DOCUMENTARY:
ELIZABETH II
THE PARASITIC AND CORRUPT HOUSE OF WINDSOR’S PARTNERSHIP WITH GLOBAL
MUSLIM DICTATORSHIPS.
Exclusive: 'A Piece of Meat' - How
Muslim Men See White Women
Past and present, little has changed.
December 20, 2019
Sheikh Maktoum’s SIX wives… including the one who got away: How Dubai’s ruler first married a 17-year-old cousin who bore 12 of his children before two Lebanese women and a Greek joined his growing family
- Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum undertook reforms of UAE's Government
- He has been held responsible for turning Dubai into a wealthy global mega city
- But he has come under criticism by human-rights groups for alleged infractions
- He has been married six times; wives include his cousin and Jordanian royalty
PUBLISHED: | UPDATED:
Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, 70, has been married at least six times.
His first, in 1979, was to his first cousin and First Lady of Dubai, Sheikha Hind bint Maktoum bin Juma Al Maktoum, who was 17 at the time - nearly 13 years younger than Sheikh Maktoum.
She is the mother of twelve of his children including Hamdan bin Mohammed Al Maktoum, their heir-presumptive, who was born in 1982.
His other wives include Sheikha Randa bint Mohammed Al-Banna, from Lebanon, where another of Sheikh Maktoum's wives, Sheikha Delila Aloula, was also born.
Algerian-born wife Sheikha Houria bint Ahmed Al M’aash is the mother of Princess Latifa, and the sheikh is also married to Zoe Grigorakos, who has Greek origin, and another unknown wife.
All of these have consistently evaded the public eye, but the sheikh's sixth and most 'junior' wife, Princess Haya bint Hussein of Jordan, is used to the limelight.
While Princess Haya - the daughter of King Hussein of Jordan and his third wife Queen Alia - was born in her father's kingdom, she received a British education, reading Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford.
She married Sheikh Maktoum in 2004, aged 29.
Princess Haya Bint Al Hussein And Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum At The First Day Of Royal Ascot
The princess is an accomplished horse rider, becoming the only woman to win a medal in the Pan-Arab Equestrian Games, having been the first woman to represent Jordan in international equestrian sport.
She competed in showjumping at the 2000 Olympics for Jordan and has been a goodwill ambassador for the UN world food programme.
Princess Haya is reported to have fled Dubai with her children and £31 million in June 2019, seeking asylum in Britain.
The sheikh and Haya had long been a fixture in British high society and are independently both friends of the Queen.
Last year the sheikh – unaware his wife was fleeing him in fear of her life – had been waiting for her and their children at his sprawling estate in Newmarket, Suffolk, one of several enormous homes the 70-year-old monarch owns in the UK. They never turned up.
She had taken their daughter Princess Jalila, then 11, and son Prince Zayed, then seven.
The reign of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President and Prime Minister of the UAE, and the ruler of the Emirate of Dubai, has been mired in controversy.
Left to right: Ivanka Trump, the daughter and senior adviser to U.S. President Donald Trump, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates and ruler of Dubai and Dubai Crown Prince, Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum
Since his accession in 2006, he has undertaken sweeping reforms in the UAE's Government, and has been held responsible for turning Dubai into a wealthy and global mega city.
The sheikh trained in the military before being appointed to head of the Dubai Police Force and Dubai Defence Force, and was the UAE's first defence minister in December 1971.
In January 1995, he was pronounced Crown Prince by his elder brother Maktoum bin Rashid Al Maktoum, and embarked upon a policy of tackling Government corruption that led to the arrest, charging, and unusual public 'naming and shaming' of 14 officials, including six officers.
After around one decade of acting as the UAE's de facto ruler, he became Vice President in January 2006, and Prime Minister of the UAE that February.
He has created and encouraged the growth of numerous Dubai businesses and economic assets, including Dubai World, Dubai Holding, and Emirates flight.
Sheikh Maktoum's rule has been mired in controversy.
Queen Elizabeth II (R) greets Emir of Dubai Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum (L) and Jordan's Princess Haya bint al-Hussein (C) in the Royal Box on the second day of the Royal Ascot horse racing meet in Ascot, west of London on June 15, 2016
He has come under criticism by human-rights groups for alleged infractions, presiding as he does over a judicial system which mandates the execution of criminals by firing squad, hanging, or stoning.
Sentencing for flogging - a legal punishment for criminal offences such as adultery, premarital sex, and alcohol consumption - ranges between 80 and 200 lashes.
Apostasy from Islam and homosexuality are a crimes punishable by death, while women in the country require permission from male guardians to marry and remarry.
It is not permitted to be critical of the UAE Government, royal families, officials, and police, in any way. Attempts to demonstrate in public are met with resistance.
Human Rights Watch has accused the UAE regime of violating rights to freedom of expression, while US intelligence identified that the UAE had developed its own messaging app - to be used for spying purposes.
The UAE Government has also been accused of kidnapping, detaining, and torturing political opponents and expats, often to extract forced confessions of alleged plots to overthrow the regime. For instance, during the Arab Spring in 2011, at least 100 activists were jailed and tortured.
The Arab Organisation of Human Rights listed 16 different methods of torture used by the UAE Government, including electrocution.
Meanwhile, Amnesty International accused the UAE of running secret prisons in Yemen where prisoners are forcibly disappeared and tortured.
Timeline of the legal battle between Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum and his wife Princess Haya bint Al Hussain
The High Court in London has published rulings relating to the legal battle between Dubai ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum and his former wife Princess Haya bint Al Hussain of Jordan.
Here is a timeline of events in the case.
July 15, 1949 - Sheikh Mohammed is born in Dubai.
May 3, 1974 - Princess Haya born in Amman, Jordan.
August 15, 1981 - Princess Shamsa bint Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum is born to Sheikh Mohammed, who has several wives.
December 5, 1985 - Sheikha Latifa bint Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum is born.
Summer 2000 - During a visit to England, Shamsa runs away from her family and seeks immigration advice to try and stay in the UK.
August 2000 - Shamsa is taken from the streets of Cambridge by men working for her father.
She is taken to her father's home in Newmarket, before being taken by helicopter to France and then to Dubai. She has not been seen in public since.
March 2001 - A woman claiming to be Shamsa contacts Cambridgeshire Police, saying she has been taken from England to Dubai.
December 2001 - The Guardian publishes an article suggesting Shamsa has been abducted from the UK.
April 2004 - Sheikh Mohammed and Princess Haya are married.
December 2, 2007 - Al Jalila born.
January 7, 2012 - Zayed born.
February/March 2018 - A video of Latifa is uploaded to the internet, in which she gives a detailed account of important events in her life. She also describes what she knows about her sister Shamsa's time in England and her subsequent abduction.
December 6, 2018 - The BBC broadcasts a documentary called Escape From Dubai: The Mystery Of The Missing Princess.
February 7, 2019 - Sheikh Mohammed divorces Princess Haya under sharia law without her knowledge. She says this date, which coincides with the 20th anniversary of her father's death, is deliberately chosen to 'maximise insult and upset to her'.
April 15 - Princess Haya travels to the UK with Jalila and Zayed.
May 14 - Sheikh Mohammed issues proceedings at the High Court in London seeking the summary return of his two children with Princess Haya to Dubai.
May 22 - First High Court hearing before Mr Justice Moor - the media, who are unaware of the hearing or even the proceedings, do not attend.
July 16 - On the eve of a 'scoping hearing' to consider media issues before Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the family division of the High Court, Princess Haya issues applications to make the children wards of court, for a forced marriage protection order and for a non-molestation order.
July 17 - Three journalists attend and lawyers for Sheikh Mohammed apply for them to be excluded. Sir Andrew says the hearing is relatively short while those in court 'simply scope out what lies before us' and to consider what information, if any, should be given to the media. The judge adds that the parties will issue a short statement explaining the nature of the proceedings.
July 18 - With the permission of the court, the parties release the following statement: 'The parties to these proceedings are HH Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum and HRH Princess Haya Bint Al Hussein. These proceedings are concerned with the welfare of the two children of their marriage and do not concern divorce or finances.'
July 30 - At a hearing to work out issues, including the question of media reporting and to how to proceed to a final hearing to determine the welfare issues, Sir Andrew allows the media to report that Sheikh Mohammed has applied for the summary return of the children to Dubai, and that Princess Haya has applied for the children to be made wards of court, for a non-molestation order and a forced marriage protection order.
November 12-13 - Sir Andrew conducts a hearing to make findings of fact in relation to Princess Haya's allegations against Sheikh Mohammed.
December 11 - The judge delivers his ruling on the fact-finding hearing. However, strict reporting restrictions preventing its publication remain in force.
January 17, 2020 - The judge delivers a ruling on a series of 'assurances and waivers' given by Sheikh Mohammed to Princess Haya. He also conducts a hearing to determine whether his earlier rulings should be made public.
January 27 - Sir Andrew concludes that his earlier rulings should be published, but the publication is postponed pending a Court of Appeal challenge by Sheikh Mohammed to this decision.
February 26 - The Court of Appeal hears Sheikh Mohammed's challenge.
February 28 - Three leading judges dismiss his appeal and refuse to grant him permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. The stay on publication remains in force to give the father chance to make a fresh challenge to the Supreme Court.
March 5 - The Supreme Court announces that it has refused permission to appeal and all previous rulings are made public.
Sex-Slavery: An Islamic
Sacrament?
ISIS may have popularized it, but concubinage is integral to
Islam.
February 20, 2020
Raymond
Ibrahim
Is the sexual enslavement of
non-Muslim women an Islamic State idea or merely an Islamic idea?
First, lest there is any doubt
that ISIS members were not only convinced that it was their Islamic right to sexually enslave
“infidels,” but that doing so was pious, consider this account from 2015: “In the moments before he
raped the 12-year-old [non-Muslim] girl, the Islamic State fighter took the
time to explain that what he was about to do was not a sin. Because the preteen
girl practiced a religion other than Islam, the Quran not only gave him the
right to rape her — it condoned and encouraged it, he insisted.” “He said
that by raping me,” recalled the 12-year-old, “he is drawing closer to God.”
“Every time that he came to rape
me, he would pray,” explained another girl, aged 15. “He said that raping me is
his prayer to God. I said to him, ‘What you’re doing to me is wrong, and it
will not bring you closer to God.’ And he said, ‘No, it’s allowed. It’s
halal.’”
Such claims are of course
consistent with a Q&A pamphlet on the
topic published by the Islamic State in 2015:
Question 1: What is
al-sabi?
Al-Sabi is a woman from among
ahl al-harb [the “people of war,” meaning un-subjugated non-Muslims] who has
been captured by Muslims.
Question 2: What makes
al-sabi permissible?
What makes al-sabi permissible
[i.e., what makes it permissible to take such a woman captive] is [her]
unbelief. Unbelieving [women] who were captured and brought into the abode of
Islam are permissible to us, after the imam distributes them [among us].
Question 3: Can all
unbelieving women be taken captive?
There is no dispute among the
scholars that it is permissible to capture unbelieving women [who are
characterized by] original unbelief [kufr asli], such as the kitabiyat [women
from among the People of the Book, i.e., Jews and Christians] and polytheists.
However, [the scholars] are disputed over [the issue of] capturing apostate
women. The consensus leans toward forbidding it, though some people of
knowledge think it permissible. We [ISIS] lean toward accepting the consensus….
Question 4: Is it
permissible to have intercourse with a female captive?
It is permissible to have
sexual intercourse with the female captive. Allah the almighty said:
“[Successful are the believers] who guard their chastity, except from their
wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess, for then
they are free from blame [Koran 23:5–6].”…
Question 5: Is it
permissible to have intercourse with a female captive immediately after taking
possession [of her]?
If she is a virgin, he [her
master] can have intercourse with her immediately after taking possession of
her. However, if she isn’t, her uterus must be purified [first]….
An important question arises at
this juncture: Are these beliefs based on ISIS’s own interpretation of
Islam—as we are repeatedly told by the “experts”—or are they based on standard
Islamic teachings?
Evidence clearly indicates the
latter. Most recently, for instance, on February 2, 2020, Reuters reported that “The
man shot dead by police after wounding two people in a stabbing spree on a busy
London street… described Yazidi women as slaves and said the Koran made it
permissible to rape them.” A few weeks earlier, in late December,
African migrants in Paris “repeatedly cited Allah, the Koran, and Mecca,” while
raping a minor girl in Paris (original). One can go on and
on; consider just the following quotes limited to the ongoing sex grooming
scandals in the UK:
·
“The men who did this to me
have no remorse,” said another victim of her Muslim rapists. “They would tell
me that what they were doing was OK in their culture.”
·
A Muslim convicted of rape
confessed that sharing non-Muslim girls for sex was “a religious requirement.”
None of these men were ISIS
members; they were just Muslims. If they shared the same outlook
concerning the sexual bondage of non-Muslim women, that is because Islam—not
the Islamic State, a byproduct—promotes it.
Here, for example, is how the
late American professor Majid Khadduri (1909-2007),
“internationally recognized as one of the world’s leading authorities on
Islamic law and jurisprudence,” politely touched on the topic—and only in the
past tense, as if to say this is how Muslims once behaved but no
longer. From his War and
Peace in the Law of Islam:
The term spoil (ghanima) is applied specifically to
property acquired by force from non-Muslims. It includes, however, not only
property (movable and immovable) but also persons, whether in the capacity
of asra (prisoners
of war) or sabi (women and children). … If the slave were a woman, the
master was permitted to have sexual connection with her as a concubine.
“Spoils of war” is certainly
correct. As one human rights activist said while discussing a Muslim
man’s rape of a 9-year-old Christian girl in Pakistan: “Such incidents occur frequently. Christian girls are considered goods to be damaged at leisure.
Abusing them is a right. According to the community’s mentality it is not even
a crime. Muslims regard them as spoils of war.”
Moreover, seeing and treating
non-Muslim women as “spoils of war” is not just limited to the words of old
religious texts or “extremist” groups. It was a primary feature of—and
often motivation for—over a millennium of war on the
non-Muslim world (15 million Europeans alone were enslaved, many—including men
and boys—for sexual purposes).
All this is also a reminder
that ISIS should not be instantly
rejected—as it always is by the Western establishment—as an authority on
Islamic topics. Indeed, and as the rest of its Q&A pamphlet on sex
slavery makes clear, ISIS so meticulously follows the arcane minutia of sharia
as to maintain an odd veneer of “morality”—there are a number of
restrictions—and even goes so far as to indicate that freeing slaves is a
virtuous act (Q&A 27).
The real difference between
ISIS and other Muslims is that the former is, refreshingly, very forthright
concerning the teachings of Islam (as when they made clear that their hate for
the Western world is based on sharia, not
grievances, even though the latter paradigm has long worked as a cover for
Islamic terror groups, as al-Qaeda well knew).
I am reminded of an old Arabic
language program, where the hostess asked two prominent Muslim clerics:
“According to sharia, is slave-sex still applicable?” The two ulema refused to
give a clear answer — dissembling here, going off on tangents there. When
she pressed the issue, one of the clerics stormed off the set. He
eventually returned, and the hostess politely explained her incessant
questioning: “Ninety percent of Muslims, including myself, do not understand
the issue of sex slavery in Islam and are having a hard time swallowing it,”
she implored, to which the sheikh closed the matter by replying, “You don’t
need to understand!”
At any rate, from here it
becomes clear why so many Muslim men—above and beyond ISIS card-carrying
members—see and treat “infidel” women in Europe and elsewhere as “pieces of meat”. As
the all-important answer to the third question in the ISIS pamphlet correctly
states: “There is no dispute among the scholars that it is permissible to
capture unbelieving women [who are characterized by] original unbelief [kufr
asli, meaning they were born as non-Muslims], such as the kitabiyat [women from
among the People of the Book, i.e., Jews and Christians] and
polytheists.”
Such is the impact of the
Islamic “sacrament” captured in Koran (4:3; 23: 5-6, etc.): all non-Muslim women—be they atheists, Christians, Jews,
polytheists, wiccans et al—are free game for abducting and enslaving.
They exist, quite simply, for the “pleasure of Muslim men,” as a
would-be rapist once told a reluctant Christian girl before murdering her.
Female Genital Mutilation
and Islamic Social Norms
On
January 30th of this year, a 12-year-old girl in Egypt died as a result of
her parents having Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) performed on her. Egypt has
had a law outlawing the practice since 2008. The parents have been
charged. This law was written to protect females because Islamic social
norms permit and encourage this practice.
According
to Ian Askew, World Health
Organization Director for the Department of Reproductive Health and Research:
FGM describes all procedures that involve the
partial or total removal of external genitalia or other injury to the female
genital organs for non-medical reasons. It has no health benefits.
More than 200 million girls and women alive today
are living with FGM and many are at risk of suffering the associated negative
health consequences as a result.
These include death, severe bleeding and problems
urinating. Longer-term consequences range from cysts and infections to
complications in childbirth and increased risk of newborn deaths.
FGM is a grave violation of the human rights of
girls and women.
Another
term used for FGM is female circumcision. Some countries prefer the
term FGC, as it is seen as “more neutral.”
(The “C” being a reference to “cutting.”) This “more neutral” term allows their
medical personnel to package FGM into the “birth package.” Ebony Ridell Bamber, the head of advocacy
and policy at Orchid Project, a UK-based NGO working towards ending FGM, states
that. "It really contributes to legitimizing and entrenching the
practice even further."
In
Islam, legitimization comes when shariah, Islamic law, endorses and promotes a
practice. Under shariah, female circumcision is required of Muslim
females. This is documented in Reliance of the Traveller:
e4.3 Circumcision is obligatory (O: for
both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the
penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of the clitoris (n: not
the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that
circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a
mere courtesy to the husband.)"
Islamic scholars have been found
using this piece to declare to non-Muslims that shariah does not agree with
FGM, going so far as to claim it is unIslamic if carried out to the extreme and
totally removing the clitoris:
Female
circumcision, known pejoratively in its extreme form as female genital
mutilation or cutting, is not prescribed in the Quran and there are no
authentic prophetic traditions recommending the practice. The basis in
Islamic law is that it is not permissible to cause bodily harm and any such
practice of female circumcision proven to be harmful would be unlawful.
This
is very deceptive. Let’s look at what the abbreviations mean in the above
section of shariah:
A:
... comment by Sheikh 'Abd al-Wakil Durubi
Ar.
Arabic
n:
... remark by the translator
O:
... excerpt from the commentary of Sheikh 'Umar Barakat
Taking
the commentary of the translator out, the passage now reads:
e4. 3 Circumcision is obligatory (O:
for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from
the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of the
clitoris.
Many
other hadiths also back up the obligation for FGM under Shariah. For
example:
- Jami` at-Tirmidhi Vol. 1 Book 1
#109
Aishah narrated that: the Prophet said:
"When the circumcised meets the circumcised then Ghusl [full-body ritual
purification] is required."
- Muwatta Malik Book 2, Hadith 73
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab
from Said ibn al- Musayyab that Umar ibn al-Khattab and Uthman ibn Affan and
A'isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used
to say, "When the circumcised part touches the circumcised part, ghusl is
obligatory."
- Sahih al-Bukhari 6599, 6600
Abu Huraira: Allah's Messenger said, "No
child is born but has the Islamic Faith, but its parents turn it into a Jew or
a Christian. It is as you help the animals give birth. Do you find
among their offspring a mutilated one before you mutilate them yourself.”
To
say that FGM only happens in third-world countries
ignores the sad and sorry truth that several countries have passed laws forbidding
this cruelty to their children. Egypt passed a law against FGM in 2008 and was
amended in 2016. But by 2015, a “government survey discovered that 87% of
Egyptian women and girls aged between 15 and 49 have been mutilated, or as the
Egyptian government put it, “circumcised.”
February
6th was the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female
Genital Mutilation. This annual day of awareness was commenmorated this year by
the German news source DW.com’s article, “Female genital mutilation feels 'like
living in a dead body' by Shadia Abdelmoneim, which describes how a midwife
performed FGM on her without her consent after the birth of her third child in
Sudan:
It led to a lengthy period of shock thereafter
where she found it difficult to trust anybody, but Shadia also vividly recalls
the moment she realized what had happened.
"I wanted to go to the toilet, but something
wasn't right. I couldn't walk and was in considerable pain. When I
saw what she had done, I was shocked. She'd cut everything open and then
sewn it closed. I had no idea what to do.”
Shadia, already fighting against female genital
mutilation and for women's rights as an activist in Sudan, was in her mid 30s
at the time. She started living in a constant state of fear for her three
daughters; she could barely let them out of her sight.
"How could women do something like that to
one another, how?" she asks, her eyes welling up with tears.
"Being circumcised is like living in a dead body.”
Dr.
Cornelia Strunz, who works at the Desert Flower Center, met Shadia when she
came to the center for help, said Shadia needed surgery to help her live with
this mutilation. According to Dr. Strunz, there are many possible
problems that result from FGM.
Many women have problems emptying their bladder
after FGM. Menstrual blood can't drain properly. For some, sex
becomes practically impossible. Women can also develop fistulas --
connections between two body parts which should not exist at all in normal
circumstances. One example would be a link between the vagina and rectum,
leading to them passing stools through the vagina. Obviously, that's not
very easy to live with.
Social
norms that allow for FGM conflict with several social norms of Western
civilization. It denies a women’s rights to have control over her own
body, as it is a requirement under shariah. It destroys a woman’s ability
to enjoy partaking in sexual activity when the woman marries. This makes
the act a duty and not a pleasure. The act itself violates the Hippocratic Oath
“to do no harm.” In countries where FGM is banned, parents/guardians who have
this done to their own daughters are denying the validity of laws made by men.
Paul Sutliff is a federally recognized
expert on Civilization Jihad. His blog can be found at http://paulsutliff.blogspot.com. You can request him as a speaker at http://paulsutliff.com. Paul’s books are on Amazon.
Exclusive: 'A Piece of Meat' - How
Muslim Men See White Women
Past and present, little has changed.
December 20, 2019
Raymond
Ibrahim
A British girl was “passed around like a piece of meat” between Muslim men who abused and raped her between the ages of
12 and 14, a court heard earlier this month. Her problems began after she
befriended a young Muslim man who, before long, was “forcing her to perform sex
acts on other [and older] men,” and receiving money for it. When she
resisted, he threatened her and her family with death and destruction.
Speaking now as an adult, the woman explained how she eventually “lost count of
how many men I was forced to have sex with” during two years of “hell” when she
often considered suicide. Among other anecdotes, the court heard how the
young “girl was raped on a dirty mattress above a takeaway and forced to
perform [oral] sex acts in a churchyard,” and how one of her abusers “urinated
on her in an act of humiliation” afterwards.
