Who Will Defend Islam From Hate?

(This is a post I failed to publish earlier, for reasons I can't say)

WHAT DO INTELLIGENT PEOPLE THINK ABOUT ISLAM?

Should Islam be #banned ?

What about someone like, the UN Special Rapporteur To #Palestine ?
What does he say? Go to his website Transnational.org to find out...
What did he say about the Quran, for example...
Did he say, like these small-minded idiots with their channels, that Islam is evil?
Or that ppl should burn the "Koran" bc that's permitted "free speech"?

Let me ask this: when has free speech (like that) saved anyone, or changed the world for the better?
These haters of the Quran and Prophet Muhammad don't care about saving people.
If they had, they would have already been on Israel to have mercy on the Palestinians who are killed every day over there.
No, its only #Islam they want to stop, not a terrorist state like Israel.
That's too hot for them to handle... they want views not trouble!
They don't want to get #banned on Youtube or social media platforms, they don't want the ire of Zionists. They just wanna get more subscribers, more views and more anger because they can then also make their little "I react to hate comments" videos.

And because (for views) them getting "hate" is important, but Muslims anger is of no consequence.
Muslims anger, when it boils over, however, into violence will be big news. And many people, Muslims and non Muslims included, can be killed or hurt.
That probably gives them more reason to point the accusing finger at Muslims and their #religion but never do they admit their own fault in the madness.
They draw or print caricatures in the paper, then wait and see. They do this with their #stupid protests, too.
They wonder if they should "burn a Koran" or not (the purpose of which is still unclear to me; there are books of other religions that are far less humane, historically accurate  or "scientific".
These books may also tell of killing 'infidels', or promote racism, but hey, we don't see Muslims advocating burning them.
But I think we should realize that there are things which Muslims will never do that the Non believers will do.
Those haters mock Islam unashamedly and with their 'creative' outputs; they think that gives them an advantage!

But the fair minded, intelligent ppl are not fooled by your mean spirited attacks on Islam or your childish games.

There will come a day when Islam will not be the target of hate that it is today, when it can be defended in a court of law, just like the special rapporteur to Palestine wants. Because hate speech against Islam and the "Koran" isn't worth peoples lives or the damage that occurs when some 'nutters' advocate burning a holy book or drawing insults; actions which have no other purpose than to anger Muslims.

A woman like Asia Bibi has bought into the idea that her free speech is so much needed in the world, that she got herself arrested and imprisoned for 8 long years (in solitary).
Does she now realize why what she did was a total loss, and that her free speech has gained herself and the world absolutely NOTHING!?
I hope she has learned that even #freedom has its limits. Yes, you are free to change religions. Maybe not in all countries of the world. Maybe not in your country.
But your country is not going to change just because you think yourself above the law - In your heart you are whatever you believe. So, you are a Christian or a Muslim, or a Hindu or a Sikh...
But the law in #Pakistan doesn't permit hate speech against the prophet of Allah, PBUH. What made you say the things you did, Asia Bibi? Was it God or the devil!? Jesus??
As Muslims we need not react to every time something like this happens. Certainly never with violence. Permitted speech, like video reactions, a blogpost, etc are within our rights.
And why shouldn't we speak out against hate speech? Nothing is accomplished by our own anger at the stupidity of the enemies of Islam or their childish rants, hate speech or incredibly useless protests.
But maybe something will come of speaking out against hate, and the small-minded ppl with tunnel vision who only see Islam as an enemy and Muslims as less fit to rule than they themselves, although they have already proven themselves capable of terrible crimes and even human rights abuses. It is the West that used the A bomb, or bombed Germany to bits. They had no qualms about killing and maiming during the Crusades in Europe before.
Nor did they feel a lot of guilt at killing Iraqis or raping some innocent girls at the time they were in the throes of their insane occupations. Later, when wracked with guilt and PTSD, they did see the
enormity of the violence they had wrought, but too little too late, and only when it was clear that they had hurt themselves far worse (maybe?) in the process than they had hurt the "enemies" they were there to (either kill or) set free.

There will be a day when the haters come to understand that their lives have been, for the most part, an utter waste. They will come to know.

Hitchens is not very much celebrated anywhere. We don't see people embracing the past!
His shoes have been filled by the less capable and laughable, not that I ever liked Hitchens or even thought him extremely intelligent or even gave his many speeches a thorough listen. I have seen more of them over the years than I care to admit but not obsessively or with any compulsion to eradicate his kind, that would be a form of mental illness...
But that other atheists like Abdullah Sameer will now even admit that maybe there is something to redeem the Muslims... well I already know they will not be able to keep saying evil things about Islam as in the past; they have very often ignored the good that Islam brought.

They also have no proofs for what they say about the prophet Muhammad, though they will continue to say those things, thinking that people will always give ear to their obsessive rants and what they believe are very strong and "logical" arguments, that Islam permits rape, or forced marriage! Or the many other insults they hurl at Muslims daily on the internet or other forums of "free speech"!

The Ex Muslims of North America comes to mind. Please see my videos exposing the EXMNA, to know more!

Let the courts decide, I say. As we see, Muslims like the judges in Pakistan are quite capable of independent thought, and also mercy. If anything has come out of Asia Bibi's long ordeal, it isn't that Christians are victims of Islamic fundamentalists, because Muslims are also the victims of hate every day, but that some Christians are extremists! They even enjoy suffering for their religion, apparently!
Most Muslims are not evil monsters and misogynistic haters, who a minority of youtubers with their freespeech want banned from their countries, or to change, sometimes by force - such as when they demand us to change what the Quran teaches, which would mean changing the book of Allah (which is a thought/hate crime in our view).

They know they have tried, Islam has already been challenged many times, different sects popped up, and with disastrous and violent results.

It's only 'true' Islam that can stop violence and hate.

The Muslims who react violently are not the example of independent thought and mercy, but they are mobs of angry protestors and sometimes extremely violent reactionaries.
They may even kill in the name of Islam, but they are not sanctioned to do that by God!

It is up to the mullahs/imams/scholars now to preside over their own flocks and tell them what's what. Muslims for the most part will not listen to non Muslims, "the infidels", or to the people who obviously hate Islam anyway!

They need to learn Islam at the feet of their own respected teachers. Believers who will explain why violence is not a way! Islam is the middle way.
But we know that banning Islam is not going to work. Islam is not going to change to appease Islam's enemies. Those ppl who do not understand true Islam have no right to tell Muslims that Islam must change.

Like a drug addict or anyone who is 'different' or has different 'needs', Christians in Muslim societies may also find themselves feeling 'frustrated' or even 'angry' about Islam.
They are at odds with some of the societal norms, culture or religious teachings. That's life, though, isn't it, for all of us. Nowhere do all the people in society feel they are given a fair shake, or perhaps equal rights.

But those feelings do not entitle them to anything!
The fact that some people feel constrained by the system or society where they live, doesn't mean they are right to do or say what they do.

Asia Bibi is, in fact, an extremist herself. Once we realize this, the context of her 'free speech' is understood better. It is the context that is then blamed for her plight, instead of her own outward and obvious hate and religious fanaticism! Yes, Pakistan is a Muslim majority country, yes it has Sharia laws, and scholars judged her according to her vile speech, which is not freedom!
She was the cause of her own problems, when she blurted out unnecessary and wrong things, which are just her fanciful claims. Whatever hate she harbours towards Islam and Prophet Muhammad, who is not here to defend himself against vile accusations, those things we are always coming up against.
(I do not even want to know what she said, but I can imagine a few things which we are always hearing in the "conversations" online).

Ironically, Muslims are told by Apostates that we can't love someone we have never met, then it also would be (according to their logic) true that someone can't hate someone they have never met!
So why the constant attacks on the person of the prophet, his morality or his character, PBUH??
Oh, because those ppl have nothing better to do with their time than hate on Islam and Prophet Muhammad. :((

Trying to have real conversations with Muslims isn't even on their list of possibilities, though they are always promoting the lie about wanting a dialogue with Muslims, lol.
We won't catch this type of bully apologizing for their behaviour online, their Muslim baiting, etc. but we will find them creating excuses for why they should continue to bait Muslims and hate on Islam.

They say they are merely 'criticizing' Islam (lol, or critiquing the Quran, etc) but what they are doing is hate propaganda, pure and simple. We know the difference between hate and criticism.
If you criticize, you want that person to perhaps reflect, but baiting Muslims is about causing anger not having a constructive conversation.

Anyway, Islam teaches us to steer clear of their 'conversations' which are hate speech. So, maybe we should ban such people and stay away from their toxic channels and videos.

Have a different view or just an opinion you'd like to share, let me know in #comments below!

Have a nice day/evening :)

American Soldier's Response To Anti-Muslim Comments

So that they may hear the Word of Allah

Re: Human Rights for War Victims & America’s Muslims

Sura 9, Verse 6

“And if anyone of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah [i.e. the Qur’an]”

“Then deliver him to a place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.”

The meaning is that all non-Muslims (even pagans) were treated with a basic level of human dignity, not forced to beg for mercy when the Muslim army was in the superior position, nor if a true Islamic government were in power today or had power over ordinary non-Muslims (nonviolent civilians and non-combatants) who do not bear arms or threaten the government or the peace and security of the Muslims (or people) within the Islamic state.

It wasn’t permitted to kill people just because they were non-believers or pagans.

Furthermore, it was considered a bigger problem (for the state) than killing a Muslim (due to some conflict with him) to kill a non-believer who was under the protection of the Muslim government, and had (as above) a guarantee of safety of the emir al Moumineen (or Caliph).

It is also taught that any Muslim could give protection to any non-believer and that person’s life and property became sacrosanct (impermissible); there could be no shedding of such a person’s wealth, or any mistreatment (as per the prophet’s statement that any Muslim could give protection and the ummah would be obliged to protect that person, no matter how insignificant that Muslim is in the eyes of the people in his community regardless of his wealth or position, social status or any similar considerations.

To conclude, this means that non-believers are not to be killed merely for non-belief or their preferred religion, if they are not joining in fighting the Muslims, either in the Islamic state, or if they are given protection (in the days of Muhammad, it was in the form of a letter to which a seal was affixed). In those days the Muslims respected such things.

In Peace or War, the rights are guaranteed, they cannot be annulled by the dictates of extremists, nor does the Qur’an permit hypocrisy or two-faces; there is no permission in Islamic literature or teachings to lie to people to hurt them or to cause rifts in society or permission to deceive to curtail civil rights. It is permissible for the military leaders to plan and otherwise do what is necessary (by falsifying reports by people or otherwise to try to hide the Muslims’ true intentions (direction of a campaign, dates for actions, as military strategy), which is nothing to do with the average Muslims character or truthfulness. Some people (enemies of Islam) pretend that Muslims are permitted to lie about their religion, or to mislead people in every big or small discussion and so on, which is a part of the non-Muslims’ strategy of false propaganda against Islam and Muslims.

This protection was extended to anyone who asked, and meant that he agreed that he wouldn’t fight the Muslims inside the Islamic state, or scheme to attack Muslims by helping others from without the Islamic state, and so on. It is not true either that the protection in Sura 9, Verse 6 (above) was only for those people who were willing to listen to the Quran to convert; it means that the Muslims made some attempt to teach Islam to them and then they were allowed to remain free and could do as they pleased (as per their living, beliefs and worship (with some limitations placed on non-Muslims, such as no open worship or displays of religious symbols (e.g. a cross) or preaching of religion (contrary to what Islam teaches) This didn’t limit their free discussions with Muslims or other Christians and/or people who shared a similar faith, however). Non-Muslims could be punished for crimes which were well known to have proscribed punishments in those days, e.g. murder, adultery, fornication, stealing, drunkenness and so on.

It is to be noted that Muslims were not permitted to spy on each other or others, and spying wasn’t a permissible way to ascertain whether a person was breaking any laws or not; whether this would be the same today in light of the dangers faced by societies by terrorists, it is possible that some scholars might have a different opinion about whether or not the government would be permitted in unusual or special cases where there is a need, to spy on the people, vis a vis tapping their phones or monitoring their activities.

The demand by non-Muslims in their own countries that they be permitted to enter mosques and monitor activities isn’t unreasonable, and there is no problem in Islam with allowing non-Muslims to enter the masjid if there is some need; they could remain in the back and do their jobs, e.g. listen to the Khutba (religious talk of the Imam) and ascertain whether Muslims in some mosques are teaching extremism (ideas or encouragement to terrorist actions) which would be illegal; it isn’t a question really of whether Muslims give permission to this or not as we know that they are in fact being monitored, but the fact that this is brought up by some non-Muslims as a thing which would cause Muslims discomfort or pain is suggesting that Muslims in general have a problem with the greater society or telling what they really believe, whereas as Americans in favor of freedom point out, Muslims have been polled as to their beliefs, they have spoken out, they are engaged, and particularly in America where there are good numbers of Muslim Americans who are integrated - they are born Americans, they have degrees, they are more educated than a majority of Americans and almost as educated as Jewish Americans (according to polls, as speakers point out), they believe in the “American dream” more than most Americans.



RE: Email about Islam, my response - 1

I'll try to be shorter than you, lol,

 Does Islam Permit Discrimination or Oppression?
Does Islam Permit Discrimination or Racism?

the Quran and Shariah still apply, is all I said. It is flexible but we don't arbitaririly change laws; as long as something isn't forbidden we don't make it forbidden, and something is impermissible, we don't make it permissible. There is a lot of room to live comfortably without fear of oppression in Islam. (Revised)

It is okay for scholars or Muslims to disagree, but only people educated in Fiqh and such can make rulings, they must be proper scholars. Once we have rulings, we can apply in our lives, and we understand that sometimes there is a difference of opinion as well, and we don't necessarily pick and choose, but we are better advised (by scholars) to use prudence, stick with a good scholar or the group of scholars we trust and whose advise and rulings make the most sense to us.

We can't make up our own rulings because we aren't qualified. That's how we can get on with our lives, otherwise we wouldn't sometimes know what is okay to do, etc.

I am talking about important and mundane things, too. For example, there are all topics which get discussed, questions of all kinds are asked, and we need guidance.

I don't think in any society most people just do whatever they feel like without at least knowing that if they do somehting that is not acceptable to the society at least, that they wouldn't be punished or have some consequences to pay. Laws or rules are everywhere, no matter what country.

We all choose how to live and what to abide by. That's why I don't really believe in preaching, but only telling how I think things are. I believe shariah is basically the same since Muhammad, pbuh, and i am glad that it doesn't have to change, so I know what I do to keep within guidelines of the religion.

Slavery was not forbidden completely because of the age in which Islam was revealed, but the Prophet greatly encouraged to let slaves free, which people did a lot, and also his "sunnah" is what we do. Also, the most backwards nations are the ones where ppl still have slaves, not in the ME. This is why if Muslims commit a grave sin, or want reward they are told by scholars here to buy the freedom of slaves in those nations, e.g. in Africa, etc. Sudan still has some, and some others, I don't know exact places.

Just as you have laws in your country, whether secular or religious, (secular in your case) so I have laws I must abide by, and I have accepted that,not blindly but willingly.

I don't think Jews or Christians should have power over anybody, except if they are in their own countries, but what does that mean? You make it sound pretty sinister. And Muslims do okay in their own countries, which is why many good things exist in our societies, even though a lot has changed to bring evil, too e.g. internet is one thing. As I said, everywhere there can be freedom, development can happen, and cooperation or coexistence. We have many non-Muslims in Muslim countries who are pleased to be here. It is sad that there are many who may be oppressed in some spheres of life, or are unhappy. Many Muslims also are having difficulties, due to poverty, sickness, or wars, and oppression, in many countries, even in the West (in recent years).

Muslims had been much fairer in the past to the People of the Book than many people give them credit for. Esp. because we do know what happened to the Jews in Europe when Christians took over. So I don't agree that Christians or Jews can do any better in fact.In time we will see more clearly how the secular governments may also falter if they do not regain their standing as people who believe in and promote human rights and freedoms for all. I believe (about Muslims now) the opposite than what has occured (with the downfall of islamic countries) will eventually happen, and Muslims will in their own way be able to elevate themselves to show a more positive face and more positive outcomes.

Does Islam Permit Discrimination or Oppression?
Islam forbade racism.

Emails Asking about Islam - 1

Re: Reply to your comment on: Douglas Murray - (SML) Are Muslims Too Easily Offended?

good Day Jane. Thanks for the reply. I hope you are well.

I thank you for sharing some of your experience. It sounds as though your parents love you. I am sure there are many things involved in making us who we are. Our genes, no doubt, confer onto us certain proclivities, but no one would question the importance of affirming parents.

I have no doubt as well, that your religion has changed some of your thoughts about things, and certain behaviors. The individual religious experience is fascinating and I am familiar with it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "preset ideas about Islam and Muslims". I will admit however that I am a biased person. I try my best however to limit bias as much as possible. As a Christian, I was quite biased to see the world a certain way, consistent with my religion. As a Christian I thought of Islam as a wayward religion that needed to be set right ( lol) . As a Westerner, my view of Islam has been too heavily influenced by extreme versions of it, that seem to show up in the news far too often ( and for good reason!).

My first encounter with a Muslim occurred about 20 years ago. I was working with a national from Saudi Arabia. We had a discussion about religion. We were both scientifically minded so he gave me a book called the Bible, the Koran, and science by a man called Maurice Buccaille. I read it with interest.He was a good man.

Following 911, I read a couple of books about Islam by Karen Armstrong, who portrays Islam in a favorable light.

About two years ago I decided to read the Koran myself. I tried to read it in the nonbiased way. I must say, that it did not impress me very much. It seemed very repetitive and the main theme seems to be that God is one and that those who believe will inherit heaven and those who disbelieve will be tortured forever in hell. Believers are the best of people and nonbelievers are the worst of people.

It talks about the prophet of God as well as other prophets like Moses, Jesus, Abraham, Noah, Isaac, Sampson, and a couple of other ones I did not recognize.

Faithful men will we inherit virgins and men are allowed up to four wives and can have sex with "what his right hand owns". Mohammed himself apparently can have more wives . Women appear to be inferior to men, at least intellectually and as witnesses.

A man may discipline his wife by refusing his bed to her and if that doesn't work ( lol) he may physically punish her. Divorce is quite easy to attain. God apparently forbids the eating of pork. There's a lot of stuff regarding Christians and Jews, some which seem favorable and others describing them as quite pitiful. Sura 9 is quite distressing.

There is some good stuff. There is the protection of nonbelievers ( so that they might convert) and admonitions to be good to orphans. it is a quite noble and good act to free slaves.

There is some scientific stuff in it that some scholars elaborate on. None of it seemed to be necessarily written by the creator of the universe. I'm amazed at how much liberal interpretation of these verses goes on.

like all books, particularly holy books, it appears to be quite subject to human (mis)-interpretation.

then there are the Hadith and sunnah. Some of these are admirable, but others astonishingly disturbing.

As it is now, I have no idea how anyone would believe that all of this is inspired by the creator of the universe, which is why I am interested in the ideas of people like you. I have no doubt that you are an earnest person who feels in touch with something transcendent.

I am very concerned about the impact of religion. I'm not sure that religion is consistent with liberal democracy. I think there is a clash of ideas. Liberal democracy asserts that all humans are equal under the law and should be allowed to live his or her life the way he or she wants to, provided it does not interfere with the next person to do the same. It protects minorities, free speech. He challenges authority and requires empirical validation of any truth claim.

Anyways, I have enjoyed our discussion.

Emails Asking About Islam -2

Does Islam Discriminate Against Women or Girls?

Re: Reply to your comment on: Douglas Murray - (SML) Are Muslims Too Easily Offended?

Hi again Jane.


Please feel free to use my thought on your blog. I would appreciate it if you would not change them, LOL.

I think you did mention something to the effect that the moral code outlined in the Koran might only apply to people from that day, rather than today. The Koran for instance seems to have no objection to slavery. I will admit that the freeing of slaves was a generous act, but the institution itself was practiced and seems to be condoned by the Koran and the Hadith. There are very few Muslims today who would agree with slavery. Unfortunately there still are some Islamic people and countries who have not outlawed slavery because of the Koran. There are also very few Muslim people who would marry prepubescent children. Unfortunately there are some who do.


