PP, this is easy to clarify. It's not a new point. But its Friday and has particular meaning for me.

I will address this later...

To continue..
To continue...the title of that surah is "al-Mumtahinah" - she who is to be examined. This is the context:

Al-Mumtahina (She That Is To Be Examined, Examining Her, The Test)
INTRODUCTION:

This Surah consists of 13 verses, 348 sentences, 1,510 letters and 2 Ruku’s.
Name

In verse 10 of this Surah it has been enjoined that the women who emigrate to dar al-Islam (the Islamic State) and claim to be Muslims, should be examined hence the title Al-Mumtahinah. The word is pronounced both as mumtahinah and as mumtahanah, the meaning according to the first pronunciation being "the Surah which examines", and according to the second, "the woman who is examined."
Period of Revelation

The Surah deals with two incidents, the time of the occurrence of which is well known historically. The first relates to Hadrat Hatib bin Abz Balta'a, who, a little before the conquest of Makkah, had sent a secret letter to the Quraish chiefs informing them of the Holy Prophet's intention to attack them. The second relates to the Muslim women, who had started emigrating from Makkah to Madinah, after the conclusion of the Truce of Hudaibiyah, and the problem arose whether they also were to be returned to the disbelievers, like the Muslim men, according to the conditions of the Truce. The mention of these two things absolutely determines that this Surah came down during the interval between the Truce of Hudaibiyah and the Conquest of Makkah. Besides, there is a third thing also that has been mentioned at the end of the Surah to the effect; What should the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) make the women to pledge when they come to take the oath of allegiance before him as believers? About this part also the guess is that this too was sent down some time before the conquest of Makkah, for after this conquest a large number of the Quraish women, like their men, were going to enter Islam simultaneously and had to be administered the oath of allegiance collectively.
Theme and Topics

This Surah has three parts:



The first part consists of vv. 1-9, and the concluding verse 13 also relates to it. In this strong exception has been taken to the act of Hadrat Hatib bin Abi Balta'a in that he had tried to inform the enemy of a very important war secret of the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) only for the sake of safe guarding his family. This would have caused great bloodshed at the conquest of Makkah had it not been made ineffective in time. It would have cost the Muslims many precious lives; many of the Quraish would have been killed, who were to render great services to Islam afterward; the gains which were to accrue from conquering Makkah peacefully would have been lost, and all these serious losses would have resulted only because one of the Muslims had wanted to safeguard his family from the dangers of war. Administering a severe warning at this blunder Allah has taught the believers the lesson that no believer should, under any circumstances and for any motive, have relations of love and friendship with the disbelievers, who are actively hostile to Islam, and a believer should refrain from everything which might be helpful to them in the conflict between Islam and disbelief. However, there is no harm in dealing kindly and justly with those disbelievers, who may not be practically engaged in hostile activities against Islam and persecution of the Muslims.

The second part consists of vv. 10-11. In this a social problem has been settled, which was agitating the minds at that time. There were many Muslim women in Makkah, whose husbands were pagans, but they were emigrating and reaching Madinah somehow. Likewise, there were many Muslim men in Madinah, whose wives were pagans and had been left behind in Makkah. The question arose whether the marriage bond between them continued to be valid or not. Allah settled this problem for ever, saying that the pagan husband is not lawful for the Muslim women, nor the pagan wife lawful for the Muslim husband. This decision leads to very important legal consequences, which we shall explain in our notes below.

The third section consists of verse 12, in which the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) has been instructed to ask the women who accept Islam to pledge that they would refrain from the major evils that were prevalent among the womenfolk of the pre-Islamic Arab society, and to promise that they would henceforth follow the ways of goodness which the Messenger of Allah may enjoin.

And note how the surah continues:

YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine (and test) them: Allah knows best as to their Faith: if ye ascertain that they are Believers, then send them not back to the Unbelievers. They are not lawful (wives) for the Unbelievers, nor are the (Unbelievers) lawful (husbands) for them. But pay the Unbelievers what they have spent (on their dower), and there will be no blame on you if ye marry them on payment of their dower to them. But hold not to the guardianship of unbelieving women: ask for what ye have spent on their dowers, and let the (Unbelievers) ask for what they have spent (on the dowers of women who come over to you). Such is the command of Allah: He judges (with justice) between you. And Allah is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! When believing women come unto you as fugitives, examine them. Allah is Best Aware of their faith. Then, if ye know them for true believers, send them not back unto the disbelievers. They are not lawful for them (the disbelievers), nor are they (the disbelievers) lawful for them. And give them (the disbelievers) that which they have spent (upon them). And it is no sin for you to marry such women when ye have given them their dues. And hold not to the ties of disbelieving women; and ask for (the return of) that which ye have spent; and let them (the disbelievers) ask for that which they have spent. That is the judgment of Allah. He judgeth between you. Allah is Knower, Wise.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! when believing women come to you flying, then examine them; Allah knows best their faith; then if you find them to be believing women, do not send them back to the unbelievers, neither are these (women) lawful for them, nor are those (men) lawful for them, and give them what they have spent; and no blame attaches to you in marrying them when you give them their dowries; and hold not to the ties of marriage of unbelieving women, and ask for what you have spent, and kt them ask for what they have spent. That is Allah's judgment; He judges between you, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.

http://quran.worldofislam.info/Quran/Quran/surah60.htm

Anonymous wrote:Okay, your next point...You said:

" That verse describes the proper treatment of women who were from pagan tribes yet wanted to be Muslims, and wanted to join Muslims at the place where they lived. Hence the very long list of requirements to prove that they were in fact Muslim. Why did women have to be perfect to make an oath? Did anyone apply these standards to men who wanted to make an oath of allegiance? "

Remember that an oath of allegiance may be given before the individual acquires power, as the individual has newly acquired power, or after the individual has held power for some time. In any of these situations, an oath of allegiance to become a new member of their tribe meant a vote for the individual to either acquire power or to retain power. The larger the volume of allegiances, the greater the individual's power. The important point is this verse gave women political relevance because it meant they could vote for a candidate or seek membership in Muhammad's state WITHOUT a male guardian speaking for them. It meant their independent oath carried the same political relevance as a man's. If this kind of right or political relevance was already granted to women in most other cultures, states, or religious systems at the time, then please provide the scriptural proof as we have done here with the Quran.

And if this verse is still not clear enough evidence for you that Islam made women politically relevant, then verse 38 of Ash Shurra should since it uses plural language and states believers should decide all relevant matters collectively through mutual consultation.

As for why the list is long or your implication thats its unreasonable or whether it only applied to women are different issues unrelated to the topic of women's voting.

I am afraid I have to disagree. It is VERY relevant why a woman seeking to join Muslims would have to prove all kinds of things before her allegiance was accepted. It was clearly not enough to just be female to be eligible to vote (if you consider this voting). One had to meet all kinds of other standards.

And to bring in the historical context, remember that the conflict during which this verse was revealed not between Muslims and Muslims, but rather between Muslims in Medina and pagans in Mecca. As the founder of any new religion, Muhammad was interested in expanding its ranks. The unspoken context of admitting "believing women" (from Mecca) was that these women had to have embraced Islam on their own WITHOUT their pagan Meccan husbands or male guardians (otherwise they would have tried to move to Medina with their husbands rather than by themselves.) Islam does not recognize marriages between Muslim women and pretty much anyone else other than Muslim men. A wife's conversion to Islam without accompanying conversion by her husband invalidates the marriage temporarily, and invalidates it completely if the husband refuses to convert. So the context of "believing women" migrating to Medina (from Mecca) without male guardians was that their male guardians at the time would have been pagan, and thus in Islam's eyes, would have no right to guardianship over Muslim women. As such, these women do not have guardians per se if they are the only Muslims in their pagan families because Islam does not permit non-Muslim men to have guardianship over Muslim women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, one thing at a time...

First, Muhammad had an Islamic state, so it is a comparison between state systems. The US is based on a secular system, whereas the Islamic state Muhammad oversaw was based on a religious one.

So, its not a comparison of religion to state if the religion and state were one entity. In this case it was.

But -- if you think a more fair comparison would be Islam to Christianity, then in the area of women's voting rights or political relevance, then I can not speak for when Christianity gave women political relevance without doing additional research. Do you know when Christianity gave women political relevance or voting rights?

Christian here. Jesus' attitude towards the state in general (in this case Roman Empire) was pretty much "render unto Caesar what is due Caesar (taxes) and render unto God what is due God." Jesus is not recorded as talking about voting, for men or women, perhaps because voting wasn't much of an issue for subjects of the Roman Empire. He was anti-authority, rather than pro.

There isn't anything really in the gospels about a Christian form of government. That's why even lots of Christians oppose fundie efforts to legislate Christian values from the federal or state governments - the separation of church and state has existed since the earliest days of Christianity.

I could go into women's rights in Christianity (love the Mary and Martha story, evidence of one or more female apostles), but I don't think that's what you're looking for.

I should add, I'm actually grateful that the gospels support separation of church and state. I'm looking forward to the day when even the fundies stop trying to legislate a "Christian government" so we can all move away from the spectacle of less-than-Christian leaders imposing their values on others, and get down to the business of being good Christians in our personal lives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a serious charge, to accuse people of being Islamophobes who spread fallacies about Islam. I am personally offended at the implication that I or other posters here are Islamophobes, when I feel all we've done is disagree with you.

If you make this charge, you need to have a reason for doing so.

Yes, I have my reasons. They shall remain with me in the future, not to be voiced, as it detracts from serious discussion.

I'm sorry, but that's very wrong of you. You can't call people Islamophobic Liars and then refuse to explain why. It's character assassination without recourse to a judge or jury. Less dramatically, it's an ad hominem attack of the sort that makes the attacker look worse than the person being attacked. It's a license to insult with impunity, and it's been a big problem in these discussions since the very start.

If you won't point to specific examples, then I'd suggest anybody who is interested to skim the thread and determine where the bulk of the insults lie.

Again, please point to an example where somebody appeared to hate Islam. To be distinguished from simply disagreeing with you that, for example, the package of Muslim women's rights conveys equality with men, or not being persuaded by an argument you've offered, or being frustrated with you or the other poster personally.

No need to rehash. All the reasons have been stated in previous pages. We just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Got it. The previous pages are clear. A person is an Islamophobe if she
- fails to agree with you on interpretations of things like equity
- fails to find the Islamic system attractive.

I have to say, I agree with PP who wrote that characterizing disagreements with words like "hate Islam" seems incorrect.

Anonymous wrote:Okay, one thing at a time...

First, Muhammad had an Islamic state, so it is a comparison between state systems. The US is based on a secular system, whereas the Islamic state Muhammad oversaw was based on a religious one.

So, its not a comparison of religion to state if the religion and state were one entity. In this case it was.

But -- if you think a more fair comparison would be Islam to Christianity, then in the area of women's voting rights or political relevance, then I can not speak for when Christianity gave women political relevance without doing additional research. Do you know when Christianity gave women political relevance or voting rights?

Christian here. Jesus' attitude towards the state in general (in this case Roman Empire) was pretty much "render unto Caesar what is due Caesar (taxes) and render unto God what is due God." Jesus is not recorded as talking about voting, for men or women, perhaps because voting wasn't much of an issue for subjects of the Roman Empire. He was anti-authority, rather than pro.

There isn't anything really in the gospels about a Christian form of government. That's why even lots of Christians oppose fundie efforts to legislate Christian values from the federal or state governments - the separation of church and state has existed since the earliest days of Christianity.

I could go into women's rights in Christianity (love the Mary and Martha story, evidence of one or more female apostles), but I don't think that's what you're looking for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a serious charge, to accuse people of being Islamophobes who spread fallacies about Islam. I am personally offended at the implication that I or other posters here are Islamophobes, when I feel all we've done is disagree with you.

If you make this charge, you need to have a reason for doing so.

Yes, I have my reasons. They shall remain with me in the future, not to be voiced, as it detracts from serious discussion.

I'm sorry, but that's very wrong of you. You can't call people Islamophobic Liars and then refuse to explain why. It's character assassination without recourse to a judge or jury. Less dramatically, it's an ad hominem attack of the sort that makes the attacker look worse than the person being attacked. It's a license to insult with impunity, and it's been a big problem in these discussions since the very start.

If you won't point to specific examples, then I'd suggest anybody who is interested to skim the thread and determine where the bulk of the insults lie.

Again, please point to an example where somebody appeared to hate Islam. To be distinguished from simply disagreeing with you that, for example, the package of Muslim women's rights conveys equality with men, or not being persuaded by an argument you've offered, or being frustrated with you or the other poster personally.

No need to rehash. All the reasons have been stated in previous pages. We just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Okay, your next point...You said:

" That verse describes the proper treatment of women who were from pagan tribes yet wanted to be Muslims, and wanted to join Muslims at the place where they lived. Hence the very long list of requirements to prove that they were in fact Muslim. Why did women have to be perfect to make an oath? Did anyone apply these standards to men who wanted to make an oath of allegiance? "

Remember that an oath of allegiance may be given before the individual acquires power, as the individual has newly acquired power, or after the individual has held power for some time. In any of these situations, an oath of allegiance to become a new member of their tribe meant a vote for the individual to either acquire power or to retain power. The larger the volume of allegiances, the greater the individual's power. The important point is this verse gave women political relevance because it meant they could vote for a candidate or seek membership in Muhammad's state WITHOUT a male guardian speaking for them. It meant their independent oath carried the same political relevance as a man's. If this kind of right or political relevance was already granted to women in most other cultures, states, or religious systems at the time, then please provide the scriptural proof as we have done here with the Quran.

And if this verse is still not clear enough evidence for you that Islam made women politically relevant, then verse 38 of Ash Shurra should since it uses plural language and states believers should decide all relevant matters collectively through mutual consultation.

As for why the list is long or your implication thats its unreasonable or whether it only applied to women are different issues unrelated to the topic of women's voting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a serious charge, to accuse people of being Islamophobes who spread fallacies about Islam. I am personally offended at the implication that I or other posters here are Islamophobes, when I feel all we've done is disagree with you.

If you make this charge, you need to have a reason for doing so.

Yes, I have my reasons. They shall remain with me in the future, not to be voiced, as it detracts from serious discussion.

I'm sorry, but that's very wrong of you. You can't call people Islamophobic Liars and then refuse to explain why. It's character assassination without recourse to a judge or jury. Less dramatically, it's an ad hominem attack of the sort that makes the attacker look worse than the person being attacked. It's a license to insult with impunity, and it's been a big problem in these discussions since the very start.

If you won't point to specific examples, then I'd suggest anybody who is interested to skim the thread and determine where the bulk of the insults lie.

Again, please point to an example where somebody appeared to hate Islam. To be distinguished from simply disagreeing with you that, for example, the package of Muslim women's rights conveys equality with men, or not being persuaded by an argument you've offered, or being frustrated with you or the other poster personally.

Anonymous wrote:Okay, one thing at a time...

First, Muhammad had an Islamic state, so it is a comparison between state systems. The US is based on a secular system, whereas the Islamic state Muhammad oversaw was based on a religious one.

So, its not a comparison of religion to state if the religion and state were one entity. In this case it was.

But -- if you think a more fair comparison would be Islam to Christianity, then in the area of women's voting rights or political relevance, then I can not speak for when Christianity gave women political relevance without doing additional research. Do you know when Christianity gave women political relevance or voting rights?

You can't compare a religious state to a secular state. One is static, the other is driven by its government. Presumably, people in a religious state cannot vote a change that conflicts with religion even if it happens to get a majority vote. The U.S. in the 1820, 1920 and 2020 would be three different countries.

In all fairness, the caliphate under Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman was probably also three different countries.

I can't speak to Christianity's stance on voting rights since it never concerned me much.

Okay, one thing at a time...

First, Muhammad had an Islamic state, so it is a comparison between state systems. The US is based on a secular system, whereas the Islamic state Muhammad oversaw was based on a religious one.

So, its not a comparison of religion to state if the religion and state were one entity. In this case it was.

But -- if you think a more fair comparison would be Islam to Christianity, then in the area of women's voting rights or political relevance, then I can not speak for when Christianity gave women political relevance without doing additional research. Do you know when Christianity gave women political relevance or voting rights?

Anonymous wrote:
That verse Muslima quoted is often quoted to show that Islam made women's political allegiances and oaths relevant. No one compelled them to take the oath. And their oath counted. Contrast this with how women were typically regarded at the time in other cultures and in pre Islamic times or even in the US until recently. In other cultures and in pre Islamic times, women's political opinions, oaths, allegiances were irrelevant, only their husbands or fathers political opinions, oaths, or allegiances counted or mattered.

I am sorry, I just don't see that. That verse describes the proper treatment of women who were from pagan tribes yet wanted to be Muslims, and wanted to join Muslims at the place where they lived. Hence the very long list of requirements to prove that they were in fact Muslim. Why did women have to be perfect to make an oath? Did anyone apply these standards to men who wanted to make an oath of allegiance?

I also must object to the wholesale characterization of other cultures. The universe has seen civilizations come and go. At different times in different cultures women had a different status and a different set of rights. It is incorrect and inappropriate to say that Islam granted women unique rights they didn't have before. Powerful women existed in all civilizations, queens and goddesses alike. We simply do not have the data to say women never voted or were politically relevant before Islam, and I do believe women owned and inherited property well before Islam. If Muhammad's first wife was able to get rich, run her own business, hire other men and manage them, and then propose marriage, herself, to a much younger men of her choice - all before Islam - then I don't think women in pre-Islamic Arabia were all that disempowered.

It is also inappropriate to compare a philosophy (Islam) with a real country (U.S.) A more proper comparison would be Islam vs. Christianity, OR, for instance, timelines of women's suffrage in the U.S. and Europe vs. Muslim-majority countries, or even in Islamic societies shortly after Muhammad's death. I don't think the results are all that equivocal.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks, Muslima. And with that, I leave to go pray Jumuah prayer.

Don't forget to pray for me !

I did say a dua for you!

May Allah accept your dua, I won't forget you in mine either !

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks, Muslima. And with that, I leave to go pray Jumuah prayer.

Don't forget to pray for me !

I did say a dua for you!

Anonymous wrote:It's a serious charge, to accuse people of being Islamophobes who spread fallacies about Islam. I am personally offended at the implication that I or other posters here are Islamophobes, when I feel all we've done is disagree with you.

If you make this charge, you need to have a reason for doing so.

Yes, I have my reasons. They shall remain with me in the future, not to be voiced, as it detracts from serious discussion.