Should the rest of the world adopt Islam's view of the inequality of women?

Thu Oct 22, 2015 5:43 pm

Should the rest of the world adopt Islam's view of the inequality of women?

Pickthall4:34

"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other,

Every moral legal system I know of in the West and most of the non-Islamic world begins with equality for all.

Should the rest of the world adopt Islam's view of the inequality of women?

Check the value of a Muslim woman, according to some Muslim men, at the 8 min. mark.

Regards

DL

Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:33 pm

The main impetus for the question was the present immigration crisis in the E. U. and the fact that Islam is growing in power and influence all over the free world and if we do not bring it to heel, our women and cultures will lose the equality of the sexes.

Most of what I want to have you here other than what I answer to posts is in these two links.

Regards

DL

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 8:38 pm

White Angst. I love it.

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:05 am

Why should we want to "bring it to heel"? You speak as though any other Monotheist religion provides a better example of equality for women than Islam.

The error isn't in Islam, the error is in Monotheism. Focusing on just one of its expressions is to deliberately miss the point. If you say Islam is inherently anti-feminist, instead of saying all of Monotheism is inherently anti-feminist, you just start a these-say those-say comparative distraction. The enemy in this case is anti-feminism regardless of its source.

The day the Cardinals elect an acknowledged female pope from among their own would be a good day, but I'll not hold my breath waiting for it.

PS. I still can't watch your blasted Youtube propaganda. Write it down. We are not a television broadcaster.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:07 am

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1487980 wrote: The main impetus for the question was the present immigration crisis in the E. U. and the fact that Islam is growing in power and influence all over the free world and if we do not bring it to heel, our women and cultures will lose the equality of the sexes.

Most of what I want to have you here other than what I answer to posts is in these two links.

Regards

DL

I'll watch the videos later, too busy at the moment still fighting for EQUAL RIGHTS.

You are very misguided if you believe we actually have equal rights across the board within any other society!

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:08 am

Ah.

Snap.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 3:31 am

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1487979 wrote: Should the rest of the world adopt Islam's view of the inequality of women?

Pickthall4:34

"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other,

Every moral legal system I know of in the West and most of the non-Islamic world begins with equality for all.

Should the rest of the world adopt Islam's view of the inequality of women?

Check the value of a Muslim woman, according to some Muslim men, at the 8 min. mark.

Regards

DL

Should the rest of the world adopt Islam's view of the inequality of women?

Definitely not! In many respects (though not all), Islam is stuck in the 4th century. No matter what the Quran or the Bible spout, women ARE equal to men. Any other view on this is sexism, pure and simple.

Pickthall4:34

"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other,

In what way do men excel over women, except in violence, and physical strength? There are plenty of bright, rich, influential WOMEN in business; they're not all cooking and making beds! In general, women have a strong instinct to nurture; this is VITAL to the continued survival of our species. The reason MAN feels he is superior is almost certainly down to testosterone-fuelled ego!

As a man, I have to say that sexism is unacceptable in any form, and needs to be consigned to history's rubbish bin!

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 4:30 am

Smaug;1487985 wrote: Definitely not! In many respects (though not all), Islam is stuck in the 4th century.

Islam didn't exist in the 4th century!

What on earth is interesting about the 4th century that involves Islam?

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 4:34 am

spot;1487989 wrote: Islam didn't exist in the 4th century!

What on earth is interesting about the 4th century that involves Islam?

You're quite correct. It was the 6th century (Muhammad (ca. 570–632))

The Birth of Islam | Thematic Essay | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art

My points being that quite a few precepts of Islam are seriously outdated and prejudiced against women, and other faiths.

You might also say that Islam has 'Jewish DNA'....

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 4:35 am

Smaug;1487985 wrote: No matter what the Quran or the Bible spout, women ARE equal to men.I shall be interested to see a woman take any Gender-Transparent World athletics record, wake me up when it happens.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 4:44 am

spot;1487991 wrote: I shall be interested to see a woman take any Gender-Transparent World athletics record, wake me up when it happens.

Floccinaucinihilipilification.

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 4:45 am

Smaug;1487992 wrote: Floccinaucinihilipilification.

Not at all. Your list of exceptions and differences reeds like Monty Python's "What have the Romans ever done for us" sketch.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 4:50 am

So what has Islam ever done for us? (Apart from give us a 'ticking time-bomb' for the biggest religious upheavals we have ever seen, or will ever see?)

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:00 am

Smaug;1487994 wrote: So what has Islam ever done for us? (Apart from give us a 'ticking time-bomb' for the biggest religious upheavals we have ever seen, or will ever see?)

Do you mean Islam, the religion? or do you mean Muslims, people who happen to have been born into an Islamic society. If you mean the religion, sod all - it's been an utter blight on the planet from its first day, as has Christianity and Judaism. If you mean Muslims, they've collectively been world-changingly creative. The renaissance in Western Europe was a direct consequence of their achievement. You owe them your entire culture, such as it is.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:06 am

I was talking of Islam; the religion, and it's manipulative hard-line Imams. Consider the word Jihad, and all of it's connotations. Apt for adaptation,interpretation and manipulation by unscrupulous 'hard-liners'....Hell-bent on forcing the rest of the world to 'kow-tow'!

jihad | Islam | Britannica.com

Here's one good illustration of 'hard-line' Islam. There are many others.....

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2012/A ... e-America/

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 5:58 am

Smaug;1487996 wrote: I was talking of Islam; the religion, and it's manipulative hard-line Imams. Consider the word Jihad, and all of it's connotations. Apt for adaptation,interpretation and manipulation by unscrupulous 'hard-liners'....Hell-bent on forcing the rest of the world to 'kow-tow'!

jihad | Islam | Britannica.com

Here's one good illustration of 'hard-line' Islam. There are many others.....

UK Islamist Leader: Islam Will Dominate America - World - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com
In what way does that picture differ from Christianity? You appear shockingly biased, pointing out the beam in Islam's eye while ignoring that in Christianity's. This sort of discrimination on your part is usually called bigotry.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 7:13 am

spot;1488002 wrote: In what way does that picture differ from Christianity? You appear shockingly biased, pointing out the beam in Islam's eye while ignoring that in Christianity's. This sort of discrimination on your part is usually called bigotry.

So where are all the Christian Jihaddists then? Where are all those Christians with their banners stating that Christianity will dominate the world? Was it Christians who kidnapped all those schoolgirls in Africa for use as hostages and 'brood mares'?

Where are the Christian terrorists that caused 9/11? Your argument is feeble, and flies in the face of reason and evidence! Was it Christians who were burning poppies when our soldiers coffins were being repatriated through Royal Wootton Bassett? No, it was Muslim 'hard liners'!

True, there are some Christian extremists around, but they are massively outnumbered by Islamic extremists. I'm no bigot, and I'm not naive either;just a realist who can see what many others choose to ignore. By your own admission, Islam, as a religion, has given this world nothing, and like many other religions, is open to manipulation.

If petty name-calling is the best you can do, or infer, then I pity you, Spot. If you want, I can supply you with MANY other examples; it's just a question of how much is enough.....

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 7:23 am

Pfft. Islam. Mohammad was a criminal and caravan-raiding loser. He got thrown out of his own hometown for Pete's sake. Soon wormhole technology will allow us to see the past and I'll bet that'll be the end of most religions.

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 7:45 am

Smaug;1488005 wrote: So where are all the Christian Jihaddists then? Where are all those Christians with their banners stating that Christianity will dominate the world? Was it Christians who kidnapped all those schoolgirls in Africa for use as hostages and 'brood mares'?

Where are the Christian terrorists that caused 9/11? Your argument is feeble, and flies in the face of reason and evidence! Was it Christians who were burning poppies when our soldiers coffins were being repatriated through Royal Wootton Bassett? No, it was Muslim 'hard liners'!

True, there are some Christian extremists around, but they are massively outnumbered by Islamic extremists. I'm no bigot, and I'm not naive either;just a realist who can see what many others choose to ignore. By your own admission, Islam, as a religion, has given this world nothing, and like many other religions, is open to manipulation.

