The subtle micro aggressions of islamophobia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Were you the one who said I was getting Jeff to help me get IP addresses? I asked you to reproduce the post where I said that. Where's the post??

Wow, you lie shamelessly! You lie through your teeth! Moreover, your lying doesn't just involve your completely improbably fantasies about Oxbridge and Harvard. No, you lie about things that actually happened on DCUM threads, which everybody can go back and check.

Let's look at this particular case.

You claimed that people said you were asking for IP addresses. That was you putting words into other peoples' mouths, and you've done it twice now (on this issue - apparently you've done it many more times on other issues). I'm the one that answered you, yesterday, to say that nobody thinks you asked the moderator for IP addresses. Basically, we don't think you asked the moderator for IP addresses because ... we don't think you know enough about IP addresses to even ask the moderator for them.

Here's the answer you were given yesterday, from the Biblical Mysteries thread, at 11/5 at 6:47:

Anonymous wrote:No. You never brought up IPs because apparently you never understood anything about them. Otherwise you would never have claimed, as you did repeatedly, that the moderator was ready to help you figure out which "unnamed Islamophobe" oeganizations were posting here. If you had understood IPs you could have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment.

Proof that you don't know anything about IP addresses is that once they were explained to you, yesterday, you completely stopped claiming that posters' identities were going to be revealed. Now you've switched gears completely, and instead you're going with this laughable nonsense about how the "anonymous face of Islamophobia" on a parenting site will be discussed at Oxbridge and Harvard. As if.

Fine. Then reproduce the post where I infer Jeff will help me find the islamophobe organizations. Waiting...

[Anonymous]

Just so we know who the players are:

People who agree with OP (we will have to take OP's word for all of these, except the historians, for whom she provided actual quotes): CAIR, various unidentified "investigative journalists," various Muslim historians, and all of Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge.

Posters who disagree with OP: gap-toothed mini-skirt-wearing christian-evangelical-crusader-islamophobic grannies with porn-addicted children and STDs. Also, Harvard prof Dr. Ahmed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"the ethical injunctions of Islam were rarely translated into enforceable laws. Only texts that orthodox theologians, legists, and philosophers (the likes of Al-Ghazali) created were--and continue to be--regarded as the core prescriptive texts of Islam. But Ahmed also makes it clear that this intense misogyny was neither originally nor exclusively Muslim in character, but rather the consequence of a cultural negotiation between Islam and "an urban Middle East with already well-articulated misogynist attitudes and practices":
[B]y licensing polygamy, concubinage, and easy
divorce for men, originally allowed under
different circumstances in a different society,
Islam lent itself to being interpreted as
endorsing and giving religious sanction to a
deeply negative and debased conception of women. "

Islam did license polygamy, concubinage and easy divorce for men, and none of its existing scholars have ever said that these rules aren't applicable anymore. I agree with Ahmed that those were allowed under different circumstances in a different society, but not a single strain of contemporary Muslim scholarship says Islam needs to do away with these rules. These rules aren't a part of cultural practices or tribal customs. I mean they were originally, but they are enshrined in law and in the Quran itself. You occasionally find people who say concubinage is verboten (thank you Mr. Sistani!), and people who say if the laws of your country prohibit polygamy, don't be polygamous (thank you Dr Badawi but he did get a barb in that the West is being intolerant by allowing gays to marry but banning Muslims from more than one wife), but I have never ever seen a single scholar arguing for making divorce for men harder.

No one has enough years in their life to explain to you how the Quran is as much about historical context as it is law. You seem to equate it with a ten commandments type of book. Your thinking is too linear and concrete, too influenced by modern western mindset to understand why there exists subtle differences in Islam between men and women. It is simply because man and woman are inherently different. If this idea of basic gender differences is rejected, then you can not understand or see the ethical wisdom of the Quran.

