Monday, November 2, 2009

Arizona Muslim Runs Over His Daughter in an Honor Killing

Noor, a young girl from Arizona, was run over by her father for being too Western two weeks ago. ABC news has said that she died today. In the midst of such a tragedy, it seems television reporters and even the police can keep their composure enough to avoid the words "Muslim" and "Honor Killing".


Michelle Qureshi said...

To be fair, ABC news did mention the words "Muslim" and "honor killing", but not without a full defense for Rifqa's father (somewhat out of place, I must say.)

Michelle Qureshi said...

The more I read over this case, the more upset I'm getting. This man waits in his car, runs over his daughter and another woman, drives to Mexico where he gets on a plane and flies to London. There he gets sent back to Atlanta, where he is charged with...

Aggravated assualt. No, not murder one; aggravated assault.

aussie christian said...

To be fair, the girl had at that time not died, I am sure the law enforcers will now upgrade his charges to murder.

But I do have one question though, if he has done absolutly nothing wrong according to the teachings of islam, why did he run. Innocent people do not run after acting on the teachings of their God.

Looks like he was making his way to an Islamic country with no extradition treaties. Would the local Imam's wait for him and condem him for his killing or would he recieve a hero's welcome like the lockabe bomber did on his return to libia.

Well at least Islam is consistant that its only a sin if a non-muslim kills any one.

WomanForTruth101 said...

While I highly condemn un-islamic acts, it must take some real educated guesses to say this was done by a muslim.
None of the articles on the storey mention religion itself. Rather they say it's because of culture the girl was killed. Which is true. People in the mid-east are very strict and sensative about culture. From clothing, the way you greet another, traditions and customs.
Nabeel I'm not being biased or stereotypical, but i'm guessing your heritage hails from India or Pakistan. Are you still attached to (please correct and forgive my spelling) butter chicken? Biryani? Tandoori chicken? Curry? How about burfee's or jalaibi? Do you like wearing kurta's and shalwar qameez still? What about cricket? And do you watch films (particularily Bollywood)?

Again I'm not trying to be biased or stereotypical, I just want to know how much you belong to your culture.

minoria said...

Very disgusted by such an action.It is undeniably an honor killing.It is true such things happen among non-Muslims but ALOT LESS.To deny a link between Islamic culture and religion and the higher incidence of honor killings is to be blind.


I have great respect for the best of feminism like equal rights for women in the workplace,equal pay,laws against sexual harassment.Even legal abortion makes some sense due to that it would happen anyway even if it is illegal(20 million ILLEGAL abortions in the world per year).


You see the feminist LEADERS of today say almost NOTHING about how the Koran-sayings of Mohammed have a relation to oppression of women,honor killings,discrimination of women.They give the impression of a great lack of intelligence.No help from them.They have BETRAYED their ideals.

ubiquitouserendipity said...

sad,,, seething,,, silent!

yeah nabeel, the charges were assessed at the time of the crime. they will obviously be upgraded, but not necessarily to murder1. though i certainly hope so.

i also hope the he gives his miserable life to Jesus to thus redeem. but if not, i hope he gets celled up with an aryan or a norteño,,, though in arizona it will most likely be a sureño. anyway, in any way,,, may he reap some harsh temporal rewards.

i believe that a person reaps temporal rewards for sin, whether in Christ or not. so, he will pay, and pay, unless he lets Jesus pay. and then he will still have suffering as life. i know,,, ya' reap what ya' sow.

rest in peace young child, i am saddened at your tragic life. may G_d our Savior redeem you, in Jesus' Name, amen

peace, in His love, papajoe

Anthony Rogers said...


I don't know about Nabeel, but I sure love me some Chicken Curry.

As for the cultural dodge, I thought Islam was the entire kit-and-kaboodle? Not only religion, but culture too. Right?

Anthony Rogers said...


I can't help but add: your very Western practice of making a wall of separation between Islam and culture could get you run over by a car if you are not careful. Please be careful.

Anonymous said...

this is sickening. Muslims always talk about how morally superior they compared to us kafir scum but they just seem to be hypocrites when u hear of some Muslims doing this stuff. where is the love in the religion that a father can do that too his own daughter? I know its not commanded in the Koran and that its a cultural practice but still there should be an outcry amongst them Muslims stopping this form happening anymore. But there is nothing if Muslims wish to live in the west they have to abide by our laws if not then leave. No such practices are to be tolerated , any such 7th century practices should be left behind.

Is it just me or do muslims have a warped sense of honor? Like I saw this one documentary about this failed Palestinian suicide bomber and they interviewed her in an Israeli prison and then her family in their village. They interviewed her mother and she was upset that her daughter tried to be a suicide bomber because if she blew herself up bits of her body would scattered all over the place and she said it would be a dishonor for jews when they clean up to touch the bits of her exploded flesh and for her flesh to be uncovered. When she said that i was in utter shock. She didn’t care about her daughter killing innocent people or losing her life but she cared about that! She said suicide bombing is just for men to do . Its insane so many Muslims are still stuck in the 7th century with their primitive notions of honor. Such mentalities are not compatible with the west and should be left behind.

Anonymous said...

woman for truth you are a hypocrite you have a blog blaming chrisitanity on the acts of some bad priests and pastors but then say that this has nothing to do with islam. always the double standards

sam said...

woman for truth

im a pakistani like nabeel. i only like eating indian pakistani food. i do not live up to my culture cause ive adapted to the western living. u ask y? well because i came to Canada when i was young, had a multicultural group of friends mostly canadians. im sure u wud knw wut i mean. but im also sure ur parents want u to like up to ur culture as well, which ever islamic country u r from. i will tell u my life experience. ive been called a terrorist and paki and other words. before they use to hurt me mentally but now i can care less. terrorists and islam is part of the reason y i dont like hanging around my own kind or wear our own clothing. and where ever i c a muslim person i just think to myself they cud also be a terrorist or be wearing a bomb vest or something. i wud be scared around a group of muslim people cause who knw wut quranic scripture they will be following that day.

Radical Moderate said...

WomanofTruth said...
"While I highly condemn un-islamic acts, it must take some real educated guesses to say this was done by a muslim. "

Notice she does not condem the act of this father running over his daughter and killing her. Instead she says she condems all un islamic acts and then plays like the father is not a muslim.

WomanofTruth then says and this really reveals what islam does to the human mind.

"Nabeel I'm not being biased or stereotypical, but i'm guessing your heritage hails from India or Pakistan. Are you still attached to (please correct and forgive my spelling) butter chicken? Biryani? Tandoori chicken? Curry? How about burfee's or jalaibi? Do you like wearing kurta's and shalwar qameez still? What about cricket? And do you watch films (particularily Bollywood)?"

So get it people, hey killing ones own daughter in Islamic culture is just like eating your favorite foods or wearing trational clothes or watching a movie from Bollywood. How warped does your mind have to be to make such a comprasion. I mean really woman did islam make your stupid, or where you born that way?

I'm sorry to be so harsh but stupid is as stupid does and stupid is what stupid says. And your comparison is just STUPID.

IslamSINS said...

If this murderer is a Muslim, Islam is not a family tradition, but a cult of slavery and death.

If these lunatics who place "tradition" above human life, do not wish to see their families become "too westernized", why on earth move to our Democracies? Oh, I remember now, . . . because the M.E. pigsties have nothing to offer any who are not in the pool of corrupted officials and leaders.

I can only assume that this sperm doner is in the jail of sherrif Joe Arpaio. That's a good place for his cretinous self to be. Learn some of Joe's "traditions", they're so unaccomidating to Maricopa's inmates.

Ubiquitous, it is so good to see your activity. I miss you in the other places I used to see you. :-) I hope you're well, my friend.

BlackBaron said...


How distressing is it for you when the faithful followers of your religion consistently prove islam to be what we in the west correctly perceive it to be?

Is this what you have to do each time a muslim actually does what your imams teach? You have to do mental gymnastics in order to somehow justify this horrendous behavior.

aussie christian said...

to womanfortruth101,

Cricket is not an indian custom, I suggest before you shoot off at the keyboard like that you do a bit of homework.

Cricket is and English invention which was exported to most commonweath countries over the centuries.

Countries which play currently include, England, New Zealand, Australia, India, South Africa, Sri lanka.

And for the record, you just step away from the curry chicken, noone disses the curry chicken and gets away with it, heathen! (small joke incase you missed it).

Peace and love

minoria said...

Hello In Hoc Signes:

You said the killing of the girl is NOT sanctioned in the Koran.You must be very new because there was a discussion before about if honor killing is sanctioned there.


The case for affirming that the father can justify his action is SURA 18:74-81.

There Moses travels with a man who one time kills a young boy for no reason.Moses protests and he is later told it was done because in the FUTURE the boy would be evil.

Notice the boy is,in essence,killed for the future action of being a bad Muslim.Because he would in effect BRING DISHONOR on his parents by being bad.Allah sanctions it.So the girl was a bad Muslim,and her father could point to that story in the Koran.

Krishnaraj said...

Sorry for the diversion, but this is a video exposing the Status of Women in the Bible.

I am guessing that you people will not debate this topic because maybe your religion will be exposed.

minoria said...

Hello Woman for Truth:

I highly regard your condemnation of the evil act.There is a certain cultural part but I think there are passages in the Koran and in the hadiths,that,unlike other books,actually lend support to it.

The best thing would be for Muslims to reject the hadiths completely.


As you know the SHIAHS reject BUKHARI but they have their own hadiths.They make up 10% of Muslims.Was Khomeini sincere in his religious conviction?Yes.

In spite of that he "discovered" some 3,000 or 4,000 (I forget the exact figure)NEW hadiths after 1979 (and which till then nobody knew existed)that justified the actions of his regime.

The Spanish Inquisition killed 2,000 (according to HENRY KAMEN,the best historian on the subject) to 10,000 from 1478 till 1820,more than 300 years.

Khomeini,in the name of Islam and the Islamic revolution,killed 100,000 in 10 years of his own people.

And the Algerian FIS(Front Islamic de Salut(salvation)),an all-out terrorist group that wanted to establish Sharia law(or better said MORE Sharia law)in Algeria killed 100,000 innocent Muslims,its own people.

Nora said...


The whole 'cultural' thing is absolutely poppycock. When was the last time you heard of a Christian or Egyptian Christian murdering their daughters for the sake of some insult to their honor?

Nora said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Master Phase said...

I notice they refuse to call it "Islamic Values", Muslims are so proud of Islam and look what it produces.

chrisse said...

Minoria - Why the need to bring in the Spanish Inquisition so gratuitously? It's getting very tiring to see non-Catholics bring up myths of Catholic Christian atrocities so readily while they never bring up their own as examples. You need to find yourself another best historian on the subject of the Spanish Inquisition. And go further into what actually happened.

As a non-Catholic Christian, Minoria, please bring up your own religion's historical atrocities. Whatever you are, it would have been a schism backed, promoted and caused by "politicians" and can be traced back.

For a start, the figures you quote have long been recognised as exagerated - yet another example of anti-Catholicism that has come down to us from the 16th Century political revolution known incorrectly as the "Reformation" and the consequence of that, the "Enlightenment". It is now accepted that at most 3000 received the death sentence at the hands of the CIVIL authority over the 300 year period of the Spanish Inquisition.

Also, let's not forget that the Spanish Inquisition only occurred because of the legacy of the occupation by the islamic totalitarians with constant pogroms against Christians and Jews, and continual razzias into neighbouring France for slaves. When living under an oppressive totalitarian system like Islam, it is par for the course for the oppressors to play the oppressed groups against each other to stop them from uniting and overthrowing the oppressor.

AFTER the Church became involved, the number of accused who were found guilty decreased dramatically, and therefore we not handed over to the CIVIL authorities. It might have had something to do with the fact that the Church set up what was the foundation for our legal system and demanded that the accused have their own defence lawyer not associated with the prosecutors and was given a copy of the accusations against them, and the defence lawyers were instructed to act solely on the accused's part - something the CIVIL authority did not do under their legal system at that time.

Fernando said...

Hi Krishnaraj...

no: personnally I won'y debatte the subject you presented justte because the claims made in the video are so postponrous thate they eben don't desearve the slightest consideration unless by those who do nott graps a single thingue aboutte the Bible...

may God, the Holy Trinity, bless you...

chrisse said...

WomanForTruth101 - you need another nick name, you fail to live up to it.

1. Islam has been the ideology / religion / culture of the countries these people grew up in for at least 1200-1300 years. At what stage does Islam take responsibility for the culture it created?

2. Please provide sources - non Islamic - that these practices were in these people's cultures prior to the occupation of their lands by the mohammdans if you still insist that it pre-dates the islamic invasions.

3. Under Islamic law, shariah, fiqh, whatever you want to call it, the parents of the child are explicitly removed from guilt if they murder/kill their child:-

"And there is no punishment for a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring.
(The Reliance of the Traveller, Justice, 1.2(4), page 584)
The Reliance of the Traveller approved by :-
1. Mosque of Darwish Pasha, Damascus, Syria
2. Mufti of the Jordanian Armed Forces
3. International Institute of Islamic Thought, (Member of the Islamic Fiqh Academy at Jedda)
and last, but certainly not least
4. Al-Azhar (Islamic Research Academy)"

This law would be based on the qur'anic passages :
Sura 18:74-81
[74] Then they proceeded: until, when they met a young man, he slew him. Musa said: "Hast thou slain an innocent person who had slain none? Truly a foul (unheard-of) thing hast thou done!"

[80] "As for the youth, his parents were people of Faith, and we feared that he would grieve them by obstinate rebellion and ingratitude (to Allah and man).
[81] "So we desired that their Lord would give them in exchange (a son) better in purity (of conduct) and closer in affection.

GreekAsianPanda said...

This is just so sad =( I pray that this man will see the light and come to Jesus.

Ali said...

//You see the feminist LEADERS of today say almost NOTHING about how the Koran-sayings of Mohammed have a relation to oppression of women,honor killings,discrimination of women.They give the impression of a great lack of intelligence.No help from them.They have BETRAYED their ideals//

Are we once again at the poor argument of muslim leaders not speaking out?
Maybe they dont because our faith says nothing about women oppression.

Radical Moderate said...

What I would like to know, or I think really needs to be investigated is if this animal had any help in leaving the country? Is their a muslim underground that helps these animals escape.

For those muslims who are offended by me calling your muslim hero a animal. I remeind youo that animals kill their young. The Tiger for instance will often kill his own offspring to drive a female tiger into heat.

minoria said...

Hello Prophet:

Sorry if I offended you with the theme of the Spanish Inquisition.I certainly know that today the Catholic Church has condemned it,in fact decades ago.


The reason I brought it up was only to serve as a contrast.The Spanish Inquisition is the worst example of a Christian-run official organization that killed based on religion.

Most say 4,000 were killed in 300 years,HENRY KAMEN says it was 2,000.Maybe you misunderstood me and thought I was attributing 10,000 to him.


Khomeini put in place an organization that legally killed 100,000 in 10 years in the name of Islam.

FIS was a well-organized structure that carried out an official policy of killing in the name of Islam,they killed 100,000 in a few years.

AL-QAIDA is an organized entity (like the Inquisition) that killed 3,000 on 9/11 and has killed some 100,000 Shiahs in Iraq in 7 years.Al-Qaida does it in the name of Islam.

So I put in the Spanish Inquisition to show how a specific Christian entity (the Spanish Inquisition)which would be the church at its worst can not compare to Muslim organizations at THEIR worst.

Again,sorry if I offended you,it was not intentional.

minoria said...

Hello Ali:

I was talking about the failure of Western non-Muslim feminists who is general do not stand up for women's rights which are violated in the Muslim countries.


If thousands of women became Muslim in the WEST and they were threatened,harassed,discriminated for becoming Muslim,then what would WESTERN FEMINIST leaders do?

They would defend their human right to not be discriminated based on religion.There would be many protests and rallies.


There are many women there who have rejected Islam yet they would undeniable be persecuted (say in Egypt or Algeria)for publicly saying so.Why don't Western feminists fight to establish respect for human rights there?Are those women worth less because they are not blond?


The ones who justify persecuting people who leave Islam are the MUSLIM CLERICS there in those countries using the Koran and hadiths.It is not us.It is your people.So Western feminists have to point that out.

Fernando said...

Ali (the self proclaimed body-guard off WomenforTruth) saide: «Are we once again at the poor argument of muslim leaders not speaking out?
Maybe they dont because our faith says nothing about women oppression»

Why poor argument? Those who keep in silence insted off denouncing something made is because they agree withe it... this is a good argument... why are the mulsim leadersa always so kicky to makke themselfs (falselly) victimizes and do nott do the same when islam (trullie) victimizes others?

And do you really beliebe thate your idiology do nott speak off women oppresion? Well... here we habe a clear example off rethorical taqqiya... for ounce I do habe to agree withe you: islam does nott speakk aboutt women "opreesion" because wahte non-muslims mean withe "oppression" (women beatting, killin, forcing to habe sexual intercourses, being onthological inferiour to men, compared with dogs and donkyes, etc... all off these from your own solide sources) is, for islam, nott considered as "oppression", rather as a "duty" and a "right" endogenous to islamic ideologie...

to sad too see how sick can bee an ideology likke islam thate makes its followers so incapable off being humans...

Fernando said...

Dear brother Prophet...

I do think you habe misread the intentions off brother minoria... I do thinke, from previous exchange off words withe you, thate he agrees withe all your words aboutte the sapanish inquisition...

may God bless you bothe...

minoria said...

Hello Krishnaraj:

I saw some of the Shabir Ally video.I will say it directly:he has been studying(supposedly)Christianity and Judaism for like 20 years and yet he shows lack of intelligence or he is PLAYING GAMES with you and your fellows Muslims.

I will have to go by parts:

REV AND 144,000

There in REV 14:4 it talks of 144,000 men who have "not BECOME IMPURE or defiled themselves with women and are virgins".

So that would be saying having sex with women IN ITSELF is an IMPURITY.That is his implication,though he does not state it.So the Bible has a low opinion of women.


In Judaism and Christianity 101 sex in a married couple NEVER brings IMPURITY at all.

It is if it is between unmarried people or one is married,the other not.


Paul in 2 COR 11:2 says (to ALL,married and unmarried):"I have married you to a husband that I may present you as a CHASTE VIRGIN to Christ."

Metaphor,because those who are already married are obviously not virgins,correct?It is a METAPHORAL or SYMBOLICAL VIRGIN.

The woman in REV 14:4 is a METAPHOR.Of what?Of evil,in this case she would be a bad woman or prostitute.The 144,000 men designated as virgins may in some cases be so,in others married,but are symbolical virgins like in 2 COR 11:2.

minoria said...


He talks of DEUT 22:13-21.There in short if a man says his wife was not a virgin when he married her and it is FALSE then he can NOT divorce her and has to be with her all his life.

Sounds unfair,correct?Why FORCE the woman to stay with such a man?


It also says if it is true she was not a virgin she will be killed.Going back to the first part,the FALSE accuser has to pay 100 shekels to the father and can NOT divorce her for "the rest of his life."Again,sounds unfair on her,correct?

DEUT 19:16-19

It says if one says a FALSE accusation and it is shown FALSE then HE has to be PUNISHED according to how he wanted the other to be punished through the false accusation.


So in DEUT 22:13-21 the punishment was DEATH,so the husband by logic would be with her all his life.But his life would be short,since he would be killed soon for his false accusation regarding her virginity.


But in his exposition Shabir makes no mention of it.The Muslims there left thinking:"In the OT the law was unfair."Either Shabir Ally,"the best Muslim defender",in 20 years of studying has never heard of that law or he is PLAYING GAMES with you and your Muslim people,Krishnaraj

minoria said...


He also made reference to DEUT 22:28-29 where he said if a man rapes a woman he has to pay 50 shekels and marry her.

Now when you consult those who know Hebrew it appears the original words mean that DEPENDING on the CONTEXT,not in this case.

The argument is in to


One has trouble with the address click on the LEFT side of answering-islam at SEARCH THE SITE.Then in the blank box write "Deuteronomy 22:28-29,and click.

Then click on the link to "The Old Testament and Rape:Commentary on Deut 22:28-29.

I have more to say on this but here is a beginning.Again,Shabir does NOT tell his Muslim disciples that.

WomanForTruth101 said...

Minoria, I constantly hear parents killing their kids but its NEVER labled as "honour killing". Only when a muslim does it, its automatically for honour. Quite drugged isn't it?

WomanForTruth101 said...

Semper Paratus, what you write is the same stuff "scholorly" people at Jihadwatch do. Only opinions and thoughts, which they actually think speaks for Islam.

"I know its not commanded in the Koran and that its a cultural practice but still there should be an outcry amongst them Muslims stopping this form happening anymore."

Actually there were several Canadian scholors who spoke out against honour killings when Aqsa Pervez was murdered. Including a Calgary Imaam who went on a huger strike.

I'm a hypocrite? There's many christian sites that track all muslim activity and immediately label it as "islamic". And where's their evidence from islamic scuptures?

Simon, I'm an American who lives in Canada now. I am a convert along with my family.

