| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihadists kill 40 women for "un-Islamic behavior." Don't be concerned, however. This AP story is full of assurances that it is actually the killers who are behaving in an un-Islamic fashion. Now if only some Muslims could convince the killers of that. "Vigilantes kill 40 women in Iraq's south," by Sinan Salaheddin for Associated Press (thanks to Pamela):
BAGHDAD - Religious vigilantes have killed at least 40 women this year in the southern Iraqi city of Basra because of how they dressed, their mutilated bodies found with notes warning against "violating Islamic teachings," the police chief said Sunday.Maj. Gen. Jalil Khalaf blamed sectarian groups that he said were trying to impose a strict interpretation of Islam....
"The women of Basra are being horrifically murdered and then dumped in the garbage with notes saying they were killed for un-Islamic behavior," Khalaf told The Associated Press. He said men with Western clothes or haircuts are also attacked in Basra, an oil-rich city some 30 miles from the Iranian border and 340 miles southeast of Baghdad.
"Those who are behind these atrocities are organized gangs who work under cover of religion, pretending to spread the instructions of Islam, but they are far from this religion," Khalaf said.
Throughout Iraq, many women wear a headscarf and others wear a full face veil although secular women are often unveiled. Since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the rise of a Shiite-dominated government, armed men in some parts of the country have sometimes forced women to cover their heads or face punishment. In some areas of the heavily Shiite south, even Christian women have been forced to wear headscarves.
Before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, was known for its mixed population and night life. Now, in some areas, red graffiti threatens any woman who wears makeup and appears with her hair uncovered: "Your makeup and your decision to forgo the headscarf will bring you death."
Khalaf said bodies have been found in garbage dumps with bullet holes, decapitated or otherwise mutilated with a sheet of paper nearby saying, "she was killed for adultery," or "she was killed for violating Islamic teachings." In September, the headless bodies of a woman and her 6-year-old son were among those found, he said. A total of 40 deaths were reported this year.
"We believe the number of murdered women is much higher, as cases go unreported by their families who fear reprisal from extremists," he said.
Harith al-Ithari, who works in the Basra offices of the Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, said the conservative religious movement opposed the killings and blamed "gangs with foreign support to destabilize the city."
"There is a concrete religious principle that says that wearing makeup and forgoing the hijab (headscarf) in public is a sin," al-Ithari said. "But killing them is a sin bigger than this one."
Posted by Robert at December 10, 2007 7:54 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
"she was killed for violating Islamic teachings."
...and just why would you allow Islamic teachings in your country?...Ban Muslim Immigration...
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 10, 2007 8:04 AM
Gee, why would anyone violate the teachings of the religion of PEACE?
Posted by: DJM at December 10, 2007 8:08 AM
When U.S. forces, now acting more like a police force rather then an army, pack up and leave Bahgdad in the hands of a "free and independent" Iraq , we will read about 400 similar deaths instead of just 40. As I recall the U.K. forces were in Basra keeping the peace and after time reduced their presence significantly.
A free and independent Iraq seems to mean a place where the Taliban, or vigilante Mutaween or Basij police, will freely and independently enforce the laws of Iraq as enshrined in the Iraq constitution which places Islamic sharia law above all other laws.
"Maj. Gen. Jalil Khalaf blamed sectarian groups that he said were trying to impose a strict interpretation of Islam...."
The vigilantes are simply doing the job that such "law enforcement" officers such as Khalaf fail to do. In fact, since sharia is the law of the land, Khalaf is guilty of malfeasance for his own slack enforcement. Does Khalaf have a legal basis to claim the vigilantes are wrong in their interpretation? The vigilantes methods are perhaps too strict ( but, there is no "due process" requirement in the sharia law) but their literal interpretation is correct. They have a legal basis to have Khalaf removed as chief law enforcement officer.
at December 10, 2007 9:05 AM
The jihadists continue to leave notes apealing to Islamic teachings as the justification for theyr killings BECAUSE THEY KNOW they are on a safe ground as long as they do that. More over, if any Muslim tries to stop them, will be tagged as "non-Muslim", and his killing would be "Allah's will".
So basically, Muslim terrorrists can't loose as long as they apeal to Islam.
Posted by: Crusader at December 10, 2007 9:22 AM
""Your makeup and your decision to forgo the headscarf will bring you death"
This is tragic, not to mention uncivilized and barbaric, but it has to be asked how a people can watch this kind of injustice going on around them for a lifetime, and still not see the root cause of it.
I wonder how many of these poor victims of Islamic tyranny watched others being victimized in their own families and communities without making a connection to their tyranical religion?
How can anyone help a people who don't show any inclination to help themselves?
And this is true of every Islamic country.
at December 10, 2007 9:28 AM
From the article
Khalaf said bodies have been found in garbage dumps with bullet holes, decapitated or otherwise mutilated with a sheet of paper nearby saying, "she was killed for adultery," or "she was killed for violating Islamic teachings."
They're checking their list
Checking it twice
Gonna find out
Who's naughty or nice
Ji-ha-dis are coming
To town
at December 10, 2007 10:03 AM
I demand to know why this story wasn't on the Today Show this morning instead of Oprah stumping for Obama.
Posted by: darcy at December 10, 2007 10:36 AM
I was raised in a community with various eastern Europeans, Italians and middle easterners. It was very common to see the older women, all Christians, wear babushkas.
I've wondered, only after reading about all the harassment of women by moslems here on JW, if they felt compelled to wear them while in their countries of birth due to fear of bodily harm and the habit continued with them when they emigrated.
Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at December 10, 2007 10:37 AM
Islam: the most peaceful deathcult around.
Posted by: profitsbeard at December 10, 2007 11:33 AM
More on this in a story from Reuters here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019036.php
Posted by: MarisolJW at December 10, 2007 1:14 PM
Murder merely for maquillage? Now the Basra Muslims, and their supporters, are really asking for trouble. For they are now offering a direct challenge to L'Oreal, and Estee Lauder, and all the other makers of unguents, and oils, and lipsticks, and cleaning creams and make-up removal goo (if there is no makeup to put on, there will be no need to remove it). Mighty economic interests are being challenged.
And that's not all. The models themselves, present and past, will also get mad at the Muslims murdering for maquillage. Christy Turlington. Elizabeth Hurley. Iman. And so many others, each more beautiful than the next.
And then it follows as the day the night that almost the entire adult male population of the Western world will put down the Victoria's Secret Christmas Catalogue they have all been thumbing through, and will rise up in frenzied, unassuagable fury. And it's about time.
Posted by: Hugh
at December 10, 2007 1:21 PM
Hugh said
almost the entire adult male population of the Western world will put down the Victoria's Secret Christmas Catalogue
I just read it for the articles.
Posted by: special_guest at December 10, 2007 1:45 PM
Brits pulling out of Basra
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071210/FOREIGN/112100025/1003
This is the great fear when the Iraqi's do not step to the plate.
These killers must be hunted down like wild dogs.
Posted by: paulc37 at December 10, 2007 1:46 PM
Now the Basra Muslims, and their supporters, are really asking for trouble. For they are now offering a direct challenge to L'Oreal, and Estee Lauder, and all the other makers of unguents, and oils, and lipsticks, and cleaning creams and make-up removal goo (if there is no makeup to put on, there will be no need to remove it). Mighty economic interests are being challenged.
Hugh-- you forgot one.
Posted by: MarisolJW at December 10, 2007 3:11 PM
This is terrible. Iraqis definitely need an independent judicial system fast.
But what really gets me is how many pundits love this stuff. Really. Can't get enough of it. A group of Islamic psychopaths is killing innocents in the name of Islam, proving once again that Islam is evil.
