Muslim shouting "Allahu akbar" beheads wife in front of their six children, throws her head off apartment roof

yes you have a point there my friendl. why muslim women continue to accept islam when the koran says most of the inhabitants of hell will be woemen. i don't think they have much of a choice, i believe they're supressed under shariah law so they just eat anything that's fed to them

Albert, you are right.

For the most part all we hear from Muslim women is how wonderful they have it. That's because any Muslim woman is crushed if she acts on an impulse to criticize or reject the Islamic attitude toward women. So we almost never hear from such women. And so, of course, Muslims and non-Muslims who can't or won't see a nanometer below the surface say things like, "I don't hear many complaints from Muslim women. So the situation is not bad."

In this way Islam sanitizes the gene pool of those qualities that would challenge or leave Islam. Quite self-perpetuating and ingenious, in an evil way. The Lex Luthor of "religions".

"But why Muslim women continue to accept Islam is beyond me. "

You seem to be somewhat infantilizing women, as though they were softer, nicer, more childlike, than men are. Thus, it becomes less conceivable that these precious women would continue not only to countenance their oppression, but more often than not (unless you've been living in a cave) enabling it at best, actively supporting and defending and practicing it, at worst.

"Only in Islam can a person literaly slaughter another human being and give their god (in this case demon god-Allah) the glory for their gory. (Allah akbar)
Islam is one very sick perverse excuse for a religion."

I agree; and it seems many even in the anti-Islam movement can't quite keep this in focus.

It's the Violence, Stupid

I would tolerate Muslims and their Islam -- and I would support our societies fully tolerating Muslims and their Islam on a legally-based equality with the practitioners of any other religion -- if Muslims were not physically violent.

As repellant and ridiculous as I may find most of their ideas and texts, if they didn't act on them -- if they showed that they have learned like the rest of mankind has (with the usual exceptions based on human imperfection noted) how to modernize their religion and had long ago ceased to be physically violent, I would defend their right to be equally tolerated in my society.

I sometimes think many in the anti-Islam movement start blurring the issue and deeming Muslims and Islam unacceptable even without the physical violence they perpetrate. Stories like this, and thousands of other stories like this of various flavors of atrocity, should serve to keep our eye on the ball -- preventing the likelihood of increasing terror attacks in the only way feasible: extricating Muslims from our societies because obviously physical violence, often to a grotesque and ghoulish degree, is an essential ingredient in their religious culture -- magnified to a level beyond ordinary criminal violence by the supremacist expansionism which is at the heart of their religion.

Muslim shouting "Allahu akbar" beheads wife in front of their six children, throws her head off apartment roof

A particularly horrific honor murder in Germany. The detail about his shouting "Allahu akbar" is in this German story (thanks to Pamela Geller).
....................................

Human sacrifice to the bloody "god" Allah in modern, civilized Germany.

And Muslims do love their beheadings.

This is the story posted on Jihad Watch two stories before this one:

"Graphic Video: Muslims Slaughter Convert to Christianity in Tunisia"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/06/graphic-video-muslims-slaughter-convert-to-christianity-in-tunisia.html

It shows the savage beheading of a Muslim apostate.

The story right before that was this one:

"Hamas-linked CAIR's Dawud Walid: Jews have incurred Allah's wrath, Muhammad was "correct" to massacre Jews"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/06/hamas-linked-cairs-dawud-walid-jews-have-incurred-allahs-wrath-muhammad-was-correct-to-massacre-jews.html

This story is reference to the "Prophet" Muhammed's beheading of up to 900 victims of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe—the entire male population over the age of puberty.

Beheadings have been a major part of Islam since its earliest days.

More:

"Husband 'butchers wife, 30, in front of their six children before throwing her dismembered head from roof of their apartment'"
....................................

And this specific horror reminds me of nothing so much as Muzzammil "Mo" Hassan, the Bridges TV owner in Buffalo, New York, who beheaded his petite wife Aasiya with a sword.

That story was covered extensively at JW. Here is one:

"Buffalo: Moderate Muslim who beheaded wife says he's the real victim"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/buffalo-moderate-muslim-who-beheaded-wife-says-hes-the-real-victim.html

More:

A man is under arrest in Germany after killing his wife in front of his six young children and cutting her into pieces.
....................................

This has the effect of terrorizing the children, as well. *This* is what happens if you step out of line...

More:

Orhan Sircasi then ran on to the roof of his apartment building clutching her severed head in one hand and a butcher's knife in the other.

The 32-year-old killer of Turkish origin fought off police as they tried to seize him early this morning by lunging at them with the knife and swinging the head like a club.

Orhan Sircasi threw his wife's head from the roof of the apartment building, landing in the courtyard below ...
....................................

And then he had to attack the Infidel authorities, as well—even using his poor wife's severed head as a weapon. I won't be able to forget that visual anytime soon...

Of course, his lawyer will just use this in an "insanity" defense...because what sane person could do such a thing? Never mind all the examples of Muslims both beheading people and "Honor Killing" their wives...

More:

Then officers entered the apartment in the Kreuzberg district of the capital to find the dismembered body of his wife and the six children aged from nine months to ten years.

'They were in a terrible state,' said a neighbour. 'He made them watch as he butchered their mother then cut her up into little pieces.'
....................................

My God. Poor kids...

shortfattexan wrote:

And on a side note, I'll bet you a deutschemark (probably worth more than a euro right now) that the kids go to Muslim foster parents.
....................................

I wouldn't take that sucker's bet, Texan. I'm sure you're right—and this would be true for pretty much anywhere in the West. Madness....

More:

Neighbours alerted police in the early hours of the morning after they heard screaming coming from the flat. It is unclear what caused the fatal row.
....................................

My guess would be *Islam*...

More:

Media reported that the man was often violent towards his wife, beating and kicking her if she displeased him, especially after he had been drinking....
....................................

Ah—the worst of Islam and the West. Wife beating and "Honor Killing" further fueled by alcohol abuse. Lovely.

sanman is asking the right question however his answer to his question is not correct. they are not brainwashed. and your comments about the women in islam: not only they are dragetory but it shows clearly that you not know and understand what kinf of lives they are leading. if you take the time and inderstand islam and sharia laws, then you would not make the comment that you made. when was the last time you lived in a islamic country? I have and i know exactly what those poor women are going through. they are 100% helpless.
M

"Anybody notice anything unusual? The police went to extraordinary means to avoid killing him. If this happened in Canada (and probably the US too) he would have been shot dead at the first swing of the knife."

Canada and the US??? You must be kidding. Saturated with PC MC as our societies are (this goes also for the UK of course), our police are going to go to great pains to avoid killing a member of the Most Privileged Ethnic Group in the Cosmos as defined by PC MC: Muslims.

Sorry miriam, I've seen too many stories here at JW about Muslim women defending and supporting Islam to be able to trust them -- any more than the men who oppress them -- any longer.

Also, one could argue that millions of Muslim men are being oppressed by their own Islam. That doesn't make them any less dangerous to us.

Being stoned on islam ALONE is dangerous stuff ...

Hey Champ,

"Being stoned on islam ALONE is dangerous stuff ..."

Indeed. You know that famous Karl Marx quote: "Religion is the opiate of the masses."

And I'd say that "Islam is the crack cocaine of the Ummah."

Muslims are well known as "butchers". Very appropriate and they prove it every day by their dastardly acts!!

And I'd say that "Islam is the crack cocaine of the Ummah."

Hear, hear, LemonLime!

you are being totally irrational here. look at what you are saying? how many women came to site defending islam? 10? what do you know what it is to live under islamic dictatorship? nothing. it does not matter if you are a man and a women. you anaology is that of a 10 year old at best. the blacks were kept hostages here for decades. did you forget that? how were they being kept a hostage? can you answer this? how is mugabe in zimbabwe keeping thier people chained? can you answer this? how is north korea keeping their people under a tight lid? can you answer this? how is hugo chavez and Raul Castro oppressing their people? can you answer this? if you have a rational answer for any of these questions, you will see that your comments are out to china.
M

Miriam, my friend,

I have to agree with Lemonlime on this one. Far too many muslim women are complicit in the savagery of islam, if only by saying nothing, and in many cases actively participating in its horrors. Take, for instance, the case of muslim women living in Western countries who arrange for their daughters to be horrifically mutilated, or travel overseas to have it done because THEY KNOW it is condemned in the West? If this isn't complicity, then I don't know what is. And if ALL these poor muslim women want dearly to leave islam, why don't we read more stories about them holding demonstrations or killing their husbands, PARTICULARLY in Western countries? When was the last time you read a story about a muslim woman killing her abusive husband? Rarely...... Why? Because they have been indoctrinated into the same purile, abusive, supremacist BS that all other muslims have been, just like you were. You, my friend, however, had the wherewithal to escape that putrid "religion," so there's only so many excuses you can give to those who continue to buy into the lamest, vilest ideology every to infect mankind that is islam. I hope you are well and that your son is safe. All the best,

Ima

what are you talking about? the reason this is the greates country on earth is because of our compassion for humanity. so let's not worry about all the minorities in the islamic world such as jews andchristians. to hell with them. right? what is wrong with you?
M

LemonLime is not being irrational; if anything, you are the one being irrational here. Also, every now and then your position against islam and company shifts JUST enough to where I could swear that you are now defending islam--as exampled in your above post to LemonLime. Hmm, at times you send really mixed messages, miriam. Just sayin' ...

It's irrational to give muslims the benefit of a doubt; especially since they follow mohammad and what's written in the quran and other islamic texts. And lets not forget the countless crimes committed by muslims in the name of allah on a daily basis; and of course lying is allah approved, as well.

Only an IRRATIONAL person finds muslims on the whole trustworthy. True, not all muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are muslim, and I'm not very good at telling the difference. So, given this list of reasons, I cannot think of one sound reason why anyone should ever trust a muslim--not when our lives and liberties are at stake.

hi champ! how am I defending islam here? and I am not sure what is the mixed message here? didnt robert and pamella go to dearborn trying to show the islamists and free thinking people about honor killing? was this the wrong thing to do to stand by that poor woman who got mutdered in the name of honor killing? I really would like you to tell me what the mix messages are?
M

"how am I defending islam here? and I am not sure what is the mixed message here?"

Your strong reaction to LemonLime suggests to me that your loyalties are somewhat divided where muslims are concerned, along with your constant defense of muslims on the whole. Hey I get that you despise islam, but I'm puzzled as to why you seem to have a difficult time connecting islam WITH muslims. At times you are hard on muslims, while at other times you defend them on the whole; so imo, this is a mixed message.

"didnt robert and pamella go to dearborn trying to show the islamists and free thinking people about honor killing? was this the wrong thing to do to stand by that poor woman who got mutdered in the name of honor killing?"

No, of course this wasn't wrong; but their going to Dearborn has nothing to do with this particular subject, so I'm not sure why you brought that up ...

well put wellingtom. My point exactly.
M

"you are being totally irrational here. look at what you are saying? how many women came to site defending islam? 10? "

I wasn't referring to women who came to the JW site here. I was referring to news stories about Muslimas enabling and enthusiastically supporting Islam.

What about all those women -- mothers, grandmothers, aunts -- who hold down little girls and cut out their clitorises, all over Africa, into parts of the Middle East, and SE Asia (and probably in many more places around the world where Muslims are in high numbers)?

Anyway, I can't trust any Muslims -- I don't care if they are male, female, green, purple or polka-dotted. All Muslims are suspects. The lives of my fellow citizens are stake. Don't tell me how to think or what to do to protect my society.

Sorry Wellington; once again you are making a distinction that we can assume exists hypothetically, but which we can not sufficiently verify for the purposes of the safety of our societies.

Of what use is such a hypothetical distinction? Not merely of no use; I maintain it is positively harmful to what should be our #1 priority -- defending our societies from Mohammedans; because that distinction keeps the flame alive of the irrational letting down of the guard with regard to innumerable Muslims deemed harmless not on the basis of actual evidence, but on the basis of axioms in a paradigm.

With any other group on Earth, such a distinction would give me pause, and I would support giving them the benefit of the doubt. Not so with Muslims. The stakes are too high to trust any Muslim, let alone whole swaths of them created in the mental laboratory.

Ah, LL, you missed (or took too lightly) that sentence of mine where I said, "Respecting whether the second type should have sympathy directed towards her is another matter and does not negate the demarcation of Muslim women into the two types I have just made."

I first and foremost was not interested in my 3:27 P.M. post about what should be done with all Muslim women but simply where the truth lies. If you wish to call this something merely hypothetical, this is not an unreasonable assessment but often times the pursuit of the complete truth does entail hypotheticals. I think your very rational mind will concede this. Hey, I'm either right with my demarcation of Muslim women into two groups or I'm not. What to do about this, assuming I am right, is, as I already indicated, another matter. Don't want to confuse matters now, do you?

During WWII, it caused Winston Churchill many pangs of conscience that multitudes of German women and children would be killed by Allied bombing as part of what it took to end the menace of Nazism. Such is the price that civilization has to pay at times, and it is a very high price indeed to keep civilization alive and anti-civilization ultimately dead.

In short, I'm closer to your point about making no distinctions among Muslim women, in order for the West to survive, than you may have surmised. Surely, you will admit that there are scores of women in the Muslim world who are privately fed up with the religion that they have been brought up with but who fear to say anything for personal safety's sake. Yes, I understand that for purposes of Western survival these women may have to be considered expendable, but this doesn't mean I can't grieve for them, just as the Great Man privately grieved for all the German women and children who had to die to end the Nazi menace. One can, you know, feel sympathy for at least some of those you have to ignore or even destroy in order to prevail. The history or warfare is replete with such examples. And what contrasts civilization from anti-civilization, among other things, is that grief can be felt by the civilized human being respecting certain necessities that the person in full anti-civilization mode never feels. Your turn.

Good post there, Albert, but one correction: it is not mein kuranmpf that declares the majority in hell are women. That was mo the putrid in a hadith. Bukhari Which is sahih (reliable).

"It was narrated from ‘Imraan ibn Husayn that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I looked into Paradise and I saw that the majority of its people were the poor. And I looked into Hell and I saw that the majority of its people are women.”

@Miriam and Lemonlime

You both have good points. Miriam, your experience is mainly with Persian women living in Persia I have no doubt when you say that the majority are 100% victim and can't escape the insanity. It's a violent, vicious, deadly theocracy.

Lemonlime is correct in that there are plenty (well more than 10) muslim women who post here and elsewhere all over the net defending the most vile aspects of islam. We're all also aware of muslimas born and raised in the West, with the protection of the laws of the West, who have actively aided in the abuse and killings of their own daughters or other muslim females.

I myself have had many, personal, real life interactions with the most vicious and nasty Pakistani muslimas who ALWAYS used the "well, it's my culture" defense to defend their islamically inspired nastiness. The nastiest Turkish twats are not the ones who are beaten and abused. They are the ones who most voraciously defend the islam endorsed subjugation and abuse of women and are the ones from abuse free backgrounds.

The ones who are really victims of allah's hell on earth for women don't utter a peep in defense of islam, they also don't utter a peep in criticizing it. They are mute and complacent like most victims of long term abuse.

So, you're both right. But the real experts on this topic would be one of our own who freed themselves from that madness: Fineliving and Liberated.

generally the more educated the muslim women are the more they tend to develop independent and critical thinking about their religion. This is not to say they are apostates but they are not so willing to protect islam. In Iran and other 2nd world muslim countries the women do have an independent streak that is missing in 3rd world countries as Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and so on. This is not to say that there are quite a few highly educated muslim women who defend islam voraciously. But most educated muslim women have reservations about the faith that was spoon fed to them.

To prevent this independent and critical thinking about islam, the Taliban and other muslim groups are violently opposed to female education. As we have seen them bombing girl's schools and even poisoning school girls. They, and Islam want women to be stupid, silent, and unseen to the outside world.

To the extent that you are correct, and I think you are correct to a fair degree, we can see how intelligence and knowledge can undermine Islam from within. Of course, there are ignorant (in the educational or IQ sense) Muslim women who still discern that Islam is not good for them and is a con game, and there are some intelligent Muslim women who will defend Islam to the last (brainwashed they are just as other intelligent people have been about other totalitarian ideologies), but, by and large, knowledge and intelligence are ultimately enemies of Islam and you are right to conclude that the more a male imbibes Islam, the more, generally speaking, he will fear female education---or women driving cars or riding bicycles or participating in sports without black garbage bags being worn or going out just with the girls without male accompaniment or... or... or...

If Islam is ultimately to be defeated, I see it as an imperative that many of the women of Islam finally come to their senses and realize that Islam is a guarantee that women can never be equal to men in this world (or the next for that matter---didn't Mohammed himself reputedly say that most of the people in Hell are women?). One of the keys to defeating Islam is to get its women, in large numbers, realizing that they've been had. And boy, have they.

Wellington I believe you are referring to Bukhari 62:124, which is one of several similar hadiths that are nicely expounded here.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Women/in-hell.html

I don't really disagree with what you've argued, LL, but I would still point out two things. First, we can only do with Muslims what the present law allows. I've always tried to be realistic about what can be legally done with Muzzies and what can't. Stopping Muslim immigration could be done on pretexts of various sorts, but not on the basis of religion. I wish we could on the basis of religion since I find Islam at least as nefarious as Marxism and fascism but under present Constitutional and statutory law no way. And any call to not have Islam included in First Amendment protection to religion is simply pie-in-the-sky stuff. I do however think it eventually legally and constitutionally possible for profiling of Muslims under the strict scrutiny standard due to a compelling government interest, but for this to happen I am highly inclined to think that another 9/11 or something even far worse than this must first occur.

Second, you are correct when you assert the reality of the lethalness of Muslims compared to any other grouping of human beings in our time (one need only reflect upon how much terrorism would exist in the world today if Islam didn't exist), but your inclination to treat all Muslims as the enemy, though understandable and not irrational, disallows for something I think is key in Islam eventually being sent to the fringes of human society and this is mass exodus from Islam by disillusioned Muslims. If you put all Muslims on the defensive, you throw away any divide and conquer strategy, with the "divide" part here specifically being encouraging a hell of a lot of Muslims to give up on their con job of a religion, something which I predict will happen in very large numbers over the next twenty-five years or so (I know you disagree with my optimism here).

This helps to explain why I am somewhat sympathetic to some Muslims, like many women in the Islamic world who not only deserve pity but who actually can be rescued from Islam if the effort is made. Certainly Robert Spencer is one such person who thinks this way, otherwise why would he and those like him make the efforts they have to offer Muslim women help who are trying to escape the tyranny of Islam?

To be continued I'm sure.

Thank you, DS, for that link. I had supposed it was from Bukhari but I didn't know exactly where. Now I do thanks to you. Really, when one examines the character of Mohammed, how is it possible for a self-respecting woman to accord Islam any respect? I don't see how.

Wellington,

"Stopping Muslim immigration could be done on pretexts of various sorts, but not on the basis of religion."

Imagine a religion whose central command is to torture and sodomize random children, and which has had innumerable members actually doing so in various places, with every expectation that this was going to escalate the longer they were not stopped. Would Western law enforcement be powerless to stop this religion because it's a "religion"? Or would the central command of this religion not trump the fact that it's a "religion" and obviously remove any protections it might have had by that description?

Now, after that thought experiment, imagine a religion even worse -- far worse and more dangerous to us -- than the one I described above.

That's Islam.

If we can't stop Islam because it's a religion, we may as well throw in the towel now.

when "they" disappear.

when "they" disappear.

I disagree. Children are children. They aren't 'ours' or 'theirs'. I don't even believe in 'us' and 'them', anyway. That's the kind of thinking too many Muslims have. I always thought it was exactly the kind of thinking that Jihadwatch stands against.

islam is not a religion - it is an evil cult, on which Hitler based his Nazi Party (NSDAP)- It is a viral pandemic infection, overwhelming civilisation like a tsunami - fail to stop it at your peril!

A very interesting thread this. I have been busy celebrating the queen's diamond jubilee with family and friends over the past couple of days.

Bunty, IMHI children are definitely not "just children" - whilst in the womb all babies curl their fists - making promises and alliances to Allah SWT that they will pray to him and make a good muslim - only that they should be allowed permission to be born. They kick out, sending a timely reminder to their mother not to forget the ways of the muslim and Islam when they are born.

Those lucky enough to be born into a muslim household (like my children) will be lucky enough to have the Sahada recited to them immediately, followed by Bismillah every night in their young lives.

For the rest - remember parents pollute - those promises made to Allah SWT are all but forgotten and they are taught non-believer corrupt ways - with so many unfortunates ending up as single mothers with no future and no father figure.

It is true that muslimas are some of the best ardent supporters of Islam - we don't want you to feel sorry for us or our children - we are perfectly happy and contented if not privileged to be born into Islam.

As for this fool beheading his wife - Does he not have a history of being a psychopath - you are simply trying to associate him to Islam - it is just a coincidence, he will be safely behind bars now - so we can all move on.

