Tell me about Islam

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm beginning to realize that their antagonism is an expression of their fear about the spread of Islam. Islam is the fastest growing religion, not only in the world but also in the US. Moreover, it is growing in the US, not by immigration, but instead by conversion. They know this. They feel terribly threatened by this because they fear Muslims will take over the US and want to convert it to a Sharia state. They fear it will give birth to grops like ISIS.

Like here. You are making an argument that should be rooted in statistics. So where are the sources? Or is it opinion, not fact?

+1. Put me down, too, as wanting to see a source for this claim.

For this claim to work, whoever made it needs to produce two sets of numbers: growth of Islam in the U.S. by immigration, and growth of Islam in the U.S. by conversion. The first number needs to be lower than the second.

So no, "they" don't know it, I certainly don't. But if you post your sources, I might.

Just guessing here, but possibly the argument is that the rate of growth is higher for converts than for immigrants. This would make a certain kind of sense given the relatively low numbers of both converts and immigrants (to the extent we have a very rough idea of orders of magnitude). So, if you start with 2 of something (say, converts), adding 2 more doubles the number for an increase of 100%. But adding 2 to a higher initial base of 100 (immigrants) gives you 102 and an increase of just 2%.

I'm with you, however, in thinking the actual stats don't exist. But if 1st PP does have a source to back up the claim, I'd be grateful for a link.

[Anonymous]

While we await the answers from our Muslim contributors who perhaps have access to non-common sources, here is what precious little is known about Muslim converts:

"How Many People Convert to Islam?" asks The Economist. http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-17

And it answers:

"Calculating convert numbers is tricky. The census in England and Wales does not ask people about their past religions. British mosques do not keep a central record of conversions. Some new believers keep their conversions secret, worried about the reactions of friends and family. But using census data on race and religion, and questionnaires issued to mosques, Kevin Brice, a researcher at the University of Wales Trinity Saint David, calculated that around 5,200 Britons turn to Islam every year, and that the total number of converts is about 100,000. In America calculating conversion rates is even harder. The census does not ask about religion and few mosques keep registers of their members, so even the total number of American Muslims is uncertain, let alone that of converts. In 2007 the Pew Research Centre estimated that there were around 2.4m American Muslims; in 2000 President Bill Clinton made reference to a figure of 6m. Pew reckons that just under a quarter are converts, the majority of them African American. - See more at: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-17#sthash.ixukVELd.dpuf"

And this is from Pew, the cited 2007 study:

More than three-quarters (77%) of Muslim Americans say they have always been a Muslim, while 23% say they converted to Islam; 9-in-10 (91%) converts to Islam were born in the United States, and almost three-fifths (59%) of converts to Islam are African American.
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/converts-to-islam/

On the African-American thing: there was at one point in the 80s and the 90s a strong, Saudi-financed dawa effort directed at African-Americans and woven with the distrust of the white man and the need to find an alternative religion. An American convert Umar Lee wrote an intriguing series about this called The Rise and Fall of Salafi Dawa, the core message of which that the dawa effort taught blacks Islam but it taught them absolutely nothing by way of life skills required to lead a Muslim family life (how to hold a job, how to study, how to pay your bills, how to be married, how to be responsible for your family etc.) The interesting thing is that the Muslim discourse in the U.S. tends to be dominated by educated, wealthy Arabs and Pakistanis and rarely includes a point of view of American-born native Muslims - because they are usually dirt poor, living in the ghetto and not mixing with immigrants with Muslim countries. There is a big community of them in Philly. Many are in prisons. Those usually run matrimonial ads in the back pages of Muslim Link (a newspaper here in DC) that read something like: "Looking for a sister for marriage, age and race unimportant, write to penitentiary # XXX".

In DC, there's a couple of raggedy mosques for this population in the Northeast. I have a rental property in Trinidad and I used to see them at street corners, so recognizable in their highwater pants and long beards, hanging out on the street in the middle of the day, but undoubtedly "on the deen", if you ask them.

But then again, there's Congressman Ellison and Kareem AbdulJabbar and Muhammad Ali. So not all ghetto.

And of course, white girls who want to marry Muslims. The devotion of this crowd usually depends on the stability of their marriages.

