your logo looks really great.
When you changed your site to this new server your logo wasn´t there right away.
I was rather disappointed and thought, oh no, why did he change it, it looked so much better before?
But then it came back.

It´s so good to find a blog written from a religious point of view, where Islam and Christianity are seen as partners for a world, where human dignity is respected, a world which strives for justice and peace.
For there cannot be peace without justice.
I truly believe, that both Christianity and Islam as universal and egalitarian religions are of all philosphies best equipped to reach for the peace most of humanity want to have.
We do have theological differences but at the same time we have far more in common.
What I admire most in Islam is the law against usary or interest-taking, you call it riba, I think.
I read about it the first time in the Asian Times online and the writer, a non-Muslim, commented that the Islamic banking system was so progressive, we Westerners should learn from it instead of constantly denouncing Islam as backwards.
I pray, that one day we Christians will learn.

vper1 deserves all the credit - he made it.

At first, the site wasn't active, even though it was online. But, after a few downtimes at blogger, I couldn't wait any longer. So, I asked Akber and vper1 to help me get this one in shape.

Overall, I am very pleased with the new site. Its best feature, by far, is the categories, followed by the fact that new comments show up in the side bar, and posts are identified by number, not name.

And, btw, I'm a she.

It's not always pleasant or exciting - we girls often get the short end of the stick -

But, all in all, we're about even with men.

Finally, I agree that Islam and Christianity have a lot in common with eachother, despite some differences. But, Jews also have a lot in common with us.

The problem is these Zionists, who call themselves Jews, trample all over their good name.

In the end, it doesn't matter what you call yourself - it's how you conduct yourself with others.

Peace. 

Hmmm ever read the book of Proverbs in the old testament? It kinda says don't ever borrow money ;)

I agree, the West is exceedingly unfair against Islam, but in some areas I won't ever back down, and one of those areas is womens rights. I don't care who your God is or what your book says, equal rights.

-Jebus

so, give it up.

Go, learn something about Islam from somewhere other than zionized media, and then contribute intelligently.

How old are you, anyway? Are you a guy?

So you're stating that women are not in the slightest discriminated against in predominately Muslim countries?

-Jebus

in Islamic countries by a few ignoramouses than they are discriminated against and abused in non-Muslim countries.

In fact, I would dare say that women in non-Muslim countries get the short end of the stick - commodified, used, and abused on a regular basis.

Especially the choice of Presidents, though I must admit that first time I saw it I thought Washington was on the far right. Jackson was really the only one of them that succeeded in driving the snakes from the temple and lived thru it. Perhaps he could be scooted over to the left a bit to be more easily identified?

Qrswave, you shock me with your ignorance! How about NOT BEING ABLE TO DRIVE A CAR IN SAUDI ARABIA? Women in Kuwait got the right to hold office in 2005. In 1999 they couldn't even vote. I applaud them hugely for these changes! But it doesn't stop there, its a continual process in all countries.

Here is a good link that speaks about how the Quaran is for womens rights not against it, and how things need to change:

http://www.cair-net.orgwww.islamfortoday.com/womensrights2.htm

This site is one that disproves that the Shah had womens rights, but also notes that:

"Consequently a very complex and sophisticated system of inclusion and exclusion were developed. Meanwhile two types of women activism were developed"

http://women4peace.org/women-rights.html

A woman prostitute being sentenced to death by stoning for adultery:

http://www.amnesty.org.au/Act_now/action_centre/adp/iran_seven_more_wome...

Here is an enormous resource of links and to various articles by other human rights groups:

http://www.wfafi.org/

I could list books and papers as well if you want, but I don't have time to address your complete ignorance on the subject.

Is Iran totally backwards? No, but there are issues that need addressing. The seem to be more poignant than those in alot of western nations, thats all i'm saying. Is there discrimination in the west? Of course. Has there been a woman president in the U.S.? Nope...though Hillary might change that, but I seriously doubt that. Can you imagine a woman running the country of Iran? I think thats extremely laughable, yet its not so for many western nations such as Canada, Britain, and Germany. Everyone has to work on womens rights, all i'm saying is that some peoples interpretation of the Quaran and Sharia Law have been used as tools to discriminate against women in the Muslim world. In the west, different tools are used, but its not nearly as bad.

-Jebus

that it's not even funny.

Why would I want to drive if someone drove for me? I couldn't care less if I drive.

There are more important things in life than "driving" (which apparently you would like acknowledged as a bedrock human right).

First and foremost on my list, and on others' who consider human rights paramount, are dignity and self-respect, neither of which is preserved for the vast majority of poor women in the "West" (another ignorant characterization since the world is round, hence the relevant question must be 'West of what?')

Jebus, though you didn't answer my question, I give you no more than 30 years - closer to 25.

"Why would I want to drive if someone drove for me? I couldn't care less if I drive."

That is so completely ridiculous. It essentially means that if you're a single mother, you can't get anywhere without a taxi, or a friend to drive you. Its not about whether you want to or not, its that you're not able to choose is the problem. Driving isn't a basic human right, but its representative of larger issues.

The entire concept of the "religous police" in the Kingdom is seemingly crazy. I know i'm being totally ethnocentric and possibly arrogant, but a police service that specifically enforces religous laws seems....not good? I can't even think of words to describe it. But then again they don't share my values.

My definition of human rights is the right to choose. If you're given the choice to pursue whatever you desire in life, you can choose a road of dignity and self-respect. You can choose to be someone who sleeps around, or someone who has integrity. Taking away that choice makes the entire concept of "sin" unavaliable.

You don't address any of my concerns on human rights other than saying dignity and self respect are paramount. I suggest you read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Iran-Awakening-Memoir-Revolution-Hope/dp/140006470...

It is a very detailed account of how one woman was unable to achieve dignity. Let me clarify my position though; this is NOT a muslim issue. Women's rights are NOT religion based. They are universal, and occasionally religion is a tool used for opression as an excuse. I feel that alot of times the Quran and Sharia Law are used in such a fashion just as the christian church used it to denigrate women and convince the world that women are in fact the devil because they seduce men.

As to your question:

"In fact, I would dare say that women in non-Muslim countries get the short end of the stick - commodified, used, and abused on a regular basis. "

If a woman is being abused in the "west" (we can use the term because we both agree on its psuedo-meaning) she can come to the police and get a restraining order and feel safe.

My question to you, is that if I entered various Islamic countries, would I be able to speak out in public that I didn't care very much for their Prophet? Would I be able to call him a liar and say what he did and said was untrue? Further, would I arrested for adultery, and possibly put to death? These are the issues we in the west see most often publicized and blown way out of proportion. Are they very obscure cases that are carried out by men with a deranged vision? I've read parts of the Quran (the english version, so that could be corrupt I suppose) and alot of it is just as bad as the bible when demanding people to be killed, i.e. homosexuals, adulterer's, blashphemers etc. I'm not sure how you spin that into rational thought, unless the translations are wrong?

Lastly, why would it matter if I was a woman? How does this effect the discussion at all?

-Jebus

Give me a break. Don't muddle the waters here. You know on juicy sites posts are edited. Afterall this is war, but it's alright. I am glad zionist agents can post here. It just makes the case. If it wasn't for this illegal war, I would still be, "in my slumber". PUSH PUSH PUSH and squeeze every dime and ounce of humanity and you will help wake others as well.

... just a couple points:

Erlenda, I agree that the nonusury based Islamic monetary system is progressive, actualy, way better than the system we have nowadays which drives whole countries into debt slavery. But it's not being applied anywhere I know today (except for limited exceptions). There are no 'Islamic' countries in the full sense of the word (I don't know about Iran), just Muslim countries with different sorts of leadership.
Also, Biblical Christianity is also against usury, and for a long time Usury was not allowed in Christian Europe, but secularization changed that.

As to the discussion between Jebus and QRSwave. First: Jebus, you're right. Muslim countries generally have very bad women's rights situations, as well as very bad human rights, injustice, dictatorships, oppression, etc, generally. We are truly backward, and what I think QRS was arguing was that it's not Islam per se which causes this, but backwardness of Muslims.

Backwards? Well, you mention Kuwaiti women only got to vote in 2005. European women started voting in the late 1800s/early 1900s. Islam gave women the right to vote 1400 years ago. So off coarse many Muslims are backwards when it comes to applying their religion. Countries like Saudi and Kuwait can claim to be Islamic all they want, the truth is they are as far away from Islam as secular Muslim countries, but do Islam a great disservice when they justify tribal/cultural attitudes with Islamic dress.

A couple of issues.

1. The whole idea that women are oppressed in Islamic countries becuase they are not allowed the same 'freedoms' as in the west needs de-constructing.

i)We need to look at who is making this claim?

ii) What assumptions are they making?

iii) What agenda do they have and what are their goals?

And why is what this person says has got any truth.

We find that the people making these claims generally are not concerned about women at all, they just want a world where both women and men need to work, to pay their debts to the banks.

We find they do not want strong families where resistance to their banking system can develop.

We find that they prefer secular states because they are easier to manipulate and control than religious ones. Given all this we know that the Zionists are going to attack a alternative to their system by any means necessary, they will even exagerate and make false claims if it means they can gain dominance and disarm their enemy.

If women are abused, it is also very common in the west, women have to join the labour market (they are told this is freedom). Both partners have to work just so they can have a roof over their heads and a home (agains supposedly freedom).

This pressure causes families to breakup and for people to search for a outlet, they consume alcohol or drugs, they gamble and cases of domestic violence increase. Divorces and more people living alone.

Women are forced to sell their beauty, have plastic surgery, drape themselves on cars, just so they can survive...all this is freedom they are told.

Adultery is seen as a 'natural'....funny how so many Zionists and Jews promote it, makes one wonder what they have to gain from it?

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a good indicator of what is required.

The assumption held is that they are in a position to tell others that their standards are not only universal and best, but others must simply comply. This assumption is also a abstraction...it ignores the financial and political economic context of the societies they critique.

Islam gives women dignity, and it prevents people from becoming enslaved to the bankers.

http://www.granadamosque.com/resources/articles/prophetssociety.html

The poster roo is spamming with commentless responses such as here and here that merely link to advertising sites.

I wish this idiot would give up already - he or she is relentless.

Whoever you are - Get a life, already!!!

Go hang out with your zionist friends.

---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.

Qrswave, you shock me with your ignorance! How about NOT BEING ABLE TO DRIVE A CAR IN SAUDI ARABIA? Women in Kuwait got the right to hold office in 2005. In 1999 they couldn't even vote. I applaud them hugely for these changes! But it doesn't stop there, its a continual process in all countries.

=Saudi regime is nus product of the West and by far the best friend of the West especially with Bushshit regime. So maybe we should put that question to those hypocrites in White House whose police is to bomb anyone who tries to change that slimy hijackers of Islam. Was not 911 Saudi export to the US for 2001. Regime change, sanctions, cancellation of diplomatic relations with Saudis?!!! No, didn't think so. So the freedom loving West bombs Iraq and Afghanistan for the crimes committed by the son of the Bush's best business partner in Laden dynasty. The attacks and invasion of Afghanistan really improved women's rights outhere, not. Taliban was so bad and oppressive especially toward women, not. See this post.
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/2412
By the way driving is not forbidden neither for men nor woman with condition that they actually know how to drive.

Here is a good link that speaks about how the Qur'an is for womens rights not against it, and how things need to change:

http://www.cair-net.org www.islamfortoday.com/womensrights2.htm

This site is one that disproves that the Shah had womens rights, but also notes that:

"Consequently a very complex and sophisticated system of inclusion and exclusion were developed. Meanwhile two types of women activism were developed"

http://women4peace.org/women-rights.html

A woman prostitute being sentenced to death by stoning for adultery:

http://www.amnesty.org.au/Act_now/action_centre/adp/iran_seven_more_wome...

Here is an enormous resource of links and to various articles by other human rights groups:

http://www.wfafi.org/

I could list books and papers as well if you want, but I don't have time to address your complete ignorance on the subject.

=Qur'an is clear on what rights are given to both man and women and problem is not with Qur'an but with man and women who fail to implement it. If you mean to refer to Shari'ah with Shah its quite different in spelling and meaning as well. But thats not an issue here. Is there male chauvinism among Muslims. Yes, because over 90% of male Muslims are suffering fear of woman being over them. Its much deeper problem which is related to their inability to adapt to ever changing world that forces us to face our fears. This problem is evident in east as much as in the west. We guys are having hard times adjusting to this new age phenomena where woman is showing herself to be more flexible than man a better survivor. I must admit that the disrespect and challenges that woman go through to achieve normal status in this world is just to heavy for any man. Man is looking at woman and wondering how the hell she can take all that crap and still push on with her life. I am saddened to see Muslim women insulted and discriminated in the west because of their religious expression in dressing code. Now we have people trying to liberate Muslim women in Muslim countries from abusive regimes and in the same time we scorned and insult them in so called free western countries for their choice to dress according to their belief. We are not being just in our claims. Woman in Afghanistan have been portrayed as forced to wear burqas and today under western rule they still in huge majority wear burqas or some other type of veil. So now we see westerners bulding schools to educate Afghani women that its is backward to dress in such manner and Taliban targets such school and may I say rightly so for those schools are not built to help Afghani women to have better lives as Muslims but to lose their modesty and work in hand with Zionist aim of moral destruction of Muslim society. Under western rule opium growing is again in full operation. Freedom or freedoom, what do you think Jebus?!

Is Iran totally backwards? No, but there are issues that need addressing. The seem to be more poignant than those in alot of western nations, thats all i'm saying. Is there discrimination in the west? Of course. Has there been a woman president in the U.S.? Nope...though Hillary might change that, but I seriously doubt that. Can you imagine a woman running the country of Iran? I think thats extremely laughable, yet its not so for many western nations such as Canada, Britain, and Germany. Everyone has to work on womens rights, all i'm saying is that some peoples interpretation of the Quaran and Sharia Law have been used as tools to discriminate against women in the Muslim world. In the west, different tools are used, but its not nearly as bad.
-Jebus

=I think you have been misled by the sources that you have been researching this topic from or perhaps you don't see the big picture behind this problem. One of those link you cited is talking about power and control. If you really believe that women and man are completely equal than I must disagree with you. They are not and they have not been charged with same duties by the God and neither by the secular law. If you think that Hillary would be a change for better in women's world I must say that you don't know politics well enough. Women is by nature more sensitive and vulnerable creature and leading positions like presidents and such is quite cruel and harsh job to hold. I know that women would like to see their gender in leading roles but trust me you would regret it soon enough. Don't forget that female roles is by nature more related to caring about children and family while man are charged with providing for whole family. Man can't bear children and the role of mother is the greatest service rendered to the mankind in this world. No president and no leader can give to mankind what mother gives it, a new life. Mother is foundation of the mankind and its role is more prestigious and honorable than any other role in this world. Women of our age have forgotten that fact and man man even more thus so much misunderstanding in our societies. Single mothers are supposed to be cared for either by their family or state with deepest respect and love so that they can raise their children as healthy individuals who will love their people and become an asset to their society. Satan is equal enemy to man and woman and neither of them should misuse their rights when dealing with each other. Lack of religious morality creates suspicion in Saudi man and he forbids his wife to drive car. Its either him who is not moral so he thinks his wife is like him or she is not moral and he fears her betrayal. End of it all is harder time for devil to bring their marriage to an end. Driving is good as long as its not on the Highway to Hell.

Jebus-
That is so completely ridiculous. It essentially means that if you're a single mother, you can't get anywhere without a taxi, or a friend to drive you. Its not about whether you want to or not, its that you're not able to choose is the problem. Driving isn't a basic human right, but its representative of larger issues.

=Yes larger issues are at stake. Lets take a look at topic of choice. How many things are we free to actually chose. Driving is personal choice I agree with you. Single mothers are entitled to drive because they are single. Married woman is entitled to drive as long as this is not objectionable by her husband for we will agree that marriage is more important than cruising in Chevy. This should not be matter for government to decide on but for married couples. Choice is funny thing, too little of it brings feeling of oppression and to much of it opens Pandora's box. How? Lets say you or me or anyone else does not accept to agree on our choice of being moral on the basis of God's Revelations. We think that pedophilia is immoral and evil because we chose to agree with God on this issue but a pedophile can claim that he has right to chose his way of sexual satisfaction and that we are usurping his right to chose. Now imagine that God says certain thing about male and female roles in life and we don't agree with Him. In the same way that majority of people are still imposing their choice through religious and secular regimes on minority who disagrees, and we look upon as criminals, God is imposing His definition or choice of good and bad. So who has the ruling power will decide what is good and what is bad. Almighty is obviously supreme Ruler and we will be judged in His court of Justice. Whether you agree or disagree with His criteria is irrelevant because He will enforce His Law on you and me in the same way it is enforced by the world governments. Thats why in some things we have choice and some we don't but main difference between God and human rulers is that God will not treat you with injustice and prejudice as human rulers often do.

The entire concept of the "religous police" in the Kingdom is seemingly crazy. I know i'm being totally ethnocentric and possibly arrogant, but a police service that specifically enforces religous laws seems....not good? I can't even think of words to describe it. But then again they don't share my values.

My definition of human rights is the right to choose. If you're given the choice to pursue whatever you desire in life, you can choose a road of dignity and self-respect. You can choose to be someone who sleeps around, or someone who has integrity. Taking away that choice makes the entire concept of "sin" unavaliable.

=Yep choice again, do you really think that sin should be available while we are struggling even to remember God once a day or a week. Most of time in our daily life we are in sin even if we never leave our homes. Problem with us today is that we have such low standards and expectations from ourself and others that we need religious police to prevent us from sinning publicly. And you are complaining about women's rights, what rights?! Right to sin and help destroy your society?! You have personal insight in to the Saudi Kingdom but I have been her and I know what are you talking about. That country has been raped by colonial bastards who have depraved Muslims in that country from spiritual blessing that is inherent in Islam. That regime is most similar to the Jewish regime that stood against Jesus and sought his demise. Regime completely oriented toward worldly power and materialistic pleasures. People without spirituality are feeling oppressed by Islamic law and that is why they have religious police to enforce it. But that is not what God wants. God wants obedience out of love and loyalty and not out of the hypocritical fear that is often mistaken for radicalism.

You don't address any of my concerns on human rights other than saying dignity and self respect are paramount. I suggest you read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Iran-Awakening-Memoir-Revolution-Hope/dp/140006470...

It is a very detailed account of how one woman was unable to achieve dignity. Let me clarify my position though; this is NOT a muslim issue. Women's rights are NOT religion based. They are universal, and occasionally religion is a tool used for opression as an excuse. I feel that alot of times the Quran and Sharia Law are used in such a fashion just as the christian church used it to denigrate women and convince the world that women are in fact the devil because they seduce men.

=Now you see that man and woman are not same and now you can see why Prophet of Islam said that man MUST treat their women with kindness and love because God demands that from them as their protectors. Zionist devils worked so hard to cheat women into independence and zio-feminism so that the woman would find herself without protector. Man and woman need regular sexual satisfaction and they can achieve it legally or illegally, that is morally or immorally. Independent woman in west can have her freedom but she still needs sexual partner so in order to preserve her freedom and independence she will indulge in immoral relation and help spread moral decay that will effect all women. Married women will suffer because of their husband's fear that they too will abuse their freedom if given chance and unmarried women will suffer from indecent proposals by man who will assume that they are one of those who are "free". It is a no win situation and no law can change this sickness that has befallen mankind. We must change from within by reverting to our Origin and regaining our souls from the clutches of the devils both among men and Jinn.

As to your question:

"In fact, I would dare say that women in non-Muslim countries get the short end of the stick - commodified, used, and abused on a regular basis. "

If a woman is being abused in the "west" (we can use the term because we both agree on its psuedo-meaning) she can come to the police and get a restraining order and feel safe.

=Do you really think that woman abused in the east is so depraved of the protection. I am Muslim and I am for Shariah but woe to him who would dare to abuse my daughter or sister. Do you think that Muslims forget about their daughters and sisters when they get married. I don't need police to protect my daughter from possible abuse. Police protection is for those "free" women who are selling their morality for American Dream. This is not phenomena of the Islamic very sociable past but rather of the recent alienation between people due to the addictive allegiance to TV and other media outlets. Again solution to the women's right is not in our laws but in our souls. But as we persistently refuse to hearken to God's guidance so laws fail to hear women's cries. This is collective punishment that men and women have brought upon themselves.

