Reporting from Londonistan;
A Kurdish woman was brutally raped, stamped on and strangled by members of her family and their friends in an “honor killing” carried out at her London home because she had fallen in love with the wrong man.
Banaz Mahmod, 20, was subjected to the 2-1/2 hour ordeal before she was garroted with a bootlace. Her body was stuffed into a suitcase and taken about 100 miles to Birmingham where it was buried in the back garden of a house.
If you say “Timothy McVeigh” three times and throw a handful of ammonium nitrate over your left shoulder, you can make this go away.
*
SDA Flashback: A Sunday Telegraph investigation has established that honour killings are increasing rapidly in Britain. Home Office statistics suggest that there are 12 such murders each year. However, according to research, the true figure is much higher. At a conference in Southampton last week, police chiefs revealed that they are re-examining 2,000 deaths and-murders between 1996 and 2006 to establish whether they involve honour killings. So far, 19 have now been found to be honour killings. A further 20 involved some element of “honour violence”.
Noted this trend:
“But don’t give in to the hate….”
“…your hatred of Islam guides your reading of the texts.”
“Blind hatred isn’t thinking….”
The word hate has been showing up to describe the *reaction* of some of the posters, and to offhandedly(?) accuse them of harboring that feeling. So, what happens if someone blurts out “Yes, I hate…”? Is SDA then labeled a “hate site” by association?
At what point in time did disagreement begin to automatically be translated as hate?
Just more proof that Mohammad was inferior. Jesus DEFIED the norms of his day in many ways. And at least He didn’t have sex with little girls! If Mohammad just went along with them. That makes Mo kind of a loser, eh?
I keep thinking of those 23 hostages the taliban have. They have killed one, and not a doubt in my mind they will kill more. What kind of barbararic animals do that?…. oh yeah, muslims. We have much to fear from the muslims and their cult of death and destruction. I used to not have to think about going to the grocery store and even consider who I was standing in line with. Now I am always on the lookout for a muslim wearing a hijab or turban, who could possibly dentonate. We shouldn’t have to live like that here in Canada.
Honey Pot,
Would that to be classified as “situational awareness” or “line profiling” or “barbarian hate”?
Actually, if it’s terrorist bombers you’re worried about the ones in hijabs or turbans (who might also be Sikh, btw) shouldn’t concern you. Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc. train their operatives to avoid overt signs of their faith and blend in. They will avoid mosques, shave their beards and probably try to pass themselves off as originating from a non-Muslim country.
At what point in time did disagreement begin to automatically be translated as hate?
This is what Irwin Daisy said.
As far as the charge, ‘hatred of Islam’ is concerned – Yes, is the correct response. I cannot logically or morally think or feel otherwise…
I know what you’re saying though, Yoop. We shouldn’t try to squelch the discussion by throwing accusations. Based on his own statement Irwin clearly hates Islam, but for me to call this hatred “blind” was wrong. Obviously, he has what he feels to be solid grounds for feeling that way.
The real disconnect for me comes in trying to understand how this perception of Islam as an evil entity could possibly be reconciled with a major religion followed by more than a billion people worldwide – the vast majority living peacefully.
The Wahhabist intepretation of Islam on the other hand, is clearly an evil manifestation of the religion. It is the source of every Jihadist movement on the planet, and most of its funding. Saudi Wahhabis pay 80% of the mortgages of mosques in the U.S. That is something to be concerned about.
The word of the Bible has never been reformed or changed, it is people who are reformed and changed. People who do evil in the name of Christ and their acts have no substantiation in the Word are just liars and hypocrites, and the same goes for people of other religions who do the same.
The truth is no matter how much we want to believe ‘moderate’ Muslims exist, they are still their religion and their religion condones what we would perceive to be evil acts, so it leaves little room to truly trust Muslims no matter how much it would ease our minds.
