Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

Date: April 17, 2006 at 21:56:33
From: Ignorance is bliss!, [c-67-174-63-63.hsd1.ca.comcast.net]
Subject: Re: Rise of evil Islam and future Atomic war

"If you have nothing good to say don't say it at all." I once heard a wise statement taken from the Bible that is contradictory to this, "all it takes for evil to exist is for a good man to say nothing at all." If people took your statement to heart the following would occur:

Slavery would still exist

Women wouldn’t be able to vote-Which isn’t allowed in allowed in most Islamic countries. Nope, that’s wrong, the US bad mouthed Afghanistan and now women are starting to vote.

The evil empire of Russia might still be in existence-tens of millions were executed. Ops, can’t say nothing bad about this. Oh, just let it continue. Who cares!

The US might be speaking German or Japanese.

The Serbs would have been allowed to slaughter the Muslims in Yugoslavia

I could go on and on to infinite and beyond.

What’s going on in the world today that Mr. Hazem seems to ignore? Non-Muslims are constantly being discriminated against and killed in the name of Islam. Would you like a few examples? Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

Sharia Law

Laws and Practices Under Sharia
[edit]
The penalty for theft
In accordance with the Qur'an and several ahadith, theft is punished by imprisonment or amputation of hands or feet, e.g. depending on the number of times it is committed.[1][2]
[edit]
Dietary laws
Main article: Islamic dietary laws
When eating meat sharia dictates that Muslims may only eat from meat that has been slaughtered in the name of God and meets stringent dietary requirements. Such meat is called halāl or "lawful" (acceptable). Islamic law prohibits a Muslim from eating pork, and meat that has been slaughtered in other than the name of God. Most juridical opinions also hold monkey, dog, cat, carnivores and several other types of animal as being prohibited, or harām. For the meat of an animal to be halāl it must be one of the declared halāl species, it must generally be slaughtered by a Muslim using the correct method, and it may not be killed by excessively cruel or painful means. The traditional means of slaughter is by slicing open the jugular veins at the neck, resulting in quick blood loss; a state of shock and unconsciousness is induced, and death soon follows through cardiac arrest.
According to the Qur'an, the animal does not have to be slaughtered by a Muslim, but may be slaughtered by a Jew or a Christian (People of the Book) as long as it meets their strict dietary laws (Al-Ma'ida 5: "The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you.") Thus, most Muslims will accept kosher meat as halāl. (Qur'an 2:173, 6:121)
[edit]
The role of women under Sharia
Main article: women in Islam
Islam does not prohibit women from working, but emphasizes the importance of housekeeping and caring for the families of both parents. In theory, Islamic law allows husbands to divorce their wives at will, by clearly saying talaq ("I divorce you") three times in public. In practice divorce is more involved than this and state proceedings vary. In 2003, for example, a Malaysian court ruled that, under Sharia law, a man may divorce his wife via text messaging as long as the message was clear and unequivocal. [7] Such a divorce, known as the "triple talaq" is not allowed in most Muslim states. Usually, the divorced wife keeps her dowry from when she was married, if there was one, and is given child support until the age of weaning, at which point the child may be returned to its father if it is deemed to be best.
In addition, women are generally not allowed to be clergy or religious scholars. Many interpretations of Islamic law hold that women may not have prominent jobs, and thus are forbidden from working in the government. This has been a mainstream view in many Muslim nations in the last century, despite the example of Muhammad's wife Aisha, who both took part in politics and was a major authority on hadith.
A Muslim may not marry or remain married to an unbeliever of either sex (2:221, 60:10). A Muslim man may marry a woman of the People of the Book (5:5); traditionally, however, Islamic law forbids a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam.
See also ma malakat aymanukum.
[edit]
Dress codes
The Qur'an also places a dress code upon its followers. For women, it emphasizes modesty. Allah says in the Qur'an, "And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts and not to display their adornment (interpreted as the hair and body-shape) except that which ordinarily appears thereof (interpreted as the face and hands) and to draw their headcovers over their chests and not to display their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands fathers, their sons, . . . ." (surat an-Nur verse 31). All those in whose presence a woman is not obliged to practice the dress code are known to be her mahrams. Men have a dress code which is more relaxed: the loins must be covered from knee to waist. The rationale given for these rules is that men and women are not to be viewed as sexual objects.
Turkey, a predominantly Muslim country, has laws against these dress codes in schools and work places. After the declaration of the Republic in 1923, as part of revolutions brought by Atatürk, a modern dress code was encouraged. It is against the law to wear a head scarf while attending public school in Turkey, as well as France, where the recently enacted rule caused huge public controversy.
Some view Islamic women as being oppressed by the men in their communities because of the required dress codes. However, in more moderate nations, where these dress codes are not obligatory, there are still many Muslim women who practice it. Some choose to wear such clothes of their own free will because they believe it is the will of Allah, others due to community and social pressures.
One of the garments some women wear is the hijāb (of which the headscarf is one component). The word hijab is derived from the Arabic word hajaba which means 'to hide from sight or view', 'to conceal'. Hijāb means to cover the head as well as the body.
[edit]
Domestic punishments
According to most interpretations, authorization for the husband to physically beat disobedient wives is given in the Qur'an. First, admonishment is verbal, and secondly a period of refraining from intimate relations. Finally, if the husband deems the situation appropriate, he may hit her:
"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)." (Qur'an 4:34 English translation: Yusuf Ali)
The medieval jurist ash-Shafi'i, founder of one of the main schools of fiqh, commented on this verse that "hitting is permitted, but not hitting is preferable."
The Arabic verse uses idribu¯hunna (from the root daraba ضرب), whose commonest meaning in Arabic has been rendered as "beat", "hit", "scourge", or "strike". Besides this verse, other meanings for daraba used in the Qur'an (though not with a human direct object) include 'to travel', 'to make a simile', 'to cover', 'to separate', and 'to go abroad', among others. For this reason — particularly in recent years (e.g. Ahmed Ali, Edip Yuksel) — some consider "hit" to be a misinterpretation, and believe it should be translated as "admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and separate from them." Certain modern translations of the Qur'an in the English language accept the commoner translation of "beat" but tone down the wording with bracketed additions. Whatever idribu¯hunna is meant to convey in the Qur'an -- and multiple, complementary meanings are quite common in Islam's holy book -- the verb is directed, not at a single husband, but to the community as a whole.
Several Hadith urge strongly against beating one's wife, such as: "How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her? (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43), "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)". However, some suggest that these Hadith were later abrogated, noting that in the Farewell Pilgrimage, he said:
Fear Allah concerning women! Verily you have taken them on the security of Allah, and intercourse with them has been made lawful unto you by words of Allah. You too have right over them, and that they should not allow anyone to sit on your bed whom you do not like. But if they do that, you can chastise them but not severely. Their rights upon you are that you should provide them with food and clothing in a fitting manner. (Narrated in Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Jabir.) [8]
According to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research:
"If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored, and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive parts. In no case should he resort to using a stick or any other instrument that might cause pain and injury. Rather, this 'beating' should be of the kind the Prophet (peace be on him) once mentioned to a disobedient maid-servant, when he said 'If it were not for the fear of retaliation on the Day of Resurrection, I would have beaten you with this miswak (tooth-cleaning twig)' [as reported by Ibn Majah, by Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, and by Ibn Sa`d in his Tabaqat].[9] [10]
However, punishments are authorized by other passages in the Quran and Hadiths for certain crimes (e.g., extramarital sex, adultery), and are employed by some as rational for extra-legal punative action while others disagree (quotations provided by Syed Kamran Mirza):
Quran-24:2 "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day."
Quran-17:32 "Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils)."
Sahi Muslim No. 4206: "A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God's forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her."
Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol 2. pg 1009; and Sahih Muslim Vol 2. pg 65: Hadhrat Abdullah ibne Abbaas (Radiallahu Anhu) narrates the lecture that Hadhrat Umar (Radiallaahu Anhu) delivered whilst sitting on the pulpit of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam). Hadhrat Umar (Radiallahu Anhu) said, "Verily, Allah sent Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) with the truth, and revealed the Quran upon him. The verse regarding the stoning of the adulterer/ess was from amongst the verse revealed (in the Quraan). We read it, secured it and understood it. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) stoned and we stoned after him. I fear that with the passage of time a person might say, ‘We do not find mention of stoning in the Book of Allah and thereby go astray by leaving out an obligation revealed by Allah. Verily, the stoning of an adulterer/ress is found in the Quraan and is the truth, if the witnesses are met or there is a pregnancy or confession."

Critics of Islamic law have often pointed to "honor killing" as an illustration to the barbarity of Shariah law. While the practice of honor killing is common in many Muslim countries, some Islamic leaders and scholars condemn the practice of honor killing, and argue the practice is not based on religious doctrine. [11].
For a more detailed examination of the Islamic view of adultery, see Zina.
For a more detailed examination of "honor killing", see the Wikipedia entry.
[edit]
Circumcision
Male circumcision involves the removal of the foreskin and is customary in most Muslim communities. It is performed at different ages in different cultures.
Female circumcision is not part of mainstream Islam. It is not practiced in Maghreb countries and most of Asia, but is performed by Muslims and non-Muslims alike across East Africa and the Nile Valley, as well as parts of the Arabian peninsula and Southeast Asia. In both areas, the custom predates Islam. Many African Muslims believe that female circumcision is required by Islam, but a large number of Muslims believe this practice has no basis in Islam. Nevertheless it is justified on religious grounds both by Muslims and Christians who practice it, mostly in parts of Africa. [citation needed]
The Egyptian-born president of the 'European Council on Fatwa and Research', Yusuf al-Qaradawi, emphasises that this is not a religious obligation, but expresses his personal preference for removal of the prepuce of the clitoris, called clitoridotomy (Fatwa on islamonline.net.) The use of the term 'circumcision' is highly confusing, as the practice ranges from a mild superficial act that does not reduce any physiological function (the 'real' circumcision) to various forms of partial or even complete removal of female genital organs. In certain countries, this is accompanied by reducing the genital opening. These forms are, because of their brutal nature, also referred to as female genital mutilation (FGM). This term is most often used in official publications of the United Nations and World Health Organization.
[edit]
Muslim apostates
Main article: Apostasy in Islam
In most interpretations of Shariah, conversion by Muslims to other religions is forbidden and is termed apostasy. Muslim theology equates apostasy to treason, and in most interpretations of shariah, the penalty for apostasy is death.
[edit]
Illegal sexual relations: Adultery, Fornication and Homosexuality
Main article: Zina
In most interpretations of Shariah, the death penalty is applied as penalty for homosexual acts. According to the opinions of scholars, acceptable means of performing the execution included burning, throwing from tall buildings, and stoning. [12]
Death by stoning is also the penalty for adultery where one or two married individual are involved, while lashing with 100 strips is usually the penalty legally applied for fornication when the guilty party is not married.
[edit]
Freedom of Speech
Sharia does not allow freedom of speech on such matters as criticism of the prophet Muhammad.
The Qur'an says that Allah curses the one who harms the Prophet in this world and He connected harm of Himself to harm of the Prophet. There is no dispute that anyone who curses Allah is killed and that his curse demands that he be categorized as an unbeliever. The judgement of the unbeliever is that he is killed. [...] There is a difference between ... harming Allah and His Messenger and harming the believers. Injuring the believers, short of murder, incurs beating and exemplary punishment. The judgement against those who harm Allah and His Prophet is more severe -- the death penalty.[3]
In Egypt, public authorities annulled, without his consent, the marriage of Prof. Nasr Abu Zayd when he got in conflict with an orthodox Islamic cleric from the Al-Azhar University in Cairo. The cleric had condemned Abu Zayd's reading of the Qur'an as being against the orthodox interpretation and labelled him an apostate (seen as a non-believer and consequently not permitted to marry or stay married to a Muslim woman). Abu Zayd fled to the Netherlands, where he is now a professor at the university of Leiden.
see also Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
[edit]
Sharia, democracy and human rights
In 1998 the Turkish Constitutional Court banned and dissolved Turkey's Refah Party on the grounds that the "rules of sharia", which Refah sought to introduce, "were incompatible with the democratic regime", pointing up that "Democracy is the antithesis of sharia". On appeal by Refah the European Court of Human Rights determined that "sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy"[4][5] Refah's sharia based notion of a "plurality of legal systems, grounded on religion" was ruled to contravene the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It was determined that it would "do away with the State's role as the guarantor of individual rights and freedoms" and "infringe the principle of non-discrimination between individuals as regards their enjoyment of public freedoms, which is one of the fundamental principles of democracy". It was further ruled that
[T]he Court considers that sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it. […] It is difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.[6]
On the other side, legal scholar L. Ali Khan determines "that constitutional orders founded on the principles of Sharia are fully compatible with democracy, provided that religious minorities are protected and the incumbent Islamic leadership remains committed to the right to recall".[7] However, Christian Pippan argues, that this contradicts the political reality in most Islamic states. "While constitutional arrangements to ensure that political authority is exercised within the boundaries of Sharia vary greatly among those nations",[8] most existing models of political Islam have so far grossly failed to accept any meaningful political competition of the kind that Kahn himself has identified as essential for even a limited conception of democracy. Khan, writes Pippan, dismisses verdicts as from the European Court of Human Rights or the Turkish Constitutional Court "as an expression of purely national or regional preferences."[9]
Several major, predominantly Muslim countries criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) for its perceived failure to take into account the cultural and religious context of non-Western countries. Iran claimed that the UDHR was a "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law. Therefore the Organization of the Islamic Conference adpted the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which diverges from the UDHR substantially, affirming Sharia as the sole source of human rights. This Declaration became severly criticized by the International Commission of Jurists for allegedly gravely threatening the inter-cultural consensus, introducing intolerable discrimination against both non-Muslims and women, the restrictive character in regard to fundamental rights and freedoms and attacking the integrity, and dignity of the human being.
see also Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam
Rituals
Although dhimmis were allowed to perform their religious rituals, they were obliged to do so in a manner not conspicuous to Muslims. Display of non-Muslim religious symbols, such as crosses or icons, was prohibited on buildings and on clothing (unless mandated as part of distinctive clothing). Loud prayers were forbidden, as was the ringing of bells or the trumpeting of shofars. According to one hadith, Muhammad said: “The bell is the devil’s pipe.”[16] Furthermore, dhimmis had to bury their dead without loud lamentations and prayers.
