| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
The denial thickens. Think for a minute about what Muslim spokesmen in Canada could be saying. They could acknowledge that the divine sanction given to the beating of disobedient women (Qur'an 4:34) has created a culture in which such abuse is accepted as normal. They could call for a searching reevaluation of the meaning and continued relevance of Qur'an 4:34, and call in no uncertain terms for Muslims to reject definitively its literal meaning, now and for all time to come. They could acknowledge the prevalence of honor killing in Islamic culture, which has no sanction as such in Islamic theology but nonetheless enjoys enough Islamic approval that the Jordanian Parliament a few years ago rejected on Islamic grounds attempts to stiffen penalties for it. They could call for sweeping reform and reexamination of the status of women in Islam.
Instead, we get this.
By Jered Stuffco for the Canadian Press (thanks to Twostellas):
TORONTO - Islamic leaders rose to the defence of their religion Thursday as the Muslim community continued to grieve the death of a 16-year-old girl - and deny suggestions that her slaying should in any way be interpreted as a reflection on their faith.Islam condemns violence and teaches adherents not to force their beliefs upon others, Sheik Alaa El-Sayyed, imam at Mississauga's Islamic Society of North America, told a news conference in the suburban city west of Toronto that was once home to Aqsa Parvez. [...]
"The bottom line is, it's a domestic violence issue," El-Sayyed said.
"We, as Muslims, are Canadians and we should be dealt with just like everyone else. We have rights, duties . . . pros and cons just like all other human beings."
Autopsy results released Wednesday found Parvez died of "neck compression."
The tragedy has underscored a controversial and heated public debate about women's rights within Canada's Islamic communities, and inflamed existing tensions already strained by what Muslim leaders say is ignorance and misunderstanding in Canadian society.
Women ultimately have the choice of whether or not they want to wear a hijab, but Islam teaches that such women occupy a more advanced position within the religion, El-Sayyed said.
"When I look at a woman who is covered, I look at her as a soul, a person, a mentality - not a physical or sexual object," he said.
Muslim women who wear veils might not "look pretty," but their modest dress protects them, he added.
Mohammad Iqbal Alnadvi, a marriage counsellor and religious expert at the Al-Fatah Islamic Centre in Oakville, said he believes it's important for parents in Muslim families to give their daughters a choice when it comes to decisions of dress.
"My daughter, she's going into Grade 11, and she's taking the hijab," Alnadvi said.
"I never asked her to take the hijab, but I developed a mentality in her to choose - it is her choice."
Meanwhile, students and friends at Applewood Heights Secondary School were expressing outrage at the intense media attention generated by the death of their friend.
"This is not about religion," said one student, standing near the school and clad in a hijab, who refused to give her name.
Oh really?
Posted by Robert at December 14, 2007 8:58 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
The number of lies in this article would do satan, the father of lies, proud.
It never ceases to amaze me how Muslims think Westerner's can't analyze and draw conclusions, called "critical thinking." It seems that they actually believe that simply because they tell us something, we accept it! Such Mohammed-like megalomania of the "best of peoples" is going to be their downfall. Remember how Jason underestimated Medea? Hoo Boy - he paid for that megalomaniacal underestimation.
So, let me correct the Sheik: This article is nothing but one big fat LIE.
End of story.
Posted by: darcy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 14, 2007 9:23 AM
When I look at a woman who is covered, I look at her as a soul, a person, a mentality - not a physical or sexual object," he said.
So, if she's not covered, then he sees her as just as a sexual object and not a person?
Pig.
Posted by: Godefroi at December 14, 2007 9:24 AM
"Islam condemns violence and teaches adherents not to force their beliefs upon others, Sheik Alaa El-Say..."
-- from the article above
The central figure of Islam is Muhammad, the Model of Conduct, uswa hasana, the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil. Muhammad participated in one violent campaign against those who would not accept him as a Prophet, that is would not submit to Islam. The Qur'an, the Hadith, are full of violence, practiced by Muhammad and his followers.
And the rule for dealing with conquered Infidels is clear. They are given a choice: death, converstion, or enduring a status of permanent humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity, the degrees of which will vary according to the whims of the ruler and the circumambeint Muslims. If forcing people into such conditions, that will remain as long as they adhere to some non-Islamic faith and refuse to convert, is not a means of "forcing beliefs" upon others -- that is, pressuring them so strongly that, over time, a great many will "convert" not out of conviction but out of a desire to remove the many legal disabilities inflicted on them -- it is hard to think of what would qualify as "forcing beliefs."
Posted by: Hugh at December 14, 2007 9:24 AM
The umma is in denial.
Coming to a theatre near you - fear and loathing in the hearts of young girls and women.
Without women, islam is screwed, a bunch of males posturing and playing with themselves till the end of time.
The Achilles groin of islam.
Posted by: dgene at December 14, 2007 9:29 AM
LOL, it has everything to do with Islam.
And speaking of which, from the Voices of Iraq website:
97 women burnt to death, 27 others killed in Kurdistan region in 4 months
at December 14, 2007 9:30 AM
No, really--it's all about misunderstanding the elevated place of Muslim women, all about hostile pressures exerted on Muslim families from without, you see; all about--continuing to deceive the Infidels whom Allah hates, those He hates who corrupt Muslim womanhood in its divinely ordained submission, that submission that perfectly reflects the submission of all creation before Supremely Sovereign Allah. It's all about you Infidels denying the right order of creation that broght about this tragedy, don't you see?
Posted by: John C at December 14, 2007 9:31 AM
'..."My daughter, she's going into Grade 11, and she's taking the hijab," Alnadvi said.
"I never asked her to take the hijab, but I developed a mentality in her to choose - it is her choice."...'
Developed mentality???
That's just the nice way to say "I BRAINWASHED her".
Posted by: An_Arbreshe at December 14, 2007 9:35 AM
"Islam condemns violence and teaches adherents not to force their beliefs upon others" -
And yet millions upon millions ARE forced to wear the hijab/niqab, everyday because of Islam. Girls are forced back into burning buildings over it by RELIGIOUS POLICE; Women are detained by the hundreds of thousands over it, and those that don't comply are arested and/or beaten over and over again until they do by RELIGIOUS POLICE . . . .
AND, your "holy book" sanctions ALL of it when it says "beat them if you fear disobedience," and to the extent it indicates a womans apostasy, we have, "Whoever changes their religion, kill them . . ." (3 out of 4 schools for a woman, I believe?)
G*od, these men are digusting.
at December 14, 2007 9:35 AM
Lies and denial all around.
Had a look at the Bunglawussi website and found some samples of stubborn denial that, if it weren't so sad, could be perceived as comical. I posted some of these comments here:
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/12/14/canadian-hijab-murder-imam-says-islam-had-nothing-to-do-with-it/
Question is: how do we make these people confront the collective insanity that causes this?
at December 14, 2007 9:40 AM
Problem is not this father from pakistan who murdered his daughter. problem is islam, koran, hadith and mohammed. ban muslim immigration. muslims can not co exist with people of any other faith.
