And he calls for unity among all the Muslim countries. In Sunni Islam, that unity under a caliphate is a prerequisite for lawful offensive jihad. I suspect that he has something similar in mind himself. "A UN seat must be given to Islamic world," from IRIB News, June 16 (thanks to Twostellas):
Islamic Revolution Leader, Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei in a meeting with visiting Comoros President, Ahmad Abdullah Muhammad Sambi termed unity as the basic need of the Islamic world.Pointing to valuable resources of the Islamic countries, Ayatollah Khamenei said, "The Islamic world with rich, natural resources, strategic geographical position, vast lands and population as well as expert human sources can turn into a power but the traditional powers of the world oppose such a development."
The IR Leader highlighted the recent achievements of the Islamic countries in scientific and technological fields, notably the Islamic Republic of Iran's access to peaceful nuclear energy, adding "Although the enemies of the Islamic world know that the IRI's nuclear activities are peaceful by nature, they oppose it because the Iranian nation's achievement is notable and progressive."
Ayatollah Khamenei said a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council should be given to Islamic countries.
"The Islamic world despite having many facilities suffers lack of sufficient power to defend itself. To resolve the issue it should take practical steps to put aside phony hurdles and leave behind geographical, ethnic and religious differences."
Pointing to the enemies' plots to sow discord among Muslims especially by inciting Shii-Sunni difference, Ayatollah Khamenei said, "Unfortunately some politicians, intellectuals and Alims in the world of Islam have fallen into this trap. They should know that the only solution to make a powerful Islamic world is practical and willing unity and cooperation among the Islamic countries."...
Oil as a weapon.
Time to develop some alternatives.
So if we think the UN is useless now, well .........
Given that there are 15 seats on the Security Council and 22 Islamic nations, it stands to reason that there is almost always one Islamic vote on the SC.
Since Khameini wants a PERMANENT seat, which of the 22 nations will do it? How will the representative be chosen from among those nations?
As in the West, even the Islamic nations have competing interests. Whose will come first?
Lastly, no one in the West is stopping the development of the Islamic world. We would all be better off if they decided to let go of their tribal rivalries and work as one with the rest of the world. It's not on their agenda. That's not our fault. It's theirs.
which of the 22 nations will do it? How will the representative be chosen from among those nations?
Why, the Caliphate as a separate nation of course.
Yet another reason to withdraw (membership and kabillions in dues) and give the U.N. a 30 day notice to leave New York.
Ah, I see, he wants to make permanent seats on the Security Council contingent on religion. I'm sure, then, he wouldn't object to Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, African Animist, Shinto and Taoist seats as well.
Shalom,
As I understand demographics, France will be an Islamic country in about 17 years as a result of Da’wa. England will not be far behind France and will soon have more people practicing Islam than Christianity.
Doesn’t that that pretty much indicate that a country that has been Christian (Western) and currently holds a seat on the UN Security Council, will soon be Islamic (due to majority Muslim population) and not only stop making fine wines, but also have a seat? Then, unless something changes in jolly old England, won't the future probably hold a second Islamic seat on the Security Council?
www.EducateUSA.com
I think the Iranian regime could better serve the world by running the UN Human Rights committee, since they have a great deal of moral capital to spend based on the successes and examples from their great cultural revolution.
(I'm trying to be ironic)
Iran is not, and will never be, a 'great power' no matter how much its President and 'supreme leader' want it to be. Words don't make it so and they are pursuing a course of action that will ultimately lead to a changing of the guard. They take the same path as other fascist states in the 20th century and ultimately they will see the same end.
Ah, yes--Iran's nuclear ambitions are peaceful, since a nuclear arsenal will enable the mullahs to bring about Islamic peace and unity! War Is Peace.
But I thought that Islam is a religion, not political. If Islam gets a seat, how about one for the Vatican, another for Scientology, the Wickans, etc.
Pointing to the enemies' plots to sow discord among Muslims especially by inciting Shii-Sunni difference, Ayatollah Khamenei said
...................................
Most of the West was barely aware of the existance of a Sunni-Shi'ite split until we stepped right in the middle of it in Iraq. (Of course, we *should* have been familiar with this, but that is a separate issue).The idea that this "enemy" is the one sowing discord--in a bloody 1400-year-old inter-Muslim dispute--is absurd. In fact, Westerners have tried to do what they can to heal these rifts and broker peace. Many of these attempts have been rather ham-fisted--due to Western ignorance of the intransigence of the problem--but no less ernest for that.
from above:
"Unfortunately some politicians, intellectuals and Alims in the world of Islam have fallen into this trap. They should know that the only solution to make a powerful Islamic world is practical and willing unity and cooperation among the Islamic countries."
.............................
Iran wants a Caliphate as much as the rest of the Muslim world--they just want to make sure that it has as much of a Shi'ite flavor as possible. Hence the political jockeying, especially vis-a-vis their big rival in world jihad and da'wa funding, Sunni-majority Saudi Arabia, and the backing of Hizb'allah and Hamas.
Virtually all of the "natural resources" (read foremost: oil) that he mentions are just that due to kuffir technology in developing a use for them, ways to extract, process, and transport them, a market for them etc. Without that, all the oil in Arabia would remain as it was in the time of Mohammed - unknown, unreachable, and unuseable. It is only our (increading questionable IMHO) respect for property rights that allows these fascists to profit from what can only be described as history's greatest lottery jackpot.
Get rid of the UN, and just have a club of have's with Democracy, western style that is. the have not will have to become democratic, and upon becoming a have's can therefore join the club.
Great idea. Let's give them the US seat and throw their bloated corrupt asses out of NY and stop funding them. Screw the UN and islam.
"To resolve the issue it should take practical steps to put aside phony hurdles and leave behind geographical, ethnic and religious differences."
This is a fine example of "my brother and I against my cousin, but my cousins and I against any other."
So many of the perversities and outrages that dominate Islamic societies are put down to "culture" by Islam's defenders. Yet the correlation between Islam and such things -- violent jihad, suppression of women, oppression of religious minorities, slavery -- is nearly 100%. So also with the tribal mentality the quote above implicitly deplores. Let's stipulate, strictly for the sake of discussion, that correlation in this case is not causation. Could the common generative factor be the subnormal average intelligence of Islamic countries? (Average IQ 88, according to Lynn and Vanhanen).
Any other possibilities, fellow anti-jihadists?
The comment 'Islam lacks the sufficient power to defend itself'....
International laws protect religion, of which it is Islam countries that attack other religions.
What Islam is looking for is an 'elivated' ability to establish International laws. Islam is always looking for more U.N. votes, this is their way of getting another seat.
Since Islam claims to be the fastest growing religion what 'power to defend itself' is it looking for? But an abuse of power.
"...but the traditional powers of the world oppose such a development."
ORLY? I can only guess why.
Throw a fit, go make your own UN and declare war on ours. Destroy ours because it's weak, and then get ready for the BBQ as the US steps in and finishes yours off.
We gain much by losing the tumor that is the UN and by embarassing you before your moon god.
Why not? In fact, why should any "enemies of islam" be permitted to occupy seats on the 'security council', or the 'human rights' council, or any other council of this hideous club. They only lend an unwarranted aura of legitimacy. The more criminal and corrupt this instrument of the jihad becomes, the more difficult it will be to defend its presence in New York and continued American participation, even to the most craven politicians.
Why not a Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist seat on the Security Council?
Or is Islam something special, entitled to some special recognition from the International community?
Arrogant supremacists.
And word to all those who pointed out that if 'Islam' gets a seat then every OTHER world religion should have a seat, too. The Pope and the Dalai Lama for starters - I'm sure we can think of others.
This demand makes one thing crystal clear: Islam is about nothing, nothing at all, except power. All 'allah' is, is Nietzsche's 'Will to Power', personified/ absolutised/ deified.
Has Iran already within its legal Islamic system already made a "finding" that the Islamic Republic and the United States are at war? Khomeini called the US "Great Satan" many times and had others repeat it, even in schools. Didn't this amount to an effective fatwa that the US and the Islamic Republic were at war?
More on this hypothesis and links to sources on it at link at my name.
A little something from twenty years ago, as recorded by Bat Yeor in 'The Dhimmi', p. 137:
“A negative attitude was expressed in 1982 by Algeria’s first president, in a lapidary formula:
‘Ce que nous voulons, nous autres Arabes, c’est etre. Or, nous ne pourrons etre que si l’autre n’est pas.
- ‘What we want, as Arabs, is to be. However, we can only be, if the other is not’.” {or, ‘if the other does not exist’}…[Ben Bella, ‘Tous Contre Israel’, in Politique Internationale 16 (Paris, 1982).
- Ben Bella openly approved the assassinaton of leaders whose policies he disapproves of – a common practice under the Mamluks – and then went on to justify, after the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Arab states, a nuclear war to destroy Israel:
- ‘If there is no other solution, then let there be a nuclear war, and that will be the end of it, once and for all.” – ibid, p. 108.
And Bat Yeor comments:
'Such a public display of aggressiveness and moral irresponsibility is rooted in a monolithic clear conscience, which has never been affected [p. 138] by any scruples regarding the tragedy of the dhimmis."
For greater clarity, one might insert 'Muslims' and 'Muslim' in the above paragraphs, wherever one encounters the word 'Arabs' or 'Arab'.
Furthermore, Ben Bella is not the only one to have made Muslim intentions clear. One of the 138 so-called 'scholars' who signed off on that 'letter from the Muslims to the Christians', in 2007, was 'Shaykh Dr Mohammed Salim Al-'Awa, 'Secretary General of the international Union of Muslim Scholars, Head of the Egyptian Association for Culture and Dialogue'.
I put his name through the MEMRI sieve and discovered that he was on record, in 1998, in an interview with Al-Ishqlal [?], mouthpiece of 'Palestinian Islamic Jihad', as having said:
"I believe it is the duty of the Muslims to act in all possible ways in order to obtain Weapons of Mass Destruction".
When Muslims have WMD they will use them. Hussein poison gassed the Kurds; poison gas was also used by Muslims against Muslims in Yemen. They kill fellow Muslims unblinkingly on the pretext of their being insufficiently Islamic; do we really suppose that if they had sufficient WMD to kill all five billion kafir as horribly as possible - even if it meant killing all one billion Muslims at the same time - there are not Muslims on this planet who would joyously press the Destruct button? It's just the suicide-assassin mindset, scaled up.
Perhaps he means the electric chair ? I would advice the security council to seriously concider this in case the iranian gouvernment seeks to sacrifice one of it's "politicians" for the cause of Allah through martyrdom this way.
That way, the permanent members would then be US, Israel, Thailand/Mongolia (Buddhism), Japan (Shintoism) and China (Communism/Athiesm). I can't think of a representation for Hindus, since Nepal has been taken over by Communists, and given how India has screwed with Hindus and grovelled before Mohammedans, I can't stand the idea of India being allowed to represent Hindus and gain a seat as a permanent member. Can organizations stand in for countries? If the OIC gets to represent Islam, maybe the VHP can be given the seat for Hindus - one will find them much more supportive of Israel, although on Serbia, the US might find them on opposite sides.
Ah, I see, he wants to make permanent seats on the Security Council contingent on religion. I'm sure, then, he wouldn't object to Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, African Animist, Shinto and Taoist seats as well.
Posted by: JeffS
You can be sure that if ever such a suggestion were to be seriously entertained, when it came time for negotiations discussions would be rigged in such a way as to disqualify every other religion except Islam. Overall, this is a bad idea. The last thing in the world we need is for religions of any kind to start exerting ideologically or religiously motivated political influence in world bodies. Have we not learned anything from history?
Pointing to the enemies' plots to sow discord among Muslims especially by inciting Shii-Sunni difference, Ayatollah Khamenei said, "Unfortunately some politicians, intellectuals and Alims in the world of Islam have fallen into this trap.
I hate to be the one to break it to you Ayatollah Khamenei, but no one outside of Islam fomented "Sunni-shii difference". You Muslims did it all by yourselves. Your "unity" didn't survive the death of your "prophet". Your "faith" was immediately mired in disputes about the line of succession. Those disputes were never settled. The responsibility for that is shared by all Muslims throughout time.
And under what "unity" will Islam stand? That of the Sunnis or that of the Shiites? Or maybe something in between? Would Persia return to the Sunni fold whence it came, and where it existed for seven centuries? Would all Shiites give up their worship of Ali's grandson?
I'm interested in how you bring this about.
More from the http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
Saudi woman arrested for driving.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1026695/Saudi-wife-arrested-going-illegal-drive.html
Saudi man 92, banned from marrying teenage girl.
the authorities allowed 173 such marriages last year after the foreign husbands paid the equivalent of $US8,000 ($8,550) into the Egyptian National Bank.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23865686-23109,00.html
Father prevents male doctor from treating wife, sues hospital
A French Muslim couple who sued a hospital after their son was born heavily handicapped were instead fined EUR 1,000 on Tuesday for refusing the presence of a male doctor during labour.
Mohammed Ijjou was born severely handicapped on 8 November 1998 as a result of neurological complications during birth.
According to the appeal court ruling, his father Radouane Ijjou physically barred a male intern from entering his wife's room for half an hour, citing religious reasons, after a midwife asked for help with the labour.
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/06/france-father-prevents-male-doctor-from.html
Kidnapped woman home after 60 years.
The media today claim that at the beginning of the 1950s, while the Menashe family were getting ready to emigrate from Iraq, Hanna Menashe, twenty-year-old then, was abducted by a Muslim neighbour
http://www.ansamed.info/en/news/ME03.@AM16395.html
7,000 strong Muslim mob attacks pilgrims.
A mob of nearly 7000 Muslims attacked a group of Hindu pilgrims in West Bengal, a state in Eastern India that borders Bangladesh on the west. According to a Hindu blog, a sacred Hindu site frequented by Hindu pilgrims, including women and children, has experienced a sustained attack since Thursday evening. Muslims have thrown gas cylinders and Molotov cocktails at the pilgrims, burning down the camp building and trapping 180 men, women and children, along with fifteen police officers, within the confines of the compound.
The Muslims attempted to breach the wall of the compound by exploding gas cylinders against it. The fifteen police officers have not been able to disperse the mob, even afer firing several rounds.
http://www.aina.org/news/20080614180321.htm
It never ends...11,273 attacks since 9/11/2001
The UN is a joke. Why do we keep supporting such a pathetic institution?
Muslim Youths Drag Gay Model From Catwalk- Break His Nose
10 Muslim youths dragged Dutch gay model Mike Du Pree from a catwalk in the Netherlands during a show.
They beat him and broke his nose.
A second model who tried to help was also attacked.
Martin Bosma, gay issues spokesman of the Dutch Party of Freedom (PVV), said as much:
This shows how strong the Islamic gaybashers feel they are. Even at daylight, on Queen’s Day, in the heart of Amsterdam, they strike . . . . The Dutch nationality of the gaybashers of Rembrandt Square should immediately be taken from them and they should be expelled from the country today. The Netherlands can show no mercy for these people who damage our society in this way. Either they will win, or we will win.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/muslim-youths-drag-dutch-gay-model-from.html
15 MUSLIM CHILD BRIDES USED AS PAYMENT FOR DEATH OF DOG
How many times has the Western World been chastised, denounced as Islamophobic and threatened by muslims, for saying that the muslim religion is "soft on pedophilia"? If this taboo subject, abhorred by ALL Western nations, has no place in Islam then why are little girls - ages between 3 - 10 years old - considered old enough to be bartered (for a dead dog) as marriageable = brides??
Whereas it is commendable that some government officials, in Pakistan, are voicing their outrage-- the origination of the source of the mindset that foments much of the muslim population to consider the use of little girls (referred to in article as "ladies") as chattel capable of performing "wifely" duties - though "unspeakable" is clear.
entire article - emphasis mine
15 CHILD BRIDES USED TO SETTLE PAKISTAN FEUD
Declan Walsh in Islamabad
The Guardian,
Thursday June 5 2008
10 Years sentence for girly man who dressed like a woman.
http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=200806118981
EducateUSA- you are absolutely right- France Muslim and G.B. Muslim in a couple decades or so, unless the natives get restless (at last) and start a Tenth Crusade to eject them.
I think it behooves us to get both of these countries to ship their nukes to the USA for safe keeping, or else start a program like we have with the Russians to destroy them. This program is only partially successful and Russia will still keep thousands of warheads. Whatever we have to worry about Russia, I do not think it will go Muslim despite its low birthrate. If necessary, Putin will have his own Tenth Crusade.
Borg
just thinking of that awful story from the Netherlands about the Muslim men bashing a gay model.
Nothing says gay men can't learn how to fight! Greek male lovers, after all, fought shoulder to shoulder as battle buddies. Or so I learned from classical literature, and from Mary Renault's "The Last of the Wine". So let Dutch gay guys imitate Kurt Westergaard, and turn their fear into furious anger.
Dutch non-Muslim gays should now be flocking to unarmed and armed combat classes...kung fu, karate, tae kwon do, judo, kickboxing, archery, fencing, target shooting. Body-building would cease to be about good looks and start to be about strength and stamina.
Then next time the Muslim thugs try it on, their intended 'victims' might be able to give them a most unpleasant surprise: a sound thrashing; a citizens' arrest; and an ignominious arrival on the doorstep of the police station, stripped to their underwear and tied hand and foot with ropes made out of fishnet stockings and leather 'accessories'.
Borg,
Don't Muslims consider dogs unclean? Why would they find it acceptable to give away Muslim girls to compensate for the death of a dog?
They have to make sacrifices for the death of an animal that they wouldn't allow into a taxi in America?
What am I missing?
[Muslim Youths Drag Gay Model From Catwalk- Break His Nose]
Hi Borg,
Interesting news, but what has this got to do with the subject of this particular artical?
And I'm trying to find the original artical about Mike, but i only find copy-paste stuff. It's not that I doubt this news, but I haven't heard anything about it.
I live in Holland, n even though I'm not so surprised about the news, I am surprised that this hasn't been a big story here. Or maybe I missed it. Maybe there wasn't enough space left in the newspaper due to football (soccer).
Anyway, about this artical above; I thought the UN was already taken hostige by the +50 countries of the OIC. Or atleast the UN should be called something like UNAI. United Nations against Israel.
PMK ~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/05/pakistan.humanrights
Dataflush ~ Just a collection of stories related to islam fitting in with the world. I just post sometimes to show that there is so much more going on that we don't see. There isn't any open thread to post O T items. I didn't look for a mainstream article to 'prove' the story. As the writer said this didn't make the mainstream. As our own Dominic said after he was bashed, the police wouldn't even take his report and then threatened him. So much goes on that is unreported. And lots of posters put links in the comments that then get read by lurkers. Just hoping to add to the awareness levels.
A dog owned by one tribe, the Chakranis, was shot dead because it strayed too close to a well controlled by their rivals, the Qalandaris.
Borg,
Thanks for the link. After reading it, I found the same story in many places.
My original question was what Muslims were doing with a dog, if dogs are ritually unclean. It turns out dogs are allowed for guarding the house or farm (how to distinguish between that and having a pet, which is forbidden in Islam?) or for hunting.
It turns out owning a dog is prohibited, except when it isn't.
PMK wrote:
Don't Muslims consider dogs unclean? Why would they find it acceptable to give away Muslim girls to compensate for the death of a dog?
They have to make sacrifices for the death of an animal that they wouldn't allow into a taxi in America?
What am I missing?
..................................
Just this: this isn't ultimately about the loss of a beloved pet, or in any way about the worth of a dog. It's about what so much violence in the Muslim world is about--"honor". Or their perception of honor, anyway.
This pathetic tribal warfare began with the killing of a dog--one tribe's dog wandered too near the other tribe's well, and was shot. This act of petty barbarity was countered by the first tribe when they shot a donkey belonging to the second tribe. Eventually nineteen people were killed in the ensuing stupidity.
The "cultural tradition"--ain't tradition grand?--of ending tribal feuds with an offering of child-brides is so common it has a name--vanni. As if this isn't ugly enough in itself, often these "brides" are particularly ill-treated since they are members of the "enemy" tribe. That this fate is being inflicted on little girls--really just toddlers!--as young as three is especially henious.
Islam should have seat on Security Council??
Sounds good to me. This could have the unexpected benefit of making the world fully aware of the islam dysfunction and also be the nail in the coffin for the UN as well.
It's about what so much violence in the Muslim world is about--"honor". Or their perception of honor, anyway.
gravenimage,
Precisely. I merely asked, given the laws of Islam, what honor is harmed by any action against a dog? Whether it's trading brides or going to war, what was there about a dog that required retribution? It turns out dogs aren't forbidden.
I looked at the dog and thought: if they went to war over a dog, something that is supposedly unclean, what won't they go to war over?
You'll get no argument from me about the barbarity of this practice. Even despite studies that show the danger of early sexual relations, people won't give up the only way of life they've ever known. Pakistani mothers insist it's perfectly alright to marry their daughters off at 13. One mother said she had her first child at 14 and her daughter would, too.
Whatever you and I think about marrying our pre-pubescent daughters off to anyone, what can be done? They and their apologists would call it an arranged marriage, something that is not unknown in most parts of the world.
This is yet another demonstration of what awaits us if we allow our world to devolve into tribes, all in the name of multiculturalism.
That's a good idea then it could be renamed 'The Insecurity Council'
Of the 'Insecurity Council', Iran is already a permanent member!
"Ayatollah Khamenei said a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council should be given to Islamic countries.
"The Islamic world despite having many facilities suffers lack of sufficient power to defend itself. To resolve the issue it should take practical steps to put aside phony hurdles and leave behind geographical, ethnic and religious differences.""
So what he's talking about here is legitimizing the "Dar al Islam" at the international level by co-opting the corrupt symbol of international cooperation, the United Nations.
Then, as every European country [and America] is fully subdued and dominated by Sharia, it automatically will be included in "Dar-al-Islam" under one umbrella in the UN. THAT is what he means when he says "practical steps to put aside phony hurdles and leave behind geographical, ethnic and religious differences;" he is talking about how Islam actually categorizes the world. IF he is successful this will speed up the Islamization of the world.
"Ayatollah Khamenei said a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council should be given to Islamic countries.
"The Islamic world despite having many facilities suffers lack of sufficient power to defend itself. To resolve the issue it should take practical steps to put aside phony hurdles and leave behind geographical, ethnic and religious differences.""
So what he's talking about here is legitimizing the "Dar al Islam" at the international level by co-opting the corrupt symbol of international cooperation, the United Nations.
Then, as every European, Africa and Micronesian country [and America] is fully subdued and dominated by Sharia, it automatically will be included in "Dar-al-Islam" under one umbrella in the UN. THAT is what he means when he says "practical steps to put aside phony hurdles and leave behind geographical, ethnic and religious differences;" he is talking about how Islam actually categorizes the world. IF he is successful this will speed up the Islamization of the world.