Muslim girl set on fire for wearing lipstick

And in this case the conflicting accounts might all be true.

there is not much difference between an extremist Muslism, a radical Muslim, a moderate Muslim, a mainstream Muslim and a conservative Muslim..

sounds like a muslim child molester go turned down and tried to cover his crime

In a culture of repression, any atrocity can be justified. In this case, the Muslim girl in India is little different than the Christian victims of Pakistan's infamous blasphemy laws, those who face the wrath of society, not because they did a single thing wrong, but because their property or their daughter was coveted by someone else; the "crime" was no crime at all, but the culture allows for false accusation - and demands punishment. The only difference being that because India is still essentially an infidel society, the perp will presumably be punished.

Islam - in its many manifestations - can best be described as a sociological evil.

"But relatives have accused the man of trying to molest the girl and setting her on fire when she objected."

The Qur'an is a big enough book for your average child molester to hide behind.

Just another Non-man, who can't and wouldn't, if he could, control himself. I guess he thought it would be easier to control the little girl.

She wouldn't gratify him, so she has been sentenced to torture and death. No wonder "Believers" are stuffing their four year-olds into hijab--not that it works.

Men who can't control themselves are lower than whale dung.

Muslim males - Keeping the world safe from L'Oreal and Maybelline for 1400 years.

The never ending horror that is Islam when it comes to how women are defined in the Qu'ran and how they are treated under sharia.

Like the man from Britain said " In Saudia Arabia where men are men and women are cattle--can I say that?".

My God, that poor little Girl. I would sure love to know what punishment this monster gets.

Hopefully, her evil great uncle will receive the death penalty. He certainly ought to, whether she klives or dies. And the likelihood of surviving third degree burns over 90% of the body is practically nil.

One of the scariest movies that I've ever seen.
To be honest. I've been tired of being polictly incorrect for way too long.
http://www.TheMovieObsession.com

Burning her because of her immoral lipstick and molesting her still makes her uncle a "good Muslim," as long as it wasn't penetration. If it was, he would have to marry her to make it right.

No Max, he wouldn't. K 2.223 gives both her father and her brothers the 'right' to rape her whenever they want. The cultural pedophilic obsession with virginity definitely has Koranic basis, but honor killing doesn't and most Muslims, while they certainly take no issue with raping one's daughters and sisters (it's never their fault anyway), they do frown on her not being a virgin because that makes her a slut and unsuitable for being pimped into incestuous Sharia sex slavery. So either way under Islamic law it's all her fault, lipstick or no. It would make her parents bad for having such a slutty daughter that she would 'seduce' her father/brothers, and therefore would bring shame upon them. This isn't just a cult for psychopaths. It's for soulless degenerates with neither shame nor honor. It's so sick that when you bring up things like this when people try to defend it they don't even believe you and they call you a bigot for telling the truth. They assume that nobody, nothing could be that sick, and yet, 1.2 billion people are. This is why I often refer to Muslims as 'baby rapists.' They certainly don't all rape babies but they are required to condone and actively advocate raping children and if they don't then they're not Muslims. ANd the only true Scotsman argument holds up when you're talking about any ideology that's so rigid and inherently fundamentalist.

jdamn - are you *sure* of your reading of 2: 223? (I know you've been studying Arabic, so perhaps you could give us some clues as to why you repeatedly assert this?).

The thing is, 4: 23 certainly seems to forbid incest, in terms that match the usual prohibitions of most other cultures (i.e. no marrying of mother/ daughter/ sister/ niece/ aunt).

So are you assuming that 2: 223 abrogates 4: 23? Have you encountered any Muslim texts that suggest that it does?

First-cousin marriage is practised in Muslim countries as far apart as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and among Arab Muslims in and around the land of Israel, and although permitted by various non-Muslim cultures, is viewed as incestuous by others; but I have never heard of other incestuous relations being publicly permitted or practised, even though incest is reported to be rampant 'behind closed doors'.

I think you need to be careful about this, and sure of your interpretation, because although Mr Spencer is not responsible for our comments here, willy nilly what we say does to a certain extent reflect on him.

I'm speaking here as a trained academic; I have a habit of checking references. And it's vitally mportant that those of us who present ourselves here, to new fellow-students in Mr Spencer's Virtual Hedge School of the Counter-Jihad, should be found, by newbies to this site, to be scrupulously accurate in what we say about the teachings and practices of Islam.

time, I think, for me to cross-check what Mr Spencer said in his Qur'an blog, re. 2: 223 and 4:23.

Dude, I'm positive. The thing about the abrogation of that verse with regard to 4:23 is that I don't know which abrogates which. Typically, the earlier the verse in the Koran the greater the likelihood that it's unabrogated. I've never seen or heard of any tafsir on 2.223, which to me would suggest that it's up to Muslims to decide. But it does not say 'wives.' Arthur Arberry doesn't translate it as such, and he tends to be the least apologist of all the Koran's translators.

Here's what Ayesha Ahmed says:

“Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will.”

[Note: Allah uses the word “nisa” meaning “women“ and not wives (zawaj) as some apologists translate to hide the true intention of Allah to appease their western masters. Thus Allah says, your women are your properties and you can have sex with them in any way you want.]... By your women Allah means your wives, your daughters and your right hand possessions.” Thus sex with wives, daughters and slave girls is halal according to this aya.”

I guess the 'sisters' part was my interpretation, but brothers are muhrim just as much as fathers, so I would imagine their sister are 'their women' as much as their daughters are. They own their sisters per Islamic law, so their sisters are 'their women' and therefore halal to rape.

You also have bear in mind how meaningless a prohibition on incest is coming from a guy who married his niece as well as his daughter-in-law, who, to any decent person would be considered a daughter. I give zero credence to the adoption thing. Family is family and he needed special exemption from his alter ego Allah in order for adoption to be meaningless and he did it for the express purpose of raping his niece and having sex with Zaynab. So yeah, I'm pretty sure. If it were to mean 'wives' it would say 'zawaj,' not 'nisa.'

Ahmed says that that verse is unabrogated but that it came down after all of Muhammad's daughters were dead or grown-up so he never had sex with his daughters.

I never really trust any translation anymore, not since I found out that 'Reliance of the Traveler' straight-up lied about clitoral excision and that every Koran translation except Arthur Arberry's tries to hide the fact that incest is halal. I do, however, trust apostates like Ayesha Ahmed.

Here's a link to Arberry's Koran: http://arthursclassicnovels.com/arthurs/koran/koran-arberry10.html

It has no search function, but EDIT + 'find in page' actually works better than the USC-MSA search, I find.

And how meaningless is 4:23 anyway?

Forbidden to you are ... your brother's daughters ... and the spouses of your sons who are of your loins...

Well, forget that 'of your loins' thing. How convenient! And he married his brother's daughter when she was 6 and it doens't even say anything about 'of his loins.' So I'm hardly going out on a limb by assuming that this is either abrogated or completely meaningless, if not in total contradiction to the Sunna.