| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Rumor has it that a female Muslim journalist and a male Sikh politician might be romantically involved, though they maintain they're just friends. Either way, they're spending time alone together. Would she marry a non-Muslim? Would she leave Islam for him? None of the clerics' business? Oh, but it is. In fact, it's time for a fatwa.
"Shahi Imam issues fatwa against Aroosa," by Kanchan Vasdev for The Tribune:
Ludhiana, December 26 - Compounding problems for Aroosa Alam, the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid, Ludhiana, today pronounced the "fatwa" against her for her proximity with the former Chief Minister, Capt Amarinder Singh.
He called upon the Sik clergy in the state to ask Capt Amarinder Singh about his relationship with Aroosa. “He should tell us whether he has turned a Muslim or she has changed her religion”. He even claimed that during the Captain's visits to England and Dubai, he was seen with Aroosa instead of his wife and MP Perneet Kaur.
While pronouncing the edict, Habib-ur-Rehman Saani, Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid, religious centre of the Muslims in the state, said Aroosa had violated the Sheriat law by visiting a man without being accompanied by any male relative.
Terming her stay with an “unrelated man” as an “unforgivable sin,” the Imam called for her social boycott. The fatwa, a copy of which is with The Tribune, reads: “It is a mortal sin for any woman to stay with an unrelated man. If a Muslim woman cannot even go to haj without her husband, brother or son, how can she stay with an unrelated man?”
The Islam does not permit man-woman friendship. If a Muslim woman has illicit relations with a man, she should be lynched. “Had she been in Saudi Arabia, she would have been stoned by now,” said the Imam.
[...]
The Shahi Imam claimed that she did not belong to a very respectable family in Pakistan. “Aroosa's mother was better known as ‘General Queen’ due to her relations with Gen Yahya Khan. She has spoiled at least 10 homes in her country and now she is trying to do so in Punjab”. He said he would call upon the Muslim clergy in Pakistan to excommunicate her.
The Shahi Imam urged the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of Punjab to initiate a high-level probe into Aroosa's visits to the state. He suspected that she might be an ISI agent, who was purposely targeting Capt Amarinder Singh, who was well versed with the security and defence installations in the country.
Aroosa rejected the fatwa. According to the Times of India, she said, "I think Islam does not prohibit friendship and brotherhood. Religious interpretation of Islam is so wrong. Islam is a very liberal religion."
Time for an effigy burning: "Muslims to burn Aroosa’s effigy for her remarks on Islam," from Express India:
Ludhiana, December 27 The Muslims in north India have decided to burn the effigy of Pakistani journalist Aroosa Alam tomorrow, on her response to the statement regarding the fatwa issued on her.
The fatwa was issued by the Shahi Imam of Ludhiana.
In a statement issued here, Mustkin Ahrari, the spokesman of Jama Masjid said, “Her statements are not tolerable, and hence our organisations in the entire north India will burn her effigies.”
While a number of political parties are opposing Aroosa’s visit to India on one ground or the other, Balwant Singh Ramoowalia, state president of Lok Bhalai Party said that the political parties should stop issuing loose comments about Aroosa. Ramoowalia added that calling her an ISI agent is ridiculous.
He said, “I am not in good terms with Captain Amarinder Singh, but useless statements about Aroosa are not justified.” SGPC chief Avtar Singh Makkar has already stated that their body has nothing to do with this issue.
Posted by Marisol at December 28, 2007 12:04 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Hard to believe Islam is tolerated in this day and age.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 28, 2007 12:17 AM
Qur'an 2:221
"Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe: A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allures you. Nor marry (your girls) to unbelievers until they believe: A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever, even though he allures you. Unbelievers do (but) beckon you to the Fire. But Allah beckons by His Grace to the Garden (of bliss) and forgiveness, and makes His Signs clear to mankind: That they may celebrate His praise."
Technically, Allah forbids inter-religious matrimony, BUT, since the man is the leader of the household, it is assumed the Muslim male will enforce Allah's will upon the non-Muslim female.
The flip-side of that coin is simply not acceptable.
Remember folks, this is protocol from the 7th century AD.
an interseting take on the subject, from the mind of the typical male Islamist can be found below:
http://www.jannah.org/sisters/intermarriage.html
Thank you Marisol.
at December 28, 2007 12:55 AM
These people are terrorising others so why arn't they in jail? Allowing such terror to be applied makes the fundamental right of the citizen to be safe null and void and turns a country into a banditocracy. Where's the vitally needed punishment?
Posted by: ausinfidel at December 28, 2007 1:09 AM
p.s. I know there is due process of the law but these sorts of people seem to constantly get away with it.
Posted by: ausinfidel at December 28, 2007 1:19 AM
Islamics messing with people's private lives. Do we want Islam in our boudoirs?
As for me, I don't want it anywhwere near me.
Islam is invasive, controlling, and insupportable. It must be beaten back into the primitive wasteland whence it originated.
Posted by: unicorns62000 at December 28, 2007 1:23 AM
At one level, it's funny to see a politician from India's dhimmi Congress party, which Captain Amarinder belongs to, being targeted by a Fatwa. Not that it will stop them in their groveling tracks.
Also, since when were Indian Imams concerned about whether a visiting Paki was an ISI agent?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 28, 2007 2:04 AM
The correct answer should be: 'this is India, not Sowdi Arabia, and if you want to introduce Sowdi sharia here you will be disappeared, in jail or shipped to Sowdi in a box.'
Me thinks that this kind of resolve would yield results. But, ahhh, 'can't be done because we're living in a democracy...'
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 28, 2007 4:40 AM
Islam Elevates Women
and
There is no Compulsion in Religion
and
Islam is Progressive
Alerts!
at December 28, 2007 4:41 AM
"The Islam does not permit man-woman friendship. "
....however,,,man-goat relationships are condoned....
...Islam ..... feel the love....
at December 28, 2007 6:41 AM
"If a Muslim woman has illicit relations with a man, she should be lynched"
Now I assume saying things like the above encouragement to lynch must be illegal. I am not saying an alternative to our democratic/legal system is a valid solution to counter these fatwa makers. Its just the fact that Imams and their minions getting away with terrorising people is bizarre. The laws to stop them exist right?
Posted by: ausinfidel at December 28, 2007 6:50 AM
In India ruled by ultra-dhimmi Congress party, any muslim (or non muslim) can make any such statement and get away with it.
Just wait for the next election..
Posted by: zaphodbrx at December 28, 2007 10:37 AM
Aroosa rejected the fatwa. According to the Times of India, she said, 'I think Islam does not prohibit friendship and brotherhood. Religious interpretation of Islam is so wrong. Islam is a very liberal religion.'"
-- from the article above, quoting the lady accused of un-Islamic conduct by seeing a man without a male guardian being present
What does it mean to say that the "[r]eligions interpretation of Islam is so wrong"? Is there another kind of interpretation of Islam, a "non-religious" or "extra-religious" one? And having asked this, the accused lady goes on to assert, without the slightest evidence, that "Islam is a very liberal religion" which appears to contradict the previous sentence. As with so many people born into Islam, and who secretly call into question much of Islam, she still cannot make the break, and she cannot even describe the situation accurately. Islam is not "a very liberal religion." It is, as Charles-Emmanuel Bousquet said, "doubly totalitarian" as a Complete Regulation of Life, and as a geopolitical system that insists Muslims must divide the world between Believer and Infidel, and furthermore must be in a state of constant hostility or war, directed at the Infidels, even if that war does not always take the form of open warfare.
Even she, a victim of Islam, says things about Islam that are false, and that either she knows to be false, or cannot allow herself to recognize as false.
It's a problem. Everywhere.
Posted by: Hugh at December 28, 2007 11:02 AM
"I think Islam does not prohibit friendship and brotherhood. Religious interpretation of Islam is so wrong. Islam is a very liberal religion.'"
This reminds me of Bhutto saying, and I paraphrase.
"I do not think I will be assasinated, because it is against Islam to hurt weman, and any true Muslim knows that they will burn in hell if they do it."
All these people running around claiming this and that is against Islam, so they are safe or they will kill you. Well only one thing is true reason is against Islam.
Posted by: ethoman at December 28, 2007 12:03 PM
That's right, burn her effigy, demand her death, issue a fatwa, you stoneage throwbacks!
Posted by: Dumbo at December 28, 2007 12:48 PM
I guess the paintings by GEORGHINE SANDHI says it all
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/12/art-of-georghine-sandhi.html
Posted by: shiva at December 28, 2007 2:50 PM
"Had she been in Saudi Arabia, she would have been stoned by now"
so would we all....and now i am tempted to have a little drink just to celebrate NOT being in KSA.
at December 28, 2007 3:55 PM
Shiva, the art of Georghine Sandhi is incredibly powerful. Who is she and where is she?
Posted by: the poetess at December 28, 2007 4:00 PM
OT
Awake: As to last nights comments in the forums; I was in my cups and suffering the drool of despair.
Posted by: breezy55 at December 28, 2007 10:26 PM
Breezy,
No problem. Understood. I had quite a tough Christmas holiday myself. It happens.
Peace.
Posted by: awake at December 28, 2007 11:48 PM
Thank you!
Posted by: breezy55 at December 29, 2007 12:00 AM
Posted by: the poetess
Shiva, the art of Georghine Sandhi is incredibly powerful. Who is she and where is she?
Sorry I do not know anything about her, but Ifound her work on a Danish blog
http://www.balder.org/articles/sverige/Voldtakt-Muslim-Invandrar-Sverige.php
at December 29, 2007 2:29 AM
“She has spoiled at least 10 homes in her country and now she is trying to do so in Punjab”.
What, is she an incompetent interior decorator or something?
Religious interpretation of Islam is so wrong.
It's possible that this is now officially my favourite quote of 2007.
WSW
Posted by: Wild Slutty Womens at December 29, 2007 11:36 AM
Had she been in Saudi Arabia, she would have been stoned by now
According to the core beliefs of mainstream Islam:
Everybody...Must...Get...Stoned
With apologies to Robert Zimmerman.
Posted by: special_guest at December 29, 2007 2:56 PM
Somehow I get the felling the Sikhs just won't care and if the muslims care to make it an issue, well then its time to draw those very sharp swords !!!
Posted by: apostate_islam at December 29, 2007 4:10 PM
shiva - I just had a look at those paintings by Sandhi. They are indeed, deeply disturbing, and very powerful.
By way of contrast, I offer the following link.
http://www.christiananswers.net/catalog/escape-dvd.html
Those who are not Christians are free to ignore or skim the accompanying text. What matters is the series of nine photographs you will see on the left hand side of the page - especially the first and the last.
The first picture shows four women in full-on Persian Islamic black: the wife and three daughters of Iranian Daniel Shayesteh, who was one of Khomeini's followers, a red-hot Jihad plotter and practitioner.
The ninth picture shows the same four women, some time after Mr Shayesteh - and they - had left Islam and converted to Christianity. Bareheaded, bare-armed, in pretty coloured dresses, smiles from ear-to-ear, glowing with happiness and confidence.
The difference is night and day.
These four women now live in sunny Australia; their man is doing the rounds of the pentecostal churches here and abroad, attempting to raise the alarm about the Jihad and where it comes from; his explanations and his warnings, though much more explicitly couched in religious terms due to his target audience, are identical with those of Robert Spencer or Ms Hirsi Ali.
Back to Sandhi - perhaps what might speak even more eloquently would be to place, alongside her terrifying paintings, a companion set of images depicting the beauty and passion of woman as celebrated by non-Islamic artists. Imagine turning from Sandhi's terrifying studies to an image of Rodin's The Kiss, or the famous statue of 'St Teresa in Ecstasy'!
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at December 29, 2007 7:18 PM
Let me get this straight -
"A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allures you."
AND
"A man slave who believes is better than an unbeliever, even though he allures you."
Does this mean that Muslim men can pitch and catch?
But I thought that there were no gay men in Iran............
This is a little confusing.........perhaps a representative from CAIR can explain it to us.
Posted by: tanstaafl at January 3, 2008 12:34 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)