Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Who is asking you to agree or love Islam? Just be careful in interpreting the Quran if you can't read it. And study Islamic history before making judgments.

If all the men were asked is to pledge their loyalty, they could have fornicated left and right and even in front of the Prophet himself. If your assertion is that these acts were not prohibited for men, they could have done that. Why didn't they fornicate freely then? Because it WAS expressly forbidden for men too.

My assertion isn't that these acts were not prohibited to men. My assertion - which you weren't able to disprove - is that there is no Quranic evidence men were asked to make these promises as a condition of making a pledge. We can't deduce what must have happened in the absence of Quranic evidence.

You seem to fall back on the argument that since fornication is prohibited for all, there was no need to ask men to re-promise that. In that case, there was no need to ask women to do that, either, since presumably Muslim women would know that. Yet they were asked to pledge that, and men weren't - as a condition of pledge.

There is clearly a mental disconnect between us. The oath for women was in response to a new situation: married women leaving husbands with illegitimate children and saying they wanted to be or were Muslim and seeking admission into the tribe. It warranted an oath for them. Men were not arriving with 2-4 illegitimate children seeking admission into the tribe. Do you see the different situations now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I would suggest you sit down with a pencil and paper and jot down what precipitated the hate in this thread. My first honest, benign post prompted a reply with an insult. It was this insult that opened the door to a discussion of why I was insulted. Another poster chimed in to help the insulter by saying the anger stemmed from not acknowledging the islamophobe's advanced knowledge. I then posted WHY the islamophobe's knowledge was faulty using an example. I'm sorry if the example of "equality" infuriates you. For a Muslim woman to say there is inequality in Islam toward women also implies that there is inequity in Islam. She can not and would not say that because it is simply not true. Practicing Muslim women feel that Islam is an extremely just and equitable system.

Of course she wouldn't. Of course she'd feel that way. But you know, a feeling is not a proof of anything. How strongly you feel about something means nothing to anyone who isn't you. We aren't measuring the intensity of feelings here. If Islamic rules concerning men and women appear unequal to someone, that someone ought to be able to say that without fear of someone's feelings getting hurt.

This goes straight to micro aggression #4, I think it was. OP and western women have different definitions of women's equality. That in itself is OK: your definition for you, and my definition for me. The problems start when OP insists that everybody accept her definition and, if we don't accept it, and we disagree with her, then that makes us Islamophobes.

Anonymous wrote:
I have not ignored that. I'm debating what value it has to explain it to you. You do not seem interested in truth. Lets let CAIR and the media outlets that are reviewing these threads now to determine how to handle this. If you wish to keep spouting misleading information, be my guest. It provides them with valuable information.

Clearly, since I am not finding your argument convincing, I must not be interested in the truth - of which you are a lone possessor. People who don't agree with you are just..NOT interested in the truth. These damn evangelical crusaders!

Neither CAIR nor the news media would be remotely able to "determine how to handle this." Handle what? An anonymous internet discussion?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I did say exactly that. I said Islam does not promote equality (not in western sense); it promotes justice. But you need to understand that practicing muslims here live in a completely different mindset. The poster arguing with us said abstaining from fornication and adultery were oppressive to her. This was quite stunning for me to read, as a Muslim woman. It goes so against our way of thinking and I can not fathom abstinence as oppressive. I live a different life so my views are completely different. In the same way that poster thinks abstinence is oppressive, she perceives the absence of linear rights between men and women as inequality. We have a totally different perspective and for us to say our religion oppresses us with unequal rights would be to utter a misleading statement.

Here you are, twisting things again. I didn't say abstaining from fornication and adultery were oppressive (although to me, yes, life without fornication ain't worth livin'). I said - and I am happy to repeat - that it is oppressive to demand that only from women while providing no scriptural evidence it was required of men. If you continue to claim that men were asked to comply with the same rules, provide evidence.

