Let's talk a little bit about one prominent woman from the "days of ignorance". Her name was Hind bint Utbah and she was the wife of Abu Sufyan, the leader of Mecca and Muhammad's bitter enemy. Miss Hind didn't come to fame just for having a clitoris to die for. She had many other talents.

As her husband's wife, she took a strong part in opposing Muhammad and his followers in Medina, fighting them with both words and swords.

In the battle of Uhud, as Muhammad's wives supported their community carrying water to the battlefield, Hind led a dozen women of Meccan aristocracy to battle, singing war songs and playing tambourines. The Meccans won that battle and Hind - who lost a father and a brother to Muslims in previous wars - legend has it, has cut out the liver of a man who killed her father, as well as noses and ears of other fallen men. Standing amid the fallen and wearing necklaces made of body parts, she stood on a rock, triumphantly proclaiming victory.

Poor, little, quivering chattel of jahiliya with no right to political opinions that Miss Hind was (not!).

Things didn't end very well for Hind. Muslims grew stronger, and by 630, took Mecca with little bloodshed. Realizing that her husband has surrendered, Hind grew furious with him and shattered the statues of her gods.

Some sources say Hind, along with a few other women, was sentenced to death and saved herself by hastily converting to Islam (smart girl. I approve.) She, along with other Meccans, had to give an oath of allegiance to Mohammed personally that's so good, I'm going to post it below. Far from the new Muslim converts, scratching at the gates of Medina with their flocks of illegitimate children (as our poster would have you believe), begging for addmision, here's proud, unrepentant, arrogant Miss Hind talking down to Muhammad like a queen that she was:

Muhammad: “You shall have but one God.”

Hind: “We grant you that.”

Muhammad:“You shall not steal.”

Hind: “Abu Sufyan is a stingy man, I only stole provisions from him.”

Muhammad:“That is not theft. You shall not commit adultery.”

Hind: “Does a free woman commit adultery?”

Muhammad:“You will not kill your children by infanticide.”

Hind: “Have you left us any children that you did not kill at the Battle of Badr?”

So both of you brought scholars. On one side we have an American in the pay of al Saud plus some people who think scholarship = reciting the Quran. On the other side we have Muslim women historians.

Hmmm. Even if I didn't know who took which positions, I know who I trust.

Anonymous wrote:The author also mentions the names of two women– Salma and Sajah – who collected women and rebelled against Islam after the Prophet’s death “because of the limitations Islam had brought to them.” Hind bint Utbah was another famous rebel against whom Umar Ibn Khattab said the following couplet:

The vile woman was insolent, and she was habitually base, since she combined insolence with disbelief.

May God curse Hind, distinguished among Hinds, she with the large clitoris, and may he curse her husband with her.

Here's Mr. Umar with his clitoris problem again!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, disagreement is fine. Intentionally publishing misleading information is wrong. These islamophobes have an agenda.

Not the PP you're arguing with, but...

Again and again you interpret any disagreement with your statements as an intentional publication of "misleading information" by people you claim must be "Islamophobes" by sheer dint of disagreeing with you. That is a huge problem on your part.

They also seem to disagree with foremost religious scholars and that should tell you their opinions may be suspect. They can not possibly have access to more accurate historical information than historians, archeologists, and renowned religious scholars, all of whom contradict their negative portrayal of Islam.

Or to more money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Please provide the scholarly proof of the many vast rights women enjoyed before islam.

See above.

The scholars you brought just regurgitate the Muslim narrative. They don't cite any evidence beyond the Quran. That's not scholarship, that's choir practice.

Historians, archeologists, and scholars do not merely rely on one religious text to validate the occurrence of events. Thats naive of you to assume that.

They are welcome to cite these sources, then. Until they do, I'm under no pressure to believe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's curious that OP jumped enthusiastically on the Gospel of Thomas bandwagon wrt the Trinity. But if you try to refer to nob-Muslim scholars on Islam, she goes ballistic. There's a teensy contradiction there....

I just quoted or referred to at least three renowned religious scholars and all are non muslim, and all stand in direct contradiction to islamophobes' view.

I also brought some scholars, all of them Muslim.

Esposito isn't a scholar.

Really? Who??

See postings at 11.46, 11.49 and 12.00.

Anonymous wrote:
However, you must agree Esposito and the others are more likely to be thought of as religious scholars than you are. You are an anonymous poster who wants people to rely on your word rather than scholars whose work is relied on by the world's most prestigious universities. Sorry, but my bets on their word, not yours.

I'm not in a pissing match with Esposito on who is the fairest scholar of them all. I don't trust Esposito. I think he's bought and paid for. That is my right. I'm not forcing anyone to believe anything I say. DCUM - like the world at large - is a marketplace of ideas. Some will rise and some will fall. You can bet on whoever you like. I will make my arguments the way I know best, and you can do the same. The audience will sort itself out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's curious that OP jumped enthusiastically on the Gospel of Thomas bandwagon wrt the Trinity. But if you try to refer to nob-Muslim scholars on Islam, she goes ballistic. There's a teensy contradiction there....

I just quoted or referred to at least three renowned religious scholars and all are non muslim, and all stand in direct contradiction to islamophobes' view.

I also brought some scholars, all of them Muslim.

Esposito isn't a scholar.

Really? Who??

It's just so, so amusing that Al-Saud keeps funding the center for INTERFAITH understanding:

Up first is the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding in Georgetown, endowed by Mr. Alwaleed Bin Talal, who by Saudi standards is an actual good guy.

Up second is King Abdullah's Center for Interfaith Dialogue in Vienna. Uh-huh.

In the meantime, you can't officially practice any religion other than Sunni Wahhabi Islam within Saudi Arabia itself. If you're a Shia Saudi, God help you. If you're Christian, better shut up about it. If you're Jewish, sorry, go somewhere else.

But sure, we'll throw some money around at people who are willing to write about, you know, INTERFAITH DIALOGUE.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Please provide the scholarly proof of the many vast rights women enjoyed before islam.

See above.

The scholars you brought just regurgitate the Muslim narrative. They don't cite any evidence beyond the Quran. That's not scholarship, that's choir practice.

Historians, archeologists, and scholars do not merely rely on one religious text to validate the occurrence of events. Thats naive of you to assume that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Oh, yes, I forgot. The linear thinking of yours. If a man has a right, the woman must have the identical right in identical circumstances for it to be considered "equality" in your mind. If an oath is primarily for conversion and allegiance, it may not incidentally serve to grant any other rights. Fine. Lets try to put it in linear, more concrete terms to help you digest this then. Allegiance is a vote for the person seeking rulership or a vote to maintain the person's rulership. It is a promise of loyalty to that person. This is similar to our modern day voting. What is impressive is that Islam permitted women to take this oath of allegiance at a time when women were disregarded and treated as if they were chattel. Deny it as much as you want and continue to publish misleading facts about Islam but I'm quoting the foremost scholars in religion who contradict your assertions completely.

No one argued this is about equality. You argued it's voting and I don't happen to agree.

It's a very particular sort of chatteldom in jahiliya that lets women own and manage property, run their own business and marry men of their choosing (see Khadija). Poor, poor women of jahiliya. I'd weep for them if I could.

Anonymous wrote:Let me make sure I understand you. According to you, the following may not be trusted sources of information:
1) No Muslim's word may be trusted
2) No Arab's word may be trusted
3) No religious scholar, no matter his education or how renowned he or she may be, may be trusted if they are even remotely associated with a Muslim or an Arab.

Is this accurate?

Esposito's assertions are validated by OTHER non-Miuslim and non Arab scholars I have already quoted. The other scholars have absolutely nothing to do with Muslims (however, I can call each one of them to interrogate them to make sure they do not have any Muslim acquaintances at all if it would calm your fears). These scholars have published works via Oxford University Press. Their published works are used as textbooks in the world's best universities, such as Oxford.

Here's what's accurate: whatever Al-Saud bought and paid for, I distrust.

Anonymous wrote:You are, once again, confusing the practice of Islam, which is a far digression from true Islam and which more similar to the pre-islamic jahiliya period. Islam does not reflect a western perspective and it doesn't need to to be an equitable system.

Not at all, I am referring strictly to Islam's letter, not practice. You are entitled to view Islamic rules as an equitable system. I am entitled to disagree with that viewpoint.

Anonymous wrote:
The whole discussion was about about the extent of that improvement (was it really as good as people say?) and the starting point pre-Islam (was it really as bad as people say?). So, let's set Mr. Esposito straight:

- women owned property and engaged in commercial transaction before Islam
- the contractual nature of marriage in Islam privileges the husband with regard to terminating the contract
- re: Aisha. I don't know if her authority extended to medicine. I should also point that no other wife of Muhammad became as famous or as heavily quoted as she did, and I suspect the fact that her daddy - Mr. Abu Bakr - became President #1 upon Muhammad's passage, had a little something to do with it. Daughters of Middle Eastern rulers generally do well in life. Unless they are Al-Saud.

I have no hatred of Islam. I'm Islam-neutral. But to you, any criticism or disagreement must be hatred-driven. That's your thing.

When rebuttals are rejected simply because the speaker is Muslim, or scholarly works are rejected simply because the author is Arab or Muslim, or opinions are rejected simply because the speaker is acquainted with a Muslim, one has to wonder about your "neutrality."….

I don't consider Esposito a scholar. When a speaker brings evidence, Muslim or not, I will listen. I have brought forth perfectly valid arguments - that women had rights before Islam, that Islamic contractual marriage denies women certain rights extended to men, and that Aisha's rise to power may have had something to do with her father since no other wife achieved anything like her prominence - and you did nothing to comment on them. That's OK. Whoever disagrees with you is Islamophobic. We know.

Please provide the scholarly proof of the many vast rights women enjoyed before islam.

However, you must agree Esposito and the others are more likely to be thought of as religious scholars than you are. You are an anonymous poster who wants people to rely on your word rather than scholars whose work is relied on by the world's most prestigious universities. Sorry, but my bets on their word, not yours.

Anonymous wrote:
Please provide the scholarly proof of the many vast rights women enjoyed before islam.

See above.

The scholars you brought just regurgitate the Muslim narrative. They don't cite any evidence beyond the Quran. That's not scholarship, that's choir practice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's curious that OP jumped enthusiastically on the Gospel of Thomas bandwagon wrt the Trinity. But if you try to refer to nob-Muslim scholars on Islam, she goes ballistic. There's a teensy contradiction there....

I just quoted or referred to at least three renowned religious scholars and all are non muslim, and all stand in direct contradiction to islamophobes' view.

I also brought some scholars, all of them Muslim.

Esposito isn't a scholar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Oh, yes, I forgot. The linear thinking of yours. If a man has a right, the woman must have the identical right in identical circumstances for it to be considered "equality" in your mind. If an oath is primarily for conversion and allegiance, it may not incidentally serve to grant any other rights. Fine. Lets try to put it in linear, more concrete terms to help you digest this then. Allegiance is a vote for the person seeking rulership or a vote to maintain the person's rulership. It is a promise of loyalty to that person. This is similar to our modern day voting. What is impressive is that Islam permitted women to take this oath of allegiance at a time when women were disregarded and treated as if they were chattel. Deny it as much as you want and continue to publish misleading facts about Islam but I'm quoting the foremost scholars in religion who contradict your assertions completely.

No one argued this is about equality. You argued it's voting and I don't happen to agree.

It's a very particular sort of chatteldom in jahiliya that lets women own and manage property, run their own business and marry men of their choosing (see Khadija). Poor, poor women of jahiliya. I'd weep for them if I could.

Anonymous wrote:Let me make sure I understand you. According to you, the following may not be trusted sources of information:
1) No Muslim's word may be trusted
2) No Arab's word may be trusted
3) No religious scholar, no matter his education or how renowned he or she may be, may be trusted if they are even remotely associated with a Muslim or an Arab.

Is this accurate?

Esposito's assertions are validated by OTHER non-Miuslim and non Arab scholars I have already quoted. The other scholars have absolutely nothing to do with Muslims (however, I can call each one of them to interrogate them to make sure they do not have any Muslim acquaintances at all if it would calm your fears). These scholars have published works via Oxford University Press. Their published works are used as textbooks in the world's best universities, such as Oxford.

Here's what's accurate: whatever Al-Saud bought and paid for, I distrust.

Anonymous wrote:You are, once again, confusing the practice of Islam, which is a far digression from true Islam and which more similar to the pre-islamic jahiliya period. Islam does not reflect a western perspective and it doesn't need to to be an equitable system.

Not at all, I am referring strictly to Islam's letter, not practice. You are entitled to view Islamic rules as an equitable system. I am entitled to disagree with that viewpoint.

Anonymous wrote:
The whole discussion was about about the extent of that improvement (was it really as good as people say?) and the starting point pre-Islam (was it really as bad as people say?). So, let's set Mr. Esposito straight:

- women owned property and engaged in commercial transaction before Islam
- the contractual nature of marriage in Islam privileges the husband with regard to terminating the contract
- re: Aisha. I don't know if her authority extended to medicine. I should also point that no other wife of Muhammad became as famous or as heavily quoted as she did, and I suspect the fact that her daddy - Mr. Abu Bakr - became President #1 upon Muhammad's passage, had a little something to do with it. Daughters of Middle Eastern rulers generally do well in life. Unless they are Al-Saud.

I have no hatred of Islam. I'm Islam-neutral. But to you, any criticism or disagreement must be hatred-driven. That's your thing.

When rebuttals are rejected simply because the speaker is Muslim, or scholarly works are rejected simply because the author is Arab or Muslim, or opinions are rejected simply because the speaker is acquainted with a Muslim, one has to wonder about your "neutrality."….

I don't consider Esposito a scholar. When a speaker brings evidence, Muslim or not, I will listen. I have brought forth perfectly valid arguments - that women had rights before Islam, that Islamic contractual marriage denies women certain rights extended to men, and that Aisha's rise to power may have had something to do with her father since no other wife achieved anything like her prominence - and you did nothing to comment on them. That's OK. Whoever disagrees with you is Islamophobic. We know.

Please provide the scholarly proof of the many vast rights women enjoyed before islam.

Anonymous wrote:It's curious that OP jumped enthusiastically on the Gospel of Thomas bandwagon wrt the Trinity. But if you try to refer to nob-Muslim scholars on Islam, she goes ballistic. There's a teensy contradiction there....

I just quoted or referred to at least three renowned religious scholars and all are non muslim, and all stand in direct contradiction to islamophobes' view.