Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This shows that you keep moving the goal posts. This is an agenda driven campaign, not a truth seeking campaign. You are looking for any angle to vilify Islam or disprove Muslims, but some of your viewpoints are in direct contradiction to other, previously expressed viewpoints.

And this is why media outlets were called, you exemplify the type of person anti Islam organizations tend to use to spread hate for political gain. No one else will study Islam so extensively to spew hate 24/7 using blogs with large audiences. No one will move the goal posts so often that they sometimes unwittingly end up even contradicting themselves at times, like you just did here.

Even if the investigative journalist can not find out the organization you work for, at minimum articles will be written about islamophobia using your posts. But I am hopeful they will determine the name of the group you work for, since a couple leaders of the Muslim communities will be assisting the writer in her assignment and they seem to have knowledge about this.

There you are wagging your finger again, in your childish, helpless rage. No one is afraid of the media or the leaders of the "Muslim communities". I'm afraid your hopes will be dashed. Behind the posts you find so objectionable is not one shadowy organization, but simply two or three educated kaffirahs. You're just mad that you didn't find an adoring audience here that you thought you would. Muslims don't expect non-Muslims to know very much about Islam, and the self-styled dawwah-wallahs like you especially don't like to be contradicted with actual evidence. Perhaps in your mind no one who studies Islam can avoid loving it. Well, it happens. And since Jeff isn't giving out IP addresses, I'm afraid you'll have to make do with our anonymity.

Different PP here. Let's deconstruct this. An "investigative journalist" who is a "she" is supposedly looking into a DCUM poster's alleged affiliations with shadowy, as-yet-unnamed anti-Islam groups. "She" is going to ask local "Muslim community leaders" rather than the obvious choice--CAIR--about the existence of as-yet-unidentified anti-Islam groups.

(And now for a quick digression. How silly is that? Why doesn't "she" just ask the guru on all things anti-Islam, CAIR, to give her a list of the usual suspects. Because, heaven knows, there are already some well-known anti-Islam bloggers and groups who seem more likely than speculating about the existence of shadowy, as-yet-unknown groups. Or why not ask CAIR about emerging groups the "investigative journalist" hasn't yet heard about? But I digress.)

I get it now.

Translation: you yourself are hoping to to write an article. You have told us several times that you used to work as a journalist. You plan to interview several local Muslim community leaders, people who are maybe your friends and acquaintances, in order to fish for possible leads. You had talked for a while about how you were contacting CAIR, but apparently CAIR told you to take a hike because you haven't mentioned CAIR recently. While it's true these local leaders probably wouldn't mind or deny a quick conversation with you, you have know way of knowing whether they have better dirt on as-yet-unnamed anti-Islam groups. One thing is certain: the moderator doesn't think there is a shadowy group, he won't be handing out IP addresses, and the kcal leaders can't help you with this. It also remains to be seen whether any reputable publication will accept your article.

Fishing again. Why so nervous? CAIR is relatively uninvolved but was used only as a resource for information. Stay tuned in the coming months to your news sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Khadija was an Arab woman.
Khadija was a rich businesswoman.
Therefore, all Arab women are rich businesswomen.

This is a faulty logic example not even fit as an LSAT test question.

Surely, you can reason better than that.

Nope, it's not faulty logic. Just because you've miscast it, it doesn't make it faulty. This is how it goes:

Khadija was a rich businesswoman who owned money and property, hired her own workers, and made her own decisions on whom to marry.

Where there is one, there sure were others.

Is there evidence that Khadija was an exception rather than a typical case?

Therefore, the claims that all women in jahiliya had no rights and were treated like objects are counteracted by at least one example. Some were. Some weren't. Perhaps it wasn't a bad bad place that Muslims say it was, and clearly not for ALL women.

It also negates the oft-repeated claim that "Islam granted women property rights" since women owned property long before Islam came on the scene.

In addition, we have Quranic testimony that women in jahiliya were given dowries.

Please read The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence. The authors, Juergensmeyer, Kitts, and Jerryson are American scholars or professors in religious study. They state that in early 7th century Arabia there were numerous societal abuses such as female infanticide, bodily abuses, abuse of the poor, orphans, and the marginal but the revelations from Muhammad were clear, incontrovertible challenges to the societal norms of Mecca and these social abuses. They prohibited female infanticide and many other kinds of abuses.

Read also the Oxford Islamic Studies, http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t243/e370, which states:

"Before the rise of Islam in the early 600s, Arabs lived in a traditional, patriarchal (male-dominated) society. Men regarded women as their property, to be married or divorced at will. No limitations on polygyny existed. Women generally did not have a say in the choice of a husband. Once married, they lacked financial security, as the groom's dowry was paid directly to the bride's male relatives. Female infanticide (the killing of baby girls at birth) was common."

It distinguishes this period of jahiliyah, the time before Islam, with the status of women after Islam:

"With Islam, the status of women improved considerably. The Qur'an and the sunnah emphasized the spiritual equality of all Muslims. Islamic law recognized a woman's right to choose her own marriage partner, and it set limits on the practice of polygyny. A man could have as many as four wives, if he could provide for and treat them equally. Islamic regulations also defined marriage as a contract between a man and a woman or a man and a woman's legal guardian (wali). They also required the groom to pay the dowry directly to the bride. In addition, the Qur'an and sunnah specified that women are entitled to inherit wealth and that married women should be able to control their own money and property. These sources further stated that husbands must support their wives financially during marriage and for a certain period after a divorce."

It's pretty clear that the vast majority of scholars in the field of religious studies acknowledge the period of of Jahiliyah and also state that Islam did much to improve the lives of people.

This leads me to wonder…if this information is easily accessible with research, why are you publishing false statements about Islam?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
First, or maybe I should say again, please distinguish between real Islam and the practice of it. This is a mistake you make repeatedly.

I don't believe I do.

Anonymous wrote:
You repeatedly ask for evidence for various points, but disregard evidence of Muslim authorship or Muslim testimony or even Arab testimony. In your eyes, arabs and Muslims are inherently liars and their testimony is not to be trusted. But who do you expect will provide accounts of Arab history, if not the Arabs? Its like saying the Boston Tea Party never took place because you mistrust the Americans who were the only people who left accounts of it.

That's a bad comparison. Not all Americans supported the Boston Tea Party. I'm sure if you asked the British to write that account, it would have been very different.

Islam is a product at the marketplace of ideas. Every product in the marketplace makes an effort, covert or overt, to make itself look better compared to its rivals. Look at the Tide detergent commercial that shows side-by-side how stains disappear to get an idea.

Anonymous wrote:
Societies do not have to be monochrome in their treatment of women? You spent hundreds of pages in various Islam threads fighting to prove Islam opresses and mistreats women. Yet now you hold khadija as representative of how great Arab women had it. Which is it then? Islam oppressed women or despite Islam, many women grew to the ranks of successful businesswomen?

Khadija achieved wealth and independence pre-Islam. There is therefore zero contradiction between her status and treatment of women in Islam since Islam had nothing to do whatsoever with her position. I wonder why you conflate the two. Just for the sake of saying I contradicted myself? Should have picked a better example. That one sucks.

Anonymous wrote:
This shows that you keep moving the goal posts. This is an agenda driven campaign, not a truth seeking campaign. You are looking for any angle to vilify Islam or disprove Muslims, but some of your viewpoints are in direct contradiction to other, previously expressed viewpoints.

And this is why media outlets were called, you exemplify the type of person anti Islam organizations tend to use to spread hate for political gain. No one else will study Islam so extensively to spew hate 24/7 using blogs with large audiences. No one will move the goal posts so often that they sometimes unwittingly end up even contradicting themselves at times, like you just did here.