I did. You were just looking for the linear equality again. You read the oath for women and now you need to see precisely the same words in the same oath for men in precisely the same circumstance. The prohibition for fornication is well established in Islam for both men & women. The punishment for either is flogging. This is in the Quran. That particular oath with its requirement to abstain from fornication and other things were spelled out for women because there was a new dilemma, a flood of women were migrating from Mecca to Medina without husbands, but apparently some with illegitimate children. Fornication pre Islam was common. Allah commanded the Prophet administer the oath for these women and admit them into his tribe. So...new situation, and, therefore, new verse revealed explaining how to handle it. Fornicating men were not asked this question for the obvious reason that there was no way to determine a man's paternity if fornication was commonplace. But for you to suggest men could fornicate but women could not makes no sense. Even today, men in Muslim countries are punished for fornication.

It is not worth rehashing this. Please...if you do not agree, simply leave it as that.

I'll leave it when I'm good and ready.

You continue to ignore the fact that this verse is forward-looking. Women weren't asked to swear that they didn't have illegitimate children (your presumption seems to be that most did). They were asked not to do it IN THE FUTURE. That same thing could have been easily asked of men - for the future. The promise did not look to the past. It applied to future behavior.

Additionally, fornication doesn't always result in children, don't you know.

I didn't say men could fornicate but women couldn't. I said that there is no Quranic evidence that men were asked not to steal, lie, fornicate or father illegitimate children as a condition of pledging alliance - as women have been.

I have not ignored that. I'm debating what value it has to explain it to you. You do not seem interested in truth. Lets let CAIR and the media outlets that are reviewing these threads now to determine how to handle this. If you wish to keep spouting misleading information, be my guest. It provides them with valuable information.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I did say exactly that. I said Islam does not promote equality (not in western sense); it promotes justice. But you need to understand that practicing muslims here live in a completely different mindset. The poster arguing with us said abstaining from fornication and adultery were oppressive to her. This was quite stunning for me to read, as a Muslim woman. It goes so against our way of thinking and I can not fathom abstinence as oppressive. I live a different life so my views are completely different. In the same way that poster thinks abstinence is oppressive, she perceives the absence of linear rights between men and women as inequality. We have a totally different perspective and for us to say our religion oppresses us with unequal rights would be to utter a misleading statement.

Here you are, twisting things again. I didn't say abstaining from fornication and adultery were oppressive (although to me, yes, life without fornication ain't worth livin'). I said - and I am happy to repeat - that it is oppressive to demand that only from women while providing no scriptural evidence it was required of men. If you continue to claim that men were asked to comply with the same rules, provide evidence.

I did. You were just looking for the linear equality again. You read the oath for women and now you need to see precisely the same words in the same oath for men in precisely the same circumstance. The prohibition for fornication is well established in Islam for both men & women. The punishment for either is flogging. This is in the Quran. That particular oath with its requirement to abstain from fornication and other things were spelled out for women because there was a new dilemma, a flood of women were migrating from Mecca to Medina without husbands, but apparently some with illegitimate children. Fornication pre Islam was common. Allah commanded the Prophet administer the oath for these women and admit them into his tribe. So...new situation, and, therefore, new verse revealed explaining how to handle it. Fornicating men were not asked this question for the obvious reason that there was no way to determine a man's paternity if fornication was commonplace. But for you to suggest men could fornicate but women could not makes no sense. Even today, men in Muslim countries are punished for fornication.

It is not worth rehashing this. Please...if you do not agree, simply leave it as that.

I'm not the poster you're talking to, but I see a few issues with this argument.

1. The act of making a promise has nothing to do with the issue of whether men could be found responsible via paternity tests. A promise is a promise. Unless you are arguing that a promise only counts if it can be enforced, but that's not the common understanding of a promise. When my kids promise to do something, I may not always know whether they did it, but there's still an important moral imperative going on here.
2. Similar paternity issues apply to women. If a woman falls pregnant, it's not always possible to prove that the father was her husband or some other man. But that doesn't seem to have been an obstacle to asking women to promise not to fornicate in the future.

Anonymous wrote:
Who is asking you to agree or love Islam? Just be careful in interpreting the Quran if you can't read it. And study Islamic history before making judgments.

If all the men were asked is to pledge their loyalty, they could have fornicated left and right and even in front of the Prophet himself. If your assertion is that these acts were not prohibited for men, they could have done that. Why didn't they fornicate freely then? Because it WAS expressly forbidden for men too.

My assertion isn't that these acts were not prohibited to men. My assertion - which you weren't able to disprove - is that there is no Quranic evidence men were asked to make these promises as a condition of making a pledge. We can't deduce what must have happened in the absence of Quranic evidence.

You seem to fall back on the argument that since fornication is prohibited for all, there was no need to ask men to re-promise that. In that case, there was no need to ask women to do that, either, since presumably Muslim women would know that. Yet they were asked to pledge that, and men weren't - as a condition of pledge.

Anonymous wrote:
I would suggest you sit down with a pencil and paper and jot down what precipitated the hate in this thread. My first honest, benign post prompted a reply with an insult. It was this insult that opened the door to a discussion of why I was insulted. Another poster chimed in to help the insulter by saying the anger stemmed from not acknowledging the islamophobe's advanced knowledge. I then posted WHY the islamophobe's knowledge was faulty using an example. I'm sorry if the example of "equality" infuriates you. For a Muslim woman to say there is inequality in Islam toward women also implies that there is inequity in Islam. She can not and would not say that because it is simply not true. Practicing Muslim women feel that Islam is an extremely just and equitable system.

Of course she wouldn't. Of course she'd feel that way. But you know, a feeling is not a proof of anything. How strongly you feel about something means nothing to anyone who isn't you. We aren't measuring the intensity of feelings here. If Islamic rules concerning men and women appear unequal to someone, that someone ought to be able to say that without fear of someone's feelings getting hurt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 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, the way a self taught westerner would think.

I wasn't befuddled. I know exactly what Islam's talking points are with regard to men/women "equality". I happen to disagree. Nothing about it befuddles me. Yes, I'm thinking of equality the way a Westerner would. You are thinking of them the way a Muslim would. So?

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Most Muslims can't read Arabic, go pick on them.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

That's your theory. All we can say is that there is no Quranic proof they were made to take the same oath.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Men in that verse weren't asked to pledge anything other than loyalty.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

You are lying again. In that verse, women were asked to abstain from these things GOING FORWARD. There's no reason why men couldn't be asked not to have illegitimate children GOING FORWARD. There was also no reason they couldn't be asked not to lie or to steal.

Anonymous wrote: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.

There are no gaps or misjudgments. I simply see things differently because I'm not under obligation to interpret them in a flattering way. It's a very Muslim thing to say "if you studied more, you would understand", as if it is a given that anyone who sees things differently from you simply haven't studied enough. Yeah, clearly, if only people would study enough, they'd agree with you. Anyone who disagrees with you is just...undereducated.

Who is asking you to agree or love Islam? Just be careful in interpreting the Quran if you can't read it. And study Islamic history before making judgments.

If all the men were asked is to pledge their loyalty, they could have fornicated left and right and even in front of the Prophet himself. If your assertion is that these acts were not prohibited for men, they could have done that. Why didn't they fornicate freely then? Because it WAS expressly forbidden for men too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I did say exactly that. I said Islam does not promote equality (not in western sense); it promotes justice. But you need to understand that practicing muslims here live in a completely different mindset. The poster arguing with us said abstaining from fornication and adultery were oppressive to her. This was quite stunning for me to read, as a Muslim woman. It goes so against our way of thinking and I can not fathom abstinence as oppressive. I live a different life so my views are completely different. In the same way that poster thinks abstinence is oppressive, she perceives the absence of linear rights between men and women as inequality. We have a totally different perspective and for us to say our religion oppresses us with unequal rights would be to utter a misleading statement.

Here you are, twisting things again. I didn't say abstaining from fornication and adultery were oppressive (although to me, yes, life without fornication ain't worth livin'). I said - and I am happy to repeat - that it is oppressive to demand that only from women while providing no scriptural evidence it was required of men. If you continue to claim that men were asked to comply with the same rules, provide evidence.

I did. You were just looking for the linear equality again. You read the oath for women and now you need to see precisely the same words in the same oath for men in precisely the same circumstance. The prohibition for fornication is well established in Islam for both men & women. The punishment for either is flogging. This is in the Quran. That particular oath with its requirement to abstain from fornication and other things were spelled out for women because there was a new dilemma, a flood of women were migrating from Mecca to Medina without husbands, but apparently some with illegitimate children. Fornication pre Islam was common. Allah commanded the Prophet administer the oath for these women and admit them into his tribe. So...new situation, and, therefore, new verse revealed explaining how to handle it. Fornicating men were not asked this question for the obvious reason that there was no way to determine a man's paternity if fornication was commonplace. But for you to suggest men could fornicate but women could not makes no sense. Even today, men in Muslim countries are punished for fornication.

It is not worth rehashing this. Please...if you do not agree, simply leave it as that.

I'll leave it when I'm good and ready.

You continue to ignore the fact that this verse is forward-looking. Women weren't asked to swear that they didn't have illegitimate children (your presumption seems to be that most did). They were asked not to do it IN THE FUTURE. That same thing could have been easily asked of men - for the future. The promise did not look to the past. It applied to future behavior.

Additionally, fornication doesn't always result in children, don't you know.

I didn't say men could fornicate but women couldn't. I said that there is no Quranic evidence that men were asked not to steal, lie, fornicate or father illegitimate children as a condition of pledging alliance - as women have been.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I did say exactly that. I said Islam does not promote equality (not in western sense); it promotes justice. But you need to understand that practicing muslims here live in a completely different mindset. The poster arguing with us said abstaining from fornication and adultery were oppressive to her. This was quite stunning for me to read, as a Muslim woman. It goes so against our way of thinking and I can not fathom abstinence as oppressive. I live a different life so my views are completely different. In the same way that poster thinks abstinence is oppressive, she perceives the absence of linear rights between men and women as inequality. We have a totally different perspective and for us to say our religion oppresses us with unequal rights would be to utter a misleading statement.

Here you are, twisting things again. I didn't say abstaining from fornication and adultery were oppressive (although to me, yes, life without fornication ain't worth livin'). I said - and I am happy to repeat - that it is oppressive to demand that only from women while providing no scriptural evidence it was required of men. If you continue to claim that men were asked to comply with the same rules, provide evidence.

I did. You were just looking for the linear equality again. You read the oath for women and now you need to see precisely the same words in the same oath for men in precisely the same circumstance. The prohibition for fornication is well established in Islam for both men & women. The punishment for either is flogging. This is in the Quran. That particular oath with its requirement to abstain from fornication and other things were spelled out for women because there was a new dilemma, a flood of women were migrating from Mecca to Medina without husbands, but apparently some with illegitimate children. Fornication pre Islam was common. Allah commanded the Prophet administer the oath for these women and admit them into his tribe. So...new situation, and, therefore, new verse revealed explaining how to handle it. Fornicating men were not asked this question for the obvious reason that there was no way to determine a man's paternity if fornication was commonplace. But for you to suggest men could fornicate but women could not makes no sense. Even today, men in Muslim countries are punished for fornication.

It is not worth rehashing this. Please...if you do not agree, simply leave it as that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I did say exactly that. I said Islam does not promote equality (not in western sense); it promotes justice. But you need to understand that practicing muslims here live in a completely different mindset. The poster arguing with us said abstaining from fornication and adultery were oppressive to her. This was quite stunning for me to read, as a Muslim woman. It goes so against our way of thinking and I can not fathom abstinence as oppressive. I live a different life so my views are completely different. In the same way that poster thinks abstinence is oppressive, she perceives the absence of linear rights between men and women as inequality. We have a totally different perspective and for us to say our religion oppresses us with unequal rights would be to utter a misleading statement.

Here you are, twisting things again. I didn't say abstaining from fornication and adultery were oppressive (although to me, yes, life without fornication ain't worth livin'). I said - and I am happy to repeat - that it is oppressive to demand that only from women while providing no scriptural evidence it was required of men. If you continue to claim that men were asked to comply with the same rules, provide evidence.

Can you find that post with your statement?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now that we've gone off topic, I have a question for Muslim poster, who wrote:

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.

I don't see how the plural used shows definitively that both men and women were being addressed. In Arabic, the same plural is used when it is men only being addressed or men and women being addressed. I don't know what grounds one would use to say one or other was meant. All that we know is that women only were not being addressed as that is a different plural.

So it's like French and Spanish, if only in the sense that you use the masculine plural for a group that could either consist of both men and women, or just more than one men.

But 42:38 does not refer only to men and we know that because 42:38 is not a standalone verse. It must be read with the verses above it and the verses below it. Allah is communicating with everyone because in the verses above it He begins by addressing all believers. All believers means all Muslims or all who submit their will to God, not just men who are believers.

With regard to the oft-repeated concept of "Quran must be read in the totality of its chapters", it's worth noting something most Westerners don't know:

The Quran was developed (or "revealed") over the period of approximately twenty years. Yet the official version of the Quran (recall our discussion of Mr. Umar's book-burning parties) is not compiled in chronological order. Repeat: not in chronological order at all. For whatever reason, the chapters (surahs) were ordered from longest to shortest with no connection whatever to the order in which they were revealed or to their actual content. This is why you have my blessing to chortle any time someone says you need to read Quranic surahs in the context of preceding chapters and following chapters - because chapters precede or follow each other with no rhyme or reason other than length. Ergo, a preceding chapter would shed no light whatsoever on the chapter that follows.

Add to this a very confusing (to everyone, not just non-Muslims) concept of abrogation - Muhammad's answer to many questions related to obvious inconsistencies in the Quran. His answer was, essentially, "God giveth, and God taketh away", or "Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We {Allah} abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?" That is, if something doesn't make sense or is inconsistent, it's because Allah changed his mind later. I always found it amusing.

Anonymous wrote: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 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, the way a self taught westerner would think.

I wasn't befuddled. I know exactly what Islam's talking points are with regard to men/women "equality". I happen to disagree. Nothing about it befuddles me. Yes, I'm thinking of equality the way a Westerner would. You are thinking of them the way a Muslim would. So?

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Most Muslims can't read Arabic, go pick on them.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

That's your theory. All we can say is that there is no Quranic proof they were made to take the same oath.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Men in that verse weren't asked to pledge anything other than loyalty.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

You are lying again. In that verse, women were asked to abstain from these things GOING FORWARD. There's no reason why men couldn't be asked not to have illegitimate children GOING FORWARD. There was also no reason they couldn't be asked not to lie or to steal.

Anonymous wrote: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.

There are no gaps or misjudgments. I simply see things differently because I'm not under obligation to interpret them in a flattering way. It's a very Muslim thing to say "if you studied more, you would understand", as if it is a given that anyone who sees things differently from you simply haven't studied enough. Yeah, clearly, if only people would study enough, they'd agree with you. Anyone who disagrees with you is just...undereducated.

Anonymous wrote:
I did say exactly that. I said Islam does not promote equality (not in western sense); it promotes justice. But you need to understand that practicing muslims here live in a completely different mindset. The poster arguing with us said abstaining from fornication and adultery were oppressive to her. This was quite stunning for me to read, as a Muslim woman. It goes so against our way of thinking and I can not fathom abstinence as oppressive. I live a different life so my views are completely different. In the same way that poster thinks abstinence is oppressive, she perceives the absence of linear rights between men and women as inequality. We have a totally different perspective and for us to say our religion oppresses us with unequal rights would be to utter a misleading statement.

Here you are, twisting things again. I didn't say abstaining from fornication and adultery were oppressive (although to me, yes, life without fornication ain't worth livin'). I said - and I am happy to repeat - that it is oppressive to demand that only from women while providing no scriptural evidence it was required of men. If you continue to claim that men were asked to comply with the same rules, provide evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Lots of the Quran is very unscientific. Science Channel hasn't yet done a show on this. But how do you feel about the Creation story, Adam and Eve, being presented in the Quran as the literal and irrefutable word of God?

I'd be interested in hearing a Muslim's perspective on this.

not a muslim, but really, any book written that long ago is going to be "very unscientific" - there wasn't very much science known back then.

That's true, but many faiths are able to interpret this story as something other than the literal truth. Muslims believe the Quran is God's own words as transmitted to Mohammed. That makes it more difficult to believe in evolution at the same time.

People who want to hang on to religion and science will find a way.