Photo above: Honor killing victim Fatima Abdallah, whose murder was classified a suicide by Florida law enforcement authorities for "fear of Muslim reprisal." They said she committed suicide by banging her head on a coffee table (which is BTW, not possible.)
Not only does the enemedia cover-up the motive behind these Islamic honor killlings, but they attack those who dare reveal the religion and the culture that sanctions honor violence.
When my organization, AFDI/SIOA, organized the first human rights conference on honor killings, we were widely criticized and demonized by Islamic supremacists and their media lapdogs.
Reliance of the Traveller, a manual of Islamic law that is certified by Al-Azhar University as a translation that "corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community...":
In Book O, titled "Justice," in section 1, "Who is Subject to Retaliation for Injurious Crimes," section o1.1 reads, "Retaliation is obligatory ... against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right...": However, o1.2 clarifies (above) that "The following are not subject to retaliation" and then lists — after the lovely, egalitarian "Muslim for killing a non-Muslim" and "Jewish or Christian subject ... for killing an apostate" — "(4) a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring":
BBC reveals huge scale of honour attacks in Britain, fails to mention the word “Islam” The Commentator (thanks to Tom)
At least 2,823 people, mainly vulnerable young women, were brutalised in Britain last year by members of their family. But BBC report censors out the key information
All right. I’m not going to make this difficult. The families giving the orders, as well as the victims, are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, Muslim. Surprised? No, of course you’re not. Honour attacks ranging in brutality from beatings to murder are commonplace in many parts of the Muslim world.
Since Britain, like many other European countries, has imported sizeable Muslim communities, which are to a significant degree unassimilated, the cultural practices of the old country have survived the transition to the new.
Finally, the figure of 2,823 attacks is almost certainly a gross under-estimate since, apart from anything else, it is drawn from only 39 of 52 UK police forces.
Got it? In just over 150 words (including title and summary) you now know all the basic information, and as intelligent, informed citizens you can have a discussion on what to do about it. That’s what journalism is for.
Propaganda, on the other hand, is intended for something else. It is designed to present a politically charged narrative held to with a fanaticism that will allow no mention of facts that contradict it. It is thus deliberately intended to lower the quality of the discussion by erasing key pieces of information.Enter the BBC, which reported on the matter in a lengthy, 700-plus word article and failed to mention the words “Muslim”, “Islamic” or “Islam” even once.
As I write this I am flicking back to the story itself so I can double check using the Find function. Could I be mistaken?
Here goes: “Islamic”? “No Matches”. “Muslim”? “No Matches”. “Islam”? “No Matches”.
This is how societies go down: when matters of the profoundest significance to their character, and potentially their very existence, have been rendered undiscussable by the people that set the terms of public debate.
Clearly the people who wrote and edited that story should be dismissed.
They won’t be of course because the mind-numbing, multiculturalist narrative that demanded censorship of the salient evidence is effectively institutionalised as the dominant narrative across the BBC as well as the wider liberal establishment.
So be it. Go ahead and have a conversation about deep-seated problems inside the fastest growing demographic group in Europe without mentioning what that group is. The quality of your discussion will be moronic. But you reap what you sow.
It would be nice to leave it at that on the grounds that these people are too narrow and boring to be bothered with.
Unfortunately we can’t because the BBC is the most powerful media outlet in the English speaking world and it sets the British news agenda.
I have been watching SKY News for at least three hours today and, unless I coughed when the word was mentioned, they’re not reporting that the story is about Muslims either despite multiple repetitions of the news item, and interviews.
Turning to the Daily Telegraph (the UK’s flagship, right-leaning, “quality” newspaper) its report is openly parasitic on the BBC’s, meaning that they also make no mention of Islam.
So you can see the problem. The power of the BBC is such that it is not only capable of influencing what is said, it can also influence what is not said.
And, when the whole organisation has been captured by politically correct ideology, that means that it’s not just a problem for the BBC, it’s a problem for Britain as a whole.