Honor murderer: "I would kill her again"

He beat his sister to death.

"He wasn't serious with her and he is bragging about what he was doing. I was so ashamed with my sister."

WTF? He was ashamed of his sister because of the Christian's attitude?

This is why "honor killings" are so disturbing and irrational. According to this guy, it was the Christian leading his sister on and using her, but somehow that's her fault? She deserved to die for being mislead?

You can make a case for 'honor killing' in any religion, but the fact remains that in modern times it is muslims disproportionately committing this crime.

islam is a disgusting, backward, draconian belief system. We need to stop calling it a religion. We need to stop giving it the benefit of religious freedom and protection.

It isn't a religion, it is a cult.

Obviously drinking himself into a murderous rage then savagely killing his own sister doesn't "violate the rules of the society"—at least not compared to his sister possibly having slept with a non-Muslim.

What a sick, sick "society" Islam creates.

"I don't say that I wish I hadn't killed her, but I say I wish she hadn't done that," he said.
============
It was all her fault. He'll walk.

Things to do:

http://freemendo.typepad.com/undaunted/2008/01/honor-killers.html

PERCENTAGE OF HONOR KILLINGS DONE BY MUSLIMS
According to the article "Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings," published in the Middle East Forum, Muslims do 91 percent of honor killings worldwide and 96 percent of honor killings in Europe. If you click on the link, those percentages can be found five paragraphs below the heading "Methodology."

According to Encylopedia Brittanica, Al-Azhar University is the "chief center of Islamic and Arabic learning in the world..." Robert Spencer wrote that

"...a manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy [over 80% of the world's Muslims are Sunni] 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)."

See pp. 583-584 of Reliance of the Traveller, the English translation of Umdat al-Salik.

That may be why 91% of honor killings worldwide, and 96% of European honor killings, are done by Muslims.

And more here:

http://freemendo.typepad.com/undaunted/if-youre-a-scared-muslim-.html

From the article:

“And why is he unrepentant? Because as far as he is concerned, the evil she has done has brought shame to the family...”

~~~~~

Oh yes, Islam is excessively conservative nearly beyond words description.

I don't know if Khaled Mahmoud is a sociopath or not, but his responses are right out of the textbook.

Must be cultural, then.........

There seems to be no end to the violent reactions Abramic religions and phychotic Americans have toward their children. You would think that everyone would join us in the 21st century and abandon these barbaric religions like Judiasm, Christianity and Islam.

Along with infanticide Americans enjoy drowning their children.

http://www.easterniowanewsnow.com/2010/06/18/mothers-who-kill-their-children-isnt-so-uncommon/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_n2619_v125/ai_18967468/

I am an ex-Muslim. While on the general topic of this article, here is rather funny story from the road>>>

In late July of this past summer, I had a hilarious encounter with a gorgeous little Muslimah gal.

I live in a major Canadian city. It was a Friday night and I was off to meet friends for drinks after a hard days work. Before leaving the house I primed up on a few cocktails and was in a very good and light-hearted humorous mood.

In short, I crossed paths with a young Muslimah and decided to push her buttons. In an animated fashion I asked her whether she was Muslim and told her that she was very beautiful. She was taken a back by this, so without hesitation I propositioned her right there on the street.

I told her that I was an ex-Muslim and my real (ex)Muslim name (includes the words bin Abdullah), and that I would love take her back to my place and f**k her little Muslim brains out.

Then I just stood there and stared her down with a smile on my face.

She became infuriated but remained silent and eventually walked away. Sometimes Muslims need to be shocked back to reality this way.

I had a good laugh over the incident and walked away wishing her nothing but the best.

I have done this same sort of thing several times before in the past and should keep doing a lot more it I suppose. Good times.

http://www.considerationsofacanadianex-muslim.org

This is one more reason why the USA should try to keep its involvement in the Islamic world to a minimum; and remain open to granting asylum to non-Muslim minorities from the Islamic world.

This being said, I approve of Undaunted's post. We should not worry about women who wish to remain Muslim, but who are just trying to get away from clitorodectomies or wear a different-colored hijab. The sort of culture Islam fosters is simply too violent and vicious.

BTW, I know it's OT, but someone in Libya once observed that if hudud punishments were strictly enforced in Libya, most of the male population would be missing hands.

A STANDARD ISLAMIC LEGAL REFERENCE, CERTIFIED BY AL-AZHAR, THE CHIEF CENTER OF ISLAMIC AND ARABIC LEARNING IN THE WORLD, NOT ONLY SAYS ONE CAN KILL ONE'S CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN WITH IMPUNITY; IMPUNITY ALSO EXTENDS TO A MUSLIM WHO KILLS A NON-MUSLIM

From page 583-584 of The Reliance of the Traveller/Umdat Al-Salik:

o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:

1. a child or insane person, under any circumstances...

2. a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;

3. a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam...

4. a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring;

From the back cover of Reliance of the Traveller:

"There is no doubt that this translation is a valuable and important work, whether as a textbook for teaching Islamic jurisprudence to English speakers, or as a legal reference for use by scholars, educated laymen, and students in this language." - Dr. Taha Jabir al-Alwani, president of the International Institute of Islamic Thought

...is the first translation of a standard Islamic legal reference in a European language to be certified by Al-Azhar, the Muslim world's oldest institution of higher learning. It presents an explanative interpretation of Umdat al-Salik, a classic Sunni manual of Sacred law...

According to Encylopedia Brittanica, Al-Azhar University is the "chief center of Islamic and Arabic learning in the world..."

Don't ask me to play kumbaya with these people. Ever. No pleading with them to be sweet and reasonable. Just the warning: rid yourselves of the curse of Islam and Sharia, or eventually you will suffer the consequences.

With that in mind, I understand there is to be open house in mosques about a month from now with the intention of taqiyya-ing all the little trusting American kuffar into a deeper level of dhimmitude. I think this is potentially an excellent opportunity to get into mosques in the presence of numerous non-muslims, some of whom may have at least some of their wits still about them, and ask some hard questions.

Saleem, we seem to share a similar unruly attitude. What do you think? Teams of two or more mingling with the wide-eyed kuffar ready to challenge the lies such as the one about women voting in Mo's time that they tried to pawn off on those kids in the mosque up in Boston. We'll probably get thrown out in short order -- perhaps to be replaced by a second, back-up team?

Picketing and protesting the "open-houses" would probably be a very bad idea since they would use that to try to claim "bigotry". But some pointed and politely but very persistently asked questions by people who know how to get around the taqiyya to the truth? If we awaken the curiosity of and raise doubts in the minds of even a few open-house attendees, would that not be worth the effort?

Again we see, there doesn't seem to be any forgiveness in Islam.

SaleemSmith said: "...that I would love take her back to my place and **** her little Muslim brains out."

Marisol, Robert, somebody; time to revoke little Saleem's commenting privileges. He doesn't play by the rules.

OT

Feisal Rauf's op-ed in Malaysian newspaper The Star.

All married Muslim women must become the slaves of slaves because all Muslim men are the slaves of cruel god Allah or should we call it the Muhammedanism cult of Islam?

Obviously this animal thinks Sharia Law clears him, and Sharia is supreme. Let's hope he learns "not here" the hard way. Find the nearest hangin' judge operating under the US Constitution.

http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"

This is for Saleemsmith: What you did and do is disgusting.
You get drunk and insult women. I don't care if they are Muslims or voodoo witches, you don't treat another human being with sexual taunts. You didn't know her, you assumed because she subscribes to Islam which she does to keep to her family traditions and doesn't know any other way, that she is an object to be dehumanized. Shame on you!!

Pathetic...just like the cult he's a part of.

When reading this story - and I advise everyone to click on the link, and read it all, it is in its way a classic expose of the Muslim mind - the reader must bear in mind at all times that we only have this murdering brother's word to go on, as to what his sister did or didn't do, and also as to the supposed motives of her alleged Christian lover.

What should also be borne in mind by persons new to the subject of Islam, who may be reading this, is that the murderer is claiming that his sister breached sharia norms in two ways: not only by sexual misconduct (which would be enough to get her killed out of hand, even had her lover been a fellow Muslim), but - which is far, far worse even than that - by getting involved with a non-Muslim.

Sharia allows Muslim men to marry Jewish or Christian girls who remain non-Muslim, but the reverse is strictly forbidden: woe betide any Muslim girl who has a relationship with a non-Muslim man who remains non-Muslim, both partners are likely to be killed. People who've been here awhile will remember the British Muslim actress who played Parvati Patil in the Harry Potter films; she was beaten and threatened by her father and brother for breaching sharia norms by taking a Hindu boyfriend and refusing to give him up. Some years ago, a British non-Muslim guy and Muslim girl, 'Jack' and 'Zena' had to live in hiding for years, *in the UK*, in order to escape the murderous threats of Zena's family.

Of course I don't know, nobody knows, whether the murdered girl in this story from Arab-occupied Judea and Samaria did in fact *have* a lover, and whether that lover was an Arab/ised Christian, and unless our Aussie journalist Anne Barker has enough intelligence to try to find out whether the Christian lover exists and if he does, interview *him*, we can't know whether he had the nefarious motives that Khaled Mahmoud ascribes to him (most likely, not - much of what Khaled says seems to me to be boilerplate projection, un caso clinico).

There is something else going on here, too. Look again at what Khaled says:

"I was telling her that she should stay away from him and she shouldn't talk to him because he was playing", Mahmoud said. "He wasn't serious with her and he is bragging about what he was doing. I was so ashamed with my sister".

By this rhetorical move Mahmoud now represents his sister as the victim of a heartless non-Muslim seducer, so as to push off the ultimate responsibility for the murder onto a non-Muslim - i. e. 'that evil kafir seduced my sister and thus forced me to kill her; so it's all *his*, the kafir's, fault'.

All the way through, Khaled Mahmoud excuses himself by projecting all blame for the murder onto the his murdered sister and then, in addition, onto her alleged *non-Muslim* lover. (We should also take with a grain of salt his claim to have been in a drunken rage when he killed her: first, because it's yet another evasion of responsibility, "the drink made me do it" intertwined with "she was so bad she drove *me* - me, a good Muslim, to whom alcohol is forbidden - to drink", but also because all the research on honor murders shows that the vast majority of such cases - though they may be carried out by one person - are pre-planned and colluded in by the victim's entire family.)

I must say I have an evil mind: I wouldn't be at all surprised if his sister had done little or nothing of what he claims, and what he is doing is manufacturing - and exaggerating - her 'guilt' ex post facto. Any Muslim can kill another person, in dar al Islam, and get away with it, so long as they can convincingly claim that the murdered person had done something that, under sharia, requires punishment by death.

Twice over, we see the Muslim mind, which 'blames the victim' and denies all responsibility for its own actions, on full display.

First here:

"I don't say that I wish I hadn't killed her, but I say I wish she hadn't done that", he said.

In other words: it was all her fault.

And then, even more plainly, here:

"It wasn't my fault, and I haven't done anything wrong", he said.

There it is, in a nutshell - 'It wasn't my fault and I haven't done anything wrong' - the mind of Islam, that murders, and as it murders, projects all blame onto the murdered, exonerating itself and viewing itself as a victim and as a righteous executioner of those who breach the Islamic order - whether such 'offenders' are a perceived-to-be-erring Muslimah, or (under other circumstances) the guilty kuffar who so unaccountably refuse to submit to Islam.

". She shamed our family"

If so doesnt it then follow that every muslim who has killed some family member for the same kind of reasons must be terribly mortified of shame, that they cannot bare shame. They are thus incapable of humility and they are not manly enough, intellectually developed enough to take it, now that indeed is a silly and more profoundly lasting shame. Never mind the deserved ridicule for their belief in a brainwashing despotic idiot of prophet (HNOEOE) hear no one else or else!

Saleem: What's the point? Doing on games on slaves with no mind?

How a about trying another kind of game on the men? Pick on them. They are the ones you have to do the shocking to.

I find it hilarious that you morons think I support Islam and all it's moronic values that it inherited from the earlier crappy versions. I can tell from this crowd that you enjoy dishing out what you can not take.
If Muslims rule the world a Muslim does not have any fear. Likewise if the New World Order rules the world someone who supports the rights of individuals to buy the world has no fear. Which one am I ?
Were one Abrahamic religion away from squashing this pestilence that is been a scourge on society for centuries. Look around we are winning, your Countries are caught in civil wars between your useless religions and it's only a matter of time before we free the world of your retarded belief system and move on to one world thinking of peace and harmony.
Your stupid religion has us marked as the anti-Christ due to the built in security of them being all non believers go to he'll for eternity. Logic, eternity is another word for infinity which has no beginning or end, you can not enter this halfway, you can not got to heaven or he'll for eternity, it's logically impossible. We will soon free you from your retardiness.

Awww, look at the cutest piece of propaganda I just found:

http://www.zurmat.com/?p=1477

Sooo cuuute!

:P

OT kinda sorta, but not really: Thereisnogod is the exact product the Frankfort School was hoping to deliver when their collective brains hatched PC/MC.
Here is a great vid with background on the Frankfort School; what sort of people taught there, how their vile ideology came to be, what and how they hope to achieve their goals.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1429144751008474466#docid=8630135369495797236

There was a recently discoverd tribe of New Zealand cannibals. Every full moon, they raid a neigboring tribe to snap up a victim. After lunch, they give tnanks to their Moon God for the sumptuous meal.

Every muslim should be REQUIRED to spend time with this tribe in order to learn how to mix religion with civilized behavior.

This is the type of retarded non informational type of commentary I'm talking about. You can go to the head of the class with your dunce cap on KRASHKOWALSKI.

Notice to Marisol/RS:

The very sick insulting and name-calling demented individual "thereis" (see above) is really bringing the site down to the level of an ape throwing his ****.

Please do something about it. And, he keeps using the words "retarded, retards, morons" so you see how low-level he is. The boot, please, the nasty troll deserves it.

Sadly, another one to add to the long list... And to this image -

http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/413-dishonor-murder

It's good news that there's "a growing push in the Arab world to have men responsible for so-called honour killings treated as murderers by the courts." Maybe these pathological savages will finally join the human race?

We are waiting anxiously for thereisnobrain, I mean t-i-n-g, to amaze us with his brilliant critical thinking capacity to reaspond to the simple questions he is being asked.
Come on t-i-n-g, bedazzle us. I cant wait.

"genoside on the religion of Baahl" uncontrolled LOL's

The worship of the god baahl required human sacrifice, the live burning of people including babies, I say kill them all, it's called ending barbarism.
This idiot sounds like the ones who are decring the suffering of afghans beacuse of American "occupation". it's called you attack us you pay bastards.

"...yet Mahmoud says she made the unforgivable mistake of sleeping with another man, a Christian, and brought enormous shame on the family." --from the article

Yet another case where the reason cited for the "honor" killing happens to match sharia law exactly, i.e., the classical sharia penalty for a Muslim woman and non-Muslim man having sexual relations is death.

even when t-i-n-g desperately goes back 3000 years in an attempt to find something almost forgotten he winds up hopelessly unable to even come close to refuting any of Wellington or even my own question I posed for him earlier. He loses by a knock out I say, first second of the first round. Applause to Wellington, laughter and ridicule to therisnogod, aka therisnobrain. LOL

...though not quite exactly sharia, since only the woman was killed; under classical sharia, both the Christian man and the Muslim woman would be killed, if the man did not convert to Islam in order to marry the Muslim woman.

I love Islam.

Islam is the perfect way of life.

Saleemsmith hang in there, sanity awaits you.

Sharia (Allah law as applied by Islamic scholars based on Mohammed's claim that Mohammed was repeating Angel Gabriel's recitation which Angle Gabriel had said to be from a book that is in the 7th Heaven)

Page 583-584 of The Reliance of the Traveller/Umdat Al-Salik (section 01.1-2):

1.1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:
1. a child or insane person, under any circumstances...
2. a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;

3. a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam...

4. a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring;

Even if this law was made by men when we would classify such men as deranged! What to say of an all knowing God!!

Additonally this law also highlights the fudamental fault with Sharia and that is a law that first recognises the religion of a person by extension denies humanity!

How sad...

When Muslim talk of "Honor" it makes me sick! What Honor is there in murdering your child, sister, brother, wife, or anyone? It is the Most DisHonorable thing a person could do. It is just more proof that their sick Allah is SATAN! Only a Demon would do something like this. Muslims should not be allowed to leave their caves, never allowed to go into a Decent, Civilized Society! They are Animals, more closely related to wild Pigs than Humanity!

"I am really sorry for what happened, but I think even if I'm in the same situation now after this experience and she does the same thing, I would kill her again."

The son is the one that brought shame to his family, not the sister that slept with a Christian. What a backwards belief system.

"JW is not the end all be all of news by the way."

No, but it is at the forefront of reporting JIHAD-related news, just as it was always intended to be. JihadWatch, get it? Jihad. Muslim. Islamic Jihad related news.

It even says JIHADWATCH up top, did you see it??

This is not AmericanWatch, or BaaliWatch or SikhWatch or PunjabWatch or even EverybodyElseDoesItTooWatch.

It's JIHADWATCH. As bright as you seem to think you are, I'm surprised you didn't realize that.

Mar?

Somebody?

If one is going to be insulting and use ad hominem, it's a losing proposition unless one has the power to stop one's opponent, either by banning him (we don't have that power) or by being so clever as to somehow silence him (very difficult to silence opponents with mere cleverness.) Since it is not in our power to stop an opponent, it makes no sense to attack and get personal. The opponent will just get personal right back at us, and we'll all be stained with the mud, as we descend into a hell of mutual debasement. Ganging up on someone with ad hominem doesn't really help either.

Here's my 2 cents on the history of this long dogfight with thereisonlynogod in this comments thread. Maybe I'm wrong. We see that thereisonlynogod's first comment claimed that all the "Abrahamic" religions, by which he meant Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, are bad, and then in response someone here who means well but got impatient told thereisonlynogod to "get out" and that he had nothing to offer, was not wanted. In response, thereisonlynogod, not surprisingly, got mad and called that person a retard, and it all went downhill from there. We then had about twenty comments in which ad hominem featured prominently, with various people insulting thereisonlynogod, and thereisonlynogod blithely insulting them back.

While I disagree with thereisonlynogod's views about religion, I didn't take his views about religion personally or think it to any purpose to attack him personally. I think the weakness of his position would have shown itself more clearly if we simply debated him in a patient and polite way. I think the record shows that he did not strike the first personal ad hominem blow, though he was hardly restrained in returning blows. Then, seeing him in an insult-squabble with someone, other people here also started in on the ad hominem against him. I think that by our descending into a spate of ad hominems, we let him lead us to corrupt the thread. Look how it took over the whole thread. I think that shows the mistake of letting differences of opinion become personal. It short-circuits good debate. Even if he never would have listened to a substantive thing we said, others here could have read our opposing comments, or contributed comments, and perhaps been persuaded of how wrong he was.

Best for us all if we keep debate to facts and logic as to why the other person's statement is mistaken. Don't take it personally. Calm and patient emotions often seem to leave people with less egg on their faces.

I admit though, if the other person starts the ad hominem and persists with it maliciously despite one's efforts to meet rudeness with calm patience and forbearance, then that's different, and maybe sometimes there is no help for it but to fight back, descend a little ways into the mud with him, and hope one gets the better of it by unheralded superlative wit or cleverness, the only way to come out of such dogfights smelling good.

In that regard, many will perhaps recall the public argument Winston Churchill had with some lady of power in Britain. The lady said, "Mr. Churchill, if you were my husband, I'd give you poison to drink." Replied Mr. Churchill, "Lady, if I were your husband, I'd drink it!"

If you can produce comebacks like that, then getting into an insult match might make sense. But if you are not Winston Churchill, it seems ill-advised.

I know I might be wrong about this, but I think we handled thereisonlynogod the wrong way, and brought the thread down.

I'd like to suggest we start over, and either talk to him politely, or ignore him.

I am as polite as the company I keep.

Christian Jews do exist. I think I might even be one of them.

PERCENTAGE OF HONOR KILLINGS DONE BY MUSLIMS
According to the article "Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings," published in the Middle East Forum, Muslims do 91 percent of honor killings worldwide and 96 percent of honor killings in Europe. If you click on the link, those percentages can be found five paragraphs below the heading "Methodology."

According to Encylopedia Brittanica, Al-Azhar University is the "chief center of Islamic and Arabic learning in the world..." Robert Spencer wrote that

"...a manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy [over 80% of the world's Muslims are Sunni] 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)."

See pp. 583-584 of Reliance of the Traveller, the English translation of Umdat al-Salik.

That may be why 91% of honor killings worldwide, and 96% of European honor killings, are done by Muslims.

Are you guys mad?

Do you also bark back at a dog that barks at you? Have you ever "outbarked" it?

That "thereisnodogbutme" thing may be the card carrying member of the "cretins of the world" movement, but if winning is understood as accomplishing one's goals he is the uncontested winner here. How in the world could you not see after his first appearance in JW that his only goal is to have his moniker appearing as many times as possible in a blog? Any blog.
It is true he is a raving imbecile, but clever enough to pick up the site where his idiocies are sure to trigger a torrent of indignant, never ending, reactions thus assuring his dominance (in terms of number of appearance and reference to it)in about 80 percent of a 130 comment long thread.
Yes, he is an idiot, but a triumphant idiot. You may be the wisest and best informed, but you were unable to see that his game was to collect maximum possible responses.
Therefore he won and you were the suckers who presented him with the victory.

He'll most likely get time for drinking. After all, in islam it is a greater sin to drink than to kill some lowly woman whose only purpose on this planet is to service the men in her life and become a bomber factory.

Muslims believe in an eye for an eye. I would volunteer to bash this bastard's brains out against a wall!

Loren: "the Frankfort School; what sort of people taught there, how their vile ideology came to be, what and how they hope to achieve their goals."

I read about that. They gave rise to Modern Art!.. seems the students couldn't do the human body or anything of Nature, so they put down all kinds of weirf things.

And today, we make fools of ourselves, standing in front of those paintings, trying to make sense of them.

Saqme with architecture, etc.

Give me Greek Temples or Roman style houses, please!

The Japanese, copycats tht they are, weren't taken in by the Frankfurts.

"Sikhs and Punjabs ARE Americans..You idiote..(sic)"

Hey, anybody seen this?

main veya nahi krawnRa [i don't want to marry] ........little cute child very hilarious
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hYLWodzRWw&p=F82D1949D2215F29&playnext=1&index=69

( dont understand a word, but I think it wnet on too long.)

Sorry, this one doesn't have the bubble at the top:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZwODNotc9I&feature=related

It seems it's a little boy, with his top knot and bracelets and all!

"Read about honor killings and you will discover them in other parts of the non Islamic world as well"

IMBECILE! WHO are you trying to fool?

Killings in other parts of the world, are called ""MURDERS".
The Civil Law System does NOT accept it. The murderers are brought to trial.

It's only in islamic coutnries that the slaughter of girls and women are casually shrugged off.

Saleem; "You know nothing about me or what I have done with Muslim men in the larger world so your comment is rather amusing to me."

Everything seems to amuse you.

But in picking islamic women to harrass, you do know that you're going to get the woman in trouble with her men folk, don't you?

THe innocent victim of your little games, may be slaughtered because of you.

It's that serious.

Saleem: If you want to play games with women, pick on Western women who can fight back. You may get your ears burned or your face slapped, one or the other.

But you're too chicken to try that, eh? So you harrass the most vulnerable, right?

Even his moniker "thereisonlynogod" screams of, I'm a troll "onlylookingforafight". And the only fight hes won deserves a booby prize, since there is nothing of substance which might persuade us towards his wacky way of thinking. Nothing to see here, folks, so please move along ...

150+ comments, and mostly because of the vacuously bankrupt comments of the Anti-West/Islam apologist "Thereisonlynogod".

While the hijacking of this thread may not be as disastrous -- and certainly not as literally destructive -- as the hijacking of the 911 planes, there is some comparison, perhaps with the plane that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania missing its intended mark many miles away: One can almost visualize, in all the stalwart Jihad Watch commenters above rallying in their different ways together to wrest control from this troll, passengers on a hijacked airliner revolting and scuffling with the terrorists, perhaps involving fisticuffs, wrestling, and hand-to-hand combat amid the rows of seats and amongst the passage-ways and cubicles aboard the flight.

This bloated thread, as with others in the past that have been similarly hijacked by one or another Muslim or non-Muslim sympathizer, hasn't necessariy crashed -- nor, certainly, has it attained the target site intended by its hijacker: but one senses it is nearing the runway for a ragged, nerve-rattling, exhausting, and not entirely productive landing.

"But Palestinian human rights groups have recently drafted their own amendments to have them treated as murderers."

Palestinian human rights groups? Sounds like an oxymoron but I suppose there are human rights advocates everywhere. Wonder where they stand on the two state solution and with their Hamas brothers.

I like how even though you don't agree with me you can't stop talking about me as a topic. I also like how the one Muslim idiot on this site actually believes I'm on his side, if he only knew, run Muslim, run. Ask yourselves if you hate Muslims and their apologists more since vie been on here.

I don't know how many times of read an article with some Muslim Country leader or some evil cleric saying they plan to conquer the world. Apparently conquering is still alright with them, it's an open ticket to conquer the Muslim world. End this conflict, end the cold war, conquer the mothers and divide up the booty as they would say with the Western and Communist world.

No Mosque near 9/11, how about no Mosques any where. The Muslim world has attacked and is now hiding behind human shields in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To: Yusefyk
If you think that they hate you now wait until I'm done with them, I will use your own retarded strategies to drive them bananas.

Ps. I still think that you guys are a bunch of religious dingbats.

By far the most extensive and oldest accounts that I'm aware of regarding tribes who worshiped the god baal mention their practice of human sacrifice, children being their most fond predilection for such tribute, charred alive that is. Whether you attribute the impetus for the Hebrews to attack this barbarous and unjust monstrosity to Moses command or to an act of conscience or political nation building, the ancient Israelis did the right thing trying to eradicate anything to do with baal by the standards of 3000 years ago and by the standards of today.
Being able to bring up this seldom mentioned piece of information for me was worth what otherwise was a futile attempt to wage a productive debate with ting.

Some words of wisdom on the management of Trolls, whether Mohammedan or non-Mohammedan (and in *this* forum, in particular, it is perfectly possible that things which loudly claim not to be Mohammedan may in fact be Mohammedans in masks)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/26/2754284.htm

'Starving trolls is key to internet harmony'.

The article I have linked is quite good - I commend it to new readers and also to our regulars.

Now, an additional word to any new reader at this site who has persevered thus far.

All internet forums, especially those that deal with hot-button topics such as religion and politics, attract Trolls. This forum is no exception.

This forum, however, attracts not only the Troll Simple (who is most likely a non-Muslim and mostly couldn't care less about whatever is being discussed in whatever forum he infests, being merely engaged in stirring up sh!t in order to derive malicious fun from people's responses) but the Troll Sinister: Mohammedans and their janissaries, persons engaged in furthering the Cause of Islam by keeping people - at all costs - from examining critically the behaviour of Muslims and its relationship to Muslim texts and sharia law. If the attention of posters and readers can be drawn away at all costs from a particularly telling report out of dar al Islam, then that serves the Cause of Islam.

Whether thereisonlynogod is a Troll Simple or a Troll Sinister, the objective effect of his activity has been to deflect and to draw the discussion away from the posted article and its unwittingly devastating exposure of the nature of the Mind of Islam...which MInd is NOT the same as that shaped by other faiths or philosophies.

I therefore offer this further piece of advice.

As well as the old Internet wisdom ' Do Not Feed The Trolls', which applies at all internet forums, here at Jihadwatch an additional rule applies: *whenever* a discussion thread experiences a massive explosion of Troll activity, whether the Troll be an openly declared Mohammedan or not, you should - on seeing showers of sand and sh!t start flying in all directions - immediately scroll all the way back up to the posted article (which is what the discussion is *supposed* to be about) and *re-read it* slowly and carefully, along with any comments/ analysis there offered by Mr Spencer or by Marisol. Because it is highly likely that there is something in that particular article which the Mohammedans would not like you to spend time thinking about.

If you have the time, then and then only, after re-reading the posted article, do you revisit the discussion, resolutely ignoring the to and fro between the identified Troll and others, and concentrating only on such comments as are not 'replies' but which directly and specifically address the content of the posted article.

The muslims and their head-in-the-muslim-behind apologists are ALWAYS bringing up moral relativism as their first line of defense. There can be no defense to the ONE religion that dictates honor killings along with a myriad of its other crimes, so the first lie is always - some other religions "do" it to. It's like clockwork. These Muslim butt burrowers need to be ignored.

Muslimity was ripe to take off at the time it began because the Arabs on the Saudi peninsula was ALWAYS killing each other, and it was just out of control. The tribal bonds, the only brake against killings with the threat of guarateed reprisal killings, wasn't preventing total chaos in the partioning out very limited resources. Muslimity brought about broad cohesion on the Saudi peninsula, and a redirection of the killing outward - whih continues to this day.

Muslimity was okay for a specific time and location. Although killing is the heart of this religion, it represented an improved set of morals for the primordidal savages living in the Arabian desert at the time.

Too bad the plague didn't stop then and there.

A statement of the House Rules, by Mr Robert Spencer, made in 2005 at a time when he had seriously considered not having Comments at all:

"Why do I allow comments on this site?

"Sometimes I wonder, but ultimately it is to allow reasonable people to discuss aspects of the issue at hand, strategize about what to do about it, and make related observations.

"From time to time this has been notably successful — particularly thanks to our own Hugh Fitzgerald and those who have engaged him in discussion.

"Comments continue to be almost completely un-moderated. My staff and I are overtaxed as it is, and I only read comment threads very occasionally.

"However, I did look in on one last night and ended up deleting quite a few comments (which does not mean that I endorse those that remain).

"If you wonder why, remember: threats are unwelcome.

"Insulting and racist messages are unwelcome.

"Foul language is unwelcome.

"Calls to genocide or nuclear action against holy sites are unwelcome. Etc.

"I didn't create Jihad Watch to be a hate group, as we are often accused of being.

" Of course, jihadists have co-opted the language of "hate" and "racism" from legitimate civil rights movements because they know how effective it is in discrediting their critics in America -- and such claims directed against Jihad Watch are specious and inaccurate.

"In reality, Jihad Watch is a vanguard organization in the defense of universal human rights.

"What is the best way to defeat the global jihad that threatens those rights? Not by venting and cursing and threatening.

"**This plays into the hands of those who would destroy us, and that is a stupid and suicidal thing to do.** {my emphasis - dda}.

"I have requested it before: think strategically when you post.

"Don't write something that works to the advantage of those who want to discredit the genuine information that this site provides.

"Comments that are boorish, aggressive, etc., **or tangled into knots answering some obvious provocateur** {my emphasis - dda} will only discourage thoughtful people who are actually in a position to influence policy from using this site as a resource.

"Since the anti-jihad struggle is a struggle for the equality of dignity and rights of all people, it would be nice if the anti-jihad commenters who posted here behaved as if they believed in those things too, and took the moral high ground, in contradistinction to the jihadists.

"One more time: this site is dedicated to raising awareness of the nature of the foe that faces the Western world and all free people.

"This is necessary because most policymakers and analysts in the West so far continue to ignore or deny outright the true nature of that foe.

"Until that changes, the jihadists have the advantage, even if it is not one of military might; there are other ways to win wars.

"Don't let your comment be one that helps them increase that advantage."

- Posted by Robert at May 19, 2005 8:31 AM

Thereisonlynogod:

"I like how even though you don't agree with me you can't stop talking about me as a topic."

Zinedine:

"This is a lot of fun and I am enjoying the super star status you have given me. I mean who else in this website sees the words they've written days ago and in different posts still get cited by rabid fans?"

Is Thereisonlynogod also Zinedine?

I'd lay $$ we got a doppleganger.

Oh help me the Christians are sword rattling, their precious religion is being insulted. You sound like a Muslim, all sensitive about your blessed religion.

Hey folks the village people is missing a member.

I have always believed that the Bible is a book of stories of man's struggle with his faith. Even with the violence, the romance, the insurmountable daily tasks, Man has learned to love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek. We have learned to coexist, prosper, leave a legacy. What do he teaching of Muhammad say in the Koran. Certainly none of the above. For a brother, a sibling, to kill his sister, a follow human being, for the sack of family honor, I can not image how twisted he could become just for following someone else's beliefs. Shame on you, and those who vouchsafe these beliefs.
.

ON TOPIC.

The commonest form of family murder in the Islamic world is the killing of young women on the grounds of actual or suspected sexual misconduct, or because of an erroneous - or even deliberately, maliciously fabricated - rumour or claim of same.

The killing is often performed by fathers but also by brothers, cousins and uncles. Female kin, even mothers, sometimes assist. These murders, usually ultra-violent and ritualistic (after a manner that, in the West, is seen in the murder of female strangers or of prostitutes, by psychopath serial killers), are usually pre-planned.

An excellent article by Phyllis Chesler on the subject:

http://www.meforum.org/2067/are-honor-killings-simply-domestic-violence

Excerpt, on the *type* of killing employed:

"In both North America and Europe, family members conducted honor killings with excessive violence—repeatedly stabbing, raping, setting aflame, and bludgeoning—in more than half the cases.

"**Only in serial-killing-type scenarios are Western women targeted with similar violence; in these cases, the perpetrators are seldom family members, and their victims are often strangers** {my emphasis added - dda}.

The Sunday Mirror in April 2010 told the story of a young woman, the daughter of a Saudi father and British mother, who was taken to Saudi Arabia by her father as a girl, after her parents divorced.

"When I turned 11 I was made to start wearing a head scarf and couldn't leave the house without my father's permission. I had no friends and wasn't allowed to play outside. Dad was very controlling and verbally abusive and expected me to do all the housekeeping.”
By 2002 when Hana was 14 she was so desperate she went to the Saudi police for help... but was sent back to her father.

She says: "I told them he was keeping me there against my will and all they said was, 'He's your father, if he wants he can kill you'.

'He’s your father, he can kill you if he wants to'. Just as it says in the 'Reliance of the Traveller' - there is no penalty for a parent who kills their offspring.

In the case that Anne Barker reports upon, of course, it was the girl's brother rather than the father who did the actual killing; but perhaps Khaled Mahmoud should be viewed as the family hit-man or appointed executioner, carrying out the will of the clan which is synonymous with the will of whoever is 'alpha male'.

A further point.

Nonie Darwish, apostate from Islam, in her book on sharia, 'Cruel and Usual Punishment', observes that in all the thirty years she lived in Islamic Egypt, she never once heard any Islamic cleric condemn ‘honor’ killing of women.

“They say Islam has nothing to do with honor killing, but I have never heard a Friday sermon prohibiting it and quoting scriptures that condemn it. Men who commit that crime are rarely punished, and even then the punishment is very light”.

And she also states,

‘If honor killing was truly a crime unacceptable to Islam, Sharia Law cold have certainly frightened men away from committing it.

"But honor killing falls into perfect harmony with the Muslim view of women and their sexual oppression. From the least to the most educated, from the least to the most religious, the reaction is the same; no one makes a public stand and no-one reports it, not even the religious leaders”.

And Nonie, in her book, tells the story of an Egyptian Muslim maid, only a teenager, who came to work in Nonie's parents' house, after having been raped and impregnated by her boss in her previous place of employment, and then sacked. Nonie's mother was trying to arrange for the girl to be given shelter somewhere; but the girl's family tracked her down and ...murdered her. Nobody did anything to punish them for it. Nor did anyone do anything whatsoever to shame or punish the rapist who had so grossly abused his position of power. Instead, **they murdered the little girl who had been raped.. to punish her for having been raped**. Blaming the victim: that's Islam.

An article that exposes the attitudes toward women in another part of dar al Islam, Islamic Iraq.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=7E8E98D9-E148-4F9C-BAFF-40E9E4974AEE

Excerpt:

FP: 'One dark phenomenon you encountered in Iraq was the barbaric treatment of women by a culture controlled by tribal Islam. Tell us a bit about the suffering of women that you witnessed.

Vincent [author of a book called 'In the Red Zone']:

'My experiences in Iraq, together with what I witnessed in Iran in 2000, led me to wonder why the civilized world doesn’t rise up en masse and say Enough! We will no longer tolerate the way that Muslim nations in the Middle East treat women! Alas, in today’s multicultural world, such outrage is impossible.

'Meanwhile, in Iraq the compass of women’s lives—their legal and social rights, hopes and dreams and image of themselves—slowly constricts.

'Criminals prey on females, forcing them to remain indoors after dark. Islamic clerics pressure them to don black abiyas—even when the heat tops 140 degrees.

'Tribal leaders and Shia imams agitate for shari’a—misogynistic Islamic law—to regulate every aspect of a woman’s existence.

'Polygamy, honor killings, divorce by repudiation, temporary marriages (essentially religiously-sanctioned adultery) have returned, at least as matters of serious discussion.

'What I learned from Nour—and what I discuss in much of In the Red Zone--is the psychic claustrophobia of Iraqi society.

'Reputation and virginity are everything—should a woman lose the first, she is ostracized from “good” society; lose the second before marriage and she risks being murdered by her “shamed” family.

'On the street, in restaurants, taxi cabs, mosques, and public place, men (and women) stare at females, waiting—hoping—they will do something that will disgrace themselves and fuel invidious gossip.

“The relationships between Iraqi men and women are sadomasochistic,” Nour told me. From what I saw, she is right."

Frankly, the more I see of what goes on in every part of dar al Islam, the more I begin to wonder whether what sharia tends to produce is a state of affairs not unlike a vast S & M brothel - the illegal kind, into which are dragged kidnapped slaves, and out of which come only dead bodies.

Another excerpt from the same interview:

FP:' I loved the question you asked of one Iraqi who was styling himself as a democrat in front of an audience and saying that political Islam was compatible with democracy.
After he said there could be freedom of speech in political Islam, you asked if, under such a system, people could say in public that the Koran was not the word of God and whether women could have premarital sex without fearing for their physical safety. {and he might have added, 'whether women could marry whomever they liked, Muslim or non-Muslim, as and when they chose' - dda}.

'All logical and rational thought in this individual ended after your question.

'I have asked precisely these questions of many Muslims who have boasted to me that political Islam can offer peace and freedom.

'After their great boasts, I ask if, under their systems, women can engage in casual sex with whomever they desire and to live without fear. And whatever we might morally think of such women, it is their business and not ours. That is what a free society is about.

'In any case, I usually become the victim of a violent tirade after asking this question".

It is so hard to keep to the topic
When egos become macroscopic.
But only a turd
Needs to get the last word
In and prove to the crowd he's myopic.

Brava, DDS.

Honor Killings are imposed by the Koran to keep the women the slaves of the family's men.
The Koran also urges Muslims to kill jews,christians,infidels,apostates from Islam.It is a barbaric,cruel,misogynistic book that must be sued and declared illegal to be preached in ANY MOSQUE around the world.Then islam will collapse and the world will be saved .

Honor Killings are imposed by the Koran to keep the women the slaves of the family's men.
The Koran also urges Muslims to kill jews,christians,infidels,apostates from Islam.It is a barbaric,cruel,misogynistic book that must be sued and declared illegal to be preached in ANY MOSQUE around the world.Then islam will collapse and the world will be saved .

Re: my last post: of course, I meant "second person", not "first person".

Troll: banned.