His communication with his wife and any mutual respect was a little lacking - however remember his wife's mother will suffer tremendous pain but equally the boy's mother will be in pain too as his son's marriage didn't work as well as it could have.

You just made my point for me. So why would you say: are you kidding?

Some of the Muslim women I see in Canada, on university campuses for example are very active in defending political Islam including the right to wear face covering. They seem to have bought into the whitewashed version of Islam as well as Muslim victimhood, Palestinian narrative of "Israeli Apartheid", Western corruption, supremacy of Islam over all other religions, etc.

You wrote about the murderer: 'His communication with his wife and any mutual respect was a little lacking -'

Brilliant! I haven't laughed so much in ages. Can you imagine his defense lawyer in court? Your Honor, my client's defense is that communication with his wife and any mutual respect was a little lacking.

Anyway, now that I've dried my eyes, could you tell us how such a devout male Muslim could've got the idea that communication with his wife was little more than 'take your clothes off and open your legs'?

Perhaps Al Qur'an could provide us with a clue. For example;'Your wives are as a tilth (field) unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will.."

Perhaps expecting sex on demand had something to do with it, ...eh?

Ahhhhhhhhahaahahahhahahah.Celebrating the Jubilee is haram and you know it.

Kicking their mom's womb because she is muslim? Really? So even a fetus knows that the muslima is only a walking womb with no destiny and designed only to perpetuate children for islame? Really?

The husband's mutual respect was a "LITTLE" lacking? Only a LITTLE? Yes, perhaps in islame, a beheading is only A FRIGGIN LITTLE LACKING IN MUTUAL RESPECT. But not for the rest of the world.

We don't need to associate this man's brand of lunacy with islame. HE DID IT HIMSELF WHEN HE WAS SCREAMING OUT "ALLAHU AKBAR."

There's something about worshipping that old Moon goddess, al-ilah, and bowing down and scraping to a meteorite the proscribed amount of times a day that incites lunacy. It's called Satanic worship. And it's very real and here in the name of islame.

To know islame is to leave islame.

This is what muslima walking wombs are REALLY thinking whilst their men are atop them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbRFDcl2GIA

And deep down inside you know it. That's why all you muslim freakazoids are so controlling over the walking vaginas YOU THINK YOU OWN. But the reality is, you're all afraid of those same walking vaginas.

We don't have to disallow Islam in America in order to defeat it, LL. We didn't do this with Nazism or Marxism and we defeated them. Of course, we were able to call these latter two the enemy and, in these excessively silly times in which we live, we haven't been able to do that yet with Islam. Looking forward to the day when we do, when we get a new Evil Empire speech from a President who really understands what Islam is about. Not there yet. But it is not necessary (nor is it at all likely) to make Islam unconstitionally protected in order to eventually defeat it and shame into oblivion.

I share your distaste for Islam, wei, but it's a matter of belief versus action. Belief, and particularly if religious belief, is protected by the First Amendment. However, acting upon many beliefs is not. Muslims and Neo-Nazis and Marxists and Satanists and KKK members and NAMBLA members and...can believe whatever rot they want and this is protected by the First Amendment, but if they act upon any belief which is illegal or unconstitutional, then they can and will be prosecuted.

As for the Koran, yeah it has a lot of crap in it but so does Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto but both of these are perfectly legal to be published here in America, and they are to this day. Besides, there isn't a judge I know of in America who would agree with you, legally speaking, that the TEACHINGS that are in the Koran are illegal. Acting upon many of these teachings are, but not the teachings themselves.

Rezali - I didn't state anywhere that I felt sorry for your children. Unless you're the guy who sliced his wife's head off and chucked it off a roof. In which case, you have bigger things to worry about than what commenters on Jihadwatch say! I said I really feel for those children, for obvious reasons. Another commenter expressed the idea that we shouldn't feel sorry for children who witness violence if they happen to be from Muslim families, and I responded that I would feel sorry for them because they are just children. Children are children are children. A child born to Muslim parents is the same as any other child, and all domestic violence is unacceptable. Don't think that it's somehow not as bad if Muslims are the ones who commit it.

"...whilst in the womb all babies curl their fists - making promises and alliances to Allah SWT that they will pray to him and make a good muslim" - is this another classic example of Muslim 'scientific proofs' of Islam or were you simply being poetic? I'm told it was Muslim scholars hundreds of years ago who developed the kalam argument for the existence of God. These days, you're reduced to this kind of stuff. Where did it all go wrong?

Babies do lots of things in the womb. Twins playfight each other in the womb. They suck their thumbs in the womb. Exercising their brand new limbs by opening and closing their hands makes perfect sense in those conditions. I don't know what the significance of closing one's fist is but I've never heard of it as a prayer practice in Islam before.

As for children not having a father figure - it's certainly a huge problem in the west but it's also something of a problem in nations where polygamy is practiced (ie, majority Muslim nations) where fathers have more kids than they have time for.

Incidentally, I had a friend who got pregnant at 16. The father was a Muslim boy from a devout Muslim family. That kid grew up without knowing his father because his father was a Muslim from a Muslim family.

"I don't even believe in 'us' and 'them', anyway. That's the kind of thinking too many Muslims have. I always thought it was exactly the kind of thinking that Jihadwatch stands against."

