| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
No pork, please
Contrary to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution headline, he didn't actually say he was innocent. He said he had done nothing wrong. That's not the same thing. According to an earlier story on this case, he confessed to killing his daughter, and explained that he had done it to cleanse his family's honor. When he appeared before the judge, it is unlikely that he changed this story. He just said he didn't do anything wrong. And by the lights of the Islamic culture from which he comes, which thinks that a father killing a daughter who has sullied his family's honor is perfectly justified, he indeed hasn't done anything wrong.
His demand for halal food, meanwhile, is bitterly ironic in light of the PC blackout in the mainstream media on any mention of the Islamic character of this murder. CNN went searching for clues as to why it happened in South Asian culture. The Chicago Tribune searched for motivations among the practices of long-dead European royalty. On Beck, Zuhdi Jasser dismissed it as a "pre-Islamic" practice.
The price of this politically correct refusal to confront the ugly realities of the Islamic link to honor killing will be, quite simply, more honor killings. No one will call upon Islamic groups to do something about this practice. No special scrutiny will be focused upon Muslims in the United States, or any studies undertaken about how honor killings can be prevented. No one will examine the question of unrestricted Muslim immigration in light of this problem. While learned analysts search for clues in South Asian cultural habits and the practices of European royalty, more young women will be murdered by their Muslim fathers, husbands, and brothers to cleanse their family’s honor. These young women are the ultimate victims of political correctness.
"I'm innocent, says man held in daughter's death: Chaudhry Rashid wants to observe Muslim beliefs while jailed," by Kathy Jefcoats for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. July 8:
A Pakistani man accused of killing his daughter five days after she filed for divorce to end her arranged marriage wept in court Tuesday, telling a Clayton County magistrate he is innocent."I have done nothing wrong," Chaudhry Rashid told Chief Magistrate Daphne Walker through interpreter Younis Farhat. Farhat said Rashid speaks primarily Urdu and Punjabi.
But police say Rashid, 54, used a bungee cord to strangle Sandeela Kanwal, 25, early Sunday morning in the family's Utah Drive home in Jonesboro.
Rashid, who is being held without bond, told the judge he wanted to observe his Muslim beliefs in the Clayton jail. He wants to follow a diet that forbids the consumption of pork in any form and requires other meats are prepared according to Islamic rules.
[...]
In court, Rashid made guttural noises and cried. He rocked back and forth and appeared to be talking to himself before the hearing started. Through Farhat, Rashid told Walker he was mourning the loss of his daughter.
"My daughter just died and I am not in a state of mind to ask any questions," he said.
We have seen the Islamic displacement of responsibility and utter incapacity for self-criticism before, but this one really takes the cake.
Posted by Robert at July 9, 2008 1:01 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Well said, Robert.
Posted by: undaunted![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 9, 2008 1:22 PM
This man's face is giving me nightmares and sleepless nights...as have other ghastly mug shots of various bearded enraged neanderthals on here recently.
Posted by: johndoe at July 9, 2008 1:24 PM
This will be an extra interesting case to follow because this could set a sort of precedent for subsequent cases of this nature, which will occur because of the many dysfunctional and tragic aspects of Islamic culture. From rank apologists and excuse makers like CAIR and some of the media to even what food this reprobate will be served, this particular case could very likely have a significant impact on how Islam is looked upon and treated in America. This one bears watching closely. Personally, I hope this brutal man pays the highest penalty, after a fair trial of course.
Posted by: Wellington at July 9, 2008 1:32 PM
I do not who is more retarded the PC Media or this Muslim who killed his daughter because Islam allows this practice. At least he is honest about where he got his motives from, while the stupid Media is trying to figure out where the practice comes from. Both are retarded in the end. However, unfortunately the public is given a false perception and other non Muslim "South Asians" are branded into the same boat as this barbarian and his sick ideology of Islam.
Posted by: savsiv at July 9, 2008 1:36 PM
Until such a time that we are able to name and fight the enemy, nothing significant can be done to defend ourselves.
All we can do sit by and watch as our culture is slowly destroyed by the muslims spreading islam. Sure we will chatter endlessly about how awful islam is but we will not take any concrete action to stop it.
Looking back through history and the relentless spread of Islamic Imperialism, I find our culture to be no better if not worse off than those who have fallen before us.
Seriously, in what way are we superior? None. We will fall to islam just as all others have. And for no other reason than we refuse to accept that islam is the enemy and muslims are the soldiers.
Posted by: mike trivisonno at July 9, 2008 1:37 PM
there is a very good chance that this thing will receive the DP for this "pre-Islamic" tribal act, and he damn well knows it, hence the crocodile tears for his daughter that "just died".
Allah is indeed a vengeful, bloodthirsty, yet utterly fictionl deity, isn't he?
Too bad we can't convince a billion plus Mulsims of that unfortunate reality.
Posted by: awake at July 9, 2008 1:47 PM
"He rocked back and forth and appeared talking to himself.."
You mean he appeared to be praying,the rocking he learned in a madrassa or a mosque.
And what do you think he prayed for?For his daughter to still be alive or for him to be delivered from the evil hands of the infidel?
JLP
Posted by: John Lee Pedimore at July 9, 2008 1:54 PM
it looks like he mybe trying for not guilty by reason of insanity or diminished mental capacity and its interesting that someone who has lived hear for years cant speak English.and he would claim innocence undultibly because he is being tried by (what is to him a court that would have no standing in Pakistan ie a non sharia court) and by a pakistani court he would just get a slap on the wrist were here he might be facing the death penalty as for his food well fried Bologna is a staple in jails in the south let him go hungry if he will not eat it and if they want to prove he is lyning about not speaking english just call Mohammad a pervert not a profit in english were he can hear and you just might witness a merical a man claiming not to speak or understand english understanding it
Posted by: ISLAMSNOTFORME at July 9, 2008 1:58 PM
"My daughter just died and I am not in a state of mind to ask any questions," he said.
Died?
From natural causes.
From when she couldn't breathe.
From when he choked her with a cord.
On purpose.
Posted by: undaunted at July 9, 2008 2:04 PM
Unfortunatley that will be the focus of this case, "his state of mind" which I am sure this will somehow turn into an insanity defense.
Posted by: Ladywolfnl at July 9, 2008 2:09 PM
Moslems will be moslems...
Posted by: Madzionist at July 9, 2008 2:10 PM
Justice will be served; America hasn't fallen that far...yet. However, if it isn't, and we have, we are well on our way to establishing what one EU leader has referred to as a "parallel society," where Muslims have convinced (or are in the process of convincing) European governments to allow Muslims to live under shari'a and not local or government laws.
Our spineless politicians need to wake up and read our Constitution. We cannot have nor can we allow two systems of law and government in the US. Islam is a political ideology more than a religion. Even the liberal Karen Armstrong admits that. And with our Constitutional guarantee of protection by our government from all enemies, our so-called leaders need to start doing their jobs; the enemy is here. Instead of kissing Muslim butt, they need to be kicking it.
Posted by: JohnnyT at July 9, 2008 2:11 PM
"His demand for halal food,"
Wow, I hope the police aren't providing that. I mean, really. Don't do it, police.
Posted by: darcy at July 9, 2008 2:16 PM
"Robin [father of Richard Reid], who had converted to Islam while in prison in the 1980s, had a suggestion that seemed to make sense. Muslims, he says, "treat you like a human being." Plus, he says, they get better food in prison. Richard took his father's advice. The next time he was incarcerated, he converted."
-- from a TIME magazine story on Richard Reid several years ago
"Rashid, who is being held without bond, told the judge he wanted to observe his Muslim beliefs in the Clayton jail. He wants to follow a diet that forbids the consumption of pork in any form and requires other meats are prepared according to Islamic rules."
-- from the story above
The food, the food. Always the damned food. Cherchez la bouffetance.
Posted by: Hugh at July 9, 2008 2:16 PM
1) Did anyone watch Glenn Beck last night? He has a substitute host (actually two - a man and woman whose names escape me) and they had on a "moderate Muslim" whose name I did not catch discussing this case. I caught only the last couple of minutes, but enough to hear both the hosts (gag) repeat that Islam is a peaceful religion being hijacked by a few extremists...and that this is a cultural anomaly and not a religious/Islamic anomaly....
2) As for the food, well, having once worked in a high security all male federal prison, don't get the pork and non-pork products mixed up!! So many times I was asked: is that pork? doesn't look like turkey. My reply was, hey, everything these days is now turkey and besides, I think Allah would understand that since you're in PRISON, your diet is a relative thing.
Posted by: HOV Dummy at July 9, 2008 2:24 PM
-Until such a time that we are able to name and fight the enemy, nothing significant can be done to defend ourselves...
Exactly correct.
This Muslim who killed his daughter is a perfect example of what may be commonplace in our country in the future if Islam is allowed to spread. Already in England, their court is allowing Sharia to rule. According to Sharia and Islamic custom, it is legal for this Muslim to kill his daughter if his family is dishonored by her, as Robert has indicated in this excellent article.
This Muslim man may very well be the poster child for our future.
Posted by: Spot on at July 9, 2008 2:25 PM
He wants to follow a diet that forbids the consumption of pork in any form and requires other meats are prepared according to Islamic rules.
-from the article
Are Jews fed kosher meals in prison? Do vegetarians get special meals or are they told to just skip the meat and eat the rest of what's on their plate?
Are the rules different for convicts as opposed to those who are still awaiting trial?
You should have thought of your halal requirements before you strangled your daughter, not after. You're being fed by taxpayers, we decide the menu. You don't want to consume pork, don't consume pork. If the eggs are near the bacon, don't eat the eggs. Have some bread and water. Then again, I recently made bacon bread. You just might like it! Ymmmm!
Who cares what culture made him do this? Whatever the culture that sees nothing wrong with what this man did, its people should be persona non grata in the US. They are incapable of living among us.
Posted by: PMK at July 9, 2008 2:33 PM
Posted by: HOV Dummy at July 9, 2008 2:24 PM
That was Zuhdi Jasser on Beck last night. The transcript link to the show is embedded in the article by Robert above.
Jasser attempted a whitewash but was called out by both hosts. It wasn't as bad a performance by the co-hosts as you recall.
Posted by: awake at July 9, 2008 2:34 PM
"My daughter just died..."
Posted by: MP at July 9, 2008 2:40 PM
I used to say jokingly that Islam is self-inflicted mental illness. I stopped joking.
Posted by: FreeSpeech at July 9, 2008 2:47 PM
Um, is it just me? since when do prisoners get to demand anything? Will CAIR be stopping by soon to berate the prison officials for failing to be sensitive to this Muslim murderer's sensibilities? Will they sue? Will he get out for good behavior? And what is good behavior when killing your daughter is business as usual?
This man's problem is that he forgot what country he's presently living in. If he were in Egypt or Jordan, no one would have given it the time of day.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at July 9, 2008 2:52 PM
Gentlemen:
I have a problem. You see the Constitution's first amendment says that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. By prosecuting this idiot, are we not prohibitiog the free exercise of HIS religion?
at July 9, 2008 2:58 PM
Only if we insist on prosecuting him for "honor killing" and not Premeditated Murder.
Posted by: undaunted at July 9, 2008 3:09 PM
Richard Garnache call it whatever, it's still murder and that is illegal. "Free-exercise" does not allow murder, aren't you glad?
Posted by: Sounder at July 9, 2008 3:14 PM
Richard Garnache: The First Amendment is quite broad but not absolute where either speech or the practice of religion is concerned. One can believe anything he wants but that does not necessarily allow in every instance the right to act upon that belief. For instance, one has the perfect freedom in this country to be a complete idiot and have Satan as the focal point of your faith. But if practicing this religion means performing a human sacrifice once a year or every full moon or whenever, well, sorry, can't do this.
There was a Supreme Court case some years ago, and I can't remember the name of it off hand right now, but it had to do with an American Indian tribe being allowed to use some kind of illegal drug for hallucinatory purposes because the tribe's age-old religion required it. Result? The Indians lost their case. Well, you get the idea, though if Barack Obama becomes President his judicial appointments could be so screwy that the common sense that has prevailed here to date could be thrown out the window. But I digress.
Posted by: Wellington at July 9, 2008 3:22 PM
Georgia is a pretty heavy red state and in the middle of the Bible Belt (I live in Atlanta). This is a perfect opportunity for some brave politician to stand up and call this out for what it is: the evil of Islam. Their misogynistic practices are at odds with Western civilization and they cannot peacefully coexist. Where are the feminist groups? Where are the Human Rights groups? Someone in this great state please step out and do the right thing.
Posted by: bpjauburn at July 9, 2008 3:34 PM
Zuhdi Jasser dismissed it as a "pre-Islamic" practice.
Jasser is that rarest of birds, a genuinely moderate Muslim. Sure, he's an apologist for his idealized reformed or enlightened Islam, but that's part of the fight against the jihadis. For what it's worth, he's right about pre-Islamic practices. Lots of things associated with Islam, honor killings and female "circumcision" for example, are not intrinsic to Islam. You can find honor killings in India and female genital mutilation in animist or ancestor worshiping parts of Africa.
That being said, it's possible that Islam is uniquely susceptible to sacralizing tribal culture. I'll admit some bias in favor of Judaism, but Judaism and Islam both grew out of tribal middle eastern cultures and it seems to me that the Jewish scriptures, how Jews interpreted them, and Jewish law, halacha, often mitigate that tribal culture. An example might be the "cities of refuge" where someone who committed manslaughter could flee to avoid blood revenge from the deceased's family, or the halachic rules of evidence and jurisprudence that make it almost impossible to convict someone of a capital crime. Islam, on the other hand, seems to give many of these tribal cultural artifacts the imprimatur of holiness, hence the public executions and cutting off of hands in Saudi Arabia that go on till this day. There is also the related problem with the militaristic aspect of Islam, something that has led to numerous violent sects over the centuries, like the Almohades.
Jasser's not a bad guy:
JASSER: Islam clearly forbids such a thing and actually gives women the rights to a prenuptial agreement at their wedding and preserves a lot of these things that are being completely missed by these Neanderthals.
And you`re right. Muslims need to stand up. I`m not going to say he`s not a Muslim. We don`t have a church that communicates or excommunicates people. What I am going to do is start a movement of Muslims that will stand up and say this is not only wrong; he should get the capital punishment. And we should start to have formal processes to protect daughters and children like his, so that when Muslims stand up and speak up -- I don`t know if you heard the Pakistani community that stood up in Atlanta recently, in Georgia, and basically said that well, the family is depressed. Well, you know, they should stand up and say this is completely wrong, and immoral, and not Islam.
Posted by: Johan Amedeus Metesky at July 9, 2008 3:42 PM
...he wanted to observe his Muslim beliefs in the Clayton jail...
Hmm, seems like allowing him kill a relative in jail would be taking multiculturalism a bit too far.
Posted by: RalphInfidel at July 9, 2008 3:49 PM
it looks like he mybe trying for not guilty by reason of insanity or diminished mental capacity
That will be interesting. Islam as a mental illness.
I am sure that will make the CAIR media jihadis happy.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at July 9, 2008 3:57 PM
According to Islamic doctrine, women are:
More ignorant than men
Allowed to be beaten for disobedience
Not reliable as a witnesses when compared men.
Filthy (especially during menstruation).
Not allowed to go out alone or uncovered in public and forbidden to speak to non-related men.
Virtually unable to accuse a man of rape.
Encouraged to be married before they reach puberty.
Men have the authority to select their daughter's husband, while also selecting multiple wives for themselves.
In a society where women have the status of a dog, killing one for such a noble ideal as "family honor" is no big deal...after all, she was only an ignorant, weak, disobedient, filthy, non-breeder (in the view of noble Islam).
at July 9, 2008 3:59 PM
"Islam clearly forbids such a thing...."
Ayat and sura please. Because apparently, that "clearly" is not, for at least some Muslims, "clearly" enough.
Posted by: Hugh at July 9, 2008 4:16 PM
undaunted: I think you're right on both counts.
Posted by: Wellington at July 9, 2008 4:18 PM
Various postings have commented on one's rights in prison, particularly on the right to a certain diet.
I'm no lawyer, but here are a couple of relevant passages from the Constitution:
1. from the 5th Amendment, "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; . . . ."
2. from the 13th Amendment, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, . . . ."
So, conviction of a crime in a legally-constituted court (i.e. due process of law) can result in loss of property -- a fine or seizure of property, or liberty -- imprisonment or involuntary servitude, or life -- the death penalty, or any combination of these.
Certain liberties, such as the right to vote, seem to be automatically lost upon conviction and imprisonment. But others, like freedom of religion, are not. Probably this is because religion is generally viewed by the authorities as beneficial. But from a constitutional point of view religious freedom is not guaranteed; it can be revoked, just like the right to vote, by "due process of law".
at July 9, 2008 4:23 PM
Noted and appreciated,sir.
Posted by: undaunted at July 9, 2008 4:23 PM
I say let him eat what everyone else is eating.
Why should we honor this criminals requests?
I also hope he gets the death penalty.
at July 9, 2008 4:26 PM
Never seen such a perfect match for the defining example of chutzpah, the guy who murders his parents and then begs for mercy because he's an orphan.
Posted by: Karl Pov at July 9, 2008 4:36 PM
The question is: "Was the murdered daughter islamic?"
If the answer is "yes", then there's no problem in my point of view.
at July 9, 2008 4:37 PM
E605, so what is your point of view?
Posted by: Sounder at July 9, 2008 4:44 PM
"Well, you know, they should stand up and say this is completely wrong, and immoral, and not Islam."
quoting Jasser.
I do not think I would count him as a moderate nor would I put any credence on what he is saying the Pakistani community should do by his quoted statement above. As far as I can see this has been the usual response by Muslims in order to save the public image of Islam and put a false front and trying to portray a moderate Islam to the public. From my experience the moderate Muslims are the ones who have left Islam(apostates). These honor killings are also happening in the United Kingdom with large Muslims enclaves.
Posted by: savsiv at July 9, 2008 4:46 PM
These people always know their rights while denying other people theirs!
Posted by: James at July 9, 2008 4:51 PM
ebonystone,
He doesn't lose his freedom of religion. He can pray toward Mecca all he wants. He can read his koran. I don't know what happens with the call to prayer.
But are the rest of us required to observe his religion, which is what we would be doing by giving him food prepared according to Islamic rules. If he can only eat such food then why not get CAIR or his wife and family to provide the appropriate nutrition for him?
That's where the question of kosher or non-kosher applies. Who makes those determinations?
Are we required to hire kosher cooks for a prison?
The only valid reasons for special diet should be medical - high blood pressure, diabetes and such.
at July 9, 2008 4:52 PM
ebonystone: The larger point you touch upon, and it's a good one, is just how is the Islamic faith going to alter concepts of traditional religious freedom in this country? Since all other major religions, and most every minor one too, are either beneficial to society or, at the worst, innocuous, depriving a criminal of his religious requirements has not really been an issue till now.
But with Islam we have a religion which is neither beneficial nor harmless. We have now in this country an ideology calling itself a religion, and practiced by several million, what Winston Churchill described as the greatest retrograde force in the world. So, once again we will see the Constitution stretched in yet another direction. It has stood up to the test of time wonderfully well to date and I remain confident that it will continue to do so as long as we don't abandon traditional common sense, as is happening, unfortunately, in Britain at an accelerated rate. Multiculturalism and political correctness, I might add, are the greatest enemies of common sense in today's Western world and both are entirely the creation of the modern Left. Conservatism (and old-fashioned liberalism) had nothing to do with either of these pieces of nonsense.
Posted by: Wellington at July 9, 2008 5:00 PM
Hello, everyone:
I have seen the obvious link in life of these honor killings to Islam, but I have not yet seen (perhaps by my own missing or ignorance) any explanation that one would call on the quran or hadith to justify them. Do these exist? I have seen a few, but not on this site.
Is this a commonly accepted practice due to man's dominion over women and how arrangements are set up in Shari'a states or are there also references to the quran and sira in order to justify honor killings?
Please refer to a former post or point these out in this commentary section. Thank you.
Palamas
Posted by: Palamas at July 9, 2008 5:03 PM
"Islam clearly forbids such a thing...."
Ayat and sura please. Because apparently, that "clearly" is not, for at least some Muslims, "clearly" enough.
Posted by: Hugh at July 9, 2008 4:16 PM
And that is precisely the problem with Jasser!
He constantly refers to 'political Islam' as though such thinking, and teaching, are outside the realm of, and are foreign to, his Islam; outside the realm of mainstream Islam; the Islam of confused, misinformed Muslims.
Good grief!
While Pagliarulo and Holmes queried him about the prevalence of such murders in the Muslim community (rightly,not its exclusivity), Pagliarulo essentially gave him an out with this nonsense:
"Zuhdi, I`ve got to ask you, though. We talked about the 19 hijackers on 9/11. They perverted the religion. You talk about al Qaeda. They`re perverting the religion. You talk about the Taliban. They`re perverting the religion."
Indeed, Zuhdi and Joe. Ayat and sura please.
at July 9, 2008 5:03 PM
"The price of this politically correct refusal to confront the ugly realities of the Islamic link to honor killing will be, quite simply, more honor killings. No one will call upon Islamic groups to do something about this practice."
Of course we should call upon Islamic groups to stop the practice. We should be totally unabashed about criticizing these types of things.
That said, we also shouldn't pull any punches when criticizing wife-burning in some Asian countries, forced marriages and spousal rapes in Eastern Europe, the use of rape as a tool of war in Sub-Saharan Africa, or the global trade of sex slaves. There's much work to be done. Let's get on it!
Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at July 9, 2008 5:04 PM
Islam is a mental illness?
I'm going to toss an empty can of Easy Cheese in the campfire with this comment:
Would y'all get off this Islam/insanity message; it's getting old. Are snake handlers mentally ill? Are people who pray and allow their children to die mentally ill? True believers in any religion cannot be casually dismissed as mentally ill. It sounds to me like a defense mechanism where one can ignore the outrageous teachings of one's own religion by claiming all fundamentalists are crazy.
Please, sing another song.
Posted by: Pelayo at July 9, 2008 5:07 PM
I'm with Pelayo totally on this one.
They are setting us up for failure if we let them convince us they're cuh-razee.
Posted by: undaunted at July 9, 2008 5:10 PM
This is what Islam Question and Answer had to say about it.
http://islamqa.com/en/ref/101972/honor
Question: I would like to know what the ruling on Honor killings would be and how it should be punished acording to the Laws of the Shariat.
Praise be to Allaah.
Answer: Killing a Muslim unlawfully is a serious matter and a grave crime. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell to abide therein; and the Wrath and the Curse of Allaah are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him”
[al-Nisa’ 4:93]
The rest of the opinion is kind of vague. The ask imam site has too much traffic; can't search.
http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/search.shtml
at July 9, 2008 5:31 PM
And please don't forget for every honor killing in the U.S., there are innumerable beatings, young women locked in their rooms, threats, forced marriages, and of course, the weird knowledge that your daddy even your younger brother CAN AND WILL KILL YOU. An atmosphere of terror pervades the entire Islamic community. Its almost like a form of lynching to keep women in line.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at July 9, 2008 5:50 PM
I'm with Pelayo too about hesitating to call Islam a form of mental ilness, though I readily confess here and now that I believe I did just that on a post of mine a month or two ago (must have been when I was extra angry at some Islamic idiocy and wondering how anyone who was sane could think Mohammed, the Koran, sharia, etc. worthy of esteem). The problem with calling evil of whatever stripe a type of mental imbalance is that it tends to a greater or lesser degree to exculpate the perpetrator. Was Hitler mentally ill? It's arguable. But one shouldn't push this point too far because it could have the unintended effect of insuring that no one is really held responsible for one's actions. Anyway, good point, Pelayo.
Posted by: Wellington at July 9, 2008 6:03 PM
Yup.
