Phyllis Chesler – A Context Killer Who Sold Her Soul?

Author, psychotherapist, outspoken feminist and “Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Women’s Studies” at the College of Staten Island in New York.   This is the qualification and discription of Phyllis Chesler.

You would think that someone with such an education and growing-up in a free society would be an upstanding citizen and person of respect.  The United States, created under principles of equality, dignity and judging people by their personal qualities and not by their color, faith or family origin should be a bastion of fairness.  Yeah sure, but then the war criminal Radovan Karadžić and he was a noted psychiatrist and well-respected professor as well. 

Perhaps you all think I am very hard, condemning and unfair and except for the last, I am.  What has she done to deserve such condemnation?   Phyllis Chesler is also on a hate-agenda crusade against all things Muslim and Islamic and abuses her educative status and her well-respected feminist stance – which frankly I respect a great deal.  This for me is reason enough to condemn simply put that such a reputation and background is to be respected and not abused for agenda.  It is, I believe, people like her that if circumstances were there, turn into the likes of Karadžić.  The combination of eductation, qualifications and built-up reputation mixed with xenophobia, religious hatred and a little bit of mental-scaring creates the worst of monsters.   History is full of them.  From a little bit of research there may be psychological reasons for her doing so and again, but being qualified in that field and world-gives her no excuses at all.   

Recently I read what I thought was the saddest piece of context-abused and promoted as a scholarly work on honor-killings.  Great, I thought, it is a very important and disturbing subject that I have had interest in for many, many years and in my own short political life was involved in to various degrees with providing support to victims.    No such luck, it was the opposite.   The classic system of contextual abuse by cleverly quoting and choosing to cross-reference selective data was used.  That is the saddest form and is academically considered “cheating”.   In her website, the article which is called “Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings” fails in every aspect as an authoritative or academic item.    Reading though it, the evidence appears to mount as you read that it is the Muslim world above all that kills under the name of honour and faith.    Get to near the end and you find the con:

“This study analyzes 172 incidents and 230 honor-killing victims. The information was obtained from the English-language media around the world with one exception. There were 100 victims murdered for honor in the West, including 33 in North America and 67 in Europe. There were 130 additional victims in the Muslim world. Most of the perpetrators were Muslims, as were their victims, and most of the victims were women.”

No official, government or academic studies were directly referenced and, anyhow, it was a small 230 cases and the target was not reflective of global cases but targetted towards those mostly in the US and thus not representative of what she is claiming at all.   If anything was clear from this self-proclaimed “study”, it was that they picked and chose the results to fit an agenda already in mind, rather than following the basic, self-respecting and logical process of investigating an issue and then producing conclusions from it.

The United Nations Population Fund said back in the year 2000, that just on directly reported and obvious cases fittin the current definition, there was way over 5,000 cases of honor-killing globally and that it this criteria as defined was so limited that it was only scratching the surface of a “world-wide problem”.   

Most certainly many of these horrible events are in cultures that are within the Muslim world , that is neither denied nor is it disputed.  For those Muslims, it is self-evident and condemning.   It is also not the issue of my condemnation of Chesler.   What is disputed is that she has deliberately targeted the entire faith (as she does in many other items from her and her colaborators) and more importantly, she has carefully manipulated details – abused context – to suite her agenda.  For someone who claims a morally high tone and flaunts her noble qualifications – that is unacceptable and reprehensible.

She has not only, as mentioned above, chosen selectively numbers and sources but also has attempted to mislead.   That, considering her radical agenda, is not surprising.   As I have noted in other items, there are three “laws to radical behaviour” that never fail.  

  • The first is “the lie”, that the radical agenda which is inevitably false, is espoused and the radical must push it as a truth. 
  • The second is that to perpetuate and to justify the lie, they must start to abuse context in an attempt to make the lie look as credible as possible. 
  • The third is that they are obliged to assume that the target audience (be it the public, their own followers or to decision makers) is ignorant, stupid and should only know what the radical thinks they should.   Chesler has abused context and academic standards to tell the public “what to think” and that they are not worth providing full context and all the information available.
Because Chesler failed to fulfil her contextual obligations and limit her proclaimed “study”, she therefore is able to claim misleading figures, assumptions and frankly speaking – lie.

 “Although Sikhs and Hindus do sometimes commit such murders, honor killings…..”

 “In North America, most killers (84 percent) were Muslims, with only a few Sikhs and even fewer Hindus perpetrating honor killings; in Europe, Muslims comprised an even larger majority at 96 percent while Sikhs were a tiny percentage.”

 “In Muslim countries, obviously almost all the perpetrators were Muslims. With only two exceptions, the victims were all members of the same religious group as their murderers.”

These three quotes say a great deal – about the motives of Chesler and her “study”.   The first is the assumption that the vast majority of all killings are Muslim and that Sikhs and Hindus do it “sometimes”.   Further down we will look at definitions and what happens similarly to South Asian girls regardless of religion that changes the entire picture.

That Chesler jumps in and outside of the United States in her “study” is another well-orchestrated scam to provide a particular image to suit the agenda.   That “In North America, most killers …..” and later on “In Muslim countries …….. all the perpetrators were Muslim”.    The act of picking and choosing, as mentioned at the beginning of this item is an academic disgrace.

One aid to Chesler’s butchery of context is in fact the ease that she can do it, simply because the definitions of what is honor-killing is never clear nor is it set in concrete.  Also many countries simply do not consider or record family murders as honor-killing.  She obviously knows this and takes advantage.  The comment that Hindus do it “sometimes” is far off the mark if we are to follow carefully with definitions.

What is Honor-Killing and the Definition Debarcle

Amnesty International’s definition of what is honor-killing is widely accepted by all parties.

“So-called honor killings are based on the belief, deeply rooted in some cultures, of women as objects and commodities, not as human beings endowed with dignity and rights equal to those of men. Women are considered the property of male relatives and are seen to embody the honor of the men to whom they “belong.” Women’s bodies are considered the repositories of family honor. The concepts of male status and family status are of particular importance in cultures where “honor” killings occur and where women are viewed as responsible for upholding a family’s “honor.” If a woman or girl is accused or suspected of engaging in behavior that could taint male and/or family status, she may face brutal retaliation from her relatives that often results in violent death. Even though such accusations are not based on factual or tangible evidence, any allegation of dishonor against a woman often suffices for family members to take matters into their own hands.

Demonstration against Dowry Killings

Since the UNFP hinted in 2000 the figure of 5,000 only scratched the surface, what other examples that fall into the above description are there?    In 1995 Time Magazine reported that dowry deaths in India increased from around 400 a year in the early 1980s to around 5,800 a year by the middle of the 1990s, that already doubles the figure by just adding India into the picture and throws out the “majority Muslim” instantly.  Why is that?   Simply put we must conclude that the media, agenda groups and agenda-based academics with no self-respect are perpetuating an image.  Like the dowry-deaths, we must wonder how many other cultural-killings are there out there and simply are ignorned, not counted or simply failed to be correctly defined.  

In India, for example, more than 5,000 brides die annually because their dowries are considered insufficient, according to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Crimes of passion, which are treated extremely leniently in Latin America, are the same thing with a different name, some rights advocates say.

“In countries where Islam is practiced, they’re called honor killings, but dowry deaths and so-called crimes of passion have a similar dynamic in that the women are killed by male family members and the crimes are perceived as excusable or understandable,” said Widney Brown, advocacy director for Human Rights Watch.

The practice, she said, “goes across cultures and across religions.”      (National Geographic)


Chesler: Evil, Disturbed or Misguided?

What is the motivation behind the ugly islamophobic rhetoric of Phyllis Chesler?  Just go through her website and it is full of anti-Islam rhetoric and links to the self-proclaimed anti-jihad movement or Israeli pro-settler far-right movements.  Add to that a short look at Chesler’s past brings into quesstion some elements of her past that may have given to deep-seated mental conditioning .  That is a very bold statement but it would explain much.

