The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) continues to show the world how systemic murder and terror can be justified in the name of religion as the work of the faithful. Now, after brutalizing the population of Mosul, ISIS has turned its attention to those godless tramps of fashion: mannequins. ISIS has ordered that all mannequins be covered in veils as another application of medieval Sharia law.
The reason is the prohibition under Sharia law of depictions of the human form. Somehow covering the face excuses the fact that the rest of the mannequin is the human form, but Allah is apparently satisfied by a cloth over the face according to ISIS.
Mannequins continue to be the focus of clerics who seek to block their corrosive impact on the morals of society (here and here).
On the positive side, this is the most moderate move of ISIS which notably did not behead the mannequins in a public execution after forcing them to convert to Islam.
Religion of peace strikes again :http://tribune.com.pk/story/741943/three-including-two-minors-dead-in-gujranwala-clash/#comment-2248154
Help, hostage!
Paul, I thought I’d share this bit that offers some insight into fatwas and Islam in general, from Tariq Ramadan. Sure, you can find differing thoughts on the extremes of the faith but his is a moderate, standard view.
—————————————————————————————————
I have received numerous messages with the same question: “Is it Islamic to demonstrate?” I thought such a question was outdated but it does not seem to be the case, as some people claim to be scholars and confuse minds.
Some are asking for verses and prophetic traditions (ahadith) that would allow demonstrations. Actually the real proof lies with those who forbid it. The first principle in Islam, in social affairs, is permission ( meaning it is allowed unless it specifically isn’t/po) and it is for those who prohibit protests to provide us with a verse or a clear tradition (hadith) banning demonstrations. It does simply not exist!
Some “scholars of power”, from Saudi Arabia to Egypt (and indeed historically under all despots), produce fatwas, with questionable interpretations and biased positioning, stating that the leaders (whoever they are) must be obeyed and therefore demonstrations are prohibited. Serving the despotic powers and States, installed and paid by them, these “scholars” produce legal opinions tailored for power. These are not Islamic fatwas by scholars, but political fatwas by courtiers.
What the Prophet (PBUH) said is pretty clear: “The best jihad is a word of truth before a tyrant, a despot.” This is exactly what those protesting in the streets are doing… they are speaking a word of truth where they live, where they are able to do so. It is a noble action, sometimes very brave because of the risks involved, and it is an action that is sometimes more a duty than a right.
One more point. We shall remember Moses and Aaron (PSE) before Pharaoh: “Tell him gentle words, perhaps he will remember or he will be moved, shaken.” There is a way of speaking : with firmness and gentleness, with courage and without violence. Gentleness and non-violence are indeed true courage: no insults, no vandalism, no racism. Dignified and powerful speech by women and men respecting themselves and their cause. As for those who vandalize or shout racist slogans, they express more their personal frustrations than they defend a cause. Or they are manipulated, or they are infiltrators trying to ruin the cause.
We should not be naive when organizing events : it is imperative to give every effort to be both heard and never instrumentalized or exploited. This is a requirement and a responsibility, but we must never be silent. In all circumstances, we need to remain wise and courageous. Simply put, … wise, and courageous.
PO, I retrieved your comment at 8:17.
@singularity,
I am stunned with the lack of psychological sophistication of so many educated people. When our current president goes to these campaign events and mocks his political opponents he actually mocks at the people who come to see him , because in a way he is wanting them to enjoy the mocking rather than to give them something substantial to think about. It is not only that he is wasting their time and reducing himself to a standup comedian, but he is also in a way telling us what he actually thinks of his own supporters or what his own limits are. I think we have had enough of these ivy business/law school graduates in the white house, we need to have a scientist, a man who has actually achieved something in his life, and not just written books about himself , but someone who understands the human condition better so that he has no time to be a clown in chief, but a leader who can provoke a creative thinking in people who hear him talk, someone who understands that we are facing serious problems that require serious problem-solving and respect for the system that has produced him, before he can advance it to a better dimension.
Ringhals,
You and po share similar traits . For you to call others “jerks” while you judge their comments reveals your character more clearly than theirs . But what do I know , we have people like you in White House these days , so you must know the way to really live correctly , we can all just learn from characters like you .
For someone who asks what do I know, you seem to know a lot, what do I know.
Saucy:
There are many wealthy Christians in Europe, outside of royalty. When I traveled in Italy, for example, the people were almost universally Christian, of all socioeconomic strata. I am unaware of anyone outside of monasteries and nunneries (or the like) who deliberately choose to be poor simply because they are Christian. Rather, the wealthy are called to give to charity. In the Catholic and Mormon Churches, they tithe.
I think we have the market on tacky TV. There are televangelists in UK. But last night when I was flipping channels, I discovered the show, “Dating Naked,” or something like that. And then there’s that Survivor show where they dump the contestants in some wild area completely naked. I thought TV couldn’t go any longer. . . wrong, obviously.
Right. So you’re probably right that we have more vulgar TV personalities.
meant deduce, not deduct above. Although deduct may still apply, in the case of those, the negative minds.
@Singularity: You, Paul C. and Saucy could have engaged po politely and directly and tried to understand his point of view, instead of treating him condescendingly and his opinions dismissively:
(“Im glad that PO@minutebol does not misunderstand anything, at least that is the impression I get from the tone of his message.”)
(“po – actions speak louder than words. When imams stop declaring fatwas then I will start beginning to believe you.” “singularity – po is that rarity, one who is without sin.”)
(“po@minutebol, read the following article written by a Muslim.”) !!!
You couldn’t have made it any plainer he wasn’t welcome here. Maybe calling you smugly self-assured was off base, but you couldn’t have been bigger jerks. Cheers!
Is it just me or someone else here also feels the stink of judgment and grandiosity in some of the comments here? And if you agree with that , then do you think that any meaningful discussion can happen with that person ? I seriously doubt it . To me how one says something is more telling than what one may know, as what one may know can get contaminated by the psychologically sophistication or lack of it .
“What do I know” welcome to the blog . I have been an observer , m
@po: your response seems to suggest that there is no problem on your side in understanding, it must be the other side who needs to try again to make sure even you can understand:-) If I were singular I will not waste time on you, but hey what do I know, you are the one who understand everything..
Po said:
“God knows both Muslims and non-muslims misunderstand the religion enough without the need for additional misguidance thrown in.”
One can deduct whatever one wants from that , based on their level of understanding and knowledge.
Yep, as I said, understanding is the hardest thing to obtain, for it requires both an open mind and limited cynicism, both of which sorely lacking in this place. Before understanding however, reading comprehension comes first. It is apparent now that American education has failed us much sooner than we thought.
@ringhals: “po never claimed to be without misunderstanding, but you both seem quite SMUGLY self-assured”.
interesting, you really know how to recognize a smug, i guess, though you may not want to brag about that “quality”. Some of us may consider that to be an evidence of a maladaptive defense mechanism of projection. I am sure you can never be someone engaging in dysfunctional defenses.
Sing
Try again. Second try often works better.
Didn’t see your answer, ringhals. Wouldn’t have bothered to indulge them had I. Good points.