My God. Such evil, and in the 21st century, it's incomprehensible.

"Cultural Relativism" is such a crock.

Posted by: darcy at February 18, 2008 2:13 PM

AL MUNKAR

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=161&CATE=14

Commanding the Right & Forbidding the Wrong

EXPLAINING THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG

q5.3 The second degree consists of explaining that an act is wrong, since an ignorant person will often do something he does not know is blameworthy, but will stop when he finds out. So one must explain it politely, saying, for example: "People are not born scholars; we were unfamiliar with many things in Sacred Law until scholars mentioned them to us. Perhaps there are not many in your hometown," and thus lead up to it diplomatically so the person understands without being offended. To avoid the evil of remaining silent when there is something wrong, only to commit the evil of offending a Muslim when able not to, it like washing away blood with urine.

FORBIDDING THE ACT VERBALLY

q5.4 The third degree of severity is to prohibit the act by admonition, advice, and making the other fear Allah, mentioning the hadiths of divine punishment for it and reminding the person how the early Muslims behaved, all of which should be done with sympathy and kindness, not harshness or anger. The great danger here which one must beware of is that a learned person explaining that something is wrong may be proud of his knowledge and gloat over the lowliness of the other's ignorance, which is like saving someone from a fire by casting oneself into it. It is ignorant in the extreme, a deep disgrace, and a delusion from the Devil. The touchstone and test for this is to ask oneself whether one would prefer the censured person to stop at his own or another's behest, or whether one would prefer to forbid him oneself. If reproving him is difficult and weighs upon one, and one would prefer that someone else do it, then one should proceed, for religion is the motive. But if it is otherwise, then one is following mere personal caprice and using the censuring of others as a means to display one's merit, and one should fear Allah and censure oneself first.

IT GOES FROM THERE

INTIMIDATION

q5.7 The sixth degree is threatening and intimidation, such as by saying, "Stop this or I'll-"; and when possible this should precede actually hitting the person. The rule for this level is not to make a threat that one cannot carry out, such as saying "or I'll seize your house," or "take you wife hostage," because if one says this seriously, it is unlawful, and if not serious, then one is lying.

ASSAULT

q5.8 The seventh degree is to directly hit or kick the person, or similar measures that do not involve weapons. This is permissible for private individuals provided it is necessary, and that one confines oneself to the minimum needed to stop the reprehensible action and nothing more. When the action has been stopped, one refrains from doing anything further.

FORCE OF ARMS

q5.9 The eighth degree is when one is unable to censure the act by oneself and requires the armed assistance of others. Sometimes the person being reproved may also get people to assist him, and a skirmish may ensue, so the soundest legal opinion is that this degree requires authorization from the caliph (def : o25). since it leads to strife and the outbreak of civil discord. Another view is that there is no need for caliph's permission.

'Umdat as-Salik wa 'Uddat an-Nasik

Page 602

09.6

“it is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph’s permission,” but “if there is no caliph, no permission is required.”

Posted by: GrennBeck at February 18, 2008 2:24 PM

Sharif showed no sign of remorse, telling police who interrogated him: "I suspected that my daughter had a relationship with a man and I had to stone her to death as she had besmirched my honour."

On suspicion, that his honor is besmirched, he killed his daughter. Stoned her to death, and then justifies it. I suppose this lunar-tic thinks this restores his honor. The cowards 'honor' was more important than his daughters life. He has no honor, Allah stole it, and will never give it back.

Posted by: duh_swami at February 18, 2008 2:29 PM

And how long did she take to die? How many stones? How many tears did she cry while the rocks hit her before her life ended? Did she plead with her father to stop? And what did he say?

In the West, we say the worst thing a parent can do is bury their child.

And islam produces this in the name of honour.

Posted by: Celsius at February 18, 2008 2:37 PM

Yeah, Duh Swami, I was thinking the same thing. "I suspected..." is the operative phrase.

Yes, let's definitely invite these people into our country and encourage them to take over and enslave us. What an embarrassment it would be to allow these back-ass-ward people to run the asylum.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 18, 2008 2:41 PM

Sharif showed no sign of remorse, telling police who interrogated him: "I suspected that my daughter had a relationship with a man and I had to stone her to death as she had besmirched my honour."

"I had no other choice," he said, telling police how he had carried out the stoning....

I have yet to see a cultural equivalent of a christian, jew or many other cultures (read religions) stoning to death a 14 year old girl and then saying that his honor (read religion) had told him to do it.

His "love" of his daughter was totally conditional on his understanding of his culture and more specifically his religion. This is also informed by his understanding that women are inferior and subject to him. How can a man beget a child, bring her to fruition and then kill her because she fell in love or made an error ?

He will probably be lauded by the majority of his compatriots as he has kept his "honor"

I wish him long life and good fortune, after all he is a companion of the prophet who would have wished him to do nothing less.

"I had no other choice," he said, telling police how he had carried out the stoning....

I don't know your name and if there is a god I hope you rest in peace.

EricTheKuffar

Posted by: ericthekuffar at February 18, 2008 2:42 PM

Who is not to say that the other man was indeed the father of the poor young girl?

Posted by: Armoured Passionfruit at February 18, 2008 3:07 PM

I was under the impression that even under Sharia law a "trial" is required. He "suspected"? Is that enough?

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at February 18, 2008 3:26 PM

"Such evil, and in the 21st century, it's incomprehensible."

What does the 21st century have to do with it?

Evil is a spiritual thing, and the spirit, good or evil does not die.

The sooner evil is understood to be part of the human condition, in this century or any other, and not seen as some backward way of thinking, the sooner we will be prepared to defeat it.

An evil man in an evil belief system. There are millions more where he came from.

Be prepared, unerschrocken.

Posted by: undaunted at February 18, 2008 3:55 PM

undaunted, please excuse my ignorance but what does unerschrocken mean?

Posted by: the poetess at February 18, 2008 4:18 PM

It's German for undaunted.

Posted by: undaunted at February 18, 2008 4:26 PM

I am going to assume that the father had relations with his own daughter and chose to stone her/kill her to remove the only witness.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at February 18, 2008 4:34 PM

Victor Davis Hanson something a while AGO and I'm going to just change a couple words to bring what he wrote directly into the context here. My additions in [brackets].

With apologies to Victor ... "We must abandon the naive faith that with enough money, education, or good intentions we can change the nature of mankind so that conflict [evil], as if by fiat, becomes a thing of the past. In the end, the study of war reminds us that we will never be gods. We will always just be men, it tells us. Some [evil] men will always prefer war to peace; and other men, we who have learned from the past, have a moral obligation to stop them."

Posted by: undaunted at February 18, 2008 4:44 PM

A leading candidate for the Muslim Father Of The Year award said

I suspected that my daughter had a relationship with a man and I had to stone her to death as she had besmirched my honour. I had no other choice.

Remember, all people are the same. All religions teach the same values. Praying to one god is the same as praying to any other god.

Posted by: special_guest at February 18, 2008 4:55 PM

Wow, pardon the typos in my last post. Ouch.

Posted by: undaunted at February 18, 2008 5:06 PM

and they call this the religion of peace. It looks like the only piece in the peace of the grave, and its followers also claim it is not a Islamic problem is very interesting that most of the honor killings around the world are done by Muslim males

Posted by: doglover at February 18, 2008 5:12 PM

Hey, let me ask again, where are the man-hating ultra-left-wing Marxist feminists? Why aren't they complaining?? It appears that it is OK to MURDER little girls as long as the murdering is being performed by ULTRA-VIOLENT THIRD WORLD BARBARIAN THUGS.

Posted by: One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left at February 18, 2008 5:15 PM

Sharif showed no sign of remorse, telling police who interrogated him: "I suspected that my daughter had a relationship with a man and I had to stone her to death as she had besmirched my honour."

Exactly the same mentality, but spread and celebrated on a mass scale, as the wife beater who says: "She made me do it."

He takes refuge in logic of the infantile, who will not take responsibility for their own actions. He has besmirched his own honor.

I had no other choice.

Neither do we.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at February 18, 2008 5:20 PM

Alaskan1000; as a former homicide detective I can tell you the kind of scenario you posed is not unheard of in any culture. In fact, in an interrogation of a killer of this type, to get a confession, an investigator might even suggest to the perp that it was 'normal' for him to feel like he had to kill to cover his momentary lapse of sense.

But honor killings aren't like that at all. The killers aren't crazy or a little behind the cultural power curve. They didn't just have a bad day.

They are invested in a set of beliefs that is evil. By making the decision to steep themselves in it, they become that evil.

Posted by: undaunted at February 18, 2008 5:28 PM

Needle-nosed pliers and lighter fluid....
He deserves the best.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at February 18, 2008 6:03 PM

Anything that wouldn't make an innocent man confess.

Posted by: undaunted at February 18, 2008 6:07 PM

I'm surprised he didn't sell her to the man.

Don't they have "shotgun" weddings?

Posted by: Borg at February 18, 2008 9:10 PM

Maybe the man she was talking to wasn't good enough for a forced wedding?

Posted by: Borg at February 18, 2008 9:12 PM

Sorry, Borg; I can't tell if you're kidding. If you are ... fine.

If you're not joking, it may be helpful to take a good long look at the site below.

http://www.stophonourkillings.com/index.php

Posted by: undaunted at February 18, 2008 9:38 PM

Islam: rock and role.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 18, 2008 9:56 PM

undaunted said

Anything that wouldn't make an innocent man confess.

This Muslim Father of the Year already confessed. Not because of needle-nosed pliers or lighter fluid, but because he is proud of what he has done. He has restored his sullied family honor, in accordance with the teachings of Allah. What's wrong with that? Whatever interestingconundrum has in mind doesn't warrant a peep out of me, and has nothing to do with the "confessions" of an "innocent man".

Posted by: special_guest at February 18, 2008 10:08 PM

special-guest: you're right that he confessed because he is proud.

My reply was sent to merely state the rule of thumb in conducting interrogations.

An investigator may do or say anythng to the suspect that would not make him or her, if innocent, confess.

I was not agreeing with the needle-nose pliers/lighter fluid post, and I would guess interestinconundrum was sorta joking.

Posted by: undaunted at February 18, 2008 10:16 PM

profitsbeard: what do you mean?

Posted by: undaunted at February 18, 2008 10:27 PM

The insanity continues - and this is clearly an evil and demonically influenced culture.

No honor in Islam.

Posted by: champ at February 18, 2008 10:51 PM

undaunted-

"Islam: rock and role."

What do I mean?

To elucidate:

The "role" of a Muslim is to throw a "rock".

Islam is thus the opposite of Jesus, who said:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Islam is retrograde.

Stone Age, even.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 18, 2008 11:19 PM

It's a cultural thing.

The koran doesn't say that you have to kill your daughter.

Posted by: joeblough at February 19, 2008 7:16 AM

Opposite world... "honor" means doing the most despicable thing possible in the most gruesome way possible (or one of, anyway) for the least valid reason possible (one of, anyway - that being suspicion...)

Real honor, anyone?

BTW, shouldn't this have been in Jihad Watch and not Dhimmi Watch? Just wondering...

Posted by: thatisall at February 19, 2008 8:09 AM

"Such evil, and in the 21st century, it's incomprehensible."

What does the 21st century have to do with it? --posted by undaunted.

Undaunted, I meant that the barbarism of stoning is still carried out by Mohammedans in the 21st century.

Other religions have evolved from such a cruel, despicable, and evil practice. I believe that stoning occurred in the OT, but Christianity put a stop to that barbarism when Jesus said, "He who is without sin throw the first stone." As we all know, no one did. That was millenia ago. Mohammedans, however, are still lobbing rocks at their females, and occasionally, males. They haven't evolved.

I hope you now understand my "21st century" reference.

Posted by: darcy at February 19, 2008 8:59 AM

"They are invested in a set of beliefs that is evil." --posted by undaunted.

Boy is that right.

Posted by: darcy at February 19, 2008 9:03 AM

Darcy;

It seems to me that other religions have
'evolved' from such barbarism because they were not based in evil in the first place ~ Islam cannot make that claim. Muhammad embraced evil and got the ball rollin.'

And, if you'll forgive me, I believe the point of the 'let he who is without sin ..." was just that: Jesus knew these men had sinned and were hiding it and therefore unjustly treating the woman, no matter what the treatment had been.

It says He stooped down and was writing in the sand. There is either an OT or Talmud verse, neither of which I can recall at the moment, suggesting that Jesus was writing the names of the stone-throwers in the sand. Though history may show that there were no more stonings in Christianity after that, I don't believe that was His point.

M. Scott Peck's book, People of the Lie, is an interesting read on this subject.

Posted by: undaunted at February 19, 2008 9:54 AM

Darcy;

It seems to me that other religions have
'evolved' from such barbarism because they were not based in evil in the first place ~ Islam cannot make that claim. --posted by undaunted

Oh yeah, I certainly agree.

Mohammed was an evil human and he created an evil "religion," the primary purpose of which is to kill everyone not like them (Islamic).

"It's not the Glorious Qur'an, it's the Spurious Qur'an." --darcy

Posted by: darcy at February 19, 2008 11:00 AM

Bingo, darcy.

Posted by: undaunted at February 19, 2008 11:27 AM

It's a cultural thing.

The koran doesn't say that you have to kill your daughter

Well - depends which interpretation you read I suppose.

Posted by: ericthekuffar at February 19, 2008 12:09 PM