Sharia in action in France: Muslima lifts veil because of the heat, husband breaks her jaw

"Her husband found the sight of her naked neck intolerable"

I wonder why didn't Mr. Anas find "the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet" ... intolerable!
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/03/muhammad-and-nudity-mahomet-et-la.html

The more Islam changes, the more it stays the same!

Clown!

If a man is tempted by the sight of women then he should be blindfolded for environmental reasons. Blindfolds use less water for cotton farming than burkas.

It was not her jaw, but her nose that was broken according to the article. But that's a minor detail.

Anyway Mahoundiands don't tolerate women showing their faces, their, necks whatever. Mahoundians are inacceptable.

Give me a few minutes with hubby and he will never strike a woman again.

...a goatherd admonishing his goat

Such a sadomasochistic religion. She defied her master's authority by trying to suffer less in the bondage wear he put her in, which resulted in immediate punishment. I'm sure he took great pleasure in putting her into place.

That's Islam for you a headgame that turns men into hammers and females into nails. All that's required is an excuse for the hammering to start.

There's hundreds of millions of girls and women having to live with this nightmare of muslim men bullying and judging their every move, no matter how minor.

What apple pie is to America, violence is to Islamic culture.

Religion of peace My Ass .This guy should get a minimum of 10 years.Remember the Koran says how to beat your wife.Anybody that condones this is a retarted Person.

Religion of peace My Ass .This guy should get a minimum of 10 years.Remember the Koran says how to beat your wife.Anybody that condones this is a retarded Person.

So glad I'm not a muslima! I feel so sorry for them, and really can't see why any woman would defend this evil, other then the threat of more torture...I see why so many end it themselves, poor things.

Muslim female covering (whether it be headscarf or niqab or burqa) = Slave Rag.

If it leaves the face visible, it's the Slave Hood. If it covers the face and/ or the eyes, it is the Slave Mask.

It defines the female as an object, the chattel of a male member of the Mohammedan Mob.

And given the number of cases in which Mohammedan females have been threatened or beaten up or killed by Mohammedan male mobsters **within Western countries** - I remember Aqsa Parvez, who didn't want to wear the headscarf (not burqa, not niqab, but the faux-modest faux-pious 'see I look just like a nun in her wimple!' Slave Hood) - for refusing to wear the Slave Rag, all the arguments routinely made for allowing Mohammedan females to prance about it in it in public in non-Muslim countries, are specious and foolish.

Given that there is *no way* to tell from appearances whether any given Mohammedan female is wearing the Slave Rag as a result of her cult brainwashing (i.e. she is a proud Gang Moll who looks down on all those evil kaffir females whose non-wearing of the Slave Rag identifies them as dirty un-owned whores deserving to be raped and enslaved by any Mohammedan male who feels he can get away with so doing), or whether she is wearing the Slave Rag - whether Hood or Mask - simply and solely out of abject fear, because she knows she will cop a bashing or an acid shower or get her throat slit by the male Mohammedan Mobsters if she doesn't, the banning of the wearing of the Slave Rag seems to me to be imperative within all majority non-Muslim countries.

Ideally, of course, we wouldn't *have* any Mohammedans in our midst; but at the moment, part of the pushback against Islamisation can include keeping up the call for a ban on the Slave Rag, across the countries of the Western world. And by strongly encouraging countries like France, that *have* at least got a burqa ban on the books, to **enforce it**, no matter what.

Ladies and gentlemen

if you can read and/ or write French, do please click on the link at 'source: Elle.fr', to read the original article (which tells you that this couple are not visitors to France, but that they normally reside in Lille), and which is open for Comment.

I am currently reading the Comments (I can read French fairly well, though I can only speak or write stumbling phrases).

They are very interesting. The first few I have read are definitely Islamosavvy.

Judging from the comments, this incident actually took place some time ago.

The very earliest comments date from March 2009, which would suggest that the story was first published at that time.

