Taking a Stand Against Islam

[scribblet]

In Islamic law, apostasy is punishable by death, so what she is doing take a lot of courage.

Are women starting to break free, is it now the time for them to take a stand for their human rights?

"It's time to take a stand against Islam and Sharia" (Maryam Namazie)

Picture this, says Maryam Namazie: “A child is swathed in cloth from head to toe every day. Everything but her face and hands are covered for fear that a man might find her attractive. At school she learns that she is worth less than a boy. She is not allowed to dance or swim or feel the sun on her skin or the wind in her hair. This is clearly unacceptable, yet it is accepted when it is done in the name of religion.”

Namazie is the founder of the Council of Ex-Muslims in Britain (CEMB) which started life in the middle of last year. On Monday - in celebration of the centenary of International Women's Day - she spoke at a conference on Political Islam and Women's Rights, and launched a campaign against Sharia.

Full Story Here

[leonardcohen]

Wow!,to go from Islam

to Atheism,that is radical.

Not entirely surprising,

considering the backstory.

The Lady has Cajones.

The website is making herself a target,

all bets are off though on whether

she backs down or something happens to her.

[Melanie_]

She has an empowering message for oppressed women, who desperately need role models to show them there is a way out of "sexual apartheid", as she calls it. It takes an incredible amount of courage to be able to come forward like she has and say that women deserve better, especially in the face of Islam. Thanks, Scriblett, for the info - more can be found here, at her webpage: Maryam Namazie

On the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day, the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and Equal Rights Now-Organisation against Women’s Discrimination in Iran are proclaiming 2008 as the year against sexual apartheid. We are asking people everywhere to condemn sexual apartheid and the political Islamic movement that perpetrates it, and to support egalitarian movements that courageously challenge it.

Cybercoma, if you are reading this thread, here's an article she wrote, on religion as child abuse. (I'm pretty sure it was you who took that position, and here you will see that she really agrees with you. If it wasn't you, my apologies.) Here she quotes from Mansoor Hekmat, an Iranian Marxist (?!?):

The child has no religion, tradition and prejudices. She has not joined any religious sect. She is a new human being who, by accident and irrespective of her will has been born into a family with specific religion, tradition, and prejudices.

It is indeed the task of society to neutralise the negative effects of this blind lottery. Society is duty-bound to provide fair and equal living conditions for children, their growth and development, and their active participation in social life. Anybody who should try to block the normal social life of a child, exactly like those who would want to physically violate a child according to their own culture, religion, or personal or collective complexes, should be confronted with the firm barrier of the law and the serious reaction of society.

[cybercoma]

Cybercoma, if you are reading this thread, here's an article she wrote, on religion as child abuse. (I'm pretty sure it was you who took that position, and here you will see that she really agrees with you. If it wasn't you, my apologies.) Here she quotes from Mansoor Hekmat, an Iranian Marxist (?!?):

I've yet to read a better quote than this:

The child has no religion, tradition and prejudices. She has not joined any religious sect. She is a new human being who, by accident and irrespective of her will has been born into a family with specific religion, tradition, and prejudices.

It is indeed the task of society to neutralise the negative effects of this blind lottery. Society is duty-bound to provide fair and equal living conditions for children, their growth and development, and their active participation in social life. Anybody who should try to block the normal social life of a child, exactly like those who would want to physically violate a child according to their own culture, religion, or personal or collective complexes, should be confronted with the firm barrier of the law and the serious reaction of society.

[Regulus de Leo]

Sounds like someone our feminists and leftwingers will be determined to studiously ignore.

[Drea]

well this little feminist lefty thinks she is the greatest!

Gives me hope that a muslim is willing to give up their antiquated notion of the sky entity -- maybe others will too!

Cheers to a world without religious dogma!

[Guest American Woman]

Gives me hope that a muslim is willing to give up their antiquated notion of the sky entity -- maybe others will too!

Cheers to a world without religious dogma!

Zealous atheism renews some of the worst features of Christianity and Islam. Just as much as these religions, it is a project of universal conversion. Evangelical atheists never doubt that human life can be transformed if everyone accepts their view of things, and they are certain that one way of living - their own, suitably embellished - is right for everybody. link

[Drea]

Right On!

It's about time us atheists were recognized as the insurmoutable force that we are. By this time next year you will be praying in your linen closet for fear of atheist invasion.

Booga booga.

I bet you figured she should convert to your brand of insanity?

Well she grabbed a brain and realized that she has no need of an ancient judgemental woman hater. And now she has joined that fanatical evangelical atheist movement you are so afraid of.

She probably even realizes that the god-notion she tossed out is the same god you pray to.

Good for her.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Drea

[Guest American Woman]

I bet you figured she should convert to your brand of insanity?

You'd lose that bet. And let me remind you that I haven't so much as stated my beliefs, much less even remotely insinuated everyone should believe what I believe; that the world would be a better place if only everyone did.

But thanks for proving my point so totally and completely. I appreciate that.

[AngusThermopyle]

Not all aetheists are strident and pushy. Personally I prefer to keep my beleifs where they belong, to myself. If pushed I will talk about them, reluctantly.

As far as I'm concerned people are entitled to and should believe whatever they choose to believe. I probably wont understand why they believe what they believe but the choice is theirs to make, not mine.

[Drea]

Well AW, neener neener to you to.

You run around calling people "fanatics" and have no clue what that actually means.

I bet Maryam Namazie knows exactly what a "fanatic" is and I highly doubt if she would consider me to be in the same category as those who would stone her sisters.

Too bad you can't tell the difference. It would make it alot easier to rid the world of actual fanatics if people like you would stop branding people fanatical.

Would I kill you if you didn't convert to atheism? Would I kill you if you didn't wear what I tell you to wear? Would I kill you if you were raped?

Atheists (no matter how loud they are) are not fanatics. Fanatics kill people (in 2008 we're not talking WWII here). Atheists just roll our eyes at the quaint notion of a sky daddy.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Drea

[Guest American Woman]

Not all aetheists are strident and pushy. Personally I prefer to keep my beleifs where they belong, to myself. If pushed I will talk about them, reluctantly.

As far as I'm concerned people are entitled to and should believe whatever they choose to believe. I probably wont understand why they believe what they believe but the choice is theirs to make, not mine.

What you say is true; not all atheists are strident and pushy, thinking the world would be a better place if only everyone believed what they believe, just like all religious people aren't that way. But there's a sector of both that are, and in that respect, they are exactly the same.

Like you, I prefer to keep my beliefs to myself; and like you, I also believe that people are entitled to believe whatever they choose to believe. I feel no need to mock those whose beliefs differ from mine, nor do I feel any need to project beliefs and/or feelings on them.

[Drea]

So you must also believe that it's a-ok for women to be stoned, burned, etc... as long as it's kept quiet?

How can you say they are wrong? They are just believers like you are they not?

they just want to be left alone to believe their ideology.

Fanatics cannot be "left alone" to do whatever they want.

And if the only way to rid the world of these people is to educate everyone else -- so be it -- I am only one little part of the education process.

Do you think that this woman would have been able to become an atheist if there were no other atheist voices?

I may be a loud atheist, but that does not make me a fanatic. Thank. You. Very. Much.

[Guest American Woman]

So you must also believe that it's a-ok for women to be stoned, burned, etc... as long as it's kept quiet?

I believe people are free to believe what they want to believe; I don't believe they have the right to inflict their beliefs on others. That was quite clear. Stoning and burning women would fall into the "inflicting one's beliefs on others" catagory. It's also why I believe in separation of church and state, as I've said many times.

What I quoted earlier most definitely applies to you and you proved it in your responses.

Now beyond that, I have no desire to respond to your "booga booga" "neener neener" posts, which grate on my intelligence the way finger nails scraping against a black board grate on my nerves, so I'll just leave it at that.

[guyser]

I may be a loud atheist, but that does not make me a fanatic. Thank. You. Very. Much.

Are you a fan of atheism?

[Melanie_]

Sounds like someone our feminists and leftwingers will be determined to studiously ignore.

I'm a feminist, and fairly left leaning, yet obviously not ignoring this woman. What do you think of her views? Maybe you could state your opinion on the topic rather than slamming other posters.

[Guest American Woman]

In Islamic law, apostasy is punishable by death, so what she is doing take a lot of courage.

Are women starting to break free, is it now the time for them to take a stand for their human rights?

Your thread title is "Taking a Stand Against Islam," but it's really a stand against Sharia; against Islamic law:

".... what I am doing benefits Muslims, too, because if you live in a secular society, you can be a Muslim, a Sikh, a Christian or an atheist and be treated equally." Namazie's opposition to state religion is informed by her own experience. She was 12 when the Iranian revolution "was hijacked by the Ayatollahs" and her country became the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Two decades on, she is devoting her life to opposing religious power.

[Drea]

No matter what you or I or the dog next door believes... This woman was only able to escape the chains of Islam by becoming an atheist.

If atheists didn't voice their opinions this woman would not even know that atheism is an option.

Good for her that she found acceptance in atheism.

She can now live her life free of idiotic dogma from a religion that deems her as simply a vessel for sperm (if that).

If she had to convert to Christianity or *insert your dogma here*, she would have to jump through all of those "hoops" and I'll bet she is damn tired of jumping through religious hoops.

she is devoting her life to opposing religious power.

Well she is doing much more than I am. And good for her -- we should all applaud her efforts instead of calling one another "fanatical". None of us are fanatics.

But I am sure anyone fanatical, regardless of religion, will be on her radar.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Drea

[cybercoma]

Zealous atheism renews some of the worst features of Christianity and Islam. Just as much as these religions, it is a project of universal conversion. Evangelical atheists never doubt that human life can be transformed if everyone accepts their view of things, and they are certain that one way of living - their own, suitably embellished - is right for everybody. link

Atheism is the only thing everyone can have in common. As soon as you choose belief, you've segregated yourself from those who have chosen incompatible beliefs. Even the devoutly religious are atheists in regards to all other possible gods. Those who choose to allow themselves to be labeled as atheists simply take that one god further. That's something everyone in the world is capable of doing, giving us all a common ground to live together in peace.

[Guest American Woman]

Atheism is the only thing everyone can have in common. As soon as you choose belief, you've segregated yourself from those who have chosen incompatible beliefs. Even the devoutly religious are atheists in regards to all other possible gods. Those who choose to allow themselves to be labeled as atheists simply take that one god further. That's something everyone in the world is capable of doing, giving us all a common ground to live together in peace.

You are being ironic, right?

[Oleg Bach]

You are being ironic, right?

Atheism is a belief system hence a religion and most definitely a human construct bound and destined for failure as all controling and abusive religious systems are in regards to the redemption of mankind. I really wish that the nuts that want to take a stand against Islam would understand that the concept of "Satan" - translated is "the Advesary" - so in short - why do you want to create issues and advesarial situations in the world? Could it be the darker side of human nature that wants problems and mayhem? I say ignore that damn Islamic thing along with the Jewish lobby that does little to benefit Israel and also damn those wacko fundamentalist Christians that really have no idea what Christ was talking about and made up a silly story making the world suffer..

- forget about it - and forget about the new cultish formation of secular humanism and overly arrogant and proud atheism - all eventually seek facistic states of being....Islam is corrupt - so is that trouble maker the Deli Salami...and China and all those that support the olympic buisness movement - our buisness elite who will support the hellish slave labour camp called China - we have worse problems in the area of ethics than a thousand buggy eyed Islamic nuts who are overly fixated on us the great satan...what a joke and what a mess - we should all grow up...

But there is a line in scripture regarding our behaviour and the behaviour of Islam - "I will send them all a great dellusion" - seems God kept his word - all engaged in this crap are wacko.

[Drea]

So "low level" christianity is better than non belief? But the only difference (as pointed out) between you and I is that I believe in one less god than you do.

It's not a stretch really, to go from believing in one to believing in none.

In my opinion the world was probably alot better off when all people thought of "god" was a "mother nature, all encompassing" concept.

Monotheist religions are, by their very nature, exclusionary and violent -- do as I say or go to a burning pit (violent) and He doesn't believe the same as me so he is going to burn in a pit (exclusionary).

I exclude no one. In my so-called belief system we all just wink out like little light bulbs. All equal. None excluded.

And atheism is not a belief system. There is no atheist doctrine to follow, no rules of behaviour to be followed, no "if you do this, you get that".

Frig how many time does it need to be pointed out for you folks? A Brazilion perhaps?

We are all born atheists by the way. It IS the default position and therefore the most natural.

[cybercoma]

Atheism is a belief system...

There's no sense in reading the rest of your post if you can't wrap your mind around the fact that atheism by definition is NOT subscribing to the belief system of theism. It's just a label for people who do NOT have a theistic belief system. So, calling it a belief cannot be further from the truth. There are all different kinds of atheists because they're not confined to a belief system.

Like I said earlier, even theists are atheists in regards to all the other possible gods out there. Atheists simply take that one god further. In other words, we're all atheists to some degree because it's the default position to have until you decide to put your belief in something.

I don't understand why it's so difficult for people to understand that not having a belief is not a belief.

[cybercoma]

In the context of this thread, the woman believed in Islam. She no longer believes in Islam.

So does that mean she believes in not believing in Islam?

No.

It means she doesn't believe.

Yet some posters still insist that she believes in not believing.

That makes absolutely no sense.

[Guest American Woman]

In the context of this thread, the woman believed in Islam. She no longer believes in Islam.

So does that mean she believes in not believing in Islam?

No.

It means she doesn't believe.

Yet some posters still insist that she believes in not believing.

That makes absolutely no sense.

The article cited says she was a "non-practicing Muslim," so to say "she believed in Islam" is not really a conclusion that can be made based on what we know. To say she no longer believes in Islam isn't exactly a correct statement, either. She no longer believes Islamic beliefs, but she believes those who do should be free to personally believe. For example, I'm not a Jew, but I can't say I don't believe in Judaism because I know it exists and I believe Jews should be free to believe what they believe. Therefore I believe in it.

But as I already pointed out, it isn't Islam she's speaking out against, but Islamic law. She believes in secular societies, which I totally agree with too.

As for athiests not having beliefs; some most definitely do. Not believing in God is one thing. Believing that God is "a ghost in the sky, etc." is having a definite belief. Believing that the whole world would be better off if no one believed is no different from those who believe the whole world would be better off if only everyone believed in their God.

That's why if you weren't purposely being ironic in your previous response to me, your post would be priceless as it totally backs up the post I had made that you were responding to.

Edited March 19, 2008 by American Woman