A Happy Coming-Out-Story for A Somali Ex-Muslim

[Cognitivedissonance]

I do unless I incite hate or violence.

You're from England & you didn't even knew that London had a city within a city called the city of London the financial capital of the world, in one of our previous conversations, yet England is in debt & so is America the sole superpower, why don't you pull those curtains before your eyes & do your own due diligence, a little critical thinking wouldn't go amiss. A little homework for you, who controls the city of London?

 

[The_Cosmos]

This is going to be fair game. The Prophet (SAW) did not specify the ailment(s) for which camel urine can be used as a healing property, he knew of the condition that those Bedouins were suffering from and he prescribed for them camel urine. In Islamic law, camel urine is actually considered najaas, unless you know for sure it can be effective to treat the ailment you’re suffering from, there’s no need in consuming it. I didn’t say it can be used as a healing property for ALL sorts of ailments, I was merely suggesting that it has SOME healing properties that can be used to treat certain ailments. Likewise, if not used with caution, it can make certain conditions worse just like any other medicine.

P.S. The World Health Organisation (WHO) have explicitly stated on their website that “It is not yet fully understood how people become infected with MERS-CoV, which is a zoonotic virus.”

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/coronavirus_infections/faq/en/

I also wanted to ask you: what do you make of the experiments that were done in the Arab world that proved camel urine has healing properties? Do we dismiss their findings only because they’re Arabs?

Ok, experiments cannot be taken as fact unless they've been peer reviewed meaning that scientists independent from them has verified their findings.

The people who carried out the tests were Saudis from the King Abdulaziz University in Jedda. Do you honestly not see why anyone would doubt the authenticity of their experiments? It's reeling with bias. I mean, they're clearly trying to authenticate religious claims and thus from the get go, you know that the experiment cannot be trusted.

Unless they have non affiliated scientists who peer reviewed their findings and authenticated their conclusions, I'm going to brush them aside.

 

[The_Cosmos]

You're from England & you didn't even knew that London had a city within a city called the city of London the financial capital of the world, in one of our previous conversations, yet England is in debt & so is America the sole superpower, why don't you pull those curtains before your eyes & do your own due diligence, a little critical thinking wouldn't go amiss. A little homework for you, who controls the city of London?

Go away you insane sex deprived maniac.

Since you believe in darwins theory then you're a Darwinist & take his word as gospel, there's nothing tangible there after all it's merely a theory my son.

You've got no idea what your talking about.

Don't bring down Darwin to your fairy tales.

 

[Dhabaal]

Naya, we've got freedom of expression! The same one that allows you to express the crazy shit you espouse. You don't like it, then go to the shithole that is the Muslim world! :siilaanyolaugh:

The west doesn't support freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is a Western Myth.

The west preach for choice and free speech but this freedom to say whatever you want and to have the choice to live as you see fit is not an African trait nor is it an Islamic trait. It only counts when you propagate Western ideas not non-Western ideas such us Islamic ideas.

Noam Chomsky, summed up the western concept of freedom of speech when he said:

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favour of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favour of freedom of speech, that means you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."

However, the reality is that every society including the west has limits on public speech and views they don't like. The only difference is in who defines the limits of this speech and how restrictive these limits are. Racism, national security, holocaust denial, incitement, glorification of terrorism, racial hatred and libel among many others, are all limits imposed on freedom of speech by western nations.


For Example: The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten( who created insulting cartoons about the prophet) could never have printed cartoons denying the holocaust in the name of free speech. Geert Wilders could never have produced a film likening Israeli's treatment of the Palestinians to the Nazi treatment of the Jews, without charges of anti-Semitism being brought against him.


It's contradictions like these, on the limits of free speech where the clash of values between Islam and the west is currently taking place.

 

[The_Cosmos]

The west doesn't support freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is a Western Myth.

The west preach for choice and free speech but this freedom to say whatever you want and to have the choice to live as you see fit is not an African trait nor is it an Islamic trait. It only counts when you propagate Western ideas not non-Western ideas such us Islamic ideas.

Noam Chomsky, summed up the western concept of freedom of speech when he said:


However, the reality is that every society including the west has limits on public speech and views they don't like. The only difference is in who defines the limits of this speech and how restrictive these limits are. Racism, national security, holocaust denial, incitement, glorification of terrorism, racial hatred and libel among many others, are all limits imposed on freedom of speech by western nations.


For Example: The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten( who created insulting cartoons about the prophet) could never have printed cartoons denying the holocaust in the name of free speech. Geert Wilders could never have produced a film likening Israeli's treatment of the Palestinians to the Nazi treatment of the Jews, without charges of anti-Semitism being brought against him.


It's contradictions like these, on the limits of free speech where the clash of values between Islam and the west is currently taking place.

Isn't that what I said though?? You have the right to say and propagate what you wish unless it invites hate or violence. Racism, holocaust denial, glorification of terrorism and etc all fall under that category.

The very fact that Muslims can stand in the middle of town in a western country and propagate their religion, is evidence that freedom of expression actually exists.

I completely disagree that only views favourable to the west is "allowed" or whatever. In 2014, there were huge protests in London against Israel and its action against Gaza. They also protested against Britain selling arms to Israel.

 

[Layth]

Go away you insane sex deprived maniac.





You've got no idea what your talking about.
View attachment 7970

Don't bring down Darwin to your fairy tales.

Yh but he clearly means irrefutable FACTS about science. E.g. darker coloured clothing absorb more heat. Not theories that are based on speculation, inductive reasoning and logical fallacies.

 

[The_Cosmos]

Yh but he clearly means irrefutable FACTS about science. E.g. darker coloured clothing absorb more heat.

Nope, try again.

You lot are exposing your lack of understanding of scientific dictionary.

 

[Layth]

View attachment 7974

Nope, try again.

You lot are exposing your lack of understanding of scientific dictionary.

Yes but the theory of evolution is based on inductive reasoning. That's what we're discussing here. Clearly the example that I've given about heat absorption is based on deductive reasoning.

 

[Dhabaal]

​

Isn't that what I said though?? You have the right to say and propagate what you wish unless it invites hate or violence. Racism, holocaust denial, glorification of terrorism and etc all fall under that category.

The very fact that Muslims can stand in the middle of town in a western country and propagate their religion, is evidence that freedom of expression actually exists.

I completely disagree that only views favourable to the west is "allowed" or whatever. In 2014, there were huge protests in London against Israel and its action against Gaza. They also protested against Britain selling arms to Israel.

No you said the west had freedom of speech. Freedom of speech only exists if your for views you don't like."You only have freedom of speech to propagate western ideas not Islamic ideas" not only holds true for Muslims living in the west but also when it comes to western colonial interests in the Muslim world.

Therefore for the west it's perfectly acceptable to impose limits on freedom of speech to account the brutal policies of another country in this instance Israel, but it's not acceptable to impose limits on freedom of speech to insult and defame the character of the Prophet Muhammed صلى الله عليه وسلم.

The Netherlands' most popular party wants to ban all mosques
Party for Freedom (PVV) leader Geert Wilders says he wants to fight Islam
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-ban-holland-dutch-pm-favourite-a7214356.html

There is no clearer example of this than in Geert Wilder's campaign to ban the Holy Qur'an on the basis of freedom of speech. In fact Wilder's was asked about this during a recent interview with the Boston Globe.

Q: An American defender of free speech would say "Mein Kampf" shouldn't be banned, the Koran shouldn't be banned; books shouldn't be banned. To publish ideas in a book, even if they're hateful ideas - the First Amendment says you have that freedom. Is that what you would like in Holland as well?

A: I would, with the exception of incitement of violence.

Q. Doesn't that contradict your defense of free speech?

A: ... I want us to have more freedom of speech. But there is one red line - incitement of violence.[8]

In other words, you only have freedom of speech to propagate western ideas not Islamic ideas because Islamic ideas are an "incitement to violence".

Europe is increasingly using limits on free speech such as glorification of terrorism, incitement to racial hatred and incitement to violence as ways of clamping down on Islamic expression.

Peaceful Muslim demonstrations, Islamic political parties and Islamic literature are all in the firing line simply for expressing Islamic opinions contrary to the western way of life. Muslims expressing opinions the west doesn't like are branded by the media as ‘preachers of hate', militants and extremists.

 

[Dhabaal]

Freedom of Speech? or Restraint of Speech? (Western Myths)


Notice how 14 European nations have laws against criticizing Isreal and Judaism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

But they can all bash Muslims everyday upside the head and complain about their Countries ( Then Call it freedom of speech)
But the same does not hold true for Judaism and the State Isreal. ​

 

[The_Cosmos]

Yes but the theory of evolution is based on inductive reasoning. That's what we're discussing here. Clearly the example that I've given about heat absorption is based on deductive reasoning.

Actually it has basis in both but that's not the point. Evolution is irrefutably a fact of science.

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Eastern Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, criticising anti-evolution creationists and espousing theistic evolution.

 

[The_Cosmos]

No you said the west had freedom of speech. Freedom of speech only exists if your for views you don't like."You only have freedom of speech to propagate western ideas not Islamic ideas" not only holds true for Muslims living in the west but also when it comes to western colonial interests in the Muslim world.

Therefore for the west it's perfectly acceptable to impose limits on freedom of speech to account the brutal policies of another country in this instance Israel, but it's not acceptable to impose limits on freedom of speech to insult and defame the character of the Prophet Muhammed صلى الله عليه وسلم.

The Netherlands' most popular party wants to ban all mosques
Party for Freedom (PVV) leader Geert Wilders says he wants to fight Islam
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-ban-holland-dutch-pm-favourite-a7214356.html

There is no clearer example of this than in Geert Wilder's campaign to ban the Holy Qur'an on the basis of freedom of speech. In fact Wilder's was asked about this during a recent interview with the Boston Globe.

Q: An American defender of free speech would say "Mein Kampf" shouldn't be banned, the Koran shouldn't be banned; books shouldn't be banned. To publish ideas in a book, even if they're hateful ideas - the First Amendment says you have that freedom. Is that what you would like in Holland as well?

A: I would, with the exception of incitement of violence.

Q. Doesn't that contradict your defense of free speech?

A: ... I want us to have more freedom of speech. But there is one red line - incitement of violence.[8]

In other words, you only have freedom of speech to propagate western ideas not Islamic ideas because Islamic ideas are an "incitement to violence".

Europe is increasingly using limits on free speech such as glorification of terrorism, incitement to racial hatred and incitement to violence as ways of clamping down on Islamic expression.

Peaceful Muslim demonstrations, Islamic political parties and Islamic literature are all in the firing line simply for expressing Islamic opinions contrary to the western way of life. Muslims expressing opinions the west doesn't like are branded by the media as ‘preachers of hate', militants and extremists.

Mate, you've clearly swallowed all that "everybody is out to get the Muslims" bullshit. I'll repeat what I said before, Muslims are given the right to propagate their religious beliefs in the middle of any English city. In 2014, the biggest anti Israel protests were conducted in the streets of London but nobody tried to stop it.

Geert has been called out tons of times by so many different liberal groups in the west all denouncing him and his views. However, calling for the outlaw of the Quran or any ideology is valid under the guise of the law. Freedom of speech is valid unless you incite violence or hatred but that only counts for human beings, ideologies don't get the same treatment.

The level of apologetic victim conspiracy minded bullshiting I'm reading from you is impeccable. Glorifying terrorism is hate speech and therefore illegal. Denying the holocaust is hate speech therefore illegal. Calling a black man a '' is hate speech therefore illegal. Why are you against this??

Horta, are you a holocaust denier?! Because you claim that 14 countries outlawed criticism of Israel and Judaism (bullshit) but then link me a Wikipedia page about laws against holocaust denial. Are you thick or something?!! How can laws against holocaust denial be equated with "the west is against criticising Israel and Judaism" which I have shown to be false with the 3014 protests.

You're full of shit.

 

[Dhabaal]

Mate, you've clearly swallowed all that "everybody is out to get the Muslims" bullshit. I'll repeat what I said before, Muslims are given the right to propagate their religious beliefs in the middle of any English city. In 2014, the biggest anti Israel protests were conducted in the streets of London but nobody tried to stop it.

Now you are inserting prepositions i actually never made. Ofc ''Everyone is not out to get Muslims''. My examples was there to illustrate cases which there was limits upon expression as was the case with Holocaust denial.

What happens in London? does not prevent major political parties In Holland to campaign to ban Islam and Islamic speech, or France for arresting Zeon for Making Anti-Isreal cartoons.

.Lets face it Freedom of Speech is a myth. Hence why every society have certified red lines -ergo limits upon what constitutes lawful expression.

Judging what is lawful and what is appropiate from western standards and equating it to the world as if , western values,conducts and laws are universal is very much the defintion of ethnocentrism.

However, calling for the outlaw of the Quran or any ideology is valid under the guise of the law. Freedom of speech is valid unless you incite violence or hatred but that only counts for human beings, ideologies don't get the same treatment.

HAHAHAHA!!!! you are so blind you don't see how you affirmed my point.

So you can just liken something to violence regardless if it is or not. By that logic you can start by banning ''God Delusion'' the book by your saving grace Dawkins to honor this law against incitment of violence or hatred for human being,ideologies.

Thank you for proving my point. That it is lawful in the west to silence Islamic ideas.

Denying the holocaust is hate speech therefore illegal. Calling a black man a '' is hate speech therefore illegal. Why are you against this??

So it is acceptiable to ban Historical denials(Holocaust), but it's not acceptable to impose limits on freedom of speech to insult and defame the character of the Prophet Muhammed and Islam?

Logic!!!

Horta, are you a holocaust denier?! Because you claim that 14 countries outlawed criticism of Israel and Judaism (bullshit) but then link me a Wikipedia page about laws against holocaust denial. Are you thick or something?!! How can laws against holocaust denial be equated with "the west is against criticising Israel and Judaism" which I have shown to be false with the 3014 protests.

You're full of shit.

I am not a Holocaust Denial. I very much believe that the Holocaust happened, and it is real but that itself is irrelevant. Because whether it happened or not people should be allowed to voice their disagreement , that is if the westerners support freedom of expression.

Especially if you allow Islam and muslim bashing cartoons be posted public under the guise of freedom of expression.

Because France arrested a french cartoonist , Zeon for making Anti-Isreali cartoons under the anti-semetism laws.

 

[Layth]

Actually it has basis in both but that's not the point. Evolution is irrefutably a fact of science.

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Eastern Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, criticising anti-evolution creationists and espousing theistic evolution.

I'm not replying to you as often and as promptly because you're literally spewing nonsense. I'd rather do other things than argue with someone who's intellectually dishonest. Give me one solid example where evolution is supported by deductive reasoning.

 

[Dhabaal]

@Layth Evolution is fact bro.

You shouldn't confuse evolution with speciation or darwinism.

 

[Layth]

@Layth Evolution is fact bro.

You shouldn't confuse evolution with speciation or darwinism.

In what sense though? I'm talking about evolution as in acquiring additional genetic information as a result of mutation(s). Evolution has not been proven to be true in this sense. Most of the acquired characteristics as a result of mutations were either not permanent, or harmful mutations. On top of that, the acquired characteristic(s) could not be passed on to the offspring of the specie that has underwent mutation.

 

[Dhabaal]

In what sense though? I'm talking about evolution as in acquiring additional information as a result of mutation(s).

I thought you guys were referring to evolution in the sense of natural selection.

 

[Layth]

oh nvm then.

I thought you guys were referring to evolution in the sense of natural selection.

Natural selection in of itself is highly speculative. Why do simple life-forms still exist?

 

[supz]

Natural selection in of itself is highly speculative. Why do simple life-forms still exist?

Did you just seriously call natural selection speculative?

 

[Dhabaal]

Natural selection in of itself is highly speculative. Why do simple life-forms still exist?

Elaborate, please.

Natural selection does not talk about the existence of life forms , or one specie becoming another (i.e Speciation). It is simply the observation of the transformation of the different species under different factors, whether it be about survival,environmental or reproduction,