Anonymous wrote:Umm, didn't you address your post directly to me? Thats why I read it.

Again - why are you complaining about reading stuff no one forced you to read?

Anonymous wrote:First of all, I think I have said quite clearly I do not know about that immigrant poster's previous posts. I would have to view them all to see his position on other kinds of Muslims to determine if he committed takfir.

You respond to posts without knowing them? I copied your response to the post calling Shias non-Muslims.

Anonymous wrote:
Difference of opinion or criticism is permitted in Islam. Tafkir is quite a different story. Don't mistake one for the other. Therefore, he is not a "takfiri" let alone my "buddy."

When someone calls a Muslim a non-Muslim, is it criticism or takfir?

Anonymous wrote:
Moreover, I did not "pour wrath on nonMuslims"; I corrected your outright lies and misinterpretations of Islamic history and Muhammads relegations. You have to know if you publish false statements about Islam, somebody at some point is going to correct you.

You didn't. You tried. But you failed.

Anonymous wrote:Oh my. More evidence you are an immigrant yourself, most likely a disgruntled Pakistani of a minority faith who wants to spread hate about Islam. "Kool Aid" is not spelled "Cool-Aid." It's a typical idiomatic expression that you are clearly unfamiliar with because you can't spell it! Your posts are quite revealing.

There is no shame in spelling mistakes, or in being a Pakistani (you little bigot you), for that matter. Everyone makes spelling mistakes. You've just typed "Muhammad's relegations" two lines above. Did you mean "relegations"? Or "revelations"? Do you see me making a stink about it? And since you're getting all picky about spelling, it is my pleasure to share with you the correct spelling that is "IslamOphobe", not "IslamAphobe", as you prefer to write it. And what about your maths refresher? What is greater - 25 thousand or a hundred thousand?

Anonymous wrote: Worship of the Al-Saud? No, not really. They are not the guardians of the Islamic faith. However, they are the guardians of Kaba, a place of importance to Muslims worldwide. They do decide who may enter Mecca and who may not. You said the immigrant poster (and I) were "takfiri buddies" for rejecting Shia as Muslims and therefore I, in particular, worship Al-Saud. You are drawing a correlation between Saudi Arabia and those accusing nonSunni or nonwahabi as takfiri, particularly Shia people. I clearly showed you that by admitting Shias in Mecca, the government of Saudi Arabia admits they are indeed Muslim.

The hatred and sectarianism of Al-Saud is well known. Letting people into Mecca is not the end-all be-all of Muslimness. Al-Saud spreads hate about all non-Wahhabi Muslims in the writings it disseminates worldwide, in their schoolbooks used by many Islamic schools worldwide, and through their discriminatory, bigoted policies toward non-Wahhabi Muslims within the country.

Anonymous wrote:
If a Muslim on any thread does not like what people of another sect are doing, it is their prerogative to criticize it. Shia Muslims do engage in behavior that may be antithetical to islamic principles, but that does not make them nonMuslim.

I'm gonna give you a crash course on what is criticism and what is takfir.

"Shias are bad Muslims." = criticism

"Shias are non-Muslims." = takfir

All better now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am sorry, but your writing is not easy to absorb. It's the sesquipedalian loquaciousness that gives me a headache at times. It's pretentiousness disguised as intelligence.

Is someone holding a gun to your head to read it?

Umm, didn't you address your post directly to me? Thats why I read it.

Anonymous wrote:
Think this through: did you ever consider that maybe I had not read all of immigrant pp's posts?
Secondly, criticism is permitted in Islam. Takfir goes well beyond criticism. I would have to see his posts to determine if he committed it.
Third, where did you get the idea I refrain from criticizing any Muslim, simply because they are Muslim?

Because you poured your wrath on non-Muslims who dared to criticize your statements about Islam, but said not a word to your takfiri buddies.

Anonymous wrote:

First of all, I think I have said quite clearly I do not know about that immigrant poster's previous posts. I would have to view them all to see his position on other kinds of Muslims to determine if he committed takfir. Difference of opinion or criticism is permitted in Islam. Tafkir is quite a different story. Don't mistake one for the other. Therefore, he is not a "takfiri" let alone my "buddy." Moreover, I did not "pour wrath on nonMuslims"; I corrected your outright lies and misinterpretations of Islamic history and Muhammads relegations. You have to know if you publish false statements about Islam, somebody at some point is going to correct you.


Lastly, I have never lived in Saudi Arabia and was not born there. Another false assumption.

You don't need to live there to drink their Cool-Aid or read the religious studies bullshit they disseminate worldwide

Anonymous wrote:

Oh my. More evidence you are an immigrant yourself, most likely a disgruntled Pakistani of a minority faith who wants to spread hate about Islam. "Kool Aid" is not spelled "Cool-Aid." It's a typical idiomatic expression that you are clearly unfamiliar with because you can't spell it! Your posts are quite revealing.


One more thing, where did you get the idea I do not accept Shia as Muslims? Shia are permitted to do Hajj in Mecca by the Saudi government. As such it follows that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia accepts shia as Muslim.

You are trying to create hatred, divisiveness, and controversy. If that wasn't bad enough, your writing...sigh..please...stop.

I have no idea what you do and do not accept. I laugh at your suggestion that the opinion of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia as to who is and is not a real Muslim means anything. You have a very bad case of the Al-Saud worship. Who the hell appointed Al-Saud in charge of deciding who is and is not a real Muslim?

Worship of the Al-Saud? No, not really. They are not the guardians of the Islamic faith. However, they are the guardians of Kaba, a place of importance to Muslims worldwide. They do decide who may enter Mecca and who may not. You said the immigrant poster (and I) were "takfiri buddies" for rejecting Shia as Muslims and therefore I, in particular, worship Al-Saud. You are drawing a correlation between Saudi Arabia and those accusing nonSunni or nonwahabi as takfiri, particularly Shia people. I clearly showed you that by admitting Shias in Mecca, the government of Saudi Arabia admits they are indeed Muslim.

As for who is creating hatred, divisiveness and controversy, perhaps it's time for you to point your finger to t posters who called the Shia non-Muslims and the Sufis not deserving of trust. And yet you haven't said a single word to them, not even a mild reprimand that calling Shia non-Muslims is not right. I wonder why that is?

If a Muslim on any thread does not like what people of another sect are doing, it is their prerogative to criticize it. Shia Muslims do engage in behavior that may be antithetical to islamic principles, but that does not make them nonMuslim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apropos - what the government of Saudi Arabia REALLY thinks about non-Muslims.

https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/TextbooksArabicExcerpts.pdf

I find page 55 particularly endearing. This is what all schoolkids in KSA are being taught.

Yikes. Assigning schoolkids an essay about the enduring battle that Muslims must wage against Christians and Jews.

As to how much money Saudi officials have spent since the early 1970s to promote Wahhabism worldwide, David D. Aufhauser, a former Treasury Department general counsel, told a Senate committee in June 2004 that estimates went "north of $75 billion." The money financed the construction of thousands of mosques, schools and Islamic centers, the employment of at least 9,000 proselytizers and the printing of millions of books of religious instruction.

Saudi's hide the charity budget now.

see http://www.islamicpluralism.org/532/al-qaeda-other-terror-groups-swim-in-global-sea-of-saudi

OP:
What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you seen All-American Muslim? What did you think of it? I started watching it after all the right-wing hoopla claiming that the show's producers were avoiding showing militant Muslims. The issues the show dealt with made sense to me based on what I know from Muslim friends and acquaintances. I was sorry the show wasn't renewed.

Folks who want to know more about one segment of the Muslim community in the US may want to check it out.

That show was nonsense, the families they showed were shia, aka non-Muslims, its a completely different faith! They had tattoos, the women weren't covering all the time, a few were wrapped up in haram (forbidden) money making (The club) and the list goes on and on. It was an extremely poor representation of what a real american Muslim is. Now don't get me wrong they had some key points and very real life situations that everyone goes through, but I'm glad they didn't renew it.

Who made you in charge of deciding what an American Muslim is?

More generally, who put you in charge of deciding who is and is not a real Muslim? Just go ahead and call them rafidah dogs and then catch a flight to ISIS, they seem to need people with your attitude.

Wait. Did you just use an arabic term now on DCUM? You must be the same who used the term, dawah wallah. Do you realize you alienate readership by using words very few nonMuslims know? You don't sound smart, you sound disconnected from your audience.

That pp iscorrect also. If a program is going to show Muslims, its a bit strange to show people who may not even practice Islam.

Whoops, caught you lying again. You say you didn't see that post? You replied to it, and you confirmed the views expressed in it. Liar. And we know it's you - who else is accusing me of being disconnected with "my audience"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apropos - what the government of Saudi Arabia REALLY thinks about non-Muslims.

https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/TextbooksArabicExcerpts.pdf

I find page 55 particularly endearing. This is what all schoolkids in KSA are being taught.

Yikes. Assigning schoolkids an essay about the enduring battle that Muslims must wage against Christians and Jews.

Do a search on how much blood money is due for killing a Muslim man vs. non-Muslim man vs. Muslim woman vs. non-Muslim woman and weep.

Anonymous wrote:Apropos - what the government of Saudi Arabia REALLY thinks about non-Muslims.

https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/TextbooksArabicExcerpts.pdf

I find page 55 particularly endearing. This is what all schoolkids in KSA are being taught.

Yikes. Assigning schoolkids an essay about the enduring battle that Muslims must wage against Christians and Jews.

16:59 here. Just to be clear, I'm not 16:48 or 16:55. There seem to be 2-3 of us who take offense at Muslim PP's dishonest characterization of her previous tired, old battles here. And two-three of us who wonder why she doesn't vent similar ire on the Muslim who told us not to trust Shias and Sufis.

Apropos - what the government of Saudi Arabia REALLY thinks about non-Muslims.

https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/TextbooksArabicExcerpts.pdf

I find page 55 particularly endearing. This is what all schoolkids in KSA are being taught.

Anonymous wrote:I have not even seen all of his posts. I would have to find every post to determine whether, in my opinion, he committed any grave sin.

What I did see is you mocked him for something he has little or no control over. Immigrants (Muslim immigrants) rarely have a good command of English. Why pick on him for it?

As for the christian crusader-evangelical, STD comment, all was apologized for. Sorry you can not accept the apology but its no longer something I need to address.

Besides, SOME of the criticisms I noted are preventable and controllable.

STDs are primarily preventable with abstinence. Islam demands abstinence before marriage.

Evangelicals are identified by the CIA as extremists, the same as terrorists. Those who accused Muslims defending their faith of proselytizing in attempt to lure Christians to Islam may very well be evangelicals. Who else would accuse a Muslim of proselytizing simply because he corrects falsehoods and misconceptions? Its an extreme reaction and a weighty accusation for merely defending one's faith.

As for the stereotype of women wearing mini skirts, excessively indulging in alcohol at bars, and the prevalence of STDS in American society, these were presented in response to islamophobes also painting Islam with a broad brush and implying Islam is a barbaric religion. Stereotypes are offensive to anyone.

Ahaha, I remember your so-called "apology"! You apologized for saying that *all* American women had STDs because, apparently, you really just meant to direct that comment to the American women on that thread. Only when somebody pointed that out did you issue a second, more comprehensive, apology.

Where did anybody call Islam "barbaric"? Please give a cite for this. Oh wait, nobody actually called Islam "barbaric." They merely disagreed with you about whether "women's equality" can encompass legal inequality. They disagreed with you on some other points of opinion. There's a big difference, which you still can't grasp, between islamophobia and disagreeing with you.

Also. Your insistence that that poster must be an immigrant is just as bad as mocking his language. First, how do you know he's an immigrant? Second, your assumption that he's an immigrant (and that's why his language is bad!) is just another way of saying, hey, his language is bad. It's a distinction without a difference.

FWIW, I've wondered if you're proselytizing, although I don't think I committed my musings to type. Why have I wondered if you're proselytizing? For the obvious reason that your overly-simplified platitudes seem straight out of the dawwah proselytizing book. But I assure you, I am NOT an evangelical.

In any case, I'm still waiting, with the other PP, for you to address that poster's unabashed trashing of western women, shias and sufis. What, nothing but crickets from you and Muslima about whether Yusuf and shiites are untrustworthy? Instead, you're back here resurrecting tired, old battles about the people you wrongly label islamophobes.

Anonymous wrote:I have not even seen all of his posts. I would have to find every post to determine whether, in my opinion, he committed any grave sin.