Even if the investigative journalist can not find out the organization you work for, at minimum articles will be written about islamophobia using your posts. But I am hopeful they will determine the name of the group you work for, since a couple leaders of the Muslim communities will be assisting the writer in her assignment and they seem to have knowledge about this.

There you are wagging your finger again, in your childish, helpless rage. No one is afraid of the media or the leaders of the "Muslim communities". I'm afraid your hopes will be dashed. Behind the posts you find so objectionable is not one shadowy organization, but simply two or three educated kaffirahs. You're just mad that you didn't find an adoring audience here that you thought you would. Muslims don't expect non-Muslims to know very much about Islam, and the self-styled dawwah-wallahs like you especially don't like to be contradicted with actual evidence. Perhaps in your mind no one who studies Islam can avoid loving it. Well, it happens. And since Jeff isn't giving out IP addresses, I'm afraid you'll have to make do with our anonymity.

Did Jeff say he wouldn't give out IP addresses or did he say he wouldn't give out IP addresses unless he learned that any one of you belonged to an islamophobe organization?

As much as you would like to picture me in a childish and helpless rage, it is simply not my way. I respond to blatant discrimination and islamophobia by simply using my resources. I contacted several Imams throughout the country who have a good relationship with various writers at well known media outlets. I also have contacted other writers directly. I also use interfaith organizations and American Islamic relations organization in the US and abroad.

As ugly as these islamophobic posts are, they are now extremely useful and may be published in articles about islamophobia throughout this country. So, no reason for rage here.

OP, I'm stunned that you revived this thread for no other purpose than to continue your little cat fights with other posters.

Also, have you never heard westerners complain that whether or not Islam helped 7th century women, we're not satisfied, in the 21st century, with modifications to the dowry system and a "limitation" that the husband can "only" take four wives?

Nobody is the slightest bit interested that somebody as childish and inept as you are might be sending crabby emails, excuse me, "contacting" a few acquaintances or names you found in a directory, excuse me, "reaching out" to your "resources." So you sent a crabby email or two to a few people. Your expectations from these people, um, your "resources," are as delusional as your expectations about what the moderator might do for you. To the extent any of these people were real "resources," you've burned them.

Because what do you think is going to happen when they read the actual thread and they see, you you know, disagreements instead of the Islamophobia you keep alleging? Your communications go straight into the trash can/the delete key and alphabet heaven.

[Anonymous]

Eh...you brought books that regurgitate what the Quran says, quoting nothing but Quran, and called them sources?

I thought you had a PhD or something? Isn't Research Design a prereq for that degree? Shouldn't they have taught you the meaning of the word "source"? It isn't more books referring to the book you mentioned. That's circular arguing. A big no-no. A PhD program usually covers that, you know.

Women owned and inherited property long before Islam showed up.

Islam did absolutely nothing to curtail the men's rights to divorce at will, on the contrary, it enshrined it in law.

I also note that the source you quoted confirms my (and every other scholar's) interpretation of the rule on polygamy - four wives, treated equally. Not the outlandish theory you posted that "it applied only in wartime with the strictest rules, on an exceptional basis." I am pleased I corrected you when you first came up with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Did Jeff say he wouldn't give out IP addresses or did he say he wouldn't give out IP addresses unless he learned that any one of you belonged to an islamophobe organization?

The latter - and he also said it's unlikely since he believes it wasn't sock puppeting so firmly, he has no intention of checking.

Anonymous wrote:
As much as you would like to picture me in a childish and helpless rage, it is simply not my way.

Actually, it IS your way - and your plentiful, personal insults of other posters insinuating bad mothering, bad cooking, porn- and drug-abusing children, bad teeth, STD infestations, age-inappropriate miniskirts, etc. - stand in stark reminder of that across many threads that you started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did Jeff say he wouldn't give out IP addresses or did he say he wouldn't give out IP addresses unless he learned that any one of you belonged to an islamophobe organization?

