thus it should be obvious that there would be illegitimate children. Most historical accounts are from Arabs. If you don't trust the testimony of Arabs because you hate Islam, then refer to the testimony of the Greeks.

Khadija did OK in the jahiliya, didn't she?

Of course, there would be illegitimate children. There still are, everywhere. Nothing very much has changed about human nature. No one argued there were no illegitimate children around. You made a very specific claim - that women were rushing toward Mecca with 2-4 children in tow - and provided no evidence for it.

Not all Arabs are Muslim, don't you know.

Yes, I think the testimony of Muslims about how bad non-Muslims had it is ever so slightly biased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, it makes total sense (if you believe in the whole story) that the angel would ask Muhammad to recite, and he would say - but I don't know what to recite!

The idea that the angel would tell him to read, knowing full well Muhammad was illiterate, is what makes no sense. What would he read? Did the angel brought a book with him?

The fact of the matter is that "iqra" can be translated as "read", or as "recite", or as "say out loud or from memory". To understand what term is correct, you need to look at the context. This particular context veers toward "recite" to me. It's much more sensible that the angel would tell an illiterate man to repeat and remember the story so that he could recite it to his equally illiterate brethren later.

And this is in fact what most Muslims do, as most Muslims don't speak or read Arabic, so they don't read the Quran, they recite aloud from memory.

Your knowledge about what Muslims do seems to be based on what uneducated people do in Muslim countries. In any country, if a Muslim is able to learn to read the Quran, he does. Sunday school classes and Islamic schools across the country are filled with children learning how to read the Quran. No one I know in this country simply memorizes. How do you know "most Muslims" anyhow if you are not Muslim?

From my understanding, the Angel did bring a tablet.

Your understanding? Based on what? Show sources.

Did the Angel keep bringing the tablets for twenty years?

If so, how did they get all jumbled up in your non-chronologically ordered holy book?

Yes, the angel kept bringing tablets or perhaps paper manuscripts--I am not sure exactly if tradition is exact on this point. But Muhammed was shown something with the sura of the day written on it and asked to recite it by the angel.

Muhammed can't be blamed for how the Quran is organized. According to tradition, Muhamme recited the verses he had just recited in front of the angel to his followers, and they wrote them down on palm leaves. At some poitn, these were collected together and a lost to the mists of time editor decided on the longest to shortest sura presentation.

Islamic scholars in the centuries following did a lot of work to figure out which were the oldest and which were the newest. I am not terribly familiar with this work, but I believe there were lots of disputes. However, there is some general agreement about which suras were from the early Mekkan period and which were from the Medinan period.

I think PPs point is that the verse about abrogation is in one of these suras, but unless one knows with absolute certainty the order in which the suras were revealed in time, it is very difficult to determine which verse is being abrogated (or whatever you want to call it--perhaps improved) by a later sura. As far as I know, people have theories about the correct chronological order but there isn't any one order that is generally agreed to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, the angel kept bringing tablets or perhaps paper manuscripts--I am not sure exactly if tradition is exact on this point. But Muhammed was shown something with the sura of the day written on it and asked to recite it by the angel.

Muhammed can't be blamed for how the Quran is organized. According to tradition, Muhamme recited the verses he had just recited in front of the angel to his followers, and they wrote them down on palm leaves. At some poitn, these were collected together and a lost to the mists of time editor decided on the longest to shortest sura presentation.

Islamic scholars in the centuries following did a lot of work to figure out which were the oldest and which were the newest. I am not terribly familiar with this work, but I believe there were lots of disputes. However, there is some general agreement about which suras were from the early Mekkan period and which were from the Medinan period.

I think PPs point is that the verse about abrogation is in one of these suras, but unless one knows with absolute certainty the order in which the suras were revealed in time, it is very difficult to determine which verse is being abrogated (or whatever you want to call it--perhaps improved) by a later sura. As far as I know, people have theories about the correct chronological order but there isn't any one order that is generally agreed to.

No one's blaming Muhammad. Let's just put it on the record.

Looking at the process that you just described, it takes a terrible leap of faith to believe that a book with such a genesis could be a direct-to-consumer, unaltered word of god.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, the angel kept bringing tablets or perhaps paper manuscripts--I am not sure exactly if tradition is exact on this point. But Muhammed was shown something with the sura of the day written on it and asked to recite it by the angel.

Muhammed can't be blamed for how the Quran is organized. According to tradition, Muhamme recited the verses he had just recited in front of the angel to his followers, and they wrote them down on palm leaves. At some poitn, these were collected together and a lost to the mists of time editor decided on the longest to shortest sura presentation.

Islamic scholars in the centuries following did a lot of work to figure out which were the oldest and which were the newest. I am not terribly familiar with this work, but I believe there were lots of disputes. However, there is some general agreement about which suras were from the early Mekkan period and which were from the Medinan period.

I think PPs point is that the verse about abrogation is in one of these suras, but unless one knows with absolute certainty the order in which the suras were revealed in time, it is very difficult to determine which verse is being abrogated (or whatever you want to call it--perhaps improved) by a later sura. As far as I know, people have theories about the correct chronological order but there isn't any one order that is generally agreed to.

No one's blaming Muhammad. Let's just put it on the record.

Looking at the process that you just described, it takes a terrible leap of faith to believe that a book with such a genesis could be a direct-to-consumer, unaltered word of god.

As I've written before, there are even more reasons to have some doubt that it is direct to the consumer word of God. Not saying that how the New Testament was put together was cleaner, but the process certainly had amply room for error.

Followers wrote the verses down in a script that 1) lacked all short vowels and 2) lacked dots below and above the letter shape. The latter is particularly important because many Arabic letters share the same shape and are distinguished among each other by the number (including zero) of dots above and below the letter. For example, in handwriting the letters for b, t, th, and n all have the same shape, but b has a dot below, t has 2 above, th has three above, an n has one above.

There are many more example in the 28 letter Arabic alphabet. Very few shapes are assigned to just one letter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What is the truth is that most Muslims do not speak or read Arabic. Give a copy of the Quran to an average Bengali, Bosnian, Indonesian, Malay, Chechen, Azeri etc. and see what happens. You have your Arab goggles on.

No, I don't have my Arab goggles on. I just know because I lived in some of these countries before or have family members from there. I do not get my information from tv shows or google.

Very good, then tell me what will happen when you ask an average person from the countries I listed to read a Quranic chapter to you, from the book.

Anyone who is financially able and has the ability will try to learn Quranic arabic. This is truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Its just a theory for you because you refuse to confirm it with addl research or asking scholars or imams. You inherently mistrust Muslims anyway so it would not matter even if you did speak with one. Fornication and adultery were common in Arabia pre Islam. Thus it should be obvious that there would be illegitimate children. Most historical accounts are from Arabs. If you don't trust the testimony of Arabs because you hate Islam, then refer to the testimony of the Greeks.

Khadija did OK in the jahiliya, didn't she?

Of course, there would be illegitimate children. There still are, everywhere. Nothing very much has changed about human nature. No one argued there were no illegitimate children around. You made a very specific claim - that women were rushing toward Mecca with 2-4 children in tow - and provided no evidence for it.

Not all Arabs are Muslim, don't you know.

Yes, I think the testimony of Muslims about how bad non-Muslims had it is ever so slightly biased.

Not quite. Its testimony of Arabs on how their own ancestors were. If you want to learn about Arab history, you don't go to the Europeans to learn it. With such mistrust of any Muslim, you can never be open to learning.