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 it goes without saying 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 [b]yet with children.[/b]

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]
You don't know that. That's just your projection.

Besides, it's your own claim that upon conversion, all sins are wiped clean so it shouldn't have mattered if these children - who you insist, without evidence, were accompanying women - were illegitimate.

Restrictions exist for both men and women.  The Quran provides no evidence men were asked to give the same pledge as women before promising allegiance. Everything else is just your mental acrobatics.

And yes, pre-Islamic history is written by Muslims, so by definition it is biased.  You are confusing Arabs with Muslims.

Khadija's example shows women in pre-Islamic Arabia could have had quite a nice little life. [/quote]

Have you completed reading the Quran? Sins can be repented for. And one can not be held accountable for sins when they did things unknowingly. This is Islam. It says Allah /God is merciful and forgives sins throughout the Quran. A convert begins anew. Truth.

You discount what all Arabs say and what ANY muslim says. So whose historical testimony will you trust? Who, besides Arabs or Muslims, could have written historical accounts of pre islamic Arabia? You want proof that, conveniently for you, does not exist. [/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