Honor Killings Are Lawful in Islamic Sharia

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Aug. 18, 2016:

While Muslim leaders and apologists continue to publicly tell the media and others Islam does not sanction honor killings, the truth is, Islam does.

The most common rebuttal heard from Muslims in the media is that the term “honor killing” is not found in the Koran nor any hadith (records of the actions and sayings of Islam’s prophet Mohammad).

This is true.

honor killing

The phrase “honor killing” won’t be found in the Koran nor in any Sunnah of the Islamic prophet Mohammad.  The authority for a parent to kill their children or grandchildren for any reason they see fit, however, is found in the sharia (Islamic law), and does come from the Koran and Sunnah of Mohammad.

The Reliance of the Traveller, authoritative Islamic sharia certified by Al-Azhar in Egypt – the highest authority of Islamic jurisprudence on the planet- and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Fiqh Council of North America, states:  “retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.”  It goes on to say those “not subject to retaliation” includes “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, Book O Justice, o1.1-2).

This means, in Islam it is okay for a mother and/or father to kill their children or grandchildren with no legal consequences.

This is done when children or family members “dishonor” the family, thus it is called an “honor killing.”

So, even though “honor killing” is not found in the Koran or Sunnah, the authority to do it is.

Some examples in the United States include:

In April 2004 a Turkish Muslim killed his four year old daughter in Scottsville, New York because she was “sullied” by a gynecological exam.

In 2006 a Somali Muslim in Kentucky brutally killed his four children and raped his wife because he suspected her of infidelity.

In January 2008 an Egyptian Muslim shot and killed his two daughters in Irving, Texas.  The girls great aunt told reporters they were “honor killings.”

In July 2008, a Pakistani Muslim in Atlanta, Georgia killed his daughter because she did not want to go through with an arranged marriage.

In October 2009, an Iraqi Muslim from Arizona drove over his daughter for being too Westernized.  She died two weeks later and he was convicted of her murder.

In October 2009, a Muslim woman in New Brighton, New York tried to kill her husband by slitting his throat because he was not “muslim enough.”

The Department of Justice reports there are approximately 27 honor killings in the U.S. each year.

Pakistani Muslim Muzzimmil Hassan founded Bridges TV in Buffalo, New York as the first Muslim American network broadcasting in English.  Bridges TV was established to counter negative stereotypes of Muslim.  Muzzimmil Hassan (a close friend of Nihad Awad of CAIR) personally demonstrated his “moderation” by sawing his wife’s head off.  In March of 2011, Hassan was sentenced to 25 years in prison for this heinous crime.

All lawful under sharia.

Prager U Video: Why Don’t Feminists Fight for Muslim Women


Ayaan Hirsi Ali on why this matters more than ever.

Truth Revolt, June 27, 2016:

Are women oppressed in Muslim countries? What about in Islamic enclaves in the West? Are these places violating or fulfilling the Quran and Islamic law?

In Prager University’s newest video, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an author and activist who was raised a devout Muslim, describes the human rights crisis of our time, asks why feminists in the West don’t seem to care, and explains why immigration to the West from the Middle East means this issue matters more than ever.

Check out the short video above. Transcript below:

Culture matters. It ‘s the primary source of social progress or regression. Nowhere do we see this more clearly than in the status of women. The Judeo-Christian culture — and perhaps a more apt word is civilization — has produced over time the law codes, language and material prosperity that have greatly elevated women’s status.

But this progress is not shared everywhere.

There are still hundreds of millions of people that live in a culture  — the Islamic, for instance — that takes female inferiority for granted. Until recently, these cultures — the Western and the Islamic — were, for the most part, separated. But that is changing. Dramatically so.

Large numbers of immigrant men from the Middle East, South Asia and various parts of Africa have brought a different set of values to the West, specifically Europe.  More than a million arrived in 2015 alone. More are on the way.

As a result, crimes against girls and women — groping, harassments, assaults and rape – have risen sharply. These crimes illustrate the stark difference between the Western culture of the victims and that of the perpetrators.

Let me be clear: not all immigrant men, or even most, indulge in sex attacks or approve of such attacks, but it’s a grave mistake to deny that the value system of the attackers is radically different from the value system of the West. In the West women are emancipated and sexually autonomous. Religiosity and sexual behavior or sexual restraint is determined by women’s individual wishes. The other value system is one in which women are viewed as either commodities (that is, their worth depends on their virginity), or on the level of a prostitute if they are guilty of public “immodesty” (wearing a short skirt for example).

I do not believe these value systems can coexist. The question is which value system will prevail. Unfortunately, this remains an open question.

The current situation in Europe is deeply troubling: not only are Muslim women within Europe subject to considerable oppression in many ways, such norms now risk spreading to non-Muslim women who face harassment from Muslim men.

One would think that Western feminists in the United States and Europe would be very disturbed by this obvious misogyny.  But sadly, with few exceptions, this does not appear to be the case.

Common among many Western feminists is a type of moral confusion, in which women are said to be oppressed everywhere and that this oppression, in feminist Eve Ensler’s words, is “exactly the same” around the world, in the West just as in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

To me, this suggests too much moral relativism and an inadequate understanding of Shariah law.  It is true that the situation for women in the West is not perfect, but can anyone truly deny that women enjoy greater freedom and opportunities in the United States, France and Finland than they do in Iran, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?

Other feminists have also argued that non-Western women do not need “saving” and that any suggestion that they “need” help from Western feminists is insulting and condescending to non-Western women.

My perspective is a practical one: any efforts that help Muslim women — whether they live in the West or under Islamic governments should be encouraged. Every effort to pressure these governments to change unjust laws should be supported.

Western feminists — and female Western leaders — have a simple choice to make: either excuse the inexcusable, or demand reform in cultures and religious doctrines that continue to oppress women.

Nothing illustrates this better than what happened in Cologne, Germany on New Years Eve, 2015. That night, during the city’s traditional celebrations, numerous German women (467 at the last count) reported being sexually harassed or assaulted by men of North African and Arab origin. Within two months, 73 suspects had been identified — most of them from North Africa; 12 of them have been linked to sexual crimes. Yet, in response to the attacks, Cologne’s feminist Mayor Henriette Reker issued an “arm’s length” guideline to women. ” Just keep an arm’s length distance between you and a mob of Arab men, she advised Cologne’s female population, and you will be fine.

Mayor Reker’s comments underline the seriousness of the problem: a culture clash is upon us. The first step in resolving it is to unapologetically defend the values that have allowed women to flourish. Feminists with their organizations, networks and lobbying power need to be on the front lines on this battle. Their relevance depends on it. And so does the well being of countless women, Western and non-Western.

I’m Ayaan Hirsi Ali of Harvard University for Prager University.

SIGN THE PETITION! Demand that feminist activists fight for Muslim women! https://goo.gl/MmS1kq


Steve Coughlin drills down on the facts of Islamic law that Islam apologists either aren’t aware of or, in the case of stealth jihadists, purposely try to hide.

Responding to Muslim deceptions 1 Honour killings and innocence MRCTV:

Published on Jun 29, 2016 Vlad Tepes

How academia whitewashes Muslim honor killings

Former TV executive Muzzammil Hassan was found guilty of second-degree murder in 2011 for the beheading of his wife, Aasiya Hassan, in an apparent honor killing. Photo: AP

Former TV executive Muzzammil Hassan was found guilty of second-degree murder in 2011 for the beheading of his wife, Aasiya Hassan, in an apparent honor killing. Photo: AP

New York Post, by Phyllis Chesler, February 22, 2016:

The whitewashing of Muslim honor killings in America has seeped into academia. And the PC police have found a new scapegoat: Hindu Americans.

In January, the Journal of Family Violence published “An Exploratory Study of Honor Crimes in the United States” by Brittany E. Hayes, Joshua D. Freilich and Steven M. Chermak. It was an act of cowardice as well as a shoddy piece of research. It broke absolutely no new ground, either theoretically or statistically, and is so “politically correct” that it completely misses an entire forest for a tree.

The study’s first error consists of comparing violence against women in general with femicide. Being battered is not the same as being murdered.

A classic honor killing is a family conspiracy mainly against a young daughter; fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles and cousins — sometimes even grandfathers — may join in. Westerners don’t often kill their teenage daughters.

The reason Hayes et al. place honor killings within the broader context of “violence against women” is clear. They don’t want to be accused of “Islamophobia” or of targeting any ethnic or religious group.

They don’t tell us the names of any of the 16 honor-killing perpetrators or the names of their victims. The phrase “Muslim perpetrator” and “Muslim honor killing” appear nowhere. In 10,000 words, only 14 are related to “Islam,” “Muslims,” “Arabs” or “Middle Easterners.”

Three times, Hayes et al. rail against “Western media coverage.” They write: “Significantly, media reporters in the United States may be more inclined to cover honor crimes, especially those committed by Middle Easterners, compared to other fatal crimes because they may be perceived as more ‘exotic’ and news worthy.” They insist, “Reporters may search for an honor crime angle when the victim and/or offender are of a particular ethnicity or religion . . . there is a need to study honor crimes in the United States that involve victims and perpetrators from other cultures, like India, or extremist ideologies.”


The New York Times, for example, has published a series of articles on Hindu honor killings in India and has published very few articles about Muslim honor killings in the United States, in North America or in Europe.

These authors seem not to be familiar with the 2012 study which compared Hindu honor killings in India with Muslim honor killings in Pakistan and Hindu versus Muslim honor killings worldwide. Hindus absolutely do perpetrate honor killings (and some of them are quite gruesome), but they do so mainly in India; they don’t bring the custom with them when they emigrate to the West. (Or those who emigrate are not honor-killing tribalists.) That is why one cannot study them here.

Also, many honor killings in India are perpetrated by Muslims as well as by Hindus.

That study showed that most Hindu honor killings are caste-related and that Muslim honor killings are triggered by many more reasons, e.g., girls have been killed for looking at a boy, allowing their veil to slip, being seen without their veil, refusing to marry their first cousin, insisting on divorcing their first cousin, developing non-Muslim friends, having a non-Muslim boyfriend, being suspected of having an affair, wanting a higher education, etc.

Ironically, this comparison of Hindu and Muslim honor killings actually supports a politically correct view: The origin of honor killings probably resides in shame-and-honor tribalism, not necessarily in a particular religion. I don’t understand why other scholars have not yet absorbed this point.

The Koran does not command that a woman be honor-killed. It does, however, demand male and female “modesty” and female “obedience,” and it allows husbands to physically chastise wives. Perhaps extreme misogynists have allowed superstitious and illiterate people to believe that committing intimate family femicide is religiously sanctioned.

Neither Islam nor Hinduism, as religious institutions, has worked very hard to abolish honor killing. The Indian Hindu government has tried to do so. The Pakistani government has not.

Nevertheless, Hayes, Freilich and Chermak bend over backward not to single out any one ethnicity, religion or nationality — except, perhaps, India.

Phyllis Chesler is emerita professor of psychology, author of four studies about honor killing and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Documentary Exposes Islamic Abuse of Women


Religious Freedom Coalition, By Andrew Harrod, PhD. June 1, 2015:

“Women under the Islamic rules” are “slaves to a dictatorial, theocratic regime that does not consider them human,” states Iranian-American women’s rights activist Manda Zand Ervin in the documentary Honor Diaries.  While Ervin decries that “Muslim women are being ignored” in their plight “by the whole world,” Honor Diaries, now entering an international screening campaign, gives voice to these often overlooked victims.

Jasvinder Sanghera, a British Sikh woman, opens the film with her personal history and indicates thereby that misogyny worldwide originates not just in Islamic culture.  At age 14, her family kept her home for weeks until she agreed to a marriage already arranged when she was eight, similar to many of her six adolescent sisters forced to leave school and marry.  One burned herself to death to escape a bad marriage in a culture where divorce is not honorable.  Sanghera elaborated how she ran away from home at April 20 and April 23 Washington, DC, presentations of the film at Georgetown University’s Mortura Center and the Rayburn House Office Building respectively.  Since this flight 35 years ago her family has disowned her and does not have any relations with her children.

Honor Diaries, however, focuses almost exclusively on Muslim females in examining what the Afghan-American women’s rights activist Zainab Khan describes as “one of the most alarming human rights issues in the world.”   The film cites statistics such as the World Economic Forum’s listing of the ten countries worldwide with the worst gender disparity, nine of which are Muslim-majority.  Canadian human rights activist and author Nazanin Afshin-Jam points particularly to the “gender apartheid” in her ancestral Iran, a country that became an “instant theocracy” in the 1979 Islamic Republic’s founding.  Before the 1979 revolution, recounts her American colleague Nazie Eftekhari, Iranian women like her mother and grandmother were unveiled professionals, but after a “100 year journey forward…overnight they took that step back.”

Honor Diaries highlights specific abuses faced by Muslim females such as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and child marriages.  “These marriages are consummated through rape,” states Iraqi-American Sherizaan Minwalla of the Tahirih Justice Center.  A Yemeni girl personifies this brutality by recounting her “husband” simply covering her screaming mouth during sex at the age of eight.

Such issues are not merely far away in Muslim-majority societies, but also affect free countries like the United States.  Tahirih estimates as many as 1,500 forced marriages occur here annually and the Center for Disease Control considers 150,000-200,000 American girls at risk for FGM.  “No doubt in my mind you have a big problem,” Sanghera states, but America’s “victims are hidden” (at the Mortura Center she discussed having already heard of forced marriage threats in America after only nine days here).

The women’s rights activists in Honor Diaries like the Pakistani-Canadian Raheel Raza discuss as well how they face hostility for addressing Islam’s women’s rights controversies.  While calling “Islam…my spiritual journey,” she analyzes how “‘Islamophobia’ is a recent construct…to deflect any criticism of Islam and Muslims,” a “manufactured term…used to just silence people.”  The American Muslim Raquel Saraswati, meanwhile, is “afraid all the time” in the face of physical threats, “but that doesn’t mean that you can’t be courageous.”

Similarly mentioning physical threats, Sanghera at the Mortura Center additionally cited canceled meetings during her American visit, amounting approximately to a “50/50” open/closed doors ratio.  Indicative of this unwillingness to hear, the ubiquitous grandstanding Muslim gadfly Saba Ahmed left during the middle of Sanghera’s presentation and Honor Diaries extract screening.  Raza at the Rayburn presentation also mentioned intimidation against her agenda of “expose, educate, and eradicate” from organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), but abuse victims appear at Honor Diaries screenings with thanks.

