Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Randjida Khairi "Honor Killed" by Husband . . . in Canada

But don't forget that the real problem in Canada is Islamophobia. (For more on honor killings in Islam, be sure to watch our ABN special.)

Toronto Sun--If you have not heard of Randjida Khairi, whose throat was slit, don’t blame yourself.

Unlike the Shafia honour killings, this death was kept under tight wraps by newspapers. That is, until the Sun broke the story Saturday.

The parallels between the Shafia murders and the Khairi killing are uncanny.

In both cases the mothers were Afghan women who died after permitting their children to embrace Canada’s freedoms and live a “westernized” lifestyle.

As the Sun’s Sam Pazzano reported, the jury heard that in the Khairi killing: “Randjida Khairi paid the ultimate price for standing up to her Afghan Muslim husband and letting their children live as Westerners.” Crown attorney Robert Kenny, in his opening statement, said the mother of six had her throat slashed by husband Peer Khairi, slit open to the spine, after which she slowly suffocated in her own blood.

Kenny said while Peer Khairi will admit to inflicting the fatal wounds, he has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder and, “what is at issue is how the death happened and what was going through the accused’s mind when it happened.” Kenny told the jury, “there had been fights between the couple about how permissive she (Randjida Khairi) was in raising their children, how she allowed them to dress and socialize as they liked, rather than asserting more control over their behaviour so that they kept the culture and rules of their birthplace (Afghanistan).”

Since the murders of Aqsa Pervez, the Shafia sisters and the dismembering of five-year-old Farah Khan, the media have been inundated by Islamist lobbying to back off from using the phrase “honour killing”, or associating these barbaric practices with my Muslim community, or with Islamic sharia. (Read More.)


Anonymous said...

Hundreds of Buddhists and Hindus join to protest the attack on their temples by Muslims in Bangladesh

Tommy said...

In Sura 18 (the cave) Moses meets Khidr and asks permission to follow him
koran 18:66....Mûsa (Moses) said to him (Khidr) "MayI follow you so that you teach me something of that knowledge (guidance and true path) which you have been
taught (by Allâh)?

Then follow three scenarios of which we will concern ourselves only with the unprovoked murder of a young boy

18:74...Then they both proceeded, till they met a boy, he (Khidr) killed him. Mûsa (Moses) said: "Have you killed an innocent person who had killed none? Verily, you have committed a thing "Nukra" (a great Munkar - prohibited, evil,dreadful thing)!"

18:78...(Khidr) said: "This is the parting between me and you, I will tell you the interpretation of (those) things over which you were unable to hold patience.

18:80...And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared lest he should oppress them by rebellion and disbelief.

18:81..."So we intended that their Lord should change him for them for one better in righteousness and near to mercy

Anonymous said...

Islam's false doctrine of salvation.

The Koran decrees that good deeds (which includes harming those who do not believe in and follow Mohammad) are required for salvation.

Those whose balance [of good deeds/works] is heavy will attain salvation, but those whose balance is light will have lost their souls and will abide in hell. 23:102

Muslims do not believe in an inherited sinful nature but that sin only develops as we grow from childhood.
They generally believe that, "Adam sinned, we agree. But why do his children have to bear something they took no part in? Why is a sacrifice required to please a most merciful God? A Muslim believes there is no need for any of that."

But reality points to the fact that children lie and steal without anyone having to teach it to them; it comes quite naturally, which shows that we inherit a sinful nature from the start.

The case against the doctrine of good deeds/works to gain salvation:
Any good deeds we do will be inadequate in compensating for our sins/crimes, since they will always be tainted to some degree because of our sinful nature (our concience also bearing witness to this); and sin cannot make atonement for sin.

Handing God an invoice for our good deeds/works places us outside the Kingdom of Grace. Added to this is the wrong notion that God 'owes us' for our good works which is trying to make him our servant.
God owes us nothing; he does because he desires to do, for free (John 3:16), not because he has to.

He does reward good deeds, but only for their own sake, freely done out of gratitude towards God because of grace freely given, but certainly not as a means of gaining heaven.

The fact that God himself had to make atonement FOR us, demonstrates the seriousness of our condition, and that scratching at the debt with good deeds will not even put a tiny dent in it.

The only good deed that can save us is Christ's good deed on the cross.

And the only purpose and value of our good works/deeds is to help others and to advertise God's kingdom i.e. "put your light on the hill" Mat 5:16

Scriptures which say, "faith without works is dead" simply mean that to lay around on the couch all day is no help to God's kingdom.

The main sticking point that the world has when trying to grasp the real meaning of and the overall reason for the Bible's message, is that:
A Righteous and Holy Creator, cannot but require an overall account of and reckoning for sin and crime.
BUT, he has provided a means of escape from this reckoning and punishment through sacrificing himself in our place (He cannot simply forgive sins without a price being paid as this would go against true justice).
The price of redemption, which is infinitely beyond our means, could only have been paid for by an infinite God with infinite means (which again exposes the folly of trying to gain salvation through works).