Baby born to Muslim mother after affair must be adopted to stop honour killing attempts by ‘shamed’ grandfather

From The Daily Mail:

  • Unmarried mother ran away after becoming pregnant because she feared what her father would do
  • One-year-old baby girl will be adopted by Muslim family
  • Natural father wanted child to live with him and his wife

By Rob Cooper

Last updated at 6:33 PM on 21st December 2011


A baby born to a Muslim mother after an affair must be adopted to prevent the child becoming the victim of an honour killing, the Court of Appeal ruled today.

The baby’s mother, who is not married, was so ‘terrified’ of how her family would react to her affair with a married man and becoming pregnant that she ran away from home.

She then concealed her pregnancy by wearing loose clothes and travelling to the other side of town for her antenatal care.

Mr Justice Munby
Mrs Justice Black

Lord Justice Munby and Mrs Justice Black, pictured left and right, along with Lord Justice Kitchin said that the child must be adopted

As soon as the baby – known only as Q – was born the mother gave her up for adoption.

Upholding a High Court decision, three judges ruled that Q’s father could not have his daughter to live with him because of the risk the baby’s maternal grandfather would track her down.

Instead, Q, who is now a year old, will be adopted.

The baby’s maternal grandmother had told police that if her husband found out about the child ‘he would consider himself honour-bound to kill the child, the mother, the grandmother herself and the grandmother’s other children’.

Today Lord Justice Munby, Lady Justice Black and Lord Justice Kitchin said in a joint ruling that the child was at risk if she was not adopted.

They said if the grandfather discovered the affair ‘it would be a matter of intense almost unimaginable shame to him and his family’.


The couple who are adopting the child had been looking after her since December 2010.

They are also Muslim and from the same country as the mother, but from a different community.

The judges imposed unusually wide reporting restrictions banning the publication of all names and locations linked to the case because of the continuing dangers faced by mother and child.

The baby’s father – a married man known as F – had launched an appeal against the decision made by Mrs Justice Parker in the High Court last July.

She found there would be ‘a very significant risk of two and two being put together’ if the child went to live with its father because the baby was quite obviously not his wife’s child.

The appeal court judges ruled: ‘In the particular circumstances of this case, the judge rightly regarded the risk of physical harm to Q and M (her mother) as being of major importance.’

Adoption: The Court of Appeal ruled the risk to the child was so grave that the baby had to be adopted by the Muslim motherAdoption: The Court of Appeal ruled the risk was so grave that the baby could not be looked after by her natural father

The court heard that although both the baby’s mother and father were Muslim, there was a ‘profound cultural difference’ between them.

Upholding Mrs Justice Parker’s decision to make an adoption order, the appeal judges said: ‘The mother’s evidence, supported as it was by her actions, and the evidence of (the father) and an experienced police officer, drove the judge to conclude that refusal of the order would carry with it a significant risk of physical harm.

‘In our judgment this conclusion cannot be criticised.’

The adopting couple, Mr and Mrs A, were ‘loving and devoted adopters to whom Q has formed a deep attachment’.

The couple were Muslims who had taken advice from their imam that they could adopt Q.

The judge had rightly concluded that under Islamic law and tradition ‘there would be no long-term harmful consequence in adoption’.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

11 Replies to “Baby born to Muslim mother after affair must be adopted to stop honour killing attempts by ‘shamed’ grandfather”

  1. It isn’t just the one murderous Muslim grandfather that’s the problem. He wants to kill this baby because of peer-pressure from other Muslim males in the ‘community’ (probably the local mosque) to uphold his ‘honor’. Child-murder is the honorable thing to do.

    Islam is the only belief-system that regards killing babies as honorable. Even the Nazis, though they killed enough babies, didn’t believe it enhanced their machismo.

    The entire sociopathic Muslim community is complict in this loathsome evil.

  2. Ali Sina, author of “Understanding Muhammad – A Psychobiography of Allah’s Prophet” wrote:

    “In the year 570 A.D., in Mecca, Arabia, a widowed young woman, Amina, gave birth to a boy whom, according to one tradition, she called Kotham. Fifty three years later, when he migrated to Medina, he would adopt the name “Muhammad” (the praised one) as his sobriquet, the name by which he is widely known today. Though Muhammad was her only child, Amina gave him to a Bedouin woman, to be raised in the desert when he was only six months old.” . . .”Abdullah, Muhammad’s father, died six months before his birth. Also this practice was not really that common. In fact Khadijah, the first wife of Muhammad, who was the wealthiest woman of Mecca, had three children from her previous marriages and bore seven more to Muhammad, and she raised them all on her own. “

    . . .because

    “more children meant higher social status.”

    “Amina did not breastfeed Muhammad. After his birth, the infant was given to Thueiba, a maid of his uncle Abu Lahab, (the very man whom Muhammad cursed in Sura 111 of the Quran, along with his wife) to be nursed.”

    “Muhammad grew up among strangers. As he grew, he became aware that he did not belong to the family with which he was living. He must have wondered why his own mother , whom he visited twice a year , did not want him.”

    “Halima, Muhammad’s wet nurse,”. . .”reported that Muhammad was a solitary child. He would withdraw to an imaginary world and converse with friends that no one could see.” . ..”Muhammad’s mental health became a matter of concern to his wet nurse who at the age of five took him back to Amina. Not having found a new husband yet, Amina was reluctant to take the child back until Halima told her about Muhammad’s strange behavior and his fantasies. Ibn Ishaq has recorded Halima’s words:

    “His [Halima’s own son] father said to me, “I am afraid that this child has had a stroke, so take him back to his famly before the result appears.”…She [Muhammad’s mother] asked me what happened and gave me no peace until I told her. When she asked if I feared a demon had possessed him, I replied that I did.” [Sirat Ibn Ishaq, page 72]

    Given Kotham Muhammad is the perfect example for Muslims to emulate through eternity, it is no surprise muslims continue to encourage/instigate emotional and mental disfunction through doctrinal opposition to adoption.

  3. The Judges put the best interest of the child above the wishes of the parents, that is something the left has managed to stop in way too many cases.

  4. But surely the point is, that although the judges are putting the baby’s welfare first, they are tacitly going along with the Muslim system of honour killing. By changing the way things would normally be done, to facilitate the Muslim pechant for homicide, and “honour”, they are in effect agreeing with the system, or at the very least acknowledging the system exists and English law should change to accomodate it.
    What about “hate speech”, presumably threats have been made, by the Grandfather, and other members of the community. What about the forces of law and order moving against this pack of barbarians and prosecuting them (for attempted murder, incitement?), and then imprisoning them, and then deporting them back to some place where they can kill women and babies with impunity.
    What that might cause “ethnic tensions”?
    How did this grovelling kowtowing establishment get started. Sick man, sick. We’ better grow some balls soon, or they’ll be running the show.

  5. The thing is: the Western law enforcement agencies do not seem to appreciate that these so called”honor” crimes are: premeditated, community sanctioned, and above all else; blood rituals for the purposes of preserving purity within the tribe. It is not just the purity and manhood of the family which has been humiliated but that of whole tribe or community!

    Only the spilling of human blood-murder- can “cleanse” the “shame”. These crimes also include, mutilations, torture, rape ect all of which are justified and considered very heroic and manly.

    If Western civilized standards are to prevail and be preserved, denial or weakness when dealing with these matters is not an option. Coming to live and settle in the civilized West does not mean that honor/shame paradigm and it’s practioners can or ever will be de-programmed!

  6. I agree with blindgaurd.He put down what I thought succinctly. Why do we consider their ways.Just because this is a secular multicultural country does not mean you let each culture govern themselves.That way leads to chaos.

  7. They acknowledged that honor killings exist but I don’t see how the decision could be taken to mean they condone them or that western culture should be modified to accept them. Under current law there was nothing else that could be done, they couldn’t order anything done to the girls family, after all they haven’t done anything yet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *