these photos have shed light on the hatred in the world. not because of their religion, who they rejected, or anything related to that. it is the simple hatred and act of revenge that has truly opened my eyes to the reality of situations occurring outside of my country.

It's directly related to religion, specifically Islam. Read more here

http://infidelsarecool.com/womens-rights-in-islam/

http://infidelsarecool.com/honor-killings/

This is sad. All the comments by the atheists on this page can easily make all atheist look bad, just like how extreme islamic radicals make islam look bad. I usually don't 'dabble' in religion often but I at least understood what solkhar was getting at. Just like in the christian community, you have some sects that teach by either the new testament or the old testament or both. Its the same for muslims. He/she clearly stated that. He/she also clearly didn't defend anything immoral either. He/she condemned, just like everyone else on this page, the atrocities done by radical islam. He/she didn't make an excuse for it either, nor did he/she try to justify anything. Its amazing how many of you missed the fact that solkhar didn't shun any of you and actually tried to answer honestly(which is more than I can say for the people on various blogs) however, most of the atheist commentators responded very obnoxiously. I mean, really. Did any of you not read what he wrote.
I understand how seeing how messed up a lot of muslim countries law are can get you pissed off. I also understand how seeing many muslims try to use our wonderful freedoms that the laws protect against us can be sooo infurirating. However, you must understand, It's called radical islam for a reason.

And I understand that many atheist have this revulsion towards god and religion, but many people don't. Religion was created/inspired(however you want to call it) as a way to show man how he should live. This is called, PHILOSOPHY. Its just that the religious seem to believe it was inspired by god and other philosophers usually don't. But the knowledge was acquired very similarly i believe. Just like most christians don't practice christianity according to the bible completely and most rely mostly on preachers, priests, etc; what makes you think muslims don't.

Anyway, just actually read before you go in all huffy and puffy. Cause most of you atheist already had your guns loaded and target in site, but before you made sure you had the right target, you shot. And ya'll still don't realize you shot a chicken instead of a fowl.

truly with love,
The agnostic(i think)

Agnostic ?

I don't think so. You're a MUSLIM pretending to be someone else.
You did praise "solkhar" and he did praise you...what a coincidence...

You must think very highly of yourself.

I do not.

Truly with love,
The Jew.

No, I'm agnostic though its a recent journey going on about 2 years. Just because I happened to defend someone who is muslim doesn't make me muslim. So you mean to tell me If I defended someone who's hispanic, then I am also hispanic? That makes no sense. No I don't think highly of myself, though I do have some confidence.

You might consider me to be tardy in responding to your message, but, in truth, I have only just read it.

I must first take you up on your tone when you refer to atheists. It seems you view such people with distaste, for there is the tang of the unpleasant about your words. True, some atheists of, shall we say, historical significance, have been a blight on humanity's progress and happiness: Stalin and Mao spring to mind; two of the most efficient murderers of the innocent the world has ever known. But we are not all cut of their cloth, believe me. Einstein, Feynman, Russell and Darwin were gentle souls who vilified brutality, while Dawkins has yet to demonstrate a taste for blood as he sets about expounding his carefully reasoned ideas. You might not like his ideas, but he has no intention of killing you for it, or subjecting you to the fire or the thumbscrew or the iron maiden. Similarly, Hellosnackbar, Funkybarfly, Necrowulf and I, while ever willing to joust with those who live under the cloak of superstition, would never countenance aggression to bolster our cause because we know such bolstering would be self-defeating, pointless and cruel. (If only the "great" religious figures of history had felt similarly!)

What makes an atheist? In a word, reason. We are all born atheists, but if we are typical, we are smartly indoctrinated into the beliefs of others, fear playing the greatest role in cementing these beliefs. Many are thus forever captives; never questioning lest somewhere in the universe the God of wrath shall enter our doubts and misgivings into a book and use it against us on some dreadful day to come. "Into the lake of fire with you, my lad! Enjoy eternity!" Terrifying to the innocent, unformed mind, so is there any wonder that it is so effective? Yet, there are those of us who learn to question and to doubt. "The world is made up for the most part of morons and natural tyrants, sure of themselves, strong in their own opinions, never doubting anything." "Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt." (Darrow, in both instances.) Forgive me, but it seems to me that religious practitioners look upon doubters as lower than vermin. Why? Because they have the effrontery to use reason? Shun doubt, and you will forever be what your early mind-moulders schooled you for. Embrace doubt and you enter the realms of the uncomfortable: suddenly, the world is a kaleidoscope of heady challenges, and you have only your mind to guide you - no invisible great spirit to turn to, or black book written by iron-age scribes to consult. Behold Freedom! Terrifying stuff, Freedom. No longer will you believe the universe as we see it was created in six days; that sexual intercourse between humans is the original sin; that Methuselah lived 900 years; that the Nile turned to blood; that Jonah lived for a while inside a whale; that the entire world was engulfed in a flood; that our universe is 6000 years old; that, during a battle, the planet suddenly ceased its rotation; that someone turned water into wine, walked on water, raised people from the dead, was born of a virgin and walked about after being dead for 3 days. Does it REALLY demand all that much doubt to doubt such outlandish biblical claims??? Yet, we atheists are quite content to let people believe such marvels and scientific monstrosities if it keeps them happy. See? We are not the ogres you seem to think we are. We do not build atheists' "churches" to preach our cause. We do not send out "missionaries" to convert people. We do not persecute and torture and kill the believers.(Yes, Stalin was an evil swine who actively waged war against religion, but I assure you that we atheists view him with as much loathing as you do.)

You claim that atheists feel revulsion towards God and religion. Nonsense. Atheists do not recognise God's existence, so how can we revile him/her/it? We see no God. There is no such entity. Once again, as Darrow put it, "I do not believe in God for the same reason I do not believe in Mother Goose." I earlier mentioned Einstein. Dear old Albert was wont to refer to God repeatedly as he struggled to unravel the marvellous workings of the universe, so "religionists" are swift to claim that the great man was a believer, but he was not. Read more deeply into Einstein to see the truth of this. Similarly, Feynman and Hawking.

Religion? Gosh, this is a vexed matter. Do I approve of it? Ultimately, no. I see no need for it, but I am being intensely personal, I admit. Once upon a time, when my mind was still afflicted by the brainwashing I had received as an infant (the scars remain, believe me!) I could not face the uncertainties of the world without the support of religion, but, like measles, this sad condition happily passed. Yet, there are untold numbers of people who seem to be unable to cope if they do not have the reassurance of their religious beliefs. That's OK with me, provided they do not use their beliefs to harm those of other beliefs or those of no such belief. Fair?

This brings me to Islam and our dear friend Solkhar. It seems you take the view that we on IAC are bullying and ganging up on Solkhar. I disagree. Indeed, I genuinely treasure Solkhar's daily contributions because with his every utterance he displays the oily deviousness (oops! sorry to be personal!) of the Muslim mindset. Read his contributions carefully. Read the responses to his missives, particularly those of Bronwyn. Solkhar makes noises; Bronwyn expounds with cold logic. Solkhar is the indeterminate zephyr whose source cannot be determined; Bronwyn is the aimed, vectored blast. Solkhar prevaricates; Bronwyn scalpels her way to the essentials. Solkhar evades; Bronwyn confronts. Solkhar hides behind a smokescreen; Bronwyn disperses lies and aims squarely at truth. Solkhar dreams; Bronwyn refutes those dreams.

If you have taken the trouble to read my posts you will have discerned that I stand as the abiding and mortal enemy of Islam. Not Christianity; not Judaism; not Buddhism; not Hinduism; not Confucianism; not ......... Just Islam. Yes, I loathe it with a passion that passeth all description. Why? Because it threatens me and everything I deem to be sacred (if an atheist might be allowed to use that word) and valuable and worthwhile. Islam, after a brilliant spell of scholarship and luminosity, shut the doors to intellectual exploration to retreat into myth and brutality. It threatens you, too, although you seem to be blind to it. As long as there are people as blind and donkey-stubborn as you, Islam will continue to encroach upon everything you take for granted. It will swallow you. It will enslave your children and deny them the power of thought. Don't fool yourself that because all Muslims are not bin Ladens or Talibs or Sharia fruitcakes that such must ever be the case. "Moderate" Muslims are the vanguard of their extremist brethren. When push comes to shove, the "moderates" melt away to become putty in the hands of the madmen. You disagree? If so, you are blind to history. Just study what happened over a short time when that arch-bastard Khomeini came to power in Iran....... How many Islamic states allow stoning to death? Only six? Just wait a while.

Do you honestly think my detestation of Islam springs from my disapproval and unacceptance of religion? Think again. I can deal with religion per se, but I am damned if I will submit to the cancerous spread of the religion that demands submission.

you wrote:
You might not like his ideas, but he has no intention of killing you for it, or subjecting you to the fire or the thumbscrew or the iron maiden. Similarly, Hellosnackbar, Funkybarfly, Necrowulf and I, while ever willing to joust with those who live under the cloak of superstition, would never countenance aggression to bolster our cause because we know such bolstering would be self-defeating, pointless and cruel. (If only the "great" religious figures of history had felt similarly!)

Response:
First, I don't hate atheist. My tone was ironic(or at least i tried to make it that way). I only pointed out that you guys did not read what he wrote carefully and in your bias against religion, you ignored his defense completely and focused only on your talking points. If you know that there are bad apples such as Stalin and Mao in atheism, what makes you think there are ONLY bad apples in Islam? That was the point I was making. And as Solkhar attempted to explain the many sects of Islam, trying to defend his religion, you ignored him and ASSUMED he was of the sect that advocates the terrorism we see or defending the terrorism. That’s an indirect insult, which helps to create aggression. You don’t even see that he agreed with you guys on quite a few points

You wrote:
What makes an atheist? In a word, reason. We are all born atheists, but if we are typical, we are smartly indoctrinated into the beliefs of others, fear playing the greatest role in cementing these beliefs.

Response:
Reason is not just allocated to an atheist. Reason doesn’t just follow in the scientific realm either. I know many atheists who don’t know crap about physics or who read Dawkins or whatever. Their “reasoning” is that its silly to believe in something that hasn’t shown itself or refuse to. Religious reasoning varies from sect to sect and it depends on the individual. Just like you can have brainwashed religious nuts, you can have brain washed atheist ones as well. So tell me, what’s your definition of reason?( Not being sarcastic or anything, I want to know)

You wrote:
Many are thus forever captives; never questioning lest somewhere in the universe the God of wrath shall enter our doubts and misgivings into a book and use it against us on some dreadful day to come. "Into the lake of fire with you, my lad! Enjoy eternity!" Terrifying to the innocent, unformed mind, so is there any wonder that it is so effective? Yet, there are those of us who learn to question and to doubt. "The world is made up for the most part of morons and natural tyrants, sure of themselves, strong in their own opinions, never doubting anything." "Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt." (Darrow, in both instances.) Forgive me, but it seems to me that religious practitioners look upon doubters as lower than vermin.

Response:
There’s that bias again, though I can sympathize. You only see god as the god of wrath. I, personally see the Christian god as a very contradicting entity modeled after man’s emotions. He can be very bipolar at times. Very crazy as well as merciful. I can’t really speak for any other religions as of yet. But have you actually taken a look at human behavior and how contradicting it is? If you don’t like religion fine, but you, just like the conservative religious, look upon those who follow their religion like vermin who are afraid to doubt. That’s not right is it? Ironically, this helps foster aggression. To believe that aggression needs to be physical in order to be considered aggression is ridiculous. Words can do just as much damage by themselves. I really liked the first quote you presented. Its really relevant to this conversation. Why? Because anyone who so sure of how the world works are morons. Those who have a grasp of how a certain region of the world works, and choose to use it negatively and to their advantage are tyrants. You THINK you know how religion works. You do not. Most scholars can only theorize, and nothing is definite. I have no clue about a majority of scientific stuff. But I don’t discredit what I don’t UNDERSTAND.) Tell me, whats the difference between the ‘Big Bang theory’ and the ‘God created the earth in 7 days’ theory? You doubt the validity of religion based on hard science( my made up word. Stuff that deals with a lot of math and reasoning based on it. Like atom, neutrons, valence electrons, physics, and that other stuff. Really not a science person) But religion comes from something intangible that science is only trying to understand. I call it soft science( stuff like psychology, social science, ethics, etc). Things that everyone lives by such as values and morals and how different they are from person to person and region to region.

You wrote:
Because they have the effrontery to use reason? Shun doubt, and you will forever be what your early mind-moulders schooled you for. Embrace doubt and you enter the realms of the uncomfortable: suddenly, the world is a kaleidoscope of heady challenges, and you have only your mind to guide you - no invisible great spirit to turn to, or black book written by iron-age scribes to consult. Behold Freedom! Terrifying stuff, Freedom. No longer will you believe the universe as we see it was created in six days; that sexual intercourse between humans is the original sin; that Methuselah lived 900 years; that the Nile turned to blood; that Jonah lived for a while inside a whale; that the entire world was engulfed in a flood; that our universe is 6000 years old; that, during a battle, the planet suddenly ceased its rotation; that someone turned water into wine, walked on water, raised people from the dead, was born of a virgin and walked about after being dead for 3 days. Does it REALLY demand all that much doubt to doubt such outlandish biblical claims???

Response:
LOL! I had to smile at the irony. This goes both ways and there is a lot of truth in this statement. This was my belief about atheist until one of my VERY conservative close friends went atheist on me( I was hoping for agnostic but hey).
Yes, some people take that stuff literally. Its sad. But a lot people acknowledge the Bible for what it is. A book of stories intending to set moral standards that was written through different time periods in civilization. Just like the Quran, just like Vedas(might’ve spelled that wrong), the Buddhist koans scriptures, just like the Taoist texts, etc. For instance, take the 10 commandments, whats wrong about it.(besides the obey only god parts). You will find something similar to the 10 commandments in all of the religious books I just mentioned and many atheists have values and morals identical or similar to them. And if science proved that a meteor shower killed the dinosaurs, what makes you think that water couldn’t have flooded the earth? Especially when Archeologists have to dig in order to find ancient cities and stuff. I do have doubts for religion(aimed at people who attack it) and against religion(the very books and people who follow it), but you seem to imply that you only want doubt against religion, not for it. I would seem that it comes from a bad interpretation of it and bad instruction on it. Could it be that your bad experience with religion might have caused you to turn your back on the idea of a god. If so, knowing that there is more than one way to interpret religion, isn't there a possibility that you just got some bad teachers and you fear that religion could possibly have some relevance to people? Even if it requires you to have a belief in god?(again, serious question)

You wrote:
We do not build atheists' "churches" to preach our cause. We do not send out "missionaries" to convert people. We do not persecute and torture and kill the believers.

Response:
This goes back to that 'reasoning' you mentioned earlier. What sense does it make to not attempt to spread the word of something that you feel can do humanity some good? Christianity does this and it caused both good and bad. Good, it stopped many a civilization from doing human sacrifice, bad, some kids got mauled by a bear for making fun of an apostle. War is war, its never good. Atheist do congregate. They do here. Once a week, just like all religions. And why should that be bad. Everyone groups themselves with like minded people and exchange ideas and learn new things. What do you think Bible study was(wait never mind the last question. I forget every church wasn't like mine). But I hope you get the point. Religion, imo, is nothing but philosophy of how to live. If people are having doubts about their belief, whats wrong with giving them another perspective? I can guarantee you thats why christianity, islam, and buddhism is so strong.

You wrote:
If you have taken the trouble to read my posts you will have discerned that I stand as the abiding and mortal enemy of Islam. Not Christianity; not Judaism; not Buddhism; not Hinduism; not Confucianism; not ......... Just Islam. Yes, I loathe it with a passion that passeth all description. Why? Because it threatens me and everything I deem to be sacred (if an atheist might be allowed to use that word) and valuable and worthwhile. Islam, after a brilliant spell of scholarship and luminosity, shut the doors to intellectual exploration to retreat into myth and brutality. It threatens you, too, although you seem to be blind to it. As long as there are people as blind and donkey-stubborn as you, Islam will continue to encroach upon everything you take for granted. It will swallow you. It will enslave your children and deny them the power of thought. Don't fool yourself that because all Muslims are not bin Ladens or Talibs or Sharia fruitcakes that such must ever be the case. "Moderate" Muslims are the vanguard of their extremist brethren. When push comes to shove, the "moderates" melt away to become putty in the hands of the madmen. You disagree? If so, you are blind to history. Just study what happened over a short time when that arch-bastard Khomeini came to power in Iran....... How many Islamic states allow stoning to death? Only six? Just wait a while.

Response:
I assure you, I’m not blind. I know how easily people can be roped into things. Take a look at the politics of our country(assuming you are American). A two party system that isn’t much different with the power to make sure no other party can get access to the media. And enough know how to dupe the public into thinking anything is an attempt at socialism, communism and that capitalism is our one true savior even though we are now living in the evidence of unchecked capitalism. Yes, I feel the fear of how pervasive something can seem nice and logical, but really be malicious. But then you realize, its not the politics, it’s the PEOPLE who use it. Its not religion per se, but the interpretations that people use to their benefit. It doesn’t necessarily matter if there is a big difference in education level of politicians and people, or clergy and people. What matters is the morality and type of ethics that the politician, clergy and people abide by in that society and if they follow them. The problem occurs when those people we trust with that type of power began to manipulate them, that’s when education of that particular field is necessary for the people in order to stop that corruption. Have you noticed that those terrorists come from places where there is HUGE illiteracy and poverty is the norm? Education is reserved for the wealthy, but the more industrialized Muslim countries don’t condone terrorism. Why is that? Christianity was like this too. You do know that right? When it comes to Islam, I can’t give a well thought out opinion like I can with Christianity because well, Christianity is the religion I was sort of raised on. A very moderate form at that. In my church, we were encouraged to question our religion, but to never doubt God. My church made it very clear that God and religion are two totally different things. God is God and religion is a way to serve that god. Not all religions were completely right or wrong.( I guess I just busted through your who ‘doubt’ spill there) All religions require some sort of submission. If you don’t want to submit to the idea of a God, then fine. Don’t. But atheists have to submit to the idea that there is no god. Therefore, you begin to surround yourself with things that strengthen your idea. So, if anyone ever wanted to challenge you to a debate, you would have you materials ready in your head. The same process happens with religion amongst the EDUCATED. Solkhar was amongst the educated. Not someone who said, ‘Because the Quran said so’. But he actually attempted to explain. I can’t get that from most Christians around me. I get the fear mongering, which makes me glad I went to the church I did. Especially since I was practically raised there. You might not like their laws or customs, but then again, they might not like ours, we have the same meaning for 'civilized' it just carried out differently.

Thank you for your reasoned and tasteful reply, kirlanda4ever. Good stuff! Enjoyable, too. I shall try to take your points one by one.

Let me begin by saying I read his messages carefully and do my damnedest to give them fullest consideration. I did not, and do not, consider Solkhar by definition, or whatever, to be one of Islam's murderous legions, but I must admit I consider every Muslim to be a danger to all I hold dear and was raised to be precious - I am referring to the wealth of scholarship and artistic achievement of societies outside the Islamic fold and which have suffered at the Islamic hand. I do this from experience - not my own, but that which I have gained from a study of that religion's practices across the Silk Road, for example. Alas, I have to confess that I deeply believe Islam is the religion of terror, regardless of its various flavours. The man who invented it was a murderous sort of bloke who not only clearly laid down the rules of behaviour for all who would follow, but consigned the women of Islam to everlasting servitude. One of the great failings of "moderate" Muslims is that they are open, at a moment's notice, to sweep moderation under the carpet the moment hard-liners assume rulership of the roost. Khomeini's return to Iran clearly indicates this. I am glad you do not hate atheists. By and large, we are a pretty harmless bunch who are prepared to live and let live.

I do not claim that reason is the exclusive province of atheists, but I will argue to my dying breath that religion in any form is the enemy of reason. Remember Martin Luther's words on the matter? Spot on! Tell me how pure reason can lead to religion, please. How does reason "work"? One considers the evidence (if one has the mental wherewithal to undertake the task) and bases one's decisions upon such examination. This sounds horribly "superior" and smart-arse of me, I know, so I apologise for conveying such a message, but if one refuses to confront reason - as so many do - one betrays one's intellectual birthright. My atheism stems from the best my mind can do. I might be horribly wrong, but I have never found even a germ of evidence to think I might be wrong. I'll say this, just to stir the pot a bit: if God exists, he he must be the arch bastard of the universe! What a swine! What a disgusting, evil, revolting, nasty, twisted sonofabitch SWINE! Don't think that I contend that one has to be a physicist in order to be an atheist (but it helps!). And don't say that reason varies from sect to sect. The word you are looking for is ignorance. Brainwashed atheists? Do you truly believe there are parents and those in authority (Stalin and Mao are no longer with us!) who strive to convince the young of the nonexistence of God, just as there are those who do the opposite??? Please ........! Do they get them to read what I might term antiBibles and antiKorans, and do they send them to atheist schools, or punish them for conforming to religious concepts, or do they merely say, "Think for yourself"? Was it Dawkins or Hitchens who described reiligious indoctrination as child molestation?

I am not entirely sure about what you are trying to say with your next point, but I'll do me best to respond. Indeed, I will take your points as they pop into my head, rather than continue to deal with them in strict order. You see the Christian God as a good bloke? Time for you to read the Book of Revelations! You see him as modelled upon Man's bipolar tendencies and qualities? Exactly so! Who created who? Anyone who embraces religion has turned his back on doubt. Religion is belief in certainty. GOD EXISTS! God is merciful? Yeah, right! So merciful to all those dying of starvation and born with deformities and victims of torture and brutality and the crippled and the millions who will never know the meaning of comfort and security. And all the while this GODCUNT smiles upon the wealth daily stolen from the needy by the evil Church of Rome and revels in the sight of its bearers of high office traipsing in attire that would feed the multitudes starving in the Philippines and South America. Not even Muslims have anything remotely as avaricious as the Catholic church's leaders. A pox on them all. Who said aggression must be physical in order to be seen as aggression? Not I, dear boy. You refer, I think, to my bias. Please elucidate. You say I do not know how religion works, but I think I do. Religion tells us to throw reason into the dustbin and become a slave to the illogical; the unseen; the imaginary; the might be; immortality. Religion, as we know it in the West, is surely squarely based on dread of death and refusal to contemplate the SUDDEN END. How gutless is that! Man is immortal, but trees and rabbits and dodos are not. God created all these zillions of breathtakingly amazing entities, but blessed just one of them with everlasting life - to dwell in a revolting Paradise or to burn in the lake of fire, depending upon how one behaved during one's life. PLEASE, God, let me enjoy the sulphurous conflagration, because the thought of an Eternity spent with all those arseholes who believed in you is more than I can bear. Yup, religion most certainly comes from "something intangible". What a lovely euphemism for brainlessness. You ask me to differentiate between the validity of the proposed Big Bang theory and the bullshit espouted in Genesis. OK. The background noise of the universe. Got that? Science is trying to understand religion?????? What are you on????? Verily, thou knowest nothing about science. Still, don't fret: you have LOTS of company. You say that those who are sure of the world are morons. HOORAY! Sense at last. If you knew the first thing about science, you would know that such people are not scientists. They are the religious ones. The religious KNOW. Scientists DOUBT. Got that? Psychology is not science. Remember Rutherford's words? Of course you don't. By the way, the "God created everything in six days" is NOT a theory. Learn what the word means, please.

What's wrong with the Ten Commandments? They, as given to us, omit the word JEWS. For example, Thou shalt not kill (JEWS). Water flooding the Earth. To where did it recede? Because of the bullshit flood, archaeologists have to dig to find "ancient cities and stuff"????? Are you MENTAL? Doubt FOR religion???? What the hell are you trying to say???? All instruction in matters of religion is bad instruction. You disagree? You believe that the instruction given to the children of ancient Greece or those of Scandinavia was good? One does not interpret religion: one accepts or denies it. All instruction in religion is bad - evil. Baseless evil. Suffocating evil. Indefensible evil. Ruinous evil. Evil that eats the human brain.

I am happy to spread the word of anything that is good for us, but this does not mean I support inventions of iron-age people who spouted their nonsense in order to facilitate their own self-serving agendas. Christianity is good for us? Debatable point, that, as history shows. Of the Western religions, in its present form, it appears to be comparatively harmless (unless you are starving in the Philippines, or a Catholic victim of rape who needs an abortion). Tell me, do, about the congregations of atheists to which you refer. Fascinating stuff. Religion is philosophy??? Philosophers everywhere will dispute you. Learn what philosophy means. If people are having doubts about their beliefs I will rejoice and welcome them to the arms of the brethren of thinkers. If I can assist in their throwing off the shackles of religion I know I will help them attain the uplands of happiness without fear of eternal damnation and retribution. Religions are strong for one reason only: infants are subjected to ruthless brainwashing.

Islam's terrorists only come from countries where illiteracy, etc abounds? Oh my God! Do you honestly want us to believe this invention? Please, defend what you wish to defend, and I will respect you for it, but don't lie. It seems you are one of those who need religion and belief in God. Fine. Enjoy.








m

On the button Beej your view of religion is exactly mine ;nothing added or subtracted.
And like you I admire Bronwyn's clear irrefutable logic when applied to the "religion of peace"
BTW go to www.patcondell.net and view his little rant on agressive
atheism!
It's also fun to read the many death threats he's received from the Muslim faithful.

Finally one comment with eyes to read actual postings and the brains to undersand them.

Have you ever noticed what pussies muz men are? Act like girlie boys if you ask me. Just can't handle criticism, and act like school kids to pay back the GIRL who insulted him. Try that with another man and what would happen? Yep, ass whoopin"!

as a guest, it may seem cowardly of me to comment, but i simply don't wish to subscribe to this site. Seeing as Solkhar is in the minority here, i have decided to step up and try to help him, firstly by saying: Solkhar, don't waste your time trying to defend your faith from these guys, as respect for faith can't be taught, it can only be learned through experience. As to everyone else, I am saying this as a fellow atheist who lives in the united states: Generalization is the wrong way to think when condemning a group. It is true that radicals in Islam have taken up war against the US and fall back on the conservative teachings of the Qur'an to oppress women and force a violent perspective into their children, but to single out Islam for the crime of radicalism is a mistake. During the crusades and Spanish Inquistion, tens of thousands of Jews were massacred and slaughtered by Christians who though it was fine to murder someone because they believed differently, and the same thing happened during the Holocaust, and yet any decent Christian toady will tell you that anti-Semitism is disgusting and barbaric. According to the TANAKH (old testament for those with limited religious history studies) the Jews massacred thousands of innocent Cananites just because they were living in the Holy Land first, and despite the Cananites never having heard of God or his promise to Abraham before. Even in more recent American history, thousands of Native Americans were murdered for the crime of living on land that white settlers wanted, and the freedom loving leaders of the American government did nothing to stop it. And don't get me started on the crimes state governments allowed to have happen to black Americans during the time of slavery and after the civil war. The point here is that by generalizing Islam as an evil religion, you are doing the same thing radical Muslims do inside of the Al-Qaeda when they say that Americans desire to conquer the world: you're generalizing. Also, a lot of the practices of oppression of women in the Arab world don't come from Islam, but from the Pagan cultures that existed before Islam...if you do any study of history, you'll see that the practices of Islam today when done by normal, moderate Muslims are thousands of times more civilized than what they would have been before Mohammed (blessed be his name)

Nice catch Christine_S!!


Another muslim trying to give a more "respectful" background to himself.

An atheist that defends islam is not an atheist. That is what I even say to fellow atheists who somehow see islam in a good-light, or defend it. If they are against all other religions, why be friendly to this one? right?

James,

You are an atheist?

"Mohammed (blessed be his name)"

No, you are just another Muslim (liar) defending the demented "religion", Islam.

The pictures are of women abused because of disgusting tribal-cultural and social behaviour of man and his ever-dominant desire to have power. I condemn Muslims for allowing such behaviour to go on, but I also condemn the ignorance of non-Muslims whom like to assume too much and for their own agendas make it out as being Islamic.

I am not bothered to do so, but if you go to honor-crime websites from official NGOs and other groups, you can find hundreds of thousands of photos just as distrubing, horrible and unforgivable from all around the world.

You can also go and look up the statistics of wife-beatings and abuse and find that Nepal is the worst offender of all, that by sheer numbers that abuse of women in India outnumbers all the horrors that the worst of Arab men can do (though of course no excuse at all and I condemn it). Female child-infancide is also a horrible disaster that India dominates.

All abuse of women and children should be condemned and it should be acknowledged that the male dominance of this planet also makes for slow admission of the wrongs that has happened. The Muslim world is struggling to confess to the abuse and though there is a great improvement, until they face and admit to it they have for my part - failed miserably in being moral. The Catholic Church has begun to deal with the factors of child-abuse within its sphere of control but Orthodox Churches in Eastern Europe and the Mediteranian are similarly to Muslims failing to admit, deal and in fact are covering-up cultural-honor crimes done by their faithful.

Picking and chosing one religion only paints a false-image of the reality that faces women and children all over the globe.

(Solkhar is a proud member of Touche pas mon enfant Maroc)

I'm intrigued by your embrace of the death cult Solkhar and at the same time your castigation of some of the more idiotic aspects of Mohammedanism.
What underwrites your belief in the rantings of a 7th century desert bandit and murderer?
Surely you have questioned the authenticity and improbability of what to us represents a fantasy
of the absurd?
What do you think of the totalitarian dogma of Islam?and its doctrine of supremacy?
It's my belief that if Mo lived today in a western society he'd be locked up in the close ward of a
mental hospital(for the criminally insane).
Do you believe in Jihad(to bring about worlwide submission to Islam)?
What exactly is your platform ?
And what is the future for Islam in the world as you see it?
Do tell!

What intrigues me is your expressing complete and total unawareness of what is Islam, its teachings, meanings and history - or you are just feigning such ignorance for a purpose.

What is amazing is your ability to insult, attack and show arrogance and then think that you can ask a question.

Simply put, I do not respond to agenda-based attacks, let alone those that have little or no dignity or self-respect.

Solkhar, I was, like you, raised and brainwashed into believing the existence of God. Unlike you, once I attained sufficient maturity and education, I realised how absurd it all was and how it provided a control mechanism for those in power to subjugate the masses, so I freed myself from religious superstition and embarked upon life's true journey. I confess it took a certain amount of courage to tread this path, given the efficacy of the brainwashing I had received, but I stuck to my guns - the guns of logic and reason - and now feel free of the constraints of what I deem to be the evil idiocy of religious thought.

The wonderful thing, though, is that the many, many Christians and Jews with whom I am friends continue to befriend me. They do not shun me. Their churches, or whatever, do not threaten me with death. They believe I am wrong (I might be), but they will not kill me for it. Hell, they will, I know, bend over backwards to help me should the need arise, as I will come from the far side of hell to help them. What of your vile faith? Just peruse the many articles posted on this site and you will read of Muslims murdering apostates and Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists. Only your "religion" engages in such malpractice. Are you proud of its achievement? Can you see why sites such as this exist? Can you begin to understand why the world needs to eliminate every last vestige of the influence of that pig-ignorant murdering monster you deem to be your prophet?

Your steadfastness on your desire to aethism is your choice and I do not begrudge your taking the minority view on the existance of God.

There is no denying that the ignorant, radical and barbaric stance that many have taken in forcing their views on others and attacking, murdering or imprisoning those that do not agree takes place, it is not my religion that does it but what power-hungry man tries and does do.

That you verbally insult my faith with disgusting language for my part only gives me a lower opinion of your sense of self-respect and your capacity to give respect and only pitty such attidtudes. Your giving examples is moot, there are enough examples of rampaging hindu extremists in Ossira State, India early this year attacking, murdering, raping Christians or examples throughout history of most parts of this world forcing culture and faith on each other.

As for me, I try and be logical and remain polite.

You take exception to my calling your "prophet" a pig-ignorant murdering monster? Why? You say this is impolite of me? Why? Does the truth offend you so much?

Your comment about atheists being in the minority is limp. Rocket scientists and professors of mathematics are, too. Brain surgeons aren't exactly two a penny, either.

Yes I take offence to witnessing ugliness and juvinile taunting from anyone, be it children in school yards to radicals on blogs and any other gass-bags on any topic. I did not grow up a human to then act sub-human. Assuming that taking offence is some form of admittion that your words has validity is, of course, your own and certainly not mine.

Your aetheism is, as I have repeatedly said, your own issue/problem/subject that you can roll around in as much as you like, the point that you consider limp is for my part a two-edged sword - you support a minority view, much of my own views of Islam, my Sinast views particularly are presently also a minority and also supported mostly by intellectuals and academics - and anyone knowing the intellectual and academic world will know - which apperently your are ignoring - that making arguments based on the concept of faith fulfills no purpose whatsover and turns into acremony quickly - ie a waste of time.

Beejj, I agree 100% with you. I will use your words as my words as a reply to solkhar, and to complete what he wanted to know I will only add a few more words.


Freedom of speech, means complete freedom of censorship, good words or bad words, hate or not. I don't agree with what that crazy hippie is shouting in that park, but I'm sure as hell will fight for his right to say it.

Equating myself to radicals is wrong. I have no desire to kill, torture or even jail someone for an idea! This is what islam is all about.


Solkhar, you have to understand that criticizing and even blaspheming against a religion is considered freedom of thought and speech, and in fact; this is partly to blame as to how we got the renaissance! If Islam can't take the scrutiny, then I believe islam should reform.


I'm an atheist; I criticize religion as my hobby. Criticizing my postings is fine, but name-calling and using ad hominem it is not, solkhar!

It is very interesting in the direction of your views and how you read and interpret them. As for name-callling, I consider your the first to have done it and also as an aethiest you may not understand that attacking the core-beliefs and very basis of faith of an individual is a personal attack as well. Thus every ugly comment that my faith is viel or such is as bad as name-calling me personally.

As for freedoms and rights as you put it, I will give you an opportunity to see my point of view. The freedom of speech and press for my part is very important, critical in the maturing of society but also a right that is to be earned and respected and thus taken away of abused.

Freedom of speech as an individual should be a fundamental right as long as it remains individual. When collective and public, it assumes responsibilities and that is were things change.

Freedom of speech, does not mean, for example, freedom to slander, freedom to vilify the innocent, freedom to lie and freedom to "collectively hate". Do you accept the freedom to deny the holocaust and publish and push it politically? In this blog there is an item from Debbie Schlussel whom supports the vilification and hatred towards the Qatar based Al Jazeera network and condemns it as a terrorist television network and says it has no right to exist. Does not Al Jazeera have the right to freedom of speech, press?

