Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I remember this discussion. Muslima blithely declared that "Islam treats women captives well" and then quickly left the discussion except to pop up once in a while to call everybody Islamophobes.

The key here is that we are talking about non-Muslim women were captured by Muslims and made into slaves/concubines. (As the ensuing discussion clarified, the captive women simply became slaves if they did not agree to sex. They became concubines if they agreed to sex, but they are not freed until or unless they (a) fall pregnant, and (b) the slave master dies.) Muslim PP is trying to compare this to the status of pre-Islamic and Muslim women. That doesn't work.

I don't think it's historically established that captive women became slaves if they did not agree to sex. It would have been more accurate to say that their position did not afford them an opportunity to agree or disagree to sex. Sexual access to them was simply taken for granted.

To your list of conditions you should add a (c) if the slave master acknowledges the child as his. That was also not a given.

The third point is that conversion to Islam by these women did not automatically result in any improvement of their status. There were Muslim slaves as recently as last century.

The only distinction is that if women were ALREADY Muslim, they were prohibited to be enslaved. But conversion to Islam while in captivity was not a ticket to anything.

There's a memoir book called "A Heart from Bangalan" (I don't think it's available in English, though) written by a woman who was captured as a girl of 13 at her village in Iran by an al-Saud slave-hunting expedition. There's a scene in the book when she's yelling at her captors "I'm Muslim! I'm Muslim!", assuming, correctly, that Islam prohibits enslaving those who are Muslim. It didn't matter to al-Saud but as a point of law, she was correct.

Focus on the subject here, are you talking about Islam or are you talking about how Islam was practiced after the Prophet's death? Two very different things, not to be confused for the same. But you make this mistake often.

We've already talked about the "women of your left hand" in the Quran (i.e., contemporaneously with Mohammed). Do you want to have that discussion again?

[Anonymous]

Re: Islam and female infanticide. There are several verses in the Quran denouncing infanticide in suras 6 and 7. But the verses are not specific to female infanticide, but rather to infanticide of boys and girls (the male plural for children is used).

There is a reference to a girl buried alive in the Quran, but it is in an apocalyptic sura that describes the end of days--when the sun is wrapped in darkness, when female camels are neglected (the last thing a nomadic Arab would ever do as female camels provide milk, vital for human sustenance in the desert), etc One of the signs of the end of days in this sura (81) is when a girl who was buried alive is asked what sin she committed (81:8-9). One thus cannot take 81:8-9 as a prohibition of female infanticide specifically. It is rather part of a poetic rendering of the seemingly impossibly things that will happen at the end of days.

Some modern Muslim like to say that Islam values women highly because it outlawed female infanticide, ergo Islam values women and elevates their status. Then they point to other obscure verses like the ones about consultation and the oath of allegiance of the Medinan women to bolster their case, wringing meaning out of them that was not intended. Those who do this are making anachronistic arguments by trying to read the Quran through the lens of today where much of the world accepts the equality of women.

By pointing to these verses, they hope to show how Islam treats women equally despite their unequal treatment in matters of divorce, inheritance, etc.

But the fact remains, the starting argument for all this--that Islam specifically prohibited female infanticide--is in error. Islam prohibited infanticide of both male and female children. (A good thing in itself to be sure.)

[Anonymous]

^^Should have been: There are several verses in the Quran denouncing infanticide in suras 6 and 17.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
First, or maybe I should say again, please distinguish between real Islam and the practice of it. This is a mistake you make repeatedly.

I don't believe I do.

Anonymous wrote:
You repeatedly ask for evidence for various points, but disregard evidence of Muslim authorship or Muslim testimony or even Arab testimony. In your eyes, arabs and Muslims are inherently liars and their testimony is not to be trusted. But who do you expect will provide accounts of Arab history, if not the Arabs? Its like saying the Boston Tea Party never took place because you mistrust the Americans who were the only people who left accounts of it.

That's a bad comparison. Not all Americans supported the Boston Tea Party. I'm sure if you asked the British to write that account, it would have been very different.

Islam is a product at the marketplace of ideas. Every product in the marketplace makes an effort, covert or overt, to make itself look better compared to its rivals. Look at the Tide detergent commercial that shows side-by-side how stains disappear to get an idea.

Anonymous wrote:
Societies do not have to be monochrome in their treatment of women? You spent hundreds of pages in various Islam threads fighting to prove Islam opresses and mistreats women. Yet now you hold khadija as representative of how great Arab women had it. Which is it then? Islam oppressed women or despite Islam, many women grew to the ranks of successful businesswomen?