What I did see is you mocked him for something he has little or no control over. Immigrants (Muslim immigrants) rarely have a good command of English. Why pick on him for it?

As for the christian crusader-evangelical, STD comment, all was apologized for. Sorry you can not accept the apology but its no longer something I need to address.

The person with bad English and the takfiri dude are two different posters.

Anonymous wrote:
Besides, SOME of the criticisms I noted are preventable and controllable.

STDs are primarily preventable with abstinence. Islam demands abstinence before marriage.

Who cares what Islam demands? People on DCUM don't care about meeting your religion's moral standards.

And it doesn't demand abstinence before marriage, only chastity. Just for you, I'll break it down. Abstinence means hymen in place. Chastity means having sex only with people you're supposed to. A woman could have wild sex with her husband, have him drop dead from a heart attack, marry immediately after and proceed to have wild sex with husband #2, and all the turbans in the world won't raise any eyebrows.

Anonymous wrote:
Evangelicals are identified by the CIA as extremists, the same as terrorists. Those who accused Muslims defending their faith of proselytizing in attempt to lure Christians to Islam may very well be evangelicals. Who else would accuse a Muslim of proselytizing simply because he corrects falsehoods and misconceptions? Its an extreme reaction and a weighty accusation for merely defending one's faith.

You didn't call people evangelical crusaders for accusing you of prozelytizing, only for disagreeing with you. I know because I was one of them. Besides, you say "correcting falsehoods," I say "whitewashing." Meh.

Anonymous wrote:
As for the stereotype of women wearing mini skirts, excessively indulging in alcohol at bars, and the prevalence of STDS in American society, these were presented in response to islamophobes also painting Islam with a broad brush and implying Islam is a barbaric religion. Stereotypes are offensive to anyone.

Not really. You reached out for those because those are typical ways in which conservative Muslims criticize non-Muslims, especially non-Muslim women. I've seen these talking points before - you don't think you're original, are you? No one said anything about Muslims as people.

Anonymous wrote:
I am sorry, but your writing is not easy to absorb. It's the sesquipedalian loquaciousness that gives me a headache at times. It's pretentiousness disguised as intelligence.

Is someone holding a gun to your head to read it?

Anonymous wrote:
Think this through: did you ever consider that maybe I had not read all of immigrant pp's posts?
Secondly, criticism is permitted in Islam. Takfir goes well beyond criticism. I would have to see his posts to determine if he committed it.
Third, where did you get the idea I refrain from criticizing any Muslim, simply because they are Muslim?

Because you poured your wrath on non-Muslims who dared to criticize your statements about Islam, but said not a word to your takfiri buddies.

Anonymous wrote:
Lastly, I have never lived in Saudi Arabia and was not born there. Another false assumption.

You don't need to live there to drink their Cool-Aid or read the religious studies bullshit they disseminate worldwide.

Anonymous wrote:
One more thing, where did you get the idea I do not accept Shia as Muslims? Shia are permitted to do Hajj in Mecca by the Saudi government. As such it follows that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia accepts shia as Muslim.

You are trying to create hatred, divisiveness, and controversy. If that wasn't bad enough, your writing...sigh..please...stop.

I have no idea what you do and do not accept. I laugh at your suggestion that the opinion of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia as to who is and is not a real Muslim means anything. You have a very bad case of the Al-Saud worship. Who the hell appointed Al-Saud in charge of deciding who is and is not a real Muslim?

As for who is creating hatred, divisiveness and controversy, perhaps it's time for you to point your finger to t posters who called the Shia non-Muslims and the Sufis not deserving of trust. And yet you haven't said a single word to them, not even a mild reprimand that calling Shia non-Muslims is not right. I wonder why that is?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you seen All-American Muslim? What did you think of it? I started watching it after all the right-wing hoopla claiming that the show's producers were avoiding showing militant Muslims. The issues the show dealt with made sense to me based on what I know from Muslim friends and acquaintances. I was sorry the show wasn't renewed.

Folks who want to know more about one segment of the Muslim community in the US may want to check it out.

That show was nonsense, the families they showed were shia, aka non-Muslims, its a completely different faith! They had tattoos, the women weren't covering all the time, a few were wrapped up in haram (forbidden) money making (The club) and the list goes on and on. It was an extremely poor representation of what a real american Muslim is. Now don't get me wrong they had some key points and very real life situations that everyone goes through, but I'm glad they didn't renew it.

Oh you didn't see that, did you. You did, actually, as you posted a very mild response to that comment upthread. A more likely answer is that you are reluctant to criticize anyone who might be Muslim. So here you have your little Wahhabi buddy, pronouncing takfir on a good chunk of the world's Muslims, which is a very great sin in Islam, and it's kind of funny how you found not a single stern word for that poster. Might that be because you both come from an Al-Saud-funded, Bin-Baz-trained, Shia-hating, vicious strain of belief?

The person who called your pet Hamza Yusuf a not-to-be-trusted Sufi is one of the last posters on the thread about reform. Still waiting for you to upbraid him or her with a modicum of passion you reserve for the kuffar who have the gall to challenge your platitudes.

I am sorry, but your writing is not easy to absorb. It's the sesquipedalian loquaciousness that gives me a headache at times. It's pretentiousness disguised as intelligence.

Think this through: did you ever consider that maybe I had not read all of immigrant pp's posts?
Secondly, criticism is permitted in Islam. Takfir goes well beyond criticism. I would have to see his posts to determine if he committed it.
Third, where did you get the idea I refrain from criticizing any Muslim, simply because they are Muslim?

Lastly, I have never lived in Saudi Arabia and was not born there. Another false assumption.

One more thing, where did you get the idea I do not accept Shia as Muslims? Shia are permitted to do Hajj in Mecca by the Saudi government. As such it follows that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia accepts shia as Muslim.

You are trying to create hatred, divisiveness, and controversy. If that wasn't bad enough, your writing...sigh..please...stop.

I have not even seen all of his posts. I would have to find every post to determine whether, in my opinion, he committed any grave sin.

What I did see is you mocked him for something he has little or no control over. Immigrants (Muslim immigrants) rarely have a good command of English. Why pick on him for it?

As for the christian crusader-evangelical, STD comment, all was apologized for. Sorry you can not accept the apology but its no longer something I need to address.

Besides, SOME of the criticisms I noted are preventable and controllable.

STDs are primarily preventable with abstinence. Islam demands abstinence before marriage.

Evangelicals are identified by the CIA as extremists, the same as terrorists. Those who accused Muslims defending their faith of proselytizing in attempt to lure Christians to Islam may very well be evangelicals. Who else would accuse a Muslim of proselytizing simply because he corrects falsehoods and misconceptions? Its an extreme reaction and a weighty accusation for merely defending one's faith.

As for the stereotype of women wearing mini skirts, excessively indulging in alcohol at bars, and the prevalence of STDS in American society, these were presented in response to islamophobes also painting Islam with a broad brush and implying Islam is a barbaric religion. Stereotypes are offensive to anyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you seen All-American Muslim? What did you think of it? I started watching it after all the right-wing hoopla claiming that the show's producers were avoiding showing militant Muslims. The issues the show dealt with made sense to me based on what I know from Muslim friends and acquaintances. I was sorry the show wasn't renewed.

Folks who want to know more about one segment of the Muslim community in the US may want to check it out.

That show was nonsense, the families they showed were shia, aka non-Muslims, its a completely different faith! They had tattoos, the women weren't covering all the time, a few were wrapped up in haram (forbidden) money making (The club) and the list goes on and on. It was an extremely poor representation of what a real american Muslim is. Now don't get me wrong they had some key points and very real life situations that everyone goes through, but I'm glad they didn't renew it.

Oh you didn't see that, did you. You did, actually, as you posted a very mild response to that comment upthread. A more likely answer is that you are reluctant to criticize anyone who might be Muslim. So here you have your little Wahhabi buddy, pronouncing takfir on a good chunk of the world's Muslims, which is a very great sin in Islam, and it's kind of funny how you found not a single stern word for that poster. Might that be because you both come from an Al-Saud-funded, Bin-Baz-trained, Shia-hating, vicious strain of belief?

The person who called your pet Hamza Yusuf a not-to-be-trusted Sufi is one of the last posters on the thread about reform. Still waiting for you to upbraid him or her with a modicum of passion you reserve for the kuffar who have the gall to challenge your platitudes.