View Full Version : Ahmadinejad's Imam: Islam Allows Raping, Torturing Prisoners
Ahmadinejad's Imam: Islam Allows Raping, Torturing Prisoners
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/133214
".........In the wake of a series of publications worldwide regarding the rape and torture of dissident prisoners in Iran's jails, supporters of Ahmadinejad gathered with him in Jamkaran, a popular pilgrimage site for Shi'ite Muslims on the outskirts of Qom, on August 11, 2009. According to Iranian pro-democracy sources, the gathered crowd heard from Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi and Ahmadinejad himself regarding the issue. ............"
".....A related issue, in the eyes of the questioners, was the rape of virgin female prisoners. In this instance, Mesbah-Yazdi went beyond the permissibility issue and described the Allah-sanctioned rewards accorded the rapist-in-the-name-of-Islam:
"If the judgment for the [female] prisoner is execution, then rape before execution brings the interrogator a spiritual reward equivalent to making the mandated Haj pilgrimage [to Mecca], but if there is no execution decreed, then the reward would be equivalent to making a pilgrimage to [the Shi'ite holy city of] Karbala."........"
Roguish Lawyer
09-02-2009, 17:26
Nice
incarcerated
09-02-2009, 17:27
Gosh, I wonder what our President thinks about this... ?
Roguish Lawyer
09-02-2009, 17:29
I like this part, these guys are pure genius:
This reply, and reports of the rape of teen male prisoners in Iranian jails, may have prompted the following question: "Is the rape of men and young boys considered sodomy?"
One aspect of these permitted rapes troubled certain questioners.
Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi: "No, because it is not consensual. Of course, if the prisoner is aroused and enjoys the rape, then caution must be taken not to repeat the rape."
Gosh, I wonder what our President thinks about this... ?
He's getting the bus ready for another stop on the Apology Tour '09. Sleep deprivation and loud music has given the U.S. a bad reputation and he fully intends to make up for it.
The Reaper
09-02-2009, 17:35
Hahaha!
Those pesky Muslims, pretending to be backward misogynists, religious extremists, rapists, pedophiles, and haters.
What a jolly good sense of humor they have!
Thank God they like us, and our President as well!
Islam, the religion of peace.
TR
blacksmoke
09-08-2009, 09:09
This reply, and reports of the rape of teen male prisoners in Iranian jails, may have prompted the following question: "Is the rape of men and young boys considered sodomy?"
One aspect of these permitted rapes troubled certain questioners.
Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi: "No, because it is not consensual. Of course, if the prisoner is aroused and enjoys the rape, then caution must be taken not to repeat the rape."
Sodom and Gammorah, right here.
Sounds like the Imam musta done time in one of our state or federal penitentiaries - I'll bet he TiVos The Shawshank Redemption every time it comes on al Jazeera or AMC. :rolleyes:
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Michel Houellebech's " Platform" was very controversial for both it's steamy adult scenes and for being offense to Islam. Interestingly enough he wrote it pre 9/11, and the basic gist is Westerners despite better technology and living standards are less happy than their Third World counterparts because they get less sex, but the biggest threat to civilization is the sexually frustrated Islamic male. Interestingly enough the book foreshadowed global Islamic terror attacks like Bali and 9/11.
frostfire
09-08-2009, 14:38
Ahmadinejad's Imam: Islam Allows Raping, Torturing Prisoners
From another thread with long and spirited discussion, I took from it that reformation of a religion depends primarily on the doctrine fundamentals and the esteemed leaders that the followers trust to make "divine" interpretation. With ******** like this imam, how on earth is Islam ever going to change, let alone be reformed?!??! WarriorMentor is right all along, I suppose.
So what's the big deal with gitmo then...Yes, yes, we are advised to take the higher ground and show the difference between them and us, but at what cost :( ? At what price mercy?
From another thread with long and spirited discussion, I took from it that reformation of a religion depends primarily on the doctrine fundamentals and the esteemed leaders that the followers trust to make "divine" interpretation. With ******** like this imam, how on earth is Islam ever going to change, let alone be reformed?!??! WarriorMentor is right all along, I suppose.
So what's the big deal with gitmo then...Yes, yes, we are advised to take the higher ground and show the difference between them and us, but at what cost :( ? At what price mercy?
Do you think that Catholic Popes didn't believe the same things these Imam's do, based on the infalibility of the Pope as established in the 11th Century? their word is Gospel so to speak??? How is it that the Catholic Church was able to transform into what it is today, when the Popes of the day did everything in their power to ensure that nothing changed? Isn't that what is happening with Islam? How can you say with certainty that Islam will never reform?
Reformation for the Catholic Church had more to do with the followers than it did with the leaders of the Church. The same will eventually happen with Islam I believe.
In essence Islam can not reform itself. For it to do so, it would have to address the Koran and admit it is incorrect...as it is the word of Allah it can not be addressed and therefore Islam wil not be reformed. To do so would be to contridict God; an impossibility.
In essence Islam can not reform itself. For it to do so, it would have to address the Koran and admit it is incorrect...as it is the word of Allah it can not be addressed and therefore Islam wil not be reformed. To do so would be to contridict God; an impossibility.
That's what the Catholic Church used to believe as well. Didn't stop the reformation from taking place.
Recorded Historical precedent counters the clamoring of has not, cannot and will not in regards to Islam's resistance to change - the logical questions remain, therefore, when, how, and what - all of which are TBD. ;)
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish {Islamic}, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
- Thomas Paine
Richard's $.02 :munchin
That's what the Catholic Church used to believe as well. Didn't stop the reformation from taking place.
True, reform can happen in any venue and it is presently happening within Islam.
The Wahhabi influence that controls the Saudi's (and the holiest sites within Sunni Islam) and Al Azar etc. etc. is a recent reformation of only a hundred years or so.
Sadly, this is a very strict and radical interpretation that is the foundation of most radical Islamic groups.
A few reasons why Islam will never change. Islam has no central voice, such as the Catholic Pope. After the caliphate was destroyed the muslim world has had no guidance as a whole. Second, there is a term, "The book is shut". Several hundred years ago the most prominent schools of Islam thought came together to decide on the tenets of muslim ideology. After this islamic version of the vatican counsil they shut the book on the matter believing any further debate would counter the validity of the Koran therefore invalidating Islam.
A few reasons why Islam will never change.
Inquiry is fatal to certainty.
- Will Durant
Richard's $.02 :munchin
A few reasons why Islam will never change. Islam has no central voice, such as the Catholic Pope. After the caliphate was destroyed the muslim world has had no guidance as a whole. Second, there is a term, "The book is shut". Several hundred years ago the most prominent schools of Islam thought came together to decide on the tenets of muslim ideology. After this islamic version of the vatican counsil they shut the book on the matter believing any further debate would counter the validity of the Koran therefore invalidating Islam.
Once again, Catholics used to believe the same thing. Heck for over 1960 years Catholics believed only Catholics got into heaven. That is not the doctrine the Church now espouses.
The reason Christianity changed, is because the people willed it, AGAINST the will of the Church. The Church believed the book "to be shut" in essence themselves. A group of folks got together and decided what books would be in the Bible, and that hasn't changed in over a thousand years. But that did not stop the Reformation from taking place.
They became fed up with the hypocritical actions of the so called leaders of the Church. The people began to become literate and were able to read the Bible themselves, and could begin to interpret its meaning, instead of relying on the interpretation of the priests.
The only way Islam will NEVER changes is if they wall themselves off from the rest of the world, with no outside contact whatsoever. Until and unless that happens, they will be subject to outside viewpoints.
Think of it this way, in Islam their is no seperation between church and politics. If Islam had wished to remain "pure" there would be no Islamic politicians, there would be no Presidents of Iran, or Egypt or Turkey. They would be "lead" by the religious men. So in this one instance, Islam has "reformed" somewhat.
Additionally, if Islam was "pure" it would be practised the same way throughout the world, without cultural considerations. How do you reconcile the practise of Pashtunwali? Even as it relates to an infidel? If Islam was pure, this cultural consideration would not exist. But it does exist, and it exists because different Muslims practise Islam in different ways. If they practise it in different ways, then the thought that Islam can NEVER change, is false.
The key to Islamic Reformation is education. As long as students at madrassas remain illiterate, it will be hard for reformation to take place, but not impossible. If they become educated, can read the Koran and the Hadiths for themselves, and begin to interpret it in their own way, it will happen much faster.
We do have to be careful not to view this “problem” only from through a western view. Assuming that education is all that is needed to change cultural and religious beliefs is somewhat naïve. Many of us in this country are guilty of believing the world is full of people that want democracy, apple pie, bikini contests, and Hollywood movies. Many highly educated Muslims directly or indirectly support terrorism or extremist views and have no interest in being “westernized.”
My disclaimer to my statement is I am only speaking from my own observations and my interactions in the rural areas of the Salah Ad Din Provence. Also, it is not my intention to criticize or de-value anyone else’s opinion on this subject.
We do have to be careful not to view this “problem” only from through a western view. Assuming that education is all that is needed to change cultural and religious beliefs is somewhat naïve. Many of us in this country are guilty of believing the world is full of people that want democracy, apple pie, bikini contests, and Hollywood movies. Many highly educated Muslims directly or indirectly support terrorism or extremist views and have no interest in being “westernized.”
My disclaimer to my statement is I am only speaking from my own observations and my interactions in the rural areas of the Salah Ad Din Provence. Also, it is not my intention to criticize or de-value anyone else’s opinion on this subject.
I take your point, and my intent was not that reform neeed to be what we in the west deem acceptable. Just that the thought that Islam can NEVER reform, I don't agree with. Nothing can stay static and survive.
Team Sergeant
09-09-2009, 09:40
That's what the Catholic Church used to believe as well. Didn't stop the reformation from taking place.
It's 2009.
Men have landed on the moon & a world community lives in space. We've decoded the Human Genome.
islam has not changed since it's inception. It's not going to change.
Intelligent species evolve and learn from "history". From what I've seen in the last few decades there's nothing intelligent about islam.
It's safe to say islam will not change in our life time.
TS
Someone will read this "post" in 3009 and say the same thing about islam.
I take your point, and my intent was not that reform neeed to be what we in the west deem acceptable. Just that the thought that Islam can NEVER reform, I don't agree with. Nothing can stay static and survive.
AFCHIC,
I understand your point of view but disagree about your thesis...you are comparing apples/oranges.
I suggest you study Sunni Islam first, Koran, Haddiths etc and then Shia Fiqh, and the history thereof before comparing western development and change to eastern concepts via time and education.
As an example, most of the 911 perps were college educated and gifted men of the middle class or better.
The most radical organizing Muslims tend to be the most educated. The most uneducated Muslims tend to be the suicide bombers oconus...there is one common thread...Islam.
frostfire
09-09-2009, 10:35
Reformation for the Catholic Church had more to do with the followers than it did with the leaders of the Church. The same will eventually happen with Islam I believe.
afchic,
I disagree. IIRC, Martin Luther was a priest, a figure of authority/leader, not merely "followers."
Also, I did not say never change. I merely pondered how it will ever change.
Nothing can stay static and survive.
That, IMHO, is a gross generalization. While it's instinctively true, there are places, cultures ie. the Afgan Pashtun culture which has pretty much stayed the same for hundreds of years and yet they survive. Of course, what goes in the future is TBD.
Recorded Historical precedent counters the clamoring of has not, cannot and will not in regards to Islam's resistance to change - the logical questions remain, therefore, when, how, and what - all of which are TBD. ;)
OK, I'll bite. My debate competition days are over, mainly when I realized that most (and I was/am guilty of this too) choose from the get-go what they deem as the truth and then collect all the facts, rebuttal etc. to support it. At such, logic and rationale do not necessarily equal truth. Having said that, here goes:
Richard Sir,
saying when, how, and what implies that Islam will indeed change. IMHO, to say it will change with absolute certainty is just as absurd as saying it will never change (never say never).
I would use the good 'ol analogy of chicken and egg. Eggs "will" hatch. We know that there are historical and empirical facts of eggs hatching to chicken.
However, there's also the common wisdom that advise us not to count our chickens before the eggs hatch. Some eggs do never hatch. Hence, predicting Islam will change based on how other religions had changed in the past is logical, but still flawed or not 100% certain. The proof is in the pudding. We have yet to see any major and high-impact movements/reformations from within Islam.
I'm not sure if you did refer to that uncertainty by TBD, but if that is so, then we actually agree on this :). I do, however, concur with TS that Islam will not change in our lifetime.
...saying when, how, and what implies that Islam will indeed change. IMHO, to say it will change with absolute certainty is just as absurd as saying it will never change (never say never).
To argue they won't or can't is to ignore the record of History and to incorrectly presuppose that Islamic cultures (plural) have yet to change when the facts are that they have, that they are, and - logically - that they will continue to do so in the future.
IMO - the Koran, much like the Bible, is a wonderful source of inspiration for those who don't understand it and seek to use it for their own designs.*
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
* With apologies to George Santayana.
It's 2009.
Men have landed on the moon & a world community lives in space. We've decoded the Human Genome.
islam has not changed since it's inception. It's not going to change.
Intelligent species evolve and learn from "history". From what I've seen in the last few decades there's nothing intelligent about islam.
It's safe to say islam will not change in our life time.
TS
Someone will read this "post" in 3009 and say the same thing about islam.
I agree we may never see change in our lifetime. It is going to take generational chage, that still doesn't mean change won't happen.
I disagree that Islam has not changed since its inception. It changed quite a bit even during the lifetime of Mohammad. Hence the distinctions between Hadiths. The ones towards the end of his life hold more bearing than those from the beginning of his "religous" life. Those towards the beginning are more acceptable of "people of the book" because Muslims at the time were a minority. Once he started his quest to rule, and Muslims became more of a majority is when you start to see the transistion to "killing all infidels". The changing times, caused him to change his viewpoints.
I respect your views as well as those others that think I have lost my mind. I have done quite a bit of studying of not only Islam as a religion, but Islam as a culture, as well as Islamic terrorism. That is where I draw my conclusions from. I respect that our views are different.
Hasn't Islam already changed through the centuries? It seems it has, and currently for the worse. It seems when the Spanish Inquisition was occurring, Saladin offered sanctuary to the Jews. That wouldn't happen today. In some ways it was more moderate in days past, at least by the standards of todays Islamists. Of course, Saladin was a Kurd, not an Arab. I believe it was in the book "Knowing your Enemy" the author made the point that radicalism comes and goes in Islam. The trends are measured in decades though, not years. With all the WMDs it would seem we don't have decades to wait.
Someone will read this "post" in 3009 and say the same thing about islam.
With all due respect TS, that's a little optimistic. I'm sure any posts of an offensive nature will have been deleted by the United Islamic Socialist States of America by that time.
It seems when the Spanish Inquisition was occurring, Saladin offered sanctuary to the Jews. That wouldn't happen today. In some ways it was more moderate in days past, at least by the standards of todays Islamists. Of course, Saladin was a Kurd, not an Arab.
BTW Dad, Saladin was also considered a noble enemy by Richard the Lionheart. History indicates they shared a mutual respect to the point of Saladin offering Richard one of his finest horses when he heard his had died. Saladin also offered up the use of his personal physician when Richard fell ill. Times have certainly changed, I guess.
As a Catholic I can say that the church changed from within and from pressure being asserted by a ever changing population. Yes it was a slow change, but the tenents of christianity allow for this to happen. Every religion has its zeolots and I do not want to label any religion as better than the other, but Islam has, at its core, certain aspects that prevent change.
Without a central caliphate to bring the islamic world together, they can't agree on anything (hence the reason they had the council I mentioned). The keepers of the religion are not the local Imams/Caliph. The keepers of the religion are the seperate schools of Islam. These schools are scattered across the globe and all teach their own flavor of the religion. In order for Islam to change they would have to come together and agree on any change. Like I said before, "The Book Is Shut". After the last council ( I wish I could remember the year) they came to the agreement that the current version of the Koran and hadiths were in the truest form. These "final drafts" of the Koran and hadiths are like the catholic churches pope. They are considered infallible. But, unlike the pope who is a living being who can make decisions and change his mind, the Books are eternal. To change the teachings of the Books means denying the validity of it's message. Debate on the tenents of the religion are considered settled. I agree, never say never. But, in order for the religion to change they first need to unite all islamic countries under one nation state. Then they could elect one leader to force the changes desired. If that would be the case I predict change for the worse (Iran, Afg., Somolia, etc. etc.).
These are my understandings not from book lernin'. They come from drinking countless cups of tea with muslims, to include religious leaders. I've had the opportunity to encounter all spectrums of the religion from hardcore to moderate, both pre and post 9/11. Islam is what it is.
As a Catholic I can say that the church changed from within and from pressure being asserted by a ever changing population. Yes it was a slow change, but the tenents of christianity allow for this to happen. Every religion has its zeolots and I do not want to label any religion as better than the other, but Islam has, at its core, certain aspects that prevent change.
Without a central caliphate to bring the islamic world together, they can't agree on anything (hence the reason they had the council I mentioned). The keepers of the religion are not the local Imams/Caliph. The keepers of the religion are the seperate schools of Islam. These schools are scattered across the globe and all teach their own flavor of the religion. In order for Islam to change they would have to come together and agree on any change. Like I said before, "The Book Is Shut". After the last council ( I wish I could remember the year) they came to the agreement that the current version of the Koran and hadiths were in the truest form. These "final drafts" of the Koran and hadiths are like the catholic churches pope. They are considered infallible. But, unlike the pope who is a living being who can make decisions and change his mind, the Books are eternal. To change the teachings of the Books means denying the validity of it's message. Debate on the tenents of the religion are considered settled. I agree, never say never. But, in order for the religion to change they first need to unite all islamic countries under one nation state. Then they could elect one leader to force the changes desired. If that would be the case I predict change for the worse (Iran, Afg., Somolia, etc. etc.).
These are my understandings not from book lernin'. They come from drinking countless cups of tea with muslims, to include religious leaders. I've had the opportunity to encounter all spectrums of the religion from hardcore to moderate, both pre and post 9/11. Islam is what it is.
If they are all practicing different forms of Islam, as you say, why would they all have to come together to agree to "open the book" for change? Obviously the Sunni don't care that they are different than the Shia and vice versa. Why would agreement have to be made?
afchic,
There are different schools (Fiqhs) of Islamic jurisprudence and no central authority.
But there are common threads and the one that keeps many along the same line is this.
Muhammed is considered the best man that ever lived and his example is one to be followed...exactly...not updated to modern interpretation.
In the haddiths there are examples of Muhammed killing prisoners, taking slave women as prizes and gifts, etc.etc. Muslims do not put this in a 7th Century context (that's why marrying 9 year olds is still legal in Saudi Arabia) as to put Muhammed in the 7th century context would marginalize him (Islamic teaching).
That is why you can find an Imam/Mullah that can underwrite just about anything with legitimate Islamic tradition.
afchic,
There are different schools (Fiqhs) of Islamic jurisprudence and no central authority.
But there are common threads and the one that keeps many along the same line is this.
Muhammed is considered the best man that ever lived and his example is one to be followed...exactly...not updated to modern interpretation.
In the haddiths there are examples of Muhammed killing prisoners, taking slave women as prizes and gifts, etc.etc. Muslims do not put this in a 7th Century context (that's why marrying 9 year olds is still legal in Saudi Arabia) as to put Muhammed in the 7th century context would marginalize him (Islamic teaching).
That is why you can find an Imam/Mullah that can underwrite just about anything with legitimate Islamic tradition.
I am not trying to be difficult with this, I am really not. I am just trying to wrap my mind around what I have studied, what I have experienced, and what I read from the QPs.
I understand there are many different ways of practicing Islam. Wahabbism being one of the most extreme. With that being said, if all muslims can agree that Mohammed is the most perfect individual that ever lived, and therefore his Haddiths should be followed, then why all the different interpretations?
If there are different interpretations, what is there to say that one of these sects decides that maybe they should look at things in a new light?
Warrior-Mentor
09-10-2009, 15:47
I am not trying to be difficult with this, I am really not. I am just trying to wrap my mind around what I have studied, what I have experienced, and what I read from the QPs.
I understand there are many different ways of practicing Islam. Wahabbism being one of the most extreme. With that being said, if all muslims can agree that Mohammed is the most perfect individual that ever lived, and therefore his Haddiths should be followed, then why all the different interpretations?
If there are different interpretations, what is there to say that one of these sects decides that maybe they should look at things in a new light?
Scholarly Consensus. Once the scholars agree - it becomes SCARED LAW and can NEVER be changed. Search here and it should come up...I've discussed at length here before on this with footnotes from RELIANCE OF THE TRAVELLER (get a copy ;))...
Couple links on Scholarly Consensus:
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=276795&postcount=11
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24532&highlight=scholarly+consensus&page=2
75-80% of the islamic jurisprudence is IDENTICAL. The disgreement is over the credibility of the different hadiths - which do you weight more heavily? This impacts the interpretation of the law SOME.
Here's the easiest example to explain it - Which story has more credibility based on the witnesses...(effectively "John told Mary that she saw Muhammed do this or say that" vs what "Tommy heard Susie say Muhammed did..." - do you belive the first or the second more? Which carries more weight)