The Palestinians keep repeating the same baseless charges against Israel. “Israel is an apartheid state.” “Israel wants to expel all the Arabs from the ‘occupied’ West Bank.’” And so on and so ridiculously forth. The charge that has been most in evidence this April, is that “Al Aqsa is being attacked.” A report on how to deal with such charges is here: “Deactivating Palestinian dog whistles,” by Douglas Altabef, Israel Hayom, April 21, 2022:
On April 15, when the rioting by Arabs started on top of the Temple Mount, a reluctant Israel held back. It requested that the Jordanians, who control the Waqf that administers the Al-Aqsa mosque and compound, deal with the rioters. Only after that request was turned down, and several hours had passed, during which rocks and Molotov cocktails were being hurled by the rioters onto the Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall far below, did the Israeli police take over and institute their riot control measures. They did not “threaten” Al-Aqsa at that or any other time, and the Palestinians knew it. It was only after some of the rioters had entered Al-Aqsa to collect more of their stockpiled weapons – rocks and explosives — and to hurl them through mosque windows at the police on the esplanade, that the Israeli police briefly entered, to seize both those rioters and the stockpile of weapons. Then they left, having ensured that the tens of thousands of peaceful worshippers would not have their prayers disrupted by the rioters. In fact, later that very day, 50,000 Muslims prayed on the Temple Mount in peace. By April 22, that number had grown to 100,000 worshippers. These worshippers were not taking part in the riots, and in fact videos show some of them angrily pushing the rioters away from the mosque. It was Israel that, in suppressing the rioters, made the mosque and most of the compound safe for Muslim worshippers.
The Palestinians and their supporters keep repeating the phrase about Israeli “threats to Al-Aqsa” that they had to counter with their rocks and explosives. They have reversed the order of things. It was the rioters who first erupted violently on the Temple Mount, and only then did the Israeli police intervene to disperse, disarm, and arrest the rioters.
The property disputes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of east Jerusalem, between Jewish owners who had clear title and Arab squatters, who had none and yet have refused for years to pay any rent, were presented by the Palestinians as part of a sinister plot to “Judaize Jerusalem.” Only a few dozen properties were the subject of litigation. None of the Arabs could produce a valid title. One Arab family presented what turned out to be a clumsy forgery of an Ottoman land title. Another Arab family claimed to have bought its property, without any title to prove it, from a man named “Ismail” who promptly disappeared. There has been no attempt to “Judaize” east Jerusalem. In 1967, when Israel took possession of the territory, there were 66,000 Arabs living in the area; now there are 340,000. If Israel is trying to “Judaize” east Jerusalem, it is not trying very hard.
Don’t wait for the Palestinian lies to be spread. Tell everyone exactly what those lies will be, and then predict the reaction they are expected to elicit. Pre-empt the nonsense and lies, by setting them out —and labelling them as such — before the Arabs have tried to convince the world to believe them.
Over and over again, the Arabs repeat the same calumnies. Endless repetition of a false charge, as Goebbels knew, can make it accepted as the truth. They take care to describe Israel in every statement as “apartheid Israel,” or “colonial-settler Israel”; they always call Judea and Samaria “occupied territory,” they always bewail the Zionist control of “occupied Jerusalem,” they deceptively call for a return to “the 1967 lines” (which really means “the 1949 armistice lines”), and now they hysterically claim that there is an Israeli “threat to Al-Aqsa Mosque.” They never change their phrasing. Mere repetition will make all those lies into truths accepted by many.
Always pre-empt what the Palestinians will say, and then point out exactly where the falsehood lies, and the response those falsehoods are expected to elicit both from the Arab audience, and from the wider audience of the unwary and the uninformed.
There is an irreducible core of supporters of the Palestinians or, more exactly, of haters of the Jewish state – the Palestinians are for them merely a convenient excuse for their pre-existing antisemitism –who will believe anything the Palestinians say about Israel. But there are others who have been kept fooled and badly informed about Israeli-Palestinian relations, and who may be persuaded that they have been ill-used by Palestinian propagandists.
To counteract the messages of the Palestinian propagandists that never vary, keep pre-empting by letting the world know that “this is what they are now going to say about us” and “here’s why it is preposterous.” For example, “they are now going to talk — watch for it — about our supposed threat to the sanctity of Al-Aqsa, but the threat comes from their rioters, who stockpile rocks and explosives inside the mosque, and then throw some of them out the mosque windows at the police, disrupting the peaceful worshippers inside trying to say their prayers.” Or “the only limits placed on worship on the top of the Temple Mount are prohibitions on Jewish prayers, both those said aloud and those which are mouthed silently. It is the Israeli police who enforce those rules. There has not been, and will not be, any change in this policy. Those who accuse Israel of being intent on taking over Al-Aqsa are simply lying.” Or “100,000 Muslims prayed peacefully at Al-Aqsa on April 22, their security assured by the Israeli police who kept the rioters at bay.” Or “did you know that the rioters set off fireecrackers inside Al-Aqsa Mosque, and even played soccer — how is that for desecrating a sacred space?”
It’s infuriating to have to keep saying the obvious, but it’s the only way to keep turning back the tide – the tsunami — of Palestinian propaganda. To date, Israel has been in reactive mode, but Douglas Altabef has a point. Israelis shouldn’t wait to reply to lies, but instead beat the Palestinians to the punch, uttering the lies they will be telling before they do, but holding those lies up for immediate critical inspection, and answering them, before the Palestinians, caught in the headlights, have had time to react.
The Islamic holy month has more to offer than fasting.
War in Ukraine, an essentially nonexistent Southern border, out-of-control inflation, rising crime, deep societal divisions, and what does the de facto leader of the Democrat Party, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Islamabad), who can always be counted on to have her finger on the pulse of the American people, decide to tackle? Why, “Islamophobia,” of course. Come on, man! Is there something more important that she could be focusing on? “Islamophobia” is, after all, a free speech issue. The only problem is that Omar is on the wrong side.
That was significant in light of the kind of work Imran Khan has been doing for Muslims globally. For years, he has been campaigning for the West to adopt Sharia blasphemy laws and restrict the freedom of speech under the guise of prohibiting “Islamophobia.” In October 2020 at the UN, he justified Islamic violence in reaction to perceived insults of Muhammad, saying: “It is important to understand this: the Prophet lives in our hearts. When he is ridiculed, when he is insulted, it hurts the—As we human know, we human beings understand one thing: the pain of the heart is far, far, far more hurtful than physical pain. And that’s why the Muslims react.” Yes, that sounded like a justification for violence because that was exactly what it was. Jews, Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists have grown accustomed to insults to their faith in the public square, but Khan didn’t think Muslims had any obligation to do so; rather, all others were expected to bow to the sensibilities of Muslims.
Nor was that the first or only time Khan had directly attacked the freedom of speech. At the UN in September 2019, Khan said: “The human community lives together; there should be an understanding. But Islamophobia is dividing the world. Muslim women have been asked to take off their hijab in other countries. A woman can take off her clothes in other countries but cannot put on Hijab.” He said nothing about the many women who have been threatened, brutalized, or even killed for not wearing hijab or about the ongoing persecution of Christians and Hindus in Pakistan. For him, Muslim victimhood is all that matters as a tool to intimidate the world into adopting Sharia prohibitions on criticism of Islam.
Apparently, that is Ilhan Omar’s goal as well. The ever-charming Congresswoman was, after all, a co-sponsor of the Combating International Islamophobia Act, which the House passed in December. The bill calls upon the president to appoint a “special envoy” to fight “Islamophobia”; this envoy will head up a State Department that will monitor the phenomenon. Omar’s bill, however, is wrongly focused in all kinds of ways, not least of which is the fact that it will combat efforts to “promote racial hatred” against Muslims, even though Islam is not a race and there are Muslims among people of all races. Meanwhile, the raucous House debate raised other problems with the bill as well, including the likelihood that it will inhibit counterterror efforts.
