Latest news with #ShiaIslam
NDTV
a day ago
- Politics
- NDTV
Why Is Dog Walking Prohibited In Iran? Authorities Extend The Ban To More Cities
Iran has expanded a ban on walking dogs in public to more than 20 cities, due to concerns over public health, social order and safety, local media reported. The cities where the ban has been imposed include Kermanshah, Ilam, Hamadan, Kerman, Boroujerd, Robat Karim, Lavasanat and Golestan, according to a report by Tehran-based Faraz News. Similar restrictions were first introduced in the capital city of Tehran in 2019, sparking controversy and criticism among citizens. The Iranian authorities claim that dog walking poses health risks to the public. They also argue that dog walking can lead to safety issues. However, they haven't provided specifics on these concerns. Authorities have been cracking down on dog owners who violate the ban, leading to arrests and resistance, as per reports. Etemad, which is a reformist newspaper, on Sunday quoted an official from Ilam city as saying that "legal action will be taken against violators". The quote didn't have any other details. The latest measures were aimed at "maintaining public order, ensuring safety and protecting public health", the state newspaper Iran said on Saturday. As quoted by the Iran newspaper, Abbas Najafi, the prosecutor of the western city of Hamedan, said, "Dog walking is a threat to public health, peace and comfort." Why is dog walking banned in Iran? The ban has been imposed through local directives and police orders as no national legislation has been passed. However, there are some articles in Iran's Penal Code and Constitution that enable authorities to impose such bans, which are Article 638 on public morality, Article 688 on threats to public health and Article 40 of the Constitution, which prohibits harm to others. Some reports have claimed that the ban aims at maintaining social order and upholding the country's official religion, Shia Islam. Some think the ban is a force against Western cultural influence. Many religious scholars believe that petting dogs or coming into contact with their saliva is ritually impure. "Offenders will face consequences if they are seen walking dogs in parks, public spaces, or carrying them on their vehicles," Khalkhal's public prosecutor, Mozaffar Rezaei in northwest Iran's Ardabil province, said in remarks to Islamic Republic News Agency (ILNA) published Sunday. The ban came into effect on June 6.
Scroll.in
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
When the British considered punishing Iran for the harassment of Indian pilgrims
In June 1931, the British Consul in Mashhad, a city in northeastern Iran, received a plaintive letter from a resident of Lucknow. In the letter, Kishwar Jahan Begum complained that when she arrived in Mashhad with nine others, their belongings were confiscated by octroi officials and they were made to pay a hefty fine. She appealed for the return of the belongings, which included silk cloth and handkerchiefs. She said these things were not for sale, as claimed by the octroi officials, but were gifts for relatives. 'Moreover,' she added for good measure, 'I wish to point out that I belong to a Royal family of Lucknow who always remained loyal to [the] British Govt.' To the British consular authorities, Kishwar Jahan Begum's complaint must not have been unique. Before the Partition of the Indian subcontinent, many Indian pilgrims travelled to Iran either overland from Balochistan or by steamship to Iraq and then overland to Mashhad. A number of them had the same complaint: harassment from Iranian officials. These were the early days of the Pahlavi Dynasty in Iran (1925-1979). Corruption was rampant and Tehran's writ did not run all over the country. Families from as far as Bombay and Bengal would write to British consular authorities, seeking redress or justice for the harassment they faced from officials in Iran. A large number of these letters were addressed to the consul in Mashhad, a city popular with Indian pilgrims as home to the Imam Reza Shrine, the final resting place of the eighth Imam in Shia Islam, Ali al-Rida. Not that the pleas worked. The consul in Mashhad, then spelt Meshed, took up pilgrims' grievances with the local authorities but found it changed nothing. At home, too, the pilgrims got no remedy. Upon their return, when they informed the press about their experiences, editors refused to run articles because the Press Act forbade 'publication of matter detrimental to relations with a [friendly] foreign country'. Businessman's travails In 1935, an eminent businessman wrote to the consul in Mashhad about experiencing repeated harassment in Iran. Mohammad Ali Habib, a partner in a company with a 'turnover of Rs 2 crore', said he was on a pilgrimage with six family members when 'the Persian Customs officials at Khanaqin thoroughly examined our luggage and charged us 5 tomans duty on gramophone records and 2 bottles of rum which I am carrying with me for medicinal purposes'. Habib's travails did not end there. Despite producing the duty voucher from Khanaqin, he and his family were stopped by officials in Damghan and their belongings searched. 'The Customs officials at Damghan could not find anything except our personal effects, in spite of that, they took out all the embroidered silk saris, which were worned (sic) several times by the ladies,' Habib wrote. 'The officers maybe had never seen a sari, which Indian ladies wear and they started taking all the saris that were in the four ladies bags. The officer only left absolutely dirty clothes and barring that he confiscated all the saris.' The Customs officials, who held up the family for 24 hours and charged it 3,142 krans (a currency in use in Iran and Afghanistan), tried to make Habib sign statements in Persian. 'I said that I did not know a word of Persian and that I could not sign a statement of which I had not the foggiest idea,' Habib wrote in his complaint. 'One person was called who knew French and he explained to me in French that the statement was an inventory of the articles confiscated as contraband goods and that they belonged to me personally.' The businessman tried to explain in 'broken French' that those were not contraband goods and in fact belonged to his family members. He insisted on adding this disclaimer to the statement before signing it, but his request was denied and, under the threat of jail, he had to relent. 'I address you this long and tedious letter with the object that you will please move the Persian authorities at Damghan and Teharan and get from them the articles they have confiscated valued at about £100 plus 3142 Krans in cash,' Habib wrote to the British authorities. His family was planning to return to Bombay from Iran via Delhi and Agra but abandoned the idea after their clothes were confiscated. During Partition, the Habib family moved their businesses to Pakistan and set up Habib Bank and the House of Habib, a large business group in the country. British concerns A Foreign Department file documented all sorts of cases of high-handed Customs officials in Iran seizing basic items from pilgrims. One entry from 1935 read: 'A family of pilgrims consisting of 12 persons were deprived by the Customs of 8 cakes of Sunlight and 3 cakes of toilet soap – a very reasonable allowance for personal use on a long journey. They were also fined a sum of 52 rials on the ground that the soap was not declared on the frontier.' The colonial authorities were incensed with Iran. Not only were Indian pilgrims facing harassment there, but even Indians resident in the country were put through difficulties. Among those who complained of discrimination in Iran were Sikh truck drivers with transport businesses. Trucks imported to Bushehr by British Indian subjects were 'suddenly commandeered and sent away to Jahrom to carry troops,' said the Foreign Department. Even British oil executives faced problems. 'A touring car containing three British employees of the Anglo Persian Oil Company was raided by Boir Ahmadi Sarhidis,' a report in the Foreign Department file said. 'The raiders stripped the men and released them after making them walk for a considerable distance, bare feet and in scanty clothes.' Taking note of the growing complaints, Hughe Knatchbull-Hugessen, the head of the British Legation in Tehran, wrote to Indian Foreign Secretary HAF Metcalfe in March 1934: 'I have for some time past been somewhat exercised about the number of cases which come to my notice involving the ill-treatment, administrative baiting, malicious persecution and so on of Indian British subjects. The cases occur all over Persia, but more particularly in Khorasan, Sistan and Zahedan, partly because there are so many more Indians in those provinces than in others, partly because of the control of the ministries in Tehran over the administrative departments, at any rate in Sistan and Zahedan, is weaker than elsewhere.' Knatchbull-Hugessen said that, in the past, Indians would directly approach consular authorities for help. 'But unfortunately the Indians very quickly fell into the habit of bribing their way out of any difficulties and that of course was fatal. The Persian officials lost all respect for them and opened their mouths wider and wider. Today an Indian rarely brings his difficulties to the Consul until he has bribed every official in sight without success and hopelessly compromised his case from every point of view.' Diplomatic manoeuvres Lt Col Hugh Daly, who visited Iran to look into the problems faced by Indian pilgrims, suggested that Britain pressure Iran by restricting pilgrimages to Mashhad or stopping them altogether. 'The value of the weapon consists in the fact that with trade as bad as it is with at present the town of Meshed depends for its existence to a large extent on the pilgrim traffic,' Knatchbull-Hugessen, taking note of Daly's suggestions, wrote in a letter to Metcalfe. 'The Shrine itself, of course, has large revenues from its properties throughout Persia, but its income even, and indirectly that of the Shah, would be affected if the traffic dried up altogether.' Metcalfe said that Iranians had 'peculiar notions of nationalism': whenever their diplomats were apprised of the harassment, they would defend their 'sovereign right' to act as they pleased. He called their attitude 'most unreasonable' and 'diametrically opposed to the regard and consideration' shown to Iranians in India. 'For instance in 1930 the Consul General for Persia in India objected to the prosecution of Persian subjects under the Criminal Tribes Act and stated the the terms 'Irani' and 'Persian Gypsies' used by local governments in notifications issued under that Act were offensive to the Persian government,' Metcalfe said. 'This shows that Persian subjects in India are not only given a fair deal but are also exempted from the operation of the law of the country when such a course is desirable to satisfy the susceptibilities of the Persian government.' Metcalfe was not in favour of disallowing pilgrimages to Iran. He said the restriction would upset the Shia community and end up hurting Iraq as well since many pilgrims who crossed over from Baluchistan visited Karbala after Mashhad. India's Home Secretary Maurice Hallett agreed with Metcalfe, noting that any decision to stop pilgrimages to Iran would be regarded as 'interference with religion, in spite of the fact that such action would be in the interests of the pilgrims themselves'. Hallet instead suggested tit-for-tat action against Iran: 'It seems to me that if the Persian Government does not treat British Indians decently, we should be permitted to deal with wandering Persian gangs under the Criminal Tribes Act. In deference to the wishes of the Persian Government, certain Local governments are now not allowed to use this Act even against persons whose claim to Persian nationality is questionable.' The Home Secretary also recommended using the media to change public opinion among Shias. 'If Persia is anything like as sensitive as is Afghanistan to what appears in the Indian press, I think the best way to meet this is by propaganda.' Hallet wanted the government's publicity officers to nudge Shia-run newspapers to 'ventilate the grievances of Indian pilgrims' in Iran. 'If it were generally known that these pilgrims were badly treated, their numbers (whatever they may be) are likely to be reduced. It will do no harm if Moslem newspapers urge the Government of India to make representations to Persia.' If the government did use propaganda, it did not have as big an effect on Shias' attitudes as word of mouth. Data collected from British India and the princely states put the number of Shia pilgrims travelling to Iran at around 2,000 at best. There was a small drop in the figure from 1935 until the outbreak of the Second World War. And yet, those visiting Iran continued to complain about ill-treatment by Customs officials. The road access from India to Iran was cut off after Partition. From this point on, Indian Shia pilgrims mostly travelled by ship to Iraq and then overland to Iran. For Indian Shias, a pilgrimage to Iran still remains popular, although wars and political instability have made interruptions a regular feature.
India.com
23-05-2025
- India.com
In this country, wives are available for 15 days, males are allowed to…, it's called pleasure marriage, the country is....
Temporary marriages in Indonesia | PC: There are a lot of strange things that happen around the world. Every country has its unique facts that make it different, and sometimes bizarre. One such country is Indonesia, where a growing trend has emerged: women in impoverished communities are becoming temporary wives (for around 15 days) to male tourists in exchange for money. Women who support their families amidst economic hardship enter into temporary marriages. In return, they are expected to fulfil their husbands' sexual desires and household duties. This practice is commonly referred to as a 'pleasure marriage' or nikah mut'ah. If a woman chooses, she can enter into 20–25 such marriages in a year. This marriage ends automatically after a short, fixed period with the consent of both parties. This type of nikah originated in Shia Islam. Kota Bunga, a cluster of vacation villas in Indonesia's mountainous Puncak region The practice takes place by people from the Puncak region, a popular tourist destination in Indonesia that is known for its natural beauty and Arabic influences. The practice exploits vulnerable women under the guise of religious tradition. So, wealthy tourists, primarily from the Middle East, engage in these temporary marriages with local women who need money. When the leave, the rights of the marriage ends. According to Los Angeles Times repot, a woman shared she has been married at least 15 times to Middle Eastern tourists since she was 17. She typically earns between $300 and $500 per marriage, after the agency takes its cut, she uses money to pay rent and take care for her sick grandparents.
Al-Ahram Weekly
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Al-Ahram Weekly
El-Sisi praises Indian Bohra Community charitable projects in Egypt - Society
President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi praised on Monday the developmental and charitable projects sponsored by the Indian Bohra Community in Egypt, in collaboration with the Tahya Misr Fund, during a meeting with the community's Sultan Mufaddal Saifuddin in Cairo. President El-Sisi warmly welcomed Sultan Saifuddin as a cherished guest, highlighting the close historical ties between Egypt and the Bohra Community, the Egyptian presidency said. During the meeting, he expressed his deep appreciation for Sultan Saifuddin's role in restoring and renovating the shrines of Ahl Al-Bayt and several historical Egyptian mosques. 'These efforts align with the Egyptian state's broader goals of development and the revitalization of historic Cairo,' the Egyptian presidency said. For his part, Sultan Saifuddin expressed his deep gratitude for the warm welcome he consistently receives during his visits to Egypt and his special appreciation to President El-Sisi for his continued hospitality. He also commended the ongoing comprehensive development witnessed across various fields in Egypt, alongside the consolidation of the principles of tolerance and citizenship. The sultan of the Bohra Community also underscored Egypt's leading role in fostering security, stability, and peace in the region. He highlighted Egypt's tireless efforts to reduce regional tensions, particularly its initiative role in mediating a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The presidency added that Sultan Saifuddin's sons, Prince Ja'far El-Sadiq Imadduddin, Prince Taha Najmuddin, and Prince Husain Burhanuddin, along with the sultan's representative in Egypt, Mufaddal Mohammad, attended the meeting. The Bohras are a religious denomination within the Ismaili branch of Shia Islam. The largest Bohra communities exist in India, Pakistan, Yemen, East Africa, and the Middle East. Sultan Saifuddin has contributed to renovating and restoring many historic mosques in Egypt, including Al-Hussein, Al-Sayyeda Nafisa, and Al-Sayyeda Zeinab. Additionally, he donated EGP 10 million to the Tahya Misr Fund between 2014 and 2018. Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
Yahoo
04-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Syrian security forces 'oversaw' armed civilians who killed Alawites, accused man says
One of the men accused of taking part in a wave of sectarian violence against Syria's Alawite minority two months ago has told the BBC that he and other armed civilians who travelled to the area were advised and monitored by government forces there. Abu Khalid said he had travelled as a civilian fighter to the Mediterranean coastal village of Sanobar on 7 March, to help battle former regime insurgents. "The General Security department told us not to harm civilians, but only to shoot at insurgents who shot at us," he told me. "There were eight men with me, but it was a large group, and the General Security department was overseeing things so that no-one would vandalise the village or harm the residents." He later filmed himself shooting dead a 64-year-old village resident, Mahmoud Yusef Mohammed, at the entrance to his house. Abu Khalid, who has now been arrested, insisted Mahmoud was an armed insurgent - but video he filmed of the incident does not support his account. Military police told the BBC there had been no coordination between security forces and Abu Khalid. Human rights groups estimate that almost 900 civilians, mainly Alawites, were killed by pro-government forces across Syria's coastal region in early March. The Alawite sect is an offshoot of Shia Islam and its followers make up around 10% of Syria's population, which is majority Sunni. Syria's coastal area - a stronghold of the former regime - has been largely sealed off, but a BBC team gained access, speaking to witnesses and security officials about what happened in Sanobar. The violence came a day after fighters loyal to the country's overthrown former President Bashar al-Assad, who is an Alawite, led deadly raids on government security forces. The new Sunni Islamist-led government had called for support from various military units and militia groups to respond to those raids – but that escalated into a wave of sectarian anger aimed at Alawite civilians. Witnesses told the BBC that several different armed groups had targeted Alawites for summary executions. Some also said that government security forces had battled violent and extremist factions to protect Alawite villagers from attack. When the violence along this coast erupted, the village of Sanobar was right in its path. Some 200 people were wiped out from this small Alawite village, over the course of a few days in early March. Almost two months after the killings, there have been no funerals in Sanobar. A mass grave now squats beside the winding village road. Hurried burials have cleared the remaining corpses. This is now a village of women and secrets. Most survivors are still too scared to speak openly but their stories, shared with us privately, are often strikingly similar. The body of Mahmoud Yousef Mohammed lay outside his simple breeze-block house in Sanobar for three days after he was shot dead. His wife, daughter and grandchildren, sheltering in a neighbour's house, were too afraid to emerge from hiding and bury him, as armed groups roamed the village. His family said Mahmoud was a polite man, known and respected in the village; a farmer with a military background, who sometimes worked as a minibus driver. His house, on a quiet street at the edge of the village, stands less than 300m (985ft) from the main highway where, on 6 March, army officers from Syria's former regime led co-ordinated attacks on the country's new security forces. For two days, government forces battled former regime fighters, known locally as "filoul" ("remnants"), in the villages along this coastal highway, calling for support from allied militia groups who helped push Bashar al-Assad from power last year. An array of armed supporters responded to the call, including foreign jihadist fighters, civilians and armed units now nominally part of the new Syrian army, but still not fully under government control. All are groups now accused by survivors of civilian executions. All day on 7 March, Sanobar residents listened to the sounds of intense fighting around the village, as families hid in their houses. Then the targeting of civilians began. "All day, many groups entered our house," one survivor from Sanobar told me. "They weren't from the [military] groups based here, but from Idlib, Aleppo and elsewhere. Some wore camouflage uniforms. But the ones who killed us were wearing green uniforms with a mask." "They stole everything, insulted us, threatened the children," she continued. "The last group came around 6pm. They asked, 'Where are the men?' and took my father and my brother Ali. We begged them not to kill them. They said, 'You're Alawite, pigs,' and shot them in front of our eyes." Some time that day, Mahmoud stepped outside the building he was sheltering in with his family. One of his relatives said he could smell toxic fumes from a fire nearby, and wanted to check on his own house. He never reappeared. "We found the next morning that he had been killed," the relative told us. The story of what happened to Mahmoud began to emerge when a video of his killing surfaced on social media, filmed by the man who shot him. In the video, Abu Khalid is seen grinning and taunting Mahmoud from the back of a motorbike before shooting him six times. To meet Abu Khalid, we travelled to Idlib, the heartland of transitional President Ahmed al-Sharaa's Islamist group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which swept Syria's old regime from power last December. Now in military police custody pending an investigation, Abu Khalid shuffled into the room, blinking and stretching as his blindfold and handcuffs were removed. A young man in camouflage pants, he seemed keen to talk, explaining that Mahmoud was not a civilian, but an insurgent who was fighting in the village that day, and had been carrying an 8.5mm-calibre rifle when he shot him. "I turned the camera on him and told him to sit down," Abu Khalid told me. "He was running away and he wanted to kill me, so I shot him in the shoulder and the leg. When I got closer, I saw him moving his hand as if he had a bomb or a gun. I was afraid, so I killed him." But the video Abu Khalid filmed of the shooting - its location and timing verified by the BBC - does not support his account. A former member of the British special forces confirmed that there was no weapon visible on or near Mahmoud at any point in the video. And at no point does Abu Khalid ask the 64-year-old to stop or sit down - nor does he appear scared or under threat. Instead, he is shown whooping and grinning on the back of the motorbike, before calling out to Mahmoud, "I've caught you, I've caught you! Look at the camera!" He then shoots him three times in quick succession. Mahmoud falls to his knees inside the doorway of his house. "You didn't die?!" Abu Khalid calls out, as he follows him to the building. Mahmoud can be heard begging for his life, before Abu Khalid shoots him three more times at close range. International law forbids the killing of civilians, the injured, or disarmed fighters. Khaled Moussa, from the military police unit now holding Abu Khalid, said he had gone to fight in Sanobar without coordination with the security forces. "Civilians are not supposed to be there during military operations," Mr Moussa said. "He made a mistake. He could have captured the person, but instead he killed him." But Abu Khalid has little regret for what he did. When he cries during our interview, it's not for Mahmoud - or even for himself. It's for his little brother, killed in a bomb attack by President Assad's former army in 2018 as his family sat down at home to break their Ramadan fast. "He was eight years old, and I held him while his soul left his body," he told me, before tears start flowing down his face. "I was raised during the revolution, and saw nothing but injustice, blood, killing and terror. They ignore everything that happened in Syria before the liberation, and focus on the video I filmed." He tells me his family's latest casualty was his 17-year-old cousin, killed while fighting insurgents near Sanobar. "He was completely burned," he said. "We took him away in a plastic bag." "If I was going for revenge for what they did to us, I wouldn't have left any of them." The insurgent attacks on 6 March ripped open sectarian fault-lines that Syria's new Islamist government had tried to paper over with promises of tolerance and inclusion. The Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR), an independent monitoring group, says former regime loyalists killed at least 446 civilians, including 30 children and women, and more than 170 government security forces, most of them on 6 March. Those attacks resurrected deep-seated anger over the repressive dictatorship of former President Assad, with Alawite civilians seen by some as complicit in the crimes of his regime - and as part of the insurgency that followed his fall. The SNHR says the government's crackdown on insurgents on the coast "escalated into widespread and severe violations", most of which were "retaliatory and sectarian". The group says that pro-government forces and supporters killed at least 889 civilians, including 114 children and women, in the days following the insurgent attacks. Amnesty International has investigated dozens of attacks it says were "deliberate", "unlawful" and targeted at Alawite civilians. One video from Sanobar shows a pro-government fighter marching through the village chanting, "ethnic cleansing, ethnic cleansing". Lists of victims from the village, compiled by local activists, include the names of more than a dozen women and children, including an 11-year-old, a pregnant woman and a disabled man. The survivor who watched gunmen kill her father and brother said the family showed their killers the men's civilian ID cards to prove they hadn't been part of Assad's army. But it made no difference; their only accusation, she said, was that the family were "Alawite pigs". Separating civilians from insurgents is key to the new government's plan to secure the country, and its promise to protect minorities. But that will require prosecuting those responsible - and proving it can control its own military forces and armed allies. Sharaa's HTS group - once the local affiliate of al-Qaeda and still designated as a terrorist organisation by the UN, US and UK - formed the backbone of his new army. There has been rapid recruitment to fill the ranks of a new civilian police and the General Security Forces. Training has reportedly been shortened and many units say they are under-equipped. One commander looked wistfully at my body-armour and radio when we joined them on a patrol. "We don't have those," he said. Turkish-backed militia and jihadist fighters who once fought alongside HTS to remove Bashar al-Assad are among those named by witnesses and human rights groups as carrying out summary executions. In the streets of Sanobar, the names of Turkish-backed units, now supposedly under government control, have been graffitied on the walls, and the BBC heard several reports that their men were still present in the village. Some videos of alleged violations also appear to show the presence of vehicles and uniforms from the official General Security Forces - prompting Amnesty International to call for investigation. The head of the General Security Forces for the Latakia region, Mustafa Kunaifati, told me that civilians with friends or relatives in the army were responsible for most of the crimes, but admitted that members of armed groups had also been involved - including what he called "individual cases" from his own General Security units. "It happened," he said, "and those members were also arrested. We can't accept something like that." After the former regime fighters were expelled and the situation brought under control, he said his men "began removing all the rioters from the area and arresting anyone who had harmed civilians". Several witnesses have confirmed to the BBC that Mr Kunaifati's forces intervened to protect them from other armed groups. One of Mahmoud's neighbours in Sanobar told us they evacuated him and his family 30 minutes before Mahmoud was killed. And the witness who described the killing of her father and brother said the General Security Forces had helped them escape the village, and later to return and bury their relatives. Sharaa has vowed that "no-one will be above the law" when it comes to prosecuting the killings on the coast. A special committee is currently investigating both the initial 6 March attack by insurgents, and the violence by pro-government forces that followed. The BBC understands some 30 people have been arrested. But in a country still waiting to see justice for the crimes of the past, this is a delicate moment. Some have argued that the government's decision to issue a general call for support after the insurgent attacks made violence predictable, even inevitable. Many Alawite villagers say they want the government's General Security Forces to police their villages, and for other factions, now positioned at some checkpoints and bases, to leave. Two months after the violence here, government security forces are acting as the shield against their own hard-line allies. The future of Sanobar is a test for the future of Syria, and the country's other minorities - Druze, Christians, Kurds - are watching. To see how far Syria's Islamist government can hold this wounded country together without resorting to the repression of the past. 'We will rescue anyone': BBC accompanies Syria's White Helmets after deadly attacks BBC finds Syrian families sheltering at Russian airbase from sectarian attacks Whole families dead in recent Syria violence, says UN Syrians describe terror as Alawite families killed in their homes