A pedophile is a person who is sexually attracted to children, and I don’t care if this is cultural acceptable as a norm for some people, it still victimizes children. Mohammed was a practicing pedophile and to accept Mohammed as a prophet, you would also have to accept and condone his actions. If Muslims are true to form they would have to accept this perversion, so what does this tell us about Muslims? Maybe it has something to do with how Muslim extremists have no qualms about beheading and torturing children or how moderate Muslims are proud of their children who detonate a suicide belt and martyr themselves; this is something we would find, not only deporable, but absolutely foreign to our thought consciousness.
We need to realize that people’s belief systems are different, and it is pretty easy to see this when you understand that Muslims consider non-Muslims to be ‘infidels’ and their goal is to propagate Islam throughout the world and have everyone submit to the will of Allah.
How do you tell a moderate from a torture sympathier?
I think Joanne brings up a good point.
Since the Catholic pedophile scandals have become widely known, Catholic lay people, the faithful, have risen up in all-out, unmitigated attack against the hierarchy of bishops that have permitted such horrible abuse.
Had the world needed to wait until the hierarchy got around to identifying and dealing with the problem (which regrettably is ongoing), the world would still be waiting.
But ordinary Catholics sitting in the pews, people like Kathy, and Lookout, and so many others, have not let the hierarchy get away with it.
They have written books, made documentaries, picketed churches, sent envoys to Rome, signed petitions, and denounced the hierarchy from every venue. High-profile Catholics like Bill O’Reilly have named names, uncovered conspiracies, and charged the Catholic hierarchy with losing its moral authority.
Now this is what we expect from people should they be in a religion that condones widespread abuses. It is a terrific model.
Regrettably, in Islam there is simply no way for a citizen to know whether the person at the supermarket is a moderate, or simply a Muslim who sympathizes with those who commit atrocities.
Until and unless Muslims rise up en masse with voices of denunciation and condemnation, we have no choice but to be suspicious.
This is what I said,
“As far as the charge, ‘hatred of Islam’ is concerned – Yes, is the correct response. I cannot logically or morally think or feel otherwise about any ideology responsible for such violence over a 1400 year period. There is no way to interpret the historical attrocities, genocides, etc other than as a result of Islam’s justification and reward system presented by Mohammad’s made up play thing – allah.”
To be clear, it is an ideology I refer to whose first victims are Muslims. An ideology, regardless of interpretation, or context, that has continuously proven itself toxic to humans. An ideology that has violence as foundation and at its core.
Insightful people throughout history have seen the ideology of Islam for what it clearly is. The observations are consistent throughout history. For example, Winston Churchill’s observation is just as true today:
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science – the science against which it had vainly struggled – the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
However, I believe that without the violence and threats of violence as its defining characteristic and differentiating point, it’s message is redundant.
Apostate Hirsi Ali and many others are exposing Islam for what it is. Perhaps the impetus for reform will come through the lens of honesty and truth. Muslims must examine their religion for there to be reform. And I can’t see that reform coming without gutting the foundational and institutional cycle of command and reward for violence against others. Without doing that, it will live to kill again.
I can’t quite figure out why people keep saying that because Christtianity reformed so can Islam. The Christian reformation was once and for all an attempt to get back to the original intents of the faith. The premise being that the Bible and the Bible alone was to determine the form that faith took. Sola Scriptura anyone????
That being the case what form would reformed Islam take? If the reforming Muslims were remake their religion to more closely adhere to the Qur’an what would the result be?
I think that most “Islam must reform” types are actually looking at the other Christian reformation that took place in Europe and North America around the beginning of the 20th century which was basically a wholesale abandonment of the faith.
The mainline churches have reduced Christianity to a hollow shell that lacks meaning or impact instead they reflect the social norms of the liberal society. Of course as is evident in the mainline churches the latter ‘Christian reformation’ is little more than a complete abandonment of the faith. Funnily enough only the churches that have not abandoned the faith are growing. The mosques?????