How many more girls must die as they did?
Over at Pajamas Media, in "The FBI Was Right. Why They Stopped Calling Yaser Said an Honor Killer," Phyllis Chesler says that the FBI's decision to stop calling the murders of Amina and Sarah Said by their father "honor killings" is tactical, not politically correct:
So here’s what I think: If indeed Yaser Abdul Said is still hiding in the United States–and is being sheltered by other Muslims–imagine it from their point of view. If they are strangers, not blood relatives, would they be more or less likely to turn him in if they learned he was a common murderer or if they learned that the FBI was pursuing him because he was a Muslim? Or a Muslim honor killer? Since the FBI is clearly interested in capturing him, perhaps they concluded that advertising Said as an honor killer might limit their chances of success.Some Muslims view honor killings as the only way a family can cleanse itself from having been dishonored. To them, an honor killer might be seen as a hero. Thus, designating Said as an honor killer might endear them to him and lead to his being safely sheltered for a longer period of time. Other Muslims may disapprove of honor killings entirely but might also see the designation as a way in which Western culture might choose to unfairly stigmatize all Muslims. Thus, the more moderate Muslims might also be less inclined to “get involved” in turning another Muslim in.
There is no doubt in my mind: Said did honor kill his two young and vivacious daughters. But, I understand why the FBI might have changed the wording on the poster.
I sure hope she's right. On the other side of the balance is the fact that, as Chesler notes, CAIR was livid over the "honor killing" designation -- and some sectors of the FBI have been extremely solicitous of CAIR over the years.
Ultimately, whether or not the FBI terms this an "honor killing," the primary question is this: will American law enforcement officials ever begin to call upon the Muslim leadership in America to go beyond their bland affirmations that this practice has nothing to do with Islam, and actually do something about it? It is absolutely true that honor killing takes place in other cultural contexts. It is also true that the Qur'an says nothing about it. But it also cannot be denied that the stipulation in Islamic law that a parent who murders his or her child is exempt from penalty (cf. 'Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2) creates a legal and cultural atmosphere in which this sort of thing is tolerated. And our own multiculturalist blinders render officials too ignorant and/or bemused to confront this.
Tactically I can understand why the FBI has done what it has in dropping the "honor killing" label. Besides, it is the act which should be punished in every felonious event, not the motive. Strategically, though, it is imperative for the FBI to grasp the entire nature of the Islamic mind set in order to better prepare itself for future illegalities committed by Muslims in this country for reasons directly related to what Hugh has termed the Total Belief System. Let's hope that PC nonsense respecting Islam is kept to an absolute minimum by our law enforcement officials, while at the same time a greater understanding of just how different Islam is from all other major religions sinks into the collective consciousness not just of the FBI and similar personnel but of the vast majority of Americans.
Ok, I can see Chesler's argument, and she may be right about it being the FBI's theory, but unfortunately that theory has a major flaw... if Said is being harboured by American Muslims, they already know that the murders were honour killings. Said will have told them that, and why else would a pious Muslim kill his own daughters? Who do you think those harbouring him will believe, the Muslim Said or the Kuffar FBI?
The benefit achieved (getting one guy into custody) by obscuring the nature of this crime is not worth the cost, which is continued ignorance of Islamic 'traditions'.
Maybe when he is finally caught, they can also pick up everyone who harbored, aided and abetted him.
The "honor killings" should not be renamed. Any person harboring the killer should be indicted and tried as co- conspirators. The fact that these after the fact accomplices are muslims or are from a different culture, should in and of itself, give presumptive motive or explanation to these crimes have been committed, not the other way around.
I am going to have to disagree with Ms. Chesler on this one.
I have a great deal of respect for Ms. Chesler.
But the fact that the FBI first used the designation then withdrew it makes me doubtful that the FBI's backing off is anything but dhimmitude. After all, CAIR regularly "counsels" the FBI.
I'm sure the Muslims who are sheltering Said do know what he's done, and that's fine by them.
Still there may be a few John Q. Publics who don't know, and wouldn't be moved at all by an "honor killing" (just another depraved barbarian practice, right?) but would be concerned enough by the less specific "murder" designation to report any sight of the murderer.
I think "honor killing" would be something that would appall the future jury --maybe enough so to recommend a death sentence for Mr. Said.
It's sickening to think of killing one's daughters (or sons, for that matter). A parent who can do such a thing never had any "honor" to begin with. I think it might have a more visceral impact on a jury, when this motive is revealed in court.
When it comes down to nailing Mr. Said, I believe it's best to not call it an "honor killing" on the poster. To do so is to assign a motive to his murders.
Mr. Said can be tried for murder, but I'm not sure he can be tried for "honor killing". The defense would grab that, the presumed motive, and shake it like a terrier with a rat. The prosecution would be forced to prove the motive, not the murder, and that's backassward. I think the motive is better kept aside for a jury to hear.
I thought Muhammad was such a great guy because he put an end to infanticide, even though there's zero archaelogical evidence of any having ever occurred in the Arabian peninsula and a parent could sell a 3-year-old for nice price at a slave market so there was never any incentive for it anyway. Hmmm. Guess that's one more reason why Islam is self-contradictory crap, pure, unadulterated evil, and little more than a series of lame-ass excuses for the most aberrant, immoral behavior imaginable.
I am going to have to disagree with Ms. Chesler on this one.
Posted by: awake at October 23, 2008 7:43 AM
Ditto.
The crime should be called what it is.
Semantics.
Tziona is right:
"if Said is being harboured by American Muslims, they already know that the murders were honour killings. Said will have told them that, and why else would a pious Muslim kill his own daughters?"
Yea, Tziona's got it right.
I think the FBI should stick to calling the act what it was under the laws of the United States: Murder.
We have no seperate crime called "Honor Killing."
Let him be tried for what he is: Filth that murdered his own children because he didn't like their friends.
Any mention of "honor killing" just gives CAIR and the other jihadi-lovers reason to bleat and whine that Muslims are being "persecuted."
why don't the FBI say they've gone over to sharia law? it's only a matter of time. hell, why don't they give him a parade.
FBI has gotten dhimmified, no help there.
The UK is worse, check this out:
Mohammed Khaliel, adviser on Muslim religious matters and radicalisation, explains "misconceptions" and gives sensitivity training to British police:
"Holding radical views was not illegal or dangerous “until it turns into violence”, and that both police and security services had to determine when it was right to intervene.
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/10/22/uk-islam-expert-explains-misconceptions-gives-sensitivity-training-to-british-police/
The UK is worse, check this out:
Mohammed Khaliel, adviser on Muslim religious matters and radicalisation, explains "misconceptions" and gives sensitivity training to British police:
"Holding radical views was not illegal or dangerous “until it turns into violence”, and that both police and security services had to determine when it was right to intervene.
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/10/22/uk-islam-expert-explains-misconceptions-gives-sensitivity-training-to-british-police/
"that theory has a major flaw" from Tziona.
It's a similar flaw to the idea that our using terms such as "jihad" or "caliphate" aggrandizes jihadis and leads to their being viewed as heroes, thus leading to more terrorism. What we kuffars say or do is irrelevant. Whether we call them jihadis or not, Muslims are going to view them as jihadis. Whether the FBI calls them honor killings or not, Muslims are going to view them as honor killings, and the Muslims harboring honor killers are still going to harbor them.
It does not matter what they call it for two reasons.
#1. Murder by any other name is still murder.
2#. Few Mohammadans are going to turn over a brother, guilty or not, to filthy kufrs, for punishment and/or execution. Especially since so many do not oppose 'honor killings', and opt for no punishment.
To turn a brother over to kufrs, is an act hostile to Allah. It is he only who decides fate, not a Mohammadan. It should then be viewed as an act of apostasy. Sharia law solves that problem, but the US does not yet have sharia, so Mohammadans will protect other Mohammadans for their own protection.
From Allah...Allah willing, and he always is...
The FBI should call this a hate crime. It is, after all, the hate of a father towards his daughters infected with Western ideas. And with the allowance -- and encouragement -- for that hate, and the punishment inflicted, prescribed by muslim beliefs, not just 'cultural' differences.
