Anonymous wrote:
No one will care to write an article about my retaliatory comment. I think you know that. Islamophobia, well that's article worthy, news worthy. And writers seem quite intrigued with the idea that its part of an organized effort. That is very news worthy.

Anonymous wrote:
You will be the anonymous face of islamophobia in articles and your posts will probably be used, right before quotes from scholars from prestigious institutions such as Cambridge, Oxford, and Harvard contradicting you. The goal will be to shed light on the new face of islamophobia but it will inevitably make a mockery of your posts. I apologize for that but this topic is too important and your posts illustrate all too well the prejudice and discrimination Muslims are up against.

Anonymous wrote:
As for persuading DCUMers, that was never my goal. The goal was to correct your half truths and lies.

Anonymous wrote:
No one will care to write an article about my retaliatory comment. I think you know that. Islamophobia, well that's article worthy, news worthy. And writers seem quite intrigued with the idea that its part of an organized effort. That is very news worthy.

You will be the anonymous face of islamophobia in articles and your posts will probably be used, right before quotes from scholars from prestigious institutions such as Cambridge, Oxford, and Harvard contradicting you. The goal will be to shed light on the new face of islamophobia but it will inevitably make a mockery of your posts. I apologize for that but this topic is too important and your posts illustrate all too well the prejudice and discrimination Muslims are up against.

As for persuading DCUMers, that was never my goal. The goal was to correct your half truths and lies.

Anonymous wrote:
Were you the one who said I was getting Jeff to help me get IP addresses? I asked you to reproduce the post where I said that. Where's the post??

Anonymous wrote:No. You never brought up IPs because apparently you never understood anything about them. Otherwise you would never have claimed, as you did repeatedly, that the moderator was ready to help you figure out which "unnamed Islamophobe" oeganizations were posting here. If you had understood IPs you could have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

No one is scared of you. Call the UN if you want.

Let's recap how effective you were here, in this little corner of the world. Not one reader of DCUM found your arguments convincing or well-reasoned (if I'm wrong, someone correct me). Not one reader of DCUM left these threads with a better or more favorable idea of Islam because of you. If you wanted to be a good representative for your religion, you failed. You behave poorly and you argue poorly. Is anyone reading these threads more impressed by Islam because of you? What do you think?

And all the Islamic organizations and imams in the world - hell, the entire corps of Al-Azhar and King Saud religious studies graduates - won't be able to do anything at all about Islamophobia until there are still Muslims out there who lie about their religion's rules, and call people who disagree with them one-toothed mothers of drug addicts with STD problems.

NP. No, I didn't find her arguments convincing. In fact, I was a bit shocked by her repeated distortions of what you and other posters said. I'm the poster who wrote about IP addresses, and she twisted my words around on the other thread. I could see for myself how she twisted your words around.

In the end, you two disagree. That's all there is. It doesn't make one of you a great person and the other an Islamophobe.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Leila Ahmed was quite clear about the demonization of Pre-Islamic Arabia, and romantization of improvements that Islam brought to women. If you have any questions about her characterization of these periods, or her comparison of Khadija and Aisha, take it up with her. Or, if you think I faked these paragraphs, do let us know.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

No one is scared of you. Call the UN if you want.

Let's recap how effective you were here, in this little corner of the world. Not one reader of DCUM found your arguments convincing or well-reasoned (if I'm wrong, someone correct me). Not one reader of DCUM left these threads with a better or more favorable idea of Islam because of you. If you wanted to be a good representative for your religion, you failed. You behave poorly and you argue poorly. Is anyone reading these threads more impressed by Islam because of you? What do you think?

And all the Islamic organizations and imams in the world - hell, the entire corps of Al-Azhar and King Saud religious studies graduates - won't be able to do anything at all about Islamophobia until there are still Muslims out there who lie about their religion's rules, and call people who disagree with them one-toothed mothers of drug addicts with STD problems.

Anonymous wrote:Temporary “marriages,” called sigheh, are predominately a feature of Shi'ite Islam. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, a man typically has only one permanent wife – although in Sunni Islam, a man can have up to four permanent wives at once – but he can have up to 99 temporary marriages at the same time.

If this sounds like prostitution, you're getting the drift of it. The Arabic name for this union is mut'a, which means “pleasure.” A 48-year-old man named Habib, who had contracted several such unions, told Nadya Labi of Mother Jones his modus operandi: “I do sigheh with women who need financial help. Instead of giving money for charity, I marry them in this way and financially support them.”
One can almost picture the paunchy, balding man approaching teenager girls, saying, Hey, Baby, I'll help you if you help me…. Understandably, most women who agree to such “help” keep their agreements secret out of shame.

To compound matters, the man — and the man alone — may break the relationship at any time, for any reason or no reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Also, different schools vary on the divorce procedure - I mean, none take it away, but some do make it more difficult for the man. In Shia Islam, for instance, a man cannot issue irrevocable divorce on the spot. It's only once and then they have to go to mediation, if that doesn't work, one more, and if THAT doesn't work, it's irrevocable. Our Gulfie friends mitigate the threat of divorce at-will by setting ridiculous standards for dowries - one of my SIL's dowry was 50K and a fully furnished house.

You are correct on the woman thing, though. Unless it's in the marriage contract that the woman reserves the right to divorce at will, there is no divorce at will for women comparable to that of men. As Muhammad has allegedly said, "the right to divorce belongs to the one who holds the calf", i.e. the husband.

But women can totally put it in the marriage contract.

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!

Yes, it did.
- A man can initiate a divorce by telling his wife "Talak, talak, talak", just repeating that one word three times, and she has to hit the road. That's "divorce at will" for sure!
- A woman can initiate a divorce, but she doesn't make the decision. Either her husband agrees to it or, if he doesn't agree, she asks a judge to make the decision.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

No one is scared of you. Call the UN if you want.

Let's recap how effective you were here, in this little corner of the world. Not one reader of DCUM found your arguments convincing or well-reasoned (if I'm wrong, someone correct me). Not one reader of DCUM left these threads with a better or more favorable idea of Islam because of you. If you wanted to be a good representative for your religion, you failed. You behave poorly and you argue poorly. Is anyone reading these threads more impressed by Islam because of you? What do you think?

And all the Islamic organizations and imams in the world - hell, the entire corps of Al-Azhar and King Saud religious studies graduates - won't be able to do anything at all about Islamophobia until there are still Muslims out there who lie about their religion's rules, and call people who disagree with them one-toothed mothers of drug addicts with STD problems.

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:
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.

Right. No one except world renowned religious scholars.

Anonymous wrote:

"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. "

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.

Anonymous wrote:
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.