Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"

[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]

Good god, do you two ever shut up? FFS this is an anonymous forum and neither one of you will ever get the other to admit being in the wrong.

Give it up already.

[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.

[Anonymous]

Good god. Get a room, you two.

[Anonymous]

This discussion has been a little frustrating to me because it's gone way off base in speculating about what IP addresses can say about a poster. Let's clear this up.

OP, here's what the IP address says about you or another poster:
1. ISP and organization's name (your network, which might be the company you work for, Starbucks' wireless, or simply ATT)
2. IP's host name (device)
3. Your country
4. Your region/state
5. Your city (estimated)
6. Area code

What the IP doesn't give:
1. Your name
2. Your street address

Www.whatismyipaddress.com/ip-lookup

So, unless somebody is posting from their day job at islamophobes-r-us, I'm afraid the IP addresses from this and other threads aren't going to shed any light on who's posting. Unless maybe your "resources" include the NSA or FBI or maybe Treasury's FinCen, and one of these has agreed to help you pursue this private. Enders of yours. Sorry, OP, but you're out of luck.

[Anonymous]

^^^ pursue this private vendetta of yours

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good god, do you two ever shut up? FFS this is an anonymous forum and neither one of you will ever get the other to admit being in the wrong.

Give it up already.

Different poster here. I actually appreciate the PP who called out OP's statements like "women are equal in Islam" and "Islam gave voting rights to women 1400 years ago" and "female captives are freed if they fall pregnant." She did the hard work of writing out the actual laws, often multiple times. Now she's being called an Islamophobe because she happens to disagree with OP. I'm fine with her defending herself against that nonsense.

FWIW, Muslim OP revived this thread (which had been dormant a while) to continue the debate. Just about every night, a little past midnight, OP comes on here with new "recaps" that twist the discussion around. Forget about accepting disagreement; these recaps are all about wanting the last word....

If you don't like the thread, don't cluck, instead don't click....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This discussion has been a little frustrating to me because it's gone way off base in speculating about what IP addresses can say about a poster. Let's clear this up.

OP, here's what the IP address says about you or another poster:
1. ISP and organization's name (your network, which might be the company you work for, Starbucks' wireless, or simply ATT)
2. IP's host name (device)
3. Your country
4. Your region/state
5. Your city (estimated)
6. Area code

What the IP doesn't give:
1. Your name
2. Your street address

Www.whatismyipaddress.com/ip-lookup

So, unless somebody is posting from their day job at islamophobes-r-us, I'm afraid the IP addresses from this and other threads aren't going to shed any light on who's posting. Unless maybe your "resources" include the NSA or FBI or maybe Treasury's FinCen, and one of these has agreed to help you pursue this private. Enders of yours. Sorry, OP, but you're out of luck.

And they aren't forthcoming, you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This discussion has been a little frustrating to me because it's gone way off base in speculating about what IP addresses can say about a poster. Let's clear this up.

OP, here's what the IP address says about you or another poster:
1. ISP and organization's name (your network, which might be the company you work for, Starbucks' wireless, or simply ATT)
2. IP's host name (device)
3. Your country
4. Your region/state
5. Your city (estimated)
6. Area code

What the IP doesn't give:
1. Your name
2. Your street address

Www.whatismyipaddress.com/ip-lookup

So, unless somebody is posting from their day job at islamophobes-r-us, I'm afraid the IP addresses from this and other threads aren't going to shed any light on who's posting. Unless maybe your "resources" include the NSA or FBI or maybe Treasury's FinCen, and one of these has agreed to help you pursue this private. Enders of yours. Sorry, OP, but you're out of luck.

And they aren't forthcoming, you know.

While it's true that hate groups often aren't the brightest bulbs, you'd think they'd have figured out the whole proxy-server-to-mask-your-ISP thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
"Sexism was particularly prominent in Arabia before the time of Mohammed (570?-632 AD). The Persian world was a very paternalistic society, and females were generally seen as an undesirable burden to a family struggling to survive. A common proverb held that it was "a generous deed to bury a female child." Nevertheless, the Koran, which collected the writings of Mohammed, introduced reforms that included the prohibition of female infanticide. Mohammed outlined the wrongfulness of infanticide in various sections of his holy scripture. He asked, with censure ' for example, how would a father account for his actions, "When the female child that had been buried alive shall be asked for what crime she was put to death?" "

Who is that Laila Williamson, is it, who mentions Arabia and the Persian world in a single paragraph as if they were one? I hope you don't mention that in casual conversation to any Iranians you know.

And since you are talking common proverbs, here's a common Saudi proverb for you. When a man comes asking for the daughter's hand in marriage, a father is wont to respond:

"Even if she were a sheep, she wouldn't even be good enough for your dinner."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You spent a great deal of pages in another thread arguing with Muslima about how Islam encouraged concubinage. If that was true, it would mean women were not respected or valued in Arab society. In societies where women are undervalued, they generally do not achieve success and status. Again, it shows Khadijas status was unusual, not the norm.

I also don't remember arguing with Muslima, I think she recused herself from the discussion early on. I took pleasure in taking on the poster who claimed - against all readily available evidence - that concubines were freed if they became pregnant. That is false. They were freed after the owner died, and only if the owner recognized the child as theirs. Co-ownership of concubines occurred so it wasn't a done deal that the child belonged to the owner. The owner also had complete freedom in recognizing the child or not. In any case, manumission upon the death of owner - not pregnancy, as falsely claimed - is well documented.

Bring the documentation.

Look here for sources http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/90/410170.page#5687504

I should note you never brought any sources concubines were freed upon pregnancy.

I did but you did not read carefully. Go back and reread.

Nope, you brought a bbc link that says "upon death of owner". I also brought multiple fiqh books. What did you bring? "My entire understanding of Islam". That plus two bucks would buy a cup of coffee. Not one person reading that exchange thought you made a good argument, you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good god, do you two ever shut up? FFS this is an anonymous forum and neither one of you will ever get the other to admit being in the wrong.

Give it up already.

Different poster here. I actually appreciate the PP who called out OP's statements like "women are equal in Islam" and "Islam gave voting rights to women 1400 years ago" and "female captives are freed if they fall pregnant." She did the hard work of writing out the actual laws, often multiple times. Now she's being called an Islamophobe because she happens to disagree with OP. I'm fine with her defending herself against that nonsense.

FWIW, Muslim OP revived this thread (which had been dormant a while) to continue the debate. Just about every night, a little past midnight, OP comes on here with new "recaps" that twist the discussion around. Forget about accepting disagreement; these recaps are all about wanting the last word....

If you don't like the thread, don't cluck, instead don't click....

So, in addition to the bolded language, in one post someone says:

This discussion has been a little frustrating to me because it's gone way off base in speculating about what IP addresses can say about a poster.

Look at the freakin' title of the thread, as well as the first few pages of the discussion. Does it have ANYTHING to do with Islam? No. These two hijacked this thread and have spent at least 10 pages going back and forth rehashing an argument they had in ANOTHER thread, each claiming that the other is misquoting them and was in the wrong and ought to apologize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good god, do you two ever shut up? FFS this is an anonymous forum and neither one of you will ever get the other to admit being in the wrong.

Give it up already.

Different poster here. I actually appreciate the PP who called out OP's statements like "women are equal in Islam" and "Islam gave voting rights to women 1400 years ago" and "female captives are freed if they fall pregnant." She did the hard work of writing out the actual laws, often multiple times. Now she's being called an Islamophobe because she happens to disagree with OP. I'm fine with her defending herself against that nonsense.

FWIW, Muslim OP revived this thread (which had been dormant a while) to continue the debate. Just about every night, a little past midnight, OP comes on here with new "recaps" that twist the discussion around. Forget about accepting disagreement; these recaps are all about wanting the last word....

If you don't like the thread, don't cluck, instead don't click....

So, in addition to the bolded language, in one post someone says:

This discussion has been a little frustrating to me because it's gone way off base in speculating about what IP addresses can say about a poster.

Look at the freakin' title of the thread, as well as the first few pages of the discussion. Does it have ANYTHING to do with Islam? No. These two hijacked this thread and have spent at least 10 pages going back and forth rehashing an argument they had in ANOTHER thread, each claiming that the other is misquoting them and was in the wrong and ought to apologize.

That was me writing about IP addresses, although I'm not either of the two PPs, Muslim and non-Muslim, that you're complaining about. In case you haven't noticed, most of pages 16 and 17 on this thread have been devoted to Muslim OP's threat to get the moderator to give her IP addresses so she can, supposedly, write a big expose on anti-Islam groups. The moderator told her that he almost certainly wasn't going to be giving out IP addresses, but apparently that wasn't enough to shut down OP's grandiose claims. So I posted to clarify that OP wouldn't learn anything from IP addresses anyway, unless she's getting help from Homeland Security or something - so that was all part of another attempt to shut down OP's silly threats.

You're welcome!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Lets keep this discussion on the merits and try to avoid the personal insults, shall we?

The author who you allege has simply "regurgitated what the Quran says" is a renowned religious scholar. Is it possible that you are simply discounting his statement because he directly contradicts your statement that the Jahiliyah (age of ignorance) never occurred? Please post your bio so that we may compare your qualification to make such a statement with his. Here is the scholar's bio:

M. Jeurgensmeyer: erector of the Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, professor of sociology and global studies, and affiliate professor of religious studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is a pioneer in the field of global studies and writes on global religion, religious violence, conflict resolution and South Asian religion and politics. He has published more than three hundred articles and twenty books, including the recent Global Rebellion: Religious Challenges to the Secular State (University of California Press, 2008).

But remember, he is not the only scholar, historian, or anthropologist that refutes your statement that the jahilyah never occurred. The vast majority stand in contradiction to your statement.

There is overwhelming evidence that the period of the jahiliyah occurred and that Prophet Muhammad's revelation elevated the status of women considerably. Any google research will show this. It seems to me that you may be hoping to hide this fact in your effort to tarnish the religion of Islam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This discussion has been a little frustrating to me because it's gone way off base in speculating about what IP addresses can say about a poster. Let's clear this up.

OP, here's what the IP address says about you or another poster:
1. ISP and organization's name (your network, which might be the company you work for, Starbucks' wireless, or simply ATT)
2. IP's host name (device)
3. Your country
4. Your region/state
5. Your city (estimated)
6. Area code

What the IP doesn't give:
1. Your name
2. Your street address

Www.whatismyipaddress.com/ip-lookup

So, unless somebody is posting from their day job at islamophobes-r-us, I'm afraid the IP addresses from this and other threads aren't going to shed any light on who's posting. Unless maybe your "resources" include the NSA or FBI or maybe Treasury's FinCen, and one of these has agreed to help you pursue this private. Enders of yours. Sorry, OP, but you're out of luck.

And they aren't forthcoming, you know.

I'm well aware of what an IP can and can not reveal. I'm also aware of the steps necessary to get the identity behind an IP and what criteria must be satisfied for it to be revealed. It is not an easy task. However, I never brought up the issue of an IP. I suspect one of our islamophobes did out of concern for her own identity or others. The writer has expressed an interest in finding the name of the organization one or a few of our islamophobes works for and she does not need an IP address to determine that. All one needs is very good connections. If there is no such organization, the writer(s) still have ample posts to choose from in writing their articles.