Reply to The subtle micro aggressions of islamophobia

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "The subtle micro aggressions of islamophobia"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
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. [/quote]

I will,  when I have the time. Right now my focus is primarily on helping the writers in their investigation and research. I think I have already shown that I own Leila Ahmed's book and I have published numerous paragraphs from her book that show her positive impression of Islam. Of course you are left wondering [b]why she wrote something differently in the first two chapters, [/b]however, and I can understand your confusion. So why don't you order her book and read it yourself because no matter what I publish, I'm sure[b] I will be accused of misrepresenting her opinion.[/b] Although, I do wonder how likely you will be to order a book written by an author who has a favorable impression of Islam the religion. [b]Leila Ahmed does explain why her opinion evolves [/b]in the latter chapters. And my guess as to why the publisher chose to provide that specific paragraph on google preview is to persuade those who have a negative impression of Islam to buy her book. Her knowledge of history is amazing and she explains, in a beautiful reasonable way, why Islam is truly an egalitarian religion.[/quote]

Different PP here. Now I'm seriously annoyed with you, OP. I challenged your ridiculous assertion that Leila Ahmed "wrote something differently in the first two chapters" and your response to me, at your post of 17:05, was basically to challenge me to see if I own Dr. Ahmed's book. Indeed I do own her book.  So I wrote the following for you at 20:03 yesterday. You completely ignored my post. Why? Because it makes your ridiculous assertion about Dr. Ahmed's opinion on pre-Islamic Arabia look ... ridiculous.

[quote=Anonymous] 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. [/quote]

Let me break it down for you even more simply. Your debate with the other PP was [b]whether jahilya was good or bad, and whether Islam was better or worse for women than jahilya. [/b] But you clearly don't want to talk about pre-Islamic Arabia, and I can understand why, because Dr. Ahmed is pretty ambivalent about that. Instead, you'd much rather talk about Dr. Ahmed's opinions of Islam *today* and her theory of ethical equality and criticism of establishment Islam, both of which she does indeed discuss at the end of her book.

[b]You're trying to switch subjects on that PP you're arguing with.[/b] And you're doing this by [b]exploiting the natural historic progression in Dr. Ahmed's book [/b]-- from pre-Islamic Arabia at the start of her book to Islam today at the end of her book. Does everybody see how that works?

The worst part of your behavior is how you blame Dr. Ahmed for your own effort to switch subjects from jahilia to modern Islam. That's right. Dr. Ahmed traveled 1400 years forward in history. You call this an "evolution" of opinion and "writing something different in the beginning of the book."   It's obvious what you're doing here. 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics