...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

February 19, 2006

And What Do We Do With Witches?

Burrrrn them!

A Muslim pop singer has been forced to hire bodyguards to protect her during a visit to Britain next month after she received a string of death threats from religious extremists.

US-based Deeyah is due in London next month to promote a new single and video, released tomorrow. But the track 'What Will It Be?' has already outraged hardline Islamists here as it promotes women's rights.

Her performances with a clutch of male dancers and revealing outfits have also deeply offended many Muslims. In one scene in her latest video, the singer drops a burqa covering her body to reveal a bikini.

Oh the horror!
The 28-year-old singer claims that in the past she has been spat upon in the street and told that her family would be in danger if she did not tone down her work. The situation is now so bad that Deeyah feels she cannot visit Britain without protection. 'I can no longer walk around without specially assigned bodyguards' . . . I would be lying if I said abuse from religious fanatics didn't upset or scare me.

. . .

'I have been on the verge of a breakdown. Middle-aged men have spat at me in the street and I have had people phone me and tell me they were going to cut me up into pieces. I became this figure of hate simply because of what I do and wear.'

More Deeyah biographical info here.

I can't tell you whether I like her music, because I can't find any samples on the web and she's not on iTunes. Then again, it doesn't really matter. Now that Muslim extremists have been granted an absolute veto power over anything "offensive," I don't really expect to be seeing Deeyah at the top of the Billboard charts anytime soon.

Here's some lyrics i was able to find, from the offending song, "What Will It Be."

From the land of the free to the jewel of the empire
Does the truth only come from the top of a holy man's spire?
From three paces back, covered head to toe
Are the rules just for the masses and written just for show?

. . .

Do you stand up, lay down or follow?
What will it be?
Will it all be the same again tomorrow?
What will it be?
You can claim it but the words are hollow
Do you stand up, lay down or swallow?
What will it be?

. . .

We don't take it lightly when you threatinin women,
How you have so much hate and faith in religion.
Fake in the system, need to take a break wit the dissin,
Before you end up in the lake where they fishin.
Hearin bout the muslim madona, asian J Lo,
Lookin for drama (OK) if you say so.
If you that religious and not with trendy clothes,
Then what you doin' even watchin' videos.

I think this chick has a death wish. But as Oprah might say, You go girl!

Update: Listen to Deeyah here.

[cross-posted at A Western Heart]

Posted by annika, Feb. 19, 2006 | TrackBack (0)
Rubric: annikapunditry


Great post, Annika. Doesn't this stuff just make you sick to your stomach? I get furious when I read stories this. Where is the Feminist Left? Too busy hating Bush to say anything about the condition of women in the Middle East. Not a word about how many woman have benefited from our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Doesnt' fit the template. What is even more disgusting is that there are going to be those that will somehow try to excuse Islam for this incident just like they do for all the other atrocities commited in its name. Some dumb shit will bust out the "moral equivalence" between all religions nonsense. Sicker still, some will blame the woman for not being more "sensitive" to her religion and culture.

Hate to be so un-PC folks, but Islam----yes, Islam. Not Christianity or Judaism---is the major threat to human freedom in the 21st century. Get used to it. It aint' going anywhere.

Posted by: Blu on Feb. 19, 2006

look at that slutty outfit she has on in the pic: arms uncovered, hair hanging out everywhere... I'm feeling a fatwa coming on... or, er, somethin...

Posted by: gcotharn on Feb. 19, 2006

Listen to some Deeyah (Deeyahcide; Plan of My Own; What Will It Be)

Posted by: bettiwettiwoo on Feb. 19, 2006

I seem to recall that Jay Leno's wife has something or another to do with rights for females in some oppressed area or another.

Why can't they declare "Kids Bop" offensive to Muslims? A bunch of kids sing adult songs that have been cleaned up significantly. It's hawked on TV all the time. Argh.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor on Feb. 19, 2006

I would like to issue my own Fahtwa... on Phil Collins, GODDAM I am so sick of his crap, I hear it everywhere. You are all encouraged to kill Phil Collins on sight. If you succeed I will insure that you will gain 72 virgins in heaven, or 72 raisens, can't really be too sure about that translation.