Posted by: swimmer at December 14, 2007 9:41 AM
..."My daughter, she's going into Grade 11, and she's taking the hijab," Alnadvi said.
"I never asked her to take the hijab, but I developed a mentality in her to choose - it is her choice."...'
Developed mentality???
That's just the nice way to say "I BRAINWASHED her".
Posted by: An_Arbreshe at December 14, 2007 9:35 AM
How 'bout she fears the fate of Aqsa? Don't you think ALL Muslim females must secretly fear the condoned cultural practice of Honor Killings in their societies? They must. The fate of Aqsa and the *many* other victims of Honor Killings serves to keep a great many others in line. That threat is ever-present: You don't behave how we say, we kill you.
at December 14, 2007 9:41 AM
G*od, these men are digusting.
Posted by: Epiphyte at December 14, 2007 9:35 AM
So right. Their megalomania knows no bounds. Females are insects to be stepped on and crushed. Lower than dung.
Posted by: darcy at December 14, 2007 9:44 AM
"...My daughter...she's going into Grade 11, and she's taking the hijab. I never asked her to take the hijab, but I developed a mentality in her to choose- it is her choice."
'Developing the mentality' went like this: "I'm not going to ask you if you want to wear the hijab or not. You'll wear it, or I'll choke you to death like Aqsa's father did."
I look at my daughter, age 15, and simply cannot imagine the hatred of women Aqsa Parvez'z father must have in his soul. He strangled to death his own daughter over wearing a stupid head scarf. THAT speaks volumes about the man and the beliefs he holds dear to his heart.
"When they look at a woman who is covered" they see a piece of property that they can control down to the most minute detail.
"When they look at a woman who is covered" they see a second-class human being in the same way slave owners on the old south viewed their slaves.
Posted by: livefreeordie!
at December 14, 2007 10:09 AM
Yeah, these people are right. Only infidels beat their daughters to death for not wearing a hijab.
A statement like this from any other group would raise eyebrows but when Islamaniacs make such a statement it's so normal that I don't even give it a second thought. Just call me jaded I guess.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 14, 2007 10:11 AM
Of course Muslim leaders would answer this way; that's no surprise. What we need is a someone, anyone, to stand up and present the other side, that she didn't die because of "neck compression", she died because her father suffered from an affliction called "Islam". She died because of a sexist, ignorant, violent ideology.
There are times Muslim leaders make statements that are so forthright in their goal of installing sharia worldwide using violence that we just have to say "Thank you for your honesty". In this case, they are making such obvious bald-faced lies that we have to say "Thank you for your dishonesty". Let the Muslim leaders keep on lying. Let the drumbeat of deaths and denials keep piling up, until even Dallas jurors cannot miss the evidence.
Posted by: special_guest at December 14, 2007 10:16 AM
"Muslim women who wear veils might not "look pretty," but their modest dress protects them, he added."
Protects them from what? A bad hair day?
To think of all the fully hijabbed women, niquabbed women, burqaed women who have been brutally murdered by their own families, extended families, and strangers in the streets, it's hard to think of anything so flimsy as a scarf protecting them.
What on God's earth is so wrong with women wanting to look pretty? Mohammedan men get to thump their chests and try to look tough-- so what's wrong with a bit of makeup, if desired, and clean, flowing locks?
No, this has nothing to do with Islam. I remember how my father beat me when I was 16 and refused to wear the hijab.
I guess there are no 'Daddy's girls', in Islam.
at December 14, 2007 10:19 AM
Wow, there are so many things to say about this post. Here goes.
First:
"Think for a minute about what Muslim spokesmen in Canada could be saying. They could acknowledge that the divine sanction given to the beating of disobedient women (Qur'an 4:34) has created a culture in which such abuse is accepted as normal. They could call for a searching reevaluation of the meaning and continued relevance of Qur'an 4:34, . . . "
No, I don't think they CAN acknowledge that; they have been so brainwashed and indoctrinated since infancy that they literally CANNOT think "outside the box", anymore than they can think they can fly. It's just not possible for them. The solution, in the West, is to ignore them; to insist that children be given a thorough secular education with no concession in the schools to Islamic practices like special prayer rooms, footbaths in the johns; no reading lists with "offensive" authors deleted, etc. Let the kids feel the full corrosive force of modern western culture, and don't let them hide in exclusive islamic enclaves.
Also, bring the full weight of the authorities down on those who practice child abuse and wife beating. Remember that the chief charge against the Branch Davidians at Waco, was child abuse; and look at what the Feds did to them. Surely they ought to be able to take some children out of unfit Moslem homes, and/or lock up abusive parents.
Second:
"The bottom line is, it's a domestic violence issue," El-Sayyed said.
No, up until a few days ago it was a domestic violence issue; now it's a murder issue.
Third:
El-Sayyed said:
"When I look at a woman who is covered, I look at her as a soul, a person, a mentality - not a physical or sexual object," he said.
Muslim women who wear veils might not "look pretty," but their modest dress protects them, he added.
Boy, this guy unwittingly says it all. He admits that he sees unveiled women as mere sexual "objects", and presumably he speaks for most Moslem men. In other words, the veil protects Moslem women from whom? Why, from Moslem men of course. It's only the Moslem men they have to fear, it's the Moslem men who beat and rape them if they're "uncovered". They have very little to fear from "infidel" men. How many rapes are there in Canada in a year? What percentage of them are committed by Moslems?
What percentage are Moslems of the population?
Case closed.
Fourth:
"My daughter, she's going into Grade 11, and she's taking the hijab," Alnadvi said.
"I never asked her to take the hijab, but I developed a mentality in her to choose - it is her choice."
So Al developed her mentality. How? Well, ever since her infancy, all she heard from him was that the uncovered infidel girls were sluts and whores and bitches in heat, that uncovered girls who were raped or beaten only got what they deserved, and that Mr. Hussain, down the street, knew how to deal with a recalcitrant daughter -- he sent his 14 year old back to the Old Country to be married to a cousin, and she's been there ever since. Al didn't develop his daughter's mentality, he stunted it.
Fifth:
Autopsy results released Wednesday found Parvez died of "neck compression."
Just what the H is that? Would it be the same as strangulation? Or maybe a broken neck?
at December 14, 2007 10:21 AM
Wow, the mental gymnastics intelligent Mohammetans have to perform to squash and suppress those doubts about the holiness of their prophet are staggering. Slave owners also had to convince themselves that the persons they had in bondage were somehow lesser human beings so it was only right and natural that they be enslaved. Many even thought having a master was best for the well-being of the slave, since his/her childlike mentality wouldn't be sufficient to care for him/herself.
Posted by: Stand fast in the liberty at December 14, 2007 10:25 AM
"Mohammad Iqbal Alnadvi, a marriage counsellor and religious expert at the Al-Fatah Islamic Centre in Oakville, said he believes it's important for parents in Muslim families to give their daughters a choice when it comes to decisions of dress."
-- from the article above
If he believes so much in choice, and if he and the others quoted are quite sure that the murder of Aqsa Parvez for refusing to wear the hijab has "nothing to do with Islam" then why don't they do the obvious, and say aloud, and in articles, that all Muslim girls are perfectly free to choose whether or not to wear the hijab, and no Muslim male should dare to punish them for their choice.
Why not say that?
Posted by: Hugh at December 14, 2007 10:26 AM
Nothing (bad) is EVER about islam. The ROP is the religion of denial. That is proof positive that islam is not a relgion. They don't believe in anything at all.
Posted by: n.a. palm at December 14, 2007 10:37 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how Muslims think Westerner's can't analyze and draw conclusions, called "critical thinking." It seems that they actually believe that simply because they tell us something, we accept it! Such Mohammed-like megalomania of the "best of peoples" is going to be their downfall. Remember how Jason underestimated Medea? Hoo Boy - he paid for that megalomaniacal underestimation.
darcy,
Sadly, Im not amazed at all that Muslims think Westerner's can't analyze and draw conclusions, called "critical thinking. I think that thay have ample evidence that simply because they tell us something, we accept it. The evidence is in the willingness of Western political, social, academic and religious leaders to parrot Sheik Alaa El-Sayyed's bull that this poor girl's death is a domestic violence issue and has noyhing to do with Islam.
Try to emagine Canadian and American leaders telling the Sheik that he's full of crap, and that this poor girls death was due to a form of domestic violence peculiar to Islam and it's teachings.
No, I'm not amazed at all that Muslims think that we can't think critically.
Posted by: rational at December 14, 2007 10:37 AM
this was about her father's jihadist, one ummah mentality. he couldn't handle his daughter being a normal non muslim. these liars, these hijab wearing fascists are themselves living in fear and so have to toe the party line or they too will face death by their family and loved ones.
the dead girl's friends stated that her family were over bearing, repressive. she would have to change out of her fascist uniform when she met with her friends into normal western canadian fashions.
her father should be given 50 years, his family deported back to their lands. or given a contract to sign that they will not be involved in this fascist extremist ideology or face deportation.
they claim to be good canadian civilians but in reality they are the foot soldiers of saudi arabia.
at December 14, 2007 10:53 AM
New T-shirt says:
It's a MUSLIM thing
you wouldn't UNDERSTAND
Yeah, right.
Posted by: n.a. palm at December 14, 2007 11:02 AM
People who follow Muhammad, the pedophile prophet, are bound to commit such acts.
oh, and this has everything to do with Islam.
Posted by: Crusader at December 14, 2007 11:06 AM
darcy wrote:
"How 'bout she fears the fate of Aqsa? Don't you think ALL Muslim females must secretly fear the condoned cultural practice of Honor Killings in their societies? They must. The fate of Aqsa and the *many* other victims of Honor Killings serves to keep a great many others in line. That threat is ever-present: You don't behave how we say, we kill you."
Yes, there is a great deal of IMPLIED coercion which will necessarily keep most young girls "in line." And the fact is, the hijab is not just wrong when some poor girl is killed for not wearing it. In the sense that there are other penalties--ostracization, mental and psychological pressure, peer pressure, etc.--which define the hijab as compulsory, I have a hard time finding that the wearing of this garment passes the sniff test of "free will."
Which is precisely what it all comes down to. Freedom to choose, and in Islam there is none. Were Islam truly peaceful and non-compulsory, there would be no such compulsory rules. Or, at the very least, if she just wanted to go her own way it would tell her, "Well, go and God bless you on your path, and we will always be here for you if you wish to return."
Which is NOT going to happen.
No ideology trying to pass itself off as "peaceful" would ever tell its young children
at December 14, 2007 11:08 AM
Ya gotta love those Muslims , this is the second time they held a Press meeting in a Mosque to reassure the Public that Islam had nothing to do with Murder and Terrorism by other Muslims.
In june of 2006 it was the Pakistani Jihadists from the same area connected to the ISNA that were caught before they could use the 6600lbs
of Oklahoma type explosives in truck bomb across downtown Toronto to murder Civilians because of Palestine and Afgahn , all 17 were Muslims and yet it had NOTHING to do with Islam.
Now a man Muders his 16 daughter over a Sharia law Hijab issue and not only are we to believe Islam isn't connected , but the ISNA and Imams are showing more concern for the Image of Islam rather than grieve for the loss or to condemn anyone using Islam to justify it.
As usual , we hear the hollow rants to condemn it by the use of the term "Acts of violence" and not the actual Muslim that killed his daughter , plus...we hear the line about "Innocent civilians" or people which is code to hide the fact that Muhammad called every non-Muslim a ENEMY of islam and Allah and this means they do not get the status of "Innocent" .
Islam in canada and slowly Imploiding and thank God because it's happening while Muslims are still around 1% of the population , if it was much higher we would see the France style riots and car burnings in Toronto and Montreal by Islamists who endorsed this murder and see the Arrest of the Father as an Attack on Islamic freedoms.
BTW
The son is now arrested for trying to protect his dad and telling lies to the Police , so it's a bit tough to claim that the dad was the problem
and Islam had nothing to do with it, the male son saw his sister as chattle and defended his dad's right to kill her.
at December 14, 2007 11:16 AM
"Islam condemns violence and teaches adherents not to force their beliefs upon others,"
--Sheik Alaa El-Sayyed--
Two, back-to-back, bald-faced lies in one sentence.
Impressive.
Posted by: awake at December 14, 2007 11:19 AM
Muslims can fool some of the people some of the time, and most of the people most of the time, but Muslims can never fool me. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me...
Posted by: duh_swami at December 14, 2007 11:21 AM
I noticed at Sheik Yermami's site the imam said that moslems believe each of the 10 Commandments. That is a lie.
The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17 NKJV)
1 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me. Moslems have bowed their knee to allah,one of 360 desert gods of the kaaba, not God.
2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. The meteorite in the kaaba?
3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain. The quran is full of disdain for the God of Israel and Christianity
4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6 “You shall not murder.you've got to be kidding
7 “You shall not commit adultery.30 minute marriages
8 “You shall not steal.except from kufr
9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. taqiyya , kitman, "War is deceit"
10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.“ Booty!
at December 14, 2007 11:23 AM
Islam in canada and slowly Imploiding and thank God because it's happening while Muslims are still around 1% of the population...
by ala-sux
Is Islam imploding or is it Canada? What is the reaction of the Canadian people? Which matters more to them - political correctness or freedom? Isn't the Muslim population of Canada still on the rise? Surely the car burning can't be many years off.
Posted by: PMK at December 14, 2007 11:29 AM
"When I look at a woman who is covered, I look at her as a soul, a person, a mentality - not a physical or sexual object," he said.
Yeah, right, you look at her and wonder what's under the sheet, just like everyone else.
strained by what Muslim leaders say is ignorance and misunderstanding in Canadian society.
It's not ignorance or misunderstanding, it's a basic rejection of the kind of life necessary to live "Islamically". We don't believe that your religion has any insight into what the divine realm "wants" for humanity. The idea that God "wants" me to do any of the things that are outlined as basic duties or norms among Muslims is simply unpersuasive to Westerners.
A Muslim is like a drugged-out loser telling a successful non-drug user how awesome drugs are and not understanding why the non-user just won't play along with the game.
Posted by: venividivici at December 14, 2007 11:31 AM
Who is allah?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMu79XbYJwc
at December 14, 2007 11:41 AM
"We, as Muslims, are Canadians and we should be dealt with just like everyone else. We have rights, duties . . . pros and cons just like all other human beings."
All right then just find whoever did this to that girl and make them face charges for murder. This will establish secular government over any religious habits.
--------------------------
Hate means action against all that's fake
Pride means to never surrender ©Unleashed
at December 14, 2007 11:48 AM
I heard Tarek Fatah on TV the other day saying angrily he was tired of Islamic community leaders denying the Aqsa Parvez incident had nothing to do with islam but was a domestic issue. He said every week imams in mosques all over Ontario rant that if women are not covered they are viewed as sexual objects.
Oh wow. I constantly see Somali girls two, three and four years old with scarves and hijabs on.
Posted by: j_not_a at December 14, 2007 12:02 PM
Also, I've got to say that there is a massive contradiction when these same imams claim on the one hand that Islam is an all-encompassing system and therefore they need special treatment so that Muslims can follow this all-compassing system, while on the other hand claiming that incidents like this have nothing to do with Islam.
Imagine if a Nazi said that his killing of a Jew had nothing to do with his ideology. No one would believe it for a minute.
Posted by: venividivici at December 14, 2007 12:10 PM
rational posted:
"Sadly, Im not amazed at all that Muslims think Westerner's can't analyze and draw conclusions, called "critical thinking. I think that thay have ample evidence that simply because they tell us something, we accept it. "
I agree completely--Muslims in the West undoubtedly believe (with justification) that we are complete fools and/or cowards. Would any of us infidels be allowed to practice our religion freely, even to seek converts, in most Muslim-dominated countries? Would we be allowed to dress as we wanted (for females), to wear non-Muslim religious symbols such as crosses, etc? Would we constantly be defended by the government and the media in their countries if a sizable minority of us supported terrorism against Muslims? Would we be given free education, health care, and other benefits in their countries?
Let's face it, folks--Muslims aren't that stupid. We are--or at least our elected representatives and most of our media are.
Posted by: kaffirchick at December 14, 2007 12:25 PM
Read Irshad Manji's book -"The trouble with Islam". Her father used to beat her, her mother and her sisters.
Is this more prevalent in Muslim families than infidel families?
Inquiring minds want to know...........
Posted by: tanstaafl at December 14, 2007 12:30 PM
The al-Nadvi quoted in this article is a member of the ICNA who donated money to Hamas. I wrote about this here
Posted by: Kafir Canada at December 14, 2007 12:44 PM
Greetings:
Back in the Bronx of my youth, there was a bit of folk wisdom about a defendant telling the judge, "I was just standing on the corner, cleaning my knife, and she ran up and jumped on it 27 times."
Maybe her Muslim daddy was just showing her how to tie the hijab on and her neck got compressed, 27 times.
Posted by: 11B40 at December 14, 2007 12:46 PM
OT
Check this out.....
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=14044
Freak out during Air Canada flight to Europe
at December 14, 2007 12:51 PM
The umma is in denial.
Posted by: dgene at December 14, 2007 9:29 AM
LOL.. like the umma doesn't know it is at the heart of the murderous cult? Ofcourse, the umma knows. It is you, who doesn't know that the umma knows and pretends to "not know". Doesn't a mafia / gang member know what he / she has signed up to? You see, given Islam does nto spare anyone who leaves Isla, the umma has no choice to further the crime and deception of Islam.
Looks like the umma has you fooled all right!
at December 14, 2007 1:01 PM
like the umma doesn't know it is at the heart of the murderous cult? Ofcourse, the umma knows
Not only that, but the very fact that these spokescum come out and defend Islam against accusations of gender bias and human rights violations shows that they know very well what our civilization holds dear. The understand us at least well enough to anticipate our concerns. What this says to me is that they understand our civilization and consciously reject it in favor of their barbarism. Just goes to show the implacability of these people and the unlikelihood of their evolving to fit in with our view of how our society should be run in the 21st century.
Posted by: venividivici at December 14, 2007 1:16 PM
"It's a domestic violence issue"
----------------------------
Right:
Just because there are indeed some controlling bas***ds in the West who kill their wives or girlfriends when they dare to assert their autonomy by dumping the aforementioned bas***ds,
THEREFORE by perfectly logical extension,
Killing one's daughter for not gladly wearing the hijab is just more "western domestic violence" and has nothing at all to do with Islam's view of women as
(1) having half the value of men
(2) being the property of some man (father first then later husband) with absolutely no rights other that what he grants
(3) being the greatest source of sin in the world, especially if they allow more than their fingertips to be exposed to the gaze of others.
Repeat after him: "Random domestic violence. Not Islam. Definitely not Islam. Absolutely not Islam. It's all the fault of Western immorality and decadence. There must be lots of Western fathers who strangle their daughters for not wearing a gunnysack. You're just picking on this guy because he's Muslim. Waaah! Islamophobia! Racism! Bigotry! Marginalizing and criminalizing our holy religion! You're not celebrating our diversity! You're wrong-evil-bad! Everything is all your fault!"
Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at December 14, 2007 1:29 PM
Tarek Fatah had a very reasonable view:
http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/20071212.html
Who killed Aqsa Pervez?
By Tarek Fatah
and Farzana Hassan
The National Post
The tragic death of a Mississauga, Ont. teenage girl — allegedly at the hands of her own traditionally minded Muslim father — has sent shock waves across the world. Canadians are justified in raising concerns as to whether this is a sign of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in their own backyard.
Aqsa Parvez, a sprightly 16-year old, beloved of her friends and peers at Applewood Heights Secondary School, was only trying to be herself, was only wishing for a normal adolescence amid Canada’s rich cultural mosaic. The father has now been charged with murder, and his son with obstruction, while a young life has been snuffed out — likely in the name of honour and Islam
Radical Muslim men consider themselves ultimately responsible for the conduct of the womenfolk. This outlook is rooted in a medieval ethos that treats women as nonpersons, unable to decide for themselves what they should wear, where they must go and what they must accomplish in life. If their conduct is seen as contravening this austere religious outlook, they are invariably subjected to abuse.
The hijab in particular has become a thorny issue among Muslim families. It has been elevated as a sort of “sixth pillar of Islam” among militant sects. Young teenage girls are often lectured over the virtues of the hijab by their family members. Once they hit puberty, compliance is deemed a non-negotiable religious requirement.
Yet none of this is actually mandated by the Koran. The Koran, while speaking generally of modesty in dress and demeanor, falls short of specifying the details of that modesty. Scripture also makes allowances for non-compliance of religious edicts if the environment is not conducive to their observance.
The Koran exhorts compassion upon parents, caretakers and guardians of young girls. Yet some families instead exhibit a strict conformity to doctrine and dogma, which in turn leads to violence, bigotry and intolerance of alternative understandings of faith.
There is much discussion in Canadian society about the religious freedoms of those who choose to wear the hijab. We hear relatively little about the oppression of young girls who make the opposite choice. Seldom is their oppression from within their own community, or even their own family, cast as a human rights issue.
If convicted, Aqsa’s father and brother must be awarded the strictest penalty available under the law. As for the imams and clergy of Canada’s mosques, who constantly berate young women for not wearing the hijab or snub them for “violating Islam,” they need to reflect on the consequences of their sermons.
Consider, as an example, the Montreal mosque that recently posted on its Web site a warning to the effect that if young girls took off their hijab, they could end up getting raped and having “illegitimate children.” Other proferred risks included “Stresses, insecurity and suspicion in the minds of husbands” and “instigating young people to deviate towards the path of lust.”
As if the threat of rape and the fear of illegitimate children were not enough, these pre-teen girls were told that if they took off their hijab, they would cease to be Muslims: “By removing your hijab, you have destroyed your faith. Islam means submission to Allah in all our actions.” Little wonder then, that Canadian girls walk away from sports tournaments rather than remove their hijabs.
Muslims need to stand up to this sort of emotional and religious blackmail by imams who spread the competing agendas of Saudi Arabia and Iran into Canada. Young Aqsa Pervez’s death cannot be reversed. But in her memory, we can at least challenge those whose message leads to rage and madness.
------------
Tarek Fatah is author of Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State, to be published by Wiley & Sons in March, 2008. Farzana Hassan is author of Islam, Women, and the Challenges of Today. Both are members of the Muslim Canadian Congress
at December 14, 2007 1:41 PM
“Question is: how do we make these people confront the collective insanity that causes this?”
Posted by: sheik yer'mami
Under the barrel of a gun.
It will come to this (as it has in the past).
At present we do not have the widespread knowledge of Islam in our general population to force our leadership to confront this menace directly. This failure to name and confront the evil applies both here (employ the policeman) and abroad (deploy the soldier). This is slowly changing. The other day I heard Romney speak (very briefly) of confronting “the global jihad“ – it is a start, but we have much work to do.
For the West to prevail, some of the 1.5 billion Muslims MUST be peeled away from Islam. This can be done with a combination of selectively applied military force and a truthful, direct and unrelenting media assault on Islam.
There is no finer “bully pulpit” than our troopers “boots on the ground” – we need to develop the collective knowledge to use it effectively.
Kill the Jihadi, educate the Muslim
Deus Vult!
at December 14, 2007 1:53 PM
Muslim women who wear veils might not "look pretty," but their modest dress protects them, he added.
full quote: "...because Muslim men have no control over their primitive urges, and the smallest hint of a female's hair can cause a Muslim man to commit rape, just as cats will be compelled to eat uncovered meat...praise Allah."
at December 14, 2007 2:08 PM
What this says to me is that they understand our civilization and consciously reject it in favor of their barbarism. Just goes to show the implacability of these people and the unlikelihood of their evolving to fit in with our view of how our society should be run in the 21st century.
Posted by: venividivici at December 14, 2007 1:16 PM
They definitely understand out civilization.. and consciously reject it in favor of barbarism. "reject it..." is putting it mildly. Thet "attack it" (our civilization) as hard as they can, at every single opportunity, is more consistent, which comes from JIHAD towards anything non-Islamic, at the heart of Islam. As for the "Religion of Peace", the words "Religion" and "Peace" are LIES. Which "religion" preaches rape and murder? And how does peace fit into this at all? But then, as they say.. there is a sucker born every minute.
Posted by: Alert at December 14, 2007 2:18 PM
"Just goes to show the implacability of these people and the unlikelihood of their evolving to fit in with our view of how our society should be run in the 21st century."
Posted by: venividivici December 14, 2007 1:16 PM
--------------------------------
Have you seen this article:
http://www.rabbihaim.com/Yashiko2.html
Yashiko Sagamori compares the West versus Islam to antelopes vs. lions. Among many good quotes is
"A Muslim's ancient urge for jihad is so great, so unquenchable, so uncompromising that whenever he is deprived of his sacred right to murder the infidels, he will inevitably begin killing his own brothers..."
(PS- I originally found this article on the islamic-danger blog; but suddenly http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/ is stated to be in violation of Blogger's Terms of Service; luckily the article is posted in many other locations as well.)
at December 14, 2007 2:48 PM
Do Muslim "Leaders" ever hold any of their own accountable for anything? WHY do we continue to let these barbarians into our countries?
Posted by: HOV Dummy at December 14, 2007 3:08 PM
"We, as Muslims, are Canadians and we should be dealt with just like everyone else. We have rights, duties . . . pros and cons just like all other human beings."
Oh, good. Then there should be no protests from the Muslim community about bringing the killer up on murder charges... and no lame multicultural excuses for the crime.
at December 14, 2007 3:10 PM
"We as Muslims,are Canadians and we should be dealt with like everyone else."
-Wonderful start, this forward thinking gentleman would certainly have no problem conversing with other eggnog consuming "Canadians" this holiday season. With wives,girlfriends present in the same room of course. Forward thinking and all. "like everyone else."
"We have rights,duties...pros and cons just like ALL OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.
-The underlying context of that one should always stand out class. Tell your friends.
Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at December 14, 2007 3:16 PM
But then, as they say.. there is a sucker born every minute.
Posted by: Alert at December 14, 2007 2:18 PM
Yes, there is. Right now, one of the suckers' attitudes toward Muslims is that eventually, they'll "get" Western civilization and adapt to it because it will have such irresistable appeal to them, once they only understand how great it is.
Once again, as with all the other suckers' ideas about Islam, the evidence shows otherwise. I agree with your post 100% because my momma didn't raise no sucker.
Posted by: venividivici at December 14, 2007 3:18 PM
Do Muslim "Leaders" ever hold any of their own accountable for anything? WHY do we continue to let these barbarians into our countries?
Posted by: HOV Dummy at December 14, 2007 3:08 PM
I take it both questions are rethoric but for the benefit of other readers:
- The umma, like any cartel/gang/criminal entertprise, is a tight-knit community which has an unwritten code of shielding their muslim brothers and sisters no matter what. Infact, umma, if you have observed, gangs up on any non-muslim entity, be it an individual/group/comopany.givernment.. That is how muslims knwo that no matter what ctime they commit against non-muslims, they are covered by fellow muslim brothers and sisters. Stupid "kafir" is made to feel like it was his/her fault without knowing he/she is hanged up on by the stealth of, you got it.. Islam.
As for the second rhetotic question, poor American/Canadian/westerner does not know that he/she has been sold out by the government he/she elected and pays taxes to.
But then you already know the answers to these rhetotic questions............
Posted by: Alert at December 14, 2007 3:26 PM
"When I look at a woman who is covered, I look at her as a soul, a person, a mentality - not a physical or sexual object," he said.
Muslim women who wear veils might not "look pretty," but their modest dress protects them, he added.
(per Muslim Propagandist from above)
So one who is unveiled becomes a physical or sexual object in the mind of a male Muslim?
The veil protects them against the advances of these sexual, sadistic predators in the form of Muslim males like the above.
Posted by: Briars at December 14, 2007 3:27 PM
Have you seen this article:
http://www.rabbihaim.com/Yashiko2.html
Yashiko Sagamori compares the West versus Islam to antelopes vs. lions. Among many good quotes is
"A Muslim's ancient urge for jihad is so great, so unquenchable, so uncompromising that whenever he is deprived of his sacred right to murder the infidels, he will inevitably begin killing his own brothers..."
That's the first I've seen of that article, but I agree with the analysis. There does not seem to be any way to extract murderousness from the Islamic religion, which makes complete sense when you consider Mohammed's career. The fact that within the Muslim "in-group" things may be relatively peaceful while the group is experiencing military success against a non-Muslim group means nothing. A higher form of human civilization will provide for the means of creating peace regardless of the external situation. That is one of the goals of the Enlightenment, of course.
Posted by: venividivici at December 14, 2007 3:34 PM
One of the first books I read about Islam and women was Geraldine Brooks, "Nine Parts of Desire: The Hidden World of Islamic Women" (1994). A Catholic-background Australian journalist, she converted to Judaism to marry a fellow journalist who was Jewish American; they both spent a lot of time in the middle east, where she decided to start going into the world of the women - in Egypt, Iran, "Palestinian territories" (including Gaza's Islamic University), Jordan, and Eritrea.
Her bibliography is full of whitewashers and apologists; at times she IS 'sucked in' by that. Nevertheless, she seems to have a modicum of common sense (and being married to a Jew, when she encountered charming well-dressed Muslimas who talked like THIS: [p. 25]' "Israel has to be obliterated", she would say, reaching for her teacup and taking a delicate sip, "I'm looking forward to taking part in the war for its destruction" '- doubtless cleared the mind wonderfully). She believes her eyes and ears. She keeps track of discrepancies between what is said and what she knows to have been done; she can spot lies.
And so, at the end of the book, she says THIS (after describing the trial of a Muslim Sudanese immigrant in Britain who had murdered his wife in a classic 'honor killing'): [p. 231-2, 1995 edition).
"Presented with statistics on violence toward women, or facing the furor over the Rushdie fatwa, progressive Muslims...ask us to blame a wide range of villains: colonial history, the bitterness of immigrant experience, Bedouin tradition, pre-Islamic African culture [e.g. for FGM]. Yet when the Koran sanctions wife beating and the execution of apostates, it can't be entirely exonerated for an epidemic of wife slaying, and death sentences on authors.
"In the end, what Rana Kabbani and Ali Allawi [two alleged moderate Muslims] are proposing is as artificial an exercise as that proposed by the Marxists who used to argue that socialism in its pure form should not be maligned and rejected because of the deficiencies of 'actually existing socialism'. At some point every religion, ESPECIALLY ONE THAT PURPORTS TO ENCOMPASS A COMPLETE WAY OF LIFE AND SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, has to be called to account for the kind of life it offers the people in the lands where it predominates.
"It becomes insufficient to look at Islam on paper, or Islam in history, and dwell on the inarguable (?) improvements (?) it brought to women's lives in the seventh century. Today, the much more urgent and relevant task is to examine the way the [Islamic] faith has proved such fertile ground for almost every antiwomen custom it encountered in its great march out of Arabia.
"When it found veils and seclusion in Persia, it absorbed them; when it found genital mutilations in Egypt, it absorbed them; when it found societies in which women had never had a voice in public affairs, its own traditions of lively women's participation (?) withered."
And she adds, on p. 237, this devastating assessment of those who argued against Universal human rights, at the Geneva conference on the International Declaration of Human Rights in 1993:
"Cloaking their argument in fashionable dress such as cultural relativism, delegates from Iran and Cuba, China and Indonesia, argued that the West had imposed its human rights ideology on nations whose very different religious and political histories gave them the right to choose their own. To me, their argument boiled down to the ghastly and untenable proposition: a human right is what the local despot says it is."
She also suggests the following mental exercise, substituting race for gender: "say a country, a close Western ally and trading partner, had a population half white, half black. The whites had complete control over the blacks. They could beat them if they disobeyed. They deprived them of the right to leave the house without permission; to walk unmolested without wearing the official segregating dress; to hold any decent job in the government, or to work at all without the permission of the white in control of them. Would there have been uproar in our country by now? Would we have imposed trade sanctions and subjected this country to international opprobrium? You bet. Yet COUNTRIES LIKE SAUDI ARABIA, WHICH DEPRIVE HALF THEIR POPULATION OF THESE MOST BASIC RIGHTS, have been subjected to none of these things".
Relevant to what is happening in Canada right now, Ms Brooks says this (pp. 237-8):
'Even if we decline to act on what goes on inside others' borders, there is no excuse for not acting inside our own.
'In an era of cultural sensitivity, we [and I think she is talking about Australia, her home country] need to say that certain cultural baggage is contraband in our countries, AND WILL NOT BE ADMITTED. We already draw a line at polygamy; we don't recognise divorce by saying 'I divorce you'. We have banned these things even though the Koran approves them. It should be easier to take a stand against practices that don't even carry the sanction of the Koran. "HONOR "KILLINGS NEED TO BE IDENTIFIED IN COURT AND PUNISHED AS THE PREMEDITATED MURDERS THAT THEY ARE.".
This is a journalist who spent time with lots of charming and plausible Muslimas; and whose bibliography contains not one of those Wise Men Hugh recommends to us, but many deluded aplogists like Esposito and Armstrong. Nevertheless, common sense and a Catholic upbringing still gave her the moral clarity to see straight.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at December 14, 2007 3:45 PM
Keep in mind this is a single instance of a crime. Comapre it like the video that pops up now and again of a stalker abducting a young woman who is later found dead. Aqsa Parvez's death is NOT a normal "islamic event." I remember a kid in 1st grade whose Christian mother forced him to kneel in rock salt when he was bad until his knees bled. When he was 12 she beat him so badly he lost hearing in one ear. Parents are sometimes overprotective, sometimes STUPID, like the woman who created the phony MySpace page that led to the suicide of Megan Meier. But that's another story...
Posted by: Dave Lucas at December 14, 2007 4:09 PM
Don't pee on me and tell me it's raining.
Simple fact is this guy choked his daughter to death? Could you imagine killing somebody let alone squeezing every last breath out of their body like that? And then add on the fact that it's your own flesh and blood. Funny thing is I bet my bottom dollar if she would have just warn that headdress she'd still be alive today.
Posted by: Stinkyinfidel at December 14, 2007 4:19 PM
More info from the same news conference.
Imam Mohammad Alnadvi, who sits on the Canadian Council of Imams. said that judging from the information he received, the hijab was only one of the issues.
"This girl, she refused to stay at home," he said. "There were feelings that she is going in some wrong direction ? going with some other boy or some other thing."
