Atheism is not a crime!

There are 13 countries in the world that punish atheism, blasphemy and apostasy with death penalty. There are also other countries that atheists, blasphemer and apostates are prosecuted and severely discriminated against. Please share and raise awareness. This needs to stop.

From Ex-muslim Council:

Egyptian Atheist and Youtube Vlogger Sherif Gaber has disappeared and is most likely arrested when trying to leave the country on Wednesday 2nd May. He sent a message to friends telling them he was stopped and taken to an interrogation room at Cairo airport and his passport confiscated. No one has heard from him since. The last message from Sherif on Wednesday 2nd May at 11:08 am Cairo time:

“I am suppose to be traveling to Malaysia at 12:05 Cairo Time, an hour from now. The police took me and made me wait in this room for 2 hours and I’m still waiting> they took my belongings and my passport. If I don’t update you in one hour know that I was arrested.”

We demand Gaber’s release. Atheism, Blasphemy, Apostasy are not crimes. #FreeSherifGaber
















“Like pearls in shells”

On my last post, The Common Atheist left a comment about pedophilia in Islam and the book and movie Kite runner. It reminded me of two words in Quran. (Thank you Jim!). The two words are Qelmaan (غلمان، plural of Qolaam which means male servant) and Veldaan (ولدن، boys). Both words are synonymous in Quran and refer to teenage boys who have not gone through puberty yet. These boys are offered to special believers in heaven and they are described as beautiful like pearls in shells, well protected!!! WHAT THE FUCK! What kind of sick god would offer such a thing!? Abrahamic god.

Qelman is used only once:

Veldaan is used more than once as follows. The followings reminded me of a scene from Kite runner.

As you can see, the boys are compared to pearls in shells. The other instance of such comparison is with Huris (beautiful young virgin girls). The young virgins are also compared to “pearls in shells”.

As you can see, boys and girls sex slaves are promised to believers in heaven! They are numerous, young and virgin. They obey and don’t say anything against the believers’ will.

I feel sick and angry after writing this post. I am sorry if it makes you feel the same. I just have one question from believers. How can you read the “holy books” and still believe???

Morality of religion… NO! Thank you!

It is believed that religion is the ultimate model of morality, and whoever follows a religion is considered as a moral person within that specific religion.
Religion texts are ancient, and they reflect the values of the times when they were written”. Humans live and thrive on a corrective feedback system. We improve ourselves everyday. Thirty years ago, we used to smoke every where, now we can’t smoke even outside a restaurant in Melbourne. This is corrective feedback system. Now, do you think the values and morality of the past three milleniums have stayed exactly like how they used to be? The answer is an obvious no! You may argue that the Bible or Quran is God’s words and it is never-ending and it’s always true. In this case, I would offer you my counter-arguments with examples of both texts. As follows, the examples given are instances of social issues or behaviours which were believed to be moral or ethical, but in the modern world we consider them irrational and preposterous.
1- Slavery: Bible has numerous references to slavery. Not condemning it but basically giving instructions and guidlines as how to own slaves. For more info you can read Leviticus 25:44-46 where the guidlines of ownership are explained and Exodus 21:20-21 where how to behave with slaves is explained. Quran has the same situation. If you look at Quran 8:69, 24:32, 2:178, 16:75 and 30:50, you can see that Quran doesn’t condemn slavery, but appraise it. According to Quran, muslims are more than welcome to take war booty (women as sex slaves and men as slaves). Also, muslims can have sex with their slaves. They can also have unlimited supply of sex if they temprorarily marry them. Temporary marriages (Nikah mut’ah) are a dark side of Islam which I will discuss in another post. Also, there are numerous hadiths about slavery. Here I quote one of them: Sahih Bukhari (80:753) – “The Prophet said, ‘The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him.'”
2- Homosexuality: According to the Bible, homosexuality is punishable by death (Leviticus 20:13). Quran 7:80-84 explains how God rained stone on ‘the people of Lut’ who were the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, because of their sexual practices. As they died by rain of brimstones, islamic clerics have interpreted that as a punishment for homosexuality. Thus, the punishment is stoning!
3- Adultery: According to the Bible, adultery must be punished by death (Leviticus 20:10). In Islam too, according to Sahih al-Bukhari, v.9,book 83, Hadith 17 the blood of a Muslim can be shed if a married person commits illegal sexual intercourse. In Quran, there’s no reference to capital punishment for adultrey, however, there are lots of hadiths that affirm such punishment.
4-Deconversion: In Islam, deconversion from Islam is punishable by death. According to Sahih al-Bukhari, v.9,book 83, Hadith 17, the blood of a Muslim can be shed if one leaves Islam.
5- Wife-beating: It is clearly stated in Quran that a Muslim man must beat his wife if she is disobidient. Quran 4:34 advises that if a wife is arrogant and disobedient you must first advise her, then forsake her in bed and then strike her.
Out-of-context argument: Many believers would argue that the mentioned texts above have been misinterpreted out of context. As a linguist, who has worked decoding and understanding layers of language in morphology, semantics and pragmatics, I have to say that the texts whether in context or out of context have the same meaning. They are stand alone sentences, following the grammar rules of their written language. The texts above are not phrases or clauses, they are complete sentences. Also, by pragmatics of language, they are prefectly meaningful. So the agument of out-of-context is a total fallacy.
Morality can perfectly exist outside of religion. As it does in animals. Moral standards are social constructs that change overtime. Morality by religion is argument ad populum. Since, many people believe in it and practise it, does not make it true! People believed that the Earth was flat. Did it make it flat? No!

Veiling: God’s fetish (Part I: Evolution)

Recently women in Iran have started to publicly protest against mandatory hijab by the help of My Stealthy Freedom, a social media campaign which encourages women to stand up against the oppressive Islamic regime. Meanwhile, in the western countries, hijab has been fetishized as a symbol of power and autonomity of women. With all due respect to individuals who have freely chosen their paths, hijab is and has always been a means of oppressing women. In this series of posts, I will discuss veiling from its evolutionary roots to its modern fetishization. Happy reading!

God seems to want all women. He is omnipotent and does not require earthly ways of reproduction, but he cloisters women away. He monitors their sex lives and takes revenge against their sexual independece. In Abrahamic religions, women’s sexuality is under male jurisdiction and God requires women to submit to men.

To understand the oxymoronic behaviours of God regarding sexual repression, let’s explain it from the evolutionary point of view. Understanding our reproductive psychology clarifies everything.

Evolution is chaotic, and gruesome. The illusion of order and intelligence design has made us see all the beauties. However, evolution has required animals to take on strategies for survival, some of which we consider as immoral in today’s world. Submission of female to male is one instance.

Survival of a male gene depends on its access to a female. Protection, jealousy and the constant effort of blocking the rivals are the main reasons of sexual repression. Whether in an ape or a modern human. Veiling is one of theses strategies. As I have discussed before in “Why God is so angry?”, religions were made by alpha males to control, rule or survive. Thus, asking their women to veil to make sure that they are exclusive to them is a survival strategy! It’s worth mentioning that another example of a grotesque fuck-up of evolution is rape which I will explain later in another


“Powerful men often demand exclusivity, along with powerful non-human primates. Among these males, sexual exclusivity is of prime concern. Similarly, God’s demand for unrivaled allegiance is often framed in terms of sexual jealousy.” Hector A. Garcia, Alpha God.

Long hair, breasts and bottoms are regarded as highlights of female beauty and sign of health and fertility, thus they are instantly more attractive to men who are constantly trying to reproduce. So, an alpha male assumes that covering these parts will decrease the risk of losing his reproductive advantages. Explaining it from an evolutionary point of view makes the issue look distant and ancient. However, it happens in our modern world! I remember that some years ago, a friend of mine married a man, nice guy, but strongly muslim. My friend would never wear hijab. She always greeted us by a hug and a kiss too. After the marriage, her husband forced her to wear hijab, and stop touching However, the fetish has gove over the limits. In Saudi Arabia, in 2002, a fire broke out at a girl school in Mecca. The moral police didn’t let fire fighters to rescue schoolgirls, at the same time prevented the children to run out, because they were not covered by the traditional black veil! In Nigeria, people killed over Miss World pageant. In Iran, women are fined, sentenced to prison or lashed for not wearing hijab properly. They always wear it, but the moral police decide if it is worn appropriately or not! These are some of the top-down examples which we have access to. There are hundreds of bottom-up examples happening inside families, often include domestic violence, which we do not hear or read about!


