Hats off to the BBC. It manages to run this item today on the subject of new laws aimed at outlawing forced marriages without ever once mentioning Islam. Well done BBC – consummate skill. Forced marriages, along with “honour murder” is just part of the rich cultural heritage that Islam has been bringing into the UK but you would be hard-pressed to figure that from the BBC’s coverage.
FORCED MARRIAGES.
Bookmark the permalink.
“A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that “retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.” However, “not subject to retaliation” is “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.” (‘Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).”
posted several times on Jihadwatch.
Just how standard a reference book of Islamic law Umdat al-Salik (The Reliance of the Traveller) still is, can be found by looking it up in Wikipedia.
Honour killing is Sunna
That is why in, say, a country like Jordan an honour killer may be arrested and detained for a few months he is usually released quietly or given a nominal prison sentence.
As for David Preissler’s belief that Islam just picked up a cultural ball and ran with it – he is missing the point. By giving these customs cosmic approbation and enshrining them in texts that must be obeyed and never changed, Islam endowed them with permanency (backed up by the constant threat of violence – it’s how the religion operates).The teachings are immune to any but the smallest tinkering ever since the gates of ijtihad were closed a thousand years ago.
The Muslims had their enlightenment and reformation: it occurred in the second half of the 18thC, was a direct reaction to the growth of western power and was profoundly anti-western. A revival of Islam in its earliest and purest form, it produced Wahabbism and, more circuitously, Deobandism -the two most influential schools of Islam in the UK today.
sorry, that should have been David Preiser not Preissler in above post.
By the way, Radio 5 news this morning reported the guilty verdict, in America, pronounced on the Holy Land Foundation, over chaneeliing funds to Hamas, referring to it as a Muslim charity. It seemed a rather obscure topic for a short news bulletin – perhaps these criticisms of the beeb’s championing of Islam are beginning to have some effect. Either that or they see themselves as highlighting Americans unfairness towards that respectable, non-terrorist outfit Hamas.
As it is, they gave the last word to the main defendant’s daughter in their website report:
The charity said it ran a legitimate operation helping Muslim families. Holy Land’s supporters accused the US government of politicising the case as part of its so-called “war on terror”.
“Ghassan Elashi’s daughter, Noor, said her father was “paying the price” for saving lives.
“My dad was persecuted for his political beliefs. It’s as pure and simple as that,” she said.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7747187.stm
What people consider they must do to preserve their ‘honour’ must in part be determined by any religion that they believe.
Anybody that murders a relative to preserve his ‘honour’ cannot have any love in him. Anything that twisted can only be driven by religion.
And how does the government propose to draw a clear line between forced and arranged marrage?
And does anybody think that they would enforce a law that would reduce the number of potential labour voters comming into the country.
The Muslim poster who visited to distance himself from forced marriages and honour killings will no doubt soon be telling us that his violent warmongering faith is the religion of peace, and that suicide bombings, terrorism, fundamentalist extremism and probably Islam itself, – are unIslamic.
Not being personal.
As a descendant of apes and pigs for which I beg your pardon, I want to say that for me Islam represents prudishness, repression, antisemitism, ignorance and manages to combine hatred and disdain for the non-believer, kuffer, infidel and Jew, with a unique self-loathing.
Having ruled and ruined half the world wherein a fortunate few, purely by accident of birth, find themselves in possession of vast wealth which they squander on tasteless architecture, bling, prostitutes, designer goods, and making sure that their poverty stricken brothers don’t get their hands on any of it, still not satisfied, they fund Islamic study centres in cash-strapped western universities to establish an Islamic foothold in the US and Europe where they make their presence felt wherever they go by making demands, by their self pity, and by refusing to integrate, yet loudly voicing resentment and hostility towards the native inhabitants.
They condemn the immoral and sexually promiscuous minority who do the exact things that they know they themselves would do, that they want to do, if their religion did not forbid it, while they ignore the majority who do not do these things but instead tolerate them indulgently, complacently, and as I see it, foolishly, and the minority within that group who see what is happening whose objections and protestations fall on deaf ears, who fear for themselves and for future generations.
No offense.
Thank you for the link Sarah-Jane.
