christinsanity:

dinnersservedbitches:

christinsanity:

Fuck everything about Islam.

excuse you?

• “O mankind! We created you from a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know and honor each other (not that you should despise one another). Indeed the most honorable of you in the sight of God is the most righteous.” Chapter 49, Verse 13

Qran advocates handcutting for stealing. Here (THIS IS SICK AND DISGUSTING! YOU WATCH THAT UNDER YOUR OWN WILL! IF YOU ARE WEAK-HEARTED PLEASE DON’T WATCH THAT!) http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/handcutting.htm

I REPEAT: FUCK EVERYTHING ABOUT ISLAM!

korakaghaz:

Dear Gay Muslims,

Maybe if you just pray hard enough this sickness will go away. Because Allah purposefully decided to give you a cursed existence, and truly believes that you have what it takes to turn your life around to the straight path (quite literally).

And even though there are straight men who beat their wives, abuse their kids, and completely desecrate the beauty that is Islam, they will forever be superior and correct in their livelihood because they are heterosexual. Compared to the sinful thoughts that plague your mind, their violence and worldly destruction is harmless. You are wrong.

Don’t ever forget that. It’s OK to think gay thoughts, just don’t act upon them. Because natural instinct is haram. Preserve your integrity. Marriage someone against your own will. Cause them an eternity of unhappiness. Confirm and bury away all of your thoughts. Completely change who you are. It’s better this way. You’ll be rewarded.

Your religion is my business and I will stop at nothing until I have forced my agenda down your Gay throat (at least it’s not anything else I’m shoving down there). God told me to do so.

Protect yourself from Jahanam. Listen to me. I know everything.

Wow okay…

amillionexpectations:

Credit to The Inner Circle. From the February/March 2012 Newsletter which includes the background to the creation of these images (www.theinnercircle.org.za). I just loved them so much I had to reblog.

christiantheatheist:

Children

• 63:9 ”O ye who believe! Let not … your children distract you from remembrance of Allah. Those who do so, they are the losers.”
• 64:14-15 ”O ye who believe! Lo! among your wives and your children there are enemies for you, therefor beware of them. … Your children are only a temptation.”

losers lol

Pakistani woman sentenced to death for insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

salaamworld:

A very interesting conversation about homosexuality and Islam happening on a friend’s FB wall. She posted an article about an imam marrying a gay couple (one of whom has AIDS) and asked for people’s thoughts. I have to say I was surprised how quick people were to say they were against it. For example this dude:

And he got 9 likes! The conversation made me angry, obviously, so I couldn’t stop myself from posting something:

And then this is the response I got, almost immediately I might add.

 

“Whether we agree or not, God agrees with me, so you are wrong.”

I know you have to pick your battles. And I know this is what is coming for me when I one day perform gay and lesbian marriages for Muslims, but man, it just makes me so angry.

Article here, by the way.

Remember six years ago, when Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage? Have you noticed how it is now legal to marry children, dogs, and appliances? What about the European Union, which, of course, has now degenderated into a single Socialist nation? One would think that the slippery slope argument wasn’t a logical fallacy or something, given all these successful predictions of the fallacy’s proponents.

One would also not expect civilized and progressive governments to be following such an irrational agrument, either. After all, those who vote against same-sex marriage because they want to keep Fido safe and celibate are individuals; their cognitive skills or lack thereof are their own business. And those Petrovskys who cried wolf on the European Union are also merely individual people. While the riotous masses may be nothing more than riotous, forward-thinking governments surely are above such things.

Such is not the case in the wonderfully liberal Switzerland, however. In the past year or so, posters have appeared denouncing minarets, of all things, as these seemingly guileless architectural embellishments bring great evil with them. This great evil, according to the advertisements, happens to be women wearing abayas and, ironically, censorship. The apparent “logic” behind these promotions happens to be that if “they” are allowed to build minarets, soon the entire Swiss nation will be under extremist Sharia law. 

If this doesn’t make any sense to you, don’t worry; it only gets worse. The group behind all this nonsense, the Egerkinger committee, has declared minarets to be a symbol of power, citing a speech by the then-mayor of Instabul from over a decade ago. Using an obscure passage from an obscure speech by an obscure politician as one’s entire platform does not seem suspect, does it?  

zombiejihadi:

She looks like an alien… wtf? This is not attractive. This is hideous. So not only do we know that having a camel hump (or in the case an alien hump) is haram but now we’re promoting it as though it is some trendy thing. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE??!! Did the prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) not say that these women would not enter paradise? I don’t care if you a Quranist, sunni, sufi, or shia. The Quran is also pretty clear about not drawing attention to yourself with your clothing and displaying yourselves like in the times of ignorance. You can’t argue with that. Can someone please give me ONE reason why wearing padding in your hijab to “add volume” is modest? Shyness is a part of hijab and modesty. Nothing says shyness and modesty like, ‘hey! I’m going to pad my hijab so people will gawk and stare and puzzle over how I got my hijab to be so high!’ SMH.

Allah kind of sounds like a dick, not letting people into heaven because their… hijab is “too high”?

Sounds like eternity is like TMZ, except instead of being made fun of by underevolved humanoids, the unfashionable get tortured for eternity.

Okay. Religion. I get it.

therainbowape:

Jesus and Mo is such a good webcomic you can pick one at random to post and it’ll be hilarious and poignant. So I did.

Well.

I have opinions, but I do not have the capacity to express them in a diplomatic manner, so here goes. 

It doesn’t matter what women think about things they believe. If what they believe is, objectively, misogynistic, it’s misogynistic, whether they think it’s the best thing since sliced bread or not.

Being a woman does not automatically disqualify one from being a misogynist. In fact, it’s utterly irrelevant. 

Also in fact, the hatred of “Western women” that I see so often from the more conservative hijabi and hijab-supporters is pretty misogynistic in itself. 

A woman can be “Western”- she can be in drag queen heels and a bikini and wear more makeup than humanly possible- and who she pleases, if anyone, is her own damn business. 

Sure, “Western” standards of beauty in themselves are misogynistic, and I believe that women who follow beauty standards because they are women are misogynists themselves. 

I mean, there’s all sorts of problems with this viewpoint. Let’s see what I can garner off the top of me head:

• Wearing a hijab means one doesn’t try to please men
• Not wearing a hijab means one does try to please men

How dichotomous of an incredibly complex issue. 

And furthermore:

• “Western women” want to please men
• Pleasing men/wanting to is a bad thing
• Not being “Western” means one doesn’t try to please men
• Not being “Western” makes one morally superior to “Western” women

And etc. 

It’s all quite silly, really. 

If you’re a woman and you follow gender roles, you’re trying to please men. It doesn’t matter if those gender roles have you waxing your legs and wearing miniskirts or donning burqas- in the end, it’s all about pleasing men. 

Same purpose. Same end. Just different means.

~Made this rebloggable cuz~

Anonymous asked:

WTF is up with that random “anti-hijab” at the end there?? Oh, yes, ABOUT ME: anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-Judaism, ANTI-HIJAB??? WTF????????????? that insertion seems so ridiculous and random? and might I add, do you hate other Muslim headcoverings? and whY????

I am not referring to the common manifestation of the hijab, but rather the concept of hijab.

See this:

Each one of those head coverings is different. Yet they are all hijab. 

But the hijab doesn’t just cover head coverings.

Acc. to Wikipedia, the goddess of knowledge:

According to Islamic scholarship, hijab is given the wider meaning of modesty, privacy, and morality; the words for a headscarf or veil used in the Qur’an are khimār (خمار) and jilbaab (جلباب), not hijab. Still another definition is metaphysical, where al-hijab refers to “the veil which separates man or the world from God.”

So hijab isn’t just a head covering, but more of a way of life. Specifically, the kind of hijab used depends on what the culture conceives as being the awrah (عورة), or the parts of the body that need to be concealed (esp during prayer).

Since the search function on tumblr is fucked, I can’t give you specific examples, but hijab almost always includes directions as to the rest of their clothing.

Southern Muslimas (it amuses me greatly to think of the confusion of Islamophobes encountering a Muslima with a Southern drawl), at least from what I’ve seen, often Al-Amira with tight pants made of thin fabric or plain ol’ jeans, plus a long-sleeve shirt with something loose and drapey over it.

But is that hijab?

I’ve seen posts on here- so sorry for the lack of examples- that dictate some pretty severe and idiotic rules for hijab. Such things include:

• No makeup
• No bright colors
• No pants
• No sleeves (yeah, that one)
• No jewelry

Now, here are a few technical issues I have with the concept of hijab:

• I am pro-sexuality. Hijab is anti-sexuality.
• I support the natural human body, and I am against body-shaming. Hijab is against the human body in its natural form. 

But, as always, these are the manifest functions of hijab. How about the latent functions?

• Hijab is never applied to men and women equally. This is injustice.
• Hijab is sometimes applied to women to the point that impedes their function. EG: Wearing a full, black-colored outfit in a hot, humid climate; the burqini; wearing a niqab/burqa (face concealment); etc. 
• Hijab is often exploited to give men a great excuse for sexual immorality or even crime. Examples: blaming rape victims for not being hijab enough; threatening a woman with responsibility for male sin for not being hijab enough, etc.

And others that aren’t coming to mind atm. 

But the BIGGEST issue I have is the long-standing cultural change as a result of the enforcement of hijab. 

Some reasonably possible scenarios could include:

• A changing perception of men regarding women who follow hijab. There’s the possibility of them holding the more extreme hijabi up to higher respect and honor than those who hold the less rigorous versions. Slut-shaming.
• Another changing perception of men regarding women who hold less severe versions of the hijab. There’s the probable possibility of slut-shaming- that is, women who wear less severe versions of the hijab will be regarded by men as being less pious, possibly more promiscuous, possibly intentionally trying to force men into sin. 
• This, in turn, leads to victim-blaming: a woman gets sexually harassed/etc, and she was wearing the shayla and not the al-amira? Why was she doing that? Was that intentional seduction? Was she trying to have that happen to her? When a man commits an anti-woman crime, was it really his fault?
• What about perceptions of “Western women”? I know I don’t have to say much on this, as it’s seen quite a bit. Ask for clarification.
• And, of course, the female counterparts! A woman who wears a less rigorous version of the hijab may feel like she does not deserve respect. A woman may feel as if she must be as hijab as possible in order to rightfully deserve respect, and that if she doesn’t, she is dirty, etc. And when something happens to her, will she blame herself for not being hijab enough? Or when something happens to a friend, will she blame her?

Now, those are all speculations on changing cultural effects. If you’d like me to clarify those concepts, just ask, but it’s too tangential for here. 

Finally! Last, but not least. 

Modesty is an illogical and misogynistic concept.

This goes for ALL religions. Catholic mantillas. German baptist head coverings. Nun veils. All of em. But, for the sake of argument, let’s stress modesty as it manifests in Islam.

Let’s do this!

I. Modesty is illogical.

What is modesty? Let’s ask the dictionary, obviously. [This will be entered as soon as my dictionary installs]

Huh. Wow. So let’s go a wee bit further back into religion.

A. Objectivity of truth

One thing an established religion requires is that truth be objective. When it comes to objectivity/subjectivity, you can only have one or the other: Truth is always true (objectivity), or truth is not always true (subjectivity). Truth is true across all time (objectivity), or truth changes according to time (subjectivity). And- here’s the important one- truth is true in all cultures (objectivity) or truth is true according to cultures (subjectivity).

B. Organized religion requires objective truth.

It’s easy to figure this one out! Is Islam always true? Is Allah not still the one true god in the Americas as well as the Eastern hemisphere?  Is Mohammad not Allah’s prophet in 2012, as he was during his lifetime? Is the Qu’ran not still the book of revealed truth from Allah and Mohammad in Gentilly as it is in Mandeville? 

Islam is objective. It has to be.

C. What determines modesty?

Oh shit. Now here’s the meat of the tomato. 

We looked at the definition of modesty- the manifest function, if you will- but let’s look at the latent functions, the way it exists. 

Here I will give you several separate scenarios. Rate them on a scale of 1 - 10, where 5 is neutral, 1 is extremely conservative and 10 is extremely immodest.

The situations:

1. a) You see a woman wearing a bikini top and board shorts at a Mississippi beach in summer. What would your numbers be if:

• You were a nudist and think nudity is neutral?
• You think jeans and a t shirt is neutral?
• You think loose clothing and an Al-Amira is neutral?

1. b) You see a woman wearing a bikini top and board shorts at a lesbian bar. What would your numbers be if:

• You were a nudist and think nudity is neutral?
• You think jeans and a t shirt is neutral?
• You think loose clothing and an Al-Amira is neutral?

1. c) You see a woman wearing a bikini top and board shorts at a place of worship. What would your numbers be if:

• You were a nudist and think nudity is neutral?
• You think jeans and a t shirt is neutral?
• You think loose clothing and an Al-Amira is neutral?

We’re nowhere near finished.

2. a) You see a woman wearing jeans and a low-cut shirt at a Mississippi beach in summer. What would your numbers be if:

• You were a nudist and think nudity is neutral?
• You think jeans and a t shirt is neutral?
• You think loose clothing and an Al-Amira is neutral?

2. b) You see a woman wearing jeans and a low-cut shirt at a lesbian bar. What would your numbers be if:

• You were a nudist and think nudity is neutral?
• You think jeans and a t shirt is neutral?
• You think loose clothing and an Al-Amira is neutral?

2. c) You see a woman wearing jeans and a low-cut shirt at a place of worship. What would your numbers be if:

• You were a nudist and think nudity is neutral?
• You think jeans and a t shirt is neutral?
• You think loose clothing and an Al-Amira is neutral?

3. a) You see a woman wearing loose clothing and an Al-Amira at a Mississippi beach in summer. What would your numbers be if:

• You were a nudist and think nudity is neutral?
• You think jeans and a t shirt is neutral?
• You think loose clothing and an Al-Amira is neutral?

3. b) You see a woman wearing loose clothing and an Al-Amira at a lesbian bar. What would your numbers be if:

• You were a nudist and think nudity is neutral?
• You think jeans and a t shirt is neutral?
• You think loose clothing and an Al-Amira is neutral?

