Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I remember this discussion. Muslima blithely declared that "Islam treats women captives well" and then quickly left the discussion except to pop up once in a while to call everybody Islamophobes.

The key here is that we are talking about non-Muslim women were captured by Muslims and made into slaves/concubines. (As the ensuing discussion clarified, the captive women simply became slaves if they did not agree to sex. They became concubines if they agreed to sex, but they are not freed until or unless they (a) fall pregnant, and (b) the slave master dies.) Muslim PP is trying to compare this to the status of pre-Islamic and Muslim women. That doesn't work.

I don't think it's historically established that captive women became slaves if they did not agree to sex. It would have been more accurate to say that their position did not afford them an opportunity to agree or disagree to sex. Sexual access to them was simply taken for granted.

To your list of conditions you should add a (c) if the slave master acknowledges the child as his. That was also not a given.

The third point is that conversion to Islam by these women did not automatically result in any improvement of their status. There were Muslim slaves as recently as last century.

The only distinction is that if women were ALREADY Muslim, they were prohibited to be enslaved. But conversion to Islam while in captivity was not a ticket to anything.

There's a memoir book called "A Heart from Bangalan" (I don't think it's available in English, though) written by a woman who was captured as a girl of 13 at her village in Iran by an al-Saud slave-hunting expedition. There's a scene in the book when she's yelling at her captors "I'm Muslim! I'm Muslim!", assuming, correctly, that Islam prohibits enslaving those who are Muslim. It didn't matter to al-Saud but as a point of law, she was correct.

We are getting off track. The point you make about the captives being NON muslim is to lend credence to your assertion that Muslim women did have ample opportunities to achieve success (as evidenced by Khadija). This is to show Arabs lied about there ever being a Jahiliyah period (age of ignorance and darkness). Am I correct?

However, Khadija achieved success pre islam, before the Prophet achieved his prophethood. She was not Muslim when she achieved success.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I remember this discussion. Muslima blithely declared that "Islam treats women captives well" and then quickly left the discussion except to pop up once in a while to call everybody Islamophobes.

The key here is that we are talking about non-Muslim women were captured by Muslims and made into slaves/concubines. (As the ensuing discussion clarified, the captive women simply became slaves if they did not agree to sex. They became concubines if they agreed to sex, but they are not freed until or unless they (a) fall pregnant, and (b) the slave master dies.) Muslim PP is trying to compare this to the status of pre-Islamic and Muslim women. That doesn't work.

I don't think it's historically established that captive women became slaves if they did not agree to sex. It would have been more accurate to say that their position did not afford them an opportunity to agree or disagree to sex. Sexual access to them was simply taken for granted.

To your list of conditions you should add a (c) if the slave master acknowledges the child as his. That was also not a given.

The third point is that conversion to Islam by these women did not automatically result in any improvement of their status. There were Muslim slaves as recently as last century.

The only distinction is that if women were ALREADY Muslim, they were prohibited to be enslaved. But conversion to Islam while in captivity was not a ticket to anything.

There's a memoir book called "A Heart from Bangalan" (I don't think it's available in English, though) written by a woman who was captured as a girl of 13 at her village in Iran by an al-Saud slave-hunting expedition. There's a scene in the book when she's yelling at her captors "I'm Muslim! I'm Muslim!", assuming, correctly, that Islam prohibits enslaving those who are Muslim. It didn't matter to al-Saud but as a point of law, she was correct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I remember this discussion. Muslima blithely declared that "Islam treats women captives well" and then quickly left the discussion except to pop up once in a while to call everybody Islamophobes.

The key here is that we are talking about non-Muslim women were captured by Muslims and made into slaves/concubines. (As the ensuing discussion clarified, the captive women simply became slaves if they did not agree to sex. They became concubines if they agreed to sex, but they are not freed until or unless they (a) fall pregnant, and (b) the slave master dies.) Muslim PP is trying to compare this to the status of pre-Islamic and Muslim women. That doesn't work.

I don't think it's historically established that captive women became slaves if they did not agree to sex. It would have been more accurate to say that their position did not afford them an opportunity to agree or disagree to sex. Sexual access to them was simply taken for granted.

To your list of conditions you should add a (c) if the slave master acknowledges the child as his. That was also not a given.

The third point is that conversion to Islam by these women did not automatically result in any improvement of their status. There were Muslim slaves as recently as last century.

The only distinction is that if women were ALREADY Muslim, they were prohibited to be enslaved. But conversion to Islam while in captivity was not a ticket to anything.

There's a memoir book called "A Heart from Bangalan" (I don't think it's available in English, though) written by a woman who was captured as a girl of 13 at her village in Iran by an al-Saud slave-hunting expedition. There's a scene in the book when she's yelling at her captors "I'm Muslim! I'm Muslim!", assuming, correctly, that Islam prohibits enslaving those who are Muslim. It didn't matter to al-Saud but as a point of law, she was correct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You spent a great deal of pages in another thread arguing with Muslima about how Islam encouraged concubinage. If that was true, it would mean women were not respected or valued in Arab society. In societies where women are undervalued, they generally do not achieve success and status. Again, it shows Khadijas status was unusual, not the norm.

I also don't remember arguing with Muslima, I think she recused herself from the discussion early on. I took pleasure in taking on the poster who claimed - against all readily available evidence - that concubines were freed if they became pregnant. That is false. They were freed after the owner died, and only if the owner recognized the child as theirs. Co-ownership of concubines occurred so it wasn't a done deal that the child belonged to the owner. The owner also had complete freedom in recognizing the child or not. In any case, manumission upon the death of owner - not pregnancy, as falsely claimed - is well documented.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The fact that female infanticide was common then should have told you enough- that females were not valued. Thus, if one woman achieved success, it should be assumed to be an anomaly, not the norm.

You spent a great deal of pages in another thread arguing with Muslima about how Islam encouraged concubinage. If that was true, it would mean women were not respected or valued in Arab society. In societies where women are undervalued, they generally do not achieve success and status. Again, it shows Khadijas status was unusual, not the norm.

What evidence do we have that female infanticide was common, beyond Muhammad's say-so?

Pre-Islamic society - just like Islamic society - was flawed like all humans were. Some women were valued. Some were not. The fact that women in society are valued less than men does not preclude some women from rising to the top. Certainly from Khadija's example we can infer that women COULD inherit property, and COULD run businesses independently.

Societies don't have to be monochrome in their treatment of women. In pre-Islamic Arabia, women could be buried alive and still cherished as goddesses or respected as independent businesswomen. In Islamic Arabia, women could be respected and still sold in the markets or distributed as booty.

Not sure why you bring up the bit about concubinage. Women could be undervalued in societies and still achieve success and wealth according to individual circumstances. Are you using the existence as concubinage as proof why Khadija's status was unusual? Huh?

Anonymous wrote:
I remember this discussion. Muslima blithely declared that "Islam treats women captives well" and then quickly left the discussion except to pop up once in a while to call everybody Islamophobes.

The key here is that we are talking about non-Muslim women were captured by Muslims and made into slaves/concubines. (As the ensuing discussion clarified, the captive women simply became slaves if they did not agree to sex. They became concubines if they agreed to sex, but they are not freed until or unless they (a) fall pregnant, and (b) the slave master dies.) Muslim PP is trying to compare this to the status of pre-Islamic and Muslim women. That doesn't work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You spent a great deal of pages in another thread arguing with Muslima about how Islam encouraged concubinage. If that was true, it would mean women were not respected or valued in Arab society. In societies where women are undervalued, they generally do not achieve success and status. Again, it shows Khadijas status was unusual, not the norm.

I also don't remember arguing with Muslima, I think she recused herself from the discussion early on. I took pleasure in taking on the poster who claimed - against all readily available evidence - that concubines were freed if they became pregnant. That is false. They were freed after the owner died, and only if the owner recognized the child as theirs. Co-ownership of concubines occurred so it wasn't a done deal that the child belonged to the owner. The owner also had complete freedom in recognizing the child or not. In any case, manumission upon the death of owner - not pregnancy, as falsely claimed - is well documented.

Anonymous wrote:
You spent a great deal of pages in another thread arguing with Muslima about how Islam encouraged concubinage. If that was true, it would mean women were not respected or valued in Arab society. In societies where women are undervalued, they generally do not achieve success and status. Again, it shows Khadijas status was unusual, not the norm.

Anonymous wrote:
The fact that female infanticide was common then should have told you enough- that females were not valued. Thus, if one woman achieved success, it should be assumed to be an anomaly, not the norm.

You spent a great deal of pages in another thread arguing with Muslima about how Islam encouraged concubinage. If that was true, it would mean women were not respected or valued in Arab society. In societies where women are undervalued, they generally do not achieve success and status. Again, it shows Khadijas status was unusual, not the norm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Khadija was an Arab woman.
Khadija was a rich businesswoman.
Therefore, all Arab women are rich businesswomen.

This is a faulty logic example not even fit as an LSAT test question.

Surely, you can reason better than that.

Nope, it's not faulty logic. Just because you've miscast it, it doesn't make it faulty. This is how it goes:

Khadija was a rich businesswoman who owned money and property, hired her own workers, and made her own decisions on whom to marry.

Where there is one, there sure were others.

Is there evidence that Khadija was an exception rather than a typical case?

Therefore, the claims that all women in jahiliya had no rights and were treated like objects are counteracted by at least one example. Some were. Some weren't. Perhaps it wasn't a bad bad place that Muslims say it was, and clearly not for ALL women.

It also negates the oft-repeated claim that "Islam granted women property rights" since women owned property long before Islam came on the scene.

In addition, we have Quranic testimony that women in jahiliya were given dowries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Khadija was an Arab woman.
Khadija was a rich businesswoman.
Therefore, all Arab women are rich businesswomen.

This is a faulty logic example not even fit as an LSAT test question.

Surely, you can reason better than that.

That indeed would have been faulty logic. But PP never said "all Arab businesswomen are rich." You made that part up. So no worries!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Its just a theory for you because you refuse to confirm it with addl research or asking scholars or imams. You inherently mistrust Muslims anyway so it would not matter even if you did speak with one. Fornication and adultery were common in Arabia pre Islam. Thus it should be obvious that there would be illegitimate children. Most historical accounts are from Arabs. If you don't trust the testimony of Arabs because you hate Islam, then refer to the testimony of the Greeks.

Khadija did OK in the jahiliya, didn't she?

Of course, there would be illegitimate children. There still are, everywhere. Nothing very much has changed about human nature. No one argued there were no illegitimate children around. You made a very specific claim - that women were rushing toward Mecca with 2-4 children in tow - and provided no evidence for it.

Not all Arabs are Muslim, don't you know.

Yes, I think the testimony of Muslims about how bad non-Muslims had it is ever so slightly biased.