And Fat Man calls me stupid. I'm going to keep this quote.
I was trying to see how ATTATCHED Nabeel was to his culture. Unless you really need a definition of culture, if you thoroughly read my post, I said many people in the mid-east are strict about culture. They can include arranged marriage and honor killings.

"The whole 'cultural' thing is absolutely poppycock. When was the last time you heard of a Christian or Egyptian Christian murdering their daughters for the sake of some insult to their honor?"

America is 85% christian. Go look in your local news paper or ask a student. Parents kill, abuse and kick out their kids. Will the media ever claim its for honour? No because they'd never say that about their own faith.

WomanForTruth101 said...

BlackBaron, I hear about rapes, murder, abuse, abductions in the christian majority west. Oh right the West leads the world in most categories. Should I say the same of what you just said?
I'm not seeing how I'm the hypocryte and the one with double standards.

Aussi Christian, sorry I offended you. I really shouldn't "shoot off" at the keyboard.
I NEVER said cricket was an Indian or Pakistani custom. But it is the most popular game there. It's the most played and watched sport. I've never been to India/Pakistan/Bangldesh or Sri Lanka and I even know its quite popular.

Anthony Rogers said...


I think you have confused me with In Hoc Signo Vinces.

David Wood said...

WomanforTruth said: "Actually there were several Canadian scholors who spoke out against honour killings when Aqsa Pervez was murdered. Including a Calgary Imaam who went on a huger strike."

I think you missed the point. When a Muslim gets killed by a non-Muslim, there are public demonstrations across the Muslim world. When someone draws a picture of Muhammad, people around the world are killed. If someone criticizes Islam, there are riots.

When a Muslim murders another Muslim, even his own family member, "several scholars speak out." Do you really not see why it seems that Muslims don't care about the victims of honor killings?

David Wood said...

WomanforTruth said: "Minoria, I constantly hear parents killing their kids but its NEVER labled as "honour killing". Only when a muslim does it, its automatically for honour. Quite drugged isn't it?"

Here again, you miss the point. When a Muslim parent kills his daughter because she's rebelling against Islam, the murder is directly related to the religious views of the parent. When a non-Muslim parent in the West kills his or her children, it's usually because the parent is insane and rarely has anything to do with religious views. Do you really see no difference between the two cases?

minoria said...

Hello Woman for Truth:

I am glad there are Muslim clerics speaking out,it is a good beginning.Just like there have been some who have been against death for apostates,but only since 1900.Before then no scholar had said it,no doubt Western influence had a role.

But I disagree that 85% of Americans are Christian.In the polls where people say how they really identify themselves ONLY 50% say they are Christian,of which 30% are Evangelical,the other 20% are mostly Catholic.

And many of the 20% simply mean:"Christian is to be baptized as a baby."

But religion plays little role in their daily actions because for them Christian is a technicality.If they had been declared Buddhist or Hindu in a ceremony as a baby they would identify themselves as such even if they knew almost nothing of those faiths.

minoria said...

I would like to continue to address the great dishonesty of Shabir Ally in the video.Now he mentioned that 1 COR 11:3 has "Christ is the head of ALL MEN".

He did not say that MAN in Judaism also means humanity (men and women).


GEN 1:26-27 and GEN 5:1-2 have that MAN is the IMAGE of God and then say MAN is MALE and FEMALE.


Paul meant Christ is the head of males and females.Also 1 COR 11:3 has it that "God is the head of Christ".But Paul in other places ,like the CARMEN CHRISTI in PHILIPPIANS makes it clear that for him Christ=God.So here we have an EQUALITY.


1 COR 11:3 has it that "man is the head of woman".In Greek the word for woman is also used to designate a wife,depending on the context.

Here that would be the proper meaning.Shabir in his video actually states that 1 COR 11:3 has a THREE LEVEL hierarchy,where God is at the top,then comes man,then woman.No.Because GEN 1:26-27 and GEN 5:1-2 anull such an interpretation.But Shabir does NOT tell his Muslim audience of those passages nor that since Paul had been a Mosaic Law expert,then of course he knew of them and would use MAN in that sense.

Radical Moderate said...

WomanofTruth said...

"And Fat Man calls me stupid. I'm going to keep this quote."

Oh I hope you do, you should print it out and tape it to your mirror so you can read it every morning.

WomanofTruth said...

"I was trying to see how ATTATCHED Nabeel was to his culture. Unless you really need a definition of culture, if you thoroughly read my post, I said many people in the mid-east are strict about culture. They can include arranged marriage and honor killings."

Yes and thats why I asked if you were born stupid or if Islam made you that way.

To think that being attatched to a national sport, or a favorite ethnic food, or wearing a style of clothing is relative to the time honored traditon of muslims killing their own daugters becasue they have shamed the family honor. This speaks volumes towords your moral compass. But what do you expect when that Moral Compass is the koran and the needle on that compass always points mohamed.

Well WomanofTruth please print this quesiton out and attatched it to your mirror. Ask this question of yourself everymorning when you wake up.

Was I born stupid, or did Islam make me Stupid?

sam said...

david wood

u missed 1 huge point. when the muslims kill non muslims. thats when the "criticizing islam theory comes out". its just the way it is. justice wont ever be served in the islamic countries for the nonmuslims. only a slap on the wrist


u sud hear wut david wood has to say about honor killing in the muslim community. he made some really good points which i was gona make as well.
did u study the quran and the bible before converting? wut made sense to u in the quran? or were u forced or brainwashed?

minoria said...