No one has that much time in their life to educate you in the theory behind Islamic law (meaning, the Quran, not the Sharia).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No one has enough years in their life to explain to you how the Quran is as much about historical context as it is law. You seem to equate it with a ten commandments type of book. Your thinking is too linear and concrete, too influenced by modern western mindset to understand why there exists subtle differences in Islam between men and women. It is simply because man and woman are inherently different. If this idea of basic gender differences is rejected, then you can not understand or see the ethical wisdom of the Quran.

No one has that much time in their life to educate you in the theory behind Islamic law (meaning, the Quran, not the Sharia).

It's you who doesn't get it. I know men and women are seen as different in the Quran and Islam. I just don't happen to find that view sympathetic or sensible, and that is my prerogative. One can accept the idea of gender differences without approving the manner in which Islam treats it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No one has enough years in their life to explain to you how the Quran is as much about historical context as it is law. You seem to equate it with a ten commandments type of book. Your thinking is too linear and concrete, too influenced by modern western mindset to understand why there exists subtle differences in Islam between men and women. It is simply because man and woman are inherently different. If this idea of basic gender differences is rejected, then you can not understand or see the ethical wisdom of the Quran.

No one has that much time in their life to educate you in the theory behind Islamic law (meaning, the Quran, not the Sharia).

The differences between men and women in Islam aren't subtle, and the abyss between what's allowed to men and to women is quite deep and wide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Fine. Then reproduce the post where I infer Jeff will help me find the islamophobe organizations. Waiting...

Gosh, there are so many examples where you "inferred" that you had access to identity information that is only available through IP addresses (whether you understood this or not, and it appears not). How to choose? As you can see from the time stamps, it only took me a few minutes to dig up several of your posts.

Here are some typically rewarding example of your threats, in which you "infer" access to identity info that's only available via IP addresses (unless you got Homeland Security to tap our internet connections, but we can rule that one out).

10/31/2014 00:48

Anonymous wrote:Well, at best, there will be articles written about islamophobia using your posts. It will draw attention to the kind of hate islamophobes perpetuate, alerting more people. At worst, the writer will uncover the name of the organization you work for that actually pays you to encourage people to hate Islam. Once its name is published, it will receive negative publicity. Donors will be careful to avoid association with it. Your employer will not be pleased to have this exposed.
So either way, your plan backfired.
Nope, no rage here. I'm defending my faith for Allah/God.

Here's another. 10/31/2014 00:48

Anonymous wrote:Yes, i have two independent sources that say they know you are employed by such an organization. If it sounds shady, its because it is.

The moderator certainly assumed you would need IP addresses, whether you understood this yourself or not. It got to the point where the moderator had to come on, at 10/31/2014 11:34 , to tell everybody that he wasn't going to give you IP addresses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"the ethical injunctions of Islam were rarely translated into enforceable laws. Only texts that orthodox theologians, legists, and philosophers (the likes of Al-Ghazali) created were--and continue to be--regarded as the core prescriptive texts of Islam. But Ahmed also makes it clear that this intense misogyny was neither originally nor exclusively Muslim in character, but rather the consequence of a cultural negotiation between Islam and "an urban Middle East with already well-articulated misogynist attitudes and practices":
[B]y licensing polygamy, concubinage, and easy
divorce for men, originally allowed under
different circumstances in a different society,
Islam lent itself to being interpreted as
endorsing and giving religious sanction to a
deeply negative and debased conception of women. "

Islam did license polygamy, concubinage and easy divorce for men, and none of its existing scholars have ever said that these rules aren't applicable anymore. I agree with Ahmed that those were allowed under different circumstances in a different society, but not a single strain of contemporary Muslim scholarship says Islam needs to do away with these rules. These rules aren't a part of cultural practices or tribal customs. I mean they were originally, but they are enshrined in law and in the Quran itself. You occasionally find people who say concubinage is verboten (thank you Mr. Sistani!), and people who say if the laws of your country prohibit polygamy, don't be polygamous (thank you Dr Badawi but he did get a barb in that the West is being intolerant by allowing gays to marry but banning Muslims from more than one wife), but I have never ever seen a single scholar arguing for making divorce for men harder.

