| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| IranÂ’s Murderous Course |
| 2006-03-02 |
| By Robert Spencer “If setting fire to embassies of countries that insult the Prophet aims to show that these countries no longer have any place in Islamic countries then this act is permissible.” So says Ayatollah Dorri Najaf-Abadi, the Chief State Prosecutor of Iran, in ruling in favor of burning down the embassies of countries in which newspapers print the notorious Muhammad cartoons. It is not surprising that the regime that triggered the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979 would deny the sanctity of embassies, but the Ayatollah’s words here fit into a larger pattern in Iran. According to the dissident Iranian publication Rooz, as reported by the Middle East Media Research Institute, Shi’ite clerics in the religious center of Qom have endorsed the use of nuclear weapons as well: “Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of [Ayatollah] Mesbah Yazdi [who is Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s spiritual mentor], has spoken for the first time of using nuclear weapons as a counter-measure. He stated that ‘in terms of the shari’a, it all depends on the goal.’” ... “In terms of the shari’a, it all depends on the goal” -- and that goal for the Iranian regime and the global jihad movement is to be ruthless to the unbelievers and to fight against non-Muslims “until they pay the Jizya [the non-Muslim poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29) under the hegemony of Islamic law. Anything that may advance that goal -- nuclear weapons, burning embassies -- is permitted. If Paradise is guaranteed to those who “slay and are slain” for Allah (Qur’an 9:111), there is no downside to a nuclear attack on Israel or even on American troops in Iraq, even if it draws a crushing retaliation. Rest at link. |
| Posted by:ed |
| #2 Uh oh. Somebody somewhere (here?) predicted that the Mullahs would gin up a fatwa to justify mass murder of the innocent as a precursor to actualy doing the deed. arrant speculation alert: I've wondered if part of the foot dragging on taking down the mullahs will result in us taking down a nuclear armed state without our using nuclear weapons in return... The subsequent panic from all the other nuclear armed states as they realize that the "silver Bullet" dosent work on the US Boogeyman after all would be a sight to behold. I wonder if that panic would be noisy or silent? I wonder how many repeats of Lybia's performance would then ensue? Cold comfort for the radioactive, but satisfying nevertheless. |
| Posted by: N guard 2006-03-02 17:52 |
| #1 Anything that may advance that goal -- nuclear weapons, burning embassies -- is permitted. If Paradise is guaranteed to those who “slay and are slain” for Allah (Qur’an 9:111), there is no downside to a nuclear attack on Israel or even on American troops in Iraq, even if it draws a crushing retaliation. In plain speech, Iran regards nuclear weapons as the world's biggest bomb vest. Someone please tell me again why Iran's signature on the NPT means sh!t to a tree. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-03-02 16:20 |