It's ok to kill gays, says British Imam (of the religion of peace)...

[Ummon]

http://www.gcn.ie/content/templates/...=1409&zoneid=4

IT'S OK TO KILL GAYS - BRITISH IMAM
24 October 2006
The leading imam in Manchester, confirms that he thinks the execution of sexually active gay men is justified, the rights group Outrage reported.

Arshad Misbahi of the Manchester Central Mosque confirmed his views in a conversation to John Casson, a local psychotherapist.

Casson said: "I asked him if the execution of gay Muslims in Iran and Iraq was an acceptable punishment in Sharia law, or the result of culture, not religion.

"He told me that in a true Islamic state, such punishments were part of Islam: If the person had had a trial, at which four witnesses testified that they had seen the actual homosexual acts."

"I asked him what would be the British Muslim view? He repeated that in an Islamic state these punishments were justified. They might result in the deaths of thousands but if this deterred millions from having sex, and spreading disease, then it was worthwhile to protect the wider community."

"I checked again that this was not a matter of tradition, culture or local prejudice. 'No,' he said, 'It is part of the central tenets of Islam: that sex outside marriage is forbidden; this is stated in the Koran and the prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had stated that these punishments were due to such behaviours.'"

Gay man rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said, "It is disturbing that some British imams are endorsing the execution of gay and lesbian Muslims.

"Imam Arshad Misbahi's homophobic attitudes give comfort and succor to queer-bashers. They encourage conflict and disharmony between Manchester's large gay and Muslim communities.

"Muslim and gay people know the pain of prejudice and discrimination. We should be working together to challenge homophobia and Islamophobia. I hope liberal Muslims will speak out in defense of the human rights of lesbians and gay men," said Tatchell.

Adnan Ali, founder of the British branch of al-Fatiha, an organisation for gay and lesbian Muslims, told Gay.com that "a person with such an obsession about execution of human beings is not even entitled to be addressed as Imam."

"Islam is a very tolerant religion and celebrates the human diversity in its core message," Ali said.

"The holy book Qur'an does not mention anywhere about the execution or killing of human beings on the basis of their sexuality. What surprises is this obsession of the Islamic clerics to killing and execution. Why? What about dialogue? Discussion?

"Arshad Misbahi's comparison of same-sex relation to adultery is nothing but ignorant and utterly irresponsible rhetoric, manifesting the wrong teachings of Islam. The media should . . . not take it for granted as the general view of the Muslim community all over."

The clock is ticking, will we realize in time?...

Of course, there is the gay muslim. But what does happen to his likes in Islamic countries? Will we let others institute sharia so that he can be killed by them here in the west as well?

And the marvels of multiculturalism: http://www.expatica.com/actual/artic...story_id=33960

Fear of religious conflict in Belgium
26 October 2006

BRUSSELS - More then six citizens in ten fear an increase in religious tensions in Belgium according to a survey by Belgian newspaper Le Soir.

A "pessimistic" attitude in contrast with the overall "moderate attitude" of Belgians towards religions, notes the evening paper.
The majority of interviewees supported a 'respectful criticism' of religions, meaning that criticism can be expressed so long as personal religious beliefs are respected.

But not all Belgians follow this moderated view: 23 percent are opposed to all critics of religion, half as much as the French notes Le Soir, while 16 percent assume a highly critical standpoint, three times more then in France.

Eric de Beukelaer, spokesman of Belgium's Francophone Bishops, said he was satisfied with the results.

"All religions can be criticised, but there are limits," he said, emphasizing the difference between "criticising" and "offending someone in his or her conviction."


The CAL, the Centre for Secular Action (Centre d’Action Laïque), agreed, although its president, Philippe Grollet said that 23 percent of Belgians thinking religion should not be criticised is "too much." He deplores such attitudes which leave no space for debate.

Abdelmajid Mhauchi, Belgians representative of the European Muslim Network, said that Belgium has a long history of conflict between Seculars and Catholics and has learnt to respect religious liberties. "As a Muslim" he said "I accept critics of Islam … but I cannot tolerate mockery and provocation."

About 60 percent of Belgians accept the presence of religious signs and symbols in public life. A minority of 36 percent admit the wish to see these symbols and signs confined to the private sphere. This view is reflected in France's law which bans the public display of ostentatious religious symbols in republican intuitions such as schools and tribunals.

Here, too, religious institutions and organizations expressed satisfaction with these figures. Philippe Grollet of CAL pointed out that although people should be allowed to display signs of their religion, "those who represent the government (secular and neutral by definition) and the public authority – magistrates, policemen, teachers etc – should remain neutral."

Despite these reasonable views, 60 percent of the people interviewed predict an increase in tensions between Christians and Muslims with Flemish men being the most pessimistic.

Only 7 percent of the interviewees forecast a decrease of tensions in Belgium. In this respect, Brussels is the Belgium capital of optimism with 12 percent predicting a decrease in tensions.

[over-man]

He is right. So why is this Imam being criticized for reading the Quran objectively?

[Ummon]

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_En...53798383&par=0

IRAN: MEN CAN HIT THEIR WIVES, CLERIC SAYS

Tehran, 26 Oct. (AKI) - Iranian Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi has issued a fatwa - a Muslim religious edict - saying it is legitimate for men to hit their disobedient wives. Shirazi, one of the leading clerics of the Shiite holy city of Qom, wrote on his website that "the Koran first of all advises a man to try and convince his wife to obey to him in a polite way and through advice, then by refusing to have sexual relations with her and, finally, if all this will have failed to make her reason, with physical punishment."

The punishment, the leading cleric said, "must be light and considered an exceptional event, like surgery in case of a serious illness."

Makarem Shirazi advised his readers against "physical punishment which leaves signs and wounds." Women, he axplained, "are masochistic and sometimes they have a crisis and need light physical punishment to get back to normal."

Azam Taleghani, daughter of the late Ayatollah Mahmoud Taleghani, one of the protagonists of the 1979 Islamic revolution, branded the fatwa as "an offence to women."

"It is not right to issue a fatwa based on texts written over one thousand years ago without taking into account today's reality," said Azam Taleghani, who runs one of Iran's leading feminists' associations. "If we learn that someone hits their wife on the basis of these statements we will report them along with Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi to the judicial authority of the Islamic Republic."

He is right indeed (about Islam, not about the rightness of killing gays, of course), over-man. And he is not alone.

[mrjesushat]

Adnan Ali, founder of the British branch of al-Fatiha, an organisation for gay and lesbian Muslims, told Gay.com that "a person with such an obsession about execution of human beings is not even entitled to be addressed as Imam."

"Islam is a very tolerant religion and celebrates the human diversity in its core message," Ali said.

"The holy book Qur'an does not mention anywhere about the execution or killing of human beings on the basis of their sexuality. What surprises is this obsession of the Islamic clerics to killing and execution. Why? What about dialogue? Discussion?

"Arshad Misbahi's comparison of same-sex relation to adultery is nothing but ignorant and utterly irresponsible rhetoric, manifesting the wrong teachings of Islam. The media should . . . not take it for granted as the general view of the Muslim community all over."

An excellent post about the diversity of ideas and opinions in Islam.

The clock is ticking. Will those who hate the whole because of the views of the part ever learn that the law of a liberal democratic state does not flex to the will of a minority? Will the better nature of the Western mind and heart overcome the insipid cruelty and ignorance of bigotry?

Why would states with a dedication to religious toleration ever permit one religious code to outweigh all others, as well as the laws of the states, themselves?

This strawman argument has been burned down by mrjesushat.

[over-man]

An excellent post about the diversity of ideas and opinions in Islam.

The clock is ticking. Will those who hate the whole because of the views of the part ever learn that the law of a liberal democratic state does not flex to the will of a minority? Will the better nature of the Western mind and heart overcome the insipid cruelty and ignorance of bigotry?

Why would states with a dedication to religious toleration ever permit one religious code to outweigh all others, as well as the laws of the states, themselves?

This strawman argument has been burned down by mrjesushat.

Why are the most radical elements of islam being singled out? They are the truest muslims.

[over-man]

Why are the most radical elements of islam being singled out? They are the truest muslims.

To be fair with myself, the christian radicals are the truest christians also.
And to be completely honest, i have more respect for the radicals that follow their religion correctly than i do for the liberals who insist it is all hugs and kisses and defend the holy books that breed the radicals.

[Ummon]

To be fair with myself, the christian radicals are the truest christians also.
And to be completely honest, i have more respect for the radicals that follow their religion correctly than i do for the liberals who insist it is all hugs and kisses and defend the holy books that breed the radicals.