I do believe that 4 witnesses for adultery and rape is unreasonable. I do believe that human beings can rationally determine whether adultery or rape has occurred without 4 witnesses.I also believe that a woman's testimony is just as valuable as a man's and a woman can decide what is appropriate for her to wear without asking her husband. I believe that woman can walk around society unaccompanied if she chooses. I believe it is never appropriate for husband to strike his wife.I believe that stoning to death for adultery or apostasy is immoral.

I also believe it is quite fine for Jews and Christians to have political power over Muslims if they are best at the job. There should be no prohibition based upon religion. I don't believe in the modern world, polygamy is unacceptable.

I don't believe that you do know where you stand with respect to a huge number of moral issues facing human beings today. I don't believe that Islam has worked out a universal moral stance to global warming, taxation, women's rights, polygamy, defensive war, Gay rights, Dhimmi rights, Jihad, apostasy. There is a great deal of interpretation that goes on with respect to these things and they are basically the same things we have to work out in the Western world.

Wrt torture-I generally agree that torture is unacceptable, however since I have a very good imagination, I can imagine some instances where it might be acceptable. This is the problem with holy books giving universal moral prohibitions. Morality actually requires an assessment of the particular situation.

it may be that there is some evolutionary value to belief in a God or gods or spirits. I wonder though, if we are evolving away from that. I think that atheism or nonbelief or at least a minimum belief is far and away the fastest growing. If religion is truly a man-made invention, then I would expect there to be a number of different beliefs depending upon culture. I would expect that there would be great confusion about it, even amongst people of the same religion. I think this is exactly what we find.


Does Islam Discriminate Against Women or Girls?

As promised, I haven't changed any of the email or ideas one iota. I have had a lot of enjoyment reading peoples emails, particularly this one, and it's because of freedom that we can exchange views. So here is three cheers for freedom: Hooray for Freedom, Hooray, Hooray.

That was a bit weird, lol.

 

My reply will follow in the next post, It's ready, but to build up suspense, I'll be posting that tomorrow. (see below for more of my thoughts on Allah, Islam, faith and religion)

Allah has revealed to us 99 names and there are other of His names we don't know. We also can learn about His attributes, which helps us to know Him. That's one means to knowing Allah, and then there are His signs in nature, etc.

Many people say they have changed certain habits and so on, but I don't believe most people change as far as who they actually are. I think most people know themselves pretty well, it isn't about changing ourselves but our actions, which is a big part of Islamic conversion and the time that takes could be short or long depending on the person and his/her background and problems, etc. Some people find the conversion almost nothing to complain about, meaning it is rather easy for them. I didn't struggle myself with wearing hijab too much, though it took me 3 months to get up the courage when I was living at the time in a non-Muslim environment, but that is my personal experience and others have a different one.

I believe I am still the same person my parents raised and they recognize that most of the changes about me have been outer ones and others are more private, such as my thoughts or beliefs on things, which I don't always express to my family for reasons I don't go into here. But they know who I am, that I am basically the same daughter they raised and will always have my special personality and quirks.

I am a more God-conscious person however, and that is something which has been ongoing since I converted rather than something which came and went when I was Christian. It has something also to do with the society I choose to live and the company I choose to keep.

I think you have a lot of preset ideas about Islam and Muslims which makes you say the things you do, in a kind of judgmental way.

No problem, it's been interesting as usual to read your reply.

Some Points:
 

 adultery is proven with four witnesses, otherwise it can't be proven, nor can anyone's reputation be spoiled by talk of infidelity without clear evidence and witnesses  this gives opportunity for the sinner to repent of his or her crime and to stop the adulterous behaviour without being dragged through the mud, as is done in western and european nations whenever a hint of "infidelity" occurs.

It is to preserve honor and life that Allah has made it a difficult task to prove adultery by ordering that four witnesses (they must be male, even in this day and age). This requirement means that convictions don't happen a lot, unless the people themselves turn themselves in to receive the punishement (a worldly punishment will ward off the one in the hereafter). Also, if women were to be witnesses, that would maybe make it easier to find four people to testify, than if all four must be men. What adulterer is going to let people find him in a situation like this? It might not happen every one hundred years, but is a good deterrent anyway, when punishment is a possiblilty.

stats on Muslims show that their divorce rate is rising in general. This means that there is more unhappiness or instability inside marriages today,which is due to many modern reasons. We can reflect that women also seek divorce more often in shariah or family courts (in the ME) or in the West and Europe through lawyers or divorce court. But Muslim marriage is still more successful on averrage than other marriage. Infidelity is also not as much of a problem as in non-Muslim societies, in my opinion (probably stats back this up).

Rape, is another issue and viewed with great gravity by the society and earns the displeasure of Allah and is not condoned in any case. It can be easily proven by a physical examination of the victim; it isn't necessary to have even one witness if DNA testing can prove the criminal without any doubt. It is better to have witnesses to corraborate the woman or child's testimony, or in the case of men also, there is the same recourse to medical witness of a doctor or health professional, and first person accounts of witnesses and so on.

(revised June 9th)



Western Hatred of Islamic Culture

Is Islamic culture respected? (Part Two)

Now, France and Britain attempt to unite their people under a “cultural identity”. The culture, or more correctly religious expression of Muslims, specifically Islamic dress, is a recent target. In America, surprisingly, even the five daily prayers are being attacked!


Britain’s “multiculturalism” and religious freedom allows much cultural and religious expression, but laws can be created to stifle Islamic religious expression, or freedom if need be (on a mere whim, apparently) or as the government sees fit; for example, in the name of security, or under the guise of “multiculturalism” or “women’s rights”.


Multiculturalism then becomes a tool which can be used to herd Muslims into the “melting pot” with promises of greater freedom; they can be dealt with more easily; as the (present or sitting) government sees fit; by new laws enacted to stifle expressions of religion or culture different from the majority of Brits.


“O Mankind, your injustice is only against yourselves, (being merely) the enjoyment of worldly life” (10:23, The Qur’an)


See also footnote 476, p.273, The Qur’an, Saheeh International publishers.


The internment of Muslim families, specifically children is a systematic practice in Netherlands. Families are separated; children taken away from their fathers. It is inhumane and dirty; one man said, he had not known that such a thing happens in his own country; a free and modern state; he was shocked at his country’s ‘dirty secret’. Most people don’t know that this is happening to the asylum seekers, or illegal immigrants. He is a children’s author, he wrote a book about the experience. (see story - add)


See also, Islam in America and Europe targeted

Islam in America and Europe Targeted

Is Islamic culture respected? (Part One)

Examine the Free Speech in Countries like America and Denmark.


Problem: free speech is not regulated, like say, the food industry.


In other industries, for example, we know that there are certain guidelines, for ex. Food must not pose a threat to health.


Toys must be safe; no lead paint, if there are small parts, then toys must be labeled, as such.


Health equipment; is another example of regulation.


Laws on “freedom of expression” are “no racism”, no “hate”, etc.


Are the laws sufficient? Too vague?

Because countries like America and Britain, which are the biggest proponents and in practice allow the most so-called “free speech”; they also have the highest incidents of hate crimes, and violent threats directed at “Free speech” proponents. Such as writers/artists, or in Denmark, it was the editors of newspapers carrying the caricatures of Prophet Muhammad, years back.


The non-Muslims should be taught (tolerance), or governed by/ laws which allow free speech, enacted under “appropriate conduct”.


For example, if you have a problem with Muslim women’s dress in western countries, being forced to/or wearing the face veil, of their own free will, does that constitute a threat to your liberty, or safety? You believe that the public should be able to see anyone’s face.


What about tattoos? Do they not also cover the face? That person can no longer be identified except by his tattoo, for example. If several people then have such tattoos, doesn’t it mean that there is confusion about who is who?


Free speech should be able to show that it is somehow important, or expresses, either art, or culture, or seeks to right some wrong, or so on….


It should be specific: i.e. Don’t complain about Islam in general, is a bad religion; there are examples in the Bible about things which most people would not agree with, yet, the Bible as a whole is not being banned, or attacked, as a whole, nor are certain Christians, denominations, sects, or groups being attacked as a whole.


For example, someone could protest that Muslim women should not wear Islamic clothing, such as the burqa, or a face veil, and give reasons why. There should be a clear and defensible argument why this is not good in a Western society. (I.e. People can merely teach their children that Muslims believe they must dress this way, if it bothers them or their children).


Laws, denying men unilateral divorce, for example. Laws; denying men the right to practice polygamy; these apply to all Muslims; might/might not be seen as violating the basic right to religious freedom. In a secular society, which decides matters in a legal or constitutional framework, what things does the government have a right to ban, or legalize?


But the banning of a covering overcoat? Will Muslim women be allowed to wear “London fog” coats in summer, or will that constitute something illegal. I.e. trying to over cover up in the summer when people should be uncovering?


Should free speech which is “provoking” anger, with no other intention except to “provoke” a group of people, or a religious sect then be illegalized? Considering that such free speech, serves no other purpose; it is not (construed as) being done from an (largely) artistic perspective, it is not challenging a specific idea or belief dangerous to the wide public.


We find that countries like Canada, which have not banned the face veil, have fewer problems. The Muslims are perhaps not choosing extremism, as a result of more freedoms. Definitely, they are happier than Muslims in France at the moment.


Isn’t the government’s direct involvement in banning Islamic clothing, or Islamic teaching, going to anger Muslims, cause resentment, anger, and possibly extremist views? Should the government not make it its job to target specific religions, or sects?

“Then should We turn the message away, disregarding you, because you are a transgressing people?” (43:5)Qur’an

Governments against Islam

The so-called religious conflict between Christians and Muslims is more political than religious. For one thing, it is not in Muslims’ nature to kill Christians, on the contrary Muslims have always, since the beginning of Islam, thought of Christians as neighbors, many say “cousins”, and have gotten along rather well in communities with Christians, whom the Qur’an calls “people of the Book” respecting the origins of the Christian tradition, being from the same source.

When it comes to religious tensions and wars, we often hear the media talk about the old problem of ‘hatred’, which we are led to believe is inherent due to the fact that Muslims have a strange and opposing religion; they are the ‘cousins’ of the Christians (because the two sons of the Prophet Abraham, according to Christians and Jews, especially the evangelizing kind of Christian and the Zionists, were the ‘cousins’ born of two distinct figures, one a legitimate son (Isaac, according to the Christian/Zionist view) and one an usurper, the ‘younger’ Ishmael.

The problem with the logic of the story is that Ishmael (Ismail, A.S.)was the first born, not Isaac (Ishaq). Muslims also believe them to be equally legitimate sons of Prophet Ibraheem (Abraham, A.S., the father of monotheism). Then it follows, that Ishmael’s and Isaac’s descendents would have been equally believers, and Muslims have no problem with this. They don’t see that there was any source of conflict between peoples (from the beginning). There are no ‘stories’ to support such a conflict or hatred.

An important realization (which Muslims get) is that the conflict in the Middle East is about Crusades as much as terrorism; or the Christian governments and Israel holding onto power. From the beginning of Islam, it’s true there was always conflict; it was more political than religious, however. Talk of “war on terror” is an excuse to renew religious hatred in the name of “security”, citing frightening statistics of Al-Qaeda’s presence worldwide, while maintaining bases in the ME to reap the imperialist rewards of tension. But religion is merely a pawn in a chess game of land grabbing. And the UN sponsored Peace talks i.e. Camp David, or what have you, are always unsuccessful, but enough participation by all sides keeps the facade of genuine concern for ME and European stability and human rights in the fore, while in reality land is grabbed away from Muslims (i.e. Palestine, Bosnia, Kosovo). It is the Jews or Muslims who really look bad, while the Christian governments and their representatives are spinning a good story; they are believable, which makes opposition impossible or politically disadvantageous. The Jews can afford the spin, too and are good at it. Muslims, their leaders and representatives (Hamas, etc in Palestine, Taliban in Pakistan, even American Muslims like CAIR, which has some success in media, or at least more savvy)are not viewed as positive, even given the spotlight. The media is more than not controlled. Even with YouTube, Muslims can’t get their positive message across. Most Westerners still don’t know what that is/’might be’.

When Muhammad, SAWS, in Mecca began preaching his message of monotheism, it was the leaders that refused the message, and put up the most fight. They didn’t want to lose their position of power and respect. Islam made them appear ignorant, blind and arrogant. When some of the leaders saw the power Islam possessed they decided within themselves to wait. They thought, if Muhammad wins, then we will join him, but not before. This shows that despite their clinging to the old ways, they were willing to follow Muhammad in the end, and didn’t deny that he was the most truthful among them, which is often stated in the authentic prophetic traditions.

Abu Jahl, the ‘pharaoh of the Arab nation’ even commented that it was not Muhammad he denied, but it was the message he denied. Once, he bragged that there was a prophet from his tribe whereas the other tribe, which his own was always in competition with, didn’t have a prophet of God to boast.

Likewise, the Christians didn’t want to be unseated from their position as the premier religion. They were adamant that God had meant them to be the ‘faithful’ that would enter paradise. They didn’t know that the bible had literally been rewritten, by men, including the story of the garden of Eden which relegated women to the role of a betrayer of the first man and Prophet of God, Adam. She would have to suffer and pay each time for that mistake, in the throes of childbirth. The majority of Christians clung to their traditions, unwilling to give an ear to the new religion, a follow up to the same basic monotheism preached at the core of some of the oldest Christian churches, such as the Unitarian tradition. Basically, Christianity believes in God, and Prophets, and the books of revelation, but they didn’t accept Muhammad, also largely because he was an Arab.

As with many conflicts, fear is a motivating factor, and the ones to use that fear to their advantage is the leadership, fanning it to create a phobia that will buffer their followers from the new tradition emerging. With so much misinformation, Christianity has continued to remain largely in the dark about Islam for 1430 plus years.

