Armanious family, motive contradictions

Submitted by Merry Whitney (United States), Dec 13, 2005 at 13:14

Apparently the NJ authorities have declared the Armanious family slaughter was part of a robbery, not one motivated by religious factors. Maybe.

But the "upstairs neighbor" involved in the slayings is described as a muslim who had been 'converted to Christianity' by Mr. Armanious, and so would have been welcomed into the Armanious home.

Obviously, if he had been truly 'converted to Christianity (or any legitimate religion),' he wouldn't be out robbing and killing people. So, why would he pretend to be persuaded by Armanious' pro-Christian beliefs?

And if he was simply tempted because the Armanious family had evidence of wealth in their home, the killer was in an excellent position to know when the family was not home and he could plunder their valuables at his leisure without killing anyone.

As Mr. Pipes has said, it's best to wait for additional information before drawing a final conclusion. But regardless of what "the authorities" say about motivation, I'm not convinced this case can be so easily divorced from earlier statements of belief by friends of the Armanious family.

I don't know whether Mr Pipes was completely right, but I think it very doubtful that he was completely wrong.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".