PDA

View Full Version : Can PC journalists report truthfully about Muslims?



txradioguy
02-06-2012, 11:50 AM
It's a grisly story: A husband and wife murdering their three young daughters, ages 19, 17 and 13, by drowning them, along with their stepmother. The couple was assisted by their 21-year-old son.
All were found guilty of first-degree murder in Ontario, Canada. They were sentenced to life in prison.

Mohammad Shafia and his wife, Tooba Yahya, immigrated to Canada from Afghanistan in 2007. Being Muslims, they believe in Shariah law, which in some cases allows so-called "honor killings" -- that is, if a family member deviates from strict Muslim teachings, other family members can execute them.

Of course, that's insane. But under the Taliban in Afghanistan and in some other parts of the world, "honor killings" are allowed.

In his eyes, Shafia's three daughters were guilty of becoming westernized, wearing nontraditional Muslim clothing and associating with the dreaded Christians. So this demented father ordered the girls killed, as well as his first wife, whom he believed was aiding them in their alleged transgressions.

Reporting on the story in America has been scant and strange. According to the Media Research Center, the initial Associated Press report made no mention of the fact that the convicted murderers are Muslim.

They were described as "Afghan." In fact, the only theology mentioned in the AP dispatch is Christianity, used while describing the boyfriend of one of the daughters.

On NBC's "Nightly News," anchor Brian Williams said this: "A verdict has been reached in a murder case that's gotten a lot of attention because it involved so-called honor killings of family members. In this case, an Afghan family living in Canada. It is a culture clash getting a lot of attention to our north."

Culture clash? Between whom? Afghans and Canadians? What is Williams talking about?

The reporter on the story, Kevin Tibbles, also avoided using the word "Muslim." He described the motivation for the violence as "a strict religious family that felt it had been disgraced."

What religion? Incredibly, the reporter didn't say.

This is no coincidence. The politically correct U.S. media are frightened by Muslim violence. They avoid the issue whenever they can.

Just think about what would happen if a Catholic father murdered his daughter for having an abortion. Would the AP and NBC News not have mentioned the religion involved? I think we all know the answer to that question.

Political correctness is dangerous because it obscures the truth. It allows certain people and groups to avoid scrutiny for destructive actions.

Today, the press in America is dominated by liberal editors who believe they are protecting "minorities" by failing to mention facts that might cast them in a negative light. Thus, honest reporting is becoming almost obsolete when certain groups are involved.

Shafia, his wife and his son are Muslim fanatics who believe they have the right to commit murder in the name of their religion. Somebody get that dispatch to the media.


http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2012/02/can-pc-journalists-report-truthfully-about-muslims/2172811#ixzz1lcL5rVKJ

Tipsycatlover
02-06-2012, 02:12 PM
Liberals see this as a case of domestic violence. Any Christian could have done the same thing.

Rockntractor
02-06-2012, 02:17 PM
They don't seem to report truthfully on any story anymore, it get's harder and harder to evaluate topics because the news is tainted.

Odysseus
02-07-2012, 10:05 AM
Liberals see this as a case of domestic violence. Any Christian could have done the same thing.
Sharia proponents spread the myth that these are domestic violence cases because it makes it easier to obscure the violent nature of Islamic law. Liberals report it that way because they are inclined to accept the statements of activists at face value, and because they are as likely as not to be activists themselves, and the satements dovetail nicely with their biases. However, the article made a valid point when it said that if a Catholic father had murdered a daughter who had had an abortion, the coverage would be wall to wall.

They don't seem to report truthfully on any story anymore, it get's harder and harder to evaluate topics because the news is tainted.
QFT

This is why the internet and alternative media are so critical, and also why the left goes after them whenever they can. When Dan Rather got caught trying to slander Bush in 2004, and was taken down by bloggers, the MSM saw a future in which they couldn't get away with the same tactics, and they are at a loss as to how to respond, which is why they have become even more blatantly partisan and shrill. This is actually a good thing, as it is turning off anyone who takes even the most minimal time to look at the facts of a story. Every lie, every omission, every dishonest insinuation that gets caught costs them viewers. Our mission should be to expose them whenever we can.

Arroyo_Doble
02-07-2012, 10:12 AM
The guys at the Examiner should try Google. The family's religion is all over the place.

The Link (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=16&gs_id=e&xhr=t&q=Mohammad+Shafia+honour+killing&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=Mohammad+Shafia+&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=4f87a28c255e7d3d&biw=1024&bih=659)

Odysseus
02-07-2012, 11:30 AM
The guys at the Examiner should try Google. The family's religion is all over the place.

The Link (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=16&gs_id=e&xhr=t&q=Mohammad+Shafia+honour+killing&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=Mohammad+Shafia+&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=4f87a28c255e7d3d&biw=1024&bih=659)

Nice slight of hand there. Your search didn't include the word "Muslim", but honour killing. When you replace the two, the number of hits becomes much lower. For example, here's the NY Times article on the subject. Care to tell me what's missing?


Afghan Family, Led by Father Who Called Girls a Disgrace, Is Guilty of Murder
By IAN AUSTEN
Published: January 29, 2012

OTTAWA — It began with a puzzling and grisly discovery in 2009: a car submerged in a 19th-century canal lock with the bodies of three teenage girls and a middle-aged woman inside. On Sunday, the father, the mother and a brother of the girls were each convicted of four counts of first-degree murder.

The verdict concluded a complex, three-month trial in which prosecutors described the crimes as “honor killings.” The defendants — Mohammad Shafia, 58; Tooba Yahya, 42; and their son Hamed, 21 — and the victims belonged to a family of Afghans who had moved to Canada two years before the crime, in June 2007, under a program for affluent immigrants. Both the woman in the car, Rona Amir Mohammad, and Ms. Yahya were married to Mr. Shafia.

During the investigation of the deaths, police wiretaps recorded Mr. Shafia repeatedly expressing the view, often in graphic, vulgar language, that the girls had disgraced his family by dating and by wearing revealing clothing. Other evidence showed that at least one of the dead girls was so frightened of her father that she sought help from the police to escape the household and be placed in foster care with her sisters, without success.

Mr. Shafia’s solution, prosecutors said, was to murder three of his seven children and Ms. Amir Mohammad, and to try, improbably, to make it look like an auto accident; they presented evidence that the car in the canal, a Nissan Sentra, was pushed there using the family’s Lexus, and that someone in the household had searched the Internet for advice on how to conduct a murder.

The jury delivered its verdict after 15 hours of deliberation. Afterward, Justice Robert L. Maranger of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice raised the cultural issues surrounding the case, which, while rarely mentioned directly in court, had become a widespread topic of discussion in Canada, particularly in Quebec, where the family lives.

“It is difficult to conceive of a more despicable, more heinous, more honorless crime,” the judge told the defendants in a courtroom in Kingston, Ontario. “The apparent reason behind these cold-blooded, shameful murders was that the four completely innocent victims offended your completely twisted concept of honor, a notion of honor that is founded upon the domination and control of women.”

All three defendants said they were innocent. Ms. Yahya said in court after the verdict: “I am not a murderer and I am a mother — a mother!” Her lawyer, Andrew Crowe, said she would appeal.

Under Canadian law, first-degree murder carries a compulsory sentence of life in prison, with no chance of parole for the first 25 years.

A Parks Canada employee spotted the Sentra in the Rideau Canal when he arrived for work at a lock station near Kingston in June 2009. Inside were Zainab, Sahar and Geeti Shafia, ages 19, 17 and 13, and Ms. Amir Mohammad, 53, who entered Canada claiming to be Mr. Shafia’s cousin when in fact she was his other wife.

The family stopped in Kingston on the way back to their home in Montreal after a brief holiday trip to Niagara Falls; they bought the Sentra secondhand the day before the trip. Mr. Shafia and Ms. Yahya told police and reporters that Ms. Amir Mohammad and the girls had taken the car on a late-night joy ride organized by Zainab, who did not have a driver’s license. But the police were immediately suspicious.

Evidence presented at trial did not establish exactly how the woman and three girls died. But there were indications that the four victims were already dead when the car went into the canal.

The prosecution built part of its case on conflicting statements and missteps by the defendants — they booked accommodations for only six people in Kingston, even though the family numbered 10 before the killings — but the most compelling evidence came from police wiretaps.

“I say to myself, ‘Would they come back to life a hundred times, for you to do the same again,’ ” Mr. Shafia said about his daughters on one recording. “They violated us immensely. There can be no betrayal, no treachery, no violation more than this.”

Defense lawyers argued that the remarks were prompted by the discovery days after the deaths of a photo album showing the girls with boys, although the family displayed what appeared to be the same album to television crews shortly after the deaths.

A diary kept by Ms. Amir Mohammad, who apparently could not bear children, indicated that Ms. Yahya treated her as a servant, and described beatings by Mr. Shafia and by his son Hamed when Mr. Shafia was away on business trips. Evidence at trial suggested that he was also brutal to the girls and feared by them.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 31, 2012

An article on Monday about guilty verdicts in a murder trial in Canada involving a family of Afghan immigrants quoted incorrectly from a comment by the trial judge, Justice Robert L. Maranger. The judge said, “It is difficult to conceive of a more despicable, more heinous, more honorless crime.” He did not say “more despicable, more heinous, more despicable, more honorless crime.”

Yep, the one missing thing was the religion of the family. What's really funny is the WAPost article that came up in my search:


Canadian imams issue fatwa against honor killings
TORONTO — Muslim clerics in Canada have issued a fatwa against so-called “honor killings” a week after three members of an Afghan family in Montreal were convicted of the murders of four relatives.

The religious decree — only the third of its kind in Canada — also prohibits domestic violence and hatred of women. It was issued on Saturday (Feb. 4) on the eve of Mawlid an-Nabi, the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday.
>SNIP<
Soharwardy told reporters that a fatwa is “not legally binding” but it is “morally binding.” He said “a very small minority” of Muslims support honor killings, and they “need to be corrected.”

What's funny about it is that, while it talks about the Muslim clerics issuing the Fatwa, and that a "small minority" of Muslims support honor killings, it still never mentions that the killers were Muslims. One could read the entire article and come away wondering what the Fatwa had to do with the case.
You can read the entire article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/canadian-imams-issue-fatwa-against-honor-killings/2012/02/06/gIQATRPbuQ_story.html

Arroyo_Doble
02-07-2012, 01:06 PM
Nice slight of hand there. Your search didn't include the word "Muslim", but honour killing.

It wasn't sleight of hand. I thought that was the only way I could find the story. Imagine my surprise at all the times their religion was mentioned. :rolleyes:

Odysseus
02-07-2012, 04:17 PM
It wasn't sleight of hand. I thought that was the only way I could find the story. Imagine my surprise at all the times their religion was mentioned. :rolleyes:

Imagine my surprise at your feigned surprise. As I said before, it wasn't mentioned in most of the MSM pieces. The Times article was especially interesting that way.

Arroyo_Doble
02-07-2012, 04:20 PM
Imagine my surprise at your feigned surprise. As I said before, it wasn't mentioned in most of the MSM pieces. The Times article was especially interesting that way.

I don't read the Times. I read The Economist.

BTW, think Muslim was mentioned in the NPR piece on the story?

Odysseus
02-07-2012, 05:32 PM
I don't read the Times. I read The Economist.
I posted the entire article above.


BTW, think Muslim was mentioned in the NPR piece on the story?
You thought wrong.
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/29/146068144/afghan-family-found-guilty-in-honor-killings

However, the NPR interview with the CBC reporter did mention Muslims, in order to assure the reader that being Muslim had nothing to do with the honor killings.
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/30/146099699/hayward-discusses-honor-killings-in-canada:


MELISSA BLOCK, HOST:

It's a case that has shocked the conscience of Canada. And it ended yesterday when a jury in Ontario found three members of an Afghan family guilty of murder. The deaths have been referred to as honor killings. Yesterday, the judge described them as murders motivated by a completely twisted sense of honor; heinous, despicable, cold-blooded and shameful.

Here are the basics of the case. In June of 2009, a woman and three teenage sisters were found dead in a car, submerged in a canal. Those now convicted of their murder are the girls' father, his second wife - who is the girls' mother - and their son.

For more on the case, I'm joined by CBC Radio reporter Justin Hayward. And, Justin, at first this was thought to be a case of accidental drowning. But then, investigators started looking at the family and hearing troubling stories about the three girls - ages 19, 17 and 13 - and their situation at home. What did they hear?

JUSTIN HAYWARD: Well, of the 58 witnesses that came and spoke to the court, a number of them were there to illustrate the situation of the young women at home. There were teachers from their school, officials from youth protection here in Quebec. And if you take all of their testimony together, it paints a picture of three young women who were normal, relatively rebellious North American teenagers who were bumping up against sort of these more traditional beliefs that they should be more tightly controlled.

And the teachers were telling stories of sometimes seeing bruising on them. So, you certainly got a picture of a very controlling family, traditional family atmosphere that was at odds with what the average North American teenager wants to have as freedoms.

BLOCK: And I gather there was also physical evidence that indicated that this car didn't just fall into the canal, but that another car may have pushed it into the canal.

HAYWARD: Yeah. Police put together evidence that there was damage on the family Lexus that matched damage on a recently bought Nissan Sentra, which was the car that was found in the canal. And the police's theory that they pieced together with the damage from those two cars was that the Lexus pushed the Sentra into the canal.

BLOCK: Investigators ultimately put a wiretap in the family's minivan and got what turned out to be some damning evidence. They heard the father, Mohammad Shafia, say this about his daughters: Would they come back to life 100 times, you should do the same thing again. May the devil defecate on their graves. This is what a daughter should be. Would a daughter be such a whore?

How did the defense try to explain or account for what the father said?

HAYWARD: Yeah. That was extremely shocking evidence. And I remember being in court when they were playing it, and you could hear people audibly gasp when those translated tapes were played in court. What the defense did is they brought in an expert in Afghan culture who said that Afghans, when they're upset or grieving, will swear a lot. And this kind of swearing is not to be taken literally. For example, that quote that you just said, may the devil defecate on their graves. He said that that's no stronger than a North American saying, to hell with them, and that the father, Mohammad Shafia, was just trying to make himself feel better by blowing off steam.

BLOCK: Justin, this story has generated a lot of coverage there in Canada. Talk a bit about how it's been received by the Canadian people and this whole notion of honor killings.

HAYWARD: Yeah. It's certainly an ongoing debate. I mean, our House of Commons is just sitting again today for the first time since around Christmas. And we're expecting that this will probably come up in the House, that something will be said. But there hasn't been a lot of public forum other than radio call-in shows and the like. And you can imagine how vitriolic some people can be about this sort of thing.

Certainly, there's also a debate where cooler heads are prevailing, where they're trying to say - for example, even outside the court yesterday, there was an imam and there was a young Afghan who's a student at a nearby university to where the trial was taking place who came that day because they knew the media would be there en masse and they wanted to make sure that everyone understood that it's not all Afghans, it's not all Muslims that are like this.

BLOCK: And is that the fear, that there will be a backlash toward the Afghan-Canadian, the Muslim-Canadian community because of this?

HAYWARD: We've spoken to a number of people about that, and that's absolutely what they're concerned about. So, they're already out in the streets, so to speak, trying to make sure that that doesn't happen.

BLOCK: I've been talking with CBC Radio reporter Justin Hayward. Justin, thank you very much.

HAYWARD: My pleasure.
Copyright © 2012 National Public Radio®.

You were saying...?

Arroyo_Doble
02-07-2012, 05:56 PM
You thought wrong.
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/29/146068144/afghan-family-found-guilty-in-honor-killings

That's the Associated Press.

If that is your standard, FoxNews (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/29/jury-finds-afghan-family-guilty-in-honor-killings/) is part of the conspiracy too.


However, the NPR interview with the CBC reporter did mention Muslims, in order to assure the reader that being Muslim had nothing to do with the honor killings.
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/30/146099699/hayward-discusses-honor-killings-in-canada:

Right. They mentioned it. Sorry they didn't call for genocide in the piece :rolleyes:

Odysseus
02-08-2012, 09:33 AM
That's the Associated Press.

