I heard with interest what Zaatari said.What struck me most was he said Muhammad condemned a man for rape based only (apparently) on the testimony of the woman. What if he was innocent?What about a second witness?In Mosaic law it is specifically stated that:1)at least 2 witnesses are necessary,and 2)an investigation be made of what they said.
TEHRAN, Iran (Worthy News) — An Iranian pastor, convicted of apostasy and sentenced to death, may have only hours or days to live, according to a US-based Christian ministry acquainted with the facts of his case.
Jason DeMars, of Present Truth Ministries, told ANS: “We have been notified that the conviction of brother Youcef Nadarkhani for apostasy, as well as the sentence of death, has been upheld and confirmed by the Iranian Supreme Court.
“The way that this situation is typically handled is that at any time, and without advance notice, they will carry out the death sentence. First, they will ask him to recant, and if he does not, then he will be executed.”
DeMars says: “There is nothing more to be done to help his case from within Iran. The only thing that can affect his case now is international pressure.
“I ask that each of you earnestly pray and follow what God calls you to do. We know that we are called to be faithful unto death and that many are killed for their faith everyday around the world, but as Christians let’s do what we can for Youcef, pray for him and raise our voices against the Iranian regime.”
Youcef Nadarkhani is 33-years-old and from Rasht, in the Gilan province of Iran.
For the past ten years he has been a pastor in a network of house churches. He was previously imprisoned in December of 2006, the charges being apostasy (leaving Islam for Christianity) and evangelism (spreading the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ), but was released two weeks later.
Youcef is married and has two sons, ages 8 and 6. They were attending a local school when the government decided that all children should be taught about Islam, including those from Christian families.
Youcef went to the school and protested this based on the Iranian Constitution, which allows for freedom to practice religion. As a result, the secret police called him before the political tribunal in Rasht, Iran on October 12, 2009. At that time he was arrested, charged for protesting, and has been in prison in Lakan (which is seven miles south of Rasht) ever since. Later the charges were changed to apostasy and evangelism to Muslims.
DeMars told ANS that throughout this time he has had access to an attorney, and has been allowed visits from his wife, children, and friends.
“However, for the first month in prison and two weeks before his trial up until now the visits and meetings with his attorney have been limited. They have used various methods to try to convert him back to Islam, including giving him pills, apparently in an attempt to claim that he was insane.”
Because Youcef’s faith remained strong, Iranian authorities decided to arrest his wife in order to place more pressure on him. On June 18th, Fatemah Pasindedih was arrested and placed in prison in Lakan.
DeMars said: “During this time their boys went to live with a relative. Both Youcef and his wife Fatemah were threatened by authorities that their children would be taken away and given to a Muslim family.
“Youcef was not swayed to turn back to Islam, so his wife was put on trial without an attorney, and sentenced to life in prison. An attorney was later hired and the sentence appealed. The sentence and conviction were overturned and she was released.”
On September 21 and 22, 2010, Youcef was put on trial, and verbally given the sentence of death. A written verdict was delayed and then delivered, on November 13, 2010, by the 1st Court of the Revolutionary Tribunal. He is to be executed by hanging for the crime of apostasy. Twenty days are allowed to appeal the sentence with the Supreme Court of Iran.
Hello Sam, Just read your comment.Your idea of witnesses is different,in Jewish law a witness is not just somebody who actually sees a crime but also somebody who can attest to important evidence regarding it.Like he can attest X person was or was not seen at X time in X place,or that X person has a reputation of being violent,etc.
THE DSK
Dominique Strauss-Kahn has been released from house arrest.The reason:the Muslim woman who has,quoting jihadwatch:
"The migrant from Guinea, who came into the United States on an asylum claim in 2004, has apparently lied from beginning to end. Her story that her husband was killed opposing the regime in Guinea and she was forced to flee her homeland was all a lie. She lied about her finances in order to secure public housing. She claimed a friend's child as her own in order to increase her Federal tax refund. She has had numerous associations with criminals, including her own boyfriend who is now languishing in an Arizona prison. And her own story of her supposed encounter with DSK has changed over the last six weeks, chock full of inconsistencies. In other words, she's emerged as about the worse sort of witness imaginable for the prosecution.
Probably the most damning evidence to come to light is the fact that, while DSK's accuser spoke to her incarcerated boyfriend by phone, she is reported to have said, in effect, that "...DSK has a lot of money and I know what I'm doing." She attempted to hide these intentions by speaking in an African dialect, but apparently the Feds were listening and eventually had it translated. "
Do you see how her constant lying in other cases is confirmed by witnesses to her lying?
What you are trying to explain can be divided into 2 categories ; (1) witness to the crime ; or (2) character witness
Which one is it?
Its interesting that you have brought up the case of lying. Ayaan Hirsi Ali , a pin up poster girl of most anti islam crusaders actually has a dark past. Citing 'the econimist' ; '..Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not the first person to use false pretences to try to find a better life in the West, nor will she be the last. But the muddy account given in this book of her so-called forced marriage becomes more troubling when one considers that Ms Hirsi Ali has built a career out of portraying herself as the lifelong victim of fanatical Muslims..' The Economist - Ayaan Hirsi Ali dark secrets
How do you reconcile your support of such a person now that you have openly 'condemn' people who lie. If you don't support her , good for you but I can't help noticing that she has the support of folks in the like of woods , spencer , geller etc. Is there double standards in practice here?
Hello Sam, As I said before there are different kinds of witnesses.Not just to the crime itself but to evidence related to the crime.
As for Ayan Hirsi I think she should not have lied in the Netherlands since she was going to Canada legally and there she could have just left her would-be husband and he would not be able to force her to be with him. She obviously panicked and decided to go to the Netherlands.As for her sister if the 2 accounts in her 2 books are very different then she lied. But aside that error about the arranged marriage,and she has several times admited it,she has the freedom of speech right to criticize any ideology(whether political,economic,religious) she wants. In her case it is Islam,for others it is Capitalism. But the Economist is naive in my opinion in giving alot of credence to the assertions of her relatives.
HOW TO EXPLAIN IT
I come from a non-Muslim world where relatives rarely lie about you.Even if you insult their religion(when they have any).
But in the MUSLIM WORLD religion often is more important that FAMILY,that doesn't happen among non-Muslims,or it is very,very rare.
It can and does happen your own family will reject you for leaving Islam and if you are famous for speaking against it they can lie about you because they hate you. To be hated by your own family for a religion is practically non-existent among non-Muslims but it is not so among Muslims.
Did the writer of the Economist ever take that into account?No,because he thinks all Muslims act like non-Muslims regarding religion,that is factually not true.
I am not sure what you are trying to get across. From you '..Like he can attest X person was or was not seen at X time in X place,or that X person has a reputation of being violent,etc..'.
Its only 2 (1) witness to the event (2) character witness
What is it?
The issue is simple. If ayaan hirsi ali lied and it has been proven , why do you still believe her testimony? The said article in the economist is calling it as is.
I detect double standards as on one hand christian polemicists condemn lying but in support of this lady who is a proven liar just because she is together in polemics against islam.
Freedom of speech is given. However it is not a license to insult others.
You are naive in your comment. In the muslim world , relatives also do not lie about each other. They don't like you , you will know about it. The same goes with regards to the relationship with non family.
What do you mean the family members lie against a person because they hate the person as the said person has left islam?
You have no proof of what you are claiming. In the case of ayaan hirsi ali , its the dutch government , a non muslim government , caught her lying. In addition you are just dismissing the statements of her family , which contradict hers , just because you assumed that her family now hates her as she has left islam but ignore the fact that ayaan hirsi ali is a proven liar.
Give us facts , not a figment of your imagination.
I dont know if you know this but Ayan had told her political party years before any scandal that she had lied about her refugee claim.It is in her book.
The bigger issue is whether one has the right to insult a dead historical figure,any dead person,and the answer is yes.
Regarding Hitler one can insult him,it is no hate crime.Regarding Muhammad to call insulting him a crime is to go against human rights.
When did ayaan hirsi ali penned her book? Before or after she scooted off to the US? If she had told her political party about her lying of her status , she would have been deported earlier. Liars like her will never change. You are only in support of her just because she is anti Islam.
Freedom of speech is not freedom to insult. You are again being inconsistent. How come when anybody insults the zionist they are immediately labelled 'anti semite'?
Just do a cursory comparison between the writings of say bro bassam zawadi and sam shamoun. You will notice a world of difference. Yet you are in full support of sam shamoun. Something is very wrong with your values.
Excellent
ReplyDeleteOWNED !
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete@Yahya Snow, Just wondering would you recommend the teachings of Hamaza Yousef? I remember you had a video or two of his on your blog.
ReplyDeletewhat a dummy this terrorist is
ReplyDeleteI heard with interest what Zaatari said.What struck me most was he said Muhammad condemned a man for rape based only (apparently) on the testimony of the woman.
ReplyDeleteWhat if he was innocent?What about a second witness?In Mosaic law it is specifically stated that:1)at least 2 witnesses are necessary,and 2)an investigation be made of what they said.
minoria ,
ReplyDeleteIf there are 2 witnesses to the rape , righteous people - there would not be any rape to begin with.
I believe the 2 persons would have prevented the rape.
TEHRAN, Iran (Worthy News) — An Iranian pastor, convicted of apostasy and sentenced to death, may have only hours or days to live, according to a US-based Christian ministry acquainted with the facts of his case.
ReplyDeleteJason DeMars, of Present Truth Ministries, told ANS: “We have been notified that the conviction of brother Youcef Nadarkhani for apostasy, as well as the sentence of death, has been upheld and confirmed by the Iranian Supreme Court.
“The way that this situation is typically handled is that at any time, and without advance notice, they will carry out the death sentence. First, they will ask him to recant, and if he does not, then he will be executed.”
DeMars says: “There is nothing more to be done to help his case from within Iran. The only thing that can affect his case now is international pressure.
“I ask that each of you earnestly pray and follow what God calls you to do. We know that we are called to be faithful unto death and that many are killed for their faith everyday around the world, but as Christians let’s do what we can for Youcef, pray for him and raise our voices against the Iranian regime.”
Youcef Nadarkhani is 33-years-old and from Rasht, in the Gilan province of Iran.
For the past ten years he has been a pastor in a network of house churches. He was previously imprisoned in December of 2006, the charges being apostasy (leaving Islam for Christianity) and evangelism (spreading the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ), but was released two weeks later.
Youcef is married and has two sons, ages 8 and 6. They were attending a local school when the government decided that all children should be taught about Islam, including those from Christian families.
Youcef went to the school and protested this based on the Iranian Constitution, which allows for freedom to practice religion. As a result, the secret police called him before the political tribunal in Rasht, Iran on October 12, 2009. At that time he was arrested, charged for protesting, and has been in prison in Lakan (which is seven miles south of Rasht) ever since. Later the charges were changed to apostasy and evangelism to Muslims.
DeMars told ANS that throughout this time he has had access to an attorney, and has been allowed visits from his wife, children, and friends.
“However, for the first month in prison and two weeks before his trial up until now the visits and meetings with his attorney have been limited. They have used various methods to try to convert him back to Islam, including giving him pills, apparently in an attempt to claim that he was insane.”
Because Youcef’s faith remained strong, Iranian authorities decided to arrest his wife in order to place more pressure on him. On June 18th, Fatemah Pasindedih was arrested and placed in prison in Lakan.
DeMars said: “During this time their boys went to live with a relative. Both Youcef and his wife Fatemah were threatened by authorities that their children would be taken away and given to a Muslim family.
“Youcef was not swayed to turn back to Islam, so his wife was put on trial without an attorney, and sentenced to life in prison. An attorney was later hired and the sentence appealed. The sentence and conviction were overturned and she was released.”
On September 21 and 22, 2010, Youcef was put on trial, and verbally given the sentence of death. A written verdict was delayed and then delivered, on November 13, 2010, by the 1st Court of the Revolutionary Tribunal. He is to be executed by hanging for the crime of apostasy. Twenty days are allowed to appeal the sentence with the Supreme Court of Iran.
.”
Hello Sam,
ReplyDeleteJust read your comment.Your idea of witnesses is different,in Jewish law a witness is not just somebody who actually sees a crime but also somebody who can attest to important evidence regarding it.Like he can attest X person was or was not seen at X time in X place,or that X person has a reputation of being violent,etc.
THE DSK
Dominique Strauss-Kahn has been released from house arrest.The reason:the Muslim woman who has,quoting jihadwatch:
"The migrant from Guinea, who came into the United States on an asylum claim in 2004, has apparently lied from beginning to end. Her story that her husband was killed opposing the regime in Guinea and she was forced to flee her homeland was all a lie. She lied about her finances in order to secure public housing. She claimed a friend's child as her own in order to increase her Federal tax refund. She has had numerous associations with criminals, including her own boyfriend who is now languishing in an Arizona prison. And her own story of her supposed encounter with DSK has changed over the last six weeks, chock full of inconsistencies. In other words, she's emerged as about the worse sort of witness imaginable for the prosecution.
Probably the most damning evidence to come to light is the fact that, while DSK's accuser spoke to her incarcerated boyfriend by phone, she is reported to have said, in effect, that "...DSK has a lot of money and I know what I'm doing." She attempted to hide these intentions by speaking in an African dialect, but apparently the Feds were listening and eventually had it translated. "
Do you see how her constant lying in other cases is confirmed by witnesses to her lying?
minoria ,
ReplyDeleteWhat you are trying to explain can be divided into 2 categories ;
(1) witness to the crime ; or
(2) character witness
Which one is it?
Its interesting that you have brought up the case of lying. Ayaan Hirsi Ali , a pin up poster girl of most anti islam crusaders actually has a dark past. Citing 'the econimist' ;
'..Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not the first person to use false pretences to try to find a better life in the West, nor will she be the last. But the muddy account given in this book of her so-called forced marriage becomes more troubling when one considers that Ms Hirsi Ali has built a career out of portraying herself as the lifelong victim of fanatical Muslims..'
The Economist - Ayaan Hirsi Ali dark secrets
How do you reconcile your support of such a person now that you have openly 'condemn' people who lie. If you don't support her , good for you but I can't help noticing that she has the support of folks in the like of woods , spencer , geller etc. Is there double standards in practice here?
Hello Sam,
ReplyDeleteAs I said before there are different kinds of witnesses.Not just to the crime itself but to evidence related to the crime.
As for Ayan Hirsi I think she should not have lied in the Netherlands since she was going to Canada legally and there she could have just left her would-be husband and he would not be able to force her to be with him.
She obviously panicked and decided to go to the Netherlands.As for her sister if the 2 accounts in her 2 books are very different then she lied.
But aside that error about the arranged marriage,and she has several times admited it,she has the freedom of speech right to criticize any ideology(whether political,economic,religious) she wants.
In her case it is Islam,for others it is Capitalism.
But the Economist is naive in my opinion in giving alot of credence to the assertions of her relatives.
HOW TO EXPLAIN IT
I come from a non-Muslim world where relatives rarely lie about you.Even if you insult their religion(when they have any).
But in the MUSLIM WORLD religion often is more important that FAMILY,that doesn't happen among non-Muslims,or it is very,very rare.
It can and does happen your own family will reject you for leaving Islam and if you are famous for speaking against it they can lie about you because they hate you.
To be hated by your own family for a religion is practically non-existent among non-Muslims but it is not so among Muslims.
Did the writer of the Economist ever take that into account?No,because he thinks all Muslims act like non-Muslims regarding religion,that is factually not true.
minoria ,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what you are trying to get across. From you '..Like he can attest X person was or was not seen at X time in X place,or that X person has a reputation of being violent,etc..'.
Its only 2
(1) witness to the event
(2) character witness
What is it?
The issue is simple. If ayaan hirsi ali lied and it has been proven , why do you still believe her testimony? The said article in the economist is calling it as is.
I detect double standards as on one hand christian polemicists condemn lying but in support of this lady who is a proven liar just because she is together in polemics against islam.
Freedom of speech is given. However it is not a license to insult others.
You are naive in your comment. In the muslim world , relatives also do not lie about each other. They don't like you , you will know about it. The same goes with regards to the relationship with non family.
What do you mean the family members lie against a person because they hate the person as the said person has left islam?
You have no proof of what you are claiming. In the case of ayaan hirsi ali , its the dutch government , a non muslim government , caught her lying. In addition you are just dismissing the statements of her family , which contradict hers , just because you assumed that her family now hates her as she has left islam but ignore the fact that ayaan hirsi ali is a proven liar.
Give us facts , not a figment of your imagination.
Hello Sam:
ReplyDeleteI dont know if you know this but Ayan had told her political party years before any scandal that she had lied about her refugee claim.It is in her book.
The bigger issue is whether one has the right to insult a dead historical figure,any dead person,and the answer is yes.
Regarding Hitler one can insult him,it is no hate crime.Regarding Muhammad to call insulting him a crime is to go against human rights.
minoria ,
ReplyDeleteWhen did ayaan hirsi ali penned her book? Before or after she scooted off to the US? If she had told her political party about her lying of her status , she would have been deported earlier. Liars like her will never change. You are only in support of her just because she is anti Islam.
Freedom of speech is not freedom to insult. You are again being inconsistent. How come when anybody insults the zionist they are immediately labelled 'anti semite'?
Just do a cursory comparison between the writings of say bro bassam zawadi and sam shamoun. You will notice a world of difference. Yet you are in full support of sam shamoun. Something is very wrong with your values.
Are we in agreement?