Be Wary of Racism and Islamophobes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is non-Muslim scholarship proving that arab pagans lived a cruel and merciless life?

Google " pre islamic jahiliyah"

Pre-Islamic Jahlilyah is an Islamic definition! It means to act stupid or blindly, referring to the Islamic concept of "Days of Darkness". This is not an accurate historical definition of the civilization pre-Quran. It's the Islamic name for everyone and everything before the prophet's "revelation".

I could make up my own word for the Middle East Post-Islam, Pre-Islam, whatever and state that this is what the people and civilization were like before my religion of choice drew them from darkness.

So google " pre islamic Arabia infanticide" as just one of the many practices if the term jahiliyah is not adequate for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The point is children are learning Quranic Arabic and learning some meaning. Probably not as much as God/Allah would like, but nonetheless learning IS taking place. And this means learning the Quran in the language it was originally revealed in is possible.

I am not understanding this point's relevance to you. You are neither Muslim nor genuinely interested in the iman of Muslims. I wonder if you argue points simply to try to win an argument, even if it's a trivial or irrelevant point.

This point is irrelevant to me. Actually, the totality of issues discussed in this thread - polygamy, slavery etc. - are irrelevant to the women of DCUM. That doesn't mean they are barred from having opinions on it. Personal relevance is not a condition for having an opinion.

In this case, you argued that children all over the world "are learning Quranic Arabic." I pointed out that they aren't really; most are just memorizing the words without understanding them because Arabic speakers are a minority among Muslims, and Quranic Arabic speakers are a minority among Arabic speakers. Being able to pronounce something doesn't equate to understanding it. Hafez factories around the world are turning out reciters, not understanders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is non-Muslim scholarship proving that arab pagans lived a cruel and merciless life?

Google " pre islamic jahiliyah"

Pre-Islamic Jahlilyah is an Islamic definition! It means to act stupid or blindly, referring to the Islamic concept of "Days of Darkness". This is not an accurate historical definition of the civilization pre-Quran. It's the Islamic name for everyone and everything before the prophet's "revelation".

I could make up my own word for the Middle East Post-Islam, Pre-Islam, whatever and state that this is what the people and civilization were like before my religion of choice drew them from darkness.

So google " pre islamic Arabia infanticide" as just one of the many practices if the term jahiliyah is not adequate for you.

The fact that Quran acknowledges women received dowries from their pagan husbands shows giving dowries to women wasn't an Islamic invention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is non-Muslim scholarship proving that arab pagans lived a cruel and merciless life?

Google " pre islamic jahiliyah"

Pre-Islamic Jahlilyah is an Islamic definition! It means to act stupid or blindly, referring to the Islamic concept of "Days of Darkness". This is not an accurate historical definition of the civilization pre-Quran. It's the Islamic name for everyone and everything before the prophet's "revelation".

I could make up my own word for the Middle East Post-Islam, Pre-Islam, whatever and state that this is what the people and civilization were like before my religion of choice drew them from darkness.

So google " pre islamic Arabia infanticide" as just one of the many practices if the term jahiliyah is not adequate for you.

That's not the point; the point is that we don't know if any sources attesting to pre-Islamic infanticide come from non-Muslim sources. Muslims have an inherent interest in portraying pre-Islamic times to be dark ones so their scholarship on the subject is inherently suspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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!

Please provide a reference to a sura that says "and when believing men come to you, examine them, and then if they don't lie, don't steal, don't worship others besides you and don't have illegitimate children, you can accept their pledge of allegiance."

Anonymous wrote:
- 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.

This is not personal, and your understanding of Islam is not a golden standard of anything. I have provided a verse that asks "believing women" who wanted to join Muslims in Medina to pledge that they don't have children they falsely attributed to their husbands (i.e. illegitimate). I point out, again, that these women were not converting on the gates of Medina; they were already Muslims. And converts may suffer great suffering, but certainly the ladies who got to collect their dowries TWICE didn't do exactly poorly.

Anonymous wrote:
- 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.

That's your theory. You haven't provided convincing evidence that it is so.

But why wont you begin a study of the Quran? The sura in which Allah asks the prophet to accept women's oaths is the same sura asking the prophet to examine the women. Why did he need to examine them? To make sure they were truly Muslim and they could adhere to Islamic principles in his tribe. Prophet Muhammad did not assume every woman was a Muslim. Some women lied because they simply wanted to leave their husbands, but they were not Muslim and had no true intent to practice Islam. Thus, they were questioned and examined. So you are incorrect, pp, they were not assumed to be Muslim.

[Anonymous]

Muhammad's first wife was able to get rich, run her own business, hire workers, propose marriage to the poor, much younger man of her choice and marry him - all in pre-Islamic Arabia. Hardly the land of darkness you describe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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!

Please provide a reference to a sura that says "and when believing men come to you, examine them, and then if they don't lie, don't steal, don't worship others besides you and don't have illegitimate children, you can accept their pledge of allegiance."

Anonymous wrote:
- 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.

This is not personal, and your understanding of Islam is not a golden standard of anything. I have provided a verse that asks "believing women" who wanted to join Muslims in Medina to pledge that they don't have children they falsely attributed to their husbands (i.e. illegitimate). I point out, again, that these women were not converting on the gates of Medina; they were already Muslims. And converts may suffer great suffering, but certainly the ladies who got to collect their dowries TWICE didn't do exactly poorly.

Anonymous wrote:
- 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.

That's your theory. You haven't provided convincing evidence that it is so.

But why wont you begin a study of the Quran? The sura in which Allah asks the prophet to accept women's oaths is the same sura asking the prophet to examine the women. Why did he need to examine them? To make sure they were truly Muslim and they could adhere to Islamic principles in his tribe. Prophet Muhammad did not assume every woman was a Muslim. Some women lied because they simply wanted to leave their husbands, but they were not Muslim and had no true intent to practice Islam. Thus, they were questioned and examined. So you are incorrect, pp, they were not assumed to be Muslim.

I've studied the Quran and found it to be repetitive, tedious and lacking in logic.

What you are saying is very much in line with my prior argument - this surah describes a background check for new immigrants, not the right to vote.

Again: when were believing men asked to swear they don't have illegitimate children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The point is children are learning Quranic Arabic and learning some meaning. Probably not as much as God/Allah would like, but nonetheless learning IS taking place. And this means learning the Quran in the language it was originally revealed in is possible.

I am not understanding this point's relevance to you. You are neither Muslim nor genuinely interested in the iman of Muslims. I wonder if you argue points simply to try to win an argument, even if it's a trivial or irrelevant point.

This point is irrelevant to me. Actually, the totality of issues discussed in this thread - polygamy, slavery etc. - are irrelevant to the women of DCUM. That doesn't mean they are barred from having opinions on it. Personal relevance is not a condition for having an opinion.

In this case, you argued that children all over the world "are learning Quranic Arabic." I pointed out that they aren't really; most are just memorizing the words without understanding them because Arabic speakers are a minority among Muslims, and Quranic Arabic speakers are a minority among Arabic speakers. Being able to pronounce something doesn't equate to understanding it. Hafez factories around the world are turning out reciters, not understanders.

Do you really think the totality of your posts on Islam are merely opinions? The subject of Islam seems highly relevant to you. Just wondering if this is your job, because you spend an inordinate amount of time posting about Islam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Most people don't need you as a spokesperson. They are perfectly able to express themselves, and I'm sure they will when the occasion requires it.

I never said they needed me as spokesperson. If you are expressing your opinion, why am I not permitted to do the same?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

But I thought this wasn't about "beginning life as a new Muslim"? Remember, they were Muslim already. So which is it? becoming Muslim or "voting"? If voting, then I assure you that liars vote every day, and the right of voting isn't incumbent on moral perfection. Tell me, which leader tells the voters - OK, I accept your vote as long as you are all of these things. A pledge of allegiance isn't about "I'm perfect, I swear". It's about "I choose this guy, and not another guy."

So first you tried to tell us this pledge is about voting for a leader. Now you say it's about "beginning life as a new Muslim". First you denied that women were asked to comply with all of these conditions before taking an oath. Now you say, well yes, they were, and it's GOOD thing.

Again - where is the verse asking believing men to swear they didn't have illegitimate children before pledging allegiance?

Just choose already what it was that they were asked to do.

Pp, how would a man know which child he illegitimately fathered?

[Anonymous]

Pp, if the Prophet questioned a man before taking the oath about illegitimate children, the man would need to know with certainty which illegitimate child was his. Given that adultery and fornication were common pre islam, tell me how the man would know which children were his.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is non-Muslim scholarship proving that arab pagans lived a cruel and merciless life?

Google " pre islamic jahiliyah"

Pre-Islamic Jahlilyah is an Islamic definition! It means to act stupid or blindly, referring to the Islamic concept of "Days of Darkness". This is not an accurate historical definition of the civilization pre-Quran. It's the Islamic name for everyone and everything before the prophet's "revelation".

I could make up my own word for the Middle East Post-Islam, Pre-Islam, whatever and state that this is what the people and civilization were like before my religion of choice drew them from darkness.

So google " pre islamic Arabia infanticide" as just one of the many practices if the term jahiliyah is not adequate for you.

Different PP here. Oh Gawd, not infanticide again. Not to trivialize what happened to baby girls. But, we've all heard this a million times already, as an example of how Islam improved things for women relative to ... death, therefore there is no need for further advancements in women's rights beyond a standard of 600AD. Can't you link to another issue of bad treatment of women before Muhammad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pp, if the Prophet questioned a man before taking the oath about illegitimate children, the man would need to know with certainty which illegitimate child was his. Given that adultery and fornication were common pre islam, tell me how the man would know which children were his.

Shouldn't a man who fathered an illegitimate child with a married or unmarried woman be made to claim paternity of the illegitimate child?

Does the fact of fathering an illegitimate child disqualify you from converting to Islam, as it would the woman who bore the child?

What happens to the child in these cases?

Seems like both the man and the woman should have to swear, if establishing paternity is really so important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

But I thought this wasn't about "beginning life as a new Muslim"? Remember, they were Muslim already. So which is it? becoming Muslim or "voting"? If voting, then I assure you that liars vote every day, and the right of voting isn't incumbent on moral perfection. Tell me, which leader tells the voters - OK, I accept your vote as long as you are all of these things. A pledge of allegiance isn't about "I'm perfect, I swear". It's about "I choose this guy, and not another guy."

So first you tried to tell us this pledge is about voting for a leader. Now you say it's about "beginning life as a new Muslim". First you denied that women were asked to comply with all of these conditions before taking an oath. Now you say, well yes, they were, and it's GOOD thing.

Again - where is the verse asking believing men to swear they didn't have illegitimate children before pledging allegiance?

Just choose already what it was that they were asked to do.

PP, if the Prophet ascertained the religious status of women before admitting them into his tribe it does not make the oath exclusively for conversion. And if the prophet administered the oath of allegiance for admission into his tribe and examined their faith too, it does not mean the oath was accepted regardles of conversion. This was an islamic state. There is no separation of church and state. Determination of faith was made prior to admission. I don't know why this confuses you so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

But I thought this wasn't about "beginning life as a new Muslim"? Remember, they were Muslim already. So which is it? becoming Muslim or "voting"? If voting, then I assure you that liars vote every day, and the right of voting isn't incumbent on moral perfection. Tell me, which leader tells the voters - OK, I accept your vote as long as you are all of these things. A pledge of allegiance isn't about "I'm perfect, I swear". It's about "I choose this guy, and not another guy."

So first you tried to tell us this pledge is about voting for a leader. Now you say it's about "beginning life as a new Muslim". First you denied that women were asked to comply with all of these conditions before taking an oath. Now you say, well yes, they were, and it's GOOD thing.

Again - where is the verse asking believing men to swear they didn't have illegitimate children before pledging allegiance?

Just choose already what it was that they were asked to do.

PP, if the Prophet ascertained the religious status of women before admitting them into his tribe it does not make the oath exclusively for conversion. And if the prophet administered the oath of allegiance for admission into his tribe and examined their faith too, it does not mean the oath was accepted regardles of conversion. This was an islamic state. There is no separation of church and state. Determination of faith was made prior to admission. I don't know why this confuses you so much.

And that describes exactly my prior point - this was a background check for new immigrants, not a vote for a leader.