Texas: Muslim admits shooting daughter and her non-Muslim boyfriend because he didn't like her dating a non-Muslim -- police not considering it attempted honor killing

f...off.
M

Precluded from the law of retaliation? Huh-uh. So what penalty does occur to a Muslim father when he kills his daughter for bogus Islamic reasons of honor? I'd say, let's see now, none.

Your turn, dumbass (and enabler of just about the most hateful ideology ever devised by man---Islam). While you're at it, where do you stand on what should happen to Muslims who convert to another faith and do you support the right of non-Muslims to preach their faith to Muslims, just as Muslims do to non-Muslims, without threats of death or severe bodily harm for doing so? Don't be evasive.

No, you dumbass, it's crap like you that us common readers understand. If you can't make reasonable comments here then take your smartass out of here. IOW make a sexual departure, if that can penetrate your dimwit brain.

please see y response to him/her.
M

"But when quizzed on why he did it, the Lebanese man admitted that he didn't like that his daughter was dating someone who's not Muslim."

Let's see, what is there to misunderstand about that? This just follows what's becoming an all-too-familiar pattern:

1. Muslim family moves here from (pick a crapistan)

2. Muslim girls (funny how it's never boys, eh Mensch?) grow up here and want to have friends, boyfriends and just to be cool like the other kids; (how could anyone not expect this with kids growing up?)

3. Muslim dad can't hack the program; goes berserk nad kills the daughter(s)--often with assistance of other male family members

So, here's a question for you, genius: Why do muslims move here in the first place? I mean, why subject their families to all these horrible influences and depredations
of the sinful West? Not to mention all this rampant "islamophobia!" You'd almost think that muslims don't want to integrate in OUR society--don't want to live by OUR rules and laws? So, tell me, why come here, then?

Your insults to Mr. Spencer don't count for a hill of camel dung here. In the parlance of the locker room, you coudn't hold Robert Spencer's jock! And a small-fry muslim like you isn't stopping the show--just making it more entertaining. If you haven't figured that out yet...then I suggest that YOU are the dumbass here...

george: Please see my responses to keymelon in all his posts. if everyone follows up with the same resonse as mine this a...hole will go away.
M

descendantofacrusader : Is it possible that the disgruntled Muslim father & husband is actually a closet Christian who has imbibed too much violent Old Testament theology?

When compared to the overwhelming islamic propensity for violence, no, it's not.

Thanks for playing.

You are saying that when Umdat al-Salik says that 'retaliation' is not possible because a family can not demand 'blood money' from itself, 'retaliation' is only about money.

But there are other ways to demand retaliation: imprisonment, for example.

So, when 'Umdat al-Salik states that "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother(or their fathers or mothers)for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring" Islamic law rules out *any* kind of punishment, not just financial compensation. It rules out imprisonment, too!

You're (still) a clown! Unless you can offer us a clear reference from mainstream Sharia that states that 'retaliation' as regards murdering one's own kids is *only* about money!

By the way, how do you feel about the fact that only Islam gives birth to its future victims?

yes. let's just respond like that and he will go away! I gave up the drinking for at least for awhile, but cigars are in order today in NYC. and thank for asking about my son. he was here two weeks ago for a few days and he dropped a bomb shell. he upped to go yemen. not sure when he is going or if they send him, but he upped nonetheless! one would think when the kids are grown up, then one is home free. well, i can tell you that this is so far from truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!
M

would you please elaborate a little more?
thank you
M

Kinana

thanks for that additional story.

It adds a curious snippet of information - that this Mohammedan mobster shot wife, daughter, and daughter's non-Muslim boyfriend, on a **Friday**.

Friday, Friday, Friday.

Funny how so much Mohammedan mayhem seems to take place on Fridays.

Wellington,

First lets address the ad hominem attack in your language, " for bogus Islamic reasons of honor" - that is absolutely wrong, you should not say it.

There is nothing in the Quran that gives the right to a person to kill in order to preserve honor, none...and in fact the strongest prohibition against the killing of girls in order to preserve family honor, if you only understood.

Onto the response to you:

"Dumbass" well, that's a first shot I believe, isn't it?

I don't recall every having communicated with you. I can give up a point, because I will win the point back.

Wellington "While you're at it, where do you stand on what should happen to Muslims who convert to another faith"

The Quran mentions in multiple locations many times "leave them to me" God stated that even to the person who is In the religion, then out of the religion, then in the religion, and then out of the religion...clearly stated "leave them to Me" God wrote this. That is what I believe, it is not my duty as a Muslim to hold anyone accountable for their decisions on faith.

Wellington, " do you support the right of non-Muslims to preach their faith to Muslims"

The Quran invites us to let those who wish to explain their faith to us to do so without harm or threat and in fact counsels us not to insult their faith or their beliefs or their practices, and orders us to relay the message to them in beautiful ways through the best means inviting them to something similar between us as a point of discussion.

Wellington, " So what penalty does occur to a Muslim father when he kills his daughter"

For any unlawful killing there is an expiation to God outside of the law of retaliation and this is supreme.

In the case of a murder within a family it is the state that should deal with the perpetrator and the court system.

Any person who knowingly kills a Muslim will be rewarded with hell. Now if that person surrenders themselves to the state, confesses, and accepts the capital punishment God may forgive them.

The difficulty for laymen, myself included, is the body of case law discussed in classical books is beyond our ability to employ in rendering a fatwa unless we have been properly educated and trained to do so.

And in respect to Islamic Law and modernity in lacking a Caliph there is no "retaliation" period. No Caliph, no "retaliation". It must be a sentence carried out under the authority and guidance of the Islamic state not an individual, just like the law of any country, no court system no law.

Wellington" Don't be evasive."

I am not evasive.

miriam rove, you and your fantasies!

You play word games. So many Muslims do, for instance with the word "innocent." In your particular instance it's with the word, "unlawful." Ah yes, but if a Muslim father knocks off his daughter because he thinks she has disgraced his family (doesn't take much since Muslim daughters are on a very tight leash), is this still unlawful?

Respecting your castigation of any ad hominem attack on my part, look to yourself regarding who started this. You accused Robert Spencer of being a "dumbass" in your first post. And he's a truth dispenser while you're a truth obfuscator.

In reference to Muslims who change their faith, Mohammed himself said, "He who changes his religion, kill him" (from the Bukhari Hadith). Wow, a lot of tolerance here (well, what can you expect from a glorified bandit who claims he's the last and greatest of the prophets and who screws a nine-year old?) And do you really think a Christian missionary today in one Muslim nation after another would not have to fear for his life? What planet are you from if you think this? My guess is you know you're lying but then taqiyya is kosher, isn't it?

Muslims enjoy extraordinary freedom in Western nations. By contrast, non-Muslims in Muslim nations don't even remotely have equality under the law. Meanwhile, over 19,000 documented Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide have occurred just since 9/11. How many Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, etc. terrorist attacks have occurred during the same time period?

Your religion is going down. It's full of hate and intolerance. It understands liberty not at all. And you are an apologizer for this spiritual fascism called Islam. Stick the Koran where the sun doesn't shine. And damn your Mohammed to Hell, where Dante quite appropriately placed the SOB.

Oh yeah, you were evasive. Just as I thought you would be. Big time.

..., it is not my duty as a Muslim to hold anyone accountable for their decisions on faith."

that's not what the Muslim executioners of apostates think...

"The Quran invites us to let those who wish to explain their faith to us to do so without harm or threat and in fact counsels us not to insult their faith or their beliefs or their practices, and orders us to relay the message to them in beautiful ways through the best means inviting them to something similar between us as a point of discussion."

In the real Muslim world those non-Muslims who wish to discuss their faith are charged with either blasphemy or proselytizing...both of which they can be prosecuted for and sentenced to death....

Keymelon,

You wrote: "There is nothing in the Quran that gives the right to a person to kill in order to preserve honor, none...and in fact the strongest prohibition against the killing of girls in order to preserve family honor, if you only understood."

Red herring. There is nothing in the Quran prohibiting honor killings by name. The Quran is not so specific, but prohibits killing, except for a "just cause" (e.g., 17:33). The Quran doesn't exactly define a just cause. Finding what is a "just cause" requires having a look at what Islamic jurists--who have studied the Quran, Hadith, the opinions of other scholars, etc.--decided on this issue. In mainstream Islamic law, killing someone for apostasy is considered a just cause. If a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man get married or have a sexual relationship, in classical sharia the punishment for both of them is death. Hence killing them is a just cause in Islam. Moreover, it is such a major violation of Islamic law that it, without repentance, would constitute apostasy and would therefore be deserving of the death penalty. Also, relations between a Muslim woman and non-Muslim man is considered corruption on earth and is punishable by death.

In addition, in the Quran there is the story of al-Khidr. Al-Khidr, who is rightly-guided by Allah, shows Moses some lessons. In one such lesson, al-Khidr goes over to a child (and according to the Hadith, grabs the child's head, and rips it off), killing the child. Moses is shocked, but al-Khidr says that the child would have grown up to commit rebellion (tughyanan) and disbelief (wakufran) and impose that on his parents (Q 18:80). Thus al-Khidr's action was considered justified and indeed approved by Allah. As the Quran states, disbelief is the worst crime, worse than killing.

Here is another important hadith about the al-Khidr story and how it applies to Muslims:

"This tradition has been narrated by the same authority (Yazid b. Hurmus) through a different chain of transmitters with the following difference in the elucidation of one of the points raised by Najda in his letter to Ibn Abas: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to be a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside." (Sahih Muslim, Book #019, Hadith #4457)

If the parent knows the child has committed rebellion and kufr, then the parent already knows what al-Khidr knew. A child who breaks a major rule, such as the rule prohibiting a Muslim female from having sexual relations with a non-Muslim male, or committing apostasy after the age of puberty, or committing corruption on earth, etc., has committed an offense punishable by death in Islam. Hence there are enough grounds, Islamically speaking, for the parent to justify killing his/her child who commits such crime. Indeed, the parents are sinning if they allow this rebellion and kufr to go unpunished.

Keymelon says: "The Quran mentions in multiple locations many times "leave them to me"

That's situational; it doesn't say "leave them to me" after Muhammad attained sufficient political and military power. It says that Allah can punish, kill, the disbelievers through the hands of the believers (8:17, 9:14), and that Allah could punish the disbelievers himself, but he uses the believers to test them (47:4) by making them fight and kill in his cause. The true believers fight and struglle for Allah, whereas the hypocrites don't (47:29-31). The Quran says that if Allah did not use some people to keep others in check, the world would be filled with mischief/corruption (2:251). Muslims must implement "justice" on earth according to Allah's rules, and for this Allah has brought down "iron" for the Muslims to use for this purpose (57:25). Quran 5:54 states:
"O you who believe! whoever from among you turns back from his religion, then Allah will bring a people, He shall love them and they shall love Him, lowly before the believers, mighty against the unbelievers, they shall strive hard in Allah's way and shall not fear the censure of any censurer; this is Allah's Face, He gives it to whom He pleases, and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing."

9:123 states: "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)."

"God stated that even to the person who is In the religion, then out of the religion, then in the religion, and then out of the religion...clearly stated "leave them to Me" God wrote this."

That's 4:137, and no it doesn't say "leave them to me". It does not preclude an earthly punishment. The Quran states that the disbelievers will be punished in this world and the next. The Hadith makes clear the death penalty for apostasy.

"That is what I believe, it is not my duty as a Muslim to hold anyone accountable for their decisions on faith."

