Anonymous
Post 11/06/2014 01:46     Subject: Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
I'm well aware of what an IP can and can not reveal. I'm also aware of the steps necessary to get the identity behind an IP and what criteria must be satisfied for it to be revealed. It is not an easy task. However, I never brought up the issue of an IP. I suspect one of our islamophobes did out of concern for her own identity or others. The writer has expressed an interest in finding the name of the organization one or a few of our islamophobes works for and she does not need an IP address to determine that. All one needs is very good connections. If there is no such organization, the writer(s) still have ample posts to choose from in writing their articles.


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.


I have to see the post where I supposedly said the moderator was ready to help me figure out organization was posting here. Please let me see that. I never brought up the issue of IP's. But humor me. Show me the post where I said that.
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2014 01:41     Subject: Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Lets keep this discussion on the merits and try to avoid the personal insults, shall we?

No worries - I'm gonna be like you - get personal, then throw a little apology in, and pretend it doesn't matter to me if you accept it.

The author who you allege has simply "regurgitated what the Quran says" is a renowned religious scholar. Is it possible that you are simply discounting his statement because he directly contradicts your statement that the Jahiliyah (age of ignorance) never occurred? Please post your bio so that we may compare your qualification to make such a statement with his. Here is the scholar's bio:

M. Jeurgensmeyer: erector of the Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, professor of sociology and global studies, and affiliate professor of religious studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is a pioneer in the field of global studies and writes on global religion, religious violence, conflict resolution and South Asian religion and politics. He has published more than three hundred articles and twenty books, including the recent Global Rebellion: Religious Challenges to the Secular State (University of California Press, 2008).

But remember, he is not the only scholar, historian, or anthropologist that refutes your statement that the jahilyah never occurred. The vast majority stand in contradiction to your statement.

There is overwhelming evidence that the period of the jahiliyah occurred and that Prophet Muhammad's revelation elevated the status of women considerably. Any google research will show this. It seems to me that you may be hoping to hide this fact in your effort to tarnish the religion of Islam.

You are misstating the argument. No one questioned that Islam improved the lot of women. The discussion has always been about the extent of that improvement (was it all that good?) and their prior position (was it all that bad?) The writing on the time of jahiliya is done primarily through the Quranic lens because there is simply very little independent evidence on how things really were at that time. Islam gives women many rights but also imposes many, many limitations on these rights. Pointing these limitations out is not Islamophobic. It's also not Islamophobic to point out that some of the rights attributed to Islam have existed prior to its advent - women did own and inherit property, engage in independent commercial activity and received dowries. It's wrong to claim Islam invented these rights. If you think that tarnishes your religion, whatever.


Here's the problem, though. You say the discussion has always been about the extent of that improvement. However, if you judge the extent of that improvement by the practice of Islam by so called Muslim countries today, you will inevitably misinterpret Islam, because as I have stated several times, the condition and treatment of women has deteriorated since the Prophets death, and Muslim countries have reverted back to almost pre islamic times. Hence, your mistake is that to understand the effectiveness of Islam, you are looking at current Muslim society. And you make this make repeatedly through hundreds of posts.

Moreover, what you just wrote was an outright lie. You stated (if it was, in fact, you or another islamophobe) that the Jahiliyah is a bit of a farce, created by the imaginations of Muslims to persuade the world that Islam elevated the status of women. You used Khadija, the rich merchant wife of the Prophet, to show pre islamic women did have rights and were not living in an age of ignorance or darkness. Now that I have provided the evidence of several renowned religious scholars whose assertion directly contradict your opinion, the goal posts have suddenly moved…again. Now you allege you never denied the status of women was improved by Islam, but were always focused on whether it improved it enough.

You then allege there isn't enough evidence of the jahiliyah period. However, these religious scholars concluded that there was indeed a period of time Arabs refer to as the Jahiliyah and it was a time of hedonism and ignorance. They all concluded that Islam did indeed greatly improve the status of women. You then alleged that all these scholars simply relied on the Quran for the basis of their opinion and regurgitated information from the Quran. Renowned religious scholars (historians, archeologists) do not assume the truth of religious text. They look for corroborating evidence. For example, Arabs wrote quite a bit of poetry and their pre islamic poetry was full of lustful descriptions of amorous encounters, adultery, and fornication. This is simply one example of the type of hedonism during the pre-islamic, jahilyah period. You are naive to assume you know how they came to their conclusions.

I'm watching you go around and around the merry-go-round.
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2014 01:23     Subject: Re:Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:"Sexism was particularly prominent in Arabia before the time of Mohammed (570?-632 AD). The Persian world was a very paternalistic society, and females were generally seen as an undesirable burden to a family struggling to survive. A common proverb held that it was "a generous deed to bury a female child." Nevertheless, the Koran, which collected the writings of Mohammed, introduced reforms that included the prohibition of female infanticide. Mohammed outlined the wrongfulness of infanticide in various sections of his holy scripture. He asked, with censure ' for example, how would a father account for his actions, "When the female child that had been buried alive shall be asked for what crime she was put to death?" "


Anonymous wrote:
You misread. If they were spoken as if they were the one, different words would not have been used: "Arabia" and "Persia." She is merely talking about how prominent sexism was in different muslim cultures. At that time, the Arabian and Persian were the two large Muslim cultures. Nice try attempting to trash a well known archeologist just to advance your false statements about Islam though.


Muslim cultures BEFORE the time of Mohammed? Uh-huh.

She did not say they were Muslim cultures before Muhammad. She merely referred to the two large paternalistic and sexist cultures that are well known to be the two large Muslim cultures today.
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2014 01:19     Subject: Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I'm well aware of what an IP can and can not reveal. I'm also aware of the steps necessary to get the identity behind an IP and what criteria must be satisfied for it to be revealed. It is not an easy task. However, I never brought up the issue of an IP. I suspect one of our islamophobes did out of concern for her own identity or others. The writer has expressed an interest in finding the name of the organization one or a few of our islamophobes works for and she does not need an IP address to determine that. All one needs is very good connections. If there is no such organization, the writer(s) still have ample posts to choose from in writing their articles.


I'm fascinated. How does this mythical "writer" learn the identities and employers of anonymous DCUM posters based on nothing but "good connections"? Is it something about the word choice in the posts? The date and time of posts? Because this is fascinating, cloak-and-dagger stuff.


Again, the identities of the posters is not important. If there is an organization, it would be important. The islamophobic posts are also useful for writing articles on islamophobia.

Sorry, not saying any more.
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2014 01:16     Subject: Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Good god, do you two ever shut up? FFS this is an anonymous forum and neither one of you will ever get the other to admit being in the wrong.

Give it up already.


Different poster here. I actually appreciate the PP who called out OP's statements like "women are equal in Islam" and "Islam gave voting rights to women 1400 years ago" and "female captives are freed if they fall pregnant." She did the hard work of writing out the actual laws, often multiple times. Now she's being called an Islamophobe because she happens to disagree with OP. I'm fine with her defending herself against that nonsense.

FWIW, Muslim OP revived this thread (which had been dormant a while) to continue the debate. Just about every night, a little past midnight, OP comes on here with new "recaps" that twist the discussion around. Forget about accepting disagreement; these recaps are all about wanting the last word....

If you don't like the thread, don't cluck, instead don't click....



So, in addition to the bolded language, in one post someone says:

This discussion has been a little frustrating to me because it's gone way off base in speculating about what IP addresses can say about a poster.


Look at the freakin' title of the thread, as well as the first few pages of the discussion. Does it have ANYTHING to do with Islam? No. These two hijacked this thread and have spent at least 10 pages going back and forth rehashing an argument they had in ANOTHER thread, each claiming that the other is misquoting them and was in the wrong and ought to apologize.



That was me writing about IP addresses, although I'm not either of the two PPs, Muslim and non-Muslim, that you're complaining about. In case you haven't noticed, most of pages 16 and 17 on this thread have been devoted to Muslim OP's threat to get the moderator to give her IP addresses so she can, supposedly, write a big expose on anti-Islam groups. The moderator told her that he almost certainly wasn't going to be giving out IP addresses, but apparently that wasn't enough to shut down OP's grandiose claims. So I posted to clarify that OP wouldn't learn anything from IP addresses anyway, unless she's getting help from Homeland Security or something - so that was all part of another attempt to shut down OP's silly threats.

You're welcome!


I said I would try to get the moderator to give me IP addresses? Show me where I said that.
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2014 01:14     Subject: Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Good god, do you two ever shut up? FFS this is an anonymous forum and neither one of you will ever get the other to admit being in the wrong.

Give it up already.


Different poster here. I actually appreciate the PP who called out OP's statements like "women are equal in Islam" and "Islam gave voting rights to women 1400 years ago" and "female captives are freed if they fall pregnant." She did the hard work of writing out the actual laws, often multiple times. Now she's being called an Islamophobe because she happens to disagree with OP. I'm fine with her defending herself against that nonsense.

FWIW, Muslim OP revived this thread (which had been dormant a while) to continue the debate. Just about every night, a little past midnight, OP comes on here with new "recaps" that twist the discussion around. Forget about accepting disagreement; these recaps are all about wanting the last word....

If you don't like the thread, don't cluck, instead don't click....



So, in addition to the bolded language, in one post someone says:

This discussion has been a little frustrating to me because it's gone way off base in speculating about what IP addresses can say about a poster.


Look at the freakin' title of the thread, as well as the first few pages of the discussion. Does it have ANYTHING to do with Islam? No. These two hijacked this thread and have spent at least 10 pages going back and forth rehashing an argument they had in ANOTHER thread, each claiming that the other is misquoting them and was in the wrong and ought to apologize.




That's not the truth. I posted a comment, one comment about why the gospel of thomas reaffirms my faith and was immediately accused for proselytizing. That is how this began. So I did not start this argument.
Anonymous
Post 11/05/2014 21:08     Subject: Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"
Anonymous wrote:I'm well aware of what an IP can and can not reveal. I'm also aware of the steps necessary to get the identity behind an IP and what criteria must be satisfied for it to be revealed. It is not an easy task. However, I never brought up the issue of an IP. I suspect one of our islamophobes did out of concern for her own identity or others. The writer has expressed an interest in finding the name of the organization one or a few of our islamophobes works for and she does not need an IP address to determine that. All one needs is very good connections. If there is no such organization, the writer(s) still have ample posts to choose from in writing their articles.


I'm fascinated. How does this mythical "writer" learn the identities and employers of anonymous DCUM posters based on nothing but "good connections"? Is it something about the word choice in the posts? The date and time of posts? Because this is fascinating, cloak-and-dagger stuff.
Anonymous
Post 11/05/2014 19:33     Subject: Re:Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"
Anonymous wrote:

You misread. If they were spoken as if they were the one, different words would not have been used: "Arabia" and "Persia." She is merely talking about how prominent sexism was in different muslim cultures. At that time, the Arabian and Persian were the two large Muslim cultures. Nice try attempting to trash a well known archeologist just to advance your false statements about Islam though.

Laila Williamson is an anthropologist, not an archeologist. And she isn't well known in any sense of the word, even the most charitable. Her googlable publication history is quite slim. At present she's a research associate at AMNH - not exactly a path to stardom. Here you go:

http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Laila-Williamson/100240628

How is she well known? To whom?
Anonymous
Post 11/05/2014 11:15     Subject: Re:Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"
Anonymous wrote:"Sexism was particularly prominent in Arabia before the time of Mohammed (570?-632 AD). The Persian world was a very paternalistic society, and females were generally seen as an undesirable burden to a family struggling to survive. A common proverb held that it was "a generous deed to bury a female child." Nevertheless, the Koran, which collected the writings of Mohammed, introduced reforms that included the prohibition of female infanticide. Mohammed outlined the wrongfulness of infanticide in various sections of his holy scripture. He asked, with censure ' for example, how would a father account for his actions, "When the female child that had been buried alive shall be asked for what crime she was put to death?" "


Anonymous wrote:
You misread. If they were spoken as if they were the one, different words would not have been used: "Arabia" and "Persia." She is merely talking about how prominent sexism was in different muslim cultures. At that time, the Arabian and Persian were the two large Muslim cultures. Nice try attempting to trash a well known archeologist just to advance your false statements about Islam though.


Muslim cultures BEFORE the time of Mohammed? Uh-huh.

Anonymous
Post 11/05/2014 07:49     Subject: Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"
Anonymous wrote:
Lets keep this discussion on the merits and try to avoid the personal insults, shall we?

No worries - I'm gonna be like you - get personal, then throw a little apology in, and pretend it doesn't matter to me if you accept it.

The author who you allege has simply "regurgitated what the Quran says" is a renowned religious scholar. Is it possible that you are simply discounting his statement because he directly contradicts your statement that the Jahiliyah (age of ignorance) never occurred? Please post your bio so that we may compare your qualification to make such a statement with his. Here is the scholar's bio:

M. Jeurgensmeyer: erector of the Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, professor of sociology and global studies, and affiliate professor of religious studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is a pioneer in the field of global studies and writes on global religion, religious violence, conflict resolution and South Asian religion and politics. He has published more than three hundred articles and twenty books, including the recent Global Rebellion: Religious Challenges to the Secular State (University of California Press, 2008).

But remember, he is not the only scholar, historian, or anthropologist that refutes your statement that the jahilyah never occurred. The vast majority stand in contradiction to your statement.

There is overwhelming evidence that the period of the jahiliyah occurred and that Prophet Muhammad's revelation elevated the status of women considerably. Any google research will show this. It seems to me that you may be hoping to hide this fact in your effort to tarnish the religion of Islam.

You are misstating the argument. No one questioned that Islam improved the lot of women. The discussion has always been about the extent of that improvement (was it all that good?) and their prior position (was it all that bad?) The writing on the time of jahiliya is done primarily through the Quranic lens because there is simply very little independent evidence on how things really were at that time. Islam gives women many rights but also imposes many, many limitations on these rights. Pointing these limitations out is not Islamophobic. It's also not Islamophobic to point out that some of the rights attributed to Islam have existed prior to its advent - women did own and inherit property, engage in independent commercial activity and received dowries. It's wrong to claim Islam invented these rights. If you think that tarnishes your religion, whatever.
Anonymous
Post 11/05/2014 07:45     Subject: Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"
Anonymous wrote:
Lets keep this discussion on the merits and try to avoid the personal insults, shall we?

No worries - I'm gonna be like you - get personal, then throw a little apology in, and pretend it doesn't matter to me if you accept it.

The author who you allege has simply "regurgitated what the Quran says" is a renowned religious scholar. Is it possible that you are simply discounting his statement because he directly contradicts your statement that the Jahiliyah (age of ignorance) never occurred? Please post your bio so that we may compare your qualification to make such a statement with his. Here is the scholar's bio:

M. Jeurgensmeyer: erector of the Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, professor of sociology and global studies, and affiliate professor of religious studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is a pioneer in the field of global studies and writes on global religion, religious violence, conflict resolution and South Asian religion and politics. He has published more than three hundred articles and twenty books, including the recent Global Rebellion: Religious Challenges to the Secular State (University of California Press, 2008).

But remember, he is not the only scholar, historian, or anthropologist that refutes your statement that the jahilyah never occurred. The vast majority stand in contradiction to your statement.

There is overwhelming evidence that the period of the jahiliyah occurred and that Prophet Muhammad's revelation elevated the status of women considerably. Any google research will show this. It seems to me that you may be hoping to hide this fact in your effort to tarnish the religion of Islam.

You are misstating the argument. No one questioned that Islam improved the lot of women. The discussion has always been about the extent of that improvement (was it all that good?) and their prior position (was it all that bad?) The writing on the time of jahiliya is done primarily through the Quranic lens because there is simply very little independent evidence on how things really were at that time. Islam gives women many rights but also imposes many, many limitations on these rights. Pointing these limitations out is not Islamophobic. It's also not Islamophobic to point out that some of the rights attributed to Islam have existed prior to its advent - women did own and inherit property, engage in independent commercial activity and received dowries. It's wrong to claim Islam invented these rights. If you think that tarnishes your religion, whatever.
Anonymous
Post 11/05/2014 07:30     Subject: Re:Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
"Sexism was particularly prominent in Arabia before the time of Mohammed (570?-632 AD). The Persian world was a very paternalistic society, and females were generally seen as an undesirable burden to a family struggling to survive. A common proverb held that it was "a generous deed to bury a female child." Nevertheless, the Koran, which collected the writings of Mohammed, introduced reforms that included the prohibition of female infanticide. Mohammed outlined the wrongfulness of infanticide in various sections of his holy scripture. He asked, with censure ' for example, how would a father account for his actions, "When the female child that had been buried alive shall be asked for what crime she was put to death?" "

Who is that Laila Williamson, is it, who mentions Arabia and the Persian world in a single paragraph as if they were one? I hope you don't mention that in casual conversation to any Iranians you know.

And since you are talking common proverbs, here's a common Saudi proverb for you. When a man comes asking for the daughter's hand in marriage, a father is wont to respond:

"Even if she were a sheep, she wouldn't even be good enough for your dinner."


You misread. If they were spoken as if they were the one, different words would not have been used: "Arabia" and "Persia." She is merely talking about how prominent sexism was in different muslim cultures. At that time, the Arabian and Persian were the two large Muslim cultures. Nice try attempting to trash a well known archeologist just to advance your false statements about Islam though.

At that time? At what time? Your OWN quote says "before the time of Mohammad". How can there be Muslim cultures before the time of Mohammad???

Nice try sneaking that in, though. Didn't know there were Muslim cultures out there before Mohammad.
Anonymous
Post 11/05/2014 06:47     Subject: Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"
Anonymous wrote:
I'm well aware of what an IP can and can not reveal. I'm also aware of the steps necessary to get the identity behind an IP and what criteria must be satisfied for it to be revealed. It is not an easy task. However, I never brought up the issue of an IP. I suspect one of our islamophobes did out of concern for her own identity or others. The writer has expressed an interest in finding the name of the organization one or a few of our islamophobes works for and she does not need an IP address to determine that. All one needs is very good connections. If there is no such organization, the writer(s) still have ample posts to choose from in writing their articles.


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
Post 11/05/2014 00:38     Subject: Re:Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
"Sexism was particularly prominent in Arabia before the time of Mohammed (570?-632 AD). The Persian world was a very paternalistic society, and females were generally seen as an undesirable burden to a family struggling to survive. A common proverb held that it was "a generous deed to bury a female child." Nevertheless, the Koran, which collected the writings of Mohammed, introduced reforms that included the prohibition of female infanticide. Mohammed outlined the wrongfulness of infanticide in various sections of his holy scripture. He asked, with censure ' for example, how would a father account for his actions, "When the female child that had been buried alive shall be asked for what crime she was put to death?" "

Who is that Laila Williamson, is it, who mentions Arabia and the Persian world in a single paragraph as if they were one? I hope you don't mention that in casual conversation to any Iranians you know.

And since you are talking common proverbs, here's a common Saudi proverb for you. When a man comes asking for the daughter's hand in marriage, a father is wont to respond:

"Even if she were a sheep, she wouldn't even be good enough for your dinner."


You misread. If they were spoken as if they were the one, different words would not have been used: "Arabia" and "Persia." She is merely talking about how prominent sexism was in different muslim cultures. At that time, the Arabian and Persian were the two large Muslim cultures. Nice try attempting to trash a well known archeologist just to advance your false statements about Islam though.
Anonymous
Post 11/05/2014 00:32     Subject: Science channel's "Biblical Mysteries Explained"
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

Did Jeff say he wouldn't give out IP addresses or did he say he wouldn't give out IP addresses unless he learned that any one of you belonged to an islamophobe organization?

The latter - and he also said it's unlikely since he believes it wasn't sock puppeting so firmly, he has no intention of checking.

Anonymous wrote:
As much as you would like to picture me in a childish and helpless rage, it is simply not my way.

Actually, it IS your way - and your plentiful, personal insults of other posters insinuating bad mothering, bad cooking, porn- and drug-abusing children, bad teeth, STD infestations, age-inappropriate miniskirts, etc. - stand in stark reminder of that across many threads that you started.


The way Jeff would learn if there is an islamophobe organization is through the writer. Even if sock puppeting were going on, it would not prove that an organization were behind the islamophobic posts.

I have already apologized for the other comments long ago. If you can not move on from that, it's no longer my issue.

Did someone tell you your apology was accepted? At the very least, you can apologize for each separate insult. You think a paltry two-line post will be enough to overshadow dozens of insults you posted?

It's up to the injured party to forgive, not the other way around. You should know. It's like offering blood money - up to the family to forgive, not the offerer. Until someone tells you your apology was accepted, I will take pleasure in bringing up your past transgressions.

And it looks like you talked yourself into a perfect corner that it isn't actually possible to prove that an organization was behind the "islamophobic", i.e. not-agreeable-to-you posts.


I don't think it matters to me if my apology was accepted. My intent is all that matters and I know that my apology was sincere. If the islamophobes can not accept that, it is not my duty to make them see that. I have moved on from that. Clearly, the islamophobes can not stop publishing false and misleading facts about my religion and that is the issue here and now.