Be Wary of Racism and Islamophobes

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:PP, you are almost single handedly engaging in a modern day lynching, except you don't have access to a rope and tree so you are doing it online.

As a Muslim woman, I can validate the truth of what Muslima has published thus far in defense of her statement support Islam granted women voting rights over 1400 years ago.

The sura Ash Shura means "consultation" and the verses she quoted are evidence that women had political say, they had the right to offer their oath of allegiance to rulers if they wanted and this was independent of their father or husband making an oath.

You said this oath of allegiance is different from voting. Not necessarily. Ash Shura, the Sura in the Quran, states those who believe in Allah will rely on consultations for deciding any matter that requires a collective opinion. This hints at the importance of democratic decisions. The language does not only refer to males, either. This requirement to come to a decision collectively applies to men and women. This is powerful evidence that women were not excluded from political decision making. Their opinion counted too.

You asked why muslim countries took so long to give Muslim women voting rights. Its a logical question and has a simple answer that any intelligent person should be able to deduce. After the Prophet died, the condition and treatment of women deteriorated, and slowly returned to pre-Islamic times. Muslima tried to explain to you, numerous times, that Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries do not fairly reflect Islamic practice. Your misunderstanding of Islam stems basically from your inability to distinguish Islamic faith from Muslim practice.

Now you want Muslima to be banned from DCUM when you have done nothing but engaged in a modern day, online lynching of her? You follow her from thread to thread. One member of your racist group told her to go back to her country. Yet, you want HER banned?

You represent the ugly, disgusting, loathsome minority with your hatred of Islam and vendetta against religious Muslims. Very few people have come to your defense because your exposed yourself to be a promoter of hate. On the other hand, the reason more people have not come to Muslima's defense is because they recognize you may have a psychiatric disorder and explaining anything to you is pointless when you are on a one-woman-atheist-Islam-hating-racist mission.

Do not worry, I am not going anywhere As long as they continue to spread falsehood about Islam, I will be right here debunking each and everyone of their claims. Lying about Islam is one of the greatest sins in Islam, so as a Muslim who believes that, what in the world do I gain by lying about my religion? I put my forehead on the floor 5 times/day and affirm that "God is the Greatest" and there is no one worthy to be worshipped except Him. I worship the Creator, not the Creation, so I do not need to lie to be accepted by the creation and rejected by the Creator. Allah said in Quran that " no soul shall be punished for the deeds of another but every soul shall be punished for its own actions." So I feel Muslims understand this very well. We just have to bear the burden of educating the un civil. As Ali RA said in battle when he refused to kill a man that spit on him,"the battle is not against you , but against ignorance". They are our jihad

Now, to the other PPs, I repeat again, Islam allowed women to vote over 1400 years ago. Islam allowed women to own property over 1400 years ago and to that PP who said 'ughh own property, not a big deal." Well it kinda is, since women in the west had to fight for these rights like a few years ago..These are well-known facts, and whether the answer or verses cited satisfy you or not is quite frankly irrelevant. You are not the authority on this, muslim women all over the world know these facts, muslim men all over the world know these facts. Whenever muslim women have been oppressed, it was not due to Islam. It was due to a profound lack of knowledge or the lack of application of that knowledge. Ignorance is what is oppressive! Islam demands that women be treated with respect, honour, and justice. It condemns oppression of any kind. Having said that, it iis an undeniable truth that across the world, some Muslim women are oppressed, but that is also true for Christian women, Jewish women, Atheist women, Buddhist Women, hindus, women of all religious persuasions and ethnicities are being oppressed on a daily basis everywhere in the world, so have at it!

Subject: [Masjid Tucson] Submission weekly reminder

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Peace be upon you,

What does the Quran say about women and government? Do women have equal rights to vote? Can they run for president?

From the Quran we know men and women are equal (Quran 33:35), and God tells us that our leaders make decisions after due consultation (Quran 42:38) of those involved (i.e., both men and women). Thus women and men are equal in their vote.

The Quran further gives us an example of a woman ruler, who followed the principle of consultation -- the Queen of Sheba (Quran 27:29-35).
Source: http://www.masjidtucson.org/publications/books/weekly/2012/jan/jan12_women_society.txt

[Quran 42:38] They respond to their Lord by observing the Contact Prayers (Salat). Their affairs are decided after due consultation among themselves, and from our provisions to them they give (to charity).

[Anonymous]

19:42, let's be really clear about this. Your post has been addressed by two different posters so far. I responded immediately, several times. I'm not your atheist nemesis, in fact I'm not an atheist. I'm also not 21:00/21:01.

You cannot continue to claim that only a single "Islamophobe" boogeyman finds your arguments unconvincing.

[Anonymous]

Muslima. For Pete's sake. Mohammed's first wife owned property before Islam even appeared. Islam did not "grant property rights to women." Why do you keep saying that?

Also, you're the one who is so big on using context to interpret the Quran, yet in this case you insist on ignoring context. You're talking about people who were acting 1400 years ago in a context of establishing relations with another tribe. Nor does pledging allegiance to the ruler of another tribe have anything to do with *choosing* the ruler that you pledge to or the "ballots" you kept referring to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I feel like the moderator should just shut this thread down before Muslima does more disservice to her religion -- which I believe deserves a fair and open-minded hearing -- by dropping any more of her whoppers.

When Muslima and the nasty little sidekick make claims like this, as they've done many times before (Islam provides equality to women, more people in the US convert to Islam than immigrate), there's an inevitable pattern:

- Muslima claims Islam gave women voting rights 1400 years ago (page 23 of this thread)
- Other posters ask her for proof for multiple pages (pages 23-26 of this thread)
- Muslima cllaims that we're too stupid for her to waste her time providing proofs, she suggests the library or Google with reminders not to forget our reading glasses and suggestions that we're so stupid we'll need to ask the librarian for help (pages 23-26 of this thread), with help from the nasty little sidekick telling everybody they are gap-toothed rednecks and should go get drunk on cosmos (see the same thread pages),
- Someone else proves Muslima wrong (see 10/08/2014 19:02),
- Muslima finally posts something she claims proves her point (see page 27 of this thread) , followed by,
- More thread pages about how that doesn't prove her point at all, because it's somebody's opinion and it has nothing to do with voting,
- Muslima and the nasty little sidekick call everybody Islamophobes for spending 7+ (or 10-20 pages on issues like whether converts exceed immigrants or the meaning of "equality" when it comes to Islamic women's rights).

Honestly, how is an open and free exchange on Islam served by this BS? The moderator should shut these threads down.

bump

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:Muslima. For Pete's sake. Mohammed's first wife owned property before Islam even appeared. Islam did not "grant property rights to women." Why do you keep saying that?

Also, you're the one who is so big on using context to interpret the Quran, yet in this case you insist on ignoring context. You're talking about people who were acting 1400 years ago in a context of establishing relations with another tribe. Nor does pledging allegiance to the ruler of another tribe have anything to do with *choosing* the ruler that you pledge to or the "ballots" you kept referring to.

I don't respond to Pete but for Allah's sake since you don't trust all the "obscure" Muslim sources Here's PBS for you :

The Quran explicitly states that men and women are equal in the eyes of God. Furthermore, the Quran:

forbids female infanticide (practiced in pre-Islamic Arabia and other parts of the world)
instructs Muslims to educate daughters as well as sons
insists that women have the right to refuse a prospective husband
gives women rights if they are divorced by their husband
gives women the right to divorce in certain cases
gives women the right to own and inherit property (though in Sunni Islam they get only half of what men inherit. Men are expected to care for their mothers and any unmarried female relatives, and would, it is reasoned, need greater resources for this purpose.)
While polygyny is permissible, it is discouraged and on the whole practiced less frequently than imagined by Westerners. It is more frequent in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia. Many Muslims cite the Quranic phrase "But treat them equally... and if you cannot, then one [wife] is better" and argue that monogamy is preferable, or even mandatory.

OMG, did PBS just use the word "Equal"??? Don't they know how confusing this is to their western readers

In fact, Islam gives women a number of rights, some of which were not enjoyed by Western women until the 19th century. For example, until 1882, the property of women in England was given to their husbands when they married, but Muslim women always retained their own assets. Muslim women could specify conditions in their marriage contracts, such as the right to divorce should their husband take another wife. Also, Muslim women in many countries keep their own last name after marriage.

Some women in Muslim societies have been prominent political actors. Female relatives of the Prophet Muhammad were particularly important in the early Muslim community because they knew his practice and teachings so well. Other women came to power through fathers or husbands. Still others wielded power behind the scenes.

Aisha, the favored wife of Muhammad, had great political clout and even participated in battle (the Battle of Camel).
Razia was a Muslim woman ruler of 13th-century India.
Amina was a 16th-century queen of Zaria in present-day Nigeria.
Shajarat al-Durr was briefly sultan in Mamluk Egypt, but was the power behind the throne for even longer.
The so-called "sultanate of women" in the Ottoman Empire during the 17th century was a period when several strong women had enormous power over affairs of state.
Huda Shaarawi, who became famous for discarding her face veil, also established a women's political party and worked for Egyptian independence from Britain in the first half of the 20th century.

Just shocking!!!!! PBS is in, they are part of the conspiracy to prove to the world that Muslim women had rights 1400 years ago, something must certainly be done , sue them!


Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/questions/women/


And yes Khadijah R.A was wealthy, she was a business woman. Wealthy women were able to own property and even inherit, the lower class couldn't. Take a history class and come back

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:
I don't respond to Pete but for Allah's sake since you don't trust all the "obscure" Muslim sources Here's PBS for you :

The Quran explicitly states that men and women are equal in the eyes of God. Furthermore, the Quran:

forbids female infanticide (practiced in pre-Islamic Arabia and other parts of the world)
instructs Muslims to educate daughters as well as sons
insists that women have the right to refuse a prospective husband
gives women rights if they are divorced by their husband
gives women the right to divorce in certain cases
gives women the right to own and inherit property (though in Sunni Islam they get only half of what men inherit. Men are expected to care for their mothers and any unmarried female relatives, and would, it is reasoned, need greater resources for this purpose.)
While polygyny is permissible, it is discouraged and on the whole practiced less frequently than imagined by Westerners. It is more frequent in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia. Many Muslims cite the Quranic phrase "But treat them equally... and if you cannot, then one [wife] is better" and argue that monogamy is preferable, or even mandatory.

Muslima, do you really, really want to start all this again? Don't you remember what happened last time? Can't you see what's coming next?

- Muslim men can divorce women by saying the phrase "Talak, talak, talak." That's it. Women have to sue for divorce in court and may lose their children.
- Women get half the inheritance of men because they are dependent on men
- Women's testimony is worth 1/2 that of a man in financial courts
- Muslim warriors can take female captives as concubines
- Husbands may discipline their wives by striking in some translations, tapping in other translations. Wives have no similar recourse against husbands.
- The polygamy stuff you mentioned, except you called it polygyny which refers to women having multiple husbands.

By your reasoning, the fact that Jesus said nothing about inheritance or property rights could be interpreted to mean that Christianity granted these rights to women 600 years before Islam did.

[Anonymous]

PS. Muslima, you really do seem to assume that nobody here knows anything about Islam, so nobody will challenge assertions like "Islam gives women the right to divorce" or produce a more nuanced version. Apparently you hope that your your selective cut-and-pastes will fall on innocent ears that will perhaps be converted.

Also, you STILL haven't proven that Islam granted voting rights to women 1400 years ago. You merely slapped your 21st century values on an event from the 600s that involved tribal relations. Many of us have heard a million times that Islam banned female infanticide, but really, why should that be the standard, and why shouldn't we aspire to so much more in this day and age?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I feel like the moderator should just shut this thread down before Muslima does more disservice to her religion -- which I believe deserves a fair and open-minded hearing -- by dropping any more of her whoppers.

When Muslima and the nasty little sidekick make claims like this, as they've done many times before (Islam provides equality to women, more people in the US convert to Islam than immigrate), there's an inevitable pattern:

- Muslima claims Islam gave women voting rights 1400 years ago (page 23 of this thread)
- Other posters ask her for proof for multiple pages (pages 23-26 of this thread)
- Muslima cllaims that we're too stupid for her to waste her time providing proofs, she suggests the library or Google with reminders not to forget our reading glasses and suggestions that we're so stupid we'll need to ask the librarian for help (pages 23-26 of this thread), with help from the nasty little sidekick telling everybody they are gap-toothed rednecks and should go get drunk on cosmos (see the same thread pages),
- Someone else proves Muslima wrong (see 10/08/2014 19:02),
- Muslima finally posts something she claims proves her point (see page 27 of this thread) , followed by,
- More thread pages about how that doesn't prove her point at all, because it's somebody's opinion and it has nothing to do with voting,
- Muslima and the nasty little sidekick call everybody Islamophobes for spending 7+ (or 10-20 pages on issues like whether converts exceed immigrants or the meaning of "equality" when it comes to Islamic women's rights).

Honestly, how is an open and free exchange on Islam served by this BS? The moderator should shut these threads down.

bump

bump.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:Furthermore, the Quran:

forbids female infanticide (practiced in pre-Islamic Arabia and other parts of the world)
instructs Muslims to educate daughters as well as sons
insists that women have the right to refuse a prospective husband
gives women rights if they are divorced by their husband
gives women the right to divorce in certain cases
gives women the right to own and inherit property (though in Sunni Islam they get only half of what men inherit. Men are expected to care for their mothers and any unmarried female relatives, and would, it is reasoned, need greater resources for this purpose.)
While polygyny is permissible, it is discouraged and on the whole practiced less frequently than imagined by Westerners. It is more frequent in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia. Many Muslims cite the Quranic phrase "But treat them equally... and if you cannot, then one [wife] is better" and argue that monogamy is preferable, or even mandatory.
OMG, did PBS just use the word "Equal"??? Don't they know how confusing this is to their western readers

PBS didn't use the word equal. The Quran did. Again, you may believe that Islam gives women a superior deal. Others may disagree. Why is that so hard to fathom? Right of divorce "in certain cases"? As opposed to unrestricted one for men?

Also, there aren't really any rights for women post-divorce, other than a three-month paycheck.

Islam didn't invent the right to own and inherit property for women. Women owned and inherited property long before Islam. There is absolutely no evidence Islam forged a virgin path there.

Muslima wrote:
In fact, Islam gives women a number of rights, some of which were not enjoyed by Western women until the 19th century. For example, until 1882, the property of women in England was given to their husbands when they married, but Muslim women always retained their own assets. Muslim women could specify conditions in their marriage contracts, such as the right to divorce should their husband take another wife. Also, Muslim women in many countries keep their own last name after marriage.

There is no such thing as "Western women". Each Western country had its own legal framework. Women in Spain owned and inherited property independently since 12th century. The fact that Muslim women keep their names after marriage is a just a custom. It's not a particular sign of independence. In fact, some say it is to signify that a woman remains a part of her father's family more so than her husband's.

Muslima wrote:
Some women in Muslim societies have been prominent political actors. Female relatives of the Prophet Muhammad were particularly important in the early Muslim community because they knew his practice and teachings so well. Other women came to power through fathers or husbands. Still others wielded power behind the scenes.
Aisha, the favored wife of Muhammad, had great political clout and even participated in battle (the Battle of Camel).

That's not particularly special or different from any other environment. There were always powerful women, in all societies. And just which one of his wives was the favored one is a matter of some debate, even within Islam. Of course, when your daddy is president, it's easy to become revered.

Muslima wrote:
Razia was a Muslim woman ruler of 13th-century India.
Amina was a 16th-century queen of Zaria in present-day Nigeria.
Shajarat al-Durr was briefly sultan in Mamluk Egypt, but was the power behind the throne for even longer.
The so-called "sultanate of women" in the Ottoman Empire during the 17th century was a period when several strong women had enormous power over affairs of state.
Huda Shaarawi, who became famous for discarding her face veil, also established a women's political party and worked for Egyptian independence from Britain in the first half of the 20th century.

Again, how is this in any way special or different from other societies?

Muslima wrote:
And yes Khadijah R.A was wealthy, she was a business woman. Wealthy women were able to own property and even inherit, the lower class couldn't. Take a history class and come back

Oh dear. What is the source for this? Your opinion?

Apropos that, I doubt very much that an upperclass woman would have entertained marriage to an orphan with nothing much except character to recommend. AND, if your claim of her upper class status is true, that actually shows us that pre-Islamic Arabia was quite an egalitarian little place - women could propose marriage to much younger men, hire and fire, dispose of their own business, get rich and stay rich, and pick husbands not necessarily from their social milieu. Not a bad deal, if you ask me.

I may also say that most of pre-Islamic history was conveniently authored by Islamic scholars. Mainstream Muslim discourse always tries to cast "jahiliya" in the worst possible light. I wouldn't rely on Muslims to learn what pre-Islamic society was really like - too much incentive to put it down.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:Furthermore, the Quran:

forbids female infanticide (practiced in pre-Islamic Arabia and other parts of the world)
instructs Muslims to educate daughters as well as sons
insists that women have the right to refuse a prospective husband
gives women rights if they are divorced by their husband
gives women the right to divorce in certain cases
gives women the right to own and inherit property (though in Sunni Islam they get only half of what men inherit. Men are expected to care for their mothers and any unmarried female relatives, and would, it is reasoned, need greater resources for this purpose.)
While polygyny is permissible, it is discouraged and on the whole practiced less frequently than imagined by Westerners. It is more frequent in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia. Many Muslims cite the Quranic phrase "But treat them equally... and if you cannot, then one [wife] is better" and argue that monogamy is preferable, or even mandatory.
OMG, did PBS just use the word "Equal"??? Don't they know how confusing this is to their western readers

PBS didn't use the word equal. The Quran did. Again, you may believe that Islam gives women a superior deal. Others may disagree. Why is that so hard to fathom? Right of divorce "in certain cases"? As opposed to unrestricted one for men?

Also, there aren't really any rights for women post-divorce, other than a three-month paycheck.

Islam didn't invent the right to own and inherit property for women. Women owned and inherited property long before Islam. There is absolutely no evidence Islam forged a virgin path there.

Muslima wrote:
In fact, Islam gives women a number of rights, some of which were not enjoyed by Western women until the 19th century. For example, until 1882, the property of women in England was given to their husbands when they married, but Muslim women always retained their own assets. Muslim women could specify conditions in their marriage contracts, such as the right to divorce should their husband take another wife. Also, Muslim women in many countries keep their own last name after marriage.

There is no such thing as "Western women". Each Western country had its own legal framework. Women in Spain owned and inherited property independently since 12th century. The fact that Muslim women keep their names after marriage is a just a custom. It's not a particular sign of independence. In fact, some say it is to signify that a woman remains a part of her father's family more so than her husband's.

Muslima wrote:
Some women in Muslim societies have been prominent political actors. Female relatives of the Prophet Muhammad were particularly important in the early Muslim community because they knew his practice and teachings so well. Other women came to power through fathers or husbands. Still others wielded power behind the scenes.
Aisha, the favored wife of Muhammad, had great political clout and even participated in battle (the Battle of Camel).

That's not particularly special or different from any other environment. There were always powerful women, in all societies. And just which one of his wives was the favored one is a matter of some debate, even within Islam. Of course, when your daddy is president, it's easy to become known as "the favored wife." Didn't Aisha always nurse a gigantic grudge against Khadijah, even most-portem?

Muslima wrote:
Razia was a Muslim woman ruler of 13th-century India.
Amina was a 16th-century queen of Zaria in present-day Nigeria.
Shajarat al-Durr was briefly sultan in Mamluk Egypt, but was the power behind the throne for even longer.
The so-called "sultanate of women" in the Ottoman Empire during the 17th century was a period when several strong women had enormous power over affairs of state.
Huda Shaarawi, who became famous for discarding her face veil, also established a women's political party and worked for Egyptian independence from Britain in the first half of the 20th century.

Again, how is this in any way special or different from other societies?

Muslima wrote:
And yes Khadijah R.A was wealthy, she was a business woman. Wealthy women were able to own property and even inherit, the lower class couldn't. Take a history class and come back

Oh dear. What is the source for this? Your opinion?

Apropos that, I doubt very much that an upperclass woman would have entertained marriage to an orphan with nothing much except character to recommend. AND, if your claim of her upper class status is true, that actually shows us that pre-Islamic Arabia was quite an egalitarian little place - women could propose marriage to much younger men, hire and fire, dispose of their own business, get rich and stay rich, and pick husbands not necessarily from their social milieu. Not a bad deal, if you ask me.

Incidentally, most of pre-Islamic history was conveniently authored by Islamic scholars. Mainstream Muslim discourse always tries to cast "jahiliya" in the worst possible light. I wouldn't rely on Muslims to learn what pre-Islamic society was really like - too much incentive to put it down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima, do you really, really want to start all this again? Don't you remember what happened last time? Can't you see what's coming next?

- Muslim men can divorce women by saying the phrase "Talak, talak, talak." That's it. Women have to sue for divorce in court and may lose their children.

The losing children bit may or may not happen but all major madhabs agree women lose custody of children if they remarry. One of our divorcee relatives in KSA has been declining all proposals for that reason - she would rather stay single than lose her children.

anonymous wrote:
- The polygamy stuff you mentioned, except you called it polygyny which refers to women having multiple husbands./quote]

No, she's correct and you're wrong. Polygyny is multiple wives. Polyandry is multiple husbands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima, do you really, really want to start all this again? Don't you remember what happened last time? Can't you see what's coming next?

- Muslim men can divorce women by saying the phrase "Talak, talak, talak." That's it. Women have to sue for divorce in court and may lose their children.

The losing children bit may or may not happen but all major madhabs agree women lose custody of children if they remarry. One of our divorcee relatives in KSA has been declining all proposals for that reason - she would rather stay single than lose her children.

anonymous wrote:
- The polygamy stuff you mentioned, except you called it polygyny which refers to women having multiple husbands./quote]

No, she's correct and you're wrong. Polygyny is multiple wives. Polyandry is multiple husbands.

OK, thanks.

Was interested to read the point that Muslim wives who are divorced get alimony for ... three months only. Again, I presume this is because they're presumed to be dependent on the male members of their families.

[Anonymous]

Yes, that's correct re: three months only. To me personally, that has always been a fatal flaw in the Islamic framework of rights, and I'm surprised it doesn't get more airtime because I consider it highly discriminatory, more so than polygamy. To me it would have been terribly unfair to not acquire any claims to wealth built during marriage. For a homemaker, that's a very rough deal. No thanks. They will tell you that a divorced woman will be maintained by her father, her brother etc. but that's all babbling. I consider all my husband and I made during marriage to be joint property. And I'm glad the law here agrees with me. Three months' of alimony? Nah, not good enough for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Muslima. For Pete's sake. Mohammed's first wife owned property before Islam even appeared. Islam did not "grant property rights to women." Why do you keep saying that?

Also, you're the one who is so big on using context to interpret the Quran, yet in this case you insist on ignoring context. You're talking about people who were acting 1400 years ago in a context of establishing relations with another tribe. Nor does pledging allegiance to the ruler of another tribe have anything to do with *choosing* the ruler that you pledge to or the "ballots" you kept referring to.

Read, woman, read. Nasty Little Muslim here. We just got through telling you that in Sura Ash Shurra there is a verse on the requirement of mutual consultations to decide all matters that require a collective opinion. It clearly makes this statement to both men and women. This means even in political matters, women's opinion mattered because usually political matters require a collective vote or opinion. But this ruling goes for everything from voting on a ruler to deciding who should clean the mosque that week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima. For Pete's sake. Mohammed's first wife owned property before Islam even appeared. Islam did not "grant property rights to women." Why do you keep saying that?

Also, you're the one who is so big on using context to interpret the Quran, yet in this case you insist on ignoring context. You're talking about people who were acting 1400 years ago in a context of establishing relations with another tribe. Nor does pledging allegiance to the ruler of another tribe have anything to do with *choosing* the ruler that you pledge to or the "ballots" you kept referring to.

Read, woman, read. Nasty Little Muslim here. We just got through telling you that in Sura Ash Shurra there is a verse on the requirement of mutual consultations to decide all matters that require a collective opinion. It clearly makes this statement to both men and women. This means even in political matters, women's opinion mattered because usually political matters require a collective vote or opinion. But this ruling goes for everything from voting on a ruler to deciding who should clean the mosque that week.

Nobody ever called you Nasty Little Muslim. I called you Nasty Little Sidekick.

The racist appellation is your own invention and I refuse to be associated with it. It's part of the broader problem you seem to have with honesty and consistency.