From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

Where were the warning signs, we ask about monsters like the Manchester killer. The answer is: in their domestic lives


Before he made a fake suicide belt and purchased real knives; before he
drove his black Kia into a crowd of worshippers gathering outside a
Manchester synagogue; before he stabbed and killed and terrorised
British Jews on their holiest day, Jihad al-Shamie acquired three wives.

Not serially but cumulatively. The moment a police marksman ended his
life, Shamie was married to three women. However, the crime of bigamy,
which carries a seven-year sentence under the 1861 Offences Against the
Person Act, did not apply here, since at least two of the marriages were conducted only under sharia law. Besides, Shamie wasnrCOt a big believer
in bigamy. rCLIn Islam a man can have up to 4 wives,rCY he texted Wife Two, whom he had not told about Wife One, rCLbut these days most women donrCOt accept it.rCY

Indeed Wife One, the mother of his two children, left him when she
learnt about Wife Two. This woman, a nurse and white convert to Islam
who met him on a Muslim dating site and married him in an online
ceremony during lockdown, is most revealing about ShamierCOs character. He ordered her to read the Quran and visit the mosque, was rCLcontrolling and abusive and he did rape me multiple times, but to us we just fulfil what
our husbands sayrCY.

Nonetheless, when Shamie fessed up about Wife One, the woman begged him repeatedly for a divorce. Under sharia, a man need only utter a set
phrase, the talaq. But Shamie refused, so the woman faced the onerous
process for Muslim women of applying to a sharia court, whose judges are invariably male and often refuse wivesrCO requests. In the meantime,
Shamie was busy marrying Wife Three in another sharia ceremony, without mentioning Wives One or Two.

What do the three wives, now widows, of Shamie tell us about why he
turned to terrorism? A jarring phrase recurs in news reports: rCLThere
were no signs of extremismrCY. Really? No signs except that he was
violently manipulating the women in his life under the aegis of Islam, including via rape, a crime for which he was on bail at the time of the synagogue attack.

The route from violent misogynist abuse to Islamist terror is well
charted. Indeed the feminist author Joan Smith catalogues it in an
excellent book, Home Grown.

Before he killed five people in the Westminster Bridge attack, Khalid
Masood worked in Saudi Arabia, where he adopted strict, literalist
Wahhabi Islam, then sought to apply its rules about women, via coercion
and violence, upon his wife Farzana until she fled. The leader of the
London Bridge terrorists, Khuram Butt, kept his wife fully veiled and
believed women should not work. His accomplice Rachid Redouane tried to
stop his wife leaving the house, attacked her in the street and demanded
she wear the hijab.

Before he killed 22 people, mainly teenage girls, the Manchester Arena
bomber Salman Abedi chided a female classmate about her short skirt then punched her in the face when she argued with him.

The behaviour of these radicalised Muslim men is no coincidence. Central
to the mission of Salafism, the conservative strand of Islam that in the
past 70 years has swept through once-tolerant, forward-looking Muslim countries, is control of women. Sayyid Qutb, a Muslim Brotherhood member
who visited 1950s America, concluded that wanton female sexuality was
the mark of western depravity.

An Islamic state, Qutb argued, must define itself against this societal degradation by returning women to the piety codes that bound them during
the ProphetrCOs time rCo that is, the 7th century. Al-Qaeda drew much of its inspiration from him.

The purity of a Muslim society was measured, therefore, by the rCLmodestyrCY (invisibility, submissiveness) of its women. This is why the first act
of Isis when it took over a city was to shroud and redact the female population. Indeed the Taliban, who deny Afghan women everything bar
oxygen (and are probably working on that too) believe this is the route
to a supreme Islamic state.

The fact that Shamie had three wives should make us ask why the British
state colludes in allowing sharia courts to impose a parallel
religious-based legal system upon Muslim women. Why is it not compulsory
for a sharia ceremony to be followed by a civil one, in order to
eliminate bigamy and ensure Muslim women have equal rights in the event
of divorce?

In a new report, Mission and Misogyny, the National Secular Society
(NSS) argues that religious charities, including many mosques, are
promoting the subordination of women. They preach rCLmodestyrCY codes or
even a husbandrCOs right to beat his wife under the guise of religious observance. The NSS argues that faith is not a get-out clause for
misogyny and offending groups should lose their charitable status, with
its lucrative tax exemptions.

This government, beholden to the Muslim vote in many inner-city constituencies, is unlikely to act. Labour canrCOt even speak
full-throatedly against blasphemy laws or the tragic and costly
consequences of cousin marriage. Meanwhile, it mulls over a definition
of Islamophobia that I fear would proscribe opinions of secular
feminists like me who oppose theocracy of any stripe, wherever it seeks dominion over womenrCOs lives.

In many ways Shamie was another textbook male loser: smoking dope,
unable to keep a job, estranged from his kids, living with his mother,
bulking up his body with weights and still not feeling enough of a man.
He was an easy mark for an Islamist doctrine that gave him control over
his wives. Then, when even these women evaded him, he directed his
aggrieved entitlement, his desire for domination, into a new direction,
one celebrated openly of late on BritainrCOs streets: killing Jews.

Janice Turner
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

On 10/10/2025 8:43 PM, Julian wrote:

Where were the warning signs, we ask about monsters like the Manchester killer. The answer is: in their domestic lives

Before he made a fake suicide belt and purchased real knives; before he drove his black Kia into a crowd of worshippers gathering outside a Manchester synagogue; before he stabbed and killed and terrorised
British Jews on their holiest day, Jihad al-Shamie acquired three wives.

Not serially but cumulatively. The moment a police marksman ended his
life, Shamie was married to three women. However, the crime of bigamy,
which carries a seven-year sentence under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, did not apply here, since at least two of the marriages were conducted only under sharia law. Besides, Shamie wasnrCOt a big believer
in bigamy. rCLIn Islam a man can have up to 4 wives,rCY he texted Wife Two, whom he had not told about Wife One, rCLbut these days most women donrCOt accept it.rCY

Indeed Wife One, the mother of his two children, left him when she
learnt about Wife Two. This woman, a nurse and white convert to Islam
who met him on a Muslim dating site and married him in an online
ceremony during lockdown, is most revealing about ShamierCOs character. He ordered her to read the Quran and visit the mosque, was rCLcontrolling and abusive and he did rape me multiple times, but to us we just fulfil what
our husbands sayrCY.

Nonetheless, when Shamie fessed up about Wife One, the woman begged him repeatedly for a divorce. Under sharia, a man need only utter a set
phrase, the talaq. But Shamie refused, so the woman faced the onerous process for Muslim women of applying to a sharia court, whose judges are invariably male and often refuse wivesrCO requests. In the meantime,
Shamie was busy marrying Wife Three in another sharia ceremony, without mentioning Wives One or Two.

What do the three wives, now widows, of Shamie tell us about why he
turned to terrorism? A jarring phrase recurs in news reports: rCLThere
were no signs of extremismrCY. Really? No signs except that he was
violently manipulating the women in his life under the aegis of Islam, including via rape, a crime for which he was on bail at the time of the synagogue attack.

The route from violent misogynist abuse to Islamist terror is well
charted. Indeed the feminist author Joan Smith catalogues it in an
excellent book, Home Grown.

Before he killed five people in the Westminster Bridge attack, Khalid
Masood worked in Saudi Arabia, where he adopted strict, literalist
Wahhabi Islam, then sought to apply its rules about women, via coercion
and violence, upon his wife Farzana until she fled. The leader of the
London Bridge terrorists, Khuram Butt, kept his wife fully veiled and believed women should not work. His accomplice Rachid Redouane tried to
stop his wife leaving the house, attacked her in the street and demanded
she wear the hijab.

Before he killed 22 people, mainly teenage girls, the Manchester Arena bomber Salman Abedi chided a female classmate about her short skirt then punched her in the face when she argued with him.

The behaviour of these radicalised Muslim men is no coincidence. Central
to the mission of Salafism, the conservative strand of Islam that in the past 70 years has swept through once-tolerant, forward-looking Muslim countries, is control of women. Sayyid Qutb, a Muslim Brotherhood member
who visited 1950s America, concluded that wanton female sexuality was
the mark of western depravity.

An Islamic state, Qutb argued, must define itself against this societal degradation by returning women to the piety codes that bound them during
the ProphetrCOs time rCo that is, the 7th century. Al-Qaeda drew much of its inspiration from him.

The purity of a Muslim society was measured, therefore, by the
rCLmodestyrCY (invisibility, submissiveness) of its women. This is why the first act of Isis when it took over a city was to shroud and redact the female population. Indeed the Taliban, who deny Afghan women everything
bar oxygen (and are probably working on that too) believe this is the
route to a supreme Islamic state.

The fact that Shamie had three wives should make us ask why the British state colludes in allowing sharia courts to impose a parallel religious- based legal system upon Muslim women. Why is it not compulsory for a
sharia ceremony to be followed by a civil one, in order to eliminate
bigamy and ensure Muslim women have equal rights in the event of divorce?

In a new report, Mission and Misogyny, the National Secular Society
(NSS) argues that religious charities, including many mosques, are
promoting the subordination of women. They preach rCLmodestyrCY codes or even a husbandrCOs right to beat his wife under the guise of religious observance. The NSS argues that faith is not a get-out clause for
misogyny and offending groups should lose their charitable status, with
its lucrative tax exemptions.

This government, beholden to the Muslim vote in many inner-city constituencies, is unlikely to act. Labour canrCOt even speak full- throatedly against blasphemy laws or the tragic and costly consequences
of cousin marriage. Meanwhile, it mulls over a definition of
Islamophobia that I fear would proscribe opinions of secular feminists
like me who oppose theocracy of any stripe, wherever it seeks dominion
over womenrCOs lives.

In many ways Shamie was another textbook male loser: smoking dope,
unable to keep a job, estranged from his kids, living with his mother, bulking up his body with weights and still not feeling enough of a man.
He was an easy mark for an Islamist doctrine that gave him control over
his wives. Then, when even these women evaded him, he directed his
aggrieved entitlement, his desire for domination, into a new direction,
one celebrated openly of late on BritainrCOs streets: killing Jews.

Janice Turner

The theme underlying radical islam is a belief in the necessity of
coercion. The authoritarian far left statist has trouble opposing this
because at the center of their ideology is a similar drive to use force
to remake the world in order to improve mankind.

That's why you see them march with radical islamists. "Brown people
oppressed" is just how they justify it. Even though their lgbtq allies
would be among the first thrown off the rooftops if the islamists ever
took power.

Meanwhile the fundamentalist christians that the far left hate would be tolerated and even protected if they submit to the ideology of islamic supremacy.

The necessity for breaking some eggs in order to make their social
justice omelet can and does justify all sorts of similar weird things.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2