The subtle micro aggressions of islamophobia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the PP that OP is addressing, but I too own Dr. Ahmed's book, thanks to reading about it here a few weeks ago. It's not available as an ebook, but the paperback arrived within 2-3 days.

OP, I disagree with your characterization of this book. Dr. Ahmad's story is indeed nuanced: the point is, pre-Islamic Arabia is a patchwork, contrary to the earlier assertions from you and Muslima that Islam made things better for women in Arabia. I don't see why you quoted from Dr. Ahmed about the Abbassids, when we've focussed on the Quran (and not even Hadith) here.

I find objectionable your murky suggestions of evolution in Dr. Ahmed's conclusions, and your murky insinuation that Dr. Ahmed moved off the unflattering statements at the front of the book. She didn't. As an aside, I'm a researcher myself, and I agree with PP that authors' opinions don't "evolve" as they write. Please. An author who did that, who wrote a book that was internally inconsistent, would never get published.

Post the paragraphs please that support your opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It isn't uncommon for Muslims to judge one another, much the same way Christians or Jews may judge one another. I'm not sure where you got the idea I would defend any Muslim engaged in wrongdoing.

Ummm....from the fact that it took you several days and several rounds of shaming from different posters to finally do it? By contrast, you take only minutes to respond to posters you call Islamophobes. One can see where your priorities lie.

And even when you did it, you included a bold-faced lie that you never saw these posts before, when in fact you responded to one of them in the past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is absolutely, positively wrong for any Muslim to say who is a true Muslim or who isn't. That judgment and determination is with God/Allah alone. I have not seen the immigrant poster's statement to this effect but I trust you if you say he made such a statement. If he did, it was absolutely wrong.

You are lying. You responded to the post calling Shias non-Muslim with a mild approval. How can you possibly say you haven't see it?

Oh please. Do you ever tire of twisting and wringing the truth? I said Shias do engage in some inappropriate behavior but they are indeed Muslim. That is "mild approval"?? You have comprehension challenges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the PP that OP is addressing, but I too own Dr. Ahmed's book, thanks to reading about it here a few weeks ago. It's not available as an ebook, but the paperback arrived within 2-3 days.

OP, I disagree with your characterization of this book. Dr. Ahmad's story is indeed nuanced: the point is, pre-Islamic Arabia is a patchwork, contrary to the earlier assertions from you and Muslima that Islam made things better for women in Arabia. I don't see why you quoted from Dr. Ahmed about the Abbassids, when we've focussed on the Quran (and not even Hadith) here.

I find objectionable your murky suggestions of evolution in Dr. Ahmed's conclusions, and your murky insinuation that Dr. Ahmed moved off the unflattering statements at the front of the book. She didn't. As an aside, I'm a researcher myself, and I agree with PP that authors' opinions don't "evolve" as they write. Please. An author who did that, who wrote a book that was internally inconsistent, would never get published.

Post the paragraphs please that support your opinion.

Why don't YOU post the paragraphs where Leila Ahmed says, "hey, earlier in the book I said X. But now, I really think it is Y." That's what evolution means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you stand by and say nothing while your fellow religionists murder aid workers, then you are part of the problem. You endorse their actions with your silence. You endorse their actions with your posturing as a highly persecuted minority that needs to "fight back."

I don't blame her for ISIS, and she has condemned them. Closer to home, I do think she has a moral obligation to condem the poster who said, a few days ago, that Shi'ites aren't Muslims and we shouldn't trust Sunnis. Waiting....

It is absolutely, positively wrong for any Muslim to say who is a true Muslim or who isn't. That judgment and determination is with God/Allah alone. I have not seen the immigrant poster's statement to this effect but I trust you if you say he made such a statement. If he did, it was absolutely wrong.

That said, there are certain criteria for being a Muslim. One needs only to believe 1) There is one God only 2) Prophet Muhammad is the last messenger. Implied in the second part of this oath is that one acknowledges there is a long line of messengers and prophets from God such as Adam, Jonah, Joseph, Moses, Jesus, Lot, etc…and Muhammad is the last one. That is it. There are many different ways of interpreting Islam, for sure, and Muslims are permitted to criticize and debate which way is correct. However, it is absolutely wrong to make a judgment as to who is a Muslim.

