Anonymous wrote:
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 yet with children.

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.

^^^ I'm not the person you're talking to, but I am 8:40/8:59 who used "it goes without saying" before you used it just now. I wasn't using "it goes without saying" as evidence so much as to restate the obvious, i.e., choices were obviously made. You're trying to use "it goes without saying" as a substitute for evidence. That doesn't work. We'd all still like to see an actual verse directed at men.

The underlying assumption to your argument seems to be that women need guardians for everything else, but an exception is being made for this particular pledge, just this one time.

That hardly suggests that women were free to speak independently of a guardian in any other situation, like voting or pledging to other things.

Anonymous wrote:
I was not quoting. I was using language to paint a visual picture of a typical scene at that time. I was asking you to essentially picture a caravan of people riding on camels, with many women, traveling unaccompanied perhaps (no guardian present), bringing along with them their children, some their husbands and some perhaps of undetermined paternity, 2-4 per refugee woman. Historical accounts say some were lying and saying all their children belonged to their husbands. What was the Prophet to do? Allah/God provided the verse 60:12 and 60:10 to command the Prophet ensure they were indeed converts to Islam, and then asked the Prophets not to send them back to Mecca.

Now please provide the text where you implied the Prophet said Allah makes arbitrary changes in his laws.

That picture exists only in your mind. It could have easily been something else. I wonder how you came up with the 2-4 number. Why not 3-5? Are you sure? Perhaps 6 to 7?

What historical accounts? Quran? That's your history book? I'll give you a little hint: history is usually told in chronological order. Not longest to shortest or vice versa.

Anonymous wrote:
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 yet with children.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

Yes, there clearly is, isn't there? It has to do with your inability to understand the concept of future tense in this verse.

First, there is no evidence whatsoever that women seeking to join Muslims in Medina were arriving with "2-4 illegitimate children seeking admission into the tribe" (you just made that up.) The verse very clearly says, "when believing women come to you seeking allegiance". It says nothing whatsoever about children.

Neither men nor women were asked to promise that they didn't have illegitimate children. Your insistence on commonplace fornication would have made that illogical anyway (we only have the word of the Muslims that pre-Islamic Arabs were devoted fornicators but let's roll with this for the moment). Women seeking allegiance were asked to promise they WILL not do it in future. Men were not.

The reason there is no evidence from your standpoint is because you still have not studied this part of Islamic history.

Where is it written in Islamic history that women were arriving in Medina with 2 to 4 illegitimate children?

I was not quoting. I was using language to paint a visual picture of a typical scene at that time. I was asking you to essentially picture a caravan of people riding on camels, with many women, traveling unaccompanied perhaps (no guardian present), bringing along with them their children, some their husbands and some perhaps of undetermined paternity, 2-4 per refugee woman. Historical accounts say some were lying and saying all their children belonged to their husbands. What was the Prophet to do? Allah/God provided the verse 60:12 and 60:10 to command the Prophet ensure they were indeed converts to Islam, and then asked the Prophets not to send them back to Mecca.

Now please provide the text where you implied the Prophet said Allah makes arbitrary changes in his laws.

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.

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 yet with children.

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.

^^^ it should have gone without saying....

Anonymous wrote:I didn't parse any words, it was the show's scholar that did, and I assume he has read it in Hebrew or Greek.

The show did not discuss the qualifications of each theologian or scholar, however.

I guess what I am asking is, since the divinity of Christ is an important part of the faith (am I assuming that it is?), the gospel of Thomas seems to say Jesus was not God or the son of God. So how does one reconcile this big deviation? Why are Jesus' sayings not important enough to be included in the Bible?

Since you apparently watched the show, you know that there are quite a few ancient documents that purport to convey Jesus' teachings. We still have some of these. Some of them were written close to Jesus' life and others were written a century or two later. Some were a bit silly, but others merited serious consideration. Some were gnostic and others were not. It was up to the early church fathers to decide which to include in the Bible. It goes without saying that they decided Thomas wasn't authentic.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please provide proof that Prophet Muhammad said this.

Also, I have read the Quran many times. It was not as confusing for me. But maybe that is because I had teachers far more knowledgeable than I was explaining it to me. Those who do not understand it can read the footnotes of Yusuf Ali as he sometimes provides historical context. If you still don't understand it, but want to, its time to sit with a scholar and ask him or her. This is better than bashing the holy book for not making any sense and mocking our prophet for justifying seemingly arbitrary changes. Maybe there is something you overlooked or misunderstood so check your understanding of the Quran with one who understands Quranic arabic and islamic history.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

Yes, there clearly is, isn't there? It has to do with your inability to understand the concept of future tense in this verse.

First, there is no evidence whatsoever that women seeking to join Muslims in Medina were arriving with "2-4 illegitimate children seeking admission into the tribe" (you just made that up.) The verse very clearly says, "when believing women come to you seeking allegiance". It says nothing whatsoever about children.

Neither men nor women were asked to promise that they didn't have illegitimate children. Your insistence on commonplace fornication would have made that illogical anyway (we only have the word of the Muslims that pre-Islamic Arabs were devoted fornicators but let's roll with this for the moment). Women seeking allegiance were asked to promise they WILL not do it in future. Men were not.

