Be Wary of Racism and Islamophobes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh please. Here's what happened. Either you or Muslima made a claim that Islam in America grows more by conversion than by immigration. People were skeptical and asked for evidence. You couldn't provide any but were annoyed that people kept asking. Whose fault is it that you say things you can't substantiate?

NP. +1000. Thank you.

Also in that other thread, Muslima and another poster said things like "Islam offers asylum to captives" and "Islam offers rights to women." It fell to several other posters to clarify that, actually, Muslim soldiers are allowed to rape female captives, women are given limited divorce rights relative to men, and a women's testimony in financial issues is worth half of a man's testimony. And much, much more. I kinda feel like, if Muslima and the other poster hadn't said such misleading things in the first place, it wouldn't have been necessary for anybody else to chime in with the full facts, but no matter, here we are now.

Muslima and that other PP couldn't deny these clarifications, so they started calling everyone Islamophobes.

Signed, a poster who they also accused of serving burnt food to my husband who is about to divorce me, while my kid hides drugs and porn from me. (Obviously, none of this is true, but I mention it to give context for their Islamophobia accusations.)

[Anonymous]

Muslima, disagreeing with you is NOT the same as Islamophobia and racism. Most posters on that thread were very respectful, and certainly Mohammed got called a pedophile fewer times than you guys called Mary a 'porn queen" (direct quote).

You are apparently angry about several types of challenges you faced on that thread:

1. Requests for statistics to back up your claims about converts,
2. Clarifications to your simplified presentation of Islam (eg, your claim that Islam "offers captives asylum" neglected to mention the Quranically sanctioned rape of female captives),
3. Challenges to your personal interpretations of various Islamic rules (selective use of hadith and your position on sharia) coupled with the suggestion that you may be out of step with eminent scholars, and
4. Readers simply didn't find your explanations convincing, e.g. that various rules about women are for our own good.

These challenges DO NOT amount to "racist Islamophobia." People disagreeing with you or failing to find your explanations convincing is NOT "racist Islamophobia."

You were warned several times on that thread about your use of ad hominems, your repeated recourse to personal insults instead of answering hard questions. This thread is in the same vein: contentless, with lots of insults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The particular posts were reported and Jeff contacted me. While he sympathized, he said the thread was extremely long and it would be a very arduous task for him to delete every single post that contained the racist comments. It would take him an entire afternoon. Upon reflection, I realized that perhaps it is indeed best such racist remarks are permanently recorded in that thread, because it provides the clear evidence how deceptive islamophobes inquire about Islam under the guise of intellectual curiosity, when, in fact, their motive is far more sinister.

PP again. Really? Or did Jeff say the problem was that it would take all afternoon to read a 22-page thread? I'd really be interested in Jeff's take on this. The "racism" that got you so outraged was when one poster (not me) pointed out that many converts to Islam are African American. I'm fairly sure that's a fact. You guys banged on for pages about how racist it is to say that. Jeff, I'd be really interested in your opinion.

It has to be said, that one poster (again, not me) called Mohammed a pedophile 2-3 times, and somebody (again, not me) told Muslima to go back to Iran. And you guys certainly held your own, calling Mary a slut even more times and flinging the ad hominems left and right. However, what are we to make of your claims that immigrants are "rich' and many converts are white - don't these statements seem equally racist?

I'm actually quite happy that thread is still up, if for no other reason that anybody who wants can see how shallow your claims of racism and Islamophobia really are.

[Anonymous]

I feel that I am a realist, and fearful of Islam.

I don't know how to correlate what Muslima says about the beauty of Islam with the overwhelming number of violent attacks committed in the name of Islam.

I think it is a coordinated ploy by Saudi Arabia to push Wahhabism on the rest of the world. And until we recognize this and shut off the flow of money at the source, Islam will continue to be manipulated into the barbaric sharia law type system that it is today.

What you're saying is that, if we wanted to look for the causes of what's happened -- Al Qaeda and the movement worldwide -- we would have to look to the schools, to the educational system which Saudi Arabia has fostered in the Islamic world?

... In order to have terrorists, in order to have supporters for terrorists, in order to have people who are willing to interpret religion in violent ways, in order to have people who are willing to legitimate crashing yourself into a building and killing 5,000 innocent people, you need particular interpretations of Islam.

Those interpretations of Islam are being propagated out of schools that receive organizational and financial funding from Saudi Arabia. In fact, I would push it further: that these schools would not have existed without Saudi funding. They would not have proliferated across Pakistan and India and Afghanistan without Saudi funding. They would not have had the kind of prowess that they have without Saudi funding, and they would not have trained as many people without Saudi funding.

richard holbrooke
U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in the Clinton administration

I think that one of the tragedies of this story is that the Saudi Arabians exported their problem by financing the schools, the madrassas, all through the Islamic world. I saw this in Uzbekistan a few years after Uzbekistan got out of the Soviet Union, became an independent state in cities like Tashkent and Samarkand, where the Saudis were funding these schools teaching Koranic studies and creating a class of people for whom education was simply the Holy Book, the Koran.

... What happened here was that the Saudi Arabian government had two wings. The mainland Saudi leadership went into financial issues, defense issues, and they controlled the elite establishment in order to purchase support. From the more fundamentalist religious groups, they gave certain other ministries, the religious ministries, education ministries, to more fundamentalist Islam leaders. And that's how the split occurred.

So the Saudi government was, to a certain extent, pursuing internally inconsistent policies throughout this period -- reaching out to the West with sophisticated, well educated, internationally minded leaders like its foreign minister, like its ambassador in Washington and others. At the same time, it was funding with this vast oil revenue a different set of efforts: education, which was narrowly based in the Koran. .

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:
I guess you missed the part where I said " Of course, not all of these interpretations are correct, acceptable, or even excusable." Just because difference of opinion exists amongst scholars doesn't mean all interpretations are valid!

Is it up to your opinion to decide who is valid and who isn't?

Muslima wrote:
Now instead of accusing my friend from being apologetic due to your choice of "scholars", the more pertinent question, the one returned to you is why would you choose those "scholars" to define Islam and reject other scholars interpretations of Islam ?

Why wouldn't I? Your friend clearly chooses some scholars to define Islam and rejects others, is she the only one allowed a choice in the matter? You may disagree with the opinions I posted but you cannot say they aren't well researched, lacking in the chain of evidence or in the reputation of the scholar who delivered them.

Muslima wrote:
It has never been the Islamic way to think of scholars as being infallible. That is different from TRUSTING a scholar, my friend presented to you opinions of scholars she TRUSTED and there's nothing wrong with that. But you on the other hand chooses to trust the opinion of whatever scholar that fits the narrative you want to portray, very telling!

And she also chooses to trust the opinion of whatever scholar that fits the narrative she wants to portray. You just happen to like her narrative better. There's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is calling other people Islamophobic because they point out that other scholarly opinions, just as weighty and learned, also exist, and are in fact a better part of the consensus of which you speak.

Muslima wrote:
Today any Tom, Dick or Harry, or rather any Ali or Hassan is able to invest a few dollars and buy a site then publish on it any personal flimsy interpretations and pass it on as Quranic enlightenment! Some scholars provide provocative and hypothetical interpretation, ostensibly to advance their own agenda.

Abdulaziz Bin Baz, former Grand Mufti of the Saudi Arabia and Head of the Council of Senior Scholars, President of the Permanent Committee for Research and Fatawa is any Tom Dick and Harry?

Yusuf Qaradawi, Chairman of the International Union of Islamic Scholars, the star of Al-Jazeera's Shariah and Life, is any Tom, Dick and Harry?

Abdullah Bin Bayyah, member of the International Fiqh Council and the European Committee on Fatwa and Research and Mr. Yusuf's boss, is any Tom, Dick and Harry?

For real?

Muslima wrote:
The other thing is that as Muslims we do not believe scholars are infallible. Scholars are learned and give their opinions but we Muslims should use our God given critical thinking ability to either accept their opinions and practice them or reject them.

Then why does your friend gets pissy because people don't want to accept the opinion of the scholar she personally finds the most fetching?

Muslima wrote:
No one can say what the scholars of Qur'an say is sacrosanct and unchangeable. Even scholars of old realized that their opinions were not set in stone and could change with the times. Individuals are never infallible. No scholar is right all the time. That's why the weight of an opinion which has the consensus of scholars is much stronger than the weight of individual opinions. In Islam, this consensus is called (Ijmaa') and is one of the main sources of Islamic Law.

The weight of the current Sunni consensus on any number of issues we discussed - polygamy, slavery, respect for Shariah etc. - is very far from what was presented in the thread. And it's not Islamophobic to point that out.

[Anonymous]

Muslima, from your post on this thread of 9/5 23:03:

Muslima wrote:

What I think is backwards is for you to think that a religion of 1.6 Billion people won't allow women to speak to a physician without their husband's permission. This is the kind of narrative that serves nothing but to reinforce more stereotypes about the alpha Muslim man and submissive muslim woman. For crying out loud, one of the youngest doctors in the world today is a 20 year old Muslim woman, I doubt she waits for her husband's permission before consulting with her patients. The Qur’an itself is not only egalitarian but decidedly anti-patriarchal, as is Islam as it was practiced by our Prophet SAW, who was in many ways a feminist. Whenever Muslim women have been oppressed, it was due to patriarchal laws that have no place in Islam. Since the Qur’an was revealed to a patriarchy and has been interpreted a lot by adherents of patriarchy since its revelation, it is the readings of the Qur’an and the interpretations by patriarchal Muslims that appear to be oppressive, not the Qur’an itself, whose teachings are neither framed by nor concerned with patriarchy, as proven by its strongly egalitarian essence and emphasis of equality & justice !

What's in bold is exactly the type of statement that got you into trouble on that other thread. You make broad assertions like this, and then other posters need to lay out the facts. For example, that a Muslim man can divorce his wife by simply repeating the word "talak" three times but that she has to go before a court to ask for her divorce. Or that a Muslim woman inherits 1/2 of what her brother inherits. We never even got into veiling and how a husband may discipline a disobedient wife. All of these things are in the Quran itself, and as such they are the unchangeable words of God, but needless to say, the picture you paint never includes such things.

You need to spell out the truth yourself, instead of forcing others to do it, so that your readers can decide whether they think this meets their definitions of "equality" and "feminism." At a minimum, you need to be careful with words like "equality" and "feminism," which are freighted with meaning here in the US. Instead, you practically force others to clarify your statements and then, when they do so, you respond with flowery rhetoric. Then when we fail to agree with your flowery statements and logic, you complain about "circular debates," and finally you and that other poster end up calling everybody "Islamophobes."

[Anonymous]

Reformatting. Muslima, from your post on this thread of 9/5 23:03:

Muslima wrote: What I think is backwards is for you to think that a religion of 1.6 Billion people won't allow women to speak to a physician without their husband's permission. This is the kind of narrative that serves nothing but to reinforce more stereotypes about the alpha Muslim man and submissive muslim woman. For crying out loud, one of the youngest doctors in the world today is a 20 year old Muslim woman, I doubt she waits for her husband's permission before consulting with her patients. The Qur’an itself is not only egalitarian but decidedly anti-patriarchal, as is Islam as it was practiced by our Prophet SAW, who was in many ways a feminist. Whenever Muslim women have been oppressed, it was due to patriarchal laws that have no place in Islam. Since the Qur’an was revealed to a patriarchy and has been interpreted a lot by adherents of patriarchy since its revelation, it is the readings of the Qur’an and the interpretations by patriarchal Muslims that appear to be oppressive, not the Qur’an itself, whose teachings are neither framed by nor concerned with patriarchy, as proven by its strongly egalitarian essence and emphasis of equality & justice !

What's in bold is exactly the type of statement that got you into trouble on that other thread. You make broad assertions like this, and then other posters need to lay out the facts. For example, that a Muslim man can divorce his wife by simply repeating the word "talak" three times but that she has to go before a court to ask for her divorce. Or that a Muslim woman inherits 1/2 of what her brother inherits. We never even got into veiling and how a husband may discipline a disobedient wife. All of these things are in the Quran itself, and as such they are the unchangeable words of God, but needless to say, the picture you paint never includes such things.

You need to spell out the truth yourself, instead of forcing others to do it, so that your readers can decide whether they think this meets their definitions of "equality" and "feminism." At a minimum, you need to be careful with words like "equality" and "feminism," which are freighted with meaning here in the US. Instead, you practically force others to clarify your statements and then, when they do so, you respond with flowery rhetoric. Then when we fail to agree with your flowery statements and logic, you complain about "circular debates," and finally you and that other poster end up calling everybody "Islamophobes."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because you don't seem to GET IT Muslima. No one here REALLY wants to learn about your beloved book. It may be un-politically correct of me to say that, but it's the truth. No one it coming to DCUM to hear you preach the Koran. Correct me if I am wrong, people. No one wants to hear your rambling on about it.

What I'd really like to know is the following:

1. You claim that Islam is such a "peaceful" religion, how do you justify the actions of the radicals?

2. You claimed to live in DC. I think that's a lie. I don't think you live in this country at all.

Try to keep your reply succinct. Your laborious ongoing paragraphs are mind-numbing (as are your attempts at humour and sarcasm).

Oh Lord, here we go again. UN politically correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reformatting. Muslima, from your post on this thread of 9/5 23:03:

Muslima wrote: What I think is backwards is for you to think that a religion of 1.6 Billion people won't allow women to speak to a physician without their husband's permission. This is the kind of narrative that serves nothing but to reinforce more stereotypes about the alpha Muslim man and submissive muslim woman. For crying out loud, one of the youngest doctors in the world today is a 20 year old Muslim woman, I doubt she waits for her husband's permission before consulting with her patients. The Qur’an itself is not only egalitarian but decidedly anti-patriarchal, as is Islam as it was practiced by our Prophet SAW, who was in many ways a feminist. Whenever Muslim women have been oppressed, it was due to patriarchal laws that have no place in Islam. Since the Qur’an was revealed to a patriarchy and has been interpreted a lot by adherents of patriarchy since its revelation, it is the readings of the Qur’an and the interpretations by patriarchal Muslims that appear to be oppressive, not the Qur’an itself, whose teachings are neither framed by nor concerned with patriarchy, as proven by its strongly egalitarian essence and emphasis of equality & justice !

What's in bold is exactly the type of statement that got you into trouble on that other thread. You make broad assertions like this, and then other posters need to lay out the facts. For example, that a Muslim man can divorce his wife by simply repeating the word "talak" three times but that she has to go before a court to ask for her divorce. Or that a Muslim woman inherits 1/2 of what her brother inherits. We never even got into veiling and how a husband may discipline a disobedient wife. All of these things are in the Quran itself, and as such they are the unchangeable words of God, but needless to say, the picture you paint never includes such things.

You need to spell out the truth yourself, instead of forcing others to do it, so that your readers can decide whether they think this meets their definitions of "equality" and "feminism." At a minimum, you need to be careful with words like "equality" and "feminism," which are freighted with meaning here in the US. Instead, you practically force others to clarify your statements and then, when they do so, you respond with flowery rhetoric. Then when we fail to agree with your flowery statements and logic, you complain about "circular debates," and finally you and that other poster end up calling everybody "Islamophobes."

Isam does not purport to promote equality, it PROMOTES JUSTICE. There is no dignity in a divorcee kicked out or cheated on but who fights and begs in court for sometimes yrs for spousal support; Islam commands male relatives to support her. That is the only reason girls get half the inheritance than boys, because that addl money is to be used to support women in their family. Why does this upset you so much? Women after divorce in America are often in financial hardship, many jobs for women pay much less and the islamic system in its purest state is designed to address this kind of institutional discrimination. C'mon, even my nine yr old gets the logic in this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reformatting. Muslima, from your post on this thread of 9/5 23:03:

Muslima wrote: What I think is backwards is for you to think that a religion of 1.6 Billion people won't allow women to speak to a physician without their husband's permission. This is the kind of narrative that serves nothing but to reinforce more stereotypes about the alpha Muslim man and submissive muslim woman. For crying out loud, one of the youngest doctors in the world today is a 20 year old Muslim woman, I doubt she waits for her husband's permission before consulting with her patients. The Qur’an itself is not only egalitarian but decidedly anti-patriarchal, as is Islam as it was practiced by our Prophet SAW, who was in many ways a feminist. Whenever Muslim women have been oppressed, it was due to patriarchal laws that have no place in Islam. Since the Qur’an was revealed to a patriarchy and has been interpreted a lot by adherents of patriarchy since its revelation, it is the readings of the Qur’an and the interpretations by patriarchal Muslims that appear to be oppressive, not the Qur’an itself, whose teachings are neither framed by nor concerned with patriarchy, as proven by its strongly egalitarian essence and emphasis of equality & justice !

What's in bold is exactly the type of statement that got you into trouble on that other thread. You make broad assertions like this, and then other posters need to lay out the facts. For example, that a Muslim man can divorce his wife by simply repeating the word "talak" three times but that she has to go before a court to ask for her divorce. Or that a Muslim woman inherits 1/2 of what her brother inherits. We never even got into veiling and how a husband may discipline a disobedient wife. All of these things are in the Quran itself, and as such they are the unchangeable words of God, but needless to say, the picture you paint never includes such things.

You need to spell out the truth yourself, instead of forcing others to do it, so that your readers can decide whether they think this meets their definitions of "equality" and "feminism." At a minimum, you need to be careful with words like "equality" and "feminism," which are freighted with meaning here in the US. Instead, you practically force others to clarify your statements and then, when they do so, you respond with flowery rhetoric. Then when we fail to agree with your flowery statements and logic, you complain about "circular debates," and finally you and that other poster end up calling everybody "Islamophobes."

Isam does not purport to promote equality, it PROMOTES JUSTICE. There is no dignity in a divorcee kicked out or cheated on but who fights and begs in court for sometimes yrs for spousal support; Islam commands male relatives to support her. That is the only reason girls get half the inheritance than boys, because that addl money is to be used to support women in their family. Why does this upset you so much? Women after divorce in America are often in financial hardship, many jobs for women pay much less and the islamic system in its purest state is designed to address this kind of institutional discrimination. C'mon, even my nine yr old gets the logic in this.

Then why does Muslima keep using words like "equality" and "egalitarian," for example in the post right above? Are you saying she doesn't understand her own religion? The alternative, as a nine-year-old would understand, is that she's deliberately trying to deceive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Isam does not purport to promote equality, it PROMOTES JUSTICE. There is no dignity in a divorcee kicked out or cheated on but who fights and begs in court for sometimes yrs for spousal support; Islam commands male relatives to support her. That is the only reason girls get half the inheritance than boys, because that addl money is to be used to support women in their family. Why does this upset you so much? Women after divorce in America are often in financial hardship, many jobs for women pay much less and the islamic system in its purest state is designed to address this kind of institutional discrimination. C'mon, even my nine yr old gets the logic in this.

That's your opinion. I think there's all kinds of dignity in the court taking the half of what the woman and the husband built together and giving it to the woman. Husband and wife built their wealth together; she should get half. Her brothers and sons didn't participate in building that wealth, she did.

It doesn't upset me - Islam and its rules on women will never affect what happens to me. This is your club, play by whatever games you wish. Just don't get up and say it's the fairest, justest system of them all, and then get upset when people disagree.

I suppose you also think that's it's just for the husband to have an unlimited right to divorce, and for the woman to beg the court to grant her one.

Are you saying women in Muslim countries aren't in financial hardship after the divorce?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Isam does not purport to promote equality, it PROMOTES JUSTICE. There is no dignity in a divorcee kicked out or cheated on but who fights and begs in court for sometimes yrs for spousal support; Islam commands male relatives to support her. That is the only reason girls get half the inheritance than boys, because that addl money is to be used to support women in their family. Why does this upset you so much? Women after divorce in America are often in financial hardship, many jobs for women pay much less and the islamic system in its purest state is designed to address this kind of institutional discrimination. C'mon, even my nine yr old gets the logic in this.

Do we have to have the debates from the last thread all over again? Islam requires the husband to support his ex-wife for THREE MONTHS, i.e. until it's clear she's not pregnant with his child, and then the ex-husband's obligation to support her stops. THREE MONTHS.

Give me court-ordered alimony any day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Isam does not purport to promote equality, it PROMOTES JUSTICE. There is no dignity in a divorcee kicked out or cheated on but who fights and begs in court for sometimes yrs for spousal support; Islam commands male relatives to support her. That is the only reason girls get half the inheritance than boys, because that addl money is to be used to support women in their family. Why does this upset you so much? Women after divorce in America are often in financial hardship, many jobs for women pay much less and the islamic system in its purest state is designed to address this kind of institutional discrimination. C'mon, even my nine yr old gets the logic in this.

Do we have to have the debates from the last thread all over again? Islam requires the husband to support his ex-wife for THREE MONTHS, i.e. until it's clear she's not pregnant with his child, and then the ex-husband's obligation to support her stops. THREE MONTHS.

Give me court-ordered alimony any day.

And half of the assets. Don't forget half of the assets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Isam does not purport to promote equality, it PROMOTES JUSTICE. There is no dignity in a divorcee kicked out or cheated on but who fights and begs in court for sometimes yrs for spousal support; Islam commands male relatives to support her. That is the only reason girls get half the inheritance than boys, because that addl money is to be used to support women in their family. Why does this upset you so much? Women after divorce in America are often in financial hardship, many jobs for women pay much less and the islamic system in its purest state is designed to address this kind of institutional discrimination. C'mon, even my nine yr old gets the logic in this.

Do we have to have the debates from the last thread all over again? Islam requires the husband to support his ex-wife for THREE MONTHS, i.e. until it's clear she's not pregnant with his child, and then the ex-husband's obligation to support her stops. THREE MONTHS.

Give me court-ordered alimony any day.

What, you're not excited about going to your brother's house and asking him to support you? Or, if you don't have one, going on state-doled welfare? Come on, that's such a good deal!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The particular posts were reported and Jeff contacted me. While he sympathized, he said the thread was extremely long and it would be a very arduous task for him to delete every single post that contained the racist comments. It would take him an entire afternoon. Upon reflection, I realized that perhaps it is indeed best such racist remarks are permanently recorded in that thread, because it provides the clear evidence how deceptive islamophobes inquire about Islam under the guise of intellectual curiosity, when, in fact, their motive is far more sinister.

PP again. Really? Or did Jeff say the problem was that it would take all afternoon to read a 22-page thread? I'd really be interested in Jeff's take on this. The "racism" that got you so outraged was when one poster (not me) pointed out that many converts to Islam are African American. I'm fairly sure that's a fact. You guys banged on for pages about how racist it is to say that. Jeff, I'd be really interested in your opinion.

It has to be said, that one poster (again, not me) called Mohammed a pedophile 2-3 times, and somebody (again, not me) told Muslima to go back to Iran. And you guys certainly held your own, calling Mary a slut even more times and flinging the ad hominems left and right. However, what are we to make of your claims that immigrants are "rich' and many converts are white - don't these statements seem equally racist?

I'm actually quite happy that thread is still up, if for no other reason that anybody who wants can see how shallow your claims of racism and Islamophobia really are.

The OP reported a single post that was several pages from the end of the thread. I replied that it was likely that particular post had been quoted or referenced many times in the rest of the thread and it would take me all afternoon to remove every quote and reference. But, I am content with your interpretation as well since they amount to the same thing.

There is no "one" Islam. Sunni Islam, in particular, is decentralized much like protestantism in Christianity. So arguing whether Islam is "peaceful" or "violent", for instance, is a fool's errand. It is both, just as are almost every other religion. The only way that you can constructively have this sort of conversation is to take specific topic and discuss how they are addressed by Islam. The goal cannot be to determine whether Islam is "right" or "wrong" or "better" or "worse", but simply to understand how Islam treats the topic. In all likelihood, there will be more than one answer for most topics.

The Islam practiced by IS grows directly from the Wahhabism practiced centuries ago in the Saudi peninsula. It has the same roots as the Islam practiced by al-Qaida and the "official" Islam of today's Saudi Arabia. However, those are all branches of the same tree that diverged some time ago. Many of the traditions and precepts are alien concepts to the vast majority of the World's Muslims. Drawing conclusions about Islam based on the actions of IS is about as accurate as explaining Christianity based on how it it practiced by the Westboro Baptist Church.

I haven't read the entire other thread, just enough to know that I didn't want to waste my time reading it, but as far as I know, many Muslims in America are African American. However, I don't know how many are "converts" as opposed to those born into the religion. I believe conversion was much more common during the 1960s, but I haven't seen any data on this. I don't know how any discussion of the topic would be considered racist unless that was being argued in order to somehow tarnish the religion (eg. "it's only a religion for black people which means it's inferior" and I don't thing that was happening).

I also have little tolerance for the constant attacks on Muslima. Anyone who uses a username on DCUM gets a target on their back -- including me -- and it is really annoying to be followed thread to thread by people who don't want to do anything other that attack you. Finally, if you find yourself asking questions begin as "why do Muslims" or "why does Islam", you are probably not going to get a satisfactory answer. Muslims are not a monolithic block. If you are talking to Muslima, phrase your question as to "why do you..". She appears quite willing to provide the answers.