Islam.

Mira

I have to say, i actually learned something about my own religion! Very informative posts

Thanx for the detailed replies Mira.You are an asset to this forum.

Although Omar responded already, I think there a few things I'd like to add:

Originally posted by Behrouz Originally posted by Mira They may not have always been on the right track, but when they have, then I don't see why we shouldn't follow their example. Your logic fails you. Who is to say when they ARE on the right track and when they are not? Quran is supposed to be the real reference to which one's right or wrong doings could be determined.

And where do we disagree here?  Of course they're on the right track when they follow the Qur'an, but then there's also "common sense."  It is only common sense, for instance, that murder is a crime, no?

Originally posted by Behrouz Originally posted by Mira Nobody forced Iranians into Islam.  Why are Iranian women today more conservative than Arab Muslim women?  If they (and you) believe that they had more rights before Islam, then I don't see why they willingly gave all that up for Islam. In other words, you are saying if Iranian women before Islam had more rights, then we can conclude that Islam was forced on Iranians, isn't that correct?

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Can you please tell me how you read miras statement to mean what you said. Please! You practically just wrote the opposite.

That's exactly what I was thinking, lol.

Originally posted by Behrouz Now, you talk about a man appointing a woman as a judge in the arab world. Only one example that you could come up with, because it was truly an exception.

Dude!  Women led the Muslim armies then.  Not that I'm extremely happy to give this example, but even the wife of the Prophet (peace be upon Him), Aisha (rAa) had led an army to fight against Ali ibn Abi Talib (rAa).

Originally posted by Mira What you are claiming is hardy logic, it's personal opinion which is actually not even commonly accepted, as can be seen around the muslim world. You believe that Islamic laws set in UAE which is not even the size of a city in Islamic world, projects the true interepetation of Quran?

There's no one true or correct interpretation of the Qur'an.  UAE is officially "Maliki," and that is only one school of thought.

Originally posted by Behrouz If you agree that Quran is limited to history and time, that the rules of Quran are to be followed only in the time of Muhammad and not later when women became more educated, then you don't believe that Quran is timeless and the last book to come. You then have to believe that God would send yet another messenger to bring a more up to date book for muslims to follow, as he did update the Torah to Bible and then to Quran. If you agree that Quran is timeless, then you would have to agree that the laws of Quran are not to be changed to society's likings. They are supposed to be followed as presented. Hence, if god wanted to say that a women's testimony is equal if the woman is educated it could have been said, but it wasn't said. The "if" that you keep bringing into equation, does not help your argument at all, as I mentioned time and time again, the if is only placed to highlight the importance of correction. In no way does that verse imply that if there is an educated woman she would be sufficient , or if the man was also illiterate, there should be two men so one can correct the other. THIS IS LOGIC, not your personal assumptions. Since you can't bring logic, you have to resort to one exception by a caliph who is bound to human mistakes and misinterpretaion himself.

Now here's what I call logic:

Most reference books (let's say an encyclopedia, for the sake of the argument) are regularly updated.  A new edition comes out every now and then to replace outdated information and update certain articles.  I hope we agree on this fact, at least?  Now the Qur'an is the same.  It cannot be changed because no one has the authority to change it.  What do people update, then?  The tafseers, of course.  That's what makes Islam a "timeless" religion - its ability to accommodate change.  Otherwise, we'd still be fighting with swords on horse and camel backs, because the Qur'an says so.

Originally posted by Behrouz Originally posted by Mira Maybe it confuses people like you, but not like us.  Wow, now your pan-arabist self is revealing itself isn't it?

Whoa!  You're really paranoid, aren't you?  Now where in that sentence did you read "Arab," I'm curious to know?  Didn't you consider the possibility of "us" referring to us, as in Muslims?  "You," on the other hand, was in reference to people who are anti-Islam, like yourself.

Lol, you are really 'something' to have interpreted that as Arab!  Maybe you should quit interpreting things your way.

Originally posted by Behrouz So I'm guessing Saudi Arabia, which is where prophet hails from is supposedly illiterate in Arabic and somehow UEA residents (which is barely even a country made up by the british)

It's UAE, for the record.

Originally posted by Behrouz .. on the other hand who actually started speaking Arabic after being taken over by Muslims happen to know Arabic and Quran better than people in Saudi Arabia.

The UAE was part of Oman.  Oman has always been an Arabic speaking country.  Check your information.

Originally posted by Behrouz This common sense as you call it, is an attempt to modernize a religion which came first in Saudi Arabia. Either you feel like that you are better than anyone else, or your whole claim that Arabs all understand the verse to mean what you like it to mean is incorrect. Either way, your argument is completely irrational.

Did I say I felt I was better than anyone else?  That's, however, exactly how your feelings come across.  Projecting, aren't you?

Originally posted by Behrouz Again, first of all, Quran is not just for arabs, if you believe so, then you are a racist pan-arabist.

I think you're the one who's an anti-Arab racist. 

In any case, I never said the Qur'an was just for Arabs.  What's the point of Islam being a universal religion if Qur'an was only for Arabs? 

I don't think you know what you're talking about.  Do you actually know that the second most important book in Sunni Islam was composed by a man from Bukhara?  And that the imam I follow, al-Ghazzali, was from Persia?

If there's anyone who's a racist, it's you. 

Originally posted by Behrouz Secondly, If there's anyone who is more arab than others, it has to be people of Saudi Arabia.

Lol, excuse me?  Where'd you get that from?

Wrong.

If there's anyone who is more Arab than others, they're people from Yemen.  Double check your information.

Originally posted by Behrouz Wasn't it a while ago a woman was murdered for driving a car there? Now that I think about it, it seems to be you are the confused one in this argument, your knowledge is so limited and you are so narrow-mided in your education that all you've learned in life is Islamic quotes and Islamic history and even at that you fail.

You're the one who does not seem to know what you're talking about, buddy.  You don't know zilch about history, I tell you, at least not the history of this region.

Do you actually know that women in Saudi Arabia do drive?  I don't think you've even been there to begin with.

Originally posted by Behrouz It's serisouly becoming a pathetic attempt that whenever someone questions your religion you resort to claim that they have to read it in Arabic to understand it. It's simply impossible that so many different Quranic scholars are unable to translate the verses properly. It's again racist of you to think that an Iranian scholar is unable to learn Arabic better than you simply because it's your native language.

