(Video) What British Muslims Really Think

This video on what British Muslims think is especially interesting. First, because it involves a survey that was conducted by Trevor Phillips, the former chair of the British government's Equality and Human Rights Commission, someone who was actually part of the bureaucracy involved in bringing so many Muslim migrants to Britain. Second, because it involved an extensive study by a well known and renowned survey company with a much larger than average sampling using techniques that were especially designed for accuracy rather than speed or cost effectiveness.

Mr. Phillips, to his credit, appears to analyze the results in a non-biased way, openly admits his surprise at the results and acknowledges what they mean. Well worth a watch, as this applies to more countries than just the UK:



On the other hand, (spoiler alert) I disagree with his conclusion that more forced integration of Muslims into non-Muslim British society in the entire solution.

Most British Muslims, according to the results of very study he uses would never agree to it. A significant number would never consent to giving up their sharia courts, or be capable of changing their innate beliefs on the treatment of women, Jews, homosexuals or infidels in general. Instead, they would insist on British society changing so that their beliefs and practices would be the new norm. Anything else they would loudly scream is 'racism.'

Given the craven way the the British government has comported itself thus far when it comes to appeasing Islam domestically, Mr. Phillip's suggestion would simply mean exactly that, a major change in British society to accommodate Islam, sharia and everything that involves.

This is, after all, a country where the police spend their time 'cautioning' (Britspeak for the police threatening fines and arrests) people who merely express their opinions on certain subjects like the problems involved with the Muslim migrants instead of tracking down British Muslims who are home now from fighting for ISIS, conducting surveillance on certain suspicious jihadi mosques or cracking down on 'Asian' sex grooming gangs targeting young, often underage British girls. And in England,that can mean girls younger than 15.

'What Thy Right Hand Possesses' - The Rape of Kayla Mueller

 

According to people loosely identified by ABC as 'counter terrorism officials' American captive Kayla Mueller was repeatedly tortured and made a sex slave by the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Mueller's family confirmed to ABC News that government officials have told them that their daughter, who would have turned 27 today, was the victim of repeated sexual assaults by al-Baghdadi.

"We were told Kayla was tortured, that she was the property of al-Baghdadi. We were told that in June by the government," Kayla's parents, Carl and Marsha Mueller, told ABC News today.

Al-Baghdadi, an Iraqi who calls himself "Caliph" as ruler of the Islamic State, personally brought the enslaved 26-year-old humanitarian aid worker from Prescott, Arizona, to be imprisoned inside the home of Abu Sayyaf, a Tunisian in charge of oil and gas revenue for the group, counter-terrorism officials have told ABC News over the past several months.

"Baghdadi was at the house of Sayyaf. He delivered Kayla Mueller, live and in person," one of several counter-terrorism officials briefed on the case told ABC News.

These counter-terrorism officials claim they got this information from debriefings of at least least two Yezedi teenage girls who were also held as sex slaves in the Sayyaf compound as well as from the interrogation of Abu Sayyaf's wife Umm Sayyaf, who was captured in a U.S. raid. Kayla Mueller was reportedly killed by a Jordanian air strike last February.

 

The first thing that occurs to me is that it was incredibly cruel for the Obama Administration to tell Ms. Mueller's family these horrific details. Does any parent ever want to know that their abducted child died in pain and torment? Isn't it enough to know that they'll never see their loved one again?

I have a feeling the release of this news via ABC in this fashion is not coincidental. As I write this, President Barack Hussein Obama is arming and training a Syrian force known as 'The Army of Conquest' to fight ISIS and then Assad. The Army of Conquest (Jaish al Fata) is primarily composed of jihadis drawn from al Nusra and other Islamist groups, and the strategy Obama is pursuing is exactly how ISIS got started, as a part of the Free Syrian Army that this president  armed and trained in connivance with Qatar and Turkey without the knowledge of congress. Having built up one terrorist army and seen it go out of control and become ISIS, President Obama is now building up a second one to fight the first..ignoring the possibility that ISIS and Jaish al Fata might decide to join forces against Assad and the infidels. It might very well be that releasing a news story of this kind is designed to encourage the American people to pick sides and to embrace the Iran deal, with Hezboallah and Iran considered our new 'allies.' The Ayatollah Khameinei has said repeatedly that while Iran might fight ISIS on its own accord at a time of its choosing, the Iranians and their allies are definitely not going to operate in any sort of alliance with the  Great Satan. This, even though we're still arming Hezbollah and they're showing off their American weapons to the American advisers they're sharing bases with in Iraq.

If this seems like an insane 3 ring circus with the Obama Administration arming and training both sides of this conflict and no clear direction or strategy in mind, you get no argument from me. You can't make this stuff up.

Another thing to consider...while as usual the Obama Administration is carefully steering away from even mentioning the word 'Islam' it is worth knowing that this behavior is religiously sanctified by sharia and  the Qu'ran,  in verse 33.50 ("O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee" Pikthal translation) as well as 23.5-6. 4.24 and numerous other places.

This is not to say that all Muslims are rapists of non-Muslim women or that non-Muslims never rape captive women. But only in Islam is it religiously sanctified. The Bible actually forbids such practices and was the first recorded document to give women in that situation any rights at all, as laid out in Leviticus. But based on the Qu'ran, what happened to Ms. Mueller, a captive, is fully in accord with sharia. Mohammed himself took many sex slaves.

President Obama is bringing a lot of Muslims into America via diversity visas and refugee asylum programs similar to Europe's from countries like Syria, Somalia, Pakistan and other countries where sharia law based on the Qu'ran is practiced and the traditional cultures are built around these beliefs, including honor killings and FGM ( female genital mutilation).

Ironically enough, Kayla Mueller, who was something of a career activist actually worked for a while with the pro-terrorism International Solidarity Movement, whom supports the Palestinian Authority and Hamas where these practices occur with distressing regularity.

At last count, something like 800,000 Muslims have entered the US under these programs since Barack Obama took office and the screening has been fairly minimal. As I write this, another surge of refugees to America is being planned for Syrian Muslims by the Obama Administration with screening done not by our FBI but by the UN.

Europe has seen major problems develop by importing huge amounts of Muslims, many of whom are not at all compatible with European culture, are disproportionately on public assistance, want to impose sharia in their new home countries, and strongly resist assimilation. Crime among Muslim refugees in Europe is rampant, especially rapes involving Muslim males and non-Muslim females. For example, Stockholm, Sweden, once relatively crime free for a city its size has experienced a 300% increase in crime since it began importing substantial numbers of Muslim refugees into the country. Rapes have increased to the point where Sweden is one of the rape capitols of the world, with the second highest number of rapes per capita of any country on earth.

The vast majority of these rapes are committed by Muslim immigrants or their teenage sons whom may hardly think of these infidel women as anything more than 'what thy right hand possesses.'

Whether we want to change America in this fashion is a conversation the Obama Administration refuses to even consider, but I think it's a conversation we deserve to have as a nation, and sooner rather than later.

All human beings are equal, but cultures are not.As Kayla Mueller discovered too late, she wasn't in Arizona anymore.

Tyranny In Black Robes - The Scotus Approves Gay Marriage

 

The Supreme Court today ruled to impose same sex marriage on the entire United States. Essentially, like the ObamaCare decision, it bypasses the Tenth Amendment and creates fertile ground for further attacks on Christians, Jews and religious freedom.The Court, once again, is writing legislation from the bench.

The grounds, of course, was the ever elastic 14th Amendment which has become a rich hunting ground for justices seeking 'rights' that were never in the Constitution or intended to be.

The 5-4 decision had Justices Kagen, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Breyer and Kennedy ruling in favor. Justice Roberts ruled against, but I have it on reasonably good authority that he and Justice Kennedy arranged this beforehand so that Roberts could avoid even more severe fallout in addition to what he's already getting for rewriting ObamaCare.

Most of the press is making this seem like the majority of the states already allow homosexual marriage. The number cited is '37 states.' What they'd rather not reveal is that only three of those states voted to approve same sex marriage. In 8 states, same sex marriage was imposed by the legislature, often in defiance to the wishes of the electorate. And in the remaining 26, it was imposed by court order pending this decision,also known as lawfare.

Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, saying,"The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex."

'Define and express their identity?' Where is that in the Constitution?

"These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them. Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples." [...]

Of course, Justice Kennedy didn't actually elaborate on what 'rights' or 'terms and conditions' gay couples in civil unions are excluded from that married heterosexual couples are not, but then, this was never a civil rights issue even though its advocates invariably used that language and that stance. No CEO has ever been fired for being gay, but they've certainly have been fired merely for airing their their opposition to same sex marriage. Remember Mozilla?

Ironically, Justice Roberts based his dissent on the fact that the Court was essentially legislating from the bench!

"Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.

But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be…."

"Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

"Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. "

The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?"

Pity he didn't apply that same standard to his ObamaCare decision.

Justice Scalia, of course, went right to the heart of the matter:

"The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. "

"This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy."

And Justice Alito, in his dissent hits out at what this sordid usurpation will actually be used for:

"Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences.

It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.

Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools."

Actually,this will encompass more than merely being labeled as 'bigots.' We've already seen how bakers, photographers and florists have been heavily fined, forced out of business and deprived of their livelihood merely for politely telling homosexual couples that their religious beliefs preclude their participating in a same sex marriage ceremony.

Now, thanks to another decision the Court sneaked through that no one's writing about, this is going to be expanded to the point of making it open season on Christians, and in areas that have nothing to do with marriage..especially with the Obama Justice Department itching to slap 'dissidents' around.

How long do you think it's going to be before the same activists who hunted down bakers and photographers knock on the door of a church and demands that their wedding be held there? And sues when the clergyman refuses? Watch how those churches, synagogues and other 'bigoted' religious institutions lose their tax exempt status if they refuse to bend to the New Order.

Another effect, one which I've written about before is something same sex marriage activists are not counting on. What the SCOTUS did today was to forcibly change the very definition of marriage.

You might have noticed, and even been puzzled by the fact that while Islam opposes homosexuality more vociferously than any other religion, Muslim groups, especially Islamists been almost completely silent on the gay marriage question. And with good reason.

There is already a substantial movement to legalize polygamy - or to use the new, fashionable term, 'polyamory'. Today's ruling and what it was based on, 'defining and expressing identity' means that there is absolutely no legal basis to continue to ban it, so polygamy will undoubtedly become legal as soon as the first court challenge hits the docket. So will a lot of other things Americans can't even imagine yet.

Islamist groups like CAIR see this as a spear point for their ultimate aim, to make sharia law recognized and enforceable here in America as it already is in Britain.

This is no fantasy, especially since at least one Supreme Court Justice is already quite sharia friendly.

So it's not just judicial tyranny,  the disregarding of the Constitution and the rule of law we're talking about here. We are talking about radical changes in American life that are going to change what was a free society into something very different. ..something unrecognizable.

An attempt at gun confiscation is the next step in the agenda. Just watch.

It's Official: British Police Now Enforcing Shariah

It's a fact that sharia law has been in force in Britain for some time now when it comes to civil matters with horrendous results for Muslim women. But it is now apparently in force when it comes to certain criminal matters as well.

Tommy Robinson and EDL member Kevin Carroll had scheduled a charity walk through London. They were planning to lay flowers in memory of Drummer Rigby, the UK soldier who was decapitated in broad daylight in the middle of London by two British jihadis near Woolwich Barracks, as well as to raise money for a young girl fighting cancer.

Their route took them through the borough of Tower Hamlets, a no go area claimed by Muslims for their own as virtually a state within a state.

Here's what happened next:

Sky Correspondent Tom Parmenter said: "They'd walked six miles when they were arrested outside Aldgate East underground station.

"Police had been tracking the walk across London and had regularly spoken to them about their route.

"The EDL leaders had been warned not to go past a large mosque in east London or enter the borough of Tower Hamlets.

"As they approached the boundary of the borough they were warned again by officers who told them they may be arrested."

Mr Robinson and Mr Carroll repeatedly asked if they would actually be arrested before another man approached the pair and assaulted Mr Carroll.

Tommy Robinson and Kevin Carrol were then arrested, handcuffed and taken to Wandsworth police station, in southwest London, where they were charged with 'suspicion of obstructing police.'

Remember, this was not a march or a political event. It was two British subjects - no signs, no banners no loudspeakers, just two people - who were arrested, in London, solely for the crime being non-Muslims in an area Muslims claim for their own. And the British police are actually enforcing it.

 

As Robinson said, ""There's two of us doing a charity walk. They're (police) saying it (Tower Hamlets) is a Muslim area but to me there is no Muslim area, there are just areas of my capital city that if I have to walk from A to B then you have to walk through."

Except it isn't your capitol city anymore, Tommy. And the British police just made that plain.

The police statement said that the pair were told not to enter Tower Hamlets 'because of fears the march and the gathering would result in serious public disorder.' But there was no march or gathering..just two men. And one of them was assaulted as soon as he entered Tower Hamlets. Since that was done in spite of the visible police presence, that's a pretty clear message that the local Muslims aren't exactly afraid of the police anymore, as if that wasn't already evident by now.

It says a lot about Britain's current government that they're more concerned with hanging on to Scotland than they are securing parts of their own capitol, just as they're more concerned with being 'cultural sensitive' than protecting their underage young girls from being raped,  abused and pimped out by 'Asians' - Pakistani Muslims in  politically correct Britspeak.

What amazes me is that descendants of the people who fought Hitler alone allow their own leaders to do this to them, but apparently the British are no longer 'This Island Race' that Winston Churchill extolled so eloquently. They've become something different, or at least enough of them have.

North Carolina Passes Anti-Sharia Law

North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory has signed a new bill into law that prohibits judges in the state from considering sharia in their rulings.

The bill, which easily passed both houses of the legislature uses language that targets any foreign laws, without specifically mentioning Sharia and thus will probably avoid what happened in Oklahoma, where a Democrat appointed Federal judge ruled the Oklahoma law unconstitutional on th egrounds it was discriminatory.

There are similar laws now in Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Tennessee with several other states pending, including Alabama, where the legislature approved a constitutional amendment for the state's voters to approve in 2014.

Muslim brotherhood front CAIR was in the forefront of a campaign to get Governor McCrory to veto the bill.They called a 'national action alert' urging Muslims to e-mail the governor:

This “foreign law” bill is a thinly-veiled attack on the state’s Muslim population, that only serves to marginalize Muslims and to deny them equal rights and equal access to the courts enjoyed by other religious groups.