The latter - and he also said it's unlikely since he believes it wasn't sock puppeting so firmly, he has no intention of checking.

Anonymous wrote:
As much as you would like to picture me in a childish and helpless rage, it is simply not my way.

Actually, it IS your way - and your plentiful, personal insults of other posters insinuating bad mothering, bad cooking, porn- and drug-abusing children, bad teeth, STD infestations, age-inappropriate miniskirts, etc. - stand in stark reminder of that across many threads that you started.

Insinuating? Heck, she actually called me a bad cook whose husband is about to divorce her and whose kid is into drugs and porn. She really did call somebody else a gap-toothed redneck and she really did call somebody else again an mini-skirted wearing granny. She asked all of us for our pap smears to check for STDs--or maybe she was just asking one poster for her pap smear, unfortunately it's hard to keep track of her many insults.

I wish I had kept track, however, of all the times somebody told OP, "you made that up" or "you twisted that around." It must be in the dozens by now. This "threat" to publish an article clearly belongs in the same box as all her other fabrications.

Childish? I wish. Infantile is more like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
First, or maybe I should say again, please distinguish between real Islam and the practice of it. This is a mistake you make repeatedly.

I don't believe I do.

Anonymous wrote:
You repeatedly ask for evidence for various points, but disregard evidence of Muslim authorship or Muslim testimony or even Arab testimony. In your eyes, arabs and Muslims are inherently liars and their testimony is not to be trusted. But who do you expect will provide accounts of Arab history, if not the Arabs? Its like saying the Boston Tea Party never took place because you mistrust the Americans who were the only people who left accounts of it.

That's a bad comparison. Not all Americans supported the Boston Tea Party. I'm sure if you asked the British to write that account, it would have been very different.

Islam is a product at the marketplace of ideas. Every product in the marketplace makes an effort, covert or overt, to make itself look better compared to its rivals. Look at the Tide detergent commercial that shows side-by-side how stains disappear to get an idea.

Anonymous wrote:
Societies do not have to be monochrome in their treatment of women? You spent hundreds of pages in various Islam threads fighting to prove Islam opresses and mistreats women. Yet now you hold khadija as representative of how great Arab women had it. Which is it then? Islam oppressed women or despite Islam, many women grew to the ranks of successful businesswomen?

Khadija achieved wealth and independence pre-Islam. There is therefore zero contradiction between her status and treatment of women in Islam since Islam had nothing to do whatsoever with her position. I wonder why you conflate the two. Just for the sake of saying I contradicted myself? Should have picked a better example. That one sucks.

Anonymous wrote:
This shows that you keep moving the goal posts. This is an agenda driven campaign, not a truth seeking campaign. You are looking for any angle to vilify Islam or disprove Muslims, but some of your viewpoints are in direct contradiction to other, previously expressed viewpoints.

And this is why media outlets were called, you exemplify the type of person anti Islam organizations tend to use to spread hate for political gain. No one else will study Islam so extensively to spew hate 24/7 using blogs with large audiences. No one will move the goal posts so often that they sometimes unwittingly end up even contradicting themselves at times, like you just did here.

Even if the investigative journalist can not find out the organization you work for, at minimum articles will be written about islamophobia using your posts. But I am hopeful they will determine the name of the group you work for, since a couple leaders of the Muslim communities will be assisting the writer in her assignment and they seem to have knowledge about this.

There you are wagging your finger again, in your childish, helpless rage. No one is afraid of the media or the leaders of the "Muslim communities". I'm afraid your hopes will be dashed. Behind the posts you find so objectionable is not one shadowy organization, but simply two or three educated kaffirahs. You're just mad that you didn't find an adoring audience here that you thought you would. Muslims don't expect non-Muslims to know very much about Islam, and the self-styled dawwah-wallahs like you especially don't like to be contradicted with actual evidence. Perhaps in your mind no one who studies Islam can avoid loving it. Well, it happens. And since Jeff isn't giving out IP addresses, I'm afraid you'll have to make do with our anonymity.

