Italy: Muslim father kills children after his wife refuses to wear Islamic veil and threatens to leave

Italy: Muslim father kills children after his wife refuses to wear Islamic veil and threatens to leave...

It is there that Tuesday night, [Government officials] alerted by the wife, found in the bathroom the cadavers of two of the couple’s children, Ahmed, 8 years old, and Jiahane, 12 years old....
......................

Poor kids.

God, I hate Islam.

More:

Before attempting to commit suicide the Moroccan had traced with blood on the walls, inscriptions in Arabic that are barely legible.
......................

Well, this seems grimly appropriate—Islam is so often written in the blood of its victims. This is just a bit more literal than is usual...

More:

The investigators attempt to decipher and to translate the messages in hope of finding explanations to the double murder.
......................

I believe virtually every regular here at Jihad Watch could explain the motives to the Italian police.

He probably killed the children because he couldn't get at his wife at the time; he may also have killed them because he knew that if she *did* get away and achieve a divorce under *Italian* law, Italian law would probably give her custody of the children (sharia awards sole custody to the father).

And if she were indeed refusing to wear the veil, then he would see her as an apostate-in-the-making.

He may have told himself he was killing the children so as to 'save' them from apostasising along with their mother.

In non-Muslim societies, abusive, over-controlling males will kill their ex-wives/ ex-girlfriends and/ or the children, simply in order to exercise dominance.

In Islamic societies, behind the abusive over-controlling males -the individual bullies - is an entire *gestalt*, the Ummah or Mohammedan Mob, that *primes* men to behave like this, and that is itself, so to speak, an over-controlling Abuser or Bully writ large, that cannot endure to be defied and cannot bear the thought of any of its slaves getting away. The man is therefore acting not only as an *individual* thug/ Abuser, but as an Enforcer of the sharia, acting on behalf of the Ummah to punish a potential escapee/ rebel.

These sorts of stories tell us that the Islamic female Slave Rag - be it the faux-demure headscarf that deceptively mimicks a nun's wimple, or the full burqa that conceals even the eyes behind a gauze mesh - has got nothing to do with modesty as we interpret it.

It's rather more like a Swastika badge.

It signifies the Sharia order, and the woman's voluntary - or forced - investment in that Order.

As this classic article, which appeared first in MEMRI and then in the Jerusalem Post a few years ago, explains.

The author, N Maruani, discusses the work of a France-based disaffected Iranian - possibly an apostate - one Chahdortt Djavann.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=148041

Outlaw the hijab
N. Maruani
07/08/2009 20:54

The key passages:

'Djavann explains further: "The veil has never been innocent or innocuous.

**It has always signified the submission of women to men and the denial of legal rights to women in Islamic countries** {my emphasis - dda}."...

'ADDRESSING THE growing phenomenon of veiled women in Europe, Djavann points out its centrality to Islamist propaganda:

"The political, ideological and psychological impact of the veil goes far beyond its appearance... If this weren't the case, why would the Islamists make it their main focus?...

** It constitutes a constant call to order by Islamic law."** {my emphasis - dda}...

'Djavann stresses that Islam can exist without the veil, but the Islamist system cannot, because "the veil is the symbol, the flag and the keystone of the Islamic system."

I would argue that the distinction Djavann draws between 'Islam' and 'the Islamic system' is a distinction without a difference; what matters, though, here, is that Djavann does make it clear that the veil - *any* form of the Muslim 'veil', hijab, or Slave Rag - functions as a sign or symbol of 'the Islamic system'. In other words: the Sharia.

Djavann is all in favour of the French ban on the wearing of the hijabs (that is, *any* form of Muslim 'religious' head covering) in schools:

'Regarding the situation in schools, she writes:

"Those intellectuals who oppose expelling students from school because they are veiled, on the premise that this exclusion will only worsen their situation whereas school will teach them freedom [are mistaken]. **Allowing veil-wearing in schools will only encourage it in France.**
(my emphasis - dda; and although we may query Djavann's distinguishing of 'Muslims' from what she calls 'Islamists' [the active sharia-pushers/ sharia-enforcers] I say a hearty 'hear, hear' to her support of the French veil ban, and I think that many other non-Muslim nations would do well to emulate the French ban on the Slave Rag in schools. Of course, many of us would like to see a ban on Muslim immigration, and beyond that, the removal of most or all Muslims from non-Muslim lands; but in the meantime, while our societies work themselves up toward that final act of self-defence, getting some practice in saying NO to Muslims, by enacting and enforcing veil bans in schools - and for that matter, burqa bans in the public square, would be a very good idea).

"Allowing girls to wear the veil at school places those teens living in [immigrant] suburbs under the yoke of Islamic dogma, and makes it even more difficult for them to attain emancipation. Some of them have already been called whores because they refused to wear the veil."

It is an enormously significant thing, for an ordinary Muslim woman to take off the veil. There are those, like Huma Abedin, who will take off the veil in order to *conceal* - and further - a jihad agenda; but more often than not, the removal of the veil does signify a movement away from the Ummah, an opening toward the non-Islamic ideas and world that may be the first step toward full-on apostasy. *Muslims* seem to interpret it that way - given that women and girls have been *killed* for refusing to wear the headscarfl (Aqsa Parvez was one such).

Typical Islamic behaviour: if you can't get the "culprit", kill someone else... anyone, just KILL.

http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/02/taliban-bank-shooting.html

The following are not subject to retaliation....... A father or a mother ( or their father and mothers ) for killing their offspring or their offspring's offspring
Reliance of the traveller: classic manual of islamic sacred law ( o.1. 1-2)

"SAVAGES" an apt description.