UK: Muslim radio station fined for saying gay people should be tortured

This poor woman needs a lot more inner spiritual struggle jihad...Then she needs a date...I can almost feel the sexual tension oozing from her statements...Don't look to me to do it. I'm too old and out of shape for an ordeal like that...

It's good that the fine has been administered - we need to follow this up. Will it get paid?

"A Muslim marrying a non-Mulslim was on 'the straight path to hellfire'."

He's lying about this one, only his private parts are on "the straight path to hellfire"

Ask Muhammad!

http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/07/private-parts-of-muhammad.html

Lessons to be learned from Rubina Nasir:

1) If she had never been "outed" (pun intended) saying these things, and PC MCs (and some exist in the CJ as well) just saw her or met her and she was all smiles and unhijabbed moderation in blue jeans, she would be protected from condemnation by the "not all Muslims are bad" prejudicial axiom

2) the scripted fanaticism that leads a Muslim like Rubina to utter such things is directly related to the same scripted fanaticism of those Muslims who are trying to mass-murder us in ways we may not be able to stop in the near future, and in places we may not be able to predict in time

3) she's yet another female Muslim who demonstrates the deadly fanaticism of Islam, once again for the umpteenth time refuting the hypothetical emotionally based sentimentalism that sees Muslimas as "victims" of Islam whom we must help, rather than as enemies we must defend ourselves from

"Mental punishment means rebuke them, beat them, humiliate them, admonish and curse them, and beat them up. This command was sent in the beginning because capital punishment had not yet been sent down.

then you can kill him...

She missed the memo that it's okay for a Muslim man to marry a Mushrik woman, since she would be his tilth. It's only the reverse - a Muslim woman being the tilth to an Infidel man, which is verboten and punishable the way she describes.

She sounds like she's Paki - she might want to go to Pakistan and tell all her compatriots who are busy raping Christian/Hindu/Sikh girls and marrying them that they are on the road to hellfire. Let's see whether they listen to her - if anything, she will be on the road to hellfire.

Oh I am surprised !!! Rubina does not favour multiculturalism. She has obviously been reading her Quran and realises that we infidels are in the eyes of Allah the vilest of beasts.

"She said that homosexuals should be 'beaten up' and that a Muslim marrying a non-Muslim was on 'the straight path to hellfire'. [...]
"Mental punishment means rebuke them, beat them, humiliate them, admonish and curse them, and beat them up. This command was sent in the beginning because capital punishment had not yet been sent down.[...]
"Listeners! Marriage of a Muslim man or woman with a Mushrak is the straight path to hellfire."
--Rubina Nasir, as quoted and described.

She not only called for them to be tortured, but it seems clear from these statements that she at least indirectly called for Islam's final policy (as stated explicitly in the Hadith) that they be put to death. It seems to me she is describing torture and beating etc. merely as temporary contextual measures that were overruled later by the death penalty in Muhammad's career. Thus, she isn't merely advocating these temporary measures; she's describing them in the context of advocating the final and "correct" policy of killing them.

Secondly, I sense an attempt to soften Islam's misogyny and double-standards, when she suggests--according to the reporter's description--that Muslims (in general) should not be permitted to marry non-Muslims (in general). Nasir herself is later quoted stating that Muslims are not allowed to marry Mushriks (those who commit shirk). This is a bit of a tricky matter semantically because mushrik is a term which, depending on context and the views of the Muslim speaker, may variously refer to non-Muslims broadly, or more narrowly non-Muslims except the People of the Book. (In Muhammad's context and in the Quran, the term mushrik was used primarily for the tribal polytheistic idolators, and the people of the Book who did not accept Islam were referred to as kafirs. Of course, from the Quran and hadith, it is also clear that mushriks are kafirs (disbelievers, i.e., k-f-r; another common term in the Quran for the Meccan polytheists), and that kafirs (in the sense of those who know of Islam but who don't accept it) are guilty of one form or another of shirk. The Quran is quite clear for example that Jews and Christians are kafirs and are guilty of shirk (assigning partners or rivals to Allah, e.g., see 9:29-9:35).

Anyways, to return to the point about Nasir apparently softening the misogyny and double-standards of Islam: She surely knows that the mainstream view in Islam is that Muslim men can marry Muslim women and non-Muslim women of the Book (primarily Jews and Christians and to a lesser extent some other putative monotheists) but not full-out polytheists), while Muslim women are only allowed to marry Muslim men. It is a death penalty offense in classical Islam for a Muslim woman to marry (or have sexual relations with) a non-Muslim man. Nasir doesn't mention any of this in her statements. If she believes that Muslim men are not allowed to marry Christian and Jewish women, then she is not letting that on here. As expressed here, hers is at best a minority view. Moreover it is a minority view which seems to go against the Quran and Hadith, since the Quran says that women of the Book are lawful for Muslim men (5:5), and in the Hadith and Sira Muhammad married and/or had sexual relations with Christian and Jewish women. Also, Muhammad said that a Muslim man who marries a woman of the Book and then converts her to Islam gets a double reward. Thus Muhammad assumes at least that (a) a Muslim man can be married to a non-Muslim woman of the Book, (b) it is not necessarily a bad thing (since the assumption then was that the children would be raised Muslim), and (c) there are bonus points incentive for the pious Muslim man if he can convert her to Islam. And obviously, if Muslim men take Christian or Jewish wives, then he is taking away reproductive chances for Christian and Jewish and other non-Muslim men; whereas non-Muslim men would be inhibited from marrying Muslim women due to the Islamic death penalty and strong taboos against that relationship. As Muhammad said, he wanted to outnumber the non-Muslims by Muslims having high reproduction rates.

"Have my sisters and brothers, who live with people of bad religions or alien religions, ever thought about what would become of the children they have had with them - and the coming generation?"

Note that any religion other than Islam is regarded as bad (Q 3:85). It's reasonable to suppose that Nasir thinks people of any other religion would have a bad influence on children of such mixed-religion marriages, and thus such marriages should be forbidden to her "brothers and sisters", not just sisters. This may be an attempt on Nasir's part to make Islam seem even-handed in the matter of marriage restrictions, when it is pretty clear from the Quran, hadith, and certainly from Islamic law, that it is not.

This also does seem to be another example where an apparently "extremist" or "hard-line" Muslim is actually engaging in some softening of it in the presentation.