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]Lets backtrack. Please post what I first wrote about Islam on this thread. I wrote that the finding of this Thomas gospel affirms my faith in Islam. How can this justify the accusation that followed? Start analyzing this thread from that.[/quote]

Once again.... Only one poster commented on your Thomas post. That was [b]not[/b] what got you into trouble. That was [b]not [/b][b]the reason people accused you of underestimating your audience and deliberately misleading us.

Here is your post that got you into trouble. As you can see, you once again repeated the "equality" statement, you once again neglected to say what the laws actually are, and once again you disparaged your nemesis for not understanding what you meant by "equality" and also for not agreeing with your definition of "equality." Bonus points for dragging the purity pledge for Muslim women into the convo.

This post, at 10/25 00:16, is the source of the accusations against you:

[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. [b]This is why she was was completely befuddled when the other Muslim poster said women had equality in Islam. She did not think about the equality in terms of the value of rights, she thought of equality in strictly linear terms,[/b] 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]

[/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