TV founder charged with beheading wife in Buffalo, New York

From correspondents in New York

February 17, 2009 07:15pm

Muzzammil Hassan and Aasiya Hassan
Horrific ... Bridges TV founder and CEO Muzzammil Hassan is charged with beheading his wife, Aasiya Hassan / Reuters

   * "Numerous domestic calls to home"
   * Wife had filed for divorce
   * Second-degree murder charge

THE founder of a US television station aimed at countering stereotypes of Muslims has been arrested and charged with beheading his wife, local media reports.

Muzzammil Hassan was charged with second-degree murder of his wife, Aasiya Hassan, whose decapitated body was found on Thursday by police at the Bridges TV station in Buffalo, New York state, police told The Buffalo News.

"He came to the police station at 6.20pm (Thursday) and told us that she was dead," Orchard Park Police Chief Andrew Benz told the newspaper.

Police reportedly went to Bridges TV, which Mr Hassan founded in 2004, and discovered her body.

Bridges TV said in a statement it was "deeply shocked and saddened by the murder of Aasiya (Zubair) Hassan and subsequent arrest of Muzzammil Hassan".

CNN reported on its website that Police Chief Benz said Mr Hassan, 44, confessed to beheading his wife.
Related Coverage

   * Muslim TV chief 'beheads wife'Herald Sun, 17 Feb 2009
   * Probe into handover of babyThe Australian, 8 Jan 2009
   * Nurse 'abandoned baby at airport'Courier Mail, 7 Jan 2009
   * Newborn left with strangerHerald Sun, 7 Jan 2009
   * Australian death toll could riseNEWS.com.au, 30 Nov 2008

Police Chief Benz said Mr Hassan's wife, 37, had filed for divorce on January 6, and that police had responded to numerous domestic violence calls at the couple's home, according to CNN.

He reportedly had two children, aged four and six, with his wife, and two other children, age 17 and 18, from a previous marriage.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25069612-2,00.html

Understatement # 4532:

Muzzammil Hassan established his own TV network to show Muslims in a good light. Decapitation charges will not help.

No doubt he did it because of Islam right?

I mean when Christians or atheists kill their spouses, it's because of domestic disputes and the like, but when Muslims do it, no no no it must be because of their religion...

Hmmm... decapitation. Which belief system is that associated with?

And don't come the stupid 'domestic dispute' softening. You don't behead someone even in a drunken domestic dispute. This was honour killing, a very Muslim custom we hear far more about in the west now that we have muslims in spades.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 17^th, 2009 at 8:45pm:

No doubt he did it because of Islam right? I mean when Christians or atheists kill their spouses, it's because of domestic disputes and the like, but when Muslims do it, no no no it must be because of their religion...

This I agree with. They just assumed that since he was Muslim, oh, it just makes it so much worse.

Rascism blinds us to the underlining principle. A murder took place.

Quite frankly I'd defend him in court anyway. I'd defend him on the basis that he was distrought from the stress of work, and his wife trying to divorce him. In a fit of passion, he beheaded her.

People shouldn't get in relationships if they don't plan to stick around for the long term. I figure if you can't stickby "till death do us part", either spouse has the right to make you fulfill that bargain..

Just a poor guy sick of his life. Aren't we all..

Quote:

Hmmm... decapitation. Which belief system is that associated with?

I don't think there's any Islamic text which deals with decapitation. Just because you, as a bigot, wrongly associate it with Islam, doesn't mean an actual association exists.


Quote:

You don't behead someone even in a drunken domestic dispute

Nah you shoot, stab, poison, castrate, chop them up into pieces, throw your kids off the Westgate bridge.. but don't dare decapitate them...

Anyway according to wikipedia, your lot has quite a history of decapitation, if anything it's part of your history/culture, not that of Muslims.


Quote:

In Nordic Countries, decapitation was the usual means of carrying out capital punishment.

Quote:

Many German states had used a guillotine-like device known as a Fallbeil since the 17th and 18th centuries, and decapitation by guillotine was the usual means of execution in Germany until the abolition of the death penalty in West Germany in 1949.

Quote:

In traditional China decapitation was considered a more severe form of punishment than strangulation although strangulation caused more prolonged suffering.

Quote:

In Japan, decapitation was a common punishment, sometimes for minor offenses.

Quote:

During the Frisian Peasant Rebellion between 1515 and 1523, the Burgundian and Habsburgian enemies were usually beheaded when captured to prevent them from returning to fight again.

(Oops how can that be?? Europeans never had violent rebellions did they?? Wasn't that  strictly a Muslim phenomena?? and with beheadiings too?? This must be an error, beheading is a Muslim practise, according to soren's dodgey associations anyway)


Quote:

Less orthodox instances of decapitation have also occurred in recent times in some areas of Colombia. Marxist FARC guerrilla as well as right-wing paramilitary groups such as the AUC have sometimes used this method to intimidate local populations and political opponents, and it has not been uncommon for criminal gangs of druglords to also make limited use of decapitation on occasion. The primary means of decapitation in these cases has been the use of a machete or a chainsaw.

British man decapitates HIMSELF during domestic dispute with wife
Canadian bus beheading (Wasn't his wife, was the passenger on the  next seat, so you got me there)
Idaho man pleads guilty in beheading death of estranged wife
And let us not forget the great British monarch Henry the Eighth (Perhaps the most famous beheader of wives in human history)

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 17^th, 2009 at 9:27pm:

Quote: Hmmm... decapitation. Which belief system is that associated with? I don't think there's any Islamic text which deals with decapitation. Just because you, as a bigot, wrongly associate it with Islam, doesn't mean an actual association exists.

Text schmext - practice, dear boy, practice. I recall sundry placards and shouts in london calling for the beheading of all who insult Jews... no... wait.... er...  islam  (hard to tell the differencee, I know).  And the then there were a largee number of head hacking videos doing the rounds at the height of the Iraqi 'resistance'. Who could forget those? And Thai schoolgirlss beheaded by Muslims.  Not to mention that beheading is still an official punishmeent meted out for certain crimes in some countries whose relogion escapes me.  Muslims do not need bigots like me to establish the all too clear link between muslim displeasure and beheading.

Just as a by the way - is there really no discernible differeence in your mind between, say, 16th century and present day Europe? Do you actually think that Henry VIII is a guide or example to life for present day people in England? Do you really think that these sort of insane examples signify anything other than how unmoored you have become from your contemporaries? Do you think that in the absence of our own Mohammed, we follow any and every guy with a beard and a large libido?

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 17^th, 2009 at 9:27pm:

Quote: Hmmm... decapitation. Which belief system is that associated with? I don't think there's any Islamic text which deals with decapitation. Just because you, as a bigot, wrongly associate it with Islam, doesn't mean an actual association exists.

O RLY there habibi?

KORAN:

008.012
YUSUFALI: 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."


047.004
YUSUFALI: Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

“As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them. Allah, may he be exalted, says, 'When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [the Truth=Islam] then strike [their] necks' (Qur'an sura 47, verse 4)”....Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah." [The Laws of Islamic Governance, trans. by Dr. Asadullah Yate, (London), Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., 1996, p. 192. Emphasis added.]

"Those who were brought in alive [having surrendered] were ordered beheaded, after which a tower of skulls was erected in the camp." [The Baburnama -Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor, translated and edited by Wheeler M. Thacktson, Oxford University Press,1996, p. 188. Emphasis added.]

Quote:

Just as a by the way - is there really no discernible differeence in your mind between, say, 16th century and present day Europe? Do you actually think that Henry VIII is a guide or example to life for present day people in England?

I gave you three modern day examples of beheadings in Western countries, two of them involved domestic disputes. Why did you pass them over and only refer to Henry VIII?

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 17^th, 2009 at 10:49pm:

Quote: Just as a by the way - is there really no discernible differeence in your mind between, say, 16th century and present day Europe? Do you actually think that Henry VIII is a guide or example to life for present day people in England? I gave you three modern day examples of beheadings in Western countries, two of them involved domestic disputes. Why did you pass them over and only refer to Henry VIII?

