GIVEN THE WAY THE MIUSLIMS TREAT WOMEN, ONE WOULD THINK AN AMERICAN WOMAN WOULD TAKE A STAND AGAINST ALL THINGS MUSLIM, INCLUDING THEIR GLOBAL TERRORISM
Meet the Senior CIA Official Who Posted Pro-Palestinian Images to Social Media
The senior CIA official who posted a pro-Palestinian image on Facebook in the wake of Hamas’s deadly attack on Israel is associate deputy director for analysis Amy McFadden, the agency confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon.
McFadden was not mentioned by name in a Tuesday Financial Times article about her Facebook banner image, which was a picture of a man waving a Palestinian flag, citing alleged "concern about her safety." A review of McFadden’s LinkedIn page revealed expressions of support for the anti-Israel International Crisis Group, once headed by disgraced former White House official Robert Malley.
McFadden’s criticism of Israel comes as President Joe Biden faces a revolt in the federal government over the Jewish state’s military response in Gaza after Hamas’s attacks left at least 1,400 dead, including 32 Americans. The CIA official's conduct suggests even those working at the highest echelon of the federal government’s intelligence services feel comfortable making public statements contrary to the United States’ official stance on Israel.
"CIA officers are committed to analytic objectivity, which is at the core of what we do as an Agency," a CIA spokeswoman told the Free Beacon in an emailed statement. "CIA officers may have personal views, but this does not lessen their—or CIA’s—commitment to unbiased analysis." The agency declined to say whether McFadden would be subject to disciplinary action or termination.
According to the Financial Times, McFadden also posted "a selfie with a sticker saying ‘Free Palestine’ superimposed on the photograph" on Facebook. The paper said that image was uploaded years ago.
McFadden is one of the most senior officials within the CIA and was once responsible for overseeing the president’s "daily brief," a summary of classified intelligence, the Financial Times reported. In her role as associate deputy director for analysis, McFadden oversees the approval of all the agency’s intelligence.
Although McFadden’s particular beliefs on Israel are unclear, she "liked" one post by the International Crisis Group in the last week. That post shared an article in Foreign Affairs that chastised Israel for "making the utter defeat of Hamas its top priority."
The International Crisis Group, a non-profit that says it works on "preventing and resolving deadly conflict," has faced criticism over its ties to the Iranian government. Its former president, Malley, is under criminal investigation for allegedly mishandling classified materials. Malley served as the chief envoy to Tehran under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
One of the International Crisis Group's Iran analysts was outed in October as part of a vast Iranian-government propaganda network. That individual, Ali Vaez, reportedly spoke with senior Iranian officials and visited the White House at least five times since 2022.
McFadden’s LinkedIn banner image is a graphic with text that says "I am for equity because equity starts with everyone." According to McFadden’s profile, she started at the CIA in 1999 and worked in leadership roles at the Office of North African, Arabian Peninsula, and Regional Analysis. From 2012 to 2013, McFadden was a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
"Ms. McFadden is the recipient of several prestigious IC awards, including the Intelligence Medal of Merit, the CIA Director’s Award, and the George H.W. Bush Award for Excellence in Counterterrorism," her profile states.
CIA official who posted selfie-stickers for Palestine on her social media ... not disciplined
We're in the best of hands.
So we are told to think as we've learned that the CIA employed someone so emotional she can't keep her Palestinian advocacy to herself in public forums, in this case. You would think CIA officials would keep themselves a little classified, a little mysterious, but not this one. She's into social media. She's into what are known as "stickers," colorful little advocacy buttons posted on her own selfie photos on her social media accounts. It's plausible that people like her communicate through emojis. And she's doing it because all the kids are doing it.
Here she is, associate deputy director for analytics, and has been the person who prepares the president's daily briefing as gatekeeper for what intelligence the president sees each morning when he gets briefed and what he doesn't:
Love the 1991-look suit redolent of the woman in the Zombietime 2008 Obama fund-raising photo under the caption: One half of a glamorous power couple from a bygone era. Like teenagers, the swamp has its own way of dressing. Her, too.
In any case, her loudly pro-Palestinian and, yes, pro-Hamas message, posted on publicly available social media, drew the attention of even the Financial Times, as well as other media outlets, raising questions as to her impartiality.
The CIA said she wouldn't dream of being impartial.
According to the Washington Free Beacon:
"CIA officers are committed to analytic objectivity, which is at the core of what we do as an Agency," a CIA spokeswoman told the Free Beacon in an emailed statement. "CIA officers may have personal views, but this does not lessen their—or CIA’s—commitment to unbiased analysis." The agency declined to say whether McFadden would be subject to disciplinary action or termination.
Sure she is. That's exactly what Defense Intelligence Agency traitor Ana Montes told her investigators when it came to light that she was a supporter of Puerto Rican Marxist separatists aligned with Cuba. She eventually went to prison for spying for Cuba but claimed at the time that even with her personal views, she was completely objective.
Meanwhile, over at CIA, McFadden also did this:
Although McFadden’s particular beliefs on Israel are unclear, she "liked" one post by the International Crisis Group in the last week. That post shared an article in Foreign Affairs that chastised Israel for "making the utter defeat of Hamas its top priority."
The Beacon noted that one of that group's analysts had been recently outed as an Iranian propagandist, and another top official is under investigation as an Iranian agent.
How great to have our CIA officials agreeing with an Iran propaganda operation.
But rest assured, she's completely objective.
Instead of doing anything about it -- like get her moved to some anodyne duty or firing her for being on the side of an enemy of a critical U.S. ally that just got done raping women, beheading kids, and baking a baby in an oven -- the CIA moved to defend her, saying she is completely objective and said she didn't mean anything by that.
A US official told NBC that an email had been sent to staff as “simply a reminder of existing policy,” and that McFadden had not been disciplined. The official also noted that she has an “extensive background in all aspects of the Middle East and this post was not intended to express a position on the conflict.”
Not intended to express a position? It looks like a pretty specific position to us, one that takes work to do, and did she do it on office hours?
Didn't they just say their personnel were entitled to their own opinions earlier? And isn't that claim a little laughable on its face? She stuck pro-Hamas propaganda on her face, after all.
They announced a reissue of its "guidelines" for social media posts but didn't condemn here, kind of like the way Congress issued a general condemnation of bigotry of all stripes back when Rep. Ilhan Omar was posting about Jews being "all about the benjamins."
According to the Times of Israel:
The US Central Intelligence Agency issued staff guidelines reiterating the need for objectivity after a senior analyst shared pro-Palestinian posts online.
The move come amid reported dissatisfaction among some US government workers with President Joe Biden’s strong support for Israel in the wake of the October 7 Hamas assault on southern Israel that killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and saw 240 kidnapped to Gaza.
The incident was first reported Tuesday by the Financial Times, which said that the agency’s associate deputy director for analysis had posted a picture of a man waving a Palestinian flag.
The report did not identify the analyst, citing “concern about her safety.”It also noted that several years ago she had posted “a selfie with a sticker saying ‘Free Palestine’ superimposed on the photograph” on Facebook.
Feel confident?
How did this person ever pass a background check? She's pro-Hamas, doing Hamas's bidding under the tired old rubric of love for the Palestinian children, whom the Palestinian Hamas leaders sure as heck don't love, using them as human shields and suicide bombers. As a CIA official, she should know that Hamas has a vast propaganda operation which includes TikTok spreading through U.S. campuses, which accounts for all the poster-ripping and keffiyeh-wearing. She either is aware of this and is all for it or isn't aware of this, raising questions about the entire quality of the U.S. intelligence apparatus.
Seriously, why did she do that, and why was she so sure that when she did it, no negative attention would come, no questions about her impartiality would be raised, because "everybody does it." I suspect there's a whole nest of them with those views, and they like to reinforce each other the way teenagers do with their selfie stickers and the like.
A good CIA analyst needs to hear and understand multiple points of view, including the one the U.S. public supports, which is to support Israel. Apparently, she's never bothered to pay attention to anything outside her swamp world, which despises Israel.
The sheer blase quality of both the posts and the CIA's response suggests something is wrong at that agency, every bit as wrong as the kind of Trump-hate seen at the FBI.
The agency is going to have to put out more serious proof that it's unbiased in its assessment as it claims, and it needs to get rid of her in any sensitive post, or else it needs to go on the congressional chopping block. Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for this.
Right now, we know what this person "likes," and it's not what decent Americans or anyone decent 'likes.' We are going to need a lot better from the CIA to regain any confidence in its objectivity.
Twitter screen shot
India: Another Hindu Woman Converted to Islam, Sold Off, Slaughtered by Muslim Husband
An everyday occurrence in India.
Thu Aug 26, 2021
Muslim men initiating romantic associations with Hindu women, marrying them, converting them to Islam, putting them through endless agonies and finally killing them has become an everyday occurrence in India. The horror of these stories remains constant; what changes is the intensity of violence these women are made to endure during their partnership with these men.
Yet another shocking case of this has been reported from Kota in the western state of Rajasthan, India; a 26-year-old mother of three, Rizwana, was attacked and killed by her husband Imran in the middle of the street in broad daylight, because she had been staying away from him and seeking a divorce.
The deceased was originally a Hindu girl named Antima. She was a 15-year-old minor when she met and fell in love with welding worker Imran, and did a “love marriage” with him. Shortly after the marriage, she converted to Islam and adopted the name Rizwana. This marriage was never a smooth and loving one. But Antima, the ninth of ten siblings, held on to the marriage, hoping for things would improve gradually. The couple also had three children, but the arrival of their children didn’t change things for the better, either. In fact, as children were added to his family, Imran picked up the habit of whipping the children as well.
Imran, as reported by Antima’s sister Anita, was a drunkard who would physically assault his wife regularly, in fits of rage. Anita further notes that Imran would often burn Antima with cigarettes.
The sister of the deceased also told the media that Imran had once taken Antima to the popular Indian tourist destination Goa, and sold her off to the skin trade. With a great deal of effort, Antima somehow rescued herself. She then, however, made a disastrous decision: she chose to stay with Imran and give him another chance.
Her living conditions kept deteriorating, and the beating and battering only grew more frequent. Antima finally decided to walk away from this toxic marriage, and moved in with her elder sister. But Imran would call her and threaten her with dire consequences; her mother-in-law (Imran’s mother) would also harass her every day, according to Anita.
“A couple of months ago, Imran had ferociously attacked her with a cricket bat. The wounds Antima received from that beating were so critical that she had to be given 17 stitches,” adds Anita.
Antima stayed away from Imran for two years, but Imran continued to threaten her, and one day forcefully took her to his dwelling. This time he was more ferocious in his tortures of the hapless woman.
For the previous two months, Antima had been staying with her elder sister. On Wednesday, August 18, Antima was on her way to perform her regular chores when Imran ambushed her and repeatedly struck her with a sharp knife; he then fled the scene. Antima’s niece, who was accompanying Antima on her way, also sustained knife injuries in the mayhem. Locals rushed Antima to a local hospital. She was bleeding profusely from the multiple injuries she had received; her throat was slit as well. Doctors at the local hospital referred her to the New Medical College. Unfortunately, she was pronounced dead on arrival at the medical college. Antima met the same fate as hundreds of thousands of Hindu girls who are trapped in Love Jihad in India. The three children she has left behind are now orphaned.
This is the second known case of Hindu women being killed by Muslim partners in India this week. The first one was Diksha Mishra, who was killed by her lover, also named Imran, although he was pretending to be a Hindu, Rishabh Tiwari.
Taliban’s Regulations For Women
It will send chills down your spine.
Thu Aug 26, 2021
Conventional media have put all their resources into whitewashing the brutalities of the Taliban and giving them an image makeover, so as to make them acceptable to the modern world and perhaps win these mountain savages a seat at the United Nations. They tell us that Taliban 2.0 is a whole different entity and is not comparable to the Taliban that had wreaked havoc in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. After all, the Muslim group has promised to honor women rights and allow them to continue to work as usual. Little girls could receive education as well.
We are a little confused by the Taliban’s commitment to permitting girls to go to school, because quite recently, Taliban jihadis were going door-to-door hunting down girls as young as twelve years old, to take them as sex slaves. We have learned of a woman being lashed for wearing revealing slippers and another burka-clad woman being shot dead for not covering her face enough. And these atrocities have happened under the rule of the moderate, women’s-rights-acknowledging Taliban 2.0.
Leaders of the Muslim outfit have clarified their views on women’s rights in the country: “The rights of women will be under the Sharia law,” affirmed Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, during their first press conference since conquering Kabul.
And what are the rights granted to women by this esteemed Islamic law? Let’s look at the “rights” Afghan women enjoyed during Taliban 1.0 from 1996 to 2001; or shall we call them impositions?
Women were not allowed to walk out of their homes without a burqa covering every inch of their skin, including their feet, hands and face. Most women during that period opted for the shuttlecock burqa that covered them from head to toe; there was a little gap for the eyes, but with a net or mesh covering the gap so that their eyes couldn’t be seen. It was mandatory for every woman to be accompanied by a male family member – a blood relative – while she was out on the street.
No man should be able to hear the footsteps of a woman, hence, high heels or any kind of footwear that produced a sound while walking were banned from use by women.
A woman’s voice must not reach the ears of a man who is not related to her. Hence she must watch the level of sound she was producing while talking. Would it be “Islamophobia” if we said that the Taliban had perfected the textbook version of silencing a woman?
Again, as women were prohibited from being viewed by men who were not related to her by blood, it was mandatory that the windows of all ground floors be painted in a dark tint, covered, or shut at all times, just in case a woman passed by and became visible to a man in the ground floor.
Also, women were barred from standing at the balconies of their houses, as that could allow men on the streets or male neighbors to catch a glimpse of them.
The word “woman” was removed from all public places or names of public places.
Women were precluded from having their pictures taken or being filmed. No images of women could be printed on the pages of books or newspapers, or kept at stores or in homes.
It goes without saying that women were not allowed to be in movies or on television, or to work at radio stations. They were forbidden from forming groups outdoors or holding public gatherings.
Women have never been allowed to work in offices under the Taliban. They cannot work as journalists, bankers, teachers, nurses, doctors or hold administrative positions, as these jobs would land them amidst male colleagues who are not related to them. Office jobs held by women were subsequently passed on to their male family members.
Little girls were banned from going to school. Numerous schools imparting education to girls have been bombed or burned down by the Taliban, not only in Afghanistan, but in several countries where they have gained the slightest foothold.
No woman under the Taliban rule in Afghanistan ever enjoyed the basic human right of speaking her mind or dressing as she liked. Women who flouted any of the above commandments were subjected to harsh, undreamed-of and ruthless punishments by the religious police. They could be stoned to death, mutilated, or given hundreds of lashes with a meter-long metal lash. Many of these women perished in the midst of receiving their penalty.
Afghanistan in 1996 witnessed a young woman’s finger being chopped off by the Taliban; she had dared to paint her nails. A woman named Bibi Aisha was forced into a nightmarish marriage as a trade-off to settle a family dispute. When she tried to escape the violent and abusive marriage, the Taliban, to shame her for her act of disobedience and to set a warning example for the other young women in the community, severed her nose and ears.
One must be an absolute ignoramus living in denial to even begin to trust that the Taliban will leave the Afghan women alone this time.
‘Normal Marital Argument’: Muslim Tells Wife He’ll Behead Her If She Doesn’t Wear A Hijab
Welcome to the New Europe.
Mon Oct 11, 2021
What exactly the West has done to itself by means of mass Muslim migration is a taboo subject as far as the establishment media is concerned. Even the suggestion that there could possibly be a downside to the creation of no-go zones and Sharia enclaves in Europe is buried under charges of “racism,” “bigotry,” and “Islamophobia,” and that’s that. But as Muslims and non-Muslims in Europe march arm-in-arm into the glorious multicultural future, a recent news item in Austria suggests that everything might not be as rosy as our moral superiors would have us believe.
The German-language Exxpress reported Thursday that “a man of Turkish origin was sentenced today in Braunau to two years’ unconditional imprisonment for aggravated coercion. The Austrian citizen threatened to kill his wife if she refused to wear a headscarf.”
The man who issued this threat was in prison at the time: he is “serving a five-year prison sentence for aggravated assault.” But he was able to get his wife on the phone, and instead of spending his precious phone time telling her how much he missed her and assuring her that he would not run afoul of the law again, he told her: “If you don’t wear a headscarf from now on, I’ll break all your bones, kill you and cut your head off your body. I don’t care if I get 20 years for it.”
Now he dismisses those words as so many sweet nothings. In court, he explained: “I scolded her, she scolded me. I am ashamed that I am here as a defendant because of my wife. It was a perfectly normal marital argument.”
Well, yeah. Perfectly normal in Lahore, or Tehran, or Riyadh, or Diyarbakir, but in Braunau? Not so much. At least not until recently. But now, what goes in Diyarbakir goes in Braunau, and if you don’t like that, you’re a “racist,” “bigoted” “Islamophobe.” After all, this chap’s directions to his wife were perfectly reasonable: “I told my wife to wear the headscarf until I was out of prison. So much has been heard, that’s why I told her.”
His wife, according to Exxpress, “confirmed a little later during the interrogation that he was alluding to the protection that Muslim women with headscarves had against harassment by Muslim men, since they can be recognized as believers.” She elaborated: “My husband is not religious, for him the headscarf means that nobody is looking at me and that I am honorable.”
Or else. The victim of this “perfectly normal marital argument” stated: “I now have a different cell phone number because I’m afraid.” She was still afraid even though her husband was in prison: “I know him, he has had me threatened and followed by his friends. He has said he will get an ankle bracelet and then he will teach me.”
For all this, Judge Stefan Kiesl gave this sterling migrant two years in prison. “Seldom has a decision been so easy for me,” he added. “I believe your wife’s every word and have no doubt that what she said is one hundred percent true.” He said of the behavior of the defendant: “It couldn’t be more reprehensible. After receiving five years in prison for an incredibly aggressive act, you are trying to manipulate people from prison. The two years imprisonment can also be seen as a general preventive measure. The clear message must go out that such attitudes cannot be tolerated in our society.”
But Judge Kiesl, such attitudes are already tolerated in your society, and much more as well. After all, “the Turk was convicted of a knife attack in 2019. Because of debts, he stabbed a man in a betting shop in Braunau with a 20cm long jackknife. He was then sentenced to 5 years in prison.” And now he has two years more to serve for threatening his wife. Do you really think, Judge Kiesl, that he will emerge from prison a changed man? Isn’t it much more likely that, given the large presence of jihadis in prisons all over Europe, he will emerge even more hardened and dangerous than he is now?
This is just one incident among many that call into question the entire mass Muslim migrant enterprise that Europe has embraced so wholeheartedly. The political and media elites silence all dissenters by branding them “racists” and “Islamophobes.” So a few women suffer in the making of the new, multicultural Europe? Hey, to make an omelet you have to break some eggs!
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 23 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 The Critical Qur’an. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.
Ex-Muslim Reveals What the Qur’an Says About Moderate Muslims
Spoiler alert: it's not good.
Mon Oct 11, 2021
The Qur’an in numerous passages describes lax, or moderate Muslims, as being hypocrites deserving of scorn and persecution. Speaking as a former Muslim, this raises grave concerns when one considers realities such as Islam’s death penalty for apostasy and the jihad imperative.
For a multitude of reasons (though chiefly for disbelief in or lack of adherence to Islamic teachings) the Qur’an often categorizes some groups of both Muslims and non-Muslims alike as being hypocrites. Since this article is primarily concerned with addressing the subject of how the Islamic texts view lax/moderate Muslims, it is important to consider the general meaning of the word hypocrite.
A common definition of the word hypocrite is as follows: 1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion. 2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs.
Sadly, because the Qur’an claims to be the infallible words of God that are to be unwaveringly believed and practiced by devout Muslims (Qur’an 3:138, 6:114, 16:89), and since many moderate Muslims do not practice all of the Qur’anic dictates, orthodox Muslims have a valid reason to consider moderate Muslims to be hypocrites. See HERE for a more exhaustive list of Islam’s condemnation of hypocrites.
Qur’an 33:36: It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter, that they have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His messenger, has indeed strayed in plain error.
9:23: O believers! Do not take your parents and siblings as trusted allies if they choose disbelief over belief. And whoever of you does so, they are the true wrongdoers.
9:67 The hypocrites, both men and women, are all alike: they encourage what is evil, forbid what is good, and withhold what is in their hands. They neglected Allah, so He neglected them. Surely the hypocrites are the rebellious.
9:68 Allah has promised the hypocrites, both men and women, and the disbelievers an everlasting stay in the Fire of Hell—it is sufficient for them. Allah has condemned them, and they will suffer a never-ending punishment.
9:69 You hypocrites are like those disbelievers before you. They were far superior to you in might and more abundant in wealth and children. They enjoyed their share in this life. You have enjoyed your share, just as they did. And you have engaged in idle talk, just as they did. Their deeds have become void in this world and the Hereafter. And it is they who are the true losers.
In the Sunnah of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, we also find disobedient or hypocritical Muslims spoken of in derogatory terms:
Sahih Muslim Book 038, Hadith Number 6696: Ibn Umar reported Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: The similitude of a hypocrite is that of a sheep which roams endlessly between two flocks. She goes to one at one time and to the other at another time.
Sahih Muslim Book 038, Hadith Number 6694: Jabir reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) came back from a journey and as he was near Medina, there was such a violent gale that the mountain seemed to be pressed. Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: This wind has perhaps been made to blow for the death of a hypocrite, and as he reached Medina a notorious hypocrite from amongst the hypocrites had died.
Unfortunately, as we see from the Islamic texts themselves, it is the orthodox Muslims, such as the Taliban, who can quite justifiably call moderate Muslims hypocrites and treat them with disdain and worse. As the world has just witnessed in the late Summer of 2021, tens of thousands of moderate Muslims are desperately trying to escape Afghanistan as the entire country threatens to fall back into Sharia rule at the hands of the Taliban.
The world is fortunate that moderate Muslims do not follow all of the Qur’anic dictates – but failing to do so naturally makes the moderates vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy by the strict adherents of Sharia. Qur’anic verses such as the ones listed below are invariably noted to moderate Muslims by the hardliners, and the former tend to keep their heads down and their mouths shut for fear of being killed by their more devout Islamic brethren. Moderate Muslim movements are essentially inconsequential in terms of numbers and influence because the jihadis and their supporters know what is written in the Qur’an and are obedient to its teachings.
1:11: This is a Book whose verses are well perfected and then fully explained. It is from the One Who is All-Wise, All-Aware.
18:27: Recite what has been revealed to you from the Book of your Lord. None can change His Words, nor can you find any refuge besides Him.
It is high time that the world take a sobering look at, and reject, the many exceptionally harmful and brutal teachings found in the Qur’an and Muhammad’s Sunnah that comprise Islamic Sharia law (See HERE) that the Taliban and dozens of other jihad groups are attempting be means of both force of arms and political maneuvering to establish throughout the earth.
In conclusion, for the foreseeable future, Sharia-adherent Muslims will continue to torment and persecute moderate Muslims precisely because of what is written in the supposedly perfect Quran and Muhammad’s Sunnah. In other words, unfathomable amounts of misery and bloodshed with take place throughout the world for as long as Muslims continue to believe the claim that the Qur’an is perfect and of divine origin, and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah whose behavior is to be emulated (Qur’an 33:21).
Here is a recent statement from a group of Bangladeshi apostates living in the UK explaining the reasons why they have abandoned Islam:
One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives (Qur’an 33:50). He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way…
The statement continues:
Muhammad was a narcissist, like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified.
Pakistan: Lahore School Principal Becomes Latest Victim of Blasphemy Laws, Given Death Sentence
And now joins the other 80 on death row.
Mon Oct 11, 2021
A Muslim school principal in Lahore, Salma Tanveer, has become the latest victim of the dreaded and stringent blasphemy laws of Pakistan, and has been given the death sentence after a long trial, reports the Pakistani daily Dawn.
Salma is not only the principal, but also the owner of a private school in Lahore. She was booked under the Pakistan Penal Code’s Section 295C in September 2013, on a complaint by Qari Iftikhar Raza, a local prayer leader, also referred to as a Khateeb. Raza, in his complaint, alleged that Tanveer had published and distributed pamphlets of her writings in the Lahore area of her residence. In the pamphlets, Salma had allegedly “denied khatam-e-nubuwat” (the finality of Muhammad’s prophethood), had used disparaging remarks, and also “claimed her own nubuwat,” that is, claimed that she herself was a prophet.
Reportedly, the woman’s counsel, Mian Muhammad Ramzan, had emphasized that the magistrate concerned had ordered an examination of the accused: the main argument presented by Tanveer’s advocate was that she was of unsound mental state at the time of the incident, and pleaded with the court not to prosecute her. The defense further argued that the comparison of content from the photocopies of her pamphlets was impossible, alluding to possible alterations in the content of the alleged documents.
The state prosecutors, Sadia Arif and Advocate Ghulam Mustafa Chaudhry, however, held that Salma’s defense had been unsuccessful in establishing his client’s inability to understand the nature of her actions at the time she wrote, printed and handed out the “blasphemous” material, and claimed before the court that the accusations against Salma has been corroborated with oral and documentary evidence.
The judge observed that a report provided by the Punjab Institute of Mental Health had confirmed that the accused was fit to stand trial. After considering the statements made by the witnesses, the judge sentenced Tanveer to the death penalty, along with a fine of 50,000 Pakistani rupees ($292 US).
“It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Salma Tanveer wrote and distributed the writings which are derogatory in respect of Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and she failed to prove that her case falls in exception provided by section 84 of PPC,” the verdict stated. Section 84, dealing with the accusation on people of unsound mind, states, “nothing is an offense which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.”
“The convict Salma Tanveer is sentenced to death and fined Rs 50,000 u/s 295-C of PPC,” reads the verdict. However, it also held that capital punishment cannot be executed without the Lahore High Court’s confirmation.
Though both India and Pakistan inherited Section 295A that criminalized deliberate attacks on religious sentiments from the British rule in undivided India, Pakistan added 295B and 295C to it during 1980. 295B holds defiling the Qur’an to be punishable by life imprisonment, and Section 295C advocates death penalty for defiling the name of the Prophet of Islam in any way.
Section 295C has a vast capacity for misuse and exploitation, and has been regularly abused to target members of religious minorities, gain the upper hand in personal rivalries, and/or seize land or property. These laws are not dependent on solid witnesses or proof; accusations are more than enough.
In cases of unproven allegations of someone having affronted Islam, a violent and bloodthirsty mob often takes charge of delivering “justice.” Back in 2020, 57-year-old Tahir Ahmad Naseem, an American citizen accused of blasphemy, was shot dead while he was on trial inside a courtroom. That Naseem was shot six times by a 19-year-old young man who had dodged the security system and entered the court to kill the accused even before judgement could be pronounced exposed the extent of jihadist sentiments in Pakistan’s fanatically “religious” society.
Lawyers taking up the cases of the accused have also been attacked and murdered by vigilantes, thereby discouraging advocates from even attempting to defend the suspects of blasphemy. In 2014, Rashid Rehman, a prominent human rights advocate defending a professor accused of blasphemy, was killed in Multan by gunmen posing as prospective clients. As per reports, Saif ul Mulook, the Pakistani lawyer who had helped Asia Bibi in her infamous case of blasphemy, fled Pakistan fearing a murderous attack after several posts on social media called for his execution in 2018.
One cannot rule out the chances of judges being under pressure or threat, and feeling the need to award the death sentence to such suspects just to save themselves from the ire of the jihadi elements they are surrounded with.
According to a 2020 report released by the US Commission for International Religious Freedom, there are 80 convicts charged under the blasphemy law now on death row in Pakistan.
The Only Rape Where Victim-Blaming Is Okay
Ukrainian refugees experience “multiculturalist” Sweden.
Thu Jun 23, 2022
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Swedish officials are warning Ukrainian women living in refugee centers not to dress in a way that might provoke men from “other cultures” — code for Muslim migrants, which, in Sweden, is mostly of the Somali variety—who reside in the same refugee center.
And how do these hapless Ukrainian refugees dress, to prompt such a warning? According to Gitana Bengtsson, who has been helping them, “they usually dressed like us, you and me. There is nothing strange about it. They did not look like prostitutes. If those women lived in the city, no one would tell them how to dress.” Even so, and now that summer is here, the site manager has advised them not to wear shorts or skirts that reveal their body parts.
There have, moreover, been several other reports of Muslim migrants attacking or making female Ukrainian refugees feel unsafe. In one instance, migrants broke into the hostels of Ukrainian women living with their children. “They said that Sweden was a safe country, but I have not seen that,” one of these women later said. Another woman opined that, in Ukraine, they at least understood and knew how to respond to threats: “When there are bombs, I know at least that I can go down to the basement and hide there”—whereas now a migrant would-be rapist might be lurking there.
These Ukrainian women, unused to Muslims, apparently need to get with the times and embrace “multicultural” living. The fact is, Western nations that house large Muslim migrant populations have repeatedly implied that, if rapes are on the rise in their nations—Sweden is now the rape capital of the West, thanks to its Muslim population—that is because women are not doing “their part.” A few examples follow:
After a 20-year-old Austrian woman waiting at a bus stop in Vienna was attacked, beat, and robbed by four Muslim men—including one who “started [by] putting his hands through my hair and made it clear that in his cultural background there were hardly any blonde women”—police responded by telling the victim to dye her hair:
At first I was scared, but now I’m more angry than anything. After the attack they told me that women shouldn’t be alone on the streets after 8pm. And they also gave me other advice, telling me I should dye my hair dark and also not dress in such a provocative way. Indirectly that means I was partly to blame for what happened to me. That is a massive insult.
In 2001, Unni Wikan, a female professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, said that
Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes,” because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: “Norwegian women must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.
So much for the feminist claim that women are free to dress and behave as promiscuously and provocatively as they want—and woe to the man who dares cite this as justifying male sexual aggression. Apparently this feminist refrain does not apply to Muslim men.
And who can forget when Muslim migrant mobs sexually assaulted as many as one-thousand women on New Year’s Eve 2016 in Cologne, Germany. Then, its mayor, Henriette Reker, called on the women—the victims, not their male abusers—to make changes: “women and young girls … should go out and have fun, but they need to be better prepared, especially with the Cologne carnival coming up. For this, we will publish online guidelines that these young women can read through to prepare themselves.”
In yet another instance, seven Muslim migrants raped a teenage German girl in a park, after drugging her at a disco in Freiburg. (She at least survived; in a similar case that occurred a week earlier in Italy, the drugged rape victim was left murdered.) Bernhard Rotzinger, the police chief of Freiburg, responded by saying, “We cannot offer citizens an all-risk insurance [against crime], but I can advise this: Don’t make yourself vulnerable by using alcohol or drugs.”
“Advice” against alcohol, drugs, and reckless behavior would be much more welcome had it not been made under duress. As things stand, it is a copout. Or, as another report discussing the aforementioned rape in Freiburg puts it, “The focus on prevention is a good thing, but also shows how German authorities and media barely hold the migrant crisis responsible for the disaster that is unfolding in Germany. Political correctness has caused officials to put the blame for the criminal acts on the women instead of Merkel’s guests.”
The greater irony of all these excuses is that, from the very start of Islam 14 centuries ago, European women—even chaste nuns—have always been portrayed by Muslims as sexually promiscuous by nature; and how they dressed had nothing to do with it. This article discusses the historic roots of this phenomenon. Modern day examples indicating that this motif is still alive and well follow:
· A British woman was trafficked to Morocco where she was prostituted and repeatedly raped by dozens of Muslim men. They “made me believe I was nothing more than a slut, a white whore,” she recollected. “They treated me like a leper, apart from when they wanted sex. I was less than human to them, I was rubbish.”
· Another British girl was “passed around like a piece of meat” among Muslim men who abused and raped her between the ages of 12 and 14. Speaking recently as an adult, a court heard how she “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.
· A Muslim man explained to another British woman why he was raping her: “you white women are good at it.”
· A Muslim man called a 13-year-old virgin “a little white slag”—British slang for “loose, promiscuous woman”—before raping her.
· In Germany, a group of Muslim migrants stalked a 25-year-old woman, hurled “filthy” insults at and taunted her for sex. They too explained their logic—“German girls are just there for sex”—before reaching into her blouse and groping her.
· Another Muslim man who almost killed his 25-year-old German victim while raping her—and shouting “Allah!”—afterwards inquired if she liked it.
· In Australia, a Muslim cabbie groped and insulted his female passengers, including by saying “All Australian women are sluts and deserve to be raped.”
· In Austria, an “Arabic-looking man” approached a 27-year-old woman at a bus stop, pulled down his pants, and “all he could say was sex, sex, sex,” prompting the woman to scream and flee.
In short, the ancient Islamic motif concerning the alleged promiscuity of European women is alive and well—irrespective of the latter’s behavior or dress—and continues to drive the Muslim rape of Western women.
Yet, even in this, Islam can turn to those “progressive,” godless elements that dominate Western society for cover. For, just as “the Left” has worked long and hard to portray Islamic intolerance, violence, and terrorism as the West’s fault—because of the crusades, because of colonialism, because of cartoons, because of Israel, because of freedom of speech—it now adds and legitimizes Islam’s worldview concerning Western promiscuity to the list of reasons that “provoke” Muslims to attack.
Tariq Ramadan, Accused of Rape by Five Women, to Speak at French Conference
Leftists always stand with their own - no matter what.
Leftists always stand by their friends and allies, while demanding that conservatives denounce any and all of their own who transgress perceived boundaries of acceptable discourse. This will be proven anew on January 21, when Tariq Ramadan, the once-renowned self-proclaimed Muslim reformer who is now under a cloud of rape accusations, speaks in France on The Prophet by Khalil Gibran and The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli. Accused rapists aren’t usually lionized by the intelligentsia, but for Tariq Ramadan, as has so often been the case during his tumultuous public career, the usual rules just don’t apply.
Once the West’s great hope for Islamic reform, Ramadan has been accused by several women now of violent rapes. In a video he uploaded in December 2019, he acknowledges some nebulous wrongdoing, but then claims that the accusations against him are all an attempt to discredit him, and thereby to “neutralize the Muslims.”
“We have to be clear,” Ramadan said, “that there is discrimination, stigmatization, racism that is at stake in the whole issue.” Of course! What else could multiple rape charges against him possibly be? He goes on: “And I was a symbol. To destroy me meant, let the people understand: If you want to be vocal you have to face the reality. It happened to Tariq Ramadan now, it could happen to anyone in the future.”
Anyone who is allegedly a violent rapist, sure. But RFI reported at the same time that “supporters of Ramadan, who is a professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford’s St. Anthony’s College, have called the accusations against him part of a ‘international Zionist plot’ to blacken his name.”
Ah yes, the Jews. Of course! It couldn’t be that a cosseted Muslim academic, hailed and feted all over Europe and the United States despite the abject vacuity and sinister disingenuousness of his thought, began to indulge his worst impulses, now, could it? He couldn’t have been tempted to do so when it became clear that, in light of his value to Western authorities as a “moderate Muslim” who seemed to prop up their fantasies about the jihad threat, he would be allowed to get away with virtually anything – could he?
“Virtually anything” is actually an understatement. The allegations against Ramadan are particularly revolting; if they are true, he is a monstrous sadist. One of his accusers said he subjected her to “blows to the face and body, forced sodomy, rape with an object and various humiliations, including being dragged by the hair to the bathtub and urinated on.”
His sadism, however, appears to be, if the allegations are true, closely intertwined with his celebrated Islamic piety: another one of his accusers said he told her he was raping her because she didn’t wear a hijab.
He would have gotten away with it all, being just too valuable for the Western political and media elites, if it hadn’t been for the #MeToo movement. The problems arose for Ramadan only in 2017, when that movement began to gather steam and his accusers started to come forward, at which point the great reformer’s statements in response were decidedly unsatisfactory. “His last hearing,” RFI notes, “dates back to 2018 when he stunned the public by admitting to ‘consensual’ sex with his accusers, months after denying he had had no sexual contact with them.”
Since then, Ramadan has claimed to be suffering from multiple sclerosis, and has been freed on bail. Meanwhile, one of his accusers has already been beaten and threatened. It wouldn’t be at all surprising, given his connections to all varieties of powerful people, if Ramadan were cleared of all the charges. If this happens, it would be in keeping with the duplicity that has characterized his entire career. French journalist Caroline Fourest’s illuminating book Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan concludes that this much-lionized putative “Muslim Martin Luther” is actually anything but a reformer: in reality, Ramadan is “remaining scrupulously faithful to the strategy mapped out by his grandfather, a strategy of advance stage by stage” toward the imposition of Islamic law in the West.
Ramadan, she explains, in his public lectures and writings invests words like “law” and “democracy” with subtle and carefully crafted new definitions, permitting him to engage in “an apparently inoffensive discourse while remaining faithful to an eminently Islamist message and without having to lie overtly — at least not in his eyes.” Ramadan, she said, “may have an influence on young Islamists and constitute a factor of incitement that could lead them to join the partisans of violence.”
Fourest was also the first to reveal, back in 2017, long before these new charges were levied, that Ramadan had at least four other victims besides the first woman who came forward, Henda Ayari. “A request for religious advice turned into a compulsive sexual relationship, sometimes consented to, often violent and very humiliating, before ending in threats.”
Fourest had evidence. “I presented it to a judge. But Tariq Ramadan scared him too much…. I am well-placed to know the violence of the networks of the Muslim Brotherhood when one stands up to ‘brother Tariq.’”
Those violent networks may yet prevail. “It was a plot,” Ramadan insists. “It was a political set up. And this could happen to anyone.” The worst part of this duplicitous whining is that there are hordes of deluded Leftists who will fall for it. And now they’re having him speak.
If Tariq Ramadan were a conservative non-Muslim, the rape allegations would have been the end of his career, and he would never be invited to speak anywhere. If he were, there would be a media outcry that would force a cancellation. But Tariq Ramadan is a man of privilege. Things just don’t work that way for him.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 23 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 The Critical Qur’an. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.
No comments:
Post a Comment