Be Wary of Racism and Islamophobes

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because Islam does not work that way. You either accept Islam or you reject it. There is no half way. You either embrace the barbarism, or you are not a Muslim.

This is BS. If you believe that embracing barbarism is necessary to being a Muslim, you really do deserve to be described with some of the negative terms being discussed in this thread.

Barbarism is a value judgment. But the PP is correct in a sense that calling yourself a follower of a particular religion means you embrace it in toto, both beautiful as well as unlovely bits. If some of it appears barbaric to the outsiders, well, OK.

Then all Christians should be expected to embrace the barbarism committed by such groups as the Lord's Resistance Army, abortion clinic bombers, and the Christian Identity Movement? Do mainstream Christians embrace the hate of the Jonesboro Baptists?

Your statement is actually ludicrous. Most members of a religion cannot even agree on what the religion itself embraces, let alone embrace all of it. If there were one true Judaism, why would there be Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, etc. Is a reform Jew embracing every practice of a Hassid?

My point was exactly that there are different branches of Christianity and most DO NOT embrace those kinds of beliefs. There are different ways of being a Christian. Why are there not different denominations of Islam? How can any religion be taken at its word for any length of time and still be relevant in modern society? It can't.

I can't understand what you are trying to say. But, there are different denominations of Islam. Obviously you have heard of both Shia and Sunni right? I mean, right? That's not to mention all the less common branches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

New poster here. What would be your definition of common with respect to polygamy? I feel it's fairly common in Egypt, for example. Wealthy businessmen who can support more than one wife often have two. And on the opposite side of the spectrum, very poor farmers sometimes have two wives. Then there are the Western women who become second wives in Egypt. I know two personally. Both married to businessmen who do not divorce their first wives because it would dishonor their wives and hurt them financially. One guy has sex with both wives. The other guy says he doesn't -- Egyptian version of a divorce in everything but name from the first wife. Who knows? I'd say about 10% of the Egyptian marriages I know personally include two wives. I've never met someone with three. I don't know if that's common or not. But it's definitely there and not hidden, and it depends who you ask whether it's a negative or not.

What's your definition of fairly common? 10%?

In the Muslim community I grew up, I've known two polygamous marriages in seventeen years.

My husband's Saudi family, which is easily 300+ people, has one polygamous marriage.

We do know someone with three but only one. The truth is few men can afford more than one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

New poster here. What would be your definition of common with respect to polygamy? I feel it's fairly common in Egypt, for example. Wealthy businessmen who can support more than one wife often have two. And on the opposite side of the spectrum, very poor farmers sometimes have two wives. Then there are the Western women who become second wives in Egypt. I know two personally. Both married to businessmen who do not divorce their first wives because it would dishonor their wives and hurt them financially. One guy has sex with both wives. The other guy says he doesn't -- Egyptian version of a divorce in everything but name from the first wife. Who knows? I'd say about 10% of the Egyptian marriages I know personally include two wives. I've never met someone with three. I don't know if that's common or not. But it's definitely there and not hidden, and it depends who you ask whether it's a negative or not.

What's your definition of fairly common? 10%?

In the Muslim community I grew up, I've known two polygamous marriages in seventeen years.

My husband's Saudi family, which is easily 300+ people, has one polygamous marriage.

We do know someone with three but only one. The truth is few men can afford more than one.

Well, 10% seems common to me because I'm American and not used to it. And it's weird to me that Western women voluntarily enter into it. But the folks I know in Egypt are pretty high income, so that's probably skewing things.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima is annoying. You need a new spokesperson.

^ this!

It is annoying to me when an anonymous poster takes personal shots at someone with a user name. Login for a month or so and let's see how people feel about your posts. I doubt either one of you could take the criticism.

Why should I log in to an anonymous forum? That Muslima is annoying is not a "shot" at her. If she doesn't want to be recognized, she shouldn't sign in. She does, though, so I recognize her posts. They are not winning any converts to Islam with her style. She is extremely off-putting and combative. She clogs every thread she participates in, which is a shame because I would actually like to learn something about the subject.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a different poster. My concern all along has been that Muslima and her alter ego make blanket assertions that themselves misrepresent the diversity in Islam you so correctly point out.

Muslima is certainly entitled to her own, personal Islam. You and I actually agree that there is no one interpretation of many Islamic tenets.

Except, IMO, she veers into much shadier territory when she claims things that are directly contradicted in the Quran. I'm not so worried about hadith and sharia, but the Quran is purportedly God's own words. So when she makes glowing claims about women's equality and female captives, do you see a problem with people pointing out what the Quran actually says about these issues? IMO, if only the glowing bits are presented, DCUM starts to look like a conversion effort and readers miss the range of Islamic thought you so correctly point out.

Of course you are free to take a contrary view.

Except then I get called a Christian-Evangelist-Crusader-Racist-Islamophobe. Isn't that a little concerning, too?

I don't read the other poster as telling Muslima what to believe. There's a big difference between telling Muslima what to believe, and explaining to the general audience of readers here the many gaps (deliberate? Who knows) in Muslima's presentation and where exactly she's out of step with her own holy book and the eminent theologians in her faith. The other PP is pretty knowledgeable about Islam, and she's explaining to all of us the huge range of thought across Islam that you agree exists. Whether or not Muslima is trying to win converts is something we can't know. I, for one, am grateful to the knowledgeable PP for widening my knowledge of Islam as it's practiced by a billion plus people. If explaining the wide range of Islam--again, we agree this range exists--is tantamount to a deliberate campaign to "spread a negative perception of Islam" (your words, or as a Muslim PP here would say, part of a racist-Christian-evangelist-Islamophobic crusade), then I don't know how we can even discuss Islam here.

I don't know you are directing this post to me. I have not called you a Christian-Evangelist-Crusader-Racist-Islamophobe. There are a lot of posters in this thread and it's a bit to tell one anonymous poster from another. But, there are clearly posters here who appear primarily committed to spreading negative information about Islam.

I think when someone picks a topic such as slavery or concubines and attempts to convey that this is an accepted and non-controversial practice that is unquestioned within the religion, when in fact very few adherents actually believe such a thing and there is quite a bit of debate among scholars, that poster is attempting to spread negative perceptions of Islam. If the poster was solely interested in providing broader perspective, the poster would not completely ignore common practice.

Islam, like any religion, is an easy target for criticism. It is fair to question its practices. But, just as I illustrated here with the example of Hagar, most posters here are not willing to subject mainstream Western religions to the same scrutiny. That suggests a certain basic lack of fairness.

I don't see how you can say that. People are CONSTANTLY pointing out the contradictions and deficiencies of Christianity and Judaism. CONSTANTLY. It is an ongoing conversation. And frankly, the things that are being called into question are mild compared to what I see regarding Islam. I already posted (as you know) that I would like to learn more about the religion but can't because of the way the discussion is being handled by the major Muslim players on DCUM, but from what I know from the media, wow, it makes no sense to me whatsoever as a religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

New poster here. What would be your definition of common with respect to polygamy? I feel it's fairly common in Egypt, for example. Wealthy businessmen who can support more than one wife often have two. And on the opposite side of the spectrum, very poor farmers sometimes have two wives. Then there are the Western women who become second wives in Egypt. I know two personally. Both married to businessmen who do not divorce their first wives because it would dishonor their wives and hurt them financially. One guy has sex with both wives. The other guy says he doesn't -- Egyptian version of a divorce in everything but name from the first wife. Who knows? I'd say about 10% of the Egyptian marriages I know personally include two wives. I've never met someone with three. I don't know if that's common or not. But it's definitely there and not hidden, and it depends who you ask whether it's a negative or not.

What's your definition of fairly common? 10%?

In the Muslim community I grew up, I've known two polygamous marriages in seventeen years.

My husband's Saudi family, which is easily 300+ people, has one polygamous marriage.

We do know someone with three but only one. The truth is few men can afford more than one.

I am a Muslim with a fairly large extended family as well. My paternal grandmother had 13 children. My maternal grandmother had five. I don't even know anyone who has had a polygamous marriage in this country or another country.

Not only it is rare, but it is frowned upon. This is general position of most Muslims I know. The Quran itself does not recommend it and states that it may be used only sparingly under the strictest of circumstances (such as war time).

[Anonymous]

All religions are weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:millions of christians live (or lived) in the middle east and not one of them has blown themselves up to kill other people. Same environment, same economy, same time period.

ISIL
Al Qaeda
Taliban
Boko Haram
al-Shabaab

What is the common denominator? All Islam based, All Kill Infidels.

Christian Terrorist groups that kill Infidels??????

This is NOT Racism, it is factual observations. And we are preparing for the next world war because of these groups.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxzOVSMUrGM

i think the question is why do all these groups have common denominator of Islam? I don't understand it but it seems like it is a key component and significant factor.

I'm no expert but a major part of the religion is the prophet Muhammad, who was a soldier. Is it a coincidence that they are all about war? I can't imagine following the words of a soldier.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:millions of christians live (or lived) in the middle east and not one of them has blown themselves up to kill other people. Same environment, same economy, same time period.

ISIL
Al Qaeda
Taliban
Boko Haram
al-Shabaab

What is the common denominator? All Islam based, All Kill Infidels.

Christian Terrorist groups that kill Infidels??????

This is NOT Racism, it is factual observations. And we are preparing for the next world war because of these groups.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxzOVSMUrGM

i think the question is why do all these groups have common denominator of Islam? I don't understand it but it seems like it is a key component and significant factor.

The common denominator is the influence of Wahhabism. To suggest that the common denominator is simply Islam may not be racist, but it is inaccurate. The primary target of these groups is other Muslims.

Why does that make it okay? It's still violence.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Why does that make it okay? It's still violence.

Exactly where did anyone say it was okay? It's not okay. But, if the actions of IS and the other groups listed are representative of Islam, it is pretty hard to understand why other Muslims are the most common target. What kind of religion has a central precept that results in violence against other members of that religion? The point is that IS and the others listed don't represent Islam. They represent a particular strain of Islam and see other Muslims as different and therefore deserving of being attacked.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I don't see how you can say that. People are CONSTANTLY pointing out the contradictions and deficiencies of Christianity and Judaism. CONSTANTLY. It is an ongoing conversation. And frankly, the things that are being called into question are mild compared to what I see regarding Islam. I already posted (as you know) that I would like to learn more about the religion but can't because of the way the discussion is being handled by the major Muslim players on DCUM, but from what I know from the media, wow, it makes no sense to me whatsoever as a religion.

The argument has been made that because Muhammad had a concubine, all Muslims embrace having concubines. I pointed out that Abraham had a concubine. Therefore, based on the previously expressed logic, Jews and Christians must embrace haven concubines. However, no one has stepped forward to agree with that contention.

Exactly what is it that you want to learn about Islam that you are having trouble learning? Based on this thread, the only thing you are likely to learn here is that several posters are obsessed with concubines regardless of the feelings about concubines held by most of the world's Muslims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am a Muslim with a fairly large extended family as well. My paternal grandmother had 13 children. My maternal grandmother had five. I don't even know anyone who has had a polygamous marriage in this country or another country.

Not only it is rare, but it is frowned upon. This is general position of most Muslims I know. The Quran itself does not recommend it and states that it may be used only sparingly under the strictest of circumstances (such as war time).

It's not frowned upon among the Muslims I know. It's just really expensive and cumbersome. Especially if the second wife is Saudi as well, these ladies don't come cheap.

None of the Muslims I know thinks it has to be wartime to get a second wife. It's more like, won a lottery, wheee! more wives, here I come! It's not a common view among scholars either. The scholarly consensus on the subject is as follows: no more than four, equal treatment to all, you're good to go.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't see how you can say that. People are CONSTANTLY pointing out the contradictions and deficiencies of Christianity and Judaism. CONSTANTLY. It is an ongoing conversation. And frankly, the things that are being called into question are mild compared to what I see regarding Islam. I already posted (as you know) that I would like to learn more about the religion but can't because of the way the discussion is being handled by the major Muslim players on DCUM, but from what I know from the media, wow, it makes no sense to me whatsoever as a religion.

The argument has been made that because Muhammad had a concubine, all Muslims embrace having concubines. I pointed out that Abraham had a concubine. Therefore, based on the previously expressed logic, Jews and Christians must embrace haven concubines. However, no one has stepped forward to agree with that contention.

Exactly what is it that you want to learn about Islam that you are having trouble learning? Based on this thread, the only thing you are likely to learn here is that several posters are obsessed with concubines regardless of the feelings about concubines held by most of the world's Muslims.

Does Jewish or Christian law support concubinage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Because Islam does not work that way. You either accept Islam or you reject it. There is no half way. You either embrace the barbarism, or you are not a Muslim.

This is BS. If you believe that embracing barbarism is necessary to being a Muslim, you really do deserve to be described with some of the negative terms being discussed in this thread.

Barbarism is a value judgment. But the PP is correct in a sense that calling yourself a follower of a particular religion means you embrace it in toto, both beautiful as well as unlovely bits. If some of it appears barbaric to the outsiders, well, OK.

Then all Christians should be expected to embrace the barbarism committed by such groups as the Lord's Resistance Army, abortion clinic bombers, and the Christian Identity Movement? Do mainstream Christians embrace the hate of the Jonesboro Baptists?

Your statement is actually ludicrous. Most members of a religion cannot even agree on what the religion itself embraces, let alone embrace all of it. If there were one true Judaism, why would there be Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, etc. Is a reform Jew embracing every practice of a Hassid?

My point was exactly that there are different branches of Christianity and most DO NOT embrace those kinds of beliefs. There are different ways of being a Christian. Why are there not different denominations of Islam? How can any religion be taken at its word for any length of time and still be relevant in modern society? It can't.

There are.

This contradicts what Muslima (our resident Islam expert I guess) has said. I find people like Muslima who want to make Islam sound "better" try to downplay conflicts in the religion because that ruins one of the things it has "over" Christianity and other religions- that Muslims are united. I don't know what to believe anymore!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This contradicts what Muslima (our resident Islam expert I guess) has said. I find people like Muslima who want to make Islam sound "better" try to downplay conflicts in the religion because that ruins one of the things it has "over" Christianity and other religions- that Muslims are united. I don't know what to believe anymore!!

Next time she talks about unity, ask her what "rafidah" means.