Saraswati in Honor Diaries raises a “very difficult question to answer” about the women’s rights abuses therein profiled, namely “is this Islam.”  Pakistani-British Muslim Qanta Ahmed states that FGM, something that “does not appear in the Quran,” is “not advocated in Islam in any way, shape, or form,” yet overlooks various non-Quranic Islamic canons supporting FGM.  The Iraqi-American Christian Juliana Taimoorazy notes that her coreligionists “did not adapt to honor killings” in their Iraqi Muslim surroundings, but Raza counters that these murders also exist, for example, among Indian Hindus and Sikhs.

Interviewed at Rayburn, the Sikh Sanghera also stated that the “experience of honor abuse is actually the same” among British Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh South Asian communities, yet noted other Islamic variations.  In her experience the “absolutely barbaric” practice of FGM occurred in “predominately Muslim communities.”  The United Kingdom’s Bangladeshi Muslims also exhibited a “higher prevalence” of marrying girls under the age of 10.

At the Rayburn presentation, though, Arizona police detective Christopher J. Boughey, an adviser to Honor Diaries and the AHA Foundation of former Muslim and film participant Ayaan Hirsi Ali, had a more singular focus on Islam.  “All of these cases are almost identical,” he said of his work with honor killings, something that for him in North America had been a “completely Muslim experience,” he elaborated in an interview.  These murders formed along with forced marriages and FGM a comprehensive “control situation” and “systematic breaking down of someone’s will.”

Amidst such bleak analysis of Islam’s treatment of women, Raza’s Rayburn interview offers cold comfort with her theological analysis.  Questioned about support for FGM and child marriages in the canonical biography of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (hadith) and Islamic law (sharia), she responded that “I really don’t give that much precedence to hadith and sharia.”  She dismissed much of this Islamic orthodoxy as “man-made created stuff for the benefit of the men” and argued that “there is so much garbage in hadiths” given their often contradictory and dubious nature.  Abuses like FGM are “tribal practices that have existed long before Islam.”

For spiritual guidance on abuses of women “I go back to the word of God,” Islam’s “source and it is not in the source,” Raza declares with reference to the Quran, even though Quran 65:4 indirectly references child marriage.  Contrary to almost all Quran translations, she asserts that female Quran interpreters like her find no support for wife-beating in Quran 4:34.  Such interpretations come from the “mindset of the male elite who have been translating the Quran.”  Referencing the Quran’s oft-(mis)quoted verse 5:32 (“whoever saves one—it is as if he had saved mankind entirely”), but not the following brutal verse 5:33, she proclaims that “I take the higher law.”

Honor Diaries is essential viewing for investigating Muslim misogyny and those brave women, both within and without Islam, who combat it on the basis of bitter personal knowledge.  Yet the film at times contradicts itself and its feminist activists with what could be called pious hopes that all such abuse is an aberration from, and not anchored in, Islamic doctrine.  Objective observers will have difficulty finding in Islamic canons Raza’s understanding of a merciful “God of all human beings.”

Andrew E. Harrod is a researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School.  He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project, an organization combating the misuse of human rights law against Western societies.  He can be followed on twitter at @AEHarrod.

A Faith that Dare not Speak Its Name: Honor Killings Documentary Ignores Islam

honorkill-300x167by Andrew Harrod, PhD.

To “get to the root cause of an emerging pattern of criminality” precludes “vague terminology,” states a December 18, 2013, petition by British Hindu and Sikh organizations concerning Muslim-dominated child molestation gangs in the United Kingdom.  Yet precisely vagueness plagues not only this ongoing controversy, but also the British honor killing documentary Banaz: A Love Story, demonstrating the difficulties of openly discussing all matters Muslim.

An International Emmy Award winner, this 2012 documentary recently posted online examines the 2006 London murder of Banaz Mahmod, a young woman whose family immigrated in 1998 from Kurdish Iraq.  Banaz’s dissolution of her arranged marriage and relationship with another man had provoked her father and male relatives into murdering Banaz.  “In the countries that we are from, a woman has absolutely no rights,” declares Diana Nammi from the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organization (IKWRO) early in the film.

With only her eyes appearing through a black niqab, Banaz’ sister Bekhal elaborates in the film via a disguised voice how her family forbade her things like long nails.  Bekhal’s disobedience brought beatings from male relatives and flight from home.  Like Banaz, Bekhal suffered Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) from family members, something “you wouldn’t wish on your enemy.”  “My life will always be in danger,” Bekhal states given her cooperation in solving Banaz’s murder and film appearance.

A 17-year old Banaz herself had an arranged marriage with a man recently arrived from Iraq whom she had only met once.  This illiterate individual had “absolutely nothing in common” with Banaz, observes prosecutor Victor Temple, and was “strongly adherent to that Kurdish culture” according to Detective Chief Inspector Caroline Goode.  This husband “kicked my head in,” Banaz states in a previously videotaped police interview while describing bleeding lips and ears received for offenses like mentioning her husband’s name before guests.  “He wouldn’t take no for an answer” to sexual advances and “would just start raping me,” Banaz added.  Afterwards “he just acted like nothing has happened…I was his shoe and he would wear it.”

“For a Muslim female like me it’s very hard to get a divorce,” Banaz complained to the police with reference to religion, not ethnicity, pace Goode.  “Leaving my husband in my culture is not allowed.”  The marital breakdown ultimately led the father to arrange with Banaz’s uncle her strangulation by three male cousins.  Banaz’s case demonstrates the “very collaborative nature” of honor killings, Joanne Payton from the Honour Based Violence Awareness Network (HBVA) discusses in the film.  “Verily we belong to Allah,” Banaz’s tombstone reads in the film.

A “landslide of mistakes flowing from…a lack of understanding” hindered authorities in protecting Banaz and investigating her subsequent murder, prosecutor Nazir Afzal criticizes.  Fear of being “branded racists” makes people “wary of stepping into this minefield” of culture-based gender violence.  Afzal similarly wrote in 2014 about accusations of having “given racists a stick with which to beat minorities” for leading the 2012 child molestation gang prosecution of 47 men, mostly from Afzal’s own Pakistani background.

Banaz director Deeyah Khan concurred in an interview that “many young women, like Banaz, are let down by officials in the West.”  A “lack of understanding and training in identifying the signs” of honor killings as well as “fear of upsetting cultural sensitivities” are problems.  Not letting the “issue get swept under the carpet in the name of political correctness” also worries Goode in the film, who calls for specific police honor killing training.

Banaz, though, seems to practice its own political correctness in never directly discussing Islam, a faith omnipresent in the film.  The overwhelming majority of British honor killing victims cited in the film credits, however, are from Muslim backgrounds.  This reflects a 2010 study showing Muslim perpetrators in 91% of 230 surveyed honor killing cases worldwide.

HBVA itself estimates an annual average worldwide of 5,000 honor killings, with 1,000 each in majority-Muslim Pakistan and a much larger, Hindu-majority India.  Additionally, Muslim-majority Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries have a “high recorded level of HBV.”  “India is indeed a striking exception to Islam’s near monopoly on contemporary honor killings,” Phyllis Chelser, the 2010 study’s author, concludes.

