jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima is annoying. You need a new spokesperson.

^ this!

+2. I'm glad that I am not the only person who feels this way. And is it just me or is her anonymous alter-ego really obviously her?

I have had the same suspicion. Perhaps Jeff would be willing to weigh in on this.

No. It's a different poster.

Where are they posting from?

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.

jsteele wrote:

No, you don't get it. Islam doesn't have religious authorities that are authorized to interpret the religion for all Muslims. You can find a few kooks or people on the Saudi payroll who might agree with you, but go to your local mosque and ask. You won't be told that concubines are acceptable. The comparison to alcohol and premarital sex is specious. The average Muslim, whether that individual engages in such things or not, will agree that they are forbidden by Islam. Ask the same individual about concubines, and you will also be told they are also forbidden. I question how much time you have spent among actual Muslims.

It is interesting that when it comes to Islam, you judge by its scripture (despite Muhammad's biography not being scripture). Yet, in the undeniable case of Hagar in the Christian and Jewish scripture, you raise the bar to require a recent ruling by a reputable scholar.

Question away, dear. I grew up in a Muslim community. I'm married to a Muslim. My children are Muslim. I am immersed in this environment beyond anything you can contemplate. But then again, we are just bozos on the internet to you.

What an average Muslim thinks about concubinage isn't relevant. What is relevant is what the learned people think. Yes, Islam doesn't have a central religious authority but I hope you wouldn't question that it has an abundance of scholars that issue opinions, or that these scholars find themselves sitting on their hands most of the time? Aren't there religious authorities? Where do people go for opinions? Do these places exist?

Why are people on the Saudi payroll wrong and the local mosque right? Both are singing the tune that's acceptable to their host countries.

Anonymous wrote:I have lived in a Muslim country and while this concubine thing is weird, there are plenty of men with multiple wives and all the weird complications that would arise from that.

I do not envy and Muslims who are trying to explain their faith to an audience with western values, because frankly there are just way too many Muslims doing things that are obviously antithetical to those values, and there is no one authority to say "yeah, that's totally wrong." Maybe it's not the "majority" who hold these beliefs/values, but it's enough to make life hard for others.

I agree completely.

I have lived in a Muslim country and while this concubine thing is weird, there are plenty of men with multiple wives and all the weird complications that would arise from that.

I do not envy and Muslims who are trying to explain their faith to an audience with western values, because frankly there are just way too many Muslims doing things that are obviously antithetical to those values, and there is no one authority to say "yeah, that's totally wrong." Maybe it's not the "majority" who hold these beliefs/values, but it's enough to make life hard for others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima is annoying. You need a new spokesperson.

^ this!

+2. I'm glad that I am not the only person who feels this way. And is it just me or is her anonymous alter-ego really obviously her?

I have had the same suspicion. Perhaps Jeff would be willing to weigh in on this.

No. It's a different poster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima is annoying. You need a new spokesperson.

^ this!

+2. I'm glad that I am not the only person who feels this way. And is it just me or is her anonymous alter-ego really obviously her?

I have had the same suspicion. Perhaps Jeff would be willing to weigh in on this.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
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.

I have no expectations - of Muslims, of you, or indeed of anyone else.

Do you not get it, or are you refusing to get it? The issue isn't whether an average Muslim takes concubines or not. If you want to define the religion by what average Muslims do, well, average Muslims drink alcohol and engage in premarital sex, and it's perfectly clear the religion condemns it. The issue is: does Islam, or does Islam not, in the words of whatever religious authority is authorized to interpret it today, allow for concubinage? Is it possible to locate a scholarly opinion by a Muslim scholar, today, that concubinage is acceptable? The answer to that question is "yes."

It's practically unknown among Muslims because most of them are reasonable people. This has nothing to do with what their scholars say is permissible. We don't judge what religion allows by the action of its followers. We judge what the religion allows by the laws of its scripture.

No, you don't get it. Islam doesn't have religious authorities that are authorized to interpret the religion for all Muslims. You can find a few kooks or people on the Saudi payroll who might agree with you, but go to your local mosque and ask. You won't be told that concubines are acceptable. The comparison to alcohol and premarital sex is specious. The average Muslim, whether that individual engages in such things or not, will agree that they are forbidden by Islam. Ask the same individual about concubines, and you will also be told they are also forbidden. I question how much time you have spent among actual Muslims.

It is interesting that when it comes to Islam, you judge by its scripture (despite Muhammad's biography not being scripture). Yet, in the undeniable case of Hagar in the Christian and Jewish scripture, you raise the bar to require a recent ruling by a reputable scholar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima is annoying. You need a new spokesperson.

^ this!

+2. I'm glad that I am not the only person who feels this way. And is it just me or is her anonymous alter-ego really obviously her?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Muslima is annoying. You need a new spokesperson.

^ this!

It is annoying to me when an anonymous poster takes personal shots at someone with a user name. Login for a month or so and let's see how people feel about your posts. I doubt either one of you could take the criticism.

jsteele wrote:

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.

If you show me a recent ruling by a reputable Christian or Jewish scholar that taking concubines is acceptable, I'll be willing to spill my scorn on them as well.

jsteele wrote:

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.

I have no expectations - of Muslims, of you, or indeed of anyone else.

Do you not get it, or are you refusing to get it? The issue isn't whether an average Muslim takes concubines or not. If you want to define the religion by what average Muslims do, well, average Muslims drink alcohol and engage in premarital sex, and it's perfectly clear the religion condemns it. The issue is: does Islam, or does Islam not, in the words of whatever religious authority is authorized to interpret it today, allow for concubinage? Is it possible to locate a scholarly opinion by a Muslim scholar, today, that concubinage is acceptable? The answer to that question is "yes."

It's practically unknown among Muslims because most of them are reasonable people. This has nothing to do with what their scholars say is permissible. We don't judge what religion allows by the action of its followers. We judge what the religion allows by the laws of its scripture.

Anonymous wrote:Muslima is annoying. You need a new spokesperson.

^ this!

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.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Very few would agree that taking concubines is acceptable.

And yet that question continues to come up at many fatwa sites. Go figure.

Indeed. Muslima is certainly entitled to her point of view. And others are certainly entitled to point out additional facts and also the very different points of view held by eminent Islamic scholars. I don't see why Jeff should have a problem with this, or why this makes anybody a Christian-crusader-racist-Islamophobe.

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.