Reply to The subtle micro aggressions of islamophobia

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "The subtle micro aggressions of islamophobia"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
You should read Andrew Marshams, "Islamic Monarchy,  Ascension and Succession in the First Muslim Empire." The entire book is about rituals and oaths in Islam. In this book he evaluates the kinds of oaths the Prophet used. [b]He clearly states that the oath administered to the women (mentioned in sura 60:12) is for conversion and allegiance and nothing else. [/b][/quote]
So, not voting then? Glad we finally sorted it out.

[b]Oh, yes, I forgot. The linear thinking of yours. If a man has a right, the woman must have the identical right in identical circumstances for it to be considered "equality" in your mind. If an oath is primarily for conversion and allegiance, it may not incidentally serve to grant any other rights. Fine. Lets try to put it in linear, more concrete terms to help you digest this then. Allegiance is a vote for the person seeking rulership or a vote to maintain the person's rulership. It is a promise of loyalty to that person. This is similar to our modern day voting. What is impressive is that Islam permitted women to take this oath of allegiance at a time when women were disregarded and treated as if they were chattel. Deny it as much as you want and continue to publish misleading facts about Islam but I'm quoting the foremost scholars in religion who contradict your assertions completely. [/b]

[quote=Anonymous]
This was also validated in an article published in the Oxford Islamic Studies Online, "Women and Islam" by John L. Esposito. Esposito earned a PhD studying Islam and held postdoctoral appointments at Harvard and Oxford. He should be to your liking, since he is not a Muslim, but perhaps you will argue that since he now works at Georgetown and his center received an endowment from Saudi Arabia, he is not to be trusted either. Hmmm? <http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e2510>.[/quote]
Actually, yes, Esposito is fully owned by Al-Saud. Bought and sold.  Al-Saud does that very well.

[b]Let me make sure I understand you. According to you, the following may not be trusted sources of information:
 1) No Muslim's word may be trusted 
2) No Arab's word may be trusted 
3) No religious scholar, no matter his education or how renowned he or she may be, may be trusted if they are even remotely associated with a Muslim or an Arab.

Is this accurate?

Esposito's assertions are validated by OTHER non-Miuslim and non Arab scholars I have already quoted. The other scholars have absolutely nothing to do with Muslims (however, I can call each one of them to interrogate them to make sure they do not have any Muslim acquaintances at all if it would calm your fears). These scholars have published works via Oxford University Press. Their published works are used as textbooks in the world's best universities, such as Oxford. [/b]

[quote=Anonymous]
     "In Islam, men and women are moral equals in God's sight and are expected to fulfill the same duties of worship, prayer, faith, almsgiving, fasting, and pilgrimage to Mecca. Islam generally improved the status of women compared to earlier Arab cultures, prohibiting female infanticide and recognizing women's full personhood. Islamic law emphasizes the contractual nature of marriage, requiring that a dowry be paid to the woman rather than to her family, and guaranteeing women's rights of inheritance and to own and manage property. Women were also granted the right to live in the matrimonial home and receive financial maintainance during marriage and a waiting period following death and divorce...The historical record shows that Muhammad consulted women and weighed their opinions seriously. At least one woman, Umm Waraqah , was appointed imam over her household by Muhammad. Women contributed significantly to the canonization of the Quran. A woman is known to have corrected the authoritative ruling of Caliph Umar on dowry. Women prayed in mosques unsegregated from men, were involved in hadith transmission, gave sanctuary to men, engaged in commercial transactions, were encouraged to seek knowledge, and were both instructors and pupils in the early Islamic period. Muhammad's last wife, Aishah , was a well-known authority in medicine, history, and rhetoric. The Quran refers to women who pledged an oath of allegiance to Muhammad independently of their male kin. Some distinguished women converted to Islam prior to their husbands, a demonstration of Islam's recognition of their capacity for independent action. Caliph Umar appointed women to serve as officials in the market of Medina. Biographies of distinguished women, especially in Muhammad's household, show that women behaved relatively autonomously in early Islam. In Sufi circles, women were recognized as teachers, adherents, “spiritual mothers,” and even inheritors of the spiritual secrets of their fathers."

I'm sorry, but you do not have a good understanding of Islamic history or pre-islamic history. Your hatred seems to prevent you from reading any source authored by Muslims or Arabs. But why haven't you read what the majority of nonArab and nonMuslim scholars write then? I can only guess that your arrogance will prevent it if they contradict you. I'm quoting or referring to nonMuslim scholars here.  It is proof that you persistently publish erroneous, misleading information about Islam to downplay the fact that Islam did elevate the status of women. [/quote]
I don't believe anyone argued that Islam did NOTHING at all to improve the status of women. it was a step in the right direction but it falls far, far short of what the standard is today.

[b]You are, once again, confusing the practice of Islam, which is a far digression from true Islam and which more similar to the pre-islamic jahiliya period. Islam does not reflect a western perspective and it doesn't need to to be an equitable system. 
[/b]

The whole discussion was about about the extent of that improvement (was it really as good as people say?) and the starting point pre-Islam (was it really as bad as people say?). So, let's set Mr. Esposito straight:

- women owned property and engaged in commercial transaction before Islam
 - the contractual nature of marriage in Islam privileges the husband with regard to terminating the contract
 - re: Aisha.  I don't know if her authority extended to medicine. I should also point that no other wife of Muhammad became as famous or as heavily quoted as she did, and I suspect the fact that her daddy - Mr. Abu Bakr - became President #1 upon Muhammad's passage, had a little something to do with it.  Daughters of Middle Eastern rulers generally do well in life. Unless they are Al-Saud.

I have no hatred of Islam.  I'm Islam-neutral.  But to you, any criticism or disagreement must be hatred-driven. That's your thing.  
[/quote]

[b]When rebuttals are rejected simply because the speaker is Muslim, or scholarly works are rejected simply because the author is Arab or Muslim, or opinions are rejected simply because the speaker is acquainted with a Muslim, one has to wonder about your "neutrality."….[/b][/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