Honestly, the best advice I can give you is to read the ENTIRE books of the scholars I mentioned in this thread. They address all these topics through historical research and beautifully explain why the Quran mentioned these. It was not to support or encourage at all. However, for the person who refuses to read, but only wishes to google, cut, and paste, you will not understand. Historians and religious scholars have already done a fine job of explaining why the Quran mentioned these. Learn from them rather than spewing false information and pretending you are a historian or islam expert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Fine. Then reproduce the post where I infer Jeff will help me find the islamophobe organizations. Waiting...

Gosh, there are so many examples where you "inferred" that you had access to identity information that is only available through IP addresses (whether you understood this or not, and it appears not). How to choose? As you can see from the time stamps, it only took me a few minutes to dig up several of your posts.

Here are some typically rewarding example of your threats, in which you "infer" access to identity info that's only available via IP addresses (unless you got Homeland Security to tap our internet connections, but we can rule that one out).

10/31/2014 00:48

Anonymous wrote:Well, at best, there will be articles written about islamophobia using your posts. It will draw attention to the kind of hate islamophobes perpetuate, alerting more people. At worst, the writer will uncover the name of the organization you work for that actually pays you to encourage people to hate Islam. Once its name is published, it will receive negative publicity. Donors will be careful to avoid association with it. Your employer will not be pleased to have this exposed.
So either way, your plan backfired.
Nope, no rage here. I'm defending my faith for Allah/God.

Here's another. 10/31/2014 00:48

Anonymous wrote:Yes, i have two independent sources that say they know you are employed by such an organization. If it sounds shady, its because it is.

The moderator certainly assumed you would need IP addresses, whether you understood this yourself or not. It got to the point where the moderator had to come on, at 10/31/2014 11:34 , to tell everybody that he wasn't going to give you IP addresses.

Wait...are those (above) supposed to be the posts where I inferred Jeff would help me find the identities? I don't even see Jeff's name in my posts. So how could I have inferred he would be helping me? Show me the post where I said Jeff will be helping me find the id's of the organization. Waiting...

This is perfect because it shows you lied. I was never even the one who brought up IPs in the first place.

I do not need to know IP addresses. There are so few organizations that do this so my sources claim they know.

But waiting for your evidence anyway...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one has enough years in their life to explain to you how the Quran is as much about historical context as it is law. You seem to equate it with a ten commandments type of book. Your thinking is too linear and concrete, too influenced by modern western mindset to understand why there exists subtle differences in Islam between men and women. It is simply because man and woman are inherently different. If this idea of basic gender differences is rejected, then you can not understand or see the ethical wisdom of the Quran.

No one has that much time in their life to educate you in the theory behind Islamic law (meaning, the Quran, not the Sharia).

The differences between men and women in Islam aren't subtle, and the abyss between what's allowed to men and to women is quite deep and wide.

If you acknowledge the gender difference is not subtle, then you should comprehend why they are not treated identically.

You are held back by linear and concrete thinking. Thus, you can not understand. Read the scholarly books I mentioned and you will see how they explain it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one has enough years in their life to explain to you how the Quran is as much about historical context as it is law. You seem to equate it with a ten commandments type of book. Your thinking is too linear and concrete, too influenced by modern western mindset to understand why there exists subtle differences in Islam between men and women. It is simply because man and woman are inherently different. If this idea of basic gender differences is rejected, then you can not understand or see the ethical wisdom of the Quran.

No one has that much time in their life to educate you in the theory behind Islamic law (meaning, the Quran, not the Sharia).

The differences between men and women in Islam aren't subtle, and the abyss between what's allowed to men and to women is quite deep and wide.

+1. You can chalk it up to "western linear thinking" or "subtlety" if you want. However, it should be clear to you by now that we disagree with you[u]. We disagree with you that different legal rights in 2014 for women re divorce, testimony and inheritance is simply a matter of subtlety or historical context (your argument that improvements in women's rights over pre-Islamic Arabia, if there were improvements, are not sufficient in 2014). We disagree with you that this is an ethical system that we'd personally want to live under today. Sorry.

