"The majority of Copts believe the reason for the acquittal of Muslims is that although Egypt claims to be a secular state, in reality it applies the Sharia law which dictates that a Muslim who kills a non-Muslim must not be killed, because it is not reasonable to equate a Muslim with a 'polytheist' (a Christian)."
Indeed. "The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man. The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that a Muslim." -- 'Umdat al-Salik, o4.9
"Egyptian Court Acquits Muslims Who Beheaded a Christian," by Dan Wooding for ASSIST News Service, March 8 (thanks to all who sent this in):
ASSUIT, EGYPT (ANS) -- An Egyptian court in the southern city of Assuit has acquitted four Muslims accused of killing 61-year-old Farouk Attallah on October 19, 2009.This has been reported by Mary Abdelmassih in a story for the Assyrian International News Agency who said, "In broad daylight and in full view of witnesses, the killers fired 31 bullets to his head before beheading him, in the busy village market place of Attaleen, near Dairout, 313 kilometers south of Cairo," said, The dead body was then dragged in the street, accompanied by shouts of victory.
"The judge presiding over the court on February 22, said that he was not satisfied that the testimony of the witnesses established that the imprisoned men were the killers. After the acquittal of Mohamad, Ashraf, Osama and Ahmad Hassouna, there was jubilation in the court room, with shouts of 'Allah is Great' and congratulations from all Muslims, including members of the state security forces who were present."
She said that Christians were enraged over the acquittal, since similar cases would result in life imprisonment or execution for a Copt if the victim was a Muslim and came as another wake-up call to many Copts in Egypt.
According to Peter Sarwar, the plaintiff's attorney who told Mariam Ragy of Katiba Tibia Coptic site, "It sends a clear message that Coptic blood is extremely cheap. This acquittal will make permanent the present culture of impunity enjoyed by Muslim aggressors against Copts."
Sarwat said the ruling was inadequate, as it acquitted the accused but did not say who the perpetrators are. "If these men did not kill, so who killed? The ruling should have referred the case to the general prosecution to present the perpetrators."
Abdelmassih said that the Court based its ruling on quasi non existent proof, as well as the absence of "positive evidence" testimony versus the presence of "negative evidence" testimony.
"The judge refused to take into consideration the testimonies of the dead man's daughter who said she only saw one killer and not four, as well as the testimony of the Muslim man who was wounded in the shootings," said Sarwat.
According to media reports, most people who witnessed the shootings in the market place refused to come forward for fear of vengeance from the assailants' family. There were false witnesses who confirmed that the killers were present at work.
"It is not enough to get a conviction based only on police reports which are full of legal loopholes and weak prosecution investigations," said Sarwat. Legal observers have always claimed that the police purposely deliver to prosecution reports full of inadequacies and loopholes, thereby getting from the courts acquittals for Muslims.
What prompted the killing of Farouk Attallah was an alleged illicit sexual relationship between his son Romany and a local Muslim girl, Hagger Hassouna. A rumor that intimate photos of Hagger together with her lover Romany were circulating on cell phones in Dairout lead four members of the Hassona family to kill Romany's father, after failing to locate his son, who had fled.
Abdelmassih stated that besides the killing of Farouk Attallah, the arrest of the Hassouna perpetrators sparked on October 24, 2009, Muslim riots and collective punishment against all Copts in Dairout. Christian-owned shops, pharmacies, and homes were looted and burned.
"Although several hundreds Muslims participated in those riots, the police only detained 19, and these were acquitted on December 13, 2009 because of the lack of eyewitnesses and conflicting statements between the accused and the victims," she said.
"The majority of Copts believe the reason for the acquittal of Muslims is that although Egypt claims to be a secular state, in reality it applies the Sharia law which dictates that a Muslim who kills a non-Muslim must not be killed, because it is not reasonable to equate a Muslim with a 'polytheist' (a Christian)."
Commenting on the acquittal, Dr. Naguib Gobraeel, President of the Egyptian Union of Human Rights, asked: "What is the solution? The same happened with regards to Al-Kosheh Massacre [21 Copts were slaughtered in 2000 and not one Muslim was indicted], the attack on the Copts in Alexandria were blamed on a mentally unstable person; even the assailant who beheaded Abdo Goerge Younan in Menoufiah is now in a mental hospital. Heavenly Justice is our last resourt." He stated that he will appeal this week's verdict.
The victim's family was greatly shocked and saddened by the acquittal. "In spite of the blood of their slain family head filling the street, the Muslim killers got away literally with murder," Sarwat said "It just shows how cheap Coptic blood can be."...
Isn't it great to live in a world where all cultures are equally good and decent?
Egyptian court acquits Muslims who *beheaded* a Christian
....................
Well, you can't get more blatant than that.
more:
What prompted the killing of Farouk Attallah was an alleged illicit sexual relationship between his son Romany and a local Muslim girl, Hagger Hassouna. A rumor that intimate photos of Hagger together with her lover Romany were circulating on cell phones in Dairout lead four members of the Hassona family to kill Romany's father, after failing to locate his son, who had fled.
Abdelmassih stated that besides the killing of Farouk Attallah, the arrest of the Hassouna perpetrators sparked on October 24, 2009, Muslim riots and collective punishment against all Copts in Dairout. Christian-owned shops, pharmacies, and homes were looted and burned.
....................
Well, this certainly makes Shakespear's "Romeo and Juliet"—considered the ultimate tragic love story in the West—look downright civilized in comparison.
more:
"The judge presiding over the court on February 22, said that he was not satisfied that the testimony of the witnesses established that the imprisoned men were the killers. After the acquittal of Mohamad, Ashraf, Osama and Ahmad Hassouna, there was jubilation in the court room, with shouts of 'Allah is Great' and congratulations from all Muslims, including members of the state security forces who were present."
....................
Now why would there be shouts of "Allah Akbar"? You'd almost think religion had something to do with this. sarc/off
more:
"The judge refused to take into consideration the testimonies of the dead man's daughter who said she only saw one killer and not four, as well as the testimony of the Muslim man who was wounded in the shootings," said Sarwat.
....................
Even though a *Muslim* was also wounded in this vicious attack, clearly it is still considered a great victory for Islam for these men to be acquitted. Muslim supremacy trumps all—even the savaging of fellow Muslims.
We see this all the time, in the lack of Muslim outrage at Jihad—even Jihad that claims the lives of fellow Muslims, like suicide bombings in the Muslim world.
more:
"Although several hundreds Muslims participated in those riots, the police only detained 19, and these were acquitted on December 13, 2009 because of the lack of eyewitnesses and *conflicting statements between the accused and the victims*," she said.
....................
In other words, the Muslims said *they didn't do it*. The word of a Muslim is always worth more than that of a Christian in Dar-al-Islam.
more:
"The majority of Copts believe the reason for the acquittal of Muslims is that although Egypt claims to be a secular state, in reality it applies the Sharia law...
...................
Ya think?
Sounds much like KKK lynchings of blacks in the Old South, where it was done with the approval of the community, the connivance of the police, and there were never any witnesses to be found to testify at a trial.
Islam in a nutshell:
Any Muslim is free to do ANYTHING he or she feels like doing - no matter how depraved and cruel - to the dhimmis. Even if the dhimmis are totally submissive and have paid the jizya, all a Muslim who feels that urge for the ecstasy of mass murder, rapine and pillage has to do, is to SAY that one or more of the dhimmis has 'broken the dhimma' (by, for example, as in this case in Egypt, 'dishonoring' a Muslim woman); and then it's open season! The lynchings can begin!
From the Hadith:
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 283: Narrated Abu Juhaifa:
I asked Ali, "Do you have the knowledge of any Divine Inspiration besides what is in Allah's Book?" 'Ali replied, "No, by Him Who splits the grain of corn and creates the soul. I don't think we have such knowledge, but we have the ability of understanding which Allah may endow a person with, so that he may understand the Qur'an,
and we have what is written in this paper as well."
I asked, "What is written in this paper?" He replied,
"(The regulations of) blood-money, the freeing of captives,
*and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel* {my emphasis - dda}."
Muslim men can do whatever they like (no matter how cruel and depraved) to women, whether Muslim or non-Muslim. If they feel like rape and/ or murder this can be gotten away with easily: the murdered woman had committed 'zina'; if she was raped, well, *her* testimony counts for nothing against the man's, he can say he didn't do it, and very likely *she* will be imprisoned or stoned to death for her 'immorality'. Every man can appoint himself judge, jury and executioner over every woman he has to do with, whether she is a family member or a stranger...and Islam programs him from childhood to fear, suspect and feel contempt toward women.
A Muslim who doesn't like another Muslim can kill the other fellow...and get away with it so long as he claims that the murdered person had apostasised, or blasphemed, or committed adultery.
Sharia is an unlimited license to the cruel and the violent to indulge their worst desires upon all Designated Prey (non-Muslims, especially dhimmis, and women).
I'm not sure which is more grotesque: the crime or the way it was handled in court.
Early Muslim 'historian', Al-Tabari (ca. 839-923) vol 9: 69 -
Tabari IX:69 - “Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah’s helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah.
"He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us.
"As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in the Cause of Allah. *Killing him {i.e. the non-Muslim, the disbeliever} is a small matter to us.”