“The office,” said the Washington Post, “would record instances of Islamophobia, including violence against and harassment of Muslims and vandalism of their mosques, schools and cemeteries worldwide, in reports created by the State Department.” That’s fine, although it’s striking that there is no similar call for the State Department to create reports about violence against and harassment of Christians and vandalism of their churches, schools, and cemeteries worldwide or violence against Hindus or any other religious group. Why the special treatment for Muslims? It can’t be because Muslims are uniquely the victims of persecution around the world; Christians are by far the most persecuted religious group.
Of even greater concern, however, is that the new “Islamophobia” office would target “propaganda efforts by state and nonstate media ‘to promote racial hatred or incite acts of violence against Muslim people.’” “Racial hatred” against Muslims as such is not even possible, as they’re not all of one race. Even worse, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) noted that the word was “so vague and subjective that it could be used against legitimate speech for partisan purposes. Even the term ‘phobia’ [connotes] irrational fear, not discrimination.” Rep. Scott Perry (R-Penn.) warned that the bill would be used “to silence dissent and critiques of terrorism.” He added: “By intentionally leaving the definition of ‘Islamophobia’ blank in this bill, the gentlelady and my friends on the other side of the aisle are creating an office in our State Department that will likely spew antisemitic hatred and attack Western ideas throughout the world under the farce of protecting Islam.”
Freedom of speech is under attack everywhere. While Elon Musk fights for it on Twitter, it is under fire on many other fronts. Ilhan Omar is working hard to destroy it under the guise of protecting us all against “Islamophobia.” That’s why she went to Pakistan.
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.
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2022/03/muslims-and-rape-let-omar-sulelman-tell.html
THE MUSLIM PROFIT MOHAMMED WAS A PEDOPHILE WITH NUMEROUS CHILD BRIDES!
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
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/08/new-novel-blasphemes-fornicating-dog.html
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".
Imam Who Defended Honor Killings and Sex Slavery to Speak On Campus About Challenges of Being Muslim
Wed Mar 16, 2022
Daniel Greenfield
4 comments
The great thing about being an Islamist in the Ms. Marvel era is that no matter what awful things they catch you saying, there will be no consequences. After some initial awkwardness, everyone will back away for a few months or a year... and then the party is back on.
When Bernie Sanders appeared with Imam Omar Suleiman, the Imam's hateful views became an issue and the Sanders campaign temporarily backed away. These days you'll find virtually no mention of it. Google is helpfully suppressing search results on the subject and so there's a magical clean slate.
And now Suleiman's going to be speaking at Oakland University on the challenge of being a Muslim in America. It's tough when they won't let you kill your daughters.
"Sisters, you know what happens with a really jealous Dad? He kills you and he kills the guy," a smiling Imam Suleiman told Muslim female college students at an Islamist youth event. "Even if they don't have a man who's going to be a real man, Allah has more than any man."
And won't let you take sex slaves.
"Society's welfare always takes precedence over the individual's welfare," Imam Suleiman had said, when discussing concubines and sex slaves. "It supersedes the outrage of a woman - the very real possibility that a woman in that situation had that option not been there - would have most likely been put in a situation of prostitution."
And then, making it clear that he was talking about sex slavery of the ISIS variety, he discussed a situation where “a prisoner of war was to come in, if a woman was to come in that situation”.
In Islam, girls and women are captured as “prisoners of war” and raped by Muslim men. As the many Yazidi girls and women raped by ISIS were. As were American women like Kayla Mueller.
Or chop off hands.
"The punishment for theft," Imam Omar Suleiman said at a Sharia Council Panel, "which would be the cutting off of the hand, that's not just any theft, Allah wants to protect the life of the one who had stolen... but a skilled thief."
Also there's the support for killing Jews.
Earlier in the conflict, Omar had tweeted, “God willing on this blessed night as the 3rd Intifada begins, the beginning of the end of Zionism is here. May Allah help us overcome this monster, protect the innocent of the world, and accept the murdered as martyrs. ameen #48kMarch #3rdIntifada.”
He later tweeted, “The people of #Gaza made us proud. You refused to let terror break you and we refuse to let Zionist media silence you.”
I'm not sure what the challenge is honestly.
Islamists like Omar can spew the worst hateful filth and then be embraced by leftists and invited to college campuses.
Viral Palestinian Wedding Features Calls for Increased Russian Attacks on Ukraine, Taking of Their Women
Facebook/موقع الفنان والشاعر محمد العراني
JOSHUA KLEIN
15 Mar 20220
3:48
In a video clip that has garnered well over half a million views within a day, a famed Palestinian wedding performer leads the crowd with a song calling for increased attacks on Ukraine and the banishment of its citizens in order for Palestinian men to wed the remaining Ukrainian women. It also called for China to invade Taiwan to hit back at the U.S.
The viral clip of a wedding performance by popular Palestinian singer Mohammed Arani, whose official Facebook page has over 112,000 followers, shows Palestinian participants celebrating to the tune of calls for broadening the current bloody conflict in Ukraine, which has already cost the lives of thousands.
Arani is joined by fellow singer Suhaib Al-Jamma’ini, whose official Facebook page has nearly 75,000 followers.
The song specifically addresses Russian President Vladimir Putin, urging him to intensify his war on Ukraine which would lead to the availability of Ukrainian women for Palestinian men to wed.
“Harden your heart, O Putin,” Arani sings. “Increase your attacks.”
“Banish them to Palestine, and we will marry Ukrainian women,” it continues.
The next part urges authoritarian China to seize its democratic neighbor Taiwan in order to defeat the Israel-supporting United States.
“Also, we say to China: invade Taiwan! Also, we say to China: Why don’t you invade Taiwan?” he sings.
“This way we will smash the nose of the Americans — who make the [Israeli] airplanes,” the song continues.
Arani is then seen repeating the chorus which called for President Vladimir Putin to escalate attacks on Ukraine as well as the banishing of Ukrainian women to Palestine for the purposes of being married off to local men.
Many took to Twitter to express outrage over the clip, which was posted on various Palestinian sources online earlier this month.
Dr. Nervana Mahmoud, a regional observer and independent commentator on Middle East issues, called it “absolutely sick fascism and misogyny.”
“This is who the left adore,” wrote political commentator Sophie Corcoran.
“Heartwarming, from the usual suspects,” human rights lawyer and national security analyst Irina Tsukerman wrote mockingly.
“Here to my progressive friends enjoy true palestinian culture,” wrote commentator Eli Dror.
“It almost feels like they want to lose all the sympathies the world still has for them,” one Twitter user wrote.
“This is disturbing on so many levels….,” wrote another.
Last week, model Gigi Hadid was slammed for comparing victims in Ukraine to people who live in Palestinian territories.
Activist and influencer Elizabeth Savetsky stated she is “absolutely appalled” over Hadid’s comparison, elaborating on reasons the matter is incomparable.
Israeli actress and author Noa Tishby also reacted to Hadid’s comments, stating that the model is “hijacking the Russian invasion of Ukraine to promote propaganda about Israel.”
“We’re seeing, yet again, celebrities and social media influencers co-opting a global tragedy in order to spread lies about Israel,” Tishby said. “Ukraine is not Palestine, and Israel is not Russia. So, no, Gigi, it’s not the same.”
In January, a report revealed the Biden administration was being sued for refusing to submit internal documents that could show it violated a law barring the federal government from sending money to the Palestinian government until it stops its so-called “pay-for-slay” scheme paying terrorists and their families.
Follow Joshua Klein on Twitter @JoshuaKlein.
INTERESTING HOW MUSLIMS NEVER MOUTH OFF ABOUT PEDOHILES. PERHAPS BECAUSE THEIR PROFIT MOHAMMED WAS ONE!
Miami Imam Muses: Why Has Allah Not Destroyed America and All Homosexuals?
Fadi Kablawi blames women for rape, says gays should thank him for their continued existence.
Mon Mar 14, 2022
Joe Kaufman
33 comments
Joe Kaufman is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the Chairman of the Joe Kaufman Security Initiative. He was the 2014, 2016 and 2018 Republican Nominee for U.S. House of Representatives (Florida-CD23).
Miami, Florida imam, Fadi Kablawi, says a lot of incredibly offensive things. He has referred to Jews as “the lowest of the lowest” and said that people “crack jokes about Jews being cheap” as “a punishment from Allah.” He has said that Christians practice a “fake” religion and that “Christianity can compete for first place in stupidity.” Kablawi’s insults and bigotry know no bounds. This past August, he looked to outrage once again, blaming women for rape and pondering why Allah has not destroyed the United States and all homosexuals. His rhetoric is dangerous, and it quite possibly has influenced his congregants to plot unspeakable acts.
Fadi Yousef Kablawi (Qablawi) was born in Amman, Jordan, in 1978. At the age of 17, he moved to the US with his family. After finishing high school, Kablawi attended Florida International University (FIU), where he was President of the school’s Muslim Students Association (MSA). He then attended the University of Pennsylvania, where he completed his doctoral degree in dental medicine and founded an MSA for Muslim dental students. He opened a dental practice with his wife, and in August 2017, he was arrested for allegedly using his business to commit Medicaid fraud, targeting elderly patients with heavily inflated invoices.
The fraud was the least of concerns for law enforcement, as the FBI has deemed Kablawi to be a member of ISIS and has questioned his congregants about him. Kablawi says the FBI’s investigation of him is merely about the controversial nature of his sermons. He told one publication, “It’s all about my rhetoric, my speech. They feel that I have influence.” While his influence certainly is a factor – Kablawi has been accused of brainwashing his congregant follower Salman Rashid, who was imprisoned for threatening the lives of two college deans, to commit terrorist acts – there is no doubt that Kablawi’s rhetoric is incendiary and off the charts.
This past August, in a speech at his mosque, the North Miami Islamic Center, Masjid As Sunnah An Nabawiyyah, Kablawi made the incredible claim that the reason Allah has not put an end to America is due to him and his fellow Muslims occupying the US. He stated, “I’m a true believer in the fact that Allah has not destroyed this country yet, because we Muslims live in it.”
He declared the same for homosexuals, stating: “When Allah tortured Lut (Lot), they knew that what they were doing is wrong. They acknowledged that. They didn’t get married. They did not legalize it. They did not have inheritance. They did not adopt. They did not and they did not and they did not. So you want to tell me the gays of today are better? Yet, Allah is not destroying them. The only explanation I know of myself – the only explanation I make myself believe – is because we Muslims are here. So based on that, all gays and all lesbians in America should be standing outside this masjid to give us appreciation. But we don’t want it. Stay away from me.”
During this same speech, while vilifying those who accuse the Taliban of oppressing women, Kablawi blamed women for being sexually assaulted. He stated, “All the American media, all they are worried about [are] women rights in Afghanistan… What you have for your women? Your women are suffering more than anywhere in the world… What is the freedom you want for women in Afghanistan?... Freedom to wear whatever they want – this is freedom?” He then asked, “Can you tell me about rape?” He continued, “‘Oh, he’s one of them. Oh, he blame the women for the way they dress for getting raped.’ I blame them, but I don’t free the perpetrator.”
The following month, Kablawi spoke of his hatred for those who are not Muslim, specifically Christians. He stated, “[T]he people are [from] two groups, kuffar or Muslims, believers or disbelievers… I decided to love the believers and hate the non-believers, very simple… If I love Allah more than anything, then… what that love necessitates [is] that I will love what Allah loves, and I will hate what Allah hates… When I go outside to make dawah (outreach), I’m not going [up] to a Christian to tell him ‘I hate you’… but that does not deny the fact I do… I don’t hate him because his head is big or he’s skinny or fat or his skin color, but I still hate him as a being.”
Fadi Kablawi is a dangerous man, and yes, his speech is dangerous. This is not only because of his repulsive views, but it is the fact that he is voicing these views to an audience that considers him a religious authority whose opinions are divinely sanctioned.
Furthermore, Kablawi’s congregation includes children. On the same video of him talking about Allah potentially destroying America and destroying gays and how women should be blamed for rapes committed against them, you can see a number of young kids praying with the adults and running around the floor. Having little children with impressionable minds imbibing such hateful rhetoric sows the seeds of radicalization, leading one to question how many future Salman Rasheeds are being inspired by Kablawi’s words.
Beila Rabinowitz, Director of Militant Islam Monitor, contributed to this report.
Pakistan: Armed Muslims Abduct, Forcibly Convert, Rape Hindu Girl for Three Months
Why did this horror story not make headlines across the world?
Ashlyn Davis
A story of horror that should have made headlines on news portals across the world has been masterfully swept under the rug. Is this how media outlets deal from Islamic barbarity?
The incident has been reported from Pakistan’s Sindh province. A young Hindu girl named Tamana Meghwad was allegedly abducted by a group of armed Muslims in the province and was gang-raped for over three months. They also forced Tamana to convert to Islam. There are no records of Pakistan’s administration making any arrangement to rescue this girl or extend any kind of assistance to her family to locate her. After months of assault and molestation, the girl somehow managed to escape and return to her parents.
While the shocking incident was astutely kept quiet by Pakistan’s domestic media, Rahat Austin shared a video of Tamana Meghwad on Twitter and presented her story to the world at large. Austin, a Christian born in Pakistan, is a human rights activist who had to flee his home country and has been staying in South Korea with his family.
In the video, Tamana seems to be naming her perpetrators as Ghulam Rasool, Allah Baig, and Rasool Baig. She accuses them of kidnapping her, forcing themselves on her, and holding her captive for over three months. Now that she has escaped the captivity, they continue to intimidate her.
Returning home doesn’t guarantee safety for Tamana, as now “she is a Muslim” and she must live like one, and with her kind. Muslims are constantly threatening Tamana and her family.
Apostasy from Islam is not permissible, as per the Sharia law. Islamic law prescribes the death penalty for the crime of apostasy. Though Pakistan claims to be a republic, faith in the supremacy of the Sharia wields an enormous influence on the country’s judicial system. Hence, the toothless administration that showed itself incapable of rescuing an abducted girl continues to demonstrate its powerlessness and stands as a silent spectator while the Muslim hoodlums torment the beleaguered family from the minority community.
Tamana was captured from the Kunri area, which is located in the Umerkot district of the Sindh province. More than 90% of Pakistan’s total Hindu demography, comprising 2-4% of Pakistan’s total population, lives in Sindh. They are mostly scattered across border districts including Umerkot, Mirpurkhas, Tharparkar, Sanghar, and, Ghotki.
Thousands of Hindu girls have been abducted from these regions; these girls either end up as sex slaves or are pushed into forced marriages after religious conversions. Hindu families in this region are economically backward, and hail from the marginalized Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It is easy to exploit them, and that is exactly what Pakistan is doing as a country. Bonded labor is still a thing in Pakistan, and in most cases, it is the subjugated Hindus from Sindh who are taken in as bonded laborers by feudal landlords. Shamefully, its government has not introduced any reforms to protect these families. The administration has essentially thrown them to the mercy of feudal landlords and hardline Muslims.
Sex-Slavery: An Islamic Sacrament?
ISIS may have popularized it, but concubinage is integral to Islam.
February 20, 2020
Raymond Ibrahim
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
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:
· “Muslim abusers quoted Qur’an as they beat me,” said one of countless rape victims.
· “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
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
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
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/08/new-novel-blasphemes-fornicating-dog.html
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".
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
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
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
West Yorkshire Police
JACK MONTGOMERY
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.
Breitbart London@BreitbartLondon
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'
Rotherham Police ignored decades of abuse carried out by 'Asian' grooming gangs against young girls for fear of sparking "racial tensions".
breitbart.com
157
4:33 AM - Jan 19, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy
164 people are talking about this
“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.
Breitbart London@BreitbartLondon
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'
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.
breitbart.com
514
6:11 AM - Dec 10, 2017
Twitter Ads info and privacy
640 people are talking about this
“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.
The Independent
✔@Independent
'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
As a Rotherham grooming gang survivor, I want people to know about t…
I’m a Rotherham grooming gang survivor. I call myself a survivor because I’m still alive. I’m part of the UK’s largest ever child sexual abuse investigation. As a teenager, I was taken to various
independent.co.uk
93
3:29 AM - Mar 18, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
132 people are talking about this
Follow Jack Montgomery on Twitter: @JackBMontgomery
Follow Breitbart London on Facebook: Breitbart London
Video: Activists Say Protecting Girls from Mutilation is Anti-Transgender
The Left’s vicious war on Muslim girls escalates.
March 16, 2020
Frontpagemag.com
Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Twitter: @JamieGlazov.
In this new Jamie Glazov Moment, Jamie focuses on Activists Say Protecting Girls from Mutilation is Anti-Transgender, unveiling how the Left’s vicious war on Muslim girls is escalating.
Don’t miss it!
And make sure to watch The Glazov Gang’s 6-Part Series on Islamic Female Genital Mutilation and the Left’s Complicity, below:
Part I: U.S. Judge Condones Female Genital Mutilation — how our horrific surrender to Sharia is accelerating.
Part 2: Islamic Female Genital Mutilation and Denial — The monstrosity that lies behind the “others do it too” mantra.
Part 3: Elizabeth Yore Fights to EndFGMToday.com — 513,000 girls and women are at risk in the U.S. alone.
Part 4: Female Genital Mutilators Flown Into UK — Where is #MeToo? Where are all the leftist feminists?
Part 5: Malaysia: 93% of Muslim Women are Victims of FGM — When will we start protecting Muslim girls?
Part 6: Amazon Supports Female Genital Mutilation? — America’s electronic commerce company descends into the moral sewer.
Subscribe to Jamie Glazov Productions and follow us on Twitter: @JamieGlazov.
Saudi monarchy executes 81 men in one day:
Medieval barbarism from top US ally in
Mideast
Patrick Martin
In a brutal act of mass murder, the US-backed Saudi monarchy executed 81 men Saturday, the largest such massacre in the history of the kingdom. The Saudi government did not say how the executions were carried out, but beheading is the method it usually employs against its victims. Seven of those executed were Yemenis, one was Syrian, and the rest were Saudi citizens.
The barbaric action received only perfunctory attention in the American media, in sharp contrast to the saturation coverage of every alleged atrocity carried out by Russian forces in Ukraine. The White House and State Department did not issue any public statements.
While the Saudi Ministry of Interior claimed that the capital crimes for which the 81 had been executed included terrorism and “multiple heinous crimes that left a large number of civilians and law enforcement officers dead,” it gave no details of the alleged offenses or name any of the supposed victims killed by those executed.
The death toll was largest in a single day of executions since the bloodstained kingdom was founded by Ibn Saud in 1932, when he united the Arabian Peninsula in the wake of the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I by British and French imperialism.
The largest previous mass execution came in 1980, when 63 men were put to death after Islamist militants seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca in an effort to overthrow the regime. In 2016, the monarchy executed 47 people, including the Shi’ite Muslim leader Nimr al-Nimr, to suppress political opposition in the eastern provinces, largely populated by the Shi’ite minority.
Similar political considerations were apparently involved in Saturday’s bloodbath, as Shi’ite young men were the majority of those executed. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman—the real ruler of Saudi Arabia under the nominal reign of his senile, 85-year-old father King Salman—has focused internal repressive measures on Shi’ite opposition, portraying all dissidents as agents of Iran.
Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud (Credit: en.kremlin.ru)
The regime dropped the death penalty for drug offenses in 2019, resulting in a sharp fall in state killings in 2020. This underscores the fact that Saturday’s mass execution, which produced a greater death toll in a single day than during all of 2020 or 2021, was for political offenses.
The Ministry of Interior issued a lurid statement portraying the victims as linked to foreign terrorist groups, including ISIS and Al Qaeda (both of them past beneficiaries of Saudi government support), who targeted government officials and “vital economic sites,” killed police and planted land mines, all without any evidence. The ministry did not even bother to present “confessions” extracted from the prisoners.
Some prisoners were said to be linked to the Houthis, the Yemeni group that overthrew a Saudi-backed regime and has been fighting a protracted war against Saudi military intervention in that country since 2015.
Human rights groups, including those formed by Saudi dissidents in exile, condemned the executions and said that the majority of the victims were from the brutally oppressed Shi’ite minority in the eastern region.
Reprieve, an advocacy group that tracks Saudi executions, said in a statement, “The world should know by now that when Mohammed bin Salman promises reform, bloodshed is bound to follow,” adding, “We fear for every [prisoner] following this brutal display of impunity.”
The statement noted the upcoming visit of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to Riyadh, “to beg for Saudi oil to replace Russian gas,” and pointed to the contrast between US and European denunciation of Russian actions in Ukraine and “rewarding those of the crown prince.”
The Iran-based Shi’ite news aggregator Ahlul Bayt News Agency (ABNA) reported that those killed in the mass executions included “41 from the peace protest movement in Al-Ahsa and Qatif [eastern Saudi Arabia], under the false accusation of committing ‘terrorist’ acts,” and accused the Saudi regime of “committing more crimes against innocent people, exploiting the so-called war on terror and making use of the current international situation, where the world is preoccupied with what is happening in Ukraine, to carry out a horrific massacre against a group of young people who only exercised their legitimate right of expressing their right to freedom.”
The European Saudi Organization for Human Rights said that in the cases it had been able to document, the charges involved “not a drop of blood,” even under the rules laid down by the Saudi monarchy to establish criteria justifying executions. The nature of the charges in many of the cases could not be determined because of judicial secrecy and intimidation of family members of those put to death.
The group said it had documented cases in which prisoners had been tortured, held incommunicado and denied access to lawyers, despite the official claims that all the victims had full access to legal defense.
Ali Adubusi, the head of the group, said in a statement: “These executions are the opposite of justice. Some of these men were tortured, most trials were carried out in secret. This horrific massacre took place days after Mohammed bin Salman declared executions would be limited. It is the third such mass killing in the seven-year reign of King Salman and his son.”
Adubusi was referring to the long interview with the crown prince published in The Atlantic last week, one of the most shameful efforts to glorify the Saudi butcher. Bin Salman is portrayed in the article as an autocratic but liberal reformer who seeks to put an end to mass executions.
Such groveling—once the province of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and other admirers of brute force—has been out of favor in the American corporate press since the crown prince was publicly linked to the killing of Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi, a regular op-ed contributor of the Washington Post. Khashoggi was murdered and dismembered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey in 2018, by a hit squad dispatched by bin Salman.
The Saudi regime has been emboldened by the US-led war hysteria over Ukraine, not only to intensify its internal repression, but also to step up its near-genocidal war in Yemen. The assault on Yemen which began in 2015 has driven millions to the brink of starvation, creating what international agencies have characterized as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, with more than 377,000 dead. The US government has been the principal enabler of these attacks, providing targeting information and replenishing Saudi weapons stockpiles.
According to a report Sunday in the Wall Street Journal, Saudi-led forces in Yemen carried out more than 700 airstrikes in February, the most since 2018, killing hundreds of Yemeni civilians. Most of the bombing raids have been focused on the oil-rich Marib area, where a Houthi offensive threatens to take the last significant portion of northern Yemen still under control of the Saudi puppet regime of ousted president Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi.
No comments:
Post a Comment