Places of worship
According to Islamic law, the permission for dhimmis to retain their places of worship and build new ones depended upon the circumstances in which the land fell under the Muslim rule. According to an Islamic jurist al-Nawawi, dhimmis could not use churches and synagogues if their land was conquered by attack. In such lands, as well as in towns founded after the conquest, or where inhabitants voluntarily converted wholesale to Islam, Islamic law does not allow dhimmis to build new churches and synagogues, or expand or repair existing ones, even if they fall into ruin. If the country submitted by capitulation, al-Nawawi wrote, dhimmis were permitted to build new houses of worship only if the capitulation treaty stated that dhimmis remained owners of their land. In observance of this prohibition, Abbasid caliphs al-Mutawakkil, al-Mahdi and Harun al-Rashid ordered the destruction, in their realms, of all churches and synagogues built after the Islamic conquest. In the 11th century, the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim oversaw over the demolition of all churches and synagogues in Egypt, Syria and Palestine, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. However, al-Hakim subsequently allowed the rebuilding of the destroyed buildings. Nevertheless, dhimmis sometimes managed to expand churches and synagogues and even build new ones, albeit at the price of bribing local officials in order to get permissions.[17]
There was no consensus in Islamic jurisprudence as to whether it was permissible for dhimmis to repair churches and synagogues. The pact of Umar, as cited by ibn Kathir, puts an obligation on dhimmis not to “restore any place of worship that needs restoration” [4]. At the same time, al-Mawardi wrote in the 11th century that dhimmis “can restore ancient synagogues and churches that have fallen into ruin”. As in the case of building new houses of worship, the ability of dhimmi communities to repair churches and synagogues usually depended upon its relationship with local Muslim authorities and its ability to pay bribes.
Taxation
Main article: Jizya
Main article: Kharaj
Dhimmi communities were subjected to taxes known as jizya – a poll tax – and kharaj – a land tax. Early chronicles use these terms indiscriminately; only later did the kharaj emerge as a tax payable by a farmer regardless of his religion.[18] The resulting tax burden on dhimmis was higher than that on Muslims who paid zakat — mandatory alms.[19] According to Norman Stillman: “Jizya and kharaj were a crushing burden for the non-Muslim peasantry who eked out a bare living in a subsistence economy.”[20] Most Islamic scholars agree that jizya must be levied only upon adult males, and the 8th-century scholar Abu Ubayd advises that dhimmis must not be burdened above their capacity or caused to suffer.[21] The Shafi'i school however dissents, demanding “the poll tax to be paid by dying people, the old, … the blind, monks, workers, and the poor, incapable of practicing a trade.” The latter view was often applied in practice, as contemporary non-Muslim sources give witness of taxation even of dead persons, widows, and orphans. All taxes paid by Muslims were usually doubled for dhimmis.[22]
Sura 9:29 demands that jizya be exacted from non-Muslims as a condition required for jihad to cease. Failure to pay the jizya could result in the pledge of protection of a dhimmi's life and property becoming void, with the dhimmi facing a choice between conversion and death (or imprisonment, as advocated by Abu Yusuf, the chief qadi — religious judge — of Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid)[23]. Al-Nawawi however advocates that the unpaid amount of poll tax remain a debt to the dhimmi’s account until he becomes solvent.[24] In the Ottoman Empire, dhimmis had to carry a receipt certifying their payment of jizya at all times, upon pain of imprisonment.
Legal aspects
Prohibition on testimony
The testimony of dhimmis was not admissible in cases involving a Muslim; on the other hand, Muslims could testify against dhimmis.[25] This legal disability put dhimmis in a precarious position where they could not defend themselves against false accusations leveled by Muslims, except by hiring Muslim witnesses and bribing qadis. Apart from breeding corruption, the prohibition on non-Muslim testimony deepened the rift between communities, as dhimmis sought to reduce the possibility of conflict by limiting contact with Muslims.[26]
Punishment for murder of a dhimmi
In all schools of Islamic jurisprudence, except the Hanafi, the maximum punishment for the murder of a dhimmi, if perpetrated by a Muslim, was the payment of blood money; no death penalty was possible. For Maliki and Hanbali schools of jurisprudence, the value of a dhimmi's life was one-half the value of a Muslim's life; in the Shafi'i school, Jews and Christians were worth one-third of a Muslim and Zoroastrians were worth just one-fifteenth. The Hanafi school, however, believes that the murder of a dhimmi must be punishable by death, citing a hadith according to which Muhammad ordered the execution of a Muslim who killed a dhimmi.[27]
A peculiar practice developed in Yemen, where Arab tribes collected jizya from Jews, offering them protection. If a Muslim from one tribe killed a Jew protected by another tribe, then the other tribe could retaliate by killing a Jew protected by the tribe of the murderer. As a result, two Jews were murdered, while no direct sanctions were imposed on the Muslims.[28]
Social and psychological aspects
Humiliation of dhimmis
Islamic law stipulates that dhimmis must be belittled for their rejection of Islam; humiliating them was an act of piety, a fulfillment of divine will. Bernard Lewis comments that
The Qur'an and tradition often use the word dhull or dhilla (humiliation or abasement) to indicate the status God has assigned to those who reject Mohammad, and in which they should be kept for so long as they persist in that rejection.[29]
Ibn Kathir wrote that dhimmis must feel “disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of the dhimma or elevate them above Muslims, for they [dhimmis] are miserable, disgraced, and humiliated."[5] Echoing a saying attributed to Muhammad (Sahih Muslim, book 26, #5389), Hasan al-Kafrawi, an 18th century scholar, advises that “if you [Muslims] encounter one of them [dhimmis] on the road, push him into the narrowest and tightest spot”.[6] European travelers to the Middle East describe humiliations and insults of Christians and Jews on the streets until the mid-19th century. As recommended by many Muslim scholars, most notably al-Zamakhshari and al-Nawawi, jizya was often collected in a humiliating procedure:
[T]he collector remains seated and the infidel remains standing..., his head bowed and his back bent. The infidel must place money on the scales, while the collector holds him by his beard and strikes him on both cheeks.[30]
This ritual stemmed from the traditional interpretation of Sura 9:29, being that jizya was not merely a tax, but also an expression of submission.[31] Abu Yusuf, however, advises against the mistreatment of dhimmis during jizya collection, saying that "they should be treated with leniency".[23] The procedure was not followed in the Ottoman Empire, where jizya was collected by representatives of the dhimmi communities themselves.[32]
Distinctive clothing
See also Yellow badge
For dhimmis to be clearly distinguishable from Muslims in public, Muslim rulers often prohibited dhimmis from wearing certain types of clothing, while forcing them to put on highly distinctive garments, usually of a bright color. To increase the debasement of non-Muslims, the clothes usually had to be made of rough fabrics and were often incongruous. Although distinctive clothing for non-Muslims was not spelled out in Islamic holy texts, Muslim scholars still agreed that dhimmis must not wear the same clothing as Muslims do; frequently, these scholars cited the Pact of Umar in which Christians supposedly took an obligation to "always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and ... bind the zunar [wide belt] round our waists". Al-Nawawi required dhimmis to wear a piece of yellow cloth and a belt, as well as a metallic ring, inside public baths.[33]
Regulations on dhimmi clothing varied frequently to please the whims of the ruler. Although the initiation of such regulations is usually attributed to Umar I, historical evidence suggests that it was the Abbasid caliphs who pioneered this practice. In 807, Harun al-Rashid ordered that Jews should wear high cone caps and yellow belts, the first prototypes of the yellow badge; Christians had to wear blue belts. These distinction marks became obsolete in 849 when al-Mutawakkil ordered dhimmis to put a yellow veil on their heads and shoulders and wear a wide belt. He also required them to wear small bells in public baths. In the 11th century, the Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim ordered Christians to put on half-meter wooden crosses and Jews to wear wooden calves around their necks. In the late 12th century, Almohad ruler Abu Yusuf ordered the Jews of the Maghreb to wear dark blue garments with long sleeves and saddle-like caps. His grandson Abdallah made a concession after appeals from the Jews, relaxing the required clothing to yellow garments and turbans. In the 16th century, Jews of the Maghreb could only wear sandals made of rushes and black turbans or caps with a red piece of garment on it.[34]
Ottoman sultans were similarly diligent and inventive in regulating the clothings of their non-Muslim subjects. In 1577, Murad III issued a firman forbidding Jews and Christians from wearing dresses, turbans, and sandals. In 1580, he changed his mind, restricting the previous prohibition to turbans and requiring dhimmis to wear black shoes; Jews and Christians also had to wear red and black hats, respectively. Observing in 1730 that some Muslims took to the habit of wearing caps similar to those of the Jews, Mahmud I ordered the hanging of the perpetrators. Mustafa III personally helped to enforce his decrees regarding clothes. In 1758, he was walking incognito in Istanbul and ordered to beheading of a Jew and an Armenian seen dressed in forbidden attire. The last Ottoman decree affirming the distinctive clothing for dhimmis was issued in 1837 by Mahmud II. Discriminatory clothing did not exist only in those Ottoman provinces where Christians were in majority, e.g. in Greece and the Balkans.[34]
Riding
Dhimmis were forbidden to ride horses or camels; they were only allowed to ride donkeys and only on packsaddles. The initiation of this prohibition is attributed alternatively to caliph Umar II or Umar ibn al-Khattab. In the 18th century, Damanhuri, rector of Al-Azhar University, summed up the consensus of Islamic jurists: “Neither Jew nor Christian should ride a horse, with or without saddle. They may ride asses with a packsaddle.” European travelers passing through the Middle East in the 18th and 19th centuries left ample evidence of the careful enforcement of prohibitions on horseback riding. Danish traveller Carsten Niebuhr wrote in 1761 that in Egypt, Jews and Christians were forced to alight while passing the houses of notable Muslims and when meeting such notables in the street.[35]
Marriage
Islamic jurists reject the possibility that a dhimmi man may marry a Muslim woman. As some scholars put it, marriage is like enslavement, with the husband being the master and the wife being the slave. Even as dhimmis are prohibited from having Muslim slaves, so are dhimmi men not allowed to have Muslim wives. Following the same logic, Muslim men were allowed to marry dhimmi women because the enslavement of non-Muslims by Muslims is allowed.[36]
Personal freedom
An exception to the right of personal freedom guaranteed by the dhimma was the practice of enslavement of young non-Muslim boys for the ruler’s slave army. The practice goes back to the Abbasids, who recruited such slave warriors mainly from non-Muslim Turkic populations; descendants of those slaves later formed the Mamluk dynasties.[37] The Ottoman Empire practiced a similar system, known as devshirmeh, by annually enslaving young boys from the Christian population of its Balkan provinces, to muster Janissary troops.
Shi'a ritual purity
Shi'a Islam devotes much attention to the the issues of ritual purity — tahara. Shi'a jurists have commonly deemed the Non-Muslims to be ritually unclean— najis — so that certain physical contact with them or things they touched with wet hands would require Shi'as to wash themselves before doing regular prayers. Opinions of modern Shi'a scholars range from Ruhollah Khomeini's view that all non-Muslims are unclean to the position held by Fazel Lankarani that Jews and Christians are clean.[7] In Persia, where Shi'ism is dominant, these beliefs brought about restrictions that aimed at limiting physical contact between Muslims and dhimmis. Dhimmis were not allowed to attend public baths with Muslims; they were also not allowed to go outside in rain or snow, ostensibly because some impurity could be washed from them upon a Muslim.[38]
Consequences of dhimma
Over the course of many centuries, dhimma gradually led to the conversion of most Zoroastrians and Christians to Islam, but had only a limited impact on the Jews. Zoroastrianism was the first to crumble after the Muslim conquest of Persia. Closely associated with the power structures of the Persian Empire, Zoroastrian clergy quickly declined after it was deprived of the state support.[39]
For Christians, the process of conversion was slower — it is possible that as late as at the time of the Crusades Christians still constituted a majority of the population — but no less inexorable. The switch from a dominant to an inferior position proved too difficult for many Christians and they converted to Islam in large numbers to avoid oppression. Christianity disappeared altogether in Central Asia, Yemen, and the Maghreb, where it was subjected to persecution by the Almohads. In Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, Christians fared better, but their numbers were still reduced from being the overwhelming majority to being a tiny minority. Bernard Lewis argues that the relative resiliency of Christians in those countries stemmed from their subordinated position in the Byzantine Empire, which made them more amenable to accepting Muslim supremacy; he suggests that many of them felt better under the early Muslim rule than under the Byzantines.[39]
Jews, on the other hand, were the least affected. Accustomed to survival in adverse circumstances after many centuries of Roman and Byzantine persecutions, Jews saw the Islamic conquests as a just another change of rulers; this time, not necessarily for the worse. Voluntary conversion among the Jews was rare, and they managed to preserve their religion all over the Muslim lands

This information is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmitude.

INTRODUCTION
In the December 1970 general election in Pakistan, Awami League won 167 of 169 seats and over 80 % of popular votes in East Pakistan. Numerically Awami League had an absolute majority of seats in the Pakistan National Assembly (167 of the total 313 seats)(1). Historically, East Pakistan was allocated only 36 % of the total resources and East Pakistanis occupied only 20 % of the positions in the federal government in the United Pakistan (2). The Pakistani government's apathy towards East Pakistan after a terrible cyclone in November 1970 in which over 250,000 people died, had alienated East Pakistani people. The solid outcome of the 1970 elections for Awami League created an alternative power center for an already alienated people. The differences between the East and West Pakistani politicians snowballed into a major international crisis. On March 25, 1971 Pakistani army on President Yahya Khan's orders initiated a campaign of terror which was to last till its final surrender to the Indian army on December 17, 1971. This terror campaign by Pak army resulted in 10 million Bangla Deshi refugees crossing over to India (per Senator Edward Kennedy's report to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee (3)) and 3 million killed (4,5) based on reports from most relief agencies and official Bangla Desh government estimate. However the religious mix of both the refugees and the dead is nowhere emphasized anywhere. This significant information has particularly been absent in the reports from Indian News Media. This selective news dissemination has kept a more sinister truth of Hindu genocide in East Pakistan hidden from the world in general and Indians in particular.

Posted: March 4, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Art Moore
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
For more information, see the video, "Sudan: The Hidden Holocaust"
________________________________________
Sudan's militant Muslim regime is slaughtering Christians who refuse to convert to Islam, according to the head of an aid group who recently returned from the African nation.
The forced conversions are just one aspect of the Khartoum government's self-declared jihad on the mostly Christian and animist south, Dennis Bennett, executive director of Seattle-based Servant's Heart told WorldNetDaily.
Villagers in several areas of the northeast Upper Nile region say that when women are captured by government forces they are asked: "Are you Christian or Muslim?"
Women who answer "Muslim" are set free, but typically soldiers gang-rape those who answer "Christian" then cut off their breasts and leave them to die as an example for others.
Bennett says these stories are corroborated by witnesses from several tribes in the region. Upon returning to the U.S., he wrote a letter to influential members of Congress and activists.
"After witnessing once again the situation on the ground there," Bennett wrote, "I must ask 'How long will the United States government allow the Government of Sudan to continue its jihad against the Black African Christians of South Sudan?'"
Backed by Muslim clerics, the National Islamic Front regime in the Arab and Muslim north declared a jihad, or holy war, on the south in 1989. Since 1983, an estimated 2 million people have died from war and related famine. About 4.5 million have become refugees.
Sudan's holy war against the south was reaffirmed in October by First Vice President Ali Osman Taha.
"The jihad is our way, and we will not abandon it and will keep its banner high," he said to a brigade of mujahedin fighters heading for the war front, according to Sudan's official SUNA news agency. "We will never sell out our faith and will never betray the oath to our martyrs."
The U.S. House of Representatives adopted a resolution finding that Khartoum is "systematically committing genocide," but current legislation that would impose sanctions has been stalled. The Sudan Peace Act is opposed by both the White House and Wall Street.
Sanctions in the House version of the bill target oil revenues that Khartoum is using to fuel its war effort. Bennett, with 20 years experience in international risk management and banking, said he was the first to probe the link between oil and jihad that is now documented and publicized by human rights groups. His research began in 1996 when he asked: If you're the government of Sudan and you're broke, how are you paying for your war?
In his letter urging action by the U.S., he points out that Sudan's military continues to decorate and promote known war criminals such as Commander Taib Musba, who in the mid-1980s killed an estimated 15,000 unarmed, civilian, ethnic Uduk Christians.
In 1986, Musba entered the Uduk tribal capital of Chali and declared to its Christians: "You are all going to convert from Christianity to Islam today, because here is what's going to happen to you if you don't."
Musba then killed five church leaders in front of the gathered villagers. When they refused to convert, he began killing unarmed men, women and children. Some were herded at gunpoint into a hut then run over by a 50-ton, Soviet-made tank.
He also herded groups of about a dozen people into a hut, where he asked the first person "Do you renounce Jesus Christ?" Anyone who refused was killed by a three-inch nail driven into the top of the head.
The U.N. high commissioner for refugees granted the Uduks international refugee status in 1992 after investigating the atrocities, but almost as many died during the six years they waited for the declaration.
Islam also is forced on Sudanese in the Muslim north. Security police in Khartoum are pursuing a local convert to Christianity who went into hiding three weeks ago to escape arrest and possible death, the Compass Direct news service reports. Aladin Omer Agabni Mohammed, who left Islam 11 years ago to become a Christian, is subject to the death penalty under Sudanese criminal law for "apostasy." According to a church leader, two other converts face a similar situation.
Forced starvation
Bennett says that in addition to the more immediate, readily apparent atrocities taking place, there is a slower, less perceptive persecution that is equally deadly.
Forced starvation is one of the primary tools of the Khartoum regime, he says. When government forces attack a Christian village, they kill everyone they catch, but those who flee lose everything necessary for survival.
"The government comes in and burns the crops, burns grain stored if there was any excess, burns houses down," Bennett said. "Now you have only the clothes on your back, no tools, no cooking pots, no buckets for water, and you have to run two days through the bush in 115-degree temperatures in order to escape."
In the arid wilderness, escapees try to survive on tree leaves and stagnant, dysentery-infested water. If a women is breastfeeding, her milk dries up, Bennett said, and the baby starts dying. Small children, just weaned, also start dying.
"But all the family has to do is change their name to Muhammad or Ramadan, convert to Islam and walk the two days back to the government of Sudan who will care for them," he said.
Last year, the government of Sudan burned all the crops in the area where Bennett's group works.
"There wasn't anything to harvest," he said. "Literally we saw people eating roots and tree leaves. It's like eating the nutritional properties of cardboard. It's enough to put something in your stomach but not enough to feed you."
A food drop came from the U.N. World Food Program, he said, "but they never came in to do an assessment; they just dropped it from the air."
As the "hungry season" approaches – the rainy period of June, July and early August – emergency food supplies become critical. Servant's Heart believes it will need to feed 50,000 people in its area during that time.
Slavery as tool of terror
Slavery is another tool of the National Islamic Front regime, though Bennett says it is not known in the northeast Upper Nile region, mainly because of lack of transportation.
Western Bahr El Ghazal is one location where it persists because the railroad line allows captured men, women and children to be taken to slave markets in the north.
"If you want to end systematic slavery, blow up the train line and keep it blown up," Bennett said.
The ongoing controversy surrounding slave redemption – the practice of buying freedom promoted by some humanitarian groups – arose again in the past week when the Irish Times and Washington Post published exposes acknowledging the existence of slavery in Sudan but alleging that fake slave redemption is taking place.
Bennett respects the work of groups buying back the slaves, but he believes it is inevitable that some will be conned. Engaging in the practice is a matter of individual conscience, he says.
"Anytime you have tens of thousands of American dollars coming into an area you've got potential problems of corruption," Bennett said.
He says the "jury is still out" on whether it fuels the market by increasing demand.
"Slave-taking would still be happening even if nobody was buying back slaves," he said. "Maybe not to the full extent."
But he believes it's important to keep in mind that taking slaves is "just one more facet of the jihad against the civilian population" in southern Sudan. The methods may vary in different parts of the country, but the aim is the same.
"In the Uduk tribe, Taib Musba drove three-inch nails into people's heads," he said. "In northeast Upper Nile, they are gang-raping women and cutting off their breasts; in western Bahr El Ghazal, they are capturing women and selling them as slaves."
In March, 2004, King Fahd bin Abdulaziz formally endorsed the establishment of the National Human Rights Association. Saudi Arabia has signed agreements on religious freedom and enjoys a favorable status with Western nations. Despite all this, Saudi Arabia has one of the world's worst human rights records. Any person involved in evangelism or who converts a Muslim faces jail, expulsion or execution. Often false drug charges are used against those evangelizing. Even foreigners visiting are not allowed to gather for worship. Since 1992 there are more than 360 cases of Christian expatriates being arrested for participating in private worship. Despite this, the Defense Minister, Prince Sultan, told reporters in March 2003 that Christians are free to worship privately, but reiterated that no church buildings will be allowed. He said, "We are not against religions at all ... but there are no churches - not in the past, the present or future." With the death of King Fahd, persecution of believers has not improved, but has been on the rise under the new King Abdullah.
The frightening truth of why Iran wants a bomb
By Amir Taheri
(Filed: 16/04/2006)
Last Monday, just before he announced that Iran had gatecrashed "the nuclear club", President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disappeared for several hours. He was having a khalvat (tête-à-tête) with the Hidden Imam, the 12th and last of the imams of Shiism who went into "grand occultation" in 941.
According to Shia lore, the Imam is a messianic figure who, although in hiding, remains the true Sovereign of the World. In every generation, the Imam chooses 36 men, (and, for obvious reasons, no women) naming them the owtad or "nails", whose presence, hammered into mankind's existence, prevents the universe from "falling off". Although the "nails" are not known to common mortals, it is, at times, possible to identify one thanks to his deeds. It is on that basis that some of Ahmad-inejad's more passionate admirers insist that he is a "nail", a claim he has not discouraged. For example, he has claimed that last September, as he addressed the United Nations' General Assembly in New York, the "Hidden Imam drenched the place in a sweet light".
Last year, it was after another khalvat that Ahmadinejad announced his intention to stand for president. Now, he boasts that the Imam gave him the presidency for a single task: provoking a "clash of civilisations" in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the "infidel" West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest that, in military jargon, sounds like a low intensity, asymmetrical war.
In Ahmadinejad's analysis, the rising Islamic "superpower" has decisive advantages over the infidel. Islam has four times as many young men of fighting age as the West, with its ageing populations. Hundreds of millions of Muslim "ghazis" (holy raiders) are keen to become martyrs while the infidel youths, loving life and fearing death, hate to fight. Islam also has four-fifths of the world's oil reserves, and so controls the lifeblood of the infidel. More importantly, the US, the only infidel power still capable of fighting, is hated by most other nations.
According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad's strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the "Dr Kissinger of Islam", President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have "run away". Iran's current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by "divine coincidence", corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys.
Moments after Ahmadinejad announced "the atomic miracle", the head of the Iranian nuclear project, Ghulamreza Aghazadeh, unveiled plans for manufacturing 54,000 centrifuges, to enrich enough uranium for hundreds of nuclear warheads. "We are going into mass production," he boasted.
The Iranian plan is simple: playing the diplomatic game for another two years until Bush becomes a "lame-duck", unable to take military action against the mullahs, while continuing to develop nuclear weapons.
Thus do not be surprised if, by the end of the 12 days still left of the United Nations' Security Council "deadline", Ahmadinejad announces a "temporary suspension" of uranium enrichment as a "confidence building measure". Also, don't be surprised if some time in June he agrees to ask the Majlis (the Islamic parliament) to consider signing the additional protocols of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Such manoeuvres would allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director, Muhammad El-Baradei, and Britain's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, to congratulate Iran for its "positive gestures" and denounce talk of sanctions, let alone military action. The confidence building measures would never amount to anything, but their announcement would be enough to prevent the G8 summit, hosted by Russia in July, from moving against Iran.
While waiting Bush out, the Islamic Republic is intent on doing all it can to consolidate its gains in the region. Regime changes in Kabul and Baghdad have altered the status quo in the Middle East. While Bush is determined to create a Middle East that is democratic and pro-Western, Ahmadinejad is equally determined that the region should remain Islamic but pro-Iranian. Iran is now the strongest presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, after the US. It has turned Syria and Lebanon into its outer defences, which means that, for the first time since the 7th century, Iran is militarily present on the coast of the Mediterranean. In a massive political jamboree in Teheran last week, Ahmadinejad also assumed control of the "Jerusalem Cause", which includes annihilating Israel "in one storm", while launching a take-over bid for the cash-starved Hamas government in the West Bank and Gaza.
Ahmadinejad has also reactivated Iran's network of Shia organisations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen, while resuming contact with Sunni fundamentalist groups in Turkey, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco. From childhood, Shia boys are told to cultivate two qualities. The first is entezar, the capacity patiently to wait for the Imam to return. The second is taajil, the actions needed to hasten the return. For the Imam's return will coincide with an apocalyptic battle between the forces of evil and righteousness, with evil ultimately routed. If the infidel loses its nuclear advantage, it could be worn down in a long, low-intensity war at the end of which surrender to Islam would appear the least bad of options. And that could be a signal for the Imam to reappear.
At the same time, not to forget the task of hastening the Mahdi's second coming, Ahamdinejad will pursue his provocations. On Monday, he was as candid as ever: "To those who are angry with us, we have one thing to say: be angry until you die of anger!"
His adviser, Hassan Abassi, is rather more eloquent. "The Americans are impatient," he says, "at the first sight of a setback, they run away. We, however, know how to be patient. We have been weaving carpets for thousands of years."
• Amir Taheri is a former Executive Editor of Kayhan, Iran's largest daily newspaper, but now lives in Europe
The following are excerpts from the texts posted on the children's website:
We Ask Allah to Give Our Brothers, the Mujahideen, Martyrdom for His Sake, and to Bring Victory to Islam
Among the postings for children on www.awladnaa.net are articles praising jihad. On the page titled "General Knowledge" appears an article titled "The Jihad-Waging Prophet," which states: "The Prophet waged jihad against the infidels and the hypocrites, and admonished them. Hell is their place of refuge, and how evil is their fate!" [1]
The site also posts articles praising the resistance in Afghanistan and in Iraq. In a review of various parts of the Muslim world, on the section titled "My Great Homeland," it states that Afghanistan is "currently under the oppressive American occupation that is now aspiring to control the Muslim world. [This occupation] began with Afghanistan, and then [moved on] to our beloved land Iraq; and lo, it now threatens Syria and so on. [U.S. President Bush] has declared a Crusade against the Muslim world, and our role is to prepare ourselves for jihad against the enemies of Allah." [2]
About Iraq, the site states: "Currently, the Iraqi resistance is the most beautiful example of the struggle for independence and the elimination of America's aggression. We ask Allah that its elimination will be at the hands of our mujahideen brothers, [and] that Allah will give them martyrdom for His sake, will bring victory to Islam and strengthen the Muslims, and will protect the blood of our brothers everywhere." [3]
The Jews Murdered Allah's Prophets, Murder Children, and Conspire Against the Islamic Countries
Along with postings praising jihad and the resistance, the site also features postings with antisemitic content. For example, the "General Knowledge" page features a posting on Jews along with postings on various other topics such as the Suez Canal, oranges, hummus, and apricots. Titled "Did You Know?" the posting reads:
"Did you know that the Jews murdered 25 of the Prophets of Allah, and that their black history is full of crimes of murder and corruption?
"Did you know that the criminal Jews frequently revile and curse our Lord? Among the things they have said is 'The hand of Allah is fettered [Koran 5:64].' [But] Allah is above this.
"Did you know that the Jews made several attempts to murder our beloved Prophet [Muhammad], but that Allah the Omnipotent saved him from their plot?
"Did you know that the corruption and deviance widespread in the world today are the result of activity and planning by the Jews, who are interested in leading people astray, away from the path of Allah?
"Did you know that the Jews who occupy our land and our holy places in beloved Palestine are planning to occupy the rest of the Muslim countries and to establish a Greater Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile, and that they are interested in excavating in the tomb of our beloved Prophet?
"Did you know that today the Jews are inciting the entire world against Islam and the Muslims, on the pretext of the war against terror, and that they are conspiring against the rest of the Muslim countries as they did against Iraq and Afghanistan?" [4]
Another antisemitic posting, in the "Members Participation" section, headlined "Murdering Children - Part of the Jewish Religion" by "Mahmoud Nabil," claims that it is possible "to collect evidence from the Torah about the Jewish concept of annihilating [others], which has reached the level of ritual." Examples are presented from the Book of Isaiah and Deuteronomy. [5]
Andalusia is Part of the Great Islamic Homeland
The "My Great Homeland" section depicts Seville and Andalusia as part of the Muslim homeland, along with Egypt, Damascus, the Al-Aqsa mosque, Istanbul, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the Maldives. Under "Andalusia," it states: "There are now 700,000 Muslims in Spain. Of these, 200,000 were born [there] and have Spanish citizenship. Most of the Muslims live in the big cities, such as Madrid, Barcelona, and Valencia. Spain has some 300 mosques and [Muslim] houses of worship, and a third of these are in the capital.
"The Islamic Cultural Center is considered the main source of authority for Muslims [in Spain] in most matters of religion. It provides many major services required by the Muslim in this country, which prospered for a long period under Islamic rule." [6]
New Jersey: an Islamic murder of Coptic Christians?
Was this family brutally murdered because they provoked Muslims in a chatroom? Were they slain because of the Islamic legal imperative to kill those who are deemed blasphemers? Note also that Sylvia's throat was slit, in line with Qur'an 47:4. "'Islamic Hate' Eyed in Slays," from the New York Post, with thanks to decknxf:
Hossam Armanious, 47, who along with his wife and two daughters was found stabbed to death in his Jersey City home early Friday, would regularly debate religion in a Middle Eastern chat room, one source said.
Armanious, an Egyptian Christian, was well known for expressing his Coptic beliefs and engaging in fiery back-and-forth with Muslims on the Web site paltalk.com.
He "had the reputation for being one of the most outspoken Egyptian Christians," said the source, who had close ties to the family.
The source, who had knowledge of the investigation, refused to specify the anti-Muslim statement. But he said cops told him they were looking into the exchanges as a possible motive.
The married father of two had recently been threatened by Muslim members of the Web site, said a fellow Copt and store clerk who uses the chat room.
"You'd better stop this bull---- or we are going to track you down like a chicken and kill you," was the threat, said the clerk, who was online at the time and saw the exchange.
But Armanious refused to back down, according to two sources who use the Web site.
Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy would neither confirm nor deny that cops and prosecutors were looking into the religion motive, saying only that "nothing is being ruled out." But a relative of the mayor who answered the phone at Healy's home said there was information the murders were "religion-related."
"There are several theories we are looking into, but we are not commenting on any of them at this time," said Hudson County Assistant Prosecutor Guy Gregory.
Armanious' fervor apparently rubbed off on his daughter, Sylvia — who would have turned 16 yesterday.
"She was very religious and very opinionated," said Jessica Cimino, 15, a fellow sophomore at Dickenson HS.
A family member who viewed photos of the bloodbath said Sylvia seemed to have taken the most savage punishment.
"When we saw the pictures, you could tell that they were hurt really, really bad in the face; especially Sylvia," said Milad Garas, the high-school sophomore's great-uncle.
The heartless killer not only slit Sylvia's throat, but also sliced a huge gash in her chest and stabbed her in the wrist, where she had a tattoo of a Coptic cross.
Also found murdered were the wife, Amal Garas, and the parents' other daughter, Monica.
Fred Ayed, the deacon at St. George and St. Shenouda Church, where the deeply religious family attended services, said he's worried that the murders could have a ripple effect.
"I am concerned for the safety of our community," said Ayed, who knew Hossam for 30 years. "People are scared because one family was slain like cows," said Moheb Ghabour, publisher of a local newspaper for the Coptic community.
Osama Hassan, director of the Islamic Center of Jersey City, described the relationship between Copts and Muslims as cooperative if not friendly.
"I think there might be people that can get into physical fights, but not to the point of murder," Hassan said.
Both the deacon and uncle poured cold water on the theory that the family were the victims of a robbery gone wrong.
"This is not a robbery, Ayed said. "We found all of the jewelry in the house. They didn't take anything."

View the previous message in this thread

Go to the top of this thread

View entire thread

Posted with TalkShop version 2.76
[Previous Message] [Next Message]

Replies:

[ Voices For Peace ]

TalkShop 2.76, updated: 11-Mar-2005 12:11:44, 103089 Bytes