All homosexuals should be stoned to death, says Muslim preacher

Furthermore, I did some research about your queries.

"One of things which will cause an animal to be Haram [meat is forbidden], although it was originally Halal [lawful], is a human having sex with it... because of this (sodomizing the animal) its meat and the meat of its lamb which will be born after sodomizing will all be Haram [unlawful], along with its milk, wool, and hair.

If the animal which someone had sex with is an edible animal like a sheep, cow, or camel it should be killed (Zebh) and burned. If it is one of the animals which is not usually eaten but is used for riding and transportation, like a horse or donkey, it should be taken out of the city and sold in another city."

Furthermore, the punishment for a human sodomizing an animal is death for the human. This is an established judgment from Islamic law, there is no doubt in it.

Also the book which is cited for both your sources regarding alleged approval of fornication with animal or child, is in fact a forgery. The cited book Tahir ul Vasyleh does indeed exist, but there is no fourth edition.

There is no excuse for playing on ignorance of Westerners to further erroneous concepts about Islam or Muslims. It is deceit and lies in its most blatant form. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Norsefire: Pacifism is one of the silliest ideas out there.

Pacifism is a tactic not a lifestyle or way of life. Its something you use to achieve specific results if the tactic doesn't work then it is time to try something else.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

WTF and WTF again.

born after sodomizing ? I didn't know that a human boinking and animal in the arse can produce offspring ?

If it does, then hell yes kill it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well we don't have to go into beastiallity nor do we need to rely on the ignorance of westerners for that.

They, the general populations and/or the media's presentation of the general populations in many islamic countries have done a fine job on their own.

You act as if this:

makes the religion so forward and advanced, yet it is so moronic that it throws a woman in jail for sitting with a unrelated man at a coffee house.

If there is crap in there about sodomizing animals and how legally to deal with such a situation, what does that tell you ?

 

"Tahrirolvasyleh (Arabic script تحرير الوسيلة, also transcribed as Tahrir-ul-Vaseela or Tahrir al-wasilah) is a book (in two volumes and four editions) authored by Ayatollah Khomeini as a guide for Muslims. (emphasis mine)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahrir-ol-vasyleh

There is a link to copies in English and Arabic.

Sorry DH, you lose again. And, you should be ashamed of YOURSELF!

 

You have yet to apologize for the mountain of lies you've provided here. You leave nothing to discussion and have curtailed intelligent debate.

 

Diamond Hearts is correct. The Tahrirolvasyleh has only two volumes. A third appears completely unknown to history and a fourth volume is alleged but not confirmed. The existence of this "volume" is contested to the point that it would be useless to cite it as a source. Even if it were real, there's no confirmation that can be used to support a conclusion. One would first need to support the premise that vol. 4 of the Tahrirolvasyleh existed.

To make an accusation based on such an alleged existence is irrational.

 

Look again, he doesn't refer to 4th "volume" but 4th "edition" to the first and second volumes. They are available online in English and Arabic, if you wish.

 

The issue isn't limited to just that website. This is a text that's been argued far beyond the site linked above. It has nothing at all to do with "edition" but it is truly an argued "Fourth volume" of a two-volume set.

No one has ever produced an actual book with the words in it. Ever.

What we have is probably a case of someone creating a claim shrouded in minimal plausibility combined with the inaccessible nature of the source.

Another way to look at it would be to apply the standard of evidence to an analogous claim:

Einstein believed in ESP.
He wrote, "ESP is a very real phenomenon" in a private letter to a U.S. President.
The letter has never been produced but several ESP proponents have seen it for themselves.

Did Einstein believe in ESP?

If you compromise your standards of evidence to allow for the Tahrirolvasyleh claim, you must, therefore, accept many, many other claims based on similarly spurious evidence.

Now, if someone were to produce an actual copy of the text, then we'd have something to examine and evaluate. This still wouldn't eliminate the possibility of forgery, however. There's a photo of the alleged "fourth volume" out there on the internet, which says in Arabic "volume" not "edition" (AFAIK), but even I could produce such a photo with my limited photoshop skills. Changing a bit of text is much easier than manipulating people.

As skeptics, we must not compromise our standards of evidence and logic. We are so quick to accuse others of arriving at conclusions first then fitting the data to suit their needs, but we overlook how easy it can be to do the same ourselves.

 

Skin,

are these valid, legitimate.

 

Have a look for yourself: http://www.al-shia.org/html/eng/books/fiqh&usool/islamic-laws/tahrir/index.html

This is the English version of the text it allegedly came from. I didn't see a full text version, so you have to click, do a keyword search, go back, click, do a keyword search, go back... etc.

If someone with patience finds any of the phrases above, perhaps they'd be so kind as to cite the part and section or even a direct link.

 

Unless I am mistaken.

It appears DH was submitting these as vaild.

Just looking for some kind of concensus.

 

They may or may not be. I cannot confirm it since I didn't have the patience to search the link. I'm reasonably certain, however, that if the contended passage regarding "sex with infants" were present, someone would have long ago linked to it and the citation would be far more clear.

The other passages interest me only in so far as the anthropological/sociological implications: which is to say that bestiality, assuming that the passages are legit, was a serious enough problem to warrant a rule regarding the disposition of the offenders and animals involved.

 

Exactly, which is why I said this:

"If there is crap in there about sodomizing animals and how legally to deal with such a situation, what does that tell you ?"

And how they apparently dealt with it is proof of writings for their time, not the word of god which if we look at where we are today, would have clearly been more advanced.

This is why I am happy I didn't live my life back then

Your only allowed to boink horses being sold to the neighbors.

And this has to be misinterpreted, I hope. But they may not have known, which is further evidence that it is not the word of a god.

 

But you do live "back then." The author of those alleged passages only died in 1989.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What is wrong with these people ?

Pardon me for being lazy but maybe you can answer this for me.

Is the alleged author quoting or interpreting the Koran ?

Or, is this just his own personal vision of utopia ?

 

I still don't know that the words are accurate. If they are, they represent a lifetime of indoctrination and delusion regarding the nature of supernatural influences in reality and the exploitation of those whose superstitions fear of authority keep them from questioning or criticizing the dogma.

 

Ok and thanks.

Yes, unfortunately that has been going on far too long and by far too many.

 

Well, I wrote an email to the website I linked and asked for the Farsi/Arabic original that she translated. Which is about all the time I have for that.

One thing I have to say, when I was looking around on the internet at Muslim's translations (which were along the lines of what Q posted) I thought it was crazy all these cult like rules on how to live life. It would be very weird for me to wonder what a God thinks about this or that and THEN deciding it's moral or immoral. I have to wonder, if this Muslim preacher said: [vulgarity removed] this may seem facetious I'm serious. It's like Muslims need a rule as to which foot to step away from the toilet following a shit. It's asinine - to me anyway. If Allah says DH should drop down and start pleasuring atheist - would he?!?!

It's just a very backwards way of thinking to me. I can't imagine having to look in a magical "holy" book to decide what is and is not moral - for me. Or asking a Preacher/Imam/Rabbi/11-level-Xenuologist what is and is not right for me to think?!?!? A very very primitive way of thinking, IMO.

Also, given I personally know many Muslims who think Mohammad had sex with a 9 year old, well (and give all the crazy superstitious beliefs Muslims and other cult members hold) one isn't at all surprised if their isn't an Islamic law on coitus with animals. Note I didn't say I thought Mohammad was a pedo, he probably wasn't (I mean, he didn't surround himself with lots of children). He was just your average nomadic Arab doing what was normal - back then the way nomads in the desert lived 1400 years ago. Take a 9 year old as a wife was, back then, probably considered normal. Of course now a days if you saw a 50 year old man with a 9 year old - you'd punch him in the nose. But, back then, yeah, that sort of behavior was considered acceptable.

 

"Intelligent debate" like this :