Muslim woman in France brutally beaten by family for dating non-Muslim

43

Yes, because Islam empowers women. Respect it!

The father threatened his daughter with death over the phone, saying: “If I find you, I’ll kill you.” Righteous!

Millions of Muslims are trying to come to the West seeking to impose this extreme and radical ideology that they believe to be superior to Western law. Welcome, refugees!

“Muslims beat up female cousin after finding her boyfriend is CATHOLIC,”

By Romina McGuinness, The Express, Nov 18, 2016

A MUSLIM woman was attacked by her own relatives after discovering she had been in a relationship with a Catholic man for three years.
A Muslim woman was attacked by her relatives for dating a Catholic man, a court heard

The female attackers said they had tried to “talk some sense” into their cousin – who cut off all ties with her family when she went to live with her non-Muslim boyfriend.

The victim, a 22-year-old nurse whose identity has been kept secret to protect her, told the court the “violent” attack – which took place in January – left her with deep wounds to her face and had forced her to flee her home town of Reims, France, with her so-called ‘infidel’ boyfriend.

The young nurse said her cousins, aged 21 and 27, grabbed her by the hair, kicked and punched her, and verbally abused her during the alleged attack, before forcing her into their car.

She told the court: “My parents refused to accept my relationship with a Catholic man. My sisters cut off all contact. I’d been shunned. I didn’t want to go home, I wanted to be with my boyfriend. And my cousins wanted him to convert to Islam, which he refused to do.”

The court heard the victim’s father, a hardline Muslim, threatened his daughter with death over the phone saying: “If I find you, I’ll kill you”.

The pair were found guilty of assault and harassment after denying the charged.

Shops in Reims, France

GETTY

The woman was forced to flee her home town of Reims, France, with her non-Muslim boyfriend

My parents refused to accept my relationship with a Catholic man

Muslim woman

They have now been sentenced to a two month suspended jail sentence and ordered to pay £250 (€300) each and ordered to pay £680 (€800) in legal costs.

The cousins’ lawyer, Daouda Diop, told the French press the court’s ruling was “fair”, before adding the case was a “humdrum family drama” that had been “massively blown out of proportion”.

A Muslim woman

GETTY

The 22-year-old Muslim nurse has her identity kept a secret to protect her

He said: “My clients are two young Muslim women who are fully integrated into French society. Their cousin was like a sister to them. They were trying to protect her from herself and their disagreement had nothing to do with Islam.”

Simon Miravete, the victim’s lawyer, said that the court’s decision was an “encouraging step forward” and his client would finally be able to “put all the drama behind her”.

He said: “I hope that her family will let her live her life in peace and stop harassing and pressuring her. My client is only 22 and has been forced to live a semi-clandestine life. Her freedom has been taken away.”

  • Ego

    I can hardly wait for the election come next spring.
    If Le Pen wins, these savages will be deported immediately.

    • Norell

      I don’t think that the UN or the EU will let them be deported, they may have been made a citizen the day they entered a western country. They will have to be shot.

      • Ego

        The way I see it, in 5 years the UN and the EU as we know them will cease to exist. The Right will probably take over in France, Austria, The Netherlands, and possibly Italy. Juncker, Merkel and the rest working so fervently to fulfill the demands of the OIC will be gone (and may consider themselves lucky if they can just walk away). The EU framework may survive, but only as one for economic cooperation (what it initially was).
        This is what the EU is currently committed to implement:
        http://www.oic-oci.org/ex-summit/english/10-years-plan.htm
        Judging from what is going on in Germany, Holland, and elsewhere, they have made excellent progress. Now there is a good chance for that progress to be rolled back entirely and Islam shown for what it is: a murderous ideology hiding behind a thin veneer of religion.

      • katzkiner
  • soundclick.com/Globalfirm

    Her Muhammadist family should be deported from France & their lawyer & judge dealt with according to the law (the same goes for Europe, Africa, America, Australia, Asia.)
    Ban the Muhammadism-conspiracy worldwide, save profound human rights!

