Tuesday, January 31, 2012

The Middle East, women, sex, and the awful double standard

People of Shambhala
Tuesday January 21, 2012

What to conclude when an Egyptian newspaper is condemned for reporting gang rapes and sexual assaults on women in Tahrir Square? Or that a self-appointed "morality police" now patrols Egypt's streets with rods to beat any woman dressed in normal, causal clothes? Should we conclude that, in the Middle East, it is acceptable for men to rape, but not okay for a woman to show the least bit of skin?

A few days ago Egyptian newspaper Bikya Masr reported that an Arab-American woman had been "stripped of her pants, assaulted and beaten by a mob of men in the center of the square."

"Surprisingly," says Bikya MAsr, "this led to a backlash against us, in comments on the article, emails and on a private listserv here in Cairo." Journalist Joseph Mayton says he

received a number of emails condemning reporting such incidents, with the correspondence saying Bikyamasr.com is “anti-revolution,” “Orientalist,” and even patronizing and victimizing toward women by detailing the sexual violence that was perpetrated in the square.

This misses the reality. Sexual violence in Egypt, and around the region is not new. It seems to occur whenever large crowds gather in this country. As a media outlet, we can only do our best to report on such incidents. Many argued that we did not contextualize the situation by reporting the story of the woman being assaulted.

They argued Tahrir was “safe” for women and that even men were protecting women throughout the day. Certainly, this was correct, but it misses the point. Sexual assault needs no contextualization. Assault is assault, in our view.

Apparently in Egypt it's a controversial view. 

However, some in the Middle East are fighting back. With Iranian actress Golshifteh Farahani told not to return to Iran because of a naked photo shoot published in Madame Le Figaro more than one Facebook group has been launched in support of the actress.

One, called, simply, Support of Golshifteh Farahani, says it "has been formed, in order to support Golshifteh's move, in order to say NO to relegion [sic], tradition, culture and anti women's law.Viva freedom !!!"

Reuters says "movement has sprung up, with supporters encouraging others to post Farahani's topless photo as a "PicBadge" of the actress' photo-shoot to their Facebook profiles." Activists are encouraging people to read The Stoning of Soraya M.

A number of activists -- men and women -- are also posting nude photos of themselves in protest at the treatment of Farahani and of women in the Middle East in general.

Nude protesting might be extreme, but --whatever one may think of it -- it is clear that a lot of people in the Middle East are getting fed up with rape being "contextualized" and portrayed as okay, while self-expression is seen as absolutely immoral.

Qaradawi: No Chopping Off of Hands Now…But Later is OK

Another D.C. Scandal Fleeces Taxpayers Out Of Millions

Corruption Chronicles
Judicial Watch Blog
January 31, 2012

In a classic fleecing of U.S. taxpayers, a politically-connected nonprofit blew millions of dollars that were supposed to help build and renovate housing for the poor in the slums surrounding the nation’s capital.
The cash—more than $13.7 million—mostly flowed under the leadership of ousted Washington D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, who lost reelection in 2010. During his tenure Fenty was embroiled in a variety of scandals, including the use of taxpayer-funded ads to promote a family business that donated big bucks to his political campaign and controversial trips to Dubai and China on taxpayer time. Judicial Watch obtained documents related to the questionable jaunts which were financed by the foreign governments while Fenty served as an elected official of a U.S. city.
During that time, a charity (Peaceoholics) headed by Fenty’s pal got lots of federal and local cash without being held accountable for how the funds were spent. Several local newspapers have reported on the scandal in the last few years, but this week the area’s mainstream paper published a lengthy exposé that should make most people cringe. It outlines how millions in federal and local funds have been poured into “affordable” housing projects that were never completed.
The scathing article apparently embarrassed some members of the D.C. Council, which has been napping throughout this scandal. One councilman, Michael A. Brown, issued a press release following the story expressing deep concern by “evidence that has been uncovered pointing to unethical behavior and possible criminal malfeasance.” Brown is calling for an “investigation” of a more recent $4.6 million that Peaceoholics got to transform distressed apartments for troubled young men.
Instead, the project became something of a spending free-for-all for developers and contractors who knew redevelopment money was out on the street and in the hands of a novice nonprofit with unchecked authority to spend it,” according to the news story. It goes on to say: “The project was overseen at the housing agency by a top manager with real estate interests of his own who, along with other housing officials, often failed to impose fundamental spending rules and regular oversight. Instead of competitive bidding, Peaceoholics did business with friends and associates. Work often wasn’t tracked or documented.”
As outrageous as this may seem, this sort of thing is par for the course in D.C.’s perpetually corrupt government, which has been rocked by a series of scandals in recent years. Last summer Mayor Vincent Gray, a veteran councilman, was the subject of a corruption investigation for paying a mayoral candidate to stay in the race and trash dethroned, then-Mayor Fenty.
After becoming mayor last January Gray came under fire for hiring an army of senior staffers with lucrative salaries while the city suffered through a painful $400 million budget shortfall. Among Gray’s highly-paid employees are the son of his chief of staff and the daughter of a close adviser.
Who could forget Mayor Marion Barry—elected to the D.C. Council four times since his drug conviction—starring in an FBI surveillance video smoking crack? Barry, who represents Ward 8, has since been in trouble for failing to pay his taxes, violating the terms of his probation and stalking a former girlfriend.

