Islamic Cleric Decrees Rape is OK during Syrian War

reply to post by babloyi

It just annoyed me that people take this vileness as so endemic of Islam and muslims (when it is not) that nobody even bothered to investigate the truth of the matter.

SHOCKING! Another denier! Do you guys get PM alerts or something?

Here are Islam's latest contributions to peace.

2013.06.04 (Farah, Afghanistan) - Three children and their father are exterminated by Holy Warriors.

2013.06.03 (Laghman, Afghanistan) - Four children and two women are among a family of seven exterminated by fundamentalist bombers.

2013.06.02 (Shabwa, Yemen) - An al-Qaeda suicide bomber sends nine people to paradise.

2013.06.01 (Barkhol, Afghanistan) - The Taliban take out three members of a wedding party with a roadside blast.

2013.06.01 (Pastawana, Pakistan) - Religious extremists gun down a public high school principal in cold blood at his home.

2013.06.01 (Uruzgan, Afghanistan) - A child is among four civilians exterminated by fundamentalist bombers.

www.thereligionofpeace.com...

reply to post by wildtimes

Originally posted by wildtimes
It was reported in the Jordan news. Our member MichaelM was going to help us get a translation of the 'Sheikh's' response to Austrian Muslim women who were going to sue him.

What was reported in Jordan news? You mean the original subject of this thread? I realise it was quoted in Jordan News, if you check the link I originally provided debunking this, it shows the article where the Sheikh denied ever decreeing rape to be okay, and had actually issued a statement calling for the PROTECTION of Syrian women from the Syrian army.

You're not going to find any day in the near future without any violence by muslims or among muslims, considering that outside forces are involved in several muslim countries right now, and have left several others destabilised.

reply to post by seabag

Originally posted by seabag
SHOCKING! Another denier! Do you guys get PM alerts or something?

Here are Islam's latest contributions to peace.

2013.06.04 (Farah, Afghanistan) - Three children and their father are exterminated by Holy Warriors.

2013.06.03 (Laghman, Afghanistan) - Four children and two women are among a family of seven exterminated by fundamentalist bombers.

2013.06.02 (Shabwa, Yemen) - An al-Qaeda suicide bomber sends nine people to paradise.

2013.06.01 (Barkhol, Afghanistan) - The Taliban take out three members of a wedding party with a roadside blast.

2013.06.01 (Pastawana, Pakistan) - Religious extremists gun down a public high school principal in cold blood at his home.

2013.06.01 (Uruzgan, Afghanistan) - A child is among four civilians exterminated by fundamentalist bombers.

www.thereligionofpeace.com...

Sure, because unclaimed roadside landmines, and attacks in war zones is exactly what I'm talking about. Religionofpeace is such a wonderful website, any incident that may possibly involve muslims is strung together in a huge unsourced list that is then used to beat people over the head with. You hear about those horrible Christian soldiers who raped Afghanis? Or those OTHER horrible Christian soldiers who killed and tortured afghanis? They're not REAL christians, you say? Oh my!

reply to post by babloyi
My point is that he was 'misunderstood' (according to him) by more than one viewer - not just Americans.

He denied it in Jordan news. I'm wondering why he was so poorly understood, if that was the case; or, did he say it and then try to deny that's what he said?

I hope you get what I mean. He SAYS he didn't mean that, but more than one person took it exactly like that.
Double-speak. You know....politicians do it all the time. Everywhere. Seems more likely to me, he said it, and then tried to say "wait! Erm, what I MEANT was....you see?"

and I'm having a hard time buying that.

Are you saying that the Jordan news reported he DID say it? Or just that they reported the women suing him.
I can't read Arabic, and the site is crap in "English" using google trans. It doesn't have an English option itself. So, it's unintelligible to us.

I'll look around some more.
Thanks again for your help.

reply to post by babloyi

Now I haven't read any of this thread past the OP, and I don't see any reason or need to. It'll just be a bunch of bigots congratulating each other.
What is it with these islamophobes and their obsession with rape hoaxes?

Maybe you should read the thread past the OP. People have very legitimate concerns and points, and you're not the first to join and say "wait, this isn't really Islam". We've had 3 already. All here.

Your contributions are valuable, and I hope you take the time to READ what members are saying so that you can address the real concerns here.

Just reviewing the thread....
it seems to me (and I do try) that America/NATO forces are being held responsible by the Muslims on the board who have joined the thread. Blaming "the West". And that's not right, nor is it fair.

The Muslims on here are saying that it's all because of 'Western interests and encroachment' and diplomatic or underground evil-doings by the military intervention AND because of the widespread 'ignorance' of many Muslims.
That does not let the Muslim community off the hook, even if they have no clear "leader" or "consensus" on what Islam represents.

I'm having trouble with that.

The Muslims were slaughtering each other BEFORE 9/11 - LONG before. And if the Muslims can show no solidarity (which obviously they can't), then there is a HUGE conflict among Muslims themselves - ongoing and eternal.

It is NOT just about "the control of energy" or "Western subversion" of Islamic culture.

Those are factors, yes, which can be stemmed with the right actions (like: total withdrawal of troops, embassies, corporations, aid, etc.) but that is very unlikely, because I'm not in charge , and so it's easy to blame 'the West' for the uprisings in the Muslim world. But the Arab Spring stuff started out as JUST LOCAL MUSLIM UPRISINGS against their OWN LEADERS.

NO WAY can America or 'the West' be blamed for causing it. If youth in the area want to be more educated, westernized, liberated from totalitarian, outdated 'laws' and 'values', it is their job to speak up.

So - there IS an internal Muslim warring faction that has NOTHING TO DO with 'the West' "intervening". It's about the modernization of the region, which the establishment does not want....and some of the extremists as well.

I can not fathom that if all the Western entities and activities suddenly vanished, that Islam would suddenly be a "peaceful, unified Billion people." No way. I've learned about the infighting among the sects, and it's been going on for decades/centuries.

AND, I have a question that needs answering:

To those Islamic supporters IN THIS THREAD or on ATS in general:

WHAT SECT DO YOU BELONG TO?

If you want us to understand your culture, we need more information about the layers of it, not just to be told to "read the Qur'an". You want us to believe it's a religion of peace? Cool. Tell me (us) what sect you claim as yours, and I'll support that sect perhaps. I already think I know which one I DO support as "real Islam", but I don't want to give that information or opinion before I have discerned to whom I am speaking in the Muslim community. Your answers will help me understand Islam - and that's what you all want, right?

reply to post by babloyi


That's good to know. See, we don't get the information about how those perpetrators are handled locally - at least not in MSM. Can you give us some links to English-language Middle-Eastern news sources that are respectable?

I sometimes look at Al Jazeera in English...should I do that more often to get a real picture? Or are they biased, in your opinion?

Modern Western intervention in the Middle East started long before 9/11. You have Iran, you have Afghanistan, you have Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel etc. As I've said, there were always extremis factions on the fringe, but they were almost universally understood to be outsiders, and were derided and condemned. It is interesting if you compare the cultural output of countries like Afghanistan and Iran and Pakistan then and now.

So of course these western powers aren't SOLELY responsible, they simply made use of what was there- they utilised the extremist fringe for their own benefit (or conversely, for example in Iran or Egypt, they propped up the opposite end so much so that people started siding with the extremist fringe and brought them into mainstream).

If such western intervention had never occured, right now, we'd have a democratically elected (and probably very moderate) leader in Iran, in Afghanistan, Pakistan probably would be much quieter, or possibly wouldn't even exist. Iraq would not have been the broken country it is today, and possibly the Ba'ath would not have been in power past 1991. Israel/Palestine would be a vastly different place.

Of course, all this conjecture is meaningless. There would of course still be animosity among the muslims of the world. The Sunni/Shia thing long pre-dated any US intervention. Who knows what sort of wars that could've flared into. Or heck, who knows what sort of cordial relations that may have coalesced into.

reply to post by wildtimes

Originally posted by wildtimes
That's good to know. See, we don't get the information about how those perpetrators are handled locally - at least not in MSM. Can you give us some links to English-language Middle-Eastern news sources that are respectable?

You are asking for articles about people who assaulted/killed women who then went punished? I hate to do this, but surely simply typing the name of the country along with "rape punishment" or "acid throwing conviction" into Google News search would give you a long list of news articles? To be totally honest, I'm not much of a news-site (or TV) frequenter, and I don't know about the quality of Al-Jazeera's coverage, although I'd posit that it is better than most non-local news agencies in the middle east. I get most of my news from the BBC RSS news feed embedded in my firefox .

reply to post by babloyi

Okay, we agree on that part. It's an infighting problem AND a western influence/intervention problem.
Correct.

So, what sect do you belong to? And, if you don't mind, where are you geographically? What is your background and education? What is your gender? Your age?

So far I haven't got forthcoming responses from any of the Muslim contributors, and I don't know why.

I'm pretty transparent. Anybody who reads through my threads and posts could get to know me pretty well -
is that stupid? I don't know. Self-disclosure is IMPERATIVE to real communication. We can't understand each other if we don't know more specifics about each other.

If we are going to try to find common ground, we have to be willing to explore one another's Point of View, and learn each other's MindSet.

There are no "right or wrong" answers - it's just letting people know who you are.

If we don't start doing that as a planet-wide community, there will NEVER be peace.

reply to post by babloyi

surely simply typing the name of the country along with "rape punishment" or "acid throwing conviction" into Google News search would give you a long list of news articles? To be totally honest, I'm not much of a news-site (or TV) frequenter, and I don't know about the quality of Al-Jazeera's coverage, although I'd posit that it is better than most non-local news agencies in the middle east. I get most of my news from the BBC RSS news feed embedded in my firefox .

Okay.
So - you don't know of any particular Middle-East news outlets that are unbiased, openly shared by journalists, then?

Al Jazeera seems pretty comprehensive - I guess they should be our English language "go-to" source for REAL, indepth news from the area?

I'd still like to know where you are, and your background. But, it's obviously up to you to share that.....and cool if you don't want to.

You suggest doing a Google search, but don't give me any clues as to which sources would be in English and Legitimate.

reply to post by wildtimes

Originally posted by wildtimes
So far I haven't got forthcoming responses from any of the Muslim contributors, and I don't know why.

Well, it isn't surprising. A conspiracy website isn't the best place to go expecting self-disclosure and openness . We ATSers an inherently suspicious bunch. Perhaps telling some of yourself would be a helpful first step, although I don't think your inquiries will be very successful. It'll be for many people as if they're painting a big red target on their back.

But heck, why not. I don't consider myself to belong to, and refuse to categorise myself as from any sect- I'm simply a muslim. I'm of Irish Roman Catholic origin, currently in the UK. The excuse "You've only been exposed to the sanitised form of Islam, you're a faker who hasn't seen the vileness of X country!" doesn't really apply to me, because I'd consider myself pretty well travelled having lived in and made friends and connections with people from all walks of life in many places all over the world, including several muslim countries.

Originally posted by wildtimes
You suggest doing a Google search, but don't give me any clues as to which sources would be in English and Legitimate.

I don't have a list of go-to authentic legitimate news sites. When someone posts an article on the site, I make sure it is from a proper news site, I google for the same story (but not with the same source) on other news sites and see the difference in the telling, then I google/wiki around for the specifics in the story. It may be a long and laborious process, but if one were going to make accusations about someone, or definitive statements about something on a site such as ATS, I'd say it is necessary.

reply to post by babloyi

So of course these western powers aren't SOLELY responsible, they simply made use of what was there- they utilised the extremist fringe for their own benefit (or conversely, for example in Iran or Egypt, they propped up the opposite end so much so that people started siding with the extremist fringe and brought them into mainstream).

If such western intervention had never occured, right now, we'd have a democratically elected (and probably very moderate) leader in Iran, in Afghanistan, Pakistan probably would be much quieter, or possibly wouldn't even exist. Iraq would not have been the broken country it is today, and possibly the Ba'ath would not have been in power past 1991. Israel/Palestine would be a vastly different place.

So, you too are blaming Western intervention for the escalation of conflicts?

Yes, those conflicts were already there. Yes, Western influence has inflamed things.

But you are saying that if Western influence had never occurred, none of this would be happening. Is that correct?
I'm not saying it is incorrect - in fact, I agree with you. I think Western influences should BUTT OUT.

But what do you think would happen if they did? Sudden peace?

I think it's too late.

reply to post by babloyi

But heck, why not. I don't consider myself to belong to, and refuse to categorise myself as from any sect- I'm simply a muslim. I'm of Irish Roman Catholic origin, currently in the UK. The excuse "You've only been exposed to the sanitised form of Islam, you're a faker who hasn't seen the vileness of X country!" doesn't really apply to me, because I'd consider myself pretty well travelled having lived in and made friends and connections with people from all walks of life in many places all over the world, including several muslim countries.

Thank you!!!

I don't accuse people of being "sanitized Muslims" - I never heard the phrase before.
Travelling to countries that are Muslim-majority, however, does not equate to being brought up there and having the same background and social-indoctrination that the locals do.

I believe you that you have met wonderful Muslims in your travels. I'm glad to hear it.

Nevertheless, it makes your contributions here, by definition, not representative of "born to it" Muslims. Ireland and the UK are a far cry from the source.

Are you living in one of the Sharia-controlled zones in the UK? What do you make of the butchering of that soldier?

I'm not trying to attack you, babloyi, not at all. I'm honestly just asking questions and trying to figure this out.
So far based on your disclosures:
People who decide to convert who are from Western backgrounds see Islam as a peaceful religion. People who were born into it and live in strife-ridden countries have different mentalities and behavior patterns. Vastly different.

Is that incorrect?

reply to post by babloyi

I don't have a list of go-to authentic legitimate news sites. When someone posts an article on the site, I make sure it is from a proper news site, I google for the same story (but not with the same source) on other news sites and see the difference in the telling, then I google/wiki around for the specifics in the story. It may be a long and laborious process, but if one were going to make accusations about someone, or definitive statements about something on a site such as ATS, I'd say it is necessary.

Totally agree with you!!!!
It IS long and laborious, but it's the only way we can really 'know' (as if that's possible).
Excellent research/fact-finding is essential in this fight to get to the truth and deny ignorance!!


Good for you!!

reply to post by wildtimes

Originally posted by wildtimes
Travelling to countries that are Muslim-majority, however, does not equate to being brought up there and having the same background and social-indoctrination that the locals do.

I believe you that you have met wonderful Muslims in your travels. I'm glad to hear it.

Nevertheless, it makes your contributions here, by definition, not representative of "born to it" Muslims. Ireland and the UK are a far cry from the source.

Having "met" wonderful muslims doesn't quite encapsulate it (I've "met" horrible and irritating muslims as well. They are, after all, just people). I've lived with them, seen as their kids grew and how they treated them, and almost become PART of their family (to the point where for example, this slightly more conservative lady stopped wearing her hijab when I was around because I wasn't a stranger).

Originally posted by wildtimes
Are you living in one of the Sharia-controlled zones in the UK? What do you make of the butchering of that soldier?

There is no such thing as a "sharia-controlled zone" in the UK, and like all other people living here, (and most muslims abroad), I condemn it. What do YOU make of it?

Originally posted by wildtimes
People who decide to convert who are from Western backgrounds see Islam as a peaceful religion. People who were born into it and live in strife-ridden countries have different mentalities and behavior patterns. Vastly different.

Is that incorrect?

People who are born into strife-ridden countries have it different and harder regardless of their religion. And while I am hugely thankful to be as privileged as I am, I've had my share of strife, abroad, and even here in the UK.

There are no Sharia controlled zones in the UK. And there never will be!

More chance of Muslim concentration camps springing up in the UK if there religious extremists/fanatics keep up there antics! Sad but true, we did coin the phrase "concentration camp" after all.

reply to post by andy06shake
Wait.
WHAT? So you are claiming that the news about Sharia-controlled zones are fiction?
Please.
Do tell.
We are inundated with information that makes our skin crawl.

So....
PLEASE, explain how there are no 'Muslim enclaves' with signs that say 'Sharia-controlled' (or whatever they want to call themselves) in the UK? Please explain the butchering of that young man. ??
I want to believe you.

reply to post by wildtimes

"Please explain the butchering of that young man?"

How can I explain such a thing, the retards were religious fanatics would be my best guess.

That's like me asking you to explain the Boston bombings!

I can put up stickers claiming i'm Jebus, that does not make it so!

There are no Sharia law zones recognized by law here in the UK as much as i'm sure rather a lot of fanatical Muslims would like there to be.

That's a fact im afraid!

Double Post

reply to post by andy06shake

Okay. Sorry.
So, then.....the MSM talking about 'Sharia-controlled zones' in London are false?

The judicial system there is not allowing such intolerance?
GREAT!!!
The stories of them being belligerent and patrolling for violators of Islamic values are false?

THAT WOULD BE AWESOME!!!
I'm very glad to hear it. Sorry for being an 'ignoramus' as to what is real news, and what is false news.



I just want to know what is true, and what is false.
Honestly.