Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Here are the erroneous "facts" you mentioned:
- that Islam requires the oath ONLY for women. Patently false! Read the entire Quran and history. This would mean the rules that applied to women did not apply to men, and men could therefore commit infanticide, and freely fornicate to their hearts desire right in front of the Prophet himself if they pleased. Its ludicrous to think men did not have to abide by the oath but women did!

Please provide a reference to a sura that says "and when believing men come to you, examine them, and then if they don't lie, don't steal, don't worship others besides you and don't have illegitimate children, you can accept their pledge of allegiance."

Anonymous wrote:
- that women with illegitimate children were somehow screened and possibly prevented from taking the oath. No. As nonmuslims, women were engaging in all kinds of unislamic behavior like adultery and infanticide, and it would not have been a shock if they had illegitimate children. Actually, when a person converts the sins they committed unknowingly are washed away and their soul begins anew. Converts are deemed to be of a higher status in God's eyes than born Muslims because of the hardship they often suffer. So to imply that women with illegitimate children were screened or prevented from joining the tribe just goes completely against my understanding of Islam.

This is not personal, and your understanding of Islam is not a golden standard of anything. I have provided a verse that asks "believing women" who wanted to join Muslims in Medina to pledge that they don't have children they falsely attributed to their husbands (i.e. illegitimate). I point out, again, that these women were not converting on the gates of Medina; they were already Muslims. And converts may suffer great suffering, but certainly the ladies who got to collect their dowries TWICE didn't do exactly poorly.

Anonymous wrote:
- that the oath has no connection to voting whatsoever. Wrong. It was the precusor to womens voting rights because it allows women to give the oath regardless of the presence of a guardian. As far as evidentiary hadith, the well known rule is that hadith does not carry more weight than the Quran and if the hadith can not be supported or substantiated by the Quran, you should be careful about relying on it. If you need to pull out a hadith when you can't find a Quranic verse to support your statement, its a red flag that maybe your statement is not authoritative.
- that Islam never gave women voting rights. Wrong again. Sura Ash Shurra did, by using plural language while God/Allah asked everyone to decide on relevant matters collectively. ALL relevant matters. This flies in the face of the hadith you offered and if there is any conflict between hadith and Quran, the Quran trumps hadith.

That's your theory. You haven't provided convincing evidence that it is so.

Fine, PP, here is a verse that shows men ALSO took the oath of allegiance to the Prophet. I hope it will put this issue to rest and you will stop publishing false and / or misleading information about Islam. If your questions are sincere, you would ask a scholar.

Sura 48 Al Fath, verse 18:

"Allah's Good Pleasure was on the believers
When they swore Fealty
To thee under the Tree:
He knew what was in their hearts,
And He sent down Tranquility
To them; and He rewarded them
With a speedy Victory;"

This was a group of men taking an oath!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You said:
"But as I also pointed out, not for long - Islam also cleared these women for marriage to Muslim men as long as they reimbursed their disbelieving husbands for whatever they paid their wives as dowry. Much like returning the item to the store. Since Islam encourages marriage, I'm sure these ladies would have gotten fixed up as soon as possible (if their dowries were, you know, affordable) and then they would have proper guardians."

Hmmmm....I'm going to ignore the insult and simply address your misunderstanding.

Marriage in Islam should be based on love and harmony. But it is also an agreement, a promise, and similar to a contract. The dowry is given by the husband to the wife upon marriage as a security if divorce should result. In these cases, the wives willingly left their pagan husbands because they simply wanted to be Muslim. Prophet Muhammad felt it was only fair to return the dowry to the ex husbands and from henceforth those women who no longer had guardians would be financially cared for by the islamic state or new, Muslim husbands.

I'm sure he did. I'm sure the ladies loved it, because to leave their Muslim husbands, they would have had to repay the dowry themselves.

No, not as security "if divorce should result". As security if a husband happens to divorce her.

That should have been understood from the fact that the dowry was returned when the wife left on her own accord.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Here are the erroneous "facts" you mentioned:
- that Islam requires the oath ONLY for women. Patently false! Read the entire Quran and history. This would mean the rules that applied to women did not apply to men, and men could therefore commit infanticide, and freely fornicate to their hearts desire right in front of the Prophet himself if they pleased. Its ludicrous to think men did not have to abide by the oath but women did!

Please provide a reference to a sura that says "and when believing men come to you, examine them, and then if they don't lie, don't steal, don't worship others besides you and don't have illegitimate children, you can accept their pledge of allegiance."

Anonymous wrote:
- that women with illegitimate children were somehow screened and possibly prevented from taking the oath. No. As nonmuslims, women were engaging in all kinds of unislamic behavior like adultery and infanticide, and it would not have been a shock if they had illegitimate children. Actually, when a person converts the sins they committed unknowingly are washed away and their soul begins anew. Converts are deemed to be of a higher status in God's eyes than born Muslims because of the hardship they often suffer. So to imply that women with illegitimate children were screened or prevented from joining the tribe just goes completely against my understanding of Islam.

This is not personal, and your understanding of Islam is not a golden standard of anything. I have provided a verse that asks "believing women" who wanted to join Muslims in Medina to pledge that they don't have children they falsely attributed to their husbands (i.e. illegitimate). I point out, again, that these women were not converting on the gates of Medina; they were already Muslims. And converts may suffer great suffering, but certainly the ladies who got to collect their dowries TWICE didn't do exactly poorly.

Anonymous wrote:
- that the oath has no connection to voting whatsoever. Wrong. It was the precusor to womens voting rights because it allows women to give the oath regardless of the presence of a guardian. As far as evidentiary hadith, the well known rule is that hadith does not carry more weight than the Quran and if the hadith can not be supported or substantiated by the Quran, you should be careful about relying on it. If you need to pull out a hadith when you can't find a Quranic verse to support your statement, its a red flag that maybe your statement is not authoritative.
- that Islam never gave women voting rights. Wrong again. Sura Ash Shurra did, by using plural language while God/Allah asked everyone to decide on relevant matters collectively. ALL relevant matters. This flies in the face of the hadith you offered and if there is any conflict between hadith and Quran, the Quran trumps hadith.

That's your theory. You haven't provided convincing evidence that it is so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is non-Muslim scholarship proving that arab pagans lived a cruel and merciless life?

Google " pre islamic jahiliyah"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You said:
"But as I also pointed out, not for long - Islam also cleared these women for marriage to Muslim men as long as they reimbursed their disbelieving husbands for whatever they paid their wives as dowry. Much like returning the item to the store. Since Islam encourages marriage, I'm sure these ladies would have gotten fixed up as soon as possible (if their dowries were, you know, affordable) and then they would have proper guardians."

Hmmmm....I'm going to ignore the insult and simply address your misunderstanding.

Marriage in Islam should be based on love and harmony. But it is also an agreement, a promise, and similar to a contract. The dowry is given by the husband to the wife upon marriage as a security if divorce should result. In these cases, the wives willingly left their pagan husbands because they simply wanted to be Muslim. Prophet Muhammad felt it was only fair to return the dowry to the ex husbands and from henceforth those women who no longer had guardians would be financially cared for by the islamic state or new, Muslim husbands.

I'm sure he did. I'm sure the ladies loved it, because to leave their Muslim husbands, they would have had to repay the dowry themselves.

No, not as security "if divorce should result". As security if a husband happens to divorce her.

Anonymous wrote:Where is non-Muslim scholarship proving that arab pagans lived a cruel and merciless life?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Many understand dua because duas are relatively easy to translate. Children may have a general idea of some suras such as Sura Fatiha and the kuhls or other short or memorable suras. As a child I remember learning the meaning behind a few suras I was taught because sometimes there was a story attached to it. We were told the stories. But do children understand the entire Quran? No. They continue to study it hopefully throughout their lives, though, and their understanding improves with time. Even children who are hafiz may not know every word they memorized. But what is the relevance of not knowing every single word in the Quran? If they knew every single word, their faith would be even stronger. They may be less terrorism in the world if every Muslim studied the Quran as God/Allah intended. But is their faith lacking? Despite knowing only the meaning of a few suras, their knowledge and faith is still remarkably strong.

The study of Quranic Arabic is a longterm endeavor.

The relevance of knowing every single word in the Quran is that you argued it is incumbent on all Muslims to study the Quranic Arabic and added that millions of children all over the world are doing just that. I countered that these children may be able to recite Quran from memory without understanding the meaning of that word, so them being able to do so is not in any way an indication of understanding Quranic Arabic. It was not about making their faith stronger since that was never a part of the argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Many understand dua because duas are relatively easy to translate. Children may have a general idea of some suras such as Sura Fatiha and the kuhls or other short or memorable suras. As a child I remember learning the meaning behind a few suras I was taught because sometimes there was a story attached to it. We were told the stories. But do children understand the entire Quran? No. They continue to study it hopefully throughout their lives, though, and their understanding improves with time. Even children who are hafiz may not know every word they memorized. But what is the relevance of not knowing every single word in the Quran? If they knew every single word, their faith would be even stronger. They may be less terrorism in the world if every Muslim studied the Quran as God/Allah intended. But is their faith lacking? Despite knowing only the meaning of a few suras, their knowledge and faith is still remarkably strong.

The study of Quranic Arabic is a longterm endeavor.

The relevance of knowing every single word in the Quran is that you argued it is incumbent on all Muslims to study the Quranic Arabic and added that millions of children all over the world are doing just that. I countered that these children may be able to recite Quran from memory without understanding the meaning of that word, so them being able to do so is not in any way an indication of understanding Quranic Arabic. It was not about making their faith stronger since that was never a part of the argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And be wary: most people are really tired of this rhetoric and this thread.

It should have been shut down a LONG time ago.

Or note to webmaster - there should be a new topic titled simply ISLAM so you all can chat about your beliefs there.

For those who are tired of reading this thread: don't read it.

Anonymous wrote:And be wary: most people are really tired of this rhetoric and this thread.

It should have been shut down a LONG time ago.

Or note to webmaster - there should be a new topic titled simply ISLAM so you all can chat about your beliefs there.

Anonymous wrote:Okay, PP, the sura / verse you asked about is Sura 60:12 and the phrase, "Forging falsehood" does have the literal translation of: "nor producing any lie that they have devised between their hands and feet." In other words, (Yusuf Ali footnote) the refugee women coming to take the oath in Medina should not attribute paternity of their illegitimate children to their lawful husbands thereby adding to their monstrosity of their original sin of infidelity.

One can not begin life as a new Muslim based on more deception and lies. All past sins are forgiven with repentance. But the woman should simply be honest and not take any oath based on a lie.

Anonymous wrote:

Ahhh but you have confused the two situations of marriage and oath for political matters, conversion, or membership into a tribe. The guardian for marriage is necessary to protect women, to ensure they were not being forced into marriage against their will and to ensure her dowry was paid. No guardian is necessary to convert to Islam or in those times, to be a member of the Prophets tribe.

Anonymous wrote:You said:
"But as I also pointed out, not for long - Islam also cleared these women for marriage to Muslim men as long as they reimbursed their disbelieving husbands for whatever they paid their wives as dowry. Much like returning the item to the store. Since Islam encourages marriage, I'm sure these ladies would have gotten fixed up as soon as possible (if their dowries were, you know, affordable) and then they would have proper guardians."

Hmmmm....I'm going to ignore the insult and simply address your misunderstanding.

Marriage in Islam should be based on love and harmony. But it is also an agreement, a promise, and similar to a contract. The dowry is given by the husband to the wife upon marriage as a security if divorce should result. In these cases, the wives willingly left their pagan husbands because they simply wanted to be Muslim. Prophet Muhammad felt it was only fair to return the dowry to the ex husbands and from henceforth those women who no longer had guardians would be financially cared for by the islamic state or new, Muslim husbands.

Anonymous wrote:
Here are the erroneous "facts" you mentioned:
- that Islam requires the oath ONLY for women. Patently false! Read the entire Quran and history. This would mean the rules that applied to women did not apply to men, and men could therefore commit infanticide, and freely fornicate to their hearts desire right in front of the Prophet himself if they pleased. Its ludicrous to think men did not have to abide by the oath but women did!

Anonymous wrote:
- that women with illegitimate children were somehow screened and possibly prevented from taking the oath. No. As nonmuslims, women were engaging in all kinds of unislamic behavior like adultery and infanticide, and it would not have been a shock if they had illegitimate children. Actually, when a person converts the sins they committed unknowingly are washed away and their soul begins anew. Converts are deemed to be of a higher status in God's eyes than born Muslims because of the hardship they often suffer. So to imply that women with illegitimate children were screened or prevented from joining the tribe just goes completely against my understanding of Islam.

Anonymous wrote:
- that the oath has no connection to voting whatsoever. Wrong. It was the precusor to womens voting rights because it allows women to give the oath regardless of the presence of a guardian. As far as evidentiary hadith, the well known rule is that hadith does not carry more weight than the Quran and if the hadith can not be supported or substantiated by the Quran, you should be careful about relying on it. If you need to pull out a hadith when you can't find a Quranic verse to support your statement, its a red flag that maybe your statement is not authoritative.
- that Islam never gave women voting rights. Wrong again. Sura Ash Shurra did, by using plural language while God/Allah asked everyone to decide on relevant matters collectively. ALL relevant matters. This flies in the face of the hadith you offered and if there is any conflict between hadith and Quran, the Quran trumps hadith.