Posted by: undaunted at July 9, 2008 6:10 PM
Give the dirtbag a diet of chitlins until the day they strap him to the gurney. Then wrap him in bacon and feed him to the dogs.
Posted by: Kuffar at July 9, 2008 6:16 PM
Rashid, who is being held without bond, told the judge he wanted to observe his Muslim beliefs in the Clayton jail. He wants to follow a diet that forbids the consumption of pork in any form and requires other meats are prepared according to Islamic rules.
If he had committed no crime, or if it was only a minor crime, then perhaps he should be accomodated.
However, in light of the utter depravity of this "man", he should be made to feel depraved:
1. He should be forced to choose his food from a menu which contains ONLY foods considered unclean by muslims.
2. He should share a jail cell with a pig.
3. He should be forced to listen to Jewish and Christian music all day.
4. And anything else that would make him feel depraved and unclean, BECAUSE HE IS DEPRAVED AND UNCLEAN!!!
That is, if we let him live.
at July 9, 2008 6:17 PM
Posted by: Palamas at July 9, 2008 5:03 PM
Quite simply, as Hugh has queried where Islam forbids such a thing as honor killings in the Islamic texts, you will not find it, nor will find it sanctioned especifically. You will see the verse about unlawfully killing another Muslim in Qur'an 5:31 but therein lies the rub.
If women are rendered subserviant and not equal to a man in Islam, as is the irrefutable case, then most assuredly a man's daughter falls into the same category. When these girl's disobey their patriarchs, and bring any sort of perceived shame, they cease to be Muslims in the eyes of these men, and we all know what Muhammad said the penalty for apostasy is. Allah demands nothing less of his slaves.
There is always a workaround in Islam to suit a particular Muslim's needs. As long as Islam grows and gains at all times by an action, and all dissention against Islam is snuffed out by a particular action, then anything goes.
I mean, we are talking about people who commit murder over cartoons...
Posted by: awake at July 9, 2008 6:24 PM
"Would y'all get off this Islam/insanity message; it's getting old. Are snake handlers mentally ill? Are people who pray and allow their children to die mentally ill?" Pelayo
I'm not saying I disagree but ask only for clarification: If religion was removed from the equation would it not be reasonable to judge these people "mentally ill"?
Posted by: USBeast at July 9, 2008 6:28 PM
Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at July 9, 2008 5:04 PM
Shlomo,
I honestly don't know why you continue on here. You offer nothing to the discussion with the noted exception of religiopus and cultural moral equivalence. Your comment starts well and then devolves by the end.
There is nary a person on this thread that shares the same dementia you are afflicted with.
Deal with the "global sex-slave trade" elsewhere and do us all a favor and please just move along.
Posted by: awake at July 9, 2008 6:30 PM
Zuhdi Jasser,
What an insult to Neanderthals! And an asinine deflection!
There's no evidence Neanderthals killed there own.
Quite the contrary ... evidence suggests they were peaceful and cared for one another ... far superior beings to what Islam produces.
To put this killer on the level of a Neanderthal is an unworthy elevation.
Posted by: LoneRanger at July 9, 2008 6:35 PM
He should get treated like any other criminal in jail, no priviliges especially since he did not allow his daughter any of her priviliges in life.
this piece of exrement should be on notice no special treatment you are in kaffir country. this could help make it clear to other muslims to leave the country while the coast is clear, because it will get tougher on them intime.
at July 9, 2008 6:38 PM
Rashid, who is being held without bond, told the judge he wanted to observe his Muslim beliefs in the Clayton jail.
...................................
Well, of course he wants to follow his Muslim beliefs in the Clayton jail--following his Muslim beliefs are what landed him in the Clayton jail to begin with.
from above:
In court, Rashid made guttural noises and cried. He rocked back and forth and appeared to be talking to himself before the hearing started.
...................................
This sounds awfully familiar--it is almost the exact same description as the behavior of the San Francisco sudden SUV Jihad syndrome killer, Omeed Aziz Popal, at his hearing. When one of his elderly victim's daughters, a devout Baptist woman who was attending the hearing, heard that Popal was praying, her attitude changed.
She had been angry at the beginning of the hearing, but when she heard that he was praying, she softened--she assumed that this meant that the poor man was frightened! That it was more likely that he was praying for Allah to smite the Infidels, most surely including herself, I'm sure never occured to this lady.
Wellington wrote:
"The problem with calling evil of whatever stripe a type of mental imbalance is that it tends to a greater or lesser degree to exculpate the perpetrator. Was Hitler mentally ill? It's arguable. But one shouldn't push this point too far because it could have the unintended effect of insuring that no one is really held responsible for one's actions."
I quite agree. Yet for many Americans--those unaware of the practices of Islam--the description of someone rocking back and forth and appearing to talk to himself sounds like mental illness. Not surprisingly, Popal's lawyer is going for an insanity defence.
Since the evidence of Rashid's guilt appears overwhelming, and meshes with his confession to the crime, I would not be at all surprised if we see an insanity plea here, as well.
Posted by: gravenimage at July 9, 2008 6:48 PM
That said, we also shouldn't pull any punches when criticizing wife-burning in some Asian countries, forced marriages and spousal rapes in Eastern Europe, the use of rape as a tool of war in Sub-Saharan Africa, or the global trade of sex slaves. There's much work to be done. Let's get on it!
Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at July 9, 2008 5:04 PM
That's right. Atrocities against females occur in every country, not just Mohammedan countries.
An obvious fact.
Rape of females is always used as a war tactic, such as the rape of Chinese women by the Japanese in Nanking. Read "The Rape of Nanking," by Iris Chang. It is horrific what the Japanese soldiers did to the Chinese girls and women of Nanking. Utterly horrific. The Serbs used rape as a war tactic against Bosnian women - anyone who denies this is denying reality. Currently, Sudanese females are being mass-raped by Muslims, and females in the "Democratic Republic of the Congo" in Africa are being mass-raped by their non-Moslem countrymen. It's not just Mohammedan males who commit these atrocities against females - FACT. Rwandan females were raped and murdered by their countrymen - non-Moslems.
The War Against Women is by all males, everywhere. Though Mohammedan males are certainly culpable, so are other males, in every country on the planet. As everyone knows, Thailand has a huge sex trade in which little girls and boys are raped for money every day. And they are not Moslems.
I'm not being an Apologist for Muslim males - No Way - but the reality is that non-Moslem males also commit enormous atrocities against females, every day. That's just fact. Fact. A no-brainer. Fact. So, what's wrong with what Shlomo Michael said? He's right. We should only be concerned with Mohammedan females? What about ALL females, everywhere?
at July 9, 2008 6:59 PM
Read "What is Justice For a Rape Victim," by Dr. Phyllis Chesler, May 15, 2008:
http://netwmd.com/blog/2008/05/15/2410
at July 9, 2008 7:20 PM
Posted by: darcy at July 9, 2008 6:59 PM
What's wrong is that his intentions are not where you assume them to be. His intention is to provide a moral equivalence between Islam and other cultures, religions etc., as a point of obfuscation, not out of true concern.
No decent person here doubts or belittles the plight of women worldwide by male misogyny, but that rant is better served somewhere else, as a genuine sentiment, and not as Islamic apologia, to which Shlomo is historically prone to do.
I am sure you understand my position on this darcy.
Posted by: awake at July 9, 2008 7:25 PM
The reason to be concerned with "Mohammedan families" is that they treat violence against women differently from even most men in Western societies. This man would be a hero in his own community. I know of no case in Western jurisprudence (anyone who knows one, please cite it) where the AUTHORITIES not only condoned but actually APPLAUDED killing your own family members.
Comparing what happens in war and peacetime is like comparing apples and oranges. This man didn't kill a stranger with whom he was at war. He killed his own daughter. She posed no threat to his person. He wasn't defending himself. He made himself judge, jury and executioner. He denied her the most basic right endowed by our Creator: LIFE. The fact that he thought Islam gave him that right is why we should worry about "Mohammedan families".
The problem is Sharia law promotes such behavior. Western jurisprudence does not. Please let's not succumb to the moral relativism and the "everybody does it" mentality that will make us forget the danger this man's ideology represents to all women everywhere.
Not all men disrespect all women the way Islam does. I would say very few do. Let's not paint everyone with the same brush.
darcy,
The War Against Women is by all males, everywhere?
Such a blanket statement is uncalled for and does an injustice to the vast majority of men everywhere.
Posted by: PMK at July 9, 2008 7:28 PM
darcy,
The War Against Women is by all males, everywhere?
Such a blanket statement is uncalled for and does an injustice to the vast majority of men everywhere.
Posted by: PMK at July 9, 2008 7:28 PM
Pat, you did not read Dr. Chesler's article that I linked above.
Before you comment again, please read Dr. Chesler's article. Click on the link above, in my prior post, and read. If you're afraid to read, OK, if not, go ahead. I look forward to your subsequent comment.
"No decent person here doubts or belittles the plight of women worldwide by male misogyny." --awake
Exactly. So, PMK, please read Dr. Chesler's article.
Posted by: darcy at July 9, 2008 7:39 PM
I would like to comment on the abuse of women in various cultures. First of all, it's disgusting. Just about the lowest type of male is one who abuses females either because he can or because he thinks it is his right or both. The worst abuse, of course, is physical assault, but verbal abuse is not far behind respecting what should be the focus of opprobrium. I have no respect for anyone OR ANY CULTURE that thinks slapping women around (or even worse killing them) is OK. The Islamic world is wretched here.
All this reminds me of a converstation I had several years ago with two Korean students I taught. Both were born in Korea. The male had come to Canada with his parents when he was very young and had dual citizenship. The female was directly from Korea but had lived in America for many years as a student. Both spoke flawless English as well as being perfectly fluent in Korean. Well, somehow the subject came up about the abuse of women by men. I opined that the consensus about America was that violence was used in about 15% of American households, though most interesting here was the fact that it was initiated by women approximately as much as by men. The Korean female then said that about 90% of Korean men slap their wives or girlfriends around and that it was just part of Korean culture. The Korean male almost right away disagreed with what the young woman had said and so I asked him what percentage of Korean men did he think hit Korean women. Without batting an eye, he said, "oh, only about 75%." Need I say more?
I have another comment here. It is a deeply held conviction of mine, for which the evidence I would contend is massive, that Western Civilization, more than any other civilization, has promoted the worth and dignity of the individual. Whether it be by way of the ancient Greek philosophical approach or the Judeo-Christian religious avenue, human rights have been most championed by Western Civilization. America is sterling in this regard as is the entire Anglo-Saxon world. This doesn't mean that Western societies haven't committed heinous abuses. America's treatment of Indians and blacks is a case in point. But it does mean that the theory of the greatness of the individual human is a marvelous and very stubborn Western idea and has won out time and time again against iniquitous violations of this noble ethic. In short, no civilization has shown the capacity to better itself more than has the West. And when compared to the Islamic world, a non-Western civilization even though borrowing much from the West, Western Civilization has always been light years ahead of backward Mohammedan culture in the "great potential" area. Regarding the treatment of women, while even one abuse is too much, I think it should be kept in mind that women have it much, much better off in countries like America, Canada, The Netherlands and Norway than they do in nations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran or Afghanistan. There's no comparison. And shame on the Islamic world for this vast difference.
Posted by: Wellington at July 9, 2008 7:42 PM
The man in the picture has six holes in his head, he qualifies for nuts...
Having worked for over twenty years in mental hospitals, I have no problem at all equating Islam with mental illness. In my estimation Islam creates psychotic episodes in believers. 'Mental illness' is a catch term that includes many varieties of mental disturbances. A good psychiatrist, and diagnostician, can detect 'mental illness' in nearly everyone. But you don't treat a diagnosis, you treat behavior. In the case of Islam, behavior stimulated by what? Yep...that's right. And is that behavior stimulated by you know what, rational, or irrational? Is brutality preferred? Is callus disregard for human life in evidence?
What is the difference between men who hold these behaviors, one group in a mosque, the other in an institution? (Institutions are also governments) One group prays to Allah, the other howls at the moon. And, they are all nuts.
Mental illness is prevalent. The whole world is crazy except you and I, and I'm not so sure about you...You only think you are , I know I am...
at July 9, 2008 7:46 PM
The last line, is supposed to say, 'You only 'think' you are Napoleon, I 'know' I am'...
Posted by: duh_swami at July 9, 2008 7:49 PM
This weary world is full of brutality and injustice. I lack the time and energy to fight every battle. This is one we must win, because it is on our home field. I'll do what I can to make sure that the enemy dies on THIS hill.
Posted by: MP at July 9, 2008 8:10 PM
"If you're afraid to read, OK, if not, go ahead."
darcy,
FYI, I didn't see your link because I was still writing my response to your post. Don't be deceived by the timestamp on the message. I will also say that even suggesting I might be unable to read it was uncalled for.
Now for the funny part: This has taken so long because I got logged off and I failed to preview what I had written, so it's gone. I have to write it again, probably with a little less emotion.
SOME MEN rape women. It has happened before. It will happen again. Not ALL MEN are rapists or murderers and they don't desire to be so, even in wartime. I would say the vast majority of men have respect for women and they don't deserve to be lumped in with rapists and murderers.
This article focused on the many crimes committed against women but most occurred in wartime, so it's really beside the point. It has nothing to do with Sharia or what we should be focused on. That isn't to say that this issue shouldn't be addressed because it's in the past, only that it's a false comparison that's being made.
We are talking about a man living in peacetime who decided his daughter no longer deserved to live because she had brought shame upon HIM.
In Pakistan he would be a hero. Who in America, even among our lawmakers and justice system, will treat him that way? They will prosecute him for murder, as he deserves. The men who enforce and administer the law in most Western countries don't deserve to be lumped in with the people in Pakistan.
A rape victim in America has no need to fear being killed for the act of reporting her rape. No doctor, prosecutor or judge will treat her with less than the respect and consideration she is due. Even assuming she was raped by a family member, her other family members are not likely to take it as an affront to them and their honor. They are more likely to rally around her than to join the rapist. Rapists are despised by most people, even other men.
I will say again: comparing what happened in this case with events in Bosnia, Serbia or even south Asia does a disservice to this young woman. Her case should be judged on its own merits, not lessened because a Serbian raped a Croatian at some point in the past.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
The Islamists and their sympathizers have changed the topic of the conversation. Instead of talking about what happened here a few days ago and what it portends for our society, we are arguing over whether or not someone else did enough to prosecute rape victims in a war in Yugoslavia. They diverted us down a side path and you let them. They've won.
"The War Against Women is by all males, everywhere."
I think this sentence was what riled me the most. It was so unfair. Do your male family members realize that they are part of the war against women? That's what you implied. You may not have meant it that way but it's how you came across.
PMK
Posted by: PMK at July 9, 2008 8:49 PM
Wellignton, Undaunted, thank you for your support. The last time I mentioned snake handlers and faith healing I got raked over some pretty hot coals about a year or so ago.
People can be deluded and arrogant without being insane. I did intend for the inference to be made that calling the cruelest and vilest people "insane" somehow lets them off the hook.
I actually expected some Muslim to pop up here and claim that Chaudhry Rashid is not a real Muslim.
at July 9, 2008 8:50 PM
This guy looks extremely scary,but then again most of the practitioners of the religion of peace have that dazed and crazed look of insanity about them,which is really scary considering the fact that they are allowed to walk freely and mingle with the rest of us normal people.
This is the result of years of liberalism,multi culti mentality,that the insane hippies of the 1960's have wrought on our society,and now it is up to us to eradicate this mentality,along with the trash that this mentality has brought on "our doors".
Now this guy is requesting special food I have many suggestions about food for this animal,how about a piece of bread and some water that ought to be special enough for him.
I am sick and tired of these subhumans coming to our country and then demanding that we accomodate them and their backwards customs, ENOUGH!!!!
If he wants "clean" food let his family buy it, and bring it to jail,and while the guards bring it to him they can lace it with some PIG BROTH TO MAKE IT EVEN MORE SPECIAL FOR HIM...
BETTER YET PUT HIM ON A PLANE FAMILY IN TOW AND SEND THEM ALL BACK WE HAVE NO ROOM FOR THEIR ILK IN THIS GREAT COUNTRY THAT IS BEING MARRED EACH DAY WITH THE TRASH THAT THE THIRD WORLD SENDS TO US AND THE INSANE LIBERALS TAKE BY THE TRUCKLOAD
Posted by: patriot1776 at July 9, 2008 8:58 PM
Wellington,
Excellent post about the dignity of the individual (men and women) and how it matters in Western society and how it contributes to our advancement.
Western society isn't perfect but it doesn't deserve to be lumped in with Muslim societies in the treatment of women.
at July 9, 2008 8:59 PM
Duh_swami, I will respect what you have said about insanity and Islam if you will agree that snake handlers and people who substitute prayer circles for a good doctor are just as insane as you claim Muslims are.
The problem is, we cannot allow belief in religion become a defense for a crime.
Posted by: Pelayo at July 9, 2008 9:00 PM
Psychopathy isn't a mental illness. This man is a psychopath. And Islam encourages people to be psychopaths, through the example of their psychopathic leader Mohammad.
Posted by: Voltaire at July 9, 2008 9:09 PM
Who is more of a douchetard™: The douchetard™ journalists covering up for the douchetard™ who murdered his disposable female offspring? Or is it the douchetard™ murderer that the douchetards™ of the Atlantic Urinal and Constipation™ are sympathetically whitewashing? Either way, you're a douchetard&trade for being such an Islamophobe™
Posted by: Jewel Atkins at July 9, 2008 9:13 PM
Psychopathic:
1. Of, relating to, or characterized by psychopathy.
2. Relating to or affected with an antisocial personality disorder.
from Yahoo dictionary
Voltaire, you have now relegated honor killing to a mere personality disorder like bulemia or kleptomania.
Good job.
Posted by: Pelayo at July 9, 2008 9:16 PM
A is A. The man admits committing a crime. Evidence is gathered.A trial is held.He is convicted, sentenced and meted punishment. As long as bloody thristy savages like this man are not accorded special treatment (halal food);there will be a clear message sent."Honor killings" are murder.Plain and simple.There will be plenty of time afterwards to connect the dots to primal documents of Islam.Let's stay focused on supporting justice per the US Constitution.
Posted by: Americantothecore at July 9, 2008 9:16 PM
To all the men in the world, especially you many noble American veterans, who have just become rapists and woman-haters by way of another Darcy screed... welcome.
As president of this now-teeming club, I'd like to invite you all to happy hour at the Casbah, each evening from 1600 to 2000.
No tie required.
Membership dues collected at the door.
Cheers.
Posted by: undaunted at July 9, 2008 9:37 PM
Hasn't this guy practiced Fundamental Islam enough, already?
As to the question: "Are Fundamental Islamists insane?" ...
I recently watched Ben Stein's film, "Expelled," which is about the Intelligent Design debate.
In the film, a correlation between Darwinism and Nazism is revealed.
Ben Stein visits a former Nazi 'mental institution,' where the physically and mentally disabled (read: Jews and other minorities who did not fit the Aryan model) were systematically euthanized (read: starved and then gassed), their brains removed for 'medical research,' and their bodies cremated en masse.
(Except for on the weekends. Apparently, if you're a murderous Nazi 'scientist,' you need a few days off each week for R&R. Voluntarily engaging in torture, genocide, and corpse mutilation on a daily basis, over the course of several years, is apparently tiring work ...)
This 'institution' has been made into a WWII historical museum. At one point, Stein asks his guide (after she describes the horrific ordeal that many victims endured at the hands of their 'doctors') whether she thought the Nazis who committed these acts were insane.
At first, she declined to answer. Then, after a while, she said something to the effect that she did NOT believe that they were insane; rather, that they 'had their reasons' for doing these monstrous things.
'Had their reasons ...'
Hmm...
I guess this turd 'had his reasons' as well ... it's called 'the practice of Fundamental Islam.' And not coincidentally, it had almost the same effect on its victim.
Posted by: Lori B. at July 9, 2008 9:37 PM
Chaudhry Rashid probably did not pick Islam as his "religion of choice." He was indoctrinated as a child, any budding objectivity that a young Chaudry may have displayed was immediately sqaushed. I can imagine a small child being punished for even wondering if there was an Allah. As a seven year child I could not reconcile a loving Jesus with all those children in iron lungs because of polio. I was shamed into never openly asking those question ever again, but I outgrew it.
There is an aspect of Islamic thinking that I have discovered during my many butt-numbing sessions of studying the Islamic opinion (fatwa) sites. It is the concept that one cannot aid and abet someone else's sin. Muslims are counseled not to work in liquor stores, music stores, or even aid in sin by transporting someone in their cab with alcohol. If a Muslim does nothing to stop sin, they may be just as guilty as the sinner. After all, a dead teenager can't sin any more. Perhaps all these honor killings are a way to appease an angered Allah, angered at the father because he has failed in teaching the child the true path.
Posted by: Pelayo at July 9, 2008 9:56 PM
I ran across this article as it had a bit more details of this subject
http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/07/08/news/doc4872e338182b2121887069.txt
It appears that Mr Honor Killers wife is not his daughters mother....What ever happened to wife number 1?????
at July 9, 2008 9:57 PM
"No decent person here doubts or belittles the plight of women worldwide by male misogyny." --awake
"The War Against Women is by all males, everywhere."
darcy
darcy,
Male misogyny may be everywhere but that doesn't mean it impacts all women, all men or even the majority of either sex. The majority of men, in Western cultures anyway, are respectful of and loving toward women. Women are their mothers, wives and daughters. They grow up respecting and honoring their mother, not thinking that they can run her life. Their fathers generally provide the example.
awake's statement does not condemn all men everywhere. Yours does. You include every man you have ever met in that statement. Are they all misogynists?
Posted by: PMK at July 9, 2008 10:11 PM
"In the film, a correlation between Darwinism and Nazism is revealed."
It's not revealed; it's made up, fabricated, invented.
Intelligent Design - Now I can add young earth believers in the mix with snake handlers and criminally neglegent, faith healing parents.
at July 9, 2008 10:15 PM
I can't recall the precise reference, but doesn't sharia waive punishment, or give a lighter punishment, for parents killing children, as opposed to other kinds of intra-ummah killings?
So, whatever he killed her for, he wasn't expecting punishment.
She was property...a thing, to be disposed of as he determined.
And word to all those commenters who have noticed the total denial of responsibility, the appalling self-pity, "my child is dead".
He murdered her and he's asking us to feel sorry for him?
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 9, 2008 10:22 PM
I thought I might say a few words here before things go too far afield. Two things:
No community has a monopoly on evil. But the topic at hand concerns 1.) Islamic approval and encouragement of violence against and subjugation of women, 2.) the tendency of multiculturalists to look the other way from acts they would otherwise be shouting from the rooftops about if cultural "sensitivities" were not involved 3.) and the role of our immigration policy in importing practices like this to our own communities.
Also, some tangential topics have come up in the course of this discussion, but let's keep it relevant and avoid the temptation to duke it out over Darwinism and Creationism and/or Intelligent Design.
Posted by: MarisolJW at July 9, 2008 10:44 PM
Darcy,
I Still do not agree with you comment defending Shlomo_Michael. That being said, I belive PMK has elaborated adequately and eloquently on the topic.
There is no reason to start another 100 + comment in-fighting thread in actuality. It does nothing but hurt this site and in my estimation, will not validate your cause.
Your frustration is noted, but your comments only serve the enemy.
------------------
As an aside note Darcy, your decision to write the detective the other day, I fully support and after reading that entire painful thread, "undaunted" should have backed off long ago.
At least "Wellington" had the common sense to move on. "Undaunted", the ex-detective, hasn't figured that out yet. He will soon, or I assume we will bid goodbye to him in short order, at least under that moniker anyway.
Personal in-fighting amongst true anti-jihadists is not, nor should it ever be tolerated, at this site.
The price is too high for this wastefulness to continue.
Posted by: awake at July 9, 2008 10:45 PM
P.S. Thank goodness Marisol is watching.