“Perhaps the most striking characteristic of Hindu honor killings,” Chelser elaborates, however, “is the fact that Indians abandon the horrific practice when they migrate to the West whereas many Pakistani Muslims carry it with them.”  “Although Islam does not specifically endorse” honor killings, Chelser observes, “some…involve allegations of adultery or apostasy…punishable by death under Shari’a.”  That “women who stray from the path can be rightly murdered” is therefore “consistent with such Islamic teachings.”

Read more at Religious Freedom Coalition

Horror in Pakistan: Pregnant Woman Stoned by Family

 02-450x337by Arnold Ahlert:

Those looking for the real war on women–as opposed to the one promoted by the American left and their media enablers—should focus their attention on Pakistan and Sudan. In the former nation, a 25-year-old pregnant woman has been stoned to death by members of her own family, with her father dubbing the atrocity an “honor killing.” In the latter nation, a 27-year-old woman has been sentenced to death for refusing to renounce her Christian faith. She was also pregnant, and has given birth while awaiting her sentence to be carried out. The common thread in both cases is as predictable as it is disturbing: the religion of Islam and the endemic mistreatment of women practiced by far too many of its followers.

Farzana Parveen was killed in broad daylight by nearly 20 members of her family before a crowd of onlookers outside the High Court in the eastern city of Lahore, Pakistan. As she walked up to the court’s main gate with her husband Mohammad Iqbal, relatives waiting for the couple’s arrival fired shots in the air and attempted to snatch her away. When she resisted, the attackers, who included her father, two brothers and her former fiancé, started beating her and her husband, before escalating the attack with bricks obtained from a nearby construction site.

Parveen subsequently sustained severe head injuries and was pronounced dead at the hospital, according to police.

All of the attackers but her father, Mohammad Azeem, escaped. He surrendered to the police and admitted taking part in the killing. He had no remorse. “I killed my daughter as she had insulted all of our family by marrying a man without our consent, and I have no regret over it,” the father was quoted as saying by police investigator Rana Mujahid.

Parveen had been engaged to her cousin, but married Iqbal instead, following an engagement of several years. In response, her family registered an abduction case against Iqbal, and Parzeen was to appear in court to argue that she had married him of her own free will, according to her lawyer Mustafa Kharal. Arranged marriages are the norm among conservative Pakistanis. Marrying for love is a transgression that ostensibly dishonors the family.

Iqbal, who started seeing Parveen following the death of his former wife with whom he had five children, claimed the couple was “in love.” He further alleged that her family wanted to extract money from him before allowing the marriage to take place. Instead, “I simply took her to court and registered a marriage,” Iqbal explained.

Parveen’s murder is hardly an anomaly. According to Pakistani rights group the Aurat Foundation, as many as 1,000 Pakistani women are killed every yearby their families in such honor killings. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan released a report last month revealing that 869 women were murdered in honor killings in 2013, but the Aurat Foundation insists the number could be far higher because the totals are based solely on newspaper reports. The Pakistani government does not compile any honor killing statistics.

Read more at Front Page

Also see:

Where Does Naomi Wolf’s Hypocrisy End, Or Does It?

nwFront Page, by :

Naomi Wolf has joined the Hamas chorus by attacking feminist hero Phyllis Chesler with being a Zionist agent. How facilely Wolf has adopted the language of Jew-haters the world over — an even more bitter irony coming from someone who has written an entire book comparing democratic America to Nazi Germany.

And Chesler’s sin? To have dared to challenge the Left’s party line of defending the Islamic mutilators of adolescent girls, and practitioners of gender apartheid. But then again, this isn’t anything new for Wolf, seeing that she is on the record as finding the burqa sexy.

In her recent article, “Brandeis Feminists Fail the Historical Moment,” Phyllis Chesler criticized Brandeis’ phony feminists for their complicity in the University denying an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  In a response on her Facebook page, Wolf joined the anti-Semites of the Mearshimer-Walt-Blumenthal set, claiming that Chesler has no mind of her own but is merely a puppet of the organized Jews:

“She is funded these days by pro-Israel advocacy organizations that support journalists and writers to advocate ‘the party line’ in terms of hardline anti-Islam and right-wing policy outcomes regarding Israel.”

This is pretty crude even for a brain-dead Marxist.

Wolf goes on to complain that Chesler,

“has made some outlandish, grossly factually incorrect attacks on me whenever I write anything that encourages Western readers to have a deeper understanding of Islam.”

What she means is a more grovelling supine attitude of appeasement towards barbaric Islamic attitudes and practices. When Wolf encourages people to have a “deeper understanding” of Islam, she is not alluding to caring more about the horrifying Islamic practices of female genital mutilation, honor killing, forced marriage and veiling, acid attacks practices against Muslims in the name of a perverse view of Islam. Chesler has already answered Wolf’s sick attack with a little tongue in cheek acidity:

“Naomi: Are you on the payroll of the public relations crisis management team Brandeis has reportedly hired? Are you now or have you ever been funded by George Soros? Or merely by the Democratic Party? Is Al Gore, for whom you once consulted, and who sold his cable channel to Al-Jazeera, backing you? Is he supporting your Woodhull Institute? Or are the Jordanian royals helping you? I know you visited with them and wrote about them very favorably.”

Wolf’s attack on Chesler is an extension of the collision that occurred between the two a few years back, after Wolf went on a political pilgrimage to the Muslim world and returned singing the praises of the burqa. Chesler dismantled Wolf’s embarrassing fairy tales of the female gulag that Islam has constructed for nearly a billion women with such precision that one wonders why Wolf is now even bothering stepping back into this mismatch. Unlike Wolf, Chesler is a true scholar of Islam and as the former bride of a Muslim in Afghanistan, she has first-hand experience of the horrors of Islamic gender apartheid.

Naomi Wolf is a sad emblem of the pathetic state of the Left and of its pseudo feminist wing: ignorant, arrogant, bigoted, anti-Semitic, anti-American and an embarrassing fifth column for the Islamic barbarians of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

CAIR’s Jihad against Honor Diaries


Honor Diaries is an important film that explores the brutality and systematic inequality faced by women in Muslim-majority societies. It features both believing Muslim women, like Dr. Qanta Ahmed (whose compelling essay about the film was published here at National Review Online yesterday), and former Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the renowned author and human-rights activist.

The purpose of Honor Diaries is to empower women by shining a light on the hardships they endure – including “honor” killings (i.e., murders over the perception of having brought shame to the family by violating Islamic norms), beatings, genital mutilation, forced marriage – particularly of young girls – and restrictions on movement, education, and economic opportunity. The film highlights authentic Muslim moderates struggling against the dead-end of Islamic supremacism.

So naturally, the Council on American-Islam Relations (CAIR) does not want you to see it.

At Fox News, Megyn Kelly has been covering the film anyway, despite CAIR’s howling. The segments that aired on Monday and Tuesday are available on Megyn’s website, here and here.

CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood creation, conceived as the primo American public-relations firm for Islamic supremacists, particularly Hamas – a task CAIR pulls off by masquerading as a “civil rights” organization.

Hamas, as I recounted in The Grand Jihad, is a formally designated terrorist organization under federal law. It is also the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. In the early Nineties, the Brotherhood established a “Palestine Committee” to promote Hamas in the United States, an agenda topped by fundraising and efforts to derail the 1993 Oslo accords – the futile, Clinton administration-brokered attempt to forge an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. CAIR’s founders, Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmed, attended a three-day summit in support of Hamas in Philadelphia in 1993, much of which was wiretapped by the FBI. CAIR was established shortly afterwards. By summer 1994, the Palestine Committee was listing CAIR in internal memoranda as one of its “working organizations.”

