Anonymous wrote:I'm not really seeing Islamaphobia on this thread except perhaps the remarks about Aisha and Khadija, and those appear to have been made by a Muslim.

Everyone else is sticking to the story that 1) the Quran does not require the hijab and 2) women who wear it have been brainwashed (or forced) into doing so, and 3) the hijab is used as an instrument to suppress women, often as an element of political Islam.

There are plenty of Muslims who hold these views, two of whom are the authors of the article OP posted. And it can be argued that those expressing these views are actually Islamophiles who are chagrined at the way Islam has been distorted to make the hijab in essence the sixth pillar of Islam.

00:34 here. I personally don't see Islamophobia on this thread either, although it's definitely out there in the country. But I mention it because there are some here who see Islamophobia in even the slightest criticism of the religion. Fine to blast the Catholics or Jews (I'm neither of those), but if you question hijab or call Khomeini a Shi'ite (I'm not making this up) then you're a bigot. Where non-Muslims are concerned, I'm sure some part is idealistic and well-intentioned and other parts are pure ignorance (hijab doesn't lend itself to simplistic, it's-all-good explanations, and does somebody think "Shi'ite" is scatological?) I've seen it over and over here on DCUM. I suspect the poster I'm calling well-intentioned falls into this category.

I'm not really seeing Islamaphobia on this thread except perhaps the remarks about Aisha and Khadija, and those appear to have been made by a Muslim.

Everyone else is sticking to the story that 1) the Quran does not require the hijab and 2) women who wear it have been brainwashed (or forced) into doing so, and 3) the hijab is used as an instrument to suppress women, often as an element of political Islam.

There are plenty of Muslims who hold these views, two of whom are the authors of the article OP posted. And it can be argued that those expressing these views are actually Islamophiles who are chagrined at the way Islam has been distorted to make the hijab in essence the sixth pillar of Islam.

Reposting for formatting

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You thought I'm Muslim and I'm not. That's one correction right there,

Aren't you the PP who said she knew Asra Nomani from the beginning and who wrote:

"I knew Asra back when she was just 9 years old. I knew her family. She was angry from the very beginning. She hated the "rules" Islam imposed on women. She has just been trying to find a way to fit in."

If you are not Muslim, why the detailed discussions with Asra on Islamic rules? It suggests a co-religionist. And why the bad mouthing of her as in "Asra Nomani is a known quack in the Muslim world" if you were not familiar with those Muslims who speak of her among themselves.

And there are many, many other indicators that you are in fact Muslim or perhaps pretending to be one--maybe, just maybe to settle some childhood score with little Asra.

Really? I take the "not a Muslim" poster for somebody who is sincerely trying to do her bit to combat Islamophobia, per the eponymous thread on the political forum. She's hampered in this by her lack of understanding of the basics (the veil's purpose, also she said she couldn't follow the Aisha discussion). Her belligerence is another handicap to discussion. But I do think she's sincere.

PS. If she does understand the veil and thinks it's an excellent thing, in conjunction with her verbal tics, then I'm wrong.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]You thought I'm Muslim and I'm not. That's one correction right there, [/quote]

Aren't you the PP who said she knew Asra Nomani from the beginning and who wrote:

"I knew Asra back when she was just 9 years old. I knew her family. She was angry from the very beginning. She hated the "rules" Islam imposed on women. She has just been trying to find a way to fit in."

If you are not Muslim, why the detailed discussions with Asra on Islamic rules? It suggests a co-religionist. And why the bad mouthing of her as in "Asra Nomani is a known quack in the Muslim world" if you were not familiar with those Muslims who speak of her among themselves.

And there are many, many other indicators that you are in fact Muslim or perhaps pretending to be one--maybe, just maybe to settle some childhood score with little Asra.[/quote]

Really? I take the "not a Muslim" poster for somebody who is sincerely trying to do her bit to combat Islamophobia, per the eponymous thread on the political forum. She's hampered in this by her lack of understanding of the basics (the veil's purpose, also she said she couldn't follow the Aisha discussion). Her belligerence is another handicap to discussion. But I do think she's sincere.

Anonymous wrote:You thought I'm Muslim and I'm not. That's one correction right there,

Aren't you the PP who said she knew Asra Nomani from the beginning and who wrote:

"I knew Asra back when she was just 9 years old. I knew her family. She was angry from the very beginning. She hated the "rules" Islam imposed on women. She has just been trying to find a way to fit in."

If you are not Muslim, why the detailed discussions with Asra on Islamic rules? It suggests a co-religionist. And why the bad mouthing of her as in "Asra Nomani is a known quack in the Muslim world" if you were not familiar with those Muslims who speak of her among themselves.

And there are many, many other indicators that you are in fact Muslim or perhaps pretending to be one--maybe, just maybe to settle some childhood score with little Asra.

Anonymous wrote:
OK. You seem earnest. I'll give you an earnest answer.

The poster who decided I really mean "Muslim men philanthropists and scientists and their wives who are wholly separate from the men" when I clearly meant "the community of Muslims and its members who happen to be female" is really, really determined to find misogyny. It's not worth my time to argue with her because she's totally convinced she knows what I meant. What that comment "really" meant was that the public perception of hijabs is driven by the perception of the Muslims en masse and not by the act of covering. If the Muslim community "in general" was famous for great things, its female members would enjoy admiration and respect whatever they wear, and if their clothing readily identifies them as members of that community, then readily so. Right now, the Muslim community doesn't have a great reputation. So its female members identifiable by their clothes fully share the burden of that not-so-great reputation of the community to which they belong.

As for the prophet and "better theories", I don't really know understand what your question is.

I'm not the poster you've been arguing with about Muslims and their wives, but I too disagree with you. First, women of other races with successful reputations don't get a break. Look at Asian wives--here they get criticized for being too passive or for being tiger moms, both things that are seen as contrary to mass American values.

Second, and much more important: the veil itself would draw criticism regardless of the perception of Muslims and Islam overall. There's no getting around the fact that it represents the woman's responsibility for men's sexual arousal. (It's not clear you knew that, but it's indisputable, and appearing to support that is why you got called a misogynist.) I can't imagine most Westerners would ever accept that, even with a massive improvement in the perception of Muslims in general.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PS: I don't reject the alliance theory. All I'm saying it it's a theory, we don't know for sure. You should be comfortable admitting that, too, instead of stating it as if it were a fact.

Fine, but you've been asked to give us credible alternative theories. Just one credible alternative theory will do.

In Aisha's case, if you want to go with "it's a guy thing and all the boys were doing it" then it would be harder to argue against than your silly contention that six-year-old understood the riches she'd enjoy later in life. But the "guy thing" theory doesn't reflect well on your prophet. I suggest you come up with something better.

My prophet?

What makes you think I'm Muslim?

Your habit of assuming things about people to fit your stories?

You're arguing with 3-4 people here.

Granted it's hard to tell who's who here. But there's definitely a poster on tonight doing Muslim apologetics. That's you, if you're the poster referring to "Muslims and their wives" and writing "who cares, she made out like a bandit" about Aisha. You're also assuming a stance towards women's roles and rights--again, the wives of Muslim philanthropists and scientists, as well as Aisha's rights--that most non-Muslims would be uncomfortable with. Or at least would know better than to post that here.

I'll play along and rephrase. "The 'guy' theory doesn't reflect well on Islam's prophet." Happy now? OK, how about finally rising to the challenge of offering better theories, instead of looking for new ways to pick pointless fights?

OK. You seem earnest. I'll give you an earnest answer.

The poster who decided I really mean "Muslim men philanthropists and scientists and their wives who are wholly separate from the men" when I clearly meant "the community of Muslims and its members who happen to be female" is really, really determined to find misogyny. It's not worth my time to argue with her because she's totally convinced she knows what I meant. What that comment "really" meant was that the public perception of hijabs is driven by the perception of the Muslims en masse and not by the act of covering. If the Muslim community "in general" was famous for great things, its female members would enjoy admiration and respect whatever they wear, and if their clothing readily identifies them as members of that community, then readily so. Right now, the Muslim community doesn't have a great reputation. So its female members identifiable by their clothes fully share the burden of that not-so-great reputation of the community to which they belong.

As for the prophet and "better theories", I don't really know understand what your question is.

So I was the PP who jumped on you for the term "Muslims and their women." In English that is a very peculiar way to say "the community of Muslims and its members who happen to be female" because the way to say that is simply "Muslims." "Muslims and their women" is a sexist phrase in English.

I think perhaps (and note the perhaps before you start accusing me of putting words in your mouth) you were making a point that harkens back to your comment about nuns and their crazy get ups (or some other words along those lines you used to describe them). Namely, that nuns in general are thought to be forces for good so those wearing a habit are generally viewed positively. Thus, your argument is that if Muslims in general were viewed as being forces for good, then those wearing a hijab would be viewed positively.

That argument, however, is mistaken. No women is forced to wear a habit or the veil often worn with it. Women are free to enter a convent or not, she may rule out a convent that requires a veil or a habit that looks different from street clothes, and in any case the habit is a not a signifier of a woman who more scrupulously follows the commands of God than other women but rather of the profession she has chosen to enter.

The fact that women are forced to wear the hijab in many places by the law or by their families usually on the premise that it protect "purity" meant in a sexual sense, that women wearing it believe in doing so they are obeying requirements set down by God, and that the rise of the hijab in various countries almost exactly tracks the erosion of women's rights in those countries causes the hijab to viewed negatively.

No matter how much esteem Muslims might gain for various accomplishments it will not cause non-Musims to embrace the hijab as a signifier of a member of that accomplished community. It will remain viewed as a tool for restraining women.

And you sound way more emotional than me. Just saying.

You thought I'm Muslim and I'm not. That's one correction right there,

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How am I changing subjects? A PP said his first wife didn't let him marry others. I said there is no evidence to say that was the reason he didn't. I keep saying that.

As for the marriage to Aisha, she collected on her marriage big time, so I doubt she was discommoded much. I am also wiling to believe that a 50-year old doesn't need a particularly strong reason to pair up with a young girl. Most 50-year olds will sleep with the youngest legal option if they could.

OK, gross. Now you're all but shrugging off Aisha's marriage as being a "guy thing."

Aisha was the daughter of one of Mohammed's top lieutenants. Yet you prefer to toss out the alliance theory in favor of your notion that a six-year-old enters marriage with dreams of "collecting big time." You also "doubt she was discommoded"--well hello sweeping assumptions based on no factual or historical evidence whatsoever. But it's OK when you do this, right?

What she dreamed about, no one knew. And who cares? That wasn't even her first engagement.

That she has reaped very big gains out of this marriage is an actual fact.

I don't actually have a theory on what drove her. That wasn't my story. I said we don't know whether Mohammed's first wife banned him from marrying others. That's my story, I'm sticking to it.

Nobody is disputing that Aisha made out "big time." What we are questioning is whether she was HAPPY. See the difference?

It's hard to swallow your blithe assurances that she was probably not "discommoded much." Your "who cares, she was rich and anyway she was on her second engagement so it doesn't matter" is actually appalling.

PP, you've been accused of, effectively, misogyny twice on this page alone. In two different contexts, by two different people (me and someone else). As you defend the veil. Do you see a problem here?

Perhaps you can read the stories she left behind and figure out whether she was. As it were, you are basing your opinion on how would you feel in this situation, and that's a false approach.

How convenient for you as a way to shut down any talk of Aisha's happiness. Still waiting for you to address the misogyny charge.

What do you mean, "shut down any talk of Aisha's happiness"? Who's talking about her happiness? She's a woman who lived many centuries ago; how should we know if she was or wasn't unhappy? Who is arguing for either? It's all projection. You can read her hadith if you want. Or not. There isn't much else to go on.

As for the misogyny charge, it's too silly to be worth my time. You make things up about people and think they'll jump to refute them? Nah. Think what you like.

You tell me to think what I like now, but 10 minutes ago you were all het up about me assuming you're Muslim? You are indeed a strange and inconsistent soul.

You don't deny being the poster who wrote about "Muslims and their wives" and "who cares" about Aisha. So you're a Muslim, or an apologist. Why so outraged, then, that I called you a Muslim???

Here's what I think: you're a misogynist, and a jerk. You claim you don't care. But as we all agreed earlier, chat boards like this aren't just for arguing, they're also for expressing our opinions.

I'm not outraged. I'm just correcting you, and enjoying it. Surely that's possible without feeling rage.

Sorry, but you're oozing outrage. Plus you haven't "corrected" me on anything. I do like toying with you though--like shooting fish in a barrel. Your reasoning and debating skills are both cr@p, sorry.

23:04 again. Off to take a shower. Getting down in the mud with you, your insults, and your distortions is just gross.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How am I changing subjects? A PP said his first wife didn't let him marry others. I said there is no evidence to say that was the reason he didn't. I keep saying that.

As for the marriage to Aisha, she collected on her marriage big time, so I doubt she was discommoded much. I am also wiling to believe that a 50-year old doesn't need a particularly strong reason to pair up with a young girl. Most 50-year olds will sleep with the youngest legal option if they could.

OK, gross. Now you're all but shrugging off Aisha's marriage as being a "guy thing."

Aisha was the daughter of one of Mohammed's top lieutenants. Yet you prefer to toss out the alliance theory in favor of your notion that a six-year-old enters marriage with dreams of "collecting big time." You also "doubt she was discommoded"--well hello sweeping assumptions based on no factual or historical evidence whatsoever. But it's OK when you do this, right?

What she dreamed about, no one knew. And who cares? That wasn't even her first engagement.

That she has reaped very big gains out of this marriage is an actual fact.

I don't actually have a theory on what drove her. That wasn't my story. I said we don't know whether Mohammed's first wife banned him from marrying others. That's my story, I'm sticking to it.

Nobody is disputing that Aisha made out "big time." What we are questioning is whether she was HAPPY. See the difference?

It's hard to swallow your blithe assurances that she was probably not "discommoded much." Your "who cares, she was rich and anyway she was on her second engagement so it doesn't matter" is actually appalling.

PP, you've been accused of, effectively, misogyny twice on this page alone. In two different contexts, by two different people (me and someone else). As you defend the veil. Do you see a problem here?

Perhaps you can read the stories she left behind and figure out whether she was. As it were, you are basing your opinion on how would you feel in this situation, and that's a false approach.

How convenient for you as a way to shut down any talk of Aisha's happiness. Still waiting for you to address the misogyny charge.

What do you mean, "shut down any talk of Aisha's happiness"? Who's talking about her happiness? She's a woman who lived many centuries ago; how should we know if she was or wasn't unhappy? Who is arguing for either? It's all projection. You can read her hadith if you want. Or not. There isn't much else to go on.

As for the misogyny charge, it's too silly to be worth my time. You make things up about people and think they'll jump to refute them? Nah. Think what you like.

You tell me to think what I like now, but 10 minutes ago you were all het up about me assuming you're Muslim? You are indeed a strange and inconsistent soul.

You don't deny being the poster who wrote about "Muslims and their wives" and "who cares" about Aisha. So you're a Muslim, or an apologist. Why so outraged, then, that I called you a Muslim???

Here's what I think: you're a misogynist, and a jerk. You claim you don't care. But as we all agreed earlier, chat boards like this aren't just for arguing, they're also for expressing our opinions.

I'm not outraged. I'm just correcting you, and enjoying it. Surely that's possible without feeling rage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PS: I don't reject the alliance theory. All I'm saying it it's a theory, we don't know for sure. You should be comfortable admitting that, too, instead of stating it as if it were a fact.

Fine, but you've been asked to give us credible alternative theories. Just one credible alternative theory will do.

In Aisha's case, if you want to go with "it's a guy thing and all the boys were doing it" then it would be harder to argue against than your silly contention that six-year-old understood the riches she'd enjoy later in life. But the "guy thing" theory doesn't reflect well on your prophet. I suggest you come up with something better.

My prophet?

What makes you think I'm Muslim?

Your habit of assuming things about people to fit your stories?

You're arguing with 3-4 people here.

Granted it's hard to tell who's who here. But there's definitely a poster on tonight doing Muslim apologetics. That's you, if you're the poster referring to "Muslims and their wives" and writing "who cares, she made out like a bandit" about Aisha. You're also assuming a stance towards women's roles and rights--again, the wives of Muslim philanthropists and scientists, as well as Aisha's rights--that most non-Muslims would be uncomfortable with. Or at least would know better than to post that here.

I'll play along and rephrase. "The 'guy' theory doesn't reflect well on Islam's prophet." Happy now? OK, how about finally rising to the challenge of offering better theories, instead of looking for new ways to pick pointless fights?

OK. You seem earnest. I'll give you an earnest answer.

The poster who decided I really mean "Muslim men philanthropists and scientists and their wives who are wholly separate from the men" when I clearly meant "the community of Muslims and its members who happen to be female" is really, really determined to find misogyny. It's not worth my time to argue with her because she's totally convinced she knows what I meant. What that comment "really" meant was that the public perception of hijabs is driven by the perception of the Muslims en masse and not by the act of covering. If the Muslim community "in general" was famous for great things, its female members would enjoy admiration and respect whatever they wear, and if their clothing readily identifies them as members of that community, then readily so. Right now, the Muslim community doesn't have a great reputation. So its female members identifiable by their clothes fully share the burden of that not-so-great reputation of the community to which they belong.

As for the prophet and "better theories", I don't really know understand what your question is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How am I changing subjects? A PP said his first wife didn't let him marry others. I said there is no evidence to say that was the reason he didn't. I keep saying that.

As for the marriage to Aisha, she collected on her marriage big time, so I doubt she was discommoded much. I am also wiling to believe that a 50-year old doesn't need a particularly strong reason to pair up with a young girl. Most 50-year olds will sleep with the youngest legal option if they could.

OK, gross. Now you're all but shrugging off Aisha's marriage as being a "guy thing."

Aisha was the daughter of one of Mohammed's top lieutenants. Yet you prefer to toss out the alliance theory in favor of your notion that a six-year-old enters marriage with dreams of "collecting big time." You also "doubt she was discommoded"--well hello sweeping assumptions based on no factual or historical evidence whatsoever. But it's OK when you do this, right?

What she dreamed about, no one knew. And who cares? That wasn't even her first engagement.

That she has reaped very big gains out of this marriage is an actual fact.

I don't actually have a theory on what drove her. That wasn't my story. I said we don't know whether Mohammed's first wife banned him from marrying others. That's my story, I'm sticking to it.

Nobody is disputing that Aisha made out "big time." What we are questioning is whether she was HAPPY. See the difference?

It's hard to swallow your blithe assurances that she was probably not "discommoded much." Your "who cares, she was rich and anyway she was on her second engagement so it doesn't matter" is actually appalling.

PP, you've been accused of, effectively, misogyny twice on this page alone. In two different contexts, by two different people (me and someone else). As you defend the veil. Do you see a problem here?

Perhaps you can read the stories she left behind and figure out whether she was. As it were, you are basing your opinion on how would you feel in this situation, and that's a false approach.

How convenient for you as a way to shut down any talk of Aisha's happiness. Still waiting for you to address the misogyny charge.

What do you mean, "shut down any talk of Aisha's happiness"? Who's talking about her happiness? She's a woman who lived many centuries ago; how should we know if she was or wasn't unhappy? Who is arguing for either? It's all projection. You can read her hadith if you want. Or not. There isn't much else to go on.

As for the misogyny charge, it's too silly to be worth my time. You make things up about people and think they'll jump to refute them? Nah. Think what you like.

You tell me to think what I like now, but 10 minutes ago you were all het up about me assuming you're Muslim? You are indeed a strange and inconsistent soul.

You don't deny being the poster who wrote about "Muslims and their wives" and "who cares" about Aisha. So you're a Muslim, or an apologist. Why so outraged, then, that I called you a Muslim???

Here's what I think: you're a misogynist, and a jerk. You claim you don't care. But as we all agreed earlier, chat boards like this aren't just for arguing, they're also for expressing our opinions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How am I changing subjects? A PP said his first wife didn't let him marry others. I said there is no evidence to say that was the reason he didn't. I keep saying that.

As for the marriage to Aisha, she collected on her marriage big time, so I doubt she was discommoded much. I am also wiling to believe that a 50-year old doesn't need a particularly strong reason to pair up with a young girl. Most 50-year olds will sleep with the youngest legal option if they could.

OK, gross. Now you're all but shrugging off Aisha's marriage as being a "guy thing."

Aisha was the daughter of one of Mohammed's top lieutenants. Yet you prefer to toss out the alliance theory in favor of your notion that a six-year-old enters marriage with dreams of "collecting big time." You also "doubt she was discommoded"--well hello sweeping assumptions based on no factual or historical evidence whatsoever. But it's OK when you do this, right?

What she dreamed about, no one knew. And who cares? That wasn't even her first engagement.

That she has reaped very big gains out of this marriage is an actual fact.

I don't actually have a theory on what drove her. That wasn't my story. I said we don't know whether Mohammed's first wife banned him from marrying others. That's my story, I'm sticking to it.

Nobody is disputing that Aisha made out "big time." What we are questioning is whether she was HAPPY. See the difference?

It's hard to swallow your blithe assurances that she was probably not "discommoded much." Your "who cares, she was rich and anyway she was on her second engagement so it doesn't matter" is actually appalling.

PP, you've been accused of, effectively, misogyny twice on this page alone. In two different contexts, by two different people (me and someone else). As you defend the veil. Do you see a problem here?

Perhaps you can read the stories she left behind and figure out whether she was. As it were, you are basing your opinion on how would you feel in this situation, and that's a false approach.

How convenient for you as a way to shut down any talk of Aisha's happiness. Still waiting for you to address the misogyny charge.

What do you mean, "shut down any talk of Aisha's happiness"? Who's talking about her happiness? She's a woman who lived many centuries ago; how should we know if she was or wasn't unhappy? Who is arguing for either? It's all projection. You can read her hadith if you want. Or not. There isn't much else to go on.

As for the misogyny charge, it's too silly to be worth my time. You make things up about people and think they'll jump to refute them? Nah. Think what you like.