Now Klein, who was donating to the abuser, will head up Biden’s program to protect women. Except of course those women who might decide to come forward and accuse her boss.
DANIEL GREENFIELD
Joe Biden, the very definition of an empty suit
Joe Biden has always been an empty suit, for all of his 39 years in Congress, then eight as vice president.
He demeaned himself at the Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991 where he revealed his inner cruel nature. How he was ever elected again after that does not speak well for his constituents. He is a lifelong prevaricator, plagiarist and groper of female children. He has apparently sexually assaulted an adult woman as well. And we’ve all heard the stories of how he liked to swim nude in the presence of female secret security agents when he was VP. In short, the guy is a jerk, a poseur. He is also, and has always been a racist of the worst kind, the type who believes it is justified.
Throughout his years in Congress, he has seen to it that both his primary and extended family members have become rich by less than above-board means. His son Hunter is a case in point. The list of events showing Hunter’s unethical path to wealth is legion. If a son of Trump’s had been as corrupt as Hunter, we would never hear the end of it. And as Robert Gates has commented, “Joe Biden has been wrong on every foreign policy issue for forty years.”
And yet, with all this baggage, this is the man the Democratic Party has chosen as their presidential candidate to defeat President Trump! They’ve chosen very poorly as time will most certainly reveal.
This campaign season, for all the hysterical vitriol displayed by the left, is nothing if not amusing as well. Reading and watching the panicked leftists who fear a Biden-Trump debate so much they are advising they be cancelled is entertaining for they seem to think we don’t see through their oh-so-disingenuous arguments. They know as well as those on the right do that Biden is failing fast. That his rapacious wife has not called a halt to his campaign is proof that she does not love the man; she sees him as the avenue to her own exalted place in the power structure of D.C. She is a sort of comic book Lady Macbeth.
As the days pass and we see the short glimpses of Biden in his lovely patioed basement, we see a man lost in the fog of dementia, who loses his train of thought in the middle of sentences. He often has no idea where he is or to whom he is speaking. He is quick to anger if asked a question he does not like or cannot answer. He has so far acquitted himself as a man perhaps the least qualified, tempermentally and intellectually, to be president. He has embraced Bernie Sanders’ socialist platform as his own, balked at condemning the BLM and Antifa violence that has razed numerous democrat-run cities throughout the nation. He is wobbly on defunding the police which means he is afraid to speak out against the demands of the rioters. He is a coward.
He has even announced he will not attend the Democrat convention in Milwaukee. Any bets on whether or not he will debate the president? Chances are he will bow out of that commitment as well. His handlers are surely acutely aware of his obvious limitations by now. Even a high-tech ear piece would not help Joe. Directions and corrections in his ear would only confuse him further.
What is the Democrat party to do? Well, everything they are doing. They have an orchestrated strategy that is being implemented daily. Every leftist appearing on television and writing at the NYT, WaPo, and throughout the online media are doing everything in their power to convince the American people that the U.S. is irredeemably racist, a despicable lie.
They drone on and on about how Trump has handled the covid pandemic poorly, another an outright lie. He has been on top of it from the outset. (Would Biden have banned flights from China? Not a chance; he’s owned by China.)
They are spreading the fear that Trump will refuse to leave the White House if he loses, a ridiculous notion even from them. They are working hard to convince every American that the coming election will not be legitimate.
Mail-in-voting is one way to ensure that. They plan on votes not being counted by Jan. 20 so that Morticia Pelosi can be named temporary president. Can any of us imagine that nightmare? That two months would give them time to cheat/fix the results to their satisfaction or even to replace Biden, if he were to be declared the winner, based on the 25th Amendment.
The Democrats are up to no good, of that we can all be certain. They have never accepted Trump’s 2016 victory and, as a result, have behaved poorly ever since, wholly without class or grace. All the divisiveness has come from their refusal to acknowledge their candidate lost. The pathetic Carl Bernstein, forever trying to relive his role in Watergate, is demanding the Republicans remove Trump from office now! What does that tell us? That even Carl knows Biden cannot win. The question is, will Biden remain the candidate until November 3rd? We shall see. If he chooses Heels-up Kamala Harris as his running mate and Trump airs the clip of her accusing Biden of being a racist, theirs will be an ever-imploding exercise in futility. That would be a self-inflicted wound but fascinating – and grim in all its ramifications.
The Democrat party has devolved into a gang of thugs, as the hearing with Attorney General Bill Barr proved beyond a reasonable doubt. There is not one with the courage to speak up and admit that the party is broken into bits of dross, illegitimate due to their embrace of socialism. Everything they support is in opposition to the Constitution: illegal immigration, open borders, anti-law enforcement, anti-military, pro-violence in our streets, hatred of both the First and Second Amendments. They are prepared to lie, cheat and steal to gain power and implement their plan to destroy the middle class and turn the U.S. into Venezuela.
And they believe that Joe Biden is going to take them where they want to go! It is not only Joe Biden who is an empty suit. The Democratic Party has relinquished any and all legitimacy it once had. Why and for what? Because their criminally corrupt candidate lost in 2016, a D.C. outsider won, and they have been in the throes of an enraged tantrum ever since. How else would they have ended up with empty-suit Biden as their candidate? Karma?
“Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
― William Shakespeare, Macbeth
Exec of #MeToo Group That Covered for
Biden’s Sex Abuse Heads His Gender Policy
Council
Believe all women… except those who accuse powerful Democrats.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
When Hollywood wanted to divert attention from its sexual abuse of women, it created Time’s Up and staffed it with political hacks from the Obama administration.
Time’s Up was built as a rival to the decentralized social media #MeToo movement. Replacing social media outrage driven by random people with a formal organization funded by Hollywood capital and controlled by the Democrat non-profit sector could prevent another Weinstein mess.
Despite being backed by Hollywood millionaires, the organization’s legal defense fund launched what became the largest fundraiser on GoFundMe: totaling almost $25 million. But critics pointed out that Time’s Up’s money was mostly going to salaries, rather than to victims.
There was even more outrage when Time’s Up Now co-sponsored a retreat at a spa filled with agents from CAA: a powerful talent agency backing Time’s Up which had been accused of covering up Weinstein's crimes. Rose McGowan, a key #MeToo figure, tweeted, “Times Up A vile PR stunt, a front for evil CAA & other human traffickers like Weinstein.”
In 2019, Lisa Borders, the CEO of Time's Up, was forced to resign when her son, a formerly homeless yoga instructor, was accused of groping one of his clients during a "healing" session. Borders explained that she was resigning because she wanted to defend her son, but still got paid $591,000 for half a year’s work as part of a “severance agreement” with the group.
Borders was replaced by Tina Tchen, Michelle Obama’s former chief of staff, who spent 2020 tanking what was left of the little credibility that the Obama/Hollywood front group still had.
Oprah Winfrey had helped launch #TimesUp with a Golden Globes speech declaring, “Their time is up” and she also hosted an interview with Time’s Up leaders on CBS: whose former CEO, Les Moonves, had been TV’s own version of Harvey Weinstein. The Time's Up celebs that Oprah interviewed, Shonda Rimes, and Natalie Portman, had not been assaulted by Harvey Weinstein. Or anyone. (McGowan also rightly blasted Portman's theatrics.)
But when a documentary about the women alleging that they had been raped by Russell Simmons, a celebrity hip-hop producer who was also a pal of racist Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, was close to release, Oprah Winfrey pulled out, under pressure from Simmons.
Time’s Up not only joined Oprah in refusing to support the victims, but allegedly started a whispering campaign to sabotage the documentary. A Hollywood Reporter investigation tied together Tina Chen and the role of former Obama consoligere Valerie Jarrett, and noted that, “$2.9 million of Time's Up gross receipts in 2018 came from three undisclosed donors.”
But the complete collapse of Time’s Up came when Tara Reade accused Joe Biden of sexual assault. Reade had initially reached out to people at Time's Up only to be told that the organization legally couldn't support her because Biden was a political candidate. President Trump was also a political candidate, but that hadn’t stopped Time’s Up from attacking him.
The same organization that recently put out a statement by Tina Tchen headlined, “Donald Trump Must Be Removed From Office”, claimed that it couldn’t speak out against Biden for legal reasons. The legal reasons were a joke, but the political ones were there for everyone to see.
Tchen managed to praise Biden for having the right response to the allegations. This wasn’t surprising as Time’s Up was populated by former Obama people, and in a glaring conflict of interest, its public relations were being handled by Biden advisor Anita Dunn. Beyond being Biden’s “decision-making authority”, Dunn had also provided advice to Harvey Weinstein.
“I actually cried a little because I felt really betrayed,” Reade had said. “They never told me that their public relations was run by Anita Dunn. I found out in real-time reading Ryan’s article. I gave them so much personal information and they say they didn’t give it to Biden. But come on. They said they had firewalls or something.”
Time’s Up said lots of things. But then it did very different things.
The Chief Strategy and Policy Officer for Time’s Up, Jennifer Klein, maxed out her donations to Biden. Klein, a former Obama and Clinton vet, has now been appointed by Biden as the co-chair of Biden’s new White House Gender Policy Council, alongside Julissa Reynoso, Jill Biden’s Chief of Staff, an Obama ambassador, and a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow.
The White House Gender Policy Council is tasked in Biden’s executive order with, among a multitude of other things, combatting “sexual harassment”. The Council is expected to throw out policies by former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos that protected the due process rights of students who had been accused of sexual misconduct on college campuses.
Had Biden faced the same lack of due process as the average college student, he would have been immediately found guilty. But Time’s Up insisted that there was no organization that existed to try Biden. Instead it would be up to the voters to pass judgement on his “character”. That was a convenient rationalization for refusing to stand with the women accusing Biden.
Now Klein, who was donating to the abuser, will head up Biden’s program to protect women. Except of course those women who might decide to come forward and accuse her boss.
Time’s Up had always existed to silence actual victims on behalf of influential Democrats. It was a partnership between Hollywood and Obama operatives. Rolling executives of Time’s Up into Biden programs just makes the arrangement public.
Klein combined her time at Time’s Up with serving as co-chair of the Women and Families Policy Committee for the campaign of an accused sexual abuser. Now the Biden campaign elevated her campaign role to an administration role. And, in an interview with Ms. Magazine, Tina Tchen touted Klein as “an expert on both domestic and global gender issues”.
“The policy of this administration is that every individual, every student is entitled to a fair education — free of sexual violence — and that all involved have access to a fair process,” Klein argued.
Fair process and due process are not the same thing. A due process protects the rights of the accused while a fair process is in the eye of the beholder. Equity dispenses with due process and replaces it with bias that is only ‘fair’ if you believe that society is fundamentally unfair.
Of course we already know the outcome.
Tina Tchen had already tweeted that due process rules for accused abusers on campus are wrong and the National Women's Law Center, which administers the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund, had sued to stop student accusers from being cross-examined after an accusation.
The Biden administration will move to ban cross-examination of campus accusers, but when Reade accused Biden of sexual assault, she was cross-examined and then smeared in the media, while Biden was hardly ever asked about any of the allegations of sexual misconduct.
That’s the ‘fair’ standard of Time’s Up in action.
Accuse a random student and you have the right to be believed without being cross-examined, but if you accuse Biden, you have the right to be cross-examined without ever being believed.
Believe Reade or don’t, Biden’s inappropriate conduct with women has been captured on video. It’s not hard to find photos and video clips of him inappropriately touching women and girls. That might be one reason he chose to rename the White House Council on Women and Girls that Tina Tchen had headed for Obama to the White House Gender Policy Council headed by Klein.
The existence of women and girls is routinely denied by lefties who insist on using euphemisms like “menustrators” (She the People), “chest-feeders” (NHS), and “people with vaginas” (Planned Parenthood) and by Biden, one of whose first moves was to effectively eliminate women’s sports. Now women have also been erased from the Council on Women and Girls.
MANY PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE BARBARIAN MUSLIM WORLD MAY BE UNAWARE THAT MUSLIMS CUT OUT THE CLITORIS OF LITTLE GIRLS SO THEY DON'T END UP RUNNING AROUND LIKE STRAY BITCHES LOOK FOR A MALE TO SERVICE THEM. FOR REAL! DO A SEARCH.
This should also frighten you because we are following in England's wake. Biden's illegal and unconstitutional actions to erase the southern border and flood America, not just with illegal aliens from Latin America, but from a variety of countries, many of them Muslim, when combined with the Democrat party's aggressive efforts to create racial schisms in America, means we are also starting down the path to becoming a third-world apartheid country rather than a tolerant, pluralist, constitutional nation. Andrea Widburg
Biden's Support of Religious Freedom for 'All' People
Which means -- for him -- freedom for only one religious group.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
On May 16, President Biden issued a brief video ostensibly dedicated to expressing his support for the religious freedom of “all” people (though in reality dedicated to only one religious group):
All people should be able to practice their faith with dignity, without fear of harassment or violence. We will defend the right of all, as we stand with you. That’s why I ended this shameful Muslim travel ban. And that’s why this administration will speak out for religious freedom for all people, including Uighurs in China and Rohingya in Burma. We also believe Palestinians and Israelis equally deserve to live in safety and security and enjoy equal measure of freedom, prosperity, and democracy. My administration is going to continue to engage Palestinians and Israelis and other regional partners to work toward sustained calm.
It is hypocritical for Biden to claim that he cares about the religious rights of “all” people—when he clearly means only “all Muslims.” So too is it vexing to note that, unlike those whom he totally ignores—for example, the hundreds of millions of Christians currently being persecuted at the hands of Muslims—those Muslims whom he does mention as deserving protection are not exactly innocent.
Consider the three Muslim peoples he singled out: the Palestinians, the Uighurs in China, and the Rohingya in Burma. Far from trying to live peaceably with their non-Muslim neighbors, and like other Muslim populations living alongside or under the authority of non-Muslims, all three have been known to engage in hostile, subversive, and terroristic activities.
One need not dwell much on the well-documented scourge of Palestinian terrorism—primarily in the guise of Hamas and Hezbollah—which, as is well known, is the root cause for conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. But consider the other two lesser known Muslim peoples.
The Rohingya of Burma have been committing the same sort of anti-infidel mayhem, violence, terrorism, and rape that one is accustomed to associating with “radical Islam”—though news of it seldom reaches the West. The main difference is that, unlike, say, the West, Burma has responded with uncompromising ruthlessness—thereby making it the “bad guy” in the media. Consider the words of popular Buddhist leader Ashin Wirathu, whom the media refer to as the “Burmese bin Laden”: “You can be full of kindness and love, but you cannot sleep next to a mad dog,” says the monk in reference to Muslims: “I call them troublemakers, because they are troublemakers.”
Similarly, Reuters quotes the Chinese government saying that it “destroyed 1,588 violent and terrorist gangs” in Xinjiang, where most Uighurs and other Muslims live, “arrested 12,995 terrorists, seized 2,052 explosive devices, punished 30,645 people for 4,858 illegal religious activities, and confiscated 345,229 copies of illegal religious [jihadi] materials.” The same report says that 30 Islamic terror attacks occurred between 1990 and 2016, killing 458 and injuring 2,540.
Critics may argue that China is untrustworthy and essentially fabricating claims of Islamic terrorism to demonize and persecute the Uighurs. And yet, history and current affairs indicate that wherever and whenever Muslim minorities live amidst non-Muslim majorities, they tend to instigate, agitate, subvert, and resort to terrorism. Either way, like Burma and unlike the West, no doubt the Chinese have been intolerantly brutal in the crackdown on their Muslim population.
The point here, of course, is not to argue that all Muslims are troublemakers and therefore “deserve” whatever treatment they get; rather, it is to highlight another instance of humanitarian hypocrisy, this time by Joe Biden. For, while he never mentions the persecution of those minorities who do no wrong, seek to live peaceably with their neighbors, and certainly never resort to terrorism—and yet are persecuted solely on account of their religious identity, as millions of Christians throughout the Muslim world are today—he expresses concern only for Muslims, who are notorious for provoking others into prolonged conflicts.
Incidentally, it’s worth adding that, unlike most of Islam’s persecuted Christians—who are indigenous to the land, often many centuries before Islam invaded it—Muslims in Burma, China, and Israel are not indigenous, but rather the descendants of Muslim conquerors or forced converts, another inconvenient fact that helps shed light on the current conflicts.
The Dirty Secret of Child Marriage
None of the organizations dedicated to combating it dares face why it's so prevalent.
It was an emblematic incident: the News Agency of Nigeria reported Wednesday that “the Chief Imam of the Nasrul-lahi-li Fathi Society of Nigeria (NASFAT), Abdul Azeez Onike, says Islam supports underage marriage.” Onike said thus at a press conference launching his new initiative, “Ending Violence Against Women and Girls,” which was “organised by NASFAT with support from UNICEF.” Is UNICEF troubled by Onike’s support for child marriage? Not enough to keep from working with him. This was yet another example of the abject failure of global “human rights” organizations to confront the uncomfortable fact of why child marriage is so common in some areas of the world: because it is sanctioned in Islam.
Onike himself made this clear, insisting “that the Islamic scripture was clear about marriage” and calling for people to refer to Islamic texts “instead of using contemporary standards” to determine whether or not child marriage was an acceptable practice.
If Abdul Azeez Onike said this in the U.S., he would be excoriated as an “Islamophobe.” But in reality, child marriage has abundant attestation in Islamic tradition and law.
Numerous Islamic authorities worldwide attest to this. Turkey’s directorate of religious affairs (Diyanet) said in January 2018 that under Islamic law, girls as young as nine can marry.
Ishaq Akintola, professor of Islamic Eschatology and Director of Muslim Rights Concern, Nigeria, has said: “Islam has no age barrier in marriage and Muslims have no apology for those who refuse to accept this.” An Iraqi expert on Islamic law, Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-‘Ubeidi, agrees, saying: “There is no minimum marriage age for either men or women in Islamic law. The law in many countries permits girls to marry only from the age of 18. This is arbitrary legislation, not Islamic law.”
So does Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, a prominent Muslim cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council: “There is no minimum age for marriage and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.”
Pakistan’s Council of Islamic Ideology has declared flatly: “Islam does not forbid marriage of young children.”
These authorities say these things because hadiths that Muslims consider authentic record that Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, was six when Muhammad wedded her and nine when he consummated the marriage:
“The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Bukhari 7.62.88).
Another tradition has Aisha herself recount the scene:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Bukhari 5.58.234).
Muhammad was at this time fifty-four years old.
Marrying young girls was not all that unusual for its time, but because in Islam Muhammad is the supreme example of conduct (cf. Qur’an 33:21), he is considered exemplary in this unto today. And so in April 2011, the Bangladesh Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini declared that those trying to pass a law banning child marriage in that country were putting Muhammad in a bad light: “Banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam, [putting] the moral character of the prophet into controversy and challenge.” He added a threat: “Islam permits child marriage and it will not be tolerated if any ruler will ever try to touch this issue in the name of giving more rights to women.” The Mufti said that 200,000 jihadists were ready to sacrifice their lives for any law restricting child marriage.
Likewise the influential website Islamonline.com in December 2010 justified child marriage by invoking not only Muhammad’s example, but the Qur’an as well:
The Noble Qur’an has also mentioned the waiting period [i.e. for a divorced wife to remarry] for the wife who has not yet menstruated, saying: “And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women, if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated” [Qur’an 65:4]. Since this is not negated later, we can take from this verse that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl. The Qur’an is not like the books of jurisprudence which mention what the implications of things are, even if they are prohibited. It is true that the prophet entered into a marriage contract with A’isha when she was six years old, however he did not have sex with her until she was nine years old, according to al-Bukhari.
Other countries make Muhammad’s example the basis of their laws regarding the legal marriageable age for girls. Article 1041 of the Civil Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran states that girls can be engaged before the age of nine, and married at nine: “Marriage before puberty (nine full lunar years for girls) is prohibited. Marriage contracted before reaching puberty with the permission of the guardian is valid provided that the interests of the ward are duly observed.”
According to Amir Taheri in The Spirit of Allah: Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution (pp. 90-91), Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini himself married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful to give their own daughters away accordingly: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” When he took power in Iran, he lowered the legal marriageable age of girls to nine, in accord with Muhammad’s example.
Yet despite all this, worldwide organizations dedicated to ending child marriage universally fail to acknowledge its justifications in Islam. The UN High Commissioner of Human Rights never mentions Islam in connection with child marriage. UNICEF doesn’t, either. Nor does the international network Girls Not Brides or the International Women’s Health Coalition. The latter does say: “Child marriage occurs in every region of the world, and is practiced across cultures, religions, and ethnicities,” and while that is true, no religion or culture offers as much justification for child marriage as Islam does.
Until that is acknowledged, the root causes of this problem will never be addressed. And more girls will suffer.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 21 books including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad and The History of Jihad. His latest book is Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins―Revised and Expanded Edition. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.
Turkey Praises—and Seeks to Emulate?—a Mass-Murdering, Pedophilic, Slave-Trader
What a people’s “hero” says about them.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Turning churches into mosques is very much on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s mind these days. Last Friday, June 4, he “spoke of the Turkish legacy of conquest and the conversion of the Hagia Sophia [into a mosque] during a mosque opening in the city of Zonguldak on Friday.” In his own words, “the re-opening of the Hagia Sophia as a mosque is important, as it is a legacy of conquest.”
Thus, while the West falls all over itself to disavow any “conquest” its ancestors may have engaged in—for example, the “conquest of the Americas” at the hands of the “genocidal” Columbus—here is the president of Turkey praising the violent conquests committed by his Muslim ancestors. The significance of this dichotomy, and what it portends for the future, is in need of acknowledgement.
As a case study, take Erdoğan’s stance towards Turkey’s greatest jihadis of history—men whose atrocious deeds would shame ISIS. Last summer, while celebrating his decree to transform the Hagia Sophia—which for a millennium had functioned as Eastern Christendom’s greatest basilica—into a mosque, Erdoğan repeatedly saluted Sultan Muhammad al-Fatah (“the Conqueror,” 1432-1481) for violently transforming Christian Constantinople into Islamic Istanbul.
And yet consider: Sultan Muhammad’s sole justification for conquering Constantinople was that Islam demands the subjugation of “infidels,” in this case, Christians. He had no other “grievance” than that. In fact, when he first became sultan, he “swore by the god of their false prophet, by the prophet whose name he bore,” a bitter Christian contemporary retrospectively wrote, that “he was their [the Christians’] friend, and would remain for the whole of his life a friend and ally of Constantinople.” Although they believed him, Muhammad was taking advantage of “the basest arts of dissimulation and deceit,” wrote Edward Gibbon. “Peace was on his lips while war was in his heart.”
During his siege of Constantinople, he regularly exhorted his Muslim army with jihadi ideology, including by unleashing throngs of preachers crying,
Children of Muhammad, be of good heart, for tomorrow we shall have so many Christians in our hands that we will sell them, two slaves for a ducat, and will have such riches that we will all be of gold, and from the beards of the Greeks we will make leads for our dogs, and their families will be our slaves. So be of good heart and be ready to die cheerfully for the love of our [past and present] Muhammad.
“Recall the promises of our Prophet concerning fallen warriors in the Koran,” the sultan himself exhorted: “the man who dies in combat shall be transported bodily to paradise and shall dine with Muhammad in the presence of women, handsome boys, and virgins.”
