NBC whitewashes Shafia honor killing: no mention of Islam in story of girls killed because they “betrayed Islam”

Mohammmad Shafia murdered his daughters and his first wife and then raged about his daughters: “God’s curse on them for generations….There can be no treachery, no violation more than this. They committed treason from beginning to end. They betrayed humankind. They betrayed Islam.”

Midday Monday I got this email, with the subject line “URGENT: NBC Nightly News Request”:

Message: Hi there””

My name is Shannon Urtnowski and I work with NBC Nightly News. We are working on a spot for tonight about honor killings, and I understand this is on the rise in American, among other countries. We were hoping to speak with an expert who can tell us more about this today. IF you can please reach out to me just as soon as possible, I would
appreciate it.

Many thanks–

Shannon Urtnowski
NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams

I emailed her back, and she responded: “We’d like to try to see if we might be able to set up a camera interview with you in a bit.” We spoke on the phone, and I explained to her the information that you can find here: that Islamic law stipulates no penalty for a parent who kills his child, and several Muslim countries have relaxed penalties for honor killings, with Islamic clerics resisting attempts to stiffen those penalties. I also gave her information on other Islamic honor killings in the U.S. and Canada: Noor Almaleki, the Said sisters, Aqsa Parvez, Jessica Mokdad, etc.

Urtnowski took it all in and told me she would set up studio time for me to be interviewed on this. She even asked me for contact information for a nearby studio, which I gave her. But shortly thereafter, Urtnowski called me back and said that NBC had decided to go with an expert closer to the correspondent’s Chicago location, and so I wouldn’t be appearing after all.

I was not at all surprised by that, of course. Nor was I surprised when NBC’s story aired and it contained no mention of Islam, despite Mohammad Shafia’s own words, but instead spoke about “patriarchal societies” and the Shafias’ “strict religious family,” religion unspecified. See the Newsbusters report here.

There was nothing surprising in NBC’s coverage of the Shafia murders at all. It was just another example of how the mainstream media routinely whitewashes Islamic violence, and essentially lies to the public about the nature, extent and magnitude of that violence. It is no wonder that the public is thereby rendered largely clueless and complacent, and that Islamic honor killings are occurring with increasing frequency in the West, with no one daring to challenge the Muslim community to work against the beliefs that give rise to them.

Pakistan: Honor killers hunting down couples who marry for love
Michael Coren and Robert Spencer discuss Islam and the Shafia honor killings
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    “patriarchal society”

    Tsk, tsk, tsk…. the mother of those girls was also responsible for their murders, many muslim women also engage in “honor” killings. it’s not a man’s thing, it’s a muslim thing. Another free pass for Islam.

  2. says

    I know, I know, I know.

    They – the MSM – won’t associate the terms honor killing and muslim and islam.

    But no one is fooling anyone. Certainly we in the anti-jihad movement know the time of day. What’s encouraging, at least to me, is that more and more Westerners are putting the muslim puzzle pieces together on their own. Despite the best efforts of the MSM and leftists generally.

    More and more are seeing that islam and its abhorrent practitioners, i.e., muslims. and their lying ways are the problem.

    The information dike’s broken. islam has no where to go but down.

  3. says

    “But NBC defended “Today Show” host Katie Couric for her questions in an an Oct. 12, 1998, interview with the then-governor of Wyoming, where the attack took place.

    Couric asked the governor whether “conservative political organizations like the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family are contributing to this anti-homosexual atmosphere” by suggesting homosexuals can change their sexual orientation.

    “That prompts people to say,” Couric added in her question, “”If I meet someone who is homosexual, I’m going to take action and try to convince them or try to harm them.'”

    Shepard was a 21-year-old homosexual student at the University of Wyoming, whose burned and battered body was found in the snow outside Laramie in October 1998.

    NBC News Executive Producer for Broadcast Standards David McCormick defended Couric in a reply to Focus on the Family on Wednesday…. ”

    Story:
    http://www.wnd.com/2004/12/27977/

  4. says

    These PC media morons wouldn’t see the “elephant in the room” if it sat down on thier faces! The tragedy is that these useful idiots are spreading disinformation about a violent and supremacist political system, Islam, to a bored and naive populace who would roll over and go back to sleep or watch the next episode of “American Idol”. What is to be done with the willfully ignorant with the the spread of world jihad??

  5. says

    Don’t worry. Cover-up as they will the truth gets out. They had to say his name. Fortunately Islam is stupid and most males are called Mohammad…

    “Foul deeds will rise though all the earth o’erhelm them, to men’s eyes” Shakespeare. “Hamlet”.

    Deo gratias.

  6. says

    Hi gerard,
    OT
    On another thread, you asked me,

    How is God the “Supreme Being” if He is neither omnipotent nor ominscient?
    And how does human free-will prove that God cannot be ominscient/omnipotent?

    God could be perfect and supreme in relatedness to creatures, without being coercive.

    And consider for a moment what divine omniscience, if it existed, would mean for human free will.

    It would mean that God knows the outcome of all your decision-processes in advance. If God knows everything, then he would know in advance everything you are going to decide to do, before you “decide.” But that would mean that your decision processes are really a sham, because it had all been decided in advance. I don’t think decision processes are a sham. I think when you make decisions, sometimes you are really making decisions. Therefore I don’t think the outcome of those decision processes is decided in advance or known in advance, even by God. Therefore God, though superlative in relationship and in other ways, is not omniscient, and human beings do have some real freedom.

    So that’s a partial answer.

  7. says

    “There was nothing surprising in NBC’s coverage of the Shafia murders at all. It was just another example of how the mainstream media routinely whitewashes Islamic violence, and essentially lies to the public about the nature, extent and magnitude of that violence.” — Robert

    And on the Michael Cohen thread, where Robert was interviewed on his show, Robert pointed out the double standard within the mainstream media and newspapers with regards to muslims and say Christians; and stated, for instance, that if Christians routinely committed honor killings like muslims do, then the media would be ALL over stories like this one, and it would be frontpage news as well, and they would be right in doing that. Why do they continue to minimize these evil honor killings as if giving muslims a pass? Robert was being kind by calling this a double standard.

  8. says

    Your example has a critical flaw. You say you might have “known” what NBC would decide. But you don’t notice that your “knowing” would be only an educated guess, perhaps a very assured guess based on high probabilities. But we were talking not about educated guesses and probabilities. We were talking about divine omniscience, and knowing with absolute certainty. That is something entirely different.

    If the outcome of decision-processes were always known by God in advance with absolute certainty, then those decision processes would be determined in advance more precisely than the workings of the most reliable machine. That is not freedom.

    Whatever God is — perhaps supreme love and relatedness — God is not omniscience or omnipotence — unless one doesn’t mean those terms literally, but only by awed comparison to humans, in relation to whom God’s knowledge and power are no doubt infinitely greater. But strictly speaking, God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, not unless one thinks Allah is God. Allah is indeed The Great Despot, who knows all in advance and controls every movement of every finger and the exact trajectory of every mote of dust.

    Perhaps we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one for now. We can both afford to be humble in our little opinions on God, no doubt…

  9. says

    “The person watching from a distance does not know anything”

    God knows everything. But if you read my other posts you will see that I was not attempting to eplain everything about God’s knowledge of our future, but just to point out that knowledge and freedom are not in opposition.

  10. says

    My apologies to all if my posts here are OT.
    It is of relevance though in the context of Islamic theology which ignores reason and allows for such moral absurdities as “Honor killings” while christian theology has always acknowledged the use of reason as well as revelation.

  11. says

    gerard,

    If some things are beyond Reason, how can one make statements about those things? Yet you do make such statements. That seems to me a contradiction. You say, for example, that God is omniscient. But if you are going to point to something allegedly beyond your reason, it seems to me you must be silent about that something, not make statements about it, such as, “God is omniscient.” How do you claim to know, or use reason, about those things which you say are beyond reason?

    Since, by your own admission, you can’t makes such statements on the basis of reason, you can only do so, I think, on the basis of authority — the authority of someone else’s alleged revelation. I suppose you are expressing a version of a traditional view that originated in the medieval period — the view that there are two sources of knowledge — natural reason, and revelation. And they do not contradict each other, but some things we can only know through revelation (the Bible).

    Personally, I don’t agree with that view, and don’t believe it’s adequate to Christianity or the Bible. I don’t believe the divine Jesus intended people to be subservient in that way to a book (even the Bible), or that he thought reason had to give way sometimes before some authority’s interpretation of a revelation. Vital reason, the Logos, behind which is perhaps the living Christ, was meant to be a source of knowledge above any tradition, even above the Bible. (Insofar as “revelation” means something one has directly experienced for oneself, however, that is not beneath the Logos/vital reason, but one with it.)

    I don’t think that anything is in principle entirely beyond reason — though I don’t think the world is absolutely rational and determinate either. If the world were without any real ambiguities and were absolutely logical and determinate it would be dead, would it not? I see it as constantly coming newly into being, as alive, and as often imbued with paradox and the overlapping play of opposites into each other.

    Reality is not just logical clarity but also is sometimes ambiguity. Every phenomenon contains both poles — clarity and ambiguity — though one pole or another may predominate almost entirely depending on what phenomenon one is observing and when. Logic tends to deny or underrate the existence of ambiguities. What I mean by “vital reason” is something that recognizes the polar relation between ambiguity and clarity, a polarity peculiar to process, transformation, metamorphosis, and life. Vital reason, or Logos, reasons without denying that living polarity of overlapping opposites. The Logos is not just light, but it became life, as well. The Logos thus seems to be inclusive of logic, but larger.

  12. says

    “If some things are beyond Reason, how can one make statements about those things? ”
    You can’t. But God can.
    I can argue (reason) that God exists. But God has revealed some things eg that He is a Trinity. This is beyond my comprehension but not against it.
    Thus eg. the christian God is Love.
    You could reason 3 things are necessary for love; 1 The lover. 2 the loved 3 the loving.
    Another eg 1 the giver 2 the receiver 3 the gift.
    In any case love does not exist in abstract. For a situation of love there must be community. Persons.
    So in fact I can make some sense of the doctrine of the Trinity.
    Again it’s worth noting that the Islamic god is insular.
    and is there much love in Islam?

  13. says

    “If the world were without any real ambiguities and were absolutely logical and determinate it would be dead, would it not?”
    I accept that the world is myterious to me. But put a piece of a machine back in the wrong place and see if it works…

  14. says

    gerard,
    You are a good sport.

    You said, “Can you explain to me how God created the Universe from nothing?”

    First, all creation, insofar as it really is creation, is in a sense creation out of nothing. If something is really and truly new, it is without precedent, and in that sense comes from nothing that preceded it.

    So all true creativity is rather difficult — but certainly not impossible — for reason to understand. Is creativity entirely beyond reason? Not at all. The only sense in which creativity is beyond reason is the sense in which the sheer existence of reality is beyond reason. Why is there something rather than nothing.

    It’s trut there can be no “explanation” for Being itself, because the mystery of Being is not something hidden behind Being; the mystery is precisely that sometimes everything becomes in a way visible. Then you have the direct experience of the sacred. In those situations there is, in one sense, nothing to explain, because all has become presence, all has become in some sense or degree manifest. The ultimate cause is then not entirely at a remove, but becomes visible, supporting itself, causing itself. When one sees into that, one to some extent sees right to the bottom of existence, behind which there is nothing. One sees God. And there is no “explanation” for God as experienced, precisely because in God all is visible and in no need of explanation.

    But I say that not on the basis of some external authority, but on the basis of my own experience. I make a rational statement on the basis of experience. I don’t deny rationality on the basis of some external authority or use external authority as a substitute for my own rationality, which is what you seem to be doing sometimes.

    Now you’ll get the last word, as I must go out.

  15. says

    “You, like the Muslims, claim to speak in God’s name”
    No, I’m just speaking in my own name.
    Yes, I believe that God exists and that He reveals Himself to us.
    No, I’m not a Jihadist just because the Bible hasn’t told me to be one.
    “You evidently think that…”
    “You think you know,…”
    “an authority where questioning is no longer required…”
    Blimey mate, I’m off for a laager before you chop me bloody ‘ead off!

  16. says

    From Robert’s description, what likely happened is that Shannon Urtnowski hadn’t gotten the memo yet (“Memorandum from Brian Williams to NBC staff: Never invite Robert Spencer to anything affiliated with NBC programming — and P.S. please don’t put powdered creamer in my morning lattes, thanks — B.W.”) at the time she was setting up the arrangement; then at some point someone higher up in the food chain saw the paper trail and immediately nixed it.

    “What should I tell Mr. Spencer?” Ms. Urtnowski then asked her superior. “Just tell him we found someone else closer to the Chicago studio.”

  17. says

    Traeh and Gerard, I’m curious about what kind of theological reading you guys do. I’d be glad to chat with you about books at Uncle Cephas.

    But on to Robert’s posting:

    Robert, the MSM is going to discredit itself with too many more incidents like the one you describe. Alternative media (such as this blog), is going to get the truth out about Islam and its blessing of behaviors which Christians would regard as sinful.

  18. says

    I comfort myself with the knowledge that I grew up during the liberal media monopoly and was exposed to Messrs. Huntley, Brinkley, Cronkite, Rather, et al every day, yet I am a Conservative. Before the advent of Fox News, there was no alternative to the liberal media except a few newspapers. Between the propaganda taught in public schools and the fabrications, obfuscations, and politically correct prose used by today’s corrupt, biased journalists, I wonder if toay’s youth stand a chance of learning the truth about anything. They are bombarded from kindergarten through college with Marxist agitprop, moral relativism, cultural Marxism, political correctness, multiculturalism, and anti-Americanism. Seventeen years or more of leftist brainwashing is probably irreversible.

    However, despite their relentless efforts to cover for muslim savages and islam, the media cannot hide the obvious from the unwashed masses. I believe that the media, or certain segments of the media, are not only advocates for the democrat party and the current administration, but follow guidelines set forth by the white house on what ‘news’ to report and how to report it. The current administration refuses to acknowledge the islamic connection to terrorism and terrorists; likewise the media. Many newsworthy stories are not reported because they are indictments of islam; there is an obvious collusion to hide the truth about islam from the public. Unless they stop reporting domestic violence in households headed by muhammads, most people can figure out dead females at muhammad’s house are honor killings and he’s a muslim. When they put two and two together, they should feel nothing but contempt for the idiots who brought them the compromised ‘news’. Disgusting!

  19. says

    Mohammedan morality — Shocking acts of violence.
    Media morallity — Lying about Mohammedans’ openly declared motives for shocking acts of violence.

  20. says

    You’re right. Although NBC does not mention the religion, only someone very uninformed or willfully blind would fail to see that nearly all such crimes are committed by Moslems.

  21. says

    I agree with you. I have been following a few Yahoo blogs that were about the Shafia’s senseless killing and I am happily surprised of the level of awareness from many and many commentators mostly from Canada. The people are not buying the idea that this crime has nothing to do with Islam. Period. Several people tried to convince other people but they were swiftly rebuked every single time.
    You can go on Yahoo and enter the key words: Islamic, Shafia, cast and shadow.
    Thank you.

  22. says

    Well spotted Meryl.
    Although it is true that that men “lord it” over women in Islamic societies, the problem is still Islam. Not men.
    We see here just another instance of laying the blame on anything other than the real culprit…islam!

  23. says

    God is outside of time. He has no yesterday or tomorrow. He does not need to wait for tomorrow. You are projecting our experience of time onto God. So God sees all of what we call “Time”. You say if He knows what we do before we do it, this removes our freedom. God knows what we do before time existed. God’s knowledge of our time does not impair our freedom.

    “a sham, because it had all been decided in advance”
    God’s knowledge of of all events does not mean “all had been decided in advance”. Knowledge and decision are not the same thing. I might have “known” NBC would whitewash the Shafia story. That does not mean I decided what Shafia would do. This does not reach God’s knowledge of our future, but I just throw it in as an illustration of knowledge and deciding, not being the same.

  24. says

    Another illustration:
    Imagine someone walking down a road. He comes to a crossroad and has to decide which road to take. From a distance you can see the situation and you know very well which road he will take. Your knowledge does not interfere with his freedom.
    I know this falls short of God’s knowledge since in my illustration i am merely working out what the traveller’s decision will be. I don’t see the future and I could be wrong.
    When we say “God sees the future” we must bear in mind that we are talking about our future, not His. God does not have a future. (sorry Lord!) Just kidding.
    Our terms of time and space do not apply to God.

  25. says

    Another point which I think is of relevance here is to note the difference between what is beyond Reason and what is against Reason. I can say that God exists but I do not understand how that is so. Not to understand some things is ok. But God does not ask me to accept that 2+2=5.
    This is not the case in Islam. In Islam Allah can do whatever he wishes. Thus if Allah says a horse is a fish then it’s a fish. This is precisely why Science developed in the Judaeo-christian culture of Western Europe and not in Islamic countries. In Islam a man may murder his wife and 3 daughters. People belonging to societies based on Judaeo-christian ethics would rightly say that “honor” kilings are morally absurd and indefensible.

  26. says

    gerard, I forgot to address my 1:50 pm comment above to you, so don’t miss it. Here’s an additional response:

    I don’t think it will do simply to say that God is entirely outside of time, and think one has thereby solved the problem. That really just amounts to a restatement of the problem. Basically you are saying “God knows with absolute certainty everything that will happen, because God is in a position to know with absolute certainty everything that will happen.” But that “position” in which you place God is so hypothetical on your part as to be little more than a mere restatement of the original claim: God knows with certainty absolutely everything that will happen. Your argument seems circular or very close to circular.

    And in any event, though God or the Absolute is not mortal, I doubt God is entirely beyond time, as I think God must be an open-ended reality, ever new, ever more than before.

    But we can agree to disagree. God has many mansions with room enough for both of us.

  27. says

    gerard wrote: “Imagine someone walking down a road. He comes to a crossroad and has to decide which road to take. From a distance you can see the situation and you know very well which road he will take. Your knowledge does not interfere with his freedom.”

    Your analogy has at least one major flaw. The person watching from a distance does not know anything. The traveler could take the left fork. He could take the right fork. He could turn around and go back the way he came. He could take a nap on the side of the road just in front of the fork. He could have a heart attack before being able to make a decision. He could take neither fork and simply walk on the grass.

    If god knows the future he could write it down in a book. And if it is written down already, you have no free will. And that means that god is a capricious and arbitrary jerk who decides that some people are screwed and others are saved. It is nonsense through and through. If there is a god, he does not know the future.

  28. says

    “But you don’t notice that your “knowing” would be only an educated guess”
    I ackowledged that in my second post which you obviously haven’t seen yet.
    I went on to suggest that God’s knowledge of your decisions doesn’t remove your freedom.
    I cannot “explain” such things. If I could I would be God. But if God did explain it to us, would we be able to understnd? i don’t think so. At best i can only suggest some ideas how we might separate in our minds the 2 ideas of another’s knowledge and my decision. Hence my illustrations which are bound to fall short. They can only be pointers, I think.
    Here’s 1 more pointer. Does my knowledge of what someone does interfere with his freedom? Does my knowledge of what someone did in the past interfere with his past decisions? And so would my certain knowledge of someone’s future actions (which I don’t have of course) interfere with his actions?
    ’til next time.

  29. says

    [saying “God knows with absolute certainty everything that will happen, ..”]

    Here again you are saying “everything that will happen” as if God’s perspective and our’s is the same. Or as if God is somehow tied to our “will happen”. “will happen” applies to our world not to God.
    Maybe it would be simpler just to say “God knows everything”? and avoid brain-fry?..

  30. says

    “If god knows the future he could write it down in a book”
    Some say He has. It’s called the Bible. eg in Matthew 25 Jesus talks about the last Judgement. It’s written down in a book as you said.

  31. says

    saucymugwump, you said,

    “…if there is a God, he does not know the future.”

    That might be going a little too far. If there is a God, he might well know some of the future, to some extent. But insofar as human beings are free, their decisions cannot always be known in advance. Your comment shows you understood the idea that if the outcomes of decision processes could be known with absolute certainty and precision in advance, they would not be real decision processes, but pre-determined machine-like processes. Since however we know there are real decision processes, not just automaton humans deluded that they are really deciding something, it follows that God’s knowledge of the future would in some ways be limited — God would know for example some general lines of what will happen, regardless of what humans decide. Some things are of course independent of human decisions.

  32. says

    “something allegedly beyond your reason, it seems to me you must be silent about that something”
    Have you been reading Wittgenstein? hehe!
    “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”.

    “I don’t think that anything is in principle entirely beyond reason”
    Can you explain to me how God created the Universe from nothing?

  33. says

    “The Logos thus seems to be inclusive of logic, but larger.”
    The God of the Bible is Love. We hear more of the “heart” of God rather than the “brain”, to use metaphors.
    But God is also Truth…
    “God is light and in Him is no darkness at all” John.
    Once again to indicate some connection with the article…
    There is no love in a man, it seems to me, who kills his own daughters.

  34. says

    gerard, you quoted me saying “If some things are beyond Reason, how can one make statements about those things? ” Then you replied,

    “You can’t. But God can.”

    So evidently you do base your position to some extent on authority, not on reason. That is what you mean when you say “God can.” You are referring to the Bible, are you not, and how some people have interpreted the Bible, and you are taking all that as authority that you simply accept, though you can’t explain important parts of it by means of reason. You can only restate those parts and assert them.

    I don’t personally agree that that is a correct understanding of Christianity or the Bible. I don’t think authority has that kind of place, though I know many, if not most, Christians do believe the Bible has that sort of absolute authority, as though it were God’s verbatim word. I take the Bible to be inspired by God, but human-mediated. The notion that a holy book is at every point verbatim God’s Word belongs properly to Islam, not to Christianity.

    Indeed, your statement “God can,” sounds identical in a way to the Islamic view of religion. (I’m not saying you are a Muslim, I know you are not a Muslim.) Muslims speak of “man-made” laws, and oppose to those “God’s laws.” As far as I’m concerned, Sharia is human-mediated, and not God’s law, not even inspired by God. You, like the Muslims, claim to speak in God’s name, thus you say, “you can’t, but God can.” How do you know what God can and can’t do? I’ll say how. You evidently think that the Bible is not merely inspired by God, but is God’s verbatim word. You think you know, without any human mediation or uncertainty, what God thinks, because the Bible tells you. Fortunately, the Bible doesn’t tell you to kill people. If it did, people who think the Bible is verbatim word of God would go out and kill people — like the jihadists.

    I think the Christ can be known through reason and experience, and only thus. The Bible can be part of that, but like everything else is a human-mediated experience. The Bible, in many parts I think, was inspired by God, and is therefore a special locus where reason and experience can in the long run be brought closer to the divine. The Bible no doubt can even today mediate a direct experience of the Christ. But that is entirely different from taking the Bible, or some human interpretation of it, as an authority where questioning is no longer required.

    As to the Trinity being beyond reason, I preferred your later conclusion, that you could indeed understand it. The Trinity is mysterious, but no more mysterious than the more general mystery of how a phenomenon can be both one and many at the same time. For example, the color spectrum. On the one hand, it flows continuously and without break from one color into the next, and the spectrum is one, is a unity. On the other hand, it is made up of different colors. The unity and the multiplicity are both equally real at the same time. Muslims only have trouble with the Trinity when they allow the logic of non-contradiction to go too far and keep them from looking at living experience, where paradoxes abound.

  35. says

    “So evidently you do base your position to some extent on authority” (not reason)
    Of course! And so do you!
    Have you ever been to China? (We’ll assume you haven’t).
    You accept its existence on the good report of others. That is reasonable. How much of your accepted knowledge could you personally verify? Very little if any. Can you verify any statement about history, without a time-machine? You reasonably accept the report of historians when something is generally accepted. Thus you accept that George Washington existed although you have never met him.
    When someone walks on water, raises the dead, heals lepers, I think he deserves a hearing.
    Mohammad never worked any miracles.

  36. says

    I heard the other day from someone who lived in Soviet Russia. He said when the “News” came on TV they would turn their chairs around, presenting their backs to the “telescreen” and continue their conversation. They knew that what came from “Pravda” was political propoganda and garbage.
    I suspect this is beginning to happen in Europe and US. I have binned my TV.

  37. says

    OT:

    Gerard, Traeh, Saucymugwump and Kepha,

    I’ve been impressed that you have been able to have a religious discussion”complete with some pretty major disagreements”without “yelling at each other” or “coming to blows”, so to speak.

    Of course, in the Muslim world, the Fatwas, death threats, and violent mobs would have been got up already…