Be Wary of Racism and Islamophobes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Tell me how the man would know which child was his if men and women were fornicating and engaging in adultery at the time. There was no DNA testing then.

You can not hold a man financially respinsible for a child without knowing with certainty it is the man's biological child. There was no proof back then.

[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.

I see. You are now making an argument that it is in fact well and proper women were asked about illegitimate children, and men weren't, because women WOULD know which children were illegitimate, and men would not. Ridiculous as it is, let us unpack it.

First of all, if fornication and adultery were as common pre-Islam as you say (and remember, we only have the Muslims' word for that - no actual scholarship), then fornication and adultery would be as common for women as they were for men. Then consequences of fornication (illegitimate children) should have been written off for both men and women - if you proceed from the assumption that Islam treats women and men equally.

Secondly, a man does have ways of knowing. First, at a minimum, men would know IF they have slept with women other than their wives. That alone would rule out men who wouldn't have had illegitimate children.

Thirdly, women DON'T always know if their children are legitimate. If sexual contact with husband and lovers occurs regularly and on the same days, then it isn't actually possible to know with certainty who the father of the child was.

So we have taken care of your presumption that women WOULD know which children were illegitimate, and men would NOT.

But actually, none of this matters. Let us examine the language of the verse again:

O Prophet! When believing women come to you to give you the Bai'a (pledge), that they will not associate anything in worship with Allah, that they will not steal, that they will not commit illegal sexual intercourse, that they will not kill their children, that they will not utter slander, intentionally forging falsehood (i.e. by making illegal children belonging to their husbands), and that they will not disobey you in any Ma'ruf (Islamic Monotheism and all that which Islam ordains) then accept their Bai'a (pledge), and ask Allah to forgive them, Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

This verse doesn't set out the conditions for new immigrants based on what they did in the past. It is forward-looking. It doesn't say "swear that you didn't commit illegal sexual intercourse." It says "swear that you WON'T do it", future tense. Given that prohibition against extramarital sex in Islam is equally strong for men and women, there is no reason why believing men who wanted join Muslims in Medina should not have been asked to swear that they won't father illegitimate children IN THE FUTURE. The Quran, though, does not provide evidence that men were ever asked to comply with the same conditions before joining the Medinans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Tell me how the man would know which child was his if men and women were fornicating and engaging in adultery at the time. There was no DNA testing then.

You can not hold a man financially respinsible for a child without knowing with certainty it is the man's biological child. There was no proof back then.

The man would know IF he slept with women other than his wife, and therefore had a shot at illegitimate children.

To turn this around - how would women know whose child it was if they were fornicating and engaging in adultery all the time? If you sleep with two men around the same time, you don't ACTUALLY know whose child you are carrying.

But remember, though, we only have the Muslims' word that Arabia before Islam was a dark place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But PP -- WHO said Islam invented the concept of dowries? We are going off on various tangents here. We weren't even discussing dowries so how'd you jump to this topic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But PP -- WHO said Islam invented the concept of dowries? We are going off on various tangents here. We weren't even discussing dowries so how'd you jump to this topic?

I agree no one said Islam invented dowries. I brought this up in the context of jahiliya and its alleged horrors that cameup. We already know women pre-Islam received dowries, ran businesses, got rich, hired workers and married men of their choice after they proposed to them. If you ask me, that's not a bad deal. Hardly the time of darkness Muslim discourse pretends it was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Tell me how the man would know which child was his if men and women were fornicating and engaging in adultery at the time. There was no DNA testing then.

You can not hold a man financially respinsible for a child without knowing with certainty it is the man's biological child. There was no proof back then.

The man would know IF he slept with women other than his wife, and therefore had a shot at illegitimate children.

To turn this around - how would women know whose child it was if they were fornicating and engaging in adultery all the time? If you sleep with two men around the same time, you don't ACTUALLY know whose child you are carrying.

But remember, though, we only have the Muslims' word that Arabia before Islam was a dark place.

If a woman knew she was sleeping around, she would know at least that her children may not be her lawful husband's. And when coming to the Prophet to take the oath, she should not lie and say with certainty that they belonged to her husband because that would hold him financially responsible for them. The man could not say with certainty whose child was his. The woman can, however, say with certainty that the children belonged to her. And the Prophets tribe, or the islamic state, would provide for the children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Tell me how the man would know which child was his if men and women were fornicating and engaging in adultery at the time. There was no DNA testing then.

You can not hold a man financially respinsible for a child without knowing with certainty it is the man's biological child. There was no proof back then.

The man would know IF he slept with women other than his wife, and therefore had a shot at illegitimate children.

To turn this around - how would women know whose child it was if they were fornicating and engaging in adultery all the time? If you sleep with two men around the same time, you don't ACTUALLY know whose child you are carrying.

But remember, though, we only have the Muslims' word that Arabia before Islam was a dark place.

If a woman knew she was sleeping around, she would know at least that her children may not be her lawful husband's. And when coming to the Prophet to take the oath, she should not lie and say with certainty that they belonged to her husband because that would hold him financially responsible for them. The man could not say with certainty whose child was his. The woman can, however, say with certainty that the children belonged to her. And the Prophets tribe, or the islamic state, would provide for the children.

Women weren't asked to say whose children were her husband's and which were her lover's. They were asked to pledge they will not do it IN THE FUTURE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If a woman knew she was sleeping around, she would know at least that her children may not be her lawful husband's. And when coming to the Prophet to take the oath, she should not lie and say with certainty that they belonged to her husband because that would hold him financially responsible for them. The man could not say with certainty whose child was his. The woman can, however, say with certainty that the children belonged to her. And the Prophets tribe, or the islamic state, would provide for the children.

A man could still be asked if he potentially had illegitimate children because then men who were faithful to their wives would be weeded out.

But it's all irrelevant because the pledge they were asked to make was forward-looking and concerned events of the future, not of the past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I see. You are now making an argument that it is in fact well and proper women were asked about illegitimate children, and men weren't, because women WOULD know which children were illegitimate, and men would not. Ridiculous as it is, let us unpack it.

First of all, if fornication and adultery were as common pre-Islam as you say (and remember, we only have the Muslims' word for that - no actual scholarship), then fornication and adultery would be as common for women as they were for men. Then consequences of fornication (illegitimate children) should have been written off for both men and women - if you proceed from the assumption that Islam treats women and men equally.

Secondly, a man does have ways of knowing. First, at a minimum, men would know IF they have slept with women other than their wives. That alone would rule out men who wouldn't have had illegitimate children.

Thirdly, women DON'T always know if their children are legitimate. If sexual contact with husband and lovers occurs regularly and on the same days, then it isn't actually possible to know with certainty who the father of the child was.

So we have taken care of your presumption that women WOULD know which children were illegitimate, and men would NOT.

But actually, none of this matters. Let us examine the language of the verse again:

O Prophet! When believing women come to you to give you the Bai'a (pledge), that they will not associate anything in worship with Allah, that they will not steal, that they will not commit illegal sexual intercourse, that they will not kill their children, that they will not utter slander, intentionally forging falsehood (i.e. by making illegal children belonging to their husbands), and that they will not disobey you in any Ma'ruf (Islamic Monotheism and all that which Islam ordains) then accept their Bai'a (pledge), and ask Allah to forgive them, Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

This verse doesn't set out the conditions for new immigrants based on what they did in the past. It is forward-looking. It doesn't say "swear that you didn't commit illegal sexual intercourse." It says "swear that you WON'T do it", future tense. Given that prohibition against extramarital sex in Islam is equally strong for men and women, there is no reason why believing men who wanted join Muslims in Medina should not have been asked to swear that they won't father illegitimate children IN THE FUTURE. The Quran, though, does not provide evidence that men were ever asked to comply with the same conditions before joining the Medinans.

PP, I think I have clarified a lot. If you still do not understand, it might be time to simply say its not worth it for you to invest so much of your precious time to trying to figure Islam out! It makes sense to the millions of women that practice it, and thats all that matters.

I will try to answer your questions later tonight if no one else attempts to. It seems for every one question answered, you have ten more related and unrelated questions. I have never known anyone who disrespects a religion so much to invest so much in trying to understand it, and yet so unwilling to contact a scholar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

PP, I think I have clarified a lot. If you still do not understand, it might be time to simply say its not worth it for you to invest so much of your precious time to trying to figure Islam out! It makes sense to the millions of women that practice it, and thats all that matters.

I will try to answer your questions later tonight if no one else attempts to. It seems for every one question answered, you have ten more related and unrelated questions. I have never known anyone who disrespects a religion so much to invest so much in trying to understand it, and yet so unwilling to contact a scholar.

I think that every answer you gave made so little sense and had so many holes that additional questions to expose them simply asked themselves.

I will be a judge of what's a good and not good use of my precious time. I did not solicit your advice on that.

I have no doubt that it makes sense to women who practice Islam. If you simply left it there, I would have applauded you. But you started from the position that it should make sense to everyone. That's how the whole 45 pages came to be.

I fully believe you've never met anyone like me. That's because you've never known a non-Muslim who knows so much about Islam, is still not enamored by it, and can challenge your claims so successfully. Mind you, I'm not trying to understand Islam any more than I already do, and I certainly don't think you're the person to advance my understanding. I understand and know about it as much as any Muslim does; I just don't feel about it the way they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Which is why she is talked about so much, it was not common at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

O Prophet! When believing women come to you to give you the Bai'a (pledge), that they will not associate anything in worship with Allah, that they will not steal, that they will not commit illegal sexual intercourse, that they will not kill their children, that they will not utter slander, intentionally forging falsehood (i.e. by making illegal children belonging to their husbands), and that they will not disobey you in any Ma'ruf (Islamic Monotheism and all that which Islam ordains) then accept their Bai'a (pledge), and ask Allah to forgive them, Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Different PP here. Bai'a definitely means pledge, and it's used to refer to various types of pledges elsewhere in the Quran, like before a big battle.

But what are these women pledging to? They don't appear to be pledging to Mohammed himself. Instead they are "pledging" that they will not commit certain specified acts of fornication or infanticide that are unislamic. Take out the comma after "(pledge)," and this is even more obvious (wonder how well that comma translates). Then Mohammed accepts their pledge (to not fornicate).

So this doesn't seem like these women are choosing (voting for) a leader at all - they are pledging/agreeing to abide by Islam's rules for women.

Maybe I'm missing something. Or maybe you already went over this.

[Anonymous]

What was the analogous pledge for men? The shahada? With the shahada, you're definitely giving your allegiance to Mohamned as God's messenger. But women pledged to adhere to rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What was the analogous pledge for men? The shahada? With the shahada, you're definitely giving your allegiance to Mohamned as God's messenger. But women pledged to adhere to rules.

No, the pledge women were asked to take was not the shahada. Remember, these women were already Muslims or claimed to be. Shahada at that point was in the past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Which is why she is talked about so much, it was not common at all.

That's your theory. My theory is that she's talked about so much because she was the Prophet's wife. If she was eighteen, poor and placed into this marriage by her parents, she'd still be talked about just as much.

We have no evidence her example was uncommon.

Here is what Khadija's example tells us about women's opportunities in pre-Islamic Arabia:

- women could be rich
- women could run a business
- women could live without a husband
- women could hire workers for their business using their own judgment
- women could identify men they were interested in marrying, and propose to them
- forty-year old widows with multiple kids weren't considered unmarriageable (would you like to be a forty-year old with three or four kids looking to get married in, say, Pakistan or Bahrain or Indonesia today?)
- women received dowries from their husbands.

Days of darkness? Really?