Season 4 – Episode 11 – The Great Indoors

Synopsis: Amaar wants to get some time alone in the woods but is thwarted when the gang tags along. When he and Thorne get lost, Amaar unwittingly reveals information that will help the minister rid the church of the Muslims. Meanwhile, Sarah and Rayyan are at odds about how to best run Hamoudi Construction.
span>

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Videos courtesy of Mydien

What did you think of this episode? How does it compare to the previous episode? Are there any topics from the episode that you want to discuss?

Advertisements

418 Comments

Filed under Season 4 - Episode 11

418 responses to “Season 4 – Episode 11 – The Great Indoors

  1. Steve

    It seems like the writers did indeed adopt one of bigfan’s ideas.

    I hope they next adopt my idea about Layla becoming Christian (temporary). From what I hear of someone like Layla became a Christian in real life she would be killed.

  2. nate

    Steve, your in-your-face attitude is disgusting. Take your wikinformation and the worst examples from post-colonial states with you and get a life.

  3. episode 12 has been uploaded 🙂

  4. nate

    Changing one’s religion is not a reason for a death sentence, everyone is free to practice whatever they believe, those claiming otherwise are contradicting the Quran. The only time when a person who changed his/her faith can be charged is when he/she harms the Muslim community or any member of the society after leaving his/her faith. Yet people don’t care about details in such a gentle matter, and what they see is examples from third world countries that are governed by tyrants and their law system has been made static after colonial encounter. So ignorance is not blame, after all, since, even people within the faith don’t care to learn and so jump to conclusions and/or learn the matter only partially. Einstein was right when he said foolishness has no limits :-C

  5. Steve

    “and what they see is examples from third world countries ”

    I believe this is why Nahida nailed it when she says that it’s not Islam that’s the problem. It’s people from Islamic countries.

  6. nate

    But that’s a huge generalization. There are such countries as those from Central Asia or East Asia that are predominantly Muslim. Kyrgyzstan and Brunei are also Muslim countries. Add to the list countries like Turkmenistan, Turkey etc that are predominantly Muslim. The real problem is with lack of education and misinterpretations, added to the postcolonial condition in the arab countries that left them with a static law system that resembles something islamic but so far away from it.

  7. Reruns!

    Since the holidays are coming!

  8. Reruns!

    New season starts in February!

  9. Steve

    If they would have had more shows like Wheat Week and the one about the Mercy sign this show would have been more successful.

  10. Steve

    http://www.glennbeck.com/publish/themes/glennbeck/live_player/

    Glenn Beck is being proved right, day by day!

    He says things are going to get much, much worse.

  11. beth

    Rick Santorum’s Bella Testimony. Regardless of how you think of the man personally or politically, it is hard for tears not to come to your eyes after hearing this.

    Serious. I am not kidding. It is powerful stuff. And it isn’t political. It’s not about him becoming President or anything like that. It is just touches you as a human being.

  12. Steve

    Isn’t Mary a revered figure in Islam too?

  13. Steve

    Happy New Year Nahida.

    • KelsShels

      She’s really sick.

      I think she’s clinically depressed, but she won’t admit it. She’s been anxious and more neurotic than usual, and she forgets little things and is tired a lot. She’s mixing up her classes. She used to NEVER make mistakes like that.

      • Steve

        That is really sad.

        She has such a great future ahead of her. I could see he really starting a new feminist branch of Islam in the United States. Of course she would need a lot of security to do this.

        Perhaps she could become an author of best selling books and with the money buy security.

        I hope she gets her act together. She has everything going for her. Sometimes you can “think to much” for your own good. One needs to “go with the flow” to some extent. Things do have a way of turning out well in the end. Well most of the time, for most of us.

        I just hope neither of you get involved in the so called “Occupy” movement. They are just plain evil. Oh, I am sure there’s some useful idiots that aren’t that has gotten wrapped up in this because it’s the “popular thing”, but still you have to even wonder there as when a group is constantly chanting “kill the cops” and one remains a part of it then, yeah, sorry that would make anyone involved in such a movement by definition evil.

  14. Steve

    Life is really what happens while you are making other plans. Got to know when to “Go With the Flow” and know when to paddle against the current.

    Not saying it’s easy but in the end things do have a way of working themselves out. Usually. Worrying has never changed anything.

    Nahida, needs to understand that she is in an almost perfect place right now. I mean who she is and all. I mean I guess she could be a little richer but despite that, she is privileged.

  15. KelsShels

    yeah, sorry that would make anyone involved in such a movement by definition evil.

    Steve, why ya gotta throw out the baby with the bathwater? ._.

    • Steve

      If you can’t tell what evil is that’s a you problem.

      The Occupy movement is evil. The people who are in the Occupy movement is evil. Now we can go into all about the nature of evil and all of that and that is something I have thought about over the years.

      I have often wondered whether Hitler was a “Good Guy”. Now don’t get me wrong the evil he has done can never be justified nor can Hitler be redeemed in anyway. It was not an exercise to redeem Hitler but an exercise of can one recognize evil when one sees it.

      The question was say I was in a room with Hitler and I didn’t know who he was or what he did. Yeah for me that is impossible but for the youth today I guess when asked many couldn’t even tell you who Hitler was, but getting back to the point, if I was in room with Hitler, wasn’t aware of the guy’s politics, his history, how would he strike me?

      You might think the answer is obvious but from what I can tell from people who knew him, it really isn’t. His personal secretary, a woman who spent the rest of her life thinking about the nature of evil and one who was certainty no fan of Hitler the Politician, still knew Hitler the man, and was asked an honest question which she answered honestly. What did she think of the man she knew as Hitler.

      She admitted that she really liked him and that she always treated her well. A similar thing was said by his bodyguard. Look these were basically his servants. He could have treated them terribly but he didn’t.

      Does that somehow mitigate the evil Hitler did? NO of course not and THAT’S THE POINT. Hitler may have seemed to be a nice guy when you personally meet him, and he might have had some good traits like treating secretaries with respect, loving his dog, and treating kids well, but in the end he was still EVIL.

      Look I know by calling the Occupy Movement, all the people in the occupy movement evil, that is calling some nice people, some people you might know pretty well, people you like evil.

      But tell me, how can chanting “Kill the Cops” make one anything but evil. I don’t know many cops but the ones I do know seem like decent people. I want to see them dead? I want to see their husbands and wives in morning? I want to see their little sons and daughters full of tears? NO! That’s EVIL!

      Sorry, your friends might be nice people, but by supporting this absolutely evil movement, they can’t be anything but evil.

      • Steve

        The people who are in the Occupy movement is evil.

        Of course that should be the People who are in the Occupy movement ARE EVIL. (Not is).

      • Steve

        The real question should be what is the difference between Hitler’s secretary and the occupy people.

        I mean both were naive youth.

        I think the difference is that Hitler’s secretary was shielded from Hitler’s evil where as the Occupy people are embracing “kill the cops”.

        So, while one might just want to limit calling the organizers of occupy evil and not all the participates, one just can’t do that.

      • Lily

        Steve… you realize not everyone associated with the movement is chanting for cops to be killed? And that each of the subset of movements are driven by different motivations. Seriously, where do you get your news?

        Nahida, well it wasn’t MY journal… And Karen doesn’t have one. That leaves you. Which wouldn’t have been interesting except for the fact that you denied it. I’m just saying, if you’re trying to pretend to be made of stone it’s best done by playing it off like it was nothing.

      • KelsShels

        THIS is where you messed up, Lily. After here. You should’ve shut up after that.

  16. KelsShels

    Oh, I forgot why I was talking to you in the first place.

    I grabbed my sweater off her bed and her journal slid to the edge. A page fell out that said this:

    with Steve.

    It’s just two words, it was the end of a sentence. Probably from the page before. We don’t know any other Steve. Anyway, so I came on here and saw you said happy new year. Just thought I’d tell you how she was. Some douchebag had been cyberharassing her from Utah (with plagiarism and threats and stuff) but she took care of it and filed claims and everything.

  17. KelsShels

    Hey Steve, do you think the FBI would care that this guy has her home address? (She wasn’t being stupid, it’s no where online, he just asked a domain host for it and they GAVE IT TO HIM.) Or does he actually have to do something first before they would care?

    • Steve

      I would hope that the FBI would care that this guy has her home address.

      It’s hard to tell. Depends upon resources they want to spend and individual case officer she got

      I think she has her ethnicity and her religion going for her here. Whoever she has contacted in the FBI should be reminded that IF something happens to her and the Press found out that the FBI knew that he had her address, that would be a career ender.

      DOCUMENT EVERYTHING. Including discussions with the FBI.

      • Steve

        Having something notarized isn’t that expensive.

        In fact I hear that some banks will do it for you for free.

        Keep records. That’s key. Perhaps if she emails the FBI with the information that the guy knows her home address and keep a notarized copy of that email that would be the best thing. It would be a clarification of when the FBI knew something.

        For the rich, the would have their lawyers do it and have that fact in their files. Even then a personal copy wouldn’t hurt. But I realize she isn’t rich.

        I thought Nahida was considering becoming a lawyer. She would make a good one.

      • Lily

        Nahida can’t go to law school.

        Muslims can’t take out loans because they’re not allowed to pay or accept interest. Nahida’s getting her BA without taking ANY loans at all, all on scholarship. Because she is pretty talented. But with the costs now, there’s no way that even someone who’s talented can pay for law school without loans. You can get interest free loans from some Islamic banks, but you have to have a pretty high income level to qualify for that to begin with, which she doesn’t. Muslims who end up becoming lawyers and doctors have wealthy parents from the start, usually one of their parents is an engineer. And Nahida comes from a single-parent family.

      • Casey

        If she’s still around… since we were talking about names, Nahida, what does your name mean? I always thought it was very pretty.

    • Steve

      If the Domain host gave it to him, there may be some legal recourse against them. But of course to most effectively use our legal system it takes money. Lawyers aren’t cheap. Our system certainly isn’t perfect but it is the best we have come up with so far. And I don’t see Occupy coming up with any solutions. They aren’t about solutions. They are about destruction. Like I said previously we are seeing the French Revolution being replayed here and if you think the French Revolution is a good thing, well you don’t know the history of the French Revolution.

      Getting back to the legal recourse, there might be some recourse she could take against the Domain Host without costing her much money. Despite the flaws in our systems we do have stuff like “free legal aid” that one can look into. Law firms do actually take some cases on for free as part of their general service to the Bar. Also Law firms can take on cases where they take a proportion of the settlement but only if they win. If the Domain host is so feel with client information perhaps this could become part of a “class action” suit and careers are made on “class action suits”

      • Steve

        If the domain host is so FREE with giving out information.

        Sorry for the typo.

        There may be some ways that she could join with others to go against the host provider.

        Whatever she does I certainly recommend CHANGING THE HOST PROVIDER if possible.

  18. Nahida

    Kelly. If you’re going to consult others on matters regarding me without my approval, I would advise you not to leave your laptop open on the counter. He doesn’t care. Stop bothering him. Stop worrying for no reason, and stop encroaching on this comment section with off-topic subjects! I’m also quite certain you misread. Or that it wasn’t my journal. It probably belongs to one of the other girls.

    Steve, she won’t be back.

    • Steve

      “No Reason”?

      I guess you don’t watch the same news I do.

      There’s PLENTY OF REASONS for worry.

      And things are just going to get much, much, much worse before they get better.

      That is IF they get better.

      • Steve

        I should have said reason for Concern.

        Not worry.

        But concern.

        But KelsShels said that you took steps already to deal with this problem so hopefully that will be enough.

        But yeah, get a new host. I can’t imagine some host giving out personal information like that. There might be a “class action” case here.

  19. Steve

    I don’t know what you mean about be caring? If I heard something bad happened to you it would certainly bum me out for a couple of days. I mean it wouldn’t like destroy my life, put me in a depression forever, but I certainly don’t want to see you harmed. In that sense I guess I “care”.

    Look, I once said that one of my mistakes is that I often don’t realize that there is someone, a real person, at the other end of the keyboard, and that makes me go somewhat cruel at times.

    Now you don’t make the same mistake that I do about realizing that “there’s a real person at the other end of the keyboard.” Whoever has your address, whoever that guy from Utah is, he is a real guy who could really harm you. I hope you have reported him.

    The Internet can be a lot more dangerous than we tend to realize. You need to take precautions.

    • Steve

      Not caring?

      Well gosh I don’t know how to answer that.

      I think you are an incredible person who can indeed get misguided but still an incredible person who already have shown that you have incredible strength of spirit.

      Just don’t “think” too much. Of course a little “thinking” makes you interesting and indeed is important but too much gets one in trouble. It’s hard to maintain that balance. Same with “going with the flow”.

      Can’t give you any hard or fast rules there. I guess because there isn’t any hard and fast rules.

    • Nahida

      I am not making the mistake of forgetting there’s a real person at the other end. I don’t make that mistake, Steve! The difference between us is that everyone is real to me–and THAT was my mistake with you. You could have never hurt me if I’d forgotten.

      And I’m not forgetting this guy is real either. I know his type. That’s why I’m not concerned. He was plagiarizing from my site for advertisement revenue. He’s a coward, who can’t support himself without pirated material–my material. And that’s why he was so enraged when I requested that he acquire permission from me before republishing my work and collecting ad revenue from it. And why he took to harassing me after I filed a copyright claim with his domain host, who temporarily disabled his website until he removed the plagiarized articles.

      His domain host gave him my information, but they are not prohibitted from doing this. Kelly was wrong–I was, in fact, being stupid. When a writer files a copyright claim, her contact information may be turned over to the infringer so that he may discuss with her the terms of his permissions. He did not contact me for this discussion however; instead he promptly removed my material from his site as I requested (because he knew he couldn’t possibly legally win) and then began defamation through social media services, including accusing me of terrorism (if the FBI is interested in anything I imagine it would be that) and of being a lesbian (is this supposed to be insulting to a liberal? I suppose any woman who wouldn’t find him attractive is a lesbian of course.) He’s gone out of his way not to confront me directly, partly because he’s been in lawsuits before (his name is Mark Wrhel, and he was sued by AOL for spamming members with sexually explicit emails) and knows how to avoid authorities, and partly because he’s a coward. The punk making money off my writing? Yeah, not going to come after me.

      I simply contacted the social media sites, who insisted that I use legal terms to draft my claims and explain exactly how he was infringing on my rights (as though it weren’t obvious and didn’t violate every one of their tems and guidelines!). That was frustrating, but despite the fact that I’m highly impatient, argument is something I know how to do, even using legal terms. Pretty well, in fact. Eventually they handed over the accounts to me. There’s still one left, but I’m expecting a reponse from them soon.

      I haven’t forgotten he’s a real person, which is exactly why I’m not concerned. I know the person he is. A 35-year-old pirate who can’t confront a 20-year-old woman? This guy doesn’t have the BALLS to come after me.

      I didn’t even care that he was making money. I mean, I don’t have ads on my site, even though the income would be useful. Sometimes WordPress discreetly inserts ads (costs money to get rid of those) but bloggers don’t get revenue from them. It’s not the money he was taking from me. I only wanted the material removed because the placement was cheapening and he was incredibly dishonest.

      • Steve

        You are Nahida, but you didn’t post that other post below.

        It looks like Kelshels and Lily is having fun at your expense.

        They might be nice people but they are real lowlifes. Sorry, I know they are your friends, but I sure wish you could pick better friends as they are real lowlifes.

    • Lily

      Steve, evidently she was mildly inflamed with you when she was around 19.

      Not surprising. Women tend to get off on fantasy rather than sensation.

      • Nahida

        GOOD! GOD! LILY!

        LOL She’s joking. If you knew her sense of humor you’d totally understand.

      • Lily

        Oh come on, Nahida, what’s the big deal? He thinks nothing of it.

      • KelsShels

        OMG Lily I can’t believe you… .________. You might have checked with her first about whether it was a big deal?

      • Steve

        I am very offended.

      • Steve

        February 7, 2012 at 6:22 pm that might be you Nahida. I mean the other one below that.

        I do understand that kind of humor and I totally don’t appreciate it. I find it hypocritical coming from the likes of Kelshels and/or Lily.

  20. Lily

    Okay, Nahida actually just threw the laptop out a window like that would erase it.

    (First floor though. There’s grass.)

    • KelsShels

      LMFAO she’s so classy that even THAT was dignified.

      Lily, you owe her an apology. On the other hand, it is kind of hilarious when pretty women are so insecure.

  21. Lily

    IN OTHER NEWS THE SHOW IS BACK!

  22. Lily

    There’s more episodes but Mydien has them all.

  23. Nahida

    Steve please don’t be angry it didn’t happen often and I didn’t think Lily would tell you anything like that especially considering she concluded it herself and that you didn’t consent to hearing or knowing about it and if it makes you feel any better I pretty much stopped as soon as you… toldmeIshouldberaped. I can’t do it anymore I always remember that. So anyway now I’m just going to go back to not speaking to you if anything for your own comfort okay bye.

    • Lily

      LOL you were right. He’s offended. I’m sorry I assumed he was normal. *rolls eyes*

      • KelsShels

        Lily he’s a conservative and he was raised Catholic OF COURSE HE’D BE OFFENDED that he was in any woman’s fantasy. WHY WOULD YOU DISCLOSE THAT TO HIM.

        This is insane. I’m going to bed.

      • Lily

        W/e. Didn’t know he’d be offended by the truth. It wasn’t even exploitative or disrespectful so you know what? good riddance.

    • Steve

      You aren’t Nahida.

      I get it now.

      KelsShels I hope you get raped at Occupy. You won’t be able to go to the cops because you want to kill the cops.

      • Steve

        Is Kelshels and Lily the same person?

        If not then same goes for Lily. You are such hypocrites. This is why people hate Feminists so much.

      • Nahida

        Steve wth? I don’t type in the same style all the time you know. ._. Especially after something like THAT happens when I can’t see in front of me. That was absolutely me.

        And did you just tell HER you hope she… I can’t even finish that sentence. (What’s more disturbing is that at this point I’m becoming immune to it. Thank God for hardened scar tissue.)

        Lily wasn’t joking, you ass; I was trying to undo what she’d just said. Why the hell would a feminist joke about something like that? She was calculating why I’d insisted it was someone else’s journal when it was obviously in my handwriting, on my bed, and there was a horrible moment when she paused, glanced at me, and READ MY EXPRESSION. Apparently I’m a terrible liar. Unfortunately her fingers were at the keys when she looked at me. And before I knew what she was doing she nonchalantly typed it… like it was any other observation. Remind me to never trust neurology majors to recognize when to stop acting like scientists. (Her real sense of humor, by the way, is actually quite dry.)

        She should not have told you. It’s none of your business how you ever existed in my head. It never affected any of our interactions. I knew you would be angry to hear it (and why not? you never indicated you were fine with hearing that sort of thing from me) and to that extent it’s perfectly understandable, but if you’re angry about anything I’m thinking (and not about how Lily just involved you in it/made it your business without your consent)–get the hell out of my head.

      • Lily

        Seriously, why on earth would I do that to her? If I’d been joking I wouldn’t find it amusing AT ALL.

        Does Steve believe everything he sees on Mean Girls?

      • Nahida

        Btw jackass, Kelly HAS been raped as a child. Multiple times. I wish Lily had been joking; it would have been much less painful and distressing to bear than hearing you say this.

        Oh I’m a fool for returning to enable Steve’s cruelty. I should have left Kelly’s laptop with this site open at the counter, grabbed my coat, and continued leaving for the library.

      • Nahida

        Steve, just to drive this home now–were you Scott a month back, egging on the murderous Kelly you invented while simultaneously playing your concerned part so you could pretend to care about horrific possibilites? The entire show making a mockery of me being killed?

        Well! Now I’ve given you the perfect material for further ridicule and disparagement, Steve. Have your fun! I’ll be elsewhere. You can thank Lily.

      • Steve

        Look Kelshels if you have any respect for Nahida you wouldn’t be posting such stuff under her name. Can you please have some respect for her legacy on this board? Probably not you are such a lowlife.

        I do miss Nahida’s comments on these shows. The first five episodes this year I have found pretty lame. Mind you it was never a great program but I had a hard time even watching the first several. The last two got a little better but not much and perhaps it was just fatigue setting in that made me find them at all funny.

        Nahida is a great person but she sure needs to find a better class of friends.

      • Lily

        …That was HER Steve!

        Kelly doesn’t even write like that! I can’t imagine her saying “nonchalantly.”

        Look, there’s no pressure for you to address what just happened, so if you don’t want to just DON’T. Instead of going on with your conspiracy theory. Nahida’s perfectly capable of taking douchey men in stride.

      • Steve

        Lily, I am pretty sure I know what Nahida is and ISN’T posting here.

        She would never engage in this. She has class and also a certain sense of fairness. Unlike you and Kelshels.

      • Lily

        Never heard her say “jackass” though… but the occasion called for it, since you claim you wouldn’t wish death on cops and then go and wish rape on every woman here.

        I don’t know why she bothers asking you questions and giving you a chance to redeem yourself. It’s like she’s still hoping for an apology. She didn’t get one then and she’s not getting one now. She needs to understand you’re not going to transform back into the person she knew.

      • Lily

        You don’t know her at all. She came back and told the truth: that I wasn’t joking because that lie of hers, saying that I was, was causing you to attack me. She wouldn’t let me be thrown under the bus for something she said, for saying it was a joke, even at her own expense. Even when I kind of just did it to her by telling you what I realized.

        THAT’S class. And I should have thought before I typed. I was thinking it was a year ago, and she wouldn’t care if you knew. And I thought I was kind of brilliant figuring it out.

      • Lily

        You know, she just apologized to me 2 hours ago for saying I was joking to save herself, and that she didn’t think it would make you judge my character?

        SHE apologized to ME!

      • Steve

        Lily, you aren’t even a tenth of the person Nahida is.

        Is that why you hate her so much?

        There are few people in the world as decent, as considerate, as principled as Nahida is. She is misguided in a few areas, that’s for sure but as a whole she is one of those people who life has a positive impact upon, even just upon random acquaintances. She has no idea in what positive ways she effects those around her.

        But for some (like you I am guessing) such a positive force like Nahida turns your stomach. Perhaps you feel the world doesn’t deserve someone as good as her considering all the evil that you perceive the world has done to you. Perhaps it is merely jealousy. Regardless she becomes a target of people like you and that I find truly sad.

  24. KelsShels

    Steve, I know you don’t owe it to anyone to not be a jerk, but she’s gone off somewhere and thanks to Lily’s little outburst I’m pretty sure she’s dying of shame, so if you could indicate that you’re not furious with her for the fact that she was previously enamored with you at some point, that would be very non-jerkish.

  25. KelsShels

    Wait, are you confused because Nahida said it was a joke? She was trying to cover it up (saying Lily was joking so she could deny it was true)

  26. Steve

    I don’t believe you.

    What really makes me mad is why you would joke about something like this.

    I find it extremely hypocritical.

    • Steve

      Just started watching this episode and I have to say I believe Amaar and Rayann should have been asked more questions by Customs. Look, I know all Muslims aren’t terrorists but Lebanon is a suspicious place. I would want ALL those who were coming into Lebanon to be questioned more closely.

      I was asked more questions coming into the USA from a trip to Canada a few years back. But then again that is perhaps the difference. They were speaking to Canadian Customs and I American Customs. I am proud that we have a stricture Customs office. After all is keeping us ALL safe.

      Look if this was the 1980s and I was returning from a trip from Ireland, and like my Parents were all Irish, I would expect them to ask a LOT of questions of me. Sure not all of the Irish back then were terrorists but some were.

      When I was a kid, like a Teen, and I would go into a grocery store I knew that they kept their eyes on me. Because while not all teens shoplift a greater proportion of shoplifters are teens. So it only makes sense to look more careful at teens.

      If we abandon common sense here we are just looking for another 9-11. What you may call “profiling” is actually just using past experience to try to anticipate future behavior. I saw a video where this played itself out but in a way not usual. In a show these real fancy dressed people were told one by one to go to this place and shoplift. Well after this happened to the shop keeper a couple of times, the next fancy dressed person who walked into that shop was looked at very suspiciously. Profiling? Yes, but also a perfectly rational response.

    • Mo

      I was very offended how Rayyan was prancing around practically naked most of the show.

      • Jim

        Ironically I kind of have to agree with Mo here and yeah it’s strange.

        Look I know Sitara Hewitt is an actress who isn’t even a Muslim. Ironically she was raised an Anglican can you believe it! In any regard, the actress Sitara Hewitt hasn’t committed herself to wearing the Hijab.

        But in this show she plays a character named Rayyan Hamoudi, a woman who has committed herself to wearing the Hijab. And indeed, every scene I see with her long flowing hair I feel like some kind of pervert. I feel dirty when I see her without the Hijab. It seems so wrong to see her walk around with her hair all about.

        Now if Sitara Hewitt started playing a different character in a different show I am sure that once I got use to her as that character and not Rayyan, I am sure I will not have a problem with her walking around with her long flowing hair uncovered. But here now, it’s like PUT SOMETHING ON LADY.

        It’s really odd.

      • Ben

        At the very least they should pixalilate Rayyan’s hair when she has it uncovered.

        The show sure is using these scenes in a provocative manner.

      • Nahida

        BEN?! (…Jackson?)

        Ben’s avatar, in my comment section, refers to an actual site! (ad7gd. net) Which I’m assuming he owns. No no no no NO. I thought it was Steve sockpuppeting with an IP Randomizer!!

        DEBBIE. THIS http://thefatalfeminist.com/2011/10/21/men-on-the-right-think-women-are-private-property-men-on-the-left-think-women-are-public-property-toonces/#comment-1926 WAS NEVER STEVE.

      • Debora

        Sweetie, calm down. So that wasn’t Steve sockpuppeting. Why does that bother you?

      • Nahida

        I don’t make these mistakes, I don’t make them. I’m so angry with myself, Debbie! I argued against Steve for making a comment about the banner when it was Ben! Ben said it was sensual, not Steve. And I rushed to class yesterday at 4:00 thinking I was going to be late but the class starts at 4:30! I’m angry and devastated and I think Kelly was right, I think I need pills.

      • Debora

        Get off this website. I’m calling you.

      • Nahida

        I’m not crazy.

        Steve, you used an address that happened to belong to someone else, didn’t you? You construct email addresses a certain way, but this was a domain name, and that’s how it’s real.

        You can’t do that, Steve! That’s a real email address, with a real person’s name attached! At first I was hoping I made a mistake and that it was you sockpuppeting, but now… if you continued to use it knowing it was real… that’s unspeakable and I hope I was never right and it’s really in fact the real Ben! Please, please tell me you had no idea what you were doing, that when the gravatar image appeared after you typed the email address you thought it was some automated account (some of which WordPress does have)… And that you’ll stop using it at once!

      • KelsShels

        Woman.

        Are you insane? You don’t confront criminals! You’ll get yourself killed one day. Let him screw this guy over, eventually he’ll find out someone else is using his email.

      • Nahida

        Quiet, Kelly.

        Steve, I’m not sure you know how this works (in which case I’d feel absolutely ridiculous explaining it to you) but in case you didn’t: domains (like starbucks .com) can have email addresses, like employee @starbucks .com

        For example I could create contact @ thefatalfeminist .com or Nahida @ thefatalfeminist .com (or anything I wanted before @) and it would be a functioning email address.

        Ben .com is an actual site, which is why the corresponding email address is a functioning email. One that someone else owns and checks and uses.

      • KelsShels

        He’s not going to answer you, roomie.

      • Nahida

        He doesn’t have to. He just has to stop.

    • Steve

      This show is still going out of its way to offend Christianity.

      I felt the scene where Thorne was reading the Bible, the music that was playing in the background and all, it was mocking what Thorne was reading.

      You don’t see the same mocking tone when the Muslims are practicing their religion in the show.

    • Mo

      Too many Naked Rayyan scenes. Very offensive.

    • Jim

      It does seem that whenever they show the Christians in their religious practices, they show it in a Mocking way whereas they are very reverential when they show Muslims in their religious practices. When Amaar was praying at the first episode he was shown respectfully. In fact Thorne was shown as being very unspiritual for interrupting him. But here where Thorne is conducting a prayer meeting the show portrays it in a mocking way.

    • Steve

      Okay, funniest show of the season (this season not high praise). Though much of the humor was unintended. Multi-faith – Hah! They finally did with Thorne what I knew they were going to do with Thorne! Check back. I mentioned the possibility over a year ago. I like the joke about how there really isn’t two many religions in Mercy. Just Islam and Anglicanism. And then there’s Nate but it doesn’t sound like he is a practicing Jew or that there’s a synagogue in Mercy.

      • Bill

        Look I am an agnostic in the sense that while perhaps there make be some “Divine Creator” out there, I don’t really believe in the mythology of any of the religions out there.

        But I would have to say I understand why a “True Believer” would say that the statement that “all religions are equal” doesn’t make sense.

        There is only one way that all religions can be equal. That is if all religions were equally FALSE. Which is I guess what I believe so I guess in that sense I am “multi faith”.

        Only an Agnostic could be “Multi Faith”. If you believe your religion is correct then it just stands by reason that all other religions are false. You can’t believe in your faith and at the same time believe in the equality of others. Either you are right, or they are right (or you are both wrong). Therefore to the faithful “multi-faith” is illogical.

        But thinking your religion is superior (which of course is what you would have to think otherwise you wouldn’t be part of that particular religion) doesn’t mean you shouldn’t treat others of inferior religions badly. And of course laws should treat all religions in an equal manner though that can get tough because in the end how do you define religions? Some call ritual drug use “religion” so governments have to draw the line somewhere and the line drawing can get tough.

        I think Baber and Thorne has the only relationship two people, two true believers really could have. Look, I know you are going to rot in hell for all time, but I still must treat you with respect here on earth despite you being wrong.

      • Bill

        I think Baber and Thorne has the only relationship two people, two true believers really could have.

        I mean two people of differing faiths.

      • Debora

        Look, I know you are going to rot in hell for all time, but I still must treat you with respect here on earth despite you being wrong.

        I don’t think that’s true, Bill.

        http://thefatalfeminist.com/2011/09/06/yall-need-to-stop-telling-people-theyre-going-to-hell/

        Verily, those who have attained to faith
        [in this Qur’an], as well as those who follow the Jewish faith,
        and the Christians,
        and the Sabians
        –all who believe in God
        and the Last Day and do righteous deeds–
        shall have their reward with their Sustainer;
        and no fear need they have,
        and neither shall they grieve.

        –Qur’an 2:62, 5:69

      • Steve

        If there was one thing that is bad about Christianity it would be it’s exclusivity. You are right, technically even Muslims believe that non-Muslims don’t go to to Hell, at least that is what the Quoran says (although they sure don’t treat people like that). Judaism, not quite sure what they believe on that matter. Buddhism, Oprahism, Hindiusm, all those other religions don’t believe that only those who walk their path will be “saved”.

        But in Christianity there is just no way around it. Either you accept the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord, as your Personal Savior, as God, or it’s to the Hell fires for you.

        So, that pose a problem when it comes to “interfaith”.

    • Mo

      Can they stop with showing the naked Rayyan scenes!

      • Steve

        They do seem to be playing this up a bit. And yeah, I have found my reaction to it a little odd myself.

        But that’s all it is, a conditioned reaction. I don’t see it wrong for a woman to be seen with her hair out but since they make such a big deal about it then yeah, it bothers me. But if I wasn’t conditioned to feel that way then I wouldn’t.

        It was kind of like Nahida’s breastfeeding post. Did it bother me? A little especially the one where the baby had a cap that made its little head look like a nipple, but if I lived in a culture where breast feeding out in the open was normal, then yeah I would probably be used to it and it would be no big deal.

        With clothing and exposure and all of that I have found out that context is everything. It makes me have beliefs about such topics that may seem at time contradictory, but I am a real “Time and Place” kind of person when it comes to stuff like this. I have actually even been in environments where women have exposed their breasts, but because of the context, because of the Time and Place, while of course at first it is a little hard to get used to (because of social conditioning) soon it was just as normal and I treat the situation just as nonchalantly as if the woman was in a bathing suit, or if the woman was completely dressed, although if the time and place was different (like the Super Bowl) I am still highly offended.

      • Steve

        I was talking about a post that Nahida had on her own blog.
        It was a little “in your face” which yeah bugged me a bit but as a whole it was done respectfully.

        How would I feel about seeing a woman breastfeeding? Again context would be everything. At a beach, something like that outside, no problem. At a mall, there are clothing that one can where that doesn’t actually show one’s breasts to the casual observer, so if she was doing it discretely like that, then no problem there either. It would just be like if the baby was sleeping on her lap.

        Now if the “baby” was like four or five then no, not in public. Perhaps on a beach or something like that, but even there…

        I feel the same about males and toplessness. If a guy is walking down a public street then yeah, it would be better if he had a shirt on. At a park, at a swim club, then yeah sure no problem.

        But if you can tell, this is an issue I am kind of flexible on. It’s all on one’s social conditioning. It’s more of a situation of like I said CONTEXT. Is the person trying to be provocative or is the weather just hot out. And of course clothing can never be used for justification of another’s behavior.

        I have to say, I am surprised how I feel when I see Rayann’s hair. And I do wonder if the show MEANS for those scenes to be as provocative as they are.

      • Steve

        At a mall, there are clothing that one can where that doesn’t actually show one’s breasts to the casual observer,

        I mean if there are clothing that a breast feeding woman can wear that doesn’t reveal one’s breasts but the baby still has access.

        But you know this does bring up an interesting question. How would people feel if say Rayyan had a baby and they did have a scene where Rayyan was shown breastfeeding (with Sitara Hewitt’s breasts viable)?

        Of course you would have the “uniqueness” factor although Canada’s laws are different than ours when it comes to such stuff like that, but apart from that I guess such a scene would not offend me though I know the CBC would never do that because of course that would totally offend Muslims.

        But getting back to the issue of “seeing Rayyan’s hair”. I do wonder the motivation of the show doing that. And yeah, it is odd how those scenes kind of bother me even though in reality I have seen women’s hair before, like every day, and in reality we are seeing the hair of Sitara Hewitt, a woman who was raised an Anglican and isn’t a Muslim and even if she was a Muslim not all Muslims wear the hijab.

        But in the show, she is still Rayyan and darn it we shouldn’t see here ever like that. I know what Bill and even Mo means here.

      • Debora

        Nahida’s very militant when it comes to the right for women to breastfeed in public without having to worry about how discreet they are. So I am. I mean, for goodness sake, she already has to take of a BABY! That’s hard enough to do without worrying about people policing or nagging you about what you’re showing. In the end it’s because there’s hatred of the female body. After all, there are advertisements that are OBSESSED with breasts, even if you don’t see them they’re the subject, yet when a woman breastfeeds everyone is sickened like it’s ill or unnatural.

        But it is the MOST natural. I think that was the point of Nahida’s post. Everyone needs to calm the hell down.

      • Bill

        Wearing or not wearing a Hijab of course is a woman’s person choice. I think the reasons people see it as “oppressing to women” is two fold.

        One the Hijab is most popular in cultures where women are indeed oppressed. In fact it’s the law in those countries.

        Also, because there is no male equivalent to the Hijab.

        Look when Amaar is walking down the street no one knows he is a Muslim. Well it’s Mercy and everyone knows him so, yeah they know, but say he was walking down like a street in Toronto. No one knows he is a Muslim.

        But Rayyan, when she walks down the street everyone sees MUSLIM (and it sparks memories of how women are so oppressed in those countries).

        If it was common for Muslim males in Western countries to dress like say Baber (like how Thorn dressed in that one scene – I KNEW THAT WAS COMING AT SOME POINT) then while “woman being oppressed” will still be in the background, it wouldn’t be as much as it is now when it is mostly women who’s form of address indicates they are Muslim.

      • Debora

        Actually, Muslims are much more open to visible breastfeeding than most people. Not as open as they used to be. They used to allow it in mosques, but would never do that anymore. But they’re still more open. So they may not be offended if Rayaan was shown doing it.

      • Steve

        This is where I can kind of get a little weird and seemingly contradictory here.

        Now I have been to places where casual nudity is the norm and I have no problem with that.

        But out in the general public, no I kind of expect women to be somewhat discreet. Again time and place is everything. How hard is it to wear those clothes where one can breastfeed without exposure.

        By the way, did Nahida ever bring up that situation with that girl in Egypt. Given the situation, I thought it was pretty brave of her though I don’t know if she picked the most appropriate way of protest.

        And then you have those women in the Ukraine who protest different things by being topless.

        Again, I think it is more of an issue of “getting use to it”. If female toplessness wasn’t made out to be such a big thing it wouldn’t be such a big thing.

      • Debora

        Which girl in Egypt? There have been multiple instances of brave women.

        And it is hard to wear those things. You have to constantly adjust them. And then try doing it with twins.

      • Steve

        The young woman in Egypt who posted a naked (really naked not just without Hijab) photo of herself as a form of protest.

        At one time I saw a video of an Egyptian crowd beating a woman and they said it was her, but then I found of that no it wasn’t her, but regardless she created quite a stir, I bet she had go into hidden.

        Her name is Aliaa Magda Elmahdy.

      • Steve

        Or is it really supposed to be El Mahdy.

        Not sure.

        Sure was right about that whole Arab Spring thing wasn’t I.

        Those Americans they have arrested. I hope they get the death penalty. I am not a fan of the old Egyptian regime but I know who these people are and they are enemies of America. They are connected with Soros and of course Occupy and all of that.

      • Steve

        I guess it is Elmahdy, Here is an article about her.

        http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-19/middleeast/world_meast_nude-blogger-aliaa-magda-elmahdy_1_egyptian-blogger-nude-photo-kareem-amer?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

        I wish she hadn’t worn the thigh-high stockings and some red patent leather shoes. That kind of made the photo trashy instead of classy. I wonder if she really accomplished through her protest what she said she was trying to accomplish.

      • Steve

        I finally found an unaltered version.

        Sorry, I think that the stockings and all does make it offensive. Like I said previously it’s the context that is important.

        Previously all I saw was the head shot (pixalated) and that didn’t seem bad to me. But yeah, this full shot, yeah not good.

        She does have a point to make but this isn’t the way to make it.

      • Nahida

        Stockings are not trashy! … is what I thought before I saw the picture. The printed roses on the stockings are unfortunate. She should have gone with clear black if any. And patent red leather is always trashy.

        She doesn’t look like she’s trying to be provocative, though. She’s wearing things that are supposed to be provocative, to cause a bigger stir, but she’s not actively performing. Her foot is on the stool (I guess to show the shoe) but it’s executed like she just felt like putting her foot there. There’s no deliberation in her face.

        Even without the stockings and shoes, I’m not sure there’s any decipherable point, but I can’t judge how effective something is when it’s addressed to a culture with which I’m unfamiliar.

        There was an American Muslim woman a while back who posed naked for a magazine, and it came up in a discussion among other Islamic feminists. They all disapproved and said she wasn’t helping the cause at all. I thought they were all being very cruel! And I was ready to rant about how pitting women against each other is just as destructive and they were being unbelievably judgmental and plain bitchy and how it was anti-feminist of them… and then I noticed the magazine was Playboy.

        That doesn’t quite help the cause, no.

      • Nahida

        Oh, she was German.

        (Occurred to me to look that up because the discussion I referred to involved internal women.)

      • Nahida

        international*

      • Nahida

        Women from Lebanon Germany, South Africa, Canada, Palestine, Denmark, and the US mostly.

        And I’ve figured out why this disturbs me. I was wondering why I would never do it, whether this was cowardly of me or incredibly prideful (like in a scoffing “You don’t deserve to see that” kind of way). I don’t think I’m a terribly disdainful person, but I’ve been told that the way I look might possibly affect how haughty I am. I tend to be introverted, and sometimes shy, and in conjunction with how I look that’s often unfairly interpreted as conceit. So I don’t really take it seriously. But I’m sure that it must have influence on me to some degree.

        And I was fearful that this was why. That I’ve never been afraid of my beauty or sexuality and yet I wouldn’t do this because I’m just awful.

        But you know? I don’t want her to do it either. A part of me cringed when I saw that picture, exactly because I knew the context. And it was a context of violence. I don’t want a woman’s body to become the target of that, and consequently become imbued in the symbol of it, forever to be remembered in a painful feminine form. I don’t want mine, and I don’t want hers, I want to stay in wrapped in warm white sheets–where sexuality is safe, where sex is safe, where it isn’t associated with violence or hatred.

        I used to hate the f word. I use it now, but I hated that it turned something so beautiful into something so hateful.

  27. Steve

    Okay, this one I kind of liked. They had to re-write Thorne’s family history a little bit and I usually hate it when later episodes contradicts previous ones but apart from that, an okay episode. I liked how Rayyan messed everything up which goes against the typical sitcom theme where it’s always the guy to blame.

  28. Debora

    ….Oh my.

    I advise you girls to stop at once. If Steve wants to prove his own conspiracy or ask what really happened, he’d contact Nahida privately himself. No need to convince him yourself of your innocence.

  29. Steve

    Nahida’s last post here was February 7, 2012 at 3:19 pm.

    The other ones are just you girls (or perhaps it is just Kelshel) having fun at Nahida’s expense.

    If anyone is going to “save Feminism” it is Nahida. It’s people like you why feminism has such a bad name.

    I find the subject of your ridicule very hypocritical.

    If everyone in the world could respect people like Nahida does the world would be a much better place.

  30. Nahida

    Lily and Kelly have never, and would never, post under my name.

    Lily was wrong to have posted the comment that led to all this, but I was wrong to have mischaracterized her. I didn’t want to type out a few of the comments I did or engage at all, but it was necessary I paid after what I said to wrongfully smear her. She isn’t a vindictive type of person who jokes at the expense of others. I said she was joking in a moment when I was thoroughly shocked and thoroughly alarmed. I typed the comment Kelly described as a “confession” on a phone, and I might have been squeamish and frantic and terribly afraid of your reaction, Steve, and the conjunction of those two things is why it sounds like that.

    And then I was angry, and doing too many things at once–defending Lily from my own libelous attack on her character, and distressing over Kelly (who was experiencing mild trama from your comment), and I was trying to explain what had happened, and I was furious you would say something like that to her–or to anyone without realizing most women are victims–and that last part is for Kelly to forgive, not for me, but I came across as bitter and too harsh.

    I never considered myself “classy”, though it seems to have come up a couple of times here. Nonetheless, it’s best you think much less of me, Steve, for what I’ve actually said and engaged in during that state of shock and exposure, and the girlish insecurity it seems no woman is ever rid of–regardless of how empowered she is–rather than what I’ve led you to believe Lily and Kelly have done when I said it was a joke.

  31. Steve

    Give it a rest Kelshel.

  32. Nahida

    Alright, Steve. What is so difficult to believe? You know I’m impatient, and impulsive, and neurotic–do you think I’m made of fluffy clouds and the most specialist of special snowflakes? I’m not a good person all the time! Sometimes I push my friends off a metaphorical cliff without realizing the person I’m talking to doesn’t know them enough to recognize that’s not who they are. And then I have to come back and fix it in a series of embarrassing posts.

    • Steve

      Kelshels, when will you admit that you aren’t as good a person as Nahida, and you never will be,

      You should just be honored that you have had the opportunity to have Nahida in your life at this time.

      If the world could be the way Nahida is we would all be much better for it. The way she respects people, even those who have harmed her, is incredible. In the end, despite being caught up in the language of the Left due to being in college, still she has respect for individuals. That is a rare thing.

      Most of the time feminists are like you. Chanting Kill the Cops and such.

    • Steve

      “I’m made of fluffy clouds and the most specialist of special snowflakes? ” Sure I guess that is one the ways to describe it. Now I have met others like Nahida but they are a rarity in this world. There’s another term I used for such people but it would be too complicated to explain it. I started using that term after seeing the Tom Cruise movie “Legend” (not one of his best, it was an earlier film but I liked it) and then after seeing the movie “Amadeus” I had the term confirmed.

      You know I rather deal with people like you Kelshels. Because I get how Nahida makes you feel so bad in comparison. Yeah, I get it.

      And in your case you are actually bad with your support for cop killing and all.

      But yeah, perhaps there is such a thing as being “too good”. You I get. You I understand and can interact with in the harsh way you deserve.

      But around people like Nahida, how can any of us feel “worthy”? Oh, I know she doesn’t want to make us feel that way, but for people like you and I Kelshel that is how she makes us feel.

      I think it would be best for you to end your friendship with Nahida. Tell her “it’s not you it’s me” and that would be the truth. Nahida doesn’t realize this but you will always be her Salieri.

      • Steve

        It’s not Nahida you hate. It’s how God reflects himself through Nahida, that’s what you hate Kelshels. It is God you are hating. You are hating the Divine Reflection that Nahida casts.

      • Nahida

        Uh oh…

        Okay Steve you can not associate me with Divinity. Why don’t you believe this is me! X____x This is absolutely absurd.

        I can’t keep talking because I am impatiently waiting outside my counselor’s office; she’s supposed to sign my graduation forms and she’s late, but she may show up at any moment. You’ve been angry at me before, remember? You’ve thought I’ve said horrible things before! It’s so strange that you suddenly don’t believe I can’t be … not “classy.” Have you seen my latest post Steve? It’s about as frank as Lily’s comment. You’ve read “unclassy” posts before that I’ve written too. You mustn’t raise me higher than I really am.

      • Nahida

        UGH The English department gave me an appointment with her on day she isn’t even on campus!!! I HATE HOW DISORGANIZED THE ENGLISH DEPARTMENT IS!

      • Steve

        You do a bad Nahida impersonation Kelshels.

      • Nahida

        It’s not an impersonation.

        /sigh

        You sent me 2 messages through the contact form around New Year. They were very kind, and for a minute I remembered you. You left a fake return address though, of course, so I couldn’t wish you well in return. A while ago you recommended I read The World According to Garp, and I did. Under the same post you told me I wasn’t a slut–not even metaphorically, you specified. (Of course you couldn’t have possibly known; is this why you’re so certain ?) Under the post regarding nonconsensual sexualization you submitted a number of comments, and in one of them you said I wouldn’t know what it was like to be undesired (I think the word you used was revolting, and then you said you were exaggerating) and I thought well, neither do you.

        These were unpublished; no one else saw them.

        I’m sorry you ever had to find out what Lily told you. I’m not sure if it’s the message itself that makes you uncomfortable or the way it was delivered. Either way, I’m sorry, I wouldn’t want you to feel uneasy. And I’m going to leave now.

      • Debora

        Sometimes when I have dinner with her, and she makes a mistake, I joke and tell her that her human is showing. Its because she rarely makes mistakes, but also because there’s a quality to her that makes it easy to forget she’s human. She’s a little too soft, and a little too strong. And she has large eyes so it looks like she’s seeing things other people don’t see. For all I know, she is.

        But you can’t do that to her, Steve. That’s a long way to fall.

        She was quiet this evening. She stood outside on my balcony. Sometimes she forgets to eat, you know. She just simply, forgets. But she’s made of the same stuff as Adam, and she succumbs to the same desires. (yeah, even that one.) I’m surprised you think it’s out of character. She’s a bit of a storm, hot-blooded and passionate.

        She’s in her twenties, Steve. I don’t think you remember what that’s like.

        Anyway, she asked me casually if her writing was losing whatever it had, since you think she’s Kelly. All I’m going to say is this, because I think you KNOW that’s her above. She’s friends with Kelly, who isn’t like you at all, despite what you might think. Still, if you think Kelly is evil, but see she’s still friends with her, it shouldn’t surprise you that she’d do want that from you.

      • KelsShels

        Well, he definitely thinks you’re a slut now.

        It’s understandable you handled yourself so gracelessly there. It was a vulnerable moment, that came up without warning. And you make too much of a habit of telling the truth, and you’re so strict with the truth that to you letting him believe Lily was joking would be a lie. Don’t take it too hard on yourself.

        At least you can SEE what I’ve always known. That now that he knows what you are, he thinks you’re reprehensible.

      • Nahida

        No.

        That was not tough love, Kelly.

        You were trying to pass that off as tough love, but that was malicious. I study literature. I know the undertones. Seriously, wtf? Was that some shoddy attempt to make me dissolve into tears? You almost succeeded by the end. Almost. You can’t play my insecurities.

        Also if this goes on another minute I will cease speaking to both of you.

      • KelsShels

        I wasn’t being malicious! You can’t stop speaking to Steve because he’s already not speaking to you. Because I’m RIGHT.

      • Nahida

        I was referring to Lily, genius.

      • Steve

        I have made several comments on the recent episodes that I have been hoping for Nahida’s response on.

        Kelshels, you are just plain evil.

        I bet your middle name is Salieri.

      • Debora

        Oh, well I could have told you that wouldn’t have worked. Nahida is a feminist, Steve. She’s actually a good feminist. That means that once she believes she’s made you uncomfortable in the nature that Lily did, she’s not going to initiate contact with you again unless you clearly invite her. Or else we call that sexual harassment.

        But you came across as “living your life” (which is all women like Nahida really want to do every time a strange man makes advances) so she didn’t join the conversation.

      • Debora

        By the way, dear, sometimes, it is okay to lie.

      • Nahida

        I know that sometimes it’s okay to lie. I’d lie straight out to any Nazi about whom I’m hiding if we lived during the Holocaust.

        But not when the lie hurts someone else. I mischaracterized Lily and it was utterly selfish. I couldn’t possibly allow that to continue.

  33. KelsShels

    Hey I could SO use the word nonchalantly!

  34. Nahida

    Oh, honey. Not without looking it up.

  35. Debora

    I liked this last episode with Rayyan and Amaar. The role reversal was so refreshing. And Thorne has become a very likable character.

    The mayor was absolutely disgusting, though, spending taxpayer money on personal items. They were all very personal too. Sickening.

    • Steve

      The first few episodes I thought were terrible. I really had to make an effort tot watch them. But the last two not so much. I was wondering if I was getting tired and that was why they seemed to be getting better (marginally better, as they were still pretty poor) but perhaps indeed the were getting better.

      • Debora

        Well the show itself was never that funny. The airport security was overdone. I thought the whole thing with Sarah and the divorce group was trying too hard. Nahida was outraged that they made Sarah and Yasir get a divorce after 31 years, but they had to get rid of Yasir somehow since he wasn’t dedicating himself to the show. The only thing funny about the first episodes was Thorn asking Baber how HAMoudi was any better than CunningHAM.

        Thorne’s adopted now. Interesting. Or was he always? I don’t remember. Isn’t his uncle his father or something?

      • Steve

        I was thinking what do do with the “Yasir” problem considering that they had to get rid of him somehow due to the actor not wanting to be involved in the project. I agree find the whole divorce thing unsatisfactory as I think it is totally outside the characters as we came to know them.

        I guess they could have him keep on caring for his mother over in Lebanon but that again would probably not work.

        I did think of a solution. It is kind of silly (but then again it is a comedy). They could have Yasir still be in Mercy but we just never see him.

        Oh, they talk about him.(We are having diner with your Mom and Dad) They make excuses for him (Yasir is home sick), they even have scenes where “you just missed him” perhaps a character waving good bye to him, but on screen you never see “Yasir”.

        There was a character on Happy Days named “Jenny Picalo”. The daughter in the show was always over at Jenny Picalo’s home, or whatever. The thing about Jenny Picalo is that you never saw her. Well last season or two they did finally cast the role but before that the running joke before that was that despite always talking about her you never saw her. (You should have seen what they did to the eldest son after like the first season they never talked about him. They totally acted like he never existed).

        So, Yasir could become like that. The person they talk about from time to time but never show. Then they could start making self aware comments like “I don’t see Yasir as much as I used to”.

        Yeah, kind of silly but this is supposed to be a comedy. There was really no good way to write Yasir out and this way perhaps would have given the show a little running gag that done appropriately could be a little humorous.

      • Steve

        In that one episode where Amaar and Rayann accidentally opened the letter that was addressed to Thorne it turned out to be a paternity test. They thought that Thorne (being the stereotypical Christian leader that they have cast him as) must have had sex out of Wedlock and the affirmative test meant that he must have a child.

        Instead he tells them that HE IS THE CHILD of the test. Amaar mentioned something about adoption but (and go to the original show and perhaps I misunderstood it at the time) but the way I understood it was, no, he had always thought he was legit but found out later in life, that the guy who he always had called Uncle was indeed Dad. It was never clear if it was an actual Uncle (husband’s brother) or perhaps often children call the best friends of their parents Uncle or Aunt. But regardless. It was someone who he knew all his life.

        So, there I didn’t think he was “adopted” but it was a case like we are seeing in the show “Revenge” with Charlotte. In her case (as I thought it was with Thorne) she grew up all her life thinking the guy she called her Dad, was her Dad, but nope. Her mother conceived her with another man.

        This lead me to joke that Throne would be so devastated by finding out that he was a Bastard that the family disgrace would be so much for him and he would kill his mother for the shame she put on his family. And when Thorne first mentioned to his brother that his mother was dead, I thought, Oh no he actually went ahead and did it!

        Perhaps I misunderstood the original episode and he was indeed actually “adopted”. But I kind of think this is a case where the show is contradicting a previous show and and I hate when they do that. Character histories need to be consistent!

      • Debora

        I think the gag with Yasir in Mercy but never seen would have worked well, actually.

    • Debora

      I would like to see the mayor Dethroned.

      Felt a little compassion for her at first because she seemed genuinely upset when she found out Thorne’s brother was engaged, but she’s pursuing him anyway! And that doesn’t take away from all her scandals with taxpayer money.

      Taking her out of office would make for a series of very interesting episodes. Perhaps a new character can be introduced to replace her.

      • Steve

        That was a story line i have often mentioned here.

        I would have Fatima run against her.

        There’s so much material there.

        Fred supporting Fatima because she is really conservative and as a business owner herself very pro-business.

        The mayor losing her traditional support because the only reason she won back in the 1990s or whenever was because she was a woman. But Fatima is a woman, a black and a Muslim that’s the trifecta of political correctness for a candidate.

        So she doesn’t have her traditional support so she tries to run as a “Conservative” which she totally blows (I was thinking of Hillary that one time when she was in the south and she pretended to have a southern accent). She just ends up insulting these people when she thinks (falsely) that she can win them over with anti-Muslim rhetoric.

        Of course Sarah is in the middle. The Mosque of course supporting Fatima because they like the idea of her being the first Muslim mayor, but of course the mayor is a friend of hers.

        Yeah, they could go 5 or 6 episodes.

      • Steve

        In a small town like Mercy being Mayor should never have become a full time job. Now I do know of small towns where that does occur and then you get to see the kind of corruption you are seeing here.

        But in towns like Mercy one can have a volunteer mayor and while the work would no doubt be time consuming (and they can have episodes about that) it is certainly possible for Fatima to run her diner and be mayor.

        I just don’t hope they don’t make Amaar mayor. They are making him “too perfect”. Now I bet although he only has two of the three “Gold Stars” (He is ethnic and a Muslim but not a woman like Fatima) he could totally beat the Mayor.

        It has bothered me that the show doesn’t even have Amaar even attempting to find something to do with his time. I realize that because of his family he is independently wealthy and that his wife is a doctor, but still.

        Well perhaps instead of Mayor he can get on the city council. That should be a part time job too.

        By the way, about her wife being the Doctor, in a previous episode it was made quite clear that if she left Mercy then she would not get her practice back there. There was a whole episode where the doctor who was taking over for her thought the position was permanent but then when he was informed it was temporary he said he needed to find a more permanent situation, and then Rayyan said, yeah you can have the position permanently. They never really explained what happened to him just that Rayyan got his nurse when he left. Given the big deal they made about this previously, I wish they would have explained better what happened to him.

        And by the way, I really miss Thorne’s girlfriend. You know the librarian. And whatever happened to Joe? The few good characters this show gets somehow disappear over time.

      • Debora

        Oh, the librarian was great. Sadly, I didn’t notice her absence until Nahida mentioned it during the second episode (sometimes we watch them together) and she asked where Rose was. Her favorite character. Maybe if Rose had been around Rayyan wouldn’t have messed things up for her own mother! Or the dinner party. Strange that Rose wasn’t at the party. She was a bridesmaid and suddenly she’s gone?

      • Debora

        I haven’t seen the first season of the show and missed a few episodes in between. Need to find the ones I never saw.

      • Debora

        Ok the first couple of episodes feel really different from the show now. I guess the director/producers/editors got better with the camera. The shots seem awkward somehow.

  36. Debora

    Love the friendship between Thorne and Baber.

  37. Debora

    I agree Amaar is written as too perfect now! Especially seeing the first episode from season one. And even ALL of this new season, he never gets into any trouble. Or if he does he’s well-intending, like with firing Rayaan’s assistant.

    • Debora

      Actually I don’t think it’s weird they’re not showing him doing anything… he probably does housework and stuff. And then they’ll have kids and he’d have to take care of them.

  38. Nahida

    I do miss Rose. They might have had more of Rose instead of that ludicrous divorce support group. She would have helped Rayaan cope much better, and she’s charmingly hilarious.

    I never wanted Sarah to change her name when she married in the first place, but her emotional connection to her husband’s name and reluctance to change back to her maiden name wasn’t fully explored. Perhaps she didn’t believe it was her husband’s name she was surrendering, but her identifiable connection to her daughter, who also shares the name? Who wants to have to explain to others that this is her child, because there is no systematic social indication in things like introductions, or wherever the subject would arise? I don’t plan on changing my last name ever, but I won’t be fond of explaining to my child’s teacher that I’m his/her mother when I show up for conferences if the kid’s last name is different.

    I don’t understand how Yasir can divorce Sarah after 31 years. Especially since there was nothing but PDA in the first season. They should have written another way around his constant absence.

    Thorne and Baber are wonderful together. I do enjoy their antics–although the episode where they fasted was over the top and childish and simply unbelievable.

  39. Steve

    This is Kelshels.

    Nahida you need to get as far away from Kelshels as possible.

    • Steve

      It’s a fine line we walk here. We don’t want to call our fellow citizens terrorists for just practicing their religion but we don’t want to be taken for saps either.

      The truth is that there were people of Japanese ancestry in the United States who supported Japan during WWII. In fact during the attack on Pearl Harbor one of Japanese Pilots got shot down over Niihau if I remember the story there and did actually get assistance from someone there who was pro-Japanese.

      Do I agree with what happened to them? Locking them up and all? Let’s just say I believe it was a different time and these people could have become targets of other Americans who were angry at the war. It was done wrong, of course, and there is no way we could even consider doing something like that now, but it was a difficult time and I don’t think we are in a place now to judge if it was a “necessary evil” or unforgivable injustice . And by the way, It wasn’t only the Japanese this was done to. I talked to a guy who’s grandfather was from Germany and like was alive during both the first and second world war. His father was in a Canadian interment camp during World War I (he had lived in Canada for many years before the war and raised his family in Canada) so, yeah it was bad and innocent people got hurt but that’s war.

      We don’t want to repeat history there, but we don’t want to be played for fools either. Would Nahida be involved in stuff like Terrorism? ABSOLUTELY NOT. But she is so Naive that someone who is in Terrorism could trick her.

      But then again, I think Islamic terrorism in the next few years is going to take second stage to the terrorism of the LEFT with the Occupy folks and all which we are about to see as early as this Spring into this long hot summer!.

      • Steve

        Also, before the Pearl Harbor attack the Japanese called this Dentist of Japanese Decent who had a perfect view of the Harbor from his office. Now the FBI never conclusively found him guilty but there sure seemed to be a lot of smoke there. His wife was actually a journalist whose work appeared in a lot of pro-Emperior newspapers back in Japan. I don’t know why the FBI didn’t crack down on them harder. It seems at least from what I could read there were some strange politics going on there.

      • Debora

        How exactly would they trick her? I don’t think she’s naive at all…

    • Debora

      She’s so critical and independent, that she has enraged several religious leaders. I doubt she could be tricked.

      But let’s say she is. And she’s found guilty. What do you think should happen to her? What do we do with her then?

      • Debora

        Do you think she should be executed as a traitor of this country, Steve? Do you still think it’s black and white?

      • Nahida

        You know, it’d be easier to leave if everyone stopped talking to/about me.

        I would want to be executed.

      • Steve

        I could never imagine Nahida betraying our country.

        She is a true American.

        Kelshels on the other hand….

      • Steve

        Good point.

        I guess I shouldn’t worry about her in that respect.

        She is one of us. She was born one of us, she has lived all her life as one of us, and there is no reason she has ever made us think otherwise.

        Meanwhile you have the spawn of upperclass WASPs shouting “Kill the cops”.

        If I have ever given Nahida cause to make her think I think her of less of an American, then I am deeply and sincerely sorry. It goes without saying that she is an American.

      • Steve

        IF, and I say IF she ever betrayed America then yeah, I would want her executed.

        I would say the same for any member of my family. I would say it for myself.

        Yes, Debora I still think it’s black and white. Always has been, always will be.

      • Debora

        I don’t understand you. She’s everything you said you hated. Supports everything you’re against, no tax breaks for the rich, same-sex marriage, democracy in Egypt, feminism, building a mosque in New York, and when David asked me about the anti-Zionism on her site you said you hated that she supports Palestine. Why is she any different from the Americans you said you hoped are executed?

      • Steve

        She didn’t go to Egypt with the aide of Soros to try to undermine a society with the hope that the blowback would harm the United States.

        Nor is she in the streets in the United States chanting “kill the cop.” In fact she would rather DIE than betray America.

        Big difference.

        Hannity is out there trying to portray it as another “Iranian Hostage Situation”. I say. no. Let them get what’s coming to them. I always knew that this “unholy partnership” had to break down some time and I am glad to see it happening now.

        Never was a fan of Mubarek, but a year later things are much worse than when he was in Egypt. Just like I feared.

  40. Nahida

    …Steve, you don’t know her.

    We have a rather complicated friendship. I’ve known her for a long time, but we weren’t close (she’s not obsessed with me like you think) until this year, and I’m fairly certain that once the semester is over it’ll be the same way again.

    She’s a good person, and frankly I’m not sure why you believe she isn’t. I mean, she didn’t say what you thought she said that time you exploded at me because you misread a word from her comment, she wasn’t trying to kill me like you suspected, and now you know she wasn’t impersonating me either.

    You haven’t seen what she’s done for me.

    • Nahida

      I’m graduating in Spring 2013. In that last year (right after this one) Jasmine will be returning and I’ve arranged to have her stay with me. Her father has passed, and she would need the comfort. I’m visiting my only blood-related cousin in WA for a very brief period after that, and then (if my mother is well) I’m planning on moving to Boston and living there, because there’s a wonderful mosque in Boston. It’s not perfect but it’s so close to what I’ve always dreamed of, and the imam is so kind and open and compassionate.

      Boston, like the pilgrims! I won’t be travelling over the seas but it still feels significant. I wonder if the universe is inclined to guide us along the course of previous histories.

      • Debora

        Perhaps you should run for president.

      • Nahida

        HEAVENS no!

        I’m off to continue a novel. There’s urgent work. Goodbye Debbie! Bye Steve.

      • Nahida

        (Well this was a rude thing to forget!)

        Steve, thank you for not… tearing me to pieces. It was unexpected, and I know you don’t consider yourself a merciful person, but that was immensely merciful. So I think you’re wrong. I know how difficult it is to demonstrate forbearance when you’re unceremoniously presented with such an unpleasant surprise.

        (Okay now I’m gone.)

      • Bill

        This isn’t the Imam you are talking about are you?

        http://globalmbreport.org/?p=5457

      • Debora

        Bill, are people like you still accusing Nahida of terrorism?

        While we’re on the topic though, interesting story about Nahida and Suhaib Webb. She confronted him about a month ago about an article he published (but didn’t write himself) on his website. It was an article that said Islamic feminism was a danger to Islam.

        As you can imagine, Nahida was furious. She confronted him immediately about why someone who would tell Muslim students to stay in the US and not seek Islamic education abroad, who would even tell them that they can pray ritual prayers in English if they need and not Arabic (which is too liberal even for Nahida), why someone like that would host such an article that condemned Islamic feminism. She said she was very disappointed, and that while she was open to criticism, the article just dismissed Islamic feminist scholars on credentials instead of addressing their arguments.

        He replied to her saying that he agreed the article was shallow! He said that he doesn’t always agree with all the articles he has on his site, but that he tries to make room for all different opinions. Then he invited her to teach him.

      • Nahida

        MYOB, Bill.

      • Nahida

        And Debbie, stop giving people I don’t know/don’t give a damn about insight into whom I have/have not confronted.

      • Steve

        Here is an interesting article about something that happened at a Boston Mosque a year or so ago.

        http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.7390/pub_detail.asp

        Mind you this is going on at the same time the government has declared war against Christianity. So you have these somewhat contradicting efforts.

  41. Steve

    I still find that this show has a strong anti-Christian bias.

    Particularly that one episode where Thorne was doing that Bible Study. It’s the tone as much as anything.

    • Debora

      Well Amaar finds inspiration from a chicken in the next couple of episodes, according to Wiki? That might balance out.

      • Steve

        When the show portrays a person reading from the Koran in a mocking tone, that would begin to balance it out a bit.

        But then again, it’s hard to balance beating up pastors and destroying Jesus statues which we saw a few seasons ago.

    • David

      As someone with no horse in the race here (if I may use the expression), it doesn’t appear to me that there is bias against Christianity here.

      As to the person who didn’t like them showing Rayyan’s hair: she was in her house, with her husband only, where it’s permitted – right? So what’s the issue? The show is trying to faithfully represent what her life would look like, and that means no hijab at home.

      As to the show itself: sorry, but I still like it. The mayor is delicious.

      • Debora

        Speak of the devil! =P

        I agree about her hair. I don’t see why Mo is flipping out, or why anyone would think the show is displaying it in “provocative ways” or anything.

      • Debora

        Didn’t see any more bias against Christianity than other shows either…

      • Nahida

        I can see how the mayor is a necessary character. I might even get along with her–though I wouldn’t want to live in any city she governed!

        But she’s written for comedy that’s really cheap, incorporating crude jokes with sexual undertones and behavior that’s amusing merely because it’s shocking. Quite frankly, I think the writers are overly relying on the fact that she’s a woman. A woman being vulgar! Hilarious! I only burst into laughter when Thorne’s brother was reading off a list, “Silk teddies? Panties? Batteries?” because I couldn’t believe they wrote that. I’ve often wanted to know about the mayor’s past or her personal life: while many other of the characters have become tired one-dimensional tropes, their backgrounds can provide room for redemption. (Though I did admire how ballsy she was in dryly replying, “Lots of batteries.”)

        I hope they aren’t serious about continuing the “romance” between the mayor and… I can’t ever remember that guy’s name. That was absurd. When she was repeatedly cursing how “handsome” he was I was hoping they would leave it there and not pursue a storyline, because I suspected they would spiral into cliche (and I’d like to think the mayor is capable of believing a man is handsome and simultaneously retaining the ability to function around him.) The plot was doomed the minute she predictably fell on top of him. Seriously? And the only humorous thing about their conversation was “I wouldn’t waste a one-night stand on you. YOU! I wouldn’t waste you on a one-night stand!” and at the same time I felt sorry for the slip on her behalf. But then I guess I’m never too impressed with the conversations people have when they date anyway, so maybe that’s my own issue. Seems people who date rely on contrived questions interested in superficial trivia (“What’s your favorite music genre? Have you been to Italy?”) that reflect nothing meaningful about the other person. They may potentially springboard into an intriguing discussion but usually occupy the territory of mind-numbing boredom with neither party making an effort.

        Like Debora I also felt sympathy for the mayor when she discovered he was engaged, because she seemed so genuinely distressed–and if she had moments like that more often to contrast her constant inappropriate behavior she may be a more likable character.

      • David

        Re the mayor: What can I say, I guess I just have a taste for low comedy.

        I think I like her cause she’s not a real character. She’s the equivalent to Kramer, say, of Seinfeld. Just there for the laughs. If you don’t find her funny, that’s fine. Humor varies.

      • Steve

        Actually several people here mentioned that they dindn’t like the program showing Rayyan’s hair.And I happen to be one of them. Yeah, I find it strange myself because if this was another show and Sitara Hewitt was playing a different character, I wouldn’t even mind if they showed her breasts.

        I thought a lot about it and I think why I feel this way is because I respect Rayyan. YES, Rayyan is a FICTIONAL character, I know that but there is something in literature called Suspension of Disbelief, and Television is an extension of literature albeit a poor one.

        So, at least for the time I watch the show although Rayyan isn’t a real person, and I know she isn’t a real person, for me to find some enjoyment of the show at least for those 20 minutes or so, I see Rayyan as if she was a real person, at least in some regards. And therefore since I know that “Rayyan” would be horrified if she knew that I was seeing her hair, since I am not her husband, it bothers me.

        I do feel that this show often sees how to “stretch things” while knowing they can’t as much as other shows. There’s Double Entendre that the show engages in from time to time, and I believe the show also uses Rayyan’s “hair exposure” scenes to be provocative, well at least the the closest thing to provocative that they feel they can get away with.

        When it comes to “exposure” context is everything.

  42. Nahida

    Re: bias against Christianity

    Everything Fred has ever said in the first few season, and everything Thorne has said before he became a remotely likable character, would have offended some “conservative” Muslim (and “moderates” as well).

    Remember that episode with the new convert, and trying to fend him off? That whole episode was an embarrassment. Of all the jokes around Islam with which I didn’t have a problem, this is the only episode I pretend never happened. It made a mockery of the entire religion itself. Remember what Fatima was wearing? In another one, Fred referring to Amaar as “Johnny Jihad” or saying that Muslims have an “insatiable blood lust.” Thorne saying “Maybe it’s a crusade” in the holiday special. Or that “Al Quaeda is taking its share.” Or Thorne reducing the prayer area of the mosque to “$10 worth of carpet.” Thorne aggressively pushing Rayaan to convert. I didn’t mind these, but they’re arguably offensive. Did we ever have an equivalent to Sohail on the show? Sexism is rampant in Christianity–as any Christian feminist would tell you, the Bible has not been saved from the exertion of patriarchal interpretations. But this type of Western sexism is so normal that it isn’t recognized for what it is.

    Those who don’t recognize the numerous times this show has disparaged Muslims or Islam are failing to do so because they aren’t adequately familiar enough with either to pick up on these things, or to estimate the value or reverence placed on particular aspects of the religion by Muslims.

    • David

      Re the convert episode: if you ask me, that was not insulting. Every religion has its crazies (or majnoon, if you prefer). Not only that, those who are recent converts tend to be more extreme and not understand oral traditions which exist in religion. I haven’t watched that episode recently, but I don’t recall thinking, whoa, that’s insulting.

      The old Thorne was just as bad as Sohail (though maybe you didn’t see it like that, since Sohail’s obnoxiousness concerned the treatment of women whereas Thorne’s was just a general all-around nastiness).

      Again, I’m neither Christian or Muslim, so I’m speaking objectively when I say I don’t see any preferences here, nor do I see terribly insulting things.

      Of course, one can say that’s specifically b/c it’s not my religion.

      But I still think I’m right. 🙂

      • Nahida

        I wasn’t personally insulted; I just meant that I could see how the type of Christian who would be insulted by this show would be likewise be insulted as (the same type of) a Muslim, and so to play the Offense Olympics and declare one team the unquestionable winner is considerably unbalanced.

        Though I don’t think the old Thorne was nearly as bad as Sohail.

      • David

        That’s exactly it – there is no “winner” or “loser” – I think “criticism” is levelled pretty equally.

        And much (if not all) of it is criticism not of a religion per se but of how certain people live their religion.

      • Steve

        I thought it was a more of a commentary about WHITE CONVERTS to Islam. Or perhaps commentary about CONVERTS in general as opposed to people who are like raised up in the tradition (any tradition).

        The White Guy was lost in a spiritual sense. So he tries Islam, but he really doesn’t get Islam. And from there at the end he floated to Christianity. Then where? Wicca? So I thought it was a comment on how very, very spiritually shallow, empty, white people have become.

        The show doesn’t show any white Muslim except of course Sarah who isn’t portrayed as someone who follows Muslim traditions that closely.

        So perhaps the message is White People can’t do Islam that well. When they try they just mess things up. They just aren’t as spiritual as other races. Perhaps they were at one time but they aren’t any more.

      • Steve

        David, again there’s a difference between Characters In the Show saying Mocking things about the Religion and the show itself mocking the religion. I am not offended (usually) when Baber says something against Christianity. I am offended when the show mocks stuff like the Bible and Christ rising from the dead.

    • Steve

      Nahida, take that scene with Thorne and the Bible Study, and instead put in Baber reading the Quoran. Have some Mocking “Islam sounding Music” in the background.

      Look when Thorne Mocks Islam, when Fred Mocks Islam, that’s one thing. They are supposed to be disagreeable characters and you are supposed to think less of them when they make their insults.

      Now you could perhaps say it’s a case where the writers are allowed to “have their cake and eat it too” by having “disagreeable characters” make “disagreeable insults” the insults are still out there, and that could indeed be a valid point. But having a character in the show mock Islam (or Christianity) is totally different than having the show itself mock the religion.

      Those things that you mentioned Thorne sand Fred saying were in the end Thorne or Fred saying them. But when this show mocks Christianity it uses its control of the situation (as well as whatever Music in the background and other artistic director’s controls) to validate the mocking.

      Later in that scene Thorne was going to “absolve” a Christian’s guys sins and the guy said “oh, I have done some strange (kinky)” stuff. That’s not a Muslim character in the show saying “oh, these Christians pretend to be so high and mighty but they are actually sickos”. No that’s a Christian actually being portrayed as a sicko (within the context of the show).

      As a show Little Mosque in the Prairie while indeed it has some characters who mock Islam, itself has always portrayed Islam with reverence and those who Mock Islam as bad people.

      At the same time though it has mocked Christianity at every turn. Often in tone as we saw int that Bible Study scene, but sometimes going even further.

      • Debora

        There’ve been bad Muslim characters in the show too, like Nahida’s example of Sohail. Then there was the whole fiasco with Rayyan constantly battling the sexism of Muslim men.

      • Debora

        And those are Muslims actually being portrayed as bad people.

      • Steve

        Show me an example of a good Christian on this show.

      • Steve

        Was Yasir portrayed as bad when he (as a joke because this is supposed to be a comedy and I realize that) hoped that the Jesus statue would “Rise Up” and repair itself?

  43. Nahida

    There was so much outrage about Holly, but she was the equivalent of the unbearable convert.

    • Steve

      No, she wasn’t the equivalent of the unbearable convert. The convert was by definition a CONVERT and therefore was never expected to really represent the religion.

      The equivalent to Holly was supposed to Rayyan in their situations but of course not their outcomes.

      Rayyan knew Holly in College. But as Rayyan got more involved in her religion she kind of just abandoned her non-Muslim friends because she got so focused on Islam. She said she kind of regretted that she behaved that way in respect to just cutting herself off from people she had become friends with when she began college but just kind of left by the wayside when she got more interested in Islam and indeed she wished she would have treated Holly better.

      In comes Holly and well, guess what, she kind of did the same thing in college. For her of course it wasn’t Islam but Christianity.

      We can see from how they both turned out which was the better religion (at least in the show’s viewpoint).

      • Debora

        Steve, you’re the one who said Christianity is exclusive.

      • Steve

        Baber actually came to the defense of Holly, if you remember in the episode.

        Look if she is right and all non-Christians go to hell like she thinks they do then she wouldn’t be a good friend if she wasn’t trying to save Rayyan from that fate.

  44. Addie

    Being kinky is a sin in Christianity?? man it must SUCK to be christian. =P

    oh wait that reminds me. I don’t know if this is appropriate, but Nahida, isn’t masturbation against Islam??

    • Nahida

      Uuummm;; o___O …You better be asking me because I’m Muslim.

      It isn’t haraam (forbidden) but according to conservative scholars it’s discourageable. They recommend overcoming sexual urges with fasting (to calm them), and to use masturbation as an absolute last resort.

      I don’t see that this is very strongly supported in any religious text. I never particularly cared either way because it doesn’t really apply to me (I don’t need sensation)… but for people who do know how, I don’t believe there’s any evidence that they’re sinning in any extraordinary way. *shrug* As long as they aren’t doing something incredibly sinful at the same time of course.

      Being kinky is not against Islam, as long as it’s within a marriage.

      • Addie

        Hah, there’s that. i was also asking you because you say things like this

        But then I guess I’m never too impressed with the conversations people have when they date anyway, so maybe that’s my own issue. Seems people who date rely on contrived questions interested in superficial trivia (“What’s your favorite music genre? Have you been to Italy?”) that reflect nothing meaningful about the other person. They may potentially springboard into an intriguing discussion but usually occupy the territory of mind-numbing boredom with neither party making an effort.

        And it’s gold.

      • How about stuff like abortion?

        I believe Muslims are against that, right.

        The reason I asked is because I read on al Jazeera this Leftist and he was all hot and bothered about what was happening with the Komen thing and I was thinking why post that al Jazeera because I didn’t think the Muslims and the Leftists would ally on that.

        But then again this “Unholy Alliance” is going to be really torn to shreds when the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood stabs those Leftist Soros people in the back. I myself said back then, look out Soros is behind this and this is only the start. He wants it to spread to America. Well that we will see later this year come spring into summer but it is cool that the Brotherhood decided that they have got all they needed from the Soros crew and it is time to stab them in the back before Soros stabs them.

        The enemy of my enemy is my friend works as long as the enemy exist but once the enemy is defeated then for the “strange bedfellows” they are at each other’s throats.

        http://www.theblaze.com/stories/egypt-putting-19-americans-including-transportation-secs-son-on-trial-over-funds/

      • Addie

        They’re not against abortion until 3 months after the pregnancy, and they’re never against it in cases of rape. Duhh.

        Catholic Church used to be the same way.

        Some people here are just plain weird…

    • Nahida

      Tomorrow is Monday and I’ve done too little! I don’t have time to hang around here, but fyi the portrayal of converts on this show is hugely problematic in reinstating the unjust power dynamics within Islamic institutions that belittle those who weren’t born Muslim or don’t know Arabic but are genuinely faithful and sincerely good (more than some who were born Muslim).

      • Steve

        I think the point of the episode was that converts in general tend towards the extreme.

        Kind of like ex smokers being the most unbearable anti-smokers.

        Now, in regards to Holly I know you never said she was a convert but just so we are clear here Holly wasn’t a convert, at least I don’t believe the show said she was. It was just that college was a point of her life that she really looked into her faith and devoted herself to it. Same thing was going on at that point in Rayyan’s life. She had always been Muslim, but college was a point in her life that she really made a choice to make that religion hers instead of it just being something she grew up in. Before college she didn’t wear a hijab, but in college she started to. Not that one has to wear the hijab to be a Muslim, but that was just how things were for her.

      • Bill

        Here’s the episode.

      • Bill

        I have to say I think the main message of this episode is that White People Aren’t Spiritual and when they attempt to be, bad things happen. They are just so superficial and “Flighty” when it comes to Spiritual affairs.

      • Steve

        Just checked out the Convert episode and yeah I could see how it was offensive to the Muslims. Back in the first few seasons they did try to keep it a little bit balanced. It was supposed to be about Muslims who sometimes indeed weren’t the best at practicing their faith.

        It didn’t get to be until Thorne came that it totally became anti-Christian.

        Mind you it was never “pro-Christian”. It always showed Christians in a bad light. But it wasn’t as aggressively anti-Christian as it got to be later.

  45. Bill

    The Closest thing we had in this show to a “good Christian” is McGee but we never have seen him respectfully like doing some Christian religious practice, or praying or anything like that. In fact we often wondered if he even believed in his religion anymore (he seemed pretty burned out).

    We have seen however scenes where like Amaar has respectfully prayed. In fact there was this scene in the first episode where one of the first things that Amaar did when returning to Mercy was going to the Mosque and Pray. Thorne was seen as kind of an oaf for constantly interrupting Amaar as he was trying to have this religious experience.

    Contrast Amaar’s prayer scene in the first episode of this season with the Bible study scene people are talking about here and it is obvious how a show itself can adopt a referential as well as mocking tone in regards to ones religion.

    Look some may say that Baber is the balance to Thorne but where’s the balance to Amaar? And don’t say McGee because for one he isn’t on the show anymore and two he was a nice guy but mostly I remember him feeding the birds. He didn’t strike me as a real dynamic leader the way Amaar is.

    I realize one of the points of the show is that indeed Anglicanism is in the decline in Canada. It is a fact of modern life, and sure I guess the show should reflect that. But still that whole Bible Study scene really bothers me in how it really tended to mock the whole concept of the Bible study including the tone of voice Thorne used when reading Matthew 15:29-39, Mark 8:1-10 or Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17 or John 6:1-15 I am not quite sure which passage the show was referring to, though I am sure that they didn’t have the actor quote exactly but instead probably paraphrased just a general “Jesus feeds multitudes” thing they made up.

    I guess the closest thing to “Mocking Islam” would be how Thorne dressed all “Muslim” in that one episode. Never really got the point of why Baber and Thorne were trying to convince Amaar that Thorne had “gone Muslim”. I mean I know they were trying to deflect from messing up in front of that guy giving the “multifaith” award but still it was kind of unclear. And in fact you could see that scene as anti-Christian in that Thorne had such little commitment to Christianity it would take so little to push him over to become a Muslim, or even just to pretend to be Muslim.

    I still hope that Amaar will “dress Muslim” at some point. Perhaps as a bet. Okay, bet wrong word because Muslims don’t bet, I mean more to prove a point.

    • Steve

      I don’t know if this is a point that can be made in Mercy because well everyone knows everyone, but say in Toronto, when Rayyan walks down the street everyone knows she is Muslim. When Amaar does, no one knows he is. When Barber walks down the street everyone knows he is a Muslim.

      I have always said that one of the problems that some have with Hijab is that there is no male equivalent and if the man was required to wear a “Baber hat” i think people would not see the Hijab as so oppressive.

      But again, ultimately in the West it’s the woman’s decision.

      I guess I wonder when a woman wears a Hijab does she do so because otherwise she would feel “exposed” or is it just because she wants to wear a symbol of her faith, like a Christian would wear a cross. The show makes it out because it’s okay that a female sees her without Hijab and it is not Okay for a man to see her that way, it’s more comparable to be seeing without a shirt than it is compatible to just wearing a cross.

      And then I swear because that is how they perceive it then they do go out of their way to show Rayyan without Hijab. I don’t know if the word provocative would be appropriate, perhaps that is too extreme, but they think hey since technically there’s nothing wrong with Rayyan without Hijab in this scene lets do it. Perhaps exploitative would be best way to describe what they are doing.

      Of course when a female sees it, it doesn’t bother her, but as a male, and again because I respect “Rayyan” (again “suspension of disbelief” for you Lit majors I know she isn’t real) it does bother me.

      And yeah, getting back to the convert episode that apron bothers me as well. There is something known as Innuendo and that certainly was more than innuendo. I guess in the end I could be “unbothered”. I could “get used to it” as it were but shouldn’t there be a general standard we all maintain. Even if the eggs were made to look like breasts, I guess I shouldn’t let that bother me (again referring to the convert episode above) for a topless women doesn’t have to be lewd I guess. On issues of “exposure” and such I realize context is everything,

      • Nahida

        Even if the eggs were made to look like breasts, I guess I shouldn’t let that bother me (again referring to the convert episode above)

        Uhhm yes you should. It was meant to be offensive. That was the point.

        I don’t understand why you people find completely casual things like Rayaan’s hair or breastfeeding provocative or uncomfortable, but when something is blatantly and intentionally offensive you’re going on about getting used to it. There’s a difference. It was lewd!

        To pixelate Rayaan’s hair would be to draw attention to the fact that there is an audience watching her. That’s creepy. And in that approach, treating it as though she were exposed, the show would have mischaracterized the nature hi’jab as a practice and reduced its religious meaning to the confinement of sexuality.

        Not that the show been very good at demonstrating what hi’jab is in the past.

      • Steve

        Okay, if you want me to be honest like I said I found the whole egg thing offensive. Even though in other situations I have seen actual topless women and treated it in the spirit it was intended (in those cases not sexualized).

        Gosh, I can’t figure out what I am allowed to find offensive and not offensive. “Meant to be lewd” means I am interpreting another person’s intentions which is something I thought I wasn’t supposed to do.

        I also found that baby hat in the shape of a nipple offensive. I guess I am not offended by breast feeding in general but in my whole “context” belief I guess I do believe in it being done as discretely as possible depending upon the location/situation.

        Again I guess my basic question is how do women who do wear Hijab feel when they are without Hijab. Is it a “without shirt” type of feeling as they make it out to be in this show?

      • Steve

        “Uhhm yes you should. It was meant to be offensive. That was the point.”

        Yeah but so much offensive stuff goes on in society you get to wonder sometimes when you should bend and just accept something. I blame the Left as they are the ones who are typically the ones who try to provoke.

        I try to accept all style of clothing as much as possible (including jewelry) believing that in a free society people should be allowed their appearance to the greatest extent possible. But I did find that apron a little much.

        But then again I was also watching a foreign show so in that respect I also had my “don’t judge” hat on. I feel less inclined to make such a judgment when we are talking about another society (although with Canada we are so very similar it is hard to to remember at times).

        One of the things I was wondering about is should we even consider BS a swear word anymore. After all it means is excrement or “crap” and we can say Bull Crap so why such a taboo on a word that is in essence just a synonym to that word. Perhaps it is just part of society evolution for S- and BS- to become acceptable.

        I don’t feel the same way about F-. I think that still should be a swear word. I am surprised that at least in our country B- is now a swear word. I don’t think it was a generation ago. And of course N- should never even be thought off much less uttered.

        It is interesting how words get on and off the swear word list. Okay I know that was a major detour from the subject at hand but it does have to do about what is and isn’t considered acceptable in society.

        By the way, did you know that uttering swear words seem to increase one’s tolerance to pain. I saw this on “Mythbusters” and they actually confirmed it. Now I have totally gone off subject I know.

  46. Steve

    Okay for a man to see her that way, it’s more comparable to be seeing without a shirt than it is compatible to just wearing a cross.

    I said that incorrectly. Is not wearing a Hijab for a female more like being without a shirt (which of course most women would be extremely embarrassed by) or is it more like a Christian woman who always wears a cross, for whatever reason being seen not wearing the cross necklace (which wouldn’t be embarrassing to her).

    Here’s a question. Rayyan didn’t wear a Hijab in her high school years. Does her mom have any photographs of her then and if so does Rayyan forbid her from showing those photographs?

  47. Bil

    I believe that Hijab is supposed to represent a sense of modesty in the Female.

    I have always found the term “modesty” strange because what could be more “modest” than being totally without clothes. In effect saying this is who I am…

    But as Steve said, context is everything.. Being provocative can certainly be transmitted through how one is dressed, but I don’t think it’s merely about how much is exposed.

    Not in this society unfortunately but I do believe that a woman could be modest and topless.

    This issue is so much culturally based. Like that Egyptian lady, I did find it offensive, not so much because of what she wasn’t wearing, but because what she was. Had she been a “classical nude” it wouldn’t bother me.

    • KelsShels

      Not in this society unfortunately but I do believe that a woman could be modest and topless.

      This issue is so much culturally based. Like that Egyptian lady, I did find it offensive, not so much because of what she wasn’t wearing, but because what she was. Had she been a “classical nude” it wouldn’t bother me.

      How do you decide something like that?

      Nahida’s gotten a lot of grief for the header on her site. (Don’t know if you’ve seen it.) People say it’s “provocative” but it’s just something she does every day. So it’s like a signature. And it also serves the purpose of communicating in feminist language to other feminists where she stands.

      If someone decides it’s immodest, it doesn’t mean it is. It just means they’re so self-centered they don’t see its other purposes among women.

  48. Nahida

    Oh, PLEASE. The next time I see a man in sweats I’ll be sure to act absolutely INDIGNANT, like he’s just assaulted my eyes.

    Any man with a low voice is hereby forbidden to speech lest he sound suggestive to me. Even if he’s just trying to ask me the time, or talk about quantum physics. I mean, seriously, what a slut.

    • Steve

      Now that could be a comedy act. The guy who says things in a suggestive way “by accident”. It’s just the tone of his voice. (the joke would be indeed that’s just how he speaks regardless of who he is talking to).

      But then it’s your side that says that the intent of the person saying the thing DOESN’T MATTER. It’s the INTERPRETATION (of course when you say it you mean the woman’s interpretation of the man not other way around).

      So in this hypothetical, it’s just the guys fate due to his low voice to be convicted of harassment.

      What you just said in JEST is indeed how it really is. Such a guy WOULD BE FORBIDDEN TO SPEAK.

      Because you know the Left. THEY NEVER GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. NOT EVER!

      • Cece

        What?

        Are you saying that the amount of sexual policing that REALLY happens to women EVERY DAY is equal to the number of men falsely accused of being suggestive every day?

        Why aren’t men having Slutwalks?

      • Steve

        I guess I don’t believe it when a man says “it was what the woman was wearing”. I see that as just a lame excuse to justify unjustifiable behavior.

        The reason men don’t have slut walks is because men are stronger than women (in general) and therefore it is easier for a man to rape a woman than the other way around. So indeed rape is a problem predominately for women (though I guess gay males could rape other weaker males though I haven’t heard any case of some gay doing that and blaming it on how the other male dressed).

        Look I am all with you on the whole slut walk thing.

        But as to the harassment thing, it is almost always used against males. Even when like the male doesn’t really mean it.

        In the show to the show’s credit by the way this is shown by the character of Fred. He often calls Females “Toots” but it is obvious that he is not trying to seduce them in any way when he says it. But you can bet, in the real world some woman would sue him for it.

      • Cece

        No, she wouldn’t. Only if he continued after she asked him to stop. But none of the women asked him. Fred calling a woman “toots” isn’t meant to be seductive but that doesn’t mean it isn’t meant to be DEGRADING and hostile. That’s what harassment, assault, and rape is about. It is not about attraction.

        Look, I don’t know what your life experience is or whatever, or where you’re getting these ideas, but that’s not how laws work: https://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/sexual-harassment-policies-on-campus/

        You’re allowed to flirt, or send flowers, or even tell a woman she looks nice, but it’s not harassment until you won’t stop after she asks you to.

      • Cece

        The reason men don’t have slut walks is because men are stronger than women (in general) and therefore it is easier for a man to rape a woman than the other way around.

        No, men don’t have slutwalks because when women rape men they don’t say it was something he was wearing. My point is that men do that WAY MORE to women (ruin their lives [via rape] because of what they’re wearing/saying/acting). That’s why Nahida can joke about reacting to a guy who’s not doing anything. Because men accuse women who are not really doing anything WAY MORE than women accuse men of it.

        It’s not about being seductive. It’s about wanting to degrade someone. Steve, you don’t understand how “toots” can be offensive even when it’s not used to seduce (there was a show where rayyaan actually mentioned it in passing) because there is no male equivalent. A word that can be degrading in itself/ Women don’t even behave with the entitlement to men for there to be an equivalent. You could argue that women try to seduce men more than we think because men don’t see it as assault and report it, but neither do women until the guy REALLY DOESN’T STOP.

        If it was about seducing, maybe women do try to seduce men as much as men try to seduce women. But we live in a culture that doesn’t recognize that as something bad. And you’re accustomed to it with social conditioning. Like, if Nahida (Nahida if you’re here forgive me for bringing this up) really HAD acted on her thoughts and made any sort of advance, you probably wouldn’t think of it as harassment/assault even if she was being really really aggressive. Maybe you’d be right not to, since like you said men are stronger and you could easily overpower her if you really wanted her to stop. But what matters is that it’s a double standard, a dangerous one since not all men are strong.

        So yeah while there are advantages and disadvantages, the advantage of body/behavior policing is something that MEN have over women. A disadvantage for men would be that they’re even LESS likely to be believed if they’re raped, but men ruin women’s lives with rape saying she was dressed/acting a certain way way more than women ruin men’s lives by saying he was dressed/acting a suggestive way.

      • Nahida

        I have a cold. (In spring!) Partly dizzy, so thanks Cece for representing my perspective. And think nothing of it, I like people with a bit of chutzpah. =P …Also that was Facebook where I said it… are you stalking me? xD It’s all good, I prefer you to other, creepier stalkers.

        Men are conditioned to have some sort of sense of entitlement over women, and women are conditioned to believe it’s natural or even healthy. An example of this that drives me batshit insane is a woman defending her man who watches pornography (even when it’s obvious that it bothers her!), even being naive enough to believe that there AREN’T any men who don’t watch pornography, or allowing him to gawk at other women because she’s been taught MEN ARE CRAZY SEX FANATICS IF YOU DON’T LET THEM GAWK IT IS ABUSIVE AND THEY WILL EXPLODE ZOMG. That women have been convinced that we are being unreasonable to expect anything more, that such behavior is natural, necessary, and even beneficial to a man’s health is the height of successful patriarchal brainwashing.

        What it’s also done is left everyone, men included, confused about acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Feminist propositions sound absurd partly because men have forgotten these standards over years of patriarchal brainwashing and partly because those who do know them damn well don’t want to surrender gawking privileges.

        But most good people are just unsure. And so then I end up having to explain crap like this.

        Gosh, I can’t figure out what I am allowed to find offensive and not offensive. “Meant to be lewd” means I am interpreting another person’s intentions which is something I thought I wasn’t supposed to do.

        No, Steve. NO. Fatima was IN YOUR FACE. This is the difference. It is obvious, and common sense. It is a taste that society needs to re-acquire. If she were wearing that apron while minding her own business, then it is not offensive. Then you are not supposed to judge her intentions of why the hell she would wear that apron. Once she has INVOLVED another party, it is offensive. Once she has INVOLVED another party, her intentions are clear. The convert even COMMENTED on the apron and she said “I know.” She said I KNOW. Good God, Steve, taking precautions doesn’t mean letting your brains fall out!

        In any place it’s the difference between looking and leering. I don’t mind being looked at. A brief glance, a sideways stare, is acceptable and excusable, as opposed to lecherous gawking. As long as they aren’t leering, and as long as they stay the hell out of my way. (ie Don’t think they’re entitled to anything, my time or an insufferable conversation.) Without objectification or entitlement, there is in fact a tasteful way to look. Finding someone sexually appealing is not the same as objectifying them (seriously WHERE did this misconception come from?): the objectifying happens when you stop seeing them as human, and part of the way this is demonstrated is–as Cece mentioned–that you don’t listen when they tell you to stop, because you are entitling your desires over theirs: over their own desires, comfort, or space. You think you’re more human than they are, because they’ve become an object.

        Fatima can walk around wearing the egg apron all she wants, and no, we are not entitled to interpret this or judge her. It’s when she actively involves someone else–that is two human beings, not just her–and that is what she was doing. Once she has involved you in what she is wearing (and not just happening to be wearing it), you can tell her to leave you alone if you find it distasteful. But that’s it: you are telling her to leave you alone–protecting your own rights, not infringing on her’s.

      • Nahida

        What Cece has said, essentially, is that there hasn’t been a man who has been told, “You are forbidden to speak because your voice is SO DAMN SEXY.”

        But there have been SEVERAL women. Some of them fired from jobs for being “too attractive.”

      • Cece

        YES. Thank you, Nahida, that’s what I was trying to get at with the whole “then why don’t men have slutwalks” thing.

        ps It’s not stalking if you subscribe. =P

      • Nahida

        Because you know the Left. THEY NEVER GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. NOT EVER!

        It’s totally the Left who’s always all like, “Yeah, that guy’s totally a terrorist. Because he has a beard and he’s sitting by the exit and shit.”

        “Woman makes zombie joke, forgets she’s Muslim; outrage ensues”

        And who is GRACED enough to receive the benefit of the doubt from the Right, Steve?

        Not a 17-year-old with Skittles in his pocket, but the guy who shot him sure does.

        Imam Suhaib Webb must be a terrorist because he got non-Muslim kids to pray once and has relations to an Islamic school not entirely rooted in the US.

        If there’s a book being sold that was written in 19th century British India that a number of Muslims have purchased it is suddenly horrifying news, despite the fact that there are SEVERAL books written in the same time period with objectable material that are still sold in bookstores and are present in the libraries of a number of people. No suspicion there about why this is miraculously a news article. No benefit of the doubt. Half the people who own that book haven’t even read it. It’s a thing to have, or pass on as a gift. Like fruitcake.

        Do you know what a right-winger told me while I was sobbing over the death of a Muslim mother of five who had fled Iraq because her Shi’a family was being persecuted by Saddam Hussein, whose husband and brothers had even helped the US Military as cultural advisors, and who had been repeatedly and brutally beaten over the head with a tire iron and left in a pool of her own blood for her 17-year-old daughter to find beside a note that read, “Go back to your own country, you terrorist”? That it was probably a Muslim who did that to her and framed someone else so they could “conveniently” blame Islamophobia.

        Where was the benefit of the doubt then? But I’m sure he was just being cruel because that is what the Left would do (even out the ground right!), and I deserved it for whatever reason I have yet to understand. I’m sure the reproductive health care panel in which women were barred from speaking was also a fault of the Left. I can’t talk to you about any social justice issue, Steve, because you IMPULSIVELY drag irrelevant politics into it, but I’m sure even that is because of the Left.

      • Nahida

        You know, Cece, the first time I realized men are generally stronger wasn’t until I was around 18 when one of them playfully grabbed me and demanded that I escape (he was showing me how.) I mean I always knew they were generally stronger, obviously, but I guess it didn’t really hit me what that MEANT. There I was, alone with him, struggling to get away while his arms were locked around me, and I was suddenly aware of how frighteningly vulnerable I was and how easily he could overpower me. The realization was overwhelming. I mean, he wasn’t even really trying. And he was AVERAGE for a man. I started to squirm; it worked a little, he wasn’t used to holding down a woman’s figure, but essentially it ended up in me bringing myself to the floor. “Bad move,” he said. “You just made it easier for me.”

        “It doesn’t really matter how strong you are. You just have to know how. It’s all strategy.” And he showed me how to twist free, how to force him to let go. Then he added, “But strength doesn’t hurt. Go punch something.”

        The only bright side to this is that when a man tells me to stop (if we’re playing and I’m overpowering him) I can say “Make me,” and it’s safe because he actually can. Though of course I’d still pay careful attention to if he’s serious.

        The rest just sucks.

      • Cece

        Heh!! I have FIVE BROTHERS! We wrestled all the time as kids, and I think I can still take out two of them! xD I got lots of practice. Everything was a competition. One time our mom was in the hospital and we entertained ourselves by going outside and made a game using sticks. .___.

        I guess now kids just pull out their phones. =P

      • Steve

        “Not a 17-year-old with Skittles in his pocket, but the guy who shot him sure does.”

        Trust me Nahida, you SO DON’T WANT TO GO THERE!

        I don’t think I have ever been more outraged.

        The media portrayed the shooter as “White” but in truth he was an Hispanic Spanish speaker and a Democrat to boot.

        This one thing could literally tear this country apart at its seems.

        I am really holding my tongue on this one with you Nahida. Trust me Nahida you so don’t want to go there with me.

      • Nahida

        *snort* I’ll go wherever the hell I want. I don’t give a DAMN what the MEDIA is saying or whether he speaks Spanish!! All I know is that he is a CONFESSED MURDERER and the Right made up all the excuses they could possibly think of to excuse him!! Geraldo Rivera said the HOODIE IS JUST AS RESPONSIBLE. (That’s who never gets the benefit of the doubt. That’s who’s slutshamed–women and minority men [even when they’ve been shot by another minority who’s closer to a white phenotype!]) I’ve read the comments section on the Blaze and speculations about whether the kid was suspended from school as though it were relevant. I’ve heard conservatives say that the prick who shot him wouldn’t have been confused if it weren’t a MIXED NEIGHBORHOOD. WTF is that supposed to mean?! Zimmerman GOT OUT OF HIS CAR AND WENT AFTER HIM. He made up stories even after spewing a racial slur over the phone! And all anyone could do was go out of the way to deny it when it’s CLEAR what he said. It’s absolutely UNDENIABLE. I would NEVER be given this much of a chance. And I don’t WANT to be given it.

        I would throw that scumbag out–DEMOCRAT or not. You’re the one who won’t admit the Right has racist douchecanoes who defend his actions by telling Black and Latino parents not to let their kids wear hoodies or looking up Martin’s high school records! (No, racists are all on the Left.) The media? That’s where you’re taking this?! Hispanic? Seriously?! I don’t care what he is–I care that he’s racist, and a murderer! Get your politics out of my social justice; What the media says, what Zimmerman is, is entirely IRRELEVANT to the point brought up about who gets the benefit of the doubt. The Right has shown with whom they sympathize. Do you refuse to acknowledge this while simultaneously holding the Left accountable for everything?

        Steve, I am not going to dance around your feelings because you can’t control your rage. If you’re afraid you’re going to descend to personal attacks then stop speaking to me! That’s YOUR responsibility.

      • Steve

        Okay, Nahida you asked for it.

        Don’t go crying when it’s all over.

        I will not post my comments now because I really have to do something else but when I do they will be quite a mouthful.

        I will promise to get to it soon but it will take time and I am working on another project.

        Frankly, Burn Zimmerman in the streets. He’s one of yours anyway so I guess he gets what he deserves.

        But he wasn’t a racist. All the evidence coming out is finding out the exact opposite.

        And he wasn’t White. But why let facts get in the way of a good narrative.

      • Nahida

        Don’t go cry– Seriously? What was that, Steve?

        I just TOLD YOU I know he isn’t white! (That’s so petty!) You have selective reading–when it’s beneficial.

        He appointed himself to the neighborhood watch during which he called the police 42 times, deliberately ignored an order to NOT pursue the kid, said “fucking coons”, went after a 17 year old who was just going home and weighed 140lbs, and shot the kid and THEN tried to say it was self-defense! And that isn’t racist?

        You know what, Steve, save your time. I’m not waiting around to hear it. The last ounce of faith I had in you when you indicated you were examining the case to give him leeway even if he’s a registered democrat died abruptly when you assigned a political label to his sentence as a reason for why he deserved it–not because he’s a murderer, because he’s a democrat. Oh I almost admired the thoroughness directed even at the rival party–until you said that. So have a nice life. It would be best you did, rather than waste time conversing with a Leftist.

      • Laura

        Uh, okay, wow.

        Conservative here. I’m not going to comment on the issue, but I just want to say that, Steve, I REALLY, REALLY like Nahida. I think I’ve made that clear before. I like her because she has faith in people, like she just said. Even in that last comment where she’s angry, she sounds kind of compassionate. And she doesn’t assume things about other people. Two times, this one and the thread about Limbaugh, she didn’t just assume you had a specific position on the issue because you’re a Right-winger. You said that you criticize Republicans, and she takes your word for it. She only brought up how the Right was reacting toward the victim after you brought up the Left with the whole benefit of the doubt thing. She said she prefers issues to politics, and yeah it actually shows. She doesn’t talk in terms of politics, she doesn’t talk to the Right, she talks to YOU. But when you talk to her, you act like you’re talking to the Left. You told her not to “go there” but she wasn’t actually going anywhere with you. She was going somewhere with the Right. After you said something about the Left.

        I think I could get along with Nahida. It’s all how you bring it up. I also thought about how Zimmerman wasn’t white. That’s probably what I would have said to her, and she would have said I know but that’s not the point, he killed someone it’s weird to focus on whether he’s white… we might have gotten somewhere. She seems to be saying it’s a hate crime because he’s racist (assuming he’s racist), not because he’s white. I agree. I wish more people were like her, and I wish you wouldn’t act like you were talking to the Left. Because she doesn’t act like she’s talking to the Right. She doesn’t resort to politics.

      • Laura

        Oh, man. She’s coming back right?

      • Aiden

        Is anyone else amazed that Nahida can still “admired the thoroughness directed even at the rival party”? I didn’t even notice that about Steve.

        But it’s true, he did.

        Man, the woman can pick up subtleties. She DOES see good things about people that others miss.

      • Steve

        Oh, Laura, I haven’t even begun yet.

        You know I like Nahida too but there seems to be two Nahida’s here. Nahida the person who I like and Nahida the ideology who I can’t stand. When I was talking about “the Left never gives people the benefit of the doubt, I was specifically thinking of Zimmerman. From the start the facts didn’t matter. There was a rush to judgment. A purposeful rush to judgment. A rush to judgment for political aims.

        From the beginning it was all about how this white racist cracker gunned down this poor innocent 12 year old kid. Oh, they didn’t say he was only 12 but they only showed pictures of him from that age so that was the image of him that they wanted people to have instead of the truth of him being a strong athletic built almost adult (he was 17 and like I said it wasn’t so much that they reported his age incorrectly but it was the kid image they promoted).

        And even as the truth came out they didn’t care. Damn it they had already bought the signs. They had the t-shirts all made up. They weren’t going to let facts stand in the way. It was found out that Zimmerman was Hispanic. Damn, but too late must still go with the narrative. We will create a new racial category called White Hispanic (would that make Obama a White African American since his mother was a white descendent of slave owners? )

        They said he said a racial term on the 9-11 calls. Except we are to find out that the words were unclear. Moreover he had family that were black. One of his best friends was black (and pretty radical himself it seems) and vouched for him saying that he even tutored black teens (which means that he probably wouldn’t have been influenced by the stereotype everyone assumed he was). So obviously he wasn’t the type to utter such words. And in a final blow to the narrative, he was far from a Right wing white militia type Obama hater. He was a registered Democrat. Damn, Damn Damn, No matter we will just go with it regardless of the facts. Zimmerman is a white who was motivated by racial reasons.

        Nahida criticized him for joining the Neighborhood watch to protect his white neighborhood from crime (um the neighborhood is 40 percent black but away damn facts). You know its the poor and middle class that is most effected by such crime. So he was wrong to want to protect his community? And then she criticized him for calling 9-11 so many times? Hello? He was neighborhood watch. You are supposed to call 911 a lot when you are on neighborhood watch.

        The one thing that he seemed to do wrong was that he followed after the 911 operator said “We don’t need you to do that”. Mind you the operator didn’t say Don’t follow him. Just that it wasn’t necessary. Look, I don’t know why he followed. But what we have come to find out that eventually stopped following and returned to his car, but Trayvon doubled back and confronted him saying “You have a problem”? Zimmerman said “no”. Trayvon said “You do now” and started beating on him. And remember Trayvon wasn’t that 12 year old kid you see on the photos. No he was pretty physically tough. Somewhere along the line the gun got out and Trayvon reached for it but the rest we are not sure about but it would seem that Zimmerman got the gun and shot Trayvon.

        So, from the start we had been proved a false narrative for this case. From the start fact after fact has come out disputing the narrative. Yet Nahida seemed to stick with this narrative despite all of that. Not considering for one moment that Zimmerman is anything but a racist.

        Look, if I knew Nahida personally I think I would have liked her at the start but in the end ideology would get in the way.

        Where she sees a hate crime I see another Tawana Brawley (yeah I know before both of your times SO LOOK IT UP THAT’S WHAT THE INTERNET IS FOR). There is just no way that we can relate to each other when look at the same thing yet see something different. We as a society are divided to a point there is no way to reach agreement on anything.

        Besides the whole term “hate crime” I have always found extremely offensive. I remember talking to someone one night on the net whose friend he said was killed as a victim of a hate crime. I looked the crime up and found out that it was actually a mugging. I forwarded him the information and he agreed. His friend did not die as a result of a hate crime. So I snidely said to him that he must feel so much better now knowing that his friend didn’t die of a hate crime. Yeah I can be somewhat mean at times. His response was that of course it didn’t make him feel better. His friend died a horrific violent death. I concurred.

        You said “that’s not the point, he killed someone it’s weird to focus on whether he’s white… “ Of course it maters. The sad thing is that black teens die. Most often at the hands of other black teens. You don’t hear Obama giving sympathies to their parents. I guess their murders were less horrific because it wasn’t a so called hate crime.

        Look when you politicize crime and that is what you are doing by deeming some crimes “hate” you devalue people’s lives.

        You are saying my life is less worthy if I die because a black kills me (because black on white murders are RARELY prosecuted as hate crimes even when the racial motivation is so obvious). But forget me, after all white people deserve what they get because of slavery (even though I have looked through my family tree and no one had ever owned slaves in my family. Obama’s mom’s ancestors owned slaves. Hell, his Kenyan father’s family where probably the ones who caught their fellow Africans to be loaded on the ships) so forget me. You lessen the worth of every black who has ever died on Black and Black crime!

        It doesn’t terrify Nahida that people don’t want to see Zimmerman arrested but instead they have set up a bounty to give him street justice. That doesn’t seem to bother her. The fact that they gave out Zimmerman’s home address, no problem. By the way they gave out the WRONG address! (like everything else so far it seems like facts don’t matter). There was this poor elderly couple (not sure of the race) who were terrorized because of that. I hope they sue!

        Look, even before this we knew that the STREETS ARE GOING TO BURN this summer. The American Left has made that promise. In fact this is just part of that. I do have enough concern for Nahida and I say this to everyone. Hunker down this summer. Do not go out to any city center. Keep supplies on hand! Stay at home as much as possible

        Gosh, I have so much that I feel about this. I don’t know if I was able to get it all out in this. I didn’t even get into the DC snipper yet (was that before your time).

      • Laura

        ait, wasn’t white hispanic one racial category since years ago? I remember filling out test forms and it was included as one racial category TEN YEARS ago.

        Well anyway, Nahida never said any of the stuff you just said she did. She didn’t say he shouldn’t have been on neighborhood watch, she said he SELF-APPOINTED, and that he lied. This is what I’m talking about. You’re not talking to HER, you’re acting like you’re talking to the Left. She never said someone’s life is less valued when they’re not a victim of a hate crime. And if he said “coons” then that’s pretty racist, unquestionably. But I don’t really care about that. I mean, I don’t care if he WAS racist or if he wasn’t because what matters to me is the OUTCOME. I don’t care what his intention was, he killed someone.

        I don’t know about all the other stuff you said, if he came back to beat him and stuff. Then yeah, that would be self-defense.

        I don’t see two Nahidas, I just see one. I would like her if I knew. And I think you would too. I don’t think her ideology would get in the way at the end. I think she’s such a good person that I really wouldn’t care. She outshines politics, you know? And she really cares about people.

        I think what happens is that you’ve got baggage, and she’s got baggage, and someone strikes and it all goes down from there because of rhetoric without understanding each other.

        I mean, look at this,

        The last ounce of faith I had in you when you indicated you were examining the case to give him leeway even if he’s a registered democrat died abruptly when you assigned a political label to his sentence as a reason for why he deserved it–not because he’s a murderer, because he’s a democrat.

        I don’t know what makes you do it, Steve, but I think this is what frustrates her about you. And yet she still notices the ways that you’re being generous, even if in the end the outcome is that you care more about the political “label” or whatever.

      • Grant

        Look, I am not naive to another reason that the Black Race baters choose this case.

        ZIMMERMAN.

        Look, I might not get out to see much of the world (though actually I have seen more of the world than I thought I would have) but I do “travel” daily throughout the world on the Internet. So I am up on what is happening in other parts of the world. I have been talking to a lot of Russians and they can’t go two sentences without Zionist this, Jew That. And of course we heard about what happened with those killing of those Jews in France. Anti-semintism hasn’t been so high around the world since the 1930s. Perhaps even more so. I swear it seems like they are about to open up concentration camps in Russia and France isn’t much better. If I was a Jew I would get out of Europe IMMEDIATELY.

        In United States of course the Blacks hate Jews. You have Jessie Jackson’s comments calling New York “Hymie Town” (yeah before your time). You had what happened with the Crown Heights Riots (yeah before your time again) and Reverend Wright (not before your time).

        So, this wasn’t only a case of a white shooting a black (which wasn’t but they just jumped to conclusions because of the name and they are sticking to the narrative despite the facts). No this was a case of a WHITE JEW!

        A lot of this is coming from the anti-semetism which is at the heart of the black community. I am glad I am not a Jew. I have never seen anti-semtism been so strong. Not in my lifetime. And it rivals even the 1930s (and we know what that led to).

      • KelsShels

        That’s exactly what the problem is, Laura. It’s rhetoric.

        Steve, Nahida has actually said HALF the things you just wrote. She said that EXACT line about Obama extending sympathies to Treyvon’s family to me right after she saw the video of him doing it.

        But Obama’s on the Left, so when she criticizes these things she doesn’t tell YOU (what good would that do?) she tells the LEFT, because they’re the ones who need to cut it out. You probably do the same. You don’t complain to her about the Right, you complain to the Right about the Right. So you end up thinking she doesn’t know or care about things, and she ends up thinking the same about you.

      • Steve

        But Laura, the intend is everything. Without Zimmerman being a racist the whole narrative, the whole reason for the outrage falls apart. The death itself is merely secondary. It’s not important that the kid died. What is important is that Zimmerman is racist.

        See, how “hate crimes” even diminish the lives of the victims of the crime. It’s time that we stop politicizing crime by even charging people with “hate crimes”. All crimes are crimes of hate. Is anyone less dead if the motivation ISN’T racism.

        It really seems in this case that Zimmerman wasn’t racist. He came from a racially diverse family. He had black friends. And I don’t mean in the way White Liberals have “black friends” as bric a brac. But true friends willing to come out despite all the hate and stand by him. I see no indication from his past that he ever held hatred towards blacks.

        As for Trayvon, however his twitter posts have been very revealing about HIS attitudes.

        But like I said. Zimmerman ain’t one of ours, so if you want to crucify him then whatever. I am not going die on that hill for him. Serves him right for being a Democrat to become a victim of what he has had an hand in bringing about.

        I have an idea. What about take a tire, Fill it with gasoline. Put it around Zimmerman and set it aflame.

        Yeah, I know the reference is before your time but it is called “Necklacing”.

      • Grant

        I have a better idea Steve.

        They should force Zimmmerman’s mouth upon some car’s exhaust pipe. And then like he would die from gas asphyxiation.

        Get it! He would die just like the Jew he is!

        Are we really surprised seeing this happen during Obama’s Administration? After all he went to Reverend Wrights Church for over two decades!

      • Laura

        Okay. I emailed Nahida and told her what you wrote, because I was afraid she wasn’t coming back. So I said some stuff and then pasted your comments into the email. This is what she wrote to me,

        Laura, thank you for emailing me. I really wasn’t going to come back. I was expecting bullshit. What a pleasant surprise. How deeply moving Steve’s comments are! I could have kissed him. You know, until the absurd political vengefulness. I still don’t see any point in returning, however; I don’t have anything to directly say to Steve.

        For you, however–there was an enormous weight difference between the victim and the guy who shot him. There’s a fake picture of the victim circulating, that really just looks goofy (and not at all intimidating) even if it weren’t fake. He was with his girlfriend on the phone right before he was shot, she testified, so he couldn’t have returned to physically assault Zimmerman. I would have afforded that story more gravity if the same people telling it weren’t smearing the victim for being an average normal teenager writing stupid shit on Twitter, while Zimmerman is previously recorded to have assaulted a police officer. And the weight of the outrage is that he was not arrested for murder. I don’t care as much that he was racist, either, Laura. The kid’s dead, and I care that there was no justice. That is a systematic issue. I question why Zimmerman wasn’t arrested (a larger, serious failure of our justice system) more than what motivated him to pursue the kid (which may be reflective of a systematic issue but in context is merely individual).

        Hope you’re well. Love, Nahida

      • Laura

        She’s coooooming she’s cooooming! =D

      • Nahida

        @Laura, LOL!! Nice to know I’ve got an announcer. 😉

        Steve, a while ago you left a comment on TFF asking why I allowed women who were victims of violence from Muslim men to so blatantly, honestly, and unapologetically express their experiences, and why, when you do it, it’s Islamophobia. I’d rolled my eyes then, discarded it dismissively (partly because I didn’t want to interrupt the conversation where these women were describing their horrific experiences; my primary concern is to make a space for them where they can do this without worrying about politics), because I didn’t believe anyone who needed to ask something like that was capable of removing politics from people’s real suffering or understanding the dynamics of dual identity. The violence surrounding Muslim women and “honor killings” is a highly politicized one; it efficiently silences the victim because her identity as a Muslim is simultaneously marginalized with the abuser’s, who (because he is male) is perceived as a more valid representation of the religion (so essentially she cannot speak without hurting herself along with him), and it removes her completely from the focus of justice to exploit her for political agendas from racial frameworks. Her own interests become secondary.

        “Honor killings” (perhaps like hate crimes) are only called so when Muslims commit them. When non-Muslim men murder their wives or girlfriends because they suspect adultery or “sexually deviant” behavior, or even just for pissing them off, it’s not called an “honor killing” even though the context of societally expected female purity and obedience is consistent. But when a particular demographic is the target group, the violence is sensationalized and the victim is removed for the sake of political weaponry. If that weren’t bad enough, in the pursuit of justice she carries the burden of reaffirming the stereotypes that hurt her too. Instead a lot of the time she just shuts up, preferring to endure the violence rather than endure becoming politicized by those who erase her voice and interpret her experience for themselves.

        When only the victims speak, without having to worry about their words being scrutinized by political interests, the focus they deserve is restored. They are freed from the burden of being unfairly held accountable for perpetuating racist stereotypes by turning in the abusers, they are freed from the preoccupation that their interests will be erased and deemed secondary by a larger political analysis that does not value the identities they hold dearly close to them or recognize the identity as a birthright that is as rightfully the victim’s, and they are freed from the concern that their voices will be erased and misconstrued to fit a political narrative that villanizes a race. Only those who are foremost affected, and not third parties who are swayed by political interests, critique that respective area (domestic violence) of their communities.

        You can draw parallels: I haven’t recovered from this cold.

      • Steve

        Um, there are no parallels Nahida.

        For one thing Honor Killings aren’t illegal in America no do I think they should be.

      • Laura

        I see parallels!!!! (Not sure what Steve just said. She’s talking about the POLITICAL NARRATIVE in the way they’re reported when they happen in America, like race / religion is relevant when it isn’t and it erases the victim.)

        I can see it but I can’t articulate it as well as you! But I get what you’re saying, Nahida.

      • Laura

        And like that narrative removes the victim and makes them secondary like this one removes the victim and makes him secondary to politics.

        Nahida, you make my brain happy. Have I told you? =P

      • Aiden

        Yeah, I see them too. Holy crap.

        Like, what drives men who happen to not be Muslim to murder their wives/gfs if they’re suspected of cheating are the same social expectations of women’s sexuality that drive Muslim men to do it (in the same country) but when reported only ONE of the two is reported as an honor killing. That erases the victim by making it explode into a larger obscure political frame. Even though the first one is an honor killing too, and that type is always an honor killing.

        So THIS is reported as a hate crime, erasing the victim for political purpose, even though this type is always a hate crime regardless of race.

      • Steve

        I am just wondering how long I should let the sit.

        Yeah I wrote it in a way that is just aching for misinterpretation.

        What you don’t think that if a man kills his wife he should go to jail that’s outrageous. Right…

        That’s of course not what I said. I said that Honor Killing in America isn’t illegal in America in America and I don’t think it should be.

        What I mean by that of course isn’t that I don’t think a guy should go to jail for killing his wife, girlfriend, daughter. I think that person should get the maximum.

        And when I said Honor Killing in America isn’t illegal I certainly don’t mean that it is legal for a man to kill his wife, daughter, girlfriend. But there it’s the KILLING that is illegal, as it should be.

        A prosecutor doesn’t go and try to find out why the guy did the killing to like add additional charges. Would it be only for Muslim men since Honor Killings are typically crimes we label on Muslim men? That indeed would be politicizing the crime. The focus needs to be on the harm – on the murder.

        So no “honor killing” isn’t a term for a crime with harsher penalties and all of that. It is a term that the Press sometimes uses and yeah the term has political implications. And yeah it is used mostly in regards to Muslims but I remember I saw a video, I think it was a National Geographics a while back that described a “non Muslim” honor killing like I don’t know some backwater European country, but yeah, it’s typically applied to Muslims.

        Again, it’s not a legal term like “hate crime” is and when it is used I believe that it is used in part to signify that the crime has some social acceptance in the community. And that seems to yeah, when it comes to killing be something that happens mostly in Muslim communities. Okay to be fair mostly in IMMIGRANT Muslim communities. But if you don’t like the term because it rarely used outside a Muslim content, okay that’s fair, but no there is no parallel.

        Again, Hate Crime is a LEGAL TERM that says that a crime is worse when the motivation of the attacker is racial. It’s not the crime that’s makes it so bad, it’s what that person was thinking when committing that crime.

        And like I said it is unfairly applied. When Blacks beat up and yeah even kill whites because they want to beat up Whitey they don’t get charged with a hate crime. Heck, I would rather that people just focus on the crime regardless of the intent. Dead is dead. But if we are going to play this game then it is fair to bring up how it is being unfairly applied.

        Are you talking about this “Blacks Can’t Be Racist” crap. Because clearly they can be. Especially now when they really do have the political influence to get their demands through. Tell me one thing, If Trayvon was some white kid this Hispanic shot him dead do you really think it would get the international play. And don’t tell me that black hate crimes against whites don’t happen. They do all the time.

        “A white man aboard a subway car is taunted, harassed and attacked by a gang of black high-schoolers. Three white Michigan teens find themselves in the “wrong” neighborhood and are beaten and shot by six black youths. Then there was the case of a white couple that was gang raped, mutilated and murdered by five black adults.

        Welcome to the realm of hate crimes that aren’t hate crimes.

        As for the murder of the couple, Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian, the assailants will go on trial next year. Yet, no hate crime charge is in the offing. Said John Gill, special counsel to the district attorney in the case, “There is absolutely no proof of a hate crime.”

        Certainly not. Dead men tell no tales.

        In the case of the Michigan teens, Dustin Kaiser, Michael Carter and an unnamed 14-year-old girl, two victims survived to bear witness. Their assailants were convicted but, once again, no hate crime charges.”

        Again my solution would be that there would be no such thing as “hate crimes” from a legal sense. I guess “Hate Crime would still be in the language but it would be like “Honor Killing”. But crimes would be prosecuted equally for their EFFECT. Dead is dead.

        But as long as we do have “hate crimes” they should be applied equally. And don’t you dare say blacks never attack whites for racial reasons.

        Perhaps you don’t realize it because like in this video, the news media rarely give the race when the perpetrators are Black.

        Watch it a couple of times. It’s incredible what the video didn’t say though fortunately it was implied just through one witness statement

      • Jeffrey

        Tell me one thing, If Trayvon was some white kid this Hispanic shot him dead do you really think it would get the international play.

        If the cops didn’t arrest the guy? Hell yeah it would. That’s why this was made such a big deal.

        Besides, Nahida wasn’t talking about legality. She was talking about social justice and INFLUENCE. The effects those have on the outcome.

      • Steve

        Aiden there is no such thing as a “honor Killing” in the American system of law.

        A prosecutor does not add additional charges due to the fact that the Muslim male killed the woman due to an “Honor Killing”.

        Not saying there should be. I think laws should be prosecuted EQUALLY regardless of victim and perpetrator involved. Naive Notion, I realize. Funny me thinking it should be the crime that matters.

        Hate Crimes politicize crime. Your measure of justice depends upon how effective you are politically.

        By the way, Nahida, not to be crude, but if a Black person ever kills you do you think it would be ruled a hate crime? Do Muslims have more political clout than Blacks?

        If you hate this line of thinking, well it’s the LEFT that has created it. I would much prefer to focus on the fact dead is dead, but that’s not the world the Left has created for us is it!

        God, the censorship we live under, here too listen to what is NOT said!

      • Steve

        No, had Zimmerman killed a white kid and had he gotten off this would have been a non-story.

      • Steve

        I told Nahida she didn’t want to go there with me.

        I knew she was going to end up leaving the board as a result (that’s kind of what I meant about “crying”)

        She had no idea the can of worms she was to open up with this, Perhaps she did but didn’t care.

        By the way the Beltway sniper attacks, that happened in 2002. Perhaps that is (before the time) for many here.

        Well this sniper was like just randomly shooting people in the DC area. No one knew who was doing it. But the FBI, the professionals they are of course they set up a profile of who unsub was (Unsub=Unknown Subject of a criminal act).

        The sniper will be a White Male. I believe one of the quotes from the FBI was “this is something white males do.”

        Well, if you don’t remember how the case ended up they finally caught the guy. A BLACK MALE MUSLIM.

        So don’t give me the crap that it’s only Blacks and Muslims who are unfairly profiled in our society.

        Oh, yeah, Nahida sure opened up something she wasn’t quite prepared for here!

      • Laura

        What are you talking about? That’s laughable, she was just here. And I showed you where she countered what you were saying happened.

      • Laura

        Also, you wanted her to or else you would have ignored it. And you just keep saying that she said things she never even said. When did she even say only blacks and muslims are persecuted.

      • Grant

        Let’s face it.

        IT’S OPEN SEASON ON WHITES.

        And you know I find it so interesting how a lot of these incidents are 2009 and later. Not all of them of course because I have mentioned and I believe Steve have mentioned some that go way back, but I thought it was supposed to a new day with Obama.

        Instead it seems to have embolden them.

        And now with how he answered that question about the whole Zimmerman thing. He could have used that question to try to calm down the situation, But oh, no he engaged in race bating himself.

        He wants America to burn!

      • Nahida

        I’m amused.

        Steve, you haven’t addressed anything I’ve actually said in the context of the original point and resorted to derailing into a discussion about hate crimes. I said the victim was attacked after he was killed. For wearing a hoodie. For being suspended from school for truancy. For Twitter posts. All going out of their way not to give him the benefit of the doubt. All I wanted was for you to say that he should not have been smeared, that what he was wearing or the fact that he was suspended is completely irrelevant, that the kid deserves as much of the benefit of the doubt. THAT is why I went there with you, Steve.

        Where have you taken the conversation? Laura said it twice. You’re imagining things about me. Where do you think I “went” when I “went there”? Are we arriving at the same destination? Steve, have you arrived?

        I didn’t call out your derailment before because I liked parts of it, and I had things to say about them even if they were totally off-topic, but since you’re under the impression that we’re going down on shit, here you go. Do what you want going to your “there”. Let me know when you’ve come.

      • Jeffrey

        Nahida’s post:

        https://littlemosqueontheprairie.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/season-4-episode-11-the-great-indoors/#comment-11193

        She didn’t mention ‘hate crime’ once. She called Zimmerman a racist, but didn’t tie that into the crime. Her post has to do with the reaction of the Right in finding “dirt” in irrelevant matters and not giving the kid who is now DEAD the benefit of the doubt, which is the context of Steve’s comment about the Left.

        Steve, you seem to have read what you wanted to read. She mentioned an incident you were passionate about, and you let the passion blind you to words that were actually in front of you.

      • Steve

        Hell YES, he should have been smeared!

        It was their side who wanted it make it about this angelic 12 year old instead of about the facts of this case. And again yes I know the media never said he was 12 but most of the photos were of him was of that age so we all know that images are more important than words.

        They made it about HIM. They set up this false narrative about who this person was. And now when we are finding out the truth about him they complain, This was the forum this was the context THEY placed this whole thing in. It should have been placed in a different more rational forum, but they made it about him, and they lied about who he was.

        Truth is neither him being this angelic 12 year old with skittles or the truth that we are finding out of him being a typical black thug really is relevant to whether or not the shoot was legit or not. But again they are the ones who set up the terms!

        I guess it is relevant in one way. There is something in law that is called “Character witness” and so that way I guess there’s some relevance to believability to what probably happened. But fundamental whether Trayvon was an angel or a devil isn’t that relevant when compared to the facts of the night (including eye witnesses) but again they made it about him and not the facts.

      • Nahida

        Who’s “they” Steve? Treyvon’s family? Everyone thinks their son’s an angel. Every 17 year old kid I’ve ever met thought he was the shit and took ridiculous photos of himself. Even girls made fish faces and flung hand signs at the camera. I’m sure they regret it now that they’re all looking for jobs.

        Treyvon is not responsible for how he was portrayed after he died, and his family isn’t to blame for seeing their child as… a child. (But I guess that would be giving them the benefit of the doubt.) The kid is dead; smearing him is utterly tasteless and disrespectful.

      • Steve

        They are the ones going around with the signs and the t-shirts saying
        “I am Trayvon Martin” (No, you were Trayvon Martin five years ago).

        They were the ones who made it about this angelic narrative about this 12 year old named Trayvon Martin instead of the facts.

        So if you want it to be about Trayvon Martin lets find out who Trayvon Martin REALLY IS!

        They were the ones who made it about him and since they opened that up it is fair to go there!

      • Steve

        smearing him is utterly tasteless and disrespectful.

        Well I find angelicalizing him through those photos of him as a child and making him a Martyr utterly tasteless and disrespectful

        And now I have heard that his family is using his name and image as part of a money making scheme.

        Talk about utterly tasteless and disrespectful.

        Funny, no one is talking about that six year old little black girl who was killed in Detriot over the St Patricks day weekend. I guess her parents didn’t deserve Obama’s sympathies.

      • Nahida

        Of course it’s about him, Steve, he’s the one who was shot. Do you suddenly not want it to be about him? I thought you were off on a tangent about how it should be able those who were involved, and not race or anything else.

        Zimmerman wasn’t arrested. Trayvon’s family was going to do whatever it takes to get the guy who shot their son arrested and tried. (And for the record, I’m sure his family knew him far better for who he “REALLY” was.) I heard a while ago the FBI has gotten involved, so they’ve accomplished that. To say it’s fair game to go after a kid who’s dead because of politics is atrocious. The dead (unless they are Hitler) deserve some respect, prayers, and to be remembered lovingly (free from the constraints of filthy politics). We’re not barbarians, Steve.

      • Steve

        Oh, and I just love how you just assume that Geraldo Rivera is conservative? Why because Geraldo is on Fox and everyone on Fox is conservative (in fact conservatives have noticed a significant slant to the LEFT in FOX reporting in the last few years).

        I remember when Geraldo first came on Fox more than a decade back now , We were SO ANGRY as conservatives that they did it. Before that he had a show on CNBC where he was so pro Clinton.

        And before that even. He had one of those Jerry Springer like day time talk shows where people literally, and I mean literally threw chairs at each other.

        And since coming to Fox. Well perhaps you consider “war coverage” as being conservative. But apart from that he has been pretty pro-Amnesty for example.. He often Left side that someone like Hannitty or O’Reilly would bring in for the counter viewpoint.

        So yet again you jump to conclusions and know not of what you speak. You just take the propaganda that the Left puts out and just believe it without even checking it out for yourself.

      • Steve

        Ideally I want it to be about THE CRIME (if there is one). It shouldn’t be about who the victim is or isn’t or who perpetrator is or isn’t. It should be about the FACTS of the case.

        But that’s not the country we live in thanks to the LEFT.

        It becomes about politics.

      • Nahida

        Uh, Steve, I’m fully aware that Rivera is a whore who says what he’s paid to say. I said it because Fox provided him with the outlet and no one stopped him or told him he was an idiot. I ABSOLUTELY blame Fox for putting a moron on their show.

      • Steve

        “We’re not barbarians, Steve.”

        Oh, from what I have seen this week, Nahida, we are. We are.

        Releasing Zimmerman’s address through Twitter. Hell it wasn’t even the correct address. I hope that poor elderly couple sues Spike Lee for everything he is worth.

        But like I said, what the hell from every indication Zimmerman isn’t one of ours. So yeah poetic justice for him to become a victim of the very world he has helped bring about by being a Democrat.

        What do you think Nahida? “Necklacing” or gassing him through a car’s exhaust pipe as Grant has suggested?

      • Nahida

        Um. Jail? Get a hold of yourself.

        Everyone on this planet is sick.

      • Nahida

        Steve, now you’re victim-blaming Zimmerman. Have you lost your mind? He wouldn’t deserve any of that. (Or for his address to be leaked.) And Treyvon doesn’t deserve to be smeared. Jesus Christ, at least you’re consistent I guess.

      • Steve

        Well like I said conservatives are becoming mistrustful of Fox. O’Reilly at times seems like he has become a liberal. They got rid of Beck. They got rid of Judge Napalitano on their Business Network. They have been totally in the tank for Romney who is an extreme liberal in the Republican party.

        So yeah the winds have been clearly blowing to the Left at Fox and we conservatives have sure noticed. Fox has lost a lot of credibility.

      • Nahida

        EW Romney is not a liberal. You can’t just GIVE him to us. I’ll take SANTORUM before I take Romney, and I hate that guy. At least Santorum isn’t fake and unbearable.

      • Steve

        Oh we have all lost our minds.

        And you haven’t seen anything yet. The year has just started. Wait until summer.

        You haven’t seen anything yet. 2012 is an year for the books. It’s only going to get worse!

      • Nahida

        Mmm no, Steve, I don’t quite think I’ve lost my mind.

        Concluded after serious consideration by yours truly.

      • Laura

        LOL! See, Steve, this is why I like her. You can see, can’t you? You said there’s two of her, but there really isn’t. Just one, and she’s great.

        Look, if I knew Nahida personally I think I would have liked her at the start but in the end ideology would get in the way.

        What’s gotten in the way at the end? Looks like you were wrong.

      • KelsShels

        Well. That was exciting.

      • Laura

        This column is ridiculously long.

      • Chuck

        Wrong. Nahida is a Whore, like all the rest of them. In the post about arriving when she is talking to Steve, she made Three crude jokes.

      • Laura

        Um. WHA…?

      • KelsShels

        Obvious troll is obvious. Do not feed.

    • Cece

      Mhmm…I don’t know Nahida personally (even though I feel like I do =P) so I can’t ask her to make sure but I THINK I remember her tweeting (or maybe it was a comment somewhere) that the picture of the baby wearing a nipple cap is SUPPOSED to be provocative too. It’s supposed to be a little over the top to be a jab at people who are against public breastfeeding. I remember her saying something about how it makes her uncomfortable because she is against turning babies into body parts, but that it made the statement efficiently. (She even thinks that advertising targetting an audience under the age of 13 should be prohibited.) Anyway, she used it BECAUSE she wanted the viewer to examine their own standards, unwarned. So yeah, it’s meant to make you feel like that. She put the rest of the post together tastefully.

      Sometimes she has posts (like this one that she has right now http://thefatalfeminist.com/2012/03/27/good-in-bed/ ) that are jokingly and affectionately sexual instead of offensively sexual. Her philosophy includes reclaiming sex as an affectionate act instead of an offensive one, like most sex jokes are supposed to be offensively joking even though it’s possible to be affectionately joking.

      • Steve

        I still don’t feel like Nahida has cleared up the whole Hijab thing.

        For a Muslim woman who wears a hijab for them to be in public without one would it feel to them like it would feel to Western Women to be caught out in public without a shirt.

        That’s how the show has always made it appear to be. I remember there was once a scene in the show where Rayyan was caught out in public without the hijab and it played out like the typical “locked out naked” troupe, al la “Desperate Housewives”.

      • Steve

        I was trying to remember which episode it was when Rayyan loses her Hijab outside. I think It had something to do with a Taxi and somehow her Hijab got stuck in the car door and when the car went away off went her Hijab.

        Perhaps I am wrong about the specifics of the incident but I do remember that she was stuck outside without her Hijab and it played out kind of like that scene from Desperate Housewives.

        So, do these women feel “naked” when they are without a Hijab or is that just a Western misinterpretation.

      • Nahida

        I haven’t seen Desperate Housewives. I tried but I hated it within the first three episodes.

        Rayyan was trapped outside without her hi’jab because she wasn’t wearing it during the party. Her reaction was over exaggerated in the show. Probably for comedic effect. Hi’jab doesn’t fit the category of either a blouse or a cross. Understanding it is both culturally contextual and personal; it will vary between women, but in nuance–generally, overall, it isn’t like either. You grab it when someone arrives but you don’t go out of your way to avoid such a incident as though you were naked. Unless you live under Taliban rule.

      • Steve

        Yeah found it here.

        Okay, so this wasn’t accurate. The woman doesn’t feel “naked” when she is without hijab. If for whatever strange reason she was caught outside without it, it wouldn’t have the same effect on her that it would if you or most any other Western woman for whatever strange reason was caught outside without a shirt.

      • Nahida

        Well I’m sure she’d feel “naked” the same way I’d feel naked if I weren’t wearing a particular item I always have. I’d feel “naked” without my watch.

      • Steve

        You have to understand for the whole series that is indeed how they had portrayed the wearing of the Hijab. Thanks for clearing that up.

      • Nahida

        “Locked myself out. Naked. And I fell. So how are you?”

        Okay I don’t like the show but I lost it there.

    • Jeffrey

      I got it as well.

      Apply “why is it only a hate crime (all these types of crimes are hate crimes) if it’s a minority” to “why is it only an honor killing (all these types of killings are honor killings) if it’s a Muslim woman”. In both cases the idenities of the people involved are used for political agendas and it’s an insult to the victims. And there’s violence that is ignored. For the former, black on black violence is ignored… for the latter, honor killings between non-Muslim couples. (Because non-Muslim men who kill their wives for cheating/sexual reasons do it for the same mentalities to preserve their reputations.)

      That’s mind-boggling.

      • Phil

        A frightening wake-up call to Americans…how Islamic shariah law is endangering women and children in your hometown…from one woman who’s running for her life.

        [audio src="http://stevedeace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/deace_podcast_032812_hour2_ayah_1.mp3" /]

      • Phil

        Part Two of this incredible story.

        [audio src="http://stevedeace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/deace_podcast_032912_hour2_ayah_part2.mp3" /]

    • Steve

      It’s too bad that Zimmerman wasn’t dragged on the street and killed.

      That would have changed the narrative so quickly!

      By the way, did you hear about the Walgrens riot!

      These Leftsts are THUGS. THEY ARE MONSTERS!

      You should have seen Hannity tonight. He really revealed the true ugliness of the Left. You think my comments are ugly. They are. Like I said I have a Liberal mentality. The Liberals have said worse things than I have (though I am trying).

      Conservatives are by and large not like me. YET.

      BUT IF THEY EVER BECOME THAT WAY JUST REMEMBER THEY TOOK IT FOR FORTY YEARS OR MORE BEFORE THEY TURNED THAT WAY.

      • Steve

        Here’s the truth about the LEFT!

      • Alaina

        I completely disagree.

        I’m also a Conservative. I’m very glad Nahida knows other Conservatives because I would be worried that the only example she has is Steve. Because THIS is what is going to happen: I have long suspected that Nahida is a Conservative. But she will never live to realize this, exactly because she is a good person. Nahida is young. She does not have forty years of history. During HER lifetime, the Right will rise to violence of the Left. She will come to know a violent Right. She will entirely turned off from the Right. The Left will escalate their violence even higher to match the new violence of the Right, and Nahida, who was never violent or evil, her life will be destroyed in the crossfires. Because the Right gave in and turned her off with their violence.

      • Steve

        If you don’t see the double standard than that’s a you problem.

        I wish that conservatives were as as aggressive, as ruthless as the Left is.

        And some of the younger ones they are getting that way.

      • Nahida

        Alaina, I’m speechless. You make it sound like a war is going to break out and people are going to start dying. I’m not fighting in anything so absurdly ridiculous. I refuse to be a part of this.

        On a rather relevant but irrelevant note, I knew a Conservative when I was about 12-13 years old whom I appreciate very much now. He was in his 50s, and I have no idea how he had the patience to put up with me, because I was such an OBNOXIOUS little girl. He engaged me discussions about politics once in a while, and I was so smart-mouthed and irrelevant I would have driven myself insane. He was really fair, you know, and he talked about events and issues and didn’t bring up political parties or ideologies at all. He just really wanted to know my perspectives without the constraints of things like that, and asked my opinion about all sorts of things to get to know them individually, and I was not very cooperative and a little too sarcastic. I think back to this with a terrible amount of embarrassment, and sometimes I’m tempted to call him randomly and apologize profusely (“By the way, I’m sorry I was SUCH A BRAT! thanks for not wacking me in the back of the head with a textbook.”) but I haven’t talked him in years and that would be pretty random and socially awkward at this point.

        There was a reason I was acting out. It was during a period (out of six) where the abuse at home was at its height, and I was so neurotic and obsessive and controlling because I was absolutely damaged. I wasn’t at all fully myself. But he couldn’t have known that; he was so kind anyway.

        Storytime over. I’m going to bed and for the next few days burying myself in all the homework I neglected over the break.

      • Steve

        Actually Alaina makes some good points Nahida.

        I have nothing against Young people (heck I like to think I am still kind of young) but the truth is you haven’t seen the things I have Nahida. And of course the Left has been at it before me even.

        So, yeah one of these days it is quite possible that the Right will just have it with the Left and turn violent. Then of course people like Nahida will go “oh, look the Right is violent too” not realizing all the stuff it took to get us to be at that point.

        Did you see that video about Chaney? Not one of my favorite people but gosh, did you here all the people on the television calling for his DEATH. Rush calls some lady a prostitute and everything erupts and he loses sponsors and stuff, but the Left can gleefully call for this guy’s death and NOTHING. And some of that footage goes back DECADES and nothing happens

        War is breaking out and people will start dying. Hasn’t this week taught you anything? This is only the beginning. Occupy is calling for more violence. The Blacks want riots in the streets. Gosh, Nahida did you see the Walgreens video?

        This summer will be the most violent ever in our nation’s history. And I do care about you Nahida so please take care, don’t get in the middle of things. Stock up and prepare and stay home as much as possible. Take cover please. Hell that is what I am going to do. Because the Left wants BLOOD IN THE STREETS. Now I really don’t think the Right will turn violent. They never have in my experience. But if they do can you really blame them. At least I thing it is time for us to meet rhetoric with rhetoric!

        So yeah, I do not regret anything I said today. The only thing I am kind of regretting is apologizing for Rush a few weeks back. Because compared to what the Left has said, Rush indeed has been TOO WEAK in his statements.

      • Steve

        At least I think it is time for us to meet rhetoric with rhetoric!

        I remember when Bill Clinton had some heart problems a while back and Hannity was going we wish the former President a swift recovery.

        And I was thinking HELL I SURE DON’T. After what he did our our country I was hoping that this would be it for him.

        Yeah, my elders. The conservatives that came before me, the ones that are older than me. They all had class. They were all polite and courteous and never wished physical ill on their political adversaries.

        AND LOOK AT WHAT THAT GOT THEM!

        Now I am not calling for violence on our side. I know the moment we turn to that we lose. But harsher rhetoric. ABOUT TIME!

        That is why I loved Ann Coulter for so long. Unfortunately she has now gone to the Left with Romney and also with the gay issue, but in her hey day! Yeah, give these scumbags a taste of their own medicine!

        And Rush, even at his “worst” it never matched what we see daily on MSNBC or from Leftist politicians. That is why I much prefer Michael Savage.

        I think that conservatives younger than me even, I believe they are even more willing to match fire with fire (in rhetoric I mean). The days of courteousness is OVER. Even Hannity seems over the hill and outdated to me because he lacks this rhetorical fire!

        The American Left IS EVIL. And I am not using hyperbole when I say that. I MEAN IT, THIS WEEK PROVED IT! They are America’s NUMBER ONE THREAT and mean to destroy this country of ours!

        And yeah Nahida come this summer and sooner we will have full out war. Hell, what would you call Walgreens if not that already!

        People are going to start dying. People have already started dying. Remember all the deaths at Occupy last Fall. And it is only going to get worse. This is just the beginning!

      • Alaina

        Steve, you misinterpret me. I see the double standard. What I stated is that this does not exist with Nahida. Nahida may be a grown woman but to me she is still a child. Furthermore, she has not conducted herself like the Leftists. So, you can act however you want out THERE, but with her it is uncalled for. She is playful, a little mischievous, compassionate, and intelligent. And she is so, so valuable. Know who to direct your anger towards. I don’t want her destroyed. I want her to be safe. Think of her when you are speaking to her, and conduct yourself for her sake. If only with her.

      • Steve

        Well I did warn her.

        I was biting my tongue.

        She was the one who pushed the issue.

      • Alaina

        Not in the direction you thought she was pushing it.

        You know what SHE would have done, though. If you had said something in passing that bothered her. She would not have said anything of it, not even warned you, but just ignored it. That’s how she would have dealt with it. You sounded like i was a challenge.

      • Alaina

        Excuse me. Like IT was a challenge.

      • Nahida

        I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about Alaina? Steve was relatively civil yesterday. I had run off fuming because I was expecting personal attacks of the nature of his previous ones, particularly because of what he implied was coming in the “warnings”, but I returned when Laura messaged me saying he had in fact made a logical argument (though you’re right that it wasn’t the angle I was asking him about.) Unless you’re referring to his conduct in the past in which he made personal attacks or to his terrifying random incitements of violence, I’m a bit lost.

      • Alaina

        That is exactly what I am talking about.

        I don’t want you to hear that from a Conservative. Not YOU.

  49. Mo

    Christians are stupid.

  50. Mo

    Dum, dum, dum DUMB….

  51. Nahida

    I haven’t yet viewed the latest episode (I’m currently sitting in a creative writing class not paying attention) but I feel this show is growing less and less representative, and in a way less genuine in reflecting the depth and conflicts harbored within the different interpretational perspectives of Muslims. In the first couple of seasons the characters fought incessantly, but the writers have begun lazily relying on the fact that their audience knows the characters to dodge the burden of spiritual exploration or incorporating this into the plot; consequently the entertainment falls flat.

    Reading on the lesser known beliefs of Islam practiced by minority branches, I’ve discovered spiritual qualities with which I had never been raised; I am not sure I would expand to adopt them myself, but they are intriguing nonetheless: Shi’a Muslims believe that there is good in the world–illumination carried through bloodlines–hidden intrinsically in secret human hearts, but that this must remain concealed because there is the threatening presence of evil that will seek to destroy it. In other words, there is always someone on earth whose heart is of light and shines, but we can never know for certain who it is. How comforting to think that such things exist! Of course, in the end, good will always prevail over the evil that threatens it.

  52. Nahida

    Oh, I actually liked this episode. Thorne is wonderful.

  53. Steve

    There’s a new conservatism on the rise. And if the olde timers like Limbaugh, Hannity and even people like Beck don’t recognize it they will be swept aside.

    I mean Beck is having this thing in Texas

    http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/03/28/restoring-love-will-you-stand/

  54. Steve

    Anyway Beck, is having this thing…

    http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/03/28/restoring-love-will-you-stand/

    Restoring Love will I stand? FUCK NO!

    You don’t Love evil. YOU RESIST EVIL. YOU REPUDIATE evil! And the LEFT IS EVIL!

    So, yeah Beck better be careful here because we can drop him like a hot potato he doesn’t start supporting this new more aggressive conservativism. He can fade away!

    Damn We tried the Kumbyah approach all my life and since I do read history I know we were trying it long before I got on the political scene and things have only got worse. We have a Republican Party that is practically as Leftist as the Democrats and who are constantly stabbing us in the back. Look if Romney becomes the nominee I will have to vote Obama because I fear how Romney will take the party even further to the Left.

    So no, the time for “ladies and gentlemen” is over. That’s all I ever saw from conservatives in my time in politics. Oh, we hope the former President gets well. HELL NO DROP DEAD SLICK WILLIE!

    Rush, Hannity, even Beck yeah if they don’t change then we will just move beyond them. In so many ways we have already moved away from Rush.

  55. Steve

    And don’t even get me started about O’Reilly. He has gone so far to the Left it makes me sick. There’s a joke going around. I am so old I remember when O’Reilly was actually conservative.

  56. Steve

    Alex Jones, really Nate? Really?

    Not that some of the stuff he says isn’t true but then he goes off on some far out “911 Truther” crap and Totally Blows credibility.

    He is way fringe.

    Whereas the Left and all the hateful things they say, they are mainstream.

    (Not that Alex Jones ever says anything hateful I didn’t hear anything hateful in that video above but I turned it off after he went 911 truther)

  57. Nahida

    I just took a bunch of cold medicine (because dammit I need to get better by the end of the week) and I haven’t eaten anything yet, so I apologize if this sounds incoherent.

    Steve, I have known oppression. Ever since I was a very small child: sitting behind barriers, coming in through cramped roundabout entrances in the back, pushed out of prayer areas into hallways and classrooms to make room for the men, at celebratory dinners given food second only after the men eat, being told to lower my voice even though the boys next to me are louder, continuous lies about how burkhas prevent rape (never mind that I know women personally who were raped in burkhas), and worst of all not being able to say anything because all of it is politicized.

    Do you know what it’s like, Steve, to stand in front of a classroom of people when you are invited to speaking events, and say things like, “Well they are only called honor killings when Muslim men do it.” ? Things like, “Rates of violence are higher in areas of war and poverty” as though these are excuses? Do you know what it’s like defending the men who have shoved you behind walls, behind barriers, behind veils, fearing your gender and preaching about how they only fear God, until an enemy arises who is greater than the women they oppress in fear: the scrutiny of the West—and suddenly being shoved to the front, to the front of the world they tried to hide you from, to the front of the lines, to the front of classrooms, to testify for them that your religion isn’t oppressive? All that talk of fearing God, and suddenly they are examining their own immorality toward women not out for the love of God but out of fear of the West.

    And you have to do it, Steve, you have do it because you know it is the truth, and because you are a woman and not allowed to represent any religion, so if their religion is slandered so is yours. Because no one is looking at the virtue of Muslim women as a proper representation of Islam, they are looking at the violence of Muslim men against them. And also because you care about them and are afraid for them, because you do have brothers, and friends that you love, and so you have to say things like, “But there’s a correlation between domestic violence and cultural and financial factors” and “Innocent people shouldn’t have to be persecuted because some dunderheads did these things in the name of religion”—you have to say them because taxi cab drivers are attacked and one of your friends was nearly stabbed for wearing her hi’jab, and there is already enough of a climate of hatred without you fueling it by ranting about the sexism of Muslim men. Instead you have to rant about it in private, struggle to change things within your own community without involving any outside support, so that no one uses it for their political agenda. I’ve defended Muslims on this site every single time, Steve, but there is a side of me you will never know. The one I cannot possibly show a non-Muslim audience because they will appropriate it for their own politics. In this context I can’t stand the words “honor killing” coming from someone other than a Muslim woman (just like I can’t stand the word whore coming from someone who isn’t a woman, or the n* word coming from someone who isn’t black). And so you will believe that I am some sort of hypocrite, or somehow compliant or apologetic of the heinous crimes committed by these men, or just a woman. Do you know what it’s like, Steve, to defend the men who are burying you alive?

    The black women in the Civil Rights movement did. Oh I have it so much easier than them! Praise be to God. In comparison what I have to put up with is merely a SHADOW. A Western woman, I can abandon my community (even though that would mean giving up a birthright, I still have the option) but they couldn’t escape the persecution they received from black men because they couldn’t just stop being black. But they had to defend these men even despite the domestic violence, defend these men who called them race traitors for joining the women’s liberation movement (do you know how many times I’ve been called a race traitor, Steve?) defend these men from the stereotypes that people had about them. And I have done it, Steve. I have stood in front of classrooms and asked, “What defines an honor killing? Our use of the term unfairly targets a specific demographic” while his foot was at my throat.

    I have known oppression, Steve, and I still would not advocate violence; I would not incite Muslim women to match in rhetoric Muslim men who say they should be burned or stoned.

    I have known oppression well enough to recognize it when I see it, and when Hannity replies to a woman who asks why Viagra should be covered, but not contraceptives, with the answer, “That’s a MEDICAL problem,” as though contraceptives aren’t, that feels exactly like a Muslim man telling me he is entitled to prayer space while I am pushed out to the halls.

    I already know you wouldn’t want Viagra covered, Steve, you’ve said so and I’m capable of differentiating between an ideology’s representatives and normal people—but I’m not even sure I agree with that. Of course when I first learned it’s covered I was absolutely disgusted, but when Hannity said it’s a medical problem, I took a moment to pause my outrage at his bigotry and realize that it kind of is a medical problem. You’re restoring to an organ a function that has been lost. And I don’t think I’d have the heart to tell someone he doesn’t deserve fully functioning organs. Other than the bigotry, I initially was disgusted at even the mere mention of the drug or anyone defending it, but that was so hateful of me. I never even thought of it in medical terms; I was only disgusted because I associated it with male sex organs (that’s almost misandric), and because I was smug with the vitality of youth. Of course I never think of Viagra—I’m twenty-one years old. But I will get older, and the men I see will get older, and it would be HEARTLESS of me to be disgusted and disparaging if he tells me he needs Viagra. I never realized I was such a judgmental bitch. And it took Hannity’s bigotry. Who would have thought?

    So I can’t decidedly say it shouldn’t be covered, because the argument a man would make of why it is a medical problem—that it restores the function of an organ—is sound. Maybe I could say it shouldn’t be on the basis that it isn’t a medical necessity, but it fits the definition of a medical problem. If that is how I feel (not sure) then that’s a mere difference of opinion between us, Steve, not something to rip open throats over. Jesus Christ.

    Anyway, my point is that when he said that, Steve, it felt like the same damn thing. The same kind of oppression: wait a minute, let the men eat first.

    I was heartbroken when you said you regret apologizing for Limbaugh. A little surprised, because I didn’t think you apologized for Limbaugh (you only said he was douchey; I thought that was purposeful and you were quietly refusing—and I let it go because why the hell should you apologize for Limbaugh? He’s the one who said it!) I thought you only apologized for the things you said to me. I wasn’t aware you apologized for Limbaugh too, but you must have thought it then …and so now it feels like I’ve lost something I never knew I had. And it feels terrible, because you apologized to me for Limbaugh, Steve, not to anyone else.

    You can of course take it back if you want… you never said it if you thought it, half yours, it was never fully mine… but I wish you at least wouldn’t confuse interpersonal relations with systematic ones. You gave it to me, Steve, not the Left. It was mine.

    • Mary

      Wow, that was such a powerful story. Ayah is such a brave woman.

      But to be fair this doesn’t only happen in Muslim Families but Hindu families as well.

  58. Phil

    A very frightening wake-up call to Americans…how Islamic shariah law is endangering women and children in your hometown…from one woman who’s running for her life.

    [audio src="http://stevedeace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/deace_podcast_032812_hour2_ayah_1.mp3" /]

    • Phil

      Here is part two of this story.

      [audio src="http://stevedeace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/deace_podcast_032912_hour2_ayah_part2.mp3" /]

    • Mary

      Wow, that was such a powerful story. Ayah is such a brave woman.

      But to be fair this doesn’t only happen in Muslim Families but Hindu families as well.

      • bill

        Do you think the reason that the hospital didn’t report Ayah’s abuse was that they were afraid that they would be accused of profiling Muslims whereas it’s okay to profile white Christian males as was the case with the talk show host’s daughter?

        Ayah implied that it was because they perceived her “less of a person” with her dark skin as opposed to the host’s daughter but I think it is more likely that the Muslim community has been very successful in making people afraid to accuse them of anything.

        And this is the way it was before 911 and I believe it was what CAUSED 911.

        Just think what they FBI would have done if they were told by flight schools that a bunch of “hick talking” men were taking flight lessons learning how to fly but not to land.

  59. Nahida

    You know what’s really aggravating me right now, is that there is a class of Western feminists (like myself, but conveniently not Muslim) demonstrating their solidarity with Egyptian blogger Elmahdy… by creating a nude calendar, with a “nude revolutionary” each month. A calendar that they’re selling for 20 bucks, the money for which “will go towards supporting women’s rights and free expression.” Of course, no precise descriptions are given for exactly what that means. And this is being promoted as something that “pushes the envelope.”

    I… I don’t even…

    I’m very sorry that one of the women involved in this is an organizer for the Canadian Slutwalk. I feel that this discredits them somehow, and I don’t want that at all. “Pushing the envelope?!” Barnett will not receive mass death threats for posing nude on a Western calendar, she will not be ostracized, or threatened with abuse, or endure the horror of her image associated with violence. Is she kidding herself? This is nothing but appropriating the horrific struggles of non-Western Muslim women for her own self-promotion. And an excuse to pose nude. Yeah, I said that. I’m guilty of thinking she just wants an excuse to pose nude! When will feminists realize they don’t need one?!

    It says on the calendar, “At a time when free expression and women’s rights and bodies are under attack by Islamism and the religious-right, nudity is an important form of resistance and defiance.”

    What? WHAT? Resistance and defiance?! Woman, WHERE DO YOU LIVE? She can’t possibly honestly think her actions are equally heroic. And if she does, that’s the most arrogant thing I’ve ever heard.

    • Nahida

      I hope she doesn’t think it. I hope she doesn’t really think she’s Elmahdy.

      This reminds me partly of how people were reacting when Japan was devastated with natural disasters. “Today, I am Japanese.” No you’re not, you’re living in a house that hasn’t been crushed by a fucking tsunami.

  60. Nahida

    Here, look at this, Steve:

    Even the youtube comments from this supposedly hateful liberal talkshow are denouncing him:

    “Even if these people genuinely believe it’s Zimmerman they’re harassing… the ends do not justify the means. Shame on them.”

    “Due to the large number of people Spike’s tweets are received by. This should be considered a crime. He is trying to incite violence against zimmerman. If even made worse by the fact its a wrong address.”

    “Regardless if Spike the address wrong. He cant be doing this shit anyway. He cannot be publishing someone’s personal location info, with the intentions to incite violence. How can a grown man allow himself to be this ignorant? Spike, get a grip on yourself and shut the fuck up.”

    They also did commentary on the surveillance video for the case, which I saw first on a different site before we had the conversation. Zimmerman has no injuries. He’s a liar and a racist. He went after the kid, who was on the phone with his girlfriend right before he died and was 100lbs less than him and couldn’t have beaten him like he described.

    I believe what I see on video, Steve. No broken nose, no gash in the head.

    • Nahida

      The fact that there was no arrest when the police arrived is a systematic issue. I don’t care what race the police are, I don’t care what race Zimmerman is, I don’t care what race his friends are (racism doesn’t work that way; someone of color throwing someone else of color out through false testimony is just as racist and despicable and contributing to systematic injustice by buying into it): I care that the police made no arrest because they bought into it. The first thing I heard was audio, and it ended in screaming, with no record of the conversation Zimmerman’s father claims Zimmerman had with Trayvon. Nor was Zimmerman injured in the surveillance video, which he should have been had he really been beaten into the ground for a minute straight despite being 100lbs heavier. There isn’t a dent on him. No blood. Trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend–he was worried enough to call her–and she reported he was frightened, and that they had the conversation right before he was shot. Unlike Zimmerman’s father, she had audio access to one of the people involved.

      Where are you Steve? Are you angry with me? I never meant for you to actually talk about the case if you didn’t want to (I specifically told you to stop if you were afraid of going off the edge…which you didn’t anyway, not like I was expecting when I said it was your responsibility to control your rage and not succumb to personal attacks, not mine to censor information I knew). The context of our conversation was how the Right reacted (since you were so quick to criticize the Left, I found it so absurd)–how they privileged the viewpoint of Zimmerman’s father over what can clearly be seen and heard in the surveillance video and recorded police call even though his father wasn’t there, how false photos of the victim circulated, how Trayvon’s family was accused of scheming for money when they just lost their son and must be in so much pain, how Trayvon’s high school attendance records and Twitter account were scrutinized though they were irrelevant (much more than Zimmerman’s record of assaulting an officer)***–that was all I wanted, for you to acknowledge that the smear campaign was uncalled for, and that the Right pushed a story that was directly counter to visual and auditory evidence based on a father who was not present and a friend who made the most obscure and unbelievable excuses for language.

      I don’t blame Zimmerman’s dad for testifying Zimmerman’s story… he just wants to protect his kid. I wouldn’t have done lied, but maybe that’s easy for me to say because I’m not in that situation, so who am I to judge? And maybe he really REALLY believes it, wants to believe it, because that’s his son. No, I blame those who privileged the testimony despite the fact that it’s contrary to all recorded evidence and he was not there.

      In the beginning there were reports that police had questioned eyewitnesses in a manner to influence their perception, though I don’t know how true this is. Considering the police did not make an arrest, I believe it.

      ***unchecked, I haven’t seen any record of this unlike the surveillance video and phone call

      I don’t know why you jumped at it when I brought it up, Steve, or what you are / were thinking, but something must have changed because you hurled out something about how I take whatever the media gives me without checking, and I thought you trusted me. You’ve said so before. Maybe you didn’t mean it, or you weren’t entirely sure. I don’t know. I can’t tell with you. You’ve commented that I’ve swayed you before on certain things (but rarely, you said), that you don’t want me to believe otherwise, yet you’re so insistant that there’s no possible way to come to an understanding. Why do you spend time then?

      I don’t have time. Tomorrow’s Friday and unfortunately waiting for your reply doesn’t mean that time stops. =P Good night, Steve.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s