Why Some People Convert to Islam

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 .

As are those who rape women, wife or concubine. The permission to have sex is not the same as condoning rape. The captives spouses were dead. Many of their relatives might be dead. What would you have done with them?

So many alternatives to forcible sex...
- reunite them with their surviving relatives,
- create a legal framework that supports women who need to work,
- monastery,
- poor house,
- a house of worship (theirs or yours) gives them alms, food and housing

Basically, anything besides forcing sex on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But there is such a thing as a devout Muslim who has only the most passing knowledge of the Koran. This pretty much suffices--one doesn't have to have recourse to Arabic or learned scholars or have a really deep understanding of what is in the Koran; I maintain that to say so borders on heresy.

Further, you don't have to have any knowledge of the Koran to convert. All that conversion to Islam requires is a recitation of "there is no god but God...." in front of witnesses. It does not require that you demonstrate knowledge of the Koran.

If you do not trust others to translate the Quran, then you must learn Quranic Arabic yourself.

It's not me who doesn't trust others. It's an article of faith for the Muslim discourse that the Quran is untranslatable and all translations are too feeble to convey the glory of the holy book. That's why, when reasonable people express doubts about something in the Quran, they are told to sit down and shut up because "you don't understand Arabic, and you have to."

Meh... Not an article of faith. The Quran is poetry and like most poetry the beauty of the original is extremely challenging to replicate in translation. But this is really an aesthetic matter--not that aesthetics don't matter to worship (see the Messiah, for example).

But it is a commonly held view, which explains all those Indonesian school children doing Koran recital contests in a language they don't understand at all.

Do you think the fact they can recite it from memory without understanding a word of the Arabic makes them better Muslims than those who can only read the Koran in their native tongue? Or than those who cannot read it at all because they are illiterate and in fact have little to no exposure to the Koran except for perhaps the prayers their elders have taught them because they are nomadic? Likewise, there are plenty of Muslim girls in the Middle East and Africa who have never gone to school, have never have gone to mosque, but learn their prayers from their mother and that's about it for their Islamic education. All are still considered good Muslims.

Besides to really understand the Arabic, you have to have very deep knowledge of Arabic as it existed in the seventh century--the language has moved on and the meanings of words has changed. So you could be very literate in Arabic, but if you are not steeped in 7th century linguistics you still may not really understand large bits of the Koran. (That is why PP keeps referring to various scholars--they are providing their modern Arabic translations of passages written in archaic Koranic Arabic.)

Really very silly to tell someone to shut up because they don't speak Arabic. The PPs don't speak seventh century Arabic either. If they are diligent and want to get at the true meaning of words in sentences, they look them up--reams of websites more than willing to tell you what the words meant in seventh century Arabia (not all really passing a scholarship test, though). And, in the age of the internet, all this linguistic wisdom is just as available in English, that being the most common written language in Pakistan, a really large Muslim country full of people who don't speak Arabic but are quite serious about their religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Meh... Not an article of faith. The Quran is poetry and like most poetry the beauty of the original is extremely challenging to replicate in translation. But this is really an aesthetic matter--not that aesthetics don't matter to worship (see the Messiah, for example).

But it is a commonly held view, which explains all those Indonesian school children doing Koran recital contests in a language they don't understand at all.

Do you think the fact they can recite it from memory without understanding a word of the Arabic makes them better Muslims than those who can only read the Koran in their native tongue? Or than those who cannot read it at all because they are illiterate and in fact have little to no exposure to the Koran except for perhaps the prayers their elders have taught them because they are nomadic? Likewise, there are plenty of Muslim girls in the Middle East and Africa who have never gone to school, have never have gone to mosque, but learn their prayers from their mother and that's about it for their Islamic education. All are still considered good Muslims.

Besides to really understand the Arabic, you have to have very deep knowledge of Arabic as it existed in the seventh century--the language has moved on and the meanings of words has changed. So you could be very literate in Arabic, but if you are not steeped in 7th century linguistics you still may not really understand large bits of the Koran. (That is why PP keeps referring to various scholars--they are providing their modern Arabic translations of passages written in archaic Koranic Arabic.)

Really very silly to tell someone to shut up because they don't speak Arabic. The PPs don't speak seventh century Arabic either. If they are diligent and want to get at the true meaning of words in sentences, they look them up--reams of websites more than willing to tell you what the words meant in seventh century Arabia (not all really passing a scholarship test, though). And, in the age of the internet, all this linguistic wisdom is just as available in English, that being the most common written language in Pakistan, a really large Muslim country full of people who don't speak Arabic but are quite serious about their religion.