  • bn

    How to defeat islam – A solution

    With regard to religious freedom, the first amendment of the american constitution currently states –
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

    Proposed amendment to counter islam –
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, insofar as the religion in question does not exhort the believers to act in such way as to be in violation of the laws of the nation.

    This is it. This is all that is required to overcome the islamic threat.

    Islam encourages criminal acts every day, every month, every year, in every mosque, by every imam, on every corner of earth.

    Christianity does not promote criminal acts in churches.
    Judaism does not promote criminal acts in synagogues.
    Hinduism does not promote criminal acts in temples.
    Sikhism does not promote criminal acts in gurdwaras.
    Buddhism does not promote criminal acts in monasteries.

    But islam promotes criminal acts in mosques, in madrassas and in islamic organizations as well. No religion promotes criminal activities except islam. On the basis of this, through the proposed change, the religious shield—and thus the immunity–of islam will be eliminated, rendering it and its followers prosecutable.

    The only religion that will be affected by the aforementioned amendment is islam. Therefore, no other religion needs to be concerned in regard to it, and in fact, it would be wise of them to support it, so as to save their own religions and followers from islam.

    This is our chance. These 4 years are make or break. It is not guaranteed that we will have trump after these 4 years. We must utilize this period to the fullest. This proposed amendment, if implemented properly, is guaranteed to thwart the islamic threat in the western world.

    • Speak the Truth

      Well said! This would definitely prevent most, if not all legal catastrophes.

      Such as: A proposed new law in Turkey has passed with a preliminary vote, with the final vote due this upcoming Tuesday. The new law makes it completely legal to rape children, as long as the perpetrator marries his victim(s) afterward.

      Thank God the Brits voted to Brexit, as this perverse trend will undoubtedly sweep across the EU due to migrants, open borders, and visa free travel for Turks.

    • Eric B

      That would be a TERRIBLE change! You would be making religion subject to a state’s laws, which could become completely unjust, such as the Obama administration’s abortion and contraception mandate. The Catholic Church was opposed to that law, so does that mean Catholics lose their first amendment rights now? No, the real way to defeat Islam is to return to pre-“Enlightenment” Christendom. Good luck with that.

      • name

        Silly point. Read it again – It says clearly – or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, insofar as…

        Which means, the religious freedom of ALL religions would be enabled by default. Every religion will have religious freedom, catholic or whatever.

        It is only AFTER encouraging the followers to commit criminal acts, that the religious freedom can be withdrawn. Not before that.

        So as long as the religions do not promote crime—which they don’t—they have absolutely nothing to be worried about, and their current religious freedom would remain untouched. They should in fact, support it, as they would benefit from it a lot.

    • Deplorable_JacksonPearson

      The only problem with the First Amendment has been the word “Congress,” and the court’s ridiculous interpretation and extension of that word into every other part of their rulings.

      IMO, if certain diseases can be banned, then so can Islam, because anytime, any religion, calls for killing, then it is NOT a religion.

    • meqmac

      Not a bad suggestion. But you go too far. Not ‘every mosque’, not ‘every imam’. By failing to recognize that there are serious Muslim reformers, you make our struggle to change Islam all the harder.

      • IzlamIsTyranny

        BullSHITE! There is no reform movement in pi$$lam — nowhere in the muslum world are there calls to reform pi$$Lam. Shove your taqiyya up your bum.

      • disqus_ighiXxYfoy

        He is absolutely correct. Do you know arabic? Do you understand what they preach?

        For example – If they preach quran’s verses – Ayat saif, or ayat qital…this is an integral part of islam. Since it is QURAN!

        So EVERY mosque has to teach it and teaches it.

        And what do they say? – Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them and not believing in allah and his messenger is a crime, and those who do this, are guilty of crime, and thus they must be killed.

        So now use your brain – The verses that are in quran, that are incitement to murder, since they are the core of islam, they absolutely have been taught and are being taught in ====EVERY==== mosque that exists on planet earth.

        So his point is absolutely right. Also note, these are just 2 verses, among numerous more that encourage crime. So there you go…

        • meqmac

          I don’t just know Arabic, I used to teach the language and Islamic Studies in a British university, so I suspect I know a lot more than you do about the subject. I have studied Islam (reading

          in Arabic and Persian) since the early 1970s, I have published numerous academic books, articles, and major encyclopedia articles on aspects of Islam. I studied the Qur’an in Arabic with the leading Western scholar on the subject. So please don’t lecture me on its contents. I am not an apologist for Islam, in fact quite the opposite (I have just completed a long book on concerns about Islam for a member of the British House of Lords, having been commissioned specifically because I am one of the most outspoken scholars of the subject. But I happen to know a great deal about the many Muslim reformers who interpret the Qur’an in a more tolerant and peaceful way, from Shaltut at al-Azhar in the 1940s to al-Husseini today. You and others like you are not wrong to criticize Islam, but you go way out of your comfort when you condemn ALL Muslims of extremism. You cannot ban Islam, but you can insist on a reformation of the religion. However, you are going exactly the wrong way about it when you tar all Muslims with the same brush, basing yourself on a very limited knowledge of the subject.

          • disqus_ighiXxYfoy

            Do you know how I know that you are lying about being a professor of islam? Because a person who was actually this informed about islam, would never make the silly claim that you made, after reading the words – ayat saif and ayat qital in my comment.

            And I also know that you are a muslim apologist.

            Now let us put it to a test – So you claim to be more knowledgeable than me, about islam and quran. Surely then, you must know what gates of ijtihad mean. Without using google, tell me what gates of gates of ijtihad mean, and how are they relevant regarding the point you made about reforming islam.

            I repeat, do not use google. Be honest with me. Go ahead.

          • meqmac

            Look me up. My full name is Dr. Denis MacEoin. Look for some of my books on Amazon, read ther Wikipedia article about me (written by I don’t know who), look for m,any of my articles online. I asm a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute: look under authors there for my name and a lot of articles. Check out articles by me in The Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd. ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam in the Modern World, The Encyclopedia Iranica, and elsewhere. Look for my think tank reports ‘The Hijacking of British Islam’ (about hate literature found in UK mosques), ‘Music, Chess and Other Sins’ (on extremism in Muslim schools in the UK), or ‘Sharia Law or One Law for All?’ a critiques of sharia courts in the UK. Then get back and apologize to me for being such an idiot and sceptic. Why the hell would someone claim falsely to be a scholar, knowing he could easily be found out? And it’s not ‘the gates of ijtihad’ but ‘the gate of ijtihad’ (sg.), ‘bab al-ijtihad’, referring to the closing of the use of independent reasoning in the 4 Sunni law schools. Ijtihad rermains in use by mujtahids in Twelver Shi’ism, something that was part of my 1979 PhD thesis at Cambridge University. You have just wasted a lot of time when I could be writing about Islamic issues. Just because I disagree with an amateur does noit make you better informed. It is not for you to put me to the test, but the other way round. You need to learn a bit of humility and less bias.

          • disqus_ighiXxYfoy

            Well all right, I will take your word for being who you described. But the point was still not addressed, Mr. MacEoin.

            The gates or gate of ijtihad has been closed. Which means, in sunni islam, there can be no reformation.

            This is why I asked you about it and I was surprised when you predicated your whole argument upon reformation. Since you must know, as I do, that the gate has been closed, there is absolutely no possibility for a reform in islam.

            So why did you make the claim? And besides, the point still remains that any faith calling for criminal acts must have its religious freedom rescinded. And even if we were to assume that reformation is possible and ongoing, that still does not negate, or has any bearing on what that comment states about altering the religious freedom law.

            Let us say that is implemented – Does that mean that the reformation of islam would be stopped, or even affected by it? No! It would not matter one bit, and in fact, reformation would, if anything, speed up because of the amendment in the religious freedom, as then they would have pressure to reform islam so as to keep it legitimate.

