No virgins for you!

April 22nd, 2010 at 10:54 pm by The Wanderer

He’s not the first, but his is perhaps the best – Foreign Policy’s article on Tahir ul-Qadri introduces you to the Pakistani Islamic Scholar who has issued a condemning terrorism as un-Islamic. Not only does he label terrorism as “haram”, or forbidden under Islam, he goes so far as to describe acts of terrorism as acts of disbelief. To put this in context, for a practising muslim, an act of disbelief is pretty much the worst offence he or she can commit against Islam.

Tags: , , , ,

19 Responses to “No virgins for you!”

  1. Robert Black (423 comments) says:

    So does this mean [deleted by DPF and 30 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Don the Kiwi (1,650 comments) says:

    About time a muslim cleric started talking some sense. Let’s hope others listen to him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    I wish too Don
    but unfortunately the Koran is a manual for war as it reflects its author’s life changes as he morphed from mystic seeker type to war monger raider whilst having epileptic fits and being visited by a Jinn (devil) called gabril.

    He’ll probably get fatwahed by a whole other bunch and topped.
    Be sure he won’t change the position of the Wahhabi ruled Saudi Arabians Princes who finance global jihad through their charities and businesses and the spread of the Wahabbist ideology within Islam in their Dawa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    I’m pretty sure this will turn out to be a career-limiting move for this particular islamic scholar

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. JiveKitty (869 comments) says:

    Perhaps even a life-limiting one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. jims_whare (399 comments) says:

    Hmmm this is gona put allah in a bit of a quandry………I understand a fatwah is like a decree from allah and must be obeyed or else.
    Think of it one mullah says kill the infidel and get lotsa virgins when ya die. The next mullah says no if you kill the infidel you miss out on the virgins.
    So when the dead muslims go in front of allah whats he gona do coz he can’t give virgins to those who killed and those who didn’t……..Heh maybe he will put them both into a room to have a scrap and who ever is left standing gets the virgins……………..this actually presents a real theological dilema for the muslims……………ya don’t wanna get it wrong coz ya don’t wanna miss out on the virgins no siree.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Repton (769 comments) says:

    I understand a fatwah is like a decree from allah and must be obeyed or else.

    You don’t have to rely on your understanding, you know — you can look things up instead.

    Here’s wikipedia:

    In Sunni Islam any fatwā is non-binding, whereas in Shia Islam it could be considered by an individual as binding, depending on his or her relation to the scholar.
    [...]
    An analogy might be made to the issue of legal opinions from courts in common-law systems.
    [...]
    The primary difference between common-law opinions and fatwās, however, is that fatwās are not universally binding; as the Sharia is not universally consistent and Islam is very non-hierarchical in structure, fatwās do not carry the sort of weight that secular common-law opinions do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. lofty (1,304 comments) says:

    Saw a TV program last week re the Koran… the word virgins in the context of heavens reward, has been mis-translated should actually mean grapes.. Imagine how a martyr will feel after blowing him/herself to smithereens & few hundered innocents…just to enter heaven and get presented with a bunch of grapes……bummer!!!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Not only does he label terrorism as “haram”, or forbidden under Islam, he goes so far as to describe acts of terrorism as acts of disbelief.

    It’s a shame this same scholar wasn’t around to advise Mohammed when he was establishing the religion of Islam. Especially as Mohammed was the ORIGINAL Muslim terrorist. I fear that, if he had, any advise given may have been his last act.
    And as others have suggested; this may be his last act anyway, as it is a direct contradiction of Mohammed’s acts and what is CLEARLY taught in both the Koran and Hadith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Jeff83 (771 comments) says:

    Kris K you are as bad as the other side of the gulf, and ironically have much in common with them.

    You theoritically believe in a god who instructed people to commit genocide. Would class genocide > terrorist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. NoCash (256 comments) says:

    Learn something new everyday… didn’t know the word “fatwa” until googling it today :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Jeff83 1:06 pm,

    Kris K you are as bad as the other side of the gulf, and ironically have much in common with them.

    You theoritically believe in a god who instructed people to commit genocide. Would class genocide > terrorist.

    Actually, Jeff, I worship a (New Testament) God who instructs me to love my enemies:

    Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

    I think you’ll struggle to find that same sentiment in the later writings of both the Koran and Hadith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Sean (299 comments) says:

    So, wait. Someone suffering from a delusion that says it is ok to harm people for certain reasons to do with essentially not behaving in accordance with the delusion tells other people that their particular harming of other people based on their reading of the same delusion is wrong according to the first deluded person’s reading of the delusion.

    Excuse me while I get on with my life…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. tom hunter (4,576 comments) says:

    Maybe Trey Parker and Matt Stone could hire Tahir ul-Qadri – right now it looks like they need the defence as Comedy Central censors South Park Mohammed References.

    What makes this really pathetic (and chilling), is that I watched this episode a few days ago and thought that the black censor box and bleeped out words were Trey and Matt making a point and poking fun in their usual way. Not so it seems:

    In the 14 years we’ve been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn’t stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn’t some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle’s customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn’t mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We’ll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we’ll see what happens to it.

    Oh well. I’m sure our edgy, transgressive, “Speaking Truth To Power”, Western entertainment folks will be fully supporting them!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Repton (769 comments) says:
    Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

    I think you’ll struggle to find that same sentiment in the later writings of both the Koran and Hadith.

    I’d have a lot more respect for George Bush if he had followed that sentiment..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. ben (2,414 comments) says:

    Is anybody else disturbed by the idea of 72 virgins? On the one hand it seems so shallow. Your reward for your great deeds is sex. With girls. 72 of them. Forever. Apparently, to a Muslim the absolute best thing imaginable in the afterlife and for eternity is the blow job. Lots of them.

    On another hand, it sounds a bit like rape. Do the 72 virgins have a say in the matter?

    By the way I have no more time for Christianity, but at least Christians seem to have a bit of afterlife respect for the ladies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Robert Black (423 comments) says:

    Yes a thousand apologies for that early morning drunken post fueled by too much Chinese beer DPF.

    As you know, I do have such a slip about once every few months.

    Back on the topic, is terrorism really un-Islamic?

    It seems to pop up a bit under the Islam/Muslim name.

    I mean they are not exactly slow to claim a bombing or public beheading of innocent people theirs quickly after it occurs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Ben 10:54 pm,

    Is anybody else disturbed by the idea of 72 virgins? On the one hand it seems so shallow. Your reward for your great deeds is sex. With girls. 72 of them. Forever. Apparently, to a Muslim the absolute best thing imaginable in the afterlife and for eternity is the blow job. Lots of them.

    On another hand, it sounds a bit like rape. Do the 72 virgins have a say in the matter?

    One does get the sense that the so called virgins have little or no choice in the matter – much in the same way as Muslim women have little choice while here on earth, but are simply there for the gratification of men, and to produce children.

    By the way I have no more time for Christianity, but at least Christians seem to have a bit of afterlife respect for the ladies.

    While in contrast to the sex filled hedonistic existence of the (so called) Muslim afterlife, resurrected Christians are compared to angels; who do not marry (or have sex by implication):

    Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they [Christians and Old Testament saints] neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

    There is even a hint that the male/female distinction is gone in the Christian afterlife. If one considers the biblical accounts of angels, wherever they are encountered they are always likened to ‘men’ and the masculine, never as female/women.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Well said, Ben. But in light of what Kris has just told us, there is now serious doubt about the whole virgin/sex thing. It could take years for the theologians to sort this one out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.