Be Wary of Racism and Islamophobes

[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?

Where is the verse forewarninv men of all this as a condition for pledge of allegiance ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And just as ice skaters attempt that jump despite risks for the joy of skating well, so too do Muslim women convert and leave their disbeliever husbands for the joy of being a devout Muslima. This is Islam. Most Muslims adhere to this with complete understanding. Nobody is being disinegenuous. You threw out some erroneous "facts," or unsubstantiated facts, or incomplete facts. If you are going to say Islam requires converts to end their marriages to disbelievers, then why not also explain that it will permit separation for even long periods of time to allow couples to work through it? It shows some leniency and compassion in what you wish to present as a harsh rule. Well, its only harsh to you but you don't need to get worked up over it since it doesn't affect you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Google "islam punishment for fornication in the Quran" and you should be able to pull up the Quranic verses that specify the clear punishment of fornication to both women AND MEN. So if this oath only applied to women, Muslim men should be permitted to fornicate and carry on adulterous affairs freely and happily in Muslim states even today.

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?

Where is the verse forewarninv men of all this as a condition for pledge of allegiance ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not for the 1.4-1.6 billion Muslims its not. And not for those converting to Islam. And your assertion that they understand "nothing" is absolutely false. Children do not memorize the translation, true, but they learn enough about Islamic principles to know how to practice it and still be good muslims. Translations are not perfect but they are fine for getting a basic understanding and the Quran has been translated into many different languages. People read the translations as well as Quranic Arabic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
And just as ice skaters attempt that jump despite risks for the joy of skating well, so too do Muslim women convert and leave their disbeliever husbands for the joy of being a devout Muslima. This is Islam. Most Muslims adhere to this with complete understanding. Nobody is being disinegenuous. You threw out some erroneous "facts," or unsubstantiated facts, or incomplete facts. If you are going to say Islam requires converts to end their marriages to disbelievers, then why not also explain that it will permit separation for even long periods of time to allow couples to work through it? It shows some leniency and compassion in what you wish to present as a harsh rule. Well, its only harsh to you but you don't need to get worked up over it since it doesn't affect you.

That Islam requires female converts to end their marriages to disbelievers is neither erroneous nor unsubstantiated. You are confusing "allowing the couples to work through it" with "waiting to see if the husband converts". Whether any of this affects anyone personally is beside the point; there is no requirement that any of this affects anyone personally to have an opinion about this.

And anyway, all of this is beside the point. The issue of ending marriages between Muslim women and non-Muslim women came up in the context of your assertion that this verse allows women voting rights without approval of their guardians. Leaving aside the sheer lack of similarity between voting and pledging allegiance, these women WOULD NOT have any guardians because Islam views non-Muslim husbands they left behind as unworthy either of guardianship over their Muslim wives or of their company in the marital bed. Do you deny that? What kinds of guardians could these women have had in the absence of male Muslim relatives? Even today, new Muslim converts have to use a sheikh to stand as their guardian in marriage since their own parents aren't deemed suitable for the role.

But as I also pointed out, not for long - Islam also cleared these women for marriage to Muslim men as long as they reimbursed their disbelieving husbands for whatever they paid their wives as dowry. Much like returning the item to the store. Since Islam encourages marriage, I'm sure these ladies would have gotten fixed up as soon as possible (if their dowries were, you know, affordable) and then they would have proper guardians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not for the 1.4-1.6 billion Muslims its not. And not for those converting to Islam. And your assertion that they understand "nothing" is absolutely false. Children do not memorize the translation, true, but they learn enough about Islamic principles to know how to practice it and still be good muslims. Translations are not perfect but they are fine for getting a basic understanding and the Quran has been translated into many different languages. People read the translations as well as Quranic Arabic.

I'm sure they do, but you are arguing that children all over the world learn to pray and say dua in Arabic. I say to you - how many of these children understand the meaning of each word they are saying? Weren't you arguing you can't understand Islam without learning the Quranic Arabic?

[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.

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.

Please provide the sura and verse for the quoted passage and also which Quran you are pulling this from. The oath is described in Sura 60 verse 12.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not for the 1.4-1.6 billion Muslims its not. And not for those converting to Islam. And your assertion that they understand "nothing" is absolutely false. Children do not memorize the translation, true, but they learn enough about Islamic principles to know how to practice it and still be good muslims. Translations are not perfect but they are fine for getting a basic understanding and the Quran has been translated into many different languages. People read the translations as well as Quranic Arabic.

I'm sure they do, but you are arguing that children all over the world learn to pray and say dua in Arabic. I say to you - how many of these children understand the meaning of each word they are saying? Weren't you arguing you can't understand Islam without learning the Quranic Arabic?

Many understand dua because duas are relatively easy to translate. Children may have a general idea of some suras such as Sura Fatiha and the kuhls or other short or memorable suras. As a child I remember learning the meaning behind a few suras I was taught because sometimes there was a story attached to it. We were told the stories. But do children understand the entire Quran? No. They continue to study it hopefully throughout their lives, though, and their understanding improves with time. Even children who are hafiz may not know every word they memorized. But what is the relevance of not knowing every single word in the Quran? If they knew every single word, their faith would be even stronger. They may be less terrorism in the world if every Muslim studied the Quran as God/Allah intended. But is their faith lacking? Despite knowing only the meaning of a few suras, their knowledge and faith is still remarkably strong.

The study of Quranic Arabic is a longterm endeavor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And just as ice skaters attempt that jump despite risks for the joy of skating well, so too do Muslim women convert and leave their disbeliever husbands for the joy of being a devout Muslima. This is Islam. Most Muslims adhere to this with complete understanding. Nobody is being disinegenuous. You threw out some erroneous "facts," or unsubstantiated facts, or incomplete facts. If you are going to say Islam requires converts to end their marriages to disbelievers, then why not also explain that it will permit separation for even long periods of time to allow couples to work through it? It shows some leniency and compassion in what you wish to present as a harsh rule. Well, its only harsh to you but you don't need to get worked up over it since it doesn't affect you.

That Islam requires female converts to end their marriages to disbelievers is neither erroneous nor unsubstantiated. You are confusing "allowing the couples to work through it" with "waiting to see if the husband converts". Whether any of this affects anyone personally is beside the point; there is no requirement that any of this affects anyone personally to have an opinion about this.

And anyway, all of this is beside the point. The issue of ending marriages between Muslim women and non-Muslim women came up in the context of your assertion that this verse allows women voting rights without approval of their guardians. Leaving aside the sheer lack of similarity between voting and pledging allegiance, these women WOULD NOT have any guardians because Islam views non-Muslim husbands they left behind as unworthy either of guardianship over their Muslim wives or of their company in the marital bed. Do you deny that? What kinds of guardians could these women have had in the absence of male Muslim relatives? Even today, new Muslim converts have to use a sheikh to stand as their guardian in marriage since their own parents aren't deemed suitable for the role.

But as I also pointed out, not for long - Islam also cleared these women for marriage to Muslim men as long as they reimbursed their disbelieving husbands for whatever they paid their wives as dowry. Much like returning the item to the store. Since Islam encourages marriage, I'm sure these ladies would have gotten fixed up as soon as possible (if their dowries were, you know, affordable) and then they would have proper guardians.

Here are the erroneous "facts" you mentioned:
- that Islam requires the oath ONLY for women. Patently false! Read the entire Quran and history. This would mean the rules that applied to women did not apply to men, and men could therefore commit infanticide, and freely fornicate to their hearts desire right in front of the Prophet himself if they pleased. Its ludicrous to think men did not have to abide by the oath but women did!
- that women with illegitimate children were somehow screened and possibly prevented from taking the oath. No. As nonmuslims, women were engaging in all kinds of unislamic behavior like adultery and infanticide, and it would not have been a shock if they had illegitimate children. Actually, when a person converts the sins they committed unknowingly are washed away and their soul begins anew. Converts are deemed to be of a higher status in God's eyes than born Muslims because of the hardship they often suffer. So to imply that women with illegitimate children were screened or prevented from joining the tribe just goes completely against my understanding of Islam.
- that the oath has no connection to voting whatsoever. Wrong. It was the precusor to womens voting rights because it allows women to give the oath regardless of the presence of a guardian. As far as evidentiary hadith, the well known rule is that hadith does not carry more weight than the Quran and if the hadith can not be supported or substantiated by the Quran, you should be careful about relying on it. If you need to pull out a hadith when you can't find a Quranic verse to support your statement, its a red flag that maybe your statement is not authoritative.
- that Islam never gave women voting rights. Wrong again. Sura Ash Shurra did, by using plural language while God/Allah asked everyone to decide on relevant matters collectively. ALL relevant matters. This flies in the face of the hadith you offered and if there is any conflict between hadith and Quran, the Quran trumps hadith.

[Anonymous]

You said:
"But as I also pointed out, not for long - Islam also cleared these women for marriage to Muslim men as long as they reimbursed their disbelieving husbands for whatever they paid their wives as dowry. Much like returning the item to the store. Since Islam encourages marriage, I'm sure these ladies would have gotten fixed up as soon as possible (if their dowries were, you know, affordable) and then they would have proper guardians."

Hmmmm....I'm going to ignore the insult and simply address your misunderstanding.

