The subtle micro aggressions of islamophobia

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

OMG, this again!!!!! I have not read/followed this discussion and just clicked on the last page to see this ridiculous statement. Muslim women do not want western feminism. I appreciate your concerns that we are 2nd class citizens, but do know that those concerns are only existent in your mind. As a Muslim woman living a muslim life, believing in my faith 100%, I have never felt I was a second class citizen, I have never felt men were worth more than me. Why on earth are you blatantly making these ridiculous statements? Whenever women have been treated as less than, whenever women have gotten less than they deserved, it has never been because of Islam, to the contrary, it has always been because of a lack of Islam. I do not know of any institution, any religion, any organization that treats women, loves women, adore women, give a higher status to women than Islam. I feel blessed, lucky, happy to be a Muslim woman every single day of my life alhamdulillah( praised be to God) for Islam.

Your problem is the same as anyone else - inability to imagine that someone may have experiences, feelings and convictions other than your own. You don't speak for all Muslim women. You are just one person in a sea of them. Islam is not an institution or an organization, and when it tried to become one, less than enviable results ensued, much like any other religion that forgot its place.

I guess you failed to read the last paragraph of my response where I stated that sexism does exist in Muslim countries, yes there are Muslim women that are being abused, mistreated, being cheated on their rights every single day, just like there are non-muslim women being abused and killed every single day in America. What I'm not going to accept is your simplification that these realities, events are the results of Islam. Correlation doesn't imply causation

Of course it doesn't. What I take objection to is your statement that every single Muslim woman feels exactly the way you do. There are Muslim women out there that are less than happy about what their birth religion has provided for them - not human practice or country-based sexist, but actual letter of law. You imply they don't exist. That's not true. I am not begrudging you your love and devotion to Islam. If you are happy and content, good for you. I am simply pointing out that you have no grounds to state that all Muslim women feel the way you do.

Circle the part where I wrote every single woman feels the way I do???

Every time you start a sentence with "Muslim women."

If you didn't mean that and reported only your own experiences without claiming they are generic to all Muslim women, then I am wrong and I apologize.

When I shared my experiences, I said "I, as a Muslim woman". Yes, I've used the term Muslim women in general in my post sometimes because I feel like I Have met, lived with enough muslim women to know what/how they feel about some issues. Does it mean that this will be true for all millions of Muslim women? Of course not! We are a rainbow of sects, practices, values, beliefs... Under the umbrella of our general commonalities, we differ widely. I'm currently reading "I speak for myself' American women on being Muslim. Picked it up from the library, if you're in Va, it's available at the fairfax county libraries. It's an interesting read, and glimpse into the commonalities, differences and sisterhood that bond Muslim women of all walks of life who just happen to share the thread of Islam. I would recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about muslim women. It' s 40 short essays written by different Muslim women about what their identities mean to them, from their own perspectives

you just can't make this stuff up.

taliban shoot a little girl in the head and the bully beards blame it on the girl?

see - http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/8219.htm

[Anonymous]

Kashmir,Middle East ,Russia,England,isis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

OMG, this again!!!!! I have not read/followed this discussion and just clicked on the last page to see this ridiculous statement. Muslim women do not want western feminism. I appreciate your concerns that we are 2nd class citizens, but do know that those concerns are only existent in your mind. As a Muslim woman living a muslim life, believing in my faith 100%, I have never felt I was a second class citizen, I have never felt men were worth more than me. Why on earth are you blatantly making these ridiculous statements? Whenever women have been treated as less than, whenever women have gotten less than they deserved, it has never been because of Islam, to the contrary, it has always been because of a lack of Islam. I do not know of any institution, any religion, any organization that treats women, loves women, adore women, give a higher status to women than Islam. I feel blessed, lucky, happy to be a Muslim woman every single day of my life alhamdulillah( praised be to God) for Islam.

Your problem is the same as anyone else - inability to imagine that someone may have experiences, feelings and convictions other than your own. You don't speak for all Muslim women. You are just one person in a sea of them. Islam is not an institution or an organization, and when it tried to become one, less than enviable results ensued, much like any other religion that forgot its place.

I guess you failed to read the last paragraph of my response where I stated that sexism does exist in Muslim countries, yes there are Muslim women that are being abused, mistreated, being cheated on their rights every single day, just like there are non-muslim women being abused and killed every single day in America. What I'm not going to accept is your simplification that these realities, events are the results of Islam. Correlation doesn't imply causation

Of course it doesn't. What I take objection to is your statement that every single Muslim woman feels exactly the way you do. There are Muslim women out there that are less than happy about what their birth religion has provided for them - not human practice or country-based sexist, but actual letter of law. You imply they don't exist. That's not true. I am not begrudging you your love and devotion to Islam. If you are happy and content, good for you. I am simply pointing out that you have no grounds to state that all Muslim women feel the way you do.

Circle the part where I wrote every single woman feels the way I do???

Every time you start a sentence with "Muslim women."

If you didn't mean that and reported only your own experiences without claiming they are generic to all Muslim women, then I am wrong and I apologize.

PP, I'm listing below just a few threads where various posters seemed to be speaking on behalf of all or most or many Christians. In the boldface text you will see that it is common for posters to speak on behalf of others of their faith. As you can see, some are speaking for atheists. One person even seems to be speaking about God's intent or will. It isn't unusual for posters to communicate this way and it, no way, is indicative of any kind of deception or intent to proselytize. More importantly, I didn't see anyone object to these posters speaking on behalf of Christians, atheists, or even God. So why do you object to Muslima doing the same?
----------------------------
10/24/2014 06:01
Subject: Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"

Anonymous
PS. What you write probaby won't shock many posters. Many Christians believe that examining your faith is a crucial part of being religious. I know you don't want to believe it, but many of us refuse to simply believe what we're told.


10/26/2014 00:40
Subject: Violence in Scripture. Let he who is without sin...

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
So, OP, are you an anti-semite or an islamophobe? I can't really tell which it is. Obviously, though, your link only gives 1 quote from Jesus and that one's a stretch, so you can't be entirely anti-religion. If you're Christian, then I'm officially embarrassed to have you claim to share my faith.

According to the answer key, 15 of the items come from the Bible. While only one was allegedly said by Jesus (and I'll admit it's somewhat twisted by the article), there are a lot of Christians who consider both the OT and the NT as part of their religious text.

If you only subscribe to the NT, which is much more peaceful and based on love, good for you, but many who claim to be Christians cite to the OT as part of their belief structure.


0/26/2014 10:13
Subject: Violence in Scripture. Let he who is without sin...

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
So, OP, are you an anti-semite or an islamophobe? I can't really tell which it is. Obviously, though, your link only gives 1 quote from Jesus and that one's a stretch, so you can't be entirely anti-religion. If you're Christian, then I'm officially embarrassed to have you claim to share my faith.

According to the answer key, 15 of the items come from the Bible. While only one was allegedly said by Jesus (and I'll admit it's somewhat twisted by the article), there are a lot of Christians who consider both the OT and the NT as part of their religious text.

If you only subscribe to the NT, which is much more peaceful and based on love, good for you, but many who claim to be Christians cite to the OT as part of their belief structure.especially the anti-gay part.

There are also many gay-friendly Christians, who consider much of the OT to be stories and fables, but still believe the part about it prophesizing the arrival of the Messiah.


09/20/2014 12:13
Subject: Why do Christians always try to convert you?

Anonymous
It's pretty simple really. Christians believe non-Christians are going to Hell. They don't want you to go to Hell. So they want you to be Christians.

Atheist don't try to convert people because they don't believe anything bad will happen if one chooses not to be an athiest.

I don't know why anyone would get all bent out of shape about it.


09/20/2014 22:38
Subject: Why do Christians always try to convert you?

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
It's pretty simple really. Christians believe non-Christians are going to Hell. They don't want you to go to Hell. So they want you to be Christians.

Atheist don't try to convert people because they don't believe anything bad will happen if one chooses not to be an athiest.

I don't know why anyone would get all bent out of shape about it.

Oh please.
- Mamy Christians don't think non-believers are automatically going to hell.
- Atheists like Dawkins are all about winning people over to their "side."


09/20/2014 23:21
Subject: Why do Christians always try to convert you?

Anonymous
God chooses to speak through people. Obviously , he could rip open the sky and say "I'm God.. You're not and abortion is evil" . He chooses to be more subtle . He allows for rejection.


09/23/2014 13:33
Subject: Re:Why do Christians always try to convert you?

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Those who seek to convert base it on this verse in the Bible where Christ commanded his apostles:

Mark 16:15-16 (King James Version)

15. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Although it was addressed specifically to the apostles, some Christians - and especially the evangelicals - view it as applying to all Christians.

The problem is that - like many other things in the Bible - there is selectivity as to what is sacrosanct and what should not be taken literally and what is open to interpretation.


Yes, this is called "The Great Commandment" and it is the Christian's obligation to spread the "good word" to others. Some of us may do it more obviously. Some may do it by trying to lead a quiet Christian life and hope that others come to respect them and follow suits. The Jehovah's Witnesses mentioned above are REQUIRED to spend @ hours per week going door-to-door and must turn in records with number of hours spent in trying to seek conversion. If they don't do that, they will be shunned by the J.W. community. Read up on it in wikipedia. It's really rather amazing what is required of J.W.'s. Similarly Mormons seek to convert new Mormons but traditionally do it through the two year mission program at age 18 for boys and 19 for girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff would not do anything because I wanted him to. He would act on his own sense of right and wrong. The articles quoting experts will expose the extent of your islamophobia. What owner of a blog will want islamophobes to have free reign to use his blog to propagate hate?

You have no idea what his sense of right and wrong is. He hasn't stopped this till now, and he won't, for the reasons you outlined.

But I do know your idea of right and wrong ISN'T shared by him. This was evidenced by the fact that 1) he said you (if you are the islamophobe in question) might have an agenda here and 2) the long, combative posts by you to him, which then also extended into the Web Feedback forum.

He has not stopped the threads and I appreciate that he hasn't because it is providing valuable information for the writers and investigative journalists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The mockery exposes your immaturity and lack of understanding of Islamic history, which is precisely why you should not be posting excerpts from books you have not read. Grownups read books before they discuss them. Youngsters who want to show off read the cliff notes version and try to sound as if they read the book. For goodness sake, read the book. Leila Ahmed clearly stated in some ways, women had more rights and freedom pre Islam, but that these rights were predominantly in the area of sexual autonomy. Moreover, she clearly states in her book (the part not in the google preview you viewed) that Muhammads relegation did elevate the status of women overall. The rights that they lost after the Prophets death were due to culture and not Islamic principles. Shame on you for twisting this to propagate hate toward Islam simply because of your own personal experience with Muslims in another country.

Uh-huh. That's exactly why she contrasted the lives of Muhammad's wives before and after Islam. That's exactly why she used words like "political leadership". Hey, maybe in some language "political leadership" is the same as "sexual autonomy".

It's kind of funny how you make up stories to support whatever argument you want to put forward. Let's refresh. Let's let Dr. Ahmed speak for herself, shall we? It's kind of funny, isn't it, how I post quotes, and you post only your own summaries of what you read.

"However, the argument made by some Islamists – that Islam’s banning of infanticide established the fact that Islam improved the position of women in all respects, seems both inaccurate and simplistic. In the first place, the situation of women appears to have varied among different communities of Arabia. Moreover, although Janilia marriage practices do not necessarily indicate the greater power of women or the absence of misogyny, they do correlate with women’s enjoying grater sexual autonomy than they were allowed under Islam. They also correlate with women’s being active participants, even leaders, in a wide range of community activities, including warfare and religion. Their autonomy and participation were curtailed with the establishment of Islam, its institution of patrilineal, patriarachal marriage as solely legitimate, and the social transformation that ensued."

Here you go:

Page 32-34: "…Nevertheless, it should be noted that only women of the most privileged classes benefited from the property laws and that the society included slaves, a group that did not benefit from any of these laws…The situation of women of the property owning classes in Egypt thus appears to have been thoroughly anomalous in this region and time period. Egypt was a male dominated society…" But she adds, as Greek and Roman mores and laws spread, "Egyptian women lost most of their rights…the decline of the position and rights of women in Egypt occurred under the influence of European dominance and laws. This decline occurred long before Egypt was conquered by the Arabs and was apparently in place in the Christian era…"

Page 35: "Whatever the cultural source or sources, a fierce misogyny was a distinct ingredient of Mediterranean and eventually Christian thought in the centuries immediately preceding the rise of islam. One form it took in the pre Christian era was female infanticide…Greeks and Romans authors reported it as custom of their compatriots..In the early Christian era it was also practiced in Arabia, where it was later banned under Islam."

Page 41: "Neither the diversity of marriage practices in pre Islamic Arabia nor the presence of matrilineal customs, including the association of children with their mother's tribe, necessarily connotes women having greater power in society or greater access to economic resources. Nor do these practices correlate with an absence of misogyny; indeed, there is clear evidence to the contrary. The practice of infanticide, apparently confined to girls, suggests a belief that females were flawed, expendable. The Quranic verses capture the shame and negativity that Jahilia Arabs associated with the sex."

By the way, this directly contradicts Islamophobe's assertion that Muslims made up female infanticide, that the Quran never prohibited female infanticide, and that there was no Jahilia period. Clearly, Leila is referring to "Jahilia Arabs" here, not simply pre-islamic Arabs.

But let us move on...

So all of this is from the first chapter of her book. However, in all fairness, and let it be known that I am not a liar or twister of truths such as islamophobe is, Leila Ahmed also states in the first chapter:

"Islamic civilization developed a construct of history that labeled the pre islamic period of the Age of Ignorance and projected Islam as the sole source of all that was civilized - and used that construct so effectively in its rewriting of history, that the peoples of the Middle East lost all knowledge of their past civilizations of the region. Obviously, theat construct was ideologically serviceable, successfully concealing, among other things, the fact that in some cultures of the middle east, women had been considerably better off before the rise of Islam than afterward."

Note that she said "some" cultures of the Middle East, not all.

Moving on, however, here is what the author states in chapter 4:

"There appear to be to distinct voices within Islam, and two competing understandings of gender, one expressed in the pragmatic regulation of society, and the other in nthe articulation of an ethical vision. Even as Islam instituted marriage as a sexual hierarchy in its ethical voice - a voice virtually unheard by rulers and lawmakers - it insistently stressed the importance of the spiritual and ethical dimensions of begin and the equality of all individuals. While the first voice has been extensively elaborated into a body of political and legal thought, which constitutes the technical understanding of Islam, the second - the voice to which ordinary believing Muslims , who are essentially ignorant of the details of islam's technical legacy, give their assent - has left little trace on the political and legal heritage of Islam. The unmistakeable presence of an ethical egalitarianism explains why Muslim women frequently insist, that Islam is not sexist. They hear and read in its sacred text, justly and legitimately, a different message from that heard by the makers and enforcers of orthodox, androcentric islam."


Ahmed goes on:

"However, thoughout history, it has not been those who have emphasized the ethical and spiritual dimensions of the religion who have held power. The political, religious, and legal authorities in the Abbasid period in particular, whose interpretive and legal legacy has defined Islam ever since, heard only the androcentric voice of Islam, and they interpreted the religion as intending to institute androcentric laws and an androcentric vision in all Muslim societies throughout time."

The author adds:

" In the following pages, I contend, first, that the practices sanctioned by Muhammad within the first Muslim society were enunciated in the context of far more positive attitudes toward women than the later Abbasid society was to have, a context that consequently tempered the androcentric tendencies of Islamic practices; those tendencies were further tempered by the emphasis the religion placed on spiritual egalitarianism. Second, I argue that the decision to regard androcentric positions on marriage as intended to be binding for all time was itself an interpretive decision, reflecting the interests and perspective of those in power during the age that transposed and interpreted the Islamic message into the textual edifice of Islam. Finally, I argue that the social context in which this textual edifice was created was far more negative for women than that in Arabia, so the spiritually egalitarian voice of the religion would have been exceedingly difficult to hear. The practices and living arrangements of the dominant classes of the Abbasid era were such that at an implicit and often an explicit level, the words woman, and slave, and object for sexual use came close to being indistinguishably fused. Such practices, and the conceptions they gave rise to, informed the dominant ideology and affected how Islam was heard and interpreted in this period and how its ideas were rendered into law."


And now, I leave the islamophobe with this request - please stop vilifying the Islamic faith. From the beginning you have confused the practice of Islam with Muhammads true revelation. You clearly have not read Leila Ahmed's book and have no right to be quoting passages that appear on a google preview. Learn Islamic history and then come back to debate from a position of knowledge. You are not in that position now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

PP, I'm listing below just a few threads where various posters seemed to be speaking on behalf of all or most or many Christians. In the boldface text you will see that it is common for posters to speak on behalf of others of their faith. As you can see, some are speaking for atheists. One person even seems to be speaking about God's intent or will. It isn't unusual for posters to communicate this way and it, no way, is indicative of any kind of deception or intent to proselytize. More importantly, I didn't see anyone object to these posters speaking on behalf of Christians, atheists, or even God. So why do you object to Muslima doing the same?
----------------------------
10/24/2014 06:01
Subject: Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"

Anonymous
PS. What you write probaby won't shock many posters. Many Christians believe that examining your faith is a crucial part of being religious. I know you don't want to believe it, but many of us refuse to simply believe what we're told.


10/26/2014 00:40
Subject: Violence in Scripture. Let he who is without sin...

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
So, OP, are you an anti-semite or an islamophobe? I can't really tell which it is. Obviously, though, your link only gives 1 quote from Jesus and that one's a stretch, so you can't be entirely anti-religion. If you're Christian, then I'm officially embarrassed to have you claim to share my faith.

According to the answer key, 15 of the items come from the Bible. While only one was allegedly said by Jesus (and I'll admit it's somewhat twisted by the article), there are a lot of Christians who consider both the OT and the NT as part of their religious text.

If you only subscribe to the NT, which is much more peaceful and based on love, good for you, but many who claim to be Christians cite to the OT as part of their belief structure.


0/26/2014 10:13
Subject: Violence in Scripture. Let he who is without sin...

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
So, OP, are you an anti-semite or an islamophobe? I can't really tell which it is. Obviously, though, your link only gives 1 quote from Jesus and that one's a stretch, so you can't be entirely anti-religion. If you're Christian, then I'm officially embarrassed to have you claim to share my faith.

According to the answer key, 15 of the items come from the Bible. While only one was allegedly said by Jesus (and I'll admit it's somewhat twisted by the article), there are a lot of Christians who consider both the OT and the NT as part of their religious text.

If you only subscribe to the NT, which is much more peaceful and based on love, good for you, but many who claim to be Christians cite to the OT as part of their belief structure.especially the anti-gay part.

There are also many gay-friendly Christians, who consider much of the OT to be stories and fables, but still believe the part about it prophesizing the arrival of the Messiah.


09/20/2014 12:13
Subject: Why do Christians always try to convert you?

Anonymous
It's pretty simple really. Christians believe non-Christians are going to Hell. They don't want you to go to Hell. So they want you to be Christians.

Atheist don't try to convert people because they don't believe anything bad will happen if one chooses not to be an athiest.

I don't know why anyone would get all bent out of shape about it.


09/20/2014 22:38
Subject: Why do Christians always try to convert you?

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
It's pretty simple really. Christians believe non-Christians are going to Hell. They don't want you to go to Hell. So they want you to be Christians.

Atheist don't try to convert people because they don't believe anything bad will happen if one chooses not to be an athiest.

I don't know why anyone would get all bent out of shape about it.

Oh please.
- Mamy Christians don't think non-believers are automatically going to hell.
- Atheists like Dawkins are all about winning people over to their "side."


09/20/2014 23:21
Subject: Why do Christians always try to convert you?

Anonymous
God chooses to speak through people. Obviously , he could rip open the sky and say "I'm God.. You're not and abortion is evil" . He chooses to be more subtle . He allows for rejection.


09/23/2014 13:33
Subject: Re:Why do Christians always try to convert you?

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Those who seek to convert base it on this verse in the Bible where Christ commanded his apostles:

Mark 16:15-16 (King James Version)

15. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Although it was addressed specifically to the apostles, some Christians - and especially the evangelicals - view it as applying to all Christians.

The problem is that - like many other things in the Bible - there is selectivity as to what is sacrosanct and what should not be taken literally and what is open to interpretation.


Yes, this is called "The Great Commandment" and it is the Christian's obligation to spread the "good word" to others. Some of us may do it more obviously. Some may do it by trying to lead a quiet Christian life and hope that others come to respect them and follow suits. The Jehovah's Witnesses mentioned above are REQUIRED to spend @ hours per week going door-to-door and must turn in records with number of hours spent in trying to seek conversion. If they don't do that, they will be shunned by the J.W. community. Read up on it in wikipedia. It's really rather amazing what is required of J.W.'s. Similarly Mormons seek to convert new Mormons but traditionally do it through the two year mission program at age 18 for boys and 19 for girls.

Whoa. You sure have a rivalry/enmity/hostility for Christians. I'm sure you'll respond with something about Christians being people of the book. Nevertheless, your obsession with the people you call Christian-evangelical-crusader-islamophobes seems very real.

Let's examine your substance. You are trying to argue that *everybody* makes generalizations about other members of their faiths. But you undermine this with quotes from Christians that carefully use the words "some" or "many." Then, for some reason, you tossed in some quotes from atheists or non-Christians that make the sort of sweeping generalizations about Christians that you claim to abhor when said generalizations are made about Muslims.

Here are the quotes that seem to be from Christians: 10/24/2014 06:01 and 09/23/2014 @ 13:33. Note the careful use of words like "many" and "some." You bolded the words "some" and "many" yourself.

Here are the posts that are obviously by atheists or non-Christians. Didn't you notice that these posters weren't Christian, when you were cutting and pasting? [/b]I'm talking about 10/26/2014 @ 00:40 (the 1st para is a Christian and the next two paras are an atheist or non-Christian. I know this because I'm the 1st para but the 2nd two paras are by an atheist or non-Christian who responded to me). Again, 09/20/2014 @ 12:13 is clearly a non-Christian or atheist. So for whatever reason, you elected to cut and paste broad generalizations made by atheists or non-Christians about what Christians supposedly think -- and that's exactly the sort of broad generalization that you object to when people make generalizations about all Muslims.

[Anonymous]

OP's beloved CAIR organization has been designated as a TERRORIST group along with the Taliban, I.S., Al-Queda, and the Muslim Brotherhood by the U.A.E. I guess that country is the next to be targeted as Islamaphobic.

CAIR has ties to the funding of Hamas which they now hide better than they used to.

But since they have plenty of funds and paid agents in most every major news outlet, I'm sure they'll find a way to twist this into some "whoa is me" storyline by their use of their favorite catchphrase--Pointing fingers and shouting Islamaphobe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP's beloved CAIR organization has been designated as a TERRORIST group along with the Taliban, I.S., Al-Queda, and the Muslim Brotherhood by the U.A.E. I guess that country is the next to be targeted as Islamaphobic.

CAIR has ties to the funding of Hamas which they now hide better than they used to.

But since they have plenty of funds and paid agents in most every major news outlet, I'm sure they'll find a way to twist this into some "whoa is me" storyline by their use of their favorite catchphrase--Pointing fingers and shouting Islamaphobe.

CAIR is not the organization investigating islamophobes posts, its a nonMuslim organization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP, I'm listing below just a few threads where various posters seemed to be speaking on behalf of all or most or many Christians. In the boldface text you will see that it is common for posters to speak on behalf of others of their faith. As you can see, some are speaking for atheists. One person even seems to be speaking about God's intent or will. It isn't unusual for posters to communicate this way and it, no way, is indicative of any kind of deception or intent to proselytize. More importantly, I didn't see anyone object to these posters speaking on behalf of Christians, atheists, or even God. So why do you object to Muslima doing the same?
----------------------------
10/24/2014 06:01
Subject: Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"

Anonymous
PS. What you write probaby won't shock many posters. Many Christians believe that examining your faith is a crucial part of being religious. I know you don't want to believe it, but many of us refuse to simply believe what we're told.


10/26/2014 00:40
Subject: Violence in Scripture. Let he who is without sin...

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
So, OP, are you an anti-semite or an islamophobe? I can't really tell which it is. Obviously, though, your link only gives 1 quote from Jesus and that one's a stretch, so you can't be entirely anti-religion. If you're Christian, then I'm officially embarrassed to have you claim to share my faith.

According to the answer key, 15 of the items come from the Bible. While only one was allegedly said by Jesus (and I'll admit it's somewhat twisted by the article), there are a lot of Christians who consider both the OT and the NT as part of their religious text.

If you only subscribe to the NT, which is much more peaceful and based on love, good for you, but many who claim to be Christians cite to the OT as part of their belief structure.


0/26/2014 10:13
Subject: Violence in Scripture. Let he who is without sin...

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
So, OP, are you an anti-semite or an islamophobe? I can't really tell which it is. Obviously, though, your link only gives 1 quote from Jesus and that one's a stretch, so you can't be entirely anti-religion. If you're Christian, then I'm officially embarrassed to have you claim to share my faith.

According to the answer key, 15 of the items come from the Bible. While only one was allegedly said by Jesus (and I'll admit it's somewhat twisted by the article), there are a lot of Christians who consider both the OT and the NT as part of their religious text.

If you only subscribe to the NT, which is much more peaceful and based on love, good for you, but many who claim to be Christians cite to the OT as part of their belief structure.especially the anti-gay part.

There are also many gay-friendly Christians, who consider much of the OT to be stories and fables, but still believe the part about it prophesizing the arrival of the Messiah.


09/20/2014 12:13
Subject: Why do Christians always try to convert you?

Anonymous
It's pretty simple really. Christians believe non-Christians are going to Hell. They don't want you to go to Hell. So they want you to be Christians.

Atheist don't try to convert people because they don't believe anything bad will happen if one chooses not to be an athiest.

I don't know why anyone would get all bent out of shape about it.


09/20/2014 22:38
Subject: Why do Christians always try to convert you?

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
It's pretty simple really. Christians believe non-Christians are going to Hell. They don't want you to go to Hell. So they want you to be Christians.

Atheist don't try to convert people because they don't believe anything bad will happen if one chooses not to be an athiest.

I don't know why anyone would get all bent out of shape about it.

Oh please.
- Mamy Christians don't think non-believers are automatically going to hell.
- Atheists like Dawkins are all about winning people over to their "side."


09/20/2014 23:21
Subject: Why do Christians always try to convert you?

Anonymous
God chooses to speak through people. Obviously , he could rip open the sky and say "I'm God.. You're not and abortion is evil" . He chooses to be more subtle . He allows for rejection.


09/23/2014 13:33
Subject: Re:Why do Christians always try to convert you?

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Those who seek to convert base it on this verse in the Bible where Christ commanded his apostles:

Mark 16:15-16 (King James Version)

15. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Although it was addressed specifically to the apostles, some Christians - and especially the evangelicals - view it as applying to all Christians.

The problem is that - like many other things in the Bible - there is selectivity as to what is sacrosanct and what should not be taken literally and what is open to interpretation.


Yes, this is called "The Great Commandment" and it is the Christian's obligation to spread the "good word" to others. Some of us may do it more obviously. Some may do it by trying to lead a quiet Christian life and hope that others come to respect them and follow suits. The Jehovah's Witnesses mentioned above are REQUIRED to spend @ hours per week going door-to-door and must turn in records with number of hours spent in trying to seek conversion. If they don't do that, they will be shunned by the J.W. community. Read up on it in wikipedia. It's really rather amazing what is required of J.W.'s. Similarly Mormons seek to convert new Mormons but traditionally do it through the two year mission program at age 18 for boys and 19 for girls.

Whoa. You sure have a rivalry/enmity/hostility for Christians. I'm sure you'll respond with something about Christians being people of the book. Nevertheless, your obsession with the people you call Christian-evangelical-crusader-islamophobes seems very real.

Let's examine your substance. You are trying to argue that *everybody* makes generalizations about other members of their faiths. But you undermine this with quotes from Christians that carefully use the words "some" or "many." Then, for some reason, you tossed in some quotes from atheists or non-Christians that make the sort of sweeping generalizations about Christians that you claim to abhor when said generalizations are made about Muslims.

Here are the quotes that seem to be from Christians: 10/24/2014 06:01 and 09/23/2014 @ 13:33. Note the careful use of words like "many" and "some." You bolded the words "some" and "many" yourself.

Here are the posts that are obviously by atheists or non-Christians. Didn't you notice that these posters weren't Christian, when you were cutting and pasting? [/b]I'm talking about 10/26/2014 @ 00:40 (the 1st para is a Christian and the next two paras are an atheist or non-Christian. I know this because I'm the 1st para but the 2nd two paras are by an atheist or non-Christian who responded to me). Again, 09/20/2014 @ 12:13 is clearly a non-Christian or atheist. So for whatever reason, you elected to cut and paste broad generalizations made by atheists or non-Christians about what Christians supposedly think -- and that's exactly the sort of broad generalization that you object to when people make generalizations about all Muslims.

Many, most, some, all, what does it matter when you said yourself Muslima has no right to speak for other Muslims at all. So lets apply your complaint to Christians who clearly are speaking for others, whether that be many, most, all, etc...

Just looking for an explanation as to why Muslima must be held to a more restrictive standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Y'all keep talking about "subtle micro-agressions." In the meantime, your fellow Muslims cut the head off another aid worker and released a video this morning.

When Muslims stop blatant aggression and violence against non-Muslims, maybe we can talk about "subtle micro-aggressions."

Yes, I suppose Muslima and I did that early this morning, just before we fed our children breakfast and sent them off to school. You would not want people to blame you for the actions of others, so don't blame all Muslims for the actions of extremists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PP, I'm listing below just a few threads where various posters seemed to be speaking on behalf of all or most or many Christians. In the boldface text you will see that it is common for posters to speak on behalf of others of their faith. As you can see, some are speaking for atheists. One person even seems to be speaking about God's intent or will. It isn't unusual for posters to communicate this way and it, no way, is indicative of any kind of deception or intent to proselytize. More importantly, I didn't see anyone object to these posters speaking on behalf of Christians, atheists, or even God. So why do you object to Muslima doing the same?
----------------------------
10/24/2014 06:01
Subject: Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"

Anonymous
PS. What you write probaby won't shock many posters. Many Christians believe that examining your faith is a crucial part of being religious. I know you don't want to believe it, but many of us refuse to simply believe what we're told.


10/26/2014 00:40
Subject: Violence in Scripture. Let he who is without sin...

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
So, OP, are you an anti-semite or an islamophobe? I can't really tell which it is. Obviously, though, your link only gives 1 quote from Jesus and that one's a stretch, so you can't be entirely anti-religion. If you're Christian, then I'm officially embarrassed to have you claim to share my faith.

According to the answer key, 15 of the items come from the Bible. While only one was allegedly said by Jesus (and I'll admit it's somewhat twisted by the article), there are a lot of Christians who consider both the OT and the NT as part of their religious text.

If you only subscribe to the NT, which is much more peaceful and based on love, good for you, but many who claim to be Christians cite to the OT as part of their belief structure.


0/26/2014 10:13
Subject: Violence in Scripture. Let he who is without sin...

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
So, OP, are you an anti-semite or an islamophobe? I can't really tell which it is. Obviously, though, your link only gives 1 quote from Jesus and that one's a stretch, so you can't be entirely anti-religion. If you're Christian, then I'm officially embarrassed to have you claim to share my faith.

According to the answer key, 15 of the items come from the Bible. While only one was allegedly said by Jesus (and I'll admit it's somewhat twisted by the article), there are a lot of Christians who consider both the OT and the NT as part of their religious text.

If you only subscribe to the NT, which is much more peaceful and based on love, good for you, but many who claim to be Christians cite to the OT as part of their belief structure.especially the anti-gay part.

There are also many gay-friendly Christians, who consider much of the OT to be stories and fables, but still believe the part about it prophesizing the arrival of the Messiah.


09/20/2014 12:13
Subject: Why do Christians always try to convert you?

Anonymous
It's pretty simple really. Christians believe non-Christians are going to Hell. They don't want you to go to Hell. So they want you to be Christians.

Atheist don't try to convert people because they don't believe anything bad will happen if one chooses not to be an athiest.

I don't know why anyone would get all bent out of shape about it.


09/20/2014 22:38
Subject: Why do Christians always try to convert you?

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
It's pretty simple really. Christians believe non-Christians are going to Hell. They don't want you to go to Hell. So they want you to be Christians.

Atheist don't try to convert people because they don't believe anything bad will happen if one chooses not to be an athiest.

I don't know why anyone would get all bent out of shape about it.

Oh please.
- Mamy Christians don't think non-believers are automatically going to hell.
- Atheists like Dawkins are all about winning people over to their "side."


09/20/2014 23:21
Subject: Why do Christians always try to convert you?

Anonymous
God chooses to speak through people. Obviously , he could rip open the sky and say "I'm God.. You're not and abortion is evil" . He chooses to be more subtle . He allows for rejection.


09/23/2014 13:33
Subject: Re:Why do Christians always try to convert you?

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Those who seek to convert base it on this verse in the Bible where Christ commanded his apostles:

Mark 16:15-16 (King James Version)

15. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Although it was addressed specifically to the apostles, some Christians - and especially the evangelicals - view it as applying to all Christians.

The problem is that - like many other things in the Bible - there is selectivity as to what is sacrosanct and what should not be taken literally and what is open to interpretation.


Yes, this is called "The Great Commandment" and it is the Christian's obligation to spread the "good word" to others. Some of us may do it more obviously. Some may do it by trying to lead a quiet Christian life and hope that others come to respect them and follow suits. The Jehovah's Witnesses mentioned above are REQUIRED to spend @ hours per week going door-to-door and must turn in records with number of hours spent in trying to seek conversion. If they don't do that, they will be shunned by the J.W. community. Read up on it in wikipedia. It's really rather amazing what is required of J.W.'s. Similarly Mormons seek to convert new Mormons but traditionally do it through the two year mission program at age 18 for boys and 19 for girls.

Whoa. You sure have a rivalry/enmity/hostility for Christians. I'm sure you'll respond with something about Christians being people of the book. Nevertheless, your obsession with the people you call Christian-evangelical-crusader-islamophobes seems very real.

Let's examine your substance. You are trying to argue that *everybody* makes generalizations about other members of their faiths. But you undermine this with quotes from Christians that carefully use the words "some" or "many." Then, for some reason, you tossed in some quotes from atheists or non-Christians that make the sort of sweeping generalizations about Christians that you claim to abhor when said generalizations are made about Muslims.

Here are the quotes that seem to be from Christians: 10/24/2014 06:01 and 09/23/2014 @ 13:33. Note the careful use of words like "many" and "some." You bolded the words "some" and "many" yourself.

Here are the posts that are obviously by atheists or non-Christians. Didn't you notice that these posters weren't Christian, when you were cutting and pasting? [/b]I'm talking about 10/26/2014 @ 00:40 (the 1st para is a Christian and the next two paras are an atheist or non-Christian. I know this because I'm the 1st para but the 2nd two paras are by an atheist or non-Christian who responded to me). Again, 09/20/2014 @ 12:13 is clearly a non-Christian or atheist. So for whatever reason, you elected to cut and paste broad generalizations made by atheists or non-Christians about what Christians supposedly think -- and that's exactly the sort of broad generalization that you object to when people make generalizations about all Muslims.

And here are many more examples of people of other faiths, namely Christian in these examples though, that seem to be speaking for others:


Subject: Worldly success doesn't define a Christian
Anonymous

There is a middle way, OP. I think Jesus tells us that wealth corrupts - that it makes us strive for the wrong things, care for the wrong things, and spend our time in the wrong way. You can see that side of things, yes? That materialism is not the path to God? But the world shows us that just because you trust in God all your material needs (basic food, clothing, shelter) will not be magically provided. Plenty of good people, all over the world, starve to death. So I think the idea is that money should never be the point, the thing you strive for, because it is likely to lead you away from God. It might bring you closer to a new church building, sure, but there is nothing that says that church buildings or priests or fancy pews are closer to God than a person in the streets serving the homeless. And Jesus never did say that hard work and responsibility were Godly virtues. He said that love is the most important thing. I'd argue that it isn't terribly loving to let your children suffer through hunger and cold, so you need some responsibility and hard work to feed them, but Jesus didn't say that.


09/29/2014 11:54
Subject: Re:Worldly success doesn't define a Christian
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
How did the praying of the 6.5 million sets of parents work out for them last year? Did they all pray to the wrong God?

No wait - I remember - God works in mysterious ways. He found my SIL the perfect real estate agent in line at the grocery store, but unfortunately, while he was distracted another 350 children died. It's so mysterious.

Again, Christians are not supposed to fear death. The children went to heaven, they're OK, they're with their heavenly Father.

For the parents, on the other hand, it's a serious trial of the faith.


Subject: Worldly success doesn't define a Christian
Anonymous
99% of Christians do not believe that children dying of disease, or murder, or tsunamis that kill thousands, are acts of God. I'd say that some of the terrible things that happen are due to human numbscullery - we won't do simple things like share our wealth enough that everyone has clean water and a place to poop, and we do really expensive things like go to war. And with the bad stuff that is just the way the world works...I just don't believe that God is a being that mucks around in the weather/plate tectonics/virology like that. I think through all that stuff, God stands fast in loving us and loving the vast amazing universe. Its up to us to channel that love to take care of each other when we suffer.


09:22
Subject: Re:"Bad" Catholic mom question on getting children become catholic
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote: OP bad Catholic mom here- Thank you all for your information- after 1st and 2nd grade - that's pretty much it, right? I mean, besides going to church-
No...they need to be confirmed. And the age of confirmation really varies by the parish/diocese. If you really want them to be Catholic then you really need to make the commitment to go to church on a regular basis and learn the teachings, traditions etc. You might also want to start saying prayers at bedtime too.


10/28/2014 15:20
Subject: Re:The Pope Believes in Evolution
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
15:07, I don't think you know what transubstantiation is, as it is completely irrelevant and unrelated to evolution.

Lifelong Catholic. No one in my family, including my now dead uber-Catholic grandmother ever believed that evolution and God were incompatible.

OP, I think it's the literalist fundamentalists who believe that the Bible, including the earliest stories from the Book of Genesis are all historical fact.


[b]Fundamentalists usually believe that the Bible is literally true, which isn't at all the case for Catholics[/b]. The religions that don't believe in evolution tend to be the same ones that don't care much for the Catholic church, partly because Catholics are not literalists when it comes to the Bible. Catholics believe that much in the Bible is told as stories, or as a previous poster notes, as fables. We can learn about truth from stories without the stories needing to be literally true.
Evolution been believed in by Catholics for as long as I can remember.


10/28/2014 21:19
Subject: Re:The Pope Believes in Evolution
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote: Anonymous wrote:
15:07, I don't think you know what transubstantiation is, as it is completely irrelevant and unrelated to evolution.

Lifelong Catholic. No one in my family, including my now dead uber-Catholic grandmother ever believed that evolution and God were incompatible.

OP, I think it's the literalist fundamentalists who believe that the Bible, including the earliest stories from the Book of Genesis are all historical fact.
Fundamentalists usually believe that the Bible is literally true, which isn't at all the case for Catholics. The religions that don't believe in evolution tend to be the same ones that don't care much for the Catholic church, partly because Catholics are not literalists when it comes to the Bible. Catholics believe that much in the Bible is told as stories, or as a previous poster notes, as fables. We can learn about truth from stories without the stories needing to be literally true.
Evolution been believed in by Catholics for as long as I can remember.


Catholics are much more sophisticated than some other CHristians. [b]Catholics are not taught about the bible in any depth, but they know all about the rules of the church -- about the miracle of the bread and wine turning to the actual body and blood of Jesus, about how in order to become a saint, a person has to first be proven to have performed miracles after they have died. Catholics don't condone divorce, but if you have enough money and perseverance, you can obtain an annulment even after many years of marriage and several children. The fundamentalists are way behind in that area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff would not do anything because I wanted him to. He would act on his own sense of right and wrong. The articles quoting experts will expose the extent of your islamophobia. What owner of a blog will want islamophobes to have free reign to use his blog to propagate hate?

You have no idea what his sense of right and wrong is. He hasn't stopped this till now, and he won't, for the reasons you outlined.

But I do know your idea of right and wrong ISN'T shared by him. This was evidenced by the fact that 1) he said you (if you are the islamophobe in question) might have an agenda here and 2) the long, combative posts by you to him, which then also extended into the Web Feedback forum.

He has not stopped the threads and I appreciate that he hasn't because it is providing valuable information for the writers and investigative journalists.

You say above that he will stop it. Then you say you are happy that he hasn't. Which is it?

I don't think I wrote any posts to Jeff, and certainly not any long combative ones. When and if I write a post to Jeff, it will start with "Hello, Jeff."

Web feedback forum? Don't know what you mean. Never saw the place. But I know you like to make stuff up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
And now, I leave the islamophobe with this request - please stop vilifying the Islamic faith. From the beginning you have confused the practice of Islam with Muhammads true revelation. You clearly have not read Leila Ahmed's book and have no right to be quoting passages that appear on a google preview. Learn Islamic history and then come back to debate from a position of knowledge. You are not in that position now.

Nothing you have posted challenges the original claim - Muslims portray Islam as a sole source of civilization, and pre-Islamic Arabia as a dark, terrible place because it's an ideologically serviceable approach.

Jahilia is not a scientific term. It's a branding effort. A brand is what people agree to all something.

What do you mean "I have no right"? What right do I need to quote anything at all?

I notice you didn't say anything at all about the way she contrasted the lives of Khadija and Aisha - in a light that wasn't very flattering to Aisha. That, I don't think you can blame on the Abbasids Do you want to try and spin this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And now, I leave the islamophobe with this request - please stop vilifying the Islamic faith. From the beginning you have confused the practice of Islam with Muhammads true revelation. You clearly have not read Leila Ahmed's book and have no right to be quoting passages that appear on a google preview. Learn Islamic history and then come back to debate from a position of knowledge. You are not in that position now.

Nothing you have posted challenges the original claim - Muslims portray Islam as a sole source of civilization, and pre-Islamic Arabia as a dark, terrible place because it's an ideologically serviceable approach.

Jahilia is not a scientific term. It's a branding effort. A brand is what people agree to all something.

What do you mean "I have no right"? What right do I need to quote anything at all?

I notice you didn't say anything at all about the way she contrasted the lives of Khadija and Aisha - in a light that wasn't very flattering to Aisha. That, I don't think you can blame on the Abbasids Do you want to try and spin this?

To CALL something.

[Anonymous]

To the Muslim poster:

It is fine to say something like all orthodox Muslims believe that Mohammed is the messenger of God. This is an essential belief in Islam and is undisputed.

Where you go off track is making blanket qualitative statements about believers of your religion and what they think it teaches: All Muslim women believe that Islam grants them equal rights to men.

Am example of the former for Christians is: All mainstream Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God.

An example of the latter is: Christians believe that those who do not believe in Christ will not be saved.

You will boost your credibility if you keep straight basic Islamic beliefs from qualitative assessments of other more diffuse areas of your religion.

I understand the temptation to fight a categorical statement that is qualitative with another qualitative categorical statement, but it does not help your case: Islam condones the killing of innocents. No Islam is a religion of peace. This accomplishes nothing and should be avoided.

By the way, it would be nice if you avoided categorical statements about Christianity. More than once on these threads I have seen statements like: Islam, unlike Christianity, does not associate others with God. The trinity is subtle, but Christianity, indiisputably, is a monotheistic religion.

Thank you.