Eleven edits to this one story seems excessive, you would think that they would have the story straight before “printing” it…..
Sue 8:55
Splendid post. Absolutely spot on !
I’ll reply to Ron Todd 26.11.08 06:07 first. Apparently doing something very twisted can only be driven by religion.
Right then. So the killers of Baby P were twisted, driven by Christianity. Hitler, the real anti-Semite, was twisted, and driven by Christianity.
What nonsense. There might be some secularist out there loving the abuse of religion, but I happen to think that religion, particularly Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, are positive. And if there is an Austrian born into a Christian family, who goes on to kill 6 million Jews, I will not seek to blame all Christians for that. What odd ideas I have.
And to Sue 26.11.08 08:55, who seems to revel in tag-teaming up with Kill the Beeb against mikewhineliberal in quite a distasteful and bullying way, yes, I do think that suicide bombings are unIslamic, and that is why I propose not to kill myself or anyone else.
Perhaps Sue, you could tell me whether you think the Omagh bombings were prescribed by the Vatican? Perhaps you could tell us whether the Church of England told the Protestant paramilitaries to bomb Catholics in Northern Ireland. Perhaps you could tell us whether the mob that watch Celtic and Rangers are a mob because their Christian religion tells them to be a mob?
I do agree with points in your third and fourth paragraphs – those are very bad people. I’ll give you another example. They ban non-Muslims from practising their faith in Saudi Arabia. And this action is prohibited by Islam. Nobody can be stopped from practising their non-Islamic religion. That is outrageous; how can they expect Muslims to be allowed to worship in the “west” when they have such policies?
So I agree that they are ignorant and repressive and very bad people, many of them, but not me, because I don’t do any of that, as many Catholics don’t go around bombing England.
And, before I end, no offence taken, because whatever negative things you might say about Muslims does not affect me. I’m just getting on with my lawful business, and doing the right thing. There used to be a time when Jews were hated and feared, and the same with the Irish. Jewish and Irish people got on with things, and are very successful. If certain people want to hate and fear it will be them that has trouble sleeping at night, not me.
Speaking of which, I should refer to the insomniac Kill the Beeb 26.11.08 01:36 • why am I not surprised that you read articles in the daily express, a newspaper owned by a pornographer that seems to hate Muslims, Polish people, Romanian people…perhaps even all non Aryans? If you read that paper, I am not surprised you’re consumed with fear and hatred, and can’t get to sleep at a proper time. Do you even have a job? Do you believe in anything other than to hate others?
No offence.
Actually, the Express is owned by a Jew, so I doubt he’s a closet Nazi.
Dear No Fan,
Thanks for the nice calm response. Are you new to this blog or what? If so, you’ll get used to ganging up, bullying, and trolls.
MWL is more of a sniper than a troll. You just can’t get the class of troll these days.
Even though the Catholics have at last forgiven me for killing Jesus, I am not one of the Pope’s greatest fans, but I think it is unlikely that the Pope openly declared Jihad, or a fatwa against Protestants. The same goes for the Archbish and Co.
I admit there is plenty of hatred going spare but as far as I know neither side wishes to obliterate the other completely or wipe it off the map; if you’ll forgive the expression.
I know nothing about football and care less. Celtic and Ranger fans can all awa’ an’ bile their heeds as far as I’m concerned. So they can.
Scottish and Irish all in one post.
The things that we have been addressing here are central to your religion, and despite what you say about your personal attitude I’m very much afraid that the perpetrators are not just ‘a few bad people.’
Thanks for being a sport though.
Sue 12:08
Of course there is another point. It is pretty much true that people brought up in any religion, other than Islam , can avoid participating, renounce the religion, or convert to another religion with no serious consequences.
It is not so easy for a Muslim to reject the religion.
Perhaps “not a fan of the BBC” could comment on the effect on him, if he renounced Islam ?
no fan of the bbc | 25.11.08 – 9:55 pm |
But I am also against violence towards women, and this is primarily because of what my religion, through my parents, has taught me. I am relieved to see you said you condemn any “culture” which teaches and encourages violence against women, and not “any religion” [because I don’t believe Islam does teach it, while there is clearly a cultural problem].
You’re “relieved”? This clearly means that you expected worse, which is offensive to me, and probably others as well. I think you need to reconsider any prejudices which may have led you to be concerned that I would feel otherwise.
wally | 26.11.08 – 3:07 am |
As for David Preiser’s belief that Islam just picked up a cultural ball and ran with it – he is missing the point. By giving these customs cosmic approbation and enshrining them in texts that must be obeyed and never changed, Islam endowed them with permanency (backed up by the constant threat of violence – it’s how the religion operates).The teachings are immune to any but the smallest tinkering ever since the gates of ijtihad were closed a thousand years ago.
Actually, I think you’ve just rephrased my point, not corrected it.
The Muslims had their enlightenment and reformation: it occurred in the second half of the 18thC, was a direct reaction to the growth of western power and was profoundly anti-western. A revival of Islam in its earliest and purest form, it produced Wahabbism and, more circuitously, Deobandism -the two most influential schools of Islam in the UK today.
That’s not the kind of enlightenment I was talking about. I will grant that it can be considered a reformation, though.
(www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sr&ID=SR2704) Muslim Clerics on the Religious Rulings Regarding Wife-Beating
(www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP175907) Ramadhan TV Show: Saudi Cleric Muhammad Al-‘Arifi Explains Wife-Beating in Islam to Young Muslims.
(www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=reform&ID=SP72104) International Islamic Conference: Genuine Call for Tolerance or Reiteration of Hollow Slogans?
(www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP101205) Saudi Author: ‘Imagine You’re a Woman’
MEMRI, (www.memri.org) is always a good source for the things Arabs and Muslims say when they don’t think Westerners are listening.
BTW I heard a report on BBC Radio. In passing the report mentioned that 65% of all known cases of the practice in the UK involve people of Pakistani origin. … and the other 35% of cases come from what communities? Coincidentally or not the case study was from a forced Sikh (non Muslim) marriage.
(www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/forcedmarriage/)
Religion & Ethics – Ethical Issues – Forced Marriages also illustrates with two hands. In this case a beautiful composition of what appears to be a woman’s hands decorated with henna. Now what groups do that? When you run the cursor over the label ‘Bridesmaid helping bride’ appears. I guess, as with the Government poster, it’s hard to find a suitable photograph that doesn’t offend those people actually doing the forcing?
No fan of the BBC
I am grateful for your comments. But i am used to it frankly. Water off a duck’s back.
I am though less prepared to tolerate the hate-flecked abuse to which you have been subject following your intelligent and clearly heartfelt posts.
I fear you have exposed what i have long since suspected about this site: that its comments section has become a magnet and safe-house for extremist and hate-filled views, that should not form part of any civilised discourse.
Of little note to anyone on this site, I’m sure, but this will be my last post here.
I, evil g, am the artist formerly known as “no fan of the bbc”.
I had taken the decision to set up a new identity to post my original comment because I didn’t want everything I subsequently said on other issues to be seen in light only of this issue, but I think I have made my points reasonably well, and have not been blown away by a torrent of nastiness and hatred (except from you, Kill the Beeb, I’m sure you’ll be pleased to hear), and so, I now post under my true identity.
I will, in future, post comments as “evil g” of http://evil-g.blogspot.com/
Dear Sue 26.11.08 I am new to this blog, and I’m sure I will get used to things soon enough. I have posted a few messages on blogs in the recent past, but when everyone agrees with you, you don’t get much of a reaction.
I am quite a fan of the Pope – I wander whether I might be called upon to defend Christianity next. Anyway, there is no figure like the Pope in Islam, so nobody has the authority to declare a Jihad on behalf of all Muslims. There might be the odd terrorist that has a following, who is respected by some foolish people, and if he were to declare Jihad, then they might listen to him, but I would not.
And while Catholics and Protestants might not want to wipe each other from the map, they have gone around killing and bombing each other. That’s quite serious. In any case, my point was that Christianity is not an evil faith because these people fought over or because of it.
Also, the President of Iran, when he made his famous speech, was speaking as the President of Iran, and not the President of all Muslims. And perhaps I shouldn’t go further, but according to a man with whom I disagree on almost everything, George Galloway, the President was referring to Zionism rather than the country. Who knows. Either way • he wasn’t speaking for me.
I agree with you that the problem is not just a few bad people. It is a lot of bad people. But in my opinion, what makes them bad, is their culture, and not their religion. I cannot blame their religion, just as I do not blame Christianity for Hitler or the hatred between Rangers and Celtic fans, or Judaism for anything a Jew might do.
To David Preser (USA) 25.11.08, I may have said “relieved”, but I could just as easily have said “pleased”. Let’s not disagree when there is nothing to disagree about.
I only have to refer you to comments made by Kill the Beeb 26.11.08 01:30 when he says
“Your religion is barbaric…twisted, nonsense…Have I offended you? Yup. The only thing your religion is good for.”
in order to demonstrate why I should be pleased to hear from someone who is not posting messages here simply to offend.
To Grant 26.11.08 13:43, perhaps you will be relived to know that I can renounce Islam tomorrow if I feel like it, walk into the nearest Church, and begin worshipping. And I would not be too unhappy at that prospect, because I have a positive view on Christianity. Christianity teaches the oneness of God, behaving with humility, and doing the right thing, much as Islam does.
I wander what consequence you feared – that there would be another honour killing? Or perhaps I would be denounced, or just secretly bundled off to Pakistan for “re-education”? Anyway, as I say, fear not, for we live in a free society.
And thanks, deegee 26.11.08 16:05, for making the point that there are people of faiths, other than Islam, that perpetrate the crime of forced marriage.
Finally, as I said above, I am new to this blog, and don’t know the history or views of mikewineliberal, but do regret that he has been driven away. Without different views, we wouldn’t have much to talk about.
MWLIOOH
This is not the first time, and no doubt it will not be the last, that someone has made an announcement before flouncing off with a sob and a histrionic sorry for myself this will hurt you more than me farewell wave. Or should that be hurt me more than you? Anyway, so long.
Pity you neglected to take on the challenge I set you, namely to defend Islam, and explain why you felt shock and disgust at what Rob said which you misinterpreted as a call for genocide against an unjustly vilified ethnic minority a la the Holocaust.
But there you go.
Much easier to accuse me and others of having extremist hate-filled views and then slam the door loudly.
Hoever, the fact that you have altered your moniker once or twice during your stay underlines the futility of your gesture.
All anyone has to do is come back as Mikewhitewhineconservative and we’ll be none the wiser, obviously.
Careful as you flounce, because as everyone can see you haven’t a leg to stand on.
Feeble joke sorry.
MWL gone? Excellent!
evil g or whatever yer name is,
MWL never had much to say except a few snipes. He couldn’t be arsed to make a case and when the going got tough he got going. Wiped himself off the map so to speak. People are always doing that but they creep back as someone else, for example a pervy troll, sock puppet, or someone’s mother, sister or with a name containing a cryptic clue.
Are we to take it that it’s somehow okay for Mahmoud Ahmadinijad to have been refering to Zionism and not the country? What nonsense is that?
GCooper 25.11.08 – 10:51 pm and 26.11.08 – 7:26 pm
Time not wasted after all?
Sue – it’s always good news when a sniper flounces out in a cloud of cliches.
Evil G,
I was putting a comment on your blog but it seems hard work ,not staightforward.Will it get simpler ?
no fan of the bbc:
“Speaking of which, I should refer to the insomniac Kill the Beeb 26.11.08 01:36 • why am I not surprised that you read articles in the daily express, a newspaper owned by a pornographer that seems to hate Muslims, Polish people, Romanian people…perhaps even all non Aryans? If you read that paper, I am not surprised you’re consumed with fear and hatred, and can’t get to sleep at a proper time. Do you even have a job? Do you believe in anything other than to hate others?”
Nice going moron. My internet service isn’t printed on newspaper hence why I can post a link without having to get my hands dirty. And yes, your attitude toward ‘pornography’ seems a little hypocritical coming from a religion that thinks women that don’t dress up like a two man tent are ‘whores’.
Yes, I do have a job thanks. One that pays very well, hence why I can get up as late as I like. Unfortunately it doesn’t pay quite as well as adopting the Islamic faith and then suing everyone for racism. But I’m certain it pays a lot more than coming up to various message boards and justifying your poisonous religion to people who don’t worship the fucking clouds.
Your religion should be flushed down the toilet with every copy of the Koran in existence. That’s called free speech. If you don’t like it, then fuck off to your medieval country and preach your insanity to the rest of the brainwashed zealots that inhabit the place.
Now piss off and do me the favour of not reading my posts as I certainly won’t be reading yours.
Whacko.
Bye mikewhineliberal. Don’t slam the door in your face on the way out.
Original Robin 26.11.08 19:50 I’m sorry that you have had problem posting a comment. I have tried to make it as easy as possible – for example, nobody is required to sign in, and people can post anonymously if they wish.
You say it is hard work to post a comment. In the event that you refer to the “word verification” – posters having to type the letters displayed on screen before the comment is allowed [in order to prevent spam messages], I have just removed this requirement.
I hope you find it easy enough to say whatever you want. If you have any other feedback, feel free to continue to post comments here, or at http://evil-g.blogspot.com.
To Sue 26.11.08 19:40 perhaps I should not have mentioned this in my earlier comment, as I don’t want this to be the focus of everything. Whatever it was that the President of Iran said, he said as the President of Iran. He doesn’t speak for 1.2 billion Muslims, just as Gordon Brown does not speak for all Scottish Christians or Michael Howard for all Jews.
I wander what you made of my other comments.
And thanks to Kill the Beeb, who’s attitude makes it a lot easier for someone like me to come across as reasonable and normal. You’re stated belief in freedom of speech evidently does not go as far as allowing people who are different from you to inhabit the same country, let alone convey their views to others in a debate. With an attitude like that, I suggest it is you that is more suited to a “medieval country” where you can “preach your insanity to the rest of the brainwashed zealots that inhabit the place”.
And a bit of advice. If you established a proper routine, rather than just “get[ting] up as late as I like” you might not be so depressed and angry all the time. Getting up late might be OK for a student, someone my age for example, but for someone as well paid as yourself, not being able to wake up at a proper time or establish a routine will do nothing for your self-respect and dignity.
evil g 8.31pm
“Whatever it was that the President of Iran said, he said as the President of Iran.”
(Not as an old tramp talking to another old tramp over a pint of meths)
Q. What sort of logic is that?
A. The sort that makes the case for the opposition.
“I wander what you made of my other comments.”
(Wordsworth?)
Long-winded and pompous if you must know.
To Sue 26.11.08 21:43 You seem determined to avoid the point madam, which is that he represents Iran, and not Islam. It is rather illogical to infer that because the President of Iran said something about Israel, all Muslims are working towards another holocaust.
I appreciate that for people with a particular agenda, it is convenient to conflate the wicked Islamic faith with the tyrant of Iran.
And I do apologise if I have offended your dear friend Kill the Beeb.
I do hope that this comment was short enough to hold your attention.
mikewineliberal is out of here | 26.11.08 – 4:50 pm | #
mwl – they seem to be having one of the biannual ‘wingbat amnesties’ at the moment, and it is unfortunate that when they have these, some of the normal regulars get infected, albeit temporarily.
Give it a while, and normal service will be resumed :-), we will all be longing for one of Martin’s ‘why I like it up the bum on Hampstead Heath’ posts soon.
What the hell is a wingbat?
It’s a wingnut and fruit bat spelled badly at the same time.
Sarah Jane | 26.11.08 – 11:19 pm |
A fair point.
But to be honest, mwl had stopped debating BBC bias altogether and was solely trying to discredit the blog entirely by pointing the finger at unfortunate comments.
No fan of the BBC aka evil g or something
“I think sometimes the whole “Muslims hate women” movement goes too far. Neither the BBC, or any other media outlet, ever points out that while in Islam, the wife of the Prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him, was a business woman, in her own right, 1400 years ago, in other cultures, women have, until very recently, been unable to own property – ownership transferring automatically to their husbands upon marriage, and also been unable to vote.”
This is a kind of lying by omission:
you make the “prophet” sound like some doting monogamous family man: in fact he had so many wives that commentators can’t agree on the exact number (and that’s not counting slave girls and concubines). One of these wives he married when she was 6, consummating the marriage when she was 9 (when he was almost old enough to be her great-grandfather). He married a Jewess the same day as he had been responsible for the death of her father and brother, the earlier death of her husband being down to him as well.
Such dishonesty is practically the norm with Muslim apologists: you say your religion teaches you not to be violent to women – it, in fact, recommends the beating of disobedient wives if all else fails: sorry – I’ll rephrase that: god, from the beginning of time has recommended the beating of disobedient wives and anybody who tries to alter that teaching should be killed.
MWL was pointing at comments with his mouth agape like a christian missionary walking among the natives.
Sadly for him he couldn’t convert the idiginous population to worship his own personal religion.
Try harder next time mwl, in an easier place. Facebook would be more your sort of narcissism.
To Sue 26.11.08 21:43 You seem determined to avoid the point madam, which is that he represents Iran, and not Islam. It is rather illogical to infer that because the President of Iran said something about Israel, all Muslims are working towards another holocaust.
evil g | 26.11.08 – 10:44 pm
I would say Sue is right on point. I have heard psychologists and political scientists debate without a definite conclusion whether Ahmadinijad was a rational man, using bluff and exaggeration, or a delusional megalomaniac who may shortly have the means to act on those delusions.
Consider the following Ahmadinijad quotes:
“We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them.”
“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”
“Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations.”
“The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.”
“We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point – that is the Almighty God. My question for you is, ‘Do you not want to join them?'”
It would seem that he sees himself the man to bring the 12th Imam (and the Apocalypse) on behalf of all Muslims, a position just a bit larger than President of Iran. What evil g thinks is irrelevant to that aim.
All Muslims may not be working towards a new Holocaust but Ahmadinijad is working on recruiting as many as possible to that aim. Putting your head in the sand and pretending on the basis of narrow legalism that that is not so could be catastrophic.
Pass the Meths, please 😉
Evil yesterday 10:44pm
You seem to have abandoned the fundamentals of Islam as fast as a burglar divests himself of incriminating evidence when fleeing from the cops.
First you divest yourself of old dinnerjacket, then out the window with misogyny, then off with a few bad people, we’re witnessing a veritable strip tease!
Call me madam,
To Sue 27.11.08 that you think forced marriages are a fundamental part of Islam explains your negative view on one of the world’s great religions. The only other fundamental you might be referring to is the presence of Ahmadinijad as President of Iran. And as many terrorists and anti-Muslim websites there might be out there providing people with quotes and peace of mind, I don’t see that you or anyone else will find much evidence that Ahmadinijad is President because Islam has determined it, just as the Christian religion did not determine Hitler take over Germany, or the Jewish faith determine that Jesus must be killed.
Generally speaking, religions and religious practises change. There was a time when Christians forced Muslims and Jews to convert to Christianity, or killed them, but this no longer goes on. There was a time that the church insisted the earth was the centre of the universe, and killed scientists that argued otherwise. Most Christians have abandoned such ideas now. Similarly I don’t propose to marry more than one person. And by the way, polygamy has a history in Christianity and Judaism as well as in Islam. [I am not suggesting that forced marriage used to be religiously acceptable and now is not; as far as I am concerned that has never been acceptable.
deegee 27.11.08 says in the same post that the President of Iran is “delusional” and that “he sees himself as the man to bring the 12th Imam”. deegee, do you not see anything wrong here? If he is delusional, then how is it relevant that he thinks he is religiously significant? Sometimes it is a good idea to read a comment before posting it, to iron out errors.
So what if he is trying to recruit Muslims? I think lots of Christians were recruited into the SS. I think lots of Christians are recruited into the Lords Resistance Army.
That doesn’t stop me respecting the Christian religion. And while I respect people of all faiths, you seem to have an all consuming pathological hatred of Muslims.
And I have no idea which “legalism” you refer to. Do you hate lawyers too?
deegee 27.11.08 says in the same post that the President of Iran is “delusional” and that “he sees himself as the man to bring the 12th Imam”. deegee, do you not see anything wrong here? If he is delusional, then how is it relevant that he thinks he is religiously significant? Sometimes it is a good idea to read a comment before posting it, to iron out errors.
Your argument was that as he was speaking as President of Iran he doesn’t represent all Muslims. I replied that he sees himself as speaking for and acting for all Muslims and has the finances and in a short space of time the weapons to act on his threats. It is religiously significant if millions of Muslims take him and the ideology that lies behind him as representative of their religious faith.
I don’t see that you or anyone else will find much evidence that Ahmadinijad is President because Islam has determined it, just as the Christian religion did not determine Hitler take over Germany, or the Jewish faith determine that Jesus must be killed.
Iranian Presidential candidates must be approved by the Council of Guardians prior to running in order to ensure their allegiance to the ideals of the Islamic revolution. The Iranian constitution calls for the council to be composed of six Islamic jurists, “conscious of the present needs and the issues of the day to be selected” by the Supreme Leader of Iran, and six jurists, “specializing in different areas of law, to be elected by the Majlis from among the Muslim jurists nominated by the Head of the Judicial Power,”(who, in turn, is also appointed by the supreme leader).
So yes, I would call it a fair comment that the President is seen as appointed by Islam to do a secular job.
So what if he is trying to recruit Muslims? I think lots of Christians were recruited into the SS. I think lots of Christians are recruited into the Lords Resistance Army.
Many historians would dispute that SS was a Christian organization or that recruits saw themselves as Christians. Loyalty to Nazi doctrines and the Fuhrer completely dominated any loyalty to opposing Christian principles (of any sect) or to any Christian leader (e.g. the Pope). The SS never claimed to act for Christianity nor hesitated to kill non-Aryan Christians. Unlike most military organizations (including the Wehrmacht) the SS probably did not have chaplains.
The Muslims recruited by Ahmadinijad, by contrast, are completely convinced of the religious significance of their acts, whether to fulfill Jihad, bring the 12th Imam, protect Islam under attack or collect their virgins. As to the Lord’s Resistance Army I don’t have enough information to comment.
And while I respect people of all faiths, you seem to have an all consuming pathological hatred of Muslims.
I made the point that even after years of study and analysis of dozens of public statements the experts are not united as to whether Ahmadinijad is delusional or simply a cynical manipulator. Yet you on the basis of this short correspondence think you can diagnose my pathologies?
And I have no idea which “legalism” you refer to. Do you hate lawyers too? The legalism is that because A’s powers are limited to his position that he speaks purely as that the holder of that position. That seems to be your base argument. Given that Supreme Leader is the highest ranking political and religious authority in Iran; the Council of Guardians must be all Muslims and none of them has criticised his statements it is fair to say his views represent the views of the religious elite in Iran.
Evil, remind me where I’ve said that forced marriages are a fundamental part of Islam.
You are beginning to remind me of Angry Young Alex, but you wouldn’t know that being new and all.
You could be Evil Young Elvis.
Evil,…. enough already!
Sue, you said that I “seem to have abandoned the fundamentals of Islam as fast as a burglar divests himself of incriminating evidence when fleeing from the cops”.
If you weren’t referring to forced marriage, or the Presidency of Iran being decreed in the Holy Quran, perhaps you could specify what you were talking about.
I hope I don’t sound angry, because I’m not. But this is a debate, at the end of the day, between people who believe I have the right to exist, go about my lawful business, and respect women and people of all faiths, and those that want to wipe me off the map, who think that “every copy of the Koran in existence” should be “flushed down the toilet”, who tell me I that I hate Jews, and that I should “fuck off” and “piss off”.
And to deegee, the definition of “pathological” is “being such to a degree that is extreme, excessive, or markedly abnormal”. That is how I would define your views. And I didn’t have to study for years and analyse dozens of public statements to come up with that.
People should be warned that the religion-cult-ideology-legal-system to which evilg owes his allegiance teaches that he has no obligation whatsoever to be truthful and candid or to debate honestly with unbelievers. On the contrary Mohammedanism teaches that a permanent state of war exists between Muslim and infidel (although it may not express itself in open warfare at all times. As his’prophet’ said: “War is deceit.”
The sad thing about BBC reporters is that there never seems to have been a Muslim whopper big enough for them not swallow.