Marriage in Islam should be based on love and harmony. But it is also an agreement, a promise, and similar to a contract. The dowry is given by the husband to the wife upon marriage as a security if divorce should result. In these cases, the wives willingly left their pagan husbands because they simply wanted to be Muslim. Prophet Muhammad felt it was only fair to return the dowry to the ex husbands and from henceforth those women who no longer had guardians would be financially cared for by the islamic state or new, Muslim husbands.

[Anonymous]

And be wary: most people are really tired of this rhetoric and this thread.

It should have been shut down a LONG time ago.

Or note to webmaster - there should be a new topic titled simply ISLAM so you all can chat about your beliefs there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And just as ice skaters attempt that jump despite risks for the joy of skating well, so too do Muslim women convert and leave their disbeliever husbands for the joy of being a devout Muslima. This is Islam. Most Muslims adhere to this with complete understanding. Nobody is being disinegenuous. You threw out some erroneous "facts," or unsubstantiated facts, or incomplete facts. If you are going to say Islam requires converts to end their marriages to disbelievers, then why not also explain that it will permit separation for even long periods of time to allow couples to work through it? It shows some leniency and compassion in what you wish to present as a harsh rule. Well, its only harsh to you but you don't need to get worked up over it since it doesn't affect you.

That Islam requires female converts to end their marriages to disbelievers is neither erroneous nor unsubstantiated. You are confusing "allowing the couples to work through it" with "waiting to see if the husband converts". Whether any of this affects anyone personally is beside the point; there is no requirement that any of this affects anyone personally to have an opinion about this.

And anyway, all of this is beside the point. The issue of ending marriages between Muslim women and non-Muslim women came up in the context of your assertion that this verse allows women voting rights without approval of their guardians. Leaving aside the sheer lack of similarity between voting and pledging allegiance, these women WOULD NOT have any guardians because Islam views non-Muslim husbands they left behind as unworthy either of guardianship over their Muslim wives or of their company in the marital bed. Do you deny that? What kinds of guardians could these women have had in the absence of male Muslim relatives? Even today, new Muslim converts have to use a sheikh to stand as their guardian in marriage since their own parents aren't deemed suitable for the role.

But as I also pointed out, not for long - Islam also cleared these women for marriage to Muslim men as long as they reimbursed their disbelieving husbands for whatever they paid their wives as dowry. Much like returning the item to the store. Since Islam encourages marriage, I'm sure these ladies would have gotten fixed up as soon as possible (if their dowries were, you know, affordable) and then they would have proper guardians.

Ahhh but you have confused the two situations of marriage and oath for political matters, conversion, or membership into a tribe. The guardian for marriage is necessary to protect women, to ensure they were not being forced into marriage against their will and to ensure her dowry was paid. No guardian is necessary to convert to Islam or in those times, to be a member of the Prophets tribe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And be wary: most people are really tired of this rhetoric and this thread.

It should have been shut down a LONG time ago.

Or note to webmaster - there should be a new topic titled simply ISLAM so you all can chat about your beliefs there.

For those who are tired of reading this thread: don't read it.

[Anonymous]

Okay, PP, the sura / verse you asked about is Sura 60:12 and the phrase, "Forging falsehood" does have the literal translation of: "nor producing any lie that they have devised between their hands and feet." In other words, (Yusuf Ali footnote) the refugee women coming to take the oath in Medina should not attribute paternity of their illegitimate children to their lawful husbands thereby adding to their monstrosity of their original sin of infidelity.

One can not begin life as a new Muslim based on more deception and lies. All past sins are forgiven with repentance. But the woman should simply be honest and not take any oath based on a lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Many understand dua because duas are relatively easy to translate. Children may have a general idea of some suras such as Sura Fatiha and the kuhls or other short or memorable suras. As a child I remember learning the meaning behind a few suras I was taught because sometimes there was a story attached to it. We were told the stories. But do children understand the entire Quran? No. They continue to study it hopefully throughout their lives, though, and their understanding improves with time. Even children who are hafiz may not know every word they memorized. But what is the relevance of not knowing every single word in the Quran? If they knew every single word, their faith would be even stronger. They may be less terrorism in the world if every Muslim studied the Quran as God/Allah intended. But is their faith lacking? Despite knowing only the meaning of a few suras, their knowledge and faith is still remarkably strong.

The study of Quranic Arabic is a longterm endeavor.

The relevance of knowing every single word in the Quran is that you argued it is incumbent on all Muslims to study the Quranic Arabic and added that millions of children all over the world are doing just that. I countered that these children may be able to recite Quran from memory without understanding the meaning of that word, so them being able to do so is not in any way an indication of understanding Quranic Arabic. It was not about making their faith stronger since that was never a part of the argument.