Anonymous wrote:

Examples: Q. On which foot should you enter a bathroom? A. Can't remember; honestly why would anyone even think of this question. More infamously this year: Q. May I have sex with my wife after she has died? A. Yes, up to six hours after.

Or, actual question, "Sheikh, I believe there's a male jinn in my house. Can I undress in front of him?" Answer: "If you believe there is a male jinn, it is your duty to remain covered."

Honestly. It's all a big job security thing. Why would God send down a book that continues to need whole squadrons of "scholars" to interpret?

This is an old thread, somebody bumped it overnight.

Wow! A whole new multi-page thread on Islam popped up while I was sleeping. I read the beginning and skipped to the end.

Some familiar themes: Lots of conversion to Islam so Islam will be the majority religion in the US by 2030 or 40 or whatever. And then lots of tedious references to demography and its methodologies.

How about this: An unsustainable trend is unsustainable. Women in America are not wholesale going to take up the hijab, a really annoying garment that is passed off as traditional and required by the Koran, which exhorts women to cover only their zeinat or beautiful things, a term that allows for a wide range of interpretation and in today's social context could justify a bikini. It is fantasy to think a Muslim takeover s happening anytime soon and it is completely puzzling as to why the Islam supporters on this board are so salivating over the prospect.

Another theme: It is the duty of all to find out everything they can about Islam but only from anointed thinkers and jurists, who all write really poorly. (I understand it's probably a translation, but faulting people for not plowing through this simply awful and incomprehensible prose is misplaced.)

It's also laughable. These jurists and thinkers are simply not smart. This is how it works in much of the Arab world. Everyone must take a high school exit exam. Those with the highest grades may take the few slots at the state universities' schools of medicine. The next highest can enter the engineering schools. And so on through the arts and sciences. If you barely pass with a 50%, only the school of religious studies is open to you.

These "scholars" are far from the best and brightest and their own governments wouldn't trust them with someone's health or designing a building that wouldn't collapse. And yet, people are actually supposed to believe and follow whatever they say. The limited intellectual ability of these scholars explains why religious magazines in the Middle East are so pre-occupied with matters of ritual purity, a really primitive aspect of religion that requires little higher intellectual thought. They also evoke the image of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

Examples: Q. On which foot should you enter a bathroom? A. Can't remember; honestly why would anyone even think of this question. More infamously this year: Q. May I have sex with my wife after she has died? A. Yes, up to six hours after.

This was not true in medieval Islam--theologians were the best and the brightest and were often the same who made contribution to the advancement of science and medicine.

Islam needs a Jesuitical shock force to clear away all the rubbish thinking and restore true Islamic theological debate about things that really matter.

Anonymous wrote:Who cares?

Yes, who cares how many Muslims are in the U.S., or will be, or why. We still have freedom of religion.

"The peaceful minority is irrelevant."

Game, set, match.

Anonymous wrote:


The figure of 25,000 converts per year comes from an evangelical organization that has a vested interest in inflating the numbers. Since none of us here are evangelicals (despite your many claims that we are evangelicals), I don't think we need to simply accept your number of 25,000 converts, which
(a) we have good reason to suspect might be inflated,
(b) for which no methodological support exists, because
(c) nobody, repeat nobody, collects data on the number of converts to Islam.
Also, (d) we need to offset the convert figures for people who leave Islam every year for atheism or other religions.

And even if true, it's still LESS than 100,000 Muslim immigrants a year. Like, four times less.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am the OP and I am also the one who made the statement about Islam's growth and conversion rate. I am not close to Muslima and I do not know her offline. I have never communicated with her before all this began. But I agree with her for the most part. She's represented well on this and the other Islam thread. She is very knowledgeable and, just as a good Muslim should be, she never lost her temper. Too bad I'm not so good. lol But I stand behind my statements about conversion. I thought we addressed this on the other thread pages and pages ago. Yet here we are again, revisiting this topic.

How can you stand behind your statements on conversion if you didn't bring any evidence to support it?

It's OK if you say "this is my opinion," you know.

What evidence did you bring that Islam in the U.S. grows more by conversion THAN by immigration. Muslim immigration to the U.S. is about a hundred thousand a year. We've established that, doing your work for you.

Now, all you have to do is show some sources than conversions to Islam in the U.S. are at over a hundred thousand a year. Simple. Post something and people will leave you alone.

Agree completely. The figure for 100,000 Muslim immigrants per year is backed by solid evidence from a survey of more than 8,000 immigrants (a fantastic sample in the world of statistics) by Princeton, NYU, Yale and RAND, all of which are highly-respected research organizations.

The figure of 25,000 converts per year comes from an evangelical organization that has a vested interest in inflating the numbers. Since none of us here are evangelicals (despite your many claims that we are evangelicals), I don't think we need to simply accept your number of 25,000 converts, which
(a) we have good reason to suspect might be inflated,
(b) for which no methodological support exists, because
(c) nobody, repeat nobody, collects data on the number of converts to Islam.
Also, (d) we need to offset the convert figures for people who leave Islam every year for atheism or other religions.

Also. You claimed on the other thread that there will "soon be a Muslim on every block and even in every household." Per the PP at 22:51 on this thread, Muslims make up about 2.4% of the US population. Another PP asked you to define "soon" and I'll add my request to hers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Here are a few more points. Because, apparently, it's necessary to spell out the obvious.
1. For Muslim PP to be correct (note: I have no clue whether the immediate PP is the Muslim PP, or not), that is, to substantiate her claim that more people in the US are converting to Islam than immigrating here, we'd have to be able to say that >75,000 of those 100,000 immigrants are non-Muslim. That's the only possible way the immigrant number can be less than the convert number. Now it's certainly true that lots of Parsis, Bahaiis, Christians and Jews are fleeting Muslim persecution in places like Egypt, Syria, Iran, Pakistan and Nigeria. But you'd have to argue that >75% of immigrants from Muslim countries (>75,000 of the 100,000 immigrants) are actually non-Muslims fleeting Muslim persecution.

No, that's not what she's saying. She's saying Islam in the U.S. is growing more by conversion than by immigration. So if Muslim immigration to the U.S. is a hundred thousand a year, Muslim conversion numbers have to be at over a hundred thousand a year.

She hasn't provided any numbers to support that. The only GUESSTIMATE number that came from a Christian group pegs annual conversions at 25,000, which is both a) less, not more, than 100,000, and b) bullshit, because no one, nowhere collects any data on conversions to the Islam.

I think we agree here, but I was going at it a different way. Your point, that the conversion number would have to be inflated over 100,000 a year, is of course valid.

I'm going at this the other way. If there are 25,000 converts, than she needs to massively reduce that figure of 100,000 immigrants to prove her claim about converts > immigrants. To put it differently, she needs to write off more than 75,000 immigrants (because she's arguing they're Pakistani Christians or something) in order to reduce that 100,000 immigrant figure below the 25,000 convert figure. So my point is, writing off 75% of the immigrants as non-Muslims defies credibility.

I see. Well, I think this strategy is even less plausible because Pew has put out solid information that these hundred thousand people are in fact Muslim, and it took special pains to explain that it didn't just presume whoever immigrated from a Muslim-majority country MUST be Muslim, but instead relied on the New Immigrant Survey that asks for religious affiliation of new green card holders. I don't know exactly how they arrived at that number but there seems to be a rigorous method behind it. So I think finding a reason to claim that over 3/4 of them aren't Muslim would be difficult.

Yes, and thanks for digging out the Pew survey methodology.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Here are a few more points. Because, apparently, it's necessary to spell out the obvious.
1. For Muslim PP to be correct (note: I have no clue whether the immediate PP is the Muslim PP, or not), that is, to substantiate her claim that more people in the US are converting to Islam than immigrating here, we'd have to be able to say that >75,000 of those 100,000 immigrants are non-Muslim. That's the only possible way the immigrant number can be less than the convert number. Now it's certainly true that lots of Parsis, Bahaiis, Christians and Jews are fleeting Muslim persecution in places like Egypt, Syria, Iran, Pakistan and Nigeria. But you'd have to argue that >75% of immigrants from Muslim countries (>75,000 of the 100,000 immigrants) are actually non-Muslims fleeting Muslim persecution.

No, that's not what she's saying. She's saying Islam in the U.S. is growing more by conversion than by immigration. So if Muslim immigration to the U.S. is a hundred thousand a year, Muslim conversion numbers have to be at over a hundred thousand a year.

She hasn't provided any numbers to support that. The only GUESSTIMATE number that came from a Christian group pegs annual conversions at 25,000, which is both a) less, not more, than 100,000, and b) bullshit, because no one, nowhere collects any data on conversions to the Islam.

I think we agree here, but I was going at it a different way. Your point, that the conversion number would have to be inflated over 100,000 a year, is of course valid.

I'm going at this the other way. If there are 25,000 converts, than she needs to massively reduce that figure of 100,000 immigrants to prove her claim about converts > immigrants. To put it differently, she needs to write off more than 75,000 immigrants (because she's arguing they're Pakistani Christians or something) in order to reduce that 100,000 immigrant figure below the 25,000 convert figure. So my point is, writing off 75% of the immigrants as non-Muslims defies credibility.

11:36 again. Some more points. 25,000 converts is not exactly a huge number even if we think it's a reliable number (and the jury's out on that one).

It seems likely that the number of converts could be somewhat, largely, or even completely offset for Muslims who become atheist or convert to other religions. There are NO numbers on apostasy this because, as noted, Islam makes it illegal to leave Islam (on penalty of death). It seems likely (obviously I have no numbers) that many Muslims are actually atheists is in at least the thousands every year. Depending on what you think the true number of converts is, this number of converts could be offset by the numbers sliding into atheism or converting to other religions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Here are a few more points. Because, apparently, it's necessary to spell out the obvious.
1. For Muslim PP to be correct (note: I have no clue whether the immediate PP is the Muslim PP, or not), that is, to substantiate her claim that more people in the US are converting to Islam than immigrating here, we'd have to be able to say that >75,000 of those 100,000 immigrants are non-Muslim. That's the only possible way the immigrant number can be less than the convert number. Now it's certainly true that lots of Parsis, Bahaiis, Christians and Jews are fleeting Muslim persecution in places like Egypt, Syria, Iran, Pakistan and Nigeria. But you'd have to argue that >75% of immigrants from Muslim countries (>75,000 of the 100,000 immigrants) are actually non-Muslims fleeting Muslim persecution.

No, that's not what she's saying. She's saying Islam in the U.S. is growing more by conversion than by immigration. So if Muslim immigration to the U.S. is a hundred thousand a year, Muslim conversion numbers have to be at over a hundred thousand a year.

She hasn't provided any numbers to support that. The only GUESSTIMATE number that came from a Christian group pegs annual conversions at 25,000, which is both a) less, not more, than 100,000, and b) bullshit, because no one, nowhere collects any data on conversions to the Islam.

I think we agree here, but I was going at it a different way. Your point, that the conversion number would have to be inflated over 100,000 a year, is of course valid.

I'm going at this the other way. If there are 25,000 converts, than she needs to massively reduce that figure of 100,000 immigrants to prove her claim about converts > immigrants. To put it differently, she needs to write off more than 75,000 immigrants (because she's arguing they're Pakistani Christians or something) in order to reduce that 100,000 immigrant figure below the 25,000 convert figure. So my point is, writing off 75% of the immigrants as non-Muslims defies credibility.

I see. Well, I think this strategy is even less plausible because Pew has put out solid information that these hundred thousand people are in fact Muslim, and it took special pains to explain that it didn't just presume whoever immigrated from a Muslim-majority country MUST be Muslim, but instead relied on the New Immigrant Survey that asks for religious affiliation of new green card holders. I don't know exactly how they arrived at that number but there seems to be a rigorous method behind it. So I think finding a reason to claim that over 3/4 of them aren't Muslim would be difficult.

Anonymous wrote:
I am the OP and I am also the one who made the statement about Islam's growth and conversion rate. I am not close to Muslima and I do not know her offline. I have never communicated with her before all this began. But I agree with her for the most part. She's represented well on this and the other Islam thread. She is very knowledgeable and, just as a good Muslim should be, she never lost her temper. Too bad I'm not so good. lol But I stand behind my statements about conversion. I thought we addressed this on the other thread pages and pages ago. Yet here we are again, revisiting this topic.

How can you stand behind your statements on conversion if you didn't bring any evidence to support it?

It's OK if you say "this is my opinion," you know.

What evidence did you bring that Islam in the U.S. grows more by conversion THAN by immigration. Muslim immigration to the U.S. is about a hundred thousand a year. We've established that, doing your work for you.

Now, all you have to do is show some sources than conversions to Islam in the U.S. are at over a hundred thousand a year. Simple. Post something and people will leave you alone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Here are a few more points. Because, apparently, it's necessary to spell out the obvious.
1. For Muslim PP to be correct (note: I have no clue whether the immediate PP is the Muslim PP, or not), that is, to substantiate her claim that more people in the US are converting to Islam than immigrating here, we'd have to be able to say that >75,000 of those 100,000 immigrants are non-Muslim. That's the only possible way the immigrant number can be less than the convert number. Now it's certainly true that lots of Parsis, Bahaiis, Christians and Jews are fleeting Muslim persecution in places like Egypt, Syria, Iran, Pakistan and Nigeria. But you'd have to argue that >75% of immigrants from Muslim countries (>75,000 of the 100,000 immigrants) are actually non-Muslims fleeting Muslim persecution.

No, that's not what she's saying. She's saying Islam in the U.S. is growing more by conversion than by immigration. So if Muslim immigration to the U.S. is a hundred thousand a year, Muslim conversion numbers have to be at over a hundred thousand a year.

She hasn't provided any numbers to support that. The only GUESSTIMATE number that came from a Christian group pegs annual conversions at 25,000, which is both a) less, not more, than 100,000, and b) bullshit, because no one, nowhere collects any data on conversions to the Islam.

I think we agree here, but I was going at it a different way. Your point, that the conversion number would have to be inflated over 100,000 a year, is of course valid.

I'm going at this the other way. If there are 25,000 converts, than she needs to massively reduce that figure of 100,000 immigrants to prove her claim about converts > immigrants. To put it differently, she needs to write off more than 75,000 immigrants (because she's arguing they're Pakistani Christians or something) in order to reduce that 100,000 immigrant figure below the 25,000 convert figure. So my point is, writing off 75% of the immigrants as non-Muslims defies credibility.

Anonymous wrote:Let us spell this out again: The U.S. does not track religious affiliation of its new immigrants. But there's always the good old Pew Forum that at least bothers to explain how they arrived at their numbers. The Pew does agree that Muslim immigration has been steady at around a hundred thousand a year. Here you go:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/05/17/the-religious-affiliation-of-us-immigrants/

"The U.S. government does not collect data on the religious affiliation of immigrants. However, estimates can be made using information gathered by the Department of Homeland Security on the countries of origin of new green card recipients. To estimate the religious breakdown of immigrants from each country, the Pew Research Center relied primarily on the New Immigrant Survey, a nationwide survey conducted in 2003 by scholars at the RAND Corporation, Princeton University, New York University and Yale University that asked more than 8,500 recent legal immigrants about their religion, among other questions.3

The use of survey data along with country-of-origin data improves the reliability of the estimates because, in some cases, the religious makeup of migrants differs from the religious composition of the overall population in their country of birth. This study does not automatically assume, for example, that if the population of Country A is 75% Muslim, then 75% of migrants from Country A to the United States must be Muslim. On the contrary, the study uses data from the New Immigrant Survey on the religious breakdown of new U.S. green card recipients to estimate the religious affiliation of the vast majority (95%) of legal immigrants."

Thanks, PP. A survey population of 8,500 is pretty darn solid. Many surveys that purport to canvas the entire US only talk to 2,000 or 2,500 people, and those surveys generally claim statistical significance of 95%.

I'd say that figure of 100,000 Muslim immigrants has a pretty high degree of statistical significance, aka it's pretty darn reliable.

Signed, racist-Islamophobe soon-to-be divorcee with the druggie kid. I'm also the poster at 10:09 and 10:37, right above.

Anonymous wrote:
Here are a few more points. Because, apparently, it's necessary to spell out the obvious.
1. For Muslim PP to be correct (note: I have no clue whether the immediate PP is the Muslim PP, or not), that is, to substantiate her claim that more people in the US are converting to Islam than immigrating here, we'd have to be able to say that >75,000 of those 100,000 immigrants are non-Muslim. That's the only possible way the immigrant number can be less than the convert number. Now it's certainly true that lots of Parsis, Bahaiis, Christians and Jews are fleeting Muslim persecution in places like Egypt, Syria, Iran, Pakistan and Nigeria. But you'd have to argue that >75% of immigrants from Muslim countries (>75,000 of the 100,000 immigrants) are actually non-Muslims fleeting Muslim persecution.

No, that's not what she's saying. She's saying Islam in the U.S. is growing more by conversion than by immigration. So if Muslim immigration to the U.S. is a hundred thousand a year, Muslim conversion numbers have to be at over a hundred thousand a year.

She hasn't provided any numbers to support that. The only GUESSTIMATE number that came from a Christian group pegs annual conversions at 25,000, which is both a) less, not more, than 100,000, and b) bullshit, because no one, nowhere collects any data on conversions to the Islam.