Overturn of the ban, "will not be tolerated... in the name of giving more rights to woman"Excerpt, from TheWeeklyBlitz.com "Islamist leader threatens of waging Jihad" April 20:
Notorious pro-Taliban Islamist clergy in Bangladesh, Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini has threatened to wage jihad in the country if the government will pass any law banning child marriage.In the name of Allah "Fire will burn your chair"
He said, two hundred thousand Jihadists of his group are ready to 'sacrifice' lives if any such law, which goes against "Koran and Sunnah" will be passed by the current government in the country.Mufti Amini said, "Banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam, who also married minor Ayesha, when she was just eight years old".
He said, "The new law initiated by the current government will put the moral character of the prophet into controversy and challenge."
Fazlul Haque Amini further said, "Islam permits child marriage and it will not be tolerated if any ruler will ever try to touch this issue in the name of giving more rights to women."
Background from bdnew24.com:
Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini has alleged that the government is trying to banish Qur'an from the country by implementing the proposed National Women Development Policy 2011.Photo of Palestinian girls in arranged marriages. H/t Weasel Z...
Apparently pointing his finger to prime minister Sheikh Hasina, he said, "The fire you've created by the women development policy will burn your chair."
He was speaking at the National Ulama Mashayekh Council at National Press Club on Wednesday.
13 comments:
In the name of Allah (piss be upon him) farts will burn your nostrils.
Where is the libertarian outcry on this? Why the utter silence from the libertarian movement? Why is it that Libertarian Republican is the ONLY website covering this story and this issue?
Please, anyone, can you answer those questions for me?
Is Human Rights no longer part of the libertarian agenda?
Probably because us libertarians don't give two shits about what is happening in a third world country... we have more important matters at home like getting our financial house in order
Ummm, okay. Is Dearborn, Michigan still part of the United States. Or, have we already lost it to the Islamists?
Proof positive that some libertarians really, truly are isolationists.
"we don't give two shits..."
Dondero: Because this is not an issue that American libertarians need to be concerned about.
Like anonymous said, lots of shit happens in the third world, but we don't need to intervene, or take this as an opportunity to generalize and bash a religion.
Okay, I accept that answer Lofo.
But that raises another question. Why is it that left-libertarians, paleos and Ron Paulists, so strenuously deny that they're ""isolationists."
Wouldn't an attitude such as "I don't give two shits about what goes on outside of the US..." constitute the precise definition of isolationism?
Eric, if they come here and do anything to us then we bomb the hell out of them and leave. We don't do nation building and no more policing the world... we are FING broke... I don't see why you can't understand that.
It's not quite clever, but it tries: The Left's hijacking and twisting of Libertarian principle to push an agenda.
What the loaf-o' and the anontard are arguing is simply another way of demanding that the US unilaterally disarm and fail to project power. The approach assumes (dishonestly) that military expenditures are the prime cause of US fiscal troubles, A) and B) that (falsely) libertarianism = non-interventionism.
The best part is the loaf-o' crap's: that coming to the defense of young girls is somehow a generalization and mere bashing of a religion. We know from recent post this POS's attitude towards women: It's the 90% of sharia-compliant mohammedans such as the loaf-o' that make the rest look bad.
So it is no surprise that he/she/it jumps to the attack on America in defense of the one ideology that tolerates his despicable misogyny.
Why is it that Libertarian Republican is the ONLY website covering this story and this issue? Because to come to the defense of the weak and vulnerable requires courage.
Linked.
BTW, Eric, this is a perfect Passover item. Liberty v Oppression.
Cheers,
Ran
Anonymous, only problem with your expressed belief is that 99.9% of all non-interventionists say precisely that... "we're not pacifists, if they come over here we want to fight back, blah, blah, blah..."
Yet when it comes to the fight back part, they are amazingly pacifist. "Oh no, we can't do that, that would be intervening in their internal affairs, blah, blah, blah..."
I really do wish there was such a thing as a "walk softly, carry a big stick" non-interventionist libertarian out there. Unfortunately every single one who expresses that sentiment turns out to be just a "walk softly," type, without the big stick.
Except me.
Yup, except you Right Guy.
As I said, 99.9%. That means there's still that .1%.
Post a Comment