He was your trump card, it seems, the only one involving a western man and his wife. In the 16th century.
The idaho man was an immigrant from tuvalu. The guy on the bus was Chinese - so no Western connections there.
The british guy beheaded himself - a case of revenge by self-harm gone far too far.
The last time westerners encounters habitual beheaders was in WWII againsst thee japanese.  It was thought barbaric then, as now.

And you know as well as anyone that the juxtaposition of 'founder of TV network to show Muslims in a good light' and 'Decapitation charges will not help'  cuts to the core of the matter. The guy has confirmed millions of people in their perceeption of islam, far more than the number of people the TV station would have ever reached, let alone changed their minds about Islam.

Many who set out to be ambassadors for Islam end up confirming people's worse opinions about it. You are doing your bit in this direction, too.

Quote:

THE founder of a US television station aimed at countering stereotypes of Muslims has been arrested and charged with beheading his wife, local media reports.

OMG. Could the irony be any starker?


Quote:

Nah you shoot, stab, poison, castrate, chop them up into pieces, throw your kids off the Westgate bridge.. but don't dare decapitate them...

Abu, no-one here is suggesting any of those things is a good idea. However you do suggest that stoning people to death is a good idea.


Quote:

In Japan, decapitation was a common punishment, sometimes for minor offenses.

;D like cheating on your husband who is 30 years your senior?

I see abu is still deflecting to try and excuse the vileness that is Islam.

And I agree with FD, best example yet of Irony. Ever.

jordan484 wrote on Feb 18^th, 2009 at 3:15pm:

I see abu is still deflecting to try and excuse the vileness that is Islam.

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/XXHGRrRavsA/default.jpg
Oh Christ, are you going to protest an Islamic church with guy fawsks masks like 4chan did Scientology? lulz!

Islam has a strong and very commendable culture. Why is it when a Muslim commits a crime it's somehow more severe then when anybody else commits a crime?

Murder is murder. Who really cares how the person was murdered? Is the woman somehow less dead because she was beheaded then if her husband had poisoned her? Can we even prove she'd die less painfuly if the latter had happened?

I wish there were more Muslims in my country. Maybe then it wouldn't suck so bad.

Abu is right. Islam really does have a strong appeal to some westerners.


Jim Profit wrote on Feb 18^th, 2009 at 3:00pm:

I think Mohammad is a pretty cool guy, eh marries the ten year olds, and doesn't afraid of nothing! lol, seriously. Islam is a religion I've thought of converting too. The only reason I havn't is because they're much more strict then I am. But we definitely get along in the like little girls and violence category..

Jim Profit wrote on Feb 18^th, 2009 at 3:00pm:

I think Mohammad is a pretty cool guy, eh marries the ten year olds, and doesn't afraid of nothing! lol, seriously. Islam is a religion I've thought of converting too. The only reason I havn't is because they're much more strict then I am. But we definitely get along in the like little girls and violence category..

[/quote]


I really hope you are safely incarcerated aleady. Or you soon come across a bunch of 'righteous brothers' in the super heavey weight bracket who can get 'medieval on yer arse', as the poet says. You are is sore need of your own medicine - sore being the operative word.

Calanen,

All the verses you pasted say hit, not cut, they don't appear to refer to beheading whatsoever.

The other texts you've brought are not Islamic texts (ie. Qur'an or Sunnah) and have no authority in Islamic rulings and beliefs, as I'm sure you're aware.

Any word yet on why he killed her? Maybe she cheated on him? Or apostacised?

Doesn't it say she was divorcing him?

fd, someone murdering their spouse cos they were going to leave them is not that rare you know. It happens in all communities, across all faiths and races... The fact you are trying to link it to Islam shows just how intellectually bankrupt you are.

What you're missing is the hilarity in the fact that this "man" was trying to alleviate the stereotypical views westerners have of Muslims, and then went ahead and beheaded his wife for wanting to leave him....pretty stereotypical......or maybe just typical.

Excuse me, I don't find much hilarity in a woman having her head cut off, I guess strange things amuse sick minds.

Anyone who believes that the stereotypical Muslim beheads his wife would have to be pretty bigoted.

No, you don't understand, or deliberately choose not to, what the hilarity is. I never said it was the poor woman who was beheaded. Read it again.

And no, I don't think people believe it's the "stereotypical" muslim who beheads their wife (daughter, non-muslim neighbour) I think it's becoming quite obvious that it's fairly typical.

But I do give you credit for your persistence in attempting to excuse Islam and all it's atrocities. Few believe you, but kudos anyway.

Ok, if it's typical, then when was the last case of a Muslim man beheading his wife?

If it happens every other day, then surely there's quite a lot of cases for you to draw from?

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 19^th, 2009 at 7:56am:

Ok, if it's typical, then when was the last case of a Muslim man beheading his wife?

Ok, if it's atypical, then when was the last case of a Muslim man beheading anyone other than his wife??

Muslims have well and truly cornered the head hacking business. Go to a betting shop (or send an infidel) and check out the odds you could get for the next beheading in the news being by a Muslim versus a non-muslim.


This is not about the wife, it's about the beheading - and that not even a wife is safe from an incensed Muslim. Why pretend you ddon't get it?

That's like saying that because Australian soldiers kill their enemies in battle with guns, therefore when Martin Bryant killed all those people with a gun in Port Arthur it was typical Australian behaviour.

The connection just isn't there, as neither is it in this case.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 19^th, 2009 at 10:37pm:

That's like saying that because Australian soldiers kill their enemies in battle with guns, therefore when Martin Bryant killed all those people with a gun in Port Arthur it was typical Australian behaviour. The connection just isn't there, as neither is it in this case.

is Lestat dictating this?


So Daniel Pearl was killed in battle? And the Thai schoolgirls?

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 18^th, 2009 at 9:48pm:

Calanen, All the verses you pasted say hit, not cut, they don't appear to refer to beheading whatsoever. The other texts you've brought are not Islamic texts (ie. Qur'an or Sunnah) and have no authority in Islamic rulings and beliefs, as I'm sure you're aware.

Stop the word games Abu. You know that smiting people's necks is not tapping them on the back of the head playing tag, and you know that beheading is considered the special holy way of killing peoplen in Islam, the way to kill Jews too. Stop the obfuscation.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 19^th, 2009 at 10:37pm:

That's like saying that because Australian soldiers kill their enemies in battle with guns, therefore when Martin Bryant killed all those people with a gun in Port Arthur it was typical Australian behaviour. The connection just isn't there, as neither is it in this case.

No, that's just like Abu putting up another strawman. The huge raft of evidence shows that it is no coincidence that both Islamic terrorists, and muslims all over the place think that beheading is the correct Islamic way to kill someone. It also overlooks the fact that women are terrorised throughout islam, and subjugated as breeding cattle with few of the rights western women have under sharia law. Mohammed killed the 800 Jews by beheading setting the precedent.

It overlooks the power imbalance given to women in Islam, where the Koran commands that a man can beat his wife, and must rule the life of a wife as if she was a small child. Women are always considered property in Islam, from the earliest age, until they die, just for having babies and doing housework, either commanded by their father or by their husband.  

You rely on the fact that most Westerners don't know. I *do* know, so you wont be fooling me.

I think that Abu does need to acknowledge that Islamist extremists, do indeed interpret koranic texts to justify their, not infrequent, beheadings, but I do not know that it is really fair to then extrapolate that, to include muslims who do not have their life influenced by extremist thinking.

This is where people like calanen and I part ways, in that I regard Islam, as having many negatives, but I regard muslims, as just normal people, who are badly misrepresented due to the horrible extremism of the zealots who claim to champion Islam, and all muslimhood.

I think Abu would probably know the statistics, but the numbers of muslims, who have never condoned, or given succour in any way, to extremism, would undoubtedly be the massive majority, and that is going to be well over a billion people.

So to vilify over a billion people, because you don't like their religion, and unfairly extrapolate a link to terrorism, because of it, is pretty dogmatic, and not something that people of good conscience would want to do.


He can maintain his campaign to try and let people know of the aspects of Islam he finds distasteful, but it should never spill over into wholesale denigration of the muslim people, because it just is not a fair thing to do.

Fine sentiments.

Would be credible if we had any muslim demonsrators in Sydney, London, Paris, New York, Berlin not only when America and Israel retailiate against terrorists acting in the name of islam, shouting 'Allahu akhbar' - but when the same terrorsists act savegely against fellow muslims, tourists, ordinary peoplee  in every corner of the globe.

A Polish engineer was just beheaded in Pakistan by saveges drawing innspiration from islam. Scores have been beheaded before across the globe. I want to see the mass of outraged Muslims on George Street chanting ' not in our name' before I sign up, Mozz.

I would dearly love to be able to show solidarity with ordinary muslims if they ever took to the streets and protested in strong and unequivocal terms against the monstreous savagery committed in the name of their religion.

But I never have the chance, not even remotely. It ain't going to happen.  There is no Muslim groundswell,  abhored, disgusted, outraged about the 'misrepresentation'.  They are either scared or agree with the saveges or can't be fagged to let out even a peep.

This is not an issue about unsympathetic non-muslims. This is not about a missunderstood 'other'.  It is about the muslims. And we see - or not, more accurately - which way their hearts and sentiments move them.

The silent majory of muslims is a cowered or indifferent majority.  I am sure they are nice individually, in daily encounters. But they have traded away their dignity - and my sympathy, for one - when they did not stand up against the saveges. They have had plenty of opportunities over the years - and consistently missed every single one of them. That is not an oversight, that is not down to being busy or wanting to wait until all the facts are in. They never miss an opportunity at being outraged when someeone hits back. You never hear the end of it when a non-muslim kicks their arses. But when they slaughter each other, islamically-like, it's mum - or whatever the Koranic word is for shtum.

They know all the freedomss when it's marching on the US or israeli eembassy or the Australian parliament. but it is all gone as if it had neeveer entered their heads when it come to demostrating at thee Iranianm Iraqi, Afghan, Pakistani, Insian, thai, malaysian, indonesian, Algerian, Egyptian, Syrian embassies, not to mention the unimaginable - a march in solidarity with the innocents slaughtered by muslims. That's what I want to see: Muslims agitating, active, with conviction against the savages. I'll be there helping.i

Or, if we could see Muslims standing up and taking action against the scum who throw acid in the face of middle eastern women who 'dress immodestly'. This is happening in their own communities, yet they do nothing about it. Even here, Abu describes it as 'just another cime' even though the perpetrators openly portray it as an attack on women's rights to choose what to wear. He even boasts about how these women are 'freely choosing' to return to Islamic values by wearing the veil.

soren,


Quote:

They know all the freedomss when it's marching on the US or israeli eembassy or the Australian parliament. but it is all gone as if it had neeveer entered their heads when it come to demostrating at thee Iranianm Iraqi, Afghan, Pakistani, Insian, thai, malaysian, indonesian, Algerian, Egyptian, Syrian embassies, not to mention the unimaginable - a march in solidarity with the innocents slaughtered by muslims.

Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia have made several demonstrations in Canberra, where they protested out the front of all those countries embassies and condemned them for their inhumane activities. I have seen a video of it. You simply don't look for such things, you're only interested in the other, and you know it.

So don't claim "if only", you're convinced all Muslims are guilty of every single crime by association, they are the "sea" in which the extremists swim in your thinking. Your claims of "if only" are cheap talk.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 24^th, 2009 at 3:28am:

soren, Quote: They know all the freedomss when it's marching on the US or israeli eembassy or the Australian parliament. but it is all gone as if it had neeveer entered their heads when it come to demostrating at thee Iranianm Iraqi, Afghan, Pakistani, Insian, thai, malaysian, indonesian, Algerian, Egyptian, Syrian embassies, not to mention the unimaginable - a march in solidarity with the innocents slaughtered by muslims. Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia have made several demonstrations in Canberra, where they protested out the front of all those countries embassies and condemned them for their inhumane activities. I have seen a video of it. You simply don't look for such things, you're only interested in the other, and you know it. So don't claim "if only", you're convinced all Muslims are guilty of every single crime by association, they are the "sea" in which the extremists swim in your thinking. Your claims of "if only" are cheap talk.

Well, the whole world versus you have seen a video - brilliant. It's all balanced out, then.

Muslims in western countries never protest about the savage tratment of muslims and others by the jihadi monsters. Never. I want to see muslims on George Street demanding the end of terrorist activities in the name of Islam.

Now there's somemthing really worthwhile for you to do.

You just claimed they don't protest outside those embassies, I just informed you they have already done so.

Widen the goal posts all you like.

Well now you are being unfair Abu, you cite a video that shows muslims protesting outside embassies of Islamic countries, against their inhumane activities, yet I have never seen it, and I expect most others have not either, so to infer some conspiracy by us to suppress that information, is untrue, and unfair.

Now the news may not show it, and if so, how will we know.
If it is so rare, and on such a small scale, as to not attract public news reports, then it is time that the local muslim community, did enough of this type of thing, to attract media attention, and make sure it gets the exposure it deserves.

The point that so few muslims do speak out against extremism, is a valid point.
As is the fact that they appear to have no such reservations in speaking out against the west, but I can understand that, because they are less afraid of the west, than they are of nutty Islamist extremists.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 24^th, 2009 at 10:10am:

You just claimed they don't protest outside those embassies, I just informed you they have already done so. Widen the goal posts all you like.

The goalposts have not been moved. You are merely ignoring them, as is your habit. I have bolded them for you.


Quote:

The silent majory of muslims is a cowered or indifferent majority.  I am sure they are nice individually, in daily encounters. But they have traded away their dignity - and my sympathy, for one - when they did not stand up against the saveges. They have had plenty of opportunities over the years - and consistently missed every single one of them. That is not an oversight, that is not down to being busy or wanting to wait until all the facts are in. They never miss an opportunity at being outraged when someeone hits back. You never hear the end of it when a non-muslim kicks their arses. But when they slaughter each other, islamically-like, it's mum - or whatever the Koranic word is for shtum. They know all the freedomss when it's marching on the US or israeli embassy or the Australian parliament. but it is all gone as if it had never entered their heads when it come to demostrating at the Iranianm Iraqi, Afghan, Pakistani, Insian, thai, malaysian, indonesian, Algerian, Egyptian, Syrian embassies, not to mention the unimaginable - a march in solidarity with the innocents slaughtered by muslims. That's what I want to see: Muslims agitating, active, with conviction against the savages. I'll be there helping.

Yes when the Lebanese army was machine gunning Palestinian refugee camps a couple of years ago, barely a whisper on TV. That said, the people hiding there were AQ affiliates. But imagine if it was the IDF - now that's news. Muslims killing muslims..meh - back page.

Quote:

Muslims in western countries never protest about the savage tratment of muslims and others by the jihadi monsters. Never. I want to see muslims on George Street demanding the end of terrorist activities in the name of Islam. Now there's somemthing really worthwhile for you to do.

Why should they? The actions of a few Jihadists is few and far between. Why would Muslims alienate people by claiming that a large portion of their religion are brutal and evil?

Christians made that mistake by trying to appear moderate and everybody took a poo all over them. Muslims aren't so stupid, there is nothing to gain by trying to appeal to the masses. Society is the brutal and evil one.. Just looking for another scapegoat. It's easy to point fingers at Jihadists, rather then taking responsibility for all the crap that goes on in their own neck of the woods.

Gaaawwwd!!!

Quote:

Well now you are being unfair Abu, you cite a video that shows muslims protesting outside embassies of Islamic countries, against their inhumane activities, yet I have never seen it, and I expect most others have not either, so to infer some conspiracy by us to suppress that information, is untrue, and unfair.

mozzaok, I'll forgive your ignorance, but soren actually knows a little bit about Hizb ut-Tahrir, and knows full well they regularly demonstrate against the oppressive regimes in the Muslim countries. He's just moving the goalposts because he was exposed.

If it bothers you so much, maybe I can put a bit of the video on youtube for you, or find some already posted. Hizb ut-Tahrir are well known for doing this.

Muslims cutthroats - coincidence # 342765

Milano:
http://milano.corriere.it/milano/notizie/cronaca/09_febbraio_26/omicidio_suicidio_padre_san_donato_minacce_egitto-1501039700819.shtml

Egyptian father shoots, then slits throat of his elementary-school son; Italian wife says he threatened her many times.

 

Treviso:
http://www.corriere.it/cronache/09_febbraio_26/treviso_omicidio_madre_figlia_arrestato_marocchino_slovenia_31823c02-03e9-11de-8e80-00144f02aabc.shtml

Moroccan man slits the throats of his ex-companion, Elisaveta Leder, and their two-year-old daughter Arianna.

soren,

no matter how many times it happened, it would still not make it an Islamic practise.

Islam is based on it's texts, not on the actions of individuals.

Also the second article doesn't say anything about a Muslim. Also anyone naming their daughter Arianna (which means "naked girl" in Arabic, even though it's not an Arabic name, no practising Muslim who understands Arabic would accept such a name) would either have to be very far away from Islam, or simply not even a Muslim to begin with. Also you say "ex-companion", which makes it sound like an adulterer... yeh real practising Muslim.

islamic practice or practice by islamics - you haggle over it.

It is an agee-old islamic practice - to wash away the shame with halal blood letting, ie cutting the throat.

Why has islam not been able to stam or indeed willing to stamp out this supposedly unislamic practice for 1400 years? because it is as islamic as fatwahs. That's not in the koran, so is that not islamic either?

If 'ex-companion' grates on your sensibilities, how about second wife (unrecognised in italian law)? Or concubine?

Arianne means most holy in Greek. In arabic it means lively. (naked girl - who are you kidding?)

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 1^st, 2009 at 1:56pm:

no matter how many times it happened, it would still not make it an Islamic practise.

If I may quote The Castle - "Get ya hand off it Darryl!".

???

Quote:

islamic practice or practice by islamics - you haggle over it.

I'm sure you can appreciate the difference between doctrine and practise.

Christian doctrine for instance is all lovey dovey warm freindly cuddly stuff about turning the other cheek and so forth. Christian practise on the other hand has mostly been about violent, oppressive, military conquest, not just in the past but right up until today. The Christian countries have been involved in the most wars, most occupations, most conquests, most bombings etc.

And all you can do is bring a bodged up list of 12,000 mostly unverified attacks on occupation soldiers and their installed police/soldiers and claim Islam's the big bad boogey monster.

You're a dropkick really.


Quote:

hy has islam not been able to stam or indeed willing to stamp out this supposedly unislamic practice for 1400 years? because it is as islamic as fatwahs. That's not in the koran, so is that not islamic either?

Beheading is a method of killing. It's irrelevant. Just because most Christians kill eachother (and non-Christians) with guns, does that mean Christianity has to stamp out guns?? Method of killing is a minor detail. It's got nothing to do with the Qur'an, as I mentioned above it's hardly if ever mentioned in the Qur'an at all.


Quote:

Arianne means most holy in Greek. In arabic it means lively. (naked girl - who are you kidding?)

عارية (Aria) is the classical Arabic pronunciation of the word for naked, the colloquial pronunciation is Arian (male) and Ariana (female). I really can't see any sane practising Muslim using such a name. Either way, it doesn't state it's a Muslim.

Soren wrote on Mar 1^st, 2009 at 8:05pm:

???

The Castle. Movie. Working Dog....not ringing any bells?

Nevermind.