ISIL/DAESH: All Female Battalions and Sex Slavery, All in One

There's apparently something of a mini-"gender revolution" taking place in the Islamic State at the moment. Increasingly, on the domestic front, women are actually taking a forefront role in enforcing the hard-line ideology behind the movement.

The Atlantic - The ISIS Crackdown on Women, by Women

In Raqqa, Syria, which serves as the Islamic State’s de facto capital, women who go out without a male chaperone or aren’t fully covered in public are subject to arrests and beatings.

And often it’s other women who do the arresting and beating.

The al-Khansaa Brigade is ISIS’s all-female moral police, established in Raqqa soon after ISIS took over the city a few months ago. "We have established the brigade to raise awareness of our religion among women, and to punish women who do not abide by the law," Abu Ahmad, an ISIS official in Raqqa, told Syria Deeply’s Ahmad al-Bahri. Ahmad emphasized that the brigade has its own facilities to avoid mingling among men and women. “Jihad,” he told al-Bahri, “is not a man-only duty. Women must do their part as well.”

The institution of female enforcers for female morality makes a certain kind of sense if you take the prohibition against sexes mingling to its logical extreme. Still, ISIS in Raqqa may be the only jihadi group employing this kind of logic. In other jihadi groups, “it is men who enforce modesty in public,”

Click to expand...

They carry guns, they man security checkpoints (ostensibly, in order to search women, and make sure that they are not actually men in disguise), and they roam the streets patrolling for non-conformity. While many point out that this policy is still new, rather unorthodox, and might not spread, others view it as being the beginning of something greater, possibly even broaching on a "female empowerment" movement of sorts.

Hegghammer says whether or not female morality enforcement brigades spread more widely, their presence in Raqaa is indicative of a bigger, slow-moving shift toward allowing women “more operative” roles in the jihadi movement. “There is a process of female emancipation taking place in the jihadi movement, albeit a very limited (and morbid) one,” Hegghammer says.

...

Hegghammer points to the hundreds of Islamist women in Europe who express support for ISIS on social media. “Many of them are eager to portray themselves as strong women and often make fun of the Western stereotype of ‘the oppressed Muslim woman,’” he says. “On social media at least, I think we can speak of a nascent ‘jihadi girl power’ subculture.”

Click to expand...

At the same time, this goes hand in hand with a system of mass institutionalized, and ritualized, sex slavery of "infidel" women, meant to draw young male fighters to the Islamic State's ranks.

New York Times - ISIS Enshrines a Theology of Rape

The systematic rape of women and girls from the Yazidi religious minority has become deeply enmeshed in the organization and the radical theology of the Islamic State in the year since the group announced it was reviving slavery as an institution.

...

Trade in Yazidi women and girls has created a persistent infrastructure, with a network of warehouses where the victims are held, viewing rooms where they are inspected and marketed, and a dedicated fleet of buses used to transport them.

A total of 5,270 Yazidis were abducted last year, and at least 3,144 are still being held, according to community leaders. To handle them, the Islamic State has developed a detailed bureaucracy of sex slavery, including sales contracts notarized by the ISIS-run Islamic courts.

...

A growing body of internal policy memos and theological discussions has established guidelines for slavery, including a lengthy how-to manual issued by the Islamic State Research and Fatwa Department just last month. Repeatedly, the ISIS leadership has emphasized a narrow and selective reading of the Quran and other religious rulings to not only justify violence, but also to elevate and celebrate each sexual assault as spiritually beneficial, even virtuous.

Click to expand...

Say what you will about ISIS, but they're far from stupid. They're actually rather pragmatic in some regards... Albeit in a certifiably insane kind of way.

They're simultaneously increasing participation by everyone within their particular group as a method of fostering internal cohesion (going so far as to actually advance female agency in ways other radical Islamist groups have not), while rationally industrializing methods by which they can exploit and eliminate opposing groups.

This is a kind of "deliberate and brilliant madness" we honestly haven't seen since the days of the Russian Revolution or the Third Reich.

Well, it's not really different than sending child soldiers out. Anything that makes the opponent flinch before they shoot is a win for them.

ISIS/ISIL/Daesh/whatever we're calling them is as unconventional of an enemy as the western world has ever faced. They'll try anything to score an even perceived win.

Gathomas88 said:

This is a kind of "deliberate and brilliant madness" we honestly haven't seen since the days of the Russian Revolution or the Third Reich.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't even think the Third Reich or Lenin's Pals is a good comparison. I'd compare them more to the Viet Cong.

Kobie said:

Well, it's not really different than sending child soldiers out. Anything that makes the opponent flinch before they shoot is a win for them.

ISIS/ISIL/Daesh/whatever we're calling them is as unconventional of an enemy as the western world has ever faced. They'll try anything to score an even perceived win.

Click to expand...

True. The Iranians had a similarly "genre bending" approach to things which caught many off guard in the 1970s.

However, even they were not quite so radically alien as this.

Kobie said:

Honestly, I don't even think the Third Reich or Lenin's Pals is a good comparison. I'd compare them more to the Viet Cong.

Click to expand...

I was comparing them to Lenin primarily in their apparent flexibility and pragmatism, sometimes in ways seemingly counter to their stated ideological goals. The Reds actually resorted to many rather unconventional tactics (accepting charity from the US, holding the families of skilled non-Communist and Tsarist military officers hostage in order to ensure their loyalty and service to the Bolshevik regime, even instituting some limited forms of Capitalism, and etca) in order to hold things together during, and immediately after, the Russian Civil War.

They are similar to the Nazis in the sheer amount of careful, deliberate, and even rational, thought, planning, preparation, and organization they're putting into monstrous and insane policies. They seem to have had the genocide and mass system of sex slavery they inflicted upon the Yazidis planned out well in advance of even moving into the region. They also have entire departments of government dedicated to justifying these policies using the Quran.

It's nuts, but it's also fascinating, in a perverse kind of way.

Gathomas88 said:

True. The Iranians had a similarly "genre bending" approach to things which caught many off guard in the 1970s.

However, even they were not quite so radically alien as this.

Click to expand...

The Iranians were not above using child soldiers. I've read a lot about the Iran-Iraq war (I was a history minor in college and took two courses on Middle Eastern study, so I AM AN EXPERT AND YOU MUST BOW BEFORE ME) and honestly, that was the closest thing to the Killing Fields we've had since Pol Pot got tossed. That was an absolute mess.

Gathomas88 said:

I was comparing them to Lenin primarily in their apparent flexibility and pragmatism, sometimes in ways seemingly counter to their stated ideological goals. The Reds actually resorted to many rather unconventional tactics (accepting charity from the US, holding the families of skilled non-Communist and Tsarist military officers hostage in order to ensure their loyalty and service to the Bolshevik regime, even instituting some limited forms of Capitalism, and etca) in order to hold things together during, and immediately after, the Russian Civil War.

They are similar to the Nazis in the sheer amount of careful, deliberate, and even rational, thought, planning, preparation, and organization they're putting into monstrous and insane policies. They seem to have had the genocide and mass system of sex slavery they inflicted upon the Yazidis planned out well in advance of even moving into the region. They also have entire departments of government dedicated to justifying these policies using the Quran.

It's nuts, but it's also fascinating, in a perverse kind of way.

Click to expand...

I don't think ISIS is particularly pragmatic. They're clinging to a relatively tiny piece of territory (which is about to get a lot smaller since, somehow, they really pissed off the French, who are not strangers to warfare). ISIS appears to be throwing whatever they can against the wall and seeing what sticks. The US doesn't seem particularly interested in engaging them up-front, mostly because we don't have to. US policy against ISIS under Obama appears to me to be "let the neighbors deal with it," and now that the neighbors are getting hit, they are dealing with it.

I don't think that's a particularly effective response from the administration (I've long said that this administration is weak on terrorism when it comes to borders and Europe) but if it gets others involved instead of the world asking us to clean up messes that we're all complicit in, I'm ok with it (if that means, depressed as **** about it). I hate that 140-ish people dying in one of the most beautiful cities in the world had to be the impetus for world response when Boko Haram just chopped the crap out of a ton of people in Africa and nobody cares.

I don't think ISIS' leadership has any illusions of holding onto a slice of territory or establishing the caliphate they claim to desire. I think they're just trying to fire up a base of young, disaffected Islamic youths. They're basically the Iranian mullahs from the late 1970s without a country.

They're looking at this as a marathon, not a sprint. And we're too busy playing whack-a-mole to realize it.

Kobie said:

The Iranians were not above using child soldiers. I've read a lot about the Iran-Iraq war (I was a history minor in college and took two courses on Middle Eastern study, so I AM AN EXPERT AND YOU MUST BOW BEFORE ME) and honestly, that was the closest thing to the Killing Fields we've had since Pol Pot got tossed. That was an absolute mess.

Click to expand...

True, and they were rather fond of, almost literal, "human wave" tactics as well, as I recall.

They simply weren't quite so hardline with regards to interpretations of Islamic law as ISIS is today. Their governmental system has also managed to remain - somewhat paradoxically - Liberal Democratic(ish) throughout the whole thing as well.

I don't think ISIS is particularly pragmatic. They're clinging to a relatively tiny piece of territory (which is about to get a lot smaller since, somehow, they really pissed off the French, who are not strangers to warfare). ISIS appears to be throwing whatever they can against the wall and seeing what sticks. The US doesn't seem particularly interested in engaging them up-front, mostly because we don't have to. US policy against ISIS under Obama appears to me to be "let the neighbors deal with it," and now that the neighbors are getting hit, they are dealing with it.

Click to expand...

Also true. Though it is worth nothing that one could say the same of the Third Reich as well, however.

I was simply commenting on the propensity of the Islamic State to undertake blatantly irrational strategies (no matter how you cut it, attempting to take on the whole damn world at the same time in a conventional war is idiotic) in strangely rational, methodical, and meticulously organized ways. It just isn't something we've seen on this kind of scale in quite a while, or in this dramatic a form.

The whole situation really just goes to show that truth sometimes is legitimately stranger than fiction.

I don't think that's a particularly effective response from the administration (I've long said that this administration is weak on terrorism when it comes to borders and Europe) but if it gets others involved instead of the world asking us to clean up messes that we're all complicit in, I'm ok with it (if that means, depressed as **** about it). I hate that 140-ish people dying in one of the most beautiful cities in the world had to be the impetus for world response when Boko Haram just chopped the crap out of a ton of people in Africa and nobody cares.

Click to expand...

As they say, hindsight is, unfortunately, 20/20. The nature of modern media and human thinking also tends to render most issues "out of sight, out of mind."

Kobie said:

I don't think ISIS' leadership has any illusions of holding onto a slice of territory or establishing the caliphate they claim to desire. I think they're just trying to fire up a base of young, disaffected Islamic youths. They're basically the Iranian mullahs from the late 1970s without a country.

They're looking at this as a marathon, not a sprint. And we're too busy playing whack-a-mole to realize it.

Click to expand...

I do think that's pretty much it in a nut shell. They're certainly going to make a go of actually making a state work, but they're not necessarily married to the idea. If it doesn't work out, they will simply take all the "street cred" they've gained, and the chaos they've sown, and go underground with it.

Hell! Who knows? They might even pull a state off if we don't play our cards right. Lenin had the deck pretty squarely stacked against him at first as well, after all, and he ultimately came out ahead. We can't necessarily dismiss the possibility of a stable "Caliphate" if we simply sit on our hands and watch things unfold.

dimensionallava said:

Click to expand...

Religious orders which one voluntarily joins and can voluntarily leave at any point in time are not the same thing as having certain standards forcibly imposed upon an entire population at gunpoint.

Take your trolling elsewhere. :roll:

Gathomas88 said:

Religious orders which one voluntarily joins and can voluntarily leave at any point in time are not the same thing as having certain standards forcibly imposed upon an entire population at gunpoint.

Take your trolling elsewhere. :roll:

Click to expand...

I dont get it??? are you saying a woman devoted to the muslim faith is "being forced at gunpoint" but a christian women who becomes a nun or something is doing so voluntarily just because their religion is different?

dimensionallava said:

I dont get it??? are you saying a woman devoted to the muslim faith is "being forced at gunpoint"

Click to expand...

The OP explicitly says exactly that is occurring within the Islamic State, replete with roving bands of women armed with AK-47s wandering the streets threatening and beating other women who to fail to conform to the Islamic State's codes for dress and behavior. Perhaps you should read it.

Gathomas88 said:

The OP explicitly says exactly that is occurring within the Islamic State, replete with roving bands of women armed with AK-47s wandering the streets threatening and beating other women who to fail to conform to the Islamic State's codes for dress and behavior. Perhaps you should read it.

Click to expand...

its just a form of fascism no more islamic then the nazis are christian

dimensionallava said:

its just a form of fascism no more islamic then the nazis are christian

Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:

Notice the topic of the thread? Stick to it or face the consequences.

Gathomas88 said:

Hell! Who knows? They might even pull a state off if we don't play our cards right. Lenin had the deck pretty squarely stacked against him at first as well, after all, and he ultimately came out ahead. We can't necessarily dismiss the possibility of a stable "Caliphate" if we simply sit on our hands and watch things unfold.

Click to expand...

ISIS seems to have delusions of grandeur that are going to pop them in the butt in the long run.

dimensionallava said:

its just a form of fascism no more islamic then the nazis are christian

Click to expand...

Can't we all just agree that it sucks?

Kobie said:

Can't we all just agree that it sucks?

Click to expand...

no its important to define why it sucks

Gotta love the blind fumbling of the "equivocation at all costs" brigade. :roll:

In any eventuality, back to the topic at hand. It is interesting how ISIL is actually making a move to incorporate women into the apparatus of its totalitarian policies, and even giving them a certain degree of agency in enforcing them. The organization is ultimately smart enough to realize that a "Revolution" of the kind they're attempting here simply can't work if half the population isn't on board with it in at least some sense.

dimensionallava said:

Click to expand...

The nun chose to join a religious order and wear such garb. She can leave her order anytime she wishes and discard the clothing without fear for her life.
Should the Muslim woman choose to discard the clothing she is wearing, and has been forced to wear by her parents since she was a child, she risks having acid thrown in her face, or dishonouring her family which means an honour killing, or being severely beaten by her father/brother/uncle/husband.

Comparing the two is ridiculous and dishonest.

dimensionallava said:

no its important to define why it sucks

Click to expand...

If you are in countries where theology is state law, you are oppressed. It doesn't matter if it's Christian Islamic or Jedi/force. In some countries they obey something called sharia law. That requires certain behaviors from women that limit their liberty. Sometimes to the point were their liberty to exist is in danger.

A few laws come to mind, such as a girl who is raped must marry her attacker or be executed as a harlot.

Gathamos and I don't agree often but in this case I'm in absolute agreement with him.

dimensionallava said:

I dont get it??? are you saying a woman devoted to the muslim faith is "being forced at gunpoint" but a christian women who becomes a nun or something is doing so voluntarily just because their religion is different?

Click to expand...

There is a difference, albeit not clear on the surface.

The nun "chooses" the habit and celibate lifestyle, although there's a good chance she might have been pressured to do so over the years.

The woman behind the burka has no such choice - not in nations where Islam and the government are not separate.

Both religions are patriarchal but Christian women have gotten to the point where they mostly laugh and flip-off extremist males who seek to control them.

Do you honestly believe that girls in sharia states enjoy being held down and having their clitoris sliced away? Do you think they choose to have fewer educational choices? Do you think they happily accept that they cannot marry someone of their own choosing? And, of course, those women and girls are thrilled at the prospect of the males in their families killing them if they bring dishonor on the family.

Seriously? You think the two are one and the same?

dimensionallava said:

I dont get it???

Click to expand...

That is evident.

Gathomas88 said:

There's apparently something of a mini-"gender revolution" taking place in the Islamic State at the moment. Increasingly, on the domestic front, women are actually taking a forefront role in enforcing the hard-line ideology behind the movement.

The Atlantic - The ISIS Crackdown on Women, by Women



They carry guns, they man security checkpoints (ostensibly, in order to search women, and make sure that they are not actually men in disguise), and they roam the streets patrolling for non-conformity. While many point out that this policy is still new, rather unorthodox, and might not spread, others view it as being the beginning of something greater, possibly even broaching on a "female empowerment" movement of sorts.



At the same time, this goes hand in hand with a system of mass institutionalized, and ritualized, sex slavery of "infidel" women, meant to draw young male fighters to the Islamic State's ranks.

New York Times - ISIS Enshrines a Theology of Rape



Say what you will about ISIS, but they're far from stupid. They're actually rather pragmatic in some regards... Albeit in a certifiably insane kind of way.

They're simultaneously increasing participation by everyone within their particular group as a method of fostering internal cohesion (going so far as to actually advance female agency in ways other radical Islamist groups have not), while rationally industrializing methods by which they can exploit and eliminate opposing groups.

This is a kind of "deliberate and brilliant madness" we honestly haven't seen since the days of the Russian Revolution or the Third Reich.

Click to expand...

I wonder, are these units payed or are they composed of volunteers? And can they go about in public without chaperons?

Kobie said:

Well, it's not really different than sending child soldiers out. Anything that makes the opponent flinch before they shoot is a win for them.

ISIS/ISIL/Daesh/whatever we're calling them is as unconventional of an enemy as the western world has ever faced. They'll try anything to score an even perceived win.

Click to expand...

Exactly...there is no real parity...women are still completely subject to men's laws and subordinate. They are just being 'used more efficiently and expediently.'

Lursa said:

Exactly...there is no real parity...women are still completely subject to men's laws and subordinate. They are just being 'used more efficiently and expediently.'

Click to expand...

In fairness, ISIS would argue that it is Allah's law, not man's, and that they are all more or less MEANT to be "subordinate," and "used... efficiently and expediently," regardless of their gender. They simply view men and women as having different roles.

My point was that it's interesting, in this particular case, that ISIS doesn't seem to have a problem with women saying these things for themselves, or with their being the primary force responsible for enforcing conformity with them. That's actually borderline "revolutionary," as far as Jihadist movements go.

Gathomas88 said:

In fairness, ISIS would argue that it is Allah's law, not man's, and that they are all more or less MEANT to be "subordinate," and "used... efficiently and expediently," regardless of their gender. They simply view men and women as having different roles.

My point was that it's interesting, in this particular case, that ISIS doesn't seem to have a problem with women saying these things for themselves, or with their being the primary force responsible for enforcing conformity with them. That's actually borderline "revolutionary," as far as Jihadist movements go.

Click to expand...

Yeah, no different from Christians or Orthodox Jews. Irrelevant IMO.

And extremists dont ever seem to have problems reaarranging their beliefs on behalf of expediency or the ultimate success of their goals.