This can't be true since Moses almost certainly never existed. The Ancient Egyptians were the most meticulous record keepers of all the ancient civilization -- they even recorded the rise and fall of the Nile. They never once mentioned Moses irrespective of all the ET special effects Moses was said to have performed.

Originally posted by Geel_jire: This is pure hypocrys on the part of the free speech wailers. What hypocrisy? The freedom to worship what you want (Islam, Christianity, Judiasm, Scientology, Mormonism etc) and to make veiled death threats (like Revolution Islam against South Park) is the SAME right as to make satirical cartoons. They're not two different rights. Have you ever considered that YOUR Islamic religion is as offensive, if not more, to others as is the Muhammed cartoons to you? But others accept all the hurt and offense as part of the price one pays in living in an open and pluralistic society. I can't count the number things said and done by religious that deeply offend me as an individual but I don't go around calling for murder and censorship. Originally posted by Geel_jire: do you know england, and ireland and many other countries have blaphemy laws on the books ? This is a lie. There are no blasphemy laws in England. Ireland still has them. But calling them Blasphemy laws is really a misnomer since no one is executed for blasphemy anymore unlike in the pre-enlightenment era. The blasphemy laws in Ireland are akin to defamation laws in the books of most civilized countries except they strictly apply to the church. So, when you defame anyone else it is just a defamation but one it is against the Church is blasphemy. Of course, that doesn't stop the Irish making fun of the Catholic Church. Originally posted by Geel_jire: do you know 'holocaust denier' is a prosecutable offence in austria? I'm not sure but probably true. I know in some European countries that Holocaust denial is a punishable crime. I don't support it. But since historically holocaust denial was cottage industry for Nazis, it was initially implemented as part of larger De-nazification effort. You as a colored man should be grateful since Nazism is truly dead and can never reconstitute itself as a serious political contender in Europe. But once again I see a Muslim complaining about why he can't make fun of a historically demonstrable attempt to exterminate an entire people. Since when did it become a good taste let alone acceptable to make fun of massacres? This is breathtakingly unbelievable. I sense a lot of antipathy towards Jews and I know where it is coming from. Know this, those who trivialize or minimize other people's suffering will be treated exactly like those who deny o minimize the suffering of Black people in the Americas. Originally posted by Geel_jire: or is it only free speech when it comes to insulting muslims. How is drawing satirical cartoons about Muhammed -- who has been dead for 1400 years -- insulting Muslims? That is no more insulting of Muslims than drawing satirical cartoons about David Cameron is insulting British people. What you want is others to make their own believes subservient to yours. That won't fly. Insulting Muslims is already prohibited under Hate Speech laws. Originally posted by Geel_jire: I dare you to say anything semi-insulitng about jews in public ... you will be shutdown from every corner so fast your head will spin. The Jews again! You just don't like them, do you? C'mon, get over it. They rejected Muhammed as a prophet 1400 years ago. I'll give you this, they're stubbon and hard-headed but I'm sure they've forgotten all about it. Let it go. BTW, I dare you to say anything semi-insulting about black people in America.

Weris Diiriye is beautiful women - inside and outside. We -- Conscientious and Concerned Somalis -- thank her for bringing to the world's attention this shameful and barbaric practice inflicted against our sisters. We men have very few dogs in this fight in my view; we, at the very least, should lend full support and challenge those who want to perpetuate this barbarism. After all, it is not us who have to live through this gruesome act. As expected, Jihadi wannabes are up in arms. What are these red herrings about prostitution and models? What is that have to do with the compaign against FGM? It is completely and utterly tangential to the issue at hand. There is nothing wrong with modeling. It is respectable career choice if you got the goods. Prostitution is more complicated. But the more discerning of you might have noticed by now that Jihadis are always trying to control the female body and sexuality. They're intimidated by independent, freethinking, intelligent women who are in full control of their bodies. No wonder Imams in Egypt never run out of obscure Islamic justifications for FGM. My developing point is this: the road to the "End of FGM" runs through defeated or weakened Jihadis and clerical establishments.

No Ronaldinho or Adriano for Brazil. This is a big mistake given their recent form but we'll see.

Originally posted by Nur: Of course Raamsade, your beliefs do really complement each other: 1. There is NO GOD 2. IF THERE IS A GOD, ITS PROBABLY AMERICA, VERY POWERFUL, THUS NEVER WRONG BECAUSE IT HAS NO ONE TO ANSWER TO! Nur There is certainly no ET called God, Allah, Yahwe, Elohim, Vishnu, Osiris or what have you. But even ETs, if they exist, can be wrong as is America. For instance, it was wrong for America to invade Iraq but was absolutely justified in its invasion of Afghanistan. This is beauty of being a freethinker; I'm not bound by any dogma and orthodoxy. I take positions as dictated by my conscience and reasoning; not what some bearded pretender or ancient tome says. You, on the other hand, must always support a Muslim against an Unbeliever regardless of who is right or wrong on any particular issue. To you the Taliban were correct to refuse cooperation with NATO demands even though it was worst possible choice they could've made by every rational consideration. The fact remains, had the Taliban cooperated with NATO and not chosen to put Jihadi solidarity over the welfare of their people or even their own naked self-interest, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'm against these bans on burqa. Let these brainwashed women wear what they want with one caveat - no special treatment. For example, if the law of the country says that one must bare his/her face to get a driver's license, then burqa wearers must show their face or forfeit the privilege of a driver's license. It is no body's business what women wear. But I understand where many Europeans are coming from with these bans. Europeans are proud of their hard-fought secularism and they're alarmed at the sight of overt and ostentatious displays of piety on the part of Muslims. Couple that with Muslim demands for more concessions and increase in the radicalization Muslims leading to terrorism, death threats for cartoonists and increased self-segregation. The antidote to Muslim illiberalism (censorship, death threats, pressuring/forcing ONLY women to wear special costumes, terrorism etc) is more liberalism. Freedom -- freedom to draw satirical cartoons about Mohammed, to criticize the Quran and Islamic scholars etc -- is the greatest threat to Islamic fanaticism.

Originally posted by *Ibtisam: C&H, he is not only one who says 6million is too much, lol@too much You sound like a buyer in a Mid-Eastern suuq haggling over price. Seller: Six riyals per bag of falafels! You: No, that is too much! I'll give you 5 riyals for it. Are you willing to accept 3 million? Or is that too much? I'm always fascinating by the impassioned Muslim denial and minimization of the Jewish people's suffering. Originally posted by *Ibtisam: The holocaust argument was used by the Zionist to lay a claim on Palestine and justify even today why they must at all cost have a country of their own. Zionism as a movement was started by Theodor Herzl (1860-1904) in the 19th century.

Not a SINGLE bomb would have been dropped on Afghanistan had the Taliban cooperated with NATO's demands. Hopefully other Muslim countries and societies will learn not to pick fights with superior adversaries. But I'm not holding my breath for that.

Originally posted by Khayr: These laws are from the islamic tradition and no one particular group has a monopoly on them because islamic law has developed over 1400yrs and can not be redefined or redeveloped, so as to "reform" it... In Islam, it is the islamic tradition that checks regimes by means of the sayings of the islamic scholars (majority of them and not one isolated scholar that wants to reform the religion). The above encapsulates the central problem with Islam - you can't undertake much needed reforms for fear of offending Islamic dogmas. No wonder, then, that virtually the whole Islamic world (Ummah if you will) is in such a sorry state; Islamic countries are WHO, Unicef, WFP, HRW, Amnesty International disaster zones. The prohibitions on questioning authority and dogma have engendered societies that shirk critical thought and questioning authority be it politic or religious. It isn't really surprising to find the Islamic world is a fertile ground for dictatorships and authoritarian regimes. Khayr, is that what you're really defending? Originally posted by Khayr: The idea of a dictatorship is that one regime, one man dictates and defines what is the rule of law and reforms it to shape their agenda. That is an abuse and dhulum/wrong doing. This is interesting. Are you saying Allah is wrong? Since Sharia is largely based on Allah's laws and commands, Allah would be the equivalent of that "one man" that dictates and defines what is the rule of law. Just as in a dictatorship, Allah's laws are not open to questioning, revision, repeals, reforms, debates etc. The bottom line is: under Sharia power will be in the hands of few (clergy) who are unaccountable to anybody and political competition is unlawful.

^I agree with you. Barca at home are totally different team and we should expect better performance. Whether that will be enough is another matter. I'd also go further and say Inter didn't deserve 2 goal margin victory on the balance of play. They were a bit lucky to have won with such margins.

Well this Hamad bin 'Atiq an-Najdi sounds highly vindictive and engages in a lot of begging the question fallacies; but what is your goal with this thread?

They should listen to the good Shiikh if they're real Muslims. If not, then defy him and watch all the WC matches to your heat's content. Here is a sentiment that captures where these Shiikhs are coming from: Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious. Islam does not allow swimming in the sea and is opposed to radio and television serials. Islam, however, allows marksmanship, horseback riding and competition... by the late Ayatollah Khomeini

This is yet another monumental failure and defeat for Alshabaab and company. Their rash and myopic decisions have driven away many competent and potential allies into the arms of their foes. What did they expect when they push former allies against the wall without even offering a face saving exist strategy. Not only have they planned to marginalize Ahmed Madoobe and his constituency but they've added insult to injury by humiliating him in his own turf. They left Ahmed Madoobe with only 2 choices: be completely marginalized and become irrelevant OR stay relevant by joining the TFG. But make no mistake Ahmed joins the hapless TFG not out of conviction but out of convenience.

Informed people already knew that N. East Somalia isn't the actual location of historical Land of Punt. North East Somalis can take solace in the fact that, at least, they're not former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYRM). No other country is also claiming the name Punt as theirs.

Was the Iranian Cleric's theory true? If you recall some high ranking Iranian cleric claimed that scantily clad women are the cause of earthquakes. Today was Boobquake day to test his theory and according to the US Geological Survey there were no fewer than 42 earthquakes worldwide. This is most unsettling. Women strut their stuff for Boobquake Women flaunt their breasts in protest Debra Black Is the Iranian cleric right? On April 16th senior Iranian cleric Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi suggested women who wear revealing clothing are to blame for earthquakes. “Women who do not dress modestly…lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which increases (consequently) earthquakes,” he was quoted as saying by Iranian media. Boobwash! say tens of thousands of women who refuse to believe flaunting their breasts is triggering a world-wide Boobageddon. Led by Purdue University student Jen McCreight they staged a 24-hour protest Monday. Dubbed Boobquake, McCreight encouraged women around the world to flaunt their breasts and their cleavage to prove the Iranian clerics wrong. She even came up with some cleavage-flaunting t-shirts that she was selling for charity with messages that read: “Boobquake 2010: Who says science has to be boring?” and “Boobquake 2010: Did the Earth move for you?” But the truth is on any given day there is seismic activity. Did Boobquake have any effect on the earth? Apparently not. According to the United States Geological Survey website there were 42 earthquakes worldwide as of Monday evening, including a 6.5-magnitude earthquake southeast of Taiwan and a 5.4 near the South Sandwich Islands region. But 39 is fewer earthquakes than we saw the three days prior to Boobquake. In fact, over the last six days the number of earthquakes has ranged from 41 to 48. According to the website, on Sunday, April 25, there were 45 earthquakes, including a 5.7 near the South Sandwich Islands Region, and a 5.0 in Tonga. On Saturday, there were 38 earthquakes, and on Friday there were 45. Meanwhile, Boobquake creator McCreight has become a minor celebrity, doing interviews with BBC World, Canada AM, CBC TV and the CNN’s Situation Room as she proudly flaunted her cleavage. She was also named on CNN’s website as one of the day’s most intriguing people. Protests were held in a number of cities, incluing Washington, D.C.; West Lafayette, Indiana - home of Purdue University - and Vancouver, B.C. Some estimates suggest as many as 200,000 women across the globe participated. Some women posted pictures of their breasts on Twitter; some on Facebook. McCreight, who describes herself on her blog as “a liberal, geeky, nerdy, scientific, perverted atheist feminist trapped in Indiana” scoffed at any suggestion that today’s protest might be responsible for any of the earthquakes worldwide. She writes the earthquake in Taiwan was statistically too insignificant to count. “If we get many of a similar magnitude in the next 24 hours, then we might start worshipping the power of immodesty,” she wrote on her blog unless of she perishes in a “tank-top induced apocalypse.” Source

Muslims defending Christians?!?! Who woulda thunk it? I'm perpetually amazed by how Atheist unite the most implacable foes. Which makes me think that Atheist may hold the key to world peace.

Originally posted by Jacphar: Gambaleel? Sabuurad iyo jeeso maxaa looga reebay. Probably because Mohammed (pbuh) said "Bells are the musical instruments of the Shaytaan." He didn't say anything about blackboards. Don't know about Chess. Thus, the whole prohibition on bells is Islamically sound. There are no religious arguments against this ban. Al-Shabaab are merely obeying the commands and examples of the prophet of Islam.

Why is this even remotely shocking? Wherever Sharia visits, barbarism of this kind isn't that far behind. This is what you get when you opt for Sharia and the nutters behind it. Whether it is Saudi Arabia or Iran or Jihadi wannabes like Talibans, Alshabaab or those in South East Asia. It is always the same: draconian and barbaric punishments like torturing people to death (stoning), beheadings, hangings, amputations, literal witch-hunting etc. Let this be cautionary tale for the misguided few who still have faint hopes for Sharia Utopia. Even Sharia based movements that start out as promising (like Iranian revolution) ultimately degenerate into Dystopian nightmares. Sharia can not work. It has never worked in all of Islam's history.

Originally posted by Sherban Shabeel: So why is Shabaab better than AMISOM if they shell civilian areas too? Because Alshaab are Muslims and AMISOM are supposedly Kufars. It is OK for Muslims to kill other Muslims but apparently not Kufars. As much as I and other Kufars may disagree with this sentiment and deem it hypocritical, I must concede that it is at least consistent with history. More Muslims have been killed by other Muslims in the past 100 years than by all Kufars combined. As soon as Mohammed died the swords came out and Muslim on Muslim violence has become the pattern of Islamic history. Nothing has really changed. Don't hold your breath for "peace loving" Muslims to stand up against violence by their own coreligionists.

You guys are missing the point. They're congregating in Melbourne to witness the Miracle of the Atheist Watermelon.

I feel a bit antsy with Turnbull in goal. He's marginally better than Hilario which says a lot. That said, we'll trash Inter.

The unelected and therefore unaccountable should never be entrusted to solve anyone's problems. Who gave these Shiikhs/Imaams the authority to issue fatwas anyways?

Originally posted by Kulmiye: just put morality and ethics aside, and explain what makes okay for someone to judge another and mistreat them just for the sake of their skin, or gender? How can we put morality and ethics aside when discussing racism and bigotry? If by "mistreat" you mean telling black Americans to sit at the back of the bus, then it is absolutely moral issue. Anyways, I've answered your question already when I wrote: "Racism violates shared community interests in peace, freedom and justice. Therefore, it is morally wrong. Racism and bigotry is also irrational as people's views are based on prejudice, ignorance and not on reason. Originally posted by Kulmiye: well If you were brought up to belief that you're in fact superior to someone because of your race, and gender- thn you will continued to teach and instill that perception to someone else as an ideology, and that creates a handful of racist heads. This is why reason and evidence (facts) are always the best tools against bigots and ignorant people. On what account is one person superior to another? People should always question received wisdom.

Originally posted by Khayr: So one can conclude, that 20yrs from now, society can dictate to have racism again (justifications - joblessness, majority rules etc.) There is no reason to make predictions 20 years from now. It is already happening. There's plenty of racism and bigotry around today. Morals and ethics are arrived at exactly how I described above. But the moral and ethical values that any society creates is only as good as the reasoning and assumptions employed. If their reasoning is poor and assumptions are false, then their morals and ethics will be less than ideal. It is not a coincidence open and democratic countries have far superior morals and ethics than closed and totalitarian countries. In open and democratic countries people are "factually" informed and reach moral conclusions after much consultations. The moral of the story is: we don't need religion to teach us morals, and all morals are man-made even those that claim divine providence.

Originally posted by Benson and Hedges: bigotry is subjective. you probably consider all those who disagree with you as bigots. They probably see you as the same. lets be practical here and not ascribe offensives words to people. Why are you taking this so personally? Xenophobia is morally repugnant and justifying it, as you seem to have, on the policies of the BBC is even more odious. I don't know what you stand for but I for don't share such sentiments. If you don't agree with what the BBC is doing, take it up with them. Originally posted by Benson and Hedges: p.s - i am really disappointed with your arrogance. like so many people before you, who feel they have unlocked the secrets of life - using their logical and rational enquire. you strike me an arrogant christopher hitchens, very arrogant to the extent you have become ignorant. respect peoples opinion and treat them with humility and dignity. That is what the ignorant always say. They mistake intelligence and knowledge for arrogance. It is not arrogant to know more nor is it arrogant to stand up against xenophobia and bigotry. It's an honor to be grouped with Christopher Hitchens, he's one of my heroes.