Why Some People Convert to Islam

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

5) It demands we treat prisoners of war, captives, slaves well (even though no one hears about owning slaves anymore!)…

It's like that whole 20-page conversation about concubines--women captured in war, rape, whether they get freed if they become pregnant or on the death of the master--never happened. SMH.

Oh it happened alright. You just ignored the parts you didn't want to read.

Happy to help by recapping that discussion.

When Muslim soldiers capture a village,
- They may distribute the female prisoners of war as concubines among themselves (per the Quran).
- The women are raped. These new concubines have no choice about having sex with their new masters (who probably just killed their husbands or fathers).
- If the concubine becomes pregnant with her rapist's child, she is freed upon her master's death. (This point took many pages but, contrary to what Muslim PP argued, the BBC link she provided herself proved the concubine is not freed at pregnancy or at the birth of her child, but only if she outlives her master.)

Back it up with the Quran or bow out.

Since you asked. For those who don't know, "those whom your right hands possess" is a euphemism for "slave women." Additional Quranic verses support taking prisoners of war as slaves, and I can add those verses in a later post if you want me to.

Qur’an 33:50—O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee . . .

Also,

Qur’an 4:24—Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . .

Qur’an 23:1-6—The Believers must (eventually) win through—those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex; except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess—for (in their case) they are free from blame.

Qur’an 70:22-30—Not so those devoted to Prayer—those who remain steadfast to their prayer; and those in whose wealth is a recognized right for the (needy) who asks and him who is prevented (for some reason from asking); and those who hold to the truth of the Day of Judgement; and those who fear the displeasure of their Lord—for their Lord’s displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquility—and those who guard their chastity, except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess—for (then) they are not to be blamed.

(Editorial note. I can't believe you think your rhetorical strategies are working for you. Whenever you make something up, whenever you challenge someone to provide proof, you seem to be just crossing your fingers and hoping that nobody will call you out. But somebody always does call you out. Do you never learn?)

Everybody had slaves in those days. Wheres the Quranic reference that encourages or permits rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bzzzz....I present to you Sahih (Sahih!) Muslim, Book 33, hadith 6395.


Abu Tufail reported: I visited Abu Sariha Hudhaifa b. Usaid al-Ghifari who said: I listened with these two ears of mine Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The semen stays in the womb for forty nights , then the angel, gives it a shape. Zubair said: I think that he said: One who fashions that and decides whether he would be male or female. Then he (the angel) says: Would his limbs be full or imperfect? And then the Lord makes thein full and perfect or otherwise as He desires. Then he says: My Lord, what about his livelihood, and his death and what about his disposition? And then the Lord decides about his misfortune and fortune.

Forty days? For realz?

PS: The forty days business is used in Judaism extensively. Hmmm...I wonders where that came from....Hmmm..

Not all hadith are reliable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, besides inheritance one has to consider guardianship of minor children. Needless to say, only men can be guardians.

So for the seven-eighths of the estate going to the children (assuming one is male; otherwise it would be less), why is it just in today's world to a woman who maybe has an MBA or a law degree that she cannot serve as guardian for these funds, and instead has to suffer some male guardian with perhaps less education and perhaps less than honorable intentions?

Sorry Sweetie, no educated woman in America would find this a good or just deal.

Within the Muslim community and Islamic traditions, conservatives and Islamic feminists have used Islamic doctrine as the basis for discussion of women's rights, drawing on the Quran, the hadith, and the lives of prominent women in the early period of Muslim history as evidence. Where conservatives have seen evidence that existing gender asymmetries are divinely ordained, feminists have seen more egalitarian ideals in early Islam. Still others have argued that this discourse is essentialist and historical, and have urged that Islamic doctrine not be the only framework within which discussion occurs.

In 1967, Iran adopted a set of progressive family laws, the Family Protection Act, which granted women more rights in the family; those rights were expanded in the Family Protection Law of 1975. Though the act was annulled in 1979 after the Islamic Revolution when Sharia law was re-introduced, the Family Protection Acts still stand out today for having been ahead of their time, particularly in a Muslim-majority country.

In September 1979, a modified version of the Family Protection Law's divorce provisions were introduced and adopted in Iran. The minimum age of marriage was moved from 9 to the onset of puberty. Child custody, no longer an inalienable right of fathers, is now up to the decision of Special Civil Courts. A 1992 law amended regulations on divorce, extending a wife’s access to divorce granting women more grounds for requesting a divorce.

In Islamic tradition, a women does not have to give her pre-marriage possessions to her husband and receives a dower which she then owns. Any earnings that a woman receives through employment or business, after marriage, is hers to keep and need not contribute towards family expenses. This is because, once the marriage is consummated, the financial responsibility for reasonable housing, food and other household expenses for the family, including the spouse, falls entirely on the husband. In traditional Islamic law, a woman is also not responsible for the upkeep of the home and may demand payment for any work she does in the domestic sphere.

I offer this information lest you forget Islami law is different from religion. The whole of the Muslim world does not live in Saudi Arabia. Muslims in the Middle East who are working to improve human rights and the laws they are governed by and should be supported. Denouncing the religion they want to keep is counterproductive to resolving the terrorist threat they live with. A threat the kills far more Muslims than any other ethnic/religions group.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My above post actually answers both questions.

Dr. Moore doesn't speak Arabic. The Quranic verses dealing with "embryology" have been presented to him in translation, no doubt annotated to lead him to the water and make him drink.

There is no such thing as "female reproductive fluid". Nutfah doesn't say what it is mixed with. You still didn't address all the competing theories Quran puts forth (man is made from...clay? earth? water? dust? nothing?) . The female part, or the egg, is never mentioned in the Quran.

I'm going to get warmed up and post that ridiculous hadith about "male reproductive fluid is white, female reproductive fluid is yellow, whichever prevails, the child will be of that gender."

Quranic embryology: a tedious, awkward regurgitation of Galenic, Talmudic and Persian beliefs.

Have at it. Until you learn arabic you won't understand. And thats ok by me.

Have fun believing in a book that you have to be Arab to understand.

Muslims do not have a problem understanding the Quran.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Excuse me, was I talking to you? Are you the one with the martyr complex? Read through the posts before you reply. I was not speaking to you.

Here is the date and post stamp of my post to MUSLIMA, NOT YOU, in the thread, "Tell Me About Islam", in which I said why I believe Islamophobes are fearful of Muslims, followed by the actual post to her. This was a post directed specifically to Muslima. It was after I posted this directly to her that you and your islamophobes demanded cites and resources. But who was communicating with you? So frankly, I don't need to "have it out" with you or anyone else for that matter. I expressed to her my belief. But perhaps due to your martyr complex, you thought I was speaking personally to you...again.

Congratulations on your newfound acquired knowledge of Islam after having been impregnated by a Muslim man. Kudos.

Oh dear. When you post on DCUM, you are talking to EVERYONE. If you want to talk to Muslima, send her a private message. Glory be, she made it easy. Everything you say in the open is fair game to take apart.

Just to recap: your claim about "Islam grows by conversion not by immigration" is bunk. Just for any new readers. You made that up

Yep, impregnated and married, and when he dies, I'm getting 100%. Not the crumbs after his brothers pick over. One hundred percent. You are welcome.

Your husband is a lucky man. And you sound like a winner yourself. And because my post was to Muslima I will choose not to reply. But just for fun I might post the statistics here or elsewhere and then ignore your diatribes afterward. Fun to watch a dog chase his tail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Back it up with the Quran or bow out.

Since you asked. For those who don't know, "those whom your right hands possess" is a euphemism for "slave women." Additional Quranic verses support taking prisoners of war as slaves, and I can add those verses in a later post if you want me to.

Qur’an 33:50—O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee . . .

Also,

Qur’an 4:24—Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . .

Qur’an 23:1-6—The Believers must (eventually) win through—those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex; except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess—for (in their case) they are free from blame.

