Who needs a man!

[Roshina]

@ Barkazai, you kept asserting that Christians and Jews are not considered believers by the Quran, but you never answered the question of how that explains why Muslim men may marry their women (when the Quran has completely forbidden Muslim men from marrying disbelieving women). I asked you if you saw that as a contradiction between points 1) that Muslim men marry Jews/Christians and 2) that NEITHER Mulslim women nor Muslim men may marry disbelievers.

Again, the Quran makes it quite clear that Muslim men and women are prohibited from marrying disbelievers.

Since I said this quite a few times in that thread and since you kept saying the same thing that everyone had said before, I figured there's no point in continuing it. I still don't think there's any point in continuing it because my questions remain:

1. The Quran tells both women and men not to marry disbelievers. In fact, it starts off telling men that they may not marry disbelieving women, and THEN it tells women they can't either. (2:221)
2. The Quran implies (some would argue "states") that Jews and Christians are disbelievers.
3. The Quran tells men clearly that they may marry chaste women from the Jews and Christians. This permission is in the same verse that tells ALL believers that today, everything allowed to the Jews/Christians is allowed to them (e.g., food).
4. The Quran never tells women that they may NOT marry chaste men from the Jews and Christians.
5. The Quran never tells women they may marry chaste Jewish/Christian men.

Now, if Christian and Jews are disbelievers, why did God say men can marry them -- but that men can't marry disbelievers? Are Christians and Jews really disbelievers then?

There are three ways I think we can see this as.

1) a contradiction, 2) one verse abrogating the other, and 3) Just because it doesn't say women can't do it doesn't mean they can't. Since everything else in that verse applies to all Muslims, this part of the verse may be applicable to not just men but women too.

If point 1 is correct, I don't buy it; there's definitely more to it than our understanding. If point 2, which verse abrogates which? Point 3 looks the most reasonable to me unless someone can convince me otherwise. I mean, how to believe that on the one hand, all Christians/Jews are disbelievers and Muslims are not allowed to marry disbelievers, but on the other hand, Muslim men may marry Christian/Jewish women (who are disbelievers!)?

I can't think of a more clearer way of stating this, but lemme try anyway:

Muslim women can't marry Christians and Jews because they are disbelievers? And does the Quran say that only women can't marry disbelievers? No, it say both men and women are not allowed to marry disbelievers. So how do you explain why men can marry Christian/Jewish women?

There. I think that's the simplest it can get. Thanks for trying to answer!

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Because I'm scared of you, Abeille! You might challenge me, and since I don't have the logical reasoning, I can't beat you

Goodness gracious. (That was sarcasm, by the way.)

I don't answer it here for two reasons. One, dear Abeille, it has nothing to do with this thread.

And two, I would be repeating myself for the 8th time on this forum, and that's not something I'm fond of doing, though I've had to do it a lot with the folks who lack comprehension skills. That particular topic has been discussed to pieces on this forum. Ask anyone. And the discussion lasted for several months at first and was then renewed last month, I believe. Click here to go to that thread. Or you may simply go to my gender blog! (Get it? :D)

Now, I'm not afraid of discussions -- because I don't enter the discussion in which I believe I lack deep knowledge. I'm also not afraid of saying something that's going to contradict everyone's belief. I don't care if it shatters the pillar upon which they are built. I will say what I believe needs to be said. Everyone on this forum knows that about me as well. However, if you wanna start a discussion on feminism or anything else gender-related, I welcome you to it! As I said before, I live feminism! And quite happily so!

For that matter the Quran is called the "muhaayminaa" or watcher or quality control factor over prior revelations because that word denotes the man that stands at the end of the assembly line, sifting out bad from good. The West lauds the flexibility of the Christian and Jewish texts, so what makes the Islamic precept acceptable to you versus the ideologies found therein? And how do you reconcile the fact that the reason that verse calls the Quran muhaayminaah is that is serves as a watcher and guardian over the prior scripture in the way that it is used. You are welcome to read the original Arabic on the subject. Why would God provide a muhaayminaah over the Evangil and Torah if he sought all encompassing flexibility and progressive change with the times?

[Roshina]

^ For which matter, Barkazai? I'm not sure I follow you there.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

@ Barkazai, you kept asserting that Christians and Jews are not considered believers by the Quran, but you never answered the question of how that explains why Muslim men may marry their women (when the Quran has completely forbidden Muslim men from marrying disbelieving women). I asked you if you saw that as a contradiction between points 1) that Muslim men marry Jews/Christians and 2) that NEITHER Mulslim women nor Muslim men may marry disbelievers.

Again, the Quran makes it quite clear that Muslim men and women are prohibited from marrying disbelievers.

Since I said this quite a few times in that thread and since you kept saying the same thing that everyone had said before, I figured there's no point in continuing it. I still don't think there's any point in continuing it because my questions remain:

1. The Quran tells both women and men not to marry disbelievers. In fact, it starts off telling men that they may not marry disbelieving women. (2:221)
2. The Quran implies (some would argue "states") that Jews and Christians are disbelievers.
2. The Quran tells men clearly that they may marry chaste women from the Jews and Christians. This permission is in the same verse that tells ALL believers that today, everything allowed to the Jews/Christians is allowed to them (e.g., food).
3. The Quran never tells women that they may NOT marry chaste men from the Jews and Christians.
4. The Quran never tells women they may marry chaste Jewish/Christian men.

Now, if Christian and Jews are disbelievers, why did God say men can marry them -- but that men can't marry disbelievers? Are Christians and Jews really disbelievers then?

There are three ways I think we can see this as.

1) a contradiction, 2) one verse abrogating the other. If the former, I don't buy it; there's definitely more to it than our understanding. If the latter, which verse abrogates which? And 3) Just because it doesn't say women can't do it doesn't mean they can't. Since everything else in that verse applies to all Muslims, this part of the verse may be applicable to not just men but women too.

I can't think of a more clearer way of stating this.

I answered you clearly in the last post distinguishing where your logic runs wrong. You provided no evidence to the contrary.
Your point 3 is moot via 4, point 2 b is inserting words that do not exist. Point 1 is expanded on below. (For those that want background go to the thread)

Here the last post is reproduced:


The formula is quiet simple really:
(K) Kuffaar (per the ayaahs I noted above, I wont repeat myself here, you can read the references) = (A) Ahle kitaab (evidenced in surah 5 verse 17) + (B) mushriqeen + X where X = agnostics, athiests, deists, munafiqeen, etc. all who reject faith.

K = A + B + X

60:10 says men and women cannot marry Kuffar and men cannot marry kuffar, per your preferred view of it that is (A + B + X)

Surah 5 verse 4 then says men can marry A or K - (B + X), but does not comment on any EXTENSION of feminine rights

So women remain under 60:10 where their relationship to A has been defined previously

Therefore, women cannot marry A (ahle kitaab) per the existing injunction banning all kuffaar for them.

So in essence you ask it (the Quran) to repeat itself simply because you want it to

[Roshina]

^ In other word, Barakzai, your answer is:

Men can marry Christians and Jews, even though they are disbelievers and the Quran has made it clear that men may not marry disbelievers, just because the Quran says so explicitly that they can.

That's all you had to say then. That it's becuase the Quran says so.

And that's when I remind you that it never said women can't; it just say men can. It tells both women and men that they may not marry disbelievers, and yet you tell me that men can marry disbelievers because the Quran says so? ...

Do you see where I'm getting at?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

^ For which matter, Barkazai? I'm not sure I follow you there.

It is the "muhaayminah" over the Torah and Evangil. The point is that the Quranic text in that ayaah tells the Muslims that what they have is a quality control check over the prior scriptures. Those verses are pretty clear that the Quran considers Jews and Christians fatal flaw as having been playing fast and loose with divine law. In fact one sees this today with the way that 1 John 5:7, the famous trinity verse was not present until the King James recension. So the Quran warns the Muslim that what he has in his hads is unalterable and that it serves as a check on the prior scriptures in case we Muslims want to discern truth from untruth in their books.