Nonsense. The Quran states that Muslims command the right and forbid the wrong, including to one another (9:71). The Muslim's mission in life is to not only conquer disbelief within himself but to struggle against it outwardly as well, including jihad of tongue and pen (such as you have been engaging in in this comment section).

Keymelon wrote: "The Quran invites us to let those who wish to explain their faith to us to do so without harm or threat"

Nonsense. Quran 9:29 says fight (kill, slaughter) those who don't believe in Islam and Muhammad, and subjugate them and make them pay the jizya.

"...and in fact counsels us not to insult their faith or their beliefs or their practices,"

The Quran tells Muslims to curse the unbelievers and give them tidings of a painful doom. It not only insults unbelievers, calling them the worst of created beings (98:6), but threatens them with eternal torture in hell-fire for the crime of disbelief (which is the worst crime) and death, slavery, and subjugation in this life.

Keymelon"...and orders us to relay the message to them in beautiful ways through the best means inviting them to something similar between us as a point of discussion."

In other words, if they embrace Islam they'll go to paradise, and if they don't they'll go to hell and Muslims will make life hell on earth for them. believe it or else is the Quran's basic message. Inviting them to Islam is just a da'wa show.

Keymelon says: "And in respect to Islamic Law and modernity in lacking a Caliph there is no "retaliation" period. No Caliph, no "retaliation". It must be a sentence carried out under the authority and guidance of the Islamic state not an individual, just like the law of any country, no court system no law."

The fact is that Muslims without a caliph and living in non-Muslim lands need to still try to implement as much Islamic law as they can, commanding the right and forbidding the wrong, without bringing themselves to harm (i.e., jeopardizing their faith). In Islam, the worst harm is becoming a disbeliever; it is worse than killing. Without a caliph and Islamic courts then the parents are in charge, and according to sharia the parents can punish the children. There is no penalty, and no expiation, for killing someone who deserves to die according to sharia. Not coincidentally, young people who are killed in honor killings have usually committed some actions that put them outside the pale of Islam, thus rendering them kufaar and their blood halal.

Keymelon: "Any person who knowingly kills a Muslim will be rewarded with hell."

Victims of Islamic honor killings aren't regarded as Muslims by their killers (see above).

"Mensch Keymelon" wrote:

"In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law." Robert Spencer.

No, dumbass, it means that the family is precluded from the law of retaliation as a family cannot "retaliate" or demnand "blood money" from itself.
........................................

"Mensch Keymelon" has tried this sort of obfuscation before, and yet, "Honor Killers" receive few if any penalties in the Muslim world, and Islamic clerics so often resist any attempts to stiffen penalties. So the idea that this is all about blood money between families is ridiculous.

More, in reply to Wellington:

Wellington,

First lets address the ad hominem attack in your language, " for bogus Islamic reasons of honor" - that is absolutely wrong, you should not say it.
........................................

Why not? This pious Muslim admitted that "he didn't like that his daughter was dating someone who's not Muslim". Sounds like reasons of 'Islamic honor' to me.

More:

There is nothing in the Quran that gives the right to a person to kill in order to preserve honor, none...and in fact the strongest prohibition against the killing of girls in order to preserve family honor, if you only understood.
........................................

Really, is *Wellington* the one who needs to 'understand' this?

Perhaps you should, instead, explain this to Talal Nimer—oh, and to Faleh Hassan Almaleki, who "Honor Killed" his daughter Noor in Arizona, and to Yaser Said, who "Honor Killed" his daughters Amina and Sarah, and to Muhammad Parvez, who "Honor Killed" his daughter Aqsa, and to all the other pious Muslims murdering their relatives in the name of 'Islamic honor'....

More:

Wellington "While you're at it, where do you stand on what should happen to Muslims who convert to another faith"

The Quran mentions in multiple locations many times "leave them to me" God stated that even to the person who is In the religion, then out of the religion, then in the religion, and then out of the religion...clearly stated "leave them to Me" God wrote this. That is what I believe, it is not my duty as a Muslim to hold anyone accountable for their decisions on faith.
........................................

Well, that's lovely. And yet, "Mensch Keymelon's" vicious coreligionists continue to slaughter apostates *as well as* commit "Honor Killings". I see he has his work cut out for him...

More:

Wellington, " do you support the right of non-Muslims to preach their faith to Muslims"

The Quran invites us to let those who wish to explain their faith to us to do so without harm or threat and in fact counsels us not to insult their faith or their beliefs or their practices, and orders us to relay the message to them in beautiful ways through the best means inviting them to something similar between us as a point of discussion.
........................................

And yet, some many pious Muslims continue to harass and imprison Christian proselytizers, rather than wee this as an opportunity for Da'wa! Yet more work for "Mensch Keymelon"...

More:

Wellington, " So what penalty does occur to a Muslim father when he kills his daughter"

For any unlawful killing there is an expiation to God outside of the law of retaliation and this is supreme.

In the case of a murder within a family it is the state that should deal with the perpetrator and the court system.
........................................

And yet, so many parts of Dar-al-Islam consider this little more than a misdemeanor, or subject to no penalty whatsoever, and does so on Islamic grounds. Does "Mensch Keymelon" have a problem with this? He has not addressed this, so I doubt it.

More:

Any person who knowingly kills a Muslim will be rewarded with hell.
........................................

Note both this and the oblique reference to "unlawful killing", above. Pious Muslims don't consider the murder of a disobedient child "unlawful", and, through the handy Islamic doctrine of "Takfir", a person acting in a manner deemed "un-Islamic"—such as a wayward child—need not be considered a Muslim.

And once again, "Mensch Keymelon" is having a difficult time of things here re his fellow Muslim troll, Rezali Mehil.

While he is employing Taqiyya in order to attempt to convince us that Islamic Honor Killing does not exist, Rezali is badly undercutting his crap by her impassioned apologia for Honor Killing.

Really, shouldn't they coordinate things with each other? This is just embarrassing...

The Reliance of the Traveller

o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation: ...

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

(5) nor is retaliation permissible to a descendant for [his ancestor’s] killing someone whose death would otherwise entitle the descendant to retaliate, such as when his father kills his mother.

It would seem that parents are not punished for killing their children, but that children can still be punished for killing their parents - even in a case when the parents did something to deserve it!

So the argument that "a family cannot 'retaliate' or demand 'blood money' from itself is not valid. That is not the real reason why Islamic law tolerates parents killing their children.

Let's be honest. The real reason is that Muslim children are regarded as the "property" of their parents. Parents and children do not stand equal before the sharia law. Parents "own" their children, and the sharia grants them discretion to treat them however they like.

All the best, Mrs Nimer. I hope you, your daughter and her boyfriend recover quickly, and that you'll be granted a quick divorce. It must be some comfort to know that you were completely justified in throwing out your husband.

The appalling "Rezali Mehil" wrote:

"I was out of the house for the last twelve months, I was thrown out," El-Haj said."

On whose authority was this man thrown out? - where was the support from his wife and his daughter for the husband/father.
........................................

Rezali Mehil is still unable to fathom the idea that a woman in the civilized West can legally leave a man.

More:

How can ANY self respecting muslim family allow a non-muslim - some uncircumcised piece of garbage take over their home, someone who brings dirt and filth to replace the sweet sound of Bismillah - how bloody dare he!!!
........................................

Again, Rezali seems incapable of realizing that these people *wanted* to be in each other's company. Instead, she frames it in the only way that she can understand it–as a power struggle between men.

And why not? After all, the marriage contract in Islam is not a pledge between a man and a woman to "love, honor, and cherish" each other, but rather a father granting the prospective husband permission to f*ck his daughter, usually in consideration of a payment in cash or goods.

More:

El-Haj is not at fault here - he had been extremely patient, he was thrown out, he closed his eyes and ears to those stares and little whispers that simply would not go away.
........................................

As she has made clear before, Rezali Mehil considers the killer—would-be killer in this case—to be the *real victim*.

And notice her reference to the "stares and little whispers". "Honor Killings" are rarely just family affairs—often large parts of the Muslim "community" pressure the killer, as well.

And realize what this means—a grown man kills his wife and children because of *peer pressure*. This renders an adult Muslim the emotional equivalent of a particularly impressionable school boy who doesn't want his buddies to say he's "chicken". *Good God*.

More:

He went and offered dua to stop the pain, the anguish. Oh how he missed his wife, and where was that sweet girl who used to listen to his every word as she was growing up - she broke his heart into a thousand pieces -with scum no less.
........................................

And how did Talal Nimer go about showing how much he missed his estranged wife and daughter? By *trying to shoot them to death*. Muslim "family values" in action...

More:

Well after a year - enough was enough for the man who had been mentally tortured for the full year - how much more can a proud man take?
........................................

Again, shouldn't Rezali be coordinating things with her fellow Muslim troll "Mensch Keymelon"? While he's denying that anything like Islamic "Honor Killing" exists, Rezali is busy condoning it. How awkward!

More:

So he took an unfortunate course, breaking the law is never a good idea...
........................................

In a full Shari'ah state murdering your wife and child would not be a crime. So would Rezali Mehil be OK with it in that case? She has already indicated that she would be. **Horrifying**.

More:

And look at temerity of the kuffar "After the shooting, the 21-year-old boyfriend reached for a knife and stabbed El-Haj".

after all the wrongs he did, does this boyfriend still have no shame?????
........................................

The boyfriend was trying to save his life and protect that of his girlfriend and her mother. Those sound like *real* family values to me. And he *was* able to save their lives.

That's what a *real* man would do-and did.

Lol, yes: it's been fun and informative to follow the debate.

The Keymelon describing Mr Spencer as a "dumbass" and then complaining about an ad hominem attack was a high point.

A low point was Rezali's breathlessly effusive fantasies.

Not unrelated is that my copy of "Reliance of the Traveller" has a unpleasant smell, am I the only one experiencing this?

Oh dear, oh dear oh dear. Our friend Nasseem / dee wally / rezali is sounding more and more like a drug user who needs a bigger and bigger dose to get their fix. This arse of a writer can only be a man who hates women, kaffirs, the west and all that goes with it. i.e. a mad muzloid.

I agree with "Bipolar Islamic Incompoop" (what an awful screen name!) to a point. Law enforcement personnel should be educated in the barbaric ways of Islam, so that they know what they're dealing with when they investigate an honor killing or an act of terrorism or any other crime committed by Muslims who are waging "domestic" jihad. So should be judges and juries. But at the same time, such criminal acts should be treated without exception as straight-up criminal felonies according to American law, and not according to "foreign" law.

This is what the Islamic "civil rights" activists (CAIR, ICNA, MPAC, et al.) fear the most: that their barbaric and tribal ways will count for nothing in a secular judiciary. Motives, after all, cannot be put on trial, and an individual who is on trial for a criminal action is being judged for what actions he took, not why he took them. The courts (and law enforcement) may deem the motive behind a crime as heinous, but that should be a secondary evaluation and play no role in proving guilt and administering sentencing.

Otherwise, to focus on the motive behind an honor killing is to grant Islam a recognition doesn’t deserve and hands Islamic supremacists talking points and "civil rights" ammunition about "Islamophobia" and "bigotry." Focusing on the motive also admits other political demons into the picture, namely politically correct thought control and the bogus notion of "hate crime," and we're seeing that happening in realms that have nothing to do with Islam. (Re the Rutgers University case of the "anti-gay" actions of a student who allegedly drove another student to suicide, and the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case, both dominated by "thought crime").