Posted by: awake at July 9, 2008 10:48 PM
Awake, a disagreements between allies over certain peripheral matters does not mean that they are not united in the same struggle.
My father was a Republican and my mother was a Democrat, but they still loved each other.
Posted by: Pelayo at July 9, 2008 11:06 PM
Awake, a disagreements between allies over certain peripheral matters does not mean that they are not united in the same struggle.
Posted by: Pelayo at July 9, 2008 11:06 PM
Understood. I was simply making a statement. I am certainly open to criticism, if you or anyone else dare submit to me.
I assure you, that I will respond.
at July 9, 2008 11:18 PM
Another thought, more on topic:
One consistent pattern in Islamic history has been how aggressively anything deemed "un-Islamic" -- whether cultural or not -- has been targeted for elimination once religious zeal has reached the necessary boiling point.
That makes the lack of outrage all the more puzzling (well, not really, but for rhetorical purposes): Shouldn't increased Islamic zeal be more likely to put an end to supposedly "un-Islamic" practices (never mind Qur'an 4:34) like violence against women?
And again we're left with that odd situation of so many "misunderstanders of Islam," violently misunderstanding their religion the world over.
Posted by: MarisolJW at July 9, 2008 11:31 PM
Thank you again, Marisol.
Posted by: awake at July 9, 2008 11:36 PM
Hi PMK,
In my wording, "all" doesn't mean, of course, every single individual male person on the planet, just as "Islamic Terrorists" doesn't mean all Islamic people, or just as "Italian Fascists" doesn't mean all Italians. You took it too personally. The article I posted can explain things better. Did you get a chance to read it? Sorry if I didn't make myself clear on that one, which I guess I didn't. There are gazillions of delightful men-folk out there, of which, I daresay, you are one.
*
As an aside note Darcy, your decision to write the detective the other day, I fully support and after reading that entire painful thread, "undaunted" should have backed off long ago.
At least "Wellington" had the common sense to move on. "Undaunted", the ex-detective, hasn't figured that out yet. He will soon, or I assume we will bid goodbye to him in short order, at least under that moniker anyway.
Personal in-fighting amongst true anti-jihadists is not, nor should it ever be tolerated, at this site.
The price is too high for this wastefulness to continue.
Posted by: awake at July 9, 2008 10:45 PM
Thanks, awake, and you are right. Which is why I'm ignoring the jab that The Hostile One just took at me above. I do wish he'd stop with the hostility and stalking. It shouldn't be tolerated on this site, as you say.
at July 9, 2008 11:48 PM
Darcy,
While I will whole-heartedly support your actions and words yesterday against "undaunted" specifically,(whom I like and support inhererntly), I definately and obviously took offense the minute you effectively called me and all men as rapists.
I'm a simple man and Marisol will morally decide for me going forward on this thread, and she has deleted more than one of my comments on JW/DW, and rightfully so. That fact alone does not decide that a man or a woman has an inside position with the administrators here.
Marisol is equally penal.
Maybe, that's why I love her.
Posted by: awake at July 10, 2008 12:15 AM
Does an incarcerated Ratsaman have a right to unlimited supplies of ganja because his religion tell him to smoke ganja?
Posted by: Ummah Gummah at July 10, 2008 12:16 AM
"The War Against Women is by all males, everywhere."
darcy
Thanks a lot Darcy. I was attacked by a crazed and drunken ex girlfriend while I was on active duty in 1999. She hit me from behind with a weight bar which broke my upper humurs in 5 places, caused nerve damage, and almost forced me out of the military. I ended up having to waste 8 months on limited duty healing ,going through physical rehab and was VERY lucky to be able to stay in the Navy and finish my enlistment. I was offered a medical discharge but instead worked very hard to get back to full duty instead. To this day I cannot lift my primary arm over my head all the way nor have full feeling in my hand from the nerve damage.
I ended up staying in and served in both Afghanistan and Iraq OEF & OIF. I got permanently injured in Iraq in 2003. I got out in 2004 with a normal HONORABLE discharge but as of 2006 I am now %90 VA service connected disabled.
I have NEVER laid a angry hand on a woman, nor do I engage in verbal abuse in my relationships. Matter of fact I have never even cheated on a woman but that has never stopped several from cheating on me.
I AM NOT ASKING FOR THE LEAST BIT OF PITY. I AM NOT ASKING FOR A THANKS FOR SERVING. That should be reserved for those who never made it back alive or never made it back, not me. It is more than your one sentence that was uncalled for that you now seem to have ran away from. I know you comment on JW all the time and most of the time you post good posts. This time though you really crossed the line lady. I have been reading JW & DW daily for 3 years now and it is on my Igoogle homepage so I am far from new. I just do not comment often. Your slip showing just how much you really hate ALL men is disgusting. Lets see if you have the courage to apologize for your vile sexism.
Posted by: AME2 (AW/SW/NAC) Baker at July 10, 2008 12:37 AM
"In court, Rashid made guttural noises and cried. He rocked back and forth and appeared to be talking to himself before the hearing started. Through Farhat, Rashid told Walker he was mourning the loss of his daughter."
Obviously Rashid got himself a good American lawyer. Making guttural noises, rocking back and fourth, talking to himself, clearly shows that the man is crazy, especially if the Judge is convinced that Islam is a peaceful religion, and would never sanction an atrocity like this, and considering that the man strangled his own child, what other explanation could there be for what he did?
The defense will no doubt call Imam after Imam to the stand to blow smoke in the faces of the Judge and jury. They'll condemn what Rashid did but assure the court that his actions were clearly unIslamic.
What's left but insanity?
I can easily see this man committed to an insane asylum, liberally supplied with all the specially prepared Islamic food he can eat -- all at taxpayer expense.
at July 10, 2008 12:59 AM
Qu'il mange des qateaux!
Posted by: Ummah Gummah at July 10, 2008 2:40 AM
"The War Against Women is by all males, everywhere."
darcy
----------------------------------------------
Neither I, nor any of my male friends, would EVER lay a hand on a woman in a harmful way.
I've seen lots of men open the door for ladies. And this is in your neck of the woods, Darcy, in the South.
I was taught to be a gentleman by my father and by my mother, to open the door for a lady, to give her my seat if she doesn't have one, to let her go first, and to look out for her well-being and honor while she is in my presence.
When I bring a lady home, I wait until she is in the house before driving off.
I know that there are scumbag men out there who don't feel as I (and LOTS of other men) do about ladies.
I know that in many non-Western societies, women are treated like the property of whichever man is deemed to have "ownership" of her.
But, BY FAR, Islam is absolutely THE WORST when it comes to respecting women. For not only do they treat women like slaves, but they endeavor to force these values onto whatever society they are in.
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at July 10, 2008 2:50 AM
darcy,
"The War Against Women is by all males, everywhere."
Channelling Andrea Dworkin , huh? Dworkin had this to say about men : "Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it. In life, they commit it." What say you dar-cee?
Posted by: David Xavier at July 10, 2008 6:34 AM
Sure, give him his halal food. A great big roll of "mystery meat", the kind used in donairs, shoved down his throat until he chokes on it.
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at July 10, 2008 6:59 AM
Once again, my wording yesterday on a specific topic didn't come out well. I'm sure everyone has been in this boat at some time. So, I apologize to the good guys here who took offense, esp. PMK and awake.
I will tell you that the verbal abuse and harassment I've been enduring from "undaunted" for the past 3 days has taken a toll. It's been hurtful and sad, and I still have no idea why he started his campaign against me three days ago. At least, as awake said, the other one "backed off," but I'm still dealing with the aforementioned.
I'm leaving this thread now, hope everyone has a great day, and once again, sorry for my poor wording. I'm hoping that I'm not going to have to deal anymore with ud purposefully stalking me with demeaning and harassing posts. Like I said, it took a toll the last three days, and hope you can understand.
Best Wishes to everyone --d
Posted by: darcy at July 10, 2008 7:44 AM
AWAKE wrote:
"Shlomo,
I honestly don't know why you continue on here. You offer nothing to the discussion with the noted exception of religiopus and cultural moral equivalence. Your comment starts well and then devolves by the end.
There is nary a person on this thread that shares the same dementia you are afflicted with.
Deal with the "global sex-slave trade" elsewhere and do us all a favor and please just move along."
"No decent person here doubts or belittles the plight of women worldwide by male misogyny, but that rant is better served somewhere else, as a genuine sentiment, and not as Islamic apologia, to which Shlomo is historically prone to do.
I am sure you understand my position on this darcy."
Dear Sleepyhead,
I'm against the political correctness that obscures crimes against humanity, just like you are. My post was all truth, and for your information, I have done a lot of work against the global sex trade, and can send you dozens of letter campaigns I organized to prove it. I would happily compare my human rights advocacy career with yours, if you wish, and am sure I would not look the worse for it.
Furthermore, by telling me to "move along", you're betraying the cause more than I am. You want an end to PC, right? You want an open debate on the issues, right? So, you want Jihad Watch to be free to speak at my university? So do I. In fact, I stood up for that right during Islamo-fascism awareness week, in a room full of mostly Communists waving anti-Bush flags.
But free exchange of ideas actually works both ways. If your people can come to me and speak, people like me can come to you and speak. I don't agree with everything you say or even with the site's general message in its entirety, but I think we both benefit by free exchange of ideas.
Unlike you, I believe you can say whatever you want, even if in doing so, you claim the mantle of Jihad Watch's own local Danish cartoon protester. All the best.
Shlomo
Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at July 10, 2008 8:05 AM
"In my wording, "all" doesn't mean, of course, every single individual male person on the planet, just as "Islamic Terrorists" doesn't mean all Islamic people, or just as "Italian Fascists" doesn't mean all Italians."
darcy,
You might not see this but here is what I hope is my final comment on this thread.
"all" means ALL. "all males" means ALL MALES.
all:
1. the whole of a quantity, extent or duration
2. the whole number of (individuals or objects, taken collectively) - ALL MEN
3. the greatest possible (quality or degree) - all due respect
4. every
5. any
I believe you didn't mean all males but that isn't what you wrote. Words matter.
Posted by: PMK at July 10, 2008 8:25 AM
Hi PMK,
I've already apologized for a poor word choice, and also provided that it's been tough on me the past few days due to a campaign of belittlement and purposeful rudeness directed at me by another poster.
If you can't accept the above apology, and explanation, then, there's nothing else I can do.
I reiterate:
"Once again, my wording yesterday on a specific topic didn't come out well. I'm sure everyone has been in this boat at some time. So, I apologize to the good guys here who took offense, esp. PMK and awake.
I will tell you that the verbal abuse and harassment I've been enduring from "undaunted" for the past 3 days has taken a toll. It's been hurtful and sad, and I still have no idea why he started his campaign against me three days ago. At least, as awake said, the other one "backed off," but I'm still dealing with the aforementioned."
Have a good day, pmk. Hope you can let go of your anger, now.
Posted by: darcy at July 10, 2008 9:11 AM
"Making guttural noises, rocking back and fourth, talking to himself, clearly shows that the man is crazy...
Posted by: rational
Yeah, the guy and his lawyer are setting him up for an "affirmative defense" (I think that's what it's called).
It's too bad the judge will never see any footage of Muslim boys rocking back and forth, as they recite the Qur'an in their gutteral languages. Surely, they aren't insane, right?
If anyone knows, would you please explain the madrassa boys, rocking back and forth thing to me? I've always wondered what that was about. I can't seem to find any info on it. I only know it looks manic and bizarre.
As for halal meals, screw him. He can eat what everyone else eats, or he can skip a few meals. Any non-pork diet is sufficient. It isn't necessarily "haram", to eat meat that hasn't been bled to death with someone chanting "Allahu Akhbar" over the poor creature.
In fact, pork is permissible, if nothing else is available. Let him ignore the ham and eat the eggs. After all, he ignored the law, and killed his daughter.
Posted by: Abscedere at July 10, 2008 9:20 AM
Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at July 10, 2008 8:05 AM
Nice story, but I am not buying a word of it.
Posted by: awake at July 10, 2008 9:28 AM
darcy,
stop projecting. You're the one full of anger. You didn't apologize. You made excuses. You also accused me of being "afraid" and you never responded. You're a hypocrite.
at July 10, 2008 10:38 AM
Hells bells, tell the guy it IS halal and feed him what everyone else is getting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_loaf
at July 10, 2008 10:42 AM
but let's keep it relevant and avoid the temptation to duke it out over Darwinism and Creationism and/or Intelligent Design.
Posted by: MarisolJW
Thank God for that.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at July 10, 2008 10:49 AM
I am sending Clayton county a copy of my collection of Spam recipes. Bon appetite..
Posted by: pismopal at July 10, 2008 10:50 AM
Darcy wrote:
"So, I apologize to the good guys here who took offense, esp. PMK and awake."
PMK,
She did apologize.
at July 10, 2008 11:01 AM
Hi awake,
Unfortunately, PMK seems obsessed and can't let go, even after my recent posts. Methinks he's protesting too much - not a good sign.
Anyway, as long as his apparently continuing beef doesn't transfer to another thread, so be it. Have a good one.
Posted by: darcy at July 10, 2008 11:12 AM
PMK: Thank you for your kind words respecting my post about Western Civilization and the emphasis it has placed on the individual human being. True misogyny is just awful but there are those who cry "wolf" about this and that's a shame too. By the way, undaunted and I will be waiting at the Casbah for you. Take care.
Posted by: Wellington at July 10, 2008 12:54 PM
By prosecuting this idiot, are we not prohibitiog the free exercise of HIS religion?
Posted by: Richard Garnache
Only if we insist on prosecuting him for "honor killing" and not Premeditated Murder.
Posted by: undaunted
undaunted's claim above would need to be argued before it is accepted.
In opposition to undaunted's claim, let us look at what Jefferson (who likely knew considerably more about the Constitution and its politico-legal potential than does undaunted) said:
"If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise than as if it had happened in a fair or market." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548
"It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere [in the propagation of religious teachings] when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546
Also, there is the matter of State and Federal authorities in 1838, long after the Constitution had been put into place in America, attacking Mormons in Missouri not only verbally but also militarily, with the purpose of driving them out, specifically because their religion was deemed to be dangerously anti-social:
Copy of a Military Order by the Governor of Missouri. HEAD QUARTERS, MILITIA, City of Jefferson, Oct. 27, 1838. Sir:--Since the order of the morning to you, directing you to cause four hundred mounted men to be raised within your division, I have received by Amos Rees, Esq. and Wiley E. Williams Esq., one of my aids, information of the most appalling character, which changes the whole face of things, and places the Mormons in the attitude of an open and avowed defiance of the laws, and of having made open war upon the people of this state. Your orders are, therefore, to hasten your operations and endeavor to reach Richmond, in Ray County, with all possible speed. The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state, if necessary, for the public good. Their outrages are beyond all description. If you can increase your force, you are authorized to do so to any extent you may think necessary. I have just issued orders to Maj. Gen. Wallock, of Marion County, to raise 500 men and march them to the northern part of Daviess, and there unite with Gen. Doniphan, of Clay, who has been ordered with 500 men to proceed to the same point, for the purpose of intercepting the retreat of the Mormons to the North. They have been directed to communicate with you by express. You can also communicate with them if you find it necessary. Instead, therefore, of proceeding, as at first directed, to reinstate the citizens of Daviess in their homes, you will proceed immediately to Richmond, and there operate against the Mormons. Brig. Gen. Parks, of Ray, has been ordered to have four hundred men of his brigade in readiness to join you at Richmond. The whole force will be placed under your command. L. W. BOGGS, Gov. And Command-in-chief. To Gen. Clark.
Posted by: DenverRodeo at July 10, 2008 4:24 PM
Jan 01, 1802-Thomas Jefferson Letter to Connecticut
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
at July 10, 2008 6:03 PM
"that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions" -- Thomas Jefferson.
If we are to defend ourselves against a religion that has a grand plan of sedition to be implemented in great part by means of violence against us, it would be stupid to hold rigidly to Jefferson's sentiment here in order to treat the actions of any a
(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.)