The subtle micro aggressions of islamophobia

[Anonymous]

What is all this gibberish? You cite Christians who are carefully using words like "some" and "many" to refer to the beliefs of other Christians. Your quotes show Catholics who are being careful to draw distinctions between themselves and fundamentalists. Your quotes show people saying "I think..." (but you didn't bold that, did you). The one person making a generalization with "99%" is probably correct that 99% think this, at least in 2014--it's on the level of saying 99% of Muslims think Mohammed is God's messenger. The only people in your many quotes who are making generalizations along the lines of "all Christians believe this or that" are clearly atheists or non Christians trying to argue the religion is bad. As just one example, you just quoted 9/29/2014 @11:54, but that's clearly an atheist.

I don't understand why you bothered spending hours on this, because none of this proves your point about Muslima being held to a different standard re speaking for all other Muslims. Your excerpts actually refute your point.

On the other hand, there's a Muslim poster here who cuts to the chase with "those Shias and Sufis are not Muslims." Yet both OP and Muslima prefer to fight stale battles with other posters instead of confronting this person. Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is all this gibberish? You cite Christians who are carefully using words like "some" and "many" to refer to the beliefs of other Christians. Your quotes show Catholics who are being careful to draw distinctions between themselves and fundamentalists. Your quotes show people saying "I think..." (but you didn't bold that, did you). The one person making a generalization with "99%" is probably correct that 99% think this, at least in 2014--it's on the level of saying 99% of Muslims think Mohammed is God's messenger. The only people in your many quotes who are making generalizations along the lines of "all Christians believe this or that" are clearly atheists or non Christians trying to argue the religion is bad. As just one example, you just quoted 9/29/2014 @11:54, but that's clearly an atheist.

I don't understand why you bothered spending hours on this, because none of this proves your point about Muslima being held to a different standard re speaking for all other Muslims. Your excerpts actually refute your point.

On the other hand, there's a Muslim poster here who cuts to the chase with "those Shias and Sufis are not Muslims." Yet both OP and Muslima prefer to fight stale battles with other posters instead of confronting this person. Why?

I agree with PP. You are very quick to go after the non-Muslim posters with your corrections of "fact" (usually your opinion), but you do not go after the Muslim posters who utter non-Islamic statements like "Shi'ites are not Muslims" or "Sufis can't be trusted for their views on Islam."

The Christian posters, on the other hand, are quick to go after Christian posters who spout gibberish like Catholics aren't Christians. Credibility is gained by calling out nonsense whenever it occurs, regardless of whether the statement is made by a co-religionist or someone of another faith. We have been doing this repeatedly with you, just as we would for anyone from whatever religion, but you persist in confounding our disagreement with your nonsensical posts with Islamaphobia.

[Anonymous]

When OP quoted the poor poster below, OP bolded selected words in an effort to prove her contention, namely, that Christians often speak for all other Christians. Therefore, OP argues, it's unfair to criticize Muslima for speaking for all Muslims.

Let's take the same passage OP quoted, and let's underline the parts OP ignored. Let's underline the parts where this poor poster, whoever it was, actually did qualify her statements as being her own thinking and opinions.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Golly. OP's bolding wasn't very reliable, was it? In fact, OP's selective bolding distorted the passage. That poor PP, whoever it was, included plenty of caveats to indicate that these were her own opinion. But OP wants us to think otherwise, so she distorts what's in plain sight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are about three islam haters, one of the most vocal ones wrote and started arguing with the owner of this blog, Jeff. Then she continued the combative posts to the Web Feedback forum.

These threads provide a wealth of information to those who want to publish articles on Islamophobia. They have also permitted me to use scholarly resources to refute the islamophobe's assertion and ultimately prove her a liar. So for now it is helpful the thread remain active. However, I think when the articles are published and links to them provided here, Jeff may shut it down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There are about three islam haters, one of the most vocal ones wrote and started arguing with the owner of this blog, Jeff. Then she continued the combative posts to the Web Feedback forum.

These threads provide a wealth of information to those who want to publish articles on Islamophobia. They have also permitted me to use scholarly resources to refute the islamophobe's assertion and ultimately prove her a liar. So for now it is helpful the thread remain active. However, I think when the articles are published and links to them provided here, Jeff may shut it down.

Proving anyone a liar happened only in your own mind. Most people read this thread as a wealth of information undermining your own weird claims.

Why don't you ask him what he will do? He's an adult, you know. He can tell you what he will do. Why guess?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are about three islam haters, one of the most vocal ones wrote and started arguing with the owner of this blog, Jeff. Then she continued the combative posts to the Web Feedback forum.

These threads provide a wealth of information to those who want to publish articles on Islamophobia. They have also permitted me to use scholarly resources to refute the islamophobe's assertion and ultimately prove her a liar. So for now it is helpful the thread remain active. However, I think when the articles are published and links to them provided here, Jeff may shut it down.

You are aware that it is YOU that started multiple posts on Islam and YOU who got offended when no on bowed down to your posts by automatically agreeing with you and YOU who keeps calling everyone names because of it right?

It's pretty obvious that this a simply your tactic to conjure up "islamaphobia" articles for false sympathy. YOU are seeking to attack, YOU are seeking out people to call Islamaphobe and YOU are doing all this to make yourself relevant with your "contacts".


Standard Islamic tactics, attack and then when attacked back, feign discrimination and innocence while simultaneously name calling your provoked attackers to garner sympathy.
(For reference-- see most situations around the world.)



To the rest on here, if you read the newspapers often, you will see how so many articles are slanted with "Muslim sympathy", the buzz word around the world now is "Islamaphobe" and no one wants to be accused of it so words are written very carefully and often in a bias favor to gain points as "fair".

I hope the harping on by this PP allows us to better see that. I've read many articles where complete facts were withheld and not written because it would make some Muslims look bad, but the facts are the facts and PP has shown us how easily she (and her cohorts) will twist the words and highlight only the parts that are to their advantage.

If you point out any different, you will deemed an Islamaphobe and demonized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When OP quoted the poor poster below, OP bolded selected words in an effort to prove her contention, namely, that Christians often speak for all other Christians. Therefore, OP argues, it's unfair to criticize Muslima for speaking for all Muslims.

Let's take the same passage OP quoted, and let's underline the parts OP ignored. Let's underline the parts where this poor poster, whoever it was, actually did qualify her statements as being her own thinking and opinions.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Golly. OP's bolding wasn't very reliable, was it? In fact, OP's selective bolding distorted the passage. That poor PP, whoever it was, included plenty of caveats to indicate that these were her own opinion. But OP wants us to think otherwise, so she distorts what's in plain sight.

------------------

But if you are going to boldface any parts, why only boldface those parts that serve your interest? Let's also look at the parts where Christians clearly seem to interpret the entire Christian faith 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, [b]but Jesus didn't say that.

In the above bold face comments, I'm not seeing any "some", "a few", or any other qualifiers associated. Where are they? It's pretty clear in at least some of the comments the poster is indeed speaking about the Christian belief system, not simply HER belief system. This is no different from what Muslima has done. Yet you find fault with Muslima. It is because she identified herself as a Muslim who loves her faith and spoke positively about Islam. You have made her the target, but not your own Christian brethren simply because she is a Muslim.



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.

Whoa. That first comment is a sweeping generality, and true or not, this poster is speaking about Christian beliefs, not simply her own belief. How is this different from Muslima's way of communicating? Or is it simply because Muslima is a Muslim and it's fun for you to pick on anything she posts?


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.

Here we have a well intentioned Christian giving parenting advice about how to ensure children are Catholic. The bold faced comment is not simply her opinion, it's her opinion about how ALL Catholic children should be raised. Again, not very different from what Muslima would say. But Muslima is a Muslim and an easy target so you criticize her,not this poster.


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.
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.

And above we have a few nice examples of how Christians do speak about Christian principles, not their own personal opinion. Where are the qualifiers such as "some"? Sure, the pp begins with "I think" but if the "I think" is followed up with sweeping generalizations about all Catholics such as, "Evolution has been believed by Catholics for as long as I can remember" or "Catholics are not literalists" or "which isn't AT ALL the case for Catholics", what is the point of saying "I think?" Besides, I have a feeling even if Muslima uses "I think" in every comment she posts, you rabid Muslim haters will still want to rip her posts apart.


Catholics are much more sophisticated than some other CHristians. 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.

And with the above comments, again, there is no qualifying language used to show she is not speaking about her own personal opinion. The poster is clearly speaking about the entire Catholic belief system, which is what Muslima has done.


Does the Christian faith ask you to pick on Muslims who speak about their own belief system?

[Anonymous]

It is a fact that catholics are not taught about the bible in any depth, It is also a fact - a well known fact in and out of the church - that the catholic church does not condone divorce.

[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?

Show me the post where Muslima or I wrote that Islam is the "sole source of civilization." You will never find such a post because we never said that. Are you suggesting we are to be held responsible for what every author writes about Islam, true or not? I should hope not.

You do not have the right to post one paragraph from a book that you have never read because in that very book, the author's opinion evolved to something different later on. This is why you look foolish quoting from a paragraph offered on a google preview without reading the book.

[b]On a side note, however, I find it amusing that this paragraph was chosen for the google preview but the subsequent chapters in her book speak quite favorably about Islam. My guess is it was used to entice Islamophobes like you to purchase her book. What a surprise they would get when they continued to read Ahmed's book, however! [/b]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is a fact that catholics are not taught about the bible in any depth, It is also a fact - a well known fact in and out of the church - that the catholic church does not condone divorce.

Fine. What you say may indeed be true. So perhaps what Muslima has said about her own belief system may also be true. Why can you not accept that her statements about Islam may indeed be true also?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the reality is that your combative posts turn people off and they think the only way to get you to stop talking is for them to stop talking to you. The fact that at least three writers now are interested in investigating your posts and the subject of islamophobia says there is a sympathetic audience out there, or at least that the subject of islamophobia is important enough to address.

That's your theory. In actuality, a number of people supported what I wrote, and not a single one supported you. My theory is that my posts make sense and yours don't.

Investigate away. Who cares?

Sure, I'm combative - at least I never called anyone an STD-infested granny or an evangelical crusader. I got that much going on for me.

A number of people? Not quite. Three, maybe four islamophobes supported you. The rest, I can imagine, are cringing at your combative posts. And frankly, I feel the person whose opinion matters most on here is Jeff since he is the owner of the blog. He has already said he felt you had an agenda here and argued with you about it. I have already received his support in private correspondences. If he learns that there is an Islamophobic organization behind your posts, he will not be pleased that you used DCUM to advance hate toward any religion.

[Anonymous]

Did I miss something here? Where did Jeff argue with the person you call Islamaphobe? Where did he tell this person he thought she had an agenda?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
OP quotes the following passage, adding her own bolding, which I've removed:

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.

And then OP writes:

In the above bold face comments, I'm not seeing any "some", "a few", or any other qualifiers associated. Where are they? It's pretty clear in at least some of the comments the poster is indeed speaking about the Christian belief system, not simply HER belief system. This is no different from what Muslima has done. Yet you find fault with Muslima. It is because she identified herself as a Muslim who loves her faith and spoke positively about Islam. You have made her the target, but not your own Christian brethren simply because she is a Muslim.

OP, you are such a shameless liar. I'm not the pants on fire poster, but she's right about you.

In a single para, the PP above, who is not me, qualified her statements as being her opinions three-3-THREE TIMES. Yeah, that PP doesn't say "some" or "few"-- but she does say "I think" twice and "I'd argue" once.

I've removed your deceptive and misleading building in order to bold her qualifiers. Does everybody see them now?

OP, at various points you've claimed to have a PhD and to be a journalist. You should be ashamed of your performance here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A number of people? Not quite. Three, maybe four islamophobes supported you. The rest, I can imagine, are cringing at your combative posts. And frankly, I feel the person whose opinion matters most on here is Jeff since he is the owner of the blog. He has already said he felt you had an agenda here and argued with you about it. I have already received his support in private correspondences. If he learns that there is an Islamophobic organization behind your posts, he will not be pleased that you used DCUM to advance hate toward any religion.

Care to post what he said? Because we don't trust you as far as we can throw you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the reality is that your combative posts turn people off and they think the only way to get you to stop talking is for them to stop talking to you. The fact that at least three writers now are interested in investigating your posts and the subject of islamophobia says there is a sympathetic audience out there, or at least that the subject of islamophobia is important enough to address.

That's your theory. In actuality, a number of people supported what I wrote, and not a single one supported you. My theory is that my posts make sense and yours don't.

Investigate away. Who cares?

Sure, I'm combative - at least I never called anyone an STD-infested granny or an evangelical crusader. I got that much going on for me.

A number of people? Not quite. Three, maybe four islamophobes supported you. The rest, I can imagine, are cringing at your combative posts. And frankly, I feel the person whose opinion matters most on here is Jeff since he is the owner of the blog. He has already said he felt you had an agenda here and argued with you about it. I have already received his support in private correspondences. If he learns that there is an Islamophobic organization behind your posts, he will not be pleased that you used DCUM to advance hate toward any religion.

How many have supported you?

Well, we all know the powers of your imagination and how you use it to paint pictures that are completely divorced from reality.

He is already on record stating he doesn't believe there IS an organization behind them.

I find it very amusing that you seem to long for a chance to run to someone you think is powerful - be it Jeff or the "media." As if your arguments aren't strong enough to stand on their own.