"The suspect Talal Nimer is facing attempted murder charges after shooting his estranged wife, their daughter and their daughter’s boyfriend. Mission police [said] the gunman's Muslim faith did not play a role in their investigation." But according to the newspaper article, Nimer claimed when questioned that his motive was strictly Islamic.

This reflects on the police's fear of inviting charges of "Islamophobia," that they would deny the Islamic faith had nothing to do with the crime, even though Nimer said it was his motive. Denying the motive behind a crime is not the same thing as treating it as irrelevant in a court of law. It bespeaks of willful evasion of the facts.

Couldn`t agree more with you Jan. This Islamic loony is obviously a complete mysogonist After this latest rant I do wonder at his sanity.

That may be so, Jan. This would not be the first time a Muslim male has posted "in drag" so to speak.

it's the internet equivalent of hiding underneath a burqa...except that Jan, for example, has spotted the size ten feet and hairy ankles sticking out from under the robe.

Diana Summers, two excellent posts from you.

You wrote, in reply to "Mensch Keymelon":

The Reliance of the Traveller...

It would seem that parents are not punished for killing their children, but that children can still be punished for killing their parents - even in a case when the parents did something to deserve it!

So the argument that "a family cannot 'retaliate' or demand 'blood money' from itself is not valid. That is not the real reason why Islamic law tolerates parents killing their children.

Let's be honest. The real reason is that Muslim children are regarded as the "property" of their parents. Parents and children do not stand equal before the sharia law. Parents "own" their children, and the sharia grants them discretion to treat them however they like.
......................................

Very, very important point, Diana. Classic logic—something Muslim apologists cannot grasp.

When Saudi police told an abused British girl that her father could murder her without penalty if he so desired, they *certainly* didn't say she could do the same to him.

British girl kidnapped by Saudi father: "I told [the police] he was keeping me there against my will and all they said was, 'He's your father, if he wants he can kill you'."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/04/british-girl-kidnapped-by-saudi-father-i-told-the-police-he-was-keeping-me-there-against-my-will-and.html

You are right—women and children are treated as property in Islam. Ugh.

More, in reply to Rezali Mehil:

On whose authority was this man thrown out? - where was the support from his wife and his daughter for the husband/father.

He was thrown out by his wife because he committed adultery.
......................................

I had intended to mention this very salient point, but got distracted by the rest of Rezali's vile verbiage.

She implies that the wife just capriciously ousted Nimer from the happy home, instead of acknowledging that he had already violated their marriage. At that point, it was up to the wife to decide whether to take him back.

While Muslims often pretend that adultery is regarded in the same manner whether committed by men or women, clearly this is not so. Women regularly suffer greater penalties.

And given his recent attempt to murder his wife and child, it is is quite likely that he had been violent with them previously—*also* grounds for divorce in the civilized West.

More:

How can ANY self respecting muslim family allow a non-muslim – some uncircumcised piece of garbage take over their home, someone who brings dirt and filth to replace the sweet sound of Bismillah - how bloody dare he!!!

Rezali, do you really think of non-Muslims as “uncircumcised piece[s] of garbage” who necessarily “bring dirt and filth” simply by existing? Do you really think of Muslims as “cleaner” and “more useful” simply because they are Muslim? This is not an attitude that will endear you to a non-Muslim audience.
......................................

No—but this is of course classic Islam, where Infidels are considered "Najis"—unclean—and in the same category as urine, feces, and dead animals.

More:

El-Haj is not at fault here … & etc.

Are you a personal friend of this family? If not, how can you possibly know what they did, thought and felt in private? Your imaginings are not facts, and they do not throw any light on the situation.
......................................

Rezali has done this before. She has waxed eloquent in her imaginings of the tender feelings of Yaser Said as he "Honor Killed" his two young daughters Amina and Sarah.

And it is not just *this* Muslim apologist. A couple of years ago another Muslim apologist—I believe it was "roland"—revealed his feverish fantasy of Muzzammil Hassan's beheading of his wife, Aasiya.

The posts were *frighteningly similar*. I can only conclude that this is a common Muslim fantasy.

So, while this may not throw any light on the Nimer case per se, that it likely reveals a great deal about the Muslim mindset.

More:

El-Haj is at fault because he attempted murder. No matter how distressed a person is by another’s words or deeds, nothing excuses murder. For example, if a man finds his wife in bed with another man, he is fully justified in divorcing his wife, but he is not justified in physically attacking her or to her lover. No sexual or financial crime is remotely as serious as murder.
......................................

Unfortunately, Rezali Mehil—and many other pious Muslims—do not believe this. Over the past month, she has condoned the "Honor Killing" of children over and over again, always on the grounds of 'disobedience'. She has, instead, repeatedly blamed the West for these crimes—because being in the West means that these children want more than is allowed under Islam, like freedom and boyfriends.

But she has repeatedly ignored the fact that "Honor Killing" is also rife in the Muslim world–that it is, in fact, *more* common, because at least some Muslims in the West are given pause by Western laws and norms. Not because they respect them, I imagine, but because they realize that they will face serious punishment for these crimes here.

More:

So he took an unfortunate course, breaking the law is never a good idea…

Murder is not wrong because it is against the law. Murder is against the law because it is wrong.
......................................

Exactly so. But then, pious Muslims rarely have any real sense of morality—instead, it is all based on what is "permitted" and what is "forbidden"—*not* on what is right and wrong.

More:

Here is the difference between El-Haj’s violence and the boyfriend’s. El-Haj attacked the family because he felt unhappy about their behaviour. The boyfriend attacked El-Haj as an act of self-defence. El-Haj struck first, and the boyfriend struck back to deter further violence. Self-defence is the only circumstance under which violence can be justified. To strike the second blow is excusable, or sometimes even right. To strike the first blow is a very heinous crime.
......................................

