Western Resistance

« May 2007 | Main | July 2007 »

June 29, 2007

Women Under Islam: Part Two of Four

This article by Adrian Morgan (Giraldus Cambrensis of Western Resistance) appeared earlier today in Family Security Matters and is reproduced with their permission.

Women Under Islam

Part Two of Four

Legal Marriage And Forced Marriages

A man in Islam can have four concurrent wives, though a woman is denied more than one husband. In most Western nations, polygamy is illegal, but Britain allows tax-payers' money to subsidize welfare benefits for polygamous Muslims' extra wives.

Sheikh Ahmad Nutty of the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, writes: "The stated requirements of marriage in Islam are as follows: Full consent of both partners to the marriage, expressing the above consent through ijab (offer) and qabul (acceptance), finally the presence of two reliable witnesses. Apart from the above, in the case of females, their guardian's consent has been considered essential for the validity of marriage according to the majority of imams and scholars. Imam Abu Hanifah, however, is of the view that a mature woman is fully capable of contracting her own marriage. Thus in his view, marriages finalized without guardian's consent shall be considered as valid so long the woman has chosen someone who is considered as compatible."

The fact that a young woman has to have the consent of her guardian, or Wali, indicates that the woman is not really a free agent and cannot readily marry someone of her own choosing. In Malaysia last year, a 22-year old woman who had married a 32-year old man and was five months' pregnant, was taken to an Islamic court by her father. He claimed that, being her Wali, he was not consulted before the marriage. The Islamic court annulled the marriage.

There are other bizarre variations on standard marriage, including "temporary marriages" called mut'ah and misyar. Misyar is a Sunni custom and it became legitimized in Egypt in the early 19th century. Ibn Baaz, the Salafi Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia from 1993-9 made a fatwa sanctioning misyar, expecting it to make it easier for wealthy single women to get married. Traditionally, a Muslim husband presents his bride with a dowry or mahr, and misyar dispenses with this requirement. In misyar marriage the couple do not live together, but make nuptial visits to each other.

On April 12, 2006 the Islamic Jurisprudence Assembly in Mecca gave its approval for such unions. Misyar marriages are becoming common in Saudi Arabia, with some Saudi marriage officials claiming that 7 out of 10 of their contracts are misyar arrangements. Misyar is a temporary marriage, but can be extended to become full marriage. It does not have a fixed time in which it must end, like Mut'ah marriage.

Some traveling Muslims use temporary marriages to engage in sex tourism 'Islamically". Last June, Indonesia's vice president, Jusuf Kalla quipped that he saw nothing wrong with Arab men engaging in "temporary marriages" with Indonesian women. In August 2006 five Saudis were deported from an Indonesian resort for engaging in temporary marriages with local women.

Mut'ah marriage can be engaged in for as little as a few hours, with the man paying the "bride" for this contract. Mut'ah is illegal in Saudi Arabia, but is allowed in Iran, where it is called sighe. Iranian sociologist Amanollah Gharaii Moghaddam has said of such marriages: "Short-term marriages are a form of legalized prostitution. A state must not and cannot legitimize prostitution."

Such a marriage appears to be sanctioned in the Koran, Sura 4:24, where it is written: "Also married women (are forbidden to you in marriage), except those whom you own as slaves. Such is the decree of God. All women other than these are lawful for you, provided you court them with your wealth in modest conduct, not in fornication. Give them their dowry for the enjoyment you have had of them as a duty; but it shall be no offense for you to make any other agreement among yourselves after you have fulfilled your duty. Surely God is all-knowing and wise."

Mut'ah is also, since the fall of Saddam Hussein, permitted in Iraq. It is allowed in Bahrain, where it has been condemned by women's rights activist Ghada Jamshir. Ms Jamshir said on Al-Arabiya TV: "This is a violation of children's rights! This constitutes sexual assault of the girl. What does 'pleasure from sexual contact with her thighs' mean? It means deriving sexual pleasure from an infant. How old is an infant? One year, a year and a half, a few months?"

In Singapore, where temporary marriage is illegal, a Muslim businessman convinced several women that such marriages were Islamic. He fathered 66 children, and also convinced some of his "wives" that it was lawful to have sex with his daughters. He was sentenced in April 2006 to 32 years' jail and 24 strokes of the cane for raping five of his daughters.

Another bizarre form of Muslim marriage contract is Ash-Shihgar, where a man marries off his daughter to another man, and marries the other man's daughter in exchange. No "bride-price" (mahr) is paid. In January 2007 two septuagenarian businessmen from Riyadh married each others' daughters. The brides were aged 17 and 19. One of the old men said: "I did not ask my daughter. I don't have to. I know what is beneficial for her. When I told her what I had planned, she was happy. If she hadn't been, she would have told her mother."

Forced Marriage

After briefly describing some of the ways that marriages can take place in Islam, where a young woman can only marry a man of her guardian's choosing, it is not surprising that forced marriages regularly occur. In 2001, Syria amended its constitution to outlaw forced marriage. In Saudi Arabia, forced marriage was made illegal in April 2005. This resulted from a fatwa issued by Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh. President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan referred to this fatwa to urge Islamists in his country to abandon forced marriages. In November 2005, Afghan leaders committed themselves to abolishing forced marriage by 2008.

In Afghanistan, the minimum legal age for a male to become married is 18, and for a girl, 16 years. Despite this, marriages are arranged involving girls far younger than 16. In October 2006, the Globe & Mail reported that a 13-year old girl, who escaped a forced marriage with a 50-year old man, was placed in jail. The girl's crime was to have broken the marriage contract, which had been arranged by her father.

In 2004 the UN reported that as many as 57% of marriages in Afghanistan involved girls under 16. Some were only nine years old. In 2005, the US State Department quoted the UN special rapporteur on violence against women, who said that "between 60% and 80% of marriages in Afghanistan are forced marriages which give women no right to refuse. Many of those marriages, especially in the rural areas, involve girls below the age of 15."

In July 2006 the New York Times produced a report on child marriage in Afghanistan, containing startling photographs by Stephanie Sinclair of young girls sitting beside their grizzled, elderly husbands. When a bride is pre-pubescent, and unable to make a decision on her future, such marriages can only be classed as "forced". A UN report from 2005 quoted Paul Greening of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) who said: "Badakhshan [northeastern province] has the highest maternal mortality rate in the country and one of the main reason is under-age marriages - even as young as seven in some cases. This needs to be addressed." A midwife at Malalai hospital in Kabul said: "It is a shame to say that even in the capital Kabul we treat pregnant mothers as young as 12 years of age."

In Turkey, forced marriage continues, particularly in the Kurdish communities of the southeast. A 2004 report stated: A study in several provinces in east and southeast Turkey found that 45.7 per cent of women were not consulted about their choice of marriage partner and 50.8 per cent were married without their consent. Women forced into marriages are often under age. Those of them who refuse their family's choice of husband risk violence and even death. Men have used forced marriage to evade punishment for sexual assault, rape and abduction. There are also cases in which families, either deliberately or through neglect, fail to ensure that the sale of their daughter to a potential husband does not end up with their daughter being internally trafficked for forced prostitution. In other instances families fail to protect children from sexual exploitation."

On 24 May, 2006, Yakin Erturk, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women, went to Batman and three other cities in southeastern Turkey, to investigate a curious increase in suicides amongst young women in the region. She later concluded: "I have found that the patriarchal order and the human rights violations that go along with it - for example, forced and early marriages, domestic violence, and denial of reproductive rights - are often key contributing factors."

In the West, forced marriages are becoming increasingly common. In 2003 in Norway, the authorities moved to dissuade the custom by demanding that foreign marriage partners should be over 23, or capable of supporting a partner. Last year, a school counsellor claimed to be annually contacted by five to six students, who said their studies had to cease because they were being married against their will.

In March 2004 immigration minister Ema Solberg launched a campaign to inform all immigrants that forced marriage and female genital mutilation were forbidden under Norwegian law. In May 2005 two people became the first to be jailed for plotting a forced marriage. The Kurdish father and brother of a 17-year old girl had planned to make her marry a man from northern Iraq. Between 1999 and 2004, cases of forced marriage tripled in Norway, with 60 cases in 2003 alone. In September last year Terje Bjøranger, who advises a government taskforce, claimed that there were 2,000 cases of forced marriage between 2004 and 2006.

Norway was the only country in Europe where forced marriage was illegal until last year. In March, 2006 Belgium's cabinet approved a move to outlaw forced marriage. A study from 1999 found that 27% of Turkish and Moroccan women over 40 had been forced into marriage. Forced marriages affected 13% of Turkish girls aged 17 to 24, and 8% of Moroccan girls of the same age. The proposed legislation would invoke a jail term from one month to two years, or a maximum fine of between 500 and 2,500 Euros (equivalent to $596 and $2,978 US). In November 2004, a Belgian senator of Moroccan origin, Mimount Bousakla, was forced to go into hiding, after receiving death threats. Her crime had been to criticize forced marriages, at a meeting held by the Council of Europe on this subject.

In France in 2003 a report by the government body the High Council of Immigration found that there were 70,000 cases of marriages in the country which had been arranged using force. A French women's rights group claims that 30,000 forced marriages have taken place in France since 1990. One arranged marriage which began with apparent consent ended in tragedy. Samira Bari, a woman brought up in France, had married a man eight years her senior, who had been brought up in southern Morocco. When Samira refused to have sex with him, he ripped out her eyes, a court heard in March this year.

Many French forced marriages have taken place with young people involved, and as a result in March, 2006 the authorities raised the minimum age of marriage from 15 to 18 years. One obstacle faced by young women who are not born in France and are subjected to forced marriages is the law itself. Even if she holds a permit of residence for 10 years' duration, if she is taken to live outside of France for three consecutive years, she loses the right to live in France.

Many marriages amongst Muslims are "arranged" marriages. In October last year, the Islamists who then ruled Somalia ordered that any marriages conducted without parents' permission were against Islam. In many cases, it is hard to say where an "arranged marriage" becomes a "forced" marriage. In Britain, the majority of cases of honor killings have involved victims who rejected arranged marriage, or chose their own partner. Most British forced marriage cases involve a girl being sent to the Indian subcontinent to become wed to a relative.

In May this year, the Home Office reported that an 11-year old British Muslim girl had been rescued from a forced marriage, which had taken place in Bangladesh. A more typical case involves three sisters, aged 21, 22 and 15, who in 2000 had been sent to Pakistan, on the pretext of seeing their dying grandmother. Once there, the girls found that there were three men already arranged to be their husbands. The sisters were kept as virtual prisoners in their grandmother's house for six months. Narina Anwar said: "They wanted me to marry my first cousin. He was 26 and I had not seen him since I was 11. He was uneducated and could not speak English or even write Urdu." The girls escaped and telephoned the British High Commission who sent people to rescue them.

In 2001 the UK government suggested that it could make forced marriage a crime, but after many deliberations, it is still not illegal. In 2004, when 200 forced marriage cases were happening each year, the government again announced that it may change the law, and made the same claim in 2005. On June 6, 2006 the government announced that it had bowed down to Muslim pressure and had abandoned its plans.

The Muslim Council of Britain, co-founded by the Muslim Brotherhood, had argued that such a law would see children giving evidence at their parents' trials. This happens in abuse cases, and forced marriage is abuse. The MCB also said such cases would make the Muslim community further "stigmatized".

Sometimes, the threats and pressure involve emotional blackmail. In 2002, a marriage was annulled in Edinburgh which had taken place when the girl had been 16. Her mother later admitted that she had threatened to commit suicide to force her daughter into marriage. The girl had met her "husband" only a week before the wedding. The husband's mother had wanted her son to gain British citizenship.

In July, 2006another forced marriage was annulled. The girl had been taken for a "holiday' in Pakistan, ostensibly to celebrate the end of her school exams. She was kept in Pakistan in a remote location, and had her passport removed. Both her parents threatened to commit suicide if she did not marry her cousin. After some months she relented and, aged 17, married. The judge in the case, Mr Justice Munby, told the High Court in London: "Forced marriages, whatever the social or cultural imperatives that may be said to justify what remains a distressingly widespread practice, are rightly considered to be as much beyond the pale as such barbarous practices as female genital mutilation and so called 'honor killings'."

In 2004 it was announced that The Council of British Pakistanis Scotland had found that nearly half the marriages between Scottish south Asians and a partner from abroad had involved coercion. Labour MP Ann Cryer announced that a 15-year old girl from Bradford was "sold" by her father for the sum of $30,000, to pay off his gambling debts. The girl was due to be sent to Bangladesh to marry a far older man, a friend of her father. Ms Cryer said: "The girl is absolutely petrified. I am terrified the family will put her on a plane within the next few days."

In Scotland, which has its own parliament, it was revealed in one report that in Edinburgh alone, 85 people a year were being forced into marriage. Malcolm Chisholm, Scottish Communities Minister, suggested that imams and clerics who presided over forced marriage could be jailed for up to five years. This proposal was never made into law.

In Denmark, there is a law that requires that both partners in a marriage involving someone from abroad must be at least 24 years old. This law, introduced in 2002, has been claimed by Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to have reduced cases of forced marriage. The Danish Immigration Service has guidelines to "root out" suspected cases of forced marriage. Earlier this month the Danish Social Liberal Party launched a leaflet campaign, aimed at teachers, to help them identify the signs of young people being pressured into forced marriage.

In Germany, a study amongst female Turkish immigrants, conducted in 1996, found that 24% of respondents had been forced into marriage. ARD, a German national television network, claims that there are 30,000 women who are in forced marriages in Germany. There are an estimated 3 million Muslims in Germany, mostly from Turkey. In Austria, where Turks comprise most of the 400,000-strong Muslim community, the figure for women in forced marriages is said to be less than 1,000. In Germany, women in forced marriages also come from Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, Albania, Iran and India.

There is strong opposition to interference with Germany's culture of forced marriage and "honor". Seyran Ates is a Turkish-born woman lawyer, who specializes in defending women trapped in forced marriages or on the receiving end of domestic violence. She has been fiercely attacked by male relatives of the women she defends, and was once shot by the husband of a woman client.

Seyran Ates has condemned the liberal climate in Germany, where the politically correct turn their backs on what goes on in Muslim communities, and thus ignore the plight of many Muslim women. She has written: "I want to know, and many thousands of Muslim girls and women have a right to know, why understanding and infinite tolerance is practised with particular cultural traditions that are clearly oppressive of women. Human rights are universal and unconditional. And that goes most certainly for religious objectives.

It is only girls and women who are forced to wear head-scarves. And it's also a majority of girls and women who are affected by forced marriage. I don't want to enter into the debate about women and schoolgirls who wear the headscarf of their own free will, or about the difference between arranged and forced marriages. Just one note: silence cannot be understood as assent. But very many girls are brought up to be silent on such topics....

...Of course, we mustn't forget the boys and men. They too are affected by these archaic traditions. They are forced to play the man, the protector of morals and family honour. They bear the responsibility for keeping the sexuality of the female members under control. A free, autonomous life, the esteem for a person's individuality is seen to endanger the far more important community feeling, the group identity. In extreme cases, men are turned into murderers because the social system demands this of them. Because otherwise, they cannot live after their honour has been violated. What will become of the Muslims who don't have the personal strength to defend themselves against the community and the clan because of this outmoded tradition? What will become of the little machos who already play the Pascha in kindergarten and grade school?"

In September, 2006 Seyran announced that the constant threats to her life had put her into so much danger she would retire. She felt that her daughter would be placed at risk. She received belated support from politicians within her own party, the SPD, and has since returned to defending her women clients.

A 2005 report by the Council of Europe's Directorate of Human Rights makes for grim reading. Even though forced marriage itself is not generally illegal in Europe, there are nonetheless laws against kidnapping and false imprisonment on many country's statute books. Sadly, these laws are rarely invoked.

Figures on such marriages in the United States and Canada are scarce, but is highly likely that the authorities are not geared up to look for such cases. In such a laissez-faire climate, as Seyran Ates noted in Germany, this abuse may be more common than the authorities would wish to acknowledge.

In Australia in 2005, tough laws were introduced to prevent young girls being sent abroad to engage in forced marriages. Many of Australia's Muslims are of Lebanese origin, and a dozen Australian girls under the age of 18 had sought help from the Australian consulate in Beirut. These girls, with one as young as 14, had been taken to Lebanon by their families to engage in forced marriages. Under Australian law, anyone who forces someone to engage in marriage, even outside the country, can receive a 25 year jail sentence.

Chris Ellison, the Australian Justice Minister, said: "This is an outrageous activity, one we won't tolerate and we're intent on stamping out. It is an offence to traffic a young person, a juvenile, overseas for sexual servitude, or indeed bondage, and a forced marriage could well constitute that sort of behavior."

Many young people who are made to enter forced marriage are sent to their parent's homelands to be married off against their will. In Europe, young people have been sent to Afghanistan, Mali, Morocco, Iraq, Pakistan and Turkey. For British victims of forced marriage, these homelands tend to be India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. In the latter country, the traditions of marrying off children against their will carry on in full defiance of national law. What will shock Western readers is the way in which children as young as babies are promised in marriage, often to compensate a family for a crime committed by a male. Sometimes girls are sold in markets for marriage purposes. I will discuss these cases in Part Three.

Adrian Morgan

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at 3:23 PM | Comments (0)

UK: Islamist Car Bomb Discovered In London?

A car bomb was defused in the early hours of Friday morning. A silver-green Mercedes was discovered outside the Tiger Tiger nightclub in the Haymarket, in the theater district of London's West End, shortly after 1 am (British Summer Time). An ambulance had been called to the nightclub to deal with a person who had been taken ill, and the paramedics noticed that smoke or vapor was rising from the foot well inside the vehicle. Police were called and the car was taken away and defused.

The vehicle was found to have contained propane gas canisters, 60 liters of gasoline and a quantity of nails. Additionally a detonator was discovered, which appears to have been a remote-activated device, which could have been triggered by mobile phone.

A second vehicle, a blue Mercedes, was found parked illegally in the West End at the same time, and was towed to an underground car park in Park Lane at Hyde Park, arriving at 3.15 am local time. Because the vehicle smelled strongly of gasoline, it was not taken inside the car park. After a press conference by the police at midday, concerning the Haymarket car bomb, the authorities at the car park contacted the police. Park Lane was closed off to traffic until after 6.45 pm, causing traffic chaos elsewhere in London.

At the midday press conference, Peter Clarke, head of Scotland Yard's counter-terrorism unit, refused to be drawn on the identity of those who planned the foiled attack. However, he did mention that Islamist terrorist Dhiren Barot had also planned a terror attack employing a vehicle filled with gas canisters. Barot, an Al Qaeda member, was jailed for life on November 7, 2006. Clarke mentioned the police code-name for Barot's surveillance, "Operation Rhyme". Barot's seven accomplices were jailed on June 15. At their trial at Woolwich Crown Court the judge, Mr Justice Butterfield, had said that he had "suspicions" that some of the men may have recruited others to the cell.

Clarke said: "There was no intelligence whatsoever that we were going to be attacked in this way... It is obvious that if the device had detonated, there could have been significant injury or loss of life. We are doing absolutely everything we can in our power to keep the public safe. The threat from terrorism is real and is here. Life must go on but we must all stay alert to the threat as we go on with our lives."

Clarke said it was too early to say if the nightclub Tiger Tiger was the intended target. However, he did make mention of an earlier plot (Operation Crevice) which had involved attacking a night club - the Ministry of Sound with explosives.

There was a third vehicle located at Fleet Street which initially was thought to be a car bomb, and for a few hours this region was closed off to the public. It appears now that the Fleet Street incident was a false alarm.

The location of Haymarket, less than a mile from Downing Street, led to increased security around Westminster. Gordon Brown, who had served only two days as Britain's new Prime Minister, attended a meeting with other ministers this morning, where they were briefed by COBRA, the civil contingencies committee, which gets its name from "Cabinet Office Briefing Room A". Brown stated: "I will stress to the Cabinet that the vigilance must be maintained over the next few days."

Brown's newly appointed Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, said: "We are currently facing the most serious and sustained threat to our security from international terrorism."

Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur of the Metropolitan Police said that plans for public events this weekend were under review. An eyewitness from the Tiger Tiger club said that the silver Mercedes was parked at an angle outside the front door of the night club, with its doors open and headlights on.

ITV Evening News said that there were reports that a well-dressed black man had been seen running from the vehicle. Earlier TV news reports had mentioned that the silver Mercedes had been seen driving erratically, bumping into garbage bins, before being abandoned outside the nightclub.

In New York City, security has been stepped up as a precautionary measure, with extra police patrlos around Times Square and the transport system. The Secretary of US Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, released a statement, in which he asserted that US officials are monitoring the situation in London, but have not seen anything to link the incident in Britain to any threat to the United States.

Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at 3:05 PM | Comments (0)

June 28, 2007

Women Under Islam: Part One of Four

This article by Adrian Morgan (Giraldus Cambrensis of Western Resistance) appeared earlier today in Family Security Matters and is reproduced with their permission.

Women Under Islam

Part One of Four

Behind the Veil

Back in the 1980s, few young Western Muslim women wore the Muslim headscarf, or hijab. In fact it was banned in some Muslim countries for teachers and those employed by the state. Turkey was the first country to campaign against its use. In 1981, Tunisia banned the hijab from public offices and schools, under law number 108. This was ratified by the late President Habib Bourguiba (1956 - 1987). In September 2006 Tunisian authorities mounted a campaign against the Muslim "Barbie" doll called Fulla, who wears a hijab, as it was thought to encourage use of the scarf. A month later, Morocco enforced a ban on images of the hijab in schoolbooks, even though the item can be worn legally. In predominantly Muslim Tajikistan in central Asia, the headscarf was banned from schools in October, 2005.

There used to be a time when only a few Western-born Muslims wore the hijab. Yet progressively over the past two decades, it has become increasingly common and more recently in the West, the practice of wearing the face-covering veil, or niqab has become more common. There are political forces which have promoted the hijab as "obligatory" dress for Muslim women. The group Hizb ut-Tahrir has campaigned in British universities since the 1980s to force Muslim students to wear the item, using physical intimidation and threats to get their way. The group was banned from UK campuses in 1995 but continues to operate under other names. Other groups such as Tablighi Jamaat have been encouraging women to wear the headscarf as a religious obligation. This "missionary" group, founded in India in 1927, has been linked with terrorism, mounting coup attempts in Pakistan and shootings in north Africa.

Two French members of Tablighi Jamaat, states Alexei Alexiev, were among gunmen who carried out the attack upon the Atlas Asni Hotel in Marrakesh, Morocco on August 24, 1999. Two Spanish tourists were killed. Jose Padilla, Lyman Harris, (who sought to bomb the Brooklyn Bridge), and the "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh all had Tablighi connections.

In Morocco, Ilamado Yusef Fikri was sentenced to death on July 12, 2003. He was a member of Tablighi Jamaat, but also headed a terror group called Salafia Jihadia or At-Takfir wal-Hijrah. In letters to local press, he confessed to killing two people for being "against Islam". His terror group was linked with the Casablanca bombings of May 16, 2003, which killed 45 people.

In Waziristan, near Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, the Tablighi Jamaat has the support of Pakistan's Taliban, who are linked to al Qaeda. In France since 1972, the group has been involved with the radicalization of Muslim prisoners.

In Britain Tablighi Jamaat has been involved in the political campaign by a young Muslim woman to challenge traditions. 24-year old Aisha Azmi was employed as a language support worker by Headfield Church of England Junior School in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. She did not wear a niqab (face-covering veil) during her interview. She was employed to assist young children who had poor English skills, but as soon as she started working, she began to wear a niqab. Children complained that they could not understand her, and after only a month, she was suspended. In September 2006 she challenged the decision at an employment tribunal.

On October 19, 2006, she lost her tribunal, where she had claimed that her employers had "discriminated" against her. She said: "It is clear that discrimination has taken place and I am disappointed the tribunal has not been able to uphold that part of my claim." It was then revealed by the Sunday Times that Aishma Azmi had been ordered to wear the face-veil by a Tablighi Jamaat cleric, Mufti Yusuf Sacha, who is based in West Yorkshire. The Daily Mail revealed that Azmi's father Dr Mohammed Mulk had until recently headed the secondary school attached to the Tabighi Jamaat "Markaz" in Savile Town, Dewsbury. The Markaz is the UK headquarters of Tablighi Jamaat.

Mulk's school was criticized by UK government schools inspectors as less a place of learning and more of a "madrassa". Their report claimed that the school's "over-emphasis" on religion meant secular studies were neglected. It wrote: "Teachers showed limited understanding of pupils aptitudes, needs and prior attainments." Mulk had claimed: "Parents send their children here for an Islamic education. They don't want their sons to take exams."

The "spiritual adviser" of the Muslim website IslamOnline is the radical Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is also "spiritual leader" of the Muslim Brotherhood. This website maintains that the hijab is obligatory. SImilarly the Muslim Council for Britain, which was co-founded by the Brotherhood's European spokesman Kemal Helbawy, maintains that the hijab is compulsory. The MCB has acted as an adviser to the UK government, with the result that one naive politician - Ruth Kelly, the Communities Minister and Minister for Women - has claimed that there should be more hijab-wearing women on British television.

In France in September 2004 the hijab was officially banned from schools. The ban was general - no other religious items can be worn. On August 25, 2005, French-speaking schools in Belgium banned the wearing of veils. Five Belgian towns have gone further. Ghent, Antwerp, Sint-Truden, Lebbeke and Maaseik have enforced complete bans on burkas and face-veils being worn on the street.

In Maaseik, only one woman refused to comply with the ban, and wore a burka which only allowed a slit for her eyes. This woman was married to a Moroccan terrorist, Khalid Bouloudo, from the group GICM, which organized the Casablanca suicide-bombings of May 16, 2003. On February 16, 2006, Khalid Bouloudo was jailed for five years for assisting terrorist activities. On June 12 last year, Maaseik's ban on the wearing of the burka was upheld in court. It had been challenged by a Moroccan woman, Khadija El Ouazzanik.

The wearing of hijabs and their subsequent bans in schools, followed by legal appeals, have changed the political landscape of the West almost as much as terrorism. Constantly the issue of Muslim women's "rights" have been brought into the the public eye through discussion of the hijab. Groups like CAIR have capitalized on the hijab issue to promote their narrow political agenda. In 2005 the group dishonestly doctored a photograph to place a crude hijab onto the head of an unveiled woman.

The political motivations of those who challenge the Western "status quo" are rarely mentioned in news reports. In Britain, a schoolgirl called Shabina Begum insisted upon her right to ignore school uniform guidelines, to wear instead a gown which extended down to her feet. This item is called a jilbab. Begum took her case through the courts, assisted by her lawyer Cheri Booth Blair, wife of the then-Prime Minister. On March 22, 2006 the House of Lords overturned a ruling she had gained, which had condemned her school's actions. What was rarely reported was that her case was supported by Hizb ut-Tahrir, an organization whose stated aims are to destroy democracy, and her brother (and her legal guardian) was said to be a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a claim he denies.

The situation of appeals and demands about infringement of rights, involving wearing of the hijab, has gone on in various locations. A bus company in Grand Rapids, Michigan, had to revise its ban on face coverings, a move introduced for security reasons. In September 2005, a Muslim convert called Sultaana Freeman (born Sandra Keller) lost a legal appeal. She had tried to have her photograph on her driving license displaying herself wearing a hijab and face-veil (niqab). In 2001, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (FDHSMV) had issued a license with a picture of her with only her eyes visible, but had later revoked it. A convicted child-batterer who became Muslim in 1997, Freeman had claimed that her 1st Amendment rights had been violated.

Two months later, the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (NJMVC) encountered problems when trying to have a photograph taken of a Muslim driving license applicant. Sarah Elfayoumi wears a hijab, and complained that she was asked to move the scarf further back to expose her hairline. She fled to the bathroom in tears before allowing a photograph showing part of her hair. Sharon Harrington of the NJMVC claimed that hijabs are allowed in license photographs, but problems with photographs were more frequent in northern New Jersey, where more Muslims lived.

In Britain in October 2006, Nadia Eweida, a 55-year old employee of British Airways, found herself in a battle to retain her rights to wear a small Christian crucifix, half an inch in diameter. Nadia Eweida is a Coptic Christian. British Airways allows its Muslim staff to flaunt their religious credentials by wearing the hijab but discriminates against Christians.

The veil issue in Norway has also raised questions about the mysterious death of a local politician from Oslo. Samira Munir was of Pakistani origins, and was a member of Oslo District Council. She opposed the wearing of the veil, a campaign she commenced in February 2004. As a result she was harshly criticized by Norway's Pakistani immigrant community. In Ocotober 2004, she was even pressured by Pakistan's ambassador to explain her beliefs in two meetings. In the second meeting, ambassador Shahbaz Shahbaz noted that she still had family members in Pakistan. Samira did not give up her campaign. In November 2005 she died under a train at Oslo station. Whether she fell or was pushed has not been satisfactorily explained.

In Turkey, the veil issue has led to Islamist assassination. On May 17, 2006, five judges were shot in the Turkish Council of State (Supreme Court) in Ankara. One judge, Mustafa Yucel Ozbilgin, died of his injuries. Their attacker was an Islamist lawyer, Aslan Alpasan, who objected to a decision to enforce bans on state-employed teachers wearing the hijab. This had been made earlier in the year by Judge Mustafa Birden, who was shot in the stomach. Birden had been subjected to death threats for enforcing the headscarf ban.

The issue of the veil in schools is the most contentious topic across Europe. In Sweden in January this year, Sweden supported the "rights" of Muslim girls to wear head coverings in classes. In Norway in June last year, the Directorate for Primary and Secondary Education gave permission for the niqab to be banned in schools. The ban was aimed mainly at teachers.

In Germany, North Rhine-Westphalia became the eighth of the country's sixteen states to ban the headscarf for teachers. The first state to institute a ban was Baden-Wuerttemberg, which issued the ruling on April 1, 2004. On July 7, 2006, Baden-Wuerttemberg's outlawing of the hijab was overturned by an administrative tribunal.

In Switzerland last September, two Muslim women were employed by the Marie-Therese Maradan school in Fribourg. They were dismissed when they refused to remove their headscarfs. Fribourg council ruled in October that the school acted within its rights. Since 1999, religious apparel has been banned for employees of Fribourg city council.

The veil controversy has affected virtually every Western nation. In South Africa in October 2005 a prison officer was sacked for wearing the headscarf. Fairouz Adams was dismissed from her post at Worcester Prison in the Western Cape for not removing the item. In March this year, a trainee prison officer was fired in Quebec, Canada, for refusing to remove her hijab. 19-year old Sondos Abdelatif had been training to be an officer at Montreal's Bordeaux prison. Naturally, the executive director of Canadian CAIR, Karl Nickner, condemned the decision.

Within all this controversy, the involvement of political factions in encouraging Muslim women to wear the hijab, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Tablighi Jamaat and Hizb ut-Tahrir, has been forgotten. Muslim women are portrayed in the media as wearing the veil through their own volition, ignoring the pervasive effects of peer pressure. For example, the biased and leftist BBC "educates" ignorant Westerners with comments from veiled women, such as this: "Yes, I do wear a Hijab and I am covered from head to toe but how does that illustrate I am opressed? I do not dress this way because I am forced to. Instead, I feel this dress liberates me and makes me feel special because, a woman is a jewel, like a pearl. She doesn't need to be shown off for the world to glare at, her beauty is for the one she loves for the sake of Allah (swt), her husband."

Another woman who wears the face-veil claims that she gains more respect while wearing coverings which only expose her eyes. Rahmanara Chowdhury, a part-time teacher in Britain said: "'It serves as a reminder that I'm Muslim and it helps me get close to God. Since wearing the niqab, I've become a lot more confident. Once you're covered up, people are forced to judge you not as you look as a woman but on your character."

The full-face covering niqab is naturally controversial. In Britain, one 12-year old Muslim girl from Buckinghamshire, assisted by her father, had tried to legally challenge her school's decision to prevent her wearing a niqab. She lost her appeal in February this year. Shortly after this case faltered, British politicians granted schools the right to ban face-veils, on grounds of security. In November 2005 one prestigious London university, Imperial College (which has its own nuclear reactor), banned hooded garments and face coverings for security reasons.

The only Western nation to announce a country-wide ban on Muslim face coverings, including niqabs and burkas is the Netherlands. After much discussion, the Dutch parliament announced its intentions to ban the burka in November 2006, shortly before a general election. The ruling allowed police to to enforce a ban on burkas being worn in buses, on grounds of security, or in education establishments, on grounds of communication hindrances. About 50 Muslims in the Netherlands wear full burkas. The bill has still not become written into national law.

There have already been two cases where the full burka has been used by men fleeing the law. 25-year old Mustaf Jama was a Somali living in Britain as an asylum seeker. He was a prime suspect in the killing of a policewoman, PC Sharon Beshenivsky, during a robbery on November 18, 2005. After his accomplices were convicted, it was revealed that Jama had fled Britain, disguised in his sister's burka and using her passport. Yassine Omar was a suspect who is currently on trial for attempting to detonate a suicide-bomb on London Transport on July 21, 2005, a fortnight after the deadly 7/7 attacks. He had worn a burka to flee to Birmingham, where he had been caught.

Why should a 12-year old girl wear a face-veil, when the original Islamic injunctions about modesty were about protecting women from rape? The Suras which are used to argue that a woman should cover herself are generally considered to be 33:59 and 24:31. 33:59 states (Dawood's translation): "Prophet, enjoin your wives, your daughters, and the wives of true believers to draw their veils close round them. That is more proper, so they may be recognized and not be molested. God is ever forgiving and merciful."

24:31 states: "Enjoin believing women to turn their eyes away from temptation and to preserve their chastity; not to display their adornments (except such as are normally revealed); to draw their veils over their bosoms and not to display their finery except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons...etc".

The word hijab, literally meaning a "curtain" only appears twice in the Koran (Sura 33:53 and 42:50). The word translated in 33:59 as "veil" is actually the plural of jilbab, the body-covering garment which does not cover the head. The Koran's supposed advocacy of head-coverings, let alone face-coverings, is highly ambiguous and open to various interpretation.

On October 14, 2006 Mohammad Hamdi Zaqdouq, Egypt's religious affairs minister, claimed that the face-veil was not a religious item. He said: "Nor is the niqab a duty deriving from the Sharia. I know I will be criticized for my words but I think some Muslims are committing a fundamental error, focusing on external and superficial aspects, without exploring more relevant themes, and hence providing a distorted image of Islam."

Muslims who go on the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca are actually forbidden from wearing face-veils around the Ka'aba, so the position of the burka or niqab as a compulsory item of religious clothing is highly suspect. Women who wear such items in the West are making a political statement, not following the dictates of faith. Unfortunately, political correctness means that such items are viewed by many Western decision-makers as "religious apparel", whose use should never be questioned. In Britain, their use has been approved in court.

Shabnam Mughal is a lawyer, who caused a controversy on November 6, 2006, when she appeared as an attorney in an immigration case at Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent in Staffordshire. Judge George Glossop maintained that he could not understand Mughal's speech as it was muffled by her niqab. She refused to remove her face-veil, and the judge sought advisement from Mr Justice Hodge, president of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.

David Davies, Conservative MP for Monmouth, said of the case: "You have to stick to the rules of the country you are in. The veil is alien to this country and it is certainly a nonsense to think it is appropriate in the context of a courtroom. I would urge the judge's ruling to come down in favour of common sense. A lawyer must surely have to show her face and be able to speak clearly in court."

On November 9, Mr Justice Hodge ruled that Shabnam Mughal or any other lawyer was allowed to wear a veil in court. This was conditional upon the lawyer having "the agreement of his or her client and can be heard reasonably clearly by all parties to the proceedings, then the representative should be allowed to do so." In April this year, the Judicial Studies Board's Equal Treatment Advisory Committee gave official guidelines, which allowed the wearing of niqabs in court. Decisions were to be made on a "case by case" basis, as long as such items did not "interfere with justice".

On October 5 last year, former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw initiated a national debate about the face-veil. In his weekly column in the Lancashire Telegraph newspaper, Straw wrote that "wearing the full veil was bound to make better, positive relations between the two communities more difficult. It was such a visible statement of separation and of difference." The issue was taken up by other politicians, including Tony Blair and also Gordon Brown, who said he would "prefer it and think it better for Britain if fewer people wore veils".

Even Romano Prodi, socialist premier of Italy, entered the debate. In Italy, face-coverings of any sort are banned, stemming from a ruling made in the time of Mussolini. Days after Prodi's comments, a right-wing Italian politician had to placed under police protection because of objections to her comments about the niqab or face-veil. Daniela Santanche of the National Alliance had claimed on a TV show that the niqab was "not a religious symbol and it is not required by the Koran" and that it was "not a symbol of freedom". Her comments were attacked by Ali Abu Shwaima, the imam of the mosque in Segrate, Milan, who claimed Santanche was "ignorant, false, an instigator of hate and an infidel". He said: "I will not allow the ignorant to talk about Islam. The veil is an obligation required by God. Those who do not believe that are not Muslims."

The hijab may be seen by many Muslim women as an article of faith, but there is no doubt that in many instances, women and young girls are pressured by family and peers to wear the item. The face-veil and the burka have little religious justification, other than a desire to separate Muslim from Western women. A British woman wrote in the Saudi-owned Arab News: "I have lost count of the times that I have been admonished, chastised, ordered, requested, advised, politely reminded to cover my face. My usual stance is one of insolence. I invariably refuse with a 'Why should I?' partly because I can't stand being told what to do and partly because to draw a veil over my face just because someone has told me to and not due to religious conviction is nothing short of hypocrisy. Concomitantly, I have had many confrontations with those self-appointed vigilante types who want to give me free spiritual guidance."

Behind the politicking surrounding the veil, and the dubious claims that the face-veil is even "liberating", the position of women in Islamic countries is hardly equal to that of men. In Part Two I will be examining the roles of forced marriage in Muslim societies.

Adrian Morgan

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at 8:19 PM | Comments (0)

June 26, 2007

Mutilation And Killing For Muslim "Honor" - Part 3 of 3

This article by Adrian Morgan (Giraldus Cambrensis of Western Resistance) appeared earlier today in Family Security Matters and is reproduced with their permission.

Mutilation And Killing For Muslim "Honor"

In Three Parts

Part Three: Religious Or Tribal Custom?

There is nothing in the Koran that sanctions honor killing, but it is nonetheless true that most honor killings take place in Muslim societies. Dr. Nawal Ammar of Kent State university argues that honor killings are a "pre-Islamic, tribal custom". It has been stated by anthropologist James Emery: "Prior to the arrival of Islam in AD 622, Arabs occasionally buried infant daughters to avoid the possibility that they would later bring shame to the family." Emery suggests that honor killing in the Middle East is an Arabic tribal custom, perpetuating social patterns from the pre-Islamic (jahilayah) era.

The second Caliph - Omar (Umar, died 644 AD) - was a close friend of Mohammed. He is said to have only cried once. This happened when he recollected that in the time of jahilayah he buried his infant daughter alive, and as he did so, she brushed away the dust from his beard. Under the first Caliphs, Islam was spread by the sword, and within three centuries it had expanded to Spain in the West and to Afghanistan and parts of India in the east. It is true that in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country, honor killing is almost unheard of. In Malaysia too, honor killings are apparently nonexistent. Islam did not arrive in South-East Asia until the 13th century, which may explain why honor-killing is not common in this region.

In other non-Arab Muslim societies such as Pakistan, the custom is common. If "honor-killing" is merely a reflection of local tribal customs, then it would be found to the same degree amongst Hindus and Sikhs in India, who share the same ancestors. Among these groups, the practice is rare, although in Maharashtra state women are killed and tortured for being suspected witches. Annually there are thought to be 5,000 dowry-killings each year in India, where a bride's family defaults on payment and the wife is killed. Sati or sutti was a Hindu custom where a widow would immolate herself on her husband's funeral-pyre. This custom was banned by the British. Neither sutti, dowry killings nor witch-burning could be seen as "honor killings".

The Kurds of Turkey and Iraq who practice honor killings are not Arabs, nor are the predominantly Pashtun peoples of Afghanistan who engage in the practice. If honor-killing is a survival of an Arab, pre-Islamic custom, then it has been exported to Kurdish peoples and those in Afghanistan and the Indian sub-continent, a "fellow-traveler" during the early (pre-Ottoman) historical spread of Islam. Therefore, I do not buy into the argument that honor-killings have nothing to do with Islam. They are a living part of its history. Adultery, according to Sharia principles, is punishable by death, and most honor-killings involve suspected adultery. Apostasy is also, according to some Islamic schools of thought, punishable by death.

The victims of honor killings are seen as "heretics" who flout traditional Islamic values, apostates from the true path. Instead of a family enduring public shame through an Islamic tribunal, it retains "honor" by showing that it can enact its own punishment in a poor mimicry of sharia, with such actions often supported by neighbors and friends.

In Arab communities, honor killing thrives. In Iran, during two months in 2003, there were 45 cases of honor killings. These took place in the southwestern province of Khuzestan, which is predominantly Arab. The Druze are Arab and have a secretive religion, which they consider to be Muslim, but most Muslims regard them as non-Muslim. In March this year, Druze beauty Doaa Fares was forced to withdraw from the "Miss Israel" pageant. She was threatened with being subjected to "honor killing" by two uncles and others from her village in Galilee. Doaa said: "My life is much more important than a contest, but it's very difficult for me to give up my dream."

In Israel last year, there were seven women killed in Muslim/Arab honor crimes. The Times states that their sins ranged "from having sex before marriage to being the victim of rape". One of these cases involved 26-year old Basel Abu-Dahal, who murdered his 24-year old sister Miriam in an honor killing in Ramle, 12 miles from Tel Aviv. He stabbed her 29 times in broad daylight in a parking lot, while two onlookers watched and did nothing. His action was captured on security cameras. Abu-Dahal claimed that Miriam was raising her daughter in an "improper" manner. He told police that he was "willing to do the time for the sake of honor".

In 2005 in Israel there were 15 recorded honor killings, with three of these taking place in the municipality of Ramle. Palestinians have engaged in savage honor killings, and with the rise of the Islamist group Hamas, there may be a rise in such murders. In April 2005, a young woman was killed for the "crime" of being with her fiance in the Gaza strip. Her killers were said to be Hamas' morality police, the Anti-Corruption Unit. 22-year old Yusra al-Azzami was in a car with her fiance, and was shot from a vehicle which contained five masked men. After Yusra was shot, her dead body was dragged from the car and beaten with iron bars. Later, the fiance and (her) sister were also beaten.

In the Palestinian territories, there has been an increase in honor killings. Last month a 40-page report was compiled by Ohaila Shomar of women's rights group SAWA. Until 2004, there were 10 to 12 murders of women each year in Palestinian territories. Over the past three years, there have been 48 murders of females aged from 12 to 85 years old. Of these cases, 32 have been honor killings. The Times states that last year, 17 Palestinian women were honor victims. 12 were killed in the Gaza Strip and 5 were killed in the West Bank.

The reasoning behind honor killings is alien to the Western mind. Though not recent, the case of Amira Abu Hanhan Qaoud, a mother of nine who killed her teenaged daughter Rofayda on January 27, 2002 shows a callousness that shocks. Rofayda had been raped by her two elder brothers in their shared bedroom in their Ramallah home. She became pregnant. On December 23, 2002, Rofayda gave birth to a baby boy at a women's shelter in Bethlehem. She returned to the family's three bedroom home in the suburb of Abu Qash. The family and village heads signed a promise that they would not harm the teenager. The two brothers were jailed.

Amira Qaoud did not keep her promise. She bought razor blades, and ordered her daughter to slash her own wrists. When Rofayda refused, her mother smothered her with a plastic bag, slashed the girl's wrists and hit her with a wooden stick. The killing took twenty minutes. Amira Qaoud said: "She killed me before I killed her. I had to protect my children. This is the only way I could protect my family's honor." Her nine year old daughter Fatima echoed her sentiments, saying: "My mother did this because she does not want us to be punished by people. I love my mother much more now than before."

In Palestinian territories, a murder is regarded as less serious if it is an honor killing, and thus honor killers receive from six to twelve months' jail. This stems from Jordanian legislation from 1960. Article 340 of the Jordanian Penal Code affirms that "he who discovers his wife or one of his female relatives committing adultery with another, and he kills, wounds or injures one or both of them, is exempt from any penalty... he who discovers his wife, or one of his female ascendants or descendants or sisters with another in an unlawful bed and he kills, wounds or injures one or both of them, benefits from a reduction of penalty." In addition to this, Article 98 of the Penal Code allows a reduced sentence if a perpetrator kills in a "fit of fury".

In 2000, a bill to repeal Article 340 was twice sent through parliament, but twice failed to become law. In both instances the Upper House approved the changes but the Lower House, the chamber of Deputies, refused to ratify the bills. The situation was repeated in 2003. Article 340 directly contradicts Section 6 of Jordan's constitution which guarantees equal treatment for both genders.

The majority of those killed on suspicion of adultery are innocent. Author Norma Khouri told the BBC: "Ninety percent of the cases that occur are based on just rumour and suspicion. So 90% of the women that are killed are still virgins at the time of death." Norma's friend Dalia had been stabbed 12 times by her father, for the "crime" of falling in love with a Christian man.

There are on average between 20 and 25 honor killings in Jordan every year. In 2003 the US State Department urged the Jordanian government to take action against honor killings, but the situation remains the same. There were between 15 and 20 women who were subjected to honor killings in Jordan last year. This was a reduction from previous years. In 2003 there were 17 such killings reported, and 22 in the preceding year. There has been more awareness of honor killings and domestic abuse over the past decade. The Jordan Times estimated that between 28 and 60 women had been killed in honor killings in 1994.

Jordanian journalist Rana Husseini, author of forthcoming book Murder in the Name of Honor, states that jail sentences for convicted honor killers in Jordan range between three months and two years.

In Lebanon between 1996 and 1998 there were 36 reported cases of honor killings. In the small communities where these took place, the killers were feted as heroes. In Syria, as in Jordan, honor killings are given legal sanction. Article 548 of the Syrian Legal Code states: "1: He who catches his wife, or one of his ascendents, descendents or sister committing adultery (flagrante delicto) or illegitimate sex acts with another and he kills or injures one of both of them benefits from an exemption of penalty. 2: He who catches his wife, or one of his ascendents, descendents or sister in a suspicious state (attitude equivoce) with another and he kills or injures one of both of them benefits from an exemption of penalty."

In January this year in Syria, there were two killings of 16-year old girls within two days. On January 21, a girl called Sheren was killed by her brother when six months' pregnant. The following day, Zahra Ezzo was murdered. Her brother admitted the murder, and said his family had chosen him to carry out the "honor" killing. Syria's Grand Mufti, Ahmad Hassoun, condemned her killing, and called for legal reform. As many as 200 to 300 honor killings are thought by some to annually occur in Syria.

In Yemen, the law makes allowances for honor killings. Article 232 of the Yemeni Penal Code rules that: "if a man kills his wife or her alleged lover in the act of committing adultery or attacking them causing disability, he may be fined or sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year." Mohammed Ba Obaid of Sana'a University stated that in 1997 there were 400 cases of women killed for "honor".

Morocco too sanctions honor killings in its penal code. Article 418 states: "Murder, injury and beating are excusable if they are committed by a husband on his wife as well as the accomplice at the moment in which he surprises them in the act of adultery." Here, as in Yemen, a principle of Islamic law, where the death penalty is traditionally invoked for adultery, is misapplied. Sharia law stipulates that four Muslim men (a woman's testimony has half the value of a man) must witness an act of zina (illegal intercourse) for the death penalty to be carried out.

In the mainly Arabic north of Sudan, honor killings are said to be widespread. In the Nuba regions, where Muslims live alongside animist groups, honor killings occur. In Saudi Arabia there are only rumors of honor killings. In a culture which denies a free press and women's rights, such information is scant. However, one famous execution, that of 19-year old Princess Misha'al bint Fahd al Saud in 1977, was an honor killing. The princess was Islamically married to a "commoner". Her grandfather, Prince Muhammad bin Abdul Aziz, was outraged by the union, and ordered that Misha'al and her husband should be publicly executed.

In Egypt, a UN report by Fatma Khafagy of the Cairo-based Association of Legal Aid for Women was produced in 2005. It states that in 1995, out of a total of 819 slayings, 52 of these were honor killings. In 2003, a report by a women's rights group claimed that 42% of domestic violence cases involved "honor crimes". Article 17 of Egypt's Penal Code allows judges to decrease sentences in murder cases if they decide that the murder's condition merits it. As a result, a sentence can be as little as six months' duration. In Article 277 of the Penal Code, a man can only commit adultery within his marital home. A woman is adulterous within or outside of the home, and need not be caught "in the act" for a husband to use the defense of inflamed emotions.

Fatma Khafagy states: "Egyptian films represent honour killing as part of highly valued and well respected tradition. Family honour is shown as dependent on the sexual conformity of its female family members. With the strong wave of conservatism in Egypt, strong criticism of the practice of honour killing by activists is rejected by many. They consider activists who condemn the practice as deviants from the religious principles and from good traditions and that they are only attempting to adopt a western agenda that does not respect family's honour and that permit females to practice premarital and extra marital relationships."

Between 1998 and 2001, women's rights group CEWLA collected press clippings of honor killings. In only 9% of these instances was there actual adultery. 79% of such killings happened because adultery was only suspected, and 6% of cases happened to cover up cases of incest.

Over the past decade, Europe has seen a wave of honor killings within its immigrant communities. There have so far only been a few cases in the United States. It will only be a matter of time before the numbers increase. In Canada, honor killings are more common. There has been one Sikh honor killing in Vancouver. There have also been Muslim honor killings. In Toronto in 1999, a Pakistani Muslim murdered his five-year old daughter to save his "honor". Muhammad Arsal Khan said in court in 2004 that the girl, offspring of his first wife's adultery, was "that useless child," a "bastard offspring" and a "child of a dog."

The Vancouver Sun recently gave brief descriptions of three Canadian honor killing cases: "A 14-year-old female rape victim is strangled to death in March 2004 by her father and brother because she has supposedly tarnished the family name. In April 2004, a man brutally kills his wife and daughter after finding out that his brother had previously molested them. A teenage girl with a Turkish background has her throat cut by her father after he learns she has a Christian boyfriend."

Last month, a devout Muslim of Moroccan origins stood trial for killing his 38-year old elder brother in an honor killing. Najib Bellari stabbed his brother El-Mehdi at the Montreal restaurant where El-Mehdi worked as a dishwasher, on October 24, 2005. Najib Bellari thought his brother was a bad Muslim and said: "He was a believer in Satan."

If the United States allows mass concentrations of Muslim immigrants in its cities without encouraging them to think and act as Americans, the likelihood of honor killings will increase. In Europe, vast ghettoes have been created in major cities, where little integration or assimilation takes place. In these ghettoes, the traditions of the immigrants' homelands take precedence over the traditions of the host country. If immigrants are to be become truly American, they must be encouraged to respect American values. Honor killings exist in the West precisely because their practitioners have no respect for Western values, such as personal liberty and the equality of women.

For more information on honor killings, please visit the website Stop Honor Killings.

Adrian Morgan

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at 1:45 PM | Comments (1)

June 25, 2007

Mutilation And Killing For Muslim "Honor" - Part 2 of 3

This article by Adrian Morgan (Giraldus Cambrensis of Western Resistance) appeared earlier today in Family Security Matters and is reproduced with their permission.

Mutilation And Killing For Muslim "Honor"

In Three Parts

Part Two: A Family Affair

In Part One, a few British honor killing cases were described. The phenomenon of killing for "honor" has become a problem wherever large concentrations of migrant Muslims have settled in ghettoes within Western cultures. Families choose to live in the West, but insist on following narrow cultural traditions. Their children are trapped between two cultures.

In Germany, there is a community of 3 million Muslims, most of whom are migrant workers from Turkey. In Berlin, there are 200,000 Turks living in run down suburbs. Hatun Surucu was a young woman of Turkish Kurdish origins. On February 7, 2005, when she was aged 23, Hatun was waiting at a bus stop in the Tempelhof district of Berlin. Her 18-year old brother Ayhan approached her and shot her three times in the head. Hatun's death was certainly not the first case of honor killing in Germany, but the media was shocked by the reactions of her family and members of the local community.

At a nearby school, filled with children of immigrant families, 14-year old Turkish boys applauded Hatun's killing. One boy said: "She only had herself to blame". Another argued: "She deserved what she got. The whore lived like a German". The media would have sidelined Hatun's case, were it not for the school's director, who sent letters to parents, and copied these to other teachers across Germany. TV and newspapers expressed the public shock. For the first time, the issue of honor killing was being discussed throughout the nation.

Hatun's murder was the sixth honor killing to have happened in Berlin within four months. Two of the women victims had been stabbed in front of their small children, one was shot, another strangled, and the other had been drowned. A Turkish women's group called Papatya noted at the time of Hatun's death that 40 honor killings had taken place in Germany since 1996.

Three of Hatun's five brothers were charged with her murder. Ayhan, the eighteen-year old who fired the shots, had bragged of his deed to his girlfriend. Two older brothers, Mutlu aged 25 and 24-year old Alpaslan, were suspected of providing the gun that killed Hatun. With media interest leading up to the trial, the details of Hatun's life emerged. In 1998 when she was only 15, she had been sent to Turkey by the family to marry a cousin. She left him and returned to Berlin in May 1999, pregnant. She gave birth to a son called Can and left the family apartment. She refused to wear the hijab or Muslim headscarf, and raised Can on her own. Hatun took up a course to train to be an electrician. She was nearing completion of her training when she was killed.

On April 13, 2006, Ayhan Surucu was sentenced to nine years and three months' imprisonment for Hatun's murder. When Judge Michael Degrief read out the sentence, the young man laughed. The court could not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the two other accused brothers were guilty, and they were freed. The other members of the family cheered. Within days, they announced they were to hold a party. Five members of the family were photographed walking through a park in Kreuzberg with smiles on their faces. Hatun's sister, who was close to the family, announced her intentions to legally adopt Hatun's child.

In Denmark, there have been nine known honor killings. One of these captured media interest because it had taken place in broad daylight, and had been captured on camera. 18-year old Ghazala Khan came from an immigrant Pakistani family. On September 23, 2005, she was with her 27-year old Afghan husband Emal Khan outside Slaglese train station in Westen Zealand. Because she had married someone not of the family choosing, Ghazala was thought to have offended her family's "honor". The marriage had taken place only two days before. They were intending to flee by train.

Ghazala's 29-year old brother Akthar Abbas was in hiding near the station, armed with a loaded gun. He shot his sister twice through the heart, killing her. He also shot her husband twice in the stomach. Emal Khan survived, and would later give evidence at the trial, which commenced on May 15, 2006. What was unusual about this murder trial is that although one person had carried out the shooting, five other members of the family and three family friends within the Pakistani community were also placed on trial.

During the trial, Akthar Abbas claimed that he had only murdered in "self defense" because Emal Khan had kicked him. On June 27, the nine members of the family entourage were found guilty, and the following day their sentences were set.

Ghulam Abbas, Ghazala's father, was found guilty of incitement to murder and plotting the murder. Akthar Abbas was found guilty of murder. The pair were given life sentences, commuted to 16 years' jail. Two uncles received 16 years' jail. An aunt, who had helped to lure Ghazala to the station, and a cousin were both jailed for 14 years. As these were still not full Danish citizens and still had Pakistani nationality, the court ordered that the aunt and cousin should be expelled after serving their jail terms. Three other individuals, whose involvement had mainly been confined to telephone liaisons, were given sentences from eight to ten years.

In other European countries where Muslim immigration has taken place at an alarming rate, honor killings occur. The Netherlands has a population of 16 million, with a million of these being Muslim. In the Netherlands at least 20 such killings have happened, mainly amongst Turkish Muslims. In 2000the Netherlands introduced a draft proposal on honor killings to the UN General Assembly to spur action against such crimes. In 2005 the Dutch Cabinet decided to crack down on such killings.

In Sweden on January 21, 2002 Fadime Sahindal, a 26 year old woman of Turkish Kurdish origins, was shot in the head by her father, Rahmi Sahindal. Fadime had been preparing to make a visit to Kenya. She was killed in front of her mother and sisters after she had had said goodbye to them.

For four years Rahmi and other men in the family had threatened to kill Fadime. She had "dishonored" the family by starting a relationship with Patrik, a Swedish boy, in 1996. Her father had beaten up the couple, and disowned her. Patrik's parents had tried to get Fadime's father to allow them to marry, but he refused. When they moved to another town, Fadime''s brother Masud beat her up. Her father spat in her face, saying: "Bloody whore. I will beat you to pieces." In May 1998 her father and 17-year old brother were found guilty of threatening behavior after she had taken them to court for their threats of "rape, murder and partition".

In June 1998, Patrik died in a mysterious car crash, and after that Fadime became a public spokeswoman on honor crime. Her father continued to threaten her. When he was in court in 2002, charged with Fadime's killing, he confessed to the murder. He said his daughter was a "whore" and claimed he had to kill her for family "honor". After Fadime's death, several thousand Swedes held torchlight vigils, and the integration minister praised her as a "fantastic woman and a model for young women."

In November 2005 in Högsby, southern Sweden, a family of Afghan immigrants was suspected of murdering another Afghan, 20-year old Abbas Rezai. This young man was said to have been secretly engaged to the family's 16-year old daughter. Rezai had been beaten with an iron bar and a baseball bat, doused in hot oil, and stabbed 23 times. On April 26, 2006 the girl's brother was found guilty and sentenced to only four years' jail. He had been 17 at the time of the killing. The prosecution had wanted the killer's parents to get life sentences, but it appears only the brother was found guilty.

In Italy in 2006, Hina Saleem, a Pakistani woman had her throat slit and she was buried in the garden of her family's home in Sarezzo. There are 40,000 Pakistanis living in Italy. Hina's father, who had only applied for citizenship two months previously, was arrested, along with his brother. Hina's crime had been to have a relationship with a 33-year old Italian carpenter. Hina had registered police complaints about her father's violence before she was killed, but withdrew the charges. She would wear Western clothes away from the home, but around her father she would wear the hijab or Muslim headscarf. Hina's mother had protected Hina from some of her father's attacks, but she had herself fled back to Pakistan before the murder took place.

Home Sweet Home

In the countries where perpetrators of such "honor killings" originally came from, the custom of "honor" killing is rife. Turkey, particularly in the southeastern Kurdish regions, has a culture where honor killings were common. Under Turkey's penal code, a legitimate defense for such a killer was to claim "honor killing" and receive a reduced sentence. When Turkey moved to make itself ready to join the European Union, such a defense was removed in 2004. During that year, there were 47 recorded honor killings in Turkey. In October 2005, a poll carried out in the south-eastern (Kurdish) city of Diyarbakir found that nearly 40% of people questioned thought that a woman who committed adultery should be killed. 21% thought that an adulterous woman should have her nose or ears cut off.

As a result of longer jail terms for perpetrators of Turkish "honor" killers, a disturbing phenomenon began. At the start of 2006, an increasing amount of girls and young women in the east of Turkey started to commit suicide. In many cases, they were pressured to do this by relatives who wished to maintain family "honor". Yakin Erturk, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women, traveled to the region in May to June, and claimed: "The majority of women in the provinces visited live lives that are not their own but are instead determined by a patriarchal normative order that draws its strength from reference to tradition, culture and tribal affiliation and often articulates itself on the basis of distorted notions of honour... Diverse forms of violence are deliberately used against women who are seen to transgress this order. Suicides of women in the region occur within such a context."

In Afghanistan, honor killings have been increasing in numbers, to the high level they were at during the time of the Taliban. A report from September 2006 claimed that from January to September there had been 185 honor killings. In 2005 there had been only 47 confirmed cases.

Soraya Sobrang, head of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) said: "Unfortunately, many women and girls continue to lose their lives due to this [honour killing] brutal crime. Sadly, it's totally ingrained in [Afghan] culture, particularly in rural areas of the country." On Radio Free Europe, Sobrang said: "I can tell you that they happen all over Afghanistan. Most of them get buried within the family, and no one is ever informed about them. But today, some cases are made public and are disseminated - so we are able to get some figures. They take places in faraway villages in rural areas."

In Pakistan, the situation is dire. In 2006, the Pakistan Human Rights Commission (HCRP) claimed that about 1,000 women are killed every year in "honor" killings. In January 2005, honor killing was officially made illegal. However, a clause in the law called "compoundability" allowed a killer to walk free if relatives accepted "blood money", in alignment with Islamic law. As most "honor" killers are themselves the relatives, it easy for those who schemed to have someone killed for "honor" to be compensated, and for killers to escape punishment. I. A. Rehman, director of the HRCP, said: "The element of compoundability makes the law a joke."

In April 2006 in Dir, which lies near the border of Afghanistan, a jirga or "council of elders" convened in one village, with 4,000 people attending. This council declared honor killing to be permissible, and ordered that anyone who reported such an act to the police should be killed.

Along with the tragic stories of honor killings, many of which are never reported, are also found tales of "honor mutilations". In November 2005 in Punjab province in the east of Pakistan, Shamin Mai was attacked by six individuals, including her uncle Bilal and her brother Bashir. Shamin Mai had committed no crime other than to engage in a marriage contract, on her own initiative. As a result, she had both her legs hacked off.

In May 2006, a young woman was mutilated by her husband and his brother in Dera Ghazi Khan district, Punjab province. Eisa Khan Khosa married his 18-year old wife Ayesha only a month and a half before. Khan suspected his new bride was having an affair with her cousin. They argued, and Ayesha went to live at her brother's home. On May 20, with his brother, Khan visited the house and persuaded Ayesha to come back. She agreed.

On the way back to the family home, Khan and his brother cut off Ayesha's nose and her lips, and abandoned her. Ayesha was taken to the Dera Ghazi Khan district hospital, and her husband and brother-in-law were arrested. The young woman was taken to hospital. In addition to mutlilating her face, her husband had also tried to cut her arms. The two men were in custody, but Ayesha said: "They are powerful people with money, and will get out on bail."

Another form of "honor mutilation" which has become increasingly common in recent years is "acid attack". Pakistan's Human Rights Commission states that every year in Pakistan, 400 women are subjected to acid attacks. In Bangladesh in 2005, there were 268 incidents of acid attacks, mainly upon women, according to the Acid Survivors Foundation. The scale of such attacks may be higher. The victims of such attacks are permanently disfigured. Their chances of finding a partner are taken away, and often they are blinded.

Zahida Perveen was one Pakistani victim of a razor attack. The assault blinded her, and also her ears and nose were sliced off. She had been tied up by her husband as he attacked her. He suspected that Zahida had been involved in a relationship with his brother. She said: "He came home from the mosque and accused me of having a bad character. I told him it was not true, but he didn't believe me. He caught me and tied me up, and then he started cutting my face. He never said a word except 'This is your last night'."

There are many Muslims who claim that honor violence and honor killings have nothing to do with Islam, and it is only a "cultural" tradition. As Islam aims to be a guide for all aspects of life, the predominance of honor killings in Muslim countries and societies gives the lie to such claims. In Part Three I will show that in the Middle East, the heartland of Islam, the custom of honor killings is also endemic in local "culture".

Adrian Morgan

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at 3:06 PM | Comments (0)

Jihadists In Switzerland

From Switzerland

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199906002&subSection=News

A husband and wife charged with running Web sites that supported terrorists by providing them information on how to make bombs went on trial in Switzerland Wednesday.

Moez Garsallaoui, a 39-year-old Tunisian based near Fribourg, in western Switzerland, and first detained in February 2005, is accused of running Internet discussion forums used by terror groups to share information and to publicize claims of responsibility for attacks and threats against Westerners. Swiss prosecutors demanded two years of prison for Garsallaoui, six months of which would be suspended.

Malika El Aroud, a 48-year-old Belgian-born widow of an al-Qaeda suicide bomber and Garsallaoui's wife, stands accused of operating an Islamist Web site. The widow of one of the suicide attackers who killed the anti-Taliban Afghan warlord Ahmed Shah Massoud two days before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, El Aroud is facing a 12-month suspended prison sentence.

Both Garsallaoui and El Aroud this week pleaded innocent to the charges against them

The article went on to inform that in a previous case, which like this one has little or no precedents, the defendants were cleared of "belonging to and supporting al-Qaeda". This is like saying a seller on e-bay has no interests in capitalism and commerce. In 2005, David Witzthum, then editor-in-chief of Israel Television, commented that the "...media is itself a weapon of the conflict - used by governments, rebels or terrorists alike, to achieve their goal - which is to show the effects of terror and violence. Their conviction is that the actual effect of terror is its representation in the media, without which its value and effect as weapon is meaningless and limited." The ultimate intent of the Internet is to disseminate information, raw or refined. It was originally academia's tool in the United States, funded by the Department of Defense starting in the late 1950s, for research purposes and the need for a "survivable communincations" system during and in the aftermath of a nuclear war. After the Internet, as a concept and as a tool, became available to the general public, most of the content rapidly became entertainment and commerce oriented. Few were and still much less are about social, political and religious issues. But aside from entertainment and commerce, influential cyberspace law professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford Law School remarked about the Internet, particularly of the American perspective: "We have exported to the world, through the architecture of the Internet, a First Amendment in code more extreme than our own First Amendment in law."

The First Amendment "in law" enable and protect diverse viewpoints and opinions, even those that we find disagreeable. Only in extreme circumstances, such as credible physical threats, would we believe it is acceptable to control or even suppress anyone's right to expression. Long ago, anyone with an alternate viewpoint and who wish to express himself would have to stand on a "soapbox" in the village square. Then came mass printing, radio and television. The architectures of these methods not only allowed diverse opinions to be more easily and quickly presented, but also encouraged people hungry for diversity to seek and reach out for what they finally found. However, one can only stand and speak loudly on the "soapbox" for so long and the target audience is uncertain. With radio and television, one would still have find from among limited choices of enablers sufficient sympathy and access time to express one's opinions, often for a fee. People tired of "The Big Three": ABC, NBC and CBS, compelled the creation alternative sources of entertainment and news. Thus cable television was borned. Then came the Internet, with the technology and the architecture seemingly favored slightly the seekers over the sources, the symbiotic relationship became even more beneficial for both sides. The information hungry public no longer need to schedule a time for a walk to the proverbial village square or the local book dealer just for a chance of seeing something interesting. Now we certainly can find many interesting viewpoints and opinions about any subject matter at any hour of the day, not just from someone in the neighborhood, but even as far as from the other side of the world, usually for free. The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1997 with Reno v. ACLU, opined that the Internet endowed "...a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox."

This is not new to the jihadists...

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies - civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God.

The above religious edict, a fatwah issued by Osama bin Laden, was presented to 1.5 billion muslims on the World Islamic Front website back in 1998. We can safely assume that this sentiment is common among al-Qaeda's followers. Certainly not every muslim will be able to read this fatwah and certainly for among those who read it there must have been strong disgreements about the content and the religious legitimacy of the fatwah's issuer. After all, bin Laden is known more as an agitator and at least for the Americans, a terrorist, and not as a credible Islamic scholar, called a ulema, of any degree by the Muslim community. But the lack of any religious legitimacy conferred by some religious institution upon bin Laden did not stop 19 like minded men to sacrifice their lives in a "martyrdom" operation against the United States on September 11, 2001. Three years before bin Laden issued his fatwah, on November 13, 1995 in Saudi Arabia, four Saudi muslims with no admitted direct association to any religious extremist groups, attacked a U.S. military facility in Ridyadh using explosives, killing seven Americans and wounding scores. Later, three different groups, no al-Qaeda, claimed responsibility for the car bombing. For bin Laden and al-Qaeda's followers, the fatwah is effectively a formal declaration of war, not just any ordinary war, but a religious war. No distinctions between combatants and noncombatants were allowed in that ruling. The result is over 3,000 American "combatants" died. Since then, al-Qaeda as an organization have been militarily defeated and ousted from its santuary in Afghanistan. But also since then, the 19 muslim men have been eulogized and memorialized as honored soldiers for Allah on too many to count muslim websites. Their deeds are readily and quickly available for the world's estimated 1.5 billion muslims to see, should any of them have access to a computer and the Internet.

The InformationWeek news article may have looked chiefly on the legal problems and conflicts between an accessiblity provider and its customer but it cannot hide the greater implication that this is no longer about al-Qaeda but about the ism of al-Qaeda. David Witzthum warned us that the jihadists considers the Internet a weapon and uses it against the West and this news article bears him out. Like the four Saudis that attacked a U.S. base in Ridyadh this couple claimed to have no direct ties to any terrorist groups. The question is that with the ism of al-Qaeda in their hearts and souls, does it really matter of any official links to any official terrorist groups? Legally, yes and it must remain so if we are to continue as a society of laws. But behind legalities it is about time we admit to ourselves that the acquisition and acceptance of a group's ism, and not necessarily club membership, is precisely what Osama bin Laden himself and other "bin Ladens" of the Islamic community really want. The muslim who brazenly in broad daylight murdered Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh is imprisoned but the ism that motivated the murder is still being circulated among the muslim community in Holland. Let the state focus on the formal legalities of how to convict criminals while we turn our attention on the informal social factors and long term impact jihadist movements will create among us.

Group dynamics tells us that in joining a group, be it in joining The Boy Scouts or emigrating to another country, an individual usually seeks to function productively within a society. We should rightly give the benefit of the doubt about otherwise motives. Once admitted, the individual should and would learn to internalize a group's ethics and social boundaries. In doing so, the individual should accept that certain beliefs, practices and actions may not be appropriate and should be willing to concessions. This is a vital part of assimilation. So which should the Swiss, the people and not the state, should focus their attention: the legalities that this couple is not a club member of any terrorist organization, or their sympathies for the ism of al-Qaeda, which calls for the subjugation of the entire world, by force if necessary, under a 7th century Islamic ethics?

Group dynamics also tells us that political structures are about political power and the lack thereof in some subgroups. It is an inevitability that when a political power exist, a countervailing force will be created. Someone will always challenge the status quo about some issue, minor or major. There are dentists who disputes the American Dental Association's prevalent view on the flouridation of a city's drinking water. Some oppositions will tend towards violence, such as anti abortionists who have no reservations about killing doctors who performs abortions. But overall, our many functional democracies have largely succeeded in being tolerant of the diverse viewpoints and opinions of many subgroups. It is also a credit to ourselves that the large majority of subgroups have succeeded in internalizing the ethos of discussions and compromises and of peaceful persuasions instead of forceful coercions while remaining productive members of the greater society.

The ism of al-Qaeda and assorted militant Islamic jihadist groups is blatantly anti democratic, not merely undemocratic for it is possible that a certain political practice or procedure or figure that are labelled so can be changed or eliminated. Being undemocratic is usually temporary. Being anti democratic is about wholesale rejection of everything that constitute the accepted norms of the democratic processes, ethics and culture. It is blatantly misogynistic and we have been living on this planet long enough with mysogyny politically and socially institutionalized in varying degrees in the entire Middle East. It is scientifically regressive as it requires the tenets of science be submissive and unconditionally supportive of the Quran instead of being objective. The muslim world have not produced anything of scientific innovative worth in over a thousand years. Strange for a society that claim to possess a book of scientific knowledge that so much of modern science is supposedly confirming daily, anything from embryology to wireless communication.

The true test of a functional democratic society is the willingness and ability to tolerate diversity among its members, but is it obvious that such tolerance automatically imply that tolerance is a two-way street? So what should this functional democracy do when faced with a group whose viewpoints and opinions calls for the total destruction of that democratic society? Is the West unable to discern what is beneficial and what is not for ourselves? For this question, of course we are able to make such distinctions. But are we willing to do so? The dentists who are at odds with the ADA are not calling for the disbandment of that organization. The anti abortionists who advocate killing abortionists are not calling for the abolition of the medical profession. For the former, we leave them to the judgement of sound science and that is what they want anyway. For the latter, we let the law and the police at the local level do their jobs. But what are we willing to do when we see the Internet being used by sophisticated jihadists like the couple in this InformationWeek news article in propagating the ism of al-Qaeda?

If the law failed in its attempt to convict these jihadists, that failure does not absolve the Swiss in particular and the rest of the West in general, the responsibility of defending ourselves at the ideological level. The Internet is the West's creation. Our creation. We are no less sophisticated than the jihadists in its employment in any causes. Exposing Islamism should be one cause, making comparisons between the oppressiveness of Islamic societies and the respects for human rights and freedoms in ours another. Open criticism, the foundational freedom of the West, of sacred cows in and of Islam, should be encouraged, after all, the freedoms our women enjoys and would fight tooth and nails to protect, gives Islamists religious justifications in calling them "whores" and "uncovered meat". The American Catholic Church was shaken to the core because of sexual scandals and financial levies from legal judgements. Political corrrectness was not a factor then so why should it matter regarding Islam? It should not. Islam must be criticized and Islamism should be exposed. The Internet can be just as much a weapon for us as it is for the jihadists.

Posted by Xingzhe at 4:29 AM | Comments (0)

June 22, 2007

Mutilation And Killing For Muslim "Honor": Part One (of 3)

This article by Adrian Morgan (Giraldus Cambrensis of Western Resistance) appeared earlier today in Family Security Matters and is reproduced with their permission.

Mutilation And Killing For Muslim "Honor"

In Three Parts

Part One: The Other Side Of Multiculturalism

Banaz Mahmod Babakir Agha was a beautiful young woman whose family had migrated to Britain in 1998 from the Kurdish region of Iraq. Banaz, aged 20, lived in Mitcham, south London. On Monday, June 11, 2007 her father and her uncle were found guilty of killing her. Her father had ordered the killing, and his brother had carried it out. A shoelace was tied around Banaz's neck, strangling her. Her decomposing body was found in Handsworth, Birmingham, 70 miles away, on April 27 last year, three months after she had "disappeared".

Another man, Mohammed Marif Hama, who was not a relative but belonged to the Iraqi Kurdish community, pleaded guilty to murder on March 9 this year. Another member of the Iraqi Kurdish community, Pshtewan Hama, pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice. The reason for Banaz being killed was because she had a boyfriend, 28-year old Rahmat Suleimi, a Kurd from Iran.

After Banaz's father and uncle pleaded guilty, he said: "She was my present, my future, my hope. She was the best thing that had ever happened to me. I couldn't ask for anything better than that. Banaz was the nicest and the sweetest person I have ever come across. She had the best personality. If you met Banaz once you would never forget about her. After I met Banaz she just changed me and I became a completely different person. She hated to argue with anyone, she hated to see anyone suffering from anything. She just wanted to help anyone. She wanted to be a happy person. She wanted to see everyone be happy."

He said of honor killings: "I just hope that one day this is going to stop and there is going to be a way out for people. I know it is too late for me and Banaz. If there's anyone out there in the same situation, do something about it before it's too late. Once it's too late, it's too late - you will never get your life back."

The convictions last week were the latest in a series of Muslim honor killings in Britain. Banaz and her boyfriend had been repeatedly threatened. Just three days before she officially "vanished", a group of men Kurdish men had tried to abduct Rahmat Suleimi in a car. Even though British police did not take Banaz's appeals seriously while she was alive, her death spurred a massive police inquiry. There were 47 searches of houses, 22 arrests, 779 statements were taken. Sixteen people were bailed to reappear before police. It is thought that several people who had been involved in the plot to kill the young woman had left the country.

In the Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq, where Banaz's family had come from, the regional prime minister promised a hard line against such killings this week. Neghervan Barzani said: "recently there have been horrendous crimes commited against women in some areas of Kurdistan. While we condemn these crimes, we also rebuke the government ministers and other bodies for not having applied suitable solutions to prevent such episodes reoccurring."

Barzani recommended that honor killing, classed in the penal code as a separate offense to murder, should be reclassified as "murder". Honor killing is viewed as a "justifiable homicide" and in many Muslim societies, it is not viewed as seriously as murder.

Over the past decade in Britain, there have been at least 25 confirmed honor killings in the Muslim community, but this is only the tip of an iceberg. The police have acknowledged shortcomings in their approach to Banaz's pleas for help, and this summer, the Association of Chief Police Officers is planning to launch an action plan on "honor violence".

After the conviction of Banaz' uncle and father, Diana Nammi of the London-based Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organization said of honor crimes: "We're seeing an increase around the world, due in part to the rise in Islamic fundamentalism."

In 2000, the United Nations announced that every year, 5,000 girls and women were killed in "honor crimes", though that figure may be a low estimate.

In the politically correct climate of Britain where 1.8 million Muslims live, the issue of honor killing has never been addressed seriously. Since the 1960s, communities of Muslims have evolved in Britain's inner cities, where integration and assimilation have not happened. Instead of attempting to integrate Muslim communities within the greater fabric of a British society, politicians have praised the values of multiculturalism. And in Britain's ghetto communities, separatism and segregation are the chosen aims of many. Arranged marriages are still the norm, particularly amongst Britain's Muslims of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origins. Such unions constantly import more people, who have little experience of Britain, who automatically become citizens of an increasingly segregated nation.

Honor killing is one aspect of Muslim society that perpetuates traditional customs which flourish in Kurdish Iraq, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Most honor killings and acts of "honor violence" happen in Britain because a young woman (or man) has chosen to embark upon a relationship not sanctioned by their parents or peers. Sometimes merely becoming "too Western" is used as an excuse to kill. During the trial of her killers, it was stated that the family thought one of the "crimes" of Banaz Mahmod Babakir Agha was to be "too Westernized".

Take the case of 49-year old Mohammed Riaz's family, who lived in Accrington, Lancashire, in the north of England. Riaz objected to the way his wife Caneze was bringing up their four daughters, Sayrah (16), Sophia (15), Alicia (10) and Hannah (3). An inquest hearing in February this year heard that friends and relatives claimed that the father was a "conservative" Muslim. He had planned for his children to undergo arranged marriages, but Caneze would not allow this. When the girls had been bought Western style clothing, Mohammed Riaz burned the garments.

On November 1 last year, while his wife and daughters slept, Riaz poured gasoline outside their bedrooms, across the hallway and down the stairs. He then set it alight. His wife and daughters were killed in the conflagration, yet Riaz was pulled out alive. He died two days later of 65% burns. Tragically, the only member of the family to survive was the son, 17-year old Adam. He was not in the house at the time as he was in hospital in Manchester, battling Ewings Sarcoma, a type of leukemia. Five weeks after his family had burned to death, Adam died.

Another young woman who was murdered for being too "Westernized" was Heshu Yones. Like the family of Banaz Mahmod Babakir Agha, Heshu's family had arrived in Britain to escape the persecutions of Saddam Hussein in Kurdish Iraq. Heshu had become used to Western freedoms, and had developed a relationship with a Lebanese Christian man. On October 12, 2002, when she was only 16, Heshu's father murdered her in their home in Acton, west London. 47-year old Abdalla Yones chased her from room to room, stabbing her eleven times. The last blow was wielded with such ferocity that the tip of the blade broke off when it hit bone in her neck. Before this savage final blow had been dealt, Heshu had been held down over the bath and her throat was slit open. Heshu bled to death the bathroom floor, wedged between the bath and the toilet. When her body was discovered, the white handled knife was still sticking out of her thro