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]There was one poster who had some knowledge in the way of scholars and some islamic historical context. I already acknowledged this but also said a little knowledge is dangerous. It can give a person a false sense of security and prevent them from seeking additional knowledge.  Such was the case with that poster. This is why[b] she was was completely befuddled when the other Muslim poster said women had equality in Islam.[/b] She did not think about the equality in terms of the value of rights, she thought of equality in strictly linear terms, the way a self taught westerner would think. She had no idea about sura Ash Shurra and the verse that addressed men AND women on how to resolve (political) matters that required collective opinions. She could not read Arabic so she had no idea the language used in that verse was plural, addressing women too. She saw women were taking the oath of allegiance for the first time in history without a guardian, but alleged it was discriminatory since men didn't have to. Of course men took this oath regularly before, so it was less noteworthy. Still, it was mentioned men did when the Quran talked about the treaty under the tree. She didn't know about this verse either and she had no idea about the historical context, otherwise she would not have made the accusation that the oath was discriminatory. Then she saw where the Prophet asked about converting womens illegitimate children and alleged it discriminated women because the same questioning did not exist for men. There was no way to identify a man's illegitimate child since fornication and adultery were not uncommon. A man could not be held financially responsible for children without evidence he fathered them. If a woman admitted her children were illegitimate, however, the State would provide for them. The poster spun this into a discrimination argument because she did not understand islamic history.

So, its not that we refused to acknowledge her superior understanding of Islam, it is simply that there were some gaps, critical ones, in her understanding that contributed to her misjudgments.

[/quote]

I'm not the poster you're castigating and perhaps I should let her speak for herself. I do, however, find your repeated attempts to recast old arguments to be dishonest and frustrating.

1. The other Muslim poster got in trouble because she made an unqualified statement that "women have equality in Islam," to a western DCUM readership she knew very, very well would understand this differently from what she meant. That was equivalent to lying, frankly. (FWIW, this sort of statement has been an ongoing problem for both of you, for example, when you say "Muslims treat their women captives well" but you actually mean just about the opposite to your Western DCUM readership, see below.) We all agree on the legal facts: women in Islam have extremely unequal divorce rights, they inherit 1/2 of what their brothers inherit, and their testimony is worth 1/2 of a man's testimony in financial courts. Accusing DCUM readers of "misunderstanding this" along what you casually and inaccurately write off as "strictly linear terms" is extremely dishonest on your part.
2.  I don't remember all the details of the women's purity pledge, but I do remember you both were asked multiple times for proof that men faced a similar purity test. As I recall, women were required to pledge their purity [u]going forward [/u] in their lives in Mohammed's community. This had nothing, zip, zilch to do, despite your claims above, with supporting illegitimate children who were conceived in the past. It was a promise not to fornicate or conceive illegitimate children in the future. And women had to make this purity pledge, but men didn't.

You have attempted to spin so many discussions that it's becoming offensive. Shall we revisit the conversion vs. immigration discussion? Shall we revisit your claims that "Muslims treat non-Muslim women captives well" when you actually mean "Muslim soldiers can make slaves out of non-Muslim women captives, Muslim men 'meet the sexual needs' (your words, when pressed) of non-Muslim women captives by having sex with them, and a non-muslim woman will be freed from slavery if she becomes pregnant (oops, you were wrong, she is freed when her Muslim slave master dies).[/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