Very true—and yet, again, a morality that Muslims like Rezali simply do not recognize. She believes that a Muslim man has carte blanche to abuse and murder his family if he so desires, but that they have no right to defend themselves, either through divorce or physical self defense, because they are his property.

some uncircumcised piece of garbage take over their home, someone who brings dirt and filth to replace the sweet sound of Bismillah - how bloody dare he!!!

the only piece of garbage here are u blood thirsty islamic demons....and how bloody dare you talk about us as dirt and filth when you come from a septic tank....

________________________________________-
And look at temerity of the kuffar "After the shooting, the 21-year-old boyfriend reached for a knife and stabbed El-Haj".

after all the wrongs he did, does this boyfriend still have no shame?????
_________________________________________
, the only "wrong" he did was showing natural human affection to another person, looking beyond the barriers your primitive and barbaric religion set up, treating her as a person and not as an object...... something a repulsive witch like you couldn't understand, and if there's anyone who should have shame is quran thumping toads like you and el hajj..........
and i ask you rezali, have you as a woman have no shame, allowing yourself to be degraded like that by your muslim pig husband?

"In my trip to Algeria God is transforming the nation by bringing some freedom to Christianity ..."

Algeria will never be acceptable until Islam is completely overthrown -- root, branch and all. (Same goes, of course, for the other 50+ member nations of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.)

Kinana, quoting the hadith from Sahih Muslim on the figure of Al-Khidr:

The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless...

There's that ubiquitous loophole in Islam. "Don't do X -- unless W, Y and Z..."

Muslim apologists frequently point gullible Infidels to the first part, the "Don't do X" part -- while cleverly leaving out the loophole exceptions to the rule. That would be kitman -- the Islamic style of deception that tells only part of the truth, in order to lay down the snare of a larger deception.

Hello Albert,

You ask me about ncircumcised garbage.

The uncircumcised are unclean, less sensitive and always have something to hide.

For me, this defines the kuffar to a T.

You always have a hidden agenda - like selecting and propping up every singe dictator in the ME, pulling strings from a safe distance.

In regard to the kuffar stabbing El Haj you say "the only "wrong" he did was showing natural human affection to another person".

That is so wrong in so many ways, I don't know where to begin.

IMHO though, rather than the 21-year-old boyfriend reaching for a knife and stabbing El-Haj, he should have thought: "it's a fair muslim, I have brought much shame and tension to his family - so I will do the decent thing, I will just stumble, bleeding, to that far corner and die".

a repulsive witch like you - no I am a proud muslimah and yes I have no shame in saying that.

unclean, less sensitive and always have something to hide.

For me, this describes Talal Nimer El-Haj to a T.

His adultery made him unclean.
His failure to understand how this sin hurt his wife and daughter made him insensitive.
His attempt to force his daughter into an unwanted marriage made him insensitive.
His threats of violence against them were both unclean and insensitive.
His insistence that Islam and honour had "nothing to do with" his crime was an example of something he was trying to hide.
He strikes me as a person who could never admit his faults or make any attempt to improve himself, but arrogantly demanded that other people bend to his wishes, no matter what.

I don't say this because he is a Muslim, but because of his actions.

Having said that, his actions are rooted in Islam. Mohammed was also a person who could never admit himself in the wrong, but arrogantly demanded that the whole world submit to his demands for sex, money, violence and control. Some of his disciples, it seems, copy him to this day.

You make a (medically inaccurate) statement about "the uncircumcised" as if all uncircumcised people are alike and think and act in exactly the same way. Judging an individual by his group is an inaccurate, unwise and sometimes hateful thing to do.

I have brought much shame and tension to his family -

You write as if the boyfriend was the one who broke up the family. No, it was El-Haj who broke up the family by his failure to remain faithful to his wife. The boyfriend only moved in after El-Haj had left - after his opinion was no longer relevant. The boyfriend brought no "tension" or "shame" to the family, for his girlfriend and her mother were not conflicted or ashamed about his living with them.

If El-Haj felt "shame" over his daughter's unchastity, this only highlights his hypocrisy. Why did he not feel "shame" over his own unchastity? His adultery was enormously worse than her fornication.

I will just stumble, bleeding, to that far corner and die

If the boyfriend had done this, El-Haj would have probably killed his wife and daughter. Then he would have gone to the electric chair for mass-murder. Then four people would be dead. As it is, all four are alive. El-Haj will go to jail, but he won't be sentenced to death.

Do you really believe it is right for any number of women, children and unbelievers to die just so that a Muslim male can feel good about himself?

Rezali Mehil wrote, replying to Albert Teague:

Hello Albert,

You ask me about ncircumcised garbage.

The uncircumcised are unclean, less sensitive and always have something to hide.

For me, this defines the kuffar to a T.
.......................................

What utter crap. Circumcision in and of itself makes no difference whatsoever as to the content of a man's character. Only a pious Muslim would believe that it does.

Men periodically undergo circumcision as adults for medical or other reasons, and it results in no radical character changes. And why would it?

Besides, all Jews are circumcised, and this hardly prevents Muslims from being virulently antisemitic.

In addition, the likelihood that this boyfriend is uncircumcised is actually pretty slim. Until recently, most American boys were circumcised in the hospital right after birth as a matter of course, whatever their faith.

It is comparatively rare to find an American male much over the age of twenty who is *not* circumcised. (Note: I am making no value judgment one way or the other over this phenomenon in this case—just noting its existence).

Also, the idea that a man who would callously *murder his wife and child* is "sensitive" is just grotesquely perverse.

More:

You always have a hidden agenda - like selecting and propping up every singe dictator in the ME, pulling strings from a safe distance.
.......................................

What rot. The Muslim world has *always* had authoritarian rulers—they just differ slightly in degree of brutality and degree of Islamic fanaticism. The West did not create this situation.