Although her experiences are
akin to those of many British girls, that she was
“passed around like a piece of meat” is a reminder of the experiences of another British woman known
by the pseudonym of Kate Elysia. The Muslim men she encountered “made me
believe I was nothing more than a slut, a white whore,” she said. “They
treated me like a leper, apart from when they wanted sex. I was less than
human to them, I was rubbish.”
What explains this ongoing
exploitation of European women by Muslim men—which exists well beyond the UK and has
become epidemic in Germany Sweden, and elsewhere? The answer begins by
understanding that, although these sordid accounts are routinely dismissed as
the activities of “criminals,” they are in fact
reflective of nearly fourteen centuries of Muslim views on and treatment of
European women.
For starters, Muslim men have
long had an obsessive attraction for fair women of the European variety. This, as all things Islamic,
traces back to their prophet, Muhammad. In order to entice his men to war on
the Byzantines—who, as the Arabs’ nearest European neighbors represented
“white” people—the prophet told them that they would be able to sexually
enslave the “yellow” women (an apparent reference to their fair hair).
For over a millennium after
Muhammad, jihadi leaders—Arabs, Berbers, Turks, Tatars et al—also coaxed their
men to jihad on Europe by citing (and later sexually enslaving) its
women. As one example, prior to their invasion into Spain, Tarek bin
Ziyad, a jihadi hero, enticed the Muslims by saying, “You must have heard
numerous accounts of this island, you must know how the Grecian maidens, as
beautiful as houris … are awaiting your
arrival, reclining on soft couches in the sumptuous palaces of crowned lords
and princes.”
That the sexual enslavement of
fair women was an aspect that always fueled the jihad is evident in other
ways. Thus, for M.A. Khan, an author and former Muslim, it is “impossible
to disconnect Islam from the Viking slave-trade, because the supply was
absolutely meant for meeting [the] Islamic world’s unceasing demand for the
prized white slaves” and for “white sex-slaves.”
Just as Muslim rapists see
British and other European women as “pieces of meat,” “nothing more than
sluts,” and “white whores,” so did Muslim luminaries always describe the
nearest European women of Byzantium. Thus, for Abu Uthman al-Jahiz (b. 776), a prolific
court scholar, the females of Constantinople were the “most shameless women in
the whole world … [T]hey find sex more enjoyable” and “are prone to adultery.”
Abd al-Jabbar (b. 935), another prominent scholar, claimed that “adultery is
commonplace in the cities and markets of Byzantium”—so much so that even “the
nuns from the convents went out to the fortresses to offer themselves to
monks.”
But as the author of Byzantium Viewed by the Arabs,
explains:
Our [Arab/Muslim] sources show
not Byzantine women but writers’ images of these women, who served as symbols
of the eternal female—constantly a potential threat, particularly due to
blatant exaggerations of their sexual promiscuity. In our texts
[Arab/Muslim], Byzantine women are strongly associated with sexual immorality .
. . .While the one quality that our sources never deny is the beauty of
Byzantine women, the image that they create in describing these women is
anything but beautiful. Their depictions are, occasionally, excessive,
virtually caricatures, overwhelmingly negative…The behavior of most women in
Byzantium was a far cry from the depictions that appear in Arabic sources.
The continuity in Muslim
“dealings” with European women is evident even in the otherwise arcane
details. For example, the aforementioned Kate “was trafficked to the
North African country of Morocco where she was prostituted and repeatedly
raped.” She was kept in an apartment in Marrakesh, where another girl no
more than 15 was also kept for sexual purposes. “I can’t remember how
many times I’m raped that [first] night, or by who,” Kate recounts.
This mirrors history. By
1541, the Muslim Barbary State of “Algiers teemed with Christian captives,”
from Europe that “it became a common saying that a Christian slave was scarce a
fair barter for an onion.”
According to the conservative
estimate of American professor Robert Davis, “between 1530 and 1780 [alone]
there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million
and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary
Coast,” of which Morocco—where Kate was abducted to in the modern era—was one.
Women slaves—and not a few men and boys—were always sexually
abused. With countless European women selling for the price of an onion,
little wonder by the late 1700s, European observers noted how “the inhabitants
of Algiers have a rather white complexion.”
It was the same
elsewhere. (The number of Europeans enslaved by Muslims throughout
history is closer to 15 million.) The slave markets of
the Ottoman sultanate were for centuries so inundated with European flesh that
children sold for pennies, “a very beautiful slave woman was exchanged for a
pair of boots, and four Serbian slaves were traded for a horse.” In
Crimea—where some three million Slavs were enslaved by the Muslim Tatars—an
eyewitness described how Christian men were castrated and savagely tortured
(including by gouging their eyes out), whereas “The youngest women are kept for
wanton pleasures.”
Such a long and unwavering
history of sexually enslaving European women on the claim that, they are all
“pieces of meat,” “nothing more than sluts,” and “white whores,” should place
the ongoing sexual abuse of Western women in context—and offer a dim prognosis
for the future.
(Note: All historical quotes and facts in this article are
sourced from the author’s book, Sword and
Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West.)Why Yasmine Mohammed's
'Unveiled' Is a Must-Read
Buy a copy for yourself -- and one for your leftist
Islam-apologist friend.
December 20, 2019
Danusha
V. Goska
"My whole body was
suffocating. My head throbbed, and my skin oozed sweat from every pore … dressing
like the kuffar was evil. I would go to hell if I dressed that way … when the
Caliphate rises, if you're not wearing hijab, how will you be distinguished
from the nonbelievers? If you look like them, you'll be killed like them …
wearing a niqab [face veil] you feel like you're in a portable sensory
deprivation chamber. It impedes your ability to see, hear, touch, smell. I felt
like I was slowly dying inside … I didn't even know who I was anymore – if I
even was somebody at all."
Yasmine Mohammed is a spitfire,
a term once applied both to World-War-II-era combat aircraft and to superstars
like Jane Russell who played hotblooded women who didn't let anyone push them
around. Yasmine is a forty-something Canadian ex-Muslim, atheist, educator, and
activist. (I'm going against convention here and referring to the author by her
first name. She shares a last name with Islam's prophet and founder, and I want
to avoid confusion.)
Yasmine was raised by a strict
Muslim mother who was the second wife of an equally strict stepfather. She was
in an arranged marriage to an Al-Qaeda member. She left Islam and she is now
married to a non-Muslim. Unveiled:
How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam is her first book. And what a first book it is. Unveiled is a
can't-put-it-down instant classic. Authors Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Wafa
Sultan, Kate McCord, Jean Sasson, Nawal el-Saadawi, and Phyllis
Chesler, move over. There is a new star in your literary firmament.
The subtitle of Unveiled, How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam, is a bit misleading. Yes, Yasmine takes on actor Ben
Affleck's October, 2014 appearance on Bill
Maher's Real Time HBO show. On that broadcast Maher and Sam Harris, both atheists
and critics of Christianity, bemoaned their fellow liberals' attacking them for
also criticizing Islam. Ben Affleck exploded – no pun intended. Affleck, a
normally cool and ironic actor, devoted a freakish amount of zealotry to
shielding from analysis clitoridectomy, throwing gay men off roofs, and suicide
bombings. Affleck yelled, waved his arms, furrowed his brow and interrupted.
Any criticism of Islamic doctrine is "gross, racist, ugly." Affleck
offered zero facts. Facts are not necessary. Become apoplectic, smear any
critic of jihad or gender apartheid as racist, pose and preen and signal your
own superior, culturally relative virtue, and the good liberal is done. We've
all met versions of this Islamapologist, though most are not as good looking as
Affleck.
Affleck's Islamapologism
outraged Yasmine Mohammed. She notes that Affleck made a film, Dogma, that mocks Christianity.
She insists that liberals like Affleck do great harm to real, live human
beings. "It was unforgiveable for Ben Affleck to deflect criticism of this
ideology that has caused so much suffering in the world … no one in the West
cares if Muslim women were being imprisoned or killed … for not covering their
hair … that bloggers in Bangladesh were being hacked to death … because they
dared write about humanism … this seemingly well-meaning, white-guilt ridden
man was standing in the way!" Affleck's immorality, cowardice, narcissism
and ignorance, so paradigmatic of Islamapologists, prompted Yasmine to write
her book. Unveiled, she says, "is for anyone who feels a duty to defend Islam
from scrutiny and criticism … you are deflecting the light from shining on
millions of people imprisoned in darkness."
"At times Western
corporations actively support the very things brave women fight against. The
2019 Sports Illustrated featured a burkini." Nike put a swoosh on "religiously
prescribed modesty clothing … How can we fight Western patriarchy while
simultaneously supporting Islamic patriarchy?" Yasmine asks.
Liberal Islamapologists'
constant shielding of Islam from critique is not merely a debate question for
Yasmine Mohammed. Decades ago, young Yasmine told her teacher, Rick Fabbro, that she was being
abused. She showed Fabbro bruises on her arms, caused by her stepfather's
beatings with a belt. Her stepfather wasn't punishing Yasmine for any
wrong-doing; he was merely taking out his own personal frustrations on her
body. Fabbro reported the abuse. A Canadian judge ruled that Islamic culture
allowed severe "corporal punishment." "I never felt so betrayed
in my life … how disgusting to allow a child to be beaten because her abuser
happens to come from another country!" Children are being abused, Yasmine
reports, "because their government is hell-bent on cultural and moral
relativism."
Yasmine is not alone. In
2010, a New Jersey judge refused
a restraining order to a teenage Muslima who was raped and tortured by her
arranged husband. The husband told the wife, "this is according to our
religion. You are my wife, I can do anything to you. The woman, she should
submit and do anything I ask her to do." The judge agreed, asserting that
spousal abuse is sanctioned in Islam. The Islamapologism of useful idiots like
Ben Affleck causes real harm to real victims.
Though Yasmine opens and closes
with mentions of Ben Affleck, The bulk of the book is not about liberals
empowering radical Islam. Rather, it is a riveting memoir of child abuse and
recovery. Yasmine's mother is one of the most vile characters I have ever read
about, and I've read a fair number of books about Nazism. "Mama"
quite literally tortures her daughter, all in the name of making her a good
Muslima.
Islamapologists will no doubt
hit upon this aspect of the book. "Yasmine Mohammed's critique of Islamic
gender apartheid and jihad can't be taken at face value. She was raised by an
abusive mother and molested by her mother's male companions. Child abuse is her
problem, not Islam," they'll say. Further, some will accuse Yasmine of
stoking the flames of xenophobic hatred. "By speaking in such detail about
your abuse, you make all Muslims look like monsters!" they'll say.
No, Yasmine does not stoke the
flames of xenophobic hatred. In fact, Yasmine dedicates her book in part
"to those of you who feel compelled to demonize all Muslims. I hope you
will see that we are all just human beings and we battle our own demons."
She rejects racist terms like "sandn----r" and insists that no one
should misconstrue her "personal journey out of faith as an invitation to
be hateful to those still in it." After reading this book, I felt great
compassion and fellow feeling for Yasmine Mohammed, a woman who lived most of
her life as a devout Muslim. Yasmine will, no doubt, arouse that same
compassion and fellow feeling in many readers.
It's also very true that
horrific child abuse occurs in non-Muslim societies as well as Muslim ones.
There are several features, though, that distinguish Muslim child abuse and
non-Muslim child abuse.
In her book Wholly Different, Nonie Darwish discusses the Islamic emphasis on hiding sin.
Darwish contrasts this emphasis with the Judeo-Christian tradition of
confession of sin and subsequent redemption. Darwish heard an Egyptian sheikh
say on TV that if a follower of a sheikh witnesses the sheikh committing a sin,
the follower should say, "it is my eyes that committed the sin" for
having witnessed a power figure do wrong. The holy man is "masoom," infallible or free from sin. The Islamic view of public
exposure of sin feeds a culture based on pride and shame. The Koran is replete
with references to "shame," "disgrace,"
"humiliation," and "losers." These concepts contribute to
thwarting attempts at rescuing abused children. If you can't see, or talk about
child abuse, you can't address it.
Another cultural factor:
submission to an overwhelming sense that everything "is
written." "Any effort to try to create
your own destiny is meaningless … your whole life is written before you take
your first breath," Yasmine writes.
Yasmine describes Islam as a
pyramid-shaped power structure, with unquestioning obedience required at all
levels. Men submit to Allah, women submit to men, and children submit to
adults. Yasmine cites a hadith that describes power
descending from the ruler, to the man, to the woman, and then to the servant.
There are ethnic pyramids of worth as well. Rich Gulf Arabs are superior to
poor Muslims from Pakistan and India.
In such a system, "women
rarely support one another. Each woman is too concerned with saving her own
skin … We hold down our screaming five-year-old daughters and allow a woman to
take a razor to their genitals because a man will prefer her that way."
Girls are close to the bottom of the pyramid of power. Yasmine mentions the
2017 Norwegian film What Will People Say. In the film, the main character, a child of Pakistani parents
growing up in Norway, abuses a cat. Why? Because she's on the bottom. She's
been taught that you deal with frustration by abusing the person, or animal,
beneath you on the pyramid of power. The cat is the innocent and defenseless
target.
The Allah who is the pinnacle
of the Islamic pyramidal power structure is a sadist whose graphic torments are
detailed in the Koran. Don Richardson, in Secrets of the Koran, writes
that one in every eight Koran verses is a threat of damnation. Hell is
graphically described as a place with vivid tortures. By contrast, according to
Richardson, the Old Testament mentions Hell once in every 774 verses, and it is
never described so graphically.
In the Koran, Allah burns off
the skin of the damned. They grow new skin, and that skin, in turn, is burned
off, for all eternity. Young Yasmine dared ask her mother, "Won't I
eventually get used to it?"
No, her mother replied.
"Allah will make sure that every single time it hurts as much as the first
time."
The hadiths, as well as the
Koran, contain graphic tortures of Hell. In one
hadith, Mohammed reports that he saw women
hanging by their hair, with their brains boiling. Their crime? They refused to
wear hijab.
Total, unquestioning obedience
under pain of eternal damnation is pounded into Muslims several times a day,
with the daily prayers. Islamic prayer indoctrinates Muslims in mindless
obedience and group, not individual, behavior. Yasmine details the robotic
movements that must accompany each syllable. These syllables, she says, are
meaningless to most Muslims, who don't understand classical Arabic. They must
merely memorize syllables and repeat them over and over to the point where the
mind is numbed. When praying in a group, they must stand touching other
Muslims. This physical contact provides an extra layer of surveillance. If a
Muslim shirks a given, required movement, other Muslims will not only see it,
they will feel it. Too, Muslims are assured that their prophet is watching them pray, "Make your rows straight for I can see you behind my
back." Any deviation from prescribed activity is automatically a ticket to
Hell. If you don't touch another Muslim while praying, you leave room for
Satan, and you will be punished. "Do not leave any gaps for the Shaytaan. Whoever complete [sic] a row, Allaah will reward him, and
whoever breaks a row, Allaah will forsake him."
"The prayers are
mind-numbingly repetitive. There is no room for the slightest variation. Every
ceremonial motion and every word is specific and methodic, stripping … Muslims
… of any individuality. Get in line. Follow the herd. No distractions … The
meaning [of prayer] was never discussed … Questioning only lead to anger and
admonishment," Yasmine writes. Islam is so thorough in outlining how
Muslims are to live that there is a specific ritualistic way to cut fingernails
and dispose of clippings.
When Yasmine finally does learn
the meaning of the words she's been repeating, she realizes she's been
indoctrinated. "Nearly twenty times a day, I was referring to non-Muslims
as the enemies of Allah. I was chanting that Muslims who became friends with
non-Muslims were doomed to Hell, that non-Muslims were the vilest of animals,
only fit to be used as fuel for the fires of Hell, that Jewish people were
sub-human … I remember one of my aunts lamenting that the cucumbers were
smaller this year because the Jews were putting cancer in the vegetables … At
least five times a day over a billion people are droning on, calling for the
death of all non-Muslims."
Yasmine describes her younger
self being bound, whipped, caned, and locked up. Mama tells little Yasmine that
she has no value whatsoever. Indeed, Yasmine is told again and again that she
is a slut, prostitute, and whore, even though she is a chaste virgin, and,
later, a dutiful wife in an arranged marriage. Don't worry that reading a book
about graphic child abuse will be too upsetting. Yasmine's descriptions are
searing, but brief. The reader never forgets that the author of these
nightmarish accounts is an adult powerhouse who managed to break free both of
her tormentors and the Islam that her tormentors cited as justification.
After each incident is
described, Yasmine offers a corresponding quote from Islamic sacred texts that
is used to justify such tortures. Young Yasmine must kneel at her mother's feet
and kiss them. This is because Islam teaches that "Paradise is under the
feet of mothers." Mama determines whether Yasmine will go to Heaven or
Hell. Yasmine is bound and hung upside down from a hook used to hang the lamb
sacrificed for the Eid holiday. A woman, a sacrificial animal, little
difference. "Hang your whip where members of your household (your wife,
children, and slaves) can see it, for that will discipline them," says one
hadith. Another, "Teach your children to pray when they are seven years
old, and smack them if they do not do so when they are ten."
Yasmine does not cite Koran 18:65-81. In this
passage, Musa, meant to be the Biblical Moses, is depicted as following and
learning from Khidr, a "slave of Allah."
Khidr murders an innocent child. Musa objects. Khidr reprimands Moses for
objecting. Khidr explains that the boy's parents were Muslims and "we
feared lest he should make disobedience and ingratitude to come upon
them." In the place of the child Khidr murdered, Allah "might give
them in his place one better than him." The Koran itself offers a passage
often interpreted to mean that Muslim parents have the right to life and death
over their own children.
When discussing honor
killing, Robert Spencer reminds
his readers that, "A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide
to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in
Sunni Islam, says that 'retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a
human being purely intentionally and without right.' However, 'not subject to
retaliation' is 'a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing
their offspring, or offspring's offspring.' ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2). In other
words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic
law."
I admire Yasmine for being so
frank as to recount how long she stayed loyal to her abusive mother, and to
religious observance that she felt to be destroying her very sense of self.
Again and again the door swings open and Yasmine walks past that open door and
back into the sick, twisted prison of her mother's oppressive hold. Again and
again, Yasmine sees utterly plainly how destructive her mother is, and yet
Yasmine continues to live with her and crave her love, a love this poisonous
viper would never bestow on her precious daughter.
Yasmine marries the man her
mother tells her to marry, though she does not love him. This man, Essam
Marzouk, beats Yasmine so badly she miscarries their second child. Eventually,
slowly but surely, Yasmine breaks her conditioning, leaves her family, abandons
her veil, and marries a non-Muslim man. The reader rejoices for her.
This reader has one problem
with Unveiled and
other media produced by some Ex-Muslims, including the Ex-Muslims
of North America. These ex-Muslims decide,
"I discovered that Islam is oppressive, therefore, all religion is
oppressive nonsense." Their dismissals are based not only on scanty
knowledge of the scripture and dogma of other faiths, but also ignorance of how
other faiths have influenced society.
Yasmine says, again and again,
that her encounters with non-Muslims were like encounters, as she herself puts
it, with "angels." There's a reason that the non-Muslims Yasmine
encountered treated her with concern and decency. That reason is their
training, very different from her own. They were raised in a Judeo-Christian
society, that upholds Judeo-Christian values.
In the Old Testament, God
orders Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. God stops the sacrifice. For hundreds of
years, Jews and Christians have understood this story as separating God's chosen
people from the surrounding Canaanite society, where child sacrifice to Moloch
was practiced. Archaeology confirms Biblical accounts. Various Phoenician
societies around the Mediterranean, including the Canaanites and Carthaginians,
left evidence of child sacrifice. Child
sacrifice was also practiced by several Native American cultures, including
Chimu, Inca, Maya, Aztec, Mississippian and Pawnee; it possibly occurred in Ancient Greece, and child sacrifice occurs today among Hindus in India.
Contemporary scholars debate whether
or not the Isaac story was originally understood as a stand against child
sacrifice, but Christians and Jews themselves understand it that way, and that
interpretation was explicitly advanced by a Jewish scholar eight hundred years
ago. In any case, Biblical verse after verse condemns
parents killing their own children.
The New Testament could not be
more dramatic in emphasizing the value of children. God, the omnipotent creator
of the universe, enters time in the body of a helpless infant born of a lowly
peasant girl, among stock animals in a stable. Jesus famously says,
"Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such
is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the
kingdom of God as little child shall in no wise enter therein."
Pregnant with Jesus, Mary
recites the Magnificat, "He hath put down the mighty from their seat: and
hath exalted the humble and meek." Jesus says, "The last shall be
first, and the first, last," and "Blessed are the meek, for they
shall inherit the earth." Again and again, the Bible overturns the pyramid
of power.
Early Christian critic Celsus,
a Greek Pagan, dismissed Christianity as a religion that attracted those on the
bottom. Christianity, Celsus sneered, is a religion of women, of children, and
of slaves. The Pagan Roman legal code attributed to Romulus allowed for the
murder of female children, and female infanticide was common in the ancient,
Pagan world. A Greek comedy from the third century BC records, "Everyone,
even a poor man, raises a son; everyone, even a wealthy man, exposes a
daughter." Rodney Stark theorizes that Christianity's remarkable success
can be attributed partially to Christianity's remarkable respect for the
personhood of women and children, even female infants. "Thou shalt not
murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born," said the Didache, "a first century manual of Church teachings." Early Christianity's valuing of young, female human beings
is unforgettably depicted in The Acts of
Paul and Thecla, about a Pagan girl who
converts to Christianity and boldly asserts her own full worth in the face of
murderous Pagan opposition. Finally, of course, Christianity mandates
confession and repentance, rather than the hiding of sin.
Non-believers have only a
partial picture when they refuse to consider how Judeo-Christian teaching and
Christian faith have fostered the features they value in Western Civilization.
Yes, child abuse occurs in Christian families and institutions as well as in
Muslim ones. But there is a difference between, say, Jordan, a relatively
modern Muslim-majority country, and the United States. In Jordan, honor killing
is a perpetual problem. Families practice it; authorities look the other way.
The ancient Koran story of Khidr, a revered Muslim character who killed a child
because the child might someday embarrass his devout Muslim parents, is carried
out daily in Muslim countries. In countries with a Judeo-Christian heritage,
killing your child because the child might embarrass you is not supported by
the wider society. Some cultures provide guardrails and tools that can be used
to dismantle human dysfunction. Other cultures provide scriptures that uphold
hate and abuse.
Not just honor killing oppresses
Muslim women and girls. Clitoredectomy, child and forced marriage, and polygamy
are all part of day-to-day life. Sharia dictates that women inherit half of
what men inherit, and the testimony of two women equals the testimony of one
man. Women cannot pray when they are menstruating. In a hadith, Mohammed
himself cited the ban on women praying during their menstruation as proof that
women are "deficient in religion" and make up the majority of the
damned in Hell. A woman, Mohammed insisted, must satisfy their husband's demand
for sex, even while riding on a camel's back. One could go on. Denigration of
the value of the lives of girls and women is deeply embedded in the Koran and
hadiths.
Rodney Stark ended his
book The Victory of Reason with a quote he attributes to a Chinese scholar. "One of the
things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact,
the pre-eminence of the West all over the world. We studied everything we could
from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first,
we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we
thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on
your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the
heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is
so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was
what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful
transition to democratic politics. We don't have any doubt about this."
I hope (and pray) that the
aversion that immersion in Islam taught ex-Muslims to feel for all religion
does not blind them to the impact of the Judeo-Christian tradition on what they
value in kuffar society – including the right to self-identify as an atheist,
and not be killed for doing so.
Yasmine Mohammed's book is
receiving terrific reviews on Amazon. Yasmine deserves more. Krista Tippett
hosts On Being on National Public Radio. Tippett markets a
soft-focus, touchy-feely Islam. Terry Gross
frequently features memoir authors on Fresh
Air. Tippett, Gross, the New York Times, all should
provide Yasmine Mohammed with a platform. Truth and courage demand it.
Danusha Goska is the author of God
through Binoculars: A Hitchhiker at a Monastery
THE KORAN
BIBLE OF THE MUSLIM TERRORIST:
“The Wahhabis finance thousands
of madrassahs throughout the world where young boys are brainwashed into
becoming fanatical foot-soldiers for the petrodollar-flush Saudis and other
emirs of the Persian Gulf.” AMIL IMANI
Koran 2:191 "s lay the unbelievers
wherever you find them"
Koran 3:21 "Muslims must not take the infidels as friends"
Koran 5:33 "Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam"
Koran 8:12 "Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran"
Koran 8:60 " Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels"
Koran 8:65 "The unbelievers are stupid, urge all Muslims to fight them"
Koran 9:5 "When the opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you find them"
Koran 9:123 "Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood"
Koran 22:19 "Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt their skin and bellies"
Koran 47:4 "Do not hanker for peace with the infidels, behead them when you catch them".
Koran 3:21 "Muslims must not take the infidels as friends"
Koran 5:33 "Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam"
Koran 8:12 "Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran"
Koran 8:60 " Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels"
Koran 8:65 "The unbelievers are stupid, urge all Muslims to fight them"
Koran 9:5 "When the opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you find them"
Koran 9:123 "Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood"
Koran 22:19 "Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt their skin and bellies"
Koran 47:4 "Do not hanker for peace with the infidels, behead them when you catch them".
Cops: Muslim Sex Grooming Gangs “Didn’t Understand That It Was
Wrong"
Why Manchester cops didn’t protect young girls from Muslim sex
grooming gangs.
January 23, 2020
Daniel
Greenfield
Call it a tale of two girls. And a tale of two Englands.
One is an actress who grew up to marry a prince, lavished with luxuries, amassing a fortune, before her tantrums and antics drove her to depart her newfound royal family for a Canadian billionaire’s manor.
The other was put into foster care when she was only 8, by the age of 13 she was being raped by a Muslim sex grooming gang, and by 15, Victoria Agoglia was already dead of a heroin overdose injected by the 50-year-old Muslim pedophile who had been abusing her. Today, she would have been a woman.
Unlike Meghan Markle, Victoria never got the opportunity to marry a prince or even grow up. And while the media weeps for Markle, who is departing for Canada because of some tabloid tales, the story of Victoria, once again in the news because of the release of an independent report on the sex grooming gangs of Manchester, shows what true social injustice looks like. It’s not bad publicity for a celebrity.
It’s a girl who was abandoned to the worst imaginable abuses because intervening would have been politically incorrect.
The report chronicles how Operation Augusta was launched and then scuttled after her death in 2003, despite identifying 97 suspects and 57 victims. The victims were, “mostly white girls aged between 12 and 16”, and the perpetrators were, “mostly men of ‘Asian heritage’”. By ‘Asian’, the report means “predominantly Pakistani men” though at least one of the perpetrators was apparently Tunisian.
Constable B, the anonymous cop responsible for some of the most revealing quotes in the report, said, “What had a massive input was the offending target group were predominantly Asian males and we were told to try and get other ethnicities.”
Mohammed Yaqoob, the pedophile who had forcibly injected Victoria with heroin and was cleared of manslaughter charges, was not the sort of pedophile the Manchester cops were supposed to find.
A meeting at Greater Manchester Police headquarters “acknowledged that the enquiry was sensitive due to the involvement of Asian men” and worried over “the incitement of racial hatred.” There were concerns about “the damaged relations following Operation Zoological.” Those were the police raids targeting Iraqi refugees involved in an alleged Al Qaeda plot to bomb a soccer stadium in Manchester.
Some in the GMP didn’t see the point to stopping the rape of young girls because of cultural differences.
“There was an educational issue. Asian males didn’t understand that it was wrong, and the girls were not quite there. They were difficult groups to deal with. We can’t enforce our way out of the problem,” Constable B said.
And so they didn’t.
More young girls and women were raped. Some of the perpetrators were later arrested. The full scope of the abuse and the cover-up will never be known. The independent report tells us a little of the horror.
The Muslim sex grooming gangs in South Manchester targeted girls from broken families who were taken to care homes. This was not accident or chance. As the report notes, the “offenders understood that a specific children’s home in Manchester was used as an emergency placement unit for children entering the care system and this maintained a steady supply of victims.” And the Muslim sex groomers made sure to be on hand and ready so that the “children were befriended as soon as they arrived.”
These were some of the same tactics used by Muslim sex grooming gangs in Rotherham, Bradford, Huddersfield, Rochdale, Aylesbury, Oxford, Newcastle, Bristol, and Telford, suggesting some level of coordination between grooming gangs from various cities. Possibly over the internet. It’s an angle that the authorities have shown no interest in following up because of its potentially explosive nature.
Some previous Muslim sex grooming gangs were set up among taxi drivers. This gang, according to the report, was based out of the “Asian restaurant and takeaway trade.” Again, by Asian, they mean Indian, Afghan and Pakistani cuisine, kabobs and curry, not Egg Foo Yung and General Tso’s Chicken. These traditionally Muslim businesses served as coordinating networks for the rape and abuse of children.
The migrant populations that destroyed the English working class, displacing them and taking their jobs, leaving men without purposeful work, wives without husbands, and children with broken homes, then completed the hat trick by drugging, raping, and killing the daughters of the working class. And the authorities shrugged because the girls were the worthless leavings of broken homes and a declining populace, the Mohicans and Incas, the Bushmen and the Picts, ragged remnants of defeated tribes brokenly making way for a new conquest, their daughters subjugated by the arrogant colonizers.
There are brief snapshots of the horror of this New Britain: notes from a lost investigation into lost lives.
“Carers reported to police that a child had provided information stating that she was being pursued/threatened/coerced into having sex by two men who were Asian,” a brief summary mentions. “A child begged her carers to get her away from Manchester as she was too involved with Asian men. She disclosed that an Asian man known by his nickname ‘made her do things she didn't want to do’”.
While girls have been the focus of many of the stories, some of the predators also went after boys.
“Child 14 was a male looked after child who regularly went missing,” the report also notes. There were “references from other young people that he was being prostituted by Asian and gay men.”
Despite its thorough documentation, the report ends in a bureaucratic sea of missing information.
In 2005, senior officers of the Greater Manchester Police and Manchester City Council members attended a meeting at Manchester Town Hall and announced the shutdown of the investigation. The report mentions that, "The review team has requested a copy of the minutes for that meeting but neither GMP nor Manchester City Council was able to provide a copy."
It’s no doubt been logged and filed in the same place as Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide videos.
Constable B’s rough answers tell us certain truths about the cover-up. The investigation of Muslim sex grooming gangs was too likely to offend the wrong people. And the behavior of the Muslim pedophiles, who abused young girls and addicted them to drugs, was attributed to cultural differences.
The nameless Constable B tells us the true scope of the problem. Manchester cops like him know that this is habitual and that it’s taking place on a level vastly beyond the scope of Operation Augusta. It’s not 57 girls or 97 suspects. It’s thousands. “We can’t enforce our way out of the problem,” he said.
That’s what you say about vast social issues that involve entire communities and a way of life.
Muslim sex grooming gangs, like drugs or prostitution, are too widespread to be enforced out of existence because, like college students and pot, the culture doesn’t accept that they are wrong.
The police did nothing because these were not isolated crimes by criminals, but clashes of morals and values between two communities, one of which does not believe that child rape is wrong because its sacred texts tell it that Mohammed married Aisha and consummated his marriage when she was 9.
There are nearly 2 million child marriages in Pakistan. The notion that a woman’s consent to sexual relations matters is an utterly foreign concept in a culture where unaccompanied women are fair game.
The child rapists did not believe that their actions were wrong under Islamic law. And they weren’t.
The Manchester City Council and the GMP just accepted this reality as they have accepted it so often. They buried the minutes, shut down the investigation, and walked away from the screams of the girls.
They did it for multiculturalism, integration, and community relations. They did it for social justice.
We know that no real action was taken because the girls were troubled. They didn’t matter. And their bodies and lives could be sacrificed for the greater good.
The real tragedy is not that the rapists didn’t understand it was wrong. It’s that the UK no longer does.
As the media moans over Meghan Markle, sob stories rolling in of the injustice of tabloid headlines and the prejudice of the Brits, it is worth remembering those nameless girls who were sacrificed to progress.
They were not worked to death in factories. The brand of progress is no longer Dickensian. Instead it’s Markleite. It demands that we look away from the broken bodies in the chimneys of social justice, to bury away these cinderellas of the postmodern age until Blake’s angel comes with his bright key.
The princess of social justice is in. And the cinderellas who never get asked to the ball, who never grow up or meet their prince, who are taken by taxi to drug dens, shot up, abused, and then turned out, are obstacles to the brand of progress that Markle, Stormzy, and the rest of the social justice crowd of the ‘Cool New Britain’ that is quick to stomp on offensive speech and quicker to look away from the horrors of the new golden age of acid attacks, sex grooming gangs, and nail bombs at teen girl concerts, represent. There is no fairy godmother for them. Only little black coffins and filing cabinets.
Bodies are buried in coffins and the truth is buried in filing cabinets, along with the unasked questions
There is a red Mercedes linked to four of the young girls. Who was behind the wheel of the car “used in the procurement of the victims”? Where did it go? Who knows.
Ask the GMP. Ask the lost and the dead.
The notes and minutes are missing. The truth has been buried in little black coffins along with the bodies of young girls like Victoria. England might once have been theirs. Now it belongs to their abusers.
Home
Office Bureaucrats Accused of Burying Report on Ethnicity of Grooming Gang
Rapists
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/02/07/home-office-bureaucrats-accused-burying-report-on-ethnicity-grooming-gang-rapists/
7 Feb 20201,211
4:03
Home
Office bureaucrats have been accused of burying a report on the ethnic
background of grooming gang rapists announced in 2018.
The report was commissioned by Sajid Javid — then Home
Secretary, now Chancellor of the Exchequer — in 2018, with the
Pakistani-heritage Muslim MP saying it made him “feel angry” that such a
disproportionate number of grooming gang rapists came from his community, and
that they had “disgraced our heritage”.
The Home Office later said the review would remain internal,
however, supposedly due to operational sensitivity, and Javid was accused of
having essentially shelved it.
Now his
successor as Home Secretary, Priti Patel, is reportedly being met with
“obfuscation” and “given the run around” by departmental bureaucrats as she
attempts to find out what has become of their investigation.
Police Knew About Rotherham ‘Asian’ Rape
Gangs But Ignored Them over Fears of ‘Racial Tensions’: Report https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/01/19/police-knew-about-rotherham-asian-rape-gangs-but-ignored-them/ …
Rotherham Police Ignored 'Asian' Rape Gangs Fearing
'Racial Tensions'
“I have no
idea why, but it has consistently felt like Home Office officials deliberately
avoid ministers clear instructions for research when it comes to grooming
gangs,” commented Sarah Champion, a Labour MP who has pressed the issue of
grooming gangs for some time, and was sacked from Labour leader
Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow government for daring to say that “Britain has a problem
with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls.”
“The Home Office ministers and the former Home Secretary [Javid]
have all stated to me that the department will carry out research into
perpetrators of gang-related child sexual exploitation,” Champion said of the
current impasse.
“Still we have nothing. It appears civil servants in the Home
Office believe if they ignore requests into grooming gang data for long enough,
ministers will just move on to a different topic.
“I think they might be shocked by the persistence of Priti Patel
on this issue.”
Sources told the Huffington Post that Patel was “not best
pleased” with officials in her department, who are seen as “not being
completely upfront” about the issue. She is said to be insistent on seeing the
results of the report for herself, even if they are not revealed to the public.
Independent
research by think tank Quilliam has previously indicated that some 84 per
cent of groomers are South
Asian origin men.
A report by think tank Quilliam has found
that more than eight out of ten men convicted of grooming gang offences have an
'Asian' background, while victims are "almost exclusively white
girls". http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/12/10/84-grooming-gangs-asian-report/ …
Grooming Gangs: 84 Per Cent Convicted 'Asian', White Girls
Seen As 'Fair Game'
“We were promised a review of sorts by the then home secretary
and then when it didn’t surface, we were told it was for internal use only,”
commented Nazir Afzal, a former Crown prosecutor who led some of the early
cases against grooming gang when the authorities were finally forced to act on
the scandal.
“Now it seems nobody can find it, he added.
“It’s victims that constantly get let down by the failures of
those in authority.”
Afzal wants the report released because, in his view, its
absence is being “exploited by the far right”.
Because of his background and work on grooming gang cases, Afzal
is often wheeled out by the mainstream media outlets who neglected the issue
for years as an authoritative voice ont the subject — but he has previously
tried to play down the religious and ethnic dimensions of the large-scale
sexual exploitation of overwhelmingly non-Muslim, usually white girls by
overwhelmingly Mulsim, usually Pakistani-origin men as non-existent or minimal.
In 2014
he suggested that while the ethnic
profile of victims and perpetrators “is what it is”, Asian-origin men were
vastly overrepresented in the offender statistics in large part because
“Pakistani men, Asian men, [are] disproportionately employed in the night-time
economy” — cab drivers, takeaway owners and workers, and so on — and that
brings vulnerable seeking “transport” and “food” in contact with the “very
small minority” of night-time economy workers inclined towards sexual abuse.
“There is no
religious basis for this. These men were not religious,” Afzal insisted —
but victims
vehemently disagree.
'As a Rotherham grooming gang survivor, I
want people to know about the religious extremism which motivated my abusers.
The men who raped me weren't like paedophiles - they were like terrorists' https://ind.pn/2pnUr1K
No comments:
Post a Comment