Qur’an 70:22-30—Not so those devoted to Prayer—those who remain steadfast to their prayer; and those in whose wealth is a recognized right for the (needy) who asks and him who is prevented (for some reason from asking); and those who hold to the truth of the Day of Judgement; and those who fear the displeasure of their Lord—for their Lord’s displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquility—and those who guard their chastity, except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess—for (then) they are not to be blamed.

(Editorial note. I can't believe you think your rhetorical strategies are working for you. Whenever you make something up, whenever you challenge someone to provide proof, you seem to be just crossing your fingers and hoping that nobody will call you out. But somebody always does call you out. Do you never learn?)

Everybody had slaves in those days. Wheres the Quranic reference that encourages or permits rape.

Since you ask. Concubine (those whom your right hand possesses) by definition refers to sex, and all the quotes above are in the context of defining who the Muslim man can have sex with. In the bolder part, what do you think "we have made lawful into you...those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee . . .[/b]" means? That the Muslim man can have sex with captured women.

You can't possibly be arguing that she's consenting to sex with the guy who killed her husband or her other male family members. Or can you? On the concubine thread you cited a few verses that say a Muslim man can't sell his concubines out to other men (he can't prostitute them). You never proved that "sex with your captor" is somehow better than, or different from, rape.

Honestly, you must be a troll trying to provoke people into spelling out the most difficult parts of Islam. Anybody who's watched even 1 episode of 1 crime procedural knows the first rule of arguing a case: don't ask questions you don't know the answer to, or questions you don't want the jury to hear the answer to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Back it up with the Quran or bow out.

Since you asked. For those who don't know, "those whom your right hands possess" is a euphemism for "slave women." Additional Quranic verses support taking prisoners of war as slaves, and I can add those verses in a later post if you want me to.

Qur’an 33:50—O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee . . .

Also,

Qur’an 4:24—Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . .

Qur’an 23:1-6—The Believers must (eventually) win through—those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex; except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess—for (in their case) they are free from blame.

Qur’an 70:22-30—Not so those devoted to Prayer—those who remain steadfast to their prayer; and those in whose wealth is a recognized right for the (needy) who asks and him who is prevented (for some reason from asking); and those who hold to the truth of the Day of Judgement; and those who fear the displeasure of their Lord—for their Lord’s displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquility—and those who guard their chastity, except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess—for (then) they are not to be blamed.

(Editorial note. I can't believe you think your rhetorical strategies are working for you. Whenever you make something up, whenever you challenge someone to provide proof, you seem to be just crossing your fingers and hoping that nobody will call you out. But somebody always does call you out. Do you never learn?)

Everybody had slaves in those days. Wheres the Quranic reference that encourages or permits rape.

Since you ask. Concubine (those whom your right hand possesses) by definition refers to sex, and all the quotes above are in the context of defining who the Muslim man can have sex with. In the bolder part, what do you think "we have made lawful into you...those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee . . .[/b]" means? That the Muslim man can have sex with captured women.

You can't possibly be arguing that she's consenting to sex with the guy who killed her husband or her other male family members. Or can you? On the concubine thread you cited a few verses that say a Muslim man can't sell his concubines out to other men (he can't prostitute them). You never proved that "sex with your captor" is somehow better than, or different from, rape.

Honestly, you must be a troll trying to provoke people into spelling out the most difficult parts of Islam. Anybody who's watched even 1 episode of 1 crime procedural knows the first rule of arguing a case: don't ask questions you don't know the answer to, or questions you don't want the jury to hear the answer to.

I read that the Christian crusaders used to also take female slaves after war, and quite often they would be raped and sold. Apparently this was not uncommon at the time. How is Islam different in this regard then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

5) It demands we treat prisoners of war, captives, slaves well (even though no one hears about owning slaves anymore!)…

It's like that whole 20-page conversation about concubines--women captured in war, rape, whether they get freed if they become pregnant or on the death of the master--never happened. SMH.

Oh it happened alright. You just ignored the parts you didn't want to read.

Happy to help by recapping that discussion.

When Muslim soldiers capture a village,
- They may distribute the female prisoners of war as concubines among themselves (per the Quran).
- The women are raped. These new concubines have no choice about having sex with their new masters (who probably just killed their husbands or fathers).
- If the concubine becomes pregnant with her rapist's child, she is freed upon her master's death. (This point took many pages but, contrary to what Muslim PP argued, the BBC link she provided herself proved the concubine is not freed at pregnancy or at the birth of her child, but only if she outlives her master.)

Back it up with the Quran or bow out.

Since you asked. For those who don't know, "those whom your right hands possess" is a euphemism for "slave women." Additional Quranic verses support taking prisoners of war as slaves, and I can add those verses in a later post if you want me to.

Qur’an 33:50—O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee . . .

Also,

Qur’an 4:24—Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . .

Qur’an 23:1-6—The Believers must (eventually) win through—those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex; except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess—for (in their case) they are free from blame.

Qur’an 70:22-30—Not so those devoted to Prayer—those who remain steadfast to their prayer; and those in whose wealth is a recognized right for the (needy) who asks and him who is prevented (for some reason from asking); and those who hold to the truth of the Day of Judgement; and those who fear the displeasure of their Lord—for their Lord’s displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquility—and those who guard their chastity, except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess—for (then) they are not to be blamed.

(Editorial note. I can't believe you think your rhetorical strategies are working for you. Whenever you make something up, whenever you challenge someone to provide proof, you seem to be just crossing your fingers and hoping that nobody will call you out. But somebody always does call you out. Do you never learn?)

Everybody had slaves in those days. Wheres the Quranic reference that encourages or permits rape.

If she asks to be freed, apparently the owner is compelled to negotiate her freedom (via contract, services, trading of slaves, etc). So it seems strange a God would ask the owner to respect the slaves wishes in one regard but then also permit brutal rape of her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My above post actually answers both questions.

Dr. Moore doesn't speak Arabic. The Quranic verses dealing with "embryology" have been presented to him in translation, no doubt annotated to lead him to the water and make him drink.

There is no such thing as "female reproductive fluid". Nutfah doesn't say what it is mixed with. You still didn't address all the competing theories Quran puts forth (man is made from...clay? earth? water? dust? nothing?) . The female part, or the egg, is never mentioned in the Quran.

I'm going to get warmed up and post that ridiculous hadith about "male reproductive fluid is white, female reproductive fluid is yellow, whichever prevails, the child will be of that gender."

Quranic embryology: a tedious, awkward regurgitation of Galenic, Talmudic and Persian beliefs.

Can anyone here speak Arabic here and translate the words?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My above post actually answers both questions.

Dr. Moore doesn't speak Arabic. The Quranic verses dealing with "embryology" have been presented to him in translation, no doubt annotated to lead him to the water and make him drink.

There is no such thing as "female reproductive fluid". Nutfah doesn't say what it is mixed with. You still didn't address all the competing theories Quran puts forth (man is made from...clay? earth? water? dust? nothing?) . The female part, or the egg, is never mentioned in the Quran.

I'm going to get warmed up and post that ridiculous hadith about "male reproductive fluid is white, female reproductive fluid is yellow, whichever prevails, the child will be of that gender."

Quranic embryology: a tedious, awkward regurgitation of Galenic, Talmudic and Persian beliefs.

Can anyone here speak Arabic here and translate the words?

PP insists, when she has no other argument to fall back on, that people can't understand Islam unless they know Arabic. She has also argued in various places that one cannot properly learn Islam from books or history, but rather it requires endless discussions with Islamic scholars. (She may be esousing the latter because she thinks nonbelievers who carry out these discussions with Islamic teachers are more susceptible to conversion.)

None of this is Islamic, and is almost antithetical to it, one of the reasons to think the PP could actually be an Islamaphobe posing as an Islamic apologist.

Islam requires one simple belief: "There is no god but God and Mohammed is His prophet." (Then you are supposed to faithfully do a couple of practices: praying five times a day, fasting in Ramadan, giving zakat to the poor and making the pilgrimage to Mekka (if you can). If you believe in that one statement and do the practices then you are a religious Muslim in good standing.

Islam emphatically is not a gnostic religion that requires special knowledge available only to the properly initiated to understand. PP's insistence that you can't possibly understand Islam without knowing Arabic or without recourse to scholars borders on heresy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I read that the Christian crusaders used to also take female slaves after war, and quite often they would be raped and sold. Apparently this was not uncommon at the time. How is Islam different in this regard then?

Islam is different from Christianity in this regard because there is a provision in the Quran for raping female captives, but there is no provision in the New Testament for raping captives.

As you'll recall, you tried really hard on the Concubines thread to show that Christianity allows concubinage (even outside of war). You failed because the New Testament never sets up a formal structure of sanctioned concubinage (unlike the Quran) and Christianity basically forbids sex outside of marriage.

Christians aren't supposed to even be waging war, for that matter.

Those Crusaders were doing unChristian things, I don't think you'll hear any disagreement about that. Sort of like IS today .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If she asks to be freed, apparently the owner is compelled to negotiate her freedom (via contract, services, trading of slaves, etc). So it seems strange a God would ask the owner to respect the slaves wishes in one regard but then also permit brutal rape of her.

Right, it does seem strange. As you'll recall, we had a several-pages-long discussion on the concubines thread about whether this negotiation provision was available to the vast majority of sex slaves, or not really, given that most sex slaves don't have any economic resources or other power that levels the negotiating field with their masters. That's when we ended up discussing pregnancy as the only leverage available to most sex slaves. You remember that discussion, don't you? That's when you insisted a sex slave becomes free when she becomes pregnant, but unfortunately you posted a BBC link that said the pregnant sex slave is only freed after her master dies.

PP has gotta be a troll. Who else would make us spell out discussions she already knows will be awkward for her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Excuse me, was I talking to you? Are you the one with the martyr complex? Read through the posts before you reply. I was not speaking to you.

Here is the date and post stamp of my post to MUSLIMA, NOT YOU, in the thread, "Tell Me About Islam", in which I said why I believe Islamophobes are fearful of Muslims, followed by the actual post to her. This was a post directed specifically to Muslima. It was after I posted this directly to her that you and your islamophobes demanded cites and resources. But who was communicating with you? So frankly, I don't need to "have it out" with you or anyone else for that matter. I expressed to her my belief. But perhaps due to your martyr complex, you thought I was speaking personally to you...again.

Congratulations on your newfound acquired knowledge of Islam after having been impregnated by a Muslim man. Kudos.

Oh dear. When you post on DCUM, you are talking to EVERYONE. If you want to talk to Muslima, send her a private message. Glory be, she made it easy. Everything you say in the open is fair game to take apart.

Just to recap: your claim about "Islam grows by conversion not by immigration" is bunk. Just for any new readers. You made that up

Yep, impregnated and married, and when he dies, I'm getting 100%. Not the crumbs after his brothers pick over. One hundred percent. You are welcome.

Your husband is a lucky man. And you sound like a winner yourself. And because my post was to Muslima I will choose not to reply. But just for fun I might post the statistics here or elsewhere and then ignore your diatribes afterward. Fun to watch a dog chase his tail.

You won't, 'cause you don't have them. And the reason you don't have them is 'cause they don't exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslims do not have a problem understanding the Quran.

The majority of Muslims have never read the Quran in Arabic. They don't have a problem understanding it because they are content with "Allah knows best" and "it is not fitting for a believer to contradict Allah's messenger."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Islam requires one simple belief: "There is no god but God and Mohammed is His prophet." (Then you are supposed to faithfully do a couple of practices: praying five times a day, fasting in Ramadan, giving zakat to the poor and making the pilgrimage to Mekka (if you can). If you believe in that one statement and do the practices then you are a religious Muslim in good standing.

Islam emphatically is not a gnostic religion that requires special knowledge available only to the properly initiated to understand. PP's insistence that you can't possibly understand Islam without knowing Arabic or without recourse to scholars borders on heresy.

I disagree, because the belief in Muhammad as a messenger requires belief in his message, i.e. the Quran. There is no such thing as a devout Muslim who doesn't believe the Quran or rejects parts of it.

I agree that the tafsir industry in its present form was born out of the desire for job security for the unemployable.