Islamic Center of America, Dearborn: Pro-honor killing imam incites against Pamela Geller at Friday prayer

John C. Barile,

The audio's not working for me either.

correction: "[by "for" he probably meant "of"]" He probably meant "to", as in "put an end to that."

@Kinana of Khaybar : "There's nothing in the segment along the lines of recommending peaceful coexistence or reasonable discussion with the people he's naming as enemies of Islam and Muslims."

Nice job, KofK. So there is no suggestion of "interfaith dialogue" in his diatribe? Why am I not surprised? Everything is a big 'conspiracy' against Islam and Muslims in that doltish, sly victim-mongering imam's mind? Unfortunately, congregation will agree.

Wish I knew more Arabic! This video needs English sub-titles, to make sense of the "wyarat de nas, Allah oolah bokaja, Bukhari, apadi, ulum, Allah karam, karim… synasa jihad, khotba, etc." What a hoot! … Nice chanting voice, though. So what did he really say to his true believers? Color me cynical, but I bet it wasn't all friendly for us 'non-believers'. I hope Homeland Security is listening in on this guy and taking notes.

K of K,

I agree that the imam has "probably raised the risk of violence" but this is not incitement. This is the same argument that people use AGAINST Geller et al. It is also legitimate to say Geller et al "raise the risk of violence" against Muslims by criticizing Islam and/or Muslims; however, this is not incitement either. The same can be said about criticism of ANY individual or group.

The right to criticize must be protected for the sake of the anti-Jihad effort. Equating criticism with incitement is a very bad idea. It puts our own efforts at risk.

Teri,

I don't think the imam said anything illegal, from what I heard. I agree that simply stating that he was inciting Muslims to commit violence against Geller and others would be too strong a statement. There simply is no such smoking gun type of statement in the English segment I heard. I didn't say that he was necessarily or directly inciting Muslims to violence against Geller, and neither did Robert. I was quite careful in my statements, indicating that while the imam made a call for action of some sort, he did not specify what action be taken to stop these "Islam bashers" (i.e., Islam bashers who, he says, have "no right" to say what they are saying, and who are involved in a conspiracy and/or war against Islam, and who are to blame for the deaths of innocent Muslims). He was inciting them to do something to stop Geller et al.

What Robert is saying cannot be equated with what the imam is saying. Robert is speaking as a Westerner, primarily to Westerners, in the modern Western context. In this context, one does not reasonably and plausibly expect that criticism of Islam will incite non-Muslims to violence against Muslims. The imam is speaking as a Muslim, to Muslims, within an Islamic framework in which violence, including vigilante violence, against Islam critics is widely regarded as either exemplary or at least justifiable. Some even view it as a duty to defend Islam, and that they are sinning and in danger of hell-fire if they fail to act. It would be dangerously naive not to expect the possibility that some Muslims might be influenced by such statements to engage in violence against the non-Muslim critics. Pamela and Robert need security guards; this imam does not. Identified as the leaders of disbelief (kufr) by Muslims such as this imam, critics of Islam like Pamela, who are already at a high level of risk of being attacked, are put under an even larger threat.

K of K,

I agree with most of what you say. However, I still believe it is a mistake to call criticism "incitement".

Most people, when they hear "incitement" think "incitement to violence". From Robert's description ("Pro-honor killing imam incites against Pamela Geller....") I fully expected the imam to call for violence and to make statements in defense of honor killings. However, I found neither on the recording at the starting point that Robert specified.

It is possible that the imam is in favor of honor killings, or that he wants his congregation to commit violence. However, it is not proven by the recording so it is misleading at best to characterize it in this way.

I probably agree with Robert's judgment 95% of the time, and I appreciate what he does. However, in this case, I think he overreached. It is better, I think, to make statements that are provable by the available evidence rather than stating things as fact that are actually conjecture.

There are plenty of provable facts that show Islam to be a religion which confuses good and evil–promoting evil as if it were good and inhibiting good as if it were evil. There are many examples of Muslims who do in fact incite to violence. That is not the case here.

You claim that criticism is not incitement. Generally speaking, that is true. But you haven't taken into account the context; the mosque.

Everyone the world over knows that's when imams raise the rabble to go out and commit crimes in the name of Islam, 'sanctified rage' as VS Naipul calls it, it's often after a speech in a mosque. There are countless examples of imams giving speeches in mosques against this or that person or group which is then followed by an orgy of violence by 'the faithful'.

This is one of these countless examples. The subtext of this speeech in a Dearborn mosque is that Pamela Geller should be murdered in the name of Islam.

Nothing less!

Hilarious take on it WW !!!! I have not had the chance to watch it yet, as I'm being blown around like a leaf and rained on here in London :-/ . .yet your comment gave me the visuals and a good chuckle. Thanks :-)

Yes. . .and Mr Spencer prudently avoids saying ''incitement'' to {what?} to whit.

Teri,

Incitement can also refer to incitement to hatred. I think that is what Robert and Pamela meant, at the minimum, in their usage of the word incite. The fact that they don't mention violence in their commentaries seems to support this interpretation. They don't rule out that the imam could have meant to provoke violence, but, conspicuously, neither did the imam himself.

On the "pro-honor killing" label, I agree with much of your objection, but would just note that that is not necessarily what Robert meant. I suspect that Robert means that the imam's effective position amounts to being on the "pro-" side because the imam's deflections and denials enable the problem to continue, and the imam is attacking one of the most well-known opponents of honor killings. Pamela's trying to stop honor killings, while the imam is telling his congregation to stop her in order to defend the honor of Islam and Muslims. That said, the imam's stated position, at least from this segment, is that honor killings are un-Islamic.

---------------------------------------------

A couple of additional notes:

-past about 36:00ish, continuing with the theme of blaming the anti-Islam leaders, speakers, and teachers, for their anti-Islamic "conspiracy," the imam says "we (Muslims) should not accept this humiliation" and "we should not accept these insults," and "no one has a right to question our loyalty," and "we should put an end [to] that."

Together with the incitements to hatred, these last comments incite the congregation to some kind of actions to stop these anti-Islam leaders and speakers.

You wrote: 'It goes without saying they have every legal and moral right to have this conference in Dearborn and every right to remain unmolested.'

Fine, then they aren't breaking the law. But if anyone attacks them, they are breaking the law.

Glad we've got that clear .... unless you're suggesting that we should avoid Muslim areas because Muslims are so prone to flying into a violent rage. That's their problem, not ours. They should change their behaviour we shouldn't adjust ours to fit theirs. Right?

Exactly ! Put in a nutshell.

Buraq,

We are in agreement that Spencer, Geller et al are not breaking the law, and that if they are attacked the attacking party is breaking the law. That is a no-brainer.

However, I do not agree that this scenario would only be the problem of the attacker. If the attackee is injured, then it is also their problem.

My point is that just because Spencer, Geller et al have the legal and moral right to hold their conference in Dearborn doesn't mean it is a good idea to do so. I hope that it will have a positive outcome all around. However, they are certainly taking a bigger risk than if they were holding it elsewhere.

And, since they are holding their conference in such a way as to maximize provocation of Muslims, I really don't think they can complain about Muslims criticizing them for it.

Here's an example: If a large law enforcement organization held a conference in the middle of the neighborhood which most hates the police, this would be certain to stir things up. They would have every right to hold their conference in that neighborhood. However, both criticism and violence would be more likely to ensue than if they held their conference in a normal neighborhood. Would it serve the purposes of law enforcement to do this? The answer certainly isn't an automatic "yes".

"However, they are certainly taking a bigger risk than if they were holding it elsewhere."

Running away from them is exactly what the Muslims want you to do...

K of K,

OK, I will agree with you that it is possible to say "incitement to hatred". If that is what Robert meant, I think it would have been more clear to say "Imam incites hatred" and I would have agreed with that. I still say it is misleading the way it is.

It is true that the imam is vague about how he wants his congregation to respond to Geller et al. He is certainly an imam to watch.

I agree with your comments about "pro-honor killing". Had Robert made the same case that you just made, I would have had no problem with that. However, just to claim the imam is "pro-honor killing" is misleading at best, unless there is more evidence somewhere to prove it.

Thanks for the link, ImNoDhimmi. Audio worked fine.

exsgtbrown,

It may be the case that "running away from them is exactly what the Muslims want you to do." However, this still doesn't answer the question of whether it was a good idea to hold the conference in Dearborn. Is it better, in the long run, to maximize or to minimize the anger of Muslims? Maximizing Muslims' anger has the potential to foster more violence toward non-Muslims, which could have real victims who did not volunteer to put themselves at risk.

In any case, again, by making this choice it is predictable that Muslims will criticize them. You could even say they chose to maximize the criticism of Muslims by their own actions.

Weak stance, 'Teri' . You are conceding ground.

"Maximizing Muslims' anger has the potential to foster more violence toward non-Muslims, which could have real victims who did not volunteer to put themselves at risk."

"Maximizing Muslims' anger has the potential to draw immediate attention to their true agenda to to expose their lies....

London Jim,

I am not trying to defend any territory. I am expressing a viewpoint and raising a point for discussion. If someone else makes a good point I am happy to support it.

K of K,

In your latest quotes, he recommends the actions of objecting and speaking up. This does not threaten anyone. "Imam incites speaking up"?

His comments about securing an Islamic future are too vague to draw conclusions, in my opinion.

I agree that there are suggestions that this imam might be pro-honor killing and might be in favor of violence. But there is no solid evidence here, which is often the case. People who really are in favor of violence have learned to be very sneaky and vague, but that doesn't mean that everyone who is vague is also being sneaky.

Incidentally, I appreciate all of your comments in this discussion. Sometimes when a person dissents, others get all reactionary. I enjoy having an adult conversation that is clear and respectful.

Are you related to Tony Blair ? :-)

You wrote: 'My point is that just because Spencer, Geller et al have the legal and moral right to hold their conference in Dearborn doesn't mean it is a good idea to do so.'

So, we'll cross out Dearborn, then. And then what if another area becomes Islam-saturated? Cross that one off the list, too? Then another and another.

If we follow that logic, we'll end up not going anywhere for fear of causing ill-feeling. That's dhimmitude! Then Islam has a free ride into Main Street in every town and city in America.

No, I categorically disagree. Aim for the heart of the monster!

Teri,

Thanks, Teri. You are raising reasonable concerns that should be addressed. Now with the speaking up/objecting parts which I missed on my first pass through the segment, I must admit it's not as bad as I thought initially, at least in terms of explicitly recommended actions. It generally takes more than one pass through to get a good grasp on exactly what was said. It was important for me to listen to it again with specific issues in mind.

The imam is still inciting hatred against Geller. He still leaves some unanswered questions about how he expects Muslims to stop Pamela and the other anti-honor-killing, anti-Islamization speakers, leaders, etc. With a sermon like this, in which the imam seems to me to be playing with fire, we must remain cautious.

Teri,

On the choice of Dearborn, I agree with the others who indicate we should not cede ground. I think there are some problems there that are being swept under the rug, and this conference might help open them up to the scrutiny they deserve.

K of K,

I hope you are right about the choice of Dearborn. The conference does have the potential to bring attention to the area. The question is, at what cost? Hopefully, the event will be held without any violence.

Teri, I've followed your arguments about the "incitement" question and I think you make a reasonable point. Perhaps the word "incites," with its legal implications, would be better replaced by, 'smears,' or 'rails against' or 'personally attacks'--he IS calling her out by name. I think the imam walked a fine line with incitement--if only in the common definition of the word, perhaps not in the legal implications of same. Fair enough.

What I have trouble with, though, is this business about Dearborn being the "wrong" place. Really? Is it OK with you if any city on our own soil becomes the province of a parallel society--one that lives by its own laws and customs--when those are antithetical--often hostile--to our own? I find that concept unthinkable, unacceptable. If you really think that Spencer, Geller, et al, are showing reckless abandon, or at least great bravery going to Dearborn...then you may put more credence into that "incitement" charge than you have revealed. And, I'm not aware that there are any "wrong" places for muslims in this country. You can even see them (and their fingerprints) at Ground Zero, The Pentagon and Shanksville, PA. Unless the USA is now a one-way-street for muslims and I missed the memo? In any case, I think Dearborn is the RIGHT place, this is the RIGHT time and Robert Spencer is the RIGHT man to carry the message: This is America; and we're not ceding territory to--nor accepting barbarity from--ANYONE, least of all islam!

Anyway, just my 2 cents having monitored the back-and-forth here. I think we all hope no violence will ensue. But we're dealing with the most violent people on this planet. Perhaps it's time more of our countrymen see this and understand it for what it is--whatever the consequences...

George,

Thanks for your 2 cents. Dearborn is a risky choice, which Robert acknowledges when he says they are spending a lot of money on security.

With or without this imam, having the conference in Dearborn virtually guarantees they receive maximum criticism from Muslims, and virtually guarantees there is some sort of counter-demonstration by Muslims. They must surely have known this from the start.

As I've said elsewhere, if it all turns out well, people will say it was a brilliant choice of venue. If it doesn't, however, someone could be hurt, and not necessarily someone who volunteered for the risk. Let's hope it all goes peacefully.

"The question is, at what cost? Hopefully, the event will be held without any violence. "

There is no doubt that any violence that happens will have the Muslims instigating it...The more Muslims slap the face of the non-Muslims the more the non-Muslims awaken to the truth that Islam is much more that a religion that is being victimized by greasy Islamophobes...people will soon realize that the greasy Islamophobes have been right all along...Islam is seeking to destroy all things and peoples that are Un-Islamic...Intimidation, extortion, violence and death are some of the tools the Muslims employ with efficiency. The Muslims really hate it when the truth about Islam reaches Infidel ears...That is one reason they so vehemently object to these conferences that openly discuss Islam and the activities of Islam. It's time to quit denying Islam's true intentions. You can only hold your head in the sand for so long and at some point in time you may realize you need air.

Good point, LemonLime.

Denis,

As Robert noted, "It's at minute 28:23 -- the imam starts railing against Pamela Geller for our Jessica Mokdad Conference on Honor Killing."

The English portion that provides the context is from about 24:30 to about 37:30.

I found ImNoDhimmi's link to the sermon on the USTREAM site to be reliable.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/04/islamic-center-of-america-dearborn-pro-honor-killing-imam-incites-against-pamela-geller-at-friday-pr.html#comment-875720

So—this "Muslim sister" "died mysteriously"—since when have *gunshot wounds* been a "mysterious" cause of death? It's not as though Jessica Mokdad died from natural causes, or anything like it.

And this Imam shows that he really *knows* that it is an "Honor Killing" when he makes reference to her probably having done "something her step-father didn't like".

And since when is it hateful to point out the hate in others? Often it seems that Pamela Geller and a few other Anti-Jihadists are the only ones who care about the victims of "Honor Killings".

Certainly, this Imam cares *nothing* for his "Muslim female sister"—since she rendered herself a legitimate target for murder because she proved "insufficiently Islamic".

Teri Adams wrote:

My point is that just because Spencer, Geller et al have the legal and moral right to hold their conference in Dearborn doesn't mean it is a good idea to do so. I hope that it will have a positive outcome all around. However, they are certainly taking a bigger risk than if they were holding it elsewhere.
......................................

I share you concerns about violence, Teri—but consider: you are already *ceding a part of the United States to Dar-al-Islam* if it is off-limits to hold a conference against "Honor Killing" there.

And where else should be considered "off limits" besides Dearborn, Michigan? Minneapolis? The Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC? Southern Florida?

There are now over 750 "No Go" areas in France. Do we want the same thing to happen in the United States?

More:

And, since they are holding their conference in such a way as to maximize provocation of Muslims, I really don't think they can complain about Muslims criticizing them for it.
......................................

Why is it accepted as "provocation" of Muslims to raise the issue of "Honor Killing"?

Doesn't this show that Muslims consider "Honor Killing" a legitimate part of Islam? Else, why would Muslims have a problem with this conference at all? They would, instead, share the concerns. This *itself* is an important issue to highlight.

More, in reply to exsgtbrown:

It may be the case that "running away from them is exactly what the Muslims want you to do." However, this still doesn't answer the question of whether it was a good idea to hold the conference in Dearborn. Is it better, in the long run, to maximize or to minimize the anger of Muslims? Maximizing Muslims' anger has the potential to foster more violence toward non-Muslims, which could have real victims who did not volunteer to put themselves at risk.
......................................

It may indeed "maximize Muslim anger" in the short run—especially as regards the safety of the participants in the conference such as Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller.

But practicing dhimmitude——*especially* on such an issue as taking pains not to "incite" Muslim anger by *tacitly condoning their murder of girls and women*—is only going to enable further Muslim aggression in future.

If they learn that they can murder their own vulnerable female relatives without a word of condemnation from the West, how much will this embolden them when it comes to violence against Infidels?

I believe we have to make a stand here. Kudos to the brave people who have put on and will attend this conference. I wish I could be there.

LemonLime wrote:

TeriAdams' concerns about violence would be immensely reduced were everyone attending the conference to bring a cellphone camera and/or other camera...
.....................................

Excellent idea, LemonLime. This, really, should be standard operating procedure at *any* Anti-Jihad event in the face of potential Muslim or leftist violence.

More:

It will likely, unfortunately, have to wait until someone other than I recommends it, for we know that virtuous principle of Western democracy: The idea itself does not matter, no matter how useful or laudable it may be: all that matters is who said it, and whether we like him or not.
.....................................

*Sigh*.

"But practicing dhimmitude——*especially* on such an issue as taking pains not to "incite" Muslim anger by *tacitly condoning their murder of girls and women*—is only going to enable further Muslim aggression in future."

This is well known in Nigeria, Sudan, Ethiopia,Malaysia, Maldives,Yemen,Iran,Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and just about anywhere else where the Muslims gain the upper hand...

"Doesn't this show that Muslims consider "Honor Killing" a legitimate part of Islam? Else, why would Muslims have a problem with this conference at all? They would, instead, share the concerns. This *itself* is an important issue to highlight."

I believe there are two reasons Muslims may have an issue with the conference. One is that some of them support honor killings. But not all. The other reason is that Islam is an honor-shame culture so they object to anything that is embarrassing to Islam. Muslims who do not approve of honor killings may still have a greater than normal aversion to embarrassment. So their objection to the conference does not prove they approve of honor killing. It does show, in my opinion, that as a group they would prefer to sit around and do nothing about honor killing rather than expose something embarrassing about Islam.

A comparable situation is that some people in the Catholic church structure have been complicit in the cover-up of pedophilia. This does not show they approved of pedophilia. To my knowledge, there is no Christian doctrine approving of pedophilia. They simply wanted to avoid embarrassment (which of course allowed more kids to become victims.)

------------
"But practicing dhimmitude——*especially* on such an issue as taking pains not to "incite" Muslim anger by *tacitly condoning their murder of girls and women*—is only going to enable further Muslim aggression in future.

"If they learn that they can murder their own vulnerable female relatives without a word of condemnation from the West, how much will this embolden them when it comes to violence against Infidels?"

When have I ever advocated condoning murder or refraining from speaking out about honor killings? That is not my position at all so this is a straw man.

My point was simply to question the choice of venue. Obviously, many Muslims, to varying degrees, hate the counter-Jihad movement and its participants. Holding a conference in the midst of the people who hate you the most is certainly a provocative move. Do they have the right to hold it there? Of course.

Incidentally, I do not advocate that the counter-Jihad movement leave Dearborn alone. Not at all. I admire the chutzpah of David Wood and his friends who have gone in and challenged the status quo there, and I think they have been very effective. However, in that case, they were not drawing a crowd of non-Muslims into the area and putting them all at risk. I'm sure the conference organizers did a good job with security, but they cannot control every factor. Someone could have been hurt taking a taxi back to the airport or going to a restaurant, for example.

It's a little like holding a rich person's conference in the middle of a poverty-stricken high-crime neighborhood. I am not against rich people; however, I think it would be considered provocative for them to do such a thing. If they want to have a positive influence on the neighborhood, I think there are better ways to go about it.

Teri Adams wrote:

"Doesn't this show that Muslims consider "Honor Killing" a legitimate part of Islam? Else, why would Muslims have a problem with this conference at all? They would, instead, share the concerns. This *itself* is an important issue to highlight."
...

I believe there are two reasons Muslims may have an issue with the conference. One is that some of them support honor killings. But not all. The other reason is that Islam is an honor-shame culture so they object to anything that is embarrassing to Islam. Muslims who do not approve of honor killings may still have a greater than normal aversion to embarrassment. So their objection to the conference does not prove they approve of honor killing. It does show, in my opinion, that as a group they would prefer to sit around and do nothing about honor killing rather than expose something embarrassing about Islam.
...................................

There's an entwined issue here, Teri. It's not only that Muslims generally find the issue of "Honor Killings" an embarrassment—in Infidel lands, anyway—it's that "Honor Killings" *themselves* are a reaction to a family member "embarrassing" a Muslim in the Islamic sense.

If we ignore this issue, it just strengthens Muslim aggression on several fronts.

More:

"But practicing dhimmitude——*especially* on such an issue as taking pains not to "incite" Muslim anger by *tacitly condoning their murder of girls and women*—is only going to enable further Muslim aggression in future.

"If they learn that they can murder their own vulnerable female relatives without a word of condemnation from the West, how much will this embolden them when it comes to violence against Infidels?"
...

When have I ever advocated condoning murder or refraining from speaking out about honor killings? That is not my position at all so this is a straw man.
...................................

Teri, I *never* meant to imply that *you* condoned "Honor Killings", nor have I ever believed that you held such a position.

I just meant that Infidel silence on the matter will be taken as acceptance or even approval *by Muslims*—especially in a culture where "silence" is held to "equal consent", as is the case with forced marriages.

I believe that—especially given the above Muslim proclivity—that we Infidels have to make it *abundantly clear* that we do not condone "Honor Killings", and that we never will.

More:

My point was simply to question the choice of venue. Obviously, many Muslims, to varying degrees, hate the counter-Jihad movement and its participants. Holding a conference in the midst of the people who hate you the most is certainly a provocative move. Do they have the right to hold it there? Of course.

Incidentally, I do not advocate that the counter-Jihad movement leave Dearborn alone. Not at all. I admire the chutzpah of David Wood and his friends who have gone in and challenged the status quo there, and I think they have been very effective. However, in that case, they were not drawing a crowd of non-Muslims into the area and putting them all at risk. I'm sure the conference organizers did a good job with security, but they cannot control every factor. Someone could have been hurt taking a taxi back to the airport or going to a restaurant, for example.
...................................

Sure—every Infidel attending that conference must know they face a risk. But if we cede Dearborn to Islam, what's next?

We cannot allow them to make *any* part of the United States de facto Dar-al-Islam, because they sure as hell won't stop there.

In any case, thank you for your thoughtful and lengthy reply, Teri. Hope you are well.

And imperative--because the local authorities, police and judiciary, are compromised by willful blindness to honor killings, are rendered blind to an abhorrent "cultural" practice whose very existence is vigorously denied by those who commit or abet it; swept-up under the rubric of mere "domestic violence," as if this particular "cultural practice" were generic and universal, and not particular to Muslim societies.

gravenimage,

Thank you for your thoughts as well, and I basically agree with most all the points you make except that I still don't agree that those arguments justify Dearborn as the best choice for a conference. However, I think we've probably exhausted the subject and will probably have to agree to disagree on that one point.

And I am certain we both agree.... Long live Spencer, Geller, et al! Down with honor killings! Down with Sharia! Up with human rights!

Teri Adams,

"Muslims who do not approve of honor killings may still have a greater than normal aversion to embarrassment. So their objection to the conference does not prove they approve of honor killing."

So you're saying the Muslims who don't actively condone honor killings would rather passively enable the killing of a girl/woman killed for the reasons of the defense of their co-religionists' psychotically fanatical religious culture, than suffer the "dishonor" of embarrassment over their precious culture being besmirched publically...!? If so, that makes them beneath contempt (and that's putting it quite generously).

More pertinently, it marks them as our enemy, for such an attitude shows which side they are on -- and it's not on the side of humanity (which should be synecdochal for the human rights of individual freedom, dignity and eguality over and above any medieval ideology).

Teri,

Re the meaning of "incitement" issue, I've just noticed that, less than an hour after Robert posted the article atop this thread, in his very next article about this same general topic, he again mentioned incitement in the title, and wrote in the article:

"An imam has even incited hatred against Pamela Geller during a Friday sermon."

Posted by Robert on April 28, 2012 11:25 AM |

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/04/please-stand-with-us-against-islamic-supremacist-intimidation-and-incitement-in-dearborn.html

This appears at least two hours before either of us discussed what he could have meant by "incitement".

@ tellurye: ""Now, Pang...Pamela Geller, is another Terry Jones, except female"
Well, least he didnt lie about that. But you gotta love
"...and she talks about a woman who was mur...died mysteriously. We are not even sure of the facts…""

This oft noticed "we are not even aware of the facts" quip rolls off Muslim lips when one of their own gets caught committing murder, like in this Mokdad case. Like in the Merah case in Toulouse, where initial Muslim reactions was they were not sure of 'factual' information; or when Merah's father questioned whether his son really did the killings. Now this imam uses the same slippery argument, to once again obfuscate that this girl was 'honor' murdered, not just "died mysteriously" as he alluded.

And this is the critical point, that we see in Muslims enacting their murderous activities, that when it is brought to light that it was indeed a Muslim who did it, their knee-jerk reaction is "we are not sure of the facts". Take that as a future template for Muslim response when one of their own perps is either caught or taken out. Then they switch gears into "we're the victims in the story"… blah blah blah. You can pretty much count-down on it, when a Muslim perp kills… Take… 3… 2… 1…. Action!.. "We are not sure of what happened"… "we're the victims"… Look for it, they will not disappoint. ;-)

John C. Barile wrote:

I was priviledged to attend, along with others I know, this conference, where we heard a stellar line-up of speakers give irrefutable proofs--including first-hand witness--of social ills permitted by an Islamic code of silence and complicity.
...............................

John, I'm so glad you could attend! I know you live in the Detroit area.

Sorry to bring up painful memories, but as someone who has lost a child—through illness, and absolutely no fault of your own—I would imagine that the subject of "Honor Killing" is especially poignant for you.

It sounded like a wonderful conference. I have the greatest respect for Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and the other Anti-Jihadists for pursuing this important issue.

"She does it to herself intentionally". "SILENCE IS CONSENT" in Islam.