Maryam points out this helpful item: a speech last summer by Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, religious advisor to Ahmadinejad, explaining that human rights have no place in Islam. Oh. Well thank you; that’s what critics keep saying, and it’s helpful to have the corroboration.
Mesbah-Yazdi, the theoretician of violence, gave a new speech at the end of Ramadan (end of August) in which he criticized the opinion of those people who claim Islam is based on generosity and respect for Human Rights.
Yes exactly! I’m always criticizing the opinion of those people too. I keep asking them to name just one place where that works out in practice – just one country where the government is “Islamic” in some sense and generosity and respect for human rights are running the show. Just one.
In this speech he said: “Democracy, Human Rights and the rights of citizenship have no place in Islam.” He continued that there is no room for freedom of speech and thought in Islam, and that Islam is based on strictness and violence. Muslims and those who convert to the religion of Islam must only adhere to the opinions of the leader of the Islamic Republic, according to Mesbah. He continued: “Until a person has converted to Islam, he is free — but democracy and Human Rights have no meaning within Islam. Everything must be under the surveillance of the government, even the way people dress. And if some people say otherwise, they don’t know Islam.”
Tariq Ramadan please note.
“There is no room for freedom of speech and thought in Islam, and that Islam is based on strictness and violence.” That really sums it up admirably. Two words do the job. That’s exactly what I fear and loathe about Islam-in-power: strictness and violence. That’s a horrible way to live; absolutely horrible. It’s very helpful of Mesbah-Yazdi to make it so clear for us. It’s not as if people can accuse him of Islamophobia! And they can’t pretend it’s Western racism, either.
I eagerly await the refutation of this speech by other major Islamic figures.
Fortunately, I also enjoy the sound of crickets.
They probably won’t since it didn’t really make the news here in the west. So from their perspective it’s probably better to just ignore it instead of drawing even more attention to this “gem” by publishing a refutation.
A senior authoritarian from an authoritarian state is justifying why his state is authoritarian.
Yes, but he’s not a true Muslim.
You took the thought right out of my brain.
“A senior authoritarian from an authoritarian state is justifying why his state is authoritarian.”
Or EXPLAINING why his state is authoritarian.
It is not often that we get such clarity, precision of thought and forthright exposition from such a prominent Islamic theoretician.
If only for the confusion avoided, the whole world will be forever in debt to him.
“Tariq Ramadan please note.”
Brings to mind Ramadan’s debate with the Immortal Hitch.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/10/christopher-hitchens-and-tariq-ramadan-spar-over-the-peacefulness-of-islam
“Tariq Ramadan please note.”
Why should he? Should protestants please note Catholic dogma? This is about as stupid as blaming atheism for the atrocities of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
It’s not that I’m a fan of TR, but that doesn’t justify bad logic.
Surely no-one is surprised by this statement of the blindingly obvious?
“Why should he? Should protestants please note Catholic dogma? This is about as stupid as blaming atheism for the atrocities of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.”
I would say its more like telling preaching Stalinists, Maoists and Polpottists to take a closer look at the wares they are trying to flog, especially with an eye to the difference between the unctious claims and the despotic performance record.
Ramadan does his best to spread Islamic influence far and wide.
Christian @ # 2: … from their perspective it’s probably better to just ignore it instead of drawing even more attention to this “gem” by publishing a refutation.
On further thought, I suspect this feeds into a meta-pattern, of whether the Sunni grand poobahs of Mecca and Cairo usually rebut or ignore whatever Shia ayatollahs say.
More of that sophisticated theology of which sinful infidels display such appalling ignorance, alas.
mnb0: That is baloney. TR claims that tying islam to violence is all a concept of racists and “islamophobes”. This is legitimate evidence proving him wrong.
mnb0
Yes, Protestants should look at Catholic dogma, other Protestant dogma, and the other Protestants dogma (not a repeat, there are a lot of different Protestants!).
If they’re selling their particular version of god shit, they need to differentiate what makes *their* shit stuff, and why the other guy’s stuff is shit.
TR either must repudiate or he must agree. .
Oh, you must be religious if you pull out pol pots wiener.
Yes he was an atheist. So? Atheism doesn’t mean you don’t believe in wacky things. There are atheists who believe in reincarnation, karma, the rule of three, chi, universal mind, that the moon landings were faked, that 9/11 was the CIA, ancient astronauts, the secret, life is suffering, ghosts, and an afterlife.
I’ll say it here,
All of those things are non-starters. Stupid and wrong.
Will Tariqipoo say that Muhammed Yazdi is wrong?
So, why would I, or anyone, convert to Islam? I followed the links, but I’m still having a hard time believing anyone actually said this –as a good thing!. I was half expecting to find an Onion article at the source.
It’s not that I disagree, it’s just that I can’t believe it was said out loud by a supporter of Islam.
It boggles my mind that ANYONE, EVER, ‘converts’ to Islam. Just blows my mind. How can anyone look anything they (purport to) believe, and think ‘gee, they must be right, I should go along with all of that too’??
FTFY.