We accept that you find this ethical system wise. We don't challenge your desire to live under the laws of your religion.

You, on the other hand, are calling everybody islamophobes for not adopting your positions on the equality of women and the wisdom of your system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one will care to write an article about my retaliatory comment. I think you know that. Islamophobia, well that's article worthy, news worthy. And writers seem quite intrigued with the idea that its part of an organized effort. That is very news worthy.

You will be the anonymous face of islamophobia in articles and your posts will probably be used, right before quotes from scholars from prestigious institutions such as Cambridge, Oxford, and Harvard contradicting you. The goal will be to shed light on the new face of islamophobia but it will inevitably make a mockery of your posts. I apologize for that but this topic is too important and your posts illustrate all too well the prejudice and discrimination Muslims are up against.

As for persuading DCUMers, that was never my goal. The goal was to correct your half truths and lies.

Well, now you've done it. If there was even one DCUM reader left who still thought you were even remotely trustworthy, you disabused her of that notion. You've exposed the extent to which you're willing to lie shamelessly in this bizarre attempt to score points in whatever you're playing.

A disagreement is a disagreement, and Oxbridge, Cambridge and Harvard all know that. You disagree about pre-Islamic history, and nobody but, but nobody, cares except you. Your calling other posters gap-toothed mini-skirt wearing grannies with STDs and drug-addled kids is just icing on the cake of your thorough-going ridiculousness.

A disagreement is a disagreement. But we have one person here who claimed the jahiliyah period never occurred! That contradicts what famous historians and religious scholars say. Proof she is either ignorant and lacks knowledge but still trying to pass herself off as our local, DCUM islamic expert here OR she had an agenda to spread hate all along.

The religious experts disagree with her on other topics she brought up too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A disagreement is a disagreement. But we have one person here who claimed the jahiliyah period never occurred! That contradicts what famous historians and religious scholars say. Proof she is either ignorant and lacks knowledge but still trying to pass herself off as our local, DCUM islamic expert here OR she had an agenda to spread hate all along.

The religious experts disagree with her on other topics she brought up too.

Nope, that wasn't the claim at all. The claim was, and is, that the ills of the pre-Islamic period are exaggerated - by Muslims - and that the improvements that Islam brought to women are also exaggerated - by Muslims. That's exactly what Leila Ahmed says. You think no one reads except you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one has enough years in their life to explain to you how the Quran is as much about historical context as it is law. You seem to equate it with a ten commandments type of book. Your thinking is too linear and concrete, too influenced by modern western mindset to understand why there exists subtle differences in Islam between men and women. It is simply because man and woman are inherently different. If this idea of basic gender differences is rejected, then you can not understand or see the ethical wisdom of the Quran.

No one has that much time in their life to educate you in the theory behind Islamic law (meaning, the Quran, not the Sharia).

The differences between men and women in Islam aren't subtle, and the abyss between what's allowed to men and to women is quite deep and wide.

If you acknowledge the gender difference is not subtle, then you should comprehend why they are not treated identically.

You are held back by linear and concrete thinking. Thus, you can not understand. Read the scholarly books I mentioned and you will see how they explain it.

The walls in my house are lined by books you mentioned and so many others. Your downfall is that you cannot imagine how anyone can read the same stuff and come up with different opinions.

We can agree gender differences exist without agreeing with the manner in which Islam addresses them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one has enough years in their life to explain to you how the Quran is as much about historical context as it is law. You seem to equate it with a ten commandments type of book. Your thinking is too linear and concrete, too influenced by modern western mindset to understand why there exists subtle differences in Islam between men and women. It is simply because man and woman are inherently different. If this idea of basic gender differences is rejected, then you can not understand or see the ethical wisdom of the Quran.

No one has that much time in their life to educate you in the theory behind Islamic law (meaning, the Quran, not the Sharia).

The differences between men and women in Islam aren't subtle, and the abyss between what's allowed to men and to women is quite deep and wide.