You'd get no argument from me. But give me your opinion on a serious question, though: Must a good Muslim believe in the Quran, chapter and verse? Can a good Muslim reject or dislike parts of the Quran? And still remain a devout Muslim?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 .

As are those who rape women, wife or concubine. The permission to have sex is not the same as condoning rape. The captives spouses were dead. Many of their relatives might be dead. What would you have done with them?

So many alternatives to forcible sex...
- reunite them with their surviving relatives,
- create a legal framework that supports women who need to work,
- monastery,
- poor house,
- a house of worship (theirs or yours) gives them alms, food and housing

Basically, anything besides forcing sex on them.

The Koran set down rules for the early stages of Islamic conquest to provide order and discipline. These were no more barbaric than the prevailing practices and in many cases were more civilized. These really should be viewed as a historical artifact. But again we run into the problem of mainstream Islam refusing to see important parts of the Koran as very specific to the age. Instead, they maintain that all parts of it are applicable forever. (This is the problem of the co-Eternal Koran I've mentioned before.)

So PP gets stuck defending an ancient practice when none of us would want to be in the position of defending much of the Crusades or the Spanish inquisition. She coyly alludes in her arguments to historical context but can't come right out and say that those lines are about the past and have no relevance to modern times because that would violate the view that the Koran is in fact in its totality applicable to all times and places.

i get the sense that PP is subconsciously there, though, but it would take a great deal of--dare I say--fortitude to come out and say the Koran is not co-eternal and not everything it says is valid today. And further that ISIS is barbaric and heretical for claiming they can do all that they do in God's name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The Koran set down rules for the early stages of Islamic conquest to provide order and discipline. These were no more barbaric than the prevailing practices and in many cases were more civilized. These really should be viewed as a historical artifact. But again we run into the problem of mainstream Islam refusing to see important parts of the Koran as very specific to the age. Instead, they maintain that all parts of it are applicable forever. (This is the problem of the co-Eternal Koran I've mentioned before.)

So PP gets stuck defending an ancient practice when none of us would want to be in the position of defending much of the Crusades or the Spanish inquisition. She coyly alludes in her arguments to historical context but can't come right out and say that those lines are about the past and have no relevance to modern times because that would violate the view that the Koran is in fact in its totality applicable to all times and places.

i get the sense that PP is subconsciously there, though, but it would take a great deal of--dare I say--fortitude to come out and say the Koran is not co-eternal and not everything it says is valid today. And further that ISIS is barbaric and heretical for claiming they can do all that they do in God's name.

I agree with you but a very serious obstacle to the candid Muslim discourse is the burden of "today I perfected your religion for you." It is an article of faith that the Quran is eternal, immutable, good for all days and ages. It puts thinking Muslims into a very uncomfortable position of having to defend practices that were advanced at their day and age, but left in the dust in the 21st century. It makes them say weird things like "Quran bans slavery. It doesn't? Oh anyway, Quranic slavery is not like white slavery. What's so bad about it anyway?" It's not specific to PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

i get the sense that PP is subconsciously there, though, but it would take a great deal of--dare I say--fortitude to come out and say the Koran is not co-eternal and not everything it says is valid today. And further that ISIS is barbaric and heretical for claiming they can do all that they do in God's name.

I don't think the ISIS bit is true, though, plenty of mainstream and conservative Muslim groups have rejected ISIS publicly.

[Anonymous]

Anybody think this thread should be locked because it's just rehashing old arguments?

Anybody want to keep it open because you think it's still great?

Go over to the Which Islam thread and tell Jeff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meh... Not an article of faith. The Quran is poetry and like most poetry the beauty of the original is extremely challenging to replicate in translation. But this is really an aesthetic matter--not that aesthetics don't matter to worship (see the Messiah, for example).

But it is a commonly held view, which explains all those Indonesian school children doing Koran recital contests in a language they don't understand at all.

Do you think the fact they can recite it from memory without understanding a word of the Arabic makes them better Muslims than those who can only read the Koran in their native tongue? Or than those who cannot read it at all because they are illiterate and in fact have little to no exposure to the Koran except for perhaps the prayers their elders have taught them because they are nomadic? Likewise, there are plenty of Muslim girls in the Middle East and Africa who have never gone to school, have never have gone to mosque, but learn their prayers from their mother and that's about it for their Islamic education. All are still considered good Muslims.

Besides to really understand the Arabic, you have to have very deep knowledge of Arabic as it existed in the seventh century--the language has moved on and the meanings of words has changed. So you could be very literate in Arabic, but if you are not steeped in 7th century linguistics you still may not really understand large bits of the Koran. (That is why PP keeps referring to various scholars--they are providing their modern Arabic translations of passages written in archaic Koranic Arabic.)