My question to you, is that if I entered various Islamic countries, would I be able to speak out in public that I didn't care very much for their Prophet? Would I be able to call him a liar and say what he did and said was untrue? Further, would I arrested for adultery, and possibly put to death? These are the issues we in the west see most often publicized and blown way out of proportion. Are they very obscure cases that are carried out by men with a deranged vision? I've read parts of the Quran (the english version, so that could be corrupt I suppose) and alot of it is just as bad as the bible when demanding people to be killed, i.e. homosexuals, adulterer's, blashphemers etc. I'm not sure how you spin that into rational thought, unless the translations are wrong?

No you would not for I believe that ordinary people would harm you if you insulted their Prophet in public and rightly so as their majority choice is that the Prophet is good and those who oppose him are bad. If you commit adultery in front of four witnesses and their record is clean you might get prosecuted for that crime if brought in court of justice. If you are married you will be executed and if you are not married you will be whipped. Again that is the choice you took and choice of majority enforced on you so don't do foolish things and cause your own demise. I mean lets be real all of this complaints on Muslim world is blown out of proportions and cases of Muslim death convictions are nowhere near of those found in West. Complaints that non muslims have with Muslims is about definition of good and bad. Muslims made their choice by submitting their own judgment of right and wrong to God's criteria and it would be foolish of them to apologies or to appease anyone regarding that choice because its as valid if not more as the choice of non muslims who might disagree with them.

"Let there be Light!"

To be honest, I joined this site several days ago to add a comment to clarify the understanding of the Blackwater "license" status. However, I am beginning to wonder if this site is real or if it is a front (or simply a joke against wannabe dissidents).

I am a libertarian (small 'L'), so many of the themes are familiar, but once I click on a thread to read it, this is where the familiarity ends. To be honest, I am shocked at the level of contradiction on this site.

For example: The banner of this site.

I will completely ignore the "In God We Trust" motto and its implications for a secular state. The contradiction comes with the declaration that those depicted are "freedom fighters who gave their lives for our independence and Jackson, Lincoln, and Kennedy, each of whom, despite tremendous opposition, tried to win back our freedom from private interests." What alternate reality are you referring to?

It is true that Andrew Jackson used his veto to destroy the central bank, but he also ignored a Supreme Court ruling and allowed the genocide known as the "Trail of Tears" to occur. Which weighs more heavily on your conscience? Should he be celebrated without qualification?

As for Abraham Lincoln, few presidents have shown more disregard for the Constitution. Lincoln was a racist. Lincoln did his best to subvert the Constitution, ultimately suspending it. Lincoln jailed his political opponents. Lincoln was owned and directed by the northern industrial complex; the same would later become the infamous military industrial complex. Lincoln waged aggressive warfare and committed what is now defined as genocide against a culture. Lincoln continued the unconstitutional Federalist traditions of the terrible Marshall court. It was Lincoln's government that created Federal citizens. He was a tyrant.

Need more contradiction? Andrew and Lincoln were polar opposites on the issues of central banking, monetary policy, and protective tariffs. To mention them as champions of the same cause is bizarre.
[ http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo30.html ]

Why John Kennedy has been thrown into the basket I can only guess. Possibly, it was his stance on a tangibly based currency. I am sure that it was not his stance on the subversion of elections, the use of assassination as a political tool, the expansion of the use of so-called "black-ops," or the waging of aggressive warfare.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe there is a positive thread connecting these "patriots" that makes their tyrannies pale in comparison. Does the OP care to elaborate? Also, I am happy to support any of my claims with references if need be.

I won't (can't) deny your complaints about these people because I don't know enough about them.

But, I can say that they appear to have taken concrete steps against the international banking elements who continue until today to enslave our planet and drive our wars.

Were they saints or saviors - of course not.

Did they have the right answers - no.

But, they are examples of American leaders who had the courage and integrity to stand up to the bastards who enslave us.

If nothing else, these men recognized the source of their power and made an effort to neutralize it.

Welcome to the site. I hope you stick around.

---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.

none of us is free from error and if all of us investigated our past we would not end up with much better record than those presidents. They did try to make some crucial positive changes in USA monetary politics but what were their motives is as speculative as anything else. We should take good from people and reject their evil and thus progressively accumulate collective understanding of our nemesis and appropriate response to it.

"Let there be Light!"