what do women get out of islam?

[GeoffP]

Women weren't allowed four husbands for this simple reason: one man can get four women pregnant. Four men can not each get one woman pregnant. If it were four men and a woman, each man could want a child for themselves but be unable to do so. If four women wanted a child, then that one man would be able to grant each of their wishes.

And what about all the other men who don't get to have a wife, if some people are absorbing several? You do realize that males and females occur in nearly equal numbers in the human population.

Look up how trigonometry, algebra, geography, chemistry, medicines, all were developed. The Islamic empires.

And for which islamic culture stands on the shoulders of the Greeks.

This is both absurd and not true. You don't know what you're talking about. Men did have hundreds of wives, and even the poorest could easily have ten. They didn't cost money like they do today. Weddings weren't thousands of dollars, and like I said, they didn't really look after them. They were mostly for sexual pleasure.

Very very few men indeed would have had hundreds of wives - by and large it's a fairy tale. If you're trying to make this seem like a social narrative of religion, stop here because it would have affected only a small minority of people.

Can you give me the names of these "some Ottomans"? And did I not say the Ottoman empire was "fairly accurate" with reflecting the teachings of Islam?

With jizya, dhimmitude, the creation of the janissaries, slavery and the like: yes, yes, we know. That's what we object to. And why could Mohammed have twenty or so wives but the rest of his group only four?

A Muslim would respect your decision as having only one fully. Now why can't you accept his? The women are not forced to marry a man already married to other women. It is the woman's choice. Think of that.

Is it? Is it the woman's choice when she's shown a photograph of a cousin she's never seen or met perhaps once, and told by her family that she must off and marry herself to him, not knowing how many other wives she has or where? Is that the woman's choice too? What happens to her - not always, but in some proportion of cases and which is probably everpresent in the minds of many muslim women - if she tells her family to get stuffed?

I caught you in the middle of a big FAT LIE.

Here is what the Ottoman's thought of slavery (and I quote):

Source? Wiki, of course. Let me help you with your source:

The Ottomans came from a nomadic people among whom slavery was little practiced. Also, from the Islamic perspective, the Qur'an states "O mankind! We created you from a single soul, male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, so that you may come to know one another. Truly, the most honoured of you in God's sight is the greatest of you in piety. God is All-Knowing, All-Aware" — 49:13 although in practice there were cultural differences in how this was interpreted (Islam and Slavery covers these perspectives). The Ottomans did not approve of slavery in their empire. However, Ottoman policies were based on a millet perspective in which each millet had the right to govern their own domain, so there were places in the Ottoman Empire where slavery existed. Trafficking in slaves was expressively forbidden by the Ottoman application of sharia, or Islamic law. For example, by the terms of the sharia, any slaves who were taken could not be kept as slaves if they reverted to Islam.

And...if they didn't convert to islam? What then? Why not just "all slaves who were taken could not be kept as slaves". Period. Why the stipulation? Islamic justice sometimes seems as much about what is not said as what is said.

Let's continue:

Slavery was an important part of Ottoman society. It was Arab traders who started the trans-Saharan slave trade, exporting black slaves from Ghana and other West African countries as far back as 1100 CE and the practice carried over into Ottoman reign. The Ottoman slave was far different from the typical image of a beaten agricultural worker, they could achieve high status.

That's interesting. Could they leave service? Just pick up and walk away? Hmm?

Harem guards and janissaries are some of the better known positions a slave could hold, but slaves actually were at the forefront of Ottoman politics. The majority of officials of the Ottoman government were bought slaves, obviously they were raised free, but they were integral to the success of the Ottomans from the fourteenth century to the nineteenth. By raising and specially training slaves as officials, not only did they get administrators with intricate knowledge of government and fanatic loyalty, but they cut back corruption as an administrator would have no ties in the region, thus he would not favor one person over another when granting contracts.

Either one is free or one is not. The sloppy English is quite apparently that of an apologist.

The Devşirme system could be considered as a form of slavery, in that the Sultans had absolute power over its members. However, the 'slave' or kul (subject) of the Sultan had high status within Ottoman society, and this group included the highest officers of state and the military elite, all well remunerated, so to consider them 'slaves' (in the way the term is generally understood in the West) is misleading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_empire#Slavery

In other words, slavery was renamed.

About the jizya, which you mentioned prior:

Also, as the largest group of non-Muslim subjects (or zimmi) of the Islamic Ottoman state, the Orthodox millet was granted a number of special privileges in the fields of politics and commerce, in addition to having to pay higher taxes than Muslim subjects.[33],[34]

Nothing mentioned about their restrictions, of course.

The Ottoman Empire was one of the strongest empires ever. It stood for over 620 strong years and controlled an enormous amount of land. They represented Islam, but fully respected other religions as well. The Jews, when bannished from Spain, were welcome with open arms by the Ottomans. Democracy has been in place for the strongest country in the world (US) for about 60 years (after WW2). How do you match 60 to 600+? If the US and democracy last even 200 years, I'll be surprised, let alone 623.

This is BS. If it is enlightening for me, then why does it have to be enlightening for you? I've read the whole Qur'an and find it the perfect book. I find it enlightening. If that doesn't work for you, then what do you want me to do?

Well, not justifying islamic slavery and dhimmitude would be a start. Or jizya.

Everything. The whole Quran is a flawless book and Allah tells us he has omitted nothing from within it. Everything a person would like to know can be found in that book, if they search deep enough.

I appreciate that you consider it perfect "for you", but I'm curious: how can "oppression be worse than slaughter" (Q 2:191), yet Mohammed commands that non-muslims be "made themselves to feel oppressed" (i.e. turned into second class citizens) (Q 9: 29) and still exclaim that those of the Christians and Jews "who believe" should still reap their reward (Q 2: 62) while feeling non-believers to be of diminished intelligence (Q 8: 66), "protectors" or "friends" only of "one another" (Q 2: 73)? Are such people tolerable only in their appropriate place?

Small wonder, with such treatment, that they are only friends to one another.

 

[Kadark]

And what about all the other men who don't get to have a wife, if some people are absorbing several? You realize that males and females occur in nearly equal numbers in the human population.

Tell me when this was ever remotely a problem? Nowadays men don’t have four wives because they are too expensive, so to witness this event occur on a substantially frequent level is remote. The wedding fees, attention, and care you must exert constantly pose too heavy a burden on all men except the extremely wealthy, which is why on average the MOST women you will see married to a single man is two.

And for which islamic culture stands on the shoulders of the Greeks.

Every single bit of technology and knowledge we have on the world today is a development to a prior civilization. To expect Muslims to have ignored Greek teachings just because it would have been “unfair” is insane; everything we base our teachings today off today are an adaptation or continuation from somebody else’s knowledge. The Greeks happened to come before the Muslims, which is why these types of things originated from them. However, they did not advance it solely, which is where the Muslims came in and piled on the knowledge to further enhance these subjects.

Very very few men indeed would have had hundreds of wives - by and large it's a fairy tale. If you're trying to make this seem like a social narrative of religion, stop here because it would have affected only a small minority of people.

You obviously are uneducated on matters of the past. Many men had hundreds of wives, and it was by no means a fairy tale. The wealthy men could marry whom they pleased, and even common members of society could easily stampede by four women only. Marriage 1400 years ago was polar-opposite from what it was today, so you can’t look at it with a modern eye.

With jizya, dhimmitude, the creation of the janissaries, slavery and the like: yes, yes, we know. That's what we object to. And why could Mohammed have twenty or so wives but the rest of his group only four?

Satisfying response to Muhammad’s situation with the wives.

It should be noted that the special exception to the prophet concerning the maximum number of wives [Qur'an, 33: 50] includes also special restrictions on him and his wives from privileges available to all others. For example, his wives as "mothers of the believers" were not allowed to remarry after him [Qur'an 33: 53]. If the Prophet were required to divorce wives beyond the maximum of four, it would have done them injustice; to be divorced and disallowed to remarry. Furthermore, for each of the Prophet's marriages there was a specific lesson, social or legislative. By divorcing some of his wives, those lessons are effectively negated, especially the unifying function of marrying women from different clans and backgrounds. This diversity allowed close observation of his private life and teachings and communicating them to their respective folks. Also, unlike any ordinary Muslim, the Prophet was not allowed to divorce any of his wives and marrying others [33:52].

Link: http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/wives_of_the_prophet.htm

Is it? Is it the woman's choice when she's shown a photograph of a cousin she's never seen or met perhaps once, and told by her family that she must off and marry herself to him, not knowing how many other wives she has or where? Is that the woman's choice too? What happens to her - not always, but in some proportion of cases and which is probably everpresent in the minds of many muslim women - if she tells her family to get stuffed?

I respect this argument, and I’d agree wholeheartedly, if (and only if) it pertained to the immorality of certain Muslim nations. However, this thread is titled, “What do women get out of ISLAM”. Islam, the religion, does not allow this any way whatsoever. I already said, this is a man-made custom and a part of people’s traditions even today in a lot of parts of the world. Arranged marriage is done to obtain wealth from the married woman/man’s family. It is not based off of any religious principles, which is why it is an inappropriate argument Islam.

---

About the Ottomans and slavery, you are really missing the point. The Ottomans, like said, did not practice slavery or trade them. Second of all, slavery is completely different from their perspective than from yours. Slaves, if cooperative and hard working, could be released and had limitless power in society after being freed. They were never abused, and received enough pay to support their families. The slave owners had to treat the slaves with the material resources he treated himself with, meaning there wouldn’t be slaves half-naked desperate for medical attention. They were all looked after fairly, and could be released upon good work done to their owner.

The poor single mothers from the projects in America who need two jobs just to barely raise their children because their government doesn’t give a fuck about them seems more intolerable and distasteful. These slaves are only slaves by term; they were treated much better than most people would expect. We seem to have a mindset that deems slavery evil and repulsive. To me, there is nothing wrong with civilians after being defeated from a war to be used as slaves for a bit. They work for you, and then after some time they are released. It is much better than a “take no hostages” attitude which promotes mass slaughter. It is also better than turning a blind eye towards the civilians, because then they can recuperate and plan a retaliatory attack. The best thing is to adopt them, have them in a position that isn’t harmful to you, and then release them to live normally with your people when their status of being a threat is dismissed. It is the balance between two extremes, if you ask me.

I appreciate that you consider it perfect "for you", but I'm curious: how can "oppression be worse than slaughter" (Q 2:191), yet Mohammed commands that non-muslims be "made themselves to feel oppressed" (i.e. turned into second class citizens) (Q 9: 29) and still exclaim that those of the Christians and Jews "who believe" should still reap their reward (Q 2: 62) while feeling non-believers to be of diminished intelligence (Q 8: 66), "protectors" or "friends" only of "one another" (Q 2: 73)? Are such people tolerable only in their appropriate place?

Okay, even you have to admit this is unbelievably jumbled and the presentation of this argument is based on an attempt to confuse me. Please, put some spacing in between, and outline this particular point you’re making more clearly. All I can understand from this is “how can …, if…, but…, while…”. I mean, come on...that whole "paragraph" is one sentence.

 

[S.A.M.]

Ahh, but ...how were you dressed? What color is your skin? How did you act toward the two different people. In what part of the cities did you frequent?

Lots of things can determine how you're treated. And just for my own curiosity, how did you know the religious beliefs of all of those people?

Baron Max

I always dress the same way, casual formal. And my skin color is the same, it does not change with the country. And I travelled all over for work or pleasure.

As for religious beliefs, I generally ask.

 

[spidergoat]

... I travelled all over for work or pleasure.

That would make you a Surface to Air Muslim.

 

[Baron Max]

I always dress the same way, casual formal.

"Casual formal"?? What the hell is that? For India? For Europe? For Africa? For the USA? Casual formal ...????

And my skin color is the same, it does not change with the country. And I travelled all over for work or pleasure.

Ahh, but see, the differences is skin color could be what the people are reacting to rather than your religion or your attire.

As for religious beliefs, I generally ask.

See? So naturally Muslim strangers will react differently than, say, Catholics or other Christian faiths. It's only natural ...you do it, or else you wouldn't ask!!

So you travel for business and pleasure? You'd rather spend that money for your own selfish desires than to help some poor Indian children who are starving to death in Bombay?

Baron Max

 

[John99]

I've lived in a Muslim country and non-Muslim countries. In general, I was treated better by the Muslims. Among the non-Muslims the Europeans treated me better than the Americans.

I am sure you treated the Americans badly. This person just expects everyone to kiss her ass.

I get treated differently when I all
dressed up versus running out to pick up some groceries
looking like a bum.

Maybe the just like your bum.

I always dress the same way, casual formal. And my skin color is the same, it does not change with the country. And I travelled all over for work or pleasure.

As for religious beliefs, I generally ask.

You ask people their religion? LOL, get real willk you

'oh, excuse me, what religion are you? oh, your not Muslim? then did you know you suck?'

Travel for pleasure????? pffft/

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

I am sure you treated the Americans badly. This person just expects everyone to kiss her ass.



Maybe the just like your bum.



You ask people their religion? LOL, get real willk you

'oh, excuse me, what religion are you? oh, your not Muslim? then did you know you suck?'

Travel for pleasure????? pffft/

now i know why you stuck up for sandys prejudice beliefs.

peace.

 

[John99]

S.A.M is a story teller, it is obvious. She know how to tell you just what you want to hear and YOU fall for it.

Complaining about illegal immigration does not automatically make you a racist. There are many blacks and hispanics who are not happy with illegal immigration. I dont know Sandy but she has never made a racist comment on this board.

 

[John99]

Sam is very much pro Muslim, much like fundimentalist's from any religion. I dont know how to tell you this but she would not be crazy about you either. Most fundies do not go for those exactly like them/

 

[Baron Max]

S.A.M is a story teller, it is obvious. She know how to tell you just what you want to hear and YOU fall for it.

See? That's why I keep tellin' y'all ...Sam is a professional propagandist. Read her stuff, see how quickly she/he can post links supporting terrorist or terrorist activities, see how poorly she/he responds when you force her/him to answer on her/his own.

Complaining about illegal immigration does not automatically make you a racist. There are many blacks and hispanics who are not happy with illegal immigration. I dont know Sandy but she has never made a racist comment on this board.

I agree, I've never read a racist comment from Sandy at all. I've seen many who tried to make that connection, but she's never posted a racist comment.

And remember, y'all, if she had, James R. would have banned her immediately if not sooner!!

Baron Max

 

[Michael]

Women weren't allowed four husbands for this simple reason: one man can get four women pregnant. Four men can not each get one woman pregnant. If it were four men and a woman, each man could want a child for themselves but be unable to do so. If four women wanted a child, then that one man would be able to grant each of their wishes.

OK I understand your point of view but
a) Is there a verse in the the Qur'an that says this or is this something you thought of? (each man desiring a child ergo women can not have four husbands.

Also, you know, using your argument then if 3 men were sterile and could not have a child - it would behoove them to get a 4th man who could and thus 4 men could marry one women and share the child of the one man who could have children. If all are in agreement, is this morally acceptable in Islam?

b) This does not explain why Mohammad was pro-polygamy and by his own example anti-monogamy. Why was only Mohammad have more than 4 wives?

EDIT I was in a hurry I see you cam back to this.

I'm still confused as to why additional woman were needed as a wife for "a specific lesson, social or legislative". Could you explain how each wife was "a specific lesson, social or legislative." It just doesn't make sense. If a lesson needs to be learned then God can give the information to Mohammad who can then teach this lesson. How is marrying a wife going to teach a specific lesson? What is this about many more wives were needed for "legislative"? What does this mean? What legislative was each wife responcible for? Why was a wife needed and not just hire a woman or man to perform the legislative task.

c) Why 4 wives? Why not 6 or 3 or 1 or 10?

d) What do you think is better one wife per one man or many wives per one man?

e) Tibetans used to practice polygamy where one women would marry more than one man. So it's is socially acceptable - and even preferred in some societies.

Women were able to become judges or any other sort of figure in their society.

During the Golden Age of the Ottoman empire - What was the average number of positions of Judge held by a women in comparison to men? Was it like 1:1, one male judge to every female judge or like 1:3 or 1:10, 1:100?

- Was it common for a women to pass judgment over a man?

Outside of the royal family, What was the highest position held by a woman? Who was she? What was her name and how did she come to hold this position?

There is not a single thing in the Qur'an that suggests what roles women can and cannot play in society.

And as I stated at the onset: It's not what's written in the book that matters but whether what is written in the book makes a damn bit of difference.

It isn't written in the Communist Manifesto that North Koreans will be starved to such an extent that the State will have to lower the admittance height into the army because the people are actually stunted in growth and becoming shorter in stature. As a matter of fact it is written that there will be food galore for everyone. Paradise. Many people living in North Korea would argue their system is paradise. But you and I know that what's written in their manifesto and what is the reality of the situation are two very completely different things.

Well, I have to run, I'll try to get back later and read the rest,
Cheers,
Michael

 

[decantemix]

Yeah, that's right. Hey, do the Muslim female suicide bombers get 72 virgin men as a reward in heaven?

Baron Max

Don't ask me, as I have no idea what whomever may retype when they edit my past. I'm almost certain I didn't type face for faith.