            And that point about – ‘Every imam’ – Does not have to be every single one or every mosque as well. Even if 20% were doing it, it would still inculpate the entirety of islam, because they are doing so because of islamic doctrine itself. They have not invented or conjured something up all by themselves. These are 1400 years old, well established norms. And the fact is, 100% are doing it, as they are all teaching quran, and quran itself contains these crime inciting verses. So the point is valid.

            So the conclusion is simple – Even if islam were to be reformed, that point about modifying religious freedom still remains as virtuous as it would have been without the reformation of islam issue. They are 2 different issues.

          • meqmac

            In fact, you are wrong about the full closure of the gate of ijtihad. There is a very good article about it in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam in the Modern World, which cites full source material showing that the total closure is a myth. In fact, a great many Sunni Muslim scholars and schools down the years have used ijtihad in legal matters. I recommend you refer to this and other material about neo-ijtihad. Reformation of Islam is very hard, but many important figures today have made serious inroads. I’m inclined to agree that there are forces that work against reform, but you are not placing this in a historical context. The main obstrruction comes through Salafi reformism (i.e. going back to the 7th century in order to revive Islam. But that is (with some reservations) a very modern phenomenon and should not be used to condemn Islam as permanently backward. Salafism is certain to fail, and the now widespread presence of Muslims in democratic states, their exposure to Western norms and education, their increasing hatred of the extremists are all going to alter even attitudes to the Qur’an. When Mahmud Shaltut wrote his treatise on jihad, arguing that it should be relegated to the past, he was Rector of al-Azhar University and very well informed about Qur’anic texts, ahadith, and shari’a rulings on the subject. You have a whiff of the fanatic about you, not capable of compromising in any way. That puts you on a par with Muslim fanatics, who can’t see any way but their own. I do hold very critical views of Islam, but my knowledge of the subject obliges me to recognize the possibilities for change. The Western world took centuries to reach the Enlightenment (and in many cases has not fully realized its ideals). We have to give Muslims time, we have to work with progressive Muslims to defeat the Wahhabis, Salafis and other extremists, and we have to protect ourselves from the dangers it poses. But if a Muslim stfretches out his or her hand in friendship, we would be fools not to return the gesture. Pontificating about Islam when you don’t know very much about it won’t get us further forward. Criticism of Islam is not Islkamophobia; but the sort of thing I read in so many comments here and elsewhere definitely is. I am not writing as a far-left or even left-wing pro-Muslim commentator. But balance is essential if we are not to tip over into abuse and hatred of our own.

          • disqus_ighiXxYfoy

            Yes, that sums it up. You are an islamic apologist. Perhaps you don’t realize it yourself, but you are. And folks like you are dangerous, precisely because of the level of manipulation that you can induce is significantly more than the uninitiated fellow.

            Like I mentioned in the previous comment – Even if we take the reformation to be true, that does not affect our own constitution’s religious freedom. Changing our religious freedom does not affect how islam defines or interprets itself. So you are basically arguing about oranges when the issue is apples.

            Another point – Even if one were to assume the silly claim of gate of Ijtihad being opened or changed, it still won’t do much, as islam is not just quran.

            Islam = Quran + Sunnah.

            Sunnah is muhammad’s life, his actions, his commands.

            This is history, and very well documented history. So even if the impossible were to happen and ijtihad were to open, that still would not remove muhammad’s command for jihad, precedent of jihad, his numerous raids that lay out the pattern, his jew hatred and jew murders, his injunction to conquer the entire world for islam and so on.

            So you see, even if we were to assume the ijtihad case, that still will leave sunnah. And you cannot reinterpret that. That is historical knowledge, not a text to be interpreted. So there you go.

            The point stands. Religious freedom law has to be altered in a way such that it can be revoked the moment the religion promotes criminal acts.

          • IzlamIsTyranny

            That was an excellent riposte to the muslum propagandist.

          • meqmac

            Since some people think I am an Islamophobe, you are very far off the mark. You haven’t read a single book, think tank report, or article of mine, so you are simply firing off a bigoted opinion with no knowledge of any of this, all in the assumption that, after some fifty years of study at a high level I know nothing about Islam, yet you, who clearly know diddley-squat about the subject, really do. Climb down from your high horse, study for at least a bachelor’s degree in Islamic subjects, learn some humility, and drop your senseless bigotry. I have just completed one of the most highly critical books about Islam and you still think I’m a Muslim apologist. Boy, do you have serious issues.

          • disqus_ighiXxYfoy

            What makes you think I do not have a degree in islamic subjects?

            And note that once again you sidetracked and entirely evaded the point in question. This I take it as you conceding it. Glad that we settled it.

          • IzlamIsTyranny

            You know what PHD in humanities stands for retard? Piling it Higher and Deeper.
            Try preaching your reformed pi$$lam publicly in ANY muslum state. Put your money where you mouth is instead of talking thru your lettered arse.
            Stop trying to piss down our back and tell us it’s raining.

          • IzlamIsTyranny

            Excellent refutation of this muslum’s taqiyya spewing BS.

  • Mahou Shoujo

    The punishment is too mild for the crime. muslims issuing threats or participating in violence of any nature are criminals. deserving immediate deportation.

    • harbidoll

      wasnt there kidnapping (into their car) involved?

      • Mahou Shoujo

        That seems to have been conveniently overlooked by the court, as courts are inclined to do when dealing with muslims.

  • IzlamIsTyranny

    So assaulting a woman is just a “humdrum family drama”? Maybe in the islamic world…

    A Pakistani girl who appeared in one of the Harry Potter movies was similarly beaten by her relatives — and for practically the same reasons.

  • Lucky her boyfriend wasn’t Jewish?

  • Peter Joffe

    Islam is a “religion of pieces” As that is what it does it triers decent people to pieces! You have to be mentally challenged to follow this evil political system. The only constitution followed by Muslims, no matter where they they live is Sharia and the Quran both of which preach violence.

  • conan_drum

    “humdrum family drama” that had been “massively blown out of proportion”
    The kind that often ends in murder.
    “They were trying to protect her from herself and their disagreement had nothing to do with Islam.”
    If it was nothing to do with Islam, why did they want the boyfriend to convert to Islam,
    and why the brutal beating? Well we know from vast experience that violence is usually the way the ‘peaceful religion’
    deal with problems especially religious ones. Which in Islam is practically everything.

    • IzlamIsTyranny

      Nice job untangling the net of lies spun by either the enemedia or the muslum perpetrators themselves.

  • Roar

    This is what happens if a Muslim marries a non -Muslim .Had the boy converted to Islam they would have been happy.They have naturally no objections to a non-Muslim woman marrying their boy bwcause the children will be Muslims and eventually the girl will also convert.One woman gone is one family gone.Many non Muslim women get carried away declaring that the Muslim families have no objections to their marriage to their sons without realizing this.Heart rules over head.

  • The Profit MoeHamHead

    Is losing a gunfight the same as deportation?
    The now husband is a total idiot. If she ever reconverts guess who will take and get the kids?
    More breeding stock for Jihad. This guy has already lost the war.

  • Stephen Honig

    What would the father do if she decides to convert to Judaism?

    • Michael Copeland

      “Killing Jews is worship that brings us closer to Allah”,
      Palestinian TV

      • Stephen Honig

        I believe God also created evil, but I’m dumbfounded why and allows Satan to rule over evil.

  • Ruger 1

    “They were trying to protect her from herself and their disagreement had nothing to do with Islam.”

    Of Course it Nothing to do with Islime…. They Were just trying to show her the error of her ways… Granted it was with Their Fists & Kicking her like an Animal!!!!

    “He said: “I hope that her family will let her live her life in peace and stop harassing and pressuring her.”

    Ya that’s what Islime is “Forgiving” and “Peaceful”!!!! Why does And Modern Society put up with These 6th Century Goatbangers??? Islime Is Not Compatible!!!!

    • MiddleSister

      Yeah, the key word is “hope”. He “hopes” her family will let her life in peace”. I don’t think a brutal beating & kidnapping is just harassment & pressure. That’s just the first thing. Killing her will be the next.

  • MiddleSister

    I fear for the safety & life of this young Muslim woman with a Catholic boyfriend. Her father, a hardline Muslim, has said he will kill her when he finds her. Does anyone seriously think that he will not follow through with this threat and that he will just give up looking for her? He WILL one day find her. Does anyone think he will not follow through with his intent to kill her for simply loving a man of a different faith?

    • IzlamIsTyranny

      Wafa Sultan, an former muslim from Egyptistan, dared to marry a Christian for which action she had to get the hell out of Egyptistan or be killed by members of her own family.

  • cjae

    PEOPLE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT MOST OF THE DAMAGE TO AMERICA, IT’S PEOPLE AND THE CONSTITUTION HAS COME UNDER DEMOCRAT PRESIDENCIES. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Pub.L. 82–414, 66 Stat. 163, enacted June 27, 1952), also known as the McCarran–Walter Act, restricted immigration into the U.S. and is codified under Title 8 of the United States Code (8 U.S.C. ch. 12). The Act governs primarily immigration to and citizenship in the United States. It has been in effect since December 24, 1952. Before this Act, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized within one body of text.

    H.R. 5678 was named after its sponsors, Senator Pat McCarran (D-Nevada), and Congressman Francis Walter (D-Pennsylvania).

    H.R. 5678 was named after its sponsors, Senator Pat McCarran (D-Nevada), and Congressman Francis Walter (D-Pennsylvania).

    President Harry Truman, a Democrat, vetoed the Act because he regarded the bill as “un-American” and discriminatory. His veto message said:[1][2][3]

    Today, we are “protecting” ourselves as we were in 1924, against being flooded by immigrants from Eastern Europe. This is fantastic. … We do not need to be protected against immigrants from these countries–on the contrary we want to stretch out a helping hand, to save those who have managed to flee into Western Europe, to succor those who are brave enough to escape from barbarism, to welcome and restore them against the day when their countries will, as we hope, be free again….These are only a few examples of the absurdity, the cruelty of carrying over into this year of 1952 the isolationist limitations of our 1924 law.

    In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this field of immigration.

    Truman’s veto was overridden by a vote of 278 to 113 in the House and 57 to 26 in the Senate.

    Speaking in the Senate on March 2, 1953, McCarran said:[4]

    I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished. I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. … However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States. … I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation’s downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation.

    President Harry Truman, a Democrat, vetoed the Act because he regarded the bill as “un-American” and discriminatory. His veto message said:[1][2][3]

    Today, we are “protecting” ourselves as we were in 1924, against being flooded by immigrants from Eastern Europe. This is fantastic. … We do not need to be protected against immigrants from these countries–on the contrary we want to stretch out a helping hand, to save those who have managed to flee into Western Europe, to succor those who are brave enough to escape from barbarism, to welcome and restore them against the day when their countries will, as we hope, be free again….These are only a few examples of the absurdity, the cruelty of carrying over into this year of 1952 the isolationist limitations of our 1924 law.

    In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this field of immigration.

    Truman’s veto was overridden by a vote of 278 to 113 in the House and 57 to 26 in the Senate.

    Speaking in the Senate on March 2, 1953, McCarran said:[4]

    I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished. I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. … However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States. … I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation’s downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation.

    Chapter 2 or Public Law 414. As written, the law bans all aliens “who are members of or affiliated with” organizations that advocate for the overthrow of the U.S. government:

    (F) Aliens who advocate or teach or who are members of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches (i) the overthrow by force, violence or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the Unites States or of all forms of law; or (ii) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals or of any other organized government, because of his or their official character; or (iii) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property; or (iv) sabotage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952

  • IzlamIsTyranny

    I’m glad the Catholic boyfriend refused the invitation to convert to pi$$lam and I’m surprised he did — considering the POS islamic apologist/sympathizer that leads the Catholic Church today.

Pin It on Pinterest