To anyone whom knows anything about sharia law, this is ridiculous. Under sharia, women are essentially property. There is no age limit for a girl to be married off, wife beating is acceptable, a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's and in some cases like rape inadmissible unless there are two male Muslim witnesses. Women have no custody rights to their children in the case of divorce ( which can be done on any pretext by a husband even using three text messages), marital rape is legal, non-Muslims are not allowed to testify in court, and homosexual behavior calls for the death sentence. Far from denying Muslims equal rights and access to the courts, banning sharia from consideration in America's courts ensures it.

It's also necessary to codify this because a number of judges have taken it into their heads to acquit Muslims of crimes like marital rape,child abduction and wife beating because they have ruled that the perpetrators cannot be convicted due to 'cultural norms' and their religious principles.

Another aspect of this has to do with Islam itself. In Britain, where sharia is mandatory for family matters and has the same force as British common law, Muslim women have not only seen their legal rights eroded steadily by the use of sharia courts but it has contributed to the UK's Muslim communities becoming almost a state within a state.

If CAIR and anyone else want to live under sharia, well and good. There are a number of countries where where sharia is the basis of law and the time I checked,our pots and our airports were still functioning.

But this is America, where our laws and Constitution ensure protections that are incompatible with sharia law. To live here in America is to accept that.

The UN Reveals Its Cowardice And Hypocrisy By Attacking The Catholic Church

 

A UN Human Right commission has attacked the Catholic Church and the Vatican concerning its canon law, policies and teachings.

The report, published today by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child harshly criticized the Church for its teachings on abortion, contraception and homosexuality as well as the Vatican's policies on dealing with pedophile priests in a report whose tone can only be defined as frenzied and aggressive.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is one of 10 U.N. bodies that monitor implementation of the core U.N. human rights treaties, and its 18 members include academics, sociologists and child development specialists from around the globe.

The treaty the committee is supposed to be monitoring is the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, the key U.N. treaty on child protection, which the Holy See ratified in 1990. Apparently the committee simply decided to get into issues of abortion, contraception and homosexuality, none of which are covered by the treaty just because...or perhaps at the urging of various pro-abortion and pro Homosexual marriage activists.

The report blasted the Vatican and claims that it "systematically" adopted policies that allowed priests to molest children over decades, and it called on the Holy See to open its files on pedophiles and bishops who concealed the abuse.

"The committee is gravely concerned that the Holy See has not acknowledged the extent of the crimes committed, has not taken the necessary measures to address cases of child sexual abuse and to protect children, and has adopted policies and practices which have led to the continuation of the abuse by, and the impunity of, the perpetrators," the report said.

That would be news to the almost 400 priests that have been defrocked and tossed out of the Church, the ones who justifiably have done or are doing jail time and the Church officials who paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation to the victims, leaving several dioceses in the US either bankrupt or teetering on the edge.

But wait, there's more. The committee calls on the Church to change its policies to allow abortion and contraception, make sex education, including access to information about contraception and abortion mandatory in Catholic schools and to accept gay marriage and same sex adoption.

Now, I am not a Catholic, and to be honest, I have my own issues with the Catholic Church as an institution based on its history, its policies toward the State of Israel and other topics we need not delve into here. But I don't have to be Catholic to recognize the abject cowardice and hypocrisy on display here.

While I might not agree totally with the Church's stance on abortion, it is the supreme irony to me that a committee charged with monitoring the rights of children would issue a report biased towards abrogating the one right that is the source of all the others - the right to life.

By demanding that the Catholic Church change its religious doctrines on homosexuality, contraception and abortion, the UN committee is essentially saying that the Catholic Church is to be singled out from all other religions as one that sanctions bigotry, intolerance and hatred.And here I thought Jews and Israel had that particular space reserved where the UN was concerned!

But let me see..is the Catholic Church the sole offender here? Or even the worst one?

Islam is absolutely rotten with anti-semitism and it is religiously sanctioned in the Qu'ran, and the Hadiths. Mohammed even told his followers that 'At the Last Hour' (the Muslim equivalent of the Jude-Christian Day of Judgement)that the rocks and trees were going to call out to Muslims to come and kill the Jews that were hiding behind them. The genocidal Hamas uses that particular religious exhortation today in the Martyr's Oath which every member swears.

Nor is this just scripture or ancient history. Sharia law as well as all 4 major Islamic fiqhs (schools of jurisprudence) essentially consider Jews and Christians non-people with their right to life dependent of the whim of Muslims who rule over them.Severe persecution of Christians by Muslims is a well-documented fact in our modern world, and the silence of the majority of Muslim clerics is deafening.

Homosexuals? Don't even ask. The Qu'ran mandates that they be killed 'with cruelty'. Let alone disrespected, they're routinely hanged in Iran and many other jurisdictions under Muslim rule.

And Islam does not permit either abortion or the use of contraception either, although sharia does allow wife beating, winks at honor killings and female genital mutilation, counts a woman's testimony as worth one quarter of a man's and requires two male Muslim eyewitnesses in order to prosecute a man for rape, no matter what other evidence there is.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

So why single out the Catholic Church? Could this be it?



Because of course, if anyone did call Islam out the way this UN committee just called out the Catholic Church...there could be unpleasant consequences:



The people on this committee, those whom aren't themselves Muslims or from Muslim countries are scared witless of Islam, and the Church is a far easier target. This way, they come across as properly doctrinaire, politically correct Lefties 'speaking truth to power' when all they really are is morally bankrupt cowards turning their backs on the very people this UN commission was designed to protect.

And while I'm at it, has this committee ever issued a scathing report like this on the practices of UN peacekeeping forces,particularly in Africa? Rapes, child molestation, forced prostitution in exchange for food and other humanitarian supplies and other abuses are serial in nature.

The UN's record is far worse the Catholic Church's when it comes to disciplining those under its banner and making restitution to its victims. Yet, aside from generic statements from the UN about looking into this sort of thing when it surfaces and occasionally sending the worst offenders back to their home countries, silence.

Of course, that says quite a bit in itself, doesn't it?

UK Woman Rescues Kidnapped Daughter From Egypt In A Daring Mission

As many women who marry Muslim men have discovered, divorce by the husband is ridiculously easy (even a text message saying 'I divorce thee' sent three times is acceptable)and any children that come from the marriage are considered the property of the father according to sharia with a divorced mother having no parental rights whatsoever.

Because of this, the kidnapping of young children by their fathers who take them to Muslim countries is quite common, and many mothers have experienced the horror losing all contact with their children when their husbands divorce them after taking the children on a trip to 'visit their family back home.'

Many times, the husbands don't even bother with a divorce, simply abandoning the wife and taking the children back to their home countries in the Muslim world.

One of these women was Alex Abou-El-Ella, a 29-year-old British woman who had her one-year-old daughter Mona kidnapped by her Egyptian father.

Mrs. Abou-El-Ella, who was born in Poland but came to Britain as a teenager married her husband Mustafa in England, where the met. One day her husband simply took the baby to the airport and flew to Egypt without telling his wife, and that was the last she saw of her daughter for two long years.

The British government has never been particularly helpful in cases like this, and this was no exception.

But Alex Abou-El-Ella decided she wasn't going to give up her child. With the help of British author Donya Al-Nahi, who is famous in Britain for her efforts in helping a string of women rescue children snatched by Arab fathers, she hatched a daring plot to get her child back.

First, the two women defied warnings from the British foreign office not to travel to Egypt. Once in the country, they were able to track down her daughter Mona's whereabouts, and Alex Abou-El-Ella disguised herself in full head-to-toe Islamic dress and hid her face behind a veil in order to get close to her.

They then hired a local driver and staked out the area until until Mona appeared with an aunt just before 9 AM...and the Daily Mail relates what happened next:

'I was walking behind them, faster and faster, and saw Mona's hand a few metres away from me,' she said. 'So I grabbed her, pulled her into my arms and the lady looked at my face - but all she could see were my eyes.'

Grabbing her daughter, she turned and fled to the waiting car and drove off with th echild and Al-Nahi. The confused toddler cried out for help from the woman she knew as mummy, to Abou-El-Ella's dismay.

"I felt shocked and upset to hear those words coming out of her mouth about another woman," she said. "But after half an hour she looked up at me and said, "Are you my mum?"'

The next step was getting Mona out of the country, so Alex resorted to that time tested Arab lubricant - baksheesh. She used the Polish passport belonging to her older daughter to hide Mona's Egyptian surname, bribed an Egyptian official to allow her to board a London-bound flight..and then used Mona's real British passport to get her into the UK legally when they landed at Heathrow.

Mother and daughter are now reunited and doing just fine.

Alex Abou-El-Ella says she has informed Mona's father that she has their child. She saved Mona from being deprived of her mother without any due process, from life under sharia and almost certainly from the forced clitorectomies that over 90% of Egyptian girls are forced to undergo as young, prepubescent children.

She is one courageous woman, but if I were her I'd definitely move and maintain a low profile to stop her daughter from being kidnapped again.

This sort of story - many times without the happy ending - has been repeated with increasing frequency since immigration from Muslim countries has increased in the West. Women whom marry these men need to consider carefully exactly what they might be getting into.

Missouri's Dem Governor Vetoes anti-Sharia Law Legislation

The rot goes deep.

Missouri's Democrat governor Jay Nixon was presented with SB 267 which simply said that any foreign law would have no standing in Missouri courts, mirroring a similar bill in effect in Kansas.

It passed with bi-partisan (if mostly Republican) support in the legislature..and Governor Nixon vetoed it.

"This legislation seeks to solve a problem that does not exist, while creating the very real problem of jeopardizing Missouri's families' ability to adopt children from foreign countries. Here in Missouri, we believe in strengthening families and encouraging adoption. By placing additional barriers between couples who want to adopt and children who need loving homes, Senate Bill 267 is quite simply out of step with these basic values."

*chuckle* Why would adoptions not compliant with existing U.S. and Missouri law be allowed anyway?

What Governor Nixon is really doing is helping out his pals at CAIR, the Wahhabi funded Muslim Brotherhood front group who were prompt in giving this dhimmi a nice pat on the head.

The photo above? Governor Nixon accepting a Qu'ran from Faizan Syed , the Director of CAIR Missouri who wants to prosecute Americans who insult Islam based on sharia law.

Speaking of being out of step with America's basic values, I doubt Governor Nixon has ever read the Qu'ran or looked at what sharia law actually consists of.

This veto is a disgrace to anyone who reveres our Constitution and the freedoms it enshrines.

For those of you wishing to let the governor know what you think of him, you can contact him at http://governor.mo.gov/contact/

He doesn't deserve it, but be civil.

(h/t, Creeping Sharia)

Muslim Rapist Wins Court Appeal Citing 'Cultural Differences'

 

Esmatullah Sharifi, 31, is an Afghan refugee who was given asylum in Australia and settled in Melbourne.

He was convicted of two counts of rape and given a 14 year non parole sentence.

The first rape was of an intoxicated teenager who had been separated from her friends outside a nightclub. Sharifi admitted driving around looking for a victim.

When he saw the victim, he pulled up, began talking to her and offered to drive her to the hotel where her friends had moved on to.

Then he drove off in a completely different direction. The teen became frightened and and texted her friends, but when Sharifi saw what she was doing, he took away her phone, drove to a dark, isolated street, put his hands around her neck and forced her to remove her clothes before raping her.

The second case involved a similar abduction and sexual assault of a woman on Christmas Eve, 2008, five days after Sharifi raped the teen.

The judge, Mark Dean in Melbourne, sentenced Sharif to 14 years of which he's going to have to serve a minumum of 11 years. He will likely be deported back to Afghanistan when he's served his sentence.

Except he may not serve his sentence at all.

He's been granted an appeal.

Sharifi's chief argument during his rape trials was that 'cultural differences' were responsible for the rapes and that, as a psychologist told the court he had an 'unclear concept of what constitutes consent in sexual relationships'.

Apparently this psychologist thinks kidnapping someone, forcing them to disrobe and then raping them while they're screaming 'no, no' is how dating is done is Afghanistan. Perhaps it is. At any rate, the courts have granted him an appeal on that basis.

The funny thing is that Sharifi's argument actually has some legitimacy, although it's no excuse for his actions.

As a product of Muslim culture, there is definitely a basis for Sharifi saying he's allowed to rape  non-Muslim women.

The Qu'ran is most definite that owning and using sex slaves is permissible:

If you fear that you will not act justly towards the orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands owns; so it is likelier you will not be partial. (Qur'an 4:3)

This, along with Mohammed's conduct as recorded in the Hadiths is the basis for Muslim polygamy.Mohammed took numerous sex slaves, in some cases after they had seen their parents or husbands murdered in front of them. Hence 'orphans'.

'What your right hand owns' refers to war captives and sex slaves, and every major Islamic fiqh has interpreted it in that way. Here's Qu'rannic commentator Maulana Bulandshahri on the subject:

During Jihad (religion war), many men and women become war captives. The Amirul Mu’minin [leader of the believers, or caliph – an office now vacant] has the choice of distributing them amongst the Mujahidin [warriors of jihad], in which event they will become the property of these Mujahidin. This enslavement is the penalty for disbelief (kufr)

Notice the present tense, 'become' as opposed to 'became'. This view applies today and has never been abrogated in any way.

Moreover, since a number of prominent Islamic scholars and Qadis like the Muslim Brotherhood's Sheik Qaradawi and Egypt's Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni have declared that Muslims are waging jihad against Dar Harb, the infidel world in our present day, any infidel females a Muslim's 'right hand possesses are fair game:

.Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels….Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars--there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.

When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Qur’an 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point--there is no disagreement from any of them. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

(h/t, Jihad Watch)

Of course, it can even apply to Muslims if you have cooperative imams to declare them kufrs, non-believers. Just ask Muslim Bangladeshi women about the rape camps the Pakistani Army set up for them during the 1970's.

Even in Australia itself, Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali, Australia most senior Muslim cleric excused Muslim gang rapists in Australia saying that women who chose not to cover themselves were asking to be raped, referring to them as 'uncovered meat'. Even many decent Muslims objected to that one and called for al-Hilali's deportation, but he has a lot of support from others and is still there.

So when Sharifi says that as a Muslim, he's allowed to 'own' and use Kufr women as he pleases, he's simply telling the truth about what his religion has taught him.Perhaps Australia and other western governments that encouraged wholesale importation of Muslim refugees and immigrants and are experiencing a huge increase in these types of crimes as a result ought to have considered that and been a bit more careful whom they let in.

When the British ruled India, the commander-in-chief was a man called General Sir Charles James Napier. During his tenure, Hindu priests complained to him about the British suppression of their custom of suttee, the ritual burning of widows on the deceased husband's funeral pyre.

General Sir Napier's reply is worth remembering:

This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pyre. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. You follow your customs, and we shall follow ours.

Rather than being so careful to do the politically correct dance,to wallow in appeasement, it might be much more useful for the West to insist that any and all immigrants granted the privilege of living in their countries realize that it involves honoring the host country's laws and cultural norms as well.

Instead of wasting time and money on a ridiculous appeal based on 'cultural differences', Sharifi ought to serve his sentence and deported back to his home country of  Afghanistan forthwith.The same should apply to  anyone else who thinks his or her cultural beliefs give them a license to act in that fashion.

-selah-

New Egyptian Law Allows Unrestricted 'Citizen's Arrests' Of Foreign Tourists

Thinking of making a trip to Islamist Egypt to bask in the wonderful Arab Spring? You might change your mind after reading this.

The Egyptian prosecutor general for the Muslim Brotherhood regime (their equivalent of our Attorney General, Eric Holder) has enacted a new law permitting ordinary Egyptians to make what amounts to carte blanche arrests of foreigners in Egypt for things like suspicion of 'spying' or blasphemy, or pretty much anything else that goes against Egypt's sharia based legal code:

Egypt's Coalition to Support Tourism (CST) condemns the prosecutor-general's decision to allow citizens' arrests announced on Sunday, arguing it raises many worries among tourists.

Many tourism agents called the head of the CST, Ehab Moussa in alarm. He told Ahram Online that they wanted to confirm the rumour over what they feel is a strange decision.

The "judiciary policing" (the direct translation for the criminal law) will allow any citizen to arrest someone committing a crime.

Moussa claims that tourists would then be mistreated and blackmailed in Egypt.

"If a tourist rebuffed an Egyptian merchant, refusing to buy something, the merchant might accuse the tourist of spying and arrest him," he said.

Not to mention things like phony accusations of things like rape,theft, proselytizing for Christianity, blasphemy, you name it. And the end result if you don't pay up, or maybe even if you do? If you're lucky, some very unpleasant jail time until payment of a very heavy 'bail' to enable you to get back to civilization.

I'd say that this would finish off what's left of Egypt's tourist industry, but there's still this going on to attract a certain kind of clientele.

Unless that's what you're looking for, there's no reason to go to a poverty stricken Islamist hell hole where Jew hatred and persecution of Christians is the norm and women get treated like animals.

According to the article, Egypt has fallen to the lowest rank out of 140 countries in terms of safety and security, just behind Pakistan, Chad and Yemen, in the World Economic Forum (WEF)'s Travel and Tourism (T&T) competitiveness index released last week.Hardly surprising.

By the way, our brilliant Secretary of State John Kerry just gave the Egyptians $250 million in military aid and would have given them more except that Congress stopped him. This at a time when the Obama Administration is using the excuse of the sequestration to throw U.S. troops out of the military, close PX's, and lay off teachers.

And this is after the Muslim Brotherhood regime stood by while a mob sacked our embassy.

"Yes We Can" - Al-Qaeda's English Mag Publishes Wanted Dead or Alive List

Memri, the Middle East Media Research Institute has the latest edition of Inspire, al-Qaeda's English language magazine. This edition features a 'Wanted Dead or Alive' hit list of targets for 'crimes against Islam' , with the heading 'Yes We Can' and 'A Bullet A Day Keeps the Infidel Away'.

(h/t, The Weekly Standard)

The list includes Molly Norris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Flemming Rose, Morris Swadiq, Salman Rushdie, Girt Wilders [sic], Lars Vilks, Stephane Charbonnier, Carsten Luste, Terry Jones, and Kurt Westergaard.

Geert Wilder, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, Terry Jones and Kurt Westergaard are likely familiar to you. Wilders, Ali, and Jones are noted critics of Islamism and sharia, Rushdie is still under a fatwa by the Iranian mullahs for writing The Satanic Verses, and Westergaard is one of the cartoonists who drew the famous MoToons.

Molly Norris' huge crime was to initiate a project called 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day' after the fracas ( which included a suspected terrorist attack) over a South Park episode that didn’t actually depict Mohamed, but made fun of the Islamo-seethe over the subject.

A fatwa was subsequently issued by a number of adherents of the Religion of Peace, and our own FBI claimed they couldn't protect her and advised her to go into hiding. Molly is an American citizen whose rights are presumably protected by our Constitution. That apparently counts for nothing next to appeasing Islam in today's America. She'll be hiding and living in fear the rest of her life.

Fleming Rose was the editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten that originally published the MoToon cartoons. He's already had a couple of close calls, as has Kurt Westergaard.

Lars Vilks is a noted Swedish artist who did a series of drawings of Mohammed. Swedish art galleries who planned to exhibit them were hit with numerous threats of violence and backed out, but the drawings were published in a couple of Swedish newspapers. While Swedish authorities refused to comply with demands from Swedish Muslim organizations that he be arrested and jailed, fatwas were issued, including one from the al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq which has offered a bounty of $150,000 for his murder. There have been several attempts to earn it. While our FBI told Molly Norris to fend for herself, the Swedes at least defended his rights as a citizen and put Vilks under police protection. He will need it for the rest of his life.

I have no clue whom Morris Swadiq or Carsten Luste are, but I do know whom Stéphane Charbonnier is. He's a cartoonist and editor of Charlie Hebdo, a French humor magazine a bit like America's National Lampoon that published a satirical edition of the magazine guest edited by Mohammed - 'a hundred lashes if you don't die laughing'!

Apparently the Muslim sense of humor agrees more with the Ayatollah Khomeni's famous quote about there being no laughter in Islam. A number of France's Muslim organizations went berserk, calling for Charbonnier to be prosecuted and jailed. The magazine's offices were firebombed, its websites were hacked, several staffers were assaulted and Charbonnier is likewise under a death fatwa.

The magazine's offices now have a permanent police guard, and Charbonnier will also need security protection for life.

I can already hear your response...after all these are just fanatics, most Muslim are non-violent, et cetera, et cetera. We've been telling ourselves that for awhile now.

But the 'fanatics' are surprisingly numerous, energetic, and mainstream, and in some of these cases have the active support of governments in Muslim states.And most of the Muslim organizations in the western countries involved have taken a firm stand that this or anything else they deem 'critical' of Islam ought to be criminalized, so they're essentially legitimizing what's going on. While they've almost all made grudging, pro forma statements condemning violence, were it left to them everyone of these people would be punished harshly. Even if they're sincere about condemning violence, all they really disagree with is the penalty involved.

And more to the point, prominent Muslim voices disagreeing with these sentiments and standing up for the very freedoms they enjoy in western socities are few and far between.

I have a feeling that the very opposite would be true if Muslim writers, artists and publications were being threatened and attacked in this way by non-Muslims. Non-Muslim liberals of both the political and classic variety would be absolutely vociferous in standing up for the freedom of Muslims to express themselves.

In fact, we can already see it in the Leftist frenzy over 'Islamophobia'.

Do most Muslims believe in a free society, not only for themselves but for others? Is Islam compatible with a free society, especially when the population of Muslims increases to a significant degree? Can a free society survive once that happens?

Western governments, including our own are bending over backwards to avoid even thinking about those questions, let alone answering them. But eventually, they're going to have to be answered...and let's not forget that not answering them is also an answer. Molly Norris, Geert Wilders and some of the others on this list would undoubtedly have something to say about that.

The New Muslim Way Of Dealing With Non-Muslim Business Competition - Murder?

 

There's a long history of Muslims brutally murdering non-Muslim clergy or anyone preaching or carrying something like a Bible. But here are a couple of incidents showing how this appears to be broadening to include any non-Muslims who are too successful in business in Muslim majority countries as well.

In the Muslim majority East African country of Tanzania, a popular Christian pastor was beheaded as a message to Christians by Muslims who demand that Christians accede to total Islamization of the meat industry:

The 11 February 2013 beheading in Geita, of Pastor Mathayo Kachili of the Tanzania Assemblies of God Church (TAG) has its source in a debate presently raging in Tanzania.

Apparently it is a "long-standing tradition" in Tanzania that Muslims have a monopoly on the meat industry.

Recently however, Christians in Geita district, Mwanza region -- on the southern shores of Lake Victoria -- have entered the butchery trade, causing outrage amongst Muslims.

Tensions escalated over several months until, in early February, the Minister of State in the President's Office responsible for social relations, planning coordination, Mr Stephen Wassira, travelled to Mwanza to meet with Christian and Muslim leaders in an effort to defuse tensions.

According to The Citizen (7 Feb), Mr Stephen Wassira categorically directed that the task of slaughtering animals for public consumption should be executed only by Muslims. He said that people of other faiths may slaughter animals if the meat is solely for family/private consumption – but certainly not for sale to, or consumption by, the general public.

Mr Wassira declared that, should non-Muslims want to go into the meat business, then the slaughtering must be done according to Islamic tenets and rituals. "In effect," writes Karl Lyimo of the Citizen, "the minister has barred non-Muslims from the meat business – unless and until they are ready, willing, able and glad to follow the Islamic rituals to the letter."

Lyimo continues: "Reportedly, religious leaders of the Christian faith were barred by the regional government from making a public statement on the matter for fear of agitating their followers against the 'Wassira Proclamation'. In the event, priests have called upon their followers to 'retaliate' by boycotting 'Muslim-oriented' butcheries – and are planning to seek judicial intervention via the courts system."

Halal slaughtering involves killing the animal while reciting a prayer to Allah. There's no way a non-Muslim could do this without converting. Even worse, if a non-Muslim recited this prayer and then continued to follow a different religion other than Islam, he would be an apostate and could be murdered for that too.

There are numerous reports of Christians who were 'doing too well' in business facing violence and intimidation in places like Egypt, Iraq, Syria, the Sudan, Indonesia, and elsewhere in the Muslim world.

In Pakistan, Muslims axed to death a Christian rival in the potato business when he refused to convert.

As the world recession continues (particularly in Islamic and Muslim majority countries without oil wealth)we will undoubtedly see more of this, especially since the Jews are no longer available.

It's well worth remembering that historically, Islam's economy stagnated once they were stopped from plundering fresh lands. In fact, until oil was discovered, refined and exported by westerners, Muslim countries were largely economic backwaters.

The New Egypt: Sharia And The Muslim Brotherhood Triumphant

 

Over the weekend the second round of the voting referendum for Egypt's new sharia compliant 'constitution was held. As I predicted, it won easily.

The new laws, written by the Islamist and Salafist dominated legislature  have elastic statutes making defaming Islam or Mohammed major crimes, have a major impact on freedom of the press  and  severely curtail rights for non-Muslims and women. They even allow closed door military tribunals on civilians. It's essentially Mubarak's regime on steroids, this time in the name of Allah and run by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood is now taking part in enforcing its own conception of these new laws with street militias, who arrest and interrogate suspects  themselves before turning them over to the police:

A lot changed on the night of December 5. During the afternoon, a group of Muslim Brotherhood supporters swept down on a tent encampment outside the presidential palace, occupied by anti-Morsi protesters, and tore them down. 

The counter-demonstration that evening was violent and bloody, with both sides hurling stones at each other, and the Muslim Brotherhood claiming that several of its members were shot dead.
But also disturbing was the role earlier of what appeared to be a Muslim Brotherhood militia who seized protesters off the streets and took them for their own "interrogation" before handing them over to police. 

"After they caught me they dragged me away and started threatening me," said Walid al-Ganzouri, no youthful stone-thrower but a 35-year-old, British educated engineer. "They said they were going to kill me, and started beating me up." 

Along with scores of others, he was eventually handed over, bruised and with cuts to his head, to the prosecution service, which released them for lack of evidence. 

Walid al-Ganzouri, by the way, is a Christian, something the Muslim Brotherhood  militia was able to find out by demanding his identity card.

This is the real face of the Arab Spring that President Obama and his team did so much to empower and encourage. It will be their real foreign policy legacy to America, not the assassination of a retired terrorist.

Egypt's New Islamist Laws; Sharia Based, No Equal Rights For Women, Slavery Not Prohibited

Egypt's new constitution, if you can call it that was rushed through by the Islamist and Salafi majority today. Virtually all of the Christian and more liberal members simply left and did not vote.

There are still huge demonstrations taking place in Cairo and Alexandria against President Mahmoud Morsi assuming what amounts to dictatorial powers, but just as with Mubarak, the key is which way the army jumps.

And also as with Mubarak, the army is waiting to see if President Obama gives them a signal on which way to go. The carrot in this case is the $1.5 billion in funding the U.S. gives the Egyptian military; Egypt's army, like Pakistan's owns numerous private businesses and revenue sources that depend on it.

The constitution itself states that sharia will be the main source of legislation, and also mandates that  Al-Azhar, Egypt's fiqh or  Islamic school of jurisprudence, must be consulted on any matters related to Islamic law. In other words, oversight of legislation by Islamic clerics. Some other interesting bits include:

An article that says that the state will protect "the true nature of the Egyptian family ... and promote its morals and values," which pretty much establishes  state control censorship  the contents of  broadcasting, books and films.

An article that says that the state will control science, the arts and literature to implement them 'in a way that serves Egyptian society'. Goodbye to music, any arts depicting the human form or anything related to Egypt's pagan past, or any science that doesn't strictly conform to sharia norms.

Nothing that gives women equal rights with men. In fact, the new 'constitution' states specifically that a woman can be held accountable for her duties towards her husband and family if outside work or any public role doesn't meet her lord and master's approval. And speaking of which, there is no official ban on slavery, just like in sharia.

An article that bans insulting or defaming Islam or Mohammad, but is deliberately  vague about what constitutes an insult, which gives it a pretty wide range.

An article that preserves the right of the military to try civilians inclosed door military tribunals.

In other words, a totalitarian Islamist state.The only way it won't happen is if the U.S. signals the military that Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood need to be history...in which case, we might see a military junta instead of an Islamist dictatorship. Given his serious jones for Islamists, I rate the chances of President Barack Obama sending those signals as slim and none.

The new constitutional draft is to be sent to Morsi fo rhis signature tomorrow, when he will sign off on it and decide on a date for a referendum, possibly in mid-December.

There's absolutely no chance it won't pass when it does, in spite of the crowds in Tahrir Square.

They've been bypassed, and they don't count any more.

Egypt Threatening To Execute American Citizens For 'Blasphemy'

 

President Obama's appeasement and enabling of the Muslim Brotherhood continues to bear fruit.As I mentioned , seeing Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the Egyptian Coptic Christian allegedly behind the film 'The Innocence of Muslims' rounded up in the dead of night and taken in for questioning by police has a very different connotation for Islamists, and it has only encouraged them to press harder.

Egypt has now issued international arrest warrants for eight Americans—seven of them Coptic Christians from Egypt—who are allegedly involved with the 'Innocence of Muslims' video. The eighth one was for Pastor Terry Jones, the Qu'ran burner. Under Egypt's sharia based laws, if arrested and convicted, they're liable for the death penalty.

Needless to say, there's no reaction by the Obama to a foreign government seeking to arrest American citizens for blasphemy against Islam. Now there's a surprise...not.

Look for this to be the basis of more fatwas against  westerners being critical of Islam in any way. And murders, as Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh found out.

Figures like writer Salmon Rushdie, the artists behind the Mohammed cartoons and Dutch politicians and authors like Ayaan Hirsch Ali and Geert Wilders still have a price on their heads and live with 24 hour protection.

Michael Totten writes:

Mahmoud Salem (aka “Sandmonkey”) was interviewed on CNN yesterday. He says the new Muslim Brotherhood government is much more oppressive than the Mubarak regime. That should have been obvious to everyone in advance, though astonishingly it was not. And Mahmoud is hardly a Mubarak apologist. He was one of the most outspoken critics of the ancien régime in the world, and he was arrested and beaten for it.

He also says explicitly that Egypt’s government isn’t an ally and that “if the United States wants to cut the aid [money], please, do it…The majority of the aid goes to the military anyway. We don’t see it.”

Actually, 'Sandmonkey' was all for the Muslim Brotherhood regime until, like the rest of the small contingent of FaceBook liberals, he realized it wasn't just severing the Israeli peace treaty wasn't the only change they had in mind. President Obama walked back his slip about Egypt no longer being an ally of the U.S., but watch what happens. Anyone can see it.

A Matter Of Circumcision And Religious Freedom

A state court in Germany recently banned ritual circumcision after a botched Muslim circumcision of a teenaged boy who suffered medical complications after being circumcised.

Now things have revved up, with criminal charges being filed for the first time against a Jewish rabbi for performing circumcisions, the Jewish religious rite of brit millah:

A doctor from Hesse filed a criminal complaint against Rabbi David Goldberg, who serves in the community of Hof, in Upper Franconia (northern Bavaria), according to the Juedische Allgemeine weekly newspaper. The chief prosecutor of Hof confirmed that charges had been filed against the rabbi. {...}

“I am shocked,” said Cologne Rabbi Yaron Engelmayer, co-chairman of the national umbrella group of Orthodox rabbis in Germany, in a first reaction to the report. This marks the first time that a court in the Federal Republic of Germany is investigating a rabbi for performing a religious ritual, Engelmayer told the paper.

Goldberg, a qualified mohel (ritual circumciser) who says he has performed more than 3,000 circumcisions, was informed about the criminal charges against him by journalists, the paper said.

Born in Jerusalem, the 64-year-old has been the rabbi of Hof since 1997. Before World War II, about 3,000 Jews lived in Hof. Today, the community counts about 400 members.

“This latest development in Hof is yet another grave affront to religious freedom and underlines the urgent need for the German government to expedite the process of ensuring that the fundamental rights of minority communities are protected. We call upon the Minister of the Interior to take immediate action to secure those rights in the short term,” Conference of European Rabbis, Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt said.

In view of the uproar this is causing, it's worth addressing in some detail.

Since this is a state court in Germany, allusions and references to the Holocaust have been evoked, and frankly I think unjustly. As opposed to certain other perpetrators and defenders of genocide and ethnic cleansing, particularly in the Muslim world, the Germans have the virtue, if it can be called that, of being forthcoming about their role in the Holocaust. As a matter of fact, they are one of the few countries in Europe to do so. Hitler and the Nazis had many willing accomplices.

Nor are today's Germans, with the exception of some aged Nazi sympathizers running out the clock the same people who perpetrated that horrific stain on human history.

That said, let's look at the actual arguments for banning and criminalizing ritual Jewish circumcision.

I can't speak for Germany, but here in the United States the anti-circumcision lobby is largely populated by homosexual activists and garden variety anti-Semites. It's no accident that legislation to put in place city ordinances banning circumcision got on the ballot in San Francisco and in Santa Monica, both 'progressive' cities with active and powerful gay populations and lobbies. By the way, both proposed ordinances were removed from the ballot when the 'progressive' politicians in these cities realized that they were in clear violation of the First Amendment and would have subjected them to costly litigation and a hefty financial judgment.

The argument, as in Germany, was that male circumcision constitutes an 'assault' and 'bodily harm' to infants and thus interferes with their later sexual pleasure.

Actually there is significant scientific evidence that male circumcision does in fact act as a preventive in penile cancer, venereal disease and the transmission of AIDS.

This makes common sense, because the foreskin by design is a repository for germs and disease if not kept rigorously clean..and sometimes even if it is. And it's why 80% of American males, Jewish and gentile have had this procedure done as infants.

However, there are those whom deride the scientific evidence and come with studies of their own showing that it has no effect, but even these studies ( a number of them funded by fairly murky groups) admit that at worse it does no physical harm.

Is that a reason to not only ignore a possible health benefit and ban a religiously sanctified ritual that goes back to the days of Abraham and discriminate against people who take their religion seriously? One wonders how the activists pushing for the ban would react if similar tolerance was practiced against them and their lifestyles.

A second argument, and a potent one in Germany because of its Muslim population has to do with the limits of religious tolerance. After all, if male circumcision is allowed for Jews and Muslims, shouldn't the female circumcision practiced in the Muslim world be allowed too?

Female circumcision, or to be more correct, clitorectomies and enfibrillation is also known quite rightly as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). It has none of the health benefits associated with male circumcision.

It is designed to help 'control' women's sexual urges and pleasure in the sexual act by removing all or part of the clitoris or even 'stitching' up a young girl's vagina as a form of domination.The process is also not done on infants, but on prepubescent girls, frequently without anesthesia.

This is quite in line with Islam's philosophy towards women and has been endorsed by a number of Muslim clerics and religious leaders, including Sheikh Qaradiwi, spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood and one of the most popular Muslim clerics in the world, thanks to his widely watched show on al-Jazeera.

This would certainly seem give weight to the argument that FGM is part of Muslim religious practice and should thus be protected.There are estimates that over 80% of Egypt's women have undergone this procedure, particularly in rural areas.

However, things like what amounts to felony animal torture,ritual prostitution and wife beating are also religiously sanctioned practices in some beliefs, with the last one also sanctioned by Islam...as is religiously sanctioned prostitution through the institution of 'temporary marriages' which allows wealthy Persian Gulf Arabs to go and and purchase adolescents girls in poorer countries like Egypt and India as temporary sex toys.

Germany, at least at this point, is a civilized western nation. Are the proponents of a ban on the Jewish practice of ritual circumcision of male infants saying that Germany and other countries should make no differentiation between that and practices like FGM, 'temporary marriages' and wife beating?

Perhaps they are, since the proponents of a ban on circumcision normally are distinguished by a raging hostility towards all religion for reasons I'm sure you can come up with on your own.

However, their arguments are noticeably flaccid when looked at clearly. And I'm sure the German government will see it the same way.

-selah-

(h/t, Greg)

Iran Has A Plan To Deal With Uppity Women - Ban Them From Universities

The latest news from the Islamic Republic concerns their way of dealing with the problem of uppity, educated women.

Apparently Iranian clerics feel that too many women are getting an education, and one that makes them far less agreeable to their religiously sanctioned role of becoming property.So they have banned women outright from 77 BA and Bachelor of Science courses of study, thus making them male only domains.

The courses affected include English literature, English translation, hotel management, archaeology, nuclear physics, computer science, electrical engineering, industrial engineering and business management.

Iran's Oil Industry University, which has several campuses across the country, says it will no longer accept female students at all and Isfahan University will no longer allow women to study in its mining engineering degree program.

What they're doing, essentially is excluding women from many of Iran's higher paying occupations. That's going to make them a lot more dependent on men and give women more of an incentive to be content with their sharia defined role.

Islam - the religion where women know their place - or else.

Egypt's New Industry - Sex Tourism Center For The Arab World

Egypt has become the hot new destination for Arab men, mostly from Saudi Arabia and the Emirates who are seeking a convenient, cheap, and sharia compliant sex tourism holiday.

All the ingredients are there.....a large population of vulnerable, underage girls with poverty stricken families, a conveniently close, Arabic speaking destination with a nearly bankrupt tourism industry desperate for business, and most of all, a culture that debases women anyway and allows and encourages it.

As Natasha Smith, Lara Logan and far too many others have found out to their horror, foreign, non-Muslim women come under the category of 'what thy right hand possesses'* and can simply be raped out of hand.

However, Muslim females already the chattel property of another Muslim male are a different matter. Especially if you're talking about the predator being an older Muslim male who's already married and looking for some young, nubile flesh as amusement.

So sharia provides for this trafficking and gives it a religious blessing with the practice of temporary 'marriages':

These temporary marriages are not legally binding and end when the men return to their homes in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.

The tourists pay a 'dowry' to poor families through intermediaries with prices ranging from £320 to £3,200.

The young victims - some under 18 - suffer sexual slavery and are forced to be servants to their 'husbands', claims the U.S. State Department report 'Trafficking in Persons'.

Some of the victims are taken back to their 'husband's' country to work as maids while those left in Egypt are shunned by the conservative society - particularly if they have children during their temporary marriage.

The shame leads many of the girls to dump these youngsters in orphanages or abandon them with thousands of other Egyptian street children.Many of these 'brides' are also targeted by Egyptian men and forced into prostitution.

Now, I'm sure the usual apologists will say that this kind of thing happens all over the world and westerners are guilty of it too.

They are indeed. The difference is that in the west, we prosecute those who get caught behaving in this manner, whether at home or abroad. We don't use culture or religion as an excuse to condone it.That's because. as a society, our entire attitude towards women is different.

Many countries where rape was a rarity prior to large scale immigration from the Muslim world have found this out first hand.

The usual disclaimer..there are plenty of decent people who are Muslim who would never condone this kind of behavior or indulge in it. But the fact remains that Islam does contain religious justification for these acts -both in the Qu'ran and in the hadiths.

It is also true that the justification of this kind of behavior is not a fringe attitude, but a mainstream and fundamentalist interpretation of the faith.


* “It is not lawful for you (to marry other) women after this, nor to change them for other wives even though their beauty attracts you, except those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses. And Allah is Ever a Watcher over all things.” Surah 33:52

“Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you…..” Surah 4:24

Also, Tafsir of Mawdudi, Book2, page 112, footnote 44: “That is, ‘Those women, who became prisoners of war, while their husbands are left behind in the War Zone, are not unlawful because their marriage ties have been broken by the fact that they have come into the Islamic Zone. It is lawful to marry such women and make them wives, and it is also lawful for those, in whose possession they are, to have sexual relations with them." [..]

"It does not matter whether the female prisoner of war belongs to the People of the Book or not. Whatever her religion, she becomes lawful for the man to whom she has been given."

It's Official - Libya To Be Ruled By The Muslim Brotherhood And Sharia

Your tax dollars at work, my fellow Americans:

Libya's top politicians have hatched a deal that would see the Muslim Brotherhood lead the government after the country's first free elections in almost five decades takes place on Sunday.

While the elections for a 200-member National Congress is unlikely to grant a majority to any one faction, the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamist allies are confident they can join their counterparts in Tunisia and Egypt at the helm of leadership.

Negotiations between the Muslim Brotherhood and a secular-based political movement led by former interim prime minister Mahmoud Jibril have focused on forming a post-election government as soon as the result is known.

An adviser to Mr Jibril said the former prime minister was likely to take the post of figurehead president with Mustafa Abu Shagour, currently interim deputy prime minister of the Muslim Brotherhood, taking the prime minister's slot as head of government.

The Muslim Brotherhood would dominate the ministries. {...}

Any coalition government would grant a prominent place to the al-Watan party of Abdulhakim Belhaj, sources said. Mr Belhaj acknowledged that the talks were under way. He said: "I negotiate with anyone who cares about Libya and wants to unite it."

Belhaj was the commander of the former Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which had ties to al-Qaeda.

And of course, sharia rule:

The outgoing National Transitional Council, which has ruled Libya since Gaddafi's fall, announced yesterday that Islamic Sharia law should be the "main" source of legislation and that this principle should not be subject to a referendum.

"The Libyan people are attached to Islam, as a religion and legislation ... As such the National Transitional Council recommends that the (next) congress make Sharia the main source of legislation," Saleh Daroub, NTC spokesman, said.

Worth over a billion dollars of our money, wasn't it?

Here's another thing to think about, and those of you who visit this site regularly know I've been saying this for quite some time.

The Brotherhood ruled areas of Egypt and Gaza are economically dysfunctional, with large, mostly uneducated populations they can't feed and no oil money.

Just imagine a new, hardline Islamist Caliphate merging Libya's oil wealth with the territory and population of Egypt and Gaza, all under one banner. And it might even eventually include Tunisia, the Arab occupied areas of Judea and Samaria now ruled by the Palestinian Authority and Jordan, where King Abdullah is hanging on by a thread.

This is what the Brotherhood's founder, al-Banna dreamt about, and it has been handed to the Islamists on a silver platter. Not only that, but the American taxpayer paid for the platter.

The west is going to pay a large price in the near future for President Obama's enabling of the Muslim Brotherhood. Mark my words.

Women's Rights And The 'Arab Spring'

This pretty much says it all...