While Christianity is misogynistic, Muslims are painted as more misogynistic. While the crusaders were barbaric, Muslims are painted as more barbaric, and so on. Even to the point that despite the complete and eternal ban on alcohol in Islam, the only religion that forbids drinking as well as gambling (two great vices among modern Christians), Muslims are painted as the fat and drunk sultans; always mentioned is the whoring that was supposed to be accompanying this revelry.

The Islamophobic beliefs aside, Christianity (the Church) in the past and Western nations and the Zionists in the present want to hold onto power.
("Who Values Peace?" is similar)

Perhaps the highly touted ‘multiculturalism’ is just a western tool to control Muslims after all. While manpower is essential to any nation’s ability to sustain growth, countries such as Canada, France, etc. benefit greatly from immigration, but the government has a lot of control over what Muslims can and cannot do when they live in Canada. They cannot practice polygamy, for one, except illegally, or in the shadows. Recently in America, there was a feeler sent out of stopping Muslims from performing their five daily prayers.

In Britain, the government banned the niqaab, with no legitimate reason. As facial recognition/racial profiling doesn’t help curb crime (not something Muslim women are accused of as such) and women with hiijab will often look very similar if not identical, to most Brits, the only reason to ban the niqaab would be to hurt Muslims.

“Multiculturalism then becomes a tool which can be used to herd Muslims into the “melting pot” with promises of greater freedom; they can be dealt with more easily; as the (present or sitting) government sees fit; by new laws enacted to stifle expressions of religion or culture different from the majority of Brits.” (newer, revised)

“O Mankind, your injustice is only against yourselves, (being merely) the enjoyment of worldly life” (10:23, Al-Qur’an)

Learn more about Islam's Prophet

Women's Rights In Islam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh80uGHOzHg

This link is from brother Idris Tawfiq, a marvelous and educated Muslim man. This video (like a commercial)  is very casual, you see him relaxing at the beach, his entourage, who encouraged him to do the video (there will be more, insha allah), are his camera crew and travelling partners.


He says, "Islam is gentle and sweet". "Muslims would love people to ...see the real Islam...not a caricature."

He encourages Muslims to "let people see how beautiful Islam is", "the natural religion of mankind". "people will learn about Islam by our good example", he says.
The video, is short but enjoyable.
 
Idris Tawfiq is an Irish Muslim and ambassador living in Egypt.



Enjoy... to Idris, God bless you.

Arab unrest and the US response

(I will be publishing many posts I had written from the previous 6 months while I was away)

“The west ravaged and destroyed Afghanistan for years “, says Brzezinski in an interview with Fareed Zakaria of CNN.

Libya, and Yemen and Syria are thorny issues.

It has approached the Libyan crisis well”, he had said at the time about Obama administration’s role in the conflict before the lynching of the late leader (Gaddafi) by rebels.

ON the other hand, in other conflicts, the US should not be in the forefront of the military initiative.

“There can be a slight gap between (our) words and actions”, he had said.

The West totally ignored Afghanistan (after the end of the war with Russia) and then Taliban appeared, he explains.

Concerning future relations in the region; “Iran is more hostile while Egypt will be more difficult”, he says.

Fareed Zakaria explains, we approve of the Arab uprisings, but may make things more difficult for American foreign policy issues.

The masses are more driven and less patient, explains Brzezinski.

It’s in Israel’s interest to move forward (now).

I particularly have in mind Egypt and potentially Jordan.

The New York Times “story of a showdown likely in the UN” is worrying. Will the UN vote for Palestinian independence? He asks.

“The time is against us”, he said. US voted against UN resolution despite the wording being like the American position, “conveying that it is powerless,” but it is a “redeemable” mistake, he points out.

American Interference And Life (Part One)

More summer reading by DD

It’s Inappropriate for AI to speak of Shias Freedom of Expression and Association

Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa director, says, the Bahrain government “must not make the same mistake” it made in the February – March period, when “largely peaceful” protests were stopped. He is speaking without correct information. It is just like the Westerners to stick in their noses where they don’t belong. This is “meddling” and a dangerous precedent here.

In the earlier protests, the government waited till the following month, from Feb. 16, until early March, to dismantle the protests. There were found machetes, knives, Molotov cocktails, and iron rods, etc as weapons used against the government police and army personnel. The Shias burned sections of their makeshift ‘tent city’ at the Pearl Roundabout when forced to disperse.

Therefore, telling the King of Bahrain or the government to again allow protests is not any of Smart’s business. If protests seem in any way a disruption to the government, or the normal running of the country, hurt businesses, or affect tourism, etc. of course the government will have to cease the actions. Bahrain is hoping to get the F1 again; it is not going to be possible if the Shiites insist on demonstrating at this time. The local economy is already in worse shape since February and March. Tourism by Cruise Ships and tourism companies’ business has been badly affected. Just as George Bush junior told the Americans, and New Yorkers to “go shopping”, Bahrainis can see the F1 back, if that’s what they want.

While martial law has been lifted, everyone in the society should try to allow some normalcy to prevail in the Kingdom again. We can see that the situation in Bahrain was not what it was in the case of other countries in the Arab Spring. For one thing, this is not an Arab Spring type protest, by Arabs, but a Shiite led protest, with Iranian backed leaders. It is a ‘foreign’ protest, for all practical purposes. Recently, an Iraqi flotilla was planned, but the Iraqis in demonstrations here demanded Iraq’s “hands-off” approach to mediation. It is just another attempt at ‘propaganda’ by Shias not directly involved.

Now some, such as Wefaq are calling for “Shiite and Sunni” demonstrators, “sons of both honored sects”, to join the next planned Peaceful demonstrations to “take their right…of self- determination” AFP. They know full well, however, that the Sunni Muslims do not want to be involved in their demonstrations ‘calling for reform’ (now), which is just a “whitewash”.

The government should allow the people to “’peacefully’ exercise their right to freedom of expression and association”, says Malcolm Smart, of Amnesty International. It’s a little late for that AI, don’t you think? Most likely, there would be less support for these protests than there was in February and March.

Still, Al Wefaq, says the “revolution has and will not end”. AFP

Why Terry Jones is Relevant

by DD (06/05/2011)

Someone asked me, why do you reply to comments by “nobodies”, is this person important, etc.?

Simply, I am exercising my right to free speech; to disagree with anyone I deem is not being fair, or is abusing her “free speech”, or similarly if someone is blogging about an issue which people are interested in, I can voice agreement to it, comment, etc.

Sometimes, people begin with an argument, but then get wildly lost; losing focus. This makes reading their arguments tedious or an irritation, instead of a worthwhile exercise. This happens to everyone at some point, but shouldn’t be a ‘way of life’.

Terry Jones, most people who have followed the news a little bit know, was going to burn the Qur’an on 9 11, but was prevented. He later burned it on another date; I was informed of that later on, and haven’t even had the time to go and verify that, but that’s the impression I’m left with (it was in Richard Falk’s article two days previous on Jazzera English blog)

Regardless, Terry Jones is relevant (as most people are) but for a very bad reason. And while some argue that his Qur’an burning is “freedom”, or “freedom of expression”, I argue that it isn’t.

My argument is simple: there should be rules for “freedom” and “freedom of expression”. In fact, there are already such rules. But they are not always applied. For example, there is a rule on Facebook, because it is a private owned entity, that members cannot just post whatever content, be it photos, or writing that they think is fit. It’s up to the FB site to allow members to post content on their page according to rules set out by the FB owners.

Therefore, while Facebook is public, it doesn’t allow members to post whatever they feel like, if it’s against FB rules, to which everyone must sign their agreement. That doesn’t prevent some people (I saw a teenage boy who posted very disturbing comments, which would have to be removed, and tried to file a complaint, but it seems there was a problem with the site, maybe a huge watershed of other people’s complaints, that prevented mine from being registered...I don’t know) from posting disturbing comments or opinions occasionally. Incidentally, the teenager was having a stick figure drawing complaining about being sexually abused, sodomized, etc. It was disturbing and ugly.

If you own a house, not anybody can just walk in because he’s expressing his freedom. That might lead to a lot of problems, so it’s not something considered “normal”. There are rules that are governing who can come into your home. There are many good reasons for the rules (in other words privacy laws, ownership laws, etc) and you can probably think of many of your own reasons, as a reasonable human being who knows that this is for society’s own good.

Some laws permit the ownership of a rifle, some are against it. It could be dependent on where you live and what you would need the rifle for. In Texas, for example citizens need a rife (‘in case’) to shoot the dangerous wild boar, which often attacks people (or so it’s been claimed, but some of those photos of men posing beside the animal look faked; as my son pointed out, the pig is always from the same angle except the photo has been flipped; he also said, “the pig is the size of an elephant!”)

This brings me pretty quickly to the reason for the “wrongness” of what Terry Jones did. By burning the Qur’an he is trying to have a strong negative response from Muslims, obviously. Some people, like Hannah, think that’s okay; because since she believes Muslims are extremists, they would control themselves in this one instance? Or Terry Jones, Hannah, and people like them, don’t care about consequences. If they insult all the Muslims, the Prophet of Islam, and burn the Qur’an, that’s ‘okay’. But let someone else suffer the consequences; Terry Jones himself said, and I will try to verify this, he doesn’t care if some Christians or people get hurt. It’s worth it! (It was R. Falk in the same article as mentioned above.)

What is worth it? What does Terry Jones get out of it? What is the unsubstantial, unverifiable benefit to him?  Will he be sainted in the unforeseeable future?  Is his fifteen minutes of fame worth the suffering (if other people get hurt)? Then isn’t it worth a terrorist’s time to blow up a few commuters in London, and call it freedom of expression; especially, if he gets some kind of really good feeling from it? Maybe (to his mind) even his own suicide/martyrdom; isn’t it worth it, or for arguments’ sake, isn’t it his right to only threaten to do something? NO. Maybe in the terrorist’s mind it is worth it; but our society considers this abhorrent, and it is. For this reason, society sets up rules, called laws, etc that are enforceable, can land anyone in prison for breaking them, and keeps everyone else (outside and inside, hopefully) relatively safer. His threat would be comparable to yelling ‘fire’ in a packed movie theatre, as Falk points out.

Decades ago, society realized that drinking and driving needed to be controlled; no driving permitted when blood alcohol is past the legal limit. This was to prevent (other) peoples’ deaths, and the drunk’s (would-be criminal) as well. Suicide is still considered illegal in most places; you’re not free to kill yourself. Why does society lock up criminals, even permanently?

I hope soon, society will realize that the general safety shouldn’t be compromised for some fools’ “freedom of expression”, and make better laws to reflect what a lot of people feel should be amended; the lack of enough strictures on (what is termed) “freedom”.

Dictionary –

Strictures: controls

My Islamfeed (2009)

Hate Speech Father

28/08/2009 9:49:56 PM

An American pastor teaches his children that 'Islam Is Evil' and allows them, or encourages them to sport anti-Muslim rhetoric amounting to hate propaganda which they wear. Some say this may lead the children to become targets of hate themselves. Also worrying is the manner in which he obviously is teaching them to hate non-Christians and strangers, specifically Muslims.  His fifteen year old daughter admitted that she doesn't even know any Muslims personally, 'right now'.  In his efforts to indoctrinate his two girls, it seems he doesn't consider the consequences of his actions, but considers what they are doing as 'freedom' of religious beliefs, or freedom of conscience.  In the process he has made his daughters walking billboards for hate speech, and maybe moving targets as well.

Comments

Diamond Draw - 12/09/2009 3:29:20 PM

The words, "ISLAM IS EVIL" are actually attributed to a church, in another “islamofascism” campaign, to which the Bridges Foundation is doing their counter-campaign set for October, in 2009? If anyone needs more information on this subject go to their website via the link on my space.

********

There are words for Terry Jones, “hate-speech father” for one. In a recent blog, I read this apt description by Al Jazeera’s English service Peter Falk“ (searching) “. His actions being described by the same writer as “hateful and irresponsible speech”.

In Terry Jones’ own words, “I think mainly just because the things we’re involved in are just too hot for your regular person or normal Christian“. By their fruits ye shall know them means that he has less and less followers as half his congregation has already left him since his latest “hate action”.

He could have said it another way, “I think mainly, most regular people or Christians are normal, and we’re not”? The question that begs answering is “does he think he is “above average”, “wise beyond” others, or “above the crowd”, in other words, an exceptional person/Christian? Or does he think he has insight that most people don’t have? Is he a megalomaniacal personality? The second is most likely correct, but some extremists, go beyond hate to do things, eventually dangerous things sometimes.  Hitler tried to conquer the world, because no one stopped him. Jones believes he has insight into the real character of Muslims, and the real meaning of Islam and the true character of the Prophet, Muhammad.

Maybe Jones main goal is to make life more difficult for Muslims;it is certainly a sadder world if Muslims in France feel betrayed that they are singled out because of their clothing, and Muslims in America are singled out because their name is “Usamah”. At least some people have more material for their standup comedy (see Baba Ali on You Tube doing his stand up comedy about two men on a plane, one of them is sleeping, and his name is Usamah. Guess what all the laughs are about when his travelling companion, who has a seat in the aisle across the way, wants to wake him up because the plane is about to land? “Usamah”, he points at his watch, “it’s time”).

Once again, I prove my point; or rather “from the horse’s mouth” another not so famous person tries to prove a point; that Muslims are the bad guys, but ends up with his or her “foot-in-mouth”. I am justified in bringing to light these so called “exceptions” because, the more bad apples in the bunch, the more bad apples, period. If one or two people from supposedly “normal” people are voicing these hostile sentiments, idiotic ideas, and using freedom of speech as their main weapon, not their main goal; because they don’t want US (the majority of descent Muslims to have the same freedoms which they enjoy, for the most part)society suffers as a whole. If I can have real freedom of expression, for example, the right to wear ‘niqaab’ in France (a face veil), then maybe I would even accept some rude insults, but not burning the Qur’an. That’s totally unacceptable, and I think in the future, even secular governments will begin to support that view. That’s what I am praying for, anyway.

My Islamfeed (2009)

About The Fog Is Lifting

29/08/2009 9:01:31 AM

http://www.fogislifting.com/

The fog is lifting, by Brother Fadel Solaiman, is an informative and unique film, teaching the fundamental beliefs of Islam while entertaining and providing hardly known historical facts, details about some famous or not so famous Muslims, and the truth of present day history.  Recent events, such as the 9/11 disaster are explained from a new angle, and the religion Islam, and Muslims who adhere to Islam are defended in a just and timely manner. Kudos (what does that mean?)...Allah's blessings and peace! Congratulations and many more, Allah willing, to the Bridges Foundation and head F. Solaiman, and those unknown people who helped and were active in the development and production of the film. 

I promised to bring material I’d posted on a previous blog of mine “occasionally”. But these two items seemed particularly timely, so I want to share them now while the “iron is hot”. I had posted some other older material just this week, so that’s why I’m apologizing, in a way, but not too profusely, since it’s not “bad” to do so. Hope you enjoy them, and that I am giving you nutritious “food for thought” (another 'ho hum' idiom).

What is important?

I tried to ad comment on the website “***sourprose***”, but was prevented. It ran as follows…

“A huge 40,000 Muslims (maybe in Indonesia, or someplace like that), It hasn't happened where I live; calling for the beheading of blasphemers,

yes it has happened in Indonesia. But did they actually behead anyone, if so, how many? What was the grand scale of it? You could apologize

to all those (Meaningless numbers??) of children, and adult survivors, of sexual abuse, who (not a large enough number for you?) lived through

hell on earth, at the hands of their attackers, abusers, the different churches (only the Catholics?). Please r.s.v.p.”

 (Later, she posted a comment on my blog, expressing her right NOT TO show my comment, this is still visible.)

She does not R.S.V.P. After all, she may be thinking, “Who is SHE to tell ME what to do?”  So, now the shoe is on the other foot, is that it?

I think it’s a courtesy, if you say something, and then expect no arguments; maybe you shouldn’t be calling almost “everyone who reads” your blog,

or disagrees with your narrow viewpoint, “an asshole”, I hate it, but that’s what she is/was calling everyone, and I have to explain this clearly. Generally,

it’s common courtesy, even on the net to let people have their say, and Muslim, or Islamic websites often let “idiots” (nicer word) have their fifteen

minutes of fame> but this young woman, (not lady) wouldn’t even allow my comment to be published on her page. Well you know what, “it’s my

party and I’ll cry if I want to” doesn’t work in the real world, I’m not afraid to respond to you, but I don’t have to respond to your barrage of emails

Whenever you want me to, especially considering that you “moderated” (another word for deleted) my comment in the first place! She who laughs last

laughs best, and I will.

Hee, hee, heee!

Maybe she realized that there are intelligent Muslims who are able to voice their arguments in a coherent manner, and in well spoken/written English?

Apparently, following her other emails, this is not the case…how could a Muslim possibly know English? She takes her gamble, “either you don’t know

English, blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, etc…”

Thus, I wrote the previous blog, and encourage your comments, as well. Eventually, if there are many comments, or the language is not appropriate,

I may have to delete some, but probably that won’t happen for a while since I haven’t gotten much traffic yet. Below follows my blog post and some

further explanation.

The URL is http://www.onceinalife-diamondraw.blogspot.com

Occasionally I’ll be going into my archives and digging out “older” posts I’d had on my previous blog at

http://www.Myislamfeed.spaces.com

which is not there anymore because the site closed shop permanently mid-March on Windows lives spaces.

My response to Hannah Jose (posted on my blog):

I tried to ad comment on the website “***sourprose***”, but was prevented. It ran as follows…

“A huge 40,000 Muslims (maybe in Indonesia, or someplace like that), It hasn't happened where I live; calling for the beheading of blasphemers,

yes it has happened in Indonesia. But did they actually behead anyone, if so, how many? What was the grand scale of it? You could apologize

to all those (Meaningless numbers??) of children, and adult survivors, of sexual abuse, who (not a large enough number for you?) lived through

hell on earth, at the hands of their attackers, abusers, the different churches (only the Catholics?). Please r.s.v.p.”

The URL is http://www.onceinalife-diamondraw.blogspot.com/

My Response to Life, and why it sucks.: In Terry Jones Vs Islamic Extremists

When you can't add comment, add the link :)
http://www.scornfulprose.blogspot.com/

Life, and why it sucks.: In Terry Jones VS Islamic extremists; I side with Terry. , says this 21 yr old, who calls herself by infidel, and says she is "a troubled psychology student". Here, here, I can't argue with that; she probably knows herself better than I do (or not..) I think she's just immature. I tried to tell her to grow up, but she doesn't want to get advice from someone with maturity.

40,000 Indonesians demonstrate, it's freedom of speech; they get freedom of speech, just like anyone else

as long as their government allows..I'm all for that. I don't care if you're gay or feminist, you can talk or protest, or demonstrate, if you live in a free country.

Indonesia is the most populous Muslim majority country on the planet, so what if 40,000 people march?

What's the problem...I'm thinking, this young woman is like so many, who only wants freedom of speech for herself (so she can "rant" or "rave" about her vagina, and her infections, as she has done in one of her blogs)

How will that improve the world, I want to ask... because she says that that is what she really cares about...constructive?

I had a decent comment to add to some other comments. I noticed that some other well said comments, like one from an obviously  kind of Christian guy, which was much fairer than many of the things she wrote, was removed.

Overall she comes off sounding self-centred, a pretender, and basically isn't being totally upfront; typical "infidel". Listen, you can sprinkle your blogs with some nice sounding sentences, on the surface, you'll maybe look okay, but I think underneath, you just want to vent your frustration at people who you feel don't deserve the rights that you claim you want for everyone (she's really "against injustice in society").

I noticed some slight changes to her blog, too. For one thing, she added (unless I missed it the first couple of times) a remark about women rape victims being harmed by a society, the people who believe that women who wear revealing clothing deserve to be attacked: a dliberate attempt by her to steer the conversation away from some of what she said. When people added comment they were about the issue of many Indonesians'call for a blasphemy law, and the 40,000 strong demonstration for that (they want the law to have blasphemers beheaded). Women's dress was not even mentionned, nor how some people (who is she suggesting?) certain men, or a group might excuse rape by blaming the victim.