Published on Sep 18, 2014 by BuckleyProgramAtYale
Published on Sep 18, 2014 by BuckleyProgramAtYale
Published on Sep 16, 2014 by Q Society of Australia Inc
Clare Lopez at the Q Society event in Sydney on the evening of 5 September 2014.
by Steven Emerson
Interview on Fox News
September 13, 2014
Judge Jeanine: And with me now the founder of the Investigative Project, Steve Emerson. All right Steve, ISIS claims to have beheaded this British hostage. Your reaction tonight.
Emerson: Look, ISIS is very adept at manipulating the entire world. This is a recruitment video. It’s going to recruit a lot more jihadis from the West. There’s a reason why they’re videotaping it. There’s a reason why they’re using British or foreign jihadis to do the executions. There’s a reason why these videos recruit thousands more Western jihadis who go through Turkey, our ‘ally,’ that John Kerry just praised; an ally that refuses to allow the US to use its military bases, an ally that won’t shut down the black oil market that ISIS now gains $1.5 million a day in black oil market sales. So the reality is that our allies that the administration praises – Turkey and Qatar – are sabotaging our campaign against ISIS while the President has basically angered good allies lie Egypt, which really could be participating in a very meaningful way because it is significantly and ideologically against the Muslim Brotherhood which [ISIS] has in its origins..”
Judge Jeanine: Steve I’m still amazed. Thirty-five million Egyptians hit the streets, grandmothers, kids, everybody saying, ‘We don’t want the Muslim Brotherhood, we don’t want sharia law. We may be Muslims, 80% of us, but we do not want this extremism.’ But let me move along here. You just said a few minutes ago that that video might be an incentive for other people to join. We know that Ali Muhammad Brown, 29 – and you know I talked about this a few weeks ago – charged in the murders of four men. He says that he and two other people killed to avenge the US actions in the Middle East. Is this homegrown radical Islamic terrorism?
Emerson: Absolutely. I think that most people have no clue about what happened. Here was a man, Ali Muhammad Brown, who killed four people, the last one being a 19-year-old man in New Jersey, Brendan Tevlin. He was charged, [in New Jersey]; three previous murders were committed in Washington State. He [Brown] was arrested in July in New Jersey. In his confession to the New Jersey prosecutors, state prosecutors, he openly stated that his motivation for killing them was his, quote, his belief that the United States was evil because what they were doing to Muslims in the Middle East, that they were carrying out massacres of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, and therefore it was his duty to punish Americans and to kill them. This was a direct confession admitting that he was carrying out a jihad. He should have been prosecuted for terrorism. No charges of terrorism were brought against him. The FBI was denied, was told to stand down, not get involved. No federal prosecutors were involved. This is the Obama administration basically denying the opportunity, denying the obligation to prosecutors the opportunity to bring federal terrorism charges because they don’t want to basically disturb the notion that there’s radical Islam in the United States.
Judge Jeanine: I’ve got to tell you something Steve. As a local DA, as an elected DA, I got to tell you the Feds jump in whenever they can. The fact that they didn’t tells me that this is huge, that they did not want to touch the terrorism piece. You’re absolutely right. But let me, let’s talk about. Now there’s an attempted attack on a US embassy in Uganda thwarted by police; another terrorist group now, al Shabaab. What about them? Do we have to worry about them now?
Emerson: We have to worry about all of these groups. And that’s the problem. All of these Islamic terrorist groups – al Shabaab, Boko Haram, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda still, al Qaeda in Yemen – all of these groups have a common denominator. They’re all radical Islamic groups. Yes, they’re located in different areas. Some of them have regional grievances. But they have a common denominator – they believe in the sharia, they believe in the imposition of Islamic hegemony, and they believe in the hatred of the West and the hatred of the infidels. The bottom line here is the administration has compartmentalized all of these groups into different entities not believing that they’re connected. And so we have different strategies. In the press conferences delivered yesterday and today by press spokespeople for the State Department, they talked about Hamas as if it was a political entity. They talked about Turkey, a Muslim Brotherhood-controlled country, as if it was an ally of the United States when it sabotages the US. They [had previously] talked about Egypt as if it was an enemy because it’s against the Muslim Brotherhood.
Judge Jeanine: Crazy. Steve Emerson, thanks so much.
Vlad Tepes, Sep. 12, 2014:
Here are the full videos by Christian Zeitz, Robert Spencer, Bill Warner and David Wood. Those who saw the official release and feel they would like more, may enjoy this more comprehensive set of analysis by these scholars.
And of course, the actual video these were all filmed to create:
The Real Islam:
Don’t look now but far left-wing liberal comedian Bill Maher, who has gone to great lengths to support Barack Obama may have just slapped down the president’s core message in the latter’s recent speech about ISIS. That message was that ISIS does not represent Islam. Maher blew that notion up and just kept going.
Maher is a vile left-wing atheist but he is also extremely critical of Islam. In fact, he insists that Islam is much worse than Christianity, which is where he really wanders off the liberal plantation; that’s something you just don’t do.
There are several things to watch in the video below of his exchange with Charlie Rose on the subject. Rose quickly finds himself confronted with the conundrum of having to acquiesce to a fellow liberal who attacks a paradigm liberals are supposed to be in solidarity with – one that says Islam is a religion of peace. Right out of the gate, Maher essentially challenges Rose to admit he’s religious. Rose’s reaction tells you all you need to know.
It’s worth noting that while Maher insists that “all religions are bad”, he does something that most Christians won’t do. He says the problem is not with ‘radical Islam’ but with Islam itself. Rose just can’t process that coming from a far left liberal. Maher shockingly contrasts Islam with Christianity and ultimately ends up actually defending Christians more than many Christians do. In particular, compare what Maher says below with what Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick did (see this post).
Yes, God does work in mysterious ways.
If you watch for no other reason, do so just to see Rose’s face display the extreme levels of cognitive dissonance going on behind his forehead. Liberals have a script they must follow. Everything must fit in a box just so and when a fellow liberal like Maher blows that up and actually shows more courage than the Christian right on a particular issue, Rose just can’t compute and visibly short circuits:
by Raymond Ibrahim
September 11, 2014
To understand why the Islamic State not only decapitates its “infidel” captives, but also mutilates and mocks their corpses—and all to sadistic laughter—one need only turn to the Koran and deeds of Islamic prophet Muhammad.
The Koran exhorts believers to “Fight them [those who oppose Islam], Allah will torment them with your hands, humiliate them, empower you over them, and heal the hearts of the believers, removing the rage from their hearts” (Koran 9:14-15).
As usual, to understand the significance of any Koran verse, one must turn to the sira and hadith—the biography and anecdotes of Muhammad, respectively—for context.
Thus we come to the following account concerning the slaughter of ‘Amr bin Hisham, a pagan Arab chieftain originally known as “Abu Hakim” (Father of Wisdom) until Muhammad dubbed him “Abu Jahl” (Father of Stupidity) for his staunch opposition to Islam.
After ‘Amr was mortally wounded by a new convert to Islam during the Battle of Badr, Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud, a close companion of Muhammad, saw the “infidel” chieftain collapsed on the ground. So he went to him and started abusing him. Among other things, Abdullah grabbed and pulled ‘Amr’s beard and stood in triumph on the dying man’s chest.
According to Al-Bidaya wa Al-Nihaya (“The Beginning and the End”), Ibn Kathir’s authoritiative history of Islam, “After that, he [Abdullah] cut his [‘Amr’s] head off and bore it till he placed it between the hands of the Prophet. Thus did Allah heal the hearts of the believers with it.”
This, then, is the true significance of Koran 9:14-15: “Fight them, Allah will torment them with your hands [mortally wounding and eventually decapitating ‘Amr], humiliate them [pulling his beard], empower you over them [standing atop him], and heal the hearts of the believers, removing the rage from their hearts [at the sight of his decapitated head].”
The logic here is that, pious Muslims are so full of zeal for Allah’s cause that the only way their inflamed hearts can be at rest is to see those who oppose Allah and his prophet utterly crushed—humiliated, mutilated, decapitated. Then the hearts of the believers can be at ease and “healed.”
This is surely one of the reasons behind the Islamic State’s dissemination of gory videos and pictures of its victims: the new “caliphate” is trying to heal the hearts of every believer inflamed for the cause of Allah.
If this sounds too farfetched, consider the following picture of a decapitated “infidel” from the Islamic State’s websites. The Arabic caption to the left says “healing for hearts”—a clear reference to the aforementioned Koran verse:
Koran 96:15-16 also alludes to the fate of ‘Amr and offers more context applicable to the Islamic State: “No! If he does not desist, we will surely drag him by the forelock—a lying, sinning forelock.”
According to al-Alusi’s tafsir, or exegesis, after Abdullah placed his foot on the dying foe of Islam, ‘Amr opened his eyes and recognized him. The once proud chieftain lamented that he was being killed by a common “goat herder,” to which Abdullah replied, “Islam elevates and nothing is elevated above it.” He then sheared his head off. “But he could not carry it, so he made holes in the ears and put thread through them and dragged the head to the prophet. Then Gabriel, peace be upon him, came laughing and saying, “O prophet, you got an ear and an ear—and the head between for a bonus!”
Based, then, on the treatment of ‘Amr bin Hisham (AKA “Abu Jahl”) as recorded in Islam’s core texts—Koran, hadith, sira, and tafsirs—all sadistic acts being carried out by the Islamic State were in fact committed by the earliest Muslims and all to the complete approval of Muhammad (and apparently the “angel” Gabriel, too). They include:
•Beheadings and mutilations (e.g., holes in ears of ‘Amr)
•Humiliation and gestures of triumph (feet on chest of fallen victim, dragging his body, or head, on the ground)
•Laughter, mockery, and celebration (for the hearts of the believers are now “healed”)
Indeed, along with the “healing for hearts” image above, consider some other pictures taken from the Islamic State’s websites and how well they conform to the above accounts describing the slaughter of ‘Amr#:
Note how in the following four pictures, to demonstrate that the enemies of Islam have been brought low, as Koran 9:14-15 promised, Islamic State members make it a point to place their feet atop their fallen corpses, most of which were first decapitated. Note also how the ubiquitous black flag of Islam is always raised above the fallen “infidels”—a reminder that “Islam elevates and nothing is elevated above it,” as Abdullah told ‘Amr, with his foot on his chest, before beheading him.
Note the jocularity in the following picture—reminiscent of the “angel” Gabriel laughing and joking about the mutilated head of ‘Amr. (If Allah’s angel finds such human carnage amusing, shouldn’t Allah’s jihadi servants as well?)
The following picture is reminiscent of how ‘Amr’s head was treated: mutilated and dragged on the ground. In this case, it is a decapitated body that is being degraded:
The next two pictures are of especial interest because they actually use the relatively arcane Arabic word haz (bottom left-hand corner), which literally means “to make an incision,” to describe the beheading of Islam’s enemies. The standard Arabic word for “cut” generally used to describe a beheading isqata‘. That the word used (haz) is the same word found in the early jihad literature is no coincidence and indicative of the source of inspiration: Islam’s scriptures.
In short, not only are the members of the Islamic State closely patterning themselves after Muhammad—whom Koran 33:21 exhorts believers to emulate in all ways—but even in the most sadistic of details are they finding support in their prophet.
Nor should it come as any surprise that Muslims are aware of these accounts from early Islamic history. After all, the near hagiographic Battle of Badr, including the story of ‘Amr’s slaughter, is routinely glorified worldwide in mosque sermons, on Islamic satellite stations, and in Islamic texts. It is a source of great pride.
Thus when young Muslims express their anger and frustration at the state of affairs of the Islamic world, their clerics council them to go to the jihad in Iraq and Syria and decapitate themselves an infidel—which, according to the Koran, should “heal their hearts.”
(Perhaps that’s why one former British rock star and convert to Islam is so eager to decapitate Christians? Perhap that’s why a jihadi savagely pulled out and bit into the heart of a fallen Syrian soldier—to heal his own heart by sating his rage against Allah’s “enemies”?)
Such Muslims join the jihad, and not only do they decapitate, but they mutilate, humiliate, and laugh at the disgraced enemies of Allah—in perfect emulation of the Islamic glory/gory stories they grew up on.
This is the true cult of jihad which few non-Muslims can begin to comprehend—and little wonder, considering that their political leaders, professors, and media continue to babble foolishly about how Islam is the “religion of peace.”
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a CBN News contributor. He is the author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007).
Don’t miss Raymond Ibrahim on The Glazov Gang discussing ISIS’s Islamic Inspirations:
Since the second part of my title quotation comes from Tolkien (spoken by the Elf Glorfindel at the Council of Elrond, referring to Saruman), I leave you with a scene from “Return of the King” in which the Orcs besieging Minas Tirith launch the severed heads of Gondorian soldiers back into the city–much as the Muslim Ottomans did in real-life sieges of Christian cities. Perhaps Victor Davis Hanson is right to ask whether the Orcs are winning. But I still hold out hope that Western civilization will produce, if not an Aragorn, at least some Boromirs to save us.
I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)
—Islam’s prophet Muhammad, as recorded in the most important collection of Muhammad’s “traditions,” Sahih Bukhari,Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220
ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) is not Islamic
—Barack Obama, September 10, 2014
There is just one historically relevant meaning of jihad despite the surfeit of contemporary apologetics. Dr. Tina Magaard—a Sorbonne-trained linguist specializing in textual analysis—published detailed research findings in 2005 (summarized in 2007) comparing the foundational texts of ten major religions. Magaard concluded from her hard data-driven analyses:
The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree [emphasis added]. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact that we need to deal with.
For example, in her 2007 essay “Fjendebilleder og voldsforestillinger i islamiske grundtekster” [“Images of enemies and conceptions of violence in Islamic core scriptures”], Magaard observed,
There are 36 references in the Koran to expressions derived from the root qa-ta-la, which indicates fighting, killing or being killed. The expressions derived from the root ja-ha-da, which the word jihad stems from, are more ambiguous since they mean “to struggle” or “to make an effort” rather than killing. Yet almost all of the references derived from this root are found in stories that leave no room for doubt regarding the violent nature of this struggle. Only a single ja-ha-da reference (29:6) explicitly presents the struggle as an inner, spiritual phenomenon, not as an outwardly (usually military) phenomenon. But this sole reference does not carry much weight against the more than 50 references to actual armed struggle in the Koran, and even more in the Hadith.
Consistent with Magaard’s textual analysis, the independent study of Australian linguist and renowned Arabic to English translator, Paul Stenhouse, claimed the root of the word jihad appears forty times in the Koran. With four exceptions, Stenhouse maintained, all the other thirty-six usages in the Koran, and in subsequent Islamic understanding to both Muslim luminaries—the greatest jurists and scholars of classical Islam—and to ordinary people, meant and means, as described by the seminal Arabic lexicographer, E. W. Lane: “He fought, warred or waged war against unbelievers and the like.” A concordant modern Muslim definition, relevant to both contemporary jihadism and its shock troop “mujahideen” [holy warriors; see just below], was provided at the “Fourth International Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research,” at Al Azhar University— in 1968, by Muhammad al-Sobki:
[T]he words Al Jihad, Al Mojahadah, or even “striving against enemies” are equivalents and they do not mean especially fighting with the atheists . . . they mean fighting in the general sense.
Data for 2012 from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) were released December 19, 2013. Gary LaFree, START director and professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Maryland, highlighted the report’s most salient finding: the “incredible growth” in jihad terror attacks perpetrated by “al-Qaeda affiliates.” START identified the six most lethal jihad terror groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda, and the death tolls these organizations had inflicted during 2012, as follows: the Taliban (more than 2,500 fatalities), Boko Haram (more than 1,200 fatalities), al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (more than 960 fatalities), Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (more than 950 fatalities), al-Qaeda in Iraq (more than 930 fatalities) and al-Shabaab (more than 700 fatalities). These attacks, as the START report acknowledged, were intrinsic to a broader phenomenon—the emergence of jihad terrorism emanating from the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa, as the predominant form of global terrorism, since the 1990s.
Another macabre tally—updated almost daily—is being kept assiduously in cyberspace: the number of attacks committed by jihad terrorists since the cataclysmic acts of jihad terrorism on September 11, 2001. This grisly compilation is if anything a conservative estimate of jihad-related carnage— murder and severe morbidity—because it doesn’t include combat-related statistics per se, or the death toll increases during the days or months after any given attack (as victims die from their injuries). As of September 11, 2014, this grim count is approaching 24,000.
You can contact Dr. Bostom at info[@]andrewbostom.org
Published on Sep 11, 2014 by Ban Koran
Obama and many other apologists for Islam tell us that the Islamic State, ISIS, has nothing to do with Islam. Five experts challenge that statement.
The original video by Islamic State can be seen:
Vlad Tepes has posted the full videos by Christian Zeitz, Robert Spencer, Bill Warner and David Wood HERE
By Daniel Greenfield:
Every week another lad or lass from St. Louis, Toronto or Sydney makes the trip through Turkey to the Islamic State. A reporter dispatched by a local paper to talk to the neighbors scribbles down the same recollections about how nice and normal Jihad Joe or Jihad Jane was.
Classmates remember a loud partier or a shy student. Neighbors mention that everything seemed normal until those last few years when he began wearing a robe and she began wearing a burka.
The Somali and Algerian immigrants, the German and American converts, the black burkas and dyed beards, headed into the dying summer to kill Christians and Kurds, Turkmen and Shiites, to behead babies and crucify critics, don’t seem like monsters.
They loved their parents. They posed for jokey snapshots on Facebook. They had dreams of becoming biologists or boxers. Until they began killing people, they seemed just like the rest of us.
And with one difference, they were.
The forensic examinations of their lives rarely reveal anything of significance. The extensive digging into the lives of the Boston bombers told us nothing about why they would plant a bomb near a little boy.
The answer lay in the topic that the media carefully avoided. As with the other Muslim terrorists, the meaning of their motives was in the little black book of their religion which commanded them to kill.
The Jihadist isn’t a serial killer. While there are some converts attracted to Islam for its violence, the Muslim convert usually doesn’t convert for the killing, he kills because he converted. Likewise the nice Muslim Jihadist next door might well be moderate by inclination and immoderate by faith.
As the Koran says, “Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah knows, while you know not” (Quran 2:216).
Allah knows you have to kill. Even if you think you shouldn’t.
The nice Jihadists flocking to rape Yazidi girls in Mosul are convinced that Allah knows best and his Caliph knows best. The worst of them are acting on impulse. The best of them are acting on faith.
Faith is irrational. Believers believe without understanding and act without thinking. The holy men of our religions acted on faith. So do the holy men of Islam. It’s what they have faith in that is the problem.
Read more at Front Page
I was on my way back from a vacation when the first plane hit the World Trade Center. My wife and I were listening to music on a CD and enjoyed our ride home, and knew nothing about it. When we got home, we listened to our messages. The first two were from family members hysterically crying, “We’ve been attacked! America is at war!”
My first thought, of course, was the ever-eloquent, “What the fuck!?!”
We watched the news, and I was baffled. Why would anyone do such a thing? I was about as ignorant about this as someone can be. But I’m a learner. It’s what I like to do. And since that day, I’ve learned a lot.
I learned that this was not an isolated incident. Attacks had become more frequent and more deadly over the years. I just hadn’t noticed.
And I eventually learned that this is not just a problem of generic “terrorism,” but a global movement based on teachings from the Koranand the example of Muhammad. I learned that Islam is a unique religion because it’s a political system and a system of law as well as being what most people would call a religion. Its goal is world domination, it has explicit permission for (and approval of) violence in its holy books, and it is intolerant of non-Muslims. Its laws even include legally-imposed discrimination against non-Muslims (and all women). (Read more about that here.)
I learned that an almost-uninterrupted jihad has been waged against non-Muslims for 1400 years. The attacks are near constant. So far since 9-11, Jihadis have carried out 23,795 deadly attacks. Most of us don’t see it as a war. We see isolated attacks. If you take in the whole global view, however, or listen to the point of view of a Jihadi, or read this, you will see it for what it is: A global war — orthodox Muslims against everybody else.
The majority of the conflicts in the world today consist of Jihadis fighting non-Muslims or Muslims who are considered insufficiently Islamic. If you removed jihad from the world right now, it would be a fairly peaceful place.
I also learned that one of the main reasons democracies have so much trouble dealing with Jihadis is because of an important conflict within democracies. Specifically, most people in the free world believe 1) everyone has a right to worship as they wish, and 2) discrimination of any kind is wrong. These are important foundational principles of liberal democracies around the world.
Why is this a problem? Because the simplest way to deal with Islam would be to discriminate against it. In other words, to openly admit Islam is unique (because of its political aspirations and religious duty to overthrow all other forms of law and government), and stop all concessions to Islam and roll back any concessions already made.
We “can’t do that” because it violates important values of our societies. Or does it necessarily? This dialog needs to happen and solutions need to be created for it. But of course, that can’t happen as long as the majority of people in free countries remain ignorant of the most elementary facets of Islam. And it’s not just ignorance. Many people have a real resistance to hearing anything about it because even talking about it seems to violate the principles of decency and kindness!
So the final thing I’ve learned is that the solution to this problem starts with a grassroots movement: Those who know something about Islam’s dangers to the free world must talk to people who don’t, and successfully educate them. Once enough people are educated, national conversations can happen that could result in new, carefully-crafted policies that retain our democratic freedoms while limiting the destructive and insidious encroachment of orthodox Islam.
If you want to participate in this grassroots movement (and I hope you do), start here: WhatYouCanDoAboutIslam.com.
By Creeping Sharia, September 10, 2014:
Muslim terrorists can, and do, walk across the U.S.-Mexico border and literally sail across the U.S.-Canadian border. Not to mention this Illegals from Terror Hotspots, Ebola-affected Nations Exploiting Open US Border this Texas Rancher Found Urdu Dictionary, Korans Near U.S. Border this Muslim Prayer Rug Found on Border By Security Contractors and this Record Numbers of Illegals from Terror Hot Beds Crossing Texas-Mexico Border. And lest we forget the 58,000 Foreign Students Visa Scofflaws that ICE Can’t Find.
But thirteen years after Muslims attacked America, and have done so since (select any state from the Archive drop down for examples), some 9/11 Families Launch Anti-Islamophobia Campaign For Anniversary Of Tragedy.
As Muslims just beheaded two Americans who were sympathetic to the Muslim cause, it’s as if 9/11 never happened. They ignore:
Those are just a few samplings from August 2014. We don’t have time or space to list all the stories about Muslims from the U.S. waging jihad overseas or waging jihad against Jews right here in the U.S.
Geert Wilders was speaking to the world when he stated, “Recognize that Islam Is the Problem”. Thirteen years later the deaf, dumb and blind still refuse to face the problem and want to blame the Islamophobia boogeyman.
What’s worse? To be falsely labeled an Islamophobe or to actually be an Islamophile – pandering to and promoting an ideology of hate, misogyny and violence?
Never forget, never surrender.
Published on Sep 5, 2014 by 700 Club Interactive
CBN News terrorism expert Erick Stakelbeck discusses the threat that Islam poses to America.
FrontPage Magazine, by Raymond Ibrahim:
As shocking as the Muslim-run sex ring in Rotherham, England may seem to some—1,400 British children as young as 11 plied with drugs before being passed around and sexually abused in cabs and kabob shops—the fact is that this phenomenon is immensely widespread. In the United Kingdom alone, it’s the fifth sex abuse ring led by Muslims to be uncovered.
Some years back in Australia, a group of “Lebanese Muslim youths” were responsible for a “series of brutal gang rapes” of “Anglo-Celtic teenage girls.” A few years later in the same country,four Muslim Pakistani brothers raped at least 18 Australian women, some as young as 13. Even in the United States, a gang of Somalis—Somalia being a Muslim nation where non-Muslims, primarily Christians, are ruthlessly persecuted—was responsible for abducting, buying, selling, raping and torturing young American girls as young as 12.
The question begs itself: If Muslim minorities have no fear of exploiting “infidel” women and children in non-Muslim countries—that is, where Muslims themselves are potentially vulnerable minorities—how are Muslims throughout the Islamic world, where they are dominant, treating their vulnerable, non-Muslim minorities?
The answer is a centuries-long, continents-wide account of nonstop sexual predation. Boko Haram’s recent abduction and enslavement of nearly 300, mostly Christian, schoolgirls last April in Nigeria is but the tip of the iceberg.
The difference between what happens in Nigeria and what happens in Western nations is based on what I call “Islam’s Rule of Numbers.” Wherever Muslims grow in numbers, Islamic phenomena intrinsic to the Muslim world—in this case, the sexual abuse of “infidel” children and teenagers—comes along with them.
Thus in the United Kingdom, where Muslims make for a sizeable—and notable—minority, the systematic rape of “subhuman infidels” naturally takes place. But when caught, Muslim minorities, being under “infidel” authority, cry “Islamophobia” and feign innocence.
In Nigeria, however, which is roughly 50 percent Islamic, such “apologetics” are unnecessary. After seizing the nearly 300 schoolgirls, the leader of Boko Haram appeared on videotape boasting that “I abducted your girls. I will sell them on the market, by Allah…. There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell.”
It’s the same in Pakistan—the nation where many of the United Kingdom’s Muslims, including the majority involved in the Rotherham sex ring, come from. See this article for a long list of Christian children—as young as 2-years-old—who were targeted by Muslim men for abduction, enslavement, and rape. In every single case, police do nothing except sometimes side with the Muslim rapists against their “infidel” victims.
For example, last Easter Sunday, four Muslim men gang-raped a 7-year-old Christian girl named Sara, leaving her in “critical condition.” According to Asia News, “the police, instead of arresting the culprits, helped the local clan to kidnap the girl’s father… to ‘force the family not to report the story, to reach an agreement with the criminals and to avoid a dispute of a religious background.’”
As for systematic child grooming, in 2010, Kiran George, a Christian girl who was “enslaved by a woman, Sama, a dealer of youth to be sold as prostitutes or slaves to wealthy Muslim families,” was doused with gasoline by a police officer involved in the sex ring, set on fire, and burned to death.
And a recent report confirms that “an estimated 700 cases [of abduction, enslavement, and/or rape in Pakistan] per year involve Christian women, 300 Hindu girls”—very large numbers when one considers that Christians and Hindus each make for one percent of the population of Pakistan, which is about 97 percent Muslim.
One can go on and on. In 2011 a Christian group in Muslim-majority Egypt
exposed a highly organized Muslim ring centered in the Fatah Mosque in Alexandria. The investigation also uncovered a systematic “religious call” plan, where young Muslim males in high school and university are urged to approach Coptic girls in the 9-15 age group and manipulate them through sexual exploitation and blackmail. The plan … aims at sexually compromising Christian girls, defiling them and humiliating them in front of their parents, thereby forcing them to flee their homes, and use conversion to Islam as a “solution” for their problems.
Approximately 550 Coptic Christian girls have been abducted and sexually abused by Muslim men during the last three years—especially under the Muslim Brotherhood’s aegis, when sexual crimeswere particularly widespread.
So what animates this phenomenon of Muslim on non-Muslim rape? And we must call it Muslimrape since Islam is the common denominator in all these cases from otherwise diverse nations that have little in common except for large numbers of Muslims.
As for the pedophilia aspect, Muhammad—the prophet of Islam whom the Koran exhorts Muslims to emulate in every possible way—was “betrothed” to a six-year-old girl, Aisha, “consummating” their marriage when she was nine-years-old. Accordingly, Islam’s clerics routinely defend child “marriage”—sometimes even if the girl is still in the cradle—based on the example of the prophet.
As for the subhuman treatment of “infidel” children, this is seen as a right by supremacist Muslims. Discussing the 2010 rape of a 9-year-old Christian girl, local sources in Pakistan put it well: “It is shameful. Such incidents occur frequently. Christian girls are considered goods to be damaged at leisure. Abusing them is a right. According to the [Muslim] community’s mentality it is not even a crime. Muslims regard them as spoils of war.”
“Spoils of war” is quite correct. Here is how the late Majid Khadduri, “internationally recognized as one of the world’s leading authorities on Islamic law and jurisprudence,” explained the idea of “spoils” in 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.
Nor is this limited to academic talk. Last year, Jordanian Sheikh Yasir al-‘Ajlawni said Muslims fighting to topple “infidel” president Bashar Assad in Syria are permitted to “capture and have sex with” all non-Sunni women, including Shia Muslims, Alawites, Christians, Druze, and Yazidis.
Before him, Egyptian Sheikh Ishaq Huwaini lamented how during the heydays of Islam, “You [could] go to the market and buy her [enslaved, infidel concubines for sale]…. In other words, when I want a sex-slave, I go to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her.”
In order to eliminate sexual immorality from among male Muslim youth, Kuwaiti political activist Salwa al-Mutairi suggested the formal reinstitution of sex-slavery—not unlike what was recently exposed in Rotherham. She said on video that Islam’s greatest authorities from Mecca, the city of Islam, all confirmed the legality of sex-slavery to her. According to the Kuwaiti woman:
A Muslim state must [first] attack a Christian state—sorry, I mean any non-Muslim state—and they [the women, the future sex-slaves] must be captives of the raid. Is this forbidden? Not at all; according to Islam, sex slaves are not at all forbidden. Quite the contrary, the rules regulating sex-slaves differ from those for free women [i.e., Muslim women]: the latter’s body must be covered entirely, except for her face and hands, whereas the sex-slave is kept naked from the bellybutton on up—she is different from the free woman; the free woman has to be married properly to her husband, but the sex-slave—he just buys her and that’s that…. For example, in the Chechnya war, surely there are female Russian captives. So go and buy those and sell them here in Kuwait; better that than have our men engage in forbidden sexual relations. I don’t see any problem in this, no problem at all.
What happened in Rotherham is hardly an aberration. Rather, it is Islam coming to town, Muslims growing in numbers. Even Dr. Taj Hargey, a British imam, just confirmed that the majority of theUK’s “imams promote grooming rings.” He said Muslim men are taught that women are “second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority” and that the imams preach a doctrine “that denigrates all women, but treats whites with particular contempt.”
Change “whites” to “non-Muslims”—this is not about race but religion—and the experiences of those 1,400 children in Rotherham is one with the experiences of countless non-Muslim minorities throughout the Islamic world.