Posted by: Kyle N on Feb. 20, 2006


As much as I generaly find your solutions to the problems endemic to the planet abhorrent, your identification of Islam as the most dangerous force on earth (more dangerous than even Dick Chaney) accurate. The test of the civilized world will be the challenge of fanatical islam in current decade.

It is a frightening enemy that welcomes your death and its own equally.

Posted by: strawman on Feb. 20, 2006

Serious courage.

And to those people..who seem to lurk especially in journalism, entertainment, and academia..who love to pat themselves on the back for their "courage" in opposing GWB yet who are the first to quail at a threat from a jihadi..read about this woman and see what real courage looks like.

Not that these people could recognize it if they see it.

Posted by: David Foster on Feb. 20, 2006

Mr. Forster,

It is one thing to agree that some followers of Islam are a very real threat to many civilized countries and institutions on the planet and quite another to believe that GWB has a clue about correcting them. He does not. The state of affairs with regard to this problem are in a downward spiral and nothing afoot is reversing the trend. Regardless of how many we will slaughter in Iraq or anywhere else, a fundamentally grass roots movement will prevail or at least maitain its strength. Nothing I have seen since 911 tells me the "courage" of GWB's policies have resulted in anything more than the destruction of Iraq, the death of too many Americans and Iraqi's, increased hostility toward the US around the world, the alienation of our allies, the sloping of our economy to benefit the wealthy, the enormous accumulation of our debt in the hands of our competitors, the reduction of services to the needy at home, the imperialization of the Presidency, the stagnation of wages and addition of low paying jobs, and too much more to list. Oh, on the plus side inflation seems controlled and interest rates low, but these two things are what fuels our economy, not industrial output or an increase in personal wealth. Under the umbrella of having a plan to make us safe this asshole is engaged in a creating a legacy so ruinous that it will take decades to reverse.

Posted by: strawman on Feb. 21, 2006

strawman...my point was not to argue that GWB is correct on Iraq, though I do believe that. My point is that in truth, it takes no particular courage to oppose those policies, particularly if one works in an industry like entertainment or academia in which 90% of one's peers and decision-makers think the same way. Yet academics and Hollywood types are continually patting themselves on the back for their courage...sorry, it's like giving yourself the Distinguished Flying Cross for things you have done in a combat flight simulator. Meanwhile, these same individuals show surprising amounts of diffidence when it comes to any behavior that might make them targets of the jihadis. It's one thing to engage in "transgressive" behavior that might upset little old Catholic ladies from Dubuque; it's quite another to do "transgressive" things that offend those who might actually kill you. Making the distinction might be called prudence; it certainly isn't courage.

Deeyah *does* show genuine courage, and I have seen little interest among the "progressives" in supporting people like her.

Posted by: David Foster on Feb. 21, 2006

David Forster,

Deeyah may either be displaying courage or a death wish, we may never no but I try not to be too critical toward those who show some effort, to raise their voice against the forces of oppression. On ther other hand I don't feel that all that can be spoken or drawn ought to be. I think the most difficult aspect of free speech is not to abuse the privilage. Self censorship is practiced by the American press on a daily basis as it is in all western countries. Gunter Grass was interviewed the other day and compared the Danish cartoons to the cartoons of the Nazi propaganist's images of Jews. American newspapers would not run a cartoon of Jesus with a crown of dynamite blowing up abortion clinics. Or the Pope being fellatedby a mafia chief as thanks because HH might have argued for forgiveness in some crimal matter related to the mafia.

Drawing insulting streotypical cartoons about the Prophet of one billion people to make a statement about a relatively few individuals does not amount to an important excerise of free speech. Defending his right to have done it misses the point entirely. Free speech was intended to allow all discourse that furthers discussion of an issue such that the government shall not act to protect its interests by censorship. All private organizations may excerise restrictions on speech and behavior. A neighborhood association can have a no flag and banner rule as easily as it may impose a no yellow house with red shutter rule. Newspapers all censure themselves for various reasons not the least of which is their economic survival.

I think the Danish cartoon incident is an unfortunate error on the part of an editor who confused free speech with his insensitivity to a culture he holds in low regard.

Posted by: Strawman on Feb. 21, 2006

"Gunter Grass was interviewed the other day and compared the Danish cartoons to the cartoons of the Nazi propaganist's images of Jews. American newspapers would not run a cartoon of Jesus with a crown of dynamite blowing up abortion clinics. Or the Pope being fellatedby a mafia chief as thanks because HH might have argued for forgiveness in some crimal matter related to the mafia."

Strawman, I didn't see the interview with Mr. Grass. But based on what you quoted he is a fool. Comparing those VERY TAME cartoons to any of the examples stated is very simply inane. Comic strips/cartoons ridiculing Christianity are ubiquitous. Islamic newspapers routinely display the most vile anti-semitic propoganda. (Indeed, they teach it in their schools.) This sounds like the very same moral relativism/moral equivalence crap that one expects from the politically correct. Islam has a long history of being able to dish it out but not being able to take it. This religion deserves no special consideration---indeed, if anything at all, it deserves special condemnation for its moral cowardice and history of unending violence against those who either oppose it or are apathetic to it.

All this so called "rage" is phony anyway. The "riots" are staged Islamic propoganda by people with a very specific anti-Western/anti-civilization agenda.

Posted by: Blu on Feb. 21, 2006

p.s. It also worthy to note that those who bomb abortion clinics are pariahs in Christianity. Alternatively, those who blow up innocent woman and children are heroes to Muslims. There is no equivalence. When will we start seeing mass demonstrations against suicide bombers? (Besides the recent hotel bombing in Egypt, which ended killing a bunch of Muslims, when is the last time you saw a spontaneous Muslim reaction against terroism.) These people give tacit support to the "few" by there utter and near total silence.

Posted by: Blu on Feb. 21, 2006

thats very expansive of Stawdog to be all against insulting someones religion. I wonder where he was on the whole Piss Christ episode? I know all his lefty fellow travelers were for it.

Posted by: Kyle N on Feb. 21, 2006

Much of what you say is true, nonetheless it is no sin to be more civilized or less provocative than your ranting neighbor. Yes they dish it out, and yes they should be able to take it, and to a certain extent the outrage is a staged exposition and opportunity to vent at the west, but to say that the west's freedom of expression is compromised if a Danish cartoonist gives a second thought to the effect of his work is just not true.

I can't say that I have seen many Christians out protesting the actions of the clinic bombers and whether they are treated as pariahs by most Christians does not mitigate the actions of millions christians who praise them and give them support. The same is true of Muslims. The majority condem the jihadist and suicide bombers yet many priase them and lend support. I think a cartoon deriding the passive acceptance of the majority of Muslims toward crimes committed in the name of Mohammed or Allah might be more to the point.

I stand by my claim that the American press would not print similarly "tame" cartoons about Jesus or the Pope or a great Rabbi.

Posted by: Strawman on Feb. 21, 2006


I think you confuse the motives and obscure the point of what many people do and say. I will defend the Danish cortoonist's right to draw and print whatever he wishes, as I and my fellow travelers will do for the artist that sat a cross in his own unine. That does not mean I endorse his work nor agree with his point of view. What is does mean, however, is that I will try to stop the likes of you who would try to deny his rights with petty bullshit about sacrosanct themes and would try to selectivly legislate his freedom of expression to suit your beliefs. He may be guilty of creating offensive and unsavory art but what you wish for is far more offensive.

I wish the world were a more considerate place and no one actively expressed their rage at each other or felt the need to tear down anothers beliefs, but I do not think for a moment a government can legislate gentility and compassion into existence.

Posted by: Strawman on Feb. 21, 2006

"I think a cartoon deriding the passive acceptance of the majority of Muslims toward crimes committed in the name of Mohammed or Allah might be more to the point."

Yes, I agree, that would be an excellent way of pointing out that reality.

"I can't say that I have seen many Christians out protesting the actions of the clinic bombers and whether they are treated as pariahs by most Christians does not mitigate the actions of millions christians who praise them and give them support."

I don't think you have a good feel for the larger Christian community. Every major leader of every major denomination condems the bombing of abortion clinics. More importantly, the bombing of abortion clinics and violence against doctors/nurses is, in a word, rare. This is not the case with Islam, where violence in its name occurs ON A DAILY BASIS. And, moreover, is rarely ever condemned by its religious leaders, or its adherents.

Posted by: Blu on Feb. 21, 2006


Let me first rise to my feet after my faint upon reading your post to our Hostess's latest tilt away from the idiot chimp on the imprudent choice of a protetion company for our port protection. I have no idea whether or not they are a capable choice, only that it is a choice so tin eared it makes Chaney look like a smooth operator.

But as for your comment that violence is rare in the abortion struggle I would argue that every vessel bulging, shouting, gruesome poster baring, driveway and sidewalk clogging christian who tries to impose his/her will in front of a clinic, threatening young women with hell-fire and damnation and spewing outright lies about the impact of the procedure on their bodies,is committing a violent act.

Posted by: Strawman on Feb. 21, 2006

You won't get an argument from me on the politics. The clear and easy choice is to say "fuck no!" But I've tried to listen to the pros and cons sans a knee-jerk reaction. From what I can tell so far, it seems like the security piece hasn't changed only the operational piece (i.e. the piece the Brits had previously). I also think the President's question was legitimate. (The question cited by Annika in the post.) There is no doubt in my mind that had the administration said no to this deal that they would have been branded as Islamophobes by the very same Dems who are crying foul now. I think the Reps are in a tough position. The "pro" side of this argument cannot be given in a 15 second soundbite. I plan on reading more about this. Regardless, even if the President is making the even-handed call with a partner on the War on Terror, it is probably a loss politically.

In regard to your argument about protesters, I can only respond by saying that a picture and a slogan are a far, far cry from murder.

Posted by: Blu on Feb. 21, 2006


The port security issue seems to be pure politics. If the British firm that had been doing the work ( I have no idea if they were through or effective) has only changed with regard to a transfer of ownership than I think this is an unfortunate turn for the President but not a change in the status of port security. I, of course, don't pity his position but rather revel in his bad luck.

Ugly pictures, throbing temple veins and shouting are not murder but your word was violence so I went with that. Can you agree it is violence against women and I'll agree it is not murder.

Posted by: Strawman on Feb. 22, 2006

Listen to Deeyah's music on the audio player at: www.deeyahpoint.co.uk

Deeyah's official website:


Posted by: Stacy on Feb. 22, 2006

Yet another example of why we in the west must confront these intolerant bastards at every opportunity. The right to freedom of expression means NOTHING unless we can say things that will offend people, even offend them deeply. No compromise on this issue can be acceptable.

Posted by: Perry de Havilland on Feb. 24, 2006

Sorry, just read this by Strawman:

"I think the Danish cartoon incident is an unfortunate error on the part of an editor who confused free speech with his insensitivity to a culture he holds in low regard."

Are you kidding? Flemming Rose (the editor in question) did this to prove two things (he has always been very clear on this) - (1) to show that there was a climate of intimidation caused by muslims against people who wanted to express themselves in ways they found offensive (2) that offending people is indeed a part of free speech and that in Denmark, as in most western nations, the right to free speech trumps religious bigotry...

Well point (1) was proven beyond any reasonable doubt as Muslims across the whole damn WORLD held a protracted Kristalnacht against anything Danish in responsive to something the disapproved of and point (2) was proved when the government of Denmark stated to any Islamic leader who was paying attemtion that they regretted the offense caused but HAD NOT POWER TO LIMIT FREE SPEECH. So... far from a mistake, publishing the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten proved beyond ANY doubt everything that Flemming Rose wanted to prove. And just incidently he propelled his newspaper from an obscure right-wing Danish paper to the torch bearer of western values across the free (i.e. non-Islamic) world. I wish I could make 'errors' like that!

BTW, I have blogged the hell out of this incident and have over 1,000 comments on about 8 articles (over 670 on one in particular where published the cartoons). It is a huge issue in the culture war as not only must we face down intolerant Islam, it puts the home-grown multi-cultural left in a lose-lose situation. How sweet is that?

Posted by: Perry de Havilland on Feb. 24, 2006