Judge Orders Muslim-Turned-Christian Teen Home

[steveh_131]

Yet another straw argument. You are the one who said "the parents call the shots." You are the one claiming that at 17 this girl doesn't know enough to decide whether or not she's in danger. At 17, I was old enough to be playing with automatic weapons and explosives, trusted with life and death responsibility.... yet somehow she's not smart enough to know if she's in danger. The best you've come up with so far is to try to equate her to a 12 year old, and smear those who think she shouldn't be forced into what she's evaluated as a dangerous situation as bigots.

First of all, I was simply asking whether you would have the same opinion if she were 12. It helps to make an important distinction: Do you think she should stay in foster care because she's old enough to make her own decisions, or because your personal belief that her parents may kill her should carry more weight than their legal rights?

Secondly, not ever Muslim believes in murder. I didn't call anyone a bigot, but it is certainly a misinformed belief, and not one that should carry any legal weight.

BTW... I'm assuming that since you equate firearms ownership as being on a level with deliberate "honor killings" of little girls who don't follow their parent's religious edicts, you don't own guns, right? If you do, what does that say for your low opinion of gun owners?

Are you serious with this? Hi, I'm logic. Have we met?

 

[steveh_131]

The difference is that people try to use things like the Inquisition of about 500 years ago as some kind of valid comparison to the current practices of modern Islam.

Are there self-professed Christians who commit crimes and atrocities? Certainly. However, you might want to ask yourself that the religion of the people who investigated, caught, tried, convicted and sentenced Michael F. Griffin? Paul Jennings Hill? Eric Rudolph? James Kopp? Clayton Waagner? And so on? See if the folk who did all that were not Christian themselves.

So where are the Muslims investigating, charging, trying, convicting, and sentencing the killers of Daniel Pearl? The folk doing "honor killing"? The folk stoning to death women and girls for the "crime" of being raped?

When you can answer that question equitably then maybe we can talk about any kind of moral equivalence of the two religions.

I never claimed moral equivalence. I claimed legal equivalence. To some of us there is a big difference.

Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer the simple question. Only a single "yes" or "no" will suffice.

My question was a fairly straightforward one. If this child was 12 instead of 17, would everyone have the same opinion?

 

[SavageEagle]

My question was a fairly straightforward one. If this child was 12 instead of 17, would everyone have the same opinion?

Yep. Pretty much.

 

[dburkhead]

There is no evidence that her parents threatened to kill her, other than her own statements. Her parents statement:

"I love my daughter and I want her to come back to the family," he said, declining further comment. Do you really think he'd dishonor himself by lying publically so that he could later claim honor for killing her?

Per the Quran and Islamic law is it not only permitted, but laudable to lie to infidels. (That's you and me, in case you were wondering.)

Thus there is no dishonor in "lying publically" per their belief system and so your argument starts from a faulty premise.

And none of this is the point. The point is that there is ZERO proof that these parents have done anything wrong. Hell no I don't believe them, and hell no I don't think they're fit to be parents. But it's a damn slippery slope to start taking kids away from parents based on zero evidence of anything but a religion. I say the government needs to give the kid back and stay out of it until they actually break the law.

And you can look all virtuous when her corpse turns up someday soon, right?

I'm really surprised that so many self-proclaimed small-government advocates are quick to jump on the bandwagon, just because it involves Muslims.

"Small government" is a non-sequitor in there. "Small govement" and "not handing a girl back to people who have a pretty good chance of killing her without serious investigation into the issue" are in no way contradictory.

You've made the assertion that there are probably plenty of kids killed for disobedience to Christian parents (although you haven't provided any actual cites for that). And when a child expresses the fear that parents will do that to social workers, what do we do? In most jurisdictions in the US of which I am aware, the child is taken away and put into foster care while the case is investigated.

Why do you want to give them a "bye" because they're Muslim? Why does the fact that some Muslims have actually done what the girl says she is afraid of mean that we should be less diligent than in the other case?

 

[dburkhead]

I never claimed moral equivalence. I claimed legal equivalence. To some of us there is a big difference.



My question was a fairly straightforward one. If this child was 12 instead of 17, would everyone have the same opinion?

So have you stopped beating your wife?

As for your 12 vs. 17. Yes, my answer would be the same. She goes into foster care until the issue is thoroughly investigated, exactly the same as if some daughter of Jewish belief claimed her father would stone her for "adultery" or of a Christian who believed her father would burn her at the stake for converting to wicca.

I am a big proponent of parents' rights (having been on the receiving end of "childrens' services" both as a child and as a parent where the "sociel worker" didn't like the fact that we had dogs--just a bias against dogs in that particular individuals' belief system), but there is a line. Sometimes the location of that line is not so clear but children are not chattel property that the parents can do literally anything, up to and including rape and murder, with.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

I want to make sure I"m clear on what you're intending by your statement here, specifically the portion "without serious investigation." I am not sure I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly.

Are you saying that the laws and procedures as written do not equate to a serious enough investigation because of the professed beliefs of the parents alone give more credible weight to the daughters allegation minus any other additional evidence? If this is so, asking the judge to do anything more than the law permits would be to legislate from the bench.

I interpreted Steve's position from the beginning to be that if the law was followed as written, the daughter should be returned to her parents. He's not making a comment on whether the law was right or wrong, just that it should be followed.

I somewhat get from your statements that because the professed religion of the parents articulates death and the daughter's allegation against the parents is murder, than that in and of itself should be sufficient to deprive the parents of their rights. I think there should be some additional evidence beyond an allegation and the religious beliefs of the religion. People can subscribe to a religion and not subscribe to specific beliefs of the religion.

"Small government" is a non-sequitor in there. "Small govement" and "not handing a girl back to people who have a pretty good chance of killing her without serious investigation into the issue" are in no way contradictory.

?

 

[steveh_131]

And you can look all virtuous when her corpse turns up someday soon, right?

I don't know what you mean by this, but I'm fairly sure it's ridiculous.

"Small government" is a non-sequitor in there. "Small govement" and "not handing a girl back to people who have a pretty good chance of killing her without serious investigation into the issue" are in no way contradictory.

There's no verifiable evidence that there is a "pretty good chance" they will kill her. Just claims from a wild-eyed pissed-off teenager.

You've made the assertion that there are probably plenty of kids killed for disobedience to Christian parents (although you haven't provided any actual cites for that). And when a child expresses the fear that parents will do that to social workers, what do we do? In most jurisdictions in the US of which I am aware, the child is taken away and put into foster care while the case is investigated.

A valid point. Surely a rare find in this thread. The problem is that I'm not advocating that it not be investigated. It's already been investigated. No credible threat to her was found. Said that right in the article. And they kept her in foster care while it was investigated.

Why do you want to give them a "bye" because they're Muslim? Why does the fact that some Muslims have actually done what the girl says she is afraid of mean that we should be less diligent than in the other case?

Nobody gets a "bye". They've had the case reviewed. The same way every other case gets reviewed. And it's gonna be reviewed even more. All fine with me. But bypassing the normal process just because of the parents' religion is not fine.

 

[steveh_131]

So have you stopped beating your wife?

Frankly, this type of idiocy thoroughly discredits anything further that you have to say.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

I haven't heard anybody say that they think the parents have the right to treat their children like they would a farm animal. What I have heard is that some people don't think Religion's Belief + Allegation = Sufficient to deprive parents of rights.

The problem for some of us is that of "substantial investigation." Is what the law proscribes currently a "substantial investigation?" That is quite a different question than what is sufficient to deprive a parents of the right to have their daughter returned to them. Similarly, whether the parents should have the right to have their daughter returned to them at all is quite different than whether they should be deprived of a right the law bestows. I know this all seems like semantics, but defining the question at hand can make all the difference in the world as to how the discussion comes out.

I am a big proponent of parents' rights (having been on the receiving end of "childrens' services" both as a child and as a parent where the "sociel worker" didn't like the fact that we had dogs--just a bias against dogs in that particular individuals' belief system), but there is a line. Sometimes the location of that line is not so clear but children are not chattel property that the parents can do literally anything, up to and including rape and murder, with.

 

[Fletch]

There's no verifiable evidence that there is a "pretty good chance" they will kill her. Just claims from a wild-eyed pissed-off teenager.

Wild-eyed or not, pissed-off or not, she has the right to self-determination and self-ownership. She has the right to leave, and the State is only complicit in slavery by forcing her to go where she does not want to go. If her parents want her back, let them persuade her, not drag her back at gunpoint.

 

[dburkhead]

I want to make sure I"m clear on what you're intending by your statement here, specifically the portion "without serious investigation." I am not sure I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly.

Are you saying that the laws and procedures as written do not equate to a serious enough investigation because of the professed beliefs of the parents alone give more credible weight to the daughters allegation minus any other additional evidence? If this is so, asking the judge to do anything more than the law permits would be to legislate from the bench.

I interpreted Steve's position from the beginning to be that if the law was followed as written, the daughter should be returned to her parents. He's not making a comment on whether the law was right or wrong, just that it should be followed.

I somewhat get from your statements that because the professed religion of the parents articulates death and the daughter's allegation against the parents is murder, than that in and of itself should be sufficient to deprive the parents of their rights. I think there should be some additional evidence beyond an allegation and the religious beliefs of the religion. People can subscribe to a religion and not subscribe to specific beliefs of the religion.

I don't know Ohio law so I can't say. However entirely too many people are caught up on the "freedom of religion" thing. Personally, I'm only willing to grant freedom of religion to those religions that are willing to grant it in return (including my right to my agnosticism), but the only way that religion enters here is as a piece of evidence--that there have been cases of the honor killing feared in this one. We're not talking about a case of someone 2000 years ago and half a world away saying "Moses, in the law, commanded that such should be stoned, but what sayest thou" but cases that have happened recently and right here in the US.

Are these parents "fundamentalist" who have a serious risk of following the commandments of sharia law--as a significant number of muslims are--or not? I don't know. I'd like to be sure, or at least as sure as one can be, before handing that teenager back to them.

Parental rights? Parental rights are not unlimited, and justly so. Children are not chattel property that can be used and abused at will. Somewhere between that "chattel property" idea and opposite extreme of "the state has full control" there lies a balance. I happen to think that this case falls on one side of the balance. From your post above, you appear to think it falls on the other.

You know, it is a topic on which reasonable people can disagree. Unfortunately, the world is full of unreasonable people.

 

[haldir]

Analysis offered by FBI veteran. The presence of CAIR in this is interesting to me.

Response to FDLE Investigative Report on Rifqa Bary Matter

Upon my review of the report filed by the FDLE regarding the Rifqa Bary Matter in Florida, I offer my professional opinion.

1. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Investigative Summary OR-73-1741 encapsulates the investigation into allegations made by Fathima Rifqa Bary (hereafter referred to as "Rifqa Bary") that she is or may be in physical danger from her father, Mohamed Bary, or others. Point 4 on page 2 of the report states Rifqa Bary believes her life to be in danger from an "honor killing" by her family or others, which she states is in accordance with Islamic Law. The report finds: "Ms. Bary's concern that she may be killed because of her conversion from Islam to Christianity remains a subjective and speculative concern..." and concludes there is no conspiracy to commit violence against her. The investigators in this matter offer this opinion void of any knowable facts. In fact, a due diligence review would reveal the existence of authoritative Islamic Law texts officially translated into English. This review would further reveal Islamic Law - which is real law - has requirements and rules as to how to deal with those who leave Islam [eg The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, "Umdat al-Salik" also known as "Reliance of the Traveller" - publicly available]. If it can be shown (1) there is a requirement in Islamic Law for killing Ms. Bary as a publicly declared apostate from Islam, (2) that her parents adhere to Islamic Law, and (3) that she did, in fact, leave Islam and convert to Christianity, then the FDLE has a professional responsibility to include these facts in this report, and investigate this matter fully. There is nothing subjective about this - these are all ascertainable facts. I would hope the Florida State's Attorney's Office has done their due diligence on this matter and is aware of this

2. Mr. Bary's comments to the Investigators claiming there is "absolutely not" any concept of Honor Killings under Islamic Law can also be comparatively and factually reviewed against Islamic Law. There are, in fact, rules and requirements as to how apostates should be handled within the context of Islamic Law, and these facts must be reviewed by FDLE if a professional and factual report is to be completed.

3. It was noted that the Executive Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) -Columbus (Ohio) and the Staff Attorney for CAIR were present during the interview of Mr. Bary by FDLE Investigators. Absent from the FDLE report was any mention that CAIR is a known Muslim Brotherhood entity and an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial - the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history - revealing HLF as a Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood front in the United States. All defendants in this case were found guilty in November 2008 and are serving long prison terms. These facts about CAIR were testified to at trial, and accepted as legally true. They are irrefutable - the documents demonstrating these facts were stipulated to by the defense. The Muslim Brotherhood's (MB) creed is "Allah is our goal; the Messenger is our guide: the Koran is our constitution; Jihad is our means; and martyrdom in the way of Allah is our inspiration," and their stated objective in America is a "Civilization-Jihad" to destroy the United States from within, and the MB exists to implement Islamic Law here in the United States. All of these facts are relevant for two critical reasons. First, these material facts should be made known to the State Attorney's Office and any Judges involved in this case as a matter of course. Secondly, when representatives from an organization that is objectively known to be hostile towards to the United States and unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history, are allowed to be present during a law enforcement interview of someone, it raises questions as to why they were allowed to be present at the interview at all. These facts further demand an objective look to determine if the Muslim Brotherhood itself has a position on Islamic Law and Apostasy. One of the MB's two stated objectives is to implement Islamic Law in North America (and across the globe), and it is known they call for adherence to Islamic Law wherever Muslim communities exist. The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law: Reliance of the Traveller is approved as valid Islamic Law by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a known Muslim Brotherhood entity, as proven in the HLF trial. In Reliance of the Traveller, Investigators will find specific legal doctrine on how apostates are to be treated under Islamic Law. Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood has a history of officially addressing the issue of Apostasy. In 1984, Ismail R. Al-Faruki , the Founder of IIIT, stated: "That is why Islamic Law has treated people who have converted out of Islam as political traitors...[Islam] must deal with the traitors when convicted after due process of law either with banishment, life imprisonment, or capital punishment...but once their conversion is proclaimed, they must be dealt with as traitors to the state." Apostasy is also specifically addressed in Peace and the Limits of War, published by IIIT and written by Louay Safi, the former Executive Director of IIIT, Malaysia, the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (a proven Muslim Brotherhood entity), and the Executive Director of the Islamic Society of North America's (ISNA) Leadership Development Council. ISNA was proven to be a Muslim Brotherhood entity and is also an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history - HLF. The book is also approved by the Secretary General of ISNA. In it, Mr. Safi notes that individual apostates cannot be killed for a "quiet desertion of personal Islamic duties," but can be put to death as "just punishment" when the apostate deserts Islam publicly (p. 31).

4. This is a statement of facts regarding this matter:

* There are requirements in Islamic Law regarding someone who deserts Islam
* The Muslim Brotherhood's objective is the implementation of Islamic Law in the United States
* Rifqa Bary has left Islam and become a Christian
* Rifqa Bary has made statements to FDLE officials and others that her parents have threatened to kill her because she has left Islam
* The Bary's appear to be adherent to Islamic Law
* The Bary's appear at an interview with two Muslim Brotherhood representatives doing business as CAIR, a group known to be hostile towards the United States which is also an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history
* The Muslim Brotherhood supports the killing of Muslims who publicly leave Islam

5. It is my professional opinion that sufficient Probable Cause exists to believe that Ms Bary's concerns for her personal safety are based in a realistic and factual understanding of her situation, and, therefore, a further criminal investigation is warranted.

John D. Guandolo is a 12 ½ year veteran of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

 

[dburkhead]

Frankly, this type of idiocy thoroughly discredits anything further that you have to say.

And apparently the point went right over your head. Asking simplistic "yes or no" questions different from the topic at hand is not conducive to understanding. If having it reflected and exaggerated "discredits anything further" then you've discredited yourself long since.

 

[steveh_131]

And apparently the point went right over your head. Asking simplistic "yes or no" questions different from the topic at hand is not conducive to understanding. If having it reflected and exaggerated "discredits anything further" then you've discredited yourself long since.

Interesting, because you then answered it with a simple "Yes", and as a result I understood your position more clearly.

 

[The Meach]

I Give up.

I don't know why i keep getting drawn into these threads.

I'm just gonna go talk about guns now.

 

[Indy317]

She was a resident of the State of Ohio. She ran away, without parental permission, to Florida. There is a lot of talk on here about "states rights." Well, to me, unless there is absolute, definitive proof that she will be harmed if returned home, Florida has no jurisdiction in this case. They should return her to a guardians home near where she lives and let a judge from Ohio look at the issue.

Think of it this way. Say an Indiana gun owner, who was _very_ involved in guns, favored guns, very active with guns...so much so that they posted photos of guns, had their kids shoot guns, etc......had a daughter who was 17. The daughter runs away to a some anti-gun, left leaning municipality/state like New York, San Francisco, etc.. She claims she fears for her life because of her parent(s) obsession with guns, message board postings about always been ready to defend the home in case of attack, etc..

Would you folks want anti-gun, very left leaning liberal judges make such a ruling? Or would you rather have a judge you may have elected, or at least had like minded people in your state elect make that ruling?

 

[Joe Williams]

She was a resident of the State of Ohio. She ran away, without parental permission, to Florida. There is a lot of talk on here about "states rights." Well, to me, unless there is absolute, definitive proof that she will be harmed if returned home, Florida has no jurisdiction in this case. They should return her to a guardians home near where she lives and let a judge from Ohio look at the issue.

Think of it this way. Say an Indiana gun owner, who was _very_ involved in guns, favored guns, very active with guns...so much so that they posted photos of guns, had their kids shoot guns, etc......had a daughter who was 17. The daughter runs away to a some anti-gun, left leaning municipality/state like New York, San Francisco, etc.. She claims she fears for her life because of her parent(s) obsession with guns, message board postings about always been ready to defend the home in case of attack, etc..

Would you folks want anti-gun, very left leaning liberal judges make such a ruling? Or would you rather have a judge you may have elected, or at least had like minded people in your state elect make that ruling?

At 17? My boy would then be on his own, as I was. I would not be fighting to get him back. Nor, if he said such things about me, would he be permitted back. It's old enough to accept consequences for your actions.

 

[Fletch]

It wasn't too long ago in this country that boys were expected to have a full-time job at 14 and girls were ready to marry. Compare that level of maturity and responsibility to the infantilization of college students as old as 22 or 23 these days, and surely I'm not the only one who thinks we're doing new generations a great disservice by treating them like toddlers all the time. Am I?

 

[SavageEagle]

4. This is a statement of facts regarding this matter:

* There are requirements in Islamic Law regarding someone who deserts Islam
* The Muslim Brotherhood's objective is the implementation of Islamic Law in the United States
* Rifqa Bary has left Islam and become a Christian
* Rifqa Bary has made statements to FDLE officials and others that her parents have threatened to kill her because she has left Islam
* The Bary's appear to be adherent to Islamic Law
* The Bary's appear at an interview with two Muslim Brotherhood representatives doing business as CAIR, a group known to be hostile towards the United States which is also an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history
* The Muslim Brotherhood supports the killing of Muslims who publicly leave Islam

5. It is my professional opinion that sufficient Probable Cause exists to believe that Ms Bary's concerns for her personal safety are based in a realistic and factual understanding of her situation, and, therefore, a further criminal investigation is warranted.

John D. Guandolo is a 12 ½ year veteran of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

If this isn't reason enough, regardless of anyone's opinion's on the matter, to hold her from her parents, I don't know what is. I'd rep you for posting this but I"m all out...

I Give up.

I don't know why i keep getting drawn into these threads.

I'm just gonna go talk about guns now.

So have you tried the Jericho? It's SOOOO much better than the GLOCK!

 

[dburkhead]

Interesting, because you then answered it with a simple "Yes", and as a result I understood your position more clearly.

Except it wasn't a simple yes and that you consider it a simple yes shows that you do not understand my position, clearly or otherwise.