To continue with Shabir Ally.In his video,referring to DEUT 22:13-21 he says that if a girl's parents can not show a sheet with a blood stain as proof that the daughter was really a virgin to counter a husband who said she was not then "she is PRESUMED GUILTY till proven innocent."


In all those years Shabir Ally has never read NUM 35:30 and DEUT 19:15 that say a MINIMUM of TWO WITNESSES is necessary to CONVICT somebody.


DEUT 19:17-18 adds the judges are to make a "thorough investigation".Of course,how do we know the 2 witnesses are telling the truth?So for DEUT 22:13-21 it may be the sheet was lost or stolen or destroyed.Lack of it is not enough to condemn.

Does the Muslim audience to who Shabir Ally know of that Mosaic Law?NO.And they never wil since they have a 100% trust in the accuracy of his statements.

minoria said...

To continue with Shabir Ally:

He quotes 1 COR 11:4-5:

" Every man PRAYING or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.

But every woman PRAYING or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonors her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven."


In PAUL's time Jewish MEN COVERED their heads when PRAYING(like today).Yet Paul here is against it.It is his own personal preference and he knew it.


So his idea of a WOMAN COVERING her head when praying or talking about God("prophesizing") is HIS OWN personal preference on the subject.In fact he later practically admits it.It is not obligatory.


In 20 years of study Shabir Ally did not learn that?He makes it seem in his video that the VEIL or hijab in Paul is OBLIGATORY,like in Islam,it is not...but he does not tell them.

Ree said...

"None of the articles on the storey mention religion itself. Rather they say it's because of culture the girl was killed."

Culture is religion externalized.

Ree said...

"None of the articles on the storey mention religion itself. Rather they say it's because of culture the girl was killed."

Culture is religion externalized.

minoria said...

To continue:

Shabir quotes 1 COR 11:10:

"For this reason, and because of the ANGELS, the woman ought to have a SIGN of AUTHORITY on her HEAD."


Shabir says "sign of authority on her head" means "sign of authority OVER HER on her head".


If I have a certain auhtority it is MANIFESTED EXTERNALLY by an OBJECT,like a ring or ceremonial staff.So the experts say Paul means the VEIL was an EXTERNAL SIGN of the AUTHORITY EXERCISED by the woman herself.


Shabir in the video says that some commentators say ANGELS in the passage mean spirits who would have sex with women and the veil was a sort of protection.


What he does not tell his people is that the Greek word ANGELOS,the original word ONLY means MESSENGERS.Was Paul talking about spiritual messengers or only earthly or both?We dont know.

I think it simply means this:"A woman has auhtority,it is shown externally by a veil on her head and THAT AUTHORITY is to be recognized by messengers of God,earthly and spiritual."

Hmmm,again,Shabir shows he needs to study more.

minoria said...


1 COR 11:7 says:"MAN must not COVER his head because he is the IMAGE and glory of God,while WOMAN is the glory of MAN."

As I showed before in 2 passages in GENESIS,MAN is said to be the IMAGE of GOD.And it also says MAN is MALE and FEMALE.

Again,this idea of PAUL that a MAN should COVER his head is a personal preference of his.


Again,in GENESIS FEMALE is also in the IMAGE of GOD.And again WOMAN in Greek can be used to mean WIFE,and he certainly had the preference that at least a wife should cover her head.If she is a good wife she is the glory of her husband,and viceversa.Logical.

minoria said...


What Shabir did not say was that PAUL actually practically recognizes at the end of the chapter that by VEIL he refers to a personal preference.

1 COR 11:13-15:"Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head UNCOVERED(note: without a VEIL)?

Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,but that if a woman has LONG HAIR, it is her glory? For LONG HAIR is given to her as a VEIL."


So we have 2 VEILS:

1.Cloth on hair.
2.Natural veil:long hair on woman.

Here Paul is willing to CONCEDE that LONG HAIR(no cloth) can be counted as a VEIL.

Again,Shabir lacks knowledge.

Ree said...

Sorry for the double post. I didn't notice until after I posted the 2nd time that comments are moderated before being posted, so when it didn't show up the first time, I thought I did something wrong.

Muhtaramah said...

Morning all,
I fully agree with David Wood.
That is the reality and the truth. Is it possible to justify such acts - Yes, in Inslam it issss.

Fernando said...

@ brother minoria...

good indepth biblical analisis... yes... one off the major problems withe muslim apologists, eben withe Shabir Ally, is thate they are not, bie any means, submited to the truth rather to the obligation to feed muslims withe pseudo-motivs to keep in islam... to sad butt true...

@ Muhtaramah...

good to see you around here... I hoppe to see you more often... and may God bless you and your familie...

minoria said...

Hello Fernando:

Thank you very much for the encouragement.There are answers.You are right about Shabir Ally.I do not trust him.


He mentioned the OATH laws in NUMBERS 30:1-17.He told his people that they said if a woman made an oath and her father or husband was against it then it was INVALID.


Now those conditions were for those specific times.BUT again Shabir showed lack of knowledge because he had not read well.

NUMB 30:4 SPECIIFES that it is the case for:

1.A woman in her YOUTH,
2.And LIVING with her father.

This is REPEATED in NUM 30:17.


NUM 30:10 tells us it is NOT so for a WIDOW or DIVORCED woman.Again Shabir does not tell his people that,so they all think:"It is for women ALL the time."


So if a woman is YOUNG and living with her father it can happen.

1.But if she NOT young but single and living with her father?

2.Or if she IS young and single and NOT living with her father?

Shabir forgot to tell the audience the law was applicable only to a specific situation.


JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN,one of the founders of the ultraliberal Jesus Seminar,in his THE HISTORICAL JESUS,citing an expert on the subject,says that in 1 AD in the Eastern Mediterranean:

90% lived in villages,only 10% in towns and 33% were dead by age 6,66% by 16,75% by 26,90% by 46.

For us YOUNG is till 35.But THEN young was like till 25.So a woman at 25 would no longer be young and even if living with her father the oath law would not apply to her.

Ali said...

I've posted about honour killings befor on here.
There is quite a smart man on facebook who deals with all types of issues. i asked him about the storey of moses killing that boy because of his dark future:

robert Spencer gives the same, lame excuses for honour killings.
here's a link that takes care of that:

But as before, there is no such thing as honor killings. Mathew 15:4 doesn't exist in the Quran.

minoria said...

Returning to Shabir:

He talks of the church and that in Timothy it says for woman to be silent.He said the church was against women in the priesthood because Eve had deceived Adam.


Till a few decades ago scholars thought there never was such a thing as a WOMAN PRIEST in early Christianity.Then research showed it have been rather frequent,it was not marginal.


So we have 2 TRADITIONS in early Christianity:those in favor and those against women priests.Shabir has a lack of knowledge of "the church's history".


1.KAREN TORJESEN:"When Women were Priests:Women's Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of their Subordination."

2.KEVIN MADIGAN and CAROLYN OSIEK:"Ordained Women in the Early Church:A Documentary History."

It contains all the evidence on the subject till 600 AD.It says there are numerous references to "female presbyters legally ordained by bishops"(we now call them priests).

3.GARY MACY:"The Hidden History of Women's Ordination:Female Clergy in the Medieval West."Goes till the 13th century.

WomanForTruth101 said...

I've read several articles that mention her american boyfriend.
But one article that sruck me was the boyfriend's mother's name. It was an arabic one which means the boyfriend was most likely a muslim (sorry to burst your bubbles).
This gets started on my point.

The word westernized can be interpreted in different ways in the muslim community. For example arranged marriage is more so of a mid east culture thing while in the west we mostly meet greet then marry. To some like the father of the girl this can mean "too westernized."
Some background on arranged marriage, one of the main purposes was for power. Like Kings and Queens would marry off their offsprings to other royal families to gain strength and form relations. Similarily tribes in Israel, Arabia, India and throughout would do the same.

Of course that isn't the case today but it's a tradition. Like i've said before Mid Easterns are very strict and attatched to their cultures (another example is alcohol in Turkey and in Pakistan-which is usually found in the tribal region's).

From some of the pictures I've seen about the beautiful girl, her clothing seems to be all right. Islam calls for modesty (oddly, all public schools and major work places call for it as well). Choosing a different line of fashion from traditional clothing may seem as well "too westernized" to some.

Now add this all up and what happens?

Just a note i'd like to point out, i do not think the boy was the girl's boyfriend, maybe just a friend. The west media, like other times labels any relationship between a boy and girl, no matter what type it is, as automatically boyfriend/girlfriend. These do not exist in our faith.

minoria said...

Hello Ali:You made a reference to MATT 15:4.There Jesus talked about a Mosaic Law that says that he who curses his parents is to be killed.


In Mosaic Law the supreme rule is in LEV 19:"love your neighbor like yourself".That includes one's children.Even if they curse you you are to try to understand.

The way Mosaic Law worked out was like this:

1.FIRST an accusation had to be done.
2.Then at least 2 witnesses had to be found.
3.A thorough investigation was done.

As far as I know NO PARENT in Jewish history ever tried to get their children killed using that law.It could be done,but LEV 19 would tell the parents to have self-control.


How does that compare with thousands of fathers killing their daughters and brothers their sisters among Muslims every year?

You say it has nothing to do with Islam.But it certainly has to do with the VALUES most Muslims are taught.I will explain.


Suppose a Muslim were to burn a Bible in an Evangelical church.Would he be killed?No.Certainly considered crazy or a fanatic but that is all.


Such a person would be attacked by alot of Muslims.Why the difference?Because most Muslims are taught to NOT have restraint when somebody attacks Islam and Mohammed verbally or does something to a Koran.They are taught BAD values,values of lack of control,intolerence,lack fo of forgiveness.

Would you burn a Koran in your mosque and be sure you would not be beaten or killed by the other Muslims?You know you chances of death would be high.Less here because Muslims in the West know they would be arrested but in the MUSLIM countries such people would have impunity most of the time.

minoria said...

I found the second link given by Ali to be strange.SURA 18:74-81 talks of killing an INNOCENT young boy or youth,maybe a child.

Whatever the case it is sanctioned because the man who was with Moses said the boy would become bad in the future.


So the link argues Islam is against killing children.I take the person killed in SURA 18 was a youth then,not a child?


The 5,000 Muslim girls and women killed every year by fathers,brothers and husbands are NOT children,they are teenagers or adults,they know right from wrong.


So if a YOUTH(not a child) can be killed as an EXAMPLE for Moses,even though he is apparently innocent but will not be in the future,to his parents it not giving encouragement to a father,brother,husband who KNOWS his daughter,sister,wife is doing evil to follow the example and kill?


The EXAMPLES given in the Koran are not "just for the time of Moses and his eccentric companion" but Muslims believe they are "for all time".


If a Muslim father or brother were to be in a similar situation as that of the time of Moses,they would logically say:"Allah's words are eternal,for all time,what was done by a MAN of GOD in the time of Moses,killing a youth,would be permissible EVEN MORE in my case,since my daughter/sister is guilty,while the other was not guilty yet."

Ali said...

Dear Minoria,

I have no problem with Lev 19. But that verse and your statements dont really explain Mat 15:4.

I've asked on yahooanswers (my premier source for religious questions) about this and all I got was it's talking about a spiritual death. I dont see that.
So is this a contradiction then?

Minoria killing muslims goes back to the discussion that Amy and I talked about. Taliban and Al-Queda have no issues with murdering. If you look at the stats of their Jihad, the 14000 terror attacks, 99% of the targets and victims are muslim. I wonder how many times David and Nabeel who constantly point to the extremists, have pointed that out.

Minoria we can't burn any religious books. Have a look at the answer to this question:

There's a few christians on facebook who think its funny to put the Quran on toilet paper. This person asked if we can do the same to the bible.

And by the way what do you mean the values MOST muslims are taught??
As for burning a Quran, search up those videos of muslims who are tired or the iranian government that are actually burning Quran's.
Quite shameful and shocking.
We muslims, because we are the most practicing followers of any faith, we take it very seriously. Which is why whenever someone speaks out against islam theres all those riots and that. Since christians dont practice much you dont really see any type of extreme activty.

Minoria please not that more than 95% of honour killings are done because the woman/girl went against arranged marriage.

minoria said...

Hello Ali:

I agree Matt 15:4 does not mean a spiritual death.Now you mentioned burning Korans in Iran by demonstrators.It seems 50% of the 70 million people there are secret apostates so that is not surprising.


We have a different idea regarding the PRINTED book.Have you noticed almost every Christian UNDERLINES passages in the Bible,it is irresistible.One wants to reread parts one finds interesting.

The MOST IMPORTANT thing is the MESSAGE contained inside,not the Printed Page.So if somebody burns a Bible it is disapproved but one understands it is in reality just a printed paper.


That is another reason for self-control.He is our model.So a Bible was burned,the man is ignorant,maybe later he will notice his error.


For Muslims,if I am not wrong,the translations are NOT the Koran,just an INTERPRETATION.The REAL Koran is in Arabic.I don't think any Muslim writes in the Arabic Koran out of respect but it would be ok in the translations.

So to burn a translation would be less offensive,I suppose.Different religions have different BEHAVIOUR RECOMMENDATIONS.


THEY have THEIR sacred books.RELIGIOUS Buddhists are just as dedicated to THEIR belief-system as Muslims.If somebody were to burn THEIR sacred books they would not do anything.


Because their faith teaches them such actions are do to IGNORANCE.In essence the same thing as what Jesus said on the cross.I know in the Koran they have the Golden Rule in a somewhat blurry fashion in like 3 passages.I do not know if they have been ABROGATED or not.Even if not they hold a Less Central Position in Islam than the rule guiding self-restraint in the face of provocation found in Buddhism and Christianity.

minoria said...

Hello Ali:

You say you can not burn religious books,but Islam allows you to speak out against St.Paul,our prophet.I know there have been riots and killing of people in Muslim countries because somebody spoke against Mohammed.Again,the reason Christians are restrained if somebody insults Paul is because of what Jesus said on the cross and because of the Golden Rule.THAT is how we were told to follow Jesus.If Jesus had said "Strike back and get revenge,the day of vengeance has arrived!" then we would do it.


A few years ago a Turkish university profesor in TURKEY said in a tv program that the rules of a 7th century man called Mohammed were not good for the 20th century.After the show a mob attacked the hotel where he was saying "Kill the apostate".He was rescued by police.


That example shows most Muslims are taught to have little tolerance for insults toward Islam.But on a wider scale the thing is this:Muslims believe in a hell unlike Jews,Hindus and Buddhists(except Mahayana ones who believe in TEMPORARY hells).

There is only one life and if you ruin it then you have no second chance.

Some choose the only guaranteed way to heaven which is death for Allah.Where Muslims are the majority one way to get good points with God is by "establishing the LAW of GOD on earth".For most law of God is not Golden Rule(or acceptance of full human rights for all) but:"rules on how to behave as derived from the Koran and hadiths."


That was WHY in 1990 no less than 57 Muslim nations signed it,where human rights as understood by the West are subject to modification due to Sharia Law(law of God).The thing is such modification turn us non-Muslims into second-class people.

minoria said...

To continue:

That idea of the law of God on earth(Islam-style)is held by most Muslims.Now in the NT the LAW of GOD=Golden Rule.Again,as I said before,it was NOT invented by Jesus or Paul.In fact Paul takes the trouble to say in ROM 2:14-15 that it can be discovered by pagans by themselves.

And you find it in Confucius,the Mahabharata,the Greek and Roman philosophers,etc.Notice it does NOT even mention God,so the law of God can be accepted by atheists and agnostics.

Notice it is very general,so the law of God in the NT is a "live and let live" one.But most Muslims are not taught to consider such a definition as being the law of God but instead as"rules derived from the Koran and hadiths".

As for 95% of women killed for opposing marriages in honor killings I have nothing against that conclusion if it is based on reliable statistics.Even so,very few NON-MUSLIM fathers kill their daughters for opposing an arranged marriage(look at the HINDUS,where arranged marriages are the norm).