Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Just wondering...

I see why men fast: they get each between 70 and 100 women, hour al -ayn, virgins, in Paradise. But what do women, straight women, get? (Homosexuals go straight to hell) I assume they get to drink from the rivers of wine. Fair enough. Or do they all go to hell too? So women fast, and go to Paradise to get drunk and watch an orgy of drunk men?  I don't want to imagine how paradise toilets smell like. Oh, maybe they get to clean the toilets! Such a promising afterlife, what better paradise can there be after hell of a life on earth!


  1. Wow! What a horrible disgusting thing to say. and this coming from a blog that supports the anti racism movement. Wow.

  2. This blog allows you to say whatever you want to say and for this purpose your comment is published here. I respect your opinion, and my mind wonders along different paths. By respecting my freedom to express myself freely, and me respecting whatever you would like to say freely is richness. I believe that mocking religion is a right, (I said this before on this blog), and it is a right that should be allowed to be practiced freely. I am not using violence or inciting anyone against anyone. I am speaking my mind freely, and this is a blog mind you. I am an atheist so you can imagine what other horrible things I have in mind about religion. You too, and any other person has the full right to mock atheism as much as you like. If it is funny, I will laugh.

    Dear, I don't see how freedom of expression and supporting anti-racism are contradictory. I tell you what, I have the right to mock religion but if anyone, anyone, violates your right to practice your religion freely, I will be the first one to defend you.

    I copy from Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

  3. There is a difference between freedom of expression and outright mocking. What you said was disgusting and unfounded. I understand it is your blog and you can publish what you like but my initial reaction to what you wrote was disgust and I felt I had to express it.
    Supporting anti racism and freedom of expression are not contradictory but what you published on your blog at an attempt at humor is not freedom of expression. Let me ask you this, would you publish something that is racist on your blog? Why not? does that not fall under your definition of freedom of expression?
    To me supporting anti racism tells me that you believe in equality and humanity. Someone who believes these things does not simply choose parts of it.
    A racist person is someone who mocks things he hates or does not understand, it does not necessarily only pertain to race.
    It does not matter to me if you are an atheist, that was extra information given to me on your part but what makes you think that you can comment or know what religion I believe in, if i believe in any. I just commented on a post.... I did not give you any information on myself but it is nice to know that you can just assume.
    Again you have the right to do what you want, it is your blog, I never said otherwise. I am the one just giving you my opinion.
    Thank you

  4. Thank you for your reply and I started to enjoy this conversation.
    Ok, first, I probably wrongly assumed that you are religious, you may be, or maybe not. Right, granted. Honestly, I don't care, I was just stating a point there.
    I understand that you were disgusted. It is disgusting, no one said that this post opens the appetite!
    Would I publish something that is racist on my blog? the answer is obviously: no. Would shutting down a blog (for example) that publishes racist comments be a violation of freedom of expression? this needs a lot of discussions. My take is no, it wouldn't be, I would support shutting it down, why? simply because such racism is leading to people dying or denied their rights. Now, can you tell me what consequences ensue from my post? do you think that that it might lead to non-religious people discriminating against religious people or depriving them of their rights? Does my post say in any way that religious people have less rights, or are less human, or that they are not equal in rights to others?
    The non-racist characteristic about mocking religion is that it transcends race, nationality, gender, origins, etc... I do mock religion in general, not a particular religion, if you go back to previous posts.
    I do believe in equality and humanity. I believe religious people are equal to non-religious people in rights.
    I do not mock religion, because I hate it or because I do not understand it, but this is another story.
    Let me say this, there is a book (or books) considered holy by millions. If I were to think that this book is stupid, do you think I should shut up and not say it even if I have supportive arguments? scientific arguments? should I just shut up? if it were so, Marx would not have said "religion is the opium of the people". Is there a better mockery than that? or do you think that Marx should have kept it to himself?

  5. And actually, E, the assumption of the post is inaccurate. Islam, unlike the Catholic faith, for example, recognizes the sexual desires of women. And women would thus be rewarded similarly in the hereafter.

  6. Yes Islam does recognize women's sexual desires in life, but no account as far as I know about what she will get in paradise, let alone anything sexual. Correct me if I am mistaken.

  7. Yes, there is nothing to suggest that rewards of heaven are denied to women.