The subtle micro aggressions of islamophobia
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
It's a rare, very rare Christian who feels their knowledge of their religion is incomplete without reading the scripture in their original language. Most Christians are perfectly comfortable reading and worshiping in their native language. Christianity is not burdened with contempt for translations or the obsession with the original language as a medium imbued with magical, untranslatable qualities. |
Anonymous
|
So islamophobia would probably never have started if Islam wasn't such a bully. Bully Beards!!
Bill Maher: Islam’s “the only religion that acts like the mafia, that will f**king kill you if you say the wrong thing” he got it right on. It is not a religion, it is a political system designed to perpetuate its elite. Van Gogh was murdered by Mohammed Bouyeri working on behalf of the mafia. The murder widened and polarized the debate in the Netherlands about the social position of its more than one million Muslim residents. In an apparent reaction against controversial statements about the Islamic, Christian, and Jewish religions—such as those Van Gogh was renowned for—the Dutch Minister of Justice, Christian Democrat Piet Hein Donner, suggested Dutch blasphemy laws should either be applied more stringently or made more strict Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie - "SI inform the proud Muslim people of the world that the author of the Satanic Verses book which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Koran, and all involved in its publication who were aware of its content, are sentenced to death." |
Anonymous
Nobody Remembers the Spanish Inquisition! |
Anonymous
we remember. its not the problem. It is the Bully Beards |
Anonymous
I have said Muslims are fine with disagreement. The Quran states, "There is no compulsion in Islam." No one needs to like Islam, convert to Islam, agree with Islam. This was never merely about disagreement. It was about an hate driven campaign. You can not even get yourself to speak with an imam or scholar because you said you mistrust them all. How can they all be untrustworthy and liars, simply because they are Muslim? And when you say inheritance laws give less to women, its to show the disparity = inequity. Thats a bit misleading considering you failed to mention men have greater financial burdens and women do not need to support themselves. When you say Islam never established voting rights, you failed to discuss sura ash shurra which spoke to men as well as to women, and asked that all decisions requiring collective opinions be decided by consultation. You deny sura 60:12 which allowed women to take an oath to enter the tribe. You insisted its not a political oath, but instead a purity pledge simply because women were asked not to fornicate and commit adultery. I pointed out the last sentence of the oath, which asks the women to obey the Prophet in whatever he asks. This is not a purity pledge but a promise of political support to the prophet who was the new leader. Instead of admitting you may have misunderstood, you suddenly shifted and the complaint was no longer about voting rights but now about gender bias. The goal posts keep moving.... On gender bias, you asked why only women were asked not to fornicate. Simple answer: if they came to the Prophet without a guardian and with children, some illegitimate, of course he was going to remind them that their past behavior may not continue. You asked why men were not asked the same. There was no way to ascertain paternity so why ask a man about illegitimate children if you have no evidence there are any? From there were new complaints about Muslims not being able to read Quranic Arabic. Then you jumped to yet another complaint about the Quran- abrogation. These are easy to address but I'm not sure you are seeking knowledge, particularly from a Muslim since you don't trust anything we say. Every time I give you an answer, you request evidence from historical context or the Quran. But then when evidence is provided, you reject it if it has an Arab or Muslim author. Who else will provide testimony about arab history except Arabs? When I provide evidence from the Quran, you reject the Quran's authenticity because its not in chronological order or because of perceived abrogation. So you see, you are not embarking on a truth seeking mission here. Its a campaign driven by another agenda. |
Anonymous
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that one of PP's actually can read the Qyran in Arabic? That PP (me) did say she mistrusts many NOT all (as you have twisted it) Muslim scholars because they think can do a better job deconstructing the Quran than any Muslim simply because they are Muslim. I actually posted a link to an Islamic scholar. He showed a good command for the Semitic linguisitc and religious context of Islam, but you wouldn't acknowledge a nonMuslim PP found a Muslim scholar credible, , probably because he set forth a really cogent case for why, when speaking English, Allah should be referred to as God. This is contrary to whatever your personal Muslim scholars have told you, having perhaps little expertise in correct English usage. You are one the one who has moved the goal posts. First, you say one can't understand the Quran if one doesn't read Arabic, then it becomes one cannot understand the Quran if one is not Muslim. Consultation is not voting rights. Consultation was the basis for running tribal affairs back then, as well as in the present. The women's pledge of allegiance was a purity oath. The earlier all-men pledge of allegiance was a pledge to fight in defense of Islam. This was pointed out and you chose to ignore this fact and the obvious difference. But this was 1400 years ago--what else would one expect? Instead of saying that, you make up stuff like the men had to a purity pledge too, even though there is zilch evidence that is true. |
Anonymous
| ^^better job deconstructing the Quran than any non-Muslim simply because they are Muslim. |
Anonymous
Different PP here.
Nobody said "they are all liars because they are Muslim." Link, please. You made that up. Also, when did PP say she mistrusts all Muslim scholars? Link, please. You made that up, too. Yes, this is indeed about disagreement. All your arguments and examples in THIS POST are about areas where people DISAGREE with you: defining women's equality, whether consultation and a purity pledge are the same as voting rights, whether it should be necessary to seek out Muslim scholars and learn arabic before posting on DCUM. No, you're not "fine" with disagreement. If somebody disagrees with any of this, you think it must be driven by some shadowy organization's "hate-filled campaign." Also, nobody is impressed that you once bumped into a priest or minister at some interfaith event somewhere and harangued him or her about the Trinity. Did you learn koine Greek, too? You're demanding a lot more of us: you're demanding that we schedule multiple meeting with an imam AND to learn Quranic Arabic.
OK, so you're saying that men and women have unequal burdens as well as unequal inheritance, divorce and testimony rights. That's more and different inequality (there are women who need/want to work). It's fine for you think this balances out, and it's fine if you prefer this system. But it's understandable if others here don't agree that two types of inequality sum up to equality. The other PP answered about voting rights. But, pledging to do what the prophet asks doesn't seem like voting rights to me. Also, consultation, whether or not it included women, is different from voting rights.
I don't agree with your accusation against that poster. But I see she has already spoken for herself. It bears pointing out, once again, that you guys STARTED all of these debates. You and the other Muslim poster were the first to claim, "Islam granted women voting rights 1400 years ago" and "women are equal in Islam" and "Islam treats women captives well" and "there are more Muslim converts than immigrants." And you said all these things without any qualifications or links whatsoever. In each case, it took dozens of pages to drag elaboration out of you, for example to get your statement above about men having different burdens from women. And who could forget how you guys kept alluding to the verses about the purity pledge, but you both flat out refused to post them here, repeatedly told us to google for ourselves, and finally a non-Muslim cut and pasted them here. Or when you were asked to provide proof for your convert claim, you got all nasty about it, somebody posted Pew numbers that proved you were massively wrong, and then you immediately started crying Islamophobia. If you can't deal with disagreement, may I suggest that you not make controversial claims in the first place. |
Anonymous
I don't have any questions for imams or scholars and that is why I have no intention of speaking with them.
The value of privilege is in the eye of the beholder. If I think that the freedom from the need to support yourself doesn't outweigh the limitations imposed on women, and the trade therefore is not fair, I feel perfectly at ease saying that. No one has to agree with the value you place on specific rights and benefits.
There is nothing to admit. That verse is about a background check for new immigrants.
The oath was forward-looking. Women were not ask to swear that their children were legitimate, only that they won't have any more illegitimate children in the future. You are the one who keeps insisting that fornication and adultery were commonplace in jahiliya - surely Muhammad would have been aware of that, if that was true? What other evidence is needed to ask men that their past behavior may not continue? Do you think women were fornicating with themselves? (not that that isn't fun). There wasn't any evidence that the women's children were illegitimate, either, you know. You just made that up - same as your story of caravans with women with an incredibly specific number of children in tow.
I respond to your claims in the order in which you raise them. If you upbraid posters for their lack of knowledge of Quranic Arabic as an insurmountable barrier to understanding Islam, it seems only fair to point out that of that sin, most Muslims are guilty.
I am not seeking any more knowledge, and certainly not from you.
What evidence did you give besides the pictures you yourself imagined? The Quranic abrogation is fact recorded in the book itself. The fact that it is not in chronological order is not questioned, either.
I am not interested "seeking truth" - my education in all things Islam and my opinions on the subject have been fixed for years. I'm certainly not seeking education from you. When you post things that I consider inaccurate or false, I feel perfectly at ease pointing that out. That's all there's to it. No one is seeking truth from you. The fact that not a single participant of the threads you generated found you remotely interesting, compelling or enlightening should have give you plenty of hints. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
|
This is getting confusing! But, I get the impression 2:29 is a Muslim who is disagreeing with another Muslim (OP) about whether God should be called Allah (although 2:29 and OP definitely share midnight posting times), and 2:29 is also disagreeing with a non-Muslim (who is not me) about consultation.
There seems to be disagreement here on several points, between Muslims (including you, I think) and between Muslims and non-Muslims : - consultation = voting rights (Muslim OP and Muslim 2:29 think this is the case. Non-muslims disagree that consultation is the same as voting rights, and bringing in the ancient Greeks doesn't change this disagreement) - consultation didn't exist before Islam so this was something "new" - there was massive fornication, resulting in illegitimate children, before Islam (OP said this) - the purity oath was definitely administered to men (Muslim OP and Muslim PP claim this, non-Muslims have asked for proof) - the purity oath was looking backwards (OP's women who were arriving with many illegitimate children, but the fathers couldn't be identified, so they didn't have to make the oath) vs. looking forward (non-Muslim posters argue that men could make the oath) - men didn't have to make the purity oath because it was looking backwards (OP's many women with illegitimate children) vs. looking foward but of course men had to make the oath (here I think OP was arguing with herself) - women had no rights before Islam (see Khadija) - it's necessary to talk to "multiple" Muslim scholars to understand Islam (Muslim OP said this, not sure where Muslim 2:29 is on this, non-Muslims disagree) - non-Muslims cannot understand Islam (Muslim OP said this, but not the Muslim above) - Whether the monotheistic deity should be called God or Allah (Muslim OP and the Muslim poster above disagree) The point is, we all disagree with each other on various points. Muslim OP keeps saying she's OK with disagreement. Above, referring to some of these points, you write about the ancient Greeks and and then you throw up your hands in exasperation, saying "I don't know why this is so difficult to accept or understand"? So I take this as saying, nobody here is actually "OK" with disagreement. We each have our own positions. Disagreement *should* be fine. Trying to get the last word is not going to change the fact that we all simply disagree. |
Anonymous
You don't know that these women traveled to see the prophet with their children, and men didn't. You made that up, just like a very specific number of children you said they had with them. That, too, you made up. The oath was forward-looking. The women were asked not to fornicate/lie/steal/kill going forward. There was no reason men could not have been asked to abstain from the same going forward. Adultery and fornication were commonplace for men as well (although it's a Muslim theory, not a universal one, that pre-Islamic Arabia was a hedonistic heaven) so under that theory, there was no reason to assume that men did not engage in these behaviors, and therefore no reason not to ask them to abstain from them going forward. Why didn't the prophet have to let men know that fornication and adultery would not be permitted in Islam? It's forbidden for both men and women so why did women have to be reminded and not men? Is this the point where you make up your story about 2-4 children in tow AGAIN? I should also note that marriage is not the only alternative to fornication and adultery. Note also a one-time deal to pay off the dowries non-Muslim husbands must have paid to these women. For the newly Muslim women, the prophet said reimburse their husbands and go ahead and marry them. This is a very generous offer considering that if a Muslim woman initiates a divorce from her Muslim (not pagan) husband, she is commonly obligated to repay him the dowry herself - without husband #next chipping in. A good deal, collecting two dowries, if you ask me. |
Anonymous
Or not convert.
Stop with the al-Saud worship already! At that time, there was no such thing as Saudi Arabia. Why don't you go and rename Kuwait into Sabahee Arabia or Bahrain into The Republic of Al-Khalifa while you're at it. |
Anonymous
Hitler killed more Jews than anyone else on earth and he was German. Do you justify hatred toward Germans? Think of how many Muslims commit terrorism and what percentage this is of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. it's similar to that of a drop of water in an ocean. How do you justify hatred toward the rest of the peace loving and law abiding Muslims? Think about this. |
Anonymous
You should read Andrew Marshams, "Islamic Monarchy, Ascension and Succession in the First Muslim Empire." The entire book is about rituals and oaths in Islam. In this book he evaluates the kinds of oaths the Prophet used. He clearly states that the oath administered to the women (mentioned in sura 60:12) is for conversion and allegiance and nothing else. This was also validated in an article published in the Oxford Islamic Studies Online, "Women and Islam" by John L. Esposito. Esposito earned a PhD studying Islam and held postdoctoral appointments at Harvard and Oxford. He should be to your liking, since he is not a Muslim, but perhaps you will argue that since he now works at Georgetown and his center received an endowment from Saudi Arabia, he is not to be trusted either. Hmmm? <http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e2510>. "In Islam, men and women are moral equals in God's sight and are expected to fulfill the same duties of worship, prayer, faith, almsgiving, fasting, and pilgrimage to Mecca. Islam generally improved the status of women compared to earlier Arab cultures, prohibiting female infanticide and recognizing women's full personhood. Islamic law emphasizes the contractual nature of marriage, requiring that a dowry be paid to the woman rather than to her family, and guaranteeing women's rights of inheritance and to own and manage property. Women were also granted the right to live in the matrimonial home and receive financial maintainance during marriage and a waiting period following death and divorce...The historical record shows that Muhammad consulted women and weighed their opinions seriously. At least one woman, Umm Waraqah , was appointed imam over her household by Muhammad. Women contributed significantly to the canonization of the Quran. A woman is known to have corrected the authoritative ruling of Caliph Umar on dowry. Women prayed in mosques unsegregated from men, were involved in hadith transmission, gave sanctuary to men, engaged in commercial transactions, were encouraged to seek knowledge, and were both instructors and pupils in the early Islamic period. Muhammad's last wife, Aishah , was a well-known authority in medicine, history, and rhetoric. The Quran refers to women who pledged an oath of allegiance to Muhammad independently of their male kin. Some distinguished women converted to Islam prior to their husbands, a demonstration of Islam's recognition of their capacity for independent action. Caliph Umar appointed women to serve as officials in the market of Medina. Biographies of distinguished women, especially in Muhammad's household, show that women behaved relatively autonomously in early Islam. In Sufi circles, women were recognized as teachers, adherents, “spiritual mothers,” and even inheritors of the spiritual secrets of their fathers." I'm sorry, but you do not have a good understanding of Islamic history or pre-islamic history. Your hatred seems to prevent you from reading any source authored by Muslims or Arabs. But why haven't you read what the majority of nonArab and nonMuslim scholars write then? I can only guess that your arrogance will prevent it if they contradict you. I'm quoting or referring to nonMuslim scholars here. It is proof that you persistently publish erroneous, misleading information about Islam to downplay the fact that Islam did elevate the status of women. |