Be Wary of Racism and Islamophobes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay, your next point...You said:

" That verse describes the proper treatment of women who were from pagan tribes yet wanted to be Muslims, and wanted to join Muslims at the place where they lived. Hence the very long list of requirements to prove that they were in fact Muslim. Why did women have to be perfect to make an oath? Did anyone apply these standards to men who wanted to make an oath of allegiance? "

Remember that an oath of allegiance may be given before the individual acquires power, as the individual has newly acquired power, or after the individual has held power for some time. In any of these situations, an oath of allegiance to become a new member of their tribe meant a vote for the individual to either acquire power or to retain power. The larger the volume of allegiances, the greater the individual's power. The important point is this verse gave women political relevance because it meant they could vote for a candidate or seek membership in Muhammad's state WITHOUT a male guardian speaking for them. It meant their independent oath carried the same political relevance as a man's. If this kind of right or political relevance was already granted to women in most other cultures, states, or religious systems at the time, then please provide the scriptural proof as we have done here with the Quran.

And if this verse is still not clear enough evidence for you that Islam made women politically relevant, then verse 38 of Ash Shurra should since it uses plural language and states believers should decide all relevant matters collectively through mutual consultation.

I don't think you've shown this verse gives women voting rights or political relevance. It showed the rights of Muslims to join other Muslims. If these Muslims happened to be female, they had to clear a long list of requirements.

[Anonymous]

PP, your implication that converting women who left their pagan husbands were allowed to take the oath only because they no longer had a guardian is false.

The oath of allegiance was taken by all men, women, and even some children. Even if a woman had a Muslim guardian, she could take the oath herself. A guardian's approval was not necessary to take the oath. Even children sometimes took the oath, and we all know children have guardians.

This oath was the precursor to modern voting. That it was available to women regardless of their guardians approval set the stage for women's voting rights because it made womens choice of a ruler or to be a citizen of a differenr nation politically relevant.

If you read one verse in the Quran and it doesn't provide the full answer, you should read the entire Quran, in arabic, and study history.

Verse 38 of Ash Shura which says EVERYONE should participate in shurra (consultation) for relevant matters also confirms that women could exercuse their political right.

[Anonymous]

Now, as for your side point that when a woman converted to Islam, her marriage to a disbeliever was invalidated, this is not necessarily true.

What is true is that a disbeliever is one who is hostile toward Islam and such a person can not be the guardian of his wife if she is a Muslim. Disbelievers in Prophet Muhammads time were fighting Muslims. How can he then be expected to support his wife's faith?

Even though a disbeliever can not be a guardian to a Muslim, the marriage was not forcibly ended. Sometimes the couple had children and sometimes they needed time to work through their differences. The Prophet permitted this. His own daughter, Zainab bint Muhammad, was married before his prophethood. She converted to Islam but her husband refused to do so. They remained married for six years but lived apart. Eventually her husband converted.

Forget what the four jurisprudence schools say on this matter or what Sharias of different countries say. Forget what scholars say also. History shows prophet Muhammad exercised patience in these situations and allowed wives to take a wait and see approach, especially if there were kids involved.

[Anonymous]

Finally, you asked why women taking the oath had a lengthy list of strict, oppressive conditions attached.

It wasn't a lengthy list at all. And it was not oppressive.
The list asked anyone, not just women, who was taking the oath, to not commit infanticide, not commit fornication or adultery, not attack Muslims, and not attack Prophet Muhammad. Hardly oppressive. In fact, pagan arabs those days were engaged in all kinds of cruel or indecent behavior, and it was an abomination and affront to humanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, your next point...You said:

" That verse describes the proper treatment of women who were from pagan tribes yet wanted to be Muslims, and wanted to join Muslims at the place where they lived. Hence the very long list of requirements to prove that they were in fact Muslim. Why did women have to be perfect to make an oath? Did anyone apply these standards to men who wanted to make an oath of allegiance? "

Remember that an oath of allegiance may be given before the individual acquires power, as the individual has newly acquired power, or after the individual has held power for some time. In any of these situations, an oath of allegiance to become a new member of their tribe meant a vote for the individual to either acquire power or to retain power. The larger the volume of allegiances, the greater the individual's power. The important point is this verse gave women political relevance because it meant they could vote for a candidate or seek membership in Muhammad's state WITHOUT a male guardian speaking for them. It meant their independent oath carried the same political relevance as a man's. If this kind of right or political relevance was already granted to women in most other cultures, states, or religious systems at the time, then please provide the scriptural proof as we have done here with the Quran.

And if this verse is still not clear enough evidence for you that Islam made women politically relevant, then verse 38 of Ash Shurra should since it uses plural language and states believers should decide all relevant matters collectively through mutual consultation.

I don't think you've shown this verse gives women voting rights or political relevance. It showed the rights of Muslims to join other Muslims. If these Muslims happened to be female, they had to clear a long list of requirements.

The oath of allegiance wasn't simply muslims joining muslims; it was a political contractual agreement. It essentially said if you joined Prophet Muhammad's tribe, you agreed to live by the laws of the land, protect the Prophet, and in exchange, the tribe protected you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now, as for your side point that when a woman converted to Islam, her marriage to a disbeliever was invalidated, this is not necessarily true.

What is true is that a disbeliever is one who is hostile toward Islam and such a person can not be the guardian of his wife if she is a Muslim. Disbelievers in Prophet Muhammads time were fighting Muslims. How can he then be expected to support his wife's faith?

Even though a disbeliever can not be a guardian to a Muslim, the marriage was not forcibly ended. Sometimes the couple had children and sometimes they needed time to work through their differences. The Prophet permitted this. His own daughter, Zainab bint Muhammad, was married before his prophethood. She converted to Islam but her husband refused to do so. They remained married for six years but lived apart. Eventually her husband converted.

Forget what the four jurisprudence schools say on this matter or what Sharias of different countries say. Forget what scholars say also. History shows prophet Muhammad exercised patience in these situations and allowed wives to take a wait and see approach, especially if there were kids involved.

Living apart is hardly keeping the marriage intact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Finally, you asked why women taking the oath had a lengthy list of strict, oppressive conditions attached.

It wasn't a lengthy list at all. And it was not oppressive.
The list asked anyone, not just women, who was taking the oath, to not commit infanticide, not commit fornication or adultery, not attack Muslims, and not attack Prophet Muhammad. Hardly oppressive. In fact, pagan arabs those days were engaged in all kinds of cruel or indecent behavior, and it was an abomination and affront to humanity.

Provide evidence this was asked for everyone, not just women. Were men asked to prove they didn't have illegitimate children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, your implication that converting women who left their pagan husbands were allowed to take the oath only because they no longer had a guardian is false.

The oath of allegiance was taken by all men, women, and even some children. Even if a woman had a Muslim guardian, she could take the oath herself. A guardian's approval was not necessary to take the oath. Even children sometimes took the oath, and we all know children have guardians.

This oath was the precursor to modern voting. That it was available to women regardless of their guardians approval set the stage for women's voting rights because it made womens choice of a ruler or to be a citizen of a differenr nation politically relevant.

If you read one verse in the Quran and it doesn't provide the full answer, you should read the entire Quran, in arabic, and study history.

Verse 38 of Ash Shura which says EVERYONE should participate in shurra (consultation) for relevant matters also confirms that women could exercuse their political right.

Nonsense about the Arabic thing again. Most Muslims don't speak or read Arabic, and many Arabic speakers don't understand the Quranic Arabic. Why would God send down something that's meant to be eternal guidance yet is only accessible to a tiny minority of its believers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now, as for your side point that when a woman converted to Islam, her marriage to a disbeliever was invalidated, this is not necessarily true.

What is true is that a disbeliever is one who is hostile toward Islam and such a person can not be the guardian of his wife if she is a Muslim. Disbelievers in Prophet Muhammads time were fighting Muslims. How can he then be expected to support his wife's faith?

Even though a disbeliever can not be a guardian to a Muslim, the marriage was not forcibly ended. Sometimes the couple had children and sometimes they needed time to work through their differences. The Prophet permitted this. His own daughter, Zainab bint Muhammad, was married before his prophethood. She converted to Islam but her husband refused to do so. They remained married for six years but lived apart. Eventually her husband converted.

