Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

surfinjo

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    777
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by surfinjo

  1. What is so screwy about referencing a number of links to the same story. Are you attempting to discredit me simply because I asked an awkward question? Is it not permissable to question the actions of an organisation initiated by Khomeini? Or do you simply have a problem answering questions?
  2. Do you have to distort points to suit your purpose? I cited the report. I linked to the Tehran Times. I asked if such reports can give the impression that Iran is dominated by backwards fools. Your claim that the Tehran Times doesn't speak for the Islamic Propagation Organisation is specious since it is the official voice. Moreover, the IPO was established by Khomeini to be independant of government influence. But its voice is influential, of that there can be little doubt. Does such reporting from such an influential organisation paint a picture of Iran as somewhere that cannot be trusted with advanced technology? The report was also cited in a number of other outlets: Arabian Business.com Sydney Morning Herald The Australian Fox News The Age.com France 24 Yahoo
  3. Is this the Islamic Propagation Organisation The Islamic propagation organization was established on June. 21, 1981 the instruction of the late Imam Khomeini the leader o the Islamic revolution and later on the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis) described the status of the organization as a public non-governmental establishment. In the letter sent by Imam Khomeini to Ayatollah Jannati instructing him to set up the organization, the main objective of Islamic propagation had been described as commending the good and prohibiting the evil. If so, then even described as a non-governmental organisation, it would appear to be somewhat more significant, not to say influential than you seem prepared to admit.
  4. I came here looking for the facts. I was illustrating the realities of what is happening. It would have been more appropriate if you had simply given the facts to begin with. But I suppose, like your kind generally, you don't even fart without your special guru, sorry cleric, saying it is haram. It's people like me who are trying to save your sorry asses from forces that you cannot even begin to comprehend. You can wander around with your sanctimonious head in the sand and convince yourself that anyone who doesn't follow your cleric's dogma is not worth saving anyway. But I take the position that all life is sacred.
  5. My facts are what I am attempting to get at. Are you saying that the Tehran Times is a fraud and the statement in its About Us page is also a fraud? This seems quite a serious matter really.
  6. No. This paper is the Iranian government's media for portraying itself to the English speaking world. These are uncertain times for Iran. It is faced with two of the most powerful and fanatical foes in the history of the world. Iran desperately needs as many friends as it can get. To allow itself to be portrayed in its official media as a nation that arrests animals, therefore holding animals culpable for for their actions, makes Iran look like a backward, primitive culture that can no more be trusted with advanced technology than a child can with matches. What is especially sad here is the inability of any of you to seemingly comprehend just how serious the situation is and how much potential trouble all of Iran is facing. I and I believe most people in western Europe do not believe Bush is an Idiot. Bush and Blair are liars, mass murderers, profiteers and war criminals. To dismiss Bush as an idiot is to allow an excuse for his despicable and disgraceful acts.
  7. Using pigeons for espionage is nothing new. If some has fitted these birds with cameras or such then it is probably not surprising. If these birds have been captured then all well and good. There is certainly nothing wrong or surprising about any government producing a foreign language news paper to put forward its point of view. The issue here is that an English language news paper, set up to put the Iranian point of view, run by the Iranian government, is clearly so badly run that it employs people who use such inappropriate terminologies that make Iran a laughing stock. And a dangerous laughing stock if it has access to nuclear technology. We could almost assume that the writer used electronic translation to create the English text. What sort of idiots are running Iran that someone so incompetent can be put in charge of such an important post as editing the Tehran Times who can't speak English and lacks the humility to allow someone who can to do the job? Was the Editor appointed because of his connections? This comes not so very long after some other idiot in Iran distributed a translation of one of the Iranian President's speeches to imply that he wanted to see the destruction of Israel and all the people in it. I have to say, I am utterly astonished that, at a time when the US/Israel are attempting to find any excuse to attack Iran, causing the deaths of millions of decent innocent people, that the Iranian government is so utterly incompetent and clearly corrupt that it allows such important information outlets to be run by utter idiots. There is something very seriously wrong in the Iranian government. It is facing dangerous foes and its friends are being made to look like utter fools. If Iran is attacked, the government of Iran will have a heavy culpability for every single death. But sadly, I suppose, those of you actually living in Iran don't have the same freedom as I enjoy to criticise yours or any other government. Actually, it's about the implications of Iran being apparently run by idiots and the failure of anyone on this board to see the real implications here. And please, let's not get into a round of finger pointing at the idiots who run other countries. Other countries are not currently faced with attack and utter destruction by two of the most powerful military forces in the history of the world.
  8. A Mechanical bird??? Are you suggesting that Iran would hold a machine culpable for its actions? :wacko:
  9. Nice try. I was wondering when a claim of mistranslation would pop up. The article was written in an Iranian English Language newspaper. Their stated aim is to reach an audience that reads English. If you're going to fall back on the old 'mistranslation' excuse then almost anything can be excused. But wait, please don't be offended by anything I have said, it's all a mistranslation!!!!! I have to say that I have always taken the line that Iran should be given maximum leaway. But we would take matches away form a child. I can't in all conscience disagree with the west's intention of removing nuclear capability from a country that thinks birds can be culpable for their actions.
  10. Al of these statements make perfect sense in the spirit of the paranoia that comes with military obsecession. But none deal with the issue of Arresting an Animal. So, the question remains. Does Iran arrest animals. Does Iran believe that an animal can have the same conscience as a human? To be quite honest, I was expecting a straight forward response here. Either a claim that the Tehran Times is not what it claims, or even the old faithful, a mistranslation. But it seems that Iran does indeed arrest animals. Hopefully these creatures get a decent trial. But on a more serious note, if the Iranians do indeed believe that an animal can have personal culpibility then perhaps Bush was right, after all, that Iranians are really not nearly developed enough to take responsibility for such a dangerous technology as nuclear power.
  11. This story, in a very sensationalist UK newspaper was brought to may attention: Iran Arrests Pigeons spying on Nuclear facility I immediately responded that the story is utter tosh. I know for fact that Iran is an advanced industrial state with an intellectual tradition dating centuries. Then this link was brought to my attention: Iran busts spy pigeons near Nuclear site My first reaction was that this Tehran Times is a silly fraud. But the About Us page claims: Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Beheshti realized the need and the English-language Tehran Times was born concurrently with the revolution. The daily’s general policy was based on Ayatollah Beheshti’s statement: “The Tehran Times is not the newspaper of the government; it must be a loud voice of the Islamic Revolution and the loudspeaker of the oppressed people of the world.” Is Iran really arresting birds? :!!!: Have any animals been arrested for relations outside marriage? :!!!: Do these animals have a fair trial? :!!!: Are they permitted to speak in their own defence? :!!!: I apologise of these questions seem to mock Iran or Iranian people. But if Iran is really arresting birds for spying then perhaps it isn't as intelligently led as I supposed.
  12. It seems this issue won't go away. Please look at this Wikipedia entry I am raising this issue as the entry and the quotation has become a matter for discusion on a popular political discussion forum.
  13. I posted a reply to this topic. It was the second reply. It put exactly the same points to Muslims as you have put here, to Christians. The points I made were references to post in this forum. That post has been deleted. I suppose re-inventing your religious traditions and even composing new quotations from your prophet isn't something you like being highlighted. Though it would increasingly appear to be very necessary. There seems little point in continuing discussions with people who can only cast insult, fabrication, and animosity yet refuse to tolerate any rebuttal other than with vitriol and censorship. I can already hear you busily typing that the post was deleted because it insulted Islam. The post made no insult of Islam at all.
  14. It will be interesting to see your evidence for these claims. However, there is no reason why Jesus or anyone else cannot practice any of these. Jesus didn't abolish any laws, What He did was make it clear that most of these laws are laws of men and not God.
  15. Agreed. Women should be free to choose how they dress. No man has any right to touch any women unless she says they can.
  16. OK, I apologise. I have discussed this several time here. I thought you were one of those. The law Jesus is referring to is the Commandments. This statement was made in a sermon which Jesus gave, possibly one of the most powerful sermons ever given. In this sermon Jesus spent much time clarifying and emphasising the Commandments. That our prayers are not a matter of public display, they must be done in complete privacy. Jesus used the analogy of a locked closet. That we must never kill. That we must never judge each other on behalf of God. That we must never tell a lie nor talk falsely about others. That we must never steal. That to think about sin is the same as doing it. That we must never divorce. It is clear from this sermon and other pronouncements Jesus made that He was overturning most of Jewish law. The Commandments remain.
  17. If you have to ask you got a bigger problem than first appeared.
  18. Yawn Out of context Had this discussion already with you.
  19. Jesus didn't come to fulfil Jewish law, He came to fulfil God's law. Wow, he's finally got it!
  20. The period I was refering to was not the dark ages. it was the Middle ages. It would seem that Islam is already very much in a state of intolerace. It suits your leaders to keep you divided. Who do you think?
  21. Strange that no other Muslim scholars who have expressed an opinion on Islamic slavery are aware of this. Oh dear. Here we go again. Jews are the rightful masters Muslims are the rightful masters. I suppose you got this from the same source as your claim that Muhammad abolished slavery. The problem is your leaders. Until you face up to that reality Muslims will continue to suffer. But hey. You may yet reach your ambition of being an even bigger sob story than the Jews. Then you can avoid all guilt and responsibility by covering your eyes and ears in a swamp of self pity.
  22. Luther wasn't a prophet. He was just someone who happened to be in a fortunate position at the time that he could make his protests without risking being thrown onto a bonfire. Many other had attempted to do exactly what Luther had done over the previous 400 years. Including a number in England. All ended up on a bonfire.
  23. I will resist getting into a discussion at this time over your assertions regarding medicine and universities as this will simply cloud the issue. I will also resist getting into an argument over the rights of wives and female slaves to refuse sex Your claims about slavery in the New Testament are incorrect. But, we can discuss that issue at another time. I would like to concentrate upon the issue of slavery. The society which predated Muhammad was barbaric and unacceptable. We can both accept this. Muhammad reformed that society, abolishing many of the distasteful practises and instituting a society where each level of people knew their rights and obligations. We can both accept that. At the time, it was one of the most benevolent and modern societies where academia and business flourished. We can both accept that. In the present era, other societies have also moved on. Human rights have extended to most societies and while the practise is shaky in some, in many, including Europe, individual human rights have become established and practised. Most Muslims would be appalled by slavery. Most Muslims would be appalled by many traditional Islamic practises. These have therefore, fallen into disuse. But there exists today, a strong minority of Muslims who through general insecurity, are seeking to rediscover and re-establish their traditions. When any society finds itself cast adrift from its traditional security it seeks to find an anchor. It seeks security. This is quite normal. In sociology it is well documented. We call this Nationalism. Though I fully appreciate that Muslims dislike he word and its connotations, it is, never-the-less, a fact of human societies and is a feature of Modern Islam. Islam was progressing quite well for hundreds of years until around the end of the 18th century when Europeans began to wander in. They saw a society which had become unable to defend itself and began a process of reorganisation. In India, for example, they sought to divide the area up into European style administrative blocks. In the ME, during the earlier part of the 20th century, they carved up the entire area and installed local leaders of their own choosing. The Islamic societies crumbled. The leaders appointed by the Europeans were charged with maintaining European style order and did so oppressively. These leaders were gradually replaced but the new leaders maintained the borders. This style of government caused insecurity and led to the upsurge in Islamic nationalism. The reason is that to maintain this style of government the leaders, whoever they are, are more interested in maintaining their own power base than they are in answering the Islamic rhetoric they proclaim. However, European government is based upon the principal of the dominant ruling class. The point about a ruling class in any society however is that it must be acknowledged by the mass of the people. (Dictatorships are in reality a nonsense. But don't tell the Americans.) In Europe we have developed a system where several potential ruling classes can compete with each other for mass attention. But in the ME are governments which maintain control using oppression and rhetoric. Alternative ruling classes compete for mass attention using their own rhetoric with promises of sunshine when they take over. (If you think about it, it is actually not that different from the European system except here we exercise and embrace that change whereas, in the ME, that change tends to come about through local revolution). But the artificial borders, created by the Europeans, remain. Islamic nationalism, which tends to be the predominant rhetoric of any potential ruling class in the ME attempts to claim that all the insecurities that are afflicting the Muslims people can be eliminated by a return to traditional Islamic values. The Sunnah is seen by many Muslims as the objective. Living their lives according to the example of Muhammad. But that also means the practises of Muhammad. Hence the justification that is so often cited by so many Muslims, for slavery. I won't and have never criticised your faith. I personally hope that you all eventually achieve your objective of reviving the Ummah. But in the short term, this is bound to fail. Quite simply because you are attempting to do this with the artificial borders created by the Europeans. It is the borders that are causing you the problems. The local ruling classes won't agree to tear down these borders because they derive their own power and status from them. The potential ruling classes, for all their pious rhetoric and talk of Sunnah, have no intention of tearing down these borders either. This clearly demonstrates that these potential ruling classes are not the saviours of Islam they pretend to be. They are just another batch of dictators. The only way for your to achieve your objectives of reviving the Ummah is for you to reject your leaders. It is your leaders which are the real enemies of Islam. The conflict in Palestine is a good case in point. Those people live in a mass concentration camp, the largest in history. Millions have been exiled. those that remain are under constant oppression by Zionists, subjected to random killing and destruction of their homes. The leaders of the other ME societies give them scant assistance. The reason is they fear for their own positions. They are more interested in maintaining their own power base than they are in defending fellow Muslims. Saddam Hussein opposed Israel and paid the price. He may have been a dictator. He certainly wasn't interested in tearing down his borders and losing his power base. But his stance against Israel cost him and the Iraqi people dearly. Iran may face the same fate, depending on what happens next in the US. The local leaders in Palestine continue to encourage their peoples to launch pointless attacks on Israel. Attacks which achieve nothing other than further mass murder, further destruction and further confiscation of lands. We should ask ourselves why the Leaders in Palestine are so obstinate. The answer is that they maintain their own power base by citing ancient texts to justify their orders. Objections to these claims is treated as heresy. These Palestinian leaders are leading their people to their destruction. But while they maintain their own power base they care little for the suffering of ordinary people.
  24. The reason so many monks and to a lesser extent, nuns were so well fed in the past is because many of the Abbeys and Monasteries they belong to have extensive farm lands. This in fact goes back to ancient times. Initially, monasteries were set up for people of a pious disposition to spend their lives in prayer. They prayed for the world and for their own souls. Eventually they began praying for the souls of specific individuals. Wealthy and powerful people would bequeath extensive lands for the establishment of monasteries so that the monks could pray for their souls. These lands were intended to allow the monastery to generate an income so they would all be self supporting. Many monasteries became very wealthy. The food they produced was and still is sought after and commands high prices simply because it is usually of such good quality. The reasons Roman Catholic priests and Nuns are not permitted to marry however is a bit more complicated. The simple answer is that if married their devotions and attentions will be divided between their duties, prayer, their congregations and so on and their own families. There was also a very real fear, at the time celibacy was first enforced, that the priesthood would be passed from parent to child so making it an alternative monarchy rather than a calling for people from all walks of life. The more complicated answer is here: History of Clerical Celibacy
×
×
  • Create New...