Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Muslim Father Aziz Yazdanpanah Honor-Massacres Entire Family . . . in Texas

I watched this story more than a dozen times on the news over the past couple of days. I didn't see a single program that noted the obvious honor-killing elements of this massacre. Yazdanpanah had lost control of his family. His wife had left him. His daughter was dating a non-Muslim. And he killed them all.

Just as the Ft. Hood Massacre was attributed to "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" and "Workplace Violence," you can expect this massacre to be attributed to "Holiday Blues," "Depression," "Stress," etc.

GRAPEVINE — Aziz Yazdanpanah seemed to be losing control of his life in recent months — his wife left him, his house was in foreclosure, and his 19-year-old daughter was dating a young man he didn’t like.

Even so, the 58-year-old former real estate agent from Colleyville seemed to be holding it together. Neighbors say he would smile and wave as he drove through his middle-class neighborhood. Recently, he was seen raking leaves in his yard.

“He was very friendly, a very good neighbor,” said Carrie Stewart, who lives across the street. “He was out here often doing yard work and he even watched our house for us when we went to Colorado.”

Yazdanpanah, a volunteer high school debate coach described as a doting father, is the focus of suspicion a day after a Christmas morning massacre in which a man dressed as Santa Claus killed six relatives and then committed suicide.

Grapevine police arrived at the Lincoln Vineyard Apartment Homes a few minutes before noon and discovered bodies sprawled among opened presents and wrapping paper. The victims were ages 15 to 58. . . .

Yazdanpanah said he bought a gun after expressing concern that his daughter’s boyfriend was stalking him. He also insisted on picking up his daughter from her job at a phone kiosk inside Sam’s Club in Grapevine because of concerns about the alleged stalker.

The boyfriend has not been publicly identified.

Neighbors said the family was Muslim but had always hung Christmas lights on their home — except this year. . . .

But a more ominous portrait emerged of Yazdanpanah in interviews with some of his daughter’s other classmates.

“She would come to school crying and telling us her dad was crazy,” said Lacie Reed, 18. “He wouldn’t let her wear certain things. He was always taking her phone away, checking her call history and checking her text messages.”

Friends said Nona’s father had installed cameras all around the home so he could watch the family’s comings and goings. Others said he nailed her bedroom window shut so she could not sneak out at night and see her boyfriend.

“She couldn’t date at all until she was a certain age, but when he was going to let her date she couldn’t date anyone outside of their race or religion,” Reed said.

Yiselle Alvarenga, 18, said Nona’s mother and brother seemed to come to her aid when her father punished her.

“He would take her phone away and her mother would give it back to her and her brother would let her use his phone,” Alvarenga said. “She was doing good. She was just excited that her life was going to start and she was going to have control of it.” . . . (Read more.)

Visit Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs for more on this story.


Osama Abdallah said...

"I watched this story more than a dozen times on the news over the past couple of days. I didn't see a single program that noted the obvious honor-killing elements of this massacre. Yazdanpanah had lost control of his family. His wife had left him. His daughter was dating a non-Muslim. And he killed them all."


"I watched this story more than a dozen times on the news over the past couple of days. I didn't see a single program that noted the obvious honor-killing elements of this massacre. Yazdanpanah had lost control of his family. His wife had left him. His daughter was dating a non-Muslim. And he killed them BOTH."

It seems that David Wood is desperate to maximize the numbers.

Now to the real substance:

It's sad! It's really heart-breaking and sad! Mr. Aziz had too much expectations from a daughter who was raised wrong. He "Americanized" (noticed the double quotes here for lack of better terms) her so much and made her to too liberal too much that it got to a no-return point to bring her back. And then he gets mad that she dates a guy? You either raise your children the **** PROPER **** way, or you shut up and accept the consquences that you brought upon yourself!

This story makes me appreciate my mother more and more. You probably remember the example that I gave you about my little sister, who loves to play guitar and is very good at it too (can actually hear any tune and play it back on her electric guitar without reading any note). 5 or so minutes into my sister's technical conversation with a guitarist and my mother cut the conversation cold and yelled at my sister to not speak with stranger men.

The point I making here is that some Muslims Westernize themselves and their children too far and too much(Mr. Aziz even hung Christmas trees and decorations at his house) that is sounds too ridiculous from them to try to pull the plug on them. From his daughter's picture and the way she's dressed, I can probably safely guess that she wore bikinis in front of her dad before. If this is so, then what do you exactly expect here???? Another Gabriella Oak-type daughter! Flirty and too open, and is proud of it too.

Osama Abdallah

David Wood said...

Your Muslim brother killed six family members, Osama, so "both" doesn't cut it.

Tom ta tum Tom said...

There is no place for Islam in the 21st Century. Yes, modern human existence has any number of failures but Islam is obviously not the answer.

Thank you, David, for bringing this comparison to us all. The "lame-stream" media appear to be colluding to prevent the surfacing of the truth.

Thank you for giving us the chance to view the wretched, racist, misogynist, fascist, hate-filled and oppressive sickness (known to us as "Islam") in comparison to the remaining freedoms enjoyed by 21st century humanity.

May Heaven help us to be unwavering in our determination to set free the precious Muslim people and to send the scourge of Islam back to the hell from which it was derived.

No hatred for Muslims - no Tolerance for Islam.

Islam is Death - DEATH TO ISLAM!!

Kafir and Heartbroken.

Osama Abdallah said...

"Your Muslim brother killed six family members, Osama, so "both" doesn't cut it."

If that is the case, then my apologies to you, David. I thought I only read that he killed his wife and their daughter. I don't know where I missed the 4 others.

Osama Abdallah said...


Do you think you'll be saved in the End when you allow for whoredom to rule? I am not defending Aziz here. But what exactly do you want accomplished? Total and complete freedom and liberty on everything? So why are Christians in the USA fighting against homosexual marriages, then?

******** SO TO YOU, IT'S OK FOR YOUR DAUGHTER TO HAVE SEX, in your house, with her boyfriend, but it's not ok for your son to be gay?

And while we're at it, why not allow for bestiality marriages as well? DO NOT YOUR PORNIFIED WOMEN use their dogs in *special* ways in replacement of their Ex's? You seem to be too superficial, too emotional and too shallow.

Again, what type of freedoms are you trying to accomplish here, beside hating Islam? At least Islam provides solutions, chastity and modesty. What does your whoredom provide?

AS TO AZIZ AND HIS CRIME, I hope this serves as a great lesson to all of those "liberal" and/or "open-minded" Muslims to give serious second thoughts to their actions and beliefs. If you can't take this crap, then don't raise your children like the whores do. This is at least my belief. I am as hard as a rock when it comes to this, because I KNOW what the whoredom society is like. And your Christianity, is just waiting to be ******TOLD****** what to uphold next by the new new-born generations for the 2000 millenium.

Grow a brain, Tom! Islam is far beyond you!

And by the way, PAUL IN 1 CORINTHIANS 5:5 did order his followers to execute those who were immoral. Go and read it.

Osama Abdallah

Search 4 Truth said...


Nobody said she was having sex, do you equate dating and socializing with sex? Is that how your mind works.

And people are responsible for their own actions. We are actually held to a higher standard. We have ourselves to blame if we sin. We arent jailed by the over lords who control our every movement.

Now let's imagine that your in prison and you have no ability to do anything that could possibly harm you.

Your arms are shackled and you are wearing a blindfold and a chastity belt. Tell me how that is what God wants. Who is controling their mind. Because Jesus said whoever ahtes has commited murder and he who lusts after a woman in his heart has sinned.

So why dont you just drug up all the Muslim into a state of coma, lock them in cages, blind fold them and then you will have nothing to worry about.

Is that the perfect Islamic society? Your so backward you cant even see it.

And whats really funny is these Muslims who were in prison or jail for murder and theft and rape and then they find Islam in prison.

The thing is, that they would have never had the opportunity to find Islam or else they would be missing limbs.

Because they would have been executed for crimes or had their limbs cut off.

Osam you are so backward it is incredible, just like your Islamic justice system and morality.

Four male witnesses to rape, if you divorce a wife and the want to remarry her she has to have sex with another man. And Islam permits rape of captives and slaves, and persecution and murder of non Muslims!

Tell me whats the punishment for murdering a kafre Osama? Is that what you call justice? Your a hypocrite and a fool! Just like your false Prophet who couldnt even stick to Allahs commands and gave himself special permission to do as he pleased!

lorfalconswan said...


Your post shows how psychotic you are!.. You don't even condemn the cold-blooded murder of innocents.

Your "prophet" claims that he sees mostly WOMEN in hell. But I submit to you that it is far better for Womankind to be in hell than to share a "spot" in heaven with the likes of you.

For sure, this cretinous father and his independent daughter are in TWO different places. If GOD didn't want women to have their own minds and claim independence he would've made them that way. Plain and simple. My Father in Heaven did NOT create me to be a submissive cow in a huge black Hefty bag. Period.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Osama

Ones who are immoral huh? Is that really what it says? LOL!

1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,[a][b] so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

It says a man who is sleeping with his Fathers wife. Mother. Are you completely void of integrity? That is not what it is speaking of!

The purpose of putting this man outside the spiritual protection and social comfort of the church was the destruction of the flesh, not the body, but his rebellious flesh.

i. This man, though a Christian, was at this time given over to the sins of the flesh. Paul is saying that through their taking him away, the man will be given over to the sinful consequences of his flesh, and the hope is that by wallowing in the results of his sin, the sinful impulse of the flesh in this particular area will be “destroyed.”

ii. As Christians, we do continual battle with the flesh, because though the old man is dead, having been crucified with Christ (Romans 6:6), the flesh lives on, having been “educated” in sin by the old man, the devil, and the worldly culture around us. God now calls us, in partnership with Him, to do to the flesh what He did by Himself to the old man: crucify it (Galatians 5:24). Paul hopes that putting this man out of the fellowship of the Corinthian Christians will lead him to crucify the flesh with its passions and desires.

iii. The words deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh were used to justify terrible torture during the Inquisition, but this isn’t what Paul is talking about at all. Paul isn’t talking about destroying the man’s physical body, but addressing the spiritual power of his sinful flesh.


You have NO Integrity at all! Go read it and stop making fallacious assertions!

Apollos26 said...


You proofed again to be the worst debater I have ever seen.

1.) Who are the "YOUR pornified women"? - Is Tom a pimp?

2.) What has american liberalism to do with Christianity? - I don't see your points. Where is the logic?

3.) As a good muslim, you are very serious to stick to the rule "taking versus from the bible out of context/distort them as much as you can, to conform them to islam". If you read with intelligence what Paul wrote, you will notice that he said that whoever does this, is guilty and deserves death before God's eyes. No word in the entire NT that we are commanded to go out and kill the sinners. a) we all are sinners b) as believers we don't want to partecipate into things that are called sinfull.

4.) You website is a big joke. If I ever was to see that David Wood or Sam Shamoun would take islamic sources out of context as you do with the christian ones, I never would read any of their articles again.

If you want to open your mouth, do yourself a favour and study.

ogunitracy said...


I'm trying to find some information on Khadija's wife (with authentic Muslim sources, of course so they're not accused of lying). It's about Khadija convincing Muhammad that the vision he saw was the angel Gabriel. Can you help, please? I can't remember where I saw it.

Foolster41 said...

@Samatar. You really are pathetic, and it's shameful how you can't see how dishonest your arguments are.

To you, if one isn't a fascist who forces his morals on others, he is for the "whoredom", and for premarital sex, bestility and homosexuality. The problem is, you can't actually answer loigicaly and so stoop to smears and insults, perfectly illistrating further how feeble your posistion is.

Also, welcome to hypocracyvile. "Handing over to satan" doesn't mean killing. Please provide the CONTEXT to show it is. I showed the context for Quaran 8 & 9 in the other thread. It means letting him go his own way. NO scholars understnad 5:5 as a command to kill. Once again, you are shown to be a LIAR.

Foolster41 said...

@Samatar: 1 Chor 5:5 is talking about EXCOMMUNICATION. I do expect an apology for this, since you put yourself up as such and honest and intellectual "debater".



Joe Bradley said...

Osama Abdallah . . .

You state that your sister is quite good at playing the guitar? Most of what I read classifies music as Haraam. Aside from the fact that your mother scolded your sister for talking to a strange man about the guitar, you made no mention about your sister's participation in a forbidden activity. I guess she will have to watch her back and live in fear of an honor killing directed at her???

Your pronouncement that the 19 year old woman in this article was, somehow, a whore because she chose to date a non-Muslim is absurd. Currently in the United States, the age of majority and consent is 18. If this is too much for Islamic sensitivities to bear, THEN LEAVE THE COUNTRY.

It is you and your irrational ilk who choose to remain in the United States and hypocritically pick and choose which abominations you will condone and which you will condemn. Do Muslims EVER get tired of crying and complaining???

Radical Moderate said...

I heard this on my way to work, it was highlighted over and over again he was wearing a santa suit, but no mention of Honor Slaughter

Radical Moderate said...


THats right its all that filthy whores fault, I mean your right obviously this father should not of raised such a filthy whore, if he hadnt then he wouldnt of had to kill her.

Anonymous said...

Osama's fixation with bestiality is disturbing.

Grow Some said...


Your posts exemplifies perfectly the crazed, irrational mindset of the followers of Islam. Please continue to post; as I'm sure the more you post, the more rational peoples of all backgrounds will see the true, ugly picture of a religion and culture so devoid of any love and beauty it's beyond reform and must be eradicated.

And yes, I've read your Quran and it is truly beyond me how anyone can believe in such utter garbage.


Mad Dog Gazza said...

Did he shout "ho, ho, ho" as he killed the sharmutas or "allahu akbar"?

mike5840 said...

Osama, What is it with your obsession with female sexuality?

Kaytee said...

"And by the way, PAUL IN 1 CORINTHIANS 5:5 did order his followers to execute those who were immoral. Go and read it."

I hope you are not the author of www.answering-christianity.org because you have a long way to go if your proof is a Bible verse that you took out of context.
Paul was not talking about an execution but an excommunication from the Church "for the destruction of the flesh" which means for the destruction of his sinful physical desires.

mike5840 said...

The arrogance of you Osama. Anyone who educates their daughters and gives them the slightest freedom according to you makes them "whores". It's your own filthy mind that needs cleaning, not the lives of well adjusted teenage girls. You blame women because YOU lust. You justify murder in the name of God? Judgment will come to us both sir, but my judgment will be softened by an advocate, namely the Lord Jesus.

Soli Deo Gloria said...

Osama, thanks for pointing out that passage. Here's what Paul stated in 1 Cor 5:5 -- "...hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord." If you interpret that passage correctly and in context (see 5:2), he clearly means to put this man out of fellowship (i.e. excommunicate) so that he may experience the consequences of his sin. He didn't mean to execute (i.e. kill) the person. If you read the chapter, he does leave room for reconciliation.

With all due respect, your world view caused you to misinterpret the verse, just as you missed the fact that there were six killed.

Jesus is THE way, the Truth, and the Life, and no one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). I will be praying that He will show you the Truth who will then set you and many Muslims free (John 8:32).

Mary said...

This was an Islamic honor-killing. Under Sharia law, parents may kill their children for rebelling against Islam, and wives are considered property that a husband may beat into submission and rape at will (The Qur'an tells men wives are like fields they can "plow" as the man "sees fit."). This media policy of not showing anything Muslims do - even crimes - in a negative light is interfering with prosecution of crime in the U.S. It is refusing to acknowledge the criminal intent of First-Degree Murder and enabling Sharia law to be enforced and upheld.

Unknown said...

"From his daughter's picture and the way she's dressed, I can probably safely guess that she wore bikinis in front of her dad before. If this is so, then what do you exactly expect here????"

thanks Osama... with that simple statement you have proven correct the now firmly held belief that when a women dies in a Muslim household...the prime suspects must be male members of the family.

...that and you made me throw up in my mouth.

Anonymous said...

Hey everyone
Osama just burnt himself in
1corinthians 5.5

looks like Osama is so desperate to find something against christians and finding something to support his deluded assumption that all west are christians.


here is the verses

"hand this man over to satan , so that sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the lord."

this means being expelling him from the church until he repents and i am sure others who read the whole chapter agrees with me.

As for osama he should read the topic of chapter before trying to start a discussion otherwise. we will see the result of him being burnt

btw Osama as for calling the west whoredom. you are yet again committing yourself to another logical fallacy of tu qou que e.g. allah's heaven.

Koala Bear said...

@Osama - why exactly do you live in the USA if you hate everything about it?

Jesus told us NOT TO JUDGE and NOT TO MURDER! Who made you God to judge anyone on how to live their lives. Maybe if you left your ghetto and met some non-muslims you would see we are not evil or immoral. Perhaps if you all integrated you would stop hating and plotting terrorist attacks - but I guess that would be against your religion too. Sick.

Anonymous said...

You muslims really are worse than nazis ever were.

There was a time in history when "the west", europe was ruled with similiar theocracy that muslim countries are ruled today. It has a very describing name: the dark ages.

After few brave people took a stand against insane, powerdrunken Clergy there was a period of time known as the Renaissance, The highpoint of arts, culture and science.

(sorry for double post, if it happens.)

Radical Moderate said...

@Osama Abdullah

"She wore a bikini in front of her Dad"

So in Osama twisted mind the girl must die. Anyone work for the state, I think you have enough to report Osama to the DCFS of his region. Get this mans kids away from him stop the honor killing before it happens.

Radical Moderate said...


This is clasic Osama Abdullah and even a classic Muslim response.

He first seems to condem the actions of this monster. He then excuses it, then explains it, then sympathizes with the monster.

Deleting said...

Osama said, "PAUL IN 1 CORINTHIANS 5:5 did order his followers to execute those who were immoral. Go and read it."

Quit acting like an idiot and saying foolish things! He didn't. He was telling them to excommunicate the man and his father's wife. Not kill them!!

Deleting said...

Oh, by the way Osama, 2 Corinthians 2:7 Paul instructed that since the man (WHO WAS STILL ALIVE AND OBVIOUSLY NOT EXECUTED) was repentant, to accept him back into the church.

SGM said...

@ Osama,

You want to prove the Quran and Islam to be true but logic won’t allow it.
You rant and complain about the whoredom society in America but yet you choose to live in this society. Yes, there are problems in this society, e.g., premarital sex as you mentioned but it is not allowed at all by Jesus and in the Bible. If you carefully read the Bible, you will not find it anywhere. As matter of fact, Jesus said that if you look at a women with lust, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart. This is how strict chastity is in Christianity.

On the other hand, your Allah allows sex with as many slave girls as you want, out side of marriage, and you don’t find it whoredom. Really!!! You will be provided with 70 houris in paradise, and that does not relate to whoredom in your eyes. Really!!!
Mohammad allowed sex with married women, and that is not whoredom to you? Really!!!

As long as you are in bondage to Satan and his religion Islam, you will find whoredom in Islam as chastity and Chastity in Christianity as whoredom.
May God have mercy on you.

Osama Abdallah said...

"This was an Islamic honor-killing. Under Sharia law, parents may kill their children for rebelling against Islam, and wives are considered property that a husband may beat into submission and rape at will (The Qur'an tells men wives are like fields they can "plow" as the man "sees fit.")."


Rosey, Islam does not allow honor killing. Please don't mix culture and men's egos and tribal corrupt laws with Islam.

Osama Abdallah

Osama Abdallah said...

"You state that your sister is quite good at playing the guitar? Most of what I read classifies music as Haraam. Aside from the fact that your mother scolded your sister for talking to a strange man about the guitar, you made no mention about your sister's participation in a forbidden activity....."


Most Muslims on this planet agree that music is not forbidden. This is one example where you should learn how to seperate/distinguish between Muslims - that if you care at all.
As long as the words of the song are not offensive to Allah Almighty, then the tunes themselves, for the most part, are not forbidden. I know that some Muslims disagree with this. But the overwhelming majority do, and there are countless Islamic Scholars that proved this.

As to the rest of your silly comment, it's not worth answering.

Osama Abdallah

cheryl_maree said...

@ Osama, Let me tell you about how MUSLIM MEN are, first they cheat on their wife and have a relationship after their wife just had their 3rd child. Then they have a baby out of wedlock with the girl they had an affair with. Then they sweep all that under the rug, SWEEP, SWEEP, and act like its all the girls fault. Takes two to Tango. So while you are busy calling women whores just exactly what do we call the MUSLIM MAN who did this?

Michael Schueckler said...

God gave this man a family to take care of and protect. General revelation (the physical world), which was provided by the creator, alone reveals that fact and it should have been plain to him.

Like Eve (and the rest of us when we sin), he trusted Satan's lies. He took matters into his own hands. He desited to play God. He took the life of one made in God's own image. He took the life of his own daughter. What madness!!

He was encouraged to do so by satanic verses. But the madness doesn't stop. Though it should be condemned for the madness that it is. It is praised.

To all who read this, continue to spread the Gospel everywhere, though not all will accept it. As Christ said:

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
- John 6:63-66

TAREK said...

Dear sisters and brothers, I'd like to use this opportunity to wish you all Happy new year 2012. Thank you all for the great year we had with our big brothers Dr. David, Sam Shamoun, ABN, and all those who stood up for the truth. AMY GOD GUIDE TOWARDS VICTORIES THIS COMING YEAR 2012 IN JESUS' NAME AMEN.

To Mr. Osama
"As to the rest of your silly comment, it's not worth answering."
Your desperation is seen in everything you write or say. You are looking for something in the HOLY BIBLE to compare it to what you find in islam but let me remind you that there no such. Please come to CHRIST. You invited me to visit your website (answering-christianity); the first thing I will tell you as i DID BEFORE PLEASE BE HONEST A READ THE holy bibble in context. yOUR WEBSITE IS FULL MISREPRESENTATION AND LIES. You promised to come up with an article which will prouve that muslims are the real followers of JESUS (WHICh WILL BE A REJECTION OF MUHAMMAD). You avoided the issue of Allah praying telling that it has been solved long ago. You run away from the issue of sun setting in pool by insulting people and rejecting your sources. You totally ignore the issue of the BLESSED MOTHER being the sister of Aaron as a mistake in the quran. I can go on and on and on, the list is long Mr. Osama please you cannot defend evil come to CHRIST.
Mr. Osama I have a challenge for can you please explain the following to us sura 23 aya 14 "then we created the clot congealed blood, and we created the congealed blood a morsel; then we created the morsel bone, and we clothed the bone with flesh then we produced it another creation; and blessed be God, the best of creators."
To Ms. Kim we are still waiting for you to join us CHRIST JESUS wants you.


andy bell said...

For those who are interested as to why these honor killings take place. Chapter 5 of The Arab mind explains it in detail.

The Arab Mind by Raphael Patai
Chapter 8
The Realm of Sex
The issue of sex in the Arab world reminds me of the old story about the sorcerer’s apprentice and the pink elephant. The master of alchemy, after explaining to his apprentice the complex steps to be followed in making gold, added: “And, most importantly, throughout the entire process you must not think of the pink elephant.” Having been duly impressed by this warning, the apprentice tried desperately to heed it, but, of course, was unable to keep the forbidden subject out of his thoughts. At last he had to give up his attempts at making gold and sadly reproached his master: “Why, O my master, why did you have to tell me not to think of the pink elephant? If you had not, I would never have thought of it.”
The “pink elephant” in the alchemy of Arab life is the sex taboo. Parents and other authority figures imbue the Arab child with the notion of the sinfulness of sex, and the culture as a whole surrounds the individual with an atmosphere which constantly reminds him of the same subject. The segregation of the sexes, the veiling of the women where it is practiced, and all the other minute rules that govern and restrict contact between men and women, have the effect of making sex a prime mental preoccupation in the Arab world. The very taboo of sex creates a kind of fixation on the subject.
1. Sexual Honor
The general Arab concept of honor is one that the average Westerner has no difficulty in understanding. After all, honor, even in its more concretely defined form as wajh or “face,” is operative in Western society as well. Where the Westerner becomes truly baffled is in his attempt to understand the special Arab concept of one’s own honor depending on the sexual conduct of the women one is connected with. The Westerner, too, suffers a certain loss of face if his wife—and to a lesser extent if his daughter— commits adultery and it becomes public knowledge. But a divorce is, as a rule, all that is required for a husband to regain his “face” as well as his poise; and as far as a father is concerned, he will in most cases demonstratively display sympathetic understanding for his daughter as she goes through a crisis in her life. In the Western view, a person can neither legally nor morally be held responsible for the acts of another, and consequently the dishonorable deed of even a very close relative casts only a pale shadow, if any, on the honor of an individual.
In the kinship culture of the Arab world, the situation is very different. Family bonds are so strong that all members suffer “blackening of the face” after the dishonorable act of any one. However, within this general context, there is for the Arab mind a sharp distinction between those shameful events that do involve women and those that do not. In the Arab world, the greatest dishonor that can befall a man results from the sexual misconduct of his daughter or sister, or bint ‘amm (one’s father’s brother’s daughter). The marital infidelity of a wife, on the other hand, brings to the Arab husband only emotional effects and not dishonor.

1 of 7

andy bell said...

2 of 7

The roots of this particular view of male honor go deep into the structure and dynamics of the Arab kin group. The ties of blood, of patrilineal descent, can never be severed, and they never weaken throughout a person’s life. This means that a woman, even though she marry into a different kin group, never ceases to be a member of her own paternal family. Her paternal family, in turn, continues to be responsible for her. This has beneficial effects for the married woman, especially during that difficult period in her life which precedes the time when her sons reach maturity and become her supporters and defenders. Prior to that time, the young wife, who is considered something of an outsider by her husband’s family, can always count on the aid and sympathy of her own father and brothers. The very knowledge that these men are lined up solidly behind her, and are ready, if need be, even to fight for her, puts a restraint on her husband’s family in their treatment of a young daughter-in-law.
Whatever credit or discredit a woman earns reflects back on her own paternal family. This continuing responsibility comes powerfully into play if a woman becomes guilty of a sexual indiscretion, or if her behavior arouses as much as a suspicion that she may be tempted to do something forbidden by the traditional code. The most powerful deterrent devised by Arab culture against illicit sex (which means any sexual relations between a man and a woman who are not married to each other) is the equation of family honor with the sexual conduct of its daughters, single or married. If a daughter becomes guilty of the slightest sexual indiscretion (which is defined in various terms in various places), her father and brothers become dishonored also. Family honor can be restored only by punishing the guilty woman; in conservative circles, this used to mean putting her to death.
That the sexual conduct of women is an area sharply differentiated from other areas of the honor-shame syndrome is reflected in the language. While honor in its non-sexual, general connotation is termed “sharaf,” the specific kind of honor that is connected with women and depends on their proper conduct is called “ ‘ird.” Sharaf is something flexible: depending on a man’s behavior, way of talking and acting, his sharaf can be acquired, augmented, diminished, lost, regained, and so on. In contrast, ‘ird is a rigid concept: every woman has her ascribed ‘ird; she is born with it and grows up with it; she cannot augment it because it is something absolute, but it is her duty to preserve it. A sexual offense on her part, however slight, causes her ‘ird to be lost, and once lost, it cannot be regained. It is almost as if the physical attribute of virginity were transposed in the ‘ird to the emotional-conceptual level. Both virginity and ‘ird are intrinsically parts of the female person; they cannot be augmented, they can only be lost, and their loss is irreparable. The two are similar in one more respect: even if a woman is attacked and raped, she loses her ‘ird just as she loses her virginity. Where the two differ, of course, is in the circumstance that the legal, approved, and expected loss of virginity during the wedding night has no counterpart in the ‘ird: a good woman preserves it, guards it jealously until her dying day.

andy bell said...

3 of 7

What is even more remarkable is that the sharaf of the men depends almost entirely on the ‘ird of the women of their family. True, a man can diminish or lose his sharaf by showing lack of bravery or courage, or by lack of hospitality and generosity. However, such occurrences are rare because the men learn in the course of their early enculturation to maintain at all cost the appearances of bravery, hospitality, and generosity. Should a man nevertheless become guilty of an open transgression of any of these, he will, of course, lose his honor, but this is not accompanied by any institutionalized and traditionally imposed physical punishment. Over crimes which are outside the focus of the code of ethics, such as killing, stealing, breaking promises, accepting bribes, and other such misdeeds, Arab opinion is divided: some say such acts would affect a man’s sharaf, others feel they would not. But as to the results of a woman’s transgression of the ‘ird there is complete and emphatic unanimity: it would destroy the sharaf of her menfolk. This led one student of Arab ethics to the conclusion that the core of the sharaf “is clearly the protection of one’s female relatives’ ‘ird.” To which we can add that this attitude is characteristic of the Arab world as a whole, and that, moreover, a transgression of the ‘ird by a woman and by her paramour is the only crime (apart from homicide) which requires capital punishment according to the Arabic ethical code. Since any indiscretion on her part hurts her paternal family and not her husband’s, it is her paternal family—her father himself, or her brothers, or her father’s brother’s son—who will punish her, by putting her to death, which is considered the only way of repairing the damage done to the family honor.
It is not difficult to see that the rule demanding punishment of an adulterous woman by her paternal family and not by her husband ultimately serves to maintain group cohesion. It is in keeping with the jealous claim of control over the life of its members exercised by the patrilineal family that it does not abdicate this right even in the case of a married daughter. To allow her husband, who is not a member of the woman’s paternal family, to punish her would give control to an outsider, and thus weaken the control the family has over its members. Since, however, the woman must be punished, her paternal family undertakes the unquestionably bitter task of killing her, in accordance with the principle that the honor of the family must be protected even at the cost of a member’s life.

andy bell said...

4 of 7

On the other hand, it is primarily up to the wronged husband to seek out the seducer and kill him. In the relationship between the husband and the seducer, another set of values comes into play. While the husband’s honor has not been materially impaired by his wife’s indiscretion (in this respect Arab mores differ markedly from the South Italian in which the cuckolded husband is derided as a “cornuto” and sustains great loss of face), his property rights in the exclusive sexual services of his wife have suffered irreparable damage which calls for blood revenge. French legal sentiment tends to be on the side of the husband who finds his wife in flagrante delicto and in his moral outrage kills her and/or her lover. Arab sentiment goes farther: it exonerates the husband who kills his wife’s lover even years after the deed, and, moreover, it demands that he do so.
All this indicates that the Arab man who engages in an extramarital affair runs great risks indeed, which are usually sufficient to discourage any person able to weigh logically the possible consequences of his acts. (Even if he manages to escape the wrath of the injured husband, there is another risk; in some of the conservative Arab countries, which punish a theft with the chopping off of the right hand, sexual transgression is punished by the cutting off of the corresponding offending member.) All of which means that the average Arab, unless he happens to live in a larger town where prostitutes are available, or where, as in Beirut, Western sexual mores have begun to penetrate, has no sexual experience with women until he marries. If we add the fact that the average Arab does not marry until his middle or even late twenties (what with the necessity of paying a bride price to the father of his chosen), we find that usually years pass between sexual maturation and the beginning of licit heterosexual activity.
The Arab sensitivity to the ‘ird is so great that an entire way of life has been built around it, aiming at the prevention of the occurrence of a situation which might lead to a woman’s loss of her sexual virtue, or which might enable a man to cause such a loss. Even before the onset of puberty, and from then on until the very end of her life, a woman must be protected by societal arrangements decreed by the men. These measures, designed to protect the women’s chastity, take many forms, some merely restrictive, others extremely painful and harmful to health. To the former belong such measures as the veiling and seclusion of women and the keeping of girl children out of school; to the latter, female circumcision. Occasionally, the fear that a wife or a daughter might lose her ‘ird, whether voluntary or not, can be so strong that it leads to putting her to death: her death is deemed preferable to the loss of sharaf which her loss of ‘ird would mean for the menfolk of her family. Fulanain tells the story of a shaykh of a noble tribe, a refugee among the Marsh Arabs of Southern Iraq—who were considered ignoble according to the prevailing status hierarchy because they were sedentary and not nomadic camel-herders.

andy bell said...

5 of 7

Haddam, a young chieftain of the Marsh Arabs, fell in love with the shaykh’s daughter, but, of course, the shaykh refused him because of his ignoble blood. One day, however, the shaykh noticed that his daughter was looking with interest toward the young chieftain as the latter passed by in the distance poling his reed-boat. Thereupon, the old shaykh took his daughter to a deserted place and killed her so as to prevent her ‘ird, and hence his sharaf, from being destroyed by her wanting to marry the young chief. From the southern end of the Arab world comes the report that during the Mahdist uprising, some Sudanese Arabs “killed their wives and daughters for fear that they would be attacked by soldiers from the Khalifa’s army who were considered as slaves.” Such extremes are, of course, becoming more and more rare, and today, even among the Sudanese Arabs, a girl who is discovered to have lost her virginity prior to her marriage “may no longer be killed.” An adulteress, on the other hand, may be subjected to the fire ordeal, and if she does not pass it, she is killed. The seducer, too, would traditionally be killed by the woman’s relatives.
As far as female circumcision is concerned, its rationale is that it either prevents the girl from wanting to engage in illicit premarital sex (in the case of clitoridectomy), or makes it altogether impossible for her (if infibulation is performed), until her vulva is again cut or forced open. The custom is pre-Islamic and, in fact, was practiced in Hellenistic Egypt. In pre-Islamic Arabia, the operation used to be executed by a woman-specialist called a mubazzira. Even in early Islamic times, it was considered among some Arab tribes as an indispensable prerequisite for marriage. Female circumcision is still customarily performed (or was until recently) in the following Arab countries: among some townspeople and Bedouins of Jordan; in Mecca; in Southern Arabia (the Zufar area, Oman, etc.); in the Southern Iraqi tribes, as well as in the city of Basra; in Egypt (among both Muslims and Copts); in the Sudan (where infibulation is practiced despite the objection of the ‘ulama or conclave of religious scholars); in some parts of the Sahara; and so on. This list is certainly not complete, and the wide diffusion of the custom makes it probable that it is practiced also in those Arab countries from which it has not been reported.
While numerous observers have commented on the function of male circumcision as a test of manliness, bravery, and courage which fills the boy who passes it with a feeling of self-importance and achievement, very few have raised the question of what is the psychological effect of female circumcision on the girls who are subjected to it. It goes without saying that nowhere is female circumcision considered a test of courage, since courage is not a quality associated with, or expected of, women. Since, moreover, female circumcision, in contrast to male, is typically carried out in privacy and surreptitiously, the operation is calculated to impress the girl with her own inferiority in relation to boys. While the male circumcision serves the assumed purpose of increasing the man’s virility, the female operation is performed in order to reduce the woman’s femininity in terms of her sexual desire, to intimidate the girl’s sexuality. One observer remarks that female circumcision, especially in the cruel form in which it is performed in the Sudan, “causes a shock so severe that those responsible for female education say that girls are often permanently dulled.”
One last question remains in connection with the concept of ‘ird: what is the explanation of this enormous sensitivity to female sexual honor displayed by Bedouin society in particular, and by traditional Arab society in general? Why should the folk mores demand capital punishment for an infringement by a woman? The answer can only be attempted by referring to several factors in traditional Arab culture.

andy bell said...

6 of 7

Capital punishment for adultery committed by a woman is a pre-Islamic heritage. In fact, it goes back to biblical times, together with the notion that adultery causes sterility, and is such a grave sin that it can cause the whole people or group whose members are guilty of it to “perish from off the good land.” Since Arab society, like the ancient Near Eastern societies out of which it sprang, was patriarchal, patrilineal, and polygynous, a man had great sexual freedom. His own marital status in no way put a limitation on his sexual activity. This situation still obtains. Even if married, and even if he has four wives—the legal limit according to Muslim law—he can have sexual relations with concubines (slave girls whom he owns), with prostitutes, or with any woman who is not under the jurisdiction of another man. When a man marries he is not expected to refrain from extramarital sexual activity. He becomes guilty of a sexual offense only if the woman with whom he has sex relations commits thereby an act of sexual dishonor.
For the woman, the situation is profoundly different. She is supposed to have sex relations only with her legally wedded husband. Her sexuality is his exclusive property as long as they are married. Moreover, a woman must preserve her sexuality (i.e., her virginity) intact until her first marriage. To make sure that this is, indeed, the case is the supreme duty of her paternal family. For a woman to allow her sex to be enjoyed by anybody except her husband is the gravest offense she can commit.
In Bedouin society strict sexual segregation was impracticable. It could be imposed neither in the nomadic encampment nor during the long treks from one grazing ground to another. Men and women of different families knew, saw, and met one another. Under the prevailing system, the young men would marry girls within their own tribe, sub-tribe, or family. In such a situation, the ever-present temptation of illicit contact had to be powerfully discouraged by severe rules.
To these must be added the relatively lesser concern with individual human life which is a further consequence of the extremely strong emphasis placed by the Bedouin ethos on group cohesion. The life of any member of the group is valued primarily in terms of his contribution to the group’s welfare. This means that the group, whose will is embodied in, and expressed by, its male elders, will always consider the life of a member expendable if the honor of the group is at stake. Insofar as women are considered inferior to men—this is a pre-Islamic concept confirmed by the Koran (4:34)—and insofar as the main value of a woman from the point of view of the group is in her capacity as potential or actual mother of male group members, if she commits a transgression which makes her unfit for this supreme task of womanhood, she seals her own fate: she must die. The grave sin of female sexual transgression was surrounded by a wide perimeter of forbidden behavior patterns, to all of which the concept of ‘ird was extended, and whose infringement also came to be punishable by death.

andy bell said...

6 of 7

The all-encompassing preoccupation with sex in the Arab mind emerges clearly in two manifestations that suffuse the entire Arab world (with some local exceptions). One is that men and women see members of the opposite sex primarily as sex objects, and are convinced that they themselves are so regarded. The second is that all activities of women are considered by the men sub specie sexus, and particularly from the point of view of whether those activities infringe on the traditional rules of female segregation.
It is characteristic of the tenacity of traditional conviction that even Arabs who favor certain improvements in the position of women continue to believe that a man and a woman alone will inevitably engage in sexual intercourse. In Algeria, the question was put to Arab men in a remote oasis village and in the casbah of Algiers: “What would you do if you came home and found a strange man in your hourse?” The responses were most characteristic: “Every Arab interpreted the presence of a man in his house as indicative of adultery. The response was usually immediate, clipped and emotional: ‘Kill him.’” According to an Algerian Arab student, young men could “only see a woman, in actual confrontation, as an object of pleasure”: while Mouloud Feraoun, an Algerian writer and rebel leader, put it bluntly: “To date, social life, manners, customs had as their essential objective the jealous safeguarding of the woman’s sex. They [the men] consider this as inalienable, and their honor was buried in the vagina as if it were a treasure more precious than life…” The corresponding stereotype of women sees in them creatures in whom one cannot have confidence, who are “like animals, highly sexed and willing to have intercourse with any man. That is all they care about.” Or, as a Sudanese Arab saying has it, “Whenever a man and a woman meet, the devil is the third.”
The women themselves cannot help being influenced by, and reacting to, such male views. They recognize that
the women is an erotic object to be pursued and, if conquered, then condemned. Men are raised to be possessive toward women and to have a wholly erotic attitude toward them….Because of the primitive attitude towards sexuality in which they are raised, women think there is something shameful about sex.
At the same time, they are convinced that the men are “sex haunted.”

andy bell said...

7 of 7

These few indications, which could easily be paralleled by many more from the rest of the Arab world, should suffice to show how the preoccupation with sex influences the total view that men and women have of the opposite sex, and thus, inevitably, of their own sex. To sum up: the two sexes are irresistibly drawn to each other, see each other primarily as sex objects, and must be kept by stringent rules and “fences” from engaging in illicit sexual enjoyment.
The second manifestation of this preoccupation is that no female activity can be viewed without reference to the overriding consideration of female segregation. Thus, for instance, the entry of the Arab woman into the world of business is opposed by traditionalists not on the basis of her abilities or inabilities, but on the assertion that in the world of business a woman could not retain her chastity. The same considerations motivate the traditionalists to prevent the entry of women into political life. The ‘ulama (conclave of religious scholars at the famous al-Azhar in Cairo, Islam’s supreme theological school) rejected in 1952 a demand for the right of women to vote and serve as deputies in Parliament, basing their argument on the admonition in the Koran (33:33) which tells women to stay in their homes; therefore, “it is the duty of the woman to do everything to safeguard her honor and reputation….Woman must be kept from temptation and prevented from being a temptation to others.” Women must be excluded from meetings, such as would be involved in voting, elections, Parliament, and the like, because on such occasions they would mix with men, which would arouse promiscuity. This argument is supported by a secondary one which also goes back to Koranic tradition: women are particularly influenced by emotion. “In truth, the woman, because of her femininity, is tempted to abandon the path of reason and measure.”
Although subsequently the ulama of al-Azhar had to go along with the changing times (women received the vote in Egypt in 1956, as they did in Syria in 1949, in Lebanon in 1952, and in Iraq in 1967), the views expressed in their 1952 fatwa on the innate differences between the male and the female mind are still current among many Arabs, men and women, educated and ignorant alike. Even among emancipated Arab women engaged in occupations outside the home, one often notices a certain self-consciousness expressed either in a degree of residual embarrassment at being unveiled or in a subtly defiant attitude about it. The natural ease with which Western educated men and women, boys and girls, behave in each other’s company is in most cases noticeably absent.


Dear Kim, Osama and all Muslims,
Next Tuesday I am running free surgery for all of you,
Please make appointment to avoid any disappointments.
Boota Singh, Brain Surgeon, Lahore (Pakistan)

SGM said...

@ Osama,

“Rosey, Islam does not allow honor killing. Please don't mix culture and men's egos and tribal corrupt laws with Islam.”

Response: Mr. Osama, did you ever think why is it that only in Islam you find honor killings. Why is it that only in Islam men’s egos are so high that they forget that Islam does not allow murder? Why is it that every Moslem nation has tribal corrupt laws since we find honor killings in every Moslem nation. Why is it that all Moslem nations having such a perfect religion (per you) but yet they are still in darkness after sixteen hundred years.

Jubosh said...

hey hey now, let's all just agree that my invisible friend is better then your invisible friends and my friends book is the best,

Joe Bradley said...

Osama Abdallah states . . .


Most Muslims on this planet agree that music is not forbidden. This is one example where you should learn how to seperate/distinguish between Muslims - that if you care at all. As long as the words of the song are not offensive to Allah Almighty, then the tunes themselves, for the most part, are not forbidden. I know that some Muslims disagree with this. But the overwhelming majority do, and there are countless Islamic Scholars that proved this."

That sounds good except for the majority of the Muslims on this planet who find that music IS forbidden for Muslims to practice*.

You seek to exonerate your sister from the Haraam she continues to commit through her pursuit of music and you excuse your mother's allowance of this forbidden activity by extolling her virtue in her chastisement of your sister for talking to a strange man.

You exemplify all that I have been saying about Islam and you continue to cherry pick those abominations that you condone and those which you condemn.

* http://www.google.com/search?q=music+haram&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

D. Collaric said...

So Osama let me get this right,

Are you saying: Muslims over the centuries didn’t mind to CHANGE the tenets of the Islamic way of life and made their own rules declaring them to be the demands of allah? Like killing a daughters if they happen NOT to follow the koooraaan? So these Muslims did not fear your “stoned-gawd" allah enough to CHANGE his unchangeable eternal fixed word? How many of these “fathers” who killed their children, got severely punished? Why are “Islamic clerics” not issuing “Fatwas” against such heinous deeds? Can it be because Islamic clerics agree with it?

D. Collaric said...

@ Osama

Also I find it very sad that in the “BEST Society any deity could establish, on can find the same if NOT worse crimes as in the ah so “decadent” west. If as you say honor killings is an aberration of the perfect laws given to mankind from your “stoned-gawd” allah, why do we still find it in todays Islamic societies? Don’t you agree that lets say 1200 years would be enough to get all the wrong things out of Islam? After all the more people are able to read and write, the more are capable to see the errors in the “human made tribal” customs and could do something about it to get rid of it if it is not in step with the true teachings as found in the kooraan.

Michael Schueckler said...

@ Jubosh "hey hey now, let's all just agree that my invisible friend is better then your invisible friends and my friends book is the best,"
Yeah, you are right Jubosh. There's no difference between a god that commands murdering dissenters from another who commands us to love them.

And there is no difference between the historicity and reliability of their sacred texts.

Good point. Echo it some more./sarcasm

Joe Bradley said...

"Yeah, you are right Jubosh. There's no difference between a god that commands murdering dissenters from another who commands us to love them."

There IS one difference - body count.

Joe Bradley said...


Dear Kim, Osama and all Muslims,
Next Tuesday I am running free surgery for all of you,
Please make appointment to avoid any disappointments.
Boota Singh, Brain Surgeon, Lahore (Pakistan)


Perhaps you could partner with a Proctologist and perform Rectal Craniotomies.

goethechosemercy said...

I've read the Koran also.
It should be called the Book of Chaos.

Foolster41 said...

You know, I'm getting sick of being ignored. Notice, though he took the time to post, no apollogy for the ` Chor 5:5 lie, o r, there is rediculous smear of saaying because Christians are not for forcing their morals on others, or opposed to the fascist ideology of Islam, they are for "whoredom". Also, I notice no reply in the other thread explaining how Quran 8 & 9 (now the enitre chapters) were taken out of context.

Mary said...

Let's write to the media (some sites may require submission in parts):


Dear Editor:

Per the media policy of refusing to report the actions of Muslims - even crimes - in a negative light, "honor killings" done under Islamic principles are not being reported for what they are. For instance, the "Santa killer" in Texas was reported in the mainstream media as simply having allegedly killed his family with no clear motivation and only after gushing praise for him, the Muslim father. Under Sharia law, which enforces Islamic principles, a father may kill his children for rebelling against Islam without incurring prosecution. (Sharia Law o2.4 (‘Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2.) “Reliance of the Traveller”).

President Obama is trying to give the Muslim Brotherhood's global jihad a large loop hole in which to enforce Sharia law in the U.S. by preventing the criminal intent, as defined by U.S. law, of First Degree Murder (e.g., killing one's child to save face/preserve Muslim honor under Sharia law) from being recognized, the evidence collected, and being used in prosecution of such crimes. He is doing this by banning/censoring even the words describing such intent from the U.S. Government and its agencies' vocabularies. Such action is in itself enforcement of Sharia law which prohibits any critical analysis or criticism of Islam or Mohammad or Muslims enforcing Sharia law. For example:

Haddith: Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38, Number 4349: Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: "A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace be upon him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood."

Qur’an 33:36: "It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Apostle, to have any option about their decision: If anyone disobeys Allah and His Apostle, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path." )

Your whitewash policy is in collusion with this seditious enforcement of Sharia law.

Muslims in the U.S. do have every right under the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights to believe whatever they want, but they do NOT have the legal right to enforce Sharia law on anyone. Let the crimes, as defined by U.S. law, that jihadists commit be prosecuted as crimes and reported as crimes. Let Muslims have equal protection under the - U.S. - law (not special protection) and let them be prosecuted for their crimes and let their crimes be accurately reported. Further, as we have "gang crimes" with stiffer penalties because of the extreme disregard for human life and property, we should also have "jihad crimes" which recognize the criminal intent of committing honor killings to save face under Islam and therefore given tougher punishment and also because they are seditious in attempting to enforce Sharia law over Constitutional law.

The question to you and your media outlet is: Which do you submit to and seek protection from, Sharia law or Constitutional law? The answer to this question is illustrated in your news stories and is important to your audience.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ foolster

Get used to it. When you Thoroughly refute and expose a Muslim. They flee. And then will pop up again when they think they may have an argument. And then they will get refuted again. Flee. and then bring the same argument that they were refuted in.

They cannot accept reality!

D335 said...

Let us not be hasty against Osama Abdallah.

I know Osama Abdallah is praying to Allah "oi Allah, Muhammad rasul Allah, let the Christians do some honor killing this weeks so I can say AH-HAAA!!!"

Islamic scripture is full of laws to strangle every souls into mind-control, full of condemnation for everyone differs in opinion, full of punishments to make your feet tremble, full of "scientific discoveries" that suppose to make islamic world advance forward, .... and why there's a place for logic in such perfect scripture?


simple_truth said...

Foolster41 said...

" You know, I'm getting sick of being ignored. Notice, though he took the time to post, no apollogy for the ` Chor 5:5 lie, o r, there is rediculous smear of saaying because Christians are not for forcing their morals on others, or opposed to the fascist ideology of Islam, they are for "whoredom". Also, I notice no reply in the other thread explaining how Quran 8 & 9 (now the enitre chapters) were taken out of context."

Please don't feel bad because he does the same to me. I bring some good points and questions. He doesn't respond. Instead, he tries to derail the topic with some often quoted stupid stuff that he selects. I think that he knows that we often have very good points that are very difficult for Islam to defend.

Anonymous said...

The Santa Claus Honor Killer was not the only Muslim in a big news item this week besides the crazy woman Jameela being shot.

Remember the clerk who knocked out the robber in the store;


Guess what the robber's name was?

Mustfa Kamel (al-)Hindi

Wow Osama, your bros and sis's are really making the USA news this week.

Radical Moderate said...

@Osama who asked the question

"If this is so, then what do you exactly expect here????"

I expect a father not to kill his daughter even if she wears a Bikini in front of him or wishes a Christian a Merry Christmas.

I expect a Husaband not to kil his wife even if that wife has left him.

I expect a brother in law not to kill his sister and brother in law.

I expect a uncle not to kill his nieces and nephews.

I expect these things from Christians, Jews, Atheists, Hindu's, Budists, Animists and any other "ISM" that someone may or may not follow.

Evidently Osama that is to much to expect from Muslims.

Harry Williams said...

Hello everyone. It seems to me that the right place to look for new relationships is gay dating glasgow, there are a lot of people sitting there, beautiful and smart people are sitting there, but we must hurry before they are taken away. I myself found my soul mate there, and we already have a long-term relationship that will soon reach a new level, so do not be afraid to get acquainted on dating sites. Good luck to you.