Forget what the four jurisprudence schools say on this matter or what Sharias of different countries say. Forget what scholars say also. History shows prophet Muhammad exercised patience in these situations and allowed wives to take a wait and see approach, especially if there were kids involved.

Living apart is hardly keeping the marriage intact.

The wait and see approach usually implied a complete cessation of marital relations. Scholars and madhabs, too, advocate a wait and see approach, but all are unanimous that there can be no marital relations once the wife converts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, your implication that converting women who left their pagan husbands were allowed to take the oath only because they no longer had a guardian is false.

The oath of allegiance was taken by all men, women, and even some children. Even if a woman had a Muslim guardian, she could take the oath herself. A guardian's approval was not necessary to take the oath. Even children sometimes took the oath, and we all know children have guardians.

This oath was the precursor to modern voting. That it was available to women regardless of their guardians approval set the stage for women's voting rights because it made womens choice of a ruler or to be a citizen of a differenr nation politically relevant.

If you read one verse in the Quran and it doesn't provide the full answer, you should read the entire Quran, in arabic, and study history.

Verse 38 of Ash Shura which says EVERYONE should participate in shurra (consultation) for relevant matters also confirms that women could exercuse their political right.

Set the stage for women's voting rights? Don't you think the stage-settin' was taking its own sweet time until pretty much the last century?

Where is the scriptural evidence children could take the oath?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Finally, you asked why women taking the oath had a lengthy list of strict, oppressive conditions attached.

It wasn't a lengthy list at all. And it was not oppressive.
The list asked anyone, not just women, who was taking the oath, to not commit infanticide, not commit fornication or adultery, not attack Muslims, and not attack Prophet Muhammad. Hardly oppressive. In fact, pagan arabs those days were engaged in all kinds of cruel or indecent behavior, and it was an abomination and affront to humanity.

I personally think that the requirement not to commit adultery or fornicate is oppressive. I'm glad the US requires nothing of me in exchange for voting other than citizenship and proper age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, your next point...You said:

" That verse describes the proper treatment of women who were from pagan tribes yet wanted to be Muslims, and wanted to join Muslims at the place where they lived. Hence the very long list of requirements to prove that they were in fact Muslim. Why did women have to be perfect to make an oath? Did anyone apply these standards to men who wanted to make an oath of allegiance? "

Remember that an oath of allegiance may be given before the individual acquires power, as the individual has newly acquired power, or after the individual has held power for some time. In any of these situations, an oath of allegiance to become a new member of their tribe meant a vote for the individual to either acquire power or to retain power. The larger the volume of allegiances, the greater the individual's power. The important point is this verse gave women political relevance because it meant they could vote for a candidate or seek membership in Muhammad's state WITHOUT a male guardian speaking for them. It meant their independent oath carried the same political relevance as a man's. If this kind of right or political relevance was already granted to women in most other cultures, states, or religious systems at the time, then please provide the scriptural proof as we have done here with the Quran.

And if this verse is still not clear enough evidence for you that Islam made women politically relevant, then verse 38 of Ash Shurra should since it uses plural language and states believers should decide all relevant matters collectively through mutual consultation.

I don't think you've shown this verse gives women voting rights or political relevance. It showed the rights of Muslims to join other Muslims. If these Muslims happened to be female, they had to clear a long list of requirements.

The oath of allegiance wasn't simply muslims joining muslims; it was a political contractual agreement. It essentially said if you joined Prophet Muhammad's tribe, you agreed to live by the laws of the land, protect the Prophet, and in exchange, the tribe protected you.

I don't think so. Let us review:

YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine (and test) them: Allah knows best as to their Faith: if ye ascertain that they are Believers, then send them not back to the Unbelievers. They are not lawful (wives) for the Unbelievers, nor are the (Unbelievers) lawful (husbands) for them. But pay the Unbelievers what they have spent (on their dower), and there will be no blame on you if ye marry them on payment of their dower to them. But hold not to the guardianship of unbelieving women: ask for what ye have spent on their dowers, and let the (Unbelievers) ask for what they have spent (on the dowers of women who come over to you). Such is the command of Allah: He judges (with justice) between you. And Allah is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom.

