Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Islam is divinely inspired but then I don't think any religion is. I want you to know something. You behave like every single unskilled dawwa-giver I met, and I met a lot of them - including my numerous Saudi in-laws. They all go on and on about how fabulous Islam is; when I point out something factual that doesn't seem appealing to me, they come up with all kinds of reasons why black is white and white is black, and then they ask me to agree that Islam is fabulous. When I continue saying that it doesn't seem fabulous to me, they all say, No! You see in your heart that it's fabulous, you just DELIBERATELY don't want to admit it.

I'm like why? Why would I hesitate to admit it? I've told you about all the reasons it doesn't work for me, and I'm not going to suddenly decide that these reasons aren't important any more. I'm not deliberately being anything. You've failed to make a good argument. That's fine; no religion has ever made a good argument to me. But to insist that whoever doesn't see the beauty of Islam MUST be refusing deliberately is just disrespectful. I have no problem with you believing what you believe. But stop trying to make me admit it makes sense or is fabulous. It doesn't. And it isn't, not to me. And that's completely sincere.

Very well put, PP. I'm the poster who yesterday was challenging Muslima's so-called "logic" as disengenuous as best, and outright deceptive at worst. When I say outright deceptive, I include in this description Muslima's half-truths ("Islam offers various rights to women") as well as outrights lies ("Islam offers asylum to captives").

My only goal is to get the complete facts out there. Then DCUM's readers can decide for themselves whether they see "beauty" in the Islamic system. DCUM readers can decide for themselves whether forcing unconsensual sex on female captives is "beautiful," or not. But DCUM's readers can't make decisions based on full information if Muslima's and the other Muslim poster's statements, such as "Islam offers captives asylum," are left to stand unchallenged.

What I find very frustrating is that when we challenge this supposed "logic" and "beauty," as carefully and selectively presented by Muslima and the other poster, Muslima and the other poster accuse us of "hating Islam" and of being "afraid" to accept the beauty of Islam. I hope DCUM readers can see that this as yet another example of a logical fallacy, one of many logical errors, in their arguments. Yes, it's true that I don't see the "beauty" of many of these religious rules, once they are fully explained. But this hzs nothing to do with "being afraid" to accept some selectively presented "logic." That's just plain silly.

Is UNconsensual a word??? lol Listen if your goal or other people's goal was simply to get the "facts" out there about Islam, you or others would never have called Muhammad a pedophile and you would not resort to sarcasm ("beauty" of Islam).

Is this your best response? To ridicule me and put other peoples' words in my mouth? I never called Muhammed a pedophile, that was another poster. And I put quotes around
"beauty" because I was quoting you and your repeated use of the word "beautiful" to describe your religion. I don't happen to agree, so I needed to indicate that "beauty" was your word, not my own. You seem to live by the adage, when you have no response, attack the person.

No matter. The facts are now a matter of record. Other readers can read your limited statements, and then they can read more complete descriptions from the other PP and myself. And they can draw their own conclusions.

Muhammad was called a pedophile, yet you're offended that I poked fun at "unconsensual"? WTH? And yes the quotes around beauty is sarcasm. If you merely disagreed, you'd simply state you disagree. So if you're going to dish it, better develop a thick skin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So where did u get the idea we Muslims want or need you to think Islam is fabulous? Just because your in laws do? There are plenty of conversions to Islam and I hope to God none of them are under any compulsion.

Islam is a great religion regardless of what anyone thinks.

I don't think Muslims per se want or need me to think Islam is fabulous. Islam is fine without me, and I am fine without Islam. What I find objectionable is the idea that if I don't find Islam fabulous, I must be doing it out of stubbornness, or deliberate refusal to see the truth, rather than my honest opinion that Islam is not fabulous.

Agreed. I am fine with diff of opinion. But its important to convey differences of opinion respectfully and when someone called Muhammad. Pedophile, well, it was hard to see respect.

I don't think anyone would argue with this, and I'm the poster who sees nothing wrong with Muhammad/Aisha pairing.

To be completely fair, the poster who told me I'm free to worship rats wasn't being all nice either. There are better ways to say "you don't have to believe what I believe".

Anonymous wrote:

When have you ever lived in a Muslim country? And yet you're educating Muslims who do?

A Muslim-majority country and an idealized Islamic state have only Muslims in common.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So where did u get the idea we Muslims want or need you to think Islam is fabulous? Just because your in laws do? There are plenty of conversions to Islam and I hope to God none of them are under any compulsion.

Islam is a great religion regardless of what anyone thinks.

I don't think Muslims per se want or need me to think Islam is fabulous. Islam is fine without me, and I am fine without Islam. What I find objectionable is the idea that if I don't find Islam fabulous, I must be doing it out of stubbornness, or deliberate refusal to see the truth, rather than my honest opinion that Islam is not fabulous.

Agreed. I am fine with diff of opinion. But its important to convey differences of opinion respectfully and when someone called Muhammad. Pedophile, well, it was hard to see respect.

Fair enough. Now can you stop calling Mary a porn queen, thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm beginning to realize that their antagonism is an expression of their fear about the spread of Islam. Islam is the fastest growing religion, not only in the world but also in the US. Moreover, it is growing in the US, not by immigration, but instead by conversion. They know this. They feel terribly threatened by this because they fear Muslims will take over the US and want to convert it to a Sharia state. They fear it will give birth to grops like ISIS.

There is nothing frightening about Islam in the U.S. It's a very small part of the American social fabric. Muslims in America will never be numerous enough to take the country over, certainly not within the lifetime of anyone posting here.

As far as I know, no one maintains records on conversions. Therefore, all discussion of growth by conversion is opinion unsupported by facts. If you know of a source of reliable facts on conversion numbers, do share.

+1. Also, I know several ex-Muslims who are now attending Christian churches. And I presume some have become atheists. Islam will never adjust its claims about growth, however.

You know several? They must be part of the .5% statistic. Congrats.

Your response is to make up your own statistics? Uh, OK....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So where did u get the idea we Muslims want or need you to think Islam is fabulous? Just because your in laws do? There are plenty of conversions to Islam and I hope to God none of them are under any compulsion.

Islam is a great religion regardless of what anyone thinks.

I don't think Muslims per se want or need me to think Islam is fabulous. Islam is fine without me, and I am fine without Islam. What I find objectionable is the idea that if I don't find Islam fabulous, I must be doing it out of stubbornness, or deliberate refusal to see the truth, rather than my honest opinion that Islam is not fabulous.

Agreed. I am fine with diff of opinion. But its important to convey differences of opinion respectfully and when someone called Muhammad. Pedophile, well, it was hard to see respect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm beginning to realize that their antagonism is an expression of their fear about the spread of Islam. Islam is the fastest growing religion, not only in the world but also in the US. Moreover, it is growing in the US, not by immigration, but instead by conversion. They know this. They feel terribly threatened by this because they fear Muslims will take over the US and want to convert it to a Sharia state. They fear it will give birth to grops like ISIS.

There is nothing frightening about Islam in the U.S. It's a very small part of the American social fabric. Muslims in America will never be numerous enough to take the country over, certainly not within the lifetime of anyone posting here.

As far as I know, no one maintains records on conversions. Therefore, all discussion of growth by conversion is opinion unsupported by facts. If you know of a source of reliable facts on conversion numbers, do share.

+1. Also, I know several ex-Muslims who are now attending Christian churches. And I presume some have become atheists. Islam will never adjust its claims about growth, however.

You know several? They must be part of the .5% statistic. Congrats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PS: If you think women in Muslim countries are never in financial hardship after the divorce, you're blind.

Stay focused, this discussion is not about rotten people who use religion for their own ill purposes, its about what life is like for people in a TRUE islamic state. In true Islam, women do not suffer great hardship after divorce. They are cared for by male relatives or the State.

And I understand some women find that sort of thing attractive. I personally would find it utterly demoralizing to be treated like a child. Furthermore the comment about financial hardship post divorce in the west refers to practice, not religion, so if seems perfectly fair to compare western reality with Muslim reality, not Muslim ideal.

Well I have to compare it to western practice, not religion, because there is no Christian or Jewish state here to compare the Islamic state to! So by your logic, if we should be comparing Muslim reality to other realities, then lets look at the "realities" other rules and socieities:

- German Hitler slaughtered more Jews than any other leader or any other country. Is it realistic to say Germans are all racist? Is it realistic to say all Germans are like Hitler?
- Muslim attacks increased from 300+ attacks per year to 1500+ attacks per yr after 9/11 in the US. How many realtistic assumptions can we make from this? Lets see…Americans are hateful toward Muslims? Americans are hateful toward Islam? Americans are stupid because they believe all Muslims think lke the 9/11 attackers?
- David Koresh was a murderer/ evangelical Christian. How many realistic conclusions can we make from that? All evangelicals are murderers? All evangelicals are violent? All evangelicals are extremist? Well on this last point, the Pentagon seems to think they are. lol

So you see, it is unwise to look at extremists who represent the fringe of Islam and rely on them for your own understanding of Islam. They have hijacked my religion. I don't ever remember learning their kind of "Islam" in my sunday school as a child.

You're taking this on a completely unrelated tangent. We were talking about the reality of divorce.

And I'll let you in on a secret: there is actually no Islamic state to compare this to, either. Islamic state is like...the unicorn. People talk about it but never actually was brought to life. Islamic state is an utterly theoretical construct.

When have you ever lived in a Muslim country? And yet you're educating Muslims who do?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm beginning to realize that their antagonism is an expression of their fear about the spread of Islam. Islam is the fastest growing religion, not only in the world but also in the US. Moreover, it is growing in the US, not by immigration, but instead by conversion. They know this. They feel terribly threatened by this because they fear Muslims will take over the US and want to convert it to a Sharia state. They fear it will give birth to grops like ISIS.

There is nothing frightening about Islam in the U.S. It's a very small part of the American social fabric. Muslims in America will never be numerous enough to take the country over, certainly not within the lifetime of anyone posting here.

As far as I know, no one maintains records on conversions. Therefore, all discussion of growth by conversion is opinion unsupported by facts. If you know of a source of reliable facts on conversion numbers, do share.

+1. Also, I know several ex-Muslims who are now attending Christian churches. And I presume some have become atheists. Islam will never adjust its claims about growth, however.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think Islam is divinely inspired but then I don't think any religion is. I want you to know something. You behave like every single unskilled dawwa-giver I met, and I met a lot of them - including my numerous Saudi in-laws. They all go on and on about how fabulous Islam is; when I point out something factual that doesn't seem appealing to me, they come up with all kinds of reasons why black is white and white is black, and then they ask me to agree that Islam is fabulous. When I continue saying that it doesn't seem fabulous to me, they all say, No! You see in your heart that it's fabulous, you just DELIBERATELY don't want to admit it.

I'm like why? Why would I hesitate to admit it? I've told you about all the reasons it doesn't work for me, and I'm not going to suddenly decide that these reasons aren't important any more. I'm not deliberately being anything. You've failed to make a good argument. That's fine; no religion has ever made a good argument to me. But to insist that whoever doesn't see the beauty of Islam MUST be refusing deliberately is just disrespectful. I have no problem with you believing what you believe. But stop trying to make me admit it makes sense or is fabulous. It doesn't. And it isn't, not to me. And that's completely sincere.

Very well put, PP. I'm the poster who yesterday was challenging Muslima's so-called "logic" as disengenuous as best, and outright deceptive at worst. When I say outright deceptive, I include in this description Muslima's half-truths ("Islam offers various rights to women") as well as outrights lies ("Islam offers asylum to captives").

My only goal is to get the complete facts out there. Then DCUM's readers can decide for themselves whether they see "beauty" in the Islamic system. DCUM readers can decide for themselves whether forcing unconsensual sex on female captives is "beautiful," or not. But DCUM's readers can't make decisions based on full information if Muslima's and the other Muslim poster's statements, such as "Islam offers captives asylum," are left to stand unchallenged.

What I find very frustrating is that when we challenge this supposed "logic" and "beauty," as carefully and selectively presented by Muslima and the other poster, Muslima and the other poster accuse us of "hating Islam" and of being "afraid" to accept the beauty of Islam. I hope DCUM readers can see that this as yet another example of a logical fallacy, one of many logical errors, in their arguments. Yes, it's true that I don't see the "beauty" of many of these religious rules, once they are fully explained. But this hzs nothing to do with "being afraid" to accept some selectively presented "logic." That's just plain silly.

Is UNconsensual a word??? lol Listen if your goal or other people's goal was simply to get the "facts" out there about Islam, you or others would never have called Muhammad a pedophile and you would not resort to sarcasm ("beauty" of Islam).

Is this your best response? To ridicule me and put other peoples' words in my mouth? I never called Muhammed a pedophile, that was another poster. And I put quotes around
"beauty" because I was quoting you and your repeated use of the word "beautiful" to describe your religion. I don't happen to agree, so I needed to indicate that "beauty" was your word, not my own. You seem to live by the adage, when you have no response, attack the person.

No matter. The facts are now a matter of record. Other readers can read your limited statements, and then they can read more complete descriptions from the other PP and myself. And they can draw their own conclusions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm beginning to realize that their antagonism is an expression of their fear about the spread of Islam. Islam is the fastest growing religion, not only in the world but also in the US. Moreover, it is growing in the US, not by immigration, but instead by conversion. They know this. They feel terribly threatened by this because they fear Muslims will take over the US and want to convert it to a Sharia state. They fear it will give birth to grops like ISIS.

There is nothing frightening about Islam in the U.S. It's a very small part of the American social fabric. Muslims in America will never be numerous enough to take the country over, certainly not within the lifetime of anyone posting here.

As far as I know, no one maintains records on conversions. Therefore, all discussion of growth by conversion is opinion unsupported by facts. If you know of a source of reliable facts on conversion numbers, do share.

Different PP here. I, too, have heard that the conversion stats, such as they are, are very suspect. A major factor is that Islam punishes apostasy with death. Lapsed Muslims (born Muslim or converted) are never striken from the "total number of Muslims" (such as this is), because it's actually impossible to leave Islam, whether you were born into it or converted. In modern societies, thankfully, you aren't killed, instead Muslim authorities simply continue to count you as a Muslim, even though you've converted to another religion or become an atheist. A secondary reason for failing to account for lapsed Muslims is, obviously, the huge premium Islam places on winning converts.

I've heard it said that you can tell the doubters at prayertime by watching their butts, to see if they bobb with enthusiasm.

Anonymous wrote: First of all, a husband may not arbitrarily take a second wife simply on a whim.

A husband can take a second wife for any reason. As long as she consents, her parents consent, the gift is paid, the marriage is recorded, total number of wives is under four and there is equal investment of money and time into both, it's all halal. The husband doesn't need anyone to approve of his reasons. And unlike what you fill find in some sources, there is zero evidence in the scripture that requires the first wife to agree, or even to be advised of the second marriage.

So I don't quite get what you mean by "the husband may not take a second wife on a whim." Of course he can. What is the evidence that he cannot?

Anonymous wrote:
I'm beginning to realize that their antagonism is an expression of their fear about the spread of Islam. Islam is the fastest growing religion, not only in the world but also in the US. Moreover, it is growing in the US, not by immigration, but instead by conversion. They know this. They feel terribly threatened by this because they fear Muslims will take over the US and want to convert it to a Sharia state. They fear it will give birth to grops like ISIS.

There is nothing frightening about Islam in the U.S. It's a very small part of the American social fabric. Muslims in America will never be numerous enough to take the country over, certainly not within the lifetime of anyone posting here.

As far as I know, no one maintains records on conversions. Therefore, all discussion of growth by conversion is opinion unsupported by facts. If you know of a source of reliable facts on conversion numbers, do share.

Anonymous wrote:
Ms. Bano had an islamic marriage apparently. Yet when her husband kicked her out, she wanted Indian divorce law to apply. Can't have it both ways. If you choose to have an islamic marriage, then you've essentially signed a contract, similar to a prenup, and your divorce will also be under Islamic law. Ms. Begum should have collected her dowry and her male relatives should have supported her. That would have been the proper thing to do.
You brought up this case because it triggers a lot of negative emotions about the way the husband treated his wife and you hoped this would reflect badly on Islam. It doesn't. It reflects badly on the husband. He was a cad. He took a second wife, which he claims he was permissible to do under Islam, and then kicked his first wife out along with their five children. He was a monster who did grave injustice to his wife. He, in no way, behaved islamically. First of all, a husband may not arbitrarily take a second wife simply on a whim. Secondly, the husband may not kick his wife out without providing accommodations for her (at minimum the dowry and any gifts he bestowed to her). Thirdly, he cut off his relations with his five children, several of them who were adult males and would have received inheritance from him to help support their mother. And lastly, the wife was opting out and trying to receive support via Indian nonIslamic law rather than Islamic law even though her marriage contract was under Islamic law.

This case was a classic example of what happens when islamic law doesn't apply. Ms. Bano should simply have been supported by her male relatives. If that happened, there would have been no need for her to seek support from her husband.

On the contrary, I don't see how the husband behaved un-Islamically. Let's unpack:

Firstly, there is no limitation in Shariah on the reasons to take a second wife. It is sufficient that a man decides to marry again, and as long as the total number of wives is under four, and all are treated equally, it doesn't matter if he married on a whim or upon serious deliberation. Marrying on a whim doesn't invalidate the marriage. If you are aware of limitations on "arbitrary" taking of second wives, please post evidence.

Secondly, there is nothing un-Islamic about kicking out the wife you divorced. As long as the man maintained her for three months after the divorce, he is within his rights to kick her out once the three months are over. He is not responsible for her living expenses once three months are over.

