posted November 14, 2006 01:51 PM            

Of course, in the Muslim religion, it's OK for a Muslim to lie to infidels. No dishonor attaches to those lies. Nor are Muslims honor bound to keep any agreement they may make with infidels. They're free to break any promise, any agreement whenever they deem it helpful to themselves or to their cause.

Here's a photo of Ahmadinejad in his revolutionary Iranian uniform. Statements by hostages who have positively identified him put the lie to his denial.

Russian newspaper published photo, left, bearing striking resemblance to Iranian president

Photo shows Iran leader
as '79 U.S. hostage taker
Ahmadinejad has denied role in
embassy seizure, abuse of Americans
Posted: November 13, 2006
10:26 a.m. Eastern
WorldNetDaily.com

The Russian publication Kommersant has published a newly located photograph of a U.S. hostage-taker in Iran circa 1979 bearing a striking resemblance to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The Iranian leader has steadfastly denied he was involved in the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the holding of 52 Americans for 444 days despite assertions to the contrary of some of those hostages and former Iranian President Abholhassan Bani-Sadr, who says he was a ringleader and the liaison with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Russian newspaper published photo, left, bearing striking resemblance to Iranian president

Charges by the ex-hostages were made shortly after Ahmadinejad came to power June 24, 2005. But from the beginning, the White House and State Department made it clear they would rather not know the truth about Ahmadinejad because it would place the U.S. in a position of refusing to permit a head of government into the country to attend U.N. meetings.

(Story continues below)

One official said such a finding would "enormously complicate" matters.

U.S. "investigators" never bothered to interview any of the former hostages who made the charges against the Iranian leader.

Perhaps the most damning evidence against Ahmadinejad with regard to the hostage-taking came from Bani-Sadr, Iran's president during the early days of the Khomeini revolution.

He has adamantly affirmed Ahmadinejad was one of the kidnappers who held 52 Americans for 444 days. He said the former student leader was in the embassy throughout the hostage crisis.

"Ayatollah Khomeini's deputy, Ayatollah Khamenei, demanded of him a constant report on what is happening in the embassy," he said.

When told Ahmadinejad denied the accusation, Bani-Sadr laughed.

"What do you want?" he said. "That he should not deny it? I was president, and I know the details, and I am telling you for sure that he was there, though his role was not organizational. He was the chief reporter to Khamenei."

Sadr added that Ahmadinejad initially opposed the hostage-taking but changed his mind once Khomeini gave his support.

At least six former American hostages agree the president of Iran played a key role in interrogating and abusing them.

Chuck Scott characterized his tormentor as "cold, hard-nosed" and said his memory is solid, "as sure as I'm sitting here."

"If you went through a traumatic experience like that and you were around people who made it possible, you're never going to forget them," said Scott, a 73-year-old retired U.S. Army colonel.

Scott said he recognized him almost instantly during the publicity surrounding his election in June, when he shocked the world by winning in an upset.

Former hostage Don Sharer identified Ahmadinejad as a student leader who called Americans "pigs and dogs."

Ahmadinejad acknowledges membership in the radical student organization that stormed the embassy when he was 23.

"He was in the background, like an adviser," recalled Sharer, a former U.S. Navy officer. "He called us pigs and dogs and said we deserved to be locked up forever."

Scott called him "a leader, what I would call a hard-a--. Even the other guards said he was very strict."

"The new president of Iran is a terrorist," said Scott.

Sharer said Ahmadinejad was an interrogator and remembers being personally grilled by him.

"He was involved in interrogating me the day we were taken captive," said former Marine security guard Kevin Hermening. "There is absolutely no reason the United States should be trying to normalize relations with a man who seems intent on trying to force-feed the world with state-sponsored terrorism."

William Daugherty, another former hostage, concurs that Ahmadinejad was there. He claims he saw him eight to 10 times in the first 19 days of captivity before the hostages were separated into smaller groups.

"As soon as I saw the face, it rang a lot of bells to me, and it was a recent picture, but he still looks like a man, take 20 years off of him, he was there. He was there in the background."

David Roeder, the embassy's former deputy Air Force attache, also said Ahmadinejad was present during one of his interrogations.

"It was almost like he was checking on the interrogation techniques they were using in a sort of adviser capacity," Roeder said.

Sharer added: "He was extremely cruel. He is one of the hardliners, so that tells you what their government is going to stand for in the next four to five years."

posted November 15, 2006 01:09 PM            

quote:

---

i feel , comment regarding religion was uncalled for...cancerrg

---

Really cancerrg, the truth is uncalled for?

posted November 15, 2006 04:24 PM              

Being well versed in the Quran, Ahadith and four schools of Islamic thought (and a devout muslim) it is an out and out lie.

Some scholars might agree with that. But as I said before you can find any scholar to advocate anything. Islam is based no the QURAN and after that the AHADITH, not the scholarly opinions. The religion does not give a flying frick about scholarly opinions, they are intellectual stimulation and conversation purposes--to keep the debate about religiosity alive--not to form or advocate/admonish against any part of religion. Scholars have no place in creating law in Islam.
The religion itself does NOT advocate lying or breaking promises of ANY kind. And infidels is not the right term for 'kaafir' which means unbeliever--and christians and jews are not considered kaafirs they Ahl al kitab in the Quran (followers of the divine book).

Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) didn't even break his treaties with the idol worshippers (The treaty of hudaybiyah was very controversial and to the disadvantage of the Muslims. Once the Makkan pagans broke it, then the Muslims invaded Makkah and conquered it, for instance).

And neither did he with any of the Jewish tribes in Madina, contrary to popular belief. The Jewish tribes had let the Christians and surrounding Quraysh (pagan Meccans from Mohammads tribe) know about their plans to break the treaty and attack the Muslims--that is when war broke out.

Id like to see any textual evidence in the Quran where it says LYING is ok, and to anyone.

Absolutely none.

And as for that pic; I wouldn't be surprised if Ahmadinejad was involved in the abduction, but I dont think he was just because of what he was doing at that time in his life (education, career, politics). It might be true though--I have no way of knowing and no evidence, its just an opinion on the matter. However, that pic could pass for Osama bin laden when he was 20ish too so LOL there you go, when those Middle eastern men slap on big ass beards its hard to tell them apart.

posted November 15, 2006 06:19 PM            

So, are any of these accurate interpretations of the concept of al-Taqiyya?

I also have read the concept is interpreted differently between the Shia and Sunni.

Of course, I'll accept your interpretation.

posted November 15, 2006 07:02 PM              

quote:

---

"The new president of Iran is a terrorist," said Scott.

---

I think everyone has unconciously agreed to that statement, if not declared.

posted November 15, 2006 07:08 PM              

quote:

---

Says Pid, "Ahmadinejad is Hitler and Saddam all rolled into one. How anyone can defend this maniac is beyond me, especially when in the same breath they admonish President Bush and our Country. Someone said in another post that Iran was some kind of uber-Country that would show us a lesson.. yeah, because they have done so much in the last 50 years - give me a freaking break."

---

I agree with that statement only because relevant historical facts from the early regimes of Hitler & Saddam prove that to be true. But wait...if this "early" piece of history has repeaten itself, what is to be excepted from the future facade of "Ahmadinejad", absolute tyranny? And if he truly is Hitler & Saddam rolled into one, then clearly WWIII is imminent, any thoughts?

posted November 15, 2006 10:32 PM              

Jwhop is the biggest racist bigot on the whole forum! It doesnt matter how many times you tell him what the Quran/Islam is about he thinks our religion is about violence and terrorism. Hes too dense to waste time on.

Stupida says:

quote:

---

Ahmadinejad is Hitler and Saddam all rolled into one.

---

posted November 16, 2006 03:42 PM              

I'll bet on 30 years.

posted November 17, 2006 12:23 PM              

quote:

---

OK SG, I have seen various interpretations of the concept al-Taqiyya. From lying to save one's life, to deliberate deception to confuse enemies, to lie to give one an advantage in a business deal, to lying to help in the cause of spreading the Islamic religion.
So, are any of these accurate interpretations of the concept of al-Taqiyya?

I also have read the concept is interpreted differently between the Shia and Sunni.

Of course, I'll accept your interpretation.

---

Al Taqiyya was a term coined (and thus invented) by the Shia's after first facing ridicule and persecution from the Sunnis. Particularly Persian shia's--this was a response to having to preserve one of their basic tenets (respecting the house of Ali). Sunnis would tell them to 'curse' at the house of Ali (knowing that if they were Shia, they would never do that, because Shias hold the house of Ali at an incredibly sacred level). To protect the 'basic tenet' of their faith, Shias would violate a nonbasic tenet (telling the truth at all times), so thats how Taqiyya came to being.

Sunni scholars who advocate it on a personal basis are picking up a concept that developed in a minority community at least 400 years after Mohammads death--it has no basis in the ahadith or Quran. The Quran says that those who are forced to say a 'falsehood' but in their hearts know the truth (that implies not deceit but a lie to save one's life), may be forgiven by Allah. In general, the believers and the truthful is a very similar word (truth and honesty has a huge importance to the central concept of Eiman or faith in general). There is an oft cited hadith in which one of the sahaba asks Mohammad if he may lie to punish a disbeliever who had deceived the Muslims. Mohammad supposedly grants him permission--this hadith is not verified and is what we call a 'daeef' or weak hadith (the person who narrated it either had a record of being a bad witness in court, was a proven liar, did not know the prophet on a personal basis, was not present at the time of the event, or no one else could verify this event int he recording of the Prophet Mohammads life). So that tells you how reliable it is...

The concept of lying to save one's life is present in Islam. It is not Sunnah (the recommended way of life--and the way Mohammad spent his own life), because even in the face of utmost adversity Mohammad did not lie about his faith--even when Hind killed his uncle and ate his uncles liver, he forgave the woman; when he conquered Mecca, he did not kill a single person, and when he was tortured and his life in danger, he did not renounce faith.

There was one sahaba--by the name of Annas(and this is a verified hadith) whose parents had been tortured and his father killed in front of him. When his mother was being tortured by the Meccans, he professed that he had returned to idolatry/paganism, so that they would let his mother go. Mohammad is said to have told him to stop feeling guilty and ashamed--because his sin was committed to save the life of his mother, and thus was forgiven by Allah.

This is the kind of case where Taqiyya would be permissible (saving a life). It is not a blank check for hypocrisy and definitely has nothing to do with treaties, contracts, and agreements.

Islam was revealed in a mainly tribal, illiterate Arab society where the literature and learning that did occur were mainly oral/verbal agreements. In such an atmosphere, Islam places utmost importance on written contract (much like Judaism). Marriage and divorce are contractual, as is law and politics in Islam. If it isn't written, it may well be interpreted and manipulated in different ways. If it is a written word--it has the utmost respect and breaking or violating it is unacceptable.

The treaty of Hudaybiah for instance, was written, and Mohammad abided by it despite the fact that it was 100 % against the best interests of the Muslims. He also abided by his written agreements with the Jewish tribes in Madinah. He broke them when the Jewish tribe of Quraiza first broke the treaty and conspired with the Meccans against Mohammad--and this was first told to him by the Christians anyway. Then he beseiged their fort (they had broken the treaty already at this time), and asked them to surrender several times. When they remained adamant, war broke out.

The rules for war and the rules for national peace/security are different from those of law and ordinary life. Just as in the US rights and liberties change during wartime, similarly, in Islam, a certain type of 'spying' is permissible (once again some people lump this under Taqiyya, but Taqiyya is a distinctly Shiite term and concept), the spying allowed is not deceit but a kind of reporting of what is going on in the enemies' camps--an old tactic long employed before Islam and never considered novel or evil.

Outright lying, placing others lives in danger, deceit, and lying for whimsical purposes or personal financial/economical gain is definitely forbidden.

I don't know what other kinds of questions or concerns you might have. Its a lengthy topic to discuss. There are several interpretations but the suggestion that al Taqiyya is a centrally islamic concept, or that it makes lying in any form permissible is just blatantly incorrect.

It is like how Shiites took Mut'a from a verse of An Nisa supposedly--it doesnt even say anything about temporarily/expiration of the nikkah (marriage contract). The verse says once you marry a woman you must financially compensate (bride price) and if you divorce her you must also pay (the financial burden lies on the man). The Shiites have taken this as a blank check to do 'temporary marriages' (basically legalized prostitution). Their school of law is vastly different and very controversial (in my opinion very disrespectful in certain cases, to the basic tents of Islam).

But they call themselves Muslims, just as the Mormons call themselves Christians. What the majority (Sunni) think about them, becomes irrelevant, because nonMuslims assume that since Shias call themselves and all their tenets Islamic, that must be true (!).

A dangerous slippery slope to be on.

posted November 17, 2006 12:58 PM              

Man's take on the various religions of God is a convoluted study. I have a enough on my plate deciphering the mysteries of my own path without plumbing the depths of other practices but it's always fun to have a peek.

posted November 17, 2006 06:09 PM              

I'll bet on the moment in the Age of Aquarius where humans have reached their pinnacle of industrialization and reach the literal impossibility of evolving any more.

Sound accurate?