My allegation against what you attempt to do and what Yusuf Ali (despite my deep admiration for his amazing translation) tries to do via his reinterpretation of interest loaning is to take such liberal measure with the text as to committ the same error as the Ahle Kitaab did that God accuses them of in those prior verses.

My point to you is that you fail to define that fine line for strict interpretationalist whose tradition goes back to the Quran itself when it says that "the verses of this book are easy memorizable and we shall preserve it." What do you do about Abdullah ibn Masud and Ubay ibn Kaab who were sahabaah who committed the whole of the Quran to verbatim memory? Their advocacy was to recall not just the gist, and not just the sense of the holy injunctions, but rather to avoid the fate that befell the Torah and the Evangel, and to have generations of hafizeen remember the holy scripture word for word.

[Roshina]

Did I freaking seriously just spend 2 whole hours discussing this thing all over again?! OMG!!!

[BarakzaiAbdali]

^ In other word, Barakzai, your answer is:

Men can marry Christians and Jews, even though they are disbelievers and the Quran has made it clear that men may not marry disbelievers, just because the Quran says so explicitly that they can.

That's all you had to say then. That it's becuase the Quran says so.

And that's when I remind you that it never said women can't; it just say men can. It tells both women and men that they may not marry disbelievers, and yet you tell me that men can marry disbelievers because the Quran says so? ...

Do you see where I'm getting at?

There is a massive difference, you are adding an injunction. You are ignoring the context of that revelation which took place just a little before the final revelation of "this day we have perfected your religion onto you..." In one segment it addresses men and women, yet you make it appear that God "forgot" to address the status of women. As I stated, its like me saying, well, God never banned premarital making out... but the actual fornication act is banned. So I can premarital make out with all the women I want. The absence of evidence is merely anicdote... not evidence.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

^ In other word, Barakzai, your answer is:

Men can marry Christians and Jews, even though they are disbelievers and the Quran has made it clear that men may not marry disbelievers, just because the Quran says so explicitly that they can.

That's all you had to say then. That it's becuase the Quran says so.

And that's when I remind you that it never said women can't; it just say men can. It tells both women and men that they may not marry disbelievers, and yet you tell me that men can marry disbelievers because the Quran says so? ...

Do you see where I'm getting at?

Basically the crux of your dilemma is that you cannot supply a verse that abrogates that order for women in 60:10. So then you merely confirm 60:10 with the absence of the injunction for women. Its like you're in a chinese finger trap of logic here Roshina.

But I mean like I have always said, if you want to marry a Christian or Jew, more power to you. In a world of free will, that is your complete right. However, its the issue of attempting to alter the Quranic text to justify that.

[faye]

b.a. i just googled 'interpretationalist'. wow, that is some big word.

[Roshina]

Basically the crux of your dilemma is that you cannot supply a verse that abrogates that order for women in 60:10. So then you merely confirm 60:10 with the absence of the injunction for women. Its like you're in a chinese finger trap of logic here Roshina.

No, that's not the crux of my dilemma. It is that the Quran states clearly that men can marry Jewish/Christian women, but it never says women can. And because it says women can, we have decided it means women can't.

Nonetheless, you said something that leads me to say ... what reason do I have to believe that all of verse 5:5 is talking to women as well as men and not just to men? I mean, what reason do I have to believe that women and men can do what is allowed in that verse and that it's not just men who can do them? If we can interpret that verse to mean that since it never says women CAN marry Jews/Christians, they can't, why can't we say that only men can eat the meat of the People of the Book and so on?

But I mean like I have always said, if you want to marry a Christian or Jew, more power to you. In a world of free will, that is your complete right. However, its the issue of attempting to alter the Quranic text to justify that.

Na, this isn't about what I can do or can't do as an individual. I'm not interested in that. Yes, if I wanted to marry a Christian/Jew, I would do it, but this isn't about me. It's about how we have dealt with the Quran for the last 1400 years -- and how biased our interpretations have historically been. And, of course, how a certain thing is denied to women just because the Quran doesn't say it IS allowed!

[BarakzaiAbdali]

But that is the difficulty of faith right? Faith is tested by the times. The Prophet himself commented to the effect that times would ensue where that which was good would be judged as bad and that which was bad would be judged as good. The point of the Quranic text is to serve as an anchor to what God himself views as immutable good and bad. Otherwise, why not just accept the Christian and Jewish precepts that different times call for different orders. After all, Hindus worship a pantheon of Gods and believe we all comprise the greater being. In a way we could fight hard to extend the definition of belief to the the hindu that knowingly bows to Krishnaa and who says that he worships Krishnaa and the human body because we are all a part of Brahmaan. By that circular logic, he is a monothiest. However, God makes it clear that association and worship of any other diety is the sole inforgivable offense.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

No, that's not the crux of my dilemma. It is that the Quran states clearly that men can marry Jewish/Christian women, but it never says women can. And because it says women can, we have decided it means women can't.

Nonetheless, you said something that leads me to say ... what reason do I have to believe that all of verse 5:5 is talking to women as well as men and not just to men? I mean, what reason do I have to believe that women and men can do what is allowed in that verse and that it's not just men who can do them? If we can interpret that verse to mean that since it never says women CAN marry Jews/Christians, they can't, why can't we say that only men can eat the meat of the People of the Book and so on?



Na, this isn't about what I can do or can't do. Yes, if I wanted to marry a Christian/Jew, I would do it, but this isn't about me. It's about how we have dealt with the Quran for the last 1400 years -- and how biased our interpretations have historically been. And, of course, how a certain thing is denied to women just because the Quran doesn't say it IS allowed!

You walk deeper into a logic trap there as well. The initial you is to the community of believers and comes before the marital injunction. Those are two different sentences. This dual order has to arise because otherwise, if you assign the second you to mean men and women, you men that women may also marry women of the people of the book. You are getting into Manji territory there my friend.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

No, that's not the crux of my dilemma. It is that the Quran states clearly that men can marry Jewish/Christian women, but it never says women can. And because it says women can, we have decided it means women can't.

Nonetheless, you said something that leads me to say ... what reason do I have to believe that all of verse 5:5 is talking to women as well as men and not just to men? I mean, what reason do I have to believe that women and men can do what is allowed in that verse and that it's not just men who can do them? If we can interpret that verse to mean that since it never says women CAN marry Jews/Christians, they can't, why can't we say that only men can eat the meat of the People of the Book and so on?



Na, this isn't about what I can do or can't do as an individual. I'm not interested in that. Yes, if I wanted to marry a Christian/Jew, I would do it, but this isn't about me. It's about how we have dealt with the Quran for the last 1400 years -- and how biased our interpretations have historically been. And, of course, how a certain thing is denied to women just because the Quran doesn't say it IS allowed!

Regarding the last bit, I assumed the Yusuf Ali/interest example woulld suffice to show you that strict interpretationalists have one concern in mind and that is trekking down the mistaken pathway that the Ahle Kitaab are warned against. As your brother, I want you to be completely happy. I think that a good example of a strict interpretationalist approach is that of Umar bin Al khattab. Recall that when it came to the woman dowry he tried to limit it. The women folk challenged him to produce his evidence regarding any way shape or form of a limit. He could not do so and revoked his injunction. We, like Umar, are merely concerned with altering the word of God.

[ScimitarXEdge]

By the way I know Abeille from another time period in my life

she used to go on another Afghan related forum under the name Wonderwoman

she's not from Afghanistan, she's Indian and an Ismaili

not that this discredits the merit of her remarks, I think the remarks themselves do that.

But at least it demonstrates there is much ado about nothing with this person.