Khadija achieved wealth and independence pre-Islam. There is therefore zero contradiction between her status and treatment of women in Islam since Islam had nothing to do whatsoever with her position. I wonder why you conflate the two. Just for the sake of saying I contradicted myself? Should have picked a better example. That one sucks.

Anonymous wrote:
This shows that you keep moving the goal posts. This is an agenda driven campaign, not a truth seeking campaign. You are looking for any angle to vilify Islam or disprove Muslims, but some of your viewpoints are in direct contradiction to other, previously expressed viewpoints.

And this is why media outlets were called, you exemplify the type of person anti Islam organizations tend to use to spread hate for political gain. No one else will study Islam so extensively to spew hate 24/7 using blogs with large audiences. No one will move the goal posts so often that they sometimes unwittingly end up even contradicting themselves at times, like you just did here.

Even if the investigative journalist can not find out the organization you work for, at minimum articles will be written about islamophobia using your posts. But I am hopeful they will determine the name of the group you work for, since a couple leaders of the Muslim communities will be assisting the writer in her assignment and they seem to have knowledge about this.

There you are wagging your finger again, in your childish, helpless rage. No one is afraid of the media or the leaders of the "Muslim communities". I'm afraid your hopes will be dashed. Behind the posts you find so objectionable is not one shadowy organization, but simply two or three educated kaffirahs. You're just mad that you didn't find an adoring audience here that you thought you would. Muslims don't expect non-Muslims to know very much about Islam, and the self-styled dawwah-wallahs like you especially don't like to be contradicted with actual evidence. Perhaps in your mind no one who studies Islam can avoid loving it. Well, it happens. And since Jeff isn't giving out IP addresses, I'm afraid you'll have to make do with our anonymity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You spent a great deal of pages in another thread arguing with Muslima about how Islam encouraged concubinage. If that was true, it would mean women were not respected or valued in Arab society. In societies where women are undervalued, they generally do not achieve success and status. Again, it shows Khadijas status was unusual, not the norm.

I also don't remember arguing with Muslima, I think she recused herself from the discussion early on. I took pleasure in taking on the poster who claimed - against all readily available evidence - that concubines were freed if they became pregnant. That is false. They were freed after the owner died, and only if the owner recognized the child as theirs. Co-ownership of concubines occurred so it wasn't a done deal that the child belonged to the owner. The owner also had complete freedom in recognizing the child or not. In any case, manumission upon the death of owner - not pregnancy, as falsely claimed - is well documented.

Bring the documentation.

Look here for sources http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/90/410170.page#5687504

I should note you never brought any sources concubines were freed upon pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I remember this discussion. Muslima blithely declared that "Islam treats women captives well" and then quickly left the discussion except to pop up once in a while to call everybody Islamophobes.

The key here is that we are talking about non-Muslim women were captured by Muslims and made into slaves/concubines. (As the ensuing discussion clarified, the captive women simply became slaves if they did not agree to sex. They became concubines if they agreed to sex, but they are not freed until or unless they (a) fall pregnant, and (b) the slave master dies.) Muslim PP is trying to compare this to the status of pre-Islamic and Muslim women. That doesn't work.

I don't think it's historically established that captive women became slaves if they did not agree to sex. It would have been more accurate to say that their position did not afford them an opportunity to agree or disagree to sex. Sexual access to them was simply taken for granted.

To your list of conditions you should add a (c) if the slave master acknowledges the child as his. That was also not a given.

The third point is that conversion to Islam by these women did not automatically result in any improvement of their status. There were Muslim slaves as recently as last century.

The only distinction is that if women were ALREADY Muslim, they were prohibited to be enslaved. But conversion to Islam while in captivity was not a ticket to anything.

There's a memoir book called "A Heart from Bangalan" (I don't think it's available in English, though) written by a woman who was captured as a girl of 13 at her village in Iran by an al-Saud slave-hunting expedition. There's a scene in the book when she's yelling at her captors "I'm Muslim! I'm Muslim!", assuming, correctly, that Islam prohibits enslaving those who are Muslim. It didn't matter to al-Saud but as a point of law, she was correct.

Focus on the subject here, are you talking about Islam or are you talking about how Islam was practiced after the Prophet's death? Two very different things, not to be confused for the same. But you make this mistake often.

No, you make that claim often. Doesn't make it so.

I refer to the book to underline what in fact is the rule in Islam - namely, that other Muslims cannot be enslaved. Do you question that?

Other than that, I never claimed that Al-Saud represent the height of Islamic rectitude so I am not sure what about that story offends you - unless you belong to a particular brand of Gulfie Sunnism that says king is god.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This shows that you keep moving the goal posts. This is an agenda driven campaign, not a truth seeking campaign. You are looking for any angle to vilify Islam or disprove Muslims, but some of your viewpoints are in direct contradiction to other, previously expressed viewpoints.

And this is why media outlets were called, you exemplify the type of person anti Islam organizations tend to use to spread hate for political gain. No one else will study Islam so extensively to spew hate 24/7 using blogs with large audiences. No one will move the goal posts so often that they sometimes unwittingly end up even contradicting themselves at times, like you just did here.

Even if the investigative journalist can not find out the organization you work for, at minimum articles will be written about islamophobia using your posts. But I am hopeful they will determine the name of the group you work for, since a couple leaders of the Muslim communities will be assisting the writer in her assignment and they seem to have knowledge about this.

There you are wagging your finger again, in your childish, helpless rage. No one is afraid of the media or the leaders of the "Muslim communities". I'm afraid your hopes will be dashed. Behind the posts you find so objectionable is not one shadowy organization, but simply two or three educated kaffirahs. You're just mad that you didn't find an adoring audience here that you thought you would. Muslims don't expect non-Muslims to know very much about Islam, and the self-styled dawwah-wallahs like you especially don't like to be contradicted with actual evidence. Perhaps in your mind no one who studies Islam can avoid loving it. Well, it happens. And since Jeff isn't giving out IP addresses, I'm afraid you'll have to make do with our anonymity.

Different PP here. Let's deconstruct this. An "investigative journalist" who is a "she" is supposedly looking into a DCUM poster's alleged affiliations with shadowy, as-yet-unnamed anti-Islam groups. "She" is going to ask local "Muslim community leaders" rather than the obvious choice--CAIR--about the existence of as-yet-unidentified anti-Islam groups.

(And now for a quick digression. How silly is that? Why doesn't "she" just ask the guru on all things anti-Islam, CAIR, to give her a list of the usual suspects. Because, heaven knows, there are already some well-known anti-Islam bloggers and groups who seem more likely than speculating about the existence of shadowy, as-yet-unknown groups. Or why not ask CAIR about emerging groups the "investigative journalist" hasn't yet heard about? But I digress.)

I get it now.

Translation: you yourself are hoping to to write an article. You have told us several times that you used to work as a journalist. You plan to interview several local Muslim community leaders, people who are maybe your friends and acquaintances, in order to fish for possible leads. You had talked for a while about how you were contacting CAIR, but apparently CAIR told you to take a hike because you haven't mentioned CAIR recently. While it's true these local leaders probably wouldn't mind or deny a quick conversation with you, you have know way of knowing whether they have better dirt on as-yet-unnamed anti-Islam groups. One thing is certain: the moderator doesn't think there is a shadowy group, he won't be handing out IP addresses, and the kcal leaders can't help you with this. It also remains to be seen whether any reputable publication will accept your article.

[Anonymous]

15:23 sounds right to me. Hopeful muslim journalist (hmj) thinks a media outlet will be interested in an anonymous blog discussion and/or hmj thought her erudite knowledge of Islam would sway anonymous Christian blog readers to follow Islam and then write an article about that!

hmj couldn't be much of a journalist if she thought a respectable media source would consider running a story based completely on unverified, anonymous sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:15:23 sounds right to me. Hopeful muslim journalist (hmj) thinks a media outlet will be interested in an anonymous blog discussion and/or hmj thought her erudite knowledge of Islam would sway anonymous Christian blog readers to follow Islam and then write an article about that!

hmj couldn't be much of a journalist if she thought a respectable media source would consider running a story based completely on unverified, anonymous sources.

Depends on your definition of a respectable media source. NYT? Not likely.

Something like muslimmatters.org? They might. Niche audiences, volunteer writers, hurting for content...why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:15:23 sounds right to me. Hopeful muslim journalist (hmj) thinks a media outlet will be interested in an anonymous blog discussion and/or hmj thought her erudite knowledge of Islam would sway anonymous Christian blog readers to follow Islam and then write an article about that!

hmj couldn't be much of a journalist if she thought a respectable media source would consider running a story based completely on unverified, anonymous sources.

Depends on your definition of a respectable media source. NYT? Not likely.

Something like muslimmatters.org? They might. Niche audiences, volunteer writers, hurting for content...why not?