Muslims Declare Jihad on Dogs in Europe

by Soeren Kern
January 31, 2012 at 5:00 am

A Dutch Muslim politician has called for a ban on dogs in The Hague, the third-largest city in the Netherlands.
Islamic legal tradition holds that dogs are "unclean" animals, and some say the call to ban them in Holland and elsewhere represents an attempted encroachment of Islamic Sharia law in Europe.
This latest canine controversy -- which the Dutch public has greeted with a mix of amusement and outrage -- follows dozens of other Muslim-vs-dog-related incidents in Europe. Critics say it reflects the growing assertiveness of Muslims in Europe as they attempt to impose Islamic legal and religious norms on European society.
The Dutch dustup erupted after Hasan Küçük, a Turkish-Dutch representative on The Hague city council for the Islam Democrats, vehemently opposed a proposal by the Party for the Animals (Partij voor de Dieren) to make the city more dog friendly.
According to a January 28 report in the Amsterdam-based newspaper De Telegraaf, Küçük counter-argued that keeping dogs as pets is tantamount to animal abuse and he then called for the possession of dogs in The Hague to be criminalized.
According to its website, the Islam Democrats [ID] party is "founded on the Islamic principles of justice, equality and solidarity. ID is a bottom-up response to the large gap between the Muslim and immigrant communities and local politics…ID focuses on the political awareness within the Muslim and immigrant communities. Awareness about the need to organize, but also the need for mutual support."
Paul ter Linden, who represents the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) on The Hague city council, responded to Küçük by saying: "In this country pet ownership is legal. Whoever disagrees with this should move to another country."
Dutch political commentators believe Küçük's declarations are a provocation designed to stir up the Muslim population in The Hague. Muslims -- who now make up more than 12% of the city's population of 500,000 -- view dogs as ritually unclean animals and Küçük's call for a ban on them is a sure vote-getter, they say.
The incident in Holland follows dog-related controversies in other European countries.
In Spain, two Islamic groups based in Lérida -- a city in the northeastern region of Catalonia where 29,000 Muslims now make up around 20% of the city's total population -- asked local officials to regulate the presence of dogs in public spaces so they do not "offend Muslims."
Muslims demanded that dogs be banned from all forms of public transportation including all city buses as well as from all areas frequented by Muslim immigrants. Muslims said the presence of dogs in Lérida violates their religious freedom and their right to live according to Islamic principles.
After the municipality refused to acquiesce to Muslim demands, the city experienced a wave of dog poisonings. More than a dozen dogs were poisoned in September 2011 (local media reports herehereherehere and here) in Lérida's working class neighborhoods of Cappont and La Bordeta, districts that are heavily populated by Muslim immigrants and where many dogs have been killed over the past several years.
Local residents taking their dogs for walks say they have been harassed by Muslim immigrants who are opposed to seeing the animals in public. Muslims have also launched a number of anti-dog campaigns on Islamic websites and blogs based in Spain.
In Britain, which has become "ground zero" for Europe's canine controversies, blind passengers are being ordered off buses or refused taxi rides because Muslim drivers or passengers object to their "unclean" guide dogs.
In Reading, for example, one pensioner, a cancer sufferer, was repeatedly confronted by drivers and asked to get off the bus because of his guide dog. He also faced hostility at a hospital and in a supermarket over the animal.
In Nottingham, a Muslim taxi driver refused to carry a blind man because he was accompanied by his guide dog. The taxi driver was later fined £300 ($470).
In Stafford, a Muslim taxi driver refused to carry an elderly blind couple from a grocery store because they were accompanied by their seeing-eye dog.
In Tunbridge Wells, Kent, a blind man was turned away from an Indian restaurant because the owner said it was against his Muslim beliefs to allow dogs into his establishment.
In London, a bus driver prevented a woman from boarding a bus with her dog because there was a Muslim lady on the bus who "might be upset by the dog." As the woman attempted to complain, the doors closed and the bus drove away. When a second bus arrived, she again tried to embark, but was stopped again, this time because the driver said he was Muslim.
Also in Britain, police sniffer dogs trained to spot terrorists at train stations may no longer come into contact with Muslim passengers, following complaints that it was offensive to their religion.
A report for the Transport Department advised that the animals should only touch passengers' luggage because it is considered "more acceptable." British Transport Police still use sniffer dogs -- which are trained to detect explosives -- with any passengers regardless of faith, but handlers are now more aware of "cultural sensitivities."
Sniffer dogs used by police to search mosques and Muslim homes are now being fitted with leather bootees to cover their paws so that they do not cause offense.
Critics say the complaints are just another example of Muslims trying to force their rules and morals on British society. Tory MP Philip Davies said: "As far as I am concerned, everyone should be treated equally in the face of the law and we cannot have people of different religious groups laying the law down. I hope the police will go about their business as they would do normally."
Meanwhile, Muslim prisoners in Britain are being given fresh clothes and bedding after sniffer dogs search their cells.
The inmates say their bedclothes and prison uniforms must be changed according to Islamic law if they have come anywhere near dog saliva. Government rules mean prison wardens must hand out replacement sets after random drug searches to avoid religious discrimination claims.
The dogs have also been banned from touching copies of the Islamic holy book the Koran and other religious items. Prisoners are handed special bags to protect the articles.
In Scotland, the Tayside Police Department apologized for featuring a German shepherd puppy as part of a campaign to publicize its new non-emergency telephone number. The postcards are potentially offensive to the city's 3,000-strong Muslim community.
In Norway, Gry Berg, a blind woman, was denied entry into four taxis in the center of Oslo because she was accompanied by her guide dog.
In France, Marie Laforêt, one of the country's most well-known singers and actresses, appeared in a Paris courtroom in December to defend herself against charges that a job advertisement she placed discriminated against Muslims.
The 72-year-old Laforêt had placed an ad on an Internet website looking for someone to do some work on her terrace in 2009. She specified in the ad that "people with allergies or orthodox Muslims" should not apply "due to a small Chihuahua."
Laforêt claimed that she made the stipulation because she believed the Muslim faith saw dogs as unclean.
The case was taken up by an anti-discrimination group called the Movement against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples (MRAP), which lodged a complaint against Laforêt.
Laforêt's lawyer said his client "knew that the presence of a dog could conflict with the religious convictions of orthodox Muslims. It was a sign of respect." But Muslims rejected her defense.
Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.


A better idea would be to ban Muslims from the Hague.  Imagine what would happen if CAIR or others of their ilk called for a ban on dogs in America. Haha, I wish they would show their true colors. Just let them try. But if we allow Islam to continue to push its evil ideology upon our society, eventually they will be demanding bans on alcohol, music, and even dogs. 

Charles Adler & Raj Sharma Discuss The Shafia Honour Murders & Immigration Policy


Monday, January 30, 2012

The Export: Radical Islam's Map to the End of Democracy - Trailer


What do Evergreen Energy, Ener1, and Amonix, Inc. all have in common?

Wizbang blog
They all received millions in Stimulus-related dollars from the Obama Administration – $5.3 million for Evergreen, $118 million for Ener1 (as well as a ‘good luck’ visit from Vice President Biden) and $5.9 million for Amonix.  Oh, and they all either developed or manufactured “green energy” components – ‘alternative fuel’ products, batteries for electric vehicles, and solar panels, respectively.
Boy, can Barry pick ‘em, or can Barry pick ‘em!

Censorship of Geert Wilder’s Film Fitna – Does YouTube Follow Sharia Law?

Europe News
British Freedom 30 January 2012

The British Freedom YouTube account has been suspended because it included Geert Wilder’s controversial film Fitna. British Freedom received the following message from YouTube:

The YouTube Community has flagged one or more of your videos as inappropriate. Once a video is flagged, it is reviewed by the YouTube Team against our Community Guidelines. Upon review, we have determined that the following video(s) contain content in violation of these guidelines, and have been disabled:

Fitna – The Geert Wilders Movie – YouTube.mp4 – (BritishFreedomTV)

We encourage free speech and defend everyone’s right to express their points of view even if unpopular. But YouTube does not permit hate speech. "Hate speech” means content that promotes hatred or violence against members of a protected group (race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/ gender identity). Sometimes there is a fine line between what is and what is not considered hate speech. If you’re not sure whether or not your content crosses the line, don’t post it.”

It seems that YouTube, which claims to encourage free speech, could be accused of basing its understanding of such freedom in accordance with principles of sharia. Sharia does not allow criticism or negativity towards the holy book of Islam. The website fidh.org reports that a man in Afghanistan was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment "for having distributed a document criticising the Koran and its views on women’s rights”. Would YouTube censor a video that pointed this out? Fitna is simply a film that quotes the Koran and then shows how some people have interpreted those quotes. To call it ‘hate speech’ indicates a political agenda and an attempt to stifle debate.

Why has British Freedom been specifically targeted? There are many YouTube channels that contain the film Fitna which can be found quite easily by a simple search. Has British Freedom been targeted because it is a political party? The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is already trying to meddle in the internal affairs of Western democracies via its global campaign against free expression.

The very nebulous and ill-defined term ‘Islamophobia’ is often used to restrict debate on issues relating to political Islam. The Secretary General of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, has specifically referred to Western politics. Does this mean that there is now an organised campaign against specific political parties and if such a campaign exists has YouTube inadvertently found itself embroiled in it? Has YouTube now sided with the OIC and accepted its narrative? If the public are prevented from making informed decisions at election times due to politically motivated censorship then democracy looses all its true meaning.

The European Union has offered to host the next meeting of the Istanbul Process which relates to the OIC campaign against freedom of expression. If the European Union bows to OIC pressure on this subject then it means that very significant legislative changes might occur in European states that could put democracy itself in serious danger. The issue of freedom of expression is therefore the subject of ongoing political debate and material like the film Fitna is an important component of that debate. Censorship of this film could be seen as an attempt to stifle debate on a subject of significant public interest. YouTube’s action against the British Freedom YouTube channel may cause some people to conclude that YouTube is effectively taking sides in an extremely significant political debate.

We call upon YouTube to take a position of political impartiality and reinstate the British Freedom channel with the film Fitna included on it.


Posted January 30th, 2012 by pk

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Allen West To Obama: ‘Get The Hell Out Of The United States of America’

January 29, 2012

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) had a strong message Saturday for President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “Get the hell out.”

West made the comments during a speech at a Palm Beach County GOP event in West Palm Beach.

“This is a battlefield that we must stand upon. And we need to let President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and my dear friend, chairman of the Democrat National Committee, we need to let them know that Florida ain’t on the table,” West said.

The audience was booing by the time West got to Pelosi’s name.

“Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else,” he continued. “You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.”

Tarek Fatah Reaction To Shafia Honour Murders


Only in California: 6 Year Old Charged With Sexual Assault

Inmates running our Asylums or schools.

Muslim Pilot Complains of Discrimination

Politically Incorrect

In October 2010, a Muslim pilot in England was terminated from his employment with a well-known British airline because he kept ties with two islamists suspected of terror. Now he is complaining of racist discrimination, since he is Asian and Muslim. Neither the name of the airline nor the name of the pilot were disclosed inthe British press, which itself is a wonder. Everything is secret. There were no reports in the German press.
Here are links regarding the case:
Really, what good are all the cumbersome ground controls when islamists sit in the cockpit? And you’re not at all allowed to consider all the transportation workers and sanitation forces on the ground. Also, in Heathrow, hundreds of illegals are already employed at the airport! They haven’t had the first passport! With unidentified religion in any case!
Posted by kewil on PI / Translation: Anders Denken

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Friday, January 27, 2012

Over 3000 Muslims Attack Christian Homes and Shops in Egypt, 3 Injured

 GMT 1-28-2012 1:39:42

(AINA) -- A mob of over 3000 Muslims attacked Copts in the village of Kobry-el-Sharbat (el-Ameriya), Alexandria tured. The violence started after a rumor was spread that a Coptic man had an allegedly intimate photo of a Muslim woman on his mobile phone. The Coptic man, Mourad Samy Guirgis, surrendered to the police this morning morPostedning for his protection.
According to eyewitnesses, the perpetrators were bearded men in white gowns. "They were Salafists, and some of were from the Muslim Brotherhood," according to one witness. It was reported that terrorized women and children his afternoon. Coptic homes and shops were looted before being set ablaze. Two Copts and a Muslim were injwho lost their homes were in the streets without any place to go.
According to Father Boktor Nashed from St. George's Church in el-Nahdah, a meeting between Muslim and Christian representatives was supposed to take place in the evening in Kobry-el-Sharbat. But, by 3 P.M. a Muslim mob looted and torched the home of Mourad Samy Guirgis, as well as the home of his family and three homes of Coptic neighbors. A number of Coptic-owned shops and businesses were also looted and torched. "We contacted security forces, but they arrived very, very late," Said Father Nashad. The fire brigade was prevented from going into the village by the Muslims and the fires were left to burn themselves out. "Those who lost their home, left the village," said Father Nashed.
Coptic activist Mariam Ragy, who was covering the violence in Kobry-el-Sharbat , said it took the army 1 hour to drive 2 kilometers to the village. "This happens every time. They wait outside the village until the Muslims have had enough violence, then they appear." She said that she spoke to many Copts from the village this evening who said that although their homes were not attacked, Muslims stood in the street asking them to come to their homes to hide. "They believed that this was a new trick to make them leave, so that Muslims would loot and torch their homes while they were away," said Ragy.
The Gov of Alexandria visited al-Nahda, near Kobry-el-Sharbat, this evening and told elYoum 7 newspaper that the two Copts and one Muslim who were injured were transported to hospital. He said that the family of the Muslim girl whose image was on the Copt's mobile phone wanted revenge from the Coptic man. They broke into his home and torched a furniture factory located in the same building.
Joseph Malak, a lawyer for the Coptic Church in Alexandria, said it is too early to count injuries to Copts or losses to their property.
Mr. Mina Girguis, of the Maspero Youth Union in Alexandria, said that "collective punishment of Copts for someone else's mistake, which is yet to be determined, is completely unacceptable." He believes that the reason for this violence is fabricated, and the military is behind it. "They are trying to divert the attention from the second revolution which is taking place now."
Father Nashed denied that Islamists were present, only ordinary village Muslims, and could not give an explanation as why people who have lived together amicably for years could commit such violence. "Maybe because of lack of security, they think that they can do as they please."
He said that the nearly 65 Coptic families were ordered to stay indoors and not to open their shops and businesses tomorrow. He added that security forces did not arrest any of the perpetrators, "on the contrary, they were begging the mob to go home."
By midnight the violence had subsided.
By Mary Abdelmassih

The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision for America

UK. BBC Journalist Fired for Wanting a Non Muslim Taxi Driver for her 14 Year Old Daughter

Would you trust leaving your daughter alone in a taxi with a Muslim driver?

Firefight in Dagestan Between Spetsnaz and Islamist Militants


Thursday, January 26, 2012

Islam's Greatest Invention


Jihad: When Elections Fail

MIddle East Forum
by Raymond Ibrahim
Jihad Watch
January 26, 2012

The Obama administration supports "democracy" and "self determination" in the Middle East—two euphemisms that, in the real world, refer to "mob-rule" and "Islamic radicalization," respectively. Yet, as Jimmy Carter recently put it: "I don't have any problem with that [an "Islamist victory" in Egypt], and the U.S. government doesn't have any problem with that either. We want the will of the Egyptian people to be expressed."
Sounds fair enough. The problem, however, is that Muslim clerics openly and unequivocally characterize democracy and elections as tools to be discarded once they empower Sharia law. ThusDr. Talat Zahran holds that it is "obligatory to cheat at elections—a beautiful thing"; and Sheikh Abdel Shahat insists that democracy is not merely forbidden in Islam, but kufr—a great and terrible sin—this even as he competed in Egypt's elections.
The Obama administration can overlook such election-exploitation because the majority of Muslims are either indifferent or willing to go along with the gag—with only a minority (secularists, Copts, etc.) in Egypt actually objecting to how elections are being used to empower Sharia-enforcing Muslims.
But what if Muslims do not win elections? What if there are equal amounts of non-Muslims voting—and an "infidel" wins? What then? Then we get situations like Nigeria.
While many are aware that Boko Haram and other Islamic elements are waging jihad against the government of Nigeria, specifically targeting Christians, often overlooked is that the jihad was provoked into full-blown activity because a Christian won fair elections (Nigeria is about evenly split between Christians and Muslims).
According to Peter Run, writing back in April 2011
The current wave of riots was triggered by the Independent National Election Commission's (INEC) announcement on Monday [April 18, 2011] that the incumbent President, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, won in the initial round of ballot counts. That there were riots in the largely Muslim inhabited northern states where the defeat of the Muslim candidate Muhammadu Buhari was intolerable, [but] was unsurprising. Northerners [Muslims] felt they were entitled to the presidency for the declared winner, President Jonathan, [who] assumed leadership after the Muslim president, Umaru Yar'Adua died in office last year and radical groups in the north [Boko Haram] had seen his ascent [Christian president] as a temporary matter to be corrected at this year's election. Now they are angry despite experts and observers concurring that this is the fairest and most independent election in recent Nigerian history.
Note some key words: Muslims felt "entitled" to the presidency and seek to "correct" the fact that a Christian won elections—which they assumed "a temporary matter."
Of course, had elections empowered a like-minded Muslim, the same jihadis would still be there, would still have the same savage intent for Christians and Westerners—Boko Haram means "Western education is forbidden." But there would not be a fullblown jihad, and Obama would be singing praises to Nigerian democracy and elections, and the MSM would be boasting images of Nigerians with ink-stained fingers.
Yet the same jihadi intent would be there, only dormant. Like Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood—whose ultimate goal is "mastership of the world"—they would not need to expose themselves via jihad, would be biding their time and consolidating their strength.
Now, back to the Egyptian clerics, specifically Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami—yet another leader in Egypt's Salafi movement, who teaches that Muslims must preach peace when weak but wage war when strong. Discussing the chances of a fellow Salafi, Burhami asserts:
We say—regardless of the outcome of the elections—whether he [his colleague, the aforementioned al-Shahat] wins or loses, we will not permit an infidel [kafir] to be appointed to a post where he assumes authority over Muslims. This is forbidden. Allah said: "Never will Allah grant to infidels a way [to triumph] over the believers [Koran 4:141]." We are not worried about losing elections or al-Shahat losing votes. We will not flatter or fawn to the people.
What will you and your associates do, Sheikh Burhami—wage jihad? Of course, that will not be necessary: unlike Nigeria, most of Egypt is Muslim; one way or another, "elections" will realize the Islamist agenda.
Thus, whether by word (al-Burhami) or deed (Boko Haram) those who seek to make Islam supreme prove that democracy and elections are acceptable only insofar as they enable Sharia. Conversely, if they lead to something that contradicts Sharia—for instance, by bringing a Christian infidel to power—then the perennial jihad resumes.
Raymond Ibrahim is an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

State of the Union: Congress Slams Obama on Energy and the Taliban



I love this women. A true patriot.

Turkish Women Victims of "Permitted" Rape

by Veli Sirin
January 25, 2012 at 5:00 am

At the beginning of the New Year, as reported in the daily newspaper Haber Türk (Turkish News) of January 6, 2012, E.D., a 25-year old man in the northwestern Turkish city of Bolu, took his 11-year old "wife," Z.Ç., to the hospital because she suffered pain. The news story identified the couple only by their initials. The doctor diagnosed the girl as eight months pregnant by her "husband." Whether the girl was in a condition to consent to sexual relations is obviously questionable. One would more probably assume she was raped by the 25-year old.
Marriage to an 11-year old girl is illegal in Turkey, but such cases are a constant in the country's life.
The doctor called for the girl to be kept in the hospital for in-patient care, but her "spouse" refused, and the couple returned to their village, Alpagut, near Bolu. The hospital released them after the girl signed a document declaring her wish to leave the facility.
Two days afterward, the governor of Bolu province stated that he had spoken with health authorities who assured him the girl must have been older than 11, given her bone structure.
E.D. and Z.Ç. told the doctor they had been married by an imam. Their neighbors had warned them that if they went to a city and disclosed this fact, they would face legal trouble.
In 1926, the Turkish Republic, founded three years before, adopted a legal code based on that of Switzerland. Civil marriage was introduced and "Islamic marriages" performed by an imam were reduced in status. Articles 230/5-6 of the Turkish Criminal Code prohibit a religious marriage ceremony unless a civil, state-recognized, official marriage has previously been contracted. The law is clear and precise, as follows:
(Article 230/5) Anyone who holds a religious marriage ceremony without a civil marriage shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of from two to six months. However, if a civil marriage is carried out, any public legal proceedings, sentences and other consequences thereof shall be cancelled.
(Article 230/6) Anyone who performs a religious marriage ceremony without seeking a document verifying that a marriage contract has been concluded in accordance with the law shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two to six months."
Nevertheless, "imam marriages" without civil registration still take place frequently in Turkey.
Turkish laws forbidding such abuses appear to have no force. Further, the minds of ordinary people are trapped in medieval beliefs. The "husband" in the case of 11-year old Z.Ç. believed all was in order because the relationship had been approved by an imam.
These "traditions," including "marriage" to barely-pubescent girls, exist not only in Turkey but among Muslim immigrants in Germany. The girls are typically subjected to brutal rape. In May 2010, judicial authorities in Osnabrück, Lower Saxony, caused a scandal when the court delivered a suspended sentence to a Muslim man who had kidnapped and raped an 11-year old girl. The court justified its opinion on the grounds that such "marriages" are allegedly established in Islamic "tradition." Such an attitude by the German government is insulting to Muslims who refuse to countenance such pathologies.
In 2002, a similar case transpired in Turkey. A 13-year old girl came to school with a baby in her arms. The girl belonged to a formerly-nomadic clan that had settled on the Aegean seacoast, and in which girls were married habitually before their 14th birthday – at the latest. Thirty men were called before the criminal court, but the village was viewed as representing an isolated case. That year, the Islamist "Justice and Development Party" (AKP) of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan won its first national election, and Erdoğan commenced his first term as prime minister.
Turkish feminists warn that under the three AKP administrations, long-controversial patriarchal habits have once again become the norm. Men make the rules, and women stay at home, with no opportunities for personal fulfillment in education or employment.
The situation of Turkish women is inconsistent, across the country. In the same article where Haber Türk reported on the case of Z.Ç. and E.D., the news portal stated that in Diyarbakır, a major city in southeastern Turkey, 415 girls aged 11 to 17 gave birth in the first 10 months of 2011. Of the new mothers, one was 11, one was 12, four were 13, 13 were 14, 44 were 15, 115 were 16, and 237 were 17 years old.
Women in the rural eastern region must fight to survive, facing problems absent in big cities like Istanbul. This may not be unexpected in a country like Turkey. But religious and cultural habits make the lives of women worse. Human rights groups like Amnesty International denounce violence against women, social tolerance of such crimes, and the failure of male offenders to be punished effectively. According to the Turkish group Women for Women's Rights, 40 percent of all women in eastern Turkey undergo forced marriage. Publicity campaigns and initiatives to raise public consciousness try to focus attention on these injustices, but have yet to produce significant success in expunging them.
Domestic violence is increasing in Turkey, where a woman is murdered by a family member about once every other day. Women may turn to the police but rarely are protected adequately. At the end of 2010, a woman was killed by her ex-husband in the presence of police officers.
Sahibe Kara, director of a women's shelter in Istanbul, protects 10 women. According to her, domestic violence and sexual abuse are the main motives for women seeking assistance. A study by the state Ministry of Family and Social Policy admitted that 41 percent of all women in Turkey experience domestic violence. The recorded number of family murders has also risen in an alarming manner: from 66 in 2002 to 933 in 2009.
Meanwhile, employment of women is decreasing. Only about 27 percent of Turkish women have jobs. The economist Nur Ger recently declared that a five percent increase in women's employment would lift 15 percent of poor families above the poverty line. But the AKP government shows no interest in improving female participation in the workforce.
Instead, Islamist politicians and other figures have begun a debate favoring polygamy, while downplaying the problem of "marriage" by underage girls with an imam's blessing. Notwithstanding the image of patriarchal tyranny as a rural problem, Turkish society appears ready to once again tolerate polygamous relationships. Only 10 years ago, such a development was impossible to imagine.
As a further example of the degeneration of morals under Islamist influence, a new Turkish television series, "Fatmagülün sucu ne?" ("What Was Fatmagül's Crime?") has become the most successful feature among Turkish viewers. On September 16, 2010, it included depiction of a rape. The broadcast caused a national outcry, but the four-minute rape incident was televised repeatedly.
Sahibe Kara shows the women in her care the television series "Güldünya." Güldünya Tören was slain by her two brothers in 2004 after she bore an illegitimate child – a so-called "honor" murder – in southeastern Turkey. According to BBC News, she was shot once and survived, but was then shot dead by a relative who was granted entry to the hospital where she was being treated. That series brought about the establishment of an emergency police telephone hotline for women. "Güldünya" features a police task force that rescues women who use the hotline. In many scenes, neighbors or relatives call the police to help the threatened women. That series had an important educational impact. Still, Sahibe Kara worries that most women have no idea where they may go after being attacked.
"Güldünya" was cancelled after 10 episodes, in 2009, because its audience ratings were too low. In Turkey, the majority seems to side with male perpetrators rather than with female victims.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Newt: Obama is an Alinsky Radical - "He wasn´t organising boys and girls clubs"


Ron Paul is Right on Everything Except Foreign Policy


Christmas Under Islam Hardly a Season to be Jolly

by Raymond Ibrahim
PJ Media
January 17, 2012

Earlier I discussed how mosques, some of which breed radicalization and serve as terrorist bases, flourish in America, while churches are increasingly targeted and destroyed in the Muslim world, especially the Middle East, the cradle of Christianity.
This pattern—religious appeasement of Muslim minorities in the West, religious hostility for Christian minorities under Islam—continues and manifests itself in other ways.
Consider Christmas. The same appeasement that allows a "victory mosque" to be erected near Ground Zero, where jihadists killed some 3,000 Americans, compromises one of Christianity's most important events.
For instance, a "Montreal suburb has decided to remove a nativity scene and menorah from town hall rather than acquiesce to demands from a Muslim group to erect Islamic religious symbols." Contrast this with Iran, where many churches were "ordered to cancel Christmas and New Year's celebrations as a show of their compliance and support" for "the two month-long mourning activities of the Shia' Moslems," a reference to the bloody flagellations and self mutilations Shias perform in memory of Imam Hussein during Ashura.
Likewise, the University of London held Christmas service featuring readings from the Quran—Islam's holy book that unequivocally condemns the Incarnation, which is precisely what Christmas celebrates. Meanwhile, Islam's clerics in the West proclaimed things like "saying Merry Christmas is worse than fornication or killing someone," since doing so is to "approve of the biggest crime ever committed by humanity": the belief that God became man on Christmas. As the cleric makes clear, these are not his words, but rather the words of Islam's most authoritative clerics.
Nor are these just words. Around the Muslim world, Christmas time for Christians is a time of threats, harassment, and fear. One can point to any number of Muslim attacks on Christians to prove this—whether churches attacked, burned, or forced into closure; whether Muslim converts to Christianity beat, killed, or imprisoned; whether Christians abused on "blasphemy" charges; or whether just sheer violence and killings of "infidel" Christians. (See "Muslim Persecution of Christians" for a list of December's abuses alone).
More telling, however, are the attacks that specifically targeted or revolved around Christmas:
December 25, 2011 was "Nigeria's blackest Christmas ever": in a number of coordinated jihadi attacks, several church were bombed, killing over 40 people, "the majority dying on the steps of a Catholic church after celebrating Christmas Mass as blood pooled in dust from a massive explosion." As expected, the New York Times all but apologized for the terrorists.
Christmas Eve in Uganda saw Muslims throw acid on a church leader, leaving him with severe burns, blinding one eye and threatening sight in the other. The pastor was on his way to a church party when a man pretending to be a Christian approached him from behind, yelling, "Pastor, pastor." When he turned, the Muslim threw acid in his face while others poured it on his back, all running away while screaming Islam's victory cry, "Allahu Akbar!"
In Muslim-majority Tajikistan, "a young man dressed as Father Frost—the Russian equivalent of Father Christmas—was stabbed to death" while visiting relatives and bringing gifts. Considering that the crowd beating and stabbing him were shouting "you infidel!" police cited "religious hatred" as motivation.
These are among the more violent and illegal attacks on Christians around Christmas time, undertaken by Muslim mobs and terrorists. In their own way, however, Muslim governments—many deemed "friends" of America—also make Christmas a very "un-merry" time for celebrants.
For example, if "vandals" in Indonesia decapitated the statue of the Virgin Mary in a small grotto days before Christmas, Indonesian officials have been shutting down churches; one "embattled church" fighting for survival was forced to move its Christmas prayers to a member's house.
This pattern of treating Christian minorities as dhimmis—Sharia's legal term for non-Muslims under Islam forced to live as despised, second-class citizens—is business as usual in the Muslim world. Some more Christmas-related examples follow, from a cursory Internet search:
  • Malaysia: Parish priests and church youth leaders had to get "caroling permits"—requiring them to submit their full names and ID numbers at police stations, an eerie practice for any non-Muslim under Islam—simply to "visit their fellow church members and belt out 'Joy to the World,' [or] 'Silent Night, Holy Night.'"
  • Iran: While celebrating Christmas, a church was raided by State Security. All those present, including Sunday school children, were arrested and interrogated. Hundreds of Christian bookswere seized. The detained Christians suffered "considerable verbal abuses."
  • Pakistan: Intelligence reports warned of threats of terrorist attacks on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. Christians also lamented that "extreme power outages have become routine during Christmas and Easter seasons."
In closing, if people in the West think Christmas is a time of "peace on earth, good will toward man"—to the point of compromising this Christian holiday to appease their "fellow [Muslim] man"—they should know that, increasingly, it is neither a time of "peace" nor "goodwill" for Christians under Islam.
Raymond Ibrahim, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.