Thirdly, yes, the wife retains her dowry and any gifts she received. In this case, there is no evidence that she didn't. There is, however, no requirement that the dowry should be of substantial size, in fact, the scripture encourages modest dowries, and there is no law against NOT giving your wife gifts.

Fourthly, there is no inheritance without death of parent. That he cut off adult male children is undesirable but it has nothing to do with inheritance. The act that triggers inheritance is death. Do you have evidence that the adult, male children did not receive inheritance after the husband's death?

So yes, this case was in complete compliance with Islamic law. And it still left an old woman without means. She protested because she realized Islamic law left her with a very raw deal. You may think it is preferable for the woman to always depend on her male relatives for support. I prefer to think that the husband and wife own the wealth built during the marriage together, and the dissolution of marriage means it should be split between the divorcing parties. A woman who invested thirty years into home-making, supporting her husband and bearing his children deserves more than three months of maintenance. So I personally find the Islamic marital laws on that particular subject lacking with regard to rights of the homemaker spouse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If a Muslim woman wants to divorce, she may, but has the addl hurdle of seeking a divorce through the court. A man needs two witnesses. The addl requirement acts as a safeguard for women in a system entrenched with institutional discrimination toward women, as it is in place to ensure a woman is not making a decision that will be more harmful to her in the long run. Moreover, men are not permitted to take back anything they bestowed to the wife during the marriage. This is in stark contrast to divorce laws in the US, where spouses often fight for who gets what, and women are in financial hardship after divorce.

Overall, it looks to me that Islam does a fine job of providing true "equality" because it is a more just system.

You follow me??

You're doing the typical Muslim thing where they say the arrangements of their religion is perfect and whatever seems imperfect is really for your own good. Unequal rights to divorce for women? That's for your own good! Cannot travel without male companion? That's for your own good! Have to cede custody of children if you remarry? That's for your own good! Cannot marry without permission of legal guardian? It's for your own good!

So to address, just to humor you, the weak argument you make about divorce:

The system that is entrenched with institutional discrimination toward women did not fall from the sky. It was created and enshrined by that very same religion. The religion that does not see women as capable makers of their own decision and therefore wants to "protect them" from themselves.

Men are not permitted to take back anything they bestowed on the wife during marriage? That's only if divorce is initiated by men. If initiated by a woman, it is very common for women to buy out their way out of the marriage by returning their wedding gift, for which ample scriptural proof is in fact available in the ahadith.

Furthermore, you know what else men are not required to do upon divorce? Share with the wife anything the couple accumulated during marriage. Theoretically, a scenario where a rich husband divorces his homemaker wife of 30 years and sends her off with three months' of maintenance, is perfectly legal Islamically. Doesn't seen fair? It didn't seem fair to the Indian courts either, which ushered in a famous case of Shah Bano, an elderly woman tossed out by her rich husband with nothing. When the court attempted to seek redress via alimony and property division similar to what is available to Hindu women, Muslims went out to demonstrate. India had to weasel out of this predicament by creating a special fund dedicated to maintenance of women who were cruelly - and yet irreproachably, as far as Islam is concerned - tossed out by their husbands.

Ms. Bano had an islamic marriage apparently. Yet when her husband kicked her out, she wanted Indian divorce law to apply. Can't have it both ways. If you choose to have an islamic marriage, then you've essentially signed a contract, similar to a prenup, and your divorce will also be under Islamic law. Ms. Begum should have collected her dowry and her male relatives should have supported her. That would have been the proper thing to do.
You brought up this case because it triggers a lot of negative emotions about the way the husband treated his wife and you hoped this would reflect badly on Islam. It doesn't. It reflects badly on the husband. He was a cad. He took a second wife, which he claims he was permissible to do under Islam, and then kicked his first wife out along with their five children. He was a monster who did grave injustice to his wife. He, in no way, behaved islamically. First of all, a husband may not arbitrarily take a second wife simply on a whim. Secondly, the husband may not kick his wife out without providing accommodations for her (at minimum the dowry and any gifts he bestowed to her). Thirdly, he cut off his relations with his five children, several of them who were adult males and would have received inheritance from him to help support their mother. And lastly, the wife was opting out and trying to receive support via Indian nonIslamic law rather than Islamic law even though her marriage contract was under Islamic law.

This case was a classic example of what happens when islamic law doesn't apply. Ms. Bano should simply have been supported by her male relatives. If that happened, there would have been no need for her to seek support from her husband.