More:

In regard to the kuffar stabbing El Haj you say "the only "wrong" he did was showing natural human affection to another person".

That is so wrong in so many ways, I don't know where to begin.
.......................................

Well, *of course* Rezali Mehil considers it wrong to show natural human affection to another person. As a pious Muslimah, she much prefers "Honor Killing" those who show the slightest 'disobedience'.

More:

IMHO though, rather than the 21-year-old boyfriend reaching for a knife and stabbing El-Haj, he should have thought: "it's a fair muslim, I have brought much shame and tension to his family - so I will do the decent thing, I will just stumble, bleeding, to that far corner and die".
.......................................

Well, *of course* he should have just laid down and died. Isn't that what any Infidel should do when a pious Muslim tries to murder him?

And she also believes that he should have let Nimer murder his girlfriend and her mother. Instead, he *protected* his lover and her mother—thus exhibiting much better values than his attacker.

More:

a repulsive witch like you - no I am a proud muslimah and yes I have no shame in saying that.
.......................................

And what does a "proud Muslimah" do?

Why, condone the murder of Muslim wives and children by their homicidal "owner". Anything else would be "un-Islamic"...

Diana

more than once, in this forum, I have referred to M Scott Peck's preliminary study of the psychodynamics of human (individual, and group) evil: People of the Lie.

Here is part of what he says in chapter 2 of that book, 'Toward a Psychology of Evil'. It strongly supports your analysis of this despicable Mohammedan Pride Murderer (and it also, I think, throws some light on the utterances of rezali and the melonman, as well).

"..it is necessary that we first draw the distinction between evil, and ordinary sin. It is not their sins per se that characterize evil people, rather it is the subtlety and persistence and consistency of their sins.

"This is because the central defect of the evil is not the sin, but the refusal to acknowledge it.

‘Bobby’s parents [case study: people Mr Peck had encountered in his psychology practice - dda] and the people described in the next chapter, except for their evil, are most ordinary…

"They are criminals in that they commit crimes against life and liveliness.

"But except in rare instances – such as the case of a Hitler – when they might achieve extraordinary degrees of political power that remove them from ordinary restraints, their crimes are so subtle and covert [though not so, in the case of many Mohammedans; Peck is reflecting on his experience of evil non-Muslim people within 'the West', people whose behaviour and mindset went *against* the deepest principles of the still-strongly-Christianised society they inhabited - dda] that they cannot clearly be designated as crimes.

" The theme of hiding and covertness will occur again and again throughout the rest of the book. It is the basis for the title, ‘People of the Lie’.

{Now *that* is Islam and the Ummah to a T... The Muslims practise and indeed value and are pleased by deception (when done by themselves, for the advantage of the ummah) to an extent that no other human gestalt ever does or has done, yet spin round and accuse the kuffar of being people with 'something to hide'!!! - dda}.

"If evil people cannot be defined [or cannot necessarily be defined - dda] by the illegality of their deeds or the magnitude of their sins, then how are we to define them?

"The answer is by the consistency of their sins.

"While usually subtle, their destructiveness is remarkably consistent. This is because those who have ‘crossed over the line’ are characterized by their absolute refusal to tolerate the sense of their own sinfulness…

"A predominant characteristic…of the behaviour of those I call evil is scapegoating.

{and the Ummah 'scapegoats' **all the time**; it seems almost to be reflexive with them. a normal or default mode of operation - dda}

"**Because in their hearts they consider themselves above reproach, they must lash out at anyone who does reproach them. They sacrifice others to preserve their self-image of perfection…**

{my emphasis: remember, the Quran and other Islamic texts tell Muslims continually that they are 'the best of people', with the right to rule and boss everyone else around; Muslims are absolutely committed to the belief that they - qua Muslims - are superior to everyone else, totally entitled to do as they please to everyone else who isn't Muslim, and that the sharia system is absolutely perfect and without flaw and that whatever Mohammed did was right - dda}.

"Scapegoating works through a mechanism psychiatrists call projection.

"Since the evil, deep down, feel themselves to be faultless, it is inevitable that when they are in conflict with the world, they will invariably perceive the conflict as the world’s fault.

{And Islam fosters this mindset constantly. Hence The Religion of Perpetual Outrage; the uncooperative world jumps out and bites them at every turn. - dda}.

"Since they must deny their own badness, they must perceive others as bad. They project their own evil onto the world.

" They never think of themselves as evil; on the other hand, they consequently see much evil in others… {Muslims of all kinds project evil onto the kuffar, especially onto Jews, and onto dhimmis; and within the Ummah, Mohammedan males project their own evil onto their women - dda}.

'Evil, then, is most often committed in order to scapegoat, and the people I label as evil are chronic scapegoaters.

'In ‘The Road Less Travelled’ I defined evil ‘as the exercise of political power – that is, the imposition of one’s will upon others by overt or covert coercion – in order to avoid spiritual growth [p. 279]’.

" In other words: the evil attack others instead of facing their own failures.

"Spiritual growth requires the acknowledgement of one’s need to grow. If we
cannot make that acknowledgement, we have no option except to attempt to eradicate the evidence of our imperfection."

One small correction to the above.

I referred to the 'Mohammedan Pride Murderer'.

He was, of course, a *would-be* Pride Murderer, for he did not in fact succeed in achieving the murders he fully intended to carry out.

I have read People of the Lie, and I strongly recommend it to all other JW readers.

It is a lively analysis of what the DSM-IV calls the Anti-Social Personality Disorder. Actually this is not a mental illness at all, but a moral condition - a simple and total failure of empathy for other human beings. Psychologists estimate that as many as 1% of the population may be guilty of it. Most, as Peck points out in your extract, hide behind their "ordinariness" and are never caught. A few, and Nimer El-Haj is probably an example of these, expose themselves by publicly breaching social norms and therefore being subject to legal penalties.

