Sri Lanka: Daughter killed in “a Muslim extremist style killing” for dating someone from another religion

If this seems to happen an awful lot, Muslims commit 91 percent of honor killings worldwide. Here, sadly, is another. “Muslim father beats daughter to death in Sri Lanka,” from ColomboPage, December 25 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Dec 25, Colombo: A Muslim extremist style killing has been reported from Sammanthurai of Ampara district of Sri Lanka’s Eastern Province, police say.

According to the police, a Muslim father has allegedly beaten his underage daughter to death yesterday evening.

The 17-year-old daughter was killed by father allegedly for having a relationship with a person belonged to another religion.

The suspect has been arrested by police.

Samanthurai Police have commenced further investigations into the incident.

Islamic honor killing in Texas: "Santa" who murdered family on Christmas morning was Muslim who didn't like his daughter dating a non-Muslim
Islamophobia in the UK: Muslim baby removed from home for risk of Islamic honor killing
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint


  1. says

    The 17-year-old daughter was killed by father allegedly for having a relationship with a person belonged to another religion.

    Religion is important to Moslems; athiests are on the Hit Parade too.
    What other religion wuz why you beat her to death? One of those of the Infidel?
    Yes, but athiests are Infidels too, though they’ll deny it, and mask as agnostics,
    Cuz everybody’s skeert of the Moslems, who’ll rise from anger and cast into hell,
    Those without fidelity to the God who demands it, on them he’ll apply caustics.
    – the Holy Prophet APF

  2. says

    From the article:

    “The 17-year-old daughter was killed by father allegedly for having a relationship with a person [who] belonged to another religion.”

    In Sri Lanka, the young man might have been Christian, or Buddhist, or Hindu.

    Of course, the ‘relationship’ may have existed only in the fevered imagination of the poor girl’s sharia-addled Muslim father.

    It should be noted that a Muslim father in the USA killed his two daughters Amina and Sarah Said, partly because non-Muslim boys were among their schoolfriends.

    Smiling Mohammedan da’wa artists in western countries may talk big about Muslim ‘tolerance’ and cite, as ‘proof’, that Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women (Jews and Christians) who may be permitted (hmmm – ‘permitted'; and sometimes they are forced to convert to Islam – this won’t be mentioned) to retain their original faith. What they *wont* tell anybody is that this only applies to Muslim male, who are free under sharia to seize and screw any non-Muslim female they like – and that includes minor girls, even prepubescent girls, and it includes the *wives* of non-Muslim men, who may be seized in jihad razzias or snatched from within a ‘dhimmi’ community, with absolute impunity. Sex with a non-Muslim man’s wife is perfectly licit for a Muslim man; under sharia it is not counted either as rape or as adultery. In Muslim eyes, a non-Muslim woman’s wedding vows simply. do. not. matter.

    And the Muslim da’wa artists will NOT explain the gross double standard under which a Muslim *female* is NOT permitted to cast so much as a longing glance at a non-Muslim man, let alone take him as lover or husband whilst allowing him to retain his non-Muslim beliefs. A non-Muslim man who wishes to marry a Muslim woman *must* convert to Islam, or it’s not on. Just as in the Deep South during the plantation era, or under Jim Crow, the males from the dominant group (Islam) are free under Sharia to do as they please with the women of the subordinate group (non-Muslims)…but the reverse (Muslim female having a relationship with a man who is a non-Muslim) is anathema.

    Dear God, I despise the double standards and gross immorality of Islam.

  3. says

    In the “Headlines we’d like to see” department:

    She pleaded self-defense: Her father was trying to kill her for dating a non-Moslem boy; Jury agrees. (story on p.3)

  4. says

    “A Muslim extremist style killing..” should in fact read: “A routine Muslim orthodox killing…”

    I guess the reporter labeled it “extreme” since the girl died. Beating her to within an inch of her life would have perhaps been more in line with his expectations….

  5. says

    I believe the single biggest contributer to the creation of Europistan was the practice of allowing Moslem only enclaves to develop. Once the neighborhood is “secured”, this sort of behavior flourishes. The government is not the answer. The neighborhood people must take a stand when Moslem youths start the sexual harassment of non Moslem girls, spitting in front of non Moslems, etc. I realize the story’s from Indonesia- I’m more concerned with Righthereistan.

  6. says

    Alarmed Pig Farmer remarked: ” Yes, but athiests [sic] are Infidels too, though they’ll deny it, and mask as agnostics,”

    No, I won’t deny my atheism to anyone, least of all Muslims, and I despise agnostics, who are just cowardly fence-sitters. Agnosticism won’t save them from beheadings, either. If you want to see how an atheist deals with a powerful Muslim, read “We Three Kings,” in which an American businessman is stripped of his Constitutional protections by our State Department and made fair game for a Saudi sheik.

    Perhaps you and other readers here will stop taking sarcastic pot shots at atheists.

  7. says

    Well, yes, I think I’m qualified to criticize any religion, and especially Christinity. I’m the geologist examining the composition of the moon, which is all rock and dust. Religionists, however, still think it’s made of green cheese.

    And then you resort to this:

    “If you want to be an Atheist, fine, but don’t be such a dick about it.”

    When a religionist can’t say anything intelligent, if he can’t refute his opponent’s position, he always resorts to name-calling or sarcasm or an appeal to consensus. Ignorance, I gather, is bliss. Goodbye. Have the last word. The Catholic Church had the last word when it persecuted Galileo, and condemned thousands to death during the Inquisition. I have a movie recommendation for you: “Agora,” a fine film about the founding of the Catholic Church.

  8. says

    Dowse, he will mop the floor with you. You are pontificating about belief on the basis of “faith”, which means in the absense of evidence (let alone proof). It is not something you can rationally defend, but which you feel you “need” or you will be lost and alone. So, you are doing what you, and most of the “faithful”, do, just declare that your “faith” is superior to reason and resort to name-calling.

    We atheists do not have to apologize or defer to you of supernaturalist bent. We have reality and rationality on our side. If you are of the opinion that you can defend your myths on that basis, then by all means give it a go. And no, CGW or anyone else here, we are not being “dicks” because we don’t doff our hats and bow to you and defer to your mysticism and the superstition you claim we “can’t explain away”. And yes, we know all about your “faith”. There were plenty of adults trying to ram it down our throats as children, same as you. Difference is, we wouldn’t bite.

    And skeen66 is right about the movie “Agora”. Most of you good Christians should probably avoid it because it will provide an unwelcome reminder of the savagery of your own religion in centuries before Islam claimed the championship. On the other hand, some of you might secretly enjoy watching an uppity pagan woman “get what was coming to her”.

    And don’t think we don’t know it.

  9. says

    Atheism: belief than nothing created everything out of nothing for no particular reason.

    Atheist: “I know beyond all possible doubt that which is unknowable, based on a total lack of evidence in support of my position.”

  10. says

    So, CGW is in the company of Dowse: “Oh, and Dowse is right. You are being a dick about it.” The name-calling again. The college-bred intellectual attitude. You Christians are about as scummy as Muslims. At least they make death threats. All you people can do is stick your tongues out, like spoiled little girls.

  11. says

    this thread has been sidetracked.

    We seem to have forgotten about the poor little girl in Sri Lanka, bludgeoned to death by her murderous Mohammedan father.

    I advise everyone to go back up to the top and reread the report, in its awkward English-as-second-language English.

    In Sri Lanka, which is by no means a majority-Muslim country – it is , indeed, majority-Buddhist – a girl from a Muslim family is believed to have been executed by her father – bashed to death – as punishment for daring to have (or being supposed to have had, or accused of having had) a prohibited-by-sharia relationship with a non-Muslim boy. It is perfectly probable that the relationship existed only in her father’s prurient and overheated imagination.

    Whatever people such as Skeen and lilredbird may choose to believe about Christianity, the fact is, as Marisol pointed out in her introduction, that ultra-violent execution-style family murders of young women as punishment for actual or imagined or purported sexual misconduct (including for things that don’t even count as misconduct, in saner societies) seem to be very very prevalent amongst Mohammedans, and rather less common among families adhering to other belief systems.

    Females in Islam appear to live under a standing-but-temporarily-suspended sentence of death; but at any moment, without said female necessarily having done anything at all, their male kin (often abetted by female kind, sad to say) or their spouse or a random male neighbour who has appointed himself one of ‘allah’s enforcers’ (as Nonie Darwish puts it) may appoint himself judge, jury and executioner, and activate and carry out that sentence.

    In Geraldine Brooks’ account of women in Islam, “Nine Parts of Desire” (which is a good ‘starter’ book if you are attempting from scratch to wake up a female acquaintance to the menace of Islam, Brooks doesn’t ‘get’ the full extent of the problem but she makes some astute observations along the way) she refers to a police study in the UK that was completed in the early 1990s. That study found that women married to Muslims were *eight times more likely* to be killed by their spouses, than women with husbands belonging to any other belief system. That is: Muslim men were *eight times* more likely to kill their wives, than were non-Muslim men.

    it should be noted, too, that Phyllis Chesler, who has done a fair bit of work on ‘honor’ murders,argues that going by available crime stats it is quite rare in ‘western’ societies for fathers [that is, non-Muslim dads] to kill their teenage daughters…whereas in the Ummah it is dismally common

  12. says

    An excellent article by one ‘Spengler’, on the legal and ‘theological’ framework that governs gender/ familial relations within Islam.

    Middle East
    May 25 2010

    Wife-beating, sharia, and Western law
    By Spengler

    ‘Spengler’ observes that –

    “Nowhere to my knowledge has a Muslim religious authority of standing repudiated wife-beating as specified in Surah 4:32 of the Koran, for to do so would undermine the foundations of Muslim society.

    “**By extension, the power of the little sovereign of the family can include the killing of wayward wives and female relations.** {my emphasis – dda}.”

    (Note: One may compare the news report of the escape from Saudi Arabia of a girl, daughter of a British woman and Saudi Muslim father. At one point before she made her escape the girl had gone to the Saudi police but was told flatly “He’s your father, he can kill you if he wants to”, and sent right back home so the abuse could continue. – dda)

    At the end of the article, Spengler contrasts two theological – and legal – paradigms.

    “Sharia resembles Halakha, but by construction, for the same reason the Koran resembles the Torah: it is derived from it, with self-serving adjustments (Ishmael becomes the heir of Abraham rather than Isaac).

    “But the principles of the two legal systems are radically different.

    “That is why Jewish observance of Halakha never has clashed with the legal systems of modern democracy while sharia inevitably must conflict, and in the most intractable and intimate way, that is, in matters of family law.

    “The term “law” applied to Judaism and Islam means entirely different things to radically different peoples…

    “The American founding notion of “inalienable rights” stems from the Hebrew concept of covenant: a grant of rights implies a Grantor, and an irreversible grant implies a God who limits his own sovereignty in covenant with mankind.

    “From the vantage point of Islam, the idea that God might limit his own powers by making an eternal covenant with human beings is unthinkable, for Allah is absolutely transcendent, and unconditionally omnipotent.

    “From a Hebrew, and later Christian standpoint, the powers of the earthly sovereign are limited by God’s law, which irreversibly grants rights to every human being.

    “Islam can make no sense of such self-limitation of the divine sovereign, and thus never has produced a temporal political system subject to constitutional limitations.

    In Islam, the family father has the ability to be a petty tyrant in his own home.”

  13. says

    No, I was being facetious about that. Just trying to imagine getting away from our huge Somali population here in MN. I don’t know if there is even a single musloid in ND, but they have to be few, at the very least, just considering the nature of the place. And the weather – even worse than here, and the scenery not as pretty! The Somalis – the dregs of mahoundianism – and the left are ruining this state, that’s for sure.

    I wanna move to a Red State!

  14. says

    Well, Dowse is a “university professor” and someone’s “buddy.” I’m not impressed. There are a number of assertions made here by Dowse, Dumble Dork, and CMG that would require a book to rebut and refute, but the main one is the allegation that atheism is some kind of religion itself and that it is responsible for horrendous crimes. First, of all, I don’t have to prove the non-existence of God; it is incumbent upon believers to prove it, which they never have (and the old ruse of appealing to ancient authority or “the bible tells them so” or stating that “brilliant theoretical physicists” also believe in some form of “intelligent design”), never can, and never will.

    And there’s the old Christian ruse of ascribing atheism to communism, ergo atheism is bad and immoral and so we needn’t listen to anything they have to say. Correction: Hitler was a mystic, and so was Stalin, and Mao, and Pol Pot, and Ahmanutjob of Iran, and King Abdullah, and every other dictator or tyrant who regards the state as his “god.” And they are and will continue to be altruists, as well. And I find it interesting that neither of the cited gentlemen will venture into the role of Plato and Kant and Hegel as exponents of “faith.” And, with these final words, I’ll heed the advice of someone who’s debated religionists: Don’t bother, because even if you persuade them that reality is real and that there’s nothing else, their “faith” is compartmentalized and a hot button, which, if pressed, overrides and nullifies whatever rationality they might have previously exhibited. Then they behave like leftists, and resort to name-calling, smears, and irrelevancies.

    What it all boils down to is that Christian religionists of whatever stripe fear and hate Islam because it is a rival creed, not actually because Islam would obviate the liberties they enjoy now, diminishing as they are in today’s politically correct politics. They’re perfectly willing to establish their own Christian “caliphate” and the president I blame for that is not Bush or Clinton or even Obama, but Ronald Reagan.

  15. says

    Sri Lanka: Daughter killed in “a Muslim extremist style killing” for dating someone from another religion

    This is *almost identical* in motive to the Muslim in Texas”half a world away from Sri Lanka”who just massacred his daughter for dating a non-Muslim, his wife for leaving him, and the rest of the family for being sympathetic to them.

    As for the faith/atheism debate above, this is not one we are going to hash out here”nor is this the place for it.

    I think we can all agree that the vile creed behind this Muslim’s murder of his young daughter is worth staunchly opposing. We are all decent people here”despite whatever other disagreements we might have.

    I stand with you *all* against the terrible threat of Islam.

  16. says

    Dowse: It was a pleasure getting a rise out of you, and see you lose your head. You say you’re not interested in arguing with me, but you continue to. “Pffft!”???? Goodbye.

  17. says

    “And the Muslim da’wa artists will NOT explain the gross double standard under which a Muslim *female* is NOT permitted to cast so much as a longing glance at a non-Muslim man, let alone take him as lover or husband whilst allowing him to retain his non-Muslim beliefs.”

    Actually had one try to explain that to me. The excuse was that this rule came about when “muslims were being abused and murdered.” The excuse continued that “naturally the father’s religion is always the religion of the children so muslim women can’t marry non-muslims because the children would not be muslim and the muslim population would shrink.”

    Of course, it’s still a double standard. While the muslim peahens are free to father more muslims with non-muslim women, non-muslim males are not free to father non-muslim children with muslim females.

  18. says

    I believe the single biggest contributer to the creation of Europistan was the practice of allowing Moslem only enclaves to develop.

    Before that came the mosque…’If you build it, they will come’, and they will keep coming…Mosque building is how Islam spreads…Because of mosque, a small number of Mahoundians becomes a large number of Mahoundians…You start out with a closet and end up with a mega structure, and an enclave…Stop mosque building and you will stop or at least slow down the spread of Islam…

  19. says

    Ebonystone came up with this fictive headline: “MOSLEM GIRL ACQUITTED BY JURY IN MURDER CASE.”

    Here are more we’d like to see:

    Prosecution argued that multiple rapes of Norwegian women racially motivated, defendants acknowledge their motives, wanted “preview” of Islamic paradise

    “Honor Killers” defiant in courtroom, CAIR-hired defense attorney outraged by “bigoted” jury and judge.

    Justice Clarence Thomas in majority opinion writes that not informing consumers of halal in packaging is “establishing a church and not letting consumers know they have been inducted into it, and is the height of fraud and deceit. This is not a Constitutional issue…It’s not the same as buying a lemon in a used car lot….A thief or a defrauder is not forced to tell the truth to his victims about what he has for sale….But woe to the thief and the defrauder, for their victories will be short-lived….”

    Muslims charged with obstructing a public way, French citizens tired of being “mooned” by barbarians

    Marines avenge the disfigurement of a local beauty by her first cousin for having smiled at patrol in village. Marines petition commandant to start fund to pay for plastic surgery.

    “I have always envied Islam because of its capacity for unlimited power and not requiring anyone to think about anything. It sanctioned my hatred for the West, instilled in me by my Communist mother and grandparents and Frank. I did my best to help its conquest.”

  20. says

    You don’t have “reason” on your side at all. There is a whole host of things that atheism can’t explain away. I’m not religious, but facts are facts, and you do not have a monopoly on them. Even the most brilliant theoretical physicists postulate some kind of intelligent design behind the creation of a mathematical multi-verse.

    A good read: HYPERSPACE by Michio Kaku.

  21. says


    I’m sorry, but ‘Agora’ is basically agitprop.

    You won’t like the title, but I commend to you David Bentley Hart’s “Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies”. (I personally would have called the book ‘The Christian Revolution and its Fashionable Enemies’ and left it at that, so as not to antagonise people unnecessarily).

    He has an extensive and thoroughly-scholarly, based on the main established historical sources, discussion of the popular modern Myth of Hypatia (most recently lavishly retold with all the trimmings in ‘Agora’) and the popular modern Myth of Galileo, and attempts to discover what can *really* be known about both. What *did* happen? The answer will, I am afraid, be rather disappointing for you.

    Much of what some modern militant atheists think they know about these two iconic incidents, which are today used to ‘prove’ that Christianity – all Christianity, throughout all history, always and everywhere – is *essentially* hostile to reason and science and is *essentially* misogynist, and so on, and so forth, is, to be quite frank, inaccurate, even demonstrably false. There are various other popular anti-Christian Enlightenment agitprop myths that also disintegrate if a person undertakes a thorough examination of the actual historic sources.

    I hope you realize that if and when you choose to indulge in what seems to come across – whether intentionally or not – as contempt for Christians qua Christians – and for all ‘religionists’ (thus basically lumping together Islam and the non-Islamic faiths, as if there is no real distinction between them) you are by implication exhibiting contempt for, among other people, our own host of this forum, Mr Spencer, and for Marisol. And for me and all practising Christians and Jews who attend this forum. If you despise us so much, why keep on coming here where you know you’ll have to interact with us?

    Contempt is a dangerous emotion to indulge in. In Michael Gladwell’s ‘Blink’ he describes a visit to a psychologist named John Gottman who specialises in marriage counselling. Gottman identified four things that, if dominating a couple’s interaction, were real red flags for trouble ahead: Defensiveness, Stonewalling, Criticism and Contempt. And of those four, it was Contempt that mattered most of all. It’s a relationship killer.

    Yes, you were rejected by your Catholic family when you announced your atheism, and you are understandably angry with them for this (btw, the way they behaved toward you was horrible and, I would say, thoroughly UN-Christian). But have they sent a hit squad after you to kill you? If not, then maybe Catholics and Muslims *aren’t* the same kind of thing.

    PS – I have a brother who is a red-hot card-carrying militant atheist. That doesn’t stop me loving him – he’s my brother. He in turn politely overlooks my Christianity, and relates to me as his sister. We neither of us try to ‘convert’ each other, and we don’t tell each other how to bring up our respective children.

  22. says


    This is part of Hart’s judicious analysis of the Myth of Hypatia. “What was certainly not the case was that paganism and Christianity confronted one another as, on the one hand, a tradition of ‘pluralism’ and rational inquiry and, on the other, a movement of ‘irrational’ fideism.

    “It is an almost infallible rule that, whenever any popular history relates the story of the murder of Hypatia – to which I have just referred – it repeats the fashionable myth that she was murdered by Christian zealots on account of her paganism and of her sex…

    “Admittedly, more twaddle tends to be written about Hypatia than about any other figure from early or late antiquity and this particular image of her – the martyr to misogyny and religious intolerance – is merely the most current of the many silly romances that have sprung up around her over the years…”

    “To begin withy, there was no particularly pronounced prejudice against women scholars at the time, especially not in the Eastern Empire, among either Christians or pagans; such women were to be found in both communities, in Alexandria particularly. And “learning and science” were associated simply with the educated class, which comprised both Christians and pagans alike; in fact the greatest theoretical scientist and natural philosopher in Alexandria before the Muslim conquest was the sixth-century Christian John Philoponus {look him up – dda}.

    “It seems clear, moreover, that Hypatia was on perfectly good terms with the Christian intellectuals of Alexandria, being as far as we can tell neither a particularly doctrinaire pagan nor an habituee of local cults (nor even, perhaps, much more sympathetic to pagan polytheism than the Christians), and she could number many Christians among her students and associates. One of her most devoted friends, in fact, was Synesius of Cyrene (d. AD c. 414), a Neoplatonist and convert (or semiconvert) to Christianity who was made bishop of Ptolemais in 409; and one of the warmest portraits of her that we possess, as well as the frankest account of her murder, can be found in the work of a Christian, the church historian Socrates.

    “Hypatia died, as far as we can tell, because she became inadvertently involved in one of the conflicts that were constantly erupting at the demotic level of Alexandrian society between those warring tribes that made life in the city so constant an adventure.

    “But, in the social and intellectual world to which she belonged, all the attainments of classical culture were the common property of all philosophies that made use of them, including the Christian ‘philosophy’. And even in society at large, calm coexistence was necessarily the normal state of affairs…”.

    Earlier in the same chapter of his book, he states “Local riots rarely tell us much…apart from certain things we already know about the more unseemly characteristics of human mass behaviour. Colorful myths aside, the early church did not systematically destroy the literature of pagan antiquity, and there was no universal Christian prejudice against profane learning…Alexandria was the most violent city in the most violent imperial territory in an exceedingly violent age, and it was often not to much disturbed as governed by rioting mobs of pagans, Jews, or Christians. It was also a seat of immense learning, and home to many of the greatest scholars and philosophers – pagan, Jewish, and Christian – of its time…”.

    And he observes, judiciously, that “It would have been wonderful, obviously, and a splendid testament to the power of high ideals, if Greek prudence or Christian charity had governed every person of the time and pervaded every stratum of society. It would have been wonderful especially if all the baptised Christians of the age, whose ideals were by far the higher and nobler, had never yielded to their hatred for the cults of their erstwhile persecutors as fervidly as they sometimes did. But hum,an beings frequently disappoint”.

  23. says

    I never said I was a Christian. I am not religious, but neither am I an atheist.

    What I object to is your aggressively hostile attitude; read back over your comments. Dowse was not arguing against your beliefs per se, but commented on your attitude. You began the put-downs. He stated specifically that he is not concerned about what you do or do not believe.

    I objected merely to your insistence that you have a monopoly on the truth, and that all other viewpoints are somehow inferior. You claim to have right and “reason” on your side but I point out that atheists can no better prove their claims than can religionists.

    Shall we enumerate the atrocities committed in the name of atheistic systems, e.g., those committed by Stalin and by the Communist Chinese, etc? Do you really have to resort to citing historic examples, because there is plenty of blame to go around. We should focus on who is *currently* warring in the name of so-called “religion”, namely the mohammedans. We have a common enemy here – ignore it at ALL our peril.

  24. says

    This is patently absurd:

    “If Christianity persists in the face of all the evidence that a supreme being is a metaphysical impossibility . . .”

    Evidence? How exactly are you defining the word? What scientific experts can you cite? To which I responded:

    “Even the most brilliant theoretical physicists postulate some kind of intelligent design behind the creation of a mathematical multi-verse.”

    Your arguments, absent proof, are just so much conjecture, a product of your own pseudo-logical thought process. This makes atheism no different from the other stripes of religiosity which you so abhor. Dowse is right – your claim to be above critical examination smacks of a supremacist attitude very reminiscent of musloids.

  25. says

    Tequila eggnog? I hope that you’re the one being facetious now. That just sounds . . . vile. You’re putting me on, right?