Anonymous wrote:OP, if you can say "I don't believe in the Trinity" then why is it Islamophobic for others to say "I don't agree with Islam's laws on women"?

I'm still hoping OP will address this. A difference of opinion is not a phobia.

Anonymous wrote:Is it micro-aggressive or macro-aggressive to think that this is a load of indulgent, self-serving obsessive tosh?

Why are you looking for problems where there may not be any at all? Sometimes people just don't know any better and aren't being any kind of aggressive at all.

When I get dumb questions, I give kind answers. Education is always better than a PC shutdown of genuine inquiry.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where does "Christian-evangelical-crusader-Islamophobe" fell into the micro aggression categories?

It was an emotional reaction to the hostility on these threads toward Islam for which I have apologized already. Muslims have yet to receive any apology for the Islam bashing on DCUM, however.

You've posted many, many insults and only one apology. It's OK to doubt its sincerity. No one expressed hostility to you PERSONALLY yet you went to great lengths to invent personal insults for posters who were less than impressed with your faith. One can be forgiven for not believing the current, apologetic, peaceful you.

So I have had the distinct displeasure of suffering through an Islamaphobic tirade while at university. One of my classmate's family was a friend of Jack Anderson, a muckraker columnist, who was nationally syndicated for decades. He was quite old at the time and I assume he has since died.

He was a mandatory guest speaker and spent the entire hour bashing Islam, but in particular bashing their god (it was oral, but clearly he meant the lower case g). I have never heard anyone pronounce the word Allah with such derision. The price of gas, terrorism, economic malaise of the Middle Eat and all kinds of other evils were the direct result of fanatic Islamic devotion to Allah.

I am convinced my classmates had no idea that Allah is simply the Arabic word for God. If he had used God instead, I think a number would have run him out for blasphemy (it was a Catholic university). I tried to tell others after that we had just heard a huge blast on God, but most didn't get it. The speaker was pretty much guilty of all 5 categories, plus others, and the totality came to macro-aggression.

BTW Jack Anderson was not exactly a fundamentalist Christian; he was Mormon. The classmate who had arranged for him to speak, also Mormon, told me that the reason women were poorly treated in Islam was because it sanctioned polygamy. From a Mormon???!!!

Check out the prayer thread. It happens to all religions; this isn't a specifically Muslim problem by any stretch. On the prayer thread, the so-called phobia doesn't take the form of disagreement, it's flat-out name-calling. The answer is never going to be complaining about it.

Anonymous wrote:OP, if you can say "I don't believe in the Trinity" then why is it Islamophobic for others to say "I don't agree with Islam's laws on women"?

These are differences of opinion. Not phobias.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where does "Christian-evangelical-crusader-Islamophobe" fell into the micro aggression categories?

It was an emotional reaction to the hostility on these threads toward Islam for which I have apologized already. Muslims have yet to receive any apology for the Islam bashing on DCUM, however.

You've posted many, many insults and only one apology. It's OK to doubt its sincerity. No one expressed hostility to you PERSONALLY yet you went to great lengths to invent personal insults for posters who were less than impressed with your faith. One can be forgiven for not believing the current, apologetic, peaceful you.

So I have had the distinct displeasure of suffering through an Islamaphobic tirade while at university. One of my classmate's family was a friend of Jack Anderson, a muckraker columnist, who was nationally syndicated for decades. He was quite old at the time and I assume he has since died.

He was a mandatory guest speaker and spent the entire hour bashing Islam, but in particular bashing their god (it was oral, but clearly he meant the lower case g). I have never heard anyone pronounce the word Allah with such derision. The price of gas, terrorism, economic malaise of the Middle Eat and all kinds of other evils were the direct result of fanatic Islamic devotion to Allah.

I am convinced my classmates had no idea that Allah is simply the Arabic word for God. If he had used God instead, I think a number would have run him out for blasphemy (it was a Catholic university). I tried to tell others after that we had just heard a huge blast on God, but most didn't get it. The speaker was pretty much guilty of all 5 categories, plus others, and the totality came to macro-aggression.

BTW Jack Anderson was not exactly a fundamentalist Christian; he was Mormon. The classmate who had arranged for him to speak, also Mormon, told me that the reason women were poorly treated in Islam was because it sanctioned polygamy. From a Mormon???!!!

OP, if you can say "I don't believe in the Trinity" then why is it Islamophobic for others to say "I don't agree with Islam's laws on women"?

Anonymous wrote:
I respectfully disagree! Religion may be used as a context for discrimination. For example - saying Islam condones terrorism, or that Islam treats women like children, or that there is inequality or oppression of women under Islam, or that Muhammad is a pedophile, etc...

This is why muslims are trying to clarify our religious principles here, because our principles are misinterpreted and it has the effect of discriminating Muslims.

I think clarifying Islam's laws is a worthy undertaking. It's how you're going about it that's problematic.

Saying "women are equal in Islam" or "Islam treats women captives well" or "Muslims believe in the same Jesus" spreads new misunderstandings instead of clarity. That's how each of these issues led to 20 pages where other people besides you described the actual laws, usually ending up with disagreement over accepting these laws, at which point you usually started calling everybody Islamophobes.

Also, one person called Mohamned a pedophile a month ago. I actually apologized on his/her behalf, and I'll do it again now: that person was wrong to say that. How many times have you called posters Christian-evangelical-crusader-Islamophobic mini-skirt-wearing grannies with STDs?

Another way of understanding the trinity is to think of a multifaceted diamond. It shines differently as the light hits it from different directions. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different ways of understanding the unitary being of God.

Anonymous wrote:
To clarify why and how Muslim women feel equality (in value of rights, or equity) exists is a lengthy explanation. To simply say, for example, that inheritance laws gives women less is only half the picture. Inheritance laws gives more to males because they predominantly bear financial burdens in their lives. Then we have to explain what kind of financial responsibilities the man has in Islam and also explain how it is that women does not bear any financial responsibilities. All this detailed explanation must be provided, all the while fending off unfair insults from
Islamophobes along the way who will say our system treats women like children. No, actually it considers the fact that women bear children and often have the responsibility of raising children. That itself is a great undertaking so Islam does not impose on her the additional burden of financial responsibility. Muslims are not embarrassed or ashamed to explain all this and more. We think Islam is a just system, so we do not feel it necessary to mislead. But it is time consuming and presumptuous to assume this audience is interested in great details about our faith. Muslima and I only wrote to correct inaccurate information that was posted. If there was any further inquiry, however, we would have and did clarify.

That's just your interpretation. You may feel that the limitation in women's rights in Islam are counterbalanced by men's responsibility to support women financially. To you, the fact that men must support women may compensate for unequal inheritance rights, divorce rights, marriage rights etc. To someone else, it may not be good enough. Both viewpoints are perfectly valid and it isn't Islamophobic to say "I don't like this system and I don't consider it equal treatment."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of them is when people think they're being PC and saying it doesn't matter if you pray to God or Allah or whoever you believe in. Allah = Arabic for God. I truly believe lots of celebrities who say this WANT to set Islam apart in a negative way -- in a -- oh we respect Muslims, they just pray to some other foreign God. Um no -- they pray to the same God as Christians and Jews.

I respectfully disagree with this. As a Christian I do not believe that Muslims pray to the same God as I do. Nor do Jewish people. I don't mean this in a disrespectful way, but my God is a trinity which must include Jesus. If you do not believe in Jesus as God, then we do not believe in the same god. We don't need to believe in the same god to be respectful to one another.

As a Muslim I completely understand WHY you don't think we pray to the same God as you. However, from our perspective the true message delivered by Jesus did not teach trinity (see Gospel of Thomas thread). Thus, the message Jesus brought is the same message as Moses brought and it is the same message that Muhammad brought. This is from the Muslim perspective. It emphasizes the oneness of God. So from the Muslim perspective, we do pray to the same God that Moses and Jesus spoke of, although we do not pray to Jesus as God. Muslims know by now that many, not all, Christians believe Jesus is God himself but we do not accept this.

But clearly, Muslim perspective isn't the only one that counts here, is it. If you say "we pray to the same God as Christians", and Christians disagree, you have a de facto impasse. Christians also disagree massively with Muslims on what exactly Jesus' message was. Jews certainly don't look to Muslims to interpret what exactly was the message that Moses brought. That Muslims would like to draw these figures under the umbrella of Islam doesn't mean much to Jews and Christians.

I think its not entirely correct for Muslims to say we believe in what Christians believe, because assigning partners to God or saying God is actually a man is a huge sin in islam. It is more correct to say muslims believe in Jesus' message. Now we know Christians interpret Jesus' message differently and of course thats their prerogative but it is a true factual statement for a muslim to say he embraces Jesus'teachings.

Christians do not assign partners to God. If we did, we would believes in gods, not God. The trinity holds that there are three persons in one God. One of these persons is God the Son who has two natures, God and man. We do not believe that God is a man.

I think of those three persons as assigning partners to God, though. I'm not clear on whether they are persons or natures or both, though, because you say God the Son is one of these persons but he has two natures, God and man. So who are the other two persons? I was also under the impression that Christians believe Jesus is God. If Jesus is God, then that must mean God is a man because Jesus is a man. Forgive my ignorance. I have not studied Christianity.

PP, the trinity is considered a theological mystery. However, we can get at the concept through homely examples. St. Patrick, for example, is said to have taught the trinity to the Irish by showing them the three leaf clover. It is one plant with three parts.

Another example would be to think of a woman, who is simultaneously child, mother, and grandmother. In each of these three aspects she has a different role and different way of acting and people respond to her differently, but she is one woman. Christian theology uses the term three persons in one God but it is easier to understand as three aspects of one God. Thus, choosing to relate to God in one of his aspects rather than another at various times does not amount to worshiping three gods, but rather worshiping one God focusing on a specific aspect that is most relatable in the circumstances.

God in His Son aspect is thought in Christianity to have two natures, fully man and simultaneously fully God. This is also called the mystery of the incarnation (of God into man). This is a central tenet of Christianity, and it is one that Muslims do not accept (nor do Jews for that matter). This may be the reason Muslims reject the trinity; accepting God has different aspects is not such a stretch for Islam, which has the famous 99 names for God, but belief in the trinity necessarily implies belief that Jesus as the Son is fully God. (Islam accepts the fully man nature of Jesus as does Judaism, or at least for those Jews who accept that Jesus actually existed as a historical figure).

I hope this helps.

Whatever our faith, we suffer from "microaggressions". As a Christian, one that has been hurting me lately is this notion that there is something wrong with Dr. Brantley giving thanks to God for his recovery from ebola. As Christians we think all talents come from God so if skillful doctors and nurses healed Dr. Brantley, we are thankful to God for giving them their healing skills.

It really hurts when people don't understand this and strongly criticize Brantley for saying this.

BUT WE LIVE IN A PLURALISTIC WORLD AND A VERY SECULAR SOCIETY HERE IN AMERICA. I remind myself of that and go on my way secure in my own beliefs.

OP - I think you have to move on.

Anonymous wrote:

I respectfully disagree! Religion may be used as a context for discrimination. For example - saying Islam condones terrorism, or that Islam treats women like children, or that there is inequality or oppression of women under Islam, or that Muhammad is a pedophile, etc...

This is why muslims are trying to clarify our religious principles here, because our principles are misinterpreted and it has the effect of discriminating Muslims.

Interpretation is a matter of personal viewpoint. You may see men and women in Islam as equal. You may see Jesus and Moses in Islam as given respect. Someone else might not. You and that person have equally valid positions. When someone disagrees with you, they aren't necessarily misinterpreting your principles, because you don't have a monopoly on interpreting them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think pretty much every human being is guilty of all of these things, in religious and many other cultural and social contexts.

For example, take item #4. Certainly when you and the other Muslim poster write "women are equal in Islam," the debate has been around whether everybody should understand that this means to Muslims that women are equally valued even if they don't have equal legal rights. I don't ever think you spelled out women's legal rights, instead you left it to a handful of other posters to clarify these for the 98% of readers who didn't know. Only after that did you clarify your idea of equal value. I think this was particularly unfortunate because you live in a western country, you know that 98% of your readers aren't familiar with the Muslim interpretation of "women's equality," yet you both continued to say this anyway.

To clarify why and how Muslim women feel equality (in value of rights, or equity) exists is a lengthy explanation. To simply say, for example, that inheritance laws gives women less is only half the picture. Inheritance laws gives more to males because they predominantly bear financial burdens in their lives. Then we have to explain what kind of financial responsibilities the man has in Islam and also explain how it is that women does not bear any financial responsibilities. All this detailed explanation must be provided, all the while fending off unfair insults from
Islamophobes along the way who will say our system treats women like children. No, actually it considers the fact that women bear children and often have the responsibility of raising children. That itself is a great undertaking so Islam does not impose on her the additional burden of financial responsibility. Muslims are not embarrassed or ashamed to explain all this and more. We think Islam is a just system, so we do not feel it necessary to mislead. But it is time consuming and presumptuous to assume this audience is interested in great details about our faith. Muslima and I only wrote to correct inaccurate information that was posted. If there was any further inquiry, however, we would have and did clarify.

When you know, with 100% certainty, that your words are (a) misleading some people or (b) presuming agreement that doesn't exist, you can't dismiss it as "too many words to write." That's your own micro-aggression.

If you want Christians to tell you "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," then you have to make an effort yourself. If necessary, write the few extra words. Several posters have suggested that you write, instead, "this is why it works for me." It's not that many extra words. Instead of writing "women are equal in Islam," you could have written "women have different inheritance and divorce rights from men, but this works for me because men and women have different roles." Done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It feels to Jews and Christians as though Islam wants to co-opt their religions and present itself as the ultimate form of monotheism. They don't accept that, especially given the massive differences among the three religions, as PP pointed out. A good parallel is with the Bahais and their prophet: do you accept that this is the perfection of all monotheistic religions including Islam? I didn't think so.

I am not sure what the debate here is about. Muslims are not asking Jews and Christians to embrace Islam. Our holy book mentions many prophets from Adam to Noah to Moses to Jesus and finally, Muhammad. The religion asks us to respect all of them. The message sent from God through these messengers is one and the same. So Islam is not trying to take over any other faith. It was simply the same message brought by yet one more, and last, messenger of God. Islam also believes all good Christians and all good Jews will go to Heaven, so there is no necessity to convert to Islam if you are secure in your own faith. So why do you feel so threatened by islam?

As far as Bahai faith goes, our Islamic holy book clearly states there will be no messengers after Prophet Muhammad. That the Bahai faith believes there is is pointless and irrelevant to Muslims. Similarly, Jews and Christians are free to think Islam is irrelevant also. I don't think Muslims are asking Jews or Christians here to accept them. We simply don't want Muslims to be discriminated.

Discrimination is a political and societal context. It has nothing to do with finer points of theology you're discussing.

There isn't especially much to debate here, you are correct. What is important to clarify - although you may not accept that here - is the true meaning behind "Muslims respect Jesus and Moses as prophets." What it really means is that "we think both Jesus and Moses were Muslims. We think they brought the same message as Muhammad but it got distorted along the way. That's why Muhammad was sent to deliver the message again, and this time God made sure to protect the message. Christians and Jews, we think your holy books have been distorted, only ours stands intact, and therefore only ours is the correct one. The way you interpret Jesus and Moses is erroneous. The way we interpret them is correct."

(There is actually extensive Islamic "scholarship" out there dedicated to cataloging and "proving" inaccuracies and discrepancies in both Testaments.)

I respectfully disagree! Religion may be used as a context for discrimination. For example - saying Islam condones terrorism, or that Islam treats women like children, or that there is inequality or oppression of women under Islam, or that Muhammad is a pedophile, etc...

This is why muslims are trying to clarify our religious principles here, because our principles are misinterpreted and it has the effect of discriminating Muslims.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where does "Christian-evangelical-crusader-Islamophobe" fell into the micro aggression categories?

It was an emotional reaction to the hostility on these threads toward Islam for which I have apologized already. Muslims have yet to receive any apology for the Islam bashing on DCUM, however.

You've posted many, many insults and only one apology. It's OK to doubt its sincerity. No one expressed hostility to you PERSONALLY yet you went to great lengths to invent personal insults for posters who were less than impressed with your faith. One can be forgiven for not believing the current, apologetic, peaceful you.