| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Myra Morton surrenders to authorities
It is never easy for the first wives. Adile Sultan, the daughter of the 19th century Ottoman reformer Mahmud II, was married to Mehmed Ali Pasha, an army officer. One day Adile Sultan traveled to a mosque far from her home. She stopped for a rest at a mansion that was on the way. The hostess, who was unknown to her, offered her coffee and sherbet -- and introduced herself proudly as the wife of Mehmed Ali Pasha.
Adile Sultan was shocked. And her life was never the same. “Thereafter," says historian Phillip Mansel, "she lived in seclusion, writing poems of increasing sadness. When she died in 1898, she was buried beside her husband. They never referred to his infidelity.”
This is the story of just one woman, but it doesn’t take much knowledge of human nature to recognize that it’s a story that has been repeated and is still being repeated the world over. Whenever women in the Islamic world have dared to speak about polygamy, the story is the same. Halide Elib, a proto-feminist in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire, said flatly that polygamy “was a curse, a poison which our unhappy household could not get out of its system...The constant tension in our home made every simple ceremony seem like physical pain, and the consequences hardly ever left me. The rooms of the wives were opposite each other and my father visited them in turn...”
A twenty-first century American Muslim wife felt the same way. April Ray El-Hage, wife of convicted Al-Qaeda terrorist Wadih El-Hage, successfully resisted her husband’s attempts to take a second wife. She couldn’t, of course, deny that he had a right to marry again — to do so would have been by her own account “un-Islamic.” But here again, her heart was greater than her religion. With an innate sense that polygamy was wrong, she fought back the only way she could: “I made his life hell...I was becoming a real b----.” It took six months for Wadih El-Hage to relent, but April Ray ultimately won: her husband broke off his engagement to his second wife.
Myra Morton was not so fortunate.
From AP (thanks to all who sent this in):
NORRISTOWN, Pa. — A woman killed her longtime husband hours before he was to leave on a trip to Morocco to try to impregnate his new second wife, prosecutors said in murder charges filed Thursday.Myra Morton, 47, turned herself in Thursday to face murder and related charges in the death of Jereleigh Morton, 47, who was shot in his bed early Sunday morning in his million-dollar home outside Philadelphia.
The killing happened just hours before Jereleigh Morton was to travel to Africa to try to conceive a baby with his second wife, prosecutors said.
Myra Morton had reluctantly agreed to the second marriage and even traveled to Morocco to sanction it under Islamic law, authorities have said. She told police that an intruder had come into the bedroom and shot her husband, but police found no signs of a break-in.
Prosecutors charged Morton with first-degree murder, third-degree murder and related counts. She turned herself in Thursday, dressed in traditional Muslim garb with a full black cloak and a face veil that left only her eyes showing.
[...]
Morton met his second wife, Zahra Toural, 35, on the Internet in December 2006, investigators said. She lives in Morocco — authorities didn't specify where — and married Morton there on March 19, prosecutors said.
Myra was reluctant to accept the second marriage and she told friends that she was upset her husband was "no longer paying attention to her," First Assistant District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman said.
Morton wrote in her diary — portions of which were filed in court papers earlier this week — that she went to Morocco to approve the marriage and get paperwork in order.
"I go give him the permission, because he argues with me when I protest this marriage," the diary reads.
Shortly after her husband married Toural, Myra Morton sent a letter to the U.S. State Department in which she said her husband was trying to bring Toural over on a tourist visa. She urged the government to keep Toural out of the United States, going so far as to accuse the other woman of having connections to terrorists.
"She was really trying to protect her turf," Ferman said.
Posted by Robert at August 10, 2007 7:08 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
""I go give him the permission, because he argues with me when I protest this marriage," the diary reads."
....her alternative, of course, would have been death by some sort of "honor killing" as sanctififed by Islamic law.....
....everyone, especially women, should avoid becoming a Muslim...a religion that honors death, deals in death, and allows no way out except by death.....
Posted by: exsgtbrown![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 10, 2007 7:51 AM
Didn’t that ‘perfect man’ of all perfect men, mahomet, say: "women are as tilth, go to them as you will”? Why then all the fuss over a little innocent male savagery?
Posted by: descendantofacrusader at August 10, 2007 8:01 AM
Why any Western woman would willingly convert to Islam is beyond me. They are basically saying that the men of their own culture, their own civilization, are not good enough for them. Fine. Let them go marry the barbarians and live among them. Franly, I feel little sympathy for such women. They deserve what they end up getting from the religion they so foolishly embraced.
Posted by: GetBornAgain at August 10, 2007 8:09 AM
Getbornagain, the women that convert have real metal issues to begin with. Serious.
Posted by: Elric66 at August 10, 2007 8:13 AM
Mental illness is the only reason I can think of for a Western woman to choose islam. A deep-seated sense of inferiority, a sense that they deserve to be treated like dirt? Someone should do a study to see how many of these women were physically or sexually abused as children.
My apologies if I have offended any survivors of such abuse out there - being a survivor myself, I can relate. But choose islam? I'd die first.
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at August 10, 2007 8:17 AM
Can these two women ever marry again? If not, this was three gone from the gene pool, and it was an inside job, to boot. I'm not saying I approve, I'm not that kind of guy, no sir, just stating matters of fact objectively and rationally.
Posted by: anti-uffe at August 10, 2007 8:20 AM
When I lived in Norristown, there were no women in burkas. Perhaps when I go back the same will be true.
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at August 10, 2007 8:31 AM
Matthew 19:4 quotes Jesus as saying, "at the beginning the Creator made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one."
No room for extra ladies in this statement.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at August 10, 2007 10:06 AM
I hope she serves as an example to other Moslem women. She should get a medal for being such a good shot!
Posted by: Timur at August 10, 2007 10:30 AM
The definition of heresy: denial of a revealed truth.
How can anyone in the West who has access to the Truth fall for islam? Islam is illogical in so many ways.
It is hard to feel sorry for this woman. I applaud her act, though.
Posted by: CapitalistGig at August 10, 2007 10:33 AM
"Shortly after her husband married Toural, Myra Morton sent a letter to the U.S. State Department in which she said her husband was trying to bring Toural over on a tourist visa. She urged the government to keep Toural out of the United States..."
Did the U.S. State Department notify the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office about the polygamy?
If Mrs. Number One hadn't sent the letter, would Mrs. Number Two likely have made it into the U.S.?
Many unanswered questions, here.
Posted by: PRCS at August 10, 2007 10:37 AM
" would Mrs. Number Two likely have made it into the U.S.?
Many unanswered questions, here.
Posted by: PRCS"
.....exactly!...it is part of the Islam grand plan...bring all your wives and family over...create a large Muslim voting base and then use that voting base to conquer...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at August 10, 2007 10:46 AM
There are Mormons freely practising polygamy all over the western US, and who is to stop them? When you consider homosexuals are allowed to marry and purchase children, the standard for marriage in the US is pretty low.
I find this no surprise at all. If someone wanted to marry a goat, the US courts would race to their aid.
Posted by: CapitalistGig at August 10, 2007 10:47 AM
"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, [.....] Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared indistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST.- TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE [emphasis Adams].... Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant ... While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men."
John Quincy Adams
Sixth President of The United States of America
1830
at August 10, 2007 10:50 AM
Here's a more complete account:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1878602/posts
Posted by: alexon at August 10, 2007 10:53 AM
Where was her brain?
It was preferable to murder her husband than to get a divorce? How holy and righteous is that? She is no different from any other spouse-killer.
She would rather kill than think about the mess she was in, realize that Islam wasn't helping her marriage, and leave them both?
Sometimes it feels as if Islam itself is an abusive marriage, in which the believer feels trapped and sees only this one false reality and no way out. They get stuck in a mindset, a world view, that has nothing to do with reality. If only they would poke one foot out the door into the real world, they would see that freedom is there for the taking.
I can understand a convert being stuck in the Islamic mindset for a while but wouldn't something as horrible as contemplating murder wake her up? Wouldn't that be enough to frighten her out of Islam?
But then, I'm making assumptions about her intelligence and her ability to reason prior to conversion, as well as her morality.
So she wore her niqab to the police station, sending a signal to us all that even murder does not disqualify you from being a pure Muslim woman who must be shielded from the dirty eyes of non-Muslims.
What secrets and sins do they hide behind the cloak of Islam?
Murder, for one.
Again and again, they lift up their dirty hems and we see murder.
Posted by: Josephine at August 10, 2007 10:56 AM
CapitalistGig, I fully respect your opinion, but I disagree. To say that homosexuals being allowed to marry (I live in Massachusetts, the only state in which they can do so--and I am extremely proud of it) is akin to allowing people to marry goats is to say that homosexuals are no better than animals. I do not share that sentiment. Homosexual couples are no more or less likely to be good parents than heterosexual ones (we've all seen some hetero couples and thought to ourselves, "if ever there were two people who shouldn't be allowed to reproduce..."). Their children (adopted--"purchased" is a tad crude, as if children can be exchanged like commodities. Well, maybe in Islam they can!) are just as healthy and happy as those of heterosexual couples--in some cases even more so, as studies have shown. On the other hand, children of polygamous marriages, such as in Islam or among Mormons, often go through sheer hell. So equating homosexual marriages with the depravity of polygamy is inaccurate. I see where you're coming from with this, but I disagree.
Mike W, holy fuck, did John Quincy Adams really say that?! He was a far wiser man than I gave him credit for! I'll have to look into him more.
Posted by: GetBornAgain at August 10, 2007 11:01 AM
GetBornAgain -- Would you watch your language, please?
(And with language like that, I might suggest that your nickname is misleading.)
Posted by: Josephine at August 10, 2007 11:04 AM
I don't share that sentiment either.
Actually, most animals have more morals than homos. Indulging in sick perversions is nothing of which to be proud. But then neither is voting for the Kennedys.
Considering the number of complacent, proud, liberal perverts in Massachusetts, Sharia law is really going to be a bummer.
Posted by: infidel! at August 10, 2007 11:08 AM
I am asked to watch my language, yet a person stating that "animals have more morals than homos" is allowed to do so freely (as he should--unlike the Islamists, we have something called free speech). Which is more offensive--a curse word or a homophobic statement? Either you condemn both (and I don't advocate censorship) or neither.
Posted by: GetBornAgain at August 10, 2007 11:11 AM
That being said, there's no denying the pure, incredible, unlimited genius of The Onion!
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30475
Posted by: GetBornAgain at August 10, 2007 11:14 AM
One good reason to oppose gay marriage is that it does open the door to polygamy. If Steve can marry Bob, why cant Akmed marry Naseem and Aisha?
Posted by: Elric66 at August 10, 2007 11:14 AM
GetBornAgain -- I agree with you.
The post by "infidel!" is disgusting. (It appeared after I objected to your language.)
I am not a moderator here, so it was my personal request, from one poster to another.
Posted by: Josephine at August 10, 2007 11:15 AM
I'm all for free speech too but homosexuality has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand. Such arguments only distract and divide us, especially when they get personal and angry.
Posted by: alexon at August 10, 2007 11:20 AM
anti-uffe
Looking at the facts objectively, Myra prevented the second wife from conceiving a Jihadi. Of course, since that other Muslimah is in Morocco, she's probably free to marry, since Muslim women, after divorce, must marry another man if they want to get back with their original husband, so that would indicate that re-marriage is allowed (how else would the tilth be plowed?), so she isn't really out of circulation. As for Myra wearing that jilbab, she may have done it to avoid being photoed for criminal rather than Islamic reasons.
I agree with others above that she was mentally deranged to convert to Islam in the first place. Nonetheless, her allegation of her husband having terrorist connections should be taken seriously and investigated, given that he did pick his second wife out of Morocco, and that too, in clear defiance of US law.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 10, 2007 11:22 AM
"One good reason to oppose gay marriage is that it does open the door to polygamy. If Steve can marry Bob, why cant Akmed marry Naseem and Aisha?"
Posted by: Elric66
This issue was discussed on The Michael Coren Show on Tuesday.
Tarek Fatah said that it was always the women who suffer under polygamy. He also said that any woman who said it was alright with her was just saying so because her husband was pressuring her to go along with it.
Mr. Fatah said his grandparents practiced polygamy in Pakistan and he saw the terrible suffering it caused the first wives. He was emphatically against it. Interestingly, he also supports gay marriage.
Posted by: Josephine at August 10, 2007 11:22 AM
Josephine, I do apologize if my language offended you. It was just an outburst of delight after seeing a particularly powerful post. I'll do my best to keep the four-letter words under control, though (a vice with which I have battled for quite some time, I'm afraid!).
