Muslim father chokes daughter to near death

[kengs333]

Wonderful. Will they let you live there?

They tend not to let outsiders into their society because it is very difficult for outsiders to adapt to their way of life. But they still serve as an excellent example of how true Christians should live their lives.

Besides, I know gay communities like that, no crime, hardworking, industrious, civil beyond belief, and doing quite well financially.

Uh oh..... not what you wanted to hear.

Of course you can't name them, if they exist, which I doubt.

[cybercoma]

Please note quotation marks.

What about them? Do you not mean liberated? If not, what do you mean?

[M.Dancer]

Of course you can't name them, if they exist, which I doubt.

Like just about every gay community in Canada. Be supprised how well the Metropolitain Churches are filled too. By hardworking, law abiding homosexuals. Who tithe and pay taxes....and even vote if it is raining ....

[jbg]

Excellent post, Moxie. Excellent.

I second that.

In fact, I think that every single provincial HRC should investigate this gender-based hatred. I think the feminist activists should scream bloody murder.

Where is Hedy Fry, Alexa McDonough, Carolyn Parrish and Sheila Copps when we need them?

[jbg]

Ok . Clarified. People talk about Shariah Law as if it is in place in this counties laws. The same as some also say this man will get treated differently due to his religious beliefs, contrary to a ruling by the Supreme Court.

Let's see how fast the Courts pander to the Muslims on this issue.

[Guest American Woman]

Let's see how fast the Courts pander to the Muslims on this issue.

That's a pretty wide-open statement. What would you consider "pandering to the Muslims"-- a charge of manslaughter?

Where is Hedy Fry, Alexa McDonough, Carolyn Parrish and Sheila Copps when we need them?

Why are you singling out women to "scream bloody murder?" Don't you think men should be just as appalled by this in our enlightened western societies? Don't you think men should have as much an obligation to speak out as women do?

Edited December 20, 2007 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

It's the difference between "violence against women is a Msulim problem" and "Violence against women is a problem among Muslims."

I think that's what people are saying-- that violence among women is a problem among Muslims. I don't think anyone here is saying it's exclusive to Muslims.

[Guest American Woman]

In all that I've read, I've never seen a reference to committing honor killing "in the name of Allah." So I think "honor" is a separate issue. They are doing it for their honor; their family's honor. Not for Allah.

Sadly it's not done out of hatred, violence against women is based on the Koran. Here's what the koran says about "Beating Women" also did you read the article on Iran and the leading cleric declaring that women who don't wear the hijab deserved to die. That's the kind of instruction from leading Muslim Clerics that Muslims follow. [...] Thus the teachings of the koran clearly allow men to abuse and beat their wives. There are books in Muslim librarys in Canada that describe how to beat your wife, as well as videos. It's part of the teachings of the koran and Islamic Culture

"Beating" and "killing" are two very different things; so again, I've never read of any honor killing done "in the name of Allah." It appears to be about the family's honor, not about Allah.

Btw, you yourself said it was done out of hatered. That's what I was in fact responding to:

For someone to place their hands around another's neck and choke you to death tells me it was coldly executed with pure hatred and anger.

As for the quotes, I don't take direct quotes from the Koran to prove Islam says it's ok to beat your wife any more than I take direct quotes from the Bible to prove that Christianity says its ok to beat and kill people. If people do it with one Book, they have to apply the same standards to all, so I'm wondering how many (non-athiests) do that.

Edited December 20, 2007 by American Woman

[jbg]

That's a pretty wide-open statement. What would you consider "pandering to the Muslims"-- a charge of manslaughter?

Yes. Given the history of beatings, I think it was premeditated an zero respect should be shown to the father on "cultural" grounds. He is in Canada and presumably a Canadian, to be held to Canadian standards.

Why are you singling out women to "scream bloody murder?" Don't you think men should be just as appalled by this in our enlightened western societies? Don't you think men should have as much an obligation to speak out as women do?

That's not the point. This issue is a poster child for womens' freedom since the doctrine of "honor killing" has females as its victims.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes. Given the history of beatings, I think it was premeditated an zero respect should be shown to the father on "cultural" grounds. He is in Canada and presumably a Canadian, to be held to Canadian standards.

I agree with you. I think a charge of "manslaughter" would be questionable.

That's not the point. This issue is a poster child for womens' freedom since the doctrine of "honor killing" has females as its victims.

And it has males as the perpetrators. Seems to me it should be a top priority for everyone, not just females. To single out females and question where they are makes it sound as if it should be more of a concern of women, which simply is not the case.

[Rue]

My point was, Rue, societies where violence against women is culturally or even legally sanctioned tend to be poorer and less educated. It's more overt in such societies compared to here. That's not to say it doesn't occur here. I agree that domestic violence is a universal phenomenon: in fact I'm sure I've mad e a statement to that effect already.

I think we're on the same page here.

Yes we are. I responded because you know I respect your opinions and found them important to respond to precisely because I respect them. I hear you.

[Rue]

Excuse me? Your repeated leaps in logic in order to paint me as something that I'm not is really questionable. I could just as easily suggest that "you would have [stoned] this girl if she did not follow your doctrine" because that's what it says in your holy books. You know full well that Christ taught non-violence, that he stopped Jews from stoning a sinner. Such utter nonsense. All things considered, I just do not understand why your flagrant bating and flaming continues to be tolerated.

Its interesting Keng but you did not anwer the questions I asked but instead tried to change the subject. It was you and it has been you from day one of your arrival on this forum who has preached to people to read the New Testamenbt literally and it can't just be read literally for that matter, it must be read the way you read it literally or its not true Christianity. Now in your response you assume I am a fundamentalist and read the Bible literally because you do. No Keng the fact that you process your thoughts and beliefs and feelings in a certain way does not mean I or anyone else does the exact same way. You continue to respond showing you can not distinguish the way you conceive from how others may.

No Keng, myself and many many others do not read the Bible whether its the Old Testament or New Testament or any other book literally precisely because to do so would lead to absurd conclusions and this is precisely why we need to question and challenge what we read and not simply follow it blindly.

So tell me Keng, reading back all your responses who of the two of us has told posters to take the New Testament and read it literally and not just literally but according to your religious denomination which you continue to refuse to disclose.

Tell us Keng, you not I stated that matriarchal socities feature reverence to sexual deceit and manipulative females using sex to manipulate and deceive. You not I stated the role of Christianity was to make women moral by controlling them and determing precribed roles for them in the home.

See Keng its all out in the open. Your reference to women in sexual positions, their being deceitful and sexually manipulative unless they prescribe to your version of Christianity, its there in writing by you and that is what I am responding to and challenging and calling me names and suggesting my religion requires I stone people and Jesus had to stop me won't destract from that Keng.

So now answer the question Keng. If someone does not prescribe to your views on sexuality and they are a woman, what will you do to them if they do not listen. Will you respect them and walk away or will you force yourself on them because you believe they are sinful and need to be saved by you?

You started this Keng with your statements that women are immoral and in need of salvation by you. So tell us, how will you do that? You told another poster you BLAME people who do not follow your Christian beliefs. So-when you BLAME Keng what then do you do? Now that they can be assigned BLAME do tell us, what does that in your mind and world, give you the right to do? Stop trying to talk about what I would do. We know what I would do-never at one time have I stated I would stone or impose myself on someone who disagreed with me? How about you? Would you respect a woman who says you can not touch her or tell her what to do?

[Rue]

I'm betting there was violence against women before the Qu'ran was written. There's also violence against women in non-Islamic religions.

It's the difference between "violence against women is a Msulim problem" and "Violence against women is a problem among Muslims."

I agree with you Black Dog on this.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Rue

[JerrySeinfeld]

I can't wait to hear the apologists try to bend and twist this one. Here is an excerpt from a column written in a Pakistani newspaper, the Daily Times, speaking about the recent Islamic Honour Killing in Toronto:

A year ago, Muhammad took a passenger to Applewood Heights Secondary School. Perchance, he spotted Aqsa without her headscarf. Since that day, a year ago, Aqsa had been showing up at school with bruised arms...

Honour killing is our export to Canada... Here’s a fact: Aqsa has been murdered. For us, denial is not an option. According to the United Nations Population Fund more than 5,000 women worldwide fall victim to honour killing. Denial is not an option.

According to the UN’s Special Rapporteur “honour killings had been reported in Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey and Yemen”. Egypt is 90 percent Muslim, Iran 98 percent, Jordan 92 percent, Lebanon 60 percent, Morocco 99 percent, Pakistan 97 percent, the Syrian Arab Republic 90 percent and Turkey 99 percent. Of the 192 member-states of the United Nations almost all honour killings take place in nine overwhelmingly Muslim countries. Denial is not an option.

More recently, honour killings have taken place in France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Canada...

And here is the link to the entire piece.

If Pakistani Muslims can ackowledge this is becoming a problem, one that is being imported to Multiculti societies, why can't our own self-hating lefties?

MERGED THREAD

This post was the Opening Post of the following thread: Pakistani Newspaper Column Condemns Islamic Honour Killing

Edited December 20, 2007 by Charles Anthony
merged redundant thread

[Rue]

Let's see how fast the Courts pander to the Muslims on this issue.

JBG on this kind of issue the defense lawyer is the one who may try use religion as a pretext to defend their client-its the last thing the Crown will pander to in establishing its case if it is to get a conviction. To prove criminal intent the necessary element in a homicide or violence, the last thing the Crown is going to do is pander to allowing religion to be used to rationalize being violent. Canadian case law has shown the exact opposite.

I would also not lump in all Muslims with what this guy did. Its like trying to blame all Christians for Keng's views or all Jews for mine!

[Rue]

Yes. Given the history of beatings, I think it was premeditated an zero respect should be shown to the father on "cultural" grounds. He is in Canada and presumably a Canadian, to be held to Canadian standards.

That's not the point. This issue is a poster child for womens' freedom since the doctrine of "honor killing" has females as its victims.

Could be something simpler JBG. It just could be the father is a simple man without the kind of reasoning processes that see things in greys, just black and whites. Might have nothing to do with religion at all but his inability to assimilate. None of us even know his Immam told him he sould force the Hijab on his daughter. IF the Immam did then its a problem in that respect. But that's a big if. This father's decision to try impose his values may have nothing to do with the Koran and everything to do with how his father taught him to run his home. Where cultural and religious values and and begin is very hard to say. Its not black and white.

I mean for all you know the Hijab wasn't even the real issue. It could be simply the final straw so to speak.

If there is a religious context to this homicide, its important not to smeer Muslims or anyone else. Making negative generalizations about all Muslims is not rational to understanding what happened, understanding how men may use their religion to inspire violence may be-that I believe is Amerc women's point.

[Michael Hardner]

If Pakistani Muslims can ackowledge this is becoming a problem, one that is being imported to Multiculti societies, why can't our own self-hating lefties?

Source please ?

[Guest American Woman]

Source please ?

He provided a link.

Honour killing is our export to Canada.

[Rue]

In regards to Keng's reference to the Amish amd Mennonite communities as being ideal Christian ones without domestic violence or sexual abuse you may wish to refer to:

http://www.state.in.us/ilea/2528.htm (unreported crimes)

http://www.in.gov/ilea/2528.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2365919&page=1

http://www.mennoweekly.org/FEB/02-21-05/AMISH02-21.html

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January...bi_janfeb05.msp

http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/mckelvey/secretsandlies/

http://www.wherestheoutrage.org/articles/art_153.php

In fact the isolation and dettached, segregated life of closed societies including certain Amish and certain Mennonite sects precisely because of its religious fundamentalism has t led to demostic violence, incest and rape.

So once again Keng makes references to a subject and societies he assumes he understands but does not.

[Rue]

In post 411 Keng stated:

"liberated" women in Canada don't want to have children, and population growth is key to economic growth. So, in other worlds, left-wing radicalism is responsible for bringing this kind of problem to Canada. If we had a truly Christian society, this would not even be an issue, and Canada would be a stronger country.

When questioned on this generalization he simply responded that the word women was in quotation marks but he did not respond to how he came to the above conclusion. Whether the word liberated is in quotation marks or not does not change the fact that you Keng made a sweeping series of negative generalizations with no basis. You make absurd references to liberated women not wanting to procreate and suggest of course you feel they are not fulfilling their primary duty as true Christians to procreate. You suggest if they do not see their primary role as a birthing device, this necessary makes them left wing radicals.

So once again Keng you provide hate references towards women who will not do your bidding and hate references to a society that will not do your bidding. Interestingly you make reference to Amish sects as ideal Christians.

Does this mean you will start your own sect with you at the head and women procreating for you and no one challenging your views?

[guyser]

Yes. Given the history of beatings, I think it was premeditated an zero respect should be shown to the father on "cultural" grounds. He is in Canada and presumably a Canadian, to be held to Canadian standards.

That was my point, there already is precedence on this. The Supreme court ruled no consideration for culture/religion.

There is a clause for goading (cant think of the correct term) that can be applied but from what I read it would not apply here.

[Michael Hardner]

I want a link to the self-hating lefties saying that honour killing is acceptable.

[Guest American Woman]

I want a link to the self-hating lefties saying that honour killing is acceptable.

The quote you cited makes no such claim.

It's an interesting editorial. It's well worth the read. Some are denying that this could ever be a problem in Canada, and that view seems to deny reality.

[JerrySeinfeld]

The quote you cited makes no such claim.

It's an interesting editorial. It's well worth the read. Some are denying that this could ever be a problem in Canada, and that view seems to deny reality.

I think one of the problems here is the obsession lefties have with race.

They're so scared of poo-pooing anyone but the white man, that it gets in the way of rational observation / thought.

This obsession with race isn't a factor for the writer of the column, who is brown himself, so he can more easily speak the truth without the obligatory "racist" and "bigot" barbs that usually come in reaction to said truth.

Edited December 20, 2007 by JerrySeinfeld

[capricorn]

Here's a very interesting article, written by a Muslim, on the murder of Aqsa.

"What is needed is for the Muslim community to try its best to ensure that another innocent life, full of possibilities, like that of Aqsa Parvez, does not meet the same fate. Denials, putting up a show of a hunger strike, or accusations of attacks on their religion will not help, but will only perpetuate the tragedy.

In spite of these denials, hunger strikes, and accusations, Muslims know well what is written in their scriptures and their duty to enforce them. What is needed is for the Muslim community to look honestly into where the problem truly lies. They must initiate an open debate in their community about what is enforceable in their scripture and creed, and what is not. It is going to be a long time before such a debate will stop innocents like Aqsa from dying, but without it, Aqsas will continue to die in their thousands yearly, as occurs today around the world, without an end in sight."

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1033