I do have to wonder at what number of dead women and girls will this murderous crime be called what it is?
I made this exact point on first article dated October 18,2008
Here it as I wrote it on October 18th:
" I'm going to disagree here; which is rare, but I think the FBI may have made the correct decision in modifying their wanted poster by defining it as First degree murder on the later wanted poster.
Reasons: Many in the fundamental Islamic community may be protecting this person under their own definition of it being defined by the FBI as honor killings.
However if we define it as just First degree murder we open up a much better chance of getting this murderer, even when it comes to getting him returned from an Islamic country though however slight it may be.
I doubt that any penal codes, be it federal or state have the term "Honor Killing" written into their definitions of various degrees of murder.
I believe the FBI clearly understands this to be a Honor Killing but has decided to stay within the parameters of the charge of First Degree Murder which may be more effective in shaking the suspect out."
Regards
Mackie
Rick...The FBI should call this a hate crime. It is, after all, the hate of a father towards his daughters infected with Western ideas.
I don't think honor killings have a lot to do with 'hate', on a personal level.
It's more like the father loves Islam, and his place in the rigid, sharia run, patriarchal family, more than he loves his daughters. Honor killings are in effect, human sacrifices to Allah, which are not based on hate. They are based on being a good Mohammadan and doing what is right Islam style.
Sharia backs that up which is why a parent can kill their children and grandchildren with no penalty.
To make a long story short...It's not hate, it's Islam...
I don't think honor killings have a lot to do with 'hate', on a personal level. ~ duh_swami
I disagree. Honor killings have everything to do with hate on a personal level. Why do you think honor killings are usually so gruesome? They're personal. If they weren't personal, there'd be a quick bullet in the back of the head. But no, honor killings are torturously painful, and deliberately so. Hence, very personal. Besides, isn't the shame factor also personal?
The US Congress should address this issue head on rather than have each state go through the slow process of adopting their own individual interpretation of the definition of "honor killing". I think it can fall into the definition, or category of a "hate crime" if written with the correct legaleze wording. The States than will more than likely follow suit on the Federal interpretation. The final result would still be pretty much the same except that individual states may have differing penalties on degrees of murder--IE. death penaly, life without parole, Etc.
The phenomona of "honor killings" is more than likely new to juresprudent practices in America, let alone other Western Countries.
It is easier to rid our country of islamic influence by deporting ALL muslims rather than try to play a game of tactics which, as history has proven over and over and over and over again, the muslims always win.
We must play this strategically. It is strategically advantageous to our nation as whole if we simply deport the muslims. Poof. 99% of our domesticly grown islamic jihad is gone.
Done. Clean. Pragmatic. Simple.
Rick, I agree with you. Honour killings are hate crimes, and they are also first degree murder plain and simple.
The perpetrators of so called honour killings hate non-muslims so much they are willing to murder their own children for associating with them. That is some hatred! A hatred so strong it overrides the love of your own children!!!
I'd just like to add to my original post on this topic that, although I think the FBI's argument is flawed if they think changing the wording to just "wanted for murder" will encourage Muslims harbouring him to give Said up, I also agree give me doughnuts above they should never have used to term Honour Killing in the first place... The crime is murder, Honour Killing hints that hatred of non-Muslims might count as some sort of mitigating circumstances.
Here is a small and condensed bio of some of Dr.Cheslers experience and background:
Dr. Chesler has an extraordinary background, she is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York. She is an author, psychotherapist and an expert courtroom witness. She has lectured and organized political, legal, religious and human rights campaigns in the United States and in Canada, Europe, the Middle East and the Far East. She has been an expert commentator on the major events of our time.
She has lived in Kabul, Afghanistan, and in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Dr. Chesler .Has written thirteen books and made a life long study womens problems and is a strong but conservative advocate on women's issues. She has been interviewed hundreds of times in the media about anti-Semitism, jihadic terrorism and Islamic gender and religious apartheid and has delivered many lectures on these subjects.
Read more on her Website Here:
http://76.12.0.56/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=36
Rick...
The honor killings in question, were not torture murders, the girls were shot.
I think the word 'hate' is applied a little to loosely.
In reality, neither of us know if hate was involved, or to what degree.
To claim that knowledge is an assumption. You are basing your evaluation on personal emotion, I am basing mine on Islam.
To base your actions on Allah's words, the Quran, the examples of Mohammad and sharia law, does not require hate, just blind devotion, which equals a 'good Mohammadan'.
You are in effect excusing Islam and putting the blame on generic hate.
Where hate and Islam conflict, sharia trumps...
Folks, the problem is you can call it a hate crime but it has to go through a legislative process in congress to get that specific definition applied to legal practices of jurisprudence, otherwise the definition does not stick in court. Congressmen, or congresswomen have to introduce a bill that would define it as a hate crime to give it legs in the legal system.
Still murder is murder, and especially if it is determined to be premeditated or planned ahead, thus if proven in court it becomes first degree murder of which the penalties become much more severe.
Even as severe as that poor 20 year old journalist got for supposively insulting Islam in Afghanistan before his death penalty was reduced to twenty years.
How would you like to see this murderer of these two beautiful girls tried under sharia law?
The main thing here is catch this guy, PERIOD!!
The main thing here is catch this guy, PERIOD!!
Posted by: Mackie
Now were talkin...
I think the main problem is that you have to be paying close attention to the fact that Mohammadans do not think like we kufrs do, if they did they would be kufrs.
What we may see as hate they may see as duty, and even torturing and murdering kufrs, or Allah offending family members, is Allah's will, and nothing personal, and they are actually doing the kufr a favor.
Perverted and twisted yes, but hate is not required. Of course some Mohammadans do hate, but it is an elective.
When Mohammad had a fire built on Kinnah's chest to make him tell where the treasure was, and then had him beheaded, hate had nothing to do with it...
As a former homicide detective, I'd have to say honor killings are all about following Islam, not about anger or hate.
Killings motivated by hate are typified by dead bodies with many stab/gunshot wounds. Blunt force trauma to a girl's head combined with evidence of choking her, for example, would be an indicator that the murderer just wanted to be sure she was dead, not that he hated her.
While there were multiple bullet wounds in both Amina and Sarah, the total number of bullets fired into them doesn't seem to be more than one magazine of ammunition; not a sign of anger but of haste.
Daddy was thinking, I need to kill them quick and then run.
But the fact that the FBI first used the designation then withdrew it makes me doubtful that the FBI's backing off is anything but dhimmitude.
Posted by: Always On Watch
It may have been done for the wrong reason but it was still the right thing to do. This man is wanted for the murder of his daughters. Murder.
The "honor killing" part belongs in the courtroom. It will be used by the prosecution as well as the defense. We have no allowance for honor murders in our laws. There are manslaughter, heat of passion and other nuances that can be used. "Honor killing" might be a motive, like robbery is a motive.
As for it being a hate crime, it would be better if we could just eliminate that classification entirely. Murder is murder. A crime is a crime. The very notion of "hate crime" means the identity of the victim and the identity of the perpetrator are used in weighing its severity. If the ethnicity of the victim means that one violent offender can get more lenient treatment than another for the exact same crime then that is not equal justice under the law - for the victims or the perpetrators. It makes a mockery of the notion that justice is blind.
I don't know, there are so many hateful and angry core aspects attached to Islam, that I don't think we can completely rule out "hate" and "anger" being associated with this crime.
Islam = Religion of Haters and Thugs
Honor killers think and decide this way: By disobeying me, she embarrassed me in front of the men who make me feel valid as a man and I must get their respect back. Since I have the imprimatur of our "god", I must restore the good feelings I had about myself, which is based on what those men think of me. According to the men of my tribe, the only way to do this is to kill her. So, I will kill her because I need to feel like part of the tribe more than I need to feel validated as a loving father/brother/etc.
Anger is the initial emotion, but it passes and selfishness becomes the motive to kill.
"Thus, the more moderate Muslims might also be less inclined to 'get involved' in turning another Muslim in"
Lets stop calling them "moderate Muslims", but instead call them what they really are: Complicit Muslims.
Chesler is terrific. But I think she's got this one wrong.
Again, this is pragmatism* in action.
Short range, limited focus, scope of the moment concentration on superficial details rather than underlying principles, long term plans and general conditions.
(See U.K.'s highest court: Sharia law is "arbitrary and discriminatory" where even a high court judge doesn't get it)
Yes. Maybe more mohammedans will rat out their murdering buddies if they are called common murderers. It is a practical short term measure, which might have a limited effect.
We are in a WAR folks where "honor" killing is a doctrine of the enemy. And as a doctrine of the enemy will inspire many more such murders -- regardless of what the FBI chooses to call them.
This is much like the thinking behind the ban on the term "jihad".
The other side doesn't care all that much what we choose to call things -- they are our superiors (in their own eyes), we don't count all that much.
We have to make them care, by force.
We have to communicate that their doctrine of "honor" killing is idiotic, corrupt and unacceptable. We have to break the ideology. We have to teach that we know what "honor" killing is -- and that it's wrong -- not that we don't even recognize its existence.
So for a little while, this policy might help to catch a few bad guys.
But I think that the underlying problem will continue to grow and deepen, and produce ever more deaths.
================
* Pragmatism is the philosophical doctine that says that we cannot effectively figure out the underlying principles by which the real world works -- we can only observe the details of the present moment, and deal with them on a trial-and-error basis, seeing what works as we go along.
Mind you, on this basis things like advanced engineering and medicine would be impossible. Those are field that absolutely require knowledge of non-obvious underlying principles.
Yea, what joe said.
"If they are [Muslim] strangers, not blood relatives, would they be more or less likely to turn him in if they learned he was a common murderer or if they learned that the FBI was pursuing him because he was a Muslim?"
Tactics, schmactics. Muslims won't turn in a fellow Muslim for any reason, doesn't matter if he's guilty of honor killing or a traffic ticket. Phyllis Chesler assumes way too much intelligence among the Federal Bureau of Intelligence agents. The FBI is just plain PC like every damn body else. That's why they dropped honor killing like a hot potato.
Posted by: undaunted at October 23, 2008 1:52 PM.
Exactly...
I know this thread is probably dead now, but I have to say that honor killing is always about hate. It's about hatred for women. The West is an excuse. Women/girls who get honor killed are viewed as a threat to the sick Islamic society. Nobody in any Islamic society can ever actually grow up or self-actualize, but with women it's even more extreme. Terrorists who attack the West are just killing their grown-up selves in a way. They regard the West as evil because we have choices and upward mobility, i.e., we're adults. Most Western 8-year-olds are considerbaly more mature, more independent, and make more choices on a daily basis than any true Muslim in a sharia society. They're crawling back into the womb when the attack us. It's not a coincidence that bin Laden, Atta, etc. lived in the West for a while and enjoyed it but then turned on it/their semi-grown-up selves.
Women who get honor killed are viewed as dangerous because they tried to live, and women can never live in Islamic societies. They have to be dead to the maximum extent that that's humanly possible. They have to dehumanize themselves into the undead-corpse houris that await perverts in janaat through silence, submission, and immobility. They have to be as spineless and soulless as possible. It's not a coincidence that Muslim men like mutilated women and little girls. They're sexually naive, so it's more like having sex with a corpse that way. The ancient practice of Indian widows throwing themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres is because Muslims would rape their corpses, so just poisoning themselves didn't get the job done. Even Perv Mo's cult leadership is a form of necrophilia, in that he loved turning people into zombies. Islam loves zombies, little girls, and dead people and anyone else is unacceptable. Pedophilia, violence, and necrophilia are the cornerstones of Islam.
Women/girls who get honor killed are just women who tried to live. They're also regarded as threatening because they're almost invariably beautiful, strikingly so, which just magnifies the fear men have of them. Islam, and rampant inbreeding and arranged marriages generally, don't tend to produce even reasonably ok-looking people, but women who get honor killed are always gorgeous. Check out Atlas Shrugs' gallery of honor-killed women. They're all gorgeous women who just dared to demonstrate the presence of a soul and to grow up a little. Women's sexuality is incredibly threatening, and it's my own personal theory that parents who honor kill their children are afraid of their own sexual attraction to their own children. Incest is rampant and perfectly permissible in Islamic societies, and we know that Yaser Said raped his daughters. And again, it's always beautiful women who get killed and it's always incredibly gruesome. Yeah, that's about hate.
jdamn,
Couldn't have summed it up, better. My own idea is that, to defeat these non-people, we have to play upon their fears, which is easily done, since we have the sunnah to work with. Books like the "Reliance of the Traveler" gives us the whole grocery list of everything non-people find filthy and / or haram.
Number one is, of course, a fear of being "humiliated" (I'm really getting sick of that word; it sounds so whiney, these days), which is so easily done.
"Oh, Allah! I've moved my family to the US, where they could live more easily, and so that my children can be educated! Oh, Allah! How do my daughters repay me? They are dating the najis Kuffar boys whose families have lived in this country for at least one hundred years, maybe two hundred! Oh, Allah! I'm so humiliated!"
And so afraid, too, as you point out. The non-people are cowards. They love death because they fear life--in which there are so many chances to be humiliated. And oh! SO afraid of women--especially those who grow up to be adults!
You're absolutely right. It's sad and wrong that our society tries so hard to cover up their wrongdoing or anything that might humiliate them, either by not reporting on it, by changing the names of the perpetators to something Western, by painting it as not so bad, or by never mentioning Islam. And of course, anyone who tells the truth about Islam and about the things that Muslims do is a bigot. It's so easy to humiliate Muslims, too, and they're unprepared for it when you do, like when I call them out on the stupid things they say in class, like the other day when some idiot said that checking data for spelling would be 'time-consuming' and I told him that spell-check is instantaneous. He had no comeback. But when they stalk and harass me IU does everything they can to sweep it under the rug. Islam is humiliating. That's why Muslims have entire organization set up to hide what's on their texts, and they buy off professors like Bernard Lewis to deny it.
Girls, you are really onto something here.
When everyone was arguing with Abdulla "Mike" Mikhail the other day on another thread, you know, Mr. "Peace/Truth" himself, I found a site that said this:
Khomeini slept with 4-year-old girl.
An excerpt from 'Hal Ataaka Hadeeth ur-Raafidah?' by the late Sheikh Abu Mus'abaz-Zarqaawi
“The author of the book 'For Allah, Then For History' [1] mentions to us an event that took place before his very eyes, when al-Khomeini [2] was living in Iraq, and was visiting an Iranian individual by the name of Sayyid Sahib.
He says: 'Sayyid Sahib was joyous with our visit, and we arrived at his house around the time of Dhuhr. So, he prepared for us a lavish dinner, and called some of his relatives, who came to see us, and the house became crowded in celebration of our presence.
Sayyid Sahib then requested that wespend that night at his home, to which the Imam agreed. When it was night time, we were given our supper, and the guests would take the Imam's hand and kiss it, and they would ask him questions, with him answering their questions.
When it was time to sleep, the guests had all left, except for the inhabitants of the house. Al-Khomeini laid his eyes on a young girl who, despite being only four or five years of age, was very beautiful.
So, the Imam requested from her father, Sayyid Sahib, that he spend the night with her in order to enjoy her. Her father happily agreed, and Imam al-Khomeini spent the night with the girl in his arms, and we could hear her crying and screaming.'”
Footnotes
[1] This book was written under the alias Husayn al-Musawi, a former companion of al-Khomeini who later abandoned his previous beliefs.
[2] Ayatollah al-Khomeini was the leader of the Shee'ah Raafidah of Iran in the 1980s.
You can read it here, plus all the comments and guess who is on record denying that this ever happened? Somebody who signs his name
Peace,
Mike
Does this remind you of anybody here? Such a busy bee.
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/01/ayatollah-khomeinis-fling-with-four.html
But, I digress. The point is that these people do things they KNOW they shouldn't do, but they have never been taught to control themselves further than head slamming prayers several times a day and going to the Hajj once in your life, and even that is only if you can afford to financially. And really, how hard is that? If you were a pedophile and assured of an endless stream of sexual partners as long as you got to the Mosque on time, wouldn't you be the first one in line to join the headbangers ball? But in the quiet of the night, when you're just about to go to sleep and things have a way of coming up in your mind. do you think these folks just sleep like babies, or is their irritability an indication that the old conscience is just making too much noise. And then getting up the next day and going into the world, wouldn't there be a conflict inside of them because a) they did something that was abominable but, b) their group is in agreement that it's okay, c) and even if you felt bad about it they can't say anything because the rest of the perps will take them out, d) and the cycle continues. This could be why they are so angry, why they are so hate filled and why revenge is their favorite pastime.
I also read somewhere in the last couple of weeks that another component of honor killing is women gossiping.
Women gossiping.
If one of these abused women has a gripe against another oppressed woman, she can eliminate her easily by claiming that the other woman looked at a man she wasn't married to. Now think about this, we all have people in our lives who get on our nerves but would you ever, in your wildest dreams, denounce somebody knowing they would be murdered if you did? No, you and I wouldn't and as angry as you guys have seen me on this site sometimes I can take comfort in the knowledge that I would never do that to somebody, and neither would you. And that little fact makes us a superior culture, no matter how many whiners and useful idiots tell us we're hate filled because "Muslims are so nice." (Everybody whine together,now...)
"Headbangers ball." LOLz, Isabella. I actually have to disagree with you that these people ever feel any sort of conscience pangs. Muslims are by definition malignant narcissists. One cannot simultaneously divide the world into Muslim/infidel ape or pig to be raped, enslaved, murdered, and plundered, and men/mutilated undead corpse sex slaves and actually have a conscience. Whether Muslims have souls is less disputable than whether cats have souls. They never feel guilty for what they do. They do, however, feel shame about it when confronted by decent people. That's why vigilante justice for pedophiles is rampant in Western Muslim enclaves. They don't care about the kids and they certainly don't take issue with pedophilia, but they do feel shame at their dirty secret getting out in into the decent-people world. They also think that homosexual pedophiles should just get their asses beat once rather than be imprisoned for years. Of course they know that Islam is evil and wrong deep-down, but being soulless malignant narcissists they don't care. They enjoy inflicting violence upon people, even their own families, because they are sadistic malignant narcissists.
Wafa Sultan says that it is impossible for someone to read the Koran, believe a word of it, and maintain any semblance of mental health whatsoever. Well, duh, but it's nice to hear it from a brilliant, qualified psychiatrist. You're right that the cycle repeats itself. It all comes from children who grow up in malignantly narcissistic families, who never receive love or even passably decent treatment and who, being Muslim, are never exposed to any concept of morality. It's not a coincidence that the Muslims who leave Islam are the ones who are exposed to the West or to some horrific but normal manifestation of Islam in the East, like Wafa Sultan watching her professor get gunned-dowm right in front of her. Nonie Darwish was educated in a British Catholic school and lied in ISrael and then America for decades before she apostacized. Sure, she always knew there was something deeply wrong with Islam but she blamed it on "Arab culture" forever. Ibn Warraq was largely shielded from Islam as a kid, at least at home, so he was raised by loving parents in a moral atmosphere. Ali Sina's upbringing was similar, but it wasn't until he simultaneously began associating with kafirs and read the Koran that he put 2 and 2 together.
But shame is a powerful force when dealing with Muslims and it's just so easy to humiliate them. Of course Sarah and Amina dated Western boys. The only Western girls who date Muslims are those who are ignorant of Islam who date guys who put up a fake (narcissistic) front. Read '33 Secrets Arab Men Never Tell American Women.' Sarah and Amina knew the real Islam, down to the sanctioned incest, the soullessness, and the violence. I mean, Muslims know that endogamy and pedophilia are frowned up on by decent people, but do they stop buying their underage cousins as sex slaves? No. Are they humiliated when you call them on that fact that their 'wives' are incestuous, underage, sharia sex slaves? Of course. Like I said, Islam is humiliating. That's why people need to know about it. Once you found out about it, were you ever able to really trust or respect a Muslim? Me neither. That's how decent people's minds work.