Did Jeff say he wouldn't give out IP addresses or did he say he wouldn't give out IP addresses unless he learned that any one of you belonged to an islamophobe organization?

As much as you would like to picture me in a childish and helpless rage, it is simply not my way. I respond to blatant discrimination and islamophobia by simply using my resources. I contacted several Imams throughout the country who have a good relationship with various writers at well known media outlets. I also have contacted other writers directly. I also use interfaith organizations and American Islamic relations organization in the US and abroad.

As ugly as these islamophobic posts are, they are now extremely useful and may be published in articles about islamophobia throughout this country. So, no reason for rage here.

OP, I'm stunned that you revived this thread for no other purpose than to continue your little cat fights with other posters.

Also, have you never heard westerners complain that whether or not Islam helped 7th century women, we're not satisfied, in the 21st century, with modifications to the dowry system and a "limitation" that the husband can "only" take four wives?

Nobody is the slightest bit interested that somebody as childish and inept as you are might be sending crabby emails, excuse me, "contacting" a few acquaintances or names you found in a directory, excuse me, "reaching out" to your "resources." So you sent a crabby email or two to a few people. Your expectations from these people, um, your "resources," are as delusional as your expectations about what the moderator might do for you. To the extent any of these people were real "resources," you've burned them.

Because what do you think is going to happen when they read the actual thread and they see, you you know, disagreements instead of the Islamophobia you keep alleging? Your communications go straight into the trash can/the delete key and alphabet heaven.

The insults are simply a reflection of your growing anger. The possibility that someone might write an article upsets you, and so you feel the need to come out swinging. Let it go, PP. If you have done nothing wrong, no articles will be written. No organization will be uncovered. If you or others have done something wrong, they will be and it will be for the best. After all, if you are engaging in islamophobic behavior and don't realize it, the publication of the articles will help you to realize that you need to curb this kind of behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Fishing again. Why so nervous? CAIR is relatively uninvolved but was used only as a resource for information. Stay tuned in the coming months to your news sources.

Don't tell me...you got told Hooper is in a three-day retreat, unavailable for comment? Uh-huh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The insults are simply a reflection of your growing anger. The possibility that someone might write an article upsets you, and so you feel the need to come out swinging. Let it go, PP. If you have done nothing wrong, no articles will be written. No organization will be uncovered. If you or others have done something wrong, they will be and it will be for the best. After all, if you are engaging in islamophobic behavior and don't realize it, the publication of the articles will help you to realize that you need to curb this kind of behavior.

Not that poster, but actually, you're making me giggle, not angry. You are genuinely amusing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The insults are simply a reflection of your growing anger. The possibility that someone might write an article upsets you, and so you feel the need to come out swinging. Let it go, PP. If you have done nothing wrong, no articles will be written. No organization will be uncovered. If you or others have done something wrong, they will be and it will be for the best. After all, if you are engaging in islamophobic behavior and don't realize it, the publication of the articles will help you to realize that you need to curb this kind of behavior.

At least she offered no comment on your husband, your child, your cooking skills, your dental health, the length of your skirt or your intimate health. Give credit where it's due, will ya?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The insults are simply a reflection of your growing anger. The possibility that someone might write an article upsets you, and so you feel the need to come out swinging. Let it go, PP. If you have done nothing wrong, no articles will be written. No organization will be uncovered. If you or others have done something wrong, they will be and it will be for the best. After all, if you are engaging in islamophobic behavior and don't realize it, the publication of the articles will help you to realize that you need to curb this kind of behavior.

Not that poster, but actually, you're making me giggle, not angry. You are genuinely amusing.