[Anonymous]

Another important part of the equation is attrition, those who leave Islam. What does it mean to say that X immigrate plus Y convert, if every year Z are leaving at the same time? It would be inaccurate to just add up annual conversion numbers, like the Economist's source apparently does. I'm sure these attrition stats don't exist either, perhaps in large part because leaving Islam (alive) isn't really contemplated in the religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While we await the answers from our Muslim contributors who perhaps have access to non-common sources, here is what precious little is known about Muslim converts:

"How Many People Convert to Islam?" asks The Economist. http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-17

And it answers:

"Calculating convert numbers is tricky. The census in England and Wales does not ask people about their past religions. British mosques do not keep a central record of conversions. Some new believers keep their conversions secret, worried about the reactions of friends and family. But using census data on race and religion, and questionnaires issued to mosques, Kevin Brice, a researcher at the University of Wales Trinity Saint David, calculated that around 5,200 Britons turn to Islam every year, and that the total number of converts is about 100,000. In America calculating conversion rates is even harder. The census does not ask about religion and few mosques keep registers of their members, so even the total number of American Muslims is uncertain, let alone that of converts. In 2007 the Pew Research Centre estimated that there were around 2.4m American Muslims; in 2000 President Bill Clinton made reference to a figure of 6m. Pew reckons that just under a quarter are converts, the majority of them African American. - See more at: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-17#sthash.ixukVELd.dpuf"

And this is from Pew, the cited 2007 study:

More than three-quarters (77%) of Muslim Americans say they have always been a Muslim, while 23% say they converted to Islam; 9-in-10 (91%) converts to Islam were born in the United States, and almost three-fifths (59%) of converts to Islam are African American.
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/converts-to-islam/

On the African-American thing: there was at one point in the 80s and the 90s a strong, Saudi-financed dawa effort directed at African-Americans and woven with the distrust of the white man and the need to find an alternative religion. An American convert Umar Lee wrote an intriguing series about this called The Rise and Fall of Salafi Dawa, the core message of which that the dawa effort taught blacks Islam but it taught them absolutely nothing by way of life skills required to lead a Muslim family life (how to hold a job, how to study, how to pay your bills, how to be married, how to be responsible for your family etc.) The interesting thing is that the Muslim discourse in the U.S. tends to be dominated by educated, wealthy Arabs and Pakistanis and rarely includes a point of view of American-born native Muslims - because they are usually dirt poor, living in the ghetto and not mixing with immigrants with Muslim countries. There is a big community of them in Philly. Many are in prisons. Those usually run matrimonial ads in the back pages of Muslim Link (a newspaper here in DC) that read something like: "Looking for a sister for marriage, age and race unimportant, write to penitentiary # XXX".

In DC, there's a couple of raggedy mosques for this population in the Northeast. I have a rental property in Trinidad and I used to see them at street corners, so recognizable in their highwater pants and long beards, hanging out on the street in the middle of the day, but undoubtedly "on the deen", if you ask them.

But then again, there's Congressman Ellison and Kareem AbdulJabbar and Muhammad Ali. So not all ghetto.

And of course, white girls who want to marry Muslims. The devotion of this crowd usually depends on the stability of their marriages.

Thanks for these links!

[Anonymous]

What does it say about a "religion of peace" when moderates are afraid to even speak for fear of their lives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another important part of the equation is attrition, those who leave Islam. What does it mean to say that X immigrate plus Y convert, if every year Z are leaving at the same time? It would be inaccurate to just add up annual conversion numbers, like the Economist's source apparently does. I'm sure these attrition stats don't exist either, perhaps in large part because leaving Islam (alive) isn't really contemplated in the religion.

I am completely confident that attrition stats do not exist - for one simple reason that the countries in the best position to gather them - those who list religion on identification papers - usually prohibit Muslims from changing it. Even Bashar Assad's Syria, famously tolerant to Christians, banned proselytizing and made official change of religion FOR MUSLIMS very difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What does it say about a "religion of peace" when moderates are afraid to even speak for fear of their lives?

Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of submission.

That's not to say that Islam doesn't value peace but it does not elevate it above other outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Muhammad was called a pedophile, yet you're offended that I poked fun at "unconsensual"? WTH? And yes the quotes around beauty is sarcasm. If you merely disagreed, you'd simply state you disagree. So if you're going to dish it, better develop a thick skin.

OK, instead we'll all start using the word "rape" to refer to Muslim treatment of female prisoners of war. "Rape" is a word we semi-literates can spell, and we'll just have to forgo the polite euphemisms about consent. Does that work for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is an anonymous forum. I have no idea who used the term "pedophile" and who did not. But it was used and I didn't see too many people jump in to protest usage of that word. And read again. I didn't state that YOU called Muhammad a pedophile. I said "Muhammad was called a pedophile." I was careful not to accuse you. And I absolutely will judge you on not only your writing but how well you defend your points. It presents your knowledge and careful reasoning. There are a couple of you on this board that reason poorly, and I suspect one of those might be you, UNconsensual.

You called Mary a porn queen.... Or if that wasn't you, you didn't criticize it. So I will absolutely judge you on your shameless hypocrisy.

I also judge you for your petty obsession with a typo. If I wanted, I could go after your second-to-last sentence, which is gibberish, but as an adult I know that people don't always proofread carefully, and I also understand that getting vindictive about a typo is childish and petty. You, on the other hand, go straight to childish and petty with the personal insults, also known ad hominems, that are the hallmark of a sleazy debater.

You need to realize that, since you've put yourself out as some sort of representative of Islam, your behavior reflects very poorly on your religion. You're representing Islam, not acting in some cheap sitcom, for Pete's sake.

Obviously, I've embarrassed you by pointing out your "UNconsensual." It wasn't a typo either, but I think you already know that. I have no shameless hypocrisy. I do have great respect for Mary. But I have no qualms about using her to illustrate the lunacy of the accusation against another important figure to me. There is no truth to my suggestion that Jesus's birth was a disgrace to her. It was merely to illustrate the weakness in your own (or others) argument that Muhammad must have been a pedophile.

I am not "putting myself out as some sort of representative of Islam." I'm standing up to vile criticism about a very important religious figure to me. If you can not write properly or defend your points well, sit down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ms. Bano had an islamic marriage apparently. Yet when her husband kicked her out, she wanted Indian divorce law to apply. Can't have it both ways. If you choose to have an islamic marriage, then you've essentially signed a contract, similar to a prenup, and your divorce will also be under Islamic law. Ms. Begum should have collected her dowry and her male relatives should have supported her. That would have been the proper thing to do.
You brought up this case because it triggers a lot of negative emotions about the way the husband treated his wife and you hoped this would reflect badly on Islam. It doesn't. It reflects badly on the husband. He was a cad. He took a second wife, which he claims he was permissible to do under Islam, and then kicked his first wife out along with their five children. He was a monster who did grave injustice to his wife. He, in no way, behaved islamically. First of all, a husband may not arbitrarily take a second wife simply on a whim. Secondly, the husband may not kick his wife out without providing accommodations for her (at minimum the dowry and any gifts he bestowed to her). Thirdly, he cut off his relations with his five children, several of them who were adult males and would have received inheritance from him to help support their mother. And lastly, the wife was opting out and trying to receive support via Indian nonIslamic law rather than Islamic law even though her marriage contract was under Islamic law.

This case was a classic example of what happens when islamic law doesn't apply. Ms. Bano should simply have been supported by her male relatives. If that happened, there would have been no need for her to seek support from her husband.

On the contrary, I don't see how the husband behaved un-Islamically. Let's unpack:

Firstly, there is no limitation in Shariah on the reasons to take a second wife. It is sufficient that a man decides to marry again, and as long as the total number of wives is under four, and all are treated equally, it doesn't matter if he married on a whim or upon serious deliberation. Marrying on a whim doesn't invalidate the marriage. If you are aware of limitations on "arbitrary" taking of second wives, please post evidence.

I said many pages ago that I do NOT base my answers or defense of Islam on the Sharia, as Sharia is MAN MADE law. I base my answers on primarily on the Quran. The Sharia is flawed and does not accurate reflect what God intended. You can not google research Islam or read one or two books to understand it completely. There are huge loopholes in your understanding of the rationale of Islam. You must speak with a few scholars or reputable imams to clarify your questions. Here is one article that provides a couple of passages which explain under what terms more than one wife is permitted: http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/part_3/polygamy_in_quran_(P1411).html It may NOT be permitted on a whim. It is an extremely serious decision with very narrow boundaries.


Secondly, there is nothing un-Islamic about kicking out the wife you divorced. As long as the man maintained her for three months after the divorce, he is within his rights to kick her out once the three months are over. He is not responsible for her living expenses once three months are over.

This previous statement is what leads me to believe you have never spoken to any reputable scholar or Imam about divorce in Islam. You have never read scholarly work either. Stop relying on the Sharia! It is not the word of God, it is merely man's interpretation of God's law! Here is a better article that explains post divorce support requirement in Islam: http://iiit.org/Research/ScholarsSummerInstitute/TableofContents2008/PostDivorceFinancialSupport/tabid/254/Default.aspx


Thirdly, yes, the wife retains her dowry and any gifts she received. In this case, there is no evidence that she didn't. There is, however, no requirement that the dowry should be of substantial size, in fact, the scripture encourages modest dowries, and there is no law against NOT giving your wife gifts.

Again, you must be parsing through the cliff notes version of the Sharia somewhere on the web. This article explains it well and will correct your misunderstanding:
http://iiit.org/Research/ScholarsSummerInstitute/TableofContents2008/PostDivorceFinancialSupport/tabid/254/Default.aspx


Fourthly, there is no inheritance without death of parent. That he cut off adult male children is undesirable but it has nothing to do with inheritance. The act that triggers inheritance is death. Do you have evidence that the adult, male children did not receive inheritance after the husband's death?

Do I have evidence that the adult male children did not receive their inheritance? No. I have the testimony of the adult children, however, that the father severed his relationship with them, which is a strong indication that the father may have disinherited them in his will also. Therefore, the adult male children may never have been compensated for supporting their mother.

So yes, this case was in complete compliance with Islamic law. And it still left an old woman without means. She protested because she realized Islamic law left her with a very raw deal. You may think it is preferable for the woman to always depend on her male relatives for support. I prefer to think that the husband and wife own the wealth built during the marriage together, and the dissolution of marriage means it should be split between the divorcing parties. A woman who invested thirty years into home-making, supporting her husband and bearing his children deserves more than three months of maintenance. So I personally find the Islamic marital laws on that particular subject lacking with regard to rights of the homemaker spouse.

Bano Begum protested because the Sharia is not effective nor does it provide an adequate and lawful remedy for divorced women. This doesn't reflect poorly on Islam or the Quran. It reflects poorly on the men who developed the Sharia. In true Islam, Bano Begum would have received a handsome entitlement because she and her husband were wealthy.

Btw, I see no dignity in divorcing women fighting like animals for every penny they can get from the men who cheated or dumped them. Even Bano Begum said she felt humiliated by the long, seven year process. I see greater dignity in receiving support from loved ones and family members.

In the Bano case, the Sharia was ineffective to provide adequate support for Ms. Bano. The Sharia doesn't necessarily interpret the Quran well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another important part of the equation is attrition, those who leave Islam. What does it mean to say that X immigrate plus Y convert, if every year Z are leaving at the same time? It would be inaccurate to just add up annual conversion numbers, like the Economist's source apparently does. I'm sure these attrition stats don't exist either, perhaps in large part because leaving Islam (alive) isn't really contemplated in the religion.

Spoken like a true, ignorant non Muslim. Are you quoting your cliff notes of the Sharia or the real Quran? In the Quran it clearly states " There is no compulsion in Islam," meaning conversion may NOT be forced and the religion may not be forced on a person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[
Obviously, I've embarrassed you by pointing out your "UNconsensual." It wasn't a typo either, but I think you already know that. I have no shameless hypocrisy. I do have great respect for Mary. But I have no qualms about using her to illustrate the lunacy of the accusation against another important figure to me. There is no truth to my suggestion that Jesus's birth was a disgrace to her. It was merely to illustrate the weakness in your own (or others) argument that Muhammad must have been a pedophile.

I am not "putting myself out as some sort of representative of Islam." I'm standing up to vile criticism about a very important religious figure to me. If you can not write properly or defend your points well, sit down.

Speaking of bad logic, you still fail to see a key distinction between Mary and Mohammed that several posters have pointed out to you. Or, you're pretending not to see it. I'll put it in caps, because it seems so necessary for you. MARY HAD NO CHOICE IN BECOMING PREGNANT. MOHAMMAD HAD A CHOICE ABOUT THE 9-YEAR-OLD GIRL, AISHA.

Also, I regret now that I ever tried to be respectful to you, and consistently referred to Islam's treatment of women captives as "non-consensual sex." (99% of the time! Except for that single blip!) I think it's sort of funny, and very revealing, that you keep harping on UNCONSENSUAL, because the moderator can confirm I'm on an iPad, and the record of the many, many times I said "non-consensual" is there for anybody to see. Everybody reading this understands what's really going on: you're angry, but you have no real arguments in response to the multiple holes several of us have poked in your so-called "logic." No, you haven't embarrassed me--you're embarrassing yourself, because you're like a child who loses an argument and starts calling people names.

I'm done with the effort to be respectful. Let's rephrase, shall we? ISLAM PERMITS MUSLIM SOLDIERS TO RAPE NON-MUSLIM WOMEN CAPTIVES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another important part of the equation is attrition, those who leave Islam. What does it mean to say that X immigrate plus Y convert, if every year Z are leaving at the same time? It would be inaccurate to just add up annual conversion numbers, like the Economist's source apparently does. I'm sure these attrition stats don't exist either, perhaps in large part because leaving Islam (alive) isn't really contemplated in the religion.

Spoken like a true, ignorant non Muslim. Are you quoting your cliff notes of the Sharia or the real Quran? In the Quran it clearly states " There is no compulsion in Islam," meaning conversion may NOT be forced and the religion may not be forced on a person.