After he made those comments, two women in hijabs interrupted him and started to disagree, before abruptly leaving the gym where the conference was being held.
In an interview afterward, the women -- a mother and daughter -- said they had taken Aqsa into their home on various occasions, but would not say any more.
The convener of the event, Sheikh Alaa Elsayed, said that one of the keys to getting daughters to wear the hijab is teaching them about religion at a young age. The other, he said, is "a proper spouse."
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/story.html?id=8282dddc-9bc3-4a46-809e-8096fe261a6a&k=60545
Two publications by the Muslim Students' Association of the University of Alberta: “How to Make Your Husband Happy” stipulates that wives compliance must be total “… in all what he commands you… In Islam, the husband is the leader of the family…” This same document stipulates: "Do not go out of your house without his permission and put on full hijab.”
This same Canadian Muslim Students’ Association also published “How to Make Your Wife Happy” which provides specific guidelines exactly how a husband must beat his wife for disobedience, such as failure to wear the hijab.
www.jannah.org/.../husbandhappy.html
www.jannah.org/.../wifehappy.html
at December 14, 2007 4:22 PM
Wouldn't it be great if some brave muslim women would stand up and burn their hijabs like the women burned their bras in the 60's, that would really kickstart a revolution me thinks. One can wish can't he?
Posted by: Stinkyinfidel at December 14, 2007 4:24 PM
Notice that the Toronto Post used the phrase "slaying" to describe the murder.
Could this again be unintentional dhimmitude? Or just the allies of our enemies playing at it once again?
This was no "slaying". We slew Al-Zaqawi in Iraq. You slay an enemy. This poor 16 year old girl was MURDERED! Why has this not outraged our media?
Richard
Posted by: Wien1938 at December 14, 2007 4:37 PM
>El-Sayyed said.
>"When I look at a woman who is covered, I look at her as a soul, a person, a mentality - not a physical or sexual object," he said.
Why does everyone overlook this "blame the victim" mentality, blaming the woman for what the man does? Why is it the woman's responsibility to keep the man from thinking in a certain way? Why doesn't the man take responsibility for how he views women? But NOOOOO...as soon as a woman removes her veil, the man is FORCED to think of her as a physical or sexual object and can no longer think of her as a soul or a person. How weak! How can they have a conception of themselves as being so weak and easily manipulated? Who thinks that this weakness is what it means to be manly? Putting women in burqa, hijab, niqab is like a constant admission that strength does not exist in men.
(Joke: They like their women like they like their tea;
in bags!)
Wake up, men, and dare to be really men!
Posted by: Enayat at December 14, 2007 4:48 PM
Sorry the two links I posted above don't work.
husbandhappy / wifehappy
This should work. The links are halfway down page.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2007/12/14/151347.aspx
Posted by: Rob at December 14, 2007 5:39 PM
"When I look at a woman who is covered, I look at her as a soul, a person, a mentality - not a physical or sexual object," he said.
So in other words, you just can't control yourself unless a woman is wearing a tent!!!...you and your fellow wackjobs are just sad and pathetic I guess.
Posted by: itsplayed at December 14, 2007 5:58 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Western nations must develop a program called Amnesty for Apostates. If you ensure the protection of female apostates
(what male would leave islam?!?)
and their children, sisters, cousins, mothers, etc. If you could guarantee that they would be safe, secure, nourished, educated, cared for and loved; and if you guaranteed their children protection, the womenslaves of islam would leave in droves.
There are already programs out there for non-moslem abused women and children that guarantee safety and security.
This effort would have to be highly publicized and would likely cost into the tens of millions of dollars (collectively throughout the West), BUT... I'd bet dollars to donuts women would flee en masse, thus collapsing the islam. The ones who remain would be jihadi like their males.
...............................................
I'd feel sorry for goats, sheep and other small animals. What would the males of islam do if they lose their chattle?
at December 14, 2007 6:10 PM
If you could guarantee that they would be safe, secure, nourished, educated, cared for and loved; and if you guaranteed their children protection, the womenslaves of islam would leave in droves.
by Laughs_at_Silly_Jihadis
Given the "war is deceit" mindset in Islam, this sounds like a perfect way to bring young Muslim jihadis into the West, counting on Western sympathies for the mother's plight. Her daughters might feel as she does, but not her sons. Mom might leave Islam, but nothing forces her children to. Get them into the mosque and see how long it is before the males take on the "protection" of their female relatives.
at December 14, 2007 6:40 PM
One response to all this "it-isn't-about-the-religion" spin from the Muslim community --- make it about the religion by putting sharia to the test and set up a temporary sharia court in parallel with the Canadian court, trying the father in both. Have the media track everything a la OJ Simpson. This way, Muslims can showcase before all non-Muslims their proud sharia and its alleged superiority to kafir law. I'd be curious how satisfactorily the sharia verdict and sentence would come across to non-Muslims.
Posted by: yadayada at December 14, 2007 6:59 PM
"The bottom line is, it's a domestic violence issue," El-Sayyed said.
Right. And what caused the domestic violence? The daughter not wearing an Islamic hijab. Oh yeah, and people with guns don't kill people; guns kill people all by themselves.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 14, 2007 7:03 PM
She was murdered for not wearing her hijab,
They can beat it around all they want, she was killed because of the ISLAMIC cultural belief that an uncovered female is meat. It was a honor killing.
ISLAMIC cultural murder.
at December 14, 2007 7:50 PM
Well it's Toronto,Detroit,Seattle, or somewhere in America or other places where free peoples gather. That this child was murdered, and like many befor, Islam is the culprit. And alas islam will be free to reign it's evil hand with nary a word in the press that counts.
Posted by: AMartinez at December 14, 2007 8:22 PM
I swear i saw pigs flying with Jackasses in air traffic control.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at December 14, 2007 10:02 PM
After all, Islam means "submission": women must submit to their fathers or husbands, just as men must submit to Allah. Funny thing, though, is that Allah doesn't come around on a regular basis to beat the stuffing out of the men.
Posted by: ebonystone at December 15, 2007 12:00 AM
This is in reply to the ignorant comment made by Mr Hugh about MOHAMMAD but before I go into the detials of the TRUE conduct of MOHAMMAD let me ask a question
Why is it that whenever a Muslim man or woman does some thing wrong the whole religion of Islam and its bearer MOHAMMAD are blamed .Do we blame Christianity or Judism or any other faith for the wrongful act of an adherent of that particular faith.Did anyone blame Christianity for the recent school shooting by Jason or whatever his name is ?
Now to Mr Hughs please first gain knowledge about MOHAMMAD and his conduct before you ever again dare to castigate him.Go and read the book "MOHAMMAD THE SEERAH "written by Afzalur Rahman.And if by any chance you can not find the set of books contact me and I will mail you a copy of the page on which following is printed
"A friend and follower of MOHAMMAD was supporting his adult son financially but he stopped doing it when he found out that his son has converted to Christianity.When MOHAMMAD found this out HE admonished his friend for stopping to support his son telling him that choice of faith is a very basic human right and there is no compulsion of any sort, neither any bribe nor any punishment allowed for the sake of the choice of faith.So HE ordered HIS friend to resume the support of his son who was now a Christian and not a Muslim "
But my dear friend I do not accuse you of ignorance.I feel sad that our Islamic scholars are so busy in the minute details of our peaceful faith that people like yourself are ignorant of the TRUE conduct of MOHAMMAD. The wars in HIS life were not HIS to start.Those three wars were imposed on MOHAMMAD for preaching ISLAM .The Meccans first made him flee Mecca as they wanted to kill HIM.Then while in Medina the Meccans still would not leave HIM alone.So there my friend the truth about the wars that HE had to fight.Do you know of the generosity and the degree of the forgiveness and mercy HE showed when after the third and final war HE walked into the city of Mecca as a winner of the war HE ordered un condiotional general pardon for every non Muslim Meccan regardless if any of them accepted or did not accept ISLAM.
From where do you get your study of ISLAM ?From the TV ? or from the propaganda published by the Non Muslims.
Next time you dare to make a comment on any one first get your facts straight.May God bless you.
at December 15, 2007 12:40 AM
"When I look at a woman who is covered, I look at her as a soul, a person, a mentality - not a physical or sexual object," he said."
So, the Islamic superstition is that a woman's soul, personhood and mentality are contained within a headcloth.
at December 15, 2007 1:25 AM
"Now to Mr Hughs please first gain knowledge about MOHAMMAD and his conduct before you ever again dare to castigate him."
Oooooh, Scary Troll!
"But my dear friend I do not accuse you of ignorance."
But, my friend, he did! ("This is in reply to the ignorant comment made by Mr Hugh...")
"Next time you dare to make a comment on any one first get your facts straight. May God bless you."
Feel the love!
Posted by: Abscedere at December 15, 2007 1:33 AM
Forgive me: Parvez
sarfarz,
Why did Mr. Parvez kill his own 16 year-old daughter?
Posted by: Abscedere at December 15, 2007 1:37 AM
sarfarz,
So many questions we Infidels have about
uswa hasana (The Model of Conduct)
Al-insan al-kamil (The Perfect Man):
“Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and his Apostle?”
(and so he was murdered by a Muslim over a poem)
“Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?”
(and so the mother of five was murdered by a Muslim over a verse)
The Jew Kinana b al-Rabi was tortured to near death on Muhammad’s command so he would reveal the location of treasure – his wife raped that very night by Muhammad.
The hands and feet of the men and boys of the Uraina tribe cut off and left to bleed to death, in agony, on Muhammad’s word.
The men and boys of the Qurayzah beheaded for Muhammad’s pleasure, their wives and children to become the slaves of Muslim murderers. The beautiful Rayhana, ravished that night by Muhammad as part of his share in the booty.
So MANY questions we Infidels have about “The Perfect Man” and “The Only Religion” – you know, “The Religion of Peace”.
Kill the Jihadi, educate the Muslim
Deus Vult!
at December 15, 2007 1:38 AM
I just want sarfarz to tell me why Mr. Parvez's pretty 16 year-old, Aqsa was killed by her father.
Posted by: Abscedere at December 15, 2007 1:45 AM
I guess sarfarz is a hit-and-run kind of poster.
Too bad-- There was so much I wanted to ask him.
Posted by: Abscedere at December 15, 2007 2:18 AM
"Do we blame Christianity or Judaism or any other faith for the wrongful act of an adherent of that faith?"
sarfarz-
Yes people do blame faiths every day,when did anybody let these two off the hook?
Christianity has been, since it's inception,subjected to ridicule by it's detractors for nearly any conceivable real or imaginary offense. Those who struggled against political(Roman imperial co-option of Christ in order to diffuse the movement) Christianity's Pax Romana inspired dogma,(which exists in some form to this day)were apt to see "Christians" and their steadfast belief in Christ's divinity and the resurrection, as the source of all ills,but the true message has never changed despite the numerous and inevitable gross misrepresentations which Christ himself prophesied.
One major difference,compared to Islam, is that the New Testament highlights a fundamental separation between Political and Religious power and influence. Such a distinction does not exist in Islam which councils toward submission(Quran, Hadith,Sura) and the incorporation or subjugation of all by whatever means are available.
War-mongering,along with traits such as:arrogance,wrath,pride,were counseled against by Christ and the scriptures. They state no everlasting decree of war against all mankind,but a call,an unconditional call to "him who hath ears" to shoulder the burden and "take up my yoke",it's rather light.
Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at December 15, 2007 4:03 AM
But of course dears it got nothing to do with Islam, just a slight misunderstanding of what young ladies should wear.
May God rest her soul.
at December 15, 2007 6:55 AM
Sarfarz. I think Hugh, and many more of us, Came to the conclusion from reading the Koran. Books, News papers, TV, Radio, Movies, Documentaries, just seem to be the Daily reminders of just how peaceful Islam is.
What's up with the "next time you dare make a comment" comment? It really does not read as being very peaceful.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at December 15, 2007 7:15 PM
Why is it that whenever a Muslim man or woman does some thing wrong the whole religion of Islam and its bearer MOHAMMAD are blamed .Do we blame Christianity or Judism or any other faith for the wrongful act of an adherent of that particular faith.Did anyone blame Christianity for the recent school shooting by Jason or whatever his name is ?
One big difference is the punishment for the wrong a person does, which translates into how that wrong is really viewed by society as a whole.
Re: school/mall/church shooters, if they live, they'll be punished severely in Western society, be they Christian or not. There's no debate at all among Westerners, Christian or not, about the wrongness of such deeds and the penalties for them.
With Mr. Parvez, however, it's not clear how sharia law would punish him. In fact, some Islamic societies might even acquit him on the grounds that he was doing his duty to protect his family's honor. Frankly, it totally baffles and sickens non-Muslim Westerners that there is ANY debate among Muslims about the rightness/wrongness of what he did to his daughter (unlike the unequivocal wrongness of how school shooters are viewed). The Christian West pretty much views daughter-killers and school shooters in the same way (i.e. both deserving of harsh punishment)...however, it's not evident that the ummah does. Because of this, the ummah reflects quite poorly in the eyes of the non-ummah.
at December 16, 2007 4:54 AM
...Islam killed this young girl, for not being Muslim enough....just like Islam will kill you, if you are not Muslim enough....
Ban Musim immigration
Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 16, 2007 11:12 AM
The following articles provide further documentation for Muhammad terrorizing his opponents and for him failing all the biblical tests of prophethood:
www.muhammadanism.org/terrorism/muhammad_islam_terrorism.pdf
www.answering-islam.org/Silas/spirit_of_islam.htm
www.answering-islam.org/Silas/terrorist.htm
www.answering-islam.org/Silas/jihad.htm
www.answering-islam.org/Silas/demons.htm
www.answering-islam.org/Silas/suicide.htm
www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/true_seal.htm
www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/false_prophecies.htm
www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/idolatry.htm
at December 16, 2007 11:28 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)