Really very silly to tell someone to shut up because they don't speak Arabic. The PPs don't speak seventh century Arabic either. If they are diligent and want to get at the true meaning of words in sentences, they look them up--reams of websites more than willing to tell you what the words meant in seventh century Arabia (not all really passing a scholarship test, though). And, in the age of the internet, all this linguistic wisdom is just as available in English, that being the most common written language in Pakistan, a really large Muslim country full of people who don't speak Arabic but are quite serious about their religion.

You'd get no argument from me. But give me your opinion on a serious question, though: Must a good Muslim believe in the Quran, chapter and verse? Can a good Muslim reject or dislike parts of the Quran? And still remain a devout Muslim?

My thesis was that I think it is perfectly possible to be a good Muslim knowing almost nothing about the Koran. It does not follow, though, that one can be a good Muslim and reject the Quran outright. However, it would be possible, at least according to medieval Islamic theologians to question much of it or believe that parts are not literally true but rather must be interpreted and adapted in the context of the times and social evolution. That is, one could view it as an evolving document that can be flexibly applied and parts could be rejected as having applicability in the present day (useful as they may have been in the past).

This is kind of like the arguments about the US constitution, a much more modern document. Some argue original intent (and essentially there were actions taken in the 12th century to say the meaning of the Koran was frozen at the time it was revealed to Mohammed), while others say it is an adaptable living document. People who say that today about the Quran are generally viewed with suspicion, but it was an extremely strong strand of thought in the latter part of the first millenium. They eventually lost the argument but they weren't considered bad Muslims.

[Anonymous]

I think you will find very, very few "others" who are willing to say in public that parts of the Quran are basically obsolete and should no longer be entertained.

I agree with this point of view but the fact of the matter is that it is not acceptable in today's Muslim discourse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The Koran set down rules for the early stages of Islamic conquest to provide order and discipline. These were no more barbaric than the prevailing practices and in many cases were more civilized. These really should be viewed as a historical artifact. But again we run into the problem of mainstream Islam refusing to see important parts of the Koran as very specific to the age. Instead, they maintain that all parts of it are applicable forever. (This is the problem of the co-Eternal Koran I've mentioned before.)

So PP gets stuck defending an ancient practice when none of us would want to be in the position of defending much of the Crusades or the Spanish inquisition. She coyly alludes in her arguments to historical context but can't come right out and say that those lines are about the past and have no relevance to modern times because that would violate the view that the Koran is in fact in its totality applicable to all times and places.

i get the sense that PP is subconsciously there, though, but it would take a great deal of--dare I say--fortitude to come out and say the Koran is not co-eternal and not everything it says is valid today. And further that ISIS is barbaric and heretical for claiming they can do all that they do in God's name.

I agree with you but a very serious obstacle to the candid Muslim discourse is the burden of "today I perfected your religion for you." It is an article of faith that the Quran is eternal, immutable, good for all days and ages. It puts thinking Muslims into a very uncomfortable position of having to defend practices that were advanced at their day and age, but left in the dust in the 21st century. It makes them say weird things like "Quran bans slavery. It doesn't? Oh anyway, Quranic slavery is not like white slavery. What's so bad about it anyway?" It's not specific to PP.

The co-eternal Koran is not in the Koran. Medieval scholars debated this a lot and many thought it was a document that could be adapted to the time and place. There is no reason why this debate could not be opened again--not sure why some caliph closing the door of ijtihad (ability to make your own interpretations of Islam to adapt to the times) in the 12th century is a barrier to this, but a lot of Muslims think this is the case. Who was he--God? Surely not.

This is an essential problem to the relevance of Islam today and its ability to counter groups like ISIS that revive barbaric practices saying they are Koranically sanctioned.

Clearly, there is a lack of fortitude in educated, intelligent people to question publicly something that is presumed to have been a closed subject for over 800 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The co-eternal Koran is not in the Koran. Medieval scholars debated this a lot and many thought it was a document that could be adapted to the time and place. There is no reason why this debate could not be opened again--not sure why some caliph closing the door of ijtihad (ability to make your own interpretations of Islam to adapt to the times) in the 12th century is a barrier to this, but a lot of Muslims think this is the case. Who was he--God? Surely not.

This is an essential problem to the relevance of Islam today and its ability to counter groups like ISIS that revive barbaric practices saying they are Koranically sanctioned.

Clearly, there is a lack of fortitude in educated, intelligent people to question publicly something that is presumed to have been a closed subject for over 800 years.