Our troops have unintentionally killed a lot of innocents in Iraq in the name of democracy. Iraqis who have seen the worst of it must say that democracy is evil, but are they right? No way. They don't know democracy, they're just blaming it for innocent deaths in a war being fought in its name.
Same goes for Islam. Are we justified in calling Islam evil? No way. We don't know it, just have a taste for the worst news that involves Muslims killing innocents in its name.
Posted by: dirk at December 10, 2007 3:22 PM
Not to derail the murder for maquillage commentary, definitely good stuff.
Posted by: dirk at December 10, 2007 3:28 PM
Gee thatb sounds like it is as bad as Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia
Posted by: john Ryan at December 10, 2007 3:41 PM
What would expect from the followers of the religion of peace.... love taps??
Posted by: callmeinfidel at December 10, 2007 5:20 PM
Some "liberation" Baby Bush brought women and Christians with his "he tried to kill my Dad" war.
Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at December 10, 2007 6:16 PM
What WOULD Coco Chanel have said?
Hugh mentioned 'L'Oreal, Estee Lauder' - Marisol mentioned Mary Kay. I can add Helena Rubinstein (cosmetics empire founded by a Jewish refugee lady in Australia).
The 'Body Shop' chain with its much-vaunted interest in human rights, freedom from cruelty, etc, should be leaping up and down and screaming about this - jihad mobsters MURDERING women merely for being seen in public with MAKE-UP and no headscarf. Not one, not two, or ten, but FORTY women. To paraphrase Goscinny and Uderzo's Obelix: "These Muslims are CRAZY".
Furthermore: every major womens magazine across the entire Infidel world should be plastering this horror story across their front covers. Marie Claire, Cosmo (Cosmopolitan), Australian Womens Weekly, Womens Day, Girlfriend, Dolly, English Womens Weekly, Cleo...
Paging all Infidel lady lurkers and posters here: we should be emailing copies of this article, and the related article in Dhimmiwatch, to editorial desks of every major womens and girls' magazine we know about, urging them to run full-scale special features on What Islam Does to Women, introduced by "Murdered for Wearing Make-Up". And referring them to some reliable experts, male (for example, Mr Robert Spencer) and female (e.g. Ms Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ms Wafa Sultan) who will be only too happy to explain everything, chapter and verse.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at December 10, 2007 6:59 PM
You mention the Body Shop. It was founded by the terminally anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian Anita Roddick. In 2004 its foundation awarded a prize to some "Palestinian" group and an uproar followed. I wouldn't buy from the Body Shop, not unless I were assured that it was under new management, and entirely new ownership. I don't like to subsidize those who are pro-"Palestinian."
As for L'Oreal, after the war control was taken by someone who had been a collaborator, and he hired others like himself. One or two may even have been, during the attack on the Assemblee Nationale (1937? 1938?), among the right-wing cagoulards. L'Oreal is, however, under new management.
What about the others? Well, Coco Chanel did not have a good war. Should we boycott, now, the House of Chanel? No, not at this point.
Bygones should not treated as bygones -- unless of courese, they really are bygones. It's hard both to find out, and remember, or to remember, and then know when circumstances have changed so you can change the targets of your private boycott too.
But the idea of such boycotts is not wrong, as long as the target is right.
Posted by: Hugh at December 10, 2007 7:12 PM
What Islam does to Women? Good follow-up article to How Many Lives is Democracy in Iraq Worth? There are plenty of innocents getting killed in Iraq. Now that you're concerned about them, look at the death toll. Blackwater killed more in a day than these psychopaths killed in three months.
Our tax dollars fund Blackwater. My outrage about the deaths of innocent Iraqis starts with the ones you and I are paying to have killed.
Posted by: dirk at December 10, 2007 7:18 PM
Hugh - It seems I have put my foot in it?
I took your remark about the cosmetic industry and fashion models, etc, purely at face value, that is, the implication that they should be up in arms about the threat to their industry, posed by Jihad and Sharia creep in the Infidel world. A real threat, and if they had any sense, they'd see it and do something.
I knew nothing of Chanel's politics: I merely cited her as the archetypal French/ Infidel Fashionable Female - her coiffure, maquillage and Little Black Dress being the polar opposite of what Islam demands of women in public.
(Having a teenage daughter who likes short skirts, halter tops, makeup and high heels, and who adamantly refuses even to wear a hat for sun protection, in the height of the Australian summer, gives me a powerful reason for keeping the murderous Sharia Fashion Police far, far away from my country).
But I presume that you agree with my other point: that Jihadwatch/ Dhimmiwatch lady posters should be bombarding the editors of all our Womens Magazines with demands that the truth about Islam's War on Women should be told?
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at December 10, 2007 8:40 PM
In canada we just had a 16 girl murdered by her Sharia law dad over the Hijab and the media is now avoiding the link to Islam and tries to make it a Family dispute.
http://www.torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2007/12/11/4718176-sun.html
MISSISSAUGA -- School friends of Aqsa Parvez say they knew that one day they'd be told the 16-year-old would be fighting for her life.
Because of a clash of cultures, a conflict between Muslim tradition and Western lifestyle, they learned yesterday that Aqsa was in grave condition in hospital after allegedly being choked by her father.
A man telephoned Peel Regional Police at 7:55 a.m. yesterday claiming he had killed his daughter.
When police arrived at the posh Longhorn Trail home, where about a dozen people spanning three generations live, Aqsa was barely alive.
Peel medics rushed her to Credit Valley Hospital and she was later transferred to the Hospital for the Sick Children for trauma care.
Investigators are not hopeful she will survive and Const. J.P. Valade said the homicide squad is actively involved in the investigation.
Aqsa's father, Muhammad Parvez, 57, a driver with Blue and White Taxi, was taken into custody and will be formally charged in Brampton court this morning.
Aqsa's school chums at Applewood Heights Secondary School say she wanted to break free from the cultural restraints imposed by family.
Friend Dominiquia Holmes-Thompson, 16, said Aqsa told her something could possibly "happen."
"She was scared to go home," she said.
Aqsa had recently been staying with a friend and wanted to return home to get her belongings, friends said.
'REGULAR CLOTHES'
They said this year the Grade 11 student began taking off her hijab, a traditional headscarf, as she headed to school and put it back on when she returned home.
Friends said her father allowed her to wear "regular clothes," but only if she wore the hijab.
"She wanted to dress like us," said one girl. "To be normal."
"Yes, we were really worried" about Aqsa returning home to get her clothes, Dominiquia said.
"You don't know if she's going to live?" she asked, as she was consoled by friends and breaking into tears. "No."
Dominiquia said Aqsa loved clothes, dancing and taking pictures.
Friend Ebonie Mitchell said Aqsa would probably have loved to get into the fashion industry.
"She always wanted to change," friend Ashley Garbutt, 16, said. "She just wanted to show her beauty. That's all she wanted to do."
Ashley said Aqsa asked her to help find a place for her to live and was willing to go to a shelter.
"She just wanted freedom," Dominiquia said. "She was a very kind person, she was really nice. Everybody loved her."
Neighbours in the quiet cul-de-sac were stunned by the news.
They said the family moved in about two years ago, but few residents knew them.
"I was shocked," said Fatima Domingos, a mother of two. "It's sad. I hope she makes it.
Posted by: ala-sux at December 11, 2007 9:52 AM
Islamic serial killers hard at work. I am amazed that there are any women left in muslim countries, they can't seem to kill them fast enough. And they wonder why we don't "understand" them!
Posted by: HereticInfidel at December 11, 2007 10:32 AM
"she was killed for violating Islamic teachings."
The killers need to shun using the word "Islamic" in conjunction with their deadly deeds, as it's surely too "emotive".
Or is that the media's fault instead?
Posted by: yadayada at December 11, 2007 6:49 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)