3. c) You see a woman wearing loose clothing and an Al-Amira at a place of worship. What would your numbers be if:

• You were a nudist and think nudity is neutral?
• You think jeans and a t shirt is neutral?
• You think loose clothing and an Al-Amira is neutral?

So what the living hell determines modesty?  If you’re a nudist and you see a woman wearing jeans and a low cut shirt at a beach, you’d think she’s being excessively modest. If you think jeans and a t shirt are neutral, if you see a woman wearing the same at a bar, you’d think she’s being modestly-neutral. If you think an Al-Amira and loose clothing are neutral, if you see a woman wearing the same at a bar, you’d think she’s being immodesty.  Welp welp welp.  In fact, let’s make it super simple. You have a nudist, an average American, and a pro-burqa extremist in a coffee shop. A woman can walk in wearing one outfit, and all three observers will have different opinions on their modesty. So it looks like modesty is not defined by the actions of the person attempting modesty.  That sounds awfully… subjective if modesty depends on another person’s disposition.  So.

If objectivity is required for something to be true, and modesty does not have objectivity, it can’t be true.

Viola. Modesty is illogical.

II. Modesty is misogynistic.

Personally, I define misogyny as giving women unequal treatment from men. You, or anyone, can fight that one out with me later.

In its application:

• For women, modesty is given more importance.
• For women, the requirements for modesty are more restricting.
• The cultural/religious repercussions for women are harsher.

This is misogyny.

Almost the end. 

I oppose misogyny and inequality. I oppose irrationality. 

I oppose the concept of hijab.

The end.

Hey guys. I know this will make its way around here eventually, so here goes. 

This is NOT PART OF THE KORAN. This is (apparently) from the Tafsir al-Tabari, which was written by Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari… and it is a commentary on the Koran.

To use this as a legitimate part of Muslim teaching is probably about as accurate as using Origen’s writings as a legitimate part of Christian teaching. 

That being said, I can’t find a copy of the Tafsir online, so this may not even be a real quote.

Fabulousness is available in all religions.

Great comparison.

rachaelcox:

Nine bullets fired from close range ended the life of Salman Taseer last month, making the Pakistani governor the latest high-profile victim of religious violence. Taseer had the audacity to publicly question Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, and for this transgression he paid with his life.

Taseer joins a list of numerous other high-profile victims of militant religion, such as Dr. George Tiller, the Kansas abortion doctor killed by a devout Christian assassin in 2009, and Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker whose provocative movie about Islam resulted in his being brutally murdered in 2004.

With this background, it is especially puzzling that the American media and public still perpetuate the cliché of so-called “militant atheism.” We hear the disparaging term “militant atheist” used frequently, the unquestioned assumption being that militant atheists are of course roaming the streets of America.

In fact, however, while millions of atheists are indeed walking our streets, it would be difficult to find even one who could accurately be described as militant. In all of American history, it is doubtful that any person has ever been killed in the name of atheism. In fact, it would be difficult to find evidence that any American has ever even been harmed in the name of atheism. It just does not happen, because the notion of “militant atheism” is entirely fantasy.

When the media and others refer to a “militant atheist,” the object of that slander is usually an atheist who had the nerve to openly question religious authority or vocally express his or her views about the existence of God. Conventional wisdom quickly tells us that such conduct is shameful or, at the very least, distasteful, and therefore the brazen nonbeliever is labeled “militant.”

But this reflects a double standard, because it seems to apply only to atheists. Religious individuals and groups frequently declare, sometimes subtly and sometimes not, that you are a sinner and that you will suffer in hell for eternity if you do not adopt their supernatural beliefs, but they will almost never be labeled “militant” by the media or the public. Instead, such individuals are called “devout” and such churches are called “evangelical.”

The lesson here is clear. If you’re an atheist, shut up about it. If you are open or vocal about your atheist worldview, you are a “militant atheist.” Be silent, even though that same standard does not apply to those who passionately disagree with you.

This, to be sure, explains why so few Americans openly identify as atheist. The American Religious Identification Survey conducted by Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, indicates that only about 81 percent of Americans affirmatively believe in a god (about 69 percent believe in a personal God, while about 12 percent believe in some kind of “higher power”), meaning about 19 percent do not. Yet despite the fact that almost one in five Americans don’t affirmatively believe, only a tiny fraction of those dare to identify openly as atheist.

Analyze those numbers all you want, but the inescapable conclusion is that millions of Americans are in the closet about their religious skepticism. This, in turn, only serves to validate and legitimize the religious right, because it suggests that there is something wrong with a secular worldview. By keeping atheists closeted, the religious right can claim the moral high ground and influence public policy more than it should.

Therefore, maybe it’s time to end the myth of militant atheism?