Agreed - but it won't have the impact hmj seems to expect -- it will not blow the lid off unfair anti-muslim sentiment and make hmj a big star

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:15:23 sounds right to me. Hopeful muslim journalist (hmj) thinks a media outlet will be interested in an anonymous blog discussion and/or hmj thought her erudite knowledge of Islam would sway anonymous Christian blog readers to follow Islam and then write an article about that!

hmj couldn't be much of a journalist if she thought a respectable media source would consider running a story based completely on unverified, anonymous sources.

Depends on your definition of a respectable media source. NYT? Not likely.

Something like muslimmatters.org? They might. Niche audiences, volunteer writers, hurting for content...why not?

Agreed - but it won't have the impact hmj seems to expect -- it will not blow the lid off unfair anti-muslim sentiment and make hmj a big star

15:23 here. I doubt hmj expects to become the next Woodward and Bernstein. One of her goals here, perhaps her main goal, is to try to create the impression that lots of worthy folk agree with her about islamophobia here, even if nobody on this thread agrees with her. Why else talk about her own "journalism" in the third person. If she gets a piece in Muslimmatters.org, or even better if someone pays her a few hundred dollars, that would be icing on the cake.

[Anonymous]

I hope hmj will post her piece wherever it is published on DCUM so we can once again pile in on her half truths and glib assertions that collapse under the smallest degree of scrutiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re: Islam and female infanticide. There are several verses in the Quran denouncing infanticide in suras 6 and 7. But the verses are not specific to female infanticide, but rather to infanticide of boys and girls (the male plural for children is used).

There is a reference to a girl buried alive in the Quran, but it is in an apocalyptic sura that describes the end of days--when the sun is wrapped in darkness, when female camels are neglected (the last thing a nomadic Arab would ever do as female camels provide milk, vital for human sustenance in the desert), etc One of the signs of the end of days in this sura (81) is when a girl who was buried alive is asked what sin she committed (81:8-9). One thus cannot take 81:8-9 as a prohibition of female infanticide specifically. It is rather part of a poetic rendering of the seemingly impossibly things that will happen at the end of days.

Some modern Muslim like to say that Islam values women highly because it outlawed female infanticide, ergo Islam values women and elevates their status. Then they point to other obscure verses like the ones about consultation and the oath of allegiance of the Medinan women to bolster their case, wringing meaning out of them that was not intended. Those who do this are making anachronistic arguments by trying to read the Quran through the lens of today where much of the world accepts the equality of women.

By pointing to these verses, they hope to show how Islam treats women equally despite their unequal treatment in matters of divorce, inheritance, etc.

But the fact remains, the starting argument for all this--that Islam specifically prohibited female infanticide--is in error. Islam prohibited infanticide of both male and female children. (A good thing in itself to be sure.)

Please refer to the Quran, Sura 16 Al Nahl verse 57-59, which does forbid specifically FEMALE INFANTICIDE:

" And they assign daughters for Allah! Glory be to Him! And for themselves (sons - the issue) they desire!
When news is brought to one of them of the birth of a female child, his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief!
With shame does he hide himself from his people, because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain it on sufferance and contempt,
or bury it in the dust? Ah! What an evil choice they decide on!"

So the Quran does specifically forbid female infanticide or will you now argue that the above verse doesn't explicitly forbid it?

Please also see http://www.infanticide.org/history.htm. Laila Williamson, anthropologist for the American Museum of National History wrote about infanticide generally. It appears she validates the fact that female infanticide took place before the time of Muhammad and she interprets the same verse differently than you. Here is what she said about infanticide in pre islamic Arabia:

"Sexism was particularly prominent in Arabia before the time of Mohammed (570?-632 AD). The Persian world was a very paternalistic society, and females were generally seen as an undesirable burden to a family struggling to survive. A common proverb held that it was "a generous deed to bury a female child." Nevertheless, the Koran, which collected the writings of Mohammed, introduced reforms that included the prohibition of female infanticide. Mohammed outlined the wrongfulness of infanticide in various sections of his holy scripture. He asked, with censure ' for example, how would a father account for his actions, "When the female child that had been buried alive shall be asked for what crime she was put to death?" "

If this does not convince you, then please read Malcom Russell's book, "The Middle East and South Asia 2014," in which the author states, "On balance, scholars agree that Muhammad raised the status and condition of women, in part by rigidly punishing adultery as well as condemning the practice of female infanticide."

More evidence that Islam did indeed improve the status of women. See http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/Public/ed_advisors.html. Oxford Islamic Studies Online brings together the work of the world's leading scholars to provide users with the most comprehensive, up-to-date, and authoritative online resource in the field. What it states about Islam contradicts your assertion completely:

"With Islam, the status of women improved considerably. The Qur'an and the sunnah emphasized the spiritual equality of all Muslims. "


So…are you interested in the truth or are you only interested in misinterpreting the Quran to make Islam look bad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
First, or maybe I should say again, please distinguish between real Islam and the practice of it. This is a mistake you make repeatedly.

I don't believe I do.

Anonymous wrote:
You repeatedly ask for evidence for various points, but disregard evidence of Muslim authorship or Muslim testimony or even Arab testimony. In your eyes, arabs and Muslims are inherently liars and their testimony is not to be trusted. But who do you expect will provide accounts of Arab history, if not the Arabs? Its like saying the Boston Tea Party never took place because you mistrust the Americans who were the only people who left accounts of it.

That's a bad comparison. Not all Americans supported the Boston Tea Party. I'm sure if you asked the British to write that account, it would have been very different.

Islam is a product at the marketplace of ideas. Every product in the marketplace makes an effort, covert or overt, to make itself look better compared to its rivals. Look at the Tide detergent commercial that shows side-by-side how stains disappear to get an idea.

Anonymous wrote:
Societies do not have to be monochrome in their treatment of women? You spent hundreds of pages in various Islam threads fighting to prove Islam opresses and mistreats women. Yet now you hold khadija as representative of how great Arab women had it. Which is it then? Islam oppressed women or despite Islam, many women grew to the ranks of successful businesswomen?

Khadija achieved wealth and independence pre-Islam. There is therefore zero contradiction between her status and treatment of women in Islam since Islam had nothing to do whatsoever with her position. I wonder why you conflate the two. Just for the sake of saying I contradicted myself? Should have picked a better example. That one sucks.

Anonymous wrote:
This shows that you keep moving the goal posts. This is an agenda driven campaign, not a truth seeking campaign. You are looking for any angle to vilify Islam or disprove Muslims, but some of your viewpoints are in direct contradiction to other, previously expressed viewpoints.

And this is why media outlets were called, you exemplify the type of person anti Islam organizations tend to use to spread hate for political gain. No one else will study Islam so extensively to spew hate 24/7 using blogs with large audiences. No one will move the goal posts so often that they sometimes unwittingly end up even contradicting themselves at times, like you just did here.

Even if the investigative journalist can not find out the organization you work for, at minimum articles will be written about islamophobia using your posts. But I am hopeful they will determine the name of the group you work for, since a couple leaders of the Muslim communities will be assisting the writer in her assignment and they seem to have knowledge about this.

There you are wagging your finger again, in your childish, helpless rage. No one is afraid of the media or the leaders of the "Muslim communities". I'm afraid your hopes will be dashed. Behind the posts you find so objectionable is not one shadowy organization, but simply two or three educated kaffirahs. You're just mad that you didn't find an adoring audience here that you thought you would. Muslims don't expect non-Muslims to know very much about Islam, and the self-styled dawwah-wallahs like you especially don't like to be contradicted with actual evidence. Perhaps in your mind no one who studies Islam can avoid loving it. Well, it happens. And since Jeff isn't giving out IP addresses, I'm afraid you'll have to make do with our anonymity.

Did Jeff say he wouldn't give out IP addresses or did he say he wouldn't give out IP addresses unless he learned that any one of you belonged to an islamophobe organization?

As much as you would like to picture me in a childish and helpless rage, it is simply not my way. I respond to blatant discrimination and islamophobia by simply using my resources. I contacted several Imams throughout the country who have a good relationship with various writers at well known media outlets. I also have contacted other writers directly. I also use interfaith organizations and American Islamic relations organization in the US and abroad.

As ugly as these islamophobic posts are, they are now extremely useful and may be published in articles about islamophobia throughout this country. So, no reason for rage here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You spent a great deal of pages in another thread arguing with Muslima about how Islam encouraged concubinage. If that was true, it would mean women were not respected or valued in Arab society. In societies where women are undervalued, they generally do not achieve success and status. Again, it shows Khadijas status was unusual, not the norm.

I also don't remember arguing with Muslima, I think she recused herself from the discussion early on. I took pleasure in taking on the poster who claimed - against all readily available evidence - that concubines were freed if they became pregnant. That is false. They were freed after the owner died, and only if the owner recognized the child as theirs. Co-ownership of concubines occurred so it wasn't a done deal that the child belonged to the owner. The owner also had complete freedom in recognizing the child or not. In any case, manumission upon the death of owner - not pregnancy, as falsely claimed - is well documented.

Bring the documentation.

Look here for sources http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/90/410170.page#5687504

I should note you never brought any sources concubines were freed upon pregnancy.

I did but you did not read carefully. Go back and reread.