But, women tend to controvert when it comes to sexual matters. They want experience, and power. So, I'd say that they get something akin to a triple out sesshion, where they are plotting in the heaven's lines accordingly. This is fore followers of the faith, mind you.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

The slavery you talk about is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like the slavery Americans put blacks through. This "slavery" is a person working for another person and getting paid for it. The slave is paid, his family is kept in tact, he is absolutely in no way tortured or killed, and the slave can work his way out of his profession (if he pleases). These two types of "slavery" are in other worlds in terms of similarity.

for every black that went to islamic lands, every male was castrated, otherwise he would compete with his arab master for the affection of his women,
in the US now, blacks compete very well for white girls
in islamic Mauritania, where blacks were allowed to compete, well their is still slavery & 2nd class status for them,
see below:

The descendants of Beni Hassan warriors became the upper stratum of Moorish society. Berbers retained influence by producing the majority of the region's Marabouts--those who preserve and teach Islamic tradition. Hassaniya, a mainly oral, Berber-influenced Arabic dialect that derives its name from the Beni Hassan tribe, became the dominant language among the largely nomadic population. Within Moorish society, aristocratic and servant classes developed, yielding "white" (aristocracy) and "black" Moors (the enslaved indigenous class).

from: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5467.htm

"My master is the father of my first child, my master's son is the father of my second child and my baby girl's father was my master's nephew".

In this way says Boubakar Messaoud, "We have achieved what the American plantation owners dreamed of - the breeding of perfectly submissive slaves".

from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4091579.stm

Like what? Are you referring to the tax non-Muslims in Muslim lands had to pay? What part of paying a fee to have the Muslim army protect you sounds strange? You pay, and you're defended.

you're right, why would christians be trusted to serve in an army of occupation, would you pay the jizya tax?, those lands were Coptic, Assyrian, Greek, Serb, yes, you can't trust them to serve in a muslim army

Communism is not a religion. These are polar-different things we're comparing here.

cult of leaders; Marx, Mao, Lenin, Stalin

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Tell me when this was ever remotely a problem? Nowadays men don’t have four wives because they are too expensive, so to witness this event occur on a substantially frequent level is remote.

what's the age of consent in muslim countries? 9 like Ayesha?
"60 minutes" did a piece on this, withdrawn from view after 9-11

 

[GeoffP]

Qa'dark, you're still engaging in apologetics. Marrying several women creates pressure on unmarried men to find their own women. It's a disruptive system, as the Mormon example illustrates. You claim the widespread "hundreds of wives" thing, but you don't offer a source.

Satisfying response to Muhammad’s situation with the wives.

No. Not satisfying. It's more apologetics. "Oh, it's a special case; he was Mohammed. And it wouldn't have been right for him to divorce them, so he never did." And why? Well, because they were disallowed to remarry after him. And why that? Well, he's Mohammed, of course. Preposterous. He breaks his own rules.

The poor single mothers from the projects in America who need two jobs just to barely raise their children because their government doesn’t give a fuck about them seems more intolerable and distasteful.

You're not honestly invoking poverty as an excuse to slavery?

These slaves are only slaves by term; they were treated much better than most people would expect. We seem to have a mindset that deems slavery evil and repulsive.

Imagine that. Slavery is slavery. One is free or one is not. What became of slaves that simply got up and left?

To me, there is nothing wrong with civilians after being defeated from a war to be used as slaves for a bit. They work for you, and then after some time they are released. It is much better than a “take no hostages” attitude which promotes mass slaughter. It is also better than turning a blind eye towards the civilians, because then they can recuperate and plan a retaliatory attack. The best thing is to adopt them, have them in a position that isn’t harmful to you, and then release them to live normally with your people when their status of being a threat is dismissed.

Really. That's interesting. Tell me: do you then think it permissible and just to enslave muslims - you know, "for a bit" - after they've lost a war with you? Like Iraq, say. Or maybe if there were some significant percentage of their community with hostile opinions that were hostile to your culture. If they were so enslaved, would this be a method to prevent "retaliatory attacks"? Would this have prevented the bombing attacks in London or Spain? Or does this apply only to the unbeliever? What happened to oppression being worse than slaughter?

Okay, even you have to admit this is unbelievably jumbled and the presentation of this argument is based on an attempt to confuse me. Please, put some spacing in between, and outline this particular point you’re making more clearly. All I can understand from this is “how can …, if…, but…, while…”. I mean, come on...that whole "paragraph" is one sentence.

The sentence illustrates that the Quran is contradictory. Many people call that "imperfect". It's certainly not perfect for the non-believer.

 

[Michael]

GeoffP,

I agree.

Qa'dark, these are similar to the points I was attempting to make.

What is your counter arguments .. ... .... or do you concur?

Thanks,
Michael

 

[Kadark]

OK I understand your point of view but
a) Is there a verse in the the Qur'an that says this or is this something you thought of? (each man desiring a child ergo women can not have four husbands.

You must understand that while the Qur’an omits no fact or figure, it doesn’t include everything in text. Imagine a “book” with an individual outlining and description to literally hold your hand through every life affair. If the Qur’an told us every minute detail and the complete reasoning behind his infallible decisions, the book would run its course through millions of pages. No, Allah does not say specifically why it is four men and one woman and not the other way around, but my presentation is certainly the best answer. Tell me any other biological and rational way to interpret this rule.

Also, you know, using your argument then if 3 men were sterile and could not have a child - it would behoove them to get a 4th man who could and thus 4 men could marry one women and share the child of the one man who could have children. If all are in agreement, is this morally acceptable in Islam?

Absolutely not, because before we could even encounter such a (rare) scenario, we would have been breaking a rule. A woman can not marry four men, and there are no exceptions. To what God does not allow, there is no ‘grey area’.

I'm still confused as to why additional woman were needed as a wife for "a specific lesson, social or legislative". Could you explain how each wife was "a specific lesson, social or legislative." It just doesn't make sense. If a lesson needs to be learned then God can give the information to Mohammad who can then teach this lesson. How is marrying a wife going to teach a specific lesson? What is this about many more wives were needed for "legislative"? What does this mean? What legislative was each wife responcible for? Why was a wife needed and not just hire a woman or man to perform the legislative task.

Read on the prophet’s wives in detail and you will find they had many lessons within. Sawda Bint Zam’a was an old, poor lady with nobody to look after her. The prophet, because of this, married her and made it her responsibility to care for her. Salama Bint Umayya was also a poor old lady whose husband had been killed. She had children, but nobody to look after them, or herself. The prophet proposed to her marriage and took care of her and her children. Mayamuna Bint Al-Harith, and I quote:

"She was 26 years old when she married the prophet. Her first husband was Abu Rahma Abed Alzey. When the prophet opened Makkah in 630, she came to the prophet, accepted Islam, and proposed to marry him. Her actions encouraged many Makkahans to accept Islam and the prophet Muhammad."

d) What do you think is better one wife per one man or many wives per one man?

I think if the women (be it four of them) and the man agrees, then why the hell do YOU care? If they want it, and they are all happy by their decisions, what right is it of you to criticize them?

e) Tibetans used to practice polygamy where one women would marry more than one man. So it's is socially acceptable - and even preferred in some societies.

And I respect their decisions. I would never be on a forum criticizing Tibetans for allowing women to marry more than one man. I sure the men aren’t forced into it, which is why I find it none of my business. If people want to practice harmless polygamy in which all parties incline voluntarily, then it is of no concern to me, as it should be to you.

During the Golden Age of the Ottoman empire - What was the average number of positions of Judge held by a women in comparison to men? Was it like 1:1, one male judge to every female judge or like 1:3 or 1:10, 1:100?

Why the are you asking me? Go to your local library and take out a book on the Ottomans. Rent a documentary on them. Hell, read on wikipedia. Women were equal in society, and there is nothing in Islam or the Ottoman’s laws that contradicts that. I don’t know of the female judge ratio for the Ottomans, but can you tell me the female judge ratio for the Byzantine Christians or the following Europeans? Back in those times, women with the option of becoming judges didn’t want to do so. They were always preoccupied with housecleaning and raising the children.

And as I stated at the onset: It's not what's written in the book that matters but whether what is written in the book makes a damn bit of difference.

What are you talking about? It says men and women are equal, and doesn’t say women must get a second-class education. Can you please tell me how you think this would mean women shouldn’t be educated like men? Is there any logic behind this?

It isn't written in the Communist Manifesto that North Koreans will be starved to such an extent that the State will have to lower the admittance height into the army because the people are actually stunted in growth and becoming shorter in stature. As a matter of fact it is written that there will be food galore for everyone. Paradise. Many people living in North Korea would argue their system is paradise. But you and I know that what's written in their manifesto and what is the reality of the situation are two very completely different things.

You and I also know that communism is not Islam. Communism is a form of government, and Islam is a religion. And like I said, Islam had its Golden Age ever since its rapid, unparalled expansion, until eighty years ago. Islam was always dominant and powerful, and left in its path many discoveries in math, science, medicines, architecture, etc. Islamic countries ran like a dream until WWI, which covers a lot of time. If democracy will even be half of what the Islamic empire was, I'll acknowledge it as successful then.

---

On a side note, I haven't the time to individually respond to every single person's arguments against me. For the time being, it is a three versus one scenario, and surely you all find that unfair. I was debating Michael first until you other two users obnoxiously poked your ugly heads into this debate. I suggest you two respect the ongoing debate as it stands so it is a fair discussion and not one determined by number of debaters.

 

[GeoffP]

You must understand that while the Qur’an omits no fact or figure, it doesn’t include everything in text. Imagine a “book” with an individual outlining and description to literally hold your hand through every life affair.

Well, as a matter of fact islam is described as a "complete life system for all time" by numerous muslims. Anyway, I assume from your comment that you don't agree, so I think we can leave this aside for the moment.

Tell me any other biological and rational way to interpret this rule.

Misogyny?

Absolutely not, because before we could even encounter such a (rare) scenario, we would have been breaking a rule. A woman can not marry four men, and there are no exceptions. To what God does not allow, there is no ‘grey area’.

Again, this is unfair. Why should a rich woman not have several husbands, if she is able to support and provide for them all? You mention children, but what if they do not desire children? It's not the end-all, be-all of marriage, you know.

Read on the prophet’s wives in detail and you will find they had many lessons within. Sawda Bint Zam’a was an old, poor lady with nobody to look after her. The prophet, because of this, married her and made it her responsibility to care for her.

Who Mohammed almost divorced in favour of his new nine-year bride until she pleaded with him not to divorce her? The moral lesson is about the utility of begging?

I think if the women (be it four of them) and the man agrees, then why the hell do YOU care? If they want it, and they are all happy by their decisions, what right is it of you to criticize them?

Again: why not the converse? If four men want to marry one woman, and they are all happy by their decisions, what right do you have to criticize them?

Communism is a form of government, and Islam is a religion.

Islam is a form of religious government. Otherwise, wherefore is there religious law?

Islamic countries ran like a dream until WWI, which covers a lot of time.

It's more the running on the backs of unbelievers that bothers Michael and I, I think.

On a side note, I haven't the time to individually respond to every single person's arguments against me. For the time being, it is a three versus one scenario, and surely you all find that unfair. I was debating Michael first until you other two users obnoxiously poked your ugly heads into this debate. I suggest you two respect the ongoing debate as it stands so it is a fair discussion and not one determined by number of debaters.

I will consider your request, taking into account that I am able to debate (and have done so several times) at two or three to one against, including an ideologue and two mods.

 

[Kadark]

Since I wasn't debating you initially, I'll make this quick until Michael gets back to me.

Again, this is unfair. Why should a rich woman not have several husbands, if she is able to support and provide for them all? You mention children, but what if they do not desire children? It's not the end-all, be-all of marriage, you know.

This is where you fail to see the different perspectives in marriage. In Islam, the sole purpose of being married is to have children. If you're marrying and refusing to have kids, then it is a direct defiance to its purpose. If you can't have kids and you marry somebody who can, then you are invalidating that person's ability to make children, which stifles the population's growth.

Who Mohammed almost divorced in favour of his new nine-year bride until she pleaded with him not to divorce her? The moral lesson is about the utility of begging?

What the hell are you talking about? Please, gimme a link.

Again: why not the converse? If four men want to marry one woman, and they are all happy by their decisions, what right do you have to criticize them?

I don't criticize them. They can do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't harm me.

Islam is a form of religious government. Otherwise, wherefore is there religious law?

Islam is a religion by definition, and yes, it does have governmental issues within that says how Muslim-dominated nations should be run. However, can you point to me one nation that is a perfectly implemented Islamic theocracy? No, you can't, which is why you shouldn't affiliate a country's crimes with a religion.

I will consider your request, taking into account that I am able to debate (and have done so several times) at two or three to one against, including an ideologue and two mods.

Then I marvel at your ability to sit on the computer for countless hours to respond to every bit of knowledge that isn't in complete accordance with yours. That takes a lot of closed-mindedness to do, my friend.

 

[Michael]

You must understand that while the Qur’an omits no fact or figure, it doesn’t include everything in text.

This sentence seems contradicting.

No, Allah does not say specifically why it is four men and one woman and not the other way around, but my presentation is certainly the best answer.

To me it’s a contradiction to say woman and men are equal and then say men can practice polygamy by marrying more than one wife but women can not marry more than one husband.

Imagine a “book” with an individual outlining and description to literally hold your hand through every life affair.

Which is why I don’t think it’s unfair of me to ask you to show me an example of something novel and enlightening in regard to the human condition in the Qur’an. I would think it would be easy for you to just look up something quickly. I find it disingenuous to say the Qur’an is this great book and not be able to qualify the statement. I’m left with the conclusion that there isn’t anything novel and enlightening or you’d have posted it. What other conclusion could I come to?

I mean come on Qa`Darkm, even Scientologists think their religous book is "perfect". Which is why I'd ask them the same question.

I think if the women (be it four of them) and the man agrees, then why the hell do YOU care? If they want it, and they are all happy by their decisions, what right is it of you to criticize them?

I personally don’t care if it isn’t breaking a law. The society I live in legally prohibits polygamy because it’s considered immoral by the majority of people living in this society. That doesn’t mean it’s immoral – just immoral to the majority of citizens living in this society.

I just wondered what you thought? Do you want to practice polygamy?

And I respect their decisions. I would never be on a forum criticizing Tibetans for allowing women to marry more than one man. I sure the men aren’t forced into it, which is why I find it none of my business. If people want to practice harmless polygamy in which all parties incline voluntarily, then it is of no concern to me, as it should be to you.

I agree that it is their business and they obviously have their reasons for practicing polygamy. Actually the main reason is because there is so little land. But that doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion on it? Especially on a debate forum! I'm not going to walk up to some Tibetan and say "hey polygamy is immoral for me"

Let's try this from a different angle: Do you think that two consulting adult Muslim men should be able to openly practice homosexuality with each other?

By your statement about polygamy I should think you would be perfectly happy with two homosexual Muslim men marrying one another as it’s none of our business? Is this correct?

Also, I seemed to have missed something: You do or do not think Slavery (as in owning another human) is wrong? You said the Islamic slavery wasn't anything compared with European and American slavery and perhaps this is true - but really not my question. Anyway, probably some American slave owners were pretty nice and treated their slaves well and some Muslim Slave owners were pretty nice and treated their slaves well but some American and some Muslim Slave owners probably beat the shit out of their slaves, raped them, and simply were cruel people. I think Slavery as in legally owning another human is always immoral.

Why the are you asking me? Go to your local library and take out a book on the Ottomans. Rent a documentary on them. Hell, read on wikipedia. Women were equal in society, and there is nothing in Islam or the Ottoman’s laws that contradicts that. I don’t know of the female judge ratio for the Ottomans, but can you tell me the female judge ratio for the Byzantine Christians or the following Europeans? Back in those times, women with the option of becoming judges didn’t want to do so. They were always preoccupied with housecleaning and raising the children.

I thought perhaps you knew something of the Ottoman Empire. I’m interested in antiquity and the various Golden Ages that accompanied the various civilizations. I find Greek inventions astonishing. Simply amazing. In some ways Greeks were 2000 years ahead of their time.

What are you talking about? It says men and women are equal, and doesn’t say women must get a second-class education. Can you please tell me how you think this would mean women shouldn’t be educated like men? Is there any logic behind this?

Is this to me? My point was that what distinguishes whether something works or not is whether it works or not. Communism looks great on paper but fails in the long run.

Islam as a religion works for some and doesn't for others. I know Atheists that used to be Muslims. I know Muslims that are now Christians. I know Buddhists that are now Muslims.

Islam as a political system, as implemented by the Ottomans, seems IMO to be run like a typical Empire with a royal family? So I'd say the people were Muslim by religion but their government was just like all other Empires.

And like I said, Islam had its Golden Age ever since its rapid, unparalled expansion, until eighty years ago. Islam was always dominant and powerful, and left in its path many discoveries in math, science, medicines, architecture, etc. Islamic countries ran like a dream until WWI, which covers a lot of time.

You seem to gloss over the colonization of the ME by the Mongolians? Anyway, I am interested in the math, science, medicines, ect… which is why I had asked. I still need to go back and about the people you posted. And I will - I’ve just been very busy.

Lastly, Communism in many ways was like a religion. Similarities are there for sure.

To go back to the Ottomans, the Ottomans did very well while they controlled the trade between China India and Europe. It's almost as soon as the Portuguese sailed around the horn of Africa that the Ottoman empire started to fail. That's irrespective of the religion - it's just simple economics.

I personally prefer a Republic or maybe a Democracy because though an Emperor may be great there is nothing saying that the son will be great and often they aren't. At least when we get a dick head like Bush II we can get rid of him after 8 years. Could imagine a whole life time with this guy? Shit we'd be screwed!

Michael