It isn't uncommon for Muslims to judge one another, much the same way Christians or Jews may judge one another. I'm not sure where you got the idea I would defend any Muslim engaged in wrongdoing.

You saw the post. You can keep saying you didn't but you know you did.

I find it odd that you state the above bolded- because you've been clear before about what is "True Islam" (anyone that doesn't agree with you) and some not being "true" Muslims.

But at least you are being truthful in stating that you believe only 'Muslims are permitted to criticize and debate which way is correct.'

In which case, why are you posting so much about Islam on non Muslim boards? Why not just post your thoughts on Islam on Islamic boards frequented by only Muslims so there could at least be some dialogue. You post here, then get upset that others comment on your posts then start name calling.

If you can only discuss Islam with other Muslims, then please feel free to leave this board and do so. Why waste time here if no one else is "permitted" to criticize or debate the interpretations of Islam?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is absolutely, positively wrong for any Muslim to say who is a true Muslim or who isn't. That judgment and determination is with God/Allah alone. I have not seen the immigrant poster's statement to this effect but I trust you if you say he made such a statement. If he did, it was absolutely wrong.

You are lying. You responded to the post calling Shias non-Muslim with a mild approval. How can you possibly say you haven't see it?

Oh please. Do you ever tire of twisting and wringing the truth? I said Shias do engage in some inappropriate behavior but they are indeed Muslim. That is "mild approval"?? You have comprehension challenges.

No, here's what you said:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/315/221619.page#5972250, post at 18.47. The style is unmistakably yours.

"If the program is going to show Muslims, it's a bit strange to show people who may not even practice Islam."

So, still want to say you didn't see it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I didn't see that either, but most people won't search through the thread to verify and will only see the accusation above, which perhaps is the motivation for planting it there -- to give the person credibility.

then of course there's the "private correspondences" which can't be proven -- unless Jeff comes on to attest to them.

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

I just had to take the time to find these because I wanted the DCUM readership to know what bold face liars these Islamophobes are. Shame on you, Islamophobes. Now I hope everyone on DCUM knows you do have an agenda to spread hate.

Note specifically that one poster did, in fact, use the word "barbaric" to describe Islam/Muslims and Jeff did not agree.



Subject: Be Wary of Racism and Islamophobes
jsteele
Site Admin
Joined: 11/12/2007 23:38
Messages: 15900
Online Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm a different poster. My concern all along has been that Muslima and her alter ego make blanket assertions that themselves misrepresent the diversity in Islam you so correctly point out.

Muslima is certainly entitled to her own, personal Islam. You and I actually agree that there is no one interpretation of many Islamic tenets.

Except, IMO, she veers into much shadier territory when she claims things that are directly contradicted in the Quran. I'm not so worried about hadith and sharia, but the Quran is purportedly God's own words. So when she makes glowing claims about women's equality and female captives, do you see a problem with people pointing out what the Quran actually says about these issues? IMO, if only the glowing bits are presented, DCUM starts to look like a conversion effort and readers miss the range of Islamic thought you so correctly point out.


Of course you are free to take a contrary view.


Except then I get called a Christian-Evangelist-Crusader-Racist-Islamophobe. Isn't that a little concerning, too?

I don't read the other poster as telling Muslima what to believe. There's a big difference between telling Muslima what to believe, and explaining to the general audience of readers here the many gaps (deliberate? Who knows) in Muslima's presentation and where exactly she's out of step with her own holy book and the eminent theologians in her faith. The other PP is pretty knowledgeable about Islam, and she's explaining to all of us the huge range of thought across Islam that you agree exists. Whether or not Muslima is trying to win converts is something we can't know. I, for one, am grateful to the knowledgeable PP for widening my knowledge of Islam as it's practiced by a billion plus people. If explaining the wide range of Islam--again, we agree this range exists--is tantamount to a deliberate campaign to "spread a negative perception of Islam" (your words, or as a Muslim PP here would say, part of a racist-Christian-evangelist-Islamophobic crusade), then I don't know how we can even discuss Islam here.


I don't know you are directing this post to me. I have not called you a Christian-Evangelist-Crusader-Racist-Islamophobe. There are a lot of posters in this thread and it's a bit to tell one anonymous poster from another. But, there are clearly posters here who appear primarily committed to spreading negative information about Islam.

I think when someone picks a topic such as slavery or concubines and attempts to convey that this is an accepted and non-controversial practice that is unquestioned within the religion, when in fact very few adherents actually believe such a thing and there is quite a bit of debate among scholars, that poster is attempting to spread negative perceptions of Islam. If the poster was solely interested in providing broader perspective, the poster would not completely ignore common practice.

Islam, like any religion, is an easy target for criticism. It is fair to question its practices. But, just as I illustrated here with the example of Hagar, most posters here are not willing to subject mainstream Western religions to the same scrutiny. That suggests a certain basic lack of fairness.


09/06/2014 16:33
Subject: Re:Be Wary of Racism and Islamophobes
jsteele
Site Admin

Joined: 11/12/2007 23:38
Messages: 15900
Offline Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

Because Islam does not work that way. You either accept Islam or you reject it. There is no half way. You either embrace the barbarism, or you are not a Muslim.


This is BS. If you believe that embracing barbarism is necessary to being a Muslim, you really do deserve to be described with some of the negative terms being discussed in this thread.


Barbarism is a value judgment. But the PP is correct in a sense that calling yourself a follower of a particular religion means you embrace it in toto, both beautiful as well as unlovely bits. If some of it appears barbaric to the outsiders, well, OK.


Then all Christians should be expected to embrace the barbarism committed by such groups as the Lord's Resistance Army, abortion clinic bombers, and the Christian Identity Movement? Do mainstream Christians embrace the hate of the Jonesboro Baptists?

Your statement is actually ludicrous. Most members of a religion cannot even agree on what the religion itself embraces, let alone embrace all of it. If there were one true Judaism, why would there be Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, etc. Is a reform Jew embracing every practice of a Hassid?



09/06/2014 17:14
Subject: Re:Be Wary of Racism and Islamophobes
jsteele
Site Admin
Joined: 11/12/2007 23:38
Messages: 15900
Online Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:

For your argument to have any standing, the practice of owning concubines would need to be practically the rule among Muslims rather than limited to extremist groups. When a practice is limited to extremists, it is by definition not part of the generally accepted practice of the religion.

I really don't know what you expect from the average Muslim. Very few would agree that taking concubines is acceptable. Is your intent to demonstrate to them that they are not properly following their religion? Do you want them to suddenly agree with your that Islam is barbaric and stop being Muslims? Do you not understand how insulting your approach is to most people -- Muslim or otherwise?

Accepted practice and scriptural support is not the same thing. The practice may not exist any more, but as long as the scholars of the religion continue to support it or refuse to condemn it (not the extremists, the actual learned scholars), you can't argue that it is no longer acceptable to the followers of the religion. The fact that it is practically impossible is less relevant here. We aren't discussing practice, we are discussing what is permissible as far as the religion is concerned.

And I'm perfectly fine extending this rule to all religion.


Okay, then, in your own words, Jews and Christians embrace the practice of taking concubines based on that fact that Abraham took Hagar as a concubine. This said, I am not sure why you are only criticizing Muslims in this regard.

I am astounded that you have decided that you are not only authorized to tell Muslims what is permissible in their religion, but to make your judgement regardless of general practices.

I again ask, do you expect average Muslims to agree with you and begin taking concubines or do you expect them to reject their religion? Or, are they only supposed to bow down to your obviously superior knowledge of their religion? It looks to me that your only interest is spreading a negative perception of Islam despite the fact that your effort is based on something that is practically unknown among Muslims.

Lets bump this up to make sure the DCUM readership sees that the Islamophobes were called out a while back for having an agenda by Jeff himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Let's bump this up just to be clear of your agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Lets bump this up to make sure the DCUM readership sees that the Islamophobes were called out a while back for having an agenda by Jeff himself.

Hey, Shia hater.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Lets bump this up to make sure the DCUM readership sees that the Islamophobes were called out a while back for having an agenda by Jeff himself.

And yet Jeff HIMSELF (oh how you long for authority figures!) told you he doesn't think a shadowy organization is at play here....or do you only quote Jeff HIMSELF when he agrees with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you seen All-American Muslim? What did you think of it? I started watching it after all the right-wing hoopla claiming that the show's producers were avoiding showing militant Muslims. The issues the show dealt with made sense to me based on what I know from Muslim friends and acquaintances. I was sorry the show wasn't renewed.

Folks who want to know more about one segment of the Muslim community in the US may want to check it out.

That show was nonsense, the families they showed were shia, aka non-Muslims, its a completely different faith! They had tattoos, the women weren't covering all the time, a few were wrapped up in haram (forbidden) money making (The club) and the list goes on and on. It was an extremely poor representation of what a real american Muslim is. Now don't get me wrong they had some key points and very real life situations that everyone goes through, but I'm glad they didn't renew it.

Who made you in charge of deciding what an American Muslim is?

More generally, who put you in charge of deciding who is and is not a real Muslim? Just go ahead and call them rafidah dogs and then catch a flight to ISIS, they seem to need people with your attitude.

Wait. Did you just use an arabic term now on DCUM? You must be the same who used the term, dawah wallah. Do you realize you alienate readership by using words very few nonMuslims know? You don't sound smart, you sound disconnected from your audience.

That pp iscorrect also. If a program is going to show Muslims, its a bit strange to show people who may not even practice Islam.

Look who is claiming she never saw the posts calling Shias non-Muslims. Uh-huh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you seen All-American Muslim? What did you think of it? I started watching it after all the right-wing hoopla claiming that the show's producers were avoiding showing militant Muslims. The issues the show dealt with made sense to me based on what I know from Muslim friends and acquaintances. I was sorry the show wasn't renewed.

Folks who want to know more about one segment of the Muslim community in the US may want to check it out.

That show was nonsense, the families they showed were shia, aka non-Muslims, its a completely different faith! They had tattoos, the women weren't covering all the time, a few were wrapped up in haram (forbidden) money making (The club) and the list goes on and on. It was an extremely poor representation of what a real american Muslim is. Now don't get me wrong they had some key points and very real life situations that everyone goes through, but I'm glad they didn't renew it.

Who made you in charge of deciding what an American Muslim is?

More generally, who put you in charge of deciding who is and is not a real Muslim? Just go ahead and call them rafidah dogs and then catch a flight to ISIS, they seem to need people with your attitude.

Wait. Did you just use an arabic term now on DCUM? You must be the same who used the term, dawah wallah. Do you realize you alienate readership by using words very few nonMuslims know? You don't sound smart, you sound disconnected from your audience.

That pp iscorrect also. If a program is going to show Muslims, its a bit strange to show people who may not even practice Islam.

Look who is claiming she never saw the posts calling Shias non-Muslims. Uh-huh.

How many times does PP have to post OPs response on the Shias, before OP stops claiming she never saw the post she responded to?

[Anonymous]

In fairness to OP, she MAY have been responding to other parts of the poster's description of American Muslim when she said they were not practicing Muslims--even though the description did NOT say the Muslims depicted did not practice their faith:

"That show was nonsense, the families they showed were shia, aka non-Muslims, its a completely different faith! They had tattoos, the women weren't covering all the time, a few were wrapped up in haram (forbidden) money making (The club) and the list goes on and on. It was an extremely poor representation of what a real american Muslim is. Now don't get me wrong they had some key points and very real life situations that everyone goes through, but I'm glad they didn't renew it."

So perhaps OP inferred that the families did not practice Islam because:

1. They had tattoos--Unlikely, tattoos are not necessarily unIslamic

2. The women didn't cover up all the time--I guess it depends on your view about the necessity of women covering up in Islam. I certainly know practicing Muslims who do not cover their head ever, but maybe OP thinks this is enough to make one not practicing?

3. Some were involved in suspect businesses--This kind of makes me laugh. Plenty of people out there going to the mosque every Friday and making their wives cover from head to toe who are involved in unsavory business enterprises.

So we are left with one of two conclusions as to why OP said the Muslims depicted were not practicing Muslims: either it was because they were Shi'ite or it was because the women didn't cover up all all the time, If it's the former, she should own up. If it's the latter, she should come out and just tell us that the sine qua non of Islam is that women cover up, which is pretty much the view of every fundamentalist group that has gotten power in the Middle East.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In fairness to OP, she MAY have been responding to other parts of the poster's description of American Muslim when she said they were not practicing Muslims--even though the description did NOT say the Muslims depicted did not practice their faith:

"That show was nonsense, the families they showed were shia, aka non-Muslims, its a completely different faith! They had tattoos, the women weren't covering all the time, a few were wrapped up in haram (forbidden) money making (The club) and the list goes on and on. It was an extremely poor representation of what a real american Muslim is. Now don't get me wrong they had some key points and very real life situations that everyone goes through, but I'm glad they didn't renew it."

So perhaps OP inferred that the families did not practice Islam because:

1. They had tattoos--Unlikely, tattoos are not necessarily unIslamic

2. The women didn't cover up all the time--I guess it depends on your view about the necessity of women covering up in Islam. I certainly know practicing Muslims who do not cover their head ever, but maybe OP thinks this is enough to make one not practicing?

3. Some were involved in suspect businesses--This kind of makes me laugh. Plenty of people out there going to the mosque every Friday and making their wives cover from head to toe who are involved in unsavory business enterprises.

So we are left with one of two conclusions as to why OP said the Muslims depicted were not practicing Muslims: either it was because they were Shi'ite or it was because the women didn't cover up all all the time, If it's the former, she should own up. If it's the latter, she should come out and just tell us that the sine qua non of Islam is that women cover up, which is pretty much the view of every fundamentalist group that has gotten power in the Middle East.

That doesn't explain 1) why she claimed, on several occasions, that she never saw that post, when she clearly did, and 2) why she saw someone performing an act of takfir on the Shia - a very great sin in Islam - and said nothing, all the while accusing non-Muslim posters of propagating hatred and divisiveness. I guess it's OK if a Muslim does it, huh. I guess her Islamophobia alarm only goes off when the kuffar get mouthy. Other Muslims can engage in Shia-phobia and Sufi-phobia and still get a pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not the PP that OP is addressing, but I too own Dr. Ahmed's book, thanks to reading about it here a few weeks ago. It's not available as an ebook, but the paperback arrived within 2-3 days.

OP, I disagree with your characterization of this book. Dr. Ahmad's story is indeed nuanced: the point is, pre-Islamic Arabia is a patchwork, contrary to the earlier assertions from you and Muslima that Islam made things better for women in Arabia. I don't see why you quoted from Dr. Ahmed about the Abbassids, when we've focussed on the Quran (and not even Hadith) here.

I find objectionable your murky suggestions of evolution in Dr. Ahmed's conclusions, and your murky insinuation that Dr. Ahmed moved off the unflattering statements at the front of the book. She didn't. As an aside, I'm a researcher myself, and I agree with PP that authors' opinions don't "evolve" as they write. Please. An author who did that, who wrote a book that was internally inconsistent, would never get published.

Post the paragraphs please that support your opinion.

I don't need to prove I own this book, to you or to anybody else. But I'll play along. How about on page 43, when Ahmed talks about Robertson Smith's theory that pre-Islamic Arabia was matriarchal, and Montgomery Watt's theory that pre-Islamic Arabia was at least matrilineal. Ahmed doesn't adopt these theories as being applicable to the whole pre-Islamic period, but she does think them worth mentioning. She writes, on the same page, that "Smith's and Watt's theories aside, the evidence does at least unambiguously indicate that there was no single, fixed institution of marriage and that a variety of marriage customs were practiced about the time of the rise of Islam, customs suggesting both matrilineal and patrilineal systems were extant. Uxorial practices, for example, can be found in Mohammed's background."

Go ahead and check, I'll wait for you. That was page 43. I'll toss in "gists" as the first word on page 74 and "but" as the first word on page 148. OK, now do you accept that I own the book?

So back to my point. You claimed Ahmed's book "evolves" and you insinuated that Dr. Ahmed changed her mind about pre-Islamic Arabia by the end of her book. In fact, her opinion about pre-Islamic Arabia never changes at all. I'll repeat: she never backtracks on her opinion of pre-Islamic Arabia. Instead Dr. Ahmed (quite understandably) moves to a discussion of Modern Islam, western feminists and even anthropology in our own times (the pages leading up yo p. 248). That, and not any backtracking or changing her mind about pre-Islamic Arabia, is how she ends her book.

I stand by my statement, that you twisted Dr. Ahmed's message with your insinuation that Dr. Ahmed "evolved" from her statements about pre-Islamic Arabia in the front of her book.