Many of the values that are held as sacred in the US is based on another era when individual countries, societies and cultures did not mix and did not forsee circumstances, changes, the movement of people and globalization. Freedom of speech and the press in many parts of the world is politically abused to create conflict, force anarchy and simply to lie for profit. My own view is that to "lie for profit" is a great problem that faces America and is hidden under so-called freedoms and rights.

As an aethiest, you have no love for and as you put it you have a hobby of criticizing religion. You have the right to what you believe and I respect that but I councel you on one thing, attacking the peripherals of religion is simply fine, but if you attack, denigrate and insult core values and faiths, you are in fact insulting those that believe it directly which I think is wrong. I should remind you, at this point, that as an aethiest, you are in a small minority, the vast majority of people on this planet have strong religous faith.

Fascinating, as I recall I never attacked you personally.

I find it mind bogglingly offensive for religion to take a place higher than a human. If religion doesn't put, you, us, me on a pedestal what rights does it have for us to put it on a pedestal instead?

My respect towards religion is as big as my respect towards cockroaches; I admire for what they do, and how they breed, and their survival instinct, but at the end they are just pests... very much like religion.

I will call your prophet and your god the names I see fit, I will criticize and even curse your religion, I will blaspheme and it is my right to do so!

If islam can't take criticism and offense, then there must be something quite wrong in it, don't you think?

I will quote below a portion of what I just said to another aethiest on this blog, please note some of it is relevant here and others not directed towards you particularly:

"Your aetheism is, as I have repeatedly said, your own issue/problem/subject that you can roll around in as much as you like, the point that you consider limp is for my part a two-edged sword - you support a minority view, much of my own views of Islam, my Sinast views particularly are presently also a minority and also supported mostly by intellectuals and academics - and anyone knowing the intellectual and academic world will know - which apperently your are ignoring - that making arguments based on the concept of faith fulfills no purpose whatsover and turns into acremony quickly - ie a waste of time."

As for criticism, I have no problems at all with those that criticise Islam, because I certainly believe that Islam and the Qur'an stands morally tall against any condemnation. As for the acts of Muslims and the use/abuse of haddiths, that is another matter, go ahead and criticise them and tear them to peaces, I will gladly join you.

What I do not appreciate, is, like the other poster, juvinile and emotive school yard taunting and bagging of my faith, which I think is beneath human dignity.

You will also have to appreciate, if not accept one thing though, if you treat religion as a cockroach, then automatically assume that you will be treated in kind as such, if not slightly better. That would only be logical.

"...You will also have to appreciate, if not accept one thing though, if you treat religion as a cockroach, then automatically assume that you will be treated in kind as such, if not slightly better. That would only be logical..."

That is the problem, religion never treated anyone well, not even at cockroach level!

So, why must I treat religion well?

Do you believe in THE COMPLETE EQUALITY of the sexes or not?
Any Koran-reading Muslim answering in the affirmative can only be considered a liar.

You are correct that Muslims do not believe in equality of the sexes, we certainly do not.

Muslims believe that man and women have different roles. That family values are important and motherhood is a blessing, responsibility and a role.

That does not mean that man is more important than women. When you see that, you are seeing cultural and tribal sexism, not religous values.

It is the media and biased blogs that like to show only the one aspect and not the whole. For us Muslims we grow up, albiet with those cultural and tribal BS from certain sides - with certain elements that make the concept of superiority for man rather moot.

For example, it is in one of the haddiths that a well-to-do Muslim man said to Mohammed that he is happy and content and wants to thank his parents and others for his blessings, who is priority. Mohammed told him 1st his Mother. He then asked who next? He was told, again your mother. A third time and the same response. Only after that, he was told to thank his father.

You can ask any Muslim that story, they all know it, yet sexist, chauvenistic Arabs, Afghanis, Persians and Pakistanis still treat females like sh*t.

Now, what is your point?

My "point" was aimed at educing a concise response from you,and I got it:"...,we certainly do not".
Now,you need to understand that your confessed leanings are unacceptable to us;not good enough by half.
You contribute to the oppression and degradation that you decry!
Don't you ever get sick of trying to defend the indefensible?

Your point seems to be based on reading only the first sentance of my response.

The Muslim view that women and men is different is as much based on biology as roles and there are many conservative Christians that believe the same, let alone that Judaism views it as such as well. If anything, the Qur'anic view of the roles and special place that women and motherhood has is a form close to reverence and I can only assume your complete and total misunderstanding (or deniall) comes from a closed-in view of what cultural, tribal and social abuse that women suffer in much of the Muslim world which I have in all my posts repeatedly condemned.

I accidentally clicked like for you,solkhar,but you missed the point,again.
Islam is backward,and to the horror of the civilised world it flourishes in the present.
"..and I can only assume your complete and total misunderstanding(or denial) comes from a closed-in view of what cultural,tribal and social abuse that women suffer in much of the Muslim world which in all of my posts I have repeatedly condemned."
What does that mean? You seem to be admitting that the grotesque stories we hear and see of women bearing the yoke of second-class-citizenry are mostly confined to the backwaters of the world that are only incidentally Islamic,a fluke!
It is no fluke,solkhar.Islam is a puke inducing act of bastardry,invented by a bastard,for the use of bastards.You cannot disenfranchise Islam from its lifeblood of deluded Third Worlders.
And I have to know,solkhar,If Islam holds women in such esteem(sorry "reverence"),then why hasn't your holy book of nonsense civilised these blasphemous men by now? - I mean,it's been long enough,hasn't it? Muslim nations should be akin to something of a paradise for the fair sex..... upon your reckoning.
You are an apologist for inhumanity and your theory is disproved by reality on a daily basis.
The only way of combating the abuse of the women of Islamia is by codifying rights in Law that are SEPARATE to and supersede religious law(fat chance!).This has been proven to work.You know what I mean,solkhar,it's that "reality" thing again.
Islam and democracy are as oil and water.
Islam not only has no taste for such freedom,it actively rails against these freedoms all over the world;including in my country,which infuriates me to distraction.
Wake up to yourself,solkhar,you are in the midst of fantasy.

I would argue that the fantasy is on your part, the fantasy that you think you know the reality of what life is like in the real and existant Muslim world. You keep on falling into the scenario that every Muslim and Muslim country is a carbon copy of the Sudan, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, which it most certainly is not!

You mentioned law and thus I am assuming you are also making the very big mistake of assuming you know what is Shari'a Law and that it exists everywhere. So how about some practical lessons in geo-politics 101. We can start by the obvious big shock to you that Shari'a Law is in the minority of legal systems in Muslim countries. Add to that the fact that of this minority of countries that have Shari'a legal systems, the majority of them only have Shari'a Family Court systems that are controlled and with appellant systems that are Secular.

Thus, the reality is that the majority of Muslim countries have Secular Legal Systems and since most of them have a history of colonialism and foreign dominance, have taken up the legal system of the colonial power, thus the British or French legal systems. For example, Morocco, where I live, has a Secular Legal System which is almost identitical to that of the legal system in France.

Thus your "fat chance" is in fact a reality in most countries.

I do not support Shari'a Legal syststems at all and by the nature of it being a minority in the Muslim world, we can safely say that the majority of Muslims in the world do not want it either. The thought of having theologians whom always take the ultra-conservative route being in charge of the law is and always has been a disaster - just look at those three countries - The Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan and you see my point exactly - in fact you have been presuming it is everywhere.

The other error you make is assuming that the backwardness if laws and judgements is based on Islam and not on local cultural-tribal habits, that cannot be avoided and it will take decades for more pragmatic laws in many countries to be gained. Just remember when women got the vote in Switzerland and which western countries still have blasphemy laws or other unique local laws that they inherited - there are many.

I am not interested in a long-spanning argument there with you or other at all, I have my faith, you have your own. What I target, each time, is when those of you put factual errors or turn your criticisms into flagrant bigotry, or like some - juvinile school-yard taunting.

You do not have to like Islam, that is up to you and as I have constantly pointed out, I am not posting here at all to find converts - far from it. But what I will constantly return my arguments with is when those arguments of not liking Islam is based on errors, incorrect assumptions or agenda-based BS.

I will also repeat, I condemn radicalism, sexism and ugly tribal-cultural habits that certainly have infiltrated much of the Muslim world, In fact I have seen and experienced a great deal of that ugliness in my work and travels over the last 30 years and if the environment was a bit more logical here, would be happy to show the worst and most base of examples. But there needs to be a bit more logic and maturity first in the train of discussions....

My comment was as much to do with democracy as it was to do with separation of religious and civil laws CONCERNING WOMEN SPECIFICALLY.
I never once used the word "Sharia" but you have picked up the ball and run with it as some narrow passage of reply;anyway....
You seem to think that a bastardised version of a British or European legal system amounts to some sort of proof of intent for change.Adopting a legal system does not by virtue of this fact necessarily extend in any way to the adoption of the laws inherent to it.You play semantics.
Pakistan is no less a shit-hole for all it's pretension to a modernity of jurisprudence(the photos above are of Pakistani women remember?)
Indonesia claims democratic pedigree(not entirely unjustified) and has a legal system of sorts but cannot seem to prevent the proliferation of Sharia in Aceh;Sharia insinuates its way into democracies and replaces it by merely ignoring the local laws altogether;they do it in Britain for God's sake by setting up their own little Sharia courtrooms.
Iran considers itself democratic........we won't go there.
Turkey became modern,in spite of Islam,because of Ataturk and his foresight in adopting many of the West's institutional ideas.It will be interesting to see how She ends up.Will she succumb to the vile Book of horrors(Koran)?
You also seem to want to disassociate Islam from Saudi Arabia(like all the others);sorry solkhar,but it is the Islamic heart.You might as well argue that Rome has nothing to do with Catholicism.
What can a legal system which requires an equality in its application of law to not only the sexes but to different cultures and faiths be worth in the hands of Muslims?
A secular humanism is paramount to a functioning democracy,and this is where Muslim nations scratch their confounded heads and revert to the comfort of old hatreds and bigotry.
If you are not caught in the grip of fantasy,solkhar,you must be wearing glasses with very thick rose coloured lenses.

You "almost" got it right.

Your giving examples of the failures of governments which I certainly will not dispute, though I think some of the examples you gave need more clarification and either fairness or condemnation. But have you noticed what you gave out? Less than half a dozen examples of it not going correct. Also I sense coming from what you said an assumption that the failure of legal systems and the state of the country is based also on Islam - a typically used argument with one big gaping hole in it.

There are many developing countries in this world that are sh*t-holes, corrupt, failing legal systems and only half of them (did not count, may be even less than half) are Muslim. Thus the argument that poverty, corruption, failed legal sstyems and enconomic hardship is an Islam-caused thing is just not going to stick.

I will not on this thread go into one other factor, which I have a pet hatred for. Those that start using the "D" word too much - democracy. "Democracy is a great system for an economically and politically mature state that does have a cultural or historic alternative that works. The goal of each society is to search for the best form of governance" - Dr John Curtin, one of the founding fathers of the United Nations and former Australian Prime Minister. Democracy forced on countries, either under the best of intentions or not, has been the single biggest disaster on the African continent since coordinated western-slavery. To put it bluntly, western liberal democracy is great for only western liberal countries.

"I will not on this thread go into one other factor, which I have a pet hatred for. Those that start using the "D" word too much - democracy."

Well all good Muslims have a pet hatred of the "D" word,solkhar.

"You "almost" got it right.

Your giving examples of the failures of governments which I certainly will not dispute, though I think some of the examples you gave need more clarification and either fairness or condemnation. But have you noticed what you gave out? Less than half a dozen examples of it not going correct."

Let's make it easy then.Why don't you give me a list of Muslim countries where it has "gone correct"?


"To put it bluntly, western liberal democracy is great for only western liberal countries."

To put it even more bluntly,vile Islamic shit is great only for vile Islamic shit holes.

What a jealous bunch of troglodytes you are.

Though your undignified response does not deserve it, I will answer you easily enough, for the benefit of others. Your miopic answers, like some others on this blog, obviously do not bother to read and I continue to be shocked at how many people on this site do not bother to read everything, obviously skim the one line and then jump to ludicrous conclusions based on that lack of information thay have. I never condemned democracy, I condemn the over-use and over-abuse of the word "democracy" that now has almost all but lost its very important meaning and place in this world and in history. That is in fact what I was saying, though I think at this point your eyes have glazed over and have not reached anything past the third line of this paragraph. So repeating, western liberal democracy is great for liberal western countries or those that have achieve the same level of mature social-political and economic status AND have no other historic-cultural system in play that works. Your assumption that the alternative is something Islamic means that you continue to think that this world is only the West and the Muslim world which is rather insulting to the other 3.7 billion people on this planet whom are not part of the Western or Musim World. Remember them?

Now, getting to countries that have successfully working systems of governance that are way better than any other alternative, let me start.

Morocco, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the seven United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and Jordon all have effective working governments that are not western liberal democracies that meet the requrements of good governance AND would fall into a trashy "sh*t-hole" as you put it.

Morocco is a very good example as the country next door - Algeria - is a mess because it played with democracy and failed (imature politics), then played with communism, military dictatorship and now republic on democratic lines. The country is roughly the same population as Morocco, has oil that Morocco does not and thus should be 10 times wealther than Morocco but in fact the reality is that the average Algerian is dirt poor, there are guns in the street (Morocco is gun-free) and the curruption in Algeria is in plague proportions. They share similar culture, language (dherigga-maghrebi Arabic and Amazigh) but the difference simply is that Morocco retained its strong reliance on a mature and effective Monarchy and cultural governance managing system.

Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Qatar all support similar ruling houses and dominant familes that simply run the place and have therefore the responsibility to look after the land and the people. Take that away and try and invent a political maturity will fail because there is no history of it, all you get will be hundreds of political parties based on individuals and personality cults - therefore chaos.

The other point is that all these countries, with the exception of perhaps the largest, Saudi Arabis, have in their main cities lifestyles that are in comparison and to some degree better than in many western cities. Rabat, Marrakech, Amman, Aqaba, Kuwait City, Doha, Manama, Abu Zaby (Abu Dhabi), 'Ajman, Al Fujayrah, Ash Shariqah (Sharjah), Dubayy (Dubai), Ra's al Khaymah and Umm al Qaywayn are all very good cities to live and enoy with standards above a huge sway of cities particularly in the US, Britain, Spain, Greece and Italy (not to mention the newer EU member states). None of these cities are in countries that have western liberal democracies, they are not perfect - because no country or system is perfect, but the most certainly have effective forms of "good governance" which is the case and trying to force western democratic principles would simply f*ck them up no-end.

Well funky at least you got a reply!!
I was dismissed as someone with a mysterious agenda.
The point you make about the imiscibility of Islam and democracy seems unimportant to the "cult".
And then they have the temerity to demand respect.
They don't seem to see that their inconsistencies amount to taking the piss.
It is the Islamic way!

Yes,HSB.Literally banging one's head against a wall would amount to a pleasant change in the face of arguing with the devout.
The Koran defies logic and we all know the Koran is perfect in every way.Good Muslims heed this perfection and also defy logic as a form of pious emulation.

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (4:11) - (Inheritance) "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females" (see also verse 4:176).

Qur'an (2:282) - (Court testimony) "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women." Muslim apologists have sometimes creatively tried to explain why a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's under Islamic law (based on this verse) while still attempting to maintain the semblance of equality. Unfortunately for them, studies consistently show that women are less likely to tell lies than men, meaning that they would make more reliable witnesses in any court - were it not for Islam's obvious sexism.

Qur'an (2:228) - "and the men are a degree above them [women]"

Qur'an (5:6) - "And if ye are unclean, purify yourselves. And if ye are sick or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have had contact with women, and ye find not water, then go to clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it" Men are to rub dirt on their hands if there is no water to purify them following casual contact with a woman (such as shaking hands).

Qur'an (24:31) - Women are to lower their gaze around men, so they do not look them in the eye.

Qur'an (2:223) - "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will..." A man has dominion over his wives' bodies as he does his land. This verse is overtly sexual. There is some dispute as to whether it is referring to the practice of anal intercourse, which it has been used historically to justify. If this is what Muhammad meant, however, then it would appear to contradict what he said in Muslim (8:3365).

Qur'an (4:3) - (Wife-to-husband ratio) "Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four"

Qur'an (53:27) - "Those who believe not in the Hereafter, name the angels with female names." Angels are sublime beings, and would therefore be male.

Qur'an (4:24) and Qur'an (33:52) - A man is permitted to take women as sex slaves outside of marriage.


From the Hadith:



Bukhari (6:301) - "[Muhammad] said, 'Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?' They replied in the affirmative. He said, 'This is the deficiency in her intelligence.'"



Bukhari (6:301) - continued - "[Muhammad said] 'Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?' The women replied in the affirmative. He said, 'This is the deficiency in her religion.'" Allah has made women deficient in the practice of their religion as well, by giving them menstrual cycles.



Bukhari (2:28) - Women comprise the majority of Hell's occupants. This is important because the only women in heaven ever mentioned by Muhammad are the virgins who serve the sexual desires of men. (A weak Hadith, Kanz al-`ummal, 22:10, even suggests that 99% of women go to Hell).



Bukhari (62:81) - "The Prophet said: "'The stipulations most entitled to be abided by are those with which you are given the right to enjoy the (women's) private parts (i.e. the stipulations of the marriage contract).'" In other words, the most important thing that a woman brings to a marriage is between her legs.



Bukhari (62:58) - A woman presents herself in marriage to Muhammad, but he does not find her attractive, so he "donates" her on the spot to another man.



Muslim (4:1039) - "A'isha said [to Muhammad]: 'You have made us equal to the dogs and the asses'"



Abu Dawud (2:704) - "...the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: When one of you prays without a sutrah, a dog, an ass, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and a woman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone's throw."



Ishaq 593 - "As for Ali, he said, 'Women are plentiful, and you can easily change one for another.'" Ali was raised as a son by Muhammad. He was also the 4th caliph. This comment was made in Muhammad's presence without a word of rebuke from him.



Ishaq 593 - "From the captives of Hunayn, Allah's Messenger gave [his son-in-law] Ali a slave girl called Baytab and he gave [future Caliph] Uthman a slave girl called Zaynab and [future Caliph] Umar another." - Even in this world, Muhammad treated women like party favors, handing out slave girls to his cronies for sex.



Ishaq 969 - "Men were to lay injunctions on women lightly, for they were prisoners of men and had no control over their persons." - This same text also justifies beating women for flirting.




Additional Notes:



The fourth Caliph, who was Muhammad's son-in-law and cousin, said just a few years after the prophet's death that "The entire woman is an evil. And what is worse is that it is a necessary evil."



A traditional Islamic saying is that, "A woman's heaven is beneath her husband's feet."



The revered Islamic scholar, al-Ghazali, who has been called 'the greatest Muslim after Muhammad,' writes that the role of a Muslim woman is to "stay at home and get on with her sewing. She should not go out often, she must not be well-informed, nor must she be communicative with her neighbors and only visit them when absolutely necessary; she should take care of her husband... and seek to satisfy him in everything... Her sole worry should be her virtue... She should be clean and ready to satisfy her husband's sexual needs at any moment." [as quoted from Ibn Warraq]



A Yemeni cleric recently explained in a television broadcast what it is that makes women inferior and unable, say, to serve as good witnesses: "Women are subject to menstruation, when their endurance and mental capacity for concentration are diminished. When a woman witnesses a killing or an accident, she becomes frightened, moves away, and sometimes even faints, and she cannot even watch the incident."


The many opportunities denied women under Islamic law, from giving equal testimony in court to having the right to exclude other wives from their marital bed, is very clear proof that women are of lesser value then men in Islam. Muslim women are not even free to marry outside the faith without being killed by their own families.



Islamic law also specifies that when a woman is murdered by a man, her family is owed only half as much "blood money" as they would be if she had been a man.



Although a man retains custody of his children in the event of his wife's death, a non-Muslim woman will automatically lose custody of her children in the event of her husband's death unless she converts to Islam or marries a male relative of within his family. Even the rights of Muslim mothers are subordinate to her husband's family.



Contemporary Muslims like to counter that Arabs treated women as camels prior to Muhammad. This is somewhat questionable, given that Muhammad's first wife was a wealthy woman who owned property and ran a successful business prior to ever meeting him. She was even his boss... (although we're sure that changed after the marriage). Still, it is somewhat telling that Islam's treatment of women can only be defended by contrasting it to an extremely primitive environment in which women were supposedly non-entities.



At best, Islam elevates the status of a woman to somewhere between that of a camel and a man.

The immutable, ever-relevant Qur'an explicitly permits women to be kept as sex slaves, and this is hardly something in which Muslims can take pride.

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (4:34) - "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them."

Qur'an (2:228) - "and the men are a degree above them"

Qur'an (33:59) - "Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them..." Men determine how women dress.

Qur'an (2:223) - "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will." Wives are to be sexually available to their husbands in all ways at all times. They serve their husbands at his command. This verse is believed to refer to anal sex (see Bukhari 60:51), and was "revealed" when women complained to Muhammad about the practice. The phrase "when and how you will" means that they lost their case.

Qur'an (66:5) - "Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins" A disobedient wife can be replaced.



From the Hadith:



Bukhari (88:219) - "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."



Bukhari (2:28) - Ingratitude toward her husband (ie. disobedience) can land a woman in Hell. Muhammad explains why women comprise the bulk of Hell's occupants.



Bukhari (72:715) - A charming little tale in which a woman seeks Muhammad's help in leaving an abusive marriage, but is ordered by the prophet to return to her husband and submit to his commands.



Bukhari (4:149) - Muhammad's wives are even trained to defecate on his command.



Bukhari (48:826) - Women have a deficiency of intelligence, meaning that their decisions will not be comparable to a man's.



Bukhari (58:125) - Women are tradable commodities. A Muslim with two wives offers a fellow Muslim his pick between the two. Muhammad then arranges a wedding banquet.



Bukhari (62:81) - According to Muhammad, the most important part of a marriage contract is the unrestricted access that a man has to his wife's vagina.




Additional Notes:


To this day, it is absolutely forbidden for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man, even though men are not under the same restriction as to their choice of marriage partners. This is is a consequence of the low status of a wife against that of her husband. A Muslim is not allowed to be subordinate to a non-Muslim, and a wife must be subordinate to her husband.



Many contemporary Muslims realize that traditional Islamic practice is painfully out of step with modern tastes, not just on this issue, but on many others. Thus have ensued very imaginative efforts to reinterpret the long held traditions of their religion, exaggerating both the negative treatment of Arab women prior to Muhammad and the reforms that he is said to have brought about.



Muhammad's blunt words on marriage are what they are. On top of this, he forbid women from traveling alone. Nor are they allowed to be alone with a non-relative male. Women must cover themselves, and, when there is sexual sin, nearly always bear the responsibility of guilt, as it is assumed that they did not follow the rules.


_______________________________________________________________

COURTESY OF http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Thank you for this, Necrowulf. Incisive stuff.

Necrowulf it was terrific of you to gather these verses together in one spot. I have learned new things. Thank you.

I don't think that solkhar will do you the courtesy of acknowledging that the offense to human rights and decency is not a tribal culture, but Islam.You have proven it well, using their own texts, which is the way it should be done. Of course solkhar and others will say you don't understand the Koran because yours is not in Arabic.They will say that you have not studied it enough for the true meaning and beauty to burst upon you. There may be some truth in that. If you have not screamed out all of the verses at the top of your lungs day after day along with other slave children until your brain cells are permanently damaged, you nay never see Islam and Mohammad in the proper perspective..

They will say you are quoting out of context. They will fish up statements from the Bible that they hope will distract us from the horror of the Koran.They will never respond directly to the challemge before them. Oh well. As embarrassing as it must be to be born to this heritage, it is a crime still to cling to these doctrines knowing the evil they produce There is only one Islam and you have exposed it well.
.

Thank you, it was late at night, and I couldn't let solkhar get away with it. :P

But, I also didn't feel like wasting time writing, so I did the next best thing, which is already explained, quoted and proved right there...why try to improve on something that is already great? "if it ain't broke why fiz it?" :P

So I just copied what it was written in that website. They update that website various times per day, and it is scary what islam does by the hour!

I will assume that the basis of all the above is simply an assumption from non-Muslims in the west with no real exposure to Islam other than questionable blogs.

What you have above is, haddiths, not the Qur'an and thus not supported by all Muslim communities around the world. Also, what you have is the language of clerics. To view them as some form of proof is rather like listening to a particular ultra-conservative evangalist preacher who will tell you what you can and cannot do. Or, it is like talking to a conservative catholic and ask him how you should live your life - it will sound archaic, limiting and so on.

Thus, the posting of what you have done above is not only unrealistic and not really relevant but in fact misleading to what actually happens. Now certainly since many Muslims are strongly conservative, live in poverty and illiteracy, the only source of education and control in their lives comes from conservative clerics - thus many do believe those things - but that is not all of them.

The other point, of course, is when trying to quote items, websites with baised anti-Islam agendas like the source you gave, never show full things in contexts but only individual sentances and never entire paragraphs and they interpret things based on their agenda and avoid altogether asking Muslims the reasoning or purpose of them, let alone how things are really practices on the ground. I should go to, for example answering-chrsitianity or crusader-watch and start putting out the completely out-of-context BS that they are doing, and you will get my point more - but I will not stoop so low.

I am western-born, European and have lived in both worlds, worked in both, represented my country in various parts of the world, both Muslim and not. I have chosen to semi-retire in North Africa and I live and see the reality on the ground. I do not fall for biased MSM or agenda-based sources that distort or avoid the normal existence of life that the majority of Muslims live in, and at the same time I do not put my head in the sand and am very aware of those that live a difficult, hard, dangerous or terrible life. What I certainly do not do, is distort life and make something out of nothing or over-generalise to attack the whole because of the evilness of a few.

You have expostulated, but not responded. You give your European background as a reason to be respected. This will not suffice. You grew up under the freedoms of the West and refuse to acknowledge the necessity of liberty and self determination for each individual. You have excused yourself from answering the plain meaning of these violent and hate-filled texts of the Koran, vaguely asserting that Necrowulf has taken them out of context. You do not attempt to put them "into context" because you cannot. The verses are accurate. They are consistent with the bestial activity of Muslims all over the world.
Don't you think that you should respond to the texts of the Koran and admit what all of us see? Your eyes are tightly closed and you only present invincible ignorance. It's a pity. Your intelligence led one to believe that you could be reasoned with. Justification of Islam in order to prop up your ego seems to be your only agenda. I am glad that in defiance of Islam, its hadiths and Koran and life of Mohammad that compose it, you oppose child abuse generally. That is a start.

Bronwyn; Wow, your reply was perfect! I'll quote what you wrote for solkhar, your answer is also my answer to his argument.

Bronwyn,

I avoided getting into Qur'anic quotes for the simple reason of not clogging up, dominating and spending hours on this thread. I can do it and be sure the aesthiests and others will then call me a prosthelitizer which is another reason I avoid direct religous quotes.

What I will take you task over is your last statement above which I find a rather illogical and probably a direct attempt (but failed) dig. "I am glad that in defiance of Islam, its hadiths and Koran and life of Mohammad that compose it, you oppose child abuse generally" is incorrect and exactly what I have been refuting all along except for some of the haddiths which as I have also mentioned are not universally supported or accepted. In fact it is the haddiths that make the differing groupsing within the Muslim world.

Now as for the quotes and references above that you have accussed me of avoiding and thus not "defending" my arguments I will begin.

Haddiths - as above, I consider them, as do many, as the writings of man, thus of no divine value or guarentee of accuracy and should thus be considered what they are - the references of 7th century men discussing what they "heard about" or "what someone who was there" said. Each should be taken into account considering that factor and if anything, they are a good reflection of society, tribal structures and historical references.

As for the Qur'an (the accepted academic and institutional spelling is that and not "Koran and thus more clearly showing its pronunciation), anyone who actually studies it will tell you that it is divided into three clear areas. A historical account of the time and events of its revelation - ie the time of Mohammed and the creation of Islam, examples and events that are significant or that have some meaning that is important, and lastly direct Messages or what you call revelations.

Most attacks on Islam by agenda groups and those with other questionable motives will almost always try and say that the historical events and examples of life at that time as being the Message. Thus you have references of "kill them all" and somehow it magically becomes the great instruction of Mohammed when it was in fact a description of a rather typical 7th century battle order.

There are five partial quotes of the Qur'an that are examples of the dealing with and culture of that time and there is nothing in any of those quotes that says "God instructs you that women are second class citizens, valueless etc, etc". Why assume that the way life was portrayed in 7th century southern pensular Arabia is the demand for today? Shall you alll now follow to the letter the lifestyle of Abraham and Moses as they lived then? What is clear from those Qur'anic quotes for a most Muslims is simple. Mohammed was giving to a paganistic, ultra-sexist tribal society some order. Before Islam, women were in most cases sold and considered as valuable as the camels, goats and donkeys, with zero rights and respect. In fact what had happened was that rules that ensured rights were placed. There is an overwhelming arrogance to assume that the text of the historical discussions of Mohammed would be referring to 21st century western standards, especially when other religous texts certainly do not, let alone that the standards you enjoy today were not there only 60 years ago.

The rather sad argument given that Mohammed's wife was rich and that the treatment of women as argued by Muslims does not stand is partially correct. Until married they had no value and only if chosen to inherit by their husbands (and not even their fathers!) did they have some value. Thus, the widow whom married Mohammed was fortunate and she had value only because she had money. She would have been still banned from looking into the eyes of men, movements restricted etc, etc. Islam changed all of that - though some would argue and that is partially correct, that the cultural-tribal values still inhibit its full realization in many parts of the Muslim World.

Thus, many of those Qur'anic versus dealing with inheritance and marriage, again only partially quoted and not in full, are simply examples of what was possible in that place and that time. Again, remembering that much of the world had little value for women and many, if there husbands died, died along with them. Islam changed it. The sanctity of marriage was created and made clear, the importance of family values was made clear and the importance of community solidarity was at that time paramount and thus harsh penalities for breaking those values was put in place, to ensure the harmony and thus the very survival of the community and families within it.

Polygamy was critical to the survival of women, like it or lump it, at that time and until only recently, the reliance on the survival of the male meant also the survival of the wife and children. Remember that, which is not quoted above for some strange reason..... , that there are clear rules of how or why a man may marry a second or more wives. The first being on the acceptance of the first wife, the second that it is because of a family-critical issue with the first wife - she is barren or termanilly ill, then that second wife should be from a poor family, healthy etc. All, of course, based on life of that time.

The real question of Islam is still radicalism, radicals will by their very nature only interpret parts that suite their radical needs. Thus, Arab radicalism spread the furthest as most clerics were originally from them, they supported the Arab tribal values that were not endorsed or mentioned in Islam and taking the more hard-line or extreme intepretation.

I put it to you this way, many Muslim countries have outlawed and others have had a huge decline in the number of marriages of more than one wife. Why? Because it does not suite 21st century logic or standards. To put it another way, the world changes and Islam has the capicity to change with it. I know a man whom did marry a second wife. He is 76 and healthy, his children are now married and he has grand-children, his wife suggested that as a matter of charity that he marries the sister of a friend whom because she was barren never was married, she is around 55 years and poor. The objective was not for sexual reasons or intimicy, but in fact it was done for charity and to protect that lady. Personally I could not do that, but I understand it.

Having said that, yes the rules were abused, just like Moses' Ten Commandments are abused badly and constantly. Man has since day one of time been obsessed with personal power and control over others and I do not see it changing. That is what religion is in fact about, trying to get man to understand there is more to life than just that. It is the test that each of us face in life.

Necorwulf, is a self-admitted aetheist, likes to bag religion and has used as a source an hate-agenda website. Thus, it is his/her problem if they wish to ignore more academic or logical sources and with the view of someone not interested in the "faith" compenent that the majority of the population of this planet do, then he/she will simply never get it. That, I repeat in the end is their problem or issue.

My own "case" as one of you likes to call it is simple and clear. I am a Muslim, I am so because I believe in what is called the "Abrahamic Tradition" that follows from Adam to Moses, Abraham to Christ and finally to Mohammed. I accept the Qur'an as being the Message from God and that is for me a matter of faith. I am a Sinast, which means I put no infalilable value to haddiths and take them for what they really are - reports written by men from that time, which may or may not have been created with the best of intentions. I fully reject every aspect of ignorance that radicalism injects into the lives of all Muslims.

What I also do is defend my core values and faith that comes from the Qur'an and I see nothing that discredits it, makes it incompatible with modern life at all, if anything, it guides and directs me.

I do not defend the actions of ignorant, stupid, foolish or evil Muslims and their organisations and governements. I denounce violence and intollerance in all its forms as much as I denounce radicalism which is the most base and ugly side of humanity - and that goes for radicalism in any religion or community.

Bravo Bronwyn! once more you call them out to state their full case or begone!
I suspect that a Solkar regards himself/herself as moderate and modern in outlook without stating
his/her case.
The problem is of course that casting off the excess baggage of their coreligionists makes them de facto apostasists and therefore susceptible to being murdered by the same.
Strange that some people live their lives for a religion(cult)that only gives embarrassment rather than fulfilment.

Thanks HSB. You are right, the problem of looming death and torture really discourages those Muslims who do think from getting out. I hope though, that a defiant, truth- loving, death- defying spirit will overtake their children, as in Iran.

A small point ther Bronwyn that I would love you to clarify for me, if you could.

Discribe to me how you have come to the obviously mistaken assumption that the entire Musllim world has "looming death and toruture"? Surely your not one to assume that every Muslim has a sword over his neck, that if your a Muslim woman then you must be in a burqa and that camels run down every street?


Being one who has visited Iran for work at least 20 times over a 2 year period - I was posted in Ankara Turkey with coverage of Iran - I can tell you that most of those defiant, truth-loving, death-defying children in Iran if they read your comments on this thread would be supporting my points exactly, about 60 per cent would "chose" to wear the hijab, 99 per cent would reject anything remotely like a burqa and about 90 per cent would consider themselves modern but very faithful Muslims.

Spot on, FBF. As usual, you cut to the guts of the matter. Any honest Muslim (a contradiction in terms?) must answer your question in the negative, so don't hold your breath awaiting a reply.