UK: Woman Follows Prophet's Orders, Beats Girl, 10, with Steel Ladle for "Lying" about her Prayers

Disgusting news from inside the United Kingdom, similar to previous incidents of Islamically motivated child abuse in Canada and Italy.

From the Mail Online:

A Muslim woman who repeatedly beat a 10-year-old girl with a steel ladle for not reading enough verses of the Koran is facing jail today.

Asia Parveen, 31 brandished a knife at the child after accusing her of lying about her prayers.

Parveen, who was five months pregnant at the time, also forced the girl to stand with her arms outstretched for four hours, Snaresbrook Crown Court heard.

The girl, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, escaped from the house in Stoke Newington, north London, and police found her alone at a bus stop in Waltham Forest, east London, almost four hours later in the early hours of the morning.

Doctors identified 56 injuries when she was examined at hospital,

Parveen, who is a mother-of-three, accepted causing some of the injuries with the ten inch cooking spoon but said others must have been caused when the girl 'fell over.'

Prosecutor Tom Nicholson told the court an argument started between Parveen and the girl on August 15 last year during Ramadan.

'The girl was praying from the Koran and Ms Parveen accused her of lying about how many of the verses she had read,' he said.

'She was 10 at the time. Ms Parveen took a metal spoon about 10 inches in size and the Crown's case is that she hit the child with it repeatedly over a half an hour period, causing extensive bruising over both arms, her legs and head.

'The Crown's case is that Ms Parveen said she was going to kill the girl and ran to get a knife from the kitchen.

'The girl had no alternative but to leave at around 10pm.

'She got a bus and a train and it was about 1.50am when the police found her at a bus stop in Broadway Parade, Waltham Forest.

'She was on her own and extremely cold. She was taken to hospital and an examination found she had suffered 56 injuries.'

Parveen admitted a single count of child cruelty but insisted that she only used the spoon once or twice on the girl's arms and bottom.

She claimed the other injuries had been the result of the girl falling over. Parveen also denied threatening to kill the 10-year-old or picking up a knife.

Judge Martyn Zeidman accepted Parveen's basis of plea, saying it would not be in the public interest for the child to give evidence.

'The defendant has accepted she behaved in the wrong way towards the girl and there is absolutely no doubt that she behaved disgracefully,' the judge said.

'Before the violence, she says had been asked to stretch her arms up in the air for a period of four hours.

'She says she was hit all over with a spoon on her arms, legs, head and back about 20 times.

'The basis of plea is that the defendant only admits causing injuries to the girl's arms and bottom.

'On the face of it, the defence assertion is incredible. But I don't regard it in the public interest to make the child give evidence.

'In any view, the defendant has behaved in an absolutely disgraceful way, and what an irony that the child was encouraged to behave in a godly fashion when this was far from godly.

'But I undertake to sentence the defendant on her version of events and avoid further distress to the child.'

Adjourning the case until June 15 for reports, Judge Zeidman told Parveen: 'I'm releasing you on bail but that gives no indication on what will be the eventual sentence.

'All options are open so you must not assume that because you got bail you will necessarily avoid an immediate prison sentence.'

Parveen, of Hackney, north London, will be sentenced on June 15.

Hypocrite Extraordinaire Part 2: REASON INFUSION, Child Abuse, Marriages, & Denial of Islamic Slavery

This is the second part of a four-part response to REASON INFUSIONS's set of three videos titled, “REASON INFUSION:HOW I CAN BE MUSLIM AND BLACK”. This is in reply to the first half of his second video which can be viewed here. I did plan on covering video number two in a single post but am forced into splitting it into two due to the unexpected and excessive length. My response to the first video can be viewed here, and all previous responses from both I and Blackmore can be read here.

Before I begin, I must warn you, as with my last post, that in some places I will have to repeat myself by quoting previous responses to REASON INFUSION. This cannot be avoided because he tends to repeat himself often.

I would also like to note that REASON INFUSION disallows embedding his videos, disallows comments on his videos, and, to date, has refused to link back to those who he is replying to. This is not a blanket policy of his. If you take a look at his other videos, e.g. here, they remain open for comments. If he doesn't want to allow comments, then that is fine by me, but his refusal to link back to us means his viewers have no immediate way of reading these responses from Blackmore and I.

This is not anything new. Years ago, the notable critic Dr. Ali Sina was in a written debate with Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, a well-known Pakistani Muslim scholar who gives legal advice on Islamic issues to the Pakistani Government and the Parliament. If my memory serves me correctly, half way through the debate, Sina's website, FaithFreedom International, was banned in Pakistan and Ghamidi refused to host their exchange on his own website.

This only further proves what an epic waste of my time it is to reply to this nonsense, but, at least with this last batch of videos, reply I shall.

Denial of Islam's Role & Theological Justification of the "Arab" Slave Trade

REASON INFUSION continually begins his videos by asking himself, but never really answering, the question, "how can a black man be Muslim in light of the Arab slave trade?"  As Blackmore notes in his reply, this is the wrong question. The question he should be asking himself is,  "how can a black man be Muslim in light of the Islamic slave trade?"

Sure, Arab slavery, in fact, slavery itself, existed long before the birth of Muhammad and Islam. The slavery of Africans by the Europeans is but a tiny link in the long history of human enslavement, and each link in this long chain is as abhorrent and worthy of condemnation as the next. But, according to REASON INFUSION, this is not so.

He tells us of the many innocent Africans who were enslaved by the Europeans, but never discusses the innocent white Europeans who were also enslaved and raped by African Muslims. He repeatedly tells us of innocent blacks who were lynched by whites, but never discusses the innocent non-Muslims who still are to this very day lynched by Muslim mobs on charges of "blaspheming Islam", charges which are false 95% of the time.

In fact, being the hypocrite that he is, REASON INFUSION actually gives his seal of approval to slavery carried out at certain times. But why is this, if we are to believe that Islam condemns slavery and if we are to believe that Islamic slavery was in fact "Arab" slavery?

Before Islam, slavery to most Arabs was tribal. With the advent of Islam, Muhammad took it out of the tribal and into the religious sphere. Slavery, sexual or otherwise, is a legitimate part of Islamic theology and is partly entwined within the doctrine of Jihad. The offspring of two slaves are automatically slaves by birth, and the enslavement of enemy combatants, their women and their children during jihad is permissible under Islam.

This is why today we still see "slave families" being inherited from one slave-owner to another in places like Yemen. This is why today we still see Muslims defend slavery by claiming "It is our religion and custom," and asking "Why does the international community try to stop it?" in countries like Mauritania. This is why today we see a female Kuwaiti activist and former candidate for parliament pushing for sex-slave laws in the hope that Muslim Chechens can enslave non-Muslim Russian women into a life of sexual abuse at the hands of Kuwaiti Muslim men. This is why today we see Egyptian Shaykhs advocating jihad raids a few times a year to bring back women and children who can be sold in the market "like groceries" to bring in extra income. And this is why hundreds of thousands of Sudanese Christians and Animists have been enslaved by Muslims.

Yes, there may be "Arab" nationalist overtones present in some cases, but this is all legitimized and justified by the predominant religions of the slavers and the enslaved. As a result, we see wide-spread denial by Muslims of the atrocities that have and still are being committed in the name of Islam. And it is not "Anti-Islamists" who claim their motivations are religious, it is the Muslims themselves who do this.

Keeping Harems full of sex-slaves is a decidedly non-Western tradition. A tradition upheld by Muhammad and the early Muslims. Whilst having sex with your slaves would have probably been frowned upon by Western slavers, this was, and still is, not the case with the Eastern Islamic slavers. While two out of every three slaves shipped across the Atlantic were men, the proportions were reversed in the Islamic slave trade. Two women for every man were enslaved by the Muslims. And who would be put on guard of these harems? Black male slaves who were violently, and often (about 8-9 out of every 10) fatally castrated by their Muslim masters.

I mention all of this because using slaves as a convenient sexual release, and the trading of slaves obtained through jihad, was practiced by both Muhammad and the early Muslims.

In essence, the Qur'an tells us Muhammad is allowed to sexually defile "those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war" [Qur'an 33:50], and there are copious amounts of Sahih Hadith narrations that discuss how to correctly have sex with your slaves and non-Muslim captives obtained as "booty" through jihad.

The hadith tell us that Muslims practiced "coitus interruptus [al-'Azl, or the practice of pulling out the penis prior to ejaculation] while the Quran was being revealed" [Sahih Bukhari 7:62:136]. We are told in many different narrations that, Muhammad's men, who were allotted female captives as their share of the booty, approached Muhammad and asked him about this because they did not want to lower the market value of their "merchandise" by impregnating them. What did Muhammad, the "perfect" example, advise them to do? Did he instruct them to stop raping their captives? No, he tells them to not bother pulling out and to simply cum inside them because "No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence" [Sahih Bukhari 3:34:432].

In another Sahih hadith, we again read something similar, where a Muslim seeks Muhammad's advice by telling him that he has had intercourse (i.e. raped) his slave-girl but does not want her to conceive.  Note that this particular girl was not a concubine (i.e.  non-Muslim sex slaves like those owned by Muhammad), she was only a "servant who carried water". The difference here is the fact that Muhammad explicitly gives his seal of approval to the rape of female slaves by replying, "Practise 'azl, if you so like, but what is decreed for her will come to her" [Sahih Muslim 8:3383]. Yet the hypocrite REASON INFUSION condemns some of the repulsive founding fathers of America for having intercourse (i.e. raping) black slaves but will not condemn Muhammad, the four Caliphs of Islam (including his son-in-law who even beat a female slave in front of Muhammad [Ibn Ishaq:496]), and the early Muslims for doing the very same thing with their non-Muslim slaves.

When Muhammad and his army besieged the Jewish Banu Qurayza, Sahih hadith tell us that "He [Muhammad] then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims" and spared the few who converted to Islam [Sahih Bukhari 5:59:362]. In another hadith, we are told that the "men" Muhammad slaughtered, weren't only men but male children "who had begun to grow hair (pubes)". [Abu Dawud 38:4390]. In the Sirat literature (which together with the hadith form Muhammad's Sunnah) we are told that Muhammad then "took his fifth of the booty," [Ishaq:465] that he "selected for himself from among the Jewish women of the Qurayza, Rayhanah bt. Amr. She became his concubine. When he predeceased her, she was still in his possession. When the Messenger of Allah took her as a captive, she showed herself averse to Islam and insisted on Judaism," [Al-Tabari, Vol. 8, p. 38] and that "the Messenger of Allah sent Sa’d bin Zayd with some of the Qurayza captives to Najd, and in exchange for them he purchased horses and arms" [Al-Tabari, Vol. 8, pp. 39-40]

Now to REASON INFUSION; is that Arab slavery or Islamic slavery committed by Muhammad and his followers? And when Muslims, Arabs and non-Arabs alike, enslave others explicitly using Islam and Muhammad as justifications, are they participating in the "Arab" slave trade or the Islamic slave trade?

REASON INFUSION bemoans my linking to anti-Islam pages, but I do this more out of convenience than out of necessity. In fact most of the links I have posted thus far lead to news articles or hadith texts taken directly from the online Compendium of Muslim Texts. Of course this is not possible with all the primary sources, some which are unavailable elsewhere online. However, I do own the Sirat Rasul Allah and all 40 volumes of al-Tabari's History, among other text, and could always needlessly waste more of my time by typing out the quotes manually. But even the white-wash provided by the BBC (which never explains what they mean by a "legitimate jihad") concludes that,

"The Prophet Muhammad did not try to abolish slavery, and bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves himself" 

And:

"The legality of slavery in Islam, together with the example of the Prophet Muhammad, who himself bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves, may explain why slavery persisted until the 19th century in many places (and later still in some countries)."

And:

"Slaves were owned in all Islamic societies, both sedentary and nomadic, ranging from Arabia in the centre to North Africa in the west and to what is now Pakistan and Indonesia in the east. Some Islamic states, such as the Ottoman Empire, the Crimean Khanate, and the Sokoto caliphate [Nigeria], must be termed slave societies because slaves there were very important numerically as well as a focus of the polities' energies."

Pakistani, Turk, Indonesian, and Fulani Muslim slavers of the Sokoto Caliphate can hardly be considered "Arab". The only commonality they possess is their religion, Islam.

African Fulani women

Background on Fulani Muslims, the first Africans "south of the desert" to embrace Islam and their enslavement of non-Muslim Africans during Jihad:

The Fulani were the first people south of the desert to become Muslims, and were responsible for spreading Islam throughout West Africa through a series of jihads, joining with Ousemane dan Fodio in the 18th Century. They formed Islamic Fulani empires in many places, notably in Maasina in Mali, Sokoto in Nigeria, Adamawa in northern Cameroon, Fouta Tooro in Senegal, and Fouta Jaalon in Guinea.

As they conquered different towns and peoples, they would take captives from those tribes. Those captives became their slaves, adopting the language and lifestyle of the Fulani, and working their fields for them.

Another form of slavery using religion explicitly as justification would be the Devshirme:

Devshirme (derived from , "collection, gathering"; called "collection of boys" or "blood tax" in Balkan countries in their native languages) was the systematic abduction of young boys from conquered Christian lands by the Ottoman sultans as a form of regular taxation in order to build a loyal slave army (formerly largely composed of war captives) and the class of (military) administrators called the "Janissaries", or other servants such as tellak in hamams. . Boys delivered to the Ottomans in this way were called ghilmán or acemi oglanlar ("novice boys").

Tu Quoque or not Tu Quoque?

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 with some (actually, a lot of) additional thoughts at the end:

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 (in his second video) notes issues such as bride-burning which are prevalent in some areas of South Asia. He then begs the question, why have I not condemned such things or have not linked to sites which address those issues?

In essence, he is saying critics of Islam and their websites should be ignored if they do not also have a billion other links denouncing every incident of oppression and injustice that has ever taken place. Sorry to disappoint, but reality just doesn't work like that. Even if you tried, it would be an impossible feat.

Would you criticize a British children's charity or claim that they are morally inconsistent and insincere for not discussing British slavery, imperialism, war, oppression and so forth? Of course you would not. To do so would be ridiculous. And assuming that these children's charities do not equally condemn those other things because they, to your knowledge, have not discussed them would be equally ridiculous.  

This blog is only a tiny part of my life, and, as its name suggests, it focuses on Islam and issues related to it. REASON INFUSION has no idea of what I do elsewhere or the issues I have spoken out against. Indeed, I have spoken of child labor, abuse, and other issues related to Bangladesh and South Asia in general, and I didn't need a pompous, vulgar hypocrite like REASON INFUSION to goad me into doing so. It goes without saying that I condemn barbaric and backward practices such as bride-burning.

As I pointed out previously to REASON INFUSION, there is a time and place for everything. Unless he is viewing a website that is specifically designed to be a source of information on completely unrelated topics, i.e. an Encyclopaedia of general knowledge, it is completely moronic of him or anyone else to expect them to stray very far from their subject matter. But this is something that he fails to understand. Or at least fails to acknowledge when trying to silence critics of Islam. I say this because his constant tu quoque diversions onto other unrelated topics only reveal his own hypocrisy.  

I am a Bangladeshi. On this particular blog I discuss issues concerning Islam and have always condemned racism and the use of Islam as a leverage for so-called critics to push their racist views. Yet REASON INFUSION quotes statistics on abuse in Bangladesh (which btw is a Muslim majority country) and mentions bride-burnings (presumably because, as with bride-burnings, Hinduism is the religion most associated with South Asians) and then ignorantly begs the questions, why have I not condemned any of those things?  

Let us now turn the tables and apply REASON INFUSION's odd moral standards and requirements to himself. REASON INFUSION is an African-American Muslim. He discusses issues concerning blacks and condemns white barbarity. But.... 

Why hasn't he, up until now, discussed/condemned the fact that 4 out of 5 Middle-Eastern women (Islam being their predominant religion) are sexually abused between the ages of 3 and 6 by family members? 

Why hasn't he discussed/condemned the fact that 94% of Yemeni children (2-14 yrs) are subjected to violence from a parent or guardian, and more than half of all Yemeni girls are married before reaching puberty?

He tells us of the many innocent Africans who were enslaved by the Europeans, but why hasn't he specifically discussed/condemned the fact that 1.25 million innocent white Europeans were also enslaved and raped by African Muslims? 

He repeatedly tells us of innocent blacks who were lynched by racist white monsters, but why hasn't he discussed/condemned the fact that (as of March 2011) more than 30 people accused of Blasphemy under Pakistani law have been killed by Muslim lynch mobs?

Why hasn't he discussed/condemned the fact that 1 out of 3 British Muslims aged 16 to 24 believe that Muslim apostates like myself should be executed?

With REASON INFUSION being a Muslim and an African-American, I could also point out similar, yet probably less alarming, statistics on the United States and sub-Saharan Africa, so why has he failed to condemn any of these statistics on Muslims, Americans, and Africans in his videos?

As a Muslim, as an American, and as a black man, the fact that he has not singled out each specific issue and its related statistic and then publicly condemned them, does not in anyway mean he condones any of it, but according to REASON INFUSION's own twisted “logic” he does support all of this and therefore has no right to criticize whites for their slavery of Africans. According to his own logic, it is he who is a “hypocrite”, and it is he who is “slick in his condemnation”.

In addition to repeating what he had said in his previous video, he now discusses Hindus and India in relation to bride-burning. As I have already stated, I do not need a pompous, vulgar hypocrite like him to spur me into "self" criticism, something which Muslims appear incapable of doing. I am highly critical of many aspects of South Asian culture. And it goes without saying that I condemn barbaric and backward practices such as bride-burning.

But more to the point, why is he bringing up such a weak tu quoque defense for Islamic slavery? In addition to having nothing to do with slavery, I am neither Hindu nor Indian. My ancestors may have been Hindu and Indian, but my parents and all relations are Muslim and Bangladeshi. What, do we all look the same to him? Judging by his virulent racism towards whites, whom he dubs as a "savage" kind, I wouldn't put it past him. He also conveniently leaves out the fact that Muslims in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan also partake in this barbaric practice.

To be fair to REASON INFUSION, he does state that Hindu scriptures do not promote bride-burning. But why then does he even bring this up in a discussion on religion (more specifically a discussion on slavery in Islam)? If there were no religious basis for the slavery, past and present, carried out by Muslims, I would not be having this discussion, or at least the discussion would not be about Islam.

Going back to the point of child sexual abuse in Bangladesh, something which I obviously condemn, isn't it a little hypocritical of REASON INFUSION to bring this, and also the issue of child brides, into the discussion when millions of girls are being abused all over the world explicitly because of Islam? For, what else are contemporary Islamic pedophilic marriages, if not religiously sanctified child sexual abuse?

As with slavery, pedophilic marriages are justified in Islam by the example set by Muhammad who at the age of 51 married Aisha, his "favorite" wife, when she was only six lunar years old, and consummated his marriage with her when she was only 9 lunar years old (making her possibly 8 years old according to the Gregorian calender we all use today). Many "reformists" who conveniently spend all their time trying to "refute" critics rather than actually attempting reform by discussing it with fellow Muslims, have tried only recently to deny this, but none of their arguments stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Muhammad and Aisha's relationship is widely used today to hinder attempts by developing countries to move forward by banning child marriages. For example; in countries like Yemen, Bangladesh (yes, my country, the country which REASON INFUSION ironically attempts to malign), and Northern Nigeria, recent attempts at reforming laws and banning child marriages have been opposed and stopped on the grounds that such a ban would be "un-Islamic".

In his video, REASON INFUSION further maligns my nationality by quoting a report that says "Bangladeshis are alarmingly tolerant of child abuse". Well, is this really a surprise when attempts to stop Islamic child abuse in my country are met with a response from a Mufti who threatens to "wage jihad in the country if the government will pass any law banning child marriage"? Mufti Amini states that "two hundred thousand Jihadists of his group are ready to 'sacrifice' lives if any such law, which goes against "Koran and Sunnah" will be passed by the current government in the country". And which part of Muhammad's Sunnah does it go against? You've guessed it, his pedophilic marriage to Aisha. He states:

"Banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam, who also married minor Ayesha, when she was just eight years old. The new law initiated by the current government will put the moral character of the prophet into controversy and challenge."

Humans are all the same underneath. Who we are and where we're born does not change that. What does change us is our beliefs, especially religious ones. If it is true that they are "alarmingly tolerant of child abuse", this is not a result of who they are, it's a result of what they believe.

There are also some cases where Muhammad and Aisha's relationship is used to effectively "turn back the clock" by legalizing child marriages in places they were previously illegal. For example; in 2010, the Malaysian State of southern Malacca legalized child marriages specifically between adult Muslim men and young Muslim girls below the age of 16. Ivy Josiah, the executive director of the Women's Aid Organisation, noted "Child marriage amounts to paedophilia ... It is really a regressive move. It is turning back the clock." The same thing is also being attempted in post-"Arab Spring" Egypt, a country which is currently in the middle of further Islamization.

Doesn't REASON INFUSION have any shame? He brings up child abuse and marriages in an attempt to somehow justify Islamic slavery, yet fails to condemn Islam which is possibly the biggest cause of child sexual abuse in the world today. Just read some of the heart-breaking statistics on the subject. This Islamically approved abuse of children is now also spreading to Western countries like Australia, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States

Even the physical abuse of children has been approved by Muhammad, who in several hadiths instructed parents to "Command a boy to pray when he reaches the age of seven years. When he becomes ten years old, then beat him for prayer" [Abu Dawud 2:494]. This has resulted in just that; Muslim parents/guardians/teachers in Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh (yes, again, the country which REASON INFUSION singles-out for its abuse of children, ironically in an attempt to defend Islam) and even in Western countries like Canada, Italy, and the United Kingdom beating their children (in some cases, to death) for not praying/reciting the Qur'an.

Okay, that's it for now. In the next part I shall be covering crime statistics in the West which REASON INFUSION decided to bring into the discussion, and the conversion, especially of women, to Islam in the West.

Chechen Women in Mortal Fear as President Backs Islamic Honor Killings

I suppose things like this are inevitable when you have people in charge who take their Islamic faith seriously. We see this even in Dearborn, USA, where free speech and their constitution is trampled on.

From The Washington Times:

Chechnya's government is openly approving of families that kill female relatives who violate their sense of honor, as this Russian republic embraces a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam after decades of religious suppression under Soviet rule.

In the past five years, the bodies of dozens of young Chechen women have been found dumped in woods, abandoned in alleys and left along roads in the capital, Grozny, and neighboring villages.

Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov publicly announced that the dead women had “loose morals” and were rightfully shot by male relatives. He went on to describe women as the property of their husbands, and said their main role is to bear children.

“If a woman runs around and if a man runs around with her, both of them should be killed,” said Mr. Kadyrov, who often has stated his goal of making Chechnya “more Islamic than the Islamists.”

In today’s Chechnya, alcohol is all but banned, Islamic dress codes are enforced and polygamous marriages are supported by the government.

Some observers say Mr. Kadyrov’s attempt to impose Islamic law violates the Russian Constitution, which guarantees equal rights for women and a separation of church and state.

“We are a traditional, conservative society, but the government has gone overboard,” said Lipkhan Bazaeva, head of the Women's Dignity Center, a nongovernmental organization promoting women’s rights in Grozny. “They are declaring unacceptable limits on women — as an individual, she has no rights even if her husband beats her, despite Russian laws.”

Though observers agree that honor killings are on the rise in Chechnya, the issue remains largely taboo among locals — making official statistics hard to come by.

“You hear about these cases almost every day,” said a local human rights defender, who asked that her name not be used out of fear for her safety. “It is hard for me to investigate this topic, yet I worked on it with [human rights activist] Natasha [Estemirova] for a while. But, I can’t anymore. I am too scared now. I’ve almost given up, really.”

Estemirova, who angered Chechen authorities with reports of torture, abductions and extrajudicial killings, was found in the woods in 2009 in the neighboring region of Ingushetia with gunshot wounds to the head and chest. Her killer or killers have not been found.

Few dare to openly challenge Mr. Kadyrov’s rule. But activists say some young Muslim women do so surreptitiously, placing themselves in a constant tug of war between two value systems.

Milana, a ninth-grader in Grozny, wears thick eyeliner, dons tight miniskirts, smokes cigarettes and dates boys: all things a proper Muslim girl is forbidden to do in Chechnya.

She said she has heard it from her father countless times: A Chechen girl who loses her virginity before marriage is a prostitute, and Allah will punish her.

“If only my parents knew some of the things I did,” she said with a giggle. “My parents are too strict with me, but it is like that here.”

Analysts say dating can be an escape for teenagers such as Milana who often live double lives.

“It is a great temptation to break from tradition when they are away from their family, said Ms. Bazaeva. “They have a good time, but it is not without consequences, not in Chechnya.”

In this small Chechen village, residents talk about the teenage girl who was killed in early February after she spent a night at her boyfriend’s house.

The 16-year-old’s body was wrapped in a traditional rug and returned to her mother’s house. Her relatives are suspected of killing her in the name of family honor.

To escape the strict mores, some of the young opt for early marriage, which they view as the gateway to independence, sexual activity and societal respect. That goes for young Chechen men, also.

Abu-Khadzh Idrisov, 20, married in his teens to simply experiment, he said. His first marriage at age 14 lasted barely a year. He married a second time at 18. He spotted his future wife at a park in Grozny and, with the help of his friends, kidnapped her.

“When I married her, I honestly knew only two things: her name and the school she studied at. We talked together once,” he recalled. “But we have traditions and extremely strict rules in Chechnya, and you can’t just ignore them. I carry my family’s name, and if I tarnish it, I will have problems.”

Blackmore's Response to REASON INFUSION's Video "HOW I CAN BE MUSLIM AND BLACK"

My first response to this set of videos can be read here, and all previous responses from both I and Blackmore can be read here. 


REASON INFUSION:HOW I CAN BE MUSLIM AND BLACK PART # 1

REASONINFUSION you said that I’m highly critical of Islam. Sure that’s right. About Islam are so many astounding claims made, they just invite you to go look for the opposite. It's the bragging that does it. If I tell you that I'm the brightest person on earth than I can be sure you’ll challenge me on that rightaway. You’ll come up with absurd difficult questions of which the brightest person on earth is expected to be able to answer.

Let me tell you this, even if every Dutchman keeps slaves, commits incest with this daughters, beats his wife, has seks with his dog, steals, murders, robs, and so on, that still doesn’t justify muslims if they even do only 1% of these things. You claim to follow a perfect religion which at the same time is also a political system. These are perfect you say. So in a perfect society the things I just mentioned shouldn’t be there. And the history of such perfect people should also be exemplary. For sure it couldn't and shouldn't be compared with the Dutch slavery history.

The bragging about Islam is what it does challenge. One of the astounding claims is that all Muhammad’s examples are good. Here above I’ve given a few examples of which any sane person will judge that they are not good. Not even that, they are bad!

Another claim of greatness is that the Quran is without contradictions and mistakes. This why the Quran differentiates from other religious books and it’s prove the islam is for real muslims say. It makes Islam the real religion. The reality is that there’s a shocking amount of contradictions and mistakes:

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/

http://www.1000mistakes.com/1000mistakes/index.php?Page=002_001_003_010

And than you have the claim that the sharia is perfect. Well the perfection in Afghanistan is far to be found. Where the people love their god their most, work the hardest to follow their religion to the letter, Allah seems to have left them completely. There comes no single reward from above for their trying while at the same time elsewhere people, who don’t give a dam about Allah, get the reward the Afghans should expect.

That constant bragging about Islam is it’s undoing. Even Allah brags a lot. He claims to be merciful. But you'll end up in hell forever if you don't follow his instructions. Tell me what is so merciful in giving punishments that never ever stop? If everlasting hellish fire is the punishment of a merciful god than I wonder what the punishment of an unmerciful god must be.

Allah calls himself righteous. But to whom is he righteous, the cat or the mouse?

Allah claims there goes nothing against his will. So what’s the sin of the sinner if nothing goes against his will? And why need to threat with punishments?

Allah claims to be all-knowing. The consequence of that is every person that ends up in hell is born for hell. It's cruel and sadistic to bring people into this world of which he knowns that they will end up in hellfire forever.

If Islam is the true religion it would be self-proving. The ones who believe in Allah should be the richest and healthiest and oldest people in the world. They should win every sporting contest. The reality is completely the opposite. Where the people are the most fanatic in Islam Allah seems to have totally left mankind. If Islam is the true religion it would be self-proving and for sure it wouldn't depend on bragging about things that should be there but are obliviously not.

REASON INFUSION:HOW I CAN BE MUSLIM AND BLACK PART # 2

REASONINFUSION at the start of this video you said that the question was how can a blackman be a muslim in light of the Arab slave trade. Wrong! The question was how can a blackman be muslim in light of the Islamic slave trade?!

What you said about human trafficking here in Holland may be true. But I'm sorry for you, Muslims have a great deal in that. All over Europe muslims are overrated in crimes and especially in seksoffenses. And there’s a logic in that to. Muslim woman must remain virgin, so hands off, while the boys have all the sexualfreedom you can which for. That leaves them to non-muslim girls but they are a phobic for muslims as muslims for gays. And that leaves the boys only their hands as an alternative. Or worse… Just take a look at how exemplary muslims are here in Europe:

The same films can be made about cities here in Holland and other European countries!

That wife burning of Hindu woman is baloney. That’s from a long time ago. Why do you constantly defend Islam with bad things of others of the past? India was ruled hundreds of years by muslims who didn’t stop the widowburning. It was also ruled for 87 years by the English and they stopped it! And it’s only in the Islamic part of china where woman still have lotus feet. And circumcision these days is almost 100% a muslim thing.

And you brag about the many woman in England that convert to Islam. Well that will be the woman that according to Islam have defiance’s in their mind. That will be the kind of woman of which witness are two woman needed to equal that of one man.

REASON INFUSION:HOW I CAN BE MUSLIM AND BLACK PART # 3

REASONINFUSION starts again at the beginning of this video with the question how can a blackman be muslim in light of the Arab slave. Wrong again! The question was how can a blackman be muslim in light of the Islamic slave trade?!

I’ve always learned that ab means black and slave in Arabic.

I’m not going to respond anymore to remarks about Arab slave trade. The Arab traders all were muslims and did according to the religion nothing wrong. So it was muslim slave trade! Islamic slave trade! Is that so hard to speak out REASONINFUSION?

Blackmore to REASON INFUSION: Videos about Today’s Slavery of Africans & Women

I wonder if REASONINFUSION has ever written or made videos about today’s slavery. Is it as much a subject of his interest as the slavery perpetrated by the white hundreds of years ago is? Is he busy with justice or politics?

Well I have some videos about today’s slavery. There are hundreds of them on youtube. So I give only a small selection. In the first one (in 2 parts) among others the subject of slavery in Mauritania is discussed. And just like REASONINFUSION the muslims in this discussion start to talk about the Jews the American or whatever as soon as Islam is brought into the discussion.

Islam has rules about woman. And these rules are nothing less than slavery. A girl is her fathers possession till the days marries the man of her fathers choice. Refusal is suicide. And than she becomes her humans possession. From that day on she has to obey all of her husband’s demands. If this is not slavery than what is?

Here in Holland we have shelter houses for beaten woman fearing for their life. They are on the run for husband brother or father. Although muslims are a minority here, about 1 million of them on a total population of 16.5 million, the majority of woman in these shelters, about 70%, have an Islamic background. In the Islamic world it’s self are no such shelter houses. Just listen to what the prophet has to say: Narrated Umar Ibn Al-Khattab: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife. Abu Dawud 11:2139-2142

About the half of mankind are woman. That means that of the supposed 1.5 billion muslims 750 billion of them live in slavery. Nevertheless that all the Islamic countries see themselves as a woman’s paradise. One the paradises that stands most out is Afghanistan. See what happens there to unwilling slaves women.

So according to me the Islamic rules women have to obey make them slaves. I wonder what REASONINFUSION has to say about it...

Blackmore's Response to REASON INFUSION's Video "ANTI-ISLAMIC HYPOCRISY"

All previous posts can be read here

REASON INFUSION: ANTI-ISLAMIC HYPOCRISY PART # 1

REASONINFUSION keeps making a fuzz about that I don’t condemn slavery. By now I’ve already done that multiple times.

How often should I say that IMO (REASONINFUSION wont say such thing) slavery is inhuman. By that I condemn the Dutch the USA and who ever was involved in that. Somehow REASONINFUSION wants to hear that again and again, but also he doesn't hear it. On the otherside he wont make any statement against slavery. He won’t condemn it. Not a word from him about the black muslims that caught their own countryman to sell them to the white who brought them to the otherside of the ocean to spend a life in slavery. Not a word! But listen well, he also doesn't deny it! At least that's something!

REASONINFUSION has a story about 15.000 white people, in the 20th century, that saw a Blackman be burned to death. I want to ask him according to which law that burning was allowed...
This week a new video was released where former slave Simon Deng talks about the situation of slaves in Sudan:

It’s an awful story right? And it’s in the 21st century! And now I’m asking REASONINFUSION what he is gone do about it. Are you gone write about it? Or don’t you care? Or are you more interested in what happened in the past than in what happens today? Well I know the answer infront. Since today’s perpetrators of slavery are merely Arabs and black muslims, and not whites, it won’t be a subject of REASONINFUSION interest. In reality he doesn’t gives a damn about black victims. It’s merely politics what drives him, not justice! Just like he leaves the black Muslim slave catchers out of history, he wont mention today’s slave-owners. It’s impossible for him to condemn and forbid what Allah has allowed. Only when there are whites or non-muslims involved he’ll talk.

And again, it beats me how REASONINFUSION can justify the slavery of the last country on earth to abolish slavery, the very Islamic Mauritania, by the existences of the apartheids regime that was going on in South Africa. So because black people in South Africa where suppressed it was oke to suppress black people elsewhere to. That's what he is saying! Man don’t you have better arguments to defend Islam with?

REASON INFUSION: ANTI-ISLAMIC HYPOCRISY PART # 2

REASONINFUSION you said that Jesus did not condemn slavery. I think you right on that. But also he didn’t promote it. This is unlike Muhammad who was a slave-owner and trader. I like to go on a little further on the subject of Jesus and Muhammad. Christians say that Jesus was without sin. Muslims say that all Muhammad’s examples are good. These are more or less the same claims. But nevertheless that, maybe these two man show the difference between Islam and Christianity.

From human perspective I can’t find any sin of Jesus. Even though I don’t believe that he was the son of god, I still can’t find a sin of Jesus. So IMO Jesus’ behaviour, 2000 years ago, was fully in accordance of today’s ethics about right or wrong, good and bad. I'm sure I'll be hearing from you REASONINFUSION if I have overlooked something.

And now let’s see if the same can be said of Muhammad’s examples who are supposed to be all good. Are they in accordance with today’s ethics about right or wrong? Well, Muhammad kept slaves. He was married to a six years old child which he f.cked at the age of nine. He allowed people to lie, even break oaths if something better turns up. He looted caravans. He married a seventeen years old girl, Safiya, the same day after he had murdered her husband parents brothers and sisters. He ordered many murders. And he even tortured a man by burning his eyes out to get a treasure. I’m not even started but I leave it at this. IMO, if you really believe that such person is god’s chosen one than you have a very low opinion about god.

I can understand that Muhammad’s examples were perfect in the eyes of a primitive 7th century desert tribe, but according to today’s norm and values they are awful. It doesn’t need any explanation why the claim that all Muhammad examples are good are not allowed to be questioned. You must accept that they are good! Submit to them. That’s’ also how the children in the Islamic schools are taught. And when they grow up they’ll teach their children in the same way. That’s what the religion demands of them. But anyway, REASONINFUSION can you defend the examples of Muhammad I have given? One of your religious dogmas is that all of Muhammad’s examples are good for all people of all times. Can you defend them all?

I said the European slavery lasted ONLY 300 years because it is not that much comparing to Islam’s slavery which is now lasting for 1400 years. And REASONINFUSION if you have it your way it will last forever right?

REASON INFUSION: ANTI-ISLAMIC HYPOCRISY PART # 3

You are absolute right that I see myself morally superior to you REASONINFUSION. In matter of fact I see myself morally superior to all muslims. And that’s not so hard to explain. I already did that. You and other muslims don’t have any natural morals. Last week came in the news that in Egypt a imam, or whatever he was, said that Islam allows muslims to have seks with the corpse of their diseased wife. Now isn’t that good news? But let’s be real this is dirty and pervert. I don’t need an imam to allow me nor forbid me such thing. This goes against my norms and values. 99,9% of the people in the non-muslimworld will agree. And so you have 50 year old men married to four year old girls in Afghanistan. Slaves are being kept in Sudan and Saudi Arabia. In half of the Islamic world circumcision is practiced. Not to mention the forced marriages. The list is endless. And all these matters are fully in accordance with Islam and Islam decides what is good or bad, what the norms and values are. Well the mine are better! And I can defend them! Unlike a muslim who needs a book or imam to know what they are. And when he knows he can’t defend them.

It may come as a shock to you REASONINFUSION if I tell you that I've never kept slaves.

You complained about Arab nationalism. In my view Islam is, besides the habits norms values and ideas of a primitive Arab desert tribe, Arab nationalism and imperialism. All you muslims do is copy them. Muslims give the same punishments like the Arabs did for the same felonies: Beheading, amputating limps, do stoning, give whiplashes, have laws that protect rapists, do honour killings, beat woman. And like the Arabs muslims tolerate sex with children, have forced marriages, allow slavery, do circumcision, and so on. The list of the 7th century Arab habits and ideas you are following is endless. You even believe in their god! And to understand the book of their god you must learn Arabic. And you have to go to Mecca for pilgrimage. And you pray to Mecca. So don’t complain about Arab Nationalism, a muslims whole life is build around the Arabs. You should support Arab Nationalism!

REASONINFUSION asked me to show him one document of a westernized nation which says that no white man is better a black. Well that’s very easy. I think that I can speak for every western country when I say that their laws are for all people the same. Independently of what race you are, what seks you are, what your sexual prevalence is, what your religion is, what your political views are. Compare this with Islamic law where a woman is subhuman, where negroes are subhuman, where is stated that Jews should be killed, where non-muslims are dimmy’s, where homosexuals are killed, where only the Islamic religion is tolerated, where the only acceptable political views are Islamic views.

REASONINFUSION asked me to show him one document of a westernized nation which says that no white man is better a black. Off course we don’t have such documents. There is no beginning to name every race there is. It’s all in the line that the law is equal for every one!

Blackmore to REASON INFUSION: Additional Thoughts & Videos on Slavery

I’ve done some research about slavery by watching some videos about that subject on youtube. I present only a few of them here. And I also exclude videos about today’s slavery perpetrated by muslims. That's a subject on it's own.

The muslims played a huge part in slavery of Africans as we will see. The well-known professor in negro-history the late John Henrik Clark said this something black muslims don’t know and also don’t wanna know. He was right! You wont hear Elijah Muhammad Malcolm X Louis Farrakan or Muhammad Ali talk about this part of the history. No way! By presenting the Blackman as a victim they try to win the harts of the Blackman. And a soul for Islam! For that white evil, the devil, Islam is the answer! There are here some undeniable facts presented which even REASONINFUSION has to accept. Although it became pretty clear to me that REASONINFUSION only sees what he wants to see and hears what he wants to hear. He even tells us that slave-owner and catcher Muhammad wanted to abolish slavery. Even though there’s not one Islamic text he can back that up with. They piont exactly to the opposite. But oke, lets go:

In 1784 America was awakened to radical islam and jihad! Over 200 years ago we faced the same enemy we face to day, they were muslims that waged war upon ALL non believers of Islam! Look it up "The Barbary Wars" "The Barbary Pirates" "Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates"

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it!

In this video is said that number of Africans who died because of Islamic slave trade may be as high as 112 million!

Hypocrite Extraordinaire Part 1: REASON INFUSION and his Tacit Approval of Slavery

Today I had the unfortunate displeasure of having to sit through watching almost a half hour of illogical nonsense spouted once again by the Muslim Youtuber, REASON INFUSION, in response to a previous post of mine.

In his videos, he rambles on and on, jumping incoherently from one unrelated issue to another and doesn't really, or at least convincingly, answer the question he asks himself, i.e. how he can be a black person and embrace Islam.

I have little time to spare and cannot see much benefit in discussing anything with someone who is so devoid of common sense and logic, and someone who is not above puerile attempts at insulting his opponent's mothers and sisters (In this case his opponent's mother turned out to be a Muslim, so shame on him for going against Islam and questioning an innocent Muslimah's chastity). His arguments are weak and full of obvious fallacies that even a child could spot, making replying to them a total waste of my time, time which could be better spent on something more productive.

However, before ceasing our correspondence, I will reply to his current batch of videos directed towards me. There are three of them titled, “REASON INFUSION:HOW I CAN BE MUSLIM AND BLACK”. This is in reply to the first one, and I will reply to the other two when I have the time. Unfortunately, I cannot embed them into this post because REASON INFUSION has disallowed this function since the last time I tried.

I could be wrong, and his videos may actually be great. Maybe my negativity towards his videos stem from the fact that REASON INFUSION is an “intellectual” (a fact he loves to constantly remind us of) whilst I'm merely your average Bangladeshi ex-Muslim who is now agnostic about it all. I highly doubt this, but I'll leave it up to the readers and viewers to decide.

Hypocrisy 1: Refusal to Condemn All forms of Slavery & Slavers Past & Present

REASON INFUSION is fond of accusing others of being hypocrites who are inconsistent in their moral ethics. Wrongly assuming that every critic of Islam must be a white American fundie (or at least someone who wouldn't want to run the risk of offending his/her white American fundie "allies"), his stock arguments in defense of Islam, from his long arsenal of logical fallacies, include attacking critics and daring them to denounce the founding fathers of America, Christians, and America's role in the slavery of innocent Africans. 

His incompetence really shines through when you witness his refusal to stop, even after he is made aware that the critic is neither a Christian nor an American. I'm not even white, yet he attempted this with me by saying,

"IslamoCriticism, how about spreading your criticism? How about some Dutch criticism and some American criticism and some white criticism and some Christian criticism?"

I responded with:

"REASONINFUSION clearly has not read anything on my blog, otherwise he would be aware that I often  criticize white racism, especially that of the racist BNP.

If that isn't clear enough for REASONINFUSION, let me make it a little clearer; racism and slavery are both disgusting things. I condemn anyone who is racist or has ever owned, bought or sold another human being. Someone who is capable of doing such a thing is not worthy of being classed as a human. In my eyes, they are sub-humans worse than pigs.

F--k all the Americans, Dutch, Europeans, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and anyone else who has ever owned, bought or sold another human being, or has discriminated against anyone for their race or caste. F--k the slaving and raping founding fathers of America, and f--k the white fat slaving bastard known as Muhammad.

Now can REASONINFUSION condemn racism and the owning of human beings in the clear-cut, jargon-free fashion that I have? Of course he can't, because that would mean he'd have to condemn that fat, white, slaving bastard known as Muhammad, someone who actually bought more slaves once Allah "empowered him" with his message. Obviously that message did not include erasing the abhorrent institution of slavery. Allah was too busy outright banning comparatively harmless activities such as gambling, alcohol, and even noble practices such as adoption, in order to accommodate situations in Muhammad's life as they arose."

I've never been particularly interested in American history or politics, so my knowledge on the subject is sketchy at best. However, following REASON INFUSION's denunciation of America's founding fathers, I was motivated into reading up on some of them.

After doing so, I can safely say that I stick to my original statement. The founding fathers were thoroughly disgusting and racist individuals, hypocrites who selectively supported blacks for political purposes whilst hypocritically owning and even raping them.

In response to my above quoted comments, where I hypothetically ask and challenge him to "condemn racism and the owning of human beings in the clear-cut, jargon-free fashion that I have ", REASON INFUSION proclaims in his new video:

"I condemn any oppression whatsoever of any human beings, anywhere. I see no need for any human being to own any other human being, at this date, at this time"

Note the convenient qualifier added to the claim that he condemns the owning of humans by fellow humans, "at this time." What, so according to REASON INFUSION, that great condemner of white slavers, owning another human being is sometimes okay, depending on what time they were enslaved? This is what is known as tacit approval. Owning another human being is immoral to the core, and, to someone with a consistent moral ethic, it can never be justified, regardless of when it took place. The definition of  tacit approval:

"Tacit approval is a benign form of approval that is not expressed clearly, in words. It is silent approval. It is approval that is implied by other statements, actions or by a failure to clearly express disapproval with the situation, performance, idea, plan or request. Tacit approval may be expressed by body language such as smiling, a nod of the head, a pat on the back or a shrug of the shoulders. It can be a friendly form of encouragement and support. On the other hand it is approval that can be easily and conveniently denied as/if a situation deteriorates."

As I predicted, REASON INFUSION, the "intellectual" hypocrite, simply cannot outright condemn slavery because Muhammad had absolutely no animosity with the slave trade. As I explained in my previous response to him:

"Muhammad regulated the practice of slavery and allowed for the manumission of a slave, but this is by no means an obligation. In Islam the freeing of a slave is like an "indulgence". Therefore, it is seen as a punishment and as a way to atone for previous "sins" and score some brownie points with Allah.

Muhammad's actions perpetuated the existence of slavery by institutionalizing it within Islam. Muhammad was a slave-trader. He not only owned many male and female slaves, but also captured, sold, and, in the case of his many concubines, had sex with them. At times, he actually discouraged the freeing of slaves. He encouraged racism by exchanging two black slaves for one Arab, and even Bilal, the famed "black Muslim", was bought in exchange for a black non-Muslim slave."

In addition to the above, if Muhammad was truly against slavery,  like how he did with gambling and the consumption  of alcohol, he would have outright forbidden it. If apologist respond to this with claims that he was a political leader and us expecting him to have banned slavery is not realistic or was not feasible at the time, then I say he could have easily lead by example and freed all his own slaves.

He married his own step-son's wife allegedly to demonstrate by example that adoption is wrong (or, if you listen to apologists, to show that adopting a child does not make him/her biologically yours):

"Allah prohibited adoption in Islam and annulled all the judgements pertaining to adoption. The most important one of which was the prohibition of the wife of the adopted son to the fostering father as though he is the natural father. So Allah commanded his prophet to marry Zainab Bint Jahsh in order to abolish pagan custom." - Muhammad Rushed Ridha,  Fatawa al-Imam

So setting all his slaves free, thereby making it the Sunnah of the Prophet,  rather than  purchasing more slaves once Allah "empowered him" with his message, most certainly would have eventually led to the abolition of slavery, rather than the situation Islam finds itself in today with its most respected scholars accepting slavery as a legitimate part of Islam and its Shari'ah laws.

REASON INFUSION hypocritically expects Americans to denounce their founding fathers for being slave owners, yet refuses to denounce Muhammad who is guilty of the same actions. Additionally, whilst Americans may love the, admittedly repulsive, founding fathers, they generally do not hold them as perfect humans, paragons of virtue who are worthy of imitation. On the other hand, Muslims with Muhammad...

Hypocrisy 2:  Fallacious Arguments using my South Asian/Bangladeshi Ethnicity/Nationality 

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 (in his second video) notes issues such as bride-burning which are prevalent in some areas of South Asia. He then begs the question, why have I not condemned such things or have not linked to sites which address those issues?

In essence, he is saying critics of Islam and their websites should be ignored if they do not also have a billion other links denouncing every incident of oppression and injustice that has ever taken place. Sorry to disappoint, but reality just doesn't work like that. Even if you tried, it would be an impossible feat.

Would you criticize a British children's charity or claim that they are morally inconsistent and insincere for not discussing British slavery, imperialism, war, oppression and so forth? Of course you would not. To do so would be ridiculous. And assuming that these children's charities do not equally condemn those other things because they, to your knowledge, have not discussed them would be equally ridiculous.  

This blog is only a tiny part of my life, and, as its name suggests, it focuses on Islam and issues related to it. REASON INFUSION has no idea of what I do elsewhere or the issues I have spoken out against. Indeed, I have spoken of child labor, abuse, and other issues related to Bangladesh and South Asia in general, and I didn't need a pompous, vulgar hypocrite like REASON INFUSION to goad me into doing so. It goes without saying that I condemn barbaric and backward practices such as bride-burning.

As I pointed out previously to REASON INFUSION, there is a time and place for everything. Unless he is viewing a website that is specifically designed to be a source of information on completely unrelated topics, i.e. an Encyclopaedia of general knowledge, it is completely moronic of him or anyone else to expect them to stray very far from their subject matter. But this is something that he fails to understand. Or at least fails to acknowledge when trying to silence critics of Islam. I say this because his constant tu quoque diversions onto other unrelated topics only reveal his own hypocrisy.  

I am a Bangladeshi. On this particular blog I discuss issues concerning Islam and have always condemned racism and the use of Islam as a leverage for so-called critics to push their racist views. Yet REASON INFUSION quotes statistics on abuse in Bangladesh (which btw is a Muslim majority country) and mentions bride-burnings (presumably because, as with bride-burnings, Hinduism is the religion most associated with South Asians) and then ignorantly begs the questions, why have I not condemned any of those things?  

Let us now turn the tables and apply REASON INFUSION's odd moral standards and requirements to himself. REASON INFUSION is an African-American Muslim. He discusses issues concerning blacks and condemns white barbarity. But.... 

Why hasn't he, up until now, discussed/condemned the fact that 4 out of 5 Middle-Eastern women (Islam being their predominant religion) are sexually abused between the ages of 3 and 6 by family members? 

Why hasn't he discussed/condemned the fact that 94% of Yemeni children (2-14 yrs) are subjected to violence from a parent or guardian, and more than half of all Yemeni girls are married before reaching puberty?

He tells us of the many innocent Africans who were enslaved by the Europeans, but why hasn't he specifically discussed/condemned the fact that 1.25 million innocent white Europeans were also enslaved and raped by African Muslims? 

He repeatedly tells us of innocent blacks who were lynched by racist white monsters, but why hasn't he discussed/condemned the fact that (as of March 2011) more than 30 people accused of Blasphemy under Pakistani law have been killed by Muslim lynch mobs?

Why hasn't he discussed/condemned the fact that 1 out of 3 British Muslims aged 16 to 24 believe that Muslim apostates like myself should be executed?

With REASON INFUSION being a Muslim and an African-American, I could also point out similar, yet probably less alarming, statistics on the United States and sub-Saharan Africa, so why has he failed to condemn any of these statistics on Muslims, Americans, and Africans in his videos?

As a Muslim, as an American, and as a black man, the fact that he has not singled out each specific issue and its related statistic and then publicly condemned them, does not in anyway mean he condones any of it, but according to REASON INFUSION's own twisted “logic” he does support all of this and therefore has no right to criticize whites for their slavery of Africans. According to his own logic, it is he who is a “hypocrite”, and it is he who is “slick in his condemnation”.

Hypocrisy 3: Falsely Accusing Others of Employing Logical Fallacies that are Actually used by Himself

Definition of the tu quoque logical fallacy:

"Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation."

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.

Serge Daniel: Western Countries are to Blame for Financing Al Qaeda in Africa with Ransom Money

This is very shameful of Western countries. In essence they are sacrificing the lives of countless, apparently insignificant, "others" in order to save one of their own.

From ANSAmed:

Several Western countries are to blame if Al Qaida in Islamic Maghreb not only extended its activities all over the Sahel, but also cast its sinister shadow on several other countries in Western Africa; indeed, Western countries decided to pay the ransom for their fellow countrymen and women who had been either directly kidnapped by Al Qaida or given to the Jihadist group by other groups. This is what Serge Daniel maintains in the book he wrote on this characteristic of Al Qaida in Islamic Maghreb, whose title is "AQIM, the kidnapping industry", a sort of Bible for those who try to clear out the mystery surrounding this blood-thirsty and very determined group and its activities of.

In an interview on the site Maliweb, Serge Daniel talked about some elements which, in his own opinion, are objective and cannot be questioned. Western countries are ready to pay several millions of dollars or Euros for the release of their fellow countrymen and women whose kidnapping is managed by AQIM. The analyst provides a long and detailed list of paid ransoms, there are also some "voids" which may raise suspicions. According to Daniel, in recent years money from Spain (between EUR 8 and 9 mln), Canada ("some millions"), Austria (between EUR 2.5 and 3.5 mln), Germany (five millions) has flowed in AQIM's cash. Italy is included in the list too: according to the expert, Italy paid EUR 3 mln for the release of its hostages. Switzerland's position is quite peculiar: although it was the only country which did not provide exact figures, Daniel labels Switzerland as "very generous with kidnappers".

A huge amount of money has circulated for all these years, although individual States have officially denied allegations and suspicions of having paid the ransom, they have actually created a way to negotiate with dangerous individuals, departing from the international principle which says "do not negotiate with terrorists". But what has Al Qaida in Maghreb done and continues to do with the money? It funds its complex organisation structure, it buys weapons and equips the men it chooses to populate its ranks. We are talking about actual hiring, because it is hard to think that all militiamen are driven by a religious motivation; it is far more likely that they are "mainly and simply" attracted by money. Daniel does not write about this in his book, he just mentions an episode: among Jihadists entering Timbuktu there were some young men from his own Mali city who had moved to Libya to work. It was just found out that the money they used to send home were directly taken form the cash of one of Al Qaida's Katibats (brigades) in Maghreb.