Posted by: GetBornAgain at August 10, 2007 11:29 AM
Prosecutors had asked the U.S. Department of State to help find Morton's second wife, though it was unclear how she was found. Messages left at the U.S. consulate in Casablanca and the Moroccan consulate in New York were not returned yesterday.
Funny how our State Dept and the prosecutors are seeming to validate bigamy.
Sharia how soon? Will it be a parallel system?
/yes I am being sarcastic
at August 10, 2007 11:32 AM
If it is your right to object to my statements - it is my right to object to the statements of a proud defender of a disgusting and immoral practice.
I cannot understand the mindset that would promote and defend such perverted practices - cause de jour not withstanding.
Cursing and anti - homosexual comments are two vastly different things.
I would remind getbornagain to read the book of Leviticus. Perhaps there are darts to be slung in that direction.
BTW, I am far from homophobic. Disgusted, yes - afraid? Not on your life.
Posted by: infidel! at August 10, 2007 11:54 AM
I have always wanted to visit Morocco, but now I don't think that my wife will agree..............
Posted by: tanstaafl at August 10, 2007 12:01 PM
How do we know that the woman in the picture is actually Myra Morton?
I sure hope the police made her remove her veil before the mugshot.
Posted by: Provoslavni at August 10, 2007 12:08 PM
tanstaafl, I've been to morocco, and it's definitely worth a visit, its less-than-stellar gender relations notwithstanding. The mint tea is worth the trip. Go to Fez and Marrakesh if you get the chance. Marrakesh is kind of touristy, Fez somewhat less so. Both are quite safe and worth seeing. Casablanca isn't much to look at. I've been told Rabat (the capital) has some worthwhile sights, though I never had a chance to go there. Take a train from Tangier and travel along the Moroccan coast--it's affordable and surprisingly comfortable.
Now, moving on:
"Cursing and anti - homosexual comments are two vastly different things." I fail to see how. Anti-homosexual statements are meant to denigrate an entire group of people. I should point out that Jihadists often do the same. And frankly, I fail to believe that the God of Christianity (Christ) would ever mandate the kind of brutality described in the Book of Leviticus. If that is indeed what Christianity is all about (and I do not believe it is), it is just as unworthy of being followed as Islam. Christ, to me, is someone who transcended the feral element of human nature. Unlike, say, Muhammad, who reveled in it. We criticize the Muslims for being stuck in a seventh-century religion, yet some of us cling to a gospel written long before then (I'm referring to Leviticus and some others, not the Bible as a whole). It strikes me as illogical. Either we transcend our violent elements (as Christ did and enjoined us to do) or we embrace it (as Muhammad did and enjoined us to do). There is no gray area in between. (I'm no pacifist--wars are necessary, but not out necessity, not brutality).
I hate drawing assumptions, but I'll draw one and say that you haven't met very many homosexuals--if you had, you would not draw such sweeping generalizations. (I know, I know--I've drawn many myself. I'm a hypocrite. Fine.) As I recall, much of the same was said back in the fifties and sixties, when blacks were fighting for their rights. The progeny of interracial couples was once declared "demon spawn"--by Christians in the South. Surely you do not subscribe to that. Nor is there any logical reason to believe that homosexuals are immoral.
Lastly, keep in mind that some of the most prominent people battling jihad today are gay. Irshad Manji. Bruce Bawer. Others. I don't believe they would much appreciate being called immoral.
...but that's just my two cents. You are free to believe as you like, just as I'm sure you would extend me the same courtesy--which I appreciate. We are both on the same side in the conflict against Jihad, our political differences notwithstanding.
Posted by: GetBornAgain at August 10, 2007 12:19 PM
GetBornAgain -- Thanks so much for your understanding.
Robert Spencer gets so much flack about the comments here; it would be great if we could minimize giving others an opportunity to distract from his message. He is obviously an intelligent man with a great deal of integrity and I admire that.
I personally like to think that we are all intelligent and articulate enough to discuss these important issues without being too crude or insulting. (But then, they don't call me "Lady Josephine" for nothin'.)
Ultimately, when it comes to the issue of Islam, we're all on the same side, after all.
Posted by: Josephine at August 10, 2007 12:20 PM
I agree with GetBornAgain's posting.
I have more than one family member who is gay and one of my best friends, years ago, was gay.