We’ve discussed CAIR here many times, including in my 2009 column about the FBI’s long-overdue severing of “outreach” ties with the organization. It is infuriating that the Feebs and the wider government thought it was worth canoodling with CAIR in the first place, but the Bureau officially ended the affair after the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial, in which several Hamas operatives were convicted. CAIR, though unindicted, was shown by the Justice Department to be a co-conspirator. In sum, prosecutors established that the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) was the primary Hamas fundraising arm in the United States. Like CAIR, HLF was identified by the Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee as one of its “working organizations.” As terrorism researcher Steve Emerson has shown, CAIR got $5,000 in seed money at its inception from HLF, and thereafter helped raise money for HLF. The federal government shut HLF down in 2001 because of its promotion of terrorism.

Although Honor Diaries has been widely acclaimed and screened internationally, CAIR has been agitating against it. As reliably happens when CAIR plays its tired “Islamophobia” card, universities across the nation cower – especially universities with active Muslim Students Association chapters. (As we’ve observed before, the MSA is the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s infrastructure in the United States.) Starting with the University of Michigan at Dearborn, several schools have now decided not to screen the film after all.

Why it is “Islamophobic” to condemn violence and abuse against Muslim women is not entirely clear to me. It is, however, clear to Linda Sarsour, a “community organizer” and “immigrants’ rights activist” who is celebrated on President Obama’s website, WhiteHouse.gov, as a “Champion of Change.” As reported on The Kelly File, this particular “champion” reacted to Honor Diaries by tweeting:

How many times do we have to tell White women that we do not need to be saved by them? Is there code language I need to use to get thru?

Thoughts like Ms. Sarsour’s make for depressing reading, but clearly she is referring to some of the filmmakers, who happen to be white women (the others include white men and a black woman, Ms. Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born executive producer who was raised as a Muslim). The film has also been promoted by yet another highly accomplished woman, Brooke Goldstein, the human-rights attorney and filmmaker who directsThe Lawfare Project; and by the Clarion Project, a New York-based organization that promotes moderate Islam and publicly challenges “extremist” Islam.

The community organizers at CAIR have obviously read a bit farther along in Rules for Radicals than Ms. Sarsour. Rather than racist tweets, they couch their character assassination of the film’s backers in the poll-tested sensitivities of everyday Americans, pretending to endorse the film’s message while telling you not to watch it. They issued a statement on Monday that Megyn Kelly aired:

American Muslims join people of conscience of all faiths in condemning female genital mutilation, forced marriages, ‘honor killings,’ and any other form of domestic violence or gender inequality as violations of Islamic beliefs. If anyone mistreats women, they should not seek refuge in Islam. The real concern in this case is that the producers of the film, who have a track record of promoting anti-Muslim bigotry, are hijacking a legitimate issue to push their hate-filled agenda.

Right. Women are being brutalized but our “real concern” should be the “track record” of some film producers. Beyond CAIR’s say-so that it is “hate-filled,” this purportedly dark track record is not described. But, after all, who would know more about what counts as “hate-filled” than a PR flack for a terrorist organization whose charter vows to annihilate Israel by violent jihad?

On Tuesday night, CAIR’s Chicago branch dispatched Agnieszka Karoluk, one of its “senior communications coordinators,” to Fox in order to regurgitate CAIR’s statement. Questioned by Megyn Kelly, Ms. Karoluk gave a dizzying explanation: CAIR, we’re told, agrees that Honor Diaries raises vital issues, opposes the abuse of women just like the film does, and is not really happy that colleges are canceling screenings (even though CAIR put out a smiley-face tweet when the first cancellation was announced). But CAIR is “disgusted” by the Clarion Project because it is – all together now – “Islamophobic.” Ms. Karoluk declined to say what makes it so (of course, to get into that would bring attention to episodes of Islamic extremism Clarion has exposed). So because Clarion likes the film, you shouldn’t watch it even though its content is accurate and significant – got it? Confronted by Brooke Goldstein about CAIR’s own record, Ms. Karoluk predictably replied, “I’m not here to talk about CAIR, I’m here to talk about the film” . . . and then continued to avoid talking about the film.

It is no doubt true, as CAIR’s statement asserts, that American Muslims substantially join the rest of us in condemning the abuse of women. CAIR, however, is in no position to speak for American Muslims – and in fact speaks for very few of them. Even if one were inclined to accept CAIR’s statements at face value, Honor Diaries is about the abuse of Muslim women; it is not about the filmmakers. If CAIR truly condemned these misogynistic practices it would be encouraging people to see the film. Instead, as Dr. Ahmed told Megyn, “They claim to be defending the vulnerable whereas they’re actually silencing exposure about the vulnerable.”

But there is no reason to take CAIR’s statements at face value. Under the old adage that actions speak louder than words, the inescapable fact is that CAIR does not condemn the horrific abuse of women in Muslim-majority countries. It is feigning condemnation in hopes of rendering people more receptive to CAIR’s actual message, which is: Avoid Honor Diaries because anyone who exposes atrocities committed by Muslims is unworthy of consideration, no matter how valid the exposition.

And I can prove it.

CAIR has a very close relationship with another Muslim Brotherhood creation, the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) – an Islamic-supremacist think-tank we’ve also discussed in these pages (see, e.g., here). As Steve Emerson points out, disclosure forms IIIT filed with the IRS show thousands of dollars in contributions to CAIR. IIIT was also a major financial backer of Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Sami al-Arian, whom CAIR continued to champion even after his guilty plea to a terrorism charge.

As I’ve previously recounted, IIIT is one of the influential Islamic academic outfits that have endorsed Reliance of the Traveller, the English translation of the classic sharia manual, `Umdat al-Salik. Indeed, the endorsement, written by IIIT’s then-president, Taha Jabir al-`Alwani, is included in the introduction section of the published manual. Dr. Alwani, a revered figure in Muslim Brotherhood circles, highly recommended Reliance as both a “textbook for teaching Islamic jurisprudence to English-speakers” and a legal reference for sharia scholars.

Here are just some of the things Reliance teaches about the treatment of women under Islamic law (with supporting citations to sections of the manual):

Read more: Family Security Matters

On the 100th Anniversary of International Women’s Day — What Are Feminists Doing About Honor Killings?

Phyllis Chesler

Phyllis Chesler

By :

Editor’s note: The following is adapted from a speech delivered on March 8 by the author in observance of  Women’s History Month to theGender Fairness Committee of the New York City Supreme Court.

When my Second Wave generation of feminists started out, Gender Fairness committees did not exist nor did as many women lawyers and judges or the number of feminist lawyers, both male and female, whom I see here today. As many of you know, my or should I say, our generation had the privilege of changing all that.

We also named and exposed the hidden epidemic of physical and sexual violence towards women and children.

Second Wave feminists challenged sexism in advertising, (we still do), the pornography industry, (which has grown), and prostitution which now includes human sexual trafficking.

We also challenged corporations for economically discriminating against women; that work continues. We took on drug companies whose medications caused women to die from cancer. We championed women’s reproductive and sexual rights but we also challenged birth control. We waged a war to save women’s lives. The work continues.

Courtesy of Second Wave feminist activism, more women entered previously all-male professions, and some men became feminists.

Before the Second Wave began making waves, mothers received little child support and less alimony—that has improved although custody battles have, in some ways, gotten harder, more terrible. The 25th anniversary edition of “Mothers on Trial” will be published this summer with eight new chapters.

Our generation had a universalist vision of human rights—one standard for all. I still do. While I believe in cultural diversity, I am not a multi-cultural relativist. Therefore, I have taken a strong stand against the persecution of Muslim women and dissidents. Thus, I now submit expert courtroom affidavits on behalf of Muslim girls and women who have fled being honor murdered and are seeking asylum here.

Those of us who expose the plight of such women, and this includes Somali-born feminist hero Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as well as myself, have been demonized as “Islamophobes” and racists because we do not, in the same breath, blame America, the West, or Israel for their suffering.

In my view, western academic feminists, including gay liberationists, are so afraid of being condemned as “colonialists” or “racists” that this fear trumps their concern for women’s rights in the Arab and Muslim world.

What is Islamic Gender Apartheid? Islamic gender apartheid is characterized by normalized daughter- and wife-battering, forced veiling, female genital mutilation, polygamy, purdah, (the segregation or sequestration of women), arranged marriage, child marriage, first cousin marriage; girls and women are honor murdered if they resist such practices, if they wish to divorce a dangerously abusive husband, and if they are viewed as too independent, too modern.

Today, at its most extreme, Islamic gender apartheid is characterized by acid attacks, public stonings, hangings, and beheading of women in Iran, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia—countries in which girls and women who are raped are further victimized: jailed, tortured, and executed.

Feminists should be crying out from the rooftops against these practices. Some are. I am. Yet, many Muslim men and women, as well as many intellectually “progressive” western infidels, are not. They are demanding or welcoming the imposition of Islamic religious law, Sharia law, not only in Egypt and Saudi Arabia but also in the West.

I have published two academic studies and nearly 100 articles about honor killings both in the West and in the Islamic world. How is an honor killing defined? An honor killing is a collaborative conspiracy carried out against one victim, usually a young girl, by her family of origin. Both her male and female relatives believe that their “honor” demands her death; that her “impure” behavior has shamed and destroyed her family’s reputation and community status. A battered wife—or one who dares leave her tormentor—may also be “honor murdered” by both her husband, assisted by his relatives, and to an extent, the wife’s relatives as well.

In the West, honor killings are a mainly Muslim-on-Muslim crime. Hindus and Sikhs perpetrate such killings but mainly in India, not in the West.

An honor killing is not the same as western domestic violence or western domestically violent femicide. Many honorable feminists disagree with me. They believe that honor killings are the same as western domestic violence. Understandably, such feminists fear that by singling out one group for behavior which may be common to all groups they will stigmatize the token group and minimize the suffering of all the other groups. They have a legitimate fear—and yet if, for reasons of “political correctness,” we fail to understand a crime, we will never be able to prevent or to prosecute it.

Honor killings are shameful, secretive; they are allowed to flourish and fester precisely because the perpetrators and their collaborators do not want them exposed. Instead, they blame the victim, and they blame those who expose it.

I began writing about honor killings in the United States, Canada, and Europe in 2004. My first study about such honor killings first appeared in 2009 in Middle East Quarterly, the second appeared there as well in 2010. In the most recent publication, I studied 230 victims who were honor—or “horror” murdered on five continents over a twenty year period in 172 separate incidents. (More than one person was murdered in some of the incidents).

A murder is a murder and must be treated as such. However, honor killings are not like western domestic violence or domestically violent femicide.

Read more at Fox News

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies, a Fellow at the Middle East Forum, the author of thousands of articles and of fifteen books, including “Women and Madness,” and “An American Bride in Kabul.” She archives her articles and may be reached through her website:www.phyllis-chesler.com

Islamophobia in action? ‘Honor Diaries’ screening shut down by CAIR

download (90)Fox News,  March 31, 2014, By :

CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) is at it again. This time they have succeeded in shutting down a screening of the film, “Honor Diaries,” at the University of Michigan, Dearborn last Thursday night, claiming that the film is ‘Islamophobic.’

“Honor Diaries” is a recently-released documentary profiling nine Muslim women and their horrific experiences in Islamic societies living with practices such as female genital mutilation, honor violence, honor killings and forced marriage at young ages.

CAIR started a Twitter campaign a few days ago against the film, calling it ‘Islamophobic,’ the term groups such as CAIR use not to mean prejudice or fear against the religion, but a fabricated term used to denote anything unflattering to Islam.

It’s a tactic used by CAIR and others to successfully and often indefinitely quiet any criticism of Islam, even when it’s shining light upon the practice of honor violence and depriving young women of education, two central themes in the film.

And most of the time it works. We see it in cases such as this one, where individuals like those organizing this film screening become fearful at the thought of offending a minority group.  Because offending others is very anti-American; but then again, isn’t stifling free speech?

Who is being offended when we are talking about mutilation and women setting themselves on fire to escape marriage before puberty?

How can any interest group protest the profiling of violent and grotesque practices against women?

Well, CAIR has been careful to say that while these subjects do need to be addressed, they shouldn’t be profiled by “Islamophobes” or by the Clarion Project, the group funding the film.

Clarion’s previous film projects include “Iranium,” the “Third Jihad” and “Obsession.” More importantly, as far as CAIR is concerned and in further delegitimizing Clarion’s work, it’s headed by Raphael Shore, a Canadian-Israeli rabbi.

But CAIR isn’t doing the dirty work here or even its own research.  The group is relying on the facts and arguments presented by Richard Silverstein, a progressive blogger who discredits the film on his blog: “One has to ask why a film about the purported abuse of Muslim women was produced by Jews, and ones with a distinct ideological agenda at that.”

CAIR links to his blog on Twitter to make the case: A Jew can’t be profiling human rights abuses against Muslim women.

But how much longer can we as a society allow a group, that is meant to constructively guide and promote the integration of a religious group, instead bully those who are only trying to expose its dangerous and extremist practices?  When they attempt to cover up these crimes, are they not as guilty as the perpetrators?

As a council, CAIR is meant to be a bridge facilitating relations between the American and Islamic communities. Instead, they are creating the rifts and enlarging the gaps.

Shouldn’t CAIR be first in calling out these inhumane practices if they are looking to protect the name of Islam and its people?

The Huffington Post did both an article and video segment on “Honor Diaries,” just after the film’s debut on March 8 in honor of International Women’s Day.

The Huff Post championed its cause and echoed its important message, as a film raising awareness about human rights and misogyny, not one defiling Islam.

“CAIR has done what they do best: deflect the issue. Since they don’t address the issue of violence head on, why let anyone else bring it up?” Raheel Raza, one of the activists featured in the film, told me.

Raza, originally from Pakistan, now lives in Canada and is an author, speaker, president of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow and founder of Forum 4 Learning, a group promoting religious diversity and interfaith harmony.

“If they lobby to have the event cancelled, then they have effectively swept it under the carpet and for them it doesn’t exist. This is why it’s so important to see ‘Honor Diaries’ and break the barriers of silence and constipated political correctness,” Raza said.

The danger in allowing a group like CAIR to strong-arm a university into canceling an important screening is two fold.

First, it becomes our duty as a society to never allow the ideology of one group to overpower the rights of another just by throwing around an overused, loaded word: ‘Islamophobic.’

Americans have become extremely tolerant of varying opinions, religions, philosophies, etc. We are careful not to offend and alienate. But what will political correctness cost us as a society? To what degree is political correctness no longer correct but used just as a weapon to censor and control the dialogue?

Secondly, the appalling practices such as female genital mutilation, honor violence, honor killings and forced marriage at young ages.of this film must be exposed and people must become aware of them. It is the responsibility of every free individual to know about and to actively oppose these practices in modern times.

Unfortunately, these awful acts are not just examples of Islamic violence in Middle Eastern or African countries. In fact, one of the characters of the film lives in the UK.

And to take this further, it’s already at our doorstep here in the United States.

Of course we are called ‘Islamophobic’ every time this inconvenient fact is raised, but U.S. courts have had to apply international law bans to keep Sharia Law out of the courtroom when  Muslim families have wanted to apply Islamic law against their children and others.

A painful example that comes to mind is the story of Amina and Sarah Said, sisters who were born and lived in Texas, and shot and killed by their father in 2008 for having non-Muslim boyfriends.

Every time we lose a single opportunity, such as a screening of this film, to raise awareness about these barbaric practices, it’s another smug victory for the extremists, the child oppressors, and the women abusers among us.

It was CAIR that cried, ‘Islamophobia.’ And that’s what it should remain — a false cry. And very much like the fable of the boy who cried wolf, these baseless allegations will increasingly be seen as background noise and not as a distraction from the truth or a stifling in the message of films such as “Honor Diaries,” working to expose heinous human rights crimes and violence against women.

CAIR may try to intimidate those delivering the message, but fear will not indefinitely quiet the truth seekers. Reality will only become louder with time.

Lisa Daftari is a Fox News contributor specializing in Middle Eastern affairs


Megyn Kelly did a powerful segment on this tonight with Brooke Goldstein and Qanta Ahmed:


International Women’s Day — why America’s politically correct feminists dishonor human rights

burqaBy :

As a young bride, I once lived in a harem in Afghanistan. It was a nearly fatal adventure but I survived, escaped, and learned about gender and religious apartheid long before the Taliban.  My firebrand American feminism was probably forged in purdah in the early 1960s. However, something called me Eastward and I have remained involved with the Islamic world.

Today, decades later, I work with Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents and feminists. They do not understand why Western feminists do not stand with them as they oppose normalized honor based violence, extreme state violence (think Iran, Saudi Arabia), and utter lawlessness when it comes to the torture and murder of girls and women.

Why would intelligent and educated Western feminists remain blind to such crimes in America?

Most recently, a law has been proposed in Afghanistan that will make it impossible for a woman whose family has beaten, tortured, or tried to kill her, to lodge a complaint of any kind. Such complaints are seen as endangering family unity. Orwell would understand this.

But why would intelligent and educated Western feminists remain blind to such crimes in America?

To their credit, American feminists exposed and opposed violence against women and championed a woman’s right to bodily integrity and  have done heroic humanitarian work in war zones, including Afghanistan. Some have critiqued the Afghan burqa (a sensory deprivation isolation chamber and ambulatory body bag) as a symbol of barbaric misogyny.

But feminists have been taken in by the false campaign against “Islamophobia,” (which does not really exist), and have backed President Obama’s approach to the Muslim world: Appeasement, flattery, a refusal to back the bravest Muslim dissidents who are fighting against barbaric totalitarian regimes, and a wholesale acceptance of Muslim women’s subordinate status in the United States.

Like Islamists, they believe that American tolerance and separation of religion and state mandate acceptance of face veiling and non-interference with close family monitoring, normalized daughter-beating, forced marriage to a first cousin, polygamy, and female genital mutilation (FGM) which exist in America, under the radar.

According to Archi Payati ,Deputy Director of Sanctuary for Families/Immigration Intervention whether they are done here or abroad, “the New York metropolitan area is the capital for (women who have had) illegal FGM procedures.”

Some Western feminists insist that the Islamic veil (niqab and burqa) is sexy, mysterious, and comfortable; others view the veil as a religious or privacy right.

Many Muslims do not.

While it is potentially perilous to involve the state in mandating what a woman cannot wear i.e. banning the burqa — feminists do not realize that women are honor killed for refusing to veil properly and that for nearly a century Muslim women fought for or were granted the right to be naked-faced in Egypt, Turkey, Persia, Jordan, Lebanon, the Maghreb, and Afghanistan.

In addition, some Western feminist academics and activists are reluctant to take a stand against honor killing in the West lest they be accused of racism or “Islamophobia”—even though the victims are women of color.

Their alleged anti-racism trumps their concerns with women’s rights. They are multi-cultural relativists who have sacrificed universal standards of human rights on the altar of “political correctness.”

As the author of three studies about honor killing, I know that this crime is rarely reported and even more rarely prosecuted. It is pandemic in Muslim countries and in parts of Hindu India. The United Nations continues to use statistics from the year 2000 which cite that “5,000 women are honor murdered each year.”

A Pakistani Human Rights Commission documents that 943 Pakistani women were honor murdered in the year 2011 alone. Statistics are elusive for North America but, in Middle East Quarterly, I have documented an escalation of such crimes based on media reports, public trials, and interviews.

Over the last quarter-century, high profile honor killings have taken place in Missouri, Ohio,  Illinois, New Jersey, Georgia, Florida, New York, Arizona, and Texas, and in Canada, from coast to coast. The majority are Muslim-on-Muslim crimes, a minority are Sikh-on-Sikh crimes.

I have worked with American and Canadian detectives, prosecutors, judges, and juries who have been warned they will be labeled “Islamophobes” if they describe the crime of honor killing as such.

Read more at Fox News

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies, a Fellow at the Middle East Forum, the author of thousands of articles and of fifteen books, including “Women and Madness,” and “An American Bride in Kabul.” She archives her articles and may be reached through her website: www.phyllis-chesler.com

Also see:

Documentary Shines a Light on Honor Killing

NRK-Emmy-til-Deeyah-440x350By :

In the low-quality police video that shows her giving a statement about her husband’s brutal, chronic physical abusiveness, she looks more beautiful than any movie star. Born in 1985, Banaz Mahmod was a Kurdish Muslim whose parents, having been granted asylum by the U.K., took her from Saddam’s Iraq to a pleasant-looking neighborhood in London. The usual “cultural clash” resulted. In 2002, when Banaz’s older sister, Bekhal, started acting like an ordinary English girl, her brother lured her to a remote location and tried to strangle her to death. When she freed herself with a good kick and challenged him – saying, “Look what you’re doing, you’re trying to kill me!” – he “started to cry like a woman” and explained that their father had put him up to it. Bekhal, taking the hint, cleared out, cutting off all ties to her family and community.

Banaz wasn’t so lucky. At age seventeen, her parents married her off to an illiterate chap, Ali, who was “literally just off the plane from Iraq” and whom she’d only met once. From the beginning, he routinely beat and raped her. When she complained to her parents, they took his side. (Her father loved Ali, considering him “the David Beckham of son-in-laws.”) In 2005, after three years of abuse, Banaz finally left Ali and went to the police. In the extensive excerpts from the police video that are featured in the harrowing documentary about her short life and violent death, Bajaz: A Love Story, which won an Emmy earlier this month, Banaz described Ali’s mistreatment of her in detail, noting that one beating had dislocated her wrist and that after one too many kicks in the head she wasn’t able to “remember things so good.”

On the police videotape, we see her asking: “Now that I’ve given this statement, what can you do for me?” She was told that there’d be an inquiry. There never was. It took the police three months to write up her statement. She returned five times, to no avail. As officials admit in the documentary, the police committed a “landslide of mistakes,” missing “all the signs that she was in grave danger.” Banaz missed the signs, too – which, frankly, could hardly have been more obvious. Even after her father tried to strangle her – she managed to escape, scaling a fence, collapsing on the floor of a nearby café, and ending up at a hospital where doctors said they’d “never seen anyone so frightened in their life” – she was persuaded to return home, apparently still unable to fully process the fact that her father was determined to murder her, and assuming, in any case, that if he tried to do so, her mother would somehow manage to protect her.

After leaving her husband, Banaz found a boyfriend, Rahmat. They tried to keep their romance secret. But one day a fellow Kurd spotted them kissing on a street. A phone call was made; a family “council of war” ensued. And the family dishonor was dealt with in the usual fashion. Only a few months after her police interview, Rahmat reported Banaz missing. The police investigation was led by detective Caroline Goode, the documentary’s main talking head. Although over fifty people had been involved in Banaz’s murder, and although “dozens, if not hundreds,” of Kurds in London knew what had happened to her, “not a single member of the community helped us,” recalls Goode, who states flatly that there was a widespread conspiracy “to pervert the course of justice” by giving false testimony and providing false leads.

Despite the stonewalling, however, Goode had an important ally: Banaz’s sister Bekhal, who testified against her family and who appears in the documentary in a full veil – not for religious reasons, but for protection, because she now lives in hiding. Banaz had been strangled to death by three cousins, and at least one of them had also anally raped her – a fact about which he afterwards bragged in a phone call taped by the police. Banaz’s father, uncle, and the three cousins, including two who’d fled to Iraq (and who, according to the film, were the first Iraqi nationals ever to be extradited anywhere), were given life sentences.

The heroes of Banaz: A Love Story are the victim’s sister, Bekhal, who by testifying defied not only her family but the entire Kurdish community, and Goode, who was determined to put the perpetrators behind bars and who, during her investigation, came to feel she’d become a sort of surrogate mother to the slaughtered girl “because she wasn’t loved by her own parents” and because “someone should love her.” The other, unseen hero of this film is the filmmaker herself, another astonishingly beautiful young woman named Deeyah.

Born in Oslo to parents from Pakistan and Afghanistan, Deeyah, as I learned from a profile in Dagsavisen last weekend, started performing on Norwegian TV as a little girl – leading to “brutal threats” from other Muslims – and at age eighteen recorded a song that hit #1 on the Norwegian charts. Not long after that triumph, she was assaulted at a concert and fled Norway for Britain. But there, too, she was the target of Muslim threats. So she moved on to Atlanta, where she spent almost six years and found success as a music producer. (She only recently returned to the U.K.) The Dagsavisen profile is headlined “Betrayed by Norway” because, as Deeyah puts it, “My heart was broken by Norway.” Growing up, she was exposed to plenty of rhetoric about and examples of women’s equality and freedom of speech – but she also experienced firsthand the indifference of mainstream Norwegian society to the rights of women and girls in Muslim communities. This systematic refusal to challenge misogynistic Muslim norms – a refusal that she attributes to a terror of being called racist, but that, as she points out, is itself racist – was what set her on the road to activism.

For those who aren’t familiar with the basic facts about honor culture, Banaz: A Love Story is a useful primer. Like most such films, to be sure, it shies away from the words “Muslim” and “Islam.” When Banaz says on the police videotape, twenty-two minutes into the documentary, that “for a Muslim female it is very hard to get a divorce,” it is the first reference to her religion in the entire movie; in discussing the contexts within which honor killings take place, Deeyah’s talking heads prefer to use terms like “tribal,” “culture,” “village culture,” “Asian,” “Iraqi,” “Pakistani,” or “Middle Eastern” – anything but “Islam.” One of the interviewees insists that honor killing is “not an entirely Muslim phenomenon and it’s a danger to think so.” No, it’s not entirely a Muslim phenomenon – it occurs, though at drastically lower rates, in some non-Muslim cultures, mainly in the Middle East. But the overwhelming majority of honor killings are committed by, and in the name of, Islam – which, if you’re even remotely familiar with the views of women promulgated in the Koran, is hardly surprising.

In any event, Banaz is far more than just a primer on honor culture. It’s an emotionally wrenching piece of work that takes viewers far beyond the grim statistics. One would have to be less than human to watch it and not feel – even if it’s for the thousandth time – a raw, burning outrage at the whole sick concept of honor culture. Imagine a family having a “status” based on the “virtue” of its female members! Imagine a “community” in which every loser family is so obsessed with its “status” in the eyes of all the other loser families that that “status” needs to be maintained at any cost, including the death of its own supposedly beloved children. Imagine a “culture” in which a family’s “status” can mean so much and a loved one’s life so little! There’s a term, folie à deux,for a madness shared by two people, usually living together in relative isolation from others; I didn’t realize until I just looked it up that it’s an actual psychiatric diagnosis, and that the DSM also recognizes such broader variations as folie à trois, folie en famille, and folie à plusieurs. When entire communities, convinced beyond a doubt that they are doing Allah’s work, conspire without hesitation to enable and cover up the barbaric killing of an innocent girl, how much more does it take, one wonders, to justify labeling what they think of as their faith as a mental disorder?

Read more at Front Page


Banaz A Love Story ©Fuuse Films:


For more on honor killing go to https://counterjihadreport.com/category/honor-killings/


Canadian Muslims Protest “Honor Killing” Label As Racist

by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News

Our Tax Dollars At Work: National Park Service Produces Videos Praising Islam’s Contributions To Women’s Rights

download (44)by Mara Zebest:

No joke. Your tax dollars paid for Obama’s National Park Service to make videos that praise Islam’s contributions to women’s rights. Indoctrination thrown in as added bonus and no explanation given as to why this is a function of the National Park Service.

Islam and women’s rights? Really? Are they referring to all those women’s rights like honor killings, stonings, gang rapes, the loss of independence to travel, hijabs and burqas… those women’s rights? Maybe a more accurate and honest overview (along with less taxpayer cost) could have been achieved by providing a free movie download showing The Stoning of Soraya M.



The Independent Journal Review reports the following:

Another example of your hard-earned tax dollars at work! Apparently, the National Park Service has a ton of money lying around and thought that maybe producing some pro-Islam videos might further their mission to provide national parks to Americans.

Seems legit.

So they hired a media person to visit the AnNur Islamic School in Schenectady, NY and got the real truth about Islam. Which may surprise you.

Read more at Gateway Pundit


TRIFECTA – Jihadists Execute Sisters and Mother for Dancing in the Rain

Noor Basra and Noor Sheza

Noor Basra and Noor Sheza

Two sisters in Pakistan made the mistake of dancing and playing in the rain. It earned them a death sentence from local jihadists. What does Trifecta think of these honor killings? Find out: