“should be killed in the worst, most severe way of killing.” -Sistani

Yet some still laud him as a moderate.

Sistani missed a PR opportunity there; I bet his Nobel Peace Prize prospects would have leapt forward if the above quote read, "[they] should be killed in the most moderate way possible."

Posted by: Shinoliite at April 6, 2006 9:21 AM

OT

Two articles

1. Quran slur row manager flees

A EUROPEAN manager at a major restaurant who allegedly desecrated the Holy Quran has fled the country, it was revealed yesterday.

A lawsuit against the manager has been filed by MP Mohammed Khalid Mohammed at the Public Prosecutor, which issued a warrant for his arrest.
....
Shaikh Mohammed said that Interpol should bring the manager to justice like any other criminal.

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=139792&Sn=BNEW&IssueID=29014

2. CHRISTIAN GIRL HAS MUSLIM MAN FORCED ON HER

April 4 (Compass Direct) – “If you are forcing me to marry a man who is a Muslim simply because of my decision to become a Christian, then I will rather have you kill me than accept to marry this man.”April 4 (Compass Direct) – “If you are forcing me to marry a man who is a Muslim simply because of my decision to become a Christian, then I will rather have you kill me than accept to marry this man.”

http://www.compassdirect.org/en/newslongen.php?idelement=4283

Thanks to gandalf

http://uppompeii.blogspot.com/

In the wake of the Abdul Rahman case, I think more and more Christians in muslim nations are going to comeout. Good. The more the better.

Posted by: DP111 at April 6, 2006 9:44 AM

Shinoliite - you're a Python fan - does the phrase "lightly killed" ring any bells?

Posted by: Interested at April 6, 2006 9:51 AM

It's all fun and games til someone gets their brains blown out (oun unintended).

Posted by: JanuaryMan at April 6, 2006 9:57 AM

Shud be (pun unintended).

Posted by: JanuaryMan at April 6, 2006 9:58 AM

It would, but I'm "pining for the fjords" at the moment.

Posted by: Shinoliite at April 6, 2006 9:58 AM

Does the fatwa include the men that have sex with their male children also? What about the pretty boys they like to have on the sly also? If it includes those, there might be a LOT less muslim men.

Posted by: freewoman at April 6, 2006 10:25 AM

Free woman, religious societies work hand in hand with hypocrisy. They can't exist without each other, as it is unatural to ban sex from human life. Banning sex and terrorising people on sex issues will only make people more pervert and more "creative" in their sexuality. There is of course a lof of homosexuality in Islam because of the imposed separation between the genders. That hidden homosexuality is "accepted" as long as it is not shown. What counts is what is shown or not shown. What counts is symbols, not facts. Consider the young Muslim guy living in Europe, he will sleep with white girls and be very tolerant towards alcohol, sexuality etc. when he is with his white Christian mates, but he will have a virgin girl friend (Muslim) whom he will find respectable, and back in his family he will change attitude. Just like the young Catholic guys at the beginning of the century, in France, who slept with girls from a lower social background but had a "fiancée", who was a virgin, from their higher social background.

Any time I speak to Muslims about homosexuality, their claim it is horrible, and that "gay people are psychopaths". Then they add "but people do as they want"... but me, I can't help wondering if they will add "people do as they want" when they become the majority in France...

Posted by: joiesauvage at April 6, 2006 10:42 AM

Will Old Sissy (my private nickname for Al-Sistani) also include the Muslim 'paradise' in this lavender fatwa?

Must not the promises of "pearls" (posthumous male pedophile bait) in 'heaven' by expunged from the core of the theology, as well?

In fact, shouldn't they start with the sex in the texts?

It would cost a lot less, in every sense.

And start the inevitable unravelling of that ball of silly string known as the Koran (Hadiths, etc.).

Inshallah-di-dah.

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 6, 2006 10:45 AM

P.S.-

And what are Sistani's views on (shudder) CROSS dressing?

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 6, 2006 10:48 AM

Joiesauvage, I see the young muslim men with young women and I want to scream to the young women to GET AWAY FROM HIM!!!

I'm sure these college age women think they are worldly and know everything. But I don't think they know islam.

I preach to my neices, granddaughter and my friends daughters about muslim males every chance I get. I hope it sinks in.

Posted by: freewoman at April 6, 2006 11:30 AM

I have to be honest on this issue. I'm not pro-gay and I have my personal opinions about the gay lifestyle. I don't support it, but I would never force my personal opinions on anyone regardless of their personal preference. What a person does in the privacy of their own home is none of my business. I don't care about it and don't want to know.
But this is beyond the pale. Why take Sadman Insane out of power to install a religious regime that may prove to be more murderous than what was before? Sistani is proving to be more dangerous than Sadman Insane. It's like Jerry Falwell being over the affairs of state in religious matters in the United States. He may not have called for the deaths of homosexuals in the States, but he, Pat Robertson and many other televangelists have so much as claimed that the "wrath" of God is upon this nation. Claiming just about every natural diasater a "sign" of God's displeasure with national policy towards gays.
I don't support this point of view and consider it blasphemous. Every human is afforded the right, under God the Father, to live as they see fit. Be it by the tree of life or by the tree of the knowlegde of good and evil. God may not approve of the choices that we may make, but He is faithful to forgive us our trespasses. God the Father does not nor did He put judgement in our hands. We may judge works or the fruits of a man, but God the Father judges the heart. God the Father lets us know that vengence is His. Not ours. And that He will repay. Father God also makes it clear that "Our ways are not His ways, Our thoughts are not His thoughts." So this eliminates any and all who claim to speak in the "mind" of God the Father. This eliminates Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and most definately Sistani!!
All Bible believers are told by Jesus Himself "Judge not lest ye be judged." Sistani is playing god with this "fatwa" of his. He has put himself in the place of God the Father. WAY WRONG MOVE!!!
And the "death squad" is just another reminder of Nazi Germany during the late 1930s. And will lead to further decline in voters support of the war effort in Iraq. The term "death sqaud" carries and certain stigma that no nation wants attached to it, DICTATORSHIP! President Bush might as well have left Sadman Insane in power. The religious leaders in Iraq are bucking for and getting a strong foot hold on the forming Iraqi government. The citizenry is falling in line behind this unwise movement. And the fact that Sistani is originally an Iranian makes this all the more unsettling. Religious persecution is the worst kind. History points this out to be true. The thing about it is the average Muslim isn't aware enough about their faith to issue any kind of objective criticism to doctrine. And those that do come into an objection are soon to find themselves ostracised by the mullahs, imans, and ayatollas. Ending in a call for their deaths.
I hate to say it, but the Bush Administration may have miscalculated. The circumstances that lead to the forming of our nation are totally different from Iraq. Purple fingertips were a good start but now the hard work is yet to begin.
Sistani is proof of this. Do the Iraqis really know what true freedom really is? Do they thurst for independence from cruel religious law and persecution? What or who are the models of liberty and freedom to the average Iraqi? These are questions that should've been asked by Bush Administration officials among themselves. For a person like Sistani to come in and have power like this over his country dosen't look good. He wasn't elected to any office! It's almost like when the Ayatollah Khomini took over it Iran in the late 1970s after the Shah. The seeds of freedom were planted in Iraq, but were they planted in good, fertile ground or stony places? Only time will tell. Until then, gays in Iraq are in serious peril for their lives.

Freedom, it maybe free,
but it ain't cheap!

Posted by: Ironman Hondo at April 6, 2006 11:37 AM

Shinoliite - you're a Python fan - does the phrase "lightly killed" ring any bells?

You mean the ones "dew picked and flown from Iraq," ?

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at April 6, 2006 11:54 AM

The very same.

Posted by: Interested at April 6, 2006 11:58 AM

"Replace them with the legend 'crunchy raw unboned real dead frog', if you want to avoid prosecution".

In the real world however persecution is all too real.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at April 6, 2006 12:30 PM

I think muslim males are quite latent. They are not allowed to kiss a woman, but really kiss other men liberally. Women must hide themselves at all times while the men can walk around in the "freedom" of islam. Doesn't it remind you of the of the super macho leather culture in the US?

Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 6, 2006 1:11 PM

I think muslim males are quite latent.

Better latent than never.

Posted by: Interested at April 6, 2006 1:27 PM

Or gannet ripple.

Posted by: Yojimbo at April 6, 2006 1:43 PM

Robert,

Fred Phelps is the "preacher" in question. He's probably best described in psychiatric terms, but - praise Jesus - he's a registered Democrat.

Posted by: Beagle at April 6, 2006 3:10 PM

Interested, :)

Posted by: Carolyn2 at April 6, 2006 3:37 PM

How could I forget 'spring surprise'
Sistrani would approve of that.
Almost as bad as what threatened poor brave Sir Robin.
This is where Peter Tatchell deserves his due. He sees where the real threat is and says so.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at April 6, 2006 3:42 PM

When will the play "Angels in Iraq" be premiering?

Posted by: JanuaryMan at April 6, 2006 4:21 PM

Hey python fans this is a serious Blog ! (Moose)

Stick to the subject (Edited by Moose's brother)

Where is brave brave Sir Robin when you need him... (Spank me , no Spank me )

The sad thing is that I have not seen a single comedy about Mohhamed yet ! he is ripe for satire

What a shame (shame burderned by Moose)

I suppose I will have to lob my last holy hand grenade.

counting one, two, three, four and...

NO ! three

shit !

Suicide Moose by (Moose-ah-jahdin)

Posted by: Peter at April 6, 2006 4:38 PM

So the real reson that the christian peacekeepers kept Loney's gayness from being told until after his release is....fear of death.

Posted by: mark52 at April 6, 2006 6:31 PM

Ironman Hondo -

Please see my posting under "Churches set ablaze, Bibles desecrated in Pakistan" which is currently the top article under DhimmiWatch for today. I have refered to your posting above in my posting there.

Thank-you.

Posted by: Certiorari at April 6, 2006 7:28 PM

"When I spoke Tuesday night at Connecticut College in New London, CT, a student in the audience asked me about Christian preachers calling for death for homosexuals. Yet none of the mainstream Christian Churches or spokesmen in fact do this -- and certainly no one with the stature of Sistani."

-Mr. Spencer

I'll grant you that Christians are far less violent. Indeed, the vast majority of Christians do not call for our deaths. However, you too play the moral equivalence game by pointing out how much "better" Christians are. Just how are they better? Do tell. Oh, I forgot, Christians "spare" my life. How nice of them. I guess I am so ungrateful!

Neither group - not even the one that is "reformed" - is able to keep its moral condemnations in the pews where they belong, and out of politics. Therefore, in that way, there is not much difference. Since Christians seek (with fervor) to deny me rights, they are distinguished from Moslems ONLY in their propensity for violence. Until I see more compassion from Christians, I will fail to see much of a difference (again, other than the violent tendencies). If you think I am wrong in my equivalence, I look forward to your evidence to the contrary.

I remind you all that a very powerful Christianist Imam Pat Robertson blamed 9-11 on gays and Pagans. Hmmm, blaming murderous acts on gays. I wonder how that differs from Moslems' acts as Robertson clearly has the power to incite violence. We gays are just Americans (or Britons etc) and are clearly not terrorists. We don't deserve to be scapegoated.

When Christians change their tune - some have - maybe you will hear less equivalency discussions. Christians, here is your chance to prove you are different from Moslems. Are you?

Regards,

Kafir

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at April 6, 2006 11:03 PM

Kafir Nonbeliever -

Yes, Christians are very different in their beliefs. Please look at Ironman Hondo's posting above. Main stream Christians may not particularly like you, they may argue with you from the point of view of their incredibly misguided (literally) faith but decent, civilised Christians such as Ironman Hondo exercise the power of love taught to them by their Christos and do not judge any man (lest they be judged).

I have previously commented, on this site, on the gay issue, such as it is, and mohammedan beliefs, based on that which I have learnt about gay people from employing a gay couple as members of my personal staff - indeed, I attended their Civil Partnership ceremony - and I think, if push came to shove, that they would be better off living in a modern Christian world than in any mohammedan construct.

Of course, you may disagree,

Posted by: Certiorari at April 6, 2006 11:22 PM

Kafir - with all due respect you are preaching now. Yet you say the Christians can't preach simply because you believe it's wrong? I thought the gays were tolerant!

Besides you are asking Christians to deny the bible. Churches that have done that are now failing in numbers - especially gay churches. It seems homosexuals aren’t that great at reproducing naturally. Yet they keep on telling me it's natural?

Kafir - you expect Christians to leave their morals at the door of parliament because they are Christians. Yet you don't expect the same of homosexuals because they believe in homosexuality. Its OK for them to peddle their views. Unfortunately politics affects the entire community - hence the representatives should make their beliefs clear, get elected, and honour those beliefs. That's called democracy.

Also why do you only single out the Christians? There are plenty of other religions/cultures of major status in the world that condemn homosexuality - not just Christianity.

At least the Christians can agree to disagree, and peacefully use the democratic process. They are not lopping your heads off. Its a pity the Gay lobby over-rides the democratic rights/processes and uses the courts and social engineering at schools to get their way. This is NOT democratic. Then these same lobby's claim they are for "democracy".

Yes I know I'm intolerant, a homo-phobic. There I’ve labelled myself, feel better now? But someone is right, and someone is wrong. I still believe in absolutes and observable science. Everything else is religion/philosophy/belief – or what ever you want to call it.

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at April 6, 2006 11:31 PM

3rdtimelucky -

Hello there. I'm sorry but I haven't yet set up an email address where we can correspond as I promised to do. Forgive me, please. Why so homophobic? Love is in short enough supply without demonising gay love. Didn't Christ say "A new commandment I give you, to love one another." Christianity always struck me as a religion capable of absorbing new ideas without undermining the basic message of love. Love and sex are just whatever God grants, surely. Revelation of His word didn't stop two thousand years ago - or did it? Surely things can change - can't they?

Posted by: Certiorari at April 6, 2006 11:49 PM

These bloody, lying, murdering, uncivilised, brutal, barbaric, misogonystic, cowardly bastards how come one of the "perks?" in their pagan moslem "paradise?" is 30 perpetually untouched, never aging boys or as they are called 'pearls'. numbat

Posted by: numbat at April 7, 2006 12:06 AM

Sistani should communicate with Fred Phelps. Regarding the death penalty for gays, both Sistani and Phelps could exchange ideas on how to kill gays in the most horrible way possible.

I am surprised that Phelps has not added a link to Sistani's web site on his own web site.

Posted by: Christian at April 7, 2006 2:08 AM

Little Christian dear boy,
My precious boy, indeed I hope that you are a boy, I just love the name Christian, did you have to bring up the name of that crazy guy Fred Phelps. Why, I honestly believe that the man is totally, I say totally, insane. Maybe he is just a little bitty more insane than those pesky little Moslims that everyone hereabouts is getting so worked up about.

I mean, goodness, it's not something a lady really wants to talk about, now. They just don't like us for heavens sake. But then neither do all you Christian folks.

I mean, just what I am supposed to think. Am I welcome. Or do you just want me gone. What is dear little old Robert going to think if you just plain terrorize me out of here. I do think that he is just sooo deeeevine with that cute little beard and all, dont you. He is sooo cuddly. Why I could positively eat him all up.

He does have the right, and I mean the RIGHT ideas, so dont you all be too hard on him. Its my job to be hard on him. Well a girls got get whatever she can dontcherknow.

Posted by: Precious at April 7, 2006 3:02 AM

Kafir Non-Believer;

I hope that you read my post above. As I have stated, I don't agree with the gay lifestyle nor do I support it. But I do support your right to live your life as you see fit. It's not up to me to judge you as far as "if you're going to hell or not." There are many a "Christian" that're in for a big suprise when they stand before Father God to be judged.
I know that this may sound cliche but I do have gay friends. More of them female than male. They know how I feel about their lifestyle and do not flaunt it in front of me. It may cross my path while the person is on the phone talking but it's up to me if I want to stay and listen or run from a truth. The conversation never really bothers me because of my personal relationship with Jesus. My friend's aquintences are always asking, "if I am aware of what she is?" And my response is always, "yes, I'm aware that she is a human being." Not a what.
Jesus taught all who are willing to hear Him, "hate sin, not the sinner." Now am I calling homsexuals sinners? You bet. But not because of your lifestyle, but because, "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God!" Romans 3:23.
Kafir, I don't agree with your lifestyle choice, but I will defend your right to live it. And that is against anyone. Father God reserves the right to judge us. He did not put it in the hands of MEN to judge us. I do consider homosexuality a sin, but it is not my place to condemn you or any other homsexual. That's Father God's job. And I'm not foolish enough to even take that job.
I love you with the love of Jesus. And I hope that I've helped you as far as your distrust of church going "Christians" is concerned. I have to deal with them as well. And don't trust them. My beliefs are very radical and I do get in trouble with the pastor and my fellow ministers. My views differ greatly from the organized church. Jesus was put to death by the organized church of His day. As well as the early prophets and the apostles. Todays peachers are sounding brass and tinkling cymbols. They preach against the obvious sins but not the apostacy that is going on in the church today. Thus why I reject the title "Christian." It has been corrupted and compromised by the false prophets of the gospel and their followers. I prefer to be called either a believer or a Bible believer. A sabbath keeper. Not a Jehovah's Witness. Just one who follows the 10 Commandments as close as I can. the organized church dosen't even worship Father God on His day. And trust me, Sunday AINT IT!!! (See the 4th Commandment.)
Don't let the spiritually high-minded hypocrites of the church of today stop you from seeking Jesus and His wisdom.
Jesus loves you. And if He can love you in-spite of it all, then so can I.
God bless you and Keep you.

Posted by: Ironman Hondo at April 7, 2006 2:59 PM

To: Kafir Nonbeliever

You're right. The United States is not exactly a paradise for gays. After all, it is a country deeply routed in its Christian past and present. Christianity (among many other religions) teaches followers that homosexuality is wrong.

However, it's important to look at the capability of the "Christian" West to evolve over time. Compare the status of a homosexual living in America or Holland today to, say, fifty years ago. Now do the same for a homosexual living in Saudi Arabia, Iran or Iraq. There is a distinct difference in the evolutionary paths of these countries.

Christians are the inventors of secularism and founders of the most gay-friendly countries on Earth. Trust me, we are among friends here.

To: 3rdtimelucky

You wrote:
"Besides you are asking Christians to deny the bible ... you expect Christians to leave their morals at the door of parliament because they are Christians. Yet you don't expect the same of homosexuals because they believe in homosexuality."

Hints of Christian Shari'a aside, I would ask you to tell us more about the pillars of this new homosexual religion.

No one is asking Christians to abandon their beliefs, but rather to apply them to themselves and themselves alone. I won't forcibly convert you to homosexuality (however that is done :-) if you don't subject me to your literal interpretation of the Bible. Deal?

Posted by: Ibrahim at April 9, 2006 10:27 PM