Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, your implication that converting women who left their pagan husbands were allowed to take the oath only because they no longer had a guardian is false.

The oath of allegiance was taken by all men, women, and even some children. Even if a woman had a Muslim guardian, she could take the oath herself. A guardian's approval was not necessary to take the oath. Even children sometimes took the oath, and we all know children have guardians.

This oath was the precursor to modern voting. That it was available to women regardless of their guardians approval set the stage for women's voting rights because it made womens choice of a ruler or to be a citizen of a differenr nation politically relevant.

If you read one verse in the Quran and it doesn't provide the full answer, you should read the entire Quran, in arabic, and study history.

Verse 38 of Ash Shura which says EVERYONE should participate in shurra (consultation) for relevant matters also confirms that women could exercuse their political right.

Nonsense about the Arabic thing again. Most Muslims don't speak or read Arabic, and many Arabic speakers don't understand the Quranic Arabic. Why would God send down something that's meant to be eternal guidance yet is only accessible to a tiny minority of its believers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally, you asked why women taking the oath had a lengthy list of strict, oppressive conditions attached.

It wasn't a lengthy list at all. And it was not oppressive.
The list asked anyone, not just women, who was taking the oath, to not commit infanticide, not commit fornication or adultery, not attack Muslims, and not attack Prophet Muhammad. Hardly oppressive. In fact, pagan arabs those days were engaged in all kinds of cruel or indecent behavior, and it was an abomination and affront to humanity.

Provide evidence this was asked for everyone, not just women. Were men asked to prove they didn't have illegitimate children?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now, as for your side point that when a woman converted to Islam, her marriage to a disbeliever was invalidated, this is not necessarily true.

What is true is that a disbeliever is one who is hostile toward Islam and such a person can not be the guardian of his wife if she is a Muslim. Disbelievers in Prophet Muhammads time were fighting Muslims. How can he then be expected to support his wife's faith?

Even though a disbeliever can not be a guardian to a Muslim, the marriage was not forcibly ended. Sometimes the couple had children and sometimes they needed time to work through their differences. The Prophet permitted this. His own daughter, Zainab bint Muhammad, was married before his prophethood. She converted to Islam but her husband refused to do so. They remained married for six years but lived apart. Eventually her husband converted.

Forget what the four jurisprudence schools say on this matter or what Sharias of different countries say. Forget what scholars say also. History shows prophet Muhammad exercised patience in these situations and allowed wives to take a wait and see approach, especially if there were kids involved.

Living apart is hardly keeping the marriage intact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think you've shown this verse gives women voting rights or political relevance. It showed the rights of Muslims to join other Muslims. If these Muslims happened to be female, they had to clear a long list of requirements.

The oath of allegiance wasn't simply muslims joining muslims; it was a political contractual agreement. It essentially said if you joined Prophet Muhammad's tribe, you agreed to live by the laws of the land, protect the Prophet, and in exchange, the tribe protected you.

Anonymous wrote:Finally, you asked why women taking the oath had a lengthy list of strict, oppressive conditions attached.

It wasn't a lengthy list at all. And it was not oppressive.
The list asked anyone, not just women, who was taking the oath, to not commit infanticide, not commit fornication or adultery, not attack Muslims, and not attack Prophet Muhammad. Hardly oppressive. In fact, pagan arabs those days were engaged in all kinds of cruel or indecent behavior, and it was an abomination and affront to humanity.

Anonymous wrote:PP, your implication that converting women who left their pagan husbands were allowed to take the oath only because they no longer had a guardian is false.

The oath of allegiance was taken by all men, women, and even some children. Even if a woman had a Muslim guardian, she could take the oath herself. A guardian's approval was not necessary to take the oath. Even children sometimes took the oath, and we all know children have guardians.

This oath was the precursor to modern voting. That it was available to women regardless of their guardians approval set the stage for women's voting rights because it made womens choice of a ruler or to be a citizen of a differenr nation politically relevant.

If you read one verse in the Quran and it doesn't provide the full answer, you should read the entire Quran, in arabic, and study history.

Verse 38 of Ash Shura which says EVERYONE should participate in shurra (consultation) for relevant matters also confirms that women could exercuse their political right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now, as for your side point that when a woman converted to Islam, her marriage to a disbeliever was invalidated, this is not necessarily true.

What is true is that a disbeliever is one who is hostile toward Islam and such a person can not be the guardian of his wife if she is a Muslim. Disbelievers in Prophet Muhammads time were fighting Muslims. How can he then be expected to support his wife's faith?

Even though a disbeliever can not be a guardian to a Muslim, the marriage was not forcibly ended. Sometimes the couple had children and sometimes they needed time to work through their differences. The Prophet permitted this. His own daughter, Zainab bint Muhammad, was married before his prophethood. She converted to Islam but her husband refused to do so. They remained married for six years but lived apart. Eventually her husband converted.

Forget what the four jurisprudence schools say on this matter or what Sharias of different countries say. Forget what scholars say also. History shows prophet Muhammad exercised patience in these situations and allowed wives to take a wait and see approach, especially if there were kids involved.

Living apart is hardly keeping the marriage intact.

Anonymous wrote:PP, your implication that converting women who left their pagan husbands were allowed to take the oath only because they no longer had a guardian is false.

The oath of allegiance was taken by all men, women, and even some children. Even if a woman had a Muslim guardian, she could take the oath herself. A guardian's approval was not necessary to take the oath. Even children sometimes took the oath, and we all know children have guardians.

This oath was the precursor to modern voting. That it was available to women regardless of their guardians approval set the stage for women's voting rights because it made womens choice of a ruler or to be a citizen of a differenr nation politically relevant.

If you read one verse in the Quran and it doesn't provide the full answer, you should read the entire Quran, in arabic, and study history.

Verse 38 of Ash Shura which says EVERYONE should participate in shurra (consultation) for relevant matters also confirms that women could exercuse their political right.

Anonymous wrote:Finally, you asked why women taking the oath had a lengthy list of strict, oppressive conditions attached.

It wasn't a lengthy list at all. And it was not oppressive.
The list asked anyone, not just women, who was taking the oath, to not commit infanticide, not commit fornication or adultery, not attack Muslims, and not attack Prophet Muhammad. Hardly oppressive. In fact, pagan arabs those days were engaged in all kinds of cruel or indecent behavior, and it was an abomination and affront to humanity.

Anonymous wrote:Now, as for your side point that when a woman converted to Islam, her marriage to a disbeliever was invalidated, this is not necessarily true.

What is true is that a disbeliever is one who is hostile toward Islam and such a person can not be the guardian of his wife if she is a Muslim. Disbelievers in Prophet Muhammads time were fighting Muslims. How can he then be expected to support his wife's faith?

Even though a disbeliever can not be a guardian to a Muslim, the marriage was not forcibly ended. Sometimes the couple had children and sometimes they needed time to work through their differences. The Prophet permitted this. His own daughter, Zainab bint Muhammad, was married before his prophethood. She converted to Islam but her husband refused to do so. They remained married for six years but lived apart. Eventually her husband converted.

Forget what the four jurisprudence schools say on this matter or what Sharias of different countries say. Forget what scholars say also. History shows prophet Muhammad exercised patience in these situations and allowed wives to take a wait and see approach, especially if there were kids involved.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think you've shown this verse gives women voting rights or political relevance. It showed the rights of Muslims to join other Muslims. If these Muslims happened to be female, they had to clear a long list of requirements.

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.