If somebody calling you "childish" and "inept" is a sign that whoever said these things is "angry" and "upset,"

... then what are we to make of your own behavior? Because those aren't even in the same league as bad cook bad mother gap-toothed mini-skirt wearing granny with STDs. Not to mention Christian-evangelical-crusader-Islamophobe or, ahem, fabricating a fake newspaper piece sourced to fake "resources." You must be positively nuclear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The insults are simply a reflection of your growing anger. The possibility that someone might write an article upsets you, and so you feel the need to come out swinging. Let it go, PP. If you have done nothing wrong, no articles will be written. No organization will be uncovered. If you or others have done something wrong, they will be and it will be for the best. After all, if you are engaging in islamophobic behavior and don't realize it, the publication of the articles will help you to realize that you need to curb this kind of behavior.

Not that poster, but actually, you're making me giggle, not angry. You are genuinely amusing.

+1. Not to mention, there's some serious back-peddling going on above. Lots and lots of qualifications and conditionals in this latest iteration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did Jeff say he wouldn't give out IP addresses or did he say he wouldn't give out IP addresses unless he learned that any one of you belonged to an islamophobe organization?

The latter - and he also said it's unlikely since he believes it wasn't sock puppeting so firmly, he has no intention of checking.

Anonymous wrote:
As much as you would like to picture me in a childish and helpless rage, it is simply not my way.

Actually, it IS your way - and your plentiful, personal insults of other posters insinuating bad mothering, bad cooking, porn- and drug-abusing children, bad teeth, STD infestations, age-inappropriate miniskirts, etc. - stand in stark reminder of that across many threads that you started.

The way Jeff would learn if there is an islamophobe organization is through the writer. Even if sock puppeting were going on, it would not prove that an organization were behind the islamophobic posts.

I have already apologized for the other comments long ago. If you can not move

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did Jeff say he wouldn't give out IP addresses or did he say he wouldn't give out IP addresses unless he learned that any one of you belonged to an islamophobe organization?

The latter - and he also said it's unlikely since he believes it wasn't sock puppeting so firmly, he has no intention of checking.

Anonymous wrote:
As much as you would like to picture me in a childish and helpless rage, it is simply not my way.

Actually, it IS your way - and your plentiful, personal insults of other posters insinuating bad mothering, bad cooking, porn- and drug-abusing children, bad teeth, STD infestations, age-inappropriate miniskirts, etc. - stand in stark reminder of that across many threads that you started.

The way Jeff would learn if there is an islamophobe organization is through the writer. Even if sock puppeting were going on, it would not prove that an organization were behind the islamophobic posts.

I have already apologized for the other comments long ago. If you can not move on from that, it's no longer my issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did Jeff say he wouldn't give out IP addresses or did he say he wouldn't give out IP addresses unless he learned that any one of you belonged to an islamophobe organization?

The latter - and he also said it's unlikely since he believes it wasn't sock puppeting so firmly, he has no intention of checking.

Anonymous wrote:
As much as you would like to picture me in a childish and helpless rage, it is simply not my way.

Actually, it IS your way - and your plentiful, personal insults of other posters insinuating bad mothering, bad cooking, porn- and drug-abusing children, bad teeth, STD infestations, age-inappropriate miniskirts, etc. - stand in stark reminder of that across many threads that you started.

The way Jeff would learn if there is an islamophobe organization is through the writer. Even if sock puppeting were going on, it would not prove that an organization were behind the islamophobic posts.

I have already apologized for the other comments long ago. If you can not move on from that, it's no longer my issue.

Did someone tell you your apology was accepted? At the very least, you can apologize for each separate insult. You think a paltry two-line post will be enough to overshadow dozens of insults you posted?

It's up to the injured party to forgive, not the other way around. You should know. It's like offering blood money - up to the family to forgive, not the offerer. Until someone tells you your apology was accepted, I will take pleasure in bringing up your past transgressions.

And it looks like you talked yourself into a perfect corner that it isn't actually possible to prove that an organization was behind the "islamophobic", i.e. not-agreeable-to-you posts.