“Shariat” Courts Must NEVER Be Allowed In India

I recently happened upon this disinformation article by IndiaToday claiming to be factual. It is full of misdirection, omissions, and lies and I want to prove it to you all.

Sharia law courts must NEVER be allowed in India. Do not allow this horrible, disgusting system infect India because of “religious tolerance” — it is not worth it.

The Sharia is essentially Divine Command Theory put into practice; Sharia scholars can only act based on the Quran, the Quran interpreting other parts of the Quran, what the pedophilic Islamic Prophet Mohammad did in his life because he’s seen as the perfect human being in Islam, and then “verified” Hadiths are used to support following certain practices so long as the Quran allows it; after that, Sharia scholars can give an “independent opinion” so long as it follows the Quran, Mohammad’s behavior, the Hadiths, or the First Followers of the Quran. Making new and updated practices for the modern era is strictly forbidden under the rule called “bidah” (invention) in a religion. One thing should be make explicitly clear here: The Sharia Court System is Fundamentally Opposed To All Outside Logic and Reason. No non-Muslim opinion is considered valid. When a Sharia scholar gives a ruling, Muslims are divinely mandated to follow it as unquestioned fact of Islam that they aren’t allowed to dispute. Keep in mind all of the following below has to be accepted by Muslims as unquestioned fact under Divine Command Theory of Sharia.

Don’t believe me? A link to the Tafsir explanation by a noteworthy and respected Islamic Cleric. I’ve added full links next to the one-clicks, if you don’t believe me: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/205290/tafseer-on-the-basis-of-narrated-texts-and-tafseer-on-the-basis-of-individual-understanding

The Sharia means “Divine Law” and in Civil Sharia Proceedings, a woman has half the say of a man even in cases of rape. Meaning two women must be there to verify the statements of a single man in cases of rape.

The Quran supports killing Apostates so in Civil Proceedings, anyone who wants to leave Islam would be killed for apostasy. http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=89

Women and little girls being held captive to rape is considered morally justified in the Sharia: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=24

Beating your wife is acceptable under Sharia as per Quranic instructions: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=34

Violence against other religious groups, even different Islamic groups, is mandated thanks to Chapter 9 of the Quran; here’s just a small snippet: http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=9&verse=29

Raping little girls is legal in Sharia Civil Courts because the Pedophile Prophet Mohammad had sex with his 9 year old bride Aisha when he was around 50; it is justified by Aisha’s own admittance in the Hadiths: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/124483/age-of-the-mother-of-the-believers-aaishah-may-allah-be-pleased-with-her-when-the-prophet-blessings-and-peace-of-allah-be-upon-him-married-her

Here’s a link to a Harvard Divinity Graduate of Islamic Theology in the US justifying sex with 9 year-olds on the basis of Aisha’s age when she was raped by the pedophile Prophet of Islam.

This has real world consequences in Sharia Legal Systems across the Arab world because Sharia courts don’t consider raping women or little girls a crime: https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2017/05/mais-haddad-arab-world-laws-protect-the-rapist-not-the-victim/

Continue reading

The Intolerance of Nerdfighteria: How Discussing Human Rights Gets You Muted And Banned

So, awhile back I attempted to share Ex-Muslims of North America content on Nerdfighteria Discords in an effort to join their communities while sharing information on an important human rights topic. When doing this, I was immediately accused of bigotry, when talking about human rights I was accused of making a strawman (even though no opposing argument was given nor any discernible information regarding any opposing argument), and I was told that I was posting on “incorrect channels” — the channels I selected were related to Politics and stated it was for divisive and controversial topics. Evidently, human rights wasn’t included in that package as I was muted by one Nerdfighteria community and the other refused to respond to my question of whether they valued the human rights of Ex-Muslims.

A part of me just didn’t want to believe that Nerdfighteria, a community that seemed so calm, compassionate, and open to polite communication of ideas could be so intolerant towards the human rights of some of the most vulnerable people in the world today who live in fear within their own societies for the crime of having their own opinions. So, I made and used an alternative account to check and see if I could open discussions about the human rights of Ex-Muslims who essentially have to live in fear for their very lives and the human rights abuses that women in Islamic majority communities suffer. I primarily did this because as far as cost-benefits analysis, the human rights of people should outweigh the woeful ideal of religious tolerance. If that seems like an excuse for “trolling” then I would honestly respond by pointing out that the human rights of these people and the ability to give their human rights issues a platform should be paramount to the public discourse. Just as we discuss Yazidi and Christian women being abused as sex slaves by ISIS, Ex-Muslims being hunted down and killed for the crime of freedom of thought is just as relevant of a human rights issue. Also, I find it astonishing and sickening that fellow Liberals can dismiss the human rights of these people so callously without any regard for what they’re condemning these people too. I suspect it’s because people don’t want to open the discussion on the hot topic of religion in order to protect their own religious traditions. As such, I suspect that their own religion is more important than people’s human rights. Furthermore, trolling seems to just be a meaningless personal attack for shutting down discussion whenever a topic that is personally uncomfortable comes up. It’s a meaningless term that ignores critical examination of the content in order to swipe away all nuanced discussion due to personal comfort levels. I personally feel a sense of frustration and disbelief that this crucial human rights issue hasn’t found a stronger acceptance in Left-leaning public discourse.

For this new attempt, I used another username and shared videos of human rights crimes.

Continue reading