The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War On America by Pamela Geller with Robert Spencer
Fox and Friends: Pamela Geller on SIOA honor killing awareness campaign and The Post-American Presidency
20 Comments
Leave a Comment
NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.
Whilst opposing all that Shariah stands for, I think it is a mistake to try and focus too much on honour killings. In free democratic societies, we have the phenomenon of jealousy killings and divorce killings...probably more proportionately than are victims of honour killings in the Islamic world would be my guess.
Shariah must be opposed because it would destroy our freedom. But in terms of female safety it's not clear women are generally more likely to be murdered by partners in Muslim societies. I suspect not.
Honor killings and honor "acid attacks" are on the rise in islamic regions...are we in an islamic region?
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/05/acid-attacks.html
This was a very convincing interview by Pamela Geller. She made her point clear. I support this campaign.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
The "jealousy and divorce killings" you refer to are just human crimes - they have nothing to do with any religion or belief system. They have to do with jealousy and divorce.
Whereas, honor killings have everything to do with the ideology of Islam as they are embedded in Islamic "Honor" culture in which females are 100% responsible for maintaining the "honor" of a family (Muslim males have no such responsibility whatsoever).
Therefore, "honor killings" are specific to Islamic societies in which there's a male obsession with females' chastity and behavior, and a male obsession with a family's reputation, so much so that they will kill their own female family members to "cleanse" their family of the female's stain of, for example, speaking to a man not related to her. Which, is, of course, insane. Islam is a woman-hating (misogynist) primitive society in which the chest-beating Muslim Neanderthal males "lord it over" the females in every way. The females are just chattel, with which the males can do whatever they please, and with no legal or moral consequences.
Plus, honor killings are codified in Islamic law:
"A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).
In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law."
Spencer often posts the above.
Muslim have another excuse.
The girl that lives as a muffled muslim at home and lives as a typle western girl could be considered a hypocrite:
4.88
YUSUFALI: Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way.
4.89
They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing: But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
Bravo Pam! Bought your book to give as a birthday gift to my sister!
“Prophet said: if husband would be covered with pus from head to toe, and wife would lick it, even then wife's gratitude to husband wouldn't be fulfilled”. (Imam Gazali, from Ihya Ulum Al-Din, volume - 2)
And if you don't have many Muslims being rational about it, gagging on the shame of it, then all hell may break loose. Lighten up Pamela. You may stir up a hornet's nest.
If you don't want to carry out your Daughter Slaughter in the decadent US where the kuffars might intervene, you can send her back to Dar al-Islam on an Acid Trip.
Great interview, Pamela ...Brava! Yes, and even if one woman's life can be saved, then this project is well worth it and I wholly support SIOA!
And OH MY GOD, did the female interviewer (sorry, I cannot think of her name), did she actually ask the question, "How big of a problem is this 'honoring killing', at least here in the US? Isn't this more a problem among certain muslim sects?" ...something to that effect.
How big of a problem is this in the US? I was utterly shocked at her question and its implications. OK, it's a "big problem" when even ONE WOMAN is "honor killed". And I thoroughly admire Pamela's measured and thoughtful response to her asinine question, because I would not have been able to deliver such a composed response. BTW, great answer, Pamela! ...and you are so smart & beautiful! We love you, xoxo ...
FROM ABOVE: "
Whilst opposing all that Shariah stands for, I think it is a mistake to try and focus too much on honour killings. In free democratic societies, we have the phenomenon of jealousy killings and divorce killings...probably more proportionately than are victims of honour killings in the Islamic world would be my guess.
Shariah must be opposed because it would destroy our freedom. But in terms of female safety it's not clear women are generally more likely to be murdered by partners in Muslim societies. I suspect not.
"
SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE OPTING TO LEVEL THE BUTCHER BLOCK PLAYING FIELD OF SHARIA EQUIVALENT IN MAGNITUDE AND DIRECTION WITH WHAT YOU ASSUME EXISTS ELSEWHERE AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO WOMEN. AND THAT'S A HUGE MISTAKE. FOR STARTERS, JUST HOW FAR AWAY DO YOU THINK THESE GIRLS ARE FROM BEING TORTURED AND SLAUGHTERED ... http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/sharia-law-the-treatment-of-women-3000-slave-girls-for-sale-on-the-street.html?!?!? I'D SAY THEY ARE THERE IN UTERO AND THAT'S A LOT CLOSER THAN ANYTHING YOU WILL FIND ELSEWHERE, PERIOD.
I'm not here to defend Islam or Shariah. I'm here to say what is the most effective way of criticising it. I think it is more effective to focus on the legal position of women (e.g. devaluation of female witness, child marriage, forced marriage, punishments for adultery or being a victim of rape and so on).
To say there are x honour deaths per annum definitely does invite comparison with deaths in the West. To claim those deaths are not the result of an ideology is disingenuous. There is no doubt that these deaths are a consequence of freedom. I can remember hardly from my childhood any cases of children being killed by their parents as revenge for divorce - but we have lots of cases like that in the UK now. A (clever) Muslim would say that was because we allow women the freedom to divorce and take the children - which is not allowed under Islam, that our society somehow offends against natural law.
It's a perfectly valid argument for them to make and it moves the focus away from where it should be - on the aggressive totalitarianism of Islam, not the "body count" on inter-relational violence.
WELL, I'D SAY IT IS ABOUT TIME, IF YOU WILL EXCUSE THE EXPRESSION, TO MAN UP AND GRAB THE BULL BY THE HORNS. IF THREE THOUSAND GIRLS SOLD INTO SLAVERY AIN'T ENOUGH FOR YOU TO GRAB THE POWDER, YOU IS HISTORY ... PERIOD.
Shouting in capitals is not a good substitute for cogent argument.
Slavery in the Sahel has been going on for all of the Islamic period. Things have not changed from that point of view. What has changed is that Islam has begun to undermine democratic societies from within owing to the opportunities presented by mass immigration and through direct mass casualty terrorist attack.
Actually, there is *some* evidence that suggests they *are* more likely to be murdered by their partners.
Australian journalist Geraldine Brook, in her 1994 book 'Nine Parts of Desire: the Hidden World of Islamic Women', the final chapter - 'conclusion: beware of the dogma', describes the trial of a Muslim Sudanese man, resident in the UK, who had killed his wife Afaf because she was proposing to divorce him...in order to pursue a relationship with a non-Muslim Englishman.
Brooks notes: "In a British study of family violence completed not long after Afaf's death, the researchers found that **women married to men of Muslim background were eight times more likely to be killed by their spouses than any other women in Britain** {my emphasis - dda}."
Now, Brooks doesn't give a full reference for that study, but it shouldn't be that hard for UK jihadwatchers to track it down. It would have been done in the early 1990s.
"I'm not here to defend Islam or Shariah"
THANKS FOR LETTING US KNOW ... MUCH APPRECIATED.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/honor_killings_islam_misogyny/
"It's a perfectly valid argument for them to make and it moves the focus away from where it should be - on the aggressive totalitarianism of Islam, not the "body count" on inter-relational violence."
WELL, THEN, WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT A VALID ARGUMENT?!?! NOTHING?!?!
HOW ABOUT A SOUND ONE!!!
I REPEAT:
SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE OPTING TO LEVEL THE BUTCHER BLOCK PLAYING FIELD OF SHARIA EQUIVALENT IN MAGNITUDE AND DIRECTION WITH WHAT YOU ASSUME EXISTS ELSEWHERE AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO WOMEN. AND THAT'S A HUGE MISTAKE. FOR STARTERS, JUST HOW FAR AWAY DO YOU THINK THESE GIRLS ARE FROM BEING TORTURED AND SLAUGHTERED ... http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/sharia-law-the-treatment-of-women-3000-slave-girls-for-sale-on-the-street.html?!?!? I'D SAY THEY ARE THERE IN UTERO AND THAT'S A LOT CLOSER THAN ANYTHING YOU WILL FIND ELSEWHERE, PERIOD.
You're entitled to your view and I to mine...that's the difference between a free society and Islam.
I am just cautioning that in terms of raising awareness of the dangers of totalitarian Islam, focussing on honour killings is unlikely to prove very productive, because with a relatively open media people will look at the issue from a number of angles - and, as I say, a body count comparison may not be as good as some people here think.
But even liberal commentators cannot approve of Shariah law once its provisions are made known. And I believe that is where the emphasis should be: Stop Shariah and you stop Islam. Let's educate people as to what Shariah means for both Muslims, and - more importantly - non-Muslims. Let's point out the gross hypocrisy of the followers of Islam wanting to build a mega-mosque at 9-11 of all places when no Christian is allowed to build a single Church in Saudi Arabia. Why is it that no Muslim spokesperson ever comes out and condemns that in clear terms? That's where my emphasis would be.
"as I say, a body count comparison may not be as good as some people here think."
THE LINKS I CITED ARE MUCH MORE THAN A BODY COUNT. THEY ARE ILLUSTRATIVE OF WHAT SHARIA IS ALL ABOUT, AND SHARIA MAY SOON TOTALLY SUPERSEDE ANY AND ALL LAW OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS ... CHECK OUT OBAMA AND OIC, FOR EXAMPLE ... http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-america-educator-chief-islam. AND WHAT PAMELA GELLER IS DOING IS TOTAL COURAGE AND TOTAL SUPEREROGATION ... . AND MANY OF US APPRECIATE THIS MORE THAN YOU APPARENTLY DO. JUST AN OPINION. QED.
GLAD TO HEAR YOU ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOSQUE. THAT IS CRUCIAL.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/aisha.html
91% of all honor killings are by Muslimes (20% of the world population) and 96% of all honor killings are by Muslims in the UK. It is the religion STUPID! (to paraphrase Bill Clinton's famous (It's the economy stupid) line.)