I don't believe in "us" and "them" either. But when you have mass-murderous fanatics who do believe in "us" and "them" and whos mass-murderous fanaticism both guides their inspiration and defines their target (us), they force themselves to be defined by us as a Them inimical to us.

Unless, that is, you don't care about protecting your societies from mass-murderous fanatics.

"We don't have to disallow Islam in America in order to defeat it, LL. We didn't do this with Nazism or Marxism and we defeated them."

Those groups you mentioned didn't perpetate a 911 on American soil, nor the thousand other attempts, a few successful, most not (but still counting exactly as though they had been successful) -- nor the more attacks as bad as 911 if not worse we can reasonably expect Muslims to be plotting as we speak which could take years to line up to fruition.

This is about the 12th time I've had to point this out to you. I guess you'll never get my point. Interesting lacuna -- concerning the most crucial difference.

And as the commenter "we1" already points out, Islam is already a criminal organization relative to all Western laws (not just of the U.S.A.) by virtue of the Sharia Law that consitutes its necessary essence and expression.

The only way Muslims get around this is by continuing to deceive us that they don't want full-blown Sharia, and that they are like all other religions that can continue to be satisfied with an incomplete version of their religion as that religion is defined by its own texts and traditions.

This deception is meanwhile bolstered by the West's PC MC, which tends to lean over backwards to accommodate Muslims and to believe everything they say. Indeed, the West's PC MC is so dominant and mainstream throughout the West, quite a few Muslims can continue to get away mischievously being candid "Bad Cops" -- saying boldly on the street corner (or in the Islamic conference) that they want full-blooded Sharia -- and they remain blithely ignored while their fellow "Good Cops" continue the lie.

Not only is Islam a criminal organization, it is also a seditious organization, with exactly the same formula described above of Deception + Western PC MC + Bad Cops/Good Cops.

No religion that is also a criminal and seditious organization would be able to enjoy legal privileges under the laws of any Western nation, including the U.S. Constitution.

Thus, our only problem not that our laws render us powerless to take action against a "religion", as Wellington keeps insisting; our problem lies rather is in continuing to fail to recognize the proper definition of Islam: A criminal and seditious religion.

Once the West recognizes this as the proper definition, Western laws as they stand now will actually begin the rational process of protecting our societies -- including stopping immigration, deporting non-citizen Muslims, and stripping of Western citizenship those Muslims who have it, and deporting them. All this would be perfectly legal now, if we just saw Islam as it is: A criminal and seditious religion.

I can't define all Muslims and their kids as some faceless, monolithic 'Them', quite simply because they aren't soit would be inaccurate.

So, I can't define all children born to Muslim families as 'Them'. That means I can feel sympathy for children who are born to a man who kills his wife in front of them. I still don't understand why I'm not supposed to have sympathy for the poor little sods who witnessed that horrific murder. They weren't mass-murdering fanatics; their Dad was. I have a friend whose dad is a murderer; I would never define that friend by the actions of his father.

I don't see how my concern for the kids shows a lack of concern for western civilisation.

Well, LL, following your logic, if Marxists or Nazis had perpetrated a 9/11 kind of attack on American soil and had attempted on many other occasions, sometimes successfully, to kill Americans on American soil, then the Communist Party or American Nazi Party would have been outlawed? And so, also following your logic, and arguing in the alternative, having not perpetrated a 9/11 and a bundle of other attacks, then this is the reason why Marxism and Nazism were not legally banned? The success, or lack thereof, of nefarious ideologies is the key constitutional determinant? I'd love to see you argue this one before a group of law professors or the ABA. I'd help by selling tickets to the event. I'd even be rootin' for you but I wouldn't place any money on you coming out a winner here.

As for Islam being a criminal and seditious religion, I agree with you, but Marxism and Nazism are also, quite arguably (and I would argue such), criminal and seditious, so on this basis you would make Marxism and Nazism in this nation illegal as well? You know, just to be consistent. Perhaps this could be your follow-up lecture to the legal community after the one I suggested in the first paragraph. Again I'd sell tickets, to be helpful and all that.

Your turn.

Bunty Hoven, I think RM was trying to cast blame on the victim. If the marriage "didn't work as well as it could have," there must have been blame on both sides, and if the man was driven to murder, the woman must have given horrific provocation and somehow deserved her fate.

She ought to know better than to believe anyone here will fall for that line! I hope Orhan Sircasi's parents are in pain. I hope they are examining themselves and asking how they brought up such a sociopathic son. I hope they are repenting and committing themselves to do better in future.

I feel sorry for the pain of Semanur Sircasi's parents, but I hope they are also stopping to think that they made a bad choice of son-in-law; that they did nothing to help their daughter while she was alive; and that if she never asked for help, there was a reason rooted in their own attitudes.

I feel most sorry for the children, who are aged 1, 2, 5, 10, 11 and 13. I hope the Child Protection authorities have the sense to put them in non-Muslim foster homes, and that their psychotherapists are able to de-programme them from the assumption that this kind of violence is normal or acceptable behaviour.

Unfortunately, it is not likely that so many children can be placed in care together. They will probably be separated into two groups. The little ones can probably be quasi-adopted. But who is going to want an almost-pubescent Muslim boy who has imbibed violence from his murderous father? I hope the therapists know their job.

Your post only helps to sustain my contention about the two types of Muslim women, as I explained above in my 3:27 P.M. of yesterday.

Women in muslim countries can start with their own sons. They can raise them to see the injustices of a woman's world in islame. They can raise them to NOT be misogynists. They can do so by not elevating their male children to near-god status. So yes, muslim women CAN do something. It might not have an immediate relief and it might take a couple of generations but it can be done.

Women in the Western world didn't get their rights handed to them by Western men. They fought for them. They were beaten and abused and raped for speaking out. AND they raised their own children to see the injustices of sexism. Generation by generation, Western women have equalized their situation. It's time for the muslimas to step up and do so themselves.

Yes, I hope they don't put the kids with Muslim foster carers. The trouble with religious people of all creeds can sometimes be (and I say this as a religious person myself) that they are too concerned with the reputation and image of their religion to really care about justice and honesty and true goodness. As far as I'm concerned, that's the one of most pressing problems we face with western Muslims.

The kids may not ever want to be anywhere near anything Islamic again. Just as the victims of paedophile clergymen might shudder at the sight of a church so might they shudder when they hear 'allahu akbar!' or the muezzin. Eventually they will need space to question whether Islam fed into their father's behaviour.

I think you're probably right about the Muslim commenter trying to justify the murder.

Your questions are distractions. Here's what you simply can't seem to understand: Belief is sacrosanct in America under the Constitution but certain actions upon beliefs are not. In short, you punish the action, not the belief.

You want Islam made illegal or unconstitutional in America and this just isn't going to happen. And you also think that if this doesn't happen (which it won't), then we're doomed. And here too I couldn't disagree with you more, as I've tried to explain, let's see, at least 12 times.

Really, you're too smart to remain so ignorant about American law. May I suggest you buy a good law dictionary like Black's and get a fine reference work on American Constituional law as well, for instance The Oxford Companion To The Supreme Court Of The United States. Until you do, you're just going to go on and on about how Islam should be made illegal because it's criminal and seditious although this is a dead end if ever there were one.

Hi sanman. You said "Jihad-me Elmo is now Embezzle-me Elmo"

Shouldn't that have been "Jihad-me Elmohammed is now Embelzzle-me Elmoney"

Very well, LL. No and yes in that order.

Wherever Islam revives, ideological fundamentalism is ennobled, the heads of this hydra, political Islam,sharia law and jihad, proliferate with wanton abandonment. With Islamism and its jihad to officiate, it is imperative that whatever is deemed sharia compliant must remain sacrosanct , because to tug at any loose fibre the veil shrouding the concept of ideological supremacy would unravel- the illusion would shatter ! This zealotry knows no gender, and submitted women are it’s fiercest enforcers ,where western {muslim}women of privilege are one of loudest marketing team for the islamist revival. Without a soupçon of the proverbial - tongue in cheek- the aficionados of cover celebrate, with a fervour bordering obsession , their ultimate liberation, their deliverance, their salvation all courtesy of a blessed bolt of fabric !
Yet these liberated, empowered muslimas can't muster a whimper of lament for the plight of their sisters, a vast swatch of humanity, coerced into cover, that inconvenient reality is swept under the prayer rug in the name of self-righteousness........ SHAME on you ! Islam's devout hand maidens , have made the self-righteous decision to render our secular public sphere sharia compliant,in the likeness of the failed islamic states , and they carry out that zeal with a vengeance.

Thanks for speaking sanity.

I think the girls and the little ones will be all right if they receive the right kind of foster care.

But four of the children are boys, which means at least one of them is - perhaps three of them are - old enough to have sided with their father and committed themselves to Might is Right.

I think boys in that position need very special care. I question whether the system is able to provide it at this stage.

The appalling Rezali Mehil wrote:

A very interesting thread this. I have been busy celebrating the queen's diamond jubilee with family and friends over the past couple of days.
...........................

It hardly surprises me that Rezali Mehil would consider a story where a Muslims *savagely beheads his wife in front of their children and then throws her severed head off a roof* to be merely "interesting". She has sympathized with Muslim "Honor Killers" before.

And doesn't she know that celebrating the reign of an Infidel queen is Haram? Either she does not, or else she is trying to lull readers here into a determination that Muslims—savage beheadings notwithstanding—are just like us.

More:

Those lucky enough to be born into a muslim household (like my children) will be lucky enough to have the Sahada recited to them immediately, followed by Bismillah every night in their young lives.
...........................

Does she believe that the children who just witnessed the *brutal beheading of their mother* were also "lucky enough to be born into a Muslim household"? I don't see why not...

More:

For the rest - remember parents pollute - those promises made to Allah SWT are all but forgotten and they are taught non-believer corrupt ways - with so many unfortunates ending up as single mothers with no future and no father figure.
...........................

Well, the kids in this article certainly have a fine Muslim "father figure"...

More:

As for this fool beheading his wife - Does he not have a history of being a psychopath - you are simply trying to associate him to Islam - it is just a coincidence, he will be safely behind bars now - so we can all move on.
...........................

What utter crap—as I noted, Rezali Mehil has sympathized with "Honor Killers" before, and in nauseating, loving detail. Here she is speculating on the mindset of Yaser Abdel Said as he decided to murder his beautiful young daughters Amina and Sarah in Texas almost five years ago:

"But I have to say that since you have no kids, you can sympathize and empathize the Said daughters situation - like the girl's auntie you cannot know what Mr. and Mrs. Said really *feel* - not really. I can *feel* their hurt, how they would have regretted coming to west, putting up with western strange habits as they were growing up - these were little games.

All of a sudden the girls wanted more and more - non-muslim things, boyfriends - it was like a truck coming at them at full speed - saying Bismillah into their ear was too late - they had been lost to the kaffir and that was what Mr. Said could not stand, he felt in his head that his daughters were already lost to him..."

You can find more of her horrifying musings on "Honor Killing" and child rape here on this thread:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/05/aunt-of-texas-honor-killing-victims-says-police-have-bungled-murder-investigation.html

More:

His communication with his wife and any mutual respect was a little lacking - however remember his wife's mother will suffer tremendous pain but equally the boy's mother will be in pain too as his son's marriage didn't work as well as it could have.
...........................

"Didn't work out as well as it could have"—rather like the Said girls' Western childhood. So what else is a good Muslim father figure to do but *savagely murder* his disobedient wife?

Of course, most Infidels would just divide their assets, work out child custody, and part. But then, we weren't "lucky enough to be born into a Muslim household", as this pious murderer was...

As a Christian, dda, just how do you see the duty of a Christian to love their fellow man juxtaposed with the crucial necessity of safeguarding one's life, one's family and one's country. Specifically, what efforts should be made to save at least some Muslims from their own religion (something which I personally think is not only worthwhile but practically a necessity if Islam is eventually to become a fringe belief system), all the while keeping safety, freedom and patriotism in mind?

Hope you're doing well. Take care.

Wellington, I can't speak for Dumbledoresarmy, but I do think that's a very interesting and essential question.

Specifically, what efforts should be made to save at least some Muslims from their own religion[?]

Firstly, if children are removed from an abusive home, I see no duty at all to support the values of the original abusive home in a foster home. If Muslim children (like the ones in this story) end up in a secular foster home, it is just too bad if they never again say their prayers or wear their veils.

Secondly, I think comparative religion could be taught much better in state schools. Pupils should actually read the Qur'an. Muslim schools should be much better monitored to ensure that the history of the host country is fairly taught, that children are advised of their civil rights in terms of domestic violence & etc., that sharia and jihad are not being advocated, etc.

Thirdly, I think mosques should be monitored. All religious meetings are already open to the public, legally available to be recorded. Mosques should be infiltrated for any sign dangerous activity. Imams who preach sharia and jihad should be arrested. Of course, once this process starts, the dangerous imams will find away to move their activities underground, but we shall just have to find a way to continue monitoring.

Fourthly, ditto for Muslim student associations.

Fifthly, we really need a bigger crackdown on sharia law-courts. 90% of their business is granting religious divorces to Muslim women. These women need to be brought into the divorce courts of their host countries, and as part of their rehabilitation, shown that the Qur'anic rulings in women are in specific contradiction to local laws and customs.

But the bottom line is: if any of these people, having been informed about their religion and its alternatives, still wish to remain Muslim, and are not actually practising or advocating violence - then there is no ethical way to change that. It's a dangerous path to choose, but we can't take away people's choices.

how do you see the duty of a Christian to love their fellow man juxtaposed with the crucial necessity of safeguarding one's life, one's family and one's country

Personally I am not in favour of killing anyone. I perceive that as giving people a one-way ticket to Hell. The Bible tells us that God is never happy when an evil man dies; He would rather see the sinner repent and live (Ezekiel 18:23).

I am in favour of incarcerating people from whom the rest of us need to be protected. In Britain there is a huge problem with prison overcrowding. Judges are being pressured to give short sentences and parole officers are being pressured into granting early release in order to make room for the newly-convicted. In my opinion, a better option would be to build more prisons - and then to ask why we suddenly have so many more criminals.

Thank you for your thoughtful response, DS. Ah, it's a very complicated matter, that's for sure. What a burden Islam is, not just to non-Muslims but to Muslims as well, though most Muslims don't realize this (yet?).

In America, the First Amendment to the Constitution will protect Islam as a religion, and since the interpretation of this amendment by the Supreme Court mandates that any restrictions on religion must be on all religions and not just one, and only if there exists a "compelling government interest," steps against Islam solely will be disallowed, at least to date. And this is going to prove a great hurdle to overcome, but the Supreme Court can change its mind (e.g., Plessy V. Ferguson, 1896, reversed by Brown v. Board of Education, 1954) and my thinking is that Islam is so terrible that this, in America, may be what will happen and then Islam can be "contained" and then marginalized.

Meanwhile, actions, as opposed to beliefs, can still be punished if contravening statutory or Constitutional law. So, individual Muslims can be apprehended and convicted, but the day must come when Islam, all of it, is looked upon as a negative and no longer something positive or at least neutral. Not there yet. Until this happens, if it happens, I think it incumbent upon the better portion of humanity to help those Muslims who want out of the spiritual strait jacket Islam has put them in.

"I think Lemonlime has forgotten that there was a Mohammedan imam who, I think, got shot resisting arrest in his mosque/ hideout, in America."

Straw man. I was responding to the claim that in the US/Canada police would shoot a beheader of his wife without adding the crucial factor that the beheader would be armed with a deadly weapon in a standoff with the police and would open fire on the police. Of course, US/Canadian police aren't so utterly lost that they wouldn't return fire in that circumstance -- a different circumstance, again, from what the commenter to whom I was responding was implying.