“BBC asks if Muslim teenager who fled Saudi ‘should be killed for leaving Islam.’” The question is shocking, as is this question, also posed by BBC: “what is the right punishment for blasphemy?” Yet it was still asked by the BBC, and only after scorching rebuke from readers did a retraction and apology follow. But the damage was done.
As per Islam, the penalty facing this young teen was clearly spelled out in a previous Jihad Watch post about 18-year-old Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun:
- So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.” (Qur’an 4:89)
- A hadith depicts Muhammad saying: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari 9.84.57). The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law according to all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
- This is still the position of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Sunni and Shi’ite. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most renowned and prominent Muslim cleric in the world, has stated: “The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-‘ashriyyah, Al-Ja’fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.”
The BBC should be condemning Islamic blasphemy laws and defending human rights and women’s rights. Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun is a genuine refugee — unlike the multitudes of economic migrants that flooded Europe. She needs to be protected from those who want to murder her, and should promptly be given asylum in Australia.
Another young Saudi girl — another genuine refugee — was dragged back from an airport to Saudi Arabia to a presumably horrible fate while trying to escape the country in 2017. Dina Ali Lasloom ran away from her family after she was abused. She made it to an airport in the Philippines, but despite the scene she made with her desperate pleas for safety and freedom, Dina was last seen screaming and being dragged onto a Saudi Arabia Airlines flight from Manila to Riyadh. She was never heard from again. The Saudi embassy in Manila issued an appalling statement “calling the case a ‘family matter’ and added without elaborating that she had ‘returned with her relatives to the homeland.’”
Shame on the BBC, which should be highlighting the abuses resulting from Islamic blasphemy laws.
“BBC asks if Muslim teenager who fled Saudi ‘should be killed for leaving Islam,’” by Rob Waugh, Metro UK, January 9, 2019:
In a now-deleted Tweet, BBC Asian network asked viewers if they ‘respected the decision’ of a teenager who fled Saudi Arabia saying she would be killed for renouncing Islam. The Tweet read, ’18-year-old Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun fled Saudi Arabia as she said her family would kill her for choosing to leave Islam – do you respect her decision?’ The Tweet was rapidly picked up by Media Guido – and the BBC posted an edited version minus the part about ‘respecting her decision.’
Irate readers responded on Twitter with comments such as ‘You’re a waste of taxpayer’s money,’ and the BBC rapidly deleted the Tweet and apologised. BBC Asian Network previously stirred up controversy with a Tweet asking, ‘What is the right punishment for blasphemy?’
Australia has said it will assess the runaway Saudi woman for settlement after the United Nations deemed her a refugee. The Department of Home Affairs confirmed that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had referred 18-year-old Rahaf Mohammed Alqunun to Australia for consideration for refugee settlement.
Ms Alqunun arrived in Bangkok on a flight from Kuwait on Saturday and planned to continue to Australia, for which she held a tourist visa. But after being detained by Thai authorities, she refused to board a flight back to Kuwait, barricading herself in a hotel room…..
Dawne says
Absolutely shameful and I’ve emailed and tweeted BBC to register my disgust #SaveRahaf
kevin king says
That won’t cut it. We need to start deporting pakistani muslims from our country now if we want to save it. It’s as simple as that. If we don’t expel millions within the next 5 to 10 years the UK will become an Islamic State.
Savvy Kafir says
You’re right, Kevin. Only mass deportations will save Britain, and the West in general. All other “solutions” are merely band-aids applied to life-threatening wounds.
And the longer we wait to begin that process, the more difficult, expensive, and bloody it will be.
Rufolino says
Savvy Kafir, none of these remedies are going to happen and you know it.
The Authorities have determined the course of the UK and my beloved country is heading towards a horrifying cliff…
Roger Woodhouse says
The British generally are completely oblivious to the threat they face.They have abandened their own religion because they felt it no longer relevant in todays world.They cannot grasp that a third world religion living amongst them could possibly become a ‘replacement’to it .Twenty years ago people here would laugh in your face if you told them that Islam will threaten to dominate them in the near future.The disgusting liberal BBC is hastening that day.We must rise against it NOW.It must be eradicated from our shores before its too late.
Savvy Kafir says
Not true, Rufolino. Non-Muslims vastly outnumber Muslims in the UK. And the number of native Brits who are pissed off about the Islamization of their country is growing.
It’s way too early to be predicting what can or cannot happen. And once enough patriotic Brits understand that the only way to save their culture and their freedoms is to deport Muslims en masse, that will become a real possibility
Savvy Kafir says
I’m aware of what’s going on now, Peter35. But that’s only because non-Muslims are ALLOWING that 2-5% of the population to be uppity & aggressive & demanding. That situation could easily change.
If you’d rather just give up the fight, before it’s really started, why are you wasting your time on Jihad Watch?
abad says
The biggest question is:
WHY did the UK allow all of these Moslems to enter its borders to begin with?
carpediadem says
They are part of the EU.
Bind on Blood says
The answer to your question goes back several decades. In the 1970s an oil embargo was put on the West to put pressure on the then supporting Israel Europe and EEC. At the same time Jihad attacks started to reappear. The EEC panicked and sought a rapprochement with the Islamic states. This tied in with France’s post war desire to re-establish influence in the Islamic States of North Africa. In return for oil ,trade deals and an easing of Jihad the EEC ,all the heads if state signed up to several agreements with the OIC. A “Europe/Arab dialogue “ was established. This was intensified when the EEC became the EU.
It was agreed that unlimited Islamic immigration would be started. The migrants would be allowed to practice Islam in total as they are not permitted to integrate. The concept of multiculturalism was created to accommodate this. Mosques would be built. A pro Arab/Islamic programme would be started in schools,media,universities etc and a fictitious history about Islam’s beneficial effect on Europe created. Hence he Golden Age myth. The EU would become ultra critical of Israel and give money to “Palestine”. A fictitious history of Islam in the Holy land was created to disinherit the Jews.
Any Jihad attacks would as far as possible be disassociated with Islam,creating an “extremist” version which of course is a fiction. Over time more policies and organizations were added. Criticism of Islam to be banned under pretense of protection of “religions” in time Christianity would be reshaped to accommodate Islamic concepts of Jesus .
The main idea is to create a huge power bloc composed of the post Nation states of Europe and much of the Islamic world with free movement across the area. A military would be created and America challenged. In time it was envisaged that Eurabia,the possible mane of the entity,would be the most powerful bloc on the planet. Much of this has been implemented and more is in the pipeline. Read Bat Ye’or “Globalisation, The EU and the coming Islamic Caliphate”
Watto35 says
Unfortunately, Kevin KIng, the chances of deporting any Pakistani muslims are non-existant. However bad the situation becomes no government, left or right, will deport anyone. Look at the situation now: people are put in prison for putting bacon near mosques; the freedom of speech is disappearing; the police arrest fathers who try to protect their daughters from rape gangs and anyone who speaks in protest is vilified and arrested. Anyone below the age of 30 should look to emigrate east to a muslim-free country.
Savvy Kafir says
Watto35 — I don’t think I’ll rely on your crystal ball, or give up the fight before it’s begun.
One thing that’s happening in the UK, that you didn’t mention, is that more & more native Brits are becoming very pissed off with their increasingly-tyrannical government, and with the steady Islamization of their country. And since non-Muslims vastly outnumber Muslims in Britain, at this point anything can happen.
All sensible, patriotic Brits (and counter-jihadis everywhere) should join & support Anne Marie Waters’ For Britain party. That party is probably Britain’s last chance to save itself via the democratic process. If For Britain doesn’t come to power, violent revolution may be the only option left.
R Russell says
Dawne,
BBC wont listen. I wrote a complaint to them in October about I perceived was a BBC interviewer using Christians hate speech during a programme. They wont even reply to me.
Don Bill says
What do you expect now that the BBC has appointed it’s SECOND Muslim to be in charge of programming, both of whom having radical Islam connections.
gravenimage says
Good for you, Dawne.
J D S says
BBC…part of the MSM. It seems that there is hardly any news .media left in the west that stands for FREEDOM..
As to this blasphemy thing…..Remember what the worst blasphemy charge did? It caused the death of JESUS…….Therefore even the word blasphemy is a stain on the world and should be expunged from the world’s language…and especially in the Muslim world.
eduardo odraude says
Dawne, that’s great. You took action! Even if it doesn’t have the effect one hopes, you did something, which deserves kudos.
christianblood says
BBC and other Western MSM surely wish to hand the Saudi girl over to the Saudis so that she is beheaded for apostasy! Like Islamists they all want those who leave Islam be executed for apostasy! The leftist, pro-Jihadist, pro-sharee’a globalists are no different from their head-chopping Islamist buddies! This is beyond outrageous!
Wellington says
Never miss an opportunity, do you, christianblood, to pull down America? And, of course, Holy Mother Russia, that pioneer of human rights to this very day, never does any wrong.
Gettin’ real old, christianblood, all the crap you spew here again and again and again and again and again. And again I would remind you that this is Jihad Watch, not America Watch. If you wish to denigrate America, an infinitely greater force for liberty than Russia has ever been, as you regularly do, I wish you would go elsewhere. Oh, I support your RIGHT to continue to bash America here at JW, but I do wish you would focus on what this website is really all about, to wit, opposing Islam, which neither Putin nor Krill have done a very good job of—or haven’t you noticed?
gravenimage says
+1
christianblood says
Wellington
You can’t expose Islam fully by ignoring the true ENABLERS of Islamists and the supporters of the jihad which are Western establishment elites like the BBC calling the beheading of this Saudi girl! Do you deny that Western establishment elites are working hand in hand with Islamic jihadists worldwide? Isn’t that what every Jihadwatch article is trying to expose on every single day?
gravenimage says
Jihad Watch exposes enabling of Islam *wherever* it is found. The implication that Jihad Watch thinks this should be hidden when enabling occurs outside the West is entirely untrue.
And it is christianblood who wants to see Muslims conquer the West–not Jihad Watch.
carpediadem says
Who is still paying attention to this tantrum-throwing hater?
christianblood says
As you usually do, you are distorting my words again.
I pointed out that Jihadwatch reports on daily basis that Western establishment elites, including the media, politicians and religious leaders enable islamist jihadists in their struggle to promote islamic Sharee’a and islamic supramcism in the West. Read my words again!
christianblood says
carpediadem
A few years back, a Syrian Orthodox nun (sister Hatune) was touring the West, including the US and speaking in churches and pointing out that jihadists are murdering and persecuting Christians in the middle east and giving some horrific description of what islamic jihadists are doing to Christians in those countries. She also warned America and West not to support islamic jihadists. The problem was that in many churches where sister Hatune spoke some of the local US parishioners walk out on her before she finished speaking and some even called her ‘hateful’ for describing the horrific details of persecutions of Christians in Syria.
Your words remind me exactly that! I observed many others who are being subjected to this kind of politically-correct judgmentalism as ‘haters’ when they speak the truth of the matter clearly and unrestrained by political-correctness method of describing things! I always ask myself why are the Western peoples this way? What is wrong with them? This is really a big deal! I wish Robert Spencer addresses this! Why are the people that spoke the truth about Islamists and Islamist enablers are called ‘haters’ and demonized not just by liberals/leftists but even by many of the ‘anti-jihadist/conservative’ folks?
KWJ says
Wellington, it doesn’t do much good to oppose Islam if you don’t call out those who aid and abet it in the US which would be our government, Republicans, Democrats, the ABC angenciea, etc. I wanted to throw up when John McCain died and he was called a patriot while a top Muslim Brotherhood guy was at his funeral. From Bill Clinton to Bush yo Obama…all enablers. The MB are jihadists. We also have supported terrorist groups and loathsome people. We’re not the only ones, of course, Britain and France, in the past the PLO was being harbored in Italy, and so on.
I don’t know what Christianblood has to do with Russia, but he’s not wrong about the US.
On YT I see mostly comments about the enablers. People already know Islam is bad, but those enabling jihad in the West are even worse, that is, those in power who aren’t dumb. So, he rants like many others because it seems so crazy that people would sell out our country.
Ask Robert how much liberty he’s been feeling lately. It’s political more than academic these days. So, who cares if Christianblood calls us out as we should be. (As far as Trump, that video is the usual petro-dollars suck-up however our greedy politicians for decades have let them bully and humiliate us.)
A friend in a sharia controlled country used to say the Europeans need to wake up. The last thing an ex-Muslim wants is for Westetn counties to be Islamicized. Now he says they deserve what they get since they were warned. He primarily hates Leftists but they are foot soldiers.
christianblood says
KWJ posted
(…Wellington, it doesn’t do much good to oppose Islam if you don’t call out those who aid and abet it in the US which would be our government, Republicans, Democrats, the ABC angenciea, etc…We also have supported terrorist groups and loathsome people. We’re not the only ones, of course, Britain and France, in the past the PLO was being harbored in Italy, and so on….I don’t know what Christianblood has to do with Russia, but he’s not wrong about the US…People already know Islam is bad, but those enabling jihad in the West are even worse…)
Thank you for the very important points you made above, KWJ!
You are indeed a man of Truth and this forum needs more of you!
Wellington says
KWJ: I and many other Americans here at JW (e.g., gravenimage) have regularly criticized many Americans, in the political realm, the media, academia, many average Americans, etc. for their refusal to see Islam for the despicable ideology and the mortal threat to liberty which it is. John McCain, as an example, was an ignoramus on Islam and shame on him for this for all time.
But christianblood NEVER criticizes Russians for doing anything wrong where Islam is concerned. Christianblood, ad nauseam over the years here at JW, has bashed America and the West for sucking up to Islam, which is very often true, but Putin, Patriarch Krill, et al. can do no wrong EVEN though Putin celebrated the opening of the largest mosque in Moscow, even though Patriarch Krill has made the stupid distinction between “Islam” and “radical Islam.” My God, Putin has actually allowed Sharia law to be implemented in Chechnya and has praised Islam as an integral part of Russian culture. And yet for christianblood this is of no concern or worthy of criticism.
For christianblood, Russia never does anything wrong in relation to the Islamic world, including sucking up to the theocratic thugs who run Iran. In fact, christianblood has said, and I quote, “God bless Hezbollah.” He faults America for alliance with Saudi Arabia (and SA is indeed a despicable, repressive nation), but Russia’s alliance with Iran to christianblood is just fine and the theocratic thugs who run Iran only do what they do in order to thwart the nasty, horrible West led by America.
I am so sick of this one-sided propaganda by christianblood. He takes opportunity after opportunity here at JW, not to go after Islam first and foremost but rather after the West. He has even (ridiculously) condemned Israel for, get this, supporting ISIS.
There is no balance, no balance whatsoever, by christianblood. He is a rank apologist for Russia and Putin and hates the West. Surely, KWJ, you cannot endorse this and there is OVERWHELMING evidence at JW that this is EXACTLY what christianblood does time and time again. In short, while Americans and other Westerners are capable of criticizing their own nations, christianblood, in full propaganda mode, has no capacity to criticize Russia in any way whatsoever. For the record, I convey all this to you.
christianblood says
Wellington
Your understanding of global issues must deeper that!
I would absolutely criticize Russia if Russia backed Islamic jihadists like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, if it backed jihadists in Bosnia and Kosovo and bombed Christian Serbs and established two Islamic states (Bosnia & Kosovo) in Eastern Europe like the US and Nato did. I would criticize Russia if it backed jihadists in Libya and Syria and Yemen and if backed Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and demanded the resignation of Gen. Mubarak. I would criticize Russia if it abandoned, rejected and despised Christianity ad replaced it with godless liberal secularism. I would criticize Russia if its society become very hostile to Christianity but very friendly to Islam, and if Russia replaced Christian morality and family values with transgenderism, moral relativism and LGBTQ agenda, spreading that filth across the world in the guise of democracy and ‘human rights’.
Finally, Russia was pushed into the hands of Iran and China by superpowers (US, Nato & the EU) and the West in general. They constantly demonize Russia and spread propaganda and hate against it
and its leaders demanding that it abandons its Orthodox Christianity and legalize the filth of “gay” marriage and transgenderism and similar socials ills! They put constant sanctions on it and encircle its territories with their militaries and missiles when it refused to do so! BTW, Russia has NO military basis in Iran and the relations between Iran and Russia cannot be compared with relations between the US and Sunni theocracies in the Gulf Arab states like Saudi Arabia! Come on, Wellington you should be much, much better than that!
gravenimage says
christianblood claiming that Russia has not choice but to enable a nuclear Iran and hideous Hezb’allah because the mean old West is forcing them to is ludicrous.
Anjuli Pandavar says
Let’s hope it all goes through…
https://youtu.be/b6Ow1nsQwYs
Make a habit of this, Australia. It would be a very good habit. And thank you!
mortimer says
More and more Saudi women will leave Islam as they realize Islam is a hoax.
Savvy Kafir says
I’ve gotta call “bullsh*t!” on this one. I hate the Islam-friendly BBC as much as anyone. But the headline for this article is very misleading. According to the article itself, the BBC asked readers if they respected the girl’s decision to leave Islam and flee from her family — NOT whether or not she should be killed for leaving Islam. It’s still a pretty stupid question, as anyone SHOULD respect her decision to follow her own conscience, even if that means uprooting her entire life and putting her life in serious danger; but it’s not nearly as offensive and disturbing as the question suggested by the article’s misleading title.
The earlier tweet by BBC’s Asian Network, asking, “What is the right punishment for blasphemy?”, is more offensive, as it suggests that SOME sort of punishment is reasonable and expected.
The BBC makes a total ass of itself frequently enough, whenever the subject of Islam is involved. We don’t need to use sensational, misleading headlines, which only undermines our credibility — something we must try very hard not to do, if we are ever to win over the general public to the counter-jihad.
gravenimage says
If she hadn’t fled, then she would have been killed. So if you don’t respect her fleeing, then you do indeed believe that she should be killed. This is pretty straightforward.
Savvy Kafir says
No, it’s not straightforward. Not the issue I’m addressing. The title is misleading.
Yes, if she openly abandoned Islam, and remained in Saudi Arabia, she would have been killed. That’s pretty straightforward.
But the title suggests that the BBC actually asked readers if she SHOULD be killed for leaving Islam; and, according to the article by Rob Waugh that’s quoted, that’s not what they asked. The article mentions three times the question of whether or not readers “respect her decision”. (And which decision are we talking about? Her decision to leave Islam? Her decision to flee her family and her country? Or both of those things?)
The article by Rob Waugh never mentions the BBC asking readers whether or not she SHOULD be killed for abandoning Islam. Big difference. And I’m sure I’m not the only one who was horrified when they read that title … only to find that the BBC actually posed a question that’s much less offensive. The question they asked was pretty damn stupid, as the answer should be obvious; but it’s not the same thing as the BBC asking readers whether or not this girl should be killed for leaving Islam. Not even close.
eduardo odraude says
The author, Waugh, or perhaps an editor at Metro UK, seems to have misleadingly turned an implication into a quote. Given what the BBC seems actually to have asked, I can see how readers of the BBC twitter would draw the implication that BBC was asking if she should be killed. But the actual question the BBC asked was very different:
As I said, I can see how readers might see an implied question whether she should be killed. But Metro UK should not have put in quotes that the BBC literally asked if she “should be killed.” The BBC apparently did not use anything remotely like those words.
gravenimage says
Savvy Kafir, I am usually in agreement with you, but not here.
This only would have been a neutral question about whether she did the right thing in fleeing if she had been in no danger–and hence would have had no need to flee.
Clearly, the BBC is positing her staying and being murdered as a reasonable choice.
You can give the BBC a pass on this if you want to, of course–but I think it is pretty horrifying.
eduardo odraude says
gravenimage, the only thing is the statement should not have been put in quotation marks, as if the BBC literally said those words. The question about whether she should be killed was perhaps implied, but it was not stated. The stated question was very different. When Waugh and Metro UK put in quotation marks “should she be killed”, as if those were the words BBC used, was misleading.
gravenimage says
OK, Eduardo–I take your point. The BBC did not literally ask this; but I don’t consider it a stretch that this was certainly implied. Apologies to Savvy Kafir if this was the point he was making, as well.
Etherman says
The average reader does not perform some kind of detailed exegesis on the language of the article – we just read it and whatever gut feel we get for the gist of what is being mentioned is what we take as the character of the message. Journalists and MSM are the people who surely know this – so even if technically it doesn’t say such-and-such a “responsible journalist” should know pretty well what the average reader will take away from it – in this case the spineless dhimmi stance of the BBC. (the same can be said about politicians and what tumbles out of their mouths). *Everything* from the MSM is spin – even when they report the facts it still comes out as fake news…
Mark Swan says
Ok, so we are talking the BBC here, are they real good at directing words
for manipulative purpose—of course they are and do just that as if it is a
matter of fact—yet they are not facts but a composed mix of idea
and persuasion.
Did they imply that the girl had a choice or that the public’s opinion was
polled on this choice—of course they did—is this absurd—absolutely.
Roger Woodhouse says
Thirty or more yesrs ago such a question would be treated laughingly as some kind of medieval voodoo practice akin to witch burning.Why do we pussyfoot around this backward cult.?It should be laughed out of the country.Are we as a supposedly well educated sohisticated people to readilly accept this violent mysonogistic cult as some kind of camparative religion to Christianity.?If so,what has the past 1000 years been for?
thebigW says
Yeah I agree with Savvy Kafir, this story could actually be about a reporter or tweet-reporter who put those questions in the spirit of being politically incorrect. the main effect those questions have is to call attention to the girl’s predicament, not promote her punishment in any way that I can see.
Angry Aussie says
And yet Asia Bibi still languishes in an Islamic shithole and the world has forgotten about her.
Ngaio Malcolm says
Not the Christian world. If you go to Christian websites and newspapers you will see that her fate is still of tremendous concern and many Christians all over the world continue to pray for her safe exit from Pakistan along with her family who have been in the UK quite recently, campaigning for her release.
DogOnPorch says
BBC, CBC, etc all work to further Islam in the West.
somehistory says
The two moslim girls from saudi arabia who were murdered…taped together and thrown into the East River…didn’t wish to return to SA.
Will Australia be able to protect this teen from saudis intent on killing her for leaving?
The guy who wrote the article posted above didn’t exactly quote the BBC in his title, but when it comes to “punishment for *blasphemy*”…there should be none if someone tells the truth…or even if they lie, which would be hard to do if it is being criticized…there should be no punishment. There could be no lie about islam that would be worse than what they do, command to be done, and approve of doing.
If someone such as this girl tells the truth, and/or wishes to leave her family and home to get away, her family and their cult should just let her go. Their rep would be improved as opposed to people seeing just how evil is that satanic cult.
revereridesagain says
In addition to those two — quickly forgotten — young victims in the Hudson, there was Sheikha Latifa, daughter of the obscenely rich ruler of the United Arab Emirates, who was imprisoned by him for being too “Western”. She escaped, was re-captured, and is probably dead by now.
Where are all the little #MeToo women’s rights warriors when the lives of these young women are in danger?
Gray says
The UN is dominated by Islamic countries. Of course it will decide this young Muslim woman should be allowed to move to the kaffur West. Has she really ‘renounced Islam’ or has she merely ‘renounced’ the restrictions that Islam imposes on women? If she was a Christian, rather than a young Muslim woman with ‘Mohammed’ in her name, her persecution would not be in doubt, But this woman? ‘War is deceit’ Mohammed is supposed to have said. Once safely ensconced in Australia, with access to free housing, health care and education, will she suddenly rediscover her roots, and start going to the mosque again? And now she has blaized a trail for settlement in the West, will there suddenly be hundreds, or thousands, of young Saudi women making the same claim? And not just from Saudi Arabia. Women are being repressed in lots of Islamic countries aren’t they? Will there suddenly be floods of young discriminated against young Iranian women on the move, for instance? Where will it all end? Very badly for Australia, or whichever Western country takes her in.
gravenimage says
Apostates from Islam are regularly murdered, as are girls who flee family control in Saudi Arabia. You can deny the savagery of Islam all you want, but that does not change its actual nature.
Gray says
Please don’t put words into my mouth, GI. I’m not denying the savagery of Islam. But I’m also well aware that many of the recent terrorist attacks in Australia have been perpetrated by people allowed into the country as refugees. They also claimed persecution. Muslims are quite capable of ‘renouncing’ Islam to kaffurs when it may be expedient to do so. Misleading the kaffur is divinely mandated, as you very well know. More fool us, if we always believe what they tell us. Just maybe, when a nation’s security and very survival are at stake, a measure of scepticism is warranted.
Wellington says
I don’t understand, Gray, where you could possibly have any kind of reservation respecting what gravenimage asserted in her 4:53 P.M. post above.
As for your faith in the UN (“Of course it {the UN} will decide that this young Muslim woman should be allowed to the kaffur West”), why in the hell would you conclude this? The UN (Useless Nations), formerly controlled during the Cold War by the Communist Bloc, is now controlled by the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference). Why would you ever put ANY trust in this decrepit excuse for an international body?
somehistory says
Gray,
I think I understand your concern. Since the U.N. is mainly moslim with the oic being such a large part, and the other countries that allowed so many moslims into their countries…how could it possibly care about the life of a young woman who wishes not to go by the tenets and to not go home with her parents; to marry someone of their choosing, etc. The moslims in the U.N. don’t care about those who oppose islam or who wish not to be moslim any longer. They kill those who leave islam or speak the truth about it.
Since it is the U.N. saying she can go to Australia, perhaps the U.N. has some sneaky design, and not the protection of this woman. Is she actually facing death by her family and SA officials, or is it just a scheme to get her…and others like her…into Western countries?
thebigW says
yeah I agree with Gray, we have to stop worrying about Muslims completely EXCEPT as a problem and danger to our society. It’s like this girl is a lab experiment for the counter jihad and you flunk the test if you get all emotional about it to the point of forgetting she’s a Muslim too. I mean if the emotional people here are only treating this as an EXTREMELY rare exception, like one in a 100 million, well fine, but somehow I don’t think they are.
gravenimage says
Muslim apostates are *not* Muslim–that is the whole point, and the reason she is in danger.
gravenimage says
BBC asks if Muslim teen who fled Saudi Arabia “should be killed for leaving Islam”
………………………………
This is just despicable.
More:
’18-year-old Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun fled Saudi Arabia as she said her family would kill her for choosing to leave Islam – do you respect her decision?’ The Tweet was rapidly picked up by Media Guido – and the BBC posted an edited version minus the part about ‘respecting her decision.’
………………………………
I respect her decision to leave Islam, and I respect her decision to save her own life by fleeing Saudi Arabia–and so should every other civilized person. Does this now exclude the staff of the BBC?
More:
BBC Asian Network previously stirred up controversy with a Tweet asking, ‘What is the right punishment for blasphemy?’
………………………………
More of the same–just disgusting.
Ade Fegan says
well at least the BBC still asks and have not YET reached the point of certainty
b.a. freeman says
In a now-deleted Tweet …
—
what a bunch of cowards. if U are a journalist and say something by mistake, don’t deny or hide the fact that U said it; instead, admit your error and issue a correction to go along with the mistaken statement. if one is running a propaganda agency, OTOH, then by all means, hide the truth, so that the suckers will be more trusting as they read your lies.
the same thing goes for the BBC Asian Network’s tweet asking for the proper punishment for blasphemy. any *CIVILIZED* person would say, “nothing!” but these are leftists, and fearing that the stupid stinking masses might get out of hand, approve of islam punishing blasphemy, only (maybe) disagreeing about the specifics of the punishment.
western civilization has been gutted by the left. the hollowed-out shell has been tottering for a while now, and the hard-core among the left realize that world domination is actually within their grasp; hence the brownshirt tactics they encourage in the ranks of their minions. in their haste to destroy civilization and replace it with their “utopia,” however, they have made a fatal mistake: they have unnecessarily invited a competitor for power – islam – into the control room. when the left tries to impose “people’s republics” in various former republics, and attempts to use the go-to leftist solution of mass murder (of muslims conveniently congregating in sharia banlieues) to solve the “muslim problem,” they will discover that almost all the muslims will turn pious, and will furthermore be *far* more practiced in mass murder then almost all fat rich western leftists are. in 300 years, civilization won’t even be a memory; everybody but a tiny minority (*much* smaller in number than the nomenklatura of the USSR were) will be a peasant, and will serve the wants of the depraved caliph. happy gang-banging!
ntesdorf says
With this comment, the BBC has sunk to its lowest ever moral status. This is beyond disgusting.
Wellington says
BBC, de facto not de jure, stands for British Buffoon Corporation.
Not just Britain in our age, but Western Europe in general, does not have, unlike America, such existing instruments of freedom as independent talk radio, Fox News, the rights listed in the First Amendment of the American Constitution, ditto for the Second Amendment of the American Constitution, et al.
America is in bad shape, thanks to the Left (and not a few RINOS like the recently deceased John {“It’s the Islam”} McCain and the present, highly annoying, holier than thou new Senator from Utah, one Mitt Romney), but Western Europe is beyond being in bad shape. It is in terrible, execrable condition. And the BBC is just one piece of evidence of this. Twits like May, Merkel, Macron and Pope Francis only serve as further evidence here of the unfortunate reality that now plagues Western Europe.
But the Islamic world is pleased with what is transpiring in the West. Boy is it ever. And anyone missing this, who enjoys the liberty established by the West as no other civilization has ever established freedom of all kinds, is either an ignorant parasite or something worse.
eduardo odraude says
I followed the link to the Metro UK story by Rob Waugh, but I could not find any indication that the BBC had asked if she “should be killed for leaving Islam.”
I guess Waugh, the author of this story, put quotation marks around a statement that was not really a quote of the BBC, but in fact only his paraphrase of an implication of a different question the BBC had asked, namely, “18-year-old Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun fled Saudi Arabia as she said her family would kill her for choosing to leave Islam – do you respect her decision?”
I’m guessing that question was then interpreted by readers of the tweet as asking whether she should be killed. I see how that implication would be seen by readers, but it looks like Waugh should not have put the implication in quotes, since the words the BBC used appear to have been very different.
eduardo odraude says
To clarify:
Actual quote of the BBC question:
Implied meaning seen by many BBC readers:
should she be killed.
Then Metro UK put the merely implied question in quotes, even though it was very different from the actual question the BBC asked. So Metro UK was misleading about the BBC on this one.
Mark Swan says
The only choice this girl says she had was to stay and live —
asking the general public to comment on her decision to stay—
why—does this leave room to say she would not be killed—
that, this is just exaggeration of Islam, that this surely would
not happen if she just went back—will she be able to go back—
No, she said she could not—why not just believe her, discuss
what Islam does to someone who rejects it after being under it.
The BBC could not do this.
Gary fouse says
A nation of shop keepers.
eduardo odraude says
And the place where the Industrial Revolution, the biggest material change in human existence in ten thousand years, began.
gravenimage says
+1
FYI says
Some believe Napoleon said that to belittle the English;”A nation of shopkeepers”
He also said…
“Du sublime au ridicule il n’ya qu’un pas”.
“There is only one step from the Sublime to the ridiculous”
It’s a little known historical fact but no sooner had Napoleon said those words,than he fell off his horse,trapped his foot in a bucket of horse dung,slipped and bowled over 3 Imperial Guardsmen,knocking over a bottle of {Napoleon} Brandy all over Empress Josephine,propelled himself into the air before landing on an unfortunate donkey called Cardinal Richelieu…
That’s a True story.{well,true in the sense that BBC gives true unbiased objective reportage ..or muhammed splitting the moon in half without any Astronomers seeing it is true…or muhammed having a magical winged fantasy horse called buraq which took him to Jerusalem to visit a mosque that didn’t actually exist in the time of muhammed ..is obviously true}
Dave says
The modern version is “England is an Asian of shopkeepers”
I wonder if Mohammed’s horse was a unicorn?I have never heard the horse referred to as Pegasus, the other well known flying horse.
sheliak says
It is no longer enough to posit only that muslims are not assimilating into western cultures. Inheritors of western cultures are themselves being barbarized under muslim influence.
revereridesagain says
There is no “right punishment for blasphemy”. It is a victimless “crime”. The British are losing their marbles. And the BBC needs to hire literate people who know how to phrase a question correctly. Unless, of course, they actually did want to know how many responders believed she should be murdered… could be of use, y’know…
simpleton1 says
One does have to figure where “Hate Speech” fits in though and the ramifications of fines, jail, persecution, etc.
Lydia Church says
Sad!
I saw something like this about two years ago on the news and it might have been the BBC and someone like the lady who gave birth in jail and frankie hosted the family at the Vatican for a visit. I still remember seeing the couple with the baby as he hovered around and reached out his hand to pat the baby’s head… and she instinctively moved the baby further away like she knew something. But they were talking about some case like that and the newscaster just stated about how in one of those countries, it might have been Pakistan, the punishment for leaving islam or changing your religion from islam was the death penalty, and she said it so matter of factly, like she could easily swallow that.. so okay… go on… sort of a manner to it. I’m pretty sure I chimed in there too with a rebuttal to the effect of; “NO! That is NOT okay to do anywhere because it violates human rights! People have the right to change their religion any time they want to anything they want, and no one has the right to murder them for that! What if Christians gave the death penalty for leaving Christianity, for being a muslim because then they are automatically guilty of blasphemy, and other forms of apostasy?! But we don’t do that, we are too busy being martyrs for the one true faith; Christianity!”
Anyway it’s the same situation so the same rebuttal applies.
Lydia Church says
And in fact, on that note, those who try to kill people for leaving islam should be given the death penalty!
Raluca says
Right you are, but as seeing you are a member of the opposite sex, which/who is my favourite and hopefufully will remain until i die, where are the fucking, brainwashed feminists raising their voices against FGM?Where are you, opposing child mariage, incest and polygamy in our society for which soufragettes were wounded and killed? A nation of dimmwitted bulb shopkeepers indeed! The so called British Empire and BBC have declared to surrender! Brexit away, good riddance!
Lydia Church says
Those who want to kill someone for leaving islam are the ones who should get the death penalty!
Richard says
BBC – Blasphemy Broadcasting Corporation
brane pilot says
Decades of affirmative action have installed Muslims in positions of leadership and responsibility in most British institutions.
The biased attitudes and policies of these Muslims are now the policies of these once-respected institutions.
Britain is finished.
Cicero says
“Decades of affirmative action”. has been latterly applied to muslims only ( in a default kind of way”
Brane Pilot you are absolutely correct in your analysis.
NA says
US is Iranian colony, Germany is Turkish colony, France is Arab colony, UK Pak colony, Switzerland Albanian Kosovo and Bosnian colony, Sweden Afghan colony.
Ralucavd8@gmail.com says
NA, you are not quite right! Leave America and Trump out, otherwise you are running the risk of being blind!! America (under Trump) and Russia (under Putin), are the only nations honestly to placate and stop the Islam! We are not lost yet, but if you give up, good luck to your cjildren and other offsprings, the end is near!
Good night!
gravenimage says
Unfortunately, Putin has indeed done a great deal of placating Islam.
John H says
Proves that she wouldn’t want to seek asylum in the UK. The ruling British Council of Muslims would have her killed
Baucent says
Actually the rest of the media is just as bad. The British paper the Telegraph in a story on the case yesterday mentioned her fears of her family but no mention she had stated she was “renouncing Islam”.
The Telegraph was content to let the asleep public believe this was just and abusive family story without digging into why they were abusive to her. Actually this is as much a “honor violence” story related to apostasy. Not something the Telegraph want discussed, as it brings deserved disgrace on the religion of peace.
Indiana Tom says
BBC asks if Muslim teenager who fled Saudi ‘should be killed for leaving Islam.’” But of course.
this question, also posed by BBC: “what is the right punishment for blasphemy? Off with their head!
See islam really is a pieceful religion.
Dave says
This story and readers reactions, reveals the massive gap betwee “western” concerns and morals contrasted with Islam.
We focus on freedom and choice.
Islam is about forced obedience.
They must publically and consistantly be brutal and ruthless to anyone attempting to escape their mafia cult; to send a clear and simple message to any other potential apostates.
That is not hard to understand.
SuchindranathAiyerS says
The dhimmification of the West: The BBC, like the Government that funds it, toes the line of Islam: They are both based in the Khandom of West Pakistan:
Ronen says
These people on the BBC are so ugly
No Muzzies Here says
The BBC and the British government are doing everything they can to make Muslims feel comfortable, including giving them approval to implement Sharia.
The crusader says
At one time we all believed that we were helping these people to have a better life from a country that we thought that was a threat to their safety. Instead they have turned on their new country forcing their old ways on everyone. We let in the great Trojan horse and now we are paying for it.
Dave says
It was a deliberate act by European governments to import all these Muslim migrants, also in Canada and Australia.
John says
all islam should be BANNED and made ILLEGAL in Australia so those who leave islam or run from islam have a Truly Safe Place to go and also Australia would then be safe from these BARBARIC SATANIC SAVAGES , but only Nations such as Hungary or Poland etc have the Sanity and BALLS to Protect their CITIZENS , Culture and Human Rights,
TimC says
It’s great that you’re reporting this stuff but please get headline etc right. It is not accurate other than as a summary, not a direct quote. If I repost this anywhere people will pick that apart and miss the point of the post.
GFYS says
These I’d call them people but that’s not true. They are ANIMALS. Kudos for the BBC to ASK the question. Shame on the BBC for deleting the Tweet. IF we DO not show the world what the MUSLIMS for what they are. They rule thru FEAR not peace.
When will governments step up and show the true MUSLIMS. This is not a religion it’s a cage
They are afraid of them and to show the bullies they really are
If they wall play well with others then we will see.
IF one doesn’t follow there rules it’s death. This is that the UN wants to spread around the world.
WE HAVE ENTERED WORLD WAR 3
They are offended when one insults Muslims but yet there book says kill non-be leavers.
Double standards.
We need to STOP this tip toe around them
Walter Sieruk says
This is yet another example of the vast and outstanding difference between at the way of thinking and behavior between Christian n father who is disappointed and upset because his daughter turned away for Jesus and in contrast a Muslim father who is disappointed and upset because his daughter left the “House of Islam.”
For, in most cases, a Christian father, in such a situation , would pray to God the Father for his daughter to return to Jesus.
In awful contrast, in many cases, a Muslim father, in such a situation, would ruthlessly murder his daughter. [1]
As already keyboarded above the mindset difference between a Christian and Muslim father ids vast and outstanding
[1] When a Muslim father ruthlessly murders his very own daughter , this heartless callous and malicious action of cold blooded murder many Muslims very inappropriately and unfittingly call an “honor killing..” Changing the title or term of a heinously evil action doesn’t change ,in any way, its actual, real, essence. For example if a person scrapes the warning label off a bottle of cyanide and then replace that label with another label with the words “Apple Juice” that doesn’t change the deadly content in the bottle , It’s still cyanide . Likewise, Muslims changing the terms from the reality of a man viciously and cruelly murdering his daughter to a “honor killing” doesn’t change the reality of the fact that he is a murderer. . What’s more, one I read in a Muslim propaganda a booklet the bogus claim of the words “Islam respects life, all life.” What a blatant falsehood of a lie of there ever was one.
Crusades Were Right says
Here’s a question the Beeb could ask its audience:
“Do you think Muslim immigrants in the UK should be required to renounce Islam, and be deported if they refuse?”
Or would it consider “Islamophobia” a worse crime than “aposticide”?
TruthHonestReality says
Imagine if you had been in a coma since l999 or even 2OO7 or even 2OO8/O9 just lO years ago! If you were brought out of a coma you would honestly think you were in a “twilight zone” eppy. We are in an Opposite Day circus world where Democraps claim they are all about women but only certain women not conservative women and not muslime women who are no longer wishing to be muslime but if you are muslime women then the Democraps will defend you – it all makes no sense.
Ted says
BBC, in the tradition of Benedict Arnold.
jörgen says
There was believed to be about 4,1 mill Muslims in 2016 in UK. The growth in the population is directly related to the size of the diaspora that functions as a bridgehead (see curves in Collier’s book: Exodus. How migration changes the world). Because the main part of the immigration consists of relatives to the diaspora. To close the border for refugees has therefore very little effect.
The doubling rate is about 10 years. That means that 4.1 Muslims in 2016 will be 8.2 in 2026. 16.4 in 3036 and so on. Do the maths yourself. To change this via the parliamentary way is probably not possible. Democracy is for slow changes. For very fast changes like war, or this unprecedented hostile takeover of UK you cannot wait for people to get aware, or to build a new party. The country will be Muslim before you can react. This is worse than UK ever has experienced. Because the politicians are the enemy inside the walls, but dressed up like Englishmen. You recognise them because they are willing to shoot at you. For England as for most of Europe the options are few. Surrender to Islam, or resist. And to resist means a long bloody war.
Jay says
Any refugees from islam, who have thoroughly renounced islam, should be given every form of support possible.
Mahendra Singh says
An omission.
Instead of kill, gangrape and kill. After all she is a condemned material. That is exactly what
Iranians were doing to the young female prisoners caught during the Khomeini years.