The mention of “handsome boys” was not just an accurate reference to the Koran’s promise (e.g., 52:24, 56:17, and 76:19); Muhammad was a notorious pedophile. His enslavement and rape of Jacob Notaras—a handsome 14-year-old nobleman’s son in Constantinople, whom Muhammad forced into becoming his personal catamite until he escaped—was only one of the most infamous. The sultan stabbed to death another Christian boy who “preferred death to infamy.”
After his conquest and desecration of the Hagia Sophia, Muhammad had the “wretched citizens of Constantinople” dragged before his men during evening festivities and “ordered many of them to be hacked to pieces, for the sake of entertainment.” The rest of the city’s population—as many as 45,000—was hauled off in chains to be sold as slaves.
This is the man whom Turkey and its president honor—including by rededicating one of Christendom’s greatest and oldest churches as a victory mosque to him last year. Nor is Muhammad al-Fatah the only terrorist to be honored; as Erdoğan explained in one of his speeches:
The conquest of Istanbul [Constantinople] and the conversion of the Hagia Sophia into a mosque are among the most glorious chapters of Turkish history.….The resurrection of the Hagia Sophia represents our memory full of heydays in our history, from [the battles of] Badr to Manzikert, from Nicopolis, to Gallipoli [all jihadi victories] … The resurrection of the Hagia Sophia is required by our respect and commitment to all of our ancestors, from Alp Arslan [Islamic victor of Manzikert who opened the way to the conquest of Asia Minor, and massacred or enslaved tens of thousands of Christians], to Muhammad al-Fatah, to Abdulhamid [who massacred as many as 300,000 Armenians in the name of jihad between 1894-1896]. The resurrection of the Hagia Sophia … honors Muhammad al-Fatah’s spirit of conquest… Allah willing, we will continue to walk on this sacred path without pause or hesitation, until we reach our ultimate destination [emphasis added].
The message could not be clearer: jihadi ideology dominates Turkey, at least its leadership. Invading and conquering neighboring peoples—not due to any grievances but because they are non-Muslim—with all the attending atrocities, rapes, destruction, and mass slavery is apparently the ideal, to resume once the sunset of Western power is complete.
Meanwhile, because Americans are used to seeing statues of their own nation’s heroes toppled—for no other reason than that they were white and/or Christian, and therefore inherently evil—the significance of Erdoğan’s words and praise of Muhammad the Conqueror—who as an Asian Muslim is further immune from Western criticism, as that would be “racist”—will remain lost on them.
THE HAGIA SOPHIA WAS BUILT BY BYZINTINE CHRISTIAN SOVEREIGNS EMPEROR JUSTIN AND EMPRESS THEODORA.
MUSLIM INVASION OF SPAIN
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-muslim-invasion-of-spain-and-europe.html
The Hagia Sophia: A True 'Center of Knowledge about Islam'
A look at how delusional Turkish leadership has become.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Last summer, Turkish authorities transformed Hagia Sophia (“Holy Wisdom”)—which was originally built, and for a millennium functioned, as one of Christendom’s greatest cathedrals—into a mosque. On that Friday, July 24, 2020 (which for millions of Eastern Christians is now deemed a “day of mourning”), Muslims met inside the desecrated church, where they were led in prayer by a sword-waving imam, to spasmodic cries of “Allahu Akbar.”
The Turks, beginning with their president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, have been presenting this bit of cultural appropriation as their “right.” Imam Ali Erbas, Turkey’s president of Religious Affairs, has gone one further, claiming that “The goal is for all our mosques and especially Hagia Sophia to become centers of knowledge about Islam.”
So be it. As the anniversary of the Turkish conquest of Constantinople and its Hagia Sophia recently passed (May 29, 1453), let us revisit what happened on that day—a day that truly does impart much “knowledge about Islam,” not least because we have primary source documents describing exactly what the Turks did, particularly in and around Hagia Sophia. (All quoted text in the following narrative was derived from contemporary sources, mostly eyewitnesses; exact references can be found in chapter 7 of Sword and Scimitar.)
Once they had penetrated inside Constantinople, the “enraged Turkish soldiers . . . gave no quarter”:
When they had massacred and there was no longer any resistance, they were intent on pillage and roamed through the town stealing, disrobing, pillaging, killing, raping, taking captive men, women, children, old men, young men, monks, priests, people of all sorts and conditions… There were virgins who awoke from troubled sleep to find those brigands standing over them with bloody hands and faces full of abject fury… [The Turks] dragged them, tore them, forced them, dishonored them, raped them at the cross-roads and made them submit to the most terrible outrages… Tender children were brutally snatched from their mothers’ breasts and girls were pitilessly given up to strange and horrible unions, and a thousand other terrible things happened. . .
Because thousands of citizens had fled to and were holed up in Hagia Sophia, the ancient basilica offered an excellent harvest of slaves, once its doors were axed down:
One Turk would look for the captive who seemed the wealthiest, a second would prefer a pretty face among the nuns. . . . Each rapacious Turk was eager to lead his captive to a safe place, and then return to secure a second and a third prize. . . . Then long chains of captives could be seen leaving the church and its shrines, being herded along like cattle or flocks of sheep.
The slavers sometimes fought each other to the death over “any well-formed girl,” even as many of the latter “preferred to cast themselves into the wells and drown rather than fall into the hands of the Turks.”
Having taken possession of the Hagia Sophia—which at the time of its capture had served as a cathedral for a thousand years—the invaders “engaged in every kind of vileness within it, making of it a public brothel.” On “its holy altars” they enacted “perversions with our women, virgins, and children,” including “the Grand Duke’s daughter who was quite beautiful.” She was forced to “lie on the great altar of Hagia Sophia with a crucifix under her head and then raped.”
Next “they paraded the [Hagia Sophia’s main] Crucifix in mocking procession through their camp, beating drums before it, crucifying the Christ again with spitting and blasphemies and curses. They placed a Turkish cap . . . upon His head, and jeeringly cried, ‘Behold the god of the Christians!’”
Practically all other churches in the ancient city suffered the same fate. “The crosses which had been placed on the roofs or the walls of churches were torn down and trampled.” The Eucharist was “thrown to the ground and kicked.” Bibles were stripped of their gold or silver illuminations before being burned. “Icons were without exception given to the flames.” Patriarchal vestments were placed on the haunches of dogs; priestly garments were placed on horses.
“Everywhere there was misfortune, everyone was touched by pain” when Sultan Muhammad finally made his grand entry into the city. “There were lamentations and weeping in every house, screaming in the crossroads, and sorrow in all churches; the groaning of grown men and the shrieking of women accompanied looting, enslavement, separation, and rape.”
The sultan rode to Hagia Sophia, dismounted, and went in, “marveling at the sight” of the grand basilica. After having it cleansed of its crosses, statues, and icons—Muhammad himself knocked over and trampled on its main altar—he ordered a muezzin to ascend the pulpit and sound “their detestable prayers,” wrote a disgruntled Christian. “Then this son of iniquity, this forerunner of Antichrist, mounted upon the Holy Table to utter forth his own prayers,” thereby “turning the Great Church into a heathen shrine for his god and his Mahomet.”
To cap off his triumph, Muhammad had the “wretched citizens of Constantinople” dragged before his men during evening festivities and “ordered many of them to be hacked to pieces, for the sake of entertainment.” The rest of the city’s population—as many as forty-five thousand—were hauled off in chains to be sold into Easter captivity.
Such is the “knowledge about Islam” that the Hagia Sophia’s experiences truly impart.
Setting the record straight concerning the conquest of Constantinople, as this article has done, is doubly important now that Google and “big tech” are, like the Turks, devoted to hiding the truth of this day: before Turkey violently transformed the Hagia Sophia into a mosque, googling the date “May 29”—a day that for centuries before Pearl Harbor “lived in infamy”—produced numerous search results on the Muslim conquest of Constantinople; today very few do.
Note: Quoted excerpts in the above narrative were taken from and are sourced in the author’s Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West.
No comments:
Post a Comment