If that is your standard, FoxNews (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/29/jury-finds-afghan-family-guilty-in-honor-killings/) is part of the conspiracy too.

Nope. FOXNews had a follow-up editorial:


Will guilty verdict in Canadian 'honor killing' trial be a turning point for justice?
By Phyllis Chesler

Published January 29, 2012
| FoxNews.com
Print Email Share Comments Recommend Tweet On January 29, after a ten-week trial and fifteen hours of deliberations, a seven woman, five man jury returned with a verdict of guilty to first degree murder for all three Afghan-Canadians who were charged in the pre-meditated murder of four female members of the polygamous Shafia family.

The convicted are each facing 25 years without parole.

Mohammed Shafia, 58, Tooba Yahya, 42 (his second wife), and Hamed, 21, their son, were found guilty of conspiring to and of having murdered Mohammed’s first wife, Rona Mohammed Amir, 50, and Tooba Yahya’s three daughters, Zainab, 19, Sahar, 17, and Geeti, 13, because they refused to wear hijab, wore Western, sometimes “sexy” clothing, dared to have boyfriends, and, in their father’s words, “dishonored” and “betrayed” both “their family and Islam.”

On June 30, 2009, when the bodies of the dead girls and woman were discovered in the family's Nissan in the Rideau Canal, the accused wept uncontrollably and went through an exaggerated public display of mourning.

However, privately, post-massacre, the police recovered wiretaps of Mohammed Shafia saying that his daughters had “hurt (him)..and betrayed…and violated us immensely. God curse their generation, they were filthy and rotten children. To hell with them and their boyfriends…May the devil shit on their graves.”

On wiretap, Mohammed said that if he had it to do over again he would. His self-pity, self-righteousness, and cruelty are typical of the kinds of men who commit such murders.

The first known honor killing in the United States took place in 1989 in St. Louis, Missouri and was perpetrated by a father, Zein Isa, an Abu Nidal terrorist, and his wife, who together stabbed their 16-year-old daughter, Palestina (Tina) Isa 13 times as she cried out for mercy.

The FBI had wire-tapped Isa's phone for terrorism-related reasons; therefore, the jury was able to hear the actual murder.

Zein was unrepentant. He viewed himself as the injured party, he said that Tina had attacked him;he was only defending himself and his honor.

Palestina’s crimes including having a friend, (not a boyfriend), who was both African-American and male, refusing to travel to provide her father with “cover,” perhaps for being too academically“bright,” and for having begged her teachers and a school counselor to help her escape her savage beatings and punishments at home.

Unfortunately, the social worker who visited the home agreed with Zein that a father needs to exert a strong hand against a potentially willful or wayward daughter.

Afghan-Canadian and first wife, Rona Amir’s crime, in addition to her infertility, was that she supported Tooba Yahya’s three daughters in their desire to assimilate and westernize.

Like Palestina Isa, Geeti, the youngest, had told her teachers that she wanted to be placed in foster care.

The atmosphere in her household was filled with terrible and unceasing tensions: paternal demands that his daughters behave as if they were still living in Afghanistan (or in the Muslim world), and not in Canada; daily physical, psychological, and verbal battering; continuous rivalries between the two wives; a brother whose job it was to stalk and monitor his sisters’ behaviors.

Such behavior is typical, not unusual, among some immigrants who may be living in the West but whose hearts and minds remain in the East.

I found precisely these patterns in two studies that I published about honor killing in Middle East Quarterly in 2009 and 2010.

Western-style domestic violence and even domestically violent femicide is not the same as an honor killing.

For example, Westerners rarely kill their young daughters nor do Western families of origin conspire or collaborate in such murders. While Sikhs, and Hindus, (mainly in India), do commit honor killings, the majority of such murders in the West (91%) are Muslim-on-Muslim crimes.

The high-profile Shafia case may be a watershed decision in terms of Canada’s long standing Multiculturalism Policy which was passed in 1971 under Prime Minister Trudeau and legally enshrined in 1988 as the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

According to Dr. Salim Mansur, a Muslim Canadian professor and author, such policies are ultimately “racist.” They keep immigrants confined to their “group” and do not encourage members to become “individuals” and “citizens” of a modern liberal democracy.

Although some have called for a special “honor killing” law, it is important to note that the Shafias were tried and convicted under existing Canadian law. They were not tried for committing a culturally approved “honor killing,” but for having conspired to commit a cold-blooded and pre-planned murder on Canadian soil.

So, too, were Muslim-Canadian Aqsa Parvez’s father, Mohammed, and her brother, Waqas, who were tried and convicted for murdering the 16-year-old girl because she refused to wear the hijab and other traditional clothing.

Her mother, who was not tried, lured her daughter home from a shelter for battered women to her death.

After the Shafia jury was individually polled, (it was a unanimous decision and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming), the Justice, Robert Maranger said “It is hard to imagine a more heinous crime, a cold-blooded and shameful crime, (committed because of) a sick notion about honor that has no place in this society.”

And in a statement following the verdict, Canadian Justice Minister Rob Nicholson called honor killings a practice that is "barbaric and unacceptable in Canada....This government is committed to protecting women and other vulnerable persons from all forms of violence and to hold perpetrators accountable for their acts."

Defense lawyer David Crowe has vowed to appeal.

The accused continue to insist they are innocent.

