Sunday, July 25, 2021   

  Home     About     Guest Editorials     Advertise     Blog     Site Map     Links     Contact      Subscribe RSS      Subscribe Email  
Home »

Mass Honor Killing Delights Loons

1 November 2011 12 Comments Email This Post Email This Post

Mass Honor Killing Delights Loons

The Shafia murder trial currently underway in Ontario, Canada is a public relations bonanza for anti-Muslim bigots who have made so-called “Islamic honor killings” a major theme in their campaign to vilify Muslims. Three of Mohammad Shafia’s daughters and his first wife were found dead in a car submerged in a shallow canal two years ago in what prosecutors say was a quadruple murder staged to look like an accident.

Mohammad Shafia, 58, his second wife, Tooba Mohammad Yahya, 41, and their son Hamed, who was 18 at the time of the incident, have each been charged with four counts of first-degree murder. All three have pleaded not guilty.

Shafia is a wealthy Montreal businessman originally from Afghanistan, who was apparently living in apolygamous arrangement with his first (infertile) wife, his second wife, and their seven children. After leaving Afghanistan in 1992, the family had lived in Dubai, Pakistan and Australia before settling in Quebec, Canada.

Two summers ago on a return trip from a Niagara Falls vacation, the family checked into a Kingston hotel for the night. Early the next morning, police found the family’s wrecked sedan in the nearby Kingston Mill locks.

Inside were the bodies of sisters Zainab, 19, Sahar, 17, and Geeti Shafia, 13, and Mohammad’s first wife, Rona Amir Mohammad, 52. Autopsies indicated all four victims had drowned.

At first, the couple told police their eldest daughter had taken the sedan for a joyride without their permission, resulting in a tragic accident. Inconsistencies in their story left police suspicious, and evidence found at the scene contradicted their account.

Investigators said the sedan would have had to travel past a locked gate, over a concrete curb and a rocky outcrop, and then make two U-turns to wind up in the locks of the canal. Damage found on both vehicles indicates that Mohammad Shafia’s SUV pushed the sedan into the shallow canal at an isolated, unlit location.

Police seized a laptop from the family’s Montreal home they said was owned by Shafia but used by his son Hamed. In the weeks leading up to the alleged murder, forensic experts found incriminating phrases had been entered in the Google search engine, including “Where to commit a murder,” “Can a prisoner have control over their real estate,” and ”Montreal jail.”

Shafia’s chilling statements captured on police wiretaps suggest he orchestrated the death of his daughters because they consorted with boys and dishonored his family with their defiant behavior:

“They committed treason on themselves. They betrayed humankind. They betrayed Islam. They betrayed our religion…they betrayed everything.”

An apparently remorseless Shafia told his second wife that when he views the cell phone photos of Zainab and Sahar posing with their boyfriends or in suggestive clothing, he is consoled, saying:

“I say to myself, ‘You did well.’ Were they come to life, I would do it again.”

The trial has received intense media coverage in Canada, but in the US, coverage has been mostly confined to anti-Muslim hatemongers and outrage peddlers. Frontpage Magazine, a site run by anti-Muslim loon David Horowitz, prompted some hate-filled comments from readers responding to an article about the Shafia trial:

“IslamoFascist Pigs will continue to carry out the tenets of Islam because they are 7th Century barbarians in the 21st Century. It’s unfortunate that Canada doesn’t have a death penalty.”

“…The West is drinking poison, we need to puke it out and close the door and seal every crack to keep this evil out.”

An article on The Blaze, a right wing website founded by former Fox News host Glenn Beck, provoked over 200 colorful comments, including:

“These towelheads think they are above the law. I don’t know what its going to take to wake up our country and it’s leaders.”


“Gee…if Muslims keep this up there won’t be a ‘problem’ with them. I say we need to keep hands off and let this run its course.”

“Nuke Mecca, Nuke Medina. Peace through Strength, Strength through Superior Firepower.”

Pamela Geller’s website Atlas Shrugs is also covering the story, and her readers appear to be equally hateful, paranoid, and in some cases, unaware that Afghans are not Arabs:

“Muslim DOGS is what they are… Arab DOGS!”