Wow, you're a real piece of work! It's like you throw lies out there, and you hope nobody will notice.

Yes, the part about compulsion refers to conversion. FWIW, there's endless debate about whether compulsion refers to conversion by the sword, or whether tax and other pressures of dhimmi status status play a role in "compelling" conversion.

The word "attrition" refers to people leaving Islam, and attrition is the subject of the para you quoted. As you know, the punishment for apostasy is death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While we await the answers from our Muslim contributors who perhaps have access to non-common sources, here is what precious little is known about Muslim converts:

"How Many People Convert to Islam?" asks The Economist. http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-17

And it answers:

"Calculating convert numbers is tricky. The census in England and Wales does not ask people about their past religions. British mosques do not keep a central record of conversions. Some new believers keep their conversions secret, worried about the reactions of friends and family. But using census data on race and religion, and questionnaires issued to mosques, Kevin Brice, a researcher at the University of Wales Trinity Saint David, calculated that around 5,200 Britons turn to Islam every year, and that the total number of converts is about 100,000. In America calculating conversion rates is even harder. The census does not ask about religion and few mosques keep registers of their members, so even the total number of American Muslims is uncertain, let alone that of converts. In 2007 the Pew Research Centre estimated that there were around 2.4m American Muslims; in 2000 President Bill Clinton made reference to a figure of 6m. Pew reckons that just under a quarter are converts, the majority of them African American. - See more at: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-17#sthash.ixukVELd.dpuf"

And this is from Pew, the cited 2007 study:

More than three-quarters (77%) of Muslim Americans say they have always been a Muslim, while 23% say they converted to Islam; 9-in-10 (91%) converts to Islam were born in the United States, and almost three-fifths (59%) of converts to Islam are African American.
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/converts-to-islam/

On the African-American thing: there was at one point in the 80s and the 90s a strong, Saudi-financed dawa effort directed at African-Americans and woven with the distrust of the white man and the need to find an alternative religion. An American convert Umar Lee wrote an intriguing series about this called The Rise and Fall of Salafi Dawa, the core message of which that the dawa effort taught blacks Islam but it taught them absolutely nothing by way of life skills required to lead a Muslim family life (how to hold a job, how to study, how to pay your bills, how to be married, how to be responsible for your family etc.) The interesting thing is that the Muslim discourse in the U.S. tends to be dominated by educated, wealthy Arabs and Pakistanis and rarely includes a point of view of American-born native Muslims - because they are usually dirt poor, living in the ghetto and not mixing with immigrants with Muslim countries. There is a big community of them in Philly. Many are in prisons. Those usually run matrimonial ads in the back pages of Muslim Link (a newspaper here in DC) that read something like: "Looking for a sister for marriage, age and race unimportant, write to penitentiary # XXX".

In DC, there's a couple of raggedy mosques for this population in the Northeast. I have a rental property in Trinidad and I used to see them at street corners, so recognizable in their highwater pants and long beards, hanging out on the street in the middle of the day, but undoubtedly "on the deen", if you ask them.

But then again, there's Congressman Ellison and Kareem AbdulJabbar and Muhammad Ali. So not all ghetto.

And of course, white girls who want to marry Muslims. The devotion of this crowd usually depends on the stability of their marriages.

Thanks for these links!

I will look for the evidence you seek regarding the numbers. Meanwhile, why devote so much to explaining that some percentage of Islam includes ghetto or African Americans? WTH? Why is the color of their skin or economic status noteworthy in discussing population numbers? Regardless of color of skin and economic status, they COUNT. Moreover, Islam does not care about the color of anyone's skin or economic status. People from France to African Americans are converting and in God's eyes their devotion is equal. Perhaps this is why so many African Americans do convert to Islam- they feel welcomed in Islam. However, what I described to you in previous pages was the face of the new Muslim. The new Muslim will be a blend of mixed races. And every successive generation will be more wealthy. Iranian Muslims, Arab Muslims, and Pakistan Muslims that are first generation are fairly wealthy and well educated. This pattern will continue. You would never recognize my kids as " Muslim" if you saw them. This is the new face of Islam. But the new generation is not losing their faith in the process of assimilation.

Soon there will be a Muslim on every block if not in every house. Everyone will know at least one Muslim. I am not trying to frighten you with this prediction; its simply the direction we are headed in. So its not wise to alienate such a large population by insults about our religion or references to people in our faith who live in ghetto's...

[Anonymous]

This sounds like your fantasy more than any possible reality.

Also, why did you assume PP's reference to African American converts was somehow pejorative? I didn't read it that way. This seems to be your problem, not hers.

Also, ghettos not ghetto's.