Sharia in action in the Islamic Republic of Iran: Muslim cleric says women should only ride bicycles in their backyards

PRCS,

Those definitions you provided are not applicable here. First, the definition of liberalism represents anything but modern liberalism in actuality. Second, the application of the term conservative to Islam in this article was not intended to illustrate that Islam is backwards and nearly immune to any change, but rather that conservative Islam is the problem as is similarly all things conservative.

The focus is on the label of conservative, not Islam and that is where the fundamental flaw in the report lies. It implies that a liberal Islam exists and is innocuous.

Who cares whether the picture above belongs to Iran or not? It belongs to Islam, and that should be enough. So does this one...
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/05/drawing-muhammad-dessiner-mahomet.html

I am actually on the fence as why Andy is pointing this out.
M

Andy: what exactly are you trying to point out here? I am not getting it.
M

I am still wondering what your point is here? what does a picture have to do with the article? the picture your just posted about an aussie woman as a comparison is is slanderous to say the elast the least. the picture that robert posted with muslim women wearing their tents(Pat Condell's saying not mine) is 100% relevent to this article.
can you please elaborate?
M

Aaah, I see now. Andy is accusing Spencer of some sort of racist intent in the post.

Spencer offered an unrelated picture of Muslim women approaching bicycles in their oppressive burqas to illustrate the Iranian cleric's fatwa and Andy took offense to the color of the ladies in terms of the color of Iranian women as perceived by Andy.

In his self-rightousness, Andy then offered another unrelated photo as an alternate suggestion for the photo after the fact, wherein the accompanying photo to the linked article was not used by Spencer or even suggested by Andy.

Then Andy follows up with another photo intending to hammer home his pointless and baseless accusation of a sinister, ulterior racist motive by Spencer.

It appears we have another useless "ally" trolling the JW forums.

awake: please see my comments above to Andy. I have yet to see a response.
m

Awake,

Mohabat News is an Iranian Christian News agency. I'm sure they are familiar with Islam and its clecrics.

You wrote--not as your opinion--but as fact:

"Second, the application of the term conservative to Islam in this article was not intended to illustrate that Islam is backwards and nearly immune to any change, but rather that conservative Islam is the problem as is similarly all things conservative."

The article's author was actually refering to an individual, labeled therein as being ultra-conservative: "However the ultra-conservative Ayatollah Elm Alhuda..."

***Ultra conservative***

"Vehemently, often fanatically opposing progress or reform.."

"A person who vehemently, often fanatically opposes progress and favors return to a previous condition.."

I don't believe the article was written with motives you cite in mind.

Though I appreciate your opinion, I believe you are wrong.

Uh huh, I thought so. So many times, when there's a cryptic comment here...there lurks an agenda not far behind it. It's like there's actually a smell coming off it. And so it is with you, eh "Andy?" You're here to smear Spencer, to get one up on him, make him look bad. But, of course, only in the most "kindly" and "respectful" way.

Most of the women in Iran look just like those "blue jean babes" on the bikes in your example, right? Wrong! And how about that second one--you can go anywhere in Australia and see women who look just like they do, right, "Andy?" Bullshit, "Andy!" But, unfortunately, you can go anywhere in the world and see muslimas JUST LIKE those in the photo acconpanying this article, cant you? The ludicrous examples you post to prop up your Spencer-demeaning straw-man reveal your puropse and expose you as a provacateur--albeit not a very accomplished one.

Perhaps with a little practice you can get better at the "smear-behind-a-smile" game. Hopefully you can put forth a better effort than this one. But for now, and with all respect, "Andy," you are transparently devious, laughably full of shit and offensively inane. I think that about covers it....

PRCS wrote:

"Though I appreciate your opinion, I believe you are wrong."

Fair enough. I failed to preface my comment with "in my opinion" or "I believe", but that is a minor issue, since I certainly wasn't speaking as an authority of absolute fact.

You've been a long-time, loyal and valuable contributor here, and I have no inclination to think that your comment was insidious in any way, and I appreciate your opinion as well. Please allow me to clarify.

My comment was based off of your comment in reply to Spencer, who wrote:

"It is unfortunate to see Mohabat News following the mainstream media in calling this lunatic ayatollah and his allies "conservative." Here again, this creates a ridiculous situation, in which Sharia hardliners and Sharia opponents are both simultaneously called "conservatives.""

I thought that observation was explicit, accurate and worth illustrating.

What I was commenting on was first, your definitions which distinguished the two from each other. In current time, the definition of liberalism seems almost inverse of the reality of those who self-identify as liberals. Your bolding of subscribers to liberalism as those who believe in "the ideas of liberty and equality" implies that conservatives do not, which in my estimation is simply not true.

The rest of the qualifiers are equally opposite in my opinion. Liberals in the West are overtly activist and not constitutionalist. They generally frown upon capitalism as an alternative to socialism. The definition also tries to differentiate that the alternative, conservatism in a western non-Islamic sense, does not promote free elections or freedom of religion, which is again patently false in my opinion.

As far as your exception to my comment, Islam is unique as it is irrevocably traditionalist, literalist and resistent to any change. Though the site is a Christian news service, they are not immune to the fallacy that Spencer pointed out.

In fact, the term conservative as applied to the particular cleric in question is unnecessary as there really is no alternative to that fundamentalist position in Islam in the non-secular Muslim populace. Now, if a liberal cleric of some notoriety or esteem stated otherwise, your point could be argued, but I have not been introduced to that particular person to date.

Anyway, it was not intended as an attack on your character, but rather an observation of a comment that implied the terms beyond the limits of the discussion of Islam, it's adherents and one that is trotted out as a false assertion of moral superiority far too often for my liking.

Regards.

I see from your tepid, dodging response that you're either unwilling or unable to respond in substance to my stated perceptions regarding your purpose here. I can't say that I'm surprised. But, let's get straight on a few points:

I'm not into conspiracy theories, thanks anyway. That has nothing whatever to do with my perceptions about your presence here--which remain unchanged and unanswered by you.

This isn't about "anger" and I'm not angry (though you would like to paint me as such). It's simply an observation on my part. And, since you can't, or won't refute it, that observation stands. See? No anger required.

I think stating reasonable suspicion is quite rational and human when one's behavior (yours) invites same. Your inapt reference to "McCarthyism" smacks of the hackneyed muslim ploy to invoke the Holocaust as applicable / comparable to "islamophobia," which is, of course, absurd and easily debunked. Still trying to smear, are we, "Andy?"

You're right--I may very well continue to call you out if you reveal devious intentions and methods here. And yes, I can surely believe you've heard worse. But...we're just getting started here, arent' we?

Oh, and yes I do have people here whom I consider friends and colleagues. These are folks I admire and with whom I identify because they're not afraid to see and speak the truth, ugly as that can get when dealing with the depredations of islam. And, so far, my BS-meter tells me that you are not among them...

Capische?

Thank you, LemonLime. Although I have responded to PRCS, whom I consider a kindered spirit and true ally in this cause, I must take exception to "Andy", and I agree with your sentiment.

"Andy" started his comment theme by referring to Robert with:

"Does the kind editor of this site, think that the picture above belongs to Iran?"

Kind editor? A snarky opening salvo to say the least in my estimation.

After Robert's honest, and direct response to "Andy" for reasons I identified above, he then went on to reply to Spencer's comment with:

"IF I were to author an article on the Aussie women, and used the following picture":

http://www.watersense.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/hamar-tribe.jpg

"...would you shrug your shoulders?"

So, apparently to the recent provocateur known as "Andy", Spencer's obvious, honest response was not good enough, which "Andy" then subsequently provided a photo of semi-naked Aborigines or Africans to further support his baseless assertion that Robert Spencer is a covert racist?

"Andy's" initial comment might have a semblence of credibility, if not retorted directly by Spencer, for neither actually referred to the photo that accompanied the source link.

As "George" aptly and ably pointed out, the second response comment by "Andy" is irreconcilible after Robert's initial response to him.

The rest of "Andy's" blather in this thread is just that. His attempt to substantiate his incredibly uninformed, baseless race-based attack on Robert Spencer, fell woefully short.

Well done, George.

Peace all.

PRCS wrote:

"While I do not believe there is a "moderate Islam"--for it is a written ideology--the need to use the qualifiers "hardliner, ultra conservative, and conservative lead me to believe that some clerics apparently aren't."

Again, fair enough, but I would need an example or two of non-conservative Islamic clerics to buy in.

Peace.

LemonLime wrote:

"But he has plausible deniability, which he'll probably use till the cows come home."

He has plausible deniability after his comments?

How so?

I'll see what I can do.

But it probably won't be until after the elections. :)

awake,

Strictly speaking, he can squeak by. He never actually said anything; his manner and his links and pics provide evidence to make the reasonable inference we make about him, but he never actually said what we infer. Anyway, I see he's not even trying that tack anymore, but has moved on to other murky waters.

I see that, LL. He is however, DOA in my estimation with all his subsequent comments that do not address why, after Spencer replied to his direct query, did he chose to redress with that accompanying photo link?

I maintain that he slippily threw out an accusation, because he was offended by the photo that Robert chose to caption the article. He chose an opposite photo in appearance as an alternative for Spencer, albeit in hindsight since the article was already posted along with the photo.

He then went on to lament about stereotyping of all Muslims, again with offense taken that the women in the chosen photo were wearing burqas, for not all Muslim women wear burqas. Nor were the women Iranian.

What is illogical is the critique that since not all Muslim women wear burqas, that posting a photo of a Muslim women in a burqa is somehow inappropriate.

I guess Robert could have posted this photo as well, but I fail to see a flaw in the posted article for not doing so.

http://old.tehrantimes.com/News/10351/13_13-5.jpg