Anonymous wrote:
One thing that is abundantly clear is that you have never read the book. I'm going to quote passages from her book because I have it. Not now but later when I have more time. You google and cut and paste and don't even understand what you are posting sometimes. This is because you are entirely agenda driven, islamophobia driven. Leila Ahmed has clearly stated:

"the ethical injunctions of Islam were rarely translated into enforceable laws. Only texts that orthodox theologians, legists, and philosophers (the likes of Al-Ghazali) created were--and continue to be--regarded as the core prescriptive texts of Islam. But Ahmed also makes it clear that this intense misogyny was neither originally nor exclusively Muslim in character, but rather the consequence of a cultural negotiation between Islam and "an urban Middle East with already well-articulated misogynist attitudes and practices":
[B]y licensing polygamy, concubinage, and easy
divorce for men, originally allowed under
different circumstances in a different society,
Islam lent itself to being interpreted as
endorsing and giving religious sanction to a
deeply negative and debased conception of women. "

The vast majority of scholars, not only Leila Ahmed, simply stand in direct contradiction to your opinions, largely based on google research and fueled by intense hate and gross misconception.

I look forward to helping the many writers, Imams, Islamic organizations, and nonMuslim media outlets I have now contacted to address the kind of islamophobia your posts exemplify.

After the articles are published, I will post links to them on DCUM with Jeff's permission. You have certainly taken up a lot of my time but it has not been wasted. I should thank you for being the catalyst for such a large scale effort now by so many people to address the problem of islamophobia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now that you have been proven wrong on the topic of jahiliya & the oath of allegiance because the weight of scholarly opinion standing in contradiction to your opinions, you want to shift topics. Moving those goal posts again, I see. Proof that this rant you have been on is agenda driven, islamophobia driven.

And this is why I called several media outlets. You used DCUM to propagate hate toward Islam by publishing misleading information.

No one except you thinks I've been proven wrong on anything. You're a legend in your own mind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you know who Leila Ahmed? She is an Egyptian American writer on Islam, women's studies professor at Harvard Divinity School, and recipient of the 2013 University of Louisville Grawemeyer Award in Religion for her analysis of the 'veiling' of Muslim women in the United States. She has a doctorate degree from University of Cambridge, had a professorship in Women’s Studies and Near Eastern studies at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and then had a professorship in Women's Studies and Religion at the Harvard Divinity School. She is a well known scholar in Islamic studies and, in particular, women's rights.

Read Women and Islam from Oxford Islamic Studies online. Here's what her research shows in response to the point you are trying to prove above:

"The Qur??n, Islam's holy book, changed women's status considerably from that of the pre-Islamic (j?hil?yah) period. Before Islam, both polyandrous and polygamous marriages were practiced, and matrilineal, uxorilocal marriages in which the woman remained with her tribe and the male either visited or resided with her were also quite common. Many women selected and divorced their own husbands, and women were neither veiled nor secluded; some were poets and others even fought in wars alongside men. As Leila Ahmed observes, while these “practices do not necessarily indicate the greater power of women or the absence of misogyny, they do correlate with women's enjoying greater sexual autonomy than they were allowed under Islam” (Ahmed, 1992, p. 42). Islam took away polyandrous marriages, and limited the number of female spouses to a maximum of four (Qur??n 4:1) as early Arabian Muslims gradually moved from a matrilineal to a patrilineal society. The pre-Islamic practice of female infanticide was outlawed by the Qur??n (81:8–9). The dower (mahr), which in pre-Islamic times was paid directly to a woman's male guardian (wal?), was now made payable directly to the woman (4:3), who was also given the rights to inherit property (4:7)."

Well. Since you are now all about Dr. Ahmed - and in fact, it is difficult to find fault with her scholarly qualification - it seems only fitting that the women of DCUM find out what Dr. Ahmed really says - and not what you say she says. Here is the quote from her seminal book "Women and Gender in Islam", chapter 3, p. 41 - the whole works can be viewed here http://books.google.com/books?id=U0Grq2BzaUgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false I bolded some sections for ease of reference.

"Neither the diversity of marriage practices in pre-Islamic Arabia nor the presence of matrilineal customs, including the association of children with the mother’s tribe, necessarily connotes women’s having grater power in society or greater access to economic resources. Nor do these practices correlate with an absence of misogyny; indeed, there’s clear evidence to the contrary. The practice of infanticide, apparently confined to girls, suggests a belief that women were expendable…(citation of a Quranic verse follows).

However, the argument made by some Islamists – that Islam’s banning of infanticide established the fact that Islam improved the position of women in all respects, seems both inaccurate and simplistic. In the first place, the situation of women appears to have varied among different communities of Arabia. Moreover, although Janilia marriage practices do not necessarily indicate the greater power of women or the absence of misogyny, they do correlate with women’s enjoying grater sexual autonomy than they were allowed under Islam. They also correlate with women’s being active participants, even leaders, in a wide range of community activities, including warfare and religion. Their autonomy and participation were curtailed with the establishment of Islam, its institution of patrilineal, patriarachal marriage as solely legitimate, and the social transformation that ensued.

The lives and marriages of two of Muhammad’s wives, Khadija and Aisha, encapsulate thei kinds of changes that would overtake women in Islamic Arabia. Khadija, Muhammad’s first wife, was a wealthy widow who, before her marriage to Muhammad, employed him to oversee her caravan, which traded between Mecca and Syria. She proposed to and married him when she was forty and he twenty five, and she remained his only wife until her death at about 65. She occupies a place of importance in the story of Islam because of her importance to Muhammad: her wealth freed him from the need to earn a living, and enabled him to lead the life of contemplation that was the prelude to his becoming a prophet, and her support and confidence were crucial to him in his venturing to preach Islam. She was already in her fifties, however, when Muhammad received his first revelation and began to preach, and thus it was Jahilia society and customs, rather than Islamic, that shaped her conduct and defined the possibilities of her life. Her economic independence, her marriage overture, apparently without a male guardian to act as intermediary, her marriage to a man many years younger than herself and her monogamous marriage all reflect Jahilia rather than Islamic practice.

In contrast, autonomy and monogamy were conspicuously absent in the lives of the women Muhammad married after he became the established prophet and leader of Islam, and the control of women by male guardians and the male prerogative of polygyny were thereafter to come formal features of Islamic marriage. It was Aisha’s lot, rather, which would prefigure the limitations that would thenceforth hem in Muslim women’s lives: she was born to Muslim parents, married Muhammad when she was nine or ten, and soon thereafter, along with her co-wives, began to observe the new customs of veiling and seclusion. The difference between Khadija’s and Aisha’s lives – especially with regard to autonomy – foreshadows the changes that Islam would effect for Arabian women. Aisha, however, lived at a moment of transition, and in some respects her life reflects Jahilia as well as Islamic practice. Her brief assumption of political leadership after Muhammad’s death doubtless had roots in the customs of her forebears, as did the esteem and authority the community granted her. The acceptance of women as participants in and authorities on the central affairs of the community steadily declined in the ensuing Islamic period. "

But maybe she's just trying to tarnish the image of Islam, that damn woman. Maybe you should write to her or something.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And if the wife was evil enough to throw thorns in the Prophets path so his feet would be cut and if she wanted him death, it should follow that all women held lofty positions of right and privilege in pre-islamic Arabia? Is this your persuasive argument? Her husband completely supported her in his own view so she was simply supporting her husband's position against the Prophet.

Nice try disparaging Islam again.

My argument is - and I think I made it very well - that not all women in pre-Islamic Arabia were wordless, right-less chattels as you tried to present.

You have clearly been good at only one thing and that is moving the goal posts, particularly since I began quoting or referencing world renowned scholars who contradict you on several points. This is sufficient proof to DCUMers that you had an agenda all along, to disparage Islam by publishing misleading or false information.

If very few women, such as those of upper class primarily ( khadija) enjoyed some status, but overall the condition for women pre Islam was perilous, DCUMers should be asking themselves why you would feel the need to continually draw attention to the privileged few. By drawing attention to the very few privileged women, did you hope to dissuade the unknowing public from learning that Islam did indeed elevate the status of women? It appears that was your agenda.

Is it? Have you asked them?

Maybe you should post a poll or something to see exactly how your remarks have been received on DCUM. I think your reputation here shines brightly..but only in your own mind. Why not let the women of DCUM speak for themselves?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And if the wife was evil enough to throw thorns in the Prophets path so his feet would be cut and if she wanted him death, it should follow that all women held lofty positions of right and privilege in pre-islamic Arabia? Is this your persuasive argument? Her husband completely supported her in his own view so she was simply supporting her husband's position against the Prophet.

Nice try disparaging Islam again.

My argument is - and I think I made it very well - that not all women in pre-Islamic Arabia were wordless, right-less chattels as you tried to present.

You have clearly been good at only one thing and that is moving the goal posts, particularly since I began quoting or referencing world renowned scholars who contradict you on several points. This is sufficient proof to DCUMers that you had an agenda all along, to disparage Islam by publishing misleading or false information.

If very few women, such as those of upper class primarily ( khadija) enjoyed some status, but overall the condition for women pre Islam was perilous, DCUMers should be asking themselves why you would feel the need to continually draw attention to the privileged few. By drawing attention to the very few privileged women, did you hope to dissuade the unknowing public from learning that Islam did indeed elevate the status of women? It appears that was your agenda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And if the wife was evil enough to throw thorns in the Prophets path so his feet would be cut and if she wanted him death, it should follow that all women held lofty positions of right and privilege in pre-islamic Arabia? Is this your persuasive argument? Her husband completely supported her in his own view so she was simply supporting her husband's position against the Prophet.

Nice try disparaging Islam again.

My argument is - and I think I made it very well - that not all women in pre-Islamic Arabia were wordless, right-less chattels as you tried to present.

You have clearly been good at only one thing and that is moving the goal posts, particularly since I began quoting or referencing world renowned scholars who contradict you on several points. This is sufficient proof to DCUMers that you had an agenda all along, to disparage Islam by publishing misleading or false information.

If very few women, such as those of upper class primarily ( khadija) enjoyed some status, but overall the condition for women pre Islam was perilous, DCUMers should be asking themselves why you would feel the need to continually draw attention to the privileged few. By drawing attention to the very few privileged women, did you hope to dissuade the unknowing public from learning that Islam did indeed elevate the status of women? It appears that was your agenda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you deem sexual autonomy as the only measure of expansion of women's rights, then kudos to you as you have made your point. However, most women, particularly Muslim women, do not measure their status by how many men they can sleep with. There are many other, more important factors to consider, as Professor Ahmed points out.

Once again, nice try in attempting to tarnish Islam.

Well, since you're now all about Professor Ahmed, let's quote some more from her, shall we? Spin this:

“Islamic civilization developed a construct of history that labeled the pre-Islamic period the Age of Ignorance and projected Islam as the sole source of all that was civilized – and used that construct so effectively in its rewriting of history that the peoples of the Middle East lost all knowledge of the past civilizations of the religion. Obviously that construct was ideologically serviceable, successful concealing, among other things, the fact that in some cultures of the Middle East women had been considerably better off before the rise of Islam than afterwards.” (p.37)


Thanks very much, Dr. Ahmed.

Well of course. Didn't we just establish that women had greater sexual autonomy before Islam. Thats what they lost after Islam. Wasn't it you who said abstaining from fornication and adultery would be oppressive to you? Naturally, pre Islam would have afforded you the type of privileges you equate with status and power.

There you are with personal insults again - wanna apologize while you're at it?

Dr Ahmed above is making the very same argument as I - let me post it again so you can see that the words "sexual autonomy" don't figure in there:


“Islamic civilization developed a construct of history that labeled the pre-Islamic period the Age of Ignorance and projected Islam as the sole source of all that was civilized – and used that construct so effectively in its rewriting of history that the peoples of the Middle East lost all knowledge of the past civilizations of the religion. Obviously that construct was ideologically serviceable, successful concealing, among other things, the fact that in some cultures of the Middle East women had been considerably better off before the rise of Islam than afterwards.” (p.37)

Where was the insult? You made the comment. You should own it now. And be proud of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And if the wife was evil enough to throw thorns in the Prophets path so his feet would be cut and if she wanted him death, it should follow that all women held lofty positions of right and privilege in pre-islamic Arabia? Is this your persuasive argument? Her husband completely supported her in his own view so she was simply supporting her husband's position against the Prophet.

Nice try disparaging Islam again.

My argument is - and I think I made it very well - that not all women in pre-Islamic Arabia were wordless, right-less chattels as you tried to present.

You have clearly been good at only one thing and that is moving the goal posts, particularly since I began quoting or referencing world renowned scholars who contradict you on several points. This is sufficient proof to DCUMers that you had an agenda all along, to disparage Islam by publishing misleading or false information.

Anonymous wrote:
Now that you have been proven wrong on the topic of jahiliya & the oath of allegiance because the weight of scholarly opinion standing in contradiction to your opinions, you want to shift topics. Moving those goal posts again, I see. Proof that this rant you have been on is agenda driven, islamophobia driven.

And this is why I called several media outlets. You used DCUM to propagate hate toward Islam by publishing misleading information.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you deem sexual autonomy as the only measure of expansion of women's rights, then kudos to you as you have made your point. However, most women, particularly Muslim women, do not measure their status by how many men they can sleep with. There are many other, more important factors to consider, as Professor Ahmed points out.

Once again, nice try in attempting to tarnish Islam.

I think being in charge of your sexual decision is important, yes. I also think the ability to select and divorce your husband at will is also very nice, and you must agree Islam imposed limits on women in this - for marriage, for requiring consent of guardian, and for divorce, for making women-initiated divorces dependent on the husband's or the judge's consent.

Islam did not take these two rights away!

No one is arguing that but Islamic rules on marriage do in fact require the consent of a woman's guardian to marriage, and they do in fact limit the rights to at-will divorce provided to women vs. what is available to men.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you deem sexual autonomy as the only measure of expansion of women's rights, then kudos to you as you have made your point. However, most women, particularly Muslim women, do not measure their status by how many men they can sleep with. There are many other, more important factors to consider, as Professor Ahmed points out.

Once again, nice try in attempting to tarnish Islam.

Well, since you're now all about Professor Ahmed, let's quote some more from her, shall we? Spin this:

“Islamic civilization developed a construct of history that labeled the pre-Islamic period the Age of Ignorance and projected Islam as the sole source of all that was civilized – and used that construct so effectively in its rewriting of history that the peoples of the Middle East lost all knowledge of the past civilizations of the religion. Obviously that construct was ideologically serviceable, successful concealing, among other things, the fact that in some cultures of the Middle East women had been considerably better off before the rise of Islam than afterwards.” (p.37)


Thanks very much, Dr. Ahmed.

Well of course. Didn't we just establish that women had greater sexual autonomy before Islam. Thats what they lost after Islam. Wasn't it you who said abstaining from fornication and adultery would be oppressive to you? Naturally, pre Islam would have afforded you the type of privileges you equate with status and power.

There you are with personal insults again - wanna apologize while you're at it?

Dr Ahmed above is making the very same argument as I - let me post it again so you can see that the words "sexual autonomy" don't figure in there:


“Islamic civilization developed a construct of history that labeled the pre-Islamic period the Age of Ignorance and projected Islam as the sole source of all that was civilized – and used that construct so effectively in its rewriting of history that the peoples of the Middle East lost all knowledge of the past civilizations of the religion. Obviously that construct was ideologically serviceable, successful concealing, among other things, the fact that in some cultures of the Middle East women had been considerably better off before the rise of Islam than afterwards.” (p.37)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And if the wife was evil enough to throw thorns in the Prophets path so his feet would be cut and if she wanted him death, it should follow that all women held lofty positions of right and privilege in pre-islamic Arabia? Is this your persuasive argument? Her husband completely supported her in his own view so she was simply supporting her husband's position against the Prophet.

Nice try disparaging Islam again.

My argument is - and I think I made it very well - that not all women in pre-Islamic Arabia were wordless, right-less chattels as you tried to present.

Anonymous wrote:

Do you know who Leila Ahmed? She is an Egyptian American writer on Islam, women's studies professor at Harvard Divinity School, and recipient of the 2013 University of Louisville Grawemeyer Award in Religion for her analysis of the 'veiling' of Muslim women in the United States. She has a doctorate degree from University of Cambridge, had a professorship in Women’s Studies and Near Eastern studies at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and then had a professorship in Women's Studies and Religion at the Harvard Divinity School. She is a well known scholar in Islamic studies and, in particular, women's rights.

Read Women and Islam from Oxford Islamic Studies online. Here's what her research shows in response to the point you are trying to prove above:

"The Qur??n, Islam's holy book, changed women's status considerably from that of the pre-Islamic (j?hil?yah) period. Before Islam, both polyandrous and polygamous marriages were practiced, and matrilineal, uxorilocal marriages in which the woman remained with her tribe and the male either visited or resided with her were also quite common. Many women selected and divorced their own husbands, and women were neither veiled nor secluded; some were poets and others even fought in wars alongside men. As Leila Ahmed observes, while these “practices do not necessarily indicate the greater power of women or the absence of misogyny, they do correlate with women's enjoying greater sexual autonomy than they were allowed under Islam” (Ahmed, 1992, p. 42). Islam took away polyandrous marriages, and limited the number of female spouses to a maximum of four (Qur??n 4:1) as early Arabian Muslims gradually moved from a matrilineal to a patrilineal society. The pre-Islamic practice of female infanticide was outlawed by the Qur??n (81:8–9). The dower (mahr), which in pre-Islamic times was paid directly to a woman's male guardian (wal?), was now made payable directly to the woman (4:3), who was also given the rights to inherit property (4:7)."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you deem sexual autonomy as the only measure of expansion of women's rights, then kudos to you as you have made your point. However, most women, particularly Muslim women, do not measure their status by how many men they can sleep with. There are many other, more important factors to consider, as Professor Ahmed points out.

Once again, nice try in attempting to tarnish Islam.

I think being in charge of your sexual decision is important, yes. I also think the ability to select and divorce your husband at will is also very nice, and you must agree Islam imposed limits on women in this - for marriage, for requiring consent of guardian, and for divorce, for making women-initiated divorces dependent on the husband's or the judge's consent.

Islam did not take these two rights away!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you deem sexual autonomy as the only measure of expansion of women's rights, then kudos to you as you have made your point. However, most women, particularly Muslim women, do not measure their status by how many men they can sleep with. There are many other, more important factors to consider, as Professor Ahmed points out.

Once again, nice try in attempting to tarnish Islam.

Well, since you're now all about Professor Ahmed, let's quote some more from her, shall we? Spin this:

“Islamic civilization developed a construct of history that labeled the pre-Islamic period the Age of Ignorance and projected Islam as the sole source of all that was civilized – and used that construct so effectively in its rewriting of history that the peoples of the Middle East lost all knowledge of the past civilizations of the religion. Obviously that construct was ideologically serviceable, successful concealing, among other things, the fact that in some cultures of the Middle East women had been considerably better off before the rise of Islam than afterwards.” (p.37)


Thanks very much, Dr. Ahmed.

Well of course. Didn't we just establish that women had greater sexual autonomy before Islam. Thats what they lost after Islam. Wasn't it you who said abstaining from fornication and adultery would be oppressive to you? Naturally, pre Islam would have afforded you the type of privileges you equate with status and power.