One brave women who said NO to Muhammed.

[Sister_Amy]

Just trying to establish a baseline for thought.

If we accept that it was thought to be acceptable then, but it problematic now, we can say that we have grown. If it is still acceptable, we may have an issue.

Besides, all I am asking about is one aspect of it. I am not sure what Muhammed looked like. Just being post-pubescent does not mean that her body was fully developed and ready for sex with a full grown man.

I really believe that God knows better when a girl’s body is ready for one thing or another. If an 11-year-old’s body, for example, was too young to get pregnant, then we wouldn’t see 11-year-olds getting pregnant today.

But we do.

I also object to your notion that just because our society today has a different view than a society centuries ago, that we have “grown” or progressed. I think that shows a kind of bias that would fail an anthropologist. Still judging by today’s standards.

 

[ralphinal]

I really believe that God knows better when a girl’s body is ready for one thing or another. If an 11-year-old’s body, for example, was too young to get pregnant, then we wouldn’t see 11-year-olds getting pregnant today.

But we do.

I also object to your notion that just because our society today has a different view than a society centuries ago, that we have “grown” or progressed. I think that shows a kind of bias that would fail an anthropologist. Still judging by today’s standards.

If you do a little research into sex between adult males and post-pubescent adolecent girls, you will see that there are all kinds of problems that can be created physically.

Today’s standards are at times better than yesterdays. Would you rather have the rights of a 10 century woman or of a modern one?

 

[cathopologist]

How can I help you? Perhaps quoting FROM THE SAME WEBSITE would help you:
According to some traditions the Prophet said in his famous and well-attended speech on the occasion of his farewell pilgrimage that the beating done according to the present verse should be ghayr mubarrih, i.e. in such a way that it should not cause injury, bruise or serious hurt. On this basis some scholars like Tabari and Razi say even that it should be largely symbolic and should be administered “with a folded scarf” or “with a miswak or some such thing”.

This is precisely why i quoted from that website. Because i didn’t want to quote anything from answering-islam.com and its likes. I knew i would be accused of quoting from anti-Islamic sites. Beating is beating is beating is beating. Whether lightly or not. Even the author of that website doesn’t play with his words. He has also explicitly mentioned and i paraphrase, ‘not to be apologetic about any part of the Quran as it lack boths knowledge and faith’

Don’t waste my time or your time pretending t hat BEATING is allowed when clearly what is meant by BEATING in English is NOT what is meant by what the Qur’an says.

I’m sorry if you think it is a waste of time. I think its a waste of my time when you cannot even admit to what the Qur’an teaches. The surahs quoted are direct translations into the English language. Pickthall is highly esteemed in Muslim circles.

Good grief. I have no clue what you’re talking about, or who.

Adopted son. Not step-son. (I.e., he was not the son of any of Muhammad’s wives.) Why can’t you be precise?

An adopted son can also be a step-son in some situations. Nonetheless, it does not matter if he was adopted or not - It didn’t stop Mohammad from marrying his adopted son’s wife, did it?

Yeah, I know how it feels.

So why deny and then point your finger at me?

So be precise. I’m going to start calling you on it.

As i said, does it matter if Zayd was adopted or a step-son? The end result is still the same. That precise enough?

 

[Sister_Amy]

If you do a little research into sex between adult males and post-pubescent adolecent girls, you will see that there are all kinds of problems that can be created physically.

Today’s standards are at times better than yesterdays. Would you rather have the rights of a 10 century woman or of a modern one?

I think that the rights of a 7th century Muslim woman are a marvel, truly. There are some women today who still don’t have such rights–women who are forced into prostitution, who suffer from parental abuse or forced marriages. Not all “modern” women are in the same boat, Ralph.

 

[ralphinal]

I think that the rights of a 7th century Muslim woman are a marvel, truly. There are some women today who still don’t have such rights–women who are forced into prostitution, who suffer from parental abuse or forced marriages. Not all “modern” women are in the same boat, Ralph.

No, but for many this boat is a better one.

Some would argue that some modern Muslim women have no boat at all compaired to the past.

 

[Sister_Amy]

No, but for many this boat is a better one.

Some would argue that some modern Muslim women have no boat at all compaired to the past.

I would argue that some modern Western women have no boat at all.

 

[cathopologist]

I think that the rights of a 7th century Muslim woman are a marvel, truly. There are some women today who still don’t have such rights–women who are forced into prostitution, who suffer from parental abuse or forced marriages. Not all “modern” women are in the same boat, Ralph.

See, this is what i do not understand about Muslim apologists - i know you do not like to be labeled as one. But i have heard this so many times - “Islam is a blessing to women as they always had women’s rights since the dawn of Islam.”

Why don’t Muslim scholars admit that Jews, Christians, Hindu, Greek, Roman women, etc also enjoyed such privileges? Why do they always have to insist Muslim women are more privileged than Christian women? Totally unnecessary and absolutely nonsensical.

 

[Sister_Amy]

See, this is what i do not understand about Muslim apologists - i know you do not like to be labeled as one. But i have heard this so many times - “Islam is a blessing to women as they always had women’s rights since the dawn of Islam.”

Why don’t Muslim scholars admit that Jews, Christians, Hindu, Greek, Roman women, etc also enjoyed such privileges? Why do they always have to insist Muslim women are more privileged than Christian women? Totally unnecessary and absolutely nonsensical.

It’s something I guess you would have to be a Muslim woman in order to understand.

Having been a Christian woman and a Muslim woman, I see how Islam elevates women while Christianity does nothing of the sort. In fact, only breaking from Christianity and breaking Christian traditions were Christian women able to achieve their rights in Western society.

 

[ralphinal]

I would argue that some modern Western women have no boat at all.

I might not argue

 

[cathopologist]

It’s something I guess you would have to be a Muslim woman in order to understand.

Having been a Christian woman and a Muslim woman, I see how Islam elevates women while Christianity does nothing of the sort. In fact, only breaking from Christianity and breaking Christian traditions were Christian women able to achieve their rights in Western society.

You are so very wrong, Sister Amy. One of Christianity’s biggest saints is the ever Perpetual Virgin Mary. There are hundreds of women who are saints in the Church and some of them are even revered as Doctors of the Church - a title only reserved for the most intellectual Catholics. Christian tradition has always respected women and their right to exercise power and intelligence to better mankind.

 

[Psalter]

What significance do cultures today have? Arabia 1400 years ago is not a modern culture.

Yet Muslims want to force 7th century Arabian culture on the rest of the world…

 

[Sister_Amy]

You are so very wrong, Sister Amy. One of Christianity’s biggest saints is the ever Perpetual Virgin Mary. There are hundreds of women who are saints in the Church and some of them are even revered as Doctors of the Church - a title only reserved for the most intellectual Catholics. Christian tradition has always respected women and their right to exercise power and intelligence to better mankind.

Yet women have not been popes.

Women have not been priests.

Women are told they aren’t even supposed to talk in church! (According to some interpretations of one of Paul’s letters.)

The oppression of women in Europe, the suppression of their rights was done by Christian governments. Women were not seen as equals spiritual or otherwise by the Christian church.

When did women achieve the right to vote? The right to own property? These rights aren’t protected for women by being Christian, that’s for sure. The right to a divorce is one right that the Catholic church still hasn’t granted women. (Or men, for that matter, though I tend to think it’s women who suffer more for it.)

 

[ralphinal]

Yet women have not been popes.

Women have not been priests.

Women are told they aren’t even supposed to talk in church! (According to some interpretations of one of Paul’s letters.)

The oppression of women in Europe, the suppression of their rights was done by Christian governments. Women were not seen as equals spiritual or otherwise by the Christian church.

When did women achieve the right to vote? The right to own property? These rights aren’t protected for women by being Christian, that’s for sure. The right to a divorce is one right that the Catholic church still hasn’t granted women. (Or men, for that matter, though I tend to think it’s women who suffer more for it.)

I wish you people would accept that the Church allows for civil divorces. It does not allow for civil divorces and remarriages.

By you people I mean non-Catholics.

 

[cathopologist]

Yet women have not been popes.

Because we follow strictly by the Tradition of the Apostles. They were ALL males.

Women have not been priests.

No. See above post. Besides, its a myth to say that women have no status in the Catholic Church. We have lecterns, Psalmists, even Communion ministers in the Church who are women. Mosques do not even have women lecterns. There was a controversy years back when a Muslim woman wanted to lead the prayer in mosques. (See Woman-led Friday prayer sparks controversy in the US)

Women are told they aren’t even supposed to talk in church! (According to some interpretations of one of Paul’s letters.)

This is absolutely not true. Whoever taught you this is clearly dishonest and probably a chauvinist.

The oppression of women in Europe, the suppression of their rights was done by Christian governments. Women were not seen as equals spiritual or otherwise by the Christian church.

Please. You have just made sweeping statements which are untrue. Have you seen or read about the status of women in Muslim countries? Women are not segregated in Church unlike Mosques. They sit side by side with their husbands or boyfriends without being stared at. I’ve been to a mosque and i’ve personally seen how they segregate women from the men and they were dead silent. Its totally the opposite experience when you go to churches.

When did women achieve the right to vote? The right to own property? These rights aren’t protected for women by being Christian, that’s for sure. The right to a divorce is one right that the Catholic church still hasn’t granted women. (Or men, for that matter, though I tend to think it’s women who suffer more for it.)

In the era of the Early Church, women were already ministering to curious crowds who were there for the Good News. I don’t know how you derived to such conclusions. Muslim scholars don’t readily admit the Church has always respected women - 600 years before the birth of Islam. Marriage is a Holy Sacrament in the Catholic Church. Marriage is a lasting agreement - “till death do us part”. Muslims do not believe in everlasting marriages, due to the fact they practice polygamy. What polygamy does, is to give men the right to lay eyes on another woman he desires - thereby reducing the chances of him committing adultery - through bigamy.

 

[cathopologist]

She is talking about children born out of wedlock. Unfortunately, she does not realize or even practice the notion that ALL children are from God, regardless of the time of conception.

Children born out of wedlock are still to be loved. Not thrown aside for an “illegal crime” they did not commit.

 

[planten]

See, this is what i do not understand about Muslim apologists - i know you do not like to be labeled as one. But i have heard this so many times - “Islam is a blessing to women as they always had women’s rights since the dawn of Islam.”

**Yes, Cathopologist, please leave the Muslim apologist alone. talk about the Catholic apologists. islam is a blessing for all makind including ladies. The ladies had excellenet rights 1400 years ago. Now you please prove that your christian ladies had similar rights and how and why did they get it? By some legislation or by the sacred command. Please show from your bible all the good words about the rights of the ladies. Show something like Quran said, " The ladies have the same rights as you have…" Do you have even word of that sort in your bible?

I know you ignore my questions and pass them off.**

Why don’t Muslim scholars admit that Jews, Christians, Hindu, Greek, Roman women, etc also enjoyed such privileges? Why do they always have to insist Muslim women are more privileged than Christian women? Totally unnecessary and absolutely nonsensical.

**WE will not deny they had the rights. But it should be proved by your books not from your present day advocacy. Do not be too smart to advocate for your book (bible) if bible itself is silent on any issue.

Now about non-sensical things. I see that church has more non-sensical things. the whole lot of unmarried mothers (nuns) and the whole lot of un-married fathers (Padres). Is that anything sensible? Please explain your unmarried mothers and fathers found in your churches.**

 

[planten]

Yet women have not been popes.

Women have not been priests.

Women are told they aren’t even supposed to talk in church! (According to some interpretations of one of Paul’s letters.)

The oppression of women in Europe, the suppression of their rights was done by Christian governments. Women were not seen as equals spiritual or otherwise by the Christian church.

When did women achieve the right to vote? The right to own property? These rights aren’t protected for women by being Christian, that’s for sure. The right to a divorce is one right that the Catholic church still hasn’t granted women. (Or men, for that matter, though I tend to think it’s women who suffer more for it.)

Sis Amy, I am thankful to you for informing me about these things which prove a defect in the church system or rathe rprove the superiority of the Islamic teachings… I was aware of all these but it needed some good presentation. Thank you very much. It is all true what you have written, 100 %.

These are the practical items (yardsticks) by which we could measure the quantity and quality of freedom and rights of the ladies in any religion. I request the Cathopologists to please understand the reality and drop any antipathy against Islamic teachings.

 

[planten]

I wish you people would accept that the Church allows for civil divorces. It does not allow for civil divorces and remarriages.

By you people I mean non-Catholics.

** ralph, out of a long list of church problems about ladies, you have addressed and picked only one point i.e. civil divorce. Thanks for educating us. Now please attend to the other problems too.**

 

[planten]

She is talking about children born out of wedlock. Unfortunately, she does not realize or even practice the notion that ALL children are from God, regardless of the time of conception.

Children born out of wedlock are still to be loved. Not thrown aside for an “illegal crime” they did not commit.

**The problem is that now there are more children out of wedlock than those by marriage. There is no concept of marriage in Europe. The christians do no tmarry until they produce a child. If they fail then they mve on to the next lady / gent and try their luck.

The church could not hold the people on the right path. There are very genuine good chaste people in christians but they are far and few.**

 

[ralphinal]

** ralph, out of a long list of church problems about ladies, you have addressed and picked only one point i.e. civil divorce. Thanks for educating us. Now please attend to the other problems too.**

There are no other problems. In fact, this is not one, either.

Women cannot be priests. If you do not like it, talk to God. Men cannot be mothers. If you do not like it, talk to God.

God never said life is FAIR. What he says is that He is JUST.

The fact that, in the past, women could not own land had nothing to do with the faith. It was a cultural issue.

Besides, can a woman be a leader of Muslims in prayer? Be an IMan or sheik or whatever? Can a woman be ayatolla?