Contact us

If you wish to contact us please email at:


6 thoughts on “Contact us

  1. “Reaching Out To The Left”

    What a strange title considering the contents of the article. “In the West” we don’t “reach out” and them try to slap the person(s) to whom we are reaching out to. But then your article is obviously only intended for sympathetic Muslims.

  2. which article?

    there are limits to disagreement, and I don’t believe I have breached any of them in my articles. still, if I have, then show me I will review my words again.

  3. Your article on homosexuality presents the typical slippery slope to unhindered sexual depravity. Slippery slopes are called logical fallacies for a reason.

    You compare homosexuality with incest and argue that there is no reason to forbid incest if homosexuality is allowed. This makes no sense on any level as homosexuality is an orientation while incest is a specific type of sexual behaviour. Intolerance toward incestious relationships is not depriving an entire group of people of their entire sexual life and orientation. Incestious people are not programmed to be attracted to their siblings or relatives: they just happen to have related person in their life that they find attractive. Depriving a person of a relationship with a specific attraction is not wrong if its justified. We are often attracted to people and denied the chance to express it: this is only life. People with incestious relationship can go on and express their sexuality in other ways with other unrelated persons that they will also find attractive.

    Homosexuals on the other hand are only attracted to their own gender: thus to deprive them of same sex relationships amounts to a complete deprivation of their human sexuality. It is flippant pseudointellectual garbage to compare incest and homosexuality: they are behaviours that are fundamentally different and as issues they are not even remotely comparable in scale or nature. The vast majority of incestious relationships are rape and abuse: A sexual relationship between a daughter and a father, for example, is invariably rape, while homosexuals and bisexuals amount to about 5-10 % of the population, usually willingly engaged in the lifestyle with consenting adults.

    Additionally, homosexual relationships do not have a third party that is affected in a potentially disastrous way. There is a great risk that incestious relationships will produce offspring; children with potentially life threating and enormously debilitating conditions. Homosexual relationships are harmless as they produce no such offspring. Furthermore, homosexual couples are great as potential child adopters; since taking in and raising abandoned children presents a way for them to leave a legacy behind should they entirely avoid sexual reproduction. Even if you think that homosexual couples are not the ideal parents for children: they’re still better than nothing as there’s always going to be more children without parents than families willing to adopt. Thus, from a child welfare perspective (which is important in composing secular policy) incestious relationships are extremely destructive, while homosexual relationships and same sex couples could be conducive to child welfare.


    Also, I wished to touch upon your misguided views on the origins of secular liberalism. It is true that the depravity of the catholic despotism spurred reformist movements. But this wasn’t the origin of secularism. On the contrary, the reformist movements, especially the early kind, could be compared to modern day salafi groups: often extremely literalist, intelorant and violent. The resulting conflict between the catholic and reformist groups lead to the 30 year war that destroyed about half of the population of Germany. Secularism gained support because people finally got tired of religious wars: the mass trauma of the 30 years war and other conflicts is definitely an important element. I think the current conflict in Syria is much like the 30 year war: it will spread into Iraq and foreign powers will be involved. And it will destroy the lives of countless thousands. And in the end, people will be tired of religious conflict, tired of charlatans and mouth-foaming salafi fanatics ruining their lives. Ideally, the conflict will lead to a true Arab secular liberal tradition.

    • hello and thanks for commenting.
      may I ask that you read the article again?

      if you do you will see that the same logic of people engaging in some forms of incest having no choice is applied by scientists to incestuous relationship between certain adult relationships too. it is mentioned in the article.

      incest between father and daughter is also not always rape. again it was not only discussed by myself but also an article i quoted.

      by “slippery slope” i also meant the logical fallacy of subjective approval of sexual practices; that something is all right if we find out that they are genetically inclined towards it. THIS is the main issue as it is NOT all right if someone is a necrophile, pedophile, engages in bestiality or indeed homosexuality just because they are “genetically predisposed”. this is what i have argued that this is not a test to gauge right or wrong as it is subjective, rather such diseases have to be fought not given in to.

      look at this for example:
      they are not saying that this is all right if such a person rapes a child yet they are walking down the samel slope when they suggest it is also an orientation. in other words, as per the quintessential atheist fallacy, if some spends their lives raping children and avoids the authorities, while believing they are justified since they are “predisposed” then it is all right. the law might not think so but when someone is dead what can they do? because as per atheists there is no life after death.
      this isn’t restricted only to atheists. whosoever does not believe in life after death and accountability is bound to be exposed to the same madness.

      if you scroll down my blog you will find an article on bestiality being approved by law in some european countries.

      regarding secularism: i state that it is a result of violent oppressive policies of the church over the centuries. i did not talk about origin or even a particular time frame. as for violent wars, the atheist french revolution, the atheist soviet union, the atheist tamil tigers do not give atheism much credibility for peace actually. we argue that peace can only be found in the world when Islam can dominate and keep a check on secular and liberal extremist countries. without this check two world wars and countless european wars plagued the planet hardly any of them being on religious grounds.
      syria is what we call as cleaning out our own closet.


      • Sexual relationships between daughters and fathers are most certainly rape: how could such a relationship form naturally without an manipulative father abusing his power over his children. Such affairs cannot be considered consensual in any rational analysis due to the sheer power that a parent has over his or her children. And futhermore, the debate is not really all that relevant since the vast majority of incest cases are unambiguous rape.

        Incest, as I said, is not comparable to homosexuality since its not a sexual orientation.

        “by “slippery slope” i also meant the logical fallacy of subjective approval of sexual practices; that something is all right if we find out that they are genetically inclined towards it. THIS is the main issue as it is NOT all right if someone is a necrophile, pedophile, engages in bestiality or indeed homosexuality just because they are “genetically predisposed”. this is what i have argued that this is not a test to gauge right or wrong as it is subjective, rather such diseases have to be fought not given in to. ”

        This is a nonsense arguement. Zoophilia is obviously animal abuse, and furthermore animals cannot consent to sexual approaches, just as a dead man can’t, and a child is not fully developed and competent enough to consent. None of these sexual behaviours fall under the “two consenting (living human) adults” injunction, which is at the heart of the liberal view on human sexual affairs.

        Pedophilia might be a sexual orientation ( i doubt it): but since children cannot consent due to their minority, the matter is not relevant. Period. There is no potential for a slippery slope here since I cannot see any ambiguity in this matter from a secular perspective: Sandusky was a rapist. The end.

        “if you scroll down my blog you will find an article on bestiality being approved by law in some european countries. ”

        Actually not really. I know in Europe, cases of zoophilia have been persecuted under animal abuse, so goat fondling (ahem) is not entirely legal. The reason why there is hesitency to make zoophilia a felony is because states prefer to treat it as a mental problem. “Beastiality” is practically legal in many places (often not very liberal places, like in Texas) but we have yet to see the collapse of civilization, which actually brings us to the really relevant point: these niche sexual dispositions (like zoophilia and necrophilia) are so rare that they’re not really relevant.

        The first world war was fought between countries that were not even secular: they didn’t even pretend to be. Both sides fought for God and Country, slaughtering fellow Christians. Before World War 1, people used to talk of Christendom much like we today speak of the Muslim world. After WW1, no one spoke of Christendom as a cultural entity any more.

        World War 2 wasn’t fought by secular countries either. The Japanese Empire was lead by an actual god (the emperor). A living, breathing demi-god who commanded the loyalty millions of zealous, religious Japanese soldiers. And their war was holy. The European Fascists were largely Christian and often very religious. They also spoke of a holy war against the atheistic bolshevism.
        Even the nazi death camp guards went to pray in church, often conventiently placed next to their camp. Totalitarian communism isn’t secularism either since a truly secular state doesn’t force atheism upon the religious.

        Some of the worst, most destructive European wars like the 30 years war were fought for religious reasons or by religious regimes. The reality is that only in the 20th century we see violent non-religious regimes because before that the zealots had the monopoly on violence. Islam is just as violent as any other religion: Tamerlane slaughtered millions on religious grounds (his own islamic sect is unknown since he slaughtered sunnis for shia reasons and shias for sunni reasons).

        The reason why the modern european governments have been so unprecedentedly destructive is simply because they have unprecedented weapons and technology. If Muslim regimes had the same weapons, they would have been just as destructive.

        The same industry and technology that destroyed millions, also lifted multiple billions of people from poverty and created a level of wealth and well being unprecedented in human history. The industrial revolution occured in Europe and not in the Muslim world because Islam never provided the institutional foundation for industrial growth, which is why the Muslim world is so poor.

        • you are confused about what does or does not define a ‘legal’ sxual relationship that is why you are mentioning consenting partners. an atheist extremist said while discussing this article that animals seem to enjoy it and it is legal so thats fine. too much subjectivity? i think so yes.

          I think instead of arguing here it would be better for you to actually go and do what i advised you initially: read this article again and my article on bestiality.

          WWII was a religious war? please give me a break. just because someone is “enrolled” in a religion and not an open atheist does not mean their life is governed by religion. you are in complete denial mode. it is obstructive to a discussion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s