Thursday, 31 May 2012

UK: Sikhs Protest after 19-Year-Old Muslim "Asian" Radical Sexually Assaults a Sikh Punjabi Girl


Sikhs block off a main road outside Luton Police station in protest against an attack on a Punjabi girl

LUTON, UK (KP) - On Tuesday evening, hundreds of Sikh protesters rallied together and protested outside Luton Police Station after a Punjabi female teenager was allegedly sexually assaulted by a 19-year-old radical Islamist male on Monday night.
The Sikh community strongly believes that this attack was racially motivated, and is one of the many and growing body of evidences of activity within the Muslim community, however, small or isolated, which preys upon vulnerable Sikh females in an organised way and actively encourages this. The attacked was identified as Anan Majid Basharat a local youth from the Luton neighborhood.
According to locals, the girl had been groomed and manipulated for sometime before the sexual attack. Both the victim and accused were students of Icknield High School, which is a dominated with a Muslim majority. According to sources, the family had been to the police a numerous number of times in regards to the manipulation and grooming tactics being used by radical Islamists, however Bedfordshire Police force failed to take any action and failed to realize the historically linked hate crime.
In the mid 1990s the following poster was distributed by radical Islamists widely to Muslim community throughout the UK and was the source of media controversy over how Sikh girls were being targeted and groomed for conversions, many of which were forceful and others through brainwashing by members of Hizb-ut-tahir (HUT), a major radical Islamic extremist organisation in the UK.

After meeting at Guru Nanak Gurdwara Luton on Tuesday evening, the Sikh community decided to protest outside the Police station after concerns that the local Police had failed to handle the incident properly. Some members of the community stated that “The Police are scared to upset a particular radical community. Even the media is scared of them. Every time their community commits systematic sexual grooming crimes the media and Police report the convicts as ‘Asians’. They are not just ‘Asians’ – but Pakistani radicals. When will the Police and media do justice?”
The Sikh community blocked one side of Stuart Street. Although no one invited the English Defense League (EDL), some of their supporters joined the Sikhs in protest.
Representatives from the Sikh community were invited into the police station to discuss their concerns, but police, some with police dogs, eventually guarded the entrance to the station and herded protestors away from Buxton Road.
The group were eventually escorted back to the Gurdwara and eventually dispersed before midnight.
News links to the issue of radical Islamists in UK grooming Sikh, Hindu and White girls:

Virgins or Raisins? A Dilemma for Intellectually Dishonest Muslim Apologists

Little do Muslim apologists realize that when they attempt to defend the Qur'an against the claim (actually, the fact) that it promises Muslim men virgins in paradise, they are actually committing apostasy via blasphemy in belief.

As you will find out, any Muslim who claims the Qur'an refers to "white raisins", not "virgins", has to also accept that "the Qur'an was not written by Allah or revealed to Muhammad in Arabic during the 7th century, but was in fact written by Christian evangelists in Syro-Aramaic during the 8th century."

From WikiIslam (visit the original page for references):

This false myth of "white raisins" originated from Christoph Luxenberg, a modern author writing under a pseudonym. His anti-Islamic claim, which has been accused of having a "Christian apologetic agenda", is that the Qur'an was drawn from Christian Syro-Aramaic texts in the early 8th century, in order to evangelize the Arabs, and that the Aramaic word 'hur' (white raisin) had been mistranslated by later Arab commentators into the Arabic word 'houri' (virgin).
The Qur'an describes the physical characteristics of the houri in many places, and a reading of relevant verses show that Luxenberg's theory regarding heavenly white raisins is in error.
Raisins, which are dried grapes, cannot have large eyes, big breasts, cannot restrain their glances, cannot be described as chaste, or have any of the characteristics listed above. The Qur'an further states that men will be wed to these houri. Men cannot be married to raisins or white grapes.
Additionally, for someone to accept this "72 raisins" theory, they would also have to accept that the Qur'an was not written by Allah or revealed to Muhammad in Arabic during the 7th century, but was in fact written by Christian evangelists in Syro-Aramaic during the 8th century.

Of course, none of this has stopped the ignorant and agenda-driven Western media from repeating this blasphemous claim to more ignorant and agenda-driven Western viewers/readers as the "correct" interpretation of the Qur'an. An interpretation that, if accepted, would prove Islam to be a man-made religion just like any other.

From Answering Muslims:

Robert Spencer vs David Wood: Biblical-Style Higher Criticism of Islam About to go Mainstream

I've been looking forward to this debate ever since it was first proposed by Dr. Wood in his own unique style. After having finally viewed it, I still lean heavily towards Wood's thesis, but I must admit that Spencer made a compelling argument.

As they both mention in this debate, higher criticism of the Bible and other scriptures is already a "mainstream" thing and their theories/conclusions are easily accessible to the layman. This is not yet the case for Islam.

Higher criticism of Islam has existed for a long time, but it is insignificant when compared to the amount of  critical scholarship devoted to Judaism and Christianity, and their conclusions are rarely discussed outside of scholarly circles.

This is in part due to the fear produced by Muslim intolerance, a fear which "moderate" Muslims reap the benefit of. For example, Bart Ehrman is an agnostic scholar which Muslims love to use in order to attack Christianity. When asked if he would consider subjecting the Qur'an to such study, he replied, "When I stop valuing my life, that is what I'll do." In fact, Wood, Spencer and Pamella Gellar have just received some more very public death-threats. The Muslim is so emboldened by the West's special treatment of Islam, he doesn't bother hiding his home address (who wants to bet the police don't give a damn?)

Muslims are often very hypocritical, in that they gratuitously accept this higher criticism of other religions, claim that their scriptures have been distorted, etc., but refuse to accept the same about their own religion. Basically saying, "This is what we believe, and if scholars say it is false, we don't care". As Wood and Spencer also point out, even the Islamic texts themselves refute the myth of "One Qur'an, perfectly preserved".

From Jihad Watch:

This much-anticipated debate took place Monday, May 28, at 8PM on ABN. Recently David and I teamed up against Anjem Choudary and Sheikh Omar Bakri to debate the same question, did Muhammad exist? (Watch that one here.) As David explained before our Monday debate, "we showed that two Muslim apologists couldn't defend the existence of their prophet....Choudary and Bakri relied on a backwards, archaic, absurd methodology ('The Qur'an says it, so it must be true!'). Can a more sophisticated argument show that Muhammad existed? Only one way to find out."
Indeed. Watch and see.
And get the book Did Muhammad Exist? here.

Wednesday, 30 May 2012

US Lawmakers call Pakistan 'Terrorist State', 'Schizophrenic Ally'

From The Times of India:

A key US Senate panel has voted to impose pointed and punitive cut in aid dollars to Pakistan for its continued support to state-engineered extremism, although the country described bluntly by one lawmaker as a "terrorist state" will still get at least $ 1 billion in American taxpayer money for 2013.
Angered by a Pakistani court's sentencing of a doctor who helped the US nail Osama bin Laden to 33 years in prison (for high treason), the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday voted for a symbolic but token $ 33 million cut in aid -- a million for each year of the sentence.
The cut came on top of the panel voting to withhold nearly a billion dollars in proposed assistance subject to Pakistan re-opening Nato supply routes, although it still left more than $ 1 billion on the table for a country that has publicly castigated the US for killing a universally reviled terrorist. Further reductions have been threatened if Pakistan does not change course.
The Senate action reflected growing American anger over issues ranging from the Nato supply route stand-off to the sentencing of Dr Shakil Afridi, all of which, some US lawmakers suggest, show that Pakistan is in league with terrorists rather than with the United States.
"We need Pakistan, Pakistan needs us, but we don't need Pakistan double-dealing and not seeing the justice in bringing Osama bin Laden to an end," Lindsey Graham, a Senate Republican who pushed for the additional cut in aid said, while calling Pakistan a "schizophrenic ally."
Lawmakers on the House side have been less kind. Following the sentencing by Pakistan's pro-jihadi courts of Dr Afridi, who helped the US locate bin Laden, California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher said "This is decisive proof Pakistan sees itself as being at war with us."
"There is no shared interest against Islamic terrorism," Rohrabacher maintained in a statement, contesting the bromide periodically advanced by the administration that Islamabad is an ally in the war on terror. "Pakistan was and remains a terrorist state."
These and other remarks by US lawmakers suggest that many of them, including Rohrabacher, who supported Pakistan for more than two decades despite its track record of rampant nuclear proliferation and sponsorship of terrorism, have turned against the country, although even now the administration and its supporters advance the idea that Pakistan is better treated as an ally rather than as an adversary.
"It's Alice in Wonderland at best," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat who heads the appropriations sub-committee which voted to size down and make conditional some of the aid to Pakistan. "If this is cooperation, I'd hate like hell to see opposition." The United States, Leahy added, is "not going to invest in a country that won't help us in a reasonable way to deal with threats to our forces in Afghanistan."
Meanwhile, Washington and Islamabad clashed over the sentencing of sentencing of Dr Afridi, even as the matter became a political issue in the US election season with some Republicans accusing the administration of throwing him under the bus by publicly revealing his identity and his cooperation even before he could be rescued from Pakistan.
On Thursday, secretary of state Hillary Clinton waded into the issue, demanding that Dr Afridi be released, because "his help was instrumental in taking down one of the world's most notorious murderers that was clearly in Pakistan's interest as well as ours and the rest of the world." The Pakistani foreign office fired back, saying the US needed to respect Pakistan's legal processes and judgments. Congressman Rohrabacher meanwhile is pushing for legislation to award a Congressional Gold Medal and a US citizenship for Dr Afridi.
"Secretary Clinton will have to do more than voice protests over the Afridi case. Both the Departments of State and Defense need to take punitive actions against Pakistan. Carrots are not enough when dealing with an adversary. Sticks are needed to prove we are serious," Rohrabacher said.
The lawmaker also contested arguments from advocates of aid to Pakistan that the US should draw a distinction between the civilian government and the military-intelligence cabal who are supporting terrorist groups, saying President Zardari's behavior at the NATO summit in Chicago indicates that he is either in league with the military or under their domination.
"Any money that goes to Islamabad will continue to end up in the pockets of people actively and deadly hostile to America," he said. "The Taliban is only the tip of the spear, the real enemy is Pakistan."

Daniel Maldonado's Wikipedia Page, Iran and Thoughts on an Islamic "Reformation"

Wikipedia is notorious for its Western apologist-filtered fantasy version of Islam. It follows something which they refer to as "verifiability, not truth". In regards to Islam, this has meant that they accept what "notable/reliable" Western commentators say about its religious text and Muslims over what the religious text and Muslims actually say themselves (Karen Armstrong, anyone?).

For anything even remotely "controversial" (i.e. politics or religion), it can be pretty useless. However, it still can be great as a starting point, even for topics related to Islam, and I regularly use it for non-religious related material. I was browsing it the other day and stumbled upon their page for Daniel Maldonado. This page left me thinking, "sometimes the truth is staring people in the face, but they refuse to acknowledge it ":

Daniel Maldonado, also known by his adopted Muslim name Daniel Aljughaifi, is a U.S. convert to a fundamentalist Islam who faces charges for an alleged association with terrorism.
Maldonado converted to Islam in 2000 in Methuen, Massachusetts. According to the Boston Globe his views became so extreme his mosque's imam asked him to either quit criticizing the mosque's other members, or to leave, according to a friend of Maldonado, Soner Uguz, of Lawrence, Massachusetts:
"He was arrogant; he knew the book [the Koran] better than anyone, He went from loving rap to hating poetry."
In mid-February 2007 Maldonado was charged with playing a role in terrorist activities in Somalia. Maldonado is notable because his charge, in a Houston, Texas court, was the first time a US citizen faced charges for participating in terrorism in Somalia.
The Boston Globe reported that, as a youth, Maldonado had minor brushes with the law, but nothing serious. Maldonado, his wife, Tamekia (née Cunningham) and three young children, moved to Egypt in November 2005. The Boston Globe reports that an FBI affidavit asserts he moved to Somalia a year later, where he undertook training in bomb-making and military skills.
According to a speech FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III delivered on March 28, 2007 at National Defense University
... such as the arrest of suspected terrorist Daniel Maldonado. Maldonado, an American citizen who converted to the Muslim faith, moved from Houston to Egypt in November 2005. He then traveled to Somalia to practice what he called 'true Islam'. According to the indictment, while in Mogadishu, Maldonado participated in a jihadist training program that included weapons and explosives. He said that he was willing to fight on behalf of Al Qaeda and even offered to act as a suicide bomber. Kenyan military authorities captured Maldonado in January. Members of the Houston Joint Terrorism Task Force transported him back to the United States.

If you read the underlined portions, you will note that, instead of correcting Maldonado's "erroneous" and "extremist" interpretations of  a "peaceful religion", his mosque's imam tells him to either shut up or leave. Could this have anything to do with the fact that Maldonado "knew the book [the Koran] better than anyone", a fact that left an imam unable to correct a mere convert?

The answer to that question is, in all probability, a resounding 'yes'. The cleric was unable to shut him up intellectually because that particular member of his congregation was the one who was interpreting Islam through it's actual texts and not filtering it through his own understandings of what is moral or not.

This is one of the many reasons why I believe that there is no hope in mainstream Islam reforming itself. The "extremists" have scripture on their side, whilst the so-called reformers only have the ignorant, agenda-driven Western media to repeat their claims to more ignorant, agenda-driven Western viewers/readers.

We've all heard of the American Muslim apologist, Laleh Bakhtiar, and her false claim that the Qur'an does not instruct men to beat their wives. The fact that her ridiculous claim has been completely dismissed by mainstream Muslims, has led to her translation being banned from the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) bookstore, and that the nonsensical lie is apparent to any Arabic speaker, doesn't seem to matter to Western media/apologists and sites like Wikipedia.

The same thing has happened with the claim of Aisha, Muhammad's child bride, being anything from 12 to 21-years-old at the time of her consummation. The fact that these claims were concocted by an Ahmadi (not a Muslim), have been completely dismissed by mainstream Muslims, and have even been refuted by Muslim scholars, doesn't seem to matter to sites like Wikipedia who devote large amounts of space (undue weight) to such silly and obscure apologetic arguments.

Westerners love to say how Islam is no different to other superstitions, that all it needs is a "reformation" like Christianity. But they fail to consider two very important points:

1. Individuals who criticize mainstream Islamic doctrines are labeled by apologists and "moderate" Muslims as hate-mongering "Islamophobes", and the so-called "reformists" almost never admit there is anything wrong with Islam. You cannot reform something if you refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem with it. These "reformists" usually make excuses and pass on the blame to "Wahhabis" (who are in fact not a part of a deviant or innovative Islamic sect, but strict orthodox followers of the Qur'an and Sunnah). They also conveniently spend all of their time trying to "refute" critics rather than actually attempting reform by discussing problems within Islam with fellow Muslims.

2. The Protestant Reformation was the 16th-century schism within Western Christianity. The efforts of the self-described "reformers", who objected to ("protested") the doctrines, rituals, and ecclesiastical structure of the Roman Catholic Church, led to the creation of new national Protestant churches.

The split between Sunnis and Shi'ites resemble that of the split between Catholics and Protestants. The historic background of the Sunni–Shi'ite split lies in the schism that occurred when Muhammad died in 632, leading to a dispute over succession to Muhammad as a caliph of the Islamic community. Some Muslims sided with Ali and believed he was the rightful successor to Muhammad, leading to what we know today as Shi'ite Islam.

So, the Islamic equivalent of the Protestant Reformation has already taken place, and if you want to see what post-reform Islam looks like.... go to Iran.

SQOTW: Prophet Muhammad Gives his Seal of Approval to Muslim Vigilantism

From Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4348:

Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace be upon him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace be upon him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was informed about it.
He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.
He sat before the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.
Thereupon the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

Tuesday, 29 May 2012

Allahu Akbar: Faith Freedom International Dutch Forum Hacked by Cyber-Jihadists

Nothing really surprising here. A temporary forum for Dutch FFIers has been opened here.

From the FFI Forum (English):

To the admins, some cyberjihadi decided to collect his 72 virgins and blow up the dutch forum of You can find the forum here:
The forum was hacked about a week ago, and has not been restored as of yet.Please consult with Ariel prior to chasing us refugee infidels back to our homeland. The thread is intended to stay open and used until our forum is back up. Which is expected to occur within a week or so. I hope you allow us to conduct our infidelic business in our native tongue in the mean time.
Nederlandse & Vlaamse leden,
laat wat van je horen!

Monday, 28 May 2012

Effects of Muslim Intolerance & Violence in the West: Greek Politician Reveals his Apostasy... After Death

Come across this whilst browsing TROP (one of the best sites out there for up-to-date news and information on Islam).

From Mystagogy:

Abet Hasman, the deputy mayor of Patras and head of the municipal social services, left a secret revealed only in his obituary, read at his funeral by Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Patras - that he was secretly baptized an Orthodox Christian. Abet, who was born a Muslim and came to Greece from Jordan to pursue doctoral studies at the University of Thessaloniki and finally settled in Patras in 1985, was baptized secretly by Metropolitan Chrysostomos when he was 57 years old. According to the Metropolitan: "He did not say it anywhere. But one day he approached me and asked me to baptize him. He chose the name Alexander, and we baptized a little while later his son. I baptized him in the Chapel of St. John the Theologian of the Diocese." He goes on to mention that he was married in the Church of Saint Andrew, and his son was also baptized with the name Alexander at the Church of Panagia of Paralias. He loved Greek history and especially Alexander the Great, which is why he chose the name for himself and for his son.
Below is a video of the funeral, which took place on 15 May 2012 with Metropolitan Chrysostomos remembering him:

4,000 people showed up for his funeral and burial at First Cemetery, which showed how much loved he was by the people.

Sunday, 27 May 2012

Moderate Malaysia: PAS Spiritual Leader says Prime Minister Must be a Muslim

He said this in the context of giving his approval to non-ethnic Malays becoming PM, provided they adhere to Islam. The fact that he would need to make such a declaration underscores how prevalent racism is in Muslim societies.

Apologists would have you believe Islam somehow magically removes racist tendencies, but in today's world, nowhere is racism more widely accepted than among Muslim majority nations.

For example; if you're a racist far-right bigot who wants to be cheered by thousands for calling President Obama an ape but don't want the mainstream media to hassle you, why not convert to Islam and fly to post "Arab Spring" Tunisia? Problem solved!

From Bernama:

The question of race need not be disputed for a person to become a prime minister provided he is a Muslim, said PAS Spiritual Leader Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat.
Nik Aziz said the leader must be from among Muslims because he would be heading the government and leading Muslims in the country.
"Okay to be non-Malay, so long as he is a Muslim. How to lead Muslims if he is not a Muslim? Will a democratic nation give the post to a communist?
"And in the same vein, will a Communist country accommodate a democratic leader? No such thing! A Communist country will be helmed by a Communist, a democratic country will be led by a democratic leader," he said.
"So, a Muslim nation must be led by a Muslim, regardless of race."
He said this to reporters after opening a Kelantan Pas Ulama Congress at the Labok Dewan Ulama Headquarters, here, today.
DAP chairman Karpal Singh, prior to this, was reported to have said that he would continue his fight to ensure a non-Malay could became a prime minister of the country on the basis that there was no law against it.

Saturday, 26 May 2012

Moderate Malaysia: Government to Force Buddhist Building to Incorporate Islamic Designs

Can you feel the peace and tolerance of moderate Islam yet? Neither can they.

From The Jakarta Post‎:

A controversy is brewing over the proposal for the construction of a Buddhist building here after the PAS-led state government ruled that new buildings should include Islamic designs to reflect the state capital’s status as an Islamic city.
State Local Government, Culture, Arts and Tourism committee chairman Takiyuddin Hassan said developers must incorporate some Islamic elements in their plans or the proposals would be rejected.
“We will ensure development will be based on Islamic principles and features,” he told a press conference here.
He claimed the ruling was well-accepted by the majority of developers, including non-Muslim developers.
“I do not see it as an issue or something that could cause religious tension, as it only involves architecture and design,” he said.
“They have accepted the new ruling well.”
Takiyuddin was commenting on an appeal by the Kelantan Buddhist Association for the state government to approve its building, to be constructed with Chinese features at Jl. Sultan Zainal Abidin here.
It is understood that the association had been told that its building design should have dome-shaped motifs, which have created a controversy in the Chinese media.
In an immediate reaction, Kota Baru MCA division chief Tan Ken Ten slammed the directive, which he said was an infringement of the rights of non-Muslims in the state.
“The ruling is an extreme attempt to impose one’s beliefs into other people’s culture or religious beliefs,” Tan said.
“The PAS government must be mindful that Malaysia is a multi-cultural and multi-religious society that respects the differences of each community. It should appreciate this diversity which makes this country unique,” Tan added.
State MCA Youth chief Gan Han Chuan said the Kelantan government was showing disrespect towards the non-Muslims with its new policy.
“With the new directive, PAS is trying to create discord by destroying the harmonious relations between the communities that had been built by the Barisan Nasional over the years,” he added.
“One can only wonder what type of archaic policies PAS will introduce if Pakatan Rakyat manages to take over the Federal Government,” Gan said.

Tunisia: Thousands of Muslims Chant "Allahu Akbar", So "OBAMA THE APE" Can Hear Them

This short video is one giant orgy of Muslim intolerance and bigotry. In addition to proclaiming that "Every Muslim is a jihadist" (Islamophobic Muslims, maybe?), and genocidal anti-semitic chants of "Oh Jews, the army of Muhammad is returning", the cleric refers to America's first black President as an ape. I wonder how black Muslims will react to this, if at all.

If the same were to happen in America, the media and politically-driven "civil rights" activists would be (rightly) all over it. In fact, similar incidents involving some right-wing loons have occurred in America (no surprise there really). Even the left-leaning New York Magazine have had their turn. But the major difference between these incidents lay in the fact that they never had thousands of religious cheerleaders on their side, cheerleaders who found absolutely nothing offensive about referring to a black man as an ape, calling all Muslims terrorists, or calling for genocide against Jews. And they weren't completely ignored by the mainstream media.

Transcripts from MEMRI:

The following are excerpts from a rally which aired on the Internet on May 20, 2012. Crowd
Obama, Obama, we are all Osama...” (continuous cheer, the slogan rhymes in Arabic obama, obama, kuluna osama) [...]
Speaker: “Some Tunisians and some Muslims are afraid of the jihadists
We must ask, How come?
Because the enemies have distorted the image of the jihadists, presenting them as the enemies of the Muslims.
We say: no! Every Muslim is a jihadist
Every Muslim is a jihadist [...]
The enemies of Islam want us to be like sheep, to act like women.
They want to deprive us of our will.
They plundered Palestine and other lands and holy places.
They want the jihadists behind bars
Why? So that the holy places will not be liberated?
We are all jihadists, supporting Jerusalem, and elevating the word of Allah. [...]
Let us all cry 'Allah akbar' together, so that Obama the ape can hear us. All together now!
Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "Let America hear us!
Say 'Allah Akbar!' Crowd: “Allahu Akbar” Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "We are coming, We are coming" Crowd: "We are coming, We are coming" Speaker: "We are coming, We are coming" Crowd: "We are coming, We are coming" Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar”
Speaker: "Hear us Obama!
Say 'Allah Akbar!'” Crowd: “Allah Akbar” (Men with covered faces do martial arts on stage in front of the crowd) Crowd: Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews, the army of Muhammad is returning (Slogan repeats and rhymes: jeisha Muhammad soufa y`aud) (x5) (After several minutes of demonstrating hand to hand combat, the men start demondtrating fighting with wooden swords) Speaker: "We want to convey a clear message one that will reach the heavens." Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Crowd: "We respond to your call, Oh Allah!" (x3)

Friday, 25 May 2012

UK: Muslim Mother Beats her Child to Death then Burns Him, Claims Genies Told her to Do It

To clarify; when Muslims speak of spirits, they are referring to the jinn (known to English speakers as genies). The Devil in Islam (Iblīs) is also a jinn.

This women now claims that her abusive husband and his brother murdered her son and forced her to confess in their place. This women is clearly mentally disturbed, and if what she says is true, it makes this case all the more tragic.

From Asian Image:

A mother accused of murdering her son and burning his body to destroy the evidence claimed she lived in fear for her life today.
Sara Ege, 32, accused her husband and his brother of acting together to kill son Yaseem, seven, and burn his body.
A sobbing Ege claimed she was afterwards beaten and her life threatened unless she told police she was the murderer.
Ege collapsed in court as she was questioned about her son's death and only continued giving evidence with a nurse at her side.
She then accused husband Yousef Ali Ege, 38, of killing their son and said his brother Nasser burned the dead body.
Ege, of Pontcanna, Cardiff, is accused of beating her seven-year-old son "like a dog" with a stick.
The beatings were so brutal that in July 2010 he died from his injuries. A panicked Ege then burned his body, it is alleged.
Ege denies murder. Her taxi driver husband denies allowing the child's death by not stopping his wife's alleged beatings.
Ege later confessed to murder and claimed the Devil and voices in her head pressed her to beat her defenceless son.
Today she told a Cardiff Crown Court jury her home was filled with evil spirits called Jinn, and the Devil still spoke to her.
But she insisted that she "loved to bits" her son and claimed she was forced to confess to murder after a beating and threats from her brother-in-law.
Ege, a practising Muslim, was a bride from India in an arranged marriage originally conceived and carried out over just five days.
As a maths graduate she claims she expected a well educated and successful husband but found he was a postman and part-time taxi driver.
Both she and her husband were questioned briefly by police when it appeared Yaseem's death was a tragic accident.
An examination later found he had suffered broken ribs, a fractured arm and finger and significant abdominal injuries.
The couple were then arrested and questioned and Ege eventually went on to admit to killing her son in police interviews.
She later retracted the confession and claimed her husband habitually beat Yaseem and caused the injuries that killed him.
Her husband's brother then used barbecue gel and a lighter to burn the body.
Traces of gel found on her clothes after arrest were from an earlier barbecue, she claims.
Ege insisted today that Nasser threatened and beat her after her release on bail because she failed to confess to murder.
She said that both she and husband Yousef were released to her brother-in-law's home in Cardiff where she was at his mercy.
"He was angry and started hitting me in front of his wife," she said through a sobbing voice.
"He said that I should tell the police that everything that had happened to him I had done it. He threatened to kill me if I did not say to the police what he said."
She added that Nasser told her: "I should take all the blame and say the medication I was taking has done this to me and say that the Devil has told me to burn the body."
Ege said as a result she admitted beating Yaseem with a stick and burning his body, adding that her husband knew nothing about it.
She also claimed that she was encouraged to make a similar confession to her own GP who recorded details of what she said.
Ege was later admitted to a psychiatric unit and continues to reside in one during the trial.
She said today that voices in her head had never told her to hit her son or burn his dead body.
But she admitted that she had been hearing voices in her head for the last year and believed in evil spirits.
She agreed that she believed that evil spirits called Jinn, which are mentioned in the Koran, live at her Cardiff address.
She still also hears voices in her head on a regular basis: "They say the same thing. That my life is not worth living and I will be dead soon," she said.

Thursday, 24 May 2012

Yemen: Jewish Community Leader Stabbed to Death by Muslim who Accused him of "Witchcraft"

I suppose, if the prophet himself could fling such ridiculous accusations at Jews [Sahih Muslim 26:5426], why not his followers?

From YNet:

A Jewish community leader in Yemen was stabbed to death at a Sanaa market on Tuesday by a Muslim assailant who accused him of witchcraft. 
Harun Yusuf Zindani, 50, was attacked at Saawan market near the US embassy in northeast Sanaa, according to his son, Yehya. The victim, who was stabbed in the neck and stomach, was taken to the hospital and later died of his wounds.
Yehya said the attacker was a “well-known person who says my father has ruined him and cast a spell on him."
The Jewish community in Yemen numbered some 60,000 in 1948, but had shrunk significantly in the years following the establishment of the State of Israel. 
The community continued to dwindle in subsequent decades and by the early 1990s it numbered only around 1,000 people. The elimination of a longstanding travel ban in 1993 sparked a fresh exodus.
Today, barely 300 Jews remain in the Asian country.
Zindani was originally from the northern province of Saada, where Zaidi Shiite rebels fought a bloody war against former strongman Ali Abdullah Saleh's regime.
Since 2007, authorities have moved members of the Jewish community from Saada to a safer neighborhood in the capital near the US embassy.

New York Times‎ Op-Ed: "Moderate" Indonesia Not so Moderate

I've made several posts about this in relation to Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey who are all continually mislabeled by the media and apologists as "moderate".

Their logic goes something like this; what? Malaysia has banned homosexuals and the portrayal of homosexual characters from appearing on television, radio or in movies? Well, Iran has executed 4,000 homosexuals between 1979-1999, so Malaysia is moderate!

As you're probably all aware, apologists often try to paint critics (even non-white critics such as myself) as racist bigots. But the truth is, it is them who are the bigots for holding followers of Islam and Islam-dominated governments to a much lower moral standard than the rest of us.

Thankfully, the tide appears to be turning.

Someone else (I forget who) noted that Turkey had recently been referred to as "semi-democratic" by a mainstream media outlet, and now this by Andreas Harsono (a researcher for the Asia division at Human Rights Watch) on Indonesia.

As another blogger pointed out, "yet again, the mainstream media is behind the game, for the trampling of minority religions by this, the largest Muslim majority nation in the world, has been regularly reported in blogs for years now. Still, it's good to see some straight reporting from 'the newspaper of record'"

From The New York Times:

IT is fashionable these days for Western leaders to praise Indonesia as a model Muslim democracy. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has declared, “If you want to know whether Islam, democracy, modernity and women’s rights can coexist, go to Indonesia.” And last month Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, lauded Indonesia for showing that “religion and democracy need not be in conflict.”
Tell that to Asia Lumbantoruan, a Christian elder whose congregation outside Jakarta has recently had two of its partially built churches burned down by Islamist militants. He was stabbed by these extremists while defending a third site from attack in September 2010.
This week in Geneva, the United Nations is reviewing Indonesia’s human rights record. It should call on President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to crack down on extremists and protect minorities. While Indonesia has made great strides in consolidating a stable, democratic government after five decades of authoritarian rule, the country is by no means a bastion of tolerance. The rights of religious and ethnic minorities are routinely trampled. While Indonesia’s Constitution protects freedom of religion, regulations against blasphemy and proselytizing are routinely used to prosecute atheists, Bahais, Christians, Shiites, Sufis and members of the Ahmadiyya faith — a Muslim sect declared to be deviant in many Islamic countries. By 2010, Indonesia had over 150 religiously motivated regulations restricting minorities’ rights.
In 2006, Mr. Yudhoyono, in a new decree on “religious harmony,” tightened criteria for building a house of worship. The decree is enforced only on religious minorities — often when Islamists pressure local officials not to authorize the construction of Christian churches or to harass and intimidate those worshiping in “illegal” churches, which lack official registration. More than 400 such churches have been closed since Mr. Yudhoyono took office in 2004.
Although the government has cracked down on Jemaah Islamiyah, an Al Qaeda affiliate that has bombed hotels, bars and embassies, it has not intervened to stop other Islamist militants who regularly commit less publicized crimes against religious minorities. Mr. Yudhoyono’s government is reluctant to take them on because it rules Indonesia in a coalition with intolerant Islamist political parties.
Mr. Yudhoyono is not simply turning a blind eye; he has actively courted conservative Islamist elements and relies on them to maintain his majority in Parliament, even granting them key cabinet positions. These appointments send a message to Indonesia’s population and embolden Islamist extremists to use violence against minorities.
In August 2011, for example, Muslim militants burned down three Christian churches on Sumatra. No one was charged and officials have prevented the congregations from rebuilding their churches. And on the outskirts of Jakarta, two municipalities have refused to obey Supreme Court orders to reopen two sealed churches; Mr. Yudhoyono claimed he had no authority to intervene.
Christians are not the only targets. In June 2008, the Yudhoyono administration issued a decree requiring the Ahmadiyya sect to “stop spreading interpretations and activities that deviate from the principal teachings of Islam,” including its fundamental belief that there was a prophet after Muhammad. The government said the decree was necessary to prevent violence against the sect. But provincial and local governments used the decree to write even stricter regulations. Muslim militants, who consider the Ahmadiyya heretics, then forcibly shut down more than 30 Ahmadiyya mosques.
In the deadliest attack, in western Java in February 2011, three Ahmadiyya men were killed. A cameraman recorded the violence, and versions of it were posted on YouTube. An Indonesian court eventually prosecuted 12 militants for the crime, but handed down paltry sentences of only four to six months. Mr. Yudhoyono has also failed to protect ethnic minorities who have peacefully called for independence in the country’s eastern regions of Papua and the Molucca Islands. During demonstrations in Papua on May 1, one protester was killed and 13 were arrested. And last October, the government brutally suppressed the Papuan People’s Congress, beating dozens and killing three people. While protesters were jailed and charged with treason, the police chief in charge of security that day was promoted.
Almost 100 people remain in prison for peacefully protesting. Dozens are ill, but the government has denied them proper treatment, claiming it lacks the money. Even the Suharto dictatorship allowed the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit political prisoners, yet the Yudhoyono government has banned the I.C.R.C. from working in Papua.
Instead of praising Indonesia, nations that support tolerance and free speech should publicly demand that Indonesia respect religious freedom, release political prisoners and lift restrictions on media and human rights groups in Papua.
Mr. Yudhoyono needs to take charge of this situation by revoking discriminatory regulations, demanding that his coalition partners respect the religious freedom of all minorities in word and in deed, and enforcing the constitutional protection of freedom of worship. He must also make it crystal clear that Islamist hard-liners who commit or incite violence and the police who fail to protect the victims will be punished. Only then will Indonesia be deserving of Mr. Cameron and Mrs. Clinton’s praise.

Newly Discovered: (Disclaimer)

I still remember the first time I read the Koran, and thinking “wow, if this is what we’re up against, we’re in real trouble”.
The Koran raised the hairs on the back of my neck. It is not peaceable, but violent. Not every single word and sentence, to be sure, but the overall impression you have when you read it is of unremitting violence and hatred of non-Muslims.
I’ve since grown my library on Islam to several hundred volumes and nothing I’ve read has caused me to be any more sanguine about the "Religion of Peace".
I’ve been careful to read on both sides of the story: the apologist side, by Muslims and non-Muslims, and the critical side from non-Muslims and apostates.
Even the best of the apologists are, on careful reading, unconvincing in defence of the "religion", the ideology of Islam.
Islam is in its own words and on its own insistence, an ideology that is supremacist, anti-semitic, sectarian, homophobic, misogynist and backwards looking.
Islam could be all of these things, apart from "supremacist" and it would be fine by me. That is, if it practiced its beliefs, like all other religions, in private, as a relationship between the person and their God and they could be as homophobic or misogynist as they wished. But the defining thing about Islam is its supremacism: it seeks to dominate all other religions and become “victorious” throughout the world.
As Robert Spencer has noted:
Islam is unique among the religions of the world in having a developed doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers.
I've "fact-checked" each of those claims and each is literally true. "Doctrine" is the codified beliefs, which are in the Koran, the Hadith and the life of Muhammad (the Sirah). "Theology" is the study of these doctrines. And the "legal system" is the Sharia. Study of these areas will quickly reveal to the interested reader, that Islam requires warfare against unbelievers; it is a core belief. The Pakistani Islamic scholar Abul a'la Maudidi, winner of the King Faisal Prize for "Services to Islam", summarises it best in this simple statement from his book "Jihad in Islam":
Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam....[p6]
Not much doubt or ambiguity there.
The “Battle of Tours” came to mind as I read more about Islam and learnt of the earlier battles between the west and a westward advancing Islam.
That battle in 732 stopped the spread of Islam into Western Europe. Had it not been stopped, we could have a very different Europe today, arguably with no Enlightenment, no Reformation, and no Renaissance.
President Teddy Roosevelt, always amongst lists of America's greatest presidents, mentions the hero of that Battle, in his anti-pacifism book "Fear God and Take Your Own part":
The civilization of Europe, America, and Australia exists to-day at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization, because of victories stretching through the centuries from the days of Miltiades and Themistocles to those of Charles Martel [The Battle of Tours] in the eighth century and those of John Sobiesky in the seventeenth century. [p70-71]
.... Wherever the Mohammadenas have had complete sway, wherever the Christian have been ubable to resit them by the sword, Christianity has ulitmately disapperated. From the hammer of Charles Martel [The Battle of Tours] to the sword of Sobiesky, Christianity owed its safety in Europe to the fact that it was able to show that it could and would fight as well as the Mohammedan agressor. [p197]
Pretty robust stuff! We can argue around the edges of this, and about the extent of "social values" after Islamic conquest; but we can't doubt the thrust. That militant and aggressive Islam (Teddy's "Mohammadans" or "Moselm invaders") has to be confronted if the meaning, substance and core of the west is to be retained; and that today the invasion is not by direct military conflict, but by the asymmetric "jihad of the womb"....(Muslim scholar's words, not mine).
I subtitle it “the Battle of Today” because there is, today, in Nonie Darwish’s words, “a battle for the soul of the world” between western tradition and a radical backward-looking version of Islam.
Sam Harris puts it more bluntly in "The End of Faith": "We are at war with Islam".
The battle of ideas goes on globally now. Not just, or even mainly, through wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but more importantly by the “stealth Jihad” – demands by Islamists in western countries for accommodation to Islamic values and Sharia law.
There are many examples of the stealth jihad, which one can find from even a cursory study. The pressure grows for ever more accommodation, from Sharia courts in the UK, to demands for non-Muslims to observe Ramadan.
There are many in the “blogosphere” who reject these pressures, in defence of time-honoured western values: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and respect for the rights of women and minorities.
In all these areas, Sharia stands in stark and negative contrast. And that is why we must continue the "Battle of Today".
I'm also posting on other bits and pieces that grab my interest, such as on China and Hong Kong, climate change, the war on drugs, and general miscellanea and ephemera.
I have not turned on “comments” setting, but I’m happy to have comments to my email, and I’ll ask you if I propose to post your comment.

Wednesday, 23 May 2012

Bill Warner's Downloadable Handbook for "Talking about Islam"

I just come across this whilst browsing through some posts at Citizen Warrior and thought I'd share. Bill Warner is the guy behind Political Islam:

Bill Warner, of Political Islam, came out with a handbook for talking about Islam. It's a PDF file — essentially a book — to help us talk about Islam with people and actually get somewhere in the conversation. Download it here:
Can We Talk?

Germany: Islam vs. Nazism, Muslims win Game of Intolerance (3 Attempted Murders to 0)

A group of protesting Muslims more intolerant than a group of protesting Nazis? There is little surprise here.

From Stripes:

A 25-year-old Islamist was remanded in custody in Germany on Monday, accused of the attempted murder of three policemen as they were separating neo-Nazis from Islamic fundamentalist protesters.
Two officers were stabbed in the thigh on Saturday and a third officer dodged an attack by the knife-wielding man during a melee outside a mosque in the western city of Bonn.
Pro NRW (North Rhine Westphalia), a far-right party with neo-Nazi canvassers, had organized a protest event drawing nearly 30 rightists to the mosque, holding up cartoons ridiculing Islam and its founder Mohammed to publicize the group's anti-immigrant views.
A larger group of 500 to 600 Salafists, who seek to impose what they say are the original doctrines of Islam, held a counter-demonstration, trying to break a police cordon.
The police made 109 arrests, and 29 officers were hurt in the Saturday clashes.
Hannelore Kraft, premier of North Rhine Westphalia state, told the mass circulation newspaper Bild, "We will not put up with attacks on our legal system, and our police and will come down hard on both Pro NRW and the Salafists."
Prosecutors said the 25-year-old, who was born in Germany but has Turkish nationality, admitted to attacking the police but denied an intent to murder. He said he knifed the officers because they were protecting people insulting Muslims.
Prosecutor Robin Fassbender said the stabbings could have been fatal.
"If a major blood vessel had been punctured, the victim could have bled to death within minutes," he said.
The Central Council of Muslims in Germany condemned both sides.
"We expressly dissociate ourselves from violent Muslims who urge lynch justice and attack the police," general secretary Nurhan Soykan said in Cologne. She termed Pro NRW a hate group.
Kraft's government has tried to prevent further anti-mosque demonstrations by Pro NRW.
But a court cited free-speech grounds to quash a police ban on a similar demonstration by 15 Pro NRW activists Monday. Police said 400 mainly leftist counter-demonstrators yelled abuse at them in the city of Bielefeld without violence.

Tuesday, 22 May 2012

Dr. David Wood: Qur'an in Context 1: "Fight Those Who Do Not Believe" (9:29)

In my opinion, David Wood ranks up there with Pat Condell when it comes to clarity of thought and expression. These guys really know how to get their points across, and they both do it with a helping of humor.

Video Description:
The Qur'an is filled with violent passages. Yet Muslims assure us that these passages, when read in context, are peaceful. In this video, we examine the historical, immediate, and extended literary contexts of Surah 9:29, which commands Muslims to "fight those who do not believe in Allah."

Yemen: Donkey Chases & Rapes Ass, Sparks Tribal Massacre that Leaves 15 People Killed or Injured

From Emirates 24/7:

Fifteen people were killed or injured in tribal fighting in Yemen after a male donkey chased an ass and raped it just near the house of its owner.
Newspapers in Yemen said the owner of the ass got mad after he saw the donkey attacking his animal, prompting him to chase the donkey and hit it.
The attack infuriated the donkey owner, who called his armed tribe men and asked them to take revenge.
“The problem snowballed into an armed fight between Makabis tribe, which owns the donkey, and Bani Abbas which owns the ass…15 people were either killed or injured in the battle,” the Saudi Arabic language daily Aleqtisadiah said, quoting newspapers in Yemen.
A large police force intervened and stopped the fighting at a village in the southwestern province of Abb, newspapers said, adding that police had arrested eight persons involved in the conflict.

Are the "Overwhelming Majority" of the World's 1.5 Billion Muslims Peace Loving Moderates?

There was once a time when the media and apologists would defiantly proclaim, "Muslim extremists are only a tiny minority!!!", and Muslims and non-Muslims alike would make nonsensical statements such as "only 0.01 % of Muslims are extremists", etc.

Today, due to many in-depth polls and studies on the subject (e.g. here and here), this claim has been proven false and Islam's apologists have been forced to adapt their rhetoric. Now they tend to claim "the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peace loving moderates".

So, are the "overwhelming majority" of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims peace loving moderates? This is an important question. We are now constantly force-fed this claim that they are. But does reality agree with the propaganda?

Dalia Mogahed & John Esposito 

Dalia Mogahed and John Esposito co-authored the book "Who Speaks for Islam" which grew out of a 2008 survey conducted by the Gallup polling agency, which was intended to answer this very question.

Unfortunately, the Muslim Brotherhood-connected Dalia Mogahed and John Esposito are both Islam apologists, so there is little surprise that they had to "cook the books" in order to create the desired results.

The authors claim only 7 percent of the world's Muslims are "political radicals". Yet in order to reach this figure, they were forced to term Muslims who think 9/11 was "partially" or "some way justified", who want to impose Shari'ah law, who support suicide bombings, and who oppose equal rights for women, as "moderate" followers of Islam.

From The Weekly Standard:

In that article, she and Esposito wrote: "Respondents who said 9/11 was justified (4 or 5 on the same scale) are classified as radical." In the book they wrote two years later, they redefined "radical" to comprise a much smaller group--only the Fives. But in her luncheon remarks, Mogahed admitted that many of the "moderates" she and Esposito celebrated really aren't so moderate after all.
MOGAHED: I can't off the top of my head [recall the data], but we are going to be putting some of those findings in our [updated] book and our website.
To clarify a couple of things about the book--the book is not a hard-covered polling report. The book is a book about the modern Muslim world that used its polling to inform its analysis. So that's important: It's meant for a general audience, and it's not meant to be a polling report. One very important reason why is because Gallup is selling subscriptions to its data. We are a for-profit company; we are not Pew. We are Gallup. So this isn't about .  .  . it was not meant for the data to be free since we paid $20 million to collect [the data] .  .  . that we paid all on our own. So just to clarify that  .  .  .   
So, how did we come up with the word "politically radicalized" that we unfortunately used in the book? Here's why: because people who were Fives, people who said 9/11 was justified, looked distinctly different from the Fours  .  .  .  At first, before we had enough data to do sort of a cluster analysis, we lumped the Fours and Fives together because that was our best judgment.
QUESTIONER: And what percent was that?
MOGAHED: I seriously don't remember but I think it was in the range of 7 to 8 percent [actually, 6.5 percent].
QUESTIONER: So it's seven Fours and seven Fives?
MOGAHED: Yes, we lumped these two and did our analysis. When we had enough data to really see when things broke away, here's what we found: Fives looked very different from the Fours, and Ones through Fours looked similar. [Mogahed then explained that, on another question, concerning suicide bombing, respondents who said 9/11 was only partially justified clustered with those who said it wasn't justified at all.] And so the Fives looked very different; they broke, they clustered away, and Ones through Fours clustered together. And that is how we decided to break them apart and decided how we were to define "politically radicalized" for our research.
Yes, we can say that a Four is not that moderate .  .  . I don't know. .  .  .You are writing a book, you are trying to come up with terminology people can understand. .  .  . You know, maybe it wasn't the most technically accurate way of doing this, but this is how we made our cluster-based analysis.
So, there it is--the smoking gun. Mogahed publicly admitted they knew certain people weren't moderates but they still termed them so. She and Esposito cooked the books and dumbed down the text. Apparently, by the authors' own test, there are not 91 million radicals in Muslim societies but almost twice that number. They must have shrieked in horror to find their original estimate on the high side of assessments made by scholars, such as Daniel Pipes, whom Esposito routinely denounces as Islamophobes. To paraphrase Mogahed, maybe it wasn't the most technically accurate way of doing this, but their neat solution seems to have been to redefine 78 million people off the rolls of radicals.
The cover-up is even worse. The full data from the 9/11 question show that, in addition to the 13.5 percent, there is another 23.1 percent of respondents--300 million Muslims--who told pollsters the attacks were in some way justified. Esposito and Mogahed don't utter a word about the vast sea of intolerance in which the radicals operate.
And then there is the more fundamental fraud of using the 9/11 question as the measure of "who is a radical." Amazing as it sounds, according to Esposito and Mogahed, the proper term for a Muslim who hates America, wants to impose Sharia law, supports suicide bombing, and opposes equal rights for women but does not "completely" justify 9/11 is . . . "moderate."

As you can see from the above figures, 36.6 percent of Muslims think the mass-slaughter of innocent non-Muslim (and some Muslim) civilians on 9/11 was either completely, partially or some way justified. This does not support the claim that the "overwhelming majority" of Muslims are peace loving moderates.

Sure, "peace loving" Muslims, according to this survey, are a majority. But when almost 4 out of every 10 Muslim is a terrorist-supporting "radical", they are hardly "overwhelming". It is a proven fact that Islamic extremists are certainly not "a tiny minority".

Support for Shari'ah & Killing Apostates

As The Weekly Standard's Robert Satloff rightly pointed out, this "test" involving questions about 9/11 to ascertain who is and who is not a moderate, is fundamentally flawed. Even if a Muslim disagrees with the Islamic terrorist attacks on innocent US civilians, if they still want to impose Shari'ah law on others and if they oppose equal rights for women etc., how on earth could they ever be considered "moderates"?

The number of possible extremists is a lot larger than you would think, when you consider that a Muslim country that has only a little support for Jihad, could still have a large number who support the execution of apostates. The percentage who support execution are obviously extremists regardless of their views on Jihad and visa-versa.

Pakistan, Indonesia & the United Kingdom

I previously did some number-crunching for "extremists" in Pakistan after it was reported that a December 2010 Pew poll found that even today “The majority of Muslims would favor changing current laws in their countries to 'allow stoning as punishment for adultery, hand amputation for theft, and death for those who convert from Islam as their religion'”.

Using Pakistan as an example, I noted that the poll found that 76 percent of Pakistanis agree apostates are to be killed. In a country with a population of 172,800,000 (96 percent of whom are Muslim) that would be more than 126 million people in a single country. Conversely only a mere 13  percent of Muslims opposed killing apostates.

So, according to indisputable facts, Muslim "extremists" are not a "tiny minority", but form the vast majority of the population in Pakistan and some of the other countries polled. In fact, the number of "extremists" in Pakistan alone form about 8 percent of the world's entire 1.5 billion Muslim population. We reach this shocking figure even before we take into consideration the possibility that a lot of those Pakistanis who disagree with killing apostates may still support jihad.

Over in "moderate" Indonesia, a survey conducted from 2001 to March 2006 found 43.5 percent of Muslim respondents were "ready to wage war for their faith" and 40 percent would use violence against those blaspheming Islam. 85 percent, or 200 million, of the country's 230 million population are Muslims. This means approximately 87 million Indonesians, or more than 4 out of every 10 Muslim there, is a violent Islamic "extremist".

Note that this massive figure is not for those Indonesian Muslims who simply support a violent interpretation of Islam, but for those Muslims who are actually prepared to act on them by committing violence against others.  If we were to know the number of those who simply support jihad but are not prepared to join in themselves, like in Pakistan, the "extremists" would most certainly be in the majority. And again, this is without taking into consideration that many of the Indonesians who support stoning adulterers to death [42%] or killing apostates [30%] may not support jihad at all, but would also clearly have to be labeled as "extremists" for holding such barbaric views.

The picture is not much brighter when we learn the views of young Western-born Muslims who often tend to be more "extremist" than their older Eastern-born counterparts. For example; in the United Kingdom, where 1 out of every 3 British Muslim aged 16 to 24 agree that apostates should be put to death, and where only 3 percent of all Muslims are "consistently pro-freedom of speech".

Anecdotal Evidence

In addition to indisputable figures, there is also a lot of anecdotal evidence that suggests the claim that Muslim extremists are only a "tiny minority" or that the "overwhelming majority" of Muslims are peace-loving people, is complete rubbish. For example;

In Egypt, a mob of nearly 20,000 Muslims attempted to break into and torch a Christian church. They were demanding the death of the church's pastor. They terrorized the Copts trapped inside (who didn't even make up 100 in number) by pelting the church with stones, and torching Christian-owned homes and cars. Seriously, how on earth would you find 20,000 "extremist" Muslims in one place if the vast majority of Muslims were peaceful and tolerant?

In Bangladesh, at the urging of local Muslim leaders, police tortured a pastor and two other Christians for legally proclaiming their religion. The next day, thousands of Muslim villagers demonstrated in front of a local government office chanting, “We want a Christian-free society,” and “We will not allow any Christians in Cuadanga.” There is no way that this was a "few" Muslim extremists, it was probably the entire Muslim population of the village.

Again in Egypt, a mob of over 3,000 Muslims attacked Copts in the village of Kobry-el-Sharbat (el-Ameriya). Coptic homes and shops were looted before being set ablaze.

In Pakistan, three churches, two houses of priests, one convent, one high school and the homes of three Christian families were set alight by a mob of around 2,500 Muslims.

Again in Egypt, two nuns were trapped inside a guest-house belonging to the Notre Dame Language Schools by an estimated 1,500 angry Muslim villagers brandishing swords and knives. They even threatened to burn them out.

And more than 300 Egyptian Muslim lawyers (yes, lawyers, not a band of uneducated village folk) issued death-threats and prevented defense lawyers representing a Christian accused of "blasphemy", from going into court. These educated men even tried to assault the chief judge who managed to escape a lynching via a rear door.

The Insignificant Peaceful Majority 

There is a lot of statistical data available about Muslims and in the future I plan on expanding my analysis of Pakistan and Indonesia to cover all Muslim countries. But before I wrap up this post, I would like to add something that a friend of mine noted (I've been planning on writing about the "tiny minority" myth for a while, but this is what spurred me on):

[...]of 1.5 billion muslims the overwhelming majority live in peace. Most of them are law obeying citizens. Well that’s true. But so were the Nazis in Germany in the forties. Most of them were good fathers and mothers who only wanted what was best for their children. Only a small percentage worked in concentration camps or committed war crimes. When muslims get to rule I expect more or less the same. A small group fanatics takes control and the rest are law obeying citizens who will turn their head away when a holocaust occurs. They'll probably even say that it’s against Islam.

In essence, whatever the case may be, a silent majority is an insignificant one. The situation non-Muslim minorities find themselves in today proves this. All over the Islamic world, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and other groups are being "ethnically cleansed" from their ancestral homes. To these unfortunate communities who are facing Nazi-like atrocities, the percentage of peace-loving moderate Muslims may as well be 99.99 percent for all the difference it would make to them.

Or if we take this a little further, in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."

IslamoCritic's Response to REASON INFUSION's Lie-Filled "Challenge"

[Note: This response was originally appended as an update to this page on May 19, 2012. I have decided to split it today because some of my readers may have come across  REASON INFUSION's challenge but are not aware of my response to it. After viewing his second lie-filled challenge video (yes, the guy is so desperate to save face, he has to force false words into my mouth and twist words that I have said), I'm satisfied that REASON INFUSION has certainly viewed this response whilst it was at its original location]

First I will quote my correspondence with Blackmore. I sent this to him yesterday (May 18, 2012). He then posted it on his FFI thread:

"Hi Blackmore. Just giving you an update on REASON INFUSION.
The guy has no shame. He's creating loads of videos aimed at us, and is now "challenging" me. He says he's gonna refute my posts.
So if we recap;
1. He deletes the debate between you and him on Youtube when he notices he's been clearly defeated.
2. I host your debate on my blog and he makes loads of video calling me out by name.
3. I refute his silly videos in detail and expose him as an approver of slavery. When he notices this he deletes his videos whilst I'm still in the middle of replying to them.
4. I make it clear that it is now obviously over and I'm no longer going to bother with someone who refuses to link to his opponents arguments and deletes debates when he loses.
5. He creates several new videos on why he refuses to debate us (apparently because the elitist prick thinks we're not worthy because we're not "intellectuals")
6. He then does a U-turn and "challenges" me, accuses me of being a racist, liar, and a whole lot of other thing which he is actually guilty, and claims he will refute my posts.
7. His channel is now purged of videos which contain my name in their title and he refuses to even name who he is challenging in his new video.
This guy is very sneaky.
1. He expects me to waste more of my time by replying to him when twice before he has deleted debates which he has lost.
2. He also expects me to give him free traffic by discussing him and linking to his posts when his viewers don't even know the name of the critic he is responding to (he just calls me the "Bangladeshi").
Everything he's posted so far can be refuted, but I refuse to participate in a pointless debate that will eventually be deleted and give him more traffic in the process whilst giving me none.
I think neither of us should respond to any of his videos and give him what he wants. I'm simply going to add a note at the end of the existing article pointing out all these facts. I certainly think you should not make any further posts about this loser."

REASON INFUSION read that message on FFI, as today  (May 19, 2012) he has a new video addressing me by name. I have taken the liberty of downloading it to my hard drive so can upload it when necessary (watch the original video here whilst you still can).

I know I said that this was the end of the "debate", but I will respond to every single word in this new video simply to demonstrate how pointless it is for me to further engage a disingenuous liar like REASON INFUSION in discussion. Blackmore has been kind enough to respond to the previous video aimed at me here, and some of his other videos here.

As I noted in my message yesterday, I will not be creating a new post dedicated to REASON INFUSION but will be keeping my response confined to this existing one. This is probably more than the bigoted and elitist pro-slaver deserves.


In his most recent videos, REASON INFUSION has become visibly more irritated and prone to childish behavior, and this video is no different. He begins by calling me an "Islamophobe", a controversial and disputed neologism ironically created/popularized by a bunch of homophobic Islamists from the Muslim-Brotherhood in order to "beat up their critics."

The stupidity of this neologism is easily exposed by the fact that devout and moderate Muslims espouse or agree with the very views that "Islamophobes" accuse Islam of being guilty of, but I think Sam Harris puts it best when he explains:

"Apologists for Islam have even sought to defend their faith from criticism by inventing a psychological disorder known as “Islamophobia.” My friend Ayaan Hirsi Ali is said to be suffering from it. Though she was circumcised as a girl by religious barbarians (as 98 percent of Somali girls still are) has been in constant flight from theocrats ever since, and must retain a bodyguard everywhere she goes, even her criticism of Islam is viewed as a form of “bigotry” and “racism” by many “moderate” Muslims. And yet, moderate Muslims should be the first to observe how obscene Muslim bullying is—and they should be the first to defend the right of public intellectuals, cartoonists, and novelists to criticize the faith.
There is no such thing as Islamophobia. Bigotry and racism exist, of course—and they are evils that all well-intentioned people must oppose. And prejudice against Muslims or Arabs, purely because of the accident of their birth, is despicable. But like all religions, Islam is a system of ideas and practices. And it is not a form of bigotry or racism to observe that the specific tenets of the faith pose a special threat to civil society. Nor is it a sign of intolerance to notice when people are simply not being honest about what they and their co-religionists believe."

REASON INFUSION then goes on to accuse me of -wait for it- "riding his coattails". Here's the definition:

"Riding coattails is a metaphor that refers to the way in which lower level or uninspiring celebrities can often reach stardom through their ties to another, more popular and successful celebrity. This can often be used as a generic phrase for anyone that hangs onto another person as they forge ahead, without effort from the hanger-on."

Forgive me but this is one of those "LOL" moments. Is REASON INFUSION really that deluded? His illusions of grandeur are bordering on narcissistic. Blackmore and several other friends of mine on the FFI forum are well aware that I have been writing for years. My work has been quoted and featured all over the Internet (I'm sure he'll move on to accusing me of plagiarism, but quoting yourself does not make you guilty of this). My latest blog, on the other-hand, is a recent development, and even that has been featured on sites such as TROP. Conversely, his videos are lucky if they even receive 10 views. If anyone is riding another's "coattail", it is not I.


Here he proudly displays his bigoted and elitist attitude by condescendingly referring to me as "sir" (he also may not be aware that it can be construed as a racial slur, a stereotype of South Asians referring to whites as "sir", akin to the stereotype of African-Americans referring to whites as "boss"). He then proceeds to make up excuses for removing his videos. He says it's because he "condensed" the same material into other videos. As far as I'm aware, this is a lie.

I replied to the last half of his second video from memory and distinctly remember him bragging about how 55 per cent of converts in the UK were whites. I remember it because he seemed rather excited and overly emotional about it. Nowhere in his new videos does he mention this.

What is worst about this situation is REASON INFUSION's stubbornness and lack of integrity. He refuses to admit that he was clearly wrong in deleting a set of videos which he knew very well I was in the middle of replying to. There is no "if's" or "but's" about it. This is simply bad debating etiquette and should not be difficult for someone to admit to.


He continues to try and justify his lack of integrity through several means:

1. He mocks me for not "showing my face" and "hiding behind a blog". Blackmore dealt with this yesterday (yup, REASON INFUSION says the same thing in his previous video). His response touches on similar points raised by Sam Harris (quoted above) in regards to Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

"REASONINFUSION talks about a particular man from Bangladesh who hides behind a typewriter and doesn’t show his face. It’s IslamoCritic he is talking about. Well REASONINFUSION, not every Muslim knows that Islam is a religion of peace. There many among them that murder for their religion. A Islam critic’s life is not save. Basically all Islam critics have protection. Geert Wilders here in Holland has 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 12 months a year, protection. And his only ‘crime’ is repeating what the so called Muslim fundamentalists or extremists are saying about Islam. And somehow these guys are save and don’t need protection. It’s a crazy world isn’t it?"

Let's not beat around the bush. Safety is a very real concern for critics of Islam, especially those who had formally belonged to it. I've been threatened several times. For example, once I was told I was a "homosexual Christian dog(?)" who needed to be put down. Of course not all correspondence has been like that. I was once contacted by a sweet Bangladeshi girl who told me she was "ashamed" that a fellow Bangladeshi could leave Islam. Granted, it's not exactly perfect, but at least it was not threatening.

REASON INFUSION's mockery only exposes how twisted and evil some "moderate" Muslims really are. They hide safely behind their Islamist co-religionists whilst we have no such luxury. And REASON INFUSION is proud of this? In fact I discussed this very issue in a previous post of mine totally unrelated with the current discussion (March 21, 2012):

"As critics such as Ali Sina have pointed out, this is due to their intellectual bankruptcy. The only recourse they have available is to emulate their prophet through intimidation, humiliation and killing. Up until the age of the Internet, it was very nearly impossible to criticize Islam without literally losing your head over it. Now that we have the Internet, it really is the last semi-safe place to criticize Islam and how it effects the behavior and attitudes of its followers. This fact tends to infuriate Muslims, who will often "challenge" the critics to show their faces, unaware that their words only confirm the barbaric stereotype earned by their faith.
I say “semi-safe” because there still are dangers to voicing criticism of Islam on the Internet, even with the relative anonymity it provides. Muslim reactions to criticism go further than simply trying to hack a site to shut it down. Many issue death threats and attempt to track down the people behind these sites in the real world. The reason behind this is not to shake their hands and have a nice discussion over a hot cup of cocoa. No, the reason is to teach them a lesson, even to kill them. For example, Hossam Armanious and his innocent family (originally from an article by the New York Sun)"

2. He also attempts to mock me for apparently taking "months" to post responses because I'm busy "gathering" biased sources from the net. Both of his claims are false.

A. The claim that I take "months" to reply is a provable and hypocritical lie. What, does he really think I'm waiting with bated breath behind my computer screen in anticipation of his replies to me? I reply to his silly videos as soon as I view them, which means there can be a delay because I may be unaware that he has even created a video aimed at me. With his last batch of videos (three in one go), the slight delay was from the fact that I'm busy. You can't just dump three videos on someone and expect them to write three separate replies in one day.

The original debate between Blackmore and the overtly racist REASON INFUSION was posted at my blog on April 11, 2012. I replied to his first video aimed at me on April 20, 2012, the very day I was made aware of it. Since he's deleted that video, I'm not sure of when it was created, but it was only a week and 3 days at the most before I noticed and replied. I then replied to the first of 3 new videos aimed at me on May 2, 2012,  also the very day I was made aware of it (to be honest, I was not expecting him to be shameless enough to come back for more). Again, since he's deleted that video, I'm not sure of when it was created, but it was only a week and 2 days at the most before I noticed and replied. I replied to the second over 3 posts dated May 4, May 6, and May 10, 2012. Additionally, although this post is only an "update", it is as lengthy and thorough as any of my previous replies. This video I am replying to was only uploaded by REASON INFUSION today, and I am replying to it -you guessed it- on the very same day.

The time between posting REASON INFUSION's deleted debate with Blackmore and REASON INFUSION's mass deletions is less than a month in total, and most of my replies were posted the very day I viewed the corresponding video. So where has this fantasy of me taking "months" to reply to one of his videos come from? Moreover, since when has anyone set a time limit between responses? I can assure you, unlike REASON INFUSION, if I agree to a set of terms, I will do my damned best to stick by them.

Where is the hypocrisy I mentioned earlier? Well, this lay in the fact that I responded to the first of his second set of videos on May 2, 2012, yet he only responded to it today on May 19, 2012. That's 2 weeks and 3 days for an actual direct response to anything I have written. And yes, that's longer than any length of time between his videos and my responses to them. There is a reason why I give them the title, "Hypocrite Extraordinaire", and this perfectly demonstrates it.

B.  The claim that I was busy "gathering" biased sources from the net is incorrect. When it comes to most of the statistics I provided, I collected them long before I ever set eyes on one of REASON INFUSION's repetitive and obscure videos. If there is anything that may delay responses from me is the fact that I'm very particular about my grammar and spelling. My English is hardly MENSA quality, but why bother writing if you don't give it your best?

As to the overall quality of the countless links I provide for all my statements, they each have to be assessed separately (certainly out of the scope of this reply). But what I can say is,

Firstly, a lot of the links I provide are sourced directly from the Compendium of Muslim Texts and other source material that I own. If he has a problem with these, then it is orthodox mainstream Islam he really has a problem with, not me.

Secondly, there is not only one available reference for each statement I make. If I were to continue this discussion, I'm sure I could find suitable alternatives to anything REASON INFUSION objects to.

His complaint only further exposes his hypocrisy. In the video before this one, he attempts to prove Islam planned on eliminating slavery. In order to do this he quotes from a book called "Humanism in Islam" written by a Western dhimmi named Marcel André Boisard. He provides no quotes from Islamic sources, just the words of an intellectual dhimmi.

In two of my previous replies, I explain, using canonical Islamic sources, Muhammad's participation and the theology behind slavery, and the reason why Muhammad never intended to put an end to this abhorrent trade. Sure, some of the later commentators, holding evolved and superior morals to that of Muhammad's, may have claimed this, but there is no canonical texts that even come close to supporting such an assertion.

So when have the writings of a non-Muslim Western dhimmi become more authoritative than the Qur'an, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and all the other Islamic texts?

Seriously, you're addressing an adult Bangladeshi ex-Muslim, not some white teenaged college student rebelling against his parents because a nun once smacked his ass at Sunday school. What next, are you going to start quoting Karen Armstrong? Please don't. I would feel embarrassed for you.


Talk about creating strawmen. REASON INFUSION now claims I took "offense" at his comparison of the "Jim Crow laws to the Apartheid in South Africa".

No, I certainly did not take "offense" to the comparison. If you take a look at the particular response he is referring to, you can clearly see I was simply referring to the irony in a Muslim who continually condemns all of these inhumane forms of Western oppression in a debate not related to the West, yet hypocritically fails to condemn or even mention the Islamic equivalent, Dhimmitude, in a debate specifically about Islam.

Yup, this is the individual who claims we're the "hypocrites" who are “slick in our condemnation”, yet he is the only one who refuses to out-right condemn slavery and those who partook in this trade. And whilst we're at it, let's clear up this lie REASON INFUSION insistently repeats over and over again about how we do not want to offend our Christian American fundie "allies". I think I probably lost their support in my first reply to him where I say to f**k (slaving) Americans, Christians and their slaving and raping founding fathers.

In this section, he then goes on to once again repeat statistics on human trafficking, etc. in the Netherlands. All of this has been dealt with in one of my previous responses that can be read here.


Here he shows how the Jim Crow laws are often compared by scholars to the Apartheid practiced in South Africa. Again, this is a strawman. I have never denied such a comparison. In my opinion, it is a very good comparison and both are worthy of condemnation. I was only commenting on the irony in a Muslim who condemns all of these forms of Western oppression, yet fails to condemn or even mention the Islamic equivalent.

He then goes on to point out how Adolf Hitler praised the United states. Again, I have never denied that he did. The fact that Hitler would praise America is only further proof that America has a history that it should be rightfully ashamed of. But it is funny how REASON INFUSION uses this as proof of how evil America was, but then fails to apply the same sort of reasoning to Islam. In Hitler's own words:

"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" - Hitler: Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, pg. 115


In this section the elitist snob again tells us how educated he is and then says he "assumes" I think he would not be aware of what a tu quoque is. This is ridiculous. He previously attempted to accuse me of it, and I called him out for the lying hypocrite that he is. So why on earth would he assume I thought he was unaware of what it meant? It's all too obvious that he knows what it is, but he is simply too incompetent to use this logical fallacy effectively. For example here:

"REASONINFUSION asks, why didn't I tell my readers the "Dutch were the first people to import black slaves to the new-world"? 
This is a ridiculous question that hardly deserves a response, but for the sake of avoiding any misunderstandings, I will answer. I was clearly not writing an in-depth essay, or even a vague summary, of the history of slavery. I was simply introducing a debate between REASONINFUSION and Blackmore discussing slavery in Islam, whilst also pointing out the use of fabricated nonsense by REASONINFUSION. My introduction was a measly 6 sentences in length. How and why would anyone expect me to cover such a thing in such a short space? There is an appropriate time and place for everything, but discussing the Dutch in an introduction to a debate on slavery in Islam is not it.
A more salient question would be, why didn't REASONINFUSION tell his readers about the Dutch slave trade? Even after Blackmore told him he was a Dutch, REASONINFUSION continued in his use of tu quoque against America. So basically what this boils down to is the fact that REASONINFUSION is mad at me for his own incompetence. The guy can't even use logical fallacies effectively."


What he has the audacity to claim in this section probably explains why he was in a hurry to delete all the videos I responded to. He again claims it is me, not him, using the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy.

This accusation is crazy. As I've stated many times, the subject of this debate was and always will be SLAVERY IN ISLAM. The definition of this fallacy is when "one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser." So when REASON INFUSION brings up unrelated statistics on Bangladeshi child abuse in a debate about SLAVERY IN ISLAM, who is committing the logical fallacy?

Seriously, is this an adult I'm responding to? Why does he fail to comprehend the obvious fact that it is he and only he who is guilty of this fallacy that he continually accuses others of?

As proof, you only need to read the original debate between Blackmore and REASON INFUSION (which proves the subject of debate was slavery in Islam), and then portions of my responses to his insistent use of it.

For example; the previous quote above, and then here:

"REASON INFUSION finishes off his video by attempting to lecture me on the tu quoque logical fallacy. He states,
 "'They did it too' is not a defense. To justify the European slave trade on the basis that the Arab slave trade come before. It's poor logic and it is irrational ....."
This is hilarious when we consider the fact that the subject in question has always been slavery in Islam, therefore it is REASON INFUSION who is employing the use of the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy by constantly changing the subject and bringing the founding fathers of America, European slavery, the Jim Crow laws, Christianity, the Dutch, Bangladeshis, bride-burning, child labor, child abuse, and even our own fathers, mothers and sisters into the equation, all simply to justify and defend Islam, its racist slaving white founder, and the resulting Islamic slave trade."

And here:

"As I predicted but did not seriously expect in my previous response, now that REASON INFUSION is aware that I am not white, and now that he is unable to use his stock tu quoque arguments against me, he has moved onto my South Asian/Bangladeshi ethnicity/nationality. He proceeds to roll out statistics on child abuse etc. in my overwhelming Muslim country of Bangladesh,"

 And here:

"REASON INFUSION then moves onto using the tu quoque ("you too") logical fallacy against my nationality/ethnicity (a fallacy which he, in the first video, hilariously attempted to lecture me on, when it was him and only him who has ever employed it in this discussion). He once again quotes statistics on child abuse and other forms of oppression in Bangladesh in an attempt to stifle discussion on Islam by trying to undermine the credibility of its critics and shift the focus away from Islam. Rather than repeat myself, I will simply quote my previous reply to this patent nonsense"

And here:

"REASON INFUSION loves to open his fallacious arguments with "they conveniently overlook the fact...", and this argument is no exception. So why hasn't he condemned any of this? And before he again accuses us of employing the tu quoque fallacy, I would like to point out that it is him and only him who is using it. Blackmore and I are simply responding to his tu quoque and exposing their stupidity."


REASON INFUSION opens this section with a comment, spoken with venom, that leaves no doubt whatsoever as to the fact that his racism and bigotry extends further than simply to whites, when he states:

"I think what you should also look up is 'credibility' sir. I don't know if you have it in Bangladesh, but in the United States we have something called 'credibility'"

Then he goes on to accuse me of using tu quoque whenever he brings up Bangladeshi child abuse statistics (something which I address in this post and partially in this post). As I have already made clear, it is he who is using tu quoque whenever he attempts to shift focus away from slavery in Islam. Blackmore and I are simply exposes the stupidly in his choice of subjects that always backfire on him because most of the problems he highlights are caused or justified by followers of Islam and Islamic teachings.

He then says I spend only one sentence to actually discuss the child abuse taking place in Bangladesh. Well, considering the fact that I was responding to a lousy tu quoque that has nothing to do with slavery in Islam, I would say this was generous of me. As I said before, there is a time and place for everything, but discussing child abuse in a discussion on slavery in Islam is not it.

REASON INFUSION says he will be back, and I'm sure he will. As for me, I'm done with debating a racist imbecile.