I hope that Canadian and North American Muslim associations and experts will welcome this decision in which three murdered Muslim girls and one murdered Muslim woman were considered important enough to merit a long and expensive trial in the search for justice.

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D. is the author of thirteen books, including "Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman" and "The New Anti-Semitism." She may be reached at her website www.phyllis-chesler.com



Right. They mentioned it. Sorry they didn't call for genocide in the piece :rolleyes:

Nice straw man there, Dorothy. The FOXNews editorial didn't call for genocide, and neither am I. Providing the motive for the murders isn't a call for genocide, although the casual comparison demonstrates the PC mindset which permeates the NPR piece. The FOX piece provided information which was critical to the crime, and which the NPR reporter wouldn't have touched with a ten-foot pole (Ooops! Make that ten-foot person-of-Polish-descent! Got to be PC) precisely because she was more concerned with ficticious backlashes against Muslims than she was with reporting the facts. From the NPR and AP pieces, you could get the impression that any girl growing up in a "traditional" household would be at risk for murder, that traditional Catholics, Jews, or other denominations are just as likely to commit these kinds of crimes, and that any presumption that the overwhelming preponderance of honor killings occur in Islamic households might contribute to a vaguely defined backlash (as in, greater scrutiny by social services when a daughter begs to be removed from a violent home). The FOX piece explained that the father's demand that they wear the hijab, not wear Western clothes or have boyfriends, and claims that the girls had “dishonored” and “betrayed” both “their family and Islam" are the motives for the murder. This was a parent who would not allow his daughters to assimilate to the country that they had immigrated to. Don't you think that people need to know that a significant percentage of Muslim immigrants violently resist assimilation? We're repeatedly told about the impact of these killings on the Muslim communities (when they bother to mention religion at all), but the impact on the victims is downplayed and the impact on the wider communities that are being colonized is ignored. That is the PC mindset that the OP addresses, and which you demonstrate brilliantly.

Arroyo_Doble
02-08-2012, 10:03 AM
Nope.

Yep.

You tried to hang an AP piece on NPR. You were called on it. Get over it.

As far as some Fox propaganda piece, I don't give a shit. They are a dime a dozen all over the Internet. Hell, there are probably two better written ones on the front page of this very website.


Nice straw man there, Dorothy.

Not a straw man, Toto. Sarcasm. You get your panties in a twist every time something is written about Muslims that does not condemn the religion. Even Americans. I don't know if it is tribal or not but it is definitely your unreasoning bias.

Now post something about how awful Muslims are.

Odysseus
02-08-2012, 10:20 AM
Yep.

You tried to hang an AP piece on NPR. You were called on it. Get over it.
Uh, no. You brought up the NPR piece, claiming that they had mentioned the religion. I provided the story that they ran, which was the AP story, which was the topic of the OP, and their follow up, in which Islam was mentioned only in the context of trying to spin the story so that nobody would associate Islamic honor killings with Islam. You were wrong, repeatedly. Admit it.


As far as some Fox propaganda piece, I don't give a shit. They are a dime a dozen all over the Internet. Hell, there are probably two better written ones on the front page of this very website.
You claimed that Fox was deliberately omitting references to Islam the same way that NPR was. I provided their follow up which proved that they were not. You were wrong again.


Not a straw man, Toto. Sarcasm. You get your panties in a twist every time something is written about Muslims that does not condemn the religion. Even Americans. I don't know if it is tribal or not but it is definitely your unreasoning bias.

Now post something about how awful Muslims are.

No, I object to our media whitewashing Islam and ignoring the intentions of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood that have made great progress in their stated goal of infiltrating, colonizing and conquering the west. It is you who gets his panties in a bunch every time I point this out, which is why you have to equate it with calls to genocide.

Arroyo_Doble
02-08-2012, 10:31 AM
Uh, no. You brought up the NPR piece, claiming that they had mentioned the religion.

And they did.


I provided the story that they ran, which was the AP story, which was the topic of the OP, and their follow up, in which Islam was mentioned only in the context of trying to spin the story so that nobody would associate Islamic honor killings with Islam. You were wrong, repeatedly. Admit it.

Just declare victory and move on. It is all you do when confronted with a different opinion (not to mention facts that conflict with your mirrored box).



You claimed that Fox was deliberately omitting references to Islam the same way that NPR was. I provided their follow up which proved that they were not. You were wrong again.

Good Lord, you contradict yourself. You claim NPR PCed out on us by running the AP story and when I point out that FoxNews ran the same story, you find some propaganda piece to prove they did not PC out like NPR by running the SAME FUCKING STORY.

Christ!


No, I object to our media whitewashing Islam and ignoring the intentions of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood that have made great progress in their stated goal of infiltrating, colonizing and conquering the west. It is you who gets his panties in a bunch every time I point this out, which is why you have to equate it with calls to genocide.

Be ever vigilante ... er .... I mean vigilant. Never know when that immigrant Somali girl down the street in the ḥijāb is going to take away your freedom to wear whatever head gear you choose.

Odysseus
02-08-2012, 11:11 AM
And they did.
Yes, but that wasn't the one that you linked to. And the one that I found only mentioned the religion in order to whitewash it.


Just declare victory and move on. It is all you do when confronted with a different opinion (not to mention facts that conflict with your mirrored box).
What facts? Seriously! Cite one fact that you've presented that undermines the OP.


Good Lord, you contradict yourself. You claim NPR PCed out on us by running the AP story and when I point out that FoxNews ran the same story, you find some propaganda piece to prove they did not PC out like NPR by running the SAME FUCKING STORY.

Christ!
Fox didn't PC out. They ran the story, then followed up with their own reporting, which provided greater detail, and included the story points that AP was too PC to run. NPR's follow up compounded the AP story by using it as a springboard to preach against any scrutiny of Islam.


Be ever vigilante ... er .... I mean vigilant. Never know when that immigrant Somali girl down the street in the ḥijāb is going to take away your freedom to wear whatever head gear you choose.

Ah, the snark begins. Has it occurred to you that the immigrant Somali girl in the hijab may not want to wear it, but is terrified of her family and in need of help? Do you think that stories that obscure the nature of Islam and how it treats women do her any favors? That by hiding the motives in these cases, they prevent the people who might be in a position to help from seeing the signs of the abuse and understanding its source? When that girl in the hijab ends up dead in a ditch at the hands of her family, NPR will be there to tell us that Islam had nothing to do with it, and we shouldn't make the connection because that would make us nasty, intolerant people. Meanwhile, there'll be a Pakistani girl forced into an arranged marriage with a cousin who will be stabbed (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Honor_Related_Violence_(United_Kingdom)#Saira.2C_S tabbing_which_lead_to_her_losing_the_baby_she_was_ carrying.2C_July_2010), or a woman who was run over by her father for being too "westernized (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Honor_Related_Violence_(United_States)#Noor_Faleh_ Almaleki.2C_ran_over_by_a_car_and_died_in_hospital _a_few_weeks_later.2C_October_2009)", or shot for not being sufficiently Islamic (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Honor_Related_Violence_(United_States)#Jessica_Mok dad.2C_shot_to_death.2C_April_30.2C_2011), an eight-year-old girl whose family abandons her after she is gang-raped (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Honor_Related_Violence_(United_States)#8-year-old_girl.2C_abandoned.2C_July_16.2C_2009), or in hiding because her parents want to kill her for converting from Islam (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Honor_Related_Violence_(United_States)#Rifqa_Bary. 2C_threatened_with_death.2C_July_2009), or beheaded for wanting a divorce (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Honor_Related_Violence_(United_States)#Aasiya_Hass an.2C_beheaded.2C_February_2009), or stabbed for trying to leave her family's home (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Honor_Related_Violence_(United_States)#Fauzia_A._M ohammad.2C_chased_and_stabbed_multiple_times.2C_Ju ly_17.2C_2008), or strangled with a bungee cord for trying to end an arranged marriage (http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Honor_Related_Violence_(United_States)#Sandeela_Ka nwal.2C_strangled_to_death_with_a_bungee_cord.2C_J uly_6.2C_2008), and the warning signs will be blaring and obvious, but because we're not supposed to presume that honor killings are associated with Islam, nothing will be done until it's too late.

Spare me your self-righteous BS about caring for the underdog. Those women are treated worse than dogs, and you're justifying the media's refusal to expose their plight.

Arroyo_Doble
02-08-2012, 11:54 AM
it occurred to you that the immigrant Somali girl in the hijab may not want to wear it, but is terrified of her family and in need of help?

Yes. Has it occurred to you that the immigrant Somali girl wants to wear the hijab? I know of more than one at the local high school that ran crying into the bathroom when ignorant American teenage boys started ripping them off their heads.

Odysseus
02-08-2012, 12:26 PM
Yes. Has it occurred to you that the immigrant Somali girl wants to wear the hijab? I know of more than one at the local high school that ran crying into the bathroom when ignorant American teenage boys started ripping them off their heads.

Yeah, it's occurred to me, but you don't know if she's wearing it because she wants to, or she's afraid not to, and while physically grabbing a scarf is wrong, I think that we can both agree that it's not as critical as murder (at least, I hope that we can). And, let's talk about whether she ought to be wearing that hijab in a public school. Unlike a yarmulke, or a cross, a hijab has a specific purpose beyond denoting religious affiliation. It's meant to veil a girl against "the improper gaze of men". It's allegedly a symbol of decency and modesty, but if girls who cover up are “decent” and “modest”, what are girls who don’t? If Muslim girls have to veil themselves against the improper gaze of Muslim men, does that mean non-Muslim girls should fear the gaze of Muslim men?

After all, it's not like there have been waves of rapes of western women by Muslim men who cited it as a religious duty, now is it? :rolleyes:

Arroyo_Doble
02-08-2012, 12:42 PM
Yeah, it's occurred to me, but you don't know if she's wearing it because she wants to, or she's afraid not to, and while physically grabbing a scarf is wrong, I think that we can both agree that it's not as critical as murder (at least, I hope that we can).

At least it occurred to you before you dismissed it.

And I would not put it on the same scale as murder. More like lifting up a girl's skirt.


And, let's talk about whether she ought to be wearing that hijab in a public school.

Okay. Although I have a feeling you will rationalize your belief that religious freedom should not be extended to Muslims.


Unlike a yarmulke, or a cross, a hijab has a specific purpose beyond denoting religious affiliation. It's meant to veil a girl against "the improper gaze of men". It's allegedly a symbol of decency and modesty, but if girls who cover up are “decent” and “modest”, what are girls who don’t? If Muslim girls have to veil themselves against the improper gaze of Muslim men, does that mean non-Muslim girls should fear the gaze of Muslim men?

After all, it's not like there have been waves of rapes of western women by Muslim men who cited it as a religious duty, now is it? :rolleyes:

Looks like I was correct.

Odysseus
02-08-2012, 01:04 PM
At least it occurred to you before you dismissed it.
Which is more than I can say for you.


And I would not put it on the same scale as murder. More like lifting up a girl's skirt.
Then the perps should be punished accordingly.



Okay. Although I have a feeling you will rationalize your belief that religious freedom should not be extended to Muslims.
Looks like I was correct.

Talk about declaring victory without having won anything. No, you weren't correct. What I have done is ask questions that you find uncomfortable and that you cannot answer, because they are the root of the problem. As I said before, unlike a yarmulke or cross (which are unobtrusive symbols, the Muslim equivalent of which would be a crescent or other icon), the hijab is meant to hide the entire body of a "modest" girl from the improper gaze of Muslim men. Are girls who don't wear the veil (Muslim or non-Muslim) immodest? Do immodest girls have anything to fear from the improper gaze of Muslim men? Should they veil up for their own safety? Well? Got an answer, wiseguy?

Arroyo_Doble
02-08-2012, 01:13 PM
Talk about declaring victory without having won anything. No, you weren't correct. What I have done is ask questions that you find uncomfortable and that you cannot answer, because they are the root of the problem. As I said before, unlike a yarmulke or cross (which are unobtrusive symbols, the Muslim equivalent of which would be a crescent or other icon), the hijab is meant to hide the entire body of a "modest" girl from the improper gaze of Muslim men. Are girls who don't wear the veil (Muslim or non-Muslim) immodest? Do immodest girls have anything to fear from the improper gaze of Muslim men? Should they veil up for their own safety? Well? Got an answer, wiseguy?


Sure.



Then the perps should be punished accordingly.

Odysseus
02-08-2012, 01:24 PM
Sure.

That doesn't answer the other questions. Once again, for the terminally obtuse:


The hijab is meant to veil a girl against "the improper gaze of men". It's allegedly a symbol of decency and modesty, but if girls who cover up are “decent” and “modest”, what are girls who don’t?
If Muslim girls have to veil themselves against the improper gaze of Muslim men, does that mean non-Muslim girls should fear the gaze of Muslim men?
Are girls who don't wear the veil (Muslim or non-Muslim) immodest?
Do immodest girls have anything to fear from the improper gaze of Muslim men?
Should they veil up for their own safety?

Arroyo_Doble
02-08-2012, 01:33 PM
That doesn't answer the other questions.

Yes, it does. But I will play along with your rationalization while I eat my orange. By the way, this assumes what you say is true; something I will never do when it comes to what you say about Islam.


Once again, for the terminally obtuse:

The hijab is meant to veil a girl against "the improper gaze of men". It's allegedly a symbol of decency and modesty, but if girls who cover up are “decent” and “modest”, what are girls who don’t?

Within that construct, indecent and immodest.


If Muslim girls have to veil themselves against the improper gaze of Muslim men, does that mean non-Muslim girls should fear the gaze of Muslim men?

Within that construct, yes.


Are girls who don't wear the veil (Muslim or non-Muslim) immodest?

Some are and some aren't. It is a big world full of different beliefs on modesty. Also, there is situational modesty. What is acceptable on the beach is not acceptable in the boardroom. Of course, that is my opinion on issues of modesty. And I tend to be very modest in my dress. Button my shirts all the way to the top and never wear shorts (with the exception of when I am swimming or running and then, they extend past my knees).


Do immodest girls have anything to fear from the improper gaze of Muslim men?

No. A gaze is a gaze. It could be creepy, I guess. Or flattering. Depends on the girl.


Should they veil up for their own safety?

No. They should arm themselves.

txradioguy
02-08-2012, 02:22 PM
Just declare victory and move on. It is all you do when confronted with a different opinion (not to mention facts that conflict with your mirrored box).






You were looking in the mirror when you typed that right?

noonwitch
02-08-2012, 03:04 PM
That doesn't answer the other questions. Once again, for the terminally obtuse:


The hijab is meant to veil a girl against "the improper gaze of men". It's allegedly a symbol of decency and modesty, but if girls who cover up are “decent” and “modest”, what are girls who don’t?
If Muslim girls have to veil themselves against the improper gaze of Muslim men, does that mean non-Muslim girls should fear the gaze of Muslim men?
Are girls who don't wear the veil (Muslim or non-Muslim) immodest?
Do immodest girls have anything to fear from the improper gaze of Muslim men?
Should they veil up for their own safety?



Islam is a convenient religion for men, that's for sure. It's all a woman's fault when a man can't keep his zipper closed.

I don't get all worked up about the hijab, though, because there are many eastern european traditions in which women are expected to cover their hair-the elderly greek, polish and russian women around here still wear headscarves. The apostle Paul instructed women to cover their hair in church, and some churches only did away with that rule in the past century. But there is a tradition in eastern europe and the middle east of women covering their hair for modesty.


I know I defend muslims here, because there are so many in my community and they are people who I work with and have as neighbors. They are human beings and american citizens, and I respect them as such. That doesn't mean I would ever want to become a muslim myself.

At least in this country, a muslim woman has the same right to defend herself as anyone else does. Those poor women who were killed lived in Canada, where they didn't necessarily have that right and they definitely did not have access to guns.

Arroyo_Doble
02-08-2012, 03:06 PM
Islam is a convenient religion for men, that's for sure. It's all a woman's fault when a man can't keep his zipper closed.

I don't get all worked up about the hijab, though, because there are many eastern european traditions in which women are expected to cover their hair-the elderly greek, polish and russian women around here still wear headscarves. The apostle Paul instructed women to cover their hair in church, and some churches only did away with that rule in the past century. But there is a tradition in eastern europe and the middle east of women covering their hair for modesty.


I know I defend muslims here, because there are so many in my community and they are people who I work with and have as neighbors. They are human beings and american citizens, and I respect them as such. That doesn't mean I would ever want to become a muslim myself.

At least in this country, a muslim woman has the same right to defend herself as anyone else does. Those poor women who were killed lived in Canada, where they didn't necessarily have that right and they definitely did not have access to guns.

My wife still abides by the rule. She will not go into church without her hair covered in some manner.

Personally, I think it is an excuse to buy hats.

Odysseus
02-08-2012, 03:28 PM
Yes, it does. But I will play along with your rationalization while I eat my orange. By the way, this assumes what you say is true; something I will never do when it comes to what you say about Islam.
Or anyone else, apparently, unless it's CAIR.

Within that construct, indecent and immodest.
I.e., In accordance with Islamic law, since that's where the construct came from. From the Qur'an:
"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters, and the believing women, to draw their cloaks (veils) over their bodies. That will be better that they should be known (as respectable woman) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."God is forgiving and kind.[Quran 33:59 (Translated by Ahmed Ali)]


Within that construct, yes.
Ditto.
Again, don't take my word for it. According to the five schools of Islamic jurisprudence (http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter7/2.html), at a minimum, a woman must cover everything but her face and hands in the presence of strangers, because her entire body is considered Awrah (intimate parts):

3. Women and 'stranger': About the extent of the body to be covered by a woman in the presence of a 'stranger' (any male apart from the mahrim (relatives)), the schools concur that it is wajib for her to cover her whole body except the face and hands (up to the wrists) in accordance with the verse 31 of Surat al-Nur:

...And reveal not their adornment save such as is outward; and let them cast their veils over their bosoms (24:31)

considering that 'outward adornment' (al-zeenah) implies the face and hands. The word 'al-khimar' (whose plural 'khumur' occurs in the verse) means the veil which covers the head, not the face, and the word 'al-jayb' (whose plural 'juyub' occurs in the verse) means the chest. The women have been commanded to put a covering on their heads and to lower it over their chests. As to verse 59 of Surat 'Ahzab:

'0 Prophet, say to your wives and daughters and the believing women that they draw their veils close to them..., (33:59)

the word 'al-jilbab' (whose plural jalabib occurs in the verse) means a veil covering the head; rather it is a shirt or garment.


Some are and some aren't. It is a big world full of different beliefs on modesty. Also, there is situational modesty. What is acceptable on the beach is not acceptable in the boardroom. Of course, that is my opinion on issues of modesty. And I tend to be very modest in my dress. Button my shirts all the way to the top and never wear shorts (with the exception of when I am swimming or running and then, they extend past my knees).
Your modesty isn't the issue. According to Islamic law, a woman who fails to veil herself is considered immodest. See above. More importantly, by conducting herself immodestly, she is considered sexually available to any man who wants to take her.


No. A gaze is a gaze. It could be creepy, I guess. Or flattering. Depends on the girl.
Not according to Islam. You see, if a woman is not properly covered, then she is inviting improper attention. Australia's top Muslim cleric, Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali, has stated that rape is caused by women, and that this is the official Islamic interpretation:

In a Ramadan sermon to 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, Sheik Alhilali blamed women who "sway suggestively" and who wore makeup and no hijab (Islamic scarf) for sexual attacks, The Australian newspaper reported.

"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat," he said.
"The uncovered meat is the problem.
"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."


No. They should arm themselves.
Works for me, but be both know that this isn't going to happen en masse, unless things get as bad as they already have in Europe.

You were looking in the mirror when you typed that right?
Did you hear glass breaking?

Arroyo_Doble
02-08-2012, 03:32 PM
Not according to Islam.

And?

Seriously. Who gives a fuck? I don't care what Zoroastrians think about the issue either.

I told you I answered it already with your own words. Punish the perp. Done.

Now have the last word by mentioning some caliphate horseshit as justification for denying religious freedom to a religion you despise.

txradioguy
02-08-2012, 03:42 PM
And?

Seriously. Who gives a fuck? I don't care what Zoroastrians think about the issue either.

I told you I answered it already with your own words. Punish the perp. Done.

Now have the last word by mentioning some caliphate horseshit as justification for denying religious freedom to a religion you despise.


Translated...I've been defeated and it's time for me to cut and run.

Odysseus
02-08-2012, 03:59 PM
And?

Seriously. Who gives a fuck? I don't care what Zoroastrians think about the issue either.

I told you I answered it already with your own words. Punish the perp. Done.

Now have the last word by mentioning some caliphate horseshit as justification for denying religious freedom to a religion you despise.
Once again, how I feel about Islam isn't the point. The point is that Islam, as practiced, presents a clear and present danger to women who do not choose to wrap themselves in 7th century haute couture and marry their cousins on order. You are spinning like a dervish (another Islamic reference, BTW) in order to obscure that fact, just as AP avoids references to Muslims and Islam in a story in which the motive for the murder of several women was Islam. The OP asks if PC journalists can report honestly about Muslims. You have demonstrated that you can't even discuss them honestly here.

Translated...I've been defeated and it's time for me to cut and run.
He was defeated a while ago, but I don't want a decision on points. I'm going for the knockout. :D