Be Wary of Racism and Islamophobes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I didn't ask you to make apologies for it, just not to pretend that it isn't so.

I also don't think that Muhammad's paternity of Zainab is taken as a fact. A good chunk of Muslims believe Fatima is his only child who lived into adulthood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am afraid I don't think it's quite logical of God to expect all of the world's population to learn any one language, when anyone with a smidgen of knowledge of human nature knows that to be an unfeasible expectation. It's just the Arab marketing thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Don't change the subject. This wasn't required of them to qualify for conversion for Islam; this surah presumes they are already Muslims. This verse asks them to prove they didn't have illegitimate children if they wanted to join Muslims in Medina (what you're trying to sell as a semblance of voting).

"Prophet, when believing women come and pledge to you that they will not ascribe any partner to God, nor steal, nor commit adultery, nor kill their children, nor lie about who has fathered their children (things they fabricate between their hands and their feet), nor disobey you in any righteous thing, then you should accept their pledge of allegiance and pray to God to forgive them: God is most forgiving and merciful."

So, here you go. I ask you again: if you claim this oath of allegiance was available to men and children, what are the things men were asked to prove? What were the things children were asked to prove?

And yes, I know it's a big marketing point for the dawwah crowd that once you convert, all your past sins go bye-bye in the eyes of God. I wonder if this was the reason Islam remains popular among the inmates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: 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.

Just to add that reports of cruel and indecent behavior on the part of pagan Arabs are just another thread in the marketing brief of "Islam came to save the day". Is there any non-Muslim scholarship out there about what the pagan Arabs were really like? Otherwise it's just like Crest toothpaste makers asking you to believe that Colgate is made of chicken poop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I didn't ask you to make apologies for it, just not to pretend that it isn't so.

I also don't think that Muhammad's paternity of Zainab is taken as a fact. A good chunk of Muslims believe Fatima is his only child who lived into adulthood.

How can I be pretending it isn't so when I'm telling you point blank that a disbeliever may not be a guardian over a believer and that makes perfect sense to most Muslims. However, you neglected to explain that conversion does not result in automatic divorce. Couples are given time to see if the disbeliever will convert.

Lets assume Zainab was NOT Muhammad's daughter. She was, but lets grant you that. Even if Zainab were not the Prophet's daughter, she was a believer whose marriage to a disbeliever was not automatically terminated. And this shows that some leniency is afforded by way of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am afraid I don't think it's quite logical of God to expect all of the world's population to learn any one language, when anyone with a smidgen of knowledge of human nature knows that to be an unfeasible expectation. It's just the Arab marketing thing.

You may find it illogical but millions of children throughout the world, across different cultures, across different continents, have all learned to pray in Arabic, say their dua in Arabic, and read the Quran in Arabic, even though most of them are not Arab. Children are sent to Islamic schools and Sunday schools specifically to learn Quranic Arabic.

Schools need to do a better job of teaching tafsir but they are indeed teaching millions of people to read in Arabic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You may find it illogical but millions of children throughout the world, across different cultures, across different continents, have all learned to pray in Arabic, say their dua in Arabic, and read the Quran in Arabic, even though most of them are not Arab. Children are sent to Islamic schools and Sunday schools specifically to learn Quranic Arabic.

Schools need to do a better job of teaching tafsir but they are indeed teaching millions of people to read in Arabic.

Many of these children understand absolutely nothing about the meaning of the words coming out of their mouths. It's learning by rote. Witness the multiple youtube videos of Indonesian or Daghestani 6-year old "hafez al-Quran" who can sing the whole book cover to cover. Marvel at the feat of their memory. And then ask them to translate these verses, hell, just one verse word by word and see what happens. I can parrot O Sole Mio, but it doesn't mean I understand every word in it.

I stand by my belief that a god who would send down eternal guidance in an outdated language accessible to a tiny minority of people, and insist that it's not available in any other way is...well...unattractive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
How can I be pretending it isn't so when I'm telling you point blank that a disbeliever may not be a guardian over a believer and that makes perfect sense to most Muslims. However, you neglected to explain that conversion does not result in automatic divorce. Couples are given time to see if the disbeliever will convert.

Lets assume Zainab was NOT Muhammad's daughter. She was, but lets grant you that. Even if Zainab were not the Prophet's daughter, she was a believer whose marriage to a disbeliever was not automatically terminated. And this shows that some leniency is afforded by way of time.

Actually, it was me who said it first, many pages ago. But also point blank. I didn't say it's terminated immediately, just that it IS terminated if the husband doesn't convert. It seems, for once, that you agree. I am sure that it makes perfect sense to Muslims. As I've heard more than once, "Muslims are wife takers, not wife givers."

You may find marriage without marital relations to be just like a real marriage. Lots and lots of people would disagree with you.

[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.

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.

Well thankfully no one is suggesting you convert to Islam so you don't need to feel oppressed.

The requirement to abstain from fornicating or committing adultery is not oppressive at all to most Muslims. But if it is, then a fornicating Muslim would still be a Muslim, albeit a sinning Muslim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Well thankfully no one is suggesting you convert to Islam so you don't need to feel oppressed.

The requirement to abstain from fornicating or committing adultery is not oppressive at all to most Muslims. But if it is, then a fornicating Muslim would still be a Muslim, albeit a sinning Muslim.

Actually, plenty of people do, but whatever.

Then why require proof of not-fornicating as a pre-requisite for pledge of allegiance/voting? And where is that requirement for men?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How can I be pretending it isn't so when I'm telling you point blank that a disbeliever may not be a guardian over a believer and that makes perfect sense to most Muslims. However, you neglected to explain that conversion does not result in automatic divorce. Couples are given time to see if the disbeliever will convert.

Lets assume Zainab was NOT Muhammad's daughter. She was, but lets grant you that. Even if Zainab were not the Prophet's daughter, she was a believer whose marriage to a disbeliever was not automatically terminated. And this shows that some leniency is afforded by way of time.

Actually, it was me who said it first, many pages ago. But also point blank. I didn't say it's terminated immediately, just that it IS terminated if the husband doesn't convert. It seems, for once, that you agree. I am sure that it makes perfect sense to Muslims. As I've heard more than once, "Muslims are wife takers, not wife givers."

You may find marriage without marital relations to be just like a real marriage. Lots and lots of people would disagree with you.

Its similar to a separation. And sometimes after a separation, couples make up. The point is, its not oppressive for women now and it wasn't then. Women were not compelled to convert. They chose to do so and, in many cases, left their disbelieving husbands. These women made the trip from Mecca to Medina. I'm not sure if you have ever made such a journey, but I have. By car and also by bus. It is a very difficult journey even by car or bus. There is a vast stretch of desert and the heat of the sun is unmerciful. Yet many women made the trip to take the oath and left their husbands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How can I be pretending it isn't so when I'm telling you point blank that a disbeliever may not be a guardian over a believer and that makes perfect sense to most Muslims. However, you neglected to explain that conversion does not result in automatic divorce. Couples are given time to see if the disbeliever will convert.

Lets assume Zainab was NOT Muhammad's daughter. She was, but lets grant you that. Even if Zainab were not the Prophet's daughter, she was a believer whose marriage to a disbeliever was not automatically terminated. And this shows that some leniency is afforded by way of time.

Actually, it was me who said it first, many pages ago. But also point blank. I didn't say it's terminated immediately, just that it IS terminated if the husband doesn't convert. It seems, for once, that you agree. I am sure that it makes perfect sense to Muslims. As I've heard more than once, "Muslims are wife takers, not wife givers."

You may find marriage without marital relations to be just like a real marriage. Lots and lots of people would disagree with you.

Its similar to a separation. And sometimes after a separation, couples make up. The point is, its not oppressive for women now and it wasn't then. Women were not compelled to convert. They chose to do so and, in many cases, left their disbelieving husbands. These women made the trip from Mecca to Medina. I'm not sure if you have ever made such a journey, but I have. By car and also by bus. It is a very difficult journey even by car or bus. There is a vast stretch of desert and the heat of the sun is unmerciful. Yet many women made the trip to take the oath and left their husbands.

Why does that matter? I'm not sure if you've ever landed a double flip on ice. I have - in my dreams. It's a very difficult jump, and it's very painful to fall on the hard ice without protection. Yet many skaters make the jump and leave the safety of land behind. People do all sorts of things for no other reason that they want it.

The point is that it is disingenuous to pretend that the wife's conversion doesn't terminate the marriage. It does, for all practical purposes. The question of whether it was oppressive on women was never a part of this discussion; I'm sure the ladies knew what they were doing.

[Anonymous]

And that wasn't the point at all, actually. The point was that you argued that women were allowed to make the pledge of allegiance (which you insist on equating with voting) without a male guardian. I countered by pointing out that these women didn't HAVE any guardians because their disbeliever husbands were no longer their guardians under Islam. But no worries. Since that very same surah cleared these ladies for marriage (as soon as all their bills were settled and their pagan husbands were compensated for the inconvenience of forcible divorce), I'm sure they would have been set up with proper Muslim guardians in a jiffy. Once the pledge was, you know, pledged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Well thankfully no one is suggesting you convert to Islam so you don't need to feel oppressed.

The requirement to abstain from fornicating or committing adultery is not oppressive at all to most Muslims. But if it is, then a fornicating Muslim would still be a Muslim, albeit a sinning Muslim.

Actually, plenty of people do, but whatever.

Then why require proof of not-fornicating as a pre-requisite for pledge of allegiance/voting? And where is that requirement for men?

I don't know how many Muslims you know but the majority of practicing Muslims do not fornicate and they especially do not commit adultery. Those who do are not very devout. The requirement is part of an oath to let believers know the behavior expected of them to live in that tribe. Adultey, fornication carry punishment so wouldn't you want to be forewarned before you take such an oath?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Well thankfully no one is suggesting you convert to Islam so you don't need to feel oppressed.

The requirement to abstain from fornicating or committing adultery is not oppressive at all to most Muslims. But if it is, then a fornicating Muslim would still be a Muslim, albeit a sinning Muslim.

Actually, plenty of people do, but whatever.

Then why require proof of not-fornicating as a pre-requisite for pledge of allegiance/voting? And where is that requirement for men?

I don't know how many Muslims you know but the majority of practicing Muslims do not fornicate and they especially do not commit adultery. Those who do are not very devout. The requirement is part of an oath to let believers know the behavior expected of them to live in that tribe. Adultey, fornication carry punishment so wouldn't you want to be forewarned before you take such an oath?

I ask, again, where is this requirement scripturally required for men?

I know lots and lots of Muslims but let's leave that aside for the moment. You have argued that "pledge of allegiance" equals voting. I countered that this surah looks much more like a background check for new immigrants than a vote for one candidate amongst many. A pledge of allegiance is like "you can join us as long as you are all of these things." A vote is like "I choose you over that guy and this guy". Candidates do not ask voters for moral perfection, they would court prostitutes as long as it would drive up the vote count. A pledger courts the favor of those accepting the pledge. The candidate, conversely, courts the voters. The power relationship is very different in these two scenarios. You argued that one is just like the other. I don't see any resemblance.

What you are arguing, essentially, is that joining Islam/Muslims equals voting. That's a huge, huge leap of faith, pun intended.

Adultery and fornication in Islam carry punishments whether you live in Medina or not. Presumably, those entering Islam would have been well aware of that.