Jow Forums gets a PhD in Islam. Lesson 10: Honor killings

Muhammad loved stoning so much that he ordered the jews (who had stopped doing it) to revive this wonderful custom in the hadith Sunan Ibn Majah 20,2655 (sunnah.com/urn/1268750), also repeated in Abu Dawud 4448 and Sahih Muslim 1700a.

Apologists will insist that stoning adulterers is not prescribed in the quran. And indeed, the quran prescribes a different punishment for adulterous women: to wall them up inside their homes and leave them there until they die (4:15). But this punishment was later abrogated by all the sahih hadiths we've just examined, and this is why islamic law manuals clearly order to stone adulterers:

>«If the offender is someone with the capacity to remain chaste [meaning, someone who has a spouse with which to relieve their sexual impulses in a lawful way], then HE OR SHE IS STONED TO DEATH [...] If the offender is not someone with the capacity to remain chaste [someone not married], then the penalty consists of being scourged one hundred stripes and banished to a distance of at least 81 km./50 mi. for one year.» (Reliance of the Traveller, o12.2)

>«Allah, Exalted be He, has prescribed a severe punishment for adultery, namely STONING TO DEATH, or lashing and banishment in case of fornication. […]
>«If the perpetrator of illegal sexual intercourse, male or female, is married and legally major (i.e. if the case is adultery), he/she is to be STONED TO DEATH.» (Saleh Al-Fawzan, "A Summary of Islamic Jurisprudence", 2005, Vol. 2, Part X, Chapter 2, p. 594.)

Attached: Lesson 4 - The Quran and the Sunnah.png (1312x8870, 2.51M)

So, the killing of adulterers and apostates is allowed and doesn't entail repercussions for the murderer.
These 2 categories might seem a bit too few to really engage in some satisfying honor killing, but we need to remember that, as we've seen in previous lessons, the criteria for considering someone a real muslim are pretty damn stringent, under islam. To be an apostate, you just need to violate the smallest rule Allah and Muhammad described in the quran or in a sahih hadith. After all, as the quran said:

>«But no, by your Lord, THEY WILL NOT (TRULY) BELIEVE until they make you, (O Muhammad), judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged AND SUBMIT IN (FULL, WILLING) SUBMISSION.» (4:65)

You're not a real muslim unless you obey Muhammad in EVERYTHING with full submission.
You don't like some obligations, like having to pray 5 times a day, having to participate in jihad, having to wear the hijab, having to always obey your husband, not being able to leave the house without his permission, not being able to have infidel friends or to dress like them, etc., and you refuse to repent and behave like a good muslim? Sorry, you're an apostate. An “unworthy” individual that can (and should) be killed by any “real” muslim.

So even though murder is illegal, some kinds of murder are actually fine, and the penal codes of islamic countries had no choice but to adapt to what the quran and the sunnah say.

Attached: Lesson 5 - Islam and Science.png (1298x8323, 2.21M)

Let's take Jordan as an example. Technically, premeditated murder in Jordan is punishable by death, but its penal code exempts from the death penalty men who kill female relatives found committing adultery:

>«Articles 340 and 98 of the Jordanian Penal Code exempt or reduce the punishment of individuals convicted of murdering women in the name of honor.
>«Article 340(a) EXEMPTS FROM PUNISHMENT a perpetrator who discovers his wife, or one of his female relatives, committing adultery with another person, and kills, injures, or harms one or both of them. Article 340(b) reduces the sentence for the perpetrator of a murder, injury, or harm, if he discovers his wife, one of his sisters, or other relatives, with another man in an illegitimate bed.
>«And article 98 reduces the sentence for the perpetrator of a fit of fury crime committed in response to a wrongful and serious act on the part of the victim. […]
>«The killer must also be directly related to the victim (father, husband, son or brother)»

Then the article makes a very important point:

>«NONE OF THESE LAWS SPECIFIES WHAT AN ILLEGITIMATE OR WRONGFUL ACT MIGHT BE, yet all three have been invoked to justify minimizing the punishment for honor crimes.» (refworld.org/docid/3ae6ad6348.html)

As with the word “fitnah”, which can mean anything from open war against muslims to simply refusing to convert to islam, and is used as a reason to crucify and mutilate people who oppose islam in any way (as enjoined by quran 5:33), in the case of honor killings we're dealing with vague terms which can be used to excuse a wide variety of murders.
Thanks to this vague terminology, muslim men can kill any relative which has behaved in a way perceived as “dishonorable”, from criticizing islam to neglecting their prayers, from wearing a pair of jeans to drinking a beer, from wanting to go to college to having an infidel bf/gf.

Attached: Lesson 6 - The Dhimmis.png (1312x6709, 1.62M)

In Jordan, men committing honour crimes receive short prison sentences even when the autopsy reveals that the woman killed for having improper sexual relations was actually a virgin. Which happens fairly often, since muslims' detective skills wouldn't exactly make Batman jealous. Often, a simple rumor is enough to trigger a murder:

>«Officials from Jordan’s National Institute for Forensic Medicine said they had encountered several incidents where young girls had been killed ostensibly for having sexual relations with a man but autopsies had revealed THEY WERE VIRGINS.
>«But whether a murdered girl was a virgin or not holds little weight in the eyes of her family or indeed the court. “It is often found out that victims were virgins but when the court looks at the case, the sentences they give are very mild compared to the crime,” said Rana Husseini, a journalist who has been campaigning to raise awareness of the custom.» (irinnews.org/report/70634/jordan-honour-killings-still-tolerated)

The same article clarifies that honor killings are not seen by islamic institutions as a problem to be fixed , but as a feature of their way of life:

«A Royal Commission on Human Rights, set up by King Abdullah, has already proposed stricter measures against honour killings. However, when the government introduced a bill outlining stiff penalties for honour killers, parliament rejected it outright, saying it would encourage adultery and create new social problems.» (irinnews.org/report/70634/jordan-honour-killings-still-tolerated)

Indeed, the best way to make women behave is to always leave a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.

Attached: Lesson 7 - Pedophilia.png (1303x8157, 2.27M)

Cool story bro.
But I fail to see what exactly it is you’re trying to prove.

It’s almost as if you’re trying to imply that Muslims are the only ones guilty of systematically allowing murder.
And perhaps the worst of offenders of it at that.

Attached: 91B95197-02FB-402E-B109-D9727C00C639.jpg (615x409, 40K)

As we've seen in the previous lesson, women are considered the property of men. The same is true for children, which are seen as their parents' property. Islamic legal manuals even state clearly that parents have the right to kill their kids whenever they consider it necessary to discipline them or to preserve the family's honor:

>«The following are not subject to retaliation: […] -4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) FOR KILLING THEIR OFFSPRING, OR OFFSPRING'S OFFSPRING;» (Reliance of the Traveller, o1.2. Shafi school.)

But “Reliance” is a very old legal text. Maybe one written in the 21st century will have a more modern approach...

>«The heirs or the legal representatives of the killed person do not have the right of qisas (legal retribution) unless the following four conditions are met: […]
>«4- THE MURDERED PERSON MUST NOT BE ONE OF THE MURDERER'S CHILDREN OR DESCENDANTS. That is to say, none of the parents is to be killed in qisas for killing his/her son, daughter, or any of his/her descendants. […]
>«However, the son is to be killed in qisas when killing any of his parents […]»
(Saleh Al-Fawzan, "A Summary of Islamic Jurisprudence", 2005, Vol. 2, Part IX, Chapter 2, pp. 530-1. Hanbali school.)

Attached: Lesson 8 - Slavery.png (1308x9777, 2.5M)

Now teach our class about metzitzeh bpeh

Attached: 1406641986927.cached-770x513.jpg (770x513, 96K)

But maybe we're misunderstanding, or this is only the opinion of the most backward schools of law. Let's see this Hanafi fatwa coming from a website claiming to adopt «balanced and moderate views, devoid of bias and extremism»:

>«If a father kills his son, then the following rulings apply:
>«1- According to the most preponderant opinion, a father is not killed because of him killing his son as per the Hadeeth: “A father is not to be killed for (the killing of) his son.” (At-Tirmithi and Ibn Maajah) However, the Maaliki School of jurisprudence is of the view that if the father kills his son deliberately without having only the intention to discipline him, then he (the father) should be killed.
>«2- He is obligated to pay the Diyah [monetary compensation].»
("Ruling of a father killing his son", 2010. islamweb.net/en/fatwa/138307/)

So, a father who kills his son only has to pay a fine. No capital punishment and no prison. And even the most moderate opinion (the Maliki one) states that the father can escape death and jail simply by claiming that he didn't mean to kill the kid and that he was only trying to “discipline” him.

Attached: Lesson 9 - Women 1.png (1304x9392, 2.48M)

This other Hanafi fatwa further explains (islamweb.net/en/fatwa/199565/):

>«The majority of the scholars are of the view that the father is not to be killed because of him killing his son, EVEN IF HE KILLED HIM DELIBERATELY.
>«That opinion is the most preponderant that is substantiated with pieces of evidence. Amongst them is that the Prophet (pbuh) said: “A father is not to be killed for (him killing) his son.” (At-Tirmithi and others narrated it as Marfoo', i.e. attributed to the Prophet (pbuh) - Al-Albaani graded it Saheeh (sound))

>«In another narration reported by Ad-Daaraqutni: "…even if he killed him intentionally."

>«It was reported in another narration that a man had struck his son with his sword and killed him. Then the case was taken to ‘Umar may Allaah be pleased with him who said: "Had I not heard the Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, saying: "A father is not to be killed for (him killing) his son”, I would have killed you before you leave." (Ahmad)

>«Maaliki scholars disagreed with the majority of the scholars.» [We've examined their opinion in the previous fatwa.]

The hadith mentioned in these fatwas is this:

>«The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) judged that the son is to suffer retaliation for (killing) his father, but THE FATHER IS NOT TO SUFFER RETALIATION FOR (KILLING) HIS SON.» [at-Tirmidhi 1399 - sunnah.com/tirmidhi/16/15 Also: Ibn Majah 21,2763]

Some hadith scholars classified it as da'if (weak), but others considered it sahih (undeniable), and this is why the most preponderant opinions by the Hanafi, Hanbali and Shafi schools of law are based on it. (And even the Maliki, as we've seen, is not far behind: all a father has to do to avoid prison after killing his kids is to say: «But I just wanted to discipline them.»)

Attached: Lesson 9 - Women 2.png (1296x4863, 1.03M)

The fatwa continues, showing that the belief that children are the property of parents can generate some seriously convoluted rulings:

>«On the other hand, if one of the spouses killed the other, the killer will be killed UNLESS THE KILLER HAS A CHILD FROM THE OTHER and thus the killer will not be killed for killing the other.
>«Ibn Qudaamah may Allaah have mercy upon him said in Al-Mughni: "If one of the parents killed the other and they have a child, then Qisaas [retaliation] will not be obligatory. That is because if it is obligatory, it (Qisaas) will be the right of the child and THERE IS NO QISAAS FOR THE CHILD AGAINST ANY OF HIS PARENTS because neither of them is to be killed for killing him, then how will he be given the right to kill them for killing other than him?"»

So kids can't exact retribution against their parents in any case. Even at the cost of leaving the person who murders his spouse unpunished. Even that is better than giving kids the right to retaliate against their parents. What would happen to society otherwise?

Attached: Ayesha Siddiq burned with acid for refusing to be sold.jpg (632x518, 238K)

After reading these amazing fatwas, a reader had a doubt: “Ok for the father, but what about the mother who kills her children? Is she punished?”. This other fatwa clarifies the issue:

>«THIS RULING APPLIES TO BOTH PARENTS, and the wording of the Hadeeth that was mentioned in this regard as reported in Musnad Imaam Ahmad and Sunan At-Tirmithi may Allaah have mercy upon them is as follows: “A parent is not to be killed for (killing) his son.” The word ‘parent’ includes both the father and the mother.
>«Among the meanings that the jurists may Allaah have mercy upon them mentioned while justifying this ruling, is their statement: “The parents are the reason for the existence of the child; so the child should not be a reason for their execution.” This meaning applies to both parents.» (islamweb.net/en/fatwa/200403/)

Islam works according to the principle “if I made you, I can unmake you”.

Attached: Aasiya Zubair and the husband who beheaded her for wanting a divorce.jpg (540x491, 86K)

So sunni islam even now still thinks that parents shouldn't be punished for killing their kids, nor the grandparents for killing their grandkids. Ok.
But what about shia islam?

>«Condition of retaliation: […] The slayer is not the father of the slain, nor the paternal grandfather.»
(Ayatollah Khomeini, “Resaleh Towzih Al-Massael” (A Clarification of Questions), Appendix II, paragraph 2.3)

Shia islam agrees with its mortal sunni enemy that the father and the grandfather have the right to kill their kids/grandkids.

To sum it up, islam considers anyone who deviates even slightly from the orders of Muhammad and Allah an “apostate”, and gives all devout muslims the right to kill them. Plus, it specifically gives parents the right to kill their kids with no repercussions.
Hmm... I wonder what results such rules will have.

Attached: Amina and Sarah Said killed by their father for behaving like westerners.jpg (300x225, 21K)

There is no way to know how prevalent honor killings are in muslim societies, for the simple reasons that (like FGM and other issues), muslim institutions often don't report these incidents. The murder is swept under the rug and the murderer is tacitly acquitted. «In many cases, the women are buried in unmarked graves and all records of their existence are wiped out».
Even when the police actually investigates the murder, sentences are always very light, not only because in islam you can't be executed for killing your wives or children, but also because «The teenage brothers of victims are frequently directed to commit the murder because, as minors, they would be subject to considerably lighter sentencing if there is legal action. Typically, they would serve only three months to a year.» (nationalgeographic.com/culture/2002/02/thousands-of-women-killed-for-family-honor/)

Even without precise data, we know that honor killings of all kinds (acid attacks, stoning, stabbing, shooting, strangling) are commonplace in muslim societies the world over. (See: ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Women/A.HRC.20.16_En.pdf or any other report on the issue by human rights organizations.)

Attached: Heshu Yones, 16 yo, killed by father for being too western and dating a christian.jpg (150x378, 12K)

To really understand honor killings, we must first understand the arab notion of “honor”.
Arab societies consider two kinds of honor: sharaf and 'ird:

>«Sharaf relates to the honor of a social unit, such as the Arab tribe or family, as well as individuals, and it can fluctuate up or down. A failure by an individual to follow what is defined as adequate moral conduct weakens the social status of the family or tribal unit. On the other hand, the family's sharaf may be increased by model behavior such as hospitality, generosity, courage in battle, etc.
>«In sum, sharaf translates roughly as the Western concept of "DIGNITY."

>«In contrast, 'ird relates only to the honor of women and its value can only decrease. It translates roughly as the Western concept of "CHASTITY" or "PURITY." And as with chastity or purity, exemplary moral behavior cannot increase a woman's 'ird but misconduct reduces it.

>«In addition, 'ird trumps sharaf: the honor of the Arab family or tribe, the respect accorded it, can be gravely damaged when one of its women's chastity is violated or when her reputation is tainted. Consequently, a violation of a woman's honor requires severe action.» (meforum.org/50/honor-murders-why-the-perps-get-off-easy)

And this is why honor killers often get off scot free: they're simply defending the honor of their family/community.
The community pressure to kill the dishonorable member of the family is often described as unbearable by the murderers. Here are a few examples (quoted in meforum.org/50/honor-murders-why-the-perps-get-off-easy):

>An Egyptian man who strangled his unmarried pregnant daughter and then cut her corpse in eight pieces and threw them in the toilet explained his gesture this way: «Shame kept following me wherever I went (before the murder). The village's people had no mercy on me. They were making jokes and mocking me. I couldn't bear it and decided to put an end to this shame.» (Al-Hayat al-Jadida, May 6, 2000)

Attached: Hina Saleem, 21, killed for being too western.jpg (512x309, 23K)

>A Jordanian murdered his sister who was raped by another brother and then turned into a prostitute by the man they married her off to in order to clean her honor.
>The murderer confessed that if he had to go through it all again he would not kill her, but rather would kill his father, mother, uncles, and all the relatives that pressured him to murder and led him to jail. Instead of killing his sister and going to jail, he said he should have «tied her with a rope like a goat and let her spend her life like that until she dies.» (Ash-Sh'ab (Ramallah), July 24, 2000)

>A young Palestinian who murdered his sister who had been sexually assaulted: "Before the incident, I drank tea and it tasted bitter because my honor was violated. After the killing I felt much better... I don't wish anybody the mental state I was in. I was under tremendous mental pressure." (Al-Hayat al-Jadida, June 12, 1999)

>Another Palestinian who murdered his sister: «I had to kill her because I was the oldest [male] member of the family. My only motive to kill her was (my desire) to get rid of what people were saying. They were blaming me that I was encouraging her to fornicate... I let her choose the way I would get rid of her: slitting her throat or poisoning her. She chose the poison.» (Ar-Risala (Gaza), June 11, 1998)

Attached: Maja Bradaric, 16, killed for looking for a bf.jpg (279x379, 17K)

Liberal and feminist groups often conflate islamic honor killings with western domestic violence and try to make it look like the problem isn't islam but “toxic masculinity”. They claim that women and children are abused and killed in western societies as well. They claim that the Alabama redneck beating his wife (one of the few stereotypes we're allowed to make fun of, according to the turboliberal dogma) is identical to the muslim father/brother/husband who kills a female relative because she dishonored him.

Needless to say, this is a false equivalency. Islamic honor killings have many important peculiarities which distinguish them from western-style domestic violence and femicide (retarded word which implies that the murder of a female is qualitatively different from the murder of a man).

A study by Phyllis Chesler (a writer and psychotherapist who made the mistake of marrying an afghan muslim and only later realized the true face of islam), shows clearly that islamic honor killings are completely different from western domestic violence in motivation, method, age of the victim, relation with the murderer, etc. (phyllis-chesler.com/articles/are-honor-killings-simply-domestic-violence):

>1) The victim is killed for “living like a kafir”, which is expressly forbidden by both quran and sunnah.
As stated in quran 3:28, 3:118-120, 4:144, 5:51, 60:1, and in the hadith by Abu Dawud n. 2787 (sunnah.com/abudawud/15/311), living like an infidel makes you guilty.
In the West, there simply isn't a pattern of fathers killing their teenage daughters because of their lifestyle, the music they listen to, the clothes they wear (or don't wear), their sexual behavior, or simply for seeking higher education, for wanting to move out or for refusing an arranged marriage. Only in islam there is an extremely strong pattern of this kind of murder. Most victims of islamically motivated honor killings are teenage girls who “acted too western”.

Attached: Mohammed Riaz killed his entire family by burning them alive because they were too westernized.jpg (242x273, 20K)

>2) Honor killing is a communal activity.
In the West, wives and daughters are beaten because of substance abuse, mental health issues, or simply because the abuser is a sociopath who enjoys hurting others. The cause is INDIVIDUAL, not cultural. But in islam, women and kids are beaten and killed for religious reasons, because islam's holy books state clearly that women and children are men's property, and that men have the duty to discipline them and make them live like good muslims. Matters of honor are considered collective, not individual. The rights of the family, clan or community supplant individual human rights.
And the murder is usually a group activity: «only honor killings involve multiple family members. Fathers, mothers, brothers, male cousins, uncles, and sometimes even grandfathers commit the murder, but MOTHERS AND SISTERS MAY LOBBY FOR THE KILLING [Odd, I thought the problem was “toxic masculinity”]. Some mothers collaborate in the murder in a hands-on way and may assist in the getaway. In some cases, taxi drivers, neighbors, and mosque members prevent the targeted woman from fleeing, report her whereabouts to her family, and subsequently conspire to thwart police investigations.» (Brandon and Hafez, “Crimes of the Community”, p. 94, quoted in meforum.org/2067/are-honor-killings-simply-domestic-violence)

Attached: Sanaa Dafani, 18, killed by her father because she had a white bf.jpg (670x400, 22K)

>3) The murderer is often helped by members of the victim's family.
Often, the murderer IS a member of the victim's family. Married women suspected of committing adultery are killed not only by their husbands, but by their own brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers. Even when the murderer is the husband, the woman's relatives often condone it.
See for example the case of Samia Imran, a 28 year old married woman with two kids who wanted to divorce her drug-addict, violent husband. Her own mother (who is a doctor, not an uneducated poor soul who doesn't know any better) lured her into the office of a lawyer and then helped the murderer shoot her in the face in broad daylight. Because her divorce would've shamed her family.

>4) The killing is threatened for a long time, planned and performed deliberately.
While most infanticides and uxoricides in western societies are the result of mental illness or rage outbursts, in muslim cultures they're usually intentional and coldly planned. The victims also had months or years of warnings from their murderers, who typically kept threatening them to kill them if they didn't stop a certain behavior.

Attached: Shafilea Ahmed, 16 yo, killed for refusing arranged marriage.jpg (640x494, 31K)

>5) The murderers are not ashamed nor stigmatized; they're often praised.
«In the West, wife batterers are ostracized. Here, there is an important difference in honor crimes. Muslims who commit or assist in the commission of honor killings view these killings as heroic and even view the murder as the fulfillment of a religious obligation. A Turkish study of prisoners found no social stigma attached to honor murderers.» (meforum.org/2067/are-honor-killings-simply-domestic-violence)

After all, they're following the Word of Allah and the example of the Prophet, who, as we've seen, ordered the killing of many an adulterer and “hypocrite” (munafiq, somebody who claims to be muslim but doesn't respect one or more islamic obligations). They usually consider themselves the real victims: the woman's actions had ruined their reputation, so they had to punish her.

Attached: Sohane Benziane, 17 yo, raped and murdered by ex-bf and schoolmates for being too western.jpg (763x750, 63K)

Liberals who insist that honor killings also happen in the West are either lying or forgetting to add that they happen WITHIN IMMIGRANT ISLAMIC COMMUNITIES. As with other muslim customs (FMG, child brides, polygamy), honor killings are also coming into the West together with the millions of immigrants our politician inoculate in our societies:

>«In the West in the 1989-2009 period, 76 individual or groups of perpetrators murdered 100 victims. Of these perpetrators, 37% came from Pakistan, 17% had Iraqi origin, 12% had Turkish origin and 11% had Afghan origins. The remaining 25% came from Albania, Algeria, Bosnia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Guyana, India, Iran, Morocco and Palestine (West Bank).» (meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings)

>«According to Phyllis Chesler’s “Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings” in Middle East Quarterly (Spring 2010), 91 percent of honour killings are committed by Muslims worldwide.» (canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43207) (The rest is done by hindus and sikhs.)

>«Honour killings are not strictly a Muslim phenomenon [hindus and sikhs do it too], but they are today overwhelmingly so in the West, where 95% of honour killings are perpetrated by Muslim fathers and brothers or their proxies.» (nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-continue-calling-honour-killings-by-its-rightful-name)

Attached: Gul Meena, forced to marry a 60 yo man at 12, hacked with an axe by her brother at 17 for leaving hi (550x347, 196K)

And the average muslim's opinion on the matter hasn't much changed in the past 14 centuries. Among muslims who prefer sharia over secular laws, stoning women for adultery is favored by 89% in Pakistan, 85% in Afghanistan, 81% in Egypt, 67% in Jordan, ~50% in “moderate” Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, 58% in Iraq, 44% in Tunisia, 29% in Turkey, and 26% in Russia.
Honor killing also has a distinct gender bias. Killing females for sex outside of marriage is favored over killing males in almost every islamic country. Over half of Muslims surveyed believed that honor killings over sex were at least partially justified.
(Pew Research, 2013. pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf)

Nothing surprising here. After all, islam is the “perfect, eternal religion”. Of course its rulings wouldn't change much over the centuries.

The same is true for the laws against the LGBTQIARSOAN&£º®+ crowd, known by sane people as “faggots and dykes”. We'll examine islam's (confused, very confused) hate boner for them in the next lesson.
See ya.

Attached: acid is love.jpg (480x720, 50K)

Not yet, but I'm planning to rewrite all this info in book form.

Retarded kike.

An inbred cockroach trying to act as if he had the right to speak to humans. Preposterous.

>It’s almost as if you’re trying to imply that Muslims are the only ones guilty of systematically allowing murder.
>And perhaps the worst of offenders of it at that.
They are by far the worst offenders. See lesson 2 about jihad. No other ideology has killed remotely as many people as islam. And today no other ideology is as arrogant, violent, obscurantist and totalitarian as islam. Not nearly. The most bloodthirsty nazi is a tea-sipping english gentleman, compared to radical muslims.

Retard. You will never be wh*Te no matter how much anti Islam you prove you are.

>shitalian
>human

>the cockroach is still trying to talk.
Keep bumping my thread, inbred bug.

I am sageing it you retarded shitalian.

Bump for all these buttblasted sandniggers.

>he thinks sageing still works
>he thinks a roach can insult other people
A FUCKING ROACH

>1 post by this ID
Fuck off niggerkike.

Attached: 1548643589927.png (329x346, 218K)

We will cut open your children, and you will scream and cry, but all the people who listen to crying will already be dead at that point.

That same guy is first post in several good threads spamming irrelevant or disruptive stuff; thing is, he's not memeflagging, and he's got a name.
He's JIDF, but with integrity. Or he missed the orientation.

Why are you so hateful? You think about torturing our children? You belong in a mental hospital.

>what are your thoughts on Christianity?
The little roach tries whataboutism. He really thinks that's a smart move.

Christianity has many flaws, but compared to islam it's a blessing.

Christianity has a proven track record of being compatible with scientific advancements (Bacon, Mendel etc. were all christian clergymen). Islam on the other end does nothing but suffocate science. All its so called "muslim scientists" were actually heretics, apostates. See the lesson about islam and science.

Christianity has a proven track record of ending slavery, even going as far as to force muslim countries to outlaw it. Islam on the other hand still justifies it and practices it whenever it escapes our leash.

Christianity is based on a fundamental message of peace. When it causes violence, it's only as a justified reaction to centuries of aggressions (the Crusades) or to stamp out dangerous islamic heresies (the Inquisition). Islam on the other hand is based on violent suprematist, lying, trickery and unprovoked aggressions. It's the religion of the violent coward.

>They are by far the worst offenders.
Quite a bold statement for something Im sure you can’t prove. Meanwhile I can think of multiple instances in which “sanctioned” murder by non-Muslims entities lead to the deaths of millions upon millions of people.

If this entire thread is an argument to prove Muslims are particularly more barbaric than other groups of people in this regard, it’s a ridiculously weak one from an observational standpoint.

Who cares. Your civilization is dying because of Christianity.

Thank you professor.

Can you explain us why muslims like to inbreed so much?

PS I haven't read all your lessons yet. Forgive me if you already wrote it somewhere.

There's other threads about that, a person is not a hypocrite for specializing.

>Christianity has a proven track record of ending slavery,
I lol’d

This is a lot of effort for a slide thread

Attached: C7312BBA-1A78-42BD-9229-15B6CE088711.png (800x384, 485K)

>for something Im sure you can’t prove.
It's not even controversial in historiography that islam has killed tens of millions of people. The 4 centuries muslims spent slaughtering hindus (which had never attacked them or provoked them in any way) caused alone around 80 million deaths.

As I said, we already talked about this in the lesson about jihad. I'm not going to repeat it beause you're too lazy or too arrogant to educate yourself before you speak.

>italian bro btfo islam in a series of threads he put his word on he was going to bake
>it's a slide thread.
imagine being this retarded.

bump

>It’s almost as if you’re trying to imply that Muslims are the only ones guilty of systematically allowing murder.
>you imply
>so i'm going to imply back
kys

Attached: you can do it.jpg (740x464, 10K)

My little roach cannot be this naive. Dying? We're simply slumbering because peace and misplaced empathy made us vulnerable to infestation from less human cultures. But if you really think we won't wake up once your real nature becomes unmistakable, you're underestimating how disgusting you roaches are.

And if you think we won't effortlessly wipe you out soon thereafter, you're underestimating our character. The history of mankind could be summed up in one sentence: don't fuck with white people, we're better than you.

>why muslims like to inbreed so much?
It makes it a lot easier to control their females. If your daughter marries a stranger she might move somewhere far away and lose contact. If she marries cousin Amir who works at the button factory, she's gonna stay in the family for her entire life.

Plus, muslims (like all undeveloped cultures) are strongly tribal. Their clan is better than other clans. Marrying their daughters to members of other clans is often seen as a degradation.

Can you check this link please? It looks broken.
This part is very interesting, as "toxic masculinity" in western society is often compared with cultural endemic violence.

> A study by Phyllis Chesler (a writer and psychotherapist who made the mistake of marrying an afghan muslim and only later realized the true face of islam), shows clearly that islamic honor killings are completely different from western domestic violence in motivation, method, age of the victim, relation with the murderer, etc. (phyllis-chesler.com/articles/are-honor-killings-simply-domestic-violence):

Why would I want a Phd in a totally fake religion? Hey here's my Phd in fairy magic.

>he knows absolutely FUCK ALL about abolitionist movements in christian Europe, which are the only reason slavery was abolished in the West
>and the only reason most muslim countries were FORCED to abolish it as well, even though they did so only begrudgingly.
Holy shit, the ignorance...

Cringed. And as I said, you're not even wh*Te. Your numbers are dropping like a rock from the sky, soon there won't even be enough of you to fight back. By the time you wake up from your sleep it'll already be too late.

>Plus, muslims (like all undeveloped cultures) are strongly tribal.
Isn't The West weakness that we have lost our tribal truth? or at least become ashamed that we do in fact prefer Euros over others?

>Be muslim
>I'm going to taunt on euros over how fucked they are
retarded to the end.

>It looks broken
It is. Shit, it worked just yesterday.

The same study can be found here anyway: meforum.org/2067/are-honor-killings-simply-domestic-violence

>It's not even controversial in historiography that islam has killed tens of millions of people
Kek. And Hitler allegedly killed 6 million in a matter of a few years. Hell, communism in its relatively short span of existence contributed to the deaths of HUNDREDS of millions.

But I’m just merely entertaining you by saying this. You’re just overreaching insanely hard in your phobia against Muslims, lol.

>a roach
>telling white people they're not white
>a fucking roach
>A FUCKING ROACH
Am I being punk'd?

>soon there won't even be enough of you to fight back
Good thing one of us is worth 500 of you maggots.

>I'm gonna imply that the entire bloody history of islam is fake without a shred of evidence because I have no argument whatsoever and I'm being buttblasted into oblivion.
k

He's a roach. Reasoning is not their strong point.

Thank you Professor!

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1024x576, 55K)

One thing is being proud of your culture. Another is closing yourself toward the rest of your culture and despising other clans (for no good reasons, obviously) to the point that you prefer inbreeding rather than marry within other families.

So basically you’re choosing to ignore the fact that Christianity, according to its own holy books, regards slaves obeying their masters as a virtue? How convenient.

This is a bad look for you, “doctor”

>k
Wow. That post is literally as profound and insightful as your entire thread. Incredible.

Thanks for the lesson.

Attached: CF432F74-F4CC-4369-A250-748B46B56519.jpg (533x400, 112K)

So basically you're choosing to ignore the fact that the NEW Testament was a new pact which superseded the old one and changed the rules and that Christianity was at the forefront of the fight against slavery? How convenient.

This is a bad look for you, "user only pretending to be interested in the truth whose name is probably Muhammad-something".

>Thanks for the lesson.
At this point I seriously doubt you're capable of understanding it, but you're welcome.

Archived lesson:
>archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/203085261

And screenshot in pic related.

Attached: Lesson 10 - Honor killings.png (1320x7198, 1.97M)

>blaming christianity for jewish degeneracy
I smell an inbred here. Muslim or jew but inbred.

Is there any particular reason for which you think their religion hasn't been able to evolve in a way?

Or maybe it's multiple reasons: low IQ, early indoctrination of children, very strict rules etc.

>evolve
or being reformed I should say

>Is there any particular reason for which you think their religion hasn't been able to evolve or reform
Its most fundamental tenet is that it's a PERFECT religion. The only perfect way of life. The quran is the Word of Allah, and therefore cannot be changed. Any change in religion is bid'ah, which is a crime punishable by death, because (you guessed it), it means you apostatized from the "true" islam.

After all, Muhammad is called "Seal of the prophethood" because he was the last prophet to ever appear, since he gave mankind the perfect religion in the perfect way with the perfect book, the quran. So no other prophet will ever be necessary.

Islam is built entirely on the premise that it cannot be reformed, it cannot evolve, it cannot lose even a single one of its 7th century rules, otherwise it's not the true word of God anymore. So whoever tries to reform it is an apostate, an enemy of Allah who must be killed.

Professor, you may find this interesting. Several western countries, even Italy, punished honor murder in their penal codes less severely than a common murder. Italy abolished article 587 penal code in 1981, so now honor murder is punished as it is a common murder (no less than 21 years of prison, while honor murder was 3 to 7 years of prison)

Now let's find differences between your lesson and western (abolished by many countries) honor murder.
1) it applied to your HUSBAND/wife, sister, daughter.
2) it applied if you kill her/him (and her/his partner) WHEN you discover the adultery and BECAUSE OF your wrath. It must be in the same moment. If you move on and premeditate a murder, it was a common murder.

Plus yeah, the inbreeding caused pretty low IQ in those roaches.

Fuck allah and fuck kikes. The New Testament is just more juden mind virus

Attached: 248C4284-E66B-4A21-B8DB-E9B2C0B2203A.jpg (425x496, 15K)

>husbands could also be killed by wives
>it couldn't be planned in cold blood
Yes, and the most important difference is that we outlawed it. We changed our laws. Which islam can't do.

That is ultimately the reason why islam cannot be allowed to fester inside our countries.

Grazie professore, memorizzerò tutto ciò, il suo operato non passa inosservato.

There should literally nothing wrong with killing your sister or daughter for bringing public shame on the family. What percentage of pol wouldn’t kill a coal burning sister or daughter, if you’d be celebrated for it by your peers? Hypocrisy. Gb2 pamela geler land OP, this shit is so mid 2000s. I’d take women dressed in trash bags over my son being indoctrinated by the government into turning into a tranny any day

Fuck off Muhammad

Godspeed, krautbro.
Diffondi queste informazioni ovunque puoi.

t. muhammad

Lmao professor zionist shill, just yesterday you were forcing us all to sing kumbayya as you mass imported islamic terrorists. If they go, you go!

>just yesterday you were forcing us all to sing kumbayya as you mass imported islamic terrorists
That must've been the other professor Kafir.

Justice for the victims of Israeli sponsored terror in the middle east and domestically

Maybe this is out of the scope of the book you're writing, but have you ever looked into how exactly it is western libs are getting information about Islam to have such a clueless perspective of it? I'll check your Taqiyya post and see if you talked about this earlier but I figured I'd grab your attention just in case.

I support cutting off all contact with anyone that touches a muslim, much less marries one or becomes one. Especially family for bringing shame.

Attached: B223C304-2E7F-4CA0-8284-C2133F92392A.png (657x527, 22K)

one question
what's with the focus on 3umdat al-salik?
it's shafi3i fiqh so it's not the most widespread one, and shafi3is aren't even the most backwards ones

>how exactly it is western libs are getting information about Islam to have such a clueless perspective of it?
Liberals essentially get their informations from two channels:

1) Shills with an agenda lying to them.

2) Other liberals who acritically regurgitate the shills' bullshit and in doing so reinforce it within the minds of their fellow libtards, creating echo chambers.

Liberals simply never venture outside of their echo chambers (and if they do, they don't do it to learn but to shitpost and disrupt the conversation). This is why they were all so SURE that Hillary would win: they only ever talked to other Hillary supporters. They had no idea there were so many Trump supporters. No clue. And they do this with every issue.

Virtually every time, the liberal who voices a certain opinion has NO IDEA of the arguments against that opinion. It's not that he heard the opposing side's arguments and decided they weren't valid, no, he never even thought that these arguments could exist. That his opinion is true appears self-evident to him, because everyone always told him so. He has no reason to doubt it, so he just repeats it without analyzing it. In a sense, he's mindless. The NPC meme was so successful for a reason.

Umdat as-Salik has several advantages.

1) It's easily obtainable for free on the internet, so anybody can verify my citations.

2) It got the seal of approval by the saudi religious council as a reliable legal text.

3) It's still widely used (in the US, it's given to new converts to familiarize them with sharia).

4) Since it's not from the most backward madhhab (that would be the Hanbali), it cannot be dismissed with the excuse that "only the extremists think like that".

5) Since it's so old, comparing it with a modern fiqh manual and showing that they say the same things underlines the immutable character of islamic laws, which is an extremely dangerous peculiarity.

They don't really gather informations and confront them with facts. Liberals start with a prejudice, they think every brown culture is more spiritual than western masculine oppressive physiocrat culture. They think we should learn from them as we are inferior.
Their main source of information, if it isn't facebook, is usually a cicle of seminaries in which they invite muslim or buddhist or induist common people, just because they are exotic and dress traditionally, to spend hours listening to them. They don't really ask anything or check sources, and they don't meditate on the informations they recive. Libtards often invite exotic women, so they can proudly say that non-western ladies are more spiritual and happier than western.

two things

the Qur'an is God's speech addressed to humans
there's no tiptoeing around the Qur'an, if it say cut off the thief's hand, you cut off the thief's hand or you're an unbeliever
if it tells you to cut off the hand on one side and the foot on the other side, then crucify, then kill those who fight Islam, then you do it or you're an unbeliever

on the socio-economical level, Islam is the cementation of the Arab tribal society. whatever was custom before Islam in the peninsula became law in Islam.

Also, they're inbred.

The droopy tits of the old lady Allah

Fuck islam and whoever doesnt curse it

at least hanbalis are consistent
the other schools will invent fucking anything to get the solution they want
my go-to compendium is al-marghinani's al-hidaya. it's Hanafi so it's from the most widespread school, it always cites minority opinions next to the majority opinion, and it's rather shameless in describing the less savoury (by our standards) aspects of islam
it straight up says that zina' isn't a crime if you do it in the abode of war. ficki-ficki is permitted to all muslim men.

Welcome back, Professor! God bless you, and thanks for your hard work!