Muslim Student Made Up Story that a white man threatened her because she was muslim

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
Muslim Student Made Up Story About A Man In A Truck Wearing Camo Threatening Her With A Gun

A Muslim student at the University of Texas, Arlington admitted she lied when she claimed that a man followed her to school on Wednesday and threatened her with a gun.

The student posted the claim on Facebook and made reference to Tuesday’s triple murder of three Muslim students in Chapel Hill, N.C.

Numerous Muslim groups are alleging that that shooting was a hate crime.

The UTA student claimed that at around 9 a.m. on Wednesday a white man driving a white pickup truck with a Texas flag on the antenna followed her for six miles to campus.

After arriving at the school, the student said that the man, who she claimed was wearing a camouflage baseball cap, got out of his truck, threatened her verbally, and then pointed a handgun at her.

The university issued a campus-wide bulletin about the incident on Friday. And the president of the school’s Muslim Student Association, Amneh Jafari, advised students to walk in groups and to utilize campus security escorts to avoid danger, according to The Shoehorn, the school’s newspaper.

In her Facebook post, the student, identified as Ambreen Sharif, wrote, “Im [sic] not going to generalize and say all Americans are like the ones that followed me today but I have to say that others like him will use the Chapel Hill incident of today and continue to do such hate crimes.”

“All we can do is protect ourselves and continue to pray to Allah that this country and its people learn to accept Muslims.”

But later in the day, campus officials told reporters that the student admitted she fabricated the story and that she wasn’t even at the school at the time of the alleged incident, The Dallas Morning News reported.

It is unclear whether the student will be charged with filing a false report.

The student’s reference to the North Carolina shooting suggests that her goal in making the false claim may have been to draw awareness to anti-Muslim bias.

Craig Hicks, 46, murdered Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23; his wife, Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, 21; and her sister Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, in their condominium near the University of North Carolina on Tuesday afternoon.

The shooting has sparked outrage from Muslims in the U.S. and throughout the world over concerns that it was a hate crime and that the media has failed to properly cover it.

The FBI and Department of Justice are investigating the shooting to see if Hicks violated any federal laws. President Obama endorsed the federal investigation on Friday and lent support to the claim that the shooting was a hate crime. (RELATED: President Obama Speaks Out On Murder Of Three Muslim Students)

But so far, there is little evidence to support the contention that Hicks targeted the students because of their religion or their appearance, though Chapel Hill police are also investigating that angle.

Police, Hicks’ wife and his neighbors have all supported the theory that Hicks acted out because of his long-standing issues with parking at the condominium. Hicks has been described as a deeply hostile man who was known in the neighborhood for being aggressive towards neighbors about parking and noise issues.

Neighbors convened a meeting last year to address Hicks’ outbursts, though nothing came out it.

It is still unclear why, if his anger over parking was indeed the motive, Hicks targeted the three students. According to the victims’ family members and friends, they had had run-ins with Hicks before because of his anger over parking and noise. Hicks once came to the students’ door while carrying a rifle and complained about parking, a friend told reporters.

Hicks’ social media footprint does show a deep hostility towards organized religion, but not necessarily towards Muslims or Islam. A supporter of numerous progressive causes — he supported gay marriage and abortion rights — Hicks “liked” the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group which monitors extremist hate groups. Hicks’ hostility towards organized religion also appeared to focus mainly on Christianity.
From: http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/14/m...ruck-wearing-camo-threatening-her-with-a-gun/

Dallas news article: UT-Arlington student admits she fabricated gunman she said followed, threatened her

Seems like its pretty hateful and racist to me, to claim a white man did this when it was all a lie.

Thoughts?
 

journey

New member
The first order of business should be to charge the student with making a false report. False reports of this nature have a high potential to stir further violence.
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
The first order of business should be to charge the student with making a false report. False reports of this nature have a high potential to stir further violence.

yes, and it seemed to be to her goal, by adding her "story" to facebook talks about the 3 muslim students being shot by the atheist, to incite hate and add more logs to the fire.
 

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
Did she do that simply because she is a woman and being a muslim is irrelevant?

No, where she added it (in a discussion about the 3 muslims killed by an atheist that the muslim community is calling hate crime even though it was a dispute over condominium parking) makes it clear she was claiming hate against herself for being muslim.

She claimed it to be an anti-muslim crime to the police and on her facebook.
 

Nazaroo

New member
Thoughts?
Yes. Forget Sharia Law.

The Law of God (Moses) requires that False Witnesses be punished
with the sentence intended for their victim:

In this case, she should be facing 20 years in prison for Perjury.

The purpose of this reciprocal punishment is to ensure that
witnesses tell the truth in a court of law,
or face consequences matching the severity of the lie.




The law of Moses is very negative on perjury, beginning with Exodus 20:16: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Perjury could be a death penalty crime, depending upon the circumstances. If the false testimony was offered in a death penalty case, then the perjurer receives that penalty:


  • "If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, then both men in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days. And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you. And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."
  • (Deuteronomy 19:16-21).
  • "Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness."
  • (Exodus 23:1).
  • "Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another. And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
  • (Leviticus 19:11-12).






Plato was even more harsh:




When the testimony is taken under oath, and the testimony is false, Philo prescribes death as penalty:
"Against those who call God as a witness in favor of assertions which are not true, the punishment of death is ordained in the law; and very properly, for even a man of moderate respectability will never endure to be cited as a witness, and to have his name registered in support of a lie. But it seems to me that he would look upon any one who proposed such a thing to him as a thoroughly faithless enemy; on which account we must say this, that him, who swears rashly and falsely, calling God to witness an unjust oath, God, although he is merciful by nature, will yet never release, inasmuch as he is thoroughly defiled and infamous from guilt, even though he may escape punishment at the hands of men. And such a man will never entirely escape, for there are innumerable beings looking on, zealots for and keepers of the national laws, of rigid justice, prompt to stone such a criminal, and visiting without pity all such as work wickedness, unless, indeed, we are prepared to say that a man who acts in such a way as to dishonor his father or his mother is worthy of death, but that he who behaves with impiety towards a name more glorious than even the respect due to one's parents, is to be borne with as but a moderate offender." (Philo Judaeus, A Treatise On the Honor Commanded To Be Paid to Parents, Chapter IX).​
It is also true that some legal traditions have sought a way around Moses' stringency: "The anxiety to exalt the Law and to banish all opposition in the rival party was so great that upon one occasion Judah ben Tabbai had a witness executed who had been convicted of giving false testimony in a trial for a capital crime.

He was, in this instance, desirous of practically refuting the Sadducaean views, forgetting that he was at the same time breaking a law of the Pharisees. That law required all the witnesses to be convicted of perjury before allowing punishment to be inflicted; and, as one witness alone could not establish an accusation, so one witness alone was not punishable." (History of the Jews, by Heinrich Graetz, Volume II, Chapter II, p. 53.)



This Pharisaic 'reform' all but nullifies Moses' law, whose intent is clear enough.

 

Morpheus

New member
Except that if there was actually no person then she was lying, but not bearing false witness. There was no one to bear witness against. That and the fact Mosaic law was fulfilled by Christ's sacrifice so it is no longer in effect.
 

bybee

New member

bybee

New member
Except that if there was actually no person then she was lying, but not bearing false witness. There was no one to bear witness against. That and the fact Mosaic law was fulfilled by Christ's sacrifice so it is no longer in effect.

She is guilty of Hate Mongering! Her father might slaughter her for being accosted by a white man.
 

Morpheus

New member
She is guilty of Hate Mongering! Her father might slaughter her for being accosted by a white man.

We could click on almost any thread on TOL and find hate mongering. It just makes us feel better pointing out someone else doing it.
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
False reports of this nature have a high potential to stir further violence.

What do you mean? False reports exist to get non-white, non-Christians to get violent. It doesn't stir something that is a one way street.
 

Nazaroo

New member
Except that if there was actually no person then she was lying, but not bearing false witness. There was no one to bear witness against. That and the fact Mosaic law was fulfilled by Christ's sacrifice so it is no longer in effect.

Bearing false witness against a whole group is as much a sin as bearing false
witness against an individual.

I'm judging that bigotry and racism are indeed forms of false witness.
 
Top