I never said an Iranian scholar is unable to learn Arabic better than me.  Please quote me on that, if you can.  How would I be, and many Shafe'is, the followers of al-Imam al-Ghazzali, who is a Persian, while thinking his Arabic cannot be good just because he's not 'ethnically' Arab (and there's no such thing as ethnically or racially Arab, FYI)?

What I said - and I remember clearly what I said - was that looking at the status of women in Iran today, I wouldn't really take what Iranian 'scholars' say about women very seriously.

Originally posted by Behrouz I am presenting to you the view of many muslim clerics that you may call extremists. I am sure they would have a much easier time arguing with you because Quran and Islam is all they've researched and learned in their lives. I am also certain that such scholars and clerics are in a better position to tell the meaning of a verse than you who are just a native arabic speaker and not neccesarily a scholar in the religion itself. If you claim that Allah was unable to add more to Quran to make it more clear meanwhile still making it rhyme , you have to question your beliefs about god being almighty.

I have always gotten into discussions with learned scholars of Islam - I have no problem debating with them.  Not to sound arrogant, but I'm quite confident about my knowledge.  I don't know everything, but I know enough to get into debates and win them, too.

Originally posted by Behrouz I don't have time for your games. Your whole argument is illogical and utterly without basis. The question is not even whether I know Arabic or not, as I explained to you time and time again and you have trouble comprehending, not all scholars and translators can be wrong. Your knowledge of Arabic is not godly, believe it or not!

I never claimed my knowledge of Arabic was superior, but I'm sure you'd love to know that the translation I had given was not my own, but quoted from "official" interpretations of the Qur'an.  (See Tafseer al-Tabari + Tafseer al-Zamakhshari)  Good luck!

Originally posted by Behrouz Originally posted by Mira Oh, and certainly nothing against Afghani women.  It was just a metaphor. Funny your metaphores even can't relate to a country much closer to you, such as Saudi Arabia. oh wait, they're Arabs, you couldn't possibly contradict yourself by criticizing them now, could you?

Contradict myself?  How so?

And how exactly do you expect me to make reference to Saudi Arabia in the case of this particular metaphor?  Claim that Saudi women are illiterate?  That would be a lie.

Originally posted by Behrouz Originally posted by Mira I told you, I'm surprised they willingly accepted Islam, and are today the most conservative among all Muslim women (apart from Saudis, maybe?)  This is where you truly fail. You knowledge of Iran and Iranians is so limited that you make comments that makes me serisouly doubt you had any kind of education (besides learning Arabic, but even that's questionable now).

I don't need to demonstrate my skills in Arabic, especially that you're totally ignorant of the language.  It would be like talking to a deaf person.  What's the point?

Anywayyyyz!  I never claimed I knew anything about Iran and/or Iranians.  The only Iranians I know are the ones who live in the UAE.

Originally posted by Behrouz First of all, where did you possiblly get the idea that Iranian women are one of the most conservative?

If you believe what the media says about Saudi women, I don't see why I shouldn't believe what the media says about Iranian women.  Just fair, isn't it? 

Originally posted by Behrouz If anything they are even today one the least conservative Muslims. Could you clarify what you mean by Iranian women being so conservative? You really need to read this site and many other resources because your idea of Iran and politics in Iran is absolutely nonexistant.

But your idea of the Arab region, religion and culture is superb, eh? 

Wake up.

Originally posted by Behrouz Originally posted by Mira Why did they accept Islam if they thought it to be so restrictive?  There's no obligation in religion.  You don't want it, leave it. That's exactly why it is thought that Islam was brought to Iran by sword not by word. That's exactly why Arabs didn't mind burning Iranian books when they invaded the country.

Lol, dude, I'm not the vanguard of Islam here.  You don't want it, leave it.  If you're concerned about my feelings, then I assure you, I have absolutely no problem with your choice and that of the whole Iranian population (or even Arabs, if they want to join you.)

Originally posted by Behrouz Originally posted by Mira Tell me more about those civilizations, please.  I'd like to know about women's rights in other cultures and countries that existed during the same time.  (I'm not being sarcastic; I'm genuinely interested.) Let's see, before the invasion of Arabs in Sassanian era, Pouran Dokht, a woman was ruling the whole empire. Women in Persia were able to fight alongside men, and in Persian wars some women were commanders of the armies. Workshops were run by women in Achaemenid era and they got paid often more than men. There are numerous examples and I don't have time at the moment but if you're are really interested ask in Iranian section of the forum, I'm sure others can fill in the rest. Needless to say this is all happening at the time Arabs were burying their daghters in the desert alive. I'm sure you do see that by that time's standard's Iranian women were enjoying a lot of freedom, even compared to the "freedom" and "rights" given by Islam.

Interesting, but not new.

We've had Muslim queens, too, you know.  No, I don't think you know.  So let me enlighten you:

We've had Arwa bint Ahmed al-Sulaihia, a queen in Yemen, during the Fatimid Caliphate.  Her name was even mentioned in the Friday khutbahs, which is a priviledge only granted to a Muslim Caliph.

In Egypt, there was Sit al-Mulk, and of course, Shajar al-Durr, the most famous queen in Islamic history.

We've had Fatima bint al-Hassan in Yemen, too.

I'm not sure if I got her name right, but there was a Sikandar Begum in India, and Safwat ad-Din Padishah, who ruled over Karman.

In fact, Karman remained under Arab control until the death of its ruler, Selima bint Malik.

Then there was Fatima Sultan, the last native ruler of Kasimov.

(I work in a library; if you want more examples, I can dig them up for you.)

Originally posted by Behrouz Ok, so you are saying that Taliban's actions were all baselss and not in any shape or form related to Quran's teachings. Is that correct? If a Taliban's scholar brings you quotes from Quran to justify his action and beliefs, is he still not considered a true muslim?

Define "Taliban scholar," please?

I never knew such a species existed.

Originally posted by Behrouz If you are saying that Quran is not meant to have one sharp and clear way for muslims to follow, what gives anyone even the god himself a right to accuse this person of not following Islam?

Let's simplify this:

There's one Torah for the Jews, right?  How many interpretations of the Torah are there?  Quite a few, of which I'm going to name three:

Gemara, Mishnah and Zohar. 

There's one Qur'an for the Muslims.  There are several interpretations of it.

Because there are different interpretations of the Torah, you'll find there are Zionist Jews and Orthodox Jews (and others), who are against Zionists and the state of Israel.  The text is the same, but the different interpretation resulted in this division.  Who interpreted the text wrong?  Or was there really a wrong interpretation?

Understood?

Originally posted by Behrouz So you believe that Taliban knew that they are doing something unislamic and did it anyways? Have you argued with a Taliban scholar? It's narrow-minded to believe that couldn't bring a verse (although maybe misintereprted in your opinion) to justify their actions. This is simple logic and you fail to use it or argue with it, it seems.

Who the hell is a Taliban scholar?!  I'd like to meet this guy!

Originally posted by Behrouz Originally posted by Mira If, in our conservative, Islamic Gulf state, the people thought (or interpreted the Qur'an to mean, as you say) that educated women are equal to uneducated men in financial matters, our Minister of Economy today wouldn't have been Lubna al-Qassimi; a woman! You are from UAE right? Do you feel that you know Islam better than Saudi Arabians? You know Arabic better than them and you know the meaning of verses better than them? If you believe you do it's clear what you are, if you don't believe it, then you are contradicting you whole argument about your intrepetation being the correct one. Have a nice day.

Yes, I'm from the UAE.  I don't think I know Islam better than Saudi Arabians, and I don't think they know Islam better than us, either.  You don't know Islam because you are born somewhere.  You know Islam because you care to learn about it.  Hamza Yusuf, an Islamic scholar, who is a white American convert to Islam, knows more about Islam than any Mufti in Saudi Arabia.  His knowledge of Arabic is impressive, masha'Allah.  He wasn't born in Saudi Arabia.  He studied in Saudi Arabia, but he also studied in the UAE, Egypt and North + West Africa.  Ibn Taymiya, one of the important names in Sunni Islam, didn't even travel outside of Syria.

I'm sorry to tell you, being from Saudi Arabia or not is irrelevant.

And I don't need to claim that I know the verses better than Saudi Arabians.  The interpretation of that verse comes from Saudi Arabia.  And believe it or not, the testimony of a Saudi woman on financial affairs is equal to that of one man.  You may ask any Saudi (preferably not from the forum, just so we'd remain honest and objective, you know) to verify that matter.


Edited by Mira

Originally posted by ramin Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Originally posted by behrouz They feel more safe to wear Burka, becouse it protects them of men. Thats the whole point! well then you suggest men are animals with no self control?

Who do you think commits rape?

Originally posted by Behrouz Who is to say when they ARE on the right track and when they are not? Quran is supposed to be the real reference to which one's right or wrong doings could be determined.

You answered your own question. The Qu'ran tells a person if they are on the right track or not. However it considered of the Righteous Khalifs that since they personally knew the prophet. Their intepretation of the Qu'ran is more likely to be the same as the prophets. This does not mean they are infallable.

Originally posted by Behrouz Originally posted by mira Nobody forced Iranians into Islam.  Why are Iranian women today more conservative than Arab Muslim women?  If they (and you) believe that they had more rights before Islam, then I don't see why they willingly gave all that up for Islam. In other words, you are saying if Iranian women before Islam had more rights, then we can conclude that Islam was forced on Iranians, isn't that correct?

Can you please tell me how you read miras statement to mean what you said. Please! You practically just wrote the opposite.

Originally posted by Behrouz Now, you talk about a man appointing a woman as a judge in the arab world. Only one example that you could come up with, because it was truly an exception. This was not a cultural or Islamic trait or norm, just one man, decided to appoint a woman as a judge. As far as it's an exception and not a cultural norm, it is a great possibility that he had his own ulterior motives for doing so. Maybe  and I don't mean  any disrespect, he wanted to marry a cousin of this woman. Maybe there was more going on, but to claim that this one exception is a sign of Islam's great treatment of women is far from realistic and logical and definitly far from the truth.

Your not understanding the position of the righteous Khalifs, possibly intentionally. You have a person who is a respected leader of muslims who knew the prophet, who heard the Qu'ran being revealed and could ask questions to the prophet about what it means, appointing a women as a financial judge. An argument along these lines is usually good enough to persuade any muslim that women have financial equality. If it doesn't convince you then really, it doesn't matter what you think.

Originally posted by mira Maybe it confuses people like you, but not like us.  Wow, now your pan-arabist self is revealing itself isn't it?

My mother says, that anyone who actually understands Islam becomes a muslim. I think this is true.

(I just skipped a couple of your paragraphs because they didn't seem to have any relation to the quote)

Again, first of all, Quran is not just for arabs, if you believe so, then you are a racist pan-arabist.

The Qu'ran is written in Arabic duh! If you have ever seen a translation of the Qu'ran you will realise that the original arabic is also written there. This is so that anyone who wants to can challenge the translation (if they know Qu'ranic arabic of course). When you get down to really detalied issues, like an If and what it means, you really have to debate it in Arabic. Just like the bible used always be debated in Greek and latin.

It's serisouly becoming a pathetic attempt that whenever someone questions your religion you resort to claim that they have to read it in Arabic to understand it.

Your talking about the existance of a word. There have already been examples of what muslims do.

I am presenting to you the view of many muslim clerics that you may call extremists. I am sure they would have a much easier time arguing with you because Quran and Islam is all they've researched and learned in their lives. I am also certain that such scholars and clerics are in a better position to tell the meaning of a verse than you who are just a native arabic speaker and not neccesarily a scholar in the religion itself.

An Extremist cannot be a scholar, otherwise he wouldn't be an extremist.

That's exactly why it is thought that Islam was brought to Iran by sword not by word. That's exactly why Arabs didn't mind burning Iranian books when they invaded the country.

Wrong! 'It' may think whatever it wants. But the truth is that Iran was not forcefully converted. It took hundreds of years for Iran to become majority muslim. In the 15th centuary, 800 years after Iran was supposably forcefully converted, there were sizeable Parsi and Hindu populations in Iran. If you could explain to me how a handful of arabs can force millions of Iranis to do anything I would be interested. No major muslim population in the world has been forcefully converted. Thats a fact. I'm not blind enough to say its never happened, but it is very rare and I condemn anyone who did it. Iran was peacefully converted.

Let's see, before the invasion of Arabs in Sassanian era, Pouran Dokht, a woman was ruling the whole empire. Women in Persia were able to fight alongside men, and in Persian wars some women were commanders of the armies. Workshops were run by women in Achaemenid era and they got paid often more than men. There are numerous examples and I don't have time at the moment but if you're are really interested ask in Iranian section of the forum, I'm sure others can fill in the rest. Needless to say this is all happening at the time Arabs were burying their daghters in the desert alive. I'm sure you do see that by that time's standard's Iranian women were enjoying a lot of freedom, even compared to the "freedom" and "rights" given by Islam.

hmm, so? The prophets wife was a buisness woman. Women fought in the arab armies that conqured Iran. Women actually have more ability to earn money in Islam than men. A mans money is the property of his family but a womens is her own. You badly misquoted mira saying this so I shall say it again. If Irani women were so free before Islam, and if Islam is so terrible as you claim, why did they peacefully become muslims? Clearly because you are wrong. Nearly one quarter of the women on this planet are muslims, never forget that.

Given your frequent presence in this forum, I'd say probably it's is my time being wasted here trying to have you resort to logic rather than narrow-mined and baseless opinion.

Given your frequent presence in this forum, I'd say probably it's is my time being wasted here trying to have you resort to logic rather than narrow-mined and baseless opinion.

Ok, so you are saying that Taliban's actions were all baselss and not in any shape or form related to Quran's teachings. Is that correct?

yes, that is correct.

If a Taliban's scholar

lol, taliban scholar!

I'm not sure what you have againt the term "Taliban Scholar", are you trying to say Taliban were illiterate?

Yes thats right. Most of the Taliban were illiterate in Pushto, Urdu, Arabic or any other language you can think of.

To his culture and his level of education he is intrepreting verse and hadith to mean what he is believing in.

The level of education of your average taliban is zero. And the Taliban do not reflect Afghan cultural values either. Take it from a paki.

If you are saying that Quran is not meant to have one sharp and clear way for muslims to follow, what gives anyone even the god himself a right to accuse this person of not following Islam?

The Qu'ran tells you the basics about what you need to do to be a good person. It does not tell you whether you should eat Bakalava or Birriani. But no-one has the right to call someone who says their a muslim a non-muslim.

Originally posted by Maziar Iranian were forced to joining Islam, that's a fact, there are many reports in history girls and women were forced to marry arabs conquerer in the same day as their husband or fathers were murdered. Books and libraries were burned with the argument Quran is the only book including all what human kind needs.

My God, thats the highest concentration of lies I've seen in while. As I have already said, Irani's were not forced into Islam. In fact, a lot of Irani traditions became part of what is now considered traditional Islam. The early Arabs adopted Persian administration.

you won't believe you are in Iran at all. They may look conservative in the streets, but this is only a fascade. They are forced by islamic gov. to look like that. I bet if the islamic gov. collapse tomorrow, you will see the women with shortest skirts you have ever seen in the streets.

I bet if the government collapsed tomorrow, most people would still be wearing their traditional dress.

Originally posted by Behrouz ]Anyways, it's appreciated to either post a full post or not post at all. I would have posted a small note in response to Mira's post long time ago, but only waited so I could write a full response when I have some time.

oh, I'm so sorry for being polite and informing you that you hadn't been ignored.

Originally posted by Maziar I don't know how high your knowledg level about afghanistan is, but for sure you have heared about Talibans and their extremism, don't you? Afghan women were not forced to wear hejab firstly by Taliban, but also by Mujaheddin befor them. Talibans made it more harder for women, Mujaheddin wanted only they wear hejab but Talibans wanted them to hide their faces too. Still today many afghan women don't dare to remove their burka, becouse they still can't forgett the terror and violence the Talibans done to them. They feel more safe to wear Burka, becouse it protects them of men.

err... You do realise that Afghan women want to wear the Burkha dont you? Not all of course, but many do want to.

They feel more safe to wear Burka, becouse it protects them of men.

Thats the whole point!

for sure there are in any society liberal and conservative people. I know my people very well, even if they are conservative their hearts want to be modern, they may don't want to admit it, but in their hearts they do. The reason why they act so is their conservative instruction, thats why i said if Iran will be free tomorrow they will remove their hejab.

Which is why they elected Ahmadjinabad (spelling?).

Behrouz,

I will answer your post when I go home, insha'Allah.

Originally posted by Maziar Iranian were forced to joining Islam, that's a fact, there are many reports in history girls and women were forced to marry arabs conquerer in the same day as their husband or fathers were murdered. Books and libraries were burned with the argument Quran is the only book including all what human kind needs.

I cannot argue here.  I have absolutely no clue about the history of Islam in Persia.

Originally posted by Maziar Iranian women are more conservative than arab muslim women? well, i always thought our women look to much towards west, have you ever been in a party in Iran? you won't believe you are in Iran at all. They may look conservative in the streets, but this is only a fascade. They are forced by islamic gov. to look like that. I bet if the islamic gov. collapse tomorrow, you will see the women with shortest skirts you have ever seen in the streets.

I didn't know advancement and civilization was measured by the length of skirts.

Dressing modestly, mind you, is not a sign of backwardness. 

Originally posted by Maziar As i said befor they are forced by islamic gov. to give all that up. have you ever seen pictures of iranian women in the Shah era?

Have you seen pictures of Egyptian women in King Faruq's era?

How women used to dress then does not explain why they've become more conservative today.  Afghani women used to walk around in sleeveless clothes.  Were the men different in those days, less conservative, allowing for their women to dress up in the latest Western fashion, but the moment the Talibans came into power, all men decided to team up against their women?

Egypt today is not more Islamic than it used to be back then, but women are going back to dressing up conservatively and wearing the Hijab.  This phenomenon is usually referred to as a new "Islamic Awakening." 

My mother remembers those days when in the late 60s "they knew very little about Islam," and did not cover until their mid-twenties, when more people started learning about Islam.  According to my mother, "they were ignorant back then, but now, they thankfully know better."  I'm sure not all women think like my mother, but at least we know that not all are "forced" by an "Islamic government" to dress up a certain way. 

You have to admit that even in secular countries like Turkey, women are battling to keep their Hijabs on and still be active in society.  No government is forcing them to wear the Hijab, but on the contrary, urging them to take it off.

We have Iranians living here in the UAE; some of them are too liberal, and many others are equally conservative.  Just pay us a quick visit at the Iranian hospital and the surrounding area where most Iranians live to see for yourself.

Well, I really want to post now, you made several great mistakes in both of the above posts. But unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment.

However in the meanwhile, I suggest you do some research on Irani history and early Arab history.
I also think that you should think about the sentence "Taliban scholar"

Originally posted by Mira They may not have always been on the right track, but when they have, then I don't see why we shouldn't follow their example.

Your logic fails you. Who is to say when they ARE on the right track and when they are not? Quran is supposed to be the real reference to which one's right or wrong doings could be determined.

Originally posted by Mira Nobody forced Iranians into Islam.  Why are Iranian women today more conservative than Arab Muslim women?  If they (and you) believe that they had more rights before Islam, then I don't see why they willingly gave all that up for Islam.

In other words, you are saying if Iranian women before Islam had more rights, then we can conclude that Islam was forced on Iranians, isn't that correct? Now, you talk about a man appointing a woman as a judge in the arab world. Only one example that you could come up with, because it was truly an exception. This was not a cultural or Islamic trait or norm, just one man, decided to appoint a woman as a judge. As far as it's an exception and not a cultural norm, it is a great possibility that he had his own ulterior motives for doing so. Maybe  and I don't mean  any disrespect, he wanted to marry a cousin of this woman. Maybe there was more going on, but to claim that this one exception is a sign of Islam's great treatment of women is far from realistic and logical and definitly far from the truth.

Originally posted by Mira Sorry, but your logic is faulty.  The verse does not "assume" that men are perfect witnesses; they just happened to be always in charge of financial transactions back then.  Women weren't.  Why would a woman be summoned to testify when she's totally inexperienced in such a matter?  The verse, nevertheless, did not deny those "inexperienced" women their right to testify in financial affairs. You can understand and twist the meaning of the verse and deny the logic behind it, ignoring the historical context, all you want.  It's not my job to convince you.  If logic doesn't convince you, nothing will.  If you are intent on understanding (misunderstanding, actually!) the verse to mean the inequality of women's testimony in financial affairs, then really, that's totally up to you.

What you are claiming is hardy logic, it's personal opinion which is actually not even commonly accepted, as can be seen around the muslim world. You believe that Islamic laws set in UAE which is not even the size of a city in Islamic world, projects the true interepetation of Quran?

If you agree that Quran is limited to history and time, that the rules of Quran are to be followed only in the time of Muhammad and not later when women became more educated, then you don't believe that Quran is timeless and the last book to come. You then have to believe that God would send yet another messenger to bring a more up to date book for muslims to follow, as he did update the Torah to Bible and then to Quran.

If you agree that Quran is timeless, then you would have to agree that the laws of Quran are not to be changed to society's likings. They are supposed to be followed as presented. Hence, if god wanted to say that a women's testimony is equal if the woman is educated it could have been said, but it wasn't said. The "if" that you keep bringing into equation, does not help your argument at all, as I mentioned time and time again, the if is only placed to highlight the importance of correction. In no way does that verse imply that if there is an educated woman she would be sufficient , or if the man was also illiterate, there should be two men so one can correct the other. THIS IS LOGIC, not your personal assumptions. Since you can't bring logic, you have to resort to one exception by a caliph who is bound to human mistakes and misinterpretaion himself.

Originally posted by Mira But I must remind you, the role of a witness in Islam is not as significant as the role of a judge; and a Muslim woman had become a judge, and a judge in financial affairs particularly.  The only explanation to that would be:  The Arabs' linguistic skills were so bad back then, they misunderstood the verse and the conditional "if" that they placed a woman as a judge less than three years after the Prophet (peace be upon Him) had died.  The Iranians, on the other hand, speak better Arabic than those Arabs, who were known for their eloquence, and therefore, were able to interpret the verse better to mean that women are "inferior" (in your words) and their testimonies are not equal to men's in financial affairs.

Again, what one men did in the history of arabs does not represent the Islamic culture and Arab culture. He may have had many motives for doing so, but this definitly wasn't a cultural norm back then, don't you agree? It's really funny your whole argument is backed by a single arab who appointed a women as a judge and you think that somehow shows that women were thought to be equal to men back then and now, according to that!

Read on to see what a cultural norm to women's equality means.

Originally posted by Mira If you're so convinced that it means that and only that, you'll never see it otherwise.  Logic does not seem to convince you.  What else can I do?

Sure, I am certain anyone else reading this discussion would realize how logical you are and how illogical I am.

Originally posted by Mira Maybe it confuses people like you, but not like us.

Wow, now your pan-arabist self is revealing itself isn't it?

Originally posted by Mira FYI, in a Shariah court today, my testimony in financial transactions is equal to that of men.  Know why?  Because education was made fardh (obligatory) in Islam that it is only common sense now for all women to have at least the basic knowledge of handling their own finances.  If Islamic law was based literally on what the Qur'an says, we wouldn't be driving cars today.  You'll see us on camels, and living under tents.  Let's talk logic; Islamic law is derived from the Qur'an and applied to today's world.  The historical context of the revelation is always taken into consideration.  If not, our lives today would mirror the lives of people 1400 years ago.

So I'm guessing Saudi Arabia, which is where prophet hails from is supposedly illiterate in Arabic and somehow UEA residents (which is barely even a country made up by the british) on the other hand who actually started speaking Arabic after being taken over by Muslims happen to know Arabic and Quran better than people in Saudi Arabia. This common sense as you call it, is an attempt to modernize a religion which came first in Saudi Arabia. Either you feel like that you are better than anyone else, or your whole claim that Arabs all understand the verse to mean what you like it to mean is incorrect. Either way, your argument is completely irrational.

Originally posted by Mira Please use logic.  I can bring you a verse from the Qur'an from which you would be confused and think of it as something, while a native speaker of Arabic would have no problem understand the sequence of the words and their grammatical structure and what they really mean.

Again, first of all, Quran is not just for arabs, if you believe so, then you are a racist pan-arabist.
Secondly, If there's anyone who is more arab than others, it has to be people of Saudi Arabia. Wasn't it a while ago a woman was murdered for driving a car there? Now that I think about it, it seems to be you are the confused one in this argument, your knowledge is so limited and you are so narrow-mided in your education that all you've learned in life is Islamic quotes and Islamic history and even at that you fail.