Such people feel entitled to whatever they want in any way they can get it. They can rarely keep track of their own lies. If they take revenge, they always claim it was "justified" because their victim in some way failed them. They are incapable of admitting themselves in the wrong because they were, in the first place, entitled to whatever frustrated desire "forced" them to react.

You find these people in every culture. What is worrying is how easily Islam accommodates and flatters the adult male of this type.

The other 99% of us have something of a duty to expose them in order to protect their past and potential victims.

You said, of the Anti-Social Personality Disorder'

"You find these people in every culture. What is worrying is how easily Islam accommodates and flatters the adult male of this type."

It's not just that they are accommodated and flattered; they are intentionally *produced* or *trained*. Islam takes the born-neurologically/ empathically-normal who would become perfectly ordinary, decent humans if born into families following a different belief-system, and forcibly reprograms them with Anti-Social Personality Disorder. I think the core problem with Islam is that as an ideology it *normalises* the Anti-Social Personality from the earliest point it actively trains and encourages *all* Mohammedans (including females and children) to exhibit this malevolent mindset and behaviour pattern toward all non-Mohammedans, while also programming male Mohammedans to behave that way toward female Mohammedans *as well*.

Dumbledore's Army wrote:

It's not just that they are accommodated and flattered; they are intentionally *produced* or *trained*. Islam takes the born-neurologically/ empathically-normal who would become perfectly ordinary, decent humans if born into families following a different belief-system, and forcibly reprograms them with Anti-Social Personality Disorder. I think the core problem with Islam is that as an ideology it *normalises* the Anti-Social Personality from the earliest point...
.......................................

I believe this is very true, Dumbledore's Army.

There are people who would be sociopaths in *any* environment, and those who will be essentially personally decent in almost any environment-although both types will be unable, for very different reasons, to always act as they would wish.

But there are always a very large number of more or less impressionable people—perhaps even the majority—who will very much be formed by the ethos of their social milieu. A decent environment tends to develop decent people, and an environment steeped in evil concepts will do just the opposite.

This is *exactly* what we see in Islam.

While it is easy to see how Islam's sick environment warped and destroyed author Ayaan Hirsi Ali's sister-and almost did the same to Ayaan herself-it is also sadly instructive to see what it did to her brother.

He was brought up to be self-centered, and full of self-regard regardless of any achievement. He was—like virtually *all* Muslim boys—taught that he was superior to both his sisters and his mother, simply by dint of his gender. He was both expected to do great things, and given no discipline or instruction with which to actually achieve anything.

Like so many Muslim males, he wound up petulant, lazy, and underachieving as an adult. He got a family early on, and would by turns abandon them for long stretches, then turn up and tyrannize and oppress them, and be unable to understand why they didn't welcome such treatment. Then, resentful, he would walk out again.

He blamed his wife and children for most of his problems—even though, by his estimation, they were inferior to him in every way.

Anyway, I should read M. Scott Peck. I've known of his work for years, but still have never read him. I bet I would very much recognize his types...

"Psychologists estimate that as many as 1% of the population may be guilty of it. Most, as Peck points out in your extract, hide behind their "ordinariness" and are never caught. "

Peck, as with most Westerners, is thinking inside that peculiar Western box that paradoxically assumes parochially that everyone in the world is really a Westerner at heart, and is generously extending this Universalism to Mankind, whether they accept and manifest it or not.

It is reasonable to suppose that most if not all 1.3 billion Muslims have the personality disorder which Westerners sweepingly would say only 1% of the world has. But, of course, the West will continue to think Muslims are like us, until after a few million of us are mass-murdered in the decades of this new century to come, and we see with our own eyes horrors we cannot even imagine now.

If I can see this and anticipate it, why can't others in my society? I'm nothing special. I'm not a freaking genius or anything.

Lemonline, you make a good on-principle point about statistics, but I think you have exaggerated.

When the DSM-IV estimated "1% of people" they almost certainly meant 1% of Westerners. I think Peck also used this number, but probably in imitation of the DSM-IV. He estimated that about 20% of the population are stuck on Level 1 morality (i.e., selfish, low empathy, willing to do anything they can get away with) and that this 20% includes the 1% who are actually evil.

I think the numbers would be higher in the Muslim world, for all the reasons we have discussed, but "most people" is absurd. I suspect that most of the ordinary Muslims whom you are describing as "evil" are really only selfish. I don't know how many such persons there are, but I seriously doubt that it's "almost all".

People who have lived in Muslim countries have estimated to me that about 5% of their compatriots are evil. Their problem is, in a room of 100 acquaintances, it would be practically impossible to pick the five evil ones; therefore there is a general attitude of distrusting one's neighbour. And in a city of a million people, 50,000 evil ones working in concert can do serious damage.

LemomLime wrote, replying to Diana Summers:

"Psychologists estimate that as many as 1% of the population may be guilty of it. Most, as Peck points out in your extract, hide behind their "ordinariness" and are never caught. "

Peck, as with most Westerners, is thinking inside that peculiar Western box that paradoxically assumes parochially that everyone in the world is really a Westerner at heart, and is generously extending this Universalism to Mankind, whether they accept and manifest it or not.
......................................

To be fair, LemonLime, Peck was writing for a Western audience, and wasn't likely thinking about Islam and other perverse creeds when he wrote.

He may well have meant that about 1% of the population would be sociopathic under even near optimal circumstances.

Those essentially raised by sociopaths-which is the de facto condition in all too many Muslim households—just see Rezali Mehil's vicious rantings, above-the percentage is likely to be much, much higher.

But you are right—it is all too common for Westerners to see civilized Western behavior as some sort of automatic default of "normalcy"—rather than a state that had to be worked and fought for over the course of centuries.