Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima. For Pete's sake. Mohammed's first wife owned property before Islam even appeared. Islam did not "grant property rights to women." Why do you keep saying that?

Also, you're the one who is so big on using context to interpret the Quran, yet in this case you insist on ignoring context. You're talking about people who were acting 1400 years ago in a context of establishing relations with another tribe. Nor does pledging allegiance to the ruler of another tribe have anything to do with *choosing* the ruler that you pledge to or the "ballots" you kept referring to.

Read, woman, read. Nasty Little Muslim here. We just got through telling you that in Sura Ash Shurra there is a verse on the requirement of mutual consultations to decide all matters that require a collective opinion. It clearly makes this statement to both men and women. This means even in political matters, women's opinion mattered because usually political matters require a collective vote or opinion. But this ruling goes for everything from voting on a ruler to deciding who should clean the mosque that week.

Dear Nasty a Little a Sidekick (you changed it to Muslim yourself): I just read the Sura Ash Shurra several times. I saw eye-for-eye there. (Did you know Jesus got rid of eye-for-eye? When Muslims tell potential converts they follow the same Jesus, that's not strictly true.) I saw some gruesome punishments for non-believers. And I saw this, which seems to be the closest to what you're saying:

Sahih International
And in anything over which you disagree - its ruling is [to be referred] to Allah . [Say], "That is Allah , my Lord; upon Him I have relied, and to Him I turn back."

Perhaps instead of waving your hands about passages in the Quran, in an abusive tone of voice no less, you need to cut and paste the exact lines. Both you and Muslima are really good with the cut and paste feature, so surely you can do this.

Read, Read, Read again. Keep Reading, you might just get it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima. For Pete's sake. Mohammed's first wife owned property before Islam even appeared. Islam did not "grant property rights to women." Why do you keep saying that?

Also, you're the one who is so big on using context to interpret the Quran, yet in this case you insist on ignoring context. You're talking about people who were acting 1400 years ago in a context of establishing relations with another tribe. Nor does pledging allegiance to the ruler of another tribe have anything to do with *choosing* the ruler that you pledge to or the "ballots" you kept referring to.

Read, woman, read. Nasty Little Muslim here. We just got through telling you that in Sura Ash Shurra there is a verse on the requirement of mutual consultations to decide all matters that require a collective opinion. It clearly makes this statement to both men and women. This means even in political matters, women's opinion mattered because usually political matters require a collective vote or opinion. But this ruling goes for everything from voting on a ruler to deciding who should clean the mosque that week.

Nobody ever called you Nasty Little Muslim. I called you Nasty Little Sidekick.

The racist appellation is your own invention and I refuse to be associated with it. It's part of the broader problem you seem to have with honesty and consistency.

Muslima wrote:

Before Abu Bakr (???? ???? ???) finalized his decision to appoint Umar (???? ???? ???) , he in fact mutually consulted the prominent Muslims, including Abdur Rahman ibn Awf (???? ???? ???) , Uthman bin Affan (???? ???? ???) , Ali ibn Abi Talib (???? ???? ???) , and Talhah ibn Ubayd-Allah (???? ???? ???) .
During the process of Shura, it was only Abdur Rahman bin Awf (???? ???? ???) and Talhah (???? ???? ???) who raised any objections to Umar (???? ???? ???) , but then Abu Bakr (???? ???? ???) countered these points of contention, and then Abdur Rahman (???? ???? ???) and Talhah (???? ???? ???) both agreed with Abu Bakr’s rebuttal, so the matter was settled. As for Uthman (???? ???? ???) and Ali (???? ???? ???) , they both favored Umar (???? ???? ???) .

Therefore, we have established that the principle of Shura was very much involved in the nomination of Umar (???? ???? ???) ; the prominent representatives–including all the major figures of the Ansars and Muhajirs–selected Umar (???? ???? ???) after mutual consultation. Furthermore, Umar (???? ???? ???) secured the “consent of the governed”.

Thanks for making my point.

muslima wrote:

bu Bakr (???? ???? ???) would even ask the people’s permission before finalizing his will. After writing in his will that Umar (???? ???? ???) was to be the Caliph, he asked Uthman (???? ???? ???) to read the will outloud to the people (i.e. the masses) and ask if they approved of it. We read:

(Uthman said): “Will you (all) pledge allegiance to the person in whose favor a will has been made in this letter?

The people said: “Yes.” …All accepted and agreed to pledge allegiance to Umar. Then Abu Bakr called Umar in solitude and gave him whatever advice he wanted to.

(Ibn Saad; Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol.3, p.200)

Similarly, we read:

Then the Caliph (Abu Bakr) summoned all the people of Medinah to assemble in the court of the Mosque. He addressed them from the window of his house which opened into the court. (Abu Bakr said): “O people! I have appointed Umar ibn al-Khattab as my successor. He is not my relative, but he is the best among you. Are you satisfied with him? Will you obey him?” The people answered with one accord, “yes, we will obey him.” The Caliph was pleased and prayed for God’s favour on Umar and the Muslims.

But, wait, the Muslims wrote this

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PS, good luck in landing that PR job you're seeking! From your performance here, you'll kill at it. Literally.

Ahhh, but if you only knew my background. Well suited for the job of going up against islamophobes like you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow. What a hateful post. It says a lot more about you, dear little sidekick, than it says about anybody you are attacking.

There are at least three, and probably 4 or 5, posters here who are sick of Muslima's conversion efforts. Still, nobody here has called for Muslima to be "banned," you just made that up. However, another Muslim -- who is probably you -- repeatedly threatened various non-Muslim posters with removal by the moderator. Once one person, one single time and several threads ago, and who is not me, told Muslima to returned to her country. But on the other side of the scales, let's review the insults you've hurled at people:
- gap-toothed redneck
- bad cook
- husband about to divorce non-Muslim poster
- unemployed and unemployable
- drug-addicted son
- porn-addicted son
- Christian-evalngelical-crusader-Islamophobe.
- miniskirt-wearing granny
- stupid, ignorant, various synonyms for dumb

Looks like most of the bad behavior came straight from you!


The point is, there is no excuse for Muslima to say things like "Islam provides equal rights for women" when she knows very well that this will be misunderstood by Western ears. There is no excuse for Muslima to claim converts exceed immigrants when the facts, provided by you or by her, prove quite the opposite. There is no excuse for Muslima's insulting, abusive behavior whenever anybody questions her. If she wants to clean up her act, I'm sure many people here would welcome her. Same goes for you.

Maybe those western ears need to stop trying to hear that which the western mind simply can not understand. Google articles on "Equal rights for women in Islam" and you will see most Muslim authors consider rights between men and women to not only be equitable, but equal also. Muslima is simply like every other Muslim expressing the same view. You have invested far too much time on harassing Muslima and vilifying my religion. The insults were deserved. You accuse Muslima and I of proselytizing. DCUM is not the place to proselytize. I sure as hell hope nobody contemplates life altering conversion based on information collected on DCUM. However, you and your one toothed back woods gang of three to five people do have an agenda, which is to trash Islam by publishing false information and you have incurred my wrath. You keep deliberately publishing false or misleading info because of your personal hatred toward Islam and I will most certainly reserve special language for you. As the western saying goes, if the shoe fits.

Your agenda is to push statements like "Islam gives 'equal' rights to women" and "Islam gives divorce rights to women" and "Islam treats female captives well" to a DCUM readership that you hope will swallow it whole without asking any questions.

My only agenda, if I can be said to have one, is to help get the facts out there. It took several whole threads to get there, but you and Muslima finally agreed on this thread that your idea of "equal" is almost the polar opposite of how your American audience hears it - which, of course, you knew all along. Similarly, when Muslima brags about Islamic "divorce rights for women," don't you think it's helpful to point out that a man can get a divorce by saying "talak" to her, but a woman has to go through the courts and her alimony is limited to three months. It almost seems like you deliberately omitted these details....

There are basically three ways for a wife can seek a divorce:
1)Ask her husband that she no longer wishes to remain his wife, and the husband accedes to her request and pronounces a divorce on her.
2)If the husband refuses to divorce her, she has the right to Initiate a divorce proceedings in a Shariah Court, whereby the Judge will study the conditions and reasons for seeking divorce, and then summon the husband and give him an option: either he accedes to the wife’s divorce request and pronounces divorce on her, or the Court will use its authority and divorce the couple.
3) If the husband does not pronounce the divorce and the Judge sees valid reason for divorce, the Shariah Judge has the authority to divorce the couple

a woman came to the Prophet Muhammad seeking the dissolution of her marriage, she told the Prophet that she did not have any complaints against her husband's character or manners. Her only problem was that she honestly did not like him to the extent of not being able to live with him any longer. The Prophet asked her: "Would you give him his garden (the marriage gift he had given her) back?" she said: "Yes". The Prophet then instructed the man to take back his garden and accept the dissolution of the marriage (Bukhari).

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima. For Pete's sake. Mohammed's first wife owned property before Islam even appeared. Islam did not "grant property rights to women." Why do you keep saying that?

Also, you're the one who is so big on using context to interpret the Quran, yet in this case you insist on ignoring context. You're talking about people who were acting 1400 years ago in a context of establishing relations with another tribe. Nor does pledging allegiance to the ruler of another tribe have anything to do with *choosing* the ruler that you pledge to or the "ballots" you kept referring to.

Read, woman, read. Nasty Little Muslim here. We just got through telling you that in Sura Ash Shurra there is a verse on the requirement of mutual consultations to decide all matters that require a collective opinion. It clearly makes this statement to both men and women. This means even in political matters, women's opinion mattered because usually political matters require a collective vote or opinion. But this ruling goes for everything from voting on a ruler to deciding who should clean the mosque that week.

Dear Nasty a Little a Sidekick (you changed it to Muslim yourself): I just read the Sura Ash Shurra several times. I saw eye-for-eye there. (Did you know Jesus got rid of eye-for-eye? When Muslims tell potential converts they follow the same Jesus, that's not strictly true.) I saw some gruesome punishments for non-believers. And I saw this, which seems to be the closest to what you're saying:

Sahih International
And in anything over which you disagree - its ruling is [to be referred] to Allah . [Say], "That is Allah , my Lord; upon Him I have relied, and to Him I turn back."

Perhaps instead of waving your hands about passages in the Quran, in an abusive tone of voice no less, you need to cut and paste the exact lines. Both you and Muslima are really good with the cut and paste feature, so surely you can do this.

Read, Read, Read again. Keep Reading, you might just get it

Not gonna happen, I have zero appetite for reading again about the punishments for non-believers. Also, reading about eye-for-eye is just plain depressing.

As multiple posters have told you multiple times before, the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim.

If you refuse to do something as easy as clipping and pasting this mystery quote -- especially given your facility with dregging through the PBS archives -- we'll just have to go to bed assuming you made yet another claim up out of whole cloth.

Anonymous wrote:These two are quite something - enough already.

To Muslima and her sidekick - you would do a better service to your faith to make your points concise and not make snarky comments.

I've said this again and again.

Muslima seems to have diarrhea of the mouth and cannot help herself/himself.

Muslima is a liar, does not live in the United States and spews her rhetoric like a sycophant.

Be wary absolutely.

THIS THREAD NEEDS TO BE SHUT DOWN.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PS, good luck in landing that PR job you're seeking! From your performance here, you'll kill at it. Literally.

Ahhh, but if you only knew my background. Well suited for the job of going up against islamophobes like you.

I dunno, you kinda suck at it here..

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima. For Pete's sake. Mohammed's first wife owned property before Islam even appeared. Islam did not "grant property rights to women." Why do you keep saying that?

Also, you're the one who is so big on using context to interpret the Quran, yet in this case you insist on ignoring context. You're talking about people who were acting 1400 years ago in a context of establishing relations with another tribe. Nor does pledging allegiance to the ruler of another tribe have anything to do with *choosing* the ruler that you pledge to or the "ballots" you kept referring to.

Read, woman, read. Nasty Little Muslim here. We just got through telling you that in Sura Ash Shurra there is a verse on the requirement of mutual consultations to decide all matters that require a collective opinion. It clearly makes this statement to both men and women. This means even in political matters, women's opinion mattered because usually political matters require a collective vote or opinion. But this ruling goes for everything from voting on a ruler to deciding who should clean the mosque that week.

Dear Nasty a Little a Sidekick (you changed it to Muslim yourself): I just read the Sura Ash Shurra several times. I saw eye-for-eye there. (Did you know Jesus got rid of eye-for-eye? When Muslims tell potential converts they follow the same Jesus, that's not strictly true.) I saw some gruesome punishments for non-believers. And I saw this, which seems to be the closest to what you're saying:

Sahih International
And in anything over which you disagree - its ruling is [to be referred] to Allah . [Say], "That is Allah , my Lord; upon Him I have relied, and to Him I turn back."

Perhaps instead of waving your hands about passages in the Quran, in an abusive tone of voice no less, you need to cut and paste the exact lines. Both you and Muslima are really good with the cut and paste feature, so surely you can do this.

Read, Read, Read again. Keep Reading, you might just get it

Not gonna happen, I have zero appetite for reading again about the punishments for non-believers. Also, reading about eye-for-eye is just plain depressing.

As multiple posters have told you multiple times before, the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim.

If you refuse to do something as easy as clipping and pasting this mystery quote -- especially given your facility with dregging through the PBS archives -- we'll just have to go to bed assuming you made yet another claim up out of whole cloth.

You keep repeating this over and over, woman/man/virus, whatever you are this is NOT a courtroom, are you a defense attorney???. Nobody has to prove zilch to you, you are not a judge or a jury, Geezzzzzzzzz.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima. For Pete's sake. Mohammed's first wife owned property before Islam even appeared. Islam did not "grant property rights to women." Why do you keep saying that?

Also, you're the one who is so big on using context to interpret the Quran, yet in this case you insist on ignoring context. You're talking about people who were acting 1400 years ago in a context of establishing relations with another tribe. Nor does pledging allegiance to the ruler of another tribe have anything to do with *choosing* the ruler that you pledge to or the "ballots" you kept referring to.

Read, woman, read. Nasty Little Muslim here. We just got through telling you that in Sura Ash Shurra there is a verse on the requirement of mutual consultations to decide all matters that require a collective opinion. It clearly makes this statement to both men and women. This means even in political matters, women's opinion mattered because usually political matters require a collective vote or opinion. But this ruling goes for everything from voting on a ruler to deciding who should clean the mosque that week.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Read, woman, read. Nasty Little Muslim here. We just got through telling you that in Sura Ash Shurra there is a verse on the requirement of mutual consultations to decide all matters that require a collective opinion. It clearly makes this statement to both men and women. This means even in political matters, women's opinion mattered because usually political matters require a collective vote or opinion. But this ruling goes for everything from voting on a ruler to deciding who should clean the mosque that week.

The PARTICULAR verse about giving allegiance she quoted as "granting women voting rights" has nothing to do with voting. Don't you understand how damaging it is to your argument to make such embarrassing mistakes? Mistakes that are ascertained as easily as reading the surah she quoted TO THE END and thinking..woah...that's not at all about what she said it was about.

But I agree that women probably got a lot of say in who cleaned the mosque that week.

Muslima wrote:
You keep repeating this over and over, woman/man/virus, whatever you are this is NOT a courtroom, are you a defense attorney???. Nobody has to prove zilch to you, you are not a judge or a jury, Geezzzzzzzzz.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima. For Pete's sake. Mohammed's first wife owned property before Islam even appeared. Islam did not "grant property rights to women." Why do you keep saying that?

Also, you're the one who is so big on using context to interpret the Quran, yet in this case you insist on ignoring context. You're talking about people who were acting 1400 years ago in a context of establishing relations with another tribe. Nor does pledging allegiance to the ruler of another tribe have anything to do with *choosing* the ruler that you pledge to or the "ballots" you kept referring to.

Read, woman, read. Nasty Little Muslim here. We just got through telling you that in Sura Ash Shurra there is a verse on the requirement of mutual consultations to decide all matters that require a collective opinion. It clearly makes this statement to both men and women. This means even in political matters, women's opinion mattered because usually political matters require a collective vote or opinion. But this ruling goes for everything from voting on a ruler to deciding who should clean the mosque that week.

ahahah dear fellow muslim poster, you crack me up subhanallah May Allah have mercy on us LOLLLLL

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PS, good luck in landing that PR job you're seeking! From your performance here, you'll kill at it. Literally.

Ahhh, but if you only knew my background. Well suited for the job of going up against islamophobes like you.

I dunno, you kinda suck at it here..

Muslima wrote:
Islam gives equal rights to women and stop lying, nobody said our idea of "equal" was the polar opposite of what the American audience would understand. I repeat, we are EQUAL. And STOP LYING, muslim women get divorced every day without going to court, the nerve of you!!!! And guess what?? Even if Going to Court was Her only way to get a divorce, how about women in America, or any country for that matter, can they get a divorce without going to court??

Muslima wrote:
There are basically three ways for a wife can seek a divorce:
1)Ask her husband that she no longer wishes to remain his wife, and the husband accedes to her request and pronounces a divorce on her.
2)If the husband refuses to divorce her, she has the right to Initiate a divorce proceedings in a Shariah Court, whereby the Judge will study the conditions and reasons for seeking divorce, and then summon the husband and give him an option: either he accedes to the wife’s divorce request and pronounces divorce on her, or the Court will use its authority and divorce the couple.
3) If the husband does not pronounce the divorce and the Judge sees valid reason for divorce, the Shariah Judge has the authority to divorce the couple

Muslima wrote:a woman came to the Prophet Muhammad seeking the dissolution of her marriage, she told the Prophet that she did not have any complaints against her husband's character or manners. Her only problem was that she honestly did not like him to the extent of not being able to live with him any longer. The Prophet asked her: "Would you give him his garden (the marriage gift he had given her) back?" she said: "Yes". The Prophet then instructed the man to take back his garden and accept the dissolution of the marriage (Bukhari).