With that in mind, I pleased to introduce you to Dr. Khalid Mohammad, someone who I enjoy reading, and with whose approach I sympathize.

And I'm not even Muslim.

http://forpeoplewhothink.org/

[Anonymous]

I'm a fan of Irshad Manji, a Muslim and a lesbian, who has called for fresh thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The co-eternal Koran is not in the Koran. Medieval scholars debated this a lot and many thought it was a document that could be adapted to the time and place. There is no reason why this debate could not be opened again--not sure why some caliph closing the door of ijtihad (ability to make your own interpretations of Islam to adapt to the times) in the 12th century is a barrier to this, but a lot of Muslims think this is the case. Who was he--God? Surely not.

This is an essential problem to the relevance of Islam today and its ability to counter groups like ISIS that revive barbaric practices saying they are Koranically sanctioned.

Clearly, there is a lack of fortitude in educated, intelligent people to question publicly something that is presumed to have been a closed subject for over 800 years.

With that in mind, I pleased to introduce you to Dr. Khalid Mohammad, someone who I enjoy reading, and with whose approach I sympathize.

And I'm not even Muslim.

http://forpeoplewhothink.org/

PP here. For the record I'm not Muslim either. But I studied a fair amount about Arabia at the time of Islam as well as early and medieval Islam, in college. I kind of struggle with recalling all the stuff because it was a pretty long time ago and don't think I should have to do research to post on DCUM.

In any event, I made my mind up then that if I were a Muslim, I'd be a Mutazilite. This was the group that was on the losing end of the co-eternal argument. I am not fond of religious fundamentalism and slavish adherence to every word of ancient texts. (Very interesting for scholarship purposes but for real life it is the big picture of religion that matters.)

As a friend said, "So if you were a Muslim, you'd be a heretic?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 .

As are those who rape women, wife or concubine. The permission to have sex is not the same as condoning rape. The captives spouses were dead. Many of their relatives might be dead. What would you have done with them?

So many alternatives to forcible sex...
- reunite them with their surviving relatives,
If the people who you are at war with are capturing your women, why would you reunite the women you captured with their relatives unless they agreed to do the same. Warring groups did negotiate the trading of slaves, however.
- create a legal framework that supports women who need to work,
Regardless of their religion, few women worked. Slaves worked and were compensated with food, clothing, shelter.
- monastery,
It is unislamic for women to desire a monastic life. Women are encouraged to get married.
- poor house,
- a house of worship (theirs or yours) gives them alms, food and housing
At the time, women left to live alone, even with other women, were at risk.

Basically, anything besides forcing sex on them.

There is no Quranic evidence to suggest sex was forced upon them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 .

As are those who rape women, wife or concubine. The permission to have sex is not the same as condoning rape. The captives spouses were dead. Many of their relatives might be dead. What would you have done with them?

So many alternatives to forcible sex...
- reunite them with their surviving relatives,
If the people who you are at war with are capturing your women, why would you reunite the women you captured with their relatives unless they agreed to do the same. Warring groups did negotiate the trading of slaves, however.
- create a legal framework that supports women who need to work,
Regardless of their religion, few women worked. Slaves worked and were compensated with food, clothing, shelter.
- monastery,
It is unislamic for women to desire a monastic life. Women are encouraged to get married.
- poor house,
- a house of worship (theirs or yours) gives them alms, food and housing
At the time, women left to live alone, even with other women, were at risk.
Basically, anything besides forcing sex on them.

There is no Quranic evidence to suggest sex was forced upon them.

I'm sort of stunned that you won't just let this die. Or that you don't realize how unsatisfactory your answers sound to non-Muslim ears.

OK. I get that we're ruling out convents and women working because God wants women to marry and not work. I don't like it for myself, but I get it.

I don't get the argument about trading slaves. As an argument for keeping women captives as your sex slaves, this falls very far short. Muslim conquests were usually a case of running over towns in North Africa or to the East - often the existing culture was completely vanquished and had no prisoners of their own to trade with. I get that Muslim conquerors often let male slaves take positions of authority. But where does that leave the female slaves? Better, don't take prisoners and make them sex slaves (women of your right hand) in the first place.

For the rest of your objections to protecting women outside if concubinage, I'm starting to agree with PPs about how the Quran is rooted in 7th century Arabia, and it's your job to keep telling us those social mores are still valid today.

I think you also need to tag as your opinion your statement that the "There is no Quranic evidence to suggest sex was forced upon them. " The word concubine (women of your right hand) says they were required to have sex - otherwise the Quran would have referred to these women simply as "captives."