Disagreeing with an orientation or lifestyle -- however you want to define it and for whatever reason -- is different from insulting an entire group of people.
My gay family members are moral people. They work hard, pay taxes, obey the law, contribute to society, etc.
"People are people..."
Posted by: Josephine at August 10, 2007 12:30 PM
When you people get done patting each other on the back for such courageous homosexual defending -you may want to consider that all I have done is attack the BAHAVIOR - no the person - not the group.
You also may want to consider the rampant homosexual behavior, particularly when it involves young boys, in the islamic culture.
I can think of one Middle Eastern head of state whose rampant deviant behavior keeps him from being issued a visa.
Posted by: infidel! at August 10, 2007 12:53 PM
Josephine said:
"What secrets and sins do they hide behind the cloak of Islam?
Murder, for one.
Again and again, they lift up their dirty hems and we see murder."
lifting up 'dirty hems'.........how very well put, Josephine!
at August 10, 2007 12:57 PM
"all I have done is attack the BEHAVIOR--not the person--not the group"
Your earlier comment read, "most animals have more morals than homos." That sounds like a personal attack that goes far beyond a simple objection to a lifestyle. It is as insulting as if I were to say something like, "all niggers are criminals" (I do NOT believe that). An objection to their behavior would read something like, "I think such-and-such aspects of what they do are wrong." Calling them "homos" and claiming that they are worse than animals is personal.
Posted by: GetBornAgain at August 10, 2007 12:59 PM
The purpose of marriage is to unite one man and one woman, and it is the foundation of society.
I am not anti-homosexual--acts, yes, persons, no--but multiple persons in one marriage (polygamy) has a Biblical footing whereas homosexual unions do not.
Homosexuals cannot procreate without bringing in another person of the opposite sex (yes, in essence, children are bought). The homosexual act is one of perverse pleasure--it is closed to the outcome of procreation.
My entire point in the original post was to show that marriage standards in the US can mean anything today and fighting against islamist polygamy isn't a winning bet.
Posted by: CapitalistGig at August 10, 2007 1:21 PM
descendantofacrusader -- Thank you. ; )
Posted by: Josephine at August 10, 2007 1:25 PM
Procreation isn't all it's cracked up to be. The injunction to "be fruitful and multiply" made perfect sense in humanity's early years, but today the number of people is beginning to exceed the planet's capacity for supporting them (which is all the more reason to be alarmed by the high birth rate among Muslims). Similarly, in those days it made sense to condemn homosexuality, as it detracted from necessary procreation, but today there is simply no reason--logical, ethical, or otherwise--to condemn it. Again, it makes little sense for us to condemn Muslims for holding fast to a seventh-century religion while at the same time we continue to cling to ancient injunctions that are even older than that wretched Kur'an.
As for the idea that intercourse between homosexuals is for "perverse pleasure," there is plenty of that among heterosexual couples as well, just as many homosexual couples enjoy intercourse borne of affection. Perversity is equally present on both sides of the sexual divide (Vegas, anyone?).
Posted by: GetBornAgain at August 10, 2007 2:07 PM
The defense of sodomy from a person who purports to be "born again." Well, at least the "F" word was not used this time.
The fact that some heterosexuals enjoy sodomy does not lessen its eternally damning effect.
By the way, did you know that Europe and the US are not replacing their populations? Not so much that the muslims are multiplying, but the Europeans and Americans are not. Illegal Mexicans outdo us 6 to 1.
Posted by: CapitalistGig at August 10, 2007 2:33 PM
No sympathy whatsoever... Muslims get what they deserve, exactly what their so-called "religion" mandates. That is: Islam, nothing but Islam, and then more Islam.
I'm all for cramming it down their Islam spewing throats until they positively choke on the enormity of it all. Why should so-called "unbelievers" pay a dime of money or suffering for the utter heinousness, backwardness, and barbarity of this 7th Century Arabic nightmare? Let them ALL gag on their perfidious Islamic filth.
Posted by: jsla at August 10, 2007 3:27 PM
I must be confused. I thought this was dhimmiwatch, not 'illegal Mexican' watch or gaymarriagewatch.
Posted by: Abu Allah at August 10, 2007 3:33 PM
She wears the burkha, but she doesn't seem to be a true believer. At least not an obedient one...
A true muslim female must be able to live within the harem...
She was not properly whacked into submission...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at August 10, 2007 3:49 PM
sheik - that's not a burqa, that's a niqab, only a slit for the eyes.
Polygamy is an EVIL, as described by ex-Muslima Nonie Darwish in her book, "Now They Call Me Infidel." She knows.
BTW, Doug Hooper has said about this case, "Only a minority of Muslim men take second wives." THAT'S NOT TRUE, TAQIYYA DOUG! e-mail Dougie at info@CAIR.com, people, and set him straight! MOST Mohammedan males take second, third, and fourth wives - that's why there's so many Mohammedans!
Polygamy is a reason (among many) why I would NEVER vote for a Mohammedan or a Mormon for President (Romney - you listening?)
"Taqiyya" Doug Hooper!
Posted by: darcy at August 10, 2007 4:09 PM
In discussing the debilitating effects of polygamy on women, let's not overlook its effect on children. Many Muslim children grow up profoundly influenced by the perpetual insecurity of their mothers.
Furthermore, since the only means of societal empowerment available to many Muslim women is via their sons, there is a sociological predisposition to over-indulge male offspring...with all the attendant repercussions down the road when these boys become men and discover that the real world is not at all as accommodating as the one they grew up in.
It is here that we find the roots of the Muslim "humiliation" and "disaffection" we're all so used to reading about.
Posted by: Cornelius at August 10, 2007 4:39 PM
Is Myra Morton an American convert to Islam? Did she convert to marry her now-dead husband?
Posted by: traeh at August 10, 2007 5:05 PM
I saw a picture of myra without the veil... She looks alot better with the veil.
Posted by: callmeinfidel at August 10, 2007 6:37 PM
Notice the picture above with care. Notice the two western women, educated and self-confident, and contrast that with the poor Islamic woman, and she having to pay for old Muhammad's lust.
They say a picture speaks volumes, and I think that picture does aswell.
at August 10, 2007 6:52 PM
From the article:
Myra Morton had reluctantly agreed to the second marriage and even traveled to Morocco to sanction it under Islamic law, authorities have said.
I have a problem with MSM coverage of this story. The above phrase, "under Islamic law", is the only reference in the entire story to the religion that these people practiced and which gave the sanction for their polygamy. On the tv coverage, Morton was simply described as a "millionaire bigamist". Was it the amount of money he had that motivated him to marry multiple wives? Why do they point out he is a millionaire, and not mention that he's a Muslim? Which fact is more relevant to the story? The reality is that polygamy exists, today, in the U.S., among Muslim immigrants from Somalia and elsewhere, and the government and media turn a blind eye out of a misplaced sense of cultural sensitivity.
Posted by: special_guest at August 10, 2007 9:01 PM
GetBornAgain and Josephine,
greetings, it's good to see more people supportive of gay rights posting here. I usually post to show the world that concerns about jihad do go across the political spectrum: I'm a feminist with many gay friends.
About the topic of the thread: it is hard to feel much sympathy for a woman who has all the choices of the western world but subjects herself to sharia law. Unless she was somehow tricked into it - very unlikely, as the truth about islam is at everyone's fingertips these days.
Posted by: Lili at August 10, 2007 9:34 PM
The Loreena Bobbitt Effect begins.
(It only took 1350 years to occur to women in Islam.)
Technically, this means about a dozen fewer potential jihadis have been stopped at the gates of Being.
The murderous Muslima should get a one way injection.
Posted by: profitsbeard at August 10, 2007 11:45 PM
I hope Natasha stops by and comments here. Notwithstanding the excessive capital lettering I enjoyed her perspective on the picture of the two women in class raising their hands. Her website is good too and even links to jihadwatch.
Yes, Islamic Supremacy, and those who kill for it, support, and enable (CAIR) it, is a deadly threat to ALL Non-muslims; gays, feminists, Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Animists, Atheists, Anarchists, rightists, leftists, you name it, unless you submit in slavery to Allah.
Only by recognizing this imperative to unite against this common enemy can we Non-muslims prevail in the long run.
Posted by: alexon
at August 11, 2007 12:50 AM
Hello All,
I live in the Phila area and have been following this story in the local media for some time.What infuriates me the most,as has been noted by others,is the matter of fact acceptance of polygamy due to "her" or "their muslim faith".I also read an acccount which stated Myra Morton traveled to Morocco to facilitate her husband's second marriage "...in accordance with Islamic Sharia Law.(!)"Oh,well,that's all right then!
Clearly we we must only describe the adherents of ROPO in bland inoffensive terms, if not slavishly obsequious ones.
By way of background,the Mortons are evidently a local Philadelphia couple who left their "...rundown North Philadelphia rowhouse..."(Phila Inquirer 8/10/07) after winning $14 million in a medical malpractice suit after their daughter died in 2001.They moved from said rowhouse to the current house in N.J.in 2005 when they got the cash award.Prosecutors are citing the remaining $6(!)million as a possible motive.(That's 8 mil gone in 2 years folks! Where'd it go?)
Also,Myra did appear unveiled at her arraignment,at the "request" of authorities.
What all this means I'm not sure, but these people seem to be native born black Americans who converted to ROPO,perhaps relatively recently.
The real story IMHO is the MSM down playing of the muslim angle and tacit acceptance polygamy and especially Sharia as acceptable in American society. As for the rest,just another tawdry murder story offered up for our delectation.
at August 11, 2007 1:34 AM
is it possible that the large number of black males that convert to islam while in prison is so they can justify their then killing of whites?
just thinking.
Posted by: no-ilsam-in-ark at August 11, 2007 2:14 AM
"Their children (adopted--"purchased" is a tad crude, as if children can be exchanged like commodities. Well, maybe in Islam they can!) are just as healthy and happy as those of heterosexual couples--in some cases even more so, as studies have shown."
One study by people looking for a specific outcome does not prove anything. How sad that people would rob children of the chance to grow up with a mother and a father. A multitude of studies have shown a mother and a father to be the natural order of things. How is it that a lifestyle which prevents a "couple" with two healthy bodies from procreating could be considered "natural"? Muslims will certainly demand acceptance of polygamy in the US as a result of "gay marriage".
Posted by: lafn at August 11, 2007 2:29 AM
"Shortly after her husband married Toural, Myra Morton sent a letter to the U.S. State Department in which she said her husband was trying to bring Toural over on a tourist visa. She urged the government to keep Toural out of the United States, going so far as to accuse the other woman of having connections to terrorists."
The State Dept. gets this sort of thing all the time. I'm not going to discuss how it's handled, but simply the fact that Toural (the second "wife") was "married" (I'm using quotes not because I disrespect the local laws in Morocco, rather simply because the second marriage wouldn't be valid under U.S. law) to a U.S. citizen would probably be sufficient for any interviewing consular officer to determine that she was ineligible for a non-immigrant visa (NIV) under Sec. 214(b) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA).
In other words, she would be a pretty convincing "intending immigrant."
Intending immigrants are, pretty universally, ineligible for non-immigrant visas.
(Yes, there are exceptions. But when aren't there exceptions? Let's not go there because they don't apply to tourist visas.)
The spouse of a U.S. citizen is generally eligible for an immigrant visa instead of a non-immigrant visa. But due to a quaint peculiarity of U.S. law, that visa isn't available to any additional spouses one might acquire supplemental to the first wife (assuming no divorce from the first wife and that she's still alive; alternatively, the marriage to the second/additional wife would have to have taken place subsequent to the termination of the earlier one. Marriage, that is.).
So diming her out for "terrorist connections" may have been gilding the lily.
(Unless, naturally enough, she actually has/had them.)
I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/08/re-bigamists-first-wife-charged-with.html
Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at August 11, 2007 2:30 AM
There is some good news in this. The wife should get a light prison sentence in any U.S. state where the state recognizes the "they had it coming defense" like Mary Winkler got recently in Tennessee. The more interesting kernel here is an idea for a super secret intelligence plan to have an angry wife of any jihadi turned to help kill him. Which of Laden's wife is the best prospect for the West to turn and use to kill him? Same question as to any other undesired jihadi.
Posted by: David England at August 11, 2007 6:21 AM
I just watched this story on the NBC Sat "Today" Show.
The words "Muslims" and "Polygamy" were never mentioned.
Posted by: darcy at August 11, 2007 9:04 AM
I must be confused. I thought this was dhimmiwatch, not 'illegal Mexican' watch or gaymarriagewatch.
Posted by: Abu Allah
Thank you, Abu. My thoughts exactly. I suggest those posters who find gay rights, gay marriage, and gay people so disgusting and objectionable find an anti-homosexual blog (of which there are many, no doubt) where they can vent their hatred and intolerance to their heart's content.
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at August 11, 2007 10:07 AM
Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse ME!
Unlike many here, I believe that Myra Morton and April El-Hage are perfectly rational people who simply need to face the consequences of their immoral, God-denying actions. Further, nobody can accuse their husbands of acting out of bad faith or hypocrisy, either, since Islam blesses male sensuality to the nth degree.
Also, don't think that Mormon polygamists (poor, lost, heretical souls they) have it easy, either. They often end up moving around because someone enforces the law from time to time. Add to this the not-so-gentle fanaticism of the Latter-Day Saints tradition, you have feuding prophets thrown into the mix as well.
Spurning the blood of Christ which redeems us from sin and death, the liberal secularist embraces homosexuality and abortion; the Mormons and the Musslims ebrace polygamy. Yet, isn't it interesting, Mehmed Ali Pasha had to hide his second marriage. I wonder why?
Posted by: Kepha at August 11, 2007 1:11 PM
Lili -- Thanks!
Posted by: Josephine at August 11, 2007 2:19 PM
" ............
John Quincy Adams
Sixth President of The United States of America
1830 "
Posted by: Mike_W
Mike_W,
Thanks a lot for the eloquent quote from
John Quincy Adams. God bless the USA.
at August 11, 2007 2:33 PM
Good for Myra!
Only one billion four hundred and ninety-nine million or so more to go!!!
Posted by: pythagoras at August 11, 2007 2:52 PM
And I suggest that those obsessed with sodomy, homosexual rights and the like not go OT or find another site. I am sure there are many.
The point made did not attack gay people. Stop being hypersensitive. The point made was regarding marriage standards. A comment that muslims could be prosecuted for polygamy was made. It probably won't happen.
I have lived in Arizona and Utah. It is quite common for as many as 12 children to be enrolled in a school under the name of one father and several mothers. Gay marriages are allowed in many states. Muslims are not going to be charged with polygamy. Did you catch how the MSM called it "bigamy?"
And finally, I am a tax attorney who files many gay couples' returns. How do they get babies? You tell me.
As for the "born again when convenient" crowd, take a read of Romans 1:23 on and tell me who is inheriting the kingdom of heaven.
Posted by: CapitalistGig at August 11, 2007 4:48 PM
The Leftists here in Canada, I suspect, are itching to legalize polygamy.
The Lawyers here in Canada will be meeting (in a few days) to discuss polygamy, etc.
I harbour zero illusions about Canadian lawyers suddenly endorsing monogamy...don't think it'll happen. They'll probably argue that polygamy is perfectly OK and a boon to "women's rights." it'll be turned into a pro-feminist issue.
The day when polygamy is legalized here in Canada, is the day I start looking to immigrate. I will want OUT of Canada. It'll be the last straw.
Posted by: J.S. at August 12, 2007 3:46 PM
darcy, Your bigotry is appalling.
As for the idea that intercourse between homosexuals is for "perverse pleasure," there is plenty of that among heterosexual couples as well, just as many homosexual couples enjoy intercourse borne of affection. Perversity is equally present on both sides of the sexual divide (Vegas, anyone?).
Posted by: GetBornAgain
And I thought we were against moral equivalence here, you may recall Rob speaks frequently about it's use by jihadis. And for the record Jesus was quite against that as well, you may recall he said "If any of you look upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery in his heart" (forgive me for inaccuracies in my memory), he does not ever excuse lust or acting on lust, even between married heterosexuals. And Infidel! He said "the Law of Moses is fulfilled in me" not cling to the bits and pieces of the law you want to in order to justify not loving each other (as you can see in book of Acts when Peter has the vision of the scroll unrolled from heaven opening the Gospel to gentiles, and again when they are discussing what parts of the Law to apply to Gentiles, the only ones they bans are eating strangled flesh, fornication, eating things sacrificed to idols, and eating/drinking blood. The first and greatest commandment is to love the lord thy God with all thy heart mind and strength, and the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Jesus himself condemned only the Pharisees and Sadducees for their hypocrisy, to all others he said "Go and sin no more," and "thy faith hath made thee whole."
Posted by: morguerat at August 13, 2007 3:27 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)