What *is* interesting, however - I read the Comments from 'Newest' to 'Oldest', covering the period between March 2009 and August 2012 - is that the majority of the longer and more detailed Islamo-apologetic comments (whether by Muslims attempting to run Damage Control or by Useful Idiot dhimmis-in-training) seem to be of earlier date, whereas the most recent comments seem to be mostly by French non-Muslims who are taking no nonsense from the apologists, and have done their homework on Abominable Islam..

That is, the Comments, 98 of them in toto, seem to reflect or indicate an increase in Islamorealism.

Hi Robb,

I guess you have consumed a bit excessive alchohol while drafting this article,can i ask why you have trimmed the quranic verse while quoting it?? what you are scared from?? i f u wanna quote then show courage and type the full verse
which is as follows
Quran 4:34

http://quran.com/4/34

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand .

Your treacherous approach becomes evident from the last part of this verese which u hav trimmed.

Requesting you to be brave and incorporate some truth in your statements.

Dont be coward gain by moderating or withholding my comment.

Have a nice day,,and less alchohol dose while writing.

Best Regards

Hi Robb,

I guess you have consumed a bit excessive alchohol while drafting this article,can i ask why you have trimmed the quranic verse while quoting it?? what you are scared from?? i f u wanna quote then show courage and type the full verse
which is as follows
Quran 4:34

http://quran.com/4/34

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand .

Your treacherous approach becomes evident from the last part of this verese which u hav trimmed.

Requesting you to be brave and incorporate some truth in your statements.

Dont be coward gain by moderating or withholding my comment.

Have a nice day,,and less alchohol dose while writing.

Best Regards

Seriously someone should tell the news media to start telling all the news. If the world never hears all the news how can good be effective against evil?

Someone should make a movie about all this stuff. Where are all these hot shot movie producers when they are needed?

True love

Islam advocates an eye for an eye type justice. This Muslim 'gentleman' should have had his nose or jaw broken. Plus prison time of course.

Here's an almost identical case from neighboring Italy:

"Italy: Muslim severely beats daughter in mall for refusing veil"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/italy-muslim-severely-beats-daughter-in-mall-for-refusing-veil.html

Sincere Apologies and deep regrets if my comment appeared to be vulgar & abusive, however still my question left unanswered that why Mr. Robert trimmed the verse???
In fact am surprised to see so many fingers pointing my true arguement, feeling "ABUSED", whilst their everyday business(including hosting this website) lies in affronting others.
I never expected the so called educated and competent westerners to be blindfoldly based on prejudices.

Unfortunately All of you seems to be confined inside a tiny circle whose centre is Robert and diameter is prejudice. You view is only which Sir Robert and alike wants you to see(trimming of verse is a live example).
If you are really an advocate of human rights & wanna combat terrorism then

WHY DON’T U EVER HAD A COPY OF QURAN AND EXPLORE YOURSELF WHAT ACTUALLY IT TEACHES.
Why it promotes terrorism & domestic violence ??? Why it curbs human rights?? (of course it never does)

PLEASE TRY IT ONCE

http://quran.com/

or at least have a look at these articles before arriving at conclusion
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,175987,00.html
http://www.islamhouse.com/p/206762
http://www.islamhouse.com/p/49541
http://www.dawahusa.com/
http://www.islamhouse.com/p/263651
http://www.sultan.org/

Intelligent ones argue on facts, others on assumptions.

Well if you are here to just pass your time then a multiplex or Soccer match could have been a better idea.

Does Sir Robert ever Quoted that Quran Says
16:125

"Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided."

HAVE U EVER HEARD THAT QURAN SAYS
4:90

“Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.”

Or Else if your goal is to combat Islam rather than combating terrorism and advocating human rights, perhaps due to the fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion , then remain confined in your circle and keep on savouring a Robertian perspective.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4385768.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/05/26/islam_faith_feature.shtml

If one blames Islam for the tough acts of some muslim individuals, then I can more easily blame all Americans & their religion for wrecking Japan and all English for ruining Africa & promoting Slavery in the past.

Kindly pardon me if my speech offended anyone, since I never intended that.

Many Thanks & Kind Regards

Behold, the Mohammedan poster above accuses us of ignorance and hate - projection, much? - and exhorts us to read the wonderful, wonderful Quran. And, of course, toward the end it has a go at Tu quoque (it really should not have mentioned slavery, since historically Muslim societies have practised slavery on a scale that eclipses all others, and the *only* people in the present day and age who are openly calling for the decriminalisation of slavery, and advocating a resumption of the practice of taking, keeping, using, and trading in slaves, especially *sex slaves*, are...MUSLIMS).

Newsflash: every one of the regular posters here has read the Quran, and it did *not* impress us with its wonderfulness - rather the reverse.

We found it to be incoherent, in equal parts mixed of gibberish, platitudes, threats, outright nonsense, incitations to violence and hate, and ripped-off and grossly-distorted and indeed debased and degraded versions of certain Bible stories and persons.

And then some of us read the Sira and some or all of the Sahih Hadith, and Tabari, and found out that *those* texts, highly respected among Muslims, were even **worse**.

Our distrust and dislike of Islam has grown from ever-increasing knowledge, acquired from many, many sources besides Mr Spencer's useful books. Quite a few here have lived and worked for extended periods within dar al Islam, and others - British, French, Danish, German - have lived in Islamised areas of our homelands and have experienced, first hand, just how nastily the general run of Mohammedans behave toward one another and toward non-Muslims when they think they are strong enough to get away with it.

Observe, everyone.

The Mohammedan evaded and *did not answer* my questions, each of which deals with something that, all over the mohammedan world, has gotten people killed

1/ the apostasy law: sharia teaches that anyone who leaves Islam must be killed. There is a mountain of evidence from every period and every place where Islam has ever been practised, to show that this is common practice.

Our Mohammedan has refused to answer. I can only assume that s/he approves of Death for Apostasy.

2/ the veil: women are required to cover, and all over the Islamic world - and beyond it - there are multiple cases of women being forced to cover, or being beaten/ doused with acid/ **killed** if they do not cover to the degree that some Mohammedthug control freak demands that they should (the Quranic and Hadith sources allow for a range of types of covering, but *all* demand at least the covering of the hair, and the wording is vague enough to allow for the demand by some Mohammedan gang bosses that women must cover *everything*, screening even their eyes. I wanted to find out whether our Mohammedthug would do to his/ her daughter what Parvez Senior did to Aqsa Parvez in Canada: strangling her because she refused to wear the Islamic headscarf.

Again, our Mohammedan has refused to answer a series of straight questions. I can only assume that s/he thinks that women *should* be compelled to cover, and punished if they do not.

3/ Sharia forbids Muslim women to marry non-Muslim males. This is usually justified by a Quranic verse. I wanted to know whether our Mohammedthug approved of this rule, which is very widely followed. Amina and Sarah Said, within the USA, were murdered by their Egyptian Muslim father; one of the likely 'reasons' was that they had non-Muslim boyfriends at school. A young woman in Iraq was murdered by her father on the mere *suspicion* that she had been making eyes at a young non-Muslim British soldier with whom she had had the chastest and briefest of formal association in public.

Given that our Mohammedan poster again has evaded answering the question, I can only assume that s/he holds that raised-Muslim females ought *not* be allowed to marry out, and that if they do they should be punished.

To refer me to the glittering generality of 2: 256 provides no proper answer to any of my questions. The Mohammedan forgets I have been reading here, and elsewhere, for a long time, and I am well aware of the way in which Muslims use doublespeak.

I asked questions: specific questions based on my awareness of specific sharia rules that involve severe punishments for those that breach them.

Classic sharia principles and practices: death for apostasy, punishment for non-veiling, punishment (up to and including death) for a woman's marrying out of Islam.

Since the Mohammedan refused to give specific answers which if given would either expose it as supporting those rules, or cause it to appear willing to refuse to enforce those rules, I can only assume that our Mohammedan is in favour of death for apostasy, punishment for breach of hijab, and punishment for Musimahs who marry out.