What does this say? Quite clearly, it says: if a woman comes to you claiming to be Muslim, and you ascertain that she's not lying, do not return her to her husband. If he happens to be a non-Muslim, their marriage is invalid. Reimburse her now ex-husband for what he paid her as her dowry (proof in black and white that the much-touted marriage gift to wives was widely practiced by non-Muslims as well), and she's OK for you to marry if you pay her the dowry, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now, as for your side point that when a woman converted to Islam, her marriage to a disbeliever was invalidated, this is not necessarily true.

What is true is that a disbeliever is one who is hostile toward Islam and such a person can not be the guardian of his wife if she is a Muslim. Disbelievers in Prophet Muhammads time were fighting Muslims. How can he then be expected to support his wife's faith?

Even though a disbeliever can not be a guardian to a Muslim, the marriage was not forcibly ended. Sometimes the couple had children and sometimes they needed time to work through their differences. The Prophet permitted this. His own daughter, Zainab bint Muhammad, was married before his prophethood. She converted to Islam but her husband refused to do so. They remained married for six years but lived apart. Eventually her husband converted.

Forget what the four jurisprudence schools say on this matter or what Sharias of different countries say. Forget what scholars say also. History shows prophet Muhammad exercised patience in these situations and allowed wives to take a wait and see approach, especially if there were kids involved.

Living apart is hardly keeping the marriage intact.

As I said, in Islam, a disbelieving husband may not be a guardian over a believing wife. But if there are extenuating circumstances, the couple may take time to dwell over their difference of opinion, much like a separation in the US. As was the case with the Prophets daughter, time can indeed be helpful. However, Islam doesn't make apologies for the fact that divorce may be the only choice if the disbelieving husband will not convert. A disbelieving husband is not going to be supportive towards the practice of Islam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally, you asked why women taking the oath had a lengthy list of strict, oppressive conditions attached.

It wasn't a lengthy list at all. And it was not oppressive.
The list asked anyone, not just women, who was taking the oath, to not commit infanticide, not commit fornication or adultery, not attack Muslims, and not attack Prophet Muhammad. Hardly oppressive. In fact, pagan arabs those days were engaged in all kinds of cruel or indecent behavior, and it was an abomination and affront to humanity.

Provide evidence this was asked for everyone, not just women. Were men asked to prove they didn't have illegitimate children?

Even today, if a woman had illegitimate children, she would still be permitted to convert to Islam. Past sins will never be held against a person who converts to Islam. Where are you getting this info from that a woman was required to prove she didn't have illegitimate children to take this oath?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, your implication that converting women who left their pagan husbands were allowed to take the oath only because they no longer had a guardian is false.

The oath of allegiance was taken by all men, women, and even some children. Even if a woman had a Muslim guardian, she could take the oath herself. A guardian's approval was not necessary to take the oath. Even children sometimes took the oath, and we all know children have guardians.

This oath was the precursor to modern voting. That it was available to women regardless of their guardians approval set the stage for women's voting rights because it made womens choice of a ruler or to be a citizen of a differenr nation politically relevant.

If you read one verse in the Quran and it doesn't provide the full answer, you should read the entire Quran, in arabic, and study history.

Verse 38 of Ash Shura which says EVERYONE should participate in shurra (consultation) for relevant matters also confirms that women could exercuse their political right.

Nonsense about the Arabic thing again. Most Muslims don't speak or read Arabic, and many Arabic speakers don't understand the Quranic Arabic. Why would God send down something that's meant to be eternal guidance yet is only accessible to a tiny minority of its believers?

Logical question but it has a simple answer- because God/Allah expects Muslims to study the Quran well, to understand what they are actually saying in their prayers, their dua, and what He is saying to them in the Quran. Not everybody does this but they are supposed to, because theres no point in reading the Quran if one hasn't a clue about what its saying. My own husband did not know Quranic Arabic, so he studied it for a few years.