Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!

#17701

Billie from Ockham wrote:There are things worse than "gusset," such as "moist gusset."

See, this is why you have no friends and no one will ever love you.

#17702

Shatterface wrote:I think 'gusset' might be my least favourite word in the English language. It's really an ugly sounding word.

My favourite word is 'perihelion'. That's just beautiful.

Panopticon is nice...and topical too.

#17703

Gusset is from Old French: 'gousset' meaning armpit or fob.

Is there a less ugly word for armpit? It just seems like wherever a limb joins the body somebody thought 'fuck it, it's hairy, it's sweaty, it doesn't matter what I call it.'

#17704

And 'crotch'. Fuck that word too.

#17705

My son has just spent his second Saturday sleeping over at a female Muslim friends house. Ostensibly because dinner with his Arabic class group got late and he has early Uni.

My basic sleuthing reveals the girl to be "Aisyah" complete with head scarf.

I have no idea what this means but my wife is freaking out. She won't even stop over in KL because of her dislike of Islam, specifically its position on women.

#17706

Brive1987 wrote:My son has just spent his second Saturday sleeping over at a female Muslim friends house. Ostensibly because dinner with his Arabic class group got late and he has early Uni.

My basic sleuthing reveals the girl to be "Aisyah" complete with head scarf.

I have no idea what this means but my wife is freaking out. She won't even stop over in KL because of her dislike of Islam, specifically its position on women.

Is the girl 9 years old?

#17707

Safe spaces for Muslims. The look on Tuckers face when she says she's a "Black queer woman who happens to be Muslim" .. and she's a convert :lol:

(why is the YT tab not working?)

#17708

shoutinghorse wrote:Safe spaces for Muslims. The look on Tuckers face when she says she's a "Black queer woman who happens to be Muslim" .. and she's a convert :lol:

(why is the YT tab not working?)

There are some people who convert to islam and think that islam is actually what they believe it to be. In the "west" they have the luxury of not risking their lives (usually) if they leave it, since most of the times few people care about them anyway. I've met this woman once who thought that she could convert to islam and still drink wine and that Allah was just a "spirit". I think she confused islam with some new age-y cult.

#17709

shoutinghorse wrote:Safe spaces for Muslims. The look on Tuckers face when she says she's a "Black queer woman who happens to be Muslim" .. and she's a convert :lol:

[youtube][/youtube]

(why is the YT tab not working?)

Take out the '&' and everything after it.

#17710

Shatterface wrote:Gusset is from Old French: 'gousset' meaning armpit or fob.

Is there a less ugly word for armpit?

How about "Troy" (as in: Troy, NY)?

#17711

Shatterface wrote:
Take out the '&' and everything after it.

Cheers :romance-kisscheek:

#17712

The Tory-DUP accommodation gives me an opportunity to post this classic Harry Enfield sketch...

[youtube][/youtube]

#17713

Shatterface wrote:Gusset is from Old French: 'gousset' meaning armpit or fob.

Is there a less ugly word for armpit? It just seems like wherever a limb joins the body somebody thought 'fuck it, it's hairy, it's sweaty, it doesn't matter what I call it.'

Axilla?

#17714

paddybrown wrote: The think I've always wondered is, if there is no free will, but people think there is, is there any point trying to convince them?

You gotta try anyway, amirite?

#17715

Kirbmarc wrote:
Not being racist is the new racist.

[youtube][/youtube]

#17716

paddybrown wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:OK, Britainers, tell us true -- Diane Abbott is a mong, right? And I mean a literal mong: Downs, a retard.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3741280/d ... sing-lies/
As far as I know, she doesn't have the excuse of a chromosomal abnormality to explain why she's such a moron, but yes, she's a moron.

Fetal alcohol syndrome maybe? She talks real slow.

I just learned she used to bump uglies with Comrade Jeremy. Now that's two uglies bumping.

#17717

MarcusAu wrote:
paddybrown wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:Yes. I had no choice. It was beyond my control.
The think I've always wondered is, if there is no free will, but people think there is, is there any point trying to convince them?
If there is no free will - is there any point to anything?

There's still beer to drunk, my friend.

#17718

Shut yourself away .. close the curtains .. get pissed in the middle of the afternoon .. play computer games .. tell everyone it's "work" . No amount of tattoo's, hair dye, comfort puppy's or cuckold boyfriends can quite make up for the advancing years of lonely childless drunken spinsterhood. :oops:

http://i.imgur.com/YvphyHZ.png

http://i.imgur.com/Ycmgsgp.png

#17719

shoutinghorse wrote:Safe spaces for Muslims. The look on Tuckers face when she says she's a "Black queer woman who happens to be Muslim" .. and she's a convert :lol:

(why is the YT tab not working?)

The YT tab has free will to work or not, silly.

#17720

Kirbmarc wrote:
~~Not~~ being ~~racist~~ is the new racist.

FTFY.

#17721

Batman has died

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/adam-we ... 202461532/

#17722

Shatterface wrote:Gusset is from Old French: 'gousset' meaning armpit or fob.

Is there a less ugly word for armpit? It just seems like wherever a limb joins the body somebody thought 'fuck it, it's hairy, it's sweaty, it doesn't matter what I call it.'

Also, if a tarpit is a cavity filled with tar and snakepit is a hollow filled with snakes, then a cockpit...?

#17723

Shatterface wrote:And 'crotch'. Fuck that word too.

In Dutch, crotch and cross translate to the same 'kruis', leading to the insight that Jesus died "aan het kruis" may indicate he had a lethal STD.

#17724

shoutinghorse wrote:It now appears blasphemy has returned to Britain as a punishable offence, all wrapped up in a nice cosy package called 'Racial Hatred' and spefically reserved for one religion, you know, that ever so peaceful one. This is us now, this is the UK now, get used to it.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/09/man-and-w ... s-6697146/

You folks need one of them thar First Amendment thingies. Fix you right up.

#17725

KiwiInOz wrote:I have just joined the ranks of those who were devastated that there wasn't a second season of Firefly.

Yeah, it does way too soon. Seems to have more fans than ever.

#17726

MarcusAu wrote:
Shatterface wrote:I think 'gusset' might be my least favourite word in the English language. It's really an ugly sounding word.

My favourite word is 'perihelion'. That's just beautiful.
Panopticon is nice...and topical too.

My favorite word is 'blatherskite'. I save it for special occasions, usually paired with 'sanctimonious'.

I'm not sure 'yacketing' is a legitimate word, but S.J. Perlman used it in his story "And Thou Beside Me, Yacketing in the Wilderness" and I love the sound of it.

I also like the sound of 'epopt' and 'canoodler', but opportunities for use are rare.

#17727

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
KiwiInOz wrote:I have just joined the ranks of those who were devastated that there wasn't a second season of Firefly.
Yeah, it does way too soon. Seems to have more fans than ever.

I doubt you'd get Whedon to work with Baldwin again.

#17728

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
shoutinghorse wrote:It now appears blasphemy has returned to Britain as a punishable offence, all wrapped up in a nice cosy package called 'Racial Hatred' and spefically reserved for one religion, you know, that ever so peaceful one. This is us now, this is the UK now, get used to it.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/09/man-and-w ... s-6697146/
You folks need one of them thar First Amendment thingies. Fix you right up.

Britain has an unwritten constitution that we trust to care and good intentions of our elected officials.

Let me know when you finish laughing...

#17729

BoxNDox wrote:
My favorite word is 'blatherskite'. I save it for special occasions, usually paired with 'sanctimonious'.

I'm not sure 'yacketing' is a legitimate word, but S.J. Perlman used it in his story "And Thou Beside Me, Yacketing in the Wilderness" and I love the sound of it.

I also like the sound of 'epopt' and 'canoodler', but opportunities for use are rare.

Try 'susurration' on a crisp autumn (fall) day as the leaves whip around you.

#17730

TFA's resident islamo-apologist cunt is at it again:

Muslims Respond to Controversial Indiana Billboard Criticizing Muhammad

Quick, get Kirbmarc on the case!

#17731

Usually I am a supporter of civil liberties, but I think we need long jail sentences for anyone chanting:

Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho
xxxxx has got to go.

:naughty:

#17732

I see Bob Dylan's 'lecture' to the Swedish Academy has been posted. It's in English (and poor English at that) here.

Nobel Regret must be a condition limited to a very few people—academicians who now feel rather silly.

#17733

dog puke wrote:Usually I am a supporter of civil liberties, but I think we need long jail sentences for anyone chanting:

Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho
xxxxx has got to go.
:naughty:

Would
Alfalfa, Alfalfa, Sex Worker, Sex Worker

be alright?

#17734

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
KiwiInOz wrote:I have just joined the ranks of those who were devastated that there wasn't a second season of Firefly.
Yeah, it does way too soon. Seems to have more fans than ever.

