1. I seem to recall that once when I looked up the link to that passage in ‘Umdat al-Salik’ that it went on:-
    after ‘offspring’ it said – ‘or non-Muslim’

    Giving a free hand to murder infidels. I can’t seem to find the link now to confirm this. Can anyone help, please?

  2. India was partitioned in 1947 to carve out muslim pakistan. Jinnah, founder of pakistan, had insisted that Hindus and muslims cannot coexist because they are two different civilizations. I totally agree with what Jinnah said, although civilization is not a word I would use for muslims as a group. Now, if you are dividing a country on the basis of religion, it makes perfect sense for ALL muslims to go to their porkistan and all non-muslims to move to India. However, Nehru and Gandhi, living in their fools’ paradise, allowed muslims to stay back in India. Therein lies the crux of the problem. In fact, real Hindus DO NOT want to live with muslims. If all muslims had gone to their islamic haven of porkistan, we would not see this kind of bizarre violence in India. muslims are a nothing but a burden on any society and we would all be better off if they live in their islamic lands.

  3. “Local people watched horrified…”

    The full process might have occurred quickly from start to finish, but surely someone in the community could have at least verbally objected before the man completed the murder — if it is true that local people were actually horrified after the murder.

    Was the man the only one in the community who had a sword? Could nobody oppose him?

    What is the value of being horrified, if it does not lead to preventive action on the part of the community?

    The man is criminally insane, and his sword should be taken away from him.

    Islam breeds perpetual fear, which leads to community failure to oppose obviously-criminal activity that is sanctioned by Islam.

    It is insane.

  4. “. . . Nilofer Bibi, a mother of two, was staying with a rickshaw-puller with whom she had eloped . . .”

    Eloped means she was a married woman living with her husband. This article does not give all the facts, but it implies her marital relationship was an affair and implies that she had committed adultery, rationalizing the murder under Sharia law. He did it is plan view and carried her head boldly down the street as if he was justified/sanctioned to do it and no one attempted to help the woman. The way this article is written is disgusting and convoluted, but it is an illustration of Islamic society under Sharia law.

  5. Three further thoughts.

    1/ This very ritualistic murder – conducted, with brazen audacity, as if it were a public execution outside a mosque, instead of in front of a horrified crowd of what I suspect were not Muslims, but Hindus, who probably could not *believe* what they were seeing – took place on a **
    Friday**. The Muslim ‘holy’ day – or, rather, UNholy day, most particularly favoured by Muslims for any act of slaughter in honour of the allah the eater of souls.

    2/ The fact that the murderer coolly turned himself in at the police station rather reminded me of that bloke Muzammil Hassan in the USA,

    who *also* beheaded a woman (in that case, his battered and separated wife who had made use of kafir law to instigate divorce proceedings) and then handed himself in to the police as if he did not expect any really serious punishment to ensue…forgetting, perhaps, that he was no longer inside dar al Islam.

    – ‘”He came to the police station at 6:20 p.m. [Thursday] and told us that she was dead,” Orchard Park Police Chief Andrew Benz said late this morning.

    Muzzammil Hassan told police that his wife was at his business, Bridges TV, on Thorn Avenue in the village. Officers went to that location and discovered her body.’

    3/ The style of the murder – public execution followed by brazen public display of the severed head – reminded me of those Taliban murder-and-beheadings of deemed-insufficiently-Islamic Pakistani policemen that we were just discussing in another recent thread

    for in those instances also the severed head was displayed publicly, pour encourager les autres:

    ‘”Taliban militants have established a world record of savagery. They have slaughtered soldiers and common people with knives and displayed their heads in public places to send a message across the forces that they must not chase them at the behest of government,”…

    “…The militants slaughtered Khan and took his head away. The head was found hanging in a local market the next day.”

    Now, from this report of a Muslim in non-Muslim-majority India, ritually executing his *sister* in public –

    ‘Alam went to the rickshaw-puller’s house, dragged out his sister and beheaded her with the sword in full public view on Friday…

    ‘Local people {who were probably NOT Muslim, but Hindus – dda} watched horrified as Alam walked down the road at Ayubnagar with the severed head dangling in his hand, before surrendering to the Nadial police station…’.

  6. and beheaded her with the sword in full public view…

    And yet, with all of this going on in full public view the final act took place and no one lifted a finger to stop it. What a grand place Crapistan must be to live in. Of course, I know why no one lifted a finger to save this woman. Her death was obviously the will of challah and interrupting the show would have been blasphemy.

  7. Insanity of dhimmitude.

    No doubt Bollywood the leading dhimmi media in India will make a film about this whole story.
    There will be some minor changes.

    The evil brother doing the deed will be a hindu while his brave muslim friends will try to stop him from killing his own sister. A sister who is madly in love with a nice looking muslim rickshaw driver who can sing and dance.

  8. Niloufer was just 22 years old and had been married for 8 years.
    That means she was married off at the tender age of 14. It is illegal in India to marry a girl at that age. The legal age for marriage is 18.

    In Bombay, where i live, at 22 years of age girls would still be in college, getting professional degrees, or working. Very few would be married at 22 let alone be married at 14.

  9. There seem to be a lot of adverse comments here about the Muslim hobby of killing near relatives because they have done things which are culturally unacceptable. Are the authors of these comments not aware that The Mighty Mythical Allah and His Apostle and Messenger are upset by such Islamophobic comments.

    I suspect evil jinn will be sent to inhabit the toilets ( in the U.S read bathrooms) of those offering adverse comments and they may expect to be urinated upon. Who knows the Apostle and Messenger may even choose to temporarily disengage with his 72 and return to Earth to supervise the urinating jinn.

  10. Mary

    the really awful thing about this particular Mohammedan dominance murder is that it did *not* take place in ‘Islamic society under Sharia law’.

    it took place in overwhelmingly-non-Muslim **India**, in Kolkata (Calcutta), West Bengal: a region historically majority Hindu, but into which Muslims have been illegally ‘migrating’ – that is, invading and colonising – from the hell-pit that is Muslim Bangladesh, formerly ‘East Pakistan’, carved off of India at partition.

    That is why the news report speaks of “the first case of honour killing in Kolkata”. (I would have said, ‘the first known and publicly-reported case of honour killing in Kolkata’). It is probable that twenty, thirty, forty years ago, when the Ummah had less strong and visible a presence in Calcutta/ Kolkata, a Muslim would not have dared to walk down a street like this with his murdered sister’s head in his hand.

    Now, it seems Muslims have infiltrated the local police force – as we see from the name of one of the regional policemen cited in the story – “Deputy Commissioner of Police (Port division) Mehboob Rehman.”

    *The* question is this: will Rehman see to it that the perp is subjected to the full force of Indian – non-Muslim – law (and punished as would be any non-Muslim Indian who killed a woman like that) or will he side with him and find ways of lightening his punishment?

    I don’t trust Rehman when he insists on the perp’s sole responsibility, distancing him from his family and the ummah-at-large in Kolkata –

    “It was not the decision of the family to kill her. The brother had lost his temper and had unilaterally decided to kill her,” Rehman said –

    because everything we know about these Muslim domestic executions/ dominance murders of deemed-to-be-uppity/ out-of-line females, is that they are usually decided upon by everybody and then one or more family members, usually a brother/ cousin/ father, but sometimes mother/ aunt/sister as well, carries out the murder.

    A further point: in a *non-Muslim* society, if a woman has left her husband and run off with someone else (and I wonder, here, whether the ‘rickshaw puller’ was another Muslim, or whether he may have been a Hindu? he’s not named so we can’t tell), and then is murdered, usually it’s the *husband*. Not her father, or brother/s, or cousin, or mother.

    The violent sexual jealousy that in non-Muslim societies is usually indulged in only by certain types of out-of-control-and-of-bad-character lovers/ boyfriends/ fiances/ husbands, is in Muslim societies routinely exhibited toward a woman or girl by her *close male kin* – her father/ grandfather/ uncle/ male cousin/ brother (and quite often her son or her nephew). Which reflects, I think, the rather creepy incestuous tendency of Muslim culture.

    At the same time, the ritualistic ultra-violence – often with sexual overtones – with which these men kill their female kin, is in western societies – as Phyllis Chesler observed – usually only practised by the Jack the Ripper psycho serial killer types, men who stalk, hunt and rape/torture/murder non-kin females, sometimes prostitutes, sometimes merely an unlucky woman or girl who happens across their path.

    One can only conclude that Islam programs men with 1/ a distinctly incestuous possessive attitude toward their close female kin 2/ *also* programs them to view women, any women, in much the same way as, in other societies, women are seen only by the psycho serial killer.

  11. “todnuts” wrote:

    is it true that jews could marry their nieces or nephews

    The short answer is no’such relationships are expressly disallowed in the Talmud.

    But this, clearly, is not an innocent question regarding Jewish views on consanguinity.

    Instead, “todnuts” is not only implying that Jews engage in incest, but that such marriages between closely related persons, if such existed, would”*somehow*”be as bad or worse than Muslims *beheading their own sisters*.

    This is vile calumny, and utterly false. Apparently “todnuts” has been spamming the threads with similar nastiness in the past day or two.

  12. Agree with you, Desidude.
    Bollywood is a perfectly dhimmi place. muslims are always shown as great people – generous, helpful, friendly etc etc.

  13. A further point: in a *non-Muslim* society, if a woman has left her husband and run off with someone else (and I wonder, here, whether the ‘rickshaw puller’ was another Muslim, or whether he may have been a Hindu?

    Thank God he was not a Hindu otherwise this could have sparked a riot.

  14. if you are dividing a country on the basis of religion, it makes perfect sense for ALL muslims to go to their porkistan and all non-muslims to move to India.

    Fully with you on this one, Indian Tiger.

    At the time of partition, muslims had voted 99% for a separate country based on religious lines. If 99% of them wanted pakistan, all of them should have gone there when pakistan was created.

XSLT Plugin by Leo Jiang

Please help spread the truth about jihad

Sign Up for Our Daily Digest