It's serisouly becoming a pathetic attempt that whenever someone questions your religion you resort to claim that they have to read it in Arabic to understand it. It's simply impossible that so many different Quranic scholars are unable to translate the verses properly. It's again racist of you to think that an Iranian scholar is unable to learn Arabic better than you simply because it's your native language.

Originally posted by Mira As I said, you will only see it from the narrow corner you're standing from.  If you don't want to use logic, it's up to you.  The language of the Qur'an is not plain, classical or spoken Arabic.  It is poetic, that even the grammatical structure of a sentence, and the position of a word; a conjunction, a preposition ... etc. can change in a sentence in order for the sentence to rhyme with the others (if you read Arabic, you'll know that the Qur'anic verses usually rhyme.)

I am presenting to you the view of many muslim clerics that you may call extremists. I am sure they would have a much easier time arguing with you because Quran and Islam is all they've researched and learned in their lives. I am also certain that such scholars and clerics are in a better position to tell the meaning of a verse than you who are just a native arabic speaker and not neccesarily a scholar in the religion itself. If you claim that Allah was unable to add more to Quran to make it more clear meanwhile still making it rhyme , you have to question your beliefs about god being almighty.

Originally posted by Mira Anyway -  If you speak Arabic (as you made it sound before) then I'll quiz you on something.  I'll give you a verse from the Qur'an, in Arabic, and you will tell me what it means to you.  Interested?

I don't have time for your games. Your whole argument is illogical and utterly without basis. The question is not even whether I know Arabic or not, as I explained to you time and time again and you have trouble comprehending, not all scholars and translators can be wrong. Your knowledge of Arabic is not godly, believe it or not!

Originally posted by Mira Oh, and certainly nothing against Afghani women.  It was just a metaphor.

Funny your metaphores even can't relate to a country much closer to you, such as Saudi Arabia. oh wait, they're Arabs, you couldn't possibly contradict yourself by criticizing them now, could you?

Originally posted by Mira I told you, I'm surprised they willingly accepted Islam, and are today the most conservative among all Muslim women (apart from Saudis, maybe?)

This is where you truly fail. You knowledge of Iran and Iranians is so limited that you make comments that makes me serisouly doubt you had any kind of education (besides learning Arabic, but even that's questionable now).

First of all, where did you possiblly get the idea that Iranian women are one of the most conservative? If anything they are even today one the least conservative Muslims. Could you clarify what you mean by Iranian women being so conservative? You really need to read this site and many other resources because your idea of Iran and politics in Iran is absolutely nonexistant.

Originally posted by Mira Why did they accept Islam if they thought it to be so restrictive?  There's no obligation in religion.  You don't want it, leave it.

That's exactly why it is thought that Islam was brought to Iran by sword not by word. That's exactly why Arabs didn't mind burning Iranian books when they invaded the country.

Originally posted by Mira Tell me more about those civilizations, please.  I'd like to know about women's rights in other cultures and countries that existed during the same time.  (I'm not being sarcastic; I'm genuinely interested.)

Let's see, before the invasion of Arabs in Sassanian era, Pouran Dokht, a woman was ruling the whole empire. Women in Persia were able to fight alongside men, and in Persian wars some women were commanders of the armies. Workshops were run by women in Achaemenid era and they got paid often more than men. There are numerous examples and I don't have time at the moment but if you're are really interested ask in Iranian section of the forum, I'm sure others can fill in the rest. Needless to say this is all happening at the time Arabs were burying their daghters in the desert alive. I'm sure you do see that by that time's standard's Iranian women were enjoying a lot of freedom, even compared to the "freedom" and "rights" given by Islam.

Originally posted by Mira Of course it has everything to do with the argument!  You asked me how there are too many interpretations of the Qur'an, and how none of them are wrong.  I gave you an answer.  Uniformity of practice does not serve the universality of the message.  (Please, don't ask me a question and then say:  "What has that to do with the argument?"  Time is spent here in giving you answers.  If you don't want an answer, don't ask.)

I appreciate your time but only when you answer to what is asked and is being argued not when you like to tell a story that you believe proves something, while the story itself is under question of being valid. Given your frequent presence in this forum, I'd say probably it's is my time being wasted here trying to have you resort to logic rather than narrow-mined and baseless opinion.

Originally posted by Mira As for your question regarding the Taliban:  Who said they even followed Shariah?  They totally ignored everything the Qur'an and the Hadith - whichever they believe in -  has taught or urged people to follow.  Education is fardh (obligation.)  Nobody can deny or disagree with that.  The Talibans ignored that.  It is not an obligation to grow your beard.  Obviously, they also thought otherwise.  If you want to believe them when they say they follow the true Islam, you could.  You won't be alone in doing that.  But it's just as smart as watching the news and believing everything you hear.

Ok, so you are saying that Taliban's actions were all baselss and not in any shape or form related to Quran's teachings. Is that correct? If a Taliban's scholar brings you quotes from Quran to justify his action and beliefs, is he still not considered a true muslim? His interepetation may not make sense to you, but who is to say what is common sense? To his culture and his level of education he is intrepreting verse and hadith to mean what he is believing in. If you are saying that Quran is not meant to have one sharp and clear way for muslims to follow, what gives anyone even the god himself a right to accuse this person of not following Islam? This is where logic comes in, to simplify it for you:

A) Quran has one correct intrepetation which was intended by god
or
B) According to you it has many correct intrepetations that are different depending on the person's culture.

If A is true, it all makes sense, there is one way to follow and a person can't just go around killing people because according to his culture and background he just decided that's what a verse means.

If B is true however, a person can infact intrepret verse to his culture and traditions and go about killing people (if it's in his culture) because he decides that's what Quran means. To him, that makes perfect sense, although to someone from a more civilized culture that's wrong and unislamic. But since both interepretations are correct and valid , then both people go to heaven since they both followed Islam, although differently.

I hope this is clear. I don't agree with B, I agree with A. You agree with B, and if you do, you do agree that both will go to heaven. If you don't agree they both go to heaven, then that means you don't agree with B either.

Originally posted by Mira The thing about those whom you believe "act in the name of Islam" is that  they really do not claim to "act in the name of Islam" but "for Islam."  Nobody acts in the name of Islam, especially when they cannot quote anything to support their ideologies.  To act for Islam means, "Islam is being violated; I will take revenge for it."  It is not, "Oh, the Qur'an says go knock down those buildings, so it's my duty to go and do that because Islam says so, and there's this verse that specifically says that and there's a Hadith too that gives detailed instructions on how to do so.  Oh wow!  Where's my ski-mask.  Let's get goin', guys!" Behrouz, if you were really interested in learning the truth, not in proving your prejudices to be the truth, then you can easily do so by using simple logic.

So you believe that Taliban knew that they are doing something unislamic and did it anyways? Have you argued with a Taliban scholar? It's narrow-minded to believe that couldn't bring a verse (although maybe misintereprted in your opinion) to justify their actions. This is simple logic and you fail to use it or argue with it, it seems.

Originally posted by Mira If the pious Umar ibn al-Khattab (rAa) thought like you, that Islam meant to put educated women equal to uneducated men, he wouldn't have appointed a woman to be a judge on financial affairs.  Weren't there any qualified men?  There certainly was.  But she was more qualified.  He didn't look at the fact that she was a woman.  What concerned him was to put the right person in the right position, and he did.

I believe I've already answered that above. Motives of one man for doing so, does not prove a society's beliefs and norms , neither does it prove the validity of you argument about women's rights in his religion. If infact this was a common thing back them among muslims, then it might have been some sort of a proof, but when one man does it, it absolutely proves nothing. He might have had other reasons to do so, as I stated before.

Originally posted by Mira If, in our conservative, Islamic Gulf state, the people thought (or interpreted the Qur'an to mean, as you say) that educated women are equal to uneducated men in financial matters, our Minister of Economy today wouldn't have been Lubna al-Qassimi; a woman!

You are from UAE right? Do you feel that you know Islam better than Saudi Arabians? You know Arabic better than them and you know the meaning of verses better than them? If you believe you do it's clear what you are, if you don't believe it, then you are contradicting you whole argument about your intrepetation being the correct one.

Have a nice day.


Edited by Behrouz

Originally posted by Mira To claim they were free of "human" mistakes would make them saints.  They were not.  They were ordinary people, with an extraordinary determination to be good and righteous.  There's no sainthood in Islam.  We should praise them for all the good they had done, and for doing their best to follow the teachings of the Qur'an and the sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon Him.)

I'm glad we agree that caliphes may not have always been following the teaching of Islam and islamic laws. What they did is not neccessary a reference to follow.

Originally posted by Mira I apologize for any misunderstandings.  From what I see, read and hear of the treatment of women in Iran, I wouldn't take what Iranian 'scholars' say very seriously.  I may be wrong about that, but I am pretty sure women at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon Him) had more rights than woman today in Iran and elsewhere.

Again you are side-tracking from main argument but while we're on the topic, let's say Iranian women before Islam had way more rights than Arab women had before AND after Islam. Maybe the prophet was a blessing for illiterate arabs living in deserts but such was not neccessarily true for Iranians.

Originally posted by Mira In the Arabic verse, the word "Inn" is equivalent to the "if" in English.  In Arabic, "Inn" is a conditional word that indicates the possibility of something either happening or not. If Allah (swt) knew that women would "err" anyway, are useless in maths and simply cannot be witnesses on financial matters, why would He (swt) put a conditional "Inn nasiyyat," (if one forgets), instead of just making a judgment?  In a way, you are accusing Allah (swt) of not knowing His own creation.  He (swt) - as I conclude from your logic - couldn't predict that in the 21st Century (even before that), there will be woman who are as capable as men or even better, so he decided to put an "if" in case things changed.

If is an IF , you seem to like to imply it has some special meaning here, but it doesn't. Note, now youa are putting words in my mouth. The verse doesn't imply that women are completely useless in math, etc... It implies that women are inferior to men when it comes to such matters. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a need to have 2 women so one could complement (correct) the other to become equal to that of ONE man. The conditional if as you're reffering to it, is only in the context of explaining that there needs to be 2 women at all times. When you're reading this verse keep in mind that it doesn't ask to have 2 men present to that if one fails the other can correct him. This by itself, shows clearly that men are perfect witnesses that don't need correction and so one of them is enough , while women compared to men could make mistakes (that's your conditional if) and so there has to be 2 of them present.

It's a very straight forward verse and I can't see how one may deduct that so men and women are thought to be equals when it comes to witnessing financial matters.

Originally posted by Mira You have to read the text in its historical context.  The Meccan surahs speak a totally different tone and deal with entirely different topics than the Medinan surahs.  The Muslim community in Mecca was oppressed and weak, therefore, the surahs revealed concentrated on uplifting their spirits and promising rewards and victory to come.  Muslims, who were a minority in Mecca, formed a society in Medina and became the majority.  The verses revealed then had to deal with the new social structure; the financial transactions; the political system ... etc.  Remember, when you read the Qur'an (if you do), that it was revealed more than 1400 years ago.

Regardless of where they were recieved, these verses are what the islamic laws would be based on. You'd think Allah would be knowledgable enough to clarify the verse further if there was a need to. It's not like Arabic lacks the expression "one woman would be sufficient if she is accepted to have knowledge of financial matters" . You know that it would have been included if that was the intention, after all, Allah wants us to follow the laws, he doesn't want to confuse us. right?

Originally posted by Mira It's like asking an illiterate Afghani woman to carry out a feasibility study on using technology in classrooms.  Don't you want to teach her how to read and write first?  Set up a classroom maybe?  Teach her how to use technology and teach her what a feasibility study is and how it is conducted?  You know how long that would take?

I'm not sure what you have againt Afghani woman, but in either case, how does this have anything to do with the fact that Quran didn't specify what you're assuming its intention is. It could clearly point out, "if the woman lacks the knowledge, then there should be 2 of them so one can correct the other". Even if it has specifically said it as clearly as I just mentioned, still there would be justified criticism, that why isn't this a condition for men? Is an illiterate man's testimony worth more than an educated women's testimony?  The fact that Quran didn't mention these shows clearly that it didn't intend to mean it the way you "want" it to mean.

Originally posted by Mira Do you know that the Prophet (peace be upon Him) spent only 9 years in Medina?  He died at 62.  During His lifetime, women advanced so much, that less than 3 years after His death (peace be upon Him,) a woman was appointed judge on financial affairs.

There is no question about the barbaric practices of desert dwelling arabs of pre-islamic times. Burying the female children alive, and such. As I mentioned , prophet was a great blessing for these arabs. You would be wrong however to believe that the same conditions where true for the women in the rest of the civilized world, specially Iran. So although to you Islam might have beem a saviour for women, it wasn't the case really. Arabs of pre-Islam were simply so backwards, that Islam was considered a great improvement for them. But there were other civilizations who were ahead of what Islam was teaching and they fell behind. Depeding on who's point of view you're looking at it, Islam was either a bliss or a curse.

Originally posted by Mira That's your opinion. We see it differently.  How else would a religion that claims to adapt to all cultures, in every place and at all times fulfill that promise without being flexible and absorbing of these cultures? Decorations of Persian Islamic art couldn't have originated in Arabia.  Forget "Persian," I'm talking about the art itself.  There was an Islamic influence that was translated in the form of beautiful architecture and handicrafts in Persia.  If Persians adopted the Islam of Saudi Arabia, your gardens would have looked like the Baqee' there today; deserted and dead.  If the Ottomans had not reconstructed the mosques in Saudi Arabia, they would have remained the same; no beauty, just plain cubicles. What do you think the Islamic civilization was?  It was obviously the outcome of intercultural interactions between the Muslims from around the world, each contributing to the advancement of the Islamic world. If we look at our differences as anything else but a blessing, then we have failed to live up to the universality of the message. "O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware." [49:13] Yes, the sacred text is open to interpretation so that no culture would be suppressed by another, and no culture would feel superior to another.  We are all equal in the eyes of Allah (swt).  The first thing they teach you in Sociology is to accept diversity and respect all cultures.  Islam promoted that before any "science."  If you don't see the aesthetic aspect of that, then I guess it's up to you.

Again, all you're saying has nothing to do with the argument. All these long quotes can be summarized in one question. Do you believe that Taliban, or say any terrorist, will go to heaven, because he interpretted a verse of Quran to mean he should kill people? Since you claim there is no one interepetation of Quran that is true, and it's made in a way to appease different cultures, is it alright for a person to kill people because that's how he intereprets Quran according to his culture?


Edited by Behrouz

Originally posted by Mira Originally posted by Behrouz And the explanation I provided, which you referred to as my "assumptions" aren't really so.   You may ask any informed scholar of Islam; it is merely the accepted interpretation of the verse.  Otherwise, the second Caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab (rAa) wouldn't have appointed a woman, al-Shifa'a bint Abdullah, as a judge on financial affairs. Thank you for your time. Just a few points that I need to make: 1) whether you are a muslim that takes care of her own finances has nothing to do with our discussion.

I think the evidence I gave about the Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab appointing a female as a judge on financial affairs, however, has everything to do with the discussion.

So you agree that everything that Umar ibn khattab and caliphs after him did were all according to islamic laws?

Originally posted by Mira Originally posted by Behrouz 2) Since you claim to be an educated arabic speaking woman, please point out which part of the verse contains the "if and only if she doesn't know about finances" part to enlighten me. I have already posted the verse.  If that doesn't satisfy you, then you may have to learn Arabic to read the verse in its original language and spot the conditional "if".

As far as I know, an "educated" person doesn't constantly make assumptions.  First of all you make assumptions that I am unable to read Quran in Arabic. Now let's say even if all those quran and arabic courses I had to take have failed me and I am unable to understand it. Then you go as far as assuming all the various persian translations of the verse are also incorrect, even though persian is the cloesest language to arabic, persian scholars who have translated it possibly know arabic and the special quranic grammmer way better than you do. Let's say all those persian scholars also missed this conditional if about one woman being acceptable as long as she is financially savvy. All translations to English also are wrong and the scholars translating them are also just a bunch of morons in compared to your knowledge of Arabic. Even though in your own quote of the verse in English it  does not  mention "if one of the women is financially savvy there can be one, if not have two so if one of them errs the other can correct her" It simply implies that in general "have two women, so if one them errs the other [at least] can correct her" Same is not said about men. It is absolutely clear that women are thought to be inferior to men when it comes to money.

Here's you own quote btw:

: and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that IF one of them errs, the other can remind her.

What I asked of you is clearly pointing to the arabic text, IN ARABIC, to the part which you believe reffers to a conditional if about one women being financially savvy being able to represent on her own, without having to be accompanied by another woman.

Originally posted by Mira Originally posted by Behrouz 3) I do believe to make Islam more appealing to women such as yourself, a certain interperetation of it is made, which might not neccessarily be what the original text meant to say. That's exactly the reason why Islamic hardliners and ultra conservatives are able to use the very same verses to oppress women. You may if you want believe an interperation that suites you best and makes you happy even if it means assuming a lot of things in a verse. There are at least 80,000 different interpretations of the Qur'an written in Ottoman Turkish, sitting at the Koprulu Library in Istanbul.  Tafseer al-Tabbari, which is considered one of the most important interpretations of the Qur'an (and one of the most quoted ones, too) was lost until the past century, when it was found in the library of a Saudi Emir, who allowed for it to be reprinted. There are so many interpretations of the Qur'an, and none of them is considered wrong.  You must realize that Islam is believed to be a dynamic religion that is supposed to be able to fit with the ever-changing milieu and be relevant throughout time.  For that to happen, there cannot be one correct interpretation of the text.  Islam did not come to eliminate different cultures. In fact, the Prophet (peace be upon Him) is believed to have said, "Differences in the Ummah is a mercy."  Of course it's a mercy.  It's a cultural thing for Saudi women to cover their faces, and they can interpret the text to make it sound like covering the face is an obligation.  But scholars have proved from the same text and from the Hadith that it's not. I'm glad the text is open to many interpretations.  It makes life easier.

I guess it does make your life easier to change the text to mean whatever you like it to mean. I do believe however that a message from god is clear and concise, not ambigious and left to interepretation by human beings, becauase if it was left to your intrepretation it is bound to human error, rather than godly perfection. If you are right then all people who are killing in the name of Islam should go to heaven, because they simply followed their own interepretation of Quran.




Edited by Behrouz