So much potential character & plot line development lost over the boards.

SERENITY was a major disappointment. Wish I'd never seen it. But Josh does like to stomp on his sand castles before leaving the beach.

#17735

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
dog puke wrote:Usually I am a supporter of civil liberties, but I think we need long jail sentences for anyone chanting:

Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho
xxxxx has got to go.
:naughty:
Would
Alfalfa, Alfalfa, Sex Worker, Sex Worker

be alright?

Feed me hay and alfalfa
Apples lumps of sugar too
I'll be your pony girl forever
Don't put me in the zoo.

:twatson:

#17736

MarcusAu wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: You folks need one of them thar First Amendment thingies. Fix you right up.
Britain has an unwritten constitution that we trust to care and good intentions of our elected officials.

Let me know when you finish laughing...

Thing is our head of state is the Monarch who is also the supreme governor of the Church of England. Anglican (church of Scotland is separate & Presbyterian) and as such church and state are not separated like they are in the US for example. It's why we have Bishops in our unelected second chamber the House of Lords. All very complicated and basically goes back to Henry VIII. We do indeed need to tear all this up, have a written constitution separating church from state and abolish the House of Lords.

As for the blasphemy laws, they were eventually taken off the statute books by Tony Blair's administration in 2000. There had been no prosecution for blasphemy since the early 50's and no successful prosecution since the 20's. But we have this damn awful 'Hate Speech' law that has been promulgated by all three main parties due to political correctness which has been in turn hi-jacked by our Muslim friends as a way of promoting Islamophobia laws. IE: blasphemy by the back door and our 'Dhimmi' police forces are all too keen to oblige.

#17737

That's an interesting list...

#17738

Milo fan sues University for $23 million. Maybe that will get the attention of some spineless university administrators.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

#17739

So Trump claims he's vindicated by Comey's testimony. He also claims Comey is a liar. I see a problem - how does that work? It's rather like those puzzles about whether you ought to believe a man known to be an inveterate liar tells you he is lying.

#17740

screwtape wrote:So Trump claims he's vindicated by Comey's testimony. He also claims Comey is a liar. I see a problem - how does that work? It's rather like those puzzles about whether you ought to believe a man known to be an inveterate liar tells you he is lying.

Did you hear Comey deal with exactly this in his testimony? It was great.

#17741

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Quick, get Kirbmarc on the case!

To the Apostate-mobile!

[youtube][/youtube]

Did Muhammad marry a six-year-old girl? This one is false. Although it was culturally acceptable for parents to marry off a girl of that age during Muhammad’s time and in that region, he actually didn’t marry Ayesha until she was at least nine (and able to bear children, according to the story). I despise child molestation. Still, to hold Muhammad accountable for that, we’d have to do the same to Christians and Jews since the Old Testament condones girls getting married at as young as three years old. Truthophobes, which fights to “#KeepCHRISTinChristmas,” does not do that.

Actually it is true. Ol'Mo married Aisha when she was six, and consummated the marriage when she was nine.

Sahih Muslim Book 8, Hadith Number 3309 wrote:'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah's Messenger (, may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him.

He was also fond of bathing with her and fondle her:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 298 wrote:Narrated 'Aisha:

The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses).

Incidentally, Junub means roughly "impure", and is used specifically to impurity due to sexual intercourse/discharging semen (wanking or Dick Carrier style). When you're in a state of janaba (you're junub) you have to take a bath to say your prayers. So basically this means that ol' Mo use to take baths together with Aisha after they boinked.

Itikaf means a period of devoting to ibadah, or service/worship. In itikaf if you have sex you have to start the whole process of devotion and worship (usually very demanding) all over again. Which means that ol'Mo really loved to do the nasty with Aisha.

Old Mo was very fond of young girls, not so much into MILFs:

Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Hadith Number 3460 wrote:Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported: 'Abdullah died and he left (behind him) nine or seven daughters. I married a woman who had been previously married. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to me: Jabir, have you married? I said: Yes. He (again) said: A virgin or one previously married? I said: Messenger of Allah, with one who was previously married, whereupon he said: Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she could sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you? I said to him: 'Abdullah died (he fell as martyr in Uhud) and left nine or seven daughters behind him; I, therefore, did not approve of the idea that I should bring a (girl) like them, but I preferred to bring a woman who should look after them and teach them good manners, whereupon he (Allah's Messenger) said: May Allah bless you, or he supplicated (for the) good (to be) conferred on me (by Allah).

Incidentally "sport" and "amuse" mean exactly what you think they mean.

As for the rest of the comment, yes there's a lot of support for pedophilia in the Bible:

Numbers, 31 1-18 wrote:And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves

I can't find any specific references to girls as young as three, but still, I don't want to defend the bible. However THIS ISN'T A GOOD DEFENSE FOR OL'MO (PISS UPON HIM).We don't let Jared Fogle get away with what he's done because Jimmy Savile existed.

Moreover for literalist muslims Mohammed is STILL a role model. The role model for Christians is Jebus, and while he's not the paragon of sainthood that Xtians believe him to be I haven't find anything about him sleeping with nine year old girls.

Ol'Mo child molestation and apologia for looking for young girls to "amuse" yourself with isn't jut a purely academic/historic matter, it actually has real life consequences:

ISLAMABAD: Another move to ban child marriages in Pakistan has fallen at the first hurdle. The bill to prohibit underage marriages has been withdrawn after the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) declared it un-Islamic.
The ruling party lawmaker, who moved the bill, withdrew her proposal on Thursday following staunch resistance from the council, which advises the legislature whether or not a certain law is Sharia-compliant.

I wonder why a law that would ban child marriage is "un-islamic". :think:

I could actually write a book on islam and its issues with child marriage. It wouldn't be an easy read.

POW!

Did Muhammad behead 600 Jews in one day? It is true that Muhammad and his army together executed between 600 and 900 males who had reached puberty, but that isn’t the whole story (as is usually the case in these debates). The beheadings took place as part of a military dispute, an invasion, and that is not at all unusual among religious groups. Again, if you look at the Bible, we can see even the most noble heroes engaging in similar behavior. In fact, King David was said to have personally slaughtered more than 200 non-Jews, then collecting their foreskins.

Why doesn't McAfee even bother to at least post a link to Wikipedia?

Waqidi claims that Muhammad had a treaty with the tribe which was torn apart. Norman Stillman and Watt believe such a treaty was "doubtful" to have existed, though Watt believes the Qurayza had agreed not to assist Muhammad's enemies against him.[12][13] According to Mubrakpuri, Peters, Stillman, Guillaume, Inamdar and Ibn Kathir, on the day of the Meccans' withdrawal Muhammad led his forces against Banu Qurayza. According to Muslim tradition he had been ordered to do so by God.[1][2][14][15][16][17]

Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, a companion of Muhammad, was chosen by him as an arbiter and all parties agreed to abide by his judgment. Sa'd gave his verdict that "the men should be killed, the property divided, and the women and children taken as captives". Muhammad approved of the ruling, calling it similar to God's judgment,

Truly it was a religion of peace. Killing prisoners, enslaving their women and children, taking their property is what God wants, and he speaks through Mo and his friends, and if it's a part of a struggle, on an invasion, oh well, it's all fine :bjarte:

As for the bible: yes, the bible also is about killing the enemies of the Jews, enslaving their women and children, and taking their stuff. Is this supposed to absolve islam? Does the existence of Ted Bundy absolve Frank West? Shouldn't secular humanists accept that religion is violent to its core, and that the only way to make it peaceful is not to follow the "holy books" literally? Why does islam need to be defended?

SPLAT!

Was Muhammad a slave owner and dealer? Yes, Muhammad bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves. That’s not surprising, though, because the Bible (on which Islam is based) condones slavery. It was common practice back then. It may be strange to think about, but many U.S. Presidents have also owned slaves. That doesn’t make it right, but faux selective outrage at tragedies from hundreds of years ago must be put into perspective. For the record, Muhammad also insisted that slave owners treat their slaves well. If that reminds you of anything, it should: “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result.” (Exodus 21:20)

Finally, some links! Let's have a look at them. Are there from the Qu'ran? The Sunna? A book of ahadit? No, they're from a BBC article, which has, in itself, very few quotes from muslim holy books, and a lot of apologia, but also some interesting bits:

Is slavery still legal in Islam?

The answer is that slavery is legal under Islamic law but only in theory. Slavery is illegal under the state law of all Muslim countries.

Theoretically Islamic law lays down that if a person was captured in a lawful jihad or was the descendent of an unbroken chain of people who had been lawfully enslaved, then it might be legal to enslave them.

Slavery was abolished de jure in muslim countries very recently, only in the 1960s-1970s, 1962 for Saudi Arabia. De facto slavery is still a problem in the KSA.

And of course the usual suspects, the Salafi, are still A-OK with it, if it's muslim doing it, of course:

In 2003, Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan, a member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious body, the Senior Council of Clerics, issued a fatwa claiming “Slavery is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.”[84] Muslim scholars who said otherwise were "infidels".

Anyway, let's go back to the Qu'ran. There's plenty of support for slavery in the Qu'ran, and the references to "treating slaves well" aren't enough to explain away stuff like this:

Qu'ran, Sura 2, verse 178 wrote: O you who believe! Al-Qisas (the Law of Equality in punishment) is prescribed for you in case of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. But if the killer is forgiven by the brother (or the relatives, etc.) of the killed against blood money, then adhering to it with fairness and payment of the blood money, to the heir should be made in fairness. This is an alleviation and a mercy from your Lord. So after this whoever transgresses the limits (i.e. kills the killer after taking the blood money), he shall have a painful torment.

Slaves and women are inferior to the free. Killing a slave or a woman isn't as bad as killing a free man.

Also, if we really want to compare Mohammed to the bible, we should also show the parts of the bible where the're insistence that slaves are treated well:

Exodus, 21, 2 wrote:2When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt.

So Mohammed did nothing better or worse than the Bible about slavery. Portraying him as a "compassionate slave owner" forces us to assume that the authors of the bible were also "compassionate slave owners".

This was then, this is now: Salafi scholars think that slavery is great and part of islam, slavery is still practice (although illegally) in many countries in the Persian Gulfs and North Africa (including, very recently, Libya) and in general many conservative muslim leaders are lukewarm on opposition of slavery, while many Salafis are enthusiastic supporters, like Professor Jonathan Brown, who defended muslim slavery at the University of Georgetown.

I don't see many christians defending slavery nowadays, maybe secularization has something to do with that? Maybe islam still needs to deal with issues with slavery? Just a thought. :think:

THUD!

Did Muhammad have 13 wives? Muhammad had between 11 and 13 wives (there is a debate over whether two concubines ultimately became wives), but since when is this a problem in religions? Polygamy is popular in the Old and New Testaments, and King Solomon actually had 700 wives of royal birth and 300 concubines. Solomon is one of the 48 prophets, according to the Talmud (1 Kings 11:1-3).

Ah yes, polygamy. Still legal in most of the muslim world, legal only specifically for muslims in India, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Sri Lanka. Illegal, thankfully, in Tunisia and Turkey, even under Erdogan. Illegal in the Kurd zones of Syria and Iraq. Illegal in many Central Asian countries, but still practiced a lot.

Illegal and very rarely practiced, except for isolationist cults, in the "west".

'Nuff said. More in Part II.

#17742

Part II:

Was Muhammad a rapist? From what I can tell, this claim is made based on 1) the fact that Muhammad married a young girl and 2) inferences made based on female slaves taken in battle. If that is the standard we are using, again, Christianity and Judaism are going to have to take the criticisms, too. In fact, according to Deuteronomy 22:28-29, rape is okay if the attacker pays the victim’s father fifty shekels of silver and marries her (the Bible says nothing about what the woman wants)

There's not just the marriage (and consummation of the marriage) to Aisha. Mohammed not only condoned the rape of female slaves captured in war, he raped at least one himself: Safiyah.

Safiyah bint Huyayy (صفية بنت حيي‎, c. 610 - c. 670) (also spelled Saffiya, Safiyya, Safiya bint Huyai) was the bride of Kinana and the chief mistress of the Jewish tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir. Muhammad captured and married her after killing her husband.

When the Muslims invaded and conquered Khaybar, the fighting men were killed and Safiyah was taken captive (along with the rest of the women and children) and allotted as booty to Dihya Al-Kalbi, a Muslim.[1] Kinana was tortured and executed by the Muslims in order to discover the hiding places of treasure,[2][3][4] and one source relates that he and Safiyah had been married only one day.[5] She was so beautiful, that the Muslims began praising her in the presence of Muhammad[6], and so the prophet commanded that Dihya be brought before him along with Safiyah. Upon seeing her, Muhammad said, "Take any slave girl other than her from the captives"[7] and he selected her for himself.[8]

From the information provided in the Hadith, we can reasonably conclude that Safiyah did not have a choice in this marriage. She was held captive up until the marriage, and when Muhammad decided that she would be a wife rather than a slave-girl, that is when he made known that her manumission was her mahr. Based on the Hadith, it is blatantly obvious why Muhammad took Safiyah. Her social status would not have mattered in this particular situation because Muhammad did not intend on maintaining amiable ties with the Jews of Khaibar. In fact, he intended on forcing them into exile but was talked out of it by the Jews who agreed to cultivate the land and give half of its earnings to the Muslims.[15]

Except for rumors in later, non-sahih accounts, there is no evidence that Safiyah desired to become a Muslim. She was the Jewish chief mistress of two tribes who had rebelled against Allah and his Apostle, so her religious piety would not have been a considering factor for Muhammad. Her wealth had been confiscated as war booty, so her wealth would not have been a considering factor either. Since Muhammad knew nothing about Safiyah until her capture and distribution as booty, and his interest was only sparked when he heard about her beauty, the only logical explanation would be that lust was Muhammad's ultimate motive in "marrying" Safiyah

Not a choice...married for lust...sounds pretty rapey to me.

Also all the links are to the bible. Not a link to the Qu'ran, or the Sunna, or any collection of ahadith. Why?

OUCH!

Did Muhammad torture and kill unbelievers? I know Muhammad ordered the killing of some non-believers during wartime, but that also seems consistent with the Old Testament on which his faith was based. Deuteronomy 17 instructs believers stone non-believers to death, and Deuteronomy 13 says those who worship other gods should be “put to death.” Religions do this because it helps them spread — it helps foster the us vs. them mentality on which faiths often thrive.

This is true, but how is this in any way, shape or form a reason not to point out the flaws of islam?

Anyway, again, no links whatsoever. What's up with that?

Anyway, on torture:

Qu'ran, Sura 5, Verse 33 wrote:"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides..."

Qu'ran, Sura 8, verse 12 wrote:Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them."

Qu'ran, Sura 24, verse 2 wrote:"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you."

'nuff said.

Killing of unbelievers:

Qu'ran, Sura 4, verse 89 wrote:"They wish that you should reject faith as they reject faith, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

Sahih Bukhari, 52: 260 wrote:Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

And I could go on.

BOOM!

After looking at the facts behind these claims, we can conclude two things: 1) they are mostly accurate and 2) there is a ridiculous double standard when it comes to similar issues in Christianity and Judaism.

Mostly, my ass. They’re VERY accurate, and you are forced to admit it. You presented absolutely no case against the claims, provided no links to the Qu’ran or the Sunna or the Sahih or other muslim holy books for people to verify or falsify them. You only said “but…the bible is also BAD!”.

Actually when you thought that a claim was factually incorrect, like in the case of Aisha’s age at marriage (six, not nine, that’s when she consumed the marriage, i.e. had sex with ol’Mo) or in your excuses of torture, killing of unbelievers, slavery and rape as only in the context of wars and conflicts, you were wrong. In other cases, like Mohammed being a rapist, you didn’t know what those claims referred to.

The billboard is accurate. Whether the bible is any better (likely not: the old Testament isn’t, the New Testament doesn’t contradict the old) is another matter.

Whether Truthophobes put up the billboard or not (they are officially remaining anonymous), their source was definitely a person or group that is not looking at the facts objectively.

No. The claims, as I’ve shown, are pretty objective. The best you can do is say that the bible isn’t much better, which is true, but beside the point of the claims on the billboard.

It comes from a place of hate, not education. If that was their goal, they would have made similar comparisons to Christianity’s leaders. I doubt that will happen. For that reason alone, this billboard should be condemned, not celebrated for its supposed honesty.

If it’s Christian literalists/conservatives who put up the billboard then yes, there’s definitely some hypocrisy about people who worship a book full of justifications for rape, slavery, child sexual abuse, genocides, torture (and much more) to chastise another book full of justifications for rape, slavery, child sexual abuse, genocides, and torture (and much more).

But the thing is that islam is still struggling with all those issues. Prominent clerics (especially Salafis) are still using Mohammed’s life to justify rape of non-muslim women, slavery, torture, killing of the unbelievers, child marriage, the death penalty for adulterers, cutting off the hands of thieves, etc. Some of them, like professor Jonathan Brown, are justifying those things even in “western” institutions.
In many muslim-majority countries (especially the Gulf monarchies and Lybia) slavery, while illegal, is still practiced. Child marriage, female genital mutilation, killing of LGBT people, apostates and blasphemers, stoning of adulterers, cutting off hands of thieves, etc. are the law of the land in muslim theocracies (to different degrees ) and in many muslim self-governed areas (again, to different extents).

Even in some countries where this ISN’T the law of the land, like Pakistan or Bangladesh or Indonesia, local religious authorities push for honor killings and support the killing of atheists, LBGT people and freethinkers. Even in Turkey, a country which had reached a decent level of secularism, a Salafi-friendly dictator like Erdogan is reversing some of the secularization process, and in isolated, non-urban areas genital mutilation and honor killings are relatively common.

In the “west” many muslim communities, especially in the UK, have imams who preach the same things that the Salafis preach.

In all cases the life of Mohammed, the Qu’ran, the Sunna, the ahadith MATTER, and a lot.
Christianity, thankfully, has moved on from the worst parts of the bible, at least in Europe. Even in the US, where Christians are far more conservative than in Europe, support for slavery or child marriage or stoning of adulterers or female genital mutilation or torture and killing of unbelievers is very limited.

Islam NEEDS secularization. And in order to secularize islam we can’t ignore its huge, horrific, disgusting flaws. We can’t ignore that Mohammed was FAR from “the perfect man”, and actually a pretty horrible human being in many aspects.
Minimizing the flaws of islam, or playing the “what about Christianity?” game, helps no one. As secular humanists we should able to say it loud and clear: islam sucks and needs to change.

#17743

Anyone who has Disqus account (DIsqus has died on me today) can feel free the post links to those two posts above on the discussion on the Friendly Atheist Board.

#17744

PZ has a video hangout with Great American Satan and Iris Van derPluym. At 5:40 when they are talking about trolls, GAS talks about "getting trolled hard" by some creep on the comments at Black Skeptics:
[youtube][/youtube]

I kind of remember some meanie doing that trolling and looked it up:
https://the-orbit.net/blackskeptics/201 ... /#comments
The exchange begins at 16.3. Funny how GAS still feels a bit stung by that more than 3 years later. :lol:

#17745

Keating wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:My son has just spent his second Saturday sleeping over at a female Muslim friends house. Ostensibly because dinner with his Arabic class group got late and he has early Uni.

My basic sleuthing reveals the girl to be "Aisyah" complete with head scarf.

I have no idea what this means but my wife is freaking out. She won't even stop over in KL because of her dislike of Islam, specifically its position on women.
Is the girl 9 years old?

I am ruling nothing out.

#17746

Kirbmarc wrote:

Islam NEEDS secularization. And in order to secularize islam we can’t ignore its huge, horrific, disgusting flaws. We can’t ignore that Mohammed was FAR from “the perfect man”, and actually a pretty horrible human being in many aspects.
Minimizing the flaws of islam, or playing the “what about Christianity?” game, helps no one. As secular humanists we should able to say it loud and clear: islam sucks and needs to change.

I think it is worth emphasizing that islam not only puts Mo forth as the perfect man, but commands/encourages muslim men to live their lives as the prophet did. When apologists come out and say that others did the same at that time, they are really just admitting that islam is a primitive, barbaric religion that needs to be tossed into the trashcan of history.
Perhaps the best evidence that Allah is not a morally superior or even half-assed intelligent being is his supposed declaration of that mentally ill perverted warlord as a perfect human.

#17747

It's your own fault for having only one son.

At this stage I would advise to shake the dust from your sandals, and give your blessing to your other progeny.

"How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child"

#17748

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:TFA's resident islamo-apologist cunt is at it again:

Muslims Respond to Controversial Indiana Billboard Criticizing Muhammad

Quick, get Kirbmarc on the case!

This is even stupider than usual. Even most of the comments are having none of it.

#17749

Hemant needs to take a Patreon hit for installing that shithead as a sub-blogger.

#17750

free thoughtpolice wrote:Kirbmarc wrote:
Islam NEEDS secularization. And in order to secularize islam we can’t ignore its huge, horrific, disgusting flaws. We can’t ignore that Mohammed was FAR from “the perfect man”, and actually a pretty horrible human being in many aspects.
Minimizing the flaws of islam, or playing the “what about Christianity?” game, helps no one. As secular humanists we should able to say it loud and clear: islam sucks and needs to change.
I think it is worth emphasizing that islam not only puts Mo forth as the perfect man, but commands/encourages muslim men to live their lives as the prophet did. When apologists come out and say that others did the same at that time, they are really just admitting that islam is a primitive, barbaric religion that needs to be tossed into the trashcan of history.
Perhaps the best evidence that Allah is not a morally superior or even half-assed intelligent being is his supposed declaration of that mentally ill perverted warlord as a perfect human.

Very true. Muslims aspire to be like Mo, act like Mo, dress like Mo, use a stick instead of a toothbrush like Mo (I'm not kidding). And Mo was a truly fucked up individual. So to be like Mo is to be fucked up. He wasn't the only fucked up individual in his times, but that's not really an excuse.

As for Allah...it's just so convenient that when some people, not even just Mo but Mo's friends and followers, say things that Mo liked, then they spoke like Allah wanted them to.

[youtube][/youtube]

#17751

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:TFA's resident islamo-apologist cunt is at it again:

Muslims Respond to Controversial Indiana Billboard Criticizing Muhammad

Quick, get Kirbmarc on the case!

In the comment section someone brought up the old "but the Crusades" argument. If they want to go back centuries when they judge a religion then they should take a little look at this:

https://nightwatchsite.files.wordpress. ... es-map.png

#17752

Sunder wrote:Hemant needs to take a Patreon hit for installing that shithead as a sub-blogger.

He's slowly and steadily losing patrons, but the money is staying constant.
https://graphtreon.com/creator/Hemant

#17753

Really? wrote:That's an interesting list...

danielle-300x172.jpg: (9.84 KiB) Downloaded 122 times

"That transphobe forgot me. What a mysoginist"

#17754

Suet Cardigan wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:TFA's resident islamo-apologist cunt is at it again:

Muslims Respond to Controversial Indiana Billboard Criticizing Muhammad

Quick, get Kirbmarc on the case!
In the comment section someone brought up the old "but the Crusades" argument. If they want to go back centuries when they judge a religion then they should take a little look at this:

[.img]https://nightwatchsite.files.wordpress. ... es-map.png[/img]

Good grief, are people still mentioning the Crusades? A lot of the battles in the crusades were christian on christian (Catholic pope vs. Cesaropapist Eastern Roman Emperor).

Even when it was about christian vs. muslims it was simply a continuation of other wars, like the muslims vs. the Byzantine empire, which started with the start of islam and ended in 1453 when the Ottoman sultan took Constantinople (now Istanbul). And even after that muslims and christians clashed in the Balcans and even around Vienna for centuries. Just like muslims fought with muslims and christians with christians. Yet only the Crusades are chosen are the Biggest Evil that the christians did onto the muslims.

This isn't to say that there weren't atrocities during the Crusades, and that muslims didn't suffer from those. But the Crusades are to be looked at within their context, not milked for islam apologia.

#17755

Suet Cardigan wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:TFA's resident islamo-apologist cunt is at it again:

Muslims Respond to Controversial Indiana Billboard Criticizing Muhammad

Quick, get Kirbmarc on the case!
In the comment section someone brought up the old "but the Crusades" argument. If they want to go back centuries when they judge a religion then they should take a little look at this:

https://nightwatchsite.files.wordpress. ... es-map.png

But at the same time as you have people banging on about the Crusades you also have people invoking moral relativism with "well we can't judge too harshly that's just how people were back then" as a defense of Mo.

Which fucking one is it?

#17756

Sunder wrote:But at the same time as you have people banging on about the Crusades you also have people invoking moral relativism with "well we can't judge too harshly that's just how people were back then" as a defense of Mo.

Which fucking one is it?

My objection to those who say "those were different times" is "fine, you're probably right, but then was then, now is now, and in the world of today Mohammed is a terrible role model". After all the important part of the defense of Mo for muslims is to say that they want to be like him, not that in his times Mo wasn't the only person who encouraged slavery, rape, pillaging and child marriage.

#17757

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Milo fan sues University for $23 million. Maybe that will get the attention of some spineless university administrators.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

The lawsuit’s defendants include: UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), activist billionaire George Soros, UC President Janet Napolitano, UC Board of Regents Chairwoman Monica Lozano, Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin, and the University of California and Berkeley police departments.

Had she stuck to suing the university she might have had a chance.

#17758

#17759

Looks like Indy is hitting day care to free Watson up for her ~~work~~ drinking.

Money is no problem with this one.

#17760

Loving the handful of people saying "well yeah I guess the billboard would be fine except Christians put it up."

Because of course as we all know only we enlightened nonbelievers should be allowed to criticize religious proscription.

Why do people think we're snooty elitists again?