Surely opposing the oppressive regime in Iran is not really to oppose the peaceful and tolerant Allah of the Qur'an, is it? Surely moderate and peaceful Muslims in the U.S. will be eager to step forward and explain just how and why the Islamic Republic actually misunderstands Islam. Honest Ibe Hooper is probably readying a press conference right now. What about it, Ibe? Brave Ahmed Rehab? Anyone? Anyone? "Hanged at dawn: Iran executes two men arrested in presidential election unrest for 'waging war against God,'" from the Daily Mail, January 28 (thanks to all who sent this in):
Two anti-government activists were executed in Iran today.In a crackdown on opposition supporters, officials said the two were hanged after being found guilty of waging war against God, trying to overthrow the Islamic establishment and being members of armed groups.
Five others involved in protests over June's presidential election were sentenced to die....
Iran's English-language Press TV said the two were found guilty of being members of Iran's Kingdom Assembly of Iran, which it said was involved in a deadly mosque bombing in 2008....
Officials have portrayed the protests as a foreign-backed bid to undermine Iran's Islamic system of government. It further strained relationships with the West....
It's a very bad move by the Iranians. Obama will be all over them for this blatant violation of human rights.
Surely the Iranians must realise that they are in enough trouble already after allowing Obama's deadline on their nuclear deadline to lapse harmlessly.
After Obama's forceful action following the rigged elections you would really think that the Iranians would have learned their lesson by now?
I would hate to think what the Iranians would be getting away with now were it not for Obama's strong leadership.
This, coupled with our testing of the "earthquake device," is surely enough to frazzle even the most hardened of Iranian government nerves.
Muhammed's association of religious piety with political obedience is the perfect vehicle for despots. Oppose me and you oppose Allah. How convenient! What's that about bringing democracy to Islamic states?
Might it ever dawn on our "leaders" that it can be argued in islamic circles that by simply being an infidel one is waging war against allah? No? I didn't think so but it is always best to ask.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/005.qmt.html#005.033
" 005.033
YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; "
Non-Muslim countries are Dar al-Harb, "The Houses of WAR!"
The mullah's are the representatives of allah. Good one!
Here's one who hasn't done badly out of that:
Iran’s Religious Leader Denies Living the Good Life
According to this report by Mohsen Makhmalbaf, an exiled Iranian opposition leader, supreme leader's Ayatollah Ali Hoseyni Khamenei personal wealth exceeds $30 billion.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017645288
This particular barbarism perpetrated by Iranian religious zealots comes upon the very day our esteemed 44th President referred just last night in his State of the Union Address to that thugocracy now running Persia as the "Islamic Republic of Iran." Never before, not even from that dhimmi of dhimmis, Jimmy Carter, has an American President dignified the wretched government running Iran since 1979 as the "Islamic Republic of Iran."
It has always been simply "Iran" by which this country has been known over the past three decades. By inserting the words "Islamic Republic," Obama has now given more credibility to a ruling clique (not to mention further validation of Islam as a whole as best evidenced in June by that imbecilic speech he gave in Cairo) who have terrorized their own people and who are the number one sponsor of state terrorism throughout the world. This is all in keeping with Obama's throwing peoples who seek freedom from tyranny to the wolves (another example of this was his unilateral and pusillanimous doing away with a very limited missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic, for which he got NOTHING from the Russians in return).
Words mean things, or they should in a sane and sensible world. Obama's reference to the "Islamic Republic of Iran" is evidence of this man's obsequiousness and willingness to appease tyrants and to provide enslaved peoples yearning for freedom no hope at all. Obama is the anti-Reagan. One knows this or should know it. And for all those who voted for Obama and who still don't grasp this, shame on you all.
What a pathetic excuse for the leader of the free world Barack Obama is. We've come a long way from the likes of Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan to what passes for a Chief Executive these days. Disgusting.
"Officials said the two were hanged after being found guilty of waging war against God..."
What an Orwellian nightmare is Islam. It naturally comes to such a word-game tyranny of the Mullahs wherever it takes firm root.
http://newstime.co.nz/2010/hamas-in-their-own-voices.html
"HAMAS in their own voices"
Yes, Stephanie—I was going to cite the Qu'ranic verse as well. More on "waging war against Allah" from the 'revered' Imam Reza:
Punishment for a Muharib
As mentioned in the above verse one of the following four punishments may be accorded: to kill, to crucify, to cut off hands and legs, or to exile the attackers from the city.
In Burhan Qur’an page. 188 it is mentioned that according to religious terminology ‘attacker’ refers to a person who frightens people, creates inconvenience in a city or desert, whether he is weak or strong, a man or a woman. In all cases such a person is a Muharib (attacker) and when the attack is directed against Muslims according to Qur’an it is equivalent to waging war against Allah (S.w.T.) and Prophet (S).
.........................
Note in the above that "an attacker" need not be a violent robber, kidnapper, or killer—he might just be someone who "creates inconvenience in a city".
That would certainly apply to a peaceful protester against the regime in Iran, even if his "crime" were no greater than snarling traffic.
This is an all-purpose theological excuse for committing the most appalling violence against any "enemy"—and certainly, Islam has made abundant use of this over its long, bloody history.
http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=7401
Excellent comment, Wellington.
"Obama is the anti-Reagan."
I've always thought of him as a possible anti-Christ. I believe (and if I'm mistaken, let me know) that one of the characteristics of the antichrist is that he is supposed to be a nobody who makes a meteoric rise in politics.
Another is that he will mislead people into worshiping him. Sadly, there are a lot of Obama worshipers.
indeed!
indeed!
I am so glad that there are those who think like you do, Wellington. At least we're not alone. The world does seem to be insane these days. I never thot I'd live to see the day when Islam is such a threat, or that we'd have Socialist/Marxists in the White House.
I will attempt to post again...the first didn't work.
I am glad that there are those who think like you do, Wellington. We are not alone. It just seems like the world is more insane than sane.
I never thot I'd live to see the day when Islam is a real threat, or that we'd have Socialists/Marxists in the White House.
I think we are in the End Times. Or at least, unreal times.