The reason there is no evidence from your standpoint is because you still have not studied this part of Islamic history.

Where is it written in Islamic history that women were arriving in Medina with 2 to 4 illegitimate children?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

Yes, there clearly is, isn't there? It has to do with your inability to understand the concept of future tense in this verse.

First, there is no evidence whatsoever that women seeking to join Muslims in Medina were arriving with "2-4 illegitimate children seeking admission into the tribe" (you just made that up.) The verse very clearly says, "when believing women come to you seeking allegiance". It says nothing whatsoever about children.

Neither men nor women were asked to promise that they didn't have illegitimate children. Your insistence on commonplace fornication would have made that illogical anyway (we only have the word of the Muslims that pre-Islamic Arabs were devoted fornicators but let's roll with this for the moment). Women seeking allegiance were asked to promise they WILL not do it in future. Men were not.

The reason there is no evidence from your standpoint is because you still have not studied this part of Islamic history.

NP--I still don't see what this oath of loyalty had to do with voting rights. The contention is that by engaging in the oath women agreed to be loyal to Mohammed as leader of the Islamic state unless he betrayed certain principles, in which case they could withdraw their pledge. This sounds like what we call voting with one's feet, which I don't think anyone would confuse with electoral voting.

It seems to me that women were allowed to make the pledge if they agreed to certain conditions like not fornicating but men were not. This sounds very tribal to me--you can become part of our tribe as long as you don't embarrass us. It was special for women because typically women were part of either their father's tribe or their husband's tribe and could not switch tribes. It was hard for men, but doable. The early Islamic community, however, offered a tribe for women to switch to even if they had husbands.

This was in itself pretty extraordinary, and I would guess the Islamic community needed to make sure these women would not disgrace them. It is a long Arab tradition that women bear the honor of the tribe, and wrong moves on their part bring dishonor to the tribe, which is to be avoided at all costs. Thus, no fornicating, number one bringer of dishonor on a tribe (and still today). Also, for good measure, no lying or stealing or slander or disobeying the leader, Muhammed, who no doubt became their substitute male guardian. The women in essence lived in their new tribe, the Islamic community, under his protection, unless of course they married a Muslim male.

Male converts did not present all these social pitfalls that women did, and, thus, likely did not have to agree to all these conditions in making their pledge of loyalty. The honor of a tribe does not rest upon its male members.

So in sum, Islam provided a way for women to join a new tribe on her own. This was remarkable for the time. There really is no need to embellish upon this and say that it gave women voting rights.

Anonymous wrote:
I have this image of the good folks at CAIR shaking their heads over this thread and trying to figure out how to get OP to stop already. I have no doubt OP sent the link to her buddy at CAIR, probably before people started recalling OP's many insults about grannies with STDs and Christian-evangelical-crusader-Islamophobes. CAIR's reaction is anyone's guess. I imagine they're dismayed at OP's combative approach, unorthodox debating techniques and outright insults, none of which is doing much for Islam.

CAIR doesn't care. CAIR concerns itself primarily with identifiable donors, politicians and organizations that have been critical of Islam or Muslims - entities they can publicize and advocate against. Anonymous Internet forums are simply not a part of that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I have this image of the good folks at CAIR shaking their heads over this thread and trying to figure out how to get OP to stop already. I have no doubt OP sent the link to her buddy at CAIR, probably before people started recalling OP's many insults about grannies with STDs and Christian-evangelical-crusader-Islamophobes. CAIR's reaction is anyone's guess. I imagine they're dismayed at OP's combative approach, unorthodox debating techniques and outright insults, none of which is doing much for Islam.

"Hooper! Hooper! There's this chick who won't stop calling."

"'bout what?"

"Says people on some parenting site won't agree with her."

"For real?"

"Uh-huh."

"Tell her I'm in a meeting. A three-day retreat or something."

Anonymous wrote:
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?

Yes, there clearly is, isn't there? It has to do with your inability to understand the concept of future tense in this verse.

First, there is no evidence whatsoever that women seeking to join Muslims in Medina were arriving with "2-4 illegitimate children seeking admission into the tribe" (you just made that up.) The verse very clearly says, "when believing women come to you seeking allegiance". It says nothing whatsoever about children.

Neither men nor women were asked to promise that they didn't have illegitimate children. Your insistence on commonplace fornication would have made that illogical anyway (we only have the word of the Muslims that pre-Islamic Arabs were devoted fornicators but let's roll with this for the moment). Women seeking allegiance were asked to promise they WILL not do it in future. Men were not.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I have this image of the good folks at CAIR shaking their heads over this thread and trying to figure out how to get OP to stop already. I have no doubt OP sent the link to her buddy at CAIR, probably before people started recalling OP's many insults about grannies with STDs and Christian-evangelical-crusader-Islamophobes. CAIR's reaction is anyone's guess. I imagine they're dismayed at OP's combative approach, unorthodox debating techniques and outright insults, none of which is doing much for Islam.