I must say, I don't know what christian radicals you have in mind. I know no christian radical who might be defined a true christian according to the example of Jesus. But this is my opinion, of course.

Ok. Still a strawman argument. You are attempting, as you so tirelessly do, to equate radical Islam with the views of every living Muslim on the planet. You will, of course, deny this. Which will take the debate into the realm of the absurd. But the debate is already absurd, because you have, yet again, posted "evidence" or "supporting articles" that in fact clearly demonstrate that what you fear is highly unlikely to ever come to pass. The actual fact is, the existence of a publicly gay Muslim advocate indicates that Western cultural values and general toleration are changing Islam (at least as practiced and viewed in the West), not the other way around.

Let's examine this interesting tidbit of... well, my vocabulary doesn't include words for this, sorry.

I do not absolutely care about the opinions of muslims. It is not the opinions of muslims I discuss, it is the point of view of Islam as a religion. This has nothing to do with the opinions of single, private muslims, but with the holy books, and statements of religious authorities, who are then able to enforce their point of view even on those who disagree: (to use an anthropological multiculti metaphor you will be familiar with) to impose their practical taxonomy of the world on others.

Also, this is from the article you posted about the "marvels of multiculturalism":

This is known as "democracy in action". It continues to be absurd for Islamophobes to claim that somehow, someway, Sharia will come to rule in Western Liberal Democracies. For that to happen, a majority of the populace would have to convert to Islam, and then petition, demonstrate, campaign and vote in such a way that elements of Sharia would have to be implemented by the governments in question. This is unlikely, but should it come to be, then the majority will have spoken. Welcome to "Democratic Processes, 101".

You forget the second part of the article.

[over-man]

I must say, I don't know what christian radicals you have in mind. I know no christian radical who might be defined a true christian according to the example of Jesus. But this is my opinion, of course.

Well, the christians i am thinking of do not consider themselves radical, of course, but neither do any radicals. I'm talking about the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells who are considered radical by the secular christians, and who may take their examples from the old testament rather than jesus.

Not understanding that in the slightest.

Peter

I think he's referring to George W.

[Ummon]

An excellent post about the diversity of ideas and opinions in Islam.

The clock is ticking. Will those who hate the whole because of the views of the part ever learn that the law of a liberal democratic state does not flex to the will of a minority? Will the better nature of the Western mind and heart overcome the insipid cruelty and ignorance of bigotry?

Why would states with a dedication to religious toleration ever permit one religious code to outweigh all others, as well as the laws of the states, themselves?

This strawman argument has been burned down by mrjesushat.

The problem, my dear mr., is that the gay muslim says so because he is a gay muslim.

If he was a gay apostate, additionally, he would have a 100% chance to die. Better reduce it without apostasizing, clearly.

This, of course, you won't understand. I think that you will realize what is happening only if the violence unexpectedly comes your way, which for the love of humanity as a whole, I sincerely wish will never happen.

[AngryTitusPullo]

He's just a british muslim cleric.. not the pope. His words have no legal binding anyway in Islam... So what's the fuss about ?

[mrjesushat]

The problem, my dear mr., is that the gay muslim says so because he is a gay muslim.

If he was a gay apostate, additionally, he would have a 100% chance to die. Better reduce it without apostasizing, clearly.

This, of course, you won't understand. I think that you will realize what is happening only if the violence unexpectedly comes your way, which for the love of humanity as a whole, I sincerely wish will never happen.

Ok. Still a strawman argument. You are attempting, as you so tirelessly do, to equate radical Islam with the views of every living Muslim on the planet. You will, of course, deny this. Which will take the debate into the realm of the absurd. But the debate is already absurd, because you have, yet again, posted "evidence" or "supporting articles" that in fact clearly demonstrate that what you fear is highly unlikely to ever come to pass. The actual fact is, the existence of a publicly gay Muslim advocate indicates that Western cultural values and general toleration are changing Islam (at least as practiced and viewed in the West), not the other way around.

Also, this is from the article you posted about the "marvels of multiculturalism":

BRUSSELS - More then six citizens in ten fear an increase in religious tensions in Belgium according to a survey by Belgian newspaper Le Soir.

A "pessimistic" attitude in contrast with the overall "moderate attitude" of Belgians towards religions, notes the evening paper.
The majority of interviewees supported a 'respectful criticism' of religions, meaning that criticism can be expressed so long as personal religious beliefs are respected.

But not all Belgians follow this moderated view: 23 percent are opposed to all critics of religion, half as much as the French notes Le Soir, while 16 percent assume a highly critical standpoint, three times more then in France.

This is known as "democracy in action". It continues to be absurd for Islamophobes to claim that somehow, someway, Sharia will come to rule in Western Liberal Democracies. For that to happen, a majority of the populace would have to convert to Islam, and then petition, demonstrate, campaign and vote in such a way that elements of Sharia would have to be implemented by the governments in question. This is unlikely, but should it come to be, then the majority will have spoken. Welcome to "Democratic Processes, 101".

[Ummon]

But on the other hand the words of the Ayatollah are legally binding for Shiites.

It is also undoubtedly worrying that an Imam (whose job is to study and teach the Qu'ran) publicly says so. It is an encitement to violence: "it is right to kill..."

That's what the fuss is about.

[xopium]

It doesn't matter what religion he is, you get nutjobs like Fred Phelps in whatever faith or non-faith. I don't see why this is a big issue, its true in all three monothestic religions that sexual intercourse outside of marriage has fatal repurcussions whether gay or otherwise, as much as American Christians love to deny that.

I also don't understand what connection wife-beating has to homosexual sex unless I missed something. Iran is an obviously repressed society.

[AngryTitusPullo]

But on the other hand the words of the Ayatollah are legally binding for Shiites.

It is also undoubtedly worrying that an Imam (whose job is to study and teach the Qu'ran) publicly says so. It is an encitement to violence: "it is right to kill..."

That's what the fuss is about.

It's also have the rights to kill in some of American States.. So ? An imam is not like a priest. It's not his job to study and teach the Qu'ran. I cannot answer for the Shiite's but for me none of those applied to me.

For the record, Qur'an do says that homosexuality is wrong and against the nature of mankind and God (as with other religious text I believe).

But to advocate killings ? If it's become the law of the state (syariah you may say, which basically means law) then it's legally applied to that state in particular. Same as in any other wrongdoing as stated in any law, be it killing, cheating, stealing etc. However, if it's not he law of the land (be in muslim or non-muslim) then to kill a homosexual is itself an act of lawlessness which are not allowed in Islam.

Qur'an only states what's wrong and what's right.

What is the fuss about?

The day there isn't a fuss about someone publicly declaring things like this I am going to get very worried.

If that someone holds the highest office of the mightiest nation on earth and he call a crusade then we're all suppose to be worried.. Welll in fact he already did...

[Denny Crane!]

If that someone holds the highest office of the mightiest nation on earth and he call a crusade then we're all suppose to be worried.. Welll in fact he already did...

Not understanding that in the slightest.

Peter

[mrjesushat]

Not understanding that in the slightest.

Peter

He means George W. Bush. Who once made an oopsy, and called the War on Terror a, "Crusade". Of course, this was back when the WOT was in its prototype stage, so I'm sure this was not an example of parapraxis, but merely a verbal error on the part of our esteemed leader.

I do not absolutely care about the opinions of muslims. It is not the opinions of muslims I discuss, it is the point of view of Islam as a religion. This has nothing to do with the opinions of single, private muslims, but with the holy books, and statements of religious authorities, who are then able to enforce their point of view even on those who disagree: (to use an anthropological multiculti metaphor you will be familiar with) to impose their practical taxonomy of the world on others.

But of course the immediate and obvious flaw in your position is that no religion is homogenous. What you are attempting to do is convince people that Islam has some homogenous element that---in your interpretation, and in the interpretations of others that you support---encourages all manner of violence and repressive brutality.

I think the fun part of this (if prejudice and bigotry can be "fun"), is that there are Muslim members of TWC who regularly demonstrate by their tact and their positions that they do not share the views you espouse. And there are uncounted numbers of Muslims with whom many of us may even daily interact, who do not declare fatwas or jihads or seek to murder homosexuals or "unbelievers". Which means that Islam, like every other world religion, is heterogenous in character and composition. Or, in terms of chemistry, Islam is a mixture, rather than a compound.

If your specific problem remains with the manner in which you choose to interpret the Koran, then perhaps you should buy a Koran, take it into your bedroom, and have a very long talk with it. Maybe you can change the Koran's mind. A wise individual would, in the interim, lay off the hate-speech and efforts to defame Muslims via strawman arguments and weak equivocations.

You forget the second part of the article.

Actually, no, I didn't. I consider the angle of your interpretation rendered null and void by the beginning of the article, in which the data suggests that there is considerable popular resistance to the notion of imposing a single faith or system of law derived from faith upon the entire population. Ergo, your effort to fear-monger and to suggest the existence of some dark cloud of "Evil Islam" looming over the future is demonstrably absurd. The very evidence you would marshall to your cause is indicative of the reality that free societies do not randomly accord with the dictates and codes of oppressive societies.

[AngryTitusPullo]

If your specific problem remains with the manner in which you choose to interpret the Koran, then perhaps you should buy a Koran, take it into your bedroom, and have a very long talk with it. Maybe you can change the Koran's mind. A wise individual would, in the interim, lay off the hate-speech and efforts to defame Muslims via strawman arguments and weak equivocations.

I was about to suggest that. Actually probably have suggested that infact. The thing is, many people do not read the Qur'an, but actually read about the Qur'an. Using this way, one can always try to justify his/her action when reading sources which probably tries to explain the Qur'an. For muslims (or maybe some who calles themselves muslims) by reading bits and pieces to justify whatever actions they did or for non-muslims to justify their hatred for the religion.

Understanable that not all people speaks Arabic and not even all Arabs were well versed in the Qur'anic language (same like not all English understood Shakespeare) that's why to understand evev the single verse of the Qur'an, one must have read at least the whole Surah containing the verse.

Read at least 3 different translations from known and acceptable source and also know the jistory of when, why, where the verses are revealed.

That imam probably thinks he knows so much about the Qur'an more than anyone else, but he's not infallible. No one is.. including Ummon.

[Ummon]

But of course the immediate and obvious flaw in your position is that no religion is homogenous.

I single out this statement because the rest appears just as meaningless as this one: we can assume it as a sign of the general meaninglessness of your post, as far as I can tell.

No religion is homogeneous, no society is homogeneous, and yet, statistically, you won't find veiled westerners, nor catholic priests saying that unveiled women deserve rape, as much as you will find veiled muslim women, and muslim priests saying unveiled women are to be raped.

Hiding inside the realm of differences, because similarities would lead to a meaningful judgement you don't like. All these advocates of weak thought, advocating it because strong thought is somewhat beyond their reach, IMHO, are fun.

[Ummon]

It's also have the rights to kill in some of American States.. So ? An imam is not like a priest. It's not his job to study and teach the Qu'ran. I cannot answer for the Shiite's but for me none of those applied to me.

Death penalty is infact a wrong practice, yet it is a practice which is used to punish murderers, not adulterers.

For the record, Qur'an do says that homosexuality is wrong and against the nature of mankind and God (as with other religious text I believe).

But to advocate killings ? If it's become the law of the state (syariah you may say, which basically means law) then it's legally applied to that state in particular. Same as in any other wrongdoing as stated in any law, be it killing, cheating, stealing etc. However, if it's not he law of the land (be in muslim or non-muslim) then to kill a homosexual is itself an act of lawlessness which are not allowed in Islam.

Qur'an only states what's wrong and what's right.

In the case, it doesn't state that killing gays is wrong. Nor does the Bible, which infact says it is right to kill them. But luckily, Jesus came by and introduced the concept that if you are not absolutely sinless, killing sinners is not a good idea. Which makes Christianism superior, IMHO.

If that someone holds the highest office of the mightiest nation on earth and he call a crusade then we're all suppose to be worried.. Welll in fact he already did...

He is no religious authority, and to my knowledge the dumb person to which you refer (Bush), didn't use the word crusade, he simply waged a war.

Well, the christians i am thinking of do not consider themselves radical, of course, but neither do any radicals. I'm talking about the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells who are considered radical by the secular christians, and who may take their examples from the old testament rather than jesus.

Which makes them un-christian, as Jesus was the Christ.

[xopium]

Which makes them un-christian, as Jesus was the Christ.

Right so I could argue that the Ayatollah is un-Muslim because:

"He is the most perfect Muslim whose disposition is best; and the best of you are they who behave best to their wives." - Muhammad

Hmmm... :hmmm: