UK: Muslim parents get 25 years for murdering their daughter in honor killing

Culpable wimps. .They ain't got the balls or the brains to tackle religion.

Manchester Evening News reported Mr Justice Roderick Evans as saying: "You chose to bring up your family in Warrington but although you lived in Warrington your social and cultural attitudes were those of rural Pakistan and it was those which you imposed upon your children.

Not to blame the cultural attitudes of Pakistan in general, just those of the backward rural districts, and not those of the nice westernised urbane types in Karachi.

the judge missed it all together. while pakistani culture is raw sewage, it is Islam that the judge should have blamed not the culture. then again, it is mind numbing hpw the hell thise kind of people get in? i see them all over NYC. it is truly puzzling.
M

the idea that islam is equal any culture is aobsurd, let alone western culture.
M

'but they left out the get-out clause for honor killings'.

Or killing Jews, apostates, gays and infidels in general.

Unhh. . That LBC radio station. . The one just down the road from ShepherdsBushiastan, home of the Bismallah Bulls**t Company, what used to be the Beeb.

The MSM of the UK devise anodyne ways to report the story. None mention Islam or even "religion" in general. Some mention the judge's remarks about Pakistan.

The Independent leading article takes the prize. It goes so far as to blame an invented "Asian culture", whatever that is, referring to the victim as being caught between two cultures, British and Asian. At least they admit that there is such a thing as a British culture, but oh what a tangled web they weave.

condell is a treasure for the whole free world. he is awsome.
M

"kill anyone" means "kill any Muslim". But that's what we're talking about with honor killings. We're not talking about killing non-muslims in this piece.

miriam rove writes:

"it is mind numbing hpw the hell thise kind of people get in? i see them all over NYC. it is truly puzzling."

It is not puzzling. They get in because most people in the West think like miriam rove -- who quite a few times in comments here on Jihad Watch has averred that most Muslims are harmless people. If "most Muslims are harmless", then there's no good reason to keep them out.

Or perhaps miriam rove has a magical key by which to discern the difference between the dangerous Muslims, and the harmless ones.

Did you read Christina Odone's Telegraph article Thomas? It contains this sentence.

"I see this as a very strong argument in favour of more Muslim faith schools."

For a supposedly right wing newspaper the Telegraph employs a ridiculously large number of decidedly left wing journalists, and Christina Odone is about as left wing and multiculturalist as they get. Even the judge in the case said that the parents social and cultural values were those of Pakistan. Judges in Britain are not known for defending Western values, or even English Common law, against the dictates of multiculturalism.

Christina Odone however believes that the way to deal with this is to make it even easier for parents like these to bring up their children with Pakistani values; to enable even more of them to insulate their families entirely from British society.

She also says

"When Muslim parents hate their host culture so much that they will kill a child who seems to embrace it, then they are guilty of intolerance – the kind that non-Muslims are wary of showing, lest they be branded racist, or bigoted."

So Muslim parents who murder their children are guilty of intolerance. For someone as infected with pcmc as Christina that's running pretty close to the line. Notice that she also makes a thinly disguised smear against those of us who are not so reluctant to express our true feelings about Islam and its teachings. That's no doubt to avoid her Guardianista friends from denouncing her as a bigot.

"Comments are closed" it says underneath the article, obviously to prevent all those intolerant non-Muslims from expressing opinions which might cause them to be branded as racist or bigoted.

logdon, that's a good one from Condell.

Thanks for that link, logdon, to yet another Condell clip. He nails it again. Holy Hell, The Guardian is even more idiotic than The New York Times, which is saying something.

As you know, Tom, the UK media cowards and liars speak euphemistically of "Asian" culture because the media don't want to speak honestly and say "Islamic" culture. UK media prefers to slander all Asians, many of whom are not Muslims -- rather than face the violent wrath of Muslims and legal wrath of PC police. After all, "Asians" are not going to kill you for mentioning them and treating them as victims of social oppression. But unlike being Asian, being Muslim is a choice, something for which people can be held accountable -- and that's just too embarrassing for the media. Try to hold Muslims accountable for their totalitarian aims and their aggression and they just might blow you up or murder you. So best not speak of them, and just talk about "Asians" in general, and imply the narrative of disadvantaged racial minority. How convenient for everyone.

Non-Muslim Asians in the UK are not the ones who are over-represented in rape statistics and terrorism. Non-Muslim Asians are not driving the endless jihad. Unfortunately, UK people, even counterjihadis, who should know better, when discussing this situation sometimes tend to racialize it, and speak of whites and Asians. I heard Michael Coren do a bit of that on one of his shows, and Pamela Geller immediately shifted the dialog, pointing out that the rape grooming crimes they were discussing did not involve "Asians" victimizing "white" girls -- but that on the contrary, a number of the victims were Asian non-Muslims, and some of the criminals were white Muslims. She brought it away from the false PC narrative of racial conflict and she brought it back to the facts: Muslim rape/grooming gangs victimizing non-Muslim girls. It's foolish and self-defeating to speak of the situation in terms of "whites and Asians" because that frames the case exactly as Muslims and the PC cowards want it framed -- so that the aggressor -- the pious Muslim and his worldwide totalitarian movement -- seems to be the innocent underdog, the racial minority, who has no totalitarian movement or plans.

This is not about race. It's about a totalitarian belief system.

johnmatt wrote:

"kill anyone" means "kill any Muslim". But that's what we're talking about with honor killings. We're not talking about killing non-muslims in this piece.
......................................

Yes and no, johnmatt.

Through the handy doctrine of "Takfir", any Muslim deemed guilty of acting "un-Islamically" is no longer considered Muslim, and hence is legal to kill.

When Shafilea Ahmed "shamed" her family, she ceased being a proper Muslim in their eyes, and thus was doubly fair game for murder.

This is not some obscure doctrine, johnmatt—this is the basis on which every Muslim-on-Muslim murder is committed, whether it is Sunnis blowing up Shi'ite pilgrims, "Islamist" rebels killing their country's "insufficiently Islamic" leaders, or some family "Honor Killing" their "Westernized" daughter.

Here's how to debate a Muslim.....

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/12/ibn-warraq-on-how-to-debate-a-muslim-part-i.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/12/ibn-warraq-on-how-to-debate-a-muslim-part-ii.html

Yes; Ms Odone rightly expresses her revulsion at the crimes of the Muslim parents; but she appears to have a vested interest in supporting Catholic faith schools, and she very misguidedly extends her support to Islamic faith schools.

Thomas

perhaps you can write to Ms Odone and cite a couple of statements by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in which Ayaan on the one hand firmly states that Islamic 'faith schools' should be banned in the West, because they are dangerous (she gave this identical piece of advice to the Dutch, US and UK governments), and on the other hand, states that schools run by other religions - e.g. Catholic and Jewish schools - are not a threat to society and can be safely left alone.

Here, for example, is what she said to 'Reason', in an interview (I hope the link works)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_6_39/ai_n24225629/

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam, immigration, civil liberties, and the fate of the West.
Rogier van Bakel | November 2007

"[Ayaan] - So Muslim schools in the West, some of which are institutions of fascism that teach innocent kids that Jews are pigs and monkeys—I would say in order to preserve civil liberties, don’t allow such schools.

"Reason: In Holland, you wanted to introduce a special permit system for Islamic schools, correct?

"Hirsi Ali:** I wanted to get rid of them. I wanted to have them all closed, but my party said it wouldn’t fly.** {my emphasis - dda}

Top people in the party privately expressed that they agreed with me, but said, “We won’t get a majority to do that,” so it never went anywhere.

Reason: Well, your proposal went against Article 23 of the Dutch Constitution, which guarantees that religious movements may teach children in religious schools and says the government must pay for this if minimum standards are met. So it couldn’t be done. Would you in fact advocate that again?

Hirsi Ali: Oh, yeah.

Reason: Here in the United States, you’d advocate the abolition of—

Hirsi Ali: **All Muslim schools. Close them down. Yeah, that sounds absolutist. I think 10 years ago things were different, but now the jihadi genie is out of the bottle. I’ve been saying this in Australia and in the U.K. and so on,** {emphasis added - dda} and I get exactly the same arguments: The Constitution doesn’t allow it.

"But we need to ask where these constitutions came from to start with—what’s the history of Article 23 in the Netherlands, for instance?

"There were no Muslim schools when the constitution was written. There were no jihadists. They had no idea."..

And from this interview, which first appeared in the London 'Evening Standard', in February 2007 (the original link, alas, no longer works)

David Cohen
Evening Standard, 7 February 2007

'Ayaan Hirsi Ali, never one to shrink from controversy, has some words of advice for Prime Minister Tony Blair.

‘Close the Islamic faith schools today,’ she says. ‘Britain is sleepwalking into a society that could be ruled by Sharia law within decades unless Islamic schools are shut down and young Muslims are instead made to integrate and accept Western liberal values.’

"Hirsi Ali, 38, the Dutch-Somali human-rights campaigner who lives under 24-hour police protection and is in London to promote her provocative new book, Infidel, argues that Catholic and Jewish schools can stay because the values they teach are not a threat to liberal democracy.

" ‘I haven’t seen anybody coming out of a Catholic or Jewish school advocating violence against women or homosexuals, or wanting to murder innocent people in the name of their religion.’"...END EXCERPT

What people need to 'get' is that an Islamic 'school' is as if you had neonazis setting up a school in which Mein Kampf was learned by heart by the students and everyone chanted 'Heil Hitler' five times a day. Or like the KKK establishing training centres.

Once one 'gets' this, one can proceed to close Islamic schools and forbid the establishment of new ones, anywhere in the non-Muslim world; while leaving Catholic, Anglican, Coptic, Jewish, or for that matter, Buddhist and HIndu-run schools to get on with educating kids from their particular 'catchments' in peace.

Infidel...Well this is happening in Canada as well (link attached).
Its unbelievable that someone could kill their own kids. In North American society we dont condemn that perverted conduct!!! We gotta stay strong and fight this fight. Every now and then you see some politician condoning the fact that Sharia law is not bad and should be implemented for muslims who have immigrated to this country. The requests are cloaked in an effort to feed the liberal viewpoint on our so called "multicultural society" here in Canada. Pacifists and I do mean pacifists in this country persist on ignoring the warnings of what true Islam is based on their true ignorance and the fear of being called a racist. Fight the fight.
http://www.globalnews.ca/timeline+shafia+murder+trial/6442509727/story.html

Another question to ask is, "What other religion/culture condones honor killing?"

Really, who else does this? And, if they do, who are they?
How common, outside of the islamic cesspool, do these crimes exist?

When a Mahoundian loses his honor by the actions of his daughter, who did he lose his 'honor' to?...Because Islam is a patriarchal system, the father/husband is expected to enforce Islamic norms...When he fails to do that his honor is lost to Allah and the bro's down at the mosque...He has allowed his daughter to become an apostate, and abandon Islam or parts of it...He must now do the 'right thing' to avenge Allah, re-establish his honor and his standing with the bro's down at the mosque...

Diana Summers has said, on a previous thread, that Sikhs apparently do, (although we don't seem to hear about them) and also forced marriages.

I have a Sikh friend, who got married because her father and family demanded it. She was lucky, because her husband is a very nice chap, and she grew to love him, but the fact remains, she didn't choose it, herself.

Yes, Moonbeam, of course prison will help. Prison will prevent Iftikhar and Farzana from ever committing another murder. It will keep the rest of us safe.

They have four surviving children, the youngest a girl of sixteen. Was she safe in a household where domestic violence was rampant, where a forced marriage was her threatened future, and she knew her parents were capable of killing her? I pray that the youngest Miss Ahmed is now receiving very special care, and that she will finally feel safe.

As for what the parents knew or didn't know ... Let's not be patronising about "Pakistani peasants". They had lived in the West for 17 years when they murdered their daughter. They evidently preferred "the West" because they chose to live there. They had plenty of time to learn that we consider it wrong to kill people.

They certainly understood that British justice is geared to acquitting the accused. They were caught on tape calculating the odds of getting away with it. They were not at all concerned about the fact they had done wrong - they only cared about whether they would be caught out. They took Shafilea's life. Why should they keep their freedom?

At least they now have the chance to repent and be rehabilitated. That was more chance than they ever gave to Shafilea. And it was not going to happen if they carried on living freely without any consequences.

Oh crap. Another ghastly mohammedan making excuses for murdering one's *own child*, and calling those of us who dare to object to such evil, 'bigots.'

No doubt this moral imbecile will, if it posts again, start whining about how the parents are actually the *victims*, because they had to suffer 'whispers and sidelong glances' from their evilly complicit 'community'; (more like a satanic coven.)

What the hell *is* it with these people ?

Oh, right, *islam.*

"Another" Muslim, Jan? I doubt it.

Moonbeam has exactly Rezali's turn of phrase. I would be rather surprised if it turned out to be a different person.

As for how much Mr and Mrs Ahmed "understood", read the terrifying police interview with Farzana a few weeks after Shafilea "disappeared". The mother claimed that her daughter was a thief and a liar, then a few minutes later glibly stated that Shafilea was so well-behaved that she never had to be corrected or punished, not even verbally! The one question that she dumbfounded her and that she ultimately failed to answer was: "Tell me five good things about your daughter."

Moonbeam, I think the Ahmeds did understand that murder was illegal and could be punished. What they failed to comprehend was normal human love.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/08/03/shafilea-ahmed-murder-read-police-interviews-with-her-parents-and-secret-recordings-from-inside-her-house-100252-31544153/

''Moonbeam has exactly Rezali's turn of phrase. I would be rather surprised if it turned out to be a different person.''

Of course ! I don't know how I missed it, except had just come back from a long walk with two dogs I'm looking after, so was a bit tired and sleepy.

Thanks for posting that transcript of the murdering bastards interviews.

It's one of the most chilling things I've ever read. He knows absolutely *nothing* about any of his children; their personalities, their likes/dislikes, even the colour of their clothes, what games they play.

He only *once* voluntarily calls Shafilea by her name, all the rest of the time it's 'the daughter'. Dear God, not even *my* daughter. She's just a commodity/object/possession to him, nothing more. The same with the rest of them; it's 'the daughters', never their *names.* The interviewing officer actually has to tell him to use his children's names. The only one he uses voluntarily is the boy's.

The same with the wife. He never uses her name, she is 'the wife', never *my* wife. Another possession, commodity. (Not that I am excusing the evil stinking bitch for *one second*).

All through the interview, it's, ''No, we didn't discuss it'', ''No, I didn't know, why would I'' etc. etc.

I really don't have the words to express it, or the psychological knowledge, but the whole thing reeks of abnormal pathology. Or should I just say, 'muslim family values.' And apparently the two youngest daughters, and the son, *still support the parents*. You can just see what's likely to happen, down the line.

That poor child. No wonder she was desperate. May the earth lie lightly on her.

Jan

I am reminded of what the late great Conor Cruise O'Brien wrote in an article in The Times, May 11 1989:

"Muslim society looks profoundly repulsive...

"It looks profoundly repulsive because it *is* repulsive...

"A westerner who claims to admire Muslim society, whilst still adhering to Western values, is either a hypocrite or an ignoramus or a bit of both.

"**At the heart of the matter is the Muslim family, an abominable institution** {my emphasis - dda}".