Alpha God by Hector A. Garcia

Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

Cartoon by Mana Neyestani, retrieved from

Allegory of Cave: leaving the cave for actual truth

Imagine a cave where people have been imprisoned from birth. These prisoners are chained so that their legs and necks are fixed, forcing them to gaze at the wall in front of them and not look around at the cave, each other, or themselves. Just as we are born into a religion. We are indoctrinated in one specific religion constantly and we are not allowed to look at any other religion or ideology. In this analogy, we consider the cave as religion or a religious society which can be as small as a nuclear family or as big as a nation. The prisoners are the people who are born into the religion or religious society, and the outside world is the state of deconversion to non-religion.

Behind the prisoners in the cave is a fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway with a low wall, behind which people walk carrying objects or puppets “of men and other living things”. The people walk behind the wall so their bodies do not cast shadows for the prisoners to see, but the objects they carry do (“just as puppet showmen have screens in front of them at which they work their puppets”). The prisoners cannot see any of what is happening behind them, they are only able to see the shadows cast upon the cave wall in front of them. The sounds of the people talking echo off the walls, and the prisoners believe these sounds come from the shadows. Socrates suggests that the shadows are reality for the prisoners because they have never seen anything else; they do not realize that what they see are shadows of objects in front of a fire, much less that these objects are inspired by real things outside the cave which they do not see. Let’s go back to religion. When people believe in a religion, they consider it as the ultimate truth, fact, reality! Any type of shadow that the religion casts in front of them is their reality. They have not seen outside the religion. They have not seen or been educated in anything else but their religion. One thing which is really important to consider in the allegory of the cave is the lack of education.

Plato then supposes that one prisoner is freed. This prisoner (a believer in our case) would look around and see the fire. The light would hurt his eyes and make it difficult for him to see the objects casting the shadows. If he were told that what he is seeing is real instead of the other version of reality he sees on the wall, he would not believe it. When someone questions their religion, and is trying to walk out, it is painful! The information outside of religion is overwhelming. Yet, you won’t consider it as truth, because the reality is still the religion. Plato continues, the freed prisoner would turn away and run back to what he is accustomed to i.e. the shadows of the carried objects, religion in our case. Plato writes “… it would hurt his eyes, and he would escape by turning away to the things which he was able to look at, and these he would believe to be clearer than what was being shown to him.” Coming back to the familiar reality of religion is way easier than leaving it with the overwhelming facts questioning the reality that we have known since birth. So one would never leave the cave so easily.

Plato continues: “Suppose… that someone should drag him… by force, up the rough ascent, the steep way up, and never stop until he could drag him out into the light of the sun. Slowly, his eyes adjust to the light of the sun. First he can only see shadows. Gradually he can see the reflections of people and things in water and then later see the people and things themselves. Eventually, he is able to look at the stars and moon at night until finally he can look upon the sun itself .” Only after he can look straight at the sun “is he able to reason about it.” When the person outside of religion gets used to the harsh facts, and realizes that his shadows were not real, he looks at the bigger picture. He remembers, analyses and reflects. Then, he can distinguish the reality, no matter how harsh it looked in the begining.

Now that the man is outside of the cave/religion, he thinks that the world outside is superior “he would bless himself for the change, and pity [the other prisoners]” and would want to bring his fellow cave dwellers out of the cave and into the sunlight and show them the reality outside of religion. However, as his eye are accustomed to sunlight now, he would be blind when enters the cave. The cave would be too dark for him to see. Nothing inside the religion would make sense anymore. So, the prisoners, according to Plato, would infer from the returning man’s blindness that the journey out of the cave/religion had harmed him and that they should not undertake a similar journey. Socrates concludes that if the prisoners were able, would therefore reach out and kill anyone who attempted to drag them out of the cave.

Leaving one’s religion requires some extensive force, whether internal or external and it does not happen overnight. It’s a difficult process where one must leave their familiar reality for a new and often harsher reality. When you eventually leave religion, you come back to tell others about the actual reality and how beautiful it is. However, you sound so strange to them that they would assume that the world outside of religion was dangerous, galling and antogonizing. The believers would defend themselves by verbally or physically abusing you, and in extreme cases would kill you if they could.

Reference: Plato. Rouse, W.H.D., ed. The Republic Book VII. Penguin Group Inc. pp. 365–401.