I stumbled upon this report focusing on discussion of honour killings in the UK. The report expands upon the news I previously posted about 1 in 10 Asians in the UK supporting honour killings. Within the report are some comments from Muslim community leaders which are highly inaccurate and deserve to be highlighted.
First, let’s look at statements from Khadim Hussain, the president of the Bradford Council of Mosques.
"Mr Hussain said he did not believe most Muslims in Bradford would condone honour killings."
And neither do the survey results. The survey results said 1 in 10 not "most". Statements like this are misleading as they do not answer the point raised and are intended to suggest that the actual point made was in some way discriminatory. No body said "most". No body was labelling most Muslims. But instead of objecting to the "1 in 10" suvery results he shifts the focus to "most" hiding the actual assertion being made within a far broader statement that looks more like a prejudice.
And he said forced marriages were against Islam.
"Forced marriages are not acceptable, and arranged marriages are the most successful marriages in the Asian community," he said.
Well, perhaps Mr. Hussain is not familiar with the ahadith, the sayings of Muhammad, in which you will find such gems as this:
Bukhari:V9B86N98 "The Prophet said, ‘A virgin should not be married till she is asked for her consent.’ ‘O Apostle! How will the virgin express her consent?’ He said, ‘By remaining silent.’"
Perhaps he’s also unaware that the age of consent under Shariah law is 9 years old thanks to the fact that Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha , his child bride, when she was just 9 years old (he was 53).
Tabari VII:7 "The Prophet married Aisha in Mecca three years before the Hijrah, after the death of Khadija. At the time she was six."
Tabari IX:131 "My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old."
So, in Islam forced marriages are unacceptable but that definition of "forced" excludes children who keep silent when they are told to – all following the fine example of their illustrious paedophile prophet.
Now onto Bary Malik, president of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association in Bradford.
"I'm shocked because those youngsters were born in Britain and live in this civilised society but still hold these backward views," he said.
Yes, that’s truly shocking. We thought they were all progressive, well integrated, law abiding citizens like the British born and well educated 7/7 bombers for instance. But lets’ not forget that
25% of UK Muslims thought the 7/7 bombings were justified. So bombing people isn’t a backward practice, but we are expected to believe that these self appointed community leaders are really telling the truth when it comes to other Muslim crimes?
"I think it's not acceptable in any society, and those who do it cannot use the name of religion because no religion would allow a person to take the life of another."
Of course, no religion would allow a person to take the life of another. Unless of course that religion was Islam, Christianity, Judaism or pretty much any of the other which don’t just allow killing but command it. You don’t believe me? OK, here goes…
Qur’an 9.5: "When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, beleaguer them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
New Testament, Luke 19:27, Jesus says "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." – So much for the other cheek!
Old Testament, Numbers 31:17 -18, Moses orders murder of babies and sexually active women and gives the virgin girls as sex slaves to reward his troops, "17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
But of course Mr. Malik, "no religion would allow a person to take the life of another". Where would anybody ever get such an idea?
Now on to our next outright liar or misinformed fool, Councillor Naveeda.
"Councilor Naveeda Iqram (Lab, Little Horton) said the figures were not representative of the views of many Muslims in Bradford. She said in Pakistan the law was very strict with regard to honour killings."
Yes, Pakistan, the bastion of moral decency in the Muslim world. That must be why Pakistan has just put of rape reform plans again due to complaints from Islamic parties leaving them with their existing laws in which rape cannot be tried in a civil court, only under Islamic law. The particular law, the Hudud Ordinance, criminalises all sex outside of marriage and requires a raped woman to provide four male witnesses of the rape or she will herself be prosecuted and punished for sexual crimes whilst her attackers go free. But that’s rape, not honour killings so let’s see how strict the law in Pakistan is when it comes to honour killings. No so great it turns out, and even in violation of a UN treaty they signed.
From Amnesty International’s report on Honour Killings of girls and women in Pakistan.
Government indifference to honour killings
The Government of Pakistan has not shown any determination to bring violence against women on grounds of honour to a halt, thus virtually signalling official indifference if not approval of the system.
Government inaction received more public exposure after the honour killing of Samia Sarwar in Hina Jilani's office in April 1999. A representative of the government condemned the killing before the UN Human Right Commission in Geneva. But in Pakistan, where attitudes need to be changed, the government three weeks after the killing declared it a 'dishonourable' act without ensuring that adequate action would be taken. The accused have not been arrested and no action has been taken against those who issued death threats against Asma Jahangir and Hina Jilani for protecting women's rights.
The government's disregard for its obligations to take measures to alter public perceptions involving gender bias, to which it committed itself when ratifying the UN Convention on the Elimination on All Forms of Discrimination against Women, is partly responsible for the persistence and indeed increase of honour killings. When the 1998 annual report of the HRCP was released in March 1999, Information Minister Mushahid Hussain reportedly said about allegations of violence against women and of child labour: "These are a feature of Pakistan feudal society, they are not part of any government policy or a consequence of any law..."
You’re not full of shit by any chance are you Councillor Iqram?
Well, if you are then you are in good company. Not only do you have all those I’ve already listed but you can also count on Councillor Shamim Aktar.
"The research is representative of a very small percentage of the Muslim population. I'm not aware of any honour killings in Keighley, furthermore they have no religious basis. The Quran teaches individuals to be tolerant and understanding, and the majority of Muslims would not condone that kind of thing."
Which Qur’an is this? Oh, my mistake. Actually the Qur’an does teach individuals to be tolerant and understanding. The only problem is that it only teaches this when the people you have to be tolerant and understanding of are also strict Muslims. For everyone else it’s a different story:
Qur’an 3:28: "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
Qur’an 5:51: "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
Qur’an 8:12: "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
Qur’an 9:29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Yep, that sounds pretty tolerant and understanding, but what about tolerance and understanding for women?
Qur’an 4:34: "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."
The 12th century renowned Islamic philosopher Averroes had this to say on the subject and nothing has changed:
"There is a general consensus among the jurists that in financial transactions a case stands proven by the testimony of a just man and two women on the basis of the verse: ‘If two men cannot be found then one man and two women from among those whom you deem appropriate as witnesses’. However; in cases of Hudud, there is a difference of opinion among our jurists. The majority say that in these affairs the testimony of women is in no way acceptable whether they testify alongside a male witness or do so alone. The Zahiris on the contrary maintain that if they are more than one and are accompanied by a male witness, then owing to the apparent meaning of the verse their testimony will be acceptable in all affairs. Imam Abu Hanifah is of the opinion that except in cases of Hudud and in financial transactions their testimony is acceptable in bodily affairs like divorce, marriage, slave-emancipation and raju‘ [restitution of conjugal rights]. Imam Malik is of the view that their testimony is not acceptable in bodily affairs. There is however a difference of opinion among the companions of Imam Malik regarding bodily affairs which relate to wealth, like advocacy and will-testaments, which do not specifically relate to wealth. Consequently, Ash-hab and Ibn Majishun accept two male witnesses only in these affairs, while to Malik Ibn Qasim and Ibn Wahab two female and a male witness are acceptable. As far as the matter of women as sole witnesses is concerned, the majority accept it only in bodily affairs, about which men can have no information in ordinary circumstances like the physical handicaps of women and the crying of a baby at birth."
So a woman’s testimony is either worthless or worth half that of a mans testimony. And of course we have the centuries old traditional law of Diyat, which Muhammad told Muslims to obey , which prescribes that a woman’s life is worth half that of a mans.
I hope that I have managed to shed a little light on the misinformation that Muslims use to hide their crimes and misrepresent their religion. The Qur’an actually promotes lying to non-Muslims as a strategy for defeating them. All too often, Muslim community leaders make claims that have absolutely no relationship to Islam because they know that most people don’t have a clue that they are lying and that the cowardly and biased mainstream media wouldn’t dare to question their statements.
Don’t be fooled by this nonsense. Learn the truth. Honour killings will continue and the Muslim community by themselves will do absolutely nothing to prevent these tragic crimes. Their only objective is to hide the truth of Islamic brutality, not change it.
If you enjoyed this article please feel free to digg it down below.
The winner of todays Sickest Fuck Award for Unimaginably Brutal Stupidity has been won by Birmingham dentist Hussain Ahmed, age 26. Mr Ahmed burned, 6 year old Alisha Begum to death in her house because he didn't like that her 21 year old brother was seeing his 15 year old sister. A local Imam has said "We do not agree with this killing because we do not understand the reasons behind it. 
"A notorious Muslim extremist told a demonstration in London yesterday that the Pope should face execution.
In reporting about Islam foaming at the mouth over the Pope's comments it's interesting to note that in the two top stories the BBC carry they use the same readers comment along side the stories. The readers comment they use is this:
I’m not a catholic or any flavour of theist and so I have absolutely no interest in defending the Pope. As far as I’m concerned he’s one of the kings of the idiots and every single time I see him on TV waving or smiling I think how cute it is for the world to swoon over grandpa there whilst utterly ignoring the two million AIDS deaths in Africa each year which grandpa’s policy choices contribute to. But when I read the news today about the world going mad yet again because Islam has been offended then I find myself thinking how great it would be if someone with such a huge press following as Der Papst were to tell it how it is.
"My husband treated me like an animal, not as a human, with daily beatings and torture and locking me indoors. I know he is pursuing me to kill me because he thinks I have disgraced him but God knows it is he who was guilty."
Legend has it that Charles was mad about aviation from an early age. At just six years old he created his first plane out of some wood he found in an alleyway behind his home in England. His dreams were to be realised.
The BBC has published 