Chesler in early life had married an Afghani and lived in a large, polygamous household in Kabul.   She has said publicly that this was disturning and that it helped create her feminist views and that is understandable and logical. It would have certainly done more than that.  Her admission to these disturbing experiences in her early life, violence and worse in all likelihood have had a serious and traumatic effect.  Adding to that, her work on anti-Semitism and her own openly Jewish activism could have a significant political cause to her anti-Islam status.   Together, it is a recipe for ugliness and her agenda has proven to be such.   She is unabashed in her support not only for the Jewish State (which in itself is fine) but also for the far-right radical settler-movement that is violent, religious and with strong links to a mass of different anti-Islam agenda groups. 

With extreme-far-right blogger Pamela Gellar, a self-proclaimed leader of the so-called "anti-jihadist" movement.

That violent and abusive past in her life and added to that the collective radical values she is linked to could logically be a cause for a sad mix of cognitive dysfunctions manifested as cognitive distortions, or fundamental “faulty thinking”.   If this is the cause of Chesler’s problems, to some degree understandable, it still requires condemnation, as they are not an excuse.    (sources:,,   

The alternative to her having such issues is that she is just plain evil.

This particular article on honor-killing disturbed me, simply because the issue is very important and to have the reality distorted so badly by Chesler is ugly and unconscionable.  It distracts from the real issues and thus its importance.  Also I have said a number of times now, that someone with her credentials and qualifications should be tackling this issue for sure, but from a purely academic, scientific and unbiased point of view.   She failed in all instances miserably.

Honor-Killings or Cultural-Killings?

For my part the term honor-killing should be shelved, not to protect elements within the global Muslim community that are the cause of so much ugliness within their own community but simply because it does not give justice to the issue at all and allows for a false image of how large this horrible pandemic problem is and that it is a global pandemic.    I suggest we call it “cultural-killing” or “cultural-based-killing”.   

Having a better definition and objective take on what the real picture is also gives less ammunition to the likes of Phyllis Chesler to abuse the context, mislead and in fact lie – to fulfill her agenda.


About donny2811
Trots Nederlands, goed gereist en een begerige politieke centrist met een speciale afkeer voor basissen.

15 Responses to Phyllis Chesler – A Context Killer Who Sold Her Soul?

  1. eslaporte says:

    The use of honor killing used to be legal in Mexico up until about 30 years ago. I used to hear about this from my stepfather, who was of Mexican heritage, how a man who caught his wife with another man could kill both the women and man – and this was legal! We have crimes of passion here in the US, and not among immigrants, but “regular white folks.”

    The NG article does state that: “There is nothing in the Koran, the book of basic Islamic teachings, that permits or sanctions honor killings.” Yes – and then puts in the words of this “expert.”

    “Experts” that misuse social science are common among those that are attempting to demonized every Muslim everywhere. Remember that Nazi Germany also had its “experts.”

    What we needs to be alarmed and angered about is that Women Studies is hijacked to justify “burka bans” and other policies in order to “liberate women,” when the policies actually take away the rights of women.

    • donny2811 says:

      Thans for that comment and info.

      If anything, this is part of that orchestrated “dilusion” that you so well put in your article (and I have now referred to and quoted to some degree – with thanks).

      Just more of exageration through context butchery to imply but always attempting to state that they have referred to real data.

      Though I doubt she will, I have noted my article and challenged her to justify herself either on her own blog or my own. Note that her sources include atlasshrugs and settler-supporters such as FrontPageMag.

  2. jpeditor says:

    BLOOTSTELLEN EDIT: I received the first of what I think will be many right-wing abuser mails. I clearly noted to all those that comment that I will post any reply that is not a personal attack, uses vulgarity or blatant ugliness. That debate is welcome. Since this is my first but contains many personal attacks, I have edited – but displayed most of the pathetic language and have responded to those semi-logical accusations and questions. Unless there is a logical counter, which I doubt, I will not allow any more from this person.

    Author : jpeditor (IP: , New York Server
    E-mail :
    Examples of Language:
    “Your lips are soft and pliable, planted today on the rear end of the jihadists”
    Turdlets …… like a goat…… innate stupidity…… moron or an overpaid hack……. not that bright…….. your brains have fallen out.

    “You claim to be some sort of “conservative” yet you save most of your excoriation for those who prefer the dominance of the Judeo-Christian West over that of (VULGARITY USED) (and their allies, the socialists and communists).”

    ANSWER: I am a conservative, was an active and even sitting member in local council of the Dutch VVD party. My blog is mostly about radicals and how they abuse context. That the vast majority of radicals appear to come from the unacceptable far-side of the right (and also claim to be conservatives) happens to be a reality. That there is so-much radical and contextually false material on Muslims over the net is also a reality. I have, since you claim to have read my blog did the same regarding “all radicals” including Muslims whom not only use the ugliness of rhetoric like self-proclaimed anti-jihadists but many also are willing to commit violence and worse. I have pointed that out.

    I can add that I disagree and there is no evidence that a generalized Muslim world seeks active dominance of the Judeo-Christian west and as long as it stays that way there is no problem with the existence of the third member of the Abrahamic faith being here.

    “Yet you endorse the policies and defend the politics of those who make no bones of their desire to destroy Israel AND America AND the Netherlands. In other words, you SAY you support Israel but you actively encourage the jihadists out to destroy Israel.”

    ANSWER: I have defended no policies of countries like Iran at all, none exist in my postings. You simply invented that.

    “They [Israel] may be officially a democracy – but so is Iran. ”

    ANSWER: Yes I said that, both are correct. I am talking facts, not making or misusing context. Facts have no fear – man has fear.

    “ABUSE DELETED…… could in any way compare the parliamentary democratic nature of the Israeli government with that of the ultra-religious-fascist mullahcracy of Iran”

    ANSWER: Try some context to what I was saying. The excuse of democracy does not work, both countries are democracies and both abuse them to varying degrees. In no point have a claimed Iran and its regime as wonderful, tolerant or otherwise. If you read my comments on other blogs you will find that I have little if no sympathy for the current regime and I have no respect at all for theocracies, which the executive branch of Iran is.

    What I did point out was that Israel is no example of quality democracy of governance and if it comes down to it, there are in fact more radical-religious parties with known manifestos of settle-supporting, greater-Zionist expansion, exclusion of non-Jews, ultra-nationalists then any other government in the world, including that of Iran. From that perspective, technically speaking considering they are part of the coalition with the Likud – Israel is currently the most radical-religious run country in the world, if you exclude the quasi-nation of Somalia. That is just quantifiable fact. I have made it clear, I support the rights of Israel and Israelis but I condemn its current government, its policies and I think they are also dangerous.

    “Your incredible lack of understanding of world affairs, also revealed by your admitted temporary love affair with Obama’s original “foreign / kneeling to tyrants /policy” (before you were upset as Hillary recently did her mock outrage to Iran at the UN) reveals that you simply are not that bright.”

    ANSWER: I obviously disagree and would turn it around towards yourself that has shown an obvious far-right agenda. I have stated that I do not support the Obama economics, have no opinon on his domestic policies as I am not American nor do I live there, but support the policy of constructive engagement. I will add that I have friends and even relatives in the foreign service of my country and I know many US diplomats via my work. I stand by my views because I know there was a collective “sigh of relief” when the previous Administration was defeated because the professional diplomats could start doing some actual work and frankly, repairing a bad situation created by interference.

    Anyone who knows the world of international politics and diplomacy knows that shouting and not having doors of communications means that you have no power in that field. That threats almost never work and ‘stand over tactics’ not only fails but alienates other countries. I understand that you do not understand that and with your obvious agenda, you assume it means kneeling to tyrants. I suggest you do a bit of study.

    “You seem convinced that because your “moderate” muslim friends in Rotterdam review your work and approve it, that they have guaranteed you an escape for what they promise the “rest of us”.”

    ANSWER: I speak to scholars and various community groups that I have known over the years and yes even social links to. I represented them and know them well. I not only talk to them but groups in Belgium, France and in Germany. I do so to get the best picture, thus I also talk to Ismailis, Sufis and Shia Muslims. I only talk to those that are pro-integrationist because I refuse to talk to the others as they are radial. Thus I have good moderate consensus and I am happy with that. I suggest you read the article about the Eurabia Dilusion about distorted level of impact that you think exists. I do think and have said it, that there is a small but still significant radical islamist element in Europe that is dangerous, anti-integration and needs to be dealt with. That you confuse them as being the majority and then fear it is your own phobia (phobia – meaning unwarranted psychological fear of).

    “We infidels know now that you are certainly if not wittingly one of their collaborators, and that the next Theo Van Goghesque attack will be partially on your hands, if only for your well-documented support of their cause, and/or via your attacks on those who shine a light on the evil.”

    ANSWER: Mostly answered above. I should point out that technically speaking the word Infidel was a Crusader word for Muslim.

    “Though you don’t deserve the warning, your family at least deserves to know that once the jihadis and their marxist allies are done with your help, you will be squealing like the best of them when they chop off your silly head.”

    ANSWER: Ironically, I have been targeted by radical Muslims for condemning government policies on easy immigration policies and for my demands to have stricter integration-forcing rules. That not out of radical views but the necessity to produce a faithful and protected Netherlands. I get threats from both sides, because the enemy of radicalism is normality, something that the far-right is unable to tolerate.

    ADDITIONAL NOTE: You had in three occasions referred to and criticised my English and yet also said somewhat good. That I appreciate and obviously you understood what I said. What is important to grasp is that I am Dutch, so my main language is Nederlands and I am equally as good, if not better, in French. I had some childhood in English and one of the reasons to do this blog was in fact to help expand my English skills because recently I added Turkey to the list of client countries for my business and they do not understand French like the other two.

    • donny2811 says:

      A reply did eventually arrive, more vulgarities, generalizations and quotes out of context that are carbon copies of worn-out hatred. I spammed it and the poster will not have any more chances. I have stated clearly that this blog will not fall down to ugliness but any polite arguments and criticism is welcome from anyone and will be responded to likewise.

  3. eslaporte says:

    This is quite honestly a poster that is so obsessed with the Islamification myth to the point of McCarthy-style fears and paranoia. The generalizations are, again, typical and “all Muslims” are carriers of the “sharia disease” and all 1.57 billion Muslims are radicals that approve of the horrible murder of Theo van Gogh and terrorism, and are carrying out a “stealth plan” to Islamifiy Europe. By 2025, there will be 40 million radical Muslims in control of Europe!
    Yes – true, like a snow storm in the desert!

    And – where did the “Marxist allies” come from?

    Now, as an American voter I absolutely approve of Obama’s attempts to repair the damage that the prior administration brought to American diplomacy. With the Muslim-Arab world, but also with Russia. The relationship with Russia is needed to confront many issues, WMDs and terrorism, for instance. Diplomacy takes great patience and often requires sitting down with those that may not like you or have other ideas. I also agree that if the social/cultural situation calls for a US President to bow – then bow to be polite and respectful.

    Yes, this poster would have wanted to go in circles with you. When confronted with arguments that cannot answer, these people then go is circles…and call names..really childish and uncivil.

    It is also true that the practice of cutting off heads also started with the Crusaders?

  4. 正教会の智 says:



    Did you know that she’s a Muslim?

  5. donny2811 says:

    I deleted the m ain first part of your reply because it was clearly anti-semitic. I have put in my rules clearly in this blog that such language is not tolerated.

    As you should obviously know, Jews, Chrsitians and Muslims are all part of the Abrahamic Faith. Muslims consider Jews and Christians as “People of The Book” and thus to attack them is, as I understand it and mentioned by the late Grand Sheik of Al Ashar as “haram”.

    If you have issues with the Israeli State, its government (I do), expansionary Zionism (I do), the settler-movement (I do) that is another matter. Go ahead, but racisism, blatant bigotry and anti-semitism will not be accepted at all in my blog.

    As for she (Chesler) being a Muslim, it do not like the woman as you can see from my post but if anything she is not a Muslim. She is most certainly Jewish, that she lived in Kabul in her life means nothing except for forming her rather disturbing mind.

    Donny vdH

  6. 正教会の智 says:

    Re: “Did you know that she’s a Muslim?”

    I was talking about Gellar, as was made clear in the sentences you deleted.

    Pam Gellar and Ted Belman are Muslims Against Sharia.

    You should learn how to read before blogging.

    • donny2811 says:

      Being a member of Muslims Against Sharia does not make her a Muslim – that is rediculous. I suggest you reconsider if you are writing is clear enough.

      I have also deleted your other response totally and it is in the spam box. All of your postings will continue that way if you post anti-semitic anti-Jewish rhetoric. I do not care if it is anti-Taoist or whatever, I have set a standard on this blog and it will be followed.

      If you are unaware of what Abrahamic Faith means I suggest you look it up, wiki will do it credit enough. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in the prophethood of Abraham and Moses and all follow those teachings. Simple.

      I ask you again to take care of your language and rhetoric on my posts, what you do and say on your own blog is your issue, but it will not be tolerated here.

  7. andrew upton says:

    Radical Islam has been estimated to represent no more than 20 percent of the world’s Muslim population; however that is over 200 million people. One need only read the text of the written and spoken words of current Islamic “leaders”, including Imams and Sheiks, to recognize the intolerance and violence being promulgated by this relatively small (by percentage) , but lethally poisonous Islamic grouping. A review of the death and destruction being done in Islams name across the globe reveals the true dimensions of this very real threat. Ms. Chesler’s focus on these issues is not the problem; it is part of the beginnings of efforts to stop this threat to all humanity.

    • donny2811 says:

      Andrew, may I suggest a different tact and explain to you a little about context.

      If, and that is a big “if” radicalism has spread to 20 per cent, why are we assuming that is 200 million? Do we count infant childre, improvrished farmers in places like Mali; herders in Ethiopia, the rice-paddies of Indonesia (the world’s largest muslim country). Do you think a guy pushing his water-buffelo in and out of a swamp in Bangladesh cares about radical politics and conquering the world, does he even know about radical policies like caliphates or even what is sharia law? What about the women, does an old lady in the Atlas mountains of Morocco care? Cut half the world’s 1.6 billion in half and you have 800 million, that takes out women which are in fact more than half but some are radical themselves. Now take out the old and the children, let us be not generous and another 25 per cent is gone – you have now 600 million. Now take out half of that figure and you have those that do not even have access to knowledge or the time to care, you have 300 million people. Say the figure is as high as 20 per cent and you have in fact 15 million people and that is in fact about right – 5 million active radicals in the sub-continent, destroying that country, 2 million spread around North Africa and the other half in the rest of the world, mostly in the Saudi Peninsula and the Somali/Ethiopian region. Those figures are horrible enough but it is nothing like the picture you are giving or have been given. That is the problem of putting things out of context – only giving a partial piece of logic and not all, or worse adding to it.

      As for reading the text, why put so much importance on them? Why assume and give them credit when the reality is they are mostly ignored. The reality, since context really is the tool of confusion or distortion, is that there are five main schools of jurispudence and the bulk of the world’s muslims listen to them as do all but three governments. Thus, when you hear a radical cleric, sheik, imam saying something, he is automatically a radical and a renigade and is “going it alone”. So yes they are small, yes they are not only poisonious but deadly and willing to go “all the way” but they represent only a fraction. It certainly is a real, clear and present danger but now comes the issue of this item you have responded to.

      Phyllis Chesler has abused the context and on purpose to generalize and target all 1.6 billion Muslims. Her focus “is the problem” in that the perception she is giving is incorrect, the targetting is misdirected and incorrect and most of all, she knows it and is doing so deliberatly. She is not a part of the effort and at most she is distracting it. That is why I condemn her.

    • eslaporte says:

      Actually – death and destruction in Europe over the past year has been mostly from separatists … the IRA, ETA…
      Islam and Muslims are not a “threat to humanity” anymore than Martians from Mars are a threat to humanity!

      If that’s what you believe about “Islams” and a “threat to humanity,” what then is the solution?

      Banning the Koran and closing Muslim schools….
      A Cold War on all Arab-Muslim nations….
      Forced deportations of all Muslims from Europe and America, born there or not?

      We hear about generalized “threats from Islam,” but then we never hear the solution. But Geert Wilders is offering “solutions,” which are like something from Hitler and Nazi Germany.

  8. Linda Rivera says:

    Egypt KIDNAPS Christians

    The world is shamefully silent over the Egyptian government and Saudi Arabia involvement in the kidnapping of Christian Egyptian girls in Egypt. Kidnapped Christian female children are violently converted to Islam and forcibly married/raped to adult Muslim males.

    Does the uncaring, mainstream media not report this because telling the truth about Islam would make Islam look bad? Protecting Islam is considered more important by Western mainstream media and government leaders than protecting the lives of desperate, defenseless innocent children!

    Assyrian International News Agency
    Abduction and Forced Islamization of Christian Coptic Girls Continues in Egypt

    (AINA) — The systematic abduction and forced Islamization of Coptic minor girls in Egypt is a frequent, dangerous and a rapidly escalating phenomenon. Coptic Pope Shenouda III, December 17th, 1976: “there is pressure being practiced to convert Coptic girls to embrace Islam and marry them under terror to Muslim husbands” and demanded that the abducted girls be brought back to their families.

    Abductions are done in cooperation between Saudi-funded associations and the Egyptian State Security.

    …in the majority of cases, the State Security is the one who masterminds the kidnapping plans.”

    The U.S. gifts Egypt with 2.2 billion dollars every year.

    ‘He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.’ Bible, Exodus 21:16

    Saudi authorities shred all Bibles found on anyone at the airport in Saudi Arabia. Bibles that contain the unchangeable laws of GOD.

  9. donny2811 says:

    Thanks and welcome for your participation Linda.

    I see and read about horrible things happening to many people, young and old – all around the world. I see nothing, though, that specifically links it to Islam though, but it could be linked to radicals within it. Kidnapping and forced child labour is a global issue that affects all continents be it by source, use or benefitting from.

    Like issues with Copts, there is no denying there is discirimination and they are targets to a radicalized community within Egypt but the subject has been politicized and I have issues with AINA as well as other Copt websites that make more of it than there is for gathering sympathy and thus donations from western and pariticular US Christian groups.

    There have been now two occassions – and I will endeavour to get the references and sources for you – of pure fabrication and then all the sites and groups running with it and even spilling to the ugly – hate-filled self-proclaimed anti-jihadist movement.

    Both were claims of murders in rural Egypt because of “honor killings” because a Copt fell in love with a Muslim and the Muslim family killed the Copt and the other, or their family is now in hiding because they are converted Muslim to copt.

    One showed a so-called image of a man being torched and put on fire in such a town. I and a few others thought it suspicious and it was shown to be a pure fabrication. The town did not exist, a friend had a good Copt lawyer from Alexandria check it out and it never happened. Add to that the photo showed a street with cobbles that simply does not exist in rural towns in Egypt, that particular place does not. Also, that a camera was ready and waiting says it all.

    Again, I am sure there is discrimination, but there is a radical, political agenda group amongst Copts that is simply making the entire communities program look stupid, questionable and in jepardy of losing all the sympathy that it does rightfully deserve.

    From your last sentance and your quote, your obviously a devout Christian and good for you. I hope that also means that you will respect equally that most muslims are good people, just as God-fearing as you seem to be and respect others.

    A last comment and it is not directed at you alone or all readers, this site is not religous, it is not Muslim, Christian, Jewish or any to any religous affiliation but is here to debate radicalism and if possible examples of context-abuse. I do not mind people showing their faith but will ask with the highest of respect that this place neither becomes a religous battle field, a my-verse is better than your-verse or a site for selling one’s faith, particularly at the expense of another.

    Warmest regards and God bless.

    Donny vdH

  10. Pingback: WOMAN of ACTION - Phyliss Chesler, Phd. — A Celebration of Women

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: