He said it. And Khomeini would add: no fun. "No place for democracy and human rights in Islam, says Qom theologian," from AsiaNews, September 8:
Tehran (AsiaNews) - As the world mobilises against the stoning of Sakineh, a 43-year-old woman convicted for adultery and killing her husband, Iranian police continue to threaten and arrest journalists and human rights lawyers. Dozens of university professors are fired and pro-reform students are beaten. The reason is simple. "Democracy, freedom, and human rights have no place" in Islam, said Mesbah Yazdi, who heads Shia Taliban, in a speech reprinted in Rooz, an online Iranian news website.
Speaking before members of paramilitary groups, soldiers and his followers, the cleric said that Iran "is not a place to back down for cultural reasons against people who promote corruption."
In a veiled reference to Sakineh and others, he added, "sexual or moral deviants or promoters of any other kind of corruption must be suppressed."
Mesbah Yadzi is a member of the Association of Teachers of Qom Theological Centre (Jame Modaresin Hoze Elmie Qom) and a great supporter of Ahmadinejad. In fact, "When the president received the supreme leader's confirmation, obeying him is like obeying God," he said.
A similar extremist vision explains recent events in Iran, where dozens of students, followers of pro-reform Ayatollah Dastgheib, who was against to Ahmadinejad's re-election, were beaten in Shiraz's Qoba Mosque.
Pro-democracy activists are also concerned about the firing of 40 professors from Tehran University since March. The activists have slammed the professors' removal, calling it a case of "political cleansing" of the faculties that led the Green Wave movement that came out against the results in last year's presidential election. Indeed, Science Minister Kamran Daneshjoo said repeatedly that the universities would not tolerate professors who are not "in tune with the Islamic Republic regime."
For Mesbah Yazdi, anyone who opposes the Islamic Republic of Iran and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in fact an "enemy of God" (Mohareb).
Human rights activist Shiva Nazar Ahari (pictured), who is the editor of the Committee of Human Rights Reporters website, has recently found out what that means. Arrested on 14 July 2009, a month after Ahmadinejad's re-election, she was released on bail on 23 September of the same year. Re-arrested on 20 December and charged with a "mohareb", a very serious crime in Iran, she is still waiting to go to a trial, expected very soon.
Badrolssadat Mofidi, secretary general of the Iranian Journalists Association, is another prominent figure accused of being a "mohareb". He was recently sentenced to six years in prison and five years without the right to work as a journalist.
The penalties for "waging war against Allah" and "striving after corruption in the land" are, per Qur'an 5:33: "execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land."
Both, of course, are awfully flexible accusations to level, made-to-order for a reign of terror through Sharia.
No surprises here, this is a typical knee jerk liberal response. In all their rationalizations they forgot the main thrust of their actions, they're cowards.
No surprises here, this is a typical knee jerk liberal response. In all their rationalizations they forgot the main thrust of their actions, they're cowards.
" Democracy, freedom, and human rights have no place, in Islam ", said Mesbah Yazdi.
Well, at least he's being honest...
Now, if only someone would tell the Hartford, Connecticut, City Counsel about this...
'''The penalties for "waging war against Allah" and "striving after corruption in the land'''
So just what 'is' warring with Allah? And just what 'is' striving after corruption in the land? And who is committing these serious offenses?
The answer to all three questions, is the same...Kufr, or disbelief in Allah...Kufr is the greatest sin of all...
If you are kufr, it is you who are warring and you who are spreading kufr (corruption) about the land...Allah displayed his hatred of you in numbers of aya's and hadith, but 98:6 where you are the most vile of creatures pretty much sums up Allah's attitude...How does 5:33 fit with the US Constitution?
"Mesbah Yadzi is a member of the Association of Teachers of Qom Theological Centre (Jame Modaresin Hoze Elmie Qom) and a great supporter of Ahmadinejad. In fact, "When the president received the supreme leader's confirmation, obeying him is like obeying God," he said."
I don't think that God is that ugly.
he is one of the most vile bastards in Iran...
HUMAN RIGHTS AND ISLAM
Check out these pie charts from the international human rights organization Freedom House. The pie chart for the Middle East/North Africa -- which happens to be the core Islamic region -- is the most repressed area in the world. However, one country in that area is listed as "free." Can you guess which one that is? (Hint: It's not Islamic.)
Let's put this on a scale of 'equivalence of justice' for a moment. One one side we have the stoning death of a woman who offended Islam by having alleged extramarital affair, to be killed according to (Koranic) Sharia. On the other side we have Koran burning in protest of Islamic violence by an obscure church in Florida, some calling it a 'criminal' act. Both are garnering world condemnation from all sources, even from the Vatican and Obama administration, to Arab street and Sharia advocates, calling for these two action be stopped. Now let's highlight this again:
Which is really the 'criminal' act? Which really deserves world condemnation? Which is more cruel? Which act more evil?
Those who weigh in on the 'Koran burning' are responding with (predictable) rage to a small church basically giving the violent tenets of the Koran their collective finger. On the other side, those who weigh in on stopping her 'stoning to death' are pleading for human mercy. But where does the collective rage from Muslims over such a 'killing vs burning' weigh in? Not cruelty of killing the woman... The Koran!!!
That the Koran is worth more than a woman's life just shows how far apart are the two worlds of Islam and the West. 'Burning the Koran' is a victimless crime, while 'stoning a woman to death' is a vicious, vile crime against humanity. Islamists can commit these vile crimes all over the world, rioting burning and looting in the streets, terrorist killings globally, threaten and kill Jews and Christians worldwide, screaming "death to America!", murdering women by stoning them to death, even burning Pastor Jones in effigy in mass protests; and that somehow is acceptable because "that's how they are"? But a small group of people protesting these same vile acts by a symbolic burning of a book (English translation, not even recognized by Arab Quran purists) that condones these violent acts is somehow held to the same level of vileness as committed by those "that's how they are" murderers, that's more evil than the murders? Has appeasement of Islam come so low, that of the free world we must bow low to their threats without critical review of what is it we are bowing to? Pastor Jones and his flock should read aloud all the vile passages while they burn their cabal of vile texts, and raise that collective finger even higher to all the murderous teachings in Islamic Sharia. The scales have tipped, and more now understand.... Screw them!
As a rule, I am not an advocate of book burning. But if they stone that unfortunate woman, then I say "Burn baby, burn!"
Both are garnering world condemnation from all sources, even from the Vatican and Obama administration, to Arab street and Sharia advocates, calling for these two action be stopped.
I should point out that Vatican and Obama administration are condemning both actions, while Arab street and Sharia advocates are only condemning the Koran burning. That omission alone already tips the scales of justice, which shows how unjust is Sharia. I'll weigh in on Democracy and Freedom and Human Rights any day. We are better.
I just watched the movie "The Stoning of Soraya M" and although it isn't the best movie I've seen it reached me and made me really angry. it's not a Hollywood epic but it is full of truth, disgusting truth. It was a real eye opener particularly in light of the threatened stoning of Sakineh.
Only savages could orchestrate, participate or endorse such a practice and the movie aptly makes that point.
I fear for Sakineh Ashtiani because the barbarians in iran are always looking for a reason to put the West in it's place and they might use her to that end.
NEWS HEADLINE
President Ahmadinejad and his band of bearded Mullahs have denounced all aspects of the speech made by Mesbah Yazdi, who heads Shia Taliban.
Yazdi said,"No place for democracy and human rights in Islam, says Qom theologian," from AsiaNews, September 8:
Ooops, a typo here. A huge typo to be honest. Ahmadinejad and his hairy mates "applaud" the crackpot Yazdi and say he speaks for the leadership of Iran and has only the interests of the people at heart.
Who needs freedom and democracy when you have no rights anyway. Not worth discussing what you don't have. Turns you into a Buddhist and creates all that desire. Not worth the trouble.
Oh, as for those humanitarian organisations that we belong to; well we are just playing along with them, just like the nuke thing. They are stupid and we are always pulling the camel hair over their eyes.
Can't you just hear the keys tapping denouncing Yazdi's rantings. Well, can't you?
I just watched the movie "The Stoning of Soraya M" and although it isn't the best movie I've seen it reached me and made me really angry. it's not a Hollywood epic but it is full of truth, disgusting truth. It was a real eye opener particularly in light of the threatened stoning of Sakineh.
.................
I agree, When *Pigs* Fly—it's not a perfect movie—it is clunky in places and rather gives Islam a pass as the ultimate source of stoning, but it is still a brave, important film, and gives of good sense of what the absolute horror of stoning is really like.
In ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish's book about sharia, 'Cruel and Usual Punishment', she says this (on p. 192)
"Sharia, even if partially applied, can only produce tyranny and dictatorships.
"Sharia is more than a dictator-friendly law.
"It is a dictator's dream handed to him by Allah."
On p 193, she observes
"Mohammed perfected a formula for totalitarian rule, one that has lasted for 1400 years after his death. Islam made its top priority the running of the state under an elaborate legal system. Sharia became Islam and Islam became the state and the state became sharia".
In the same chapter in which Nonie Darwish sums up sharia as 'a dictator's dream', she includes an illuminating discussion of what certain terms mean in what I, dda, call 'Islamspeak' - the doubletalk that is routinely used by the likes of Imam Rauf.
I will reproduce this extended passage in full, for the benefit of some of our newest participants.
It appears under the sub-heading, 'Just vs. Unjust', on pp. 182-183.
QUOTE
"Some Muslim apologists tell the West that jihad is only for just causes, but they don't explain what a 'just' cause means in Islam.
"It's an injustice if non-Muslims do not allow dawa (proselytizing) in their countries. However, the reverse is forbidden under Islamic Sharia. Muslims prevent kuffar from proselytizing in Muslim lands.
"To proselytize in Muslim countries is a major crime that goes against the first duty of the caliph, which is to safeguard Islam from any change or new idea {nota bene: institutionalised mental stagnation...dda}. "The Prophet said that anyone who tries to disrupt the unity of the Muslims should be killed by the sword" [Sahih Muslim 20: 4565, Abdul Hamid Siddiqui's translation, published by Kitab Bhavan in India, 2000].
"The bottom line: the concept of justice and injustice to Muslims is very different from the Western perception.
"Under Sharia, there are two different sets of justice - one for Muslims and one for non-Muslims.
"To Muslims it is always a 'just' war if the end goal is to spread Islam.
"If the war is waged by non-Muslims to stop Muslims from marching in to spread Islam, it is an 'unjust' war. The Egyptian religious scholar and jurist Mohammed Abduh (1849-1905) published an article in 1903 evaluating Islam's early military campaigns and determined that Islam's early neighbours 'prevented the proclamation of truth', engendering the defense of Islam. 'Our religion is not like others that defend themselves...but our defense of our religion is the proclamation of truth and the removal of distortion and misrepresentations of it'.
"Many Muslims call for dawa in the West, which technically means 'an invitation to Islam'. They present it as a peaceful invitation, but they do not tell the West that this is the first step before outright war if their dawa is rejected.
"So when Muslims say dawa, the West should be warned, because what they do not want you to know is that dawa is merely the 'make nice' first step preceding outright jihad, according to Sharia. Muslims who believe in dawa also believe in the totality of Sharia and demand it even in the West.
"To many Muslims the terms 'peace', 'tyranny' and 'oppression' are also very different from the West's perceptions.
"'Peace' will come only when everyone accepts Islam; otherwise Muslims must be in a permanent state of war and unrest.
"To Muslims, the terms 'tyranny' and 'opression' describe Muslims who live in a pluralistic society under a kaffir government that equates Islam with other religions, thereby depriving Muslims of the superior status given to them by Sharia.
"It is not uncommon for Islamists to carry signs in London or New York telling the West it is the British or American constitutions that are tyrannical **because it does not give them all the advantages over non-Muslims and women that they have under Sharia** (my emphasis - dda)..." END QUOTE.
Islam makes the fictional creators of 'Newspeak' in Orwell's 1984 look like rank amateurs.