Anonymous wrote:
Dawahwallah. That is a term which means one who propogates Islam. It is used by southeast Asians. Are you a person of a minority faith from a southeast Asian Muslim country? Were you mistreated in those countries? Could this be why you are so hateful of Islam?

No and no. Such obvious misses. I think I'm on record saying I don't have a faith.

Anonymous wrote:
The walls of your house are lined, alright, but not with the scholarly works I referenced. If it is true that the walls of your house are lined with these books, then you are basically saying you knowingly spread lies and half truths intentionally, because these books contradict your statements about Islam.

You posted google cut and pastes. It is the only logical explanation as to why you publish so much falsehood. You do not understand Islam as well as you think you do.

No, I'm saying I find these books unconvincing. You want to take them as gospel, go ahead. I don't have to. I'm not a slave to scholars you seem to be.

Cut and paste? What do YOU do, type it up word by word? Come on.

I thought you said I have deep knowledge? so what is it?

Clearly, everyone who doesn't agree with you, just doesn't understand Islam. If they only would read! they would fall on their knees and thank you for enlightening them.

Anonymous wrote:
You want to cast judgment on our religion. Fine. But don't post false or misleading facts. This started with an egregious post declaring our prophet a pedophile. Who posted that and where is the apology for that post?

That was wrong. There is no evidence Muhammad was a pedophile since he had lots of wives/concubines of mature age. Besides, Aisha and her family made out on that marriage big time - BIG TIME - so there is no reason to complain whatsoever.

Anonymous wrote:
Then our local DCUM islamic expert here said there was no equality (or equity) in Islam for women.

There isn't any equality in Islam for women. I never mentioned the word equity so stop making things up.

Anonymous wrote:
Who best to determine that but one who lives under the umbrella of that system?

That is actually the best part of what you wrote. The translation for this is "only Muslims can judge Islam. Kuffar should shut up. Unless they are non-Muslim "historians" who agree with the beauty of Islam like Esposito. If they don't, well, they are kuffar unfit to have an opinion."

Anonymous wrote:
Then our fake expert said the jahiliyah period was a farce. World historians and scholars disagree with her. Wheres the apology for that because inherent in that statement was an accusation Muslims lied.

Maybe you should take it up with Dr. Ahmed, our subtle micro-agressor against Islam who said this, CAPS MINE:

“Islamic civilization developed a construct of history that labeled the pre-Islamic period the Age of Ignorance (BRANDING) and projected Islam as the sole source of all that was civilized (SOMEWHAT LIKE LYING) – and used that construct so effectively in its rewriting of history (ANOTHER WORD FOR LYING) that the peoples of the Middle East lost all knowledge of the past civilizations of the religion (YOU PEOPLE DON'T KNOW ANY MORE WHAT IT WAS LIKE BEFORE ISLAM). Obviously that construct was ideologically serviceable (SUITABLE TO MUSLIM DISCOURSE), successfully concealing (LYING), 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.” (ISLAM WASN'T ALL THAT GREAT AND PRE-ISLAMIC PERIOD WASN'T ALL THAT BAD)

Bad, bad Leila Ahmed. That damn Islamophobe.

You should also take it up with Hatoon Al-Fassi, by the way. Or perhaps you'd like to pretend her scholarship doesn't exist. I notice you tend to like people Al-Saud does, and dislike the people they dislike. Commendable consistency, then! Makes sense you would go to town with Esposito but ignore a Saudi woman scholar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Honestly, the best advice I can give you is to read the ENTIRE books of the scholars I mentioned in this thread. They address all these topics through historical research and beautifully explain why the Quran mentioned these. It was not to support or encourage at all. However, for the person who refuses to read, but only wishes to google, cut, and paste, you will not understand. Historians and religious scholars have already done a fine job of explaining why the Quran mentioned these. Learn from them rather than spewing false information and pretending you are a historian or islam expert.

What makes you think I haven't?

You are just like any other dawah-wallah I met, and I met many, many of them better than you. If you tell them you disagree, they say it's because you haven't read enough - because clearly, someone who reads enough ABSOLUTELY will see think the way they do. (This is the point at which I begin to giggle pointedly). I've read more history and religious studies on the subject than you can possibly imagine. So you have a good explanation of why these things are in the Quran. That doesn't mean they are good, make sense, or should be preserved, or mean anything at all.

Beauty is the eye of the beholder.

My dear, and I say this with truth, the reason they say you must not have read enough is because the world's foremost authorities on Islamic topics such as oaths of allegiances, jahiliyah, and the status of women have published, overall, positive opinions of the Islamic belief system. The majority of them interpret history quite differently than you. Who knows better about Islamic history than one who is a historian or religious scholar from the world's best universities? And this is why when they say you have not read enough, its a true statement because you have not.

And I am not going to address your insult as I do sympathize that your posts will be public fodder after the articles are written. You are angry and I understand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Honestly, the best advice I can give you is to read the ENTIRE books of the scholars I mentioned in this thread. They address all these topics through historical research and beautifully explain why the Quran mentioned these. It was not to support or encourage at all. However, for the person who refuses to read, but only wishes to google, cut, and paste, you will not understand. Historians and religious scholars have already done a fine job of explaining why the Quran mentioned these. Learn from them rather than spewing false information and pretending you are a historian or islam expert.

What makes you think I haven't?

You are just like any other dawah-wallah I met, and I met many, many of them better than you. If you tell them you disagree, they say it's because you haven't read enough - because clearly, someone who reads enough ABSOLUTELY will see think the way they do. (This is the point at which I begin to giggle pointedly). I've read more history and religious studies on the subject than you can possibly imagine. So you have a good explanation of why these things are in the Quran. That doesn't mean they are good, make sense, or should be preserved, or mean anything at all.

Beauty is the eye of the beholder.

Dawahwallah. That is a term which means one who propogates Islam. It is used by southeast Asians. Are you a person of a minority faith from a southeast Asian Muslim country? Were you mistreated in those countries? Could this be why you are so hateful of Islam?

I'm not that PP, but I know what a wallah is. All it takes is a good vocabulary or a British background. (I have the latter (and I think my relatives at both Cambridge and Oxford would find your suggestion that their current and in some cases former profs are discussing DCUM to be knee-slapping hilarious, to borrow an American colloquialism.)

^^^ wait, are saying PP made up the quotes she provided? If so, you need to apologize to her.

This thread needs to be shut down before you do more damage to your religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Honestly, the best advice I can give you is to read the ENTIRE books of the scholars I mentioned in this thread. They address all these topics through historical research and beautifully explain why the Quran mentioned these. It was not to support or encourage at all. However, for the person who refuses to read, but only wishes to google, cut, and paste, you will not understand. Historians and religious scholars have already done a fine job of explaining why the Quran mentioned these. Learn from them rather than spewing false information and pretending you are a historian or islam expert.

What makes you think I haven't?

You are just like any other dawah-wallah I met, and I met many, many of them better than you. If you tell them you disagree, they say it's because you haven't read enough - because clearly, someone who reads enough ABSOLUTELY will see think the way they do. (This is the point at which I begin to giggle pointedly). I've read more history and religious studies on the subject than you can possibly imagine. So you have a good explanation of why these things are in the Quran. That doesn't mean they are good, make sense, or should be preserved, or mean anything at all.

Beauty is the eye of the beholder.

Dawahwallah. That is a term which means one who propogates Islam. It is used by southeast Asians. Are you a person of a minority faith from a southeast Asian Muslim country? Were you mistreated in those countries? Could this be why you are so hateful of Islam?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one has enough years in their life to explain to you how the Quran is as much about historical context as it is law. You seem to equate it with a ten commandments type of book. Your thinking is too linear and concrete, too influenced by modern western mindset to understand why there exists subtle differences in Islam between men and women. It is simply because man and woman are inherently different. If this idea of basic gender differences is rejected, then you can not understand or see the ethical wisdom of the Quran.

No one has that much time in their life to educate you in the theory behind Islamic law (meaning, the Quran, not the Sharia).

The differences between men and women in Islam aren't subtle, and the abyss between what's allowed to men and to women is quite deep and wide.

If you acknowledge the gender difference is not subtle, then you should comprehend why they are not treated identically.

You are held back by linear and concrete thinking. Thus, you can not understand. Read the scholarly books I mentioned and you will see how they explain it.

The walls in my house are lined by books you mentioned and so many others. Your downfall is that you cannot imagine how anyone can read the same stuff and come up with different opinions.

We can agree gender differences exist without agreeing with the manner in which Islam addresses them.

The walls of your house are lined, alright, but not with the scholarly works I referenced. If it is true that the walls of your house are lined with these books, then you are basically saying you knowingly spread lies and half truths intentionally, because these books contradict your statements about Islam.

You posted google cut and pastes. It is the only logical explanation as to why you publish so much falsehood. You do not understand Islam as well as you think you do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one has enough years in their life to explain to you how the Quran is as much about historical context as it is law. You seem to equate it with a ten commandments type of book. Your thinking is too linear and concrete, too influenced by modern western mindset to understand why there exists subtle differences in Islam between men and women. It is simply because man and woman are inherently different. If this idea of basic gender differences is rejected, then you can not understand or see the ethical wisdom of the Quran.

No one has that much time in their life to educate you in the theory behind Islamic law (meaning, the Quran, not the Sharia).

The differences between men and women in Islam aren't subtle, and the abyss between what's allowed to men and to women is quite deep and wide.

+1. You can chalk it up to "western linear thinking" or "subtlety" if you want. However, it should be clear to you by now that we disagree with you[u]. We disagree with you that different legal rights in 2014 for women re divorce, testimony and inheritance is simply a matter of subtlety or historical context (your argument that improvements in women's rights over pre-Islamic Arabia, if there were improvements, are not sufficient in 2014). We disagree with you that this is an ethical system that we'd personally want to live under today. Sorry.

We accept that you find this ethical system wise. We don't challenge your desire to live under the laws of your religion.

You, on the other hand, are calling everybody islamophobes for not adopting your positions on the equality of women and the wisdom of your system.

You want to cast judgment on our religion. Fine. But don't post false or misleading facts. This started with an egregious post declaring our prophet a pedophile. Who posted that and where is the apology for that post? Then our local DCUM islamic expert here said there was no equality (or equity) in Islam for women. Who best to determine that but one who lives under the umbrella of that system? Then our fake expert said the jahiliyah period was a farce. World historians and scholars disagree with her. Wheres the apology for that because inherent in that statement was an accusation Muslims lied.

We deserve an apology.

You need to apologize for distorting multiple pages of multiple threads, as you did above. I can't even begin to start correcting all the distortions - maybe the other poster has the energy.

You need to apologize for calling people christian-evangelical-crusader-islamophobe gap-toothed redneck mini-skirt-wearting grannies with STDs and porn-addicted children many, which you did many more times than that one time a poster called Mohammed a pedophile.

Most of all, you need to apologize for calling people "Islamophobes" when they don't come around to agreeing with all of your points of view.

Anonymous wrote:

Honestly, the best advice I can give you is to read the ENTIRE books of the scholars I mentioned in this thread. They address all these topics through historical research and beautifully explain why the Quran mentioned these. It was not to support or encourage at all. However, for the person who refuses to read, but only wishes to google, cut, and paste, you will not understand. Historians and religious scholars have already done a fine job of explaining why the Quran mentioned these. Learn from them rather than spewing false information and pretending you are a historian or islam expert.

What makes you think I haven't?

You are just like any other dawah-wallah I met, and I met many, many of them better than you. If you tell them you disagree, they say it's because you haven't read enough - because clearly, someone who reads enough ABSOLUTELY will see think the way they do. (This is the point at which I begin to giggle pointedly). I've read more history and religious studies on the subject than you can possibly imagine. So you have a good explanation of why these things are in the Quran. That doesn't mean they are good, make sense, or should be preserved, or mean anything at all.

Beauty is the eye of the beholder.