Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did I miss something here? Where did Jeff argue with the person you call Islamaphobe? Where did he tell this person he thought she had an agenda?

I didn't see that either, but most people won't search through the thread to verify and will only see the accusation above, which perhaps is the motivation for planting it there -- to give the person credibility.

then of course there's the "private correspondences" which can't be proven -- unless Jeff comes on to attest to them.

--------------------------------------------------------

I just had to take the time to find these because I wanted the DCUM readership to know what bold face liars these Islamophobes are. Shame on you, Islamophobes. Now I hope everyone on DCUM knows you do have an agenda to spread hate.

Note specifically that one poster did, in fact, use the word "barbaric" to describe Islam/Muslims and Jeff did not agree.



Subject: Be Wary of Racism and Islamophobes
jsteele
Site Admin
Joined: 11/12/2007 23:38
Messages: 15900
Online Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm a different poster. My concern all along has been that Muslima and her alter ego make blanket assertions that themselves misrepresent the diversity in Islam you so correctly point out.

Muslima is certainly entitled to her own, personal Islam. You and I actually agree that there is no one interpretation of many Islamic tenets.

Except, IMO, she veers into much shadier territory when she claims things that are directly contradicted in the Quran. I'm not so worried about hadith and sharia, but the Quran is purportedly God's own words. So when she makes glowing claims about women's equality and female captives, do you see a problem with people pointing out what the Quran actually says about these issues? IMO, if only the glowing bits are presented, DCUM starts to look like a conversion effort and readers miss the range of Islamic thought you so correctly point out.


Of course you are free to take a contrary view.


Except then I get called a Christian-Evangelist-Crusader-Racist-Islamophobe. Isn't that a little concerning, too?

I don't read the other poster as telling Muslima what to believe. There's a big difference between telling Muslima what to believe, and explaining to the general audience of readers here the many gaps (deliberate? Who knows) in Muslima's presentation and where exactly she's out of step with her own holy book and the eminent theologians in her faith. The other PP is pretty knowledgeable about Islam, and she's explaining to all of us the huge range of thought across Islam that you agree exists. Whether or not Muslima is trying to win converts is something we can't know. I, for one, am grateful to the knowledgeable PP for widening my knowledge of Islam as it's practiced by a billion plus people. If explaining the wide range of Islam--again, we agree this range exists--is tantamount to a deliberate campaign to "spread a negative perception of Islam" (your words, or as a Muslim PP here would say, part of a racist-Christian-evangelist-Islamophobic crusade), then I don't know how we can even discuss Islam here.


I don't know you are directing this post to me. I have not called you a Christian-Evangelist-Crusader-Racist-Islamophobe. There are a lot of posters in this thread and it's a bit to tell one anonymous poster from another. But, there are clearly posters here who appear primarily committed to spreading negative information about Islam.

I think when someone picks a topic such as slavery or concubines and attempts to convey that this is an accepted and non-controversial practice that is unquestioned within the religion, when in fact very few adherents actually believe such a thing and there is quite a bit of debate among scholars, that poster is attempting to spread negative perceptions of Islam. If the poster was solely interested in providing broader perspective, the poster would not completely ignore common practice.

Islam, like any religion, is an easy target for criticism. It is fair to question its practices. But, just as I illustrated here with the example of Hagar, most posters here are not willing to subject mainstream Western religions to the same scrutiny. That suggests a certain basic lack of fairness.


09/06/2014 16:33
Subject: Re:Be Wary of Racism and Islamophobes
jsteele
Site Admin

Joined: 11/12/2007 23:38
Messages: 15900
Offline Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

Because Islam does not work that way. You either accept Islam or you reject it. There is no half way. You either embrace the barbarism, or you are not a Muslim.


This is BS. If you believe that embracing barbarism is necessary to being a Muslim, you really do deserve to be described with some of the negative terms being discussed in this thread.


Barbarism is a value judgment. But the PP is correct in a sense that calling yourself a follower of a particular religion means you embrace it in toto, both beautiful as well as unlovely bits. If some of it appears barbaric to the outsiders, well, OK.


Then all Christians should be expected to embrace the barbarism committed by such groups as the Lord's Resistance Army, abortion clinic bombers, and the Christian Identity Movement? Do mainstream Christians embrace the hate of the Jonesboro Baptists?

Your statement is actually ludicrous. Most members of a religion cannot even agree on what the religion itself embraces, let alone embrace all of it. If there were one true Judaism, why would there be Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, etc. Is a reform Jew embracing every practice of a Hassid?



09/06/2014 17:14
Subject: Re:Be Wary of Racism and Islamophobes
jsteele
Site Admin
Joined: 11/12/2007 23:38
Messages: 15900
Online Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:

For your argument to have any standing, the practice of owning concubines would need to be practically the rule among Muslims rather than limited to extremist groups. When a practice is limited to extremists, it is by definition not part of the generally accepted practice of the religion.

I really don't know what you expect from the average Muslim. Very few would agree that taking concubines is acceptable. Is your intent to demonstrate to them that they are not properly following their religion? Do you want them to suddenly agree with your that Islam is barbaric and stop being Muslims? Do you not understand how insulting your approach is to most people -- Muslim or otherwise?

Accepted practice and scriptural support is not the same thing. The practice may not exist any more, but as long as the scholars of the religion continue to support it or refuse to condemn it (not the extremists, the actual learned scholars), you can't argue that it is no longer acceptable to the followers of the religion. The fact that it is practically impossible is less relevant here. We aren't discussing practice, we are discussing what is permissible as far as the religion is concerned.

And I'm perfectly fine extending this rule to all religion.


Okay, then, in your own words, Jews and Christians embrace the practice of taking concubines based on that fact that Abraham took Hagar as a concubine. This said, I am not sure why you are only criticizing Muslims in this regard.

I am astounded that you have decided that you are not only authorized to tell Muslims what is permissible in their religion, but to make your judgement regardless of general practices.

I again ask, do you expect average Muslims to agree with you and begin taking concubines or do you expect them to reject their religion? Or, are they only supposed to bow down to your obviously superior knowledge of their religion? It looks to me that your only interest is spreading a negative perception of Islam despite the fact that your effort is based on something that is practically unknown among Muslims.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did I miss something here? Where did Jeff argue with the person you call Islamaphobe? Where did he tell this person he thought she had an agenda?

I didn't see that either, but most people won't search through the thread to verify and will only see the accusation above, which perhaps is the motivation for planting it there -- to give the person credibility.

then of course there's the "private correspondences" which can't be proven -- unless Jeff comes on to attest to them.

That was me. I posted several times in a row, so the moderator said I must have an agenda. I responded that my iPad was giving me trouble with posting links, which is what I happened to be doing, but that after a few tries I switched to a laptop for the remaining links, thus the multiple posts. I told him that I thought he could check that I switched devices, and suggested he do so. He never responded, which I assume means he checked and found I was telling the truth.

OP twists everything. (And really, OP made it necessary for me to type that out? ?)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all keep talking about "subtle micro-agressions." In the meantime, your fellow Muslims cut the head off another aid worker and released a video this morning.

When Muslims stop blatant aggression and violence against non-Muslims, maybe we can talk about "subtle micro-aggressions."

Yes, I suppose Muslima and I did that early this morning, just before we fed our children breakfast and sent them off to school. You would not want people to blame you for the actions of others, so don't blame all Muslims for the actions of extremists.

If you stand by and say nothing while your fellow religionists murder aid workers, then you are part of the problem. You endorse their actions with your silence. You endorse their actions with your posturing as a highly persecuted minority that needs to "fight back."

Where did you get the idea I said nothing against the actions of the extremists???

Not that PP, and I do remember you saying the usual, "this isn't the real Islam."

But, you still haven't said anything about the Muslim PP who said Shia aren't Muslims and we shouldn't trust sufis. That PP seemed a little extreme, now that you menion it. Waiting for you to say something....

She responded to the "Shia are non-Muslims"post with mild approval and now she claims she hasn't seen it. Guess she was typing blindfolded.

Amazing skill. Still waiting....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all keep talking about "subtle micro-agressions." In the meantime, your fellow Muslims cut the head off another aid worker and released a video this morning.

When Muslims stop blatant aggression and violence against non-Muslims, maybe we can talk about "subtle micro-aggressions."

Yes, I suppose Muslima and I did that early this morning, just before we fed our children breakfast and sent them off to school. You would not want people to blame you for the actions of others, so don't blame all Muslims for the actions of extremists.

If you stand by and say nothing while your fellow religionists murder aid workers, then you are part of the problem. You endorse their actions with your silence. You endorse their actions with your posturing as a highly persecuted minority that needs to "fight back."

Where did you get the idea I said nothing against the actions of the extremists???

Not that PP, and I do remember you saying the usual, "this isn't the real Islam."

But, you still haven't said anything about the Muslim PP who said Shia aren't Muslims and we shouldn't trust sufis. That PP seemed a little extreme, now that you menion it. Waiting for you to say something....

She responded to the "Shia are non-Muslims"post with mild approval and now she claims she hasn't seen it. Guess she was typing blindfolded.

I'm not the PP that OP is addressing, but I too own Dr. Ahmed's book, thanks to reading about it here a few weeks ago. It's not available as an ebook, but the paperback arrived within 2-3 days.

OP, I disagree with your characterization of this book. Dr. Ahmad's story is indeed nuanced: the point is, pre-Islamic Arabia is a patchwork, contrary to the earlier assertions from you and Muslima that Islam made things better for women in Arabia. I don't see why you quoted from Dr. Ahmed about the Abbassids, when we've focussed on the Quran (and not even Hadith) here.

I find objectionable your murky suggestions of evolution in Dr. Ahmed's conclusions, and your murky insinuation that Dr. Ahmed moved off the unflattering statements at the front of the book. She didn't. As an aside, I'm a researcher myself, and I agree with PP that authors' opinions don't "evolve" as they write. Please. An author who did that, who wrote a book that was internally inconsistent, would never get published.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all keep talking about "subtle micro-agressions." In the meantime, your fellow Muslims cut the head off another aid worker and released a video this morning.

When Muslims stop blatant aggression and violence against non-Muslims, maybe we can talk about "subtle micro-aggressions."

Yes, I suppose Muslima and I did that early this morning, just before we fed our children breakfast and sent them off to school. You would not want people to blame you for the actions of others, so don't blame all Muslims for the actions of extremists.

If you stand by and say nothing while your fellow religionists murder aid workers, then you are part of the problem. You endorse their actions with your silence. You endorse their actions with your posturing as a highly persecuted minority that needs to "fight back."

Where did you get the idea I said nothing against the actions of the extremists???

Not that PP, and I do remember you saying the usual, "this isn't the real Islam."

But, you still haven't said anything about the Muslim PP who said Shia aren't Muslims and we shouldn't trust sufis. That PP seemed a little extreme, now that you menion it. Waiting for you to say something....

Anonymous wrote:
How many have supported you?

Well, we all know the powers of your imagination and how you use it to paint pictures that are completely divorced from reality.

He is already on record stating he doesn't believe there IS an organization behind them.

I find it very amusing that you seem to long for a chance to run to someone you think is powerful - be it Jeff or the "media." As if your arguments aren't strong enough to stand on their own.

And the obsession with people who went to Harvard. That is, in the case of that one guy from Harvard who converted to Islam. Or in OP's fantasy about investigative writers who are going to pair a PP's so-called "islamophobic" posts with quotes from scholars at Harvard, Cambridge and Oxford.

If she's looking to document the supposed extensive reach of Christian bible literalists, however, a guy who runs a tiny "church farm" will serve her purposes just fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all keep talking about "subtle micro-agressions." In the meantime, your fellow Muslims cut the head off another aid worker and released a video this morning.

When Muslims stop blatant aggression and violence against non-Muslims, maybe we can talk about "subtle micro-aggressions."

Yes, I suppose Muslima and I did that early this morning, just before we fed our children breakfast and sent them off to school. You would not want people to blame you for the actions of others, so don't blame all Muslims for the actions of extremists.

If you stand by and say nothing while your fellow religionists murder aid workers, then you are part of the problem. You endorse their actions with your silence. You endorse their actions with your posturing as a highly persecuted minority that needs to "fight back."

Where did you get the idea I said nothing against the actions of the extremists???

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And now, I leave the islamophobe with this request - please stop vilifying the Islamic faith. From the beginning you have confused the practice of Islam with Muhammads true revelation. You clearly have not read Leila Ahmed's book and have no right to be quoting passages that appear on a google preview. Learn Islamic history and then come back to debate from a position of knowledge. You are not in that position now.

Nothing you have posted challenges the original claim - Muslims portray Islam as a sole source of civilization, and pre-Islamic Arabia as a dark, terrible place because it's an ideologically serviceable approach.

Jahilia is not a scientific term. It's a branding effort. A brand is what people agree to all something.

What do you mean "I have no right"? What right do I need to quote anything at all?

I notice you didn't say anything at all about the way she contrasted the lives of Khadija and Aisha - in a light that wasn't very flattering to Aisha. That, I don't think you can blame on the Abbasids Do you want to try and spin this?

Show me the post where Muslima or I wrote that Islam is the "sole source of civilization." You will never find such a post because we never said that. Are you suggesting we are to be held responsible for what every author writes about Islam, true or not? I should hope not.

You do not have the right to post one paragraph from a book that you have never read because in that very book, the author's opinion evolved to something different later on. This is why you look foolish quoting from a paragraph offered on a google preview without reading the book.

[b]On a side note, however, I find it amusing that this paragraph was chosen for the google preview but the subsequent chapters in her book speak quite favorably about Islam. My guess is it was used to entice Islamophobes like you to purchase her book. What a surprise they would get when they continued to read Ahmed's book, however! [/b]

You and Muslima said, on multiple occasions, that Islam brought substantial improvement to the status of women who were treated like chattels before it showed up. The competing claim has always been that the sorrows of Pre-Islamic Arabia are overstated, and so are the joys brought by Islam. The real picture is much more nuanced. Of course you didn't say "sole source of civilization" - do you write as well as Leila Ahmed? Of course not. Don't be ridiculous.

Don't also be ridiculous with your talk of rights. Anyone has the right to quote anything published. The word "right" is out of place there. I happen to own this book. I happen to read it differently from you. That she speaks favorably about Islam doesn't mean she doesn't also speak favorably about other things. You have a very black-and-white view of the world that's unsuitable for interpreting scholarly writing. You didn't post all of it - did you? You cherry-picked the parts that fit your narrative, otherwise her black-and-white comparison of lives of Muhammad's wives pre- and post-Islam would have been included. I, for my part, cherry-picked the quotes that work for me. So?

Authors' opinions don't "evolve" as they write the book. Authors begin writing books with their opinions fully formed already.

What parts do you like? Post and share!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OP quotes the following passage, adding her own bolding, which I've removed:

Subject: Worldly success doesn't define a Christian
Anonymous
There is a middle way, OP. I think Jesus tells us that wealth corrupts - that it makes us strive for the wrong things, care for the wrong things, and spend our time in the wrong way. You can see that side of things, yes? That materialism is not the path to God? But the world shows us that just because you trust in God all your material needs (basic food, clothing, shelter) will not be magically provided. Plenty of good people, all over the world, starve to death. So I think the idea is that money should never be the point, the thing you strive for, because it is likely to lead you away from God. It might bring you closer to a new church building, sure, but there is nothing that says that church buildings or priests or fancy pews are closer to God than a person in the streets serving the homeless. And Jesus never did say that hard work and responsibility were Godly virtues. He said that love is the most important thing. I'd argue that it isn't terribly loving to let your children suffer through hunger and cold, so you need some responsibility and hard work to feed them, but Jesus didn't say that.

And then OP writes:

In the above bold face comments, I'm not seeing any "some", "a few", or any other qualifiers associated. Where are they? It's pretty clear in at least some of the comments the poster is indeed speaking about the Christian belief system, not simply HER belief system. This is no different from what Muslima has done. Yet you find fault with Muslima. It is because she identified herself as a Muslim who loves her faith and spoke positively about Islam. You have made her the target, but not your own Christian brethren simply because she is a Muslim.

OP, you are such a shameless liar. I'm not the pants on fire poster, but she's right about you.

In a single para, the PP above, who is not me, qualified her statements as being her opinions three-3-THREE TIMES. Yeah, that PP doesn't say "some" or "few"-- but she does say "I think" twice and "I'd argue" once.

I've removed your deceptive and misleading building in order to bold her qualifiers. Does everybody see them now?

OP, at various points you've claimed to have a PhD and to be a journalist. You should be ashamed of your performance here.

Above is an instructive example of why nobody should trust OP to interpret anything for them. Ever.

If we can't trust OP to interpret a post we can all read for ourselves, then why on earth would we trust her to interpret her religion, or Dr. Ahmed, for us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all keep talking about "subtle micro-agressions." In the meantime, your fellow Muslims cut the head off another aid worker and released a video this morning.

When Muslims stop blatant aggression and violence against non-Muslims, maybe we can talk about "subtle micro-aggressions."

Yes, I suppose Muslima and I did that early this morning, just before we fed our children breakfast and sent them off to school. You would not want people to blame you for the actions of others, so don't blame all Muslims for the actions of extremists.

If you stand by and say nothing while your fellow religionists murder aid workers, then you are part of the problem. You endorse their actions with your silence. You endorse their actions with your posturing as a highly persecuted minority that needs to "fight back."

I don't blame her for ISIS, and she has condemned them. Closer to home, I do think she has a moral obligation to condem the poster who said, a few days ago, that Shi'ites aren't Muslims and we shouldn't trust Sunnis. Waiting....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a fact that catholics are not taught about the bible in any depth, It is also a fact - a well known fact in and out of the church - that the catholic church does not condone divorce.

Fine. What you say may indeed be true. So perhaps what Muslima has said about her own belief system may also be true. Why can you not accept that her statements about Islam may indeed be true also?

These debates *were* often about facts, and you and Muslima presented incorrect facts that led to pages of discussions. Here are some "facts" that you and Muslima presented....
- Muslima said, simply, "Islam treats women captives well."
- You or Muslima claimed that more people are converting to Islam than immigrating.
- Muslima claimed Islam gave women the vote 1400 years ago.
- you and Muslima argued for dozens of pages that the word "equal" applies to Islam's women even if they have unequal divorce, inheritance and other legal rights.
- you and/or Muslima don't follow Hadith.

Some of these are wrong as "facts" and some of these are your opinions but were never presented as such.

For example,
- you were proved definitively wrong on you claim about converts, in fact 100k Muslim immigrants come here every year, vs. a sketchy and probably exaggerated figure of 25k converts, and no data whatsoever on the people we know leave Islam every year.
- how the word "equal" should be defined is your opinion. Still, both of you contine to make sweeping, unqualified statements about how women are "equal." Moreover, neither of you ever qualifies this as your personal view, to the point where it seems like you're deliberately trying to mislead readers who may not be familiar with Islam's divorce and inheritance laws.
- I think one of you even conceded that what happened 1400 years ago wasn't women's suffrage, it was a loyalty oath. Others here see this as a purity pledge that applies to women but not to men
- you and Muslima were proved wrong about how Islam treats women who are captured. No debate that they become slaves, but you or Muslima claimed they were freed upon pregnancy. No, you're wrong, proof was provided that she is freed upon her master's death.
- it's your choice whether or not to follow hadith, but you certainly don't speak for millions of other Muslims. Are you kidding?

So, you guys made lots of sweeping statements about your faith that you presented as absolutes, but which were flat-out wrong. You presented other claims as absolutes, such as "Muslim women are equal to men" which, arguably, were very much your opinions and not shared by all Muslim women let alone shared by non-Muslims.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all keep talking about "subtle micro-agressions." In the meantime, your fellow Muslims cut the head off another aid worker and released a video this morning.

When Muslims stop blatant aggression and violence against non-Muslims, maybe we can talk about "subtle micro-aggressions."

Yes, I suppose Muslima and I did that early this morning, just before we fed our children breakfast and sent them off to school. You would not want people to blame you for the actions of others, so don't blame all Muslims for the actions of extremists.

If you stand by and say nothing while your fellow religionists murder aid workers, then you are part of the problem. You endorse their actions with your silence. You endorse their actions with your posturing as a highly persecuted minority that needs to "fight back."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And now, I leave the islamophobe with this request - please stop vilifying the Islamic faith. From the beginning you have confused the practice of Islam with Muhammads true revelation. You clearly have not read Leila Ahmed's book and have no right to be quoting passages that appear on a google preview. Learn Islamic history and then come back to debate from a position of knowledge. You are not in that position now.

Nothing you have posted challenges the original claim - Muslims portray Islam as a sole source of civilization, and pre-Islamic Arabia as a dark, terrible place because it's an ideologically serviceable approach.

Jahilia is not a scientific term. It's a branding effort. A brand is what people agree to all something.

What do you mean "I have no right"? What right do I need to quote anything at all?

I notice you didn't say anything at all about the way she contrasted the lives of Khadija and Aisha - in a light that wasn't very flattering to Aisha. That, I don't think you can blame on the Abbasids Do you want to try and spin this?

Show me the post where Muslima or I wrote that Islam is the "sole source of civilization." You will never find such a post because we never said that. Are you suggesting we are to be held responsible for what every author writes about Islam, true or not? I should hope not.

You do not have the right to post one paragraph from a book that you have never read because in that very book, the author's opinion evolved to something different later on. This is why you look foolish quoting from a paragraph offered on a google preview without reading the book.

[b]On a side note, however, I find it amusing that this paragraph was chosen for the google preview but the subsequent chapters in her book speak quite favorably about Islam. My guess is it was used to entice Islamophobes like you to purchase her book. What a surprise they would get when they continued to read Ahmed's book, however! [/b]

You and Muslima said, on multiple occasions, that Islam brought substantial improvement to the status of women who were treated like chattels before it showed up. The competing claim has always been that the sorrows of Pre-Islamic Arabia are overstated, and so are the joys brought by Islam. The real picture is much more nuanced. Of course you didn't say "sole source of civilization" - do you write as well as Leila Ahmed? Of course not. Don't be ridiculous.

Don't also be ridiculous with your talk of rights. Anyone has the right to quote anything published. The word "right" is out of place there. I happen to own this book. I happen to read it differently from you. That she speaks favorably about Islam doesn't mean she doesn't also speak favorably about other things. You have a very black-and-white view of the world that's unsuitable for interpreting scholarly writing. You didn't post all of it - did you? You cherry-picked the parts that fit your narrative, otherwise her black-and-white comparison of lives of Muhammad's wives pre- and post-Islam would have been included. I, for my part, cherry-picked the quotes that work for me. So?

Authors' opinions don't "evolve" as they write the book. Authors begin writing books with their opinions fully formed already.

Anonymous wrote:Did I miss something here? Where did Jeff argue with the person you call Islamaphobe? Where did he tell this person he thought she had an agenda?

I didn't see that either, but most people won't search through the thread to verify and will only see the accusation above, which perhaps is the motivation for planting it there -- to give the person credibility.

then of course there's the "private correspondences" which can't be proven -- unless Jeff comes on to attest to them.