FrontPageMag.com By Robert Spencer By Hugh Fitzgerald Books Jihad Watch Robert Spencer Islam 101 Qur'an Blog
 
« Dhimmitude and Patrick Seale | Main | Sudan: Security Forces Disrupt Anglican School Construction »

March 20, 2004

Islamists rape 100 women in attack

01-20036102.jpeg
Mukesh Kapila

There is nothing in Islamic law that forbids this practice. Indeed, it is buttressed by numerous incidents in early Islamic history. From WND:

Arab militias backed by Khartoum's radical Muslim regime raped more than 100 women in an attack in western Sudan.

Mukesh Kapila, the United Nations coordinator for Sudan, told the BBC 75 people were killed in the attack on the village of Tawila two weeks ago.

"All houses as well as a market and a health center were completely looted and the market burnt," he said. "Over 100 women were raped, six in front of their fathers who were later killed."

The attack, in which a further 150 women and 200 children were abducted, was one of many as village after village was razed by the militias, Kapila said.

Hundreds of thousands were ousted from their homes and more than 100,000 have fled across the border into Chad, where they have continued to face cross-border raids.

Kapila called for more international aid and urgent intervention to bring a ceasefire in the war.

Sudan's cleric-backed National Islamic Front regime in the Arab and Muslim north declared a jihad on the mostly Christian and animist south in 1989. Since 1983, an estimated 2 million people have died from war and related famine. About 5 million have become refugees.

As WorldNetDaily reported, Khartoum government forces also are alleged to have gang-raped women, sometimes forcing them to deny their Christian faith or be killed.

Kapila said he was in Rwanda during the genocide of 1994 but still is "totally shocked" at what is going on in Sudan.

"This is ethnic cleansing, this is the world's greatest humanitarian crisis, and I don't know why the world isn't doing more about it," he told BBC Radio 4's Today program.

The U.N. is concerned the fighting in western Sudan could undermine the peace talks as they come to an end.

Posted by Robert at March 20, 2004 9:06 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)

robert just a little creative editing shouldnt the sentence

The attack, in which a further 150 women and 200 children were abducted

be

The attack, in which a further 150 women and 200 children were abducted for slavery
just my own .02 cents worth

Posted by: jimmytheclaw at March 20, 2004 10:46 AM

Where is joseph when we need him?

jay

Posted by: Jay Stevens at March 20, 2004 12:25 PM

It is a great comfort to hear from President Bush that Islam is a religion of peace. I'll be sure and let my two daughters and all my girlfriends know.

Posted by: neecele at March 20, 2004 6:49 PM

Dear Robert,

What are your criterion for putting a story on the Jihad side of your Web blog versus the Dhimmi side? When I came back to find this story, I figured it would be on the Jihad side since it dwelt with all the atrocities committed by the Islamists. However, here it is on the Dhimmi side. Hmmm.

Posted by: Will Smythe at March 20, 2004 8:30 PM

Will, maybe it's because of the closing portion of the article, which points out that "the world" is essentially uninterested Muslim-on-Christian atrocities. I'll let DW speak for itself, though.

Posted by: Sage at March 20, 2004 8:40 PM

Will:

Usually it's clear on which side to put a story; sometimes it it's a judgment call. I don't consider one superior to the other; Jihad Watch is the main page and Dhimmi Watch secondary because dhimmitude is a consequence of jihad.

This story could have gone on either side. I put it here because I had intended to explain how this kind of treatment of captives is dealt with in the same sections of Islamic law that set out the treatment of the dhimmis. As it happened I didn't have time to do that, but since the treatment of captives is indeed an issue closely tied to the denial of human rights intrinsic to dhimmitude, I put it here.

Hope that's clear.

Best
RS

Posted by: Robert Spencer at March 20, 2004 10:31 PM

Robert, Yup, makes perfect sense now. Thanks. Will

Posted by: Will Smythe at March 20, 2004 11:08 PM