“Just another moderate Muslim. And that is not tongue-in-cheek. DEPORT ALL OF THEM.”

“The pathetic politically-correct wussies in the canadian parliament have totally rolled-over and caved to these islamo-crazies. Sharia will be the law of the land in canada within the next three years. It’s time to beef up our northern border.”

Notice that these comments are not confined to outrage over this specific crime, but are a wholesale denunciation of all Muslims and the Islamic religion, as well as calls for violence, deportation, and even genocide. Comments consistently expressed a visceral hatred of Muslims, belief in a sinisterleft-Islamist alliance, and paranoid conspiracy theories about Muslims taking over and imposing Sharia (Islamic Law) in the Western world.

Geller has a section on her website entitled, “Honor Killings: Islam Misogyny,” where she frequently repeats the lie that honor killings are sanctioned by Islamic Law.  She describes honor killing in America as, “a grotesque manifestation of [S]haria law abrogating American law,” and warns that “creeping [S]haria” will bring a myriad of barbaric practices to the US if  “Islamic supremacists” are not stopped.

The fact is that honor killings are not religiously or legally sanctioned by Islam. Rafia Zakaria is a lawyer, a doctoral candidate at Indiana University, and the Director for Amnesty International USA.  Zakaria is also a Muslim feminist and a regular contributor to Magazine, which covers contemporary women’s issues. On the subject of honor killing, she has said:

“That is one of the black and white statements I can make. There is absolutely nothing, either in the Qur’an or in the Hadith, or even in any secondary source that says that honor killing is something that Muslims should do or can do or that is lawful.”

Honor killing is an ancient practice that can be linked to the ancient Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, circa 1700 BC.  Barbara Kay, a harsh critic of Islam who previously sparked controversy with her column, “The Rise of Quebecistan,” says the first honor killing in Judeo-Christian civilization is recorded in the Bible in Genesis 34.  She relates the story here.

Some Muslims, perhaps 0.0001% mistakenly believe that “honor killing” is permitted in Islam, and Mohammad Shafia’s statements in the wake of his daughters’ deaths suggest he shares this misconception, conflating culture and faith. For this reason, it is important to spread the news that Islam does NOT condone these killings, yet anti-Muslim bigots who claim they care about Muslim women are doing the opposite.

In a pathetic attempt to prove Islam sanctions honor killings, the loons have dredged up  ”Reliance of the Traveller,” a classical manual for the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence written over 600 years ago. A convoluted interpretation of select passages has gone viral, and is now routinely cited on the pages of hate sites and in comments on numerous articles related to honor killing.

Geller quotes a section of The Traveller on her website that says certain crimes, including the killing of one’s offspring, are not subject to retaliation, implying Muslim parents have a free pass to murder their children under Islamic Law, which is a bold faced LIE. Retaliation is a form of reciprocal justice,lex talionis, commonly known as “an eye for an eye.”

A crime that is not subject to retaliation can still be punished by other means. Restrictions on reciprocal justice in the Qur’an were meant to reduce blood feuds and the cycle of vengeance. The concept of retaliation is also found in Jewish and Christian scriptures, and like honor killing, traces back to the ancient Code of Hammurabi.

Even if The Traveller sanctioned honor killing (which it doesn’t), it would be the interpretation of one Islamic cleric who lived centuries ago, and not a formal part of Islamic Law. Sharia is drawn primarily from the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and neither sanctions honor killing.

Of course Geller is only parroting a common anti-Muslim talking point pushed by her teacher in all things Islamic, Robert Spencer. Spencer, since the launch of JihadWatch has tried his utmost to find an Islamic text that he could contort and link to “honor killings.”

His one method has been to cite the well known story of Khidr in the 18th chapter of the Qur’an as such a justification for “honor killing” in Islam:

Khidr killed the young man because he would grieve his pious parents with his “rebellion and ingratitude” (v. 80), and Allah (SWT) will give them a better son (v. 81).

…[further down states]…

Another point emerges in Islamic tradition: don’t kill children, unless you know they’re going to grow up to be unbelievers. “The Messenger of Allah (SWT) (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khidr had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to he a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside.” The assumption thus enunciated may help explain the persistence of the phenomenon of honor-killing in Islamic countries and even among Muslims in the West.

Robert Spencer shamelessly tries to mislead the reader into thinking there is some textual justification for honor killing. Seeking Ilm, a traditional conservative Muslim website takes Spencer to task for this and sheds light on the above falsities, debunking Spencer’s mythical explanation:

Such an explanation is not at all mentioned by the scholars of old or of late. None understood this story to mean that it is permitted to kill children if they will be an unbeliever.

It goes on to discuss the tradition mentioned by Spencer: first the speaker is a disciple of the Prophet Muhammad known as Ibn Abbas; second, the wording of the tradition cited by Spencer is from ashaadh (peculiar) narration of the said tradition and is therefore “weaker” and not “accepted”; third, it is narrated differently in the Sahih of Imam Muslim (one of the most authoritative books of tradition) with only these words,

“Verily the Messenger of God (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) did not kill children, so do not kill children, unless you know what Al-Khidr knew when he killed the child.”

The Seeking Ilm folks go on to write,

The fact is it is impossible to know what Al-Khidr knew. Imam An-Nawawi (1234-1278 CE), recognized as one of the most brilliant Muslim jurists and judges to have lived, explained these words in his commentary upon the Sahih of Imam Muslim:

“It means: Verily it is not permitted to kill them (i.e. children), nor is it permitted for you to make a connection to the story of Al-Khidr utilizing it to kill children. For verily, Al-Khidr did not kill except by the command of God, the exalted, as this was specifically allotted to him just as was mentioned in the end of the story [of khidr], “And I did it not of my own accord.” So [Ibn ‘Abbas is saying] if you came to know of such from a child then he is to be killed. And it is known such cannot be known [by a person] and so it is not permitted to kill him.” ((Sharh Sahih Muslim: Translated by Seekingilm team ))

What is also important to mention is that Imam Nawawi himself, the great Dr. in Hadith and commentator of the Sahih, places this hadith beneath the chapter title, “Women Participants in Jihad are to be Given Reward but not Part of the Spoils, and the Prohibition of Killing Children of the People of War.” This fact stresses our point that the Muslims  did not extract the meaning claimed by Robert Spencer. If Robert Spencer and crew did not get all of what we just stated, let us sum it up for the idiots out there: one of the most prominent scholars for all Muslims is clearly stating that killing children is not permitted based upon this verse, as knowledge of the child’s future is not certain save by revelation from God, as was received by Al-Khidr. Even Moses, according to the story, did not know of the plight of the child, so how is it that a layman is to know of such? Furthermore, Imam An-Nawawi known as the second Imam Ash-Shafi’i, is stating that it is totally forbidden to kill children. The fact is Spencer’s null attempt at utilizing this statement for his own fear-mongering and islamophobic agenda only shows anyone with any knowledge of Islamic law how horridly ignorant Robert Spencer is of Islam.

Horridly ignorant is right!

In any case, it seems highly unlikely that the Canadian court will consult a centuries-old manual on Islamic jurisprudence to determine sentencing in the Shafia case.

Loons, who are clearly unhinged from reality, insist liberal “wussies” are caving in to “Islamo-crazies” and will allow Muslims to invoke Sharia to get away with murder in Western courtrooms.  Apparently they see no contradiction between their belief that Islamic Law is soft on crime and simultaneously, exceptionally harsh and barbaric.

Outside of the loons’ fevered imaginations, Sharia is not a factor in the Shafia trial. The accused will be subject to the Law of Canada, and if convicted, all three face life in prison.


  1. Question, If Islam forbids the killing of ones own children and these people are good Muslims why did they kill their kids? Saalam was talking about how bad it is to celebrate holloween as it is a pagan holiday. If the killing of ones children is pagan and not of Islam why does such a large segement of Muslims do it. Would not solid Muslim teachings tell the masses that Honor killings are wrong? Do they simply choose to Ignore the Koran and the Hadith to engage in this practice based upon culture? I just do not understand how this can happen if it is not sanctioned by Islam or how these people can think they are upright Muslims if they disobey the Koran and Hadiths prohibition against Murder.

  2. Criley,
    Jesus said clearly in Matthew 5:17 that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill(funny how some people say fulfill can also mean destroy, that would make his speech redundant). This was so the Jews would believe he was indeed the Christ sent to them. And for those who think, no he did change the laws, then that would justify the Jews being able to call him a hypocrite for contradicting himself. Did he say the New Testament throws out the New Testament? There is actually very little said directly by him pertaining these “new laws”. All his teachings came from the Mosaic Law (in the Old testament) Some say the Old Testament was only meant for the Jews. God destroyed plenty of nations before the Jews for not keeping the commandments and disobeying him.
    These next 2 quotes should also prove it as well.

    “If you ask anything in My name, I will do it. If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. (John 14:14-18, KJV)

    “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of Truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears he will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:12-14)

    These verses should show that you have to keep the commandments and that there will be another Prophet after him. He is not talking about himself coming again because “The Spirit of Truth” will also glorify him (would not make sense if he would glorify himself).

    Still don’t buy it? Find a Greek Bible if you don’t believe me. The Arabic word “Muhammad” is an expression which means “The honorable one” or “The glorified one” or “The admirable”. Prophet Muhammad was the first in the Middle East to be named “Muhammad”.
    Jesus in the Greek Bible used the Greek word “Periklytos” which means the admirable or glorified one. He called that predicted human prophet “Periklytos”. This word corresponds exactly to the Arabic word “Muhammad” which also means the “admired one” or “glorified one.” In other words, “Periklytos” is “Muhammad” in Greek.

    Also check the Greek words used for Comforter and Spirit of Truth in John 14:16, John 15:26, John 14:26, John 16:7-14.

  3. “A public relations bonanza for anti-Muslim bigots who have made so-called “Islamic honor killings” a major theme in their campaign to vilify Muslims.”

    Wow, talk about being paranoid.

    Why can’t Islamophiles just admit that honor killings are real and that possibly something could be done about it? How about education? How about getting the word out that honor killings are wrong? Maybe even offer counseling. How about a solution to the problem instead of attempting to sweep it under the carpet and say it does not exist.

  4. Honour killings might actually be the main form of Islamic violence in the West (by numbers of people killed).

    Survey of honour killings by all religions (including 33 honour killings in North America and 67 in Europe)
    Worldwide, 91 percent of honor killing perpetrators were Muslim. In Europe, 96 percent were Muslim. In North America, 84 percent were Muslim.
    These crimes are not mainly about women having actual affairs. Worldwide, 58 percent of victims were murdered for being “too Western” (as opposed to for reasons of actual alleged or imagined sexual impropriety). In North America, 91 percent were murdered for being “too Western”. In Europe, 71 percent were murdered for being “too Western”.
    Worldwide, 53 percent of victims were tortured. In Europe, 67 percent were tortured. In North America, 39 percent were tortured.

    For a eye opening view of “honor” murder see:

    Wordlwide trends in “Honor “Killing(murder)

  5. Another excellent source:

    Phyllis Chesler on “Honor” Killing (murder)

  6. Honor killings are not a part of the Muslim religion. Its murder and nobody but Allah has the right to take a life. Unfortunately, this crime is occasionally committed by someone. But it rather the exception and not the norm. Its not like all Muslims are busy killing their children.

  7. Anonymous,
    During the year 2002 in Pakistan, it is estimated that 245 women and 137 men were killed in the name of Karo-kari in Sindh. Men can also be the victims of honor killings by members of the family of a woman with whom they are perceived to have an inappropriate relationship. If you read this carefully you would know that it has nothing to do with Islam. As always, your hatred can’t help you distinguish between Islam and culture. Before Islam, the Arabs had all sorts of these honor killings and burying of infant girls alive. Islam changed that.
    As written in the Qur’an,

    That if anyone slays a human being – unless it be [in punishment] for murder or for spreading corruption on earth – it shall be as though he had slain all mankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind. (5:32)

    And no! Don’t misquote by thinking mischief means talking bad about Muahmmad (PBUH). Mischief includes spreading hatred and misinformation. You are spreading misinformation which will only cause people to hate Muslims more. I did not bother to hear what you said about the increase in hate attacks against Muslims in the USA. I guess you don’t care about the peaceful Muslims. You just like to group us all together with your original sin idea.

  8. Anonymous,
    Btw, don’t go writing something like, “Oh, so are you saying that I will be taken out by Muslims for what I’m saying?” Then all I can say Anonymous is that I will have to explain the English definition of mischief according to Christianity so that the English may become clear to you.

    Proverbs 6:16-19 says, “These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.”

  9. “Anonymous,
    Btw, don’t go writing something like, “Oh, so are you saying that I will be taken out by Muslims for what I’m saying?” ”

    I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. I never said the above nor even implied it. Do not think you can put words in my mouth, sir.

  10. Muhd Bennett,

    so spreading misinformation is punishable by death? so you disagree with the 7.5 million dollar award to the iranian car salesman? they should have put the other guy to death by stoning?

    “feet that be swift in running to mischief” ok what does that mean? now you have used the word mischief to define the word mischief????????

    “A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren” so if i say that muhammad isn’t a prophet, but you believe him to be, am i speaking a lie? if a say you should abandon your ancient religion, am i sewing discord? if i say i find the koran to be violent and outdated am i spreading mischief? if i drink and fornicate am i spreading mischief? if i sell alcohol or run a casino…etc etc. please be more specific if you can. you seem to know quite a bit about islam, why all the generalities?

  11. M2,
    It feels like I’m listening to the same speech over and over again. Like a dog you are trained to bark, but like a parrot you are trained to repeat the same things over. Actually, you are invited to argue with Islam. In the Quran 3:61 it asks Muslims to sit down peacefully with Christians and Jews and discuss religion in a way that is best, and to curse the liars.

    “so if i say that muhammad isn’t a prophet, but you believe him to be, am i speaking a lie? if i say i find the koran to be violent and outdated am i spreading mischief?”

    Don’t be stupid and visit hate websites. The Jews use to say Ra’ina (in Arabic it means “consider us” but in Hebrew it is a curse word) and God tells them to desist because it would be better for them so they will not be punished by God when they die (Quran 2:104-105). There is no punishment for blasphemy in the Quran, you are getting confused with how the Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy. You like to stretch the truth of what mischief means to gather support for your hate speech.
    If you want to spread hate, you can spread hate (I know that is what you are doing) but just like Anonymous you will never understand, even if I correct your misquoted verses of the Quran.
    God does say that if you accuse someone, then produce your witnesses or argue in a way which is best. If you cannot, God says the faces of the liars will be dark on the Day of Judgement for what they said. There is no compulsion in religion (Quran 2:256) so if you want to sin, go ahead, that does not affect me bcuz I don’t believe I will be judged for what you do. What God forbids for the Muslims, he also prohibited for the Jews and Christians, but Muslims are not arrogant about being “forgive” for their sins. God promises the hypocrite Muslims will go lower in hell than one who never believed.

    MOST IMP POINT: Nowhere in the Quran does it say a Muslim is allowed to kill a disbeliever just because they disbelieve. All those violent passages you read were taken out of context on those hate websites you visited. It would be like me quoting Jesus from the Bible:
    Matthew 10:34. “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.

    Obviously if you only look at these passages then you will have a negative view. But go ahead, show me ONE verse of the Quran that u think gives unfair punishment.

  12. O.K.As someone who has studied Islam for over 21years,I confess to be more baffled that ever by this religion.I think it must be reiterated once again,and some one of whatever authority in Islamic theology must make some effort to nail this down:If,as it is commonly claimed,so-called”honor”killings are not part of Islam,but are of cultural origins,why did’nt the coming of Islam do away with this”practice”as it did with infanticide,which was also a cultural practice?If”honor”killings are murders,as they clearly are,why do countries like Jordan and Pakistan have such lenient sentences for the perpretrators of these vicious,heinous murders encoded within their judicial systems?I have never heard these issues satisfactorily addressed in all my years of studying Islam,and frankly until they are,claims that”honor”killings[murders]are not part of Islam will never,ever be convincing,and you know it.So,there it is,reader;that is the gist of the whole”honor”killings issue as far as I’m concerned.I await anyone’s answer-Peace.

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>