+1. You can chalk it up to "western linear thinking" or "subtlety" if you want. However, it should be clear to you by now that we disagree with you[u]. We disagree with you that different legal rights in 2014 for women re divorce, testimony and inheritance is simply a matter of subtlety or historical context (your argument that improvements in women's rights over pre-Islamic Arabia, if there were improvements, are not sufficient in 2014). We disagree with you that this is an ethical system that we'd personally want to live under today. Sorry.

We accept that you find this ethical system wise. We don't challenge your desire to live under the laws of your religion.

You, on the other hand, are calling everybody islamophobes for not adopting your positions on the equality of women and the wisdom of your system.

You want to cast judgment on our religion. Fine. But don't post false or misleading facts. This started with an egregious post declaring our prophet a pedophile. Who posted that and where is the apology for that post? Then our local DCUM islamic expert here said there was no equality (or equity) in Islam for women. Who best to determine that but one who lives under the umbrella of that system? Then our fake expert said the jahiliyah period was a farce. World historians and scholars disagree with her. Wheres the apology for that because inherent in that statement was an accusation Muslims lied.

We deserve an apology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Fine. Then reproduce the post where I infer Jeff will help me find the islamophobe organizations. Waiting...

Gosh, there are so many examples where you "inferred" that you had access to identity information that is only available through IP addresses (whether you understood this or not, and it appears not). How to choose? As you can see from the time stamps, it only took me a few minutes to dig up several of your posts.

Here are some typically rewarding example of your threats, in which you "infer" access to identity info that's only available via IP addresses (unless you got Homeland Security to tap our internet connections, but we can rule that one out).

10/31/2014 00:48

Anonymous wrote:Well, at best, there will be articles written about islamophobia using your posts. It will draw attention to the kind of hate islamophobes perpetuate, alerting more people. At worst, the writer will uncover the name of the organization you work for that actually pays you to encourage people to hate Islam. Once its name is published, it will receive negative publicity. Donors will be careful to avoid association with it. Your employer will not be pleased to have this exposed.
So either way, your plan backfired.
Nope, no rage here. I'm defending my faith for Allah/God.

Here's another. 10/31/2014 00:48

Anonymous wrote:Yes, i have two independent sources that say they know you are employed by such an organization. If it sounds shady, its because it is.

The moderator certainly assumed you would need IP addresses, whether you understood this yourself or not. It got to the point where the moderator had to come on, at 10/31/2014 11:34 , to tell everybody that he wasn't going to give you IP addresses.

Wait...are those (above) supposed to be the posts where I inferred Jeff would help me find the identities? I don't even see Jeff's name in my posts. So how could I have inferred he would be helping me? Show me the post where I said Jeff will be helping me find the id's of the organization. Waiting...

This is perfect because it shows you lied. I was never even the one who brought up IPs in the first place.

I do not need to know IP addresses. There are so few organizations that do this so my sources claim they know.

But waiting for your evidence anyway...

You still don't get this little technological issue, do you? You "inferred" a need for IP addresses because you didn't understand that you'd need IP addresses to carry out your threats. That's why your threats sound so hollow to the rest of us.

Maybe if I put it in caps and bold you'll finally understand. YOU THREATENED TO EXPOSE POSTERS' IDENTITIES. LOGICALLY, THE ONLY WAY YOU COULD DO THIS IS IF THE MODERATOR GIVES YOU IP ADDRESSES. YOU CAN'T EXPOSE IDENTITIES UNLESS THE MODERATOR GIVES YOU IP ADDRESSES.

Is it clear now? Writing "my sources know who you are without IP addresses" is like something out of the Twilight Zone. Cue eery music....

Even weirder, now you're claiming that your supposed "sources" know the names of the handful of organizations. Yet at 10/31/2014 00:48 you claimed that your stable of gumshoes was going to "uncover the names" of these organizations. Which is it? Get your story straight.

You have done more damage to Islam, with your belligerent nonsense, than an entire shadowy Islamophobe organization could do in a week.