It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police: Man ran down 'too Westernized' daughter

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
reply to post by sos37
 


It is nowhere in the quran.


You are correct, the Quran does not come out and say to kill apostates, point blank. So if that's the case, why all of the honor killings?

www.answering-islam.org...


As noted above, the Quran does not come out and state explicitly that apostates should be killed. All of the neutral references I examined took this position. However, there are a number of Quranic verses that pertain to apostasy and various Muslim scholars found in them the justification to execute apostates.


I'm not a Muslim, myself and I have very limited experience with Islam and still have to look up anything I reference and even then I don't pretend to understand at the base level why these things are done.

Christianity teaches us that God is a loving God who orders us not to kill, that people gained the ability of higher knowledge to choose right and wrong by the actions of one man, long ago (Adam).

I couldn't answer why anyone would hold to religion as an excuse to perform honor killings any more than I could answer how a Christian could use the Bible to justify being a serial killer.
Religions don't kill, the people who blindly follow them do.




posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by _Phoenix_
 


Here is what the Quran says on the matter...





Dictums of Quran and Hadiths which may dictate/incite honor killing:

Quran- 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witness from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them. Or God ordain for them some (other) way.”

Quran-24:2 “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day.”



Here is what the Hadiths...oral tradition says...



Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol 2. pg 1009; and Sahih Muslim Vol 2. pg 65:
Hadhrat Abdullah ibne Abbaas (Radiallahu Anhu) narrates the lecture that Hadhrat Umar (Radiallaahu Anhu) delivered whilst sitting on the pulpit of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam). Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) said, "Verily, Allah sent Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) with the truth, and revealed the Quran upon him. The verse regarding the stoning of the adulterer/ess was from amongst the verse revealed (in the Quraan). We read it, secured it and understood it. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) stoned and we stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time a person might say, ‘We do not find mention of stoning in the Book of Allah and thereby go astray by leaving out an obligation revealed by Allah. Verily, the stoning of a adulterer/ress is found in the Quraan and is the truth, if the witnesses are met or there is a pregnancy or confession."


So does the Quran say to stone folks? Open to intepretation. Stonings were
common before the Quran and not just in the middle east.

FYI - The Bible on stonings...Are Christians bad followers for not stoning people? Are followers of islam devout for doing so?

In my opinion religion is an an age old excuse for many evil deeds.



The Bible on Stonings..

For touching Mount Sinai

Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death. Exodus 19:13

For taking "accursed things"

Achan ... took of the accursed thing. ... And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. ... So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Joshua 7:1-26

For cursing or blaspheming

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16

For adultery (including urban rape victims who fail to scream loud enough)

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

For animals (like an ox that gores a human)

If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned. Exodus 21:28

For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21

For worshipping other gods

If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... tone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:5-10

For disobeying parents

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

For witches and wizards

A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27

For giving your children to Molech

Whosoever ... giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Leviticus 20:2

For breaking the Sabbath

They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56

For cursing the king

Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die. 1 Kings 21:10




posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11
reply to post by _Phoenix_
 


Here is what the Quran says on the matter...





Dictums of Quran and Hadiths which may dictate/incite honor killing:

Quran- 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witness from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them. Or God ordain for them some (other) way.”

Quran-24:2 “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day.”



Here is what the Hadiths...oral tradition says...



Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol 2. pg 1009; and Sahih Muslim Vol 2. pg 65:
Hadhrat Abdullah ibne Abbaas (Radiallahu Anhu) narrates the lecture that Hadhrat Umar (Radiallaahu Anhu) delivered whilst sitting on the pulpit of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam). Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) said, "Verily, Allah sent Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) with the truth, and revealed the Quran upon him. The verse regarding the stoning of the adulterer/ess was from amongst the verse revealed (in the Quraan). We read it, secured it and understood it. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) stoned and we stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time a person might say, ‘We do not find mention of stoning in the Book of Allah and thereby go astray by leaving out an obligation revealed by Allah. Verily, the stoning of a adulterer/ress is found in the Quraan and is the truth, if the witnesses are met or there is a pregnancy or confession."


So does the Quran say to stone folks? Open to intepretation. Stonings were
common before the Quran and not just in the middle east.

FYI - The Bible on stonings...Are Christians bad followers for not stoning people? Are followers of islam devout for doing so?

In my opinion religion is an an age old excuse for many evil deeds.



The Bible on Stonings..

For touching Mount Sinai

Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death. Exodus 19:13

For taking "accursed things"

Achan ... took of the accursed thing. ... And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. ... So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Joshua 7:1-26

For cursing or blaspheming

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16

For adultery (including urban rape victims who fail to scream loud enough)

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

For animals (like an ox that gores a human)

If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned. Exodus 21:28

For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21

For worshipping other gods

If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... tone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:5-10

For disobeying parents

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

For witches and wizards

A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27

For giving your children to Molech

Whosoever ... giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Leviticus 20:2

For breaking the Sabbath

They found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. ... And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones.... And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses. Numbers 15:32-56

For cursing the king

Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die. 1 Kings 21:10





Your post proves a great point.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 
Explanation: RE: "If you recal the war wasnt illegal... Congress Authorized it as well as the UN, so the war was very legal."

NOPE! WRONG! Here is why your post is promoting ignorance....

U.N. Security Council and the Iraq War [wiki]

Specifically "On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."[1]

[1] Iraq War Illegal say's Annan. [BBC News]

Note the BBC News website does carry the above statement made by Mr Annan, but it also shows that he didn't just say it once and I quote from the BBC News source RE: "I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added." [Note Bold is my edit for emphasis"

I also noticed that the coalition of the willing was rather upset by these comments and they generally replied with RE: "I think it is outrageous for the Secretary-General, who ultimately works for the member states, to try and supplant his judgement for the judgement of the member states," Randy Scheunemann, a former advisor to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the BBC.

"To do this 51 days before an American election reeks of political interference."

A UK foreign office spokeswoman said: "The Attorney-General made the government's position on the legal basis for the use of military force in Iraq clear at the time".

Australian Prime Minister John Howard also rejected Mr Annan's remarks, saying the legal advice he was given was "entirely valid".

So was Mr Annan correct or was the coalition of the willing in the right?

[from wiki source linked above] RE: " [edit] Positions of Security Council members
United States - The U.S. maintained that Iraq was not cooperating with UN inspectors and had not met its obligations to 17 UN resolutions. The U.S. felt that Resolution 1441 called for the immediate, total unilateral disarmament of Iraq and continued to show frustration at the fact that months after the resolution was passed Iraq was still not, in its view, disarming. Language in Resolution 1441 recalled that the use of "all means necessary" was still authorized and in effect from Resolution 678, and therefore maintained that if Iraq failed to comply with the "one final chance to comply" provision of Resolution 1441, then military action would be the result.
United Kingdom - Within the Security Council, the UK was the primary supporter of the U.S. plan to invade Iraq. Prime Minister Tony Blair publicly and vigorously supported U.S. policy on Iraq, and portrayed himself as exerting a moderating influence on Bush. British public opinion polls in late January showed that the public support for the war was deteriorating. It had fallen from 50 percent to 30 percent by March.
France - On January 20, 2003, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution," although France believed that Iraq may have had an ongoing chemical and nuclear weapons program. Villepin went on to say that he believed the presence of UN weapons inspectors had frozen Iraq's weapons programs. France also suggested that it would veto any resolution allowing military intervention offered by the US or Britain. The most important French speech during the crisis was made by De Villepin at the Security Council on the February 14, 2003, after Hans Blix presented his detailed report (see below). De Villepin detailed the three major risks of a "premature recourse to the military option", especially the "incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region". He said that "the option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest, but let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace", words which proved to be very prescient. He emphasized that "real progress is beginning to be apparent" through the inspections, and that, "given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies", the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad explained by Colin Powell were not established. He concluded by referring to the dramatic experience of "old Europe" during World War II. This "impassioned" speech "against war on Iraq, or immediate war on Iraq", won "an unprecedented applause", reported the BBC's Sir David Frost (BBC News). The complete text is available at the Embassy of France in the United States. Britain and the US sharply criticized France for this position in March 2003.[citation needed]
Russia - On the same day, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said that "Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq." On January 28, however, Russia's opinion had begun to shift following a report the previous day by UN inspectors which stated that Iraq had cooperated on a practical level with monitors, but had not demonstrated a "genuine acceptance" of the need to disarm. Russian President Vladimir Putin indicated that he would support a US-led war if things did not change and Iraq continued to show a reluctance to completely cooperate with inspection teams. However, Putin continued to stress that the US must not go alone in any such military endeavor, but instead must work through the UN Security Council. He also stressed the need for giving the UN inspectors more time. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov also garnered unusual applause inside the chamber with his speech against the war.[citation needed]
China - The People's Republic of China supported continued weapons inspections. On January 23, the Washington Post reported that the Chinese position was "extremely close" to that of France.[citation needed]
Germany - On January 22, German chancellor Gerhard Schröder, at a meeting with French president Jacques Chirac, said that he and Chirac would do all they could to avert war. At the time, Germany was presiding over the Security Council.
Angola - Angola supported continued inspections, but had not taken a stand on disarmament by military action.
Bulgaria - Bulgaria suggested that it would support the use of military force to disarm Iraq, even without UN backing.
Cameroon - Cameroon encouraged the continued inspections, but had not taken a firm stand on whether the country would support a US led strike to invade Iraq.
Chile - Chile indicated that it would like inspections to continue, but had not taken a position on the use of military force to disarm Iraq.
Guinea - Guinea supported further inspections, but had not taken a position on the use of military force to disarm Iraq.
Mexico - Mexico supported further inspections, and hinted that it would support a US-led military campaign if it were backed by the UN. The country also hinted that it might consider supporting a military campaign without UN backing as well. President Vicente Fox heavily criticized the war when it started and Mexican diplomats described their conversations with U.S. officials as hostile in tone and that Washington was demonstrating little concern for the constraints of the Mexican government whose people were overwhelmingly opposed to the war with Iraq. (USA Today)
Pakistan - Pakistan supported continued inspections.
Syria - Syria felt that Iraq was cooperating and meeting its obligations under UN resolutions. Syria would have liked to see the crippling UN sanctions on Iraq lifted.
Spain - Spain supported the US's position on Iraq and supported the use of force to disarm Iraq, even without UN approval."

Seem's Mr Annan told the truth!



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Okay, But the US COngress authorized force, which makes it legal.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
The other person hit was the daughter's boyfriend's MOTHER! What an idiot! Control Freak. I can't wait till they catch this guy!

Source



brahim Ramey, human and civil rights director for the Muslim American Society's Freedom Foundation, told ABCNews.com that whenever this type of crime involves a Muslim it can serve to elevate the fears of people who may already harbor misconceptions about Islam.
...
Ramey pointed out that a verse in the Koran specifically states that there is no compulsion in religion, meaning that people can not be compelled or coerced into being Muslim or adhering to a certain set of rules.

"People have to obey or adhere to Islam ... according to the dictates of their own conscience," he said.


Yep.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 


The U.S. does not adhere to international law. We also do not subject ourselves to the ICC, and quite frankly, we don't have to.

Why? WE NEVER AGREED TO!

The war in Iraq may be illegal in another nations, or body of nations eyes, but it has no legal repercussions here. We followed OUR laws.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]
Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Explanation: 1st of all, the victims, although seriously hurt by the alledged incident, were not reported as being killed outright! The daughter who is reported to be suffering "life threatening injuries" may well succumb to them, but she's not been reported as being deceased just yet! So just hold your horses on the claiming that this is a case of honour killings as the case for that hasn't yet been proved and may become a moot point if she survives! Two counts of Attempted Murder couched in the apparent motive of the father's, might be enough to sway a jury to convict him though!


2ndly I'm going to address the "I brought you into this world, and I can take you OUT!" attitude that parents [mine included] have bandied about in a lame effort to control us [their children] via the use of this threat.
I myself retorted to the both of them [my parents] "You fools..You made me to REPLACE you! Would you like me to enforce that immediately, to the both of your detriments? Otherwise your both idiots for creating me and causing this problem for yourselves or your morality is immorally slanted!".


3rdly I noted that it was the police that made the claim about the father's motive and until that issue is resolved, I would suggest that members consider the source of this information and how it maybe being used to polarize the issue! Who is getting what and how much, where and when, and why?


Personal Disclosure:IMO Honour killings or abuse commited to defend one's honour, seems to me to be a complete victim mentality, due to perception that one's honour can be defeated [offended]! That doesn't seem such a macho POV to be promoting or protecting and I posit that the male entities that are perpetrators of such obscene acts are really just girlymen with effeminant ego's!
Note I apologize to all the women for utilizing gender biased symantics to ad hominen these jerks! I'm making an appeal to their machoness in an attempt to sway them from such disgusting attitudes and I'm sorry if my statement in anyway offends. For those who are hugely offended I offer the words as replacements ....

girlymen= emotionally liable!
effeminant= WEAK!

P.S see my disclaimer elsewhere!



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet
 
Explanation: RE:"Okay, But the US COngress authorized force, which makes it legal."

Ok so it's legal from the U.S's POV but lets have a look at what the U.S has signed up for shall we......

"PREAMBLE
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
•to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
•to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
•to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
•to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
•to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
•to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
•to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
•to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations."

And also.....

"CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1.To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2.To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3.To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4.To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1.The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2.All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3.All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4.All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5.All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6.The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7.Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll."

Seems that the U.S. has failed to meet its obligations under the UN charter!

Wouldn't that make its actions and the actions of its fellow countries involved in the coalition of the willing, ILLEGAL! when viewed from the POV of the UN?
Didn't I clear that up in my previous post?

Are you implying that just because the U.S. see's it as legal the rest of the world should just follow suit? If yes!, then are you also implying that the world should institute the policy worked out by the U.S. lawyer John Yoo concerning the issue of whats legally acceptable best practice on the issue of torture?

Personal Disclosure: :shk:



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Here is a link contrary to a previous one that defines honor killing as
un-Islamic : www.islam-watch.org...

: "In pre-Islamic Arab society honor killings, stoning, beheading, slavery
also existed.

But Islam did incorporate entirely most of these inhumane/uncivilized
practices of Pagan society, which they now call them Allah´s laws.

Had it been the tribal/cultural practice, honor killing would exist amongst
the Arabs only."



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Been in a poetic mood today. Thought this might be fitting.

Sharia's Honor

I stood before a wailing wall and told a bitter tale
of lies, deceit and cruelty that led me to this hell.

I beat my fists upon it's brick until my blood flowed free.
I sobbed until I had no tears; until my heart grew sick.

I carved my name upon it's face. It would remember me!
I would not leave until this wall had found for me a place.

But stoically, impassioned stood the mortar, brick and stone.
It answered not a single word but turned to me it's wood.

Embellishments! the very best. It's carvings were quite fine.
It boasted of it's sturdiness but gave no place to rest.

Exhausted, I did prostrate fall and laughed to think of it.
How silly I to trust the men that built this cursed wall.

So climbing on the parapet I peered in o'er the wall
and saw the corpses of those "helped"-my sisters one and all!

Their faces blank, their souls recalled, their children wandering lost
"Such no good wives deserved to die"! Go tell it to the wall.


[Yes, I realize the guy ran over his daughter, not his wife, but the lack of respect for any woman with Muslim "handlers" is the same]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reminds me of the story i read about the muslim father in a muslim country - forget which one- who cut out his daughter's tongue and set her on fire for saying she wanted to be a christian.

charming. seriously, western countries have many problems with abuse of women/children, but with the stories coming out of muslim countries its just in epidemic proportions there. women are treated like slaves and property. women used to be property/chattels under british law, but since then (thank god) things have changed here.

the last thing we need is waves of people with cultural values that depict women as slaves coming to western countries and setting back women's rights hundreds of years here. our ancestors worked hard to improve womens rights in the west.

if people from muslim or other countries with different cultural values want to live in the west they shud have to sign an undertaking to respect women's rights in the same way they are respected in teh west (or at least attempted to be respected here)i.e. (an undertaking to abide by our laws and cultural norms) and that they will allow their children, spouse and family members freedom to adopt western religious or customs if they want to; and that they wont try to impose their views on their families or other people living in the west to the extent that they differ from our laws/cultural norms..(with respect to women's rights).

and if they dont want to follow our laws/accept our cultural norms re: women's rights or if they break the undertaking, they shud be sent 'home'. cuz clearly they want to live in their home and not in the west.

if westerners go to muslim countries they have to show respect for muslim customs and laws by not drinking alcohol and covering their head and arms etc. if not they get thrown in jail.

yet we tolerate muslim women wearing the hijab here, and we dont enforce bikini wearing, yet this is our cultural norm.

but you can take tolerance too far. and personally i think there are issues with allowing anyone to cover their face to that degree -men or women.

to me the hijab is a symbol of the oppression of women and should not be allowed here. if there was genuine choice for women in muslim countries as to whether the cud wear it, and it wasnt forced on them, then i wudnt mind if some chose to wear it for their religion.

but you read all these stories coming from muslim women that it IS forced on them and they hate wearing it. so in support of THOSE women, i say it should be banned in western countries. Until women are genuinely allowed the freedom to CHOOSE whether to wear it or not.

if women have the freedom to chose then i dont care if they wear a potato sack all day. so long as they ve not been forced into doing it; and we all arent collaborating in supporting this oppression of women.


ps there are cries of help coming from women in muslim countries - they want HELP from women in the west and they NEED help. many are in forced marriages from when they are children to old men; they are tortured and abused on a daily basis. many in afganistan set themselves on fire in order to escape their horrific lives. they are thrown in jail for just wanting freedom. if they want to marry the man they love they are often murdered by their own father or uncles or family members. we cant ignore them and we cant collaborate in these crimes against women.

SUPPORT OUR SISTERS IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES - FIGHT FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES & DEMAND THAT MUSLIMS RESPECT WOMENS RIGHTS WHEN they MOVE To weSTERN COUntRIeS.

y'know maybe theres bad intention behind the war in afganistan and iraq and many children and innocents are dying which is wrong. but if it leads to an improvement in women's rights - well, this just has to happen; so maybe a good thing could come out of it, i hope.

[edit on 22-10-2009 by rapunzel222]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
Why are you still confounded by the actions of Middle Easterners who carry out these actions? We've seen time and again that they are steadfastly dedicated to religion and traditions and are ready to both die and sacrifice their families for such.

What, did you think TERRORISTS would eventually drop their hostility of the U.S. and make us pals? What the hell do you think we're fighting for in Afghanistan?


People like you disgrace the whole Western society, I can seriously see the Western achievements, specially against Slavery, Racism, Hatred, but individuals like you step all over these achievements and take it as granted.




Mormon New Zealand Man Beat Daughter Over Church Refusal



Caught! Daughter Having Sex, Shoots Boyfriend in the Balls


America invaded Afghanistan and you expect them not to fight ^^ you must still be living around 9/11 I suppose. I dare the US to come to NZ, watch me fight, and I wouldn't give a damn if you call me a terrorist because more people around the world calls America a terrorist nations, threatening and terrorizing the world because she feels she can't be touched due to all the WMDs stacked up.

What goes around comes around, trust me, when America is in the Nazi Germany's position you won't be laughing.

Final Solution



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Sick sick man, Never fails to amaze me what people of that religion will do.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
So don't act like this is a middle eastern thing or even a religious thing... this is a Parental thing and I've seen it plenty here in the good ole USA before I ever saw in any foreigners... It's about CONTROL... and nothing more...

This is why I admonished parents in general in my OP.

You are absolutely right. Nearly every single Muslim Americans are just as horrified about that crime as anybody else.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest
You are absolutely right. Nearly every single Muslim Americans are just as horrified about that crime as anybody else.


that maybe so but how can you possibly know what several million people think



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
dont run over young women in the USA as it is against the law .
Its murder,
and and when you die i hope the 72 virgins are all men .
bad man bad



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Sorry to those saying 'oh they are Iraqis what do you expect' other cultures are similiarly obsessive with their children.. i am sure my mother in law would have hit me with a car for being non Welsh when i married her son! He was 27 at the time.. and i have also noticed the same In many Afro American/Afro British families.. so nope not just the ooogy boogy terrorists.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 



Ok, so since the daughter is still alive and might survive it is not, in your words and "Honor killing" cause she is not dead. Can we at least agree that it was an "Attempted honor killing"?

I'm kinda suprised they haven't found this guy yet unles either he has someone hiding him, which means he doesn't believe his actions were right, or they are not trying that hard to find him.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Kind of a moot argument dragging the un into this. Considering that some of the countries mentioned were involved with the oil for food scandal
The un is not a measure of whats legal.




top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join