If petty name-calling is the best you can do, or infer, then I pity you, Spot. If you want, I can supply you with MANY other examples; it's just a question of how much is enough.....

You took an extremist?

Westboro Baptist Church

"If you want, I can supply you with MANY other examples; it's just a question of how much is enough."

Or we could exclude extremists from the discussion, if you'd rather.

What you can't say is that your example is typical but mine is fringe.

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 7:47 am

Smaug;1488005 wrote: Was it Christians who were burning poppies when our soldiers coffins were being repatriated through Royal Wootton Bassett? No, it was Muslim 'hard liners'!

The Christians, meanwhile, were pissing on corpses they'd just killed in Afghanistan, and sending the video clips home to their proud doting Christian parents. Burning poppies seems trivial by comparison.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 9:46 am

You cannot blame Islam for the attitude men have against women. Women have been secondary beings on nearly every society in history, and the religions sprang up as a product of the social attitudes in the societies in which they were born.

Have you seen how Hindis treat their women? Catholics? even many Atheists treat their women with disdain.

Even here in the "Land of the Free" it was not until early in the last century that Canada and the US began to move towards equality.

We are only ahead of the average religion on women's equality by a few generations.

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 9:47 am

You'll pardon my saying so but I thought Feminism was an Australian invention.

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 9:51 am

Smaug;1487990 wrote: You're quite correct. It was the 6th century

It was the seventh. There were no Muslims in the sixth century either. The Prophet was 40 before he saw his first angel.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 11:43 am

spot;1488014 wrote: It was the seventh. There were no Muslims in the sixth century either. The Prophet was 40 before he saw his first angel.

That'll teach me to read the link more carefully....10 whole years!! Gosh!! A small portion of a human lifespan.....When measured against the passage of the centuries, it's barely worth a mention. Can you give me any recent atrocities perpetrated by Christian extremists, then? On a similar scale?

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:03 pm

Smaug;1488016 wrote: Can you give me any recent atrocities perpetrated by Christian extremists, then? On a similar scale?

The Christian Crusade of 2003 against Iraq, total Muslim deaths around 1.5 million and rising.

Before you say ooh that wasn't Christians or a Crusade, think. If it had been Muslims invading a Christian country and causing that scale of death, would you blame Islam?

This word "bigot" that you take such exception to, it's not a term of abuse. It's an adjective. It means someone who selectively chooses to highlight the bad things about one group while treading lightly near another. If you don't like the label, change your behavior.

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:05 pm

Smaug;1488016 wrote: When measured against the passage of the centuries, it's barely worth a mention.

Actually, when deciding which century something started in, working on a scale of centuries is a bit daft. Islam started in the seventh century, not the bloody fourth.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:17 pm

spot;1488020 wrote: Actually, when deciding which century something started in, working on a scale of centuries is a bit daft. Islam started in the seventh century, not the bloody fourth.
The culture still existed before Islam officially began, and it was still rooted in the stagnant dogma of the Religion of the day. You can say that someone's morals are Victorian, but if those sort of morals existed long before Victoria. It was only because she was reminiscent of those morals that they adopted her name.

Regardless of when it officially began in name, Islam, as a culture, is still heavily rooted in the 4th century - if not earlier.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:21 pm

spot;1488020 wrote: Actually, when deciding which century something started in, working on a scale of centuries is a bit daft. Islam started in the seventh century, not the bloody fourth.

I've already conceded the point, oh pedantic one! What scale would you recommend then? Minutes? Seconds?

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:25 pm

FourPart;1488024 wrote: The culture still existed before Islam officially began, and it was still rooted in the stagnant dogma of the Religion of the day. You can say that someone's morals are Victorian, but if those sort of morals existed long before Victoria. It was only because she was reminiscent of those morals that they adopted her name.

Regardless of when it officially began in name, Islam, as a culture, is still heavily rooted in the 4th century - if not earlier.Your grasp of the history of the Middle East is vastly greater than mine, I had no idea anyone had so distinctly documented Arab culture in the two hundred years before the first conversion to Islam. I'd be grateful for the name of an appropriate book on the subject.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:28 pm

FourPart;1488024 wrote: The culture still existed before Islam officially began, and it was still rooted in the stagnant dogma of the Religion of the day. You can say that someone's morals are Victorian, but if those sort of morals existed long before Victoria. It was only because she was reminiscent of those morals that they adopted her name.

Regardless of when it officially began in name, Islam, as a culture, is still heavily rooted in the 4th century - if not earlier.

Yes, the culture was ripe for it, FourPart. "Cometh the hour, cometh the man" springs to mind, with regard to Muhammad.

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:28 pm

Smaug;1488025 wrote: I've already conceded the point, oh pedantic one! What scale would you recommend then? Minutes? Seconds?

Decades seems conventional. The twenties, the forties, the fifties, all distinct whether you're talking about the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, or twentieth centuries in England. Name a decade in the last five hundred years and you evoke a unique and distinct period. I would presume the same is true of anywhere in the world or any decade however long ago, if one were sufficiently well-informed.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:33 pm

spot;1488028 wrote: Your grasp of the history of the Middle East is vastly greater than mine, I had no idea anyone had so distinctly documented Arab culture in the two hundred years before the first conversion to Islam. I'd be grateful for the name of an appropriate book on the subject.

The nearest reference I can find on this at the moment is this wiki link on the various pre-Islamic cultures in the region, one of which is Judaism ( a major root of Islam).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Islamic_Arabia

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:38 pm

spot;1488032 wrote: Decades seems conventional. The twenties, the forties, the fifties, all distinct whether you're talking about the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, or twentieth centuries in England. Name a decade in the last five hundred years and you evoke a unique and distinct period. I would presume the same is true of anywhere in the world or any decade however long ago, if one were sufficiently well-informed.

When talking in terms of a single human lifespan, I would agree with you (decades), but when we are talking of events centuries ago, this becomes virtually meaningless. Save your veiled insults, Spot; 'water off a duck's back', as the saying goes....

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:43 pm

LarsMac;1488011 wrote: You cannot blame Islam for the attitude men have against women. Women have been secondary beings on nearly every society in history, and the religions sprang up as a product of the social attitudes in the societies in which they were born.

Have you seen how Hindis treat their women? Catholics? even many Atheists treat their women with disdain.

Even here in the "Land of the Free" it was not until early in the last century that Canada and the US began to move towards equality.

We are only ahead of the average religion on women's equality by a few generations.

Actually that's not strictly true, spartan women could own property and were noted for their independence and freedom. In celtic society women had status amd occasionally became warriors. Buddicca led a rebellion caused by roman refusal to accept her right to inherit there are many cases of warrior quesns, the irish catholic church had to issue edicts forbidding women from taking up arms which rather suggests it was commonplace. even the bible hasa warrior queen in deborah - the Song of Deborah is found in Judges 5:2-31. Bet you can think of morte warrior queens than you can kings. Daenyris stormborn doesn't count.

It's always semed to me that the inequality between men and women owes a great deal to religion especially the ones from the middle east. Take adam and eve - how mysoginist can you get. Adam couldn't control himslf but it was eves fault? She was asking for it has been the pathetic cry of every ropist ever since, even the catholic church defends it's priests by saying the children were so tempting. God the father what about mum eh?

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:44 pm

Smaug;1488033 wrote: The nearest reference I can find on this at the moment is this wiki link on the various pre-Islamic cultures in the region, one of which is Judaism ( a major root of Islam).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Islamic_Arabia
Four lines (the bit of the article under "Religion" that ends "Islamic commentators have elaborated these hints into an account that, while coherent, is doubted by academics in part or in whole") doesn't quite seem enough to underpin your assertion that the culture still existed before Islam officially began, and it was still rooted in the stagnant dogma of the Religion of the day, and yet you state it as fact. I was thinking more of something like the first chapter of The Cambridge History of Islam Volume 1 - you can download the pdf from The Cambridge History of Islam Volume 1 Cambridge Histories Online - Cambridge University Press and perhaps we could find quotes there relating to your claim. It's some years since I red it but it's on my phone at the moment, oddly enough, to take on holiday next month. Something to reed on the plane, I thought.

The thing is, Islam was a huge shift over what was there previously - just as Christianity and Judaism had been. None of them would have spread like wildfire otherwise.

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:50 pm

Smaug;1488034 wrote: When talking in terms of a single human lifespan, I would agree with you (decades), but when we are talking of events centuries ago, this becomes virtually meaningless. Save your veiled insults, Spot; 'water off a duck's back', as the saying goes....

The fact that you find the distinction meaningless doesn't mean there is no meaning in the distinction. Other people write entire books on the differences. Lots of them. Shelves full.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:57 pm

spot;1488038 wrote: Four lines (the bit of the article under "Religion" that ends "Islamic commentators have elaborated these hints into an account that, while coherent, is doubted by academics in part or in whole") doesn't quite seem enough to underpin your assertion that the culture still existed before Islam officially began, and it was still rooted in the stagnant dogma of the Religion of the day, and yet you state it as fact. I was thinking more of something like the first chapter of The Cambridge History of Islam Volume 1 - you can download the pdf from The Cambridge History of Islam Volume 1 Cambridge Histories Online - Cambridge University Press and perhaps we could find quotes there relating to your claim. It's some years since I red it but it's on my phone at the moment, oddly enough, to take on holiday next month. Something to reed on the plane, I thought.

The thing is, Islam was a huge shift over what was there previously - just as Christianity and Judaism had been. None of them would have spread like wildfire otherwise.

Actually, I haven't made any such (uncorrected) assertion, and conceded the point about being incorrect about the start of Islam in the 4th century (I corrected the error from my earlier post; 4th century Islam, remember?) I provided a wiki link to various pre-Islamic cultures, and was a whole 10 years out on Muhammad seeing the angel Gabriel (Golly gosh...). As I already stated, when measured against the passage of the centuries, mere decades are virtually meaningless, and I've yet to meet a historian that uses decades, as opposed to centuries, for events that happened well over a thousand years ago!

Have you?

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:01 pm

Smaug;1488042 wrote: I've yet to meet a historian that uses decades, as opposed to centuries, for events that happened well over a thousand years ago!

Have you?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "met". I'd say it was impossible to rationally discuss any event since, say, 500BC, without placing it in the context of its decade. Certainly I can't think of any history book I've red which doesn't. You wouldn't like to nominate a history book which does, would you, so we can check?

How about that new book on Carthage?

Tacitus did it. Suetonius did it. Who didn't do it?

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:13 pm

spot;1488043 wrote: I suppose it depends on what you mean by "met". I'd say it was impossible to rationally discuss any event since, say, 500BC, without placing it in the context of its decade. Certainly I can't think of any history book I've red which doesn't. You wouldn't like to nominate a history book which does, would you, so we can check?

How about that new book on Carthage?

Carthage Must Be Destroyed (Allen Lane, 2010) ISBN 978-0-7139-9793-4; Paperback (Penguin, 2011) ISBN 978-0-14-101809-6

I've found that in general discussion, folk tend to use the century, rather than the decade, unless describing a PARTICULAR EVENT, or BIRTH/DEATH.

E.G. Life in 4th century Britain....Or 1st century Rome, to use a couple of examples. Exact dates are generally used for births, deaths and various other important specifics, such as military actions, or even geological ones (Etna erupting and burying Pompeii, for instance).

Let's not let pedantry get out of control, eh?

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:15 pm

Smaug;1488046 wrote: I've found that in general discussion, folk tend to use the century, rather than the decade

Folks?

Oh... folks. Okay. It's just that you said "I've yet to meet a historian that uses decades", I thought we were talking about historians. When did folks come into the discussion? I haven't met any folks, no. I'm pretty certain about the 500BC and the historians bit though.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:21 pm

spot;1488047 wrote: Folks?

Oh... folks. Okay. It's just that you said "I've yet to meet a historian that uses decades", I thought we were talking about historians. When did folks come into the discussion? I haven't met any folks, no. I'm pretty certain about the 500BC and the historians bit though.

So historians aren't 'folks', then? Or are historians a separate breed? Or don't 'folk' count? I thought I'd already explained? How have we got 'here', when I'd already corrected my earlier error(s)?

Let me guess.....Pedantry? For pedantry's sake?

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:22 pm

Smaug;1488042 wrote: a whole 10 years out on Muhammad seeing the angel Gabriel (Golly gosh...)
No, come on, be fair, we weren't discussing when that happened. We were discussing the rise of Islam. 610? No, definitely not, not even one convert on the horizon in 610. 650? Maybe. Just. Borderline start of the beginning of the rise of Islam, 650, arguable. 670, definitely. Islam's on the way up. But you can't call that sixth century, not by a mile. Certainly not by ten years. It isn't ten years, it's a minimum of fifty years.

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:23 pm

Smaug;1488049 wrote: So historians aren't 'folks', then? No they damn well aren't, they're a subset of "folks" who are qualified to discuss history. In decades, unless they're headed pre-500BC, and even then I bet they'd slip a few decades in anyway.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:28 pm

spot;1488050 wrote: No, come on, be fair, we weren't discussing when that happened. We were discussing the rise of Islam. 610? No, definitely not, not even one convert on the horizon in 610. 650? Maybe. Just. Borderline start of the beginning of the rise of Islam, 650, arguable. 670, definitely. Islam's on the way up. But you can't call that sixth century, not by a mile. Certainly not by ten years. It isn't ten years, it's a minimum of fifty years.

I was talking of Muhammad's first vision of Gabriel (as the root of Islam). He (Muhammad) was the father of Islam, so I would attribute it's start to that date, to be fair. I would be prepared to bet that was the year he gained his first 'convert', though I doubt that this is recorded anywhere, though I may be wrong. If you can find a RELIABLE date for his first convert I would be interested to see it....

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:40 pm

Smaug;1488052 wrote: I was talking of Muhammad's first vision of Gabriel (as the root of Islam). He (Muhammad) was the father of Islam, so I would attribute it's start to that date, to be fair. I would be prepared to bet that was the year he gained his first 'convert', though I doubt that this is recorded anywhere, though I may be wrong. If you can find a RELIABLE date for his first convert I would be interested to see it....610. His wife, his stepson, a ten year old boy, various relatives, the slaves of various relatives. The Prophet started to preach in public in 613.

I'd have thought the year he started seeing visions was pretty guaranteed to be when he had his first convert, nobody's going to stay married to him if they think he's wrong on a subject like that.

What I meant by convert, in hindsight, was someone with a choice. Someone not already attached.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:47 pm

spot;1488051 wrote: No they damn well aren't, they're a subset of "folks" who are qualified to discuss history. In decades, unless they're headed pre-500BC, and even then I bet they'd slip a few decades in anyway.

ANYONE is entitled to discuss history, not just qualified historians! Are you a qualified historian, then? What qualifications do you have? What makes you think you can censure 'folk' the way you appear to enjoy doing? Why the 'bitterness and vitriol'? You can't claim to be 'an angry young man' anymore, surely?

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:08 pm

spot;1488056 wrote: 610. His wife, his stepson, a ten year old boy, various relatives, the slaves of various relatives. The Prophet started to preach in public in 613.

I'd have thought the year he started seeing visions was pretty guaranteed to be when he had his first convert, nobody's going to stay married to him if they think he's wrong on a subject like that.

What I meant by convert, in hindsight, was someone with a choice. Someone not already attached.

Have you a link for this? Or are you quoting a book? If it's a book, have you a name for this book? If it's merely surmise, that doesn't count, obviously.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:12 pm

Does History even need to be factual? It is, after all made up of the 2 words His Story. Therefore, whatever story he tells is history.

Post by **spot** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:20 pm

Smaug;1488060 wrote: Have you a link for this? Or are you quoting a book? If it's a book, have you a name for this book? If it's merely surmise, that doesn't count, obviously.

There's a string of citations at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timing_of ... ng_Muslims but I've not looked any of them up. They're as basic a set of facts about Islam as the Gospels are to Christianity.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:25 pm

FourPart;1488061 wrote: Does History even need to be factual? It is, after all made up of the 2 words His Story. Therefore, whatever story he tells is history.

Only if 'He' won!!!