I just found this startling article.. What kills me is that no one else in parliament had the guts to stand up to this guy. It is, after all, "tradition" so its okay.

Views: 91

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

There is a similar thing happening in western society were children of separated families are killed so the other parent cannot have custody.

While it is murder there are still people out there who would take a life because their feelings have been hurt or offended.

No person owns or can own another person. Every person has the right to freedom and safety.
It's not about personal feelings, it's about honor and the right of the bloodline in the family. Muslims are very keen to keep up the patrilineary.
The misogyny, and just plain lack of humanity is hard to fathom...
That it happens is disturbing enough. That it can somehow be defended makes me sick.

Did anyone ready this comment
"The next time you stupid, whiney womens rights bitches in america start complaining about how you don’t like cooking and cleaning and serveing as a woman should you ought to remember that the muslems outnumber us and will take over in the future and your grandchildren will be subject to this so you might as well leave that womens lib crap behind."

This guy sounds like a real winner...
A little off topic here but this makes me think of the quote from the Ayaan Hirsi Ali website "...tolerance of intolerance is cowardice."
Yeah, well tell me exactly who is to blame ? Almost 30 years ago the world rose as one to destroy apartheid. On the Islamic treatment of women there is mute silence. Why ? "We must respect other cultures" entrenched bullshit. Its easy to protest against whitey. When its not whitey, the left gets all nervous and queasy.
I am fond of this extract from the writings of one of the world's great men. Note the emphasis.

Winston Churchill (The River War, 1899) -

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.
Yes, and anyone can say that it is an oppression of women where I agree, but it is actually NOT the men who uphold this structure, the WOMEN do! They could revolt anytime if they wanted, and the women actually have more power over the men than might be seen with the naked eye with their sexuality alone. By exposing the men's weaknesses with the female sexuality women gain power, but they seldom use it, which means most women prefer the system. Most of them aren't more unhappy because of that either, although it seems easy to take upon pity and think of them as indoctrinated.
Lets put the crusades to one side and look at the origins of Islamist idiocy.

Extreme Islam has its roots in northern India and what is now Pakistan around 400 years ago. People think Al Qaeda (and the Taliban) is something new - its not. Its genealogy traces back to there. It was a splinter of the Sunnis (90% + of all Islamic faiths) that called itself Wahabbi after a certain nutcase called Al-Muwahaddin. Their concepts were simple - exterminate everyone not of their faith [*], including heretical non-Wahabbist fellow Sunnis, and reduce women to the status of cattle. Amongst their many great achievements, they trashed Mecca and Medina twice each, defiled Fatima's tomb, defiled the alleged tomb of Mohammed. And thats the tip of the iceberg. Given a rough familiarity of their history, there really isn't anything that surprising about 9/11 or their hatred of women.

They were definitely a minority and detested by the rest of the Muslim world. In fact, as late as last century the term "wahabbi" was used as a curse word by Muslims, roughly as offensive as calling someone a pig.

How this cancer has come to spread began with the betrayal of greater Arabia with unhonoured promises made by the British during WW1. Since then, the corruption of oil and relentless meddling primarily by Britain, France and the US has created an entire region of brutal, corrrupt dictatorships. The Islamic world was generally fairly reasonable before all that. So, poverty, despair and dictatorship are the manure from which maniacs blossom, with Wahabbism the belief of choice. What was a small cluster of nutcases has now become a pandemic. Look at how Saudi Arabia came into existance, and how repulsively the west mollycoddles it, deliberately blind to its evil.

To a very large extent, we are all collectively responsible.

If you want to get even more depressed, I highly recommend God's Terrorists: The Wahhabi Cult And the Hidden Roots of Modern Jihad, a scholarly tome explaining exactly how this abomination came into being.

In case anyone thinks I am sparing the Shiites, it should be remembered that it was Khomeini that officially sanctioned suicide martyrdom -

Perhaps the most significant legacy of Khomeini internationally is a broader definition of martyrdom to include Istishhad, or "self-martyrdom".[42] Khomeini believed martyrdom could come not only from "inadvertent" death but "deliberate" as well.

He would never have ever made it to power were it not for the assistance of France and the US in supporting the obscene regime of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.

[*] The English language needs a new word - xenocide. Genocide no longer suffices.
Mohamed was not tolerant of atheists. They were the infidels! He only respected others as "people of the book". This is much like the Protestant culture today respecting the Catholics as "people of the book".
15 minutes left to edit your comment.
I said The Islamic world was generally fairly reasonable before all that, not TOTALLY reasonable. Certainly nowhere near as insane as now.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service