Reply to Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained""

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
If stealing, forging lies, fornication were all expressly forbidden, which they were, then [b]it goes without saying [/b]that men coming into the tribe would have had to abstain from these to gain admission into the tribe and to simply be a Muslim. It was spelled out in an oath for women because Allah/God was giving instructions to the Prophet on how to handle a new situation, the flood of women arriving into Medina, seeking admission into the Prophets tribe, WITHOUT husbands or guardians, and sometimes with children. That an oath with prohibitions was spelled out for women does not imply restrictions did not also exist for men. Thats faulty reasoning.  We know these same prohibitions and restrictions are part of Islam. Its spelled out over and over throughout the Quran. They just were not spelled out like the oath was spelled out because here, God was providing instructions on a new dilemma with women seeking admission, without husbands present and yet with children.

As far as fornication & adultery being commonplace, it was. As were other kinds of bad behavior. But if you insist that a Arab Muslims word, account, or testimony is inherently false, then you will discount 99% of historical accounts because Arabs would naturally be the ones to report on their own history.

You can't come to the table to understand Islam with a prejudicial mind. If you do, then it is no surprise to anyone that you disregard everything you hear.

[/quote]

^^^ I'm not the person you're talking to, but I am 8:40/8:59  who used "it goes without saying" before you used it just now. I wasn't using "it goes without saying" as evidence so much as to restate the obvious, i.e., choices were obviously made. You're trying to use "it goes without saying" as a substitute for evidence. That doesn't work. We'd all still like to see an actual verse directed at men.

The underlying assumption to your argument seems to be that [b]women need guardians [/b]for everything else, but an exception is being made for this particular pledge, just this one time.

That hardly suggests that women were free to speak independently of a guardian in any other situation, like voting or pledging to other things.
[/quote]
This particular group of women did not have suitable guardians - Islam does not consider non-Muslim husbands fit for guardianship over Muslim women. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics