Muslima wrote:

OMG, this again!!!!! I have not read/followed this discussion and just clicked on the last page to see this ridiculous statement. Muslim women do not want western feminism. I appreciate your concerns that we are 2nd class citizens, but do know that those concerns are only existent in your mind. As a Muslim woman living a muslim life, believing in my faith 100%, I have never felt I was a second class citizen, I have never felt men were worth more than me. Why on earth are you blatantly making these ridiculous statements? Whenever women have been treated as less than, whenever women have gotten less than they deserved, it has never been because of Islam, to the contrary, it has always been because of a lack of Islam. I do not know of any institution, any religion, any organization that treats women, loves women, adore women, give a higher status to women than Islam. I feel blessed, lucky, happy to be a Muslim woman every single day of my life alhamdulillah( praised be to God) for Islam.

Your problem is the same as anyone else - inability to imagine that someone may have experiences, feelings and convictions other than your own. You don't speak for all Muslim women. You are just one person in a sea of them. Islam is not an institution or an organization, and when it tried to become one, less than enviable results ensued, much like any other religion that forgot its place.

Anonymous wrote:
May I ask -- do you have Aspergers? You seem entirely disconnected to your audience, the vast majority of whom can not understand words like dawah wallah and, now, zabiha. Yet you continue to use such words. If you have Aspergers, forgive me, as it would be an understandable justification for your assumption that the majority of your audience understands your thinking as well as the foreign words you are choosing to use. If you do not have Aspergers, then think about this: There may be thousands of people viewing your posts and usage of foreign words. Out of the thousands, you draw attention to the two posters who said they correctly understand the terms you used. One was you. The other was a poster of British background who claimed dawah wallah is a word of British origin or background also. It's not at all. It is a word distinctly used by only Indians or Pakistani people.

Different poster here. You are wrong. It's a very popular word known to many, many people, not at all ONLY Indian and Pakistani, as you claim. It's known to anyone who spent any time in the subcontinent, anyone who traveled to countries with a substantial Indian population (Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Guyana, Trinidad), anyone who ever had a Pakistani maid or an Indian driver (per my Emirati DH), anyone who reads South Asian fiction (see http://www.amazon.com/Story-Wallah-Short-Fiction-South-Writers/dp/0618576800), the list goes on and on. You don't seem aware of the way information travels in the interconnected global environment. Forgive me, but you sound provincial.

If anything, fewer people know what dawwah means than what wallah means..

Anonymous wrote:Women in the Muslim world desperately need the voice of Western progressives and feminists. But when it comes to finding excuses to neutralize critical questions about Islamic violence, Western progressives seem endlessly creative. Known by an increasing number of women as "Excuses for Abuses," these include:

Criticizing Islam is racist and reveals "intolerance," "bigotry" and "Islamophobia."

For the record, Islam is not a race. Moreover, if you discuss the violent and misogynous teachings of Islam, it does not mean that you hate or are intolerant of Muslims, just of violence and misogyny.

"What you are seeing is not the real Islam; Islam has been hijacked."

The problem with this view is that Islam actually does teach that a woman is worth less than a man. Many teachings in Islam are misogynous -- from wearing veils; requiring four male witness to prove rape; issues of inheritance; court testimony; rules of marriage; rules of divorce and remarriage; a man's "right" to marry up to four women and then beat them, and so on.

If Western progressives an I d feminists care at all about their Muslim sisters, they need to protest against the actual roots of this injustice: these Islamic teachings.

OMG, this again!!!!! I have not read/followed this discussion and just clicked on the last page to see this ridiculous statement. Muslim women do not want western feminism. I appreciate your concerns that we are 2nd class citizens, but do know that those concerns are only existent in your mind. As a Muslim woman living a muslim life, believing in my faith 100%, I have never felt I was a second class citizen, I have never felt men were worth more than me. Why on earth are you blatantly making these ridiculous statements? Whenever women have been treated as less than, whenever women have gotten less than they deserved, it has never been because of Islam, to the contrary, it has always been because of a lack of Islam. I do not know of any institution, any religion, any organization that treats women, loves women, adore women, give a higher status to women than Islam. I feel blessed, lucky, happy to be a Muslim woman every single day of my life alhamdulillah( praised be to God) for Islam.

Some Muslim women make it into our headlines like Yousufzai, or Nobel Prize winner Tawakkol Karman who all clearly stated Islam as a core driver of her work, and who proudly wears her headscarf. Who are you to tell them that they are 2nd class citizens? The vast majority of Muslim women remain unheard of, working on the ground every single day, inspired by their faith to work on women's issues, rights ect. I encounter a lot of inspirational women who are strong, vocal, and fighting for their rights. None of them felt that their faith was at odds with their conviction that they, as women, should be equal citizens.

There is a particular breed of internet troll whose favoured technique is to take selective quotes from the Quran or to answer any article on Islam with “women get less in inheritance, you need the testimony of 2 men, yadi yadi yada" Yet this cherry-picking proves nothing, you are wasting your time!
My intention is not to detract from the very real problems suffered by many Muslim women, or to argue that sexism in Muslim countries does not exist. It does exist. My intention, and this may be too nuanced for the trolls who I can already hear queuing up, is to point out that Islam, women'rights, islamic feminism, are not mutually exclusive. Stop oppressing Muslim women by continuing to spread this false narrative! You are really insufferable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
May I ask -- do you have Aspergers? You seem entirely disconnected to your audience, the vast majority of whom can not understand words like dawah wallah and, now, zabiha. Yet you continue to use such words. If you have Aspergers, forgive me, as it would be an understandable justification for your assumption that the majority of your audience understands your thinking as well as the foreign words you are choosing to use. If you do not have Aspergers, then think about this: There may be thousands of people viewing your posts and usage of foreign words. Out of the thousands, you draw attention to the two posters who said they correctly understand the terms you used. One was you. The other was a poster of British background who claimed dawah wallah is a word of British origin or background also. It's not at all. It is a word distinctly used by only Indians or Pakistani people.

You're lying again. The poster of British background didn't say it was a word of British origin. Only that everyone in London understands it. Lying again, are you?

I used Arabic-language words too - do you now want to claim that I'm from an Arab country?

Yes, I use foreign-language words. Yet think of this. For all your English-only rants, you've failed to secure any sympathy at all from the folk of DCUM. Not one poster stepped up to support your argument. My "aspergery" writings, on the other hand - that's a different story. Why do you think I am able to connect to the audience, despite my foreignisms, and you aren't?

I'm the poster with the British background. I think top PP with all the aspergers comments is appalling. She's the one who's disconnected from her audience, because all her insults and threats are alienating everybody.

We'll file this Aspergers comment right next to her mini-skirted granny with STDs canard. And next to the file called "I'm gonna get writers to mention you in the same para as Harvard." They all go in the cabinet home for her ugly, childish, and ultimately laughable insults and threats.

Anonymous wrote:
May I ask -- do you have Aspergers? You seem entirely disconnected to your audience, the vast majority of whom can not understand words like dawah wallah and, now, zabiha. Yet you continue to use such words. If you have Aspergers, forgive me, as it would be an understandable justification for your assumption that the majority of your audience understands your thinking as well as the foreign words you are choosing to use. If you do not have Aspergers, then think about this: There may be thousands of people viewing your posts and usage of foreign words. Out of the thousands, you draw attention to the two posters who said they correctly understand the terms you used. One was you. The other was a poster of British background who claimed dawah wallah is a word of British origin or background also. It's not at all. It is a word distinctly used by only Indians or Pakistani people.

You're lying again. The poster of British background didn't say it was a word of British origin. Only that everyone in London understands it. Lying again, are you?

I used Arabic-language words too - do you now want to claim that I'm from an Arab country?

Yes, I use foreign-language words. Yet think of this. For all your English-only rants, you've failed to secure any sympathy at all from the folk of DCUM. Not one poster stepped up to support your argument. My "aspergery" writings, on the other hand - that's a different story. Why do you think I am able to connect to the audience, despite my foreignisms, and you aren't?

Women in the Muslim world desperately need the voice of Western progressives and feminists. But when it comes to finding excuses to neutralize critical questions about Islamic violence, Western progressives seem endlessly creative. Known by an increasing number of women as "Excuses for Abuses," these include:

Criticizing Islam is racist and reveals "intolerance," "bigotry" and "Islamophobia."

For the record, Islam is not a race. Moreover, if you discuss the violent and misogynous teachings of Islam, it does not mean that you hate or are intolerant of Muslims, just of violence and misogyny.

"What you are seeing is not the real Islam; Islam has been hijacked."

The problem with this view is that Islam actually does teach that a woman is worth less than a man. Many teachings in Islam are misogynous -- from wearing veils; requiring four male witness to prove rape; issues of inheritance; court testimony; rules of marriage; rules of divorce and remarriage; a man's "right" to marry up to four women and then beat them, and so on.

If Western progressives and feminists care at all about their Muslim sisters, they need to protest against the actual roots of this injustice: these Islamic teachings.

Anonymous wrote:
The mockery exposes your immaturity and lack of understanding of Islamic history, which is precisely why you should not be posting excerpts from books you have not read. Grownups read books before they discuss them. Youngsters who want to show off read the cliff notes version and try to sound as if they read the book. For goodness sake, read the book. Leila Ahmed clearly stated in some ways, women had more rights and freedom pre Islam, but that these rights were predominantly in the area of sexual autonomy. Moreover, she clearly states in her book (the part not in the google preview you viewed) that Muhammads relegation did elevate the status of women overall. The rights that they lost after the Prophets death were due to culture and not Islamic principles. Shame on you for twisting this to propagate hate toward Islam simply because of your own personal experience with Muslims in another country.

Uh-huh. That's exactly why she contrasted the lives of Muhammad's wives before and after Islam. That's exactly why she used words like "political leadership". Hey, maybe in some language "political leadership" is the same as "sexual autonomy".

It's kind of funny how you make up stories to support whatever argument you want to put forward. Let's refresh. Let's let Dr. Ahmed speak for herself, shall we? It's kind of funny, isn't it, how I post quotes, and you post only your own summaries of what you read.

"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."

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff would not do anything because I wanted him to. He would act on his own sense of right and wrong. The articles quoting experts will expose the extent of your islamophobia. What owner of a blog will want islamophobes to have free reign to use his blog to propagate hate?

You have no idea what his sense of right and wrong is. He hasn't stopped this till now, and he won't, for the reasons you outlined.

Anonymous wrote:
May I ask -- do you have Aspergers? You seem entirely disconnected to your audience, the vast majority of whom can not understand words like dawah wallah and, now, zabiha. Yet you continue to use such words. If you have Aspergers, forgive me, as it would be an understandable justification for your assumption that the majority of your audience understands your thinking as well as the foreign words you are choosing to use. If you do not have Aspergers, then think about this: There may be thousands of people viewing your posts and usage of foreign words. Out of the thousands, you draw attention to the two posters who said they correctly understand the terms you used. One was you. The other was a poster of British background who claimed dawah wallah is a word of British origin or background also. It's not at all. It is a word distinctly used by only Indians or Pakistani people.

Laughing to myself. How hard you try to find reasons for a perfectly reasonable set of beliefs. Look at you - who only uses English words - yet is universally rejected by the DCUM audience. I'd say I connect to them just fine.

Anonymous wrote:
It doesn't bother me in the least that I do not know your identity. However, I can most certainly draw a visual of your possible identity: a severely disgruntled, angry, Pakistani islamophobe bent on lying and twisting historical facts in a one person campaign to vilify Islam.

You'll never know what I look like.

Anonymous wrote:
In the same way as you said the jahiliyah period never occurred and was a lie created by Muslims, and it was shown by written testimony of historians and religious scholars to be a complete lie, the articles which I hope will be one day published about your islamophobia will be read by many more people than DCUM's readership.

More lies and distortions.

Anonymous wrote:
I am excited that we now have three writers across the country who have expressed an interest in investigating possible islamophobia organizations and writing an article using your posts.

I'm excited you'll have three opportunities to fall on your face.

Anonymous wrote:
I have not even begun to call all the contacts other Imams have provided of nonMuslim writers at major publications. Would I like to know your identity? Not really. It doesn't serve my purpose.

Actually you would, but you never will.

Anonymous wrote:
Finding out what organization you belong to does, however. Having major publications write about islamophobia does also serve my purpose.

You won't find out what organizations I belong to, because they don't exist. Major publications? Nah, that won't happen, and if it does, so what? There's a new issue coming out every day. Whatever you can write and place - in no doubt, third-rate outlets - will be utterly forgettable.

Anonymous wrote:
Despite your anonymity, it will still embarrass you privately. Regardless of what you may believe, I am sorry about that because it isn't my goal to embarrass anyone. My goal is to stop your islamophobic lies and propagating hate toward my religion.

It won't embarrass me - it will do nothing to me whatsoever. In your goal, you will fail.

So DCUM is now overrun with Muslim proselytizers.

Not relegation. Revelation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What is your educational background? You misread Leila Ahmed's comment. Not only did you fail to comprehend well, you lied and implied you read her book. If you read her book, you would have known why she wrote what she did. You are an Islam hater that is simply trying to spin the truth.

There is so much in her book that contradicts you. But how would you know that when you relied solely on the few pages offered in a google preview and never even read what she wrote afterwards?

It isn't possible to misread her comment. It leaves very little room for misinterpretation. But I look forward to your explanation of how the straightforward sentence of "some women were considerably better off before Islam than after" really means "Islam meant milk and cookies for everyone."

The mockery exposes your immaturity and lack of understanding of Islamic history, which is precisely why you should not be posting excerpts from books you have not read. Grownups read books before they discuss them. Youngsters who want to show off read the cliff notes version and try to sound as if they read the book. For goodness sake, read the book. Leila Ahmed clearly stated in some ways, women had more rights and freedom pre Islam, but that these rights were predominantly in the area of sexual autonomy. Moreover, she clearly states in her book (the part not in the google preview you viewed) that Muhammads relegation did elevate the status of women overall. The rights that they lost after the Prophets death were due to culture and not Islamic principles. Shame on you for twisting this to propagate hate toward Islam simply because of your own personal experience with Muslims in another country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP may be educated but she lacks critical thinking skills.

She routinely asks us to accept whatever her favorite scholars say, even when her snippets of their works contain no supporting evidence.

She routinely insists that you can't understand the Quran unless one knows Arabic, but she herself appears to not actually be able to read the Arabic herself as she been caught misconstruing Quranic passages multiple times--no compulsion in Islam instead of religion; saying the Quran censures a father for burying a female baby when it doesn't.

She routinely exhorts everyone to talk to Islamic scholars as those seem to be the sole source of all her knowledge and belief; there is no sign that she has ever attempted to deconstruct the Quran and understand it herself. Then, laughably, she will write many lines about the background of scholars she regurgitates and their elevated association with one institution or another to back up why we should accept whatever they say.

When we don't accept, she flings around names like Islamaphobe or personal insults and threatens to out the shadowy anti-Islamic organiztion we must belong to.

Thanks PPs for keeping up the heat on her sophistry and providing hours of amusement.

No matter! If Jeff is good enough to keep these threads open, I will publish the links to the published articles. I think when people read the articles, complete with quotes from the historians and scholars, it will be enough. Who would reasonable minded people believe? A disgruntled, islamophobic Pakistani or historians and scholars that teach at Harvard, Oxford, or Cambridge? At that point, I will ask Jeff to shut this thread down to prevent you from continuing on with your islamophobic campaign. Looking forward...

I think you overestimate your ability to make Jeff to do what you want.

Jeff would not do anything because I wanted him to. He would act on his own sense of right and wrong. The articles quoting experts will expose the extent of your islamophobia. What owner of a blog will want islamophobes to have free reign to use his blog to propagate hate?

Anonymous wrote:P.S. Also, you are a really lousy dawwah-wallah. Just wanted to get it out there again.

You're losing your cool, islamophobe. Stick to the merits of the topic. Try to restrain your anger.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nope. Lame explanation. I would bet you the vast majority of the public does not know a term predominantly spoken among Indians and Pakistanis. I do not know too many Pakistani people who spend this much time vilifying Islam. If you are of a minority faith, you were probably discriminated there. Pakistan is a corrupt country and notorious for abuse of nonMuslims. If this describes your experience, I am truly sorry but you can not mistake the practice of Islam by Pakistanis for true Islam. This is completely unfair for the vast majority of Muslims who are peaceful and do not abuse nonMuslims.

There were two people on this very board who knew the term without being Pakistani. You aren't dealing with a "vast majority" of public Joe Schmoes. This is DC, the land of the most PhDs per capita.

I know it really burns you that you can't pinpoint my background, but you drew a big fat blank. I've never even been to the subcontinent. And I don't have a faith.

Also, you aren't sorry.

And yep, we already know that most countries don't practice Islam in the way that deserves your approval. Too bad no one's zabiha enough for your liking.

May I ask -- do you have Aspergers? You seem entirely disconnected to your audience, the vast majority of whom can not understand words like dawah wallah and, now, zabiha. Yet you continue to use such words. If you have Aspergers, forgive me, as it would be an understandable justification for your assumption that the majority of your audience understands your thinking as well as the foreign words you are choosing to use. If you do not have Aspergers, then think about this: There may be thousands of people viewing your posts and usage of foreign words. Out of the thousands, you draw attention to the two posters who said they correctly understand the terms you used. One was you. The other was a poster of British background who claimed dawah wallah is a word of British origin or background also. It's not at all. It is a word distinctly used by only Indians or Pakistani people.

It doesn't bother me in the least that I do not know your identity. However, I can most certainly draw a visual of your possible identity: a severely disgruntled, angry, Pakistani islamophobe bent on lying and twisting historical facts in a one person campaign to vilify Islam. In the same way as you said the jahiliyah period never occurred and was a lie created by Muslims, and it was shown by written testimony of historians and religious scholars to be a complete lie, the articles which I hope will be one day published about your islamophobia will be read by many more people than DCUM's readership. I am excited that we now have three writers across the country who have expressed an interest in investigating possible islamophobia organizations and writing an article using your posts. I have not even begun to call all the contacts other Imams have provided of nonMuslim writers at major publications. Would I like to know your identity? Not really. It doesn't serve my purpose. Finding out what organization you belong to does, however. Having major publications write about islamophobia does also serve my purpose.

Despite your anonymity, it will still embarrass you privately. Regardless of what you may believe, I am sorry about that because it isn't my goal to embarrass anyone. My goal is to stop your islamophobic lies and propagating hate toward my religion.